PDA

View Full Version : Quinn & Russell vs. Top Defenses



ckparrothead
04-12-2007, 09:40 PM
Every quarterback in college football does worse against good defenses. They all pad their stats against the poor defenses of the world. That's not a surprise. If you're surprised by that fact, you should go ahead and watch about three more years of college football before you start arguing about it.

This study was started, and solely intended to give an apples-to-apples comparison of Brady Quinn and Jamarcus Russell against top notch defenses.

Before we dig into what each quarterback did, let's take a look at the caliber of defense that these quarterbacks played this season, and this will help us to define the better defenses that each played.

Jamarcus Russell's Schedule (in points per game):
24.7, 19.6, 13.9, 33.3, 25.8, 13.5, 29.1, 28.3, 19.5, 18.0, 22.9, 18.4, 22.4
Total Average: 22.3 points per game

Brady Quinn's Schedule (in points per game):
16.8, 14.8, 14.6, 28.4, 26.9, 31.4, 17.9, 19.7, 30.5, 25.2, 27.9, 14.9, 13.5
Total Average: 21.7 points per game

Surprising? Not necessarily. I think everyone gives in a little bit to the mystique of the SEC defenses, and in general it is deserved, but the fact of the matter is that Notre Dame regularly faced some of the toughest defenses in college football during 2006. But, am I going to sit here and gripe about the difference between 22.3 points per game and 21.7 points per game? Heck no. Not significant.

Four of Notre Dame's opponents allowed less than 15 points per game. Only 12 D1-A teams allowed less than 15 points per game, and Notre Dame played 4 of them. Jamarcus Russell and LSU only played 2 of them.

Now, Notre Dame played 3 teams that allowed between 15 and 20 points per game, where LSU played 4 such teams...and Notre Dame had the privelege of playing 6 teams that allowed over 25 points per game, where Jamarcus Russell and LSU only played 4 such teams.

So what do we do with all this data? Well I don't know about you guys but I'm personally not interested in the 6 games Notre Dame played against defenses that allow 25+ points per game, or the 4 games LSU played against such porous defenses. I think we can all agree on that.

My humble suggestion, and indeed what I originally did, was to look at how these guys did against teams that allowed less than 20 points per game. For Brady Quinn, this included Georgia Tech, Penn State, Michigan, Navy, UCLA, USC and LSU. For Jamarcus Russell, this included Arizona, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas.

Now, I *could* go down to 15 points per game, which I would really define as an "elite" defense...but I don't know if that would be a good measure just because while this would involve a good 4 games for Notre Dame, it would only be 2 games for LSU. More on that later. For now, let's stick to defenses that allowed under 20 points per game.

Jamarcus Russell vs. Arizona, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama and Arkansas
113 of 175 (64.6%), 1357 yards (7.8 ypa), 11 TDs (6.3%), 7 INTs (4.0%). 92.5 QBR

Jamarcus Russell vs. Everyone Else
119 of 167 (71.3%), 1772 yards (10.6 ypa), 17 TDs (10.2%), 1 INTs (0.6%). 137.1 QBR

Brady Quinn vs. Georgia Tech, Penn State, Michigan, Navy, UCLA, USC and LSU
154 of 272 (56.6%), 1788 yards (6.6 ypa), 16 TDs (5.9%), 5 INTs (1.8%). 88.6 QBR

Brady Quinn vs. Everyone Else
135 of 195 (69.2%), 1638 yards (8.4 ypa), 21 TDs (10.8%), 2 INTs (1.0%). 126.4 QBR

So basically, Jamarcus Russell had a better quarterback rating against the good defenses. But, well to keep in mind, he had a better quarterback rating period, as evidenced by his performing better against the bad defenses.

I believe the point to note here, is that the disparity is VERY similar, between the two quarterbacks. Jamarcus Russell goes from a 137.1 rating to a 92.5 rating when he faces a good defense. Brady Quinn goes from a 126.4 rating to an 88.6 rating. It is really strikingly similar, between them.

So what about points scored? What I mean to say is, it is possible for a quarterback to rack up a few stats during a game but have the offense be generally very ineffective...and indeed this is I'm sure what people that do not like Brady Quinn would say.

Jamarcus Russell's offense scored 24.2 points per game against these good defenses. The defenses allowed on average 17.2 points per game.

Brady Quinn's offense scored 24.6 points per game against these good defenses. The defenses allowed on average 16.0 points per game.


Translation: Brady Quinn had a QB Rating of 88.6 and his offense scored 24.6 points per game, against 7 defenses that averaged 16.0 points allowed per game. Jamarcus Russell had a QB Rating of 92.5 and his offense scored 24.2 points per game, against 6 defenses that averaged 17.2 points allowed per game.


Now, there seem to be a lot of strong feelings going on about Brady Quinn and Jamarcus Russell. There's a lot of anti-Quinn sentiment and I really don't expect anything I say here to sway them because, let's be honest, Jesus could come down from the clouds and appear to us all and say he has annointed Brady Quinn to be the best quarterback in the history of the world, and most of the people that don't like Quinn would probably accuse Jesus of being just another biased Notre Dame fan.

That's fine. But I'll go a little further anyway.

I mentioned the "elite" defenses before...those defenses that allowed less than 15 points per game. There are 6 teams that Quinn and Russell played against, that fit the bill. These are LSU, Florida, Auburn, Michigan, Penn State, and USC.

Do a study involving these two quarterbacks going up against these six defenses, and the whole "Brady Quinn sucks against good defenses" criticism should really just go away. At least, compared to Jamarcus Russell it should.

Quinn vs. "The Elite"
86 of 154, 943 yards, 8 TDs, 5 INTs :: 77.9 QB Rating, 25.0 Points Per Game

Russell vs. "The Elite"
44 of 76, 497 yards, 1 TDs, 3 INTs :: 65.5 QB Rating, 6.5 Points Per Game


Of course I know I'm going to hear the same old stuff over and over again. Stats be damned, stats be damned. Burn the books, break the glasses.

Whatever. This is just collected evidence. The FACT of the matter is that I just do not understand how Brady Quinn gets criticized for doing poorly against Michigan and LSU while Jamarcus Russell gets off the hook for his poor performances against Florida and Auburn.

Why? Is it because people think Notre Dame actually had a better surrounding cast? Really? Jeff Samardzija, Rhema McKnight and John Carlson vs. Dwayne Bowe, Craig Davis, and Early Doucet? I don't think so. No way. Any scout would take the LSU cast over and over again before they take the Notre Dame crew.

What about Darius Walker vs. Justin Vincent and Alley Broussard? Again, I take Vincent and Broussard, though this one is close.

What about the Notre Dame offensive line vs. the LSU offensive line? Again, advantage LSU. I take Will Arnold, Herman Johnson, Brett Helms, Brian Johnson, and Peter Dyakowski...over Ryan Harris, Bob Morton, John Sullivan, Dan Santucci, and Sam Young. This one is a little tough, but the LSU offensive line has a much better record against the tougher defensive lines where the Notre Dame offensive line leaked like a sieve.

So, Brady Quinn scored more points against better defenses and had a better QB rating against elite defenses. Jamarcus Russell did better against good defenses and poor defenses.

So, at least for now in relation to Jamarcus Russell, I hope people realize that Brady Quinn did better against the best defenses.

Pennington's Rocket Arm
04-12-2007, 09:48 PM
:hi5:

ohiobryan
04-12-2007, 09:49 PM
quinn will be a great QB in the nfl and he better be in miami randy/cam!

Dolfins
04-12-2007, 10:01 PM
I wish everyones post were as intersting as CKparrotshead. I don't care if I totally disagree before the post by the end of reading it I am all in favor of what ever he posts.

Nice post and great facts. Thanks.

cnc66
04-12-2007, 10:06 PM
really nice work Chris.

Agent51
04-12-2007, 11:19 PM
Excellent read man :up:

daniel3
04-12-2007, 11:20 PM
I might be crazy (which I absolute am not, I mean come on here now, why is it even a question of who played overwhelming more scary defenses for a QB, Rusell by far) for saying this but USC and Penn State probably aren't the most menacing teams a QB could face. Especially a QB on a half way decent college team.

OneHondo
04-12-2007, 11:24 PM
Really good post CK but you know someone is going to come along and flame your work. But it is good work, thanks

The Confessor
04-12-2007, 11:25 PM
Great post CK. Nice homework project:wink:

OneHondo
04-12-2007, 11:28 PM
I might be crazy (which I absolute am not, I mean come on here now, why is it even a question of who played overwhelming more scary defenses for a QB, Rusell by far) for saying this but USC and Penn State probably aren't the most menacing teams a QB could face. Especially a QB on a half way decent college team.

Please elaborate?

Agent51
04-12-2007, 11:31 PM
I might be crazy (which I absolute am not, I mean come on here now, why is it even a question of who played overwhelming more scary defenses for a QB, Rusell by far) for saying this but USC and Penn State probably aren't the most menacing teams a QB could face. Especially a QB on a half way decent college team.


Really? So basically Quinn's heroic USC comeback, with a crappy team surrounding him, wasn't impressive but Russell's Sugar Bowl performance against a HORRID Notre Dame defense with a GOOD team surrounding him was impressive? :rolleyes2

OneHondo
04-13-2007, 12:41 AM
You could come up with 1001 different statistics such as

LSU played 6 teams in 2006 with a record over 500
The combined record of LSUs opponets were 94 wins and 71 losses
LSU played 7 teams that went to a bowl game
LSU Finished the season 11-2

ND played 8 teams with a record over 500 in 2006
The combined records of NDs opponets are 90 wins and 78 losses
ND played 8 teams that went to bowl games
ND finished the season 10-3

Both teams had so called cup cakes on their schedules in;
LSU played Louisiana-Lafayette, Tulane and Fresno State
ND played Army, Navy, and Air Force

LSU had two losses to good teams and ND had three losses to good teams
so there is not a lot of of disparity between the two. You hear over and over about Quinn padding his stats agains't the Army, Navy and Air Force but you don't hear people accusing Russell of padding his stats against the cup cakes on his schedule but they were there.

Agent51
04-13-2007, 12:50 AM
You could come up with 1001 different statistics such as

LSU played 6 teams in 2006 with a record over 500
The combined record of LSUs opponets were 94 wins and 71 losses
LSU played 7 teams that went to a bowl game
LSU Finished the season 11-2

ND played 8 teams with a record over 500 in 2006
The combined records of NDs opponets are 90 wins and 78 losses
ND played 8 teams that went to bowl games
ND finished the season 10-3

Both teams had so called cup cakes on their schedules in;
LSU played Louisiana-Lafayette, Tulane and Fresno State
ND played Army, Navy, and Air Force

LSU had two losses to good teams and ND had three losses to good teams
so there is not a lot of of disparity between the two. You hear over and over about Quinn padding his stats agains't the Army, Navy and Air Force but you don't hear people accusing Russell of padding his stats against the cup cakes on his schedule but they were there.

Like ND in the Sugar Bowl. Padded his stats so much against a horrible defense that he is now the #1 overall draft pick.

LightsOut
04-13-2007, 01:57 AM
were quinn's numbers vs. the elite inflated by having to play catch up? 2 of his TD's came in the 4th quarter of blowout loses.

how many of the int's were the qb's fault? quinn had one vs. lsu that bounced off mcknight and landry picked it off. 2 of russell's 3 int's vs. florida bounced off of bowe's hands.

stats never tell the whole story.

NMUCats
04-13-2007, 01:58 AM
CK - I will sleep better tonight because of that post. Honestly, I have been screaming this off of the mountaintops for 2 months, but I couldn't have said it better than you did. Big props to you my friend.

Agent51
04-13-2007, 02:04 AM
were quinn's numbers vs. the elite inflated by having to play catch up? 2 of his TD's came in the 4th quarter of blowout loses.

how many of the int's were the qb's fault? quinn had one vs. lsu that bounced off mcknight and landry picked it off. 2 of russell's 3 int's vs. florida bounced off of bowe's hands.

stats never tell the whole story.

Were Russells numbers (especially TD to attempts ratio) inflated by having the system altered to focus more on patterns outside the has marks and down the field to take advantage of his arm strength instead of inside and over the middle stuff into coverage where he struggled?

Would his TD ratio, or completion %, etc etc be that high if he was asked to make all those tough inside throws too?

You're right, stats never tell the whole story, and the arguement works both ways.

Kdawg954
04-13-2007, 06:59 AM
I mean Quinn is a better fit for this team and Cam's system.

But to be fair to Russell . . . at Auburn and at Florida . . . . many QB's have had problems in those environments. Hell Florida shut down Ohio State, who put up 38 points on that Michigan defense. Plus it was 34-7 Michigan against Notre Dame at one point. LSU grinded 2 games w/ Florida and Auburn. I mean IMO Russell played better D's w/ his elite than Brady . . . stats may show otherwise. I mean I can't say Brady Quinn performed better against elite D's because he put up some decent numbers against Michigan and USC when his team was clearly out of the game. U compared 2 of Russell's game w/ 4 of Quinn's . . . try throwing out the Penn State game @ home and compare again w/ LSU wins @ Arkansas or @ Tennessee.

Brady against Michigan at home, @ USC and bowl game vs. LSU

Russell @ Florida, @ Auburn or @ Tennessee/@ Arkansas

BlueFin
04-13-2007, 07:02 AM
Interesting, great job CK.

Kind of backs up the theory that a QB can be doing a pretty good job even when his team is outmatched as an entire squad.

Thats a five.

Boomer
04-13-2007, 08:20 AM
But Chris, Brady Quinn can't beat good teams.

FLMAO.

;)

Motion
04-13-2007, 08:33 AM
Great post.

This is exactly why I want nothing to do with Russell, sure he's physical freak but I've seen him meltdown against the tops teams time and time again.

ckparrothead
04-13-2007, 11:04 AM
But Chris, Brady Quinn can't beat good teams.

FLMAO.

;)

Damnit! I always forget that...

O'townPhinFan
04-13-2007, 11:39 AM
This thread blows and it is not that informative...... BQ sucks and we all know it....

J/K Chris......love the thread man. I am all for him if he is there but you know....like I have said all along.... I hope DC is back and proves everyone wrong as to not put too much pressure on whoever we draft.

Excellent thread my man.....very good read. I always look forward to your posts. Always detailed and thought out.:cooldude:

lotion
04-13-2007, 11:47 AM
Best info I've seen on the subject yet. Good job. If Cleveland does not pick him I will be AMAZED if he is not a fin.

ckparrothead
04-13-2007, 12:03 PM
Thanks for the compliments guys.

Try to keep in mind, I speak very strongly about these guys and I'm very assertive, and that can often get mistaken for bias. But, I think my record of opinions kind of shows none of the obvious or mistaken commonalities that would suggest that I am consistently biased in any particular direction.

I mean, I openly pandered to Daunte Culpepper over Drew Brees in 2006.

Yet, here I am talking up Brady Quinn (who compares well with Drew Brees except for the height) over Jamarcus Russell (who compares quite obviously with Daunte Culpepper).

And, it is a widely held view that I hate Joey Harrington, who certainly looks a lot more like Brady Quinn than Jamarcus Russell.

I tend to let the information and the observations come to me, and then I run with them. I'm not a Notre Dame fan, in fact I said before the college season that they were very overrated due mostly to a good QB but that he can't win a national championship by himself or compete with the other stacked teams out there.

With the way I run with my conclusions, I'm often in danger of clinging to a sinking ship. With that in mind, considering what I thought of ND's chances of winning the championship, the very last thing people should accuse me of is liking Quinn because he played at ND under Charlie Weis (a man I detest on a personal level). But, on the bright side I do try to be mindful not to keep clinging to a sinking ship with the signs written on the wall all around me and some of you will notice that I've pretty drastically changed my tune about Daunte Culpepper's chances in this new system with the new staff...

Finfanforever
04-13-2007, 12:15 PM
Thanks for the compliments guys.

Try to keep in mind, I speak very strongly about these guys and I'm very assertive, and that can often get mistaken for bias. But, I think my record of opinions kind of shows none of the obvious or mistaken commonalities that would suggest that I am consistently biased in any particular direction.

I mean, I openly pandered to Daunte Culpepper over Drew Brees in 2006.

Yet, here I am talking up Brady Quinn (who compares well with Drew Brees except for the height) over Jamarcus Russell (who compares quite obviously with Daunte Culpepper).

And, it is a widely held view that I hate Joey Harrington, who certainly looks a lot more like Brady Quinn than Jamarcus Russell.

I tend to let the information and the observations come to me, and then I run with them. I'm not a Notre Dame fan, in fact I said before the college season that they were very overrated due mostly to a good QB but that he can't win a national championship by himself or compete with the other stacked teams out there.

With the way I run with my conclusions, I'm often in danger of clinging to a sinking ship. With that in mind, considering what I thought of ND's chances of winning the championship, the very last thing people should accuse me of is liking Quinn because he played at ND under Charlie Weis (a man I detest on a personal level). But, on the bright side I do try to be mindful not to keep clinging to a sinking ship with the signs written on the wall all around me and some of you will notice that I've pretty drastically changed my tune about Daunte Culpepper's chances in this new system with the new staff...

I REALLY expect C-Pep to be dealt for a pick(s) on draft day...I just got a gut feeling. Your Thoughts???

BlueFin
04-13-2007, 12:21 PM
Thanks for the compliments guys.

Try to keep in mind, I speak very strongly about these guys and I'm very assertive, and that can often get mistaken for bias. But, I think my record of opinions kind of shows none of the obvious or mistaken commonalities that would suggest that I am consistently biased in any particular direction.

I mean, I openly pandered to Daunte Culpepper over Drew Brees in 2006.

Yet, here I am talking up Brady Quinn (who compares well with Drew Brees except for the height) over Jamarcus Russell (who compares quite obviously with Daunte Culpepper).

And, it is a widely held view that I hate Joey Harrington, who certainly looks a lot more like Brady Quinn than Jamarcus Russell.

I tend to let the information and the observations come to me, and then I run with them. I'm not a Notre Dame fan, in fact I said before the college season that they were very overrated due mostly to a good QB but that he can't win a national championship by himself or compete with the other stacked teams out there.

With the way I run with my conclusions, I'm often in danger of clinging to a sinking ship. With that in mind, considering what I thought of ND's chances of winning the championship, the very last thing people should accuse me of is liking Quinn because he played at ND under Charlie Weis (a man I detest on a personal level). But, on the bright side I do try to be mindful not to keep clinging to a sinking ship with the signs written on the wall all around me and some of you will notice that I've pretty drastically changed my tune about Daunte Culpepper's chances in this new system with the new staff...

All true, I myself will admit to changing my tune about Culpepper.

I was always a fan of DC going back to Central Florida, I am guilty of being wrong about his ability to read NFL defenses, though many were saying it, that Culpepper benefitted from having Randy Moss and Chris Carter and perhaps a somewhat simplified system in Minnesota.

I no longer think this is just about his injury, though I do think a healthy Culpepper can hide some of his other weaknesses better than the less than 100% Culpepper we saw last year.

I believe a part of what went into Sabans thinking was the knowledge, and belief, that he blew the QB decision between Brees and Culpepper.

I am not a Notre Dame fan, but from what I've seen of Brady Quinn he does see the field well and seems to have the ability to find the open man, I have witnessed in my lifetime this team draft two QB's in round one and watched them go to the hall of fame.

I am sick of this team not drafting QB's over the last decade or so.

fullerboy1
04-13-2007, 12:31 PM
Like ND in the Sugar Bowl. Padded his stats so much against a horrible defense that he is now the #1 overall draft pick.

You seem to be one of those guys that favor one guy no matter what.
Hey thats still ok, you have a right to your opinion.

fullerboy1
04-13-2007, 12:33 PM
Every quarterback in college football does worse against good defenses. They all pad their stats against the poor defenses of the world. That's not a surprise. If you're surprised by that fact, you should go ahead and watch about three more years of college football before you start arguing about it.

This study was started, and solely intended to give an apples-to-apples comparison of Brady Quinn and Jamarcus Russell against top notch defenses.

Before we dig into what each quarterback did, let's take a look at the caliber of defense that these quarterbacks played this season, and this will help us to define the better defenses that each played.

Jamarcus Russell's Schedule (in points per game):
24.7, 19.6, 13.9, 33.3, 25.8, 13.5, 29.1, 28.3, 19.5, 18.0, 22.9, 18.4, 22.4
Total Average: 22.3 points per game

Brady Quinn's Schedule (in points per game):
16.8, 14.8, 14.6, 28.4, 26.9, 31.4, 17.9, 19.7, 30.5, 25.2, 27.9, 14.9, 13.5
Total Average: 21.7 points per game

Surprising? Not necessarily. I think everyone gives in a little bit to the mystique of the SEC defenses, and in general it is deserved, but the fact of the matter is that Notre Dame regularly faced some of the toughest defenses in college football during 2006. But, am I going to sit here and gripe about the difference between 22.3 points per game and 21.7 points per game? Heck no. Not significant.

Four of Notre Dame's opponents allowed less than 15 points per game. Only 12 D1-A teams allowed less than 15 points per game, and Notre Dame played 4 of them. Jamarcus Russell and LSU only played 2 of them.

Now, Notre Dame played 3 teams that allowed between 15 and 20 points per game, where LSU played 4 such teams...and Notre Dame had the privelege of playing 6 teams that allowed over 25 points per game, where Jamarcus Russell and LSU only played 4 such teams.

So what do we do with all this data? Well I don't know about you guys but I'm personally not interested in the 6 games Notre Dame played against defenses that allow 25+ points per game, or the 4 games LSU played against such porous defenses. I think we can all agree on that.

My humble suggestion, and indeed what I originally did, was to look at how these guys did against teams that allowed less than 20 points per game. For Brady Quinn, this included Georgia Tech, Penn State, Michigan, Navy, UCLA, USC and LSU. For Jamarcus Russell, this included Arizona, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas.

Now, I *could* go down to 15 points per game, which I would really define as an "elite" defense...but I don't know if that would be a good measure just because while this would involve a good 4 games for Notre Dame, it would only be 2 games for LSU. More on that later. For now, let's stick to defenses that allowed under 20 points per game.

Jamarcus Russell vs. Arizona, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama and Arkansas
113 of 175 (64.6%), 1357 yards (7.8 ypa), 11 TDs (6.3%), 7 INTs (4.0%). 92.5 QBR

Jamarcus Russell vs. Everyone Else
119 of 167 (71.3%), 1772 yards (10.6 ypa), 17 TDs (10.2%), 1 INTs (0.6%). 137.1 QBR

Brady Quinn vs. Georgia Tech, Penn State, Michigan, Navy, UCLA, USC and LSU
154 of 272 (56.6%), 1788 yards (6.6 ypa), 16 TDs (5.9%), 5 INTs (1.8%). 88.6 QBR

Brady Quinn vs. Everyone Else
135 of 195 (69.2%), 1638 yards (8.4 ypa), 21 TDs (10.8%), 2 INTs (1.0%). 126.4 QBR

So basically, Jamarcus Russell had a better quarterback rating against the good defenses. But, well to keep in mind, he had a better quarterback rating period, as evidenced by his performing better against the bad defenses.

I believe the point to note here, is that the disparity is VERY similar, between the two quarterbacks. Jamarcus Russell goes from a 137.1 rating to a 92.5 rating when he faces a good defense. Brady Quinn goes from a 126.4 rating to an 88.6 rating. It is really strikingly similar, between them.

So what about points scored? What I mean to say is, it is possible for a quarterback to rack up a few stats during a game but have the offense be generally very ineffective...and indeed this is I'm sure what people that do not like Brady Quinn would say.

Jamarcus Russell's offense scored 24.2 points per game against these good defenses. The defenses allowed on average 17.2 points per game.

Brady Quinn's offense scored 24.6 points per game against these good defenses. The defenses allowed on average 16.0 points per game.


Translation: Brady Quinn had a QB Rating of 88.6 and his offense scored 24.6 points per game, against 7 defenses that averaged 16.0 points allowed per game. Jamarcus Russell had a QB Rating of 92.5 and his offense scored 24.2 points per game, against 6 defenses that averaged 17.2 points allowed per game.


Now, there seem to be a lot of strong feelings going on about Brady Quinn and Jamarcus Russell. There's a lot of anti-Quinn sentiment and I really don't expect anything I say here to sway them because, let's be honest, Jesus could come down from the clouds and appear to us all and say he has annointed Brady Quinn to be the best quarterback in the history of the world, and most of the people that don't like Quinn would probably accuse Jesus of being just another biased Notre Dame fan.

That's fine. But I'll go a little further anyway.

I mentioned the "elite" defenses before...those defenses that allowed less than 15 points per game. There are 6 teams that Quinn and Russell played against, that fit the bill. These are LSU, Florida, Auburn, Michigan, Penn State, and USC.

Do a study involving these two quarterbacks going up against these six defenses, and the whole "Brady Quinn sucks against good defenses" criticism should really just go away. At least, compared to Jamarcus Russell it should.

Quinn vs. "The Elite"
86 of 154, 943 yards, 8 TDs, 5 INTs :: 77.9 QB Rating, 25.0 Points Per Game

Russell vs. "The Elite"
44 of 76, 497 yards, 1 TDs, 3 INTs :: 65.5 QB Rating, 6.5 Points Per Game


Of course I know I'm going to hear the same old stuff over and over again. Stats be damned, stats be damned. Burn the books, break the glasses.

Whatever. This is just collected evidence. The FACT of the matter is that I just do not understand how Brady Quinn gets criticized for doing poorly against Michigan and LSU while Jamarcus Russell gets off the hook for his poor performances against Florida and Auburn.

Why? Is it because people think Notre Dame actually had a better surrounding cast? Really? Jeff Samardzija, Rhema McKnight and John Carlson vs. Dwayne Bowe, Craig Davis, and Early Doucet? I don't think so. No way. Any scout would take the LSU cast over and over again before they take the Notre Dame crew.

What about Darius Walker vs. Justin Vincent and Alley Broussard? Again, I take Vincent and Broussard, though this one is close.

What about the Notre Dame offensive line vs. the LSU offensive line? Again, advantage LSU. I take Will Arnold, Herman Johnson, Brett Helms, Brian Johnson, and Peter Dyakowski...over Ryan Harris, Bob Morton, John Sullivan, Dan Santucci, and Sam Young. This one is a little tough, but the LSU offensive line has a much better record against the tougher defensive lines where the Notre Dame offensive line leaked like a sieve.

So, Brady Quinn scored more points against better defenses and had a better QB rating against elite defenses. Jamarcus Russell did better against good defenses and poor defenses.

So, at least for now in relation to Jamarcus Russell, I hope people realize that Brady Quinn did better against the best defenses.

Thanks CK I really enjoy the draft Gurus posts.:D

Da 'Fins
04-13-2007, 12:36 PM
I posted this in VIP and will do so here - just to offer a contrarian viewpoint as far as the heaping of praise on this particular post:

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade.

I certainly appreciate CK's work in general and sometimes agree and disagree. Furthermore, I am in agreement that Brady Quinn is a better QB prospect than Jamarcus Russell (at least at this point). I've loved Quinn as a QB for two years.

However, I don't think this analysis was "objective." Not that CK himself was not trying to be objective, but this was not an "apples" to "apples" comparison. If all teams played the same schedule - one might be able to be more objective with respect to statistics. However, the problem is that these teams were all different and played in different conferences, with vastly different schedules. These stats really don't tell us much as they are far too limited (3 games). One could point to Troy Smith - look at what he did against mutual opponents that Quinn faced versus what he did against Florida. "Well, that's one game." Exactly. But, the "elite defenses" are only 3 games and they are all against different teams and at different stages in the season.

Even if these stats were accumulated against the same elite teams (Say, Auburn, FL and USC) the information would still not be valid as a statistical comparison. For example, Auburn's defense had one of the finest days as any defense in the NCAA's in the LSU game. It was a classic SEC war. However, Auburn's defense, while generally stellar most of the season, had games where they did not play nearly as well. If one did a full-blown statistical regression of how the Auburn defense faired against other SEC QB's, then how those QB's faired against other SEC defenses versus how Russell faired against those defenses, you'll find that Auburn's defense rose to the occasion more effectively against LSU than it did against other opponents - from a statistical viewpoint.

My main point is, that CK's statistical comparison is essentially flawed and as such it cannot yield any valid conclusions. Ultimately, a true statistician would have to argue that this evidence anecdotal. The conclusions may or may not be valid but there's no way to draw any objective data from this limited analysis.

Russell may ultimately be a better player than Quinn. But, there are question-marks with respect to his decision making abilities and how he reads defensive coverages - based on film study. These "question-marks" are more pronounced in Russell than they are in Quinn, imo. It is that evidence that makes Quinn, for my money, the safer bet as to who would be a better NFL QB.

Addendum (Not in the VIP forum post): I also think it's a flaw to say that Quinn did not play against good competition or that he should be denigrated because of the competition he played against.

ckparrothead
04-13-2007, 12:47 PM
I REALLY expect C-Pep to be dealt for a pick(s) on draft day...I just got a gut feeling. Your Thoughts???

I wouldn't expect it, but it wouldn't surprise me either. I think his trade value is down in the dumps to where if we asked for even a 7th I doubt we get it, everyone expecting a release once we secure Trent Green.

lotion
04-13-2007, 12:48 PM
Spock!!!?

ckparrothead
04-13-2007, 12:55 PM
...

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade.

...

So, if I'm to understand the crux of your criticism, through all of those paragraphs, they are the following:

1. Points allowed per game are not created equally

2. Just because a good defense played well on one day, doesn't mean they played well every time

Ok. I've understood your points, and I consider them to be insignificant inasmuch as the points you've made can be used to discard pretty much any statistical analysis done comparing any two players' records against any defense.

In other words, I think you're making a lot more of this criticism than you really should. They in no way "invalidate" the study.

NorFlaFin
04-13-2007, 01:02 PM
5-star thread.

Big time players produce in big time games.

BlueFin
04-13-2007, 01:12 PM
Sorry to rain on everyone's parade.

I certainly appreciate CK's work in general and sometimes agree and disagree. Furthermore, I am in agreement that Brady Quinn is a better QB prospect than Jamarcus Russell (at least at this point). I've loved Quinn as a QB for two years.

However, I don't think this analysis was "objective." Not that CK himself was not trying to be objective, but this was not an "apples" to "apples" comparison. If all teams played the same schedule - one might be able to be more objective with respect to statistics. However, the problem is that these teams were all different and played in different conferences, with vastly different schedules. These stats really don't tell us much as they are far too limited (3 games). One could point to Troy Smith - look at what he did against mutual opponents that Quinn faced versus what he did against Florida. "Well, that's one game." Exactly. But, the "elite defenses" are only 3 games and they are all against different teams and at different stages in the season.

Even if these stats were accumulated against the same elite teams (Say, Auburn, FL and USC) the information would still not be valid as a statistical comparison. For example, Auburn's defense had one of the finest days as any defense in the NCAA's in the LSU game. It was a classic SEC war. However, Auburn's defense, while generally stellar most of the season, had games where they did not play nearly as well. If one did a full-blown statistical regression of how the Auburn defense faired against other SEC QB's, then how those QB's faired against other SEC defenses versus how Russell faired against those defenses, you'll find that Auburn's defense rose to the occasion more effectively against LSU than it did against other opponents - from a statistical viewpoint.

My main point is, that CK's statistical comparison is essentially flawed and as such it cannot yield any valid conclusions. Ultimately, a true statistician would have to argue that this evidence anecdotal. The conclusions may or may not be valid but there's no way to draw any objective data from this limited analysis.

Russell may ultimately be a better player than Quinn. But, there are question-marks with respect to his decision making abilities and how he reads defensive coverages - based on film study. These "question-marks" are more pronounced in Russell than they are in Quinn, imo. It is that evidence that makes Quinn, for my money, the safer bet as to who would be a better NFL QB.

Addendum (Not in the VIP forum post): I also think it's a flaw to say that Quinn did not play against good competition or that he should be denigrated because of the competition he played against.

Number one, while the data may be too limited, I believe the point was that there is nothing to draw from a negative standpoint in regards to Brady Quinn in big games.

His detractors have used this as their trumpet call, and the data simply doesn't back it up, even if it is limited.

I really haven't heard people denigrate him for not facing good competition, its been more Notre Dame, as a team, and its poor showing in some big games last year on the scoreboard, that people seem to want to use to denigrate him as a player.

CK's post, I believe, at least points out that there is nothing really there to back that up.

Namor
04-13-2007, 01:29 PM
Also compare ND's OL/WR & RB's to what LSU had.
LSU had alot better talent.

Pennington's Rocket Arm
04-13-2007, 01:59 PM
also compare what LSU's defense did in those big games to what notre dame's defense did. that'll be fun. :lol:

Finsfan1984
04-13-2007, 02:25 PM
Thanx for the hard work CK. Good job. I too am really tired of all the "Quinn chokes in the big games crap." As I have said over and over again, the same thing was said about Peyton Manning against FLorida when he came out. It just gets so rediculous.

Regan21286
04-13-2007, 03:23 PM
Awesome writeup CK. It's right on the money. Still, it won't get through the brains of a few people but oh well.

ckparrothead
04-13-2007, 03:32 PM
Awesome writeup CK. It's right on the money. Still, it won't get through the brains of a few people but oh well.

I can't blame some people though. It's a lot to read, and if you don't particularly care about the subject then you might just not want to put in that much work to do a careful reading of something like that.

Regan21286
04-13-2007, 03:43 PM
I can't blame some people though. It's a lot to read, and if you don't particularly care about the subject then you might just not want to put in that much work to do a careful reading of something like that.

True, though I guess you could always put up a Cliff's Notes version before the meat of the entry. :lol:

SamTodd
04-13-2007, 03:58 PM
Great thread CK. honestly more and more this offseason has played out i think everything points to us taking quinn, even if we have to trade up.

Da 'Fins
04-13-2007, 04:42 PM
So, if I'm to understand the crux of your criticism, through all of those paragraphs, they are the following:

1. Points allowed per game are not created equally

2. Just because a good defense played well on one day, doesn't mean they played well every time

Ok. I've understood your points, and I consider them to be insignificant inasmuch as the points you've made can be used to discard pretty much any statistical analysis done comparing any two players' records against any defense.

In other words, I think you're making a lot more of this criticism than you really should. They in no way "invalidate" the study.


No, I don't think you've understood the crux of the criticism unless you factor in all the points. However, the fact that you consider them insignificant is a non-argument. It it is a rhetorical dismissal, but not an argument, that they could be used to discard any statistical evidence. This is simply not the case.

The fact is, the two points you note do invalidate the study. If you can't see that, I think you are being emotionally defensive of your own post. To stretch the logic - if Brady were playing against Division II, points/game would be meaningless - we understand that clearly. But, then you have conferences that are stronger in some years than others. However, even if 1 is granted as a non-factor, #2 is a factor because of the significantly small # of games you are factoring in. If you had 10 games against 10 common opponents, that would be a better factor. Or, if you had the last two years, even better.

Ultimately, no legitimate statistician in the world would take anything significant from your analysis. I'd have been laughed out of class if I had presented something like that in my old Econometrics classes.

These are equivalent to the arguments that people make about some natural ingredient that will prevent or help cure cancer. There is anecdotal evidence but it does not rise to validity b/c of the lack of consistent statistical data over a large number of people.

And, you also failed to factor in the distinctions between how Auburn played against LSU versus other quarterbacks. Florida and Auburn both had great defenses, playing at home, who rose to the occasion in highly emotional games.

It's a nice try, but your info makes no argument from a statistical viewpoint. 3 games against uncommon opponents with defenses difficult to compare across conferences do not make a valid argument.

It's purely anecdotal. It's interesting. It may or may not say something. But, ultimately not something one can give much credence to.

Film study of each player in these and other games and the game situation play is what will really tell the true story. Statistical evidence can give us robust data - much closer to a good statistic.

ckparrothead
04-13-2007, 04:45 PM
No, I don't think you've understood the crux of the criticism unless you factor in all the points. However, the fact that you consider them insignificant is a non-argument. It it is a rhetorical dismissal, but not an argument, that they could be used to discard any statistical evidence. This is simply not the case.

The fact is, the two points you note do invalidate the study. If you can't see that, I think you are being emotionally defensive of your own post. To stretch the logic - if Brady were playing against Division II, points/game would be meaningless - we understand that clearly. But, then you have conferences that are stronger in some years than others. However, even if 1 is granted as a non-factor, #2 is a factor because of the significantly small # of games you are factoring in. If you had 10 games against 10 common opponents, that would be a better factor. Or, if you had the last two years, even better.

Ultimately, no legitimate statistician in the world would take anything significant from your analysis. I'd have been laughed out of class if I had presented something like that in my old Econometrics classes.

These are equivalent to the arguments that people make about some natural ingredient that will prevent or help cure cancer. There is anecdotal evidence but it does not rise to validity b/c of the lack of consistent statistical data over a large number of people.

And, you also failed to factor in the distinctions between how Auburn played against LSU versus other quarterbacks. Florida and Auburn both had great defenses, playing at home, who rose to the occasion in highly emotional games.

It's a nice try, but your info makes no argument from a statistical viewpoint. 3 games against uncommon opponents with defenses difficult to compare across conferences do not make a valid argument.

It's purely anecdotal. It's interesting. It may or may not say something. But, ultimately not something one can give much credence to.

Film study of each player in these and other games and the game situation play is what will really tell the true story. Statistical evidence can give us robust data - much closer to a good statistic.

I'm just curious, but what is your background, and what do you know of my background?

DonShula84
04-13-2007, 04:56 PM
also compare what LSU's defense did in those big games to what notre dame's defense did. that'll be fun. :lol:

No it wont :boohoo:

And great thread CK

phinphanforever
04-13-2007, 05:01 PM
Really? So basically Quinn's heroic USC comeback, with a crappy team surrounding him, wasn't impressive but Russell's Sugar Bowl performance against a HORRID Notre Dame defense with a GOOD team surrounding him was impressive? :rolleyes2
Enough with the revisionist history already. Earth to Agent 51: There was no comeback. Notre Dame lost the game!
Even if Notre Dame and Quinn put some numbers on the board late in the game, do you really believe USC was playing a stout defense? I mean seriously, USC at that point could have cared less that ND scored, as long as time ran out.

phinphanforever
04-13-2007, 05:07 PM
No, I don't think you've understood the crux of the criticism unless you factor in all the points. However, the fact that you consider them insignificant is a non-argument. It it is a rhetorical dismissal, but not an argument, that they could be used to discard any statistical evidence. This is simply not the case.

The fact is, the two points you note do invalidate the study. If you can't see that, I think you are being emotionally defensive of your own post. To stretch the logic - if Brady were playing against Division II, points/game would be meaningless - we understand that clearly. But, then you have conferences that are stronger in some years than others. However, even if 1 is granted as a non-factor, #2 is a factor because of the significantly small # of games you are factoring in. If you had 10 games against 10 common opponents, that would be a better factor. Or, if you had the last two years, even better.

Ultimately, no legitimate statistician in the world would take anything significant from your analysis. I'd have been laughed out of class if I had presented something like that in my old Econometrics classes.

These are equivalent to the arguments that people make about some natural ingredient that will prevent or help cure cancer. There is anecdotal evidence but it does not rise to validity b/c of the lack of consistent statistical data over a large number of people.

And, you also failed to factor in the distinctions between how Auburn played against LSU versus other quarterbacks. Florida and Auburn both had great defenses, playing at home, who rose to the occasion in highly emotional games.

It's a nice try, but your info makes no argument from a statistical viewpoint. 3 games against uncommon opponents with defenses difficult to compare across conferences do not make a valid argument.

It's purely anecdotal. It's interesting. It may or may not say something. But, ultimately not something one can give much credence to.

Film study of each player in these and other games and the game situation play is what will really tell the true story. Statistical evidence can give us robust data - much closer to a good statistic.
Thank you sir. A very informative response.

These inane posts using stats as some form of definitive proof are getting tiresome. It reminds me of my first year stats class when the prof said: "96% of World War 2 vets ate carrots in their lifetime.....x amount of all the men that served in WW2 died..therefore 96% of x died because they ate carrots.."

kpcane
04-13-2007, 05:19 PM
I'm against drafting Brady Quinn, and I don't like this argument for two reasons.

1) I think Russell sucks too. I don't ever talk about him, because there's no chance of us getting him. But to me, you're arguing that Quinn sucks less than Russell. I'd agree with that.

2) Why do stats matter? The only thing that matters are wins and losses, especially for a guy that plays for Notre Dame. I know the supporting cast matters, but I saw Quinn play against tough defenses, and he looked awful. Passes underthrown, making terrible decisions under pressure, etc. I'm sure I'm considered a terrible Dolphins fan for this - but I liked Jay Fiedler. He wouldn't put up gaudy numbers, but he won ballgames and took us to the playoffs with a weak supporting cast on offense. And don't say it was the defense, because that same defense was there when A.J. Feeley was at the helm.

You can't judge a QB by his numbers, you judge him by how he acts under pressure. This is why Marino was a great QB - not because of his numbers. In my opinion, Quinn doesn't have the mental makeup to be a great NFL QB. At his very best, he could be Trent Dilfer. But that's just my humble opinion.

Agent51
04-13-2007, 05:28 PM
You seem to be one of those guys that favor one guy no matter what.
Hey thats still ok, you have a right to your opinion.

Not at all, but I do speak strongly of Quinn because I think he is the right pick for this organization, and I have NEVER pulled for a player this much, not even last year when Leinert, Young, and Cutler were all avalable.

I also speak negatively against Russell because I just don't get it when it comes to him. Granted I'm no "expert", but I watch football religiously, and the kid has shown me nothing that sells me on him being #1 overall, and I honestly don't even think he'd be in round 1 if the Sugar Bowl went any differently. I'm just sick of people putting SO much emphasis on one friggin' game.


Enough with the revisionist history already. Earth to Agent 51: There was no comeback. Notre Dame lost the game!
Even if Notre Dame and Quinn put some numbers on the board late in the game, do you really believe USC was playing a stout defense? I mean seriously, USC at that point could have cared less that ND scored, as long as time ran out.

You're right, just because they didn't win means the comeback was moot and unimpressive.

"Earth to Phinphan", that SHOULD have been a win had the refs not blown that last minute (last SECONDS actually) call, and then what would everyone be saying? They would be saying how great a comeback and win it was, not that "it doesn't matter that he put up all those points in the end, because they still lost and USC wasn't trying. Nice arguement :rolleyes2

khawe
04-13-2007, 05:29 PM
So, at least for now in relation to Jamarcus Russell, I hope people realize that Brady Quinn did better against the best defenses.

I just stumbled upon this site and happened to read the Quinn / Russell vs Defense comparison.

Its funny because these 2 QB's are very much a like - they both are blinding people. Russell is blinding people with his size. Quinn is blinding people with the Notre Dame mystique and having Weiss as a coach.

I think both QB's will have solid careers - Hall of Fame? Not so sure. As far as the draft, even if Quinn is 100 times better then Russell I wouldnt take him if I was the Raiders. Russell is the perfect fit for the men in black. Plus, his arm could make Moss happy and think about the good old days playing in the Metrodome.

God I love the draft...

Kieran
CollegeFootballSearchEngine.com

Namor
04-13-2007, 05:37 PM
I'm against drafting Brady Quinn, and I don't like this argument for two reasons.

1) I think Russell sucks too. I don't ever talk about him, because there's no chance of us getting him. But to me, you're arguing that Quinn sucks less than Russell. I'd agree with that.

2) Why do stats matter? The only thing that matters are wins and losses, especially for a guy that plays for Notre Dame. I know the supporting cast matters, but I saw Quinn play against tough defenses, and he looked awful. Passes underthrown, making terrible decisions under pressure, etc. I'm sure I'm considered a terrible Dolphins fan for this - but I liked Jay Fiedler. He wouldn't put up gaudy numbers, but he won ballgames and took us to the playoffs with a weak supporting cast on offense. And don't say it was the defense, because that same defense was there when A.J. Feeley was at the helm.

You can't judge a QB by his numbers, you judge him by how he acts under pressure. This is why Marino was a great QB - not because of his numbers. In my opinion, Quinn doesn't have the mental makeup to be a great NFL QB. At his very best, he could be Trent Dilfer. But that's just my humble opinion.

Dude..Brady's mental makeup is why I think he will
be a great QB.


You liked FIEDLER???? just kidding...not

phinphanforever
04-13-2007, 05:37 PM
Not at all, but I do speak strongly of Quinn because I think he is the right pick for this organization, and I have NEVER pulled for a player this much, not even last year when Leinert, Young, and Cutler were all avalable.

I also speak negatively against Russell because I just don't get it when it comes to him. Granted I'm no "expert", but I watch football religiously, and the kid has shown me nothing that sells me on him being #1 overall, and I honestly don't even think he'd be in round 1 if the Sugar Bowl went any differently. I'm just sick of people putting SO much emphasis on one friggin' game.



You're right, just because they didn't win means the comeback was moot and unimpressive.

"Earth to Phinphan", that SHOULD have been a win had the refs not blown that last minute (last SECONDS actually) call, and then what would everyone be saying? They would be saying how great a comeback and win it was, not that "it doesn't matter that he put up all those points in the end, because they still lost and USC wasn't trying. Nice arguement :rolleyes2
What's your argument? The woulda, shoulda coulda?

Agent51
04-13-2007, 06:13 PM
What's your argument? The woulda, shoulda coulda?

My arguement is you're point about them losing that game makes ZERO sense in the arguement that he never did anything great. The entire comeback was great, and everyone knows that blown call at the end on the Leinert TD run cost them the game, and if that call had went the RIGHT way, Brady would be praised for the comeback, but because a bad call was made in the waning seconds of a game, instead of being credited for a comeback (win or not he still made up the point deficit) and great play you are saying it doesn't count because USC wasn't playing defense, yet had the one it would going the opposite and Quinn would be praised for the great come-from-behind victory.

Boomer
04-13-2007, 06:17 PM
These inane posts using stats as some form of definitive proof are getting tiresome.



Because the "Quinn can't win big games" argument is such fun, huh?

:rolleyes2

Agent51
04-13-2007, 06:40 PM
Because the "Quinn can't win big games" argument is such fun, huh?

:rolleyes2

Exactly. At least the stats, while not definitive proof or measures of how a player will transfer to the NFL, are FACTS, so you get a general idea of the player, whereas saying "he can't win the big game" is an arguement based on heresay and no actual proof since ONE PLAYER doesn't win an entire game, plus there are so many variables to factor into an arguement like that, while stats are cold hard facts right there for you to look at.

Besides, the "can't win big games" arguement is such a diss to Dan Marino that it's funny Dolphin's "fans" would even use that as an arguement (let alone the ONLY arguement) as to why he won't succeed in the NFL.

TexanPhinatic
04-13-2007, 06:49 PM
Some people are just in such absolute denial about Quinn that its not even worth debating with them.

Rubbin420
04-13-2007, 07:23 PM
Why? Is it because people think Notre Dame actually had a better surrounding cast? Really? Jeff Samardzija, Rhema McKnight and John Carlson vs. Dwayne Bowe, Craig Davis, and Early Doucet? I don't think so. No way. Any scout would take the LSU cast over and over again before they take the Notre Dame crew. -


There is the key point.
No doubting Russells talent. Brady has a bad rap for no reason at all. He is just as capable as Jamarcus and more cerebral QB than raw talent.

You guys want to see some talent after Quinn is gone? Go to youtube and look up Kevin Kolb. He has attributes of Quinn and Russell. Brains and gun.

Da 'Fins
04-13-2007, 08:07 PM
I'm just curious, but what is your background, and what do you know of my background?

Don't know what your background is.

My background is an M.A. in Economics and work in government auditing - as well as statistical analysis related to both sports salaries and the Public Choice field (extra work done for a professor while I was working on my M.A.).

I've also spent some time talking medical data (hence the analogical reference) with two close friends - one with a PHD in Biostatistics; the other an MD who is finishing up 6 extra years of work in specialized cancer research.

Da 'Fins
04-13-2007, 08:19 PM
Just want to clarify on some matters - though I don't think CK's analysis here was validity that Quinn is better than Jamarcus - I do think Quinn is a better fit for us; and I like Quinn (more of a gut feeling) better than Russell.

I also think the "Quinn hasn't played anyone" or "had tough competition" is a flawed argument. If you play at ND you have some tough competition. And, you also have a guy with two years under a great NFL mind in Charlie Weis.

On the other hand, if we make the argument that Quinn did not have great talent around him (and I think that's a legit point) - then we also should make that point even more dramatically about Edwards at Stanford (and, he did have 17 games and 400 passes over the past two years).

I'm not saying Edwards is a better QB - nor do I know how he looked in those individual workouts or responded to questions (there may be some marks against him; and others; that I don't know about). But, just as we take the surrounding talent into account with Brady - we should do so with Edwards.

It is also true that Russell had some of the best talent in the NCAA's.

Agent51
04-13-2007, 08:36 PM
On the other hand, if we make the argument that Quinn did not have great talent around him (and I think that's a legit point) - then we also should make that point even more dramatically about Edwards at Stanford (and, he did have 17 games and 400 passes over the past two years).
.

Well then couldn't the arguement go for a guy like Colt Brennan from Hawai'i too? He had some DAMN impressive stats, but can you name one player on his offense besides him? However, that's not to say he is an NFL QB.

I guess when it comes down to it the only thing that matter is game footage of the actual player, not results in the win/loss categorey or even so much the actual stats. Look at Jay Cutler, everyone raved about him and he never "won" in college, but that was OK because he wasn't EXPECTED to win at a program like Vandy, so people focused on his play and not his performance against big opponents or his win/loss record. I think Quinn is getting screwed because ND is an elite program and they are EXPECTED to perform highly, so when they don't it tarnishes the image of eve great players who don't deserve it.

dahlmarino
04-13-2007, 09:06 PM
Great post, CK. One question/comment/thing, though. They were pretty even against "good" defenses whereas Quinn separated himself a little bt against "great" defenses in 2006, but how do those numbers compare to their 2005 stats using the same parameters? I'm wondering 2 things: What kind of consistency or improvement did each one show from one year to the next, and How would JaMarcus Russel's stats against "great" defenses change with a broader comparison, since he had half the games that Quinn had in that category.

Pennington's Rocket Arm
04-13-2007, 09:19 PM
2) Why do stats matter? The only thing that matters are wins and losses
yes, just ask ken dorsey!

ckparrothead
04-14-2007, 10:13 AM
Don't know what your background is.

My background is an M.A. in Economics and work in government auditing - as well as statistical analysis related to both sports salaries and the Public Choice field (extra work done for a professor while I was working on my M.A.).

I've also spent some time talking medical data (hence the analogical reference) with two close friends - one with a PHD in Biostatistics; the other an MD who is finishing up 6 extra years of work in specialized cancer research.

I was curious because of your mention of Econometrics. I've got a B.A. in Economics from Georgetown and work as an Equity Research Analyst at Raymond James Financial for a 10-man team that manages $5.5 billion of institutional and high net worth assets in small and mid cap stocks.

I have a strong enough background in statistics, especially in my job, to pretty much disregard your criticisms as insignificant. The criticisms you mounted can be said literally about every conclusion or observation ever made about any two players in comparison with each other, because the conditions will never be exactly the same.

kpcane
04-14-2007, 11:45 AM
yes, just ask ken dorsey!

If there's 2 minutes left in a game and my team is down by 5, I would take dorsey as my QB over quinn, that's for damn sure.

everybody knew dorsey didn't have fantastic arm strength, had a phenomenal supporting cast, and a great defense. but dorsey also had poise in the pocket, and stepped up in big games, despite not having great arm strength. Dorsey actually hasn't even played that bad considering he was on the worst team in the NFL for 3 years, and now on another terrible team. Let's see how good Quinn is when he gets drafted by a terrible team.

Boomer
04-14-2007, 11:54 AM
If there's 2 minutes left in a game and my team is down by 5, I would take dorsey as my QB over quinn, that's for damn sure.

everybody knew dorsey didn't have fantastic arm strength, had a phenomenal supporting cast, and a great defense. but dorsey also had poise in the pocket, and stepped up in big games, despite not having great arm strength. Dorsey actually hasn't even played that bad considering he was on the worst team in the NFL for 3 years, and now on another terrible team. Let's see how good Quinn is when he gets drafted by a terrible team.



LOL. Like Dorsey is an NFL QB.

kpcane
04-14-2007, 12:01 PM
LOL. Like Dorsey is an NFL QB.

Uh, he is "guru"

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/395950

Finsfan1984
04-14-2007, 12:03 PM
If there's 2 minutes left in a game and my team is down by 5, I would take dorsey as my QB over quinn, that's for damn sure.

everybody knew dorsey didn't have fantastic arm strength, had a phenomenal supporting cast, and a great defense. but dorsey also had poise in the pocket, and stepped up in big games, despite not having great arm strength. Dorsey actually hasn't even played that bad considering he was on the worst team in the NFL for 3 years, and now on another terrible team. Let's see how good Quinn is when he gets drafted by a terrible team.
Dude c'mon...I cant believe you said that. I was a Dorsey fan myself when he was at the "U". But you honestly cant compare him to Quinn, get with it man. Youre livin in denial here!

Boomer
04-14-2007, 12:05 PM
Uh, he is "guru"

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/395950

If in doubt, be faecitious.

:rolleyes2

The point being, that to compare Dorsey to Quinn is like comparing Avril Lavigne to The Beatles.

Finsfan1984
04-14-2007, 12:08 PM
If in doubt, be faecitious.

:rolleyes2

The point being, that to compare Dorsey to Quinn is like comparing Avril Lavigne to The Beatles.

I always wondered how to spell that word :D

Boomer
04-14-2007, 12:14 PM
Lol

kpcane
04-14-2007, 12:48 PM
Dude c'mon...I cant believe you said that. I was a Dorsey fan myself when he was at the "U". But you honestly cant compare him to Quinn, get with it man. Youre livin in denial here!

"get with it"? I didn't bring Dorsey into the conversation, and I'm not comparing him to Quinn. All I'm saying is Dorsey was clutch when he needed to be. I never said he was a great QB, I never said he had superior talents, and I never said he'll make it in the NFL. But then again, I feel the same way about Quinn.

kpcane
04-14-2007, 12:51 PM
If in doubt, be faecitious.

:rolleyes2

The point being, that to compare Dorsey to Quinn is like comparing Avril Lavigne to The Beatles.

if in doubt be facetious? what the....

are you the one in doubt, because I certainly wasn't being facetious. I can compare the poise of QBs under pressure if I want to. Just because Quinn is garbage with the game on the line, doesn't mean that he can't be compared to a guy who actually won a national title (and should have won 2).

Finsfan1984
04-14-2007, 12:53 PM
"get with it"? I didn't bring Dorsey into the conversation, and I'm not comparing him to Quinn. All I'm saying is Dorsey was clutch when he needed to be. I never said he was a great QB, I never said he had superior talents, and I never said he'll make it in the NFL. But then again, I feel the same way about Quinn.
Hey man, Im not putting words into your mouth...You did compare Dorsey to Quinn, and by doing that, you are saying in essence that you think he has better/superior talents.

Like I said, I too liked Dorsey, but I would never compare his "NFL" Potential to that of Quinns. Never!!!

kpcane
04-14-2007, 01:26 PM
am I taking crazy pills or isn't this:


you are saying in essence that...

putting words in someone else's mouth?

I NEVER compared NFL talents between the two. In fact, all I was saying was that Dorsey was never considered a great QB, but when the game was on the line he stepped up. It's not that complicated of an argument.

Boomer
04-14-2007, 01:31 PM
if in doubt be facetious? what the....

are you the one in doubt, because I certainly wasn't being facetious. I can compare the poise of QBs under pressure if I want to. Just because Quinn is garbage with the game on the line, doesn't mean that he can't be compared to a guy who actually won a national title (and should have won 2).


When is Quinn "garbage" with the game on the line?

Regan21286
04-14-2007, 01:44 PM
No, I don't think you've understood the crux of the criticism unless you factor in all the points. However, the fact that you consider them insignificant is a non-argument. It it is a rhetorical dismissal, but not an argument, that they could be used to discard any statistical evidence. This is simply not the case.

The fact is, the two points you note do invalidate the study. If you can't see that, I think you are being emotionally defensive of your own post. To stretch the logic - if Brady were playing against Division II, points/game would be meaningless - we understand that clearly. But, then you have conferences that are stronger in some years than others. However, even if 1 is granted as a non-factor, #2 is a factor because of the significantly small # of games you are factoring in. If you had 10 games against 10 common opponents, that would be a better factor. Or, if you had the last two years, even better.

Ultimately, no legitimate statistician in the world would take anything significant from your analysis. I'd have been laughed out of class if I had presented something like that in my old Econometrics classes.

These are equivalent to the arguments that people make about some natural ingredient that will prevent or help cure cancer. There is anecdotal evidence but it does not rise to validity b/c of the lack of consistent statistical data over a large number of people.

And, you also failed to factor in the distinctions between how Auburn played against LSU versus other quarterbacks. Florida and Auburn both had great defenses, playing at home, who rose to the occasion in highly emotional games.

It's a nice try, but your info makes no argument from a statistical viewpoint. 3 games against uncommon opponents with defenses difficult to compare across conferences do not make a valid argument.

It's purely anecdotal. It's interesting. It may or may not say something. But, ultimately not something one can give much credence to.

Film study of each player in these and other games and the game situation play is what will really tell the true story. Statistical evidence can give us robust data - much closer to a good statistic.

I'm no statistician (unless you count 2 classes of upper division biostatistics that I took for pre-med requirements), but as far as the baseless arguments made by people who claim that Russell has played far greater competition than Quinn who they claim played against all easy teams, these stats yield a bit more credence. But at best it's like comparing 0.1 over 0. Not much but still something.

It's pretty much impossible to compare the two statistically considering the lack of commonality and almost non-existant sample size. But again, compared to the "Quinn had too easy of a competition/sucks against non-easy opponents" arguments, it carries a bit more weight.

kpcane
04-14-2007, 02:12 PM
When is Quinn "garbage" with the game on the line?

you're right, that's not what I meant to say...I meant to say he's garbage in big games. he did step up with the game on the line against those pac-10 teams over the past 2 years (ucla, stanford, usc) that are known for their great defenses :rolleyes2

kpcane
04-14-2007, 02:17 PM
I'm no statistician (unless you count 2 classes of upper division biostatistics that I took for pre-med requirements), but as far as the baseless arguments made by people who claim that Russell has played far greater competition than Quinn who they claim played against all easy teams, these stats yield a bit more credence. But at best it's like comparing 0.1 over 0. Not much but still something.

It's pretty much impossible to compare the two statistically considering the lack of commonality and almost non-existant sample size. But again, compared to the "Quinn had too easy of a competition/sucks against non-easy opponents" arguments, it carries a bit more weight.

ucla requires their pre-meds to take statistics (and two of them)? weird....

Regan21286
04-14-2007, 02:27 PM
ucla requires their pre-meds to take statistics (and two of them)? weird....

For most medical schools, just one class of statistics is highly recommended (which in a sense because of the competition, implies required). For UCLA medical school and others, one quarter of statistics is mandatory. Another statistics class can be substituted for one of calculus. Which is what I did because I don't really like math (though I had been in bioengineering for 1st year and had to continue the math for engineers course line).

kpcane
04-14-2007, 02:33 PM
For most medical schools, just one class of statistics is highly recommended (which in a sense because of the competition, implies required). For UCLA medical school and others, one quarter of statistics is mandatory. Another statistics class can be substituted for one of calculus. Which is what I did because I don't really like math (though I had been in bioengineering for 1st year and had to continue the math for engineers course line).

I totally would have substituted one statistics class for one calculus class

phinphanforever
04-14-2007, 03:24 PM
I can't blame some people though. It's a lot to read, and if you don't particularly care about the subject then you might just not want to put in that much work to do a careful reading of something like that.
I care about the subject. I read carefully; your logic is flawed. It's not personal, and I do appreciate your effort, nonetheless, your argument does not have statistical merit, and that is fact.
I can accept that there are some who have a different opinion of Quinn, however, to suggest that those opinions can be bolstered or supported by the statistics you have provided is wrong.

BlueFin
04-14-2007, 03:38 PM
I care about the subject. I read carefully; your logic is flawed. It's not personal, and I do appreciate your effort, nonetheless, your argument does not have statistical merit, and that is fact.
I can accept that there are some who have a different opinion of Quinn, however, to suggest that those opinions can be bolstered or supported by the statistics you have provided is wrong.

And nor does yours, like this psychobabble you tried to pass off as the work of scouts:

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?p=1061968785#post1061968785

phinphanforever
04-14-2007, 03:48 PM
And nor does yours, like this psychobabble you tried to pass off as the work of scouts:

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?p=1061968785#post1061968785
It was never presented as statistical evidence, which is quite different from the other 'argument'. It also stated what some scouts are saying, which is true.
I do apologise if you find that difficult to comprehend, but I am simply using and gathering knowledge through a scientific epistemology. The psychobabble reference that you used is a more apt description of the other argument, although I myself wouldn't use that term.

Da 'Fins
04-15-2007, 12:00 AM
Well then couldn't the arguement go for a guy like Colt Brennan from Hawai'i too? He had some DAMN impressive stats, but can you name one player on his offense besides him? However, that's not to say he is an NFL QB.

I guess when it comes down to it the only thing that matter is game footage of the actual player, not results in the win/loss categorey or even so much the actual stats. Look at Jay Cutler, everyone raved about him and he never "won" in college, but that was OK because he wasn't EXPECTED to win at a program like Vandy, so people focused on his play and not his performance against big opponents or his win/loss record. I think Quinn is getting screwed because ND is an elite program and they are EXPECTED to perform highly, so when they don't it tarnishes the image of eve great players who don't deserve it.

Agreed. I think you are dead on with these points. Well said.

Da 'Fins
04-15-2007, 12:23 AM
I was curious because of your mention of Econometrics. I've got a B.A. in Economics from Georgetown and work as an Equity Research Analyst at Raymond James Financial for a 10-man team that manages $5.5 billion of institutional and high net worth assets in small and mid cap stocks.

I have a strong enough background in statistics, especially in my job, to pretty much disregard your criticisms as insignificant. The criticisms you mounted can be said literally about every conclusion or observation ever made about any two players in comparison with each other, because the conditions will never be exactly the same.

Yes, the criticisms can be said about every conclusion - based on the unsubstantial evidence you supplied in the post - about any two players in comparison.

But, again, you've made two critical logical fallacies here:

One, you're stating you are right because of confidence in your training - which says nothing about whether you drew statistically valid conclusions or even had enough data in this instance - again, based on the kind of analysis you did - to arrive at that conclusion.

Two, you putting up a straw man and it's obvious. You're trying to say that I'm arguing for conditions to be, in your own words here, "exactly the same." Nope. Never said that, never argued that, never would argue that.

There are light years of difference between two games against uncommon opponents and what I would look for as a legit comparison.

What I am arguing is that the only way to legitimately compare the two, given their uncomparable schedules, is to do some good film work. Now, that won't get you to perfection and you would have to incorporate some of the variables you have as well as others.

Further, as I noted elswhere, your analysis may be legitimate - in the sense that the data on Russell versus elite defenses, and Quinn versus elite defenses, may acurately reflect the quality of the player. But, it certainly may not and the data is simply insufficient - in this instance. That does not argue that the data need be perfectly identical.

I would prefer Quinn for a compilation of reasons - but, I also realize that this opinion, like 99.9% of the opinions on this group - is a product of insufficent data.

BlueFin
04-15-2007, 10:36 AM
Yes, the criticisms can be said about every conclusion - based on the unsubstantial evidence you supplied in the post - about any two players in comparison.

But, again, you've made two critical logical fallacies here:

One, you're stating you are right because of confidence in your training - which says nothing about whether you drew statistically valid conclusions or even had enough data in this instance - again, based on the kind of analysis you did - to arrive at that conclusion.

Two, you putting up a straw man and it's obvious. You're trying to say that I'm arguing for conditions to be, in your own words here, "exactly the same." Nope. Never said that, never argued that, never would argue that.

There are light years of difference between two games against uncommon opponents and what I would look for as a legit comparison.

What I am arguing is that the only way to legitimately compare the two, given their uncomparable schedules, is to do some good film work. Now, that won't get you to perfection and you would have to incorporate some of the variables you have as well as others.

Further, as I noted elswhere, your analysis may be legitimate - in the sense that the data on Russell versus elite defenses, and Quinn versus elite defenses, may acurately reflect the quality of the player. But, it certainly may not and the data is simply insufficient - in this instance. That does not argue that the data need be perfectly identical.

I would prefer Quinn for a compilation of reasons - but, I also realize that this opinion, like 99.9% of the opinions on this group - is a product of insufficent data.

You know what?

Can't we just accept that this is all an inexact science, and appreciate CK taking the time to do a breakdown, to give us all something to chew on in these long days, waiting for the draft to occur?

If you have something you can back up with your own analysis to add to the discussion......fine, but some of this seems rather petty to me.

In the end, whether a college player succeeds or not in the pros is never guaranteed by his college numbers, we all know that, In my view CK is simply giving us all something more to talk about regarding our passion we call the Miami Dolphins, and we really don't need pseudo-intellects to attack his post with words like "flawed logic" or "lacking statistical merit" to know that the NFL draft is a crapshoot.

Killer B's
04-15-2007, 04:40 PM
You know what?

Can't we just accept that this is all an inexact science, and appreciate CK taking the time to do a breakdown, to give us all something to chew on in these long days, waiting for the draft to occur?

If you have something you can back up with your own analysis to add to the discussion......fine, but some of this seems rather petty to me.

In the end, whether a college player succeeds or not in the pros is never guaranteed by his college numbers, we all know that, In my view CK is simply giving us all something more to talk about regarding our passion we call the Miami Dolphins, and we really don't need pseudo-intellects to attack his post with words like "flawed logic" or "lacking statistical merit" to know that the NFL draft is a crapshoot.

Amen Brother. Couldn't have said it better.

Thanks CK, always enjoy your posts!!! I was glad not to see another "What do you think of my first mock draft ever?" thread.

The draft can not come soon enough.

Phinfan31
04-15-2007, 07:47 PM
Man are all the threads in VIP like the one started here by Parrot!? After being a dedicated finheaven member for years now I better make the upgrade...great job parrot.

ckparrothead
04-15-2007, 09:17 PM
Man are all the threads in VIP like the one started here by Parrot!? After being a dedicated finheaven member for years now I better make the upgrade...great job parrot.

With all honesty I can say that yes, you see threads like these multiple times a week in VIP...sometimes multiple times a day.

Phanatical
04-16-2007, 10:19 PM
Nice read CK, unfortunately, there is no way that college performance is a perfect predictor of NFL success, if there was, then drafting pro-bowlers would be easy as apple pie.

While your "proof" has some logical merit, I have to say, deep down in my gut, if I had to choose between Russell or Quinn, I would take Russell in a heartbeat.

GO PHINS~!

Springveldt
04-17-2007, 07:59 AM
You know what?
Can't we just accept that this is all an inexact science, and appreciate CK taking the time to do a breakdown, to give us all something to chew on in these long days, waiting for the draft to occur?
If you have something you can back up with your own analysis to add to the discussion......fine, but some of this seems rather petty to me.
Don't want to speak for Da'Fins but I'm pretty sure he did acknowledge the fine effort that CKParrotHead put into the initial post.
Da'Fins is just trying to make people think as well, by pointing out you shouldn't take these figures as Gospel and declare Quinn better than Russell.
I've not done statistics in about 10 years (what little I did do) so I've found the debate interesting, and I'm still not sure who has the biggest statistical tadger. :D



In the end, whether a college player succeeds or not in the pros is never guaranteed by his college numbers, we all know that, In my view CK is simply giving us all something more to talk about regarding our passion we call the Miami Dolphins, and we really don't need pseudo-intellects to attack his post with words like "flawed logic" or "lacking statistical merit" to know that the NFL draft is a crapshoot.
MrClean posted a cracking post the other day in VIP about the bust rate of QB's taken early in the last few drafts could be linked to their success in college. It seemed that most of the busts had fewer starts and completed less than 55% of their passes. Was a really good post.

Boomer
04-17-2007, 08:58 AM
you're right, that's not what I meant to say...I meant to say he's garbage in big games. he did step up with the game on the line against those pac-10 teams over the past 2 years (ucla, stanford, usc) that are known for their great defenses :rolleyes2

You must have missed the win over #3 Michigan, 2x vs Tennessee who were ranked in the top 5 and top 10 respectively, etc. And last time I looked, USC have been in the top 3 for about the past 5 years and have won 2 National Championships.

phinphanforever
04-17-2007, 09:05 AM
You must have missed the win over #3 Michigan, 2x vs Tennessee who were ranked in the top 5 and top 10 respectively, etc. And last time I looked, USC have been in the top 3 for about the past 5 years and have won 2 National Championships.
I doubt anybody missed those wins. What I saw, and many informed and knowledgeable football fans saw was a victory over a Michigan team, whose defense was putrid. It was just awful. It was so bad that the defensive coordinator was fired at the end of the season. Interestingly, this soft defense, whose biggest weakness was its secondary, basically shut down Quinn as the game progressed. It was the same secondary that struggled against other lesser know Qbs throughout the season.
Tell me Boomer, how did Quinn fare in his other games versus Michigan?

Boomer
04-17-2007, 09:26 AM
I doubt anybody missed those wins. What I saw, and many informed and knowledgeable football fans saw was a victory over a Michigan team, whose defense was putrid. It was just awful. It was so bad that the defensive coordinator was fired at the end of the season. Interestingly, this soft defense, whose biggest weakness was its secondary, basically shut down Quinn as the game progressed. It was the same secondary that struggled against other lesser know Qbs throughout the season.
Tell me Boomer, how did Quinn fare in his other games versus Michigan?

Ah I see. Now the goalposts are moving. The question was, how did Quinn do in big games? All of a sudden, when you get proven wrong, you need to shift the emphasis to prove your point.

But hell, this is your classic tactic.

phinphanforever
04-17-2007, 09:33 AM
Ah I see. Now the goalposts are moving. The question was, how did Quinn do in big games? All of a sudden, when you get proven wrong, you need to shift the emphasis to prove your point.

But hell, this is your classic tactic.
No posts are moving Boomer; if they are I suggest you get the peepers checked out mate; they may be interfering with your evaluation of game tape.
The question was indeed how Quinn performed in big games. You quoted Michigan in 2005. I was just looking out for you pal. I'm sure you wanted to be as accurate as possible. In the spirit of accuracy, I simply wanted to note that you had overlooked what took place in that game. SInce you say you watch so much game tape of Quinn, I'm sure you already knew this. If you don't have the tape of the 2005 game, I'll gladly send you a copy. You can credit me on Paypal.

Boomer
04-17-2007, 09:38 AM
No posts are moving Boomer; if they are I suggest you get the peepers checked out mate; they may be interfering with your evaluation of game tape.
The question was indeed how Quinn performed in big games. You quoted Michigan in 2005. I was just looking out for you pal. I'm sure you wanted to be as accurate as possible. In the spirit of accuracy, I simply wanted to note that you had overlooked what took place in that game. SInce you say you watch so much game tape of Quinn, I'm sure you already knew this. If you don't have the tape of the 2005 game, I'll gladly send you a copy. You can credit me on Paypal.

Is that another one of your propaganda DVD's? You still at the iamfactuallyincorrectandhavenoargument@hotmail.com e-mail addy?

You must have been asleep when he beat 20th ranked Pitt, 5th ranked Michigan, 24th ranked Michigan State, 9th ranked Tennessee, 3rd ranked Michigan, 23rd ranked Pitt, 22nd ranked Purdue, lost on a miracle 4th and 9 to number 1 ranked USC, Tennessee again, 19th ranked Penn State, 17th ranked MSU and a UCLA team that stopped #2 ranked USC from going to the BCS Title Game.

So the argument that he can't win a big game is pretty stupid.

ckparrothead
04-17-2007, 09:50 AM
Nice read CK, unfortunately, there is no way that college performance is a perfect predictor of NFL success, if there was, then drafting pro-bowlers would be easy as apple pie.

While your "proof" has some logical merit, I have to say, deep down in my gut, if I had to choose between Russell or Quinn, I would take Russell in a heartbeat.

GO PHINS~!

Listen, I think some people are really misunderstanding the scope of this study, especially Da Fins here. This isn't my once-and-for-all proof that Brady Quinn is the end-all, be-all of quarterback prospects. This isn't even a proof that Brady Quinn is better than Jamarcus Russell.

An active criticism about Brady Quinn is that he performs poorly during games against quality defense.

I'm not talking about the "plays bad during big games" thing. I'm talking about how some people think that when Quinn goes up against a good defense, he performs poorly from a personal responsibility perspective (e.g. throwing interceptions, not completing passes, not pushing the ball down the field, not scoring TDs, etc).

All this study was meant to show was that if you're going to go with that criticism against Brady Quinn, you have to recognize that the criticism is just as sharp, if not sharper, against Jamarcus Russell. That's it.

ckparrothead
04-17-2007, 09:53 AM
Is that another one of your propaganda DVD's? You still at the iamfactuallyincorrectandhavenoargument@hotmail.com e-mail addy?

You must have been asleep when he beat 20th ranked Pitt, 5th ranked Michigan, 24th ranked Michigan State, 9th ranked Tennessee, 3rd ranked Michigan, 23rd ranked Pitt, 22nd ranked Purdue, lost on a miracle 4th and 9 to number 1 ranked USC, Tennessee again, 19th ranked Penn State, 17th ranked MSU and a UCLA team that stopped #2 ranked USC from going to the BCS Title Game.

So the argument that he can't win a big game is pretty stupid.

Yikes. You're awful sharp this morning. Would hate to argue against you right now...

EDIT: Sharp as in you're on top of your game. I'd hate to argue with you when you're on top of your game, would just make me look bad...

kpcane
04-17-2007, 11:27 AM
You must have missed the win over #3 Michigan, 2x vs Tennessee who were ranked in the top 5 and top 10 respectively, etc. And last time I looked, USC have been in the top 3 for about the past 5 years and have won 2 National Championships.

1) Yes, Michigan was ranked #3 at the time, but ended up with 5 losses and unranked in both polls. Bottom line - Michigan was vastly overrated, and they were not as great as their #3 ranking. Therefore - this was not a big game.
2) Yeah he went into Tennessee and beat a pretty good team in 2004. Tennessee was #9 going into the game, and finished at #13. A good win.
The second time he beat them, he beat an unranked, non-bowl eligible team. They were unranked when they played them, and finished the season unranked. Not sure where this 'top 5 and top 10' is coming from.
3) Yeah USC was pretty good. Not good enough for Vince Young and even (gulp) Aaron Rodgers. You want to say that Aaron Rodgers had a better supporting cast than Quinn?

4 years, 1 big win, 0 bowl wins. Hmm...sign him up.

Boomer
04-17-2007, 11:33 AM
Ah, so the inflated ratings system is to blame this time.

You guys get better and better.

kpcane
04-17-2007, 11:34 AM
Is that another one of your propaganda DVD's? You still at the iamfactuallyincorrectandhavenoargument@hotmail.com e-mail addy?

You must have been asleep when he beat 20th ranked Pitt, 5th ranked Michigan, 24th ranked Michigan State, 9th ranked Tennessee, 3rd ranked Michigan, 23rd ranked Pitt, 22nd ranked Purdue, lost on a miracle 4th and 9 to number 1 ranked USC, Tennessee again, 19th ranked Penn State, 17th ranked MSU and a UCLA team that stopped #2 ranked USC from going to the BCS Title Game.

So the argument that he can't win a big game is pretty stupid.

So the ranking at the time of the game is all that matters? Hell, let's credit FSU with it's huge win over #12 miami last year, and clemson with it's huge win over #10 FSU last year. Obviously, FSU and Miami, were NOT the 10th and 12th best teams at the country. Polls in the beginning of the year mean nothing. He only beat MSU and UCLA last year because of absolutely horrific coaching. I didn't watch the MSU game, but it was so bad, that they were calling for the coach's head after the game. The UCLA game - whew. The UCLA coach handed Notre Dame the game. He looked like a deer in headlights. He called the most conservative gameplan in the waning minutes I have ever seen. He gave Quinn multiple opportunities against his prevent defense. And as the saying goes - the only thing a prevent defense does is prevent wins. Quinn should never have been losing to UCLA in the first place.

kpcane
04-17-2007, 11:35 AM
Ah, so the inflated ratings system is to blame this time.

You guys get better and better.

Did you just say anything of importance? Man, and you're on the other guy for not knowing how to defend himself :rolleyes2

ckparrothead
04-17-2007, 11:36 AM
1) Yes, Michigan was ranked #3 at the time, but ended up with 5 losses and unranked in both polls. Bottom line - Michigan was vastly overrated, and they were not as great as their #3 ranking. Therefore - this was not a big game.

Care to clarify here? Which argument are you taking? That Brady Quinn does not perform well during big GAMES, or that Brady Quinn does not perform well against good defenses?

If Michigan is ranked #3 at the time Notre Dame plays them, you can DAMN WELL expect everyone in South Bend were treating it like the biggest damn game of the year, at the time they were playing them.

And if you want to know how Quinn did against good defenses in general, you can just scroll right up and read the first post in this thread.

Either way, this argument you've made here is defunct.

ckparrothead
04-17-2007, 11:42 AM
So the ranking at the time of the game is all that matters?

It is extremely germane to the theory that Brady Quinn sucks during "big games".

If Miami hosts, let's say, the Raiders in Week 3 of the 2007 NFL season...at the time they play the Raiders, they're probably considering the Raiders to be a pretty bad team.

But what if the Raiders end up going 12-4 and doing some damage in the playoffs? Does that game become argument that Miami "can't win big games"?

Fact of the matter is the Raiders game would NOT have been a big game at the time we played it because nobody thought the Raiders were anything special.

The opposite is true of games like the Michigan and Tennessee games. If the argument is that Brady Quinn chokes when he plays a big team, how does it really matter that Michigan ended the season unranked after playing Notre Dame while ranked #3? Really, how does that matter? All Notre Dame and Brady Quinn know, heading into that game, is that they're playing the #3 team in the country...a game for the ages, a game where nobody is giving them a chance to win.

So all the sudden, winning a game under those circumstances just gets tossed out the window, simply because it's convenient to you?

kpcane
04-17-2007, 11:49 AM
Care to clarify here? Which argument are you taking? That Brady Quinn does not perform well during big GAMES, or that Brady Quinn does not perform well against good defenses?

If Michigan is ranked #3 at the time Notre Dame plays them, you can DAMN WELL expect everyone in South Bend were treating it like the biggest damn game of the year, at the time they were playing them.

And if you want to know how Quinn did against good defenses in general, you can just scroll right up and read the first post in this thread.

Either way, this argument you've made here is defunct.

What's a big game if the team is overrated? Either the quality is there or it isn't. A big game by definition is playing a great team.

kpcane
04-17-2007, 11:52 AM
It is extremely germane to the theory that Brady Quinn sucks during "big games".

If Miami hosts, let's say, the Raiders in Week 3 of the 2007 NFL season...at the time they play the Raiders, they're probably considering the Raiders to be a pretty bad team.

But what if the Raiders end up going 12-4 and doing some damage in the playoffs? Does that game become argument that Miami "can't win big games"?

Fact of the matter is the Raiders game would NOT have been a big game at the time we played it because nobody thought the Raiders were anything special.

The opposite is true of games like the Michigan and Tennessee games. If the argument is that Brady Quinn chokes when he plays a big team, how does it really matter that Michigan ended the season unranked after playing Notre Dame while ranked #3? Really, how does that matter? All Notre Dame and Brady Quinn know, heading into that game, is that they're playing the #3 team in the country...a game for the ages, a game where nobody is giving them a chance to win.

So all the sudden, winning a game under those circumstances just gets tossed out the window, simply because it's convenient to you?

All you're talking about is the hype surrounding the game. This does not matter. It is the quality of the opponent.
To answer your Oakland and Miami analogy - the answer is yes, that Miami could not win big games. If Oakland was great and Miami could not beat them, the answer is pretty apparent.

phinphanforever
04-17-2007, 12:09 PM
Care to clarify here? Which argument are you taking? That Brady Quinn does not perform well during big GAMES, or that Brady Quinn does not perform well against good defenses?

If Michigan is ranked #3 at the time Notre Dame plays them, you can DAMN WELL expect everyone in South Bend were treating it like the biggest damn game of the year, at the time they were playing them.

And if you want to know how Quinn did against good defenses in general, you can just scroll right up and read the first post in this thread.

Either way, this argument you've made here is defunct.
Notre Dame seems to think every game they play is the 'biggest damn game of the year'. In fact, most Notre Dame supporters want the rest of the country to think they are involved in the 'biggest damn game of the year' , every game, every year
And if you want to know how Quinn did against good defenses, don't bother reading the first thread in this post. Take a look at post#29 and #42. They clearly prove that the first thread has no statistical merit. In other words, they have shown that the argument presented in the first post in this thread is 'defunct', or stated more simply, is just bunk.

Regan21286
04-17-2007, 12:28 PM
you're right, that's not what I meant to say...I meant to say he's garbage in big games. he did step up with the game on the line against those pac-10 teams over the past 2 years (ucla, stanford, usc) that are known for their great defenses :rolleyes2

USC did have a pretty decent defense that year as did UCLA.


The UCLA game - whew. The UCLA coach handed Notre Dame the game. He looked like a deer in headlights. He called the most conservative gameplan in the waning minutes I have ever seen. He gave Quinn multiple opportunities against his prevent defense. And as the saying goes - the only thing a prevent defense does is prevent wins. Quinn should never have been losing to UCLA in the first place.

Quinn still won right? We had a few games that we should never have lost last season (Houston, anyone?) as well. As long as 11 guys on defense aren't just standing there, it's still a defense. A prevent defense is meant to stop a big play but Quinn, unfortunately for us, made the said big play.

ckparrothead
04-17-2007, 12:34 PM
USC did have a pretty decent defense that year as did UCLA.



Quinn still won right? We had a few games that we should never have lost last season (Houston, anyone?) as well. As long as 11 guys on defense aren't just standing there, it's still a defense. A prevent defense is meant to stop a big play but Quinn, unfortunately for us, made the said big play.

What will really bake your noodle is the argument that the near-win against USC doesn't count because a loss is a loss, but that the UCLA win should count less because the coach supposedly got conservative.

Regan21286
04-17-2007, 12:43 PM
What will really bake your noodle is the argument that the near-win against USC doesn't count because a loss is a loss, but that the UCLA win should count less because the coach supposedly got conservative.

Haha, that's Karl Dorrell for you. He's our Wanny almost to a T. We actually showed less of a prevent in the waning minutes (save for the last play). But you could look at it differently as the fact that our offense and defense isn't geared for conservative play.Trying to run the clock out with our anemic running game gave USC another chance to win it. They just didn't come through after being given umpteenth opportunities, but we did again. That was different from Quinn in that he actually made use of the fewer opportunities given to him.

Regina Phin
04-17-2007, 01:07 PM
All you're talking about is the hype surrounding the game. This does not matter. It is the quality of the opponent.
To answer your Oakland and Miami analogy - the answer is yes, that Miami could not win big games. If Oakland was great and Miami could not beat them, the answer is pretty apparent.

That's a pretty black and white view of things.

The hype surrounding the game doesn't matter - the quality of the opponent does?

I think it's pretty clearly shown (and no, I don't have a bunch of games or stats, but just hold on a sec before you flame me to death) that the hype surrounding big games has an effect on the players that are playing in it. Going to a school like Notre Dame, where they do treat every game like it's the super bowl, definitely has to place a lot of extra stress and pressure on the "star QB."

If they're going up against a team that is ranked #3 - whether they are overrated or not - I think that the pressure is going to be cranked up pretty high. I don't see how that can't be factored into it.

kpcane
04-17-2007, 02:04 PM
USC did have a pretty decent defense that year as did UCLA.



Quinn still won right? We had a few games that we should never have lost last season (Houston, anyone?) as well. As long as 11 guys on defense aren't just standing there, it's still a defense. A prevent defense is meant to stop a big play but Quinn, unfortunately for us, made the said big play.

I just looked at the final drive and will give you my anaylsis.

1st play - great 18-yard pass to samardjzia or however you spell his name.
2nd play - no pass rush whatsoever. the soft defense gives up the 14 yard play after the receiver comes back in. good decision making, but seems like an easy enough play for any qb to make.
3rd play - no pass rush again. this allows quinn to pump fake and still have loads and loads of time to let JS beat the safety (who bit terribly on the play fake) and hit him 15 yards downfield, JS runs for 30 more yards.

The defense looked as scared as their coach did. Quinn made some good plays, but that defense was out of position on the last play, and the second play was a result of the prevent defense. I will give him credit for the first play...it was really nice. But I don't think that Quinn was anything spectacular on the other two plays.

This is what I looked at - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z27D8K4F-JM

kpcane
04-17-2007, 02:05 PM
What will really bake your noodle is the argument that the near-win against USC doesn't count because a loss is a loss, but that the UCLA win should count less because the coach supposedly got conservative.

Haha...you get so much respect around here man, but you've resorted to putting words in my mouth, and not responding to me, but rather talking negatively about me to another poster....wow.

kpcane
04-17-2007, 02:07 PM
That's a pretty black and white view of things.

The hype surrounding the game doesn't matter - the quality of the opponent does?

I think it's pretty clearly shown (and no, I don't have a bunch of games or stats, but just hold on a sec before you flame me to death) that the hype surrounding big games has an effect on the players that are playing in it. Going to a school like Notre Dame, where they do treat every game like it's the super bowl, definitely has to place a lot of extra stress and pressure on the "star QB."

If they're going up against a team that is ranked #3 - whether they are overrated or not - I think that the pressure is going to be cranked up pretty high. I don't see how that can't be factored into it.

It might have an effect for the first 3 minutes, but after that, it's just the guys playing ball. That's what the football players down here are always saying.

Boomer
04-17-2007, 02:53 PM
2) Yeah he went into Tennessee and beat a pretty good team in 2004. Tennessee was #9 going into the game, and finished at #13. A good win.
The second time he beat them, he beat an unranked, non-bowl eligible team. They were unranked when they played them, and finished the season unranked. Not sure where this 'top 5 and top 10' is coming from.

You're right. I took that from memory without checking my old facts as they weren't in front of me at the time, being as I was, at work. I apologise for that.

kpcane
04-17-2007, 03:06 PM
You're right. I took that from memory without checking my old facts as they weren't in front of me at the time, being as I was, at work. I apologise for that.

dude, my great grandmother knew tennessee was awful last year

YetanotherFan
04-17-2007, 03:33 PM
Listen, I think some people are really misunderstanding the scope of this study, especially Da Fins here. This isn't my once-and-for-all proof that Brady Quinn is the end-all, be-all of quarterback prospects. This isn't even a proof that Brady Quinn is better than Jamarcus Russell.

An active criticism about Brady Quinn is that he performs poorly during games against quality defense.

I'm not talking about the "plays bad during big games" thing. I'm talking about how some people think that when Quinn goes up against a good defense, he performs poorly from a personal responsibility perspective (e.g. throwing interceptions, not completing passes, not pushing the ball down the field, not scoring TDs, etc).

All this study was meant to show was that if you're going to go with that criticism against Brady Quinn, you have to recognize that the criticism is just as sharp, if not sharper, against Jamarcus Russell. That's it.


CK, interesting post man. Thank you for taking the time. Maybe the post was to long for some and maybe they fully did not comprehend what you where trying to say, but this thread got way outta hand IMO. I highlighted some of the main parts of your post that others should really take light on. From reading your main post, your view was clear to me.

1) showed me, through a form of statistical analysis, that Brady Quinn performed well against the better, but not the same, competition in the NCAA

2) showed me, through a form of statistical analysis, that Jamarcus Russell performed well against the better, but not the same, competition in the NCAA

3) I inferred from your post that just because BQ did not win some of the so called "big games" that he is any way inferior to JR or that he cant be successful in the NFL. Just because your TEAM doesnt win should not translate into being a bust at the next level. The proof should be in the game film.

Springveldt
04-17-2007, 04:41 PM
And if you want to know how Quinn did against good defenses, don't bother reading the first thread in this post. Take a look at post#29 and #42. They clearly prove that the first thread has no statistical merit. In other words, they have shown that the argument presented in the first post in this thread is 'defunct', or stated more simply, is just bunk.
Posts #29 and #42 were saying that the first post had no statistical merit for comparison between 2 QB's since the defences were different, etc. Go back and read them again.
The first post does have merit if you take it as just Brady Quinn's performances against good defences and what it proves is that he plays pretty damn well against good defences but his supporting cast sucks, that's why his team loses.
Last time I checked Brady Quinn only plays the QB spot for Notre Dame, I'm pretty sure their are 21 other starters (23 if you count the kicker and punter but they aren't real football players :)) out there that have something to do with the outcome of the game as well.

ckparrothead
04-17-2007, 04:53 PM
Posts #29 and #42 were saying that the first post had no statistical merit for comparison between 2 QB's since the defences were different, etc. Go back and read them again.
The first post does have merit if you take it as just Brady Quinn's performances against good defences and what it proves is that he plays pretty damn well against good defences but his supporting cast sucks, that's why his team loses.
Last time I checked Brady Quinn only plays the QB spot for Notre Dame, I'm pretty sure their are 21 other starters (23 if you count the kicker and punter but they aren't real football players :)) out there that have something to do with the outcome of the game as well.

Though the way Brady Quinn worked hard and tested in his agility and speed drills, the guy is as athletic as most linebackers, safeties...and heck, even some corners and wide receivers.

Boomer
04-17-2007, 05:15 PM
dude, my great grandmother knew tennessee was awful last year

Notre Dame didn't play Tennessee last year.

Jaj
04-17-2007, 05:20 PM
Though the way Brady Quinn worked hard and tested in his agility and speed drills, the guy is as athletic as most linebackers, safeties...and heck, even some corners and wide receivers.

