QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Sir, I'm going to need a stat to prove the bolded otherwise I call BS.

Read the article he provided which talks about "luck" lol yeah no data about that hahahaha.

The chart below shows wins added by various categories of "luck" in Weeks 1-9 of the 2022 season. These values are measured by calculating the win probability of the observed outcome and subtracting the expected win probability based on the likelihood of each luck outcome

So you're saying there IS a stat that measures luck? Interesting.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Sir, I'm going to need a stat to prove the bolded otherwise I call BS.

Read the article he provided which talks about "luck" lol yeah no data about that hahahaha.

The chart below shows wins added by various categories of "luck" in Weeks 1-9 of the 2022 season. These values are measured by calculating the win probability of the observed outcome and subtracting the expected win probability based on the likelihood of each luck outcome

So you're saying there IS a stat that measures luck? Interesting.

Have you not played role playing games? The luck stat is under appreciated

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by boast:
thanks for proving i didnt say "luck is a stat" only that luck is definitely a "FACTOR" in the NFL

you should chill on making up other poster's comments to argue against.

if you dont understand the definition of "factor", it means influence

LUCK definitely has INFLUENCE over NFL games.

Hahaha that's a load of crap…the whole article is about "luck" and applying it quantifiably. So you either didn't read the article are you can't own up to it. Which is it?

i said what i said. LUCK IS A FACTOR IN THE NFL. luck definitely influences the outcome of games.

how that page decided to put it in terms is beside the point.

Dude you provided an article that was applying luck as quantifiable. As in using data to show luck has worth…THEN you said you can't talk about almost INTs or talk about turn over worthy plays. SO you either didn't read the article you used to make whatever point you were trying to get across OR you're being extremely hypocritical, for no good god damn reason. You chose.

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you're saying there IS a stat that measures luck? Interesting.

I didn't say anything, he did to try and prove whatever point he was trying to make…all while s**tting on turn over worthy plays and saying he can't look at things like almost INTs.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
So "luck" can be use quantifiably but turn over worthy plays can't…you guys are funny

I think the problem lies in not establishing common sense (with a point, or argument) 1st.

Take a 2 QBs and add up TO's to TWP's. To take the OL out of it as much as possible, filter out fumbles, TW fumbles, and only examine INTs.

Can we reason that the QB that averages 0.5 per game over the course of a season is taking much better care of the ball while passing than the QB averaging 3.5 per game?

Would boast or anyone here really argue against common sense like this? Lord I'd hope not,....so then even he'd have to reluctantly agree that TWP's can tangibly be of use.

A constant theme here IMO is people not wanting to attach the numbers to a point, a question, or an argument.

They expect to leave #'s there to make the argument themselves, and most of them aren't going to useful with no context.

i will always s**t on turnover-worthy plays as a stat. ive posted why PFF cant possibly be 100% sure what they claim. it's because they dont consider receiver mistakes. there's no way to know that unless they knew the play called and the routes that were supposed to be run.

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you're saying there IS a stat that measures luck? Interesting.

How many coinflips have we won in our 1st 16 games this year?



I mean sarcasm or not, how do some of these questions even make it towards being asked here?

Yea, there's a stat for pretty much everything out there. That doesn't necessarily make it useful. It depends on the context.

If we've lost all 16 coin flips then maybe it aint luck after all and there's something to investigate.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by boast:
thanks for proving i didnt say "luck is a stat" only that luck is definitely a "FACTOR" in the NFL

you should chill on making up other poster's comments to argue against.

if you dont understand the definition of "factor", it means influence

LUCK definitely has INFLUENCE over NFL games.

Hahaha that's a load of crap…the whole article is about "luck" and applying it quantifiably. So you either didn't read the article are you can't own up to it. Which is it?

i said what i said. LUCK IS A FACTOR IN THE NFL. luck definitely influences the outcome of games.

how that page decided to put it in terms is beside the point.

Dude you provided an article that was applying luck as quantifiable. As in using data to show luck has worth…THEN you said you can't talk about almost INTs or talk about turn over worthy plays. SO you either didn't read the article you used to make whatever point you were trying to get across OR you're being extremely hypocritical, for no good god damn reason. You chose.

This is what Boast does. He routinely takes other posters comments out of context, on purpose, to strengthen whatever weak argument he thinks he has, then accuses you of doing exactly what he's already/currently doing. He wants others to acknowledge the nuance of his statement (Luck being a stat vs "a factor"), but when he criticizes others, he removes all context and nuance available to essentially dumb down other people's arguments. The hypocrisy is off the charts and it's sad really, a good faith argument is simply impossible with him.

Originally posted by boast:
i will always s**t on turnover-worthy plays as a stat. ive posted why PFF cant possibly be 100% sure what they claim. it's because they dont consider receiver mistakes. there's no way to know that unless they knew the play called and the routes that were supposed to be run.

Easy to do. Harder to actually reply to points that have been made. Dont change the argument to "well....PFF's doing a bad job." That's an out and avoids the issue.

Everyone here has seen a QB make a bad play on throws that could've easily been an INT. Right??

At the game's end, if one QB had 4 or so more almost-INTs than the other, then he had a harder time taking care of the ball than the other QB.

They're not a good thing at all and count exactly the same as real INTs in the film room. I mean let's just use common sense.

Having a problem with the reliability of PFF's #s is separate issue.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So you're saying there IS a stat that measures luck? Interesting.

How many coinflips have we won in our 1st 16 games this year?



I mean sarcasm or not, how do some of these questions even make it towards being asked here?

Yea, there's a stat for pretty much everything out there. That doesn't necessarily make it useful. It depends on the context.

If we've lost all 16 coin flips then maybe it aint luck after all and there's something to investigate.

Talk to NY, he's the one saying that a stat for luck doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by boast:
thanks for proving i didnt say "luck is a stat" only that luck is definitely a "FACTOR" in the NFL

you should chill on making up other poster's comments to argue against.

if you dont understand the definition of "factor", it means influence

LUCK definitely has INFLUENCE over NFL games.

Hahaha that's a load of crap…the whole article is about "luck" and applying it quantifiably. So you either didn't read the article are you can't own up to it. Which is it?

i said what i said. LUCK IS A FACTOR IN THE NFL. luck definitely influences the outcome of games.

how that page decided to put it in terms is beside the point.

Dude you provided an article that was applying luck as quantifiable. As in using data to show luck has worth…THEN you said you can't talk about almost INTs or talk about turn over worthy plays. SO you either didn't read the article you used to make whatever point you were trying to get across OR you're being extremely hypocritical, for no good god damn reason. You chose.

This is what Boast does. He routinely takes other posters comments out of context, on purpose, to strengthen whatever weak argument he thinks he has, then accuses you of doing exactly what he's already/currently doing. He wants others to acknowledge the nuance of his statement (Luck being a stat vs "a factor"), but when he criticizes others, he removes all context and nuance available to essentially dumb down other people's arguments. The hypocrisy is off the charts and it's sad really, a good faith argument is simply impossible with him.

hahahaha you aligned me with and claimed i supported some random poster's take about Trey's injury for posting a comment that didnt quote anyone and was about Jimmy G just because that poster made the same claim earlier.

this list of posters

• Waterbear
• random49er
• NYniners85
• 49erRing

all blame other people for what they engage in daily. classic projection.

Let's let the miracle that is Brock unite us all as 49er fans. We are witness to a modern day miracle at the QB position.

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by boast:
thanks for proving i didnt say "luck is a stat" only that luck is definitely a "FACTOR" in the NFL

you should chill on making up other poster's comments to argue against.

if you dont understand the definition of "factor", it means influence

LUCK definitely has INFLUENCE over NFL games.

Hahaha that's a load of crap…the whole article is about "luck" and applying it quantifiably. So you either didn't read the article are you can't own up to it. Which is it?

i said what i said. LUCK IS A FACTOR IN THE NFL. luck definitely influences the outcome of games.

how that page decided to put it in terms is beside the point.

Dude you provided an article that was applying luck as quantifiable. As in using data to show luck has worth…THEN you said you can't talk about almost INTs or talk about turn over worthy plays. SO you either didn't read the article you used to make whatever point you were trying to get across OR you're being extremely hypocritical, for no good god damn reason. You chose.

This is what Boast does. He routinely takes other posters comments out of context, on purpose, to strengthen whatever weak argument he thinks he has, then accuses you of doing exactly what he's already/currently doing. He wants others to acknowledge the nuance of his statement (Luck being a stat vs "a factor"), but when he criticizes others, he removes all context and nuance available to essentially dumb down other people's arguments. The hypocrisy is off the charts and it's sad really, a good faith argument is simply impossible with him.

hahahaha you aligned me with and claimed i supported some random poster's take about Trey's injury for posting a comment that didnt quote anyone and was about Jimmy G just because that poster made the same claim earlier.

this list of posters

• Waterbear
• random49er
• NYniners85
• 49erRing

all blame other people for what they engage in daily. classic projection.

I said I'm not surprised you defended him, which I further explained was due to the fact you admitted you don't defend Trey the same way you defend Jimmy. I DID NOT SAY that you had those same feelings towards Trey. Which you claimed I did. Those are not the same statements.

I can prove that too. Just let me know if you want to be exposed even more.

Originally posted by boast:
i will always s**t on turnover-worthy plays as a stat. ive posted why PFF cant possibly be 100% sure what they claim. it's because they dont consider receiver mistakes. there's no way to know that unless they knew the play called and the routes that were supposed to be run.

Go read what they consider a TWP. They talk specifically about WRs in it as well. At least understand the stat before crapping on it.

look dude you can't show me a article talking about luck quantifiably, then s**t on something like TWP. That's extremely hypocritical.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by boast:
thanks for proving i didnt say "luck is a stat" only that luck is definitely a "FACTOR" in the NFL

you should chill on making up other poster's comments to argue against.

if you dont understand the definition of "factor", it means influence

LUCK definitely has INFLUENCE over NFL games.

Hahaha that's a load of crap…the whole article is about "luck" and applying it quantifiably. So you either didn't read the article are you can't own up to it. Which is it?

i said what i said. LUCK IS A FACTOR IN THE NFL. luck definitely influences the outcome of games.

how that page decided to put it in terms is beside the point.

Dude you provided an article that was applying luck as quantifiable. As in using data to show luck has worth…THEN you said you can't talk about almost INTs or talk about turn over worthy plays. SO you either didn't read the article you used to make whatever point you were trying to get across OR you're being extremely hypocritical, for no good god damn reason. You chose.

This is what Boast does. He routinely takes other posters comments out of context, on purpose, to strengthen whatever weak argument he thinks he has, then accuses you of doing exactly what he's already/currently doing. He wants others to acknowledge the nuance of his statement (Luck being a stat vs "a factor"), but when he criticizes others, he removes all context and nuance available to essentially dumb down other people's arguments. The hypocrisy is off the charts and it's sad really, a good faith argument is simply impossible with him.

hahahaha you aligned me with and claimed i supported some random poster's take about Trey's injury for posting a comment that didnt quote anyone and was about Jimmy G just because that poster made the same claim earlier.

this list of posters

• Waterbear
• random49er
• NYniners85
• 49erRing

all blame other people for what they engage in daily. classic projection.

I said I'm not surprised you defended him, which I further explained was due to the fact you admitted you don't defend Trey the same way you defend Jimmy. I DID NOT SAY that you had those same feelings towards Trey. Which you claimed I did. Those are not the same statements.

I can prove that too. Just let me know if you want to be exposed even more.

Please do. Let's get to the bottom of this