CAM NEWTON

[jhns]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Show me where I called Sagarin gospel. All I did was use it to help support somebody's comment that Denver had a better SOS, but that this doesn't by itself somehow make Denver the better team according to the model. What I did do is say that Sagarin is unbiased and includes multiple factors, unlike some people here who are saying Tebow is better than Newton just because the Broncos won more games than the Panthers.

You guys are over reacting. This isn't a criticism of Tebow. It's praise for Newton. The fact that I have 5 of the usual suspects attacking me for making the statement that Newton > Tebow is very telling. What's funny is that outside of Broncos fans and Tebow fans my opinion would easily be the majority opinion, and by a wide margin.

You just want to win, so the winning QB is worse. Wins can't be used to judge QBs, but you hate Tebow because he didn't win the last two weeks. I say nothing about QBs and you freak out, going on about Manning having a bad w/l record.

You are far too stupid for message boards.

[TheReverend]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Show me where I called Sagarin gospel. All I did was use it to help support somebody's comment that Denver had a better SOS, but that this doesn't by itself somehow make Denver the better team according to the model. What I did do is say that Sagarin is unbiased and includes multiple factors, unlike some people here who are saying Tebow is better than Newton just because the Broncos won more games than the Panthers.

You guys are over reacting. This isn't a criticism of Tebow. It's praise for Newton. The fact that I have 5 of the usual suspects attacking me for making the statement that Newton > Tebow is very telling. What's funny is that outside of Broncos fans and Tebow fans my opinion would easily be the majority opinion, and by a wide margin.

Lol you run to Sagarins rankings in a massive chunk of your discussions. I don't think I've ever seen it not backfire.

[MortonToMoses]

Originally Posted by KO5K

It wasn't just about the strength of schedule though.

I wasn't saying that. I was just pointing out that Denver would probably rank higher than Carolina (mostly based upon the W-L record) and the SOS difference between Denver and Carolina wouldn't be as great. So, the argument that the worse team with the harder schedule won more games is probably not as applicable.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by GreatBronco16

1. It's the pro bowl for crying out loud.
2. It's a rookie in there and the real pros are taking it to him.
3. It's the pro bowl for crying out loud.

now I did not see much of the game but if players were fined for not blocking, making a half assed pass rush, not hitting on a tackle.. I would have sworn it was flag football.

So which of those real pros were taking it to him?

certainly no one I saw..

From the parts I did see, he was looking like crap all by himself..

[jhns]

Originally Posted by MortonToMoses

I wasn't saying that. I was just pointing out that Denver would probably rank higher than Carolina (mostly based upon the W-L record) and the SOS difference between Denver and Carolina wouldn't be as great. So, the argument that the worse team with the harder schedule won more games is probably not as applicable.

Denver has a better w/l record without removing those games. You are not making sense.

[MortonToMoses]

Originally Posted by jhns

Denver has a better w/l record without removing those games. You are not making sense.

No, that's the point I was making. If you run the model on only the Tebow games, Denver would rank a lot higher compared to the Sagarin model ranking for the Orton and Tebow games combined- probably enough to push them higher than the Carolina ranking over the same period of games.

[jhns]

Originally Posted by MortonToMoses

No, that's the point I was making. If you run the model on only the Tebow games, Denver would rank a lot higher compared to the Sagarin model ranking for the Orton and Tebow games combined- probably enough to push them higher than the Carolina ranking over the same period of games.

Maybe, but I doubt it. If you lower our strength of schedule, it would probably remain the same. Sagarin is terrible.

[MortonToMoses]

Originally Posted by jhns

Maybe, but I doubt it. If you lower our strength of schedule, it would probably remain the same. Sagarin is terrible.

Yeah, you can only type so many posts about the Sagarin model before you start questioning your priorities in life, I suppose.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by jhns

Sagarin is terrible.

"Terrible" because you don't understand it (you clearly don't) or because it doesn't give the answers you want it to? Or both?

Like any model Sagarin has its limitations. But it's a good model, as evidenced, for example, by the fact that the two Super Bowl teams are ranked 1 and 5. The major limitiations I see are that it ranks the whole body of work as opposed to how a team is playing currently, and it rewards/punishes for margin of victory/loss more than perhaps it should. For example, Denver probably gets punished for having a -81 differential as opposed to, say, Carolina's -23.

[TheReverend]

Originally Posted by TonyR

"Terrible" because you don't understand it (you clearly don't) or because it doesn't give the answers you want it to? Or both?

Like any model Sagarin has its limitations. But it's a good model, as evidenced, for example, by the fact that the two Super Bowl teams are ranked 1 and 5. The major limitiations I see are that it ranks the whole body of work as opposed to how a team is playing currently, and it rewards/punishes for margin of victory/loss more than perhaps it should. For example, Denver probably gets punished for having a -81 differential as opposed to, say, Carolina's -23.

Reminder:

I'm patiently waiting for you to explain to me what a QB should be judged on.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

"Terrible" because you don't understand it (you clearly don't) or because it doesn't give the answers you want it to? Or both?

Like any model Sagarin has its limitations. But it's a good model, as evidenced, for example, by the fact that the two Super Bowl teams are ranked 1 and 5. The major limitiations I see are that it ranks the whole body of work as opposed to how a team is playing currently, and it rewards/punishes for margin of victory/loss more than perhaps it should. For example, Denver probably gets punished for having a -81 differential as opposed to, say, Carolina's -23.

Terrible because it comes to many self-conflicting and irrational conclusions. I don't have much patience for models that don't reconcile with reality at the end of the day. The last one I looked at still shows the Giants as the 4th best team in the NFC. Many people knew better and predicted a Giants run.

Some things just can't be expressed in a formula.

[Jay3]

Why can't we at another team's player without it being a referendum on Tebow?

Cam Newton **** the bed in the Pro Bowl, a game where the defense is legendary for being bad and the offense has a huge advantage in the rules.

Doesn't mean he's bust or really even that he's worse than Tebow. But I think if the situation were reversed, Tebow would have to take his medicine for playing bad in the Pro Bowl.

[Jay3]

Maybe, just maybe, all the things about Chudzkinsky designing a real good offensive system were true. Outside of his Carolina Cocoon, Newton looked like a . . . . a rookie!

It makes a difference. He throws a good looking ball and I think he'll be fine. But the lesson to be learned is to stop being so quick to judge another player like Tebow. Not everything about the situation he stepped into was ideal this year, and players make mistakes.

[jhns]

Originally Posted by TonyR

"Terrible" because you don't understand it (you clearly don't) or because it doesn't give the answers you want it to? Or both?

Like any model Sagarin has its limitations. But it's a good model, as evidenced, for example, by the fact that the two Super Bowl teams are ranked 1 and 5. The major limitiations I see are that it ranks the whole body of work as opposed to how a team is playing currently, and it rewards/punishes for margin of victory/loss more than perhaps it should. For example, Denver probably gets punished for having a -81 differential as opposed to, say, Carolina's -23.

They say we had a harder schedule. This team won two more games. Conclusion: This team is worse.

That sure makes sense!

So, are you going to explain what this has to do with QBs yet?

[jhns]

Originally Posted by jhns

Harder schedule + more wins = worse team. You argue this as you call others stupid...

You are too stupid for message boards.

Originally Posted by TonyR

You're too caught up in W/L. Go check out Peyton's Manning's W/L his rookie year. I bet some other rookies outperformed him in W/L that year, and certainly other years. So I guess that makes them superior to Manning in your world. Good to know.

Originally Posted by jhns

What does Manning, or any QB, have to do with what I said? You are proving to be far too stupid for message boards again.

Originally Posted by TonyR

You really can't figure this out on your own? And I'm the one who's too stupid?

Care to explain this yet?

[Butterscotch Stallion]

Originally Posted by TheReverend

Reminder:

I'm patiently waiting for you to explain to me what a QB should be judged on.

completion percentage, duh. Nothing is more important than that.

[TheReverend]

Originally Posted by Butterscotch Stallion

completion percentage, duh. Nothing is more important than that.

Clearly.

I'm still waiting though, Tony.

[Dedhed]

Originally Posted by Butterscotch Stallion

completion percentage, duh. Nothing is more important than that.

I'm convinced that if we won the next 3 SBs with Tebow completing only 45% of his passes but delivering in the clutch and getting the best out of his teammates people would be saying "Just imagine what we could do with a real QB (like Orton or Cutler who failed to make the playoffs let alone win a playoff game while completing 60% of their passes). They would still be lamenting about how we need a real pocket passer to win in the future.

Meanwhile if we went 7-9 and missed the playoffs every year and Tebow completed 60% (Like Orton and Cutler and Newton) those same people would be much happier because they could say "at least we have a real QB".

It's mind numbing.

[Dedhed]

Originally Posted by TheReverend

Clearly.

I'm still waiting though, Tony.

He's on hold with sagarin trying to get an answer.

[Butterscotch Stallion]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

I'm convinced that if we won the next 3 SBs with Tebow completing only 45% of his passes but delivering in the clutch and getting the best out of his teammates people would be saying "Just imagine what we could do with a real QB (like Orton or Cutler who failed to make the playoffs let alone win a playoff game while completing 60% of their passes). They would still be lamenting about how we need a real pocket passer to win in the future.

Meanwhile if we went 7-9 and missed the playoffs every year and Tebow completed 60% (Like Orton and Cutler and Newton) those same people would be much happier because they could say "at least we have a real QB".

It's mind numbing.

We won a playoff game and the division with this scenario and look at the tardapalooza the Mane has become.

It is happening NOW.

The sad truth is, people are ****ing moron's. There is no getting around it.

[Cito Pelon]

Cam Newton: INT% 3.3
TD% 4.1
Sack% 6.3
14 rushing TD's

Tebow: INT% 2.2
TD% 4.4
6 rushing TD's
Sack% 10.9

Not much difference in INT% and TD%. The glaring difference is in completion % and sack %.

No telling what the two will look like next year.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Cito Pelon

Cam Newton: INT% 3.3
TD% 4.1
Sack% 6.3
14 rushing TD's

Tebow: INT% 2.2
TD% 4.4
6 rushing TD's
Sack% 10.9

Not much difference in INT% and TD%. The glaring difference is in completion % and sack %.

No telling what the two will look like next year.

Newton having 1.5x the int % seems like a pretty big difference to me.

[Jay3]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

Newton having 1.5x the int % seems like a pretty big difference to me.

Off the charts if you count the Pro Bowl.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Terrible because it comes to many self-conflicting and irrational conclusions. I don't have much patience for models that don't reconcile with reality at the end of the day. The last one I looked at still shows the Giants as the 4th best team in the NFC. Many people knew better and predicted a Giants run.

Some things just can't be expressed in a formula.

Yes, I mentioned those limitations in my post.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

I'm convinced that if we won the next 3 SBs with Tebow completing only 45% of his passes but delivering in the clutch and getting the best out of his teammates people would be saying "Just imagine what we could do with a real QB...

Do you know how many people would be saying that? Zero.