Quinn & Russell vs. Top Defenses | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Quinn & Russell vs. Top Defenses

Da 'Fins said:
...

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade.

...
Click to expand...

So, if I'm to understand the crux of your criticism, through all of those paragraphs, they are the following:

1. Points allowed per game are not created equally

2. Just because a good defense played well on one day, doesn't mean they played well every time

Ok. I've understood your points, and I consider them to be insignificant inasmuch as the points you've made can be used to discard pretty much any statistical analysis done comparing any two players' records against any defense.

In other words, I think you're making a lot more of this criticism than you really should. They in no way "invalidate" the study.
 
5-star thread.

Big time players produce in big time games.
 
Da 'Fins said:
Sorry to rain on everyone's parade.

I certainly appreciate CK's work in general and sometimes agree and disagree. Furthermore, I am in agreement that Brady Quinn is a better QB prospect than Jamarcus Russell (at least at this point). I've loved Quinn as a QB for two years.

However, I don't think this analysis was "objective." Not that CK himself was not trying to be objective, but this was not an "apples" to "apples" comparison. If all teams played the same schedule - one might be able to be more objective with respect to statistics. However, the problem is that these teams were all different and played in different conferences, with vastly different schedules. These stats really don't tell us much as they are far too limited (3 games). One could point to Troy Smith - look at what he did against mutual opponents that Quinn faced versus what he did against Florida. "Well, that's one game." Exactly. But, the "elite defenses" are only 3 games and they are all against different teams and at different stages in the season.

Even if these stats were accumulated against the same elite teams (Say, Auburn, FL and USC) the information would still not be valid as a statistical comparison. For example, Auburn's defense had one of the finest days as any defense in the NCAA's in the LSU game. It was a classic SEC war. However, Auburn's defense, while generally stellar most of the season, had games where they did not play nearly as well. If one did a full-blown statistical regression of how the Auburn defense faired against other SEC QB's, then how those QB's faired against other SEC defenses versus how Russell faired against those defenses, you'll find that Auburn's defense rose to the occasion more effectively against LSU than it did against other opponents - from a statistical viewpoint.

My main point is, that CK's statistical comparison is essentially flawed and as such it cannot yield any valid conclusions. Ultimately, a true statistician would have to argue that this evidence anecdotal. The conclusions may or may not be valid but there's no way to draw any objective data from this limited analysis.

Russell may ultimately be a better player than Quinn. But, there are question-marks with respect to his decision making abilities and how he reads defensive coverages - based on film study. These "question-marks" are more pronounced in Russell than they are in Quinn, imo. It is that evidence that makes Quinn, for my money, the safer bet as to who would be a better NFL QB.

Addendum (Not in the VIP forum post): I also think it's a flaw to say that Quinn did not play against good competition or that he should be denigrated because of the competition he played against.
Click to expand...

Number one, while the data may be too limited, I believe the point was that there is nothing to draw from a negative standpoint in regards to Brady Quinn in big games.

His detractors have used this as their trumpet call, and the data simply doesn't back it up, even if it is limited.

I really haven't heard people denigrate him for not facing good competition, its been more Notre Dame, as a team, and its poor showing in some big games last year on the scoreboard, that people seem to want to use to denigrate him as a player.

CK's post, I believe, at least points out that there is nothing really there to back that up.
 
Also compare ND's OL/WR & RB's to what LSU had.
LSU had alot better talent.
 
also compare what LSU's defense did in those big games to what notre dame's defense did. that'll be fun. :lol:
 
Thanx for the hard work CK. Good job. I too am really tired of all the "Quinn chokes in the big games crap." As I have said over and over again, the same thing was said about Peyton Manning against FLorida when he came out. It just gets so rediculous.
 
Awesome writeup CK. It's right on the money. Still, it won't get through the brains of a few people but oh well.
 
Regan21286 said:
Awesome writeup CK. It's right on the money. Still, it won't get through the brains of a few people but oh well.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ckparrothead said:
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.
Click to expand...

True, though I guess you could always put up a Cliff's Notes version before the meat of the entry. :lol:
 
Great thread CK. honestly more and more this offseason has played out i think everything points to us taking quinn, even if we have to trade up.
 
ckparrothead said:
So, if I'm to understand the crux of your criticism, through all of those paragraphs, they are the following:

1. Points allowed per game are not created equally

2. Just because a good defense played well on one day, doesn't mean they played well every time

Ok. I've understood your points, and I consider them to be insignificant inasmuch as the points you've made can be used to discard pretty much any statistical analysis done comparing any two players' records against any defense.

In other words, I think you're making a lot more of this criticism than you really should. They in no way "invalidate" the study.
Click to expand...


No, I don't think you've understood the crux of the criticism unless you factor in all the points. However, the fact that you consider them insignificant is a non-argument. It it is a rhetorical dismissal, but not an argument, that they could be used to discard any statistical evidence. This is simply not the case.

The fact is, the two points you note do invalidate the study. If you can't see that, I think you are being emotionally defensive of your own post. To stretch the logic - if Brady were playing against Division II, points/game would be meaningless - we understand that clearly. But, then you have conferences that are stronger in some years than others. However, even if 1 is granted as a non-factor, #2 is a factor because of the significantly small # of games you are factoring in. If you had 10 games against 10 common opponents, that would be a better factor. Or, if you had the last two years, even better.

Ultimately, no legitimate statistician in the world would take anything significant from your analysis. I'd have been laughed out of class if I had presented something like that in my old Econometrics classes.

These are equivalent to the arguments that people make about some natural ingredient that will prevent or help cure cancer. There is anecdotal evidence but it does not rise to validity b/c of the lack of consistent statistical data over a large number of people.

And, you also failed to factor in the distinctions between how Auburn played against LSU versus other quarterbacks. Florida and Auburn both had great defenses, playing at home, who rose to the occasion in highly emotional games.

It's a nice try, but your info makes no argument from a statistical viewpoint. 3 games against uncommon opponents with defenses difficult to compare across conferences do not make a valid argument.

It's purely anecdotal. It's interesting. It may or may not say something. But, ultimately not something one can give much credence to.

Film study of each player in these and other games and the game situation play is what will really tell the true story. Statistical evidence can give us robust data - much closer to a good statistic.
 
Da 'Fins said:
No, I don't think you've understood the crux of the criticism unless you factor in all the points. However, the fact that you consider them insignificant is a non-argument. It it is a rhetorical dismissal, but not an argument, that they could be used to discard any statistical evidence. This is simply not the case.

The fact is, the two points you note do invalidate the study. If you can't see that, I think you are being emotionally defensive of your own post. To stretch the logic - if Brady were playing against Division II, points/game would be meaningless - we understand that clearly. But, then you have conferences that are stronger in some years than others. However, even if 1 is granted as a non-factor, #2 is a factor because of the significantly small # of games you are factoring in. If you had 10 games against 10 common opponents, that would be a better factor. Or, if you had the last two years, even better.

Ultimately, no legitimate statistician in the world would take anything significant from your analysis. I'd have been laughed out of class if I had presented something like that in my old Econometrics classes.

These are equivalent to the arguments that people make about some natural ingredient that will prevent or help cure cancer. There is anecdotal evidence but it does not rise to validity b/c of the lack of consistent statistical data over a large number of people.

And, you also failed to factor in the distinctions between how Auburn played against LSU versus other quarterbacks. Florida and Auburn both had great defenses, playing at home, who rose to the occasion in highly emotional games.

It's a nice try, but your info makes no argument from a statistical viewpoint. 3 games against uncommon opponents with defenses difficult to compare across conferences do not make a valid argument.

It's purely anecdotal. It's interesting. It may or may not say something. But, ultimately not something one can give much credence to.

Film study of each player in these and other games and the game situation play is what will really tell the true story. Statistical evidence can give us robust data - much closer to a good statistic.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious, but what is your background, and what do you know of my background?
 
Agent51 said:
Really? So basically Quinn's heroic USC comeback, with a crappy team surrounding him, wasn't impressive but Russell's Sugar Bowl performance against a HORRID Notre Dame defense with a GOOD team surrounding him was impressive? :rolleyes2
Click to expand...
Enough with the revisionist history already. Earth to Agent 51: There was no comeback. Notre Dame lost the game!
Even if Notre Dame and Quinn put some numbers on the board late in the game, do you really believe USC was playing a stout defense? I mean seriously, USC at that point could have cared less that ND scored, as long as time ran out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom