|
Chargers - James Harris in '78 Colts - Josh Freeman last year Chiefs - Warren Moon in 2000 Texans - Tony Banks in '03 Broncos - Jarious Jackson in '03 Dolphins - Cleo Lemon in '05 Cardinals - Shaun King in '04 e- dammit new page, in reference to starting black QBs for teams last page. I don't know if that's the first black QB to start for a particular team because I ain't doing that much research.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
edit: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Hey this thread is really funny considering Dak Prescott is a rookie who is 2-1 Carson Wentz looks like the future at 3-0 Trevor Semen is 3-0 even Jimmy G and Brissett look fine but drat, once Brees and Brady retire there will be no talent left! there will always be a shortage of truly great QBs because it's a rare thing to excel at but there will always be replacements ready to step up
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Honestly I'm not sure it's QB play I'm concerned about. I do think the quality of NFL play has gone down a bit since the last CBA made rookie contracts not insane anymore. Teams are more likely to sign / start rookie players over veterans for salary cap reasons. It creates a lopsided team that will be top heavy. I think offensive line play has gotten worse in the past few years. I know it sounds like sour grapes coming from a Seahawks fan, but I don't think they are alone in having piss poor offensive lines. There's a lot of untested rookies that are going to start over veterans in this league since they'll make a lot less money. Having a team with an offensive line to protect a developing QB seems to be critical. I'm not sure about RG3 but I think Andrew Luck would be in a lot better place if he wasn't hit so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
yeah well tim tebow would've been the greatest of them all had the liberal media + NFL establishment run him off with their godlessness
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
I think the O lines have also been hit by the new practice restrictions. Lines function better as a group the more time they play together and they get less practice time than ever now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
I'm not sure why there is supposed to be a quarterback crisis when the Broncos just found this kid in the 7th and he seems pretty good 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:even Jimmy G and Brissett look fine I dunno about Brisket, he basically did as little as possible while the Texans self destructed, besides that one big run with his elite 5.0 40 lol speed. Your overall point is spot on though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:I think the O lines have also been hit by the new practice restrictions. Lines function better as a group the more time they play together and they get less practice time than ever now. Geoff Schwartz said something along those lines in an article he wrote for MMQB not too long ago. http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/07/11/geoff-schwartz-guest-monday-morning-qb-nfl-detroit-lions
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Also, probably safe at this point to move Cutler, Fitzgerald and probably Tannehill down into the "poo poo" category but, at the same time, probably equally safe to move Wentz, Prescott and Seimen up into "good" or "adequate" too. I don't see a competency crisis at the position in any way whatsoever. Just for kicks, I went back again - 20 years ago this time - and looked at the starters for each team. http://www.footballdb.com/stats/stats.html?mode=P&yr=1996&lg=NFL You've got Elway, Favre, Young, Aikmen and Marino (plus Jim Kelly and Boomer Esiason on the back end of their careers) but you've also got (decent) players like Bledsoe, Brad Johnson, Jef Hostetler along with guys like Jeff Blake, Ty Detmer, Chris Chandler, Gus Ferrotte, Kerry Collins, Stan Humphries, Scott Mitchell, Kent Graham (?), Bobby Hebert, Jim Harbaugh, Dave Krieg, Mark Brunell, Mike Tomzack and Tony Banks. Hardly legends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:I think offensive line play has gotten worse in the past few years. I know it sounds like sour grapes coming from a Seahawks fan, but I don't think they are alone in having piss poor offensive lines. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Probably true but I wonder how much of that has to do with the increased ratio of passing to running plays? Maybe if anything there's a crisis of offensive lineman. You don't see teams these days just grind a defense down like the Redskins, the Giants, the Steelers and the Cowboys used to do. Only a few teams really just line up and punch you in the mouth anymore behind a wall of big angry ogres. For a long time there, several O-lines were the very definition of the team (90's Cowboys, 80's Redskins, 70's Raiders and Dolphins). Lastly, and pretty unrelated, I've always wondered how much the idea that "good teams run the football" has to with those winning teams usually being ahead and running the clock, hence running the ball more often and racking up more rushing yards. Teams that are routinely getting their asses kicked tend to throw more and vice versa. Anyone got any cool books or websites that analyze "football by the numbers" the way Bill James and Sabermetricians do with baseball? Correlating overall stats with winning and losing? I've always looked at yards per play, yards per play allowed and turnover differential as the most important stats, and I love reading this sort of thing, but football is so much different than baseball to analyze this way because it's so much more contextual. I've noticed over the last few years that these stats don't always translate to on field success the way they used to. A good team might give a lot of passing yards simply because they're ahead a lot and playing prevent. Similarly, they might have high rushing totals since they're protecting a lot of leads and grinding clock. TL/DR: I'm interested in good books or websites that analyze player and team performance using numbers , stats and context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
^^ People will baby whine because they hate numbers that they didn't grow up with and they can't trust with just a single glance, but your starting point on this is definitely Football Outsiders. The standard for quarterback play moves by a measurable amount almost every year. In '96 seven guys had a completion % over 60. In 2015 8 guys had a comp % UNDER 60%. 3 guys threw for 4000 yards in '96, 12 in 2015 including quarterbacks who are not a majority consensus "good" like Matt Ryan, Ryan Tannehill, Bort, Stafford, and Cousins. Passer rating is not a good value stat, but only 2 guys were over 90 in 1996 and 6 were over 100 in 2015. 5 quarterbacks had an int% of >3.0, last year 5 had a <3.0%, etc. Bortles last year and Testaverde in 96 look remarkably similar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Badfinger posted:^^ People will baby whine because they hate numbers that they didn't grow up with and they can't trust with just a single glance, but your starting point on this is definitely Football Outsiders. Thanks for this. I've always liked crunching stats ever since I played table top card and dice sports games (Strat-O-Matic, Statis Pro, Avalon Hill, etc.) and first discovered Bill James "Baseball Abstract". Football, basketball and hockey are much harder to analyze this way since there's so many more players active during play. Like, a lot of baseball is "Pitcher vs. batter". With football, you have offensive line vs d-line, receivers vs coverage, guys blitzing or dropping back, down and distance, play calls, dropped passes, etc. I've always wondered what the one most consistent stat is for winning teams versus losing ones. Obviously it's PPG vs. PPGA, overall, but what translates into that? I'd guess it's turnover differential and yards per play differential. NFL stats can be weird to make sense of in a vacuum. "Total Yards Allowed (or gained)", which is how the NFL rates offense and defense, can be deceiving because teams that are up big give up a lot of garbage yards and trailing teams gain a lot of them. Like, right now, the Eagles lead the league in PPG but I don't think anyone thinks they have the best offense in the NFL. The Falcons lead in YPG and, again, I don't think anyone thinks Atlanta is the best offensive team in the league either. I'll check out that website.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I've always wondered what the one most consistent stat is for winning teams versus losing ones. Obviously it's PPG vs. PPGA, overall, but what translates into that? I'd guess it's turnover differential and yards per play differential. I think it's the W/L% BiggerBoat posted:NFL stats can be weird to make sense of in a vacuum. "Total Yards Allowed (or gained)", which is how the NFL rates offense and defense, can be deceiving because teams that are up big give up a lot of garbage yards and trailing teams gain a lot of them. Like how it's hard for Carson Wentz to put up big numbers when he's always up by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:I dunno about Brisket, he basically did as little as possible while the Texans self destructed, besides that one big run with his elite 5.0 40 lol speed. When that happened everyone in the room turned to me and said "I TOLD you he was black!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Before the game started I was like, just so everyone knows, this guy is actually really slow. And then he went out and ran a naked bootleg and a bunch of read option plays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Before the game started I was like, just so everyone knows, this guy is actually really slow. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Before the game started I was like, just so everyone knows, this guy is actually really slow. It's all relative. I'm sure to the coaching staff him and Jimmy are like cheetahs compared to what they're used to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I've always wondered what the one most consistent stat is for winning teams versus losing ones. Obviously it's PPG vs. PPGA, overall, but what translates into that? I'd guess it's turnover differential and yards per play differential. Willingness to say "gently caress it, I'm goin' deep!" http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-deep-passes-wins-2012-8 Somewhat more seriously: http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2014/6/14/5753014/nfl-stats-crunching-numbers-under-further-review-part-ii-iv I read something I can't find now that suggested that average fantasy football points per team was the stat most well correlated with wins overall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I read something I can't find now that suggested that average fantasy football points per team was the stat most well correlated with wins overall. This seems rather tautological, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Brannock posted:This seems rather tautological, doesn't it? Not completely but fantasy scores are heavily based on points so there is that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
Its not the qbs its the coaching
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:48
|
|