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]

Just to give you comparison qbs from their respective playing eras.
Steve Young: 64.3%
Aaron Rodgers: 65.4%

[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.

[SirClintonPortis]

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.

But it's just my opinion and I have the stats to (dis)prove it. haha.

Those who misuse stats are usually un-versed dumbasses who can't wrap their heads around certain concepts in statistics(the subject of statistics is not the same as "stats" on nfl.com, which are compilations of data which can be analyzed by statistical measures).

Those who reject the these dumbasses' conclusions and inferences...however reject them in an equally stupid manner, blindly eschewing the use of stats(or as I prefer to call them, data) altogether.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Just to give you comparison qbs from their respective playing eras.
Steve Young: 64.3%
Aaron Rodgers: 65.4%

If you're trying to say the average completion percentage isn't higher in 2011 than it was in 1987 or 1994 or whenever...you're wrong. It's about four to four and a half percent higher on average.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If you're trying to say the average completion percentage isn't higher in 2011 than it was in 1987 or 1994 or whenever...you're wrong. It's about four to four and a half percent higher on average.

Even with that difference, the comparison is even more telling. Because when you adjust accordingly with respective eras, their completion% is about even. 56% to 60% for Elway. So like I was saying, you can try to play with the stats with however you want, but sometimes it's just plain bs. So how do you determine when they are complete bs without just plain simple watching them? And even then, it's the eye of the beholder thing in some cases.

[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]

Don't get me wrong, stats like any other kind of number can be used as guidelines. But the end-all to bad, good, or great... not for me.

[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

Even with that difference, the comparison is even more telling. Because when you adjust accordingly with respective eras, their completion% is about even. 56% to 60% for Elway. So like I was saying, you can try to play with the stats with however you want, but sometimes it's just plain bs. So how do you determine when they are complete bs without just plain simple watching them? And even then, it's the eye of the beholder thing in some cases.

You don't just determine it unless you have some concept of how to responsibly use statistics to back a point. The point doesn't have to be right 100% of the time, but it has to be defensible 100% of the time.

Jason Campbell actually did complete a higher percentage of his passes over the course of his career (to date) than John Elway did. That is a real thing that happened. It is not a statistical illusion.

What it isn't is a fair thing to hold against the career of John Elway, because that would lack context and miss about 14 critical points in terms of football analysis.

Stats are just records of events. The bs'ers you refer to are typically more human.

[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]

... going back to my point that stats alone can't determine sh*t. Potential, ability, or otherwise.

They can only be used as guidelines. And I don't know what you are saying with responsible usage. There's only different opinions and judgments. Like who was better- Elway or Marino? Brady or Manning? There's no absolute truth to any of these answers. Only opinions and judgments.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Just to give you comparison qbs from their respective playing eras.
Steve Young: 64.3%
Aaron Rodgers: 65.4%

Yeah, the obvious thing to concluded that that each quarterbacks' respective receivers caught a certain percentage of passes, with Rodgers having the higher percentage. That's the only fact that the data tell you.

Saying they Rodgers is better is an inference; they are as good as the premises you use to justify them.

1. Aaron Rodgers had a higher completion percentage than Steve Young(true)
2. Having a higher completion % than someone else necessarily makes him a better player than someone else(likely not true)
Conclusion: Aaron Rodgers is better than Steve Young (when using the above premises, likely not true. You can use other premises to try and justify it though)

The truth value (true or false) of Premise 2 is not true, and for a multitude of reasons, none of which discredits the use of statistical analysis done properly. In fact, it can be disproven using statistical methods depending on how the data behaves. One can use a test of whether the means are equivalent to see if there is a statistically significant different between the two mean values(note: statistical significance does not necessarily signify significance in real life)

[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

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.