-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
The Everything NFL Thread - 2010 Season
- Thread starter DM
- Start date
Uh, what? The Rams won 7 games compared to 1 last year. Why? Because of Bradford. He threw for over 3500 yards with some of the worst receivers in the league. Nothing wrong with Suh winning but calling Bradford mediocre is pretty dumb.
Bradford threw 590 passes, averaging less than 6 yards per attempt. The only other player who threw more than 500 passes this year for less yardage was Mark Sanchez, who threw 507 for 3291 for 6.5 ypa.
He also took a bunch of sacks (34, tied for 5th) and had a low TD-Int ratio (18-15, 1.2) and had the same yards per game as Chad Henne (220). 60% completion rating also placed him 20th in the league, behind Shaun Hill, Henne, and Favre in his worst year and barely better than Alex Smith.
To say Bradford had a good year by quarterback standards is absurd. Saying Bradford had a good year by rookie or rookie quarterback standards is true, but it wasn't great and it wasn't RotY material.
Mercy, ignoring statistical facts for what you perceive to be "impressive" is dumb. A player who threw 590 times for only around 3500 yards was throwing far, far too much. That is either mediocre or bad, take your pick, and picking a fight with someone while citing arbitrary parts of reality and ignoring others is superbly dumb.
No, he did LITTLE on a team that does not have much talent.
The only worse season by anyone throwing this many times was Drew Bledsoe in 1995 (636 attempts, 3507 yards, 13 TD 16 INT). The only other even comparable throwing is Brett Favre in 2006-2007, (607&613 attempts, 3881 yards and 3885 yards, 20/29 and 18/18 TD/INT, pretty horrible seasons but he also had a pretty shaky receivers corp and felt like he could still win games on his own). Carson Palmer had an actually fairly comparably bad year this year, throwing 586 times for only about 3900 yards, but Bradford still puts that to shame. I get that this is the era of throwing too much, but that does not make Bradford good. I think he has a lot of promise from his 18/15 number, but he is not a rookie of the year.
Oh and these teams were all .500 or worse: 4-12 and 8-8 in Favre's worst two years, 6-9 in Bledsoe's worst, 7-9 for Bradford, and this year's Bungles speak for themselves. Bradford did not win games, he lost a bunch of close ones. It is not a large sample size, but very heavily indicates that throwing a ton for small yardage loses games (gee who would have thought).
Also you did say Bradford's numbers were impressive. You said he should win an award that goes to the best player, which makes his numbers the most impressive of any rookie, which they were not even close.
The only worse season by anyone throwing this many times was Drew Bledsoe in 1995 (636 attempts, 3507 yards, 13 TD 16 INT). The only other even comparable throwing is Brett Favre in 2006-2007, (607&613 attempts, 3881 yards and 3885 yards, 20/29 and 18/18 TD/INT, pretty horrible seasons but he also had a pretty shaky receivers corp and felt like he could still win games on his own). Carson Palmer had an actually fairly comparably bad year this year, throwing 586 times for only about 3900 yards, but Bradford still puts that to shame. I get that this is the era of throwing too much, but that does not make Bradford good. I think he has a lot of promise from his 18/15 number, but he is not a rookie of the year.
Oh and these teams were all .500 or worse: 4-12 and 8-8 in Favre's worst two years, 6-9 in Bledsoe's worst, 7-9 for Bradford, and this year's Bungles speak for themselves. Bradford did not win games, he lost a bunch of close ones. It is not a large sample size, but very heavily indicates that throwing a ton for small yardage loses games (gee who would have thought).
Also you did say Bradford's numbers were impressive. You said he should win an award that goes to the best player, which makes his numbers the most impressive of any rookie, which they were not even close.
And...VY won games. Not that I think he should have won just for that. Bradford won because he was a quarterback on a team that won more games than the year before, even though all statistics show it was all the defense AND PLAYING IN THE WORST DIVISION OF ALL TIME. You can try to understand that, or continue to be simple minded and easily impressed by incorrect logic like every casual fan/thinker.
Meanwhile, Suh had 10.0 sacks, as a defensive tackle. Combined that with 66 total tackles, 1 forced fumble (returned for a touchdown no less) and an interception? That's dominant, even more so for a rookie. And the Lions played a much tougher schedule than the Rams (incidentally, the Lions blew out the Rams 44-6).
The Rams defence was ranked 19th, average at best. I also like how you call me a casual fan or simple minded when all the nfl experts were impressed with Bradford's rookie season.
Since you seem to be a big numbers guy. What kind of stats do you expect a rookie QB (coming off surgery on his throwing shoulder) to put up when his top receiver is an undrafted free agent.
In any case I would take the leadership qualities and improvement in wins with a horrible WR corp over just stats any day.
Since you seem to be a big numbers guy. What kind of stats do you expect a rookie QB (coming off surgery on his throwing shoulder) to put up when his top receiver is an undrafted free agent.
In any case I would take the leadership qualities and improvement in wins with a horrible WR corp over just stats any day.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense/seasontype/2
they had the 14th best defense, amazing for a team that just came off of being 29th, especially since defensive yards are harder to improve than offensive (teams that lose with bad offense give the ball back to the opponent and allow more yards, typically; the Rams had a bad offense and the defense wildly improved anyway). Rams ppg was worse because they blew close game after close game (you think an utter lack of offense might have had something to do with that?). The Rams had the 29th yardage offense in 2009. They had the 26th in 2010. Stop being difficult and ignoring which part of the team worked, it is very clear which part of the team improved from season to season and which one stayed the same. The Rams needed more yards, and Bradford threw as often as he could without producing them. It is not ALL his fault the offense was inept, he should have never been throwing that much! They should have had a run game! He is going to be a fine future quarterback, which I have said over and over. But Bradford had nothing to do with the wins. Absolutely fucking nothing. If he effectively won 2 games, then he effectively lost 3. If he effectively won 4, then he effectively lost 5,You are just drinking the koolaid and ignoring reality, and it does not make sense. Praise the Rams defense, if you want to fanboy for the team! That was the part that worked!
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb Bradford was a negative value, all you had to do was see how the Rams' games unfolded to understand this (but this backs me up). How can a negative win value be your award winner for any part of the game???
they had the 14th best defense, amazing for a team that just came off of being 29th, especially since defensive yards are harder to improve than offensive (teams that lose with bad offense give the ball back to the opponent and allow more yards, typically; the Rams had a bad offense and the defense wildly improved anyway). Rams ppg was worse because they blew close game after close game (you think an utter lack of offense might have had something to do with that?). The Rams had the 29th yardage offense in 2009. They had the 26th in 2010. Stop being difficult and ignoring which part of the team worked, it is very clear which part of the team improved from season to season and which one stayed the same. The Rams needed more yards, and Bradford threw as often as he could without producing them. It is not ALL his fault the offense was inept, he should have never been throwing that much! They should have had a run game! He is going to be a fine future quarterback, which I have said over and over. But Bradford had nothing to do with the wins. Absolutely fucking nothing. If he effectively won 2 games, then he effectively lost 3. If he effectively won 4, then he effectively lost 5,You are just drinking the koolaid and ignoring reality, and it does not make sense. Praise the Rams defense, if you want to fanboy for the team! That was the part that worked!
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb Bradford was a negative value, all you had to do was see how the Rams' games unfolded to understand this (but this backs me up). How can a negative win value be your award winner for any part of the game???
Nfl.com says that they are 19th in total yards but w/e. The problem is that you seem to think stats mean everything and yet they dont. Otherwise the San Diego Chargers are the best team in the league (something like #1 ranked offence and defence).
And the football outsiders thing is just some obscure website that no one has really heard of, so it has no credibilty.
And the football outsiders thing is just some obscure website that no one has really heard of, so it has no credibilty.
Since you seem so sold on how Bradford won games for the Rams, here are his statistics in the wins only:
157/244 (64.3%), 1700 yards, 10 TDs, 3 Ints (Averages: 22.4/34.9, 242 yards, 1.4 TDs, .4 Ints).
Of those numbers, the only good ones is his interceptions, where he threw his other 12 Ints on the year in the 9 losses. However, he only threw above average in three of the 7 wins:
Seattle (Rams won 20-3): 23/41, 289 yards, 2 TDs, 1 Int
Denver (Rams won 36-33): 22/37, 308 yards, 3 TDs, 0 Int
San Francisco (Rams won 25-17): 28/37, 292 yards, 1 TDs, 0 Int
Out of those three good games, the Rams only "needed" him in the last two. So, as CK said, out of the 7 wins Bradford really only won 2 of them, 3 if you're being generous. More than that, in the other four wins he threw less than 200 yards in 3 of them! The fact that every single game they won this year was against a team with a losing record except San Diego is no consolation.
In the following losses, Bradford threw for less than 57% completion rating: NO (56.3), Oak (56.0), Sea (52.8), Det (51.1), TB (50.0), KC (48.8).
In the following losses, Bradford threw for less than 200 yards: KC (181), Oak (167), Sea (155), TB (126)
In the following losses, Bradford threw more Ints than TDs: Ari (1 TD, 3 Ints), Sea (0-1), Det (0-2), NO (0-2), KC (0-2)
Now, is it apparent that Bradford lost more games than he won? Don't bullshit me and say "Oh, he won games because the rest of the offense sucked balls." He did not win more than 3 games this year, and that's being very generous. He lost at least 4 games this year, which is also being very generous (in reality it was more like 6). Hence the negative value from the "obscure website that no one has really heard of."
Finally, you compared Bradford's receivers to Matt Ryan's rookie year. Matt Ryan's top five receivers in 2008 were as follows: An oft-forgotten about 1st round pick that had one good season before 2008, another old 1st round pick that had eclipsed 500 yards only twice before, a backup running back, a rookie wide receiver, and a 32 year old 4th string receiver that hadn't played since 2005.
157/244 (64.3%), 1700 yards, 10 TDs, 3 Ints (Averages: 22.4/34.9, 242 yards, 1.4 TDs, .4 Ints).
Of those numbers, the only good ones is his interceptions, where he threw his other 12 Ints on the year in the 9 losses. However, he only threw above average in three of the 7 wins:
Seattle (Rams won 20-3): 23/41, 289 yards, 2 TDs, 1 Int
Denver (Rams won 36-33): 22/37, 308 yards, 3 TDs, 0 Int
San Francisco (Rams won 25-17): 28/37, 292 yards, 1 TDs, 0 Int
Out of those three good games, the Rams only "needed" him in the last two. So, as CK said, out of the 7 wins Bradford really only won 2 of them, 3 if you're being generous. More than that, in the other four wins he threw less than 200 yards in 3 of them! The fact that every single game they won this year was against a team with a losing record except San Diego is no consolation.
In the following losses, Bradford threw for less than 57% completion rating: NO (56.3), Oak (56.0), Sea (52.8), Det (51.1), TB (50.0), KC (48.8).
In the following losses, Bradford threw for less than 200 yards: KC (181), Oak (167), Sea (155), TB (126)
In the following losses, Bradford threw more Ints than TDs: Ari (1 TD, 3 Ints), Sea (0-1), Det (0-2), NO (0-2), KC (0-2)
Now, is it apparent that Bradford lost more games than he won? Don't bullshit me and say "Oh, he won games because the rest of the offense sucked balls." He did not win more than 3 games this year, and that's being very generous. He lost at least 4 games this year, which is also being very generous (in reality it was more like 6). Hence the negative value from the "obscure website that no one has really heard of."
Finally, you compared Bradford's receivers to Matt Ryan's rookie year. Matt Ryan's top five receivers in 2008 were as follows: An oft-forgotten about 1st round pick that had one good season before 2008, another old 1st round pick that had eclipsed 500 yards only twice before, a backup running back, a rookie wide receiver, and a 32 year old 4th string receiver that hadn't played since 2005.
I do apologize, they were 19th, which is still about effectively the same. That shows a competitive defense. 26th would have shown a non-competitive defense and they would have been 4-12 even in the worst division of all time.
Your call to the Chargers is absurdly irrelevant. Yardage and wins are not perfectly correlated, but they are correlated. If a team is in the bottom 6 in both offense and defense, then it will be a losing team. This was the Rams in 2009. If the team has a top half defense and a bottom 6 offense, it can win by just defense, which the Rams did. They got a +2 bonus from their division though, they were really still more like a 5-11 team. Due to the small amount of games played, NFL teams can get away from their "proper" win loss expectations much more than teams in other sports. Either way...Bradford had negative value and you did nothing to refute that except claim that I think "statistics mean everything". I do not. I already proved a) that quarterbacks who throw as much as Bradford as badly as Bradford lead to losing teams (and of those, he was the worst ever) b) Bradford has bad metrics by any system, even the simplistic qb rating c) the Rams offense was just as bad as last year, and that is proven by statistics, which is why I have to keep calling to it! Bradford was better than the last two Rams quarterbacks by a bit because he did not throw as many interceptions, but he was actually more inept at getting yards despite completing more and throwing fewer interceptions! There is a reason that the Rams offense did not improve to being a top half offense like the defense did to a top half defense.
Football outsiders is one well respected qb value adjustment system. Since we were discussing win values, you have no right to bitch about what I use to back something up without presenting something better. Instead of doing that, you just absurdly dismissed something sound since nothing in the world would credit Bradford with wins statistically.
Anyway, I am not going to bother replying anymore. All this has become is me saying ten times as much as you, giving facts, reasons, sources, and you replying with "lol stats, Bradford WINS baby" when the Rams would have probably been at least 9-7 (due to how bad their division was, again the 7-9 is already clearly inflated) with a Kitna or Campbell level quarterback. True, they are veterans, but the award is for the rookie who plays like he is not a rookie, not the quarterback on the team who took the most throws and headed to a losing record but not a humiliating record.
EDIT: Good post Killah. I was only trotting out stuff I was familiar with, too lazy for something as damning as your analysis lol
Your call to the Chargers is absurdly irrelevant. Yardage and wins are not perfectly correlated, but they are correlated. If a team is in the bottom 6 in both offense and defense, then it will be a losing team. This was the Rams in 2009. If the team has a top half defense and a bottom 6 offense, it can win by just defense, which the Rams did. They got a +2 bonus from their division though, they were really still more like a 5-11 team. Due to the small amount of games played, NFL teams can get away from their "proper" win loss expectations much more than teams in other sports. Either way...Bradford had negative value and you did nothing to refute that except claim that I think "statistics mean everything". I do not. I already proved a) that quarterbacks who throw as much as Bradford as badly as Bradford lead to losing teams (and of those, he was the worst ever) b) Bradford has bad metrics by any system, even the simplistic qb rating c) the Rams offense was just as bad as last year, and that is proven by statistics, which is why I have to keep calling to it! Bradford was better than the last two Rams quarterbacks by a bit because he did not throw as many interceptions, but he was actually more inept at getting yards despite completing more and throwing fewer interceptions! There is a reason that the Rams offense did not improve to being a top half offense like the defense did to a top half defense.
Football outsiders is one well respected qb value adjustment system. Since we were discussing win values, you have no right to bitch about what I use to back something up without presenting something better. Instead of doing that, you just absurdly dismissed something sound since nothing in the world would credit Bradford with wins statistically.
Anyway, I am not going to bother replying anymore. All this has become is me saying ten times as much as you, giving facts, reasons, sources, and you replying with "lol stats, Bradford WINS baby" when the Rams would have probably been at least 9-7 (due to how bad their division was, again the 7-9 is already clearly inflated) with a Kitna or Campbell level quarterback. True, they are veterans, but the award is for the rookie who plays like he is not a rookie, not the quarterback on the team who took the most throws and headed to a losing record but not a humiliating record.
EDIT: Good post Killah. I was only trotting out stuff I was familiar with, too lazy for something as damning as your analysis lol
Like I said stats are irrelevant, you just wasted your time digging up more useless ones.
Oh and yeah the Rams would have been clearly better with Kitna or Campbell. Why use the top draft pick on a franchise QB when you have those 2. Thank God your not a GM.
And if Bradford is as bad as he you say he is then why were all the analysts impressed with him as well.
Oh and yeah the Rams would have been clearly better with Kitna or Campbell. Why use the top draft pick on a franchise QB when you have those 2. Thank God your not a GM.
And if Bradford is as bad as he you say he is then why were all the analysts impressed with him as well.
Since your post consists of only rhetorical questions, I'll do the same!
Why are stats irrelevant? Assuming wins are also a statistic, they're the only things that matter!
When did we say Bradford would never be a good quarterback? You pick a QB with the top pick because they'll eventually be good, not for immediate benefits. Because Bradford was mediocre this year does not mean he'll be mediocre for life (though that's still a distinct possibility!)
Why are all the analysts impressed with Tim Tebow? He's done even less than Bradford! Same thing with Colt McCoy, but not to the same degree. Analysts pick college QBs that were popular and focus on them in the pros, even when they don't start/are terrible. Vince Young and Matt Leinart are more good examples. They are also aware that Bradford has a good chance of eventually being good.
I would say I'm done too, but if you're only going to reply with another dumb comment I'll be open to proving you wrong!
try again
I wouldn't say that's very incidental
I would say it is incidental DM. How many teams were 40 points scored this season:
teams who gave up more than 40 points in a game with awful defenses:
Cardinals, Seahawks, Broncos, Cowboys (twice each lol), Redskins, Lions, Jaguars, Browns, Bengals
teams who gave up more than 40 points in a game with decent to great defenses:
Saints, Rams, Jets, Giants, Falcons, Dolphins
teams who scored more than 40 points with bad offenses:
Seahawks, Lions, Cardinals, Bills
teams who scored more than 40 points with good offenses:
Patriots and Packers (3 times each! what a super bowl we coulda had haha), Chiefs & Giants (twice each), Steelers, Raiders, Falcons, Eagles, Chargers, Broncos
so this shows that: a) scoring a ton of points is kind of inherently fluky, it happened less than once average for all teams b) it more for good teams than bad and more against bad teams than good, but at least 1/3 of the teams involved on both sides combined will be mediocre/decent to great (defense) or awful to mediocre (offense).
Also it almost always happens in blowout fashion: this season the average result was about 45-18, about 44-19 going back all the way to 1989. When a team scores 40, it does it in a blowout! :@
teams who gave up more than 40 points in a game with awful defenses:
Cardinals, Seahawks, Broncos, Cowboys (twice each lol), Redskins, Lions, Jaguars, Browns, Bengals
teams who gave up more than 40 points in a game with decent to great defenses:
Saints, Rams, Jets, Giants, Falcons, Dolphins
teams who scored more than 40 points with bad offenses:
Seahawks, Lions, Cardinals, Bills
teams who scored more than 40 points with good offenses:
Patriots and Packers (3 times each! what a super bowl we coulda had haha), Chiefs & Giants (twice each), Steelers, Raiders, Falcons, Eagles, Chargers, Broncos
so this shows that: a) scoring a ton of points is kind of inherently fluky, it happened less than once average for all teams b) it more for good teams than bad and more against bad teams than good, but at least 1/3 of the teams involved on both sides combined will be mediocre/decent to great (defense) or awful to mediocre (offense).
Also it almost always happens in blowout fashion: this season the average result was about 45-18, about 44-19 going back all the way to 1989. When a team scores 40, it does it in a blowout! :@
Same yards as Chad Henne who was throwing to BRANDON FUCKING MARSHALL....Behind Shaun Hill throwing to FUCKING MEGATRON....
Bradford threw to nobodies....he actually went positive in his td-int ratio which is always impressive for a rookie. He took a lot of sacks, but still less than others...in his rookie season..on the RAMS.....
To say he's not epic is just ignorant.
He should have had the worst stats in the league...he's a ram, a rookie, and threw way too many times. But he still beasted 7 wins.
I'm a douche because I'm right?
and how does it "look like" Vick won Comeback Player when he in fact DID win?
Idiots, all over the place. Here's a link so you can double check and edit out the "looks like" to your post.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...rns-qb-comeback-poy-award?module=HP_headlines
and how does it "look like" Vick won Comeback Player when he in fact DID win?
Idiots, all over the place. Here's a link so you can double check and edit out the "looks like" to your post.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...rns-qb-comeback-poy-award?module=HP_headlines