RG3:1 of 9 Modern QBs to Always Be Blown Out When Throwing 38+ Passes

[Ozymandias]

Thank you for proving my point for me.  I couldn't have said it any better myself.  They were stopping the run, we passed.  I like how simply and succinctly you put it.

37 > 35 isn't logical to you?

 

But you said once we had Kirk in as starting QB, that we became pass first offense. How is 37 passes and 35 runs screaming pass first? Looks more balanced to me.

[ncr2h]

The problem is that his analysis is too simple to draw any conclusion from. It is literally scientifically incomplete. There are so many variables that contribute to pass attempts, yet his analysis is not contrasted against a single one of them. He could have fleshed out his analysis with Yards Per Attempt, or included a "situational" reference like leading/tied/trailing, but instead, he's presenting this one statistic without any other variable to draw a conclusion. Even an elementary school science fair project needs a dependent variable and an independent variable. You cannot just jump from hypothesis to conclusion.

 

Building upon that already weak foundation for analysis, he is now rejecting other statistics that do not fit his hypothesis. Passing TD's, for example, do not fit his theory so he dismisses them, but he doesn't offer anything as to why Pass Attempts are more relevant than Passing TD's. This is in itself ANOTHER incomplete analysis.

 

If you still don't see how his logic is flawed, just look up the scientific method and look into the testing/experiment portion, or look up the directions for an elementary school science fair project.

 

Why would I include yards per attempt?  Do you have any rational basis as to why that would be important?  I've stated numerous times that the reason number of attempts is relevant is because it would generally mean that the team relied on the QB to win the game with his arm.  Many people have pointed out that there could be other reasons the team won.  This is true.  Which is why elite passers all win several times in this manner, whereas the busts and mediocre QBs all either do it once or never do it at all.

 

Why does inserting extra variables make something better?  Why can't you accept that the single variable that I've chosen - attempts - actually includes a heck of a lot of information?  A high number of attempts is already going to be correlated to (a) a poor running game or low number of running attempts, ( a large deficit that the QB needs to overcome, © poor defense or special teams, and (d) good opponent QB play.  Why should I waste my time filtering through all that information when I can just pick out one variable - attempts - which already has that stuff baked into it?

 

I'm using attempts and wins.  If these are such horrible variables to be using, then why did they produce such an astonishingly accurate categorization of every NFL QB in the past 10 years.  Put it this way - do you see any elite QBs that this model would have told you to throw in the trash heap after 2 seasons?  No.  You see a couple of guys that the model would have predicted would be good QBs, but actually were busts.  But you never see a guy who was actually elite get categorized as a bust.  Remarkable.

 

You're free to run your own analysis of touchdown passes, 4 TD games, etc.  I don't think you'll find enough guys with 4 TD games in their first 2 seasons to get anything useful.  I think you'll find that throwing to receivers like Megatron makes Matt Stafford look insanely elite, if we're judging by TDs.  Throwing to Randy Moss and Chris Carter probably made Daunte Culpepper look elite if we're judging by TDs.  Throwing to Randy Moss and Wes Welker probably made Matt Cassel look elite if we're judging by TDs.  But I welcome your analysis!  Seriously, I do.  It will add to the discussion, and I think it will give you more appreciation of just how remarkably accurate the 38+ attempt model is.

But you said once we had Kirk in as starting QB, that we became pass first offense. How is 37 passes and 35 runs screaming pass first? Looks more balanced to me.

The final tally is misleading because we spent the last 3 minutes of the game killing the clock.  We ran 6 times on our final drive of the game.  Note that Cousins still picked up a crucial 3rd & 6, with a 15 yard pass to Paulsen.

 

(I tried to paste the play-by-play, but the formatting was horrible.  Here's the link: http://espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=321216005&period=0)

[NewCliche21]

EDIT: Forget it.  Shouting at the rain. 

[Rakpwned427]

How on earth does the game log from the actual game mean jack? The guy flat out stated that the reason Cousins passed so much is because the coaches were afraid to run the ball due to all the fumbles. What could possibly be more relevant than the run/pass ratio for each drive of the game? I am all ears. I feel like you're so disturbed by the original post in this thread that you will argue with whatever I say, even if I say the sky is blue.

Again, I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but in case you missed it:

That's why elite QBs accomplished this 3+ times during their first 2 seasons. Some horrible QBs are able to do it once - Geno Smith, Tim Tebow, JP Losman, etc. If they can only do it once, it was probably because they weren't the reason it happened. If they can do it twice, it demonstrates competence, but not necessarily excellence. If they can do it 3+ times, it means there's a good chance that they're the reason it happened for at least a few of them. Again - it's not a guarantee. Butt fumblers slip through the cracks.

The OP says that his ceiling is likely Ben Roethlisberger, Steve McNair, Matt Ryan, or Cam Newton. People went absolutely ballistic when they saw that, leading you to believe that the OP states that he is guaranteed to bust. The OP says that his ceiling is an outstanding game manager, with the possibility that he could be a bust. The OP also says that Cousins' ceiling appears to be a lot higher, and his floor lower. That's why I made this post - it is contrary to the popular conception, which is that the sky's the limit for our franchise QB, but our noodle arm backup will forever be relegated to Kevin Kolb status.

Griffin was historically efficient during his rookie season. However, history seems to show that being efficient early in your career is an indicator that you are on the game manager track. The elite QBs work on their efficiency later in their careers - they spend their early years slinging the ball around the field.

I never said your statistics are wrong but your method is flawed. You are using arbitrary stats to prove a point. Again back up your stuff with scouting as opposed to stats. The claims you make are absolutely ridiculous. You claim a ceiling in a guy two years into the league, which is absolutely ridiculous and you put Kirk Cousins in a category with Tom Brady who has won 3 superbowls. Kirk has started 2 games. He threw 38 times last week and we lost.

You are specifically why our fan base is such a joke to other people. Always look for the next big thing and so quickly to write someone off. We don't win because we have no patience and are always calling for someone's head.

I honestly don't care who are QB is all I care about is winning, but your stupid arguments and arbitrary stats make me want griffin to be elite so I can shove it in your face.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Why would I include yards per attempt?  Do you have any rational basis as to why that would be important?  I've stated numerous times that the reason number of attempts is relevant is because it would generally mean that the team relied on the QB to win the game with his arm.  Many people have pointed out that there could be other reasons the team won.  This is true.  Which is why elite passers all win several times in this manner, whereas the busts and mediocre QBs all either do it once or never do it at all.

 

 

It would also mean that the team didn't run well, or it got itself in a lot of 3rd and longs, or fell behind early for various reasons and had to pass to get back in the game. There are many reasons a team passes more than "the team prefers to run

 

And even if one accepts the premise that Griffin's running is more effective than his pure passing, a healthy Griffin runs a 4.3 40 and can go for a 70 yard TD anytime. That doesn't say anything about his ability to pass 3-5 years in the future, that just says that his running ability is good enough that it takes away the need for Griffin to sling the ball around. It's important to note that Brees as a first year starter won 3 games meeting your criteria - but lost 5 and got blown out in a few of those.

 

Also the model leads to absurd conclusions. Let's say that the Redskins get an onside kick, and RGIII throws a game winning TD pass. By your criteria, it goes from a blowout game with a garbage time TD scored at the end, to an all time great game where RGIII threw 50 passes and 3 TDs, and won the game. And that game would be more predictive of his ceiling than throwing 4 TDs and 300 TDs on Thanksgiving.

 

Again, the good statistician throws out a model which produces absurd results, and a 3 TD/2 INT game is not better than a 4 TD / 1 INT game.

 

Why does inserting extra variables make something better?  Why can't you accept that the single variable that I've chosen - attempts - actually includes a heck of a lot of information?  A high number of attempts is already going to be correlated to (a) a poor running game or low number of running attempts, ( a large deficit that the QB needs to overcome, © poor defense or special teams, and (d) good opponent QB play.  Why should I waste my time filtering through all that information when I can just pick out one variable - attempts - which already has that stuff baked into it?

 

I'm using attempts and wins.  If these are such horrible variables to be using, then why did they produce such an astonishingly accurate categorization of every NFL QB in the past 10 years.  Put it this way - do you see any elite QBs that this model would have told you to throw in the trash heap after 2 seasons?  No.  You see a couple of guys that the model would have predicted would be good QBs, but actually were busts.  But you never see a guy who was actually elite get categorized as a bust.  Remarkable.

 

 

1: You fail to control for the extra variables. A high number of attempts can correlate with those things, or it can corellate with a particular playcalling style, or trust in a given QB.

 

For example, it may be true that the coaching staff allows Kirk Cousins to pass more (though I don't think the difference is significant). They may simply trust him more to run a more passing oriented offense, given that he doesn't have the athleticism to create plays where the passing game isn't there, and he has more pro experience which enables him to run a WCO with more proficiency. That may say a lot about their relative level of progression, but it says nothing about their ultimate ceilings. This may change due to a change in variables, such as a change in coaching staffs (While I don't endorse this move, I believe Art Briles would have Griffin pass more than Mike Shanahan did, given that the games are closer in the pros, and Griffin threw a lot in situations where the games are close (though his incredible efficiency - on average every time he dropped back the team got a first down -  actually deflated his pass attempts), or a change in the talent composition (atm our best skill position is RB Alfred Morris, what if we traded him for WR Josh Gordon?).

 

2: You use wins but ignore win percentage - Brees lost a lot early when he had to pass that much (and one of his 38+ wins was a 0 TD, 3 INT laugher against us), for example. Also a lot of those high attempt games were very inefficient even by the standards of the time, and did not produce a lot of points. That actually undermines your point, because it suggests that such inefficient offensive production was able to produce wins due to factors other than the QB play.

 

3: As alluded to before, inefficient passing actually inflates the number of passing attempts - if QB X throws for a first down on first and 10, and QB Y throws for 4 yards, 5 yards and then the RB runs for the last yard, the result is the same, but QB Y has twice as many pass attempts.

 

The problem with your analysis is that if a variable suggests a conclusion that deviates from your intitial "Cousins is a stud and Griffin sucks" position, you simply ignore it.

 

Also it's interesting that you say you're not ASF when you lay out your arguments in the exact same way, and draw your conclusions in the exact same way. Also ASF posts as himself on CNPD and he's tried to cover for his miss on Weeden (to be fair, I really liked Weeden too) by blaming it on the "Air Raid" system (ignoring that Brees and Rivers ran Air Raid in college, and Roethlisberger ran a similar system) - an asterisk that coincidentally shows up here.

[darrelgreenie]

This tripe got 6 pages, lol
Anecdotal pseudo analysis
Form conclusion
Create arbitrary parameters to support conclusion
Explain away exceptions that don't fit your own arbitrary parameters

Argue

[ncr2h]

The claims you make are absolutely ridiculous. You claim a ceiling in a guy two years into the league, which is absolutely ridiculous and you put Kirk Cousins in a category with Tom Brady who has won 3 superbowls. Kirk has started 2 games. He threw 38 times last week and we lost.

You are specifically why our fan base is such a joke to other people. Always look for the next big thing and so quickly to write someone off. We don't win because we have no patience and are always calling for someone's head.

I honestly don't care who are QB is all I care about is winning, but your stupid arguments and arbitrary stats make me want griffin to be elite so I can shove it in your face.

I don't believe I ever put Cousins in a category with Tom Brady.  That's your fanboy talking.  I said that based on his performances in his 2 starts, it appears that Cousins' floor is the 2 38+ wins category, which includes guys like Philip Rivers all the way down to Tony Banks and Shane Matthews.  It's a category that indicates competent NFL backup, with decent chance of being a solid but unspectacular NFL starter, and a small chance of being a very good QB.  I believe that's his floor, although he hasn't started enough games to prove it.  His actual floor based on the model is the Jason Campbell, Kellen Clemens category.

 

Looking at Griffin's play during 2013, when he can no longer soften defenses up with his legs, I am highly confident that he will never be an elite passer like Brees, Rodgers, Peyton, or Brady.  Could I ask what it is that you see in his on field performance that gives you hope that he can do it?  He looks so bad that fans are ridiculing our playcalling for not including more WR screens and short, quick routes...as if elite passers need their gameplans Christian Ponderized.

[darrelgreenie]

RGE-

Mike S views these games as meaningless. It's extended garbage time or preseason. They are game planning not to win but to showcase Cousins. If we win? Great. If we don't? oh well as long as Cousins value increases and I endorse it completely, one of the smartest things he's done.

[IrepDC]

Why would I include yards per attempt?  Do you have any rational basis as to why that would be important?  I've stated numerous times that the reason number of attempts is relevant is because it would generally mean that the team relied on the QB to win the game with his arm.  Many people have pointed out that there could be other reasons the team won.  This is true.  Which is why elite passers all win several times in this manner, whereas the busts and mediocre QBs all either do it once or never do it at all.

 

Why does inserting extra variables make something better?  Why can't you accept that the single variable that I've chosen - attempts - actually includes a heck of a lot of information?  A high number of attempts is already going to be correlated to (a) a poor running game or low number of running attempts, ( a large deficit that the QB needs to overcome, © poor defense or special teams, and (d) good opponent QB play.  Why should I waste my time filtering through all that information when I can just pick out one variable - attempts - which already has that stuff baked into it?

 

I'm using attempts and wins.  If these are such horrible variables to be using, then why did they produce such an astonishingly accurate categorization of every NFL QB in the past 10 years.  Put it this way - do you see any elite QBs that this model would have told you to throw in the trash heap after 2 seasons?  No.  You see a couple of guys that the model would have predicted would be good QBs, but actually were busts.  But you never see a guy who was actually elite get categorized as a bust.  Remarkable.

 

You're free to run your own analysis of touchdown passes, 4 TD games, etc.  I don't think you'll find enough guys with 4 TD games in their first 2 seasons to get anything useful.  I think you'll find that throwing to receivers like Megatron makes Matt Stafford look insanely elite, if we're judging by TDs.  Throwing to Randy Moss and Chris Carter probably made Daunte Culpepper look elite if we're judging by TDs.  Throwing to Randy Moss and Wes Welker probably made Matt Cassel look elite if we're judging by TDs.  But I welcome your analysis!  Seriously, I do.  It will add to the discussion, and I think it will give you more appreciation of just how remarkably accurate the 38+ attempt model is.

You would include Yards Per Attempt to distinguish situations such as a QB running a vertical passing offense scoring on 4 attempts vs. a QB running a West Coast offense scoring on 8 passing attempts. This would bring depth to your analyis by factoring in scheme. That is just one of the many variables Passing Attempts are dependent on.

 

You don't need to insert extra variables, you just need to insert one verifiable dependent. All of the correlations you are assuming are not true to football. High pass attempts and W's do not correlate. I could see you using Passing Yards since that at least shows how much the QB was moving the ball up and down the field, or even Pass Completions since that shows how many times the QB put the ball in his players' hands, but you chose the most arbitrary stat that you could choose to make these grand proclamations. The correlations you follow up with(a,b,c,d) are similarly weak, because a QB in all of those situations can still move the ball with less attempts depending on the offense he is running. This is, again, why I suggested including Yards Per Attempt for depth.

 

If you want to use Wins/Pass Attempts as a valid correlation, you could analyze whether QBs with lower pass attempts win less often. Do wins go up as pass attempts go up? Still, it'd show a better correlation with Passing Yards, I think, because that shows contribution to production, or even Pass Completions since that shows getting the ball into players' hands. I know I said that before, but it applies across the board. But at the very least, you have to show that  lower Passing Attempts correlate to lower Wins if those are your variables.

 

Your last paragraph illustrates that you are able to see how many variables Passing TD's are dependent on. You're right, and that's what I'm trying to explain to you about Passing Attempts, because that is the situation even more so.

[ncr2h]

It would also mean that the team didn't run well, or it got itself in a lot of 3rd and longs, or fell behind early for various reasons and had to pass to get back in the game. There are many reasons a team passes more than "the team prefers to run

 

And even if one accepts the premise that Griffin's running is more effective than his pure passing, a healthy Griffin runs a 4.3 40 and can go for a 70 yard TD anytime. That doesn't say anything about his ability to pass 3-5 years in the future, that just says that his running ability is good enough that it takes away the need for Griffin to sling the ball around. It's important to note that Brees as a first year starter won 3 games meeting your criteria - but lost 5 and got blown out in a few of those.

 

Also the model leads to absurd conclusions. Let's say that the Redskins get an onside kick, and RGIII throws a game winning TD pass. By your criteria, it goes from a blowout game with a garbage time TD scored at the end, to an all time great game where RGIII threw 50 passes and 3 TDs, and won the game. And that game would be more predictive of his ceiling than throwing 4 TDs and 300 TDs on Thanksgiving.

 

Again, the good statistician throws out a model which produces absurd results, and a 3 TD/2 INT game is not better than a 4 TD / 1 INT game.

 

 

1: You fail to control for the extra variables. A high number of attempts can correlate with those things, or it can corellate with a particular playcalling style, or trust in a given QB.

 

For example, it may be true that the coaching staff allows Kirk Cousins to pass more (though I don't think the difference is significant). They may simply trust him more to run a more passing oriented offense, given that he doesn't have the athleticism to create plays where the passing game isn't there, and he has more pro experience which enables him to run a WCO with more proficiency. That may say a lot about their relative level of progression, but it says nothing about their ultimate ceilings. This may change due to a change in variables, such as a change in coaching staffs (While I don't endorse this move, I believe Art Briles would have Griffin pass more than Mike Shanahan did, given that the games are closer in the pros, and Griffin threw a lot in situations where the games are close (though his incredible efficiency - on average every time he dropped back the team got a first down -  actually deflated his pass attempts), or a change in the talent composition (atm our best skill position is RB Alfred Morris, what if we traded him for WR Josh Gordon?).

 

2: You use wins but ignore win percentage - Brees lost a lot early when he had to pass that much (and one of his 38+ wins was a 0 TD, 3 INT laugher against us), for example. Also a lot of those high attempt games were very inefficient even by the standards of the time, and did not produce a lot of points. That actually undermines your point, because it suggests that such inefficient offensive production was able to produce wins due to factors other than the QB play.

 

3: As alluded to before, inefficient passing actually inflates the number of passing attempts - if QB X throws for a first down on first and 10, and QB Y throws for 4 yards, 5 yards and then the RB runs for the last yard, the result is the same, but QB Y has twice as many pass attempts.

 

The problem with your analysis is that if a variable suggests a conclusion that deviates from your intitial "Cousins is a stud and Griffin sucks" position, you simply ignore it.

 

Also it's interesting that you say you're not ASF when you lay out your arguments in the exact same way, and draw your conclusions in the exact same way. Also ASF posts as himself on CNPD and he's tried to cover for his miss on Weeden (to be fair, I really liked Weeden too) by blaming it on the "Air Raid" system (ignoring that Brees and Rivers ran Air Raid in college, and Roethlisberger ran a similar system) - an asterisk that coincidentally shows up here.

If the skins kick it onsides once, and Griffin wins the game, he officially makes it into Geno Smith's category.  They would have to do it twice for him to get into Brad Johnson territory, and 3 times before he would be in a category with elite potential.  Even if he made it through, we could say, "Hey, that looks weird.  A terrible passer just made it into the 'potentially elite' group.  Let's see what happened."  And then we would see that it wasn't RG3 who was actually elite, but his kicker.  That's what we did for Sanchez, who did it 4 times.

 

I would reject that a 4 TD, 1 INT game must be better than a 3 TD, 2 INT game.  But if you want to factor that in and show us your results, I'd be more than happy to take a look.

 

Brees never had a 38+ win against us during his first 2 years as a starter.  He never even played us.  His first year as a starter was 2002.  It's 2013, and we played the Chargers this year.  That means we played them in 2009, 2005, and 2001.  When he did the 0 TD 3 INT game, it was 2005 and he was already a known commodity as an elite QB.  Win percentage isn't factored in because - why should it be?  It's very difficult to win with 38+ passing attempts as it is, so getting even 3 such wins is a huge indicator of elite potential.  Adding in win percentage might help us get a better hierarchy among the guys in the elite group, but that's not what I'm interested in.

 

What variable am I ignoring?  RG3 was an efficient passer as a rookie.  Like Ben Roethlisberger and Matt Ryan.  His ceiling is those guys.  Is that really an off-the-wall statement?  The guys who end up being elite throw for big volume during their first 2 years.  Efficiency comes later.  It's like everybody takes for granted that because a guy looks like Ichiro his rookie year, he'll turn into Barry Bonds a few years down the line.

[darrelgreenie]

 WR screens and short, quick routes...as if elite passers need their gameplans Christian Ponderized.

lol WR screens and quick routes are STAPLES of the modern passing game or are Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees being Ponderized by their playcalling?

[ncr2h]

You would include Yards Per Attempt to distinguish situations such as a QB running a vertical passing offense scoring on 4 attempts vs. a QB running a West Coast offense scoring on 8 passing attempts. This would bring depth to your analyis by factoring in scheme. That is just one of the many variables Passing Attempts are dependent on.

 

You don't need to insert extra variables, you just need to insert one verifiable dependent. All of the correlations you are assuming are not true to football. High pass attempts and W's do not correlate. I could see you using Passing Yards since that at least shows how much the QB was moving the ball up and down the field, or even Pass Completions since that shows how many times the QB put the ball in his players' hands, but you chose the most arbitrary stat that you could choose to make these grand proclamations. The correlations you follow up with(a,b,c,d) are similarly weak, because a QB in all of those situations can still move the ball with less attempts depending on the offense he is running. This is, again, why I suggested including Yards Per Attempt for depth.

 

If you want to use Wins/Pass Attempts as a valid correlation, you could analyze whether QBs with lower pass attempts win less often. Do wins go up as pass attempts go up? Still, it'd show a better correlation with Passing Yards, I think, because that shows contribution to production, or even Pass Completions since that shows getting the ball into players' hands. I know I said that before, but it applies across the board. But at the very least, you have to show that  lower Passing Attempts correlate to lower Wins if those are your variables.

 

Your last paragraph illustrates that you are able to see how many variables Passing TD's are dependent on. You're right, and that's what I'm trying to explain to you about Passing Attempts, because that is the situation even more so.

 

QBs with lower pass attempts win more often.  That is absolutely going to be the case.  Which is exactly why I want to study what happens when the passing attempts are high.

 

It turns out, when you crank the passing attempts way up during a QB's first 2 seasons, you get some interesting results.  Elite QBs are able to buck the trend and win several games anyway, even though the # of pass attempts indicates that they should have actually lost.  Competent NFL starters are able to do it twice.  Streaky QBs and busts can do it once.  Guys who aren't elite, but are outstanding game managers are able to learn how to do it later in their careers.

 

As for yards, I don't think it's necessary to do that.  Sure, I could add a variable such as - QBs who won while throwing 38+ times and had over 300 yards passing.  But again, RG3 would still be in Category 4.  It might take guys like Sanchez out of Category 1, but I don't think that's what any of us are interested in.  We're not interested in keeping guys like Sanchez out of Category 1, we're interested in making sure all the elite guys are in Category 1 (when I say Category 1 here, I'm talking about the 3+ win section of Category 1).  The model already does that, so I don't think it needs to be improved by adding yards.

 

In summary, I'm okay with the fact that the model would have predicted that Sanchez had elite potential after his second season.  I would not be okay if the model that predicted that Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, etc. would be game managers, busts, etc.

lol WR screens and quick routes are STAPLES of the modern passing game or are Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees being Ponderized by their playcalling?

Can you name 1 route that RG3 is good at throwing?  What's his bread and butter?

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

If the skins kick it onsides once, and Griffin wins the game, he officially makes it into Geno Smith's category.  They would have to do it twice for him to get into Brad Johnson territory, and 3 times before he would be in a category with elite potential.  Even if he made it through, we could say, "Hey, that looks weird.  A terrible passer just made it into the 'potentially elite' group.  Let's see what happened."  And then we would see that it wasn't RG3 who was actually elite, but his kicker.  That's what we did for Sanchez, who did it 4 times.

 

I would reject that a 4 TD, 1 INT game must be better than a 3 TD, 2 INT game.  But if you want to factor that in and show us your results, I'd be more than happy to take a look.

 

Brees never had a 38+ win against us during his first 2 years as a starter.  He never even played us.  His first year as a starter was 2002.  It's 2013, and we played the Chargers this year.  That means we played them in 2009, 2005, and 2001.  When he did the 0 TD 3 INT game, it was 2005 and he was already a known commodity as an elite QB.  Win percentage isn't factored in because - why should it be?  It's very difficult to win with 38+ passing attempts as it is, so getting even 3 such wins is a huge indicator of elite potential.  Adding in win percentage might help us get a better hierarchy among the guys in the elite group, but that's not what I'm interested in.

 

What variable am I ignoring?  RG3 was an efficient passer as a rookie.  Like Ben Roethlisberger and Matt Ryan.  His ceiling is those guys.  Is that really an off-the-wall statement?  The guys who end up being elite throw for big volume during their first 2 years.  Efficiency comes later.  It's like everybody takes for granted that because a guy looks like Ichiro his rookie year, he'll turn into Barry Bonds a few years down the line.

 

The point is that you argue that a less efficient game is superior to a more efficient game if the less efficient game comes with outsized volume. That doesn't make sense in terms of winning games.

 

Finally, your last example ignores that Griffin looked like Barry Bonds with Ichiro efficiency as a prospect (and I already refuted your Air Raid asterisk), where Ichiro never displayed even the ability to hit for 40-50 HRs even as a prospect. And you once again ignore context - RGIII didn't need to throw for a lot of volume year 1 because he didn't need to (because his running was so effective), and when he did need to throw for a lot of volume, he was a severely diminished QB. The one game where he did throw for a lot of volume year 1, his recievers set a record in drops. That's the kind of context you ignore in your analysis.

 

And the Brees example didn't strictly fall under your criteria, but it does show that using "attempts and wins" produces data points like that. A game that does qualify is Rivers' game against the Titans in 2007, where he threw 40 passes and won the game - but he had a 65.4 QB rating, threw 2 INTs and his offense only scored 23 points (a offense featuring Tomlinson and Gates). It also equates 2 rookie years with 2 years as a full starter after NFL experience, which is ridiculous.

[IrepDC]

QBs with lower pass attempts win more often.  That is absolutely going to be the case.  Which is exactly why I want to study what happens when the passing attempts are high.

 

It turns out, when you crank the passing attempts way up during a QB's first 2 seasons, you get some interesting results.  Elite QBs are able to buck the trend and win several games anyway, even though the # of pass attempts indicates that they should have actually lost.  Competent NFL starters are able to do it twice.  Streaky QBs and busts can do it once.  Guys who aren't elite, but are outstanding game managers are able to learn how to do it later in their careers.

 

As for yards, I don't think it's necessary to do that.  Sure, I could add a variable such as - QBs who won while throwing 38+ times and had over 300 yards passing.  But again, RG3 would still be in Category 4.  It might take guys like Sanchez out of Category 1, but I don't think that's what any of us are interested in.  We're not interested in keeping guys like Sanchez out of Category 1, we're interested in making sure all the elite guys are in Category 1 (when I say Category 1 here, I'm talking about the 3+ win section of Category 1).  The model already does that, so I don't think it needs to be improved by adding yards.

 

In summary, I'm okay with the fact that the model would have predicted that Sanchez had elite potential after his second season.  I would not be okay if the model that predicted that Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, etc. would be game managers, busts, etc.

Do all elite QB's fit under your theory? If not, you're conclusion cannot be concrete. If sometimes, how often? That percentage could possibly be the strength of your conclusion.

[ncr2h]

The point is that you argue that a less efficient game is superior to a more efficient game if the less efficient game comes with outsized volume. That doesn't make sense in terms of winning games.

 

Finally, your last example ignores that Griffin looked like Barry Bonds with Ichiro efficiency as a prospect (and I already refuted your Air Raid asterisk), where Ichiro never displayed even the ability to hit for 40-50 HRs even as a prospect. And you once again ignore context - RGIII didn't need to throw for a lot of volume year 1 because he didn't need to (because his running was so effective), and when he did need to throw for a lot of volume, he was a severely diminished QB. The one game where he did throw for a lot of volume year 1, his recievers set a record in drops. That's the kind of context you ignore in your analysis.

 

And the Brees example didn't strictly fall under your criteria, but it does show that using "attempts and wins" produces data points like that. A game that does qualify is Rivers' game against the Titans in 2007, where he threw 40 passes and won the game - but he had a 65.4 QB rating, threw 2 INTs and his offense only scored 23 points (a offense featuring Tomlinson and Gates). It also equates 2 rookie years with 2 years as a full starter after NFL experience, which is ridiculous.

 

Your argument seems to be that I'm not doing enough work to distinguish between QBs who already won with 38+.  I think you're right - if we add more factors, we will probably see a better hierarchy among the elite QBs.  But how does that help Griffin?  He'll still be down in Category 4.

 

As for Rivers against the Titans, should I also take into account that the Chargers were travelling to the east coast (we know how bad west coast teams are at that) to play an away game against a playoff team?  Should I factor in that the Titans went 10-6 in 2007, and had the #5 defense in the league?  Should I take into account that Rivers led a 14-play, 100% passing 2 minute drill whose TD pass with 9 second left sent the game into overtime?  Should I factor in that Rivers missed 2 drives in the 2nd quarter due to an injury, and his backup threw an INT?  I don't think this was a bad game.  I think this game showed he had elite potential.

[darrelgreenie]

Can you name 1 route that RG3 is good at throwing?  What's his bread and butter?

Routes Griffin is good at? All of them. Literally.

Bread and Butter? Is dependent upon gameplan. And the currently in breaking routes: skinny post and deep crossing routes.

College? Homerun deep ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olE1aoeqeWg

[ncr2h]

Do all elite QB's fit under your theory? If not, you're conclusion cannot be concrete. If sometimes, how often? That percentage could possibly be the strength of your conclusion.

 

Can you name a QB that you consider elite that isn't in the 3+ section of Category 1?  I think Rivers is the only one, and he's in the 2 section.  I don't see any elite QBs that would have been in Griffin's position after 2 seasons.  The injury isn't really an excuse - Trent Green had 3 38+ wins in his first 2 seasons as a starter, and he blew out his knee after his first season.

[darrelgreenie]

Also why would you use W/L as a key variable if the intent is to judge the QB and not the team?

The difference between 38 passes and a Win vs Loss could have very little to do with the QB.

A QB could throw 38 passes play great and lose while another QB could throw 38 passes play terrible and win.

You need to drill down on how the QB played in those games.

And assuming 3 passes is the difference 35 vs 38 is the difference between playing well and playing poorly is well you know...

[IrepDC]

Can you name a QB that you consider elite that isn't in the 3+ section of Category 1?  I think Rivers is the only one, and he's in the 2 section.  I don't see any elite QBs that would have been in Griffin's position after 2 seasons.  The injury isn't really an excuse - Trent Green had 3 38+ wins in his first 2 seasons as a starter, and he blew out his knee after his first season.

Would NFL MVP signify elite?

[ncr2h]

Also why would you use W/L as a key variable if the intent is to judge the QB and not the team?

The difference between 38 passes and a Win vs Loss could have very little to do with the QB.

A QB could throw 38 passes play great and lose while another QB could throw 38 passes play terrible and win.

You need to drill down on how the QB played in those games.

And assuming 3 passes is the difference 35 vs 38 is the difference between playing well and playing poorly is well you know...

 

 

>The difference between 38 passes and a Win vs Loss could have very little to do with the QB.

 

Right, which is why the elite guys all do it more than everybody else, but also why Sanchez and Skelton slipped through.  But never do you see an elite QB who didn't win some of these games during his first 2 years.  Which is where Griffin is at right now.

 

I mean, think about this - in 2 of Griffin's 38+ blowouts, the defense has scored a touchdown.  In the Lions game, the defense scored as many touchdowns as the offense.  So it's not like all these other QBs are getting help, but Griffin isn't.  

[KDawg]

Here's the major flaw in the whole premise of this thread... You don't account for the style of offense each quarterback is playing within.

 

For instance:

 

Marc Bulger averaged 33 passes per game over his career.

Drew Bledsoe averaged 34.6

Kurt Warner averaged 32.56

Andrew Luck averaged 37.4

Tom Brady averaged 34.21

Carson Palmer averaged 33.88

Brett Favre averaged 33.67

Aaron Rodgers averaged 31.35

Robert Griffin III averaged 30.32

 

Now, he's he lowest of all of these guys. But I'm not even accounting for passes thrown in the 2nd half/4th quarter here. Most of these guys play in systems that rely on the pass. We don't have that. We are a running football team.

 

Last season, we threw the ball 442 times and ran it 519.

 

This season we've thrown 526 and ran it 402. I'd be willing to make an educated guess and say that a major difference is the score in the second half (as well as Griffin's running ability being compromised), and if I had time I'd do the research on that.

[darrelgreenie]

>The difference between 38 passes and a Win vs Loss could have very little to do with the QB.

 

Right, which is why the elite guys all do it more than everybody else, but also why Sanchez and Skelton slipped through.  But never do you see an elite QB who didn't win some of these games during his first 2 years.  Which is where Griffin is at right now.

 

I mean, think about this - in 2 of Griffin's 38+ blowouts, the defense has scored a touchdown.  In the Lions game, the defense scored as many touchdowns as the offense.  So it's not like all these other QBs are getting help, but Griffin isn't.  

Empty rhetoric.

How did those QBs actually play in those games?

[ncr2h]

Would NFL MVP signify elite?

If you want to argue that McNair is elite, you've got a few problems.  First is that I already said that RG3's ceiling is McNair, and people gut all huffy and puffy about it, signifying that the guy probably isn't as good as they want Griffin to be.  Second, in his MVP year he threw only 400 passes, which is not the type of QB we're talking about when we say a guy is elite.  That sounds more like a game manager.  In his MVP season, he threw the ball 30+ times in only 6 games.  His MVP season stat line is the following:

 

250/400, 3215 yards, 62.5% completion percentage, 8.0 ypa, 24 TDs, 7 INTs, 100.4 QBR.

 

That's a game manager stat line.  The guy didn't even make 1st team All Pro in his MVP season.

We are a running football team.

 

Not with Kirk Cousins.  When Cousins is the QB, we apparently are a pass first team.  When RG3 is the QB, we are a run first team.

 

Noodle-armed backup with a ceiling of Kevin Kolb and Matt Cassel?  Pass the ball.

Franchise QB with Aaron Rodgers potential, who can make every throw in the book?  Run the ball.

[ncr2h]

I'd be willing to make an educated guess and say that a major difference is the score in the second half (as well as Griffin's running ability being compromised), and if I had time I'd do the research on that.

 

I think what you'd find is that the major contributor to the score difference in the 2nd half is caused, in part, by a QB who makes early turnovers and can't move the offense.  The defense has been bad, but often they were the ones scoring points for us.  The special teams has been bad, too, but that was really only a huge factor in the Cowboys and Chiefs games (where QB play was also a factor).

Empty rhetoric.

How did those QBs actually play in those games?

You seem to think you have me in a bind.

 

What you are asking me to do is parse through the list of guys in Category 1 and see which ones don't belong.  I can do this, but since RG3 is in Category 4, it will not improve his standing.  Kicking Skelton and Sanchez out of Category 1 will not help RG3 get into Category 1.

[IrepDC]

If you want to argue that McNair is elite, you've got a few problems.  First is that I already said that RG3's ceiling is McNair, and people gut all huffy and puffy about it, signifying that the guy probably isn't as good as they want Griffin to be.  Second, in his MVP year he threw only 400 passes, which is not the type of QB we're talking about when we say a guy is elite.  That sounds more like a game manager.  In his MVP season, he threw the ball 30+ times in only 6 games.  His MVP season stat line is the following:

 

250/400, 3215 yards, 62.5% completion percentage, 8.0 ypa, 24 TDs, 7 INTs, 100.4 QBR.

 

So you believe that he won league Most Valuable Player by managing games. That's a shame, but it again proves that your understanding of football is too simplistic, and hence, so is your analysis.

 

Robert Griffin would be a rich man's Steve McNair, and that's no shot at McNair's legacy. Griffin has the same fearlessness, competitiveness, and flare-  with a better arm and more speed. You don't appreciate McNair; though, so unfortunately you don't appreciate the improved version.