NFL Football - 2012 Season Thread

[Imran Siddiqui]

Gee, he probably had to throw so much because he ranked 31st when it came to completion rate, unlike RG who was at the top of the league.
When you have one of the lowest completion rates in the league, I guess you just have throw more to make some completions. Heck, he almost had 300 incomplete passes. Now that's impressive.

You would think that a "more efficient" QB would mean you complete more of your throws. Unless we are using vastly different definitions for efficiency.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To be fair, Wins and IP are positively correlated with success (because a pitcher's performance correlates positively with IP, and IP correlates positively with W). Were those the only two stats available, they'd be acceptable. Fortunately, thanks to His Holiness Bill James, they aren't.

Reason I mentioned it is that I am going somewhere with this.

Ben, in 2012, the #4 pitcher in the National League in Innings Pitched was a man named Clayton Richard. With 218.2 IP he also had an ERA of 3.99 in Petco Park (an ERA+ of 91). He gave up the most hits and HRs in the NL. Was he efficient because they wouldn't have let an inefficient pitcher throw so many innings?

I can also give you fun examples involving Wins (Lance Lynn's 2012 comes to mind).

[Sava]

BK wants QB evaluations to be based solely on passing attempts?

I should be surprised, but I'm not.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, those attempts (and the yardage from them) are in no way an indicator of _how_ good he is; simply that he's somewhere between 'good' and 'incredible'.

Given that he's a rookie, yes, I think 600 attempts + rookie + 4350 is enough to establish Luck as 'incredible'. And RGIII as merely 'very good'.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, in 2012, the #4 pitcher in the National League in Innings Pitched was a man named Clayton Richard. With 218.2 IP he also had an ERA of 3.99 in Petco Park (an ERA+ of 91). He gave up the most hits and HRs in the NL. Was he efficient because they wouldn't have let an inefficient pitcher throw so many innings?

Given that he's in his fifth season? Also, 219 IPs at essentially league average is fairly valuable. Also, 219 IPs in a season is hardly remarkable even if he were number 4 in a year in one half of the league and top 10 in MLB.

[Sava]

Given that he's a rookie, yes, I think 600 attempts + rookie + 4350 is enough to establish Luck as 'incredible'. And RGIII as merely 'very good'.

So throwing more times is better than making sure those throws are completions, touchdowns... and not interceptions?

[SlowwHand]

nm

[MichaeltheGreat]

Why would a defense care if they get a forced fumble vs an INT? Every single game I've ever watched shows the defense being ecstatic either way. They don't care. Turnover is a turnover.

Actually, "defense" in football encompasses a little more than 11 guys on the field jumping up and down. The DCs, position coaches and positional leaders involved in defensive planning and execution would much rather have a predictable, one dimensional offense to plan for.

Which explains why it was the most prolific offense of it's time.

Which is meaningless. Coryell had a regular season winning percentage of .561 (average going just under 9-7 each season) and 3-6 record in the playoffs with 0 superbowl appearances. NEXT!

So RGIII was inordinately lucky.

No, it means RG III has the skills of a running back and had blockers, etc. in position, plus self-recovery of loose balls. Plus most of the fumbles from both QBs came as a result of sacks.

How about, "hey, why don't I try to move the pile myself?"

The stats don't bear that out.
Luck's rushing line: 62 carries, 255 yds 4.1 YPC, 5 TD, rushing for 1st down 23
RG III 120 carries, 815 yards, 6.8 YPT, 7 TD, rushing for 1st down 40.

Rushing TD other than by QB: Indy 6, Washington 15

Conclusion: Luck is either a bigger ball hog than Kobe Bryant, or the Colts are just one dimensional. If you really want a look at Luck's "moving the pile" look at the sack and QB pressure stats. That's where 9 of 10 of Luck's fumbles and all his fumbles lost come from, not from running the ball.

Here's a couple more stats for you:

Results of Drives, aka ROD.

Just to clarify, ROD does not factor in return TDs or TDs by defense, since by definition, those are not offensive drives and are not affected by the QB.

RGIII: 20 TD passing, 7 TD rushing, 12 TD handoffs to RBs, 23 FG = 62 scoring drives in 15 games. 62.9% of scoring drives are TDs
Luck: 23 TD passing, 5 TD rushing, 6 TD handoffs to RBs, 26 FG = 60 scording drives in 16 games, 56.6% of scording drives are TDs.
No doubt who has the biggest ROD there.

