Andrew Luck - Contrarian Post

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

His throwing motion will never work at the NFL level. The NFL is not the Pac-10. What he did in college will be irrelevant. Etc.

[The AntiFin]

You express yourself well, and posts like yours elevate the quality of these boards. However, there are some points you've made with which I do not fully agree.

Hey, that's what boards like these are for. If we all agreed, it would be quite boring. The difference is that you don't dismiss points as "absurd," and you certainly bring well-thought-out and relevant counters. Thanks for that.

 

You wrote that a good defense can boost a QB's stats.

Of course, we're talking hypothetically here, as "great" defensive play is more in the eyes of the beholder. The scoreboard doesn't tell the whole story for defenses. Actually, scores are almost exclusively attributed to offenses at first glance, unless it's a total blowout. (That is one way fantasy football is skewed, in my opinion. Three picks that go for six the other way should not count against a defense. But if you look at the final score, it sure seems that way, even though the defense wasn't on the field, and it's the QB's fault).

 

A good test of this theory is Trent Dilfer, who had one of the three best defenses in NFL history. In 1997, '98, and '99, his average yards per attempt was 6.6, 6.4, and 6.6 respectively, while playing for Tampa Bay. Then when he was paired with that Ravens defense of 2000, his average yards per attempt jumped to . . . 6.6. While with the Ravens, he had a very good running game in the form of Jamal Lewis, and a good TE in Shannon Sharpe.

I totally appreciate what you did in terms of research -- But is Dilfer the best example here? Hey, I'm hating on Rivers, sure. But that comparison is just CRUEL! ~ Dilfer is arguably the worst Super Bowl-winning QB ever. (Brad Johnson and Jeff Hostetler come to mind, too, but Joe Namath tops my list, followed by Dilfer). And, as you pointed out, that team was blessed with a defense that played out of its mind. Top 3 all time. The Ravens racked up more than 1,800 yards on the ground that year. When your defense is that good -- as is your running game -- a QB could be irrelevant by default. Trent had Sharpe, but didn't really need him for much more than a decoy. He was smart enough to know that the only thing he had to do was hand off the football and "not suck" and the Super Bowl was theirs. Actually, he got away with it since midseason, when he took over for Tony Banks. I think you or I could have QB'd that team to victory. I think Dilfer's realization that he didn't have to do much made him a smart QB -- far smarter than QBs who think they ARE the team and have to do everything. I'm not sure I'd judge him by YPA. Again, I see (and admire) what you did in choosing a QB who was surrounded by good/great defenses. But I think Dilfer was more of a "QB" than a QB. Note the quotes -- They had to assign him a position because he was on the field.

 

Because you offered up a player to make your point, I'll do the same. And no, it's not Rivers. Let's go with Terry Bradshaw. Four Super Bowl wins. Two Super Bowl MVPs. A lot of people insist that Bradshaw was a great QB. He's in the Hall. To his credit, Bradshaw showed up for the big games. He led four game-winning playoff TD drives. He won those MVPs for a reason. But was he really a "great" QB? He had a career record of 212 TDs and 210 INTs, and a career QB rating of 70.9. Career YPA: 7.2. How many of those SBs does he win without the Steel Curtain? How many does he get to? Is he in the Hall of Fame? His defenses played well enough for him to win. But what would his individual stats have been with a bad defense? My guess is he would have been run out of the league by 1974.

 

Let's start with bad QBs, limited run support and good defenses. A bad QB goes four and out; defense comes back on -- gets tired -- and eventually no longer is such a good defense. Under this scenario, you're not going to be a QB in this league very long unless you've got negatives of your coach doing something naughty. I think we can agree on that.

 

Mediocre QBs, good run support, and good defenses: This is the meat of my point. I think this depends on what the defense does. If the defense plays out of its mind and scores a TD on every other INT or fumble recovery, then no. They'll run up the score that way, and use the running game much more to eat up the clock. But if the defense continuously recovers fumbles or intercepts passes in the opposing team's red zone -- or even territory -- it gives their QB another chance to punch it in, or run it in -- thus bolstering the QB's individual stats. That scenario has "mid-to-late 2000 Chargers" written all over it. Just so we're clear -- this was the point I was trying to make with Rivers.

 

Truly elite QBs can win with any type of defense and run support. In fact, they elevate the level of play of those around them. (Wes Welker, anyone?) I hate the Pats as much as anyone, but Brady is just sick. His defense is among the worst in the league, and as a result, he has to play catch-up (or "a punch for punch," as I call it) -- which only elite QBs can do. I don't have the numbers in front of me (and they would be tough to track down, as they're subjective), but I remember maybe one year that Manning's Colts had a "good" defense. Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees. Those QBs can match TDs with the best of 'em – and they all have proven track records of winning big games. I don’t see any other QB right now in their company – especially the whiny QB who prompted the “absurd” comment.

