Better QB Right Now: Lamar Jackson or Josh Allen

[Soggust]

3 hours ago, Soko said:

Then you’d have doomed the Earth, because Brady has been a better, more consistent playoff force than Manning. Using Brady/Peyton hurts your point more than helps it, I think. 

Since then, sure, but not in 05.

 

3 hours ago, Soko said:

Peyton as the better overall QB (mostly due to regular season)

....

Similar caliber during the regular season - make more sense? 

You just said he was better during the regular season lol, so no, not similar caliber during the regular season lol.

 

3 hours ago, Soko said:

Again I ask you, why would we not split those postseason hairs if we can agree that they’re similarly good in the regular season?

You're framing this as if two players are the EXACT same.

In that theoretically vacuum, sure I concede, you would rather have playoff production than none - but that's not reality. No two players are the exact same. So, a small sample size of playoff games is a part of the equation, but it's so small it's not deterministic of future outcomes.

So let me rephrase - there are so many factors that go into winning a football game that past playoff performance is not a significant factor in determining futuristic outcomes. 

 

3 hours ago, Soko said:

Yeah, I’m not really interested in engaging why sports isn’t just purely based in cosmic luck and instead revolves more (not completely, but mostly) around skill, performance, and preparation. We agree there are tons of variables, some the QB can control and many that they cannot, that go into any given postseason resume. But equating a player’s performance to a roulette wheel is just so far beyond what my understanding of sports is.

If you literally acknowledge that we agree that there are tons of variables, including those the QB can control that affect performance - Why would you straw man that my position is that playoff performance is entirely random?

 

3 hours ago, Soko said:

I mean, Purdy’s played okay in his 3 games, wouldn’t really say he lit things up when he got there. Which is fine, but that’s how I’d sum up those games. Dak generally underperforms.

?? Purdy's played in 6 playoff games and Dak has played in 7.

 

3 hours ago, Soko said:

The hypotheticals matter less than the point and follow-up question. If two guys are we view as similarly good in the regular season/as a whole are playing against each other in a playoff game, why would I not be more confident against the guy who generally plays well in the postseason vs a guy who generally plays bad? 

Because they are not deterministic, as you said, and not a significant enough weight in the equation in my mind (given we are criticizing about like 2-5 playoff losses with these players) to predict future outcomes. 

edit - If we are playing poker and you stack me 3 times with AK > QQ, am I supposed to fold the 4th time I get Queens, knowing that you have AK? Or is the "similar player" more likely to catch back up over time statistically, if we agree they are the same caliber hand?

Edited August 15 by Soggust

[Soko]

26 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Since then, sure, but not in 05.

Side note, but which games are you even referencing here? The 2004 regular season/2005 postseason was an impressive win vs Denver, and then basically a shut out vs New England. The 2005 season/2006 postseason, Peyton had a pretty meh game and lost in round 1 vs Pittsburgh, 18-21.

If you’re referencing the 2006 season/2007 championship run, Peyton threw a whopping 3 TDs in 4 games, with 7 INTs. One game with an 81.8 rating, two in the 70 range (79.1, 71.9), and one at 39.6. Yes, there was heroics in the second half of the NE game, but not really a strong postseason by Peyton or that offense. Not exactly supporting your cause, although it’s moot.

It’s not about one guy in one run. It’s about looking at a player’s tendencies and using them to shape your view of them as a player. Yes, Peyton for example was always a scary guy because he was so lethal in the regular season and is obviously extremely skilled as a player, but we can say with absolute certainty that he generally underperformed in the postseason. Using the benefit of hindsight, we can say it’d be wrong and foolish to compare him to Brady in the postseason. That may have been what you or others thought at the time (or at any point, particularly early in their careers), but we can look back and say: wrong. 

26 minutes ago, Soggust said:

You just said he was better during the regular season lol, so no, not similar caliber during the regular season lol.

Uh yeah, I think Brady and Peyton were viewed as pretty similar caliber players throughout their primes. That’s the pretty general consensus, I’d say, even if you (or anyone) favored one or the other. I’ve actually never in my life heard anyone say Brady and Peyton (in their primes) were two separate caliber/tier of players. That includes Patriots homers and Brady haters. If that’s how you feel, power to you, not gonna dive down that rabbit hole, but you’re on an island with that one. 

