...the AB challenge.

natedogg02 · 05-02-2005, 08:58 PM

You guys are nuts saying that AB has had int prob\'s. Last year was the worst i can remember him ever doing. (you guys really beleive that throwing 30 to 60 times a game and being down by 30 at halftime does\'nt have anything to do with his int\'s last year?)
There at the beginning of the year i beleive he had the longest streak without throwing a int. (going back into the year before)
And as far as i could tell last year, he had taken care of the fumbling problem.
If ya\'ll think AB is why were a subpar team, ya\'ll must be watching another team play or something.
AB would march us down the feild with pretty 30, 15, 20 yd passes then all of a sudden blam DM stopped in back feild, drop pass, false start, sack, then punt. Happened time after time, game after game.

Euphoria · 05-02-2005, 09:06 PM

people seem to not realize that the O-L sucked this year and didn\'t give him the time nor protection which equals rushed throws... int.\'s He still had a better year than most qb\'s the saints have had.

The pitcher thing doesn\'t hold water either... if your pitcher has an ERA of lets say 1.32 and has 2-20 record 0 walks... that would leave you to believe that its the pitchers fault the team didn\'t make the playoffs??? Means other people you have around him sucked! If you get 1 run and the opposing team gets 2... does the pitcher suck... hell no.

[Edited on 3/5/2005 by Euphoria]

mutineer10 · 05-02-2005, 10:03 PM

The quarterback and center are the only players who touch the ball on virtually every offensive play. The center\'s job is simply to snap the ball to the QB (and then block like heck) ... he\'s not really expected to do anything special with the ball before or during the snap.

The QB, however, is the guy who is expected to make everything happen once the play starts. Even if it\'s a simple fullback plunge, the QB has to hand the ball off. Thus, the QB (whether it\'s fair or not) often carries the weight of overall wins and losses on his back. It\'s nothing new, and you\'d think an NFL quarterback would expect and deal with the responsibility placed upon him. There\'s a reason they\'re paid so much money.

Was AB the only reason we went 8-8 and didn\'t make the playoffs? Heck, no ... the 32nd ranked defense in the league had to have something to do with that. But, like it or not, wins and losses have always been associated with the starting QB, and they probably always will...

JKool · 05-02-2005, 10:40 PM

Good replies gentlemen.

Let me make some points and some clarifications:

(1) Sure wins and losses are associated with QBs, and they may always be, but they don\'t measure anything about the QB. We are more knowledgeable about football than the average person, and we know better than to think W/L say anything about the QB. These are 53 person teams, and any play, any player, any unit, any single event, and the other team can lead to a W/L. No way that W/L are a way of evaluating a particular player (it is almost a silly in baseball with the pitcher in my view).

2. If you don\'t like stats, there is no way that W/L is an effective way of talking about a player - that is just another stat, and it is a WORSE measure of a particular player\'s performance than most stats.

3. We\'re talking about what kind of performance AB would have to have to take the heat off him. If you take any measure that applies to the whole team, then you\'ve said nothing to answer this question.

4. I agree that stats considered as accomplishments is weak, but they remain A way to measure performance that is a bit more fine grained than W/L.

5. Obviously, though, Marino was still a great player. His individual statistics attest to that. Sure, he\'d trade all that for a ring, but he is a MUCH better player than the 3rd string player on a team that has won it all. Thus, rings aren\'t the only measure of being a good/great football player. I see the point you are making, but surely you\'ll acknowledge this argument.

6. I agree that stats aren\'t the only way to evaluate a player, but they are A way. I also agree that stats over time are more telling that single game stats, and so on. Such are the problems of not thinking of stats as merely an impoverished description of what happened.

While I agree that the things people would like to see AB do, before they\'d consider \"getting off him\", aren\'t ONLY going to be described statistically, but that isn\'t a reason to merely say W/L are all that matter.

I have a feeling my tone was a bit curmudgeonly here, so please no one take it that way, I\'m just really tired today.

Mainly, I have an aversion to this \"all that matters is W/L\" idea. Why bother even watching the game then? I mean, you can find out who won or lost in the box score, right? I do share peoples\' aversion to stats as the only measure, but that doesn\'t mean it isn\'t a measure (just as W/L are). Of course, the whole picture is required to make a competent judgement.

