![]() |
|
Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
View Poll Results: What QB Do You Want at #10? | |||
Jake Locker |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
44 | 34.38% |
Ryan Mallett |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
18 | 14.06% |
Cam Newton |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
23 | 17.97% |
Other (who?) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
19 | 14.84% |
Blaine Gabbert |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
24 | 18.75% |
Voters: 128. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | ||||
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
I have not said that you are wrong or I am (unconditionally) right, just that I feel I have no reason to change my opinion of Locker based on anything you've argued.
Quote:
Quote:
It's simply not a convincing methodology. I've been adamant that people need to realize that you've interpreted the evidence one way, but that I still feel it points strongly in another direction. I've done plenty to support my opinion, you've done...basically nothing but bitch about the strength of my supporting arguments and my methodology -- fairly unconvincingly. Quote:
The evidence isn't different when you've seen more of it, it's just more representative of the whole. Of course, in this debate, I am most certainly not the one who is losing sight of the whole picture. I claim not to be an expert, just very good at what I do. You're desire to try to get information solely for the desire of labeling me (as you did above when I didn't answer) was probably more shameless than I think you intended. It is my only personal criticism in this exchange. Quote:
There are plenty of differences between Newton and Gabbert, but that's another 10,000 words, and dispassionate words at that. Lets not go there just yet. I'm sure we will at some point.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |||||
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,323
|
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
Quote:
If i thought it was stupid i would say so. My point is that evaluation isn't done by looking at stats. And stats alone don't paint the picture of a prospects ability especially a QB, the position that many consider the most dependent position on the field. No. I responded to your post where you used a statistical model to pan a prospect without any mention of the prospect abilities. My position is that if you've seen Locker play you wouldn't have the opinions you have about him especially about him being a 'wild thrower'. Quote:
First strawman then profanity. Wrong again, unless pointing out some obvious flaws in your theory is 'bitching'. Quote:
A loaded question would be: does your insecurity cause you to view normal questions as loaded? But, i digress. I was asking you about which games you've watched to hopefully spur a discussion based on what we actually see from the game. To see if Locker's wild throwing or accuracy was evident from watching some commonly available games on the internet like the USC game i posted in my OP. Quote:
Quote:
You've already demonstrated your posting style and its tedious and needlessly contentious. Also, i actually like talk about the prospects play in games and you thus far have only mentioned stats and an only a statistically supported claim of Locker's 'wild throwing'. And you already showed to grade prospects w/ a double standard in the case of Newton/Gabbert. Oh, and you've also shown that you ignore any question you don't like e.g. about Gabbert vs Locker's efficiency rating. HTTR! |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||||
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You have made it equally clear that you don't respect my position because you don't believe I should be allowed to defend a player's ability to complete passes with stats. I have concluded that your criticism is ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously. Next issue. Quote:
I'm not bothered by a little bit of jabbing, though you probably already know that by now. I give as good as I get. Just be careful to keep composure, or you get paragraphs like this. If you have anything insightful on Gabbert or Newton, I hope you do post it as I do value your opinion. I just have a tendency to be more receptive to opinions that make sense in the context of everything I already read/see/use.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||||||||
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,323
|
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
Quote:
I think that there is value in forecasting based on retrospective analysis. Like the Lewin and other formula's. But, i think there is a distinction between scouting the prospects and forecasting a prospects success based on stats. I haven't seen many if any scouting reports that call Locker a wild thrower if wild implies inaccurate. I've seen reports that mention inconsistent but not inaccurate. Quote:
Mayock specifically mentions his accuracy as a positive and states that Locker gets into some trouble in the pocket where he doesn't see the field well and that is where Locker's accuracy breaks down and that he [Mayock] needs to take a closer look at Locker's pocket awareness. Would you agree that its more difficult to throw on the run then from a clean pocket? When i watched Washington it was clear that their OL lack of pass protection was the reason they moved Locker outside the pocket and the reason why the bulk of their passing game was quick game and short drops 1-3 steps. And imo this why Locker at time doesn't appear comfortable in the pocket b/c his OL gets beat regularly. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think you cannot evaluate from stats and therefore cannot judge a QBs ability to complete passes by look at comp% alone. Comp% doesn't equal a QBs ability to complete passes it indicates the team's ability to complete passes. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That way you would be more receptive to people like Mayock and Gil Brandt both of whom don't share your view about Jake Locker since both have him as 1st rounder. BTW- Do you have any comment about the fact that Locker and Gabbert have similar efficiency numbers? |
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
Quote:
The biggest differences between them were: -Completion percentage much higher for Gabbert -Sack rate a little bit lower for Gabbert (not a passing efficiency component) -Rushing Efficiency decisively in the favor of Locker (not a passing efficiency component) -Gabbert had more attempts, mostly, because Locker missed a game and parts of two others. I think if you wanted to say that Locker and Gabbert had more similar seasons than they were different, that would make some sense. I also think that it would be reasonable to say that Gabbert as a junior was not a significantly better college player than Locker as a fourth or fifth year senior. I think that's as far as that argument would take you though. Gabbert probably wouldn't be a top pick this if he wasn't exceptional as a first year starter in 2009, but it seems reasonable to argue that he would have been better in 2011 with more receiver experience than he was in 2010 had he come back for his senior year. I am NOT saying he should automatically get credit for leaving that last year on the table. I am saying that Gabbert looks the part of a top ten pick (and I would take him at no. 10 if he's there), but still carries some concern, namely that the questions we would all have about him as a Senior in 2011 will be left unanswered.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|