Kelly the Dog Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 No, it isn't. You compared two QBs whose completion % wasn't all that different. One had talent, but played scared. The other played with courage, but had limited talent. Neither guy was a mad bomber, though Fitz took more chances. In the one year But even then the stats support my point. Trent actually completed a reasonable percentage of his passes (2008, where he completed 65.5% of his passes and started most of the games) the Bills were actually 7-7 in those starts accounting for all the Bills wins that year. The next year, when both QBs were under 60% passing, the team went 6-10,. The following season (2010), both QBs completion percentage dipped again, this time Fitz was two points higher than Trent, but all miserable (57.8 to 55.8) the Bills won 4 games. Fitz's complettion percentage increased to 62% in 2011 and the team won 6 games, 2 more than when both QBs completed less than 58% of their passes. Try again. Completion percentage is really not a good gauge. There are a lot of lousy quarterbacks with good completion percentages because they check down or dink and dunk. There are a lot of guys who are more erratic but they make plays and score points. Even though Fitz sucked balls at times, and entire seasons early and late in his career, IMO, he was a far better QB than Trent ever was, with far less skills. Completion percentage with those two meant nothing to me.
The Dean Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) Completion percentage is really not a good gauge. There are a lot of lousy quarterbacks with good completion percentages because they check down or dink and dunk. There are a lot of guys who are more erratic but they make plays and score points. Even though Fitz sucked balls at times, and entire seasons early and late in his career, IMO, he was a far better QB than Trent ever was, with far less skills. Completion percentage with those two meant nothing to me. If you followed the entire discussion, I'm not arguing that completion percentage tells the entire story,. No stat does. But stats are also not to be completely ignored as The-Dude would have it. On their own they don't tell you too much, they can tell you something when matched with the play of the QB. I was simply rebutting his one example of where stats don't matter--and in this case the wins supported the better stats. One thing I think that is hard to overcome, though, is when a QB doesn't complete a reasonable percentage of his passes. That's not to say a check-down type is better because he has a higher completion percentage. But rather a QB that can't even complete 50% of his passes (Tebow for example) is a drain in the offense. It is hard to sustain drives at that level. I expect a starting QB to complete around 60% in the modern game. A couple percentages here or there are fine, if he's sticking some big throws. Now, there was a time when it was bombs away, and then QBs had low completion percentage. But that doesn't come into play for any of the QBs being discussed. Edited August 31, 2014 by The Dean
Augie Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 All I know is if the Bills continue to stink it up out there, Dr. Seuss is gonna write a new book named Orton Hears a Boo. Excellent try! I think we are all Bills fans, correct? We have an unlimited number of differences, but we should all have at least one thing in common. Despair! Just kidding. This has gone from a difference of opinion to... something else. I just don't want Orton to Hear a Boo! Or, in a perfect world, to even see the field because of amazing play in front of him. (Full disclosure, I made a grammar joke recently in jest, but not directed at an offender.)
The_Dude Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 No, it isn't. You compared two QBs whose completion % wasn't all that different. One had talent, but played scared. The other played with courage, but had limited talent. Neither guy was a mad bomber, though Fitz took more chances. In the one year But even then the stats support my point. Trent actually completed a reasonable percentage of his passes (2008, where he completed 65.5% of his passes and started most of the games) the Bills were actually 7-7 in those starts accounting for all the Bills wins that year. The next year, when both QBs were under 60% passing, the team went 6-10,. The following season (2010), both QBs completion percentage dipped again, this time Fitz was two points higher than Trent, but all miserable (57.8 to 55.8) the Bills won 4 games. Fitz's complettion percentage increased to 62% in 2011 and the team won 6 games, 2 more than when both QBs completed less than 58% of their passes. Try again. Here's a rule, you don't get to determine which of my points are valid. I submit that as an example. Just one of a million potential examples because it was fresh on my mind. It validates my argument. You can argue that I could have picked something stronger but you don't get to determine the validity of it.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 If you followed the entire discussion, I'm not arguing that completion percentage tells the entire story,. No stat does. But stats are also not to be completely ignored as The-Dude would have it. On their own they don't tell you too much, they can tell you something when matched with the play of the QB. I was simply rebutting his one example of where stats don't matter--and in this case the wins supported the better stats. One thing I think that is hard to overcome, though, is when a QB doesn't complete a reasonable percentage of his passes. That's not to say a check-down type is better because he has a higher completion percentage. But rather a QB that can't even complete 50% of his passes (Tebow for example) is a drain in the offense. It is hard to sustain drives at that level. Now, there was a time when it was bombs away, and then QBs had low completion percentage. But that doesn't come into play for any of the QBs being discussed. Totally agree with all of that. But the eye test of Tebow would tell you all you need to know, unless you are touched by God, a raving zealot, or Nostradumbass who can see the future.
The Dean Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Totally agree with all of that. But the eye test of Tebow would tell you all you need to know, unless you are touched by God, a raving zealot, or Nostradumbass who can see the future. I made an edit to that post. Doesn't change things much but you may want to rebut something I added.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 I made an edit to that post. Doesn't change things much but you may want to rebut something I added. As a general rule, sure. You want your QB to have % in the lower 60s. And if you look at the active leaders of completion %, career wise, the top 10 is going to feature most of the very best QBs in the game. Because they all are very accurate. Thats the name of the game. But the top ten or so will also feature guys like Romo, Shaub, Palmer and Garrard who are decent to me but not top QBs. Its when discussing the lousy QBs, like Trent IMO, where the stat gets misleading.
The Dean Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 As a general rule, sure. You want your QB to have % in the lower 60s. And if you look at the active leaders of completion %, career wise, the top 10 is going to feature most of the very best QBs in the game. Because they all are very accurate. Thats the name of the game. But the top ten or so will also feature guys like Romo, Shaub, Palmer and Garrard who are decent to me but not top QBs. Its when discussing the lousy QBs, like Trent IMO, where the stat gets misleading. Agreed.
The_Dude Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Trent Edwards didn't run out of bounds on 4th down with the game on the line. He did that when they were losing 34-7 to the Packers and it was in the last minute in the game. It wasn't admirable, but it was hardly a game-deciding play. I've tried to block Trent out. I remember a 4th down at the end of the game where he did that and I just flipped out. Gutless.
Dibs Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Here's a rule, you don't get to determine which of my points are valid. I submit that as an example. Just one of a million potential examples because it was fresh on my mind. It validates my argument. You can argue that I could have picked something stronger but you don't get to determine the validity of it. I think you are arguing something that is subtly different to what The Dean is. You acknowledge that stats can be deceiving(which I am sure that The Dean agrees with).......but then seem to be generalizing in saying that stats do not matter(or interpreted: of no use). Continuing to provide examples of instances where stats can be deceiving is basically irrelevant as nobody disagrees with that. I personally think, considering the vastness of analytics(using stats), that trying to argue that stats are of no use is a predetermined losing battle. One could argue that a person who has no ability to analyze stats in a meaningful manner would find them of no use.....but I don't think that is where you are wanting to go with you argument......I could be wrong though.
DirtDart Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) I love the grammar police. Edited August 31, 2014 by DirtDart
BuffaloFan68 Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) I'll take a passionate gunslinger like JP over a balless wonder with a beautiful delivery like Trent any day of the week. Maybe that's why I like Grossman over Orton. We should also keep in mind that EJ is a second half player.</p> Edited August 31, 2014 by BuffaloFan68
The_Dude Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 I think you are arguing something that is subtly different to what The Dean is. You acknowledge that stats can be deceiving(which I am sure that The Dean agrees with).......but then seem to be generalizing in saying that stats do not matter(or interpreted: of no use). Continuing to provide examples of instances where stats can be deceiving is basically irrelevant as nobody disagrees with that. I personally think, considering the vastness of analytics(using stats), that trying to argue that stats are of no use is a predetermined losing battle. One could argue that a person who has no ability to analyze stats in a meaningful manner would find them of no use.....but I don't think that is where you are wanting to go with you argument......I could be wrong though. This stemmed from my saying "I'm not a stats guy" and I'm not. I do look at stats. They do hold value but this isn't baseball where a player is what their stats are. A DE can be double teamed all day, and only show up on the stats sheet with 1 tackle while playing a great game. He may have forced pressure but not gotten a sack. He may have forced two blockers freeing up other rushers. Stats won't show you this though. A QB may have had a horrible year in terms of comp % but that doesn't mean he's inaccurate. He could have had a year with new receivers and a new OC which didn't manage to get on the same page. A QB can have dumb receivers who misread defenses and screw up their option routes. You can have QBs who check down in lieu of giving the play time to develop which causes them to have a good comp % and QBR when they really weren't playing good at all. I'm not a stats guy. I do look at them. They do have their place. But they're not definitive and I probably hold them with significantly less regard than most fans.
stinky finger Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 This coaching staff is going to play the QB that gives them the best chance to win now......not in the future. The staffs future is present day. My simple prediction? Orton plays by week 4-5. Not because of injury but EJ ineffectiveness. Not an EJ hater.....just not an EJ believer.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) Savior or not, people will clamor for Orton with every EJ incompletion. Edited August 31, 2014 by PromoTheRobot
dave mcbride Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 I've tried to block Trent out. I remember a 4th down at the end of the game where he did that and I just flipped out. Gutless. No problem!
dave mcbride Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) As a general rule, sure. You want your QB to have % in the lower 60s. And if you look at the active leaders of completion %, career wise, the top 10 is going to feature most of the very best QBs in the game. Because they all are very accurate. Thats the name of the game. But the top ten or so will also feature guys like Romo, Shaub, Palmer and Garrard who are decent to me but not top QBs. Its when discussing the lousy QBs, like Trent IMO, where the stat gets misleading. I think both of you guys are wrong. Edwards accuracy stats (60.6) reflect who he was. They were inflated by the one pretty decent season he had - 2008 - when he had a 65.5 percent completion rate and an 85.4 rating. It was also the last time a Bills Qb had a .500 record. And it was really 7-6 given that he came out early in the first quarter vs. the Cardinals. He didn't play well near the end of the season, but the early season games count just as much. He generally played well in those games. (In fact, I'd argue they're better measures of reality because teams aren't ravaged by injury at that point, but that's another matter.) Against SD - a good team - he had an excellent game. Outside of his one decent season, (in which he had a 103 advanced passer rating -- with 100 being average), his career completion rate was 57.3 percent. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/EdwaTr01.htm Edited August 31, 2014 by dave mcbride
8-8 Forever? Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 This isn't a hate on EJ posting. I look at this team and think it's got the right mix to make the playoffs. The exception is simply Quarterback. I don't know if EJ will be a good QB or not, but it seems he's probably not ready to lead a team to the playoffs in 2 weeks. There's really nothing wrong with this, plenty of QBs benefit from a few years as a 2nd string. If we brought in Kyle Orton (he's my best case decent vetern QB that's available) do you think we make the playoffs? I'm talking about if we brought him in tomorrow. I feel like having Spiller in a contract year, FredEx at still a productive point in his career, Woods, Johnson, and Watkins at WR, and the strong defense...you just need an average QB to get there. I understand it's going to be EJ. Ironically I feel like it might be best for Marrone, Whaley, Brandon, and EJ if went to a backup role for the year learning while completely healthy. If he does poorly this year, some or all of those individuals are probably looking for a job. Thoughts? Would Kyle Orton, lack of prep time withstanding, still end up providing a better season record than EJ? (I'm assuming he's in football shape ready to play; I don't really know) anyone who has seen him will say that Kyle Orton can play. Period. We will have a QB controversy on our hands by October.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 With the way the OL played (lots of penalties, inopportune penalties) there are very few QBs in the NFL who could QB this team to the playoffs. EJ threw the ball reasonably well (he still has a lot of work to do) for the most part, when he had time. I'm not suggesting he can be the guy or will be the guy. But with horrible OL play like that, it's really hard to know. Yeah, I saw the Boomer Esiason clip where he talks about the Bills and EJ, and when he got to "a solid offensive line" I was like "that's some sh**, Boomer"
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Orton wouldn't have been brought in if the Doug's were happy with EJ. This has nothing to do with Tuel and everything to do with Orton being their last bet to save their jobs. Of course EJ will start against the Bears but if he gets out to a rocky start it'll be Orton time by week 3 or 4. That's silly. They wouldn't have brought in a really good back up if they were happy with their starter??? Come on man Trent Edwards didn't run out of bounds on 4th down with the game on the line. He did that when they were losing 34-7 to the Packers and it was in the last minute in the game. It wasn't admirable, but it was hardly a game-deciding play. Didn't he do something similar v Miami when it was on the line? Situational awareness was not strong with that one in my memory. Great hair though...
Recommended Posts