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

My apologies about the ruined 2016 QB class thread. What was supposed to be a running discussion about QBs quickly became burdened by a few hundred posts that were arguing a study posted on it.

So this time I'll post this thread for that study alone.

The study was here and seems to show a trend that QB's that sit start off a little better.

CHS has stated that the study is flawed because it doesn't include some QBs that never played in the group that sat. I have agreed to include every QB that was on an NFL roster between the years of 2000-2014. The years of the study. I have offered to put all of the QB's that never played in the group that sat for a year provided that they actually did sit for a year and were on the team again the next year. I will put all the QBs that didn't make the team in their first year on the list with the first year starters as they didn't sit at least a year.

This is his newest argument...




What he is doing is talking about part of the article where they are comparing 1st and 2nd rounders. The study was not about first and second rounders. Tom Brady was in the study. Russell Wilson was in the study. In fact all these QB's were in the study.



Notice the part in bold where he mentions that I'm the one that doesn't know what I am talking about. He is just begging me to post this from earlier in the thread.



"Ohhh, you mean that kind of spread!, my bad"

Broken up for length

So you can see my concerns when he says...




First me now Fox Sports.

He didn't mention if he had any statistical or mathematical degree.

I asked him to show some math showing it's wrong.

He says that his time was too valuable.

I pointed out that he made the statement and it was up to him to support it and he tried for a bit and gave up.

I thought it was over with that, but he jumped in when someone else was arguing the study and tried to pick up where he left off.

I have made the offer to include every QB in the NFL from 2000 to 2015 in my own study, but now he wants to limit it to first and second rounders because he knows that those guys don't get cut in their first year and that will help his argument. He doesn't want to look stupid.

Again.

So that's where we are at.

The thread title is somewhat misleading. I expected a study of this year's prospects. Having said that, I'm not sure how effective this study is. How do you take into account the team's situation that the player was thrust into? Take Aaron Rodgers for example, the Packers were already a good team, so it makes sense that he would be able to have success there. Also, which QBs went to teams w/ successful/nonexistent running games. I don't think you can really just look at a QB'S stats in a vacuum.

Good questions. It really doesn't take individual situations into account. It simply looks at when they started and what the results were in the first couple of years. Theoretically for every good QB that got to sit behind a good starter, there should be a bad QB that got the same situation, but theory and reality are seldom the same.

Again the same thing could be said about what kind of running games the QB's wound up on. The situation that Big Ben had in his first year definitely made his life a whole lot easier. Who's to say that he needed that situation the way he is playing now though?

Analysts would do a separate study on each of those things to see if they can find a correlation. If they did, then they would adjust this study according to those.

I wasn't even going to bring it up.



Why are you so obsessed with me?

This is a really poor show. You're quite frankly annoying. You don't listen, you don't read. You bring up random people and then claim things they didn't say. Why are you being so obsessed? I was fine with just leaving it. No offense, but you don't read. You're not good with communicating. I really didn't want to deal with you further. Why would you do something so narcissistic? I wonder if you even care about reading and just care about getting your post count up so people won't laugh when you, Call Cal a small school, or offer Josh Gordon a 20 year contract. This is really beneath you. I hope you step away from your computer. You need to.

Is this how Vers feels?

Again, you are taking a sliver of the article and making conclusions on the study that aren't true.

Do you not see Brady and Wilson listed or are you deciding just to ignore that?




I just respond to your posts. Like I said before you are going to have to convince me, because you aren't going to wear me out. You are hoping that's what will happen because that's all you have. You and I both know that you can't back it up.

You trashed the thread I started to talk about QB's, with all of this bunk math, flawed science stuff and never backed it up with math. You just kept trumpeting the same flawed opinion over and over without anything to back it up.

You post I respond. That's how it works.

So who is the one obsessed?




I separated this thread so we can actually talk about QB's in the other thread without this tangent you put us on.

I am happy to discuss the study with anyone.

When you post expect a response.

A "sliver" YOU introduced to us. You did post this. You actually posted it to bring the study to us.

Next: Can you find me the name "Brady" or "Wilson" on this list?



Look. The only reason I'm replying to you at this point is because if I don't you'll A) Call me out on the forums and not inform me of it B) Kidnap me. Drug me. Break my legs. And force me to respond to you.

I never thought I'd see the day where debating over the Browns is harder than debating in EE. At least in EE, people will read your post and respond to it. Here they go on diatribes and tantrums, call you out, misunderstand, and then spam you with things you never asked for, saying "You asked for it." It's rather barbaric. When you can't debate someone, create a strawman, reply to it, and try to intimidate and talk over someone. A rather sad way to try to have discourse about something.

He is on the list I posted at the top of this thread. Same list I posted in the last thread. The same list that is in the article that you claimed to have read before you called it bunk.

So while you can pretend you have no idea that the study was not all first and second rounders that either means:

A) You read it and lied because it didn't help your case.
B) You called the article bunk without even reading it.

Your choice.

Yes, but they're not involved in the part that we're discussing right now...

Actually it started with you asking for a favor



I then stated:


Which turned into:



My reply:


You say:


Again working on your theory

My quote


Remember we are still working on your list, not the study.

Which then became:



Your theory had suddenly became my Job. You know for certain that the study included more than just 1st and 2nd rounders. You were the one that only wanted to add those guys to the study leaving the others out because they hurt more than help.
You'll keep Russell Wilson in though, because he helps.

Those studies start to say anything that you want when you pick and choose who's in them.

It gets even easier when you put the actual work of doing it on me.

And last you finish the thread with...



So scroll right up to the top of this post and tell me if that is true or not.

Go ahead and post and I'll respond.

I don't think the study provides any conclusions other that some good QBs sat and some didn't, and a bunch of crappy QB started and some didn't.


Here's the deal....there is no way to know if a player who didn't sit for a extended period and became a dud would have become a better QB if he had sat for a period of time.

Conversly, there is no way to know if a player like Rogers, who started late would have become a dud had he started earlier.


I tend to think he would have been OK. I think it simply boils down to if the guy is good, the talent will rise to the top.

To me, it is more about total starts before you dump a player. I think a QB needs about 32 starts for a fair evaluation on the trend. Two years worth. I think that is more germane. Which guys feel like the team is committed, and which guys feel like this is a short term try-out.

Yes... I've been responding about the original part, you posted, when you introduced the study. I try to say it a few times in those posts. In an attempt to keep us discussing the same issue. Which still hasn't happened

It does show a higher QB rating for the first year if you sit a year though. That makes perfect sense. It' easier to learn all the other things things when you aren't forced to spend all of your time learning that week's gameplan. It also shows a higher rating in your first year if you sat than the first years starters second year. That's the important one because that is essentially what you are comparing.

You bring up a really good point of needing to see 32 games, because once the guy that sat has finished 32 games you are right about at the point that you have to think about signing him long term if he sat. If he's really slow to start, you might have to make that decision before 32 games.

My point before was if your QB has the fundamentals down, then start him. That's the part that's hard to learn during the season and that's what will get your QB hurt if you put him in too early.

I also think that there are QB's that were given up too early on because they didn't learn the fundamentals. Lots of guys with big arms and NFL size that simply couldn't figure it out quickly enough against NFL speed.

I totally agree with you that start or sit, cream rises to the top, I just think it's easier for the guys that sit if it's fundamentals holding them back. If they have em, get them out there. The rest is best learned on the field.

And you keep posting that the study is flawed because of that quip in the article that was basically an aside.

I point out over and over that the study includes more than 1st and 2nd rounders.

You ignore it focusing on that quip, which isn't the study.

I keep saying that is false logic because the study includes more than 1st and 2nd rounders, and you say you don't care and want to focus on 1st and 2nd rounders because that is what the quip said.

All the time saying I was the one that brought it up.

