Dante Culpepper Sucks / Evaluating QB's

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Look for what McNabb did before T.O.

McNabb had a great season last season. The jury's still out as to whether Owens was responsible for that. He's still got him this season, and his numbers have regressed right back to his pre-2004 form.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Spielman

Jeff Garcia isn't a good example, since he changed teams entirely. Besides, Garcia's passer ratings in the last two years before he and Owens left the Niners were 85.6 and 80.1. Last year in Cleveland he was at 76.7 and this year in two games he's got 75.0. A decline, sure, but he was already in serious decline before he left the Niners.

McNabb's rating certainly shot up, as has Collins's in a small sample size. As for Montana, I'm not sure I'd want to hang too much of an argument on a 37-38 year old guy who switched to another (worse overall offensively, not just in terms of not having Jerry Rice) team and still put up 87.4 and 83.6 as his ratings in his final two seasons.

Right, that's what's tough about football. Every player has context. So you can say:

Montana: was in decline phase
Collins: small sample size
Garcia: a difference, but not 20 points
Culpepper: entire team fell apart
McNabb: just coming into his own

But you end up having to make excuses for every player. You'd think that at least ONE of the guys who saw TO or Moss come or go would go against the grain. That simply isn't the case. They have all had differences that corraborate TO and Moss being hugely valuable.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by mlyons

McNabb had a great season last season. The jury's still out as to whether Owens was responsible for that. He's still got him this season, and his numbers have regressed right back to his pre-2004 form.

Which is pretty amazing considering that the team is far worse than pre-2004, outside of TO. They have absolutely no run game and McNabb is still doing as well as he was when they had a run game. That's all T.O., baby.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

He had the 2nd and 3rd lowest QB ratings of his career in two years in KC. And KC had a solid line and good running game (and even had decent receivers plus Kimble Anders), just no Jerry Rice.

By 2nd and 3rd, you mean within one standard deviation of his career path at the end of the career. Yeah, there is a tiny bit decline, but if that's the point you are trying to make about Rice, you are basically saying Rice didn't really matter much.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

By 2nd and 3rd, you mean within one standard deviation of his career path at the end of the career. Yeah, there is a tiny bit decline, but if that's the point you are trying to make about Rice, you are basically saying Rice didn't really matter much.

What's the z-score?

He did worse without Rice than he did with him. He's just one of many examples. Yes, you can make a case for any of these particular QB's having other reasons--confounding variables.

But you know that as n increases--as in, as more QB's fit the mold of doing a lot better with T.O. and Randy--the probability of them not being the cause goes down and down.

The strength of the argument for T.O. and Randy isn't that any particular quarterback has declined/gotten better. It's that nobody has gone against the grain--nobody has lost T.O. and done better, nobody has gained Randy and done worse.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

What's the z-score?

He did worse without Rice than he did with him. He's just one of many examples. Yes, you can make a case for any of these particular QB's having other reasons--confounding variables.

But you know that as n increases--as in, as more QB's fit the mold of doing a lot better with T.O. and Randy--the probability of them not being the cause goes down and down.

The strength of the argument for T.O. and Randy isn't that any particular quarterback has declined/gotten better. It's that nobody has gone against the grain--nobody has lost T.O. and done better, nobody has gained Randy and done worse.

And you did realize the Montana case is weakening your argument, not strengthening it, since the change is minimal and you don't really have another side to compare it with. So you probably shouldn't have used it at first place.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

And you did realize the Montana case is weakening your argument, not strengthening it, since the change is minimal and you don't really have another side to compare it with. So you probably shouldn't have used it at first place.

I disagree. Any statistic has a level of significance, even if that level is low. So while it may not help a lot, it does provide one more example that fits the model. It certainly does not provide a counterpoint.

And yes, I pulled the Montana one out of my head when originally I just intended to talk about Moss and T.O...so I think it's kind of been a tangent.

Anyway, does anyone want to bet me $50 on whether McNabb finishes with a higher rating in 2005 than he did in any year without T.O.?

Does anyone want to bet me $50 that Collins does the same?

Anyone want to bet me about Culp...uh, wait

[Spielman]

Never mind. I actually don't think I want to be in this discussion.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

I disagree. Any statistic has a level of significance, even if that level is low. So while it may not help a lot, it does provide one more example that fits the model. It certainly does not provide a counterpoint.

And in this case, that point of stat from Montana/Rice is saying "there is no significant effect".

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Spielman

Even with these "many examples", we're still talking about a small sample size. So if you want to make the case, that's fine, but your n is still pretty small.

What other receivers can we add? Rice you've mentioned, so I assume him. And since Young had Owens and Rice during his whole tenure in San Francisco, and was bad before arriving there, that's supporting the theory. Montana was pretty damned successful before Rice showed up, but did have his best season after Rice's arrival, so you could make a case on that end of his career, I guess.

Who else would you consider close to that level?

Never mind. I guess the theory was only supposed to be about the incredibly annoying twosome, based on that last post.

