Jump to content

Kemp

Members
  • Content Count

    1,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

About Kemp

  • Rank
    RFA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here is what you said: "I don’t think it’s coincidence that the guy who looked the best last season - Mayfield- had the most talent around him just like it’s not a coincidence that the QB who struggled the most - Rosen- had the least talent. For Shatz to say if Allen succeeds it will be because of the talent around him is laughable, that’s true of all young QBs and just about all QBs in general. Does anybody think Mahomes is the MVP if he doesn’t have the best offensive talent in the league around him?" You attributed Mayfield's success to having "the most talent around him". You attributed Rosen's poor season to he had the "least talent" around him". You said that surrounding talent talent is responsible "for all young QBs and just about all QBs in general". You said Mahomes would not have been the MVP :"if he doesn't have the best offensive talent in the league around him". How did I distort your position? Those are your words.
  2. I'm saying his stats have been poor in college and in the NFL, but admit he might improve. You say he has a better than 50% chance of success based on certain qualities that you can't define other than intangibles. I am comfortable with my position and you are comfortable with yours. Hopefully, you're right, because I don't want another 3-year window of waiting. The easy answer to that is for every Peyton Manning there are 10 QBs who start slowly and don't get better. Manning is the unusual case.
  3. The belief that he wouldn't be accurate in the NFL is a result of his being inaccurate in college. It might turn out to be wrong, but you are saying it's wrong based on even less evidence. This IT factor that some of you are talking about is 100% opinion-based. Doesn't mean it will turn out wrong, but you can't argue that it's based upon anything that can be verified. You're saying that the offense makes the QB. I think it's the opposite. If you were correct, no QB should ever be taken early in the draft.
  4. A - That he is big and throws hard? JaMarcus Russell had that. B - Fitzpatrick had a higher score, I believe. Presence in media situations is of no value as a predictor of success. C - Is of no value as a predictor of success. D - Is of no value as a predictor of success. Again, this doesn't mean he won't be great, but it in no way points to success, either.
  5. Putting aside analytics for a second, Allen has to vastly improve in 2 areas: 1. Accuracy 2. Making quicker and more accurate decisions. Might happen. Might not. I remember in training camp last season there were a few articles saying his inaccuracy was caused by poor footwork and that the coaching staff would fix it. They didn't. Hopefully, they figure it out this season, because coaches and fans will be far less forgiving next offseason if it doesn't get fixed. 2019 will answer most of the questions around Allen. It's succeed or head towards a backup role time.
  6. What tells you that Allen more than anyone else is an analytical unicorn? The fact that the third best QB (statistically) in a poor conference is proof that the top conferences operate in a flawed system by not taking him? What pedigree are you referring to? He may end up in the NFL Hall of Fame but I'm not certain what you see in him that indicates he will definitely be an unmitigated success.
  7. All analytics is, is interpreting stats. Your saying they are irrelevant going forward are based on what?
  8. Nothing exactly predicts he will fail. Because you understand what analytics is, you know that. Analytics is about using the stats as a predictive tool. Coming out of college, Mayfield was easily the best according to analytics. Allen was a very distant fourth. In my opinion, Mayfield was easily the best of the rookie QBs. He elevated his team. Now, many are predicting them to be in the playoffs in 2019. Allen's passing stats were borderline terrible. The excuse given is that his team stunk, but Buffalo had one of the very best defenses in the NFL and won 6 games. That's not entirely Allen's fault, obviously, but did he make them even an average offense? Everyone on this board thinks the offense is vastly improved, so I guess we'll find out what that translates into in 2019. I hope Allen bucks the analytics, because otherwise this franchise is probably doomed for a minimum of another 3 seasons.
  9. To a degree, I agree, but management in the NFL definitely thinks analytics is very important. Maybe they will turn out to be wrong, but I would guess not. Hockey has moving parts, too. Drive can elevate, but it can't turn a bad player into a good one, unless you believe the overwhelming amount of professional athletes are not driven, something I would think is absurd.
  10. His surroundings were bad, but I think you would agree that QB is far and away the single most important player on the field, so he is most responsible for how a team does. I'm not disputing he was a rookie or that he might improve. I'm disputing that he was even serviceable as a passer last year. Who are the QBs who made it to the NFL without a work ethic and how do you know any individual player's work ethic? The analytics of his stats in college and in the NFL. Wasn't he the third best QB in a weak college conference?
  11. Nothing is infallible in analytics, but analytics has proven to be better than spectator's evaluations. It's of great use in baseball and hockey to management. There's no reason it shouldn't be of worth in football. The beer swilling fan would probably place last in any group of stats or people. Moneyball and The Undoing Project provide ample evidence of the worth of analytics in sports and in decision-making in general. Hockey is where I have done the most reading about it. Hockey is all about how a player impacts team possession time and how he influences shots for his team and how well he suppresses shots by the other teams. The results of these analytics often clashes with what you think you are seeing and analytics has proven to be far more accurate as a predictor than what you think you are seeing.
  12. Nope. I suppose a couple have made it to the NFL without it, but I bet they weren't around long. You still have Mayfield 4th in that group? What an athlete says is totally meaningless. All that matters is how he performs.
  13. Sorry, I didn't know it was tongue-in-cheek. That's sometimes tough to see in writing. I am not disputing that you may turn out to be right about his future, but the odds are against you. I am disputing the notion that he was anywhere near good enough as a passer last year. His support did suck, but he did, too. He has a far better cast this season so he has no excuse to not show big improvement. Can we agree on that? I don't believe rushing is included, but I'm not disputing he's a good runner. I'm disputing that he was a good passer last season.
  14. Of course they have an opinion. You even knew their opinions before the draft. Mayfield graded out the highest with Allen the lowest (of the top guys). All Head Coaches and GMs now consider the analytics. Every team has a growing analytics department. That doesn't mean they will follow the analytics to every detail, but there's enough evidence now that in every sport, analytics are a pretty good guide to pay attention to. This is no longer a debatable issue.
  15. Like I told someone else, if you have analytics from a different source that's positive , I'd be happy to read it.
×
×
  • Create New...