How to Beat the House: QB Edition
Third in an ongoing series of how to outsmart the NFL draft. Here are parts one and two.
Looking good Magnum.
In part two, we figured out the best value of the NFL draft. But now we needed to dig deeper. Are we risking missing out on the next Philip Rivers by getting out of the top 15? Should we draft a QB late and give him years to develop? Should we just sign a Free Agent and cross our fingers? What we found was very interesting.
What if I told you we found out a place in the NFL draft where your chances at getting a great QB are the same as the top of the draft, for less than 20% of the price? Wouldn't you poop your pants? Grab your depends and come along!
First, in order for me to find out where great QB's are drafted, I needed to first get a good, accurate definition of what a good QB is. It can be different from person to person. A player I may think is good, you may think is a bum. We needed something that drew the line.
We sat down and described what factors we wanted most out of our QB's. Before it is asked, if something has no way of being measured (thinking, grasp of offense, "being a winner") were not included because it is foolish and there is no possible way of quantifying those qualities. We needed something that we could point to and say, this is what we want out of a QB.
As a group we decided that the three best factors that are almost 100% in the QB's hands are the following (in no particular order):
- Completion percentage (CMP%): What good is a QB that doesn't complete passes? Over the past ten seasons we have seen completion percentage become a much more important number. Offenses use short passes as de facto running plays and a QB who lacks touch on short passes can kill a short passing game (think DA).
- Yards Per Attempt (YPA): The flip side of the previous point. What good is a QB that can't throw the ball down the field? Completing 3 passes of three yards each, is still a 3 and out. A great QB can stretch the field accurately.
- Touchdown to Interception Ratio (TD-INT): What is the point of having a QB that doesn't protect the football? TD is a team stat, but a QB that protects the ball should always have a good ratio. Ball security is so important in todays NFL. Defenses are all about turnovers. Having a QB that protects the ball is huge.
- Stability as a Starter (SAS): Yep, we made a stat up. This is longevity. After all, a QB that is great for 15 years is more valuable than a QB that is great for a season or two. Simple right? We wanted to reward a QB for being able to stick around with a team. (This one becomes important later on, so just store it away right now).
Of course there are more aspects of a great QB, but we tagged these as the four most important ones. If you have a QB that throws the ball downfield accurately and protects the ball, you have a damn fine QB. This sounds so foreign to us Browns fans because we have never had a QB that has done this things on a consistent basis. So now we had the qualities, but now we had to break down what levels we were looking for.
We didn't want to go off of carer level numbers. After all a player should who has a great season is valuable, just not as much as a consistent one. So we did the following. We went back for the past ten seasons and broke down every QB. We looked at every single season that a QB started more than 8 games. Every season by a QB was filed into one of four categories and assessed the point values:
Level 1. Elite (5 Points) 63% CMP 7.3 YPA 2-1 TD-INT Ratio
This is the big boy level of being a QB. This is your All-Pro level. Over the past 11 seasons, this level has been reached 36 times. Sounds like a lot, but that is out of 352 possible seasons. This is the top 10% percent. The scary thing is that this level seems like it is being reached easier with every passing season. Here is a break down. Bold indicates the first time:
1999: Kurt Warner
2000: Jeff Garcia, Brian Griese
2001: None
2002: Rich Gannon, Chad Pennington
2003: Trent Green, Daunte Cullpepper, Peyton Manning
2004: Donovan McNabb, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Daunte Cullpepper
2005: Matt Hasselbeck, Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer
2006: Peyton Manning, Drew Brees
2007: Jeff Garcia, David Garrard, Ben Rosthlisberger, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady
2008: Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers, Kurt Warner, Chad Pennington
2009: Tony Romo, Aaron Rodgers, Phillip Rivers, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees
Level 2. Orton Line (3 points) 60% CMP 7.0 YPA 1.75-1 TD-INT
The reason we call this the Orton line is that these numbers are pretty close to what Kyle Orton put up in Denver this season. I don't think Kyle Orton is a great QB, I do think he had a very nice season though. Anyone who puts up these stats on a regular basis is a damn fine QB and shouldn't be ashamed in any sort of fashion. But the difference between Orton and Elite is dramatic even though it may not look like much in plain numbers.
Level 3. Tavaris Jackson Line (1 point) 59% CMP 6.7 YPA Positive TD-INT
Looking at these numbers you think, those look really low. They are, but you would be shocked to see how many QB's failed to hit all three of these markers in a season. McNabb has done it only five times in his career.
Anything below these three levels, in todays NFL, are not counted. Many players will play an entire career and not hit these levels. That doesn't mean that they aren't any good, it just means that going forward we doubt they will ever have the chance at being a great QB. After all Derek Anderson had a wonderful 2007, but he didn't hit the level 3 markers. This is our thinking on the QB position. We need all three factors from a QB.
Remember when we discussed SAS (Stability as Starter)? If a QB is the starting QB for five seasons for a team, the QB received 5 points. They didn't have to be good seasons, they just needed to be that teams starting QB for five seasons. If they were the starting QB for 10 seasons, they get 10 points. If they were the starting QB for 7 years, they still only get 5 points. It is cut and dry. Longevity counts, just not as much as an impact season. Sound good to everyone?
So, now that we know the levels of what we were looking for, what did we find? Looking back at the NFL draft from '99 to '08 (I didn't count the rookies from this season, because none of them hit the marks and it would have skewed the numbers, so I kept them out. Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco are the anomalies, not the norm.), here is how the first round QB's stacked up (In order of points and * stand for how many times they reached elite status).
- Donvan McNabb* 23 PTS (Was killed by his low CMP early on in his career)
- Chad Pennington** 20 PTS (Considering he was the "starter" for only 6 seasons, this is nuts)
- Ben Roethlisberger** 20 PTS (I have already touched on this. Barf.)
- Daunte Cullpepper** 19 PTS (So good for a short amount of time. Randy Moss effect?)
- Phillip Rivers** 14 PTS (This is only 4 seasons. He is a douche, but damn he is good.)
- Carson Palmer* 14 PTS (He has to be hurt right? He was good, but has turned into "meh" quick.)
- Aaron Rodgers** 10 PTS (This is in two seasons. They should have gone with Favre earlier.)
- Eli Manning 9 PTS (He was killed by low YPA and CMP%. Rivers trade looks worse everyday.)
- Jay Cutler 7 PTS (His INT's hurt.)
- David Carr 6 PTS (The rare case of a QB getting points for just sticking around.)
- Mike Vick 5 PTS (Again, points for sticking around. Vick was not a QB.)
- Joe Flacco 4 PTS (Very efficient, had a level 2 and 3 year his first two years.)
- Byron Leftwich 1 PT (Low CMP)
- JP Losman 1 PT (Seriously)
- Jason Campbell 1 PT (Dude just never threw it downfield enough)
- Matt Ryan 1 PT (Thought he would be higher but his CMP is lower than I thought)
- Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Cade McNown, Patrick Ramsey, Joey Harrington, Rex Grossman, Kyle Boller, Alex Smith, Matt Leinhart, Vince Young, Brady Quinn, JaMarcus Russell All had 0 points.
That is right, 17 players didn't have one season of 59% CMP, 6.7 YPA, and a plus TD-INT ratio. 17 out of 28. I don't know if you would want to call them "busts" but that number is scary high to me. So what QB's outside pick 32 scored off the charts? (I did pick 32 for one reason. It is the length of todays first round. This raised an issue because as we know, Drew Brees was the 32nd pick in the draft. He was a second rounder, but his pick now rests in the first round. If there is a hug objection to this, I could change it. So speak up if this bothers you).
Since the '99 draft, here are the QB's outside the first 32 picks that scored points in our scoring system:
'99- Aaron Brooks 6 PTS 4th Round (Holmgren bitches!)
'00- Tom Brady** 22 PTS 6th Round
Marc Bulger 10 PTS 6th Round
'01- None
'02- David Garrard* 8 PTS 4th Round
'03- None
'04- Matt Schuab 4 PTS 3rd Round
'05- Matt Cassel 3 PTS 7th Round
Kyle Orton 3 PTS 4th Round
'06- Tavaris Jackson 1 PT 2nd Round
'07- None
'08- None
I was shocked to see how few QB's mattered. There were 103 QB's drafted from pick 33 on since '99. Out of those 103, only 8 of them had seasons that we cared about. That is just under 8% on a hit percentage (obviously giving us a 92% miss). The first round gave us 40% miss percentage. Neither of those numbers are pretty, but 40 is a whole lot prettier than 92.
What does this tell us?
I was not happy. I was firmly in the camp of draft a QB later on and let him develop then watch him become awesome. The numbers have shown, that this is a bad idea. For every Tom Brady there are 9 Ken Dorsey's. It is a nice idea to get a QB late in the draft, but for a team to count on that player being a good QB is a horrible idea.
A team HAS to draft a Quarterback in the first round. You have no idea how much this bothered me. I really wanted this to show me how a QB could be found anywhere in the draft. Alas, I went in with an open mind, and I am now a believer, it has to be done.
We go deeper:
This wasn't good enough for us. We wanted to know if we could still take a QB in the value zone that we discussed in the value part of this on going series. Can we stick with the plan when taking a QB or are we taking a drastic step down in terms of talent?
Since '99 there have been 29 QB's selected in the top 32 picks, 3 a year on average.
Let us break that down even further.
Since '99 there have been 19 QB's taken from picks 1-14, the danger zone in our value piece. Remember, we want to avoid this area like the plague.
Since '99 there have been 10 QB's taken from picks 15-32, the value portion of the first round.
This is the breakdown:
Picks 1-14: On average these players scored 6.3 per player. They had a miss rate (a player not earning a single point in our study) of 42%. The high scorer was McNabb.
Picks 15-32: On average these players scored 6.3 per player. They had a miss rate of 40%. The high score was Brees.
Yep, you read that right. The players taken from picks 15-32 scored the same as the danger zone QB's. The miss rate was still the same. In other words, you could still find a QB in the second half of the draft just as easily, and with the same miss rate, as you would early on in the draft! It doesn't matter where you pick a QB in the first round, it just has to be inside of the first 32 picks.
Here is the big difference that we already talked about, but it is worth mentioning again. The rookie contracts. These are the ones that I found (If you find one of the few that I am missing, please post it with a link to where you found it and I will add it and adjust the figures, thanks). Sorry, this is going to be long:
Tim Couch: 7 years 48 million
Donovan McNabb ???
Akili Smith 7 years 56 million
Cade McNown 5 years 22 million
Mike Vick 6 years 62 million
Joey Harrington 6 years 43.5 million
David Carr 7 years 46.2 million
Byron Leftwich 5 years 30 million
Carson Palmer 7 years 49 million
Ben Roethlisberger 6 years 22 million
Phillip Rivers 6 years 40.5 million
Eli Manning 6 years 54 million
Alex Smith 6 years 49.5 million
Jay Cutler 6 years 48 million
Matt Leinhart 6 years 50.8 million
Vince Young 6 years 58 million
JaMarcus Russell 6 years 60 million
Matt Ryan 6 years 66 million
On average those contracts average out to be 5.76 years for 47.38 million.
