Kirk Cousins pick 4.7

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

Wouldn't Griffin opponents at a big 12 school be better than Houston's?

Good comment. Playing Marshall and Memphis is not the same as playing Oklahoma and Texas.

[That Guy]

5% completion difference is college is huge. it's hard to get above 70%

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

IMO the reporter/writer was reaching numbers are not similar.

Yeah not even close statistically and the comparison is not fair based on the different variables that each player faced. Basically this guy was really reaching. RG III is not even close to the same qb that Kolb is. He performed at a much higher level and brought multiple skills that Kolb doesnt posses to the table.

Weak very weak.

[30gut]

The author is making the all to common fallacy of using statistics to measure talent.
By and large QBs are drafted for their physical skillset not their stats.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Interesting article SS, I wanted to ask College FB fans about one statement in it though:



Do those numbers really seem eerily similar? a 5% difference in completions, in a college season seems different, in fact each stat seems to be significantly better and in Griffins favor. But maybe the difference in opponents makes up for that? Just wanted to get some feel from the college afficianados on the Warpath.

edit: I was curious about rushing as well, which the author left off, in their senior years, Kolb had a 1.4 yd rushing avg, and Griffin had a 3.9yd rushing avg. if anyone else cared.

Statistical comparisons between two players are mostly worthless without some sort of baseline to determine which constitutes a meaningful discrepancy and what isn't.

But even if two players are the "same" statistically, that does not mean they are "the same". This is because the stats are results affected by various factors. Different combination of contribution from factors can lead to the same result. It's a giant mess to pore through.

For example, passing yards can be treated as a function of QB physical ability, QB mental ability, WR quality, OL quality, etc.
Or in equation form:

Passing yards = QB arm strength+ QB "intelligence"+ QB mobility + WR1 hands+WR1 speed+WR1 route running+WR1 intelligence +etc +error term

[warriorzpath]

IMO, anyone determining a player's potential or even ability mainly based on past stats should be shot. I know every quarterbacks' situation is different, and really that's my point.

Here's an example of 2 nfl quarterbacks' career qb completion %. the first one's retired and the second one's still actively playing.
1) 56.9% after 16 seasons
2) 60.8% so far after 6 seasons.

The first one's John Elway and second is Jason Campbell. So tell me now, how useful are these stats (just on their own) when determining playing ability and potential?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

IMO, anyone determining a player's potential or even ability mainly based on past stats should be shot. I know every quarterbacks' situation is different, and really that's my point.

Here's an example of 2 nfl quarterbacks' career qb completion %. the first one's retired and the second one's still actively playing.
1) 56.9% after 16 seasons
2) 60.8% so far after 6 seasons.

The first one's John Elway and second is Jason Campbell. So tell me now, how useful are these stats (just on their own) when determining playing ability and potential?

Very, if you know what you are doing and can use them responsibly.

So to you, they're basically useless.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Very, if you know what you are doing and can use them responsibly.

So to you, they're basically useless.

So stats are basically useless unless you are responsible or skillful? So if you're not... then what they are useless?

Ok then in the case of RGIII and Kolb, they may be useful - used to support one's opinion or projection. And in my case, of Elway/Campbell - it's just useless.

OKAY.

[warriorzpath]

Numbers don't lie, but the opinions that some of the stats seem to back-up - are not always the truth.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Interesting article SS, I wanted to ask College FB fans about one statement in it though:



Do those numbers really seem eerily similar? a 5% difference in completions, in a college season seems different, in fact each stat seems to be significantly better and in Griffins favor. But maybe the difference in opponents makes up for that? Just wanted to get some feel from the college afficianados on the Warpath.

edit: I was curious about rushing as well, which the author left off, in their senior years, Kolb had a 1.4 yd rushing avg, and Griffin had a 3.9yd rushing avg. if anyone else cared.

5% college completion is a lot, although about 2ish percent of the difference is basically accounted for in the differences in era between Kolb's college career (middle of the last decade) and the last four years when Griffin was at Baylor.

I would point out that we still really don't know what Kolb is in the pro game because he had to wait so long to play consistently that we still haven't really got to start a full season yet. A good amount of that is Kolb's fault for being hurt each of the last two years and not doing anything to define himself as a quarterback.

There has not been a huge difference between Kevin Kolb and Mark Sanchez as a pro thus far in performance, but Sanchez has managed to play consistently and Kolb hasn't.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Numbers don't lie, but the opinions that some of the stats seem to back-up - are not the truth.

That's basically correct, but the opinions you are referring to would be wrong whether or not stats were used to defend them.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

That's basically correct, but the opinions you are referring to would be wrong whether or not stats were used to defend them.

so what about the elway/campbell completion% stats? how telling are they of the truth?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

so what about the elway/campbell completion% stats? how telling are they of the truth?

Well, first of all (and most importantly), no one is making Elway/Campbell quarterback comparisons besides you. So there's that.

There are numbers that will tell you plenty about John Elway's career if you're interested in learning more about it. Stats tell us that Elway doesn't compare great to Joe Montana, Dan Marino, or Steve Young. He had kind of a fascinating statistical career for a guy who is regarded as an all time great. There's plenty to be learned about Elway with stats. The most important takeaway for you is that there was nothing wrong with a 56% completion percentage in 1987.

Comparing his completion numbers to Campbell's is an awful misapplication, unless the argument is something like "look, even a mid-tier QB from the modern game was more productive than John Elway 25 years ago!" It's an interesting concept, but one that obviously sells Elway short. You want to avoid grading retroactively if possible. That's not what rate stats were intended for.

[GTripp0012]

I firmly believe if you stuck young (25 year old, for sake of argument) John Elway on the field in the modern passing environment, didn't let him go to school or come up through the development ranks with modern coaching, and made him play 1970-80's style football against modern pass defenses, he'd probably get benched a couple weeks into the season for a veteran like Matt Hasselbeck or something.

But you could say that about a lot of the all-time greats. The game is played entirely differently now.

I think it's important to keep greatness in context. Rex Grossman faces far more challenges as quarterback of the Redskins than Sammy Baugh did and handles them probably a lot better than Baugh would have. But Grossman also had way more access to coaching and resources coming up through the ranks as a kid. Baugh pretty much invented the pass as a weapon for attacking defenses. Big difference. Grossman wouldn't have resources to become a polished pro quarterback if it wasn't for all-time greats like Baugh who came before him. Without our predecessors, life would be one big experiment of trial and error. Emphasis on error.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, first of all (and most importantly), no one is making Elway/Campbell quarterback comparisons besides you. So there's that.

There are numbers that will tell you plenty about John Elway's career if you're interested in learning more about it. Stats tell us that Elway doesn't compare great to Joe Montana, Dan Marino, or Steve Young. He had kind of a fascinating statistical career for a guy who is regarded as an all time great. There's plenty to be learned about Elway with stats. The most important takeaway for you is that there was nothing wrong with a 56% completion percentage in 1987.

Comparing his completion numbers to Campbell's is an awful misapplication, unless the argument is something like "look, even a mid-tier QB from the modern game was more productive than John Elway 25 years ago!" It's an interesting concept, but one that obviously sells Elway short. You want to avoid grading retroactively if possible. That's not what rate stats were intended for.

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.