NFL Football - 2012 Season Thread

[Imran Siddiqui]

X is Y doesn't mean not X is not Y. Saying that QBs who get 600 attempts are effective, does not imply that quarterbacks who get fewer than 600 attempts are ineffective. Far from it.

Also, please find the word 'more', anywhere? I never said that. All I said is QBs with 600 attempts are effective. If they were ineffective QBs, then they wouldn't get 600 attempts. I made no assessment regarding the effectiveness of QBs with fewer than 600 attempts. Nor did I say 600 attempts is the bar for gaging whether a QB is effective.

So QBs with under 600 attempts can be just as, if not MORE effective than QB's over 600 attempts?

I'm glad you took this first step. Now looking at TD/INT ratio, Passer Rating, (which MtG pointed out) QBR, etc, you can easily see that Robert Griffin III was far more effective a QB than Andrew Luck. Thanks.

Also why exactly is 600 attempts a magical talisman? Or are you saying a lot of attempts mean some kind of efficiency? Sam Bradford in 2010 had 590 attempts... does that make him kind of effective since he didn't get to 600 (and, well, the other thing was he kind wasn't that good).

[Ben Kenobi]

So QBs with under 600 attempts can be just as, if not MORE effective than QB's over 600 attempts?

Sure. Just because a QB has under 400 attempts does not make him more effective than a QB with over 600 attempts.

Now looking at TD/INT ratio

RGIII had 15 fumbles. Luck had 10.

Looking at TD/Turnover ratio, RGIII had 20 turnovers to 27 Touchdowns. Luck had 28 of each. That's 74 percent of Luck. Prorating per attempt, Luck did better. Luck threw for a third more attempts, but only turned the ball over a quarter more than RGIII. Therefore on the average play where Luck and RGIII were called to throw or carry, RGIII was more likely than Luck to turn the ball over.

you can easily see that Robert Griffin III was far more effective a QB than Andrew Luck.

And if you look at yardage, wins and injuries, you can see that Luck was far more effective than RGIII. If you can't take the field, you can't help your team.

Also why exactly is 600 attempts a magical talisman?

It's a record for rookies. Most coaches limit rookie attempts. Luck had the yardage you would expect to see from the best vets, and more attempts than all but one. This is very unusual. Why? Because Luck could be trusted to shoulder the burden of his team's offense. The same is not true of RGIII. RGIII was limited in what the Redskins allowed him to do and Morris carried the burden of the offense.

RGIII wasn't even the best rookie on his team, that was Morris.

[Ben Kenobi]

The TD - INT ratio, PR, and limited other metrics indicate Luck wasn't really that effective. You get 600 attempts because your team doesn't have other options.

Compare him to such terrible quarterbacks like Manning in his rookie year. It's very rare that a rookie QB would have more TDs than ints when throwing as much as Luck did. Even rarer to have a winning record. Show me another QB who has done so well? There isn't any. That's why this is a travesty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

RGIII had 15 fumbles. Luck had 10.

Looking at TD/Turnover ratio, RGIII had 20 turnovers to 27 Touchdowns. Luck had 28 of each. That's 74 percent of Luck. Prorating per attempt, Luck did better. Luck threw for a third more attempts, but only turned the ball over a quarter more than RGIII. Therefore on the average play where Luck and RGIII were called to throw or carry, RGIII was more likely than Luck to turn the ball over.

You are an idiot. Because fumbles only happen on passing attempt plays? A QB that carries the ball more may fumble more. Did you compare total number of plays with turnovers? Why exactly do you think Passer Rating and Quarterback Rating (QBR), which does account for turnovers of all varieties, have RGIII with a higher number?

And if you look at yardage, wins and injuries, you can see that Luck was far more effective than RGIII. If you can't take the field, you can't help your team.

That's like saying if we look at a pitcher based on wins and IP we can find who was better. Something which, of course, is utterly ridiculous.

Passer Rating and QBR say that you are wildly wrong. I could care less about total yardage, wins, and injuries - stats which have a marginal effect on effectiveness (esp when you look at Luck's low completion percentage).

Luck had the yardage you would expect to see from the best vets, and more attempts than all but one.

Like Matthew Stafford?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Compare him to such terrible quarterbacks like Manning in his rookie year. It's very rare that a rookie QB would have more TDs than ints when throwing as much as Luck did. Even rarer to have a winning record. Show me another QB who has done so well? There isn't any. That's why this is a travesty.

I prefer the far more efficient RGIII. It would have been a travesty is the throw early and often Luck won the ROY.

