Panthera onca

1 hour ago, electro's horse said:

I'm going to humor you in case you're actually being sincere and are just ignorant. Also, you're not very good at tossing barbs. Please stop. 

I did not say random; I said arbitrary. That is a much different thing. 

You're comparing QBR in starts across multiple coaching staffs, seasons, offensive personnel, against defenses with wildly variable of levels of competency, and don't really have a lot of data points. Choosing the dividing line at pre and post benching is arbitrary, and it's not even consistent. He was benched in his first season too. Why not when Reich was fired? Or when Canales was hired? Or when they drafted XL? 

Also, what are potential lurking variables here? I would if I was grading this tell you that you're not really showing anything useful. If your argument is that his QBR has trended up on a per game average from "this point" on then congrats yes you're correct. This is called cherry picking data. 

I understand you're trying to make this quick and dirty, but QB rating by itself doesn't really paint a useful picture. A simple thing you could do it do a second line along the same time domains of what the defense ranked league wide at the time they played each other. I would try to use a cumulative stat from the same source, tho. So qb rating v scoring defense across these specific truncated set of games that have occurred across three seasons with multiple coaching staff. 

Some other suggestions for you 

1. This is the wrong type of graph. You want a scatter point. 

2. The range for QB rating improvement is like 15 points or whatever. The y axis is broken up into 25s. How can I quantify the line? 

3. Quarterback rating goes to 158.3. Why does your line only go to 125? 

The only thing I would really take from this is that Bryce Young sucks in a way that QB rating doesn't pick up on. This is what you'd call a "problem with the data." 

Lastly, I would point out that QB rating as a formula was finalized in 1973. Offenses were so anemic back then it's referred to as the "dead ball era." Maybe not the best metric to measure QB success half a century later.

like buddy i've taken masters level data science courses, and believe me I've done some shitty fuging work. my masters thesis ended up being about why my method of data collection didn't work well enough for me to defend my thesis. I wrote 100 pages just kinda shrugging and saying "Well ya know covid is so challenging etc." 

You're trying to tell people their eyes are lying to them and are posting a very bad graph to do so. Don't be upset when people not only argue with you but point out how bad your graph is. 

You are wasting your time. This kind of information is waaayyyy over his head.

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Hope you find somewhere that suits you better.

Funny how he didn’t answer the question about what he sees in Bryce that his detractors don’t. He just takes his ball and goes home.

1 hour ago, dep said:

There's a difference between being excited about someone playing (Dalton (lol)) and being excited because someone is injured, you know that though.

Also, I don't like Bryce - it isn't that deep.

No. One. Is. Happy. That. Bryce. Got. Hurt.

it really is simple and not very deep.

14 minutes ago, dep said:

Wunderhill explained it since you couldn't

 

Talk about deliberately obtuse when you're playing dumb. Call a spade a spade, playing dumb is for children. Stop it

You are bringing awesome dialogue to the Huddle Derp, thanks for dropping by. Stop by again the next time the Lil guy plays and throws for 135 yards. You and Wunderhill need to take your circle jerk about Bryce to Reddit.

17 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Great now we are using the definition of gas lighting to then gas light. Chefs kiss on that full circle.

 

Yes that was impressive

21 minutes ago, dep said:

what's a lie?

You are being deliberately obtuse because no one can be that dense.

2 minutes ago, dep said:

if you point that out they'll say you're a Bryce stan 

Because it is a lie.

1 hour ago, musicman said:

Small minded response. Of course he's not going to get bigger. But if he shows continuous progress it MIGHT take him another year or 2 to reach a top 10 or so QB. We invested too much into him and he is not a bust and actually has better stats than CJ for the last 17 games. H'es not a bust he just may not be a #1 draft pick worthy but most aren't. 

Yes, he is a bust. He is not worth what we paid to draft him, he is not worth picking up the 5th year option, and he is definitely not worth an extension. All things considered, a bust.

Man, now Bryce can’t even be tackled I guess. He truly does get protected and coddled like no one else.

21 minutes ago, frankw said:

Well hold on let's pause for a second and establish some things first since we're on the subject of "cop outs with no room for nuance".

Our own QB has 37 games under his belt. Many of them are either subpar or just plain bad. We only just this past Sunday won our 2nd road game in his career. But months and months of contentious discussion since his rookie season has largely resulted in the oft used argument that Bryce Young's struggles were due to the coaching and players around him and ultimately he couldn't be blamed. But now apparently it seems like you folks have fully tossed that out and are actively blaming Stroud while wholly omitting contributing circumstances around him. So which is one it?????

As far as Brees. Look I've got to be direct here. I cannot stand that guy. But I would have to concede that he had a significantly better arm than Bryce Young. I mean it's not even close. Plus as much as it annoys me to say it's clear Drew Brees wasn't afraid to hit the weight room either.

And Baker has obviously always had arm talent that showed on the tape even when he was struggling or being a tool.

Acknowledging all of this is the first step in gaining a firm footing in reality with the rest of us.

