Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 5/12/2025 at 10:57 AM, BurntEyes said:

If we can't all agree on our love for big men scoring a TD, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Don Beebe says, "Mars is that away."

jhz6Kv.gif

  • Replies 26.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
24 minutes ago, Derka said:

on our one and only scoring drive of the 2H vs asu we converted a 3rd and 10 on a go route to matthew golden. the ball did not lead the speedy golden, in fact it was a bit under thrown (a product of lofting every single pass you make) and towards the sideline. an accurate pass which led golden would have been a TD. instead golden had to adjust to the pass and jump towards the boundary to catch it. 

 

IMG_2339.jpeg

IMG_2341.jpeg

On the flip side, here is JT O’Sullivan’s opinion on the play. (I hope the sound works)

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, markstanco said:

giphy.gif

 

Star Trek Report GIF

 

4 hours ago, markstanco said:

Holy hell....I forgot all about that thread.  "TheJosh" is a retarded MFer. 

 

Or a legendary troll.

 

3 hours ago, Had Enough said:

Here is the midpoint on completion percentage at each depth:

Deep                 36.4%   Only 7 guys above 50%

Intermediate     54.6%

Short                  74.4%

Behind the LOS  90.3%.  106 of 126 are above 85%.

 

So again, using completion percentage on a standalone basis when other data is fairly readily available is not a good indicator.  If you stay short and behind the LOS, if you do that in an equal ratio, the average guy is around 83-84%.  That same consideration for intermediate/deep is around 45%.
 

The fact is, and strongly supported by the numbers, that if you push the ball down the field, the completion percentage goes down.  
 

At this time, I am looking up the numbers as I type.  Well will go Dart, Ewers, Shough.

Ewers on deep/intermediate is at 34% of drop backs.  At short/behind the LOS, he’s at 60%.  On the first grouping he’s at 47% completion percentage.  83% at the shorter depths.  Overall completion percentage at 65.8%.

Dart.  44.4%/49.8%.  56.5% completion percentage deep/int and 88.4% short/los.  Overall completion percentage is 69.2%.

Shough.  31.9%/58.5% on target breakdown.  52.8% and 77.2%.  Overall completion percentage is 62.1%.

 

This tells you some things about Dart relative to the other two.  Ewers looks better than Shough.  Shough is behind the LOS 13% of the time, 10% of those are screens.  Ewers is at 28% with a 17.5% screen ratio.  So when parsed a bit more Ewers gains about 2% completion points compared to Shough because he goes even shorter more often.

 

So... the thing about this kind of analysis is that it appears to tell you something while telling you nothing at all.

The reason I like Warner's analysis of quarterbacks so much, and weigh it so much more highly than others, is that it's not about statistics; it's about "Here are the skills I think you need to have to succeed in the NFL; here's how well this quarterback executes those various skills."  Percentages, success rates, etc are meaningless; he doesn't even consider them. What matters is: What are you doing in this situation, and is it what you're supposed to be doing? What do you need to do to get at that level?

And later on, when Ewers was on Coach Chucky's show, he mentioned that he was working on one of the two things Warner identified: His footwork.

It's bad footwork that leads to inaccurate throws from Ewers. When his footwork isn't sloppy, he is insanely accurate and throws very catchable balls. He makes throws no other QB in this draft class does. When it's sloppy, he has such a good arm that he STILL is often accurate... but every missed throw can be attributed to either bad footwork or the receiver just dropping the ball.

The other thing, of course, is making the right read under pressure. Ewers faced three defenses that show you one look, then switch to another: Georgia, OU, and tOSU. He struggled against those. I don't think very many other QBs faced a similar gauntlet of skilled, well-coached defenses. Of course, that's what NFL defenses do. That Ewers has seen this, and others in this year's class haven't, actually helps him in the long run, especially how young he is.

The real problem with Ewers as an NFL prospect is that he's made of glass.

 

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

Here's how Miami's QB situation will go:

Tua will get concussed;

MILF hunter will come in and suck;

Ewers will come in and play well - giving the Dolphins fans hope - then get injured because he always does;

Miami trades (on an overpay) for Kirk Cousins.

 

 

This is painfully likely.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Levi said:

On the flip side, here is JT O’Sullivan’s opinion on the play. (I hope the sound works)

 

 

That's an aspect of Ewers that Warner loves, too - the touch on his passes. That Ewers CAN throw rockets, but instead throws accurate, well-timed arcs that go over the defense's heads and be very easy for receivers to grab is his biggest strength.

Posted
18 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

image.thumb.jpeg.b2e050b9ff80cbbdc79767a492f1832a.jpeg
 

For reference is is Klubniks

image.thumb.jpeg.30031561aafc24ac64b56ab357cda9cf.jpeg
 

Leavitts

image.thumb.jpeg.706d7cc317ac9f75877e5ff2ec6531d1.jpeg

This is interesting.  Thank you for bringing this up, and bring up a source that I could link to.   

Since you are more familiar with it, can you elaborate on the on-target rate vs. completion rate and explain the meaning between the differential?  For example, CK's 20+ yard differential is ~12% where as SL's and QE's are about 18% differential.   Is there a metric which shows how QE was performing this year pre-oblique injury and post injury return, and one from last year and the year before?  I think one of the scouting reports I read stated QE had trouble with intermediate passes to his right side, and I was curious if that was present pre-injury data. 

Quote

While recognizing the limitations of sample size and various factors outside of a quarterback’s control, our study shows there is some value in considering a quarterback’s accuracy in college, especially on short throws, when projecting how accurate he may be at the same distances in the NFL.

Separately, we found that accuracy on intermediate throws had the strongest correlation with a quarterback’s overall performance, with short throw accuracy coming in second. Deep accuracy had a significantly weaker correlation, presumably due to deep throws inherently being more volatile, at least in part. While dropping a 60 yard bomb right into a receiver’s hands may draw the most applause, a quarterback’s accuracy at shallower depths may prove to be more insightful when projecting how he might perform in the NFL.

Source Link.  

Having read through this site a little further though, I am a little disappointed they do not include their P-values and t-statistics and residual graphs which could be used to validate the null-hypothesis, independent variable, etc.  Also on the first table they present on that page, is pretty indicative that the model for intermediate/longer passes are a very poor (again though, not enough information is included here as well). 

 Statistics and regression analysis without the qualifiers is something I would be very skeptical about.   I have seen others run regression analysis and not be able to rule out the null-hypothesis just run with it.

 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

This is interesting.  Thank you for bringing this up, and bring up a source that I could link to.   

Since you are more familiar with it, can you elaborate on the on-target rate vs. completion rate and explain the meaning between the differential?  For example, CK's 20+ yard differential is ~12% where as SL's and QE's are about 18% differential.   Is there a metric which shows how QE was performing this year pre-oblique injury and post injury return, and one from last year and the year before?  I think one of the scouting reports I read stated QE had trouble with intermediate passes to his right side, and I was curious if that was present pre-injury data. 

Source Link.  

Having read through this site a little further though, I am a little disappointed they do not include their P-values and t-statistics and residual graphs which could be used to validate the null-hypothesis, independent variable, etc.  Also on the first table they present on that page, is pretty indicative that the model for intermediate/longer passes are a very poor (again though, not enough information is included here as well). 

 Statistics and regression analysis without the qualifiers is something I would be very skeptical about.   I have seen others run regression analysis and not be able to rule out the null-hypothesis just run with it.

 

I wish that the website had Tyler Shough and they might but my work computer does not allow Twitter so I can't scour their twitter. To me these two QB's given their history of injuries is the most interesting part in comparison. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
15 minutes ago, Levi said:

On the flip side, here is JT O’Sullivan’s opinion on the play. (I hope the sound works)

 

 

i’ll take his word for it, he certainly knows better than i do. still, it’s hard to know (for a layperson like me) given QE’s propensity for a)lifting every pass and b)generally being inaccurate downfield if you’re watching a great back shoulder fade or a could-have-been td that was thrown short and wide.

Posted
1 hour ago, Derka said:

and i could argue that im skinny and mentally stable, but that wouldn’t be true either, would it?

TIme out for a second. 

I really wish you wouldn't post like this.  Look, you have been open and honest about your struggles, but you should also treat yourself with some dignity and respect.   Self-deprecation is fine if there is self-respect. 

Time in.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Nivek said:

TIme out for a second. 

I really wish you wouldn't post like this.  Look, you have been open and honest about your struggles, but you should also treat yourself with some dignity and respect.   Self-deprecation is fine if there is self-respect. 

Time in.

 

Posted

lol nah in all seriousness i appreciate the post. fwiw, while i know that i’ve got a few screws loose, i do have plenty of dignity and self respect, but thank you, nonetheless. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I don't think you can say he was nails on any deep portion of the field, he may have hit a handful over his three years but that doesn't mean he was nails.

He was pretty good.  These are a few examples.  I don't know if he had an easier time judging the depth because he's throwing at an angle, but he really struggles with his judgment when he goes more vertical.

I mean he missed EVERY throw against Kentucky.  Every single one.

Here's a great throw versus aggy:

Here is one that isn't as good, but he gives his guy a chance by putting it in a spot where he can make a play:

Good throw down the sideline to Golden:

Here's another good one from that game:

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, AnotherLawyer said:

Saying it doesn't make him an accurate QB overall is not the same thing as saying he's inaccurate.

Ok then. You learn something new everyday here.

Not accurate /= inaccurate. The more you know.

Posted
2 hours ago, Park Gothic said:

This is good analysis, very helpful. But as others have pointed out, it doesn't tell the whole story. My first thoughts are (1) who is Shough throwing to vs. who is Ewers throwing to? I assume that Texas had a significant advantage in the receiver department over Louisville. (2) Who is blocking for these guys and what does their run game look like? It's easier to complete passes when the threat of a run game is holding the defense back, or when the o-line can give the QB more time. Not sure who has the edge here overall, but I'm fairly confident that Texas has the better o-line. (3) What defenses are they going up against? Not to indulge the SEC circlejerk, but I'm pretty sure SEC defenses are going to make a QB look worse than he does against ACC defenses. 

I just don't think there's a meaningful system for parsing through these data points. Statistics require context, and context relies on overall picture. You can explain away bad numbers and argue why those numbers are the real story depending on whatever your bias happens to be. It's still a useful endeavor, but I just don't think there are definitive answers to be gleaned from stats and narrative alone. 

I’ll hit on a few points here.  Stats do not tell the entirety of the story and have said as such.

But they put the entirety of every play out there.  It’s not a focus on the best game or the worst game either.  Any QB that has ever made 1,000 throws has some good and some bad.  It does highlight some consistency or lack of consistency if you prefer to look at it that way from the stats.

It being an imperfect science is why NFL QBs fail but in my opinion an underappreciated aspect is the entirety of the environment that fails in support of that QB.  If you can’t pass block for shit, it’s over in most cases, for example.

As for opponent defenses, that does matter.  What is more important is the individual matchups of your offense versus their defense.  Can a Worthy beat Kool Aid and Arnold?  Can a Banks handle Dallas Turner?  Texas rates very favorably in those comparisons over the past 3 years.

From a statistical standpoint, I can’t say there was a discernible difference between Ewers and Shough.  But, yes, statistically Dart separated himself.  You also can say he played SEC defenses.  You also can draw a line and say there’s a difference in offensive skill between Ole Miss and Texas.  Harris good but slower than any WR we’ve had the past two years.  I do not recall any drafted Ole Miss Oline.  Their TE was a free agent.

Texas pass pro grade was ranked #2.  Ole Miss was not #1.  For the past two years, Ole Miss had a better OFEI ranking than Texas.  

In that example of Dart versus Ewers, they started off the draft process in similar draft projections then some separation began being created.  It’s reflective in the data so then drill down and does that tape match the data.
 

From the NFL perspective, I’d watch every play of every game from any QB I were interested in drafting.  Then I’d do it again.  I’d also look at all this data to go along with it.  Then I’d quiz the hell out of them in an attempt to see what they know and how hard they’re willing to work to learn what they don’t.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

So... the thing about this kind of analysis is that it appears to tell you something while telling you nothing at all.

The reason I like Warner's analysis of quarterbacks so much, and weigh it so much more highly than others, is that it's not about statistics; it's about "Here are the skills I think you need to have to succeed in the NFL; here's how well this quarterback executes those various skills."  Percentages, success rates, etc are meaningless; he doesn't even consider them. What matters is: What are you doing in this situation, and is it what you're supposed to be doing? What do you need to do to get at that level?

Percentages and success rates are meaningless? No way.

Warners thoughts are valuable, but he’s also not trying to tear people down.  Gruden isnt trying to either, but I’d bet he’d chew his QBs butt for many a mistake.

If a QB, or any player, can make a particular throw or play, it is about how often they can repeat it.  Obviously, footwork is a part of that preferred repetition. Then 3 years of data is much better support than watching 3 games out of 30.

That is not to refute anything Warner says is inaccurate or untrue.  And whether Ewers was a 1st rounder or a 7th rounder, all those things can be true in either case.

Posted
1 minute ago, Had Enough said:

Percentages and success rates are meaningless? No way.

Way.

Because you're taking these and treating them as if they're meaningful outside of the context of everything else.

It's not that using statistics is wrong. It's that you're using meaningless statistics in an invalid way.

1 minute ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

image.thumb.png.a051f4053b56d3f99337422795711a9d.pngimage.thumb.png.0d2f0096fc14e00ddb0041ec0b79190a.png

now that's fuckin funny 🤣🤣🤣

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...