[BuffOrange]

You asked for stats on Rivers. I gave you stats on Rivers -- and his supporting cast. You didn't like what you read -- so now you're replying with my lack of stats on Manning? Weak.

 

 

I believe in stats when they count... You know, games that matter. Showing up for those games makes a QB elite. I never denied that Rivers' individual regular-season stats were good. I pointed out that two HOFers in that offense -- and a stellar defense -- helped pad those numbers. If you don't see that -- wow.

 

 

If you're just going to throw stuff out without doing research, I'll respond in kind. You're referring to a no-name wide receiver who had a couple of good games -- last year (one year). That's your argument? Really?

 

 

Do you even read what you type? Go back to your original post in this thread. You wrote that Rivers was surrounded by "crap players" until this year. I would say that makes "this year" relevant. So what's his excuse this year?

 

 

Yeah, he only scored 24 TDs for the Chargers in 2008 and 2009. He sucked. That didn't help open up the passing game one bit.

 

 

Quite simple. In your original post, you wrote, "His WR core has always been crap." Therefore, you believe Jackson is "crap." Short memory, huh?

 

 

Doesn't tell me nearly as much as them letting Brees go. San Diego's front office is a joke, and Jackson has made some unbelievably acrobatic catches all season because Rivers has been so inaccurate. Look at the film if you don't want to look at the stats.

 

 

That's strange. You're the one who jumped on this thread and called my theory on Rivers "absurd." I obviously hit a nerve. I started posting here to offer my perspective on trading a whole draft for Luck. The OP of that segment actually backed up his arguments, and it was a pleasure debating him.

 

 

Actually, you seemingly are the one who knows everyone in the world. Remember this from your first response? "My God, you cannot possibly preach 'context' and pretend like Russel and Smith and Eli were as highly touted as Luck when they were coming out. They weren't and making up "second coming can't miss" quotes doesn't make it so." Apparently you know everything everyone in the world said.

 

Manning: To quote from Mel Kiper's column from February 18, 2004: http://proxy.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=kiper_jr_mel&id=1739775. In case you don't have Insider Access, the subtitle reads, "This year's crop of can't-miss prospects is seven deep, while the Bengals, Dolphins and Broncos should be able to fill needs later in the first round." In that column, Kiper states, "The drop-off this year occurs after six or seven players. It looks like the first six picks right now will be QB Eli Manning, WR Larry Fitzgerald, QB Ben Roethlisberger, OT Robert Gallery, TE Kellen Winslow Jr. and S Sean Taylor." Not only is it written, he said it ad nauseum on draft day.

 

Russell: Kiper compared him to John Elway on draft day 2007. YUP. Someone said it.

 

For the record, I can't stand Kiper. He's amusing -- and not in a good way. But I have no problem using his quotes to refute your point that nobody was calling Eli and Russell "can't miss." Hell, I didn't even remember the Russell/Elway comparison till I watched the clip.

 

 

No. But thanks for establishing the fact that you have a pattern of argumentative posts. For the record, I was pissed that the Steelers took him two spots ahead of where we drafted that year.

 

Now, on the off-chance that you want to debate the ORIGINAL topic of this post -- The Cardinal has one of the best teams in school history this year. On Saturday, they had five rushing scores. I'm not saying Luck stinks. He's a great college football player. I'm sticking to my original point that there is no way I'd trade a whole draft for him. To take it a step further, if he is drafted by the Dolphins, he will suck for many years. If he winds up in Indy -- he'll be okay, but not great. If he goes to a contender, he has the chance to be elite. But I don't think he's worth all of the hype he's getting. I'd be happy to revisit this three years in to his pro career and admit I was wrong -- If I am.

 

I 'jumped in' with one short paragraph at the end of a post about Luck, and you respond with an 'I told you so' novel dissecting a week 7 game, which by your own admission is the sort of game that doesn't matter. And my nerve was the one that was hit; and I'm the argumentative one since you're one of three people who think Russell was as highly touted as Luck

You're the one who mentioned Manning proving everyone wrong in '06 and when that's shot down just pretend like I brought it up out of the blue - brilliant. Twisting, dodging, ducking, blah blah blah. Just do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself. It's gotten pathetic.

 

I can picture your morning now, getting out your glasses and a cup of coffee, scouring the web in a sorry effort to cherry-pick stats to make your futile case. "How can I prove LT was still good in '08-09? Oh crap, he was well under 4ypc both years, so I can't mention that. Oh I know! I'll just mention these TD #'s. Thank you Norv for giving him so many charity goaline carries! I can then trash the Chargers front office, which will mesh perfectly with my theory that they've had stacked personnel on offense and a nasty defense - yah, that'll show him!" One might think that with Jackson aka this generation's Jerry Rice and all these HOFers to open up the running game, that a HOF RB in his prime could do better than 3.6 ypc those two years; but then I guess nobody ever accused you of making much sense.

