Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 37 to 47 of 47
  1. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,034

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only



    This teams philosophy is about moving the chains and controlling the clock.
    In just over 3 quarters of play Boller got 16 first downs (none by penalty, btw), McNair had none. Extrapolated out, Boller probably gets 20 for the game. We had 78 first downs in the previous 5 games, about 15.5 per game. Again, Boller was on pace for 20 with no first team snaps.





  2. #38

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only

    Quote Originally Posted by StingerNLG View Post
    Well then you can't say Boller did not produce any better than Mac, because McNair and this offense has NOT been good at moving the chains. Boller moved the chains better than McNair has been able to do. It was very evident on Sunday.

    And if you want to take away Boller's tipped passes, then take away Mason's circus catches in Cleveland. I mean, if we're going to punish one QB for the receiver making a lucky or good catch, let's be fair.
    I can't help but wonder if you guys are arguing just for the hell of it.

    Circus catches are not the same as tipped balls. With a circus catch the route and the direction of the pass are INTENTIONAL.

    Boller's two tipped passes were nothing but flukes. You can try to argue the point all day long if you like, but you will never convince me that Boller meant (and therefore deserves credit for) those TDs.



    In just over 3 quarters of play Boller got 16 first downs (none by penalty, btw), McNair had none. Extrapolated out, Boller probably gets 20 for the game. We had 78 first downs in the previous 5 games, about 15.5 per game. Again, Boller was on pace for 20 with no first team snaps.

    Yup, that's pretty good...not great, but good. for the 20th time, I am not arguing the fact that Boller had a decent day, but if it was better than what Mac has done, then it's by a small margin.

    First downs are kind of a tough stat to compare QBs with though since there are so many other factors involved, especially how well the opposing defense is playing. I only brought up the first down thing to remind you that we are not a deep threat team and that the dink and dunk is our bread and butter.




  3. #39

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only

    Circus catches are not the same as tipped balls. With a circus catch the route and the direction of the pass are INTENTIONAL.
    And so are tipped balls. Just because a lineman gets a hand on it doesn't mean the throw wasn't intentional. That makes no sense.


    Boller's two tipped passes were nothing but flukes. You can try to argue the point all day long if you like, but you will never convince me that Boller meant (and therefore deserves credit for) those TDs.
    Once again, Boller's first pass HIT IT'S INTENDED TARGET. IT WAS NOT BATTED AT THE LINE, IT POPPED UP OFF OF THE TARGET HE THREW IT AT. Exactly the same thing you just described as the circus catch. So yes, Boller 100% absolutely can get credit for the first TD. He made the throw. Mason couldn't make the catch. Clayton did. If Mason made a circus catch to hold onto the ball would you still be saying Boller didn't deserve it?


    Yup, that's pretty good...not great, but good.
    16 first downs in three quarters isn't great? What other teams are you putting that up against then??




  4. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,034

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only

    First downs are kind of a tough stat to compare QBs with though since there are so many other factors involved, especially how well the opposing defense is playing. I only brought up the first down thing to remind you that we are not a deep threat team and that the dink and dunk is our bread and butter.
    That is the second time that has been contended and I will now say BULL. Up until McNair this team under Billick has "gone vertical" 4-8 times per game, most games 5-6. Under McNair, 1-2 times per game, tops.

    Billick's offensive philosophy is built on the idea of explosives. With Boller at the helm we went for explosive plays much more, even though the score was close (hell, we were leading at one time).




  5. #41

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only

    Quote Originally Posted by StingerNLG View Post
    And so are tipped balls. Just because a lineman gets a hand on it doesn't mean the throw wasn't intentional. That makes no sense.

    Are you seriously arguing that a tipped ball is INTENTIONAL and is not a broken play?



