<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Guest Post: Bryan Frye and Career AY/A+ Value Added	</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-bryan-frye-and-career-aya-value-added/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-bryan-frye-and-career-aya-value-added/</link>
	<description>NFL History and Stats</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hamiltonian_Conservative		</title>
		<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-bryan-frye-and-career-aya-value-added/#comment-315622</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hamiltonian_Conservative]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=28879#comment-315622</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The total value above average (&quot;Val&quot;) figure adds to the mountain of statistical data, traditional and advanced, indicating John Elway tends to be grossly overrated in &quot;greatest QB&quot; lists and discussions.  Elway is only 25th in total value above average, behind guys like Romo, Anderson, Kelly, Moon, and even Trent Green.  He fares better (12th) when the baseline is lowered to total value above replacement (&quot;Repl&quot;), though he is about to be surpassed by both Rivers and Romo.  Both AY/A+ metrics suggest Elway&#039;s Hall of Fame career owed more to longevity than brilliance.

Great player nonetheless, but his reputation is significantly inflated.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The total value above average (&#8220;Val&#8221;) figure adds to the mountain of statistical data, traditional and advanced, indicating John Elway tends to be grossly overrated in &#8220;greatest QB&#8221; lists and discussions.  Elway is only 25th in total value above average, behind guys like Romo, Anderson, Kelly, Moon, and even Trent Green.  He fares better (12th) when the baseline is lowered to total value above replacement (&#8220;Repl&#8221;), though he is about to be surpassed by both Rivers and Romo.  Both AY/A+ metrics suggest Elway&#8217;s Hall of Fame career owed more to longevity than brilliance.</p>
<p>Great player nonetheless, but his reputation is significantly inflated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Brad O.		</title>
		<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-bryan-frye-and-career-aya-value-added/#comment-315401</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brad O.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=28879#comment-315401</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I think this methodology &#8212; which you emphasized is quick-and-dirty &#8212; mostly makes sense, but it cries out for era regression or length-of-season adjustment. I realize AY/A+ &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; compared to league, but holy cow, this list is &lt;i&gt;dominated&lt;/i&gt; by current players.

* Three of the top four, and five of the top 10, were active from 2005-15.
* None of the top 14 ever played 12-game seasons, even though those make up more than a third of the seasons surveyed.
* Fran Tarkenton is the only one in the top 14 who never played 16-game seasons, which account for less than half of the seasons surveyed.
* Sammy Baugh (32), Norm Van Brocklin (49), and Sid Luckman (80) are the only players in the top 100 who never played 14-game seasons.
* Russell Wilson is ranked ahead of Luckman, who won as many championships (4) as Wilson has seasons.
* This is an 84-year project, but 10 of the top 20 were active in 2008. Zero of the top 20 were active in the first 20 years surveyed. Two of the top 20 were active in the first 40 years surveyed.

Using number of pass attempts as a key part of the formula favors QBs who played longer schedules, and it favors those from eras when rule changes facilitated passing. That&#039;s probably appropriate up to a point, because QBs are probably more important now, but I don&#039;t think it works to compare disparate eras. I would take numbers 127-132 over 63-68, easily. I&#039;d be cautious of framing this as an all-time ranking. I&#039;d rather see a better metric over a shorter time period &#8212; going back to 1932 didn&#039;t really get you anything.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this methodology &mdash; which you emphasized is quick-and-dirty &mdash; mostly makes sense, but it cries out for era regression or length-of-season adjustment. I realize AY/A+ <i>is</i> compared to league, but holy cow, this list is <i>dominated</i> by current players.</p>
<p>* Three of the top four, and five of the top 10, were active from 2005-15.<br />
* None of the top 14 ever played 12-game seasons, even though those make up more than a third of the seasons surveyed.<br />
* Fran Tarkenton is the only one in the top 14 who never played 16-game seasons, which account for less than half of the seasons surveyed.<br />
* Sammy Baugh (32), Norm Van Brocklin (49), and Sid Luckman (80) are the only players in the top 100 who never played 14-game seasons.<br />
* Russell Wilson is ranked ahead of Luckman, who won as many championships (4) as Wilson has seasons.<br />
* This is an 84-year project, but 10 of the top 20 were active in 2008. Zero of the top 20 were active in the first 20 years surveyed. Two of the top 20 were active in the first 40 years surveyed.</p>
<p>Using number of pass attempts as a key part of the formula favors QBs who played longer schedules, and it favors those from eras when rule changes facilitated passing. That&#8217;s probably appropriate up to a point, because QBs are probably more important now, but I don&#8217;t think it works to compare disparate eras. I would take numbers 127-132 over 63-68, easily. I&#8217;d be cautious of framing this as an all-time ranking. I&#8217;d rather see a better metric over a shorter time period &mdash; going back to 1932 didn&#8217;t really get you anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