Let's not push it there, but yes he's very athletic. More of a John Beck like I made myself rather than Jamarcus Russell.

phinphanforever
04-17-2007, 05:35 PM
Though the way Brady Quinn worked hard and tested in his agility and speed drills, the guy is as athletic as most linebackers, safeties...and heck, even some corners and wide receivers.

:sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:
Welcome to Quinnheaven everyone, where fact and fiction are never confused. Come to think of it, we don't even bother with the facts; much easier that way.


:sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:
CK, I know athleticism is hard to measure, but could you please provide us with some stats on Brady Quinn's athleticism, say compared to others such as Russell...and maybe a few of those linebackers, safeties and corners you meantioned? I'm curious, if not bored.

Boomer
04-17-2007, 06:43 PM
:sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:
Welcome to Quinnheaven everyone, where fact and fiction are never confused. Come to think of it, we don't even bother with the facts; much easier that way.


:sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:
CK, I know athleticism is hard to measure, but could you please provide us with some stats on Brady Quinn's athleticism, say compared to others such as Russell...and maybe a few of those linebackers, safeties and corners you meantioned? I'm curious, if not bored.

I know you don't really do facts, so this may frighten you.

Quinn's numbers on tests to measure his athletic ability were:
40: 4.73
SShuttle: 4.22
Differential: .51
3 Cone: 6.79
Vertical: 36
BJ: 9'7

DB's:
That forty would put him ahead of Tyrone Brackenridge, Daymeion Hughes, JD Nelson, Marcus Paschal, Leonard Peters, Ryan Smith and Chaz Williams.

The short shuttle puts him ahead of Gerald Alexander, Anthony Arline, Fred Bennett, Tyrone Brackenridge, Tarell Brown, Michael Coe, Duane Coleman, Craig Dahl, Josh Gattis, CJ Gaddis, Dashon Goldson, Chris Houston, Daymeion Hughes, David Irons, Tanard Jackson, Michael Johnson, Trumaine McBride, Brandon McDonald, Brandon Meriweather, JD Nelson, Marcus Paschal, Kevin Payne, Daren Stone, Jonathan Wade, Josh Wilson, and eric Wright.

The differential that you're looking for in an elite athlete is a .50+ gap. Quinn has that.

The 3 cone puts him ahead of Gerald Alexander, Anthony Arline, Tarell Brown, Duane Coleman, eric Frampton, CJ Gaddis, Dashon Goldson, Chris Houston, Daymeion Hughes, David Irons, Tanard Jackson, Michael Johnson, Reggie Lewis, Trumaine McBride, Brandon's McDonald and Meriweather, JD Nelson, Marcus Paschal, Kevin Payne, Leonard Peters, Daren Stone, Jonathan Wade, eric Weddle, John Wendling, Josh Wilson and eric Wright.

The vertical puts him ahead of Anthony Arline, Tarell Brown, Michael Coe, Duane Coleman, Craig Dahl, eric Frampton, Josh Gattis, Dashon Goldson, Chris Houston, Daymeion Hughes, David Irons, Tanard Jackson, Michael Johnson, Reggie Lewis, Trumaine McBride, Marcus McCauley, Brandon's McDonald and Meriweather, JD Nelson, Marcus Paschal, Kevin Payne, Leonard Peters, Sabby Piscitelli, Aaron's Ross and Rouse, Bo Smith, eric Weddle, Marvin White, Chaz Williams, Josh Wilson and CJ Wilson.

The broad jump puts him ahead of Tarell Brown, Duane Coleman, CJ Gaddis, Dashon Goldson, Daymeion Hughes, David Irons, Michael Johnson, Brandon Meriwvather, JD Nelson, Kevin Payne, Leonard Peters, Aaron Ross, Weddle, and Chaz Williams.

These are the paramaters by which the NFL measures athleticism, and if you look, there's a lot of the same names showing up. By the leagues OWN parameters, you could say that Quinn is more athletic than:

Tarell Brown, Tyrone Brackenridge, Daymeion Hughes, Leonard Peters, Marcus Paschal, Chaz Williams, David Irons, Dashon Goldson, Brandon Meriweather etc.

Not sure there's much point showing you up by doing the linebackers.

BlueFin
04-17-2007, 06:50 PM
Posts #29 and #42 were saying that the first post had no statistical merit for comparison between 2 QB's since the defences were different, etc. Go back and read them again.
The first post does have merit if you take it as just Brady Quinn's performances against good defences and what it proves is that he plays pretty damn well against good defences but his supporting cast sucks, that's why his team loses.
Last time I checked Brady Quinn only plays the QB spot for Notre Dame, I'm pretty sure their are 21 other starters (23 if you count the kicker and punter but they aren't real football players :)) out there that have something to do with the outcome of the game as well.

Stop it, don't you know that PhinPhan comes from the Jay Fiedler school of philosophy regarding quarterbacks?

The quarterback is the sole determining factor in winning and losing football games, W/L record tells you all you need to know about how good a QB is.

Phanatical
04-17-2007, 07:47 PM
......All this study was meant to show was that if you're going to go with that criticism against Brady Quinn, you have to recognize that the criticism is just as sharp, if not sharper, against Jamarcus Russell. That's it.

OK, well, in that case, I would have to agree with you 100%!

P.S.

I still don't understand why there aren't more people pushing for Troy Smith!!!

GO PHINS~!

kpcane
04-17-2007, 09:06 PM
Notre Dame didn't play Tennessee last year.

that's your serious response?

ckparrothead
04-18-2007, 12:13 AM
Let's not push it there, but yes he's very athletic. More of a John Beck like I made myself rather than Jamarcus Russell.

Push it nothing, check out Boomer's post.

fishypete
04-18-2007, 12:38 AM
CK...Not causing trouble here with you...but I could care less that Quinn is ripped....can lift...or has decent speed...the only things that matter is his accuracy and his thought process as a QB. No one will ever think of Marino as Mr. Universe...but they will always remember him as the greatest QB to ever throw a football...and we all know he was the 27th selection in the 83 draft...I'll bet even Shula didn't know what he had in Marino, until he showed he had "it" at training camp.

ckparrothead
04-18-2007, 01:33 AM
CK...Not causing trouble here with you...but I could care less that Quinn is ripped....can lift...or has decent speed...the only things that matter is his accuracy and his thought process as a QB. No one will ever think of Marino as Mr. Universe...but they will always remember him as the greatest QB to ever throw a football...and we all know he was the 27th selection in the 83 draft...I'll bet even Shula didn't know what he had in Marino, until he showed he had "it" at training camp.

That isn't true. Every quarterback is only as good as he trains and prepares. He has enough accuracy and arm strength and he reads the field pre-snap as well as anyone.

What the athletic measurements show, is how hard he works to excel at whatever is put before him. He doesn't just wake up, slap on a pair of jeans, and put some high talent defensive backs to shame with the agility and speed measurements.

He did it through hard work, buckets of sweat and tireless hours. And why work so hard to do well in that stuff when it isn't really important for a QB? Because if he's going to do it, he might as well do it well. His standards won't allow him to do poorly so he prepares for everything he's going to do.

That's what you're looking for in a quarterback. No quarterback walks out onto the field and does well just because he's talented. Some do, but only for a short time. The guys that have consistent success are the ones that are freakishly hard workers. Brady Quinn has that going for him.

fishypete
04-18-2007, 02:45 AM
That isn't true. Every quarterback is only as good as he trains and prepares. He has enough accuracy and arm strength and he reads the field pre-snap as well as anyone.

What the athletic measurements show, is how hard he works to excel at whatever is put before him. He doesn't just wake up, slap on a pair of jeans, and put some high talent defensive backs to shame with the agility and speed measurements.

He did it through hard work, buckets of sweat and tireless hours. And why work so hard to do well in that stuff when it isn't really important for a QB? Because if he's going to do it, he might as well do it well. His standards won't allow him to do poorly so he prepares for everything he's going to do.

That's what you're looking for in a quarterback. No quarterback walks out onto the field and does well just because he's talented. Some do, but only for a short time. The guys that have consistent success are the ones that are freakishly hard workers. Brady Quinn has that going for him.

The HOF is full of QB's that didn't have speed....didn't have ripped bodies...and many didn't have the ideal height or body fat....but they all had something in common...they knew what to do with the football and when to do it.

Agent51
04-18-2007, 03:04 AM
The HOF is full of QB's that didn't have speed....didn't have ripped bodies...and many didn't have the ideal height or body fat....but they all had something in common...they knew what to do with the football and when to do it.

As does Brady Quinn, so your point here is...................?

DonShula84
04-18-2007, 03:08 AM
That isn't true. Every quarterback is only as good as he trains and prepares. He has enough accuracy and arm strength and he reads the field pre-snap as well as anyone.

What the athletic measurements show, is how hard he works to excel at whatever is put before him. He doesn't just wake up, slap on a pair of jeans, and put some high talent defensive backs to shame with the agility and speed measurements.

He did it through hard work, buckets of sweat and tireless hours. And why work so hard to do well in that stuff when it isn't really important for a QB? Because if he's going to do it, he might as well do it well. His standards won't allow him to do poorly so he prepares for everything he's going to do.

That's what you're looking for in a quarterback. No quarterback walks out onto the field and does well just because he's talented. Some do, but only for a short time. The guys that have consistent success are the ones that are freakishly hard workers. Brady Quinn has that going for him.


I read your posts and the impossible happens...I start to like Quinn even more.

MrClean
04-18-2007, 03:43 AM
You know what?

Can't we just accept that this is all an inexact science, and appreciate CK taking the time to do a breakdown, to give us all something to chew on in these long days, waiting for the draft to occur?

If you have something you can back up with your own analysis to add to the discussion......fine, but some of this seems rather petty to me.

In the end, whether a college player succeeds or not in the pros is never guaranteed by his college numbers, we all know that, In my view CK is simply giving us all something more to talk about regarding our passion we call the Miami Dolphins, and we really don't need pseudo-intellects to attack his post with words like "flawed logic" or "lacking statistical merit" to know that the NFL draft is a crapshoot.
:yeahthat:

I found CK's post to be very enjoyable and thought provoking. Certainly much better than what we get when reading the hacks that write/report for the major sports publications/networks.

Boomer
04-18-2007, 05:10 AM
that's your serious response?

LOL. I already said I made a mistake and apologised. You then tried a little one-upmanship.

You were corrected. It's no biggie.

Springveldt
04-18-2007, 05:13 AM
Stop it, don't you know that PhinPhan comes from the Jay Fiedler school of philosophy regarding quarterbacks?

The quarterback is the sole determining factor in winning and losing football games, W/L record tells you all you need to know about how good a QB is.
I don't venture much outside of the VIP forum, so thanks for the tip, I'll bear that in mind when replying. :)

Jaj
04-18-2007, 05:21 AM
Push it nothing, check out Boomer's post.

Hughes was a 4.65 in his forty so I do not know where that 4.72 came from unless scouts.com is off.

There are other measures to athleticism I was envisioning. Things such as how fluid his movements his are compared to a cornerback. Quinn has them beat, it's just was I thinking of a different type of athletic. For example I can't imagine Quinn even if he had the instincts to do so becoming a cornerback. Just a strange fit...

On the field I didn't see him playing like the fantastic numbers he had at the combine, but maybe the man just trained beyond belief. I was honestly surprised that Stanton who seemed like the better athlete would show that off. Not quite, I underestimated Brady Quinn...

Numbers though... Buh-Bye cornerbacks:cooldude:

Boomer
04-18-2007, 05:59 AM
Push it nothing, check out Boomer's post.


Just because I like proving a point, I looked at the linebackers.

Quinn's forty time was quicker than Jon Abbate, Rufus Alexander, Jon Beason, Desmond Bishop, Stewart Bradley, Prescott Burgess, Quinton Culberson, Buster Davis, Earl Everett, KaMichael Hall, Nate Harris, Zach Latimer, Marvin Mitchell, Michael Okwo, Sam Olajabutu, Blair Phillips, Dallas Saztz, Tim Shaw, Kelvin Smith, Tony Taylor and Justin Warren.

His short shuttle was quicker than Jon Abbate, Rufus Alexander, Antwan Barnes, Jon Beason, Quincy Black, Prescott Burgess, Buster Davis, KaMichael Hall, Nate Harris, David Harris, Zach Latimer, Marvin Mitchell, Stephen Nicholas, Chad Nkang, Michael Okwo, Sam Olajubutu, Blair Phillips, Juwan Simpson, Kelvin Smith, Tony Taylor, Lawrence Timmons and Patrick Willis.

Lets look at that all important differential, the gap between the forty time and the short shuttle. I haven't the willpower to do everyone, so lets look at the higher rated LB's, those top two rounders. Quinn's differential was .51. The general rule of thumb when you compare the 40-yard dash times (speed) to the 20-yard short shuttle (quickness) is to subtract .5 seconds from the 40 time to arrive at the right short-shuttle time. For example, if a player ran 5.0 in the 40-yard test, you would hope to see 4.5 in his short shuttle to measure his quickness as it relates to his speed. .5 and above is very good. If a player ran 5.0 in the 40 and had a 4.3 short shuttle, then he was .7 better and I knew he was more quick than fast, but also that he was superhuman. But you catch my drift. If a player ran a 4.5 in the 40 and also ran a 4.5 short shuttle, you're looking at a track guy with straight line speed and not a lot else.

OK. First number is forty, 2nd is short shuttle, third is differential. And remember, Brady's was .51
Lawrence Timmons: 4.70/4.32/.38
Paul Posluszny: 4.70/4.20/.50
Patrick Willis: 4.56/4.46/.10
Jon Beason: 4.78/4.33/.45
Stewart Bradley: 4.77/4.31/.46
Buster Davis: 4.77/4.37/.40
David Harris: 4.62/4.30/.32

And lets check a workout warrior's numbers, step up Quincy Black: 4.45/4.34/.11

Quinn's 3 cone drill puts him ahead of Jon Abbate, Rufus Alexander, Antwan Barnes, Quincy Black, Stewart Bradley, Prescott Burgess, Buster Davis, Zac DeOssie, KaMichael Hall, Nate and David Harris, Zach Latimer, Marvin Mitchell, Stephen Nicholas, Chad Nkang, Michael Okwo, Sam Olajubutu, Blair Phillips, Paul Posluszny, Dallas Sartz, Tim Shaw, Brandon Siler, Juwan Simpson, Tony Taylor, Lawrence Timmons and Pat Willis. In fact every LB that worked out at Indy apart from Justin Durant.

His vertical was better than Rufus Alexander, Antwan Barnes, Stewart Bradley, Prescott Burgess, Quentin Culberson, Buster Davis, Zac DeOssie, Justin Durant, Earl Everett, KaMichael Hall, Nate and David Harris, Zach Latimer, Marvin Mitchell, Stephen Nicholas, Michael Okwo, Sam Olajubutu, Blair Phillips, Dallas Sartz, Brandon Siler, Juwan Simpson, Kelvin Smith, Tony Taylor, Timmons and Justin Warren.

