No matter how hard I look, I just don't see Gabriel as HOF

[Hail Casares]

i can pull any advanced metric with subjective weight and take issue with the results. It doesn't negate the overall feel of the number or the point. Yeah sure, you can disagree with AV in 1969. But someone else might agree with the results from 1972-1986, then disagree with some years. Agree with more and so on. The point of AV, and PFR specifically points this out, is to not say "this guy is better than this player overall/in this specific year" it's to give an overall feel of the value of that player relative to his team. You can draw SOME lines across the league but AV never sets the number as an end all be all and the number is simply a way to give "value" to the shape and type of career the player had. It's a number to start a conversation or be a part of the conversation..the number isn't the conversation itself.

Sorry, fails to do anything you say it purports to accomplish. And I am not sure anyone with a "functioning brain" would agree with the results from 1972-86. Or any other years. And if you think Greg Landry had 2 of the top 6 QB seasons from 1967-82 and want to hang your hat on that fine. I simply cannot accept that as measuring anything.

You're not even responding to the "functioning brain" comment in context of the post I made it in.

Secondly, it's clear you don't even understand AV so this is pointless to discuss further with you. Landry's AV's are off the charts those years because he was accounting for over 50% of the Lions offensive yardage output and something like 67% of their total TD's. There wasn't much "value" on the Lions offense to go around so Landry basically accumulated it all. Again, as I reference AV is a TEAM SPECIFIC value. That's why you see some things wonky like Landry out there. You're trying to view this as a value of players vs player league wide. The players aren't pulling the value from the "pot" of available numbers league wide, they are doing it from their team.

I'm done with this though. You're being obtuse at this point.

[Hail Casares]

That it's hilarious like this is some accomplishment. I think anyone following the NFL with a functioning brain would understand that a great passer rating in 1988 compared to a passer rating in 1956 might be a really bad equivalency because of the massive differences in the game, even prior to 1978. The accomplishment is that PFR actually quantified it with actual numbers so we can see how much better than the league average players were and we have an objective measure, not just some intuition or "understanding". PFR actually gave us quantifiable proof. That's the accomplishment. What you're talking about "doing in your head" is what lead PFR to actually get the number. One is worth bragging about. The other is just silly.

Glad to entertain you. But when I was working with the passer rating and recognizing the differences in era I likely didn't have a functioning brain, I mean it was 1978 and I was 14. me and by Royal calculator. Maybe it's nothing to brag about but gave me a better understanding of the game and the meaning of stats.

That's too bad.

[JohnTurney]

Secondly, it's clear you don't even understand AV

I do. I understand it is bogus as a player rating system in which player A can be compared to player B.

PFR has a "player reference tool" and you can compare player stats

First number they use is AV

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... dx=players

And it's obvious how it works because the Vikings had a great year defensively their entire front four has high grades. However, that very fact, that team success in terms of yards, stats, points, whatever, makes it impossible to compare anyone from the Cowboys or Falcons to the Vikings.

That very thing is what makes the AV metic useless for the purposes that it was been used for in this thread and on the internet. So, of PFR pushing AV is a tool that can compare Lawrence Taylor's 1984 to 1985 and get it wrong or the Greg Landry fiasco then I have proven the uselessness of the metic.

[JohnTurney]

That's too bad.

Yeah, tragic.

[Hail Casares]

I do.

You clearly don't.

PFR has a "player reference tool" and you can compare player stats
First number they use is AV

Ok? Again: If you understand AV you know it's not the end all be all so it being first second or last is irrelevant. No idea why you're so hung up on this.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... dx=players

And it's obvious how it works because the Vikings had a great year defensively their entire front four has high grades. However, that very fact, that team success in terms of yards, stats, points, whatever, makes it impossible to compare anyone from the Cowboys or Falcons to the Vikings.

You saying this perfectly demonstrates you have no idea how to use the number or anything related to it.

That very thing is what makes the AV metic useless for the purposes that it was been used for in this thread and on the internet. So, of PFR pushing AV is a tool that can compare Lawrence Taylor's 1984 to 1985 and get it wrong or the Greg Landry fiasco then I have proven the uselessness of the metic.

LOLat you getting mad at other people using it incorrectly on "the internet". I'm worried about it's correct uses. In Anderson v Gabriel it's a jumping off point. Anderson was generally more valuable to his team than Grabrial was year over year. Hence his higher AV total. You can also see peaks and valleys relative to a players career for a team etc.

I'm officially done with you now on this AV topic.

[Bryan]

As fas as total approach, I think I do that, how do you know I don't take into account Gabriel's system when I say I don't think he's HOF.

Because you made no mention of Gabriel benefiting from Marchibroda's system, you had no response when I brought it up, and you said:

Stats like passer rating are going to favor system QB like Anderson. Walsh was likely first coach to "coach to the statistic" or design things that reflected well. Walsh was a genius in that kind of thing.

I think that is an erroneous statement on your part. But I've already gone over all of this multiple times. Anderson led the NFL in yardage and had a high YPA...Gabriel's low YPA/low INT% totals seem to be out of the design of the offense of Marchibroda. Again, if the design of Anderson's offense was to have him lead the NFL in yardage while averaging 8+YPA, then more power to him.

[JohnTurney]

You clearly don't.

Again, you're wrong. You just don't like that I understand it well enough to know it's crap. Have had many discussions on this board with others long before you showed up.

[JohnTurney]

Because you made no mention of Gabriel benefiting from Marchibroda's system, you had no response when I brought it up, and you said:

Well, I wasn't posting the definitive work on the subject. This is a chat board, not doctoral these so things will get left out.

As far as this

"I think that is an erroneous statement on your part. But I've already gone over all of this multiple times. Anderson led the NFL in yardage and had a high YPA...Gabriel's low YPA/low INT% totals seem to be out of the design of the offense of Marchibroda. Again, if the design of Anderson's offense was to have him lead the NFL in yardage while averaging 8+YPA, then more power to him.

Unless you saw the Rams offense there is no way to describe it to you. Throwing short was not the design of the offense, but it was how Gabriel ran it due to varios reasons. I suggest you talk to TJ Troup who knows that offense and has interviewed Marchibroda. It's pretty clear you may be just trying to put in into a category based on your reading of the stats and film study will show other things, but TJ would talk about it better than me.

But again, Bryan, you are still trying to use nothing but stats to promote Anderson. And that's my objection. You want to say how great he was in stats and I point out that he had 4 seasons over 90...so he didn't "do it" or "get it done" very often.

And please, don't go over it multiple times. I am as familiar with Anderson's stats as you are. No one on this board needs to have the stats repeated to them. We all can read.

However, do, if you want, comment on this: 4 "blue" years and then a bunch of so-so seasons. That's not HOF, and that's not better than Brodie, Gabriel, etc.
Year Rate
1981 — 98.4
1974 — 95.7
1982 — 95.3
1975 — 93.9

gap

1983 — 85.6

gap

1973 — 81.2
1984 — 81.0
1979 — 80.7 (should be in his "prime")
1976 — 76.9 (should be in his "prime")
1972 — 74.0
1971 — 72.6
1977 — 69.7 (should be in his "prime")
1980 — 66.9 (should be in his "prime")
1978 — 58.0 (should be in his "prime")

[Bryan]

I suggest you talk to TJ Troup who knows that offense and has interviewed Marchibroda. It's pretty clear you may be just trying to put in into a category based on your reading of the stats and film study will show other things, but TJ would talk about it better than me.

"Yes, yes...to Obi-Wan you listen."

That's all I got.

[JohnTurney]

I suggest you talk to TJ Troup who knows that offense and has interviewed Marchibroda. It's pretty clear you may be just trying to put in into a category based on your reading of the stats and film study will show other things, but TJ would talk about it better than me.

"Yes, yes...to Obi-Wan you listen."

That's all I got.

Wow. I guess you have all the information you'll ever need on the subject. No need to talk to someone who may have a tad more knowledge. Got it.