But you do realize Brady vs Manning isn’t even the point, right? Like I find you to be a pretty insightful dude, but being glued to obvious hypotheticals that I assumed would make it simpler to understand (but hasn’t), has nothing to do with this? 

26 minutes ago, Soggust said:

You're framing this as if two players are the EXACT same.

In that theoretically vacuum, sure I concede, you would rather have playoff production than none - but that's not reality. No two players are the exact same. So, a small sample size of playoff games is a part of the equation, but it's so small it's not deterministic of future outcomes.

And why is it that you’d rather have playoff production vs none, if it’s entirely random and up to the football gods?

I never said they’re exactly the same. I said similar caliber. IIRC, you said earlier that you personally have Lamar>Josh, but see arguments and understand why others would feel differently. Soooo, yeah, not seeing why you’re getting upset about me calling these two guys “similar caliber”, and certainly not “exactly the same”.

26 minutes ago, Soggust said:

So let me rephrase - there are so many factors that go into winning a football game that past playoff performance is not a significant factor in determining futuristic outcomes. 

In case it wasn’t clear, I’ll repeat myself: not talking QB wins. Talking QB performance. Should be obvious, but QBs can play well in losses. Not sure if it’s intentional or accidental, but trying to get me to go in on the QB wins talk isn’t happening.

Beyond that, yeah, how a QB performs in the past is going to influence how I think they’ll perform going forward. It won’t determine it, but it’ll influence it.

26 minutes ago, Soggust said:

If you literally acknowledge that we agree that there are tons of variables, including those the QB can control that affect performance - Why would you straw man that my position is that playoff performance is entirely random?

You said it’s a roulette wheel. Which is, to my knowledge, entirely random. 

I have zero clue how saying there are lots of variables in play is somehow contradictory to saying playoff performances are/are not random. Yes, there are factors that QBs can/can’t control that influence how they play. Yes, they sometimes play well and sometimes play bad (and everywhere in between). Seem to be two pretty obvious, but separate statements there.
 

26 minutes ago, Soggust said:

?? Purdy's played in 6 playoff games and Dak has played in 7.

I mentally blipped on Purdy’s rookie postseason campaign.

As per above comment, not gonna go on the hypothetical tangent because it really has nothing to do with my overall point that Lamar’s generally performed worse in the playoffs than Josh, thus presenting value for Josh over Lamar in some capacity. 

26 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Because they are not deterministic, as you said, and not a significant enough weight in the equation in my mind (given we are criticizing about like 2-5 playoff losses with these players) to predict future outcomes. 

What sample size becomes sufficient then? 10 games? 15? 32? Or does it not matter - no matter how big the sample size, the most important games of the season won’t ever be weighted differently? 

26 minutes ago, Soggust said:

edit - If we are playing poker and you stack me 3 times with AK > QQ, am I supposed to fold the 4th time I get Queens, knowing that you have AK? Or is the "similar player" more likely to catch back up over time statistically, if we agree they are the same caliber hand?

Gonna be totally honest, don’t totally know what that means. If I’m understanding right, you’re asking me if I win three times in a row with a really good hand, are you expected to fold on the 4th time you get the same hand that I’ve been beating you with? Correct me if I’m wrong there. Answer there is no, but that doesn’t really make any sense to bring up here, considering getting a good hand in poker isn’t a skill. Playing quarterback is. There are things that go in to playing poker that are skill based, but the cards you’re dealt is not one of them. Zero control over that. I’d say QBs have a much higher degree in how they play than drawing cards. Not total control all the time, but…a lot higher than absolute random (like a silly roulette wheel).

No one is saying “because you played poorly last time, you’re more likely to play poorly next game”. It’s “you’ve shown a history of not playing well in these situations, so I’m using that as a piece of the pie to influence how I think you generally are as a player”. Like I said, it’s not statistics. It seems like you’re conflating this with those goofy ESPN “stats” where it goes “when this team has their white jerseys on in 39 degree weather on the 4th Sunday of the month, they’re 8-0”.

[Soggust]

48 minutes ago, Soko said:

Side note, but which games are you even referencing here? The 2004 regular season/2005 postseason was an impressive win vs Denver, and then basically a shut out vs New England. The 2005 season/2006 postseason, Peyton had a pretty meh game and lost in round 1 vs Pittsburgh, 18-21.

If you’re referencing the 2006 season/2007 championship run, Peyton threw a whopping 3 TDs in 4 games, with 7 INTs. One game with an 81.8 rating, two in the 70 range (79.1, 71.9), and one at 39.6. Yes, there was heroics in the second half of the NE game, but not really a strong postseason by Peyton or that offense. Not exactly supporting your cause, although it’s moot.

It’s not about one guy in one run. It’s about looking at a player’s tendencies and using them to shape your view of them as a player. Yes, Peyton for example was always a scary guy because he was so lethal in the regular season and is obviously extremely skilled as a player, but we can say with absolute certainty that he generally underperformed in the postseason. Using the benefit of hindsight, we can say it’d be wrong and foolish to compare him to Brady in the postseason. That may have been what you or others thought at the time (or at any point, particularly early in their careers), but we can look back and say: wrong. 

I don't even understand what the first two paragraphs are about. I quite literally never said Peyton was better in the playoffs than Brady, but you seem to keep assigning that position to me. 

Yes, in hindsight, I would have been wrong. But a LOT of that is because of what Brady turned out to be in the regular season in 07, 10 etc, not just the SB wins. I listed it as an example of my ideology, not because it turned out to be correct. But I also don't think humanity would have been doomed if we started Peyton, because it's not deterministic of his play in the Alien game and we don't have the benefit of hindsight at the time of decision making. 
 

53 minutes ago, Soko said:

Uh yeah, I think Brady and Peyton were viewed as pretty similar caliber players throughout their primes. That’s the pretty general consensus, I’d say, even if you (or anyone) favored one or the other. I’ve actually never in my life heard anyone say Brady and Peyton (in their primes) were two separate caliber/tier of players. That includes Patriots homers and Brady haters. If that’s how you feel, power to you, not gonna dive down that rabbit hole, but you’re on an island with that one. 

I said that Peyton Manning in 05 was considered a better regular season player and you follow it up by saying they were similar caliber players "throughout their prime". But I agree, no reason to get caught up on Manning/Brady.

 

56 minutes ago, Soko said:

if it’s entirely random and up to the football gods?

Still not my position and my dude, I quite literally just asked you not to straw man me on this exact take.

 

57 minutes ago, Soko said:

I never said they’re exactly the same. I said similar caliber. IIRC, you said earlier that you personally have Lamar>Josh, but see arguments and understand why others would feel differently. Soooo, yeah, not seeing why you’re getting upset about me calling these two guys “similar caliber”, and certainly not “exactly the same”.

Not sure who is upset lol but those subtle differences between the two are what sets Lamar apart for me.

It's like if I said, "they are two similar guys but one guy has 2 MVPs, how can anyone take Allen?". 

It's like yeah, but that's part of the math that keeps them "similar caliber", right? The playoff production, in my mind, is part of what keeps Allen in the discussion, but it doesn't make me think he's automatically going to throw 4 TDs and Lamar is going to poop his pants if they play each other.

 

1 hour ago, Soko said:

In case it wasn’t clear, I’ll repeat myself: not talking QB wins. Talking QB performance. Should be obvious, but QBs can play well in losses. Not sure if it’s intentional or accidental, but trying to get me to go in on the QB wins talk isn’t happening.

Beyond that, yeah, how a QB performs in the past is going to influence how I think they’ll perform going forward. It won’t determine it, but it’ll influence it.

You said it’s a roulette wheel. Which is, to my knowledge, entirely random. 

It's random in the sense that the next action is not determined or influenced by previous actions.

It's not random in the sense that "Red" has the same chance of hitting as "31".

But if we are comparing exactly similar bets (34 and 30), then I don't think the fact that 34 hit twice means it's more likely than 30 coming up.

 

1 hour ago, Soko said:

I have zero clue how saying there are lots of variables in play is somehow contradictory to saying playoff performances are/are not random. Yes, there are factors that QBs can/can’t control that influence how they play. Yes, they sometimes play well and sometimes play bad (and everywhere in between). Seem to be two pretty obvious, but separate statements there.

It's not. That's my position. You're straw manning me when you say that I supposedly think all playoff production is just a random chance.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying Lamar doesn't throw a pick in 2024 because of 2023. That doesn't mean Daniel Jones is just as likely to do well as Lamar. 

 

1 hour ago, Soko said:

What sample size becomes sufficient then? 10 games? 15? 32? Or does it not matter - no matter how big the sample size, the most important games of the season won’t ever be weighted differently? 

I just weight them equally with regular season games so it would depend on how many regular season games the player has. I think 6 playoff games is a lot more telling when a guy has 12 career starts vs a random 6 playoff game stretch of Tom Brady's career, for example.

 

1 hour ago, Soko said:

Gonna be totally honest, don’t totally know what that means. If I’m understanding right, you’re asking me if I win three times in a row with a really good hand, are you expected to fold on the 4th time you get the same hand that I’ve been beating you with? Correct me if I’m wrong there. Answer there is no, but that doesn’t really make any sense to bring up here, considering getting a good hand in poker isn’t a skill. Playing quarterback is. There are things that go in to playing poker that are skill based, but the cards you’re dealt is not one of them. Zero control over that. I’d say QBs have a much higher degree in how they play than drawing cards. Not total control all the time, but…a lot higher than absolute random (like a silly roulette wheel).

But we aren't talking about all the things that go into playing a QB, we are only talking about prior playoff success. 

So to me, that's like saying "hey I would rather take the 49% hand instead of 51% hand because it's my lucky hand and I won 3 tournaments with it". I understand the perspective, but I don't think it changes the math.

The problem is, and the reason we are talking past each other, is because I believe what you are saying that Josh Allen is actually the 51% BECAUSE of the playoff success - which I think is a fair take (as I mentioned before, because we add it to the stats and compare the whole). I'm saying that I believe Lamar is the 51% because of his resume and I would rather have the slight edge than a previously lucky hand if I think the first hand is better, because I don't think the next time that they play in the playoffs it will be influenced by the previous events.

 

1 hour ago, Soko said:

No one is saying “because you played poorly last time, you’re more likely to play poorly next game”. It’s “you’ve shown a history of not playing well in these situations, so I’m using that as a piece of the pie to influence how I think you generally are as a player”.

The first position is the only thing I have been debating against and prolly why I just wasted 30 mins or whatever of your day talking past you.

That's the roulette take.

The second is a fair position and exactly why I mentioned "I have no problem with people who have Allen at 2, even though I disagree".

But that position does sound like you are saying you consider the playoff guy better and, therefore, it's no longer a similar caliber player in my mind lol so feels like kind of a catch-22.

 

 

[Soko]

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I don't even understand what the first two paragraphs are about. I quite literally never said Peyton was better in the playoffs than Brady, but you seem to keep assigning that position to me. 

Reference your own post. You said you’d take Peyton over Brady in 2005 with the world on the line. I said you’d be wrong to do so because Brady was better in the playoffs. You said “sure, but not in 05”. So I was just wondering where you’re getting that idea from, when in all three postseasons around the year 2005, Peyton was largely mediocre on the whole (compared to who he usually is in the regular season). Certainly not as efficient as Brady in the same time period.

You initially said you’d take Peyton over Brady in the playoffs. You’d be wrong in making that choice. I’m not assigning you anything else in this aspect, other than you’d be wrong for making that choice. That’s why it’s odd you’d use that when it supports the exact opposite of your argument.

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Yes, in hindsight, I would have been wrong. But a LOT of that is because of what Brady turned out to be in the regular season in 07, 10 etc, not just the SB wins. I listed it as an example of my ideology, not because it turned out to be correct. But I also don't think humanity would have been doomed if we started Peyton, because it's not deterministic of his play in the Alien game and we don't have the benefit of hindsight at the time of decision making. 

You used it as an example of your ideology, but it actually supports why your ideology is wrong…okay then.

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I said that Peyton Manning in 05 was considered a better regular season player and you follow it up by saying they were similar caliber players "throughout their prime". But I agree, no reason to get caught up on Manning/Brady.

You straight up said they weren’t similar caliber players. Go live alone on that island that not even the biggest fanboys/haters ever visited. Not a soul had Brady or Peyton in separate categories (AKA not similar caliber) except super early/super late in their careers, which is obviously not what we’re talking about here. 

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Still not my position and my dude, I quite literally just asked you not to straw man me on this exact take.

You likened it to a roulette wheel and poker. If that’s not completely random, what is?

EDIT: You actually straight up say “it’s random” later in this post, so miss me with the straw man bit. 

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Not sure who is upset lol but those subtle differences between the two are what sets Lamar apart for me.

It's like if I said, "they are two similar guys but one guy has 2 MVPs, how can anyone take Allen?". 

It's like yeah, but that's part of the math that keeps them "similar caliber", right? The playoff production, in my mind, is part of what keeps Allen in the discussion, but it doesn't make me think he's automatically going to throw 4 TDs and Lamar is going to poop his pants if they play each other.

Yeaaaaah it doesn’t “automatically” make me think that either. But it does influence my belief in one guy continuing his shrinkage in the postseason and one guy continuing playing reasonably close to his usual level in the postseason. 

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

It's random in the sense that the next action is not determined or influenced by previous actions.

It's not random in the sense that "Red" has the same chance of hitting as "31".

But if we are comparing exactly similar bets (34 and 30), then I don't think the fact that 34 hit twice means it's more likely than 30 coming up.

Let me try this one last time. 

Being bad in a playoff game doesn’t mean you’ll be bad in the next. 

Being bad in a playoff game might indicate you’re a bad playoff performer. 

Being a bad playoff performer might indicate that you’re not gonna perform that well in your next playoff game.

Does that make sense yet?

If I get an F on my last three math tests, that has zero bearing on whether or not I ace my next test. But it might indicate that I suck at math. If I suck at math, my teacher probably isn’t betting on me getting an A on the next one. Me failing my next math test isn’t determined by me failing my last one. But failing my last one indicates something about me that will heavily factor into how I do on my next one. 

You’re repeatedly trying to make this a purely statistical thing, when it just isn’t. 

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

It's not. That's my position. You're straw manning me when you say that I supposedly think all playoff production is just a random chance.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying Lamar doesn't throw a pick in 2024 because of 2023. That doesn't mean Daniel Jones is just as likely to do well as Lamar. 

All addressed above. 

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I just weight them equally with regular season games so it would depend on how many regular season games the player has. I think 6 playoff games is a lot more telling when a guy has 12 career starts vs a random 6 playoff game stretch of Tom Brady's career, for example.

If they were all weighed the same, then you’d think Lamar in an MVP season wouldn’t have any bad postseason games, right? Or at least, only as bad as his bad regular season games. Why are his worst games usually in the playoffs?

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

But we aren't talking about all the things that go into playing a QB, we are only talking about prior playoff success. 

So to me, that's like saying "hey I would rather take the 49% hand instead of 51% hand because it's my lucky hand and I won 3 tournaments with it". I understand the perspective, but I don't think it changes the math.

Also addressed above. It’s not like that at all, but keep equating it to gambling. 

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

The problem is, and the reason we are talking past each other, is because I believe what you are saying that Josh Allen is actually the 51% BECAUSE of the playoff success - which I think is a fair take (as I mentioned before, because we add it to the stats and compare the whole). I'm saying that I believe Lamar is the 51% because of his resume and I would rather have the slight edge than a previously lucky hand if I think the first hand is better, because I don't think the next time that they play in the playoffs it will be influenced by the previous events.

It won’t be influenced by previous events, it’ll be influenced by the tendency of the QBs. Luck is a part of any sport, but you don’t continuously shrink in the biggest moments just out of dumb luck.

43 minutes ago, Soggust said:

The first position is the only thing I have been debating against and prolly why I just wasted 30 mins or whatever of your day talking past you.

That's the roulette take.

The second is a fair position and exactly why I mentioned "I have no problem with people who have Allen at 2, even though I disagree".

But that position does sound like you are saying you consider the playoff guy better and, therefore, it's no longer a similar caliber player in my mind lol so feels like kind of a catch-22.

But…I never said the first part. I don’t think anyone has (but not taking responsibility here if they did). 

Semantics maybe, but being similar caliber = / = being exactly the same. Leaning one guy’s direction for one reason or another doesn’t mean the two can’t be similar caliber, similar tier, similar quality, whatever you want to call it. Otherwise two guys could never possibly be similar unless they were exactly the same. 

I think we figured things out. Respect.

[AngusMcFife]

Wow this convo is getting complex.

Even if I don't know whether Josh Allen or Lamar Jackson will have the next good/bad playoff game, but I do think that Allen is more of a "mudder," his size, arm strength, and hand size make him better equipped for cold/windy/wet weather (plus Lamar is a S. Florida boy, while Allen is N. Cali and Wyoming).

If by default the AFC playoffs are often outdoors in January, its fair to say Allen is a better playoff QB simply due to him having attributes that can sustain in bad weather (most top AFC teams aren't in a dome or in the south, except Hou and maybe Mia).

[Soggust]

6 minutes ago, Soko said:

Reference your own post. You said you’d take Peyton over Brady in 2005 with the world on the line. I said you’d be wrong to do so because Brady was better in the playoffs. You said “sure, but not in 05”. So I was just wondering where you’re getting that idea from, when in all three postseasons around the year 2005, Peyton was largely mediocre on the whole (compared to who he usually is in the regular season). Certainly not as efficient as Brady in the same time period.

You initially said you’d take Peyton over Brady in the playoffs. You’d be wrong in making that choice. I’m not assigning you anything else in this aspect, other than you’d be wrong for making that choice. That’s why it’s odd you’d use that when it supports the exact opposite of your argument.

You used it as an example of your ideology, but it actually supports why your ideology is wrong…okay then.

Because, again, we don't have a time machine when we make the decisions. And if playoff success was some true predictor, then Flacco wouldn't have pooped his pants last season. There are "right" and "wrong" examples both ways, I was just stating what I thought was an innocuous example of my philosophy.

 

7 minutes ago, Soko said:

You straight up said they weren’t similar caliber players. Go live alone on that island that not even the biggest fanboys/haters ever visited. Not a soul had Brady or Peyton in separate categories (AKA not similar caliber) except super early/super late in their careers, which is obviously not what we’re talking about here. 

In 05, in the regular season.
 

12 minutes ago, Soko said:

You likened it to a roulette wheel and poker. If that’s not completely random, what is?

EDIT: You actually straight up say “it’s random” later in this post, so miss me with the straw man bit. 

Yeaaaaah it doesn’t “automatically” make me think that either. But it does influence my belief in one guy continuing his shrinkage in the postseason and one guy continuing playing reasonably close to his usual level in the postseason. 

Let me try this one last time. 

Being bad in a playoff game doesn’t mean you’ll be bad in the next. 

Being bad in a playoff game might indicate you’re a bad playoff performer. 

Being a bad playoff performer might indicate that you’re not gonna perform that well in your next playoff game.

Does that make sense yet?

If I get an F on my last three math tests, that has zero bearing on whether or not I ace my next test. But it might indicate that I suck at math. If I suck at math, my teacher probably isn’t betting on me getting an A on the next one. Me failing my next math test isn’t determined by me failing my last one. But failing my last one indicates something about me that will heavily factor into how I do on my next one. 

You’re repeatedly trying to make this a purely statistical thing, when it just isn’t. 

All addressed above. 

If they were all weighed the same, then you’d think Lamar in an MVP season wouldn’t have any bad postseason games, right? Or at least, only as bad as his bad regular season games. Why are his worst games usually in the playoffs?

Also addressed above. It’s not like that at all, but keep equating it to gambling. 

It won’t be influenced by previous events, it’ll be influenced by the tendency of the QBs. Luck is a part of any sport, but you don’t continuously shrink in the biggest moments just out of dumb luck.

Okay. I feel like I'm talking past you and vice versa, so I'll just respectfully agree to disagree and let the next reader decide.
 

15 minutes ago, Soko said:

But…I never said the first part. I don’t think anyone has (but not taking responsibility here if they did). 

This whole thing started because I said "5 blacks in a row doesn't mean the next spin is red." in reference to a hypothetical one game playoff scenario where we had theoretically equally talented QBs.

That is 100% very clearly talking about the first argument, where the next outcome is not dictated by prior outcomes. 

For some reason, you took that position as "all QBs have the same chance" and ironically, started with a casino analogy where apparently "red" (Lamar/Mahomes) have the same odds as "000" (Darnold/Fields). 

"Are performances of NFL QBs completely random, with zero connectivity or consistency (like casino numbers/colors)? If that were the case, wouldn’t Sam Darnold and Lamar Jackson have the same MVP odds? Wouldn’t Patrick Mahomes and Justin Fields be equally as likely to be playoff performers?"

We can skip all the weeds we just explored and boil it down to this - If you're asking me why I might prefer a "Nick Foles"-caliber QB to him if they didn't have the playoff success, the answer is clearly "Well that depends on what else the dude does that makes him comparable to Foles". If you're telling me that it's his twin brother Rick Foles and they are absolutely identical in all ways, but Nick has a history of playoff success, then I don't think they are equal - I just think Nick is just better.

 

[Soko]

4 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Because, again, we don't have a time machine when we make the decisions. And if playoff success was some true predictor, then Flacco wouldn't have pooped his pants last season. There are "right" and "wrong" examples both ways, I was just stating what I thought was an innocuous example of my philosophy.

 

In 05, in the regular season.
 

Okay. I feel like I'm talking past you and vice versa, so I'll just respectfully agree to disagree and let the next reader decide.
 

This whole thing started because I said "5 blacks in a row doesn't mean the next spin is red." in reference to a hypothetical one game playoff scenario where we had theoretically equally talented QBs.

That is 100% very clearly talking about the first argument, where the next outcome is not dictated by prior outcomes. 

For some reason, you took that position as "all QBs have the same chance" and ironically, started with a casino analogy where apparently "red" (Lamar/Mahomes) have the same odds as "000" (Darnold/Fields). 

"Are performances of NFL QBs completely random, with zero connectivity or consistency (like casino numbers/colors)? If that were the case, wouldn’t Sam Darnold and Lamar Jackson have the same MVP odds? Wouldn’t Patrick Mahomes and Justin Fields be equally as likely to be playoff performers?"

We can skip all the weeds we just explored and boil it down to this - If you're asking me why I might prefer a "Nick Foles"-caliber QB to him if they didn't have the playoff success, the answer is clearly "Well that depends on what else the dude does that makes him comparable to Foles". If you're telling me that it's his twin brother Rick Foles and they are absolutely identical in all ways, but Nick has a history of playoff success, then I don't think they are equal - I just think Nick is just better.

Not really gonna take any time to respond just to have 85% ignored lol. Have a good night, dude.

[Soggust]

Just now, Soko said:

Not really gonna take any time to respond just to have 85% ignored lol. Have a good night, dude.

Fair enough.

The good news is that next debate isn't absolutely determined to be miserable, even if it's likely to be given our record =p

[diamondbull424]

On 8/13/2024 at 9:35 AM, Ozzy said:

Also one could argue Josh Allen is just as good of a runner as Lamar Jackson and has less attempts.  If given the same opportunities to run I am sure he would have equal to or great rush numbers.  Josh Allen has ran for 53 TDs in his career, Lamar Jackson only 29 and has a higher per carry average also.  

Thats not how it works. Law of diminishing returns. Allen with more carries 1) doesn’t make the playoffs because on a per attempt basis, he takes more hits and we saw with Cam Newton’s career how that turned out from a similar runner of the football from the QB position. 2) is going to be less efficient on a per attempt basis… as it also means the offensive tendency changes and the defense would be more likely to sell out towards stopping the run.

On 8/13/2024 at 9:35 AM, Ozzy said:

He made great improvement last year as a passer in that new offense, but laid an egg in the playoffs.

While I understand your overall point and don’t disagree that Lamar should’ve performed better against the Chiefs.

The game against the Texans with nearly 73% passing, 2 TDs passing, 2 rushing TDs, 150 passing yds, 100 yds rushing, and no turnovers?

So definitely don’t find it fair to say that he laid an egg. But again, my guess is you’re saying in comparison to the expectations he should’ve done more and at least made the SB… and I agree with that sentiment, but he had his best playoff performance these past playoffs. And even against the Chiefs, it was a mediocre showing but not terrible. A couple things go differently, Zay Flowers doesn’t fumble at the 1 yard line, the Chiefs are called for DPI on the early tackle of Isaiah Likely that resulted in Lamar’s lone INT (he still fumbled) on the day… and we could be talking about a far different stat line of 270 yds passing 2 TDs, 0 INTs.

I think Lamar having a breakout playoffs offensively could very well be around the corner, especially if he can avoid top 5 defensive units like he saw with the Chiefs. We saw what he could do against a middle of the pack Texans defense in the playoffs. Every year is a new year, but last years playoffs for Lamar was at least a step in the right direction.

[WizeGuy]

On 8/26/2024 at 11:33 PM, diamondbull424 said:

Thats not how it works. Law of diminishing returns. Allen with more carries 1) doesn’t make the playoffs because on a per attempt basis, he takes more hits and we saw with Cam Newton’s career how that turned out from a similar runner of the football from the QB position.

 

I agree with your point, but I'm pretty sure Cam got his shoulder destroyed in the pocket on a dirty hit. The good news for Allen and other running QBs is defensive players aren't going to destroy them with a borderline dirty hit as often. Lamar is a master at avoiding contact, though. Super smart with the way he runs. Allen's adrenaline gets the best of him at times, which makes for some entertaining runs at least!

[CasperX22]

Allen and not particularly close.