Hunt > Nassib

[KaiserUEO]

philcox's 147 looks pretty good, reason why he was in the nfl for so long. best season for someone not named mcsomething

Interesting point on Philcox.

Was kinda hoping that would be Allen. But I didn't realize how strong a year Philcox really had.

 

[Millhouse]

Interesting point on Philcox.

Was kinda hoping that would be Allen. But I didn't realize how strong a year Philcox really had.

he was 6th in the country in passer rating.

6th last year was a 165 rating (geno smith)

philcox's 147 gets you 29th last year

even when you don't correct for qb rating inflation across the board, nassib looks meh

mcpherson was 6th and 1st in the country in 85 and 87

 

[Millhouse]

syracuse had very highly rated passers for a long time.

talent dropped off and other schemes improved while our's didn't

it's surprising that graves numbers were good enough to rank that high every year. that was right before the revolution. i'd love to see what all those guys would do in today's offenses.

85-98 12 out of 14 years in the top 20.
99-12 0 out of 14 years

season player national qb rating rank
1985 mcpherson 6
1986 mcpherson ?
1987 mcpherson 1
1988 philcox 6
1989 scharr 10
1990 graves 20
1991 graves 9
1992 graves 2
1993 graves 20
1994 mason ?
1995 mcnabb 3
1996 mcnabb 11
1997 mcnabb 6
1998 mcnabb 10
1999 nunes ?
2000 nunes ?
2001 anderson ?
2002 nunes ?
2003 anderson ?
2004 patterson ?
2005 patterson ?
2006 patterson ?
2007 robinson ?
2008 dantley ?
2009 paulus 47
2010 nassib 72
2011 nassib 64
2012 nassib 35

 

[SWC75]

Hunt was definitely better against Wagner than Nassib was. Or Allen.

 

[SmilinBob]

Comparing era's is difficult and you have to compare stats like that to their time not 80/90's to now. Not only did the offenses change but so did the rules.

 

[Millhouse]

Comparing era's is difficult and you have to compare stats like that to their time not 80/90's to now. Not only did the offenses change but so did the rules.

that's what i was trying to do by showing each QB's national ranking from their respective year.

disclaimer, obviously i never thought nassib would be nearly as good as he was last year. that's well established.. that's an amazing junior to senior improvement.

but he still wasn't as good as other people think because they're comparing him to SU qbs of different eras instead of comparing to his peers.

Nassib's 143 rating last year was 35th in the country. In 1986, it would've been 5th. in 1992, it would've been 4th. By 1997, a 143 falls out of top 20

I'm eyeballing it but 2005 looks to be the year where passing offenses really got more efficient across the board.

One of these days i'll do a scatter plot of the top 20 by year

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/1986-leaders.html

 

[Millhouse]

Its a good one for looking at things in amalgam, and normalizing the analysis to avoid skew toward more attempts / yards / etc. But I think we both know what Kaiser was getting at--he wasn't wrong when he said that Nassib statistically had one of the best seasons / careers in program history. Doesn't mean across ALL statistics, but across several.

the games where he threw a hundred times inflated the attempts and yards but his rating got better the less he threw

even if you're comparing nassib to nassib, yards and attempts aren't the way to go. his rating for his first two games combined last year was less than his rating for the whole year - those first two games were memorable just from the sheer quantity of throws but those games were really middle of the road

 

[SmilinBob]

The thing about Nassibs numbers are, who were his playmakers? If he had an Austin type that you could throw a ball 8 yards and get a 50+ yard it makes a huge difference when it comes to those numbers. Ryan was solid and he had a lot of good qualities and some not so good. This is why I always feel that if you put player X on team Y you might just see a whole different player like when I used to compare Nassib and Barkley and what would happen if they switched schools.

Yeah, the passing stats went nuts. The offensive schemes have finally started to take advantage of assets.

 

[RMH44]

The thing about Nassibs numbers are, who were his playmakers? If he had an Austin type that you could throw a ball 8 yards and get a 50+ yard it makes a huge difference when it comes to those numbers. Ryan was solid and he had a lot of good qualities and some not so good. This is why I always feel that if you put player X on team Y you might just see a whole different player like when I used to compare Nassib and Barkley and what would happen if they switched schools.

Yeah, the passing stats went nuts. The offensive schemes have finally started to take advantage of assets.

One of Ryan's best assets was making the proper call at the line of scrimmage which is something very hard to measure.

 

[Millhouse]

One of Ryan's best assets was making the proper call at the line of scrimmage which is something very hard to measure.

agree. i think college football has gotten much better about that over the years. with the packaged plays you don't have to make any complicated audible, you just make simple choices. going no huddle gives you more time to figure that choice out

 

[RF2044]

the games where he threw a hundred times inflated the attempts and yards but his rating got better the less he threw

even if you're comparing nassib to nassib, yards and attempts aren't the way to go. his rating for his first two games combined last year was less than his rating for the whole year - those first two games were memorable just from the sheer quantity of throws but those games were really middle of the road

But again, you knew what Kaiser meant in the post you responded to above. He could pull out several statistics where Nassib sits atop the school records, justifying his remark. You've cherry picked one where he doesn't.

I'm not contesting that Nassib's QER is as high as others, or the validity of that as a barometer. But you can't just dismiss some measurable criteria out of hand because they don't fit your point of view.

 

[Millhouse]

But again, you knew what Kaiser meant in the post you responded to above. He could pull out several statistics where Nassib sits atop the school records, justifying his remark. You've cherry picked one where he doesn't.

I'm not contesting that Nassib's QER is as high as others, or the validity of that as a barometer. But you can't just dismiss some measurable criteria out of hand because they don't fit your point of view.

how can looking at completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns per attempt and interceptions per attempt in an accepted formula that allows for easy comparison be considered cherry picking? it includes everything important in passing

the whole point of a qb rating is to not cherry pick.

my only beef with ncaa qb rating is that people accustomed to the NFL rating think a 120 college rating is good when it is actually bad. but it works fine for comparing to other ncaa qbs

 

[SUFan44]

But again, you knew what Kaiser meant in the post you responded to above. He could pull out several statistics where Nassib sits atop the school records, justifying his remark. You've cherry picked one where he doesn't.

I'm not contesting that Nassib's QER is as high as others, or the validity of that as a barometer. But you can't just dismiss some measurable criteria out of hand because they don't fit your point of view.

As Millhouse said, that's the whole point of QB rating. To combine all measurables into one nice little neat number. Of course Nassib ranks high on a lot of cumulative statistical categories - he threw nearly 400 more passes than #2 on the all-time list (Graves).

To put this into a little more context, Nassib is the all-time Syracuse leader in passing yards - he needed 369 more attempts than Graves to produce 724 more yards than him. That's 1.96 yards per that number of attempts. That's really, really bad. And his yards/attempt average is 7.0, 9th all-time at SU just ahead of R.J. Anderson. This is a very underrated statistic, and speaks more to efficiency than any other stat.

And don't try to spin it as me saying Nassib was really, really bad. That's not what I'm saying.

 

[rrlbees]

As Millhouse said, that's the whole point of QB rating. To combine all measurables into one nice little neat number. Of course Nassib ranks high on a lot of cumulative statistical categories - he threw nearly 400 more passes than #2 on the all-time list (Graves).

To put this into a little more context, Nassib is the all-time Syracuse leader in passing yards - he needed 369 more attempts than Graves to produce 724 more yards than him. That's 1.96 yards per that number of attempts. That's really, really bad. And his yards/attempt average is 7.0, 9th all-time at SU just ahead of R.J. Anderson. This is a very underrated statistic, and speaks more to efficiency than any other stat.

And don't try to spin it as me saying Nassib was really, really bad. That's not what I'm saying.

The bad thing about yards/attempt just like yards/completion is the ability of receivers to get open deep, the receivers ability to get YAC, and the type of offense run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Millhouse]

As Millhouse said, that's the whole point of QB rating. To combine all measurables into one nice little neat number. Of course Nassib ranks high on a lot of cumulative statistical categories - he threw nearly 400 more passes than #2 on the all-time list (Graves).

To put this into a little more context, Nassib is the all-time Syracuse leader in passing yards - he needed 369 more attempts than Graves to produce 724 more yards than him. That's 1.96 yards per that number of attempts. That's really, really bad. And his yards/attempt average is 7.0, 9th all-time at SU just ahead of R.J. Anderson. This is a very underrated statistic, and speaks more to efficiency than any other stat.

And don't try to spin it as me saying Nassib was really, really bad. That's not what I'm saying.

i think back in the old days we wasted a lot of plays setting up those play actions. we ended up with a really high yards per attempt but sometimes we paid a price for it. i'm thinking of Nunes era more than the good offenses before that.

 

[Millhouse]

The bad thing about yards/attempt just like yards/completion is the ability of receivers to get open deep, the receivers ability to get YAC, and the type of offense run.

the problems with that would apply to any passing stat you want to pick. you'd have more total yards with better WR too. using denominators doesn't make it worse

 

[SWC75]

The real purpose of statistics is to put discussions on an objective basis. They are something to look at before you draw your conclusions. They are not a conclusion in themselves. You can look art individual numbers. You and add, subtract, multiply and divide them to produce an over-all number. But you still need to consider them in context and use them to draw a logical conclusion, not simply a numeric one.

 

[Millhouse]

The real purpose of statistics is to put discussions on an objective basis. They are something to look at before you draw your conclusions. They are not a conclusion in themselves. You can look art individual numbers. You and add, subtract, multiply and divide them to produce an over-all number. But you still need to consider them in context and use them to draw a logical conclusion, not simply a numeric one.

Context is good. That's why i provided it by showing where qb rated against their peers

 

[RF2044]

how can looking at completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns per attempt and interceptions per attempt in an accepted formula that allows for easy comparison be considered cherry picking? it includes everything important in passing

the whole point of a qb rating is to not cherry pick.

my only beef with ncaa qb rating is that people accustomed to the NFL rating think a 120 college rating is good when it is actually bad. but it works fine for comparing to other ncaa qbs

It's cherry picking because Kaiser was right. He could produce a number of statistics that validate what he said about Nassib.

You're looking at in in amalgam, but don't be so literal. Your preferred statistic doesn't invalidate what he claimed. He didn't say that Nassib was better or any other subjective thing about him relative to other QBs, he said statistically the best--a claim he could easily back up with a host of metrics.

Rare case of both sides being right.

Regardless, not worth wasting any more time over.

 

[RF2044]

As Millhouse said, that's the whole point of QB rating. To combine all measurables into one nice little neat number. Of course Nassib ranks high on a lot of cumulative statistical categories - he threw nearly 400 more passes than #2 on the all-time list (Graves).

To put this into a little more context, Nassib is the all-time Syracuse leader in passing yards - he needed 369 more attempts than Graves to produce 724 more yards than him. That's 1.96 yards per that number of attempts. That's really, really bad. And his yards/attempt average is 7.0, 9th all-time at SU just ahead of R.J. Anderson. This is a very underrated statistic, and speaks more to efficiency than any other stat.

And don't try to spin it as me saying Nassib was really, really bad. That's not what I'm saying.

I don't know how you drew that conclusion from my posts in this thread.

 

[bnoro]

Is it the wrong time to bump this thread?

 

[oldpinepoint]

Is it the wrong time to bump this thread?

Maybe?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Is it the wrong time to bump this thread?

Too soon.

 

[SUFan44]

Bump.

 

[TheCusian]

Too soon if you're comparing senior year Nassib vs soph Hunt.

But soph to soph? Emphatically. Higher upside, running ability.