Quote:
Originally Posted by bravos4evr
A- modern stats have nothing to do with fantasy football you decrepit old man, just because you live in the past doesn't mean the rest of us have to as well
B- when your appoximate value number is next to Sims and Batkowski you are not a HOF'er now matter how you try and cherry pick
C- completion % is THE MOST IMPORTANT STAT FOR QUARTERBACKS, if you can't hit what you are aiming at, what good are you? 60% is considered acceptable under that and you are becoming a bum
D- Namath is a bum, the most overrated player in the history of the NFL anf unworthy of even a hall of the pretty good.
|
Completion % can be important, but is there a modern stat that covers drops related to completion %?
It's going back a ways, but I recall the moment I stopped caring about completion %. A game where Bledsoe was being ripped a bit by the announcers for having a "bad game" because he was something like 6/12....Of course they didn't mention the two passes that hit open receivers on the number and still ended up on the ground. Or the one that hit the receiver on the hands that simply didn't get caught. So he should have been 9/12, maybe better.
And do they eliminate when the QB throws the ball away?
drops and intentional throw aways are entirely different from bad passes.
And how bad was Namaths completion %? I checked a couple years. 1966, he had a 49.3% rate. The league average was 46.3 and the best team was at 52.8%
So not actually too bad.
Oh, but you'll say the entire AFL was awful.
So lets try 72?
Namath 50%
League average 51.7
Best team 59.9
Ok, so below average by 1.7% or about 4 completions.
BUT.... NO passer was "acceptable" by your standards.
That's nonsense.
Comparing eras isn't easy.
Stats in FB aren't as clear as stats in Baseball. There a player either hits or doesn't pretty much on his own. (Lineup matters, but he still has to hit) In FB many of the stats rely not only on the player doing what he should, but on other players doing their thing right too.
Steve B