How Good Does Mac Have To Be To Get His Option Picked Up?

[Wozzy]

Wow, great argument. But since you love context free "points scored/allowed" metrics, all of the past 6 Super Bowl winners have ranked higher in points per game than they did in points against. The argument remains the same. We're in an offensive era and QBs drive offense. The most certain way to contend is through great QB play. Great QB play is way more likely to carry a below average defense than a great defense is to carry a below average QB. All of those adages are true in 2023.

One of those QB’s was Nick Foles… amazing. If he hadn’t gotten hurt the Super Bowl winner would have been MVP front runner Carson Wentz… stunning.

Three of the last six Super Bowls were defensive battles or the defense outright won the game. Probably a poor example…

 

[Wozzy]

Nonsense. What preexisting bias are you alleging? The ongoing work they do is to try to improve the fit of their model to actual win/loss results, i.e. for it to backcast results better so it can be more predictive of future wins/losses. That's an immensely difficult problem. An advantage of quantification over qualitative hand waving is that you can actually test your ideas.

Entering a season team x is considered not good, despite winning games the analytics tell us this team’s defense isn’t good right up to the point of them making the playoffs… then the analytics change. Team x has magically improved. This is a lot like Crawdaddy’s QB rankings… they tell us who is good long after they’ve been good and vice versa. Perception plays a lot into analytics… that’s why they constantly change their methodology, because it’s flawed from the start.

You don’t need some made up nonsense stat to explain football; points, turnovers, efficiency stats (3rd down, red zone) tell us everything we need to know.

 

[Wozzy]

You said wins are not a QB stat. Then you brought in career comeback wins as an argument for Brees’ greatness. Why would comeback wins be a qb stat?
The funniest thing is I never argued Brees wasn’t great.
I said, again,
The value of a qb is in making plays that decide games, not building up a bunch of stats.
Somehow you took that to mean you had to defend drew Brees.
By the way Brees is 4th in all time wins, so I’m not sure why you chose him to defend your argument that accumulating stats is more important for a qb than winning.
Again, my viewpoint is that the reason you play the game is to win, so anything that isn’t contributing to winning doesnt gave much value to me.
You seem to think the purpose of the game is to show off pretty stats.

Stats tell a story. I chose Brees because he led the NFL in passing three years straight and his team won 7 games each year.

You said the difference between him and Brady was “clutch,” I provided a graphic that showed Tom had exceptional defenses and surrounding teams in relation to his peers… you think QB magic matters more than a great surrounding cast. It’s childlike nonsesne.

I’m done arguing with you, I’m not trying to break the new rules about spamming and when called on your BS assertions you simply deny you said things that are clearly stated in posts a page prior. It’s an inability to defend your takes and frankly dishonest.

 

[Kasmir]

Predictor of what?

Present point differential is not a good predictor of future wins.

 

[Kasmir]

Entering a season team x is considered not good, despite winning games the analytics tell us this team’s defense isn’t good right up to the point of them making the playoffs… then the analytics change. Team x has magically improved. This is a lot like Crawdaddy’s QB rankings… they tell us who is good long after they’ve been good and vice versa. Perception plays a lot into analytics… that’s why they constantly change their methodology, because it’s flawed from the start.

You don’t need some made up nonsense stat to explain football; points, turnovers, efficiency stats (3rd down, red zone) tell us everything we need to know.

What you are a mind reader now? That's pure negative speculation on your part. Sounds like you have modest analytical needs. Nonsense indeed.

 

[Wozzy]

Present point differential is not a good predictor of future wins.

Point differential is how they determine wins and losses.

The majority of teams who make the playoffs are teams who lead the regular season in point differential.

It predicts more than DVOA or analytics ever could.

 

[Wozzy]

What you are a mind reader now? That's pure negative speculation on your part. Sounds like you have modest analytical needs. Nonsense indeed.

“Modest analytic needs?”

I have zero analytic needs.

Neither do BB, Andy Reid or professional coaches. The notion that real professional coaches need DVOA to scout their own team is ridiculous fan fiction.

Coaches can see the deficiencies in their team, they can spot basic issues using film and basic stats.

Football isn’t complicated, you want to make it complicated.

I wouldn’t surprise me to find out Vegas funds much of this analytic nonsense to fool the rubes.

 

[rochrist]

One of those QB’s was Nick Foles… amazing. If he hadn’t gotten hurt the Super Bowl winner would have been MVP front runner Carson Wentz… stunning.

Three of the last six Super Bowls were defensive battles or the defense outright won the game. Probably a poor example…

Carson Wentz would not have won that game.

 

[Wozzy]

Carson Wentz would not have won that game.

Carson Wentz was the front runner in Vegas to win the MVP award in 2017 before he got hurt, he was better than Foles.

