...the AB challenge.

Saint_LB · 05-03-2005, 09:32 AM

Don\'t forget, the playoff win has an asterisk beside it. Blake had the team on the doorstep of the playoffs that year, and Brooks was able to guide the ship home after Blake\'s injury. I am not downplaying his role that year, but I am still waiting for him to get us into the playoff without having a headstart.

BTW, Blake was playing great that year, and then the injury. What do you think would have happened if he didn\'t get injured that year? Would anyone even know who Aaron Brooks is?

saintswhodi · 05-03-2005, 09:35 AM

Not as far as being associated with that playoff victory. He may have been the starter the following year anyway, but the public outcry would have been for Blake and not AB, which is what being the closer of an already playoff bound team earned him at the time.

yasoon · 05-03-2005, 09:41 AM

I agree. But isn\'t that just the nature of the beast with QBs in the NFL?

Look at manning. He still gets the \"can\'t win the big one\" tag and he lit the league up last year. (I will admit, he looked really uncomfortable in that snow.) But, the year before, he played a decent game in NE and his receivers got blatantly held on his last 2 plays. But, Law had the 3 picks and the Pats won. If Peyton leads them on that one drive to the superbowl, then he silences the critics. He still has that hanging over his head. I\'m not saying it\'s right or wrong.

I heard a browns fan talking the other day about their QB situation. The guy he was talking to said \"you\'ve got dilfer and he\'s got a superbowl ring\". Like that was supposed to mean anything. Half the backups in the league could have lead that defense to victory, but dilfer will always be a superbowl champion. I think most AB haters would admit that he\'s better than dilfer. But,that\'s when it goes back to the cliche \"he doesn\'t LOSE games for you.\" Meaning he hands it off really well and throws the ball away rather than throwing a pick.

It\'s a catch 22...no doubt. But, hey...pay me a few million and call me a chump. I\'ll take it like a man.

JKool · 05-03-2005, 09:51 AM

Whodi,

(1) I don\'t see why you are always trying to figure out my motivations. To be honest, I\'m pretty indifferent on AB. I understand that you feel a need to grasp why I\'m making a particular argument, but how about asking if it seems off to you - instead of telling me why I\'m doing something. I promise you, my argument against W/L analysis is well documented here at BnG AND has nothing to do with AB in particular.

(2) Do you really believe that W/L is an analysis of the QB!? I don\'t. It is a stat, just like all these other stats that people seem to have an aversion to, and it is a TEAM stat, not a player stat. Pretty well all that W/L tells you about a player is whether or not he is on a good team, a playoff team, or a SB team.

(3) A fine interpretation of Tobias\' point. I don\'t think it is correct to say that Brooks led the team to the playoff win. We all know that Brooks couldn\'t lead Sullivan to the buffet even if the future of the world depended on it. Furthermore, just as it is rare for a single player to lose a game, it is rare for a single player to win a game.

Kelley,

(1) Nicely done. You hit the nail on the head there. I agree that the QB has more responsibility for W/L, but that isn\'t enough for me to consider W/L to be a stat that belongs to the QB.

(2) 7-9%. Sounds about right to me. Very interesting too.

(3) I very much disagree that 16-19 W/L constitutes a significant sample. That is, if you think that W/L over time more or less \"washes out\" the effects of the other 52 players, chance, the other team, and so on, and makes the W/L a good measure of the QB, then I don\'t agree. While I like that argument, 16 data points just isn\'t enough for me to take the data to be \"clean\".

yasoon,

(1) It looks like you got your answer. What AB has to do for people to get off his case is NOT change his statistics - apparently (other than some fumbles) those are just fine. What he needs to do is change a bunch of behaviors (like smiling at the \"wrong\" times), play with gusto for the ENTIRE game, win the SB, and be more consistent.

Undirected,

(1) Well, it seems there hasn\'t been a good AB debate in awhile, and people are starting to feel like there should be one. Interesting.

saintswhodi · 05-03-2005, 10:05 AM

Whodi,

(1) I don\'t see why you are always trying to figure out my motivations. To be honest, I\'m pretty indifferent on AB. I understand that you feel a need to grasp why I\'m making a particular argument, but how about asking if it seems off to you - instead of telling me why I\'m doing something. I promise you, my argument against W/L analysis is well documented here at BnG AND has nothing to do with AB in particular.

You are confusing me Kool. I never mentioned you once, I didn\'t speak up until Tobias\' point. Saints LB spoke to you. Did the avatar confuse you? You got the wrong guy man. Chill.

LKelley67 · 05-03-2005, 10:05 AM

3) I very much disagree that 16-19 W/L constitutes a significant sample. That is, if you think that W/L over time more or less \"washes out\" the effects of the other 52 players, chance, the other team, and so on, and makes the W/L a good measure of the QB, then I don\'t agree. While I like that argument, 16 data points just isn\'t enough for me to take the data to be \"clean\".

i agree with ya. where didja get that out of my posts though??

JKool · 05-03-2005, 10:20 AM

Whodi,

Apologies. You guys and that freakin\' avatar! There should be a rule or something...

LB,

That point you then (and I tone them down for you, since they were intended to stir Whodi up a little re: an old dispute

). Also, point 2 in that section. Apologies for not getting the two of you mixed up... *mutter* stinkin\' A-Mac avatar *mutter*

Whodi,

Don\'t worry man. That stuff I was dealing with before has passed. I was/am chill.

Kelley,

yes in single games other players may usurp this impact, but over the course of a season the qb impacts greater than any other individual.

Perhaps, I took this out of context? Either way, the point was not intended as a criticism of your view (which, obviously, I took to be quite good); it was a general point about W/L analysis that I thought you might have something to say about.

Personal memo,

I now remember why I used to put different ideas in different posts - it helps to keep all the comments from being interpreted in the same light.

yasoon · 05-03-2005, 10:27 AM

I\'ve said that I thought the Saints were 4-0 at the end inspite of AB. (Just an argument from me against W-L always being the on QB.)

Here you go:

Dallas 18/31 1 TD 2 picks Sacked 2 times
Brooks was not good in this game. The TD was a ridiculous catch by horn that sealed the deal late.

TB 14/21 2 TD 0 picks Sacked 7 times
I was at this game. The stats look good, but he was very bad in this game. He looked confused all game and most of the completions were 5 yards down field. I would say that at least 4 of the sacks were a direct result of him running backwards and holding the ball too long. Hey, he looked good for the last 4 minutes and we won, somehow.

Atlanta 12/24 1td 2 picks Sacked 4 times
Not a good game. AB kept the Falcons in this game. Shoulda been a blowout.

Carolina 14/24 1 td 0 picks Sacked 6 times
Mediocre game. The playfake bomb to horn was the best execution of playaction I\'ve ever seen by AB. It was called at the right time and run perfectly. Very nice pass. Other than that, just another stop and go performance.

saintswhodi · 05-03-2005, 10:35 AM

yasoon, I have argued those four games too many times to count. If you look back to about January, you will see that. I likened it to a 5 day work week. If we stretched those 4 games into a 5 day work week, you would get 3 1/2 days of absolute crap, a 1/2 day of mediocrity, and one full day of pretty decent work. Or if you like, for 11 out of the 16 quarters of those 4 games AB was absolutely terrible, yet we won all 4. If that is not an argument against win/loss for a QB, I don\'t know what is. And Iw as at the Dallas game to see it all start. Ridiculous.

JKool · 05-03-2005, 11:18 AM

yas and Whodi,

Fine points. I\'m in complete agreement. W/L is NOT a QB statistic.

05-03-2005, 09:32 AM	#31
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	...the AB challenge. Don\'t forget, the playoff win has an asterisk beside it. Blake had the team on the doorstep of the playoffs that year, and Brooks was able to guide the ship home after Blake\'s injury. I am not downplaying his role that year, but I am still waiting for him to get us into the playoff without having a headstart. BTW, Blake was playing great that year, and then the injury. What do you think would have happened if he didn\'t get injured that year? Would anyone even know who Aaron Brooks is?
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894

05-03-2005, 09:35 AM	#32
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	...the AB challenge. Not as far as being associated with that playoff victory. He may have been the starter the following year anyway, but the public outcry would have been for Blake and not AB, which is what being the closer of an already playoff bound team earned him at the time.

05-03-2005, 09:41 AM	#33
yasoon 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 594	...the AB challenge. I agree. But isn\'t that just the nature of the beast with QBs in the NFL? Look at manning. He still gets the \"can\'t win the big one\" tag and he lit the league up last year. (I will admit, he looked really uncomfortable in that snow.) But, the year before, he played a decent game in NE and his receivers got blatantly held on his last 2 plays. But, Law had the 3 picks and the Pats won. If Peyton leads them on that one drive to the superbowl, then he silences the critics. He still has that hanging over his head. I\'m not saying it\'s right or wrong. I heard a browns fan talking the other day about their QB situation. The guy he was talking to said \"you\'ve got dilfer and he\'s got a superbowl ring\". Like that was supposed to mean anything. Half the backups in the league could have lead that defense to victory, but dilfer will always be a superbowl champion. I think most AB haters would admit that he\'s better than dilfer. But,that\'s when it goes back to the cliche \"he doesn\'t LOSE games for you.\" Meaning he hands it off really well and throws the ball away rather than throwing a pick. It\'s a catch 22...no doubt. But, hey...pay me a few million and call me a chump. I\'ll take it like a man.
yasoon 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 594

