Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=724Skinsfan]That's true. If you're going to compare it would be something like 3 consecutive incompletions to 1 interception. Either way results most likely in a change of posession.[/quote]

Right, but with the 3 incompletions and punt, at least you're advancing the ball 40 yards down the field with a punt. With an INT you hand the ball over on the spot.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Schneed10

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

You didn't confuse cause and effect in Post 22. You confused it in offering that list correlating winning with the turnover ratio.

[QUOTE] At some point you're going to have to acknowledge that stats, when analyzed correctly, tell the tale.
[/QUOTE]

All it will take is a convincing argument.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

There are multiple causes for sacks, interceptions, or any stat you have. But in order to measure individual performance, we have to isolate those somehow. Since that can't be done, the stats are [I]almost[/I] useless.

I said [I]almost.

[/I]The chief value I see for them is to aggravate the hell out of your debate opponents since one can prove any position, no matter how dumb, with a few selected stats.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Schneed10]Right, but with the 3 incompletions and punt, at least you're advancing the ball 40 yards down the field with a punt. With an INT you hand the ball over on the spot.[/quote]

Oh definitely. I was saying that [B][I]if [/I][/B]you're going to compare.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=12thMan]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.[/quote]

You are comparing one interception to one incompletion. You might disagree if I was doing that in my remarks, but since I didn't..you're disagreeing with something I never said.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]12th Man



You have a measure of the overall effectiveness of the QB when combined with his support system: players, coaches, system.

It's like being told that the length + height + width of a room totals 56 feet. There is no useful purpose for that number.[/quote] But, in this case, we all know a little about the length, width, and height. Also, if you have enough of a sample, (Brunnels overall historical stats) you can start to piece together a more complete picture. These stats do tell us something more than you are admitting. Based on you r reasoning we also can't draw any conclusions about how good Moss was last year based on his stats because we would have to say it was based on the QB, playcalling, blocking, teams played... Brunnel got the QB job last year because he was willing to protect the football.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]You are comparing one interception to one incompletion. You might disagree if I was doing that in my remarks, but since I didn't..you're disagreeing with something I never said.[/quote]

No, you didn't say it verbatim. But the spirit of what you're saying is pretty much what I stated and disagreed with.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

huddle, your arguement that stats are almost useless is about as crazy as the CFL/NFL "debate (debacle)" we had here.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Schneed10]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.[/quote]


Are you getting desperate here? You're making a strawman argument since nothing in what I wrote might be interpreted to mean that I was comparing incompletions to interceptions on a one-to-one basis.

I would prefer to know how many points the gunslinger and the game manager put on the board and how many they give up due to mistakes before I'd pick one over the other.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=That Guy]huddle, your arguement that stats are almost useless is about as crazy as the CFL/NFL "debate (debacle)" we had here.[/quote]

You have an opinion but no arguments to offer?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]I would prefer to know how many points the gunslinger and the game manager put on the board and how many they give up due to mistakes before I'd pick one over the other.[/quote]

You do know the answer to that. Both Bledsoe and Brunell threw for 23 TDs this year.

Your entire argument centers around your inability to filter out co-variances when talking about statistics. You're basically hiding behind the fact that YOU personally can't see a difference between Bledsoe and Brunell's play, and the statistical co-variance argument is the perfect veil behind which you can hide your flimsy stance.

I will not dispute that lots of factors go into deciding the outcome of a game, and to focus in one one or two of those factors as if they're the end-all be-all would be short-sighted. But some factors are larger than others, and turnovers are the biggest.

Regarding sacks, I think you need to go back and read post #22. There are three main causes for when sacks occur:
1) The biggest, offensive line protection breaks down.
2) The QB can't get away from rushers.
3) The receivers can't get open, and the QB fails to get rid of the ball.

