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.
ShareThisThe Vick-less Falcons
A few weeks ago I wondered what the 2007 Dallas Cowboys season would tell us about Bill Parcells. But secretly I already knew what it would tell me. If the Cowboys slide to 4-12, it will be because Parcells ruined the team and left the cupboard bare. If they go to the Super Bowl, it will be because the talent had been there all along (which was none of Parcells' doing), but Parcells had been inept at translating it into production.
Similarly, the many Michael Vick haters --- I'm talking about those who disparaged Vick as a player --- already have several scripts written. Which one they use depends on the kind of numbers that Joey Harrington produces this year. The Vick-bashers are truly in a no-lose situation here. If Harrington posts good passing numbers, it'll prove that Vick was horrible and that White, Jenkins, et al weren't the problem. If he doesn't, well, he's Joey Harrington, the worst quarterback in the league. If the Falcons go 8-8 or better, it will put an end to the notion that Vick was ever responsible for those winning records the Falcons posted during his tenure. If they go 4-12, it will be because of the distraction created by Vick this offseason.
My contention (which I should admit is not backed by any objective evidence that I'm aware of, but which I persist in believing anyway) is that Vick's presence under center was an immense help to the running backs. Opposing ends and outside linebackers had to stay outside, which left bigger gaps in the interior line. For me, the real test of Vick's former value will be whether Dunn and Norwood see a drop in their yards-per-rush average this season.
My team data goes back to 1972. Since then, there have been 17 teams who experienced a yards-per-rush drop of more than one yard from one season to the next. I'd bet big money that this year's Falcons will be the 18th, and they may well set the record.
YearN YearN+1
Y/RSH Y/RSH DIFF
=============================
phi 1990 4.73 3.13 -1.60
ind 1985 5.03 3.66 -1.37
buf 1973 5.10 3.84 -1.26
pit 1972 5.07 3.86 -1.21
ram 1984 5.29 4.09 -1.20
nwe 1985 4.13 2.93 -1.20
nwe 1976 4.99 3.82 -1.17
mia 1973 4.97 3.84 -1.13
det 1984 4.52 3.40 -1.12
det 1997 5.51 4.43 -1.08
det 1981 4.69 3.61 -1.08
oak 2000 4.75 3.68 -1.07
nyj 2004 4.53 3.46 -1.07
sfo 2003 4.57 3.51 -1.06
car 1999 4.28 3.27 -1.02
det 1990 5.27 4.25 -1.01
sdg 1991 4.84 3.83 -1.01
But I'm being a little disingenuous. The Falcons' 5.47 yards per rush last season was largely due to the rushing of Vick himself. A more fair test would be to see what happens to the rushing average of the running backs. Last season, the Atlanta RBs were sixth in the league with an average of 4.64.
+======+======+======+======+ | team | rsh | yd | ypr | +======+======+======+======+ | sdg | 461 | 2482 | 5.38 | | sfo | 343 | 1785 | 5.20 | | jax | 430 | 2206 | 5.13 | | nyg | 426 | 2121 | 4.98 | | phi | 354 | 1658 | 4.68 | | atl | 405 | 1881 | 4.64 | | den | 426 | 1887 | 4.43 | | was | 415 | 1824 | 4.40 | | pit | 415 | 1816 | 4.38 | | stl | 396 | 1725 | 4.36 | | kan | 470 | 2040 | 4.34 | | ten | 379 | 1632 | 4.31 | | mia | 358 | 1508 | 4.21 | | dal | 426 | 1795 | 4.21 | | nwe | 432 | 1818 | 4.21 | | min | 393 | 1648 | 4.19 | | ind | 416 | 1726 | 4.15 | | gnb | 396 | 1623 | 4.10 | | chi | 471 | 1916 | 4.07 | | hou | 365 | 1459 | 4.00 | | nor | 427 | 1707 | 4.00 | | cin | 393 | 1562 | 3.97 | | car | 389 | 1546 | 3.97 | | bal | 401 | 1518 | 3.79 | | oak | 352 | 1328 | 3.77 | | buf | 368 | 1370 | 3.72 | | sea | 449 | 1657 | 3.69 | | tam | 346 | 1273 | 3.68 | | det | 264 | 963 | 3.65 | | nyj | 426 | 1449 | 3.40 | | ari | 377 | 1256 | 3.33 | | cle | 313 | 1023 | 3.27 | +======+======+======+======+
I predict that that falls below 4.0 this year.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 at 4:13 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Given that Jerious Norwood rushed for 6.4 ypc, wouldn't it be expected anyway?
