SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisBen Roethlisberger
In March, Chase did a study evaluating the most valuable quarterbacks looking forward. One of the more interesting results was Jamarcus Russell ending up one spot ahead of Ben Roethlisberger. I'm going to set aside that specific result, and focus on one specific issue affecting Roethlisberger's value going forward--whether his career path may look different than we expect because of his propensity to take sacks. I was also reminded of this recently when Chase mentioned Ken O'Brien peaking early in last week's podcast.
Do quarterbacks who take alot of sacks early in their career have shorter primes and careers than those who avoid them, all other things being equal? The "all other things being equal" is a tricky one, as avoiding sacks is one component of what makes a QB good and keeps him getting a chance to start. This quick study is not meant as a definitive look at the topic, only a starting spot for further investigation.
I pulled all quarterbacks debuting since 1970 who threw at least 1,000 passes by age 26, and had a career yards per pass attempt of 6.0 or higher through age 26, and then looked at their sack rates. Some of those quarterbacks are still active, so I excluded any that were age 36 or younger and still playing last year.
That left a nice, even forty quarterbacks. The correlation coefficient between sack percentage through age 26, and the player's age in their last season in the NFL, is -0.335. This negative correlation means that the quarterbacks who took a higher percentage of sacks at a young age did tend to retire at an earlier age.
Let's put some of those results in chart form.
Here I divided the 40 quarterbacks into 4 equal groups of 10 quarterbacks. To show how each group did passing, I also included their average ypa through age 26. The "age" represents the average age for the final season for the qb's in that group. "GS" is the average games started after age 26 for that group. "age 33" represents the number of qb's who were retired before age 33 from that group of 10.
Group ypa age GS before age 33 ================================================================ low 6.94 36.6 101.8 0 below 6.94 34.2 78.1 1 above 6.79 33.8 65.9 5 high 6.72 32.8 56.0 6 ================================================================
The low sack guys did pass for a slightly higher yards per attempt than the high sack guys, but it wasn't a huge difference. The youngest low sack guy was Jay Schroeder, who retired after age 33. Over half of the above average and high sack guys, on the other hand, were out of football before age 33. Some of these high sack guys may not have been good enough to continue starting or making a roster well into their 30's anyway. However, there are a few cautionary tales for Roethlisberger's future. Neil Lomax, the aforementioned Ken O'Brien, and Bert Jones were all very good quarterbacks at age 26, all had a sack percentage of 8.9% or higher, and all were done starting full-time before they turned 32 years old. Jake Plummer had enough and retired before turning 33, as did the one-time phenom Don Majkowski. Randall Cunningham had the highest sack rate of any QB on the list. He did play until he was 38 and had the one magical season in 1998, but was not consistently starting into his 30's.
At the other end of the spectrum, you've certainly got Marino, Montana and Favre. You also have less likely cases like Steve DeBerg or last year's part-time starter in Minnesota, Gus Frerotte.
Among players still active, the evidence is similar. How much longer do we expect David Carr and his 212 sacks through age 26 to be in the league? People may forget that he put up decent passing numbers in 2004 before falling apart. Peyton Manning and Daunte Culpepper were two of the best young quarterbacks of all-time, but were on different ends of the sack percentage. Who do we suspect will play into his late 30's?
Finally, I'll leave you with the list of quarterbacks who took the most raw number of sacks through age 26:
Player Sacks ============================================ randall cunningham 248 neil lomax 216 david carr 212 ben roethlisberger 192 tim couch 166 tony banks 165 drew bledsoe 157 daunte culpepper 151 jake plummer 150 jeff george 146 ============================================
This entry was posted on Monday, May 11th, 2009 at 5:13 am and is filed under Player articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Every now & then a #1 QB draft choice raises enough of a stink that they manage to get traded away from the worst team in the league before they ever start. This makes it clear that that's one of the best strategies in all football!
But Roethlisberger is on a good team & still gets sacked, so you gotta figure it's him. Add the motorcycle crash & yes, he'll most likely be done at 30.
Very interesting work, JKL.
While it's controversial, you know I believe sacks must be included when you rate QBs. So personally, I'd look at net yards per attempt or ANY/A. Your low sack guys already have a better YPA ratio than your high sack guys, so you know they'll have much better NYPA ratios.
That said, I doubt including that would seriously change the results. Just worth pointing out. It might also be worthwhile looking at how QBs with a lot of rush attempts (and presumably some wear and tear that way) fade relative to other QBs.
I agree, Chase. I didn't have your full list or I would have used the 50 most valuable quarterbacks or something like that, so I just took a quick look at the guys who threw over 1000 passes.
I agree that the low sack guys were better QB's as a whole. However, some guys took sacks rather than throw interceptions. O'Brien for example threw a low rate of interceptions throughout his career. While the NYPA numbers might widen the differences from the low sack to high sack guys, using ANYPA might bring it back a little.
A regression taking into account some of the important factors of QB quality might be in order.
We could also, like you said, see if running quarterbacks also have an impact. The thing there is not all runs are equal. Many QB's run out of bounds on those runs, so they are not always taking hits like a sack.
Just a thought about incorporating sacks into the existing passer rating system....
What if, for the sake of computing the passer rating, times sacked were added to pass attempts, and yards lost due to sacks were subtracted from passing yards. Then when you figure the passer rating, it's in there.
Also, then to isolate the "sack component" of the passer rating, you could subtract the new figure from the rating under the existing formula. If a passer is 98.1 without including sacks, and is 87.9 when sacks are included, then sacks would have cost the QB 10.2 points on his rating.
Just a thought.... gotta be worth something.
What's the cause of death on the high-sack QBs? The physical beating of all those sacks lead to injury? Or, are the sacks just an early indication that they aren't that good and they just eventually give way to a better QB? Something else?
Also, how many QBs in the "above" and "high" categories won multiple SBs, or even just one SB?
While I agree that a guy who takes more punishment is usually going to hang it up earlier, I'm not convinced here. I think wear and tear on a QB is mostly not from sacks. A QB gets hit a lot on non-sacks too, after all. I wouldn't be surprised if Ben is gone before age 33, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's still around at age 38 either.
Elway started through age 38 and leads the all-time sack list. Favre is considering starting at age 40 and he's been hit a LOT. Moon took tremendous physical abuse from the run-n-shoot and was starting at age 42. Vinny doesn't get sacked a huge amount but he was starting at age 40 after 400 sacks. Cunningham was all-pro at age 35 and his early sack numbers are astounding.
As long as Ben avoids that one magical sack that does permanent damage to his joints, he could be around for a long time yet, regardless of sack rate.
Young, Elway & Cunningham were tremendous athletes. It makes sense that being fast, strong & durable would be associated with long careers.
Playing the guts game, hanging onto the ball just a little too long, getting 3 concussions a year, not so much. The only thing surprising about JKL's data is how strong & clear it is.
Oh well, even if B-Roth retires at or before age 30 he still has two rings in an era where teams other than the Patriots were considered practically irrelevant. Not to mention the whole "financially set for life" thing. So I won't be shedding any tears for him.
And as long as Jamarcus Russell is with the Raiders his value will always be below B-Roth's until the latter retires, and even then will just barely beat him out.
I don’t have the file in front of me, so this is off memory. Roethlisberger would probably be the only one to win two Super Bowls by age 26 (Aikman is in the below average sack group). Bradshaw, Plunkett and Dilfer all are on the list of above average or high sack guys early in a career, and they were quarterbacks for SB winning teams after age 26.
As for quality through age 26, the best quarterbacks (in terms of yards per attempt, touchdowns, etc) through age 26 who took a high rate of sacks, in addition to Roethlisberger, would have to be Jones, who may have been one of the best QB ages 24-26 in the modern era, carrying the Colts to a 31-11 record and three playoff appearances from 1975-1977, Daunte Culpepper, Lomax and O’Brien.
As for what caused the demise of high sack young quarterbacks, I don’t know that there is a simple answer. As for the good ones at age 26:
Bert Jones separated his shoulder in 1978 at age 27, and hurt it again in 1979. Here is an SI article by Dr. Z: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1095339/index.htm. He came back to play most of 1980 and 1981, then retired after moving to the Rams after suffering a neck injury.
Neil Lomax retired at the age of 29 due to a chronic bad hip. He was a pro bowler a year earlier.
I’ll let Chase answer about O’Brien, because I can’t find any particular reference to a serious injury.
Bill M. (No. 4)---To be fair, you should then add back in any yards that a QB runs for, if he is avoiding a sack. That would give him a chance to gain back some of those "lost" yards. In the end though, what difference does it really make. These "yards" are simply a way to get down the field to hopefully score points and ultimately win games. The NFL does not give bonus points for yards gained, but does recognize wins and losses for QB's.
Roethlisberger is one of only four QB's to be sacked 45+ times in three straight seasons. The others are Randall Cunningham, Phil Simms and Neil Lomax.
Cunningham was a MVP candidate at age 35 and retired at 38. Simms was 36 when he put the Giants in position for a second title in 1990 and was 39 when he made the Pro Bowl in his final season. Lomax did have to retire after age 29 from the chronic hip problem.
I feel that eventually the Steelers will build a better line around him and he won't take as many hits. He is in the Elway mold of QB's, so it's common for him to extend plays and take some physical punishment. Just have to avoid those concussion hits that stopped Young & Aikman (though they weren't young guys at that point).
Most times sacked in a 3 season period:
183 - Randall Cunningham, 1986-88
162 - Neil Lomax, 1984-86
161 - Neil Lomax, 1985-87
158 - David Carr, 2004-06
156 - Randall Cunningham, 1987-89
156 - Steve Beuerlein, 1998-00
153 - Neil Lomax, 1983-85
152 - Ken O'Brien, 1985-87
152 - Phil Simms, 1984-86
151 - Randall Cunningham, 1988-90
146 - Neil Lomax, 1986-88
145 - Mark Brunell, 2000-02
140 - David Carr, 2002-04
140 - Drew Bledsoe, 2002-04
140 - Mark Brunell, 1999-01
139 - Ben Roethlisberger, 2006-08
Taking that list and going by sack%:
17.34% (146) - Randall Cunningham, 1985-87
13.48% (183) - Randall Cunningham, 1986-88
10.62% (161) - Neil Lomax, 1985-87
10.61% (158) - David Carr, 2004-06
10.41% (140) - David Carr, 2002-04
10.04% (162) - Neil Lomax, 1984-86
10.03% (152) - Ken O'Brien, 1985-87
9.95% (153) - Neil Lomax, 1983-85
9.91% (146) - Neil Lomax, 1986-88
9.73% (156) - Steve Beuerlein, 1998-00
9.43% (156) - Randall Cunningham, 1987-89
9.39% (139) - Ben Roethlisberger, 2006-08
9.38% (145) - Mark Brunell, 2000-02
9.22% (152) - Phil Simms, 1984-86
8.94% (140) - Mark Brunell, 1999-01
8.84% (151) - Randall Cunningham, 1988-90
8.38% (140) - Drew Bledsoe, 2002-04
Denny is right. It's useless to try and do any kind of statistical evaluation of QB's like this. The only thing that truly matters is the ringzz. If a QB won a Super Bowl, he is good. If he didn't, he is bad. Period.
I'll add this--going against the Ravens twice a year can't help those sack numbers.
Also, most of the guys on the lists in posts #11 & #12 are 80's guys. Now that many teams run versions of the WCO with short, ball-control passing, I will wager that: Sacks overall (per team) are down; Sacks overall (per QB) are down, but with more variance than team #'s; and that Big Ben takes more sacks, in number and percentage, than 95%, if not all, of all QB's (with a certain minimum of att.). He is big enough and strong enough to shake a tackle or two and keep a play alive; however, he continually exposes himself to a "big kill shot" by doing this. For Steelers fans, I worry about a "Bert Jones" career path.
Richie, you're kidding, right? Anything less than a championship is junk? You must be kidding, right?
Most of the guys are from the 80's since sacks weren't an official stat until 1982. I did use the single-season sack leaders list from this site which does have sacks from the 70's as well and none of them were high enough to make the list. I guess it's possible some older seasons (50-60's) could be there, but the ball wasn't thrown as much back then.
Lomax is the oldest on there in 1983.
League's sack%
2008 - 5.90
2007 - 6.07
2006 - 6.63
2005 - 6.70
2004 - 6.81
2003 - 6.21
2002 - 6.36
2001 - 6.88
2000 - 7.02
1999 - 6.94
1998 - 7.23
1997 - 7.37
1996 - 6.48
1995 - 6.05
1994 - 5.86
1993 - 6.82
1992 - 7.84
1991 - 6.64
1990 - 7.32
1989 - 7.16
1988 - 6.82
1987 - 7.58
1986 - 7.65
1985 - 8.30
1984 - 8.40
1983 - 7.96
Last year was very low, but the lowest was back in 1994. It's stayed within a range of 1% the last 8 seasons.
The crazy thing with Ben is that he's considered hard to sack, yet he still goes down a lot. Just says a lot about their pass protection. If you put a QB on that team that couldn't escape sacks, they'd probably be close to David Carr numbers.
Roethlisberger's hard to sack in the sense that he's big and moves well, but he also holds onto the ball forever trying to make a play. I'd wager that if you put Brady, either Manning, or for that matter Sage Rosenfels or Joey Harrington, on that team, the sack numbers would fall - which is not to say that Willie Colon et al. don't suck in pass protection.
I suspect that this is not so much about wear and tear as it is about what Joseph calls a "big kill shot". The more hits you take, the more likely it is that one of them will do serious, lasting damage.
And sure, MattieShoes, sacks aren't the only hits quarterbacks take, but I'll bet there's a strong correlation between getting sacked a lot and taking a lot of non-sack hits. Both are the result of bad pass protection and holding onto the ball too long.
Scott, thanks for those %'s. What I meant about the guys being mostly from the 80's is that there isn't a lot of guys/seasons from THIS decade. It looks to me as if the #'s from 94-96 are a fluke, as a graph would show that they have otherwise been on a downward trend.
Bill---That's Richie's way of "Reverse Protecting" Marino. He's referring to our discussion of Marino not being able to lead his team to a S.B. win. Richie---that's close. If a QB can win a S.B. and play good, then that definitely helps his reputation. If he doesn't win one and plays bad, then that hurts his reputation. On another thread Mattieshoes wondered if I was going to use the word "CHOKE" again for Marino-no, I would simply post Dan's stats for his 3 Champ. Game Losses (2 Conf. Champ. games and 1 S.B. game) : a Comp. % of UNDER 50%, 4 TD's BUT 6 INT's, an avg. Passer Rating of around 60, and he led his Offense to an avg. of only 13 p.p.g. and then I would simply add: "if it walks like a duck---etc., etc.
This conversation has been had. Let's not have it again, please.
.
Thanks.
Sorry Doug
If the Steelers can get five more years like the last five, they're probably willing to accept an early end to Roethlisberger's career.
Speaking of Marino (no worries, this has nothing to do with the choke debate), he was notoriously hard to sack and he went down with a torn achilles tendon on a play he didn't even get *touched* on.
It's not that I think sacks don't hurt -- I think there's so much individual variability and luck involved in a QB's longevity that one can't reliably say that a specific qb that gets sacked a lot will have a short career. Crazy things happen, and your first sack could be your last, or you could take 500 of em with no serious injuries at all. Or you could get seriously injured off the field, or on a play you didn't get hit on, or after releasing the ball... Wasn't there a kicker who hurt his leg while jumping up and down in celebration of a made field goal?
Concussions, on the other hand... That is different. I'd imagine there IS something like a magic number of concussions one can get before hanging up the cleats. Injuries to ankles, knees, and elbows are all very worrisome too -- they're mostly bone and have restricted bloodflow, so they don't just heal like bruises or even normal broken bones. Arthritis would be a death knell too, of course... Normally we think of it as an old persons affliction but it can appear at any age.
The guy that Big Ben reminds me most is not on that list, mostly as he didn't play much his first couple of years and that is Steve McNair.
I've got to think that all of those plays with Roethisberger having defensive players hanging off of him will eventually add up. It probably won't be the big injury as much as the adding up of all of the little things.
Roethisberger is on a club that seems to be able to reload their talent while winning, which really helps.
Also don't forget that some of Big Bens 'sacks' are from him taking a knee at the end of the game since the Steelers win more than they lose. Taking a knee has to be good for at least 10 to 20 'sacks' a year.
Big Ben does take a lot of sacks but he doesn't throw the ball away under pressure either. It's just his style of play and it would be a mistake to try to change it now. He's the Earl Cambell of QB's. Possibly a short carreer but it will be brutally spectacular.
knees don't count as sacks. They just count as negative rushing yards
JKL---How many sacks did Big Ben take in the Playoffs this past year ? And then a bigger question-how many sacks did all of the QB's you looked at take in the PO's ? Maybe there is a correlation between the amount of sacks taken and the ability of a QB to lead their Team to a PO win just as there is a correlation between a QB throwing INT's and his ability to lead his Team to a PO win (if he throws 1 INT. his Team wins PO games 56% of the time, but if he throws 2 INT's, his Team only wins 31% of the time).
I think Roethlisberger's sack numbers are right where they should be for an accurate representation of the Steeler's (in)ability to pass protect. The sacks he takes from holding onto the ball too long are off-set by the ones he avoids better than anyone playing today by being athletic enough to shake them off.
If big ben had the supporting staff that Brady had in 2007, his numbers would easily tie Brady's numbers. look at what ben's doing with practically no offensive line.
Thanks for the numbers running, the site, etc...
Did you try any factors such as rule changes that were designed to protect QBs? I wonder about the fact that Terry Bradshaw actually became a gunslinger AFTER Turkey Jones slammed him neck first into the grass in Cleveland in '76.
If Roethlisberber plays 2 more seasons and Jamarcus plays 10 more seasons, those two seasons will produce more playoffs, wins, and results than the ten combined.
Who is more valuable?
Also how many smart QBs take a sack in stead of the Chuck and Duck the produces bad interceptions?