Advanced stats and our QBs, 2014 edition

[Larry]

Advanced stats show a TRUE picture.  People need to realize that these are all negative plays:

1. Interceptions

2. Sacks

3. Fumbles

 

etc.

 

People look at Cousins' interceptions without accounting for the sacks he avoids.  When you account for all the negative plays, Cousins will no doubt appear superior.  Because when it comes to RG3, you need to account for the sacks he took.

Although I will point out that I'm the guy who spent a bunch of time pointing out how many sacks and fumbles Rob has, compared to kirk, I also need to make a counter-argument, here.

Of those three negative plays,

1) Interceptions

2) Sacks

3) Fumbles

Only one is a turnover. (Well, #3 is, sometimes. but not always.)

For their careers, Robert has 32 fumbles (in 37 games). But the Skins only lost 10 of them.

Kirk, OTOH, has only 6 fumbles (in 14 games). But the other team got 4 of them.

But every INT is a turnover.

 

(The counter argument to that, though, is that some INTs are turnovers, well down the field.  It's a turnover, but it might be a "gain of yardage".) 

[Larry]

So essentially, DYAR, DVOA, ANY/A and I would argue even QBR all suggest Cousins was our best QB.  Someone should send Gruden a link to this thread. It pretty much tells you who should be our starter.

Unfortunately though, TK mentioned that Gruden wants Cousins to be traded.  

 

Possible counter-argument to those stats, though. 

 

I have the feeling that most of Cousin's touches, came when we had the best team of the year.  We weren't doomed, yet.  Our players were fighting, playing tough. 

 

Now, maybe that's just a case of "I think the team played better, when Kirk was in".  but it could also mean "Kirk happened to be playing QB, when the team was at it's peak". 

[Fergasun]

I've been following and trust the Football Outsiders stats as the best advanced stats available since they existed (2005-ish).

 

The Washington offensive line went from about average in pass-protection (7.6% sack-rate) to second to last (9.8 % sack-rate).from 2013 to 2014.  RG3 took more snaps in 2013. 

 

Cousins and RG3 flip flop in DVOA rankings -- Cousins was -42.6% in 2013, Griffin was -34.1% in 2014.  That actually means that Griffin was better this year than Cousins was last year.  Griffin was amazing in 2012 (around +15%) -- but not in a pro-style type of offense.  

 

Looking for some other random jumps, Foles jumped from -30% to +30% in DVOA 2012 to 2013. 

 

Recent Redskin QB DVOAs of interest:

J. Campbell 2007, +0.4%

J. Campbell 2008, +2.6%

J. Campbell 2009, -6.1%

 

2010

McNabb, -6.9%

Grossman, -24.7%

 

2011

Grossman, -8.0%

Beck, -26.1%

 

Yes, that's right -- Cousins and Griffin were historically bad, even for Redskin QBs.

 

The real shame is, what was gained by giving Colt more starts/snaps when Cousins needed more snaps for evaluation.  I will say that RG3 has the Jamarcus Russell "physical tools" factor going for him... speaking of which.... here's his DVOA

2008, -21.6%

2009, -62.5% (THIS IS HISTORICALLY BAD)

 

But the weird stat, who had the worst QB DVOA of all time?  Alex Smith's 2005, -88.6%!

 

Also, we had Josh Freeman's career: +13.5% (2010), -13.7% (2011), -8% (2012), -30% (2013). 

 

OK, I keep expanding this post with various points, other young QBs in 2014:

Tannehill, +3.7%

Wilson, +4.2%

Foles, +2%

Stanton, +5%

Glennon, -2.9%

Kaepernick, -8.4%

Geno Smith, -12.5%

Colt McCoy, -15.7%

D. Carr, -14.9%

Bridgewater, -16.9%

 

So none of the other young QBs have really separated themselves aside from Luck.  It's depressing but in case you haven't observed, top flight QB talent is fleeting and the great ones don't come that often. 

 

Based on this: I wouldn't bet the farm on either of them -- hope we bring in a new young QB out of college and in 2016 we'll be certainly done with either one or both QBs.  I would predict that Cousins wins a truly open QB competition.  Griffin and Cousins are on the verge of getting booted out the league either has another season of -10% DVOA... they both need to be around -5% DVOA to remain backups. 

[redskins59]

Although I will point out that I'm the guy who spent a bunch of time pointing out how many sacks and fumbles Rob has, compared to kirk, I also need to make a counter-argument, here.

Of those three negative plays,

1) Interceptions

2) Sacks

3) Fumbles

Only one is a turnover. (Well, #3 is, sometimes. but not always.)

For their careers, Robert has 32 fumbles (in 37 games). But the Skins only lost 10 of them.

Kirk, OTOH, has only 6 fumbles (in 14 games). But the other team got 4 of them.

But every INT is a turnover.

(The counter argument to that, though, is that some INTs are turnovers, well down the field. It's a turnover, but it might be a "gain of yardage".)

Obviously ints and sacks/fumbles are weighted differently. If you take 6 sacks in a game, that may be equivalent to throwing a few picks as you will be stuck in a lot of third and long situations and you will be forced to punt. Those punts are in a sense turnovers anyway.

So those sacks need to go into the calculation, but obviously sacks and ints aren't equivalent negative plays. However, if you are taking too many sacks, it will become equivalent to throwing picks.

Possible counter-argument to those stats, though.

I have the feeling that most of Cousin's touches, came when we had the best team of the year. We weren't doomed, yet. Our players were fighting, playing tough.

Now, maybe that's just a case of "I think the team played better, when Kirk was in". but it could also mean "Kirk happened to be playing QB, when the team was at it's peak".

That's a good argument, however, take into account strength of schedule. I know that Cousins faced two elite defenses in Seattle and Arizona.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I honestly don't trust advanced stats outside of baseball and some basketball numbers. It's just too complex and there are many variables based on scheme, coaching the other 21 players on the field etc.

[pjfootballer]

I honestly don't trust advanced stats outside of baseball and some basketball numbers. It's just too complex and there are many variables based on scheme, coaching the other 21 players on the field etc.

Agree. And I just don't like them in any sport, including baseball.

And before anyone says it, yes I don't really understand a lot of them. I hate math and it's always been my weakest subject.

When I see candidates for the baseball HOF, they put up the regular stats (hr, RBI, etc). When I watch a game, they put up the regular stats. I'm not Billy Beane and I really don't care about advanced stats.

Get off my lawn!

[Tsailand]

It's a good thing neither of you work for the Redskins, then.  I also assume/hope you aren't doctors, engineers, scientists, bank tellers, voters, etc...

 

I honestly don't trust advanced stats outside of baseball and some basketball numbers. It's just too complex and there are many variables based on scheme, coaching the other 21 players on the field etc.

 

All these criticisms apply to basic stats too. "He threw for 300 yards and two TDs?  Doesn't mean anything, too many variables based on scheme, coaching, 21 other players on the field.."

 

The difference is advanced stats attempt to control for those factors.  That's why, to use an example from this very thread, they reward a QB greatly for completing a deep bomb for a TD (McCoy, Cousins), but reward him hardly at all for a screen pass that goes 70 yards for a TD (RG3).

[MartinC]

Kirk did a lot of good things. But almost all those good things were on 1st or 2nd down and in the first half of games. In the situations that make a huge difference in winning and losing - 3rd downs, producing late in games when it's on the line and avoiding turnovers he was flat bad. His performance on 3rd down and more than 3 yards to go was just awful. His stats in the second half are way down on his first half stats. The turnovers he committed were bad ones (pick a guy pre snap and then go there without making the correct - or any - post snap read, which is why he didn't take many sacks).

For me the negatives from Kirk - inability to produce in obvious passing situations or when the pressure is on him and him folding after making a mistake - far outweigh the positives.

I don't think you could look at any of our 3 QBs this year and say you were comfortable rolling into next season with the same group and finding a good starter. McCoy probably has the best argument based on overall performance but his lack of arm strength limits him to a good backup IMO.

[DC9]

I don't think you could look at any of our 3 QBs this year and say you were comfortable rolling into next season with the same group and finding a good starter. McCoy probably has the best argument based on overall performance but his lack of arm strength limits him to a good backup IMO.

 

I still say we sit pat and go ahead and address the lines.  I'd be fine with taking a flyer on Garrett Grayson or Blake Simms late in the draft if they are there in the 5th.  Let them develop a bit.  Both are decent with footwork and rhythm.

[MartinC]

I still say we sit pat and go ahead and address the lines.  I'd be fine with taking a flyer on Garrett Grayson or Blake Simms late in the draft if they are there in the 5th.  Let them develop a bit.  Both are decent with footwork and rhythm.

Oh don't get me wrong I am flat against drafting a QB high this year. There is not one in the draft worth the #5 pick anyway IMO. Robinson or Schreff for me at 5 if either are there (Schreff should be). I think we let Kirk find a new home one way or another though and bring in another veteran QB. What happens with RGIII is anyone's guess but right now I think he will be back but not as the confirmed starter.

[Tsailand]

All you people who say you don't like/trust/understand advanced stats... it's not a good thing.  It's like being proud that you don't read too good, or don't use that newfangled "electricity" stuff in your house.  But at least you can say you're real Redskins fans, true to the spirit of the franchise. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/02/18/espn-the-magazine-ranks-the-redskins-120th-of-122-teams-in-use-of-analytics/?tid=pm_sports_pop

[MartinC]

All you people who say you don't like/trust/understand advanced stats... it's not a good thing.  It's like being proud that you don't read too good, or don't use that newfangled "electricity" stuff in your house.  But at least you can say you're real Redskins fans, true to the spirit of the franchise. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/02/18/espn-the-magazine-ranks-the-redskins-120th-of-122-teams-in-use-of-analytics/?tid=pm_sports_pop

Now I agree with you that there is value in data and its analysis - you know providing your looking at good data, asking the right questions and cross checking conclusions etc. But I found this an interesting quote in the article you linked on a number of levels ...

"(Of course, you can’t apply analytics to intangibles, which is why this whole enterprise is not at all fair.)"

The article pretty much admits the 'research' that was done to draw the conclusion was nebulous and the conclusions subjective. But hey it's something knocking the Redskins so pretty much tailor made for a Washington Post piece.

[pjfootballer]

All you people who say you don't like/trust/understand advanced stats... it's not a good thing.  It's like being proud that you don't read too good, or don't use that newfangled "electricity" stuff in your house.  But at least you can say you're real Redskins fans, true to the spirit of the franchise. 

 

 

So you are basically calling anyone who doesn't care for advanced stats "stupid."  Gotcha. if you as a fan "choose" to study advanced stats, then congratulations. Last time I checked, it wasn't a requirement to being a fan.  Advanced stats are for scouts, GMs and front office personel who get paid to find players for the team.  It you want to do that as a hobby, by all means, have at it.  I've got better things to do with my time. I'd rather read a good book (oh, I forgot, you said I can't read. How am I even typing this), learn a language or volunteer my time. I'm not Billy Beane, they don't pay me to be Billy Beane and I don't care to be Billy Beane.  Beane on man, but don't put down intelligent fans who root hard for the team, just because we don't feel like doing math.

[Jumbo]

All you people who say you don't like/trust/understand advanced stats... it's not a good thing.  It's like being proud that you don't read too good, or don't use that newfangled "electricity" stuff in your house.  But at least you can say you're real Redskins fans, true to the spirit of the franchise. 

 

<edit>

  

 

I challenge you to up your pretentiousness. 

[Epochalypse]

All you people who say you don't like/trust/understand advanced stats... it's not a good thing.  It's like being proud that you don't read too good, or don't use that newfangled "electricity" stuff in your house.  But at least you can say you're real Redskins fans, true to the spirit of the franchise. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/02/18/espn-the-magazine-ranks-the-redskins-120th-of-122-teams-in-use-of-analytics/?tid=pm_sports_pop

It should be "read too well"....

[Tsailand]

So you are basically calling anyone who doesn't care for advanced stats "stupid."  Gotcha. if you as a fan "choose" to study advanced stats, then congratulations. Last time I checked, it wasn't a requirement to being a fan.  Advanced stats are for scouts, GMs and front office personel who get paid to find players for the team.  It you want to do that as a hobby, by all means, have at it.  I've got better things to do with my time. I'd rather read a good book (oh, I forgot, you said I can't read. How am I even typing this), learn a language or volunteer my time. I'm not Billy Beane, they don't pay me to be Billy Beane and I don't care to be Billy Beane.  Beane on man, but don't put down intelligent fans who root hard for the team, just because we don't feel like doing math.

 

You don't need to be an expert in advanced stats to be a fan.  Just like you don't have to be an electrical engineer to use the internet.  But to openly disparage them (even though you admit you don't understand them), well, just displays ignorance.  Maybe you can be our next GM, after Danny gets bored of Scott.

 

 

I've noticed something on these forums:  The advanced stats guys, and the Xs-and-Os guys over in the all-22 thread, tend to be in the Cousins camp (or the "they both suck and we need three new QBs" camp).  The "all I care about is wins and rings" guys are in the RG3 camp.

[pjfootballer]

You don't need to be an expert in advanced stats to be a fan.  Just like you don't have to be an electrical engineer to use the internet.  But to openly disparage them (even though you admit you don't understand them), well, just displays ignorance.  Maybe you can be our next GM, after Danny gets bored of Scott.

 

 

I've noticed something on these forums:  The advanced stats guys, and the Xs-and-Os guys over in the all-22 thread, tend to be in the Cousins camp (or the "they both suck and we need three new QBs" camp).  The "all I care about is wins and rings" guys are in the RG3 camp.

 

Then why are you so hell bent on making others a believer?  If that's your thing, again, kudos to you and have fun.  I enjoy the stats that I'm familiar with.  Why must you put down people by continuingly calling them stupid or ignorant?  It makes you come off as elitist.  I know how a space shuttle works, but I would have no idea how to build one, because I didn't study that, nor did I have the desire. Building space shuttles isn't my thing, just like advance stats, but it doesn't make me ignorant.

 

Nice "Pot Shot" at the end of the first paragraph. I'm not the one in here "bragging" about my advanced stats knowledge.  No thanks, the job is yours.  I'll just enjoy watching the game.

 

I'm not even sure what the 2nd paragraph is all about. Seems like an odd thing to bring up and I'm not sure it has anything to do with what we are debating.  

[MartinC]

I've noticed something on these forums:  The advanced stats guys, and the Xs-and-Os guys over in the all-22 thread, tend to be in the Cousins camp (or the "they both suck and we need three new QBs" camp).  The "all I care about is wins and rings" guys are in the RG3 camp.

Well I suppose I would call myself an Xs and Os guy and I use stats a lot for work (though I would not call myself a stats guy by any means). I cant for the life of me think why anyone who looks at advanced passing stats would be in the 'Cousins Camp' - his 3rd down stats alone would give anyone even scratching the surface a heart attack as would his second half versus first half breaks downs.

I suppose right now I'm in the 'we dont have a credible starting QB on the roster right now' camp. But its February and we dont play games until September.

[darrelgreenie]

Then why are you so hell bent on making others a believer?  If that's your thing, again, kudos to you and have fun.  I enjoy the stats that I'm familiar with.  Why must you put down people by continuingly calling them stupid or ignorant?  It makes you come off as elitist.   

I think Thailand is using ignorant in the classical sense of without knowledge or unaware. Which you basically admitted that you are in reference to advance stats...I mean you're basically trumpeting your stance as a badge of honor.

 

I don't think he means it as an insult more as an observation based on your own comments *shrugs*.

[darrelgreenie]

....I've noticed something on these forums:  The advanced stats guys, and the Xs-and-Os guys over in the all-22 thread, tend to be in the Cousins camp (or the "they both suck and we need three new QBs" camp).  The "all I care about is wins and rings" guys are in the RG3 camp.

Well there are advance stat guys and Xs and Os guys that have all manner of opinions on our QBs that I don't think support how you are characterizing them above.

 

One thing I've noticed is that there is some pseudo advanced stats that imo is nothing more then anecdotal information. So, if you consider the whole "passing attempts" as a barometer for QB play then I would argue that is the opposite of the intent of advance stats.

 

I like advanced stats (when used properly) in conjunction with film (all-22) and skill set. I hate the whole 'camp' notion though. I don't care who the QB is I just want the best QB. And the best QB depends on the situation as much as the stats. If you run a pure WCO scheme then a power thrower or improv QB won't be the best fit for the offense regardless of the metrics. Conversely if you run a vertical passing game then a finesse WCO style QB that doesn't throw with upper level velocity won't be fit regardless of the metrics.

 

And btw, Martin is right about Cousins 3rd down stats, they have never been better then Griffin's despite all the rhetoric that Kirk is a superior pocket passer on the most important passing down Griffin has been better. It will be interesting what this years 3rd down stats show.

[gortiz]

RG3 is failing based on the scheme and play calling, not because he can't play......Brady and Manning would struggle in an offense that forced them to move.   

 

I would also rather have a QB who takes sacks; then a QB who's a turnover machine like Cousins

 

I don't know Hail ... after viewing my fare share of Robert on All-20 film, I would not say his struggles are based on those two things you bring up.  Are they part of his struggles, sure, are they the basis, no, actually hell no. 

 

Read this,and tell me, if Robert is not at fault here. I would bet everythign I had, If Robert did the following in this article, he would be a better QB today, with the exact same scheme and play calling. 

 

 

Between Rodgers’s second and third seasons, Quarterback School consisted of 10 hours in the film room and 3 hours on the practice field a week, an offensive study conducted in “painstaking detail,” Clements said.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/sports/football/the-education-of-the-packers-aaron-rodgers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[pjfootballer]

I think Thailand is using ignorant in the classical sense of without knowledge or unaware. Which you basically admitted that you are in reference to advance stats...I mean you're basically trumpeting your stance as a badge of honor.

I don't think he means it as an insult more as an observation based on your own comments *shrugs*.

Yeah, I get that there are two meanings to the word "ignorant", but he's been a little arrogant with his posts. I wouldn't say I wear my lack of knowledge of advanced stats as a badge of honor, my point was just two-fold:

1. Stop insulting people who don't use them.

2. Stop being arrogant about it.

If he would have presented his case a little better without being so harsh, I wouldn't have been insulted.

Whatever. I've said my peace in this rehashed thread. I know my intelligence capabilities and I don't have a thing to prove to total strangers. I really don't care what people think about me.

[darrelgreenie]

It just seemed like....you know what..nevermind.

 

Cheers all the same!

 

[pjfootballer]

No problem DG! Cheers!

[Brokenstriker]

Cousins looks like he wants to cry after he throws an INT....that's a bigger problem then the INT itself

I look like I want to cry after Griffin can't take the team to the end zone ...