Hill isn't a drop off versus Bradford IMO

[Username]

Stats FTW. We could also look at Hill's last season as a starter and compare it to Brady's last season as a starter.

TD %
Hill 3.8
Brady 4.0

INT %
Hill 2.9
Brady 1.8

Completion %
Hill 61.8
Brady 60.5

YPA
Hill 6.5
Brady 6.9

YPC
Hill 10.5
Brady 11.4

Rating
Hill 81.3
Brady 87.3

Doesn't look like much of a drop-off between Brady and Hill, so we're in great shape.

In all seriousness though, statistically speaking, there's negligible difference between Bradford and Hill - which is what you're using to make your comparisons. If you go by that alone, and ignore context, then there's not much of an argument anyone can make using those same numbers. Numbers tell the whole story, and that's that. But let's go ahead and look at context anyway. Just for shits and giggles. And then you can refute it using context of your own.

Bradford's starting receivers (X & Z) and TEs ..... Gibson, Amendola, Alexander, Clayton, Pettis, Givens, Fells, Cook.
Hill's starting receivers (X & Z) and TEs ............... Isaac Bruce, B. Johnson, Crabtree, Morgan, Megatron, Burleson, Vernon Davis, Pettigrew.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's do Bradford's last season vs Brady's last season while we're at it.
Without context.

TD %
Bradford 5.3
Brady 4.0

INT %
Bradford 1.5
Brady 1.8

Completion %
Bradford 60.7
Brady 60.5

YPA
Bradford 6.4
Brady 6.9

YPC
Bradford 10.6
Brady 11.4

Rating
Bradford 90.9
Brady 87.3

I'm going to say that Bradford was going to continue that trend and be (statistically) pretty close to Brady in what you deemed to be these important statistical categories. And since the numbers add up, you can't prove me wrong. Because ... numbers. Now if you want to add some context, go ahead and I'll try to refute it with context of my own.

Shit, the toughest defense he faced was Carolina and their numbers were nearly identical. Brady played them coming off a bye week too.

 

[LesBaker]

Stats FTW. We could also look at Hill's last season as a starter and compare it to Brady's last season as a starter using your same criteria.

TD %
Hill 3.8
Brady 4.0

INT %
Hill 2.9
Brady 1.8

Completion %
Hill 61.8
Brady 60.5

YPA
Hill 6.5
Brady 6.9

YPC
Hill 10.5
Brady 11.4

Rating
Hill 81.3
Brady 87.3

Doesn't look like much of a drop-off between Brady and Hill, so we're in great shape.

In all seriousness though, statistically speaking, there's negligible difference between Bradford and Hill - which is what you're using to make your comparisons. If you go by that alone, and ignore context, then there's not much of an argument anyone can make using those same numbers. Numbers tell the whole story, and that's that. But let's go ahead and look at context anyway. Just for shits and giggles. And then you can refute it using context of your own.

Bradford's starting receivers (X & Z) and TEs ..... Gibson, Amendola, Alexander, Clayton, Pettis, Givens, Fells, Cook.
Hill's starting receivers (X & Z) and TEs ............... Isaac Bruce, B. Johnson, Crabtree, Morgan, Megatron, Burleson, Vernon Davis, Pettigrew.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's do Bradford's last season vs Brady's last season while we're at it.
Without context.

TD %
Bradford 5.3
Brady 4.0

INT %
Bradford 1.5
Brady 1.8

Completion %
Bradford 60.7
Brady 60.5

YPA
Bradford 6.4
Brady 6.9

YPC
Bradford 10.6
Brady 11.4

Rating
Bradford 90.9
Brady 87.3

I'm going to say that Bradford was going to continue that trend and be (statistically) pretty close to Brady in what you deemed to be these important statistical categories. And since the numbers add up, you can't prove me wrong. Because ... numbers. Now if you want to add some context, go ahead and I'll try to refute it with context of my own.

You're cherry picking.

And like I said already I've seen Bradford look awesome for a few games (with those shitty WR's and all) and then look below average for a few games right after that and that's why I won't assume he was going to continue the 3-4 game streak from last year, I cannot assume that would be his career arc. We've all seen him go up and down and up and down..........and that's why so many people, including you, have essentially said "he has to emerge this year".

He was 4-9 in the last game he played. And it was pre season against vanilla defenses. So then will you assume that he was going to have an entire season like that? We can't make that leap in logic because the only thing Bradford has really shown us over his career is complete inconsistency. And that's why I compared their career output because it was the fairest way to do it.

Trust me I wish I was saying "Oh shit Bradford went down, and Hill is good but Sam is elite, we are going to really struggle this year" but that's frankly just not the case.

We just saw an article posted here that showed us the oddsmakers say Bradford is worth one more point per game than Hill. I think those guys may be on to something. You disagree and that's fine we don't see everything the same way.

 

[-X-]

You're cherry picking.

And like I said already I've seen Bradford look awesome for a few games (with those crappy WR's and all) and then look below average for a few games right after that and that's why I won't assume he was going to continue the 3-4 game streak from last year, I cannot assume that would be his career arc. We've all seen him go up and down and up and down..........and that's why so many people, including you, have essentially said "he has to emerge this year".

He was 4-9 in the last game he played. And it was pre season against vanilla defenses. So then will you assume that he was going to have an entire season like that? We can't make that leap in logic because the only thing Bradford has really shown us over his career is complete inconsistency. And that's why I compared their career output because it was the fairest way to do it.

Trust me I wish I was saying "Oh crap Bradford went down, and Hill is good but Sam is elite, we are going to really struggle this year" but that's frankly just not the case.

We just saw an article posted here that showed us the oddsmakers say Bradford is worth one more point per game than Hill. I think those guys may be on to something. You disagree and that's fine we don't see everything the same way.

Les. You were cherry picking too - which was kind of the point. Hill's QB Rating gets artificially inflated when he's playing spot duty over the course of the last 3 years (throwing 16 passes), and his QB Rating is up over 150, his comp% is up over 76, and his YPA is over 13. Kinda helps the overall average a little, don't you think? But from those inflated averages, you made an assumption. Then you tell me you can't assume Bradford would continue his upward trend from last year based on *his* numbers? It's cool if your mind is made up about the opinion you put out there, but you've gotta at least be consistent about the argument.

I agree that Bradford's career has been inconsistent, but so has the Franchise. It would be nice if Bradford was one of those generational QBs who could thrive in an environment that consists of 2 head coaches, 3 coordinators, 30+ offensive linemen and 30+ receivers and TE's in the first 4 years, but he's not. And that's not your argument anyway. It's that there's no drop-off in talent between Bradford and Hill. And I disagreed with that from the beginning saying that numbers aren't going to prove that to me. I've seen every pass Bradford's thrown multiple times, and I've spent the last few months looking at everything I can from Hill, and I can tell you that my opinion is you're mistaken. I can't qualify it, but you can quantify it. Your opinion is based on your numbers, and mine is based on my eyeballs.

While I don't think the team will be as handicapped by losing Bradford as they would have been if, say, Colt McCoy was the backup, that doesn't mean that I think Colt McCoy would be a lateral move from Bradford because they have similar numbers. Anyone with eyeballs can tell you there's a large degree of separation in talent between the two. And there is with Bradford and Hill too. Not chasm-like, but there's a talent gap nonetheless.

IMO.

 

[LesBaker]

Les. You were cherry picking too - which was kind of the point. Hill's QB Rating gets artificially inflated when he's playing spot duty over the course of the last 3 years (throwing 16 passes), and his QB Rating is up over 150, his comp% is up over 76, and his YPA is over 13. Kinda helps the overall average a little, don't you think? But from those inflated averages, you made an assumption. Then you tell me you can't assume Bradford would continue his upward trend from last year based on *his* numbers? It's cool if your mind is made up about the opinion you put out there, but you've gotta at least be consistent about the argument.

I agree that Bradford's career has been inconsistent, but so has the Franchise. It would be nice if Bradford was one of those generational QBs who could thrive in an environment that consists of 2 head coaches, 3 coordinators, 30+ offensive linemen and 30+ receivers and TE's in the first 4 years, but he's not. And that's not your argument anyway. It's that there's no drop-off in talent between Bradford and Hill. And I disagreed with that from the beginning saying that numbers aren't going to prove that to me. I've seen every pass Bradford's thrown multiple times, and I've spent the last few months looking at everything I can from Hill, and I can tell you that my opinion is you're mistaken. I can't qualify it, but you can quantify it. Your opinion is based on your numbers, and mine is based on my eyeballs.

While I don't think the team will be as handicapped by losing Bradford as they would have been if, say, Colt McCoy was the backup, that doesn't mean that I think Colt McCoy would be a lateral move from Bradford because they have similar numbers. Anyone with eyeballs can tell you there's a large degree of separation in talent between the two. And there is with Bradford and Hill too. Not chasm-like, but there's a talent gap nonetheless.

IMO.

Again I used career production percentages in critical areas rather than using one year or one stretch of games because that way it isn't inflated, its a sum total. It was the only way to be fair and to make my point. I didn't cherry pick anything IMO.

Again, I want to be CLEAR. This ISN'T about TALENT, POTENTIAL or anything else OTHER THAN PRODUCTION. It isn't coulda/woulda or anything else other than the performance/production and in that area The Rams aren't going to see anything different than what they have for the last few years, which IS NOT BAD NEWS though people seem to think that's part of my point. I've tried to keep it at that this entire thread and it's been more work than it's worth at this point.

Anyway yeah I have made up my mind.

And at this point I'm ready to discuss showering habits of the entire 53 man roster more than going on and on about this.

 

[-X-]

Again I used career production percentages in critical areas rather than using one year or one stretch of games because that way it isn't inflated, its a sum total. It was the only way to be fair and to make my point. I didn't cherry pick anything IMO.

Again, I want to be CLEAR. This ISN'T about TALENT, POTENTIAL or anything else OTHER THAN PRODUCTION. It isn't coulda/woulda or anything else other than the performance/production and in that area The Rams aren't going to see anything different than what they have for the last few years, which IS NOT BAD NEWS though people seem to think that's part of my point. I've tried to keep it at that this entire thread and it's been more work than it's worth at this point.

Anyway yeah I have made up my mind.

And at this point I'm ready to discuss showering habits of the entire 53 man roster more than going on and on about this.

Don't you yell at me in all caps and bold letters. I'll smack you in the back of the legs with a rope vine.

But yeah, I know you used career production percentages in critical areas. That's why I showed you his last 3 years and the ridiculous percentages accumulated after 16 passes that inflated his overall *career* production. Anyway. It's moot now, and ya bore me son. I agree, again, that we're not in the dire situation people thought we were immediately after Bradford went down. But you're late to the party and didn't even bring a bottle of wine or a bowl of potato salad. Fucker.

http://www.ramsondemand.com/threads/time-to-rally-around-shaun-hill.29120/

 

[Bluesy]

I agree that Bradford's career has been inconsistent, but so has the Franchise. It would be nice if Bradford was one of those generational QBs who could thrive in an environment that consists of 2 head coaches, 3 coordinators, 30+ offensive linemen and 30+ receivers and TE's in the first 4 years, but he's not.

While this doesn't make an excuse for Bradford's injuries (they're more just bad luck in my opinion), it explains why Hill can still do fine in our system. Pretty much everything else around him is solidified. Bradford would have killed it this season, but Hill will still be able to do fine.

 

[RamFan503]

And at this point I'm ready to discuss showering habits of the entire 53 man roster more than going on and on about this.

Wait a minute. You always were ready for that. But alas, you're all talk. I see no thread from you on the team's showering habits.