Don't listen to people who base it all on statistics

[Maelstrom787]

You've all engaged in the discussions. I have, too. You make an observation about a player and their stans jump down your throat, sloppily pasting random stats from Pro Football Reference to make it look like their opinions are irrefutable. Well, they are refutable - because stats don't tell the whole story. They never have.

Statistics aren't the end-all determination of a players worth. They're simply an evaluation tool that give you hints about a players effectiveness. Furthermore, stats are just data. They aren't narratives, and they can easily be used to support almost any viewpoint - even those viewpoints which contradict each other. This leads to poisonous discourse and everyone coming out of most football discussions just a little stupider than they went in.

You can quote stats, sure. You can use stats to support your argument, sure. But you need to offer real evaluation of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED on the field and HOW it happened - otherwise, you're simply using numbers to delude yourself.

Want proof? These quarterbacks put up nearly identical stat lines. You tell me which one played better tonight. Think about that next time you have the urge to say "ahh actually this player had a better passer rating and that means theyre very good."

Again, we're all guilty of it. But watching the games and witnessing the players is what counts. The box score stats will never tell you the full story.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Did you know that Mitch Trubisky posted the THIRD HIGHEST QBR IN THE NFL in 2018 as a rookie?

Has Mitch Trubisky ever been the third best quarterback in the league? No. No he hasn't.

Stats are liars - but they're DANGEROUS liars, because they present as irrefutable and unbiased truth. They are the truth, but they too often lead to people drawing ass backwards conclusions.

 

[fullquartpress]

Has Mitch Trubisky ever been the third best quarterback in the league?.

I don't know, but he looks infinitely more valuable right now than the 1/2 billion$ man Deshaun Watson, doesn't he?
Also, Mitch seemed to have no problem brushing off Darrell Taylor in Quarter 1.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Mitch looked good because he played us. He will look awful against good defenses.

 

[toffee]

You've all engaged in the discussions. I have, too. You make an observation about a player and their stans jump down your throat, sloppily pasting random stats from Pro Football Reference to make it look like their opinions are irrefutable. Well, they are refutable - because stats don't tell the whole story. They never have.

Statistics aren't the end-all determination of a players worth. They're simply an evaluation tool that give you hints about a players effectiveness. Furthermore, stats are just data. They aren't narratives, and they can easily be used to support almost any viewpoint - even those viewpoints which contradict each other. This leads to poisonous discourse and everyone coming out of most football discussions just a little stupider than they went in.

You can quote stats, sure. You can use stats to support your argument, sure. But you need to offer real evaluation of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED on the field and HOW it happened - otherwise, you're simply using numbers to delude yourself.

Want proof? These quarterbacks put up nearly identical stat lines. You tell me which one played better tonight. Think about that next time you have the urge to say "ahh actually this player had a better passer rating and that means theyre very good."

Again, we're all guilty of it. But watching the games and witnessing the players is what counts. The box score stats will never tell you the full story.

Couldn't agree more! I didn't watch the game today, which one of our QBs played better?

 

[Maelstrom787]

Couldn't agree more! I didn't watch the game today, which one of our QBs played better?

Overall, Lock. He's probably in the doghouse for his mistake late in the game, but he was the more decisive passer.

 

[Own The West]

Overall, Lock. He's probably in the doghouse for his mistake late in the game, but he was the more decisive passer.

Dog house for what? The overthrown pass?

Overall, I thought Lock and Geno were pretty close, although I thought Lock was a little more decisive. I love his release.

So no winner, but one's 25 with 3 years experience, the other 31 with 9 years experience.

I'm starting Lock week 1.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Dog house for what? The overthrown pass?

Overall, I thought Lock and Geno were pretty close, although I thought Lock was a little more decisive. I love his release.

So no winner, but one's 25 with 3 years experience, the other 31 with 9 years experience.

I'm starting Lock week 1.

Missing the read on that pressure and getting clocked.

 

[Fade]

Absolutely ridiculous that someone could look at Penny average over 6 yards per carry and put up 750 yards in just 6 starts last year and be like "Lol! That guy sucks!"

You've all engaged in the discussions. I have, too. You make an observation about a player and their stans jump down your throat, sloppily pasting random stats from Pro Football Reference to make it look like their opinions are irrefutable. Well, they are refutable - because stats don't tell the whole story. They never have.

Statistics aren't the end-all determination of a players worth. They're simply an evaluation tool that give you hints about a players effectiveness. Furthermore, stats are just data. They aren't narratives, and they can easily be used to support almost any viewpoint - even those viewpoints which contradict each other. This leads to poisonous discourse and everyone coming out of most football discussions just a little stupider than they went in.

You can quote stats, sure. You can use stats to support your argument, sure. But you need to offer real evaluation of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED on the field and HOW it happened - otherwise, you're simply using numbers to delude yourself.

