Shark Pool Hype-O-Meter™ (1 Viewer)

[guderian]

let me put this in a different way, in a way that maurile often puts it better than me.by reverting to the mean, it means that he is reverting to the expected average production for HIM regardless of what other QBs do. now it is probably prudent to use other QBs in a historical context to set up parameters for your projections, but ignoring that let's take the compiled projections as his % chance to produce at these levels.for example for passing yards, we expect him to have a:1.84% chance to pass for less than 1,0002.45% chance to pass for 1,000-1,4997.98% chance to pass for 1,500-1,99930.67% chance to pass for 2,000-2,49942.94% chance to pass for 2,500-2,99911.04% chance to pass for 3,000-3,4993.07% chance to pass for 3,500+over the long run, assuming for the sake of this example this is an accurate assumption of what his typical year would look like, he will in most seasons be in the 2,000-2,999 yard range. there is a slight chance of not producing at all (maybe due to injury) and a slight chance of having a monster year.if he has a monster year in 2007, it is likely he will revert to his mean as him duplicating this 3.07% chance two years in a row is extremely difficult to accomplish.

I agree with this, but I disagree with the basis that some are using to determine "the expected average production for HIM".Look at it this way, if you run a regression on an RB's weight and the % of TDs he gets per carry you'll come up with a formula for converting weight into expected TD/ATT. If you ran the regression on RBs that weighed between 180 and 240 pounds and along comes an RB that weighs 275, you can't apply the same regression formula to that RB since you didn't include RBs of his weight in your sample. If you DO apply the regression, you are implicitly assuming that the RB weighs between 180 and 240--when he doesn't. IMO, the evidence from college, the pros and personal observation is that Young lies outside the peer group that people are using for him. If you think he's no better a runner than McNabb, Culpepper, et al, by all means include him in that group. I just don't see the evidence of that.

 

[Chase Stuart]

let me put this in a different way, in a way that maurile often puts it better than me.

by reverting to the mean, it means that he is reverting to the expected average production for HIM regardless of what other QBs do. now it is probably prudent to use other QBs in a historical context to set up parameters for your projections, but ignoring that let's take the compiled projections as his % chance to produce at these levels.

for example for passing yards, we expect him to have a:

1.84% chance to pass for less than 1,000

2.45% chance to pass for 1,000-1,499

7.98% chance to pass for 1,500-1,999

30.67% chance to pass for 2,000-2,499

42.94% chance to pass for 2,500-2,999

11.04% chance to pass for 3,000-3,499

3.07% chance to pass for 3,500+

over the long run, assuming for the sake of this example this is an accurate assumption of what his typical year would look like, he will in most seasons be in the 2,000-2,999 yard range. there is a slight chance of not producing at all (maybe due to injury) and a slight chance of having a monster year.

if he has a monster year in 2007, it is likely he will revert to his mean as him duplicating this 3.07% chance two years in a row is extremely difficult to accomplish.

I agree with this, but I disagree with the basis that some are using to determine "the expected average production for HIM".Look at it this way, if you run a regression on an RB's weight and the % of TDs he gets per carry you'll come up with a formula for converting weight into expected TD/ATT. If you ran the regression on RBs that weighed between 180 and 240 pounds and along comes an RB that weighs 275, you can't apply the same regression formula to that RB since you didn't include RBs of his weight in your sample. If you DO apply the regression, you are implicitly assuming that the RB weighs between 180 and 240--when he doesn't.

IMO, the evidence from college, the pros and personal observation is that Young lies outside the peer group that people are using for him. If you think he's no better a runner than McNabb, Culpepper, et al, by all means include him in that group. I just don't see the evidence of that.

But Young is still an NFL QB, and not a microwave. Just like 275 is a number like 180 and 240. Maybe the relationships isn't linear, so you can't just project for 275 whatever you would project for 240 plus the difference between your 240 projection and your 215 projection. But you can get some projection.But this is pretty silly. What are we arguing over? 10 FPs on the year? No one claims to be able to be so accurate with their projections that they have a margin of error in the single digits. Maybe Young rushes for 5 TDs, maybe he rushes for 7. You project 7, I'll probably a little under 6, the average will project a little over 5. Not really a big deal, IMO.

 

[CalBear]

My point all along is that people have compared Young to Vick, and I don't think that is an entirely valid comparison because it neglects to recognize the fact that 1) other rushing QBs have been better scores and those QBs, like Young, were bigger and stronger and 2) Young is a better runner than even those QBs.

Other rushing QBs score more often than Vick because they run less often than Vick, not because they're better than Vick at scoring.

 

[Tau837]

My point all along is that people have compared Young to Vick, and I don't think that is an entirely valid comparison because it neglects to recognize the fact that 1) other rushing QBs have been better scores and those QBs, like Young, were bigger and stronger and 2) Young is a better runner than even those QBs.

Other rushing QBs score more often than Vick because they run less often than Vick, not because they're better than Vick at scoring.

Bingo. I was wondering if anyone would make this point.

 

[Tau837]

But this is pretty silly. What are we arguing over? 10 FPs on the year? No one claims to be able to be so accurate with their projections that they have a margin of error in the single digits. Maybe Young rushes for 5 TDs, maybe he rushes for 7. You project 7, I'll probably a little under 6, the average will project a little over 5. Not really a big deal, IMO.

Young's rushing will establish a nice floor for his fantasy performance barring injury... but IMO his performance as a passer will be the factor that determines whether he is a top 5 or top 15 QB.

 

[guderian]

My point all along is that people have compared Young to Vick, and I don't think that is an entirely valid comparison because it neglects to recognize the fact that 1) other rushing QBs have been better scores and those QBs, like Young, were bigger and stronger and 2) Young is a better runner than even those QBs.

Other rushing QBs score more often than Vick because they run less often than Vick, not because they're better than Vick at scoring.

Well the stats don't validate this conclusion, but I'm tiring of your habit of parsing my posts just to find something to disagree with for the sake of disagreeing while ignoring the main point. :X

 

[pizzatyme]

But this is pretty silly. What are we arguing over? 10 FPs on the year? No one claims to be able to be so accurate with their projections that they have a margin of error in the single digits. Maybe Young rushes for 5 TDs, maybe he rushes for 7. You project 7, I'll probably a little under 6, the average will project a little over 5. Not really a big deal, IMO.

Young's rushing will establish a nice floor for his fantasy performance barring injury... but IMO his performance as a passer will be the factor that determines whether he is a top 5 or top 15 QB.

I'm going to go on a limb and say he will be neither a top 5 or 15 QB.I have him in the 15 upside and 22 floor range. Too little talent around him. Too much time for DCs to prepare for his abilities.

 

[Bevo]

Young's rushing will establish a nice floor for his fantasy performance barring injury... but IMO his performance as a passer will be the factor that determines whether he is a top 5 or top 15 QB.

I'm going to go on a limb and say he will be neither a top 5 or 15 QB.I have him in the 15 upside and 22 floor range. Too little talent around him. Too much time for DCs to prepare for his abilities.

B I N G O!Definitely in the running for the QB with the worst supporting cast of offensive skill players in the league. I still can not figure out what the Titan's front office is thinking.

 

[CalBear]

My point all along is that people have compared Young to Vick, and I don't think that is an entirely valid comparison because it neglects to recognize the fact that 1) other rushing QBs have been better scores and those QBs, like Young, were bigger and stronger and 2) Young is a better runner than even those QBs.

Other rushing QBs score more often than Vick because they run less often than Vick, not because they're better than Vick at scoring.

Well the stats don't validate this conclusion, but I'm tiring of your habit of parsing my posts just to find something to disagree with for the sake of disagreeing while ignoring the main point.

Vince Young scored on only 2 TDs on his 8 rushing attempts inside the 10 in 2006; Vick has scored 10 TDs on 33 rushing attempts inside the 10. So, given limited data, Vick is at least as adept at scoring TDs on goal-line carries as Young.The thing about Vick is that he runs way more often than other QBs; there have been 9 100-carry QB seasons since 1960, and Vick has four of them. He runs in more situations, and it is therefore not surprising that he's less likely to score on a per-carry basis.Oh by the way; only 5 of those 9 100-carry seasons resulted in more than 5 TDs.

 

[guderian]

My point all along is that people have compared Young to Vick, and I don't think that is an entirely valid comparison because it neglects to recognize the fact that 1) other rushing QBs have been better scores and those QBs, like Young, were bigger and stronger and 2) Young is a better runner than even those QBs.

Other rushing QBs score more often than Vick because they run less often than Vick, not because they're better than Vick at scoring.

Well the stats don't validate this conclusion, but I'm tiring of your habit of parsing my posts just to find something to disagree with for the sake of disagreeing while ignoring the main point.

Vince Young scored on only 2 TDs on his 8 rushing attempts inside the 10 in 2006; Vick has scored 10 TDs on 33 rushing attempts inside the 10. So, given limited data, Vick is at least as adept at scoring TDs on goal-line carries as Young.The thing about Vick is that he runs way more often than other QBs; there have been 9 100-carry QB seasons since 1960, and Vick has four of them. He runs in more situations, and it is therefore not surprising that he's less likely to score on a per-carry basis.

Oh by the way; only 5 of those 9 100-carry seasons resulted in more than 5 TDs.

He gets fewer TDs on an absolute basis than the peer group I mentioned. If you go back to the similar QBs I mentioned before, Vick averaged 4.8 TDs in his near-complete season with McNair, McNabb, Culpepper, Stewart and Young all in-line (4.7 TDs) or better than him despite the fact that they had between 15 and 27 fewer carries. So Vick had fewer TDs on an absolute basis even though he had significantly more carries. Vick is not particularly effective at scoring rushing TDs.

 

[CalBear]

He gets fewer TDs on an absolute basis than the peer group I mentioned.

If you go back to the similar QBs I mentioned before, Vick averaged 4.8 TDs in his near-complete season with McNair, McNabb, Culpepper, Stewart and Young all in-line (4.7 TDs) or better than him despite the fact that they had between 15 and 27 fewer carries. So Vick had fewer TDs on an absolute basis even though he had significantly more carries. Vick is not particularly effective at scoring rushing TDs.

Since 2002, Vick has never had a season with more than 8 carries inside the 10 yard line. McNabb and Culpepper have both had double-digit carry seasons; Culpepper had 19 goal-line carries in 2002. The Historical Data Dominator doesn't let you break it down by field position, but I expect you'd see similar numbers for McNair's big-TD seasons; he scored more TDs because he was running it more often at the goal line, while Vick is running it more often away from the goal line.

 

[Hawk]

Uh, no, Young is not a better rushing QB in college than anyone in modern history; there are plenty of option QBs who ran for more yards and more TDs than he did. Eric Crouch rushed for 16 TDs his senior year; the NCAA record for rushing yards by a QB in a season is 1494 by Beau Morgan of Air Force. Why don't you see those names in the NFL record books? Because that's not the way the NFL plays.

How well do you think VY would have done in those systems?When someone says VY is a better rushing QB than anyone (some would include Vick), I don't see stats entering the equation, it comes down to how he ran when he had to. What VY did in college was incredible. I have not seen a QB take over a game in the way he did, at any level. That's what makes him the "best", not stats.

Frankly, I don't think Young is a particularly impressive runner; I think Vick, Kordell Stewart, and Steve Young are all better pure runners, to name a few. I think Vince makes good decisions and he's shifty and big, but he's not that fast and doesn't have particularly impressive moves. His rushing yards are mostly in the open field on broken plays; I don't think he would have done nearly as well running in a pure option system in college.He's a better passer than most option QBs, which is why he's in the NFL in the first place. But I don't think he's the best runner ever to play QB in the NFL, not by a long shot.

Steve young a better runner than Vince? How can you even say something like that with a straight face?

Vince is the best running QB to actually play QB in the NFL ever besides Vick. It's not even really close. You must still be bitter about Texas beating out Cal for the Rose Bowl a few years back or something.

