Colin Kaepernick Thread

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Les go Kap. We got a fierce defense and pass rush coming our way.

They are not that fierce

C'mon Cap just stay cool and lead this team, go 9ers!

Originally posted by insanemike27:
Say what you want but I, like most fans, don't know anything about studying film and building a case for it one way or the other. All I can base my opinion on is a televised broadcast and what these advanced sporting stat websites have to offer. So to me, they are factual. If you want to break down film and explain to me why the PFF stats are wrong, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I will base my statements on what is available to me.

Just pointing out that there is a level of subjectivity to all OL/QB sack blame put out by all stat websites.

Originally posted by aTx49er:

Just pointing out that there is a level of subjectivity to all OL/QB sack blame put out by all stat websites.

Thank you for pointing that out.....whats the point?

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by aTx49er:
Just pointing out that there is a level of subjectivity to all OL/QB sack blame put out by all stat websites.

Thank you for pointing that out.....whats the point?

InHarbaughweTrust......... Is that you?

Originally posted by insanemike27:
http://www.ninersnation.com/2015/9/23/9381571/all-22-colin-kaepernick-is-the-49ers-biggest-bright-spot-through-two

I thought most of this analysis was accurate. Although, I think toward the end, the writer's true colors began to bleed through. Kaep's redzone numbers have improved every year since he has been in the league. His numbers in the redzone through 2 games this year may not be popping out on paper but with his vast improvement in all things passing, I would have to believe those numbers will improve as the season progresses. The writer also made a comment about Colin being responsible for a lot of the sacks he took last year but never provided any statistics to back up his claims. According to PFF, his analysis on that aspect is just not factual. Other than those 2 pet peeves, I think the article is a nice read.

Good article - Thanks Mike!

Originally posted by aTx49er:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by aTx49er:

Just pointing out that there is a level of subjectivity to all OL/QB sack blame put out by all stat websites.

Thank you for pointing that out.....whats the point?

InHarbaughweTrust......... Is that you?

So, what was the point again?

Originally posted by aTx49er:
Just pointing out that there is a level of subjectivity to all OL/QB sack blame put out by all stat websites.

Agree with this. These "advanced" stats are of limited value to me, especially when no one can explain how they are derived. As a general rule, if I don't completely understand the methodology behind a stat, I will not rely on it to build an argument.

Two solid / good games back to back. Keep it rolling, Kap. Set the tone on offense.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Les go Kap. We got a fierce defense and pass rush coming our way.

How well they prepare for the Cards defense will show how good and prepared our coaching staff is and can be.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by aTx49er:
Just pointing out that there is a level of subjectivity to all OL/QB sack blame put out by all stat websites.

Agree with this. These "advanced" stats are of limited value to me, especially when no one can explain how they are derived. As a general rule, if I don't completely understand the methodology behind a stat, I will not rely on it to build an argument.

They are certainly subjective, which makes them fallible, but when/if you can compare several sets of stats and they agree with your observations, a case can be build. Sadly, many people leave out context. How many games do we watch where the fans of one team say, "That was a catch!" but the fans of the opposite team applaud the no catch call on the field. They just saw the same play but their perspectives skew their views. Using some objective source helps to lessen this natural bias.

As far as the methodology, most sites will give have an explanation of how they reach their conclusions but it will still contain subjectivity.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by aTx49er:
Just pointing out that there is a level of subjectivity to all OL/QB sack blame put out by all stat websites.

Agree with this. These "advanced" stats are of limited value to me, especially when no one can explain how they are derived. As a general rule, if I don't completely understand the methodology behind a stat, I will not rely on it to build an argument.

They are certainly subjective, which makes them fallible, but when/if you can compare several sets of stats and they agree with your observations, a case can be build. Sadly, many people leave out context. How many games do we watch where the fans of one team say, "That was a catch!" but the fans of the opposite team applaud the no catch call on the field. They just saw the same play but their perspective skews their view. Using some objective source helps to lessen this natural bias.

As far as the methodology, most sites will give have an explanation of how they reach their conclusions but it will still contain subjectivity.

I certainly agree that perspective informs conclusion in many cases. If a QB throws a dart across the middle that is tipped up by the receiver for an interception, is it the QB's fault or the receiver's fault? Or perhaps both? Stats typically cannot capture that, and "advanced" stats often compound these inaccuracies.

Regarding your note about methodology, I have repeatedly asked posters citing the sack responsibility stat to also post an explanation of the stat and how it is derived. The best response I've received is a general statement about how PFF derives all of its stats (which, obviously, leaves a lot of questions unanswered). If an explanation of the methodology is out there, I would love to see it. If the stat cannot be explained, either by those generating it or those citing it, I am inclined to disregard it. Way too much room for subjectivity in my opinion.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
I certainly agree that perspective informs conclusion in many cases. If a QB throws a dart across the middle that is tipped up by the receiver for an interception, is it the QB's fault or the receiver's fault? Or perhaps both? Stats typically cannot capture that, and "advanced" stats often compound these inaccuracies.

Regarding your note about methodology, I have repeatedly asked posters citing the sack responsibility stat to also post an explanation of the stat and how it is derived. The best response I've received is a general statement about how PFF derives all of its stats (which, obviously, leaves a lot of questions unanswered). If an explanation of the methodology is out there, I would love to see it. If the stat cannot be explained, either by those generating it or those citing it, I am inclined to disregard it. Way too much room for subjectivity in my opinion.

There method at PFF is being totally revamped, or is it just their site format? So we will see if there is an improvement. I think you are correct that some things are just subjective and there will be no clear consensus...the immaculate reception being a wonderful example. I try not to get into lengthy arguments with people who want to argue a subjective call or stat...there is not point. Is player A good? If you use a couple of mistakes to prove he isn't good then it lessons your credibility. If you have already seen this from PFF please ignore, but I have a complaint about their process from the get-go.

Step 1: An analyst grades the play on a scale of +2 to -2
Step 2: Regrade—second analyst reviews to ensure accuracy.
Step 3: Another analyst (3rd) reviews and confirms.
Step 4: Grades ae verified by the Pro Coach Network and their 400 years of combined NFL and college coaching experience.
Step 5: Raw grades normalized to better account for the situation. Ranges from where the player lines up to drop back depth, to everything in between.

My problem with this system is guys are confirming or not confirming which is less credible than several guys reviewing in the first instance and then comparing grades. It is similar to grading essay's...some state bar exams (and many others) are graded separately by numerous people and then the grades are accumulated, outliers tossed and a grade given. Seems much better than the risk of confirmation bias.

We are 1-1. Today, we play the third game of the season.

After this game, there will be at least 13 more games to play.

Before every game, I worry.

I have no idea what is going to happen.

I never do.

I always hope for the best.

Go 49ers!!!!!!

Clean some clocks!!!!!!!

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
I certainly agree that perspective informs conclusion in many cases. If a QB throws a dart across the middle that is tipped up by the receiver for an interception, is it the QB's fault or the receiver's fault? Or perhaps both? Stats typically cannot capture that, and "advanced" stats often compound these inaccuracies.

Regarding your note about methodology, I have repeatedly asked posters citing the sack responsibility stat to also post an explanation of the stat and how it is derived. The best response I've received is a general statement about how PFF derives all of its stats (which, obviously, leaves a lot of questions unanswered). If an explanation of the methodology is out there, I would love to see it. If the stat cannot be explained, either by those generating it or those citing it, I am inclined to disregard it. Way too much room for subjectivity in my opinion.

There method at PFF is being totally revamped, or is it just their site format? So we will see if there is an improvement. I think you are correct that some things are just subjective and there will be no clear consensus...the immaculate reception being a wonderful example. I try not to get into lengthy arguments with people who want to argue a subjective call or stat...there is not point. Is player A good? If you use a couple of mistakes to prove he isn't good then it lessons your credibility. If you have already seen this from PFF please ignore, but I have a complaint about their process from the get-go.

Step 1: An analyst grades the play on a scale of +2 to -2
Step 2: Regrade—second analyst reviews to ensure accuracy.
Step 3: Another analyst (3rd) reviews and confirms.
Step 4: Grades ae verified by the Pro Coach Network and their 400 years of combined NFL and college coaching experience.
Step 5: Raw grades normalized to better account for the situation. Ranges from where the player lines up to drop back depth, to everything in between.

My problem with this system is guys are confirming or not confirming which is less credible than several guys reviewing in the first instance and then comparing grades. It is similar to grading essay's...some state bar exams (and many others) are graded separately by numerous people and then the grades are accumulated, outliers tossed and a grade given. Seems much better than the risk of confirmation bias.

I agree that it is unfair to point to a few mistakes or bad plays and declare that a player is bad. There are simply too many moving parts on any given play. Similarly, I think it is unfair in many cases to point to a select statistic and declare that one's assertion is factual. Certain stats are objectively ascertainable (time of possession, for example), but many (most?) are directly or indirectly influenced by other factors on the field. That is especially true of composite / "advanced" stats which, to me, are murky at best. Too many moving parts for the numbers to capture. It's even worse when one cannot explain the stats that he or she is citing. Most people realize that stats are imperfect tools for analyzing what happened on the field, but claiming that an assertion is "factual" because an "advanced" statistic backs it up is, in my opinion, tenuous and damaging to one's credibility.

Thanks for posting the PFF grading process. I have seen it before and agree with your critique that comparing independently derived grades is preferable to their iterative review format. When I ask for methodology on a particular stat, I want to know which factors are considered, how those factors are measured / observed, and what role those factors play in influencing the outcome / conclusion. Anything like that available for the PFF sack stat?