How about QB cough-up rate (CUR) Punts count in CUR, since a punt is nothing more than willingly giving up the ball because you can't get a first down or score. For this metric, we don't count fumbles lost by other players, since the QB has no control.

RGIII: 5 INT, 2 fumbles lost, 63 punts = 70 CUR in 15 games.
Luck: 18 INT, 5 fumples lost, 73 punts = 96 CUR in 16 games.

So we see that RG III has the better ROD, while Luck is by far the bigger CUR.

Well, then. Let's look at the pitchers with the most wins over the past 25 years. Oh, wait. Greg Maddux. I see your point. The game HAS changed drastically.

Leave it to the Beniverse to pick a one-off example of one piece of data and think it describes the state of a complex system.

[SlowwHand]

I hope they follow through with QB's being unable to slide and be protected. You run, you're a RB.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So, if we have a bad O-Line and a rookie QB with 600 attempts, shouldn't we be heaping praise on Luck for leading his team to 11 wins?

Strength of schedule. 2 against Jax, 2 against Tennessee, then KC and Cleveland?

Damn, quality analysis here.

I call it like I see it. Record incompletions, abysmal completion percentage and 40+ sacks indicates a lot of ball dumping.

Sauce, goose, gander.

Here's the problem: In the Beniverse and nowhere else, Luck was the so unquestionably superior all around QB that not getting ROY was an injustice and he got robbed. So you set the bar pretty damn high, and for your contention to be true, Luck has to be the dominant rookie QB by just about any metric. You have to show (and you can't, outside the Beniverse) that Luck was unquestionably superior. The rest of us can cherry pick, you can't, because you set yourself up for a different standard of proof. So your goose is way overcooked, and your bizarro obsession with pass attempts and total yards as the be-all and end-all stats is enough to make the rest of us hit the sauce.

At least he stays behind his O-Line rather than trying to get hit.

Maybe he should scurry a little more, with 40+ sacks and more QB pressures. Or maybe Indy should be a little less one-dimensional so the defense can't just mount a pass rush every down.

Russell had that in 2008, but he only had 368 attempts. Why? Because you don't get as 600 attempts unless you are effective at throwing the ball. This is basic math. 600 attempts over 16 games, 38 attempts per game, means that you have to have 38 actual offensive plays. You don't get that if you keep going 3 and out.

If you went 3 and out on every drive, you'd still get more than 30 plays from scrimmage.

http://nfl.si.com/2013/01/06/first-downfourth-down-mike-shanahan-loses-his-rgiii-gamble/

This is good QB development? I'd hate to see bad QB development.

I know you're from the land of figure skaters. I played football in HS and a division II school as both MLB and LLB in 4-3 schemes.
For every level past Pop Warner, "play through pain" is religious mantra. Look at the **** Jay Cutler got for sitting out on a bad knee because he was still able to stand.

Player development is an all year, every day process. RG III insisted on playing. Shanahan gets flack for not overriding him (and from the GM and owner perspective, he should - RG III is a business commodity), but Shanahan is dealing with, and a product of, the play through pain and play hurt mantra.

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is meaningless. Coryell had a regular season winning percentage of .561 (average going just under 9-7 each season) and 3-6 record in the playoffs with 0 superbowl appearances. NEXT!

Actually pretty damn good.

No, it means RG III has the skills of a running back and had blockers, etc. in position, plus self-recovery of loose balls. Plus most of the fumbles from both QBs came as a result of sacks.

Fumbles generally work out to be about 50/50.

Luck's rushing line: 62 carries, 255 yds 4.1 YPC, 5 TD, rushing for 1st down 23
RG III 120 carries, 815 yards, 6.8 YPT, 7 TD, rushing for 1st down 40.

Right, because Luck makes the effort to run None of those stats are the aforementioned 'runs stopped for several yards fwiw. I'm not sure why the comparison nets you anything.

That's where 9 of 10 of Luck's fumbles and all his fumbles lost come from, not from running the ball.

So which is better, fumbling behind the LOS, or coughing up the ball when you try to 'run'. 10 fumbles on 82 runs is a terrible ratio.