Want proof? These quarterbacks put up nearly identical stat lines. You tell me which one played better tonight. Think about that next time you have the urge to say "ahh actually this player had a better passer rating and that means theyre very good."

Again, we're all guilty of it. But watching the games and witnessing the players is what counts. The box score stats will never tell you the full story.

Pre-season stats especially. I can't stand the reporters who cover the Seahawks. Joe Fann was the only one I liked. Imagine citing Pre-season passing stats as to who is winning a competition. I'd be embarrassed. Just goes to show they don't know a lot about football. Drew Lock killed himself with that turnover, which doesn't count against his passing stats, Pro-tip for the aspiring NFL beat reporters out there.

Last season Mahomes boxscore against the Raiders read something like 4 TDs and 0 INTs, but he threw 5 picks, but the Raiders dropped them all, he played bad, but his boxscore looked excellent.

 

[Maelstrom787]

1. Your low-effort formatting has ruined your attempted dunk.
2. I've clearly watched Penny play, as you seemingly haven't. I explicitly say in the post that Penny is a case of the stats SUPPORTING the eye-test.

Your cherry-picked, intellectually dishonest posts are exasperating. What a fall from grace since ruminations failed. Embarrassing.

 

[JustTheTip]

The offense seemed to be smoother with Lock in. Of course, a lot of factors can play into that. Just what I observed.

 

[therealjohncarlson]

At the end of the day Drew has that it factor and Geno doesn’t. To me and many it’s as simple as that

 

[Maelstrom787]

The offense seemed to be smoother with Lock in. Of course, a lot of factors can play into that. Just what I observed.

Absolutely. Despite their stats being nearly identical, Lock clearly performed better. That's what I'm trying to point out - simple box score stats are really unreliable if they're not reconciled with what actually transpired on the field. All that context is missed with statistics alone.

 

[olyfan63]

Dog house for what? The overthrown pass?

Overall, I thought Lock and Geno were pretty close, although I thought Lock was a little more decisive. I love his release.

So no winner, but one's 25 with 3 years experience, the other 31 with 9 years experience.

I'm starting Lock week 1.

I'd call it a draw between Smith and Lock, but have to say tie goes to Lock because of the age and years of experience as Own The West mentioned, plus experience in the Seattle offense. Lock got great run game support, maybe better than what Geno got.

Favorite Lock play was the 2-yard TD zinger throw to a well-covered receiver (IIRC Dareke Young) where the defender could do zilch about it because of the placement and velocity.

My first thought after it was "That play wins SB49 for the Hawks!" Can we go back and edit time and insert that play?

 

[Maelstrom787]

I'd call it a draw between Smith and Lock, but have to say tie goes to Lock because of the age and years of experience as Own The West mentioned, plus experience in the Seattle offense. Lock got great run game support, maybe better than what Geno got.

Favorite Lock play was the 2-yard TD zinger throw to a well-covered receiver (IIRC Dareke Young) where the defender could do zilch about it because of the placement and velocity.

My first thought after it was "That play wins SB49 for the Hawks!" Can we go back and edit time and insert that play?

Might've been my favorite play all night. Precision timing and a true dart. Simple but effective, and EXACTLY what the team has been missing.

Lock and Dareke seem to have good chemistry already. Important for him to build rapport with his targets if he's gonna be the guy. Already has the familiarity with Fant, too.

 

[JustTheTip]

Absolutely. Despite their stats being nearly identical, Lock clearly performed better. That's what I'm trying to point out - simple box score stats are really unreliable if they're not reconciled with what actually transpired on the field. All that context is missed with statistics alone.

He didn't just perform better, there seemed to be a better flow to the offense with him in there. With Geno, the offense had the same disjointed feel as with Wilson under center but without Wilson's skill. With Lock in it felt more like 2021 week 1.

 

[olyfan63]

At the end of the day Drew has that it factor and Geno doesn’t. To me and many it’s as simple as that

Geno doesn't have it, but I'm not yet convinced that Lock does. It *feels* like he might, but the evidence is limited. Lock's late fumble to blow a likely win was a very Geno-esque play.

However, clearly there was a blown protection assignment, which could be on Lock or OL or RB, #36, who may have had the assignment to chip the free rusher, or it may be on Lock to read the unblocked rusher and check to a hot route, or... the point is this issue feels fixable. It's just a shame that it had to happen after the D played their hearts out and made a huge, huge stop.

 

[fullquartpress]

Mitch looked good because he played us. He will look awful against good defenses.

I'm not even sure about that. Mitch could be a "poor man's" Jalen Hurts.

 

[fullquartpress]

At the end of the day Drew has that it factor and Geno doesn’t. To me and many it’s as simple as that

Drew just needs to keep improving.

 

[MyrtleHawk]