LKelley67 · 05-02-2005, 11:14 PM

i think we have some common views, it is much just how different people express them or emphasize aspects.

i know more baseball stats than a person should. i love that aspect of that game. there are so many on so many levels to such detail you can find solid data to guage performance on. heck, they can determine salaries via arbitration through statistical analysis. the essence of the game is the singular performance of a pitcher versus a batter. perhaps my background of depth in beisbol causes me to be more averse to football stats. i much prefer empirical analysis. let\'s talk some stats, but let\'s get beyond that too.

quarterbacks have the highest affect of team success than any other player. likewise, their stats are affected more by the other players than perhaps any others. sacks are precise and recordable. hurries and pressures are not. does a sack or hurry come from poor line play or inefficient qb reads? there have been plenty of good to great qb\'s in history that have been on lousy teams. that is probably why oldtimers loved archie. his numbers weren\'t eyepopping but he was on some absolutely gawd awful teams. you could see his superior performance in the midst of a failing cast. it is from that same observation that i have tired of brooks performance that is best described by the words erratic and underachieving to me. THAT is what i need to see a change no matter what the td to int ratio is. THAT does go beyond W/L. if i saw that at 8-8 or 4-12 i would be on the gumbo train. my eyes have seen deteriorating or stagnating performance at best. in the past 4 years the o-line play has been up and down, receivers drop more and less, the running game has provided more and less support for a passing game, and the defense has made it both easier and harder for the offense... through all that i do not see the stability, progress, or maturity in AB i would expect of a 4 yr starter with the tools he posesses.

the only stat i hold him strongly and directly accountable for are the fumbles. and nope nate, he hasn\'t taken care of that problem-
2001- 13
2002- 11
2003- 14
2004- 13
51 and counting

ps/ i forgot a gumbo stat... what was neil lomax alltime in passer rating #7?

[Edited on 3/5/2005 by LKelley67]

JKool · 05-03-2005, 03:21 AM

Kelley,

I\'m sure you and I more or less agree. Here is something I can\'t countenance though: \"quarterbacks have the highest affect of team success than any other player.\"

Do you mean every game, overall, more than any other single player? Your claim is vague.

Since the QB is only on the field about 40% of the time (40% it is the defense and 20% special teams), I don\'t see how he could have the biggest impact on any particular game. Perhaps that is true in general, but we all know that ST and Defense can have as much or more impact on the W/L of a game than the Offense.

I can see why people want to put it on the QB, but I am just not seeing the argument. This, \"he is the guy who touches the ball every play\" thing is just not enough of an argument. 50% of the time, he just has to give it to the guy behind him (the RB) - this is MUCH less difficult than holding for a kicker AND when it goes wrong, it is just as likely that it is the C or the RBs fault as it is the QBs. On passing plays, sure, it starts with the QB but it ends with the guy running the route and making the catch. Why place so much on the head of the QB - merely because he touches the ball the most!? I\'m not sold.

Saint_LB · 05-03-2005, 07:35 AM

Kool, you act as though this is something new...as if AB is the first QB that had to be held accountable for the W/L record. The QB is often called the field general, or captain, or leader of the team. All eyes are on him when your team has the ball. He is the person on the team that people want to talk about the most. This scenario doesn\'t exist just in NO, it is this way everywhere...it is the nature of the position. I don\'t understand why you are acting like we here in the B&G are holding AB to some sort of unfair standards. It would be this way no matter what team he played on in no matter what city he played in. It is just the way it is. For you to pretend that you don\'t understand kinda makes you look like you are just trying to be argumentive and especially defensive because you happen to like the person who is being criticized and you don\'t like it. It is OK to like AB and to defend him, but don\'t expect people to stop holding him accountable or to all the sudden change their minds about him. People\'s attitude towards AB is something that has built up for four years now, and the only thing that is going to change their minds about him is him starting to play solid, consistent football and at the same time keeping his mouth shut and grin-free.

I\'ll clue you in on something, Kool. AB is not the first Saints QB that has been under heavy scrutiny and recipient of heavy criticism. They all have. Starting from Cuozzo, to Kilmer, Archie, Hebert, Everett, to AB...and all those in between. If you are playing the position, you are in the hot seat...and I really have a hard time believing that in your heart you don\'t really know that this is true.

[Edited on 3/5/2005 by Saint_LB]

baronm · 05-03-2005, 08:02 AM

So....all the bashers out there. What numbers would AB have to put up for you to say \"whoa, I\'ll lay off\"?

numbers are fine-i just want consistency..maybe a higher QB rating, and him to act like he atleast cares about football and isn\'t a \"show me the money\" player.

4saintspirit · 05-03-2005, 08:07 AM

I think I agree with Baron -- I cannot necessarily hold AB accountable for wins and losses --- sometimes he is the reason they win sometimes the reason they lose and sometimes its a team win or loss. What I want is someone who plays hard every down not just when we are behind -- you know my favorite AB play -- Last year when we had to win -- and it was 4th and 12 or something and AB ran the ball -- was coming up short and made an incredible dive and got the first down. If he plays with passion like that the whole game I am confident his numbers will justify a bubblehead doll

LKelley67 · 05-03-2005, 08:45 AM

yes kool, i do think the qb has the highest percentage affect on a team more than any other player overall. and 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. i have read some studies that have quantified this but cannot seem to remember the reference as i get my brain going this morning. what i think you will find satisfaction in though is what that percentage of impact is. using the 22 starters and 2 kickers as a base, even distribution of individual player impact would be about 2% per player. in the study i referred to i am thinking the final calculation for a qb was 7-9%. so, in the overall scheme of things he is just a cog. but he is the most prominent of those cogs. most people do put too much weight on the qb as to the teams overall success imo. but 7-9% certainly seems reasonable. you would not forward that any other position has more impact overall than a qb i presume. receivers, important to a qb\'s success are divided by a 3 to 5 factor since there are several. the success of the o-line is divided by 5 individuals, etc. the qb also has the sole responsibility of changing the plays by audibles and the most direct input in sideline discussions for play directionas well.
so, i am not a it is all on the qb for wins and losses guy. terrible teams have had good quarterbacks and journeyman qb\'s have been superbowl winners. the qb does bear more weight of success and failure than any other player though. brady again... he gets props for leading but most anyone would wonder how he might be preceived if he was the 49ers qb last year.
certainly worse can be had than AB under center. i simply do not see progress or growth in his performance. regression if anything. there is the issue of pay too. winning can now be equated to who gets the most out of their dollars. AB will be getting paid more than he produces in relation to team cap (if he hasn\'t been already).

here is a site you might enjoy for some different statistical analysis:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/methods.php

i think you will find AB in the lower half of qb ratings last year, even those cretive and new ones like aikman did. here is one that had him at 19th. interesting note: led league with 33 3rd down completions that did not convert to a 1st.:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...eek17/rankings

[Edited on 3/5/2005 by LKelley67]

05-02-2005, 08:58 PM	#11
natedogg02 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 145	...the AB challenge. You guys are nuts saying that AB has had int prob\'s. Last year was the worst i can remember him ever doing. (you guys really beleive that throwing 30 to 60 times a game and being down by 30 at halftime does\'nt have anything to do with his int\'s last year?) There at the beginning of the year i beleive he had the longest streak without throwing a int. (going back into the year before) And as far as i could tell last year, he had taken care of the fumbling problem. If ya\'ll think AB is why were a subpar team, ya\'ll must be watching another team play or something. AB would march us down the feild with pretty 30, 15, 20 yd passes then all of a sudden blam DM stopped in back feild, drop pass, false start, sack, then punt. Happened time after time, game after game.
natedogg02 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 145

05-02-2005, 09:06 PM	#12
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	...the AB challenge. people seem to not realize that the O-L sucked this year and didn\'t give him the time nor protection which equals rushed throws... int.\'s He still had a better year than most qb\'s the saints have had. The pitcher thing doesn\'t hold water either... if your pitcher has an ERA of lets say 1.32 and has 2-20 record 0 walks... that would leave you to believe that its the pitchers fault the team didn\'t make the playoffs??? Means other people you have around him sucked! If you get 1 run and the opposing team gets 2... does the pitcher suck... hell no. [Edited on 3/5/2005 by Euphoria]
	E U P H O R I A

05-02-2005, 10:03 PM	#13
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	...the AB challenge. The quarterback and center are the only players who touch the ball on virtually every offensive play. The center\'s job is simply to snap the ball to the QB (and then block like heck) ... he\'s not really expected to do anything special with the ball before or during the snap. The QB, however, is the guy who is expected to make everything happen once the play starts. Even if it\'s a simple fullback plunge, the QB has to hand the ball off. Thus, the QB (whether it\'s fair or not) often carries the weight of overall wins and losses on his back. It\'s nothing new, and you\'d think an NFL quarterback would expect and deal with the responsibility placed upon him. There\'s a reason they\'re paid so much money. Was AB the only reason we went 8-8 and didn\'t make the playoffs? Heck, no ... the 32nd ranked defense in the league had to have something to do with that. But, like it or not, wins and losses have always been associated with the starting QB, and they probably always will...

05-02-2005, 10:40 PM	#14
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	...the AB challenge. Good replies gentlemen. Let me make some points and some clarifications: (1) Sure wins and losses are associated with QBs, and they may always be, but they don\'t measure anything about the QB. We are more knowledgeable about football than the average person, and we know better than to think W/L say anything about the QB. These are 53 person teams, and any play, any player, any unit, any single event, and the other team can lead to a W/L. No way that W/L are a way of evaluating a particular player (it is almost a silly in baseball with the pitcher in my view). 2. If you don\'t like stats, there is no way that W/L is an effective way of talking about a player - that is just another stat, and it is a WORSE measure of a particular player\'s performance than most stats. 3. We\'re talking about what kind of performance AB would have to have to take the heat off him. If you take any measure that applies to the whole team, then you\'ve said nothing to answer this question. 4. I agree that stats considered as accomplishments is weak, but they remain A way to measure performance that is a bit more fine grained than W/L. 5. Obviously, though, Marino was still a great player. His individual statistics attest to that. Sure, he\'d trade all that for a ring, but he is a MUCH better player than the 3rd string player on a team that has won it all. Thus, rings aren\'t the only measure of being a good/great football player. I see the point you are making, but surely you\'ll acknowledge this argument. 6. I agree that stats aren\'t the only way to evaluate a player, but they are A way. I also agree that stats over time are more telling that single game stats, and so on. Such are the problems of not thinking of stats as merely an impoverished description of what happened. While I agree that the things people would like to see AB do, before they\'d consider \"getting off him\", aren\'t ONLY going to be described statistically, but that isn\'t a reason to merely say W/L are all that matter. I have a feeling my tone was a bit curmudgeonly here, so please no one take it that way, I\'m just really tired today. Mainly, I have an aversion to this \"all that matters is W/L\" idea. Why bother even watching the game then? I mean, you can find out who won or lost in the box score, right? I do share peoples\' aversion to stats as the only measure, but that doesn\'t mean it isn\'t a measure (just as W/L are). Of course, the whole picture is required to make a competent judgement.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-02-2005, 11:14 PM	#15
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	...the AB challenge. i think we have some common views, it is much just how different people express them or emphasize aspects. i know more baseball stats than a person should. i love that aspect of that game. there are so many on so many levels to such detail you can find solid data to guage performance on. heck, they can determine salaries via arbitration through statistical analysis. the essence of the game is the singular performance of a pitcher versus a batter. perhaps my background of depth in beisbol causes me to be more averse to football stats. i much prefer empirical analysis. let\'s talk some stats, but let\'s get beyond that too. quarterbacks have the highest affect of team success than any other player. likewise, their stats are affected more by the other players than perhaps any others. sacks are precise and recordable. hurries and pressures are not. does a sack or hurry come from poor line play or inefficient qb reads? there have been plenty of good to great qb\'s in history that have been on lousy teams. that is probably why oldtimers loved archie. his numbers weren\'t eyepopping but he was on some absolutely gawd awful teams. you could see his superior performance in the midst of a failing cast. it is from that same observation that i have tired of brooks performance that is best described by the words erratic and underachieving to me. THAT is what i need to see a change no matter what the td to int ratio is. THAT does go beyond W/L. if i saw that at 8-8 or 4-12 i would be on the gumbo train. my eyes have seen deteriorating or stagnating performance at best. in the past 4 years the o-line play has been up and down, receivers drop more and less, the running game has provided more and less support for a passing game, and the defense has made it both easier and harder for the offense... through all that i do not see the stability, progress, or maturity in AB i would expect of a 4 yr starter with the tools he posesses. the only stat i hold him strongly and directly accountable for are the fumbles. and nope nate, he hasn\'t taken care of that problem- 2001- 13 2002- 11 2003- 14 2004- 13 51 and counting ps/ i forgot a gumbo stat... what was neil lomax alltime in passer rating #7? [Edited on 3/5/2005 by LKelley67]

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, 03:21 AM	#16
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	...the AB challenge. Kelley, I\'m sure you and I more or less agree. Here is something I can\'t countenance though: \"quarterbacks have the highest affect of team success than any other player.\" Do you mean every game, overall, more than any other single player? Your claim is vague. Since the QB is only on the field about 40% of the time (40% it is the defense and 20% special teams), I don\'t see how he could have the biggest impact on any particular game. Perhaps that is true in general, but we all know that ST and Defense can have as much or more impact on the W/L of a game than the Offense. I can see why people want to put it on the QB, but I am just not seeing the argument. This, \"he is the guy who touches the ball every play\" thing is just not enough of an argument. 50% of the time, he just has to give it to the guy behind him (the RB) - this is MUCH less difficult than holding for a kicker AND when it goes wrong, it is just as likely that it is the C or the RBs fault as it is the QBs. On passing plays, sure, it starts with the QB but it ends with the guy running the route and making the catch. Why place so much on the head of the QB - merely because he touches the ball the most!? I\'m not sold.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-03-2005, 07:35 AM	#17
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	...the AB challenge. Kool, you act as though this is something new...as if AB is the first QB that had to be held accountable for the W/L record. The QB is often called the field general, or captain, or leader of the team. All eyes are on him when your team has the ball. He is the person on the team that people want to talk about the most. This scenario doesn\'t exist just in NO, it is this way everywhere...it is the nature of the position. I don\'t understand why you are acting like we here in the B&G are holding AB to some sort of unfair standards. It would be this way no matter what team he played on in no matter what city he played in. It is just the way it is. For you to pretend that you don\'t understand kinda makes you look like you are just trying to be argumentive and especially defensive because you happen to like the person who is being criticized and you don\'t like it. It is OK to like AB and to defend him, but don\'t expect people to stop holding him accountable or to all the sudden change their minds about him. People\'s attitude towards AB is something that has built up for four years now, and the only thing that is going to change their minds about him is him starting to play solid, consistent football and at the same time keeping his mouth shut and grin-free. I\'ll clue you in on something, Kool. AB is not the first Saints QB that has been under heavy scrutiny and recipient of heavy criticism. They all have. Starting from Cuozzo, to Kilmer, Archie, Hebert, Everett, to AB...and all those in between. If you are playing the position, you are in the hot seat...and I really have a hard time believing that in your heart you don\'t really know that this is true. [Edited on 3/5/2005 by Saint_LB]
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

05-03-2005, 08:02 AM	#18
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954	...the AB challenge. So....all the bashers out there. What numbers would AB have to put up for you to say \"whoa, I\'ll lay off\"? numbers are fine-i just want consistency..maybe a higher QB rating, and him to act like he atleast cares about football and isn\'t a \"show me the money\" player.
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954

05-03-2005, 08:07 AM	#19
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690	...the AB challenge. I think I agree with Baron -- I cannot necessarily hold AB accountable for wins and losses --- sometimes he is the reason they win sometimes the reason they lose and sometimes its a team win or loss. What I want is someone who plays hard every down not just when we are behind -- you know my favorite AB play -- Last year when we had to win -- and it was 4th and 12 or something and AB ran the ball -- was coming up short and made an incredible dive and got the first down. If he plays with passion like that the whole game I am confident his numbers will justify a bubblehead doll
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690	\"I have a photographic memory -- I just don\'t have any film.\"

05-03-2005, 08:45 AM	#20
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	...the AB challenge. yes kool, i do think the qb has the highest percentage affect on a team more than any other player overall. and 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. i have read some studies that have quantified this but cannot seem to remember the reference as i get my brain going this morning. what i think you will find satisfaction in though is what that percentage of impact is. using the 22 starters and 2 kickers as a base, even distribution of individual player impact would be about 2% per player. in the study i referred to i am thinking the final calculation for a qb was 7-9%. so, in the overall scheme of things he is just a cog. but he is the most prominent of those cogs. most people do put too much weight on the qb as to the teams overall success imo. but 7-9% certainly seems reasonable. you would not forward that any other position has more impact overall than a qb i presume. receivers, important to a qb\'s success are divided by a 3 to 5 factor since there are several. the success of the o-line is divided by 5 individuals, etc. the qb also has the sole responsibility of changing the plays by audibles and the most direct input in sideline discussions for play directionas well. so, i am not a it is all on the qb for wins and losses guy. terrible teams have had good quarterbacks and journeyman qb\'s have been superbowl winners. the qb does bear more weight of success and failure than any other player though. brady again... he gets props for leading but most anyone would wonder how he might be preceived if he was the 49ers qb last year. certainly worse can be had than AB under center. i simply do not see progress or growth in his performance. regression if anything. there is the issue of pay too. winning can now be equated to who gets the most out of their dollars. AB will be getting paid more than he produces in relation to team cap (if he hasn\'t been already). here is a site you might enjoy for some different statistical analysis: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/methods.php i think you will find AB in the lower half of qb ratings last year, even those cretive and new ones like aikman did. here is one that had him at 19th. interesting note: led league with 33 3rd down completions that did not convert to a 1st.: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...eek17/rankings [Edited on 3/5/2005 by LKelley67]