As much fun as it's been destroying you I have to move on to a bigger challenge, such as breathing, or tying my shoes. I know you won't be around in 3 years, at least not under the same name, so better luck in future endeavors champ.

[Orton's Arm]

Hey, that's what boards like these are for. If we all agreed, it would be quite boring. The difference is that you don't dismiss points as "absurd," and you certainly bring well-thought-out and relevant counters. Thanks for that.

 

 

Of course, we're talking hypothetically here, as "great" defensive play is more in the eyes of the beholder. The scoreboard doesn't tell the whole story for defenses. Actually, scores are almost exclusively attributed to offenses at first glance, unless it's a total blowout. (That is one way fantasy football is skewed, in my opinion. Three picks that go for six the other way should not count against a defense. But if you look at the final score, it sure seems that way, even though the defense wasn't on the field, and it's the QB's fault).

 

 

I totally appreciate what you did in terms of research -- But is Dilfer the best example here? Hey, I'm hating on Rivers, sure. But that comparison is just CRUEL! ~ Dilfer is arguably the worst Super Bowl-winning QB ever. (Brad Johnson and Jeff Hostetler come to mind, too, but Joe Namath tops my list, followed by Dilfer). And, as you pointed out, that team was blessed with a defense that played out of its mind. Top 3 all time. The Ravens racked up more than 1,800 yards on the ground that year. When your defense is that good -- as is your running game -- a QB could be irrelevant by default. Trent had Sharpe, but didn't really need him for much more than a decoy. He was smart enough to know that the only thing he had to do was hand off the football and "not suck" and the Super Bowl was theirs. Actually, he got away with it since midseason, when he took over for Tony Banks. I think you or I could have QB'd that team to victory. I think Dilfer's realization that he didn't have to do much made him a smart QB -- far smarter than QBs who think they ARE the team and have to do everything. I'm not sure I'd judge him by YPA. Again, I see (and admire) what you did in choosing a QB who was surrounded by good/great defenses. But I think Dilfer was more of a "QB" than a QB. Note the quotes -- They had to assign him a position because he was on the field.

 

Because you offered up a player to make your point, I'll do the same. And no, it's not Rivers. Let's go with Terry Bradshaw. Four Super Bowl wins. Two Super Bowl MVPs. A lot of people insist that Bradshaw was a great QB. He's in the Hall. To his credit, Bradshaw showed up for the big games. He led four game-winning playoff TD drives. He won those MVPs for a reason. But was he really a "great" QB? He had a career record of 212 TDs and 210 INTs, and a career QB rating of 70.9. Career YPA: 7.2. How many of those SBs does he win without the Steel Curtain? How many does he get to? Is he in the Hall of Fame? His defenses played well enough for him to win. But what would his individual stats have been with a bad defense? My guess is he would have been run out of the league by 1974.

 

Let's start with bad QBs, limited run support and good defenses. A bad QB goes four and out; defense comes back on -- gets tired -- and eventually no longer is such a good defense. Under this scenario, you're not going to be a QB in this league very long unless you've got negatives of your coach doing something naughty. I think we can agree on that.

 

Mediocre QBs, good run support, and good defenses: This is the meat of my point. I think this depends on what the defense does. If the defense plays out of its mind and scores a TD on every other INT or fumble recovery, then no. They'll run up the score that way, and use the running game much more to eat up the clock. But if the defense continuously recovers fumbles or intercepts passes in the opposing team's red zone -- or even territory -- it gives their QB another chance to punch it in, or run it in -- thus bolstering the QB's individual stats. That scenario has "mid-to-late 2000 Chargers" written all over it. Just so we're clear -- this was the point I was trying to make with Rivers.

 

Truly elite QBs can win with any type of defense and run support. In fact, they elevate the level of play of those around them. (Wes Welker, anyone?) I hate the Pats as much as anyone, but Brady is just sick. His defense is among the worst in the league, and as a result, he has to play catch-up (or "a punch for punch," as I call it) -- which only elite QBs can do. I don't have the numbers in front of me (and they would be tough to track down, as they're subjective), but I remember maybe one year that Manning's Colts had a "good" defense. Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees. Those QBs can match TDs with the best of 'em – and they all have proven track records of winning big games. I don’t see any other QB right now in their company – especially the whiny QB who prompted the “absurd” comment.

Thanks for this well thought-out response! I agree with most or all of what you've written above. You bring up good points about Bradshaw.

 

My main point about Dilfer was that if a good/great defense significantly boosts a QB's stats, you'd expect Dilfer to have achieved his best stats during the year he spent with the Ravens, his second-best stats during his time with the Bucs, and his worst stats during his two years as Seattle's starter. Instead he put up significantly better numbers during his two years as Seattle's starter than he had either with the Ravens or the Bucs.

 

You hinted at one reason why this was the case when you talked about how a QB paired with a bad defense needs to play catch-up football or punch for punch football. A typical offensive coordinator would design a more conservative game plan for the Ravens offense than for the Seahawks offense; knowing that the Ravens wouldn't need to score many points each week in order to win. I could easily imagine this conservative style of offense negatively impacting a QB's yards per attempt stat.

 

On the other hand, I agree that a QB is likely to have more TD passes if paired with a good defense. It's a question of field position and the benefit of turnovers.

 

The effect of a good running game on a QB's number of TD passes is harder to quantify. The better the running game, the more TDs the offense will tend to score. However, a good running game means that the offensive coordinator will be tempted to run the ball when nearing the goal line. Every rushing TD for some RB is one less TD pass for the quarterback.

[The Senator]

Everyone on this board also leaves out how simply awful his father was, yet not one person here can name a crappy QB whose son excelled in the NFL. Gale Gilbert's kid was good in HS but he flamed out in college. Good luck with Luck.

 

Daddy

 

Daddy Luck is also the idiot AD that picked Dana Holgorsen to coach the Mountaineers, when he could have picked...

 

 

Mike Leach: College football's most honest man

 

 

If you want milk, you go right to the cow ferchrissakes!

 

(You don't take a cheap imitation like Dana Holgorsen )

 

Just say no to Luck - the entire family is obviously clueless!

[The AntiFin]

I 'jumped in' with one short paragraph at the end of a post about Luck, and you respond with an 'I told you so' novel dissecting a week 7 game, which by your own admission is the sort of game that doesn't matter. And my nerve was the one that was hit; and I'm the argumentative one since you're one of three people who think Russell was as highly touted as Luck

You're the one who mentioned Manning proving everyone wrong in '06 and when that's shot down just pretend like I brought it up out of the blue - brilliant. Twisting, dodging, ducking, blah blah blah. Just do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself. It's gotten pathetic.

 

I can picture your morning now, getting out your glasses and a cup of coffee, scouring the web in a sorry effort to cherry-pick stats to make your futile case. "How can I prove LT was still good in '08-09? Oh crap, he was well under 4ypc both years, so I can't mention that. Oh I know! I'll just mention these TD #'s. Thank you Norv for giving him so many charity goaline carries! I can then trash the Chargers front office, which will mesh perfectly with my theory that they've had stacked personnel on offense and a nasty defense - yah, that'll show him!" One might think that with Jackson aka this generation's Jerry Rice and all these HOFers to open up the running game, that a HOF RB in his prime could do better than 3.6 ypc those two years; but then I guess nobody ever accused you of making much sense.

As much fun as it's been destroying you I have to move on to a bigger challenge, such as breathing, or tying my shoes. I know you won't be around in 3 years, at least not under the same name, so better luck in future endeavors champ.

BuffOrange, congratulations on "rant of the year." Take a look back at how *you* twisted everything I've written -- and backed up -- to make your own "points." THAT is pathetic.

 

You have been thoroughly annihilated in this thread with facts and stats, and THIS is your last hurrah? Wow. One would think that someone with 5,000+ posts would have the hang of this by now. I don't blame you for being angry. You had your a$$ handed to you by a rookie on this board. It's a good thing you surrendered. It was inevitable.

 

P.S. Don't flatter yourself by thinking people change their screen names just for you. Narcissism is a mental illness. You should have it checked out.

[The AntiFin]

Thanks for this well thought-out response! I agree with most or all of what you've written above. You bring up good points about Bradshaw.

It's a pleasure debating you. I have seen the difference, on this board, between "the good" and "the bad/the ugly" -- in this thread alone.

 

My main point about Dilfer was that if a good/great defense significantly boosts a QB's stats, you'd expect Dilfer to have achieved his best stats during the year he spent with the Ravens, his second-best stats during his time with the Bucs, and his worst stats during his two years as Seattle's starter. Instead he put up significantly better numbers during his two years as Seattle's starter than he had either with the Ravens or the Bucs.

Yes, true. I'm definitely not disputing that -- It was a case study, and the stats are all there. I just wonder what the results would have yielded with an average QB (AKA one not named Dilfer). Maybe Big Ben from 2005-2010 -- when his defense was good (then suffered key injuries), and Pittsburgh was cycling through running backs (Bettis retiring; Parker getting injured; Parker flaming out; Mendenhall entering stage left). Everyone judges QBs differently. I happen to judge them by their ability to win games that matter -- like playoff games. And, if I have to go for individual stats, I'd trade YPA and QB rating for TDs vs INTs. Every touchdown scores points for your team (obviously); Every INT gives the other team a chance to score. But to be clear -- "heart" is not a statistic, but in the tough playoff games, it easily could mean the difference between a W and an L. Tony Romo is a great example of that. What a lot of people don't understand that along with "heart" comes "intestinal fortitude." You could have great individual stats, but if you soil yourself when in a big game -- You really aren't that great a QB. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it!

