[stupac2]

And the Niners had 5 total turnovers in that game.  I think Dallas had 6.  



I don't remember anyone claiming Montana couldn't be trusted after those 3 picks.  The fact is fantasy football has skewed how people judge QB performance, and not in a good way.

That was also nearly 40 years ago, the game has changed a lot. Look at the interception totals Favre threw in his MVP years, 13, 13, and 16, each of which was at least a 2.3% INT rate, which would be ~20th in the league today. And those were Favre's good years! He was over 20 in a bunch of seasons. The same is actually true of Montana, pretty similar numbers (~2.5% INT%, mid-teens interceptions). No one would say that Rodgers or Garoppolo are MVP candidates this year, but Montana's All-Pro years were similar in ANY/A. The game was just different back then, using that standard to judge modern players is asinine.

Kyle Shanahan, who knows a thing or two about football, was asked by a reporter a few weeks ago what stats he uses to judge QB effectiveness.  He said he doesn't look at stats and that "you guys pay way more attention to that stuff than me."  The only one he put any stock in is 3rd down conversions and wins. That's it. 

And even earlier in the season Shanahan was asked about interceptions and he said he doesn't want Garoppolo to stop taking risks because that's what makes him rack up those wins that are far and a way more important than interception rate. No, you don't want to be Jameis Winston with 30 TDs and 30 INTs (several pick 6s), but a 2-1 TD to INT ratio is very acceptable if the QB is winning games and getting to the Super Bowl.

As is often pointed out here, what coaches say to the media and what they actually believe are very different. If Shanahan actually believes that then he hasn't looked into it, like, at all, because those statistics aren't stable year-to-year and thus aren't a good measure of ability. If you want to be all StAtS aRe DuMb then the things to look at things like rating (however you want to do it) from a clean pocket, which is far more stable.

Back in the day, five thirty eight used to have a segment titled “gunslinger of the week”.  It went to QB’s who took risks when their team was behind.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ton...-the-year/

The idea being that it is worth taking risks by throwing downfield in an effort to get a big gain/touchdown, even if it increases the risk of an interception.

BC

Right, which is why the ideal interception rate isn't 0, it means you're not taking enough risks. My entire point was that comparing eras to make that point is ridiculous because it was such a different game back then, interception rates that were excellent are now middling.

[stupac2]

And the Niners had 5 total turnovers in that game.  I think Dallas had 6.  



I don't remember anyone claiming Montana couldn't be trusted after those 3 picks.  The fact is fantasy football has skewed how people judge QB performance, and not in a good way.

That was also nearly 40 years ago, the game has changed a lot. Look at the interception totals Favre threw in his MVP years, 13, 13, and 16, each of which was at least a 2.3% INT rate, which would be ~20th in the league today. And those were Favre's good years! He was over 20 in a bunch of seasons. The same is actually true of Montana, pretty similar numbers (~2.5% INT%, mid-teens interceptions). No one would say that Rodgers or Garoppolo are MVP candidates this year, but Montana's All-Pro years were similar in ANY/A. The game was just different back then, using that standard to judge modern players is asinine.

Kyle Shanahan, who knows a thing or two about football, was asked by a reporter a few weeks ago what stats he uses to judge QB effectiveness.  He said he doesn't look at stats and that "you guys pay way more attention to that stuff than me."  The only one he put any stock in is 3rd down conversions and wins. That's it. 

And even earlier in the season Shanahan was asked about interceptions and he said he doesn't want Garoppolo to stop taking risks because that's what makes him rack up those wins that are far and a way more important than interception rate. No, you don't want to be Jameis Winston with 30 TDs and 30 INTs (several pick 6s), but a 2-1 TD to INT ratio is very acceptable if the QB is winning games and getting to the Super Bowl.

As is often pointed out here, what coaches say to the media and what they actually believe are very different. If Shanahan actually believes that then he hasn't looked into it, like, at all, because those statistics aren't stable year-to-year and thus aren't a good measure of ability. If you want to be all StAtS aRe DuMb then the things to look at things like rating (however you want to do it) from a clean pocket, which is far more stable.

Back in the day, five thirty eight used to have a segment titled “gunslinger of the week”.  It went to QB’s who took risks when their team was behind.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ton...-the-year/

The idea being that it is worth taking risks by throwing downfield in an effort to get a big gain/touchdown, even if it increases the risk of an interception.

BC

Right, which is why the ideal interception rate isn't 0, it means you're not taking enough risks. My entire point was that comparing eras to make that point is ridiculous because it was such a different game back then, interception rates that were excellent are now middling.