12thMan
03-22-2006, 01:25 PM
Some coaches, Mike Martz ,for example, shrug off INTs as part of the risk in a high-powered passing game. Some coaches (Spurrier) want their QB to throw to spots and depend on their receivers to turn defender if the DB is in position for an interception.
Some coaches emphasize run first and are content to dink and dunk while others opt for a riskier but more productive vertical passing game.
In the classic example of how INTs are system-related, Dan Marino fell to 27th in the draft because he had too many INTs in college at Pitt.
While Marino had many INTs in college, he was very efficient in the Pro's. See rookie season. And the reason he fell 27th in the draft could have had more to do with other things than on the field performance.
Higher risk and ulitmate risk, turning the ball over, are two different things. I'm not suggesting that sometimes we put too much stock into stats, but on the other hand I don't remember a QB who had a high ratio of TDs/INTs ever winning anything.
ArtMonkDrillz
03-22-2006, 01:26 PM
Aside from injuries, my biggest concern with Brunell has got to be fumbles. Does anyone know how many times he coughed the ball up last season? It seemed like he let go of the ball way too often. I think that with our imporved receiving core defenses will have to drop more people into coverage and Brunell will have more time to find the open man, I just hope he holds onto the ball when he can't.
724Skinsfan
03-22-2006, 01:28 PM
W/O OL Allen, you'd think Bledsoe's sacks will increase. Who's backing him up anyway?
Hopefully a Houston Texans lineman!
That Guy
03-22-2006, 01:29 PM
bledsoe's higher int stat are directly related to his higher sacked stat. he probably offset a lot of the detriments with the extra 600 yards though.
Huddle
03-22-2006, 01:43 PM
[QUOTE]While Marino had many INTs in college, he was very efficient in the Pro's. See rookie season.
You're making my point. Scouts over-emphasized his INTs in college. Those stats were of no value in predicting his performance in the NFL.
I don't remember a QB who had a high ratio of TDs/INTs ever winning anything.
The QBs on winning teams are going to have good stats. The QBs on losing teams are going to have poor stats.
But trying to compare QBs on stats from one team to another doesn't work.
12thMan
03-22-2006, 01:46 PM
[quote=12thMan]
You're making my point. Scouts over-emphasized his INTs in college. Those stats were of no value in predicting his performance in the NFL.
The QBs on winning teams are going to have good stats. The QBs on losing teams are going to have poor stats.
But to trying to compare QBs on stats from one team to another doesn't work.
True. But I still think stats give us somewhat of a benchmark of overall effectiveness.
Defensewins
03-22-2006, 01:47 PM
Some coaches, Mike Martz ,for example, shrug off INTs as part of the risk in a high-powered passing game. Some coaches (Spurrier) want their QB to throw to spots and depend on their receivers to turn defender if the DB is in position for an interception.
Some coaches emphasize run first and are content to dink and dunk while others opt for a riskier but more productive vertical passing game.
In the classic example of how INTs are system-related, Dan Marino fell to 27th in the draft because he had too many INTs in college at Pitt.
An interception is still a turnover and a turnover is never good. If Martz shrugs it off it is probably why he is no longer a head coach. That is what seperates Martz from Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs who hate turnovers and will replace players before putting up with turnovers. They do not accept turnovers. Joe Montana and Steve Young played in mainly passing offenses very similar to Mart's and they had low interception to TD ratios.
Huddle
03-22-2006, 02:01 PM
12th Man
True. But I still think stats give us somewhat of a benchmark of overall effectiveness.
You have a measure of the overall effectiveness of the QB when combined with his support system: players, coaches, system.
It's like being told that the length + height + width of a room totals 56 feet. There is no useful purpose for that number.
12thMan
03-22-2006, 02:07 PM
12th Man
You have a measure of the overall effectiveness of the QB when combined with his support system: players, coaches, system.
It's like being told that the length + height + width of a room totals 56 feet. There is no useful purpose for that number.
Damn dude, you're bringing it today, huh?? :)
Huddle
03-22-2006, 02:10 PM
Damn dude, you're bringing it today, huh?? :)
Not just today. I'm an obnoxious SOB on a consistent basis.