Brian Callahan going OFF on the offense

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-18-2023, 06:28 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Where someone falls in the rankings doesn't mean what they achieved is automatically good or bad.

For example, if you get a 60% on a test but 90% of the class did worse than you, does that mean you did well? No.
Or if you got a 93% on a test but over half the class did better than that, does that mean you did bad? No.

You measure on a static metric, not relative. At least I don't. 65% is good enough in my book. Always will be.

What matters more in this case is what you're also mentioning though - YPA.
Being 65% but only 4 YPA is different if 65% and 7 YPA.
The 65-7 is clearly better.
But what I was responding to was "bad accuracy." If that person thinks 65% is bad, that's on them. But I don't think that's bad.

Yes, it actually really does. Because you're in a class of 32 students competing over who is the best and you're better than 90% of them, you are not competing against an arbitrary pass/fail mark, so you're doing quite well. Some tests are easier than others, but it doesn't matter because if you're the best you're the best, and if you're the worst, you're the worst regardless if you're score is a 5% or a 95%.

Ken Anderson led the NFL in Cmp% in 1974 with 64.9% and the league average was 54.5%.
Derek Carr is 19th in the NFL in Cmp% in 2023 with 65.0% and the league average is 65.1%.

One guy was the best in the league and far above average, the other is below average.

Basing things off static metrics with no care for the times or the norm of the day is insanity that will lead to just horrible conclusions, man. It literally will not "always be" good. 65.0% completion is below league average in 2023, and it was below league average in 2020 too.