Jamalisms Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 The problem with QBR is how skewed it can get based on a long TD pass. Normally it is a fine measure of QB play but as we found out with VY it can be very misleading. Throw about 10 passes complete less than half but get a long td on one of the completions and it boosts the rating significantly. The other big problem with it is that it ignores what the defense is doing and how the offense is trying to move the ball. It's the BMI of the NFL... it's moderately useful as a benchmark but does not tell the story on real health and too many people resort to using it as more than it is due to the simplicity of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 The debate was whether a running team can contend for SBs, not a debate on passer rating. I thought Jamal lost that one because he said he couldn't name any teams and mentioned Denver who was break even and no where close to contending. Also only one team in the top 5 in rushing had a winning record, the saints, a passing team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prometheus Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 I find it difficult to rate the discussions, in part because Josh suggested in the beginning that the focus in scoring should be less on the content agreement than on the debating skills since one might be taking a position that he does not truly believe simply for the purpose of presenting an opposing view. Jamal won the verbal debating skills in all three segments, IMO. Scotty's rationale for his position in segment three was more convincing than was Jamal's (whether I agree with Scotty or not). I felt that Jamal's rationale and logical presentations in segments one and three rather easily won those rounds for him; I give Scotty the baton for the winning race in segment two. pro Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 @OILERMAN You didn't listen very well. Round two was can you win running, does it impact the success of a team... Super bowls were also mentioned. Absolutely you can win, it's just not as easy and requires a smaller margin for error and you'll focus more and more on it depending on your personnel. Of course running matters and there are many examples of teams that have to try focusing on it to win a lot, and sometimes they do. Teams that focus on it excessively do so because of inadequacies elsewhere, so of course they aren't as good. An elite QB is like a video game cheat, but absent that you had better have a good run game. That is my argument and, really, the only honest one. Saying passer rating wins games is pretending a result determines outcomes. No, inputs do and there are many factors that influence how well a team's QB passes that have nothing to do with focusing directly on having a great pass game... and Tebow is the perfect example. Compare your comments in the podcast to this and try to tell me that the Broncos didn't win by focusing on the run: ... interesting, it was all about Tebow when the Bronco's were winning in spite of  him 3 and out for Tebow and a terrible pass. 26 consectutive drives for Tebow with no TD but.... Tebow's character really shined on that drive and it was obvious to all watching he's working harder than anyone else in the league and is dedicated like no other QB. I also think the fact the Steelers were down to their 3rd NT hurt them. They played zero coverage because they were afraid they couldn't stop the run with their front. The Steelers gave up 4 of their 6 biggest plays in this game for the entire season. They were great at preventing big plays throughout the season and for some reason their completely changed their scheme. They tried to play a man coverage blitzing type defense and their secondary is actually terrible at that. I believe they were afraid they would get killed in the running game without their top two NTs and tried to compensate for that by loading the box to stop the run. It's literally one of the worst game plans I've seen a team put together. They actually allowed Tebow to get a 125 passer rating and let him make big plays and let them off the hook on 3rd downs. Denver was only 3 of 10 on 3rd downs. Tebow cannot sustain long drives and convertn 3rd downs. The Steelers should have played deep zones and let the Bronco's make plays underneath and run the ball, they would have never sustained drives and had to settle for FGs. A few things I heard yesterday about this game I thought were interesting. The Steelers had 5 DL active for the game Sunday, remember their LBs play DE in their nickel. After Hampton and Keisel went down they had 3 left. The Bronco's stayed in pro sets to keep the Steelers in their base defense and the 3 DL played every single snap from 2nd quarter on. That's an absolutely brutal situation for your defense and a great coaching job by the Bronco's to exploit that. On the game winning TD in OT the Bronco's had used that same formation and same motion throughout the season 23 times. 22 times the Bronco's ran from the formation which is why the Steelers were loaded up to stop the run, plus their DL was totally worn out. It was absolutely a genius play call for the situation. While Tebow is all the talk you really have to credit the the Bronco's coaching staff for this game. I've never seen such a fuss over such a scrub. The guy can't play, period. The Jets and Rams aren't even looking at him as a QB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 We agree that Tebow is terrible and the Bronco's had no chance of being a SB team. I never argued otherwise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 On top of that the Bronco's won a series of total flukes with things like Barber fumbling and a few crazy late comeback wins Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 They won by running and almost any positive things from the passing game were due merely to a defensive focus on that run game and a complete disregard for Tim Tebow as a QB. Agree or disagree? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 They won by running and almost any positive things from the passing game were due merely to a defensive focus on that run game and a complete disregard for Tim Tebow as a QB. Agree or disagree? I'm planning on making a post that talks about some of this stuff. They did not win by running. They ran the ball just as good in the blowout losses as they did in their wins. Lots of factors resulted in their flukey wins. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denali Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Also only one team in the top 5 in rushing had a winning record, the saints, a passing team. For me, once you said that, you won the argument right there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleNinja Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 It sure is comforting to know that when the Titans, one fine day, eventually win the Super Bowl the argument over whether they did it by running the ball or throwing the ball and which one was more important to that win will be as prevalent as it is today. Notice I said prevalent... not relevant. For me, once you said that, you won the argument right there. Maybe in a certain context he did. Maybe in another context Jamal wins if he makes the argument that the Broncos don't win back to back Super Bowls in 97 & 98 if it weren't for Terrell Davis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denali Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Maybe in a certain context he did. Maybe in another context Jamal wins if he makes the argument that the Broncos don't win back to back Super Bowls in 97 & 98 if it weren't for Terrell Davis. I could see that countered with "That was almost 15 years ago. Things are different now." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Nah, it isn't a question of elite running vs elite passing. It is a question of can you win running, does running matter, does it lead to SBs. I ignored SBs because #1 teams win SBs, which includes all sorts of things more than just passing... for instance defenses... and #2 teams with good passing often win the Super bowl. The reason for this is included in my argument which is why josh said it seems like I agreed. In reality I did not, but there are common points of agreement. Passing is preferred because it is more explosive and efficient, yep... we agree. Running absolutely matters and you can win doing it, it's just harder... we disagree here because people say running is irrelevant. The entire perspective is wrong. It's a focus on the outcome and mistakenly interpreting it as the cause. Teams aren't good because they pass, they pass because they are good. Running matters greatly to many teams... partly because they don't have an elite QB. You rely more on running when your team isn't good at various things - passing, probably receiving, but also defense. They run to win and however much they do is more than they would have by trying to run New Orleans' offense. That they are worse teams to begin with is why they don't often go on to win the Super bowl, but again that isn't my argument's focus. To win a specific, individual game many gameplans are run heavy in the NFL and they do it to win. This alone should be enough for people... but fans just don't think things through. They look at great teams and see those teams passing the ball well and just turn their brains off. Again, teams aren't good because they pass, they pass because they are good... and even Oilerman agrees it would be stupid for the Rams to come out passing, for the VY led Titans to pass, for the Tebow led Broncos to pass, etc, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Again, teams aren't good because they pass, they pass because they are good... and even Oilerman agrees it would be stupid for the Rams to come out passing, for the VY led Titans to pass, for the Tebow led Broncos to pass, etc, etc. And those teams will lose over the course of a season or many seasons regardless of how well they run the ball. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 And those teams will lose over the course of a season or many seasons regardless of how well they run the ball. Becaus they are bad, not because they run the ball. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleNinja Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 http://bit.ly/PrBlQH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.