bobobonators Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 No. What you've proven is your grasp of the mechanics involved in the QB/WR relationship and how they're expressed in a statistical manner is tenuous at best. You chose to highlight team win percentage (neither a QB nor WR specific stat) and TD/INT and TD/INT ratio, both at best only tangentially related to a QB's relative performance with different sets of receivers (and certainly, as another poster pointed out, even less meaningful when quantifying an overly conservative QB like Taylor). So what youre saying is that Wins dont matter for a QB and TD/INT ratio is also nebulous as a "true" measure. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 And yet there's has been a huge difference between Brady's performance in games with and without Edelman. A difference stretching over multiple years and many seasons. A difference lasting long enough to amass 248 total td passes, which takes a good while - even for Brady. Now GoBills808, says you can't read anything into those numbers - for instance, a touchdown to interception ratio nearly three times worse with Edelman out of the lineup. So what do you think? Mere coincidence? Tom Brady (over multiple seasons) : With Edelman win percentage : .818. Without Edelman win percent : .684 With Edelman pass td-int : 215-44 Without Edelman td-int : 33-19 With Edelman td-in ratio : 4.9 Without Edelman td-int ratio : 1.7 The trio of Edelman, Amendola and Gronk combine for the greater good. The other two should also be factored in. If Gronk isn't there with his OPI's. Brady's stats might suffer too. Yet somehow more often than not the comes away with a WIN. I'd love to see a .684 % Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 I agree, though I'm not sure it helps your point. He peaked 2 years ago and is in rapid decline. I think there's simply too much film available on him. Early in his career, TT was an unknown. It's the stereotypical plight of the backup QB. They can play very well for a few games, but once team's game plan around them, they begin to falter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Reading comprehension is an important life skill, along with basic knowledge of the facts - Taylor's stats in the 15 games with both Watkins and Woods playing : 63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 INTs. Now, did his performance suffer with Walter Powell, Brandon Tate, and Justin Hunter? Sure. That's to be expected. Let's look at another data set : Tom Brady since 2009 : With Edelman win percentage : .818. Without Edelman win percent : .684 With Edelman pass td-int : 215-44 Without Edelman td-int : 33-19 With Edelman td-in ratio : 4.9 Without Edelman td-int ratio : 1.7 The problem remains : Watkins and Woods were nowhere close to being the premium One & Two receiver pair in the league, but just their presence led to pretty damn good quarterback play from Taylor. So where does that leave all these hysterical theories "proving" Taylor is incapable of even the most basic QB skills? It leaves them looking pretty foolish. If our expected outcome from the most important position in all of sports was to change drastically by adding 1-2 WR I bet you'd be pretty upset with the front office for actually shedding talent at the position this offseason, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grb Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 (edited) This post makes no sense at all. Edelman has done jack sht for the Pats until Welker left around 2013 on. He has a whole 4500 yards receiving in his career.. I guess Brady's other 60000 passing yards just went poffff? You need to try again, your 8% is enough to validate anything We're talking about differences between Brady's production with Edelman in and out of the lineup - and you quote Brady's 17 year career numbers vs Edelman's 7 year career numbers. So right away we know you're a troll. But, hey, let's be fair. Maybe you're just confused over the topic, so I'll lay it out simply : As a subset of the general Taylor Debate, there is the theory that wide receiver quality is irrelevant to quarterback play. This "theory" usually arises when people point out Taylor performed pretty damn good these past two years when he had a legitimate pair of NFL receivers to throw to. How can he be so embarrassingly deficient in every single basic quarterback skill with that being true? There are three responses : (1) Ignore the numbers and continue to rant ("can't see the field...can't make decisions....can't throw with accuracy....etc"). (2) Say numbers don't count with Tyrod (a popular choice). (3) Say "if he was a real quarterback" it wouldn't matter his receivers are the dregs because he would "elevate" them. It's popular for people making the last point to say "Brady doesn't need receivers". Well, some people have pointed out even his GOATness suffered a noticeable drop in performance when missing a favorite target (I wasn't the first to make this point). Now, they aren't saying Brady isn't a premier QB regardless. Likewise, even missing Edelman, the receivers TB was throwing to were surely miles better than the Bills' misfits these past two seasons. It should just be common sense. Of course Brady's performance was dinged. How could it be otherwise? But here we are, debating the point....... Edited October 12, 2017 by grb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 (edited) I presume you're asking about Brady's. Short answer : I don't know how old those numbers are. In a way it's a moot point, because it's an article of religious faith to many on this board that good quarterbacks (not to mention GOAT quarterbacks) are unaffected by the quality of their targets. This is, of course, ludicrously absurd - but still people believe. However old the numbers they're a sufficient sample size to prove a point. There were some stats floating around that Taylor's numbers without Woods and Watkins were better than Aaron Rodgers numbers without Nelson and Cobb, FWIW... To some degree ALL QBs are going to struggle more when they are playing with bit players on offense, especially at the WR position. I have to admit Taylor's "weapons" at WR have been comically bad for much of the past two yeard...last year due to injuries and this year due to the cupboard being bare Edited October 12, 2017 by matter2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 We're talking about differences between Brady's production with Edelman in and out of the lineup - and you quote Brady's 17 year career numbers vs Edelman's 7 year career numbers. So right away we know you're a troll. But, hey, let's be fair. Maybe you're just confused over the topic, so I'll lay it out simply : As a subset of the general Taylor Debate, there is the theory that wide receiver quality is irrelevant to quarterback play. This "theory" usually arises when people point out Taylor performed pretty damn good these past two years when he had a legitimate pair of NFL receivers to throw to. How can he be so embarrassingly deficient in every single basic quarterback skill with that being true? There are three responses : (1) Ignore the numbers and continue to rant ("can't see the field...can't make decisions....can't throw with accuracy....etc"). (2) Say numbers don't count with Tyrod (a popular choice). (3) Say "if he was a real quarterback" it wouldn't matter his receivers are the dregs because he would "elevate" them. It's popular for people making the last point to say "Brady doesn't need receivers". Well, some people have pointed out even his GOATness suffered a noticeable drop in performance when missing a favorite target (I wasn't the first to make this point). Now, they aren't saying Brady isn't a premier QB regardless. Likewise, even missing Edelman, the receivers TB was throwing to were surely miles better than the Bills' misfits these past two seasons. It should just be common sense. Of course Brady's performance was dinged. How could it be otherwise? But here we are, debating the point....... Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Some times the QB makes a receiver great. think on that for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 So what youre saying is that Wins dont matter for a QB and TD/INT ratio is also nebulous as a "true" measure. Gotcha. What I'm saying is wins are not a relevant statistic in determining QB performance. If you don't understand this very basic concept you probably shouldn't be in the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 What I'm saying is wins are not a relevant statistic in determining QB performance. If you don't understand this very basic concept you probably shouldn't be in the discussion. correct. That is why stats are irrelevant (other than for Fantasy Football.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 correct. That is why stats are irrelevant (other than for Fantasy Football.) No, not all stats. Wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1st Ammendment NoMas Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2017/09/26/the-nfl-lens-separation/ Waldman's tape breakdowns are generally terrific. He knows what he's looking at, shows good tape to explain and communicates well. Tyrod never even attempts to make that throw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 No, not all stats. Wins. "Wins" isn't a stat. Its a result. And the result I want is a nice 3 to 1 ration of Wins to losses 12 - 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 "Wins" isn't a stat. Its a result. And the result I want is a nice 3 to 1 ration of Wins to losses 12 - 4 OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts