If you want one set of numbers to demonstrate why the NFL's passer rating is obsolete, Week 1 action served up this doozy:
Michael Vick's passer rating was 83.7.
Kerry Collins' was 82.3.
That's right, according to passer rating, Vick's Sunday was barely distinguishable from the game Collins had, and both were right around the league average (82.2 in 2010).
Of course, while Vick was throwing for just 187 yards, he did have two TDs, one of them game-tying, and he ran for 98 yards on just 10 carries. Oh, and the Eagles won. Meanwhile, Collins fumbled twice, took three sacks and piled up most of his yardage during garbage time in the Colts' blowout loss to the Texans. By the time Collins hit Reggie Wayne for a touchdown, the Colts were already losing 34-0 and many Colts fans had probably checked out.
As we kick off our weekly Next Level look at quarterbacks, let's run through the reasons why the traditional passer rating sees these performances as remotely similar, and how Total QBR differs. It's not an endorsement, just an exercise in clarity.
1. Rushing yards: Passer rating doesn't include them. And it turns out Vick added 5.8 expected points to the Eagles on running plays, by far the most of any QB in Week 1.
2. Ball-discipline skills: Passer rating doesn't include them, either. And Collins was awful at handling the football. Indeed, Collins' performance was a stark reminder of just how great Peyton Manning has been before the Colts were forced to start Collins in his stead. From 2008 through 2010, Manning took three sacks in a game only twice. And he fumbled a total of just six times. In fact, he cost his team as many points on fumbles (2.0) in those 48 games as Collins did in one start.
3. Leverage: Passer rating lumps all passing yardage together, without asking which gains actually make a difference in a game. And Vick had many more attempts when the score was tight, compared to Collins, whose game became virtually hopeless very early on.
Put it all together, and because passer rating looks only at parts of the QB picture, it underappreciates Vick and gives an absurdly high grade to Collins, as it did to Jason Campbell (86.4), Andy Dalton (102.4 before he got hurt) and Luke McCown (91.5). QBR, on the other hand, allocates expected points added by every play to the players involved, and weights each play by its contribution to a team's chances of winning, given the score and time remaining. In this more complete evaluation, Vick comes out above-average (68.4), while Collins completely bottoms out (2.3, worst in the league in Week 1).
If you want one set of numbers to demonstrate why the NFL's passer rating is obsolete, Week 1 action served up this doozy:
Michael Vick's passer rating was 83.7.
Kerry Collins' was 82.3.
That's right, according to passer rating, Vick's Sunday was barely distinguishable from the game Collins had, and both were right around the league average (82.2 in 2010).
Of course, while Vick was throwing for just 187 yards, he did have two TDs, one of them game-tying, and he ran for 98 yards on just 10 carries. Oh, and the Eagles won. Meanwhile, Collins fumbled twice, took three sacks and piled up most of his yardage during garbage time in the Colts' blowout loss to the Texans. By the time Collins hit Reggie Wayne for a touchdown, the Colts were already losing 34-0 and many Colts fans had probably checked out.
As we kick off our weekly Next Level look at quarterbacks, let's run through the reasons why the traditional passer rating sees these performances as remotely similar, and how Total QBR differs. It's not an endorsement, just an exercise in clarity.
1. Rushing yards: Passer rating doesn't include them. And it turns out Vick added 5.8 expected points to the Eagles on running plays, by far the most of any QB in Week 1.
2. Ball-discipline skills: Passer rating doesn't include them, either. And Collins was awful at handling the football. Indeed, Collins' performance was a stark reminder of just how great Peyton Manning has been before the Colts were forced to start Collins in his stead. From 2008 through 2010, Manning took three sacks in a game only twice. And he fumbled a total of just six times. In fact, he cost his team as many points on fumbles (2.0) in those 48 games as Collins did in one start.
3. Leverage: Passer rating lumps all passing yardage together, without asking which gains actually make a difference in a game. And Vick had many more attempts when the score was tight, compared to Collins, whose game became virtually hopeless very early on.
Put it all together, and because passer rating looks only at parts of the QB picture, it underappreciates Vick and gives an absurdly high grade to Collins, as it did to Jason Campbell (86.4), Andy Dalton (102.4 before he got hurt) and Luke McCown (91.5). QBR, on the other hand, allocates expected points added by every play to the players involved, and weights each play by its contribution to a team's chances of winning, given the score and time remaining. In this more complete evaluation, Vick comes out above-average (68.4), while Collins completely bottoms out (2.3, worst in the league in Week 1).
or you could just watch the games to understand who was better. let's try and make football like baseball and use graphs to determine value :roll: :roll: :roll:
If you want one set of numbers to demonstrate why the NFL's passer rating is obsolete, Week 1 action served up this doozy:
Michael Vick's passer rating was 83.7.
