Week 4 impressions: Brissett

[stitches]

Just now, Imgrandojji said:

TD-INT isn't a meaningless number.  Higher TD-INT ratios are usually indicators of elite passing skill.

 

He's probably not a 5-1 passer.  But anything over 2-1 is pretty special.  Manning was a 2-1 TD-INT guy.

 

In other words, he's outperforming right now and likely to regress a bit.  But he's also passing extremely efficiently and not making a ton of mistakes.  I think the recency bias of the pick 6 is making this harder to appreciate.

 

Oh I appreciate it. I just posted something above about it - this is the best thing going for Brissett right now. He's been exceptional in his red zone throws which is why his TDs are really high(+for some reason it seems like Reich is calling the game conservatively 20-to-20 but then throws a lot in the red zone, which is quirky, but I'm not sure it will continue with larger sample. Overall Brissett takes care of the ball and and is currently the QB with the lowest INT% along with Aaron Rodgers over the last 20 or so years. This is not new, he was like that in 2017 too. And any time you have low INT% you will have not bad TD/INT ratio. Right now his is off the charts because of a really high TD%. The problem with it is that this type of TD% is not sustainable with the way he's playing the game. TD% is highly correlated with big time throw% and Brissett's number of big time throws is very low(last stat I saw he was 29th out of 34 qualified QBs). This all points to this not being sustainable and it being a serious contender for a regression to the mean the more the sample grows... This is why I said 'meaningless' but probably 'meaningless' was not the right word for it. I qualified it 'for small samples' which makes it better, but yeah... this is what I meant - TD/INT is not meaningless, but when the sample is small and other indicators point to it not being sustainable, I don't put too much weight on it. 

[BLUEx40]

2 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

You do realize why QBR has been a stat under fire since its inception right?  The irony in your post is hilarious.  I'll spell it out for you, QBR is a stat which ESPN pushed taht basically adds the context to any given play.  In other words, it's a stat that has built within it the film review so that people who use it, like you, don't have to watch film of all QBs.  ESPN does it for you.  

 

So, yeah, you citing QBR and in the same sentence criticizing me for not watching football is hilarious.

Hey guess thats you opinion Kid but hey keep getting mad over makes this conversation more fun what other QBs do you like more than jacoby so ican kill that argument to get agrip homie

[Imgrandojji]

1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

After 3 years in the NFL, almost every player does not improve what they are. 

Sorry, this is nonsense.  It is true at some positions, mostly RB and the secondary positions where a large part of success comes down to pure talent, but tyhere's plenty of examples of players in other positions -- QB, WR, LB -- who start out slow  and then come into their own after a coaching or scheme change that allows them to take better advantage of what they do best.

 

If you want an example look at half the Patriots roster.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

He's probably not a 5-1 passer.  But anything over 2-1 is pretty special.  Manning was a 2-1 TD-INT guy.

 

 

There's something happening in the NFL right now. It's only been four weeks, but I've never seen so many QBs above 70% completions before. Even at 65%, which has always been a top third of the league kind of percentage, JB is 15th in the league.

 

And these new QBs are well represented in the top half of the league for completion percentage (K. Allen, D. Jones, Minschew). Then there are four veterans who probably should/will be above 65% -- Brady, Rodgers, Goff and Wentz.

 

And in 2018, there were 17 QBs who attempted more than 100 passes, but had an INT % of less than 2.0. 

 

Offenses have changed to the point that even average QBs can come in and have a high completion rate and low INT %. When you play on a team that will commit to running the ball and will put the QB in good situations in the red zone -- like the Colts and JB -- a strong TD:INT ratio isn't hard to understand.

 

We're going to have to recalibrate what we consider to be "special" when it comes to QB efficiency.

[Imgrandojji]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There's something happening in the NFL right now. It's only been four weeks, but I've never seen so many QBs above 70% completions before. Even at 65%, which has always been a top third of the league kind of percentage, JB is 15th in the league.

 

And these new QBs are well represented in the top half of the league for completion percentage (K. Allen, D. Jones, Minschew). Then there are four veterans who probably should/will be above 65% -- Brady, Rodgers, Goff and Wentz.

 

And in 2018, there were 17 QBs who attempted more than 100 passes, but had an INT % of less than 2.0. 

 

Offenses have changed to the point that even average QBs can come in and have a high completion rate and low INT %. When you play on a team that will commit to running the ball and will put the QB in good situations in the red zone -- like the Colts and JB -- a strong TD:INT ratio isn't hard to understand.

 

We're going to have to recalibrate what we consider to be "special" when it comes to QB efficiency.

