Dante Culpepper Sucks / Evaluating QB's - Page 8

Skipaway · 12-12-2005, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

I guess I fail to see why my claim is so ludicrous.

The ludicrous part: claiming those receivers are good for 15-20 QB ratings.

The not so ludicrous part: claiming those receivers can make their quarterbacks play better, and that's like saying nothing at all.

sebastian0622 · 12-12-2005, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

The ludicrous part: claiming those receivers are good for 15-20 QB ratings.

The not so ludicrous part: claiming those receivers can make their quarterbacks play better, and that's like saying nothing at all.

Moss was giving Collins 15-20 points this season before he got injured, and guys with their more advanced metrics would argue that Collins has indeed been 15% better this season than last.

Owens gave McNabb 15-20 points when he arrived in Philly.

Owens took 15-20 points when he left Garcia.

Johnson gave Kitna 15-20 points.

Moss took 15-20 points when he left Culpepper.

I guess I don't see what's so ludicrous?

Is the claim perfect, down to every situation and every game and everything? Well, no, but what claim is sports is? No matter how much people hate on it (people for some reason want to believe that QB's dictate more than they do), past results show that 15-20 points, or that equivalent in performance, is a pretty damned good rule of thumb.

Skipaway · 12-12-2005, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Moss was giving Collins 15-20 points this season before he got injured, and guys with their more advanced metrics would argue that Collins has indeed been 15% better this season than last.

Owens gave McNabb 15-20 points when he arrived in Philly.

Owens took 15-20 points when he left Garcia.

Johnson gave Kitna 15-20 points.

Moss took 15-20 points when he left Culpepper.

I guess I don't see what's so ludicrous?

Is the claim perfect, down to every situation and every game and everything? Well, no, but what claim is sports is? No matter how much people hate on it (people for some reason want to believe that QB's dictate more than they do), past results show that 15-20 points, or that equivalent in performance, is a pretty damned good rule of thumb.

And it's just an observation, but you are treating it as some kind of theory.

As I said, unless you provide a model that can be reviewed, otherwise it's on the same level of superstition.

For example, why these three specific receivers? You selection them because they fit your idea, not because they have something in common so we can use the idea to predict other recievers in the future.

Why 15-20 ratings? Are there 10-15 rating receivers? What's the reason for that increase? Are all of them in similar ways? How do you discount for other influences?

Instead of trying to figure out why it might be true, you spent more time arguing why it must be true, and of course that would make people think your ideas are ludicrous.

It's kind of like talking about intelligent design even.

Skipaway · 12-12-2005, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Is the claim perfect, down to every situation and every game and everything? Well, no, but what claim is sports is?

It's like the best defense.

sebastian0622 · 12-12-2005, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

And it's just an observation, but you are treating it as some kind of theory.

No, I think YOU are treating it like some kind of theory.

It's not a model. It's not intended to be a model.

It's just an observation, or a "claim" as I've said. That claim is that Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, and Terrell Owens each are worth 15+ QB rating points worth of performance. That is based on my personal observations and nothing more. Will there be more? I don't know--if I see a guy come along with that kind of impact, I might put him in that group, just like Johnson is a new addition to it. I don't know why so many people think they need to argue with it. If you don't agree with it, fine. The proof will play out in the pudding over the next few years, and I may be right or wrong. Big deal.

It's not like I'm publishing some book on it or something. Hell, everyone else keeps bringing it up a lot more than me. I bring up Culpepper and McNabb on occasion moreso because I think they are both overrated, not to prove my observation correct (although the two are connected--I think they are overrated because their WR impacts were underrated), and I also would then think that Carson Palmer is overrated and would drop 15-20 points if Johnson weren't around.

It's not a theory. It's an observation. Can't a man have opinions any more without them being called "ludicrous?" I'm not calling your objections to my observations "ludicrous," because I respect that we may disagree.

IatricSB · 12-12-2005, 12:18 PM

At least Sebs is passionate, that's about all I can say

boilermaker · 12-12-2005, 09:27 PM

Random observation that has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread....

...can you believe that Leroy Hoard was once a Pro Bowler? Leroy Hoard?

Skipaway · 12-12-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

It's not a theory. It's an observation. Can't a man have opinions any more without them being called "ludicrous?" I'm not calling your objections to my observations "ludicrous," because I respect that we may disagree.

But I am not calling them ludicrous, just offering reasonings why people would think you are ludicrous.

Maybe if you could lighten up and not be so defensive, people would then realize you are not really trying to claim some kind of theory, and stop calling your points ludicrous.

sebastian0622 · 12-13-2005, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Maybe if you could lighten up and not be so defensive...

Links? I argue for my observation, but to think that I take this stuff seriously at all--well--we'll just say you don't know me too well. I'm more willing than almost anyone around to admit that I can be wrong on things.

People get so tied up trying to prove things "wrong" all of the time that they lose sight of the actual issue being discussed, then I lose sight of the issue because I have to counter those arguments.

And if someone does prove me wrong, then what's the point? So, I was wrong about something? Big deal. Not that I'm wrong about this anyway

, but if I am proven wrong down the line, big deal.

Skipaway · 12-13-2005, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Links? I argue for my observation, but to think that I take this stuff seriously at all--well--we'll just say you don't know me too well. I'm more willing than almost anyone around to admit that I can be wrong on things.

People get so tied up trying to prove things "wrong" all of the time that they lose sight of the actual issue being discussed, then I lose sight of the issue because I have to counter those arguments.

And if someone does prove me wrong, then what's the point? So, I was wrong about something? Big deal. Not that I'm wrong about this anyway

, but if I am proven wrong down the line, big deal.

If it's just an observation, why would you argue for it?

Nobody can deny that the ratings went up and down, and that's the observation part.

You insisted that the observation shows the up and down are all caused by those recievers, and that is NOT a observation any more, no matter how you'd like to call that.

That is called a theory.

And you tried to prove everyone saying you are wrong wrong! What exactly is the point, if this is just an observation? You wouldn't even acknowledge all the other alternative theories to explain this observation, and now you are complaining about how people are treating you? It's you that treated all opinions of other people poorly at first place.

Just an observation? Heh.

sebastian0622 · 12-13-2005, 02:33 AM

Nah skip, I remember you offered up the possibility that those particular WR's affect how coaches use them, and them leaving means that coaches try to put too much pressure on their QB's, and I didn't call that ludicrous. Someone(s) suggested that the Vikins just fell apart for other reasons. I said that it would be really coincidental for them to happen to fall apart the season Moss left after they had a lot of personnel turnover and problems over the past 7 years. Yet, I didn't call it ludicrous.

I have been arguing the observational stuff. Notice how many times I've presented statistics--past performances. Notice that I've acknowledged the importance of pinpointing performances as best as we can (advanced statistics).

If it's a theory, fine, it's a theory. I do think that if Palmer leaves Johnson, Palmer will drop a lot of ratings points. So it's a theory. Happy now? But you're wrong in saying that I've treated other theories poorly. If someone just comes out and says, "You're wrong," then I could be harsh, but if someone comes out with something coherent--I can respect that. Something that others around here can't do...

sebastian0622 · 03-14-2006, 03:56 PM

Culpepper is apparently worth a 2nd rounder, according to the market. Top 5 QB without Moss?

mauboy · 03-14-2006, 04:06 PM

It'll be interesting to see what happens with him having Chambers to throw too..but that's about it.

Sublimity · 03-14-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Culpepper is apparently worth a 2nd rounder, according to the market. Top 5 QB without Moss?

I think the injury has a lot to do with his current value.

abailey3313 · 03-14-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Top 5 QB without Moss?

No.

sebastian0622 · 03-14-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sublimity

I think the injury has a lot to do with his current value.

Yeah, but if Manning, Palmer, or another top 5 QB were coming off an injury, and bringing along a non-bonused contract, they'd draw a lot more than a 2nd rounder. Probably multiple 1st rounders or at least a 1st rounder plus.

My point is just that C-Pep isn't held in that same regard, which shows that a lot of NFL personnel folks agree with me that he's not that great of a QB.

Ironically enough, the super-athletic Chambers might be a better player heading into 2006 than the oft-injured Moss.

Sublimity · 03-14-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Yeah, but if Manning, Palmer, or another top 5 QB were coming off an injury, and bringing along a non-bonused contract, they'd draw a lot more than a 2nd rounder. Probably multiple 1st rounders or at least a 1st rounder plus.

My point is just that C-Pep isn't held in that same regard, which shows that a lot of NFL personnel folks agree with me that he's not that great of a QB.

Ironically enough, the super-athletic Chambers might be a better player heading into 2006 than the oft-injured Moss.

If those guys had a year like Culpepper just had along with the injury, they might only get a 2nd rounder for him. It's all about perceived value, not actual value.

johnnyshaka · 03-14-2006, 05:38 PM

I don't know that I'd be all that excited about giving up a bunch of picks for Palmer after he tore up his knee.

03-14-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Culpepper is apparently worth a 2nd rounder, according to the market. Top 5 QB without Moss?

I'm not going to reopen this same can of worms because I think everyone that has weighed in on the subject has said what they needed to say. But what wonders did the great Randy Moss do for Kerry Collins career?

IMO, the Fins got a steal. Time will tell.

sebastian0622 · 03-14-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avwjase

But what wonders did the great Randy Moss do for Kerry Collins career?

Collins had one of the best years of his career last year with an injured Moss. And especially in the games before Moss' injury--Collins posted ratings of 94.5, 92.9, 99.8, and 88.7 to open the season for a composite of almost 20 points above his career rating of around 73.4 going into the season. Had Moss stayed healthy, I have no doubt that Collins would have posted career-high numbers.

As is, he was still statistically superior to 2004 by a good margin.

12-12-2005, 12:18 PM	#146
IatricSB Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: California Posts: 3,493	At least Sebs is passionate, that's about all I can say __________________ Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow! What a Ride!" Chicago(N) - Boys of Summer Oakland - 20th Century League Bakersfield - Wild Things Brooklyn - QBA Dodge City - NBSL California - ABC Dodger's Senioriest fan on the OOTP Boards

03-14-2006, 05:38 PM	#158
johnnyshaka All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 680	I don't know that I'd be all that excited about giving up a bunch of picks for Palmer after he tore up his knee. __________________

12-12-2005, 09:27 PM	#147
boilermaker All Star Starter Join Date: May 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,956	Random observation that has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.... ...can you believe that Leroy Hoard was once a Pro Bowler? Leroy Hoard?

12-13-2005, 02:33 AM	#151
sebastian0622 Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,465	Nah skip, I remember you offered up the possibility that those particular WR's affect how coaches use them, and them leaving means that coaches try to put too much pressure on their QB's, and I didn't call that ludicrous. Someone(s) suggested that the Vikins just fell apart for other reasons. I said that it would be really coincidental for them to happen to fall apart the season Moss left after they had a lot of personnel turnover and problems over the past 7 years. Yet, I didn't call it ludicrous. I have been arguing the observational stuff. Notice how many times I've presented statistics--past performances. Notice that I've acknowledged the importance of pinpointing performances as best as we can (advanced statistics). If it's a theory, fine, it's a theory. I do think that if Palmer leaves Johnson, Palmer will drop a lot of ratings points. So it's a theory. Happy now? But you're wrong in saying that I've treated other theories poorly. If someone just comes out and says, "You're wrong," then I could be harsh, but if someone comes out with something coherent--I can respect that. Something that others around here can't do...

03-14-2006, 03:56 PM	#152
sebastian0622 Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,465	Culpepper is apparently worth a 2nd rounder, according to the market. Top 5 QB without Moss?

03-14-2006, 04:06 PM	#153
mauboy Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 2,906	It'll be interesting to see what happens with him having Chambers to throw too..but that's about it.