|
|
Pages :
[ 1]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Paintrain 03-22-2006, 12:28 PM For all the complaining and hand wringing we and the mediots do about Brunell and the unabashed praise that's heaped on Drew Bledsoe let's take a look at the numbers for a minute..
Bedsoe:
3639 yds
60.1 completion percentage
23 TD, 17 INT
49 sacks
Brunell:
3050 yds
57.7 completion percentage
23 TD, 10 INT
27 sacks
With the added weapons we have I have few concerns about Brunell replicating these numbers (which were good enough for 10 wins). The addition of TO is big for Dallas but with their offensive line still being subpar I don't know why they are all of the sudden so much better..
dmek25 03-22-2006, 12:32 PM T.O. makes any team better instantly because he is a top 3 receiver in this league(just on talent only)their offensive line is going to take a step backwards meaning that bledsoe will probably not finish the year without getting injured
memphisskin 03-22-2006, 12:35 PM Good points. And I prefer Brunell over Bledsoe because at least Brunell can scramble a little, whereas Bledsoe is pretty much a statue. That, and Dallas' offensive line woes, explain the difference in sacks.
But, when given protection Bledsoe is the better passer. He's got a cannon for an arm, while Brunell does have a tendency to float some throws.
I guess everyone has forgotten our playoff run last year, and the fact that we beat them twice. No matter, we'll just have to show them again this fall.
scowan 03-22-2006, 12:36 PM Paintrain, those Sacks and INTs that you have highlighted really tell the story of how these 2 QB's are managing the game. That is 26 more times that Bledsoe lost yardage for his team and 7 more times he gave it to the other team. I thought Brunell probably had his most efficent season ever last year, even though he did not put up mind-boggling stats. When you play pretty much the whole season (minus a few quarters in that Chicago game) and only throw 10 INTs. You have really done well. I need to go look at the stats and see if anyone else threw fewer INTs that played 16 games.
The difference in INT's and sacks taken is huge.
I'm looking foward to seeing Brunell with all the weapons he now has, along with a more aggressive and unpredictable offensive scheme.
Brunell remarked last year that he would rather have more WRs running routes as opposed to keeping in additional protection, I guess this year he'll get his wish!
Huddle 03-22-2006, 12:50 PM Football stats in general, and QB stats in particular, are almost useless in measuring performance.
What you want to know is: How good is the QB?
The QB stats tell how good the QB was plus...
how good his receivers were
how good his protection was
how good his running game was
how good the playcalling was
how good the passing game scheme was
how good his defense was in giving him field position
how good his special teams were in giving him field position
Watching both play this past season, I give them both C's for the year. Both started strongly and finished weakly as expected given their ages and accumulating injuries.
12thMan 03-22-2006, 12:57 PM Football stats in general, and QB stats in particular, are almost useless in measuring performance.
What you want to know is: How good is the QB?
The QB stats tell how good the QB was plus...
how good his receivers were
how good his protection was
how good his running game was
how good the playcalling was
how good the passing game scheme was
how good his defense was in giving him field position
how good his special teams were in giving him field position
Watching both play this past season, I give them both C's for the year. Both started strongly and finished weakly as expected given their ages and accumulating injuries.
I wouldn't say stats are useless when measuring QBs. I think for one, stats are very telling, especially ints. Even if a QB is having protection issues, or just bad receivers, his ability or inability to get the ball in the proper place is largely up to him. It says a lot about his decision making, accuracy, and timing, ability to read coverages. While it's not an exact measure, I think 90% of the time we can tell a lot about a QB from stats.
Twilbert07 03-22-2006, 01:01 PM Stats aside, we do know for a fact that both Brunell and Bledsoe are pretty old by QB standards.
It'll be interesting to see which one has a better season in 2006.
"Brunell touchdown to Moss... to Lloyd ... to Randle El" all sound good to me.
EXoffender 03-22-2006, 01:03 PM W/O OL Allen, you'd think Bledsoe's sacks will increase. Who's backing him up anyway?
Huddle 03-22-2006, 01:14 PM I wouldn't say stats are useless when measuring QBs. I think for one, stats are very telling, especially ints.
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.
|