YattaOkasan

This has been done in other threads. Jackson has more drops than the others so he compares more favorably. I believe Darnold and Allen were not looking good after that analysis. On the Kap versus Jackson debate. Kap came out of Nevada. WAC is nothing close to the ACC. Also he played 4 years. His per year stats are not as good compared to Lamar and that’s including his senior year that really elevated his line. I will say 34 you are consistent in using off the field items in your analysis but I don’t understand how a business degree equates to success on the field.

Yeah I saw those stats and recreated the data set even (in the thread you started IIRC). I didn’t see the correlation to overall winning %, which is why I asked for the analysis. Cause isn’t overall winning % what we’re looking to do? I have seen turnover margin correlated to winning. If necessary I can pull the TO margin data. I don’t disagree that TT sucks in these situations. But it really speaks to how well he performs the “game manager” role that he can be so terrible during these situations and still have a winning record with 2 years of poor defense. Also I believe these stats indicate that when the game is on the line he will take chances (both TD% and INT% are above his average), which is something I have heard cast against him before. They say they’re not gonna cut him and he’s the best bridge QB we have on the team. That sorta leaves trade him, start him, or start then bench him as the only options.

If these stats matter please show the correlation to winning. I don’t think there would be good correlation to overall winning percentage. The reason folks point to TTs int% is because IIRC turnover margin is directly correlated with winning.

Check that search out on PFR. You can recreate the whole data set. I want to compare his td% and int% during this time to his typical. I’m pretty sure it’s going to be higher. Which suggests he does take chances when the game is on the line (a previous argument against him). He’s just not very good at it. Again I need to verify that.

Hes actually relatively small sample size relative to other QBs. Including the OT (so 4 lowest included) hes 27 out 36 qualifying.

So its definitely adding OT that changed things. Adds 4 not good QBs to the list. TT didnt really have a lot of attempts in OT. Could probably change the qualifying from 50+ passes to 60+ passes.

Tried to replicate this with Pro Football Reference (OMFG that site). I added OT cause you know its pretty critical. I get sorta different numbers. Puts TT clearly in bottom 3rd but not really dead last. I would like to see how he gathered his data. But seriously that PFR tool seems cray cray. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/play_finder.cgi?request=1&match=summary_all&year_min=2015&year_max=2017&game_type=R&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&quarter[]=4&quarter[]=5&tr_gtlt=lt&minutes=15&seconds=0&down[]=0&down[]=1&down[]=2&down[]=3&down[]=4&field_pos_min_field=team&field_pos_max_field=team&end_field_pos_min_field=team&end_field_pos_max_field=team&type[]=PASS&type[]=2PCP&include_kneels=N&no_play=N&turnover_type[]=interception&turnover_type[]=fumble&score_type[]=touchdown&score_type[]=field_goal&score_type[]=safety&margin_min=-8&margin_max=0&rush_direction[]=LE&rush_direction[]=LT&rush_direction[]=LG&rush_direction[]=M&rush_direction[]=RG&rush_direction[]=RT&rush_direction[]=RE&pass_location[]=SL&pass_location[]=SM&pass_location[]=SR&pass_location[]=DL&pass_location[]=DM&pass_location[]=DR&order_by=yards#offense::none

Is this intentionally out of order? FA is well in advance of the draft so I'm not sure how you would trade up, take a QB, and THEN start FA.

What about Broncos am i supposed to see? They haven’t hit on a QB yet. If anything they would be the get an elite defense and FA QB example right? I get that they are drafting and moving on quickly but I’m not seeing that being successful at all yet.

I gotcha now. Yeah that was probably the boldest thing in the prediction.

I'm in agreement with other posters on several things. The punishment seems to out weight the crime. If his tardiness was a consistent thing, why not sit him during the regular season to prove the point? If this was that serious of an infraction, why not inactivate him? If he wanted insurance for a Rowe injury, why not just play him cause Rowe was not good? These are like just surface level questions so I'm assuming there must be something deeper going on. Cause I wouldn't expect BB to make this type of mistake.

Yeah I mentioned that up thread too.

I don't think its too far fetched. I actually sorta think they are going to eat TT roster bonus to make him more trade worthy.

I think the numbers in the OP were all post June 1st designations which is why they were all a bit higher than what’s been floating around the board.

Understood and you’re right. But the reason i was saying is it doesn’t work is that the money isn’t available until after June 1st IIRC and you can only do it twice. So to post the savings for the players in the OP all with a post June 1st designation ended up being a bit misleading

Did you put the post June 1st numbers for everyone? That doesnt really work. The league allows each team to designate up to two players per year as a June 1 cut for cap purposes prior to June 1. https://overthecap.com/explaining-the-june-1st-designation/ Also its just putting the dead money off. Beane said we were better with the cap but we werent there yet (don't have the link from senior bowl IIRC). That makes me think we won't see huge relief by using the June 1st designation like for Taylor.

That was posted Dec 18!!!! You should check his grade after the NC. I think hes at least a B+

Looks pretty good. I would keep Clay as I don't think we get much by cutting him. He gets a ton of targets and is a good blocker. I also think Daboll will want to run a lot of 12 sets (although the 21 set you show is close to a 12 set, just Clay is a better receiver than DiMarco). If Chubb is available in the 3rd then yes please.

I really like their stuff. But I agree it tends to always be optimistic which is probably why I like it. I will say when the good things happen they are usually correct about the how.

Throw to Clay on the run in ATL. That was a dirty throw. I think this actually a very easy decision.

So I think I would call this something a little different than a trap game (I think calling it a trap game is why people are disagreeing). Maybe we can call it a "let down" game which is sounds like you're describing. I can agree with calling this game a potential "let down" game. Would be interested in seeing a similar analysis to the other "trap" game analysis. BTW I also am concerned about this week. Just didn't like the "trap" game part of what you were saying. Sorry if that sounds nit picky just sorta rubbed me weird.

So any game with a big spread is a trap game? Thats a really broad definition and I don't understand. I've seen stats posted on here showing that "trap" games don't exist. I believe the definition in that post was a game against a clearly inferior opponent followed by a game against tough opponent. How often do teams lose the easy game relative to how often they lose the easy game normally (no trap)? Stats were convincing that having a tough opponent after an easy opponent doesn't correlate to losses as you would expect if trap games are a real thing. Since you definition includes opponents "deemed to be easy to defeat" I don't know how you assess that. Is the expected success rate 100% for that definition? I'm going with others that there are no such things as trap games.

I think the kids are saying Dilly Dilly

So I actually read this opposite. You need to catch a backward pass in order to advance. Anyone can recover a backward pass after it touches the the ground, but it seems not advance. There is a note under article 1 about backwards passes that hit the ground but remain live balls (A direct snap from center in the backfield, a muffed hand-to-hand snap, or a snap that is untouched by any player are backward passes, and the ball remains alive.). Based on this and the other comments on laterals being fumbles I don't think it could be advanced.

Whats so wrong with it? He thinks they'll pretty much win out and beat the Pats at least once. I mean it is wrong, but lets just hold on to it. It can be that rare gem we can hold on to.