scine09 Posted November 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Anyone that looks at passing yards alone or any raw numbers alone shouldn't be allowed to vote for the HOF. If passing yards were an indicator then Drew Bledsoe, Kerry Collins and Vinny Testaverde would be in or would get in when eligible. And they're not even getting a sniff. Bledsoe's been eligible for three years and he hasn't even made the initial cut. And he's 10th all time in passing yards. Testaverde is 9th but his eligibility I believe began this year (and he didn't make the initial cut either). At this point it should be all about passer rating. What QB has produced best for his team over a long period of time. Bledsoe doesn't fit that bill, nor do Testaverde or Collins. At least on an all-time great level. And I don't really think that Moon is all that different from those three players in a historical perspective. When the season is over I am going to do a study of a bunch of QB's that have played from the 80's on, some good some not just to see where he averaged in his career in terms of ranking in the QB rating stat each season. That to me should be the main barometer. Not how many interceptions, yards or touchdowns a player throws for. It's very hard to incorporate running, sacks and fumbles into the equation but obviously certain guys like McNair and McNabb offered more than just passing and other guys fumbled a lot or took a lot of sacks. My study will be limited to strictly passing. And it'll ignore years where that player didn't play enough games to qualify for the QB rating leaderboard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanicbomb Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Aikman's career is a lot like McNair's they both played in running offenses and their stats were hurt by that fact. McNair proved he could put up good passing stats under Dinger and Aikman did it in the post season when they needed to. Had Aikman played in apassing offense he could have thrown for big numbers. The Cowboys were no doubt a damn good team so a competent back-up QB is going to have a very good chance to succeed, just like Carlson did for stretches for the Oilers and NOD did for McNair. Anyone thinking Dallas wins 3 SBs and puts up those numbers in the playoffs with Peete or Garrett is insane or stupid. Do you think Dallas was a better team with those back-up QBs vs. Aikman? And obviously Moon was much better than Carlson, but the run and shoot inflated Carlson's numbers too. And of course Moon's 88 season wasn't HOF worthy, he was 18th in passing yards, around 20 in comp % at 54%, 11th in TDs and 5th in passer rating. HOF worthy? Are you kidding me? 89 was a little better at 5th in passing yards, 7th in TDs and 4th in passer rating but damn sure not HOF worthy But HOF worthy? No way. He's better than middle of the pack in most of those categories, he's not above his peers or standing out in any category. Moon made the HOF because of his passing yards from 90-95, Aikman made it for his SB run and what he did in the post season in that 4 year run. Overall their careers are lacking. I happen to think Aikman's accomplishments from 90-95 are way more impressive. From 90-95 Jim Everett had better passing stats than Moon. Which were actually pretty good, but not HOF worthy. Moon missed 5 games due to injury in 1988, which is why he ranked only 11th in TD's and 18th in passing yards. His QB rating was 5th in the NFL. Like you, I tended to think 1990 was Moon's signature season...but in looking back at the stats on www.profootballreference.com I think Moon was actually more productive in 1988 than he was in 1990 when you look at the seasons in context. In 1988, the team averaged 29 points per game in Moon's 11 starts. That was easily tops in the NFL and well above their 25.3 ppg average in 1990. Moon threw a TD on 5.8% of his pass attempts in 1988 compared to 5.7% in 1990 when he threw 33 TD's (he was healthy in 1990 and they threw the ball a ton more). Perhaps most importantly, in 1988 the Oilers really only involved Givins and Hill in the passing game. Duncan and Jeffires were second year players and hardly saw the field. The 1988 Oilers offense was less talented than the 1990 Oilers Offense, yet it scored more points. Therefore, I think Moon was more effective when on the field in 1988 than 1990. 1990 just gets more hype because of the gaudy numbers. I don't think Dallas wins 3 SB's with Garrett or Peete, but I think Dallas wins multiple Super Bowls with at least 8-10 starting QB's from that era. I disagree that Aikman could have thrived on a team where he was the focus of the defense. He obviously could not do so from 1995 onwards. My eyeball test recollection is that Aikman really needed not only great protection to succeed but also good separation from WR's. I don't remember Aikman threading the needle into as many tight windows as other great QB's of that era like Favre, Young, Montana, and Moon. I just think he never really had that ability and wasn't nearly as pure a passer as the all-time greats. I think CTF brought a better comparison to the table than I did with Terry Bradshaw. That really is the perfect comparison in many ways to Aikman. And despite his Super Bowls, I don't consider Bradshaw an all-time great. Another interesting comparison is Eli Manning. Eli has been an average QB most of his career, but obviously had 2 very unexpected, yet very impressive postseason runs. Are those 2 Super Bowls enough to make HOF voters overlook his pedestrian career? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanicbomb Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 BTW, you do think is better between Moon and McNair? I'm curious about your opinion, you clearly know your history I would take Moon. However, I would probably lean to Mcnair's prime years of 2001-2003 as being superior to Moon's best years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 He was voted by his peers to go to 9 straight Pro Bowls. I'd like to hear what that Fenell guy thinks of Warren Moon but apparently I'm curious to a fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 I don;t know that McNair could have executed in the R&S like Moon did. He was never as gifted a thrower as Moon was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanicbomb Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Anyone that looks at passing yards alone or any raw numbers alone shouldn't be allowed to vote for the HOF. If passing yards were an indicator then Drew Bledsoe, Kerry Collins and Vinny Testaverde would be in or would get in when eligible. And they're not even getting a sniff. Bledsoe's been eligible for three years and he hasn't even made the initial cut. And he's 10th all time in passing yards. Testaverde is 9th but his eligibility I believe began this year (and he didn't make the initial cut either). At this point it should be all about passer rating. What QB has produced best for his team over a long period of time. Bledsoe doesn't fit that bill, nor do Testaverde or Collins. At least on an all-time great level. And I don't really think that Moon is all that different from those three players in a historical perspective. When the season is over I am going to do a study of a bunch of QB's that have played from the 80's on, some good some not just to see where he averaged in his career in terms of ranking in the QB rating stat each season. That to me should be the main barometer. Not how many interceptions, yards or touchdowns a player throws for. It's very hard to incorporate running, sacks and fumbles into the equation but obviously certain guys like McNair and McNabb offered more than just passing and other guys fumbled a lot or took a lot of sacks. My study will be limited to strictly passing. And it'll ignore years where that player didn't play enough games to qualify for the QB rating leaderboard. I think Drew Bledsoe was clearly a better QB than Kerry or Testaverde. Testaverde peaked very late in his career, somewhat like Rich Gannon did. Just too many below average years until he went to Baltimore. Wasn't there a new rating system developed for QB's a few years ago which, unlike traditional QB rating, accounts for fumbles, INT's, sacks, clutch play, etc? QB rating is a good metric, but it does have some flaws. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Of course those 3 guys aren't in the hall of Fame and so it's just a straw man and totally irrelevant to this conversation anyway. Clearly the voters don;t base it on just yards or those guys would be in the Hall of Fame. So Scine can now rest well at night. Warren Moon is, however, in the hall of fame because he deserves to be. See the system works! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 QB rating is a good metric, but it does have some flaws. It's "passer rating"! and what are the flaws? I agree with you that Moon was better in the 2 WR sets pre run and shoot and even with the Vikes and Seahawks, one of his Seahawks seasons was pretty solid. I think pre run and shoot Hill was more in his prime and a big time down field threat and Givins was pretty good too. BTW, did you chime in on the WR debate? Who did you say was the best WR in the run and shoot? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Face Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 I think Drew Bledsoe was clearly a better QB than Kerry or Testaverde. Testaverde peaked very late in his career, somewhat like Rich Gannon did. Just too many below average years until he went to Baltimore. Wasn't there a new rating system developed for QB's a few years ago which, unlike traditional QB rating, accounts for fumbles, INT's, sacks, clutch play, etc? QB rating is a good metric, but it does have some flaws. I agree but I think Testaverde's year in '98 was better than any Bledsoe year & much better than any KC year. He was tremendous in '98. As for Moon & the two offenses I agree 100%. I didn't look at the numbers again but what struck me when I did a few mths ago was the difference in YPA. It clearly went down once we inserted the R&S. I just don't think the R&S was a good offense. On paper it was ideal but it was very complicated & led to too many miscommunications & it's a lot easier to choose different options on paper than it is when you have 2.5 secs to make a decision. Also, PK wrote an article after Manning chose Denver that he heard he hated Palmer's offense (remember Gilbride was his brothers OC, same scheme) because he felt it was a reactive offense rather than one that dictated. BTW Bomb.....post more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 The WRs were weak in the run and shoot too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMJ Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 CTF has owned me! Look away! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanicbomb Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 It's "passer rating"! and what are the flaws? I agree with you that Moon was better in the 2 WR sets pre run and shoot and even with the Vikes and Seahawks, one of his Seahawks seasons was pretty solid. I think pre run and shoot Hill was more in his prime and a big time down field threat and Givins was pretty good too. BTW, did you chime in on the WR debate? Who did you say was the best WR in the run and shoot? It's "passer rating"! and what are the flaws? I agree with you that Moon was better in the 2 WR sets pre run and shoot and even with the Vikes and Seahawks, one of his Seahawks seasons was pretty solid. I think pre run and shoot Hill was more in his prime and a big time down field threat and Givins was pretty good too. BTW, did you chime in on the WR debate? Who did you say was the best WR in the run and shoot? I voted for Givins as the best WR in the Run and Shoot, only because Drew Hill's best years were in the Glanville years and he was declining by the time we moved to the RnS. I strongly agreed with you and others that Haywood was overrated despite having more catches and more yards. Here are some of the beefs I've had with the passer rating formula - I don't believe it accounts for passing efficiency in the red zone or on third downs and I believe performance on 3rd down and in the red zone is highly correlated with offensive productivity and winning. I believe it factors in completion percentage, which I consider basically a useless statistic. I believe Yards per Pass attempt is the Gold Standard of passing efficiency and I believe studies have been done that actually say no statistic, not even turnovers, is as highly correlated with winning and losing than is a QB's YPA. I'm pretty sure in the formula ALL interceptions are treated equally even though the impact of interceptions can really vary tremendously. For example, let's say Quarterback A throws a pick 6 interception in a close game late in the 4th quarter and Quarterback B throws an interception with his team down 34-10 in the Fourth Quarter when the game's outcome has already been decided. With the passer rating system, these INT's are created equally even though Quarterback A clearly made a much more costly mistake. Generally speaking, interceptions on short passes are much more devastating that interceptions on passes of over 30 yards because in the case of the shorter pass the change in field position is much more dramatic whereas INT's on deep passes often are equivalent to punts. I believe a good rating system should account for this and should definitely deduct more points for a pick 6 than a typical INT. Passer rating's don't factor in rushing yards or rushing TD's. I'm not a fan of running QB's, but I do think it's misleading to not quantify contributions a QB does make on the ground. Sacks aren't factored in I believe. Obviously a QB who is sacked more often because he holds on to the ball too long is adversely affecting his team's ability to sustain drives and score points. Doesn't seem right to me that sacks aren't factored in. I realize introducing this as a scoring criteria would be unfair to QB's who have crappy olines, but as we all know a QB who holds on to the ball too long because he doesn't read the field and the defense fast enough is going to take more sacks than a QB like Peyton Manning who gets rid of the ball so quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 What you want is a formula to judge the QB more than a team's passing. Passer rating is not designed to judge the QB but the overall passing game of a team, it's a team stat overall but does reflect pretty high on the QB. It's not perfect but on a year to year basis it's pretty damn accurate. Obviously we can't compare someone's passer rating today compared to someone 20+ years ago but that's true about a lot of stats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 BTW, I totally agree about yds per pass being way more important than comp% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scine09 Posted November 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 Drew Bledsoe if he wanted to be could have been one of the best of all time. His talent level matched anyone I've ever seen, including Peyton Manning. What Bledsoe never did, and this is fairly similar to Jay Cutler, is put the work in. It's not that he didn't care. But the reports were that he didn't put in the time to really improve himself and that's why he still looked like a rookie at times in the pocket as late as his days in Dallas. Belichick didn't like him because he wasn't all that coachable. He didn't want to play within the offense that Charlie Weis wanted him to in 2001 and that's really the biggest reason that he never got his job back. Not that Brady was playing out of his mind, because at the point that Bledsoe was healthy enough to play, the Patriots were 5-5 and Brady was struggling. It was a HUGE controversy in NE at that time. But Belichick preferred the QB that would manage the game in the way that the coaches wanted rather than the QB that would change plays without the coaches approval. His footwork never really improved from his rookie year in 1993 until the end of his career in 2006. I've watched Bledsoe play more than I've watched any QB. It's too bad for him that he didn't go down as being as great as he should have been. Bledsoe really should have been the next Marino. Instead he was the next Testaverde. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.