PDA

View Full Version : Looking for opinions on two QBs (based on numbers alone)


abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 03:57 PM
QB A:
- 115/182 (63.2%)
- 1267 yards
- 7.0 Y/A
- 9 TD
- 4.9 TD %
- 2 INT
- 1.1 INT %
- 95.7 QB rating

QB B:
- 96/167(57.5%)
- 1240 yards
- 7.4 Y/A
- 10 TD
- 6.0 TD %
- 2 INT
- 1.2 INT %
- 95.9 QB rating

How much better would you say QB A has been on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being about the same and 5 being way better. Please refrain from posting who the QBs are, even though one is obvious based on who is posting this topic.

J-Mike88
10-31-2011, 04:01 PM
Very similar.
Probably can't find 2 closer numbers for any QBs.

TD-Int ratio is 9-2 vs 10-2, the keyest numbers.
QB1 has thrown it more, meaning more responsibility.
QB2 has more yards per throw, meaning a bit more effective there.
QB1 has a higher completion%, hence a slightly higher passer rating.

jrdrylie
10-31-2011, 04:02 PM
I know who QB A is, but I have no idea who QB B is because no player has those numbers.

tjsunstein
10-31-2011, 04:03 PM
The QB position is judged on a lot more than numbers.

Bengalsrocket
10-31-2011, 04:04 PM
I would say they're about the same based on stats alone. Any difference can be chalked up to luck or the different defenses they've played.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 04:05 PM
I know, tj and njx, just try and bear with me. I can tell you that each QB only has one loss.

Hurricanes25
10-31-2011, 04:06 PM
I'll echo what TJ said. But if I'm going to pick based on those stats, I'll go with QB A simply because of his higher completion percentage.

Edit; I'll say "1" better.

BigBanger
10-31-2011, 04:09 PM
They both look like they suck. I'm guessing two rookies? Or one bad veteran and one outstanding rookie? Either way, both, statistically speaking, are game managers and probably don't deserve threads about them.

QB B is better btw, so I can't vote. And the voting process doesn't make any sense to me.

To be honest, i think this is a really stupid topic and I can't believe I wasted my time posting in it. Thanks a lot asshole.

EDIT: You are the 49ers fan. One is def Alex Smith. I was right about one being a bad veteran.

jrdrylie
10-31-2011, 04:09 PM
I know, tj and njx, just try and bear with me. I can tell you that each QB only has one loss.

Where are you getting these stats? There is only one team that has one loss. No QB has 1240 yards. No QB has 10 TDs. Unless you are using a QB from a different year, your numbers are off.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 04:14 PM
Where are you getting these stats? There is only one team that has one loss. No QB has 1240 yards. No QB has 10 TDs. Unless you are using a QB from a different year, your numbers are off.

I would like to get a few more opinions before I reveal what this is.

BigBanger
10-31-2011, 04:16 PM
I would like to get a few more opinions before I reveal what this is.

Joe Montana?

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 04:17 PM
No. So you think QB B is better, banger?

J-Mike88
10-31-2011, 04:20 PM
I suspect one of these guys is stats combined from not just this year.

Regardless, njx, STATISTICS are ALWAYS one key criteria that reflects performance. Last I checked, touchdowns = 6 points.
And Ints are always bad.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 04:22 PM
Please, if anyone does figure it out, do not post who it is. I would like to get unbiased opinions.

tjsunstein
10-31-2011, 04:24 PM
I can't just look at these stats and tell you who's better, who I'd rather have, etc,. I literally can't form an opinion until I watch them play. It's only fair. Stats are supporting arguments, not base arguments.

DraftSavant
10-31-2011, 04:32 PM
I can't just look at these stats and tell you who's better, who I'd rather have, etc,. I literally can't form an opinion until I watch them play. It's only fair. Stats are supporting arguments, not base arguments.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

jrdrylie
10-31-2011, 04:43 PM
QB A:
129-227 (56.8%)
1706 Yards
7.52 YPA
8 TD
3.5 TD%
8 INT
3.5 INT %
77.8 Rating

QB B
141-218 (64.7%)
1715 Yards
7.87 YPA
7 TDs
3.2 TD%
9 INT
4.1 INT%
82.3 Rating

Kevin Kolb just as good as Phillip Rivers?????

niel89
10-31-2011, 04:43 PM
Honestly there isn't much that you can get from these. The numbers are too close to completely base a decision on the numbers. You have to give me the circumstances around these numbers. Stats can't give you a complete picture, they can only help clarify.

Can you give us the number games and wins for each?

The end all be all for QB's will always be wins. Its not infallible (ex: Dilfer>Marino), but its still probably the most important number.

Splat
10-31-2011, 04:49 PM
The QB position is judged on a lot more than numbers.

"I want winners!"

bucfan12
10-31-2011, 04:49 PM
Serious;ly, your using stats ? If this is Kolb vs Rivers, I'd take Rivers any day 100 X.

Rivers is struggling. Look at some top QBs that are struggling. Brees for some reason is getting a pass for his 32 interceptions he's thrown in the last 24 games (dating back to the 2010 season til present).

jrdrylie
10-31-2011, 04:53 PM
Serious;ly, your using stats ? If this is Kolb vs Rivers, I'd take Rivers any day 100 X.

Rivers is struggling. Look at some top QBs that are struggling. Brees for some reason is getting a pass for his 32 interceptions he's thrown in the last 24 games (dating back to the 2010 season til present).

It's not Kolb vs. Rivers. That's the example I used to discredit his example.

bucfan12
10-31-2011, 04:56 PM
Still, just looking on stats alone is worthless right now. Guys like Fitzpatrick, Sanchez, Alex Smith are have better numbers when it comes to TD-INT ratio compared to Drew Brees and Phillip Rivers right now.

Yet there is no way in hell I'd take either one of those 3 over Brees or Rivers.

My Point: Stats can be misleading and this is bogus, in my opinion.

CC.SD
10-31-2011, 05:00 PM
What if you showed someone a picture of a hot girl or guy and then said 'would you do them?' BUT the picture pulled back and you had encountered one of those genetic wonders that gains hundreds of pounds in their ass/thighs while keeping a decent upper body.

That is this thread.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 05:13 PM
I completely see everyone's points but if I give too much away it will reveal who I am comparing. I can tell you that both have one loss, though 'B' has played less games, about five to seven for 'A', and both have a similar caliber team around them. If anything, 'A' has more help around him.

I am also not asking who you would take, I am asking who you think has been better based on the numbers.

phlysac
10-31-2011, 05:14 PM
Kevin Kolb just as good as Phillip Rivers?????

This year? So far, yeah. Rivers has been pretty bad. Like, Kevin Kolb-bad.

DraftSavant
10-31-2011, 05:14 PM
I completely see everyone's points but if I give too much away it will reveal who I am comparing. I can tell you that both have one loss, though 'B' has played less games, about five to seven for 'A', and both have a similar caliber team around them. If anything, 'A' has more help around him.

I am also not asking who you would take, I am asking who has been better based on the numbers.

We are trying to tell you that you can't make an educated decision based on the numbers.

Context. Context. Context.

vidae
10-31-2011, 05:16 PM
What if you showed someone a picture of a hot girl or guy and then said 'would you do them?' BUT the picture pulled back and you had encountered one of those genetic wonders that gains hundreds of pounds in their ass/thighs while keeping a decent upper body.

That is this thread.

I KNEW I was going to be turned on when I clicked on this thread. Thank you sir, thank you.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 05:22 PM
We are trying to tell you that you can't make an educated decision based on the numbers.

Context. Context. Context.

What else do you need to make a decent comparison? They each have one loss, they have a similar amount of attempts and they have similar help around them. I can add that QB 'B' has a running game that averages around 95 YPG, compared to ~135 for 'A', and the defense for 'B' allows ~18 PPG, 15PPG for 'A'.

I am not asking for an in-depth analysis here, just a decent comparison.

Edit: Both teams also average ~26 PPG.

JHL6719
10-31-2011, 05:28 PM
There's absolutely no way to draw an educated and/or accurate conclusion from this data without knowing which one helps old ladies across the street.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 05:34 PM
There's absolutely no way to draw an educated and/or accurate conclusion from this data without knowing which one helps old ladies across the street.

For argument's sake, let's say they both do.

the new jesus
10-31-2011, 05:37 PM
The NFL isn't Madden or fantasy football...dweeb.

phlysac
10-31-2011, 05:47 PM
Noone will play along, especially knowing one is Alex Smith. Because Alex Smith is clearly terrible (even if you haven't watched him play the last 2 seasons.) Therefore, noone will make the jump.

soybean
10-31-2011, 06:08 PM
Honestly there isn't much that you can get from these. The numbers are too close to completely base a decision on the numbers. You have to give me the circumstances around these numbers. Stats can't give you a complete picture, they can only help clarify.

Can you give us the number games and wins for each?

The end all be all for QB's will always be wins. Its not infallible (ex: Dilfer>Marino), but its still probably the most important number.

I think that's what he might be driving at...

PackerLegend
10-31-2011, 06:17 PM
Is this some type of trick question? I refuse to vote until player B is revealed.

Everyone join with me!

ShutDwn
10-31-2011, 06:19 PM
Like everyone has said, the stats don't mean anything. What if QB B was actually playing with some of the best receivers in the game and putting up those numbers? What if the receivers were some of the worst? What if his line is injured as **** and he has no time to throw? What if player A is benefiting more from a strong run game and play action?


The list is never ending.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 06:19 PM
I think that's what he might be driving at...

In a way, yes.

Is this some type of trick question? I refuse to vote until player B is revealed.

Everyone join with me!

Don't be that way, bro. This isn't a trick question, I promise. I am giving you the whole story comparing the QBs that I can without revealing who they are.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 06:24 PM
Like everyone has said, the stats don't mean anything. What if QB B was actually playing with some of the best receivers in the game and putting up those numbers? What if the receivers were some of the worst? What if his line is injured as **** and he has no time to throw? What if player A is benefiting more from a strong run game and play action?


The list is never ending.

QB A:
- Team rushing YPG: 135
- Team PPG allowed: 15
- Team PPG: 26
- Better coached team, better offense overall (line + receivers + backs)

QB B:
- Team rushing YPG: 95
- Team PPG allowed: 18
- Team PPG: 26
- Easier schedule

Caulibflower
10-31-2011, 06:26 PM
It doesn't help your case that QB B either A) isn't playing this season, making a statistical comparison even more irrelevant or B) you're adjusted someone else's stats, based on speculation, to make them roughly equivalent, in which case you've undermined your point before you even made it.

I don't understand the point of this thread, other than creating an opportunity to point out that Alex Smith is a pretty competent QB this year, and then using that to compare him to a QB who has proven to be more than just competent, and so if they have similar statistics... oh.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 06:30 PM
It doesn't help your case that QB B either A) isn't playing this season, making a statistical comparison even more irrelevant or B) you're adjusted someone else's stats, based on speculation, to make them roughly equivalent, in which case you've undermined your point before you even made it.

QB B's stats are not from this season, true. The numbers are so recent that I don't think it changes the comparison, though.

I don't understand the point of this thread, other than creating an opportunity to point out that Alex Smith is a pretty competent QB this year, and then using that to compare him to a QB who has proven to be more than just competent, and so if they have similar statistics... oh.

That is the point. The point is to debunk an idea that is being spread around a lot this year, and that is really bothering me because it is so wrong. I am in no way trying to say Smith has been good this year with this topic.

soybean
10-31-2011, 06:31 PM
^^ sucks that abaddon has to keep asking people to not reveal the names yet you go ahead and do it anyways. @Calubflower

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 06:34 PM
In their defense, 'A' is obviously Alex Smith. I was hoping no one would look at stats to see that it was or that no one would know his numbers off of the top of their head. Then again, me making the topic gives it away anyway.

PackerLegend
10-31-2011, 06:41 PM
So you had to make this thread in hopes of by making this comparison people will be sucked into the belief that Alex Smith doesn't suck? He has never proven to be anything more then average. Sure he has decent stats this season but its not like hes asked to do much.

the new jesus
10-31-2011, 06:43 PM
Watching a few games of each player will tell you far more than these useless statistics. Why even bother doing such a stupid comparison?

Go to the tape.

soybean
10-31-2011, 06:46 PM
So you had to make this thread in hopes of by making this comparison people will be sucked into the belief that Alex Smith doesn't suck? He has never proven to be anything more then average. Sure he has decent stats this season but its not like hes asked to do much.

or maybe that he will progress into a great qb?

i have no opinion on the matter, just trying to help define the debate.

Caulibflower
10-31-2011, 06:49 PM
^^ sucks that abaddon has to keep asking people to not reveal the names yet you go ahead and do it anyways. @Calubflower

Thought it had already been mentioned. Wasn't trying to give it away, just thought the fact that it was Alex Smith was part of the discussion by now, since it was really obvious.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 06:51 PM
So you had to make this thread in hopes of by making this comparison people will be sucked into the belief that Alex Smith doesn't suck? He has never proven to be anything more then average. Sure he has decent stats this season but its not like hes asked to do much.

No. I am not trying to convince anyone that Smith has been good this year, though obviously I think he has been. This topic has a different point entirely, and it is something that you kind of touched on with your last statement.

Watching a few games of each player will tell you far more than these useless statistics. Why even bother doing such a stupid comparison?

Because knowing the player introduces bias and that is especially true with a player such a Smith, who most people either love or hate. Stats give an almost unbiased approached, providing they are given some context. I have given plenty of context.

BigBanger
10-31-2011, 06:57 PM
i have no opinion on the matter, just trying to help define the debate.
You don't have a debate when you don't know what you're debating. That's why no one is "playing along." There is nothing to talk about and the OP has been told this by numerous posters in this thread. Its a waste of time and its ******* pointless. Until we know who we're comparing Alex Smith to, then it doesn't ******* matter how close these random stats appear.

Alex Smith has a weak arm and is carried by a running game and one of the best defenses in the NFL. He's not a Pro Bowl player. He's not incredible to watch. He averages less than 190 yards passing a game. There is no reason to talk about him. He's an average player having a career year (by average player standards). He's playing mistake free football on a very talented team. Who cares about him? He's still a bust and playing mediocre football for, maybe, 16 games now will not change the fact that he was a 2nd or 3rd round talent taken way too high.

the new jesus
10-31-2011, 07:00 PM
If you want to compare on numbers alone, what do you need us for?

If you want to compare the QBs as a whole, why would you limit yourself to only a minor piece of the puzzle?

Hawk
10-31-2011, 07:06 PM
Yeah not nearly enough information. How much time does QB B have in the pocket? Who is he playing against? Just tell us who he is.

PackerLegend
10-31-2011, 07:10 PM
Vince Young had 10 Tds, 3 Ints and 1255 Yards for the Titans in 2010.... So Yea thats my point. Like this thread. pointless

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 07:24 PM
You don't have a debate when you don't know what you're debating. That's why no one is "playing along." There is nothing to talk about and the OP has been told this by numerous posters in this thread. Its a waste of time and its ******* pointless. Until we know who we're comparing Alex Smith to, then it doesn't ******* matter how close these random stats appear.

Can you explain to me why you have to know who he is being compared to? I already told you that Smith has a better defense, significantly better running game, better coaching and better receivers and backs while 'B' has an easier schedule. If it helps, both have similar YAC by receivers.

Alex Smith has a weak arm and is carried by a running game and one of the best defenses in the NFL. He's not a Pro Bowl player. He's not incredible to watch. He averages less than 190 yards passing a game. There is no reason to talk about him. He's an average player having a career year (by average player standards). He's playing mistake free football on a very talented team. Who cares about him? He's still a bust and playing mediocre football for, maybe, 16 games now will not change the fact that he was a 2nd or 3rd round talent taken way too high.

And absolutely none of that has anything to do with the point I am making.

Yeah not nearly enough information. How much time does QB B have in the pocket? Who is he playing against? Just tell us who he is.

Already answered. Smith has the better offensive line and 'B' played the weaker schedule.

again, that's simply false. if all of qb b's tds came on a swing pass that the rb had to break for a 50 yard gain, that cuts into both his ypc and the relevance of his touchdowns. if every single incompletion by player a was a horrific throw that hit a defender in the numbers, that significantly alters how he'd look.

numbers mean nothing without context, and you've barely given any.

realistically, no one is getting the point you're trying to make. you might as well just make it.

Both have pretty much the same YAC/attempt and, you are just going to have to trust me on this, both have played very similarly.

Vince Young had 10 Tds, 3 Ints and 1255 Yards for the Titans in 2010.... So Yea thats my point. Like this thread. pointless

Fair enough. But I have given enough to make a decent comparison of two players.

Smith:
- Better team (offense and defense as well as coaching staff)

B:
- Easier schedule

Consider everything else is equal.

Complex
10-31-2011, 07:34 PM
Vince Young had 10 Tds, 3 Ints and 1255 Yards for the Titans in 2010.... So Yea thats my point. Like this thread. pointless

and we were the top scoring team through 5 games before he got hurt.

Caulibflower
10-31-2011, 07:51 PM
Using statistics to evaluate a player only really works when those statistics are abnormal. Record-breaking seasons are a pretty good indicator that you've got a really good player. Really bad seasons usually don't come from good players. (Rookies excepted) Anything falling between the extremes is just what happens over the course of the football season, and as often as not can be attributed to team success/failure just as easily as it can be attributed to an individual. It's really tiring to have it continually brought up.

For example, for this year, Cam Newton is having a ridiculous statistical season for a rookie. Well, especially for a rookie. You're talking about a first-year player looking like he'll pass for over 4000 yards, have 20+ passing TDs and a positive TD-INT ratio, and on top of that be an integral part of his team's rushing attack and a contender for league leader in rushing TDs. You just don't see that, and the sheer rarity of that combination of stats combined with inexperience makes you think, "Holy $hit, this guy can play some offense in the NFL." - even though he's only won two games so far, and hasn't demonstrated an ability to consistently make plays in the red zone, or to close out games. (Although he did make a fantastic throw on a 4th-and-14 at the end of this week's game, despite the eventual loss.) But with Newton, what you see reflected in his stats are lots of big plays - high yards per attempt, the rushing touchdowns. Anyone can see that in the stats, a casual observer or someone who has more of an understanding about the game, and who has watched him play. The stat guy just thinks, "Those are impressive stats :: Cam Newton is a good football player." A coach or scout sees that and thinks, "Cam Newton is putting up those stats because of tremendous natural ability; those stats are, right now, indicative of tremendous potential." He can put up those stats because of his ability, but yet his ability is not so developed that he's able to win games by himself. It's more that right now he's the catalyst of a good offense - considering that Carolina's offense was so poor last year, that too says a lot. But again, you're making contextual considerations. Similarly, Tom Brady's stats are among the league leaders every year. He's won Super Bowls. He set the TD-season record. His career stat sheet is littered with league-leading numbers. He's undoubtably a great player. But he also plays for a terrific offensive coach who knows how to get the best out of his players. The eye-popping stats rarely come from players who really aren't good. Shaun Alexander might be a good example for this. As far as I'm concerned, the year he ran for 28 TDs shouldn't have resulted in an MVP award for Alexander, it should've been a MVL award for his linemen. Alexander had huge stats, got tons of recognition for a result of them, and then had his production fall off precipitously post-contract restructuring and, importantly, after a couple of the best linemen of the last couple decades left the team. It's about context. No doubt Alexander was a good player, but I think he's one of the least deserving MVPs in recent memory. And I'm a Seahawks fan.

So... a player having huge stats is certainly interesting, and leads to discussions of player greatness vs. team greatness/system productivity etc. Really poor stats, similarly, make you wonder if a player is truly incompetent, in a poor situation, or a combination of both. Steve Young didn't look great in Tampa, then looked like one of the best ever in San Fran. He also, in that span, went from one of the worst organizations in the NFL to one of the best. Who knows, if he went to a mediocre team from Tampa, he might've played mediocre. You just don't know. But even in the Tampa, Steve Walsh saw something that made him want Steve Young... obviously not his stats.

But...anyways. Using stats to compare middling players just doesn't work. With the huge stats, or the awful stats, you're at least talking about some extreme of production, and you're thinking about where the production comes from: individual talent vs. scheme/team/personnel. But within those extremes, there just isn't much to talk about, because the player is neither exceeding, nor failing to meet expectations. A starting QB is expected to execute his offense efficiently. Alex Smith finally doing that through the first half of a season is only that, just as Philip Rivers playing relatively poorly is only that. There's no equivalency to be made between players who are simply doing their jobs, those jobs being more or less reflected in stat sheets. It's all about who can rise above that come playoff time and continue to do that job when it gets very difficult. This is what Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger did in seasons where they didn't blow up the stat sheet, but went on to win Super Bowls. They carried out their duties within the offense even as the competition continued to get much harder, and so are considered elite QBs. Part of the reason I, and others, think Peyton Manning is overrated is because he gets huge amounts of credit for putting up big stats through the regular season, but then when he has to play really tough teams, we see his ceiling as a player; when he gets pressured, and when his rhythms are off, he gets flustered and his quality of play falters. And yet he still has all those passing records and 4 MVP awards. SO HE MUST BE AWESOME.

But I digress. Bottom line is this: the only discussions that ought to be started based on stats should be based on outrageous stats. Cam Newton, fine. Jared Allen eyeing the sack record, fine. Interesting discussions to be had about what Newton can and will be able to do in the NFL, and how playing from behind affects Allen. Seems like it could make it even harder to get those sacks, because teams would want to run the ball more. At any rate, throwing up stats for definitionally average QBs, (94.7 QB rating isn't nearly the barometer of efficiency it used to be) just isn't that interesting. I mean, I wouldn't think the stats the OP belonged to anyone other than a really average QB on a decent team, mostly on account of the low TDs and yards, as well as low INTs and moderately productive ground game. It's Alex Smith? Oh, well, that makes sense. That's about all there is to say about it.

the new jesus
10-31-2011, 07:57 PM
Using statistics to evaluate a player only really works when those statistics are abnormal. Record-breaking seasons are a pretty good indicator that you've got a really good player. Really bad seasons usually don't come from good players. (Rookies excepted) Anything falling between the extremes is just what happens over the course of the football season, and as often as not can be attributed to team success/failure just as easily as it can be attributed to an individual. It's really tiring to have it continually brought up.

For example, for this year, Cam Newton is having a ridiculous statistical season for a rookie. Well, especially for a rookie. You're talking about a first-year player looking like he'll pass for over 4000 yards, have 20+ passing TDs and a positive TD-INT ratio, and on top of that be an integral part of his team's rushing attack and a contender for league leader in rushing TDs. You just don't see that, and the sheer rarity of that combination of stats combined with inexperience makes you think, "Holy $hit, this guy can play some offense in the NFL." - even though he's only won two games so far, and hasn't demonstrated an ability to consistently make plays in the red zone, or to close out games. (Although he did make a fantastic throw on a 4th-and-14 at the end of this week's game, despite the eventual loss.) But with Newton, what you see reflected in his stats are lots of big plays - high yards per attempt, the rushing touchdowns. Anyone can see that in the stats, a casual observer or someone who has more of an understanding about the game, and who has watched him play. The stat guy just thinks, "Those are impressive stats :: Cam Newton is a good football player." A coach or scout sees that and thinks, "Cam Newton is putting up those stats because of tremendous natural ability; those stats are, right now, indicative of tremendous potential." He can put up those stats because of his ability, but yet his ability is not so developed that he's able to win games by himself. It's more that right now he's the catalyst of a good offense - considering that Carolina's offense was so poor last year, that too says a lot. But again, you're making contextual considerations. Similarly, Tom Brady's stats are among the league leaders every year. He's won Super Bowls. He set the TD-season record. His career stat sheet is littered with league-leading numbers. He's undoubtably a great player. But he also plays for a terrific offensive coach who knows how to get the best out of his players. The eye-popping stats rarely come from players who really aren't good. Shaun Alexander might be a good example for this. As far as I'm concerned, the year he ran for 28 TDs shouldn't have resulted in an MVP award for Alexander, it should've been a MVL award for his linemen. Alexander had huge stats, got tons of recognition for a result of them, and then had his production fall off precipitously post-contract restructuring and, importantly, after a couple of the best linemen of the last couple decades left the team. It's about context. No doubt Alexander was a good player, but I think he's one of the least deserving MVPs in recent memory. And I'm a Seahawks fan.

So... a player having huge stats is certainly interesting, and leads to discussions of player greatness vs. team greatness/system productivity etc. Really poor stats, similarly, make you wonder if a player is truly incompetent, in a poor situation, or a combination of both. Steve Young didn't look great in Tampa, then looked like one of the best ever in San Fran. He also, in that span, went from one of the worst organizations in the NFL to one of the best. Who knows, if he went to a mediocre team from Tampa, he might've played mediocre. You just don't know. But even in the Tampa, Steve Walsh saw something that made him want Steve Young... obviously not his stats.

But...anyways. Using stats to compare middling players just doesn't work. With the huge stats, or the awful stats, you're at least talking about some extreme of production, and you're thinking about where the production comes from: individual talent vs. scheme/team/personnel. But within those extremes, there just isn't much to talk about, because the player is neither exceeding, nor failing to meet expectations. A starting QB is expected to execute his offense efficiently. Alex Smith finally doing that through the first half of a season is only that, just as Philip Rivers playing relatively poorly is only that. There's no equivalency to be made between players who are simply doing their jobs, those jobs being more or less reflected in stat sheets. It's all about who can rise above that come playoff time and continue to do that job when it gets very difficult. This is what Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger did in seasons where they didn't blow up the stat sheet, but went on to win Super Bowls. They carried out their duties within the offense even as the competition continued to get much harder, and so are considered elite QBs. Part of the reason I, and others, think Peyton Manning is overrated is because he gets huge amounts of credit for putting up big stats through the regular season, but then when he has to play really tough teams, we see his ceiling as a player; when he gets pressured, and when his rhythms are off, he gets flustered and his quality of play falters. And yet he still has all those passing records and 4 MVP awards. SO HE MUST BE AWESOME.

But I digress. Bottom line is this: the only discussions that ought to be started based on stats should be based on outrageous stats. Cam Newton, fine. Jared Allen eyeing the sack record, fine. Interesting discussions to be had about what Newton can and will be able to do in the NFL, and how playing from behind affects Allen. Seems like it could make it even harder to get those sacks, because teams would want to run the ball more. At any rate, throwing up stats for definitionally average QBs, (94.7 QB rating isn't nearly the barometer of efficiency it used to be) just isn't that interesting. I mean, I wouldn't think the stats the OP belonged to anyone other than a really average QB on a decent team, mostly on account of the low INTs and moderately productive ground game. It's Alex Smith? Oh, well, that makes sense. That's about all there is to say about it.

Calubflower, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 08:00 PM
What if I phrased the question like this,

Which stats are better given that Smith has a better offensive line, better receivers, much better running game, better defense and better coaching while 'B' had the easier schedule? Everything else is equal. Not asking which QB is better or which one you would rather have, just which set of stats are better.

I can give you the average rank of the pass defenses that each faced, too. Smith's average rank, in terms of rating, is 16th. B's is 14th.

Edit again - I will also add that one of B's interceptions was a desperation heave when the game was out of reach and on the other he was hit as he threw. Both of Smith's have just been bad throws.

Caulibflower
10-31-2011, 08:04 PM
Calubflower, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Not sure if you're being serious. I outline, using several instances, why average season statistics can't tell you much about a player, while extreme season stats can at least lead to interesting conversations about players, and provide several reasons for this ("reasons" being what makes an argument "rational"), and you respond with a post containing no reasons for why you didn't like it, other than that it didn't contain reason, and call it rambling even though it wasn't really that long, (couple minutes to read, maybe? You don't have to.) and the points within are pretty closely related. Certainly not "incoherent." Which makes me think you either have a very short attention span, didn't read it, or have a low level of reading comprehension exacerbated by a lack of pictures and/or stats.

Borat
10-31-2011, 08:06 PM
Some of the responses in this thread are classic. How dare you, Abaddon, waste people's time on a message board! Don't you know there is serious businezzz to conduct on these boards. Sheeeeeeesh.

phlysac
10-31-2011, 08:22 PM
What I find amazing is that this "missing context" (running game, O-Line play, WR threats, playcalling, etc.) is what everyone called "Alexcuses" when the team was losing and everyone just looked at his stats.

LoL

the new jesus
10-31-2011, 08:27 PM
Not sure if you're being serious. I outline, using several instances, why average season statistics can't tell you much about a player, while extreme season stats can at least lead to interesting conversations about players, and provide several reasons for this ("reasons" being what makes an argument "rational"), and you respond with a post containing no reasons for why you didn't like it, other than that it didn't contain reason, and call it rambling even though it wasn't really that long, (couple minutes to read, maybe? You don't have to.) and the points within are pretty closely related. Certainly not "incoherent." Which makes me think you either have a very short attention span, didn't read it, or have a low level of reading comprehension exacerbated by a lack of pictures and/or stats.

Sigh, kids these days.

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 08:37 PM
@ BigBanger - So, summing up your opinion,

- Alex Smith sucks
- QB B is better
- Alex Smith is only doing well because of the great team around him and Harbaugh

Is that about spot on?

BigBanger
10-31-2011, 08:37 PM
I already told you that Smith has a better defense, significantly better running game, better coaching and better receivers and backs while 'B' has an easier schedule.
I already told you that I don't give a ****

@ BigBanger - So, summing up your opinion,

- Alex Smith sucks
- QB B is better
- Alex Smith is only doing well because of the great team around him and Harbaugh

Is that about spot on?
Whatever

abaddon41_80
10-31-2011, 08:40 PM
I already told you that I don't give a ****


Whatever

I am asking a question. I really do what other people's opinions on this subject. I have given all of the context I possibly can without revealing who the second QB is and, frankly, if this topic wasn't involving Alex Smith almost everyone would be okay with taking a side on this comparison.

DraftSavant
10-31-2011, 09:29 PM
Vince Young had 10 Tds, 3 Ints and 1255 Yards for the Titans in 2010.... So Yea thats my point. Like this thread. pointless

Ugh.......

descendency
10-31-2011, 09:33 PM
The entire point of developing a QB Rating is that simply looking at TDs, INTs, and the like wasn't a good enough indicator of performance.

The QB rating was created to quantify entire seasons and careers, not games or drives. It often breaks when you look at it comparing two random guys on a set of downs. Like I'm sure you can find one where Curtis Painter lit up... ok, maybe Chad Pennington lit someone up and then compare it to the worst game in Tom Brady's career. Obviously, you wouldn't take Pennington over Brady.

This is the entire point of creating a new QB Rating (ESPN's TQBR for example). It introduces more statistics and ones that are more relevant to only the QB (though, total disambiguation is impossible).

M.O.T.H.
10-31-2011, 09:33 PM
So who is QB B?

Smooth Criminal
10-31-2011, 09:36 PM
i just don't get this. no one is going to bite. no one has any vague clue what point you're trying to make, and you've been told in fifteen different ways why the comparison you're attempting to make is ridiculous. why can't you just get to the point so we can talk about whatever the heck it is you actually want to talk about.

He thinks he's going to convince people that Smith is just as good as whoever he is comparing him to solely based on stats. And anyone with any brain knows that's not how players are judged, especially at QB.

Brothgar
10-31-2011, 09:58 PM
He thinks he's going to convince people that Smith is just as good as whoever he is comparing him to solely based on stats. And anyone with any brain knows that's not how players are judged, especially at QB.

Well with enough stats I think you can figure it out. But not with the ones provided. For example what teams were Player A and Player B going against. If A is going against Rams, Phins, and Pats while B is going against Steelers, Jets, and Ravens lets say I'd be much more impressed with player B's performance than A's.

fenikz
10-31-2011, 09:59 PM
i will never compare any 2 football players on stats alone, situation means everything

wogitalia
11-01-2011, 12:50 AM
This is just stupid.

Player A absolutely has the better stats on a pure stats basis, but that just means nothing.

It's like comparing two 40 yard times, one run on a super fast surface with a tailwind and one run on sand with a headwind and trying to say that because the time in ideal conditions is faster that player a is faster. Without context you can't do anything with stats.

It's the old saying, you can use stats to support just about anything, even if that "anything" is completely stupid and wrong.

So I'm with njx here... just get the ******* point you want to make and then we can tell you if whatever the hell crackpot theory you have is wrong or right.

Mr. Goosemahn
11-01-2011, 01:19 AM
i will never compare any 2 football players on stats alone, situation means everything

This.

The only two positions where I screw context to evaluate players are kicker and punter.

dolphinfan2k5
11-01-2011, 01:20 AM
Worst thread ever, can't believe I read all of this just wanting to know who B is. **** you.

MetSox17
11-01-2011, 01:27 AM
Worst thread ever, can't believe I read all of this just wanting to know who B is. **** you.

Hahahaha, this was me as well, i skimmed through everything hoping one of these internet sleuths would have figured it out and i'm pissed. I'm negging Abaddon.

yo123
11-01-2011, 01:29 AM
Someone ******* tell me who B is so I never have to click on this thread again.

Mr. Goosemahn
11-01-2011, 01:34 AM
Someone ******* tell me who B is so I never have to click on this thread again.

I'll venture a guess:

A great-to-elite QB who's stats from one random season match up rather nicely with what Alex Smith has right now.

MetSox17
11-01-2011, 01:34 AM
That tell us nothing, Goose, NOTHING!

sbh15
11-01-2011, 01:46 AM
well what might tell you something is he said qb b's team scored 26 ppg, which recently ranks in the top 10 of nfl scoring per game and that the team was averaging 95 yards rushing a game, which is usually in the bottom half.

there only teams that come to mind with that sort of style are the colts, patriots, packers, and chargers. and given the qb's of those teams, i think the comparison would look pretty foolish.

but based on qb b's completion percentage and numbers, i'm gonna guess matt schaub

MetSox17
11-01-2011, 02:07 AM
Schaub has never been under 60% completion.

mqtirishfan
11-01-2011, 02:55 AM
Either he's cherry-picking a 7 game stretch, using a retired player or making a really interestingly pointless comparison to a ****** player as far as I can tell. No active, good QB has started a season this way.

OzTitan
11-01-2011, 07:11 AM
Well if it wasn't from the same season or at least two very close by then the comparison is utterly pointless because the league is evolving to a more pass friendly state year by year.

jrdrylie
11-01-2011, 07:48 AM
Wait a second? Alex Smith has better receivers? The 49ers receivers are pretty bad. I'm thinking QB B has to be Tom Brady from some previous year.

Iamcanadian
11-01-2011, 08:08 AM
The QB position is judged on a lot more than numbers.

I agree, how does each preform when the game is on the line, how much of these stats came after their team had basically lost the game. Stats by themselves will not separate all QB's and can be very misleading. Who were the stats compiled against, top teams or weak teams and on and on and on????
Anybody using stats alone to compare QB's is rather foolish if you ask me.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 08:11 AM
Well with enough stats I think you can figure it out. But not with the ones provided. For example what teams were Player A and Player B going against. If A is going against Rams, Phins, and Pats while B is going against Steelers, Jets, and Ravens lets say I'd be much more impressed with player B's performance than A's.

I already answered that question. The average rank of the pass defense of the teams Smith has faced is 16th, in terms of QB rating, and the average rank of the teams 'B' has faced is 14th. I honestly don't understand what else you guys need to make a comparison. I have given,

- Stats on the level of competition
- Stats revealing the level of the team around each one
- Told you that Smith has a better coaching staff
- Told you that each only lost one game
- Told you that both have played very similar

I don't see why it matters if you know who the QB is, given all of this information, to say how much better, if at all, Smith's numbers are than QB B. Again, I am not asking which would you would take or which one you think is the better QB, just which set of stats are better.

Also again, I am not trying to argue that Alex Smith is a good QB. My point is completely different from that.

ImBrotherCain
11-01-2011, 08:14 AM
Also again, I am not trying to argue that Alex Smith is a good QB. My point is completely different from that.

Then make your ******* point already... 4 pages of this **** is enough.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 08:26 AM
Point will be made when I get out of class at about 11:30AM today. Until then it would be nice to see a few more unbiased answers. I really hate repeating myself but I will do so one last time before I leave,

Smith:
- Offense averages 26 PPG
- Defenses allows 15 PPG
- Offense averages 135 rushing YPG
- Better receivers
- Better offensive line
- Better coaching
- Better backs
- Average passing defense rank of opponent (QB rating) - 16th
- Opponents combined record: 26-24 (ranging from 2-5 to 6-2)

B:
- Offense averages 26 PPG
- Defense allows 18 PPG
- Running game average 95 YPG
- Average pass defense rank of opponent (QB Rating): 14th
- Opponent's combined record: 43-53 (ranging from 2-14 to 10-6, though everyone except the 2-14 opponent had 7+ wins)
- Stats are from last season

That should be enough to make a decent comparison of their stats. I honestly don't think anyone would have a problem doing so if Alex Smith wasn't one of the QBs being compared.

jrdrylie
11-01-2011, 08:26 AM
Again, I am not asking which would you would take or which one you think is the better QB, just which set of stats are better.



You can looks are the stats and see which stats are better. You don't need four pages of discussion.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 08:27 AM
Then why are people getting so upset? I am just asking for opinions on how much better Smith's stats are.

jrdrylie
11-01-2011, 08:34 AM
Point will be made when I get out of class at about 11:30AM today. Until then it would be nice to see a few more unbiased answers. I really hate repeating myself but I will do so one last time before I leave,

Smith:
- Offense averages 26 PPG
- Defenses allows 15 PPG
- Offense averages 135 rushing YPG
- Better receivers
- Better offensive line
- Better coaching
- Better backs
- Average passing defense rank of opponent (QB rating) - 16th
- Opponents combined record: 26-24 (ranging from 2-5 to 6-2)

B:
- Offense averages 26 PPG
- Defense allows 18 PPG
- Running game average 95 YPG
- Average pass defense rank of opponent (QB Rating): 14th
- Opponent's combined record: 43-53 (ranging from 2-14 to 10-6, though everyone except the 2-14 opponent had 7+ wins)

That should be enough to make a decent comparison of their stats. I honestly don't think anyone would have a problem doing so if Alex Smith wasn't one of the QBs being compared.

My problem is we can't even make a decent comparison of the stats. No QB this season has the statistics that QB B has. This season, Baltimore also averages 26 PPG, however their defense gives up a little less than 16.

Obviously this is from a different season, because QB B's teams played against are 2-14 to 10-6. One thing though. Adding 43-53 together, you get 96. The combined record of the teams you play adds up to 256 every time.

But here is why we can't even have a decent comparison. Comparing statistics is a terrible way to judge players. Comparing statistics from players across different seasons is ridiculous. There are injuries, rule changes, different players. It just can't be done.

jrdrylie
11-01-2011, 08:34 AM
because that's a meaningless question. it's like asking, is 1 or 7 a better number?

1 obviously. Although combine the two and you get 17, which is the best number of all.

M.O.T.H.
11-01-2011, 10:22 AM
But seriously now... who is B? lol

jrdrylie
11-01-2011, 10:28 AM
But seriously now... who is B? lol

It isn't 11:30 yet...

kalbears13
11-01-2011, 10:29 AM
QB B is Matt Ryan. Thank you abaddon for making me late to class because I needed to find out who it was.

murdamal86
11-01-2011, 10:29 AM
Maybe you all should neg rep em :shrug:

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 10:39 AM
QB B is Matt Ryan. Thank you abaddon for making me late to class because I needed to find out who it was.

No it isn't. Before I reveal who 'B' is I have one more question for you guys, go ahead and -rep me if you must. Is Alex Smith's play this season a complete product of Harbaugh and the very good team he has around him?

Sloopy
11-01-2011, 10:48 AM
No it isn't. Before I reveal who 'B' is I have one more question for you guys, go ahead and -rep me if you must. Is Alex Smith's play this season a complete product of Harbaugh and the very good team he has around him?

LIAR!!!! ITS 11:47 EST NOW REVEAL!!

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 10:53 AM
Okay. QB B is ...








Alex Smith from the turning point of his career last season (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVpS88lRdAQ&feature=related)) until the end of the year. The point of this topic is to prove that Smith is not only playing well because of the running game, great defense and Harbaugh's coaching.

Brothgar
11-01-2011, 10:56 AM
No it isn't. Before I reveal who 'B' is I have one more question for you guys, go ahead and -rep me if you must. Is Alex Smith's play this season a complete product of Harbaugh and the very good team he has around him?

Obviously there is no way to know that. Until one of the variables change IE Harbaugh leaves, Smith is no longer the QB or the team around him gets significantly worse then it is only speculation. But base it off from what he did before harbaugh an the maturation of the offense I'd have to say that they both had a huge amount to do with his "success". I'm also going to guess that QB B is Alex Smith in a previous year. and the point he is going to make is that Smith's always been this good or some crap like that.

Sloopy
11-01-2011, 11:00 AM
Obviously there is no way to know that. Until one of the variables change IE Harbaugh leaves, Smith is no longer the QB or the team around him gets significantly worse then it is only speculation. But base it off from what he did before harbaugh an the maturation of the offense I'd have to say that they both had a huge amount to do with his "success". I'm also going to guess that QB B is Alex Smith in a previous year. and the point he is going to make is that Smith's always been this good or some crap like that.

Your too late sir, he got page trapped on the last page but he already revealed that QB B is Smith after his "turning point" last year.

the new jesus
11-01-2011, 11:03 AM
Okay. QB B is ...








Alex Smith from the turning point of his career last season (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVpS88lRdAQ&feature=related)) until the end of the year. The point of this topic is to prove that Smith is not only playing well because of the running game, great defense and Harbaugh's coaching.

Right, but stats are just stats. So you fail.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 11:03 AM
I would also like to add that how good, or bad, you or I think Smith has been is irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about whether he is playing at this level, whatever level you want to call it, because of the team and coaches.

Borat
11-01-2011, 11:24 AM
Did anyone actually read the original post? He didn't ask whom was the better player overall.

jrdrylie
11-01-2011, 11:24 AM
Okay. QB B is ...








Alex Smith from the turning point of his career last season (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVpS88lRdAQ&feature=related)) until the end of the year. The point of this topic is to prove that Smith is not only playing well because of the running game, great defense and Harbaugh's coaching.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eacnH2G82go/TLbYnOaCxLI/AAAAAAAAAfk/8dRIgjy7Pnw/s1600/fffuuu.gif

Rosebud
11-01-2011, 12:47 PM
I wanted to for numbers alone being an absolutely moronic way to compare QBs, but that wasn't an option in the poll...

mqtirishfan
11-01-2011, 12:55 PM
I completely see everyone's points but if I give too much away it will reveal who I am comparing. I can tell you that both have one loss, though 'B' has played less games, about five to seven for 'A', and both have a similar caliber team around them. If anything, 'A' has more help around him.


Go to hell. You can't just throw it out there that Alex Smith has 1 loss this year when comparing him to himself from last year. He most certainly did not have one loss last year.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 01:17 PM
Go to hell. You can't just throw it out there that Alex Smith has 1 loss this year when comparing him to himself from last year. He most certainly did not have one loss last year.

After the "We want Carr" chants,

Oakland - W
@Carolina - Injured after about a half, tied when he left - ND
Seattle - W
@San Diego - L
@St. Louis - Only played the 4th Q - ND
Arizona - W

That is one loss by my count. The point is that after those chants is when Smith turned it around, not this year because of Harbaugh and the team.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 01:22 PM
uh, yes he did.



that's actually almost exactly what he asked.

And then I changed the question after everyone got all mad for some reason,

What if I phrased the question like this,

Which stats are better given that Smith has a better offensive line, better receivers, much better running game, better defense and better coaching while 'B' had the easier schedule? Everything else is equal. Not asking which QB is better or which one you would rather have, just which set of stats are better.

I can give you the average rank of the pass defenses that each faced, too. Smith's average rank, in terms of rating, is 16th. B's is 14th.

Edit again - I will also add that one of B's interceptions was a desperation heave when the game was out of reach and on the other he was hit as he threw. Both of Smith's have just been bad throws.

Even though I don't see why it matters. When given stats, and only stats, and asked to compare players it is pretty obvious that I meant to compare the stats, especially after reading the topic title. I can understand having a problem with doing that without context, which is why I gave everything from opponents pass defense ranks to how good the team around each was. Everything I gave is more than enough to make a decent comparison of two sets of stats.

BigBanger
11-01-2011, 01:22 PM
The point is that after those chants is when Smith turned it around, not this year because of Harbaugh and the team.
You can't be serious.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 01:24 PM
You can't be serious.

This is exactly why I didn't ask outright if Smith was playing at this level because of Harbaugh. Apparently it is crazy to believe otherwise. If I had a poll asking if Smith was playing at this level because of Harbaugh/the team or if he was already pretty much at this level I guarantee there would be almost no votes for the latter.

kalbears13
11-01-2011, 01:25 PM
I was going to say it was Alex Smith but I didn't think anyone would be that stupid...

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 01:28 PM
I was going to say it was Alex Smith but I didn't think anyone would be that stupid...

What exactly is stupid about the comparison?

MetSox17
11-01-2011, 01:29 PM
This thread did not deliver.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 01:30 PM
I agree. I pictured it going better than this. lol @ the new poll.

Rabscuttle
11-01-2011, 01:36 PM
So credit should go to Vernon for telling Smith to go tell Dingleberry what was what?

ImBrotherCain
11-01-2011, 01:37 PM
If I could neg rep you again I would. I seriously wish they would just lock this thread at this point. I would rather read the the spam posts than read through five pages of this mindless drivel again.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 01:39 PM
If someone could give me a reason why this thread is stupid that would be great. Just want to know for future reference. I thought it was saying to compare players just based on numbers with no context but I rectified that my asking to compare numbers with context and it is still stupid. I just want to know why.

Raiderz4Life
11-01-2011, 01:40 PM
I can't believe I just wasted 30m of my life going through this worthless thread tryna find out who A and B were. I is very disappointed...this thread didd't even have "classic" potential like some of the threads do.

kalbears13
11-01-2011, 01:46 PM
If someone could give me a reason why this thread is stupid that would be great. Just want to know for future reference. I thought it was saying to compare players just based on numbers with no context but I rectified that my asking to compare numbers with context and it is still stupid. I just want to know why.

Because no matter how you draw it up, when you put Alex Smith on the field, he sucks.

niel89
11-01-2011, 01:56 PM
I hate you so very very much. Terrible terrible thread.

phlysac
11-01-2011, 01:58 PM
Because no matter how you draw it up, when you put Alex Smith on the field, he sucks.

I think this illustrates his point. Noone has been watching him his last 15 games, but everyone "knows" he sucks. They know he sucks because of... his stats.

Hypocrisy.

soybean
11-01-2011, 02:02 PM
I actually liked the answer. It was a twist comparing Alex Smith to Alex Smith like an M. Night Shamylan movie

Raiderz4Life
11-01-2011, 02:02 PM
I think this illustrates his point. Noone has been watching him his last 15 games, but everyone "knows" he sucks. They know he sucks because of... his stats.

Hypocrisy.

You're right he's gone frome massive suckage to just suck...like going from -5 to -1

Complex
11-01-2011, 02:04 PM
So who was B?

soybean
11-01-2011, 02:05 PM
So who was B?

are you being sarcastic or did you not read the last page? =P

btw, the poll is awesome. personally, i prefer cheese rolls. If you guys have never tried a cheese roll you have no idea what you're missing out on.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 02:07 PM
Because no matter how you draw it up, when you put Alex Smith on the field, he sucks.

Did you even read the topic? I have repeated multiple times that this topic is not about how good or bad Alex Smith is. This topic is meant to prove that he isn't playing at his current level, whatever you want to call it, only because of Harbaugh and the great running game and defense. Last season he didn't have any of that and he was pretty much the same as he is this year.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 02:11 PM
You're right he's gone frome massive suckage to just suck...like going from -5 to -1

Not really related to the point of the topic but in what world does,

- 211/349 (60.5%)
- 2507 yards
- 7.2 Y/A
- 19 TD
- 5.4 TD %
- 4 INT
- 1.2 INT %
- 95.8 QB rating
- 9-2 record

Suck?

kalbears13
11-01-2011, 02:12 PM
I think this illustrates his point. Noone has been watching him his last 15 games, but everyone "knows" he sucks. They know he sucks because of... his stats.

Hypocrisy.

I went to the game Sunday vs. the Browns. He looked pretty bad. Missed a few wide open receivers that would have been easy touchdowns had he made the throw.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 02:19 PM
He looked horrible in the second half no question, but the rest of the offense was pretty bad as well. I don't know if the 49ers just stopped trying after halftime or if the Browns defense just figured them out. At halftime he was 9/11 for 104 yards and a touchdown. In the second half he was 6/13 for 73 yards, and 41 of those came on one play. He has been pretty bad in game-managing situations all year, to be honest.

phlysac
11-01-2011, 02:21 PM
I went to the game Sunday vs. the Browns. He looked pretty bad. Missed a few wide open receivers that would have been easy touchdowns had he made the throw.

He missed a few throws. His chemistry on the field with Crabtree has to improve, and is slightly. But yeah... one game.

Sloopy
11-01-2011, 02:23 PM
.... I can't believe how many of you haven't picked skittles...

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 02:26 PM
I don't think those are actually votes, unless people voted really fast after it was changed.

kalbears13
11-01-2011, 02:30 PM
Not really related to the point of the topic but in what world does,

- 211/349 (60.5%)
- 2507 yards
- 7.2 Y/A
- 19 TD
- 5.4 TD %
- 4 INT
- 1.2 INT %
- 95.8 QB rating
- 9-2 record

Suck?

He's definitely not going to win games for them. I thought this was kind of interesting.

2010 before being taken out as starter (Weeks 1-6): 37.2 Att/G

2010 after being put back in as starter (QB B) (Weeks 14-17): 25.0 Att/G
2011 as starter (QB A) (Weeks 1-8): 25.6 Att/G

It seems like Alex Smith improved because teams were focusing on the run more, not because he became magically better.

Raiderz4Life
11-01-2011, 02:35 PM
Is anyone else having a hard time picking an option lol...idk what to pick.

phlysac
11-01-2011, 02:40 PM
He's definitely not going to win games for them. I thought this was kind of interesting.

2010 before being taken out as starter (Weeks 1-6): 37.2 Att/G

2010 after being put back in as starter (QB B) (Weeks 14-17): 25.0 Att/G
2011 as starter (QB A) (Weeks 1-8): 25.6 Att/G

It seems like Alex Smith improved because teams were focusing on the run more, not because he became magically better.

This is a perfect supplement to abaddon's initial post.

People on this message board will likely use these stats and allow them to influence their opinion. However, when stats are used to say that Smith has played well, they are mostly dismissed. It's hypocritical. But I understand it. Consistency, consistency, consistency. He would need to do what he's doing for an extended period to largely change people's opinions.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 02:48 PM
He's definitely not going to win games for them. I thought this was kind of interesting.

2010 before being taken out as starter (Weeks 1-6): 37.2 Att/G

2010 after being put back in as starter (QB B) (Weeks 14-17): 25.0 Att/G
2011 as starter (QB A) (Weeks 1-8): 25.6 Att/G

It seems like Alex Smith improved because teams were focusing on the run more, not because he became magically better.

Fair enough but a lot of that is because the 49ers tend to not throw very much when they have a big lead, which Smith has helped them to do recently. This year Smith's numbers up until the point where the 49ers went up by >10 points,

- 34/41 (82.9%)
- 381 yards
- 9.3 Y/A
- 3 TD
- 0 INT
- 129.8 QB rating

Your numbers for 2010 are also skewed. He only played a half against the Panthers and a quarter against the Rams last year. Taking out those games he averaged 30 attempts/game last season from week six on. Not to mention that part of the reason he attempted so many passes early on was because the 49ers were getting blown out @Seattle and @Kansas City. When the defense plays mediocre, @Seattle, to horrible, @KC, and the running game was horrible, combined 19 carries for 93 yards in those two games, they had to pass.

And he definitely can win games for us. In the three games in which the 49ers have been down in the second half this year,

- 28/39 (71.8%)
- 343 yards
- 8.8 Y/A
- 3 TD
- 0 INT
- 124.2 QB rating
- Three 4th Q comebacks

I think people are confusing him not throwing for tons of yards in a shoot-out with him not being able to.

ImBrotherCain
11-01-2011, 02:49 PM
This is a perfect supplement to abaddon's initial post.

People on this message board will likely use these stats and allow them to influence their opinion. However, when stats are used to say that Smith has played well, they are mostly dismissed. It's hypocritical. But I understand it. Consistency, consistency, consistency. He would need to do what he's doing for an extended period to largely change people's opinions.

People have preached through out this entire thread that stats are supporting arguments.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 02:53 PM
If that is true, what is more important when judging players? What could I have done differently in this thread to get the point across? If I had just asked if Smith was a product of Harbaugh and the team around him I would have gotten answers ranging from "Who cares, Alex Smith sucks" to "Yes" without anyone even reading the topic.

kalbears13
11-01-2011, 03:03 PM
This is a perfect supplement to abaddon's initial post.

People on this message board will likely use these stats and allow them to influence their opinion. However, when stats are used to say that Smith has played well, they are mostly dismissed. It's hypocritical. But I understand it. Consistency, consistency, consistency. He would need to do what he's doing for an extended period to largely change people's opinions.

The stats I posted weren't performance stats though. Just a number of attempts per game.

There's no "Alex Smith Conspiracy", it's just hard to believe he's all of the sudden good after 6 years of being mediocre.

jrdrylie
11-01-2011, 03:04 PM
The stats I posted weren't performance stats though. Just a number of attempts per game.

There's no "Alex Smith Conspiracy", it's just hard to believe he's all of the sudden good after 6 years of being mediocre.

Hey, Lions fans said that happened to Jeff Backus last season. Although they said he became good after 9 seasons of being terrible.

PackerLegend
11-01-2011, 03:16 PM
Thanks for driving me ****ing nuts trying to figure out who it was... Then after revealing who it was I wanted to jump off a bridge.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 03:26 PM
The stats I posted weren't performance stats though. Just a number of attempts per game.

There's no "Alex Smith Conspiracy", it's just hard to believe he's all of the sudden good after 6 years of being mediocre.

See, this is where the problem lies. Coming into this season Smith had a grand total of 50 starts, hardly six seasons. Seven of those starts came as a rookie barely old enough to drink transitioning from a spread offense on one of the least talented teams in the history of the NFL and three more came with a separated shoulder. Not excusing those starts, though the three in 2007 probably should be, but outside of those starts it is really two and a half years of mediocrity. Then you realize that he did in fact turn it around in the second half of last season and you have two years of mediocrity and almost a year of above average play. Regardless, there is no way to say six years of being mediocre. At most you can say three and an eighth.

Now, forgetting all of that, the point of this topic is not to discuss how good or bad Smith is. It is to dismiss the myth that Smith's current level of play is only because of Harbaugh and the elite defense and running game.

ImBrotherCain
11-01-2011, 03:40 PM
See, this is where the problem lies. Coming into this season Smith had a grand total of 50 starts, hardly six seasons. Seven of those starts came as a rookie barely old enough to drink transitioning from a spread offense on one of the least talented teams in the history of the NFL and three more came with a separated shoulder. Not excusing those starts, though the three in 2007 probably should be, but outside of those starts it is really two and a half years of mediocrity. Then you realize that he did in fact turn it around in the second half of last season and you have two years of mediocrity and almost a year of above average play. Regardless, there is no way to say six years of being mediocre. At most you can say three and an eighth.


So your saying that for players that are injury prone we should only look at the times they weren't hurt. That is a ******** way of thinking. Well I guess Chad Pennington was a great QB because he put up respectable stats those times he wasn't hurt.

M.O.T.H.
11-01-2011, 04:05 PM
Donuts.

......

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 04:09 PM
So your saying that for players that are injury prone we should only look at the times they weren't hurt. That is a ******** way of thinking. Well I guess Chad Pennington was a great QB because he put up respectable stats those times he wasn't hurt.

1) Pennington was a good QB when he wasn't injured.

2) I don't see what that has to do with Alex Smith. I am not saying Smith is a great QB, or even a good QB, I am saying that he hasn't played for anywhere near six seasons so statements like, "Six years of being mediocre," are invalid. Three years of being mediocre and three more of being injured is fine.

3) None of this has anything to do with the point of this topic. I keep on hearing how stupid this topic is but I haven't been given anything close to a reason yet.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 05:12 PM
holy, ridiculous **** man, you've been told in nearly every other post why this was a terrible way to compare players (even the same player) and given multiple reasons as to why. simply closing your eyes and plugging your ears don't make those reasons go away. there was never any reason to play a statistical guessing game in this case.

Every reason given has been something like you cannot use just stats to get a complete understanding players. I agree with that, at least to an extent, which is why I rephrased the question to judge them just based on numbers the best you could. Then I added context, more than enough of it, for each set of stats. I gave the rank of each ones running game, each ones defense, the average rank of the pass defense each one faced, the records of the opponents. I gave hard numbers on all of these. I told everyone which player had better players and coaches around him. I'll say again, if I had just asked if Smith's level of play this year was because of Harbaugh you and I both know that the answer would have been a resounding yes.

just argue that alex smith doesn't suck, then point out why, hopefully without relying solely (yes, solely) on pure #s to 'prove' your point.

And you continue to miss the point. This topic has nothing to do with whether Smith sucks. This topic is about whether his turnaround is because of Harbaugh and the team around him.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 05:58 PM
and then continued to try to point people into looking just at the numbers and picking the best qb. the context given was poor, moreso given that the question was simply ,"who is better?" all instead of just pointing out the numbers to support an argument. even now they're not a remarkably relevant comparison tool for whether smith actually figured anything out last year, or if he just 'showed' well in the box score. given that you're a 49ers fan, i'm sure you could've made a more compelling argument without even bothering with the stats.

I possibly could have made a better argument, or maybe not, but I was trying to get the opinions of others without introducing bias. The only way to do so was to give stats and facts and let people make up their mind that way. If I had just told people that Smith was this same level last season after the booing and then given stats as the support for that statement no one would have listened because everyone knows that Alex Smith sucks and only looks decent this year because he has a great team around him and an excellent coach.

I also rephrased the question and asked people to pick which numbers are the best, not which numbers belonged to the better QB.

which, ultimately, comes back to whether or not people think alex smith is/was any good to begin with. you'd have made a better case by just starting off with the idea that alex smith is turning a corner, then supported that, rather than trying to get people to play guessing games (and i'm not talking about guessing who a and b are) with numbers.

I don't see how what I am pointing out comes back to whether he is good. Alex Smith is playing at a certain level right now, call it what ever you want. Most experts and football fans are under the impression that he is only playing at that level because he has such great support around him. My point is he was already basically at this level after a certain point last season with almost no support around him. And, for the record, I never asked people to try and guess who each QB was. I was hoping they wouldn't.

binary
11-01-2011, 06:20 PM
I actually liked the answer. It was a twist comparing Alex Smith to Alex Smith like an M. Night Shamylan movie

I agree, it took me by surprise too. The rest of the board got played. Great post, abaddon is a good poster.

JHL6719
11-01-2011, 06:29 PM
I still haven't figured out the difference between Rhett Bomar and cheese.

tjsunstein
11-01-2011, 07:27 PM
Is it time to start posting pictures of pokemon yet? I literally have no idea what this thread is about.

ImBrotherCain
11-01-2011, 08:41 PM
Nothing... Literally nothing. This thread was a poor attempt to prove a point that was completely unnecessary in the first place.

We got it apparently Smith is a mediocre QB who's performance was not / is not influenced by outside variables.

Look I summed up 7 pages worth of **** in a sentence.

ChiFan24
11-01-2011, 09:06 PM
I think the OP should apologize for wasting time better spent adding Z's to the end of people's names.

abaddon41_80
11-01-2011, 09:18 PM
Nothing... Literally nothing. This thread was a poor attempt to prove a point that was completely unnecessary in the first place.

We got it Smith is a mediocre QB who's performance was not influenced by outside variables.

Look I summed up 7 pages worth of **** in a sentence.

I wouldn't say this thread is unnecessary as the idea that Smith's play is because "outside variables" is widespread and shared by pretty much everyone. If this thread has convinced you, or anyone, otherwise than it was a success, in my opinion. Now if every supposed expert thought like that there would be no point in this topic.

I think the OP should apologize for wasting time better spent adding Z's to the end of people's names.

You're right. I am very sorry. Please forgive, fellow members.

Rabscuttle
11-01-2011, 09:27 PM
There were Niner fans saying Alex had turned the corner last season when he started winning games while others just attributed it to playing teams that had given up on their seasons. He did really improve on ball security and that made a huge difference so maybe something really did happen for him at a defining moment where he finally had enough and was tired of all the ********.

It was really hard to tell with the circus that was going on. Then we had the lockout and this guy that most fans want run out of town steps up and runs the practices as a free agent. Now, when he is asked to move the ball in the air this year he has been pretty good at it. He hasn't been asked to do it for an entire game, that's not the way Harbaugh want things to happen so we are still waiting to see what happens when the team has to play someone else's game.

He seems to be enjoying the details demanded of him this year and is improving, but is leaving a lot of yards on the field with throws that aren't as good as they need to be. He gets rid of the ball faster and is developing trust in his receivers. It's taken awhile, but he is maturing. I just wish his top end would be evident sooner so the team could move on it faster.

I don't feel it's a horrible thread like so many posters are saying. Just a little unorthodox and not what people want. I do believe that there are a lot of fans that are more impressed with big numbers than wins though. Alex doing his job and being efficient is not going to put up big numbers. There are plenty of guys putting up way big numbers in losses and fans seem happy with those guys.

Iamcanadian
11-01-2011, 09:57 PM
Well, I'll give Smith this, he is playing solid football and after 7 different OC's in 7 years, he finally has a solid coaching staff who believe in him.
He is currently playing like a top 5 NFL QB but he must still show that he can sustain this level of performance over 16 games.
At this point all the flop talk is down the drain.

BigBanger
11-02-2011, 12:17 AM
This is exactly why I didn't ask outright if Smith was playing at this level because of Harbaugh. Apparently it is crazy to believe otherwise. If I had a poll asking if Smith was playing at this level because of Harbaugh/the team or if he was already pretty much at this level I guarantee there would be almost no votes for the latter.
RFZrzg62Zj0&feature=related

Hurricanes25
11-02-2011, 12:22 AM
Can we just make this thread go away?

abaddon41_80
11-02-2011, 06:57 AM
RFZrzg62Zj0&feature=related

Exactly. No one would care but I wanted the opinions of others. If I had just asked outright the responses would have been just like that.

jrdrylie
11-02-2011, 07:59 AM
Is it time to start posting pictures of pokemon yet? I literally have no idea what this thread is about.

Here you go!

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/sites/games/img/14042_pokemon04_01.jpg

ImBrotherCain
11-02-2011, 08:44 AM
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs11/i/2006/236/4/4/Blastoise___by_guardianofire.jpg

Just because this looks more bad ass.