Started By
Message
re: More Fromm Love?
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:43 am to Dawgsontop34
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:43 am to Dawgsontop34
quote:
My point is that continuity at the QB position isn't that important as long as the offense stays relatively similar.
I disagree completely. Having an experienced QB who has a year of working the offense under his belt is a huge advantage. It's why Murray was so much better than Stafford or Eason his first year in. He had a redshirt year to learn the system and adjust to the level of competition.
If you have Cam Newton or Jameis Winston on your roster, or your QB is so awful that it would be hard to be worse (Lambert), you go with the experienced option.
1
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:51 am to BranchDawg
quote:
I disagree completely. Having an experienced QB who has a year of working the offense under his belt is a huge advantage.
I definitely think it's an advantage, and it helps if the new QB has experience, or ends up being a star. I just don't think it's the most important thing in the world if you have a new guy who is clearly better (not saying Fromm is).
If you have a guy who works hard, knows the system, and is on the same page as his wideouts it doesn't matter what year he is. Generally speaking, the older you get the better that player is, but look at the last few years and more freshmen have been playing the QB position than ever before and doing well.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 12:00 pm to Dawgsontop34
If experience was as important as many think Eason would've never seen the field last year.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 12:08 pm to SquatchDawg
Bentley, Eason, Buechele, Hurts, and Patterson were all True Freshmen last year that played really well at some points at the QB position.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:33 pm to WG_Dawg
Nice data and I agree with your assessment. Having said that, I'm would not be worried about playing a Freshman again if Fromm looks significantly better than Eason leading into the upcoming season. Alabama played a Freshman QB last season, Jalen Hurts, and he literally transformed their mundane offense into one of the best offenses in the NCAA. Still Hurts is obviously a dual-threat QB which can make huge difference in any offense which does not describe Fromm. If Fromm was a dual-threat QB with say 4.5 speed, I would be I would be a lot more optimistic about our offensive prospects and his chance of actually beating out Eason for the job.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:44 pm to wdhalgren
Before the bowl game, there was a fair first half vs 2nd half comparison and a fair comparison of month to month. In both comparisons, there was a clear sign of improvement. This was with the first game, with its "handoffs" counting as downfield td passes, thus skewing the stats.
While that may not be perfect, it's more reliable than biased eyes. Just because we played a bowl game doesn't make those comparisons any less valid, but that was a nice attempt to try to invalidate them.
While that may not be perfect, it's more reliable than biased eyes. Just because we played a bowl game doesn't make those comparisons any less valid, but that was a nice attempt to try to invalidate them.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:55 pm to GurleyGirl
quote:
Alabama played a Freshman QB last season,
Nobody should ever compare our freshman QB situation(s) with alabama considering they have elite, #1 rated defenses every year. You could probably start at QB for alabama and win the west. Greyson Lambert undoubtedly could have led bama to an SEC title. Their QB situations are so much different than anyone else's it's not even worth comparing. We do not have the best defense in America every season, so we have different circumstances.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 1:59 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Nobody should ever compare our freshman QB situation(s) with alabama considering they have elite, #1 rated defenses every year.
...and OL and running backs and receivers and coaches.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:53 pm to djsdawg
I didn't attempt to invalidate the statistics, they invalidate themselves because they don't show improvement. Like I said, if you have to selectively include and exclude certain games to get a desired outcome, then the stats aren't useful . I doubt that my eyes are any more biased than yours, so we'll have to disagree.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:12 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
they invalidate themselves because they don't show improvement
I mean they literally do show improvement.
quote:
if you have to selectively include and exclude certain games to get a desired outcome, then the stats aren't useful
I split the season in half. Do you have a better method? I guess we could just lump his best games in one group and his worst in another but that doesn't sound right. When you talk about "improvement" over a season, generally you compare the first half of the season and the second half. But I'm all ears if you have a better way.
Your personal eye test didn't see any improvement, yet the actual results that were produced on the field did.
It's also funny you think he showed less progress than STafford, who was absolutely horrendous his freshman year and even after "improvement" (more improvement than eason IYO) was still awful compared to Eason.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:25 pm to WG_Dawg
How much of Eason's statistical improvement can be attributed to receivers catching balls the second half of the season? I remember very vividly watching our receivers dropping everything against Ole Miss and Mizzou in particular.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:27 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
I split the season in half.
So did I, and the numbers didn't show improvement.
quote:
I mean they literally do show improvement.
They literally don't. Did you see my stats?
quote:
Do you have a better method?
For this sample size, probably nothing better than just watching the games. If you really want to prove your point using stats, consider throwing out the middle game, Vandy, redo the numbers and calculate standard deviations to see if they rise to the level of statistical significance. Also consider controlling for games in hostile stadiums, since that's an obvious source of skew. You might like controlling for quality of the various defenses in each half, that could help your case. No matter though, with a sample size this small, I doubt you'll find anything useful from a statistical analysis. If the stats aren't statistically significant, they're just another form of eyeball test and just as subject to bias. That's why statistics are generally misleading and rarely useful when thrown around in a casual setting.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:32 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
they invalidate themselves because they don't show improvement.
What part of "In both comparisons, there was a clear sign of improvement" do you not understand?
quote:
Like I said, if you have to selectively include and exclude certain games to get a desired outcome, then the stats aren't useful .
There is no arbitrary cherry picking going on with a simple 1st 6 vs 2nd 6 or month by month comparison. In fact, Those are the most logical type of comparisons needed to objectively determine if a player improved over the course of the season or not.
quote:
I doubt that my eyes are any more biased than yours, so we'll have to disagree.
So what? The point is Your eyes are more biased than objective stats.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:37 pm to jodeaux
quote:
I honestly see him being something akin to Zack Mettenberger
I'd take 2013 Mettenberger at QB any day of the year
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:40 pm to djsdawg
quote:
There is no arbitrary cherry picking going on with a simple 1st 6 vs 2nd 6
He says as he ignores the last game of the season.
quote:
What part of "In both comparisons, there was a clear sign of improvement" do you not understand?
I haven't seen any clear sign of improvement. If you'd like to demonstrate one, I put some tips above for WG on how to do a proper statistical analysis. If you'd prefer to pick and choose which games to include in your analysis, and then assume your numbers are statistically significant, then carry on with your biased analysis.
quote:
So what? The point is Your eyes are more biased than objective stats.
For the purpose of drawing a conclusion in this matter, my eyes are just as objective as any statistic used in this thread so far, including my own.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 3/28/17 at 5:22 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
says as he ignores the last game of the season.
You are using the bowl game as a means to alter the 1st half vs 2nd half season comparison. By separating the bowl game into a seperate post season area, we can focus on the regular season comparison, thus ensuring your manipulation is ignored.
1. 6 games vs 6 games is a fair, natural comparison, and it proves Eason improved, which is why you are resorting to manipulating things.
2. Also, we still have the fair and natural September, October, and November comparison, which also proves your subjective eye to be wrong.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 3/28/17 at 6:01 pm to djsdawg
quote:
separating the bowl game into a seperate post season area, we can focus on the regular season comparison
I could, but why would I? My opinion was based on Eason's first entire season, which was 13 games long.
quote:
6 games vs 6 games is a fair, natural comparison, and it proves Eason improved, which is why you are resorting to manipulating things.
I see. You're using the djs fair and natural statistical method, as determined by djs' opininon of what is fair and natural. Therein lies the source of our disagreement.
quote:
which also proves your subjective eye to be wrong.
It's quite possible my subjective eye is wrong, and I admitted that it was a "thought" (i.e., opinion) in my first post in the thread. The difference between us is that I understand WG's statistical data, my statistical data given in response, and very likely your unseen statistical data, are not rigorous and therefore also subjective/opinions.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 6:32 pm to wdhalgren
In a comparison of this nature, trying to determine if a player improved, whats more fair and natural than 50/50 and 33/33/33 comparisons? Let's see it.
Before the bowl game, the evidence proved he improved in both comparisons. The bowl game did nothing to disprove that.
Before the bowl game, the evidence proved he improved in both comparisons. The bowl game did nothing to disprove that.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 6:35 pm
Posted on 3/28/17 at 7:04 pm to djsdawg
I hope we play both before settling on the starter. For whatever reason, Eason struggled with timing, accuracy and pocket awareness. Yes, the Oline was bad and there weren't enough throws on early downs, all of which made life difficult for Jacob.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:23 am to Whiznot
The reason smart keeps mentioning Fromm is because we only have 2 scholarship QBs on the roster and he needs to be ready to play if Eason were to get hurt. Eason is our starting QB and if people really think Fromm is going to overtake him then I don't know what to say to you. Fromm will push Eason to play better but I just couldn't see us starting another true Freshman as long as Eason is healthy
Page 2 of 2
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News