There's more to coaching than being an elite in game decision maker but I'm not convinced Harbs is a great in game decision maker.

I first started to realize this when @ MN Harbs seemed overly reluctant to adjust his gameplan in a more aggressive fashion when the game was getting out of reach. I assumed this was a handicap of having Alex Smith at QB.

In the superbowl the ravens are up 21 - 3 nearing the end of the 1st quarter. SF has a 4th and 2 from the BAL's 9 and they kick the FG to go down 15.

If you watch the SEA - ATL playoff game you can see how a big lead by ATL causes Pete to adjust his gameplan and ramp up the aggression (putting a much greater emphasis on TD > FG given the significant hole).

Pete > Harbs at in game strategic decision making at the least.

LOL. Right. Like I'm gonna do that for a QB who's in a battle for the starting job, and has a hyped up rookie ready to take over late in the year if the team's not in contention. I'd have to think Vick was >>>>> Flacco for that to be a reasonable bet.

So you are confident Vick is better than Flacco but not confident that he is better than Foles and Barkley?

Iggy, shouldn't the best coach in the NFL realize that he has a top 10 QB in Vick? Surely 1. Chip Kelly knows that Vick is way better than Foles right?

lol how the **** does this devolve into a Vick convo

This is what I was thinking but maybe Iggy thinks he is a better QB evaluator than 1. Chip Kelly?

Wat??? For all the hate Flaclol gets here, he's still a league average QB (or slightly above average). You think Vick is better than that, but that Foles/Barkeley apparently are elite-level QBs?

Never said Vick was a Top 10 QB. In fact I recently made a list of my top 11 QBs in this very thread and Vick wasn't in it. What I said was that he was close to league average like Flacco and would likely put up better numbers in Chip's system than Flacco would for the Ravens.


Foles and Barkley don't have to be better than Vick to get a few starts when they're 9 and 11 years younger than Vick respectively. The point is that it's pretty easy to fall below 300 attempts when you're on a team that may look to rebuild if they have a bad start, when there are young QBs fighting for the job, and when you have an injury risk as well. The combination of factors makes it significantly more likely Vick doesn't reach 300 attempts than Flacco, and would mean I'd need to about 70% sure he would outgain Flacco in ANY/A to make the bet +EV. I think it should be pretty clear why I wouldn't agree to this condition even if I think Vick >>>>> Foles and Barkley (which I do).

do you think the eagles have the chance to win the division this year iggy?

fyp. please try a little harder?

seriously. More of talk of the 4.

Kaepernick has the best selling jersey. Obviously he is the best because of this

From 2013 on, Kaep should be compared to Newton rather than Luck/Wilson/RG3. Am I off base?

Not way off base, but Kaep and Rustle will be compared more than Kaep and Cam IMO.

butnahhh

Kaep and Wilson are going to be "compared" at least twice a year for, as best we can tell, the rest of their careers.

Oops i read it backwards, yah I agree.

Personally I put Cam on the same tier as the group of 4.

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/teampage.php

sort by run epa/p

I guess this gets lost in all this talk, but who's the worst thrower?

Has to be Wilson right?

If you were asking who would be the worst pure pocket passer then Wilson might be correct. I don't think he is the worst thrower though, he was first round calibre talent based largely on his accuracy and arm strength and only dropped because of his height.

I think I'd probably say it goes Luck >> RG3 >= Wilson > Kaep just in terms of pure passing ability. They're all damn good though.

Luck >>> Wilson > RG3 = Kaep

Luck had, of the four, the lowest completion percentage, the lowest ANY/A AY/A, NY/A, and Y/A, the most interceptions, the highest interception rate, the lowest QB rating, the lowest QBR, the lowest EPA/P, the lowest TD% and the highest sack rate. If you want to make the case that Luck is anything other than the worst passer, you're basically basing it on:

1. Wins. Luck pulled some games out of his ass and has the WPA/G to show for it.
2. Usage. He was asked to do the most.
3. Bulk yards.
4. Perceived potential.
5. Complaining about Lucks supporting cast.

Which of those 5 aren't valid?

Only #3, really, but 4-5 aren't easily quantifiable in a way for us to compare Luck to the other 3.

2 is probably the most important although 5 is also right up there.