2008......big titan
2008, What if could if. What if john elway had decided to not go to stanford and play in canada. What does that matter?
If there are 3 QBs worth drafting high history shows us that 2 would suck.
Why are you guys so hung up on this second QB thing? That's not the only point i made. I just gave you a list of ALL QBs taken with the 2nd, 3rd or 4th pick whether they were drafted first or not. Look at those 10 players. These are insanely high draft picks and it looks like a lineup of losers.
Bigtitan, you are right. Any QB who starts 39 of 39 games definitely has a durability problem. A QB who doesn't miss a single college start in 3 seasons and plays at a heisman level every year is someone with durability issues. Yes i see the light now.
2008, What if could if. What if john elway had decided to not go to stanford and play in canada. What does that matter?
If there are 3 QBs worth drafting high history shows us that 2 would suck.
Why are you guys so hung up on this second QB thing? That's not the only point i made. I just gave you a list of ALL QBs taken with the 2nd, 3rd or 4th pick whether they were drafted first or not. Look at those 10 players. These are insanely high draft picks and it looks like a lineup of losers.
Bigtitan, you are right. Any QB who starts 39 of 39 games definitely has a durability problem. A QB who doesn't miss a single college start in 3 seasons and plays at a heisman level every year is someone with durability issues. Yes i see the light now.
Prag...
No i understand completely. Aside from the fact you didn't seem to understand why anyone was comparing pennington to lienart and you don't apparently know what a passing rating is..
You don't believe in statistically comparing two players from different teams. So according to you i would evaluate john elway's career not by comparing him to his fellow hall of famers like montana or marino. No rather you would have me comparing elway to gary kubiack or bubby brister. The measure of a great player is how superior he is to his backup?
What is this fair and balanced measure you talked about? Sounds good but give me an example. What is a fair and balanced measure? I asked you to come up with a better formula. I'm still waiting.
You have no formula and by eliminating stats from an argument you have only made evaluating a player less scientific, less clear and more muddled than ever.
You like jay cutler more than lienart, young or jacobs. Can you tell us why beyond saying you watched him play on tv a few times and he looks pretty good? I don't think you can. What you will do is come up with some vague non measurables like his strong arm and keadership abilities.
No i understand completely. Aside from the fact you didn't seem to understand why anyone was comparing pennington to lienart and you don't apparently know what a passing rating is..
You don't believe in statistically comparing two players from different teams. So according to you i would evaluate john elway's career not by comparing him to his fellow hall of famers like montana or marino. No rather you would have me comparing elway to gary kubiack or bubby brister. The measure of a great player is how superior he is to his backup?
What is this fair and balanced measure you talked about? Sounds good but give me an example. What is a fair and balanced measure? I asked you to come up with a better formula. I'm still waiting.
You have no formula and by eliminating stats from an argument you have only made evaluating a player less scientific, less clear and more muddled than ever.
You like jay cutler more than lienart, young or jacobs. Can you tell us why beyond saying you watched him play on tv a few times and he looks pretty good? I don't think you can. What you will do is come up with some vague non measurables like his strong arm and keadership abilities.
im just saying i would not spend a top 5 pick on someone with two surgeries on their throwing arm in a 3 year span.RollTide said:
RollTide said:
If you "understand completely" then why are you not able to comprehend what posters write? Prag never said he liked Culter more than Leinart. What he said was "So all we can do is make subjective guesses. Cutler's arm is stonger or weaker than Leinarts, whose is stronger or weaker than Young's. Thats all we can really do. I hope this is clearer for you."
Also, make your point. Do you think we should draft Young or not? If Leinart is there should we draft him? Your whole argument goes down the toilet if Young gets drafted before Leinart doesn't it? Again, as I and others have tried to convey, your logic basically puts the future of the QB we draft in the hands of Houston or NO. If they take one and we take the other the second guy taken is doomed to eternal damnation based on what? Because that has been the statistical probability in the past? So if we dig in and find out that statistically the 2nd and 3rd RBs drafted each year have been less productive than the 4th (again I said if) RB drafted Reese should use that as a means for deciding who he drafts?
The bottom line is if after evaluating Young, Cutler, Leinart and Jacobs the FO determines that Jacobs is only slightly lower rated than the other 3 then maybe you take a guy like Ferguson and hope Jacobs is there. The only logic to what you are saying seems to be that teams put too much stock in rankings of postion. Just because a guy is the 2nd or 3rd best QB in the draft doesn't mean he is any good.
We pick third. If your goal is to show stats that taking any QB beyond the first chosen is risky, then you have to only use QBs taken within the first three picks to prove your point which is what I did. Three QBs isn't enough to show a pattern. Therefore, busted.RollTide said:
And I focus on the second QB taken because that is likely the situation we're in this draft. Wasn't the premise of your argument to show taking the #2 QB in THIS draft to be a risky venture? You can't ignore the realities that we pick #3 and that we'll likely have Leinart or Young to choose from.
As Prag said so well, stats can only prove something if taken in context. They rarely, in themselves, prove it all. You always need to look at the big picture.
I commented in another thread on taking a QB early that you have to consider the team who chooses the player in the first place. Most of the time, they were franchises who struggled for multiple seasons. This points to the QB probably being over-rated to begin with, going to a team with little talent, having to step in and play immediately and not having strong coaching around them as they develop.
I think these factors have much more influence than whether or not they were the first or second QB taken within the first three picks of the draft.
RollTide said:
I never claimed to use Scientific reasoning, but Prag is and doing a good job of it.
Sidestepping the fact you keep contradicting yourself on the importance of stats, can we at least agree that the passer rating is a combination of the QB skills, the receivers skills, the opponents skills and quite possibly also the skill of O-line and coaches?
Who will have a better passer rating, Peyton Manning with a paraplegic, blind receiver or Joe Schmoe with Marvin Harrison? But which one of them is the better passer?
So you're saying the passer rating is the best mathematical measure we have, which is probably true, but it's nowhere near good enough to accurately predict a future NFL career. Nor can you base a players success on awards, trophies or bowl games won.
The problem is you're hellbent on finding a surefire formula to predict who take in the draft, but unfortunately there isn't one. Which is why Jeff's or anyone elses opinion is just as valid as yours.
If you ever find a scientific formula that acurrately predict the success or failure of prospect, you will indeed be a rich man.
RollTide said:
If the statistics determined the odds of a qb being a bust or pro bowler, then outside factors (that have nothing to do with that player) wouldn't change that. The fact that if Brady Quinn had entered this draft, he probably would be taken ahead of all of the qb's would, by your logic, change the odds of one of the other two qb's. That's insane.
I could imagine a press conference with Reese after the 1st day of the draft.
Reporter: "Mr. Reese, why did you decide to pass on Vince Young when all the speculation was the Titans would get a QB with the #3 pick?"
Reese: "Well we had Vince rated as the highest player in the draft and if we were picking #1 we would definately have taken him however after crunching some numbers we noticed that the QBs taken 2nd, 3rd and 4th in previous drafts have terrible probabilities of success so we went with the probability that Young would be a bust."
Reporter: "Mr. Reese, why did you decide to pass on Vince Young when all the speculation was the Titans would get a QB with the #3 pick?"
Reese: "Well we had Vince rated as the highest player in the draft and if we were picking #1 we would definately have taken him however after crunching some numbers we noticed that the QBs taken 2nd, 3rd and 4th in previous drafts have terrible probabilities of success so we went with the probability that Young would be a bust."
RollTide said:
You watch the film, you "scout" players, you interview the player - Sure, players with blue eyes are generally better Quarterbacks than players with green eyes, but at the end of the day, that's why they make them coloured contact lenses.
Scouts are paid good money for a reason. They evaluate players and make a recommendation as to who is the better player based on their observation.
I am an absolute whiz with spreadsheets and I have a college degree in mathematics majoring in statistics. I don't think that would qualify me for a job as a chief scout for an NFL team.
PragIdealist said:
You've been watching "Numbers" on Friday nights, haven't you? :winker:
Good show.
Visteg....
So you're saying the passer rating is the best mathematical measure we have, which is probably true, but it's nowhere near good enough to accurately predict a future NFL career. Nor can you base a players success on awards, trophies or bowl games won.
----------------------------------------------
I never used the passer rating for any college prospect to make any point. Where did i do that? The only time the passer rating came up was in reference to a pro player, pennington to illustrate that he was a good player. People here and elsewhere have tried to compare lienart to pennington in a negative way as if pennington sucked. He does not.
The only stats i used other than that was in one post, one post! That was to compare omar jacobs to leftwich to illustrate that jacobs was a pretty good college player. That's all! This arguement was never about stats! That came from the imagination of your friend prag.
This argument has never been about stats! It's about the fact that QBs taken with the 2nd, 3rd or 4th pick have not been very good.
The only point prag made was that stats have to be taken in context. That isn't science! Do we take into account that jay cutler played his career at vandy and not florida? Of course we do but that is common sense not science. I never argued against that. Are mark bulger's passing stats with the rams bloated because he has good WRs? Yes but that is not science.
If someone has a methodology or formula that is superior for judging pro or college players i would like to see it.
So you're saying the passer rating is the best mathematical measure we have, which is probably true, but it's nowhere near good enough to accurately predict a future NFL career. Nor can you base a players success on awards, trophies or bowl games won.
----------------------------------------------
I never used the passer rating for any college prospect to make any point. Where did i do that? The only time the passer rating came up was in reference to a pro player, pennington to illustrate that he was a good player. People here and elsewhere have tried to compare lienart to pennington in a negative way as if pennington sucked. He does not.
The only stats i used other than that was in one post, one post! That was to compare omar jacobs to leftwich to illustrate that jacobs was a pretty good college player. That's all! This arguement was never about stats! That came from the imagination of your friend prag.
This argument has never been about stats! It's about the fact that QBs taken with the 2nd, 3rd or 4th pick have not been very good.
The only point prag made was that stats have to be taken in context. That isn't science! Do we take into account that jay cutler played his career at vandy and not florida? Of course we do but that is common sense not science. I never argued against that. Are mark bulger's passing stats with the rams bloated because he has good WRs? Yes but that is not science.
If someone has a methodology or formula that is superior for judging pro or college players i would like to see it.
Soxcat...
Personally, I think Cutler is the best Qb coming out in this draft.
---------------------------------------------
You said that prag never said he liked cutler more than lienart. So lienart is not in this draft? Those are his words.
All i did was illustrate the high bust rate of QBs taken in this same situation. I have repeatedly said that that alone would not be a reason to draft a guy. Repeatedly! All i want people to do is to look at other possibilities aside from this robotic mentality that we will draft young. There are other players out there you know.
What is pathetic about this thread is that here i am dissing young saying there may be better options and hardly a word in defense of drafting this guy. Nobody is saying why vince young is such a good pick at #3.
Do i have to make your arguements for you?
Personally, I think Cutler is the best Qb coming out in this draft.
---------------------------------------------
You said that prag never said he liked cutler more than lienart. So lienart is not in this draft? Those are his words.
All i did was illustrate the high bust rate of QBs taken in this same situation. I have repeatedly said that that alone would not be a reason to draft a guy. Repeatedly! All i want people to do is to look at other possibilities aside from this robotic mentality that we will draft young. There are other players out there you know.
What is pathetic about this thread is that here i am dissing young saying there may be better options and hardly a word in defense of drafting this guy. Nobody is saying why vince young is such a good pick at #3.
Do i have to make your arguements for you?
For all we know Reese doesn't like Young at #3. Maybe the Titans are not real high on Leinart either. Certainly the Titans like one over the other and possibly they think one or both are well worthy of the 3rd pick. The whole argument is really simple. The Titans should not take a QB at #3 just because one of the two is there and we need a QB. However, if the one there is counted worthy by the coaching staff as a BPA AND a player meeting a need why not take them? Reese isn't going to reach IMO and take a guy who is the "2nd best" QB just because he is 2nd best but he will take Young or Leinart IF he feels they have the potential to be a solid if not great NFL QB. Looking at past drafts IMO will not sway their decision (and I doubt the QBs past relationship with McNair will wiegh in either) but what will sway their decision is if that player is worthy of being the #3 pick.
RollTide said:
Tide, your whole analysis was using stats, not just the piece where you looked at the passer rating.
"sta·tis·tic Audio pronunciation of "statistic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st-tstk)
n.
1. A numerical datum.
2. A numerical value, such as standard deviation or mean, that characterizes the sample or population from which it was derived."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