What is the damage for the value area of the first round? Glad ya asked:
Patrick Ramsey 5 years 5.7 million
Drew Brees 4 years 6.2 million
Chad Pennington ???
Rex Grossman ???
Kyle Boller 5 years 8 million
J.P Losman 6 years 8.2 million
Jason Campbell 6 years 8 million
Aaron Rodgers 5 years 7.7 million
Brady Quinn 5 years 9.2 million (Remember most of his $$ is playing time based)
Joe Flacco 5 years 11.9 million
As of right now these contracts average out to be 5.28 years for 8.39 million. Damn near the same length for about about 18% of the price! It's not even close to be equal price!
So I ask you, why draft a QB early in the draft when he is going to cost you four times the price, and you have the same chance of drafting a good QB later on in the draft? It makes no sense to take a QB early in the danger zone. Again, we as a team need to get away from the top 15 like we are on fire, pick up extra picks and attack the second half of the first round.
Could some other factors play a role in this discovery? Yes a team drafting later on in the draft is a better team, so wouldn't a young QB do better on a good team? Damn straight he will. Yet we see teams building around QB's all the time. The numbers have shown that the QB should be one of the FINAL pieces. Drop a QB in a great situation and he has a much better chance of being a good pro. Look at the list above, only Quinn was really dropped into horrible situation.
So what have we learned throughout this whole ordeal?
- You have no idea how much it pains me to say this. After all, I wrote this article, but Ben Roethlisberger is a good QB. I am going to go puke all over everything.
- Jay Cutler is not as good as I thought. For those in which I fought with tooth and nail that I thought Jay Cutler was great, I apologize. I still think he will be good, but as of right now, he needs some work.
- Anyone who thinks that Tom Brady is in Peyton Manning's class needs to slow down. No active QB is even close according to our study. Manning has 53 points. That is double what Brady has. The only QB all-time that is close to him are Steve Young (36 points) and Joe Montana (40 points). Others were brought down by either CMP% or TD-INT ratio. If we switched Brady and Manning, I think that Brady would be ringless and Manning would have a fistful. Seriously. By the way, see the poll to settle a bet that I have. It has been changed because he is a weak ass, but I agreed to the new terms anyways.
- Chad Pennington is the best QB that no one ever talks about. I am guilty of this myself. Looking back on the guys career, his numbers were very, very good. He was exactly what we are looking for. Dude gets knocked a lot, but if he was able to stay healthy, he was going to be a great one.
- Daunte Cullpepper was as good as it got early on in his career. How did he fall as far as he did?
- As much as we might like Clausen or Bradford, we shouldn't take them with the 7th pick. In fact I haven't yet to find a position worth taking. That isn't saying much, I am only 4 or 5 positions in so far.
- As much as I have fallen for Colt McCoy, this study changed my mind, it is first round or bust for QB for me.
- I am sure you noticed, but this study killed running QB's. I know Vince Young wins and Mike Vick used to win games, but I was never a fan of a running QB (unless we are playing Madden) and this study only reinforced my thoughts. Yes, they may do some extra things, but they don't do what we wanted and expected out of a QB. I am willing to listen to any arguments for saving the running QB.
- I didn't include undrafted free agents because there is no way to count how many are signed every season. For every Kurt Warner and Jake Delhomme, there are about eleventy billion Craig Krenzels.
- Again, I am in need of your help. Was I too rough or too easy? C'Mon people, help a brotha out!
- For running backs we are having a tough time trying to set levels. Any ideas would be helpful. We are thinking 5.2 YPT (Yards Per Touch from scrimmage) because we want a RB who can also catch the ball. A RB has to have 250 touches in a season. TD's are more of a team reward but we would like to give a RB some small bonus for being a goaline back also. Any ideas are welcomed and encouraged.
- I am sorry if some of this is hard to read, I really suck at formatting.
Once again, this is by far the only way to attack a NFL draft. But remember, we are thinking outside the box with no preconceived notions. So if you wanna add, by all means bring it.
Did I mention Go Browns?
240 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You could rate RBs based on their fumbles. Think AD. Heck, maybe you could also factor in fumbles for quarterbacks.
I’m not good at all this, so I’m just throwing stuff out.
But back on topic, it is rather shocking. A few people advocated drafting a QB in the 3rd day and I thought it sounded alright. Now I would much rather get a trade done.
Probably the only Cleveland Browns fan in all of Sydney, NSW.
For running backs we are having a tough time trying to set levels… Any ideas are welcomed and encouraged.
Use Football Outsiders Data! They’ve done much much more research and critical thinking than pretty much anyone other than (or perhaps even including some) NFL front offices. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Use their data and apply it to the draft.
The beauty of that is that their data includes not only typical stats like you used in this piece, but stuff you and I could never sort out (like applying value to completing an 8 yard pass on third and seven as opposed to on third and nine or even first and ten).
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
Also, they make an effort to isolate an individual’s play.
For example, they apply value to completing a downfield pass to Andre Davis as opposed to Randy Moss, or successfully running behind the 2000 Browns OL as opposed to the 2002 Broncos OL. I have no idea how they do this, but it does work.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
Yeah, I understand staying away from some of their stuff on some positions, but I think they have RBs down really well. Success rate is an ingenious concept. They penalize fumbles. And they compare to other RBs playing against the same defenses.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
One thing’s for sure, you can’t use the standard 1,000 yd moniker anymore. I would think that you’d have to bump it up to…maybe 1,300 yds?
Yards-per-carry should also be addressed, I would think. But RB is a position that’s so hard to put into a vacuum because of the performance of the O-line…hmm…..
by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 12, 2010 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
Great work again, Bernie. Speaking of Ben, though, were you the one I was arguing with about him being better than Cutler? Glad to see you’ve come around. As much as I hate him, Ben’s a really good QB who’s overrated by many because he’s won 2 Super Bowls but also underrated by many because they think his teams won with only defense and the running game and he didn’t have much to do with it. As is usually the case, the truth is somewhere in between. He’s not at Brees or Manning’s level, of course, but he’s definitely in the top 10 and probably close to the top 5.
I think this does show that hoping to draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th round who we can groom to be a starter isn’t a good plan. I know some people think we can pick up McCoy or Pike or someone in the mid rounds and hope he develops but that isn’t a good plan. Either sign a veteran in free agencey, make a trade for McNabb or Kolb or someone, or draft a QB in the first round. That’s how the Browns are going to find their QB.
Finally . . . did you try to find the worst possible picture of Aaron Rodgers to post here?
lol on that pic…
Very true about Big Ben. I hate him for being a steeler but have come to respect him as a player.
I also noticed something similar to this when I was looking at previous drafts and success of QBs. I think the only pro bowlers out of the later rounders are 4.
Garrard, Bulger, DA, and Brady. Brady is a once in a generation pick, garrard only made it b/c no one else wanted to go, DA I don’t need to go into, and Bulger benefitted from pro bowl WRs, RB, LT and a brilliant offensive mind in mike martz.
I picked that pic because any player who rocks a pornstache is aces in my book.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 12, 2010 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, Kold was a second round pick. Does this mean we should avoid him?
by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 12, 2010 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not sure I agree with the way you set the levels. If my QB has a 58% completion percentage but throws for 35TD and 10INT with 7 YPA then he gets no credit for that season. To make this better you shouldn’t set a hard line of “he must get all three of these marks.” Ideally, being outstanding in one area should make up for a slight shortcoming in another area.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
for instance, 2007 Derek Anderson met one requirement for a Tier 2 QB, one for tier 3, and only came up 2.5% short of matching the other for the 3rd tier. In my opinion, his outstanding YPA (only .1 away from elite level) should have made up for his lack of accuracy and at least earned him 3rd tier status.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Feb 12, 2010 9:26 AM EST up reply actions
Naw, I think it the least it should be is 2/3 with a grace margin for the third.
by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 12, 2010 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
He is managing them very poorly.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Feb 12, 2010 9:45 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
See, moon’s post actually made me think though. Is Jay Cutler a victim of his current situation? Can we fully evaluate a QB that might be surrounded by the worst combination of offensive line and WRs in the game right now?
How much room for improvement do these QBs get as they move beyond their initial years in the league? There are a lot of things to consider and probably why QB is the most difficult position to evaluate.
Ultimately I like the point about where to draft QBs though because I do think it is relevant, and probably likely that over 90% of future good QBs will be selected in the top 40.
These are good questions. I don’t know how moon’s irrational defense of Cutler got you to think about them though.
Cutler hasn’t been helped by his current situation. He does have some talent. But he is a head case and just an ass; he is very hard to root for. On top of that, some actually though the Bears made a good deal for him. Thought that they were some good QB play away from being a contender. I thought Cutler was vastly overrated while in Denver and the fact that he has been exposed- partially through circumstance, partially through his own short-comings- tickles me.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
If the Bears knew what they were doing offensively, they would have just mimicked Denver’s passing game more.
Do you think we could get them to trade up for Dez Bryant?
ooo- i like that thought.
But what do they have to offer? Didn’t that Cutler deal pretty much end all hope for them making big moves? They don’t have a first or a second, and I think they only have one pick in each of the 3-7 rounds.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
they could give us players….but I don’t know who I would want.
I think I would honestly like this trade: our first round pick: they give us lance briggs, Zach Bowman, Daniel Manning (and maybe olson or their third rounder). they would not trade away 3 starters. I would honestly love that b/c instead of paying for that pick, we get 3 good starters on defense.
Jay Cutler’s footwork is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen on the field. He’s a lazy passer. Pretty much Brett Favre without success.
Cutler is Jeff George 2.0
Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic. - Robert S. Wieder
by jerseywahoo on Feb 12, 2010 9:08 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
what kind of arm did george have??
I don’t know a ton about jeff george…please describe him to me as a QB.
So after 1 bad season Cutler becomes a huge bust?
by TheRealSlimShady on Feb 14, 2010 7:52 PM EST up reply actions
I am not saying comparison is a bad one or a good one but Jeff George had some good seasons.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 14, 2010 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
this would be why i say we should pick up somebody like McNabb or another free agent QB for two or three years and maybe go after someone like ryan mallet next year. good size good arm and his accuracy is pretty good, not sure about his ball security though, if someone knows let me know. i think he will be a mid first rounder next year and for a value pick i think he could do really well in the nfl once our o-line finishes gelling together!
