QBR and QBR leaders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez

If stats are the most important part, then riddle me this:

Player A: 300 yards / 3 tds
Player B: 301 yards / 3 tds

Who had the better game?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez

You just typed... so why is stats without context not telling the story but somehow the eye test does????????

Again, I never said what you typed.

Also, giving your opinion and reasoning be find your opinion on something so subjective still leaves you with an opinion.

And for someone who read the whole thread, you’ve seemed to confuse my stance multiple times now.

---

that is pretty stupid................ i take stats/context/eye test... its why i have stated i would take pre injury wentz over dak..... i read back and you seem to really only care about everything except stats which is stupid... seems like its because it doesnt favor your guy... we have had multiple guys use the big 3 stats in this thread trying to sound smart but looking stupid as hell in the process......... there is so many stats out there and all of them together are still better than thinking the eye test/context is best when all of us combined still dont watch over 50 pct of all games played.

Again using the eye test now is better than using the eye test in the 1990s but its still just as dumb.... we have more avenues to watch games but we have way more stats and nobody watches enough film to justify the eye test then or now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by More-Than-Most

that is pretty stupid................ i take stats/context/eye test... its why i have stated i would take pre injury wentz over dak..... i read back and you seem to really only care about everything except stats which is stupid... seems like its because it doesnt favor your guy... we have had multiple guys use the big 3 stats in this thread trying to sound smart but looking stupid as hell in the process......... there is so many stats out there and all of them together are still better than thinking the eye test/context is best when all of us combined still dont watch over 50 pct of all games played.

Again using the eye test now is better than using the eye test in the 1990s but its still just as dumb.... we have more avenues to watch games but we have way more stats and nobody watches enough film to justify the eye test then or now.

---

It can be stupid, to you.

Advanced stats have taken many context related things in to consideration, but in the nfl, even the best stats aren’t without flaw.

Keep in mind most of this discussion started with mariner long before this thread. He wouldn’t consider context and surrounding talent when it came to stats, pretty black and white at first. He’s seemed to come around some, but my biggest issue is the claim that stats are the most important.

If they were, you’d have college guys who throw for far more yards and TDs than those drafted higher. Those numbers don’t mean as much as the context that surrounds them.

At this point we can just disagree. That’s fine. I don’t think your opinion makes you a moron, so there’s that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by More-Than-Most

so now we are talking about the eye test for the player we always watch play? come on man stop,,, this is ****ing stupid


you watched Nelson Ag for how many years and you guys arent fans correct? yet somehow someway he is better this year under carr then he was under wentz....... yet wentz is more skilled.... Nelson is about to have a career year if these stats continue under a QB who you say by the eye test isnt close to wentz............... the raiders werent suppose to be better then the eagles per the eye test.......context? we about to blame injuries because he is on pace with avg more this year then any wentz year?

he might not but stop with this bull **** about watching a player like you watch all players from every team game in and game out week in and week out to make your stupid bias opinion.......................... you dont... you havent and you wont. stop the bs


nobody that says one QB is better than another GOES BY 1 GAME... Jesus christ this is moronic... its about seasons so your stupid opinion just became null and void.

---

Ehhhh NA is being used differently this year as I already pointed out. He’s targeted less per game than he has been on the Eagles and he’s targeted further down the field than he was with the Eagles. I believe he’s even playing less overall snaps too. If anything, what that tells me is the Raiders are utilizing him better than what the Eagles were. That’s more an indictment on the coaching than Wentz. Wentz can’t control how many snaps a player gets.

Edit: found the snaps. NA is plying 61% of the snaps this year where he was 59 last season and 58 his rookie but 78, 72, and 90 the other three seasons. He also only played 11 games last season and 13 his rookie year. Let’s see how he’s used throughout the year.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez

It can be stupid, to you.

Advanced stats have taken many context related things in to consideration, but in the nfl, even the best stats aren’t without flaw.

Keep in mind most of this discussion started with mariner long before this thread. He wouldn’t consider context and surrounding talent when it came to stats, pretty black and white at first. He’s seemed to come around some, but my biggest issue is the claim that stats are the most important.

If they were, you’d have college guys who throw for far more yards and TDs than those drafted higher. Those numbers don’t mean as much as the context that surrounds them.

At this point we can just disagree. That’s fine. I don’t think your opinion makes you a moron, so there’s that.

---

This is a total lie. I’ve always considered context and surrounding talent. It’s just not as important as you make it to be. Why do you continue to think it’s all or nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by More-Than-Most

so now we are talking about the eye test for the player we always watch play? come on man stop,,, this is ****ing stupid


you watched Nelson Ag for how many years and you guys arent fans correct? yet somehow someway he is better this year under carr then he was under wentz....... yet wentz is more skilled.... Nelson is about to have a career year if these stats continue under a QB who you say by the eye test isnt close to wentz............... the raiders werent suppose to be better then the eagles per the eye test.......context? we about to blame injuries because he is on pace with avg more this year then any wentz year?

he might not but stop with this bull **** about watching a player like you watch all players from every team game in and game out week in and week out to make your stupid bias opinion.......................... you dont... you havent and you wont. stop the bs


nobody that says one QB is better than another GOES BY 1 GAME... Jesus christ this is moronic... its about seasons so your stupid opinion just became null and void.

---

Agholor had a very good year in 2017. In particular he was great in the Super Bowl.

There should be a comment by me somewhere on this forum predicting that Agholor will very likely benefit from a change of scenery. That's because his struggles always seemed to be mental primarily, i.e. he'd get dragged down by a bad performance and then not make catches the next game and so on. There's no other explanation why he couldn't continue his performance from 2017.

I've actually watched several Raiders games this season and yeah, Agholor is playing very well. Again, physical talent was never the issue with him. He also has very good technique when catching the ball. It's just his mind that failed him and led to many drops.

That much is evident from watching Agholor play for years.

Or you could look at his stats this season and conclude that Carr >>> Wentz; whatever works for you, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koldjerky

Ehhhh NA is being used differently this year as I already pointed out. He’s targeted less per game than he has been on the Eagles and he’s targeted further down the field than he was with the Eagles. I believe he’s even playing less overall snaps too. If anything, what that tells me is the Raiders are utilizing him better than what the Eagles were. That’s more an indictment on the coaching than Wentz. Wentz can’t control how many snaps a player gets.

Edit: found the snaps. NA is plying 61% of the snaps this year where he was 59 last season and 58 his rookie but 78, 72, and 90 the other three seasons. He also only played 11 games last season and 13 his rookie year. Let’s see how he’s used throughout the year.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Using stats to build your case? Of course, without evidence your argument would be hollow. The eye can’t see the percentage of snaps taken year by year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mariner4life

This is a total lie. I’ve always considered context and surrounding talent. It’s just not as important as you make it to be. Why do you continue to think it’s all or nothing?

---

You’ve considered it, not as much as me. That was more the point. You have definitely been more black and white about stats.

Once again, I’ll type this really slow because no matter how many times I say it it keeps getting missed.

It’s NOT all or nothing, never has been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mariner4life

Using stats to build your case? Of course, without evidence your argument would be hollow. The eye can’t see the percentage of snaps taken year by year.

---

Actually I just displayed how skewed stats can be. MTM used stats to say NA has been better this year, yet I used different stats (and honestly even though by definition percentage of snaps played is a stat, it’s not something you need context to explain outside of snaps vs games played) to put context into him not necessarily being better but being used differently and less.

I’ve never been against stats, just have always said in football you need to use a lot of stats to paint a better picture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mariner4life

This is a total lie. I’ve always considered context and surrounding talent. It’s just not as important as you make it to be. Why do you continue to think it’s all or nothing?

---

Why are you saying “{context and surrounding talent} is not as important...” like that’s definitive?

Obviously more stats come out year after year (good) but until they start coming up with stats that don’t still need context, it’s silly to quantify how important context is definitively.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez

You’ve considered it, not as much as me. That was more the point. You have definitely been more black and white about stats.

Once again, I’ll type this really slow because no matter how many times I say it it keeps getting missed.

It’s NOT all or nothing, never has been.

---

We do disagree on the amount of importance but every now and then someone posts that I dont consider it at all. It’s just weird

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koldjerky

Why are you saying “{context and surrounding talent} is not as important...” like that’s definitive?

Obviously more stats come out year after year (good) but until they start coming up with stats that don’t still need context, it’s silly to quantify how important context is definitively.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mariner4life

We do disagree on the amount of importance but every now and then someone posts that I dont consider it at all. It’s just weird

---

I shouldn’t have implied that you don’t consider them at all, I could have typed that better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koldjerky

Why are you saying “{context and surrounding talent} is not as important...” like that’s definitive?

Obviously more stats come out year after year (good) but until they start coming up with stats that don’t still need context, it’s silly to quantify how important context is definitively.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I think people here take stats for granted and don’t realize how much they incorporate it in their arguments. Imagine if there was no record keeping at all? No passing yards, yards per attempt, yac, etc..... nothing at all. How would you know who’s in the third tier or fourth? Not to be fully reliant on them or be lazy about it but they are a necessary tool.

How would you know if your new guard was above average? For the eye test you would have to watch every play from 64 guards from week one to now.
I’ve heard people here say that stats don’t tell the whole story which is true.
The eye test tells us much less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez

I shouldn’t have implied that you don’t consider them at all, I could have typed that better.

---

No worries. I respect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mariner4life

I think people here take stats for granted and don’t realize how much they incorporate it in their arguments. Imagine if there was no record keeping at all? No passing yards, yards per attempt, yac, etc..... nothing at all. How would you know who’s in the third tier or fourth? Not to be fully reliant on them or be lazy about it but they are a necessary tool.

How would you know if your new guard was above average? For the eye test you would have to watch every play from 64 guards from week one to now.
I’ve heard people here say that stats don’t tell the whole story which is true.
The eye test tells us much less.

---

Exactly. And I think the stats don't tell the story folks get caught up in attempts/completions/yards/TD stats way too much. Obviously there's a bevy of additional stats that provide more depth. And all "stats" fans agree that there isn't just a tell all stat that everyone needs to follow. It's a combination of stats to form an opinion. Context and eye test matter as well.

But like you said, stats is where things should start. Since very few people have the ability/knowledge to watch everyone on every play and assign credit/blame as needed, stats will provide the best information of all of the inputs.

Sure, if we are talking to an nfl scout, perhaps there's an eye test is better than most publicly available metrics arguement. But none of us are that. I'm guessing the vast majority of us never watch all 22, and those that do, most likely only watch their team or a handful of teams. There's plenty of examples of times where stats, even advanced stats, don't tell the whole story. But generally speaking, those things are more outliers than the rule.