05-03-2005, 09:51 AM	#34
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	...the AB challenge. Whodi, (1) I don\'t see why you are always trying to figure out my motivations. To be honest, I\'m pretty indifferent on AB. I understand that you feel a need to grasp why I\'m making a particular argument, but how about asking if it seems off to you - instead of telling me why I\'m doing something. I promise you, my argument against W/L analysis is well documented here at BnG AND has nothing to do with AB in particular. (2) Do you really believe that W/L is an analysis of the QB!? I don\'t. It is a stat, just like all these other stats that people seem to have an aversion to, and it is a TEAM stat, not a player stat. Pretty well all that W/L tells you about a player is whether or not he is on a good team, a playoff team, or a SB team. (3) A fine interpretation of Tobias\' point. I don\'t think it is correct to say that Brooks led the team to the playoff win. We all know that Brooks couldn\'t lead Sullivan to the buffet even if the future of the world depended on it. Furthermore, just as it is rare for a single player to lose a game, it is rare for a single player to win a game. Kelley, (1) Nicely done. You hit the nail on the head there. I agree that the QB has more responsibility for W/L, but that isn\'t enough for me to consider W/L to be a stat that belongs to the QB. (2) 7-9%. Sounds about right to me. Very interesting too. (3) I very much disagree that 16-19 W/L constitutes a significant sample. That is, if you think that W/L over time more or less \"washes out\" the effects of the other 52 players, chance, the other team, and so on, and makes the W/L a good measure of the QB, then I don\'t agree. While I like that argument, 16 data points just isn\'t enough for me to take the data to be \"clean\". yasoon, (1) It looks like you got your answer. What AB has to do for people to get off his case is NOT change his statistics - apparently (other than some fumbles) those are just fine. What he needs to do is change a bunch of behaviors (like smiling at the \"wrong\" times), play with gusto for the ENTIRE game, win the SB, and be more consistent. Undirected, (1) Well, it seems there hasn\'t been a good AB debate in awhile, and people are starting to feel like there should be one. Interesting.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-03-2005, 10:05 AM	#35
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	...the AB challenge. Whodi, (1) I don\'t see why you are always trying to figure out my motivations. To be honest, I\'m pretty indifferent on AB. I understand that you feel a need to grasp why I\'m making a particular argument, but how about asking if it seems off to you - instead of telling me why I\'m doing something. I promise you, my argument against W/L analysis is well documented here at BnG AND has nothing to do with AB in particular. You are confusing me Kool. I never mentioned you once, I didn\'t speak up until Tobias\' point. Saints LB spoke to you. Did the avatar confuse you? You got the wrong guy man. Chill.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

05-03-2005, 10:05 AM	#36
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	...the AB challenge. 3) I very much disagree that 16-19 W/L constitutes a significant sample. That is, if you think that W/L over time more or less \"washes out\" the effects of the other 52 players, chance, the other team, and so on, and makes the W/L a good measure of the QB, then I don\'t agree. While I like that argument, 16 data points just isn\'t enough for me to take the data to be \"clean\". i agree with ya. where didja get that out of my posts though??

05-03-2005, 10:20 AM	#37
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	...the AB challenge. Whodi, Apologies. You guys and that freakin\' avatar! There should be a rule or something... LB, That point you then (and I tone them down for you, since they were intended to stir Whodi up a little re: an old dispute ). Also, point 2 in that section. Apologies for not getting the two of you mixed up... mutter stinkin\' A-Mac avatar mutter Whodi, Don\'t worry man. That stuff I was dealing with before has passed. I was/am chill. Kelley, yes in single games other players may usurp this impact, but over the course of a season the qb impacts greater than any other individual. Perhaps, I took this out of context? Either way, the point was not intended as a criticism of your view (which, obviously, I took to be quite good); it was a general point about W/L analysis that I thought you might have something to say about. Personal memo, I now remember why I used to put different ideas in different posts - it helps to keep all the comments from being interpreted in the same light.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-03-2005, 10:27 AM	#38
yasoon 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 594	...the AB challenge. I\'ve said that I thought the Saints were 4-0 at the end inspite of AB. (Just an argument from me against W-L always being the on QB.) Here you go: Dallas 18/31 1 TD 2 picks Sacked 2 times Brooks was not good in this game. The TD was a ridiculous catch by horn that sealed the deal late. TB 14/21 2 TD 0 picks Sacked 7 times I was at this game. The stats look good, but he was very bad in this game. He looked confused all game and most of the completions were 5 yards down field. I would say that at least 4 of the sacks were a direct result of him running backwards and holding the ball too long. Hey, he looked good for the last 4 minutes and we won, somehow. Atlanta 12/24 1td 2 picks Sacked 4 times Not a good game. AB kept the Falcons in this game. Shoulda been a blowout. Carolina 14/24 1 td 0 picks Sacked 6 times Mediocre game. The playfake bomb to horn was the best execution of playaction I\'ve ever seen by AB. It was called at the right time and run perfectly. Very nice pass. Other than that, just another stop and go performance.
yasoon 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 594

05-03-2005, 10:35 AM	#39
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	...the AB challenge. yasoon, I have argued those four games too many times to count. If you look back to about January, you will see that. I likened it to a 5 day work week. If we stretched those 4 games into a 5 day work week, you would get 3 1/2 days of absolute crap, a 1/2 day of mediocrity, and one full day of pretty decent work. Or if you like, for 11 out of the 16 quarters of those 4 games AB was absolutely terrible, yet we won all 4. If that is not an argument against win/loss for a QB, I don\'t know what is. And Iw as at the Dallas game to see it all start. Ridiculous.

05-03-2005, 11:18 AM	#40
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	...the AB challenge. yas and Whodi, Fine points. I\'m in complete agreement. W/L is NOT a QB statistic.