For all the reeruns complaining about Trent Green's "rag arm"

[philfree]

Originally Posted by tk13

I wonder if Trent would have better numbers along the sidelines if we had better WR's. Trent's QB rating when throwing to each sideline is below 70. He's got a 109.5 rating down the middle of the field though.

He's actually 8-12 with a 109.7 rating on passes thrown 20-30 yards. Pretty good actually. If you want your "I never would've guessed" stat of the week, Trent Green is 10-23 passing beyond 20 yards. Peyton Manning is 10-34 passing beyond 20 yards. Although Manning has 6 TD/3 INT in that range. Trent's just got 0 TD/1 INT. Kinda shows how we can't throw downfield as much though...

Being able to throw down field is dependant on pass blocking and the amount of time the QB has to set up and throw. That does make it more interesting in regards to Mannings numbers throwing the ball down field. From what I've seen the Colts O line has been playing better than ours so one would think that Manning would have better numbers over 20 yards then Green.

PhilFree

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by tk13

I wonder if Trent would have better numbers along the sidelines if we had better WR's. Trent's QB rating when throwing to each sideline is below 70. He's got a 109.5 rating down the middle of the field though.

He's actually 8-12 with a 109.7 rating on passes thrown 20-30 yards. Pretty good actually. If you want your "I never would've guessed" stat of the week, Trent Green is 10-23 passing beyond 20 yards. Peyton Manning is 10-34 passing beyond 20 yards. Although Manning has 6 TD/3 INT in that range. Trent's just got 0 TD/1 INT. Kinda shows how we can't throw downfield as much though...

his #'s would be incredible if he had the combo warner had. atleast give us 1 #1 threat. we have a #2 wr playing #1.

[arrowhead20]

the formula for converting speeds thrown would have to include: actual football throw speed, the weight of the football(15 oz), the distance thrown. compared to all of the above with a baseball. my wife has a bachelors in math, and she found that it takes less than half a second to throw a 5 oz baseball 60ft 6in @ 91 mph.
so, we figured that the statistitians clocked green's pass w/ radar and calculated it that way. we couldnt break down the equation as far as to figure the actual pass speed w/ the 15oz football, but we guesstimaed his throw time to be about 1.37 sec from green's hand to kennisons chest.
hope this helps everyones curiosity.

[OldTownChief]

Originally Posted by arrowhead20

the formula for converting speeds thrown would have to include: actual football throw speed, the weight of the football(15 oz), the distance thrown. compared to all of the above with a baseball. my wife has a bachelors in math, and she found that it takes less than half a second to throw a 5 oz baseball 60ft 6in @ 91 mph.
so, we figured that the statistitians clocked green's pass w/ radar and calculated it that way. we couldnt break down the equation as far as to figure the actual pass speed w/ the 15oz football, but we guesstimaed his throw time to be about 1.37 sec from green's hand to kennisons chest.
hope this helps everyones curiosity.

After all that you guesstimated? Hell I coulda done that,

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by arrowhead20

the formula for converting speeds thrown would have to include: actual football throw speed, the weight of the football(15 oz), the distance thrown. compared to all of the above with a baseball. my wife has a bachelors in math, and she found that it takes less than half a second to throw a 5 oz baseball 60ft 6in @ 91 mph.
so, we figured that the statistitians clocked green's pass w/ radar and calculated it that way. we couldnt break down the equation as far as to figure the actual pass speed w/ the 15oz football, but we guesstimaed his throw time to be about 1.37 sec from green's hand to kennisons chest.
hope this helps everyones curiosity.

Just FTR, the weight of the baseball doesn't have anything to do with how long it takes for the baseball to go 60ft 6in @ 91mph. You may already realize this, but I can't tell whether or not that's the case.

[robot monster]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Just FTR, the weight of the baseball doesn't have anything to do with how long it takes for the baseball to go 60ft 6in @ 91mph. You may already realize this, but I can't tell whether or not that's the case.

Well, no, but it has something to do with the force required to accelerate it to 91 mph

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by robot monster

Well, no, but it has something to do with the force required to accelerate it to 91 mph

Agreed, but from the sounds of some of these posts, "force required" isn't being recognized as the key to coming up with an NFL equivalent.

[Chieftain58]

Physics? Is that some type of cereal?

[cdcox]

In addition to the mass, you'd have to consider that the drag on the football will be much larger than the drag on a baseball.

The other thing about this equivalent stuff is that it ignores mechanics. I don't thing Green could just step up and throw a 91 mph fastball because he hasn't learned the mechanics of pitching.

[Thig Lyfe]

That was pretty nifty. I'm interested as to HOW they use physics to find the MLB equivalent.

I better never personally see a chiefs fan on gameday rooting against us man

[DRU]

nice little collection of Trent's inability to go deep...

http://angelleye.homedns.org:20008