Good Andy/Bad Andy

[Shake n Blake]

(10-05-2017, 03:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: :) You can't ask people to stop and then ask follow-ups. 

Nah, all is good, I didn't take it as offense. To answer your question. I have no issue with your result in the way of "I don't like it". I honestly don't feel either way about Andy (to be more precise: My feelings about Andy go back and forth all the time). I gave my rationale for doubting that the QB rating is the ultimate measurement to debunk a Bad Andy myth. But I agree that it is the best measurement there is available; I would think it can be possible to find better ones (a better formula, but none is common), but I do not think there is any "perfect way" to express QB performance in numbers. And that there actually can't be.

In other words, it simply can't be measured with perfect accuracy, there's a theoretical limit to put QB performance in a number that tells the whole story. Any number would always neglect certain aspects. To show what I mean: Take Tony Romo. His QB ratings usually were fine (as were his fantasy stats), but yet one has the impression that he often found ways to lose games in the end because of one costly mistake that doesn't do much with the numbers, but means the world in winning or losing a game. Or take Sam Bradford, who absolute torched the Saints behind an ok line, but looked like crap behind bad lines. Some interceptions are more costly then others, some are the result of a bad reciever corps, some can be partly blamed on the Oline rushing passes, some can be blamed on a lack of a running game threat. Same goes for missed throws or the lack of throwing TDs. And so on.

So again, a QB rating is a good indicator in general, I do not doubt that. I just think you took it a notch too far with your conclusion, not because your numbers are wrong, but because numbers are a limited tool in evaluating the performance of a football player. When I see a good QB rating, I always associate it with "good QB in a good offense", as I said, and the second part of the sentence is as essential as the first one. 

And to conclude it: Andy is a good QB as many others - but never have I seen a good QB have such a bad game like Andy had in Cleveland in '14. There were other undoubtedly bad games as well, no number could persuade me that I just got that all wrong. The bad Andy "myth" stems from things I witnessed on the screen without knowing his rating. Personal assessment can never be completely made irrelevant by any number one might come up with. I hope I made myself clear and could show that I didn't mean any disrespect. I consider your thread a very interesting one.

Good post. I agree with much of what you say, but passer rating is the best measurement we have available, and I do think think it balances out. What I mean by that is if a QB has a career passer rating near 90...he's probably had a good career and it's safe to say he's a good QB. 

Or if Dalton has fewer bad ratings than Joe Flacco over the course of 7-10 seasons, it's probably not a fluke or something you can chalk up to as Dalton padding his stats late in bad games. That's honestly something all QB's do, and Dalton has had fewer chances to do it seeing how he's been on a winning team.

You bring up Tony Romo, and he's another guy who I felt didn't deserve all the criticism aimed at him. Lo and behold, he happened to play for the only other owner that refused to hire a GM and had a heavy hand in shaping the roster. But anyway, I feel the Cowboys never had a great team around Romo, and he always got a disproportionate amount of blame for their shortcomings. They rarely had a good defense and Jason Garrett is about as mediocre as it gets as a HC.