Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[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.

[Huddle]

Schneed10

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.

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

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

All it will take is a convincing argument.

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.

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 almost useless.

I said almost.

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.

[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.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh definitely. I was saying that if you're going to compare.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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 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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.