Kirk Cousins pick 4.7

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

What my point is - you can't take stats out of context and use it in place of playing ability. Every qb's situation is different. And in the case of Elway's (and also, Campbell's case), you have to throw the completion% stat out of window. So when someone is supporting an opinion and uses a stat like that - to me - it's the lazy way to determine a qb's potential and ability -- in place of analyzing through watching and it's just plain B.S.

When you take statistics out of context, you've made them useless. Which is why I said if you don't know how to use them, they aren't useful. It has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to judge talent from watching a guy play. It is not an either or. They are two different evaluation skills. They are actually both at their most predictive when they are unrelated to each other.

Most fans don't know how to use statistics, and they don't know how to evaluate from watching. But I think a much higher percentage of fans overestimate their ability to evaluate by watching. Hardly anyone overvalues their ability to read statistics meaningfully.

And the truth is if you watch a team 16 games per year you will hear enough football jargon on broadcasts and in the papers to have some concept of who is good and who is bad, even if you have absolutely no football background. So even someone who never has seen a football game in their lives, if they watched every Redskins game between now and 2013, they would be able to tell you that Brian Orakpo is really good, and Jammal Brown is not.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

When you take statistics out of context, you've made them useless. Which is why I said if you don't know how to use them, they aren't useful. It has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to judge talent from watching a guy play. It is not an either or. They are two different evaluation skills. They are actually both at their most predictive when they are unrelated to each other.

Most fans don't know how to use statistics, and they don't know how to evaluate from watching. But I think a much higher percentage of fans overestimate their ability to evaluate by watching. Hardly anyone overvalues their ability to read statistics meaningfully.

And the truth is if you watch a team 16 games per year you will hear enough football jargon on broadcasts and in the papers to have some concept of who is good and who is bad, even if you have absolutely no football background. So even someone who never has seen a football game in their lives, if they watched every Redskins game between now and 2013, they would be able to tell you that Brian Orakpo is really good, and Jammal Brown is not.

Exactly, but even in the Elway/Campbell case, completion% rate is completely useless. So in the case of Kolb and RGIII, they can be completely useless or completely accurate, but it just depends on how RGIII performs. And not because what the stats are. It's the other way around. And that's what the misconception is to me.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Exactly, but even in the Elway/Campbell case, completion% rate is completely useless. So in the case of Kolb and RGIII, they can be completely useless or completely accurate, but it just depends on how RGIII performs. And not because what the stats are. It's the other way around. And that's what the misconception is to me.

What you've missed the whole time is that it's not the completion percentage rate that's useless in Elway and Campbell's case. It's that the comparison is being made at all with no concept of an era regression on their statistics.

Not that this is a widespread problem in this thread, because you were the only one to make the comparison. The takeaway is not that completion percentage is useless in this case. The takeaway is that irresponsibly comparing players on any grounds is useless.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

What you've missed the whole time is that it's not the completion percentage rate that's useless in Elway and Campbell's case. It's that the comparison is being made at all with no concept of an era regression on their statistics.

Not that this is a widespread problem in this thread, because you were the only one to make the comparison. The takeaway is not that completion percentage is useless in this case. The takeaway is that irresponsibly comparing players on any grounds is useless.

But I just made the adjustment to the Elway's %, is it still BS?

And how do you determine if it's BS?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

But I just made the adjustment to the Elway's %, is it still BS?

And how do you determine if it's BS?

For the last time, the statistics are not BSing me. Your argument is BSing me. That is the key difference that you are missing.

The statistics could not be more clear. Total completions divided by total attempts. No black box needed.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

For the last time, the statistics are not BSing me. Your argument is BSing me. That is the key difference that you are missing.

The statistics could not be more clear. Total completions divided by total attempts. No black box needed.

Stats are just numbers that can be used as guidelines and not the truth to playing ability. This is the one underlying statement that you can take from what I am saying.

Using the stats to project RGIII by comparing him to Kolb's is complete B.S. to me.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Stats are just numbers that can be used as guidelines and not the truth to playing ability. This is the one underlying statement that you can take from what I am saying.

Using the stats to project RGIII by comparing him to Kolb's is complete B.S. to me.

Well, if you compare him to Kolb in college statistically, you get the idea that RG3 played at a higher level. Which is also what getting the Heisman trophy says.

The Kolb comparison is useful for one reason and one reason only: sometimes productive college players end up being undistinguished professionals for whatever reason.

But unproductive college players are FAR more likely to be undistinguished pros than productive college players.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

But I just made the adjustment to the Elway's %, is it still BS?

If you make the adjusted statement, it reads something like "when adjusted for the era they each played in, Jason Campbell is roughly as effective in terms of his rate of completing passes as John Elway was back it the day."

Which is pretty close to factual. That's a really INTERESTING statement, and there is plenty that can be learned from it. It probably says something about Campbell, and it likely says something about Elway as well. This is a great example of how using stats responsibly can help us understand football better.

Here's now to misuse statistics. An adjusted statement: "once adjusted for the era they play in, Jason Campbell is just as good of a player statistically as John Elway was."

Well, no, not really. In some ways yes, in most other ways no. Campbell only looks like Elway in terms of adjusted rate statistics. In terms of career statistics such as total touchdown passes, total attempts, games started, total completions, total passing yards, etc., statistics of a counting nature are highly unlikely to ever support the idea that Campbell is eventually likely to be John Elway. If we came back and looked at Campbell's stats in 2015, we would likely see a guy who had an undistinguished six year career as a productive starter, then settled in as a backup.

Which is why I think it would have been so interesting if Elway played today. Would he have been able to have had a 15 year career? We know for a fact it would have been tougher.