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

It's not arbitrary, it's beneficial. When you use QBR as the only way to calculate how good a QB is then you need to have somewhat of a sample size. However, when you do that, you also disqualify QB's, who have sat and learned, but never started in the NFL because they were deemed to be backups. It seems disingenuous when they're completely removed from the study.

A 1st or 2nd round pick shouldn't be a crteria, but I have already mentioned Manziel.

You don't want to throw out the Brady's or Wilsons from the study do you?

I'll take a look, but it will probably take a bit.

Take the following two groups of 1st or 2nd round draft picks as further evidence:

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

- Their passer rating their first year of playing time was 83.

- Their passer rating their second year was 85.

- Included in this group were Chad Henne, Colin Kaepernick, Drew Brees, Chad Pennington, Aaron Rodgers, Jason Campbell, Jake Locker, J.P. Losman, Philip Rivers and Carson Palmer.

Group B played in their first year, and like group A, started a minimum of 5 games each of years 1 and 2.

- Group B's passer rating their 1st year of playing time was 72.

- Their passer rating their second year was 79.

- Included in this group were Andrew Luck, Joe Flacco, Brandon Weeden, Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Sam Bradford, Ben Roethlisberger, Mark Sanchez, Robert Griffin, Blaine Gabbert, Alex Smith, Eli Manning, Josh Freeman, Andy Dalton, Geno Smith and a handful of others (26 in total).

As we can see, the first group who sat saw a significantly better passer rating their first year, and significantly less movement between year 1 and year 2.

Akili Smith got 4 starts in 1999, 11 in 2000 and I don't see him in the study at all. He only had 1 start each season after that.

Drop the outlier?

http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/outliers-to-drop-or-not-to-drop/

1) If it is obvious that the outlier is due to incorrectly entered or measured data, you should drop the outlier:

This also applies to a situation in which you know the datum did not accurately measure what you intended. For example, if you are testing people’s reaction times to an event, but you saw that the participant is not paying attention and randomly hitting the response key, you know it is not an accurate measurement.

This is exactly why you set the 5 game minimum. To have enough snaps to accurately measure QBR.

1) If it is obvious that the outlier is due to incorrectly entered or measured data, you should drop the outlier:

This also applies to a situation in which you know the datum did not accurately measure what you intended. For example, if you are testing people’s reaction times to an event, but you saw that the participant is not paying attention and randomly hitting the response key, you know it is not an accurate measurement.

This is exactly why you set the 5 game minimum. To have enough snaps to accurately measure QBR.

I actually don't have a problem with the 5 game rule. My problem is that no value is assigned to the QB's it eliminates from its studies.

So you want it eliminated by somehow still counting it?

So you want it eliminated by somehow still counting it?

I've heard it said a few times it takes about four game films on a player for defensive coaches to get a good read on a player. Having five games makes logical sense from a talent adviser's perspective.

Draft a QB.

Figure out if he's ready to start right away.

Start him if he is, sit him if he's not.

Hows that?

Draft a QB.

Figure out if he's ready to start right away.

Start him if he is, sit him if he's not.

Hows that?

That sounds great, but never happens. If you draft that QB early, fans will demand that he plays unless there is a franchise QB in front of him.

That sounds great, but never happens. If you draft that QB early, fans will demand that he plays unless there is a franchise QB in front of him.

Well I've done all my finding via hunt and peck. I still don't think including every QB that was drafted and sucked into the Rodgers group because it supports your point better, as being objective.

You've got me searching for only 1st and 2nd rounders but will claim Russel Wilson, Marc Bulger, on your list even though they aren't 1st or second rounders. On the other side of the coin, you want any 6th or 7th rounder that never saw any playing time at all counted on my list as guys that sat despite never having the talent level.

As much as you accuse the article writer, it does seem like you are maker a bigger effort to cook the books yourself.

Of course you don't think including people who hurt your stats is good. We see where you really lie at.

I'm not claiming anyone. I'm simply following YOUR analytics article. YOU posted a stat about 1st and 2nd round QB's in THIS thread. That is where 1st and 2nd round criteria come from. YOU. Not ME.

You claim I'm cooking the books by noticing a bunch of QB's, who sat, like Aaron Rodgers, and are not counted? Why shouldn't they be counted? Why should a QB, who sat, be disqualified from another QB who sat? Please. Find an answer.

Yeah I looked at a lot of those guys a lot today.

Jim Sorgi
Marques Tuiosopo

I see a lot of guys that never even made it through their first year. Those guys need to be on the first year starter list. After all they failed in their first year. If they wouldn't have cut em their first year and would have let them sit a year, they probably would have all been All-Pros.

Yes. Pointing out a flaw in a study, that YOU brought up, where a sizable amount of QB's weren't included. These QB's did nothing different than Aaron Rodgers except not panning out. However the study excluded them in their data for no reason.