2019-2020 NFL Season Thread [ARCHIVED] Football • Page 1209

?? That’s not the discussion we’re having. You should’ve just let me summarize it before you left lol

 

I’m not looking at record either. I’m looking at TD/INT ratio against teams who were good

 

What i was going to summarize is, against teams that went 8-8 or better in 2017 & 2018:

Stafford: 22 TD, 13 INT
Cousins: 28 TD, 12 INT

Dak: 23 TD, 18 INT

if we thought Stafford and Cousins were overpaid for not elevating their team, then Dak DEFINITELY will be if he gets his deal

 

I’ve thought about Trufant over the last couple of weeks, but I can’t see the Falcons trading him. I’ve wondered that, if the front office were to trade away some good players (like Trufant), it would be a clear sign of their lack of faith in Dan Quinn. They’re not a team that’s looking to rebuild, but they are a team that needs a new coaching regime, which is what has always made me believe that Trufant will end up staying with Atlanta.

 

But youre equating good to record when Dak doesnt play both sides of the ball. And like, Deshaun hased what, five game tying drives in under a minute and is 0-5 in those games?

 

That makes sense, he could very well not be on the market. I just wanna see him somewhere else haha he deserves so much better.

 

With that said, I would love to have Trufant in Philly. Give me any of the following and I’m happy:

Desmond Trufant
Patrick Peterson
William Jackson
Jalen Ramsey
Chris Harris

 

He would be fun on the bears heh

 

I’m not looking at the Cowboys record though. I am looking at Dak’s strength of schedule and how HE performs in those games against teams that were tougher to beat and had more wins. I am literally focusing on Dak’s comtributions specifically. That is 100% a valid angle to look at this.

 

@CarpetElf also the DeShaun thing is like, yeah that happens but it’s the exception not the norm.

Over time things like that tend to “regress to the mean” (lol at @spiffa0 the accountant reminding me of business/statistics phrases like this that I learned in college).

Watson has also pulled off plenty of improbable comeback wins already to balance that bad luck streak out.

 

Would you like a pamphlet on the church of
P R E V E N T
D E F E N S E

 

@Randall Mentzos I'm not making a stance on the argument as a whole because I'm not talking about Dak again today but I just wanna bring that up re: Deshaun's record which is irrelevant to your base argument I do agree

 

Right and, to make a parallel here,

I get that Jason Garrett mismanages games and that’s not Dak’s fault. But what I was arguing was strictly based off TD/INT ratio, not based off whether he won the game.

 

One thing that BB does a lot is look at things on a basis of first downs which is interesting to me, rather than look at like TDs or INTs ALL the time he looks at drives and how many first downs they were able to get and how, and looks at things like big plays and kick returns/punt returns/etc in the scope of how many first downs they saved them from having to get. I think it's worth looking at in the scope of QBs and how they make plays by putting weight on how many drives they keep alive vs kill rather than only the black and white of TDs vs INTs.

Again, not taking a side, just something to consider when looking at raw production of a player.

 

I think we should look at both angles. More first downs = more consistency... but that automatically doesn’t matter if the QB throws a pick haha.

I’ll take fewer first downs if it means fewer turnovers imo haha. To play devils advocate, getting a lot of first downs COULD just mean the QB is throwing into coverage anyway even when the defense plays well, and getting lucky in between his costly mistakes. Bortles was a great example of that lol.

TD / INT may be a reductive way to judge a QB’s entire resume’, but it’s the most effective way to summarize it. You’re legit comparing how often he personally scores versus how often he personally ruins the team’s chances of scoring.

 

Let's say Brian Hoyer gets 1 TD and 0 INTs per game but goes 3-and-out every non-scoring possession. I think that CAN be less effective than like Ryan Fitzpatrick (not actually using these for examples but for visualization) throwing 0 TDs and 2 INTs per game but driving his team into field goal range like 5 times per game.

Drives might be most valuable if they end up in TDs and least valuable if they end up in INTs, but that doesn't mean they're ONLY valuable or invaluable with those respective results IMO.

 

@Fucking Dustin there’s also dudes like Russell Wilson. Where, his team runs for first downs 80% of the time and most of his pass production comes from throwing fucking perfect BOMBS downfield.

Russell only needs one or two passing first downs to get into the end zone because it seems one of those is always likely to be a fucking 30-50 yard pass lol, and they run the rest of the way down the field. So that’s also a scenario where TD/INT ratio paints a more accurate picture than first down productivity. (Though Wilson probably does have good EFFICIENCY ratings on third downs.)

 

Okay but youre equating strength of schedule to strength of defense as if teams like Denver and Jacksonville werent bottom teams last year.

And youre also looking at them before they had an OC that actually worked with Dak well.

 

What I'm saying though is that BB would look at that pass and be like "oh that's like worth 5 first downs" if it's a 50 yard pass and quantify the impact that it had on the offense's drive and what it prevented them from having to convert

So I'm not saying look at a raw first down count but rather how many times the QB would advance a drive and how many first downs are prevented from needing a conversion thanks to the QB alongside the actual count, if that makes sense. I could probably word that better

 

Oh okay that’s a good way to adjust for that then

 

I love the difference between a Randall/Matt and Dustin argument and a Randall and Matt argument

 

I’m equating strength of schedule to, that opposing team knows how to win football games so Dak probably had more pressure to come out on top. Like, Dak is lights out when the Cowboys are rolling against a worse team, no one is disputing that. But when it’s not a straightforward win and there’s more adversity, there’s more panic in him and his flaws come out. Doesn’t matter whether he’s playing a defensive team or an offensive team that just keeps putting up points, 23 / 18 in those situations is not a very good split stat.

I’m not saying it means Dak isn’t a very good QB for the Cowboys and how they’re built right now. He is. But I am saying it gives me pause whether I’d want to pay him that damn much long term, and risk losing other talent later on and putting more pressure on him. Because he hasn’t shown that he responds well to that.

You might end up paying 40M per year to a QB, who only gets worse once you can’t afford other guys, when the team needs to rely on that QB more.

 

I mean, it does kind of matter. Again, Deshaun. If Dak is doing everything he can and the defense fails, thats not on Dak. It matters who he is playing specifically and Im surprised that after all of these arguments about my "blanket statistics" that youre making this argument

 

Is that happening though? Has the Cowboys defense been failing them the past two years? I’d say no.

 

Quick note: our defense is the main reason we lost yesterday