A different way to interpret QB statistics

[Brandon]

This thread is retarded. You manipulated stats so that they would come out favorable to you. To prove my point, lets say that instead of 70 being the number you chose it was 60. What if you said instead of over 100 it had to be over it had to be over 115?

Drew Brees would have 6 games over 115 and 0 games under 60. WOW his rating shoots up to being +6

Jake Delhomme would have 4 game over 115 and 3 games under 60. is that -2? uh oh drew brees is better.

In the end its just stupid fans trying to manipulate stats so they can say their player is better. I think the real question is honestly would you rather have jake delhomme or drew brees as your quarterback. I know i would want drew brees even though i am a big homer and fan of delhomme.

This is dumb. You just got pwned.

Dear butthurt Saints fan,

I hereby apologize for writing an article about quarterbacks in which I didn't suggest I wanted to have Drew Brees' spunk all over my face. I'll make sure all future articles hold him as the esteemed standard by which all quarterbacks are compared.

Your friend,

Brandon

PS, reading comprehension skills are a valuable tool that you may not have picked up in the incredible Louisiana educational system.

[ChadroChill]

Dear butthurt Saints fan,

I hereby apologize for writing an article about quarterbacks in which didn't suggest I wanted to have Drew Brees' spunk all over my face. I'll make sure all future articles hold him as the esteemed standard by which all quarterbacks are compared.

Your friend,

Brandon

PS, reading comprehension skills are a valuable tool that you may not have picked up in the incredible Louisiana educational system.

Wow you got really "butthurt" over the fact that I was able to come up with a response that refuted your analysis of last years statistics. I think the fact that you failed to mention my actual post and resorted to petty name calling shows that I made a fairly good point.

Thank you sir and I hope the pwning did not hurt too badly.

P.S. While the Louisiana Education system is something that it is easy to laugh at, I am actually a fairly smart person. However, I went through private school, so the state public education system is not relevant.

[Brandon]

Wow you got really "butthurt" over the fact that I was able to come up with a response that refuted your analysis of last years statistics. I think the fact that you failed to mention my actual post and resorted to petty name calling shows that I made a fairly good point.

Thank you sir and I hope the pwning did not hurt too badly.

P.S. While the Louisiana Education system is something that it is easy to laugh at, I am actually a fairly smart person. However, I went through private school, so the state public education system is not relevant.

So what exactly did you refute? So why is 60 a better choice than 70 for being the dividing point between a decent performance and a bad performance? How is 115 a better dividing point between a decent to good performance and an exceptional performance? How can you justify such a large inclusion in your argument when most quarterbacks would barely be able to fall outside your bounds and produce any meaningful results?

The fact remains you didn't actually read the article, and you're merely just a troll Saints fan who is upset about what I think of your quarterback. This was the one post actually responding to you seriously, any further asshattery and I'll just let you make a bigger fool of yourself.

[ChadroChill]

So what exactly did you refute? So why is 60 a better choice than 70 for being the dividing point between a decent performance and a bad performance? How is 115 a better dividing point between a decent to good performance and an exceptional performance? How can you justify such a large inclusion in your argument when most quarterbacks would barely be able to fall outside your bounds and produce any meaningful results?

The fact remains you didn't actually read the article, and you're merely just a troll Saints fan who is upset about what I think of your quarterback. This was the one post actually responding to you seriously, any further asshattery and I'll just let you make a bigger fool of yourself.

I did read the "article," and the point of my post was just to show that this formula that you created is just a manipulation to have a favorable outcome. With my post I showed that by altering the parameters a little bit (adding and subtracting ~10 from each side of the scale) that the outcome was very different. The reasoning for picking the numbers you did was not any more scientific than how I chose mine: "70 is about the range between mediocre and bad." That is very general reasoning. You get minus 2 points for having a bad game, but only minus one point for a good game? Why don't they have bigger penalties the further down their ranking was? Here is a stat for you: Brees had 3 games where his qb rating was less than 3 points below 70. (69.8, 68.2, and 67.2)

The problem is that your scale really does not take into account the outliers. For example, the worst three games be Jake (12.3, 38.6, and 55.3) would have the same weight as Drew's worst three games (60.2, 61.0, and 66.9). Now everyone here would agree that Brees' worst three games were not as bad as Delhomme's. What about their best games? Brees's best three (157.5, 144.4, and 124.9) would have the same weight as Delhomme's (129.2, 124.8, and 122.4).

The truth is the Saints depend on passing. There offense is completely dependent on Drew Brees. Every game Brees had a qb rating of less than 70 they lost. The panthers are not dependent on the pass. Y'all won even the games that Jake's qb rating was 12 and 55. In the end, I know that as a Saints fan I would much rather have Drew Brees shouldering all that burden than Jake Delhomme.

[Jangler]

Wow! A Saints fan that knows Reggie Bush is not the second coming...:thumbsup: