VocableLoki

Member
  • Content count

    448
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

323 Starter

About VocableLoki

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,299 profile views
  1. The Cardinals did not play in the Super Bowl and got blown out in the Championship Game. They also went 7-8-1 last season in the worst division in the league. Arians may be a very good coach, but that doesn't undo warts on his record.
  2. Not to mention Kansas City. i feel it's always impossible and unfair to book coaches down to one thing. "Lewis can't win in the playoffs" or "Pagano can't beat NE or PITT" ignores all kinds of circumstances and doesn't address their strengths or weaknesses as a coach.
  3. Lewis deserves more respect, consistently competing in a conference with teams that have won four Super Bowls since 2000 and represent two of the five best teams in the AFC for 17 years is nothing to scoff at. He hasn't won a playoff game sure, but he essentially had a few very good Palmer years and Andy Dalton to work with l. He's not the best coach in the league but I think he's done great work in Cindy.
  4. That just seems to be a double standard. Drew Brees is deservedly in the top tier and he has gone 7-9 for the last three seasons with a team that is either equal to or slightly better than the Colts and he hasn't dropped from that. Aaron Rodgers started out incredibly slow last season and finished with a pretty miserable NFC Championship game and gets the benefit of the doubt. I just think La Confora is being harsh in his assessment.
  5. 1) Why would Luck drop after one of his best seasons, where statistically he is a top 10 QB? 2) Why would he (essentially) be in the "up-and-coming" category when he has been consistently good-great when healthy?
  6. I find it difficult to understand how you can claim I am tailoring stats to fit my agenda when, again, your only point of debate is that Luck and Stafford have similar volume statistics. That is not a good enough analysis to claim that Luck and Stafford aren't that far apart. You can take issue with other statistical measurements, but when enough of them are pointing towards the same conclusion, I think it's worth listening to. The details of how QBR is computed has not been made public, however, it is essentially measuring a bunch of individual qualities: "Total QBR incorporates information from game charting, such as passes dropped or thrown away on purpose. Total QBR splits responsibility on plays between the quarterback, his receivers, and his blockers. Drops, for example, are more on the receiver, as are yards after the catch, and some sacks are more on the offensive line than others. Total QBR has a clutch factor which adds (or subtracts) value for quarterbacks who perform best (or worst) in high-leverage situations. Total QBR combines passing and rushing value into one number and differentiates between scrambles and planned runs. Beginning in 2016, Total QBR is now adjusted for strength of opponent. Total QBR on other stats pages (pre-2016) has not yet been updated with opponent adjustment. (Note: Other QB stats pages will be updated with adjusted QBR and a qualifying minimum of 200 passes sometime before the end of February.)" Their QBR's are also not that close. Take away Andrew's 2015 season (an outlier) and Stafford's first two seasons and you have 68.25 (Luck) vs. 57.98 (Stafford).) If you average out their total then it is 66 vs 56.81. I'll link two articles on why I think passer rating is a poor measurement https://www.profootballfocus.com/stat-sheet-misconceptions-passer-rating/ http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2013/12/4/5175398/why-passer-rating-is-not-a-good-stat Here is an explanation of PFF's grading system: https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/how-we-grade/. It's a pretty thorough process that accounts for situation and performance of every play. I think that's pretty thorough and puts things in proper perspective. Those grades place Andrew Luck on a different tier than Matt Stafford. So it would stand to reason that Andrew Luck is more valuable on a per-play basis gives his team and much better chance to win. Finally, I think it's a little bit of a strange thing to claim that Andrew Luck isn't as good as the hype, then list him as the 6th best quarterback in the league, with only one guy remotely close to his age ahead. I would say that the difference between the 6th best quarterback and the 10th best quarterback (I'm flipping Newton and Stafford on your list) is significant. In terms of raw ranking, we aren't that far off, I just think the difference between those spots is pretty significant. I'm all ears if you have some other way of measuring these two that ranks them closer. I just Luck's circumstance and overall package makes him a better player.
  7. Your "objective metrics" are just total passing yards and touchdowns. I keep giving out more advanced statistics (QBR, PFF metric, etc) you just aren't discussing those points. It's also not "subjective criteria" to argue that Stafford has had a better team around him when that can also be backed statistically. It's fine if don't want to discuss further but don't try to bury other arguments on your way out. They are close in only a few passing statistics, they aren't similar players, don't play on similar teams and have had very different careers. I also don't think their future is that bright going forward. They are a 9-7 team with no wins against a team with a winning record and needed a comeback in a significant amount of wins and got soundly beaten in the playoffs. To to be honest, I'm not sure what the argument even is at this point. My stance is that Luck at his best now can be a top 5 QB and has the potential to get better, Stafford caps out at the lower end of top 10.
  8. Stafford in year 8 had his definitively best season and ranked 8th, top ten consensus this season. Luck had one of his 3 best seasons and was a consensus top five in year five. This represents the gap between the two in my mind, if that's what you are thinking then we are in agreement.
  9. The point is that he has value as a runner, something Stafford doesn't. I also provided other stats and arguments backing up my point that I believe Luck is a significantly more valuable player. It's also worth noting that comparing the two from 2012-16 doesn't account for the fact that Stafford has three years of experience over that frame and more time to develop. Luck is a better player from a shorter sample. To clarify: yes, I believe that Stafford is a very good quarterback, certainly top 15. What I take issue with, and what the article you quoted earlier specifically posits, is the idea that Luck and Stafford are the same, yet Luck is merely "perceived" to be better. From a brief statistical analysis, yes they have similar stats, Luck's overall value just runs deeper.
  10. Sure, I wrote the first sentence harsher than I should have.
  11. First, I am not sure why you are quoting a different poster to comment on my argument. No, that is not what I am arguing. Stafford did not make the Lions worse but my bolded argument is true. The Lions had a better team around him. Again, no. I have not suggested that Andrew would have won a "SB trophy or two," I just pointed out that Andrew Luck would have had a better team around him from 2012-16, so it stands to reason that he would have a chance of greater success if you put him on a better team. I don't understand why are stretching reasonable points out to unreasonable extremes. Yes, Stafford and Luck have similar passing statistics and yes Stafford plays in a division with the Packers but there is more nuance to being a good quarterback than that. I addressed the fact that Stafford is 3-5 against the AFC South and Luck is 6-2 against the NFC North, it's also been argued more than a few times in this thread that Stafford had a better team and Luck produced more for the offense on the whole. In terms of PFF focus rankings, Stafford has been 21st, 11th, 18th, 21st and 7th from, 2012-2016 (in order) Luck has been 13th, 9th, 5th, 37th, and 4th in the same time span. I think once you get into deeper statistics, there is a significant difference between the two. I think Stafford is a very good quarterback, I just don't think passing statistics alone put him and Andrew on the same level.
  12. Again, the Lions had one of the greatest receivers of his generation, a better running game than the Colts had, better offensive line and a MUCH better defense between 2012-16. I simply don't see how the argument can be made that Luck wouldn't be able to win more games with a better team around him. Their volume passing statistics are similar, yes, but Luck has had to carry a more significant burden offensively and hasn't had as good of supporting cast for his career. Not to mention one of the more baffling attempts at roster construction around a franchise player in recent memory. A few other stats worth points out: 654 Stafford Rushing Yards 59.2 QBR average Luck 1442 Rushing Yards 66 QBR average And their QBR's may even be further apart, as Luck's 2015 season pulls his down and Stafford's 2016 is a big jump from previous numbers.
  13. Yes, the Colts were a much better franchise with Peyton Manning at the helm. The team had bottomed out by the time Andrew arrived, Mathis and Wayne were pretty much the only relevant players from that era. Ergo, they both stepped into bad teams. Division is a fair point but Andrew is 6-2 in his career against that division, while Stafford is 3-5 against South teams. The article you are quoting your arguments from doesn't take into account running stats or supporting casts. Again, give Andrew Luck a defense that good and you would feel that team should be Super Bowl caliber, the Lions lost in the Wild Card.
  14. Luck was drafted to a team that went 2-14 and the next three seasons they are in the playoffs. The Lions have yet to win a playoff game with Stafford. You are ignoring the lions having a top 3 defense that year, and Stafford had one of the greatest receivers of his generation for the better part of his career. The coordinator isn't that relevant, Andrew isn't playing under Mike Martz, one year of Arians is the extent of his coordinating excellence. Throw in a terrible team construction and I think it's fair to say Andrew has had more on his shoulders. I agree Andrew has an edge, I just don't think they're that close overall.
  15. I think it's fair to say that Andrew Luck has carried the Colts more than Stanford has the Lions though. Stafford hasn't even been the best player on his team for most of his career. You think Andrew Luck could've won more with that Lions team (believe it was 2014) where Suh and co lead a very good defense and he would be throwing to Calvin Johnson? I do.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.