Assani vs the StatHeads: Evaluating NFL QBs

[Assani Fisher]

Alright, sorry its taken me a while to get back to this thread, but I'll start to look through some replies now. Before I begin, let me repeat this:

[ QUOTE ]
In an effort to help us both and hopefully both learn something from each other's methods of evaluation I've started this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]


I say with 100% honesty that this was my motive behind this thread. Without having even fully read through all the replies, my guess is that everyone's first inclination is going to be to try to tell me why my quarterback evaluation methods are wrong/flawed without taking an honest look at their own- thats fine, I understand thats human nature. All I ask is that during the course of the discussion that you do give a legitimate look at your own flaws.



100,000 and counting

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Vince Young is the greatest QB of all-time.

He just wins.

Vince Young = God.


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
If someone wanted to know what "tl;dr" meant, I'd show them this OP. Jesus.


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
since assani derails all other threads with his countdown [censored], i say we derail his threads


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
yea guys seriously, assani spent hours writing this post and seconds editing it - give him a break

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I did not get past the first sentence before realizing this is just you being a [censored] attention whore again. DIAGF plz


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
awesome post imo

varlosz, phenomenal post - i'm not sure why an OP like assani's deserves it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
lolassani


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
ill take the football statheads in this forum vs the non-statheads EVERY time. mostly because the non-statheads are [censored] idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]


First off, I think this is hilarious....

Seriously, who other than me could make a thread clearly designed to simply talk football and have a good debate and get so much hate?

For the record, I love you all.


And yes, Vyse, I even unblocked you because I thought you might contribute to the conversation....LOL, guess I was wrong.

99,999 and counting

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
The relationship is symbiotic. Good WRs help QBs and good QBs help WRs.


[/ QUOTE ]
agreed completely.


[ QUOTE ]
W-L has a ton of variables which effect it is too difficult to isolate just the QB out.


[/ QUOTE ]
I do agree that W-L has a ton of variables. I disagree however that you can't tell anything at all from it. And moreover, I think that a quarterback's stats also have a ton of variable- a main point of mine which you ignored.


[ QUOTE ]
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It is no coincidence that every colts offensive player looks awesome. Peyton Manning is the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, undoubtedly they help each other. Its a Montana/Rice situation and not a George/Moss or Grbac/Rice situation for sure. I think we'll all agree that both Manning and Harrison(and all the other offensive skill position players) have their stats inflated due to playing with one another.


Regarding Manning/Harrison its tough because they've played so much of their careers together. Harrison only played two years before Manning arrived. In those 2 seasons he averaged 68.5 catches for 851 yards and 7 TDS. Those are excellent numbers for a first and second year WR, so I think its very fair to assume that Harrison is a stud. Moreover, just watching the routes he runs, you can truly tell he is special.

Many who have watched Harrison say that he has started to drop off significantly this year(many even say that Wayne is now the best WR in Indy). Morever, hes clearly been very injured and banged up throughout the year. So we do have this VERY SMALL SAMPLE to look at how Manning has done this year without Harrison being dominant(note: I arbitrarily went back 3 years before this one. Feel free to go back more or less if you feel as if that provides better evidence)....

Averages are per game

2004: 284.8 yards, 3.06 TDs, 67.6% completion percentage, 0.625 INTs, 121.1 QB rating

2005: 234.2 yards, 1.75 TDs, 67.3% completion percentage, 0.625 INTs, 104.1 QB rating

2006: 274.8 yards, 1.94 TDs, 65.0% completion percentage, 0.56 INTs, 101.0 QB rating

2007: 265.1 yards, 1.77 TDs, 64.1% completion percentage, 1.11 INTs, 90.8 QB rating



Like I said, its a small sample size. However it would point towards Manning not being quite as good with Harrison. Obviously hes still a great QB though.



[ QUOTE ]
For example, Kerry Collins has put up much better numbers than VY when he was out. And he's rushing for less than 4 YPC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you this though....

In every one of Vince's games they played ball control offense, didn't take chances, let their defense dominate, and won a good number of their games. Take a look at their scores: 13-10, 20-22(against the high powered Colts), 31-14, 20-13, 10-13, 13-9, 20-7, 13-28.

But in the one game that Collins started, it was a total shootout: 38-36!! And Houston isn't known as a high powered offense at all either.

Now I know that you all often joke about "Vince Young making the defense better", but do you not think its possible that the entire gameplan is different when each of these QBs is in the game? And do you not agree that gameplan obviously influcens a QB's stats a lot?

Perhaps with Young in the game, they think they can run the ball a lot better(both due to Young's rushing ability and the attention he draws from the defense which opens things up for his RBs), so they go for a ball control attack and try to win a low scoring grind it out affair...thats just speculation on my part though.



[ QUOTE ]
Titans = last year Bears right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would disagree based upon the Titan's coaches and player's attitudes toward Young(obviously you would agree that the coaches can evaluate talent better than you and I, right?)....now maybe it is just good "coach speak" but whenever I hear any Titan player or coach do an interview, it truly sounds like they are pleased with Young and the direction of their franchise. With the Bears last year, I never got that feeling...it was very apparent to me that they wanted to say that right things but that the team didn't truly trust Rex. With VY, I truly do get the impression that the team is behind him....I dunno, obviously thats not very scientific reasoning though.



[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that W-L is the most teammate-dependent of any stats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah ok I'll agree with that.


[ QUOTE ]
Stats like DVOA are the least dependent because they compare how two players perform in the same situation (e.g. third and long). Obv a QB with great WR's still has a big advantage over a QB with bad ones.


[/ QUOTE ]
Meh....I don't see how DVOA is any less dependant upon your teamates skill level than other normal stats. If you throw to your WR, the ball hits him in the numbers, it bounces off his chest, and the defender intercepts it....thats going to negatively impact your DVOA, no?



[ QUOTE ]
The other problem I have with most of your posts is that although you claim to watch lots of games, your posts merely compare rosters and they never seem to mention actual observations that you made while watching games.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair point....I try to add some observations in the weekly threads, but perhaps you're right that I should be more specific in saying why I evaluate certain players higher than others.


[ QUOTE ]
For example you were arguing in another thread that the Titans defense was better last year than this year because they lost their best player in Pacman Jones.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I wasn't. I just mentioned that they lost Jones...thats all.


[ QUOTE ]
IMHO it's blindingly obvious that that defense is way better this year than last but it's like you ignore the possibility that some of the players on their roster have got a whole lot better in the past year and a half

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, and no I don't ignore that possibility.


[ QUOTE ]
This is your problem Assani. You go through the "you have to count the o-line, and receivers and all the other stuff blah blah blah", which is right and then you totally ignore that stuff and just throw out random stats that appear to support your cause. Go back and look at the team BB took to the playoffs for Cleveland, and look at the team he took over.


[/ QUOTE ]
Bellicheck had five years in Cleveland. Imo thats enough time to build the team. Yes, he did take over a 3-13 team. And yees they did go 6-10 in his first year and 7-9 in his second year. They then went 7-9 again in his third year. In his fourth year they went 11-5, but in his 5th year they dropped back down to 5-11....I dunno, I'm just not that impressed with that. I'm not saying its horrible; I just don't think its something the "greatest coach of all time" would do.

In NE, Bellicheck took over an 8-8 team and went 5-11 in his first year. He then went 0-2 to start the next year for a total of 5-13. Then Brady took over. Do you not think its possible that Brady has made Bellicheck look a lot better than he really is?


[ QUOTE ]
Assani,
Watching games can be really good indicators if two things are true.
A) You are very good at anaaysing football and determining valiue
B) You have enough time to watch every single game.


[/ QUOTE ]
A. I don't think I have any great ability that many on this forum don't have. I do, however, think that I do think things through a lot, I'm almost always unbaised, and I get into a ridiculous number of debates(and I go into them with an open mind willing to learn and change my opinions) so I get a lot of good perspectives.

B. I do watch a ton of games, especially the rewinds on NFL Network.



[ QUOTE ]
As far as better than Manning, I personally find the argument stupid. Both are incredibly good and the difference between first and second is negligible.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'll agree that its close, but I do definitely think Brady is better. Just my opinion.


[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your opinion of Vince Young. I do think you're rather off because you seem to believe that his presence is the sole or most prominent reason they are winning. It's not. He is a below average passer even when you consider that he doesn't have much receiving talent. His running sort of makes up for it but overall I believe he is at best an average QB. In addition a big part of their running game is due to their O-line. It has improved quite a lot over the last few years.

The reason they are winning because they have a top three defense this year. Finnegan was a rookie last year and has turned into a very good corner. Haynesworth and Vanden Bosch are excellent pass rushers and their LB corps is very good. Overall their defense is loaded.

In short, Defense > Oline > V.Young > Everyone else in terms of relevance to their recent winnings, in my opinion. Just because QB is the most high leverage position, doesn't mean it is more important than 5-10 other positions combined (if that makes sense.)


[/ QUOTE ]
Ok. Well I'd rather not get into player specific discussion just yet, as I'd like to concentrate on METHOD of evaluation first...but perhaps I'll come back to this later in the thread.


[ QUOTE ]
FO's individual stats are just as susceptible to influence from teammates as traditional stats, but you can't really call that a "failure" because they haven't tried to correct for that. They frequently point out that when they say that Player X has a DVOA of Y, they mean that he has a DVOA of Y with his particular teammates and in his particular offensive scheme. DVOA and DPAR take lots of other things into account that traditional stats do not, but they only account for a player's teammates in the most limited way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Perhaps "failure" was the wrong word to use.


[ QUOTE ]
That said, your objection doesn't apply to a team's offensive and defensive DVOA. Keep that in mind when people (including myself) start posting those to illustrate differences in defensive quality that had a lot to do with some of those won/lost records you mention.

[/ QUOTE ]
Point noted.


[ QUOTE ]
Not "clearly" at all. I mean, that's certainly one possibility, but it's also entirely possible that you basically got lucky. Every fan has a handful of players who he thinks are better (or worse) than they seem for one reason or another, and every fan is sometimes proven right and sometimes proven wrong, but frequently he's right or wrong for reasons completely unrelated to what the fan thought was going on with the player.


[/ QUOTE ]
I do agree with your general point. With that said, there are hundreds of players in the NFL, and I only picked one that I labeled as the best football player I've ever personally see play- Brady. And now hes putting up perhaps the greatest statistical season of all time. Either thats a huge coincidence and I'm extremely lucky, or I did have some good insight.



[ QUOTE ]
Now, I do think it's fair to say that Tom Brady is a better player than myself and most other stat-heads thought he was; i.e., that we underestimated just how bad his supporting cast had been all these years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for admitting this.


[ QUOTE ]
OTOH, I think you're underestimating the extent to which Brady is (probably) playing better than at any time before in his career. I really hope Randy Moss doesn't sign with another team next year. If he does, all of the Brady-backers will point to that when he regresses somewhat to his mean instead of acknowledging the extent to which Brady's '07 is an outlier performance.

That's not to say that Brady's '07 isn't indescribably fantastic, or that Brady isn't phenomenal in general, but he's not this good. He's a great QB in the midst of a perfect storm: having the best year of his life, with a great WR with a chip on his shoulder, with one of the best #2 and #3 WR tandems in the league, and with a coach who has a big chip on his shoulder and is sending out his QB to run up the score on inferior and defeated opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed....great overall post, VarlosZ.



[ QUOTE ]
Manning is in a "dream situation" because he is the BEST qb ever. you think if tavaris jackson was the colts QB they would have the same system where the QB basically runs the offense?


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand. Are you saying that Harrison and Wayne aren't great weapons to have? And Edge and Addai weren't very good RBs? Why were they all drafted so high then? Why do most NFL GMs consider them top players then?

I do agree that a 2nd year QB couldn't audible like Manning does. That doesn't mean that a lot of veteran QBs couldn't.


[ QUOTE ]
2nd best reciever of all time? cmon.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm serious. You're underrating Harrison big time imo. Rice is clearly #1. After that I think Hutson, Carter, Moss, T.O., and Harrison all have a legit claim to #2. When you factor in character and work ethic, I'd personally take Harrison(although obviously I can't really evaluate Hutson).



[ QUOTE ]
AF or anyone else, care to do a similar analysis of Jason Campbell? His numbers are unimpressive to be sure, but does that mean he's not a good quarterback? I may be biased...


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a Skins fan, so take it FWIW but I really like him. I do find his lack of completing deep passes to be troubling though...for as great of an arm that he has, he seems to lack "touch" on them. And like every other Skins fan on the planet, I really wish they'd open things up more. Tough to say for sure at this point, but I see no reason why he can't be our starting QB for the next 10 years. He hasn't shown anything really wrong yet, which is a good sign.



[ QUOTE ]
Adding weapons around Brady increases Brady's greatness, well yea, we knew this--what we saw before this year was an accurate passer w/ touch and the ability to hit receivers in stride, put balls where only the receiver or nobody catches the ball--we saw a great passer. We also saw a QB that made great decisions.

This has nothing to do with stats, this has to do with watching an NFL game and seeing VY and Vick throw poor ball after poor ball and realize that they just aren't Tom Brady or Peyton or Palmer or many others. Putting a pro-bowl receiving cast around them would surely make their numbers go up some I would assume but the ball still has to get to the target. You can argue all you want but these two guys throw the ball terribly.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh I definitely am not putting VY/Vick in Manning/Brady's league...please don't think that. I was just mentioning 4 players that I've debated a lot.

Also I agree that they don't throw the ball great, but I think that a QB's rushing ability helps more than the numbers indicate due to opening up the offense for other players(namely the RBs) since the D must spy on him constantly. Its no coincidence that VY and Vick led teams have had great RB numbers despite having average(at best) talent at the RB spot.


[ QUOTE ]
I hate it when wins are used as an example, "well the team won this many games when he was at QB and lost this many when he was out." Of course they did, the entire system is built around their skill set (which Vick and VY do have)--which isn't throwing the football (which contrary to what you think isn't b/c of crappy receivers but b/c they can't throw the ball), so when they are hurt or whatever and a new guy steps in it is now a guy stepping into a system that was built in a way completely opposite of him. Kerry Collins for example is a completely different QB than VY, when he comes in the chemistry and gel of the scheme will obviously take some time to mold around Collins, he is a different QB...he isn't just going to step in and win games. It is different for pro style schemes with two pro style QB's on the team but these situations are waaaay different and using wins to quantify value for QB1 is just trying to find a way to find value and not actually finding value b/c they aren't one and the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
Meh...I dunno if I agree here. Yes certain QBs are better at certain things, but I'm sure there are plenty of plays in the playbook to call a game's worth of plays that stress either QB's strength.


[ QUOTE ]
But as others have pointed out, that works both ways. Peerless Price was a good WR in Buffalo (had the one excellent year before being traded, but also a couple of pretty nice ones before that), then went to Atlanta and was suddenly horrible. Two well-regarded 1st-round WRs were also apparently total busts with Michael Vick throwing to them. And now that Roddy White has a luminary like Joey Harrington throwing the passes -- surprise! -- he looks like a real NFL Wide Receiver.

You talk about having to actually watch the games, and I saw plenty of Michael Vick. The impression I always got: "He doesn't see open receivers, and the ones he does see he never hits in stride; often, the ball is so poorly thrown they can't even get a hand on it. He sure is fast, though."

All things considered, Vick wasn't a bad Quarterback. He was, however, a bad passer, and if you're a bad passer it's awfully hard to be more than an average QB.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but Price sucked after he left too. And young WRs usually take a while to develop and suck at first, so I don't think its fair to look at their stats now and say that Vick was the only reason they weren't putting those up before.

Moreover, while I'm not saying Vick was a great thrower, I did watch a ton of Falcons games when he played and I constantly saw WRs simply not getting open and I saw a ton of drops as well. Seriously, teams were often single covering their WRs and they still couldn't get much separation.


[ QUOTE ]
You say you're not just looking at won-lost records, but in your OP that is all you're doing (along with mentioning that these guys look good to you on TV). There are a bunch of problems with that. The quoted post above is a perfect example of how that can be misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do indeed base a lot of my evaluations around stats, but I ignored them in my OP because I knew everyone else would quickly bring them up as they always do. As I said, I think its important to look at all factors.


[ QUOTE ]
In short, we trust the numbers because we can't trust our eyes. We don't see enough games, and the games we do see are broadcast with the purpose of giving us something fun to watch, not inundating us with a lot of good information. A good stat-head is a stat-head because he's humble -- he doesn't presume to be able to watch a handful of Falcons games and know for a fact that the exciting running Quarterback with accuracy problems is actually one of the best QBs in the league.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm only quoting a portion of your post for space purpose, but I read it all....

I agree that I alone can't watch a game and scout every player well. However, I do think that if I go into many debates with an open mind that I can learn a lot. I'm sure you can tell that I love to discuss sports. And when I do find a valuable source of information, I ask them a ton of questions and try to learn as much as possible. Not to say that any of them are any better than any of you, but just as an example I'm close personal friends with a number of the footballguys staff including owner David Dodds and I speak to him on IM at least once per day, often discussing football. I think that from listening to as much good and trusted info as I can that I can indeed form a solid unbiased opinion of players.



[ QUOTE ]
Granted, a good stat-head also recognizes the limitations of his stats, and perhaps we should have been more willing to acknowledge that the Brady/Manning debate might have been closer than it seemed. It's just that, with our eyes and in our statistics -- i.e., with our imperfect information -- Manning seemed a lot better. And I still think he's a better QB. I'm just not as sure as I was three months ago.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think many of the stat-heads on this board realize the limitation of stats...thats my issue.



[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is arguing that. Most statheads are very aware of the limitations the stats they use

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm gonna disagree here.


[ QUOTE ]
Backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

With an equation or inequation it doesn't matter which is on the left and which is on the right side....am I wrong?



99,998 and counting

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Averages are per game

2004: 284.8 yards, 3.06 TDs, 67.6% completion percentage, 0.625 INTs, 121.1 QB rating

2005: 234.2 yards, 1.75 TDs, 67.3% completion percentage, 0.625 INTs, 104.1 QB rating

2006: 274.8 yards, 1.94 TDs, 65.0% completion percentage, 0.56 INTs, 101.0 QB rating

2007: 265.1 yards, 1.77 TDs, 64.1% completion percentage, 1.11 INTs, 90.8 QB rating

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what these numbers were before last night, when he was missing 3 of his top 4 receivers and both starting tackles. Surely the INT numbers would be much better.

[ QUOTE ]
But in the one game that Collins started, it was a total shootout: 38-36!! And Houston isn't known as a high powered offense at all either.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was 32-7 after 3 quarters. Are you arguing that the offensive gameplan made the defense give up 29 points in the fourth quarter?

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Averages are per game

2004: 284.8 yards, 3.06 TDs, 67.6% completion percentage, 0.625 INTs, 121.1 QB rating

2005: 234.2 yards, 1.75 TDs, 67.3% completion percentage, 0.625 INTs, 104.1 QB rating

2006: 274.8 yards, 1.94 TDs, 65.0% completion percentage, 0.56 INTs, 101.0 QB rating

2007: 265.1 yards, 1.77 TDs, 64.1% completion percentage, 1.11 INTs, 90.8 QB rating

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what these numbers were before last night, when he was missing 3 of his top 4 receivers and both starting tackles. Surely the INT numbers would be much better.

[ QUOTE ]
But in the one game that Collins started, it was a total shootout: 38-36!! And Houston isn't known as a high powered offense at all either.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was 32-7 after 3 quarters. Are you arguing that the offensive gameplan made the defense give up 29 points in the fourth quarter?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course he is. vince young wins football games, wtf don't you understand jack.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Averages are per game

2004: 284.8 yards, 3.06 TDs, 67.6% completion percentage, 0.625 INTs, 121.1 QB rating

2005: 234.2 yards, 1.75 TDs, 67.3% completion percentage, 0.625 INTs, 104.1 QB rating

2006: 274.8 yards, 1.94 TDs, 65.0% completion percentage, 0.56 INTs, 101.0 QB rating

2007: 265.1 yards, 1.77 TDs, 64.1% completion percentage, 1.11 INTs, 90.8 QB rating

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what these numbers were before last night, when he was missing 3 of his top 4 receivers and both starting tackles. Surely the INT numbers would be much better.

[ QUOTE ]
But in the one game that Collins started, it was a total shootout: 38-36!! And Houston isn't known as a high powered offense at all either.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was 32-7 after 3 quarters. Are you arguing that the offensive gameplan made the defense give up 29 points in the fourth quarter?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I'm confused....I was trying to show that Manning wouldn't put up as great of numbers without having his great WRs and surrounding cast....and in reponse to that you point out that he was missing several of his top WRs and supporting cast last night.....ummmmm, isn't that the point of that analysis???

Edited to add: While Manning did hurt his INT numbers before last night, he helped his yardage and TD numbers last night. His completion percentage stayed about the same(maybe dropped a fraction of a point).


Meh....obviously I understand how ridiculous I am going to sound if I answer "yes" to your second question. But I do honestly think that some offensive gameplans(ball control, run the ball a ton, try for very long drives, no risks, give your defense good field position) will help your defenese while others(deep passes, little protection for your QB, big risks) will often hurt your defense.

99,987 and counting

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused....I was trying to show that Manning wouldn't put up as great of numbers without having his great WRs and surrounding cast....and in reponse to that you point out that he was missing several of his top WRs and supporting cast last night.....ummmmm, isn't that the point of that analysis??

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you were talking about Harrison only. You made no mention of Dallas Clark, Anthony Gonzales, or Tony Ugoh.

[ QUOTE ]
Meh....obviously I understand how ridiculous I am going to sound if I answer "yes" to your second question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you don't. You threw it out there because it sounded good and supported your point, but you didn't really believe the specific example was relevant, did you?

I do think that offense effects defense and vice versa, but let's look at the Houston game again. Houston's first nine drives (not including a return touchdown) averaged 1:45. They had 11 minutes of possession through 3 quarters.

Compare that to the Titans, Sunday, who managed 4 drives 2 minutes or longer.

Besides, if your offense is ball control, no risks, field position - what happens when the Titans get behind? Vince Young turns the ball over 3 times? Vince Young did no favors for his defense yesterday. In fact, with 8 interceptions in his last 5 games, Vince Young hasn't done much for anybody but opposing defenses.

[Pudge714]

JoA,
Thanks for the PM [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you were talking about Harrison only. You made no mention of Dallas Clark, Anthony Gonzales, or Tony Ugoh.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is the exact same. And yes you're right that I didn't mention that those guys were out because I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THAT GAME IN PARTICULAR. You are the one that brought up that one game in particular.Nevertheless, my point remains the same- Manning's great numbers are aided by a great supporting cast. When you give him a decent cast(which is what he had last night as Wayne and Addai are still solid weapons) he is good but not the best QB of all time.


[ QUOTE ]
Of course you don't. You threw it out there because it sounded good and supported your point, but you didn't really believe the specific example was relevant, did you?


[/ QUOTE ]
Ugh....look dude, I've come into this debate with an open mind to learn and I've asked others to do the same....obviously its hard to decipher "tone" on a message board, but it really sounds to me like you just want to prove yourself right and not look to truly find the best evaluation methods...I honestly have no desire to do that. If you want to "win" this argument, then fine- I concece, you win.



[ QUOTE ]
I do think that offense effects defense and vice versa

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, thats all I was ever saying(although you conveniently picked out two sentences of my paragraphs so that people might not see that).



[ QUOTE ]
Houston's first nine drives (not including a return touchdown) averaged 1:45. They had 11 minutes of possession through 3 quarters.


[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I don't really understand what Houston's TOP has to do with Tennesee's offensive gameplan.


[ QUOTE ]
Compare that to the Titans, Sunday, who managed 4 drives 2 minutes or longer.

[/ QUOTE ]
I still don't really see where you're going with this.


[ QUOTE ]
Besides, if your offense is ball control, no risks, field position - what happens when the Titans get behind?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously you'd have a different gameplan for different situations.

To further my point about gameplan....

If I asked the "stat heads" what were VY's best games this season, they would probably say the Indy and N.O. games in which VY put up a 95.3 and 97.5 QB rating, 3 TDs, and only 1 INT. Do you think its a total coincidence that N.O. and Indy have high powered offenses and the Titans probably knew coming into those games that they'd have to open up their offense a bit to keep up? I don't.


[ QUOTE ]
Vince Young turns the ball over 3 times? Vince Young did no favors for his defense yesterday

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't see the game yesterday...in fact, for some reason I don't even remember seeing the highlights...dunno why. Anyway, obviously I am not qualified to comment on that game.



[ QUOTE ]
In fact, with 8 interceptions in his last 5 games, Vince Young hasn't done much for anybody but opposing defenses.


[/ QUOTE ]
Statements like this are why I dislike the "stathead's" views so much.

99,959 and counting

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]

No, you were talking about Harrison only. You made no mention of Dallas Clark, Anthony Gonzales, or Tony Ugoh.

[/ QUOTE ]

the WR's last night were

Reggie Wayne
Aaron Morehead
Craphonso Thorpe

last year vs the Colts, Brady had

Doug Gabriel
Troy Brown
Reche Caldwell

the Colts group is still better. Wayne is a legit #1. Morehead is a jag, and Thorpe is an emergency level guy.

Gabriel is out of the NFL, Troy Brown is a decent possession guy but is years past his peak, and Reche Caldwell is on the Redskins but doesn't have a catch this year