The QB - Laying the Foundation

There would be little argument from most people that the quarterback is the most important player on the football field. They’re typically the team’s leader, or their scapegoat. They get the credit when they lead their team to a thrilling come-from-behind victory. And they take the blame when they cannot drive the field late with the game on the line.

In the last few years I’ve felt we have been seeing a transformation of the position. It seems that more and more very good to great quarterbacks have been popping onto the scene. I believe I wrote somewhere – I think in an article I wrote for Profootball24x7 – that the game used to often come down to if one team had a terrific QB, if the game was close, that QB would drive them the field and win the game while the other could not. But that now, with several teams having great QBs, it would come down to whoever had the ball last, to drive the field and win the game. “Tom Brady trots onto the field, down 4 with three to play. Can he drive the field? And can he take up enough clock not to allow Phillip Rivers the time to drive the field if they score?”

I’ve also been intrigued by a question that I’ve seen popping up more and more in discussions with friends and fellow fans. As Donovan McNabb’s career comes to a close, is he a Hall of Fame quarterback? His numbers are certainly impressive. He’ll finish in the top ten in several very important passing categories. But given the rate at which I have perceived the QB play to have improved over the last decade or so, I wasn’t convinced that was enough.

And so I set out to try to find out exactly how much QB play has improved the last few years, and try to answer the question of whether McNabb is truly good enough for Hall worthiness or not. The result is this series of three posts. The first - this one - will talk about the methodology and reasoning behind my analysis of the QB position. The second will be the actual analysis of the position. The third will be an in depth look at McNabb and his Hall worthiness.

I’ll start with a note that Patrick, Jim and I have had a very interesting email conversation about quarterback play and how to best analyze it. I won’t post the whole conversation, but the general discussion centered on how much we can or cannot use statistics to tell the story of the position. There’s still disagreement on exactly how much of the story can be told using stats, but it seems clear that the answer is some form of “Stats can tell part, but certainly not all of the story.” This actually gets truer the more you look at smaller data sampling. For instance, if you want to look at how much QB play has improved over the past 25 years, statistics will be able to tell a larger portion of that story than they will be able to tell you how well (or not well) Kyle Orton played in 2009.

To truly get the entire picture of quarterback play improvement, we should look beyond the statistics. How has the play of wide receivers improved over the same period? How have NFL offenses evolved in this time? Some of the non-statistical measures will be examined in the next two posts, in addition to the statistical evaluation.

So to start on the statistical analysis, a framework had to be developed. It wound up somewhat arbitrary, as any analysis tends to be. I probably could have developed a much deeper, more precise frame-work for this. But let’s be realistic. It took several hours to pull and cut the data I have for this, and this isn’t my profession. I’m not taking an “80/20 is good enough” attitude. But there’s no realistic way to add additional value to what I’ve done without spending significantly more time on it. Given this isn’t my profession, I can’t really afford that, so this was my best effort.

I began by defining my arbitrary cuts as looking at the following boundaries:
- No more than 25 QBs per season would be looked at.
- The top 25 QBs by QB rating would be looked at.
- QBs must have 200+ attempts on the year to be looked at.
- No seasons prior to 1960 would be looked at.

What was my reasoning behind this? I used QB rating as the barometer because, despite the criticism that seems so fashionable these days, it does encompass the major aspects of how QBs tend to be viewed in their effectiveness. Completion percent, yards per attempt and TD:INT ratio are all considered in the rating, and I feel no other single metric does a better job at evaluating the position. While it’s not a good metric to tell the entire story of the position, when you have to say “Pull QBs by rank of [something],” you either have to pick one metric to rank them by, or you have to do a ridiculous amount of work to combine several metrics. Ironically, QB rating already does this for us. Plus, any new fancy-schmancy ranking I could come up with that blends several different factors could simply be called arbitrary anyway, so I took the path of least resistance since it also seemed to be the path of most sense.

Going only back to 1960 was definitely an arbitrary and somewhat ridiculous cut, but I felt like this was a good enough cut around what defines modern era QBs. The NFL Hall of Fame actually segments between Modern Era and Pre-Modern Era players. Now, there are guys like Y.A. Tittle and Bob Waterfield who played most or all of their careers prior to 1960. But realistically the value in going prior to ’60 wasn’t really high and just seemed to be creating more work.

The cut at 25 QBs was mostly to cut out the fat. Some work could have been done here to find a better cut, perhaps. But while the NFL had 26-32 teams for a majority of the years for which I captured data, not all have starting QBs worthy of being looked at. I didn’t want to cut out mediocre to poor starters. But I did want to cut out the absolute trash, and the guys that either only played because injuries forced them into action or guys who’s play was hurt because of injuries. For instance, there doesn’t seem to be a ton of value in capturing Joey Harrington’s ’06 season and comparing it to Vince Farragamo’s 1985 season.

Finally I used a minimum of 200 passing attempts because that’s what Pro-Football-Reference uses for its statistical qualifier. I went to PFR, went year by year, sorting QBs by QB Rating, capturing the top 25, and dumping it all into an Excel file.

Interestingly, there was a very distinct cut for where I could get 25 players to pull in a season. After 1976, there were always at least 25 players (though sometimes exactly 25) that threw 200 attempts in any given season. Prior to 1976, there was never a season in which 25 players qualified. There was also a pretty distinct cut at 1970. Between ’70 and ’76, an average of 22 qualified with no less than 17 throwing 200 attempts. From ’60 through ’69 – prior to the AFL/NFL merger – an average of 13 qualified with no more than 14 throwing 200 attempts. Because of this, some of my data cuts were taken with this lens.

From this data it was a matter of ranking everything and then pivot-tabling and cutting the data. I added columns and manually sorted by [year] then [data set] to rank every QB by season in every major passing category. Then I started graphing various things I found interesting.

And that’s pretty much it. The methodology behind the madness that’s about to ensue. Is it perfect? Hardly. Not even close. But I think it will provide a good framework for looking at a few major things…
- How much have the best QBs in the NFL improved vs. the best of prior years?
- How much has the ‘average’ QB improved over the years?
- How much have the bottom-dwellers … the guys considered marginal to poor starters … improved over the years?

These were the questions I really wanted to address, and I think you’ll find they’ve been addressed at least somewhat competently in the next day when I post that analysis. Meanwhile, feel free to post any “You’re an idiot for not considering this” commentary below.

Read more...

SI Obviously Reads Oblong Spheroid

They're just a little late to the party.

I have two daughters. For years I'd cursed my parents for not allowing me to play football (my mom watched a student of hers die on the football field). I swore if I had a son I wouldn't stop him from playing. Now? I'm quite certain if I had a son I wouldn't let him anywhere near a field...

Read more...

Real Life Horror

Taking a moment to recognize Randall Cunningham and the living nightmare he's enduring. As a father of two myself, I'm not sure I can think of anything worse than outliving one of my children.

So just a quick call out to a classy individual that played the game, and wishing the best for him and his family through this time.

Read more...

Stumbling into Competence

The Oakland Raiders have been the model of an incompetent NFL franchise for the last decade. Al Davis has been called everything between senile and a cancer, and in at least one case, both. They held the worst NFL record for a five year stretch after losing the '02/'03 Superbowl, and have yet to win more than five games in a season since that season.

And yet, all of a sudden, in one off-season, they look like a team not only interested in contending, but smart enough to actually build a contender. Now admittedly, Jim's already blogged about this. But let's take a deeper look at how they're doing it the right way.

For now, at least, the coaching Merry-Go-Round seems to be on hold.
Tom Cable was on thin ice. He was virtually every media-mogul's top "Hot Seat" candidate going into last season. The punching incident aside, Cable looked like a questionable hire when made, but has seemed to be a legitimate coach with the ability to get his players to respond. He toed the company line and went along with cutting Garcia to keep Russell the unquestioned guy under center, and it was assumed he'd get the ax and Russell would get to continue anchoring the team at the bottom of the ocean despite Cable benching Russell about half way through the season. Once it was learned which of them was really getting shown the door, the Raiders were truly showing they might not be as dumb as everyone assumed.

But not just that, they signed former Ravens QB coach Hue Jackson in what could be a terrific move. Jackson did a terrific job with Joe Flacco, and was a fairly hot commodity this off-season. Many in Baltimore hoped he could fill in at OC if Cam wound up with another head coaching gig in the near future.

They befuddled the draftniks with a solid draft class.
I lost count of the number of mock drafts that had the Raiders picking Bruce Campbell at #8 overall. "Love the guy with the measurables" was the common statement. And they did draft him with the 8th pick...of the 4th round. Before him, they took the draft's best LB Rolando McClain and solid DT Lamarr Houston to shore up what was a horrendous run defense, and Jared Veldheer as well to give them a pair of mid-round high-risk, high-reward prospects on an offensive line that Football Outsiders ranked as 23rd in run blocking and 31st in pass blocking and desperately needs some help. Across the board they got players that both filled needs and represented solid value.

They've cut loose the dead weight.
Google "JaMarcus Russell biggest bust ever" and you get over 1.1 million hits. Now, this may not say all that much, given that googling "Peyton Manning biggest bust ever" gives almost 4 million hits. But the difference is that there's legitimate discussion of whether Russell's the biggest of all time. Finally shedding him has truly turned around the biggest negative this team had over the past few years. In addition to releasing Russell, they also cut Cornell Green and Gerrard Warren.

They've retained good talent, and brought in solid players.
Last year, Patrick blogged what we were all thinking, that Richard Seymour would represent a "one year rental" for the Raiders as he would inevitably go elsewhere after another dismal '09 season. While he hasn't signed a long term extension, he has already signed his franchise tender and will be back for another season. To further plug up their NFL third worst run defense, they brought in Kamerion Wimbley for an undisclosed pick from Cleveland and recently signed former two-time Pro Bowl defensive tackle John Henderson.

In addition, they've addressed their weakest position - quarterback - by bringing in two players at least capable of playing the position better than Russell. Kyle Boller certainly isn't a good starting quarterback, but he does at least qualify as a capable backup. And while I'm not a Jason Campbell fan, I do believe he can play quarterback at least at a mediocre level. Over the past two seasons, he's completed 63.3% of his passes, thrown 1.6 TDs per INT and thrown for 6.8 YPA. They aren't numbers that'll ever put him in the top ten at the position. But he brings competence and - dare we speak it - stability to a position that has been lacking it since Rich Gannon's magical emergence from journeyman to Superbowl quarterback. I don't believe Campbell will morph in the same fashion, but I do believe he'll provide the team with solid play under center, which by itself could lead them to drafting in the bottom half of the draft rounds for the first time in years.

With all of these off-season moves, the Raiders may have taken themselves from laughing stock to contenders. They're certainly in the right division for it. San Diego no longer has a strangle-hold on things, as Tomlinson has disappeared (figuratively at first, literally more recently) and Vince Jackson threatens not to join the team until the second half of the season. And between the Chiefs who barely look like they're pretending to care about winning, and the Broncos who look like they care but don't look like they've got a clue how to do so (someone should tell McDaniels that they don't give out playoff spots based on which team has the roster with the highest moral standards), there doesn't look to be much standing in their way as the team that can give the Chargers a run for their money.

Last year they certainly lost their fair share of ugly games. But they also played the Chargers tough twice, and beat the Steelers and Bengals while both were making playoff runs, not to mention gave the Ravens a scare until Russell was forced into action and essentially closed that door. I wrote somewhere that I can't remember and can't find back after Russell cost them their first match vs. SD that this was a team a quarterback away from contending for the division. This off-season, they've done far more than that to allow themselves that opportunity.

It should be interesting to see if it comes to fruition.

Read more...

Bulger, Martz and not wanting to disturb Cutler

Over on the Ravens site I read, the admin noted that it was interesting the Bears - with Martz, wh has a connection with Bulger - weren't interested in him.

"It’s a bit interesting that the Chicago Bears didn’t make a play for Marc Bulger. Given Bulger’s ties to Mike Martz one might safely conclude that the fit was a natural. Could Martz know something that the Ravens don’t?"

I'm actually not convinced this was anything more than a play to keep from disturbing Cutler. Let's think back to a year and a half ago, when Josh McDaniels apparently inquired about Matt Cassel. We all remember the subsequent Cutler hissy-fit, right? A prolonged, ugly fight developed which resulted in Cutler crying his way out of town where the Broncos salvaged the situation by turning the guy who led the NFL in INTs last year into Kyle Orton, Knowshon Moreno, a complicated set of traded picks that probably just resulted in some portion of the Tim Tebow pick and maybe a handful of other stuff. Neither team made out particularly well in the deal although we can probably best say the Broncos got screwed least.

Bottom line though, bringing Bulger into Chicago would have brought about questions of whether or not Cutler was going to get pushed for his starting job. We can safely assume Cutler doesn't react well to being pushed for his job, and the Bears aren't likely to trade a guy they just extended to 2013 for $30MM. So the lack of even inquiry there is probably more due to not wanting to rock the boat than anything else.



Bulger, on the other hand, brings immediate legitimacy to the Ravens backup QB spot. Word was that Flacco was actually more hurt than many were led to believe last year, and that if they were confident at all in their backup QBs, they'd have sat him for a couple games to let him heal. The Ravens almost seem to be taking an "all in" attitude toward this season. They've beefed up their weakest position by bringing in Boldin and Stallworth (and retaining Mason). And now they've added significant depth where they had poor depth prior to this year; both by signing Bulger at QB, and by signing Ken Hamlin and Walt Harris in their defensive backfield. It could be argued Harris and Hamlin may be a move to protect whether or not Ed Reed will retire, but that still seems unlikely at least for now. But either way, they've added some significant pieces to a roster that has already taken them to three playoff game wins the previous two seasons. They clearly seem to be gearing up for a major push this season.

I actually somewhat wonder how much may be related to wanting to win prior to the prospective lock-out...

Read more...

Cloudy Minds Make Slow Feet

I've seen this video at a couple of blogs now. It is an interesting breakdown of Gus Malzahn's offense at Auburn. Malzahn's version of the spread is much more run-dependent and play action-based than those that came before. Indeed, the offense lines up in a pro set with the quarterback under center on every play, a significant departure from the current popularity of the shotgun. Malzahn's offense combines elements of the single wing with ample misdirection, on one play you will see his opponent's (Alabama's) outside linebackers each get sucked to the middle and swallowed up, as each is deceived into believing the play is going to the opposite side of the field.



One of the most brilliant, particularly in its simplicity, strategies of Malzahn is how quickly the offense lines up and snaps the ball out of the huddle. 4 seconds from huddle to snap is the goal so there is simply no time for defensive adjustment.

Chris Brown at Smart Football broke down Malzahn's offense prior to his first season at Auburn

When Auburn hired Malzahn I described his philosophy, which can be easily gleaned from the forthright title of his book, The Hurry-Up, No-Huddle: An Offensive Philosophy. As I said before, he is overall less concerned with the specific Xs and Os in employ than with the speed at which the offense goes:

There are a few differences here between Malzahn's offense and what Franklin and Tuberville tried to do (or said they were trying to do). The biggest, I'd say, is that Malzahn's spread is not exactly like other spreads, whether pass-first ones like the Airraid or run-heavy spreads like Urban Meyer's or Rich Rodriguez's. That's because the schemes are simple - very, very simple - and the core of the offense is not even about schemes: it's about tempo. . . .

[N]obody does what Malzahn does. If some no-huddle teams, like Franklin's, are light-speed, then Malzahn wants to spend the entire game in something akin to "ludicrous speed."

Malzahn is the architect of the Wildcat, which he installed at Arkansas under Houston Nutt, and then in one season as Tulsa's OC the team's offense improved by 11 points per game and 21 spots to 10th in the country. In his first year at Auburn the offense improved from 17 ppg to 33 ppg, 20th in the country.

Malzahn has never actually been in one spot long enough to recruit players who fit his system. God help us all once he is.

Read more...

Huh. Bulger.

Read more...

Yahoo Ranks the O-lines

Article by Jason Cole:
O-line rankings: Talent and depth rare finds

The rankings are odd, a mix of the run & pass-blocking efficiency rankings from Football Outsiders, with Cole's own gut feel about who should move up or down. Still enjoyable reading, for the slowest time of the year.

One example of the oddness, the Ravens O-line is ranked way, way too high. Cole writes, “At a time when pass protection is so critical, the Ravens were below average last season” – and then ranks the Ravens 3rd! Huh? Turns out he likes Michael Oher a lot, believes Joe Flacco and the new receivers will take a big step forward (which would help the pass-blocking), and gives the Ravens some credit for continuity from last season (as opposed to the 2 new starters last year). “There is reason to believe improvement will be made.”

Another oddness on the page, and this is not Cole's fault, is to read this in the article:

“Because depth is so important, the Saints have resisted trading tackle Jammal Brown”

while at the bottom of the page there's a link to news about Brown being traded to the Skins. Ah, the information age.

How about the Skins??!? Cole ranks their line 29th, but that's before the trade. Isn't their line suddenly in the top half of the league? A lot depends on Brown's return from the injury, and on the development of Trent Williams. But they have three new starters from last year. At the tackles, Williams & Brown: one of them a top-5 draft pick, the other a 2-time Pro Bowler in four seasons of play, available for cheap because he missed a year for injury. Professionals at the guards, in Artis Hicks and Derrick Dockery. Ex-Raven Casey Rabach at center, one that got away from Ozzie a few years ago. Not to mention what Cole describes as “the organized, demanding coaching of Mike Shanahan,” who may not be great at personnel but who sure as hell can coax efficient play out of an offensive unit.

I'm not sure I'm emotionally ready for the Redskins to have a decent squad. But maybe I better get ready. They have had a brilliant offseason. Not just “by Redskins standards,” I mean overall. Their offense will be completely overhauled when it takes the field Sept 12.

Read more...

Interesting Take From An Unexpected Source

I don't typically go to the Wyoming Tribune Eagle for cutting edge football analysis, but the internet being a funny thing led me directly there.

The tectonic shifts in the college sports landscape turned out not to be so massive after all. Just a couple of tremors, as it turns out. And here's the truly ironic -- and potentially damaging -- aspect to those who follow and love the MWC. The aftershocks might hurt it the most.

In the span of five days, it certainly looks like the MWC has gone from a position of strength and prosperity to one where its future is now, like the recent weather, cloudy and rainy.

When Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State chose to stay with the Big XII, the first conference to feel the instant flop sweat was the Pac-10. Like the MWC, the Pac-10 was practically gloating late last week after announcing that Colorado had made the jump west.

That was the first step, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said, in what would be the formation of the super power Pac-16. Come on in Texas, Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and A&M, the water's great over here.

It appears, however, that the western superpower found its kryptonite -- money.

The remaining Big XII schools came up with a plan to offer Texas so much money there's no way it could refuse to stay.

Take the majority of the conference's revenue sharing pot? Sure.

Start your own TV network and keep all the money? Why not?

Go ahead, build a bigger gap between the rest of the league when it comes to money. That's OK, we see the light.

What this conference shakeup has proven is who has the most power in the college sports landscape right now -- the Longhorns.

What somehow seems to be overlooked in much of this is that this leaves the WAC moribund from a football perspective. As a D-I conference it is difficult to argue that they are even better than the Sunbelt any more. Sagarin's final ratings for 2009 put the WAC at 65.52 and the Sunbelt at 58.28 but the difference between the two was almost entirely due to Boise State. The few remaining WAC schools with any kind of football credibility - Fresno St. and Nevada - are likely weighing their options carefully now. It's hard to believe that only 11 years ago the WAC had 16 schools.

Read more...

Heavens To Betsy! Pretty Please Come To My OTA!

While this is a slightly stale topic, I've been thinking a bit about this ever since I read that Brad Childress was upset that Adrian Peterson was skipping the OTAs. For perspective on the Vikings I typically try to see what Pacifist Viking has to say. He doesn't disappoint here

Where I agree is that if Childress is going to have double-standards for superstars, he should probably consider Adrian Peterson a superstar worthy of the double-standard. Of course, the Vikings have so many legitimate studs, the concern about a slippery slope may be valid.

It's a dangerous game a coach plays, balancing the egos to give the team optimum performance. If Childress took a hard line on Favre's absence, and that somehow contributed to Favre deciding not to come back in 2010, the team would not be better off. But if Childress says, "Ah, hell, I'm letting Favre do whatever he wants, so I should probably go ahead and let all the other players get away with skipping OTAs too, because I have to be consistent," then the team would not be better off either. Certainly things can go wrong when the coach makes these judgment calls, and he can be wrong. Maybe he has a feel for his team and understands how players feel and respond to Favre's absence, and maybe he doesn't.

My perspective on this is a bit different. To me the whole concept of 'it's optional but really isn't optional' respecting OTAs is borderline absurd. Before the mid '90s the minicamps were non stories. I understand that the recent OTA that Peterson missed was mandatory and that he will probably face a fine for missing it, but I hardly think this is relevant.

I've forgotten which celebrated coach said 'this is where the job's are', a singular quote that changed OTA participation from mostly optional to borderline mandatory. I am on board with this concept for maybe 65 players on the 80 man roster, the bulk of the team is either fighting for playing time, a roster spot, working back from an injury or learning a new system. But that leaves 10-15 guys who aren't and these guys should be wrapped in bubble wrap until late August.

Starting running backs, and most particularly Adrian Peterson have no business attending OTAs. There is nothing to be gained by having Adrian Peterson participate in team drills in June. Already Rod Hood and Marlin Jackson have been lost for the season due to injuries at OTAs, and we can expect that number to double or treble by the middle of summer. Vishnu forbid that Childress wins his argument and then loses his franchise.

This isn't just about Adrian Peterson, it is about Jackson too. His injury makes the Eagle secondary desperately thin. As a player new to the team his participation was understandable and I'm not faulting Andy Reid for putting him out there, but he is a great example of why a team should put it's bona fide starters on ice until late summer, double standards be danged.

Read more...