Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

So you didn't see Bledsoe much this year, and yet you felt comfortable enough with rating him as an equal with Brunell, giving them both C's for the year? Now we're getting into seriously flawed logic. A few posts ago, I was reading how stats can't tell you squat, and you can only form opinions by watching guys play. You just admitted you haven't watched Bledsoe, and yet you gave him a grade! Talk about not making sense.

You're really grasping at straws. I saw much more of Brunell than I did of Bledsoe. I gave them both C grades based on what I saw, but I'm more confident in my grading of Brunell. Seriously flawed logic? Hardly.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

That is exactly it! Here is the thing, if you don't understand math and statistics (I mean really understand it), the power that these stats provide will never make sense to you. In the NFL, there are guys who are paid by each team to do just what you did.

Your point is irrelevant here since I haven't stated any opinion on the statistical data gathered by professional teams. The topic here is the usefulness of the statistics offered in the media and used by fans in forums like this one.

[Huddle]

[GoSkins!]

If this is really true, why would Gibbs (or anyone else) care about stats so much? What you are asking us to believe is that, in spite of Gibbs driving home the importance of all the different stats week after week, is that you can't conclude anything from them. This is in direct contradiction to what Gibbs, a three time winning Super Bowl champion (with three different QBs and RBs), believes. I think he has proved that he knows what he is talking about, but you have only proved that you are obstinate.

You've made an unwarranted assumption namely that the statistics Joe Gibbs uses are the statistics that are under discussion here. You can bet they're not.

It seems to me that you've proven yourself both rude (in calling me "obstinate") and not overly bright.

The truth is the best you can do is form judgments by watching them play AND comparing thier stats. Alone, either can be misleading.

The truth is that you haven't even figured out what's going on here.

[bigSkinsfan61]

[quote=scowan]Paintrain, those Sacks and INTs that you have highlighted really tell the story of how these 2 QB's are managing the game. That is 26 more times that Bledsoe lost yardage for his team and 7 more times he gave it to the other team. I thought Brunell probably had his most efficent season ever last year, even though he did not put up mind-boggling stats. When you play pretty much the whole season (minus a few quarters in that Chicago game) and only throw 10 INTs. You have really done well. I need to go look at the stats and see if anyone else threw fewer INTs that played 16 games.[/quotebrunell throws LAZORS he is a verrry smart qback lets not kid ourselves he wants to be a good redskin!!
if he starts thats good ! he will be leading us to the playoffs look at JG the man the myth the hall of famer, will play a veteran when its crunch time yesss?]

[hooskins]

this thread has become the That Guy and THe Huddle fight thread....

[Huddle]

That Guy

what parameters do you want on it? If you want you can treat each team as an equation and each year givess you 32 equations... you compile that data and you can data mine it any way you want.

I'm sure you can manipulate the numbers and come up all sorts of statistics but I hope you are going to show me how you could produce some that are useful and reliable.

In the end the stats as they are work well enough that there's no really need to go into that though. you can look at sacks and the QBs escape ability (measured from bledsoe to mcnabb) and have some idea how much of that is on the OL and how much is on the QB.

Explain how you do that, please. I'm skeptical.

if manning had moss and cooley and the junk WRs we had last year, he'd put up better numbers than brunell. his stats prove that by the crazy difference in TD/INT, TDs, yards, completion % etc.

In order to prove this, you'd have to assign a weight as a percentage to both the Redkins "support package" and the Colts support package. And, if you were able to do this accurately, you could get a very accurate grade of the quarterback's performance isolated from other factors.

I don't believe you can do it.

How do you grade interceptions, for example. Suppose a QB has 17 for the year. It seems to me that to grade fairly, we need to know when and how they happened. If his team was poor defensively, and their opponents ran out to big leads, then we'd need to make an adjustment to that number for the Hail Marys and other INTs thrown in desperate situations.

If his coach liked to go deep often, or his receivers didn't fight for passes, or if his offensive line didn't protect him...all of these things and others would factor into his total.

So, if A represents INTs that are primarily the fault of the QB, then we have:

A + B + C + D + E = 17 What's the value of A?

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Huddle

That Guy



I'm sure you can manipulate the numbers and come up all sorts of statistics but I hope you are going to show me how you could produce some that are useful and reliable.



Explain how you do that, please. I'm skeptical.



