Figured I'd make this thread since I always point out that "advanced" statistics do NOT favor Buck Pierce when comparing him against other quarterbacks. I'll try and update this weekly just to keep it current especially with Hall playing this week to add another comparison.

 

What I looked at mostly was % of two and outs, average offense per drive, points per possession, etc. For the sake of continuity, when I tally this stuff up, I counted a turnover prior to a first down being gained as a two and out but a turnover after a first down had been gained was not.

 

Here's what I came up with:

 

Week 1

Buck Pierce - 19 possessions, 12 two and outs (63%), 3 turnovers, 2 touchdowns

Average points per possession - 0.94

Average yardage per possession - 16.26 yards (longest 73 yards)

 

Week 2

Buck Pierce - 18 possessions, 8 two and outs (44%), 3 turnovers, 2 touchdowns

Average points per possession - 1

Average yardage per possession - 20.1 yards (longest 105 yards)

 

Justin Goltz - 1 possession, 1 two and out, 1 turnover

Average points per possession - 0

Average yardage per possession - 4 (longest 4 yards)

 

Week 3

Buck Pierce - 15 possessions, 6 two and outs (40%), 3 touchdowns

Average points per possession - 1.2

Average yardage per possession - 22.6 (longest 92 yards)

 

One thing I will point out, although the stats are what they are ... All 6 of the two and outs in this game were in the second half, where we had 8 possessions. That's horrible second half efficiency. In fact, aside from a 92 yard drive while Hamilton was playing prevent, our net offense in the second half of this game was -7 yards.

 

Week 4

Buck Pierce - 8 possessions, 5 two and outs (62%), 1 turnover

Average points per possession - 0.75

Average yardage per possession - 20.62 (longest 65 yards)

 

Justin Goltz - 7 possessions, 2 two and outs (28%), 1 turnover

Average points per possession - 1.28

Average yardage per possession - 29 (longest 64 yards)

 

Week 5

Justin Goltz - 13 possessions, 6 two and outs (46%), 1 turnover, 3 touchdowns

Average points per possession - 1.61

Average yardage per possession - 25.23 (longest 80 yards)

 

Week 6

Justin Goltz - 15 possessions, 5 two and outs (33%), 1 turnover, 2 touchdowns

Average points per possession - 1.2

Average yardage per possession - 17.2 (longest 41 yards)

 

Week 8

Max Hall - 14 possessions, 6 two and outs (42%), 3 turnovers, 1 touchdown

Average points per possession - 0.64

Average yardage per possession - 23.92 (longest 103 yards)

 

Buck Pierce - 1 possession, 1 two and out (100%)

Average points per possession - 0

Average yardage per possession - 9 (longest 9 yards)

 

2013 totals to date

Buck Pierce - 61 possessions, 32 two and outs (52.4%), 7 turnovers (11.4%), 7 touchdowns (11.4%)

Average points per possession - 0.98

Average yardage per possession - 19.58 yards

 

Justin Goltz - 36 possessions, 14 two and outs (38.8%), 4 turnovers, (11.1%), 5 touchdowns (13.8%)

Average points per possession - 1.14

Average yardage per possession - 21.91 yards

 

Max Hall - 14 possessions, 6 two and outs (42%), 3 turnovers (21%), 1 touchdown (7%)

Average points per possession - 0.64

Average yardage per possession - 23.92

I'm hoping you'll reconsider that being your last comment, because I have a few questions.

 

a) What stats favor Buck?

If you thought Buck being #2 over Goltz was enough proof that he is better, how come you didn't think Goltz was better than Buck when he was #1?

A) I've said which ones do - Completion percentage, yards per completion, yards per game. 

B ) It was, and is clear that Mack was the driving force behind starting Goltz, as he was when Brink started for Jyles in 2010. Coincidence that Goltz is 3, now that Mack is gone? Definitely not IMO.

The unknown poster has gone missing...

A) I've said which ones do - Completion percentage, yards per completion, yards per game. 

B ) It was, and is clear that Mack was the driving force behind starting Goltz, as he was when Brink started for Jyles in 2010. Coincidence that Goltz is 3, now that Mack is gone? Definitely not IMO.

 

Alright. Fair enough if those are the statistics you choose to use.

Count me in the group that would choose Goltz ahead of Pierce at this point (...I think the whole "experience" argument is null and void when Pierce just can't get it done, even when healthy...) but at the same time, the OP just reeks of cherry picking to prove an already-jumped-to conclusion, rather than doing research to try and gain a conclusion.

Count me in the group that would choose Goltz ahead of Pierce at this point (...I think the whole "experience" argument is null and void when Pierce just can't get it done, even when healthy...) but at the same time, the OP just reeks of cheerry picking to prove an already-jumped-to conclusion, rather than doing research to try and gain a conclusion.

 

I won't say it was cherry picking, the stats are what they are and I didn't handpick statistics that I thought would favor Goltz.

 

But of course it was to prove a conclusion I had already jumped to. I'm very obviously biased in favor of Goltz but really, how can I not be?

 

If there are any stats anyone would actually like me to look into in addition to those ones, I'll be happy to do it. I can't help that every statistic I looked into favors one guy over the other.

Count me in the group that would choose Goltz ahead of Pierce at this point (...I think the whole "experience" argument is null and void when Pierce just can't get it done, even when healthy...) but at the same time, the OP just reeks of cheerry picking to prove an already-jumped-to conclusion, rather than doing research to try and gain a conclusion.

 

I hate it when people cheery-pick. 

I hate it when people cheery-pick. 

bah...fixed now..

I really miss the Doug Brown Spin Zone this year.  I don't miss Doug very much, but I miss Glenn January.  He would always give some insights in to where the team was leaning and how they were feeling about various issues and events and even management decisions.  I'd be interested to know if the team is behind Buck as the starter or is supporting Hall and/or Goltz instead this year.  January was always a big Buck guy but I'd be curious after watching his putrid outings as a starter if he'd be as big a Buck guy anymore.

bah...fixed now..

 

This wouldn't have happened in the Cal Murphy era. 

I am assuming that these stats don't take into account Goltz being under centre for the goal line short yardage in the first couple of games?  

I am assuming that these stats don't take into account Goltz being under centre for the goal line short yardage in the first couple of games?  

 

Anything Goltz did at the end of a drive led by Buck, I attributed to Buck.

Speaking of statistics ...

 

Max Hall at QB: Should Hall start at quarterback this week, it will be Winnipeg’s 6th different QB starter in the last 11
games back to Oct 13/12. Since the start of 2012 it would be Winnipeg’s EIGHTH week-to-week change at QB. In the
previous 7 times, the Bombers have a remarkable 5-2 record when swapping out QB starters from the previous week.

 

From the game notes for this week.

 

That's unbelievable.

Thats what I had assumed, but you know, just wanted to clarify.

 

I would love to see what a comparison to Lulay or Ray, or even Rielly would look like compared to Buck/Goltz.  

 

I might have to jump off a bridge after seeing it however, so it may be for the best that we don't.

I won't say it was cherry picking, the stats are what they are and I didn't handpick statistics that I thought would favor Goltz.

 

But of course it was to prove a conclusion I had already jumped to. I'm very obviously biased in favor of Goltz but really, how can I not be?

 

If there are any stats anyone would actually like me to look into in addition to those ones, I'll be happy to do it. I can't help that every statistic I looked into favors one guy over the other.

 

Well for example, you make a big point of noting that Buck had a half with -7 yards offence total outside of a 92 yard TD drive (85 yards for the half then), but don't mention that Goltz had an even worse half that resulted in 3 points and 68 yards total.

Speaking of statistics ...

 

 

From the game notes for this week.

 

That's unbelievable.

 

Well then that solves the mystery.  Screw consistency, we'll just rotate a different QB in each week and Grey Cup here we come.

Well for example, you make a big point of noting that Buck had a half with -7 yards offence total outside of a 92 yard TD drive (85 yards for the half then), but don't mention that Goltz had an even worse half that resulted in 3 points and 68 yards total.

 

You mentioned it for me.

 

A) I've said which ones do - Completion percentage, yards per completion, yards per game. 

so you believe that makes pierce more effective... Can you honestly say that you think when watching the games that Pierce is actually giving the team a better chance to win? The stats MIke brings up are very telling. No one is acting like Goltz is some phenom here, we're just pointing out that despite his struggles at times, PIerce has been worse. The number of 2 and outs is the most alarming thing. Too many times Pierce has had the offense stuck in a huge rut that loses the field position battle badly and wears the defense down. The other big thing to me is how one dimensional pierce is and easy for opposing teams to defend. At least with the added mobility of Goltz it gives defenses something else to worry about rather than simply being able to blitz Pierce and render him useless. Pierce may be very very slightly better at passing the ball right now... but Goltz is better at too many other things for that to matter. The difference in mobility is far greater and more beneficial than any difference in passing ability. 

Seems like the coaching staff, or maybe just Burke, has a belief that Buck will 'find his form' eventually and lead the team to great success out of the gutter. 

I actually think that Burke would be willing to stick with Goltz. It seems to me that Crowton is the one who very much prefers Buck (and Hall obviously) to Goltz and with Burke turning everything over to Crowton in terms of deciding who is going to play we get this order for the qbs. This is not totally unexpected. Crowton was very vocal about how he liked Pierce last season as well. Seems like maybe Crowton feels Goltz is too raw, which is entirely understandable, but Pierce being a veteran isn't helping him play any better than Goltz. 

 

All I know is that Hall better play damned well because if I have to watch PIerce play like a complete rookie for this team again I'm likely to be sick. 

What should be most alarming about the OP's stats IMO is that those are Goltz's FIRST 2 STARTS IN THE LEAGUE! Whereas Buck is an established veteran. His numbers should be FAR better than what Justin did, or at least marginally better to justify starting a injury riddled 31 yr old over an up and coming 26 yr old. The fact that the numbers favour Justin, or are too close to call definitively, SCREAMS that Buck shouldn't be ahead on the depth chart.

 

I was going to say that Buck is more professional with the media, but he's pretty much tied Goltz in that department too in terms of a major fail.

Man, they both suck. Only Goltz sucks less because he's only had 2 starts. Don't want to be too hard on the kid so maybe we should have a suckage level. Like Pierce sucks at Level 9 & Goltz at Level 3. Of course, the other major suckage we aren't discussing is the fact the OL sucks. Shouldn't forget them because that would suck.

I actually think that Burke would be willing to stick with Goltz. It seems to me that Crowton is the one who very much prefers Buck (and Hall obviously) to Goltz and with Burke turning everything over to Crowton in terms of deciding who is going to play we get this order for the qbs. This is not totally unexpected. Crowton was very vocal about how he liked Pierce last season as well. Seems like maybe Crowton feels Goltz is too raw, which is entirely understandable, but Pierce being a veteran isn't helping him play any better than Goltz. 

 

All I know is that Hall better play damned well because if I have to watch PIerce play like a complete rookie for this team again I'm likely to be sick. 

Nice how it's either/or with this team's coaches. Throwing Hall to the wolves & expecting a miracle. Not good.

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me it should be the veteran QB with all the moxie, who is expected to come in and lead the team to at least a shot at victory.

Isn't the veteran the guy we should feel comfortable with when he goes in...that we have a chance to move the ball effectively...get first downs...hit at least 3 different receivers...including hitting a 6-5" receiver?

 

It's pretty sad that we have to use low stats to prove the lesser quarterback.

It's really sad that it does prove the lesser quarterback.

 

What should be most alarming about the OP's stats IMO is that those are Goltz's FIRST 2 STARTS IN THE LEAGUE! Whereas Buck is an established veteran. His numbers should be FAR better than what Justin did, or at least marginally better to justify starting a injury riddled 31 yr old over an up and coming 26 yr old. The fact that the numbers favour Justin, or are too close to call definitively, SCREAMS that Buck shouldn't be ahead on the depth chart.

 

 

 

To add to this, Buck played against 2-4 Montreal twice and 1-5 Hamilton, while Goltz played against 4-2 BC and 5-1 Calgary.

I could grab stats that show Setven Jyles is better than both of them.  Not that this isn't a well presented argument here because it is.

 

Truth, they both suck.  And so does most of what's around them in a chicken and egg sort of way. 

 

These stats underscore to me that Walters or whoever replaces him will eventually overpay for one of Collaras, Mitchell, Tate or Willy.  And I'm ok with that. 

Goltz is now back to #3 with Mack gone, Max Hall is the starter and Buck is #2, the coaching staff decided this and IMO it speaks volumes.

 

Continue hating Buck all you want he's not going anywhere anytime soon and don't be surprised to see him starting within the next couple of games.