A problem I see with LOSMAN

[Wally The Barber]

I am not interested to get involved in the EDWARDS-LOSMAN debate but warm up your TEBO.

I watched the game over and over and I see one problem that continues to haunt Losman season after season.

His short passes are on the wrong side of the receiver on crossing routes and the receiver has to reach back,regain balance then run and it hurts the flow of the pass pattern.

He also continues to throw dump passes high.

I counted 6 passes that were to the wrong side or high.

I realize it is only preseason but THAT IS WHAT is hurting him weekly!

I guarantee you the coaches see the same problem.

If Losman can improve on that, he would be a MUCH BETTER QB.

Watch the game over and tell me I am wrong (lol)

I write this NOT TO CRITICIZE Losman, its one of the reasons he struggles.

Your opinion is always welcome.

[Mitchy moo]

Overthrown balls, never looking for the 2nd receiver, holding on too long, misreading defenses, coaches knowing that he cannot understand changing plays at the line competently.......

He looked good against the vanilla defense though but toss in a blitzing safety / corner and he'll be out of sorts real fast.

[justasportsfan]

Overthrown balls, never looking for the 2nd receiver, holding on too long, misreading defenses, coaches knowing that he cannot understand changing plays at the line competently.......

He looked good against the vanilla defense though but toss in a blitzing safety / corner and he'll be out of sorts real fast.
:rofl:

[ddaryl]

I thought he looked pretty sharp in Indy... A couple of bad throws, but most were dead on, and perfectly placed. He does throw the occasional off target ball, but most QB's will.

my only concern with Losman is his ability to read D's and get the ball out quickly... but he really seems to have gotten better here this preseason.

[Wally The Barber]

I thought he looked pretty sharp in Indy... A couple of bad throws, but most were dead on, and perfectly placed. He does throw the occasional off target ball, but most QB's will.

my only concern with Losman is his ability to read D's and get the ball out quickly... but he really seems to have gotten better here this preseason.

I am more concerned with poorly thrown easy passes!

[njsue]

I am not interested to get involved in the EDWARDS-LOSMAN debate but warm up your TEBO.

I watched the game over and over and I see one problem that continues to haunt Losman season after season.

His short passes are on the wrong side of the receiver on crossing routes and the receiver has to reach back,regain balance then run and it hurts the flow of the pass pattern.

He also continues to throw dump passes to high.

I realize it is only preseason but THAT IS WHAT is hurting him weekly!

I guarantee you the coaches see the same problem.

If Losman can improve on that, he would be a MUCH BETTER QB.

Watch the game over and tell me I am wrong (lol)

You opinion is always welcome.

Perhaps the Turk can work that out with Losman. Turk Shonert seems to be a God Send with his play calling. Where has this guy been. We have been stuck watching these idiot O coordinators. :ill:

[trapezeus]

i agree. i remember there was a 3rd down conversion to justin jenkins and he had to reach back and get it. if he was led a bit more, he might have been able to score or pick up more yards.

It's good to get the win though. and if sunday helps his confidence to be able to perform consistently, then sunday was a set in the right direction.

[acehole]

I saw the same thing....I would keep an eye on it. These are different recievers he is working with and timing must be worked on...but yea I saw it.

Keep an eye on it Thursday...
I am sure he and the coaches saw it and are addressing it...

He did do improve on some things that are incouraging...he checked out of bad plays...he got rid of the ball when nothing was there a few times...

This is not different then Trent getting balls batted down...they work on these things later after a game...


I am not interested to get involved in the EDWARDS-LOSMAN debate but warm up your TEBO.

I watched the game over and over and I see one problem that continues to haunt Losman season after season.

His short passes are on the wrong side of the receiver on crossing routes and the receiver has to reach back,regain balance then run and it hurts the flow of the pass pattern.

He also continues to throw dump passes to high.

I realize it is only preseason but THAT IS WHAT is hurting him weekly!

I guarantee you the coaches see the same problem.

If Losman can improve on that, he would be a MUCH BETTER QB.

Watch the game over and tell me I am wrong (lol)

You opinion is always welcome.

[acehole]

:crazy:
Overthrown balls, never looking for the 2nd receiver, holding on too long, misreading defenses, coaches knowing that he cannot understand changing plays at the line competently.......

He looked good against the vanilla defense though but toss in a blitzing safety / corner and he'll be out of sorts real fast.

:skooby: :please: :please:

[DrGraves]

TRENT ****ING EDWARDS IS OUR QUARTERBACK STFU ABOUT JP LOSMAN!!!! I don't care if jp plays like joe montana or rob johnson... he isn't our qb, and we shouldn't waste our time on him until he is.

[madness]

Actually, this offense could be the best thing that happened to him since it pretty much puts emphasis on JP's weaknesses. His short game showed a lot of improvement and should continue to get better as the season goes on.

[justasportsfan]

TRENT ****ING EDWARDS IS OUR QUARTERBACK STFU ABOUT JP LOSMAN!!!! I don't care if jp plays like joe montana or rob johnson... he isn't our qb, and we shouldn't waste our time on him until he is.


I agree. Lets not talk about Jackson, Wright, Oman , Spencer Johnson, Digiorgio, Ellison, Chambers, etc.etc.or any other back ups on this team.

[BidsJr]

I thought he looked pretty sharp in Indy... A couple of bad throws, but most were dead on, and perfectly placed. He does throw the occasional off target ball, but most QB's will.

my only concern with Losman is his ability to read D's and get the ball out quickly... but he really seems to have gotten better here this preseason.

This is not correct, Losman has the same issue that Bledsoe had. Neither of them were very good hitting a reciever in stride unless it was a vertical route. Many of JP's completions had the reciever turned around the wrong way and reduced YAC yards.

This was also the first thing that I noticed with Trent when he took over last year was his ability to hit recievers in stride on crossing routes. That is something that has been missing since probably Flutie.

[Wally The Barber]

TRENT ****ING EDWARDS IS OUR QUARTERBACK STFU ABOUT JP LOSMAN!!!! I don't care if jp plays like joe montana or rob johnson... he isn't our qb, and we shouldn't waste our time on him until he is.

Ut-oh ..........a sore subject with no pain reliever

[justasportsfan]

This was also the first thing that I noticed with Trent when he took over last year was his ability to hit recievers in stride on crossing routes. .
He's a WCO qb so it's not surprising.

[Dujek]

Losman was good on Sunday, if he needs to come in and run the offense for a few games this season, then I won't have any problem with that.

If his short game and his thought process under pressure improve he can still be a decent QB in this league.

[BidsJr]

He's a WCO qb so it's not surprising.


Says who? The definition of a WCO QB is the ability to hit recievers in stride?

[BidsJr]

Losman was good on Sunday, if he needs to come in and run the offense for a few games this season, then I won't have any problem with that.

If his short game and his thought process under pressure improve he can still be a decent QB in this league.

I don't disagree, but to say his short game is accurate is just completely incorrect. He has a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn from less than 15 yards, but can drop it in a bucket from 40-60.

Unfortunately for him NFL games are won and lost in the short to intermediate zone. That is why he is on the bench.

[BidsJr]

I don't disagree, but to say his short game is accurate is just completely incorrect. He has a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn from less than 15 yards, but can drop it in a bucket from 40-60.

Unfortunately for him NFL games are won and lost in the short to intermediate zone. That is why he is on the bench.
\
BTW I hope he gets better at it and can become successful in this league. He seems like a good guy.

[Mitchy moo]

:crazy:

:skooby: :please: :please:

I know some of you watch the game but do you really understand what you are watching?

[Dujek]

I don't disagree, but to say his short game is accurate is just completely incorrect. He has a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn from less than 15 yards, but can drop it in a bucket from 40-60.

