Kirk Cousins pick 4.7

But I just made the adjustment to the Elway's %, is it still BS?

And how do you determine if it's BS?For the last time, the statistics are not BSing me. Your argument is BSing me. That is the key difference that you are missing.

The statistics could not be more clear. Total completions divided by total attempts. No black box needed.

... going back to my point that stats alone can't determine sh*t. Potential, ability, or otherwise.

They can only be used as guidelines. And I don't know what you are saying with responsible usage. There's only different opinions and judgments. Like who was better- Elway or Marino? Brady or Manning? There's no absolute truth to any of these answers. Only opinions and judgments.

Just to give you comparison qbs from their respective playing eras.
Steve Young: 64.3%
Aaron Rodgers: 65.4%

Yeah, the obvious thing to concluded that that each quarterbacks' respective receivers caught a certain percentage of passes, with Rodgers having the higher percentage. That's the only fact that the data tell you.

Saying they Rodgers is better is an inference; they are as good as the premises you use to justify them.

1. Aaron Rodgers had a higher completion percentage than Steve Young(true)
2. Having a higher completion % than someone else necessarily makes him a better player than someone else(likely not true)
Conclusion: Aaron Rodgers is better than Steve Young (when using the above premises, likely not true. You can use other premises to try and justify it though)

The truth value (true or false) of Premise 2 is not true, and for a multitude of reasons, none of which discredits the use of statistical analysis done properly. In fact, it can be disproven using statistical methods depending on how the data behaves. One can use a test of whether the means are equivalent to see if there is a statistically significant different between the two mean values(note: statistical significance does not necessarily signify significance in real life)

For the last time, the statistics are not BSing me. Your argument is BSing me. That is the key difference that you are missing.

The statistics could not be more clear. Total completions divided by total attempts. No black box needed.

Stats are just numbers that can be used as guidelines and not the truth to playing ability. This is the one underlying statement that you can take from what I am saying.

Using the stats to project RGIII by comparing him to Kolb's is complete B.S. to me.

But I just made the adjustment to the Elway's %, is it still BS?If you make the adjusted statement, it reads something like "when adjusted for the era they each played in, Jason Campbell is roughly as effective in terms of his rate of completing passes as John Elway was back it the day."

Which is pretty close to factual. That's a really INTERESTING statement, and there is plenty that can be learned from it. It probably says something about Campbell, and it likely says something about Elway as well. This is a great example of how using stats responsibly can help us understand football better.

Here's now to misuse statistics. An adjusted statement: "once adjusted for the era they play in, Jason Campbell is just as good of a player statistically as John Elway was."

Well, no, not really. In some ways yes, in most other ways no. Campbell only looks like Elway in terms of adjusted rate statistics. In terms of career statistics such as total touchdown passes, total attempts, games started, total completions, total passing yards, etc., statistics of a counting nature are highly unlikely to ever support the idea that Campbell is eventually likely to be John Elway. If we came back and looked at Campbell's stats in 2015, we would likely see a guy who had an undistinguished six year career as a productive starter, then settled in as a backup.

Which is why I think it would have been so interesting if Elway played today. Would he have been able to have had a 15 year career? We know for a fact it would have been tougher.

Yeah, the obvious thing to concluded that that each quarterbacks' respective receivers caught a certain percentage of passes, with Rodgers having the higher percentage. That's the only fact that the data tell you.

Saying they Rodgers is better is an inference; they are as good as the premises you use to justify them.

1. Aaron Rodgers had a higher completion percentage than Steve Young(true)
2. Having a higher completion % than someone else necessarily makes him a better player than someone else(likely not true)
Conclusion: Aaron Rodgers is better than Steve Young (when using the above premises, likely not true. You can use other premises to try and justify it though)

The truth value (true or false) of Premise 2 is not true, and for a multitude of reasons, none of which discredits the use of statistical analysis done properly. In fact, it can be disproven using statistical methods depending on how the data behaves. One can use a test of whether the means are equivalent to see if there is a statistically significant different between the two mean values(note: statistical significance does not necessarily signify significance in real life)

This was way too wordy and too much scientific/lawyer talk for me... you lost me at the word: concluded.

Stats are just numbers that can be used as guidelines and not the truth to playing ability. This is the one underlying statement that you can take from what I am saying.

Using the stats to project RGIII by comparing him to Kolb's is complete B.S. to me.Well, if you compare him to Kolb in college statistically, you get the idea that RG3 played at a higher level. Which is also what getting the Heisman trophy says.

The Kolb comparison is useful for one reason and one reason only: sometimes productive college players end up being undistinguished professionals for whatever reason.

But unproductive college players are FAR more likely to be undistinguished pros than productive college players.

This was way too wordy and too much scientific/lawyer talk for me... you lost me at the word: concluded.
Logic is simple subject. There are three things you must be able to comprehend:
1. Statements
2. Premises
3. Conclusions

There is no science, because no scientific principles are applied here, but lawyers do have to know this shit...and a lot more.
I don't bother proofreading, but since you insist, I will rectify that problem. So, will you now read it? ;)

Yeah, the obvious thing to conclude is that each quarterbacks' respective receivers caught a certain percentage of passes, with Rodgers having the higher percentage. That's the only fact that the data tell you.

Saying they Rodgers is better is an inference; they are as good as the premises you use to justify them.

1. Aaron Rodgers had a higher completion percentage than Steve Young(true)
2. Having a higher completion % than someone else necessarily makes him a better player than someone else(likely not true)
Conclusion: Aaron Rodgers is better than Steve Young (when using the above premises, likely not true. You can use other premises to try and justify it though)

The truth value (true or false) of Premise 2 is not true, and for a multitude of reasons, none of which discredits the use of statistical analysis done properly. In fact, it can be disproven using statistical methods depending on how the data behaves. One can use a test of whether the means are equivalent to see if there is a statistically significant different between the two mean values(note: statistical significance does not necessarily signify significance in real life)

Logic is simple subject. There are three things you must be able to comprehend:
1. Statements
2. Premises
3. Conclusions

There is no science, because no scientific principles are applied here, but lawyers do have to know this shit...and a lot more.
I don't bother proofreading, but since you insist, I will rectify that problem. So, will you now read it? ;)

You must've just finished a college course in writing.

You must've just finished a college course in writing.

Over a year ago. The logic class was taken 5 years ago.
Just as a note: I'm also one of those who hate people misusing stats.

The hopefully shorter and less nuanced version:

Conclusions based off statistics are only as sound as the assumptions behind them. As assumption that a higher career completion percentage by itself, no matter how small the difference, is not a good assumption for variety of reasons, including a few statistical ones.

What usually passes for "analysis" of statistics in usual football conversations is not really statistical analysis at all, and the fellas doing it would get slaughtered by those "in the know".