What's Most Important From Armstrong?

[Enhance]

I am kind of curious why people think higher completion percentages equate to fewer turnovers. I think that's something easy to assume, but, I don't think those two things are a cause and effect.

Looking back at my earlier example, TM completed 62 percent of his passes for 23 TD's and 12 INT's in 2012. Conversely, last year, TA completed 53 percent of his passes for 22 TD's and 12 INT's. Their pass attempts were also relatively close - TM 368 to TA's 345. Same number of turnovers with almost a 10 percent completion percentage differential.

Again, I definitely agree these two stats are most important, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning some people are putting for completion percentage being most important.

 

[Scratchtown]

I am kind of curious why people think higher completion percentages equate to fewer turnovers. I think that's something easy to assume, but, I don't think those two things are a cause and effect.

Looking back at my earlier example, TM completed 62 percent of his passes for 23 TD's and 12 INT's in 2012. Conversely, last year, TA completed 53 percent of his passes for 22 TD's and 12 INT's. Their pass attempts were also relatively close - TM 368 to TA's 345. Same number of turnovers with almost a 10 percent completion percentage differential.

Again, I definitely agree these two stats are most important, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning some people are putting for completion percentage being most important.

All that means is that TA had more balls hit the ground. Why does TA's TO number have to be the ceiling? Maybe TM's was the ceiling and TA, who had ton's of INT's get dropped by defender, is the one that lucked out in not reaching a higher INT rate due to poorer comp %

Comp % equates to fewer turnovers, and opportunities for fewer turnovers. Just because the defender didn't catch it doesn't the comp % doesn't reflect TO's

That's my opinion I guess.

Also, I think scheme takes a HUGE role as well. So the more I think about it, there are a ton more variables to include. For either side's argument.

 

[NUance]

It's not really a top-four priority, but I'd like to see Tommy do this again sometime: LINK

 

[NUinID]

Completion percentage is nice and I would like to see it go up, but it is a little over ratied when looking at statistics of a QB. Conner Cook is considered one of the best QB in the BIG and sure fire pro prospect. His completion percentage last year was 57% not the magical 60% everyone wants for TA. His TD/INT ratio was very good though, something like 26/6 while TA was 22/12.

Throwing fewer INTs while increasing the TDs is way more important than completion %. Yards per attempt is also a good indicator.

 

[Sargon]

1. Turnover %

2. Completion %

Tommy needs to improve a lot with throwing to the open receiver and be accurate.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

1) Leadership

2) Everything Else

Who doesn't want a higher completion percentage?

Keeping in mind that Sophomore Tommy Armstrong completed 53% of his passes last season:

Junior Turner Gill completed 54% of his passes in 1982

Senior Tommie Frazier completed 56% of his passes in 1995 (sat our most of his Jr. Year)

Junior Scott Frost completed 52% of his passes in 1996

Junior Eric Crouch completed 48% of his passes in 2000.

Winning cures everything.

 

[Saunders]

Turnover %

Touchdowns

I don't really care if he throws for 100 yards a game if he's scoring 4 TD's a game and not turning it over.

 

[Landlord]

1) Leadership

2) Everything Else

Who doesn't want a higher completion percentage?

Keeping in mind that Sophomore Tommy Armstrong completed 53% of his passes last season:

Junior Turner Gill completed 54% of his passes in 1982

Senior Tommie Frazier completed 56% of his passes in 1995 (sat our most of his Jr. Year)

Junior Scott Frost completed 52% of his passes in 1996

Junior Eric Crouch completed 48% of his passes in 2000.

Winning cures everything.

...these guys ran power running/option offenses. Not west coast pro-style spread hybrids.

 

[NUance]

1) Leadership

2) Everything Else

Who doesn't want a higher completion percentage?

Keeping in mind that Sophomore Tommy Armstrong completed 53% of his passes last season:

Junior Turner Gill completed 54% of his passes in 1982

Senior Tommie Frazier completed 56% of his passes in 1995 (sat our most of his Jr. Year)

Junior Scott Frost completed 52% of his passes in 1996

Junior Eric Crouch completed 48% of his passes in 2000.

Winning cures everything.

...these guys ran power running/option offenses. Not west coast pro-style spread hybrids.

And why compare to those guys anyway? Three of them weren't very good passers at all. Turner Gill had a good arm. But the other three? Oy!

 

[Sargon]

1) Leadership

2) Everything Else

Who doesn't want a higher completion percentage?

Keeping in mind that Sophomore Tommy Armstrong completed 53% of his passes last season:

Junior Turner Gill completed 54% of his passes in 1982

Senior Tommie Frazier completed 56% of his passes in 1995 (sat our most of his Jr. Year)

Junior Scott Frost completed 52% of his passes in 1996

Junior Eric Crouch completed 48% of his passes in 2000.

Winning cures everything.

Not gonna win with those low percentages in today's game. However, of course all of these stats mentioned in the OP don't correlate much with wins which is why the analytics boom continues. Decision makers don't need data...they need USEFUL data.

The QB's you mentioned probably would score high on a useful total QBR score that considers lots of things, weighted, like ball security, moving the chains, ypa, ypc, etc.

Winning is an outcome not a tactic or a QB stat.

Don't mean to pick on you I enjoy your posts.

edit: lulz I was a few minutes late to the pile on ha

 

[JJ Husker]

How about the one thing that matters more than percentages, ypc, ints, etc....?

WINS.

I see this a lot in multiple discussions, and it's not wrong........but, typically to win, teams and players and coaches have to do the things necessary to win. I find it is a lot more productive to discuss those things that lead to winning rather than going for the easy kill shot of "just win baby".

 

[The Dude]

Completion percentage is nice and I would like to see it go up, but it is a little over ratied when looking at statistics of a QB. Conner Cook is considered one of the best QB in the BIG and sure fire pro prospect. His completion percentage last year was 57% not the magical 60% everyone wants for TA. His TD/INT ratio was very good though, something like 26/6 while TA was 22/12.

Throwing fewer INTs while increasing the TDs is way more important than completion %. Yards per attempt is also a good indicator.

Good example. Cook was 75th nationally in completion percentage and 9th in yards per attempt. I think most people would consider him closer to the 9th best QB than the 75th best QB in the nation.

 

[Sargon]

Completion percentage is nice and I would like to see it go up, but it is a little over ratied when looking at statistics of a QB. Conner Cook is considered one of the best QB in the BIG and sure fire pro prospect. His completion percentage last year was 57% not the magical 60% everyone wants for TA. His TD/INT ratio was very good though, something like 26/6 while TA was 22/12.

Throwing fewer INTs while increasing the TDs is way more important than completion %. Yards per attempt is also a good indicator.

Good example. Cook was 75th nationally in completion percentage and 9th in yards per attempt. I think most people would consider him closer to the 9th best QB than the 75th best QB in the nation.

7th best sound fair?

http://espn.go.com/ncf/qbr/_/year/2014

 

[Enhance]

I am kind of curious why people think higher completion percentages equate to fewer turnovers. I think that's something easy to assume, but, I don't think those two things are a cause and effect.

Looking back at my earlier example, TM completed 62 percent of his passes for 23 TD's and 12 INT's in 2012. Conversely, last year, TA completed 53 percent of his passes for 22 TD's and 12 INT's. Their pass attempts were also relatively close - TM 368 to TA's 345. Same number of turnovers with almost a 10 percent completion percentage differential.

Again, I definitely agree these two stats are most important, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning some people are putting for completion percentage being most important.

All that means is that TA had more balls hit the ground. Why does TA's TO number have to be the ceiling? Maybe TM's was the ceiling and TA, who had ton's of INT's get dropped by defender, is the one that lucked out in not reaching a higher INT rate due to poorer comp %

Comp % equates to fewer turnovers, and opportunities for fewer turnovers. Just because the defender didn't catch it doesn't the comp % doesn't reflect TO's

That's my opinion I guess.

Also, I think scheme takes a HUGE role as well. So the more I think about it, there are a ton more variables to include. For either side's argument.

Scheme will play a factor, and you're right, there are a TON of variables you have to consider here. For example, you mention defenders dropping TA's interceptions, but I vividly remember TM having his fair share of dropped INT's. But, players dropped wide open TD opportunities too. These things sometimes balance out - WR's will drop some easy passes but then end up making some miraculous catches.

But, I disagree that all it means is TM had fewer balls hit the ground. My statistical comparison flat out disproves the idea that completion percentage equals fewer turnovers. TA may have had more balls hit the ground, but does that mean if more balls didn't hit the ground he'd have fewer turnovers? TM's statistics show he DID hit more receivers and STILL threw the same number of INT's. The Connor Cook example is a good one as well - 57 percent completions and only 6 INT's.

Is this true in all cases? No. Definitely not saying that. But, I still don't really see that completion percentage equals fewer turnovers in the same way that 1+1=2, which appears to be what some people are arguing.

Someone else said his decision-making needs to be better and I think that's a good way to put it. Better decisions will lead to fewer turnovers and higher completion percentages.

 

[Savage Husker]

I am kind of curious why people think higher completion percentages equate to fewer turnovers. I think that's something easy to assume, but, I don't think those two things are a cause and effect.

Looking back at my earlier example, TM completed 62 percent of his passes for 23 TD's and 12 INT's in 2012. Conversely, last year, TA completed 53 percent of his passes for 22 TD's and 12 INT's. Their pass attempts were also relatively close - TM 368 to TA's 345. Same number of turnovers with almost a 10 percent completion percentage differential.

Again, I definitely agree these two stats are most important, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning some people are putting for completion percentage being most important.

All that means is that TA had more balls hit the ground. Why does TA's TO number have to be the ceiling? Maybe TM's was the ceiling and TA, who had ton's of INT's get dropped by defender, is the one that lucked out in not reaching a higher INT rate due to poorer comp %Comp % equates to fewer turnovers, and opportunities for fewer turnovers. Just because the defender didn't catch it doesn't the comp % doesn't reflect TO's

That's my opinion I guess.

Also, I think scheme takes a HUGE role as well. So the more I think about it, there are a ton more variables to include. For either side's argument.

TM did go from 56% 13/8 in 2011 to 63% 23/12 in 2012. (TM was also at 63% 10/2 in 2013, dang, wish he were healthy that season). Not saying I'm right, but my opinion is I would prefer a higher completion % because every time he completes a pass, he isn't turning it over and the team is typically gaining yards. Definitely can't go wrong with turnover % above completion % though, I get it and originally had turnover % higher too.