    Once again, Boller's first pass HIT IT'S INTENDED TARGET. IT WAS NOT BATTED AT THE LINE, IT POPPED UP OFF OF THE TARGET HE THREW IT AT. Exactly the same thing you just described as the circus catch. So yes, Boller 100% absolutely can get credit for the first TD. He made the throw. Mason couldn't make the catch. Clayton did. If Mason made a circus catch to hold onto the ball would you still be saying Boller didn't deserve it?
    Which of our receivers catches the ball is irrelevant. Once a ball is tipped, it is considered a broken play. That is why there can be no pass interefence called. Scream and yell all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it was a broken play.

    Even if I did agree, you are talking about a 14yrd pass. Boller's rating is still only 75.1 with a 51% completion...which is OK, but definately not what I would consider great.



    16 first downs in three quarters isn't great? What other teams are you putting that up against then??
    It is the only stat that you can find that in any way supports your argument. I would counter that there are many other factors that contribute to that number and that it is not a good measure of the quality of the play at the QB position. That is why it is listed as a team stat and not as an individual one.




  6. #42

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only

    Are you seriously arguing that a tipped ball is INTENTIONAL and is not a broken play?
    You're trying to take two seperate passes and make them the same. That doesn't work.


    Which of our receivers catches the ball is irrelevant. Once a ball is tipped, it is considered a broken play. That is why there can be no pass interefence called. Scream and yell all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it was a broken play.
    Again, you're trying to marginalize the fact that the pass was on target. That was a catchable ball that Mason couldn't come up with for whatever reason he couldn't. It's not the same as having the ball tipped at the LOS and landing in the arms of a receiver. Two different situations. That's the difference.

    I would counter that there are many other factors that contribute to that number and that it is not a good measure of the quality of the play at the QB position.
    I've used that same counter about factors and stat skewing based on what happens around the QB. The problem is whenever it's Kyle Boller, that doesn't seem to matter. I once argued, as people like Ron Jawarski have, that the QB position is one that requires the most help from the entire rest of the offense to make it's stats. But only if your name doesn't start with the letters KB. Then stats mean everything. So I gave up on that and use the same philosophy on McNair.

    But the bottom line is that like it or not, Boller averaged the same 1st down percentage as McNair (I'm not quibbling over .5). So the arguement that McNair was better at moving the chains is incorrect. That's all we were saying.

    BTW:

    Scream and yell all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it was a broken play.
    Scream and yell all you want, it was a touchdown.




  7. #43

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only

    If McNair threw that first TD pass, Im willing to bet that alot of people on this thread would be calling it bullshit and lucky.

    And that pass was well thrown but Mason was being blanketed by the DB.

    I saw the play live and a replay or two and IIRC, the DB's hand got in there to disrupt the play.

    2 of the TDs were fluky.

    Boller looked OK. Nothing more, nothing less. He looked OK.

    His INT was a terrible decision. His throw to Heap was placed perfectly where only Heap could've caught it. And there you have it in a nutshell. Real good and real bad. All I've wanted out of him is something in the middle.

    PP




  8. #44

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only

    Here's the problem as I see it PP. Boller doesn't have the market cornered on bad decisions in this offense. 7 interceptions by McNair, and 2 of them hit opponents right in the chest. The one against Carolina Heap was wide open in the flat and McNair didn't even LOOK there.

    This is why I keep arguing about this system and how it's continuing to kill QB's.

    As far as the 1st TD, I'm watching it right now. It's too fast to get a definitive picture for you, and slowing it down seems to only blur the play. But that ball from the first angle looks like it hits Mason, not Gamble. Fluky? could be. Good decision and good throw? Absolutely. Maybe that's the point and Mobtown and I are looking at two different arguements.

    And for the record, I never called McNair's throws to Mason in Cleveland lucky throws because Mason made yoga-like circus catches. That's what a receiver does for you sometimes. Just like against Carolina.




  9. #45

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only

    You're trying to take two seperate passes and make them the same. That doesn't work.

