Results 37 to 47 of 47
-
10-19-2006, 09:31 PM #37
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
This teams philosophy is about moving the chains and controlling the clock.
-
10-19-2006, 10:45 PM #38
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
I can't help but wonder if you guys are arguing just for the hell of it.
Circus catches are not the same as tipped balls. With a circus catch the route and the direction of the pass are INTENTIONAL.
Boller's two tipped passes were nothing but flukes. You can try to argue the point all day long if you like, but you will never convince me that Boller meant (and therefore deserves credit for) those TDs.
In just over 3 quarters of play Boller got 16 first downs (none by penalty, btw), McNair had none. Extrapolated out, Boller probably gets 20 for the game. We had 78 first downs in the previous 5 games, about 15.5 per game. Again, Boller was on pace for 20 with no first team snaps.
Yup, that's pretty good...not great, but good. for the 20th time, I am not arguing the fact that Boller had a decent day, but if it was better than what Mac has done, then it's by a small margin.
First downs are kind of a tough stat to compare QBs with though since there are so many other factors involved, especially how well the opposing defense is playing. I only brought up the first down thing to remind you that we are not a deep threat team and that the dink and dunk is our bread and butter.
-
10-19-2006, 10:58 PM #39
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
Circus catches are not the same as tipped balls. With a circus catch the route and the direction of the pass are INTENTIONAL.
Boller's two tipped passes were nothing but flukes. You can try to argue the point all day long if you like, but you will never convince me that Boller meant (and therefore deserves credit for) those TDs.
Yup, that's pretty good...not great, but good.
-
10-19-2006, 11:22 PM #40
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
First downs are kind of a tough stat to compare QBs with though since there are so many other factors involved, especially how well the opposing defense is playing. I only brought up the first down thing to remind you that we are not a deep threat team and that the dink and dunk is our bread and butter.
Billick's offensive philosophy is built on the idea of explosives. With Boller at the helm we went for explosive plays much more, even though the score was close (hell, we were leading at one time).
-
10-19-2006, 11:39 PM #41
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
Are you seriously arguing that a tipped ball is INTENTIONAL and is not a broken play? :grbac:
Once again, Boller's first pass HIT IT'S INTENDED TARGET. IT WAS NOT BATTED AT THE LINE, IT POPPED UP OFF OF THE TARGET HE THREW IT AT. Exactly the same thing you just described as the circus catch. So yes, Boller 100% absolutely can get credit for the first TD. He made the throw. Mason couldn't make the catch. Clayton did. If Mason made a circus catch to hold onto the ball would you still be saying Boller didn't deserve it?
Even if I did agree, you are talking about a 14yrd pass. Boller's rating is still only 75.1 with a 51% completion...which is OK, but definately not what I would consider great.
16 first downs in three quarters isn't great? What other teams are you putting that up against then??
-
10-19-2006, 11:49 PM #42
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
Are you seriously arguing that a tipped ball is INTENTIONAL and is not a broken play?
Which of our receivers catches the ball is irrelevant. Once a ball is tipped, it is considered a broken play. That is why there can be no pass interefence called. Scream and yell all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it was a broken play.
I would counter that there are many other factors that contribute to that number and that it is not a good measure of the quality of the play at the QB position.
But the bottom line is that like it or not, Boller averaged the same 1st down percentage as McNair (I'm not quibbling over .5). So the arguement that McNair was better at moving the chains is incorrect. That's all we were saying.
BTW:
Scream and yell all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it was a broken play.
-
10-20-2006, 12:01 AM #43Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Posts
- 4,260
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
If McNair threw that first TD pass, Im willing to bet that alot of people on this thread would be calling it bullshit and lucky.
And that pass was well thrown but Mason was being blanketed by the DB.
I saw the play live and a replay or two and IIRC, the DB's hand got in there to disrupt the play.
2 of the TDs were fluky.
Boller looked OK. Nothing more, nothing less. He looked OK.
His INT was a terrible decision. His throw to Heap was placed perfectly where only Heap could've caught it. And there you have it in a nutshell. Real good and real bad. All I've wanted out of him is something in the middle.
PP
-
10-20-2006, 12:10 AM #44
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
Here's the problem as I see it PP. Boller doesn't have the market cornered on bad decisions in this offense. 7 interceptions by McNair, and 2 of them hit opponents right in the chest. The one against Carolina Heap was wide open in the flat and McNair didn't even LOOK there.
This is why I keep arguing about this system and how it's continuing to kill QB's.
As far as the 1st TD, I'm watching it right now. It's too fast to get a definitive picture for you, and slowing it down seems to only blur the play. But that ball from the first angle looks like it hits Mason, not Gamble. Fluky? could be. Good decision and good throw? Absolutely. Maybe that's the point and Mobtown and I are looking at two different arguements.
And for the record, I never called McNair's throws to Mason in Cleveland lucky throws because Mason made yoga-like circus catches. That's what a receiver does for you sometimes. Just like against Carolina.
-
10-20-2006, 12:23 AM #45
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
You're trying to take two seperate passes and make them the same. That doesn't work.
Again, you're trying to marginalize the fact that the pass was on target. That was a catchable ball that Mason couldn't come up with for whatever reason he couldn't. It's not the same as having the ball tipped at the LOS and landing in the arms of a receiver. Two different situations. That's the difference.
I've used that same counter about factors and stat skewing based on what happens around the QB. The problem is whenever it's Kyle Boller, that doesn't seem to matter. I once argued, as people like Ron Jawarski have, that the QB position is one that requires the most help from the entire rest of the offense to make it's stats. But only if your name doesn't start with the letters KB. Then stats mean everything. So I gave up on that and use the same philosophy on McNair.
But the bottom line is that like it or not, Boller averaged the same 1st down percentage as McNair (I'm not quibbling over .5). So the arguement that McNair was better at moving the chains is incorrect. That's all we were saying.
Scream and yell all you want, it was a touchdown. ;)
BUT
At the end of the day the points still count and so do the INTs.
That truth is undeniable, however, when I am assessing the quality of QB play, I cannot help but recognize and diffentiate between, intentional results and results that were achieved via luck, fluke, divine intervention or whatever else you want to term it.
In my mind it is similar to dropping the highest and lowest scores on a series of tests. By doing so your data is more representative of the expected average results.
-
10-20-2006, 12:33 AM #46
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
I am not trying to argue that the ball was not on target or if it was a good pass. It was, but the pass was defended and tipped in the air. A tipped pass is a tipped pass regardless of whether it happens at the LOS or anywhere else on the field. At that point, it becomes something else outside the scope of the original design, a broken play.
Bottom line for me is that so far...they both suck. We need better QB play, regardless of who is taking the snaps. However there are those here who would have you believe that KB enjoyed some kind of break out game on Sunday...or at least that his play was good enough to unseat the current starter. IMO that is not the case, and I believe that the numbers support my opinion.
THAT SAID
I have no desire to bench McNair at this point. There are others, some who I actually didn't expect to see, calling for Boller to start. I'm not in that group. McNair has to get better. I supported Boller starting before McNair arrived, but McNair is here and he has to remain the starter. And every week I will sit in my seat or on the couch and hope he turns the offense around. That's just the way it is.
Besides, I've said a couple times Boller's future isn't here. I would be suprised as anyone if he entertains the idea of resigning here when he could head to KC or Minnesota or someplace with an aging QB and get a shot at a starting job. Behind Kansas City's line, he could be successful. With our line, no QB will be successful.
In my mind it is similar to dropping the highest and lowest scores on a series of tests. By doing so your data is more representative of the expected average results.
-
10-20-2006, 12:47 AM #47
Re: Stat comparison updated, 2006 QBs only
at least that his play was good enough to unseat the current starter. IMO that is not the case, and I believe that the numbers support my opinion.
:T2:
Bookmarks