Thinking Skins wrote: Wed May 28, 2025 4:18 pm
@skinsinparadise
So the the flaw that I have with this is that you are saying that I should be be looking at the results of the model and say that because the models are saying that commanders have a easy schedule a hard schedule that makes the models inaccurate or accurate or whatever. I'm saying that it should be the methodology of the model I'm saying that the model should look at what the league values as important the league does not value air miles as important. The League values quarterbacks as important so the model should value quarterbacks as important. That's what I'm saying the model should do. And so what the model should then do is take that into account. And by doing that the schedule ranking should come out naturally.
The way you keep bringing up the air miles seems silly and comes off like you want to hang on a strawman based argument considering I've already explained to you it was not the crux of the point. I said most evaluate the schedule by either records from last season or analytical based judgments of team strengths headed to the next season.
The idea that this team has the third worst rest differential and traveling the 10th most is the gravy part of the point and I am sorry I brought it up considering you are just using those variables to prop your argument as if that's what this is about when you know it isn't.
This is the argument unless I am missing something. Outfit after outfit, ex-players, national media, anayltical outfits are making this argument.
A. The past is prologue or close enough. Teams that were good last year and made the playoffs are likely to be good this year. Odds are better that the Chiefs for example will be better than the Saints. So the simplest way some do it is records last season and or whether they made the playoffs.
B. Some anaylitical types, the dudes who used to work at Footbal Outsiders, PFF, Sharp, etc do their analysis based on strength of rosters and project how these teams are going to be. And judge the schedule that way.
You are acting like QB has no major importance as to how they come up with this. And only you smartly hang on the QBR ranking is factoring QB play as part of the soup. That's a bit silly. I'll start with I know the analytic outfits consider QB very strongly in the mix, they talk about it all the time. PFF for example is obsessed. They aren't as extreme on the point as you have become but they are plenty strong enough.
No projection is perfect. They are going to get some of it wrong. There are always new teams that make the playoffs and teams fall off, etc. But, the odds are better that teams like the Chiefs, Lions, Vikings, etc are going to be better than the Panthers, Saints, Bears, etc. It won't all break out that way but enough will break out that way where you can judge in advance whether a schedule is likely hard or soft.
Look even the most elementary way of looking at strength of schedule factors QB big -- especially using your logic. If your record as you claim is just all about QB play then what better way to judge a schedule than the team's past record assuming they have the same QB from last season. QB = team record. So how can you have a beef with assessing a team based on their record considering their record was amassed just about entirely from their QB using your logic?
Now your counter and correct me wrong is something like this.
These outfits all have their head up their butt. They talk to death about the value of a QB. So why not do this the simplest way possible and do head to head QBRs for the QBs, and call it a day. And this is the absolute correct way to do this otherwise their assessments don't match their rhetoric. So you have a model that truly judges the difficulty of a schedule that matches their rhetoric on QBs so how can it not be the right way to do this?
The answer is these teams INDEED factor QB play in their predictions. The argument that you have versus them is QBR is the gift to assess all. You understand this. They don't but should.
Look, I know these guys are aware of the QBR metric. However, I've never heard anyone say whomever has the better QB, drop the mic, is how to run down every match up, let alone its all about the QBR metric. That's your own drill. And its your own interpretation of how you think everyone should see things.
Look I like to look at QBR as much as anyone. But its far from a perfect metric as we've debated on other points on other QBs in the past. And I think you are taking those scores way too literallly where an inch apart means to you a mile. You can goof on dudes like Jared Goff but his QBR isn't that different from Jayden. Jordan Love is neck and neck as to his score. According to QBR rankings Purdy >> Mahomes.
Heck I recall when Rivera was talking abot how he studied the "anayltics" on Wentz himself. Wentz was ranked 9th as to QBR when we traded for him. I am pretty sure that was what he was referencing. On that count, Wentz was better than QBs like Joe Burrow and Lamar Jackson. So how can we go wrong riding on QBR. We just traded a 3rd round pick for a dude who is better than Burrow and Lamar.
PFF has their own metrics. Jayden scores well on it. But they got differences with their scores versus QBR on a number of QBs. Herbert for example ranks higher than Jayden with PFF. But Jayden scores better with QBR.
But my point is for you to wish the media and Vegas and the anayltical outfits to run everything by QBR you are going to really have to sell that metric as being very special with almost no flaws versus the more comprehensive takes others use to judge this. Ditto the idea that the QB isn't just a a big factor in the match up but is the only factor and the only way to judge that only factor is via QBR scores.
