Misc discussion about Daniel Jones

[uconnjack8]

Because of my engineering background, I am naturally drawn to analytics and statistics.  One rule I have is that no matter how well a stat or measure is explained and justified, I like to put it through one more test.  I call it, "Does it pass the eye test?"  In other words, no matter how much a stat makes sense when you apply it, it shows the top players at the top and the worst players at the bottom.  If it doesn't, then I question the value of such a measure, no matter how well it's justified.


Now take the idea that QBs are responsible for their own pressure, and it's worth looking at the percentage of pressures that are being blamed on the QB.  Well, PFF has that stat, and for 2023, DJ was 5 worse, being assigned blame for 20.0% of pressures.  If I left it at that it would be pretty damning.  Only, remember, my eye test.

I looked up at the two QBs who are slightly "worse" than Daniel Jones.  Those two QBs being blamed for 20.1% are the QB considered the best in the league and possibly in history and the current league MVP-  Mahomes and Lamar Jackson.

That sort of made me dismiss the stat as not all that meaningful, if at all.

Rich I can understand how those two could have created more pressures for themselves than Jones.  They both like to extend plays to try and make something happen.  Now that stat doesn't tell the whole story obviously, which is why you use an eye test. 

Its a good reason why a stat shouldn't be looked at without some context. 

[MightyGiants]

Rich I can understand how those two could have created more pressures for themselves than Jones.  They both like to extend plays to try and make something happen.  Now that stat doesn't tell the whole story obviously, which is why you use an eye test. 

Its a good reason why a stat shouldn't be looked at without some context. 

When I do as you suggest, the stat is damned ever worse.  When you look at the time to pressure and how DJ had the quickest time to pressure of any QB in the league by a significant margin, one wonders how on earth DJ is being assigned 20% of the blame.

I appreciate that some like to say DJ isn't adjusting the protections, but that is a claim not supported by evidence.  We don't know how the Giants run their offense in terms of the freedom (which can vary greatly by QB/HC) DJ had in checking out of plays and making protections.  Nor are the people making the claim qualified enough, both in high level football knowledge and having spent hours per game with the all 22.

[MightyGiants]

Is this what this board is going to be in for, for the next 4-5 months, more Daniel Jones threads, for, against, and who knows what else?
Didn't we have one thread last year for all Daniel Jones posts? God this is going to be a very long off-season if this is what we discuss everyday.

            

Len,

The problem is that the long-time strong Daniel Jones detractors have been declaring themselves right about Jones and pointing to the 2023 season as proof.  Unfortunately, that means they are unwilling to acknowledge the role that support (or, really, lack thereof) played in DJ's poor performance.   So, any discussion about QB now and how ready the Giants are to draft another QB will often circle back to a Daniel Jones debate because the detractors will claim that the Giant's offensive talent level isn't the problem; it was just Daniel Jones.

[Ed Vette]

So is pressure to sacks just those pressures that are offensive line created? Is it just "avoidable sacks"?

I think the bold part states pretty clearly that pressure to sacks isnt how many sacks the QB caused. 

I have no doubt Jones is the cause of some of his own sacks.

Anyone know how PFF determines who is responsible for a sack?  Some maybe easy to see, other could be a blown assignment on a blitz and the QB is blamed with the assumption he didnt move protection properly or throw a hot route...just do not understand how PFF would know the protection call and whether ot not it was executed properly.

It appears that they only penalize the QB for holding the ball too long and not avoiding sacks. It says nothing about protections and game management (dirty word) that every QB is expected to do. If a time to sack is low, it's on the Offensive line and or the QB. Read what I already posted. They said it clearly. Holding the ball too long and having time to avoid a sack by movement or getting rid of the ball. 

[Ed Vette]

https://premium.pff.com/nfl/positions/2023/REGPO

[Ed Vette]

This is a good example of how PFF can be so polarizing. You can post the stats every week and some base the game on snapshots and dismiss when the grade is too low or too high. Or, you can support the data religiously unless or until there is a metric that doesn't fit your bias or narrative and then investigate how you can pick it apart and create "context"... The bottom line is that no matter how obnoxious a fellow member can be, it's best not to tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, unless you are absolutely sure you have it right.

[MightyGiants]

This is a good example of how PFF can be so polarizing. You can post the stats every week and some base the game on snapshots and dismiss when the grade is too low or too high. Or, you can support the data religiously unless or until there is a metric that doesn't fit your bias or narrative and then investigate how you can pick it apart and create "context"... The bottom line is that no matter how obnoxious a fellow member can be, it's best not to tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, unless you are absolutely sure you have it right.

I think the issue is that stats and measures can be used in two different ways.  Some use stats and measures to prove a point they made is correct.  Others use stats and measures to try and form their views and opinions.  I think the latter group will also try to evaluate the value or accuracy of a given stat or measure, as that is an important part of trying to view something accurately.

I think a good example was a couple of weekends ago when I was playing around with stats and measures of the top QB candidates in this year's draft.  I was creating my own measures by combining different stats and measures.  As I did it, I would back-test what I was doing to see how some of the top prospects in recent drafts faired with my measures to gauge the value of what I created.  So even when I thought I had found a good formula to measure QBs, I didn't share them here because I didn't feel the backtesting proved their value.

I think the polarizing aspect comes from people wanting to paint themselves as experts and pain others as not knowing what they are talking about.  Instead of discussing a topic, it instead comes down to a pissing contest of who supposedly knows more about football and what a person's track record supposedly is. I have had people suggest I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to QBs because I clearly was wrong about Daniel Jones (this sort of approach raises the stakes about being proven right or wrong) as an example. 

As I have said, I love stats and measures, but I have a process, and part of that process is to evaluate how useful or "accurate" any given stat may be (I will say there is no single end-all/be-all stat, they all serve a role and are part of a bigger picture).

That all said, I hope no one takes it personally when I give my opinion about the value of a particular measure or stat.  In the end, it's just my opinion, and I hope I am properly explaining why I hold the opinion I am making.  As Greg Gabriel said, "It's important to get it right, not be right". 

[Ed Vette]

I think the issue is that stats and measures can be used in two different ways.  Some use stats and measures to prove a point they made is correct.  Others use stats and measures to try and form their views and opinions.  I think the latter group will also try to evaluate the value or accuracy of a given stat or measure, as that is an important part of trying to view something accurately.

I think a good example was a couple of weekends ago when I was playing around with stats and measures of the top QB candidates in this year's draft.  I was creating my own measures by combining different stats and measures.  As I did it, I would back-test what I was doing to see how some of the top prospects in recent drafts faired with my measures to gauge the value of what I created.  So even when I thought I had found a good formula to measure QBs, I didn't share them here because I didn't feel the backtesting proved their value.

I think the polarizing aspect comes from people wanting to paint themselves as experts and pain others as not knowing what they are talking about.  Instead of discussing a topic, it instead comes down to a pissing contest of who supposedly knows more about football and what a person's track record supposedly is. I have had people suggest I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to QBs because I clearly was wrong about Daniel Jones (this sort of approach raises the stakes about being proven right or wrong) as an example. 

As I have said, I love stats and measures, but I have a process, and part of that process is to evaluate how useful or "accurate" any given stat may be (I will say there is no single end-all/be-all stat, they all serve a role and are part of a bigger picture).

That all said, I hope no one takes it personally when I give my opinion about the value of a particular measure or stat.  In the end, it's just my opinion, and I hope I am properly explaining why I hold the opinion I am making.  As Greg Gabriel said, "It's important to get it right, not be right". 

It's always good to present both sides of an opinion or a stat. Taking unnecessary sacks is not good but it's just one variable in the evaluation of a QB. Doubling down and overstating a position can be the result of being challenged. In my evaluation of JJ, I stated that I needed more to properly evaluate him however, I pointed out many of his attributes and what I perceived as his potential weaknesses. I've said many times that DJ is a better regular-season QB than Eli was. Eli had much better teams and a HOF HC. I just don't think he will ever get the Giants to the promised land. If DJ was on the 2005-2011 Giants they would have won ten-twelve games a season and in my opinion, would not have gotten to the SB in 2011. The Oline was past its prime. Eli was heroic in that Niner's Playoff Game. DJ would have crumbled.

   

[LennG]

Len,

The problem is that the long-time strong Daniel Jones detractors have been declaring themselves right about Jones and pointing to the 2023 season as proof.  Unfortunately, that means they are unwilling to acknowledge the role that support (or, really, lack thereof) played in DJ's poor performance.   So, any discussion about QB now and how ready the Giants are to draft another QB will often circle back to a Daniel Jones debate because the detractors will claim that the Giant's offensive talent level isn't the problem; it was just Daniel Jones.

All I said was to have ONE thread for all Daniel Jones stuff. I believe we did that last year also. Why burden the board with thread after thread all basically saying the same thing?

[MightyGiants]

All I said was to have ONE thread for all Daniel Jones stuff. I believe we did that last year also. Why burden the board with thread after thread all basically saying the same thing?

Len,

I am not sure how much it will help.  I broke this DJ discussion off from the JJ McCarthy thread AFTER I had asked that the thread stay on topic

[Jclayton92]

Jones has been ranked in the bottom 3rd of Qbs since he was drafted outside of one year and our offenses have been ranked in the bottom 3rd every year.

That's all you need to know inorder to realize we need something else.

[Stringer Bell]

All I said was to have ONE thread for all Daniel Jones stuff. I believe we did that last year also. Why burden the board with thread after thread all basically saying the same thing?

I second the vote for a single thread for all DJ topics. The debate is worthless, at this point. Not a single poster has changed their opinion on the matter, the same talking points are repeated over and over, and all it serves to do is clutter the board.