DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2016 NFL Season 2016 NFL Draft The 2016 Quarterback class

What I posted above sounds really cool with the Don Knotts voice.

It reminds me of the Apple Dumpling Gang.

You really need to stop making this about yourself. Pointing out that some math doesn't add up isn't a personal attack on you. Get a grip.

Hackenburg is a tough one to rate because he plays on such a poor offense. He is one that could rise a lot in the draft once the scouts get a better individual look at him.

It would really help if you actually understood the math that you are calling bunk or do you think those 2 completions by Pennington made a difference.

I just find it interesting how they've played around with their number to achieve certain results. They seem very adamant to cast out any player who has started less than 10 games, but then have no problem glancing over players who have played NFL before. It really speaks more about their research methodology then it does about their math, in this case.

Do you understand why taking out "total failures" and instituting a 10 start requisite might skew the results? Do you see how that could affect the results at all?

I understand how leaving in total failures that don't have enough data to be accurate can skew the numbers and how 2 completion seasons can skew the numbers. Do you?

Could it be argued that, they don't have enough data "to be accurate (Whatever this is suppose to mean)" because they underperformed to such a level that they were not suited to be starters in the NFL? That they didn't need 10 starts to find that out? Shouldn't failures be included in a study of QB's successes and failures? Yes. They should.

Yes. I do understand why incorporating multiple, invalidated data into their "analytics" could skew the numbers towards sitting them. It's unfortunate that you seem to not understand this concept.

Here's what it means:

2 completions in 5 attempts is not statistically relevant. Yes it gives you a very pretty 127 passer rating but it can't be compared to a passer rating over an entire season.

They set a minimum of 5 games to avoid the fluke factor and give them numbers that they could compare fairly.

QB's that played less than 5 games were dropped from BOTH groups.(First year starters and non-first year starters) Not QB's with just high passer ratings or QB's with low passer ratings, any QB that didn't start 5 games was dropped because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SKEW THE NUMBERS.

Let's go by your system. By your system Johnny Manziel was a 1st year starter and his season should be added to that list as well as his performance. Does his first year performance help your case? Is it fair to call him a first year starter with 18 completions on 35 attempts and a QBR of 42.0? No he didn't play enough his first year to give a good sample size.

So go ahead, don't understand what you are saying, but repeat it over and over as loud as you can anyway despite whether it makes sense or not.

Just don't bring up Marques Tuiasosopo. The NSA is watching.

I never said it was statistically relevant. I've never made that argument. I'm saying that they have included invalidated data.

"Group A sat the entire first year, and started a minimum of 5 games each of years 1 and 2."

"Group A sat the entire first year."

That is what they said, but included players who did play in their first year. They made the same mistake with Drew Brees. Do you see that since their premise is invalid, their analysis, based on said premise, is also invalid.


Actually this isn't true. There were no first year starters (At least first rounders), who didn't start more than 10 games. They only excluded numbers out of one group.

Would you say removing stats from only one group might skew numbers?


I'd have to question why they'd be using a two year player to predict career success. They shouldn't be counting Johnny at all. It'd be equally dumb to judge Mariotta's rookie season as an indicator for his career success.



Just keep repeating that mantra to yourself. Whatever you need to keep you going. Remember it's the only way to get Benji to sign a 10 year contract

In your world would JFF be considered a QB that started his first year and in that world does it give us meaningful relevant data?

Drew Brees 15 completions on 27 attempts. Again is this a statistically relevant season?

Can you explain why, in my world, that JFF, a two year player, is an indicator of career growth? Please.

Hey wait, you're skewing the numbers!

You're skewing the numbers!

Somebody call a cop.

Not what I'm saying. Can you read?

Or the grammar police

But can you explain why using a 2nd year player is an indicator of career average? You got one more shot!

From the top of the article...


Nothing in there measures careers, just the starts of them. The first 2 seasons to be exact. Since you want to include Chad Pennington's 2 completion season, JFF now qualifies with 2 years worth of data. Deal with it.

Pretty funny that if they wanted to find success rates, but also wanted to throw out "total failures" haha



Again, not what I'm saying at all. They included data that didn't match their prerequisites... Multiple times. That's the problem, bud. How many more times do I need to explain this to you?

Lets go back to our buddy Marques Tuiasosopo. In what year do you think he put up statistically relevant numbers that would add something meaningful to this study?




