Quinn & Russell vs. Top Defenses

[kpcane]

When is Quinn "garbage" with the game on the line?

you're right, that's not what I meant to say...I meant to say he's garbage in big games. he did step up with the game on the line against those pac-10 teams over the past 2 years (ucla, stanford, usc) that are known for their great defenses :rolleyes2

 

[kpcane]

I'm no statistician (unless you count 2 classes of upper division biostatistics that I took for pre-med requirements), but as far as the baseless arguments made by people who claim that Russell has played far greater competition than Quinn who they claim played against all easy teams, these stats yield a bit more credence. But at best it's like comparing 0.1 over 0. Not much but still something.

It's pretty much impossible to compare the two statistically considering the lack of commonality and almost non-existant sample size. But again, compared to the "Quinn had too easy of a competition/sucks against non-easy opponents" arguments, it carries a bit more weight.

ucla requires their pre-meds to take statistics (and two of them)? weird....

 

[Regan21286]

ucla requires their pre-meds to take statistics (and two of them)? weird....

For most medical schools, just one class of statistics is highly recommended (which in a sense because of the competition, implies required). For UCLA medical school and others, one quarter of statistics is mandatory. Another statistics class can be substituted for one of calculus. Which is what I did because I don't really like math (though I had been in bioengineering for 1st year and had to continue the math for engineers course line).

 

[kpcane]

For most medical schools, just one class of statistics is highly recommended (which in a sense because of the competition, implies required). For UCLA medical school and others, one quarter of statistics is mandatory. Another statistics class can be substituted for one of calculus. Which is what I did because I don't really like math (though I had been in bioengineering for 1st year and had to continue the math for engineers course line).

I totally would have substituted one statistics class for one calculus class

 

[phinphanforever]

I can't blame some people though. It's a lot to read, and if you don't particularly care about the subject then you might just not want to put in that much work to do a careful reading of something like that.

I care about the subject. I read carefully; your logic is flawed. It's not personal, and I do appreciate your effort, nonetheless, your argument does not have statistical merit, and that is fact.
I can accept that there are some who have a different opinion of Quinn, however, to suggest that those opinions can be bolstered or supported by the statistics you have provided is wrong.

 

[BlueFin]

I care about the subject. I read carefully; your logic is flawed. It's not personal, and I do appreciate your effort, nonetheless, your argument does not have statistical merit, and that is fact.
I can accept that there are some who have a different opinion of Quinn, however, to suggest that those opinions can be bolstered or supported by the statistics you have provided is wrong.

And nor does yours, like this psychobabble you tried to pass off as the work of scouts:

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?p=1061968785#post1061968785

 

[phinphanforever]

And nor does yours, like this psychobabble you tried to pass off as the work of scouts:

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?p=1061968785#post1061968785

It was never presented as statistical evidence, which is quite different from the other 'argument'. It also stated what some scouts are saying, which is true.
I do apologise if you find that difficult to comprehend, but I am simply using and gathering knowledge through a scientific epistemology. The psychobabble reference that you used is a more apt description of the other argument, although I myself wouldn't use that term.

 

[Da 'Fins]

Well then couldn't the arguement go for a guy like Colt Brennan from Hawai'i too? He had some DAMN impressive stats, but can you name one player on his offense besides him? However, that's not to say he is an NFL QB.

I guess when it comes down to it the only thing that matter is game footage of the actual player, not results in the win/loss categorey or even so much the actual stats. Look at Jay Cutler, everyone raved about him and he never "won" in college, but that was OK because he wasn't EXPECTED to win at a program like Vandy, so people focused on his play and not his performance against big opponents or his win/loss record. I think Quinn is getting screwed because ND is an elite program and they are EXPECTED to perform highly, so when they don't it tarnishes the image of eve great players who don't deserve it.

Agreed. I think you are dead on with these points. Well said.

 

[Da 'Fins]

I was curious because of your mention of Econometrics. I've got a B.A. in Economics from Georgetown and work as an Equity Research Analyst at Raymond James Financial for a 10-man team that manages $5.5 billion of institutional and high net worth assets in small and mid cap stocks.

I have a strong enough background in statistics, especially in my job, to pretty much disregard your criticisms as insignificant. The criticisms you mounted can be said literally about every conclusion or observation ever made about any two players in comparison with each other, because the conditions will never be exactly the same.

Yes, the criticisms can be said about every conclusion - based on the unsubstantial evidence you supplied in the post - about any two players in comparison.

But, again, you've made two critical logical fallacies here:

One, you're stating you are right because of confidence in your training - which says nothing about whether you drew statistically valid conclusions or even had enough data in this instance - again, based on the kind of analysis you did - to arrive at that conclusion.

Two, you putting up a straw man and it's obvious. You're trying to say that I'm arguing for conditions to be, in your own words here, "exactly the same." Nope. Never said that, never argued that, never would argue that.

There are light years of difference between two games against uncommon opponents and what I would look for as a legit comparison.

What I am arguing is that the only way to legitimately compare the two, given their uncomparable schedules, is to do some good film work. Now, that won't get you to perfection and you would have to incorporate some of the variables you have as well as others.

Further, as I noted elswhere, your analysis may be legitimate - in the sense that the data on Russell versus elite defenses, and Quinn versus elite defenses, may acurately reflect the quality of the player. But, it certainly may not and the data is simply insufficient - in this instance. That does not argue that the data need be perfectly identical.

I would prefer Quinn for a compilation of reasons - but, I also realize that this opinion, like 99.9% of the opinions on this group - is a product of insufficent data.

 

[BlueFin]

Yes, the criticisms can be said about every conclusion - based on the unsubstantial evidence you supplied in the post - about any two players in comparison.

But, again, you've made two critical logical fallacies here:

One, you're stating you are right because of confidence in your training - which says nothing about whether you drew statistically valid conclusions or even had enough data in this instance - again, based on the kind of analysis you did - to arrive at that conclusion.

Two, you putting up a straw man and it's obvious. You're trying to say that I'm arguing for conditions to be, in your own words here, "exactly the same." Nope. Never said that, never argued that, never would argue that.

There are light years of difference between two games against uncommon opponents and what I would look for as a legit comparison.

What I am arguing is that the only way to legitimately compare the two, given their uncomparable schedules, is to do some good film work. Now, that won't get you to perfection and you would have to incorporate some of the variables you have as well as others.

Further, as I noted elswhere, your analysis may be legitimate - in the sense that the data on Russell versus elite defenses, and Quinn versus elite defenses, may acurately reflect the quality of the player. But, it certainly may not and the data is simply insufficient - in this instance. That does not argue that the data need be perfectly identical.

I would prefer Quinn for a compilation of reasons - but, I also realize that this opinion, like 99.9% of the opinions on this group - is a product of insufficent data.

You know what?

Can't we just accept that this is all an inexact science, and appreciate CK taking the time to do a breakdown, to give us all something to chew on in these long days, waiting for the draft to occur?

If you have something you can back up with your own analysis to add to the discussion......fine, but some of this seems rather petty to me.

In the end, whether a college player succeeds or not in the pros is never guaranteed by his college numbers, we all know that, In my view CK is simply giving us all something more to talk about regarding our passion we call the Miami Dolphins, and we really don't need pseudo-intellects to attack his post with words like "flawed logic" or "lacking statistical merit" to know that the NFL draft is a crapshoot.

 

[Killer B's]

You know what?

Can't we just accept that this is all an inexact science, and appreciate CK taking the time to do a breakdown, to give us all something to chew on in these long days, waiting for the draft to occur?

If you have something you can back up with your own analysis to add to the discussion......fine, but some of this seems rather petty to me.

In the end, whether a college player succeeds or not in the pros is never guaranteed by his college numbers, we all know that, In my view CK is simply giving us all something more to talk about regarding our passion we call the Miami Dolphins, and we really don't need pseudo-intellects to attack his post with words like "flawed logic" or "lacking statistical merit" to know that the NFL draft is a crapshoot.

Amen Brother. Couldn't have said it better.

Thanks CK, always enjoy your posts!!! I was glad not to see another "What do you think of my first mock draft ever?" thread.

The draft can not come soon enough.

 

[Phinfan31]

Man are all the threads in VIP like the one started here by Parrot!? After being a dedicated finheaven member for years now I better make the upgrade...great job parrot.

 

[ckparrothead]

Man are all the threads in VIP like the one started here by Parrot!? After being a dedicated finheaven member for years now I better make the upgrade...great job parrot.

With all honesty I can say that yes, you see threads like these multiple times a week in VIP...sometimes multiple times a day.

 

[Phanatical]

Nice read CK, unfortunately, there is no way that college performance is a perfect predictor of NFL success, if there was, then drafting pro-bowlers would be easy as apple pie.

While your "proof" has some logical merit, I have to say, deep down in my gut, if I had to choose between Russell or Quinn, I would take Russell in a heartbeat.

GO PHINS~!

 

[Springveldt]

You know what?
Can't we just accept that this is all an inexact science, and appreciate CK taking the time to do a breakdown, to give us all something to chew on in these long days, waiting for the draft to occur?
If you have something you can back up with your own analysis to add to the discussion......fine, but some of this seems rather petty to me.

Don't want to speak for Da'Fins but I'm pretty sure he did acknowledge the fine effort that CKParrotHead put into the initial post.
Da'Fins is just trying to make people think as well, by pointing out you shouldn't take these figures as Gospel and declare Quinn better than Russell.
I've not done statistics in about 10 years (what little I did do) so I've found the debate interesting, and I'm still not sure who has the biggest statistical tadger. :D

In the end, whether a college player succeeds or not in the pros is never guaranteed by his college numbers, we all know that, In my view CK is simply giving us all something more to talk about regarding our passion we call the Miami Dolphins, and we really don't need pseudo-intellects to attack his post with words like "flawed logic" or "lacking statistical merit" to know that the NFL draft is a crapshoot.

MrClean posted a cracking post the other day in VIP about the bust rate of QB's taken early in the last few drafts could be linked to their success in college. It seemed that most of the busts had fewer starts and completed less than 55% of their passes. Was a really good post.