I agree, but that says nothing about Purdy’s performance which was my point. Those drops could have still happened and Goff wins if Purdy doesn’t make something out of nothing a few times that game..
OH yeah—too bad we don’t have that FRIGGIN Sarcasm Emoji, I’ve only stated SIXTY times now !!!
2 Likes
I think we’re still talking past each other a bit, so let me try to tighten this rather than expand it.
I understand your point about out-of-structure play not being well captured by traditional stats. That’s true in a narrow sense — no single box score number fully captures pocket movement, late-play creation, or off-platform throws. Where I think the argument keeps breaking down is in what we’re asking that idea to prove.
The Isiah vs. Stockton example actually illustrates the issue. Isiah’s case isn’t that his value was invisible — it’s that his value showed up most clearly in outcomes that mattered most: playoff success, championships, and leverage moments. His edge wasn’t just aesthetic or theoretical; it manifested in results. If out-of-structure quarterback play is meant to be an Isiah-level differentiator, then at some point it has to meaningfully separate outcomes, not just be asserted as an unmeasured trait.
That’s where the conversation keeps looping. The claim is that out-of-structure play adds decisive value, but then when outcomes are discussed, they’re framed as too contextual to evaluate quarterbacks. You can’t really hold both positions at once. Either that trait meaningfully changes results over time, or it’s a stylistic or ceiling-raising element that front offices value but that doesn’t consistently override team context.
I also think the career projections and yardage/playoff math are a bit of a distraction from your stated point. If the goal isn’t to rank Goff historically or by volume, then those numbers don’t really advance the argument about what traditional stats miss. Ironically, they lean on the same outcome-based measures that are supposedly insufficient.
None of this is to say out-of-structure play doesn’t matter, or that Goff is elite in that area. It’s just to say that acknowledging the limits of stats doesn’t automatically elevate that trait into a primary explanation for wins or losses. For that, you’d need to show that quarterbacks who excel there consistently separate themselves in results once defense, scoring, and context are accounted for — and that’s the step that never quite gets demonstrated.
So I don’t think anyone here is making “bad arguments to defend Goff.” The pushback is really about scale: how much that trait matters relative to everything else we know actually decides games. On that question, outcomes, efficiency, and context still do most of the explanatory work.
Mahomes winning Super Bowls is evidence of his value in the exact same way Isiah’s titles were evidence of his (even though neither did it alone). Pretending one counts while the other doesn’t is just moving the standard and trying to have it both ways 
Thanks, I can take that as a win.
I am not arguing that its the PRIMARY explanation for wins or losses. 2nd time I’ve had to explain that now…
The argument keeps becoming: if out-of-structure play really matters, it should consistently overcome bad defense, bad support, and bad context and clearly show up as wins. That’s not how football works, and it’s not how quarterbacks are evaluated.
Bottomline: I’m not saying out-of-structure play guarantees wins. I’m saying it has value that box scores don’t fully capture. If that premise isn’t acceptable, then there’s not much more to debate. If it is, then we can end here in agreement!
if you watched last nights Chi/GB game out of structure play clearly matters big time. Without it, Caleb Williams would be the worst quarterback in the league. Because he is elite at that trait, the Bears can be dangerous.
Caleb Williams is a drastic example but it still applies. You don’t have to be that athletic for this trait to show up, but it’s just more noticeable.
1 Like
I think what’s happening here is less disagreement and more a series of logical shifts that keep changing what’s being defended.
First, there’s a motte-and-bailey issue. Earlier in the thread, out-of-structure play was being used to explain meaningful differences in QB tiers, ceilings, and outcomes. Now the claim has been narrowed to “it has value that box scores don’t fully capture.” That narrower claim is uncontroversial — no one has argued against it. But agreement with that watered-down version doesn’t retroactively support the stronger explanatory claims that were doing the work earlier.
Second, there’s a strawman creeping in. The pushback hasn’t been “if out-of-structure play matters, it should single-handedly overcome bad defenses and guarantee wins.” That’s not a standard anyone set. The actual question has been about marginal impact: if this trait is used to differentiate quarterbacks in hindsight, then over time it should show up somewhere observable — outcomes, efficiency, leverage performance — not necessarily in isolation, but directionally. Answering a stronger version of that claim avoids addressing the weaker, more reasonable one.
Third, there’s a category error between evaluation and explanation. Saying “this is how front offices evaluate quarterbacks” doesn’t answer whether that trait actually explains wins or losses after the fact. Scouting prioritizes projection, ceiling, and risk management. Outcome analysis asks what actually moved results. Those are related but not interchangeable. Treating evaluation preferences as proof of outcome impact is a logical leap.
Fourth, there’s a bit of circular reasoning embedded in the premise. Out-of-structure play is said to matter because it changes games, and when games are cited, the plays that worked are labeled proof while confounding factors (defense, turnovers, field position) are dismissed as context. That assumes the causal primacy of the trait rather than demonstrating it.
Finally, there’s an inconsistent standard of evidence. Historical analogies like Isiah Thomas are invoked because his value showed up in championships and leverage outcomes — but then when outcomes are discussed in the QB context, they’re deemed too contextual to count. Either outcomes matter as evidence of differentiation, or they don’t; switching standards mid-argument makes the analogy do rhetorical work without analytical consistency.
None of this is to say out-of-structure play doesn’t matter. It’s simply to say that acknowledging limits of box scores doesn’t, by itself, establish that trait as a major explanatory driver of results. That step still requires evidence, not just intuition or analogy.
The problem is that this argument collapses under its own logic. You claim yards allowed is the better metric because points come from yards, then immediately concede that teams can give up a lot of yards without giving up points. Those statements are mutually exclusive. If yards don’t reliably translate into points, then yards cannot be the superior indicator of defensive quality — they’re just a volume measure that sometimes matters and often doesn’t.
The “where there are yards, there are points” line is simply wrong. Points routinely occur without meaningful yardage through turnovers, short fields, and special teams, while massive yardage often results in zero points due to red-zone stops and situational defense. That’s not edge-case noise — it’s fundamental to how football works. This is why no serious analysis treats raw yards as more informative than points, turnovers, or efficiency. Elevating yards because they’re upstream is confusing sequence with significance and mistaking activity for impact.
Cool. What fancy arguments, lol. We’re at the end of the road here. My position really hasn’t changed: out-of-structure ability doesn’t override defense or guarantee wins, but it does matter in how games are played, especially when things break down. That value shows up in the margins of games, not always in box scores or neat win-loss explanations.
And if your standard is that a QB trait only “counts” if it consistently explains wins after you control for everything else, then almost no QB trait really matters. Again, that’s not how football is evaluated, and it’s not how I look at the game.
I’ve said my piece. You can continue to nitpick. People can decide for themselves which way of looking at it makes more sense.
No serious analysts treats yards as more informative than points? Says who…you? This is false…
I don’t have to have repeated arguments over and over and circles to know that yards is a better metric for offensive/defensive strength than points. You can try to convince me until you are blue in the face that’s a fact but it’s not.
Also I didn’t argue that efficiency or turnovers weren’t a better metric. Of course using the most information possible is going to draw a better conclusion on what offense/defense is truly better. I’m just stating a fact that yards over points is the better indicator of total offense/defense. Bringing nothing else to the table, it’s yards>points. That’s why ALL use it as a general ranking. When points are discussed, it’s verbally communicated that it’s referencing points or PPG in some form or fashion. Whether that be simply just points per game, or offensive points per game, defensive scoring, etc…
well….You’ve basically boxed the claim down to something no one disagrees with it matters sometimes in the margins and then declared victory for agreement with that. That’s fine, but it’s not what was doing the work earlier when the trait was being used to explain tiers and outcomes. Once a claim is reduced to being marginal, intermittent, and untestable, it stops being an explanation and becomes a preference — and that’s where this dead ends
This isn’t analysis anymore - it’s just assertion. Repeating “yards is better” and calling it a fact without evidence doesn’t establish anything, especially when you simultaneously concede that efficiency and turnovers are better metrics. If points are closer to efficiency and yards are a noisier upstream volume stat, then “yards > points” doesn’t follow logically.
And citing “general rankings” proves convention, not insight. Raw yards were historically used because they’re easy to tally, not because they’re most informative — which is exactly why modern analysis moved toward points, efficiency, EPA, and DVOA. Saying “bringing nothing else to the table, it’s yards > points” is backwards: bringing nothing else to the table is precisely why yards fail as an explanatory metric.
1 Like
well that sounds like a Goff bash-being Jared is up there with some of thee top QB’s , IF he hasn’t already passed them in yards, points scored, having fewer INT’s, receiving
yard averages, and that, with half his team injured, and a swiss cheese O-line. I would think that IF yard stats were useless, Stat creators, founders, wouldn’t have ever included them in stat history. shrug.
Never said they were ‘useless’. they just aren’t the best and only metric to consider
someday, I would like to see what Goff could do on a healthy Lions team.
1 Like