A drop probably should be expected, as it would be for just about any team who finished #6 of 32 in almost any category.
However, the probable shift of carries from Dunn to Norwood might have been able to stave that off had Vick stayed around.
If Vick were still the QB, I'd project something like 4.4 or 4.5. Without him, I'm betting they drop into the bottom third of the league.
You're absolutely right to point out how much of the Falcons' running success was from Vick's scrambles. You rarely see conventional analysts account for that. They just say "Falcons...the #1 rushing team..."
Vick scrambled for a lot of yards on passing plays, but not always for a first down. Those running yards came at the risk of huge sack yards. Vick's sack yards/pass attempt was off the chart last year.
The problem is that no single-factor analysis will be sufficient. For example, given a new offense and new blocking scheme with an o-line tailored to the old scheme, the rb yd/carry may have dropped even with Vick there. Or, if Dunn is done but gets a lot of carries before the coaches realize it and stop giving him the ball, that might pull the average down. Etc.
I don't think it's quite that simple to say that Vick's absence will destroy the Atlanta rushing game. Yes, his scrambles inflated their rushing average, but how much did their game rushing averages correlate with Vick's game rushing averages?
And even if the running game becomes middle of the road, the upgrade at passer with Harrington might offset that. Vick was really bad as a passer last year (-16.6% DVOA).
This has been discussed a lot within the Falcons fandom. I think there will be a drop too, but not because of Vick's absence, simply because the Falcons are changing from a very run-friendly blocking scheme (zone) to one that is not. Dunn and Norwood don't fit the power scheme that coach Petrino is implementing and their numbers will suffer. I don't know if it'll drop to under 4.0, but I do think it'll be much closer to that number than 4.6.
As for Vick's presence improving the running game, it's interesting to note that over the past 3 years when Schaub lined up under center, the Falcons RB still averaged 4.8 yards per carry. Vick's presence was clearly overrated, and it was the blocking scheme that was the secret to Atlanta's rushing success.
The top team on your first list might be a good guide. The 1990 Eagles had Randall Cunningham rush for over 900+ yards, and then in 1991 he was injured and barely played. Of course, the Eagles were so bad passing the ball in 1991 (4 QBs made starts!) that I guess nobody had to bother defending the pass much.
vick is the shizzle. he will come back - it might take three years, but he will come back, but as a kordell-like gadget player making the league minimum. football fans will get over the dog fighting, and the peta protesters out front will be largely ignored by those there for a football game.
if Vick is able to make an nfl comeback as a qb, his team should seriously let him run an option offense
i'd love to watch an nfl team with the testicular fortitude to fully utilize the talents of a running qb
there is no way an NFL team will sign him as a starting qb AND re-work an offense for him. too risky. that will never happen. He will be a backup and he will get some plays as a gadget player, then he will be done after one season. and everyone involved will have a warm fuzzy feeling because he was given a chance to redeem himself and those that hate him will be happy because he didnt get resigned after one year.
I predict that the Falcon-fan fury over Vick will be positively correlated with Matt Schaub's performance.
i disagree. two different issues. one is vick's fault, the other is managements. now that being said - yes, there are two reasons the fans can be furious - so the likelihood at least one occurs is high. but if schaub is good, why would they be more angry with vick?
BTW, There might be a lot of parcells and cowboys haters nationally, but around town - a lot of cowboy fans give parcells a lot of credit for getting the team as far as he did and teed up for a championship run. I think if they cowboys win it all in the near future, people in dallas will be giving parcells partial credit, not "see, I told you he was a lousy coach". there is a national cowboy bias and perhaps a national parcells bias that is not shared locally.
Hey! Why isn't Vick going to be on the Falcons this year???
(Sorry)
re 6: "it’s interesting to note that over the past 3 years when Schaub lined up under center, the Falcons RB still averaged 4.8 yards per carry."
What's the sample size like on that?
We will also get to see another Vick vs No Vick item put to the test this season.
Massey and Thaler used dollars instead of wins as their yardstick for evaluating draft picks.
They also used Vick as an example in their paper: "A very exciting player, Michael Vick comes to mind, might help sell tickets and team paraphrenalia even if he doesn't lead the team to many victories. We are skeptical of such arguments generally. Few football players (Vick may be the only one) have the ability to bring in fans without producing wins."
This season will provide some empirical data to that point. The Falcons were 8-8 and 7-9 over the last two seasons yet sold out every home game. Vick merchandise has sold better than any other merchandise in team history, so there is evidence to support attributing the strong ticket sales to his presence.
A decline in attendance and merchandise sales this season would be a quantifiable surplus value for Vick beyond the measurements used by Massey and Thaler. We'll get to see if Vick really is an exception to their skepticism.
As for the RB yardage, last year the Falcon RBs twice set the team record for longest run, but they couldn't move the ball on the ground at all in short yardage. It would be interesting to see how their difference in some kind of Fun Index for running backs would compare with their change in production.
Same team, different direction...
Has there ever been a QB in Harrington's situation? Drafted at the top of the class, started right away, played poorly for a few years and then changed scenery? Has anyone ever had success in that scenario? Maybe you guys have the #s to check that out.
Jim Plunkett - #1 overall pick by New England in 1971. 5 poor/mediocre seasons there, 2 more in San Francisco, then he got it going with Oakland. Still not that great of a QB career though.
Vinny Testaverde - #1 overall pick by Tampa Bay in 1987. 6 seasons there, all with more INTs than TDs and no more than 6 wins. Then he did pretty well with Cleveland/Baltimore and especially the Jets.
Jeff George - #1 overall pick by Indianapolis in 1990. Struggled through 4 seasons before playing pretty well in Atlanta, Oakland and Minnesota.
Those are the only 3 I see, and it's not like any were able to turn into a HOFer.
Joey Harrington's career reminds me of most of Rick Mirer's. Each was the 2nd QB taken in their draft. Mirer's 24-44 record as a starter is very similar to Harrington's 23-43. Harrington has a 5.70 YPA and Mirer's was 5.86, both among the lowest in NFL history. Mirer played for 5 different teams, Harrington is already on his 3rd.
This team will be Harrington's best chance to succeed, but I don't see him starting for Atlanta in 2008. More like Brian Brohm will.
Thanks Scott. I didn't have the #s but those were the names that came to my mind too. Certainly Joey isn't doomed to meet the same fate that the other similar QBs met (medioce careers) but my gut says he probably will.
Well, Steve Young managed a somewhat similar situation fairly well.
It happens all the time. Sure roger clemens is still good. But it is the effect he has on tickets sales that make those ridiculus salary negotiations worth
Vick was just as effective a regular season weapon as Tom Brady.
Brady started 95 games in his career, completing 1896 passes on 3064 attempts for 147 touchdowns, 78 interceptions, 7 yards per pass, and a 62% completion percentage.
Brady also ran 239 times in his career for 435 yards, had 3 rushing touchdowns, and 24 fumbles.
Mike Vick started 67 games in his career, completing 930 passes on 1730 attempts for 11505 yards, 71 touchdowns, 52 interceptions, 6.7 yards per pass, and a 54% completion percentage.
Vick also ran 529 times for 3859 yards, 21 touchdowns, and 27 fumbles.
When Vick ran, he was essentially throwing screen passes to himself. When you consider that, you see he was essentially catching 7.9 screen passes per game for 57.6 yards per game.
The average game saw Brady complete 20 passes on 32.3 attempts for 227 yards, 1.5 touchdowns and 0.8 interceptions.
The average game saw Mike Vick complete 13.9 passes on 25.8 passes for 171.7 yards, 1.1 touchdowns, and 0.8 interceptions.
The average game saw Tom Brady run 2.5 times for 4.58 yards.
