Marc Bulger
Posted by Jason Lisk on June 18, 2009
Over the dog days of summer, I’m trying to revive a concept that Doug used back before the 2002 season, when he wrote 75 mini-articles about individual quarterbacks, running backs, and wide receivers—basically writing something related to a player that came to mind. There is no way that I (or collectively “we” if Chase and Doug join in) get anywhere close to that number, but hopefully there will be at least a handful of interesting player comments sprinkled in among other posts.
Here’s how Doug described his concept, borrowed from Bill James, back in 2002:
“So for every player, I wrote about whatever popped into my head when I thought about that player. A lot of times, as with Bill James' comments, I think about something that morphs into something else that is only vaguely related to the player himself. . . . Some of these comments were written two months ago and some of them were written yesterday, and I'd like them to be timeless. I want them to be as interesting and as relevant in one or two or five years as they are now. . . . What you will find in these comments are my opinions, some interesting trivia, and hopefully more than anything else, some historical perspective. . . . You'll also get your fair share of completely stat-free ramblings and opinions. As with all opinions, take them for what they're worth.”
That is sort of the framework I am shooting for. As this is not a fantasy site, the player articles are going to have less of a specific fantasy focus compared to Doug’s original series, though if you want to find fantasy relevance, by all means, feel free. The Ben Roethlisberger post last month was actually my first stab at the concept, but I promise that going forward, I will not focus entirely on quarterbacks or other fantasy football positions—I plan on writing some things on offensive linemen and defensive players as well. The goal is to also be relatively short and sweet.
Now, let’s actually get to Marc Bulger.
Marc Bulger put up pretty good numbers through age 29. Over the last two years, though, he has not only had injury issues (something that isn’t entirely new), he has also struggled when he did play (something that is new). According to Chase’s 2009 Rearview QB article, that poor performance came against an easy schedule, and Bulger was statistically at the bottom of the list for quarterbacks in 2008. I thought I’d take a historical look to see how many quarterbacks have had roughly similar declines at ages 30 and 31, and then look at what happened after that.
I searched all quarterbacks going back to 1960 who, between ages 26 and 29, threw at least 1200 passes and averaged at least 7.0 yards per pass attempt. Bulger is squarely above both of these endpoints, and I’m basically trying to find guys that were good (or better than good) for multiple seasons as they approach age 30. 34 names appear on that list. Two of them don’t really fit, as they were already backups by age 30 but met the minimum requirements—Bubby Brister and Brian Griese. Most of the quarterbacks on this list, though, kept playing, and playing pretty well, as they entered their early 30’s.
Three quarterbacks on the list (like Bulger) started and had two consecutive years of sub-7.0 yards per attempt at age 30 and 31. Another one missed an entire season at age 30 and then posted a poor yards per attempt the next season. We’ll set them aside and get to them further down. Four other guys had one pretty bad season at either age 30 or 31 and can be considered at least reasonable comparables for Bulger, though he has had two bad seasons in a row. Let’s take a look at them first, in alphabetical order:
Boomer Esiason became a full-time starter at age 24, and for the next 6 seasons, averaged over 8.0 yards per pass attempt, and never threw for less than 3,000 yards. The lowest yards per attempt he posted during that span was 7.54. At age 30, he declined a bit to a still respectable 7.0 YPA, and then at age 31, his numbers fell off a cliff—in 12 games, he threw for only 1407 yards. That was his final season in Cincinnati, as he signed with the Jets. He would make the pro bowl that first season in New York, then start parts of four more seasons with Jets, Cardinals, and Bengals.
Jim Everett is the answer to a trivia question involving Philip Rivers in 2008, so let’s see who can guess the question. Anyway, Everett put up pretty decent numbers from ages 26-29, even as the Rams stopped winning. At age 31, not only did the Rams continue to lose, but his yards per attempt dropped to 6.0 in only 9 starts. The next year, he signed with the Saints and put up back to back 3500 passing yard seasons, and two more top 10 fantasy QB seasons.
Bill Kenney put up decent numbers in his late 20’s, even though he was only the clear-cut starter for a short period, have split time with Todd Blackledge during the prime of his career. He continued to play well at age 30, but then dropped off to 8 starts and a sub-7.0 yards per attempt in 1986 at age 31. He had a bounce back year of sorts in the strike shortened 1987 season, averaging 7.7 yards per attempt in 8 starts. He played one more season after that, starting 5 games in 1988.
Steve McNair actually shared an MVP at age 30, before falling apart due to injury at age 31 in 2004. He rebounded slightly in 2005 and played in 14 games, then the Titans drafted Vince Young, and McNair was famously locked out of the training facility before he was traded to the Ravens. He managed one more solid season at age 33, leading the Ravens to a 13-3 regular season record in 2006.
Now, to the guys who had two consecutive sub-par seasons at ages 30 and 31. The first guy, honestly, doesn’t belong on this list and isn’t a real good comp for Bulger, but I’ll mention him since he showed up.
After three MVP awards and six straight playoff appearances, Brett Favre’s performance dipped a little at ages 30 and 31, posting sub-7.0 yards per attempt in consecutive years as the Packers missed the playoffs in 1999 and 2000 (He still finished as the 10th ranked QB in 2000). Of course, he rebounded to have some pretty good seasons at ages 32-35, and to retire five times.
As for the other three guys, the guys you could say are probably the most similar to Bulger, well, they run the range of outcomes after age 31.
Bobby Hebert missed all of 1990 at age 30. The next year, he managed only 1676 passing yards in 9 starts. He bounced back at age 32 to average 7.8 YPA in his final season in New Orleans. He then signed with Atlanta and made his only pro bowl at age 33 playing in Glanville’s run-n-shoot, and then played in parts of three more seasons for Atlanta.
Mark Rypien was on top of the world after winning the Super Bowl in 1991 at age 29. His incredible year in 1991 was followed by a decline at age 30, and then an absolute collapse in 1993, when he averaged 4.7 yards per attempt and posted a 56.3 passer rating. He never started full-time again.
Which brings us to the last guy that has a lot of things seemingly in common with Bulger (or at least the Rams should hope it turns out that way). This quarterback also played for an innovative offensive coordinator, and after that coordinator left, saw his play take a downward turn. He also went through a rebuilding effort as the team around him went from playoff contender to bottom of the league. Bulger was temporarily benched in favor of Trent Green by head coach Scott Linehan right before he was fired. This other quarterback, on the other hand, saw his team spend a high first round pick on a quarterback right before he turned 30, and wasn’t even the opening day starter at age 31, though he did end up being the team’s leading passer. Of course, I’m talking about Ken Anderson. At age 31, Anderson’s career was on a downhill slide. Prior to the 1980 season, though, the Bengals used a high first round pick on a left tackle, Anthony Munoz, and the next season, Cris Collinsworth was drafted to replace Isaac Curtis. Anderson’s career took another sudden turn, and in 1981 he was one of the best quarterbacks in the league and led the Bengals to the Super Bowl, and he posted another stellar season in 1982 at age 33.
You may notice that most of these guys with some proven performance track record bounced back to some extent after their declines at ages 30-31. Most of them, though, did so with other teams. Only Hebert and Anderson had their bounce back year at age 32 with the same team for whom they had played previously. I’ll close with a list of all the guys mentioned above (except Favre), listing their QB fantasy point ranking in Year D (for Decline), which is age 31 for everyone on the list except for Everett, who was 30. Following that is the QB fantasy point rank in Year D+1.
Yr D Yr D+1 Rypien 35 40 McNair 32 15 Anderson 30 2 Everett 30 7 Esiason 28 6 Hebert 28 9 Bulger 27 ???? Kenney 22 16
My impression of Bulger has been that he is a solid quarterback, but not necessarily the kind that will elevate those around him and carry a team that is lacking. When he had a great supporting cast at the skill positions and a healthy Orlando Pace, he was among the league leaders. When Pace missed most of the last two seasons, the receiving corp declined, and Linehan was coaching, he struggled mightily. I don’t think Bulger is as bad as he showed last season, and I think he is a bounce back candidate—I’m just not sure if it is more likely this year in Saint Louis or next year on a different team. After looking this list over, I think he is more of a value play this year, with a new left tackle (who is not replacing Pace, but rather Pace’s backups), a new head coach, and a second year receiver who showed promise as a rookie to step in for the perceived loss of Torry Holt.
Related posts:
ShareThis
June 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I'm just going to point out, that it isn't very surprising that the bounceback happens a lot with other teams. A QB comming of a bad year is obviously more likely to get traded.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I could see Bulger bouncing back, with a different team in 2010. The St. Louis marriage seems pretty dead to me. They don't have a whole lot going offensively, and I can see the new coaching regime wanting to move on at QB pretty soon. You have to worry about Bulger's low comp. % (under 59%) the last two years. He's a guy that's usually always in the 62-66% range. He just looks washed up the last two years. Maybe it's the cummulative effects of all those hits and injuries over the years.
Random/useless trivia: Bulger is one of the few NFL QB's to start every game he's played in (min. 80 games). Only other QB's to do that off the top of my head are Peyton Manning and Troy Aikman, two #1 overall picks. This probably won't be a fact for much longer. Bulger seems to be a lock for future backup duty.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
"Bobby Hebert missed all of 1990 at age 30."
I believe he sat out that entire season due to a contract dispute. If I am mistaken, somebody please correct me.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
The more I think about it, the more I think a QB's stats are not very well connected to his talent at all. His play is directly related to the play of everybody else on his team. While he might have some influence on their stats, they collectively have a HUGE impact on his. End result, QB stats mostly reflect the quality of the team rather than the quality of the QB.
Has anybody ever tried to adjust QB numbers based on something like team record or SRS? Like compare Bulger 2008 to an "average" QB on a 2-14 team, or Cutler to the average QB of an 8-8 team? It might introduce weird artifacts but it might allow one to more realistically compare QBs on different quality teams.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:32 am
JWL, you are correct. According to Wikipedia, he sat out the season in a contract dispute. I did not know that. I assumed (though I didn't say it) that Hebert was injured. That makes me wonder, was Hebert the last established starting quarterback to miss an entire season in a contract dispute?
June 19th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Reply to Post #4:
Dear Mattie,
You asked, "Has anybody ever tried to adjust QB numbers on something like team record...?"
In the August 27, 2007, "Football Outsiders", Bill Barnwell conducted a study of the top 50 QB rating seasons since 1978 to find out if these "stud" QBs had any significant effect on their team's w-l records as gaged by Pythagorean projections vs. actual w-l records. He compared the "stud" QBs against those teams who had aveage QBs, but near identical w-l records.
The results were surprising! The teams with the "stud" QBs aveaged minus .21 Wins Above Pythagoras than the teams with "aveage " QBs.
Barnwell concluded that "quarterback play has a lot to do with winning, but very little to do with exceeding a team's performance as recalcalated with Pythagorean Theorem".
Barnwell's article got its impetus from a reader asking about Peyton Manning's ability to raise his team's win total. Barnweel determined that, since 1978, an aveage 12 win team exceeded Pythagorean expectations by .76 games. Since 1999, the Colts under Manning have exceeded Pythagorean expectations by .97 games per season (P.S., If Manning's rookie season is included, this figure drops down to .72).
The conclusion, at least with Manning, when compared to teams of equal ability, Manning does make a difference, albeit slight.
June 20th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Scott,
Jim Kelly also did it (160/160), but Bulger is indeed 4th on the list with the most games played by a QB who has started every game he's played. Carson Palmer is next, followed by Jay Cutler and then some unlikely names -- Jason Campbell and Kyle Orton. Dieter Brock is the next highest non-active QB, with 15 games and starts to his name.
June 20th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Maybe my Texans should look to pick Bulger up. Put him and Schaub together, and you might have a total of one good, healthy quarterback.
June 20th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Thanks Clark, that's interesting indeed.
June 21st, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Way to go, Jimbo
June 21st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Mattie, (No.4)---Your comments (at least as they pertain to the Reg. season) have to be looked at on a QB to QB basis, IMO. For example: Brett Favre was so consistent as a Passer that he Passed for at least 3000 yds. in 17 straight seasons and he Passed for at least 30 TD's in 8 seasons. Could anybody else have done that with the Teams he was playing with ? His Teams had a wide range of quality in 17 seasons, but his numbers were there, nonetheless. And then in the Playoffs, you have to factor in which guys can handle the pressure. Neil O'Donnell only had 7 INT's in 416 Attempts in the '95 Reg. season, but he had 6 INT's in 125 Attempts in the PO's that year (including 3 in the S.B.). So a QB can really make or break a Team in the PO's.
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I am sure we all thought this already but it's worth noting that good teams probably have good QBs, so Manning only helping "slightly" seems pretty misleading to me.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Reply to Post #12:
Dear "Cap",
You are correct that the term "slight" is misleading with respect to Manning. Remember that Barnwell was comparing Manning against other "stud" QBs. If we compare his record against "aveage" QBs, the story is a bit different. In Davis Wylie's "100 Greatest QBs" study, after many math equations (including regressions, normalilations, and standard deviations), he relied on two additional equations to rank the QBs---Football Outsiders "Points Above Replacement Player" and baseball's "Wins Above Replacement Player". Since we are most interested in "wins above aveage QB", we have to do some adjusted of Wylie's figures (minus 13.3%) and then divideby "games started" for each QB. Using these ratios, it turns out that Roger Staubach is the greatest QB of all-time followed by Young, Montana and Unitas. Wylie admits as much, but ranks Unitas as the greatest based on his "historical importance"! In other words, Wylie ignores the results of all his numerical research and bases his ratings on subjectivism!
As for Peyton Manning, Wylie's figures place Manning in 15th spot at the end of the 2006 season. For comparison purposes, Staubach aveages 1.74 "wins above aveage" per 16 games started, Young aveages 1.68 "wins above aveage" and Manning aveages 1.41 "wins above aveage" through the 2006 season.
The top 15 QBs statistically are: Staubach, Young, Montana, Unitas, Tarkenton, Jurgensen, Anderson, Fouts, Dawson, Marino, Starr, Elway, Favre, Elway, Moon and Manning---at least with regard to Wylie's figures.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:39 am
Denny: 17 seasons in a row with 3000+ yards is pretty amazing indeed. But I think there are LOTS of QBs who could have compiled those numbers if they were lucky enough to stay healthy for such an absurdly long time and get 550 pass attempts per season.
Only one of those 17 years was on a team with a losing record, and he had the lowest QB rating in his career that year. Two years later, at age 38, he was on a 13-3 team and had one of the highest QB ratings of his career. There are two obvious possibilities.
1) He suddenly got worse in 2005 causing his team to lose and he got drastically better in 2007 causing his team to win.
2)His team was terrible in 2005 and good in 2007, and the quality of the team is reflected in the statistics he compiled.
I'm sure both happen, but I think most people assume #1. I think in the absence of other evidence, #2 is the more likely explanation.
Other evidence would be situations like Kurt Warner on the Rams. I don't know if it was just the injury or what, but clearly he just imploded and it wasn't all the team's fault.
.
capnjiffy: It's the chicken and the egg problem. Are they good because they have good QBs or are the QBs thought of as good because they're surrounded by a good team?
Jake Plummer finished his last season with the Cardinals, he was lifetime 30-52 with QB rating of 69 and ANY/A of 4.1 If he never played football again, everybody would be convinced he just couldn't cut it. He goes to the Broncos and in his first year there goes 9-2, has a 91 QB rating and 6.2 ANY/A. I don't believe his talent changed so much from one year to the next. So, is Jake Plummer a good QB or a bad one?
So I think it'd be an interesting project to try and level the playing field and derive some sort of talent quotient -- to try and figure out a way that indicates a guy like Jake Plummer might do so much better simply by being on a better team. Or the reverse -- How would Brady do on the 49ers? Assuming it's possible to do such a thing, I'd expect a guy like Peyton Manning to be off the charts despite being on a great team most of his career. The guy is amazing!
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 am
I bet Archie Manning has the best QB stats ever for a 1-15 team (1980).
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Mattie---That's what makes Favre's numbers all the more impressive-the fact that he was "LUCKY" enough to stay healthy, but IMO the 8 season's with at least 30 TD Passes is the more impressive record---there are guys that stay healthy all season and still wouldn't throw 30 or more 8 times in their career. But that's also kind of like saying that lots of guys could have led their Teams to 5 Championships if they would have been lucky enough to have an avg. Passer Rating of 104.8 like Bart Starr did in the Playoffs. Yes, that's true, but lots of guys weren't able to do it, and in fact, nobody except Starr was able to do it. Same thing for Favre-nobody else has been able to do it-at least not yet.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Mattie---That last post of mine made me think of one other thing---who really was the most consistent Passer-was it Favre, Starr, or Montana (based on his Reg. season Passer Rating of 92.3 COMBINED with his Rating of 95.6 in the Playoffs)? How about a 3-way tie for Best Ever ?
June 24th, 2009 at 1:41 am
I wasn't suggesting Favre was bad. He's very good and great fun to watch. I think his numbers definitely benefited from being on good teams though. It doesn't matter so much if you compare him to other players in the same boat, but how do you compare him to a guy like Vinny Testaverde or Jeff George?
Anyway, I took 40 or so recent QBs with a bunch of starts and did a linear regression between win% and QB rating (r^2 was ~.41), then looked at how far they deviated. I realize neither win% or QB rating is ideal, it was just to play with the idea. It might mean nothing, but I'm sharing anyway
.
Top 4 among those I looked at:
Warner +2.2 SD
Young +2.0 SD
Brees +1.6 SD
P. Manning +1.5 SD
.
Bottom 4 among those I looked at:
Simms = -1.5
Plummer = -1.6
Elway = -1.6
Dilfer = -2.6
.
Others of interest:
Garcia +1.4
Bulger +1.3
George +1.0
Montana +0.53
Brady +0.04
Favre -0.2
McNabb -0.3
Aikman -0.6
Testaverde -0.7
Cunningham -1.0
.
I plugged some others with few games in too just to see what it'd say. I'd assume newer players would show up low normally.
Palmer +1.8
Cutler +1.7
Romo +1.3
Rivers +0.9
JP Losman +0.5
Carr +0.4
Roethlisberger -0.2
Harrington -1.2
E. Manning -2.0
Alex Smith -2.8
Orton -3.5
Vince Young -3.9
.
Anyway, the implementation has problems obviously but I still think there may be some value to viewing it from another direction.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Reply to Post #18:
Dear Mattie,
Two recent studies by Brian Burke (2002-06) and Zach Fein (1994-08)both concluded that there is a .62 correlation between QB Rating and Winning Percentage. However, that strong correlation doesn't seem to equate well with actual team wins and losses as is evidenced by your own brief study. The overall goodness or badness of the "team" seems most prevalent than the greatness or lack of greatness on the part of the QB. In other words, it's still a team game---a truth that many of us, including myself, tend to lose sight of.
StampedeBlue, which is a blog of the Indy Colts, has been running a fascinating series of articles on "winning factors", such as Starting Field Position, 3rd Down Efficiency, etc., and equating those stats with team winning percentages. The results are very interesting.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:48 am
In an attempt to get around the comparing QBs to different QBs, I wrote a little program to model QB play. It tries to determine how much time the QB spent ahead, behind, tied, etc on a per-game basis and then tries to figure out how the QB typically plays in those situations. So hopefully, it cancels out some of the effects of team quality on statistics.
Standardized for 16 games -- predict is predicted results, adjust is adjusted for a normal amount of good/bad situations:
Marc Bulger 2003-2006
Att Cmp Pct Yard TD In Rat Sk SkYd ANY/A
Actual : 384 598 64.2% 4565 25 17 089.3 48.3 358.3 06.1
Predict: 384 598 64.2% 4565 25 18 089.2 49.5 369.0 06.0
Adjust : 387 602 64.3% 4590 25 17 089.6 50.3 378.8 06.0
Marc Bulger 2007-2008
Att Cmp Pct Yard TD In Rat Sk SkYd ANY/A
Actual : 311 545 57.1% 3352 14 21 068.2 49.8 354.4 04.0
Predict: 311 545 57.1% 3351 14 22 067.5 50.0 356.9 03.9
Adjust : 316 535 59.0% 3418 16 17 074.5 51.6 365.9 04.4
And that all lines up nicely with a fixed width font but I'm sure it'll get mangled
I don't suppose theres a way for us to include preformatted text in comments?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:48 am
I had it run Favre from 1992 to 2007. On average per year, it said
Att +17
Cmp +7
Pct -0.6%
Yards +25.3
TD -1.5
Int +2.4
Rat -3.9
ANY/A -0.4
I don't know. It feels about right to me.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Mattie---Yea, thanks for the time and energy-that is interesting stuff. I was going to add 1 last thing before your posts, but you beat me to it. But here it is anyway-I was going to post that although Favre's numbers are very impressive, we have to keep in mind that they are all Reg. season numbers and the best thing that a QB can accomplish in the Reg. season is to lead his Team to enough wins that they qualify for the Playoffs-that's as much as he can do in the Reg. season. The real impressive numbers are Montana's Career Post-Season Passing Records. Those Records helped Montana lead his Team to 4 Championships. Those Records are very meaningful, and much more meaningful than Favre's Reg. Season Records, IMO.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Actually playoff games were included, though with no special significance attached to them. That said, I don't think of the regular season as only a means to a playoff. From a statistics standpoint, I think they're more valuable than playoff games by a large margin. There's more of them, and strength of schedule balances better. Also, a QB is a cog in a very big machine. It certainly wasn't Dilfer's inspired play that got him his ring.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:03 am
So I fixed it up to follow players through team changes, then ran it through every starting QB I could think of in the last 30 years... 85 or so. This is what I came up with, adjusted by career length.
Most harmed by their situation:
1) Jeff Blake (-74)
2) Jeff George (-64)
3) Jim Everett (-43)
4) Vinny Testaverde (-37)
5) Josh McCown (-34)
6) Chris Chandler (-33)
Most helped by their situation:
1) Steve Young (128)
2) Brett Favre (105)
3) Joe Montana (100)
4) Peyton Manning (78)
5) Tom Brady (77)
6) John Elway (75)
7) Troy Aikman (73)
Incidentally, it'd still put Manning, Montana, Marino, and Young as the top 4 QBs of all time. Farve would be in the top 10, Brady in the top 20. It's not a fan of Elway or Aikman though. On the flip side, it'd put Everett and Jeff George in the top 20.
I found it interesting that the model says a few players who have losing records as QBs would have done *worse* on average teams:
Bernie Kosar (14)
Trent Green (10)
Charlie Batch (8)
Kyle Boller (7)
Boomer Esiason (6)
Steve Beuerlein (4)
Bill Kenney (2)
The inverse -- players with winning records who would have done better on an average teams:
Jake Plummer (-24)
Damon Huard (-12)
Warren Moon (-6)
Byron Leftwich (-4)
And just to stay vaguely on topic, Marc Bulger is at (-8)
June 26th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Mattie---Post your reasons why you Rank Marino ahead of Favre, if you get a chance. I'd be very interested in reading that.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Be warned, all:
(1) Denny is no longer allowed to talk about Marino here
(2) Nobody is allowed to bait Denny
June 26th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Doug---How do you define "TALK ABOUT" ? I enjoy debating the merits of all QB's using stats, facts, numbers, Records, and Resume's of any and all QB's that have ever played in the NFL. Are you saying I may do that for everyone EXCEPT Marino ?
June 27th, 2009 at 12:51 am
I'm sure he just doesn't want comments to turn into a long series of diatribes about anything, and Marino just seems to be a lightning rod since he had great regular season success and not so much in the postseason. Plus, the post IS about Marc Bulger after all, not Marino OR Favre
Anyway, I graphed real vs adjusted QB rating and ANY/A for Bulger
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/3664005637_b746f0b89e_o.jpg
It suggests his early numbers are slightly inflated, perhaps because he had the luxury of being ahead most of the time. His recent numbers are more significantly deflated, perhaps because the Rams spent most of their season behind, often by quite a bit.
June 27th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
June 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Perhaps because I'm a big Notre Dame fan and Bulger's dad, Jim, was Joe Theismann's backup at QB in 1971, I've always rooted for Bulger. A couple interesting facts about Bulger---1. Holds the NFL record for the most yards thrown for in first five starts---1496 yards. 2. Tied with Marino for second fastest to 10,000 yards. 3. Tiedwith Marino and Kurt Warner for fastest to 15,000 yards. 4. Fifth fastest to 20,000 yards behind Marino, Warner, Manning, and Culpepper. 5. Actually has a faster release than Warner---timed in 1/3th of a second.
The problems of last couple years included two broken ribs in first game of 2007; several serious injuries in 2008; 5 different offensive co-ordinators over the last 6 years; weak offensive line and young receivers.
Although the media and fans have been all over Bulger, I think he has the tools to bounce back if the Rams can improve as a team.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I'd like to submit that it is possible that Bulger's "problem" is that Bulger is, and always has been, a bad (read: below average) quarterback.
I would expect that a "solid" or "mediocre" QB, given an average offensive supporting cast and an average defensive schedule, would produce an average offense. On average.
Given a offensive supporting cast loaded with Hall of Famers and placed in the NFC West, I expect fireworks from a mediocre QB. Over the past seven seasons, Bulger's offense has been below average by offensive TDs and points, and just slightly above average by yards. Bulger has not been mediocre.
It may be worth noting that while the Rams haven't finished better than 19th in 3rd down conversion rate in the past 4 seasons, the Colts haven't finished worse than 1st, the Patriots haven't finished worse than 8th, Brees-led offenses haven't finished worse than 5th. Roethlisberger's offenses were 3rd in '06 and 6th in '07, before falling to 14th against a fairly stupid schedule last season.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Re: Experience vs. Performance
Kiran Rasabetnam, who writes a wonderful blog "New QB Rating" which can be found on AdvancedNFLstats.com, addressed this issue in two articles earlier this year (3-14-09 and 3-1-09).
Using standard deviation and his own variety of QB rating, he reviewed the careers of 345 QBs over the period 1940-2008 gaging experience vs. performance. He discovered that it took a QB about five years to exceed "aveage" status or above. At five years, only 121 of the 345 original QBs were still active. At seven years, that total dropped down to 84. From 5 years through nine years, performances remained steady ranging from .35 to .28 standard deviations above league means. The tenth year showed a big dropoff (.18). Those QBs who survived more than ten years bounced back quite well in years 11-13---topping out in their 12th year with a huge standard deviation of .64 over league mean---probably because these QBs who lasted the longest are among the best of all-time and age doesn't seem to matter with them.
June 15th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Re: Followup to Posting 13. Wins Above Average.
I've always been fascinated by the subject of "Wins Above Average" for NFL QBs as it seems to be a means to try to separate out the QBs from eachother. Quite a few researchers have tackled this subject with various results. Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats has come up with 4-5 different WAA equations over the years, but each of his equations seem to have some fatal flaw attached to it---namely that his equations are only useful for QBs who played in the 1990s and beyond. Only two researchers have come up with studies that have looked at all the major QBs dating back into the 1950s---Doug Drinen and Davis Wylie (pen name for Neil Paine).
In Posting #13, I only examined Wylie's top 15 QBs (according to his rankigs) and only looked at their regular season totals. When I expanded my examination to Wylie's top 40 QBs and included their post-season totals, the WAA rankings came out a bit differently. Norm Van Brocklin jumped into the top spot followed by Otto Graham and then Roger Staubach.
As I mentioned previously, Wylie's WAA figures varied quite a bit from those of Drinen. For example, Wylie gave Tom Brady credit for only slightly above 1.0 WAA through the 2006 season---just about in line with other research studies that have included Brady. Drinen gives Brady credit for well over 3.0 WAA---the highest total of any QB in his survey. While Wylie has admitted that his own survey was flawed, my own opinion is that it was not flawed enough to explain the disparities found between his numbers and those of Drinen. The conclusion I have come to is that both surveys were flawed.
If you are interested in WAA research, I can send you a copy of my own research on this subject: cheins@hvc.rr.com.