Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[That Guy]

bledsoe's higher int stat are directly related to his higher sacked stat. he probably offset a lot of the detriments with the extra 600 yards though.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Some coaches, Mike Martz ,for example, shrug off INTs as part of the risk in a high-powered passing game. Some coaches (Spurrier) want their QB to throw to spots and depend on their receivers to turn defender if the DB is in position for an interception.

Some coaches emphasize run first and are content to dink and dunk while others opt for a riskier but more productive vertical passing game.

In the classic example of how INTs are system-related, Dan Marino fell to 27th in the draft because he had too many INTs in college at Pitt.

An interception is still a turnover and a turnover is never good. If Martz shrugs it off it is probably why he is no longer a head coach. That is what seperates Martz from Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs who hate turnovers and will replace players before putting up with turnovers. They do not accept turnovers. Joe Montana and Steve Young played in mainly passing offenses very similar to Mart's and they had low interception to TD ratios.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

An interception is still a turnover and a turnover is never good. If Martz shrugs it off it is probably why he is no longer a head coach. That is what seperates Martz from Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs who hate turnovers and will replace players before putting up with turnovers. They do not accept turnovers. Joe Montana and Steve Young played in mainly passing offenses very similar to Mart's and they had low interception to TD ratios.

Most turnovers are forced just as points are forced on the scoreboard. To say that, in order to win, we must have a positive turnover ratio makes as much sense as saying we need to score more points than we give up.

Obviously, you want players who can produce without making too many costly mistakes. Cooley had a fumbling problem last season but we didn't replace him because his production made it worthwhile to keep him in the lineup.

If cutting down on turnovers prevailed as the supremely important factor in winning, then punting on first down would be good strategy.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

If cutting down on turnovers prevailed as the supremely important factor in winning, then punting on first down would be good strategy.

Huddle, come on man. I seriously doubt he was saying that turnovers are the entire reason teams win or lose. I think he was saying that turnovers are the single biggest factor in the outcome of the game. Check this out, the first number represents the team's giveaway/takeaway ratio, the 2nd number is the number of wins they had:

Cincinnati 25 11
Denver 18 13
Carolina 12 11
NY Giants 12 11
Indianapolis 11 14
Jacksonville 10 12
Seattle 9 13
Buffalo 8 5
Pittsburgh 7 11
Kansas City 7 10
Chicago 6 11
Minnesota 5 9
Atlanta 4 8
Tampa Bay 4 11
Detroit 1 5
Miami 0 9
Dallas -1 9
Philadelphia -2 6
Oakland -4 4
Washington -4 10
New England -5 10
Tennessee -5 4
San Diego -6 9
Houston -7 2
Cleveland -7 6
Arizona -10 5
Baltimore -10 6
San Francisco -10 4
St. Louis -14 6
New Orleans -21 3
Green Bay -23 4


It's blatantly obvious that turnovers are the most important factor in a game. It was Bledsoe's sacks and INTs that were the big reason the Cowboys were 9-7 while the Skins were 10-6. I agree that some of that was caused by a substandard supporting cast, but some of it was also caused by bad judgment on throws by Bledsoe and the inability to escape the pass rush with his feet.

[scowan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

It's blatantly obvious that turnovers are the most important factor in a game. It was Bledsoe's sacks and INTs that were the big reason the Cowboys were 9-7 while the Skins were 10-6. I agree that some of that was caused by a substandard supporting cast, but some of it was also caused by bad judgment on throws by Bledsoe and the inability to escape the pass rush with his feet.

Schneed, what you are saying here about bad judgement by QBs is the most obvious reason that Ramsey is not on our beloved team today!

Gibbs could not put up with Ramsey's decision making. At the same time while Brunell is not statistically the best QB, he is above average or better than most at making good decisions with the ball.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by scowan

At the same time while Brunell is not statistically the best QB, he is above average or better than most at making good decisions with the ball.

i.e. Taking a sack when it's 4th an the game. :frusty:

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Huddle, come on man. I seriously doubt he was saying that turnovers are the entire reason teams win or lose. I think he was saying that turnovers are the single biggest factor in the outcome of the game. Check this out, the first number represents the team's giveaway/takeaway ratio, the 2nd number is the number of wins they had:

Cincinnati 25 11
Denver 18 13
Carolina 12 11
NY Giants 12 11
I
Arizona -10 5
Baltimore -10 6
San Francisco -10 4
St. Louis -14 6
New Orleans -21 3
Green Bay -23 4

[etcetera]


It's blatantly obvious that turnovers are the most important factor in a game.

Your list confirms that there is a strong correlation between winning and a positive turnover ratio.

Well, there is an even stronger correlation between winning and the points scored to points allowed ratio.

What you are missing is that, like the point ratio, the turnover ratio is an effect caused by how well the team played. You are confusing effect with cause.

Sure cutting down on INTs is a good idea but no more so than throwing more complete passes.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

What you are missing is that, like the point ratio, the turnover ratio is an effect caused by how well the team played. You are confusing effect with cause.

I'm not missing that. Go back to post #22 where I clearly state what the cause is for Bledsoe's higher INTs and Sacks compared to Brunell.

At some point you're going to have to acknowledge that stats, when analyzed correctly, tell the tale. Any fan can see that Bledsoe is more susceptible to sacks thanks to his tendency to hold onto the ball, and the fact that he runs like my grandmom. Some of those 49 sacks were attributable to bad line play (like the 4 rung up by Phillip Daniels). But some are attributable to Bledsoe himself.

You seem to eschew stats in favor of football analysis. It seems to be plain as day to me what the cause is for all of Bledsoe's sacks.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Sure cutting down on INTs is a good idea but no more so than throwing more complete passes.

I disagree - interceptions aren't only momentum/drive killers but they also change possession of the ball immediately - incompletions do not.
At least you have the option of punting with an incompletion.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Sure cutting down on INTs is a good idea but no more so than throwing more complete passes.

And this point is just absurd. What would you rather have, complete pass or incomplete pass? What would you rather have, complete pass or interception? Duh.

The real point is I'd rather have an incompletion over an INT any day. So give me a game-managing QB any day of the week over a gunslinger who tends to force plays to happen.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

An interception is still a turnover and a turnover is never good. If Martz shrugs it off it is probably why he is no longer a head coach. That is what seperates Martz from Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs who hate turnovers and will replace players before putting up with turnovers. They do not accept turnovers. Joe Montana and Steve Young played in mainly passing offenses very similar to Mart's and they had low interception to TD ratios.

I have always thought that J.Gibbs went overboard treating turnovers as though they were a cardinal sin. Then, after the Giants' 36 - 0 loss, a reporter asked him about turnovers...and for the first time since 1981, I heard Joe patiently explain that turnovers are often caused by simply being outplayed (which is what I'm saying here).

A players production and his mistakes have to be weighed together...production on one side of the scale, mistakes on the other.

[Schneed10]

The stats do have some value if you apply some interpretation. I agree that a QB's stats are somewhat reflective on him, and somewhat reflective of the surrounding circumstances. So in order to gain any real meaning from them, let's interpret:

Regarding the sacks, Bledsoe had almost twice as many as Brunell. Granted Brunell had better protection, especially at the LT spot given the injuries to the Dallas line. But Brunell also managed to avoid some other would-be sacks by rolling out and throwing the ball away.

Regarding INTs, I think this stat goes hand-in-hand with completion percentage. Brunell chose to throw a lot of balls away this year rather than force something, and I'd argue that's the biggest difference between him and Bledsoe. Bledsoe forced more balls than Brunell, and some connected, helping him get to 60%. But he also connected on 7 more INTs than Brunell.

I'd argue those are the two most important stats for a QB. Sacks and INTs. I think Brunell did a better job managing them. He avoided more sacks than Bledsoe did, and he made fewer dumb throws.

[Schneed10]

Another thing left out in the stats: the number of times Brunell ran for a key 1st down late in the game to keep a drive alive. Without even looking at their rushing statistics, I can confidently say that Brunell did that much more often and much more effectively than Bledsoe.

[Schneed10]

Another thing left out in the stats: plays in the clutch. Brunell to Moss x2 in the last 5 minutes against Dallas. Perfect throws.

[scowan]

Ok guys, I posted like 4th on this thread and mentioned that I wanted to look at the stats to see how many other QBs who played in all 16 games last year had the same or fewer INTs than Brunell. He are my findings..... Peyton Manning had 10 INTs and M. Hasslebeck had only 9 INTs. Jake Plummer was the best of the 16 game players with only 7 INTs, but he only threw 18 TDs. We all also know that Carson Palmer played great for 16 games before getting hurt in the playoffs and had only 12 INTs but threw 32 TDs!

The thing I believe they all have in common is that they all lead their teams to the Playoffs. Taking care of the football is a BIG deal.