Unfortunately for him NFL games are won and lost in the short to intermediate zone. That is why he is on the bench.

Which is why I said his short game needs to improve. We saw signs that it's heading in the right direction on Sunday, and for his sake I hope it continues to do so.

[justasportsfan]

Says who? The definition of a WCO QB is the ability to hit recievers in stride?



The entire offense is based off a series of quick, highly accurate passes.http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880

No need to talk about Walsh and Trents relationship . It's common knowledge.

[justasportsfan]

I know some of you watch the game but do you really understand what you are watching?

:rofl:

[Wally The Barber]

I know what I am watching but I can't believe most fans believe a QB just throws the ball somewhere near the WR (lol)

[Romes]

This is why I miss Tim Anderson. Since he's been gone there is no Bills player we can collectively criticize without someone getting defensive.

:couch:

[Wally The Barber]

This is why I miss Tim Anderson. Since he's been gone there is no Bills player we can collectively criticize without someone getting defensive.

:couch:

Just a observation and nobody should BE TOO OFFENDED!

[Romes]

Just a observation and nobody should BE TOO OFFENDED!

Nevermind, I miss read a post. :D

[BidsJr]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880

No need to talk about Walsh and Trents relationship . It's common knowledge.

"He has to be highly accurate, he has to be a downfield threat (to prevent all the coverage staying short), and he has to be a good decision-maker."

So basically he has to have all the tools. Not just 1.

[justasportsfan]

"He has to be highly accurate, he has to be a downfield threat (to prevent all the coverage staying short), and he has to be a good decision-maker."

So basically he has to have all the tools. Not just 1.
the WCO requires a lot of quick dumps and releases which includes slants as well. In other words a lot of dinks and dunks than vertical throws.

[Wraith]

This is not correct, Losman has the same issue that Bledsoe had. Many of JP's completions had the reciever turned around the wrong way and reduced YAC yards.

This was also the first thing that I noticed with Trent when he took over last year was his ability to hit recievers in stride on crossing routes.
You are very wrong about this.

Last season on passes thrown to a receiver 0 to 10 yards downfield:

Losman, 2007: 64/93, 68.8%, 596 Yards, 9.3 Yards/Completion
Edwards, 2007: 73/140, 52.1%, 632 Yards, 8.6 Yards/Completion

So, not only did Losman complete far more of his passes in that zone, they went for more yards when he did. In fact, Edwards' completion percentage in that zone was horrible compared to his peers.

Perception is a funny thing.

[mybills]

I agree. Lets not talk about Jackson, Wright, Oman , Spencer Johnson, Digiorgio, Ellison, Chambers, etc.etc.or any other back ups on this team.
:10:

[mybills]

I noticed with Trent when he took over last year was his ability to hit recievers in stride on crossing routes.
When he goes down field with it, the receivers have to stop and turn for the ball. They don't stop for JP's down field passes.

The fact is, they both have their strengths & weaknesses. Neither is better than the other -> throwing wise. They're just different.

[TacklingDummy]

I agree. Lets not talk about Jackson, Wright, Oman , Spencer Johnson, Digiorgio, Ellison, Chambers, etc.etc.or any other back ups on this team.

There is only so much that can be said about those players. And quite honestly it's boring.

[BidsJr]

You are very wrong about this.

Last season on passes thrown to a receiver 0 to 10 yards downfield:

Losman, 2007: 64/93, 68.8%, 596 Yards, 9.3 Yards/Completion
Edwards, 2007: 73/140, 52.1%, 632 Yards, 8.6 Yards/Completion

So, not only did Losman complete far more of his passes in that zone, they went for more yards when he did. In fact, Edwards' completion percentage in that zone was horrible compared to his peers.

Perception is a funny thing.


As usual black and white numbers refuse to show the gray.

[Wraith]

As usual black and white numbers refuse to show the gray.
Right. Show me the gray.

It's simple. Your perception does not match reality. Edwards is not better than Losman at the short pass. In fact, Edwards is pretty bad at it. Or at least he was last season.

[acehole]

As usual black and white numbers refuse to show the gray.

No...clear evidence is ignored...while popular opinion is embraced.

....and we are called metal midgets.

[yordad]

I don't disagree, but to say his short game is accurate is just completely incorrect. He has a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn from less than 15 yards, but can drop it in a bucket from 40-60.
Was I supposed to laugh at you after this comment? You tell someone they are completely incorrect, and then completely make something up?

[Romes]

The "gray" has been gone over ad nauseum.

Losman didn't have to play in the terrible conditions of the Browns and Giants game. Where TE's completion percentage took a nose dive.

But that is not the original point of this thread. The stats don't indicate if Losman hit the receivers in stride or not. Only the game tape can do that.

[Wraith]

But that is not the original point of this thread. The stats don't indicate if Losman hit the receivers in stride or not. Only the game tape can do that.
The point of throwing a pass is to gain yards. Not look pretty. "In stride" is a distant second to yardage gained.

[yordad]

The "gray" has been gone over ad nauseum.

Losman didn't have to play in the terrible conditions of the Browns and Giants game. Where TE's completion percentage took a nose dive.

But that is not the original point of this thread. The stats don't indicate if Losman hit the receivers in stride or not. Only the game tape can do that.Do you not feel that with a big enough sample yards per attempt will indicate it?

[BidsJr]

The point of throwing a pass is to gain yards. Not look pretty. "In stride" is a distant second to yardage gained.

Yardage gained is a byproduct of instride.

[Wraith]

Do you not feel that with a big enough sample yards per attempt will indicate it?
Yards per completion. The problem with yards per attempt is that it confounds yardage gained with completion percentage.

[trapezeus]

similarly, Losman had a bunch of long balls last year where they had to jump pack into coverage. Evans jets and roscoe Pats game. Edwards hit evans in stride vs the bengals but evans bobbled it.

again, these are NFL QB's. The only guy i ever worried about in terms of arm strength is pennington. He's can't hit the sidelines on simple outs. Everyone else, you can have a big arm to throw 50+ yards vs a guy who throws 40+ yards. it still stretches the defense to the same extent. plus the long ball play happens only 1 or 2 times a game. anymore and your team is probably pretty desperate or the secondary of the opposing team is pretty god awful.

[Wraith]

Yardage gained is a byproduct of instride.
Yeah, no kidding. So if Edwards is so much BETTER at hitting receivers in stride on the short passes, why is his yardage gained per short pass LESS? You're helping my point, not yours.

[Romes]

Yardage gained is a byproduct of instride.

Not necessarily there are a lot of things that can go into YAC or yardage gained that have nothing to do with the QB's accuracy. The throw can be in a poor location but the CB can miss a tackle or the receiver can make a good move despite it being a poor pass. A difference of 0.7 is not enough to discount the fact that Losman could have simply been luckier in that regard.

[yordad]

Yards per completion. The problem with yards per attempt is that it confounds yardage gained with completion percentage.Good point, but in the grand scheme, isn't ypa what really matters? You should, after all, take the completion % into consideration, especially since the thread was started with the premises JP is inaccurate.

[yordad]

Yardage gained is a byproduct of instride.Oh, so it IS measurable then.

[Wraith]

Not necessarily there are a lot of things that can go into YAC or yardage gained that have nothing to do with the QB's accuracy. The throw can be in a poor location but the CB can miss a tackle or the receiver can make a good move despite it being a poor pass. A difference of 0.7 is not enough to discount the fact that Losman could have simply been luckier in that regard.
You're right, an 0.7 yard difference is not meaningful. It's 8 inches. From a statistical standpoint they're the same. So let me rephrase my question:

If Edwards supposedly has the accuracy to hit receivers in stride on the short passes but Losman does not, why does Losman connect with his receiver 16% of the time more often on those short passes than Edwards? Why, when they are completed, are the results nearly identical?

