Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Official Sound off like you got a pair Panthers Draft predictions thread

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Growl Veteran

Growl

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, FuFuLamePoo said:

Here’s my take: I think Darnell Washington is overrated and would be a bad pick at 39. I know he’s apparently some freak athlete but when I watch his film he looks clunky and labored. Basically zero production as a pass catcher, sure he may be a beast of a blocker but don’t we already have someone that’s supposed to fill that role in Tremble? I don’t think I’ll be thrilled if we take him high.

haven’t really watched him, can’t comment much. Will say im pretty burned out on the “we’re gonna transform this athletic run blocker into an elite pass catching TE.”

dc how tall he is, let’s try drafting a guy whose already good at the position

Edited by Growl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MasterAwesome Veteran

MasterAwesome

Posted
Posted
On 4/21/2023 at 4:11 PM, tukafan21 said:

I'm so sick of this argument

As The Athletic's article today points out, since 2000 there have been 368 QB's who have played in the league, only 9 of them have been under 6 feet.  Yes, as I've said it's not about his height, but his frame/weight/bulk, but that number would be even smaller if looking for players of Young's size.

To make any significant revelation based on a sample size like that, it's just flat out ignorant and is only used by teams publicly as a way to help sell it to their fan base.

Nobody arguing against Young due to his size is saying bigger QB's are guaranteed to stay healthier, but it's just common sense to say a 5'10" 190 lbs QB has a higher probability to get injured than someone 6'2" and 215 lbs.  Yes, anyone could get hurt on any given play, but if you put those two sized QB's up for comparison and you had to pick one or the other as to who is more likely to get injured, you'd have to be fooling yourself to say there isn't even a slightly better chance of the smaller player being injured more often than the bigger player there.

No, there are no guarantees, but the people asking for past examples/proof of smaller QB's being more injury prone, and leaning on a sample size of 9 out of 368, is just completely asinine in itself.

Hell, even if all 9 of those guys kept getting hurt and thus helping my argument, I'd still say it's far too small of a sample size to be used in these discussions.

 

If you're modeling the relationship between two variables (i.e. weight and injury risk, in this case), then it doesn't really matter if you're encountering a new data point that is the lowest on record (i.e. Bryce Young's size).  Your model doesn't suddenly crash and burn and become invalidated.  In the simplest terms, I'm sure once upon a time you've heard of the formula Y = mx + b.  Y is your dependent variable (injury risk), m is your slope (basically how impactful weight is for injury risk), x is your independent variable (weight), and b is a constant.  So if there is truly a statistically significant correlation between weight and injury risk, then even if Bryce Young was 40 pounds, you can still plug that into your model and determine the injury risk.  It's very basic statistical analysis/linear regression.

Also even if there was never a sub-200 pound QB in the history of the league, you can still determine if there's a correlation between size and injury risk.  Do 200 pound QBs get more injured than 220 pound QBs, who get more injured than 240 pound QBs?  

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MasterAwesome said:

If you're modeling the relationship between two variables (i.e. weight and injury risk, in this case), then it doesn't really matter if you're encountering a new data point that is the lowest on record (i.e. Bryce Young's size).  Your model doesn't suddenly crash and burn and become invalidated.  In the simplest terms, I'm sure once upon a time you've heard of the formula Y = mx + b.  Y is your dependent variable (injury risk), m is your slope (basically how impactful weight is for injury risk), x is your independent variable (weight), and b is a constant.  So if there is truly a statistically significant correlation between weight and injury risk, then even if Bryce Young was 40 pounds, you can still plug that into your model and determine the injury risk.  It's very basic statistical analysis/linear regression.

Also even if there was never a sub-200 pound QB in the history of the league, you can still determine if there's a correlation between size and injury risk.  Do 200 pound QBs get more injured than 220 pound QBs, who get more injured than 240 pound QBs?  

But he refers to "common sense".  Game, set, match.  Doesn't that trump all facts, data, and evidence?

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...