(10-28-2020, 04:30 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 04:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The questions like, "Is the team holding Minshew back, or is Minshew holding the team back?". You can't always get a definitive answer, but constructing hypotheticals helps.
C'mon dude...when have you EVER recalculated Minshew's Passer Rating based on a dropped pass?!?!?! LMAO. You know you haven't... you are just grasping for straws with your weak argument. Time to let it go brother...
Minshew? No. Leftwich? Yes. Garrard? Yes. Before I had kids I would amuse myself this way. Take a big play, blame/credit it on the receiver, recalculate. Compare to league average. Determine whether replacing the guy would be worth it.
(10-28-2020, 04:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 04:30 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]C'mon dude...when have you EVER recalculated Minshew's Passer Rating based on a dropped pass?!?!?! LMAO. You know you haven't... you are just grasping for straws with your weak argument. Time to let it go brother...
Minshew? No. Leftwich? Yes. Garrard? Yes. Before I had kids I would amuse myself this way. Take a big play, blame/credit it on the receiver, recalculate. Compare to league average. Determine whether replacing the guy would be worth it.
LMAO.... whatever man. If you actually did do that, I cannot imagine a bigger waste of time. Did you get any closer to a real assessment based on your ridiculous hypotheticals vs. reality? No. Even the biggest data geek who works at PFF would say "why would you do that? For what purpose?". You are just getting crushed in an debate right now that has gone off the tracks for you and you're making a last irrational effort to grasp at straws here. But OK... you keep going with that.
(10-28-2020, 04:31 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]Pro sports is a game of cat and mouse. You show skills, opposition adjusts, you adjust to that, and so on. Minshew came out guns blazing last year with a very eccentric game that was based on flair, moxie, and a very unique ability to hit a spot downfield. He abused teams repeatedly with that deep sideline back shoulder throw that basically no one else throws, I can't remember anyone doing it regularly like Minshew did last year since Rodgers and Jordy Nelson. Minshew thrived while teams were still formulating the scouting report against Minshew's idiosyncratic quirks.
After 3-4 weeks though, the book was written and the Saints showed that if you just take away the deep timing routes Minshew doesn't have the requisite arm talent to beat you with an orthodox game. We're still waiting for Minshew to show that he has the skills to adjust back.
I've been waiting for that and there's nothing wrong with that. I think there's a tendency to make judgements on players based on too limited number of games. I would definitely give Minshew until the end of the season but I'm not seeing anything telling me he's going to have the ability to re-adjust his game. I don't think it's really an arm strength issue, I think the defenses are confusing him enough to cause him to make the wrong decisions. It's weird because he was actually making pretty good decisions earlier on.
(10-28-2020, 04:53 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 04:31 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]Pro sports is a game of cat and mouse. You show skills, opposition adjusts, you adjust to that, and so on. Minshew came out guns blazing last year with a very eccentric game that was based on flair, moxie, and a very unique ability to hit a spot downfield. He abused teams repeatedly with that deep sideline back shoulder throw that basically no one else throws, I can't remember anyone doing it regularly like Minshew did last year since Rodgers and Jordy Nelson. Minshew thrived while teams were still formulating the scouting report against Minshew's idiosyncratic quirks.
After 3-4 weeks though, the book was written and the Saints showed that if you just take away the deep timing routes Minshew doesn't have the requisite arm talent to beat you with an orthodox game. We're still waiting for Minshew to show that he has the skills to adjust back.
I've been waiting for that and there's nothing wrong with that. I think there's a tendency to make judgements on players based on too limited number of games. I would definitely give Minshew until the end of the season but I'm not seeing anything telling me he's going to have the ability to re-adjust his game. I don't think it's really an arm strength issue, I think the defenses are confusing him enough to cause him to make the wrong decisions. It's weird because he was actually making pretty good decisions earlier on.
I think it's an arm strength issue. He used to make up for his lack of arm strength with elite level anticipation, but he seems to have lost that as well
(10-28-2020, 05:25 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 04:53 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ]I've been waiting for that and there's nothing wrong with that. I think there's a tendency to make judgements on players based on too limited number of games. I would definitely give Minshew until the end of the season but I'm not seeing anything telling me he's going to have the ability to re-adjust his game. I don't think it's really an arm strength issue, I think the defenses are confusing him enough to cause him to make the wrong decisions. It's weird because he was actually making pretty good decisions earlier on.
I think it's an arm strength issue. He used to make up for his lack of arm strength with elite level anticipation, but he seems to have lost that as well
That doesn't explain why he's flat out missing receivers he used to hit and his accuracy issues with even short passes. He used to be very accurate. The only thing I can figure is the defenses are giving him looks he just doesn't know how to deal with.
(10-28-2020, 06:27 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 05:25 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's an arm strength issue. He used to make up for his lack of arm strength with elite level anticipation, but he seems to have lost that as well
That doesn't explain why he's flat out missing receivers he used to hit and his accuracy issues with even short passes. He used to be very accurate. The only thing I can figure is the defenses are giving him looks he just doesn't know how to deal with.
Honestly there are a ton of issues with his game right now. He's floating passes (arm strength), getting them batted down at the line (height), and missing wide open guys (misreading coverage/miscommunication). And the reactions of Chark tell you all you need to know about whose fault it is.
(10-28-2020, 06:47 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 06:27 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ]That doesn't explain why he's flat out missing receivers he used to hit and his accuracy issues with even short passes. He used to be very accurate. The only thing I can figure is the defenses are giving him looks he just doesn't know how to deal with.
Honestly there are a ton of issues with his game right now. He's floating passes (arm strength), getting them batted down at the line (height), and missing wide open guys (misreading coverage/miscommunication). And the reactions of Chark tell you all you need to know about whose fault it is.
Agreed. It's more than a single issue. He seems to have lost a little bit of the swagger he had before too; likely a product of his performance struggles. I still like the dude and his attitude... he seems to care. But he's just not getting it done.
(10-28-2020, 04:46 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 04:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Minshew? No. Leftwich? Yes. Garrard? Yes. Before I had kids I would amuse myself this way. Take a big play, blame/credit it on the receiver, recalculate. Compare to league average. Determine whether replacing the guy would be worth it.
LMAO.... whatever man. If you actually did do that, I cannot imagine a bigger waste of time. Did you get any closer to a real assessment based on your ridiculous hypotheticals vs. reality? No. Even the biggest data geek who works at PFF would say "why would you do that? For what purpose?". You are just getting crushed in an debate right now that has gone off the tracks for you and you're making a last irrational effort to grasp at straws here. But OK... you keep going with that.
Do you think you've changed my mind?
Do you ever do things that other people would think are a waste of time? I mean, you're here, right?
I mean the DVOA that FootballOutsiders made their name on is basically a supercomputer version of what I would do.
(10-28-2020, 06:47 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 06:27 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ]That doesn't explain why he's flat out missing receivers he used to hit and his accuracy issues with even short passes. He used to be very accurate. The only thing I can figure is the defenses are giving him looks he just doesn't know how to deal with.
Honestly there are a ton of issues with his game right now. He's floating passes (arm strength), getting them batted down at the line (height), and missing wide open guys (misreading coverage/miscommunication). And the reactions of Chark tell you all you need to know about whose fault it is.
I remember Seeing him throwing in double and triple coverage on several occasions.
(10-28-2020, 07:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 04:46 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]LMAO.... whatever man. If you actually did do that, I cannot imagine a bigger waste of time. Did you get any closer to a real assessment based on your ridiculous hypotheticals vs. reality? No. Even the biggest data geek who works at PFF would say "why would you do that? For what purpose?". You are just getting crushed in an debate right now that has gone off the tracks for you and you're making a last irrational effort to grasp at straws here. But OK... you keep going with that.
Do you think you've changed my mind?
Do you ever do things that other people would think are a waste of time? I mean, you're here, right?
I mean the DVOA that FootballOutsiders made their name on is basically a supercomputer version of what I would do.
Of course I can't change your Beautiful Mind. That would require you to be logical.
But DVOA is not even in the ballpark of what you have been discussing. DVOA is actually analogous to QBR; it takes into account things like down & distance, score gap, area of the field, and the opponent you play against to provide context. DVOA, like QBR, is not just simple stats like you've been advocating for. So you are actually coming around to agreeing with me, despite all your protesting. Maybe there is hope for you yet?
(10-28-2020, 05:25 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 04:53 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ]I've been waiting for that and there's nothing wrong with that. I think there's a tendency to make judgements on players based on too limited number of games. I would definitely give Minshew until the end of the season but I'm not seeing anything telling me he's going to have the ability to re-adjust his game. I don't think it's really an arm strength issue, I think the defenses are confusing him enough to cause him to make the wrong decisions. It's weird because he was actually making pretty good decisions earlier on.
I think it's an arm strength issue. He used to make up for his lack of arm strength with elite level anticipation, but he seems to have lost that as well
Have you ever played QB and learned an offense? I’m not attacking, just asking. It’s hard to remember sometimes where every receiver is supposed to be...let alone where they actually end up... even at the high school level. Especially when you’ve been in the offense for a short time.
He is barely into this offense. He had no real training camp in it. That’s why the anticipation has gone away. I’ve mentioned numerous times, I kept waiting for some of his escapes in the pocket for weeks and then all of a sudden in the Texans game, they came back. My theory is that he has learned the offense to the point that when the play breaks down, he understands where the routes have gone and where his guys are.
(10-28-2020, 06:27 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 05:25 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's an arm strength issue. He used to make up for his lack of arm strength with elite level anticipation, but he seems to have lost that as well
That doesn't explain why he's flat out missing receivers he used to hit and his accuracy issues with even short passes. He used to be very accurate. The only thing I can figure is the defenses are giving him looks he just doesn't know how to deal with.
IMO, it’s trying to consume a new offense that is undoubtedly complicated mixed with defenses throwing new looks at him.
(10-28-2020, 10:03 PM)PS9 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 05:25 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's an arm strength issue. He used to make up for his lack of arm strength with elite level anticipation, but he seems to have lost that as well
Have you ever played QB and learned an offense? I’m not attacking, just asking. It’s hard to remember sometimes where every receiver is supposed to be...let alone where they actually end up... even at the high school level. Especially when you’ve been in the offense for a short time.
He is barely into this offense. He had no real training camp in it. That’s why the anticipation has gone away. I’ve mentioned numerous times, I kept waiting for some of his escapes in the pocket for weeks and then all of a sudden in the Texans game, they came back. My theory is that he has learned the offense to the point that when the play breaks down, he understands where the routes have gone and where his guys are.
(10-28-2020, 06:27 PM)hb1148 Wrote: [ -> ]That doesn't explain why he's flat out missing receivers he used to hit and his accuracy issues with even short passes. He used to be very accurate. The only thing I can figure is the defenses are giving him looks he just doesn't know how to deal with.
IMO, it’s trying to consume a new offense that is undoubtedly complicated mixed with defenses throwing new looks at him.
PS9, Your comments make me think of when in training camp this year, Jay stated that the Jags offense is "still in diapers". But back then fans were more optimistic about things because of reports of how players were looking in training camp. I do wonder if Gardner will start to grasp it more as the season goes on. And how that might impact the team and if will help them win any of their remaining games. It's bad that the team is on a long losing streak, where people aren't sure (and in some cases don't believe) if they will get another win.
I know some people want them to lose out/think the team is better of that way. But I don't like to see the Jags have this long stretch of losing.
(10-28-2020, 07:30 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 07:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think you've changed my mind?
Do you ever do things that other people would think are a waste of time? I mean, you're here, right?
I mean the DVOA that FootballOutsiders made their name on is basically a supercomputer version of what I would do.
Of course I can't change your Beautiful Mind. That would require you to be logical.
But DVOA is not even in the ballpark of what you have been discussing. DVOA is actually analogous to QBR; it takes into account things like down & distance, score gap, area of the field, and the opponent you play against to provide context. DVOA, like QBR, is not just simple stats like you've been advocating for. So you are actually coming around to agreeing with me, despite all your protesting. Maybe there is hope for you yet?
No. You can't convince me. If the thing is unknowable, go with your instincts and feelings. If the thing can be quantified, quantify it with an open process that can be replicated. If it can be quantified, verify the work of the people quantifying it. Don't trust something you can quantify if you can't also verify it.
The Football Outsider guys put their work out there and (if I recall correctly) some of their inputs are subjective grades from analysts. "The guard got beat on that play, but he wasn't beat that bad, I'll give him a -2 instead of a -3". And that's a fine method. As long as you tell people "part of this was expert opinion." For all we really know, the ESPN guys may be doing something similar, they don't tell us unfortunately.
(10-29-2020, 12:33 AM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2020, 12:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I would rate QB's much more simply.
I'd just make 3 adjustments to the old passer rating:
1) Pass yards on 3rd and 4th down count as 0 unless the play results in a 1st down.
2) QB sacks count as pass attempts, and yards lost to sacks count against pass yards
3) passer rating counts interceptions more than touchdowns. That's usually backwards; most interceptions don't change the game much. So make touchdown passes worth more positive points than interceptions are negative, but, an interception returned for a touchdown or an interception that allows the other team to run out the clock, cancels out a touchdown.
No. You can't convince me.
This is what you said. You said you wanted to simplify it. So you could verify it more easily. Now you're talking about a complicated formula like DVOA? LMAO.
I have already convinced you. You have realized you are wrong and have now just agreed with me that a simple stat like Passer Rating (or your bastardized version of it) is inferior to a complex one like DVOA (or QBR). At first said you wanted a simple measurement, which you presented as essentially passer rating plus sacks (basically a weird and worse version of ANY/A). Now you have come all the way around to DVOA... which is nowhere close to where you started this discussion. DVOA uses essentially the same contextual strategies as QBR. You went from extremely simple to uber complicated in 5 posts. And don't for a minute tell me you have played with the DVOA calculations. Because, in your own words, you like it "simple". Not to mention the DVOA formula is proprietary with Football Outsiders; just like QBR is with ESPN. So you have no clue what you are even talking about.
But I am glad you finally came around from your original perspective to mine. I am happy to have enlightened you.
I didn't say DVOA was better than simple calculations like passer rating or yards/attempt.
I said, if you want complex, you can still do better than QBR. Football outsiders have explained enough of their methods that somebody else with 25 years worth of standard play-by-play text files and computer programming skills could replicate it. ESPN has not done this. They don't want you trying to replicate or check them.
(10-28-2020, 04:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 12:08 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]OK. I'm not sure why you'd be interested in hypothetical situations that didn't occur as opposed to things that did. I could count how many times I was interested in recalculating QBR or Passer Rating based on things that never happened: ZERO. But to each their own. Peace, brother.
The questions like, "Is the team holding Minshew back, or is Minshew holding the team back?". You can't always get a definitive answer, but constructing hypotheticals helps.
The answer is likely "yes". That, or "42."
(10-29-2020, 07:56 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-29-2020, 12:33 AM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]This is what you said. You said you wanted to simplify it. So you could verify it more easily. Now you're talking about a complicated formula like DVOA? LMAO.
I have already convinced you. You have realized you are wrong and have now just agreed with me that a simple stat like Passer Rating (or your bastardized version of it) is inferior to a complex one like DVOA (or QBR). At first said you wanted a simple measurement, which you presented as essentially passer rating plus sacks (basically a weird and worse version of ANY/A). Now you have come all the way around to DVOA... which is nowhere close to where you started this discussion. DVOA uses essentially the same contextual strategies as QBR. You went from extremely simple to uber complicated in 5 posts. And don't for a minute tell me you have played with the DVOA calculations. Because, in your own words, you like it "simple". Not to mention the DVOA formula is proprietary with Football Outsiders; just like QBR is with ESPN. So you have no clue what you are even talking about.
But I am glad you finally came around from your original perspective to mine. I am happy to have enlightened you.
I didn't say DVO was better than simple calculations like passer rating or yards/attempt.
I said, if you want complex, you can still do better than QBR. Football outsiders have explained enough of their methods that somebody else with 25 years worth of standard play-by-play text files and computer programming skills could replicate it. ESPN has not done this. They don't want you trying to replicate or check them.
1. You said,
"DVOA that Football Outsiders made their name on is basically a supercomputer version of what I would do"; showing you changing your mind about QB assessment and your recognition that contextual evaluations are better than simple calculations. But it also shows your ignorance that DVOA is philosophically the same as QBR.
2. You said,
"Football Outsiders have explained enough of their methods that somebody else with 25 years worth of standard play-by-play text files and computer programming skills could replicate it.". Again, you are displaying your full ignorance here. Football Outsiders and ESPN have both explained the generalities of how they do their calculations, but neither has released the specifics of their proprietary formulas... its their copyrighted intellectual property. So when you say Football Outsiders have "put their stuff out there", you are have no idea what you are talking about. They have not done that any more than ESPN has.
3. You state your preference for DVOA over QBR by asserting
"don't trust something you can quantify if you can't also verify it". But you can't verify or replicate DVOA. You don't have their formula. You are just making another attempt to grasp at straws to save face in a discussion that has gone dramatically off the tracks for you.
4. Quit while you are behind. Way behind.
(10-29-2020, 09:53 AM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (10-29-2020, 07:56 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't say DVO was better than simple calculations like passer rating or yards/attempt.
I said, if you want complex, you can still do better than QBR. Football outsiders have explained enough of their methods that somebody else with 25 years worth of standard play-by-play text files and computer programming skills could replicate it. ESPN has not done this. They don't want you trying to replicate or check them.
1. You said, "DVOA that Football Outsiders made their name on is basically a supercomputer version of what I would do"; showing you changing your mind about QB assessment and your recognition that contextual evaluations it is better than simple calculations. But it also shows your ignorance that DVOA is philosophically the same as QBR.
2. You said and "Football Outsiders have explained enough of their methods that somebody else with 25 years worth of standard play-by-play text files and computer programming skills could replicate it.". Again, you are displaying your full ignorance here. Football Outsiders and ESPN have both explained the generalities of how they do their calculations, but neither has released the specifics of their proprietary formulas... its their copyrighted intellectual property. So when you say Football Outsiders have "put their stuff out there", you are have no idea what you are talking about. They have not done that any more than ESPN has.
3. You state your preference for DVOA over QBR by asserting "don't trust something you can quantify if you can't also verify it". But you can't verify or replicate DVOA. You don't have their formula. You are just making another attempt to grasp at straws to save face in a discussion that has gone dramatically off the tracks for you.
4. Quit while you are behind. Way behind.
You have two problems. You are misunderstanding a lot of what I say, and you're making a lot of incorrect assertions. Each time I try to correct you, you continue to misunderstand me. DVOA uses 25+ years of actual games to create their baseline. Creating a baseline like that is extremely tedious, but it's not hard to gain access to the data behind it, and the baseline is stable across teams and across years. QBR seems to use real time simulation of the result of the current game as its baseline. That's much more volatile and harder to explain.
TL;DR - just let people disagree with you, dude.
(10-29-2020, 10:10 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You have two problems. You are misunderstanding a lot of what I say, and you're making a lot of incorrect assertions. Each time I try to correct you, you continue to misunderstand me. DVOA uses 25+ years of actual games to create their baseline. Creating a baseline like that is extremely tedious, but it's not hard to gain access to the data behind it, and the baseline is stable across teams and across years. QBR seems to use real time simulation of the result of the current game as its baseline. That's much more volatile and harder to explain.
TL;DR - just let people disagree with you, dude.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, if its a logical argument. You keep making false and irrational statements. Then you complain when I am using your own words and logic against you. QBR and DVOA are essentially the same; they look at all the same contextual variables to evaluate QB play. They just calculate them slightly differently. Its clear you do not comprehend this and you have no idea how either stat is calculated.
But I will accept your plea for submission from this discussion, and let you tap out. Peace.
![[Image: tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif]](https://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif)