QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

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.

That's fine that people argue over other stuff all the time, but you didn't address what you highlighted.

Are you telling me you've never seen a QB make a bad play on a throw that easily could've been an INT?

Seriously?

Originally posted by random49er:

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?

Words are words, bro.
Are you disagreeing with the assessment that it is a subjective stat?

You can say anythjng you want, and others can disagree or dismiss what you are saying. That seems to be where you have a problem with people.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

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?

Words are words, bro.
Are you disagreeing with the assessment that it is a subjective stat?

You can say anythjng you want, and others can disagree or dismiss what you are saying. That seems to be where you have a problem with people.

Not talking about the words, just asking a question that you clearly want to dodge, because the answer is clear: Tartt dropped a turnover-worthy pass. I'm gonna give some fault to the QB, and that's whether the WR ran a wrong route or not.

If this is represented as a stat somehow, it is useful and gives me extra insight as to how he performed. Win-Win.

I mean I understand the strategy @ hand here where you avoid answering simple questions: dont name the colors because if forced, you'd have to admit that black is kinda black and white does resemble white.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

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.

That's fine that people argue over other stuff all the time, but you didn't address what you highlighted.

Are you telling me you've never seen a QB make a bad play on a throw that easily could've been an INT?

Seriously?

I have.
Thst doesn't mean TOWP is not a subjective stat which is the point I have been making.

Originally posted by Midbay:

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.

Actually NY did on the previous page, I just clipped one of the tweets because it had the all-22. I'll do better next time. Niners need a legit beat writer who tweets all-22 clips.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

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?

Words are words, bro.
Are you disagreeing with the assessment that it is a subjective stat?

You can say anythjng you want, and others can disagree or dismiss what you are saying. That seems to be where you have a problem with people.

Not talking about the words, just asking a question that you clearly want to dodge, because the answer is clear: Tartt dropped a turnover-worthy pass. I'm gonna give some fault to the QB, and that's whether the WR ran a wrong route or not.

If this is represented as a stat somehow, it is useful and gives me extra insight as to how he performed. Win-Win.

I mean I understand the strategy @ hand here where you avoid answering simple questions: dont name the colors because if forced, you'd have to admit that black is kinda black and white does resemble white.

It was a bad pass, you used an obvious example everyone would agree on. Thst doesn't mean that the stat isn't subjective.
The stat known as Turnover Worthy Plays doesn't add much value to evaluations or discussions IMO. It all evens out in the end.

Originally posted by thl408:

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.

Well, I guess I'll have to go back on my word this time. That is a perfectly reasonable and lucid response. But as I believe I indicated above, that's baseball. It is just my personal opinion that the nature of football doesn't really lend itself to analytics the same way as baseball might.

Also, I wouldn't have an opinion on any particular at bat because I gave up watching baseball decades ago when some 40 year old catcher who had been good once but was way past his prime at that point, turned down an offer to play for the Angels for one year at a salary of $900,000 because it was "beneath his manhood" to do so.. Yeah, bite me buddy. (and no that's not directed at you) I have no doubt that money will eventually ruin football just as it did baseball , that is if analytics doesn't ruin it first

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

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.

That's fine that people argue over other stuff all the time, but you didn't address what you highlighted.

Are you telling me you've never seen a QB make a bad play on a throw that easily could've been an INT?

Seriously?

I have.
Thst doesn't mean TOWP is not a subjective stat which is the point I have been making.

In the general sense it can be extremely useful. How it was graded or calculated by this site or that site is a separate issue. Make a thread arguing about the way sites calculate their stats,...that's fine.

Just don't come here and ask or demand that everyone not use common sense.

And calling it "subjective" isin't some smoking gun or anything and as I showed you, the word has multiple meanings to begin with. It doesn't sway the needle one way or another.

In the right context, almost-INTs that QBs throw where they were clearly @ fault can be extremely useful to compile and eventually compare.

The more they are allowed to compile, the more useful the comparison is.

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.

lol so true

We are counting almost, could have been interceptions now? Not pretty enough wins? That still resulted in wins. If that's all you got you got a PURDY great QB.

It all goes back to how we want to digest football. Yes, in the end, wins and losses is what truly matters. Some fans like myself enjoy peeling back the layers to understand why and how a play/team/player is successful or unsuccessful. Game highlights get old quick for me so I want more detailed, low level stats and analysis.

Originally posted by boast:

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.

The #49ers actually had a higher grade on Brock Purdy if he had decided to declare after his junior season. When they selected him, the comp was Nick Mullens. It did not take long to see he has a much higher ceiling.pic.twitter.com/xV5yU4gmB2

— Matt Maiocco (@MaioccoNBCS) December 16, 2022

Is this the trend on him? He starts hot and gets a little worse as time goes on?

Originally posted by NCommand:
Is this the trend on him? He starts hot and gets a little worse as time goes on?.

But also magically gets better again if he jumps to a new league, team, or system?

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

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.

That's fine that people argue over other stuff all the time, but you didn't address what you highlighted.

Are you telling me you've never seen a QB make a bad play on a throw that easily could've been an INT?

Seriously?

I have.
Thst doesn't mean TOWP is not a subjective stat which is the point I have been making.

In the general sense it can be extremely useful. How it was graded or calculated by this site or that site is a separate issue. Make a thread arguing about the way sites calculate their stats,...that's fine.

Just don't come here and ask or demand that everyone not use common sense.

And calling it "subjective" isin't some smoking gun or anything and as I showed you, the word has multiple meanings to begin with. It doesn't sway the needle one way or another.

In the right context, almost-INTs that QBs throw where they were clearly @ fault can be extremely useful to compile and eventually compare.

The more they are allowed to compile, the more useful the comparison is.

Why would I do that instead of just pointing out that it is a subjective stat ans saying it doesn't offer much. There is no good way to measure TOWP because it isn't a real statistic, it doesn't record an event.
It is like counting TDWP or RWP or 1DWP as a stat.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

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?

Words are words, bro.
Are you disagreeing with the assessment that it is a subjective stat?

You can say anythjng you want, and others can disagree or dismiss what you are saying. That seems to be where you have a problem with people.

Not talking about the words, just asking a question that you clearly want to dodge, because the answer is clear: Tartt dropped a turnover-worthy pass. I'm gonna give some fault to the QB, and that's whether the WR ran a wrong route or not.

If this is represented as a stat somehow, it is useful and gives me extra insight as to how he performed. Win-Win.

I mean I understand the strategy @ hand here where you avoid answering simple questions: dont name the colors because if forced, you'd have to admit that black is kinda black and white does resemble white.

It was a bad pass, you used an obvious example everyone would agree on. Thst doesn't mean that the stat isn't subjective.
The stat known as Turnover Worthy Plays doesn't add much value to evaluations or discussions IMO. It all evens out in the end.

1) Oh boy,... could anyone here imagine telling their HS coach after they threw 4 dropped INTs in a game to leave u alone during film study teaching because the dropped INTs are "subjective?" As if that's some kinda thing that means those weren't bad plays and u really have nothing related to them to get better at.

You see how foolish that sounds? Please stop. Almost INTs clearly can be great markers.

TWPs assist "almost-INTs" by trying to subjectively weed out passes that the WR should've made a legit play on. You putting it in a numbered form over the course of a season, so as to examine more data at once? Awesome,..even better.

-

2) Yes, I used an obvious example of a pass to highlight the obvious help that compiling dropped or almost INT plays can oggrt. It assists people greatly in assessing how the QB performed in that particular game or season.

I mean It only shows up on the stat sheet as an incompletion.

And then there are even more extreme cases where the defender completely bobbles it away and the team scores a 60 yard TD. But how does that beautiful stat the QB attains during that score help reflect on his actual performance? Give me the TWP interpretation in cases like these -- they are a great, great help.

You don't like it because you don't want extra insight into how the game really went? Again,..that's perfectly fine. Leave it to those that do.

btw,...Still drubbing your opponent anyway after dropped INTs is a team accomplishment, not a QB evaluation. It's been said over and over here with reasons given why, but I know, you don't like it.