The Flaw in the Shanahan Offensive Scheme

[Oldfan]

Just curious Oldfan, as a professional talent evaluator for the NFL, have you ever been wrong with your analysis of a QB.

I will ignore your juvenile sarcasm to give you a serious answer.

The way I grade QBs is not very reliable. But it is an intelligent method, as opposed to the simplistic and stupid Bandwagon Method.

The basis for it is a seventh-grade math concept: In order to measure something, it must first be isolated. You can't measure the quarterback, the scheme, the coaching, the play calling and the supporting cast together and claim that you have measured the quarterback.

 

[Oldfan]

...Passing accuracy combined with yardage are useless numbers? No arguing with that logic.

The mere fact that you refer to a completion percentage as a "passing accuracy" stat is amusing. Passing accuracy is just one of a dozen or more factors that influence that stat.

If memory serves, Jason Campbell completed 71% of his passes in his senior year at Auburn. All that meant is that the OC called pass plays that Jason could complete 71% of the time.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I will ignore your juvenile sarcasm to give you a serious answer.

The way I grade QBs is not very reliable. But it is an intelligent method, as opposed to the simplistic and stupid Bandwagon Method.

What is the "simplistic and stupid bandwagon method" of evaluating QBs, just out of curiosity?

The basis for it is a seventh-grade math concept: In order to measure something, it must first be isolated. You can't measure the quarterback, the scheme, the coaching, the play calling and the supporting cast together and claim that you have measured the quarterback.

Okay, assuming your method is 100% accurate, you can never evaluate a QBs play ever, because his play is never 100% isolated.

A QB always needs someone to catch the ball
A QB needs a RB to playfake too
A QB needs the OC to call a play, and the rest of his teammates to KNOW the play
A QB needs an OL to block for him

 

[Lanky Livingston]

The mere fact that you refer to a completion percentage as a "passing accuracy" stat is amusing. Passing accuracy is just one of a dozen or more factors that influence that stat.

Okay, for your benefit, we will refrain from calling completion percentage passing accuracy.

Completion percentage combined with yardage are useless numbers? No arguing with that logic.

If memory serves, Jason Campbell completed 71% of his passes in his senior year at Auburn. All that meant is that the OC called pass plays that Jason could complete 71% of the time.

You are correct, however JC also only passed for 7300 yards in college, a paltry 1825 per season. Drew Brees threw for 75% of Jason Campbell's entire college career yardage this season. With better accuracy. (Campbell threw for 69.6% accuracy his senior year, but had a 64.6% career accuracy).

 

[Ax]

I will ignore your juvenile sarcasm to give you a serious answer.

Says the condescending wizard of QB analysis.
My sarcasm is needed to balance the force.

The way I grade QBs is not very reliable. But it is an intelligent method, as opposed to the simplistic and stupid Bandwagon Method.

Very nice. Condescending, and insulting. Also hilariously self aggrandizing. And, if you're half as smart as you believe you are, you really should be the top paid talent evaluator in the NFL.

The basis for it is a seventh-grade math concept: In order to measure something, it must first be isolated. You can't measure the quarterback, the scheme, the coaching, the play calling and the supporting cast together and claim that you have measured the quarterback.

No, but one could certainly use any one, or all, of the named barometers to argue his or her point with an arrogant certainty, while leaving themselves a multitude of excuses to cover the flaws in their argument.

Well done.

 

[Oldfan]

What is the "simplistic and stupid bandwagon method" of evaluating QBs, just out of curiosity?

The one you are using.

Okay, assuming your method is 100% accurate, you can never evaluate a QBs play ever, because his play is never 100% isolated.

Not true. You can watch a QB play.

 

[Oldfan]

Says the condescending wizard of QB analysis.
My sarcasm is needed to balance the force.

Your sarcasm drew first blood. Condescension is my response to sarcastic pricks.

 

[Neophyte]

OK gents, please note that the veiled insults have gone far enough. From experience, I know that this is how we get to not so veiled insults.

 

[Ax]

Your sarcasm drew first blood. Condescension is my response to sarcastic pricks.

It was based on your overall condescending tone throughout the thread.

While there are certainly a myriad of things that can go into QB analysis, your need to elevate it to some stratospheric height that only those as enlightened as yourself can possibly understand is comedic genius.

Then, to label just about everybody that doesn't agree with your convoluted analysis as "bandwagon" thinkers is pure condescending BS.
Love it!!!

I'll try... Unprovable Assertions for $1,000 please.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

The one you are using.

And what am I using to judge Drew Brees? Just making sure we're on the same page here - I'm not following any formula, I'm basing this on his stats and watching him play.

Not true. You can watch a QB play.

Really? And here I was basing my QB evaluation on watching Jersey Shore instead!

 

[Oldfan]

And what am I using to judge Drew Brees? Just making sure we're on the same page here - I'm not following any formula, I'm basing this on his stats and watching him play.

You are not grading the performance of Drew Brees. You are grading the performance of the New Orleans Saints team quarterbacked by Drew Brees.

Really? And here I was basing my QB evaluation on watching Jersey Shore instead!

Unless you focus on the QB specifically with the intent of isolating his performance from that of his team, you might just as well be watching Jersey Shore.

You would have to make hundreds of adjustments to do it intelligently. Let's just talk about the completion percentage stat you called your accuracy stat.

You could take the very same QB and manufacture a high completion rate in any number
of ways. Tom Brady has a much higher completion rate throwing from the shotgun than he does from under center, most QBs do. So, to analyze this stat, you might begin with the percentage of passes thrown from the shotgun. Peyton had the highest in 2010, at 75%. So, how can you fairly compare his completion percentage to a QB who throws only 30% from the gun?

 

[Oldfan]

...While there are certainly a myriad of things that can go into QB analysis, your need to elevate it to some stratospheric height that only those as enlightened as yourself can possibly understand is comedic genius.

I haven't elevated anything. I made it clear that the basis of my method versus the bandwagon method is the basic math concept that, in order to measure anything, it must first be isolated.

If you can understand why you can't figure out the width of a room if you were given L + W + H = 100 feet. Then you should be able to figure out why all QB stats are useless in grading QBs.

I think an intelligent seventh grade student would understand me. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty.

 

[Neophyte]

It is probably fair to say that most us have our own method of "grading" QB's in the NFL. I am pretty sure most NFL scouts, General Managers and coaches have their own methods too.

I think the methods probably have varying degrees of success and it is likely just as hard to grade the grading method as it is to grade the QB being evaluated. In short, I don't believe any method is full proof but yet all method's likely have some merit.

Furthermore, just because someone arrives at a conclusion that jives with the popular perception it is not automatically a "bandwagon" opinion.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

If you can understand why you can't figure out the width of a room if you were given L + W + H = 100 feet. Then you should be able to figure out why all QB stats are useless in grading QBs.

I think an intelligent seventh grade student would understand me. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty.

I already told you why that analogy was bunk, and your veiled insults aren't making your point any better.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

You are not grading the performance of Drew Brees. You are grading the performance of the New Orleans Saints team quarterbacked by Drew Brees.

Again, how do you know this? You still haven't answered the question, by the way - because you don't know what method I'm using to evaluate Drew Brees. You have no idea! I pointed out stats that reinforce my case (yes, stats can be used to judge a QBs performance - they are a direct measurement of his performance on the field), but that's it.

And you DO realize its all subjective, right? That's why there are some teams who will likely trade the rest of their drafts in 2010's to move up for Andrew Luck, and other teams who wouldn't give up more than this year's first for him.

Unless you focus on the QB specifically with the intent of isolating his performance from that of his team, you might just as well be watching Jersey Shore.

You would have to make hundreds of adjustments to do it intelligently. Let's just talk about the completion percentage stat you called your accuracy stat.

Hundreds? Seems to me you're the one not doing it intelligently. There is a 'common sense' aspect to judging QBs, Oldfan. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probably a Rex Grossman pass. For instance, common sense dictates that it is impossible for Rex Grossman to throw for 5400 yards at a 71% completion rate in 16 games. Common sense dictates that it is a very hard thing to do, seeing as how only one person in the history of the NFL has ever done either thing, let alone both in the same season.

What's ironic is, your method seems to be the most simple of all - and probably the most incorrect. "You just isolate the QB!" One, that is impossible. 2, to accurately isolate the QB would take a lot of statistical regressions and analysis, not just you saying "I think Jay Cutler is the best." You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You could take the very same QB and manufacture a high completion rate in any number
of ways. Tom Brady has a much higher completion rate throwing from the shotgun than he does from under center, most QBs do. So, to analyze this stat, you might begin with the percentage of passes thrown from the shotgun. Peyton had the highest in 2010, at 75%. So, how can you fairly compare his completion percentage to a QB who throws only 30% from the gun?

Easy, you would say QB2 is not as good as Peyton. Actually, any QB who is only 30% from the gun would not be in the NFL.

 

[Ax]

I think an intelligent seventh grade student would understand me. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty.

Oh I understand perfectly. I speak fluid BS.

Your formula of choice leads you to the conclusion that Peyton Manning would only be marginally better than Rex Grossman, here, in this system, exposes a glitch in the mathematics.

Try as you may, 1+1, does not equal 791. You can call every view that doesn't agree with your analysis, "Bandwagon", all you want. And I can call your conclusion, delusional.

Besides, as Lanky said, unless, and until, a QB is on the field playing by himself, your formula can't exist. Though I eagerly await your explanation of how it can, and does.

 

[Ax]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probably a Rex Grossman pass.

Damn you!!! I think I just peed my pants.

 

[Henry]

Oh I understand perfectly. I speak fluid BS.

I think you mean 'fluent' BS. Fluid BS is something I'm not sure we want to be discussing here.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I think you mean 'fluent' BS. Fluid BS is something I'm not sure we want to be discussing here.

 

[Ax]

I think you mean 'fluent' BS. Fluid BS is something I'm not sure we want to be discussing here.

That's some funny stuff there.

But I did mean fluid BS. As in the saying, "diarrhea of the mouth".

And, come on Mike, think chocolate smoothie.