Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Football stats in general, and QB stats in particular, are almost useless in measuring performance.

What you want to know is: How good is the QB?

The QB stats tell how good the QB was plus...

how good his receivers were
how good his protection was
how good his running game was
how good the playcalling was
how good the passing game scheme was
how good his defense was in giving him field position
how good his special teams were in giving him field position

Watching both play this past season, I give them both C's for the year. Both started strongly and finished weakly as expected given their ages and accumulating injuries.

I wouldn't say stats are useless when measuring QBs. I think for one, stats are very telling, especially ints. Even if a QB is having protection issues, or just bad receivers, his ability or inability to get the ball in the proper place is largely up to him. It says a lot about his decision making, accuracy, and timing, ability to read coverages. While it's not an exact measure, I think 90% of the time we can tell a lot about a QB from stats.

[Twilbert07]

Stats aside, we do know for a fact that both Brunell and Bledsoe are pretty old by QB standards.
It'll be interesting to see which one has a better season in 2006.
"Brunell touchdown to Moss... to Lloyd ... to Randle El" all sound good to me.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I wouldn't say stats are useless when measuring QBs. I think for one, stats are very telling, especially ints.

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.

[12thMan]

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.

While Marino had many INTs in college, he was very efficient in the Pro's. See rookie season. And the reason he fell 27th in the draft could have had more to do with other things than on the field performance.

Higher risk and ulitmate risk, turning the ball over, are two different things. I'm not suggesting that sometimes we put too much stock into stats, but on the other hand I don't remember a QB who had a high ratio of TDs/INTs ever winning anything.

[Huddle]

[quote=12thMan]

While Marino had many INTs in college, he was very efficient in the Pro's. See rookie season.

You're making my point. Scouts over-emphasized his INTs in college. Those stats were of no value in predicting his performance in the NFL.

I don't remember a QB who had a high ratio of TDs/INTs ever winning anything.

The QBs on winning teams are going to have good stats. The QBs on losing teams are going to have poor stats.

But trying to compare QBs on stats from one team to another doesn't work.

[12thMan]

[quote=Huddle]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

You're making my point. Scouts over-emphasized his INTs in college. Those stats were of no value in predicting his performance in the NFL.



The QBs on winning teams are going to have good stats. The QBs on losing teams are going to have poor stats.

But to trying to compare QBs on stats from one team to another doesn't work.

True. But I still think stats give us somewhat of a benchmark of overall effectiveness.

[Huddle]

12th Man

True. But I still think stats give us somewhat of a benchmark of overall effectiveness.

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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Damn dude, you're bringing it today, huh??

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Aside from injuries, my biggest concern with Brunell has got to be fumbles. Does anyone know how many times he coughed the ball up last season? It seemed like he let go of the ball way too often. I think that with our imporved receiving core defenses will have to drop more people into coverage and Brunell will have more time to find the open man, I just hope he holds onto the ball when he can't.