Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[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??

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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

Not just today. I'm an obnoxious SOB on a consistent basis.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Not just today. I'm an obnoxious SOB on a consistent basis.

hahaha....cool, nice debate.

I maintain that stats do have some value.

[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.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Huddle

... 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.

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.

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