Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

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.

So you didn't see Bledsoe much this year, and yet you felt comfortable enough with rating him as an equal with Brunell, giving them both C's for the year? Now we're getting into seriously flawed logic. A few posts ago, I was reading how stats can't tell you squat, and you can only form opinions by watching guys play. You just admitted you haven't watched Bledsoe, and yet you gave him a grade! Talk about not making sense.

[724Skinsfan]

I thought I had decent reading comprehension skills but after reading this back and forth craziness, I'm lost. What is the argument about exactly? "Stats matter" versus "No, they don't"? If I were a statistical wiz I could probably make a decent living in the sports betting world. But I'm not, so I play fantasy football. Stats tells us what to expect, not what is absolute. Is Brunell better than Bledsoe? Maybe, but did Brunell get any from his old lady last night? Asssuming he did, then he'll be a happy guy with that extra zing in his throws (just like in the Cialis commercials). Or maybe something happened that made him feel real icky and he feels strange reaching up Rabachs butt - thereby affecting his performance. Stats help with making predictions (most of the time) but there are random anomalies that can't be mathmatically accounted for in determining who the better player is going to be every Sunday. Night, night!

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

So you didn't see Bledsoe much this year, and yet you felt comfortable enough with rating him as an equal with Brunell, giving them both C's for the year? Now we're getting into seriously flawed logic. A few posts ago, I was reading how stats can't tell you squat, and you can only form opinions by watching guys play. You just admitted you haven't watched Bledsoe, and yet you gave him a grade! Talk about not making sense.

You're really grasping at straws. I saw much more of Brunell than I did of Bledsoe. I gave them both C grades based on what I saw, but I'm more confident in my grading of Brunell. Seriously flawed logic? Hardly.