You Are Here > Pro-Football-Reference.com > PFR Blog > NFL and College Football Analysis

Brees, Ryan, Rivers, Cutler and Manning (and maybe Brady, too)

Posted by Chase Stuart on March 23, 2009

The biggest story in the NFL these days not involving the NFL draft has to do with the bizarre circus involving Jay Cutler. Many have written about everything from Cutler's production and his psyche to macro thoughts on Bill Belichick disciples; I have nothing to add there. I'd rather take on an impossible task and take a statistical look at how Jay Cutler ranks among other QBs.

And when I say how Jay Cutler ranks, I mean how Jay Cutler 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and so on, ranks. And that's why it's an impossible task. I can't predict what will happen in three years. You can't predict what will happen in four years. We won't know how good Cutler is over the next five years until five years from now. It's all a guessing game, but that doesn't mean we can't refine our guessing. There are obvious and not so obvious flaws in the approach I'm about to outline, and I'll do my best to explain them.

What I'm trying to figure out is how valuable is Jay Cutler, the commodty, in March 2009? For example, we know we'd rather have Cutler than Tarvaris Jackson and we'd rather have a 26 year old Peyton Manning than a 26 year old Jay Cutler. But to determine his value -- his trade value, if you're a Broncos fan -- you need to know what he'll do in the future. And as Yogi Berra once said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. Consider:

  • At the end of the 1970 season, Billy Kilmer was 31 years old and had just 11 career wins to his name. In 1970, he threw 6 TDs and 17 INTs. Who would have guessed he would have been one of the best QBs in the NFL over the next half-decade?
  • At the end of the 1995 season, Rich Gannon was 30 years old and had started just four games over the past three years. Who would have guessed that he would make four Pro Bowls over the next seven seasons?
  • Stop me if you've heard this one. QB is drafted 330th overall. He throws 1 TD and 7 INT his rookie season. He throws 1 TD and 3 INT and has an 0-2 record his sophomore season. You probably wouldn't think he'd still be in the league five years after that, but in his seventh season Brian Sipe was named a first team All Pro.

This goes the other way, too, of course.

    Archie Manning struggled early in his career, but the #1 pick was very good at ages 29, 30 and 31. Who would project him to throw 15 TD and 30 INT the rest of his career?
  • Mark Rypien won a Super Bowl and had one of the better seasons in passing history in 1991. He was just 29 years old. He never came close to duplicating that success.
  • Greg Landry was a first round pick who had big years as a runner and passer in 1971 and 1972. He was 26 years old in March 1973, and he may have been the single best QB prospect in the NFL at that time. When you consider his rushing, he'd been more productive than Manning or Bradshaw or Griese, he was younger than Tarkenton and Namath, and he had a better pedigree than Ken Anderson. Landry stuck around for awhile but there were about 15 QBs who outperformed him from that moment on.
  • Steve Bartkowski was a former number 1 pick who made the Pro Bowl in '80 and '81 and had an incredible 22 TD/5 INT ratio in 1983. He was 31 years old, but he threw for fewer than 4,000 yards the rest of his career.

None of this is breaking news; we all know it's difficult to predict one year down the road, let alone five or ten. But it's important to set the stage before we answer the key question: if you could have any QB in the NFL right now, for your favorite team, who would you pick? Can statistics and past history guide us?

There are a ton of factors that you would want to use to predict future QB success, but there are three that seem most prominent: age, past production and draft value. Unfortunately, each of these are complicated variables and require a full description, but first, let me describe how we measure future QB success. If you hate reading the details, skip to the end for the QB list.

First I calculated each QB's adjusted net yards per attempt (passing yards + 20*TDs - 45*INT - sack yards lost) / (passes + sacks) metric. Then I compared that ratio to "replacement level", defined as 75% of the league average. Then I multiplied the difference between the QB's ANY/A and replacement level by the QB's number of pass attempts plus sacks to get a measure of "adjusted yards over replacement." Then, I added to that number every adjusted rushing yard (rushing yards + 20*rushTDs) over four yards per carry. So if a QB had 100 carries, 500 yards and 5 TDs, that would be plus 200 adjusted yards. Whether or not this formula is perfect isn't that important -- for what we're looking for, with hundreds of QBs, something that's generally correct is all we need. We don't need to know specifically if Troy Aikman was better than Jeff Garcia, but just that both were better than Danny Kanell and Bobby Hoying.

