https://www.cfl.ca/2019/06/16/ferguson-makes-quarterback-accurate-cfl/?hootPostID=e2e793e80986eab724b8da18dd157724

This looks awesome... hope Ferguson follows through for the whole season...

The rabid fan response to the fact that Nichols is not the most accurate passer in the league actually makes me more worried than Ferguson's ranking system.  Usually a sign that its a bit too close to the truth... ha

So far the response is generally 'Oh yeah? Well Ferguson is dumb' and then the poster proceeds to explain how 'their' ranking system would be better... because we're fans and he's just an ex-CIS QB and CFL analyst haha

Nichols has not been super accurate this year... there's nothing in Ferguson's ranking system that doesn't match up with the eye-test

 

And to conclude - Mike Reilly 1-3 with 5 TD and 4 INT (Losers gonna lose Fergy)

Matt Nichols 3-0 with 7 TD and 1 INT (Winners gonna win Fergy)

 

Just now, Firekid said:

And to conclude - Mike Reilly 1-3 with 5 TD and 4 INT (Losers gonna lose Fergy)

Matt Nichols 3-0 with 7 TD and 1 INT (Winners gonna win Fergy)

 

Ha why are you taking this so personally...  You think Ferguson has a vendetta against the bombers...? 

No I didn't even read the stats lol! I just thnk folks are being too hard on Nichols when all he is doing is throwing TD passes and winning. 

30 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Yah, it's subjective, but so are folks around here's views. It's not results oriented. It's accuracy oriented. Efficiency rating means nothing in this analysis. You're right that short balls are easier to be accurate on, which is why Streveler ranked so highly this week. That doesn't seem to validate your 'likes deep balls' comment tho.

You seem to want to give Nichols points for results, not accuracy. Nichols throws balls in the dirt and the receivers dig them out. Accurate throws? Not unless that's the only place he could throw the ball and mostly it's not (Subjectively speaking). Good result? Sure. Nichols overthrows, but the receiver makes a great 1 handed grab. Accurate throw? Maybe? Good result? Yup.

It really doesn't matter anyway. It's just one mans opinion of how accurately QB's are throwing the ball. Assuming he doesn't have a bias for or against specific QB's it should be a reasonable way to look at QB accuracy. I can't think of a better way to do it... can you?

I guess my comments are in response the original post comment that this method would "settle arguments" or that Nichols is "having a bad year". I'm not sure how this system objectively or consistently measures good vs bad, so I don't see it as a valuable tool. Maybe a throw in the dirt is accurate because the QB wanted to keep it low to avoid the knockdown or INT, and was simply trying for a first down and not a 35 YAC yard type of play. Only the QB will truly know where they intended for the pass to go compared to where it ended up. Ricky Ray was a master at lofting the high sideline ball where only his receiver had a play on it, incredibly accurate to my mind, but who can say how Ferguson would rank it? (receiver had to go and get a ball in a tough spot, bad throw? - maybe it's meant to be in a tough spot so the defender also has a tough time getting to it). My "deep balls preference" theory is based solely on the limited examples Ferguson uses to outline his criteria, and he mentions low or behind the receivers throws as bad, and uses video of YAC yards catches as good, so I am only guessing based on what he provided as his measuring stick. Again, his lack of a clear consistent metric beyond "this looks good to me" diminishes the objective credibility of his rankings. 

A better way? Well, incorporating completion percentage would be a great start. I think we can all agree that a QB who threw at an 80% completion rate was more accurate than one who threw 50% on an objective basis of measurement. Maybe award higher points for longer completions. A QB who throws 70% overall, but is 13/13 in throws between 0-10 yards, 6/10 in throws from 10-20 yards, and 2/7 in throws over 20 yards may not be as highly ranked for accuracy as one who with a 66.6% completion rate but is 3/3 from 0-5 yards, 5/7 from 10-20 yards, and 12/20 from 20+ yards. Just as an example.

Hey, it's his thing, and kudos for thinking outside the box in finding a way to crunch numbers to evaluate QBs, but it seems too subjective and impossible to verify through consistent data to be taken as a way to rank QB performance fairly. Just my opinion.

Edited July 11, 20196 yr by TrueBlue4ever

43 minutes ago, Firekid said:

And to conclude - Mike Reilly 1-3 with 5 TD and 4 INT (Losers gonna lose Fergy)

Matt Nichols 3-0 with 7 TD and 1 INT (Winners gonna win Fergy)

 

Going back to Bishop being undefeated with Toronto....  

If BC had our defense and we had BC's defense.... would Nichols be 3- 0 and Reilly 1 - 3......

12 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

I guess my comments are in response the original post comment that this method would "settle arguments" or that Nichols is "having a bad year". I'm not sure how this system objectively or consistently measures good vs bad, so I don't see it as a valuable tool. Maybe a throw in the dirt is accurate because the QB wanted to keep it low to avoid the knockdown or INT, and was simply trying for a first down and not a 35 YAC yard type of play. Only the QB will truly know where they intended for the pass to go compared to where it ended up. Ricky Ray was a master at lofting the high sideline ball where only his receiver had a play on it, incredibly accurate to my mind, but who can say how Ferguson would rank it? (receiver had to go and get a ball in a tough spot, bad throw? - maybe it's meant to be in a tough spot so the defender also has a tough time getting to it). My "deep balls preference" theory is based solely on the limited examples Ferguson uses to outline his criteria, and he mentions low or behind the receivers throws as bad, and uses video of YAC yards catches as good, so I am only guessing based on what he provided as his measuring stick. Again, his lack of a clear consistent metric beyond "this looks good to me" diminishes the objective credibility of his rankings. 

A better way? Well, incorporating completion percentage would be a great start. I think we can all agree that a QB who threw at an 80% completion rate was more accurate than one who threw 50% on an objective basis of measurement. Maybe award higher points for longer completions. A QB who throws 70% overall, but is 13/13 in throws between 0-10 yards, 6/10 in throws from 10-20 yards, and 2/7 in throws over 20 yards may not be as highly ranked for accuracy as one who with a 66.6% completion rate but is 3/3 from 0-5 yards, 5/7 from 10-20 yards, and 12/20 from 20+ yards. Just as an example.

Hey, it's his thing, and kudos for thinking outside the box in finding a way to crunch numbers to evaluate QBs, but it seems too subjective and impossible to verify through consistent data to be taken as a way to rank QB performance fairly. Just my opinion.

I agree that it won't settle any arguments or 'prove' anything. It does, however match my 'eye' test. For example I think a lot of Nichols in the dirt throws aren't cuz he had to and a lot of his deep balls aren't accurate (Although his deep balls have been much better this year). I'd guess that Ferguson would have give Ricky Ray big accuracy points because putting the ball where it needs to be is a very accurate throw.

Completion % isn't that great a stat for accuracy. Throw a ton of short passes and it goes up. Throw a ton of deep passes and it goes down. Can't establish the run, don't have enough time, or have to play from behind so the defence knows you have to throw it goes down. Receivers can make the QB look good or look bad and greatly affect the completion %. Have an OC who favours intermediate to deep balls and the completion % suffers. Have a PLAP style offence and it goes up. 

Does the ball hit the receiver in the hands?  Does the receiver have to slow down to catch it.  What kind of window (coverage) was the ball thrown through?  What kind of pressure, was the QB under?  How good are the hands of the guy you are throwing it to?

People always searching too hard for the statistical or other metric indicators, here.   For ole traditionalists like me..... my right and left eyeballs, will suffice.

1 hour ago, Floyd said:

The rabid fan response to the fact that Nichols is not the most accurate passer in the league actually makes me more worried than Ferguson's ranking system.  Usually a sign that its a bit too close to the truth... ha

So far the response is generally 'Oh yeah? Well Ferguson is dumb' and then the poster proceeds to explain how 'their' ranking system would be better... because we're fans and he's just an ex-CIS QB and CFL analyst haha

Nichols has not been super accurate this year... there's nothing in Ferguson's ranking system that doesn't match up with the eye-test

 

I would say Nichols had 1 game where he was inaccurate and 2 where he was pretty damn accurate. 

8 minutes ago, do or die said:

Does the ball hit the receiver in the hands?  Does the receiver have to slow down to catch it.  What kind of window (coverage) was the ball thrown through?  What kind of pressure, was the QB under?  How good are the hands of the guy you are throwing it to?

People always searching too hard for the statistical or other metric indicators, here.   For ole traditionalists like me..... my right and left eyeballs, will suffice.

I trust my eyes too, but forum arguments of my eyes are better than your eyes quickly become no they aren't, yes they are, repeat ad nauseam.

4 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I trust my eyes too, but forum arguments of my eyes are better than your eyes quickly become no they aren't, yes they are, repeat ad nauseam.

Damn your eyes, sir.

Just now, do or die said:

Damn your eyes, sir.

Damn your eyes too, sir! 😂

Back the the 'stat'.... If you put 6 football literate fans of neither team in a room with the game film and the catch radius tool, I'll bet you would quickly come to consensus on 90% of the throws. If 3 are one teams fans and 3 are the other teams fans, then that 90% would go down considerably.

 

Just now, TBURGESS said:

Damn your eyes too, sir! 😂

Back the the 'stat'.... If you put 6 football literate fans of neither team in a room with the game film and the catch radius tool, I'll bet you would quickly come to consensus on 90% of the throws. If 3 are one teams fans and 3 are the other teams fans, then that 90% would go down considerably.

 

Sorta like politics....

Nichols probably does not have a lot 5 out of 5 throws but I am sure he is very low on the 1 and 2 out of 5 throws. Not many throws wow you during the game but he gets the ball where it needs to be. I would have to agree with much of ranks. There needs to be a decision making ranking.

Each data set has pretty significant flaws.

Basic QB rating doesn’t factor in fumbles, sacks (whether QB’s fault or not) and gives a ton of weight to TD’s.  So if a QB was lucky enough to get the ball in the red zone a couple times a game off a turnover and throw a TD pass each time the number will go way up....if in the same situation the QB passes the ball to the 1 yard line and then it is run in from there his number will be way lower.

 

QB rating isn’t even worth looking at other than over a full season or career.

 

The QB accuracy thing is sort of like curling percentages, has some pretty concrete scoring but also pretty subjective by the person doing the scoring.  At least it’s the same guy doing it every week.

16 hours ago, Noeller said:

But I'm still not sure how he knows which play is called.. Seems to me that's a big part of it. 

It’s pretty easy to tell if you’re watching the film and able to reverse a couple times to watch what each receiver is doing and where the QB is looking.

He doesn’t need the play call he’s just looking at the routes.

Let me just interject here and say THIS is what a good football forum offers. Lots of differing opinions, disagreement between posters, but civil discussion and lots of intelligent thoughts and valid arguments on all sides, regardless of your stance. I have enjoyed the debate on this topic. You stay classy, San Diego!

2 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

 

The QB accuracy thing is sort of like curling percentages, has some pretty concrete scoring but also pretty subjective by the person doing the scoring.  At least it’s the same guy doing it every week.

Good call on that. Highly subjective.

Really surprised by this response - we’ve been wailing for years asking for more cfl stats - then someone busts his ass to do it - we don’t quite like it... and start crying that there’s too many stats now ha

45 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Really surprised by this response - we’ve been wailing for years asking for more cfl stats - then someone busts his ass to do it - we don’t quite like it... and start crying that there’s too many stats now ha

The only stat that truly matters is that elusive cup.  

2 hours ago, Floyd said:

Really surprised by this response - we’ve been wailing for years asking for more cfl stats - then someone busts his ass to do it - we don’t quite like it... and start crying that there’s too many stats now ha

Stats are fine, but assigning too much weight to a subjective stat like this is fool hardy. 

11 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Stats are fine, but assigning too much weight to a subjective stat like this is fool hardy. 

Except no one is doing that

You appear to be...

On 2019-07-11 at 2:26 PM, 17to85 said:

I would say Nichols had 1 game where he was inaccurate and 2 where he was pretty damn accurate. 

Really almost seems like Mr Ferguson's accuracy system neglects completion percentages and doesn't factor in deep vs short range passes.  All of which Nichols had last week ... AND ... yes his completion percentage was higher than Streveler's short passes numbers.  Hence I say he's got a lot of bonkers in this.

1 hour ago, USABomberfan said:

Really almost seems like Mr Ferguson's accuracy system neglects completion percentages and doesn't factor in deep vs short range passes.  All of which Nichols had last week ... AND ... yes his completion percentage was higher than Streveler's short passes numbers.  Hence I say he's got a lot of bonkers in this.

Did you read the article or the older one where he described his 'system'? It's about throw accuracy alone, not completion %.