In order to prove this, you'd have to assign some arbitrary weight as percentage to both the Redkins "support package" and the Colts support package. And, if you were able to do this, you could get a very accurate grade of the quarterback's performance isolated from other factors.

I don't believe you can do it.

How do you grade interceptions, for example. Suppose a QB has 17 for the year. It seems to me that to grade fairly, we need to know when and how they happened. If his team was poor defensively, and their opponents ran out to big leads, then we'd need to make an adjustment to that number for the Hail Marys and other INTs thrown in desperate situations.

If his coach liked to go deep often, or his receivers didn't fight for passes, or if his offensive line didn'tprotect him...all of these things and others would factor into his total.

So, if A represents INTs that are primarily the fault of the QB, then the equation is:

A + B + C + D + E = 17 What's the value of A?

Nice job Huddle, don't get to worked up in the argument though, guy's who put all their stock in stats usually can't break the game down, they know what they believe, don't confuse them with reality.

[STPainmaker]

What the hell are you guys fighting about. Maybe you should have a meeting and discuss the finer points of statistical analysis. I hope you do this in a sound proof room and manage to cripple each others hands so we won't be privy to any of the horrendously stupid, and ridiculous details.

[dmek25]

hey offiss,how the hell are you?did you wish your boy ramsey good luck?

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Huddle

[GoSkins!]
You've made an unwarranted assumption namely that the statistics Joe Gibbs uses are the statistics that are under discussion here. You can bet they're not.

The truth is that you haven't even figured out what's going on here.

Why do you think they are not? Yes he has more, but he also has the same ones. Also, he talked a lot about the turnover statistics all year. This is where this thread started. You can bet some of the other stats are the same too.

Read your own posts like this one....

Originally Posted by Huddle

In order to prove this, you'd have to assign a weight as a percentage to both the Redkins "support package" and the Colts support package. And, if you were able to do this accurately, you could get a very accurate grade of the quarterback's performance isolated from other factors.

I don't believe you can do it.

Not being able to understand how it is done does not mean it can't be done. If you can't admit that stats (even the partial media stats) are a valiable part (not the only part) of the evaluation of players then this discussion with you is pointless.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by STPainmaker

What the hell are you guys fighting about. Maybe you should have a meeting and discuss the finer points of statistical analysis. I hope you do this in a sound proof room and manage to cripple each others hands so we won't be privy to any of the horrendously stupid, and ridiculous details.

Are you angry because you hate details or because the discussion went over your head? In any case, don't blame us, blame the person who forced you to sit there and read it.

[Huddle]

GoSkins

Why do you think they are not? Yes he has more, but he also has the same ones. Also, he talked a lot about the turnover statistics all year.This is where this thread started.

This thread started on another topic and went off on this tangent when I made remarks about statistics. We don't know nor is it relevant what statistics Joe Gibbs uses or how he uses them.

Not being able to understand how it is done does not mean it can't be done.

Where did I say that it did?

If you can't admit that stats (even the partial media stats) are a valiable part (not the only part) of the evaluation of players then this discussion with you is pointless.

Why should I admit that the same stats we use are valuable to a pro team when neither of us knows whether they are used or how they're used?

I can see a very limited use of these statistics. That's why I said they were almost useless.

[That Guy]

Not being able to understand how it is done does not mean it can't be done.

-Where did I say that it did?

how about right here:

-In order to prove this, you'd have to assign some arbitrary weight as percentage to both the Redkins "support package" and the Colts support package. And, if you were able to do this, you could get a very accurate grade of the quarterback's performance isolated from other factors.

I don't believe you can do it.

stats and algebra say you can (and there's MORE than enough data to set it up, though it could take weeks or months to make it accurate, its already been done in both baseball and the nba). stats are used to show production and give you an idea of how good players are that you don't have time to watch...

Good players tend to end up with good stats, so in general, the system does work. Sometimes good players have bad stats, but bad players rarely have good numbers. If you can show me an example of a terrible player racking up crazy stats, please do. Otherwise the whole basis for stats still holds.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by offiss

don't confuse them with reality.

btw, how's portis's roid binge going?

[12thMan]

Wow, I just got back on...this thread has really taken on a life of it's own.

Anyway, I was hoping someone could confirm the rumor the Spurrier has fled for the CFL?