What is JVB's deal anyway?

[Ronco]

The way you guys are using JVB statistics are like a lamppost to a drunk being used more for support than illumination.

Look at the body of work Stanzi did. Him and two freshmen RB's brought that offense to the Orange Bowl.

You can also say that JVB with 3 NFL Olinemen and a all purpose back brought us 0 trophy game wins and 1 road win.

I don't care about stats. Stanzi had some awesome senior stats but anybody with half a brain would've taken the Junior version gun slinging americstanzi over the I don't wanna make a mistake senior version. But to compare JVB's body of work to any modern QB: Drew Tate, Chandler, Banks, Jake C, Stanzi I'd say JVB finishes ahead of Jake C but behind everyone else mentioned above

Agreed- W's over stats any day. The lamp post analogy is good.

I'm not sure where he'll finish on your QB list, but if I were a betting man I would probably agree. However, I am cautiously optimistic that JVB will improve.

One thing that's been a trend under KOK is that QB's tend to regress the longer they're in the system. Throw stats out the window, there's no way I take JR/SR Tate over SO Tate, just like I'm taking JR Stanzi over SR Stanzi.

 

[hogeye]

The way you guys are using JVB statistics are like a lamppost to a drunk being used more for support than illumination.

Look at the body of work Stanzi did. Him and two freshmen RB's brought that offense to the Orange Bowl.

You can also say that JVB with 3 NFL Olinemen and a all purpose back brought us 0 trophy game wins and 1 road win.

I don't care about stats. Stanzi had some awesome senior stats but anybody with half a brain would've taken the Junior version gun slinging americstanzi over the I don't wanna make a mistake senior version. But to compare JVB's body of work to any modern QB: Drew Tate, Chandler, Banks, Jake C, Stanzi I'd say JVB finishes ahead of Jake C but behind everyone else mentioned above

Exactly.

Great QB's don't need stats as a crutch. The stats that matter most are W's and L's. That tells you what you need to know.

 

[herbyhawk]

geee i said this along time ago people ignore the fact that stat state and only look at Wins and Losses, nothing else matters to the people who just watch the game, the same hold true for Gatens in BB nobody wanted to acknowledge the kid was good.
now that the team won more than they lost, people are going "woe is me" how do we replace him

 

[hogeye]

You don't need stats to justify a great QB, plain and simple.

 

[Ronco]

geee i said this along time ago people ignore the fact that stat state and only look at Wins and Losses, nothing else matters to the people who just watch the game, the same hold true for Gatens in BB nobody wanted to acknowledge the kid was good.
now that the team won more than they lost, people are going "woe is me" how do we replace him

Are you on a medication that impairs the readability of your posts? I understand all the words in your post, but when I read them in the order you typed them I haven't a clue what you mean or your point. Thanks for playing interpret that post.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Great QB's don't need stats as a crutch. The stats that matter most are W's and L's. That tells you what you need to know.

However, 2009 is a great example (as are 2010 and 2011) of why you can't use W/L as the sole measuring stick of a QB's effectiveness.

 

[iloveyoularrystation]

It's hard to build rhythm as a quarter back when all big ten wide receivers and your top 3 wr's in general consistently drop balls that you put in their hands and on their chests. It makes you start trying to throw the ball even more perfect, and lay it in there even easier, which means you lose some zip, which means it looks like a fwapping duck. Really overlooked part of a qb's game is well, whether or not the receivers catch the dang ball, which our wr's had a ridiculous time with last year.

 

[hogeye]

However, 2009 is a great example (as are 2010 and 2011) of why you can't use W/L as the sole measuring stick of a QB's effectiveness.

Go back and quote where I ever said it was the sole measuring stick. Then we can finish the discussion in the context of what has actually been said.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Go back and quote where I ever said it was the sole measuring stick. Then we can finish the discussion in the context of what has actually been said.

You never said sole. I said sole...but it was in reference to the mention that W's and L's are the only stats that matter. But it doesn't necessarily speak to the quality or effectiveness of the QB, and I think the 3 years I mentioned illustrate that point.

Invariably the comparisons come back to Stanzi vs. JVB because the latter followed the former, and the latter always gets less credit because he hasn't put up Stanzi's W/L record. But if you look at that 2009 season, there were games that the team won IN SPITE OF Rick's play, yet he gets another W as a starting QB.

 

[hogeye]

You never said sole. I said sole...but it was in reference to the mention that W's and L's are the only stats that matter.

It's the same things, now you're just playing word games, what I said was: "The stats that matter most are W's and L's."

Not, SOLE, not ONLY...

You value stats more than I do. That's fine, don't misrepresent what I said. I don't think any one of us here who value W/L more than you would completely disregard stats, that's an unfair characterization.