[Ming]

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.

From the way you TRY to make it sound, there should be this big outcry over RGIII winning the award. But, surprise, there isn't. Most of the experts have no problem with the pick. And the reason is simple, RG was better.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are an idiot.

I suppose that must make you feel better, but that doesn't exactly make you look like Einstein.

Because fumbles only happen on passing attempt plays? A QB that carries the ball more may fumble more.

When RGIII fumbles, it hurts the team. You brought up turnovers into it, and fumbles are quite relevant. Especially when the QB insists on carrying the ball. Do you think the defense cares if they have to get a pick or if they drill RGIII and force a fumble? Nope, same resulte either way.

Anyways, as I showed, on the average play, RGIII is more likely to turn the ball over than Luck.

Did you compare total number of plays with turnovers?

Doesn't change much. Luck still turned the ball over less. RGIII's insistance on running the ball really hurts his turnover numbers.

Why exactly do you think Passer Rating and Quarterback Rating (QBR), which does account for turnovers of all varieties, have RGIII with a higher number?

You tell me. Why should I explain your stat to other people?

That's like saying if we look at a pitcher based on wins and IP we can find who was better. Something which, of course, is utterly ridiculous.

Let's take a look at who has the most career wins and IPs. Damn, it's a total schmuck named CY Young. I see. You've convinced me that Wins and IPs are useless when assessing pitchers.

Passer Rating and QBR say that you are wildly wrong.

Yardage and attempts say that you are wildly wrong.

I could care less about total yardage, wins, and injuries

And I could care less about quarterback rating. A stat, btw that ranks Romo 7th all time.

Do you believe that Romo is the 7th best NFL QB of all time? Do you believe that Philip Rivers is better than Montana?

Like Matthew Stafford?

Well, let's rattle off the others with more yardage. Manning, Brees, Brady, Ryan and Romo. Gosh, that's a Quintet of Suckage. Oh, he also outthrew Rodgers. I see how yardage is completely useless when trying to identify the elite NFL quarterbacks.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Sure. Just because a QB has under 400 attempts does not make him more effective than a QB with over 600 attempts.

In case you didn't know, football is a team sport. A QB with under 400 attempts has one of two things. An offense and defense so terrible they never have time of possession and just go three and out, or a team with a running game. In the latter case, the team overall is more effective, and since the defense can't key on a one dimensional offense, the QB is likely to be more effective as well. There's a reason Air Coryell didn't work.

RGIII had 15 fumbles. Luck had 10.

Looking at TD/Turnover ratio, RGIII had 20 turnovers to 27 Touchdowns. Luck had 28 of each. That's 74 percent of Luck. Prorating per attempt, Luck did better. Luck threw for a third more attempts, but only turned the ball over a quarter more than RGIII. Therefore on the average play where Luck and RGIII were called to throw or carry, RGIII was more likely than Luck to turn the ball over.

10 fumbles + 18 ints from a pocket passer who doesn't run the ball is atrocious. That indicates both a bad O line and a QB who lacks adequate poise. Hence the high attempts/low completions. Luck unloads like a girl so he doesn't get creamed by the pass rush his O line can't contain.

And if you look at yardage, wins and injuries, you can see that Luck was far more effective than RGIII. If you can't take the field, you can't help your team.

So you go 90 yards on a drive and cough up the ball. That's effective? Like usual, you're looking at only metrics which support your point of view and ignoring metrics everyone else uses (including a lot of folks who make a living at the game) because they conflict with your irrational pre-conceptions.

It's a record for rookies. Most coaches limit rookie attempts.

Assuming they have something else in the toolbox besides the punter.

Luck had the yardage you would expect to see from the best vets, and more attempts than all but one.

Which is a function of a one dimensional offense and weak O line, not the "greatness" of Luck. He's a good quarterback who will likely develop if he gets a less one dimensional offense and gets to spend less time lying on his back wondering why he didn't major in accounting or something.

This is very unusual. Why? Because Luck could be trusted to shoulder the burden of his team's offense.

Because he was all his team's offense had. He could have been Ryan Leaf or JaMarcus Russell on that offense, and he would have thrown a lot.

The same is not true of RGIII. RGIII was limited in what the Redskins allowed him to do and Morris carried the burden of the offense.

Which just means (a) the Redskins aren't as one dimensional, and (b) they're doing a better job of QB development.

[Ben Kenobi]

there should be this big outcry over RGIII winning the award. But, surprise, there isn't. Most of the experts have no problem with the pick.

