Is Sam Bradford better than Nick Foles?

[dieterbrock]

But you also said it was "pitiful" Houston. You made a comment that I thought was based on their final record. Maybe you weren't. Then when I said they were good on defense at the time, you said "...The defense was terrible prior to the Rams game giving up almost 28 points per game .. . " To me, and correct me if I am wrong, that you were saying they were pitiful and to make that point you said they gave up 28 points a game. So, since I looked it up, and remembered Schaub's season, I knew that the 28 points a game was an anomaly. Since points count against a defense, even if the offense or special teams allowed them'

So, to make sure were were on the same page I showed that yes, your 27.7 points a game the Texans allowed was correct. However, what made it an anomaly is that 8.0 points a game were given up by offense or special teams. And when you took that into account they allowed 19.7 points a game, which is not pitiful. It's pretty good.

So, if they were not allowing points that were pitiful, and they were stopping teh run and the pass, then how was the Texans defense "pitiful'?
I think a comprehensive look at those numbers show that at the time, even their first 8 games (which you used as their 29 points a game) that Bradford did well against a defense who was, at the time, NOT pitiful when looked at in context

I hope that helps you understand the point. The example you used was not a good example of a statistical anomaly.

Houston was pitiful.
Spin it however you like.
You're avoiding the point
Bradford numbers remember ? That was the subject
X posted Clemenns silly numbers and I responded with Sam's.
But carry on with the subterfuge

It's gonna be a long pre season I can tell. Here we have a thread comparing our current qb to our former and the talons keep coming out in defense of the other guy

I'll chalk it up to agree to disagree. Moving on now....

 

[jrry32]

Because fisher relied on bradford. Because bradford was his franchise qb.
So when Clem came in, they took the ball out of his hands, and the offense didn't suffer

The offense didn't "suffer" because they changed philosophies. And that happened before Bradford was injured...with very strong and promising results.

Regardless, having Bradford at QB didn't cause our rushing attack to average nearly 70 less yards per game, over 1 less TD per game, and close to 1.5 yards less per carry.

Simply put, our rushing attack was complete trash until we changed philosophies...and that(along with some OL changes) is what made the difference.

 

[jrry32]

Houston was pitiful.
Spin it however you like.
You're avoiding the point
Bradford numbers remember ? That was the subject
X posted Clemenns silly numbers and I responded with Sam's.
But carry on with the subterfuge

It's gonna be a long pre season I can tell. Here we have a thread comparing our current qb to our former and the talons keep coming out in defense of the other guy

I'll chalk it up to agree to disagree. Moving on now....

Shouldn't be a reason to discuss Bradford in the preseason. Only reason the "talons" are coming out is because there are still some incredibly irrational arguments being used against a guy that isn't even our QB anymore.

 

[RamseyF]

Houston was pitiful.
Spin it however you like.
You're avoiding the point
Bradford numbers remember ? That was the subject
X posted Clemenns silly numbers and I responded with Sam's.
But carry on with the subterfuge

It's gonna be a long pre season I can tell. Here we have a thread comparing our current qb to our former and the talons keep coming out in defense of the other guy

I'll chalk it up to agree to disagree. Moving on now....

No need to be insulting, I was not spinning or involved in subterfuge. Maybe we can agree to be agreeable?

Look at what you said, "talons in defense of (Bradford) .. . perhaps, and in a friendly way, perhaps the talons of attack are on "the other guy".

All I see if a few posters defending agaist the attacks of a few posters. But it does not have to get heated.

I thought I made a clear concise point, and proved it with the statistics in context. Perhaps the "spin" was saying they were pitiful because the 28 ppg was a bit subterfugy . . .the real number was 20. Maybe I am not the one avoiding the point?

Let's do this, let's not assume bad faith on each other's part. I thought I was simply challenging your characterization, not your character. I repsect your opinion . .. and I really think you'd shouldn't take your ball and go home. I am sure you have your reasons to not like Bradford, I was just giving context to raw numbers and I think you will see that Sam's good game was against a defense that was not pitiful at the time.

I have not looked at the whole season, just the first half . . .and honestly, I proved the point. Low yards, low points, low rushing yards, low passing yards . .. maybe it wasn't teh Seahawks, but it wasn't pitiful. I think you are looking at their final record and not the defense at the time. Fair?