 

You hinted at one reason why this was the case when you talked about how a QB paired with a bad defense needs to play catch-up football or punch for punch football. A typical offensive coordinator would design a more conservative game plan for the Ravens offense than for the Seahawks offense; knowing that the Ravens wouldn't need to score many points each week in order to win. I could easily imagine this conservative style of offense negatively impacting a QB's yards per attempt stat.

I only added this scenario for "elite" QBs (per my previous thread). They're likely calling their own plays, or at least most of them. Let's take Brees from Week 1 -- I believe it was the first game of the year vs. Green Bay on a Thursday. He brought the Saints back almost single-handedly in the final few minutes. GB's defense sealed the deal. (Some might argue it was the Saints' rookie RB who didn't seal the deal). But Brees wins that game outright against Seattle. He wins that game against our Bills. Let's move on to the Week 3, where the Saints played Houston. Payton admits he gave Brees free reign on the final drive: http://www.wwltv.com/sports/black-and-gold/Payton-Brees-called-entire-game-winning-drive-from-the-field-130596483.html. New Orleans' defense is hardly great -- even good -- yet Brees wins because he can win a shootout -- or at least hang in till the bitter end. Brees is fortunate to have lots of weapons around him -- or at least people who are better because he is an elite QB. Rodgers has weapons, too. Manning has fewer. Brady has next to nothing.

 

On the other hand, I agree that a QB is likely to have more TD passes if paired with a good defense. It's a question of field position and the benefit of turnovers.

Exactly. If you'll recall, defense was one of the items I listed as factors that could help an average QB's individual stats -- not the sole item.

 

The effect of a good running game on a QB's number of TD passes is harder to quantify. The better the running game, the more TDs the offense will tend to score. However, a good running game means that the offensive coordinator will be tempted to run the ball when nearing the goal line. Every rushing TD for some RB is one less TD pass for the quarterback.

I suppose that depends on the RB. Is the dominant RB one who only runs, or a RB who can catch, too? Sproles has been instrumental this year in helping Brees' numbers. Even if he just carries the football, my suggestion was that the defense spends extra time focusing on the run -- which tends to open the passing game. The defense is much less likely to blitz, thus giving the QB time to make the accurate throws.

 

I think that for either of us to nail this point home, we'd have to expand the sample to more than five QBs -- of all different varieties. I don't think either of us has the time for that, but that doesn't make a debate like this any less provocative -- at least for us.

[Orton's Arm]

It's a pleasure debating you. I have seen the difference, on this board, between "the good" and "the bad/the ugly" -- in this thread alone.

The pleasure is mutual. You've put a lot of thought into your responses to me, which I appreciate.

 

Yes' date=' true. I'm definitely not disputing that -- It was a case study, and the stats are all there. I just wonder what the results would have yielded with an average QB (AKA one not named Dilfer). Maybe Big Ben from 2005-2010 -- when his defense was good (then suffered key injuries), and Pittsburgh was cycling through running backs (Bettis retiring; Parker getting injured; Parker flaming out; Mendenhall entering stage left). Everyone judges QBs differently. I happen to judge them by their ability to win games that matter -- like playoff games. And, if I [i']have[/i] to go for individual stats, I'd trade YPA and QB rating for TDs vs INTs. Every touchdown scores points for your team (obviously); Every INT gives the other team a chance to score. But to be clear -- "heart" is not a statistic, but in the tough playoff games, it easily could mean the difference between a W and an L. Tony Romo is a great example of that. What a lot of people don't understand that along with "heart" comes "intestinal fortitude." You could have great individual stats, but if you soil yourself when in a big game -- You really aren't that great a QB. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it!

I used to be a big fan of using QB rating to evaluate QBs. But after gathering additional data, I decided it was a flawed tool. As an example of this additional data: Kelly Holcomb's career QB rating is 79.2. John Elway's is 79.9. I'll grant they played in different eras, with only three years of overlap between them. But still . . . those two QBs should not have the same QB rating! And this is coming from a guy whose screen name was once Holcombs_Arm!

 

Holcomb's career yards per attempt (YPA) is 6.6, and Elway's is 7.1. Clearly there was a difference between the two quarterbacks, and YPA does a much better job of illuminating that difference than does QB rating. Therefore YPA is the better tool--at least in this instance. Having looked at a number of other QBs' YPA, I've concluded that it's a very solid and reliable tool. Obviously no tool is going to be perfect, especially not anything based on simplistic raw data like throwing yards, completions, etc. If a WR makes an acrobatic play to catch a badly thrown pass, the QB gets the credit. If a WR drops a perfectly thrown pass--or worse, bobbles it in a way which causes an interception--the quarterback takes the blame. This flaw cannot be overcome unless each play is individually analyzed to determine how much credit or blame the QB personally deserves.

