Interesting article....

https://www.fieldgulls.com/platform/amp ... istory-nfl

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Thanks for posting! I have known since 2012 that Russ is very special and a gridiron winner. That was all this team needed after 2011.

Awesome.

austinslater25":77j2n54y said:

https://www.fieldgulls.com/platform/amp/2017/7/27/16048010/russell-wilson-seahawks-2017-stats-super-bowl-patriots-tom-brady-qbs2-history-nfl

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Excellent find, thank you!

Though I'm sure Santa Clara fans will attempt to pick it apart.

Two IFs:

If interception didn't happen and we won back to back superbowls.
If our o-line didn't suck so bad and we went deeper into the playoffs.

Won't you think Wilson as the top QB?

That article points out that, in spite of a couple tough losses in crucial places, RW has top-tier stats. He has continued to have them consistently since he stepped on the NFL stage. If I were starting a franchise right now, I'd take him as he provides so many options along with his leadership and poise.

Once again, health is a major factor. Our team stays healthy, we'll go a LONG way this season.

Dan Marino had fantastic Stats, Peyton Manning had fantastic Stats, Stats don't mean a thing if the rest of the team isn't built to compliment them.

Marino never won a Super Bowl and Manning just one.

Sports Hernia":1qem2hz4 said:

Though I'm sure Santa Clara fans will attempt to pick it apart.

Click to expand...

Here I am!!! :lol:

Literally not a single complaint about the conclusion that Wilson is a damn good QB, but three things I noticed about (what I think is a generally good article), in descending order of importance:

1) It's incredibly hard to compare QBs over time for a whole host of reasons. I think it's very, very commendable that the author of the piece is trying to do it, but I don't think he successfully pulled it off.

If you've got 70 years or so of quarterback play and according to your metric 25% of the best QBs of all time are all of the last decade or so, there's a VERY GOOD CHANCE you haven't been able to flatten out across eras.

TBF the data it would take to do this aren't available across eras, and without those data you have to rely on ranks by era (which I *think* is what the author is doing), but what happens if you try to do that with something like DVOA within eras to compare across eras you miss that QB DVOA is (I would guess) of higher variance in modern eras given the nature of how the game has changed, which over-privileges modern QBs precisely because of that higher variance.

I could very well be wrong about the mechanics under the hood here, but if we were accurately comparing across eras and controlling for eras we'd expect a normal distribution of QBs across those eras, and looking at the top 10, 20, 30, and 40 across eras instead the ranking appears to be highly skewed toward precisely when the explosion in QB stats happened.

2) From what I know the author is correct that YPA correlates well with winning, but it explains less of the variance in winning than does QBR or QB Rating. If you want to talk about QB stats as they correlate to winning you should pick the stats that explain the most variance, not just one that does explain variance. To be clear I SINCERELY don't know if he picked YPA because it's more favorable to Wilson than other measures which are better predictors of winning, but it's weird to pick a less effective measure over a more effective one (e.g. if you want to predict income education is a good measure, but it's a pretty bad measure if you choose to report the correlation between education and income while never mentioning that you're sitting on data on industry and job title, which is an even better one).

3) This is VERY NITPICKY, but a direct comparison between Wilson and Brady in "Head-to-Head Matchups" isn't that meaningful, because they've never actually played each other in any statistically meaningful way.

It looks more meaningful when it's framed the way it is, but doesn't seem as meaningful if you present it as what it actually is:

"In six games Russell Wilson has performed better against the Patriots' defense than Tom Brady has performed against the Seahawks' defense."

Once you explain what it actually is, you realize that a "head-to-head matchup" isn't actually a direct comparison between two players. It is, instead, a comparison of how two players have performed against two different defenses.

In team sports head-to-head matchups can only happen at the team-level. They can't happen at the individual player level.

If you wanted to try to approximate a "head-to-head" comparison for individual players in a sport like football, you have to get rid of "match-up" to actually match it up. You'd do it this way: You'd look at performance against COMMON opponents by year, spanning over a series of years. You'd want to aggregate across as many years as you can to up your N so that you're not misled by the random noise of a small sample size.

Again, I have absolutely NO IDEA if that would favor Wilson or Brady, but it's the only way you could reasonably approximate the type of comparison you're going for.



Overall, though, I thought this was a good read, and also think Wilson is a really good QB.

These are just the nitpicky things I noticed while reading. :2thumbs:

chris98251":21zl5jr1 said:

Dan Marino had fantastic Stats, Peyton Manning had fantastic Stats, Stats don't mean a thing if the rest of the team isn't built to compliment them.

Marino never won a Super Bowl and Manning just one.

Click to expand...

ISWYDT

:lol:

...And Manning's SB win is an even better example of the importance of the team than the usual Trent Dilfer references that get trotted out in these conversations.

Manning was an all-time great QB, but the only year he actually won the Super Bowl he was not only atrocious IN THE SUPER BOWL, but atrocious ALL YEAR LONG.

It's not an exaggeration to say that Peyton Manning was unquestionably the weakest link on the team he won the Super Bowl with.

Popeyejones":xhq9a5se said:

:lol:

...And Manning's SB win is an even better example of the importance of the team than the usual Trent Dilfer references that get trotted out in these conversations.

Manning was an all-time great QB, but the only year he actually won the Super Bowl he was not only atrocious IN THE SUPER BOWL, but atrocious ALL YEAR LONG.

It's not an exaggeration to say that Peyton Manning was unquestionably the weakest link on the team he won the Super Bowl with.

Click to expand...

He won 2 superbowls

themunn":3en3iaa5 said:

Popeyejones":3en3iaa5 said:

:lol:

...And Manning's SB win is an even better example of the importance of the team than the usual Trent Dilfer references that get trotted out in these conversations.

Manning was an all-time great QB, but the only year he actually won the Super Bowl he was not only atrocious IN THE SUPER BOWL, but atrocious ALL YEAR LONG.

It's not an exaggeration to say that Peyton Manning was unquestionably the weakest link on the team he won the Super Bowl with.

Click to expand...

He won 2 superbowls

Click to expand...

Maybe his time with the Colts is before these posters were watching football. Or their hatred of the Broncos from our AFC days leaves them in denial of the 2nd one... :stirthepot:

Popeyejones":2y5gtmau said:

:lol:

...And Manning's SB win is an even better example of the importance of the team than the usual Trent Dilfer references that get trotted out in these conversations.

Manning was an all-time great QB, but the only year he actually won the Super Bowl he was not only atrocious IN THE SUPER BOWL, but atrocious ALL YEAR LONG.

It's not an exaggeration to say that Peyton Manning was unquestionably the weakest link on the team he won the Super Bowl with.

Click to expand...

I have to dispute the all year long part.He always had great regular season stats.
In the playoffs he seemed to choke though and it was a happy feet show.