 

[dieterbrock]

Shouldn't be a reason to discuss Bradford in the preseason. Only reason the "talons" are coming out is because there are still some incredibly irrational arguments being used against a guy that isn't even our QB anymore.

Not irrational. Factual.
I expect the team to score less and win less with their backup.
Hasnt been the case.

 

[LesBaker]

http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/2015/03/pro-football-focuss-quarterback-deep.html

For almost a decade the Pro Football Focus website has been gaining in popularity and in credibility. ESPN The Magazine recently published an article detailing it'sgrowth and also announced a partnership with PFF for this free agency season in ranking the available players.

However, today is PFF deep passing leaders, which is featured as one of the "signature statistics" in the subscription section of their website. To get the full list and the year-by-year leaders of this an many other exclusive fans will have to sign for their "Premium stats".

Pro Football Focus defines their deep passing percentage as "Quarterback Deep Passing: The ability to successfully throw the deep ball is one that not all quarterbacks possess. The numbers here are all derived from passing attempts targeted 20 yards or more downfield." And what makes it unique is that they take away the element of dropped passes. If a quarterback throws the ball on the money and it is dropped, the scouts at PFF note that and don't count it against the accuracy of the passer.

To be able to include some of the recent draftees Pro Football Journal looked at the past five seasons worth of this signature statistic and compiled them. This list includes the top fifty most accurate deep passers who threw at least 54 passes twenty yards or more downfield from 2010-2014 (five seasons).

Source: Pro Football Focus. Graphic by PFJ

Derek Carr, who threw 71 such passes, ranks last. Teddy Bridgewater fell short of fifty attempts, but will likely debut high next year if he repeats his 46.3% rookie season. The year-to-year stalwarts such as Eli Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton Manning are at or near the top in attempts. Russell Wilson, Michael Vick, Sam Bradford, Matt Schaub are among those in the middle in attempts, and Carr and E.J. Manuel have among the fewest for those just beginning their career. Some out-of-football quarterbacks still had enough attempts to qualify are Tavaris Jackson and Tim Tebow.

Brian Hoyer and Matt Moore had 88 and 89 deep passing attempts, respectively, since 2010 and were usually on the mark. They are the only two in the top thirteen who had fewer than 100 attempts at deep passes.

And to those who watch the sport, it is no surprise that Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees top the list. They are ones who have a scheme that allows those shots, receivers who can help it happen and protection that holds up.

A couple of surprises may Ben Roethlishberger and Joe Flacco ranking 3oth and 31st. Perhaps they take enough deep shots to be memorable but the misses are not burned into memory because if most fans were asked they may, based on recollection, rank both the rangy quarterbacks in the upper-tier of throwing deep.

Deep passing %. This is the number of passes over 20 yards from the LOS. Over 20 yards from the LOS means that the ball traveled that far or more beyond the LOS after the QB threw the ball.

2010: 6.8% which equates to 37th out of 37
2011: 11.5% which equates to 20th out of 31
2012: 13.1% which equates to 9th out of 33
2013: 8.4% which equates to 37th out of 40

This is from research done by a poster on the Herd, in a similar thread about Bradford.

It illustrates how small of a sample that little sliver of a stat is. Especially compared to a breakdown of all of Bradfords passes in his entire career like the article that was posted.

He doesn't throw the ball long. We've all seen it with our own eyes, the numbers from every angle back it up.

 

[RamseyF]

Deep passing %. This is the number of passes over 20 yards from the LOS. Over 20 yards from the LOS means that the ball traveled that far or more beyond the LOS after the QB threw the ball.

2010: 6.8% which equates to 37th out of 37
2011: 11.5% which equates to 20th out of 31
2012: 13.1% which equates to 9th out of 33
2013: 8.4% which equates to 37th out of 40

This is from research done by a poster on the Herd, in a similar thread about Bradford.

It illustrates how small of a sample that little sliver of a stat is. Especially compared to a breakdown of all of Bradfords passes in his entire career like the article that was posted.

He doesn't throw the ball long. We've all seen it with our own eyes, the numbers from every angle back it up.

So his rookie year he was bottom, but in 2011 and 2012 he was better, in fact 9th (is that rock bottom?)

So as a rookie, he was rock bottom. I will concede that. But it seems in 2012 he was in the top 10. Will you concede that is NOT rock bottom?

And that other thing says his accuracy omn those throws was 43% . . .which is what, 12th? of 50?

It seems he does throw the long ball very accurately, but he does not have as many attempts as others.

Now, also, will you concede that those negative grades (red) of the oline and WRs would affect that? Maybe if his oline was a high postive (green) like Foles in 2013 he would have thrown more deep passes?

Who was the deep threat in 2010? DX, healthy for 15 snaps a game? Brandon Gibson? Amendola?
In 2011 they had Lloyd and they threw more deep passes.
in 2012 . . . still no deep threat, but he is in top 10 . . .looks good
2013 . . .that does seem low.

I would like to see the full chart of those percentages if they have it.
It does not look like rock-bottom all the time, though.

 

[LesBaker]

Oh I have no doubt he'll get better. Just a matter of developing timing with these receivers. Gonna be tough early on though, because they all have different levels of speed, acceleration, and burst out of their breaks. If I had to guess which receiver he'd develop an early rapport with, I'd have to say Cook. He's the easiest to time, or so it seems.

It'll be Cook I agree, and also Austin and I think they are going to both have big years this year.

Givens and Pettis will be breaking out this year. ijustpukedinmymouthalittle.

 

[jrry32]

Deep passing %. This is the number of passes over 20 yards from the LOS. Over 20 yards from the LOS means that the ball traveled that far or more beyond the LOS after the QB threw the ball.

2010: 6.8% which equates to 37th out of 37
2011: 11.5% which equates to 20th out of 31
2012: 13.1% which equates to 9th out of 33
2013: 8.4% which equates to 37th out of 40

This is from research done by a poster on the Herd, in a similar thread about Bradford.

It illustrates how small of a sample that little sliver of a stat is. Especially compared to a breakdown of all of Bradfords passes in his entire career like the article that was posted.

He doesn't throw the ball long. We've all seen it with our own eyes, the numbers from every angle back it up.

Seems to me that he did throw it long in 2012. Also seems to me that he's been very accurate doing it over his career by the chart that was posted earlier. Which begs the question, why would he be willing to do it in 2012 if he just can't overcome the fear of going deep?

I'm sure things like offensive play-calling and the players you have at WR/TE have no bearing on how often a QB throws deep...right?

Here's another interesting point...Bradford's two best years in terms of deep accuracy were 2011 and 2012...when he was throwing deep most often. I wonder if there's a reason why he'd be throwing deep most often AND those be his most accurate years...

Not irrational. Factual.
I expect the team to score less and win less with their backup.
Hasnt been the case.

That's exactly why it's irrational. You talk about the "team" as a whole and then promptly ignore any reasons why the "team" could have compensated without it having anything to do with the play of the QB. Frankly, it's just disappointing that we can watch the same game and come away with such vastly different impressions of QB play. Having seen the games, there's nothing that will ever convince me that Clemens is anywhere near the QB that Bradford is.

Either ways, probably a good thing that Bradford is gone. These ridiculous debates will go away as we get closer to the football season and hopefully Foles plays well enough that there's no reason to argue over him.

 

[LesBaker]

It does not look like rock-bottom all the time, though.

2010: 6.8% which equates to 37th out of 37
2011: 11.5% which equates to 20th out of 31
2012: 13.1% which equates to 9th out of 33
2013: 8.4% which equates to 37th out of 40

This conversation is over.

 

[LesBaker]

Seems to me that he did throw it long in 2012. Also seems to me that he's been very accurate doing it over his career by the chart that was posted earlier. Which begs the question, why would he be willing to do it in 2012 if he just can't overcome the fear of going deep?

I'm sure things like offensive play-calling and the players you have at WR/TE have no bearing on how often a QB throws deep...right?

Here's another interesting point...Bradford's two best years in terms of deep accuracy were 2011 and 2012...when he was throwing deep most often. I wonder if there's a reason why he'd be throwing deep most often AND those be his most accurate years...



That's exactly why it's irrational. You talk about the "team" as a whole and then promptly ignore any reasons why the "team" could have compensated without it having anything to do with the play of the QB. Frankly, it's just disappointing that we can watch the same game and come away with such vastly different impressions of QB play. Having seen the games, there's nothing that will ever convince me that Clemens is anywhere near the QB that Bradford is.

Either ways, probably a good thing that Bradford is gone. These ridiculous debates will go away as we get closer to the football season and hopefully Foles plays well enough that there's no reason to argue over him.

OK sorry but "seems to me" isn't factual. And I'm going to muffpunch you in a moment if you cannot put together all of the info.

Anyway we agree he's gone so who cares anymore.

 

[RamseyF]

2010: 6.8% which equates to 37th out of 37
2011: 11.5% which equates to 20th out of 31
2012: 13.1% which equates to 9th out of 33
2013: 8.4% which equates to 37th out of 40

This conversation is over.

Again, why be mad.

I see 37th of 37 (rock bottom)
I see 20thj of 31 (not rock bottom)
I see 9th of 33 (NOT rock bottom)
I see 37th of 40 (close to rock bottom)

So, you were talking about 2010 and 2013 only?
2011 and 2012 don't count?

I didn't know you were only talking about those two years (one rock bottom).

I honestly thought you meant Bradford's career as a Ram. My bad, I guess

 

[jrry32]

2010: 6.8% which equates to 37th out of 37
2011: 11.5% which equates to 20th out of 31
2012: 13.1% which equates to 9th out of 33
2013: 8.4% which equates to 37th out of 40

This conversation is over.

Interesting. Here's where the backup QBs placed:
2011: 10.6% which equates to 24th out of 31
2013: 10.3% which equates to 33rd out of 40

Seems like nobody in our offense wanted to go deep.

 

[jrry32]

OK sorry but "seems to me" isn't factual. And I'm going to muffpunch you in a moment if you cannot put together all of the info.

Anyway we agree he's gone so who cares anymore.

You've seen the numbers. I'm interpreting them. Didn't think I'd need to repeat what has already been posted.

But you never actually responded to the points made.

 

[RamseyF]

Seems to me that he did throw it long in 2012. Also seems to me that he's been very accurate doing it over his career by the chart that was posted earlier. .

Only 2010 was "rock bottom" in "attempts" and 2014 he was "near the bottom."

The years where he was 9th and 20th are not factual, I guess. And the good effeciency 11th of 50 I guess, is also not factual

 

[jrry32]

Only 2010 was "rock bottom" in "attempts" and 2013 he was "near the bottom."

The years where he was 9th and 20th are not factual, I guess. And the good effeciency 11th of 50 I guess, is also not factual

And interestingly enough, in 2013, Bradford's deep attempt percentage shot up to 12.5% over those three games prior to his injury. So with a new offensive philosophy and different play-calling, he went from 6.6% over the first 4 games to 12.5% over his final 3 games.

As always, things just aren't as simple as people like to make them.

 

[mr.stlouis]

The offense didn't "suffer" because they changed philosophies. And that happened before Bradford was injured...with very strong and promising results.

Regardless, having Bradford at QB didn't cause our rushing attack to average nearly 70 less yards per game, over 1 less TD per game, and close to 1.5 yards less per carry.

Simply put, our rushing attack was complete trash until we changed philosophies...and that(along with some OL changes) is what made the difference.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, mixed points, but not having a QB to make the tough throws against good/great D's makes a huge difference in the running game.

 

[dieterbrock]

That's exactly why it's irrational. You talk about the "team" as a whole and then promptly ignore any reasons why the "team" could have compensated without it having anything to do with the play of the QB. Frankly, it's just disappointing that we can watch the same game and come away with such vastly different impressions of QB play. Having seen the games, there's nothing that will ever convince me that Clemens is anywhere near the QB that Bradford is.

Either ways, probably a good thing that Bradford is gone. These ridiculous debates will go away as we get closer to the football season and hopefully Foles plays well enough that there's no reason to argue over him.

You know what irrational is? Coming to the conclusion that I ever said Clemens is as good as Bradford.
My thought process is completely rational, I expect the franchise qb to raise the level of play. And in Sam's career, I haven't seen him do that on a consistent basis in fact only on a few occasions

 

[kurtfaulk]

Go ahead, I'd like to read them.

Nah, I can't be bothered. I was just trying to make a point about stats.

As you can see the stats have been flying left and right and everybody uses them for their own argument.

.

 

[RamseyF]

Okay, here is 2011 in context. Sam was 20th of 31

Tebow was #1

guys in the 10-12% range . . . Rodgers, Cutler, Romo, Stafford, Brees, Ryan, and 27th of 31 was Tom Brady