There just isn’t any reasoning with some of these Bryce Stans. I appreciate you fighting the good fight though.

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

Banking your hopes on a couch FA that has a cup of tea NFL career to date as an almost 31 year old QB is certainly something. Especially when you consider that he has spent literally zero time in our offense so far.

I think that White might be solid competition and possibly be better than Hendon Hooker, which is certainly a very low bar to clear. 

That's probably about where the level is for White. He's a potential upgrade to our PS QB.

For real. Where is Brian St. Pierre when you need him? He is probably still looking for his arm that fell off after one game with Foxy.

54 minutes ago, Basbear said:

Great episode of DEXTER.

A QB like Goff would be perfect for the offense Canales wants to run.

3 hours ago, TD alt said:

No, it doesn't. For you to be talking a little smack after what amounts to X's best game just shows me that you're more interested in clowning than actual analysis. 

Am I glad that X had a game that was more than 60-something yards the first time in his career? You're damned right I am. Hopefully he can be consistent with the production. Does X still have a lot to work on? Yes he does. I'm not crazy about the body catching and jumping to catch passes, but perhaps he can make it work.  

If you saw my post in the other thread today, you would know that if anything, I am suspecting that X makes a better possession guy than outside guy (and there is nothing wrong with that at the end of the day as long as he's productive), but I thought that he'd be more than that. You'd also have seen that I suspect that Bryce and he aren't necessarily the best pairing. You d have also seen that not only do I suspect that Bryce has a limiting effect on X's YAC, but all the receivers' YAC optimization, as well as the coaches' offensive tool bags as well. I could be wrong, but that s just how I see it. 

I've also said that my realization that I like or dislike a player on the football field is not a static proposition. They can play better, and I can praise them, as much as I can criticize them for consistently sucking. 

X had a good game to be sure, but they'll have to come at a much more consistent pace---basically become the norm, as is the expectation for a WR2 (or 1). To say that I'm "wrong," based upon one game out of seven (not to mention an uninsping rookie year where he was injured for a bit) is getting way ahead of yourself.

Lastly, I want X to do well. I want Bryce to do well. I'm still not holding my breath that either one of them will live up to their draft status, but if they do, I will praise the Lord. 

Come on man, you know there is no place for nuanced thinking and analysis here on the huddle. It’s just a bunch of clowns thinking in black or white terms and wanting to beat their chests and scream about how right they are and how wrong everyone else is.

5 minutes ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

bad news is Damien Lewis might not play 

Damn that probably means Corbett will take his spot. I was hoping his fat ass would stay parked on the bench.

It will be nice to have Coker back. I like his game.

34 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

It's a good analysis, though

Certainly it was nothing new that hasn't been discussed over and over on here.

7 hours ago, fieryprophet said:

That was fully intentional, because something people who engage in hyperbole can't stand is to be systematically told why and how they don't have a clue. It's the prevalence of this farcical idea that everyone's opinions are valid and the more impassioned they are about them, the more valid they are.

And the point of the post wasn't merely to cut the knees of the exaggerators, but to illustrate why it shouldn't seem miraculous that someone like Mayfield and Darnold could come through Charlotte and fail and then suddenly seem much more successful elsewhere, when the reality is that there's far more to being successful at that position than one's own talent. It's also why young quarterbacks like Caleb Williams and Cam Ward deserve much longer leashes to determine their long-term viability and not be written off immediately, because the circumstances surrounding them are hardly conducive to success.

Yes, in the absence of your big brain, those points have been discussed ad nauseum around here. Most stable individuals can see that the org sucks since Tepper took over. We can’t change that fact so we debate Bryce’s viability as a QB into oblivion. Bryce has shown the occasional flash but it is year 3 and decisions have to be made. I personally don’t think he’s cut out for this but as a fan of the Panthers I hope that somehow it works.

Pick the guys that produce on the field, even if they do not have the RAS score that another guy might have. Nothing can replace production. It was mentioned above, but getting productive players from big schools will usually translate to NFL success.

45 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Also, has anyone noticed how legitimately insane OP's post actually is?

It's taking credit(tongue in cheek, hopefully?) for some funny event from Huddle past, then explaining that because they now work for PFF they have some sort of super brain knowledge of football that they hadn't before. 

It's actually mostly condescending in a way that lacks a lot of self awareness for.....a PFF stat nerd.

And I say that as a stat nerd myself.

The post was incredibly condescending and the OP came off as a huge Richard.

Look at me! I'm the smartest guy in the room! Everyone else here are idiots!

Nice research. The Bryce GWD nonsense is just a lazy narrative for the Stans to prop up the little guy. Miami was probably the best of those but he’s the reason we were behind in the first place and had Rico producing a historic game running the ball.

Stubborn coaches who are resistant to change even when things are not working well really annoy me.

12 minutes ago, outlaw4 said:

Hopefully, this meeting doesn't end up as a miss like a Brian Burns sack.

Well it already worked since they held the meeting before the Dolphins game and had more sacks in that one game than the previous 4 games combined.

His quickness is amazing for a man that size.