Lifes A Dance, You Learn As You Go!
by findlaybrownslover on Feb 12, 2010 6:54 PM EST up reply actions
I thought that if Mallet came out this year he would have been the number one pick overall. That is just me though.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 12, 2010 7:11 PM EST up reply actions
bernie, you seem to agree with some of the points i make! do you think the brownies should follow that scenerio? i feel mallet would hae been a top ten but maybe not #1, but either way i think he will be a really good QB in the nfl, he seems to have a lot of good qualities about him.
Lifes A Dance, You Learn As You Go!
by findlaybrownslover on Feb 13, 2010 2:27 AM EST up reply actions
From what I have found out so far, I wouldn’t draft any player in the top 15 picks.
Maybe a pass rusher. I would like to build the rest of the team (strong defense, strong running attack) and then fill in a QB later.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 13, 2010 2:55 AM EST up reply actions
if we have a high pick next year and we have the chance to pick up Mallett, do we?? i say we should. this year we definitely build the defense and offense and worry about the QB next year, thats IMO. i say we trade down this year, pick up some extra picks and get either Iupati for the line, or Hughes for the D
Lifes A Dance, You Learn As You Go!
by findlaybrownslover on Feb 13, 2010 9:26 PM EST up reply actions
Hughes’ stock is plummeting. If it stays like it is, we could get him in the 2nd. I would be all for this.
I just see on upside in Huges. He seems like a Patriots type of guy though.
by TheRealSlimShady on Feb 14, 2010 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
That is a great plan.
If we stick to the draft trade chart, I don’t think we will be able to trade down.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 14, 2010 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
If we traded down, I would look at Earl Thomas, Jared Odrick, Sergio Kindle and Haden might even still be there.
by TheRealSlimShady on Feb 14, 2010 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
I agreed. He would have had Jamarcus Russel-ish workouts .
by TheRealSlimShady on Feb 13, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
McNabb is a Philadelphia icon. I know we all like tough, decisive QBs. But why squeeze into those boots?
This year has some interesting QBs. In my book Jimmy Clausen, Kevin Craft and Ricky Stanzi are attractive.
And from former years, I still rank Jared Zabransky and Chris Pizzotti as pretty hot.
Chad Pennington, David Carr and Rex Grossman are free agents we must consider.
Pennington I can get on board with, the others… not a chance.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
is Mangini the GM? is he the one making trades and signing Free Agents? I think it is a likely possibility.
anyways, was it mangini in NY that jettisoned Pennington? I think that was their FO. now if this FO wants pennington, I think they go out and get him. I also do not think Mangini really wanted to get rid of pennington and get favre. your statement is less then speculation, it has no merit.
In case this wasn’t a poor joke, I guess I should respond.
is Mangini the GM? is he the one making trades and signing Free Agents?
No, but he will have input, and Pennington has to decide he wants to play for the man who pushed him out.
your statement is less then speculation, it has no merit.
My position has no merit? Yet you bring this to the table:
I also do not think Mangini really wanted to get rid of pennington and get favre
At least my facts are based on actual events, not speculation on the subconscious desires of Eric Mangini.
What could ever lead you to believing this? Wait, I know, an article that you “read” online somewhere that now no longer exists, correct?
by gahnki on Feb 13, 2010 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Things just disappear from the internet all the time.
Right?
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 13, 2010 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
geez.
1. Mangini is not the GM and does not have final say over the roster. he has input but he doesn’t have final say.
2. what is the proof pennington actually got pushed out by mangini? Please enlighten me. Where is the proof mangini wanted favre and thew pennington under the bus?
3. What yours is based on is pure speculation too. it is about whether or not mangini wanted pennington.
4. Please tell me one actual event that proves your story. you are demanding negative proof yet bring no proof to the table. You insist that mangini kicked pennington out. instead of bringing proof, you demand for negative proof.
Instead of thinking rationally and realizing that mangini is not the GM, you insist that he has some sort of magical sway that means that if heckert wants pennington, mangini will block him. heckert has final say over roster decisions. that is why he came here.
if you are going to try to criticize me, bring something to the table besides ad hominem attacks and demanding negative proof.
if you are going to attack me, at least put something behind it.
I’m pretty sure he knows that Mangini isn’t the GM. But he’s certainly going to have input and no GM is going to sign a player that his head coach doesn’t want on his team. There’s nothing “magical” about it. Don’t be condescending.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 13, 2010 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
I completely understand that a GM won’t sign a player a coach wouldn’t want.
However, he never proved to me that Mangini doesn’t want pennington. he just said I was wrong and he was right. he also asserts that mangini brought in favre and got rid of pennington, that these actions were asserted by mangini.
All I ask for is a logical, valid argument, not based on ad hominem attacks and negative proof fallacies
If you understand that a GM wouldn’t sign a player a coach doesn’t want then why did you say this:
Instead of thinking rationally and realizing that mangini is not the GM, you insist that he has some sort of magical sway that means that if heckert wants pennington, mangini will block him. heckert has final say over roster decisions. that is why he came here.
That statement goes against what you supposedly understand.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 13, 2010 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
I never said that he had no say at all.
what I was saying is that mangini doesn’t hold all the cards anymore.
this is the problem. its selective listening. you take that as a statement that I think mangini has no say which is speculation on your part but you ignore when earlier in the same comment I say
Mangini is not the GM and does not have final say over the roster. he has input but he doesn’t have final say.
My question is, why am I the one being persecuted when i never asserted anything without backing it up.
that lies with gahnki when he said
Pennington isn’t going to happen after Mangini jettisoned him for Favre.
If he has proof of this, I am fine. until he does, it is just speculation. in fact, I am the one who is accused of speculation when he started off with a speculative comment.
is this a double standard I am seeing???
he’s right, this is a double standard again. I’ve heard Mangini didn’t want favre far more often then i’ve heard mangini pushed out pennington to get favre, so i would say he’s correct in saying the burden of proof on this lies squarely on gahnki.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Feb 14, 2010 9:43 AM EST up reply actions
It’s not about proof. Gahnki gave an opinion — that Pennington wouldn’t want to play for Mangini — and that really can’t be “proved” unless Pennington says that himself. But that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Also, even if Mangini wasn’t the one who wanted to get rid of Pennington, he might not see it that way and therefore may not want to play for him.
But that’s all beside the point. Having a conversation with bross can be excruciatingly painful at times because he always changes his opinion and contradicts himself and says that he didn’t really mean what he said. Many, many people have gotten frustrated with him for this, both here and at LGT. I don’t really want to waste the time going through all the stupid and incorrect things he said just in his comment above, but it gets really annoying.
He may in fact be correct about Mangini and Pennington, but the way he goes about arguing it is full of contradictions and turning people’s words around and claiming he didn’t mean what he wrote, and that’s what I have a problem with. He does this all the time and he needs to stop. It’s annoying.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 14, 2010 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
At the same time, you did do selective reading on what I said. you made assumptions and jumped to conclusions on one thing I said and failed to ignore part of the comment that completely contradicts what you are trying to prove.
That shows that either you decided to skip over a part, or else it just seems like you are trying to target me. selective reading and taking something completely out of context is just as bad as when news people edit something to make it say the opposite of what was said.
yes Gahnki MAY have given an opinion but saying:
Pennington isn’t going to happen after Mangini jettisoned him for Favre.
doesn’t sound like an opinion. I have been criticized a couple times for stating an opinion as though it was a fact…
I don’t know about you, but what he said sounds like he was asserting fact. I guess it is okay when he asserts an opinion as fact, but it is blasphemy when I do it?
I don’t know if that is what you are trying to say but your actions on here speak louder than words. that is what your actions are saying.
I did not do selective reading. I didn’t make any assumptions, I was just responding to what you said. It’s difficult, though, because you are constantly changing your opinion and contradicting yourself.
Listen, you can deflect the criticism like you always do and claim it’s everyone else that’s wrong and not you. But when multiple people on two different blogs get frustrated with the way you communicate then maybe you should think it might not be everybody else; maybe it’s you.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 14, 2010 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
well…actually, multiple people I have seen here say that actually I am in the right. If this were a complete democracy and comments were votes, I would win ove gahnki. but that is pointless anyways.
I am not saying I have not been wrong in the past. I will admit when I am wrong. the fact is that I have been ridiculed for asserting an opinion as fact. i have no problem with this. I deserved it. but now you are criticizing me for pointing out someone doing the same thing, when you have in fact criticized me I believe for asserting opinion as fact. so what you are saying by these actions is that when i did it, it wasn’t okay but when gahnki does it, you will defend him.
you DID made assumptions when I said:
Instead of thinking rationally and realizing that mangini is not the GM, you insist that he has some sort of magical sway that means that if heckert wants pennington, mangini will block him. heckert has final say over roster decisions. that is why he came here.
Did I ever say mangini has no say? No, what I was saying is that heckert is the guy makign the decisions. in fact earlier you seemed to have glossed over my first point in that comment which said:
1. Mangini is not the GM and does not have final say over the roster. he has input but he doesn’t have final say.
This is the point I was making from the beginning. but no, you decide to ignore it and assume thing that aren’t there from another comment I make. because you assumed things that weren’t there, you gave an incorrect assessment of what I said.
I will admit when I am wrong here. the most that I can admit is that the statement you took out of context of the whole statement could possibly be misleading. if you want to read just that, maybe you will be mislead but you wouldn’t be if you read the whole thing. also to be mislead you would have to make assumptions and jump to conclusions that just aren’t there.
so when you say
I did not do selective reading. I didn’t make any assumptions,
it is in fact you that is trying to deflect criticism when the proof of it is as plain as day.
To continue, in case you missed it, someone from from LGT posted the following statements you made in only four comments:
I am not saying
I never tried to say
I never meant for any of this to be taken
was not meant to
i was more trying to
I was not saying
I was not trying
that was my goal
the point I was trying to make
What I actually thought
I should not have posted
It is completely misleading
the rest is actually what I think
Do you have any idea how annoying it is to have a conversation with someone who is always changing their views and conradicting themselves and saying they didn’t say something which everyone can clearly see they said? Enough already. Stop acting like this.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 14, 2010 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
but that was on a different site. I am not doing this here, nor am I doing this right now. that is completely irrelevant really to the situation. the situation is that you are the only one here that seems to think that gahnki was stating a fact….
It doesn’t matter if it’s a different site. You’re responsible for what you say no matter where you are, and many of the same people read both sites so what you do on either ones impacts people’s impression of you. Of course it’s relevant because it describes why so many people get annoyed with you and the way you argue.
But the way, I never said gahnki was stating a fact. In fact, I specifically said above that he was stating an opinion. You are the one who isn’t reading. My problem with you is the way you’re commenting; I’m not disputing if you were correct or not. I’ve said that repeatedly.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 14, 2010 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
Then why attack me for criticizing someone for asserting an opinion?
you said:
It’s not about proof. Gahnki gave an opinion
Gahnki said
Pennington isn’t going to happen after Mangini jettisoned him for Favre.
