QB Brock Purdy Thread

his two biggest misses IMO were to a wide open Kroft that he threw to Aiyuk instead, and the back shoulder to Kittle that was too far out

the pick to kittle should never have been thrown, and the jennings incompletion he at least made a play on the ball

Cohn is hating on BCB now, this is great news I hope he continues!

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
his two biggest misses IMO were to a wide open Kroft that he threw to Aiyuk instead, and the back shoulder to Kittle that was too far out

the pick to kittle should never have been thrown, and the jennings incompletion he at least made a play on the ball

I don't know enough about the play when the Kittle pass was picked, but it looked like George could have attacked the ball more aggressively, rather than waiting on it to get to him. It looked like he was giving Kittle a chance to make a play and he didn't. But that's more than we've had at QB for a while, so I'm good with it.

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
his two biggest misses IMO were to a wide open Kroft that he threw to Aiyuk instead, and the back shoulder to Kittle that was too far out

the pick to kittle should never have been thrown, and the jennings incompletion he at least made a play on the ball

I hate agreeing with Cohn but he's right. The pass was underthrown. Kittle could have helped out and made a stronger play for the ball though.

Originally posted by riverrunzthruit:
Cohn is hating on BCB now, this is great news I hope he continues!

Not sure if he's hating. The very little I've seen has been fairly positive. I've seen him use Brock's play more as a cudgel against Jimmy G.

In any case, probably not a good idea to look at him as a serious analyst... including his film reviews.

I have to wonder if the colts, Panthers, and Saints are looking at their draft board and wondering…. How did we miss this guy!

Originally posted by Second2Nunley:
I have to wonder if the colts, Panthers, and Saints are looking at their draft board and wondering…. How did we miss this guy!

I wonder what round grade we had on him. I believe lynch said they had him rated higher than the round but passed on him before cause he wasn't a "need". Then snagged him at the end cause they really liked him and didn't want risk losing him to another team.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by Second2Nunley:
I have to wonder if the colts, Panthers, and Saints are looking at their draft board and wondering…. How did we miss this guy!

I wonder what round grade we had on him. I believe lynch said they had him rated higher than the round but passed on him before cause he wasn't a "need". Then snagged him at the end cause they really liked him and didn't want risk losing him to another team.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by FunkyChicken:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Take the 45 yard Adams catch in the raiders game. It was ruled a catch. We all know that ball hit the ground but there wasn't a camera angle that gave the officials indisputable evidence to overrule the original call. He gets credited with a catch for 45 yards. You are saying that his stats are objective because of how that particular play was ruled. But its subjective because we can
explain why it wasn't a catch because neither one of his hands or arms were underneath that ball. Just because a stat is counted on the score sheet doesn't mean its not subjective and up for debate.

You are wrong. It's not debatable whether that play counted or not. It objectively counted, which is THL's point. All you can say is it shouldn't have counted, yet it objectively did. For example in Jeopardy if they asked Adams yardage for the game and you deducted that catch you would be buzzed as giving the wrong answer. Objectively so.

But we aren't on jeopardy and there is room for debate on that play whether you want to be a part of that debate or not.

I am guessing you folks don't spend a lot of time on various stat sites? None of them are identical when it comes to recorded stats. Those "objective stats" vary to some degree from site to site.

I think I see the issue now you guys were having as I updated myself more thoroughly on a comp.

It's simply that you guys are talking past each other instead of TO each other in regards to what's meant while using a language as complex as English.

The terms that THL is speaking in, the terms objective and subjective are antonyms, and there simply is no debate about being one or the other.

In this context, INTs, for example, cannot be subjective. In fact, they are the opposite of subjective.

Problem is the context wasn't made clear on this and English has words with multiple meanings. Even I missed some of this earlier when I admitted that virtually all stats can subjective to a degree,...some more than others. That's because I was referring to definition #2 below...instead of the #4 tense spoken in above that is clearly an opposite.



So in a way, it's impossible for INT stats to be subjective. But then again, given how closely I can say INTs influence or correlate to the "essential being" of winning games, I can certainly say INTs are subjective.

I mean are confusables all over the place in this language. Isin't it fun?

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
his two biggest misses IMO were to a wide open Kroft that he threw to Aiyuk instead, and the back shoulder to Kittle that was too far out

the pick to kittle should never have been thrown, and the jennings incompletion he at least made a play on the ball

I hate agreeing with Cohn but he's right. The pass was underthrown. Kittle could have helped out and made a stronger play for the ball though.

Miss No. 2. pic.twitter.com/uAqi1lXb4i

— Grant Cohn (@grantcohn) January 3, 2023

purdy threw it like a fadaway jump shot, he didnt get set. The defender was drifting too close to kittle anyway, i dont think he shoulda thrown it regardless

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by swayze:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Sorry it's not. It's just a stupid 'stat' made up to give people like Nina Kimes (is that her name?) something to talk about. Until it reaches the point where they become actual turnovers they have absolutely no more impact on a game than an incomplete pass would.

You can try and argue it anyway you want in the realm of if, and, or maybe but at the end of the day it's like saying, well today might be Wednesday, but it's not. It's Tuesday and no amount of phony projections about how it might really be Wednesday changes the basic fact of the thing.

The point of TWP% is to normalize a dataset that is highly variable based on numerous outside factors--whether or not a specific pass is actually intercepted is dependent on the defender's hands and concentration, the receiver breaking up the play, weather, "luck." We can't accurately judge the QB solely on the outcome because the outcome was out of his control; however, by normalizing TWP we get a clearer picture of the QB's decision making based on how consistently he is putting the ball in harm's way.

And yes, it's subjective--all statistics are even simply because we choose (consciously or not) which statistics to focus on. And yes, every completion, incompletion, sack, turnover, whether attributed to the QB in the box score or not, is impacted by many factors. The key question we have to ask ourselves is what are we measuring and why? The primary goal of football is not to generate statistics but to win games. In service to that we isolate statistics and try to correlate those stats with wins, so that we might better understand how to win. Which stats we choose to correlate should be flexible depending on what correlations we can identify.

It's not a question of whether or not the stat is subjective. Some guy at PFF with a degree in analytics sits around looking at film and decides whether or not it is a TWP or not. Whatever, it's no skin off my nose. My point is that until they turn into actual turnovers they are nothing more than an incomplete pass and have no greater or lesser impact on the game's outcome than that.

What you are arguing essentially is that somehow the 'analytic" aspect of it gives it some sort of greater authority than a coach looking at the film and saying, "well, we got away with one there."

You don't think that if a coach sees that happen often enough he isn't going to be aware that it might be an issue? Do you think that PFF "stats" telling him that his QB's TWP % is 2.8, or however it is they measure those things, is going to tell him something he doesn't know? Does the 2.8% somehow make it more meaningful? As I said, you are all welcome to come and revisit this issue when we are talking about actual turnovers.

Personally my whole take on football analytics is that it was developed by a bunch of math geeks trying to do for football what Bill James did for baseball. Not athletic enough to actually play the game themselves so they come up with this scam to make themselves feel like they can be "part of the game" and have some influence. Well that might work in baseball, within reason, I just think that football is a different sport. The game is so much more physical and a player's will to "win" in a particular circumstance is too difficult to quantify.

The perfect example is Jordan Willis. If you looked at his PFF stats you might come up with one picture but that picture might not account in anyway for what happened in the Green Bay game last year where his play on a field goal attempt let another guy in to block the attempt and where his blocked punt essentially won the game for them. You could argue that there wasn't a more impactful player on the team that night but I doubt that would show up in his PFF grade averaged out over a year.

There was a kick in the Seattle game that I thought was another great example. Al Michaels, doing what I am sure was some sort of promo plug, was saying just before one of Robbie's kicks, "Well, according to NextGen stats he should hit this kick 67% of the time". Shanked it to the right. Oops. I think it's mostly just meaningless nonsense that the league has been suckered into buying into that allows otherwise completely unqualified people to get on TV and "analyze" the game. That's my two cents on the topic and is all I have to say on this particular matter.

Data Analytics has made it's way into all sports. It's a way to help quantify trends and any observations in more detail than the eye test can provide. It was never meant to be a way to see the whole picture, but just using your eyes won't allow a person to get the entire picture. You as a fan may only care about the end result, win or loss. Coaches cannot afford to just go off of the end result. They need to identify areas of strength and weakness and using the basic boxscore stats is simply not enough, let alone wins and losses.

I work with a company that provides data for teams to analyze so that's why I know that this type of data is in demand. You can assume it was made up by nerds and geeks, but that's beside the point. An example I can point to is batting average in baseball. A simple look at the batting average tells a person how often the batter successfully got a hit. But there is another layer that teams look at, and it has to do with how hard the batter was able to hit the ball, which tells the team how good of contact the batter is making, which helps the team predict future success. So if a batter hits a hard line drive but it is directly at the shortstop for an out, the batting average suffers, but the data that measures how good of contact was made is benefitted. To a bottom line guy like yourself, you probably think the batter had a crappy at bat since he recorded an out, but the team, using deeper data analytics, saw their prospect make solid contact on a pitch.

Originally posted by Furlow:

I hate agreeing with Cohn but he's right. The pass was underthrown. Kittle could have helped out and made a stronger play for the ball though.

It is almost impossible to talk as much as that twerp and not occasionally say something someone will agree with. Doesn't excuse you bringing him into the thread though... with a video no less.

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.

It is subjective, probably determined by kids making $20/hr to watch games and judge if a play was turnover-worthy.

Originally posted by random49er:

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.

I don't agree because people here argue over if it is on the receiver or qb all the time here, all the time. And that is because it is a subjective determination made by people with bias.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
It is subjective, probably determined by kids making $20/hr to watch games and judge if a play was turnover-worthy.

More playing with words, as something being subjective doesn't make it any less real.


Can I definitively say that Tartt dropped a turnover-worthy pass here? Or is that too much for the forum to handle?