 

If highly labor-intensive evaluation tools are taken off the table, the best single option left is, IMO, yards per attempt.

 

I'm not really a big fan of TD percentage, for two reasons.

 

1) The number of TDs an offense scores depends on many factors, only one of which is the quarterback. Do the defense + special teams frequently give the offense good field position? How good is the running game? Does the offensive coordinator call a lot of run, run, pass, thereby increasing the number of punts?

 

2) The percentage of an offense's TDs scored by the quarterback will vary. For example, suppose it's first and goal at the one. Offensive coordinator A decides that in this situation, he'll call run, run, run. Coordinator B decides he'll call run, run, pass. Coordinator C is of a mind to call pass, pass, pass in that situation. Clearly, a QB with coordinator C is going to get the highest percentage of his offense's touchdowns, and someone with Coordinator A will get the lowest.

 

Even though I'm not a huge fan of looking at a QB's TD passes, I do like the idea of looking at his interception percentage. As you correctly pointed out, INTs are almost always very bad in themselves. They're also a good yardstick for measuring a QB's propensity for either a) making bad throws, or b) taking risks with the football. To expand on your earlier point about Terry Bradshaw, Bradshaw had a much higher/worse interception percentage than Joe Montana or Roger Staubach.

 

The New York Times performed a multiple regression analysis to determine the factors involved in winning football games. Their dependent variable was a team's number of wins during a 16 game season. The independent variables were yards per attempt, INT percentage, yards per rush, and the defensive analogues of these three measures. The model explained 80% of the observed variation in winning or losing, thereby proving that special teams is not worth 1/3 of the total. (Despite claims by Marv and others to the contrary.)

 

Yards per rush and a QB's interception percentage were of equal weight. Yards per attempt was three times as important as either. The situation on defense was a mirror image of this. A one standard deviation improvement in a defense's ability to generate INTs was just as useful as a one standard deviation improvement in a defense's ability to limit yards per rush. A one standard deviation in a defense's ability to limit yards per pass attempt was three times as useful as a one standard deviation improvement in limiting yards per rush.

 

I suppose that depends on the RB. Is the dominant RB one who only runs' date=' or a RB who can catch, too? Sproles has been instrumental this year in helping Brees' numbers. Even if he just carries the football, my suggestion was that the defense spends extra time focusing on the run -- which tends to open the passing game. The defense is much less likely to blitz, thus giving the QB time to make the accurate throws.[/quote']

To me, the success of a passing game is driven by four main factors: 1) the QB, 2) the quality of the pass protection, 3) the quality of the receiving threats, and 4) the quality, innovativeness, and aggressiveness of the play calling.

 

Those four factors can be affected by other things. For example, a good running game might force defensive linemen to play the run as well as the pass, thereby improving the quality of the pass protection. If an offense is paired with a lousy defense, the offensive coordinator might be inspired to be more aggressive and innovative. He knows his offense will be expected to overcome his team's defensive shortcomings. That would affect factor 4), the quality and aggressiveness of the play calling.

 

As an aside, I'm not implying that more aggressiveness is always better. But I do feel that there is a correct amount of aggressiveness to optimize offensive production and scoring, and that most offensive coordinators display less than that optimal amount of aggressiveness.

 

To have a good context for evaluating a QB's numbers, one should ask, "How much time does he usually have when he drops back to pass?" "How good are his receiving threats?" and "How good is his offensive coordinator?"

Edited October 25, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[ajzepp]

Daddy Luck is also the idiot AD that picked Dana Holgorsen to coach the Mountaineers, when he could have picked...

 

 

Mike Leach: College football's most honest man

 

 

If you want milk, you go right to the cow ferchrissakes!

 

(You don't take a cheap imitation like Dana Holgorsen )

 

Just say no to Luck - the entire family is obviously clueless!

[K-9]

... Dilfer is arguably the worst Super Bowl-winning QB ever. (Brad Johnson and Jeff Hostetler come to mind, too, but Joe Namath tops my list, ...

 

May I ask if you've ever seen Namath play? If not, you are making the mistake of analyzing statistics in a vacuum. Also, it's always a mistake to compare players across eras. Especially QBs like Namath who didn't enjoy the liberalized rules of today and played most of their career without the bigger field that narrower hash marks provided. He also called his own plays, something that few QBs do anymore. There is a world of difference between being a quarterback and a passer.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[The AntiFin]

May I ask if you've ever seen Namath play?

You bet. I love watching games from previous eras. And there were far more lowlights than highlights for Namath -- including Super Bowl III. He was essentially a non-factor in that game. If it weren't for "the guarantee," would he be in "The Hall?" I say no. I take your point, and I appreciate your insight. But if you're talking about his stats -- and in this thread I've made it clear that I'm not a big fan of individual stats for QBs -- Namath falls way short, even for his era. Forget about comparing him to modern-day QBs. Let's compare him to QBs in/close to his era, with a bit of overlap. I'm not going to bother with Johnny Unitas or Otto Graham a decade-plus earlier; that just wouldn't be fair. Of his era, nearly any stat seems to suggest that he takes a back seat to Fran Tarkenton, Bart Starr, Terry Bradshaw, Len Dawson and even Ken Stabler.

