- Jun 15, 2009
Come on man, i just warm up (coming back of my hold-out), so just let me start it off easy...
Man I regret writing that. Just when I thought it couldn't get more stressful. What a game.SirLes said:Got to say you get value as a Giants Fan. Every game has had its twists and turns this season.
Jeez, I though you were on the protected West Coast. It's warm and a little wet.Alpe d'Huez said:At some point here the Giants luck has to run out. That was one game also that Cowboys fans had their hearts ripped out.
Not enough time to write, hurricane coming this way, but I was impressed with the Pats, but don't think they can play like this every week. Well, they can't.
Broncos looked good. Defense better than I thought. Great actually.
Good win for Steelers, I like their chances later this year.
Out of time, will try to comment more after Monday's game, if I can see it.
Uh, have you been watching him play??? What on earth makes you say he's so talented? Because he can scramble and make hi-light reels once a week or so? His games are on here every week, and he's not very good. He's a turnover machine, can't hit receivers with consistency. He's currently 25th in passer rating, just above Blaine Gabbert. 25th in completion percentage, below Tannehill and Cassell. 21st in yards per attempt, below Wilson, Palmer, etc. so it's not like his numbers are low because he's throwing deep. He's thrown nearly as many interceptions as TD's (9/8) Barely better than Weeden, and worse than Mark Sanchez. He leads the league in fumbles as well. And his ability to scramble hasn't meant more big plays, or less sacks - he's 5th in the league on that one. And his arm strength certainly isn't much more than that of Nick Foles, if at all. His wind-up delivery also takes longer than your average QB. And as we've seen in the past, having a cannon of an arm (which he really doesn't have anyway) doesn't translate into a great QB. If it did Jim Druckenmiller would be in the HOF, JaMarcus Russell would be leading the Raiders vs Kyle Boller's Chargers in the AFC championship, and Mitch Mustain would have won the Heisman instead of RGIII. And Tom Brady and Joe Montana never would have won anything.FoxxyBrown1111 said:Vick will bounce back...
Thank you for that, Alpe. I dislike him almost as much as you do.Alpe d'Huez said:But seriously, aside from some good games in 2010, and running a lot in 2002, what has Vick ever done in his entire career to warrant being called a top QB?
That's a nice stat, sure. But it can't come close to everything else I piled up, sorry.FoxxyBrown1111 said:I base it on him being able to translate his arm strength and QB-Skills in high Y/PP numbers since his comeback.
It´s the stat for measuring a QB´s performance (which, of course still depends heavily on the team performance around him), it correlates/predicts best future performance, it´s the reason why teams win or lose.Alpe d'Huez said:That's a nice stat, sure. But it can't come close to everything else I piled up, sorry.
But I do agree while QB is the most important position, it's still 1/11, and that doesn't include coaching (look at New Orleans). While I think Vick is overhyped and all but finished, and I think Foles could be a good future for the Eagles, he too is still 1/11.
Mitch Mustain was a QB at USC who had a huge arm, and busted.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:It´s the stat for measuring a QB´s performance (which, of course still depends heavily on the team performance around him), it correlates/predicts best future performance, it´s the reason why teams win or lose.
Basically 90% of any predictions i do are based on that stat. And i fared pretty well with it since the early 1990´s.
Still i give you the advantage for now: If Vick is truly back to his old ATL form & habits, all hope is lost. But i believe he´s on a bad luck (turnover) streak, and his Y/PP will regress to his normal level (= back to the top quarter of the NFL).
If you want a stat that considers everything a QB does, and when he does it, and what was at stake when he did it, then Bennett's QBR stat is for you. Going into Week 8, it had the Mannings at 1 and 2 (Peyton, then Eli), with Tom Brady third. Sound about right? In the QBR rankings, Luck is sixth and Griffin eighth.
But it tells you more than that. For instance, it tells you:
• Luck runs more successfully than Griffin. He's had 10 scrambles for first downs. Griffin has had nine.
• Luck is asked to do more than Griffin and is doing it. His average pass completion travels 8.6 yards in the air, highest in the NFL. Griffin's is 5.8, one of the lowest.
• Luck is more valuable to his team than Griffin. Sixty-nine percent of the Colts' passing yards are gained while the ball is in the air, the rest after the catch. Only 49 percent of the Skins' passing yards come through the air. In other words, Griffin still has his training wheels on. Luck has his license.
