An honest look at Bryce Young

[Navy_football]

3 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Bryces ypa was roughly 6.5 ish, which would be bottom 3rd of the nfl.  Again averaging 200 yards 60% so something most certainly isnt adding up with Pff stats

His YAC per completion was also 35th in the NFL. There are only 32 teams. 

[KSpan]

8 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

His YAC per completion was also 35th in the NFL. There are only 32 teams. 

Eh, I'm still quite skeptical about Bryce as a franchise guy but YAC is a product of the scheme and pass catchers as much, if not more, than the QB. Perhaps there some nerd stat out there that has teased that apart but even then, it's not like baseball where it's just pitcher vs hitter in static situations.

[Navy_football]

13 minutes ago, KSpan said:

Eh, I'm still quite skeptical about Bryce as a franchise guy but YAC is a product of the scheme and pass catchers as much, if not more, than the QB. Perhaps there some nerd stat out there that has teased that apart but even then, it's not like baseball where it's just pitcher vs hitter in static situations.

Agree. The point I'm making is his total yards will be low due to a lack of YAC. Therefore his YPA will be low. Carolina had the lowest YAC in the NFL last season. 

[PNW_PantherMan]

2 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

Like it or not PFF isn’t going anywhere. Analytics are trending up right now. 

The rise of analytics in sports goes back to the use of sabermetrics in baseball.  The ironic thing is that the whole point of Bill James work was to objectively figure out each players contribution to to a team's wins throughout the season.  This is possible in baseball because each at bat is essentially a 1v1 with an objective outcome.  Applying statistical averages also works a lot better with hundreds of plate appearances over 162 games a year.

PFF grades plays subjectively, and then puts them into buckets.  They then create different statistics based on those buckets.  That's all well and good and I'm not saying it's useless.  But calling it analytics like it's some kind of objective science is a far cry from what is actually going on.

[ForJimmy]

6 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

The rise of analytics in sports goes back to the use of sabermetrics in baseball.  The ironic thing is that the whole point of Bill James work was to objectively figure out each players contribution to to a team's wins throughout the season.  This is possible in baseball because each at bat is essentially a 1v1 with an objective outcome.  Applying statistical averages also works a lot better with hundreds of plate appearances over 162 games a year.

PFF grades plays subjectively, and then puts them into buckets.  They then create different statistics based on those buckets.  That's all well and good and I'm not saying it's useless.  But calling it analytics like it's some kind of objective science is a far cry from what is actually going on.

I get what you are saying but they refer to themselves as a sports analytics company.  It's a pretty broad term anymore but their metrics are definitely being used in today's NFL staffs.  Hell one of our main analytic guys is from PFF (Eric Eager).  I think his title is VP of Football Analytics.  I guess I could have said their specific analytics are trending right now to make more sense.    

[PNW_PantherMan]

2 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I get what you are saying but they refer to themselves as a sports analytics company.  It's a pretty broad term anymore but their metrics are definitely being used in today's NFL staffs.  Hell one of our main analytic guys is from PFF (Eric Eager).  I think his title is VP of Football Analytics.  I guess I could have said their specific analytics are trending right now to make more sense.    

Sure but stats with a subjective basis should be treated differently than stats with an objective basis.  The issue is that football as a sport is difficult to objectively quantify when it comes to individual performance.  Individual stats are the best we have, but as we all know they don't tell the whole story.  In baseball they do basically tell the whole story.  The team's output is a sum of everyone's individual output.  In football it's much blurier.  So I think there's a lot of analytical voodoo that's done to try and make up for that gap.

[ForJimmy]

10 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Sure but stats with a subjective basis should be treated differently than stats with an objective basis.  The issue is that football as a sport is difficult to objectively quantify when it comes to individual performance.  Individual stats are the best we have, but as we all know they don't tell the whole story.  In baseball they do basically tell the whole story.  The team's output is a sum of everyone's individual output.  In football it's much blurier.  So I think there's a lot of analytical voodoo that's done to try and make up for that gap.

100%.  It's why the debates will never end and can go in circles over and over again.  Good for offseason fillers.  I feel like even baseball can be a little blurry as every player isn't facing the exact same pitcher throwing the exact same pitches in the exact same circumstances.  It's hard to fully compare most players in most sports without some sort of margin of error.  I get what you are saying though in football being the hardest because it's the ultimate "team" sport.  One personal screws up and the entire play can blow up.  I do like what PFF is trying to do though.  It also gets real blurry trying to analyze what a player did wrong or right without knowing the specific play called and exactly what SHOULD have happened in that play.  Did the QB miss his window?  Did the WR run the correct route the correct yardage out?  Did the OL hold their blocks?  

[Basbear]

1 hour ago, ForJimmy said:

100%.  It's why the debates will never end and can go in circles over and over again.  Good for offseason fillers.  I feel like even baseball can be a little blurry as every player isn't facing the exact same pitcher throwing the exact same pitches in the exact same circumstances.  It's hard to fully compare most players in most sports without some sort of margin of error.  I get what you are saying though in football being the hardest because it's the ultimate "team" sport.  One personal screws up and the entire play can blow up.  I do like what PFF is trying to do though.  It also gets real blurry trying to analyze what a player did wrong or right without knowing the specific play called and exactly what SHOULD have happened in that play.  Did the QB miss his window?  Did the WR run the correct route the correct yardage out?  Did the OL hold their blocks?  

They have no clue the players responsibilities for each play, nor if a coach tells the RT- " I want you to let the DE have a free path" The the RB job is to chip him, but doesn't.... PFF -100 points for the RT on that play. 

Unless they have former coaches and aware of the teams weekly game plans, its a guess. Here at the huddle we guess too..... I will say they have improved over the years, at the beginning total dog water. Now, I feel they are informed and if I have no idea on a player, Ill listen to the grade without trashing it like years ago.  

[CRA]

3 hours ago, Navy_football said:

Agree. The point I'm making is his total yards will be low due to a lack of YAC. Therefore his YPA will be low. Carolina had the lowest YAC in the NFL last season. 

Coupled with that, is Young was 32nd in air yards per attempt.  So coupled with our lack of YAC…..that’s sort of a bad recipe for modern day passing O/production  

YAC players should have been a priority for Young from day 1.  I still think there remains a degree of round peg/sqaure hole to this whole thing.