illdefined
11-08-2006, 06:56 PM
So you want all QB yardage to be calculated by how far the ball traveled? Figures as much. Then you'd have all the West Coast QBs with really shitty Y/A stats simply because of the system. Then you wouldn't really know anything about the guy except what kind of system he plays in. It would not go in any way toward getting you closer to the "why do teams win/lose?" answer (the ONLY reason for statistical analysis). But it'd make Brunell's stats look like what you think they should be, so thats cool I guess.
relying on stats, any stats, was your bag, not mine. i spoke about the KINDS of passes he throws, from frequent observation, something no official stat, including your FO stats keep track of.
so because its not a recognized stat it's not relevant? sacks weren't always a recognized stat, but they sure were relevant, and not at all subjective.
You could cut the stats at the point when garbage time starts, and it would make the numbers ever so slightly more accurate, or you could just leave EVERYONES garbage time in and understand that what you are given is a general representation of how well a player has performed. So you can say Brunell sucks, I can show you his stats, you can make any dann excuse you want to, and I'll say fair enough, but in general Brunell has played well. Someone who is doing poorer than him in all major categories is not playing as well. Obviously. QB Rating puts him at #8 in the NFL. You will never hear me refer to him as the 8th best QB. That's not general enough. Conventional stats aren't that accurate.
then i could argue everyone's garbage time is alot less than Brunells. regardless that wasn't a serious point, when you often refer to your stats, you very frequently refer to our offense as the x number league in efficiency. you do this very often.
QBing is all about doing your role in the offense. Some QBs have bigger roles than others. Brunell's is actually quite small, and he does it well. Stats are not what made me come to this conclusion, its what allows me to make an arguement thats actually something and not nothing.
thats all our points, that Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense, which simply isn't cutting it this season in the position we're in.
Back to your YAC point, stats aren't going to seperate the QB from the offense (FO's stats try to but that seems a bit advanced for you), but even if you change the QB he still won't be seperated from the offense. So you accept the YAC as part of the offense, and you move on. You don't worry about it skewing the stats. We aren't talking about Brunell moving to another team here.
Which brings me back to my main point. There is no present reason good enough to replace Mark Brunell. People who agree with me: Joe Gibbs, Al Saunders, among others. People who (at least seem to) disagree: Illdefined, RedskinRat, among others.
Here's what's been explained ad infinitum. I've given countless reasons why MB SHOULDN't be benched. You've given baseless reasoning to why he SHOULD, and then have given at least relevant reasoning to why my stats are not all they are cracked up to be. They are what they are. A general representation of how well a player has performed.
YOU asked why Brunell's YPA was up so we answered you. because we have two of the best punt returners in the game - which make a career of YAC - for wide recievers. whether screens are the best use of them is another matter, but we answered your question.
again, you call our arguments baseless because Passes Thrown Outside The Numbers doesn't happen to be a stat. nor Passes Thrown Before the Marker. etc. etc.
just because they aren't doesn't make them irrelevant or even subjective (Aikman had a nice graphic and everything). don't you think the KINDS of passes Brunell makes effects other parts of the offense? don't you think how defenses react to Brunell's tendencies affects our running game? (how are Portis's numbers this year btw). how many times has the 'Gibbs wins every time when they get 100yds rushing' stats been debunked as near meaningless?
yes, stats are a REPRESENTATION of performance, but they aren't the whole picture (that many people in the NFL say they see - not just Rat and i) which you dismiss complelety simply because it's not numerical.
relying on stats, any stats, was your bag, not mine. i spoke about the KINDS of passes he throws, from frequent observation, something no official stat, including your FO stats keep track of.
so because its not a recognized stat it's not relevant? sacks weren't always a recognized stat, but they sure were relevant, and not at all subjective.
You could cut the stats at the point when garbage time starts, and it would make the numbers ever so slightly more accurate, or you could just leave EVERYONES garbage time in and understand that what you are given is a general representation of how well a player has performed. So you can say Brunell sucks, I can show you his stats, you can make any dann excuse you want to, and I'll say fair enough, but in general Brunell has played well. Someone who is doing poorer than him in all major categories is not playing as well. Obviously. QB Rating puts him at #8 in the NFL. You will never hear me refer to him as the 8th best QB. That's not general enough. Conventional stats aren't that accurate.
then i could argue everyone's garbage time is alot less than Brunells. regardless that wasn't a serious point, when you often refer to your stats, you very frequently refer to our offense as the x number league in efficiency. you do this very often.
QBing is all about doing your role in the offense. Some QBs have bigger roles than others. Brunell's is actually quite small, and he does it well. Stats are not what made me come to this conclusion, its what allows me to make an arguement thats actually something and not nothing.
thats all our points, that Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense, which simply isn't cutting it this season in the position we're in.
Back to your YAC point, stats aren't going to seperate the QB from the offense (FO's stats try to but that seems a bit advanced for you), but even if you change the QB he still won't be seperated from the offense. So you accept the YAC as part of the offense, and you move on. You don't worry about it skewing the stats. We aren't talking about Brunell moving to another team here.
Which brings me back to my main point. There is no present reason good enough to replace Mark Brunell. People who agree with me: Joe Gibbs, Al Saunders, among others. People who (at least seem to) disagree: Illdefined, RedskinRat, among others.
Here's what's been explained ad infinitum. I've given countless reasons why MB SHOULDN't be benched. You've given baseless reasoning to why he SHOULD, and then have given at least relevant reasoning to why my stats are not all they are cracked up to be. They are what they are. A general representation of how well a player has performed.
YOU asked why Brunell's YPA was up so we answered you. because we have two of the best punt returners in the game - which make a career of YAC - for wide recievers. whether screens are the best use of them is another matter, but we answered your question.
again, you call our arguments baseless because Passes Thrown Outside The Numbers doesn't happen to be a stat. nor Passes Thrown Before the Marker. etc. etc.
just because they aren't doesn't make them irrelevant or even subjective (Aikman had a nice graphic and everything). don't you think the KINDS of passes Brunell makes effects other parts of the offense? don't you think how defenses react to Brunell's tendencies affects our running game? (how are Portis's numbers this year btw). how many times has the 'Gibbs wins every time when they get 100yds rushing' stats been debunked as near meaningless?
yes, stats are a REPRESENTATION of performance, but they aren't the whole picture (that many people in the NFL say they see - not just Rat and i) which you dismiss complelety simply because it's not numerical.