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!

     

A different way to interpret QB statistics

Brandon

By Brandon,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Brandon Newbie

Brandon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No disrespect intended, but to be honest My brain glazed over trying to comprehend it.....sorry. :crazy:

Ill put it in a different way, this basically looks at which QBs have the fewest bad games, the higher the score the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ncbobcat Newbie

ncbobcat

Posted
Posted

I see the point you are trying to make is that Jake isn't a terrible QB. Most would agree. The reason Jake looked horrible in a couple games is because our defense didn't keep us in my games, namely after the midpoint of the season. An offense's mistakes are magnifed greatly if the defense can't stop the turnovers from becoming points. If that happens, a shaken QB isn't going to get better in a catch up scenario.

To give you a point in case, look at the Flacco numbers you crunched. His numbers would say the Ravens were horrible, but their defense kept them in games.

Hopefully this season, when Jake (yes when) has a bumpy game or two, our defense will rise to the occasion and help the team to victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R0CKnR0LLA Proficient

R0CKnR0LLA

Posted
Posted

The extremes tend to stick in people's minds and they forget the rest. A QB that's plays consistently well all year and has one or two completely horrible games, people will remember the bad games. The worse they are, the more they will stand out in memory, and the more he will be underrated. Just like a QB that plays mediocre all year but has a couple amazing games (or maybe even just a few amazing highlights) will be overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandon Newbie

Brandon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I see the point you are trying to make is that Jake isn't a terrible QB. Most would agree.

Actually it was to prove that Aaron Rodgers wasn't the problem last year in Green Bay, and that Drew Brees isn't as good as the media wants him to be. I knew Delhomme would do well in this comparison but it was more to illustrate a point about how the media latches on to certain people and gives them far too much credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thefuzz Mentor

thefuzz

Posted
Posted

Actually it was to prove that Aaron Rodgers wasn't the problem last year in Green Bay, and that Drew Brees isn't as good as the media wants him to be. I knew Delhomme would do well in this comparison but it was more to illustrate a point about how the media latches on to certain people and gives them far too much credit.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Brees is wayyyy over slobbed on, and I have said this for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fireball77 Newbie

Fireball77

Posted
Posted

I'll take a wild stab here and say that Drew Brees was one of those surprises.

I was surprised at Cassel more than Brees actually.

My eyeballs told me about most of these guys. Brees was mostly horrendous on the road last year. I think dome QBs should get minuses as well, but I'm a purist who beleives that football should be played OUTSIDE. It's very easy to see that most QBs' ratings get worse outside a dome.

I was arguing with my mom who LOVES domes and thinks everyone should have them, and I did a little research on QBs and their ratings in bad weather, 4th Q etc and the only starting QB who in 2008 played better ratings wise from game 9-16 than he did in games 1-8, had their best QB rating in Dec, and when games are late and close (all three of these situations) is Jake. His trend career wise is to do all of that as well, so let's eliminate all the "DWILL AND STEWART AND SMITTY AND THE DEFENSE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT" crew. Having a QB who gets better ratings as the year goes on and game gets close late is a good thing, especially since the Cats have been in playoff contention in the last game of the year most of those years. This type of stuff is part of why I feel the AZ game was more of an aberration rather than a trend.

Anyone who thought Rodgers was the issue in GB is a Favre apologist. And yes I see people saying just that all the time. They were in the NFCC with Favre and without him they were 6-10. Okaleee dokalee. Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument...it is false here. GB's defense, when Favre was there in 2007 was very good. Favre's receiver corps led the NFL in YAC that year or close to it I believe. That's what hurt them the most last year, their defense. Rodgers is a good QB, IMO. I can't crown him after one year, but it looks good for GB. They did the right thing, absolutely and 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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