Kerry Collins' was 82.3.
That's right, according to passer rating, Vick's Sunday was barely distinguishable from the game Collins had, and both were right around the league average (82.2 in 2010).
Of course, while Vick was throwing for just 187 yards, he did have two TDs, one of them game-tying, and he ran for 98 yards on just 10 carries. Oh, and the Eagles won. Meanwhile, Collins fumbled twice, took three sacks and piled up most of his yardage during garbage time in the Colts' blowout loss to the Texans. By the time Collins hit Reggie Wayne for a touchdown, the Colts were already losing 34-0 and many Colts fans had probably checked out.
As we kick off our weekly Next Level look at quarterbacks, let's run through the reasons why the traditional passer rating sees these performances as remotely similar, and how Total QBR differs. It's not an endorsement, just an exercise in clarity.
1. Rushing yards: Passer rating doesn't include them. And it turns out Vick added 5.8 expected points to the Eagles on running plays, by far the most of any QB in Week 1.
2. Ball-discipline skills: Passer rating doesn't include them, either. And Collins was awful at handling the football. Indeed, Collins' performance was a stark reminder of just how great Peyton Manning has been before the Colts were forced to start Collins in his stead. From 2008 through 2010, Manning took three sacks in a game only twice. And he fumbled a total of just six times. In fact, he cost his team as many points on fumbles (2.0) in those 48 games as Collins did in one start.
3. Leverage: Passer rating lumps all passing yardage together, without asking which gains actually make a difference in a game. And Vick had many more attempts when the score was tight, compared to Collins, whose game became virtually hopeless very early on.
Put it all together, and because passer rating looks only at parts of the QB picture, it underappreciates Vick and gives an absurdly high grade to Collins, as it did to Jason Campbell (86.4), Andy Dalton (102.4 before he got hurt) and Luke McCown (91.5). QBR, on the other hand, allocates expected points added by every play to the players involved, and weights each play by its contribution to a team's chances of winning, given the score and time remaining. In this more complete evaluation, Vick comes out above-average (68.4), while Collins completely bottoms out (2.3, worst in the league in Week 1).
or you could just watch the games to understand who was better. let's try and make football like baseball and use graphs to determine value :roll: :roll: :roll:
watching games...reading stats....either way you've proven you don't understand
If you want one set of numbers to demonstrate why the NFL's passer rating is obsolete, Week 1 action served up this doozy:
Michael Vick's passer rating was 83.7.
Kerry Collins' was 82.3.
That's right, according to passer rating, Vick's Sunday was barely distinguishable from the game Collins had, and both were right around the league average (82.2 in 2010).
Of course, while Vick was throwing for just 187 yards, he did have two TDs, one of them game-tying, and he ran for 98 yards on just 10 carries. Oh, and the Eagles won. Meanwhile, Collins fumbled twice, took three sacks and piled up most of his yardage during garbage time in the Colts' blowout loss to the Texans. By the time Collins hit Reggie Wayne for a touchdown, the Colts were already losing 34-0 and many Colts fans had probably checked out.
As we kick off our weekly Next Level look at quarterbacks, let's run through the reasons why the traditional passer rating sees these performances as remotely similar, and how Total QBR differs. It's not an endorsement, just an exercise in clarity.
1. Rushing yards: Passer rating doesn't include them. And it turns out Vick added 5.8 expected points to the Eagles on running plays, by far the most of any QB in Week 1.
2. Ball-discipline skills: Passer rating doesn't include them, either. And Collins was awful at handling the football. Indeed, Collins' performance was a stark reminder of just how great Peyton Manning has been before the Colts were forced to start Collins in his stead. From 2008 through 2010, Manning took three sacks in a game only twice. And he fumbled a total of just six times. In fact, he cost his team as many points on fumbles (2.0) in those 48 games as Collins did in one start.
3. Leverage: Passer rating lumps all passing yardage together, without asking which gains actually make a difference in a game. And Vick had many more attempts when the score was tight, compared to Collins, whose game became virtually hopeless very early on.