    Again, you're trying to marginalize the fact that the pass was on target. That was a catchable ball that Mason couldn't come up with for whatever reason he couldn't. It's not the same as having the ball tipped at the LOS and landing in the arms of a receiver. Two different situations. That's the difference.
    I am not trying to argue that the ball was not on target or if it was a good pass. It was, but the pass was defended and tipped in the air. A tipped pass is a tipped pass regardless of whether it happens at the LOS or anywhere else on the field. At that point, it becomes something else outside the scope of the original design, a broken play.

    I've used that same counter about factors and stat skewing based on what happens around the QB. The problem is whenever it's Kyle Boller, that doesn't seem to matter. I once argued, as people like Ron Jawarski have, that the QB position is one that requires the most help from the entire rest of the offense to make it's stats. But only if your name doesn't start with the letters KB. Then stats mean everything. So I gave up on that and use the same philosophy on McNair.
    Bottom line for me is that so far...they both suck. We need better QB play, regardless of who is taking the snaps. However there are those here who would have you believe that KB enjoyed some kind of break out game on Sunday...or at least that his play was good enough to unseat the current starter. IMO that is not the case, and I believe that the numbers support my opinion.

    But the bottom line is that like it or not, Boller averaged the same 1st down percentage as McNair (I'm not quibbling over .5). So the arguement that McNair was better at moving the chains is incorrect. That's all we were saying.
    I am with you there...they are the same or at least similar. It was Greg's stance that Boller was significanly better at converting first downs, not mine.

    Scream and yell all you want, it was a touchdown.
    No doubt. That fact is the reason why I have not tried to argue any of Mac's stats. Following my own logic, a few of Mac's INTs this year should not "count" because they were the result of tipped balls...

    BUT

    At the end of the day the points still count and so do the INTs.

    That truth is undeniable, however, when I am assessing the quality of QB play, I cannot help but recognize and diffentiate between, intentional results and results that were achieved via luck, fluke, divine intervention or whatever else you want to term it.

    In my mind it is similar to dropping the highest and lowest scores on a series of tests. By doing so your data is more representative of the expected average results.




  10. #46

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only

    I am not trying to argue that the ball was not on target or if it was a good pass. It was, but the pass was defended and tipped in the air. A tipped pass is a tipped pass regardless of whether it happens at the LOS or anywhere else on the field. At that point, it becomes something else outside the scope of the original design, a broken play.
    I eluded to this with my response to PP. I think we're talking about two different aspects of the same thing.


    Bottom line for me is that so far...they both suck. We need better QB play, regardless of who is taking the snaps. However there are those here who would have you believe that KB enjoyed some kind of break out game on Sunday...or at least that his play was good enough to unseat the current starter. IMO that is not the case, and I believe that the numbers support my opinion.
    Honestly, I don't agree about the numbers part. If we're talking about statistical numbers, right now KB is the better option across the board numerically.

    THAT SAID

    I have no desire to bench McNair at this point. There are others, some who I actually didn't expect to see, calling for Boller to start. I'm not in that group. McNair has to get better. I supported Boller starting before McNair arrived, but McNair is here and he has to remain the starter. And every week I will sit in my seat or on the couch and hope he turns the offense around. That's just the way it is.

    Besides, I've said a couple times Boller's future isn't here. I would be suprised as anyone if he entertains the idea of resigning here when he could head to KC or Minnesota or someplace with an aging QB and get a shot at a starting job. Behind Kansas City's line, he could be successful. With our line, no QB will be successful.

    In my mind it is similar to dropping the highest and lowest scores on a series of tests. By doing so your data is more representative of the expected average results.
    We can disagree to an extent, but I respect that.




  11. #47

    Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only

    at least that his play was good enough to unseat the current starter. IMO that is not the case, and I believe that the numbers support my opinion.
    I was with you all the way up to that statement. How can the numbers of the most recent (the last four games) for each guy support your case? Kyle is looking like he's is (finally) getting it with three of four games rated over 97, while Mcnair looks to be in a free fall.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland