Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

When did Steve Sprurrier start coaching in the CFL?

Even more important, when did Sprurrier start having arguements?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

When did Steve Sprurrier start coaching in the CFL?

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

[Huddle]

Schneed wrote:

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[12thMan]

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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Monksdown]

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.

[That Guy]

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.

[Huddle]

That Guy

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 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?

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 STATS bear that out.

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

[That Guy]

and while you hawk over this thread, you have yet to produce one single FACT 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.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[That Guy]

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.