Romo or Brees

[G2]

SB Title or High QBR...

If you asked ANY QB who ever played in the NFL, if he could only have one, which one do you think would he take?

But isn't the difference in rating like .4% ?

 

[GMO415]

Damn kilogram.....it's not even close!

Brees

 

[MarcusRock]

Of course it does. It also explains why Montana and Young are only older era QB’s in upper part of this rating system with West Coast offense which were shorter passers which increased the percentages and accuracy .

Much like with Daks high completion percentage which skews his effectiveness and performance.
One half during our 3 game slump he was 9-10 for 45 yards. Lol

Yep. When you throw short a lot, it does help your efficiency numbers but again as you do it over and over again the conditions change. Defenses will play you different, weather conditions might change, receivers might drop balls, etc. which will put downward pressure on those efficiency numbers over time. If Dak can go 9-10 with short passes, he's not going 900-1000 over 2 seasons. This is why Dak is on the hot seat this year, IMO. If I'm a defensive coordinator, I'm stacking the box for Elliott and taking chances that Dak and his hodge-podge receiving corps can't beat me. That's what started to happen last year. Beasley is our best receiver. He didn't have a down year last season, defenses simply clamped down on him and dared Dak to beat them with Dez, Witten, and others which scared no one. To be a great QB, you have to have a touch deep. I'm not saying Dak can't do that but he has to develop that if he's going to keep defenses honest. Our receivers aren't scaring anyone and if we're relying on our 3rd round rookie to break through to be that deep threat then I think there's reason for concern.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I understand what your saying mathematically. Yes the percentage is the same but that’s where stats can be unreliable ediecially in smaller sample sizes.

It doesn’t skew the numbers . It only skews what they might represent.

Smart man. You get it.
Since Romo has thrown over 4,000 career passes there is no sample size issues. It is not “easier” for Romo to have a higher yards per attempt, the number simply is what it is. The only argument that could be made is that Brees numbers are (very, very) slightly more reliable than Romo’s because of the increased sample size. But since both men have thousands of attempts, the reliability difference is basically zero.

 

[Roadtrip635]

All of what you are saying is speculation. By your logic, the QBs who threw the ball less in 2017 should have higher passer ratings than those who throw the ball more, but the opposite is true. However you are right, there is nuance and what you are saying can at least be debated.
Again he is saying from a pure MATH perspective it is easier to complete 8 out of 10 passes than 80 out of 100. Eliminate opponent, eliminate fatigue, eliminate everything. He’s saying mathematically, he even used the words “statistical probability” and said it was easier to go 8 for 10 in baseball than 80 out of 100.

I didn't say that at all. QB's rise or regress to their own mean, not the mean of the group. Generally a QB will have more success when they have to throw less than they normally do, because they are not throwing under duress or adverse conditions as often. It's not surprising that Tony's best season for passer rating, came in a season where he wasn't required to pass as often. It's especially true for a QB like Tony that was in a higher risk down field passing offense.

It is easier to go 8/10 than 80/100. There are countless examples of a QB of going 8/10 in a game, but there isn't one that completed 80% in a season. Brees holds the record at 72% for a season and 3 of the 4 best season completion % in NFL history. There are more variables introduced in more attempts. The same way that Dak held the record for number of pass attempts to start a career without an INT, the chance of maintaining that percentage were extremely low. A batter in baseball going 8 for 10 is statistically better than the same hitter under the exact same conditions going 80 for 100.

 

[MarcusRock]

Obviously a QB in an offense that is as heavily reliant on the passing game as the Saints can't play it as safe in the passing game as a QB who is in an offense where the passing game is a compliment to the running game. You can look at Romo, for example. His most efficient season, by far, was in 2014 with the DeMarco Murray led running game, and his worst was 2012 when he had the most passing attempts in his career. Since we are specifically talking about Romo in this thread, that obviously is a fair point. The bottom line is, a more pass heavy offense results in the passing game having to take more chances through the air. Obviously that doesn't mean every season will be the same, or that a heavy passing team can't be efficient, or a heavy running team will always have an efficient passing game, but in general more passes equals more passing risks.

More passes equaling more passing risks was exactly one of my points I was trying to get across. Brees has a better completion% and INT% than Romo despite throwing a ton more passes in his career than Romo. These are stats that should unquestionably favor Romo but it just speaks to Brees' greatness as a passer.

 

[OmerV]

There’s nothing skewed about it, he completed 90% of his passes. The small sample size means the number isn’t very reliable, but the actual feat itself is no easier or harder than completing 900 out of 1000 passes or 900,000 out of 1,000,000 passes. It’s exactly the same.

If you admit that a small sample size means numbers aren't very reliable, then how can you say a small sample size equates to exactly the same thing as a large sample size if the percentage is the same?

The reality is, the bigger sample size reflects a consistency that a smaller sample size does not, and maintaining consistency over time and over more passing attempts is, without question, harder than maintaining consistency over a shorter time period with fewer passing attempts.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

If you admit that a small sample size means numbers aren't very reliable, then how can you say a small sample size equates to exactly the same thing as a large sample size if the percentage is the same?

The reality is, the bigger sample size reflects a consistency throughout time that a smaller sample size does not, and maintaining consistency over time and over more passing attempts is, without question, harder than maintaining consistency over a shorter time period with fewer passing attempts.

Romo does not have a small sample size. There is a reason why they have a minimum number of attempts for most statistics. Once you pass the threshold the difference is statistically insignificant. Especially for statistic recorded in 3 significant figures.
And no it is not harder or easier unless you are adding in other factors. I am taking a pure math perspective.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

More passes equaling more passing risks was exactly one of my points I was trying to get across. Brees has a better completion% and INT% than Romo despite throwing a ton more passes in his career than Romo. These are stats that should unquestionably favor Romo but it just speaks to Brees' greatness as a passer.

More passes does not equal more passing risk. All you do is talk, you literally have no examples or data. And I see you have no response to my challenge. I didn’t think you believed any of the nonsense you are saying. Thanks for confirming it.

 

[MarcusRock]

I didn't say that at all. QB's rise or regress to their own mean, not the mean of the group. Generally a QB will have more success when they have to throw less than they normally do, because they are not throwing under duress or adverse conditions as often. It's not surprising that Tony's best season for passer rating, came in a season where he wasn't required to pass as often. It's especially true for a QB like Tony that was in a higher risk down field passing offense.

It is easier to go 8/10 than 80/100. There are countless examples of a QB of going 8/10 in a game, but there isn't one that completed 80% in a season. Brees holds the record at 72% for a season and 3 of the 4 best season completion % in NFL history. There are more variables introduced in more attempts. The same way that Dak held the record for number of pass attempts to start a career without an INT, the chance of maintaining that percentage were extremely low. A batter in baseball going 8 for 10 is statistically better than the same hitter under the exact same conditions going 80 for 100.

I tried the baseball thing. Didn't sink in.

 

[InTheZone]

Keep in mind that football is a team sport. Thus, Brees may have more playoff wins, yet it doesn't automatically= " Better".

In their prime, who would you rather have? Furthermore, who was better in your opinion?

I would say Romo. Brees was always about a passing offense and was a big reason why they missed the playoffs a few years back. Sure people will call me crazy, but I felt with Romo we could overcome coaching deficiencies. I don't feel that way anymore with our current offense.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Good luck explaining that to him. If one can't see that in baseball batting average they're not ever going to see it. I can't tell if he's being serious or just plain stubborn at this point.

What you never seen anyone with a .800 batting average before?

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I didn't say that at all. QB's rise or regress to their own mean, not the mean of the group. Generally a QB will have more success when they have to throw less than they normally do, because they are not throwing under duress or adverse conditions as often. It's not surprising that Tony's best season for passer rating, came in a season where he wasn't required to pass as often. It's especially true for a QB like Tony that was in a higher risk down field passing offense.

