yupchagee wrote:Exactly what problems does it strip away?
Really? It removes passes thrown away, passes batted down at the line of scrimmage and passes when the quarterback is hit as he throws. All three of which are included in completion percentage.
Furthermore, it tells us how often the quarterback actually gets the ball to the receiver, as opposed to how often the receiver catches the pass.
A big reason Peyton Manning ranks higher in completion percentage as opposed to accuracy percentage is because he has a great offensive line who don't allow a lot of pressure and great wide receivers who don't drop a lot of passes. That doesn't mean he isn't a great quarterback, just that he is blessed with talent around him.
Patrick Ramsey's completion percentage in 2003 was a miserable 53.1. But Redskins fans know he was getting killed by a brutal pass rush and had Rod Gardner as a wideout. Accuracy percentage wouldn't tell the whole story, but it would tell more of it.
John Manfreda wrote:This article has Marc Bulger at no.1 thats all I have to say.
Marc Bulger finished 2005 with a 66.9 completion percentage (4th in NFL) and a 94.4 quarterback rating (5th in NFL). I'd ask you to expand on your statement and perhaps explain why Marc Bulger debunks Joyner, but since you've already said all you have to say, I'll just assume it surprised you because the rankings didn't correspond with your fantasy cheat sheet.
Are you saying that he has studied every pass thrown by every QB in every game? I find that hard to believe.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
yupchagee wrote:Are you saying that he has studied every pass thrown by every QB in every game? I find that hard to believe.
Yes he has. Since you aren't going to take the time to understand what you are arguing about, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
If anyone is interested in learning more, here is Joyner's website.
My bad. I saw ESPN & assumed it would be typical of what rhey usually have. Searching his web site, I'm having trouble finding exactly how he makes his determinations. I finf it mindboggling that anyone has taken the time to view every pass attempt in the league. Maybe I just boggle easily.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
yupchagee wrote:Exactly what problems does it strip away?
Really? It removes passes thrown away, passes batted down at the line of scrimmage and passes when the quarterback is hit as he throws. All three of which are included in completion percentage.
Furthermore, it tells us how often the quarterback actually gets the ball to the receiver, as opposed to how often the receiver catches the pass.
A big reason Peyton Manning ranks higher in completion percentage as opposed to accuracy percentage is because he has a great offensive line who don't allow a lot of pressure and great wide receivers who don't drop a lot of passes. That doesn't mean he isn't a great quarterback, just that he is blessed with talent around him.
Patrick Ramsey's completion percentage in 2003 was a miserable 53.1. But Redskins fans know he was getting killed by a brutal pass rush and had Rod Gardner as a wideout. Accuracy percentage wouldn't tell the whole story, but it would tell more of it.
John Manfreda wrote:This article has Marc Bulger at no.1 thats all I have to say.
Marc Bulger finished 2005 with a 66.9 completion percentage (4th in NFL) and a 94.4 quarterback rating (5th in NFL). I'd ask you to expand on your statement and perhaps explain why Marc Bulger debunks Joyner, but since you've already said all you have to say, I'll just assume it surprised you because the rankings didn't correspond with your fantasy cheat sheet.
You can use numbers to prove almost anything no matter how true or untrue it is. This article is bs, Kelley Holcomb is ranked third.
John Manfreda wrote:You can use numbers to prove almost anything no matter how true or untrue it is. This article is bs, Kelley Holcomb is ranked third.
Kelly Holcomb finished second in the NFL with a 67.4 completion percentage.
Why not explain why Joyner's method is "bs" rather than point out quarterbacks with extremely high completion percentage who also finished with low inaccuracy percentages?
Only three quarterbacks made the top 15 with completion percentages under 60.0 (Brunell, Leftwich and Brooks). We all know that Brunell threw the ball away at an extremely high rate, and Byron Leftwich and Aaron Brooks were sacked quite a bit (7.11 and 7.08 sacks per 100 attempts, respectivley). The results themselves don't disprove the method.
John Manfreda wrote:You can use numbers to prove almost anything no matter how true or untrue it is. This article is bs, Kelley Holcomb is ranked third.
Kelly Holcomb finished second in the NFL with a 67.4 completion percentage.
Why not explain why Joyner's method is "bs" rather than point out quarterbacks with extremely high completion percentage who also finished with low inaccuracy percentages?
Only three quarterbacks made the top 15 with completion percentages under 60.0 (Brunell, Leftwich and Brooks). We all know that Brunell threw the ball away at an extremely high rate, and Byron Leftwich and Aaron Brooks were sacked quite a bit (7.11 and 7.08 sacks per 100 attempts, respectivley). The results themselves don't disprove the method.
First of all how long were the passes, if u complete 9 and out of ten passes and they all were under ten yards that isn't great. How long were the passes thrown. Thats one way u can use numbers to prove almost anything even though they aren't accurate. Another way is someone passed 40 percent one game but all his passing plays required him to throw the ball 20 or more yards. In reality its good, but in numbers its not. These numbers also don't factor in recievers, Marc Bulger had sick recievers which could make it easier to complete accurate passes. The more u throw the less acurate you are, Spurrier u had two qb's in your family you should know this. You can numbers to prove anything you want, even when not completely true. Like Qb's in the west coast offense have higher completion percentages, is that because they have more accurate qb's, no its because the routes are shorter and the passes they have to complete are easier.
John Manfreda wrote:The more u throw the less acurate you are
Not true. What does overall number have to do with accuracy? His metric even eliminates all erroneous passes, and leaves either accurate or inaccurate passes. So your contention holds absolutely no water.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
John Manfreda wrote:You can use numbers to prove almost anything no matter how true or untrue it is. This article is bs, Kelley Holcomb is ranked third.
Kelly Holcomb finished second in the NFL with a 67.4 completion percentage.
Why not explain why Joyner's method is "bs" rather than point out quarterbacks with extremely high completion percentage who also finished with low inaccuracy percentages?
Only three quarterbacks made the top 15 with completion percentages under 60.0 (Brunell, Leftwich and Brooks). We all know that Brunell threw the ball away at an extremely high rate, and Byron Leftwich and Aaron Brooks were sacked quite a bit (7.11 and 7.08 sacks per 100 attempts, respectivley). The results themselves don't disprove the method.
First of all how long were the passes, if u complete 9 and out of ten passes and they all were under ten yards that isn't great. How long were the passes thrown. Thats one way u can use numbers to prove almost anything even though they aren't accurate. Another way is someone passed 40 percent one game but all his passing plays required him to throw the ball 20 or more yards. In reality its good, but in numbers its not. These numbers also don't factor in recievers, Marc Bulger had sick recievers which could make it easier to complete accurate passes. The more u throw the less acurate you are, Spurrier u had two qb's in your family you should know this. You can numbers to prove anything you want, even when not completely true. Like Qb's in the west coast offense have higher completion percentages, is that because they have more accurate qb's, no its because the routes are shorter and the passes they have to complete are easier.
Check the article:
T4. Mark Brunell. Brunell's high accuracy percentage is even more impressive because he was very accurate at all depth levels. Brunell had the eighth-best deep pass accuracy percentage and also ranked in the top five in both the short- and medium-depth levels.
Also, as for recievers, this system doesn't take them into account. Even if a good pass is dropped, it is still counted as an accurate pass in this system.
"We're not going to be the pushovers of the NFL, we're gonna push over some people!" - Clinton Portis
John Manfreda wrote:You can use numbers to prove almost anything no matter how true or untrue it is. This article is bs, Kelley Holcomb is ranked third.
Kelly Holcomb finished second in the NFL with a 67.4 completion percentage.
Why not explain why Joyner's method is "bs" rather than point out quarterbacks with extremely high completion percentage who also finished with low inaccuracy percentages?
Only three quarterbacks made the top 15 with completion percentages under 60.0 (Brunell, Leftwich and Brooks). We all know that Brunell threw the ball away at an extremely high rate, and Byron Leftwich and Aaron Brooks were sacked quite a bit (7.11 and 7.08 sacks per 100 attempts, respectivley). The results themselves don't disprove the method.
First of all how long were the passes, if u complete 9 and out of ten passes and they all were under ten yards that isn't great. How long were the passes thrown. Thats one way u can use numbers to prove almost anything even though they aren't accurate. Another way is someone passed 40 percent one game but all his passing plays required him to throw the ball 20 or more yards. In reality its good, but in numbers its not. These numbers also don't factor in recievers, Marc Bulger had sick recievers which could make it easier to complete accurate passes. The more u throw the less acurate you are, Spurrier u had two qb's in your family you should know this. You can numbers to prove anything you want, even when not completely true. Like Qb's in the west coast offense have higher completion percentages, is that because they have more accurate qb's, no its because the routes are shorter and the passes they have to complete are easier.
Check the article:
T4. Mark Brunell. Brunell's high accuracy percentage is even more impressive because he was very accurate at all depth levels. Brunell had the eighth-best deep pass accuracy percentage and also ranked in the top five in both the short- and medium-depth levels.
Also, as for recievers, this system doesn't take them into account. Even if a good pass is dropped, it is still counted as an accurate pass in this system.
John Manfreda wrote:The more u throw the less acurate you are
Not true. What does overall number have to do with accuracy? His metric even eliminates all erroneous passes, and leaves either accurate or inaccurate passes. So your contention holds absolutely no water.
Sometimes when a reciever drops a ball its actually the Qb's fault because he threw it too. Are you trying to say that if a Qb throws a bad pass and the reciever catches it that he doesn't count the pass as accurate. I don't believe that.
Why are people having such a hard time taking the rating system for what it's worth? Stop acting like it must be wrong because it features QB's that (a) weren't on playoff teams and (b) you didn't watch at all last season.
I haven't heard a single cogent argument that the metrics he uses are inappropriate or strange considering what he's trying to measure. Instead, I'm seeing mindless complaints ("Bulger iz dumbez lol!!1!!).