 

[rochrist]

Carson Wentz was the front runner in Vegas to win the MVP award in 2017 before he got hurt, he was better than Foles.

Sure, but he wasn't Foles. Foles had a way of capturing lightning in a bottle. Wentz would not have been able to go toe-to-toe with Brady the way Foles did in that game. Just my opinion.

 

[Pats1971]

One of those QB’s was Nick Foles… amazing. If he hadn’t gotten hurt the Super Bowl winner would have been MVP front runner Carson Wentz… stunning.

Three of the last six Super Bowls were defensive battles or the defense outright won the game. Probably a poor example…

You assumed quite a bit right there....What do you consider a defensive battle? Also what is defense won the game consist of?

 

[Pats1971]

Carson Wentz was the front runner in Vegas to win the MVP award in 2017 before he got hurt, he was better than Foles.

As I said, you are assuming a lot....For all we know Wentz throws 4 picks in the first playoff game and loses and is out.

 

[Pats1971]

Sure, but he wasn't Foles. Foles had a way of capturing lightning in a bottle. Wentz would not have been able to go toe-to-toe with Brady the way Foles did in that game. Just my opinion.

Well there is that...opinion, because that is all he is giving...an opinion because Foles was the Qb. So you are correct. People tend to think that outcomes happen no matter what regardless if something changes.

 

[Chevy]

Entering a season team x is considered not good, despite winning games the analytics tell us this team’s defense isn’t good right up to the point of them making the playoffs… then the analytics change. Team x has magically improved. This is a lot like Crawdaddy’s QB rankings… they tell us who is good long after they’ve been good and vice versa. Perception plays a lot into analytics… that’s why they constantly change their methodology, because it’s flawed from the start.

You don’t need some made up nonsense stat to explain football; points, turnovers, efficiency stats (3rd down, red zone) tell us everything we need to know.

Look at our own 2001 Patriots. Their defense was not highly touted at all. They gave up yards (Ranked 24th).

Between the 20's, that is. They had (IIRC) the #2 or #3 RZ defense, and the #6 scoring defense (2001 NFL Opposition & Defensive Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com).

Going off of my failing long term memory, but it was well into October when it was brought up here, and not until December when the announcers and pundits started mentioning it. The Pats were flawed, with a lucky 6th round pick at the helm, and beloved vet on the sideline, and a cranky failed coach at the helm - according to the guru's of print and airwaves.

(Print - referring to the archaic form of information distribution where ink would be applied to various types of paper is a mass produced fashion to allow the general public to educate themselves on a variety of topics.

Airwaves - the means for audio and video to be broadcast to the general public, where information was massaged and presented to both drive a narrative and fit within the confines or "time slots" allocated between smiling people pitching the latest must-buy item, instilling fear that your insurance might not be all you need, and motor events that are only in town for one weekend on Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! Possible side effects may include dyslexia, halitosis, and Jetephobia.)

 

[Wozzy]

As I said, you are assuming a lot....For all we know Wentz throws 4 picks in the first playoff game and loses and is out.

This is the only place in the NFL where the backup QB is better than the starter. The Eagles were best team in the league all season. They had the biggest most dominant offensive line and defensive line… that’s why they were so good. Their QB’s were average/good but supported by the best team in the league.

 

[Ring 6]

Present point differential is not a good predictor of future wins.

That depends upon how you look at it.
It’s much better than anything else.

 

[Ring 6]

Stats tell a story. I chose Brees because he led the NFL in passing three years straight and his team won 7 games each year.

You said the difference between him and Brady was “clutch,” I provided a graphic that showed Tom had exceptional defenses and surrounding teams in relation to his peers… you think QB magic matters more than a great surrounding cast. It’s childlike nonsesne.

I’m done arguing with you, I’m not trying to break the new rules about spamming and when called on your BS assertions you simply deny you said things that are clearly stated in posts a page prior. It’s an inability to defend your takes and frankly dishonest.

Stats tell a story, but trying to use them to represent something else is wrong. I.e. the qb who threw for the mist yards is not therefore the qb who contributed the most to his team winning or losing.

I never used “clutch” you did. I never stated a difference between Brady and Brees I said the value of a qb is what he does when the game is oin the line
not his cumulative stats. (I did compare Brady and Brees in one area, when you said Brees can’t be expected to win because of points allowed I showed you Brady win against more points allowed )

What is Qb magic? I will say it one more time. Cumulative stats have little value compared to how a player and team plays when the game is in the line. It’s remarkable that you dispute that. And it goes for every player, except in todays nfl the qb has by far the largest impact.

You should stop because making up things I said and then arguing how what I didn’t say is wrong has to be the biggest waste of time imaginable.
Going forward you should read what people say and respond to that, not make up what you want to argue against and tell people that’s what they said or think. You will not find one single inconsistency, change in my opinion or back track in any of our exchanges in this thread. .