The CardBoard
OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial (/thread-12489.html)

Pages: 1 2

OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - fullmetal - 08-29-2016

It's certainly a piece with an angle, but you can see how/why Rosen thought he would be a fit at Stanford.  He's an interesting guy...I just hope his team doesn't beat Stanford this year.

http://thelab.bleacherreport.com/a-beautiful-brash-mind/

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - washingtonismoney - 08-29-2016

Rosen doesn't get into this, but I think there's a lot more scientific doubt on CTE than media coverage/discussion lets on.

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - stupac2 - 08-29-2016

(08-29-2016, 02:32 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Rosen doesn't get into this, but I think there's a lot more scientific doubt on CTE than media coverage/discussion lets on.

That's one thing that's always bothered me, these studies seem to reek of compositional problems. IIRC one of our resident doctors (BC? dagbiv?) has spoken about this from a more educated perspective than mine, but whenever I see "95% OF NFL PLAYERS HAVE CTE" and it turns into "95% of NFL players who had symptoms bad enough that they merited testing had CTE" upon closer reading I'm just skeptical about how pervasive the problem actually is. Someone really needs to come up with a non-fatal test for it...

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - CTcard - 08-29-2016

Just about everything described in that article could be very admirable or could be merely annoying depending upon the details. There's a Mora quotation in there on point,

Quote:There's a difference between asking questions because you're interested and challenging someone.

Well, I guess we know which one Mora decided Rosen is doing, but we also know which Shaw perceived.


At any rate, we know that everything in this article isn't correct. At the very least, this isn't,
Quote:In fact, it [Mora recruiting Rosen through his daughter] would've been fake, and you better believe Rosen would've sniffed it out—and would be preparing this summer for his second season at Stanford instead of leading big expectations at UCLA.


Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - CTcard - 08-29-2016

(08-29-2016, 02:51 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15521.msg168873#msg168873 date=1472506373]
Rosen doesn't get into this, but I think there's a lot more scientific doubt on CTE than media coverage/discussion lets on.

That's one thing that's always bothered me, these studies seem to reek of compositional problems. IIRC one of our resident doctors (BC? dagbiv?) has spoken about this from a more educated perspective than mine,
[/quote]

I have occasionally spoken to my brother (pediatrician) about this. My understanding is that it is true that most of the studies have some issues, and mostly there just haven't been that many studies.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the concern is overblown, it just means that nobody really knows whether it is overblown or not.

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - washingtonismoney - 08-29-2016

Right. The issue I have is, I've seen CDC studies of NFL players* -- just observational, but reasonably large sample -- and they don't show decreased life expectancy or serious neurological issues, as a population. If CTE were that bad we'd expect it to show up, I would assume.

The big issue I have is that we don't, per se, know what CTE means in real people. For example, if you do autopsies in most dead people, my understanding is that you will generally find "cancer," in the sense of having cancerous cells. That doesn't mean everyone's dying of cancer; it just means that the connection between finding markers of problems at the cellular level and systems failures is often unclear. So while a lot of research needs to be done, I'm not sure it's worth coming to the grand conclusions that football is doomed, etc.

* (Can't find right at this moment so...)

For Rosen... - FrankO - 08-29-2016

... it's all about Rosen

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - stupac2 - 08-29-2016

(08-29-2016, 03:07 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:So while a lot of research needs to be done, I'm not sure it's worth coming to the grand conclusions that football is doomed, etc.

One thing I like about the idea that this will doom football is that it depends on a bunch of young men being able to accurately assess risk factors that are only pertinent very far in the future. Because if there's one thing young men have proven completely unable to do...

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - oldalum - 08-29-2016

(08-29-2016, 03:00 PM)CTcard link Wrote:But that doesn't necessarily mean that the concern is overblown, it just means that nobody really knows whether it is overblown or not.

As the saying goes in medicine, "Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence." [of effect]

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - terry - 08-29-2016

Rosen is getting a lot of publicity for a guy who hasn't even made honorable mention all-conference.

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - DC 86 - 08-29-2016

(08-29-2016, 06:54 PM)terry link Wrote:Rosen is getting a lot of publicity for a guy who hasn't even made honorable mention all-conference.

True, but it notable for a true freshman QB to start form day one at a power conference school. Even Mariota, Winston, Luck, Newton et al redshirted, although RG3 did start 11/12 games as a true freshman.

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - terry - 08-29-2016

Yeah, Rosen was a true freshman last year, but he wasn't even the best true freshman QB in the Pac-12.

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - DC 86 - 08-29-2016

Jake Browning? it's arguable but certainly not clear in favor of either QB.

Browning: 233-368 (63%), 2955 yards, 16 TD, 10 Int.

Rosen: 292-487 (60%), 3,670 yards, 23 TD, 11 Int.

Neither was voted honorable mention All-Pac 12.

Both were impressive in that they started beginning with week one, it will be interesting to see how they each progress.

Note that Browning is 10 months older than Rosen, which is not insignificant.

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - CTcard - 08-29-2016

(08-29-2016, 07:14 PM)terry link Wrote:Yeah, Rosen was a true freshman last year, but he wasn't even the best true freshman QB in the Pac-12.

Yes, generally outside of Rosen throwing more often, Browning had better numbers than Rosen. Given that it looks pretty clear that Rosen had better talent all around him, I guess it's correct to argue that Browning had a better year.

Whether Browning was a better QB is more complicated, but I think I do see why there's more hype around Rosen. At his best he looks very good, better than Browning I would say. So, better QB right now or not, I get that his physical ceiling may be higher.

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - DC 86 - 08-29-2016

(08-29-2016, 07:45 PM)CTcard link Wrote:Yes, generally outside of Rosen throwing more often, Browning had better numbers than Rosen.

And ignoring TD/Interception ratio.

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - CTcard - 08-29-2016

(08-29-2016, 07:53 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15521.msg168922#msg168922 date=1472525129]

Yes, generally outside of Rosen throwing more often, Browning had better numbers than Rosen.

And ignoring TD/Interception ratio.
[/quote]

I was going for what a preponderance of the numbers say.

Mostly, throwing more often means that UCLA relied upon Rosen to carry the offense more than UW relied upon Browning, so that is a point in Rosen's favor. [Though note Browning missed a game due to injury, so the total numbers are somewhat inflated versus per game - but Rosen still threw more.]

In contrast, I think that TD passes is one of the most over-rated pass stats. Just like TDs scored for a RB. Look at last year with McCaffrey - the short yardage TD simply was someone else's job. So, one can pass a team down to the 1 yard line, have Wright run it in, and that is supposed to be a black mark. Interceptions matter a lot, so Rosen's somewhat lower interception ratio would also be in his favor - but those are relatively close.



Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - BostonCard - 08-29-2016

(08-29-2016, 07:53 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15521.msg168922#msg168922 date=1472525129]

Yes, generally outside of Rosen throwing more often, Browning had better numbers than Rosen.

And ignoring TD/Interception ratio.
[/quote]

The sample size is too small to make any conclusions (statistically) about the TD/INT ratio.

BC

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - DC 86 - 08-29-2016

I was responding to Terry's statement that Browning was the better quarterback last year. That is a valid argument but by no means unequivocal. And I think there are numbers that favor each QB, not a clear preponderance there either. It's pretty rare for a true freshman QB to start so both are very impressive. No doubt that Rosen had a lot more to work with on offense which makes Browning's performance arguably more noteworthy, but in terms of future development and NFL potential it is significant that Rosen is almost a year younger than Browning.

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - CTcard - 08-30-2016

(08-29-2016, 08:19 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:It's pretty rare for a true freshman QB to start so both are very impressive.

Or, it is a very unimpressive comment upon the state of quarterback recruiting/development at both programs.

As a reminder of one long running theme on this board, true frosh QBs rarely perform very well, and often playing as a true frosh seems to inhibit progress. However, there is of course significant individual variation. One of the more interesting cases in point are the careers of Christian Hackenberg and Jared Goff - both the same year as Burns, Ertz (our next opponent), and Browne (at $C).

Hackenberg had a pretty good year for a frosh.
231-392, 59%, 20 TD, 10 INT, 7.5 yds/att, PER = 134 (60th).

Goff had a less good year,
318-529, 60.1%, 18 TD, 10 INT, 6.6 yds/att, PER = 123 (86th)

Then, Goff kept improving and became the #1 pick in the draft last year. Hackenberg kept getting worse, though he was still drafted in the second round (fourth QB chosen) - that seems to be primarily based upon his high school highlights and the fact that he looks like a movie-NFL QB.

It's interesting to compare Rosen and Browning to the frosh year of those two.

Rosen
292-487, 60.0%, 3669 yds, 23 TD, 11 INT, 7.5 yds/att, PER = 134 (55th)

Browning
233-369, 63.1%, 2955 yds, 16 TD, 10 INT, 8.0 yds/att, PER = 139 (41st)
[Browning missed one game due to injury, vs Stanford]

So, Rosen's stats were pretty similar to Hackenberg's, Browning's somewhat better; but both better than Goff. 
Obviously the common wisdom is that Rosen will improve more than Browning going forward - it will be interesting to see what actually happens.



Quote: but in terms of future development and NFL potential it is significant that Rosen is almost a year younger than Browning.

The age may be significant, but that is not what most of the hype is about. Rosen throws a very nice ball, and his very best throws really are impressive. I think it is folly to simply assume he will become consistent at the level of his best stuff, but if he does so he will indeed be a very good QB. 

Re: OT: Bleacher Report Rosen editorial - Mick - 08-30-2016

(08-29-2016, 07:53 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15521.msg168922#msg168922 date=1472525129]

Yes, generally outside of Rosen throwing more often, Browning had better numbers than Rosen.

And ignoring TD/Interception ratio.
[/quote]

And completion percentage.  And yards per attempt.