It is easier to go 8/10 than 80/100. There are countless examples of a QB of going 8/10 in a game, but there isn't one that completed 80% in a season. Brees holds the record at 72% for a season and 3 of the 4 best season completion % in NFL history. There are more variables introduced in more attempts. The same way that Dak held the record for number of pass attempts to start a career without an INT, the chance of maintaining that percentage were extremely low. A batter in baseball going 8 for 10 is statistically better than the same hitter under the exact same conditions going 80 for 100.

It is not easier to go 8 for 10 than 80 for 100. It is exactly the same feat. You are confusing sample size and volatility for something else.

 

[sean10mm]

I'm a bigger Romo fan than most here, but Brees beats him on both raw stats and playoff performances. His peak seasons were better, and he has been way more durable too.

His Super Bowl run was crazy good: 8 TD, 0 INT, no game with a passer rating under 100, completed 82% of his passes in the Super Bowl. That was just sick.

 

[MarcusRock]

What you never seen anyone with a .800 batting average before?

Major league hitters are slackers. Especially that Ted Williams fella, lol.

 

[OmerV]

Romo does not have a small sample size. There is a reason why they have a minimum number of attempts for most statistics. Once you pass the threshold the difference is statistically insignificant. Especially for statistic recorded in 3 significant figures.
And no it is not harder or easier unless you are adding in other factors. I am taking a pure math perspective.

No he doesn't, but I was referring to the premise you put out in your post. Obviously the more years and the more passing attempts the more reliable the information - at least up the point age forces everything to go to hell.

I disagree that the difference becomes insignificant at that minimum level the NFL sets, and that's not what the league is saying by putting a minimum number of attempts as a threshold for eligibility. What they are actually saying is the lower the number of attempts the less reliable the information, so they had to come up some cutoff point. They aren't saying 20-30 completions more than the cut off point results in an insignificant difference, and 20-30 below it results in a dramatic difference, they are just saying there has to be some limit, and they made one they felt was neither too low or too high to be ridiculous. It was just set at what would be a reasonable passing attempt range for an NFL QB. Besides, there is still weight given to cumulative stats like yardage, completions, TDs and INTs still matter, which means they do give weight to how often a QB throws.

 

[Roadtrip635]

the actual feat itself is no easier or harder than completing 900 out of 1000 passes or 900,000 out of 1,000,000 passes. It’s exactly the same.

If completing 900/1000 passes was just as easy as 9/10, why hasn't anyone ever done it even once, much less as often as going 9/10 gets done. Dude, get a grip and read what you're trying to peddle. Custer faced better odds at Little Big Horn than you do in trying to convince literally anyone that any part of that is true. It's just embarrassing now.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

If completing 900/1000 passes was just as easy as 9/10, why hasn't anyone ever done it even once, much less as often as going 9/10 gets done. Dude, get a grip and read what you're trying to peddle. Custer faced better odds at Little Big Horn than you do in trying to convince literally anyone that any part of that is true. It's just embarrassing now.

You get a grip, you’re as clueless as the other troll. Like I told him, let’s put a bet on it. You don’t believe a word coming out of your mouth. Everything you have stated is mathematically stupid and anyone in academia would laugh at you. Now back down and slink off into the corner like the other troll.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Brees... because he got it done at the highest level and no one has to make excuses for him.

What happened is history; conjecture is bulls—t.

Got it done?

It took the saints defense and a peyton manning end game gaffe for the saints to even win a ring lol

 

[Roadtrip635]

I understand what your saying mathematically. Yes the percentage is the same but that’s where stats can be unreliable as you said especially in smaller sample sizes.

It doesn’t skew the numbers . It only skews what they might represent.

Yes 90%=90%, but he has it completely backwards, the "actual feat" of going 900/1000 or 900,000/1,000,000 is significantly harder or it would have been accomplished numerous times.