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.
Quarterback Play in the Playoffs
I've often wondered how much worse quarterbacks play in the playoffs than in the regular season. With the 2006 season in the books, I now have data on the last forty years of NFL post-season play. It's safe to assume that in the aggregate, the statistics of players at any position decreases in the playoffs. This is true for two reasons, one obvious and one hidden. First, we know that the average playoff opponent has a better team, a better offense and a better defense than the average regular season opponent. Against better opponents, we'd expect poorer statistics.
The other idea is that teams that make the playoffs may not be as good as we think. Over at our other site, I do a lot of writing on rearview strength of schedule analysis, which adjusts regular season performance for strength of schedule. One thing I've noticed is that many times the quarterbacks that post the best regular season numbers are the ones that play the weakest schedules. I'd suspect there's at least a decent correlation between great quarterback statistics and qualifying for the post-season, so we might see QBs that aren't as good as they seem go up against much harder defenses in the playoffs. As a result, we can certainly expect to see QB Ratings and Adjusted Yards/Attempt dip in the post-season.
Let's start by looking at the wrong way to do it. Since 1967, all NFL QBs have completed 13,162 of 23,653 passes (55.65%) for 162,201 yards (6.86 Y/A) with 975 TD/ 1004 INT (5.36 AY/A, 73.3 QB Rating). For starters, we don't have too much to compare that to, although I think most of us know that those numbers are below the league averages these days.
What we really want to know is what happens to specific QBs in the playoffs. To do that, we need to compare every QB's regular season performance with their post-season performance. Let's get some administrative stuff out of the way early. Jarious Jackson, Jason Garrett, Bobby Hoying, Bill Musgrave, Dave Brown, Andre Ware and Rich Gannon threw post-season passes in years without throwing a regular season pass. Since there was no regular season to compare their post-season numbers to, I threw those statistics out. Additionally, three QBs -- Pete Beathard, Bernie Kosar and Steve Walsh -- played for two teams in the regular season in years they made the playoffs. I included their regular season numbers only from the team they made the playoffs with.
That leaves 909 games played by QBs in the post-season during the last 40 years. To determine how we might expect them to play, we need to get a weighted average of their number of post-season attempts by their regular season QB ratings. For example, take the small hypothetical list:
QB RegQBR Postseason Atts
QB1 100.0 100
QB2 90.0 20
QB3 70.0 70
In that hypothetical three quarterback world, we'd expect their aggregate QB rating in the playoffs (assuming that the playoffs were no different than the regular season) to be 87.89. That's because [ (100.0 * 100) + (90.0 * 20) + (70.0 * 70) ] / (100 + 70 + 20) = 87.89.
Now we can apply that logic to the actual results, only with several hundred QBs and several thousand attempts. Over the course of the 23,000+ post-season attempts, thrown by many great and some terrible quarterbacks, we'd have projected a QB rating of 83.6 and an AY/A of 6.30.
In reality, the aggregate post-season QB rating is 73.2 and the AY/A is 5.37 (the numbers are slightly different than before because of the QBs removed from the data). So we can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that "playing in the post-season" reduces a player's QB rating by about 12-13% and adjusted yards per attempt by 14-15%. I'm not sure if this reinforces what the average fan believes, but this seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm not sure how much the decline should be divided up among tougher weather conditions, teams with easy schedules making the playoffs, overall stiffer competition in the playoffs, and other distinctions.
Removing all QBs with fewer than 100 regular season attempts doesn't change the sample size much. Their actual aggregate performance compiled a 73.7 QB Rating and 5.41 AY/A, while we'd have projected an 84.5 QBR and 6.37 AY/A. Once again, a noticeable decrease in QB efficiency. But why not break things down even more.
Expected QBR and AY/A statistics by round
w 83.1 6.20
d 83.5 6.28
c 85.9 6.55
s 89.3 6.84
W, D, C and S stand for the Wildcard, Divisional, Conference Championship and Super Bowl rounds. As you can tell, the numbers increase slightly as we move to the later rounds, which is about what we'd expect. Generally the best regular season QBs move on to the later rounds, so we'd expect better QB Ratings and AY/A there. But of course, this assumes that defenses (and everything else) remains constant in the post-season, which we know it does not. So what actually happened in the four playoff rounds?
w 79.1 5.78
d 71.4 5.27
c 70.0 5.08
s 76.2 5.68
There have been a few standout performances in the Super Bowl, but in general we've seen actual performance go down as we move further into the playoffs. The conference championship round in particular has been rough for QBs, which may reflect that many of those are played in cold weather stadiums, whereas Super Bowl XLI was the first one with suboptimal conditions.
But by far the most significant result comes when looking at win/loss splits. Sure, we should expect winning QBs to have high QB ratings and losing QBs to have low QB ratings, but the split is enormous. Based on the specific QBs that won a playoff game, we'd expect an 86.6 QBR and 6.58 AY/A. They actually had a 92.9 QBR and averaged 7.17 AY/A.
Losing QBs would be expected to have, based on their regular season numbers, an 82.8 QBR and averaged 6.21 AY/A. In reality? A 58.4 QBR and an ugly 4.01 AY/A.
It's unclear which is the chicken (losing) and which is the egg (low QB Rating) but there's certainly a very high correlation.
After chewing on that for a minute, the natural follow up question popped into my head: what's the splits among winners and losers in the regular season? From 2001-2005, winning QBs in the regular season had a 94.1 QBR and averaged 7.04 AY/A. Losing QBs had a 68.2 QBR and averaged 4.68 AY/A. We're not drawing from the same population (regular season data is from five recent seasons, playoff data spans four decades), but the results are pretty similar. I'm not too sure what to make of it, but it wasn't what I was expecting. For what it's worth, in the post-season from 2001-2005 winning QBs scored a 100.2 QBR and averaged 7.56 AY/A, versus losing QBs having a 66.0 QBR and a 4.56 AY/A) average.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 7th, 2007 at 5:09 am and is filed under General, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

That last bit is interesting. Anybody who has played fantasy football in the playoffs knows how you can have a good QB lose in the first round of the playoffs and score zero points (I had Eli Manning in last year's playoffs). It's not uncommon for the players on a losing playoff team to all just get shut down. I think there is a psychological effect of falling behind early and losing focus, panicking, and things just getting worse and worse.
The surprising number to me is seeing the QB rating discrepancy in the regular season. Total yards and QB rating are not necessarily related, but I remember when I used to watch NFL Primetime and they would list the 100-yard rushers and 300-yard passers for the day. The 300-yard passers generally lost more games than they won. This indicates to me that when a team is behind they throw more. But I guess throwing more, does not equate to throwing better.
Eli Manning
Just want to give myself a reminder when I get home tonight to look up the 2006 post-season splits. I suspect we'll see some ugly QB ratings for both the winners and the losers.
"For what it’s worth, in the post-season from 2001-2005 winning QBs scored a 100.2 QBR and averaged 7.56 AY/A, versus losing QBs having a 66.0 QBR and a 4.56 AY/A) average. "
I dunno, but you may have just settled the great, perpetual Brady verus Manning debate. That'd be worth something.
Hypothesis: To the extent that a QB's post-season numbers exceed what would be expected on average from his team's postseason record, he has carried the team. And contra-wise, to the extent that a QBs numbers are less than would be expected from his team's W-L record, the team has carried him.
By my quick and dirty, needs to be doublechecked figuring, we get...
Colts 7-6 ... AY/A .... QBR
Expected .... 6.18 .... 84
Manning ..... 6.54 .... 83
Pats 12-2
Expected .... 7.13 .... 95
Brady ....... 6.52 .... 86
Yikes! Tom's been an underachiever!
So your conclusion is that, in the playoffs, winning QBs tend to play better than losing QBs? Is that news? Or is something going over my head?
Jim G.: Can you explain what you did with brady and Manning to me. If i am understanding correctly you used the same formula from the article and concluded that Brady has actually performed lower than expected. But yet he has still won all those games. Am I getting it?
Off the topic... I hate snow. I am sick of skiers and snowmobilers. Snow sucks. All it does is makes everything more difficult. The reward for withstanding it is that you freeze to death.
Hmmm...seems to pretty much counter what you've been saying before...
"But of course we do watch playoff football, where Tom Brady becomes…well, I’ll let you decide. Brady’s career playoff adjusted yards per attempt ratio? 6.23. Career playoff QB rating? 86.8. Average unadjusted yards per attempt? 6.60. Completion percentage? 60.6%. I won’t make you scroll up….EVERY ONE OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE LOWER THAN HIS CAREER REGULAR SEASON AVERAGES. Brady doesn’t turn from Drew Brees and Matt Hasselbeck into Joe Montana and Johnny Unitas in the post-season, he turns into a slightly less effective version of himself."
Looks to me like all of those playoff numbers are far higher than the average playoff numbers shown above, in fact they come close to the expected value. Yet you seem to think being well above average is somehow a bad thing...
>>If i am understanding correctly you used the same formula from the article and concluded that Brady has actually performed lower than expected. But yet he has still won all those games. Am I getting it?
I'm not sure why my previous post got cut off. I was noting that teams can win even when their quarterback doesn't play very well. Rex Grossman won more games this year than Tom Brady, and took his team to the Super Bowl, but I know few people who want to argue that Grossman performed better this year. New England often wins when Brady plays poorly, and they sometimes lose when he plays very well. If winning is the measure of which quarterback plays better, why is Brady 0-3 in the last three meetings with Peyton Manning? Why is he 0-2 in the last few years against Jake Plummer? Maybe because football is a team game, and winning depends on lots of things besides the quarterback.
Re my above comment, my first doublecheck finds the formula for AY/A I used is a little different than that used on this site. Fixing this inconsistency moves both Peyton and Tom down a little bit...
Colts 7-6 ... AY/A ... QBR
Expected .... 6.18 .... 84
Manning ..... 6.32 .... 83
Pats 12-2
Expected .... 7.13 .... 95
Brady ....... 6.20 .... 86
"Jim G.: Can you explain what you did with brady and Manning to me."
Sure. Taking our host's data that "in the post-season from 2001-2005 winning QBs scored a 100.2 QBR and averaged 7.56 AY/A, versus losing QBs having a 66.0 QBR and a 4.56 AY/A average" one can figure the average QB rating expected for any team in the post season from its WL record.
E.g., if the team's record is .500 just add the average ratings for QBs on winning and losing teams and divide by 2, which equals a QBR of 83.1 and AY/A of 6.06.
Next, compare the actual ratings that its QBs compiled to these average expected ratings. Then draw your own conclusions.
E.g., if a QB's ratings are much higher than expected from his team's WL record, you might conclude that QB "carried" a mediocre team. But if the team's WL record is much better than expected from its QBs' ratings, you might think you are looking at the Ravens including their SB year, carrying mediocre QBs.
With all the usual caveats about sample size and all. That's just a guess. I'd like to run these numbers to see what they actually look like but doubt if I ever will have the time. And I'd think sample size would usually be too small. But with Manning and Brady we have nearly a full season's worth of games for each.
"you ... concluded that Brady has actually performed lower than expected. But yet he has still won all those games. Am I getting it?"
Brady didn't win all those games, the Pats did. Unless you want to say Dilfer, Johnson, & Roethlisberger (with the worst SB QBR ever) won all their SB-year games, and Rex won 15 for the Bears this year.
QBs always get *way too much* credit for winning, and blame for losing, that properly belongs to the rest of the team. (And the effects of chance and contingency are also always greatly underestimated.)
I prefer to look for "trends" in a QB's performance resume. Some guys seem to "step up" when the pressure mounts, and some seem to wilt. Look at Marino's playoff numbers for example: in a majority of his 1st round wins he has a Passer Rating of around 100, but in a majority of his 2nd round losses, his Passer Rating drops off to about 60. And along with that he then leads his "O" to fewer and fewer points on avg. It would not be hard to make a case that Dan could not handle the increased pressure, especially in his 4 BIGGEST pressure games of his career----his 3 Conf. Champ. games and his 1 S.B. He was great in the '84 Conf. Champ. game, but in the other 3, he was mediocre to bad. He had a chance to win 3 Rings, but he left his TEAMMATES down and failed to come through. And yet he was doing this with a TEAM that was good enough to beat anybody IN THE REG. SEASON---Ref: the '85 Bears for starters.