 

So, if we must, let's compare Ken Stabler (not in the Hall and last on my list) to Namath (in the Hall), career-wise.

 

Stabler: 2,270 of 3,793; 27,938 yards; 59.8% completion; 194 TDs, 222 INTs. 7.4 YAP; QB Rating: 75.3; Playoff record: 6-5

Namath: 1,836 of 3,655; 27,663 yards; 50.1% completion; 173 TDs, 220 INTs. 7.4 YAP; QB Rating: 65.5; Playoff record: 2-1

 

Namath's numbers -- all of them -- are inferior. Couple that with Stabler's amazing success in the two-minute drill (talking "clutch" here) and the fact that he led his team to far more playoff appearances -- the only rationale behind Namath being in the Hall and Stabler not is "the guarantee" -- AND the New York factor. Hardly seems fair.

 

If not, you are making the mistake of analyzing statistics in a vacuum. Also, it's always a mistake to compare players across eras. Especially QBs like Namath who didn't enjoy the liberalized rules of today and played most of their career without the bigger field that narrower hash marks provided. He also called his own plays, something that few QBs do anymore. There is a world of difference between being a quarterback and a passer.

For better or worse, it's done all the time -- in every sport. There is always going to be a debate as to who is the "greatest of all time." I don't see a way around that, and I don't think that'll ever change in pro sports. If it were to change, there would be no more "Lombardi Trophy," or "Cy Young Award." They'd have to phase out legends -- or skew our perception of legends -- and there's no way they do that, as sports are built on legends. That's why on the rare occurrences when modern-day athletes break "unbreakable" records -- Cal Ripken comes to mind -- it's all the more impressive. For every argument that it isn't fair to compare old-timers to modern-day athletes, there will be the same argument of why modern-day athletes shouldn't be compared to old timers.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Amen.

[K-9]

... Of his era, nearly any stat seems to suggest that he takes a back seat to Fran Tarkenton, Bart Starr, Terry Bradshaw, Len Dawson and even Ken Stabler. ...

 

I agree Stabler merits an HOF induction. All the other QBs you mention are in as well. You put Namath in some very good company.

 

Namath's numbers -- all of them -- are inferior. Couple that with Stabler's amazing success in the two-minute drill (talking "clutch" here) and the fact that he led his team to far more playoff appearances -- the only rationale behind Namath being in the Hall and Stabler not is "the guarantee" -- AND the New York factor. Hardly seems fair.

 

Yes, his stats are inferior. But all those stats speak only to a QB's ability to complete passes. I don't disagree that they are important, just that they aren't the entirety of the QB position. Especially for QBs of that era who called their own plays and had so much more responsibility. We'll have to disagree about "the guarantee" as being his only claim on the HOF. Namath's career was pretty storied before that, both in college and in the pros. 4000 yards in 14 games in 1967 was nothing to sneeze at given the state of the game at the time. Namath also had an impact on the AFL/NFL relationship when he signed for record money with the Jets and I think the Pro Football Writer's Association tends to give weight to those players that have impacted the game off the field as well as on. No doubt that the Jets SB win was critical but no other SB win impacted the league as a whole the way that one did.

 

For better or worse, it's done all the time -- in every sport. There is always going to be a debate as to who is the "greatest of all time." I don't see a way around that, and I don't think that'll ever change in pro sports. If it were to change, there would be no more "Lombardi Trophy," or "Cy Young Award." They'd have to phase out legends -- or skew our perception of legends -- and there's no way they do that, as sports are built on legends. That's why on the rare occurrences when modern-day athletes break "unbreakable" records -- Cal Ripken comes to mind -- it's all the more impressive. For every argument that it isn't fair to compare old-timers to modern-day athletes, there will be the same argument of why modern-day athletes shouldn't be compared to old timers.

 

Sure it's done all the time. But the question of the greatest of all time can never be answered objectively. It's a futile exercise. Makes for good bar room banter but that's it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[The AntiFin]

Yes, his stats are inferior. But all those stats speak only to a QB's ability to complete passes. I don't disagree that they are important, just that they aren't the entirety of the QB position.

Hey, for the purposes of this particular debate -- I had to go by stats. Anything else is wildly subjective. We're not talking about a QB who could prove me right or wrong this year, next year, etc. As I wrote earlier in this thread, I'm not a fan of individual QB stats. A QB has to have "heart" and show up for the big games. That's what makes him a winner and a leader. That's how he earns the respect of his players. It elevates their level of play, too. Preaching to the choir here.

 

We'll have to disagree about "the guarantee" as being his only claim on the HOF.

Fair enough -- But I did mention the fact that he played for New York likely was another major factor. "Broadway Joe" is much more marketable than "Ordinary Joe."

 

Namath's career was pretty storied before that, both in college and in the pros. 4000 yards in 14 games in 1967 was nothing to sneeze at given the state of the game at the time.

Yes, he definitely had a storied career in college -- but that's college. I'm not sure how that factors in to HOF discussions. He had one or two good years in the pros. Many more were abysmal, though.

 

All the other QBs you mention are in as well. You put Namath in some very good company.

The fact is that Namath is a HOFer, whether or not I like it. I had to compare apples to apples. I don't believe, statistically, it gets much closer than Namath and Stabler.

 

I agree Stabler merits an HOF induction.

See, I don't agree with this. And if he's not in, I don't think Namath should be. The Hall is for select athletes who rise above and beyond their peers. I fail to see how Namath did that consistently on the field.

 

Namath also had an impact on the AFL/NFL relationship when he signed for record money with the Jets and I think the Pro Football Writer's Association tends to give weight to those players that have impacted the game off the field as well as on.

Now this is an argument I'll buy. I don't agree with the principles behind it -- but I agree with your statement. Would you put him in the Hall based on his on-the-field accomplishments alone?

 

No doubt that the Jets SB win was critical but no other SB win impacted the league as a whole the way that one did.

The game -- meaning "the guarantee," coupled with the symbolism of a Jets' win in that Super Bowl. Surely we aren't talking about the way he played in that game. I don't see how we can. Hey, as long as the Pro Football Writer's Association bought it -- Whatever works, I guess. He's in.

 

I enjoyed your points and appreciate the perspective -- Even if we disagree on Namath.

[K-9]

Hey, for the purposes of this particular debate -- I had to go by stats. Anything else is wildly subjective. We're not talking about a QB who could prove me right or wrong this year, next year, etc. As I wrote earlier in this thread, I'm not a fan of individual QB stats. A QB has to have "heart" and show up for the big games. That's what makes him a winner and a leader. That's how he earns the respect of his players. It elevates their level of play, too. Preaching to the choir here.

 

I'm not so sure you really aren't a fan of individual stats from the sound of it. All the other attributes you mention here, Namath had in spades. Especially to those of us that saw him in person and on TV at the time. He quarterbacked his team. But the argument you use to support your contention is strictly statistical. I understand why, though.

 

Fair enough -- But I did mention the fact that he played for New York likely was another major factor. "Broadway Joe" is much more marketable than "Ordinary Joe."

 

True. Playing and being a star in NY City does have it's advantages. But as advantageous as it is when you're good, it's ten times worse when you're not. If there's one thing the NY media always enjoys more than building up a local star, it's tearing him down. Namath starred on the biggest stage of all and didn't disappoint.

 

Yes, he definitely had a storied career in college -- but that's college. I'm not sure how that factors in to HOF discussions. He had one or two good years in the pros. Many more were abysmal, though.

 

True, college career doesn't factor at all. I only mention it to illustrate that Namath came into the league with high expectations from the outset and he exceeded them.

 

The fact is that Namath is a HOFer, whether or not I like it. I had to compare apples to apples. I don't believe, statistically, it gets much closer than Namath and Stabler.

 

Again, you are relying solely on stats to support your belief. But you couldn't have made a better comparison, though. IMO, Stabler benefited by becoming a starter after the hash marks were narrowed and playing most of his career after bump and run coverage was made illegal after 5 yards (both dramatically opened up passing games).

 

See, I don't agree with this. And if he's not in, I don't think Namath should be. The Hall is for select athletes who rise above and beyond their peers. I fail to see how Namath did that consistently on the field.

 

While Namath often didn't have the stats that his opponents did in games, he was just as often the better QB on the field. He was great at calling games, especially.

 

Now this is an argument I'll buy. I don't agree with the principles behind it -- but I agree with your statement. Would you put him in the Hall based on his on-the-field accomplishments alone?

 

Yes, I would. I saw him play too many times not to think he was a great QB. He passed my eye test more often than not.

 

The game -- meaning "the guarantee," coupled with the symbolism of a Jets' win in that Super Bowl. Surely we aren't talking about the way he played in that game. I don't see how we can. Hey, as long as the Pro Football Writer's Association bought it -- Whatever works, I guess. He's in.

 

Oh, but I am talking about how he played in that game. He was masterful. That Colt defense was fantastic and Namath called as good a game against them as anyone ever called a game. Matt Snell should have been the MVP, though, IMO.

I enjoyed your points and appreciate the perspective -- Even if we disagree on Namath.

 

It's been fun.

[BillsBackersChicago]

I'd still hit it.

 

I laughed out loud so hard when i read this that i scared the lady next to me who was holding her sleeping baby. The baby is now screaming. Her hatred burns.