Circular logic here, Ming.

[Ben Kenobi]

In case you didn't know, football is a team sport. A QB with under 400 attempts has one of two things. An offense and defense so terrible they never have time of possession and just go three and out, or a team with a running game. In the latter case, the team overall is more effective, and since the defense can't key on a one dimensional offense, the QB is likely to be more effective as well. There's a reason Air Coryell didn't work.

Air Coryell works just fine.

That indicates both a bad O line

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?

Luck unloads like a girl

Damn, quality analysis here.

So you go 90 yards on a drive and cough up the ball.

More effective than taking the ball and fumbling it over on the first carry of the drive, yes.

Like usual, you're looking at only metrics which support your point of view and ignoring metrics everyone else uses (including a lot of folks who make a living at the game) because they conflict with your irrational pre-conceptions.

Sauce, goose, gander.

Which is a function of a one dimensional offense and weak O line, not the "greatness" of Luck. He's a good quarterback who will likely develop if he gets a less one dimensional offense and gets to spend less time lying on his back wondering why he didn't major in accounting or something.

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

Because he was all his team's offense had. He could have been Ryan Leaf or JaMarcus Russell on that offense, and he would have thrown a lot.

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.

Which just means (a) the Redskins aren't as one dimensional, and (b) they're doing a better job of QB development.

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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Do you think the defense cares if they have to get a pick or if they drill RGIII and force a fumble? Nope, same resulte either way.

This is like Speer's 7 yards is 7 yards argument about Tebow

Yes, the defense cares, because it is much easier to defend against that one dimensional offense represented by players like Luck, or 1D coaches like Robinson and Coryell. How about all those incompletions for zero yardage gains?

Oh, and you might want to get your stats in order. RGIII had 12 fumbles not 15, but only 2 lost. Luck was 10 with 5 lost. Both according to NFL.com Those 2 turnovers on the ground for RG III came on the back of 120 rushing attempts for 815 yards. Luck had 62 attempts for 255 yards. Question is, with the turnovers and INTs and low completion attempts, is that really "rushing attempts" as opposed to "getting your ass chased out of the pocket and can't find anyone to unload to" attempts?

Let's take a look at who has the most career wins and IPs. Damn, it's a total schmuck named CY Young. I see. You've convinced me that Wins and IPs are useless when assessing pitchers.

Different game, different era. You can't meaningfully compare the usage of pitchers and the efficiency of batters from Cy Young's era to now. The fact that you have to go back a century to make your point is telling, though.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, the defense cares

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.

1D coaches like Robinson and Coryell.

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

Oh, and you might want to get your stats in order. RGIII had 12 fumbles not 15, but only 2 lost.

So RGIII was inordinately lucky.

is that really "rushing attempts" as opposed to "getting your ass chased out of the pocket and can't find anyone to unload to" attempts?

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

Different game, different era. You can't meaningfully compare the usage of pitchers and the efficiency of batters from Cy Young's era to now. The fact that you have to go back a century to make your point is telling, though.

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.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

There is no universe, ours or any of the multiverse, where Luck > RGIII. FACT!

[snoopy369]

There's buying low, and then there's ignoring the signs. A dumb LB is not a good idea.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/futures/2013/futures-houston-lb-phillip-steward

Perhaps a better choice to put the money on (and it sounds like a 3rd or 4th round pick rather than a 1st)? That LB sounds a lot like Urlacher coming out of college, to be honest. Urlacher played safety in college (well, he played everything as far as I could tell - kick returner, a little wide receiver, etc. - but primarily safety), and the Tampa 2 MLB is basically a wide-ranging player who has to read well and defend the pass well. The Bears have a great front line, so an undersized MLB would be easily compensated for.

[snoopy369]

That's like saying if we look at a pitcher based on wins and IP we can find who was better. Something which, of course, is utterly ridiculous.

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.

That's basically the argument Ben is of course ignoring... sure, high attempts and high completions are a sign Andrew Luck is a good quarterback. Nobody here is arguing against that. A bad QB wouldn't have been allowed 600 attempts, nor would the offense have been designed around him. 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'. You need to look at rate stats to see how good he was during the season.

Honestly, why are you guys even continuing to argue this, anyway? You're not going to change Ben's mind, he doesn't seem to be capable of changing his mind about something once he decides he knows the answer. It's not hurting anyone for Ben to believe his insane racist belief. Perhaps simply not responding to future posts on the subject would be the high road?