Of offenses will regress to the mean over time as various schedules even out and defenses adjust to the wrinkles the league's offenses are showing right now.

 

One of the fads of the league right now seems to be to work the long count and try to catch defenses off balance.  They think it gives the offenses an extra quarter step or so.  We'll see what happens when that neutralizes itself.  One thing that encourages me is that Brissett hasn't been engaging in that nonsense, we've just been playing football, so when that does normalize, we ought to be in a good spot.

[coltfaninnewyork]

Jacoby is guy to root for but I just don't see that franchise guy look .Stats can be misleading.seems to take forever to go through progressions.Stares down targets frequently as well.Ballard will have to figure it out .

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Imgrandojji said:

Of offenses will regress to the mean over time as various schedules even out and defenses adjust to the wrinkles the league's offenses are showing right now.

 

One of the fads of the league right now seems to be to work the long count and try to catch defenses off balance.  They think it gives the offenses an extra quarter step or so.  We'll see what happens when that neutralizes itself.  One thing that encourages me is that Brissett hasn't been engaging in that nonsense, we've just been playing football, so when that does normalize, we ought to be in a good spot.

 

Some of these passers will regress to the mean, but the fact that rookies are stepping in during the second quarter of Week 1 (and the like) and completing better than 65% of their passes is different than what we're used to. They're throwing more and more, completing more and more, and still not turning the ball over. 

[Imgrandojji]

23 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Oh I appreciate it. I just posted something above about it - this is the best thing going for Brissett right now. He's been exceptional in his red zone throws which is why his TDs are really high(+for some reason it seems like Reich is calling the game conservatively 20-to-20 but then throws a lot in the red zone, which is quirky, but I'm not sure it will continue with larger sample. Overall Brissett takes care of the ball and and is currently the QB with the lowest INT% along with Aaron Rodgers over the last 20 or so years. This is not new, he was like that in 2017 too. And any time you have low INT% you will have not bad TD/INT ratio. Right now his is off the charts because of a really high TD%. The problem with it is that this type of TD% is not sustainable with the way he's playing the game. TD% is highly correlated with big time throw% and Brissett's number of big time throws is very low(last stat I saw he was 29th out of 34 qualified QBs). This all points to this not being sustainable and it being a serious contender for a regression to the mean the more the sample grows... This is why I said 'meaningless' but probably 'meaningless' was not the right word for it. I qualified it 'for small samples' which makes it better, but yeah... this is what I meant - TD/INT is not meaningless, but when the sample is small and other indicators point to it not being sustainable, I don't put too much weight on it. 

This is why I was actually encouraged by last night's game.  To put it frankly, the running game was terrible.  We got nowhere and that freed the Raiders up to cover the passing gam.  And yet Brissett, despite the fact that he now had to cover the 20-to-20, and even with distinctly mediocre receiving help, still put up about the same points total that he did the previous game when the RBs were productive

 

This is why despite the L and even the pick 6, I think Brissett actually took a step forward today.  He had to carry the offense mostly by himself.  He had to drive the entire field and not just the red zone.  And for the most part he did.  An even somewhat decent effort by the defense would have been more than enough to win, even with very little production from the RB corps.  That's not something we expected from Brissett in week 1, or even in week 3.  It's a distinct step forward IMHO

[krunk]

If I had to choose between the 2 QBs I probably would choose Mayfield, but I just have to ask what do you think Mayfield would have done with that circumstance Jacoby had yesterday?  There's more evidence to say Mayfield would have done worse.  Jacoby doesn't get enough credit for how he handles things.  He's a pretty good QB.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

3 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

This is why I was actually encouraged by last night's game.  To put it frankly, the running game was terrible.  We got nowhere and that freed the Raiders up to cover the passing game

 

And yet Brissett, despite the fact that he now had to cover the 20-to-20, and even with distinctly mediocre receiving help, still put up about the same points total that he did the previous game when the RBs were productive

 

This is why despite the L and even the pick 6, I think Brissett actually took a step forward today.  He had to carry the offense mostly by himself.  And for the most part he did.  An even somewhat decent effort by the defense would have been more than enough to win, even without much production from the RB corps.  That's not something we expected from Brissett in week 1, or even in week 3.  It's a distinct step forward

Yep. That would of been a totally different game with a healthy TY. If DF hadn’t got hurt we would of been ok without TY for a game.

 

The WR depth is ok. The problem is when you have guys who are the 4.5,6 receiver expected to be one and two your going to have issues.

[Myles]

5 minutes ago, coltfaninnewyork said:

Jacoby is guy to root for but I just don't see that franchise guy look .Stats can be misleading.seems to take forever to go through progressions.Stares down targets frequently as well.Ballard will have to figure it out .

I tend to agree.   But I do think he is better than half the starters in the league.    I'd take him around 14-16 in a current QB draft.   

[OffensivelyPC]

23 minutes ago, BLUEx40 said:

Hey guess thats you opinion Kid but hey keep getting mad over makes this conversation more fun what other QBs do you like more than jacoby so ican kill that argument to get agrip homie

lol, you gonna blast me now?  

[Imgrandojji]

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

I tend to agree.   But I do think he is better than half the starters in the league.    I'd take him around 14-16 in a current QB draft.   

I'd be hard pressed to name 10 QBs I'd definitely take over Brissett.  A lot of the guys you'd normally think of are on the back 9 and expensive, while Brissett is young and cost-controlled for 1 ore year.

 

As for Mayfield in particular... I honestly don't think he'd be a good fit for us.  Big reason, his height.  Not a lot of short quarterbacks survive in this league.  They have disadvantages in vision and can't drive the ball as easily without putting it in harm's way

 

  Brissett's got good height and build to him and can see over the OL.  Mayfield is a risk to get tipped at the line for a pick every time he throws from the pocket.  It's already happened a nontrivial number of times.  Any team with a nice tall DL is going to force Mayfield to play as if he's Fran the Man Tarkenton just so he can see downfield.

 

Needless to say I'm skeptical of Mayfield's projections.  Not that he CAN'T do it, but his height is going to stymie him time and time again.

[OffensivelyPC]

24 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Sorry, this is nonsense.  It is true at some positions, mostly RB and the secondary positions where a large part of success comes down to pure talent, but tyhere's plenty of examples of players in other positions -- QB, WR, LB -- who start out slow  and then come into their own after a coaching or scheme change that allows them to take better advantage of what they do best.

 

If you want an example look at half the Patriots roster.

I swear, it's like people only read what they want to read.  I've admitted all of this, but again...IT IS SO UNLIKELY THAT YOU SHOULD NOT EXPECT ANY IMPROVEMENT

[Colts_Fan12]

1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

Mahomes was a back up for a year. Not every backup is destined to be a backup his entire career.

 you really dont understand how things work do you....

[Imgrandojji]

Just now, OffensivelyPC said:

I swear, it's like people only read what they want to read.  I've admitted all of this, but again...IT IS SO UNLIKELY THAT YOU SHOULD NOT EXPECT ANY IMPROVEMENT

No it isn't.  It's not common, but it's not a once in a blue moon thing either.

[OffensivelyPC]

Just now, Colts_Fan12 said:

 you really dont understand how things work do you....

Don't forget Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers.  Nevermind the fact that both Mahommes and Rodgers were first round picks...they were backups behind HOFers like Steve Young!

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

????

 

 

 

A random 55-yard run by Wilkins is leading a game-winning drive?

[OffensivelyPC]

8 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

No it isn't.  It's not common, but it's not a once in a blue moon thing either.

If the metric is simply to come in and play snaps at the position, yeah.  Sure, I agree with that.  If we're talking about a long term QB, which is hwat this whole conversation is based upon, then no, it isn't common.  Not even by a long shot.  The most recent example you have is Foles and Mahommes.  One was a first rounder, the other was relegated to backup duties after his cinderella playoff run.  I guess you can throw Case Keenum in there, and how's he doing?  

 

Anyway, I'm over this.  

[Imgrandojji]

6 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Don't forget Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers.  Nevermind the fact that both Mahommes and Rodgers were first round picks...they were backups behind HOFers like Steve Young!

Tom Brady was a backup too.

 

Generally speaking if you're throwing in a guy on day 1 it's because you're desperate.  Most teams protect their QB prospects with a veteran in the first year.

 

One thing to ber in mind though, even though Brissett was the QB2 here, the FO has always been consistent at reminding fans that he had the ability to start.  THEY didn't see Brissett as a career backup at any point.

[Imgrandojji]

2 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

A random 55-yard run by Wilkins is leading a game-winning drive?

Sure.  There's always a certain element of luck in a game tying drive.  

 

I do get why people might believe it leaves some questions unanswered but to pretend this drive didn't exist is quite frankly silly.

[OffensivelyPC]

Just now, Imgrandojji said:

Tom Brady was a backup too.

Look, I see what you're saying, but wer're repeating ourselves at this point.  Just let the film talk for itself.  My pet peeve is repeating myself over and over and I've reached the threshold.  Not just you, just in general.

[John Waylon]

1 hour ago, WoolMagnet said:

At least he isnt handing out dinner coupons and hugs to those that sack him.

 

Might have been a better strategy. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Brady might of never got his chance if Bledsoe had not gotten injured. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, Imgrandojji said:

Sure.  There's always a certain element of luck in a game tying drive.  

 

I do get why people might believe it leaves some questions unanswered but to pretend this drive didn't exist is quite frankly silly.

Right. Why does it matter how we got the yards. The oline and running backs are part of this team to and did their job.

[Superman]

I love the anecdotal fallacy. Just because you can name a handful of backup QBs who went on to be great doesn't mean that it's statistically likely for a backup QB to wind up being great. 

 

I also love the genetic fallacy. Just because a QB wasn't drafted in the first round doesn't mean he can't be a really good QB. 

 

Everyone knows these two things. I don't understand why this discussion always has to be argued in the extremes. JB threads are becoming the new Trent Richardson threads around here. 

[OffensivelyPC]

57 minutes ago, BLUEx40 said:

Hey guess thats you opinion Kid but hey keep getting mad over makes this conversation more fun what other QBs do you like more than jacoby so ican kill that argument to get agrip homie

Look, you can posture stats all you want, and you can call me kid and tell me I'm mad and say I don't watch film.  All I've ever said was that JB has shown some good, some bad, but a whole lot more average.  Kill all my arguments, I can use my eyes.

 

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

I love the anecdotal fallacy. Just because you can name a handful of backup QBs who went on to be great doesn't mean that it's statistically likely for a backup QB to wind up being great. 

 

I also love the genetic fallacy. Just because a QB wasn't drafted in the first round doesn't mean he can't be a really good QB. 

 

Everyone knows these two things. I don't understand why this discussion always has to be argued in the extremes. JB threads are becoming the new Trent Richardson threads around here. 

They really are, there's just no arguing without having to resort to extremes just to defend against the extreme argument, and then its just repeating yourself over and over.  Meh...

[throwing BBZ]

47 minutes ago, coltfaninnewyork said:

Jacoby is guy to root for but I just don't see that franchise guy look .Stats can be misleading.seems to take forever to go through progressions.Stares down targets frequently as well.Ballard will have to figure it out .

 

 Any QB that doesn't trust where his receivers are going to be will need to stare them down.
 It is a problem that can get better. We are very RAW right now with Cain and Campbell. They look like year 2 and beyond guys right now with their route running, IMO.
 Practice Practice Practice.

[Imgrandojji]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 backup QBs

found your problem.  You're so fixated on what he DID, you're ignoring all the evidence of what he IS.

 

He did QB2.  Does that mean QB2 was all he was capable of?  No.  And clearly Ballard never saw him that way.  Every now and again he'd drop a reminder that he considered Brissett a starting caliber QB, even during the year Luck retook the starting job from him.

 

You are not your job.  Neither was Brissett.  We refused to trade the guy mostly because Ballard wanted him to start in case Luck wasn't good to go at some point.  Turns out to have been prescient.

 

Don't get so hung up on what the guy used to do for a living.  Brissett was playing below his talent level as a QB2.  He didn't move on to another staring job mostly because the Luck situation meant Ballard couldn't risk losing him. Not because he wouldn't have improved some other team.

 

One thing I agree with you on.  Brissett is what he is.And what he is is a guy who was held back for awhile due to roster math finally giving us a chance to see what he an really do.

 

So far I'm pleasantly surprised.

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

found your problem.  You're so fixated on what he DID, you're ignoring all the evidence of what he IS.

 

He did QB2.  Does that mean QB2 was all he was capable of?  No.  And clearly Ballard never saw him that way.  Every now and again he'd drop a reminder that he considered Brissett a starting caliber QB, even during the year Luck retook the starting job from him.

 

You are not your job.  Neither was Brissett.  We refused to trade the guy mostly because Ballard wanted him to start in case Luck wasn't good to go at some point.  Turns out to have been prescient.

 

Don't get so hung up on what the guy used to do for a living.  Brissett was playing below his talent level as a QB2.  He didn't move on to another staring job mostly because the Luck situation meant Ballard couldn't risk losing him. Not because he wouldn't have improved some other team.

 

One thing I agree with you on.  Brissett is what he is.And what he is is a guy who was held back for awhile due to roster math finally giving us a chance to see what he an really do.

 

So far I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

No offense, but this is a ridiculous post, and it totally overlooked my point. The ones continually bringing up how other former backups have excelled in the league are those who are rabidly defensive of JB, even when others are simply offering legitimate evaluation of him. 

 

How about we stop comparing him to Luck, Rodgers, Brady, Mahomes and others, and just talk about his play? And how about we do so fairly, without making excuses for his shortcomings, without claiming safe harbor behind his stats, and without holding him up to a HOF standard?

[DerekDiggler]

7 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

 

And yet the stats don't back this statement up.

 

 

Haha.  Be a stat guy all you want.  

 

Do me me a favor and actually look at the stats.   Then break them down.  He passed 49 freakin times!!!!!! completed 52%.    

 

Stats are for for people who don’t watch football.  

 

Luck or Manning would have hung 50 on them.    If you want to do the stats thing.    

 

I dont do that   I can amd did see with my own eyes what was happening 

[DerekDiggler]

38 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Any QB that doesn't trust where his receivers are going to be will need to stare them down.
 It is a problem that can get better. We are very RAW right now with Cain and Campbell. They look like year 2 and beyond guys right now with their route running, IMO.
 Practice Practice Practice.

Very good point 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, DerekDiggler said:

Haha.  Be a stat guy all you want.  

 

Do me me a favor and actually look at the stats.   Then break them down.  He passed 49 freakin times!!!!!! completed 52%.    

 

Stats are for for people who don’t watch football.  

 

Luck or Manning would have hung 50 on them.    

Not with receivers dropping the ball.

[DerekDiggler]

Just now, Chloe6124 said:

Not with receivers dropping the ball.

 

Yes they did.    But his passes weren’t perfectly thrown either 

 

stop being a homer 

[Imgrandojji]

1 minute ago, DerekDiggler said:

 

Yes they did.    But his passes weren’t perfectly thrown either 

 

stop being a homer 

Sorry  my mistake, I thought this forum was  for Colts fans, cleraly I was  mistaken.

[Superman]

Just now, Imgrandojji said:

Sorry  my mistake, I thought this forum was  for Colts fans, cleraly I was  mistaken.

 

I hate this purity test crap.

[Imgrandojji]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No offense, but this is a ridiculous post, and it totally overlooked my point. The ones continually bringing up how other former backups have excelled in the league are those who are rabidly defensive of JB, even when others are simply offering legitimate evaluation of him. 

 

How about we stop comparing him to Luck, Rodgers, Brady, Mahomes and others, and just talk about his play? And how about we do so fairly, without making excuses for his shortcomings, without claiming safe harbor behind his stats, and without holding him up to a HOF standard?

Sure, if you can recognize that Brissett is working with some legitimate hardships that are holding him back at the moment, especially over the last 2 weeks with injuries to Hilton, Funchess and key defensive players

 

It would also help if you were willing to recognize the fact that he's overcoming those hardships to remain moderately productive, which is something we weren't sure we'd see from Brissett this year.

 

If you're good recognizing that, I'll be happy to recognize the areas where he still clearly needs to improve.

 

But I do think the critics are being a little hard on JB right now. My personal opinion is that he was a bright spot yesterday, but the pick 6 seems to be disproportionately coloring a lot of peoples' perspective on the job he did.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Sure, if you can recognize that Brissett is working with some legitimate hardships that are holding him back at the moment, especially over the last 2 weeks with injuries to Hilton, Funchess and key defensive players

 

It would also help if you were willing to recognize the fact that he's overcoming those hardships to remain moderately productive, which is something we weren't sure we'd see from Brissett this year.

 

If you're good recognizing that, I'll be happy to recognize the areas where he still clearly needs to improve.

 

But I do think the critics are being a little hard on JB right now. My personal opinion is that he was a bright spot yesterday, but the pick 6 seems to be disproportionately coloring a lot of peoples' perspective on the job he did.

 

"Critics"

 

Do you realize that the people who have reservations about JB are not consumed by the win/loss record, or by the outcome of one play in one game? Saying 'we didn't lose because of Brissett, we lost because of X, Y and Z, and Brissett played good!' totally misses the point.

 

Stitches made some film based observations of JB's QBing a few days ago, which were met with the same 'why are you nitpicking JB when we won the game?' kind of defense. 

[bhougland]

 

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Any QB that doesn't trust where his receivers are going to be will need to stare them down.
 It is a problem that can get better. We are very RAW right now with Cain and Campbell. They look like year 2 and beyond guys right now with their route running, IMO.
 Practice Practice Practice.

 

Any QB that can't anticipate when a receiver will be open will also have to stare them down.  Brissett also stared down TY, does that mean he didn't trust him?

[ClaytonColt]

Jacoby's 10 TD at this stage of the season are mightily impressive. 

 

Given the rest of his stats isn't it a little like the bruising running back who can punch them in from the 4 yard line but is less impressive when the field is opened up a bit more?