[washingtonismoney]

Using ESPN's total QBR, Winbush is still not rated all that great.  He's ranked 84th, with a run EPA of 1.2.  he also contributed -4 EPA through sack EPA and that supposedly measures the QB's contribution to the sack (so, a QB who scrambles around and gets sacked instead of throwing it away or who takes to long to find a receiver and thus gets sacked that way would lose points through a sack, while one who scrambles around to avoid a sack and either makes a completion or gets some positive yardage would get positive points.... in theory).  Since ESPN's QBR is a black box it is hard to independently assess how good it is at measuring what you think it is measuring.  But assuming it is accurately measuring Wimbush, his run EPA through two games is worse than Brownings and ranks under 50.

Sure -- don't necessarily dispute that. However, not sure it contradicts my theory. My argument was not that the actual playing Wimbush is all that superior, but that if he were allowed to run all the time (15-20 carries per game) he'd be a much more effective quarterback. Since that's a foolhardy strategy to take with one's QB, however, my bet was that Kelly was "saving" him for big games where the extra oomph would be needed, and gambling the streaky throwing could get him past weaker teams. 

So his actual factual stats being bad don't necessarily phase me; in fact, they're my hypothesis playing out in real life. We can see that Wimbush carried the ball 19 times (including sacks) against Michigan and Vandy; in both games, his adjusted QBR is above 65 -- by no means awesome but certainly pretty solid. It's his game against Ball State, in which he ran 11 times for negative yardage, that's holding him back.

Taking Wimbush's full-season statistics as a guide for how he'll perform against Stanford is therefore likely to give some false comfort. On the other hand, if you're (say) a Wake Forest or Northwestern, you might be able to nip past N.D. given the team's (possibly) self-limiting strategy.

[washingtonismoney]

Using ESPN's total QBR, Winbush is still not rated all that great.  He's ranked 84th, with a run EPA of 1.2.  he also contributed -4 EPA through sack EPA and that supposedly measures the QB's contribution to the sack (so, a QB who scrambles around and gets sacked instead of throwing it away or who takes to long to find a receiver and thus gets sacked that way would lose points through a sack, while one who scrambles around to avoid a sack and either makes a completion or gets some positive yardage would get positive points.... in theory).  Since ESPN's QBR is a black box it is hard to independently assess how good it is at measuring what you think it is measuring.  But assuming it is accurately measuring Wimbush, his run EPA through two games is worse than Brownings and ranks under 50.

Sure -- don't necessarily dispute that. However, not sure it contradicts my theory. My argument was not that the actual playing Wimbush is all that superior, but that if he were allowed to run all the time (15-20 carries per game) he'd be a much more effective quarterback. Since that's a foolhardy strategy to take with one's QB, however, my bet was that Kelly was "saving" him for big games where the extra oomph would be needed, and gambling the streaky throwing could get him past weaker teams. 

So his actual factual stats being bad don't necessarily phase me; in fact, they're my hypothesis playing out in real life. We can see that Wimbush carried the ball 19 times (including sacks) against Michigan and Vandy; in both games, his adjusted QBR is above 65 -- by no means awesome but certainly pretty solid. It's his game against Ball State, in which he ran 11 times for negative yardage, that's holding him back.

Taking Wimbush's full-season statistics as a guide for how he'll perform against Stanford is therefore likely to give some false comfort. On the other hand, if you're (say) a Wake Forest or Northwestern, you might be able to nip past N.D. given the team's (possibly) self-limiting strategy.