I don’t know how this sounds like an opinion at all?
He demands proof from me and asserts his as actual facts
At least my facts are based on actual events, not speculation
but he shuts up when asked for proof.
the whole thing started because someone asserted an opinion as fact. i have done it before and should be criticized.
instead, you come in and say it must be an opinion and proof doesn’t matter. so what you imply by that statement is he doesn’t have to prove his statements whereas I do.
then instead of the issue on hand you start using ad hominem attacks against me. whether deserved or not, you changed the subject and started ridiculing me unprovoked.
you honestly would have been best served staying out of the whole conversation. your opinion started this wave of comments (not at all me).
I didn’t attack you for disagreeing with gahnki. I never said you had to prove your statements. You continue to make up things I said that I never did.
My original comment was only in reply to this statement you made:
Instead of thinking rationally and realizing that mangini is not the GM, you insist that he has some sort of magical sway that means that if heckert wants pennington, mangini will block him. heckert has final say over roster decisions. that is why he came here.
And this is what I said in response:
I’m pretty sure he knows that Mangini isn’t the GM. But he’s certainly going to have input and no GM is going to sign a player that his head coach doesn’t want on his team. There’s nothing "magical" about it. Don’t be condescending.
Then you went off from there, saying that you understand a GM would never sign a player that a coach doesn’t want. But that contradicts your comments above, which is what I pointed out. Then you went off on a bunch of tangents that had nothing to do with what I was talking about, whining about giving “proof” for people’s comments.
My point was that you make two statements in one comment which contradict themselves. You said that you know that Mangini does have input, but then you condescendingly make fun of gahnki by saying that he thinks Mangini has a “magical” sway over the roster, implying that Heckert can do whatever he wants without Mangini’s input. You can’t have it both ways. That’s my problem with your comments — and it’s not isolated to this one instance — as I’ve said many times. I don’t know why you are making me repeat this again, but I hope you listen this time. You make statements which contradict themsleves and are always claiming that you never said something which you did say when people point out that you’re wrong. That’s what gets annoying, and me and many others have pointed this out and asked you to stop. I gave you examples above, then you get defensive again and claim that because it happened on another website that it doesn’t matter. Of course it does.
I’m ending this ridiculously long discussion. Please listen to what I’m saying and think a little bit before you post a long reply denying everything like you always do.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 14, 2010 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
Am I the only one just glossing/skipping over these posts consisting of “Bross09 vs. X” these days?
by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 15, 2010 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
actually. I ended it a wh9ile ago. I don’t know when you posted this but I have just not been coming on here b/c I knew you would respond and I was done.
and my statements don’t directly contradict themselves. if you make assumptions and inferrences they do, but they do not directly contradict themselves. you can always spin it some sort of way, but when I wrote it, I saw both, and to me they did not contradict themselves, but instead supported each other. I guess you just see it differently.
the situation is that you are the only one here that seems to think that gahnki was stating a fact….
Not to get in the middle of this, but Mangini did name his kid after Favre.
Then Mangini wanted Favre to come into Browns camp and be a guest instructor with DA and Quinn.
The only person who said Mangini was “forced” into Favre was Boxing Analyst, and Mangini friend Teddy Atlas.
Like anything, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but I have a hard time believing that Mangini would have been against Favre coming in.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 14, 2010 6:01 PM EST up reply actions
I did forget about the favre coming into browns camp and the baby. maybe mangini did like favre but I agree with you it does probably lie somewhere in the middle.
I don’t think at all he would have been completely against favre, but I don’t think it was his decision either. It was the GMs decision and I feel he probably didn’t mind, although none of us can know for sure.
Gotta back bross on this one. I heard that Mangini, in fact, did NOT want Favre when the Jets rumors were going around for him. It is entirely possible for a GM to make moves that a coach doesn’t want, even w/ or w/o his inpute. Mangini may have thought more highly of Pennington than the GM did, and the GM figured that Favre would be a great improvement over Pennington and pulled the trigger.
by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 14, 2010 9:26 AM EST up reply actions
Pennington is overrated, and while he would be an immediate upgrade over our current QB play, he would never take us anywhere in the playoffs. Obviously, I would love to get in to the playoffs at this point, but good defenses eat him alive when he really has to make plays.
He was mostly who I was talking about when looking at a “ceiling” for QBs. I don’t think you can see a hard ceiling by round or draft position, but I think that in today’s game more elite QBs will come from the top 5 picks than everywhere else in the draft combined.
Also sorry on shopping Chad Pennington.
I admit, I don´t remember why he left the Jets.
Upside is correct, this guy is responsive, as Jay Cutler is, as Jimmy Clausen is, as Rex Grossman is, as David Carr is. It´s something you can work with, perfect.
With Zabransky and Pizzotti, this sensibility is an unknown quantity, admittedly.
You see, Pennington had a good reason for leaving the Jets. It was called: Getting kicked off when they got Brett “almost as crazy as you are” Favre.
by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 14, 2010 9:28 AM EST up reply actions
Ricky Stanzi and Kevin Craft are:
1. Not that good.
2. Not in the draft.
by TheRealSlimShady on Feb 13, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
This isn’t likely to deter moon.
Probably the only Cleveland Browns fan in all of Sydney, NSW.
by skipkirk on Feb 13, 2010 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
He’ll say it’s some NFL consipracy to keep all the good players out of the NFL, and it probably has to do with Madden and fantasy football.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 13, 2010 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry. I thought Stanzi was in the draft. My error.
Kevin Craft is awesome, I don´t know the back-story on why he got benched at UCLA. So the predicament is, to find explanations why he ranks with the other prospects, and then a way into starting based on comparison in camp. This guy is a dark horse, they´re scared of him.
Look at these stats. How is he an NFL QB?
by TheRealSlimShady on Feb 14, 2010 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
Our conclusion would be that he is not an NFL QB.
by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 15, 2010 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
Is that like a pitcher with a poor ERA who “manages the game” to get a lot of wins?
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 12, 2010 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
Extremely off subject but does anyone find it odd they they’re sponsoring KY lubricant in the margins of the blog? It seems to clash with the overall theme of page since, of course, the page is about football not porn.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Feb 12, 2010 10:16 AM EST reply actions
Football
Male audience
Males are horny
Valentines day
Males want to seal the valentines day deal
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Feb 12, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Shouldn’t Brees be listed in the first round QBs? You explain you included him, but he’s not on the list.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
Brees was the first pick of the second round, so he was almost a first round QB but not quite.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 12, 2010 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
at that point we are just drawing a line at the arbitrary cut-off line of “round.” The difference between pick 33 and 32 has to be virtually identical to the difference between pick 15 and 16.
Right. Besides, I’m not sure if Houston was in the league when he was drafted, but if they weren’t then he was the 32nd pick which means that he’d be a first-round pick now. Either way, though, the difference between the last pick of the first round and the first pick of the second round is virtually zero but we need to put the cut-off lines somewhere. It’s kind of like doing grades for my students; there really isn’t much of a difference between an 89% and a 90% but one’s a B and one’s an A.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 12, 2010 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
What I meant was I think he did decide to include Brees in the first round calculations, but just neglected to list him in the results.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
Mr. Dorn, are you sure it´s arbitrary? Don´t you think teams would be interested in a shot at a QB to their liking, prior to expansion?
I predict:
-minimum requirement: 40.000 fans. Maximum salary per year/per player: 1 million $, plus awards. 1 constituent per player.
-regional representation teams (State and even Geographic locations).
-Public interest teams (company and corporate teams).
-Demographic teams (f.e. Fem-force, All-Europe, All-Asia…)
…consequentially or pre-emptively some players are consulting their fates.
Nah, but if it happens I said it first.
by mooncamping on Feb 17, 2010 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
trading down is a lot easier said then done
A whole lot of clubs want nothing to do with a top 10 pick unless they fall in love with a guy. And they know that. Used to be you could trade down and get several picks-not anymore.
Cutler IS a great QB, when he's playing in the right system.
Cutler’s problem in Chicago is that Chicago has a different style of play than Denver and a considerably weaker offense than Denver. Chicago in recent years (including the year in which they reached the Super Bowl) has relied heavily on their defense preserving a low scoring game and hoping their mediocre offense would be able to steal some wins. The problem in Chicago isn’t Cutler it’s the sharp drop-off in talent on the offense AFTER Cutler. Besides Devin Hester, who may be a great special teams guy (especially on kick-off and punt returns) but he’s a medicore WR at best, there’s not much support for Cutler on the Bears O-Line. Greg Olsen has potential and as he develops further he will likely be more of an offensive force. But he’s not quite there yet.
Cutler on the Bears is the right piece, but for the wrong puzzle. Either the Bears have to change the other pieces of the puzzle so they fit with Cutler’s piece, or they should trade Cutler and get a QB that does fit into their existing “puzzle.”
It’s sad when the most successful QB the Browns have had in the past 10 years was Kelly Holcomb! I still maintain they never should have traded him and they never should have brought in Garcia or later Dilfer. He wasn’t a great QB, but he was a GOOD QB who sometimes showed flashes of Greatness. Heck he had TWO games with the Browns where he managed to throw for over 400 yards (one of which was a playoff game against Pittsburgh) and yet the Browns D managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in both of those games! The revolving door of QBs has done the Browns no favors. Had they kept Holcomb and drafted a young QB more talented than Holcomb that Holcomb could groom and pass the reins to they’d be in a much different situation than they’re in now.
Holcomb never did anything after he left Cleveland so I don’t think keeping him would have been the solution.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 12, 2010 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
I endorsed Devin Hester for wide out. See, I differentiate between runners and receivers. This very rationale has led me to discount Braylon Edwards as a wide out, and to designate Josh Cribbs abilities towards playing flanker. I had Devin Hester as a receiver, hoping that Jay Cutler could vastly improve his ball handling abilities. But, I guess, if a guy is a flincher a guy is a flincher. So, I was wrong.
Knox was hot at first, but when tasked he tanked. I was for limiting him when he dropped off. I guess that didn´t register.
Greg Olsen is a smooth tight-end. Apparently he is not heavy-duty. Another fallacy within their system.
I must admit the other receivers were non entities to me. I don´t believe that Bennett or Aramoshadu are as good as advertised at this point, though.
In terms of rushing, my assessment that Matt Forte in a single back is non sense, he´s a finesse runner. I called for an I-Formation, with Jay Cutler as a dual threat QB. What they got is evident.
I´m sticking with my assertion, that in Denver Jay Cutler played up, masterfully adapting the dink and dunk with occasional highlights down the field. And that in Chicago he played entirely downhill, that is: trapped in the pocket, no rushing option, all receivers down field all the time, no option for reception in front or in back of the defender.
