Coach Tuesday Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 If QB A throws for 50 TD's on 100 passes, and QB B throws for 25 TD's on 50 passes, which one is better? QB A.
Uffalo Ills Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) I love a good argument that uses detailed analysis and a broad set of statistics. This is not one of those. A lot of what you said was essentially: "Don't disagree with me or you're stupid" or "I'm too lazy to actually research some stats behind what I wrote, so yeah." I don't think your entire premise is incorrect, but you just saying this adds nothing. There's no prof behind what you say and very little grasp of statistics (as in the math subject). Edited January 16, 2016 by Uffalo Ills
K-9 Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Can't believe you omitted Johnny Phuckin' Football! GO BILLS!!!
8-8 Forever? Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) DISCLAIMER: This topic is in no way meant to denigrate or overly praise Tyrod Taylor as an NFL QB. If your major takeaway from this post is that TT sucks or that TT is great, and you deem it necessary to respond with snark aimed towards the opposite viewpoint, please ring your call button and Tommy will come back there and hit you in the head with a tack hammer, because you are an idiot. Let's begin. As an FYI, many posters already know this song and dance and won't get anything out of it, but with a boring offseason looming ahead of us, I thought it worthwhile to write up a little something discussing mobile QB's, their success (and failure) in the NFL, and perhaps shine some light on what we may be able to expect in the 2016 season. If you don't find it worthwhile, please feel free to let me know. This topic is based on the premise of "mobile" QB's and the NFL. The major QB's I feel fit into this discussion is Cam Newton, Tyrod Taylor and RG3. I am not including Russell Wilson, because, while the very definition mobile, I believe he emerged from college as a very gifted passer and QB. Much more than the other 3. And I don't believe his own trajectory applies at all with the other 3. Now my own definition of "mobile." You may say, "FC, you moron, Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers are both very mobile QB's in their own right, topic failure, I hate your guts." But I disagree with that premise. For the purposes of this discussion, I consider the QB's we are talking about capable of carrying a team to victory with their legs. An example to illustrate this point is the Tennessee game earlier this season. Cam, RG3 and Tyrod are the only ones capable of making that 3rd and long conversion with their legs, IMO. Alex Smith and Rodgers, while enjoying the benefits of speed and their ability to takeoff, do not possess that ability. Finally, we get to the meat. As you look at the first season of RG3, Cam and TT, you see many similarities. All 3 QB's emerged in their first year explosively. They had their ups and downs as rookies or first time starters, but their play was very encouraging to star-craved fanbases. They varied with W-L records, with Cam only managing 6-10 while putting up ridiculous numbers, RG3 at the other end with 10-6 and a playoff berth (and a decimation of Seattle prior to injury), and TT right in the middle with 8-8 (technically 8-6 but I'm not going back to see RG3's record because he also missed time, sue me.) However, both RG3 and Cam came into their second years and struggled to a varying degree. For Cam, his total TD number took a huge hit and his completion percentage dropped. He failed to replicate his great rookie performance his second year, but by no means could you call his second season a "failure." Meanwhile, RG3 experienced a catastrophic drop. He doubled his INT%, could not run anywhere close to as effectively, and failed to replicate his previous success. You know the rest of the story already. RG3 continued to decline and has been discarding as a has-been. Cam, after experiencing some rockiness, has emerged as a prolific passer and MVP-winner(I think). You could even extend this discussion to include mobile guys like Vince Young and Coin Kaepernick. The same trend continues to emerge. A somewhat explosive start with an eventual downtrend that they either escape, or more likely, spiral into the end their career. Using these guys as a baseline, I make my prediction for TT in 2016. I predict he will be a worse QB than 2015. A Cam Newton second season "decline" is one of our best case scenarios. An RG3, Vince Young, or Kaep catastrophe would be the worse case scenario. But I do believe it will be close to one or the other and that will indicate what kind of QB he will eventually become. The many causes for this kind of trajectory have been discussed. Figuring them out, keeping them in the pocket etc. etc. The one thing I do know is that there is going to be tape on TT next season, and he will be unlikely to catch teams unawares with his game and his favorite passes etc. In closing, Rex Ryan was correct in campaigning for Taylor early in the preseason. Mobile QB's certainly provide a "spark" not found by most rookie or young starters. However, once things become tougher, how they respond to adversity and their reliance on their physical gifts is what separates the Cam Newton's from the RG3's. TT is a lot closer to Newton and Wilson than to RGIII in throwing accuracy long and short, patience, cool and calm... this guy is a baller. You watch. Newton sucked year 2 bc his Oline fell apart. Only the HOF guys survive when their line falls apart. Now Newton has healthy probowl guys on his OLine.. If Glenn, Incognito both are back, (a big if), and the line stays solid like it did in Carolina this year, you'll see. Mobile QB is the way of the future. Don't be surprised if Alex Smith (super athlete mobile QB and a worse thrower than TT) is in SB 50 and Manning and Brady are at home. A couple of things - How much will Tyrod being a "seasoned rookie" as I like to call him factor into the scenario you are painting? From all I have heard TT is a gym rat.....a film junkie......he has all of the personal taits that make for a successful QB.....the difference in him and say......Cam Newton who had the reputation of being lazy....of being arrogant...... - Greg Roman returns for another year and it is obvious that while TT had a superb year......they did not take the offense and put it on his shoulders....so going into year two does Roman start giving Tyrod more of the offense? And what does that do in terms of increased production.....or decreased efficience? We largely will not know until they actually put the product on the field. - They know who their starter is going into next season so what does Doug Whaley do to continue to put pieces on offense AROUND Tyrod Taylor? They need to be pieces that play to Tyrod's strengths AND allow him the comfortability to continue his progression in working from the pocket.....mainly --- A quality RT......the RT's we have on this team simply will not due.....they are getting beat off the snap and forcing Tyrod to have to adjust.....GET A RT. --- Receiving targets besides Sammy Watkins that can get open deep and catch a contested ball........how many times did Tyrod throw a ball this year that a physical pass catcher should have caught on a 50 50 ball? Even the best QBs in the league have WR's that help them out by catching contested balls. TT is SUPERB at the deep ball throw......get him pass catchers that can get open and catch it. And last but not least.....the obvious.....the defense.....we need a D that can actually flip field position, create turnovers, and get off the field on 3rd down....give TT MORE opportunities with the ball. this , esp the greg roman point... they hardly opened the damn playbook this year. " the film on TT" that all the broken, sad, negative Bills fans on this board say will be used to stop him next year is woefully incomplete, bc i'm guessing they probably ran about a 3rd of Roman's offense this year. Sure I wish TT was 6-5 and 250 like Newton, but Wilson seems to make it work pretty well for a small guy. Edited January 16, 2016 by 8and8-->NoMore
Nanker Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Hey Fire Chan, it doesn't matter. Unless you're in the FO at OBD in a very high position, they're not going to bring Johnny Foosball here... ever! And he's the prototypical mobile QB that your treatise speaks to. His NFL career was washed up before it even began.
Big Turk Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 So basically, your argument is: 1) ignore Russell Wilson 2) fail to mention RGIII's catastrophic mobility-hindering injuries 3) exclude other running QB who fail to meet some nebulous criteria 4) use Cam Newton's 2 TD and 2% completion decline, in the face of decreased INTs, IMPROVED passer and QBR, and 1 more win, a "huge hit". 5) claim analogous decline in his 2nd playing season for Kaep, despite the fact that he returned to the conference championship that year and overall continued to perform at a high level Shenanigans. RGIII's injury is relevant. Russ Wilson and arguably Aaron Rodgers are relevant. Newton's 2nd season "decline" is only by a limited set of metrics, not looking at his overall QB performance. Ditto Kaep (in his 2nd season of NFL play, 2013) - slight decline by some metrics, but overall a highly effective and dangerous QB Frankly, rather than a reasoned "treatise", this comes across far more like an attempt to say "Tyrod Taylor will Suck Next Year" and then (unsuccessfully) cherry-pick facts to support it. I don't suggest you waste electrons calling me an idiot for that conclusion - do a better and less arbitrary job of justifying yours instead. Like any 2nd year QB, Taylor will lose the element of surprise, not because running QB suffer some specific (and apparently dire) career trajectory, but because there's more film to slice n dice his tendencies. He will have a 2nd year slump, or he will improve, not because of some fate of running QB but based on how effectively he improves his game and how effectively his OC wins the NFL Chess Match of move-countermove-adapt to the countermoves I suspect that for trying to use DC Tom as a kind of "enforcer", his response would be...well, you know. RGIII's problem is he is more worried about his endorsements than studying film. He wants to make the big play happen all the time so he can make the highlight film instead of going with the play design. That's why his Oline was getting so pissed he would hold the ball and hold the ball trying to hit a home run instead of taking the single or double that was designed by the play and end up getting sacked, making his Oline look bad. There was a reason they stopped picking him up off the ground. RGIII is simply a guy that doesn't get it.
bobobonators Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) If QB A throws for 50 TD's on 100 passes, and QB B throws for 25 TD's on 50 passes, which one is better? Neither. You can't make an accurate determination because you're using different data sets. It's technically possible that QB B ends up throwing 60 TD's in 100 passes..or he could throw 35 TD's in 100 passes. You just don't know at this point so you can't state who is "better". It's unfair to QB B to project QB A as better b/c QB A was given twice as many opportunities...and it's equally unfair to say QB B is the same or better because QB A was given more opportunities and still performed at a high level regardless. However, you can project that QB will throw 50TD's in 100 passes - because that is what he's on pace for. I hope your wrong, and why no Russell Wilson? IMO the only reason RW isn't on here is because it would undermine the argument. Because there is absolutely no reasonable, objective explanation for RW's omission. Edited January 16, 2016 by bobobonators
FireChan Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) Neither. You can't make an accurate determination because you're using different data sets. It's technically possible that QB B ends up throwing 60 TD's in 100 passes..or he could throw 35 TD's in 100 passes. You just don't know at this point so you can't state who is "better". It's unfair to QB B to project QB A as better b/c QB A was given twice as many opportunities...and it's equally unfair to say QB B is the same or better because QB A was given more opportunities and still performed at a high level regardless. However, you can project that QB will throw 50TD's in 100 passes - because that is what he's on pace for. IMO the only reason RW isn't on here is because it would undermine the argument. Because there is absolutely no reasonable, objective explanation for RW's omission. So you don't think that it's objective that Wilson is/was a much better passer than the rest of the group? Can't believe you omitted Johnny Phuckin' Football! GO BILLS!!! He didn't set the league on fire or even have much success when he started, not to mention he was benched, started, injured etc.. Again, a fragmented start doesn't make for easy data analysis. But if there was ever a guy who could overcome all odds.... Edited January 16, 2016 by FireChan
Bill from NYC Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) So, should we give EJ a few more chances? This is entirely jmo, but I think that with Tyrod, you are pretty much watching the future of the game. I am as much of a football purist as anybody here, but there are simply not enough good passers out there. Given how many games having Rex (and of course EJ) lost us, I think that Tyrod did very well to win us enough games to finish at .500. TT picked up key first downs on the ground. This was HUGE in that it kept our pathetic defense off the field. I could easily be wrong, but I think the future will bring us running QBs and big RBs. Again, jmo. PS: Yeah, ya should have included Wilson. Not doing so took away credibility of a topic which is a great one to discuss. Edited January 16, 2016 by Bill from NYC
Maury Ballstein Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Wilson and Newton see the whole field, can make every throw and are difference makers. If Tyrod gets lumped in with them one day we will all be happy.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 The argument for RW is a good one. It was really hard to keep him out. Looking back, I probably should've included him, but I honestly felt he was such a better passer out of box compared to the rest, i Wait, you include Cam Newton who set records as a passer his rookie season - passed for 4050 yds, broke passing records set by Peyton Manning, and you exclude Russ Wilson from a consideration of rushing QB because "he was a better passer"? Nuts.
FireChan Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 Wait, you include Cam Newton who set records as a passer his rookie season - passed for 4050 yds, broke passing records set by Peyton Manning, and you exclude Russ Wilson from a consideration of rushing QB because "he was a better passer"? Nuts. Yes. I think RW was a better passer, a better QB than Cam out of college.
Maury Ballstein Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Out of college yes. But after game 1 in the NFL Cams really been straight cash minus the year they had walk-ons and CFL Players on offensive line. Cam's mid range game to Olsen is quality stuff. Edited January 17, 2016 by Ryan L Billz
Coach Tuesday Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Yes. I think RW was a better passer, a better QB than Cam out of college. I would suggest you use stats to back up this point if you want to be taken more seriously. What does "better passer" mean? It has to be based on objective criteria, not just "what FireChan thinks."
FireChan Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) I would suggest you use stats to back up this point if you want to be taken more seriously. What does "better passer" mean? It has to be based on objective criteria, not just "what FireChan thinks."I mean, it's not hard. Cam Newton Year 1 vs. Russell Wilson Year 1. Completion percentage, 60 vs. 64.1 TD%, 4.1 to 6.6 INT%, 3.3 to 2.5 YPA, 7.8 to 7.9 AYPA, 7.2 to 8.1 Passer rating, 84.5 to 100 QBR, 56 to 72 4QC, 1 to 4 GWD, 1 to 5 There are a few that Cam beat him in, like sack percentage, and NYPA (which is based off sacks). Other than that, Russ killed him. Combined with the intangibles RW had (I don't know how you'd like me to quantify being a better QB in terms of reading a defense, keeping eyes downfield, looking off safeties etc. but maybe you could ask someone who has actually watched both players) it wasn't really close. Anyways, have at it. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NewtCa00.htm http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm Edited January 17, 2016 by FireChan
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Yes. I think RW was a better passer, a better QB than Cam out of college. If it's all about "what you think" though, fair enough but don't try to package it as anything else. Put it out there as what you think. If you're going to claim any sort of analysis or objectivity, state your criteria up front and then exclude/include based on the criteria. You can exclude RW based upon his better completion percentage, better YPA, better TD %, better INT % if you like. But then you also have to exclude Tyrod Taylor, whose completion percentage, TD %, INT % etc are durn near identical to Wilson's, and who (like Russell his rookie season) sat behind a top rushing attack in the NFL. You can't cherry-pick statistics to make your point if you expect it to be respected. You have to put your criteria out front, make sure they don't seem arbitrary or adjusted to pick who you want, then choose.
BringBackFergy Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Hope you fellas like my post. I tried to come up with some "hot takes" and a few "lukewarm takes". I want to thank FireChan for giving me this forum to discuss my opinions.
Chandler#81 Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 I don't know how it relates to your hypothesis, but T-Rod is a totally different dude from the other QBs that you define as "mobile". He seems smarter and more humble, more willing to learn and lead than Tre or Cam. Fingers crossed that you are wrong. This -plus the other narrowed field being discussed were rookie starters. Tyrod is a 5 year vet who's seen 1st hand how defenses attempt to take away strengths in progressive years. I predict Tyrod will improve significantly -especially with the aid of new offensive wrinkles by Roman to take advantage of presumed defensive tactics from TT's 1st year starting.
Recommended Posts