Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: This about sums it up
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Zero
QUOTE
The Jets have a great defense. The Falcons were kind of a buzzsaw - opener, new coach, on the road. The Cowboys games are just the Cowboys games. But if they don't start blowing team out like the Redskins, the Panthers, the Saints and the Bucs, something is wrong. I think the Jets game showed they can win those games, but they have to do more.
Here ...

Time to get it moving.
Phits
Nabby has been saying this all along
QUOTE
Rich: I've thought all along that he said to himself that he couldn't win a Super Bowl with Nick Foles, so why waste a year? He figured he would try this and see what happened.

Dave: Worse comes to worse, he tells himself, I've still got Mark Sanchez - and I'm probably going to have to go to Sanchez at some point if I keep Nick Foles because Nick Foles sucks.
mcnabbulous
After an eternity with Andy (who you all know I love) I don't understand how people can't be ecstatic having a coach who isn't satisfied with 10-6 or 11-5 (and not winning a SB).

That's what this team was. Bradford may not do any better. And he might be worse, but for a few weeks there, it offered a glimmer of hope that this team was a real contender. We could still turn things around and become the offense everyone envisioned after that preseason game in GB, but at minimum, it was worth a shot.

Chip may have guessed wrong on Bradford, but can anyone point to a better QB option this past offseason. Certainly not a guy like Ryan Fitzgerald. And certainly not the 2013 mirage that was Nick Foles.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 1 2015, 03:13 PM) *
Chip may have guessed wrong on Bradford, but can anyone point to a better QB option this past offseason.

Marcus Mariotta
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 1 2015, 03:13 PM) *
Certainly not a guy like Ryan Fitzgerald.

Ryan Fitzgerald?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 1 2015, 10:32 AM) *
Marcus Mariotta

He wasnt' really available.

QUOTE
Ryan Fitzgerald?

That's just how insignificant Ryan Fitzpatrick must be. I genuinely couldn't remember which one it was and guessed wrong.

D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 1 2015, 05:30 PM) *
That's just how insignificant Ryan Fitzpatrick must be. I genuinely couldn't remember which one it was and guessed wrong.

And he's got the Jets looking better than Geno "glass jawed" Smith ever did.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 1 2015, 01:01 PM) *
And he's got the Jets looking better than Geno "glass jawed" Smith ever did.

Oh yeah, I bet Brandon Marshall has absolutely nothing to do with that.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 1 2015, 09:13 AM) *
After an eternity with Andy (who you all know I love) I don't understand how people can't be ecstatic having a coach who isn't satisfied with 10-6 or 11-5 (and not winning a SB).

That's what this team was. Bradford may not do any better. And he might be worse, but for a few weeks there, it offered a glimmer of hope that this team was a real contender. We could still turn things around and become the offense everyone envisioned after that preseason game in GB, but at minimum, it was worth a shot.

Chip may have guessed wrong on Bradford, but can anyone point to a better QB option this past offseason. Certainly not a guy like Ryan Fitzgerald. And certainly not the 2013 mirage that was Nick Foles.



Maybe some people thought that you take last year's 10-6 team that played with a backup QB most of the year, and bring that same team back including Maclin with an improved defense by getting Thurmond and Maxwell, and you would have a 12-4 team top three in the NFC contender.

There moves created too many needs IMO.

If Bradford turns it around and becomes a top two tier QB, then it's a different story. It's not looking good right now.
nephillymike
One other thing.

Can we wait until Bradford and his 72 QB rating plays better than Foles and his 87 rating, before we name Bradford the better QB?

Foles hasn't been lights out I know, but still.

nephillymike
One other thing.

Can we wait until Bradford and his 72 QB rating plays better than Foles and his 87 rating, before we name Bradford the better QB?

Foles hasn't been lights out I know, but still.

mcnabbulous
Passer rating is a stupid stat.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 1 2015, 09:53 PM) *
Maybe some people thought that you take last year's 10-6 team that played with a backup QB most of the year, and bring that same team back including Maclin with an improved defense by getting Thurmond and Maxwell, and you would have a 12-4 team top three in the NFC contender.

There moves created too many needs IMO.

If Bradford turns it around and becomes a top two tier QB, then it's a different story. It's not looking good right now.

I know you know this ... The trade wasn't about going 12-4 and missing the SB again. The trade was the best available option to take risk at winning the SB. The coaches believed that wouldn't be Foles or Sanchez and they didn't think they'd be drafting early enough in the foreseeable future to get a player who could take them there. If Bradford fails I still applaud them for taking the shot. This wasn't like trading up to get RGIII, this was a guy you didn't believe could do what needed to be done and a second round pick.

I say give the QB whisperer time to do what he does and see if it works.
Robberson
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 1 2015, 10:32 PM) *
Passer rating is a stupid stat.


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Pro Bowl doesn't mean shit. Passer rating is a stupid stat. Apparently for you Chip fanboys, winning big games doesn't matter either.

So, what does matter to you in the game of football?
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 1 2015, 09:32 PM) *
Passer rating is a stupid stat.



So is winning % as a starter.

So is pass completion % over 10 yards.

Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 2 2015, 08:26 PM) *
So is winning % as a starter.

So is pass completion % over 10 yards.

Norm Van Brocklin 'The Dutchman' has a QB rating of 75.1, which is the same as Tim Couch. Taken out of context the QB rating is meaningless.

QB Ratings
nephillymike
QUOTE (Phits @ Oct 2 2015, 10:01 PM) *
Norm Van Brocklin 'The Dutchman' has a QB rating of 75.1, which is the same as Tim Couch. Taken out of context the QB rating is meaningless.

QB Ratings



What is meaningless is not looking at it in context of peers.

A guy who played in the late fifties and early sixties has a different league.

BTW, take a look at the Dutchman and compare him to his peers and tell me what you see. Use the last few years he played including his championship season.

It's a well kept secret.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 3 2015, 02:52 PM) *
What is meaningless is not looking at it in context of peers.

A guy who played in the late fifties and early sixties has a different league.

BTW, take a look at the Dutchman and compare him to his peers and tell me what you see. Use the last few years he played including his championship season.

It's a well kept secret.

I know you're a numbers guy, so you seem missing my point. My comparison was not a slight at The Dutchman, but an effort to demonstrate how the QBR can be a misleading stat...especially when used out of context. If you use QBR as a way to illustrate the level of play for a QB, than the higher the ranking 'the better the QB'. This is what the statistic demonstrates. Logic tells us a different story. We all know that Couch couldn't hold the Dutchman's jock, but their QBR suggests that they are even. If you have to factor in different criteria in order to make the stat relevant, it isn't a very good marker.

QUOTE
The NFL on its website states: "Passer rating is used to evaluate passers, not quarterbacks."[1] The formula does not include rushing statistics, sacks, or fumbles, nor does it put added weight on performance during crucial situations such as third downs or fourth quarter scoring drives. Passer rating also cannot account for the quality of wide receivers or pass protection from the offensive line.

To account for the fact that the NFL's passer rating formula does not factor in sacks, Pro-Football-Reference.com introduced Adjusted Net Yards Per Attempt (ANY/A). Pro-Football-Reference.com says that the formula [(pass yards + 20*(pass TD) - 45*(interceptions thrown) - sack yards)/(passing attempts + sacks)] provides a better estimate of a quarterback's contributions.[9] Still, this number does not include rushing or fumbles.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Robberson @ Oct 2 2015, 11:33 AM) *
laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Pro Bowl doesn't mean shit. Passer rating is a stupid stat. Apparently for you Chip fanboys, winning big games doesn't matter either.

So, what does matter to you in the game of football?

In the first game of the season, Bradford had a passer rating of 77.1. Had Jordan Matthews simply not dropped a pass resulting in an interception, that number would have been 85.1. Had his earlier completion to Matthews been correctly ruled a TD, it would have been 91.5.

In this past game, his rating was 73.2. If Sproles catches the perfectly thrown wheel route and goes 85 yards for the score, that number is 100.7

Its a dumb stat that fluctuates dramatically based on arbitrary variables.

Moving the chains is all that matters. Bradford hasn't done a good job at that, but he also hasn't been worse than Foles in that regard.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Phits @ Oct 3 2015, 02:07 PM) *
I know you're a numbers guy, so you seem missing my point. My comparison was not a slight at The Dutchman, but an effort to demonstrate how the QBR can be a misleading stat...especially when used out of context. If you use QBR as a way to illustrate the level of play for a QB, than the higher the ranking 'the better the QB'. This is what the statistic demonstrates. Logic tells us a different story. We all know that Couch couldn't hold the Dutchman's jock, but their QBR suggests that they are even. If you have to factor in different criteria in order to make the stat relevant, it isn't a very good marker.



I have a NEPM QB fromula that includes yards gained by running and lost by sacks and includes both fumbles and INT's as turnovers. I'll post the formula. I have to dig it up. I came up with it back when we had Vick.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 3 2015, 02:10 PM) *
In the first game of the season, Bradford had a passer rating of 77.1. Had Jordan Matthews simply not dropped a pass resulting in an interception, that number would have been 85.1. Had his earlier completion to Matthews been correctly ruled a TD, it would have been 91.5.

In this past game, his rating was 73.2. If Sproles catches the perfectly thrown wheel route and goes 85 yards for the score, that number is 100.7

Its a dumb stat that fluctuates dramatically based on arbitrary variables.

Moving the chains is all that matters. Bradford hasn't done a good job at that, but he also hasn't been worse than Foles in that regard.



http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/te...ercentage/2015/

If "IF" was a horse, we'd all have a ride.

Looks like Foles WR's are worse. Same number of drops, with a lot fewer attempts.

BTW, do you live in the Philly area?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 4 2015, 10:36 AM) *
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/te...ercentage/2015/

If "IF" was a horse, we'd all have a ride.

Looks like Foles WR's are worse. Same number of drops, with a lot fewer attempts.

BTW, do you live in the Philly area?

Sure. Which is why the stat is silly. It's based weighs heavily on a few things that can be taken out of the passers control. Namely interceptions.

Not these days. I'm down in Austin.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.