Our next two opposing QB's - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Our next two opposing QB's (/thread-12663.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Our next two opposing QB's (/thread-12663.html)
Our next two opposing QB's - BostonCard - 09-18-2016
One of them:
53/74 (71.6%), 744 yards (10.1 ypa), 12 TD, 1 INT, PER 206.9
The other:
75/124 (60.5%), 917 yards (7.4 ypa), 4 TD, 4 INT, PER 126.8
Hmmmm.
As a basis for comparison, Burns:
23/33 (66.7%), 265 yards (8.0 ypa), 2 TD, 1 INT, PER 151.1
BC
Re: Our next two opposing QB's - Cardinal96 - 09-18-2016
(09-18-2016, 04:01 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:One of them:
53/74 (71.6%), 744 yards (10.1 ypa), 12 TD, 1 INT, PER 206.9
The other:
75/124 (60.5%), 917 yards (7.4 ypa), 4 TD, 4 INT, PER 126.8
Hmmmm.
As a basis for comparison, Burns:
23/33 (66.7%), 265 yards (8.0 ypa), 2 TD, 1 INT, PER 151.1
BC
I wonder what Burns' stats would look like against the three cupcakes UW played.
Re: Our next two opposing QB's - Farm93 - 09-18-2016
(09-18-2016, 04:21 PM)NYCCardinalFan link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15703.msg171778#msg171778 date=1474239687]
One of them:
53/74 (71.6%), 744 yards (10.1 ypa), 12 TD, 1 INT, PER 206.9
The other:
75/124 (60.5%), 917 yards (7.4 ypa), 4 TD, 4 INT, PER 126.8
Hmmmm.
As a basis for comparison, Burns:
23/33 (66.7%), 265 yards (8.0 ypa), 2 TD, 1 INT, PER 151.1
BC
I wonder what Burns' stats would look like against the three cupcakes UW played.
[/quote]
As Stanford wants to play a certain way..probably very similar with perhaps no INTs.
The INT throw would never happen if Stanford was playing a cupcake. Generally, Burns would have similar stats and the RBs would have more yards.
Re: Our next two opposing QB's - CTcard - 09-18-2016
(09-18-2016, 04:01 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:One of them:
53/74 (71.6%), 744 yards (10.1 ypa), 12 TD, 1 INT, PER 206.9
The other:
75/124 (60.5%), 917 yards (7.4 ypa), 4 TD, 4 INT, PER 126.8
Hmmmm.
As a basis for comparison, Burns:
23/33 (66.7%), 265 yards (8.0 ypa), 2 TD, 1 INT, PER 151.1
BC
To some extent this is a continuation of the previous discussions of the two QBs frosh stats.
It is also worth remembering that at this point in the year, stats are determined as much by whom you play as how good you are. Before conference play, strength of opponents differs rather drastically. And these two are pretty good examples of that.
Re: Our next two opposing QB's - BostonCard - 09-18-2016
I doubt Burns would even have 33 attempts if we played 2 cupcakes.
Yes, with 2 or 3 games under one's belt, there is only so much one can extrapolate. Still, Browning leads the country in pass efficiency, and UW is hardly the only team to have scheduled 3 cupcakes at home. Rosen, OTOH, is closer in PER to Jesse Ertz (118.8) than to either Browning or Burns. But in an attempt to qualify the opposition:
PER defense:
UW's opponents: Rutgers 133 (#80), Idaho 153 (#110) [Portland State is FCS]
UCLA's opponents: TAMU 94 (#12), UNLV 127 (#69), BYU 126 (#67)
Stanford's opponents: Kansas St. 115 (#43), USC 141 (#98) [Of course, playing Stanford and Alabama will hurt you there]
It's a decent point, but if you took the late Steve Durrett's RPR approach, Browning's PER against Rutgers (185) is about 1.4 times what Rutgers has allowed; his PER against Idaho 229 is 1.5 times what the Vandals have allowed. In contrast, Rosen's 113 against TAMU was 1.2 times what the Aggies have allowed, 128 against UNLV is right on par with what the Rebels allow, and his 141 against BYU is 1.2 times what the Cougars allow. For Burns, his 169 against Kansas State is 1.47 times what the Wildcats allow, and his 130 against USC is 0.92 times what the Trojans allow, though again USC's opponents are better than any of the other team's opponent's opponents.
I think our defensive secondary will have its work cut out. Our PER defense in two games is 104, which is substantially better than anything Browning will have faced. And obviously as the top QB in PER, he is a better QB than anyone we will have faced.
BC
Re: Our next two opposing QB's - DC 86 - 09-18-2016
(09-18-2016, 05:33 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Yes, with 2 or 3 games under one's belt, there is only so much one can extrapolate. Still, Browning leads the country in pass efficiency, and UW is hardly the only team to have scheduled 3 cupcakes at home.
BC
Of the teams in the AP top 25 there are 5 others that have played three home games, but these have either included a ranked opponent or at least an all-FBS schedule. Michigan and Florida come closest to UW in terms of opponent weakness, but UW's schedule is the exception since the playoff committee criteria has motivated teams to schedule more aggressively; even the SEC has taken heart.
But getting back to Browning:
He is a good quarterback, very good considering that this is his true sophomore year.
The fact that he leads the nation in pass efficiency is basically meaningless considering the opposition.
Consider his performance last year, broken down into two tiers of six opponents each, divided according to Jeff Sagarin's final rankings.
Lower Tier (vs FCS Sacramento State, vs 74 Utah State, vs 55 Arizona, at 106 Oregon State, vs 43 Washington State, Bowl vs 70 Southern Miss) - cumulative statistics of 110-153 (72%), 13 TD and 2 interceptions.
Upper Tier (at 38 Boise State, vs 32 Cal, at 14 USC, vs 20 Oregon, vs 24 Utah, at 41 Arizona State) - cumulative statistics of 123-215 (57%), 3 TD and 8 interceptions.
He was injured and didn't play against Stanford, which would have been his toughest opponent according to the rankings.
So Browning has already proven that he can rack up big numbers against weaker teams; his performance against stronger teams certainly doesn't indicate that he is among the most efficient QB in the country or that we should overlook Rosen while preparing to face a superstar in two weeks.
Of course it's true for all quarterbacks that they will pump up their statistics against weaker opponents and struggle (relatively) against stronger opponents, and that venue plays a big role. See Jared Goff last year for another obvious example. My point is not to denigrate Browning, but rather to state that his performance against Rutgers/Idaho/Portland State is entirely consistent with his performance last year, not noteworthy in and of itself, and certainly not indicative of how he should be projected to perform against stronger opposition.