Some really think so...others posted on here, and this article breaks down the theory...
http://mark-fontes.suite101.com/the-...dilfer-a401735
Printable View
Some really think so...others posted on here, and this article breaks down the theory...
http://mark-fontes.suite101.com/the-...dilfer-a401735
Some of the article's comments on Dilfer are misleading.
(1) The article states he "lost only one game" which is true, but that game was the first game he played after he was made starter. Prior to that, the Ravens were 5-3, had lost several games in a row and hadn't scored a touchdown in several games. It's very common for a backup quarterback's first game to be a loss when he's promoted to starter, since the offense is not as used to him. After that first game, Dilfer won 11 straight with the Ravens in a combined score of 288-90 with only one victory margin in single digits.
(2) I also don't like phrases the article uses like "his numbers weren't eye-popping" commenting on his TDs and completions. His wins and win margins were "eye-popping" after all. One of the big problems with how weaker scouting organizations judge players is that they look at statistics in isolation without considering the full context. TDs is a measure of a QB's ability, but a very weak measure, as it can depend on all kinds of other factors, like play calling, receivers, and so on. It's of course more difficult to judge things like play-calling ability, motivation, strategy, play selecting, reading, and effect on wins - but just because it's more difficult, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. If I were to look at Dilfer statistically, I would look at things like time-of-possession (critical in a defense-oriented team) and look at the trend as the season went on and the players got more used to his play: one turnover in four playoff games is a key statistic. I certainly don't agree that Grbac represented an "improved offense" as your article claims.
(3) The video you posted in the article shows Dilfer lifting the Lombardi trophy. That's an interesting shot - the bandage on Dilfer's hand is due to his breaking his hand in the Super Bowl but playing through it. Dilfer said he didn't mind breaking his hand, that anything worthwhile is worth some pain. I'm not sure how you measure the effect of Dilfer's attitude towards hard work and suffering on the team chemistry and wins, but your article doesn't even try. You just assume, like most people who count up completions and TDs, that Grbac is better than Dilfer, no matter how many wins in a row Dilfer gets.
By the way, most complimentary discussion of Dilfer on this board gets deleted by the admins - there is a strong and very vocal anti-Dilfer contingent here.
Anyone know what Trent Dilfer and the Tom Hanks film "Cast Away" have in common?
They were both last relevant in February 2001!
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369106,-76.761232
Anybody think that Mark Fontucky and CurseOfDilfer are the same guy?
I've followed the Ravens since the day they became the Ravens and I've yet to hear anybody but these two idiots mention the Dilfer curse.
Don't bother reading the link. The writer is a complete dumbass who lacks even the basic journalistic skills of research. He emphatically states that Dilfer "was cut" when every Raven's fan can tell you that Dilfer was a free agent. He signed a one year contract with the Ravens worth 1 million dollars.
Just ignore it.
I thought Bob Kraft said they won because his wife sprinkled down angel dust from heaven just before the kick. Or was it just after the Q fumble. I forget.
I personally blame Peter Angelos.
This thread is just DUMB :insane:
Check your facts. I never mentioned or endorsed any "curse of Dilfer" theory, my username notwithstanding. And if you actually read my post, I disagree with Fontucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by darb72
Cast Away, not too relevant. But the relevance (of Dilfer) has to do with the process of player evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot
Do you measure players by taking isolated out-of-context statistics - TDs, completions, Combine scores and comparing those?
Or do you measure players by looking at their results, at the situations they were in, at how they handle big games and pressure, at how they motivate teammates and themselves?
That choice of philosophy determines every draft pick, every roster move, every coaching hire.
A classic example was just last year when the Vikings chose to draft Christian Ponder over Andy Dalton. Dilfer correctly pointed out that although Ponder looked good in a Combine, he lacked the intangibles and would fail in the NFL; he argued the Vikings should have picked Dalton. Dilfer said Ponder was another Grbac, in fact, http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...is-elvis-grbac . The Vikings were focused on Combine scores and things like that, and wasted a draft pick. So these lessons of history, of the choices between people like Dilfer and people like Grbac, are repeated constantly, every year, all the time.
Filed in its proper place