Where Does Nick Foles Go in 2019?

[jrry32]

Just now, childofpudding said:

Just because you proclaim that you dont care about DVOA doesnt mean it doesnt matter. I dont care about TD% ! Dumb argument, right? Right. Per play performance adjusted for defensive strength matters whether you like it or not.

Foles had better completion percentage and YPA, Flacco had better TD% and INT%. Their passer ratings were about equal. Proclaiming Flacco in 2012 was on a whole other level compared to Foles last season is absurd.

DVOA doesn't matter to me. It's a metric that I don't find to be useful. If you want to discount TD%, that's your choice I guess lol. According to DVOA, Derrick Henry is the #2 HB in the NFL this year. When your argument relies entirely on DVOA, you're not going to gain any traction with me. Flacco's post-season was on a whole other level. The numbers are above and clearly show that.

[childofpudding]

13 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

DVOA doesn't matter to me. It's a metric that I don't find to be useful. If you want to discount TD%, that's your choice I guess lol. According to DVOA, Derrick Henry is the #2 HB in the NFL this year. When your argument relies entirely on DVOA, you're not going to gain any traction with me. Flacco's post-season was on a whole other level. The numbers are above and clearly show that.

Yeah, and Ryan Tannehill has the 3rd highest TD% this season, while Ryan Fitzpatrick has the 9th highest passer rating. No one would call Tannehill a top 3 QB or Fitzpatrick a top 10 QB, but that doesn't take away from the validity of TD% and passer rating. We can all cite outliers to dismiss legit stats, but you're the only one doing that here. And my argument doesn't rely solely on DVOA, so you're arguing with a strawman.

Foles was better in completion percentage, YPA, YPG and DVOA. Flacco was better in TD%, INT% and passer rating. There's no other level. Sorry.

[jrry32]

6 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Yeah, and Ryan Tannehill has the 3rd highest TD% this season, while Ryan Fitzpatrick has the 9th highest passer rating. No one would call Tannehill a top 3 QB or Fitzpatrick a top 10 QB, but that doesn't take away from the validity of TD% and passer rating. We can all cite outliers to dismiss legit stats, but you're the only one doing that here. And my argument doesn't rely solely on DVOA, so you're arguing with a strawman.

Foles was better in completion percentage, YPA, YPG and DVOA. Flacco was better in TD%, INT% and passer rating. There's no other level. Sorry.

Apology accepted. You're welcome to your incorrect opinion. The difference between TD% and DVOA is that TD% doesn't purport to tell you whom the best QB is. It tells you the QB's percentage of attempts that were TDs. DVOA attempts to rate a player based on his performance. It is supposed to tell you whom the best players are. It fails at that goal, which is why I don't use it. The same is true of ESPN's QBR stat. Your argument is based around DVOA because the traditional stats favor Flacco. Flacco was on another level. 11 TDs to 0 Ints vs. 6 TDs to 1 Int. That is hugely different, and it is hugely significant.

[childofpudding]

44 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Apology accepted. You're welcome to your incorrect opinion. The difference between TD% and DVOA is that TD% doesn't purport to tell you whom the best QB is. It tells you the QB's percentage of attempts that were TDs. DVOA attempts to rate a player based on his performance. It is supposed to tell you whom the best players are. It fails at that goal, which is why I don't use it. The same is true of ESPN's QBR stat. Your argument is based around DVOA because the traditional stats favor Flacco. Flacco was on another level. 11 TDs to 0 Ints vs. 6 TDs to 1 Int. That is hugely different, and it is hugely significant.

You have thoroughly tied yourself into a pretzel, and now you've just retreated to raw TD and INT numbers. You are the one who initially cited TD% as a reason why Flacco was better. Now you're saying it doesn't show who's better. Both DVOA and passer rating are stats that purport to tell you whom the best QB is, and both stats have outliers. You dismiss DVOA for those reasons even as you cited passer rating to argue that Flacco was better. 

You're confused.

[DirtyDez]

How bout a Gruden/Foles pairing?  Better than Shurmer?

[jrry32]

11 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

You have thoroughly tied yourself into a pretzel, and now you've just retreated to raw TD and INT numbers. You are the one who initially cited TD% as a reason why Flacco was better. Now you're saying it doesn't show who's better. Both DVOA and passer rating are stats that purport to tell you whom the best QB is, and both stats have outliers. You dismiss DVOA for those reasons even as you cited passer rating to argue that Flacco was better. 

You're confused.

The entirety of the numbers are above. They're there for everyone to see. You can desperately try to poke holes in my argument, but that strategy is not being remotely effective. The numbers are quite clear. Passer rating and YPA are both close. Flacco has a narrow edge in one, and Foles has a narrow edge in the other. On the other hand, Flacco has a significant edge in the TD/Int stats (including the percentages) while Foles has a significant edge in completion percentage. Completion percentage is the least important stat. The TD/Int stats are the most important. It's all there above. Your DVOA argument is unpersuasive.

[childofpudding]

12 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

The entirety of the numbers are above. They're there for everyone to see. You can desperately try to poke holes in my argument, but it's not being remotely effective. The numbers are quite clear. Passer rating and YPA are both close. Flacco has a narrow edge in one, and Foles has a narrow edge in the other. On the other hand, Flacco has a significant edge in the TD/Int stats (including the percentages) while Foles has a significant edge in completion percentage. Completion percentage is the least important stat. The TD/Int stats are the most important. It's all there above. Your DVOA argument is unpersuasive.

I don't need to poke holes in your argument. You've done it yourself. Half the numbers you cited as proof that Flacco was on another level actually showed Foles with the better numbers. LOL.

Foles had a significant edge in completion percentage and yards per game. Flacco had a significant edge in TDs per game. So yeah, saying Flacco was on a whole other level is absurd.

[jrry32]

5 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

I don't need to poke holes in your argument. You've done it yourself. Half the numbers you cited as proof that Flacco was on another level actually showed Foles with the better numbers. LOL.

Foles had a significant edge in completion percentage and yards per game. Flacco had a significant edge in TDs per game. So yeah, saying Flacco was on a whole other level is absurd.

Unlike you, I don't just cite the stats that support my argument. I find that for a person to have credibility, he needs to offer the entire picture. It lets people make their own decisions. What the entire picture shows is that Flacco had significantly better TD/Int numbers, both volume and efficiency. Foles had a significantly higher completion percentage. You tell me which you'd prefer from your QB. We both know the right answer here. Flacco was on a whole other level.

P.S. The yards per game number is irrelevant when we have yards per attempt.

[childofpudding]

5 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Unlike you, I don't just cite the stats that support my argument. I find that for a person to have credibility, he needs to offer the entire picture. It lets people make their own decisions. What the entire picture shows is that Flacco had significantly better TD/Int numbers, both volume and efficiency. Foles had a significantly higher completion percentage. You tell me which you'd prefer from your QB. We both know the right answer here. Flacco was on a whole other level.

P.S. The yards per game number is irrelevant when we have yards per attempt.

Nice non sequitur. 1) You refer to the numbers you cited as proof that Flacco was on another level; 2) I mention that half the numbers you cited actually favor Foles; and then 3) You imply that I lack credibility because I didn't offer all the numbers that you already offered? Bwahahaha.

I am perfectly OK with all the numbers you cited, including the ones that support the argument for Flacco. However, your stated reason for dismissing DVOA - a widely accepted QB ranking stat - was that there are outliers. Yet you cited passer rating - a QB ranking stat - even though it too has outliers. So in actuality, you are the person in this discussion who wants to exclude stats that don't support your argument.

Flacco was significantly better in TDs and slightly better in passer rating and INTs. Foles was significantly better in comp% and DVOA and slightly better in YPA. Hence, there really was no other level for Flacco.

And that's with me leaving out yards per game, speaking of which...you are incorrect (again). YPG shows how much of the offense was on the shoulders of the QB, whereas YPA is an efficiency, per-pass statistic. They tell different stories. The two aren't as highly correlated as TDs/TD% and INTs/INT%. I invite you to calculate the correlation coefficient between YPG and YPA over a significant sample size, say the last 10 or 20 years. You'll see it's not as high as that between TDs and TD% or INTs and INT%. Cheers.

[jrry32]

2 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Nice non sequitur. 1) You refer to the numbers you cited as proof that Flacco was on another level; 2) I mention that half the numbers you cited actually favor Foles; and then 3) You imply that I lack credibility because I didn't offer all the numbers that you already offered? Bwahahaha.

I am perfectly OK with all the numbers you cited, including the ones that support the argument for Flacco. However, your stated reason for dismissing DVOA - a widely accepted QB ranking stat - was that there are outliers. Yet you cited passer rating - a QB ranking stat - even though it too has outliers. So in actuality, you are the person in this discussion who wants to exclude stats that don't support your argument.

Flacco was significantly better in TDs and slightly better in passer rating and INTs. Foles was significantly better in comp% and DVOA and slightly better in YPA. Hence, there really was no other level for Flacco.

And that's with me leaving out yards per game, speaking of which...you are incorrect (again). YPG shows how much of the offense was on the shoulders of the QB, whereas YPA is an efficiency, per-pass statistic. They tell different stories. The two aren't as highly correlated as TDs/TD% and INTs/INT%. I invite you to calculate the correlation coefficient between YPG and YPA over a significant sample size, say the last 10 or 20 years. You'll see it's not as high as that between TDs and TD% or INTs and INT%. Cheers.

Passer rating is a formula intended to measure passer efficiency. We're all aware of its flaws. We're all aware of where it can be useful. It's a traditional stat listed in the box score. DVOA is not. It's a metric developed by FootballOutsiders. Your based your argument around a metric that I find to be useless. It's like people citing QBR or PFF's grades. They're welcome to do that, but I don't find them to be useful or effective measures. Thus, they are entirely unpersuasive to me. You need DVOA for your argument because the traditional stats show that Foles wasn't on Flacco's level. You're welcome to offer it, and I'll continue to say that it is useless to me.

But hey, I welcome you to continue to base your argument on the two least important stats, completion percentage and yards per game. I'll stick with TDs and Ints (both the volume and efficiency numbers). That's still a mountain you simply can't overcome. The funny thing is that you already conceded this debate, so I'm not sure why I'm even going around in circles with you anymore. 

[KOTN-93]

Giants. The QB class is trash and Eli is blatently cooked. The Giants cant roll with him again next year. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[TheKillerNacho]

Isn't he content to stay in Philly or something?

[childofpudding]

5 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Passer rating is a formula intended to measure passer efficiency. We're all aware of its flaws. We're all aware of where it can be useful. It's a traditional stat listed in the box score. DVOA is not. It's a metric developed by FootballOutsiders. Your based your argument around a metric that I find to be useless. It's like people citing QBR or PFF's grades. They're welcome to do that, but I don't find them to be useful or effective measures. Thus, they are entirely unpersuasive to me. You need DVOA for your argument because the traditional stats show that Foles wasn't on Flacco's level. You're welcome to offer it, and I'll continue to say that it is useless to me.

But hey, I welcome you to continue to base your argument on the two least important stats, completion percentage and yards per game. I'll stick with TDs and Ints (both the volume and efficiency numbers). That's still a mountain you simply can't overcome. The funny thing is that you already conceded this debate, so I'm not sure why I'm even going around in circles with you anymore. 

I'm just going to ignore your ridiculous gifs and proclamations that I've conceded the debate when I haven't. It just makes you look silly when you do that. 

I understand that you don't find DVOA to be a persuasive stat. You're wrong, but that's your prerogative. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop using it.

I actually can understand an argument for Flacco in 2012 over Foles in 2017. Where you clearly faltered was in claiming that Flacco was on a whole other level. To me, being on a whole other level would mean being better in just about every volume and efficiency stat there is. And that's simply not the case.

In the beginning of our discussion, I conceded that Montana in 1989 was on a whole other level than Foles last year. Why? He had better comp%, YPA, TD%, INT%, passer rating and DVOA. He dominates Foles in just about every passing statistic you can bring up. The same is not the case for Flacco. The only stat he dominates Foles in is TD%. That's it. That's not a whole other level to me. That's maybe a little bit better.

Here's a side-by-side comparison of all three:

I think it's clear from that chart that Montana in 1989 was on a level all his own. Then there is a big step down with Flacco and Foles being approximately on the same level. But whatever,  like I said, you're posting silly gifs now. This conversation has clearly run its course.

[Kiltman]

4 hours ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Isn't he content to stay in Philly or something?

kinda, it's strange but yeah he'd take staying in Philly over a bad situation where he's a stop gap.
Hence why he allegedly didn't want to go to Cleveland last year, he knew they'd take a QB with one of those two picks.

I think any team that chooses him as THE guy and actually backs that up will get him.
My money would be on Jacksonville or Miami from that list. I think the Bengals should maybe just realize Dalton will never be much and try to give nick a chance. He plays well in the winter...which is a big time trait in that division. But that doesn't seem like a Bengals move.

[frenchie]

my guess is, he'll end up in a terrible situation on some lousy team.  The talking heads will pull out the 'told you so' narrative, blaming him for all the troubles of said tomato can; then he'll be promptly written off yet again...  and in 2020, he'll make a triumphant return to Philly as Wentz's backup...

Seriously though, ideal situation for him would be New Orleans or New England as Brady or Brees' heir apparent or maybe Denver.  I could be off my rocker, but perhaps Carolina..?