Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by TheGore49er:
Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
Originally posted by Waterbear:I pointed out that Jimmy wins games this is his response.
I'll give you 100 dollars if you can prove Steve said that.
Stop doing this straw man BS.
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
.Team accomplishments are not the same as individual accomplishments.
He's literally saying QBs have no basis on winning and that's it's all the team that won Jimmy the game, not Jimmy... The team.
Now pay up.
Holy 5th grade reading comprehension level, Batman.
For anyone who wants to see the actual post instead of reading what ribs is lying about, the post is #114892.
In no way, shape or form did I say this:
Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
Steve say the QB has no bearing on wins ever.
Awesome so Jimmy is a reason that Kyle has a great record with Jimmy and an abysmal record without. That's a QB DOES in fact make an impact in wins and losses... You know, arguably the most important position in any sport? Right?
Most sports are team games but one position is far more important than the others. There's a reason Kyle is like 9-28 without Jimmy. Jimmy is the difference. Sure Beathard and Mullens but that only proves that a good QB makes a difference in w/l.
"Man, I think people got short-term memory loss or something because, before Jimmy came (the 49ers weren't good). . . . He saved us, i won two games, four games, and when Jimmy came he really turned it around, brought us to the point where we're at now."
-Armstead
The record literally backs this up and for anybody without a clear agenda its undebatable. The 49ers were terrible pre-Jimmy and were terrible injured Jimmy. With Jimmy... and yes the team most certainly helped... they were a play away(ones Jimmy missed) from a SB victory and another SB appearance.
Is Jimmy an all time great? No... Never...but he turned this franchise around more than any player on the current team.
That doesn't mean he "won the games" for the team. It means his predecessors LOST THEM.
I'm usually better way than Gore and will usually give at least try to give an actual counter argument unlike he has ever done but I just can't after this post. A walking contradiction lol. QBs don't win games but they can lose them.
Once again telling players like Armstead they are wrong.
Ffs
#obssesed
at least you're not sending rage emails to rubber anymore lulz.
What are you talking about? I don't think I've ever sent an email to anyone here. I've responded to angry, racist PMs, and I've argued my case about warnings, but that's about it.
.
.
Anyway, I think I've found out part of why Jimmy "just wins," on a more analytic level than usually discussed around here. I'm working on my own quarterback rating metric, and so far Jimmy has done pretty well, but not great. However, after looking at 9 guys on my 2 minute drill before half time stat, Jimmy is thus far blowing away the competition (which includes Tom Brady and Josh Allen). I can't say for sure yet, because I've not determined the Pearson Correlation Coefficient yet (when compared to win%), which i will do after painstakingly going through every game the 31 QBs I'm looking at played in, but to give you an idea:
(obviously subject to human error, since I'm manually looking at every play-by-play)
Two minute drill before half time success rate (defined as drives which pass the two minute mark and result in scores):
Allen: 0.500
Brady: 0.476
Jimmy: 0.846
Jimmy is almost twice as good as Brady at it. Now, again, I can't say this is really why he "just wins" yet, because I have to do an analysis of how this statistic correlates with winning. It probably is NOT such a strong correlation, because (1) Neither my opening drive metric (defined as an opening drive that ends in a touchdown) nor my "clutch" metric (defined as a drive with 4 minutes or less left in which the QB's team is tied or trailing by one score which results in a lead change or tie, respectfully), strongly correlated with winning, and (2) Jimmy's win% is obviously less than his Half Time 2 min drill success rate (at 0.600). And since I brought it up, Jimmy's "clutch" success rate as defined above is better than average, but not the best.
But, it's probably going to show itself to be a factor. I've seen a couple other factors which help Jimmy "out win" his intuitive statistical output, but I'll discuss them when I finally finish this.
We've been over and over this Jimmy wins stuff. I'm not sure who you're trying to convince anymore since the 49ers seem to have made up their mind. I doubt other teams spend a lot of time reading this forum sothere is no point to continuing to try and convince anyone that Jimmy is a winner.
Jacksonville drafted the consensus best QB in the draft last year. He was a 4 year starter playing a tough schedule. He had a national championship under his belt. Many people were calling him a generational QB. Well we saw how much of a difference he made. Without the supporting cast they ended up with the #1 pick again. So much for QBs win games.
I'm not interested in doing this to "prove" anyone wrong or right. The reason I'm interested in doing it is because other metrics show things that don't make sense, like Kirk Cousins being basically elite, or Jimmy winning a lot despite putting up pedestrian numbers. It is nothing but the desire to understand, and the fact that numbers are fun to me, that is motivating me.
And since we're here, Kirk Cousins has thus far done TERRIBLE in anything related to clutch, so maybe that's the reason. He still ends up rating pretty high, but those things bring him down a bit. (for example, Cousins' half time two minute drill success rate is a paltry 0.278).
not my money, I can care less really to be honest..