Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Titus Pullo
Not even close to being true. http://www.nfl.com/player/tonyromo/2505354/profile

Romo Career Stats: 177 TD, 91 INT
2012: 28 TD, 19 INT
2011: 31 TD, 10 INT
2010: 11 TD, 7 INT - only 6 games played
2009: 26 TD, 9 INT
2008: 26 TD, 14 INT - 13 games played
2007: 36 TD, 19 INT
2006: 19 TD, 13 INT - 10 games started

Those aren't blowout adjusted stats.

Originally posted by toobad4u_00
This statement is inaccurate.

In 2012 there were 5 QBs who threw as many or more picks than TDs. My guess is at least 2 of them will start off the 2013 season as starters. In 2011 Carson Palmer and Josh Freeman were quite adept at throwing picks, but not losing their starting status. It happened to 7 QBs in 2010, but I don't really see any of them as being notable. In 2009 there were 8 QBs who had as many or more picks than TDs. Some of these starters it has happened to more than once. It happened to Brett Favre 6 times. I use Favre not because I like or dislike him, but because he is one of the extreme cases.

So we're back to trying to define "Lots of NFL QB's who throw as many TD's as ints." again. By my math, your first reference states that around 15% (less than1 in 6 QB's) that season threw as many pics as TD's... and that only 2 of them get their job back (so far). That's around 6% of starting QB's. You can bump that up a lil for 2010 but the question remains... is 15% really "Lots of NFL QB's"? If so, then that seems pretty liberal (IMO). And also, you don't think those teams with QB's THAT BAD aren't looking for the replacement as fast as possible? Are the NY Jets just giddy with Sanchez as QB? Wonder where Carson Palmer is starting now? Would YOU want him as your QB?
What I meant by my statement is that (baring a very few exceptions) most NFL teams do not want QB this bad as their starters and are looking to replace them asap. And those starters that cannot get their int/td ratios improved, are destined to hold clipboards and be backups to their replacements.

Hey, Sanchez threw an interception on his first drive this year, but it doesn't matter, Rex didn't see it.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
So we're back to trying to define "Lots of NFL QB's who throw as many TD's as ints." again. By my math, your first reference states that around 15% (less than1 in 6 QB's) that season threw as many pics as TD's... and that only 2 of them get their job back (so far). That's around 6% of starting QB's. You can bump that up a lil for 2010 but the question remains... is 15% really "Lots of NFL QB's"? If so, then that seems pretty liberal (IMO). And also, you don't think those teams with QB's THAT BAD aren't looking for the replacement as fast as possible? Are the NY Jets just giddy with Sanchez as QB? Wonder where Carson Palmer is starting now? Would YOU want him as your QB?
What I meant by my statement is that (baring a very few exceptions) most NFL teams do not want QB this bad as their starters and are looking to replace them asap. And those starters that cannot get their int/td ratios improved, are destined to hold clipboards and be backups to their replacements.
Your statement was that they were backups or clipboard holders. You did not state lots or most. You simply made a general statement which wasn't accurate. No one stated the 15% was "lots".... Also, I did not state only 2 of them get their jobs back, I said at least 2 there is a huge difference between only 2 and at least 2.

ya really tough to throw 50 ints in glb with screen passes.

Originally posted by toobad4u_00

Your statement was that they were backups or clipboard holders. You did not state lots or most. You simply made a general statement which wasn't accurate. No one stated the 15% was "lots".... Also, I did not state only 2 of them get their jobs back, I said at least 2 there is a huge difference between only 2 and at least 2.

Sorry man. It seems it came across to you as an attack against you on my part. Was more intended/interested in general discussion. My bad.
I suspect this happens when the lead in isn't specific (meaning the OP really left things open for interpretation with the title). To me, "lots of" implies more than 30% and more likely closer to 50%. Once it gets beyond 50%, the generality becomes "more than half of..." IMO, anyways. So my response was against the title's accuracy.

not on the Falcons!

not on the Falcons!Originally posted by Titus Pullo
Not even close to being true. http://www.nfl.com/player/tonyromo/2505354/profile

Romo Career Stats: 177 TD, 91 INT
2012: 28 TD, 19 INT
2011: 31 TD, 10 INT
2010: 11 TD, 7 INT - only 6 games played
2009: 26 TD, 9 INT
2008: 26 TD, 14 INT - 13 games played
2007: 36 TD, 19 INT
2006: 19 TD, 13 INT - 10 games started

shit stats

Originally posted by CyberNinja
Hey, Sanchez threw an interception on his first drive this year, but it doesn't matter, Rex didn't see it.

Rex is such a clown

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Sorry man. It seems it came across to you as an attack against you on my part. Was more intended/interested in general discussion. My bad.
I suspect this happens when the lead in isn't specific (meaning the OP really left things open for interpretation with the title). To me, "lots of" implies more than 30% and more likely closer to 50%. Once it gets beyond 50%, the generality becomes "more than half of..." IMO, anyways. So my response was against the title's accuracy.

No, I am not taking as against me. I am talking in overall concerns. 30% can be considered lots depending on the numbers. Lots is a tie to a number not to a percentage. Also, he does not specify starting QBs or anything of that nature. Thus, backups should not be boldly excluded. However, it is more difficult to come by a full list of information (not impossible) it is much easier to come up with a list of QBs in the top 32 of something and that is not a bad cut off.

Again, lots never represents a percentage of something rather a value of something therefore the percentage is completely irrelevant.

tebowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Originally posted by toobad4u_00
No, I am not taking as against me. I am talking in overall concerns. 30% can be considered lots depending on the numbers. Lots is a tie to a number not to a percentage. Also, he does not specify starting QBs or anything of that nature. Thus, backups should not be boldly excluded. However, it is more difficult to come by a full list of information (not impossible) it is much easier to come up with a list of QBs in the top 32 of something and that is not a bad cut off.

Again, lots never represents a percentage of something rather a value of something therefore the percentage is completely irrelevant.

I considered not excluding backups but had to step away from going that far. I mean, if you're rooting for the backup to replace the starter on a team, then your team is really, really bad. IMO. So I didn't include them in my thoughts. If you DID include ALL QB's starting, backing up, or working on their clipboard skills, then yeah... I suspect it's closer to 50%. I mean almost every team carries 3 QB's on their rosters and only one of them is worthy of starting, so already you have 66% of the NFL QB's are not starter worthy. Not a good number... which is why I didn't include it. And I'll admit to exceptions (Like Farve) here and there. But I'm willing to bet if you took the last 20 years of NFL (starting) QB's and bundled their stats, you would find the % number of int's=td's QB's to be below, at the very worst, 15%. Which is half of 30% and... IMO, not "lots". There's a reason coaches like the Peyton Mannings and Tom Bradys more than the Dave Kriegs and Steve DeBergs. And the biggest one is they don't turn the ball over.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago


I considered not excluding backups but had to step away from going that far. I mean, if you're rooting for the backup to replace the starter on a team, then your team is really, really bad. IMO. So I didn't include them in my thoughts. If you DID include ALL QB's starting, backing up, or working on their clipboard skills, then yeah... I suspect it's closer to 50%. I mean almost every team carries 3 QB's on their rosters and only one of them is worthy of starting, so already you have 66% of the NFL QB's are not starter worthy. Not a good number... which is why I didn't include it. And I'll admit to exceptions (Like Farve) here and there. But I'm willing to bet if you took the last 20 years of NFL (starting) QB's and bundled their stats, you would find the % number of int's=td's QB's to be below, at the very worst, 15%. Which is half of 30% and... IMO, not "lots". There's a reason coaches like the Peyton Mannings and Tom Bradys more than the Dave Kriegs and Steve DeBergs. And the biggest one is they don't turn the ball over.

The ratio of 1 to 1 is not what the OP suggested (it is what you suggested), I segmented my discussion for you when I responded to your post, but you have not done the same thing. You are having 2 arguments within one. Further, lots is a count, not a percentage (confused as to why I have to state this again; plankton wrongly started the percentage talk and I entertained it for a while). Moreover, a QB on any given roster is a member of an elite group regardless of what is stated by the depth chart. Even a practice squad guy would be part of that group, if only for a short time. Don't kid yourself.

Incidentally, do you happen to have the measure on how many starting QBs did not miss an offensive snap for their team last season? The list is not very long: Matt Ryan and Christian Ponder (technically, I did not even go by snaps so these 2 may have missed snaps but the backup was just handing the ball off while he was out - I am too lazy to do the research the right way right now).

There is a reason that Dave Krieg and Steve DeBerg had jobs for so long (19 and 18 seasons respectively), btw. I will concede that every coach would rather have Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, but not every coach can be so lucky. Not sure why you used 2 historic QBs and compared them to the elites of today, but okay.

Since 2009 32 QBs who were in the top 32 in attempts had a .8 ratio or higher 42 times. That is using a pretty conservative definition of closeness for the type of data we are talking about. 57 unique QBs met the criteria of being in the top 32 in attempts for a full season and 32 of them showed at least one instance where their ratio was .8 or higher.

I concede that lots is probably not the best wording, as I did in my first post, but I maintain that it is not an indefensible wording. Originally posted by toobad4u_00
Lots of NFL QBs probably means all of them. Now if you want to just limit it to something of the group so you can actually find the data easily perhaps you limit it to the top 32 QBs in terms of pass attempts. Therefore you would have a list of QBs from Matthew Staffard to Nick Foles. From that point you really should use ratios rather than the straight difference that you chose to use. If you choose something as conservative as a .8 Int/TD ratio then you will see 9 QBs fit that criteria (.75 and .7 have 10 and 11 respectively). I think that is more than sufficient to make his case. Granted, I would have used specific measures instead of making such a broad statement as he made, but not everyone has to think like that to be accurate.

Originally posted by toobad4u_00


I concede that lots is probably not the best wording, as I did in my first post, but I maintain that it is not an indefensible wording.
Good post man. Good post. And I do agree. Not with everything, but that sometimes a bit of wording can really derail the train. I had a friend for many, many years with whom I would enjoy the debating of various interests and whenever we'd get "tangled" it would always seem to come down to a "definition" of wording.

Originally posted by Titus Pullo
Not even close to being true. http://www.nfl.com/player/tonyromo/2505354/profile

Romo Career Stats: 177 TD, 91 INT
2012: 28 TD, 19 INT
2011: 31 TD, 10 INT
2010: 11 TD, 7 INT - only 6 games played
2009: 26 TD, 9 INT
2008: 26 TD, 14 INT - 13 games played
2007: 36 TD, 19 INT
2006: 19 TD, 13 INT - 10 games started

Are you saying a sub 2-1 TD pick ratio is good?