Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Nivek said:


I could argue that he was highly accurate with his down field passes. His precision was off, but he missed his receiver often the same way.

That may be, but I think you may have flipped the usual senses of accuracy and precision.

  • Like 1
  • Replies 27.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
I will not let you dodge the question. You challenged what I said about completion percentages and accuracy. I will not let you dodge the question. In Colt's first two years he was a mid 60's completion percentage passer. His last two years his completion percentage jumped to the 70's. What changed to make that happened and then changed back when he got to the pros? Answer the question.

His strategy is to ignore what you asked for 3-4 pages/days then ask what you are talking about.

See request for receipts.
Posted
13 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

(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. 

Someone else probably has defense-only stats, but I will note that Sagarin has the Texas strength of schedule as #7, and Louisville's as #48.  Does that reflect the quality of defense each QB faced?  Probably not, but I have no idea in which direction the error is, much less the magnitude.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I could argue that he was highly accurate with his down field passes.

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

Posted
4 hours ago, Thatguy said:

I will not let you dodge the question. You challenged what I said about completion percentages and accuracy.

dude you are confusing me with someone else.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Could you please stop this bullshit and argue with the guy in good faith?

giphy.gif?cid=9b38fe913e2ulqib605ii235bi

first off, not sure how anything i’ve said here hasn’t been in good faith, but second, holy irony batman! accusing someone of not arguing in good faith with a guy who literally will not accept any criticisms of our wildly flawed qb is a hilarious ask. i mean he’s currently over here badgering me about some argument that he’s having with some other person on this thread. that’s what you call “good faith”? lol ok.

Edited by Derka
Posted
That may be, but I think you may have flipped the usual senses of accuracy and precision.

I typed that backwards. Thank you for catching that.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I could argue that he was highly accurate with his down field passes. His precision was off, but he missed his receiver often the same way.

You make a good point. As physical concepts I mostly think of accuracy and precision as interchangeable and receiver-relative, like placing the ball over the outside shoulder rather than the inside shoulder, for example. Ewers threw to the same spot regardless of where the receiver was. From a field-relative standpoint, he's accurate. From a receiver-relative standpoint, he's accurate on certain routes and not others. A lot of these guys who trained with the same small groups of private coaches have outstanding field-relative accuracy. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, AnotherLawyer said:

From a field-relative standpoint, he's accurate. From a receiver-relative standpoint, he's accurate on certain routes and not others.

what does this mean?

Posted
48 minutes ago, AnotherLawyer said:

Last year in the NFL the top 50% of starting QBs ranged anywhere from 60% OTR up to 80% for 10-19 yards but most were bunched between 65%ish-74%ish. There were outliers like Jalen Hurts who had OTR in that range as high as 89% and Jacoby Brisset who was down near 50%. Arguably, it's a more important metric that under 10 or 20+. Burrow, Mahomes, and Geno Smith played in offenses that emphasized the short game--more than 500 attempts each under 10 yards, and you had passing attempts under 10 ranging anywhere from well over 500 attempts to just over 250. In contrast, the highest OTR QB 20+ was Justin Hebert at nearly 75%...but on 30ish attempts, not 500. But pretty much every starting QB had roughly 70-100 attempts between 10-20 yards.

I don't know how FBS shook out last year overall. 57th percentile may be middling, or it may be a standard deviation or more away from mean. In my opinion, that doesn't make Ewers an overall accurate QB. It doesn't mean he's inaccurate either.

So if someone isn’t accurate, what’s the word for that?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Derka said:

giphy.gif?cid=9b38fe913e2ulqib605ii235bi

first off, not sure how anything i’ve said here hasn’t been in good faith, but second, holy irony batman! accusing someone of not arguing in good faith with a guy who literally will not accept any criticisms of our wildly flawed qb is a hilarious ask. i mean he’s currently over here badgering me about some argument that he’s having with some other person on this thread. that’s what you call “good faith”? lol ok.

I was specifically referring to you implying that he thinks of Ewers as Tom Brady.  Let's not get too far over our skis in assessing an inability to deal with criticism of one's position.

Again, produce the "receipts" that you claim to have.  You continue to fail to do so, likely because you just make shit up to bolster your "arguments".

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Nivek said:

See request for receipts.

yeah well if either of you could post the receipts of me “challenging thatguy on his views vis a vis accuracy vs precision” or whatever it is that’s led to this question that i’m supposedly dodging that would really help me out, because right now it appears that both of you are confusing me with someone else whom thatguy is trying to convince that QE etherially floats above us.

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Again, produce the "receipts" that you claim to have. 

seriously, what are y’all talking about? what receipts? what claims? i have absolutely zero clue what you’re talking about. i believe i have a receipt from the olive garden somewhere around here. is that what you’re looking for?

Edited by Derka
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, AnotherLawyer said:

You make a good point. As physical concepts I mostly think of accuracy and precision as interchangeable and receiver-relative, like placing the ball over the outside shoulder rather than the inside shoulder, for example. Ewers threw to the same spot regardless of where the receiver was. From a field-relative standpoint, he's accurate. From a receiver-relative standpoint, he's accurate on certain routes and not others. A lot of these guys who trained with the same small groups of private coaches have outstanding field-relative accuracy. 

Except he wasn't accurate even throwing to spots down field. One thing that is unanimous in this thread is that Quinn Ewers fucking sucks at throwing deep balls and he's not accurate whether he's throwing deep to a spot or a receiver. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
11 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

So if someone isn’t accurate, what’s the word for that?

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

Posted
Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Except he wasn't accurate even throwing to spots down field.

There's a gif a few posts up from the Michigan game that disproves that. He throws downfield to a place where only the receiver can get and actually has to lean forward for it. In all fairness there are plenty of examples of throws like this and throws where he's off-target. Maybe you mean he "mostly" wasn't accurate downfield? I can agree with that for 2024, especially later in the season.

Posted
1 minute ago, AnotherLawyer said:

Maybe you mean he "mostly" wasn't accurate downfield?

and another term for that would be…

Posted
1 minute ago, AnotherLawyer said:

There's a gif a few posts up from the Michigan game that disproves that. He throws downfield to a place where only the receiver can get and actually has to lean forward for it. In all fairness there are plenty of examples of throws like this and throws where he's off-target. Maybe you mean he "mostly" wasn't accurate downfield? I can agree with that for 2024, especially later in the season.

Are you by autistic by chance?

Posted
1 minute ago, AnotherLawyer said:

There's a gif a few posts up from the Michigan game that disproves that.

first off one gif doesn’t prove anything. secondly, using clips from the michigan game as representation of QE’s overall body of work? talk about not arguing in good faith.

Posted

I'm not sure if this applies to football, but in shooting "accuracy" refers to how close your shots are to your target. If you're aiming for the bullseye, how close are you getting to the bullseye? In contrast, "precision" refers to how consistently are you putting shots in the same place, i.e., how tight are your groupings? Here is a helpful chart:

1400x778-blog-graphic-acc-prec.jpg

Please stop hooting at each other like a pack of retards squabbling about the meaning of already well-defined terms.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

I'm not sure if this applies to football, but in shooting "accuracy" refers to how close your shots are to your target.

 

2 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

Please stop hooting at each other like a pack of retards squabbling about the meaning of already well-defined terms.

“not sure if this applies here…”

”…well defined terms.”

🤔

Edited by Derka
Posted
16 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Except he wasn't accurate even throwing to spots down field. One thing that is unanimous in this thread is that Quinn Ewers fucking sucks at throwing deep balls and he's not accurate whether he's throwing deep to a spot or a receiver. 

Cannot hit a post to save his life, but if we are talking about a go route down the sideline he was nails.  Corner routes seem to be 50/50 propositions.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Derka said:

first off one gif doesn’t prove anything. secondly, using clips from the michigan game as representation of QE’s overall body of work? talk about not arguing in good faith.

Again, that's not what I said. He made a definitive, simplistic black-and-white "never" statement. There's a gif that shows "never" is false. "He's inaccurate." "Here's a gif where he's accurate."

Posted
3 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Cannot hit a post to save his life, but if we are talking about a go route down the sideline he was nails.  Corner routes seem to be 50/50 propositions.

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.

Posted (edited)

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

Edited by Derka
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

  • Rage+1 1
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 3
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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 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 3
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.

 

  • Haha 1
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 2
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 🤣🤣🤣

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

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.

now that's fuckin funny 🤣🤣🤣 I’ve never said they’re the end all, be all.  I actually had subsequent posts that referenced many other factors.

meaningless stats.  Guess I’m not sure what stats would be meaningful.

Particularly since I did not say these were the end all, be all.

Posted
25 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

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.

now that's fuckin funny 🤣🤣🤣

So take what we know from the analytics and put on the Quinn film. Watching Quinn this year the numbers seem to support what you see on tape from the guy. Does he make occasional throws and hit occasional passes that go against the numbers, sure. But he doesn’t do it consistently. The numbers say he’s good 0-9 yards from LOS, average at intermediate, below average outside the numbers and bad at deep. The film supports that from this year. His analysis and breakdowns from nfl scouts seem to support the numbers as well when you look at all the weaknesses listed from them as well as his positives. 

Posted
30 minutes ago, Had Enough said:

Percentages and success rates are meaningless? No way.

I wouldn't say they are meaningless, but too much is read into them without some skepticism, but sometimes too little is thought of them as well.  I am sure the NFL has guys that look at all of the percentages from all over the field to determine the velocity and completion percentages/attempts so they can better inform their defense.   It possibly could also clue one into an unreported injury or the impact of a new receiver if there is a percentage deviation.   

Posted
6 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So take what we know from the analytics and put on the Quinn film. Watching Quinn this year the numbers seem to support what you see on tape from the guy. Does he make occasional throws and hit occasional passes that go against the numbers, sure. But he doesn’t do it consistently. The numbers say he’s good 0-9 yards from LOS, average at intermediate, below average outside the numbers and bad at deep. The film supports that from this year. His analysis and breakdowns from nfl scouts seem to support the numbers as well when you look at all the weaknesses listed from them as well as his positives. 

That link also seems to concludes by saying 0-9 yard completion percentage seems to be a more prolific indicator of NFL success than does the intermediate or deep ball.  But again, they leave out so much of the details it is worth some skepticism about their interpretation and conclusions.  

  • Hook 'Em 1

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...