Twitter: Lowest uncatchable pass % (Dak and Brady tied 4th)

[gimmesix]

Do you want the exact yards the ball went behind or in front of the wr? Did the pic in the article not define it well enough? Not being a smart***, actually asking.

The Cooper passed would defiantly be catchable. The Gallup one would've been borderline.

I just think the idea of what is catchable or uncatchable is a bit subjective.

Moving away from the Cowboys' receivers for a second, Philly radio and fans are arguing that the deep throw to Agholar against us was catchable. How does something like this quantify that throw?

You say the Cooper pass was catchable and the Gallup one was borderline, but that's your perspective on it. Without a very precise definition, either could be considered catchable or uncatchable.

 

[Little Jr]

I just think the idea of what is catchable or uncatchable is a bit subjective.

Moving away from the Cowboys' receivers for a second, Philly radio and fans are arguing that the deep throw to Agholar against us was catchable. How does something like this quantify that throw?

You say the Cooper pass was catchable and the Gallup one was borderline, but that's your perspective on it. Without a very precise definition, either could be considered catchable or uncatchable.

When I said that Cooper ball was catchable and Gallup was borderline, I was going off the article and the pic in the article. Did you read the article and see the pic that explains and shows with a pic what they consider catchable?

Personally, I think Cooper ball was catchable. Gallup ball I do not, i put that one on Dak.

 

[gimmesix]

When I said that Cooper ball was catchable and Gallup was borderline, I was going off the article and the pic in the article. Did you read the article and see the pic that explains and shows with a pic what they consider catchable?

Personally, I think Cooper ball was catchable. Gallup ball I do not, i put that one on Dak.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I do not see an article linked to this tweet.

 

[aikemirv]

Whether Dak has been behind or not on an interception or 2 really has no bearing on my evaluation of him as a QB. I am not really sure why the Dak crowd defends him so much on each and every one. They happen. He has had a great year accuracy wise as shown by all his completion numbers and all his next gen stats numbers and these numbers as well. He has improved remarkably in this area the the antithesis of the Rams playoff game where I was so irritated with him.

This stats for me says as much about making the proper read and checkdown as it does accuracy.

 

[Little Jr]

Maybe I'm missing it, but I do not see an article linked to this tweet.

It was in my first reply to you

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-an-introduction-to-pff-qb-charting

 

[InTheZone]

Maybe they're taking into account a receivers catch radius, so even if the ball is 3 feet in the air and behind the wr running full stride they just pause the replay and draw a diameter around the wr. If the ball is inside its good apparently.

 

[iceberg]

one day i'll figure out the meaning behind all these strange stats that come out of nowhere as if they actually mean something.

 

[erod]

The stat is subjective and bogus.


Erod’s eye test. That’s where you find objective truth.

Stats can be made to dance any way you want. Just like a political poll. The president has a 48% approval rating. Says who? The 1000 people you asked randomly, or the ones you selected intentionally? You can produce the result you want.

Your eyes don't lie to you if you know what you're looking at.

There's a difference between an interception thrown into triple coverage, an interception on an overthrow, an interception tipped by the receiver in stride, an interception batted at the line of scrimmage, an interception on a wrong route by the receiver, an interception with a slippery ball in the rain, an interception on a shovel pass to a back not looking, an interception on a Hail Mary to end the half, etc, etc, etc.

Not to the stats though. They're all exactly the same. You can live in that world. I refuse to.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think this is necessarily about bad throws. Good QBs get rid of the ball to avoid negative plays all the time. I'd bet that this is included in those stats but I don't know, would need more info to determine what the stat really tracks.

 

[HungryLion]

Stats can be made to dance any way you want. Just like a political poll. The president has a 48% approval rating. Says who? The 1000 people you asked randomly, or the ones you selected intentionally? You can produce the result you want.

Your eyes don't lie to you if you know what you're looking at.

There's a difference between an interception thrown into triple coverage, an interception on an overthrow, an interception tipped by the receiver in stride, an interception batted at the line of scrimmage, an interception on a wrong route by the receiver, an interception with a slippery ball in the rain, an interception on a shovel pass to a back not looking, an interception on a Hail Mary to end the half, etc, etc, etc.

Not to the stats though. They're all exactly the same. You can live in that world. I refuse to.

The biggest key is knowing what you’re looking at.

You don’t have to explain stats. I know how they work. The point, which you danced around, is that your eye test is even more subjective than statistics. Yet, you try to present it as being more objective than stats. Which is pure nonsense.


FWIW, Your post also shows you have 0 idea how polls work.

