Daunte and Trent and their Negative Plays from 2002-2006 Losses... | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Daunte and Trent and their Negative Plays from 2002-2006 Losses...

D

Disnardo

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
3,829
Reaction score
0
Age
64
Location
Miami
Well to start with I am here stating this is not a perfect science and the data points chosen by me are those that I have only used. Can there a better choice of factors that will show more data points? Sure there can be I just did not want to spend all this time doing it. So these are the data points I picked, do to the fact that getting them from either NFL.com or ESPN, from 2002-2006 was not an issue. I used the “Play by Play†page in the before mentioned web pages, but I was limited to this time frame…

Here are my focal points for this research…

Games lost by teams while the QB played from 2002-2006…

This is what I looked for in this research…

Negative Plays (NP) by the QB… I defined as those that include:

  • A sack that would be at least for a 10 yard loss.
  • Sacks on a Third Down play.
  • Turn –Over (TO) which include INTs, or Fumbles lost).
Costly Negative Plays (CNP)… I defined those where the opponents score (FG or TD) on a TO or on the ensuing drive…
Now, this might not have to do with the direct impact of the QB in its negative play. A few times I saw opponents drive down 60-80 yards to score on the drive after the “negative playâ€Â. I still choused to label it that way though…

Let’s get down to the issue at hand…

Daunte had 33 losses from 2002-2006, during which he totaled 83 NP or 2.5 NG per game… He had 38 CNP (44% of total NP) within that time frame…

Trent had 31 losses from 2002-2006, during which he totaled 75 NP or 2.4 NP per game… He had 26 CNP (35% of total NP) within that time frame…

So can those numbers be askew to show favoritism to one players or another? That is not what I intended, but I figured that people will still say that I skewed them anyways. That is why I did not spend too much time on them…

I did enjoy looking at them up and those that want to spend the time, have fun…
 
Disnardo said:
Well to start with I am here stating this is not a perfect science and the data points chosen by me are those that I have only used. Can there a better choice of factors that will show more data points? Sure there can be I just did not want to spend all this time doing it. So these are the data points I picked, do to the fact that getting them from either NFL.com or ESPN, from 2002-2006 was not an issue. I used the “Play by Play†page in the before mentioned web pages, but I was limited to this time frame…

Here are my focal points for this research…

Games lost by teams while the QB played from 2002-2006…

This is what I looked for in this research…

Negative Plays (NP) by the QB… I defined as those that include:
  • A sack that would be at least for a 10 yard loss.
  • Sacks on a Third Down play.
  • Turn –Over (TO) which include INTs, or Fumbles lost).
Costly Negative Plays (CNP)… I defined those where the opponents score (FG or TD) on a TO or on the ensuing drive…
Now, this might not have to do with the direct impact of the QB in its negative play. A few times I saw opponents drive down 60-80 yards to score on the drive after the “negative playâ€Â. I still choused to label it that way though…

Let’s get down to the issue at hand…

Daunte had 33 losses from 2002-2006, during which he totaled 83 NP or 2.5 NG per game… He had 38 CNP (44% of total NP) within that time frame…

Trent had 31 losses from 2002-2006, during which he totaled 75 NP or 2.4 NP per game… He had 26 CNP (35% of total NP) within that time frame…

So can those numbers be askew to show favoritism to one players or another? That is not what I intended, but I figured that people will still say that I skewed them anyways. That is why I did not spend too much time on them…

I did enjoy looking at them up and those that want to spend the time, have fun…
Click to expand...

Nice post.
 
When Daunte's good he's very good though so I'll take his slightly more negative plays to go with his explosiveness.
 
ralexand said:
When Daunte's good he's very good though so I'll take his slightly more negative plays to go with his explosiveness.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was so much trying to take anything away from Culpepper as much as he was trying to show that Trent Green makes quite a few negative plays himself.
 
ralexand said:
When Daunte's good he's very good though so I'll take his slightly more negative plays to go with his explosiveness.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think the good can far outweigh the bad. And it can really do that if he has a good defense to help him out.
 
Yeah but you take away Daunte ability to scramble out of the pocket he isnt very good.

Its fact he isn't a pocket passer
 
Majpain said:
Yeah but you take away Daunte ability to scramble out of the pocket he isnt very good.

Its fact he isn't a pocket passer
Click to expand...