Interesting, IIRC, Foxxy and others speculated here last year that Griffin was more accurate than Luck at throwing long. But it seems his superior YPA comes in large part from the Skins receivers running with the ball after catching a relatively short pass. Though I believe Luck's game winner vs. Tenn. came on a pass that didn't cross the line of scrimmage, and all the yards came after the catch.Oh, you mean NFL passer rating, the most useless stat in football? The 41-year-old fossil that was invented, literally, on a slide rule? The one that doesn't even consider running or fumbles or time of game or score? Yeah, I know that stat. That stat is the whole problem.
RG3 kills in that stat because he's nibbled his way to a league-leading 70.4 percent completion rating. Given the way the Redskins have babied him, Katy Perry in heels could throw for 60 percent. More than 20 percent of RG3's passes this season haven't even traveled across the line of scrimmage. Only 6 percent of Luck's haven't
I should add that this analysis only applies to QBs, not to the team they play on. YPA is still a very good measure of how successful a team will be. The point of the analysis is to emphasize that contributions to YPA come not only from the QB, but from his receivers. Not just in the sense of getting open, obviously, but in their ability to run with the ball after the catch. That will increase the YPA, and the team's chances of winning, but the credit for that increase goes to the receiver, not to the QB, Or if you like, to the offensive scheme that puts receivers in position to run after the catch.Don't get me wrong. If you made me choose, I'd rather watch RG3. He swerves and curves as though his hips were removed at birth. But he doesn't seem to care much about the football when he's doing it. He's fumbled five times on runs already this season, and two of them potentially cost the Redskins games. Give me Luck, who hasn't fumbled on a run once.
I agree, in that it predicts the success of the TEAM. What I should have emphasized is that the QBR emphasizes that YPA is the result of contributions from both the QB and the WRs. Not only in that the latter have to get open, obviously, but if they can run with the ball after the catch, that increases the YPA. That increase does correlate with increased chances of winning, but credit for that increase should go to the WR, or perhaps to the offensive schemes, not to the QB. Identifying the teams with the best YPA passing does not necessarily identify the best QBs.FoxxyBrown1111 said:Nothings tops Y/PP since Sid Luckman came to the NFL. It´s simple, true and correlats best with future outcomes. Even Advanced NFL stats (a great site BTW) do admit this.
He is playing at least as well now as PM was when he was a rookie. Conversely, one looks at Cam Newton now, after his great rookie season, and wonders how much one can predict from the first year.veganrob said:I will take Andrew Luck as my QB every day of the week. RGIII is very exciting to watch but will be nowhere near the QB that Luck will be.
If what you're saying is true (and it might be as the Giants are currently making up for most of the 60s and 70s at the moment) does that mean we're about to enter and age where the Eagles win half a dozen SBs. Because if that's the case I'm leaving!FoxxyBrown1111 said:The Giants luck will run out in this years postseason. That´s the time when regression to the mean finally hits them. It will be the start of even out all the luck they had in the past 100 years.
Look at the Patriots. They had their 23 game winning streak some 10 yrs ago (winning most games by 3 or 4 points, OTOH usually big win streaks come with dominating performances by superior teams), the stolen SB vs Warners Rams, the incredible luck in the SB vs CAR, and so on.... And then it was over. As 16-0 team, they started their postseason flops: Qualifiying every year as one of the best teams with very good records, only to lose unlucky or sometimes even getting humilated. That streak is still running.
Nothing else i expect for the Giants. They depended too much on luck in their Championship/SB years 1934, 1990, 2007 and last year. They have consumed all the luck given to them for the past, present and future.
If regression to the mean in the long run exists (of which i have no doubt), the Giants will not win another Superbowl in our lifetimes, even if they would have 3 undefeated regular seasons in between.
Conclusion: I can sit back relaxed and watch their 13-3 something like regular season of this year going down the toilet in the post season. No doubt about that (unless the big fix gets in).
I would agree with this. And it fits in with what I stated on Vick. While I piled a lot of stats to show his failings, I mostly base my opinion on watching him actually play, coupled with the seemingly endless excuses others repeatedly have for his not winning and making so many mistakes.SirLes said:The only way you can truely draw any firm conclusions and evaluate a player properly is to watch games mutiple times with knowledge of what the players were trying to do and why in certain situations. No one, other than the coaches, actually have the time to do this.