Biggest changes needed to the football team?

[akhosrof 1,168]

Out of curiosity which advanced statistics?

ESPN Total QBR, 50 is considered average:

http://www.espn.com/ncf/qbr

I don't have a subscription to PFF, but my unscientific reading of their week-to-week reviews of our games Lagow has been consistently rated within their average range.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Brass Cannon 24,064]

Just now, akhosrof said:

 

ESPN Total QBR, 50 is considered average:

http://www.espn.com/ncf/qbr

I don't have a subscription to PFF, but my unscientific reading of their week-to-week reviews of our games Lagow has been consistently rated within their average range.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

 

Oh ok. I think very little of QBR to be honest. And it's cases like Lagow that consistently make me suspect of it. 

 

[akhosrof 1,168]

Of course, these statistics are not the be all end all. But they are relative. I think PFF's grading is better than ESPN's Total QBR. And Lagow tended to grade out lower on PFF, but still at an average level.

I tend to favor these sort of stats, but that's probably because I am not knowledgeable enough for any sort of eye test


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Brass Cannon 24,064]

My thing with these advanced stats is they treat all incompletions and sacks as the same. And that's just not true.  Lagow was missing wide open guys while sitting behind a great line. 

I bet if you looked very few of the QBs below Lagow in those stats had a line as good as him. 

[hsrtxp 1,400]

My thing with these advanced stats is they treat all incompletions and sacks as the same. And that's just not true.  Lagow was missing wide open guys while sitting behind a great line. 

I bet if you looked very few of the QBs below Lagow in those stats had a line as good as him. 

Should be a grade for how many times this board collectively said WTH throughout the season when Lagow was throwing. That is a great advanced stat!


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[akhosrof 1,168]

My thing with these advanced stats is they treat all incompletions and sacks as the same. And that's just not true.  Lagow was missing wide open guys while sitting behind a great line. 

I bet if you looked very few of the QBs below Lagow in those stats had a line as good as him. 

For PFF I think that's somewhat correct. I believe their grading system has a play grade of positive, double positive, negative, or double negative. Or something along those lines. So a sack or incompletion could have a different grade based upon how good or bad the decision was, or at what point in the game the play was.

ESPN's Total QBR is based on win probability, so a sack or incompletion will have a different grade at different points of the game based on the score. QB's aren't faulted if there's a blatant drop or blown pass protection. In college, Total QBR is adjusted for difficulty of schedule. A QB could have a terrible first half, but if he comes back and single handedly wins his team the game, his overall score is likely to be good.

Either way, both systems are much better than merely looking at stat lines or TD-INT ratios. I like PFF because it is professional scouts looking at every play and making a judgement on each play individually. They look at the film the same way a coach would and apply their grading system.

A positive for ESPN's grading system is the correlation between the team that wins a game and the team that had the QB with the higher Total QBR is extremely high. I would imagine it's the same with PFF. ESPN proved the correlation is a lot lower if you're only looking at stat lines (i.e. Normal QBR), because a bad QB can rack up big stats in garbage time.

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Brass Cannon 24,064]

4 minutes ago, akhosrof said:

For PFF I think that's somewhat correct. I believe their grading system has a play grade of positive, double positive, negative, or double negative. Or something along those lines. So a sack or incompletion could have a different grade based upon how good or bad the decision was, or at what point in the game the play was.

ESPN's Total QBR is based on win probability, so a sack or incompletion will have a different grade at different points of the game based on the score. QB's aren't faulted if there's a blatant drop or blown pass protection. In college, Total QBR is adjusted for difficulty of schedule. A QB could have a terrible first half, but if he comes back and single handedly wins his team the game, his overall score is likely to be good.

Either way, both systems are much better than merely looking at stat lines or TD-INT ratios. I like PFF because it is professional scouts looking at every play and making a judgement on each play individually. They look at the film the same way a coach would and apply their grading system.

A positive for ESPN's grading system is the correlation between the team that wins a game and the team that had the QB with the higher Total QBR is extremely high. I would imagine it's the same with PFF. ESPN proved the correlation is a lot lower if you're only looking at stat lines (i.e. Normal QBR), because a bad QB can rack up big stats in garbage time.

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I understand the systems I just think they are flawed. There's 22 guys on the field and they are reducing it down way too much. 

Basketball does the same thing with their stats. 

Its like they are jealous of the baseball for its advantages in stat gathering

[hsrtxp 1,400]

Thanks for the discourse here gents.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[akhosrof 1,168]

I understand the systems I just think they are flawed. There's 22 guys on the field and they are reducing it down way too much. 

Basketball does the same thing with their stats. 

Its like they are jealous of the baseball for its advantages in stat gathering

I understand your point, but are these stats anymore flawed than the individual judgements we naturally make? Someone in this topic said "there should be an advanced stat for how many times Lagow made this board go WTH." That's a natural judgement many of us made this season. How many good plays would it take from Lagow to get that out of our head? Each of us is different. At some point you have to make a final judgement or grade in a collective performance. No grading scale is going to be perfect, but PFF is pretty damn good.

I'm not smart enough to conduct an eye test, given all the factors you mentioned with 22 players on the field. Nor do I have the time to evaluate every play. That's why I like to rely on the pros (PFF). All PFF is doing is taking the bias out of the evaluation process, putting everything on a consistent grading scale, and tallying a final evaluation. While you may have a problem with the grading scale, the fact remains that you have an evaluator with professional credentials grade how well a player did on each play taking all 22 players into consideration (and sometimes another evaluator quality checks), a grade is compiled, and each player has a grade that can be compared on an even scale for their position.

For PFF the stat is essentially a compilation of a professional evaluator's judgements on how well one player did his job over the course of a game. Most of the time it's pretty obvious on a single play if the player graded positive or negative, but sure there could be some subjective areas in there.

If both PFF and ESPN Total QBR come out to a similar, relative grade, I'm very inclined to believe there's truth in the sentiment of that evaluation.

Btw, I do agree. Baseball has the best advanced stats and basketball and football pale in comparison.

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Miller'sTheMan 1,652]

5 hours ago, hsrtxp said:

Lots of peeps on here smarter than I when it comes to player development, but with a season under his belt and now an entire off season to work shouldn't we expect Lagow to improve and at least become a serviceable QB?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

You'd expect him to improve over the course of the season too right? That didn't happen. I'd rather not count on it.

[ThompsonHoosier 3,413]

2 minutes ago, Crean'sTheMan said:

You'd expect him to improve over the course of the season too right? That didn't happen. I'd rather not count on it.

I think Johns tried to work on Lagow's mechanics over the summer and instead of improving, it worsened his accuracy, etc. I know Lagow had some awful games and at times looked like he couldn't read the opposing defenses but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and another off-season to work with Watson/DeBord and see how he looks in the fall before I ask for a QB change.

[SteelerHoosier 2,586]

I get that I'm not the next Lombardi,  Walsh, or Belichick, but I've been directly involved in this game going on 20 consecutive years as either a player or coach and I'm just not seeing it with Lagow. He struggles at multiple facets of the game. It's not just mechanics. He struggles to read anything consistently and far too often picks guys out ahead of time. If it were a physical or mental thing I'd have more hope, but not at this stage of his career when glaring issues exist at both. I expect improvement,  but not to the point that he'll be far and away the best QB on the roster. If a younger guy is close to him at all next fall I say you play the young buck. You'll be on pace to struggle on offense anyways. Let the kud take his lumps. I really hope I'm wrong. I want him to take a big step next season.  He has the upside.  I'm just not anticipating it. 

[hsrtxp 1,400]

You'd expect him to improve over the course of the season too right? That didn't happen. I'd rather not count on it.

Yes and no.

Mechanics, not so much if he needs an overhaul, then during the season is not the time to work on it.

Playbook, reading defenses, etc. yes, absolutely. I'm not sure it happened but surely he knew the playbook by the end of the season than he did at the start.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[Miller'sTheMan 1,652]

2 hours ago, hsrtxp said:

Yes and no.

Mechanics, not so much if he needs an overhaul, then during the season is not the time to work on it.

Playbook, reading defenses, etc. yes, absolutely. I'm not sure it happened but surely he knew the playbook by the end of the season than he did at the start.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

I'd rather just have a QB we don't need to make excuses for. The guy is simply not a D1 quality QB. We can name whatever reasons we want to for why he wasn't, but this past season he was just plain bad. If we want to be a good program we can't just count on our bad players to somehow become good. Can it happen? Perhaps, but if that's what your relying on you're in for a rough year. Not to mention the new OC runs an offense that in no way compliment's Lagow's play style. 

[hsrtxp 1,400]

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2017/01/10/new-iu-qbs-coach-shawn-watson-richard-lagow-blank-slate/96367908/

Article from Osterman at Indy Star focusing on qb coach Watson. Calls Lagow a blank slate. Lagow leads qb competition. States Allen plans up tempo run first offense.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners