Sam & the great QB’s of the past

[nico002]

3 minutes ago, jgb said:

It's really hard to understand what point you are trying to make.

Ditto 

[nico002]

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Yep, that was me.  Isolating only his final 8 games of last season, he was about QB15 compared to other season-long performances by the rest of the league's QB's.

Completely recovered from mono and feasting on weak defenses, Darnold was QB15.

Yeah, let's pay that guy $25M+ in 2022 and then $30M+ every season after that.

Completely recovered from mono? Are you a doctor? His o line was still worst in the NFL and so were his weapons. The ravens and stealers were the two best defenses in the NFL last year. You live in your own little fantasy world.

[jgb]

2 minutes ago, nico002 said:

Ditto 

Everyone else on here understands my position and most hate me for it lol.

[BROOKLYN JET]

Sam better light it up today, no more excuses!

[jgb]

1 minute ago, nico002 said:

Completely recovered from mono? Are you a doctor? His o line was still worst in the NFL and so were his weapons. The ravens and stealers were the two best defenses in the NFL last year. You live in your own little fantasy world.

This argument is--at best--that he's not a sucky as his numbers indicate. It cannot be used to assume good performance in a different circumstance.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, nico002 said:

deshaun Watson this year 

The NE being an outlier isnt an opinion, it’s math.

Darnold has only has 2 multi pick games since week 9 of 2018, less than Russell Wilson or tom Brady. 

I don’t care how much you over analyze two games this year. No one is claiming that they were good performances. But you are making them out to be more than whet they are. 

Wrong yet again. But maybe we should throw out your wrong posts, in keeping with the theme here lol. 

The rationale postulated here is that if a QB has a bad game then maybe it counts. But if it's SO bad he posted a low single digit passer rating, in one of the only hard matchups he faced, then we shouldn't just swap in numbers of other merely bad (but closer to the mean) games; we have to fully pretend the game never happened at all. While doing this, we must still fully count back to back games against defenses that gave up 30-35 passing TDs that year (finishing ranked 30 and 32, respectively). 

Also it's convenient to help Darnold's numbers that he sat out the other Pats game while their D was firing on all cylinders. How do we amortize that one in? Or is the name of the game to remove only the games against the best defenses and then recalculate against tomato cans?

See, if you want to remove a game and amortize the rest, the way an intellectually honest person would do it is you remove his worst game AND his best game. Or in this case, remove his two best games unless there's any credible reason to believe the NE game he missed - back when they were being compared to the 2000 Ravens D - wouldn't have resulted in yet another disaster.

[nico002]

1 minute ago, jgb said:

This argument is--at best--that he's not a sucky as his numbers indicate. It cannot be used to assume good performance in a different circumstance.

The argument is that with leuage worst circumstances he is good enough to elevate the worst team in the NfL to winning status and top 15 offensive performance. There is no other argument. 

[jgb]

Just now, nico002 said:

The argument is that with leuage worst circumstances he is good enough to elevate the worst team in the NfL to winning status and top 15 offensive performance. There is no other argument. 

Thank you. Now that I understand, I can confidently share that I disagree on all facets.

[nico002]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Wrong yet again. But maybe we should throw out your wrong posts, in keeping with the theme here lol. 

The rationale postulated here is that if a QB has a bad game then maybe it counts. But if it's SO bad he posted a low single digit passer rating, in one of the only hard matchups he faced, then we shouldn't just swap in numbers of other merely bad (but closer to the mean) games; we have to fully pretend the game never happened at all. While doing this, we must still fully count back to back games against defenses that gave up 30-35 passing TDs that year (finishing ranked 30 and 32, respectively). 

Also it's convenient to help Darnold's numbers that he sat out the other Pats game while their D was firing on all cylinders. How do we amortize that one in? Or is the name of the game to remove only the games against the best defenses and then recalculate against tomato cans?

See, if you want to remove a game and amortize the rest, the way an intellectually honest person would do it is you remove his worst game AND his best game. Or in this case, remove his two best games unless there's any credible reason to believe the NE game he missed - back when they were being compared to the 2000 Ravens D - wouldn't have resulted in yet another disaster.

You can say I’m wrong as many times as you want it doesn’t change the mathematical fact that a 3.8 rating is an outlier that will never come close to being repeated. 

[nico002]

Just now, jgb said:

Thank you. Now that I understand, I can confidently share that I disagree on all facets.

Great argument, has more substance than anything I’ve seen you post in the last month. 

[jgb]

1 minute ago, nico002 said:

Great argument, has more substance than anything I’ve seen you post in the last month. 

All you have to do is scroll up. I'm not going to cut and paste my entire argument every time you make a cogent point.

[Jetsfan80]

5 minutes ago, jgb said:

Everyone else on here understands my position and most hate me for it lol.

jgb:  "Darnold is not a good QB."

Darnold bros:  [complex pretzel logic to try to demonstrate this is false]

jgb:  "This makes no sense."

Darnold bros:  NEITHER DO YOU PAL

[Sperm Edwards]

3 minutes ago, nico002 said:

You can say I’m wrong as many times as you want it doesn’t change the mathematical fact that a 3.8 rating is an outlier that will never come close to being repeated. 

You are wrong -- it's only an outlier because he conveniently sat out the other NE game. You don't know how horrible he would have been because he sat out the game and let Luke Falk take his lumps instead. 

And again, the way an honest person deals with outliers is you remove the best and worst, not just the worst, before recalculating. 

But you pretend you know about the maths and stuff.

Also still waiting for the list of QBs that all boost their passer rating numbers by 50% all in a single garbage time possession every game.

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You are wrong -- it's only an outlier because he conveniently sat out the other NE game. You don't know how horrible he would have been because he sat out the game and let Luke Falk take his lumps instead. 

And again, the way an honest person deals with outliers is you remove the best and worst, not just the worst, before recalculating. 

But you pretend you know about the maths and stuff.

 

Me:  Takes Darnold's best games in 2019 to make him look good, demonstrates Darnold was merely average in those games, overall.

Nico:  YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MATHS 

[Irish Jet]

The QB's of the past were playing a different sport.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Me:  Takes Darnold's best games in 2019 to make him look good, demonstrates Darnold was merely average in those games, overall.

Nico:  YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MATHS 

What's really sad is how this is so much more entertaining than watching the Jets

[nico002]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You are wrong -- it's only an outlier because he conveniently sat out the other NE game. You don't know how horrible he would have been because he sat out the game and let Luke Falk take his lumps instead. 

And again, the way an honest person deals with outliers is you remove the best and worst, not just the worst, before recalculating. 

But you pretend you know about the maths and stuff.

Also still waiting for the list of QBs that all boost their passer rating numbers by 50% all in a single garbage time possession every game.

 

So now you’ve devolved into hypotheticals about what would have happened had he played a game in which he didn’t play, that’s logical.

I gave you an example, Deshaun Watson, week 1. I am not sure what you mean by “every game” since we’ve only played 2 weeks of the season. Using this flawed logic no other games need to be played this year. 

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Irish Jet said:

The QB's of the past were playing a different sport.

Our QBs always look like they're playing a different sport, too. So they have something in common. 

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, nico002 said:

 

So now you’ve devolved into hypotheticals about what would have happened had he played a game in which he didn’t play, that’s logical.

I gave you an example, Deshaun Watson, week 1. I am not sure what you mean by “every game” since we’ve only played 2 weeks of the season. Using this flawed logic no other games need to be played this year. 

No, you presume the game would have been an average one (or even a Darnold-average one) by throwing it out. Like everyone else who ignores the 3 games he missed as though it's likely the final outcomes would have been different. 

Maybe if Darnold misses the last 12 games this year we can presume they would have all been good ones, too. 

[nico002]

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Me:  Takes Darnold's best games in 2019 to make him look good, demonstrates Darnold was merely average in those games, overall.

Nico:  YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MATHS 

Me: takes 70+% of career averages 

you: NO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THESE LAST TWO WEEKS MEAN EVERYTHING 

[nico002]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

No, you presume the game would have been an average one (or even a Darnold-average one) by throwing it out. Like everyone else who ignores the 3 games he missed as though it's likely the final outcomes would have been different. 

Maybe if Darnold misses the last 12 games this year we can presume they would have all been good ones, too. 

Yes the fact that he’s played 27 other games and never remotely approached a 3.8 rating gives me confidence that it wouldn’t happens again. A little more reliable than some twisted hypothetical you’ve invented in your little head. 

[STLuLu]

18 hours ago, PCP63 said:

In the days where QBs are now coming in and making an instant impact, the days of growing pains are over. Evolve immediately, or die out. Sam has to produce now or we need to move on. Don't care who the coach is, who is the OC, what weapons he has. When he has a clean pocket, he's trash. When his receivers do get open, he's trash. When he's running for his life, and steps out of bounds instead of throwing it away? Trash.

I wouldn't go as far as to call dude trash but I'm not gonna defend him either. Coaching does matter a lot, just ask Josh Allen. My biggest problem with Darnold is that he's waiting for some miracle coach to come alone and take him by the hand and teach him how to be a NFL QB. Instead, he needs to be a student of the game and teach himself how to be a NFL QB by studying other good QBs in the league and maybe even hiring his own QB coach independent from the Jets. No savior is coming to save him so he needs to be his own savior...if he really cares enough to do the work. 

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, nico002 said:

Yes the fact that he’s played 27 other games and never remotely approached a 3.8 rating gives me confidence that it wouldn’t happens again. A little more reliable than some twisted hypothetical you’ve invented in your little head. 

He never approached them because hardly any QBs since the merger - no matter how bad they were - have been in that 3.8 rating range either. 

 

Trailing by at least 3 scores, with under 4 minutes left (aka garbage time):

14/15, 134 yards (8.9 Y/A), 1 TD, 0 INTs, 126.1 rating

The rest of the games other than garbage time:

29/53, 261 yards (4.9 Y/A), 1 TD, 1 INT, 66.7 rating

 

Still waiting -- show me another passer who's boosted his year passer rating by 50% (or anywhere near it) all in garbage time across each game so far. 

[Sperm Edwards]

17 minutes ago, nico002 said:

Yes the fact that he’s played 27 other games and never remotely approached a 3.8 rating gives me confidence that it wouldn’t happens again. A little more reliable than some twisted hypothetical you’ve invented in your little head. 

How many of those 27 came against a defense that was playing at an all-time great level that drew favorable comparisons to the 2000 Ravens? None. 

So that one - and the one he did play - we can ignore. But we have to count the one against the Redskins. 

[nico002]

5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

He never approached them because hardly any QBs since the merger - no matter how bad they were - have been in that 3.8 rating range either. 

 

Trailing by at least 3 scores, with under 4 minutes left (aka garbage time):

14/15, 134 yards (8.9 Y/A), 1 TD, 0 INTs, 126.1 rating

The rest of the games other than garbage time:

29/53, 261 yards (4.9 Y/A), 1 TD, 1 INT, 66.7 rating

 

Still waiting -- show me another passer who's boosted his year passer rating by 50% (or anywhere near it) all in garbage time across each game so far. 

The heck are you smoking? No one said that there was another QB that had garbage time stats through 2 games this season. That’s irrelevant... I said that every QB at some point benefits form garbage time stats, the fact that Darnold has through the first 2 games is random hapenstance. I gave you an example of Watson who did it week 1, that’s 50% of his game so far! Keep spewing spewing nonsense. 

[nico002]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

How many of those 27 came against a defense that was playing at an all-time great level that drew favorable comparisons to the 2000 Ravens? None. 

So that one - and the one he did play - we can ignore. But we have to count the one against the Redskins. 

Math, learn it. Then post. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, nico002 said:

The heck are you smoking? No one said that there was another QB that had garbage time stats through 2 games this season. That’s irrelevant... I said that every QB at some point benefits form garbage time stats, the fact that Darnold has through the first 2 games is random hapenstance. I gave you an example of Watson who did it week 1, that’s 50% of his game so far! Keep spewing spewing nonsense. 

I only pointed to 2 of 2 games that accounted for the only reason his stats are not drawing Geno Smith comparisons this year. Well, that and an an intact jaw. 

[jgb]

6 minutes ago, nico002 said:

Math, learn it. Then post. 

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, nico002 said:

Math, learn it. Then post. 

“Math” is how many games he’s faced against an all-time defense?

[nico002]

Just now, jgb said:

Another deep well thought out post by jgb

[jgb]

Just now, nico002 said:

Another deep well thought out post by jgb

You never use a nuke to swat away a mosquito. 

[jgb]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

“Math” is how many games he’s faced against an all-time defense?

Careful, you push this too hard and he'll just scurry back to the "no weapinz" Siegfried Line.

[Wonderboy]

1 hour ago, TeddEY said:

“Pocket Passer like Darnold?????”

I just spent the last two weeks hearing how Darnold is “best outside the pocket” and Gase is an idiot for not doing more of that.

Also, Lamar and Watson have missed less games than Darnold to date.  So, why not just say what you really mean....

He’s shown he’s adept at rolling out and throwing from the pocket. But yea Gase is moronic for not mixing it up. Doesn’t discount that Sam is a pocket passer.  It’s been made clear countless times on this forum he has practically no time to scan the field and is forced to go outside the pocket because he’s played behind a Swiss cheese OL since he’s been here. Add that his ‘best’ wr RA, was an average WR and Gase severely handcuffing him with mindless game plans and you have a QB who’s struggling. But for some reason you and your monster squad just don’t care, refuse to accept that or need to take Ginko Biloba to improve your memory.  So again, lack of OL, lack of WR’s, moron HC. Hard to stay in a pocket with no time and when your wr’s are all covered. Try it sometime.  And the kid got sick and missed half the year. sh*t happens. But he came back risking his health when he should have just stayed out longer. That showed guts and heart. 

[Wonderboy]

2 hours ago, predator_05 said:

 

But what if further rule changes disallow defenders from tackling cleanly? They're already making it harder to use the helmet. If you protect the running QB, then they'll change the game and set a new standard. 

I'm guessing this is the direction our game is headed. Running QBs are exciting to watch, and don't need a lot of coaching. Accurate short-range passer with running ability is a day 1 starter in any vanilla offensive scheme.  

So they’re going to change it to tag ?? Cool I’m gonna try out. 

[jgb]

2 hours ago, nico002 said:

You can say I’m wrong as many times as you want it doesn’t change the mathematical fact that a 3.8 rating is an outlier that will never come close to being repeated. 

Jinx?