His broad jump is better than Beason, Bradley, Burgess, Culberson, Buster Davis, Everett, KaMichael Hall, Nate and David Harris, Latimer, Mitchell, Nicholas, Phills, Sartz, Siler, Kelvin Smith and Tony Taylor.

Oh and his 24 reps at 220 were better than Beason, HB Blades, Burgess, Culberson, Everett, David Harris, Johnson, Latimer, Mitchell, Nkang, Okwo, Phillips, Poz, Sartz, Juwan Simpson, Justin Warren and Pat Willis.

So to recap, again, there are multiple names appearing again and again. Quinn is, by the NFL's official parameters for athleticism, more athletic than Jon Abbate, Rufus Alexander, Jon Beason, Stewart Bradley, Prescott Burgess, Quentin Culberson, Buster Davis, KaMichael Hall, Nate Harris, Zach Latimer, Marvin Mitchell, Stephen Nicholas, Earl Everett, Sam Olajubutu, Blair Phillips, Kelvin Smith, Tony Taylor, etc.

Phineas64
04-18-2007, 06:43 AM
Really nice post, CK. And the rest of the thread has been great too. I don't get much chance to watch college ball with the two little ones running around (I save my football time for Sundays), and Finheaven is the best info I get on most of the college players. My real time viewing of Quinn was only part of two games, of course his two worst, so I had a bit of a low opinion of him. Now I am hoping he comes here...

CpuFan
04-18-2007, 10:31 AM
Well I finally read through all of this thread. And I must say this site is sounding more and more like the Miami Hearld forum, where fighting and bickering dominate all all the threads. This used to be a great place now it's the Israeli border... A place where enemy combantants take pot shots at one another.

You know MR VIP vs Mr nobody.
You know Mr Ego vs Mr other Ego.

Etc ad nausem...

When you couple that with over zealous web monitors... Well.

I am starting to get the idea that another forum might be a good idea.

Boomer
04-18-2007, 10:37 AM
Well I finally read through all of this thread. And I must say this site is sounding more and more like the Miami Hearld forum, where fighting and bickering dominate all all the threads. This used to be a great place now it's the Israeli border... A place where enemy combantants take pot shots at one another.

You know MR VIP vs Mr nobody.
You know Mr Ego vs Mr other Ego.

Etc ad nausem...

I am starting to get the idea that another forum might be a good idea.

I for one am to blame for that and I apologise if you feel that way.

I will restrict any badinage between myself and phinphanforever to personal messaging.

fishypete
04-18-2007, 10:40 AM
I for one am to blame for that and I apologise if you feel that way.

I will restrict any badinage between myself and phinphanforever to personal messaging.

Come on Boomer...I was just starting to miss the VIP room....:lol:

CpuFan
04-18-2007, 11:03 AM
I for one am to blame for that and I apologise if you feel that way.

I will restrict any badinage between myself and phinphanforever to personal messaging.

Sure, but let me ask you a question why not just let it go. is it worth it? Consider what it will do to you personally, physically and emotionally?

Pro 17:14 The beginning of strife [is as] when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.

Pro 20:3 [It is] an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling.

Last one:
Pro 26:17 He that passeth by, [and] meddleth with strife [belonging] not to him, [is like] one that taketh a dog by the ears.

Boomer
04-18-2007, 11:20 AM
Sure, but let me ask you a question why not just let it go. is it worth it? Consider what it will do to you personally, physically and emotionally?

Pro 17:14 The beginning of strife [is as] when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.

Pro 20:3 [It is] an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling.

Last one:
Pro 26:17 He that passeth by, [and] meddleth with strife [belonging] not to him, [is like] one that taketh a dog by the ears.


OK, before we go any further, I'm not a religious person, but thanks for the quotes.

Why? I'm stubborn and when someone tries to discredit you, you try and set the record straight.

That's just me.

nick1
04-18-2007, 11:26 AM
are either of you (Boomer and CK) confident that Quinn will fall to us? or are you expecting a trade up?

Boomer
04-18-2007, 11:29 AM
are either of you (Boomer and CK) confident that Quinn will fall to us? or are you expecting a trade up?



Hmmm. 30% he falls, 60% we move up.

PhinstiGator
04-18-2007, 11:55 AM
Quinn vs. "The Elite"
86 of 154, 943 yards, 8 TDs, 5 INTs :: 77.9 QB Rating, 25.0 Points Per Game

Russell vs. "The Elite"
44 of 76, 497 yards, 1 TDs, 3 INTs :: 65.5 QB Rating, 6.5 Points Per Game

Of course I know I'm going to hear the same old stuff over and over again. Stats be damned, stats be damned. Burn the books, break the glasses.

Whatever...


Yikes! They both suck. I couldn't help but notice that the statistical sample is not even close to equal...that would certainly skew the margin of error.

Still, the bottom line is that both under-perform in your statistical sample. Quinn with his 55.8% completion percentage & Russell w/ his 57.8% completion percentage doth suck in this sample.

kpcane
04-18-2007, 01:21 PM
LOL. I already said I made a mistake and apologised. You then tried a little one-upmanship.

You were corrected. It's no biggie.

haha...whatever you need to do to make yourself feel right for once. The more I read you, the more I think you watch almost no college football (except after the season is over).

ASUFinFan
04-18-2007, 03:27 PM
Hmmm. 30% he falls, 60% we move up.

If he falls to us awsome, if not then trading up I will be happy with. If that does in fact happen, then I like the fact that we will be taking the initiative for once. Grab who we want.

finfan54
04-18-2007, 03:28 PM
God stuff CK and thank u because it is important to look at everything possible if your in a position to take one.

Bottom line to me: There both good and both have some similar and some different types of talent.


Just like last year with Leinert, Young and Cutler. I thought they were all good in their own rights with Young just being a different style of QB who could do multiple things that win big ballgames.

Boomer
04-18-2007, 05:48 PM
haha...whatever you need to do to make yourself feel right for once. The more I read you, the more I think you watch almost no college football (except after the season is over).


Dude, you're the one that made the mistake.

Don't cry about it.

Oh and yes. I've been making stuff up for years. It's like pin the tail on the donkey.

kpcane
04-18-2007, 09:58 PM
Dude, you're the one that made the mistake.

Don't cry about it.

Oh and yes. I've been making stuff up for years. It's like pin the tail on the donkey.

I didn't make a mistake...I know when Tennessee was awful, and I know how they played this season as well.

You on the other hand, are grasping for straws...and it's pathetic. If you didn't have all that finheaven stuff around your name, I'd swear you're a new poster who can't argue to save his life.

What 'stuff' have you been making up? You crunch numbers and say we're looking at players A-Z. Well thanks, that makes you the secretary of any random NFL scout.

Boomer
04-19-2007, 08:58 AM
I didn't make a mistake...I know when Tennessee was awful, and I know how they played this season as well.

You on the other hand, are grasping for straws...and it's pathetic. If you didn't have all that finheaven stuff around your name, I'd swear you're a new poster who can't argue to save his life.

What 'stuff' have you been making up? You crunch numbers and say we're looking at players A-Z. Well thanks, that makes you the secretary of any random NFL scout.

Silly me for not remembering what what ranking Tennessee were 2 seasons ago.

But cheers for clearing that up, Rainman.

kpcane
04-19-2007, 11:12 AM
Silly me for not remembering what what ranking Tennessee were 2 seasons ago.

But cheers for clearing that up, Rainman.

Yeah, now let's act like it's such random information. Just stop acting like you know what you're talking about. Stick to copying numbers.

Boomer
04-19-2007, 03:30 PM
Yeah, now let's act like it's such random information. Just stop acting like you know what you're talking about. Stick to copying numbers.

I've forgotten more than you'll know, son.

Jealousy is an ugly emotion. Just let it go. I apologised, you ballsed it up. Be a man and move on. You don't like me. Big deal.

Jog on.

kpcane
04-19-2007, 03:49 PM
I've forgotten more than you'll know, son.

Jealousy is an ugly emotion. Just let it go. I apologised, you ballsed it up. Be a man and move on. You don't like me. Big deal.

Jog on.

And vanity is worse.

I point out a lot of people who make up BS. You're the only one however, that will claim that I'm somehow jealous.

And by the time I'm 33, I'll be a practicing physician, and you, well you'll still be the draft guru of finheaven. I'm sure you'll be calling me son then.

Boomer
04-19-2007, 04:23 PM
And vanity is worse.

I point out a lot of people who make up BS. You're the only one however, that will claim that I'm somehow jealous.

And by the time I'm 33, I'll be a practicing physician, and you, well you'll still be the draft guru of finheaven. I'm sure you'll be calling me son then.

Please, please show me something I've made up.

Yes. Still be the draft guru, quite apart from my real job as a Senior Documentary Producer for the BBC whilst you'll be advising old ladies about the best remedy to cure chilblains.

Agent51
04-19-2007, 04:39 PM
Please, please show me something I've made up.

Yes. Still be the draft guru, quite apart from my real job as a Senior Documentary Producer for the BBC whilst you'll be advising old ladies about the best remedy to cure chilblains.

:lol: ZING!

tyson22
04-19-2007, 04:51 PM
haha...whatever you need to do to make yourself feel right for once. The more I read you, the more I think you watch almost no college football (except after the season is over).


:shakeno: are you serious?

boomer thanks for your contributions. why bother defending yourself? everyone here knows you know your stuff.. this guy is really reaching..
he talks about vanity and then wants a pat on the back for possibly becoming a physician in the future?LMAO!



Yes. Still be the draft guru, quite apart from my real job as a Senior Documentary Producer for the BBC whilst you'll be advising old ladies about the best remedy to cure chilblains.


:sidelol: :0wned:

kpcane
04-19-2007, 05:10 PM
Please, please show me something I've made up.

Yes. Still be the draft guru, quite apart from my real job as a Senior Documentary Producer for the BBC whilst you'll be advising old ladies about the best remedy to cure chilblains.

You said Tennessee was a top 10 team when they were an unranked, non bowl eligible team! That's making something up!!!!

It's not surprising you're in the media...just another opportunity for you to report what other people do :rolleyes2

I think helping other people is rewarding...make fun of it all you want, it doesn't bother me.

kpcane
04-19-2007, 05:12 PM
:shakeno: are you serious?

boomer thanks for your contributions. why bother defending yourself? everyone here knows you know your stuff.. this guy is really reaching..
he talks about vanity and then wants a pat on the back for possibly becoming a physician in the future?LMAO!



:sidelol: :0wned:

I only called him vain because he thought I was jealous of him. I don't want a pat on the back for anything...but for someone to claim that they have so much more knowledge than me, and want to call me 'son'...that's disrespectful.

Boomer
04-19-2007, 05:18 PM
You said Tennessee was a top 10 team when they were an unranked, non bowl eligible team! That's making something up!!!!

No dude, that was a mistake, subsequently apologised for, as I was at work and didn't have the UT History and Fact Book in front of me.


It's not surprising you're in the media...just another opportunity for you to report what other people do :rolleyes2

You're not going to make much of a physician if you can't read. I said I was a senior documentary producer, not a reporter. How are you going to fill out all those prescriptions for chilblain cream?


I think helping other people is rewarding...make fun of it all you want, it doesn't bother me.

It is indeed rewarding and I hope you do a good job. The point is, drop it, because in the end, you'll end up looking foolish.

tyson22
04-19-2007, 05:19 PM
but for someone to claim that they have so much more knowledge than me, and want to call me 'son'...that's disrespectful.


and this isnt? how did you want him to respond?


Uh, he is "guru"

kpcane
04-19-2007, 05:26 PM
No dude, that was a mistake, subsequently apologised for, as I was at work and didn't have the UT History and Fact Book in front of me.



You're not going to make much of a physician if you can't read. I said I was a senior documentary producer, not a reporter. How are you going to fill out all those prescriptions for Anusol.



It is indeed rewarding and I hope you do a good job. The point is, drop it, because in the end, you'll end up looking foolish.

You can call it a mistake all you want, the bottom line is you made up a story that really sounded like Brady Quinn has beaten all these great teams. Too bad something you made up was common knowledge to college football fans. I don't follow Tennessee or the SEC, but I know when powerhouse teams like that fail to make it to a bowl game.

I never called you a reporter.

Too late to drop it, I'm filling our apps next month. Maybe if I need someone to research espn insider I'll give you a ring.

cheers mate

kpcane
04-19-2007, 05:29 PM
and this isnt? how did you want him to respond?


well I know I still have probs turning the other cheek, but if someone is old enough to be calling people 10 years younger than them 'son' they'd probably be mature enough to not be disrespectful in return.

Boomer
04-19-2007, 05:32 PM
You can call it a mistake all you want, the bottom line is you made up a story that really sounded like Brady Quinn has beaten all these great teams.

FLMAO. OK mate.


I never called you a reporter.

So you didn't say "just another opportunity to report what other people do"?

Reporters report. Producers produce



Too late to drop it, I'm filling our apps next month. Maybe if I need someone to research espn insider I'll give you a ring.

cheers mate

By "drop it", I mean drop this. It's doing you no good, son.

Boomer
04-19-2007, 05:33 PM
well I know I still have probs turning the other cheek, but if someone is old enough to be calling people 10 years younger than them 'son' they'd probably be mature enough to not be disrespectful in return.

Dude, you've been disrespectful for about 6 pages.

Let it go.

kpcane
04-19-2007, 05:40 PM
I'm going to drop this...only because I feel like I'm getting dumber by responding to your posts.

Boomer
04-19-2007, 05:55 PM
No.

That started with your first reply.

Lets agree to disagree. Good luck with your physician training. I hope it works out.

Regina Phin
04-19-2007, 06:41 PM
Boom,

Since this guy is clearly never going to apologize, I'd like to take the opportunity to (yet again) apologize for you. I know that you guys (you, CK, etc.) spend a lot of time and do a lot of work to get good analysis together and when you are good enough to post it in places other than the VIP room, you get hammered by all of these guys who are just itching to find a mistake.

Thanks for coming out here and posting the info, and thanks to CK for the thread. I don't really know that Brady Quinn is the answer for Miami - I'm still a little nervous that he could be the next Harrington, but looking at value for the pick, I can't think of anyone I'd rather get at the #9. If we draft defense this year, I think I'm going to throw up all over my coffee table.

Boomer
04-19-2007, 06:43 PM
Boom,

Since this guy is clearly never going to apologize, I'd like to take the opportunity to (yet again) apologize for you. I know that you guys (you, CK, etc.) spend a lot of time and do a lot of work to get good analysis together and when you are good enough to post it in places other than the VIP room, you get hammered by all of these guys who are just itching to find a mistake.

Thanks for coming out here and posting the info, and thanks to CK for the thread. I don't really know that Brady Quinn is the answer for Miami - I'm still a little nervous that he could be the next Harrington, but looking at value for the pick, I can't think of anyone I'd rather get at the #9. If we draft defense this year, I think I'm going to throw up all over my coffee table.



Thanks Regina. It's no biggie. Happens every year.

;)

Regan21286
04-19-2007, 08:02 PM
Please, please show me something I've made up.

Yes. Still be the draft guru, quite apart from my real job as a Senior Documentary Producer for the BBC whilst you'll be advising old ladies about the best remedy to cure chilblains.

lol, a little harsh there. I'm pretty sure there are other aspiring physicians out here (including me). :wink: