News: Dak Prescott: One of the NFL’s Most Accurate Deep Passers

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is laughable.

You're bringing up a single play from the season to discredit an entire article. You're willfully ignorant, troll.

He said that he did not get a single interception on deep balls. Also it helps to understand the denominator when you are taking issue with a sample.

Sure if the sample is in the hundreds then a single sample is nothing more than an anecdote. When the sample is a dozen or so like in this case?

Really though that is neither here nor there. Dak did get intercepted on deep balls which the author said did not happen or at the very least implied using statistical bias. It is easy to deduct universals when you show the exception. Learn to logic.

You do not even argue that. Instead you get chapped and come after me ad hominem from the get go. Calling me willfully ignorant is fun though? Of what am I ignorant or you just throwing that at me like a wannabe pedant?

 

[joseephuss]

He said that he did not get a single interception on deep balls. ?

No, the author said Dak did not throw a single interception on deep balls thrown into "tight coverage". He did not include all deep passes, just the ones into "tight coverage".

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All they were doing was looking at which quarterbacks threw most often into "tight coverage." They called it being "aggressive." Never mind that it might be just being stupid or unable to see the field if there are other receivers wide open. Note that very few of their top 10 "most aggressive" quarterbacks were among the best quarterbacks this season.

I'm all for biasing and seeing if something shakes out but so much statistical analysis seems obtuse to the fact that there is something in the real world they are supposed to be trying to model. Too much cart in front of the horse.

 

[Coy]

says sports history. Rookies arent worth paying attention to when it counts in the playoffs.
Rookie QBs is what I mean. Rookies at other positions can hide behind the team.

Let's hope Dak changes this perception, if not Garrett will have a lot of explaning to do and the offseason with Tony leaving will be chaos.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, the author said Dak did not throw a single interception on deep balls thrown into "tight coverage". He did not include all deep passes, just the ones into "tight coverage".

You left out the other portion of my statement which indicated how that was misleading to the part you quoted.

At this point you are belaboring an in consequential point of fact. You are right that their bias may have left out the interception in question.

The point here is that if you include the "not tight coverage throws" or at the very least that one deep throw then given the denominator in question here, it is not quite so rosey.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You already guessed at their intent when you said they were making stuff up to build up Dak. The parameters for those stats weren't set to make Dak specifically look good. Nor were they made up. Those are just the parameters. The writer is the one who took one set of stats, "tight coverage" and did not use "not tight" to prop up Dak. He is the one that manipulated(not made up) the data.

TLH indeed was hyping. You admitted it yourself. The people with the numbers are who I was not speaking to intent.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

as a rookie he doesnt even qualify as 'one of'
he qualifies as had a decent year. Remember Kaepernick? get back to me in 2 years

Yeah this article is certainly an oversimplification. Luckily you're here with a detailed analysis of...oh wait you used a single example of a non rookie to discredit the article.

 

[percyhoward]

All they were doing was looking at which quarterbacks threw most often into "tight coverage." They called it being "aggressive." Never mind that it might be just being stupid or unable to see the field if there are other receivers wide open. Note that very few of their top 10 "most aggressive" quarterbacks were among the best quarterbacks this season.

People with exclusive access to amazing data, and no clue how to use it.

 

[joseephuss]

TLH indeed was hyping. You admitted it yourself. The people with the numbers are who I was not speaking to intent.

Yes, I've already admitted that. It is misleading. Or probably more accurate it demonstrates that the writer lacked the knowledge on how to interpret the stats. It still isn't making stuff up as you claimed.

 

[bayeslife]

So the dink and dunker throws deep more than Dak.

I do like how you drown out the poor performance at over 30 yards though by just including all those intermediate throws too.

Have fun continuing to bias the stats in the most glowing way possible.

I'm all for biasing and seeing if something shakes out but so much statistical analysis seems obtuse to the fact that there is something in the real world they are supposed to be trying to model. Too much cart in front of the horse.

Statistics aren't biased. Like what does that even mean?

Sure you can infer a biased spin on what is presented but Prescotts stats on deep throws are what they are there's no bias about it.

 

[Bluefin]

PFF has an article up ranking their top ten rookies this season (it's free).

Ezekiel Elliott is #1.

Dak Prescott is #2.

Prescott finished the season with only 13 turnover-worthy throws after recording 23 in his final year at Mississippi State. This was an unbelievable rookie year for PFF’s 11th-highest-graded NFL quarterback.

Prescott's ability to avoid throwing the football into bad situations has been remarkable.

I'm actually surprised PFF graded 13 passes an being interception-worthy because I don't remember that many.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

This stuff sickens me. I yearn for the good old days. When football was a man's game (not literally).

To be honest, I doubt there is such a thing as a successful game manager quarterback anymore. With all the rule changes, the days of protecting the likes of Neil O'Donnell and Stan Humphries with strong running games and defenses are over. You can either do it or you can't.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

disappear? no, they indicate proven trends. Rookies fail when it counts,Always have,always will. Wisdom and experience always/most of the damn time, win out.
aside from that,you as an adult should be able to grasp that. Stop acting like 5 year old at Christmas. You know in you logical head the Cowboys have zero to little chance of getting to the SB.
The kid has a 2 week layoff and too much time to think.

How many rookies have had homefield advantage throughout the playoffs?

Edit: I believe the answer is one.

 

[Sportsbabe]

To be honest, I doubt there is such a thing as a successful game manager quarterback anymore. With all the rule changes, the days of protecting the likes of Neil O'Donnell and Stan Humphries with strong running games and defenses are over. You can either do it or you can't.

That's what Tony always says. It's just that simple.

 

[irishline]

If they are measuring it from when the pass was thrown, then no, the defender was not within 1 yard.

Good call Adam, you are right on that, I didn't see that on the video.

 

[AdamJT13]

Good call Adam, you are right on that, I didn't see that on the video.

The video that was posted didn't show the entire field when the ball was thrown.

 

[Kevinicus]

The article omitted a single play by accident.

He claimed the author is making 'crap' up to hype Prescott. There's a big difference between between forgetting one play from the entire season, and propaganda. Hence, why he's trolling.

You know why the play wasn't included? Were you the author?

 

[Sportsbabe]

He said that he did not get a single interception on deep balls. Also it helps to understand the denominator when you are taking issue with a sample.

Sure if the sample is in the hundreds then a single sample is nothing more than an anecdote. When the sample is a dozen or so like in this case?

Really though that is neither here nor there. Dak did get intercepted on deep balls which the author said did not happen or at the very least implied using statistical bias. It is easy to deduct universals when you show the exception. Learn to logic.

You do not even argue that. Instead you get chapped and come after me ad hominem from the get go. Calling me willfully ignorant is fun though? Of what am I ignorant or you just throwing that at me like a wannabe pedant?

Oh that's deep.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Statistics aren't biased. Like what does that even mean?

Sure you can infer a biased spin on what is presented but Prescotts stats on deep throws are what they are there's no bias about it.

Bias simply means to prevent/allow certain things to pass depending on fame of reference. For example a low bias amplifier will allow the majority of a signal through without corrupting it. On the other hand noise cancellation devices bias in the ambient noise signal before doing an inverse to cancel the noise.

Statistics can also be biased in a similar manner. Splits are simply a bunch of different biases by game situation. Close and late, 3rd down, running plays, etc.

It has been co-opted to also mean prejudiced which speaks to human behavior. I think that is what you are talking about. I meant bias in the statistical sense.

 

[zeroburrito]

The article omitted a single play by accident.

He claimed the author is making 'crap' up to hype Prescott. There's a big difference between between forgetting one play from the entire season, and propaganda. Hence, why he's trolling.

he forgot? how hard is it to check daks 4 interceptions? the research was lacking. nobody forgot anything.