OT: Official 2020 Tompa Bay Gronkaneers Thread

[One-If-By-Sea]

Poster child? Dont be a child poster. Pretty much every analyst has praised Heiniche's performance. So much of what a player does can be missing when raw stats are looked at. I'm sorry but your cold, hard stats goal posts simply do not fit. They are a guide to give you a idea but they dont usually tell the whole story. Godwin dropped 4 very catchable balls. One was a TD. Brate dropped a touchdown. Brady winds up with 2 TDs instead of 4. His completion percentage drops several points. His mathematical model has skued. Then you can have a quarterback that misses his receivers by a mile. Misses wide open people in the end zone. Your model treats a drop the same as missing a score by a mile. You need both stats and eyes.

Yes your post was a "poster child', not you. Reread my post and stop taking things personally. They are not my models, they are universally accepted models used by everyone.

Yes every mathematical model can be skewed - that is why there are various ones to pick from. To say a guy with a 59% completion percentage, 1TD, 1 INT, and 7 YPA is anything but below average is an emotional judgement. You claim Heinicke was very close to his receivers when he missed them - that is a miss. Of course the press says glowing things about his performance, he lost, they are not going to sh!t on him after that.

Heinicke was on the Pats' 2017 practice squad and the coaches let him go. Stidham has been on the active roster for 2 years, and is still here. You want to start Heinicke because you know better than the Patriots' coaches? People justifiably question the Pats' draft picks, but the number of guys that the Pats cut off the roster or practice squad that rose up to star on other teams is miniscule.

Heinicke is great guy, and a great story. More inaccurate than Cam Newton, who had what some people say is the worse supporting cast in the NFL, and you want to being Heinicke in to play for the Pats. Because of your eyes.

 

[XLIX]

Yes your post was a "poster child', not you. Reread my post and stop taking things personally. They are not my models, they are universally accepted models used by everyone.

Uh, no. QB Rating models are not "universally accepted by everyone." If they were, there wouldn't be so damn many of 'em. The reason why there are so many QB models is because everyone thinks everyone else's model sucks.

 

[Ian]

This is cool:

 

[PatsWSB47]

Yes your post was a "poster child', not you. Reread my post and stop taking things personally. They are not my models, they are universally accepted models used by everyone.

Yes every mathematical model can be skewed - that is why there are various ones to pick from. To say a guy with a 59% completion percentage, 1TD, 1 INT, and 7 YPA is anything but below average is an emotional judgement. You claim Heinicke was very close to his receivers when he missed them - that is a miss. Of course the press says glowing things about his performance, he lost, they are not going to sh!t on him after that.

Heinicke was on the Pats' 2017 practice squad and the coaches let him go. Stidham has been on the active roster for 2 years, and is still here. You want to start Heinicke because you know better than the Patriots' coaches? People justifiably question the Pats' draft picks, but the number of guys that the Pats cut off the roster or practice squad that rose up to star on other teams is miniscule.

Heinicke is great guy, and a great story. More inaccurate than Cam Newton, who had what some people say is the worse supporting cast in the NFL, and you want to being Heinicke in to play for the Pats. Because of your eyes.

You are the only one I've heard dissmissing his game Saturday as below average. The only one and I'm not talking about people on patsfans.com

 

[PatsWSB47]

I was not impressed all that much except for his run at the end to get within 5. Very heady and gutsy. Every other play was pretty much there for the taking. His Online gave him great protection all night. His pick in the beginning was horrible and put them down 9 and they were playing catch up the whole game.

He had some open throws but he had several throws in tight coverage that were on time.and on point

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Uh, no. QB Rating models are not "universally accepted by everyone." If they were, there wouldn't be so damn many of 'em. The reason why there are so many QB models is because everyone thinks everyone else's model sucks.

Yes. But whichever one you like, or half like, is better than everyone's independent subjective opinion in evaluating QB play. It makes it broadly clear which QB performs better.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

You are the only one I've heard dissmissing his game Saturday as below average. The only one and I'm not talking about people on patsfans.com

People exaggerate, placate, and enhance. Math does not.

 

[PatsWSB47]

People exaggerate, placate, and enhance. Math does not.

Math can misrepresent. 5 dropped passes from one quarterback equals 5 10 yard overthrows by another one mathematically. How each quarterback playing is not equal. That happens enough and one team needs to get better receivers. The other team needs to get a better quarterback even though the math says the quarterbacks are equal

 

[XLIX]

People exaggerate, placate, and enhance. Math does not.

People exaggerate, placate, and enhance. Math does not. But models are made by people and models exaggerate, placate, and enhance quite often.

BTW, you don't seem to realize a lot of subjectivity goes into the calculations for a lot of these models. The models are not 100% stat based. ESPN's QBR, for example, has some minimum wage intern watching all the throws and assigning different values to certain plays. For example, an interception is not an interception if it wasn't the QBs fault.... things like that.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Math can misrepresent. 5 dropped passes from one quarterback equals 5 10 yard overthrows by another one mathematically. How each quarterback playing is not equal. That happens enough and one team needs to get better receivers. The other team needs to get a better quarterback even though the math says the quarterbacks are equal

You are grasping for straws trying to argue that Heinicke is a good QB because he completed 59% of his passes and lost. And you state everyone agrees with you? That is why the Pats' coaches let him go, because he is a good QB that the Patriots should bring into camp? Because PatsWSB47 saw it with his eyes? Everyone agrees with PatsWSB47, just ask him and he will tell you, except the Pats' coaching staff. The dude is a below average QB. End of story.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

People exaggerate, placate, and enhance. Math does not. But models are made by people and models exaggerate, placate, and enhance quite often.

BTW, you don't seem to realize a lot of subjectivity goes into the calculations for a lot of these models. The models are not 100% stat based. ESPN's QBR, for example, has some minimum wage intern watching all the throws and assigning different values to certain plays. For example, an interception is not an interception if it wasn't the QBs fault.... things like that.

Of course. But that has nothing to do with the discussion. Pivot to survive?

 

[PatsWSB47]

Of course. But that has nothing to do with the discussion. Pivot to survive?

Go play with your abacus and the rest of us will talk football

 

[DropKickFlutie]

The difference between using Brady as a weapon to control a game plan and win compared to throwing a ton because trailing and losing big. But Brady probably also came back and won while throwing a lot too.

.

 

[XLIX]

Of course. But that has nothing to do with the discussion. Pivot to survive?

When you sit there and talk about how infallible those models are because math, and math is 100% objective whereas people “exaggerate, placate and enhance,” then it sure as hell is relevant to the discussion to point out that many of those models involve subjectivity (i.e. subjective opinions of *people*) for their inputs.

If you can’t see this, you need real help with logic and deduction.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

When you sit there and talk about how infallible those models are because math, and math is 100% objective whereas people “exaggerate, placate and enhance,” then it sure as hell is relevant to the discussion to point out that many of those models involve subjectivity (i.e. subjective opinions of *people*) for their inputs.

If you can’t see this, you need real help with logic and deduction.

For the second time that has nothing to do with the discussion that you jumped in on. I have no interest in debating the subject you are trying to create with me (that is why I do not answer you - hint hint), so let's agree that I need real help and move on.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Go play with your abacus and the rest of us will talk football

Yes you should talk with real football guys. Have at it.

 

[RicoG]

Uh, no. QB Rating models are not "universally accepted by everyone." If they were, there wouldn't be so damn many of 'em. The reason why there are so many QB models is because everyone thinks everyone else's model sucks.

I'm not really up to date to how the models work but I know the most popular one, the QBR on NFL.com don't properly account for the sacks. A QB like Brady will throw the ball away more than most which lowers his QBR instead of taking a sack. Many times I've seen QBs have a good QBR but they lose the game because they have multiple sacks and or fumbles.

 

[RicoG]

The purpose of the QB ratings are to take the total performance into account and give an objective number to eliminate subjective judgements on the QBs performance. You can argue how the number is derived, but all of the QB rating systems say Heinicke was below average. It has nothing to do with me. Sorry to disappoint you but I am reporting objective mathematical models that eliminate emotional reactions because emotional reacts are commonly biased.

Your reply is the poster child of why the mathematically models exist.

The models are not always perfect and can be very deceiving. For example, Brees and Mannings QBR and stats are deceiving because they have mostly played in domes at least half the season. When a QB has to play in a snow storm with high wind gusts, that QB is going to have a crap stat line and league bottom QBR for that game. The eye test is important and context is too(which is not taken into account in the QBR model).

We just have to look at Brady in 2019, who looked clearly in the decline with no weapons, to Brady in 2020 with weapons looks close to peak Brady.

Ultimately the best rating for a QB is win/loss, 4th quarter comebacks, playoff appearances, and SB.

Brady has made the playoffs 18 of 19 years as the starting QB and SB 9 possibly 10 in those appearances.

 

[XLIX]

For the second time that has nothing to do with the discussion that you jumped in on. I have no interest in debating the subject you are trying to create with me (that is why I do not answer you - hint hint), so let's agree that I need real help and move on.

For someone who doesn't answer me, you've spent a lot of time in this thread.... well, answering me.... hint hint....