[Wraith]

Good point, but in the grand scheme, isn't ypa what really matters? You should, after all, take the completion % into consideration, especially since the thread was started with the premises JP is inaccurate.
I'm not dismissing completion percentage at all. I've said very often that the statistics to look at are completion percentage and yards/completion side by side. Together they tell the whole story. Yards/Attempt does not.

[yordad]

I'm not dismissing completion percentage at all. I've said very often that the statistics to look at are completion percentage and yards/completion side by side. Together they tell the whole story. Yards/Attempt does not.Yards per attempt combines the two. It is the bottom line. If a QB has three passes, what stat would you look at to predict how many yards will be produced? Yards per pass. You can do all kinds of "take the yards per completion, then factor in the chances the pass will be completed", but it IS yards per attempt.

Anyways we are close to the same page.

[Oaf]

Jenkins made a great play on that 3rd and 8 crossing route that JP threw behind him. That play may have solidified his spot at #5.

[mybills]

I'll go with the 1st down (longer passes) from 1st & 10 over the 2nd down & 5 results from the (short passes) any day. Who wouldn't?
The point is...they can both do both. We have a decent starter and a decent back up, so who the hell cares about the statistical arguments? :up:

[Wraith]

Yards per attempt combines the two. It is the bottom line. If a QB has three passes, what stat would you look at to predict how many yards will be produced? Yards per pass. You can do all kinds of "take the yards per completion, then factor in the chances the pass will be completed", but it IS yards per attempt.

Anyways we are close to the same page.
It's not about prediction. It's about evaluating past events.

Take the short passes we were evaluating earlier as an example. Losman's YPA was 6.4 while Edwards' was 4.5. What was the root cause? You have no idea if it's low completion percentage or just extra short passes that is causing Edwards' low YPA. When we separate the two we learn that when they complete passes they get almost the same yardage but Losman completes them much more often. The two are no longer confounded.

These are descriptive statistics, not predictive. We're trying to describe the past as well as we can, not predict the future. Confounded data only clouds the picture. It's why the QB passer rating "statistic" is useless when trying to evaluate a QBs strengths and weaknesses. I don't think trying to use two numbers instead of one to try to evaluate something as complex quarterback accuracy is unreasonable, despite your attempts to make fun.

[evol4276]

wait why are you watching losman and a preseason game "over and over" if your not meaning to criticize?

[yordad]

It's not about prediction. It's about evaluating past events.

Take the short passes we were evaluating earlier as an example. Losman's YPA was 6.4 while Edwards' was 4.5. What was the root cause? You have no idea if it's low completion percentage or just extra short passes that is causing Edwards' low YPA. When we separate the two we learn that when they complete passes they get almost the same yardage but Losman completes them much more often. The two are no longer confounded.

These are descriptive statistics, not predictive. We're trying to describe the past as well as we can, not predict the future. Confounded data only clouds the picture. It's why the QB passer rating "statistic" is useless when trying to evaluate a QBs strengths and weaknesses. I don't think trying to use two numbers instead of one to try to evaluate something as complex quarterback accuracy is unreasonable, despite your attempts to make fun.I'm with ya. Compounding stats doesn't help you evaluate a QBs strengths and weaknesses. It just gives you the big picture. I think the big picture helps you evaluate the QB, just not his specific strengths or weakness. Passer rating doesn't help in finding the specific problem or strength, but it gives you an overall.

I am less interested in the "why", and more interested in the "is". "Why" is helpful for improvement, But "is" is what should be looked at when making personal decisions.

He who produces more, should play more. He who produces less should use the "why" to help increase his production until he "is" better.

Both useful. But I think the bigger picture is better when comparing QBs.

I might be a little off topic, I'm at work, it is a little hectic, I will reread later if I find time.

BTW, where did you find a stat for short passes?

[Philagape]

I'm with ya. Compounding stats doesn't help you evaluate a QBs strengths and weaknesses. It just gives you the big picture. I think the big picture helps you evaluate the QB, just not his specific strengths or weakness. Passer rating doesn't help in finding the specific problem or strength, but it gives you an overall.

I am less interested in the "why", and more interested in the "is". "Why" is helpful for improvement, But "is" is what should be looked at when making personal decisions.

The why is everything.
The why explains what actually happens on the field, way beyond what's on paper. That's necessary because it's such a complex sport that numbers on paper can't possibly give the big picture. Players rely on each other. One player's great play can make another player's bad play -- and stats -- look a lot better.
You can have a mediocre RB run for a big gain because his line opened a huge hole. That will show up in the RB's stats, but the "why" tells you that his line deserves credit more than he does.
A defender can be out of position but still have a ball land right in his arms for an easy pick because a teammate deflected it. The defender will have a INT in his stats, but the "why" tells you that the guy who deflected it deserves more credit.
And yes, a QB can throw a bad pass that gets completed only because of an extraordinary effort by a receiver, and it goes for a long TD because two defenders run into each other. Like the examples above, the "why" gives you a better picture of reality than the stats do, and of who should get the credit.
Those kinds of scenarios happen too often to give stats more credibility than the why.

Going by stats over the "why" is the equivalent of not watching the games at all.
Do you think personnel opinions and decisions should be made without watching games? If not, why not? If stats give the big picture, why watch the games at all to form an opinion?

[Wally The Barber]

wait why are you watching losman and a preseason game "over and over" if your not meaning to criticize?
I break down every position as I have for years.

Its not about only Losman its about the play after the catch

He is our #2 QB you know

Losman is missing the easy throws and it hurts the offense

[Ingtar33]

those problems are typical of someone who's doing several things wrong, with losman he does the following three things most often (and i saw him doing them agaisnt the colts)

1) he's not looking at the wr/rb/te when he throws it. (probably looking at the football) this makes the ball end up being thrown at where the receiver WAS not where he will be.

2) he doesn't step into the throw right, he throws off his back foot a lot, for example.

3) his hips don't rotate on most short throws. in short he plants his feet and arm throws it with his hips open. this will scatter shot a lot of passes.

that said he still had a good game.

[evol4276]

I break down every position as I have for years.

Its not about only Losman its about the play after the catch

He is our #2 QB you know

Losman is missing the easy throws and it hurts the offense lol i was jus bein an ass dude, i know

[acehole]

What are you basing the opposite point of view on exactly.

Nothing but fluff in this post.



The why is everything.
The why explains what actually happens on the field, way beyond what's on paper. That's necessary because it's such a complex sport that numbers on paper can't possibly give the big picture. Players rely on each other. One player's great play can make another player's bad play -- and stats -- look a lot better.
You can have a mediocre RB run for a big gain because his line opened a huge hole. That will show up in the RB's stats, but the "why" tells you that his line deserves credit more than he does.
A defender can be out of position but still have a ball land right in his arms for an easy pick because a teammate deflected it. The defender will have a INT in his stats, but the "why" tells you that the guy who deflected it deserves more credit.
And yes, a QB can throw a bad pass that gets completed only because of an extraordinary effort by a receiver, and it goes for a long TD because two defenders run into each other. Like the examples above, the "why" gives you a better picture of reality than the stats do, and of who should get the credit.
Those kinds of scenarios happen too often to give stats more credibility than the why.

Going by stats over the "why" is the equivalent of not watching the games at all.
Do you think personnel opinions and decisions should be made without watching games? If not, why not? If stats give the big picture, why watch the games at all to form an opinion?

[Novacane]

I agree. Lets not talk about Jackson, Wright, Oman , Spencer Johnson, Digiorgio, Ellison, Chambers, etc.etc.or any other back ups on this team.


I agree. Except for Oman. Threads about him are :10:

[Mitchy moo]

I hope that Trent stays healthy.

