# March to Super Bowl XXXX!! (Predictions and Trash Talk Galore!) **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 3, 2006, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185 "2006-01-03T04:37:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/241 "2006-01-23T20:20:25Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > **Liberal** , I gotta disagree. The Seahwaks just covered him really well. You saw what happned when they tried to run the WR screen pass. Totally blown up, while the Bears got gouged on it time and time again. There’s numerous highlights of Smith’s catches and in every one he had 3 or more Seahawks all around him. They left Carter and the rest of Panthers in single coverage and those guys simply weren’t good enough to beat them. Carter had a couple nice long plays but that was it. The lack of a running game certainly made it easier for the Seahawks to overwhelmingly key on Smith, but that gameplan was in place all game. I’m not sure we disagree at all. Smith was covered really well, but what I’m saying is that that doesn’t matter. Smith is the Michael Jordan of receivers. You can cover him with four guys, throw the ball reasonably in his direction, and four jerseys of the same color will be on the ground while he has the ball tucked away safely on his way to the endzone. It seemed to me that Fox’s own gameplan was, “Let’s just not use Smith, and that way, whatever plan they have to stop him will be useless.” That’s why there were two straight three-and-outs, with six yards gained versus a hundred and eleven. I was completely torpedoed by the game plan and, oddly, Smith seemed to be as well. I haven’t heard the audio, but at one point Smith seemed to be screaming to Delhomme, “You do know I’m here, right?” ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/242 "2006-01-23T20:31:14Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Smith is the Michael Jordan of receivers. You can cover him with four guys, throw the ball reasonably in his direction, and four jerseys of the same color will be on the ground while he has the ball tucked away safely on his way to the endzone. You’re not going to get me on board with this bit of overstatement. Smith is having a great year and is an excellent WR but the GOAT he is not. No WR, even Rice, can dominate a game when the opposing team dedicates itself to stopping him. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/243 "2006-01-23T20:57:13Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > You’re not going to get me on board with this bit of overstatement. I didn’t expect to, really. But I disagree with you all the same, even that it is an overstatement. We’ll see which of us is borne out by ensuing years and their stats. If nothing else, at least Seattle deserved a chance to test all the speculation about what you have to do to stop Smith. You can’t say that someone stopped Smith until and unless Smith is a part of the game. You can say they stopped Delhomme. You can even say they stopped Fox. But you can’t stop what was never there. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/244 "2006-01-23T21:08:11Z")
A defense stopping Smith or any WR is, by definition, taking him out of the game. He was out of the game because of what Seattle did, not what Fox did. Your argument sounds as if Fox had Smith on the sidelines or if they chose to run the ball 50+ times. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/245 "2006-01-23T22:30:15Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > A defense stopping Smith or any WR is, by definition, taking him out of the game. He was out of the game because of what Seattle did, not what Fox did. Your argument sounds as if Fox had Smith on the sidelines or if they chose to run the ball 50+ times. I don’t know why it sounds like that. I think it sounds like what I said: they didn’t use him. He was there, but he seldom touched the ball. He didn’t touch the ball at all, in fact, in the first two or three offensive “drives”. He didn’t touch it because it wasn’t thrown to him. It was handed off to Goings, or tossed to Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The only passes to Smith were short, ill-timed wideouts best reserved for athletic tight ends. My first play of the game would have been to send Smith deep and throw the ball to him, hangers-on and all. That touchdown from the first play might have resulted in a different momentum. ---
**Author:** ![soulmurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@soulmurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/soulmurk)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/246 "2006-01-24T01:17:58Z")
I disagree that Smith wasn’t used. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, when you double and triple someone, as Smith was through most of the game, it leaves someone else open. On the first two drives, the Panthers ran the ball and threw to Mangum and Carter. The first time he tried to throw to Smith, the Seamonkeys intercepted the ball. On the next drive they lost Goings, threw to Proehl and Colbert and had the ball intercepted again. During the next drive they threw to Smith twice, one a catch and one an incompletion… and Delhomme was sacked twice. In all, I count 11 times Delhomme aimed it at Smith, 5 of which he came down with. With 35 attempts in the game, that’s just under 1/3rd of his pass attempts. Ultimately, the Seamonkeys called the proper defense and kept the pressure on Delhomme. They removed Smith as a major factor, and with the Panther run game in shambles, dared any of their other receivers to beat them. It’s similar to what they did against Washington. By removing Santana Moss from the equation and neutralizing Clinton Portis, they matched up their DB’s against the rest of their receivers and put the game on the secondary receivers to beat them. That said, Washington did a better job of it. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/247 "2006-01-24T11:46:59Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > First off, _I never said that one was better than the other_, just that total yards cannot be dismissed out of hand. There’s a flaw in this premise, but I doubt I’ll be able to pinpoint it concisely. We both agree (I’m assuming) that a completion percentage artificially inflates the passer rating, yes? In much the same way, two things (a double whammy) artificially inflate the “total yards per game” comparison: being on a bad team, as losing teams throw it more; and running a more pass-oriented offensive system, as more attempts almost invariably results in more yards. Total yards is a bad measuring stick because it’s a known trend that throwing more equals losing. Mike & Mike do a rundown each week of the 100 yard rushers and 300 yard passers, and with remarkable consistency the former group tends to win while the latter group tends to lose. This is obviously because teams trying to mount a comeback throw the ball almost exclusively. In fact, the quarterbacks tend to try to force the ball in, because there’s nothing to lose at that point; they’re already losing. So the quarterbacks make more bad decisions and throw more interceptions, but this bad playing also leads to inflated yardage stats. Not only is the “yards per game” basis biased in favor of quarterbacks who lose (or at least fall behind) a lot, it also penalizes any and all quarterbacks who lead a run-first offensive philosophy. Big Ben is the poster-child for this effect, throwing fewer than 20 passes per game for most of his short career. (Certainly more than half the games he’s started.) The most extreme case would be Carson Palmer’s playoff debut. An analysis based on his total yards per game would rate him as being the worst in the playoffs, with a paltry 61 yards. The passer rating formula would rate him as the best, though not getting a touchdown prevents him from earning a perfect 158.3. How was is actual performance? Certainly closer to how the passer rating quantifies him, and nowhere near the basement. (Nobody was as bad as Eli, though the two Jakes really gave it the ol’ college try.) Now granted, he only threw one pass, but that’s exactly my point; the only meaningful basis of comparison is on a per-pass basis. Hypothetically: 10 of 12 for 120 yards, 1 TD 0 Int (Won 17-3, never trailing) 22 of 48 for 300 yards, 2 TDs, 0 Int (Lost 42-21, never close) Who did better? > [@](#): > > You keep doing comparisons based on additional pass attmepts but I’m not convinced that additional pass attempts to achieve the same goal is a bad thing. I know you hate the west coast offense, but it’s founded on the premise that many short passes are as good a fewer long ones. That premise has worked on many occasions (to varying degrees of success) and it blurs the line between runs and passes. Those shorter pass attempts are a key reason why a QB would have fewer INTs. As the Championship games showed this week, INTs might be an even bigger factor than TD passes. Being more cautious with the ball and as a result decreasing your yards per attempt averages by design is not necessarily a less effective strategy. A QB throwing more passes to get the same yards isn’t a strike against him so long as completion percentage and INT rate don’t get worse. Well, the blurring of the line between running and passing is only in the mind of fans, play-callers and skill position players. Since a lineman cannot cross the line of scrimmage until the ball does on a pass play, it creates a huge difference in tone in the trenches. You cannot impose your will on the other team by passing, just like you cannot win a war with aerial bombardment. You have to get up close and personal to impose your will on the other team. The offensive line is the group that does this, and they can only do this on running plays. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/248 "2006-01-24T11:48:34Z")
> [@soulmurk](#): > > But there’s a difference between condescension and trash talking. “Jake Plummer is aptly named because he stunk it up like a septic tank” is trash talking; “As you watch more football over the years and come to understand it a bit better, you’ll be able to provide more insightful analyses” is just a patronizing attack on someone whose opinion you disagree with. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/249 "2006-01-24T12:20:41Z")
By the time the ball was thrown to Smith, it was too late. Seattle had already been given a crushing momentum and vigorous up-psych. Even Jordan is useless when he’s the only one on the team who thinks the game isn’t already lost. Like I said, first play — throw to Smith at midfield, covered or no. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/250 "2006-01-24T19:07:21Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > There’s a flaw in this premise, but I doubt I’ll be able to pinpoint it concisely. We both agree (I’m assuming) that a completion percentage artificially inflates the passer rating, yes? Yes, I agree though not without a caveat. Completion percentage is somewhat over emphasized, however it’s more complicated than that. All things being equal it boosts the rating too much, but things are not usually equal. Systems which emphasize QB accuracy and therefore completion percentage also tend to emphasize high percentage passes. Short passes in other words. So while a player with a higher completion percentage might raise his rating, if he does so by reducing his yards per attempt and TDs per attempt it balances out and might reduce it. > [@](#): > > In much the same way, two things (a double whammy) artificially inflate the “total yards per game” comparison: being on a bad team, as losing teams throw it more; and running a more pass-oriented offensive system, as more attempts almost invariably results in more yards. True, but there again there’s another side to that coin. Being on a bad team playing from behind against soft defenses while looking for big plays raises total yards numbers, but it also raises yards per attempt numbers. The quasi-prevent defenses and minmal blitzes benefit total yards and yards per attempt figures equally. To use that argument to dismiss total yards and not yards per attempt numbers is wrong. > [@](#): > > Total yards is a bad measuring stick because it’s a known trend that throwing more equals losing. Mike & Mike do a rundown each week of the 100 yard rushers and 300 yard passers, and with remarkable consistency the former group tends to win while the latter group tends to lose. This is obviously because teams trying to mount a comeback throw the ball almost exclusively. In fact, the quarterbacks tend to try to force the ball in, because there’s nothing to lose at that point; they’re already losing. So the quarterbacks make more bad decisions and throw more interceptions, but this bad playing also leads to inflated yardage stats. Totally correct, however this doesn’t mean that the total yards stat is a useless one. The entire foundation of this debate was in comparing the total yards of Jake Plummer (13 -3) and Ben Roethlisberger (9-4). All stats are meaningless without context, in the context of comparing the passing of two winning QBs total yards are meaningful. In the context of comparing Kurt Warner to a playoff QB it’s much less so. Never once have I clamed that total yard is the end all be all of QB stats. For you to say that Jake Plummer’s total yardage number are meaningless because losing QBs put up better total yards numbers is a straw man. Context is king and no stats are meaningless. > [@](#): > > Not only is the “yards per game” basis biased in favor of quarterbacks who lose (or at least fall behind) a lot, it also penalizes any and all quarterbacks who lead a run-first offensive philosophy. Big Ben is the poster-child for this effect, throwing fewer than 20 passes per game for most of his short career. (Certainly more than half the games he’s started.) Out of context, this is also true. However run-first system QBs get a bias towards longer passes too. It’s a double edged sword. A big reason why Big Ben’s passing effeciency is what it is is because the Steelers run the ball well and run a lot of play action. So by nature a QB in a passing system will have more total yards and shorter passes per attempt and a QB in a running system will have the opposite. > [@](#): > > The most extreme case would be Carson Palmer’s playoff debut. An analysis based on his total yards per game would rate him as being the worst in the playoffs, with a paltry 61 yards. The passer rating formula would rate him as the best, though not getting a touchdown prevents him from earning a perfect 158.3. How was is actual performance? Certainly closer to how the passer rating quantifies him, and nowhere near the basement. (Nobody was as bad as Eli, though the two Jakes really gave it the ol’ college try.) I totally disagree with the scenario you’re making. Palmer’s numbers cannot be looked at in the context of a whole game since he didn’t play a whole game. Palmer played 4:21 in that game and compared to any QBs total yards over 4:21 of a game he’d be one of the best, just as the rating. Comparing Palmer’s total game numbers here is analgous to my mistake of comparing Big Ben’s total season numbers to a QB who started all 16. All stats must be compared to like scenarios. Had he finished the game while only throwing that one pass then you’d have a point, but we all know that’s an impossibility. > [@](#): > > Hypothetically: > > 10 of 12 for 120 yards, 1 TD 0 Int (Won 17-3, never trailing) > 22 of 48 for 300 yards, 2 TDs, 0 Int (Lost 42-21, never close) > > Who did better? No way to say. The former could very well be Kyle Orton in a game where Thomas Jones was unstoppable. The latter could be Peyton Manning against the Steeler defense that gained 3 fumble recoveries. It’s all about context. Total yards, yards per attempt, points scored, final results…none of those numbers tell you anything and they all tell you everything based on context. Fact is those 300 total yards could amount to a herculean effort. The point above all is that no stat it meaningless and no stat supercedes all others except Wins. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/251 "2006-01-24T21:16:11Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > By the time the ball was thrown to Smith, it was too late. Seattle had already been given a crushing momentum and vigorous up-psych. Even Jordan is useless when he’s the only one on the team who thinks the game isn’t already lost. Like I said, first play — throw to Smith at midfield, covered or no. Strongly disagree. ‘Momentum’ and ‘psych-up’ cannot compensate for one player’s being the focus of the entire defense. On the first pass to Smith, there were _five_ Seattle defenders within a few yards, and just the one Panther – Tatupu intercepted the pass. On the day, Carolina threw to Smith 11 times (which is a lot when he’s double-covered, or worse, on every play), and he caught 5 passes for 33 yards. Really, I think Carolina’s problem on offense was the opposite of what you’re contending: Delhomme shows an inability to look _away_ from his primary target and still be effective. He had the same problem last year, when he force fed the ball to Muhsin Muhammed and made him the league’s leading receiver. Other than Smith, the two long completions to Carter, and a few dump-offs out of the backfield, here’s what Delhomme managed with his receivers: Ricky Proehl: 5 passes, 1 catch, 19 yards Kris Mangum: 3 passes, 1 catch, 10 yards Keary Colbert: 3 passes, 0 catches . . . and these players should have had an efficient day with everyone on the defense rotated towards Smith. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/252 "2006-01-24T21:37:03Z")
So I’ve been getting geared up watching the extended pregame banter and so far one over-arching theme is forming. It is basically summed up with these paraphrased quotes: “Can you believe that the Steelers are favored! They are a #6 seed facing a #1 seed!” “Pittsburgh is a 4.5 point favorite in Detroit over the Seahawks, are they that much better than the NFC champ?” Let me offer a counter-point. To call the Steelers a #6 seed is grossly misleading. Remember this is a team that was a tie-breaker away from being the #3 seed. This is also a team that lost 2 close games to conference opponents where the stud starting QB was out and replaced with the awful Tommy Maddox. Supposing he plays they are probably the #2 seed with homefield advantage. Portraying the Steelers as a cinderella is insane. Next, never ever forget that the point spead is a gambling line! The reason the Steelers are favored in this game is because there are tons of Steeler fans all over the country who are rabid and will be wagering heavily on their beloved yellow and balck. Comparatively Seattle has no history and one of the least widespread fan bases in the league. The Steelers are a 4.5 point fave, and will probably be a TD fave before the game begins, because they are going to get all the action in Vegas. Don’t pretend that it means anything more and in this game more than most it doesn’t predict the final margin. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/253 "2006-01-24T22:03:56Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > Strongly disagree. ‘Momentum’ and ‘psych-up’ cannot compensate for one player’s being the focus of the entire defense. On the first pass to Smith, there were _five_ Seattle defenders within a few yards, and just the one Panther – Tatupu intercepted the pass. On the day, Carolina threw to Smith 11 times (which is a lot when he’s double-covered, or worse, on every play), and he caught 5 passes for 33 yards. > > Really, I think Carolina’s problem on offense was the opposite of what you’re contending: Delhomme shows an inability to look _away_ from his primary target and still be effective. He had the same problem last year, when he force fed the ball to Muhsin Muhammed and made him the league’s leading receiver. Other than Smith, the two long completions to Carter, and a few dump-offs out of the backfield, here’s what Delhomme managed with his receivers: > > Ricky Proehl: 5 passes, 1 catch, 19 yards > Kris Mangum: 3 passes, 1 catch, 10 yards > Keary Colbert: 3 passes, 0 catches > > . . . and these players should have had an efficient day with everyone on the defense rotated towards Smith. Your points are well taken, and your argument cogent and compelling. I’ll have to reconsider my position. ---
**Author:** ![soulmurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@soulmurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/soulmurk)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/254 "2006-01-25T01:30:00Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > So I’ve been getting geared up watching the extended pregame banter and so far one over-arching theme is forming. It is basically summed up with these paraphrased quotes: > > “Can you believe that the Steelers are favored! They are a #6 seed facing a #1 seed!” > > “Pittsburgh is a 4.5 point favorite in Detroit over the Seahawks, are they that much better than the NFC champ?” > > Let me offer a counter-point. To call the Steelers a #6 seed is grossly misleading. Remember this is a team that was a tie-breaker away from being the #3 seed. This is also a team that lost 2 close games to conference opponents where the stud starting QB was out and replaced with the awful Tommy Maddox. Supposing he plays they are probably the #2 seed with homefield advantage. Portraying the Steelers as a cinderella is insane. > > Next, never ever forget that the point spead is a gambling line! The reason the Steelers are favored in this game is because there are tons of Steeler fans all over the country who are rabid and will be wagering heavily on their beloved yellow and balck. Comparatively Seattle has no history and one of the least widespread fan bases in the league. The Steelers are a 4.5 point fave, and will probably be a TD fave before the game begins, because they are going to get all the action in Vegas. Don’t pretend that it means anything more and in this game more than most it doesn’t predict the final margin. > > Carry on. Another factor to the Steelers being favorites might also have something to do with the facts that the Steeler fan base travels well, and that they only have to travel about 300 miles. Short of playing at Heinz field, it’s about as close to homefield advantage as a team is likely to get. With Pittsburgh’s recent playoff trends, who knows if it will be an advantage or a disadvantage? ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/255 "2006-01-25T03:42:52Z")
> [@soulmurk](#): > > With Pittsburgh’s recent playoff trends, who knows if it will be an advantage or a disadvantage? The Steelers agree with your concern, as evidenced by the fact that they opted for their away jerseys, despite the AFC being the official home team. ---
**Author:** ![soulmurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@soulmurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/soulmurk)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/256 "2006-01-25T04:03:45Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > The Steelers agree with your concern, as evidenced by the fact that they opted for their away jerseys, despite the AFC being the official home team. There must be some real strong feelings involved if they actually chose to subject millions of viewers to the Seamonkey’s fugly home uniforms. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/257 "2006-01-25T04:15:27Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > To use that argument to dismiss total yards and not yards per attempt numbers is wrong. > […] > …total yards stat is [not] a useless one… > […] > …in the context of comparing the passing of two winning QBs total yards are meaningful. I suppose there could be merit in this specific comparison, even if the generalized case falls apart. I think you’re arguing both the specific Ben vs Jake point as well as the generalized total yards point. I suppose it would cost me nothing to concede the former while continuing to debate the latter, but I truly think that Ben’s passer rating just happens to be one of the most accurate measures of any passer in the league. Ben does not have inflated completion percentages due to throwing a glut of high-percentage passes, he doesn’t throw for many yards because he just doesn’t throw that much, his TD to Int ratio is superb, and none of his four constituent stats get capped in the passer rating formula. He just really is that good. I would consider Ben to be one of the best passers in the league, behind only Brady. I’d certainly take him over Peyton, though as a Giants fan I’m happy with Eli who hasn’t already demonstrated repeated inability to play big in big games. Jake the Snake? Not so much, though it’s unfair to bludgeon you with hindsight. > [@](#): > > Total yards, yards per attempt, points scored, final results…none of those numbers tell you anything and they all tell you everything based on context. Fact is those 300 total yards could amount to a herculean effort. The point above all is that no stat it meaningless and no stat supercedes all others except Wins. Well, no, wins don’t tell you anything at all about a passer, as evidenced on both sides of the spectrum with pre-2005 Michael Vick and the career of Dan Marino. (And now Peyton Manning.) Wins tell you about a team, and also tell you about the leadership of the QB, but nothing about how well the QB performs as a passer. What it boils down to, from my side of this debate, is that a passer who throws 12 of 12 for 150 yards and 2 TDS with 0 Ints has played a _perfect_ game, no ifs ands or buts. Factoring in total yards (a paltry 150) would necessitate judging the passer to have done less than perfect, and such a conclusion is contrary to the spirit of any attempt at quantifying passing performance. That’s why discounting\* the rate stats bugs me. To elevate other factors like total yards per game is applying arbitrary and sometimes irrelevant standards. Rate stats are never irrelevant. Ever. Total yards per game, however, can easily be irrelevant in certain cases. Whenever I see stats that are sometimes meaningful and sometimes not, I dismiss them as arbitrary and inconclusive. I accept that this just may be a character flaw on my part; mayhap I’m wearing blinders. It’s the same motivation I have when I attack the football outsiders claim that fumble recoveries are random. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. Because of that inconsistency, I find any claims based on the premise to be suspect. - Not dismissing, as you aren’t dismissing rate stats. You’re simply arguing that other non-rate stats should be considered as well, which I disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/258 "2006-01-25T04:26:40Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > Really, I think Carolina’s problem on offense was the opposite of what you’re contending: Delhomme shows an inability to look _away_ from his primary target and still be effective. He had the same problem last year, when he force fed the ball to Muhsin Muhammed and made him the league’s leading receiver. I disagree with this. Jake had only Smith this year, so he got all the passes. Last year Jake had only Muhsin Muhammad, so he got all the passes. But two years ago? Jake had both, and went to the Superbowl. Their numbers from 2003? Okay, not great distribution, but still enough to mount a case that Jake can look to multiple options: Steve Smith 88 for 1110 Muhsin Muhammad 54 for 837 Ricky Proehl 27 for 389 Rest of team: 4 for 43 Ugh. I’ll agree that Jake pretty much sucks ass when it comes to reading a complete field. I think he is capable of making two reads in a passing play, but it’s definitely possible to have put up those 2003 numbers without ever looking off your primary option. So really, I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt. Anybody watch a lot of Panthers games? Can Jake progress to a second read? ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/259 "2006-01-25T05:44:54Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > I suppose there could be merit in this specific comparison, even if the generalized case falls apart. I think you’re arguing both the specific Ben vs Jake point as well as the generalized total yards point. I’m not debating either point specifically. Mostly I’m responding you your somewhat emphatic claim that rate stats are the only thing that matter. Jake vs. Ben was a pretty decent case study since they were on similar teams with similar records and two different styles of offense. From the general picture, I’d never argue that 2005 Kurt Warner was a better QB than Big Ben or any of the other QBs with great ratings. Still, just because it doesn’t work in the generalized sense doesn’t make it useless. The same example can be made of 2005 Marc Bulger who had a very good yards per attempt rate, better than Brady, Palmer and everyone but Ben and Peyton. No stat always holds up in the general case. > [@](#): > > Jake the Snake? Not so much, though it’s unfair to bludgeon you with hindsight. Of course it was his INTs that killed him, the one stat that there was no debating. :smack: > [@](#): > > What it boils down to, from my side of this debate, is that a passer who throws 12 of 12 for 150 yards and 2 TDS with 0 Ints has played a _perfect_ game, no ifs ands or buts. Factoring in total yards (a paltry 150) would necessitate judging the passer to have done less than perfect, and such a conclusion is contrary to the spirit of any attempt at quantifying passing performance. Here I see a flaw in the logic. Yes, your hypothetical QB was perfect. But so would a QB who went 18 for 18 and 275 yards and 3 TDs with 0 INTs. Is he “more perfect”? He’s certainly having a better game, but there’s no way to quantify it without including total yards. Every stat is just one component and only paints part of the picture. You need them all to tell the story. > [@](#): > > That’s why discounting\* the rate stats bugs me. To elevate other factors like total yards per game is applying arbitrary and sometimes irrelevant standards. Rate stats are never irrelevant. Ever. Total yards per game, however, can easily be irrelevant in certain cases. I hear what you’re saying but I think it’s a flawed premise. Total yards can be rendered moot under some circumstances. So can rate stats as well. Rate stats are somewhat more bulletproof, but they aren’t _always_ the most descriptive measure. See the Bulger example again. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185/260 "2006-01-25T05:49:13Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > Ugh. I’ll agree that Jake pretty much sucks ass when it comes to reading a complete field. I think he is capable of making two reads in a passing play, but it’s definitely possible to have put up those 2003 numbers without ever looking off your primary option. So really, I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt. It’s possible that he has regressed too. [sub]And I wouldn’t think to mention that Jake had stellar YPA numbers.[/sub] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/march-to-super-bowl-xxxx-predictions-and-trash-talk-galore/338185.md?page=14)