 

[gimmesix]

It was in my first reply to you

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-an-introduction-to-pff-qb-charting

Thanks. I didn't notice it then. It seems like they have a fairly comprehensive view of catchable and uncatchable. i don't know if it acknowledges every possible scenario, but they do seem to at least be trying to do that. There are really a lot of variables that can make the same throw almost impossible to catch. We can't just say that hit the receiver in the back shoulder so he should have caught that. If the expectation is for the pass to be in front of the receiver, if the receiver is running at a full sprint in the opposite direction, if he's unable to get both hands back cleanly around the ball, I consider that to be on the quarterback. I think receivers adjust and catch a lot of poor throws that they probably have no business catching, so the expectation becomes that they should make those catches and when they don't, the get blamed for it.

 

[erod]

FWIW, Your post also shows you have 0 idea how polls work.

Have you ever been polled politically? Do you know anyone who has? 99% of the population hasn't and doesn't.

 

[erod]

The biggest key is knowing what you’re looking at.

You don’t have to explain stats. I know how they work. The point, which you danced around, is that your eye test is even more subjective than statistics. Yet, you try to present it as being more objective than stats. Which is pure nonsense.

It's only nonsense if you don't know what you're looking at.

Dak's had good games with poor stats. He's had bad games with great stats. Against Green Bay, the only stats that should have even counted were those accumulated by 31-3. Everything after that should be stricken from the record. They don't matter. They were time wasters. But by year's end, they'll mean everything come contract time. Just like sacks at the end of blowouts or interceptions on Hail Marys.

Stats don't mean the same thing to Kirk Cousins as they do Lamar Jackson. They're entirely different for Oregon compared to Alabama.

I once saw a game where a team was leading 24-0 with less than 40 yards of offense at halftime. Needless to say, they got destroyed on the offensive stat sheet.

I know what I'm watching. I don't need anyone else to quantify it with meaningless numbers.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Stats are not the be all, end all. Don't get me wrong, they are an important tool in the box but there are other things you look for as well. Things that don't show up in a stat sheet.

 

[HungryLion]

It's only nonsense if you don't know what you're looking at.

Dak's had good games with poor stats. He's had bad games with great stats. Against Green Bay, the only stats that should have even counted were those accumulated by 31-3. Everything after that should be stricken from the record. They don't matter. They were time wasters. But by year's end, they'll mean everything come contract time. Just like sacks at the end of blowouts or interceptions on Hail Marys.

Stats don't mean the same thing to Kirk Cousins as they do Lamar Jackson. They're entirely different for Oregon compared to Alabama.

I once saw a game where a team was leading 24-0 with less than 40 yards of offense at halftime. Needless to say, they got destroyed on the offensive stat sheet.

I know what I'm watching. I don't need anyone else to quantify it with meaningless numbers.

You think you know what you’re watching. Again your opinion about what you’re seeing is MORE subjective than statistics. That’s the point you still won’t admit.

 

[HungryLion]

Have you ever been polled politically? Do you know anyone who has? 99% of the population hasn't and doesn't.

Yes and yes.

Polls are a tool. Most of them aren’t given randomly, most of them draw their participants from various economic, social, religious groups, etc.

Polls are only meaningless if you’re dumb enough to strictly take them at solely face value, and not analyze their results against other polls, historical voting data and trends, etc. again, polls are a tool. If you think they are meaningless, that means you don’t know how to factor in their results as just one piece of data in the overall large puzzle of trying to understand an electorate (if we are still using the political poll example).

They aren’t the end all, be all. Just like statistics aren’t the end all be all.

Statistics are also a tool. And ignoring them because they can be subjective is foolish. Just as saying all that matters is your eye test is foolish. You have to take all the data points into consideration if you want to get an actual realistic evaluation. But just dismissing statistics because you don’t like them, or worse yet, because the results say something you don’t like, again is silly.

Statistics do have relevance and as a point of data, do have meaning in an overall evaluation of a player. Just because the stats say something you don’t like, doesn’t mean they are irrelevant.

You’re also using examples of single games as your evidence to argue how stats are useless. Which is also nonsense given that most people recognize that you need larger sample sizes than single games to get any relevant data from a statistic.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

hmmmmm......part of accuracy?

That stat is bunk.

Dak’s never thrown an uncatchable ball.

 

[Fletch]

Daks just average and is inaccurate but I know you grown men need a hero so will say annnnnnything to defend him.

And yet he wins. Has stats all over the place to prove it. lol

Romo is done. Ain’t coming back. Pucker up butter cup and get with the program. Dak is your boy, and will be for a loong time!

You’ll keep watching! I can promise ya that!

 

[ItzKelz]

Dak has 0.1% uncatchable pass percentage when the WR is 6' 6" or more.

And that's with him never having a 6'6 WR.....Dak is the man!!!

 

[Roadtrip635]

Stats are not the be all, end all. Don't get me wrong, they are an important tool in the box but there are other things you look for as well. Things that don't show up in a stat sheet.

In the ongoing battle between Dakazoids and Dak Haters, one big rallying cry from the haters were lack of stats. Now that the stats are improving and things that don't show up in the stats "intangibles" have already been widely panned by the Dak Haters, all they have left to resort to is their "eye tests".