[im4bflo]

I sure hope Edwards doesn't get another bruise all season, or it's that
Losman we're stuck with.

[yordad]

The why is everything.
It isn't everything. It is alot, sometimes, but not everything. If you are comparing two QBs from two different teams, or two different eras it means a lot. Comparing 2 QBs from the same team, with everything relatively equal, with a large sample the "is" is as, or more, significant.

"Why" is everything for a small sample. "Is" is everything for a larger sample. "Why" isn't objective. It will have you going on "gut feeling".

Example:

Guy "A" has 1 int, guy "B" has two ints. Is guy "A" twice as good? Or is it hard to tell because guy "B" could have hit two WRs right in the hands, and those WRs could have let it bounce off their chest and out to an awaiting, sure handed, lucky defender. And guy "A" could have hit 4 defenders right in the hands and only one was caught. Right? (basically your example)

But if guy "A" throws 1000 passes, and completes 561 pases, but guy "B" throws 1000 passes and completes 634, then the "why" becomes less relevant. And if on top of that, guy "B" happens to have a larger yards per completion then the "why" becomes a lot less relevant. Now, if you could come up with a stat that compounds these two stats (yards per attempt) and have a large sample area, then the "is" says all it needs to say. It say 1 guy consistantly gets more yards when he throws. He produces more.

I am not saying this to support my opinion (yes, the one we always have), I am telling you this because this helped form my opinion. Also, is "Is" always a stat?

PS: You do have a point though Phil, although usually very subjective "why" does occasionally tell the whole story when the "why" is visually objective. YOU could say JP to Lee against NY was a bad pass (I wouldn't), but what about the bomb the series before that hit Parrish in the chest at the 1 that was dropped (memory isn't objective)?

[Philagape]

It isn't everything. It is alot, sometimes, but not everything. If you are comparing two QBs from two different teams, or two different eras it means a lot. Comparing 2 QBs from the same team, with everything relatively equal, with a large sample the "is" is as, or more, significant.

"Why" is everything for a small sample. "Is" is everything for a larger sample. "Why" isn't objective. It will have you going on "gut feeling".

Example:

Guy "A" has 1 int, guy "B" has two ints. Is guy "A" twice as good? Or is it hard to tell because guy "B" could have hit two WRs right in the hands, and those WRs could have let it bounce off their chest and out to an awaiting, sure handed, lucky defender. And guy "A" could have hit 4 defenders right in the hands and only one was caught. Right? (basically your example)

But if guy "A" throws 1000 passes, and completes 561 pases, but guy "B" throws 1000 passes and completes 634, then the "why" becomes less relevant. And if on top of that, guy "B" happens to have a larger yards per completion then the "why" becomes a lot less relevant. Now, if you could come up with a stat that compounds these two stats (yards per attempt) and have a large sample area, then the "is" says all it needs to say. It say 1 guy consistantly gets more yards when he throws. He produces more.

I am not saying this to support my opinion (yes, the one we always have), I am telling you this because this helped form my opinion. Also, is "Is" always a stat?

PS: You do have a point though Phil, although usually very subjective "why" does occasionally tell the whole story when the "why" is visually objective. YOU could say JP to Lee against NY was a bad pass (I wouldn't), but what about the bomb the series before that hit Parrish in the chest at the 1 that was dropped (memory isn't objective)?

The "why" IS the "is," not the stat. That's my point. It's about breaking down the reasons for the is. There's always a reason, and even on the same team the reasons can be different because the sport inherently has so many variables.
A large sample size is the sum of individual plays, and even one big play can significantly affect a large sample size.
And about the Parrish play, my analysis came from repeated frame-by-frame viewings of a video of it.

[Mitchy moo]

my analysis came from repeated frame-by-frame viewings of a video of it.

I spend my time on female action in this type of viewing sequence but if Roscoe does it for you more, congrats.
















J.K.