Again scroll up.

Post and I'll reply.

Cool if that is what you think. I don't think sitting hurts anything. I just don't think the study shows that sitting helps more than starting.

I think the guys that have it had a little of both and the guys who sucked had a little of both.

I get that. I don't think I have ever seen a QB with perfect fundamentals.

Peyton Manning threw with a flutter and Luck still gets stiff hips when he makes throws.

There are some guys though that you look at and say there is no way he should be on the field if we can't fix that. Usually it's a spread QB. They never had too worry about a lot of these fundamentals and now it's like taking them from a crawl to a walk. I'm not saying that can't be done in a training camp, but it takes a special prospect. The effort they need is immense and they need to be smart. They are literally changing habits while trying to learn everything else.

I think there are quite a few qbs who have or had really good throwing fundamentals. In fact, I think this would be a great idea for a thread if you wanna start it.

I just read your post and haven't put a lot of thought into it, but off the top of my head, I think these guys have good throwing fundamentals:

Warren Moon: Threw the prettiest passes I ever saw. Very smooth delivery. Compact--yet fluid motion. Tight spirals.

Tom Brady: Another guy who is very fluid.

Matthew Stafford: Pretty good footwork. Good arm motion. Tight spiral.

DA: I know y'all hate him, but man, this guy had one of the smoothest releases that I ever saw.

Eli: Good body balance. Nice over the top delivery. Good shoulder and hip turn.

Hmmmmmmmm........give me a minute:

Joe Willie: Man, he was pretty dropping back. That is NOT an insult. Light feet. Great shoulder turn. Exceptional follow through.

Jeff George: Good spacing of his feet. Excellent shoulder turn. Powerful hips.

Carson Palmer: I forget about him sometimes because he chokes so much, but man, I love the way he stands tall, squares his shoulders to the target, rotates shoulders and hips, and spins the ball w/excellent arm speed.

RGIII: He has very nice form. Stands tall w/excellent knee bend. Good hips. Follows through. Over the top delivery.

I am going to think about this some more......I know I am missing some obvious guys.

I do wanna clarify........I am only addressing fundamentals and technique.........not effectiveness. Obviously, some of the guys on the list are not very good qbs.

Warren Moon: Not really fair since I never really saw him play in college. What I remember was great, but I really wasn't looking for flaws back then. He always threw the deep pass with such precision on the sideline. Gotta love his mobility as well. Again, all I remember is the highlights though.

Tom Brady: Has really good fundamentals and it's his fast release and quick reads that make him who he is. He used to have a slow drop back though. And if you look at his first year you won't see many 5 or 7 step drops. Bill took a while before he trusted him enough to take them.

Matthew Stafford: Stafford's big problem before is the same as it is now. He tries too hard to force things into small windows. He used to be really sloppy with his footwork and would just forget fundamentals every now and then. He did and still does remind me a lot of Favre. He didn't have the mobility, but was the same gambler and would just say screw the fundamentals every now and then.

DA: Two big problems were his feet and his head. You were never going to speed up his feet enough, so they should have just bit the bullet and played him out of the shotgun all the time. Next, his reads were slow and he just looked like he didn't understand ball placement. I think a big part of his reads being slow is that he just took too long to drop back. Cannon for an arm though. And I know people knock his accuracy, but I think he hit where he aimed, he just didn't understand where to aim most of the time. He could have been developed to be more than he was.

Eli: Poise in the pocket is his best asset. Not a great athlete as far as mobility, but he feels pressure and adjusts enough to make the play. You can tell the family he comes from as everything looks pretty good. He uses his hips better than his brother on throws, but sometimes he swings his hips so much that it forces a step sideways. He doesn't have the biggest arm so he tries to squeeze more out of his mechanics and it is sometimes too much.

Joe Wille: Again, all I can remember is kinda highlight stuff. I can't really think about his footwork because all I can remember was those gimpy knees. Sorry that's all I got.

Jeff George: The ultimate cannon for an arm. I am trying to think of a flaw. He tried to force the ball too much. His feet were good. He made quick reads. He tended to lose his accuracy after a big hit though. I'm not sure what a coach could have done with that.

Carson Palmer: He is a guy that I never mention as a guy that should start week one but I should. He had really good fundamentals. With him the only thing was he was a little slow with his reads and drop back, but it wasn't hugely slow. He seemed to improve that pretty quickly as well.

RGIII: With him it is all between the ears. He literally can't make an NFL read. This kills him when he can't run around and improvise until someone gets open. He needs a QB coach to work with him full time before he gets back on the field. He's got all the tools, but they sent him out to build the barn without blueprints.

Other than DA and RG3 (and my disclaimer for Moon and Namath) You picked a pretty good list of QB's with good fundamentals.

I always thought Kenny Anderson and Steve Bartkowski had thrown a pretty good ball.

Just do what I did and block him. I haven't even engaged in 1 discussion with him and he irritates the hell out of me.

That set up is alot easier to decipher but man I don't like it.

The bottom half of that is littered with alot of junk QB's. That came into junk teams all around. I'm referring to the guys who started game 1, 2 or 3.

Up top you've got guys who started early and have decent ratings. But guys like Wilson and Roth came into great running games with excellent defenses. Goes hand in hand with what's around that QB as far as defense and weapons are concerned.

Bottom line for me is when Hue sees said QB is ready. Start him, whether it be game 1 or game 17.

Just so you know..........I was only talking about throwing fundamentals. Decision making, accuracy, anticipation, etc were not included.

I will say that you are right that DA sometimes had issues w/his footwork. Not all the time, but it was a problem at times.

>Posts a piece of an article
>Get butt mad when people want to talk about it.

You still haven't read the whole article?

There was a link and I did call what I posted a piece.


Go ahead and post and I'll reply.

Don't get sucked in!

Let it die!

Sorry if I got sidetracked.

I probably would have footwork problems too if I had those boats on my feet.

>Has nothing to argue about
>Argues over the word "piece"

Yes, I've read the study. I really don't see a point in analyzing every round of the NFL draft for our current discussion. Does it really matter what Charlie Frye or Russell Wilson, both 3rd round picks, did in their rookie season when talking about 1st rounders? I really don't see how. Frye and Wilson were not 1st round prospects. They don't represent the talent level that we'll be working with*.

I also find it funny that the study literally omits so many QB's as "outliers". Just of the 5th round QB's, they omit 20 QB's because they're "outliers". At one point can you list 1/5th of a total sample size as "outliers". And that's just the 5th round! Think of how many QB's they've omitted completely? I would make a conservative estimate that they have omitted more than 60 QB's. Didn't you earlier say that they only did the study with 82 QB's or something like that? Again, they're cutting out ~1/2 of the QB's in the study, because they're "outliers".

*Saying "talent" makes me cringe. Wilson was one of the most talented, just short.

Wow this is just amazing.

Just remember that you were the one using the word obsession before.

Like I said before, you post and I'll reply..



Only one of us is trying to manipulate data in the study and trying to make a quip in the study, the study. That guy might be talking first rounders, this guy isn't.

I might be wrong, but wouldn't QB's that actually played be ones that we might want to include? Why are those 5-7 rounders more important to you than Wilson?



Yes, guys that you complained about before. I actually offered to put those guys on for you including those 5th rounders that failed in their first year and were out of the NFL. Still trying to figure out how Russell Wilson isn't talented but Kevin Daft somehow is, but I'm sure you'll explain that.

Now that number you are looking for is 79. That's the number of QB's in the study. Not the sidetrack from the study that you were talking about in the 1st paragraph, but the study like what you were talking about in the second paragraph. The one with Russell Wilson in it, who might be not be tall enough or talented enough to be in the study for you, but a guy that played, much unlike most of the guys you want included from rounds 5-7 included.