You can't blame Bledsoe for a bad offensive line, so I'm not saying all 49 of his sacks are his fault. But there were a number that were his fault because he held the ball too long, or couldn't escape the rush. Brunell was much better at this. You don't need stats to tell you that, you can tell that by watching games. It's very simple. If you put Brunell and Bledsoe behind the same offensive line over the course of a season, Brunell would end up with fewer sacks. There's your cause right there, maybe you missed it the first time.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=GoSkins!]But, in this case, we all know a little about the length, width, and height. Also, if you have enough of a sample, (Brunnels overall historical stats) you can start to piece together a more complete picture. These stats do tell us something more than you are admitting. Based on you r reasoning we also can't draw any conclusions about how good Moss was last year based on his stats because we would have to say it was based on the QB, playcalling, blocking, teams played... Brunnel got the QB job last year because he was willing to protect the football.[/quote]

We heard the phrase "system back" attached to C. Portis when he came here from Denver. The inference was that his stats were jacked up because of Denver's scheme. I'm saying that the stats of all players are heavily influenced by the system they play in.

Jake Plummer's stats make him look like a better QB in Denver than he was with the Cards. If he went to Seatlle, they'd look even better. That West Coast offense would make his numbers look super.

But, how good is Jake Plummer compared to other QBs? We have no way to know from those QB stats.

The best we can do is to form judgments by watching them play.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]You have an opinion but no arguments to offer?[/quote]

i do. stats matter and that's generally accepted. your arguement of other factors making them worthless has no basis in fact, its just mere opinion, so don't try going all high and mighty on me :P

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]We heard the phrase "system back" attached to C. Portis when he came here from Denver. The inference was that his stats were jacked up because of Denver's scheme. I'm saying that the stats of all players are heavily influenced by the system they play in.

Jake Plummer's stats make him look like a better QB in Denver than he was with the Cards. If he went to Seatlle, they'd look even better. That West Coast offense would make his numbers look super.

But, how good is Jake Plummer compared to other QBs? We have no way to know from those QB stats.

The best we can do is to form judgments by watching them play.[/quote]

there are RAMPANT logical fallacies throughout this post. Maybe jake actually GOT BETTER and that helped his stats improve too. Maybe if y ou watched him you'd know he makes stupid decisions and hasslebeck actually makes far less. that career TD/INT ratio isn't 100% on the QB, but its a weak arguement that the QB isn't the primary factor.

CP left denver and still put up killer stats, so, if the denver system helped him so much, why was he fine in a totally different system?

some guys can play, others can't, and the stats bear that out. All i see is opinion, i don't see any actual research or factual analysis of any kind to prove your case. Since you seem to be the only one in the "stats don't matter" camp, let's see some hard evidence.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Can I nominate this thread as the most pointless thread of 2006 thusfar?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=PSUSkinsFan21]Can I nominate this thread as the most pointless thread of 2006 thusfar?[/quote]

I'ld bet you a shiny nickel I could find at least 5 even more worthless than this one.

But then again, that's not factual it's opinion:)

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=PSUSkinsFan21]Can I nominate this thread as the most pointless thread of 2006 thusfar?[/quote]

the "CFL can beat the NFL" thread was in the same category of spurious arguements.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=12thMan]I'ld bet you a shiny nickel I could find at least 5 even more worthless than this one.

But then again, that's not factual it's opinion:)[/quote]

I'll see your nickel. Feel free to nominate another and we can debate which thread is more worthless. :)

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=That Guy]the "CFL can beat the NFL" thread was in the same category of spurious arguements.[/quote]

When did Steve Sprurrier start coaching in the CFL?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=That Guy]the "CFL can beat the NFL" thread was in the same category of spurious arguements.[/quote]

Ahhh......thankfully I must have either ignored it completely or been on vacation when it was around because I don't remember it (which is probably a good thing from what I hear now).

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=12thMan]When did Steve Sprurrier start coaching in the CFL?[/quote]

Even more important, when did Sprurrier start having arguements? ;)

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=12thMan]When did Steve Sprurrier start coaching in the CFL?[/quote]

see, it's this kind of blatant misquotation that leds to the formation of threads like "Question 3."