The average game saw Mike Vick run 7.9 times for 57.6 yards.
When you combine their rushing totals and treat the rushing attempts as completions and attempts because that is essentially what they were (Vick completing screen passes to himself), you see that it is appropriate to perhaps consider Vick as a regular season equal to Brady in terms of offensive production from the QB position.
Combining the rushing totals, you get this:
In the average game for Brady, 22 completions on 35 attempts for a 65% completion percentage for 232 yards, 1.6 TDs, and 1.1 turnovers, 6.7 yards per attempt.
In the average game for Vick, 22 completions on 34 attempts, 65% completion percentage, 229 yards, 1.4 TDs, and 1.3 turnovers, 6.8 yards per attempt.
Many won't like that kind of analysis. Too difficult for many of the neanderthals to wrap their mind around. Many say Vick should have been just a pocket passer because most live in the stone age. Many say he does not get paid to run, he gets paid to throw.
Many don't understand the objective of the game is to get the ball down the field no matter how it happens. If other QBs can pad their bogus completion % and yards per attempt by throwing little dump screen passes to running backs, why should Vick not get credit for that as well since he was probably better and more explosive an option than all those other running backs?
Too bad the point is now moot because Vick lived his private life like a demented degenerate.
Here are my power rankings. Last week 81.3% accuracy (13/16 correct).
season week city rank
2007 2 pit 1
2007 2 nwe 2
2007 2 hou 3
2007 2 ind 4
2007 2 min 5
2007 2 gnb 6
2007 2 sea 7
2007 2 det 8
2007 2 was 9
2007 2 dal 10
2007 2 sfo 11
2007 2 den 11
2007 2 jac 11
2007 2 tam 14
2007 2 bal 15
2007 2 ari 15
2007 2 chi 15
2007 2 cin 15
2007 2 ten 16
2007 2 car 20
2007 2 cle 21
2007 2 oak 22
2007 2 phi 23
2007 2 nyg 24
2007 2 sdg 25
2007 2 stl 26
2007 2 mia 26
2007 2 atl 28
2007 2 kan 29
2007 2 buf 30
Vick may have been good at selling merchandise and what have you but he was not an elite NFL QB. To counterpoint the last one about the completion percentages is the fact the other QB's actually used their arms to get the ball down field. If Vick was more explosive than those around him than maybe he was playing the wrong position. Not one of the seasons he played did he even approach a 60% completion rating...his cummilative total is 53.8 completion percentage.
Hell in 2004 and 2005 he threw only 2 more TD's in each season than Int's...that's garbage! His career total is 71 TD's and 52 Int's, and getting sacked 187 times. When you get more recognition for what you do with your legs than you arm, you're playing the wrong position. Vick would have made a great HB, he had all the tools, quick elusive and mobile.
Except for 2002 and barely 2005, he averaged more yards per attempt running the ball than throwing. His career totals are 6.7 yards per pass and 7.3 yards per rush. Give me Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Bret Favre, Kurt Warner, Donovan McNabb and Dante Culpepper in better days. Hell even Byron Leftwich is better statistically than vick.
The guys I've named are proven winners, guys who have gotten higher than a 56.4 completion percentage at least once for a season average in their careers.
Point blank Vick was a joke as a QB and would have been an all pro runningback. The Falcons should concentrate on getting a real QB to lead them, not some HB posing as a QB. I don't hate Vick, I just don't believe he was playing the right postion. RB yes, QB no.
Falcons RBs averaged 4.04 YPC in '07 after averaging 4.64 in '06. Norwood and Dunn averaged 4.61 YPC in '06, and 4.04 YPC in '07. However, Norwood had a larger percentage of the carries in '07. If you use a weighted average of the two RBs, using their carry ratio from '06, they averaged 3.89 YPC in '06.
Matt Ryan Quaterback of the future, Real QB made the falcon receivers look great. Mike Vick too busy trying to run the ball, only running he's doing now is in an orange jumpsuit lmao. If he ever returns to the NFL, he better learn how to accurately throw the ball or learn a new position. Either way, Falcon can now depend on their QB to win with his arm