RGIII: 20 TD passing, 7 TD rushing, 12 TD handoffs to RBs, 23 FG = 62 scoring drives in 15 games. 62.9% of scoring drives are TDs
Luck: 23 TD passing, 5 TD rushing, 6 TD handoffs to RBs, 26 FG = 60 scording drives in 16 games, 56.6% of scording drives are TDs.

As already mentioned, RGIII Has morris. Take out the drives that ended in TDs given to the RBs, and you get: 50 - 54. Luck wins. And you shouldn't be rewarding RGIII for missing a game.

For this metric, we don't count fumbles lost by other players, since the QB has no control.

Counting all Fumbles which cancels out the luck factor gives you the exact opposite conclusion.

Leave it to the Beniverse to pick a one-off example of one piece of data and think it describes the state of a complex system.

So you concede the point. Thank you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Strength of schedule. 2 against Jax, 2 against Tennessee, then KC and Cleveland?

Vs. Philly? Plus Houston is better than anything in the NFC East.

The rest of us can cherry pick

So your argument is a mix of an argument from authority and cherry picking. So enthralling.

For every level past Pop Warner, "play through pain" is religious mantra.

And how'd that work out for Vick? Not good. Earlier post in this thread highlighted how RGIII was running too much, and wouldn't last. Sure enough...

Shanahan is dealing with, and a product of, the play through pain and play hurt mantra.

Which is a terrible combination and such a waste of talent.

[Donegeal]

I think Ben should be nominated as 'Poly Troll #1, and this thread is the proof. Secondly, you guys should all go get 'Duped' stickers and be required to wear them on your forehead for 1 week... myself included.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually pretty damn good.

If your standard is to be slightly over .500 and no significant playoff results. That standard of performance doesn't pass muster with an elite team.

Fumbles generally work out to be about 50/50.

So?

Right, because Luck makes the effort to run None of those stats are the aforementioned 'runs stopped for several yards fwiw. I'm not sure why the comparison nets you anything.

Yes, because you're in the Beniverse. Where YPC, TDs, and turnovers only count when convenient.

So which is better, fumbling behind the LOS, or coughing up the ball when you try to 'run'. 10 fumbles on 82 runs is a terrible ratio.

From what planet do you get "10 fumbles on 82 runs?" Fumbles lost were 2 for RG III, 5 for Luck. Can it get any clearer?

As already mentioned, RGIII Has morris. Take out the drives that ended in TDs given to the RBs, and you get: 50 - 54. Luck wins. And you shouldn't be rewarding RGIII for missing a game.

Uh, dood? TDs scored by RBs count for 6 points like any other TD. Luck wins nothing. RG III was more efficient in leading scoring drives. This is not ****ing "loud mouth bully ball hog kid in the neighborhood scores every point in the 10 year old streetball league." It's the NFL. Any offensive player's job is to contribute to successfully executing scoring drives. He's not rewarded for missing a game - he outperformed Luck in one less game. Total numbers are greater, and numbers per game played.

Counting all Fumbles which cancels out the luck factor gives you the exact opposite conclusion.

You don't count fumbles NOT ****ING LOST moron. Recovered fumble is NOT A TURNOVER, and can result in negative yardage, no gain, or added yardage. The effects of the fumbles not lost are already reflected in the total yardage for the play.

So you concede the point. Thank you.

No, I concede you're a troll or simply ignorant or on drugs. If you think Maddux (a junk ball pitcher most of his career) being the winningest pitcher in the last 25 years has anything to do with the nature of baseball pitching in the Cy Young era, you should have gone to Haight Ashbury in the 60s or made Cheech, Chong and Ben movies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Vs. Philly? Plus Houston is better than anything in the NFC East.

Yeah, Houston demonstrated that in Foxboro.

So your argument is a mix of an argument from authority and cherry picking. So enthralling.

No, as usual, you have reading comprehension issues. How do you "argue from authority" by using official stats as recorded by the NFL? And yes, cherry picking is valid to rebut your absurd argument that Luck was unjustly robbed because he was clearly superior. All it takes are a few stats to throw a wrench in that conclusion.

And how'd that work out for Vick? Not good. Earlier post in this thread highlighted how RGIII was running too much, and wouldn't last. Sure enough...

It's the culture of the game. If Vick was a *****, he'd play hockey or figure skate or some other Canuck sport.

Which is a terrible combination and such a waste of talent.

It's the nature of football. Not surprising you don't understand that.