I just want you to make sure you understand that you are the one taking us down this path again before I post...


You post I'll reply.

You literally created this topic to call me out. That is obsession. Me responding to your callout is not obsession.

The overall study, not the part that you posted, includes 79 QB's and excludes 60 more QB's because they're "outliers". These "outliers" sat on the bench with Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady, but aren't counted. Why is this? Why cut 1/2 of your entire population as an "outlier"?

I also didn't say Russell Wilson wasn't talented. In fact, I said the opposite. However, unsurprisingly, you failed to read that. Like you fail to read anything.

I don't know where you are, but we had a nice day in Ohio. 60's in Ohio. You know, days like that you have to enjoy them. Maybe you should consider leaving the computer for a bit. Enjoy the weather. It'll take your mind off things, myself included. Might make you even more relaxed... Instead of calling people out and misrepresenting them in every post. It might be good for you.

I created this thread because you locked the last one and I didn't want another QB thread trashed. So i get some peace in that thread, dealing with you in this one.



Uhm... that's the opposite... okay. I did read the disclaimer that he was too short to be included before you mention that. Those 5th round failures sure need to be in there though!

It's a travesty that Jim Sorgi is excluded, but Russell Wilson is too short to count. Got Ya.

I live in the Cleveland area, but have a flu bug today so I'm inside right now.

I did make the offer to include all QB's on a roster in those years. That would get your buddy in there.

I think you like it better when you are picking and choosing though.


You post, I'll reply.

Most people are honest with themselves enough to admit that's exactly what calling out someone is. The funny thing is, is that I wasn't even going to bring it into another thread again. Because, like I told you before, you're not fun to argue with. You're actually fairly rude because everything you say is a lie. You lie about my thoughts on Russell. I don't really want to talk to you. I wasn't going to. You called me out. Now be a man, and accept it.

Since you can't say anything truthful about my position, pretty low. I guess I'll explain it to you, yet again.

Keep everyone in the study. Even, the half of the QB's they excluded because they're "outliers". Do that for the "Quip?" that you posted. Do it for everything. I don't care. I have nothing to hide. They do.

Anyway, sorry to hear you're sick. I hope you get a lot of rest today, in order to feel better. No one wants to go into the week with the flu.

Yep, I quoted what you said exactly. I'm pretty sure you were the one that typed that, unless someone else shares your log in here.

I'm sorry to hear that arguing with me has been no fun for you. Maybe it will console you a bit that your 100 plus "it's bunk math!" posts that didn't actually argue with any math in my thread about QB's was fun for me.

It's pretty clear you thought you can steamroll through the thread and that your unsupported opinion would be taken as fact once you wore me out eventually.

The thing you didn't figure on was that weren't ever going to wear me out.

You post, I'll reply.

"*Saying "talent" makes me cringe. Wilson was one of the most talented, just short."

Man, again you're super disingenuous. You have no interest in ever trying to present both sides of an argument. You don't want to find an answer. You want to be right. Exactly why, when I finally make it clear what I've been telling you, you change the subject to Russell Wilson.

So have fun being right. I'm done with this thread. You have no interest in talking about how the study categorizes 50% of the QB's as "outliers" and excludes them from the study. You even don't want to discuss the "quip(?)", in the article about 1st and second round, that you originally posted, and how they exclude ~7 QB's in their study. I would like to remind you that these QB's also sat on the bench like Aaron Rodgers. These QB's aren't different than them. But again, 1/2 of the QB's are excluded as "outliers". Again, you never wanted to discuss this. You just want to be right.

So I'm out of this thread. Have fun being the smartest guy in the thread. I hope it makes you feel better. You clearly wanted it.

You said it. You were trying to prove some kind of point with it. You threw in Charlie Frye in there with him for a reason too.



A guy that doesn't play is an outlier in a study of QB's that played. Still waiting to see how you explain Jim Sorgi going to the Hall of Fame if they wouldn't have sat him.

You post, I'll reply.