Put it all together, and because passer rating looks only at parts of the QB picture, it underappreciates Vick and gives an absurdly high grade to Collins, as it did to Jason Campbell (86.4), Andy Dalton (102.4 before he got hurt) and Luke McCown (91.5). QBR, on the other hand, allocates expected points added by every play to the players involved, and weights each play by its contribution to a team's chances of winning, given the score and time remaining. In this more complete evaluation, Vick comes out above-average (68.4), while Collins completely bottoms out (2.3, worst in the league in Week 1).
or you could just watch the games to understand who was better. let's try and make football like baseball and use graphs to determine value :roll: :roll: :roll:
watching games...reading stats....either way you've proven you don't understand
If you want one set of numbers to demonstrate why the NFL's passer rating is obsolete, Week 1 action served up this doozy:
Michael Vick's passer rating was 83.7.
Kerry Collins' was 82.3.
That's right, according to passer rating, Vick's Sunday was barely distinguishable from the game Collins had, and both were right around the league average (82.2 in 2010).
Of course, while Vick was throwing for just 187 yards, he did have two TDs, one of them game-tying, and he ran for 98 yards on just 10 carries. Oh, and the Eagles won. Meanwhile, Collins fumbled twice, took three sacks and piled up most of his yardage during garbage time in the Colts' blowout loss to the Texans. By the time Collins hit Reggie Wayne for a touchdown, the Colts were already losing 34-0 and many Colts fans had probably checked out.
As we kick off our weekly Next Level look at quarterbacks, let's run through the reasons why the traditional passer rating sees these performances as remotely similar, and how Total QBR differs. It's not an endorsement, just an exercise in clarity.
1. Rushing yards: Passer rating doesn't include them. And it turns out Vick added 5.8 expected points to the Eagles on running plays, by far the most of any QB in Week 1.
2. Ball-discipline skills: Passer rating doesn't include them, either. And Collins was awful at handling the football. Indeed, Collins' performance was a stark reminder of just how great Peyton Manning has been before the Colts were forced to start Collins in his stead. From 2008 through 2010, Manning took three sacks in a game only twice. And he fumbled a total of just six times. In fact, he cost his team as many points on fumbles (2.0) in those 48 games as Collins did in one start.
3. Leverage: Passer rating lumps all passing yardage together, without asking which gains actually make a difference in a game. And Vick had many more attempts when the score was tight, compared to Collins, whose game became virtually hopeless very early on.
Put it all together, and because passer rating looks only at parts of the QB picture, it underappreciates Vick and gives an absurdly high grade to Collins, as it did to Jason Campbell (86.4), Andy Dalton (102.4 before he got hurt) and Luke McCown (91.5). QBR, on the other hand, allocates expected points added by every play to the players involved, and weights each play by its contribution to a team's chances of winning, given the score and time remaining. In this more complete evaluation, Vick comes out above-average (68.4), while Collins completely bottoms out (2.3, worst in the league in Week 1).
or you could just watch the games to understand who was better. let's try and make football like baseball and use graphs to determine value :roll: :roll: :roll:
watching games...reading stats....either way you've proven you don't understand
yes it's sooooooooo hard to understand that michael vick had a better week than kerry collins last week. need a fucking chart and advanced statistics degree for that :roll: :roll: :roll:
or you could just watch the games to understand who was better. let's try and make football like baseball and use graphs to determine value :roll: :roll: :roll:
watching games...reading stats....either way you've proven you don't understand
hey guys how is that albert haynesworth signing working out so far for the pats? i know you guys were so gung ho on him. can't see him on any charts so far. can you let me know if he has actually suited up for a practice or two yet? was just wondering since i know how smart you guys are and all and i haven't really paid attention to the pats yet.
hey guys how is that albert haynesworth signing working out so far for the pats? i know you guys were so gung ho on him. can't see him on any charts so far. can you let me know if he has actually suited up for a practice or two yet? was just wondering since i know how smart you guys are and all and i haven't really paid attention to the pats yet.
how's that revolving door qb plan working out for you?
or throwing the ball over 80% of the time?
or how did the signing of mike vick pan out?
hey guys how is that albert haynesworth signing working out so far for the pats? i know you guys were so gung ho on him. can't see him on any charts so far. can you let me know if he has actually suited up for a practice or two yet? was just wondering since i know how smart you guys are and all and i haven't really paid attention to the pats yet.
how's that revolving door qb plan working out for you?
