RSS
Of course, Andy Dalton’s color is orange.
Back in 2003, Rush Limbaugh got fired from an NFL-related gig for pointing out that sportswriters tended to be flagrantly biased in favor of black quarterbacks.
In response, it was argued that Real Soon Now black quarterbacks would overcome racism and achieve their rightful share (i.e., the vast majority) of the top spots on the passing charts.
And besides, passing statistics are racist because they underestimate black quarterbacks’ ability to run and evade sacks.
Since then, however, blacks continue to only be represented among top NFL quarterbacks about how they are represented in the general population.
And NFL statistics have improved considerably. ESPN now offers a proprietary “QBR” figure that supposedly takes into account everything a quarterback does, including running, not getting sacked, and even luring the defense into penalties. It grades each throw the quarterback makes on the quality of the pass, not just the outcome.
Interestingly, this increased sophistication doesn’t particularly change our ideas of who is a good quarterback too much.
But in any case here are the top 20 quarterbacks five weeks into the 2015 season as ranked on ESPN QBR rating times their number of plays versus a replacement quality quarterback. I picked the top 20 because the that gives you the above average and average starting quarterbacks in the 32 team NFL. Even an average NFL starter is really good in any absolute sense. I sorted upon value over a replacement QB rather than value upon an average QB or Total QBR, even though all three are arguably the best measure. With this small of a sample size of games, the “QB PAR” column probably is least affected by small sample sizes, although by the end of the season it can be overweighted by guys who just pass a lot.
The top guy so far this year is Andy Dalton of the 5-0 Cincinnati Bengals:
| RK | PLAYER | PASS EPA | RUN EPA | SACK EPA | PEN EPA | TOTAL EPA | ACT PLAYS | QB PAR | QB PAA | TOTAL QBR |
| 1 | Andy Dalton, CIN | 37.2 | 0.8 | -3.4 | 1.6 | 36.3 | 219 | 43.9 | 26.2 | 83.7 |
| 2 | Aaron Rodgers, GB | 28.5 | 7.1 | -3.8 | 1.7 | 33.6 | 218 | 41.5 | 23.9 | 81.6 |
| 3 | Carson Palmer, ARI | 26.5 | -1.5 | -4.6 | 6.3 | 26.7 | 178 | 34.8 | 20.5 | 82.7 |
| 4 | Matt Ryan, ATL | 30.0 | 3.2 | -5.2 | 0.4 | 28.4 | 226 | 33.7 | 15.5 | 71.8 |
| 5 | Eli Manning, NYG | 27.9 | 1.8 | -3.0 | 0.4 | 27.1 | 231 | 32.0 | 13.4 | 68.7 |
| 6 | Josh McCown, CLE | 28.6 | 2.2 | -7.0 | 2.0 | 25.7 | 194 | 30.5 | 14.8 | 73.9 |
| 7 | Tom Brady, NE | 25.0 | -0.4 | -6.2 | 1.9 | 20.2 | 202 | 30.1 | 13.8 | 71.8 |
| 8 | Blake Bortles, JAX | 22.8 | 5.0 | -6.3 | 2.5 | 23.9 | 235 | 28.7 | 9.7 | 63.7 |
| 9 | Ben Roethlisberger, PIT | 20.9 | 0.0 | -1.7 | 2.1 | 21.4 | 111 | 28.1 | 19.1 | 91.3 |
| 10 | Russell Wilson, SEA | 23.3 | 5.9 | -9.8 | 0.1 | 19.5 | 220 | 24.1 | 6.4 | 59.8 |
| RK | PLAYER | PASS EPA | RUN EPA | SACK EPA | PEN EPA | TOTAL EPA | ACT PLAYS | QB PAR | QB PAA | TOTAL QBR |
| 11 | Tyrod Taylor, BUF | 14.2 | 6.5 | -6.0 | 1.0 | 15.7 | 200 | 23.7 | 7.5 | 62.6 |
| 12 | Philip Rivers, SD | 27.4 | -0.0 | -8.8 | 1.5 | 20.1 | 231 | 23.6 | 4.9 | 57.2 |
| 13 | Kirk Cousins, WSH | 19.3 | -1.8 | -2.2 | 3.2 | 18.4 | 227 | 23.4 | 5.1 | 57.6 |
| 14 | Ryan Fitzpatrick, NYJ | 13.4 | 2.4 | -0.5 | 1.1 | 16.4 | 179 | 22.3 | 7.8 | 64.5 |
| 15 | Colin Kaepernick, SF | 11.1 | 6.7 | -5.1 | 0.9 | 13.5 | 221 | 20.6 | 2.7 | 54.2 |
| 16 | Peyton Manning, DEN | 21.1 | 0.0 | -5.7 | 1.9 | 17.3 | 227 | 19.4 | 1.1 | 51.7 |
| 17 | Teddy Bridgewater, MIN | 14.8 | 5.2 | -7.4 | 2.2 | 14.8 | 151 | 19.1 | 6.9 | 65.1 |
| 18 | Derek Carr, OAK | 21.5 | -2.0 | -5.0 | 1.9 | 16.4 | 196 | 18.3 | 2.5 | 54.3 |
| 19 | Drew Brees, NO | 22.9 | -0.1 | -10.3 | 0.8 | 13.4 | 202 | 16.8 | 0.5 | 50.8 |
| 20 | Matthew Stafford, DET | 11.9 | 0.0 | -4.4 | 4.6 | 12.2 | 231 | 16.7 | -1.9 | 47.2 |
The top black quarterback is, not too surprisingly, Russell Wilson, who is one great defensive play short of winning the last two Super Bowls. Wilson is at #10. (Keep in mind that at 5’11”, Wilson is one of the few sub-6 foot quarterbacks in the league.) Tyrod Taylor of Buffalo has enjoyed a breakout season at #11, followed by half-black Colin Kaepernick at 15 and Teddy Bridgewater at 17.
So, counting Kaepernick as half black, we come up with 17.5% of the top 20 as black, with black quarterbacks more in the second ten than top ten. That’s pretty representative of the last 12 years (i.e., all the years after Limbaugh got fired.)
One interesting revelation of the new QBR figures are that there isn’t much of a correlation between being able to run for a gain and not being sacked. For example, last season the best quarterback in the league at not getting sacked, then 38-year Peyton Manning, was 3rd worst at rushing forward with the ball. Black quarterbacks who were good at gaining yards with their feet tended to lose a lot of yards to being sacked.
OT: Playboy has banned photographs of naked women from its pages. Only a few months ago, Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun ended its long-standing policy of publishing a shot of a topless woman on Page 3.
The Neo-Victorians have been gaining ground for a while.
The 'net has rendered print pornography as about as useful as horse-hauled canal barges after diesel powered trucks came on to the scene.
I have to say, the one thing that most impresses me in a quarterback is his ability to avoid doing something stupid when the game is on the line. It doesn’t even matter so much whether he actually manages to win the game, because that’s often not in his power. But I simply detest quarterbacks who just do something stupid to screw up the game — throwing an interception when there is no need to throw the ball at all, or calling a pass play when a run is obviously called for, or running out of time when a little bit of brains would make it obvious how to avoid doing so, etc. I can live with a quarterback who just misses his receivers sometimes, or lacks a certain amount of athleticism, but I really just can’t deal with quarterbacks who do stupid things. As a fan, it just drives me crazy.
And one thing I’ll say about Tom Brady: he doesn’t do a lot of stupid things, not when it’s important.
There aren’t many other quarterbacks about whom I can say that. For what it’s worth, these kinds of problems seem to be pretty common with black quarterbacks, including Russell Wilson. They make one great play after another, and then they commit some infamous boner. It would drive me out of my gourd if I was rooting for their team.
That was his pattern on the Rams as well.
It is in the NFL’s interest to keep the majority of quarterbacks white, even if blacks were more suited to the position (they aren’t.) Quarterback is the most high profile position on the team, and arguably the most singularly important. If QB demographics were to suddenly match the rest of the league, it would shatter the illusion that it is an “integrated” sport, and consequently lose a lot of white middle class fans. It would become another basketball or boxing. MMA is overtaking boxing because it is representatively white, and more suited to white abilities. Whether they say it out loud or even admit it to themselves, whites don’t like to watch sports that are completely dominated by nonwhites.
I guarantee NFL executives have had a more coded version of the above conversation on multiple occasions.
Jason Whitlock, the black sportswriter who likes to say un-black sportswriter things, has pointed out that if the NFL switches to a “black” quarterback system—i.e. a lot more rushing, juking, diving, less emphasis on field general/throwing in complicated systems/drop back and pass—then the quarterback position will diminish.
And , Whitlock isn’t blaming “racism.”
Instead, Whitlock pointed out that the quarterback-as-running-back makes them much easier targets to injure and also, inevitably, will wear out their legs a lot faster than a drop-back-and passer while, simultaneously, making their legs even more important. A drop back passer can have crappy knees, but thanks to his pass protection and rules protecting him in the pocket, a dropback quarterback with poor but manageable knees can get along to his mid-30s or beyond, but a running quarterback will be worn out just from wear and tear.
So Whilock envisions that teams will have 2-3 quarterbacks that they will just rotate into plays—in other words, the same system as the other running backs on the field. So if one gets injured, there’s a couple replacements jumping right in on the next play without any significant drop off. And the other running backs tend to be done by their late 20s.
Whitlock is basically telling blacks that if they clamor for the NFL to change the game to suit them as quarterbacks they will actually diminish their own value. “Shut up and learn the position!”
Of course, what goes unsaid is that blacks largely won’t put the effort in to learn the nuances of the position if they can’t merely physically dominate it. Once in the NFL Michael Vick couldn’t just physically push over his opponents like he did in college, and his “Madden” and ESPN-friendly highlights were belied by his stats. Steve Young had great wheels, but at least learned a system and didn’t abuse them; Tim Tebow, who himself has great wheels, is stubborn like Vick about improving himself (but at least he doesn’t abuse dogs and is nice to the public).
http://youtu.be/ykxI7SKY92o
Right now the NFL ideal qb is a tall guy with a missile launcher arm ("He can make all the throws"), and a positronic brain to make all those reads and go through checkdowns in a hurry.
If you run a "spread" offense the throws get a lot easier. Spread is kind of an ambiguous term to me, because it includes things like both Oregon's offense and Mike Leach's Air Raid.
But for the part about easier throws, the key is the qb is a threat to run. To me the biggest component of the pro defenses we've seen for about 50 years is the ability to double cover. Which is possible because the defense is playing 11 on ten, because the qb is no threat to run.
Remove this restriction and it opens up a lot of things. Obviously the defense can still double cover, but if it does, you leave a gaping weakness in another part of the field.
You really haven't seen this done in the NFL yet, aside from parts of that one miracle season Tebow had in Denver. San Francisco, Seattle, they've used parts of the college playbook, but they haven't gone full blown with it.
It is pretty standard to say it won't work in the NFL. I tend to disagree. For a long time I've had a scheme like Whitlock's in mind. Carry a number of qb's and play all of them.
And trust me, I'd run qb power 40 times in a game until Ray Lewis (or whoever) is a bloody mess.
All these black/white things aside, to me it seems to be the natural evolution of the game at this point. For a number of reasons pro set/I formation teams are really the new "gimmick" teams in college football.
Anyway I'm going to google this guy. But my thinking hasn't had a single thing to do with "devaluing the postion." I guess it does, because essentially qb would become a position more like running back, than a system where you have to have "The guy," who frankly doesn't come along very often. A whole lot more guys come out every year who could run a system like this than will ever play like Tom Brady.Replies: @whorefinder, @G Pinfold
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/06/sports/sp-65372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Boller
Passing has become the most important aspect of pro football. If coaches thought returning to the old single wing and running a quarterback like a halfback would win games they would do so.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @DCThrowback
The Neo-Victorians have been gaining ground for a while.Replies: @Anonymous
More or less irrelevant in today’s world.
The ‘net has rendered print pornography as about as useful as horse-hauled canal barges after diesel powered trucks came on to the scene.
We are barely past the quarter post of the NFL season. It is a little early to be drawing conclusions on who will have the best season among QBs.
More glaring than the lack of black persons is the lack of funny black names. I just checked a few rosters going back to 2006. Not a single typical underclass name among a starter. The closest thing was Jameis and Tyrod, but those could be Mormon or Palin names.
By contrast, here are some names from a list of 40 defensive players:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/defense/sort/totalTackles/year/2015/seasontype/2
D’Qwell
NaVorro
Reshad
Lavonte
Karlos
Donte
Deone
Ha’Sean Treshon (“Ha Ha”)
Michael Vick had a decent game on Monday night.
One interesting revelation of the new QBR figures are that there isn’t much of a correlation between being able to run for a gain and not being sacked.
Yes, this is an important point, though not really a revelation. Supposedly traditional passing stats underrated Joe Namath because they ignored his ability to throw down the field while still avoiding sacks (despite being basically immobile). The best way to avoid sacks, it turns out, is to just get rid of the damn ball, not to run away from the defense.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6003
Dan Marino was the same 20 years later, but by then people had realized that this was an important ability.
I’d still like for someone to explain why Namath, relative to his peers, didn’t throw more touchdown passes. This is one question I don’t think the iSteve commentariat will be able to answer.
Drew Brees is demonstrating something similar this year. Superb passer, not so superb offensive line and receivers.Replies: @keypusher
And , Whitlock isn't blaming "racism."
Instead, Whitlock pointed out that the quarterback-as-running-back makes them much easier targets to injure and also, inevitably, will wear out their legs a lot faster than a drop-back-and passer while, simultaneously, making their legs even more important. A drop back passer can have crappy knees, but thanks to his pass protection and rules protecting him in the pocket, a dropback quarterback with poor but manageable knees can get along to his mid-30s or beyond, but a running quarterback will be worn out just from wear and tear.
So Whilock envisions that teams will have 2-3 quarterbacks that they will just rotate into plays---in other words, the same system as the other running backs on the field. So if one gets injured, there's a couple replacements jumping right in on the next play without any significant drop off. And the other running backs tend to be done by their late 20s.
Whitlock is basically telling blacks that if they clamor for the NFL to change the game to suit them as quarterbacks they will actually diminish their own value. "Shut up and learn the position!"
Of course, what goes unsaid is that blacks largely won't put the effort in to learn the nuances of the position if they can't merely physically dominate it. Once in the NFL Michael Vick couldn't just physically push over his opponents like he did in college, and his "Madden" and ESPN-friendly highlights were belied by his stats. Steve Young had great wheels, but at least learned a system and didn't abuse them; Tim Tebow, who himself has great wheels, is stubborn like Vick about improving himself (but at least he doesn't abuse dogs and is nice to the public).Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Sunbeam, @DCThrowback, @MarkinLA
Steve Young took a lot of punishment, including several concussions, before Aeneas Williams ended his career on a corner blitz. Frank Gifford was a color commentator on that play and said Williams wasn’t that big, so Young should be able to shake it off. Then the network went to a commercial, and when they came back, Steve was still in a fetal position on the turf.
http://youtu.be/ykxI7SKY92o
Incidentally, this chart marks the point where Eli Manning has now surpassed Peyton as a regular season QB (Eli was already better in the post-season). Quite a game for Eli on Sunday.
Yes, this is an important point, though not really a revelation. Supposedly traditional passing stats underrated Joe Namath because they ignored his ability to throw down the field while still avoiding sacks (despite being basically immobile). The best way to avoid sacks, it turns out, is to just get rid of the damn ball, not to run away from the defense.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6003
Dan Marino was the same 20 years later, but by then people had realized that this was an important ability.
I'd still like for someone to explain why Namath, relative to his peers, didn't throw more touchdown passes. This is one question I don't think the iSteve commentariat will be able to answer.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @el topo, @Mark Butterworth
Namath was a superstar in his day to New York media types, but his touchdowns to interception ratio is very bad: 173 to 220 for his career:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NamaJo00.htm
My personal impression is that New York media types in 1968 were pretty sharp, so it is, indeed, puzzling why their hero’s touchdowns to interceptions ratio was so bad.
It's a puzzlement. My impression is that the football statscrunchers are still fighting against the "Namath is overrated" view, and soon there will be an opening for a "Namath really wasn't that good after all" argument. Or maybe, because he's a New York icon, that opening will never happen.Replies: @Steve Sailer
And , Whitlock isn't blaming "racism."
Instead, Whitlock pointed out that the quarterback-as-running-back makes them much easier targets to injure and also, inevitably, will wear out their legs a lot faster than a drop-back-and passer while, simultaneously, making their legs even more important. A drop back passer can have crappy knees, but thanks to his pass protection and rules protecting him in the pocket, a dropback quarterback with poor but manageable knees can get along to his mid-30s or beyond, but a running quarterback will be worn out just from wear and tear.
So Whilock envisions that teams will have 2-3 quarterbacks that they will just rotate into plays---in other words, the same system as the other running backs on the field. So if one gets injured, there's a couple replacements jumping right in on the next play without any significant drop off. And the other running backs tend to be done by their late 20s.
Whitlock is basically telling blacks that if they clamor for the NFL to change the game to suit them as quarterbacks they will actually diminish their own value. "Shut up and learn the position!"
Of course, what goes unsaid is that blacks largely won't put the effort in to learn the nuances of the position if they can't merely physically dominate it. Once in the NFL Michael Vick couldn't just physically push over his opponents like he did in college, and his "Madden" and ESPN-friendly highlights were belied by his stats. Steve Young had great wheels, but at least learned a system and didn't abuse them; Tim Tebow, who himself has great wheels, is stubborn like Vick about improving himself (but at least he doesn't abuse dogs and is nice to the public).Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Sunbeam, @DCThrowback, @MarkinLA
I’ve never heard of this Whitlock guy, so it interests me to see this theory, since I’ve thought something similar for a long time.
Right now the NFL ideal qb is a tall guy with a missile launcher arm (“He can make all the throws”), and a positronic brain to make all those reads and go through checkdowns in a hurry.
If you run a “spread” offense the throws get a lot easier. Spread is kind of an ambiguous term to me, because it includes things like both Oregon’s offense and Mike Leach’s Air Raid.
But for the part about easier throws, the key is the qb is a threat to run. To me the biggest component of the pro defenses we’ve seen for about 50 years is the ability to double cover. Which is possible because the defense is playing 11 on ten, because the qb is no threat to run.
Remove this restriction and it opens up a lot of things. Obviously the defense can still double cover, but if it does, you leave a gaping weakness in another part of the field.
You really haven’t seen this done in the NFL yet, aside from parts of that one miracle season Tebow had in Denver. San Francisco, Seattle, they’ve used parts of the college playbook, but they haven’t gone full blown with it.
It is pretty standard to say it won’t work in the NFL. I tend to disagree. For a long time I’ve had a scheme like Whitlock’s in mind. Carry a number of qb’s and play all of them.
And trust me, I’d run qb power 40 times in a game until Ray Lewis (or whoever) is a bloody mess.
All these black/white things aside, to me it seems to be the natural evolution of the game at this point. For a number of reasons pro set/I formation teams are really the new “gimmick” teams in college football.
Anyway I’m going to google this guy. But my thinking hasn’t had a single thing to do with “devaluing the postion.” I guess it does, because essentially qb would become a position more like running back, than a system where you have to have “The guy,” who frankly doesn’t come along very often. A whole lot more guys come out every year who could run a system like this than will ever play like Tom Brady.
Not really:
In North America half-black is counted as black, and you know it. The first black President is half irish isn’t he? So 20% of the top 20 quarterbacks are black americans. That’s ~60% more than their representation in the general population. And to think it wasn’t so long ago that race “realists” were claiming that blacks are too stupid to be quarterbacks….
Black dual-threat quarterbacks have led their teams to the last 3 Superbowls (that’s 400% over-representation). They won one Super Bowl by blowout and were one play away from winning the other two. And when was the last time the college championship did not feature a black quarterback?
Btw, it is strange that Kaepernick is on the top 20 list but Cam Newton is not.
QBR doesn't accurately capture the value he brings to his team imo (replacement level talent at WR and OL). Of course, you spend $20M on a QB, harder to fix holes elsewhere. The salary cap QB conundrum.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Otherwise, he'd have to apologize for his planter forbears.
Yes, this is an important point, though not really a revelation. Supposedly traditional passing stats underrated Joe Namath because they ignored his ability to throw down the field while still avoiding sacks (despite being basically immobile). The best way to avoid sacks, it turns out, is to just get rid of the damn ball, not to run away from the defense.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6003
Dan Marino was the same 20 years later, but by then people had realized that this was an important ability.
I'd still like for someone to explain why Namath, relative to his peers, didn't throw more touchdown passes. This is one question I don't think the iSteve commentariat will be able to answer.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @el topo, @Mark Butterworth
Wasn’t Kurt Warner known for his “quick release”?
Re: the chart: Nice to see career back-up Josh McCown get a chance as a starter and excel. One wonders how many fine back-ups have been wasted due to lack of opportunity.
McCown put up arcade numbers against some bad pass defenses in 2013 when Cutler got hurt for the Chicago Bears. Based on that small sample size, he got a deal from Tampa last year, where he quickly regressed to his career means.
NFL teams still believed in that 2013, though. Both the Bills and Browns offered him deals this year after he was relieved from Tampa, and he chose the Browns. Let's be honest, though; his last two weeks were against a mediocre Chargers D & a Ravens pass defense that might be league worst w/ no pass rush from Suggs (who is out for the year). (To his credit, he is doing this with a terrible set of WRs and making a star out of TE Gary Barnidge.)Replies: @WillBest
When I started to listen to jazz pianist Art Tatum (in my fifties), I finally figured out why I spent more time playing basketball with black guys when I was in college. Art Tatum was a self-taught genius; his amazing ability was in spontaneous creativity, not rote repetition. His best work was as a soloist; he didn’t work out as well in small groups (Clarinetist Buddy DeFranco said that playing with Tatum was “like chasing a train”). I enjoyed the style of black basketball players; in my own modest way, I was also creative and spontaneous, not to mention self-taught. I hated the rote repetition of playing on basketball teams that tried to run the same plays over and over.
This style of spontaneous creativity works in basketball; it wins games. More importantly to basketball as a spectator sport, it’s way more exciting to watch. One of the reasons that women’s basketball never catches on is that women basically can’t do it (there aren’t any women jazz pianists who do spontaneous performance, as opposed to classical pianists who do rote repetition). When I watched women’s basketball, I thought to myself that they looked like well-coached men’s intramural teams. They look like that because they run plays over and over. It’s inherently boring to watch.
This spontaneous creativity doesn’t work as well in football, because running plays that coordinate the effort of the linemen with the backs with the receivers with the quarterback is the only way to win. There can be individual creativity, but it is subordinated to running organized plays. One obvious place where creativity is treasured by fans is in the (useless) activity of victory dancing, which now takes place after every play. Other areas include hair styling (especially when it protrudes from the helmet), trash talking and tattoos. Of course none of these creative efforts advance the game.
(If you’re interested, try listening to Tatum play “I Got Rhythm”; he’s going slowly enough in this recording that you can get the “chasing a train” effect without being an experienced listener:
To illustrate the fact that Tatum never played a tune the same way twice, listen to these three versions of “Sweet Lorraine”, recorded in ’38, ’44 and ’49:
)
Part of it was hanging around too long. Namath was -27 TDs/INTs the last three years of his career. But he didn’t throw as many TDs as you would expect in his brief prime, either. His peak was 1967, with 26 (against 28 INTs), not good enough to lead the AFL, even though he threw for a then-unimaginable 4,000 yards. By contrast, when Marino topped 5,000 yards in 1984, he also crushed the league in TD passes (16 more than the second-place guy!).
It’s a puzzlement. My impression is that the football statscrunchers are still fighting against the “Namath is overrated” view, and soon there will be an opening for a “Namath really wasn’t that good after all” argument. Or maybe, because he’s a New York icon, that opening will never happen.
To some extent that was rational since teams weren't that good at moving downfield reliably, so a turnover on a deep pass wasn't too much worse than punting.
I can remember around 1969 Roman Gabriel being cited for seldom being intercepted, but it was presented as minor positive side effect to the problem that he threw the ball so hard and with so much spin that his receivers couldn't hold onto it.
My vague recollection is that the touchdown-interception ratio wasn't a big deal to football fans in the 1960s-70s. Today, it seems like a really simple, obvious stat, but for some reason I don't have a lot of old TD-interception ratios stored away in my head.
It seems to me that sheer passing yardage was the glamor stat way back then. Namath's 4007 in a 14 game season was a big deal, like OJ's 2003 yards rushing. Namath's 4000 yard 1967 was an important breakthrough in that it showed you could pass all the time and do pretty well. Nobody broke that mark until Dan Fouts in 1979.
Or maybe the New York Jets had a strategy that once they got close to the end zone they'd always run it in?
In Bill Simmons' book on the NBA, he found a lot of answers to statistical puzzles like this by reading old Sports Illustrated articles and player autobiographies and watching some old games on Youtube.Replies: @keypusher, @candid_observer, @Buffalo Joe, @David In TN
Steve, regarding Andy Dalton, “Orange is the new black, ergo Dalton is blackish.
It's a puzzlement. My impression is that the football statscrunchers are still fighting against the "Namath is overrated" view, and soon there will be an opening for a "Namath really wasn't that good after all" argument. Or maybe, because he's a New York icon, that opening will never happen.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Maybe fans just didn’t care enough about interceptions back in Namath’s day?
To some extent that was rational since teams weren’t that good at moving downfield reliably, so a turnover on a deep pass wasn’t too much worse than punting.
I can remember around 1969 Roman Gabriel being cited for seldom being intercepted, but it was presented as minor positive side effect to the problem that he threw the ball so hard and with so much spin that his receivers couldn’t hold onto it.
My vague recollection is that the touchdown-interception ratio wasn’t a big deal to football fans in the 1960s-70s. Today, it seems like a really simple, obvious stat, but for some reason I don’t have a lot of old TD-interception ratios stored away in my head.
It seems to me that sheer passing yardage was the glamor stat way back then. Namath’s 4007 in a 14 game season was a big deal, like OJ’s 2003 yards rushing. Namath’s 4000 yard 1967 was an important breakthrough in that it showed you could pass all the time and do pretty well. Nobody broke that mark until Dan Fouts in 1979.
Or maybe the New York Jets had a strategy that once they got close to the end zone they’d always run it in?
In Bill Simmons’ book on the NBA, he found a lot of answers to statistical puzzles like this by reading old Sports Illustrated articles and player autobiographies and watching some old games on Youtube.
I think what people kept track of was whether you had more TDs than interceptions. If you did, great; if not, problem, though not an intolerable problem. Of course, nowadays being 50/50 TDs v. interceptions will get you benched, if not cut. Aaron Rodgers has thrown 48 TDs at Lambeau since his last pick.
Or maybe the New York Jets had a strategy that once they got close to the end zone they’d always run it in?
Could be. The surprising number in Namath's infamous TD/INT ratio isn't the 220 interceptions; it's the 173 touchdowns. If you have a good running game, to an extent the TD pass is a discretionary decision. Emmitt Smith definitely took some touchdowns away from Troy Aikman.
But I suspect that running it in was a universal approach in Namath's time. I read somewhere that there was exactly one one-yard TD pass in the entire NFL in 1972. When you got to the goal line, you were getting in on the ground or not at all.
If there is an innocent explanation for Namath's bad TD/INT ratio, though, that might be it. One data point: in the 1958 championship, the famous OT game that heralded the arrival of the NFL as big-time entertainment, the Colts led the Giants 14-3 at halftime and almost put the game away with a long drive at the beginning of the third quarter. But they tried to run it in three times from the one and got stuffed. Unitas said later that the field down there was terrible and the runner couldn't get any traction. Apparently it didn't occur to Unitas to throw a pass, though the Giants hadn't stopped the pass all game. His coach: Weeb Ewbank. Joe Namath's coach in his prime: Weeb Ewbank.
So, that's a research project for someone, I guess.
If interceptions aren't regarded as a big negative, and yards gained is the measure of the quarterback, quarterbacks will throw a lot of passes in risky situations. It may be that Namath's numbers are in no small part the product of the times.
You're right, as long as the QB was a winner and racked up a lot of passing yardage and TD's. And yes, passing yardage was the glamour stat for QB's back then.
Steve – Speaking of Whitlock, will you do a piece on the blowup of his ESPN website?
One of those QBs in the top five needs to step up and identify as Black, or Congress will do it for him.
Then there is Matthew Stafford, white quarterback, of the Detroit Lions.
Slow witted, prone to big mistakes when they matter most but gifted with a great arm.
And , Whitlock isn't blaming "racism."
Instead, Whitlock pointed out that the quarterback-as-running-back makes them much easier targets to injure and also, inevitably, will wear out their legs a lot faster than a drop-back-and passer while, simultaneously, making their legs even more important. A drop back passer can have crappy knees, but thanks to his pass protection and rules protecting him in the pocket, a dropback quarterback with poor but manageable knees can get along to his mid-30s or beyond, but a running quarterback will be worn out just from wear and tear.
So Whilock envisions that teams will have 2-3 quarterbacks that they will just rotate into plays---in other words, the same system as the other running backs on the field. So if one gets injured, there's a couple replacements jumping right in on the next play without any significant drop off. And the other running backs tend to be done by their late 20s.
Whitlock is basically telling blacks that if they clamor for the NFL to change the game to suit them as quarterbacks they will actually diminish their own value. "Shut up and learn the position!"
Of course, what goes unsaid is that blacks largely won't put the effort in to learn the nuances of the position if they can't merely physically dominate it. Once in the NFL Michael Vick couldn't just physically push over his opponents like he did in college, and his "Madden" and ESPN-friendly highlights were belied by his stats. Steve Young had great wheels, but at least learned a system and didn't abuse them; Tim Tebow, who himself has great wheels, is stubborn like Vick about improving himself (but at least he doesn't abuse dogs and is nice to the public).Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Sunbeam, @DCThrowback, @MarkinLA
Great comment until the end where you started making shit up about Tebow not improving himself. Guy tried like hell to get his release time sped up, but he lacked the talent to do it. A shame, because as you said, he has everything else
Tebow is a very stubborn dude underneath that smiling persona. He could've switched to wide receiver on coming out of college and had a good number of options, but stuck to quarterback. But then he didn't improve his mechanics, his reads, etc; he tried to Michael Vick it. He basically tried to wing and a prayer it as he did in college; it worked a few times for the Broncos, but that's it.
Like Vick, the guy never bothered to learn the position beyond what he could physically overpower lesser mortals at.Replies: @SecretaryNS, @keypusher
Vick has little short range to middle range accuracy left & doesn’t have the wheels to make the highlight moves he had 10 years ago…but he still is in the top 20% of NFL qb mobility, imo. What he does have is a fucking cannon, and he can sling it (see the Wheaton TD in the 4th quarter).
The problem is 1/ Haley has designed an offense that is short to medium throws that gets the ball to the Steelers myriad of offensive weapons 2/ Big Ben is out until November-ish 3/ Bruce Gradkowski, the original back-up, is out for the year 4/ Landry Jones, the young draft pick from 2014 is not ready. So it became Vick by default in the preseason.
After another failed 3 and out in the middle of the third quarter, both Gruden and Tirico were openly wondering how bad Landry Jones must be to not get in for an inept Vick. But Vick made up for it w/ the bomb to Wheaton (his strength) and a last minute drive where he made a huge 25 yd run up the middle.
He’s a band-aid, and the Steelers were fortunate to get the win against a Chargers team that has 3 replacement level players playing O-Line.
Black dual-threat quarterbacks have led their teams to the last 3 Superbowls (that's 400% over-representation). They won one Super Bowl by blowout and were one play away from winning the other two. And when was the last time the college championship did not feature a black quarterback?
Btw, it is strange that Kaepernick is on the top 20 list but Cam Newton is not.Replies: @dcthrowback, @Reg Cæsar
Cam Newton has a malpractice case against the Panthers’ front office.
QBR doesn’t accurately capture the value he brings to his team imo (replacement level talent at WR and OL). Of course, you spend $20M on a QB, harder to fix holes elsewhere. The salary cap QB conundrum.
Yes, the exact opposite of Tebow, in a ‘release’ sense.
McCown put up arcade numbers against some bad pass defenses in 2013 when Cutler got hurt for the Chicago Bears. Based on that small sample size, he got a deal from Tampa last year, where he quickly regressed to his career means.
NFL teams still believed in that 2013, though. Both the Bills and Browns offered him deals this year after he was relieved from Tampa, and he chose the Browns. Let’s be honest, though; his last two weeks were against a mediocre Chargers D & a Ravens pass defense that might be league worst w/ no pass rush from Suggs (who is out for the year). (To his credit, he is doing this with a terrible set of WRs and making a star out of TE Gary Barnidge.)
¡Dios mío! A what cannon? I thought potty-mouthery was banned in the Steveosphere?
To some extent that was rational since teams weren't that good at moving downfield reliably, so a turnover on a deep pass wasn't too much worse than punting.
I can remember around 1969 Roman Gabriel being cited for seldom being intercepted, but it was presented as minor positive side effect to the problem that he threw the ball so hard and with so much spin that his receivers couldn't hold onto it.
My vague recollection is that the touchdown-interception ratio wasn't a big deal to football fans in the 1960s-70s. Today, it seems like a really simple, obvious stat, but for some reason I don't have a lot of old TD-interception ratios stored away in my head.
It seems to me that sheer passing yardage was the glamor stat way back then. Namath's 4007 in a 14 game season was a big deal, like OJ's 2003 yards rushing. Namath's 4000 yard 1967 was an important breakthrough in that it showed you could pass all the time and do pretty well. Nobody broke that mark until Dan Fouts in 1979.
Or maybe the New York Jets had a strategy that once they got close to the end zone they'd always run it in?
In Bill Simmons' book on the NBA, he found a lot of answers to statistical puzzles like this by reading old Sports Illustrated articles and player autobiographies and watching some old games on Youtube.Replies: @keypusher, @candid_observer, @Buffalo Joe, @David In TN
My vague recollection is that the touchdown-interception ratio wasn’t a big deal to football fans in the 1960s-70s. Today, it seems like a really simple, obvious stat, but for some reason I don’t have a lot of old TD-interception ratios stored away in my head.
I think what people kept track of was whether you had more TDs than interceptions. If you did, great; if not, problem, though not an intolerable problem. Of course, nowadays being 50/50 TDs v. interceptions will get you benched, if not cut. Aaron Rodgers has thrown 48 TDs at Lambeau since his last pick.
Or maybe the New York Jets had a strategy that once they got close to the end zone they’d always run it in?
Could be. The surprising number in Namath’s infamous TD/INT ratio isn’t the 220 interceptions; it’s the 173 touchdowns. If you have a good running game, to an extent the TD pass is a discretionary decision. Emmitt Smith definitely took some touchdowns away from Troy Aikman.
But I suspect that running it in was a universal approach in Namath’s time. I read somewhere that there was exactly one one-yard TD pass in the entire NFL in 1972. When you got to the goal line, you were getting in on the ground or not at all.
If there is an innocent explanation for Namath’s bad TD/INT ratio, though, that might be it. One data point: in the 1958 championship, the famous OT game that heralded the arrival of the NFL as big-time entertainment, the Colts led the Giants 14-3 at halftime and almost put the game away with a long drive at the beginning of the third quarter. But they tried to run it in three times from the one and got stuffed. Unitas said later that the field down there was terrible and the runner couldn’t get any traction. Apparently it didn’t occur to Unitas to throw a pass, though the Giants hadn’t stopped the pass all game. His coach: Weeb Ewbank. Joe Namath’s coach in his prime: Weeb Ewbank.
So, that’s a research project for someone, I guess.
Namath is also credited with making the first drunken pass during a Monday Night Football game without scoring.
NYT, 10/12/15 – Florida Quarterback Is Suspended After Failing Drug Test
Florida’s starting quarterback, Will Grier, has been suspended indefinitely for violating the N.C.A.A.’s policy on performance-enhancing drugs. The university announced the suspension at a news conference Monday. Grier, who failed a drug test, said he took an over-the-counter supplement. Florida plans to appeal to reduce the suspension, which, according to N.C.A.A. rules, could last one year and cost Grier one-quarter of his total college eligibility…
What kind of “over-the-counter” supplement could violate the NCAA’s policy on PEDs?
One news article I read yesterday claimed that Grier put on 30 pounds in the past year.
Twenty-odd comments and nobody calling out these metrics for the shit they are. Even though this chart overvalues QB runs, white backups and second-year starters seem to score much better on this list than seasoned black starters, so we know that some in the iSteve commentariat will be believers.
Broadway Joe was brash, outspoken and guaranteed the first AFL Super Bowl victory, so that washes away his pathetic TD/INT ratio, just like Terry Bradshaw’s career 212 TD/210 INT numbers are dwarfed by the 4 rings that he may or may not have had a lot to do with.
The key for the running QBs is getting to the point where the brain (I’m supposed to complete a pass!) overrides the instinct (Pressure…Take off!). Wilson has mostly gotten there. Taylor seems to be further along than most expected. Bridgewater averaged less than a yard per carry in college, so he was never a real runner.
Now they’re ready for the second step: the check-down list, an infinitely more difficult process. Some never master it. Some only look for the primary and then take off, leaving them to take the coaching staff’s abuse in the film session about missing those guys waving their hands downfield.
The key to it all is to find the guy who fits what you’re trying to do. Bradshaw’s job was to hand the ball to Franco Harris or Rocky Bleier, while occasionally using his cannon of an arm to throw it to the moon where Lynn Swann or John Stallworth would jump to said moon to pull it in. The offense didn’t run through Bradshaw.
Contrast that to the current wearer of 4 rings, Tom Brady. The entire offense runs through him. He’s had an ever-changing cast of characters lining up at running back not because they have 1,000 yard potential, but because they fit what Belichick is doing, Dion Lewis being the latest example. He’s had a steady supply of slow but precise white guys to throw to, and he’s seems to be able to get at least one of them 100 catches every year. As Steve has pointed out, too, the Patriots are pretty white, and they’re all smart enough to buy into what Belichick is selling.
The discussion isn’t about the BS in this chart, but who makes the team go, who makes everyone else better. The people whining about Cam Newton’s O-line need to remember that he’s supposed to be one of the elite as well as quick on his feet, so the inexperienced line shouldn’t really bother him…like the 4-0 Tom Brady playing lights out with THREE rookies, including the center, on the O-line in 3 of the first 4 games.
Height in Football is a guessing game. I am taller than most pro basketball players I have met much less most football players. I don’t think I have ever met a taller football player and I used to see the Seahawks every year. I saw my sister dancing in flats with a pro-guard for the Sonics. She was taller than him and he was listed as six three. She’s five ten or eleven.
I am just shy of six four. I have met several college players who were listed at two or three inches taller than me who were shorter. My son played center for his college and he was listed as six five when he was just barely over six feet.
So Russel Wilson is probably no where near six feet. A person with the right softwear could probably reliably estimate how tall an actor or athlete really is. You might get some click bait out of it.
To some extent that was rational since teams weren't that good at moving downfield reliably, so a turnover on a deep pass wasn't too much worse than punting.
I can remember around 1969 Roman Gabriel being cited for seldom being intercepted, but it was presented as minor positive side effect to the problem that he threw the ball so hard and with so much spin that his receivers couldn't hold onto it.
My vague recollection is that the touchdown-interception ratio wasn't a big deal to football fans in the 1960s-70s. Today, it seems like a really simple, obvious stat, but for some reason I don't have a lot of old TD-interception ratios stored away in my head.
It seems to me that sheer passing yardage was the glamor stat way back then. Namath's 4007 in a 14 game season was a big deal, like OJ's 2003 yards rushing. Namath's 4000 yard 1967 was an important breakthrough in that it showed you could pass all the time and do pretty well. Nobody broke that mark until Dan Fouts in 1979.
Or maybe the New York Jets had a strategy that once they got close to the end zone they'd always run it in?
In Bill Simmons' book on the NBA, he found a lot of answers to statistical puzzles like this by reading old Sports Illustrated articles and player autobiographies and watching some old games on Youtube.Replies: @keypusher, @candid_observer, @Buffalo Joe, @David In TN
One obvious point to make is that the perception of what’s important in a quarterback can readily affect what quarterbacks choose to do.
If interceptions aren’t regarded as a big negative, and yards gained is the measure of the quarterback, quarterbacks will throw a lot of passes in risky situations. It may be that Namath’s numbers are in no small part the product of the times.
Tyrod Taylor of Buffalo has been a disaster since his great opening game. His ranking on QBR is misleading.
Kapernick might soon get benched for the backup, as his career has been downhill since teams have forced him to pass and not run.
Teddy Bridgewater has been okay, maybe good, in his 20 games in the lead.
But Taylor and Kapernick have been awful awful.
ESPN now offers a proprietary “QBR” figure that supposedly takes into account everything a quarterback does…
Clearly, QBR is racist. On the other hand, I just let my ESPN Magazine subscription expire; I could no longer tolerate the liberal bias and worship of all things black.
By the way, I wonder what is the ratio of starting black quarterbacks in the college FBS; and their QBRs? Each year it seems like there are more and more starting black QBs – Ohio State, FSU, Notre Dame and, now Florida.
Now just hold it. Ben can throw the bomb every bit as well as Vick. Haley’s offense allowed for Ben to improvise more if and when the set up plays are busted or broken up by the opposing defense. In other words, the offense was drawn up to play to Ben’s strengths (e.g. Extending the plays, holding the ball more until a receiver gets open, and on occasion, heaving it down the field 30 or 45 yrds. to Brown, Bryant, Wheaton, etc.)
Notice Brown was really squawking on the sidelines at now being allowed to keep getting his customary five receptions per game anymore. That’s not going to happen until Ben comes back.
Shame. The offense has the potential to be the NFL’s #1 ranked this season, except for one thing…the right QB to lead it is out til November.
But no way can Vick throw longer passes than Ben. One is a two time superbowl winning first ballot HOF and the other is not.
But it was a nice run by Mike Vick at the end of the game [The Rooneys insisted that the media refer to Vick as ‘Mike Vick’ so as to try and lull TV viewers that this is somehow another Vick, and not Michael, the one who spent time in prison for, you know…]
The Rooneys should really ask their actress kin Miss Mara to use her first name, Patricia, onscreen, and let the Giants deal with the fallout of her wearing dragon tattoos and nothing else.Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Taco, @Steven Austen
Broadway Joe was brash, outspoken and guaranteed the first AFL Super Bowl victory, so that washes away his pathetic TD/INT ratio, just like Terry Bradshaw's career 212 TD/210 INT numbers are dwarfed by the 4 rings that he may or may not have had a lot to do with.
The key for the running QBs is getting to the point where the brain (I'm supposed to complete a pass!) overrides the instinct (Pressure...Take off!). Wilson has mostly gotten there. Taylor seems to be further along than most expected. Bridgewater averaged less than a yard per carry in college, so he was never a real runner.
Now they're ready for the second step: the check-down list, an infinitely more difficult process. Some never master it. Some only look for the primary and then take off, leaving them to take the coaching staff's abuse in the film session about missing those guys waving their hands downfield.
The key to it all is to find the guy who fits what you're trying to do. Bradshaw's job was to hand the ball to Franco Harris or Rocky Bleier, while occasionally using his cannon of an arm to throw it to the moon where Lynn Swann or John Stallworth would jump to said moon to pull it in. The offense didn't run through Bradshaw.
Contrast that to the current wearer of 4 rings, Tom Brady. The entire offense runs through him. He's had an ever-changing cast of characters lining up at running back not because they have 1,000 yard potential, but because they fit what Belichick is doing, Dion Lewis being the latest example. He's had a steady supply of slow but precise white guys to throw to, and he's seems to be able to get at least one of them 100 catches every year. As Steve has pointed out, too, the Patriots are pretty white, and they're all smart enough to buy into what Belichick is selling.
The discussion isn't about the BS in this chart, but who makes the team go, who makes everyone else better. The people whining about Cam Newton's O-line need to remember that he's supposed to be one of the elite as well as quick on his feet, so the inexperienced line shouldn't really bother him...like the 4-0 Tom Brady playing lights out with THREE rookies, including the center, on the O-line in 3 of the first 4 games.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Buffalo Joe, @Dirk Dagger
Hold it, hold it. If you want to knock Bradshaw then you have to finish the sentence.
The Mel Blount Rule, introduced in 1978, where CB’s could no longer bump and manhandled WRs past five yards clearly helped Bradshaw’s overall passing numbers and helped get him into the HOF. Before ’78 he never had thrown 20TDs in a single season whereas he did for the next four. Its true that for first part of his career Terry was almost an afterthought since pgh had one of the all time greatest defenses in NFL history. All he had to do during that time was manage the game and not blow it.
But he definitely was the difference maker for Super Bowl XIII, the one where Jackie Smith dropped an easily catchable pass in end zone and he was wide open; on one within ten yards of him, so that’s on Smith for not catching an easily thrown pass to tie the game.
But in that game, Bradshaw threw 4 TD passes and had only 1 interception. It was a closely played game all the way til the Smith dropped pass in end zone. Even then he got it done in the end by passing to Swann in end zone for winning score.
Super Bowl XIII provided a glimpse into the future: A predominantly passing league, with higher scoring, with occasional big plays being made on defense.
No, Tebow really didn’t. He has always had the talent—maybe not the brains?—but definitely the talent. No one runs away with college stats like he did without talent.
Tebow is a very stubborn dude underneath that smiling persona. He could’ve switched to wide receiver on coming out of college and had a good number of options, but stuck to quarterback. But then he didn’t improve his mechanics, his reads, etc; he tried to Michael Vick it. He basically tried to wing and a prayer it as he did in college; it worked a few times for the Broncos, but that’s it.
Like Vick, the guy never bothered to learn the position beyond what he could physically overpower lesser mortals at.
Unfortunately, he's so popular that as soon as an offense struggles for a couple of games, fans will clamor for "Tebow Time", and no GM or head coach wants to deal with the hassle. Imagine Tebow backing up Kaepernick right now.Replies: @whorefinder
I've never heard anyone suggest he could be a wide receiver. Tight end or H-back, maybe.Replies: @whorefinder
And one thing I'll say about Tom Brady: he doesn't do a lot of stupid things, not when it's important.
There aren't many other quarterbacks about whom I can say that. For what it's worth, these kinds of problems seem to be pretty common with black quarterbacks, including Russell Wilson. They make one great play after another, and then they commit some infamous boner. It would drive me out of my gourd if I was rooting for their team.Replies: @SecretaryNS, @David In TN, @MarkinLA
Speaking of dumb things or neglecting to be smart, you’ll notice that Eli Manning is number five on this list, comprised of metrics which I assume ignores clock management completely. To be fair, that’s the coach’s job, but his older brother is a master of it, while Eli’s a first-rate bungler.
Right now the NFL ideal qb is a tall guy with a missile launcher arm ("He can make all the throws"), and a positronic brain to make all those reads and go through checkdowns in a hurry.
If you run a "spread" offense the throws get a lot easier. Spread is kind of an ambiguous term to me, because it includes things like both Oregon's offense and Mike Leach's Air Raid.
But for the part about easier throws, the key is the qb is a threat to run. To me the biggest component of the pro defenses we've seen for about 50 years is the ability to double cover. Which is possible because the defense is playing 11 on ten, because the qb is no threat to run.
Remove this restriction and it opens up a lot of things. Obviously the defense can still double cover, but if it does, you leave a gaping weakness in another part of the field.
You really haven't seen this done in the NFL yet, aside from parts of that one miracle season Tebow had in Denver. San Francisco, Seattle, they've used parts of the college playbook, but they haven't gone full blown with it.
It is pretty standard to say it won't work in the NFL. I tend to disagree. For a long time I've had a scheme like Whitlock's in mind. Carry a number of qb's and play all of them.
And trust me, I'd run qb power 40 times in a game until Ray Lewis (or whoever) is a bloody mess.
All these black/white things aside, to me it seems to be the natural evolution of the game at this point. For a number of reasons pro set/I formation teams are really the new "gimmick" teams in college football.
Anyway I'm going to google this guy. But my thinking hasn't had a single thing to do with "devaluing the postion." I guess it does, because essentially qb would become a position more like running back, than a system where you have to have "The guy," who frankly doesn't come along very often. A whole lot more guys come out every year who could run a system like this than will ever play like Tom Brady.Replies: @whorefinder, @G Pinfold
There was a noted and and extremely intelligent football analyst who wrote for Sports Illustrated—Paul Zimmerman, a.k.a. “Dr. Z”. Steve would’ve really liked him.
Before he had a stroke (and later died), Dr. Z claimed to have had a dream where he had Michael Vick running a wing-T offense, which is basically a high school football offense these days, but was once upon a time standard in the NFL. It’s a system where the quarterback is the best athlete on the field, and so if the receivers aren’t open and the weak line is letting guys through the quarterback can sweep or run a lot of options or otherwise take off. Good for high school teams, since the quarterback is usually the de facto best player. One key is that there are usually 4 backs on the field—a receiver becomes a “wing back” and does a lot of reverses and sweeps, which freezes opponents and gives the QB some space to run.
We ran it at my high school with a great, very fast (and white) quarterback and won the league. Most NFL and college teams abandoned it as the passing game became more advanced, since the specialization worked better. But Dr. Z was convinced it would work for a guy with limited passing skills but great athleticism like Vick.
IIRC Dr. Z said he mentioned it to either the coaches of the Falcons OR Vick himself . The response was “What’s a wing-T?” Basically, the ignorance of the person he spoke to showed why Vick wouldn’t have success on the Falcons—whoever it was never learned football history and couldn’t think out of the box.
N.B.1 One reason I thought that Andy Reid would never win the big one was his tunnel vision and deliberate ignorance of the past; he was a small minded man. At one point, some magazine asked him to analyze, play by play, the “greatest game ever played”—the 1958 NFL Championship. Reid confessed to the magazine that he’d never actually watched the game, and spend a portion of his analysis commenting on how weird it was to watch it in black and white and the lack of modern NFL timing of the line and with the rule changes today. That tipped me off—Reid was no football geek, but merely a man in a job; a real football geek would’ve been watching all these old games on his downtime, both for pure love of the game and for analysis. I like to contrast that with Tony Gwynn, the great San Diego Padres HOF, who according to rumor used to watch old baseball games from the 1940s and 1950s just analyze the swings of Ted Williams, Willie Mays, etc. and watch how they watched pitchers.
N.B.2 One reason you may never have heard of Dr. Z was because he was banned from ESPN in the late 1980s (yes, the 1980s). Why? Because Dr. Z was one of the guests during the NFL draft and they asked him some banal question like “what do you think the biggest change we’ll see in the next 10 years in the NFL?” and Dr. Z said, ” they’ll invent new steroids that’ll beat any of the current tests.”
Bang. Banned by ESPN. No noticing the man behind the curtain.
Like I said, Steve would’ve liked him.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/10/distant-replay/306988/
Note that he volunteered to watch the film. I'm not at all surprised he hadn't seen the game before, and I'll bet most coaches his age haven't. Modern grandmasters don't spend a lot of time looking at old chess games, either, though history buffs like me do. The game moves on.
To some extent that was rational since teams weren't that good at moving downfield reliably, so a turnover on a deep pass wasn't too much worse than punting.
I can remember around 1969 Roman Gabriel being cited for seldom being intercepted, but it was presented as minor positive side effect to the problem that he threw the ball so hard and with so much spin that his receivers couldn't hold onto it.
My vague recollection is that the touchdown-interception ratio wasn't a big deal to football fans in the 1960s-70s. Today, it seems like a really simple, obvious stat, but for some reason I don't have a lot of old TD-interception ratios stored away in my head.
It seems to me that sheer passing yardage was the glamor stat way back then. Namath's 4007 in a 14 game season was a big deal, like OJ's 2003 yards rushing. Namath's 4000 yard 1967 was an important breakthrough in that it showed you could pass all the time and do pretty well. Nobody broke that mark until Dan Fouts in 1979.
Or maybe the New York Jets had a strategy that once they got close to the end zone they'd always run it in?
In Bill Simmons' book on the NBA, he found a lot of answers to statistical puzzles like this by reading old Sports Illustrated articles and player autobiographies and watching some old games on Youtube.Replies: @keypusher, @candid_observer, @Buffalo Joe, @David In TN
Colin Cowherd compares interceptions to punts, but nobody ever punts on First and Ten….but QBs do throw interceptions on First and Ten. I think there should be another pass category for catchable balls that are deflected off the receivers hands and then intercepted. How is that on the QB?
Could it grade the quality of passes thrown in the barroom during the off-season? That might have been of help to Ben Roethlisberger.
“Mick Vick” is even catchier.
The Rooneys should really ask their actress kin Miss Mara to use her first name, Patricia, onscreen, and let the Giants deal with the fallout of her wearing dragon tattoos and nothing else.
Tebow is a very stubborn dude underneath that smiling persona. He could've switched to wide receiver on coming out of college and had a good number of options, but stuck to quarterback. But then he didn't improve his mechanics, his reads, etc; he tried to Michael Vick it. He basically tried to wing and a prayer it as he did in college; it worked a few times for the Broncos, but that's it.
Like Vick, the guy never bothered to learn the position beyond what he could physically overpower lesser mortals at.Replies: @SecretaryNS, @keypusher
Tebow is interesting in that, more than perhaps any other quarterback, his career is a victim of the media age. He’s a lightning rod in the culture wars. Look up the second and third string QBs on active rosters, and even the most skeptical of his ability must admit that he’s a superior option to at least 10 or 15 of them. A sample: Bryce Petty, Kellen Moore, E.J. Manuel, David Fales, Blaine Gabbert, and Checkdown Charlie Whitehurst.
Unfortunately, he’s so popular that as soon as an offense struggles for a couple of games, fans will clamor for “Tebow Time”, and no GM or head coach wants to deal with the hassle. Imagine Tebow backing up Kaepernick right now.
Tebow is basically a smiling, nice guy version of Jeff George or Michael Vick---too much ego, too loud with the press and fans to accept any role except starting QB who calls all the shots.
Those of us with Antonio Brown on our fantasy teams beg to differ.
Broadway Joe was brash, outspoken and guaranteed the first AFL Super Bowl victory, so that washes away his pathetic TD/INT ratio, just like Terry Bradshaw's career 212 TD/210 INT numbers are dwarfed by the 4 rings that he may or may not have had a lot to do with.
The key for the running QBs is getting to the point where the brain (I'm supposed to complete a pass!) overrides the instinct (Pressure...Take off!). Wilson has mostly gotten there. Taylor seems to be further along than most expected. Bridgewater averaged less than a yard per carry in college, so he was never a real runner.
Now they're ready for the second step: the check-down list, an infinitely more difficult process. Some never master it. Some only look for the primary and then take off, leaving them to take the coaching staff's abuse in the film session about missing those guys waving their hands downfield.
The key to it all is to find the guy who fits what you're trying to do. Bradshaw's job was to hand the ball to Franco Harris or Rocky Bleier, while occasionally using his cannon of an arm to throw it to the moon where Lynn Swann or John Stallworth would jump to said moon to pull it in. The offense didn't run through Bradshaw.
Contrast that to the current wearer of 4 rings, Tom Brady. The entire offense runs through him. He's had an ever-changing cast of characters lining up at running back not because they have 1,000 yard potential, but because they fit what Belichick is doing, Dion Lewis being the latest example. He's had a steady supply of slow but precise white guys to throw to, and he's seems to be able to get at least one of them 100 catches every year. As Steve has pointed out, too, the Patriots are pretty white, and they're all smart enough to buy into what Belichick is selling.
The discussion isn't about the BS in this chart, but who makes the team go, who makes everyone else better. The people whining about Cam Newton's O-line need to remember that he's supposed to be one of the elite as well as quick on his feet, so the inexperienced line shouldn't really bother him...like the 4-0 Tom Brady playing lights out with THREE rookies, including the center, on the O-line in 3 of the first 4 games.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Buffalo Joe, @Dirk Dagger
Brutusale, I was in Cleveland this weekend and caught a high school football game between St. Edwards (Lakewood, Ohio) and Mainland HS from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. St. Ed’s is the reigning Ohio Division One champ and ranked one in Ohio, while Mainland is ranked number seven in Florida St. Ed’s plays a travel schedule and plays against the best they can find. St. Ed’s won 46-28 , with their white QB throwing for five TDs and their white running back racking up 254 yds. St. Edward’s team looked to be 90% white (10 of 11 starters on offense) and Mainland’s 99% black Mainland’s QB tucked and ran too often. I think the right scheme and play execution can trump raw athletic talent. New England adds and subtracts marginal players and still wins. The Jets and our new coach, Rex Ryan, cut Danny Whitehead and the Pats signed him. The next weekend he shredded the Jets. Welker , Edelman and Whitehead don’t even look like they could play at Div III but they were featured players on Super Bowl teams. Coaching and play calling is often overlooked in NFL wins and losses.
Right. The Patriots also play as a -team-, not a lot of showboating, etc. They also don't commit a lot of penalties. Buffalo recently had IIRC 19 penalties in a game - almost two hundred yards at least. Hard to win games when you give your opponents at least 200 yards of field position.Replies: @Brutusale
The Rooneys should really ask their actress kin Miss Mara to use her first name, Patricia, onscreen, and let the Giants deal with the fallout of her wearing dragon tattoos and nothing else.Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Taco, @Steven Austen
Mick Vick had an alias, “Ron Mexico.”
Black dual-threat quarterbacks have led their teams to the last 3 Superbowls (that's 400% over-representation). They won one Super Bowl by blowout and were one play away from winning the other two. And when was the last time the college championship did not feature a black quarterback?
Btw, it is strange that Kaepernick is on the top 20 list but Cam Newton is not.Replies: @dcthrowback, @Reg Cæsar
Far less than half. But it’s the only strain on his mother’s side he’ll admit to.
Otherwise, he’d have to apologize for his planter forbears.
Kapernick might soon get benched for the backup, as his career has been downhill since teams have forced him to pass and not run.
Teddy Bridgewater has been okay, maybe good, in his 20 games in the lead.
But Taylor and Kapernick have been awful awful.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
With that name, why isn’t he playing with the Patriots? Too close to the Vineyard?
QBR doesn't accurately capture the value he brings to his team imo (replacement level talent at WR and OL). Of course, you spend $20M on a QB, harder to fix holes elsewhere. The salary cap QB conundrum.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
The Newtons don’t have the pull they had in the college game. Didn’t they get an Alabama fellow fired for playing Steve Miller’s “Take the Money and Run” over the loudspeaker during the Auburn game?
Tom Brady is probably the least gifted QB in the NFL, and always has been. His job is to impose the coaches will on the other side, and to not make mistakes. A gifted QB is often a less focused QB, because those who can do, do. Rodgers is a rare exception.
And how exactly does one coach a QB with an IQ below 92 to run an NFL offence?
The Rooneys should really ask their actress kin Miss Mara to use her first name, Patricia, onscreen, and let the Giants deal with the fallout of her wearing dragon tattoos and nothing else.Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Taco, @Steven Austen
I prefer to think of him as “Ron Mexico”
I guarantee NFL executives have had a more coded version of the above conversation on multiple occasions.Replies: @Curious, @MarkinLA
So why is football still popular among Southern whites?
The Rooneys should really ask their actress kin Miss Mara to use her first name, Patricia, onscreen, and let the Giants deal with the fallout of her wearing dragon tattoos and nothing else.Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Taco, @Steven Austen
She says it is time for LBGT matters to be addressed in movies. So how about her and some other hot actresses bringing the L to some movie? I am sure the Steveosphere can come up with a script (or two!).
Clearly, QBR is racist. On the other hand, I just let my ESPN Magazine subscription expire; I could no longer tolerate the liberal bias and worship of all things black.
By the way, I wonder what is the ratio of starting black quarterbacks in the college FBS; and their QBRs? Each year it seems like there are more and more starting black QBs - Ohio State, FSU, Notre Dame and, now Florida.Replies: @Anonymous
Team speed is a huge factor for success in college football. It’s also difficult to implement a complex passing scheme due to the limited number of hours each team is allowed to practice per week. These two factors lead to the development of more athletic quarterbacks who aren’t expected to have to make too many difficult reads and throws.
I am just shy of six four. I have met several college players who were listed at two or three inches taller than me who were shorter. My son played center for his college and he was listed as six five when he was just barely over six feet.
So Russel Wilson is probably no where near six feet. A person with the right softwear could probably reliably estimate how tall an actor or athlete really is. You might get some click bait out of it.Replies: @Brutusale
The weights are the same…in the opposite direction. Guys are listed as weighing 310 lbs. when they go 370 lbs. minimum. Vince Wilfork hasn’t been his listed 325 since high school!
The Rooneys represent every mindless SWPL thought ever brought to the NFL’s attention. I’d like to ask Belichick what he thinks of the Rooney Rule!
But he definitely was the difference maker for Super Bowl XIII, the one where Jackie Smith dropped an easily catchable pass in end zone and he was wide open; on one within ten yards of him, so that’s on Smith for not catching an easily thrown pass to tie the game.
Bradshaw was excellent in Super Bowls XIII and XIV as you note. Re Brutusale’s comment, Terry Bradshaw’s career 212 TD/210 INT numbers are dwarfed by the 4 rings that he may or may not have had a lot to do with I would say he had relatively little to do with the first two and quite a bit to do with the last two.
But in Super Bowl XIII, I think Jackie Smith’s drop gets too much attention. It happened in the third quarter with the score 21-14. After he dropped it they kicked the field goal. Pittsburgh then scored two TDs, the second coming with seven minutes left in the game, to go up 35-17. After that it was garbage time. Dallas got a TD with about 2 1/2 minutes left, then recovered the onside kick and scored their last TD with 22 seconds on the clock to make it look close.
There’s no telling how the game would have gone if Smith had made the catch. The one thing I’m sure of is, if Pittsburgh had been up by 14 instead of 17 in the middle of the 4th quarter, their defense would have been a little more dialed in for the rest of the game.
Maybe Dallas lost focus after the drop? But if so, that’s on them, not on Jackie Smith.
Here’s video of the drop.
It’s hyperbole to say there was no one within 10 yards of him; the play started from the 10-yard line. But yeah, he was open, and he should have caught it.
Maybe Dallas lost focus after the drop? But if so, that’s on them, not on Jackie Smith."
The two best defenses of the era (two SB titles for each before the game), two great offensive lines, outstanding QBs, receivers and runners, this was the real, greatest game ever played. Yes, who knows how it progresses if Smith makes the catch and it is 21-21. However, some shit luck came the Cowboys' way after that drop, and not all of it made by Pittsburgh. A questionable PI penalty, a 3rd down sack of Bradshaw nullified by a questionable delay of game by the Steelers. Top the drive off with Franco's TD run on which Charlie Waters was screened out by the Umpire, 28-17. Then on the kickoff Roy Gerela slips and squibs the kick right at Randy White, who with his broken hand in a cast, loses the ball and may have recovered the ball, but the refs allow a scrum and a late to the pile Steeler ends up with the ball 20 yards from the end zone. Next play, 35-17. So, yes, it could be argued that the Smith drop set in motion a bunch of bad luck for the Cowboys. I do agree that Bradshaw was outstanding in XIII and even more lights out in SB XIV.
And one thing I'll say about Tom Brady: he doesn't do a lot of stupid things, not when it's important.
There aren't many other quarterbacks about whom I can say that. For what it's worth, these kinds of problems seem to be pretty common with black quarterbacks, including Russell Wilson. They make one great play after another, and then they commit some infamous boner. It would drive me out of my gourd if I was rooting for their team.Replies: @SecretaryNS, @David In TN, @MarkinLA
I recall in 1977 when black QB James Harris was traded to the Chargers from the Rams, San Diego columnist Jarry Magee remarked, “Harris is prone to the big error.”
That was his pattern on the Rams as well.
Tebow is a very stubborn dude underneath that smiling persona. He could've switched to wide receiver on coming out of college and had a good number of options, but stuck to quarterback. But then he didn't improve his mechanics, his reads, etc; he tried to Michael Vick it. He basically tried to wing and a prayer it as he did in college; it worked a few times for the Broncos, but that's it.
Like Vick, the guy never bothered to learn the position beyond what he could physically overpower lesser mortals at.Replies: @SecretaryNS, @keypusher
There’s college talent and there’s NFL talent. Archie Griffin was a legitimately great college runner, but he was just average in the NFL. And you have to be very talented to be a big-time college quarterback, but that doesn’t mean you’re talented enough to succeed in the NFL. Pretty much every draft board had Tebow as a middle-round pick at best, just marginal. They were right.
I’ve never heard anyone suggest he could be a wide receiver. Tight end or H-back, maybe.
Broadway Joe was brash, outspoken and guaranteed the first AFL Super Bowl victory, so that washes away his pathetic TD/INT ratio, just like Terry Bradshaw's career 212 TD/210 INT numbers are dwarfed by the 4 rings that he may or may not have had a lot to do with.
The key for the running QBs is getting to the point where the brain (I'm supposed to complete a pass!) overrides the instinct (Pressure...Take off!). Wilson has mostly gotten there. Taylor seems to be further along than most expected. Bridgewater averaged less than a yard per carry in college, so he was never a real runner.
Now they're ready for the second step: the check-down list, an infinitely more difficult process. Some never master it. Some only look for the primary and then take off, leaving them to take the coaching staff's abuse in the film session about missing those guys waving their hands downfield.
The key to it all is to find the guy who fits what you're trying to do. Bradshaw's job was to hand the ball to Franco Harris or Rocky Bleier, while occasionally using his cannon of an arm to throw it to the moon where Lynn Swann or John Stallworth would jump to said moon to pull it in. The offense didn't run through Bradshaw.
Contrast that to the current wearer of 4 rings, Tom Brady. The entire offense runs through him. He's had an ever-changing cast of characters lining up at running back not because they have 1,000 yard potential, but because they fit what Belichick is doing, Dion Lewis being the latest example. He's had a steady supply of slow but precise white guys to throw to, and he's seems to be able to get at least one of them 100 catches every year. As Steve has pointed out, too, the Patriots are pretty white, and they're all smart enough to buy into what Belichick is selling.
The discussion isn't about the BS in this chart, but who makes the team go, who makes everyone else better. The people whining about Cam Newton's O-line need to remember that he's supposed to be one of the elite as well as quick on his feet, so the inexperienced line shouldn't really bother him...like the 4-0 Tom Brady playing lights out with THREE rookies, including the center, on the O-line in 3 of the first 4 games.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Buffalo Joe, @Dirk Dagger
’twas a different time, maybe a better one.
Terry called his own plays.
The interceptions don’t hurt as much when the defense is that good. His Super Bowl TD/INT is 9/4 in four games with 49 total completions.
To some extent that was rational since teams weren't that good at moving downfield reliably, so a turnover on a deep pass wasn't too much worse than punting.
I can remember around 1969 Roman Gabriel being cited for seldom being intercepted, but it was presented as minor positive side effect to the problem that he threw the ball so hard and with so much spin that his receivers couldn't hold onto it.
My vague recollection is that the touchdown-interception ratio wasn't a big deal to football fans in the 1960s-70s. Today, it seems like a really simple, obvious stat, but for some reason I don't have a lot of old TD-interception ratios stored away in my head.
It seems to me that sheer passing yardage was the glamor stat way back then. Namath's 4007 in a 14 game season was a big deal, like OJ's 2003 yards rushing. Namath's 4000 yard 1967 was an important breakthrough in that it showed you could pass all the time and do pretty well. Nobody broke that mark until Dan Fouts in 1979.
Or maybe the New York Jets had a strategy that once they got close to the end zone they'd always run it in?
In Bill Simmons' book on the NBA, he found a lot of answers to statistical puzzles like this by reading old Sports Illustrated articles and player autobiographies and watching some old games on Youtube.Replies: @keypusher, @candid_observer, @Buffalo Joe, @David In TN
“My vague recollection is that the touchdown-interception ratio wan’t a big deal to football fans in the 1960-70’s.”
You’re right, as long as the QB was a winner and racked up a lot of passing yardage and TD’s. And yes, passing yardage was the glamour stat for QB’s back then.
Alec Ogletree too.
Here is a girl with some Chinese facial features who has red hair.
“A Uyghur girl in Kashgar, China’s Xinjiang region, with red hair”
Most NY quarterbacks suffer from the extreme case of East Coast Bias in the sports media that non-east coasters rightfully complain about. Namath has benefited the longest from their hype, especially given that his team pulled out at improbable victory in a SuperBowl he “guaranteed” they’d win. And Namath for years used that as his calling card and kept bringing it back up to NY Media types; he’s like David Lee Roth, always using his Van Halen days to prove his greatness.
The NY media hypes their new quarterbacks as if they were the best in the league, no matter what. Mark Sanchez and Chad Pennington both got boosted to high heaven during their Jets days, and yet both were mediocre (Pennington’s was probably better, but too hotheaded, and his injury didn’t help).
Eli Manning, who is a pretty ok quarterback but no world-beater, would basically be unknown if not on the Giants. His superbowl victories are the Giants defense + Tom Coughlin.
And let’s not get started on being on a team that won the ” a superbowl/world series” is somehow, in the national media’s mind, akin to proving a good player’s greatness. Yeah, ’cause football and baseball are individual sports. Maybe if you’re the (legitimate) MVP of the superbowl/world series and have a great playoff run to boot it can prove your greatness, but merely being a good player on a winning team proves nothing.
This was my beef about Derek Jeter for years: a good hitter, poor fielder, yet the ESPN dunderheads used to claim that his WS rings proved he was better than A-Rod (in his pre-Yankees days). Yeah, because the Yankees had no pitching or other great hitters or fielders during those days. A-Rod’s numbers always put him above Jeter, both hitting and fielding, but he rubbed sportswriters and players the wrong way and came off phony.
Yeah, I don't get this either. The best quarterback of that era that I ever saw play wasn't Unitas, or Starr, or Namath. It was Sonny Jurgensen. Nobody could throw the ball like him. He was on the Washington Redskins when they were crap. A 7-7 season was about all you were going to get from that team. No less an authority than Vince Lombardi also thought that highly of Jurgensen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_JurgensenReplies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Here’s the article about Reid.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/10/distant-replay/306988/
Note that he volunteered to watch the film. I’m not at all surprised he hadn’t seen the game before, and I’ll bet most coaches his age haven’t. Modern grandmasters don’t spend a lot of time looking at old chess games, either, though history buffs like me do. The game moves on.
I've never heard anyone suggest he could be a wide receiver. Tight end or H-back, maybe.Replies: @whorefinder
Tight end is just the wide receiver position for tall white guys these days. Kind of like how, a few years ago in Madden, if you made a white running back, the game defaulted into making the player a fullback and not a tailback or halfback.
And Tebow had massive talent, his low draft position was a function of his poor mechanics and how he would have a long slog to be NFL ready. Again, his own stubbornness at not learning his position better hurt him. Had he even worked at it he should have stuck around for a while, instead of being kicked off every team he tried for. And he’s got too much ego, hence why he didn’t pull a Doug Flutie and go up to the CFL in Canada and hone his craft/prove them all wrong and then come back to play at the NFL level. For Tebow, it was NFL starter or nothing. That’s ego.
By contrast, here are some names from a list of 40 defensive players:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/defense/sort/totalTackles/year/2015/seasontype/2
D'Qwell
NaVorro
Reshad
Lavonte
Karlos
Donte
Deone
Ha'Sean Treshon ("Ha Ha")Replies: @E. Rekshun
JaMarcus Russell, Starting QB, Oakland Raiders, ’07 – ’09.
Even with him, the discrepancy still stands.
Unfortunately, he's so popular that as soon as an offense struggles for a couple of games, fans will clamor for "Tebow Time", and no GM or head coach wants to deal with the hassle. Imagine Tebow backing up Kaepernick right now.Replies: @whorefinder
I agree in a sense, though I would say that he made himself the star attraction, so he has only himself to blame. He outs himself in the spotlight, made it impossible for teams to develop him slowly as he needed to—he wanted that starting position now, darn it!
Tebow is basically a smiling, nice guy version of Jeff George or Michael Vick—too much ego, too loud with the press and fans to accept any role except starting QB who calls all the shots.
Bradshaw was excellent in Super Bowls XIII and XIV as you note. Re Brutusale's comment, Terry Bradshaw’s career 212 TD/210 INT numbers are dwarfed by the 4 rings that he may or may not have had a lot to do with I would say he had relatively little to do with the first two and quite a bit to do with the last two.
But in Super Bowl XIII, I think Jackie Smith's drop gets too much attention. It happened in the third quarter with the score 21-14. After he dropped it they kicked the field goal. Pittsburgh then scored two TDs, the second coming with seven minutes left in the game, to go up 35-17. After that it was garbage time. Dallas got a TD with about 2 1/2 minutes left, then recovered the onside kick and scored their last TD with 22 seconds on the clock to make it look close.
There's no telling how the game would have gone if Smith had made the catch. The one thing I'm sure of is, if Pittsburgh had been up by 14 instead of 17 in the middle of the 4th quarter, their defense would have been a little more dialed in for the rest of the game.
Maybe Dallas lost focus after the drop? But if so, that's on them, not on Jackie Smith.
Here's video of the drop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHylWmLDPcs
It's hyperbole to say there was no one within 10 yards of him; the play started from the 10-yard line. But yeah, he was open, and he should have caught it.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Ron Mexico
Uh, those are points left on the ground that Dallas simply didn’t pick up. If they had, it would’ve tied the game. The entire superbowl turned on that single play. You can tell that Landry had over thought that play for just that moment. They deliberately took out Lambert from coming up the middle, they brought Smith into the game for exactly that play.
Dallas didn’t lose focus after the drop as they managed quite well to score 2 more TDs during last 7 minutes of the game. The game wasn’t in the bag up to that point in time and either side could’ve taken it. Smith’s drop turned the tide and changed the entire game, as the verdict of history has long stated.
Just watched it last night. If Smith catches the ball, whatever else happens from thereon out, the game was tied. If everything happens exactly as it did, it ends in regulation as a 35 all time, and instead NFL historians might give attention to K Gerela’s missed FG in 2nd quarter. Roy Gerela play in three superbowls with Steelers and missed 5 FGs and that is simply too many to miss. He was finally cut after the Superbowl and Steelers drafted Matt Bahr for ’79.
Superbowl XIII is one of the greatest championship games in history for precisely at how evenly matched both teams were and other stats (e.g. total yards gained, sacks, turnovers, etc)
Everything except for Jackie Smith’s dropped pass. Its unfortunate as he is in the HOF but is now primarily known for dropping the big one. A pass that went right to him that any fifth grader would catch. No one was around him within ten yards. You can also observe how momentous it was by the fact that broadcasters John Brodie; Merlin Olsen (co-workers with Kurt Goudy for that game) later went out of their way to state “Oh, it wasn’t that big a deal, no one play turns the entire game around.” That’s former players covering for one of the best TE at that time but the facts are it turned the tide of the entire game. Both defenses were quite tired at this point, as many interviews were given about that game (HOF Joe Greene stated that he played with what he thought was a concussion for at least a quarter and a half. That’s incredible, but that’s how hard the hitting was in that game. Neither side had much left by game’s end. Also, HOF Stallworth had leg cramps which sidelined him for second half as did cramps for players on Dallas side as well. It was a well fought emotionally draining evenly matched game).
In a game like that, you can’t afford to leave points on the ground. Gerela’s missed FQ could’ve been a bigger deal had Smith caught TD because it ties the game toward end of 3rd, a crucial point in the game. Nothing hyperbole about it. That play was designed by Landry to catch Pittsburgh off guard and it almost worked because no one was covering Smith, he was that wide open. Very few championships turn completely on one play and Smith’s drop is one of them.
yes, I remember that
And one thing I'll say about Tom Brady: he doesn't do a lot of stupid things, not when it's important.
There aren't many other quarterbacks about whom I can say that. For what it's worth, these kinds of problems seem to be pretty common with black quarterbacks, including Russell Wilson. They make one great play after another, and then they commit some infamous boner. It would drive me out of my gourd if I was rooting for their team.Replies: @SecretaryNS, @David In TN, @MarkinLA
Yeah, when you are known for it they call you a gunslinger like Brett Favre who threw a lot of interceptions at bonehead times as if he was still playing with the neighborhood kids and when one game ends you just start another one. He was just lucky he won the Superbowl once or people would remember him more for his bad plays at critical times.
I guarantee NFL executives have had a more coded version of the above conversation on multiple occasions.Replies: @Curious, @MarkinLA
Whites watch basketball so your theory doesn’t hold. In addition, for any NFL team with a star black quarterback there is a ton of money in licensing of team memorabilia like jerseys to the black audience.
http://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/which-pro-sport-generates-the-most-revenue-051414Replies: @MarkinLA
And , Whitlock isn't blaming "racism."
Instead, Whitlock pointed out that the quarterback-as-running-back makes them much easier targets to injure and also, inevitably, will wear out their legs a lot faster than a drop-back-and passer while, simultaneously, making their legs even more important. A drop back passer can have crappy knees, but thanks to his pass protection and rules protecting him in the pocket, a dropback quarterback with poor but manageable knees can get along to his mid-30s or beyond, but a running quarterback will be worn out just from wear and tear.
So Whilock envisions that teams will have 2-3 quarterbacks that they will just rotate into plays---in other words, the same system as the other running backs on the field. So if one gets injured, there's a couple replacements jumping right in on the next play without any significant drop off. And the other running backs tend to be done by their late 20s.
Whitlock is basically telling blacks that if they clamor for the NFL to change the game to suit them as quarterbacks they will actually diminish their own value. "Shut up and learn the position!"
Of course, what goes unsaid is that blacks largely won't put the effort in to learn the nuances of the position if they can't merely physically dominate it. Once in the NFL Michael Vick couldn't just physically push over his opponents like he did in college, and his "Madden" and ESPN-friendly highlights were belied by his stats. Steve Young had great wheels, but at least learned a system and didn't abuse them; Tim Tebow, who himself has great wheels, is stubborn like Vick about improving himself (but at least he doesn't abuse dogs and is nice to the public).Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Sunbeam, @DCThrowback, @MarkinLA
Tebow doesn’t have an NFL arm. There is nothing he can do about it. Even some with an NFL arm never make much of a career. Kyle Boller was such a high school phenom who could throw the ball 70 yards in the air even then. Had a so-so career at Cal and was a high draft pick.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/06/sports/sp-65372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Boller
Passing has become the most important aspect of pro football. If coaches thought returning to the old single wing and running a quarterback like a halfback would win games they would do so.
That said, a single wing or a wishbone offense with the right personnel might do well in the NFL for one season, until the other teams adjusted to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idx5wsH6Fys
Guy was useless on any throw btwn 5 and 20 yds, but hit like 5 big plays down the field b/c Lebeau wouldn't blitz him, including the game winner in OT. (The Broncos were 8 point dogs in this game. The next week they got 14 points at NE and got housed 45-14.)Replies: @MarkinLA
Bradshaw was excellent in Super Bowls XIII and XIV as you note. Re Brutusale's comment, Terry Bradshaw’s career 212 TD/210 INT numbers are dwarfed by the 4 rings that he may or may not have had a lot to do with I would say he had relatively little to do with the first two and quite a bit to do with the last two.
But in Super Bowl XIII, I think Jackie Smith's drop gets too much attention. It happened in the third quarter with the score 21-14. After he dropped it they kicked the field goal. Pittsburgh then scored two TDs, the second coming with seven minutes left in the game, to go up 35-17. After that it was garbage time. Dallas got a TD with about 2 1/2 minutes left, then recovered the onside kick and scored their last TD with 22 seconds on the clock to make it look close.
There's no telling how the game would have gone if Smith had made the catch. The one thing I'm sure of is, if Pittsburgh had been up by 14 instead of 17 in the middle of the 4th quarter, their defense would have been a little more dialed in for the rest of the game.
Maybe Dallas lost focus after the drop? But if so, that's on them, not on Jackie Smith.
Here's video of the drop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHylWmLDPcs
It's hyperbole to say there was no one within 10 yards of him; the play started from the 10-yard line. But yeah, he was open, and he should have caught it.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Ron Mexico
“There’s no telling how the game would have gone if Smith had made the catch. The one thing I’m sure of is, if Pittsburgh had been up by 14 instead of 17 in the middle of the 4th quarter, their defense would have been a little more dialed in for the rest of the game.
Maybe Dallas lost focus after the drop? But if so, that’s on them, not on Jackie Smith.”
The two best defenses of the era (two SB titles for each before the game), two great offensive lines, outstanding QBs, receivers and runners, this was the real, greatest game ever played. Yes, who knows how it progresses if Smith makes the catch and it is 21-21. However, some shit luck came the Cowboys’ way after that drop, and not all of it made by Pittsburgh. A questionable PI penalty, a 3rd down sack of Bradshaw nullified by a questionable delay of game by the Steelers. Top the drive off with Franco’s TD run on which Charlie Waters was screened out by the Umpire, 28-17. Then on the kickoff Roy Gerela slips and squibs the kick right at Randy White, who with his broken hand in a cast, loses the ball and may have recovered the ball, but the refs allow a scrum and a late to the pile Steeler ends up with the ball 20 yards from the end zone. Next play, 35-17. So, yes, it could be argued that the Smith drop set in motion a bunch of bad luck for the Cowboys. I do agree that Bradshaw was outstanding in XIII and even more lights out in SB XIV.
And let’s not get started on being on a team that won the ” a superbowl/world series” is somehow, in the national media’s mind, akin to proving a good player’s greatness.
Yeah, I don’t get this either. The best quarterback of that era that I ever saw play wasn’t Unitas, or Starr, or Namath. It was Sonny Jurgensen. Nobody could throw the ball like him. He was on the Washington Redskins when they were crap. A 7-7 season was about all you were going to get from that team. No less an authority than Vince Lombardi also thought that highly of Jurgensen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Jurgensen
The first modern NFL running back was Jim Brown and most experts agree.
The first modern NFL QB was Unitas. In 1959 playing under a 12 game schedule he threw 32 TDs which is equivalent to Marino's '84 then record of 48 TDs in a 16 game schedule. Two minute drill marching downfield for comeback wins that future HOFers like Elway, Montana, etc are known for can be directly tied to Unitas.
The Steelers cut Unitas for no real good reason other than they were known for not being the best at scouting talent at that time. He turns the somewhat mediocre Colts into perennial champs in '58 and in '59.
How many NFL titles did Jergensen play with/win with Redskins? Oh that's right.
None.*
Norm Van Brocklin was starting QB for Eagles in '60 over Packers.Replies: @MarkinLA
Since this thread is covering 70’s quarterbacks with mixed reputations, thoughts on the recently deceased Kenny “the Vampire” Stabler?
Also, Stabler has more INT vs TDs for his career as he seemed to lose his way when he left the Raiders.Jim Plunkett won two superbowls with the Raiders and yet is still not in the HOF, by the way.Replies: @MarkinLA
exactly what he posted: The most important and high profile member of the team is one of their own.
McCown put up arcade numbers against some bad pass defenses in 2013 when Cutler got hurt for the Chicago Bears. Based on that small sample size, he got a deal from Tampa last year, where he quickly regressed to his career means.
NFL teams still believed in that 2013, though. Both the Bills and Browns offered him deals this year after he was relieved from Tampa, and he chose the Browns. Let's be honest, though; his last two weeks were against a mediocre Chargers D & a Ravens pass defense that might be league worst w/ no pass rush from Suggs (who is out for the year). (To his credit, he is doing this with a terrible set of WRs and making a star out of TE Gary Barnidge.)Replies: @WillBest
It is my understanding that the Browns have a decent to good offensive line. Next week against the Broncos will be a test for sure. The less scary Jets D shut them down. But then again the Jets have a mediocre offense whereas the Broncos have no offense. I hope that is the national game because I would like to see it.
Yeah, I don't get this either. The best quarterback of that era that I ever saw play wasn't Unitas, or Starr, or Namath. It was Sonny Jurgensen. Nobody could throw the ball like him. He was on the Washington Redskins when they were crap. A 7-7 season was about all you were going to get from that team. No less an authority than Vince Lombardi also thought that highly of Jurgensen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_JurgensenReplies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Ok, whatever.
The first modern NFL running back was Jim Brown and most experts agree.
The first modern NFL QB was Unitas. In 1959 playing under a 12 game schedule he threw 32 TDs which is equivalent to Marino’s ’84 then record of 48 TDs in a 16 game schedule. Two minute drill marching downfield for comeback wins that future HOFers like Elway, Montana, etc are known for can be directly tied to Unitas.
The Steelers cut Unitas for no real good reason other than they were known for not being the best at scouting talent at that time. He turns the somewhat mediocre Colts into perennial champs in ’58 and in ’59.
How many NFL titles did Jergensen play with/win with Redskins? Oh that’s right.
None.*
Norm Van Brocklin was starting QB for Eagles in ’60 over Packers.
None.*
Again that stupid irrelevant measure of how good somebody was. Unitas was one of the all time greats - he just was on good teams and wasn't as good as Jurgensen.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Uh, yes. All those regular season wins and only one superbowl ring. Trent Dilfer has that many. Oakland choked away too many AFC title games but maybe they just weren’t all that when playoff time came around or they’d have gotten it done. Sorry, but losing five out of six AFC Title Games? Come on. That’s not dominant that’s choking.
Yes, people remember the “Sea of hands”; “Holy Roller”; “Ghost to the Post”; what about the weeks after those games? Well, after the Sea of Hands, Oakland went on to lose to the Steelers in the Title Game. After Ghost to Post, they went on to lose to Denver in the Title Game.
In some ways, Stabler was the ’70’s Payton Manning. Seldom got it done in the playoffs.
Also, Stabler has more INT vs TDs for his career as he seemed to lose his way when he left the Raiders.
Jim Plunkett won two superbowls with the Raiders and yet is still not in the HOF, by the way.
Because Plunkett was a journeyman quarterback and not HOF material who just happened to be on good teams.Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
The first modern NFL running back was Jim Brown and most experts agree.
The first modern NFL QB was Unitas. In 1959 playing under a 12 game schedule he threw 32 TDs which is equivalent to Marino's '84 then record of 48 TDs in a 16 game schedule. Two minute drill marching downfield for comeback wins that future HOFers like Elway, Montana, etc are known for can be directly tied to Unitas.
The Steelers cut Unitas for no real good reason other than they were known for not being the best at scouting talent at that time. He turns the somewhat mediocre Colts into perennial champs in '58 and in '59.
How many NFL titles did Jergensen play with/win with Redskins? Oh that's right.
None.*
Norm Van Brocklin was starting QB for Eagles in '60 over Packers.Replies: @MarkinLA
How many NFL titles did Jergensen play with/win with Redskins? Oh that’s right.
None.*
Again that stupid irrelevant measure of how good somebody was. Unitas was one of the all time greats – he just was on good teams and wasn’t as good as Jurgensen.
Also, Stabler has more INT vs TDs for his career as he seemed to lose his way when he left the Raiders.Jim Plunkett won two superbowls with the Raiders and yet is still not in the HOF, by the way.Replies: @MarkinLA
Jim Plunkett won two superbowls with the Raiders and yet is still not in the HOF, by the way.
Because Plunkett was a journeyman quarterback and not HOF material who just happened to be on good teams.
Because Plunkett was a journeyman quarterback and not HOF material who just happened to be on good teams.Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
MarkinLA, Jim Kelly played with a great supporting cast, went to four consecutive Super Bowls and is in the HOF. He has zero SB rings. Buffalo was seriously outcoached in all four SBs but Marv Levy is in the HOF. There most be a political element in the voting.
The good Dr. Z is still with us. Rumors of his demise have been…well you know the rest.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/06/sports/sp-65372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Boller
Passing has become the most important aspect of pro football. If coaches thought returning to the old single wing and running a quarterback like a halfback would win games they would do so.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @DCThrowback
The biggest difference between the pros and college in football is speed. It’s just a lot harder for a QB to run on an NFL defense than a college defense.
That said, a single wing or a wishbone offense with the right personnel might do well in the NFL for one season, until the other teams adjusted to it.
College style option offense will never rule the NFL, you fool commenters above. There are many reasons but first and foremost is the difference in the ball size between the two levels of play.
It’s easy to tell who writes/chats about football but has never ever held a damn ball in their hands. Newsflash: the NFL ball will be fumbled if you start shoveling it around in the backfield like an Okie from Muskogie.
None.*
Again that stupid irrelevant measure of how good somebody was. Unitas was one of the all time greats - he just was on good teams and wasn't as good as Jurgensen.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Let’s try again.
“Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence”– Carl Sagan
Jergensen was a great stats guy. So was Unitas. So what? What specific evidence that the Redskins wouldn’t have won NFL Titles with or without him? Since he never got the job done, that’s basically on him as the QB is the captain of the offense.
Unitas was the captain of his offense and made his team great. They weren’t all that before he came to the Colts. After he got there, he turned them into champs. Same with Montana, Bradshaw, Brady, etc.
The great ones get it done when it counts the most.
If one is going to claim to be “great” or most dominant of their sport during their specific era then they’d better produce the proof. Individual stats are nice, but so what? Did they win? If yes, how many? And winning is all that counts in sports. The greatest team is the one with the most championships. At the end of the day, winning is all that counts and matters.
In the NFL, the more you produce during regular season, once the clock turns to January/early Feb. it’s time to show the proof. Otherwise, its just a nice individual statistic career; show the proof if you want to aspire to greatness.
There’s a reason why Unitas’s name is most often mentioned as all time greatest and most dominant of his era: Because he got it done when he had to, as in “Greatest game ever played”.
In his excellent book Big Play, Allen Barra writes: “I’ve never heard anyone mention one, simple, obvious, and very important fact: After 1960 Johnny Unitas never played a single good postseason game”.
http://miamimigraine.blogspot.com/2008/03/not-greatest-quarterback-of-all-time_26.html
Does that make Unitas not a great quarterback? No, of course he was. So was Sonny. But if Unitas had wound up with the Redskins, he would have won exactly as many titles as Jurgensen did.
Your comments on Plunkett are also off-base. His career is much more recent than Jergensen; to the extent he's remembered more than Jergensen, that's the reason. Jurgensen's in the Hall of Fame, Plunkett isn't. That's because people who know football know Jurgensen was a much better quarterback.
And the Raiders weren’t the dominant team in the first SB, they were a wildcard. An average QB wouldn’t have taken them all the way to the Superbowl.
If he'd been a better quarterback, the Raiders wouldn't have been a wildcard. Makes as little or as much sense as your comment.
I will take the word of Vince Lombardi and my own lying eyes that saw them play. Nobody was as good a passer as Jurgensen. Unitas won when there were 12 teams in the league and no playoffs just a championship game.
Because Plunkett was a journeyman quarterback and not HOF material who just happened to be on good teams.Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Unlike Jergensen, Plunkett is still remembered for those not taking Geritol. That’s what happens when you get it done and win on the biggest stage. Same reason Bill Kilmer isn’t instantly recalled either and yet Joe Theisman is. Theisman wasn’t great but he got it done as QB of the Redskins.
Once is luck, twice is not. Plunkett has some good stats for his era and should get some HOF votes down the road. He got it done twice which is the same as Roger Staubach. And the Raiders weren’t the dominant team in the first SB, they were a wildcard. An average QB wouldn’t have taken them all the way to the Superbowl. Before that, the other wildcard that went to the SB was the ’75 Cowboys under Staubach.
Aww, you think that NBA revenue can hold a candle to the NFL. That’s cute.
http://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/which-pro-sport-generates-the-most-revenue-051414
Yes, this is an important point, though not really a revelation. Supposedly traditional passing stats underrated Joe Namath because they ignored his ability to throw down the field while still avoiding sacks (despite being basically immobile). The best way to avoid sacks, it turns out, is to just get rid of the damn ball, not to run away from the defense.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6003
Dan Marino was the same 20 years later, but by then people had realized that this was an important ability.
I'd still like for someone to explain why Namath, relative to his peers, didn't throw more touchdown passes. This is one question I don't think the iSteve commentariat will be able to answer.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @el topo, @Mark Butterworth
I watched some of Namath’s games after the Super Bowl win. What astonished me were how many perfectly thrown balls were dropped by his receivers in the open field. George Sauer quit after 1970, and Don Maynard after 1972. Those were incredible receivers. Namath never had such good pass catchers again. And his stats show it. Namath’s passing was incredible but those last five or six years were torture. He hit guys in the hands time and time again, and they’d drop it.
Drew Brees is demonstrating something similar this year. Superb passer, not so superb offensive line and receivers.
But the South has the highest level of black star college quarterbacks than any other part of the country, yet it remains the most fanatical anout football. Auburn seemedcto actually gain fans when it had two back-to-back black QBs.
We’ve wandered pretty far afield, which is what happens with the sports threads.
For this pass weekend’s games, Tom Brady was 2o for 27 passing (74.1 completion percentage) threw for 275 yards, 10. 4 yards per attempt, threw for 2 touchdowns and ran for another, had no turnovers, had a 130.9 passer rating, and yet, according to this silly Ebonic SPorts Network statistical creation, was the 27th (out of 28) best NFL QB last week, with a QBR of 24.1.
His Dallas counterpart, Brandon Weeden, had a QBR of 27.5 after a stellar afternoon that showed him throwing for 188 yards on a 26 of 39 line, which yields a dismal 4.8 yards per attempt, with zero TDs and an interception.
As the kids say, WTF?
The unbearable whiteness of the superstar NFL QB has to be fought by whatever means necessary. Inventing “statistics” and beating their viewers over the heads with it seems to work; I see that even the venerable Pro-Football-Reference.Com has added it to their statistical mix.
Here is an article that says a little bit about QBR.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2015/10/byrne_espns_qbr_sells_tom_brady_shortReplies: @Brutusale
Winning. It's the one stat that everyone understands. When a team wins, the QB will get the lion's share of the credit. When it loses he gets the blame.
Re Unitas and Jurgensen:
In his excellent book Big Play, Allen Barra writes: “I’ve never heard anyone mention one, simple, obvious, and very important fact: After 1960 Johnny Unitas never played a single good postseason game”.
http://miamimigraine.blogspot.com/2008/03/not-greatest-quarterback-of-all-time_26.html
Does that make Unitas not a great quarterback? No, of course he was. So was Sonny. But if Unitas had wound up with the Redskins, he would have won exactly as many titles as Jurgensen did.
Your comments on Plunkett are also off-base. His career is much more recent than Jergensen; to the extent he’s remembered more than Jergensen, that’s the reason. Jurgensen’s in the Hall of Fame, Plunkett isn’t. That’s because people who know football know Jurgensen was a much better quarterback.
And the Raiders weren’t the dominant team in the first SB, they were a wildcard. An average QB wouldn’t have taken them all the way to the Superbowl.
If he’d been a better quarterback, the Raiders wouldn’t have been a wildcard. Makes as little or as much sense as your comment.
Drew Brees is demonstrating something similar this year. Superb passer, not so superb offensive line and receivers.Replies: @keypusher
In his first six seasons, 1965-70, playing with both Maynard and Sauer, Namath hit fewer than half his passes three times.
I don’t care about who won championships. If that was the only thing that mattered then what about the other positions? Deacon Jones did more for the Rams than Roman Gabriel did and they never won it all. Does that mean Deacon Jones wasn’t as good as he was?
I will take the word of Vince Lombardi and my own lying eyes that saw them play. Nobody was as good a passer as Jurgensen. Unitas won when there were 12 teams in the league and no playoffs just a championship game.
http://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/which-pro-sport-generates-the-most-revenue-051414Replies: @MarkinLA
What has the revenue got to do with your claim that whites won’t watch black athletes?
For this pass weekend's games, Tom Brady was 2o for 27 passing (74.1 completion percentage) threw for 275 yards, 10. 4 yards per attempt, threw for 2 touchdowns and ran for another, had no turnovers, had a 130.9 passer rating, and yet, according to this silly Ebonic SPorts Network statistical creation, was the 27th (out of 28) best NFL QB last week, with a QBR of 24.1.
His Dallas counterpart, Brandon Weeden, had a QBR of 27.5 after a stellar afternoon that showed him throwing for 188 yards on a 26 of 39 line, which yields a dismal 4.8 yards per attempt, with zero TDs and an interception.
As the kids say, WTF?
The unbearable whiteness of the superstar NFL QB has to be fought by whatever means necessary. Inventing "statistics" and beating their viewers over the heads with it seems to work; I see that even the venerable Pro-Football-Reference.Com has added it to their statistical mix.Replies: @keypusher, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Brandon Weeden is the same color as Tom Brady last time I checked. Leaving aside that QBR is idiotic, is there any evidence it disfavors white quarterbacks?
Here is an article that says a little bit about QBR.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2015/10/byrne_espns_qbr_sells_tom_brady_short
For this pass weekend's games, Tom Brady was 2o for 27 passing (74.1 completion percentage) threw for 275 yards, 10. 4 yards per attempt, threw for 2 touchdowns and ran for another, had no turnovers, had a 130.9 passer rating, and yet, according to this silly Ebonic SPorts Network statistical creation, was the 27th (out of 28) best NFL QB last week, with a QBR of 24.1.
His Dallas counterpart, Brandon Weeden, had a QBR of 27.5 after a stellar afternoon that showed him throwing for 188 yards on a 26 of 39 line, which yields a dismal 4.8 yards per attempt, with zero TDs and an interception.
As the kids say, WTF?
The unbearable whiteness of the superstar NFL QB has to be fought by whatever means necessary. Inventing "statistics" and beating their viewers over the heads with it seems to work; I see that even the venerable Pro-Football-Reference.Com has added it to their statistical mix.Replies: @keypusher, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Yes, but at the end of the day, the only stat that matters is: Which QB has won the most championships? Brady has four rings. How many does….fill in the blank with the recent QBs being compared to him at present.
Winning. It’s the one stat that everyone understands. When a team wins, the QB will get the lion’s share of the credit. When it loses he gets the blame.
Buffalo Joe said, “Coaching and play calling is often overlooked in NFL wins and losses.”
Right. The Patriots also play as a -team-, not a lot of showboating, etc. They also don’t commit a lot of penalties. Buffalo recently had IIRC 19 penalties in a game – almost two hundred yards at least. Hard to win games when you give your opponents at least 200 yards of field position.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/06/sports/sp-65372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Boller
Passing has become the most important aspect of pro football. If coaches thought returning to the old single wing and running a quarterback like a halfback would win games they would do so.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @DCThrowback
Disagree. Tebow could throw swing passes and deep bombs, but had no short to middle accuracy, which is essential to being a qb in the NFL.
Guy was useless on any throw btwn 5 and 20 yds, but hit like 5 big plays down the field b/c Lebeau wouldn’t blitz him, including the game winner in OT. (The Broncos were 8 point dogs in this game. The next week they got 14 points at NE and got housed 45-14.)
I agree with what you say about what make an NFL QB and my example of Boller was maybe not a good one. But that doesn't change the fact that Tebow doesn't have an NFL arm.
Throwing a deep bomb is more about just heaving the ball when your receiver has made a gap and having them run underneath it using their body as a shield and making the catch. This even a high schooler can do. The intermediate passes where you have to hit somebody on the dead run are NFL passes.
If you remember all those QB competitions ESPN did when they had a moving target and the quarterback had to try and hit the target. At the long distances for the vast majority of them it was more about luck past 40 yards.
I only gave the example of Boller is because of all the hoopla he got coming out of high school supposedly being the next Elway.
Any line w/ Joe Thomas, Joel Bitonio & Alex Mack on it is going to be good, I agree. Both the Jets & Broncos possess top 5 defenses, with Denver perhaps being the best in the league (though the slate of QBs they’ve faced: Flacco, Smith, the corpse of Matthew Stafford, Bridgewater & Carr) leaves a little to be desired.
Jason Whitlock occassionally guest hosts on Pardon The Interruption. I find him funny, well-informed, and remarkably free of what the Derb calls blackety-blackety-black. He says some un-PC things and does not defend stupid thing black athletes do.
And not one black in last season Premier League Top 11 in assists:
http://www.worldfootball.net/assists/eng-premier-league-2014-2015/
Of course it’s white people’s fault:
http://inbedwithmaradona.com/journal/2011/11/7/is-europe-killing-the-african-playmaker.html
Right. The Patriots also play as a -team-, not a lot of showboating, etc. They also don't commit a lot of penalties. Buffalo recently had IIRC 19 penalties in a game - almost two hundred yards at least. Hard to win games when you give your opponents at least 200 yards of field position.Replies: @Brutusale
The funniest story to come out of the Seattle-Detroit batted ball debacle was the coverage former Patriot Roosevelt Colvin got when he tweeted “I promise you Bill Belichick knows that rule…cause we practiced it in our situational practices! #wedabest #chesswhileyouplaycheckers”
Right now the NFL ideal qb is a tall guy with a missile launcher arm ("He can make all the throws"), and a positronic brain to make all those reads and go through checkdowns in a hurry.
If you run a "spread" offense the throws get a lot easier. Spread is kind of an ambiguous term to me, because it includes things like both Oregon's offense and Mike Leach's Air Raid.
But for the part about easier throws, the key is the qb is a threat to run. To me the biggest component of the pro defenses we've seen for about 50 years is the ability to double cover. Which is possible because the defense is playing 11 on ten, because the qb is no threat to run.
Remove this restriction and it opens up a lot of things. Obviously the defense can still double cover, but if it does, you leave a gaping weakness in another part of the field.
You really haven't seen this done in the NFL yet, aside from parts of that one miracle season Tebow had in Denver. San Francisco, Seattle, they've used parts of the college playbook, but they haven't gone full blown with it.
It is pretty standard to say it won't work in the NFL. I tend to disagree. For a long time I've had a scheme like Whitlock's in mind. Carry a number of qb's and play all of them.
And trust me, I'd run qb power 40 times in a game until Ray Lewis (or whoever) is a bloody mess.
All these black/white things aside, to me it seems to be the natural evolution of the game at this point. For a number of reasons pro set/I formation teams are really the new "gimmick" teams in college football.
Anyway I'm going to google this guy. But my thinking hasn't had a single thing to do with "devaluing the postion." I guess it does, because essentially qb would become a position more like running back, than a system where you have to have "The guy," who frankly doesn't come along very often. A whole lot more guys come out every year who could run a system like this than will ever play like Tom Brady.Replies: @whorefinder, @G Pinfold
This is the trend in all the other football codes. Diminishing marginal returns on classical patterns lead towards teams of super-athletes in every position, and these guys are fairly interchangeable. Rugby, for example, still has solidly built enforcers in the front row of the scrum but even these tend to be lighter and more mobile than say 30 years ago. The effect in modern rugby is that every player is a running threat and playing patterns have changed accordingly.
Here is an article that says a little bit about QBR.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2015/10/byrne_espns_qbr_sells_tom_brady_shortReplies: @Brutusale
I didn’t say white quarterbacks, I said SUPERSTAR white quarterbacks. Brandon Weeden need not apply, as he ain’t getting into that particular club.
As it states in the article you posted, QBR isn’t a stat, it’s partially a judgment call, which seems to be an effort to make football more like figure skating. It also brings personalities into the mix when you have “experts” deciding how much a player had to do with a particular play. Is a true believer in Deflategate cutting Brady any slack? A dog lover being kind to Vick? An ESPN beta lefty coming down on the side of Ben Rapelisberger?
As your own article asks, is this week’s QBR of Brady proof of a bad stat or ESPN bias? Given the admitted bias amongst the network shills favoring them, is there any way QBR wouldn’t lean toward giving black quarterbacks a little statistical Affirmative Action?
QBR can’t be all that biased because black quarterbacks don’t do very well on QBR, with the moderate exception of the black guy who almost won two Super Bowls in a row.
My vague impression is that most quarterback rating statistics are pretty highly correlated. QBR includes some obscure stuff like penalties (getting pass interference penalties and offsides, etc.) Interestingly, Joe Flacco appears to be a genius at getting penalties called that favor the Colts. But otherwise even this corner of QBR isn’t all that surprising: e.g., Peyton Manning usually does pretty well off penalties, which I didn’t know but I’m not surprised by.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idx5wsH6Fys
Guy was useless on any throw btwn 5 and 20 yds, but hit like 5 big plays down the field b/c Lebeau wouldn't blitz him, including the game winner in OT. (The Broncos were 8 point dogs in this game. The next week they got 14 points at NE and got housed 45-14.)Replies: @MarkinLA
Disagree. Tebow could throw swing passes and deep bombs,
I agree with what you say about what make an NFL QB and my example of Boller was maybe not a good one. But that doesn’t change the fact that Tebow doesn’t have an NFL arm.
Throwing a deep bomb is more about just heaving the ball when your receiver has made a gap and having them run underneath it using their body as a shield and making the catch. This even a high schooler can do. The intermediate passes where you have to hit somebody on the dead run are NFL passes.
If you remember all those QB competitions ESPN did when they had a moving target and the quarterback had to try and hit the target. At the long distances for the vast majority of them it was more about luck past 40 yards.
I only gave the example of Boller is because of all the hoopla he got coming out of high school supposedly being the next Elway.
You’re right, I took four random years and did not look at those.
Even with him, the discrepancy still stands.
Almost, save for one ill-advised throw. But his team’s vaunted defense, which got them there in the first place, couldn’t stop a superior QB in the 2nd half. Until he gets it done on a regular basis, I’m calling Wilson the black Phil Simms.
Never mind the subjective part; just on its face, QBR favors black QBs more than the traditional (and much more useful) Passer Rating simply because it brings running the ball into the equation.
Again, penalties are a judgment call. I remember Jerry Kramer discussing it in his book Instant Reply back in the 60s. The constant work the O-line (which, led by Kramer, Jim Ringo and Fuzzy Thurston, were a bunch of perennial All-Pros) did getting off the ball quickly led to him admitting they were offside a good amount of the time. He said refs would say things like, “Boy, it looks like you’re offside, but I know it’s because you guys are so quick!”. Good players almost always get the calls.
But black running quarterbacks tend to get sacked more (as does the pretty good running white QB Aaron Rodgers), and QBR subtracts points for getting sacked.
So, it appears to be a good faith effort to count everything that goes into quarterbacking.Replies: @Brutusale
“QBR favors black QBs more than the traditional (and much more useful) Passer Rating simply because it brings running the ball into the equation.”
But black running quarterbacks tend to get sacked more (as does the pretty good running white QB Aaron Rodgers), and QBR subtracts points for getting sacked.
So, it appears to be a good faith effort to count everything that goes into quarterbacking.
http://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html?sort=pct
But black running quarterbacks tend to get sacked more (as does the pretty good running white QB Aaron Rodgers), and QBR subtracts points for getting sacked.
So, it appears to be a good faith effort to count everything that goes into quarterbacking.Replies: @Brutusale
And a cursory glance at the QBR chart shows a much greater upside for running stats than downside for sacks. Actually, a closer look at the running stat make it seem that, other than Rodgers and maybe Wilson, it correlates negatively with a QB’s career W/L record.
http://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html?sort=pct