Not fast? No impressive moves? Gimme a friggin break!

Maybe you need a refresher: http://youtube.com/watch?v=t85j6ZbdWtg

 

[CalBear]

Not fast? No impressive moves? Gimme a friggin break!

Maybe you need a refresher: http://youtube.com/watch?v=t85j6ZbdWtg

He runs downhill and breaks arm tackles. He shifts his hips. He has great downfield blocking on the TD runs; he will lose some of that with Bennett leaving. He's a good runner, sure. Best ever? No way.Maybe you need a refresher:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KGjxORWkocQ

 

[guderian]

He gets fewer TDs on an absolute basis than the peer group I mentioned.

If you go back to the similar QBs I mentioned before, Vick averaged 4.8 TDs in his near-complete season with McNair, McNabb, Culpepper, Stewart and Young all in-line (4.7 TDs) or better than him despite the fact that they had between 15 and 27 fewer carries. So Vick had fewer TDs on an absolute basis even though he had significantly more carries. Vick is not particularly effective at scoring rushing TDs.

Since 2002, Vick has never had a season with more than 8 carries inside the 10 yard line. McNabb and Culpepper have both had double-digit carry seasons; Culpepper had 19 goal-line carries in 2002. The Historical Data Dominator doesn't let you break it down by field position, but I expect you'd see similar numbers for McNair's big-TD seasons; he scored more TDs because he was running it more often at the goal line, while Vick is running it more often away from the goal line.

OK, so now you're changing from "Vick gets fewer TDs per attempt because he has more attempts" to "OK, he gets fewer TDs because he gets fewer opportunities." I agree that Vick gets fewer goal line carries than Culpepper, McNabb or other big QBs. I'm sure, however, that we'll disagree about the reason WHY he gets fewer carries in those situations...so let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Hawk]

Not fast? No impressive moves? Gimme a friggin break!

Maybe you need a refresher: http://youtube.com/watch?v=t85j6ZbdWtg

He runs downhill and breaks arm tackles. He shifts his hips. He has great downfield blocking on the TD runs; he will lose some of that with Bennett leaving. He's a good runner, sure. Best ever? No way.Maybe you need a refresher:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KGjxORWkocQ

I don't want to denigate Steve Young, he was awesome and I'll always have a soft spot for him as he almost single-handedly won me my first ever FF championship in the early 90's and got me hooked on FF. That being said, Vince is in a whole other category as a runner than Steve. Vick and Vince are a cut above IMO as runners from the QB spot. Neither of them has yet shown near the passing ability of Steve, but they both have more rushing skills than Steve had.

 

[CalBear]

OK, so now you're changing from "Vick gets fewer TDs per attempt because he has more attempts" to "OK, he gets fewer TDs because he gets fewer opportunities."

I'm not changing my position at all; you just finally started to understand my point. You can't directly compare Vick's TD/carry ratio with other running QBs, because a greater percentage of his carries come from places on the field other than near the goal line.

 

[cutter]

two words: Madden Curse

 

[guderian]

OK, so now you're changing from "Vick gets fewer TDs per attempt because he has more attempts" to "OK, he gets fewer TDs because he gets fewer opportunities."

I'm not changing my position at all; you just finally started to understand my point. You can't directly compare Vick's TD/carry ratio with other running QBs, because a greater percentage of his carries come from places on the field other than near the goal line.

I'm not "starting to understand" your point, because it's not a point. Why is it that Vick gets many more carries between the 20s than he does in goal line situations relative to the bigger, mobile QBs?!?!?!? The same reason that NFL teams typically replace smaller RBs with larger, stronger RBs when they get to the goal line rather than replacing them with smaller RBs. I'm sure you're going to search your memory to find one case in NFL history when a larger RB was replaced by a smaller RB at the goal line, and clip this part of my post and argue against that statement--so go ahead. Besides your whole line of argument validates my original statement that Vick's TD stats aren't useful in projecting Young's TD stats. You're still just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.