or throwing the ball over 80% of the time?
or how did the signing of mike vick pan out?
oh, pjhawks.
you are like a republican politician - never directly answer a question that was posed to you and instead follow up with different questions that have nothing to do with the original said question to you. well done.
but i will answer your questions for you.
a) never said i wanted a revolving door at QB. only points i made were that having 2 good QBs is not a bad thing because most QBs miss a game or so during the season and that performance would dicate who was starting at the end of the season as opposed to game 2 or 3 last year. vick performed and stayed in there. if he had sucked kolb would have been back in and would still be here (and still should be here in my opinion...)
b) it would work great with the right players. great passing teams are unstoppable.
c) still think signing vick originally and to the new long term deal was a bad move for this franchise. still think he is a bad dude and it won't end well. i just hope we can win big before it blows up in our face. so far he has been good though. if i am wrong i will gladly admit it when the time comes.
can you name one "unstoppable" passing offense in the history of the nfl that threw the ball consistently over 80% of the time through an entire season? (and please don't reference one of your madden seasons from back in the day )
i jut want to know what you are basing this number on.
can you name one "unstoppable" passing offense in the history of the nfl that threw the ball consistently over 80% of the time through an entire season? (and please don't reference one of your madden seasons from back in the day )
i jut want to know what you are basing this number on.
thanks.
nope not off hand but again you are twisting my words a bit. i said in a perfect situation i want to throw it 80% of the time. when you have the lead in the 4th quarter no i don't want to throw it that much so it will reduce the overall final percentage numbers. as far as basing my numbers i gave you my ideas on down and distances i want to throw the ball. it's just my thought with the rules as they are currently constituted, that on most downs when not protecting a lead, a pass play is a more effective play when you have a good or better QB with good or better receivers. and as a defense i almost always prefer the other team running the ball against me.
and you know they laughed at buddy ryan back in the day when he started running the 46 defense and had 7 and sometimes 8 or 9 guys rushing the quarterback on passing downs. they said how can you leave your corners out to dry if they get beat it's a td. they even said it here in philly when he was hired even after the succes he had in chicago (i know you were probably still in diapers then so ill try and enlighten you). now every team in the league does it.
my point being is the game evolves and changes. it has changed again to the point of almost all the rules favor the passing offense. please don't even try to dispute that.
Hawks ur crazy man!! Stop please and it sucks missing all philly sports being in Florida.
crazy like a fox
we wrap up division title #5 tommorow. and ryan has been dominating as a pinch hitter the past 2 nights. but he needs a cortisone shot in the foot before the playoffs.
hey guys how is that albert haynesworth signing working out so far for the pats? i know you guys were so gung ho on him. can't see him on any charts so far. can you let me know if he has actually suited up for a practice or two yet? was just wondering since i know how smart you guys are and all and i haven't really paid attention to the pats yet.
If you watched the game you would have seen miami shied away from running the ball (their strength) inside the 5 because they couldn't run between the tackles with wilfork and haynesworth in the game. the Pats tackles dominated that game and took miami's strength away.
The sad part is that you probably did watch the game and you still failed to realize all of this. Some things never change.
BTW, the Pats were a lock. Nice start to the gambling season for this guy
can you name one "unstoppable" passing offense in the history of the nfl that threw the ball consistently over 80% of the time through an entire season? (and please don't reference one of your madden seasons from back in the day )
i jut want to know what you are basing this number on.
thanks.
nope not off hand but again you are twisting my words a bit. i said in a perfect situation i want to throw it 80% of the time. .
oh okay. sorry for catching you off guard then. take as much time as you need. is the weekend enough? utilize the world wide web. there is a lot of information out there.
hey guys how is that albert haynesworth signing working out so far for the pats? i know you guys were so gung ho on him. can't see him on any charts so far. can you let me know if he has actually suited up for a practice or two yet? was just wondering since i know how smart you guys are and all and i haven't really paid attention to the pats yet.
If you watched the game you would have seen miami shied away from running the ball (their strength) inside the 5 because they couldn't run between the tackles with wilfork and haynesworth in the game. the Pats tackles dominated that game and took miami's strength away.
The sad part is that you probably did watch the game and you still failed to realize all of this. Some things never change.
