Baker Mayfield: Fire The Cannons

[bob2the2nd]

I don't really want to get into a whole thing with you, but...



...and "it's still not good enough to win the Super Bowl" can both be true, you realize that, right?

absolutely. But if Nick Foles can win a super bowl most of the starting QBs in the league can, to include Baker Mayfield.

 

[The Oi]

So, the OH/PA turnpikes?

Any small, corrupt town too.

Because people don't believe the road is real. Think it's some type of trick to get them to drive off a cliff.

What should be a minor 15 minute barbershop style debate turned into an entire Bond imitator movie.

i would say its more like they finish the road, set it on fire, then repave it

See above.

 

[CBBI]

absolutely. But if Nick Foles can win a super bowl most of the starting QBs in the league can, to include Baker Mayfield.

This is like arguing that teams should be looking for and also able to find a Hall of Fame QBs in the 6th round because Tom Brady came out of the 6th round.

Outliers are outliers for a reason.

 

[I'mWithDan]

This is like arguing that people who be looking for and able to find a Hall of Fame QB in the 6th round because Tom Brady came out of the 6th round.

Outliers are outliers for a reason.

I don't know. I was told there is a joke in here.

The response to pages and pages of data is a joke about Nick Foles.

Which maybe is a good summation of the effort being put in here.

 

[DirtyDan]

Any small, corrupt town too.

What should be a minor 15 minute barbershop style debate turned into an entire Bond imitator movie.

See above.

Went looking for Bond imitators and found this gem.

 

[Arketebel]

Generic take to stop the insanity:

Baker is on his third system in 5 years. His sample size in the current system will be enough to know whether or not to extend him next year.

 

[Vee-Rex]

@I'mWithDan and others have provided an extensive analysis on his numbers outside of just this season though. The specific and concentrated data is what is needed for accurately assessing results and making judgements.

When I said there is an overreaction to the 2021 data, I was talking about specifically where Baker is as a player. If Baker had a good ~12 games (2nd half of last year + games 1 and 2 of this years) where it looks like he grew as a player, but then get injured and has a subpar game 3 and horrific game 4 (Vikings), then I'm not overreacting to that. The Vikings game is why this page is like 50 pages longer than it should be.

He and others have given you a wholistic perspective on the data with comparison to Baker's peers. Accounting for a variety of situations, situations that are relevant to the current discussion and point to trends that appear to be precursors to his current struggles.

He and others provided stats, and then added interpretations of those stats that I disagreed with.

These are the posts that are the most tiresome. Lets forget about Baker for a moment. Do statistics resonate with you? If someone makes an argument that x behaves in a certain way under specific conditions based off 4 years of data is it a reactionary take?

I love statistics. I'm an IT Business Analyst for a billion dollar corporation and I work with statistics heavily. I used to drill numbers all the time and I find it tiresome, particularly in a fruitless discussion that has two clear opposing sides unwilling to bend or acknowledge any valid points on the other side.

That's why I made the last few posts that I did - it's a circular clusterfuck that... KEEPS GOING IN CIRCLES.

If you understand the role of a BA, you would understand that interpretation of data is just as, if not more important than the data itself. You can give me 20 years of data but my job is to ask questions to try to account for and isolate every possible variable. From a broader, higher-level standpoint:

1. In that 4 years of data, are there any circumstances that could have influenced the QB's behavior one way or another?
2. Is that 4 years of data completely and unequivocally relevant?
3. Do we put more weight into specific parts of that 4 years of data compared to others?

You want to look at the collective data and draw hard conclusions based on it, and I want to add context to it. Baker as a player in 2018 is not the same as Baker in 2019, who is not the same as Baker in 2020. There are similar tendencies, flaws, etc... that he is and needs to work on improving, but I can't look at ~51 games and go, "WeLp, hE's ChArLiE fRyE iN tHe ClUtCh AS OF THIS VERY MOMENT, 10/15/21!!!"

Evaluating the most relevant data and applying context will provide the best and most fair perspective. I've already said I'm not satisfied with where Baker is now, but given the ridiculous turmoil, variables, and sample sizes involved, I'm not ready to declare that he ~sucks~ or that he's THIS OR THAT OR THIS.

You people are desperate to throw out a take - right now we don't have answers to definitively say one thing or another. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is as much fun as the old Couch-Holcomb debates on the old OBR/Bernie's Insiders/Browns TNG, or whatever the hell it was called at that time.

 

[I'mWithDan]

There are similar tendencies, flaws, etc... that he is and needs to work on improving, but I can't look at ~51 games and go, "WeLp, hE's ChArLiE fRyE iN tHe ClUtCh AS OF THIS VERY MOMENT, 10/15/21!!!"

Evaluating the most relevant data and applying context will provide the best and most fair perspective. I've already said I'm not satisfied with where Baker is now, but given the ridiculous turmoil, variables, and sample sizes involved, I'm not ready to declare that he ~sucks~ or that he's THIS OR THAT OR THIS.

You people are desperate to throw out a take - right now we don't have answers to definitively say one thing or another. Why is that so hard to accept?

This Charlie Frye thing really struck a nerve it appears.

I think you believe you are trying to be more level headed here but this is effectively your position and many others:

Year 1 - Not as contextually relevant
Year 2 - Not as contextually relevant
Year 3 - Sample of games in new system - Not as contextually relevant
Year 3 - Middle stretch of games where he generally played well - Contextually relevant
Year 4 - More up and down play - Not as contextually relevant or explained by other things?

I'm not desperate to throw out a take.....the data is the data.

We have posted, for example, a large swatch of third down data that says Baker isn't very good.

There is then some response like "Oh well, what does it look like with only Stefasnki?"

The answer "It is actually worse".

"Oh well, word salad you have your opinion, I have mine..... etc, etc,".

There isn't actually a discussion. I made some lazy comments that you can't let go of.......and then tried to reset the conversation with a bunch of data for people to draw conclusions from. You are still talking about the Charlie Frye comments, which is very similar to the other discussions that are being "engaged" in.

There isn't a path forward in these discussions because a majority of people don't want there to be one. There isn't discussion on improvements that need to be made or even what those improvements look like. Or if they are even realistic. We are instead in a circular conversation about dumb side things like how hyperbolic language was or if a metric Baker was called below average or bad in, is actually (by Webster's definition) actually average.

 

[Vee-Rex]

This Charlie Frye thing really struck a nerve it appears.

It didn't strike a nerve - it was a stupidly ridiculous take that got called out.

And instead of acknowledging that it was stupid and wrong, you were deflecting harder than ever and disingenuously suggesting that you didn't move the goalposts from claiming Baker is "bad" in those specific situations.

If we can't have an honest discussion about it, why discuss it at all? If you're gonna constantly move the goalposts, what's the point? None of us have said Baker is good in the clutch so what exactly are you arguing about?

So from here on out, I will ignore you until you admit that it was a wrong take, and your original assertions that Baker was bad/terrible in those situations were wrong. If you do that, I will happily engage further with you, and I will happily acknowledge ANY inconsistencies or moving of goalposts that you think I made.

 

[I'mWithDan]

It didn't strike a nerve - it was a stupidly ridiculous take that got called out.

And instead of acknowledging that it was stupid and wrong, you were deflecting harder than ever and disingenuously suggesting that you didn't move the goalposts from claiming Baker is "bad" in those specific situations.

If we can't have an honest discussion about it, why discuss it at all? If you're gonna constantly move the goalposts, what's the point? None of us have said Baker is good in the clutch so what exactly are you arguing about?

So from here on out, I will ignore you until you admit that it was a wrong take, and your original assertions that Baker was bad/terrible in those situations were wrong. If you do that, I will happily engage further with you, and I will happily acknowledge ANY inconsistencies or moving of goalposts that you think I made.

My take was wrong.

Baker Mayfield is not bad / terrible in clutch situations, as defined by 4th quarter QBR rating. He is merely league average.

Now feel free to respond to the other 10,000 words that were written about him since then, now that we have moved past the Charlie Frye comment.

The goalposts have not been constantly moving, there has just been a lot of response avoidance. Again, go read where this discussion started.........is Baker going to be or is he already, good enough for the Browns to win a Super Bowl? This is on page 692, at the beginning of all of this:

Anything other than saying “it wasn’t Baker’s fault” seems to be trashing him

Baker is a fine QB if you want to be competitive and root for someone who is pretty likable.

But my problem with Mayfield is I’m still not convinced you can win a Super Bowl with a limited QB in modern football. And he has yet to really show he is not more than a limited QB that you scheme up and try to play ahead with.

Then a lot of data ensued. That data has mainly been responded to in the fashion with which you have responded over and over. Taking issue with a word or description but not actually making any sort of effort to frame your position or to refute the data or breakdowns that intimate there may be some QB issues with the team....now and potentially moving forward. You have since been stuck on a single comment I made, caught up in a more lazy back and forth. So there isn't really anything I can do about that at this point. You are choosing to remain stuck on this throw away line that was wrong, that I have said multiple times now, was wrong and lazy on my part.

 

[Arketebel]

 

[Vee-Rex]

My take was wrong.

Baker Mayfield is not bad / terrible in clutch situations, as defined by 4th quarter QBR rating. He is merely league average.

That restores my faith in having a conversation.

Now feel free to respond to the other 10,000 words that were written about him since then, now that we have moved past the Charlie Frye comment.

I know you're joking, but no thanks. I will answer moving forward.

The goalposts have not been constantly moving, there has just been a lot of response avoidance. Again, go read where this discussion started.........is Baker going to be or is he already, good enough for the Browns to win a Super Bowl? This is on page 692, at the beginning of all of this:

It's a valid question. Have you felt that I, specifically, have invalidated the question on whether or not Baker is good enough for the Browns to win a Super Bowl? If so, can you point out specifically when I invalidated this question?

Then a lot of data ensued. That data has mainly been responded to in the fashion with which you have responded over and over.

There has been a lot of back and forth, yes.

Taking issue with a word or description

Is not a description important? If I call Derek Carr a terrible QB and there's 234098234 pages of arguing, I can't then play the victim and be like, "Well it was just being lazy with my description. Why are you focused on that?"

Most of the time (not always lol) I really try to put a lot of care into the actual words I use, because that's all we have to go by on an online forum, yes?

but not actually making any sort of effort to frame your position or to refute the data or breakdowns that intimate there may be some QB issues with the team....now and potentially moving forward.

I feel like I've acknowledged that Baker has issues and needs to improve. Where I feel like I've drawn the line is the assertion that he is bad/incapable in those specified areas. I don't know if we have enough to make that determination yet.

If somehow my position got lost in all of the bickering then I apologize, but that's the nature of online arguing. It's easy to get off track.

But you have since been stuck on a single comment I made, caught up in a more lazy back and forth. So there isn't really anything I can do about that at this point. You are choosing to remain stuck on this throw away line that was wrong, that I have said multiple times now, was wrong and lazy on my part.

You are only just admitting it was wrong in this very post. Calling it "lazy" was just a way to try to dismiss and disregard it as meaningless and not worth talking harping about.

But as I said before... descriptions are absolutely important. If you call something bad, then turns out it's average... that's a big difference, right?

I'm here, right now - if you want to rehash this thing over then I will do my best to honestly discuss it with you. I respect the work you've put in. At the end of the day, I think we just disagree on something and I'm not sure another 60 pages is gonna resolve that.

 

[I'mWithDan]

You are only just admitting it was wrong in this very post. Calling it "lazy" was just a way to try to dismiss and disregard it as meaningless and not worth talking harping about.

I'm admitting it because it was wrong and I want to move on. I wasn't trying to dismiss it and if you want to go re-read all the exchanges with an open mind, you might see that.

A lot of what you are hanging on to is admittedly something that you personally were inferring from the data I was posting, you even said as much.

Your post seems a bit wishy-washy, though the constant hammering you've done suggests you believe he's awful in those situations.

So you are inferring what this data means. It is possibly negative data, so my opinion has to be all negative about him. Something that isn't true if you would read all of the exchange throughout.

Before, the narrative was: "Late in games, Baker is bad/terrible, lost, confused, below-average, Charlie Frye, etc..."

The above ^^ were actual descriptions used against Baker. Then after Bs80 demonstrates that the data set shows he's average/slightly above-average...

Now, the narrative is: "Late in games, Baker is not near the top tier guys, not good enough to win a Super Bowl, look at these names in his grouping (Ben, Ryan, Minshew...)"

You made these comments well after the initial posts of mine, that had described what my position on him was on page 692, which I provided above. Here it is again.

Anything other than saying “it wasn’t Baker’s fault” seems to be trashing him

Baker is a fine QB if you want to be competitive and root for someone who is pretty likable.

But my problem with Mayfield is I’m still not convinced you can win a Super Bowl with a limited QB in modern football. And he has yet to really show he is not more than a limited QB that you scheme up and try to play ahead with.

People will probably say something something Trent Dilfer but football has changed so much even in the last 5 years. I just don’t see teams without dynamic QB play winning for the foreseeable future. The margin for error is just too small in a one and done playoff format.

I will always admit when I am wrong. I have done so many times on this message board.....but a lot of what you are speaking about in this thread and in this recent post is something you are personally trying to craft as the narrative. The goal posts are not shifting......I made a statement and then attempted to move forward and provide some data. There was a discussion that went moderately off the rails in the middle, where I lazily called him Charlie Frye and then you are dragging on about goal posts shifting, when the original premise of this entire discussion was trying to sort through wether anyone (myself included) was convinced Baker is a good enough QB to win a Super Bowl. Maybe the answer is we'll see........but we were at least trying to delve in to the mountain of numbers and then there is this side conversation that has developed, that you seem incapable of letting go of, that is just as much about you wanting the goalposts to be shifting as it is the goalpost actually being shifted.

Maybe we can all agree to just move on.

 

[Vee-Rex]

I'm admitting it because it was wrong and I want to move on. I wasn't trying to dismiss it and if you want to go re-read all the exchanges with an open mind, you might see that.

Fine, I'm moving on.

A lot of what you are hanging on to is admittedly something that you personally were inferring from the data I was posting, you even said as much.

Right, I think we both see the data, and have slightly different interpretations on what it could mean moving forward.

So you are inferring what this data means. It is possibly negative data, so my opinion has to be all negative about him. Something that isn't true if you would read all of the exchange throughout.

In the post you quoted, I said you seemed wishy-washy because you seemed to be all over the place. You claimed Baker was Charlie Frye in those situations, then said he was not awful in those situations.

Maybe the entire back and forth came down to some poor choice words? I don't know.

You made these comments well after the initial posts of mine, that had described what my position on him was on page 692, which I provided above. Here it is again.

Anything other than saying “it wasn’t Baker’s fault” seems to be trashing him

Baker is a fine QB if you want to be competitive and root for someone who is pretty likable.

But my problem with Mayfield is I’m still not convinced you can win a Super Bowl with a limited QB in modern football. And he has yet to really show he is not more than a limited QB that you scheme up and try to play ahead with.

People will probably say something something Trent Dilfer but football has changed so much even in the last 5 years. I just don’t see teams without dynamic QB play winning for the foreseeable future. The margin for error is just too small in a one and done playoff format.

I'm okay with that position. If you go back to page 692, you'd see that my response was solely directed at the first line (I bolded) it. I was basically saying that I disagreed that people accused or insinuated any kind of criticism is trashing him. I thought the hyper-focus/harping/week in and out culmination of criticism is excessive. It was a statement made in general.

I will always admit when I am wrong. I have done so many times on this message board.....but a lot of what you are speaking about in this thread and in this recent post is something you are personally trying to craft as the narrative. The goal posts are not shifting......I made a statement and then attempted to move forward and provide some data.

If you make a statement and people call you out, you gotta own up to it, right? It's many pages later before you've admitted that it was wrong. You can't dodge it when people call you out on it in that very moment.

Also, making a statement paints a picture for others. So maybe you don't feel like the goalposts had shifted, but people assume that the statement you made is what you believe, and any conflicting words will seem, as I called it... wishy-washy.

There was a discussion that went moderately off the rails in the middle, where I lazily called him Charlie Frye and then you are dragging on about goal posts shifting, when the original premise of this entire discussion was trying to sort through wether anyone (myself included) was convinced Baker is a good enough QB to win a Super Bowl. Maybe the answer is we'll see........but we were at least trying to delve in to the mountain of numbers and then there is this side conversation that has developed, that you seem incapable of letting go of, that is just as much about you wanting the goalposts to be shifting as it is the goalpost actually being shifted.

I'm only responding to explain why it became a focus, because it was a visual representation of your implied opinion. Even if it wasn't what you ~truly~ felt, you convinced us that it's what you felt by making the statement in the first place. You can't get upset that people were responding to it with the idea that it's how you felt at the time when it took 30 pages for you to admit it was wrong.

I'm done with it though. It's no big deal.

Maybe we can all agree to just move on.

I'm cool with that.