QB

[HelenaHandBasket]

So let me ask you this, on third down, how many were 0-3 yards to go? How about 4-8 or greater than 8? What type of defense was the opponent playing in each different situation? What play did the Griz call? Did they convert by run or pass? If by run, was it a called run or a scramble after the pass play broke down? This is why determining what a QB did in certain situations, against different defensive schemes is important and why a blanket number does not tell the entire story when comparing the different QB's. I don't expect you to understand, but your metrics don't tell the whole story. Whatever though, I am done.

You don't understand. Everything you describe, and in the overall proportions of occurrence during a game, adds up to the cumulative performance of a team during a game and "in a general sort of way" defines the final scores. That's the whole fricking idea of a football game!

When did you miss that part of "football?"

Geez.

The point is, the "general sort of way" doesn't always paint the detailed picture. Sometimes you actually have to analyze the QB on every play to get the clear picture, which of course you are not doing.

I will also add that neither QB has been overly impressive. They each had 1 pretty good game, the first one they both played and it has gone downhill since. Defenses have figured out that you can push guys up with safety help over the top and Simis will stare down his primary receiver and then take off running. Not that difficult to defend really.

 

[UMGriz75]

Bo-taoshi?
Ga-ga ball?
Roller derby?
Bossaball?

Quidditch?

Come on '75, don't leave me hangin'! What sport did you coach?

The people that know me here already know, and those who don't, I don't care. Leaving you "hanging" has a certain malevolent appeal to it. :twisted:

 

[UMGriz75]

The point is, the "general sort of way" doesn't always paint the detailed picture. Sometimes you actually have to analyze the QB on every play to get the clear picture, which of course you are not doing.

The odd part is, if you think something contradicts anything I have said, you have failed entirely to bring that forward.

If you think that illuminates something, then its kind of your problem that it hasn't been discussed. You failed to do so. I think we can conclude that it is because you don't actually have anything specific to say, it's just a nice red herring. Kind of a dilettante's "oh look, over there! Something else!"

In this case, as I have repeatedly asked "OK, what?"

Your consistent answer: "Nothing."

 

[UMGriz75]

The point is, the "general sort of way" doesn't always paint the detailed picture.

That's the main reason most people watch the games. I can't tell if that is a news flash for you or not.

I've already seen the detailed plays. I want to see how they translate into performance metrics. Back to Rumsfeld: "If you don't measure it, you can't improve it."

I don't know what your point or purpose is.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

You are right 75, Simis is the answer to the QB position. His game against UND that make his overall stats impressive should not leave a doubt in anyone's mind. For everyone that wants to see Gus, wake up and smell the coffee. When you add the fact that you have watched every play and to your best knowledge believe Simis is the man, than he must be.

 

[UMGriz75]

By the way, where does the Griz defense come into play with your "win-loss" based metrics. Or are all wins and losses based solely on QB performance, on offensive performance.

If you seriously believe this is a valid question, you've been ignoring the comments.

If you're not serious, its because you don't actually seem to have anything substantive to say except facile and mystical incantations about the "complexities" of football, which seems to be about as far into them as you are able to go.

 

[tgreseth]

Greg Bach, is that you?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

By the way, where does the Griz defense come into play with your "win-loss" based metrics. Or are all wins and losses based solely on QB performance, on offensive performance.

If you seriously believe this is a valid question, you've been ignoring the comments.

If you're not serious, its because you don't actually seem to have anything substantive to say except facile and mystical incantations about the "complexities" of football, which seems to be about as far into them as you are able to go.

I don't even know where to go because you ignore every thing anyone posts that does not fit within your argument and then address questions with an answer that completely ignores previous posts that you have made. It is like I am trying to reason with someone that is bipolar.

 

[grizindabox]

Give it up basket....the dude can't see the open field because he is to caught up in the trees...

 

[Mavman]

Give it up basket....the dude can't see the open field because he is to caught up in the trees...

He not best in space??

 

[UMGriz75]

By the way, where does the Griz defense come into play with your "win-loss" based metrics. Or are all wins and losses based solely on QB performance, on offensive performance.

If you seriously believe this is a valid question, you've been ignoring the comments.

If you're not serious, its because you don't actually seem to have anything substantive to say except facile and mystical incantations about the "complexities" of football, which seems to be about as far into them as you are able to go.

I don't even know where to go because you ignore every thing anyone posts that does not fit within your argument and then address questions with an answer that completely ignores previous posts that you have made. It is like I am trying to reason with someone that is bipolar.

You haven't referenced a single play, even though you say those are important, and you haven't referenced a single actual "statistic" because you say that they are not as important.

You don't "reason," you make bizarre unsubstantiated assertions of opinion. Once past your opinion, there is nothing left to "ignore."

I have repeatedly stated I don't know who is the best QB, but when people like you attempt to create by misleading and often false claims that Brady is the "best" because he "knows the complex strategy," I posted the contrary data that demonstrates a comparison with 1) Makena, and 2) poor statistical performance on a consistent basis on key metrics by Brady. That, whatever his merits as a QB, they "aren't that he has the strategy figured out."

My point was to challenge your broad and shallow assertions with actual facts. And they certainly aren't all the "facts," they just happen to be the ones that challenge your cherished beliefs. You are then fully entitled to bring forward the facts which support your claims and beliefs. And there are some out there, you seem oddly unaware of them, despite your claimed knowledge of football and its eternal "mysteries" and "complexities." I found it remarkable that someone with such strong opinions, that they turned out to be mainly about yourself.

And that's kind of my point. I don't have a conclusion as to who is the best QB. But I could tell your opinion, and those of your little friend, were arbitrary and not based on anything except your own high opinions of yourselves. They were pure hot air. So, let's test your claims, and that is what I did. It wasn't about Brady or Makena, it was about you and people like you who have inflated opinions about what they think they know, and not much else.

 

[snap]

It seems like all this time and energy could be better spent talking shit about ewu.

 

[tgreseth]

It seems like all this time and energy could be better spent talking shit about ewu.

Word.

 

[UMGriz75]

Then you wonder why we lost. I've gone over those "metrics." Nothing magical. They show why we lost.

Very high number of plays, more complexity, faster plays, 65 pass attempts, and just as I pointed out to you previously: 33% third down conversions, 0% fourth down conversions, three fumbles, three interceptions to the worst pass defense team in the conference.

You seem to think you can explain a loss, at home, to a team that has lost every game since by something that "doesn't" appear in the "metrics."

I think that's just BS.

And the bolded statement is exactly how I know that you don't really understand the complexities of football.

And that's all you really seem to be able to say. That's it. Right there. And that it proves that Gus is the better QB. Because "complexities."

 

[mtgrizrule]

what in the hell is the subject of this thread anyway? lol