BTW, the Pats were a lock. Nice start to the gambling season for this guy
me too welcome back
by the way, it's pretty obvious from his post that he did not watch the game. he's looking for him on "charts" or something....
by the way, it's pretty obvious from his post that he did not watch the game. he's looking for him on "charts" or something....
i did not watch the pats-miami game. the pats throw the ball too much and it's not real football if you dont run the ball up the middle 50% of the time.
by the way, it's pretty obvious from his post that he did not watch the game. he's looking for him on "charts" or something....
i did not watch the pats-miami game. the pats throw the ball too much and it's not real football if you dont run the ball up the middle 50% of the time.
actually they only threw the ball 52% of the time last year.
your posts are hillarious. do your best to get back to me on that one team in nfl history who had success throwing over 80% of the time though.
by the way, it's pretty obvious from his post that he did not watch the game. he's looking for him on "charts" or something....
i did not watch the pats-miami game. the pats throw the ball too much and it's not real football if you dont run the ball up the middle 50% of the time.
well, they threw the ball 52% of the time last year.
your posts are hillarious. do your best to get back to me on that one team in nfl history who had success throwing over 80% of the time though.
like mark mcgwire i don't look back. innovation juggler it's a good thing. without innovation you'd be using a typewriter and reading newspapers today.
and in all seriousness if you bought the PJ20 book check out my 'am i crazy thread' on the porch.
i did not watch the pats-miami game. the pats throw the ball too much and it's not real football if you dont run the ball up the middle 50% of the time.
well, they threw the ball 52% of the time last year.
your posts are hillarious. do your best to get back to me on that one team in nfl history who had success throwing over 80% of the time though.
like mark mcgwire i don't look back. innovation juggler it's a good thing. without innovation you'd be using a typewriter and reading newspapers today.
and in all seriousness if you bought the PJ20 book check out my 'am i crazy thread' on the porch.
i honestly think my mom knows more about sports than you do.
i honestly think my mom knows more about sports than you do.
haven't bought the book yet.
you are an amazing man juggler. you somehow profess to know things about me by a few hundred posts on a message board. but maybe open your mind to new and innovative ways of doing things. you've never been able to dispute to me that taken as individual non-related plays a pass play is almost always a better option than a running play. i just don't believe in the notion that a play in the 1st quarter has any influence on a play later in the game. i'm a gambler jugger and in craps and poker the previous rolls and hands have 0% influence on how the dice and cards are going to come out on the next or any other hand. other than down and distance i believe the same to be true about football plays.
i honestly think my mom knows more about sports than you do.
haven't bought the book yet.
you are an amazing man juggler. you somehow profess to know things about me by a few hundred posts on a message board. but maybe open your mind to new and innovative ways of doing things. you've never been able to dispute to me that taken as individual non-related plays a pass play is almost always a better option than a running play. i just don't believe in the notion that a play in the 1st quarter has any influence on a play later in the game. i'm a gambler jugger and in craps and poker the previous rolls and hands have 0% influence on how the dice and cards are going to come out on the next or any other hand. other than down and distance i believe the same to be true about football plays.
a pass play will almost certainly gain a few more yards on average than a running play. it's not by as wide a margin as you might expect though. the better option point solely decides on the game situation. case in point: the cowboys opting to pass when they should have ran the ball late in the game against the jets. romo fumbled. jets recovered. jet's won a game they surely should have lost.
so a pass play is a lot more dangerous and risky than a run play. here is why it's stupid to want to pass a ball over 80% of the time (posted for the 2nd time since you clearly did not read or understand the first time): http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=482
now you're comparing football to craps. :?
the difference between you and me in this argument is i can give you multitudes of reasons and facts and examples of why throwing the ball 80% of the time is ridiculous. you just say things like how you're an "innovator" and a "gambler" and other nonsense like referencing one quarter of one game featuring 2 of the best qb's in the world. most of you're examples are even wrong too, as we saw with your patriots comment this morning. :roll:
take 2 of the most prolific passing offenses in the history of the game (see-i've done your homework for you): the run and shoot oilers threw the ball 67% of the time. the "air coryell" chargers threw the ball less than 65% of the time. both of those teams never won anything....both offenses were considered "innovative" at the time too.
bottom line: it's a passing league. that much is obvious to the most casual of fans.
but 80% passing is for video games.
Comments
I expected more out of Bradford but Jackson going down really hurt them.
BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
HTFD-6/27/08
ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
OKC-11/16/13
SEA-12/6/13
TUL-10/8/14
i love mccoy...he's so similiar to brian westbrook. birds really made out well with taking him in b west's last year here.
Jackson is about done being a top end back. 8(?) years of carrying the rock will do that to you.
hmmm,,,...where have i heard that before.
yeah, i tried to draft him.
2,000 all purpose yards this year....book it!
That's why I have to hate him. Westbrook always scared me more than McNabb or any of those receivers he had.
BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
HTFD-6/27/08
ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
OKC-11/16/13
SEA-12/6/13
TUL-10/8/14
BIRDS!
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/ ... case-study
If you want one set of numbers to demonstrate why the NFL's passer rating is obsolete, Week 1 action served up this doozy:
Michael Vick's passer rating was 83.7.
Kerry Collins' was 82.3.
That's right, according to passer rating, Vick's Sunday was barely distinguishable from the game Collins had, and both were right around the league average (82.2 in 2010).
Of course, while Vick was throwing for just 187 yards, he did have two TDs, one of them game-tying, and he ran for 98 yards on just 10 carries. Oh, and the Eagles won. Meanwhile, Collins fumbled twice, took three sacks and piled up most of his yardage during garbage time in the Colts' blowout loss to the Texans. By the time Collins hit Reggie Wayne for a touchdown, the Colts were already losing 34-0 and many Colts fans had probably checked out.
As we kick off our weekly Next Level look at quarterbacks, let's run through the reasons why the traditional passer rating sees these performances as remotely similar, and how Total QBR differs. It's not an endorsement, just an exercise in clarity.
1. Rushing yards: Passer rating doesn't include them. And it turns out Vick added 5.8 expected points to the Eagles on running plays, by far the most of any QB in Week 1.
2. Ball-discipline skills: Passer rating doesn't include them, either. And Collins was awful at handling the football. Indeed, Collins' performance was a stark reminder of just how great Peyton Manning has been before the Colts were forced to start Collins in his stead. From 2008 through 2010, Manning took three sacks in a game only twice. And he fumbled a total of just six times. In fact, he cost his team as many points on fumbles (2.0) in those 48 games as Collins did in one start.
3. Leverage: Passer rating lumps all passing yardage together, without asking which gains actually make a difference in a game. And Vick had many more attempts when the score was tight, compared to Collins, whose game became virtually hopeless very early on.
Put it all together, and because passer rating looks only at parts of the QB picture, it underappreciates Vick and gives an absurdly high grade to Collins, as it did to Jason Campbell (86.4), Andy Dalton (102.4 before he got hurt) and Luke McCown (91.5). QBR, on the other hand, allocates expected points added by every play to the players involved, and weights each play by its contribution to a team's chances of winning, given the score and time remaining. In this more complete evaluation, Vick comes out above-average (68.4), while Collins completely bottoms out (2.3, worst in the league in Week 1).
or you could just watch the games to understand who was better. let's try and make football like baseball and use graphs to determine value :roll: :roll: :roll:
watching games...reading stats....either way you've proven you don't understand
THIS. Yes, yes, and yes. And yes again.
yes it's sooooooooo hard to understand that michael vick had a better week than kerry collins last week. need a fucking chart and advanced statistics degree for that :roll: :roll: :roll:
hey guys how is that albert haynesworth signing working out so far for the pats? i know you guys were so gung ho on him. can't see him on any charts so far. can you let me know if he has actually suited up for a practice or two yet? was just wondering since i know how smart you guys are and all and i haven't really paid attention to the pats yet.
how's that revolving door qb plan working out for you?
or throwing the ball over 80% of the time?
or how did the signing of mike vick pan out?
oh, pjhawks.
you are like a republican politician - never directly answer a question that was posed to you and instead follow up with different questions that have nothing to do with the original said question to you. well done.
but i will answer your questions for you.
a) never said i wanted a revolving door at QB. only points i made were that having 2 good QBs is not a bad thing because most QBs miss a game or so during the season and that performance would dicate who was starting at the end of the season as opposed to game 2 or 3 last year. vick performed and stayed in there. if he had sucked kolb would have been back in and would still be here (and still should be here in my opinion...)
b) it would work great with the right players. great passing teams are unstoppable.
c) still think signing vick originally and to the new long term deal was a bad move for this franchise. still think he is a bad dude and it won't end well. i just hope we can win big before it blows up in our face. so far he has been good though. if i am wrong i will gladly admit it when the time comes.
i jut want to know what you are basing this number on.
thanks.
nope not off hand but again you are twisting my words a bit. i said in a perfect situation i want to throw it 80% of the time. when you have the lead in the 4th quarter no i don't want to throw it that much so it will reduce the overall final percentage numbers. as far as basing my numbers i gave you my ideas on down and distances i want to throw the ball. it's just my thought with the rules as they are currently constituted, that on most downs when not protecting a lead, a pass play is a more effective play when you have a good or better QB with good or better receivers. and as a defense i almost always prefer the other team running the ball against me.
and you know they laughed at buddy ryan back in the day when he started running the 46 defense and had 7 and sometimes 8 or 9 guys rushing the quarterback on passing downs. they said how can you leave your corners out to dry if they get beat it's a td. they even said it here in philly when he was hired even after the succes he had in chicago (i know you were probably still in diapers then so ill try and enlighten you). now every team in the league does it.
my point being is the game evolves and changes. it has changed again to the point of almost all the rules favor the passing offense. please don't even try to dispute that.
crazy like a fox
we wrap up division title #5 tommorow. and ryan has been dominating as a pinch hitter the past 2 nights. but he needs a cortisone shot in the foot before the playoffs.
If you watched the game you would have seen miami shied away from running the ball (their strength) inside the 5 because they couldn't run between the tackles with wilfork and haynesworth in the game. the Pats tackles dominated that game and took miami's strength away.
The sad part is that you probably did watch the game and you still failed to realize all of this. Some things never change.
BTW, the Pats were a lock. Nice start to the gambling season for this guy
oh okay. sorry for catching you off guard then. take as much time as you need. is the weekend enough? utilize the world wide web. there is a lot of information out there.
good luck. :thumbup:
me too
by the way, it's pretty obvious from his post that he did not watch the game. he's looking for him on "charts" or something....
i did not watch the pats-miami game. the pats throw the ball too much and it's not real football if you dont run the ball up the middle 50% of the time.
actually they only threw the ball 52% of the time last year.
your posts are hillarious. do your best to get back to me on that one team in nfl history who had success throwing over 80% of the time though.
like mark mcgwire i don't look back. innovation juggler it's a good thing. without innovation you'd be using a typewriter and reading newspapers today.
and in all seriousness if you bought the PJ20 book check out my 'am i crazy thread' on the porch.
i honestly think my mom knows more about sports than you do.
haven't bought the book yet.
you are an amazing man juggler. you somehow profess to know things about me by a few hundred posts on a message board. but maybe open your mind to new and innovative ways of doing things. you've never been able to dispute to me that taken as individual non-related plays a pass play is almost always a better option than a running play. i just don't believe in the notion that a play in the 1st quarter has any influence on a play later in the game. i'm a gambler jugger and in craps and poker the previous rolls and hands have 0% influence on how the dice and cards are going to come out on the next or any other hand. other than down and distance i believe the same to be true about football plays.
a pass play will almost certainly gain a few more yards on average than a running play. it's not by as wide a margin as you might expect though. the better option point solely decides on the game situation. case in point: the cowboys opting to pass when they should have ran the ball late in the game against the jets. romo fumbled. jets recovered. jet's won a game they surely should have lost.
so a pass play is a lot more dangerous and risky than a run play. here is why it's stupid to want to pass a ball over 80% of the time (posted for the 2nd time since you clearly did not read or understand the first time):
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=482
now you're comparing football to craps. :?
the difference between you and me in this argument is i can give you multitudes of reasons and facts and examples of why throwing the ball 80% of the time is ridiculous. you just say things like how you're an "innovator" and a "gambler" and other nonsense like referencing one quarter of one game featuring 2 of the best qb's in the world. most of you're examples are even wrong too, as we saw with your patriots comment this morning. :roll:
take 2 of the most prolific passing offenses in the history of the game (see-i've done your homework for you): the run and shoot oilers threw the ball 67% of the time. the "air coryell" chargers threw the ball less than 65% of the time. both of those teams never won anything....both offenses were considered "innovative" at the time too.
bottom line: it's a passing league. that much is obvious to the most casual of fans.
but 80% passing is for video games.
tough one though. falcons were embarrased last week. they're better than that.
they will probably blitz less than the rams did so vick may have more time. that could free up celek for some big catches.
concerned about our run defense. turner's a beast. young mathews will have his hands full.
i wanna see how chaney does against tony gonzalez. big test for him.
a loss isn't the end of the world. but starting 2-0 with the soft part of the schedule on tap before the bye would be fucking great.
GO. BIRDS.