New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com (http://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (http://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   statistics (http://blackandgold.com/saints/9423-statistics.html)

Euphoria 07-06-2005 01:07 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 
Well see this is how this gets blown out of proportion... its about being the Saints all-time best QB, not about being best QB out of LA... in which you have to give it to TERRY BRADSHAW.

WhoDat 07-06-2005 01:16 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 
Here's a fun game I like to play here at BnG.net. Everyone ready? It's called....

Name That QB!!!!


In 2005, which "great" starting NFL QB finished BEHIND these others in Completion Percentage??

Josh McCown
Vinny Testaverde
Jeff Garcia
Carson Palmer
Tim Rattay
David Carr
Kurt Warner
Billy Volek
Byron Leftwich
Jake Delhomme
Jake Plummer

Here's a hint - he also finished behind these other QBs in QB Rating:
Billy Volek
Jake Delhomme
Kurt Warner
Byron Leftwich
Marc Bulger
Jake Plummer
Brian Griese
Davide Carr


If you said Aaron Brooks, you're a winner!!! Ding, ding, ding, ding!


So AB completed fewer of his passes in his 4th full season as a starter than such NFL greats as Josh McCown (is he still a starter?), Kurt Warner (lost starting job and was cut), Vinny Testaverde (see Kurt Warner), Tim Rattay (wow), Billy Volek (a backup), Jeff Garcia (seriously?), etc.

Yeah, he's a Pro Bowler alright. Man, is he good. LOL

Tobias-Reiper 07-06-2005 02:04 PM

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphoria
Well see this is how this gets blown out of proportion... its about being the Saints all-time best QB, not about being best QB out of LA... in which you have to give it to TERRY BRADSHAW.

. so you do agree that Keith Mitchell was a better Saints LB than Pat Swilling, Vaughn Johnson, Sam Mills, and Rickey Jackson...

4saintspirit 07-06-2005 02:12 PM

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphoria
Well see this is how this gets blown out of proportion... its about being the Saints all-time best QB, not about being best QB out of LA... in which you have to give it to TERRY BRADSHAW.

Why is AB the best Saints QB ever -- because of how many yards he threw == I guess passing stats have not improved in recent years because of how we protect the QB from getting hit -- how the receivers have gotten a huge advantage because of the 5 yard rule -- the fact that more games are played in a year than the old days -- For example -- it used to be tough to get a thousand yards rushing -- now that there is a 16 game season you have to be a pretty bad running back to not get 1000. Does yardage mean that a guy in a 12 game season who rushes for 1300 yards isn't as good as a guy who rushes for 1500 in a 16 game season -- so Peyton is better than Unitas, Favre definitely better than Starr, culpepper better than Tarkenton etc -- they may be but I do not think just because one has thrown for more yards and TDs means anything to that discussion

Euphoria 07-06-2005 02:21 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 
Oh ok so you're one of those aren't you? Did you read anything I have written??? Do you pay attention to other threads???

Here is an update for you... to get you caught up. Brooks debate, hello. Secondly, comparison amoungst ones peers, how they rank say in the top 10 in categories... you compare others to there peers and tank them accordingly you see that Brooks is tied with Manning as the Saints all time QB that is how I see it. Others support the theory its about the qb getting wins... in which case its Brooks with a playoff win just to save you time on the math... that is Brooks has more play off wins than any other Saint QB put together, lol. I will give you the best QB with the best win percentage is none other than Bobby Hebert.

I am also in favor of 'its a team sport', in which case get down on the team as a whole and stop bashing Brooks.

JKool 07-06-2005 02:22 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 
I've got to disagree strongly with the W/L assessment. It is a stat just like all of the others. Wins and Losses are a team stat - no single player gets credit or blame for them.

Here is a way of thinking about it.
Generally, team that was 3-13 that goes to 8-8 is a better team than a team that went from 14-2 to 8-8. Why is that? One team has gained in talent, coaching, etc., the other has lost. The teams are not in equally good position, other things equal, going into the offseason - one team has more work to do than the other to rebuild. Why is that? One team is better than the other even though their records are the same.

I agree with T-R here. Keith Mitchell is not a better LB than any member of the Dome Patrol, despite a playoff win.

However, if that win doesn't matter anymore than any other, that hold for any win. Thus, the number of games a player has played in that his team has won is not a stat that any scout, coach, or other professional football person uses to evaluate a player - because it doesn't really say anything about him as a player. That is just as true for the QB.

Euphoria 07-06-2005 02:28 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 
I also feel to a degree that the football gods have to be on your side that year.

4saintspirit 07-06-2005 02:35 PM

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JKool
I've got to disagree strongly with the W/L assessment. It is a stat just like all of the others. Wins and Losses are a team stat - no single player gets credit or blame for them.

Actually that was what I was trying to say in one of these posts -- I do not like stats because you can spin them in any direction you really want -- And the only stat I really care about is wins/losses -- not from an individual perspective but from a team perspective. Basically I believe that the true player cares more about getting the win than improving his stats -- I don't care if AB has 10 TDs in a game or 10 INTs -- as long as we won --

As for Euphoria's comment about AB and Archie -- only thing I said is you cannot compare the 2 -- different eras-- different teams etc -- I have my own opinion -- but fact of the matter is I do not believe it is an argument (for now at least) that can be proven one way or the other by stats -- and once again -- even though necessary and they can and do serve a purposed I do not happen to like the use of individual stats

Tobias-Reiper 07-06-2005 03:03 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphoria
Oh ok so you're one of those aren't you?

..."one of those"??? "Those" what???


Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphoria
Did you read anything I have written???

Unfortunately... shame on me..

JKool 07-06-2005 11:19 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 
4ss, my bad. I must have got confused by all the other stuff that people said.

While I agree that stats can be spun, I don't see that alone makes them not useful as a tool. Stats are an impoverished description of what happened, but they are the kind of thing that can be used to evaluate players, teams, and so on, if you don't have better sources of information (and usually we don't).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2018 - BlackandGold.com