Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: T200 on October 22, 2024, 03:06:28 PMRich,

There was an entire thread about DJ's injuries possibly affecting his play.

However, his post was not derogatory or negative in any way towards you or your opinion.

The part in bold is only true if you ignore that he omitted stats that disprove his claim that I was WRONG  in my opinion.  Some have suggested it's less than civil to go to such great lengths to try and prove someone else's opinion wrong (starting a whole new thread with cherry-picked stats qualifies) rather than simply disagreeing responding when the opinion is espoused.

He was never that good to begin with.  Eliminate the few outlier performances and it has been mostly crap. 

Quote from: Messiah717 on October 22, 2024, 03:16:15 PMHe was never that good to begin with.  Eliminate the few outlier performances and it has been mostly crap. 

That's exactly what the data shows.

Quote from: MightyGiants on October 22, 2024, 03:14:14 PMThe part in bold is only true if you ignore that he omitted stats that disprove his claim that I was WRONG  in my opinion.  Some have suggested it's less than civil to go to such great lengths to try and prove someone else's opinion wrong (starting a whole new thread with cherry-picked stats qualifies) rather than simply disagreeing responding when the opinion is espoused.

Rich,

I get what you're saying. If you feel he's cherry-picking or leaving out key stats, that's a reflection on him, not you.

But there was no attack on you or your opinion. He started a thread and post to offer a differing point of view but it was not disrespectful.

Quote from: Ed Vette on October 22, 2024, 02:02:43 PMI don't think his injuries have diminished his ability physically, if that's what you mean Matt. I do however think his mental resilience and intestinal fortitude has diminished and there are many reasons for that.

Ed,

I appreciate the decorum; you and Tim do great work...Rich gets credit for choosing you guys as moderators.  To the subject matter, I think your point is fair, and shared by more than a few fans.  I do disagree with it based on the following:

1.    Fans thought his 2022 performance was good enough to declare DJ a franchise QB.
a.    If he was good enough in 2022, then it reasonable to conclude his mental acuity was intact
2.    DJ only played 7 games in '23 and was sacked 21 times, or 3x per game; his final injury was non-contact.
a.    Are we suggesting these 7 games/21 sacks was the genesis of his decline?  It true, did he ever possess the mental acuity to play the position at a high level?
3.    While I appreciate the point, I disagree with the premise.  To my eyes, he's the same QB he was in 2020/21/22; his production supports that narrative.

From a macro perspective, Occam's Razor applies.  His limited/predicable production is simply a byproduct of his abilities, which have always limited his passing production.  What am I missing?

TO BE CLEAR, this thread was not directed at Rich; I was listening to the Dan Patrick show where one of the Dan'ets brought it up.  So, I decided to test the theory with pure data.

Quote from: T200 on October 22, 2024, 03:25:07 PMRich,

I get what you're saying. If you feel he's cherry-picking or leaving out key stats, that's a reflection on him, not you.

But there was no attack on you or your opinion. He started a thread and post to offer a differing point of view but it was not disrespectful.

Tim,

Had he simply started a post saying that he believes that DJ is just being DJ and nothing has changed in career, then I would say you could have a point.  Instead, he made it very clear the entire reason he started this thread was to prove the opinion of another wrong.  In other words, he wasn't just espousing his own opinion, he made it clear that the purpose of the thread was to attack someone else's opinion in an effort to prove it wrong.  Is that where we are now at BBH? 

 

Quote from: MightyGiants on October 22, 2024, 03:33:09 PMTim,

Had he simply started a post saying that he believes that DJ is just being DJ and nothing has changed in career, then I would say you could have a point.  Instead, he made it very clear the entire reason he started this thread was to prove the opinion of another wrong.  In other words, he wasn't just espousing his own opinion, he made it clear that the purpose of the thread was to attack someone else's opinion in an effort to prove it wrong.  Is that where we are now at BBH? 

 

He explained himself above.

Quote from: T200 on October 22, 2024, 03:34:51 PMHe explained himself above.

I am not going to accuse him of lying.  I will say that I have been talking about this issue just yesterday and today (both on the forum and via PMs), which means it's quite a coincidence.  I think you could understand from my perspective why I saw his thread as an over-the-top effort to prove one of my opinions wrong.

Quote from: MightyGiants on October 22, 2024, 03:41:18 PMI am not going to accuse him of lying.  I will say that I have been talking about this issue just yesterday and today (both on the forum and via PMs), which means it's quite a coincidence.  I think you could understand from my perspective why I saw his thread as an over-the-top effort to prove one of my opinions wrong.

Fair enough.

Chalk it up as a coincidence that was miscontrued.

 

Edit to add: There was a thread about this very thing, minus the stats a short while ago.

Quote from: kingm56 on October 22, 2024, 03:26:54 PMEd,

2.    DJ only played 7 games in '23 and was sacked 21 times, or 3x per game; his final injury was non-contact.

Here's where some might think you are, unwittingly, being misleading, because your stats are all wrong.

First of all. he played in 6 games, not 7.  And in the sixth game he got hurt early - he had 33% of the snap counts and DeVito had 67%.  And in the small portion of the game he was in he was still sacked twice which would be the equivalent of a rate of 6 per game.

In game 5 he also got hurt and came out early.  He had 68% of the snap counts and Taylor had the rest.  In the portion of the game that he was in he got sacked 6 times, which would be the equivalent of a rate of 9 per game.

So between his shares of the snap counts in those 2 games they add up to near as dammit one full game.

But worst of all you say he was sacked 21 time and that is completely wrong.  He was sacked 30 times in 4 complete games plus 2 parts of games that, based on pass attempts, come pretty close to an addional game.  So, basically 30 sacks in 5 games.  That's 6 per game, double the 3 that you cite.

I wonder if perhaps you yourself were misled by one of the Danettes spewing nonsense stats. That's been known to happen.  They are there far more to be entertaining than enlightening.  A source I find invaluable for getting real data is www.pro-football-reference.com.  They have a wealth of data but it takes some learning curve to find it all, and they have some of those new metrics which, frankly I don't get.  I've been using that site for quite some time and only recently discovered that they have snap counts.

I have no X & O analytical chops.  I am in absolute awe when, for example, @Ed Vette  does one of his analyses based on watching and rewatching the all-22.  I could not come close to doing that.  And even the eye test is denied me because we don't get many Giantsgames out here in AZ and I don't like watching replays.

But as a former math major, actuary, and math teacher I'm a numbers guy.  So that is primarily how I interact with the games.  It is far from ideal and I envy those you who can watch the games and who have a far better understanding of what they are seeing than I would have.  But one of the advantages of being a numbers guy is that the data you are dealing with is objective.  The interpretation is not necessarily objective, but the data itself is.  So I tend to be very picky about objective data I cite and objective data included in other people's posts.

This is in no way intended as an attack on you.  I think you posted these mistaken facts in good faith.  I regard this as a correcting of the record more than anything else.

Quote from: Messiah717 on October 22, 2024, 03:16:15 PMHe was never that good to begin with.  Eliminate the few outlier performances and it has been mostly crap. 

I think this aptly sums it up.

DJ's career has been a series of mediocre at best (and frequently well below mediocre) games with a small handful of good to very good ones thrown in. Every time he has one of the latter, people get excited, thinking this is the real Daniel Jones, and then like clockwork he promptly goes back to being the DJ we all know for the next five plus games or so. The Seattle game followed by the Cincy and then the Philly games are a good isolated recent example of this fact pattern.

And then mixed in with all of the above, he frequently gets injured, often pretty seriously.

Like it or not, that has been the fact pattern with this player. One can attempt to spin it in various ways, which some here still try to do, but at the end of the day there is no getting around the actual fact pattern. He simply just isn't very good. And he never was.

Nope. The only thing that has been affected by injuries is his running ability. He is significantly slower this season after tearing his ACL. Understandable. I've watched him of course since he's been in the league. From day one his decision making and reads has been questionable at best. But in 2019 I thought he might grow. Learn. Adapt. He never has. His play making ability because he is limited in his running has actually gotten worse. Some QBs have those play making instincts. Some don't. Jones never has had it.

I think so. He doesn't have the straight line speed he had at one time to break big plays, and the velocity on his throws seems weaker to me.

Even his designed QB runs are much slower and less impactful

Quote from: AZGiantFan on October 22, 2024, 06:18:03 PMHere's where some might think you are, unwittingly, being misleading, because your stats are all wrong.

First of all. he played in 6 games, not 7.  And in the sixth game he got hurt early - he had 33% of the snap counts and DeVito had 67%.  And in the small portion of the game he was in he was still sacked twice which would be the equivalent of a rate of 6 per game.

You're correct, Ric.  I conflated 2024 with 2023.  I provided the former numbers.  Thank you for the correction, and I never view providing accurate data as an attack; in fact, I appreciate it.