 

[hawkfan2679]

"The stats that matter most are W's and L's."

I agree with you here.

You value stats more than I do. That's fine, don't misrepresent what I said. I don't think any one of us here who value W/L more than you would completely disregard stats, that's an unfair characterization.

I've posted twice in this thread. Once to say that 2009-2011 are great examples of years to show a QB's statistical seasons isn't necessarily the "sole" barometer of how the season went for the team. And you agree with this...you said so in your reply to mine, but you misinterpreted my post as an attack on your post. Your post was convenient to quote, so I did.

My second post was to restate that I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth...those were my words. I'm not playing games...I'm not trying to infer that I don't care about wins and losses. What I am trying to say is that Stanzi, despite being downright bad for chunks of 2009, is given all this credit for taking his team to an Orange Bowl, even though it was the elite defense that took the team to the Orange Bowl.

I digress...this was not a Stanzi vs. JVB thread and I feel as though that's where I'm taking it.

Carry on.

/steps out

 

[hogeye]

I've posted twice in this thread. Once to say that 2009-2011 are great examples of years to show a QB's statistical seasons isn't necessarily the "sole" barometer of how the season went for the team. And you agree with this...you said so in your reply to mine, but you misinterpreted my post as an attack on your post. Your post was convenient to quote, so I did.

My second post was to restate that I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth...those were my words. I'm not playing games...I'm not trying to infer that I don't care about wins and losses.

Fair enough, but I still think you're taking the points made regarding Stanzi out of context.

What I am trying to say is that Stanzi, despite being downright bad for chunks of 2009, is given all this credit for taking his team to an Orange Bowl, even though it was the elite defense that took the team to the Orange Bowl.

The main point isn't to herald Stanzi as a great QB, or even to compare him with JVB. Speaking for myself, Stanzi was also a good college QB, a pretty average college QB, all things considered. The point is he was actually a better QB his JR year versus his SR year.

Who cares, he had a stellar D his JR year, yes. It was just as good his SR year. So comparing Stanzi to Stanzi we're saying he was actually a better QB his JR year despite the Pick Rick moniker and despite worse statistics compared to his SR year.

His SR year he didn't lose a game by more than 4 points, but just wasn't able to find a way to put his team in a position to win the way he was his JR year. A product of the KOK discipling.

So, despite being statistically better, he really wasn't. People that don't even pay attention to stats could even see it. I heard it over and over, and they were right, and sure enough...W-L reflected it.

 

[herbyhawk]

that's why Stanzi got a spot in the NFL, because he is a poor QB. stats go a long way to determine how good a QB is, just like Wins and Losses, neither are the sole or only measuring stick to guage how good a QB is.
there are way to many vairables that determine the outcome of the game. dropped balls fumbles or passes that are catchabe that go thru the receivers hands for a interception.
then you have the fact defenses actually do lose games on last second drives that people ignore and try to blame the QB for losing.
and ignore the game winning drive that the QB led the team on by giving the credit to that same defense that put the team in that position in the 1st place of needing a game winning drive.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

that's why Stanzi got a spot in the NFL, because he is a poor QB. stats go a long way to determine how good a QB is, just like Wins and Losses, neither are the sole or only measuring stick to guage how good a QB is.
there are way to many vairables that determine the outcome of the game. dropped balls fumbles or passes that are catchabe that go thru the receivers hands for a interception.
then you have the fact defenses actually do lose games on last second drives that people ignore and try to blame the QB for losing.
and ignore the game winning drive that the QB led the team on by giving the credit to that same defense that put the team in that position in the 1st place of needing a game winning drive.

Anyone speak "Jive" or whatever language this is?

 

[JakeTheDog]

I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who said there was no way he'd take sr Stanzi over jr Stanzi or jr Tate over sophomore Tate. Both guys played with abandon earlier in their careers, and while they made more mistakes, they also made the plays to win at the end of games. Then (and this is just my opinion), they were both "O'Keefed" and became so concerned with limiting turnovers that they no longer performed well in crunch time. On a program that rarely wins if losses games by more than a touchdown, this was a deadly failing that was well-reflected in the downward trajectory of wins.

JV has got all the physical tools, but he doesn't have great instincts or intangibles. He's what Bill Walsh used to call a "coach killer", in that he'll put up numbers and take you just far enough to lose, leaving everyone to say "how the heck can't that coach win with a guy who puts up those kind of stats??" The X-factor is Davis--maybe he turns JV around an helps him become the complete package at qb. I hope so, because if we get the same performance we did last year, 7 wins might be generous with this defense and no Coker. JV is going to have to really lead the team for it to be a successful season.