Measuring QB success or value in a given year isn't enough, though. We want to know how they'll do for awhile, although we also want immediate success. To grade QB value for the long term, I took 100% of their production in Year N+1 (2009, for Jay Cutler's purposes), 95% of their value in N+2, 90% in N+3, and so on, for 8 seasons. This will thus reward great immediate production and sustained levels of strong play. This weighted measure of eight years of production will be the output variable in our regression formula. Not surprisingly, Manning in March 2000 (the year he turned 24) and Marino in March 1984 (the year he turned 23) come out as the top two scores.

Age:: The effects of age are obviously nonlinear; going from age 23 to 24 is good; going from 35 to 36 is bad. I looked at the top 50 QBs (based on NFL production, using something similar to the metric I used in the Greatest QB Ever series) drafted since 1970, that are no longer active, to determine the general "dropoff" rate for a QB. Here are the results:

21	 12.4
22	 34.6
23	 53.1
24	 68.1
25	 79.9
26	 88.8
27	 94.9
28	 98.5
29	100.0
30	 99.5
31	 97.3
32	 93.7
33	 88.9
34	 83.2
35	 76.8
36	 69.9
37	 62.9
38	 56.0
39	 49.4
40	 43.4
41	 38.3
42	 34.2

This shouldn't be too controversial; it says that QBs peak from ages 28-31, and a QB at 36 is about as good as a QB at age 24. However, we can't just use these numbers as the inputs in the regression formula because we're trying to predict a weighted value of eight years worth of scores. So the value of being 24 corresponds to 100% of the value of being 25, plus 95% of the value of being 26, and so on. Here are those numbers:

21	 12.4	452
22	 34.6	510
23	 53.1	552
24	 68.1	578
25	 79.9	591
26	 88.8	591
27	 94.9	581
28	 98.5	563
29	100.0	537
30	 99.5	505
31	 97.3	469
32	 93.7	430
33	 88.9	391
34	 83.2	352
35	 76.8	315
36	 69.9	282
37	 62.9	254
38	 56.0	225
39	 49.4	196
40	 43.4	172
41	 38.3	151
42	 34.2	132

Therefore, the ideal range of ages where your average QB has his best days ahead of him is somewhere between 24 and 27 years. And that makes a lot of sense. And whereas the table above said being 36 was slightly better than being 24, now being 24 is much better than being 36. And that makes sense, too.

Past Production: I used the same formula to measuring past production as I did for measuring future production; adjusted net yards added over replacement value. However, I didn't want to limit myself to 2008, so I used a weighted average of the last three years. So for Philip Rivers, he gets 3*2008_value plus 2*2007_value plus 2006_value, all divided by six. For JaMarcus Russell, he gets 2*2008_value plus 2007_value, divided by three. For Matt Ryan, he simply gets his 2008 value. This becomes a little unfair for someone like Aaron Rodgers, who is treated like a star in 2008 and a nothing in '07 and '06. That's not an accurate portrayal of what happened, but we can tweak that later.

Draft Value: I used the numbers here to assign a value to each slot in the draft. I feel really comfortable with those values, but there's one big problem: a player's draft value is really important when they're young but not very important when they're old. I made some rough, back of the envelope calculations as to a good multiplier for draft value at each age:

22	1.0
23	1.0
24	0.9
25	0.8
26	0.7
27	0.6
28	0.5
29	0.4
30	0.3
31	0.2
32	0.1
33	0.1
34	0.1
35	0.1
36	0.1
37	0.1
38	0.1
39	0.1
40	0.1

This just quantifies what my gut says, although I have no idea how accurate it really is. Deriving a good formula for this could be a whole separate blog post, so I'm going to put that off for another day. So I simply multiplied each player's draft value (as derived in that post) times their multiplier based on age. There's a problem with this, though: it makes the "draft value" variable for a 31 year old Brett Favre equal to the draft value variable for a 24 year old Tom Brady. That's beacuse Favre's an old guy that used to be a high pick and Brady's a young guy who is a low pick. That's what I ended up doing, but I don't love it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there's a better way -- using regression analysis -- to handle this.

If you've made it this far, the payoff is about to come. We now have our input variables -- an age variable, a draft value variable that decreases over time, and a past production variable. The output is a weighted average of performance over the next eight seasons. What's our dataset? Every QB who entered the league since the merger, but excluding all player-seasons since 2003 and any QB born after 1977. Further, I only looked at player-seasons with at least 200 pass attempts.

What's the formula that best fits that curve? It won't mean much to you, but here it is:

-1972 + 4.21*age + 28.6*draft + 2.38*pastproduction

That doesn't mean anything until we apply it to the current list of QBs. Here are the top 25 projected QBs going forward in the NFL as of March 2009, but using only QBs who had 200+ attempts in 2008. The age is how old the player was during the 2008 season.

08Val   Age	AgeV	 DraftV  3YrVal      Proj	 Rk	Name
2157	 29	537	 11.8	  1861	     5049	 1	Drew Brees
1245     23	552	 59.4	  1245	     5009	 2	Matt Ryan
1919	 27	581	 33.5	  1429	     4829	 3	Philip Rivers
1495	 25	591	 34.4	  1169	     4277	 4	Jay Cutler
1501	 32	430	  7.3	  1702	     4096	 5	Peyton Manning
1217	 28	563	  1.5	  1372       3699	 6	Tony Romo
 875	 27	581	 43.9	   648	     3270	 7	Eli Manning
 484	 23	552	 73.2	   288	     3127	 8	JaMarcus Russell
 492	 26	591	 30.1	   727	     3106	 9	Ben Roethlisberger
1422	 25	591	 26.6	   733	     3016	10	Aaron Rodgers
1234	 32	430	  6.4	  1205	     2889	11	Donovan McNabb
 477	 23	552	 36.8	   477	     2538	12	Joe Flacco
 731	 27	581	 19.6	   614	     2495	13	Jason Campbell
1030	 27	581	  9.9	   728	     2489	14	Matt Schaub
1721	 37	254	  0.3	  1305	     2207	15	Kurt Warner
 645	 30	505	  4.3	   801	     2179	16	David Garrard
1477	 32	430	  3.7	   925	     2143	17	Chad Pennington
 663	 25	591	 13.0	   490	     2050	18	Trent Edwards
1013     26	591	  3.4	   495	     1789	19	Matt Cassel
  74	 25	591	  4.6	   429	     1665	20	Derek Anderson
 539	 26	591	 10.2	   302	     1523	21	Kyle Orton
1072	 33	391	  0.3	   752	     1468	22	Jake Delhomme
 553	 24	578	  4.9	   354	     1444	23	Tyler Thigpen
 528	 28	563	  1.5	   410	     1413	24	Shaun Hill
 462	 28	563	  7.0	   277	     1254	25	Seneca Wallace

How does that list look to you? This is my best attempt to, using just objective data, figure out which QBs would have the most value either on the open market or through a trade. All three input variables were highly significant, which means they are all certainly correlated to future production. The R^2 was just 0.35, which isn't very high, but I'm not sure if you can come up with a formula to make it any higher. There's a ton of randomness in future production, and if 35% of it can be predicted through this formula, that's pretty good. Before we conclude, let me throw some general thoughts out there on this list:

1) If we ignore Rodgers' 2006 and 2007, and just use last year for his 3YrVal, that would give him a projected score of 4654, and he'd move into 3rd place on the list. Very interesting. Doing the same analysis with Cassel bumps him just north of 3000, where Rodgers currently is.

2) Joe Flacco's ahead of Kurt Warner. That makes some sense to me. We're basically projecting one or two big years out of Warner versus eight good years out of Flacco.

3) Matt Ryan (along with Rodgers if we tweak his score) comes in too high, I think. Why? My buddy Maurile would recommend using some sort of Bayes' theorem analysis, because being great over a small number of attempts is not as convincing as being great over a large number of attempts. As I've currently structured it, three great years will have the same score as one great year, if you only play one year. Usually, that's not a problem, but when you have the greatest rookie season ever (or you edit Rodgers' career), things get dicey. Suffice it to say, while I love Ryan, I'm not convinced just yet that he's mega elite. I love Ryan as much as anyone, but putting him at #2 scares me a little bit.

4) Look over there at JaMarcus Russell. He's up there over Big Ben! Two of the three factors point Ben's way -- being older actually helps him, since he is entering his prime, and obviously he's already better. The only thing pointing Russell's way is that #1 draft pick status. Is that right or wrong? Here's how every QB drafted #1 overall since the merger (along with Steve Young, a supplemental #1) ranked among QBs in their first two seasons.

                        RookYr  Yr1     Yr2
JaMarcus Russell	2007	82	24
Alex Smith	        2005	81	26
Eli Manning	        2004	79	10
Carson Palmer	        2003	--	24
David Carr	        2002	84	25
Michael Vick	        2001	29	 5
Tim Couch	        1999	35	27
Peyton Manning	        1998	20	 3
Drew Bledsoe	        1993	25	12
Jeff George	        1990	36	59
Troy Aikman	        1989	81	63
Vinny Testaverde	1987	49	81
John Elway	        1983	74	16
Steve Bartkowski	1975	23	70
Jim Plunkett	        1971	12	68
Terry Bradshaw	        1970	65	21
Steve Young	        1984	--	67

Sure, Russell looks bad. But so did Troy Aikman. And Vinny Testaverde. And Terry Bradshaw. So did Steve Young. John Elway wasn't much better. I have to say, it's very counterintuitive to me to suggest that Russell is going to be better than Roethlisberger, going forward. On the other hand, you could probably have made the same argument about Jim Everett and Troy Aikman in March 1991, too. As for Ben and Russell, I think it's at least arguable that Ben's statistics understate how good he really is. If his 3YrVal was a bit higher, he'd easily be ahead of Russell and Manning.

5) Notice anyone missing? I don't really know what to do with Brady, but his score after 2007 was 5179. Giving him an extra year of age would drop him to 5008, but we can't ignore that he suffered a serious injury. Who knows how he'll come back, and I don't really know where's a good place to put him. If he's healthy, though, he's right there up with Brees. Carson Palmer was right behind Brady in 2007, so if he's healthy, he's got to be in the mix, too. If we age him a year based on his '07 numbers, he'd project at 4471.

Let me close with a subjective list, using the numbers above as my guide (along with the changes I mentioned above). I won't try to be so exact, but I'm going to group the top 25 or so QBs in the NFL into tiers.

Build your team around them (6): Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Jay Cutler and Matt Ryan. These six QBs are at their own level, IMO, as no one matches past production and youth the way they do. You build your team around any of these guys, and all would be a good bet to be the NFL MVP in 2009, 2010 or 2011.

You're in love (5): Aaron Rodgers, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Carson Palmer. It wouldn't take you more than a second to find fault with any of these guys. That said, you've got to feel like you can go to the playoffs anytime in the next five years with this guy at the helm.

I really, really like you (3): JaMarcus Russell, Donovan McNabb, Joe Flacco. These guys are a half step below the guys above and a half step above the guys below. You're happy with your QB outlook, but you're not going to puff your chest too much. While Russell hasn't received nearly the praise that Flacco has, Russell put up at least equal numbers last season despite playing for a worse team and despite being eight months younger than Flacco. Warner arguably deserves to be in this group, but I don't think he has enough left in the tank.

You like what you've got (7): Jason Campbell, Matt Schaub, Kurt Warner, David Garrard, Chad Pennington, Trent Edwards, Matt Cassel. These guys don't have a lot in common. Warner may be an All Pro next year, but you're going to be looking for a new QB very soon. Garrard and Pennington have had big years while Schaub and Campbell have shown flashes. Edwards and Cassel are inexperienced but have done okay so far. The whole group is a mixed bag, and if this guy is your QB, you can't even guarantee that he'll be in the league in five years. I suppose a healthy Matt Hasselbeck could join this tier, too. Based on just 2008, Warner and Pennington are the obvious class of the group, but both have long histories.

Can I really trade for Jay Cutler? (6): Derek Anderson, Kyle Orton, Jake Delhomme, Tyler Thigpen, Shaun Hill, Seneca Wallace. The less said about these guys, the better.

So what do you think? How would you rank the QBs?

21 Responses to “Brees, Ryan, Rivers, Cutler and Manning (and maybe Brady, too)”

  1. mrh Says:

    Very interesting. My personal, subjective opinion is like yours on Cutler vs. Cassell.

    But I think it's very interesting that two guys who have a pretty good view of Cassell from the inside (McDaniels and Pioli) both seemed to prefer Cassell. In McDaniels' case you can argue that he'd like the QB who already knows his system, but Pioli has no offensive system he's installing. It's possible that Pioli couldn't work a Cutler deal with a divsion rival but I think a three-way trade could have been worked to cover that. It doesn't mean McDaniels/Pioli are right, just that they seem to agree on this point.

  2. Matt Says:

    I agree with much of your assessment except that I would bump McNabb up to the second tier of QBs. He's had to play much of his career without a legitimate #1 WR and the only time he had one (TO) he had his best season.

  3. ch Says:

    Kerry Collins and Marc Bulger somehow are less valuable then Seneca Wallace, Derek Anderson, and Kyle Orton? The thing that sticks out to me is how high your model rates recent high draft picks, especially top-10 picks. What's Leinart's ranking? It's probably pretty decent, even though his on-field performance isn't all that special. Running the numbers on Akili Smith at the same point in his career that you're doing Russell's probably would show him as being promising.

    The other thing the model doesn't look at is run/pass distribution. A run & shoot guy would look much better then a guy with a decent running back simply because all of the offense would go through him. Garrard probably should look a little better then he does but his yardage numbers are depressed because Jacksonville tries to run the ball so much.

  4. Chase Stuart Says:

    Hey ch,

    The model does rate recent high draft picks as valuable, but that's not because the model is blinded by Mel Kiper hype -- it's because high draft picks tend to do well. Yes, Akili Smith would have rated high at this point in his career, but so would have Peyton Manning, John Elway, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Troy Aikman, Carson Palmer, etc.

    The model does not really overrated the Run 'N' Shoot QBs too much because everything is based on per attempt numbers. Matt Ryan rated as one of the very top QBs in the NFL last year, as did Chad Pennington.

  5. Brian Says:

    Very tricky analysis. Seems kind of like a PECOTA thing. I'm not sure I understand the inclusion of the draft variable and how you weight it for the older guys.

    On the past performance variable, I'd recommend a 2-stage regression. Regress each QB toward his career mean (by throw, not by season), then use that as your input variable for past performance. For guys with fewer years and attempts, the regression should be steeper. The baseball guys use that method for batting projections with a lot of success.

    That would solve the Matt Ryan problem. If he were to somehow supernaturally be able to play his rookie season over and over again, we'd see some better seasons and some weaker seasons just due to natural (hypothetical) variance. Somewhere between would be his 'true rookie performance level.' In the universe of possible Matt Ryan rookie seasons, I think we happened to be treated to an outlier iteration.

    What about a consideration for years in the league? Age is one thing, but I'd think years in the NFL, whether starting or not is more important. I doubt there is much physical difference between a 24 and 25 yr-old, but there would be a big difference between a true rookie (like Flacco) and a guy in his 2nd year (like Russel).

    There's an obvious correlation problem using both age and 'years in league' as variables in the same regression, but it remains an important consideration, particularly in the early years.

  6. Chase Stuart Says:

    Brian,

    I think it's an open question as to whether age or years starting (or games starting) is more important. But either way, considering how Russell's rookie year went down, I'd have no problem basically considering him a true rookie in '08. He didn't even attend training camp last season.

    As for the draft variable, I'm not exactly sure what the best thing to do with that is, either.

  7. Rock Says:

    The first group looks good, although I think Brees gets bumped to the first group in large part because of the Saints' offense. Brees was great in '08, but he wasn't anywhere near as good as Marino was in '84...Brees' guady yardage numbers were too much a product of Sean Payton's obsession with the throwing the football. To me, anybody in the second group could jump to the first group given that offense. So all things considered, I'd put Brees in group 2.

    Also, I'd drop Romo at least one group. He's another guy who seems to be more a product of his system...he's got all the bad habits that Favre had(plust a few others), while having only one of Favre's many physical skills(mobility) and only one of Favre's many intangibles(creativity). Lousy leader, unreliable in the clutch, weak arm, horrible decision-maker, controversy magnet...

    One more: I would NOT put Russell in the same group as McNabb and Flacco. Those guys have done SOMETHING...I think Russell has potential, but that should only get him into group 4. Plus, he's a freakin' Raider--that fact alone might destroy his career!

  8. Danish Denver-fan! Says:

    Phenomenally good piece, very well done!

    I don't have a decent way of arguing for this, but Russel over Big Ben is just plain wrong. the draft-variable is, by gut feeling, way too important! Maybe you should cook up an ajustment for draftees drafted by the Raiders post 2002!

  9. Chase Stuart Says:

    Rock,

    Brees is ranked quite a bit lower than Marino in my rating system. It's not just raw passing yards that matter.

    As for Russell, yeah he's definitely an outlier here. But you can understand the trade-off; he's the youngest player on the list and has the best draft status. So of course he's going to be paired with guys that have done a lot more than him. And Russell is only ahead of Big Ben because this system ignores post-season performances.

  10. PWS Says:

    Interesting post. I'm a long-time Packer fan and watched Rogers closely this past year. He appears to have all of the physical and mental tools; just needs to add the intangible: the killer, winning instinct at crunch time which is where he tended to fall flat. His upside is fantastic, but there is a small risk he'll be a good numbers guy but lacking in big wins.

    I think you pegged him right: love him, but he's a step below elite.

  11. Rock Says:

    Oh I wasn't saying that YOU put Brees on Marino's level. I made the argument many times(to other people) late in the season that it was almost a shame Marino's remarkable yardage record was being broken by a guy who was, performance-wise, not even the same league as Marino was in '84. Brees was pretty damn great last year, for sure, but to me if Marino's record was gonna be broken, it should be done in a similar fasion to his single-season TD record: Manning and Brady were just out of their freakin' minds when they got 49 and 50...they didn't need to chuck it 40 times a game and in fact had higher TD rates than Marino did in '84. Brees last year averaged an entire yard less per attempt than Marino in '84 and threw 14 fewer TDs despite attempting 71 more passes. So when I made the Brees-Marino comparison, I had other people from other places in mind.

    I can see why Brees would probably make most group 1 lists--it all LOOKS good and his stats are pretty crazy, especially over the last 3 years...but like I said I think that any group 2 QB could jump into group 1 playing for Sean Payton. I like Brees a lot, but the combo of age and system makes me want to see him actually win something.

    I'm actually more confident in Ryan, Rivers and Cutler to win a title for me. I think they can all be just as good as Brees with less to work with. They're younger, more talented... Ryan was THIS close to winning the division as a day-1 rookie starter, he's incredibly smart and has LEADER written all over him; Rivers has 3 playoff victories and guts coming out of his ears, and his 34 TDs are helluva lot more impressive than Brees' when you consider that Rivers threw a lot fewer passes AND lost his safety net of a running game and a great D; and Cutler...his arm, mobility, physical stature, carrying the Broncos last year despite losing every RB that went through Denver AND a horrible defense--please God, make him a Jet, I BEG YOU!

  12. latopia Says:

    Great stuff.

    Though I'd want to factor team performance into QB value if possible. Example: What if Steve Young *was* never traded from Tampa Bay? Or traded to the 87 Falcons instead of 87 Niners? I'd also prefer 3 instead of 8 prior seasons for performance averaging. What you lose in longitudinal clarity could be regained through less distortion, i.e, a QB still recovering or not recovering from recent injuries/surgeries.

  13. Peter Says:

    The one thing this system doesnt take into account is the very different schedules these QB's play against as well as the talent they are throwing to. For example, QB's playing an NFC East schedule this past few years are experiencing a much tougher schedule than say an AFC West. Those schedules certainly impact a QB's production.

  14. mrh Says:

    Re Drew Brees and Payton. Here's the adjusted NY/A (ANY/A) for Brees over the five full seasons he has started, from worst to best:
    5.5, 5.7, 7.0, 7.1, 7.1

    Pick the three with Payton and the two with Schottenheimer (Cameron if you prefer). OK, here's the answer:

    w/ Marty: 7.1, 5.5
    w/Payton: 7.1, 5.7, 7.0 (chronological order in both cases).

    Basically, he looks the same in either system. Good to great (the league average in those five years has ranged from 4.5 to 5.0).

    Brees total numbers, like passing yards, ARE definitely inflated by Payton's pass-happy "offensive system". But Brees would be a top QB in any system (assuming decent pass protection, which is true of any QB).

    Also, note that his Y/A numbers (a criticism of Brees vs. Marino's 5000 yd season) are deflated by throwing a lot to Bush and other RBs in NO (and LT in SD). NO's 2008 Y/A on passes thrown to WRs was 9.6 (2nd only to SD, interestingly). NO threw 304 passes to wrs in 2008, which was 15th in the league. Since Brees threw all but one of NO's passes this season, that's all him (I can't say for the other teams' QBs, I only have the data by team).

    In 1984 Marino completed 218 passes to WRs, 75 to RB, and 74 to TE. Last year Brees' breakdown was 194/122/97. Most of the 71 extra attempts Brees had over Marino were to RBs (47 extra completion probably equals about 60 extra attempts). This pulled down Brees Y/A (while also inflating his yardage total). The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the heavier use of the TE by NO/Brees vs/ MIA/Marino. I think Marino's '84 was a more impressive performance, but the Y/A comparison is a little misleading because of the offenses they ran.

  15. ammek Says:

    Out of interest, where is Tarvaris?

  16. Chase Stuart Says:

    Jackson has a 3 year weighted average of 286. He has the same age-value as Cutler, 591. His draft-value would be 16.7; therefore, substituting those numbers into the formula, he would have a score of 1674. That puts him right next to Cassell and Anderson, although remember Cassell may be undervalued here because he had to sit behind Brady. But he's about their age, been a little less productive but was a higher draft pick. FWIW, Rosenfels has a 3 year production value of 276, and he's a bit older and was a worse draft pick. But this formula doesn't necessarily work well for guys that had under 200 attempts, and this is a decent example of that. I happen to like both Rosenfels and Jackson, fwiw.

  17. BigCheese Says:

    I know it's not that important in the grand scheme of things, seeing how he's not going to rise above the fifth group, but if we're adjusting for Rodgers, Cassel and Ryan, sholdn't Orton, who sat behind Grossman and then Griese before having what looked to me like a decent year be adjusted as well?

  18. mrh Says:

    I'm a little curious about your age factors. I did a very simplistic analysis of qbs from 1978-2008, counting their top 30/top 10/top 5 rankings in a typical fantasy scoring system.

    age -- top 30 -- top 10 -- top 5
    21 -- 1 -- 0 -- 0
    22 -- 12 -- 3 -- 2
    23 -- 47 -- 8 -- 3
    24 -- 71 -- 17 -- 10
    25 -- 84 -- 29 -- 21
    26 -- 94 -- 28 -- 22
    27 -- 83 -- 30 -- 16
    28 -- 77 -- 29 -- 12
    29 -- 81 -- 26 -- 9
    30 -- 69 -- 28 -- 12
    31 -- 66 -- 23 -- 10
    32 -- 51 -- 19 -- 5
    33 -- 51 -- 17 -- 9
    34 -- 43 -- 19 -- 9
    35 -- 30 -- 12 -- 5
    36 -- 27 -- 8 -- 2
    37 -- 19 -- 9 -- 6
    38 -- 13 -- 3 -- 1
    39 -- 6 -- 1 -- 1
    41 -- 3 -- 1 -- 0
    42 -- 1 -- 0 -- 0

    Sorry about the crappy formatting. Now I realize that fantasy production NFL value and this is a VERY limited study in many ways. But could it be that QB performance peaks a little earlier than 29 and that you've undervalued ages 25-26, especially for elite qbs? I think this topic alone would make an interesting post. (I know there may be something archived, but you didn't link to it.)

  19. mrh Says:

    Should say "fantasy production DOES NOT EQUAL NFL value" but the symbols got cut.

  20. Downpuppy Says:

    Cassel was traded for 3 rolls of tape because of his contract situation.

    The salary cap is pretty effective.

  21. bravehoptoad Says:

    Rock...

    ...um, yeah, Brees was in the same league as Marino. It's a league called the NFL.

    That's really not a good figure of speech to use when you're talking about two players who are literally in the same league.

Leave a Reply

HTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>