Clear case of Lies vs dammed lies.....

 

 

Ehh... I'm not a fan of your evaluation because the QBs don't play much of a part in the effectiveness of the running back. I prefer to look at plays in which the QBs are involved (meaning yards-per-attempt amalgamated with yards-per-carry):

 

Marve: 6.92

 

Brohm: 5.18

 

Portis: 5.3

 

 

Also, you can't ignore Marve's effectiveness in the red zone.

 

Imagine that, you're not a fan of an evaluation that basically tears apart your entire bias towards Marve. And this number you came up with? What is the point of that? It honestly means nothing.

 

 

It means that Marve is effective at moving the offense.

 

 

No. It doesn't.

 

In your mind, maybe. In reality, not even close to what it means.

 

 

 

Ehh... I'm not a fan of your evaluation because the QBs don't play much of a part in the effectiveness of the running back. I prefer to look at plays in which the QBs are involved (meaning yards-per-attempt amalgamated with yards-per-carry):

 

Marve: 6.92

 

Brohm: 5.18

 

Portis: 5.3

 

 

Also, you can't ignore Marve's effectiveness in the red zone.

 

First off, this is not an evaluation, merely a statistical breakdown of the offensive drives.  I would advise against putting too much faith in any of these numbers.  There are a lot of factors to consider, such as supporting cast, opposing defence, and playcalling.  I definitely wouldn't evaluate the effectiveness of a QB based on my numbers or yours.  I just thought it would be interesting to look at.

 

 

Misleading numbers are misleading, that's all I'm saying.

 

 

I hope you realize that yours are just as misleading, that's all I'm saying.

 

 

It's not be-all-end-all stat, but it's certainly more telling than the numbers you pulled up.

 

 

 

Ehh... I'm not a fan of your evaluation because the QBs don't play much of a part in the effectiveness of the running back. I prefer to look at plays in which the QBs are involved (meaning yards-per-attempt amalgamated with yards-per-carry):

 

Marve: 6.92

 

Brohm: 5.18

 

Portis: 5.3

 

 

Also, you can't ignore Marve's effectiveness in the red zone.

 

Imagine that, you're not a fan of an evaluation that basically tears apart your entire bias towards Marve. And this number you came up with? What is the point of that? It honestly means nothing.

 

 

It means that Marve is effective at moving the offense.

 

 

No. It doesn't.

 

In your mind, maybe. In reality, not even close to what it means.

 

 

It is a means of measuring effectiveness, absolutely. The more yardage a QB can muster, the better he stands a chance at winning the game.

Ehh... I'm not a fan of your evaluation because the QBs don't play much of a part in the effectiveness of the running back. I prefer to look at plays in which the QBs are involved (meaning yards-per-attempt amalgamated with yards-per-carry):

 

Marve: 6.92

 

Brohm: 5.18

 

Portis: 5.3

 

 

Also, you can't ignore Marve's effectiveness in the red zone.

because it doesn't fit your narrative of hyping up Marve above all others. You trot out the same stats every time but they are equally as limited as this evaluation here. 

Ehh... I'm not a fan of your evaluation because the QBs don't play much of a part in the effectiveness of the running back. I prefer to look at plays in which the QBs are involved (meaning yards-per-attempt amalgamated with yards-per-carry):

Marve: 6.92

Brohm: 5.18

Portis: 5.3

Also, you can't ignore Marve's effectiveness in the red zone.

Imagine that, you're not a fan of an evaluation that basically tears apart your entire bias towards Marve. And this number you came up with? What is the point of that? It honestly means nothing.

It means that Marve is effective at moving the offense.

No. It doesn't.

In your mind, maybe. In reality, not even close to what it means.

It is a means of measuring effectiveness, absolutely. The more yardage a QB can muster, the better he stands a chance at winning the game.

Look at the sample size. Your stats are meaningless and totally non-predictive. I'm all for breaking down stats and looking at them, I think it's fun, but trying to draw the broad conclusions that you are is just foolish. You're pointing at a comparison of 12 plays per QB and trying to tell everyone it means something. It doesn't.

 

Ehh... I'm not a fan of your evaluation because the QBs don't play much of a part in the effectiveness of the running back. I prefer to look at plays in which the QBs are involved (meaning yards-per-attempt amalgamated with yards-per-carry):

 

Marve: 6.92

 

Brohm: 5.18

 

Portis: 5.3

 

 

Also, you can't ignore Marve's effectiveness in the red zone.

because it doesn't fit your narrative of hyping up Marve above all others. You trot out the same stats every time but they are equally as limited as this evaluation here. 

 

 

Marve has been much more effective at moving the offense and scoring points as I've shown multiple times already. The yards-per-drive stat doesn't mean anything when evaluating the effectiveness of a QB. You are better off isolating the plays in which he was directly involved.

 

 

 

 

 

Ehh... I'm not a fan of your evaluation because the QBs don't play much of a part in the effectiveness of the running back. I prefer to look at plays in which the QBs are involved (meaning yards-per-attempt amalgamated with yards-per-carry):

Marve: 6.92

Brohm: 5.18

Portis: 5.3

Also, you can't ignore Marve's effectiveness in the red zone.

Imagine that, you're not a fan of an evaluation that basically tears apart your entire bias towards Marve. And this number you came up with? What is the point of that? It honestly means nothing.

It means that Marve is effective at moving the offense.

No. It doesn't.

In your mind, maybe. In reality, not even close to what it means.

It is a means of measuring effectiveness, absolutely. The more yardage a QB can muster, the better he stands a chance at winning the game.

Look at the sample size. Your stats are meaningless and totally non-predictive. I'm all for breaking down stats and looking at them, I think it's fun, but trying to draw the broad conclusions that you are is just foolish. You're pointing at a comparison of 12 plays per QB and trying to tell everyone it means something. It doesn't.

 

 

I agree, the sample size is too small to draw many conclusions from it. I'm just trying to say that Marve has earned the chance to be the primary backup.

These numbers mean nothing, how do you factor in drops, quality of the defenders, the plays called in etc.. Nome of the guys look awful so its the hours of practice that will be used when they make the decision.