I usually accept these predicaments as training to hone his skill. But what they did to him was ridiculous, to include letting the occasional defender penetrate, probably in a mislead attempt to keep him sharp.
I won´t apologize for calling the so vaunted and accomplished Orlando Pace a beefed up basketball center, the guy is like 7 foot tall. I knew there was trouble on the horizon when they insisted he should be their line of sight Offensive Tackle.
I feel a little guilty, because since I had no way of being sufficiently informed about Jay Cutler, without joining the Bears website forum. The Broncos haven´t allowed me to cancel my profile there, for example. Right now, I feel like Trautman in Rambo.
How is my Green Beret doing?
All I will say
is great work with all of this information.
This just proves also that QB is the toughest job in sports.
I’ve been putting together a repeat of your work using FO data, and before I finish I’m coming to a few conclusions:
1. Your data does not go back far enough, therefore you’re drafted QB data is skewed towards younger careers. That would logically favor first round picks, as they get started earlier. I’d try to take it back to 95 or so.
2. Your sample size is probably too small. Again, taking it back an extra five years will give you much better data.
3. You should break down the second and third round QBs the way you did the first round QBs, to highlight any differences there. It’s not fair to compare first versus the field in failure/bust rate, as those late picks are anchoring rounds two and three. This will require a larger sample size, though.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
i think danvail’s third point is a good one. lumping in a 6th round qb with a 2nd round qb severely hinders the 2nd round guy.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Feb 12, 2010 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
Anyone who thinks that Tom Brady is in Peyton Manning’s class needs to slow down.
Tell that to the people on the Pats blog. Its hilarious how much they try to say that Brady is 10x the QB Manning is.
by TheRealSlimShady on Feb 12, 2010 12:13 PM EST reply actions
I am willing to listen to any arguments for saving the running QB.
Steve Young.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 12, 2010 1:41 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Difference between an awesome QB that happens to be able to run. And a guy who is an incredibly good athlete that happens to be a QB.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Right. Steve Young was a great passer who could also run when he needed to. That’s different than guys like Vick and Young.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 12, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed, but Steve Young started out as much more of a runner — he was transitioned into a pocket passer who could run when he needed to. Ideally, that is exactly what you would have wanted to happen to Vick & Vince Young (and I guess it is still possible with both of them). Steve Young was almost certainly a better runner than Vince Young. (See also Randall Cunningham who made the same transition as Young, but was not as good a passing QB as Steve Young — very, very few were so it’s hard to fault Randall for not begin as good as Steve Young.)
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 12, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
I did see some improvement from VY. although he was not on any of the levels of QB B19K pointed out, he just missed level one by .3 on his completion percentage. he has shown much improvement as a passer. compared to the first 2 years where he started, he is passing it about 3-5 more times a game and running it one less time.
this shows (and I noticed this watching him play) that he might evolve into more than vick was. vick looked at his first couple options and if they weren’t open, ran for it. VY looks like he is trying to go through the progressions more. I also feel like this is more of a running team than a couple years ago (see: Chris Johnson) and he still was able to pass the ball more than in previous years. the running game had emerged and he still passed more than before.
He’s my favorite QB.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 12, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t really consider Young a running QB. After all, his rushing attempts look very similar to Donovan McNabb’s.
I was thinking more along the lines of Vick and Young.
Like Brad and Ryan mention, I think McNabb and Young are QB’s that run only when nothing is available downfield. Vick and Young run when their first option is covered.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 12, 2010 4:40 PM EST up reply actions
I am guessing Steve young and Mcnabb, Vick and Vince young. I just noticed the last names are the same.
I think VY is very close to being a good QB if he is going to improve on this season. he was .3% in his completion percentage away from 59%. he also had a positive TD/INT ratio and 7.3 yards per attempt. he is on the way to being an actual solid QB though IMO and he was borderline being in your 3rd tier this year.
but still, Steve young is a different type of running QB.
also, on your last part, VY looks through all of his options a lot more than he used to. in his starts in his first 2 seasons, he averaged about 6.3 rushes a game. this year, he was about 5. it isn’t a huge change but it shows he is actually looking to his receivers more. he also has about 3 more pass attempts a game this season compared to previous seasons. not a huge change, but it shows a trend towards staying in the pocket more (if this season was any indication).
You were right about the Young’s I listed. My fault about that.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 12, 2010 5:47 PM EST up reply actions
I think you are forgetting how good a runner Steve Young was in light of his success as a passer. He was a much, much better runner than McNabb — way ahead of him. He could have been a running back in the NFL; he was that good. (And he did line up at RB in the USFL at times.)
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 12, 2010 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
I think you are forgetting how poor of a passer Young was in the USFL.
Young ran, but was never a run first QB. He has never had more than 76 rushing attempts in his career. He could run, but he wasn’t reliant on the skill like Vick and VYoung.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 12, 2010 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
I guess the argument is circular, and I think we basically agree. Vick and VYoung rely on the run because they can’t pass like S.Young (as did S. Young when he was not as good a passer).
When I think of “running QB’s” I think of Steve Young and Randall Cunningham — guys who were better-than-average passers (with S. Young being a HOF passer). I’d still say pretty confidently that Steve Young and Randall were better runners than Vince Young (though not Vick). They just did not need to rely on that as much because they could pass much better than Vince Young (and it’s not out of the question that Vince Young can develop into a good pocket passer, though I’d probably bet against it).
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 12, 2010 6:34 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t really consider Young a running QB.
That’s insane.
Steve Young is WAY better than McNabb.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 12, 2010 8:55 PM EST up reply actions
I agree.
I don’t understand what that has to do with a QB being a running QB or not. If anything I think McNabb got better when he stopped running so much. The same could be said for Cunningham.
S.Young averaged 62 rushes in the seasons in which he made more than 8 starts. That is 4 carries a game. Not just rushes, but that includes scrambles as well. That is about 1 more carry a game than Ben Roethlisberger and Jay Cutler.
Steve Young could run, that doesn’t mean he was a run first QB.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 12, 2010 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
agreed
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 13, 2010 1:55 AM EST up reply actions
So I am not ready to discount him or “the running QB” as a viable player.
As long as you have some sort of balance and the ability to keep the defense from concentrating their efforts on one particular thing, you are fine.
Vick was never a good passer. But if he is running for 7.2 YPC, he doesn’t have to be anything above average.
I agree we’ve seen that the running qb is a perfectly fine type of player, i’m just guessing its hard to design an offense around it because its something no one has really done before, and for this reason teams may just want to avoid that type of player.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Feb 14, 2010 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
Teams design offenses around that type of guy in college all the time. And it works. Tebow, Pat White, Rich Rod’s entire career, Alex Smith to an extent, Pryor, any of Paul Johnson’s teams, etc. etc. There are blueprints for it everywhere.
It would be incredibly ballsy (and very high-risk, as in “risking your entire career”) to bring something like that into the NFL, but Vick won a lot of games with not a lot of great talent around him in a mostly normal offense.
but doesn’t OSU run more of a pro style with pryor? granted they do run a little shotgun and spread but I believe they run more pro style than Rich Rod, Meyer with tebow or smith. Granted, I was not able to watch every single buckeyes game, but from what I watched, it seemed like they ran a decent amount of pro style.
They tried that in the beginning of the year. At the end of the year, they were in the gun a lot more.
They’ve always run some form of the option with him. He is clearly a better runner than passer (or at least was at the end of this season). His passing isn’t bad (anymore), but he is 6’6", 240, with a monster stiff arm, underrated suddenness, and the longest stride/fastest top end speed of anyone out there.
He is still bad at whatever sort of progressions OSU has him make, and if the first or second option isn’t there, he’ll take off and destroy you. When you start blitzing or if you spy him with two defenders, then he can probably beat you with the pass.
Alex Smith, I wouldn’t know because I never watched Utah except for one or two games.
Pat White, probably.
But this isn’t about a “pro style” offense vs. not. This is about making a run-first QB successful. I think it is clear that as of the end of this season, Pryor was more consistent and more dangerous when he was running the ball, regardless of system. I would not feel hesitant at all to call him a run-first QB at this point.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’m thinking it’s easier for a QB to win a game with his arm than with his legs. While Vick made many spectacular plays with his legs, when it comes to a big game, I think a good team can more easily take away the legs of a QB when needed than their arm plus the 3 or more receivers (+/- runningbacks) or tight ends.
I always wondered how much work Vick put in on his passing (less so after reading the article with his comments about his time in Atlanta). Everyone knows he has a strong arm and I think he will definitely be starting somewhere in the future, and with success if he puts in the work that he needs to in the passing game.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I disagree. You have to be able to have balance in either situation. If the defense begins to stack 8 or 9 in the box, or spy the QB, etc. you have to be able to pass. But passing in that situation becomes a lot easier because of the threat of the run.
A good defense can severely limit the run or the pass, and a good offense has to be able to take advantage when the D commits too much of its resources to one or the other. It doesn’t matter which one you do to set up the other, you have to be able to do both.
That’s what I meant was needed. Balance in my opinion would make an awesome QB. However I don’t think that right now there is a balanced QB.
What I was trying to describe is a QB who can run but who isn’t that great of a passer. To me it would be easier for the defense to take away the QBs running forcing that QB to pass because they know that QB isn’t as skilled at passing. Whereas in most situations that I see a defense does not make much effort to stop most QBs from running, because most can’t, but we still see QBs able to lead a comeback.
Maybe i’m not being clear but i feel it’s easier for a QB to throw the ball down the field than to run the ball play after play themselves.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Not a balanced QB, a balanced offense.
If you have a QB that can’t pass at all, and is only a threat to run, you don’t have a QB, you have a RB. I am not talking about that kind of guy.
However, we’ve even seen one of those types of players (runner who is probably only a threat to throw to a wide-open guy) run a pretty effective part-time offense in Miami. And I am talking about someone who can throw better than that.
Yes, you see QBs who can’t run lead their teams to comebacks all the time. However, draws, screens, and other types of counters can be most effective in those situations, so if the D commits too much to the pass, you can burn them. In fact, weren’t those the situations that made Vick the most dangerous? You could play 2-deep man, but then he could take off and do superhuman things.
I was speaking of a balanced QB, because I thought we were sticking to what the QB individually as far as attacking the defense.
The truth is outside of Vick and Young there aren’t any of the so called running QBs in recent memory (after McNair’s time) who if I was a defense I would be worried about beating me. I would go man on their receivers, and spy the QB, maybe by disguising a line backer in zone coverage to influence the QB to run and force him to either read that he is being spied or make a quick decision once he realizes it.
I just don’t see any QBs outside of Vick and Young in the league right now who I would fear if I were a defense.
Looking forward Pryor definitely would scare me with his legs, but I haven’t seen many of their games just highlights of his running and a deep ball here and there so i’m not too sure on his ability to read a defense or throw the ball efficiently. Tebow, if I had an NFL defense (speed and size) would not scare me much as i see him more as a power runner as opposed to someone who is going to make someone miss.
If i’m a defense I’m making that player beat me with his weakness, and I don’t see many current players that i would think would actually be able to do that on a consistent basis that would warrant an offense being built around them.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Also I think Vick is an exception and I was a huge fan of his, but it pisses me off he was so lazy (admitted in retrospect) and made such poor decisions off the field. With his arm strength and athletic ability he could have done big still things, heck he still has the ability to do some great things.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
OK… I tried to re-create some of this using FO data. I took the idea that there were around 360 starts, and broke apart three tiers. I did this a little differently than you, though. From the pool of all QBs from 1999 to 2009 that threw at least 100 passes in a season I broke out three tiers: top 10% (elite), top 25% (good), and top 50% (solid) of starter performances. So I had top tiers with the 36 best seasons, followed by the best 91and then the best 182 seasons. Those tiers were defined as:
Tier 1: DYAR at least 1200 and DVOA at least 24%
Tier 2: DYAR at least 725 and DVOA at least 12.5%
Tier 3: DYAR at least 290 and DVOA at least 1%
I scored them a bit differently as well. I left out the bonus for longevity, as I find it redundant. Players can accumulate scores by posting multiple seasons. Who cares that Carr stuck around sucking for 5 seasons? He’s already been outclassed by younger players, and the scores should reflect that. Posting an elite season counted for 9 points, a good season 4 points, and a solid season 1 point.
Round one results (picture is easier to view, I can post data if you want it):

Picks 1 to 14 averaged 6.6 points under this system, picks 15 to 32 averaged 8.7 (clearly impacted by Brees). Miss rates were 47% and 46%, so statistically identical, again proving your point via separate data.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
by danvail on Feb 12, 2010 3:08 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Really interesting chart – easy to read and understand. One could quibble with your scoring method, but I suspect that massaging it in minor ways wouldn’t substantially change the results. If you take Brees as an outlier, which I really think he is, then only 4 of the other top 12 guys here were drafted below the midpoint of the first round. Of those, Pennington and Flacco were drafted near the midpoint, in what I might call the “midpoint group” (picks 14-18, perhaps). Again, more evidence that the most successful guys tend to come from the top portion of the first round. However, that’s probably more a correlation than a causative factor, since there is also an admitted group of high choices clustered near the mid-bottom of the chart: the busts. Tends to confirm what we probably all suspected: choosing a QB in picks 1-8, for example, is a high-risk, high-reward proposition.
Props to B19K as well for starting this interesting discussion.
Well, I like that B19K expounded on the last entry and used pick 14 as the cutoff. I won’t quibble with that, especially since the financial reasoning is well explained. You independently defined a cutoff, so stick with it.
You can’t treat Brees as an outlier, because unfortunately we don’t have enough data to know what an outlier is. That’s one of the big problems with small sample sizes.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
Yeah, I recognize that. SSS can be a problem in this type of analysis, but expanding the sample size can present problems, since you can’t assume that the same conditions prevailed in the NFL say, 20 years ago, so direct comparison of a player’s numbers is risky. I wasn’t actually thinking of Brees as a statistical outlier: I was taking a lazier method, which essentially is “well, he sure looks like an outlier to me.” What my advisor used to call “interoptical validity” (meaning it looks about right.)
Apparently, though, don’t pick a QB with #22.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
First of all, Rec.
Secondly, I like the idea of giving more emphasis to an elite season. I am surprised that Cullpepper ranked as low as he did.
If you don’t mind, could I convince you to email me this stuff? I would love to show it to the other guys.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 12, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
Where is peyton manning on this list?
by Uriah33 on Feb 12, 2010 5:07 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
By the way, other notable totals over the last 11 seasons:
Manning, P 78
Warner 37
Favre 33
Brady 44
Garcia 16
Green 36
Romo 23
McNair 24
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
Devils advocacy:
1. Your formula does not include a way of measuring how much of the offense is on the QB’s shoulders. What Peyton is doing, in my eyes, is even more impressive because teams know the Colts won’t run much. Hypothetically, a guy who plays in a Georgia Tech-esque offense could easily reach your criteria. More likely in the NFL, someone like Sanchez could do it.
2. Along those same lines, I’d like something like success rate over YPA. A lot of teams will now pass on 3rd and 3, and 3 yards in that situation is a successful play, but well below the 7ypa that you look for.
Really, both those points come from the same underlying question: what does a team ask of it’s QB? Quarterbacks should be rewarded for doing what their team needs them to do (this is probably what being a “winner” boils down to) but Quarterbacks who are asked to do a lot and then succeed should be rewarded much more. Even if a QB is asked to do a lot for his offense but doesn’t come up with the numbers you’d like, he should be rewarded slightly.
If you just so happen to be a solid QB on a great running team, the defense will commit more resources to the run, and even if your metric adjusts itself depending on the defense you face, you will have an easier time throwing the ball vs. a team like the Colts.
One of the best ways to get your passing YPA up is to run more.
3. There will always be too small a sample size for this by definition, but I still think it is much more likely to find an elite QB in the top half of the first. Maybe good QBs come around as often in the second half, but the elite guys out there are Manning, Rivers, Brees, and Brady. Two of those four are from the top 5. It would seem to make at least a little sense that with the definite added risk in the top 5, there is potential for additional reward.
4. I think longevity is counted twice. If you are good for a long time, maybe you should get a bonus. But Carr shouldn’t get the longevity bonus, because he was bad for a long time.
It seems that a growing consensus is against the the bonus for longevity.
I have no problem with getting rid of it.
As for the part about how much of an offense is on a QB’s shoulders, does anyone know of a good way to quantify this? Maybe run offense vs. pass offense? Like you said, Peyton is working with the 32nd run offense and still somehow has the 1st passing offense. That is more impressive as a QB than the vis-versa.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 12, 2010 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
stupid asterick-induced bolding… hope this page doesn’t get infected with the ebolda virus as well.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
How do they do it?
People bash yards as a stat all the time—and rightfully so—but they can give us a better picture. Percentage of a team’s total yards? Percentage of a team’s plays as pass plays?
I really only know of good ways to measure run vs pass balance, not so much how to measure the absolute talent through the air or on the ground.
Well the formulas they use are proprietary, and neither DVOA nor DYAR do much in the way of separating this out. There are other metrics they’ve developed, though, that do. For instance, the Adjusted Line Yards stat, which tries to measure the impact of the OL on running plays:
"…none of the statistics we use for measuring rushing — yards, touchdowns, yards per carry — differentiate between the contribution of the running back and the contribution of the offensive line. Neither do our advanced metrics DVOA and DYAR.
We have enough data amassed that we can try to separate the effect that the running back has on a particular play from the effect of the offensive line (and other offensive blockers) and the effect of the defense. A team might have two running backs in its stable: RB A, who averages 3.0 yards per carry, and RB B, who averages 3.5 yards per carry. Who is the better back? Imagine that RB A doesn’t just average 3.0 yards per carry, but gets exactly 3 yards on every single carry, while RB B has a highly variable yardage output: sometimes 5 yards, sometimes -2 yards, sometimes 20 yards. The difference in variability between the runners can be exploited to not only determine the difference between the runners, but the effect the offensive line has on every running play. "
There are further explanations here, but my suggestion to the research team is to use DVOA and DYAR, and possibly some combination of other related metrics like Adjusted Line Yards (for RBs) or Adjusted Sack Rate (for QBs). More importantly, add in some means of totaling performances amongst the top offensive units or players for each team and then determining which aspect is how much of the load. For example, add together DYAR for the QB(s), top three WRs, top TE, top two RBs, and some adjustment of Adjusted Line Yards to account for the OL, then divide amongst each individual component (QB, TE, etc) and rank them amongst their peers. I think you’d find guys like Rivers shouldering a larger load than say, Flacco.
To be perfectly frank, though, Rufio, the individual stats don’t adjust as much as I thought. They’re more geared towards providing a comparison between a specific player and an average replacement within a given offense while valuing things like first down completions, touchdown receptions, and fumbles (not just fumbles lost).
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
So would something like % of offensive touches or % of offensive yards be appropriate to include in the discussion when discussing individual players?
It would, but I think using percentage of offensive DYAR might be the best if you were only going to add one stat. That way, you’re getting the benefit of the thought put into that stat and still measuring the contribution of an individual portion of the unit.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
Really good article. Out of curiosity, how long does it take you to do the research for one of these? It sounds so complicated.
" I was firmly in the camp of draft a QB later on and let him develop then watch him become awesome."
Me too. And, like you, this convinced me otherwise.
The numbers do show that it is better to draft a QB early.
IMO It’s iffy. What was it… 9% of late drafties end up being good? I would rather pay nothing for a shot at that 9% than get Russell’ed, Leaf’ed, or Couch’ed (again).
Every single person in the draft is a hit-or-miss. I wouldn’t rely too much on the numbers, but it’s still a useful tool.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 12, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
The hardest part is trying to figure out what measurements we should use for a player being good or not.
Profootballreference.com is by far the greatest tool any football fan could ever ask for when it comes to something like this.
Without that website, I would probably still be in the fact checking phase of this.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 12, 2010 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
I heard he originally said that he’d keep growing it until he threw his first TD pass in the NFL. Considering he said that when he was first drafted, I thought it’d be bushier….
by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 12, 2010 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It depends on what we consider a running QB.
I think there is a big difference between a running QB and a QB who can run.
Most QB’s who come into the league as a “running QB” either learn to stay in the pocket (McNabb, Cunningham) or never learn and never really matter as NFL passers (Vick, Bobby Douglass, Vince Young).
Personally, I would like my QB to be mobile enough to move around in the pocket, but not be foolish and run when his first option isn’t open.
Most of these college running QB’s are drafted at other positions (Kordell Stewart, Matt Jones, Hines Ward) or drafted and worked on for seasons to turn them into pocket passers (Dennis Dixon, Tim Tebow, McNabb). If NFL teams are doing there best to keep their QB’s in pocket, I think that says something.
I don’t like running QB’s. I think they aren’t worth the amount of time and work they usually need.
I wouldn’t trade Brady Quinn for Vince Young. I wouldn’t draft a running QB. Maybe I would sign a running QB later on in his career. Just a personal thing I guess.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 13, 2010 3:18 AM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t be too harsh on Young, he came on strong at the end of the year. He could still become quite useful.
I would absolutely trade Quinn for VY.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
Yup. Young played quite well this year with the Titans and most people say he’s much improved as a passer (I haven’t seen him play much this year so I can’t speak for myself). He had more TD’s than interceptions for the first time in his career and his YPA (7.3) was much higher than it’s ever been. I’m not saying he’s going to be Steve Young but I think he’s improved quite a bit as a passer over the past few years. (Of course, having the best RB in the NFL on his team probably helps, too.)
And I would definitely trade Quinn for him right now. Too bad the Titans never would.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 13, 2010 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
while i agree with your point and i know what you meant, this made me laugh:
(I haven’t seen him play much this year so I can’t speak for myself)
I think he’s improved quite a bit as a passer
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Feb 14, 2010 9:51 AM EST up reply actions
I like Vince Young. I think his problem was that he was a young QB who struggled with the pressure of being a star (maybe has some kind of anxiety issue) and went a bit crazy for a bit, got his stuff together and came back and played well. If that deal is on the table I would take it and throw in Ratliff and DA.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Also don’t forget Vince Young didn’t have the benefit of Johnson and that great Titans D his rookie year and when the D improved he helped to lead them to the playoffs his second year. His third year he got injured, Johnson showed up, the D showed up big time and they go 13-3. Last year he returns midway through the season and leads them to a respectable showing.
The two years before Vince arrived the Titans were horrible. Obviously their success was not all because of Vince but i would imagine that if a QB leads your team to an improved record his rookie season and then the playoffs the next, that you would do everything in your power to help improve his shortcomings (passing efficiency, ints). I mean just look at how willing some people are to keep giving Quinn reps here. Oh and I know the disdain for win loss records, however Vince is not Dilfer and is still a fairly young QB.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
My big problem with this is Vick’s career YPC. 7.2. If anything, he should have been running more. Once defenses adjusted to that and his YPC started coming down in a given game or season, then you use that threat to open up other things: runs for others, much, much easier passes. He was never a great passer, but he didn’t need to be. A QB just needs to be good enough to keep defenses honest and off-balance. If that means run first, why not?
Obviously, this would have to be more of a theoretical discussion, because no one really does this in the NFL. I have no NFL stats to back up the argument I might make in theory. I just think preemptively casting aside the run-first QB in the NFL is foolish. It’s not like Rich Rod has tried and failed in the NFL, people are just to afraid to let their QB run. When someone who had nothing to lose tried something known as a “college offense”, it worked. Gruden loves the spread. The Pats, Saints, and Colts are all running from the shotgun more than anyone thought an NFL team could.
I don’t want a run-first QB either, per se, but theoretically, why not?
I think the attempt to limit Vick’s running was because the Falcons felt he wouldn’t last injury wise playing that way. Especially for the amount of money they would be paying him. At the time Vick was beyond a franchise player. He had that city in the palm of his hands. That to me is what makes his actions so stupid and his downfall so great. It’s also why I think he will still be successful in the NFL.
He was that good.
Obviously his speed will decline, but he still has the arm strength and if Cutler can chuck the ball all over the field and continue to get PT, I’m certain that Vick has the drive and the ability to make himself a better passer to do the same. Not too mention the amount of teams that continue to suck at acquiring QBs and will always reach for an old vet with a strong arm.
Vick’s only obstacle will be his transgressions, as I feel some will never forgive him for them (not that i’m saying that they have to) and that this will cause some teams to stay away from him.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
The only real theoretical argument you gave was the only one that I think an NFL team can give against the running QB: injuries. You would have to have 2 or maybe even 3 guys in case one went down.
But guys like Pat White who aren’t traditional NFL passers are a dime a dozen right now.
I don’t care about Vick’s individual transgressions in this argument. I don’t care about him specifically. I am still looking for good theoretical arguments against the run-first QB in the NFL.
My bad I was speaking more about Vick individually in that post.
As far as arguments against a run-first QB, the only things outside of injuries that I can think of is that it seems most of them have always been the most athletic and have not been made, or given the chance to improve other facets of their game and as with Vick, laziness.
Why after a heisman trophy and the success Tebow had at Florida does he still have that jacked up delivery and the inability to take snaps under center. It makes no sense that Tebow never learned anything necessary about being a professional QB his entire career.
My answer would be that Florida didn’t need him to be good at those things and therefore didn’t do anything to help him get better.
Maybe the answer is that a QB who shows the athletic ability to be a running threat needs to get a personal tutor during the offseason to help prepare them for the NFL.
Personally I think Vince Young if given the work can be one of the guys that can become a successful run first QB. I think there can be successful run first QBs, but I feel they miss out on some of the important developmental things that other QBs get because they can get by on their athletic ability. In the league everyone is fast and defenses are smart.
I guess the key is there is a difference between a run-first QB and a run QB. I think most of what we see are run QBs.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Where does Steve McNair fit into all this?
by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 15, 2010 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
he was a running QB, but he was not run first like Vick. He was somewhere in between Vick and McNabb. He ran it more than mcnabb but much less than vick. His running style and preference to run probably lies somewhere between McNabb and Cunningham (or jeff garcia).
McNair was fairly big and didn’t have elite speed but was hard to bring down. he ran it more than McNabb but less than most “running QBs”. Cunningham, tarkenton, and steve young all average about 5-5.8 passes per rush. Jeff garcia averaged about 6.2, McNabb averaged about 8, and McNair was slightly under 7.
So McNair ran more than McNabb but not as much as some other QBs that scrambled more. If I had to compare him to a guy I would say a more talented version of jeff garcia for a few reasons.
1. They had similar pass/rush ratios
2. They both did not have elite arms that stretched the field like McNabbs (though McNair’s was very good).
3. They both were more of game managers when it came to throwing the ball, they were pretty accurate and much more accurate than most running QBs.
4. Both had over a 60% career completion percentage for their career (compared to 57% by tarkenton, 56% by cunningham, 59% for mcnabb, 53% for vick, 57% for VY, and 55% for flutie). in general, most scrambling QBs tended to also have a good arm, but weren’t extremely accurate (steve young is also an exception).
5. They both for most of their careers were game managers who truly did not stretch the field. Between them only one 4,000 yard passing season and only 2 seasons with 30 TDs.
6. They both only had 1-2 seasons of being a truly elite QB but many seasons where they were a good starter that did many things for the team.
7. They were also both good at protecting the ball from being turned over (mostly INTs)…
My answer would be that Florida didn’t need him to be good at those things and therefore didn’t do anything to help him get better.
This is exactly what I am talking about.
Tebow won’t succeed in the NFL because no one in the NFL runs that offense. But there is no reason they couldn’t.
It is the same game. Sure, screens would be a little less effective because of the rules differences, but it’s the same game.
Again, I am not talking about what HAS happened, just would could or could not happen.
I think the defenses are better and that the coaches will be able to scheme better to stop him. For fear of being called a Tebow hater, I don’t think he would be able to do what he did in college in the pros in any system due to there being better athletes on defense.
As far as why no one in the NFL runs that offense, I would say a few reasons would because they don’t have to and I don’t believe it would be overly beneficial to do so and who would do it.
The NFL doesn’t have to run an offense of that type because every year they have more players trying to make it to the NFL than they need so there is less impetus for a team to attempt to run an offense that would benefit one type of player, when they can choose from other offenses that will give them a larger talent pool to choose from. If you create an offense centered around a Tebow-type player as your QB, you have to pray that QB doesn’t get injured and that they actually produce because you are unlikely to find an adequate replacement anytime soon, as evidence look to the difficulty that teams have just finding a QB that can throw the ball well enough, and that is the traditional role of a QB.
As far as it being beneficial, where is the benefit of implementing a Tebow Offense (?). Is it to get Tebow in the league? To win games? If it’s to win games, I would say again you better be sure you have the One and that he can suit up every game.
Who would do it? What coach is going to risk their career in an attempt to develop an offense around a player with a limited skill set, especially when the pool of players that possess that skill set is severely limited?
Personally, I think it would be entertaining to see someone attempt for the fact that it would be different. Realistically, how would you find a QB to run the offense, can a scheme be developed to attack the bigger, smarter, and faster players and schemes in the NFL, how do you develop your roster offensively.
Hopefully this is more on task than my other posts dealing with individual players.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Again, not saying it should be done, just that it could be done.
There is nothing about the NFL game that kills the run-first QB as a theoretical player.
What I was saying is that any perfect statistical measure of QBs should address running the football if running is their game. Theoretically, a QB who ran first could be better than a QB who passed first. The stats should allow for that.
There is not a lot of incentive for NFL teams to go to a “college” offense as a full-time offense. High risk, low reward. It would be a hard sell to players, fans, the owner, the press, etc.
Now, if someone wanted to run an offense in the NFL with a lot of running by QBs, here would be my gameplan:
1. Counter the bigger, stronger, faster athletes on D with your own on O. Bigger, faster guys on the field effectively shrinks the playing area, so adjust matchups and formations accordingly so…
2. Make adjustments. Micro-level changes win in the NFL. The same micro-level tweaks and adjustments would need to be made to a run-first QB offense as are made to regular offenses now.
3. Get 2 or 3 quarterbacks. You wouldn’t need the one invincible guy, you’d need several guys who would command a fraction of normal starting QB money. They must be able to make some throws, but nothing like Manning or Brees.
4. The benefit of these multiple QBs would be that they would be hypothetically easier to find, with less risk involved. You pretty much want to draft a normal QB in the first. You are really lucky if you find a QB after that who is any good. But there are a whole bunch of successful college QBs who play in spread-to-run offenses who are available late. Low risk draft picks, easier to get several of them. Maybe you even stash a guy until midway through the season to save him the wear and tear. The elite QB is the rarest player in the NFL, this is one way to get around that.
5. Saving your higher picks for other positions, you can improve the rest of your team. By changing what you value, you can find guys that you rate higher much later.
6. You must have balance. If the defense thinks you are going to run, you must be able to beat them in some way when they stack the line.
7. Be really freakin charismatic. The players have to buy in. People will think you are crazy. You have to be smart enough to sound smart about what you are doing without giving away too much information to your opponent.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I agree that anything is possible
1. Counter the bigger, stronger, faster athletes on D with your own on O. Bigger, faster guys on the field effectively shrinks the playing area, so adjust matchups and formations accordingly so…
However, isn’t this what all teams look for?
Maybe you can seek out receivers/and running backs who are threats to pass the ball, or atleast train/practice them so that they can be comfortable doing so and going after pass catching tight ends who can be more easily utilized as safety valves. I’m thinking if the offense is fearing some type of nontraditional running play they might be hesitant to blitz to often for fear of misreading the play and getting beat deep, so your tight ends would not have to be great blockers. Maybe?
Now, if someone wanted to run an offense in the NFL
with a lot of running by QBs, here would be my gameplan:
3. Get 2 or 3 quarterbacks. You wouldn’t need the one invincible guy, you’d need several guys who would command a fraction of normal starting QB money. They must be able to make some throws, but nothing like Manning or Brees.
I think this would help alleviate the injury problem, as I think if Pat White did what he does on a greater scale he will break in half. However can the talent pool get deep enough to sustain this?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
4. The benefit of these multiple QBs would be that they would be hypothetically easier to find, with less risk involved. You pretty much want to draft a normal QB in the first. You are really lucky if you find a QB after that who is any good. But there are a whole bunch of successful college QBs who play in spread-to-run offenses who are available late. Low risk draft picks, easier to get several of them. Maybe you even stash a guy until midway through the season to save him the wear and tear. The elite QB is the rarest player in the NFL, this is one way to get around that.
The reason I said the talent pool would be small above is because I feel a necessity for this type QB is that they have to be approaching elite level speed. I don’t think you can have a QB who if a lineman gets loose would be able to chase them down. I would also be hesitant to draft a guy who was not faster than a LB (normal LB speed, not freak pro bowl linebacker speed).
My reason for this is because if the QB doesn’t have this great speed would a defense need to worry about them with more than their line and a linebacker? Could they even play an extra DB to spy the QB, if the QB isn’t all that big?
5. Saving your higher picks for other positions, you can improve the rest of your team. By changing what you value, you can find guys that you rate higher much later.
I think theoretically this is good, but if you can find a good QB, you won’t have to keep drafting QBs. Obviously some suck at doing this, but would trust these same people to make decisions on drafting multiple QBs to fill a non-traditional QB role?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
6. You must have balance. If the defense thinks you are going to run, you must be able to beat them in some way when they stack the line.
I think this is the route the Titans should take with Vince Young. The less passing decisions he has to make the better. If CJ’s talent can decrease the amount of snaps where Young has to make decisions, and you couple that with some designed runs, you expose Young to fewer passing decisions.
I think the problem for most run-talented QBs has been that their coaches bang their heads against the wall trying to get them to become Joe Montana instead of embracing their running ability in their schemes, and gradually improving their passing ability through training and practice, without the added stress of it being absolutely essential for gameday success.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
What happened to good ol’ fashioned QB Rating for evaluating performance? How differently do the performace metrics compare when all is said and done?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Feb 13, 2010 9:43 AM EST via mobile reply actions
A valid point, considering the four metrics it uses to calculate are Completion %, YPA, TD/Attempt, and INT/attempt. B19K uses the same metrics, just not adjusted the same way. If you used that, you’d probably get very similar results, except QB rating would do what notthatnoise wanted and allow you to be lower in one area if you make up for it in others. That may or may not be a good thing.
Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.
problem with QB rating
is that it over values percentage completion. I personally think that YPA and Completion rating should get the same value; and that TD% and INT% should also be equal in value. Right now the dink and dunk WCO types have an advantage in QB rating.
I think some of this analysis is very interesting, but when measuring the value of spots in the first round (I should probably have put this on the last post) it feels like your understating some very important factors. While it may be true that QBs in the latter half of the first round provide the same success rate as QBs in the first half of the first round, that may not be entirely due to the players “value” as a prospect. There are two other important factors I can think of…
1) Teams with better records tend to have better scouting departments. To be in the top half of the draft, it usually means you have a bad record (or you traded, obviously). We’ll call this the Al Davis factor. Did anyone really think Darrius Heyward-Bey was worth the 7th overall pick last year? Anyone? A different team might have made better value with this pick. You can make the same argument about other teams with notoriously bad management (the Lions come to mind), they’ve drafted repeatedly in the top 10 and repeatedly made poor decisions. Teams that regularly draft late, on the other hand, have better scouting departments and make better draft decisions, which makes lower 1st round picks appear more valuable.
2) Player Development. There was a great great article on Football Outsiders by Mike Tanier about this. Read it, eveyone. I think Mike Tanier over-generalizes, and underestimates the number of really top talents there are in the draft. When he said that the sure thing athletes were all gone after the 5th pick, I really doubt that. Nevertheless, the article is still brilliant and really lays out the importance of player development after the draft… And this also helps to explain why lower first round picks appear to do as well as higher first round picks.
So, how do we solve this problem? It’s not easy, but in statistics there is this concept called panel data, where you essentially measure what you’re looking for trying to hold everything else as constant as possible. The best implementation of this might be to break down all 32 NFL teams and compare their 1-16 picks with their 17-32 picks. That’s an incredible amount of work, but it will help eliminate the bias in your analysis that’s being caused due to the two factors I listed above.
Even if you could/do successfully eliminate those factors from this analysis, I don’t think you can ever nail down causality, which is really the heart of what you are getting at. This will always be a correlation, won’t it?
I don’t think that’s necessarily true.
The solution I suggested (perhaps slightly altered) eliminates the “organization quality” part of the puzzle, since we’re comparing picks made by the same team. We might have a problem with some of the worse teams because they keep changing their coaching staffs, but restricting to teams would still have a large impact, and restricting to GMs might also be feasible (how long was Matt Millen GM of Detroit?). Certainly the successful teams, which were listed earlier as Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and New England, have been willing to draft in the top half of the round, and have often found great success. I can go over this analysis for Baltimore off the top of my head since 1996… We’ll do 1996-2006 and use Pro Bowl as a metric (it’s terrible, I know, but I need something) Four years is plenty of time to reach the Pro Bowl. The three discounted players were in the bottom half of the first round and did not reach the Pro-Bowl, so including them would only lead the analysis in favor of early 1st round picks.
First round : 1-16, Ogden, Boulware, McCallister, Starks, J. Lewis, Taylor, Suggs, Ngata.
First round : 17-32, R. Lewis, Ed Reed, Todd Heap, Kyle Boller, Mark Clayton.
That’s a 75% Pro bowl rate for the first 16 Picks, and a 60% Pro Bowl rate for the next 16 picks. This is obviously a really small sample size, and by itself it doesn’t tell us that much, but if you looked at the numbers for every team… you might observe some real stuff.
The other thing observed from this is that the Ravens are absurdly good at drafting in the 1st round (their second round numbers wouldn’t be even in the same ballpark), and so may be somewhat of a bad example. In addition, the Ravens have had no problems drafting in the top half of a first round, rarely moving far to trade their picks. The only significant trade move was in 2008, where they traded number 8 to number 26 and back up to 19, almost entirely because they were positioning themselves to draft Flacco.
New England Patriots, during the Bellichek era truncated at 2006 (2001-2006)
Top 16 : Richard Seymour, Ty Warren
Bottom 16 : Daniel Graham, Benjamin Watson, Logan Mankins, Laurence Maroney.
Even smaller sample size, but you get a 50% Pro Bowl rate (and Ty Warren is really good, btw), and in the bottom you get a 25% Pro Bowl Rate.
Extending the results past the Bellicek era to 1996, you only increase these results, adding Terry Glenn to top 16 pro bowlers, and adding 5 players, only one of which was a Pro Bowler, to the bottom 16. It’s also worth noting that the only two players who made the Pro Bowl for the Patriots in the bottom of the first round drafted from 1996 to 2006 are Damien Woody, a center, and Logan Mankins, a guard, two positions that teams rarely choose to invest a 1st round pick in, and certainly rarely a top 16 pick. To do this correctly, we’d probably want to have some kind of position-value adjustment as well
Right. But there is still really no causality anywhere in the stats you talked about. Good teams make good picks, or good picks make good teams? I’d say both, but none of your numbers say anything about this.
If you are a bad team and you make good draft picks, you will eventually become a good team by definition. If you are a good team and you make bad picks, you will become a bad team by definition. Of course teams that consistently make the playoffs will have good players (who will look like good picks to us now, years after the picks were made). That’s what makes us think they are good players.
Good teams consistently develop better players…because they are good teams, or which makes them good teams? Yes.
Ah… OK, thank you, that makes more sense.
However, I believe that the kind of analysis I am suggesting actually does settle this problem. Why? Because if the two effects involved are A) Teams with better scouting/GMs make the playoffs will have gooddraft better players, and B) Teams with better players have better records, than restricting situations to the quality of players by team helps to solve that problem. How? Because drafting a better player one year, holding scouting/GM constant, does make you more likely to draft well the next year. It will make teams more likely to have a better draft spot, but by comparing a bunch of picks by the same team, we’re holding effect A constant, and basically ignoring effect B. All we’re doing is seeing how individual teams perform with late 1st round picks and early first round picks. If most teams get better players with the early first round picks than the late ones, we have a pattern. If the players are about the same when controlled for by team, we also have a pattern.
Now, if the argument is that players from winning teams are more likely to make the Pro Bowl, than yes… true. And the Pro Bowl is in fact a horrible metric, however, it’s basically the only metric we have that lets us evaluate every player at every position. That’s really valuable and so we live with the bad metric.
The important thing, however, is that nowhere am I actually attempting to predict a team’s record or glean information off of a team’s record. That’s what allows me to eliminate the concern about whether teams are getting lucky and therefore being a good team, or teams drafting well and therefore being a good team. In addition, I don’t think anyone really believes that luck in the draft is serially correlated. So just because the Browns get “lucky” when they draft Joe Thomas, doesn’t mean they’re likely to be equally “lucky” when they draft Brady Quinn.
And all this analysis can be ignored by those like Al Davis
That is the one thing you cannot really quantify- just how much does each teams drafting come down to the GM or Coach deciding he likes this guy better then that guy- despite the analysis and what the draft board for that team says. ANd sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. What would be really informative was if we could get a look at all 32 teams draft boards to see who is ranked where and then compare them to how the players actually did. Say get the draft boards for the 2005 draft and then look at how those players did in the 5 years since. Now of course THAT can be affected by coaching- but I bet it would be VERY interesting.
good post B19K; also could it be the first half of the first round is mostly done by loosing teams of the past season and the second half by the better teams? Also I believe we are looking to find a QB to fit the West coast offense or some part there of.
wbaron
Walterfootball has us taking LeFevour in the 3rd. I know this post refuted this, but I wouldn’t mind taking a shot at him. If Holgren is this big QB guru, perhaps he can find someone in those mid-rounds.
I just had a convo with a friend about this. While I do like lefevour, I would not take a flier on him in the third, but maybe the 4th b/c he still will likely be available. lefevour still needs a lot of work IMO to be an NFL QB. also, with B19Ks recent post, it shows that it is hard to find a franchise QB after the first round really. granted I think lefevour could be a good starter, but at the same time, QBs are much more hit or miss that late when compared to otheer positions.
I’ve seen some bad scouting reports on Lefavor. I am reluctant to go for him that high. Maybe 5th or later.
I would rather get rid of Anderson and acquire a veteran and wait until we find someone we feel is worth a first round pick.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I think the best thing we should do is either draft a QB at 7 (which I hate) or use this draft to rebuild key areas of this team (secondary and pass rush) and then sign a QB to compete with Quinn.
Bulger could be a FA. I would trade a 3rd and a 5th for McNabb.
We shouldn’t draft a QB in this draft.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 17, 2010 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

by 




















