Originally posted by niner4life21:Last season it was 86 v 81.5, favor of Orton. However, that is not the point.Originally posted by dj43:Originally posted by niner4life21:Now you go moving the goalposts. When conditions change substantially, the comparison basis is no longer appropriate.Originally posted by dj43:Originally posted by niner4life21:I too don't like handpicked stats but one of the rules I have for analysis is to limit the number of variables whenever possible.Originally posted by dj43:Originally posted by niner4life21:Originally posted by dj43:Originally posted by bigmike55:
Orton is better than Alex Smith so I wouldn't mind.
Since Smith is no longer going to be a part of the team, that comment is irrelevant. Considering the team also needs a pass rusher, a CB, FS and a WR, how much are you willing to give for Orton?
It is relevant b/c some people still want Alex back. Theres still a small chance it could happen, too.I'd give a 3rd and a 5th.
Well, I happen to be one of them because he is better than any of the FAs that would come here. However, I see no chance he returns.
The problem is his leaving forces a trade for a guy that is not as good as Smith.
Here is what we are looking at over the past 8 games:
Over the past 8 games that he played, Orton's rating is 79 of which his team won ONE GAME and he had the league leading receiver to throw to.
Palmer is 83 with two wins.
McNabb is 70 with two wins.
Over two seasons, Kolb is 83 with four wins with a playoff team.
Smith over his past 8 games is 91 and his team won three games. That is better by any analysis than the other four names commonly being bandied about.
So yes, I would much rather have Alex Smith come back than be forced to spend more money and/or draft picks for ANY of those guys. Wouldn't you?
Lolcats. Can we stop with all handpicking stats bulls**t?
I don't want McNabb or Palmer. I want Orton. Go look at the past 2 seasons for Orton and Alex. Then compare the two. There is your answer.
In this case, the limit I chose was the games where Smith had Johnson as OC, 8 games. So I chose a like number for Orton in which he also had the same OC. Does that seem so unreasonable?
Yes. B/c I don't want to judge Alex as a QB by the last 8 games. I'm not going to compare him to other QBs based off that sample of play. Thats ridiculous. Look at past 8 season. Or you can look at how tough the teams were for these other QBs. I can guarantee Alex had the much easier schedule.
However, to your question of who played the most difficult schedule, it isn't all that far apart. In the 8 game time frame I chose in which there is a similar basis, Denver played:
AZ
KC x2
StL
SD
SF
Oak
Jets
You're correct sir. The schedule the past 8 games is not all that different. Still, as any logical person would say, 8 games is not enough to judge which QB is better. I'm sure you know that. Go look at the first 8 games this year for Ryan Fitzpatrick. I'm sure he had a rating of 90 or something.
Point is, you can twist the stats as much as you want and cut them off at certain points to benefit your argument, but you CANNOT compare two QBs off of 8 games.
Anyways, why don't you want to compare last season? Didn't Smith supposedly have his best season last year?
As I stated already, in any analysis you first of all have to limit as many variables as possible. So while it is desirable to have a sufficiently large sample, the size of the sample cannot overweigh other critical variables. In this case, I chose the cutoff of when the former OC (who was so bad he was fired) left and when the new OC came on board.
So when we actually look at the evidence of what we all know about the impact of an OC, we could say Smith might have had even better numbers last year had Mike Johnson been the OC instead of Jimmy Raye.