The first year Rice arrived, Montana's ratings dropped significantly, and the next year, it's even worse. Only in the 3rd year and the 5th year did Montana posted numbers close or higher than 1984.

I guess Rice is not as good as Moss or Owens in this measure!

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Spielman

Even with these "many examples", we're still talking about a small sample size. So if you want to make the case, that's fine, but your n is still pretty small.

What other receivers can we add? Rice you've mentioned, so I assume him. And since Young had Owens and Rice during his whole tenure in San Francisco, and was bad before arriving there, that's supporting the theory. Montana was pretty damned successful before Rice showed up, but did have his best season after Rice's arrival, so you could make a case on that end of his career, I guess.

Who else would you consider close to that level?

I'm kind of a youngin', so it's kind of hard to say. I wouldn't put a Chris Carter or Hines Ward at that level (I don't think--data might disagree), so that's kind of a starting point. I don't remember enough about Tim Brown in his prime, but from what I do remember he wouldn't quite be at that level either. Actually, Jimmy Smith might be a candidate. That guy is amazing--just not sure if he's had QB's come or go, and he's certainly a step down from the others anyway.

If Johnson left Palmer or vice versa it would work. I'm not sure about Harrison--he's a great receiver but it's hard to tell if he's as much a product of the system. Same with Bruce and Holt. So out of guys I'd go out on a limb and include in this list are:

Moss
Owens
Rice
Johnson

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Spielman

Never mind. I actually don't think I want to be in this discussion.

Me either. It was fun until Skip got here. Now it's (as always) a chore of semantics that serves no purpose to the original subject matter.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Me either. It was fun until Skip got here. Now it's (as always) a chore of semantics that serves no purpose to the original subject matter.

Why? I am just trying to see if your theory actually works with Rice.

Maybe Rice is just a product of the system just like Harrison or Bruce or Holt too.

[sebastian0622]

Even though Carson Palmer hasn't left Chad Johnson--I remembered Jon Kitna!

Chad Johnson was a rookie (and didn't play much) in 2001. So what happens to Kitna's rating as Johnson gets his feet wet and blossoms into a top receiver?

01: 61.1
02: 79.1
03: 87.4

Seems to support this (and falls right in with a 20 point difference), as does Palmer's early success.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Why? I am just trying to see if your theory actually works with Rice.

Maybe Rice is just a product of the system just like Harrison or Bruce or Holt too.

If that was your intent, cool. Can never tell if you're just picking stuff just to pick stuff.

Honestly, I'm afraid to insinuate that about Rice. In a different thread, I said that Rice wasn't the gamebreaker that Moss is. "Bay Area Boy" Eck basically called me an idiot.

But yeah, Rice certainly benefitted from that offense. Still the greatest receiver evah--I just think that Moss can make a bad QB good, while Rice could make a good QB great. If that makes sense.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

If that was your intent, cool. Can never tell if you're just picking stuff just to pick stuff.

Honestly, I'm afraid to insinuate that about Rice. In a different thread, I said that Rice wasn't the gamebreaker that Moss is. "Bay Area Boy" Eck basically called me an idiot.

But yeah, Rice certainly benefitted from that offense. Still the greatest receiver evah--I just think that Moss can make a bad QB good, while Rice could make a good QB great. If that makes sense.

And I think a good way to validate your theory would be looking into more good recievers, and see what kind of player got more effects on quarterbacks. Then you might have a theory that makes more sense.

It might not be about if the reciever is better, but what receivers would have positive impacts on the quarterback ratings.

Maybe some of it was just a result of coaching habits. Maybe when Owens and Moss changed teams, the coaches just happened to change the playbooks more. Sometimes teams find players that fit the team style, and sometimes teams change styles for new players. Is it possible the latter is contributing to the change you are seeing, instead of player ability?

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Sometimes teams find players that fit the team style, and sometimes teams change styles for new players. Is it possible the latter is contributing to the change you are seeing, instead of player ability?

Using that as a confounding variable would imply that the downfield passing game that teams implement for Moss would be a superior style without him, but would also imply that the crossing patters/YAC patters run by Owens are the best, then would imply that coaching to fit Johnson's style is the best. So I think that's reaching, plus it discredits coaches.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Anyway, does anyone want to bet me $50 on whether McNabb finishes with a higher rating in 2005 than he did in any year without T.O.?

I'm not a betting man, but I wouldn't go shopping this bet around if I were you. McNabb's barely ahead of his 2003 rating right now (87.9 to 86.0), and the Eagles still have five games left against the other NFC East teams, which collectively have surrendered a QB rating of around 74.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by mlyons

I'm not a betting man, but I wouldn't go shopping this bet around if I were you. McNabb's barely ahead of his 2003 rating right now (87.9 to 86.0), and the Eagles still have five games left against the other NFC East teams, which collectively have surrendered a QB rating of around 74.

What's the league average?

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

What's the league average?

It appears to be somewhere around 81.