They excluded data that didn't match their prerequisites. And you don't quite understand that 2 completions does not a season make, but you're sure there is a conspiracy behind it somewhere. In your model there are a few more guys that should be included. Lots of punters, RB's and WR's have had 2 completion seasons as well, I'm not sure if coming from the spread comes into play with them at all, but Ladamian Tomlinson should be in conversation too.

After all we gotta put in those guys with meaningless data to make it meaningful.

Don't know. I'm not sure if he's a successful QB or not. Guess no one does. He's not included in the numbers, after all.




They excluded data that didn't match their prerequisites. And you don't quite understand that 2 completions does not a season make, but you're sure there is a conspiracy behind it somewhere. In your model there are a few more guys that should be included. Lots of punters, RB's and WR's have had 2 completion seasons as well, I'm not sure if coming from the spread comes into play with them at all, but Ladamian Tomlinson should be in conversation too.

After all we gotta put in those guys with meaningless data to make it meaningful.[/quote]

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. The simple thing is they said they didn't include anyone who played in the NFL during their rookie season, and then included people who played in their rookie season.

I know you're a bright guy, but there's no need to be so angry and try to build a strawman. You're approaching hysterics with this nonsense. You might want to take a break and come back when you're less pressed. No offense, I know you're a smart dude. We all do. You know your crap, man. I like reading your posts. But this is rather unbecoming and I hope you realize that accusing me of random things doesn't defend your argument.

Here's a clue. He's never played 5 games in any season in the NFL. He isn't relevant. There is no conspiracy. This study is about whether it's better to make a guy the starter early or make a guy the starter later. It could care less about the guy that never becomes the starter.



Wait a sec there. Are you not the person with about 100 posts in this thread saying the study was wrong, flawed, and total bunk?

This is about making a QB a starter early in his career. Was Chad Pennington declared starter in that year he threw 5 passes? Did him throwing 5 passes taint him as damaged goods? Is he really what you want to call a first year starter? For that matter was Drew Brees playing a partial game a starter? What about JFF? Did we consider him as our starter last year? Was there any point in time where we just said "That's it Johnny's our guy from now on"

You are the guy that's been prodding and prodding with the study is flawed over and over again, but when I point out that it's not over and over and that including what you want actually skews the numbers not the other way around, you ignore it.

Including Johnny Kicking Tee who came in and played one week because Ben Crazy got a PED suspension for too much Vanilla Extract is not statistically relevant.

Listen I know you are a bright guy as well, but if my rebuttals sound I am getting annoyed, just stop posting the same hogwash that annoyed me 5 mins ago. Don't say we should be counting the guy that never played or the study is flawed or count the guy that completed 2 passes or the study is flawed and expect me to swallow that horse hockey unless your willing to show why minutia like that helps the study instead of hurts it. I keep showing how it hurts it and you keep ignoring that.

Last, the strawman argument.

You're the one that says the study is wrong.
Prove it.
Show your math.
You are the one making a claim. Time for me to stop trying to prove why somebody else's work is right and for you to start proving why it's wrong. You can start with Marques Tuiasosopo.

If there is one thing people should have figured out about me by now, it's that if you want to win an argument with me, you aren't going to wear me out. Convince me I'm wrong or don't try at all.

But isn't that the problem? The study is trying to answer what's the best way to develop a QB. Either sitting him or playing him. However, they take out the players who sat, were made starters for a small period, and failed? If these players were successful they would be counted towards their stats. It's weird that, since they're not including them as failures.

As far as the passer rating thing is concerned, I think it's a bit too mathy for its own good. A tier system probably would have helped them more.


Yes and I explained the flaws in the experiment, not the numbers. I'm not debasing the numbers, I'm sure they have a calculator or wolframalpha at Fox Sports. I'm saying the experiment is flawed.


No, but they did outline a bunch of requirements for that equation and not follow them. And if we're trying to figure out if sitting a QB benefits him over playing, then we should probably not include contaminated samples in our findings.


I've been describing the flaws in the experiment, not the numbers.


Again, they're trying to determine if sitting helps a QB grow over starting one right away. They then throw away 5 QB's with low scores, who were both, high draft picks (2nd round), and sat behind an experienced QB and learned the offense.


If you want to pay me $20, I'll happily make an unbiased study for you. However, like everyone on these forums, including you, my time isn't free. I have a life outside of talking about the Browns, fortunately. I don't have time or the want to create an analysis of all the QB's drafted since 2000 and what their blah blah blah rating was. You see? I'm already getting tired of just beginning to explain it



I'm not trying to win an argument with you. I just don't want anyone to think that the analysis was good. I love analytics. HSAC is my stuff! But the Browns are an "Analytic" team now and if people see bad analytics going on, they might think the Browns are doing the same dumb things (Which they might, but we don't know. And that's where the hope is).

You guys have some decent takes, but is it necessary to quote entires posts to make a reply?

It makes it pretty unreadable. In most cases you can pull a few words to copy and paste to quote, then make a reply.

Cam acted a fool in college... that had nothing to do with physical ability.

Deputy Dawg...well played! I like your debate style. You can lead a horse to water, but if he doesn't drink, well, he doesn't drink!

You don't understand what you are trying to argue. You are trying to argue that the guys they never played the minimum 5 games should somehow count as playing 5 games in some unknown year that you can't figure out at this time. And you think that not doing that is weird?



Yeah adding even more subjectivity to the study is always a good idea. Let's not let math get in the way.



You are saying that is flawed to the point that it skews the numbers and leaves out relevant data. You could at least try to back up your opinion with a few numbers.



It's that they did follow them that bothered you. If they didn't play 5 games. The season didn't count. If they played 1 game or 5 snaps against the best defense or the worse defense in the NFL it didn't count. Never happened. I didn't get drafted by Green Bay last year and since I wasn't drafted and never played for them I didn't count either. Perhaps they should include me in the study because technically they didn't start me the first year either. There were UDFA QB's that never made the 53 man roster that should count. Not counting those guys would also skew the numbers. Chuck Norris should count because he is freakin Chuck Norris!



Oh now I got it! You want to argue the merits of a numerical study without using actual numbers. Kind of like arguing Physics with applesauce.



Who also never played. So, were they started too early or were they started so late in their career taken to such extreme to the point that they somehow started after retirement. Or could it quite possibly be that maybe, just maybe, they were bad draft picks and probably should be counted among QB's that actually did something on the football field.

In 1936 the first NFL player ever drafted was Jay Berwanger by the Philadelphia Eagles. The RB was a Heisman trophy winner was considered a sure thing and destined for greatness. At the time though he wanted the unheard of amount of $1000 a game and the Eagles decided to trade him to George Halas and the Bears. The Bears couldn't sign him either. The 1st overall draft choice ever in the NFL draft never played a snap in the NFL. If the above study was about RB's instead of QB's, using your logic, how could they not include the first overall draft pick? Even though his not playing has nothing to do with a team starting him early or starting him late. It had a lot more to do with a team not wanting to pay him $1000 a game.

While the above does show how ludicrous your argument is, it's not fair. The example was not about NFL QB's being started too early or too late. So lets move to a guy that would be included in your version of the study. Art Schlichter. Art was 17 of 37 in 1982. Statistically relevant in your version so he would be considered a first year starter in your book. But then he was suspended in 1983 for gambling. In 1984 he played 5 games, so he would have counted in your study and got his two years in, but he also would be considered a starter in Fox Sports study as well and have his first year in. He didn't kick the gambling problem and got suspended again only starting 1 more game in 1985. He was 12 of 25 in that game which would have been statistically relevant to you but not enough for his second year in for Fox. Fox made an effort to eliminate anomalies just like this one by requiring 5 games worth of data to count as a season.

So where is more injustice? Does counting Art Schlichter help the study or hurt it? Does the fact that he got suspended for Gambling have anything to do with whether it's better to start a QB earlier or later? He's the 4th overall pick in the draft not the second rounders that never played that you were worried about earlier. He's exactly the type of player that they were trying to exclude because he screws up the numbers. The same guy you say screws up the numbers by not including him.



I didn't say you had to create an entire study. Just a simple mathematical explanation on why Marques Tuiasosopo should be included would suffice. Otherwise you are just making random statements that you can't back up. You do stand by your statements don't you?



Great! We are in your wheelhouse! So now all you have to do to explain how this is bad analytics by providing a tiny bit of good analytics. Not a whole study. Just a tiny formula to demonstrate why Marques Tuiasosopo should be included. Even though you are a couple of hundred posts into it, we all know that you don't have the time for a full study. I'll even help!

In 2003 he started 1 game and was 25 of 45.
In 2005 he started 1 game and was 14 of 26.

See not much math at all. Just show us all that what you are saying is backed by something. All you have to do is show how those 2 games are mathmatically relevant to whether it's better to start a QB earlier or later. I know you wouldn't make a strawman argument.


My apologies to Ballpeen ahead of time. I know this one is probably brutal to read, but I did only quote what I replied to.

We're on your side, Ballpeen and other citizens

Their corrected study:


Man, I got halfway through editing that list and noticed all of those players played somewhat in their first year and besides Aaron Rodgers (Who played like crap in his first 5 games. Though he did throw the ball a limited amount of times) and JP Lossman (Actually his first two years that he didn't start, mirror his 4th and 5th year), they all had pretty representative QBR of their next few seasons. It kinda dawned on me how pointless this was and stupid. I can't believe I wasted so much time trying to disprove this.

Look, I don't care about this anymore. Every case is subjective. All I'm trying to say. I think Goff is as smart as Aaron Rodgers, Peyton, Eli, and Brees to be able to work through troubles if it hits him. But I also think he's smart enough to not have them in the first place.

Sorry for destroying a thread with an argument that doesn't end in a ban-worthy climax, but with this giving up. I'm sorry, everyone. See you guys in 'The 2016 QB Class Part 2' Thread


Again, Sorry.

If they (they being the people get to paid to do this) deem that one of these QBs has the potential to be a FRANCHISE QB.. Then I assume they will draft him.

In my own (not paid for, slightly less valuable) opinion..

I see Goff as a "more hyped" version on Tom Brady. (No, that doesnt mean im saying he is going to be Tom Brady)

He was more productive that Brady in college, and will be drafted waaay higher than him. But overall I see him as a guy that will come in, manage the game from the start, and over time, has the potential to add size/possibly arm strength, and with experience can be THE GUY for the next 10-15 years.

Lynch I would (again IMNPFSLVO) compare to a poor mans Ben Roethlisburger, I dont think, at the college level he's as good as Ben. He has the size and mobility of him, but I think it would take a lot longer for him to become the guy than it did Ben. And we don't currently have a 2005 Steelers Defense/Running Game to carry him.

Wentz I would compare to a rich mans Joe Flacco, yes partially because of the level of competition he faced, but I think he has a solid deep ball, but his range is/could be better than Flaccos over time.

I will be very interested to see Wentz in the Senior bowl against higher caliber players. It won't be the end all be all, but I think its really important for him to preform well..

Here's the thing. I can type all that out, and be wrong. And continue working at the Pepsi Warehouse without any problems.

Guys like Hue and Brown are potentially laying their careers on the line on one of these guys. So I would assume if they "arent sure" about someone, they won't take them..

It will be interesting none the less.

The board will likely crash on Draft night (for better or for worse)

You could have went with the Hitchhiker's guide and said the answer was 42.

"These do invalidate their own rule. Not mine. "

Their own rule was. Did not play 5 games = sat. They didn't invalidate it, you ignored it.

There, it got easier at the end.

BTW I do agree that Goff is pretty smart, but the hill to climb going from a spread to pro style is pretty steep and it's going to take some good fundamentals besides the brains. That means that he needs to make good habits before the season starts because once it does he'll be working on game plans instead of good habits.

Here's my own little study.

I used NFL.com for this and I hope they aren't as blatantly biased as that darned Fox Sports.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...ady-takes-a-hit

The top 10 QB's at the beginning of the year according to NFL.com.

Still counting at least 5 starts as a season unless some of you think that Aaron Rodgers actually put Brett Farve on the bench in more than one instance.

1) Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay Packers
1st start in game #:49
College offense: Pro Style
Had to bide his time behind Farve. Scouts say he looked like a totally different QB once he finally started. He's the first to say that sitting made him into the QB he is today

2) Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers
1st start in game #:3
College offense:Spread
In 2004, after being selected with the 11th overall pick by the Steelers, Roethlisberger was forced into the starting lineup in Week 3 after an injury to Tommy Maddox in Baltimore. At the time he was considered less ready than Eli Manning or Philip Rivers who were drafted ahead of them. The Steelers didn't ask too much of him in his first year, but he progressed rapidly.

3) Andrew Luck, Indianapolis Colts
1st start in game #:1
College offense:Pro Style
Was projected as a day one starter before the draft and lived up to expectations.

4) Russell Wilson, Seattle Seahawks
1st start in game #:1
College offense: Spread at NC State, Pro Style at Wisconsin
Nobody was expecting him to start first year, but he won the job in training camp and never looked back.

5) Tom Brady, New England Patriots*
1st start in game #:19
College offense:Pro Style
Late round pick. Didn't start till Bledsoe got hurt.

6) Tony Romo, Dallas Cowboys
1st start in game #:55
College offense:Pro Style
UDFA stayed on the bench for about 3.5 seasons was the holder on FG's and XP's and got some throws from that.

7) Drew Brees, New Orleans Saints
1st start in game #:17
College offense:Spread
Sat behind Flutie, Started the year they drafted Rivers due to his holdout.

8) Philip Rivers, San Diego Chargers
1st start in game #:33
College offense:Spread
Held out till late into training camp. Sat behind Brees who was performing well at the time.

9) Eli Manning, New York Giants
1st start in game #:10
College offense:Pro
Initially sat behind Kurt Warner but started late into the season.

10) Peyton Manning, Denver Broncos
1st start in game #:1
College offense:Pro
Was drafted to start day one.

Average 1st game started in career was week 19

6 QB's played a Pro Style offense 3 played Spread, 1 played both.

Of the 3 spread QB's, Big Ben was the only one that started out of the gate quick in week 3.

Russell Wilson started out of the gate week 1 but played in both systems in college.

Of the 6 Pro style QB's Peyton and Luck started week 1 and Eli in week 10.

So if you envision whoever we draft as ready as Peyton, Luck, and Wilson, and more ready than Big Ben, then he probably has a good chance.

Yes. That's exactly what I said.

Have a good night, man.

LOL U2.

If we're being honest, next year's QB class isn't very promising. Watson is a smaller and more injury prone Vince Young. Brad Kaaya will get snapped in two the first time he gets hit. I wouldn't draft a single one of them before the 2nd round.


This is what happens when spread offenses take over college football. It's not going to get any easier.

Yeah, maybe the way to go is to get Cardale Jones and Vernon Adams and throw Terrelle Pryor in the backfield and go back to the old Single Wing offense.

It's my non-expert, not-professional opinion that the top 3-4 QB's in this draft have the capacity to be NFL QBs, falling somewhere from back-up, to better than average starter. It is unlikely that any will be franchise level, but properly trained and handled, it is possible.

The trick will be picking the right one, and giving him the proper training and handling. Obviously there is disagreement here on the board about what is proper handling, some believing starting him as soon as possible to get game experience is best. I am in agreement with what Dep has been advocating, that keeping a rookie QB off the field until he has become comfortable with the footwork and mechanics for under center pro-style. As I have pointed out before, most of the major college programs tend to red-shirt their QBs to give them time to adjust to the speed and complexity of the college game vs. HS. The change from college to the pros is probably greater. It simply makes sense to give players of the most important and complicated position on the field time to acclimate.

As for who is the right one, I am leaning toward Wentz or Goff, although I freely admit, my information is both limited and second-hand.

After a whirlwind draft that encompasses 4 separate trades..

1. QB Jared Goff
1. QB Paxton Lynch
1. QB Carson Wentz
2. QB Connor Cook
4. QB Dak Prescott
4. QB Cardale Jones
5. QB Christian Hackenberg
7. QB Jeff Driskel
7. QB Travis Wilson

Also none of them ever play.. ever..

Its the only way to make sure they are good..

Because we traded for the rights to Jamarcus Russell

QBs "by the numbers"

1
2 Couch/Manziel
3 Weeden/Anderson
4
5 Garcia
6 Hoyer/Wallace
7 Davis/Gradkowski
8 Dilfer
9 Frye/Lewis/Shaw
10 Holcomb/Quinn
11 Detmer/Dorsey
12 McCoy/McCown
13 McCown/Wynn
14
15
16
17 Delhomme/Campbell
18 Pederson
19

So that means we can only draft Goff, Prescott, or Hackenberg..

It just makes too much sense not to work..

NRTU

This is setting itself up perfectly for us to finally land a QB worth anything.

We are in excellent hands with Hue. And whenever he decides the new guy is ready to take over, I've got all the confidence in the world in his decision. Both as to which QB he wants (Goff or Wentz) and when to get him rolling for good.

Our days of pathetic offensive outputs are quickly coming to an end. And for once it's going to help the defense immensely.

Watch for Marvin Jones to be a Brown.

In any other draft those two QB's would not even be in a 1st round discussion. We better get Paxton!