|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,095
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,095 |
Quote:
Bam-Bam was MLB, Dick Ambrose ...
Ahh,,, Ok,, Thanks
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103 |
Quote:
Pittsburgh was a terrible secondary???
They were statistically one of the worst secondaries that year...they got torched by everybody.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Ummm, Diam said Anderson played better vs Baltimore and Pittsburgh than Frye did vs any team. I proved that wrong,...
You proved nothing.
You merely displayed quarterback ratings.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Quote:
Ummm, Diam said Anderson played better vs Baltimore and Pittsburgh than Frye did vs any team. I proved that wrong,...
You proved nothing.
You merely displayed quarterback ratings.
And QB ratings are a freaking joke.
They show nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
They show nothing.
They show Big Ben lost the SuperBowl if you didn't see the game and only saw his QB Rating.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
That will go over a lot of folks heads......but you are oh so right. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
And what did Diam prove? Are you guys kidding me?
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,123
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,123 |
Weis isn't all done with the boy. Has a few bad habits like this Cleveland Rocks!   Score!
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830 |
Quote:
And what did Diam prove? Are you guys kidding me?
I was wondering that myself.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
And what did Diam prove? Are you guys kidding me?
I was only rebutting the use of those stats as proof of anything, not defending Diam. He can take care of himself.
I didn't think I had to add a disclaimer, but apparently jumping in the middle of that fray I should have.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
its all he knows about football bro .. all he ever posts is stats ... never actually talks football .. feel sorry for him ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
DING DING DING AT THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL POINT ... I said it way back in my first post .. BQ is our future ... and thats pretty much all that matters ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
don't bother bro ... this one aint worth the time .. there arguing about the guys ultimately fighting for the back up job ... I'm done here .. not worth my time .. have fun with the Smell ... err I mean Frye Fanatics ... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Well, I like Frye too.
And although he may have some shortcomings that no amount of probowl players around him could fix, I still believe that with a decent offensive line he could do a lot better than what we saw from him last season.
I think we all know that teams preparing for CF, and with no tape on our backup, Anderson would stand a reasonable chance of taking them off guard for a few games. Just like Holcomb did.
But I didn't see a better QB in Anderson. I saw him do some things well just as I see Frye do some things well. I also saw that he has some shortcomings just as Frye has some shortcomings.
Each one seems to lack the others best skills/traits.
Hopefully, since BQ is in fact the future, he has the best skills of both and some more of his own that neither of those two have. Until he proves his worth I'm just going to have to take your word for it that he'll do it.
Still, I think Charlie Frye gives us the best chance to win until Quinn is ready.
God knows I'm tired of being embarassed that we can never field/manage a decent QB for the Browns. It would be great if Quinn can break that chain.
He's got his work cut out for him.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,674
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,674 |
I just for crying out loud want the freaking strain of QB arguments to end.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
Well, you and Shep are both wrong. Those stats do mean something. They don't mean as much as guys like Soup and Mensa say they do, but they are not meaningless, or for losers. I guarantee you that every coach and GM in the National Football League uses stats. And I guarantee you that they do indeed look at QB ratings. Now......I am not a big stat guy, but you use every tool possible to gain a thorough understanding of the situation. And again, while stats do not tell the entire story, they are a tool to be used. That is........ used, rather than manipulated. And I'll tell you what..........they are more relevant than some blowhard coming on here saying "Anderson played way better than Frye." Because, that comment was the one that was meaningless, other than to reveal the poster's character. Yet you guys ridicule Mensa and act like Diam's comment was okay.  And by the way, people.........the phrase Stats are for losers is ridiculous. Stats aren't for losers. They are a tool to be used by those who wish to seek understanding.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
Quote:
I just for crying out loud want the freaking strain of QB arguments to end.
I agree, but they are not going to end. I've tried to start some other conversations, but most people would rather discuss the QB situation.......for the millionth time.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 373
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 373 |
Quote:
Quote:
They show nothing.
They show Big Ben lost the SuperBowl if you didn't see the game and only saw his QB Rating.
You do know football is a TEAM game not a QB game. Big Ben's QB Rating reflects what happend when he threw the ball, it doesn't reflect how the Steelers ran the ball or how the Steelers special teams played or how the Steelers defense played.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
You do know football is a TEAM game not a QB game. Big Ben's QB Rating reflects what happend when he threw the ball,
Not accurately, and that's why I hate the QB rating.
Example: A QB throws 17 passes and completes 11 of them for 198 yards. He has 1 TD and 1 INT. This equals a rating of 99.6, pretty good day, as ratings go.
Same QB throws same number of passes, same yards, and the 1 TD and 1 INT. However, he also has two passes that bounce off of his receiver's chest into the hands of a DB. His rating drops from 99.6 to 50.6.
Even the guy that came up with the system has said that it's not an accurate portrayal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,429
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,429 |
Put a QB behind a good O-line, and give him a good running game, and watch his QB rating go way up. Take the exact same QB and give him a bad line with no running game and watch his rating go in the toilet. Yet he is the exact same QB in both situations. The QB rating is more a reflection of the teams entire offense than it is the quarterback.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,095
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,095 |
Quote:
I agree, but they are not going to end. I've tried to start some other conversations, but most people would rather discuss the QB situation.......for the millionth time.
So true, and the worst part is, they can't do a damn thing about it. It is what it is.... We have 3 QB's on this team that have started NFL games and a Highly touted rookie 1st round draft pick. We actually may not be in as bad a shape as some think.
Anyone who thought that we weren't going to suffer a lot of heartache when Savage and RAC took over and told us, we're a mess, then they were only fooling themselves,,,
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
The QB rating is more a reflection of the teams entire offense than it is the quarterback.
Not really.
You could have your RB run for 175 yards and 3 TDs or run for 75 yards with 0 TDs and it would not affect the rating at all.
The QB rating formula was designed to measure passing efficiency by the QB....it doesn't measure the Offense nor does it take into account many variables such as sacks, dropped passes, tipped passes, fumbles by the QB or rushing yards by the QB.
It's not a useful tool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
Hmm.. So then.. stats DO indicate something. IMO.. too many people here have been bamboozled by the so called guru into believing that stats are for losers.
Thats BS.. the proper way to say that is "People that don't understand football are unable to properly evaluate statistics and place them in the correct context."
Stats are a tool that can be used to measure and help evaluate. They have to be used in the proper context and seen as a part rather than a whole.
As we know.. we can see a stat that shows a team to have 95 total rushing yards for a single game.. does that mean they have an OL that sucks and can't get the rushing lanes open? Does that mean that the RB doesn't hit the hole with speed and power? Does that mean the OC isn't calling run plays because he has a killer WR corps and a Pro Bowl passing QB? Does it mean the team they played shut down the rush?
Another thing.. stats become more relevant over a period of time rather than isolated events.. that same example of a team averaging 95 rush yards over the whole season means more than the one game at 95 yards..
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103 |
Quote:
Hmm.. So then.. stats DO indicate something. IMO.. too many people here have been bamboozled by the so called guru into believing that stats are for losers.
Thats BS.. the proper way to say that is "People that don't understand football are unable to properly evaluate statistics and place them in the correct context."
Stats are a tool that can be used to measure and help evaluate. They have to be used in the proper context and seen as a part rather than a whole.
As we know.. we can see a stat that shows a team to have 95 total rushing yards for a single game.. does that mean they have an OL that sucks and can't get the rushing lanes open? Does that mean that the RB doesn't hit the hole with speed and power? Does that mean the OC isn't calling run plays because he has a killer WR corps and a Pro Bowl passing QB? Does it mean the team they played shut down the rush?
Another thing.. stats become more relevant over a period of time rather than isolated events.. that same example of a team averaging 95 rush yards over the whole season means more than the one game at 95 yards..
Incredibly well put, and I agree with you. Kudos.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,429
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,429 |
Quote:
Quote:
The QB rating is more a reflection of the teams entire offense than it is the quarterback.
Not really.
You could have your RB run for 175 yards and 3 TDs or run for 75 yards with 0 TDs and it would not affect the rating at all.
The QB rating formula was designed to measure passing efficiency by the QB....it doesn't measure the Offense nor does it take into account many variables such as sacks, dropped passes, tipped passes, fumbles by the QB or rushing yards by the QB.
It's not a useful tool.
If your running back is running for 175 yards and three TD's, then your not going to be playing from behind, and taking chances with the ball. Your QB is also going to have more time in the pocket on passing plays most of the time.
I also agree thats it's not a usefull tool, when it comes to rating a QB.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,429
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,429 |
Quote:
Another thing.. stats become more relevant over a period of time rather than isolated events.. that same example of a team averaging 95 rush yards over the whole season means more than the one game at 95 yards..
Agreed 100 percent Saint. People need to look at the whole picture and use the stats in the correct prospective to tell the whole story. Just because a running back averages 4.1 yards per carry over a entire season does not mean he is better than a RB who averages 3.8 yards per carry. That stat by itself does not tell you who the better RB is because it doesn't factor in the O-lines of both running backs, and which defences they played against, etc...etc.etc
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
another country heard from .. *LOL* ..
Gee Whiz I've only said that a MILLION TIMES .. but what earth shattering news that u CLASSLESSLY forget that and put it in a context so u can slam me .. what a shocker .. *LOL* ..
look Vers .. I'm making u all kinds of new friends .. U and Saint and menZa can all form a club ...... BWAAAHHHAAAAA ....
u can call it the lying blowhard gurus haters club ... *LOL* ...
STATS ARE FOR LOSERS!!!!!!!!!!! .......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,841
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,841 |
Bad stats are for losers.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
If your running back is running for 175 yards and three TD's, then your not going to be playing from behind, and taking chances with the ball. Your QB is also going to have more time in the pocket on passing plays most of the time.
That doesn't have anything to do with using the rating to measure the Offense as a whole.....
I know what you're saying but don't confuse the peanut gallery anymore than necessary. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
I'm done here .. not worth my time ..
Really?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
look Vers .. I'm making u all kinds of new friends .. U and Saint and menZa can all form a club ...... BWAAAHHHAAAAA ....
BWAAHAHAHA?
Oh my god, its worldchumps in disguise....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,429
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,429 |
Quote:
I know what you're saying but don't confuse the peanut gallery anymore than necessary.
GMdawg "aka Mr Planters" will now bow out
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
look Vers .. I'm making u all kinds of new friends .. U and Saint and menZa can all form a club ...... BWAAAHHHAAAAA ....
BWAAHAHAHA?
Oh my god, its worldchumps in disguise....
I knew it! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,210
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,210 |
Quote:
GMdawg "aka Mr Planters" will now bow out
Always thought you were nuts.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
j/c:
This turned into another great thread. If anyone wants to talk football again, let me know........
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 373
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 373 |
Quote:
...coupled with a Charlie Wies ENDORSEMENT over what ANYONE... on this board says ...
Diam, you do know your boy Charlie Wies was 'marketing' Brady Quinn. Quinn is not even close to being the most NFL ready QB. Depending on the day he's the 3rd or 4th best QB on the Browns. Yes, Ken Dorsey has looked better than Quinn at times during OTA's. Looks like your pal Wies was off on his 'marketing' campaign.
There is a reason why Jimmy Johnson said Quinn is an innaccurate passer and he'll never be great. There is a reason why the Cowboys organization said Quinn's accuracy problems can not be fixed and he'll never be an accurate passer at the NFL level. There's a reason why Miami passed on Quinn. Face it Diam, your pal Charlie Weis was just 'marketing' Quinn.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Well, you and Shep are both wrong. Those stats do mean something. They don't mean as much as guys like Soup and Mensa say they do, but they are not meaningless, or for losers.
Sure stats mean something, but not the way they get tossed around on here, as "proof" of a players overall effectiveness.
A perfect example would be Jerome Bettis's game in '04 when he had 5 carries for 1 yard. That's .02 yards per carry. Not a very good game for the Bus. Apparently he was not very effective that day and surely didn't help his team out much at all. Heck, they only gave him the ball 5 times in the whole dang game. Maybe he was playing hurt.
But what that stat fails to mention is that he scored 3 touchdowns in a 24-21 win over the Raiders with that 1 yard because each of those carries was very short and goal to go. Quite a far cry from the assumptions that 5 carries for 1 yard would conjure up.
nfl.com
To post a quote from www.footballoutsiders.com regarding the NFL's stats...
" The NFL determines the best players by adding up all their yards no matter what situations they came in or how many plays it took to get them. Now why would they do that? Football has one objective-to get to the end zone-and two ways to achieve that, by gaining yards and getting first downs. These two goals need to be balanced to determine a player's value or a team's performance. All the yards in the world aren't useful if they all come in eight-yard chunks on third-and-10."
It is in that last part of the quote that makes most stats thrown around this board useless for backing-up arguements.
Quote:
I guarantee you that every coach and GM in the National Football League uses stats. And I guarantee you that they do indeed look at QB ratings.
And I certainly wouldn't dispute that. They do tell something. But I'll guarantee you, that no coach or GM in the National Football League uses those same stats as the "end all-be all" indicator of a player's abilities and value.
Quote:
And I'll tell you what..........they are more relevant than some blowhard coming on here saying "Anderson played way better than Frye." Because, that comment was the one that was meaningless, other than to reveal the poster's character.
Yet you guys ridicule Mensa and act like Diam's comment was okay.
I'm one of "you guys" so I'll explain myself.
My intent was to ridicule the use of the quarterback rating as the prime indicator of a quarterbacks ability. Seeing as how it was Mensa who posted them, and knowing his Soup-like history of mis-manipulating them to back his arguements, I didn't take the time to softly explain to him the error of his ways. I made a statement that I'll stand by, which is, stats used in that manner are worthless. They just don't tell enough of the story to be "proof" of anything other than the fact that one rating was higher or lower than another.
And in so far as me treating Diam's comment as "ok", I have to assume that his comment was an evaluation/comparison based upon what he saw. I would no sooner get into an in-depth debate with him on "what he saw" vs. "what I saw" than I would debate you in the same manner. Both of you see the game and the players with a much better understanding than I do.
I could have a discussion with either of you, but to challenge either Diam or yourself on evaluations would only leave me both beat-up and smarter. In most of those cases I choose to simply read, think it over and learn.
However, that being said, if you look up just a couple of posts above the one you made to me, from which I am quoting in this post, you will see that I did disagree with Diam saying that, "I didn't see a better QB in Anderson", and I gave a little bit of an explanation why.
Quote:
And by the way, people.........the phrase Stats are for losers is ridiculous. Stats aren't for losers. They are a tool to be used by those who wish to seek understanding.
I surely didn't invent that phrase, but I believe the meaning behind it has something to do with trying to evaluate a player's or a team's effectiveness/ability/value using nothing but the stats without taking into account what was actually happening on the field.
And in that sense I agree with the phrase.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,210
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,210 |
The only stats that matter to me is the Win / loss stat.....And the Browns need more win stats..........
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
Improving the Home win record to at least 10 would be a good start.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Improving the Home win record to at least 10 would be a good start.
I see what you did there.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Kosar on Quinn/Frye
|
|