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Schneed wrote:

[QUOTE] Your entire argument centers around your inability to filter out co-variances when talking about statistics. You're basically hiding behind the fact that YOU personally can't see a difference between Bledsoe and Brunell's play, and the statistical co-variance argument is the perfect veil behind which you can hide your flimsy stance.[/QUOTE]

In the foregoing statement, you question my integrity but offer nothing as argument.

[QUOTE] I will not dispute that lots of factors go into deciding the outcome of a game, and to focus in one one or two of those factors as if they're the end-all be-all would be short-sighted. But some factors are larger than others, and turnovers are the biggest.[/QUOTE]

So, you think you're right but, aside from that correlation between winning and the turnover ratio that we have already discussed, you have nothing new.

[QUOTE] If you put Brunell and Bledsoe behind the same offensive line over the course of a season, Brunell would end up with fewer sacks. [/QUOTE]

Of course he would, I've already conceded that scramblers take fewer sacks than pocket passers. What the sack stats won't do is compare the two types of QBs on production given the same O line: one staying in the pocket to make more completions, the other abandoning the pocket early and often.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]Schneed wrote:



In the foregoing statement, you question my integrity but offer nothing as argument.



So, you think you're right but, aside from that correlation between winning and the turnover ratio that we have already discussed, you have nothing new.



Of course he would, I've already conceded that scramblers take fewer sacks than pocket passers. What the sack stats won't do is compare the two types of QBs on production given the same O line: one staying in the pocket to make more completions, the other abandoning the pocket early and often.[/quote]

OK this argument is juvenile at this point. You're at the point where you're picking apart my argument point by point as if we're at some sort of high school debate match, when you should be trying to understand the big picture. If stats don't matter how is Billy Beane a general manager? If stats don't matter why do we have records?

When it comes down to it, you don't have the ability to interpret them very well, so you'd rather just dismiss them as meaningless. I'm not going to belabor the point any longer. There's no point arguing with someone so close-minded.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Can we move on something more serious here. So is Spurrier coaching in the CFL or not??

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]Of course he would, I've already conceded that scramblers take fewer sacks than pocket passers. What the sack stats won't do is compare the two types of QBs on production given the same O line: one staying in the pocket to make more completions, the other abandoning the pocket early and often.[/quote]

The thing you fail to understand is that I'm saying the sacks are only part of the equation. I'm not saying Brunell is better than Bledsoe ONLY BECAUSE he can avoid sacks better. It's just one aspect.

Other reasons I think Brunell is better:

Can run for first downs
Chooses to throw the ball away instead of forcing passes
Makes more plays in the clutch

And I can pull up stats to show those things, if you really want.

I think with the TD passes being equal at 23 shows that they are relative equals at producing points. You can hit me with all the confounding schemes and variables you want. But the facts are these:
- Both Gibbs and Parcells were conservative last year
- The receiving corps were similar. The Skins had one good WR, one good H-Back, and a bunch of nothing. The Cowboys had nobody like Moss, but had more WR depth, and a TE in Witten that matches Cooley.

So when it comes down to it, I don't think your precious confounding variables are very confounding at all. The 23 TD passes are comparable stats. And given Brunell's abilities in game management, I'll take him over Bledsoe any time.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

I am first and foremost an idiot. Having said that, I don't recall seeing Brunell bail out of the pocket prematurely. Drew Bledsoe on the other hand is a f'ing statue. Unfortunately for him, he's a very old statue in a division that likes to blitz.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

if you set up a whats called a self feeding system, there's no point to even bother trying to debate.

here's huddle's arguement:
stats don't matter

and if you try to bring up statss that prove certain players are better than others:
stats don't matter.

its a pointless arguement and you're the only one who thinks it. people go into the HoF and are listed by their production. If you something think champ bailey or ade jimoh are equal, well, that's sad. I doubt that you do, but without stats, you have no facts to prove it.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

That Guy

[QUOTE]There are RAMPANT logical fallacies throughout this post. Maybe jake actually GOT BETTER and that helped his stats improve too.[/QUOTE]

Could be ...but you don't know one way or the other do you? And, if we could trust the stats, we know with some degree of certainy.

[QUOTE]Maybe if y ou watched him you'd know he makes stupid decisions and hasslebeck actually makes far less.[/QUOTE]

That could be too. But, if I can't watch them play, the way I watched Mark Brunell, I can't use the stats with any confidence that they will help me grade and compare one QB with another.

[QUOTE]That career TD/INT ratio isn't 100% on the QB, but its a weak arguement that the QB isn't the primary factor.[/QUOTE]

Another opinion. Can you give reasons for it?

[QUOTE] CP left denver and still put up killer stats, so, if the denver system helped him so much, why was he fine in a totally different system?[/QUOTE]

If you showed someone the stats, Denver and Washington, without telling them who they belonged to, they'd tell you that Denver's back was clearly superior. They aren't even close. Yet, Clinton is every bit as good here as he was in Denver.

[QUOTE]All i see is opinion, i don't see any actual research or factual analysis of any kind to prove your case. Since you seem to be the only one in the "stats don't matter" camp, let's see some hard evidence.[/QUOTE]

This is a straightforward logical argument...you can't measure A,B,C,D, and E together and assert that you've measured A.

You don't seem to recognize the evidence. Players move from team to team...Moss, Plummer, Portis...there's a long list of players whose stats go sharply up or down depending on their new situations.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle] That career TD/INT ratio isn't 100% on the QB, but its a weak arguement that the QB isn't the primary factor.

Another opinion. Can you give reasons for it?[/quote]

can you give a reason why not? and oh yeah, you can't say because of other factors, cause that' just a baseless opinion.

this whole thread went stupid. you claim any dissenting view is strictly opinion, yet whatever your opinion happens to be is fact. Its worthless argueing cause you're being an f/ing brick wall and logic is on the other side.

when you have multiple variables, you make multiple equations and you CAN find out A, B, C or D individually from them. that's basic math. portis in washington still put up monsster numbers. its not like his stats got cut in half. situation does play a role, but like i said, the individual player plays a much bigger role on his own statline. portis went from 1500 to 1300, and next year i bet he goes back up. Fact is, he stayed above 1300 every season. some backs can't break 800 yards, some back never get 1000. denver switched backs, but kept the system (and got better QB play), and yet the replacements weren't as good... that must mean that portis is better, and, OMGWTFLOLZ!!!! the [b]STATS[/b] bear that out.

If you can't follow that logic, you really need a lesson in algebra.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

and while you hawk over this thread, you have yet to produce one single [b]FACT[/b] that provides any evidence that stats are worthless. NOT ONE.

you're argueing to argue, but have yet to actually prove anything. good job. since you're alone on this whole "stats are worthless" tear, lets see you carry the onus to prove you're right. Its fun repeating "that's just an opinion" but according to you that's the defense for everything, so no one can be right.

Please, show me one reason why you're right, that withstands the "that' just an opinion" garbage you're using on everyone else.

this isn't a debate, its a waste of time.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Schneed10] So when it comes down to it, I don't think your precious confounding variables are very confounding at all. The 23 TD passes are comparable stats. And given Brunell's abilities in game management, I'll take him over Bledsoe any time.[/quote]

As I said earlier, I didn't see Bledsoe enough to get a good read on his game. What I saw wasn't impressive.

I saw Brunell's game. He looked great for a time in the first half of the season but faded badly after the San Francisco blowout.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=That Guy]Please, show me one reason why you're right, that withstands the "that' just an opinion" garbage you're using on everyone else.

this isn't a debate, its a waste of time.[/quote]

I gave you the only logical argument that applies here. I gave it more than once.

Since you haven't commented on it, I can't tell if you don't understand the argument or you simply choose to ignore it.

I gave you evidence which you tried unsucessfully to undermine.

Now, the only point you're offering is a common logical fallacy...that I'm outnumbered here therefore I'm wrong.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]I gave you the only logical argument that applies here. I gave it more than once.

Since you haven't commented on it, I can't tell if you don't understand the argument or you simply choose to ignore it.

I gave you evidence which you tried unsucessfully to undermine.

Now, the only point you're offering is a common logical fallacy...that I'm outnumbered here therefore I'm wrong.[/quote]

um, you said "other factors" so i'll say thats "just an opinion"

meanwhile i'm still waiting on facts.

(btw, this is exactly what you've been doing, see how it doesn't work).

I did refute it in the post above. apparently you choose to ignore that though.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

I'd also like you to point out the logical fallacy you're alluding to, AND to show why YOUR ideas count as evidence and EVERYONE ELSE's ideas count as opinions. its a REALLY convenient way of argueing and never being wrong.

meanwhile i'm still waiting on you to show me why you're right besides baseless opinions.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

That Guy

[QUOTE]this whole thread went stupid. you claim any dissenting view is strictly opinion, yet whatever your opinion happens to be is fact. Its worthless argueing cause you're being an f/ing brick wall and logic is on the other side.[/QUOTE]

You have a tough time staying civil when people don't agree with you...don't you?

[QUOTE]when you have multiple variables, you make multiple equations and you CAN find out A, B, C or D individually from them. that's basic math. [/QUOTE]

Right, basic math with a false analogy. What we're talking about here is more like trying to solve an equation where there are no givens. We can think of five or six factors which can influence the statistic and we can't isolate and accurately measure any of them.

[QUOTE]portis in washington still put up monsster numbers. its not like his stats got cut in half. situation does play a role, but like i said, the individual player plays a much bigger role on his own statline. [/QUOTE]

Probably but if you offered a percentage on how much to give the player's performance, you'd have to reach behind you to find it.

[QUOTE]portis went from 1500 to 1300, and next year i bet he goes back up. Fact is, he stayed above 1300 every season. some backs can't break 800 yards, some back never get 1000. denver switched backs, but kept the system (and got better QB play), and yet the replacements weren't as good... [/QUOTE]

Tatum Bell had fewer carries but a much higher YPC. does that stat prove he was better?

[QUOTE]that must mean that portis is better, and, OMGWTFLOLZ!!!! the [B]STATS[/B] bear that out.[/QUOTE]

Why stop there? You can prove Clinton's better than Jim Brown if you choose your stats carefully.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

I think the main problem with both QB's is that they were VERY inconsistent throughout the year. Luckily, for us, Bledsoe became more incosistent towards the end of the season, and that is what cost the Cowboys a playoff spot, which Brunell kicked it up a notch towards the end of the regular season. The point being, on any givening weekend both are as likely to throw 4 TDS and 0 INTs as they are to throw 1 TD and 3 INTS...

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=That Guy]I'd also like you to point out the logical fallacy you're alluding to, [/quote]

I'm too lazy to look it up for you. Google "logical fallacies." You'll find several lists of common logical fallacies. This one goes by "Appeal to Popularity" and several other names.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]I'm too lazy to look it up for you. Google "logical fallacies." You'll find several lists of common logical fallacies. This one goes by "Appeal to Popularity" and several other names.[/quote]

great, point out the one i actually made instead of stupid baseless claims that you're unwilling to stand by.

you'll throw out accusations and then refuse to defend them.

I'm still waiting on this evidence of yours by the way. I notice you're quick to get sidetracked playing with technicalities to actually make a case, but maybe you should try. I have yet to see any of this "evidence" you're providing or any reason that'd give ANY credibility to whatever point it is you think you're making.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Quote:
when you have multiple variables, you make multiple equations and you CAN find out A, B, C or D individually from them. that's basic math.

Right, basic math with a false analogy. What we're talking about here is more like trying to solve an equation where there are no givens. We can think of five or six factors which can influence the statistic and we can't isolate and accurately measure any of them.

[B]you can accurately measure all of it. the speeds, the times, the tackles, the fumbles, the knee bend, EVERYTHING. So your retort here is clearly wrong[/B]

Quote:
portis in washington still put up monsster numbers. its not like his stats got cut in half. situation does play a role, but like i said, the individual player plays a much bigger role on his own statline.

Probably but if you offered a percentage on how much to give the player's performance, you'd have to reach behind you to find it.

[b]Well then, you've just admitted that stats aren't worthless right there. so why are you still going at it so hard?[/b]