TXHawk":oyj2570n said:RiverDog":oyj2570n said:For one, if a QB's passing less and the team running more, he's more likely to see man coverage and fewer blitzes, which would have the effect of making his attempts a little better quality than slinging it around like Mathew Stafford does.
I never said Russell wasn't an 'elite quarterback.' I was merely commenting about using a purely statistical argument. If you did that, you'd have to elevate Tony Romo to elite company.
RiverDog":oyj2570n said:Absolutely true. My point is that there's scores of variables that one can cojure up to justify or discredit stats to support or dismiss a particular point of view. They are not always apples to apples.
Question: Of those that qualified (200+ attempts), who was the top rated passer in the NFL last season? Hint: It wasn't Peyton Manning.
It's never been or is ever going to be apples to apples because every starting QB plays with different personnel, different offensive schemes, and against different levels of competition, yet stats have been used from the very beginning as a means to measure and compare quarterback play. It's not a perfect system - nothing created by man ever is - but it's what we have. So my question is this: why are stats that have been used for years to measure quarterback play (along with more recently developed advanced metrics) suddenly not relevant when it comes to comparing a 6'3" number one draft choice and a 5'11" third round pick? My belief is because there is an inherent bias toward the one with the prototypical size who was projected to be great all along. If Luck was putting up Wilson's stats and Wilson had Luck's stats everyone claiming that Luck is better would be using those stats as evidence of his superiority rather than coming up with excuses why stats aren't valid in making comparisons.
And to answer your question about who was the top rated passer in 2013 that would be Nick Foles. So why isn't he in the discussion? Much smaller sample size primarily. Wilson and Luck have two full seasons as starting quarterbacks under their belts now. Foles had six starts in 2012 in Andy Reid's system where he wasn't very good, and ten starts in 2013 in Chip Kelly's system where he was great. There's a big question about what's going to happen now that opposing DCs have a full season of tape and an entire offseason to prepare for the Eagles offense. There's inevitably going to be some regression by Foles (a 27/2 TD/Int ratio and 119.2 QB rating are unsustainable) so it remains to be seen how much that regression will be. Colin Kaepernick had a similar stretch of great play in the last half of 2012 when he was an unknown quantity with a unique skillset but regressed somewhat in 2013 after opposing defenses became better prepared for him. By contrast, Wilson and Luck both improved statistically in their second seasons despite opposing teams having a better book on how to defend them. If Foles has another outstanding season in 2014 he absolutely should be in the discussion of best young QBs.
Some great points however Luck was a mixed bag regressed in some areas got better in others
Luck Way less yards, less YPA, but he did go up in compt%, and qb rating so kind of mixed