Fact? Give me a break.. he has the NFL record for pass completion percentage in a year
 
Disnardo said:
Well to start with I am here stating this is not a perfect science and the data points chosen by me are those that I have only used. Can there a better choice of factors that will show more data points? Sure there can be I just did not want to spend all this time doing it. So these are the data points I picked, do to the fact that getting them from either NFL.com or ESPN, from 2002-2006 was not an issue. I used the “Play by Play†page in the before mentioned web pages, but I was limited to this time frame…

Here are my focal points for this research…

Games lost by teams while the QB played from 2002-2006…

This is what I looked for in this research…

Negative Plays (NP) by the QB… I defined as those that include:
  • A sack that would be at least for a 10 yard loss.
  • Sacks on a Third Down play.
  • Turn –Over (TO) which include INTs, or Fumbles lost).
Costly Negative Plays (CNP)… I defined those where the opponents score (FG or TD) on a TO or on the ensuing drive…
Now, this might not have to do with the direct impact of the QB in its negative play. A few times I saw opponents drive down 60-80 yards to score on the drive after the “negative playâ€Â. I still choused to label it that way though…

Let’s get down to the issue at hand…

Daunte had 33 losses from 2002-2006, during which he totaled 83 NP or 2.5 NG per game… He had 38 CNP (44% of total NP) within that time frame…

Trent had 31 losses from 2002-2006, during which he totaled 75 NP or 2.4 NP per game… He had 26 CNP (35% of total NP) within that time frame…

So can those numbers be askew to show favoritism to one players or another? That is not what I intended, but I figured that people will still say that I skewed them anyways. That is why I did not spend too much time on them…

I did enjoy looking at them up and those that want to spend the time, have fun…
Click to expand...

Im tempted to raise the BS flag here. For one I have done similar research and Daunte is the king of negative plays. I also have problems with your standards.....the are too HIGH.

Since when is any QB fumble not a negative play???? Unless its on a scramble that resulted in a first down or something and the offense DID NOT lose possesion a QB fumble is very costly even if recovered by the offense. It sets your team up in positions where mistakes, turnovers, and punts occour.

Why also do you require a sack to be a 10 yard loss to be a negative play??? Im guessing so you can skew these numbers just enough to pretend this is a close competition. A sack of just 4 yards on 2nd and 4 then puts your team in a 3rd and long. These are not favorable situations for the offense. They are drive killers.

Mistakes by the QB in general are drive killers along with false starts and holding penalties. They take your team out of favorable down and distances and place them in circumstances that produce more negative plays.

Also you need to reconsider your CNP. This one is complex. A turnover that results in a direct score for the opponent is easy to throw in here. When considering if the other team scores off of the turnover through their offense is tricky though. I would consider ones that happen deep inside your own territory that allows for a very short drive by the opposition or turnovers deep in the opponents territory that prevents your own team from scoring obvious points(short FG or possible TD.)

Finally where did you come up with this per game avg? Didnt Daunte play less games than Trent in these seasons? Im really not sure. What I am sure of though is Daunte is the king of the negative play.
 
WVdolphan said:
Im tempted to raise the BS flag here. For one I have done similar research and Daunte is the king of negative plays. I also have problems with your standards.....the are too HIGH.

Since when is any QB fumble not a negative play???? Unless its on a scramble that resulted in a first down or something and the offense DID NOT lose possesion a QB fumble is very costly even if recovered by the offense. It sets your team up in positions where mistakes, turnovers, and punts occour.

Why also do you require a sack to be a 10 yard loss to be a negative play??? Im guessing so you can skew these numbers just enough to pretend this is a close competition. A sack of just 4 yards on 2nd and 4 then puts your team in a 3rd and long. These are not favorable situations for the offense. They are drive killers.

Mistakes by the QB in general are drive killers along with false starts and holding penalties. They take your team out of favorable down and distances and place them in circumstances that produce more negative plays.

Also you need to reconsider your CNP. This one is complex. A turnover that results in a direct score for the opponent is easy to throw in here. When considering if the other team scores off of the turnover through their offense is tricky though. I would consider ones that happen deep inside your own territory that allows for a very short drive by the opposition or turnovers deep in the opponents territory that prevents your own team from scoring obvious points(short FG or possible TD.)

Finally where did you come up with this per game avg? Didnt Daunte play less games than Trent in these seasons? Im really not sure. What I am sure of though is Daunte is the king of the negative play.
Click to expand...

What's the matter? Facts don't fit your view of reality? How about considering that Culpepper played behind a worse OL and had less support from the running game?
 
WVdolphan said:
Im tempted to raise the BS flag here. For one I have done similar research and Daunte is the king of negative plays. I also have problems with your standards.....the are too HIGH.

Since when is any QB fumble not a negative play???? Unless its on a scramble that resulted in a first down or something and the offense DID NOT lose possesion a QB fumble is very costly even if recovered by the offense. It sets your team up in positions where mistakes, turnovers, and punts occour.

Why also do you require a sack to be a 10 yard loss to be a negative play??? Im guessing so you can skew these numbers just enough to pretend this is a close competition. A sack of just 4 yards on 2nd and 4 then puts your team in a 3rd and long. These are not favorable situations for the offense. They are drive killers.

Mistakes by the QB in general are drive killers along with false starts and holding penalties. They take your team out of favorable down and distances and place them in circumstances that produce more negative plays.

Also you need to reconsider your CNP. This one is complex. A turnover that results in a direct score for the opponent is easy to throw in here. When considering if the other team scores off of the turnover through their offense is tricky though. I would consider ones that happen deep inside your own territory that allows for a very short drive by the opposition or turnovers deep in the opponents territory that prevents your own team from scoring obvious points(short FG or possible TD.)

Finally where did you come up with this per game avg? Didnt Daunte play less games than Trent in these seasons? Im really not sure. What I am sure of though is Daunte is the king of the negative play.
Click to expand...

I agree with a couple of points here.
As for the per game avg, that should be based on total games played, not just on losses. A bad QB on an 8-8 team may very well have just as many negative plays in a win as he does in a loss(lets say 2.5 per game)...the rest of the team just played better in the wins. Another QB may be very good but his team sucks. This QB may have around 1.5 negative plays per game in his wins(lets say 11) and around 3 NP per game in his 5 losses, in which his team wasnt good enough to make up for his mistakes.
Now, if the avg is based on losses then the bad QB wins with a 2.5 over the good QBs 3.0.
If its based on total games then the "good" QB comes out at 1.9, the "bad" one at 2.5.

I can see where the poster was going with the 10yd requirement on sacks, but I also disagree with the validity of that criteria. I think the poster is trying to say that a sack of 10 or more yards is usually the QBs fault, shorter sacks usually can be blamed on blocking. I think its far more complex. To blame the QB I think you have to only include sacks in which the QB had sufficient time to throw the ball...either to a receiver, or out of bounds, regardless of the distance of the sack. If the passblocking sucks and the QB is running for his life from the beginning of the play and finally gets creamed 11yds back...well thats not his fault. He could have taken a shorter sack but then he would be faulted for not at least trying to get away. By the same token...a QB that holds on to the ball for 6 or 7 seconds just a few yards behind the line of scrimmage while the defense sheds blocks and eventually makes the sack...well that one is totally on the QB.

A fumble that results in a loss of yardage should be considered a negative play, regardless of who recovers, as long as the fumble cannot be directly attributed to someone else (Center not making a clean delivery, RB never gaining possession of a handoff, etc.)

my 2 cents anyway
 
Pep also sat out MANY more games than Trent Green--where he was bound to make bad plays.
Trent Green is old--and is not the answer.
C Pep is horrible--and I would compare him to a turd swirling down the bowl.
Cleo Lemon--who in the heck is that?!?!
Gilbran Hamdan--please see above comment!

Last but not least John Beck--rookie, will make many mistakes, but most likely could do the the same job as the other QB scrubs on the team. GIVE HIM THE BALL!
 
WVdolphan said:
Im tempted to raise the BS flag here. For one I have done similar research and Daunte is the king of negative plays. I also have problems with your standards.....the are too HIGH.

Since when is any QB fumble not a negative play???? Unless its on a scramble that resulted in a first down or something and the offense DID NOT lose possesion a QB fumble is very costly even if recovered by the offense. It sets your team up in positions where mistakes, turnovers, and punts occour.

Why also do you require a sack to be a 10 yard loss to be a negative play??? Im guessing so you can skew these numbers just enough to pretend this is a close competition. A sack of just 4 yards on 2nd and 4 then puts your team in a 3rd and long. These are not favorable situations for the offense. They are drive killers.

Mistakes by the QB in general are drive killers along with false starts and holding penalties. They take your team out of favorable down and distances and place them in circumstances that produce more negative plays.

Also you need to reconsider your CNP. This one is complex. A turnover that results in a direct score for the opponent is easy to throw in here. When considering if the other team scores off of the turnover through their offense is tricky though. I would consider ones that happen deep inside your own territory that allows for a very short drive by the opposition or turnovers deep in the opponents territory that prevents your own team from scoring obvious points(short FG or possible TD.)

Finally where did you come up with this per game avg? Didnt Daunte play less games than Trent in these seasons? Im really not sure. What I am sure of though is Daunte is the king of the negative play.
Click to expand...

The King of the Negative Play Jay Fiedler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom