Ranking the (B)East - QB

[Woz]

22 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

So Alex Smith's career is pretty much over, and Eli's might as well be.  I'm not going to vote for either rookie who hasn't stepped on the field yet.  That leaves Wentz and Dak, and honestly I'm not a believer in Dak.  So I voted Wentz, who I think is pretty good but probably not as good as a lot of Eagles fans think he is.  

And this is my logic as well.

[Woz]

*applauds @MosEisley* Going for the lols. Love it.

[Matts4313]

9 hours ago, Kiltman said:

What??

who is? I think most everyone is on board that Wentz is pretty damn good

I mean we are all, mostly, realist. We know he has ways to improve. Most players do. I don't think admitting that weakens anything.
We argue/discuss how he can go from top 10 to the best, not bottom half to kinda good. What people think he wasn't good in 2017?

He was the best in '17, and top 10 since. 

You missed my point. 

Eagles fan: Wentz was as good in '18 as he was in '17

Also Eagles fan: Wentz was a big gimp in '18. Thats why he wasnt playing at an "MVP" level.

1 hour ago, Danger said:

Statistically speaking Wentz was actually better last season than he was in 17. Let's see how this year goes when he's able to not spend the entire off season rehabbing.

Point Proven. 

[Matts4313]

[Danger]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

Eagles fan: Wentz was as good in '18 as he was in '17

Also Eagles fan: Wentz was a big gimp in '18. Thats why he wasnt playing at an "MVP" level.

1 hour ago, Danger said:

Statistically speaking Wentz was actually better last season than he was in 17. Let's see how this year goes when he's able to not spend the entire off season rehabbing.

Point Proven. 

There are multiple things to consider here. Stats across the board were better in '18 for QBs than in '17. Wentz instead of being Top 3 QB in the season was more like top 10. 

But when you're using the eye test, Wentz seemingly had more opportunities that he missed in '18 where he found them in '17. 

I wouldn't call 2018 a disappointment by any means, but '17 was superior. Neither season was bad, but '17 was special.

[Danger]

15 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

 

I'd much rather see their statistics compared without their rookie seasons. Yes Dak had a good rookie season, but we've seen so many times that Rookie seasons are usually not indicative of a QBs career success or lack thereof.

Additionally, the "losing seasons" statistic completely lacks context. TO/G I'm assuming is Fumbles + INT. A Fumble isn't a turnover, a Fumble LOST is a turnover.  But yes, factoring in Wentz rookie season certainly weighs the statistics down in your favor aside from availability.

I'll run through it myself without the Rookie season for Wentz.

Wentz:
GP% 78.1%
Win% 66.7%
Comp% 64.7%
Tot Y/G 281.8
TD/G 2.3
INT+FUM/G 1.3 (Note this is total Fumbles not Fumbles lost which are actual turnovers)
ANY/A 7.16

I'll save my time and just say that Dak's stats would drop if you do the same thing and that you are going to hold on to that Rookie season to bolster your argument come hell and high water.
 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Danger

[Kiltman]

8 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

You missed my point. 

Eagles fan: Wentz was as good in '18 as he was in '17

Also Eagles fan: Wentz was a big gimp in '18. Thats why he wasnt playing at an "MVP" level.

Ah gotcha 

then yeah 

2017: MVP level

2018: slightly down but top ten level

Nobody said he was a bad QB or anything 

was still better than Dak both years at playing the position.

 

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, Danger said:

I'd much rather see their statistics compared without their rookie seasons. Yes Dak had a good rookie season, but we've seen so many times that Rookie seasons are usually not indicative of a QBs career success or lack thereof.

Additionally, the "losing seasons" statistic completely lacks context. TO/G I'm assuming is Fumbles + INT. A Fumble isn't a turnover, a Fumble LOST is a turnover.  But yes, factoring in Wentz rookie season certainly weighs the statistics down in your favor aside from availability.

I'll run through it myself without the Rookie season for Wentz.

Wentz:
GP% 78.1%
Win% 66.7%
Comp% 64.7%
Tot Y/G 281.8
TD/G 2.3
INT+FUM/G 1.1 (Note this is total Fumbles not Fumbles lost which are actual turnovers)
ANY/A 7.16

I'll save my time and just say that Dak's stats would drop if you do the same thing and that you are going to hold on to that Rookie season to bolster your argument come hell and high water.
 

 

 

If we are going to take out 16 games, can you remove Falcon '17 through Titans '18. Where Dallas had a bottom 5 rated OL and the worst rated WR group in the entire NFL?

[Danger]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

If we are going to take out 16 games, can you remove Falcon '17 through Titans '18. Where Dallas had a bottom 5 rated OL and the worst rated WR group in the entire NFL?

It's going over your head dude. 

Rookie seasons for QBs don't really represent what they're truely capable of. For better or worse. It usually doesn't mean much. What you're suggesting is cherry picking.

[Matts4313]

Just now, Kiltman said:

Ah gotcha 

then yeah 

2017: MVP level

2018: slightly down but top ten level

Nobody said he was a bad QB or anything 

was still better than Dak both years at playing the position.

 

"Wentz only played well because he had the best supporting cast in the NFL. Give Dak a great OL and weapons like that and he would perform just as well"

[Matts4313]

Just now, Danger said:

It's going over your head dude. 

Rookie seasons for QBs don't really represent what they're truely capable of. For better or worse. It usually doesn't mean much. What you're suggesting is cherry picking.

No, I got it. You want to use selective stats because it helps your argument. You justify it by selectively saying rookie seasons dont correlate. I am selectively saying that having bottom 5 OL and WRs also dont correlate. 

[Danger]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

No, I got it. You want to use selective stats because it helps your argument. You justify it by selectively saying rookie seasons dont correlate. I am selectively saying that having bottom 5 OL and WRs also dont correlate. 

You did not have a bottom 5 OL. 

WR Core, sure. I'll give you that one.

[Matts4313]

Just now, Danger said:

You did not have a bottom 5 OL. 

WR Core, sure. I'll give you that one.

28th ranked in pass blocking.

41 assigned sacks to the OL

[Danger]

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

28th ranked in pass blocking.

41 assigned sacks to the OL

I watched a lot of Dak during that stretch, dude was holding onto the ball far longer than he had been previously.

Side note: You'll notice I didn't bother posting Dak's stats without his Rookie season. You're more than welcome to hold them in your argument, but taking into account Wentz's rookie year when the team around him was still suffering from Post-Chip Syndrome is not a good basis. 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Danger

[Matts4313]

3 minutes ago, Danger said:

I watched a lot of Dak during that stretch, dude was holding onto the ball far longer than he had been previously.

Side note: You'll notice I didn't bother posting Dak's stats without his Rookie season. You're more than welcome to hold them in your argument, but taking into account Wentz's rookie year when the team around him was still suffering from Post-Chip Syndrome is not a good basis. 

Dak was assigned blame for 15-16 sacks by 2 different independent sites.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Matts4313