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.
Winning vs. Stats: Matt Ryan
By the end of the 2010 regular season, Matt Ryan had become a media and fan favorite. A fellow blogger of mine at the Fifth Down argued for Ryan as MVP. When the Falcons beat the visiting Packers late in the season, Atlanta ran its home record to 19-1 with Ryan as the starter. Pro Football Focus named Ryan the most valuable player in football at the end of the season. Ryan's clutch play gave him more Win Probability Added than any other player in the league, according to Brian Burke. The Falcons ended the season with the best record in the NFC, and Ryan seemed on the verge of being anointed the game's next great quarterback.
But Ryan's Falcons were one-and-done in the playoffs, eliminated in no small part thanks to Ryan's ugly play in Atlanta's home loss to the Packers. Ryan's errant throw -- caught by Green Bay's Tramon Williams -- was one of the worst interceptions of the season. Was Ryan's season as magical as some would have you believe, or was his playoff performance more than just a bad game at the wrong time?
My favorite predictive stat for future success is net yards per attempt, i.e., yards per attempt with sack yards subtracted from the numerator and sacks added to the denominator. My favorite retrodictive or explanatory statistic is Adjusted Net yards per Attempt, which formed the foundation for how I graded quarterbacks in my Greatest QB of All-Time series. Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt starts with the basic NY/A formula, but adjusts the numerator with touchdown bonuses and interception penalties. But because those metrics are very random events -- important in determining winners, but not useful in determining future winners -- I prefer NY/A to ANY/A when judging a quarterback's true ability.
Why is that important? Because while Ryan performed well in ANY/A, that was largely because of his strong touchdown and interception rates. Coupled with his legitimately strong performances in clutch situations, it's easy to see why the Falcons won 13 games last year. But touchdowns, interceptions, and performance in high-leverage situations are factors that don't lend themselves well to repeatability. They tend to determine games, but they don't reflect skill or ability particularly well. And, in fact, while Ryan performed really well in certain areas, he was below the league average in net yards per attempt. Ryan ranked 25th out of 32 quarterbacks in NY/A in 2010, in a cluster behind Chad Henne, Matt Hasselbeck and ahead of Kerry Collins and Shaun Hill.
Not surprisingly, wins and net yards per attempt are strongly correlated. How rare is it for a quarterback to have the sort of success Ryan's team had with Ryan's individual statistics? I looked at all quarterback seasons from 1970 to 2009 which met the following three criteria:
- The quarterback won at least 10 games as a starter
- The quarterback won at least 70% of his games
- The quarterback had at least 10 times as many passing yards as rushing yards
138 quarterbacks met those three criteria, or roughly four players per season. In 2009, there were five such players -- Philip Rivers, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre and Donovan McNabb: all were well above league average in NY/A. Only three did so in 2010: Tom Brady, Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco. Brady ranked 3rd in the league in NY/A with a 7.2 average. While Flacco only averaged 0.3 more NY/A than Ryan, Flacco finished 13th overall while Ryan was at the bottom of a crowded pack at 25th.
Of the 138 quarterbacks from 1970 to 2009, only 11 ranked below league average in NY/A. The full list, below, sorted according to the ratio of their NY/A average to the league average NY/A rate:
| QB | year | age | team | w | win% | ny/a | lgavg | ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ken Stabler | 1976 | 31 | OAK | 11 | 0.917 | 8.17 | 5.28 | 155% |
| Dan Marino | 1984 | 23 | MIA | 14 | 0.875 | 8.60 | 5.90 | 146% |
| Bert Jones | 1976 | 25 | BAL | 11 | 0.786 | 7.58 | 5.28 | 144% |
| Peyton Manning | 2004 | 28 | IND | 12 | 0.750 | 8.74 | 6.14 | 142% |
| Mark Rypien | 1991 | 29 | WAS | 14 | 0.875 | 8.19 | 5.97 | 137% |
| Randall Cunningham | 1998 | 35 | MIN | 13 | 0.929 | 8.03 | 5.89 | 136% |
| John Brodie | 1970 | 35 | SFO | 10 | 0.750 | 7.45 | 5.51 | 135% |
| Kurt Warner | 1999 | 28 | STL | 13 | 0.813 | 7.86 | 5.85 | 135% |
| Boomer Esiason | 1988 | 27 | CIN | 12 | 0.750 | 7.96 | 5.93 | 134% |
| Kurt Warner | 2001 | 30 | STL | 14 | 0.875 | 7.87 | 5.87 | 134% |
| Ken Stabler | 1974 | 29 | OAK | 11 | 0.846 | 7.10 | 5.35 | 133% |
| Peyton Manning | 2005 | 29 | IND | 14 | 0.875 | 7.80 | 5.90 | 132% |
| Jim Hart | 1976 | 32 | STL | 10 | 0.714 | 6.95 | 5.28 | 132% |
| Ken Anderson | 1975 | 26 | CIN | 10 | 0.769 | 7.14 | 5.45 | 131% |
| Chris Chandler | 1998 | 33 | ATL | 13 | 0.929 | 7.72 | 5.89 | 131% |
| Joe Montana | 1984 | 28 | SFO | 14 | 0.933 | 7.69 | 5.90 | 130% |
| Philip Rivers | 2009 | 28 | SDG | 13 | 0.813 | 8.00 | 6.17 | 130% |
| Joe Montana | 1989 | 33 | SFO | 11 | 0.846 | 7.93 | 6.12 | 130% |
| John Hadl | 1973 | 33 | RAM | 12 | 0.857 | 6.84 | 5.29 | 129% |
| Steve Young | 1994 | 33 | SFO | 13 | 0.813 | 7.74 | 5.98 | 129% |
| Tom Brady | 2007 | 30 | NWE | 16 | 1.000 | 7.81 | 6.05 | 129% |
| Drew Brees | 2009 | 30 | NOR | 13 | 0.867 | 7.96 | 6.17 | 129% |
| Jim Hart | 1975 | 31 | STL | 11 | 0.786 | 7.02 | 5.45 | 129% |
| Steve McNair | 2003 | 30 | TEN | 10 | 0.714 | 7.42 | 5.84 | 127% |
| Ken Stabler | 1977 | 32 | OAK | 10 | 0.769 | 6.56 | 5.18 | 127% |
| Peyton Manning | 2006 | 30 | IND | 12 | 0.750 | 7.55 | 5.97 | 126% |
| Steve Young | 1997 | 36 | SFO | 12 | 0.800 | 7.18 | 5.70 | 126% |
| Peyton Manning | 1999 | 23 | IND | 13 | 0.813 | 7.35 | 5.85 | 126% |
| Bobby Hebert | 1992 | 32 | NOR | 12 | 0.750 | 7.25 | 5.78 | 125% |
| Terry Bradshaw | 1978 | 30 | PIT | 14 | 0.875 | 6.92 | 5.54 | 125% |
| Terry Bradshaw | 1979 | 31 | PIT | 12 | 0.750 | 7.11 | 5.76 | 124% |
| Peyton Manning | 2009 | 33 | IND | 14 | 0.875 | 7.62 | 6.17 | 124% |
| Trent Green | 2003 | 33 | KAN | 13 | 0.813 | 7.20 | 5.84 | 123% |
| Ken Stabler | 1975 | 30 | OAK | 10 | 0.769 | 6.71 | 5.45 | 123% |
| Tony Romo | 2007 | 27 | DAL | 13 | 0.813 | 7.42 | 6.05 | 123% |
| Brett Favre | 2007 | 38 | GNB | 13 | 0.813 | 7.39 | 6.05 | 122% |
| Jay Schroeder | 1990 | 29 | RAI | 12 | 0.750 | 7.31 | 5.98 | 122% |
| Peyton Manning | 2003 | 27 | IND | 12 | 0.750 | 7.12 | 5.84 | 122% |
| Jim Kelly | 1990 | 30 | BUF | 12 | 0.857 | 7.30 | 5.98 | 122% |
| Ken Anderson | 1973 | 24 | CIN | 10 | 0.714 | 6.42 | 5.29 | 121% |
| Troy Aikman | 1993 | 27 | DAL | 11 | 0.786 | 7.05 | 5.81 | 121% |
| John Elway | 1998 | 38 | DEN | 10 | 0.833 | 7.14 | 5.89 | 121% |
| Dan Fouts | 1979 | 28 | SDG | 12 | 0.750 | 6.97 | 5.76 | 121% |
| Troy Aikman | 1995 | 29 | DAL | 12 | 0.750 | 7.21 | 5.96 | 121% |
| Peyton Manning | 2007 | 31 | IND | 13 | 0.813 | 7.31 | 6.05 | 121% |
| Brett Favre | 2001 | 32 | GNB | 12 | 0.750 | 7.09 | 5.87 | 121% |
| Ben Roethlisberger | 2004 | 22 | PIT | 13 | 1.000 | 7.41 | 6.14 | 121% |
| Roger Staubach | 1978 | 36 | DAL | 11 | 0.733 | 6.68 | 5.54 | 121% |
| Brett Favre | 1997 | 28 | GNB | 13 | 0.813 | 6.86 | 5.70 | 120% |
| Vinny Testaverde | 1998 | 35 | NYJ | 12 | 0.923 | 7.08 | 5.89 | 120% |
| Jim Kelly | 1991 | 31 | BUF | 13 | 0.867 | 7.16 | 5.97 | 120% |
| Donovan McNabb | 2004 | 28 | PHI | 13 | 0.867 | 7.35 | 6.14 | 120% |
| Ken Anderson | 1981 | 32 | CIN | 12 | 0.750 | 7.17 | 6.02 | 119% |
| Roger Staubach | 1976 | 34 | DAL | 11 | 0.786 | 6.28 | 5.28 | 119% |
| Fran Tarkenton | 1976 | 36 | MIN | 10 | 0.808 | 6.27 | 5.28 | 119% |
| Roger Staubach | 1977 | 35 | DAL | 12 | 0.857 | 6.14 | 5.18 | 119% |
| Matt Hasselbeck | 2005 | 30 | SEA | 13 | 0.813 | 6.99 | 5.90 | 118% |
| Vince Ferragamo | 1980 | 26 | RAM | 11 | 0.733 | 7.04 | 5.96 | 118% |
| Jake Delhomme | 2008 | 33 | CAR | 12 | 0.750 | 7.28 | 6.16 | 118% |
| James Harris | 1975 | 28 | RAM | 11 | 0.846 | 6.43 | 5.45 | 118% |
| Drew Brees | 2004 | 25 | SDG | 11 | 0.733 | 7.24 | 6.14 | 118% |
| Bob Griese | 1974 | 29 | MIA | 10 | 0.769 | 6.31 | 5.35 | 118% |
| Joe Montana | 1987 | 31 | SFO | 10 | 0.909 | 6.90 | 5.87 | 118% |
| Joe Theismann | 1983 | 34 | WAS | 14 | 0.875 | 7.04 | 6.01 | 117% |
| Dan Marino | 1985 | 24 | MIA | 12 | 0.750 | 6.80 | 5.83 | 117% |
| Troy Aikman | 1994 | 28 | DAL | 10 | 0.714 | 6.98 | 5.98 | 117% |
| Ron Jaworski | 1980 | 29 | PHI | 12 | 0.750 | 6.94 | 5.96 | 116% |
| Troy Aikman | 1992 | 26 | DAL | 13 | 0.813 | 6.72 | 5.78 | 116% |
| Jay Schroeder | 1986 | 25 | WAS | 12 | 0.750 | 6.80 | 5.88 | 116% |
| Joe Montana | 1990 | 34 | SFO | 14 | 0.933 | 6.91 | 5.98 | 115% |
| Tom Brady | 2004 | 27 | NWE | 14 | 0.875 | 7.06 | 6.14 | 115% |
| Jake Plummer | 2005 | 31 | DEN | 13 | 0.813 | 6.76 | 5.90 | 115% |
| Fran Tarkenton | 1973 | 33 | MIN | 12 | 0.857 | 6.04 | 5.29 | 114% |
| Bob Griese | 1970 | 25 | MIA | 10 | 0.714 | 6.29 | 5.51 | 114% |
| Bert Jones | 1977 | 26 | BAL | 10 | 0.714 | 5.88 | 5.18 | 114% |
| Brett Favre | 2009 | 40 | MIN | 12 | 0.750 | 7.00 | 6.17 | 113% |
| Danny White | 1981 | 29 | DAL | 11 | 0.733 | 6.80 | 6.02 | 113% |
| Stan Humphries | 1992 | 27 | SDG | 11 | 0.733 | 6.51 | 5.78 | 113% |
| John Elway | 1997 | 37 | DEN | 12 | 0.750 | 6.40 | 5.70 | 112% |
| Peyton Manning | 2008 | 32 | IND | 12 | 0.750 | 6.88 | 6.16 | 112% |
| Fran Tarkenton | 1975 | 35 | MIN | 12 | 0.857 | 6.08 | 5.45 | 112% |
| Jim Kelly | 1993 | 33 | BUF | 12 | 0.750 | 6.49 | 5.81 | 112% |
| Donovan McNabb | 2009 | 33 | PHI | 10 | 0.714 | 6.88 | 6.17 | 112% |
| Philip Rivers | 2006 | 25 | SDG | 14 | 0.875 | 6.66 | 5.97 | 112% |
| Daryle Lamonica | 1972 | 31 | OAK | 10 | 0.808 | 6.31 | 5.66 | 111% |
| Bob Griese | 1973 | 28 | MIA | 12 | 0.923 | 5.88 | 5.29 | 111% |
| Jim Kelly | 1988 | 28 | BUF | 12 | 0.750 | 6.54 | 5.93 | 110% |
| Phil Simms | 1990 | 36 | NYG | 11 | 0.786 | 6.59 | 5.98 | 110% |
| Jeff Garcia | 2001 | 31 | SFO | 12 | 0.750 | 6.46 | 5.87 | 110% |
| Johnny Unitas | 1970 | 37 | BAL | 10 | 0.808 | 6.04 | 5.51 | 110% |
| Bob Griese | 1977 | 32 | MIA | 10 | 0.714 | 5.68 | 5.18 | 110% |
| Dave Krieg | 1986 | 28 | SEA | 10 | 0.714 | 6.44 | 5.88 | 110% |
| Dave Krieg | 1984 | 26 | SEA | 12 | 0.750 | 6.46 | 5.90 | 109% |
| Danny White | 1980 | 28 | DAL | 12 | 0.750 | 6.51 | 5.96 | 109% |
| John Elway | 1996 | 36 | DEN | 13 | 0.867 | 6.37 | 5.83 | 109% |
| Joe Montana | 1981 | 25 | SFO | 13 | 0.813 | 6.56 | 6.02 | 109% |
| Bobby Hebert | 1987 | 27 | NOR | 10 | 0.833 | 6.37 | 5.87 | 109% |
| Steve Bartkowski | 1980 | 28 | ATL | 12 | 0.750 | 6.47 | 5.96 | 109% |
| Ken Anderson | 1976 | 27 | CIN | 10 | 0.714 | 5.73 | 5.28 | 109% |
| Craig Morton | 1972 | 29 | DAL | 10 | 0.714 | 6.12 | 5.66 | 108% |
| Mark Brunell | 1998 | 28 | JAX | 10 | 0.769 | 6.36 | 5.89 | 108% |
| Brett Favre | 1996 | 27 | GNB | 13 | 0.813 | 6.27 | 5.83 | 108% |
| Marc Bulger | 2003 | 26 | STL | 12 | 0.800 | 6.25 | 5.84 | 107% |
| Danny White | 1983 | 31 | DAL | 12 | 0.750 | 6.43 | 6.01 | 107% |
| Bernie Kosar | 1986 | 23 | CLE | 12 | 0.750 | 6.28 | 5.88 | 107% |
| Dan Marino | 1990 | 29 | MIA | 12 | 0.750 | 6.36 | 5.98 | 106% |
| Pat Haden | 1978 | 25 | RAM | 12 | 0.750 | 5.84 | 5.54 | 105% |
| Brad Johnson | 2002 | 34 | TAM | 10 | 0.769 | 6.20 | 5.88 | 105% |
| Jim Hart | 1974 | 30 | STL | 10 | 0.714 | 5.64 | 5.35 | 105% |
| Mark Brunell | 1999 | 29 | JAX | 13 | 0.867 | 6.14 | 5.85 | 105% |
| Stan Humphries | 1994 | 29 | SDG | 11 | 0.733 | 6.25 | 5.98 | 104% |
| Tom Brady | 2003 | 26 | NWE | 14 | 0.875 | 6.08 | 5.84 | 104% |
| Phil Simms | 1986 | 32 | NYG | 14 | 0.875 | 6.10 | 5.88 | 104% |
| Danny White | 1985 | 33 | DAL | 10 | 0.714 | 6.04 | 5.83 | 104% |
| Tony Eason | 1986 | 27 | NWE | 10 | 0.714 | 6.09 | 5.88 | 104% |
| Tom Brady | 2006 | 29 | NWE | 12 | 0.750 | 6.19 | 5.97 | 104% |
| Phil Simms | 1989 | 35 | NYG | 11 | 0.733 | 6.33 | 6.12 | 103% |
| Craig Morton | 1977 | 34 | DEN | 12 | 0.857 | 5.36 | 5.18 | 103% |
| Kerry Collins | 2000 | 28 | NYG | 12 | 0.750 | 6.04 | 5.85 | 103% |
| Steve McNair | 2006 | 33 | BAL | 13 | 0.813 | 6.15 | 5.97 | 103% |
| John Elway | 1984 | 24 | DEN | 12 | 0.857 | 6.04 | 5.90 | 102% |
| Brett Favre | 2002 | 33 | GNB | 12 | 0.750 | 6.01 | 5.88 | 102% |
| Rex Grossman | 2006 | 26 | CHI | 13 | 0.813 | 6.09 | 5.97 | 102% |
| Jim Plunkett | 1983 | 36 | RAI | 10 | 0.769 | 6.11 | 6.01 | 102% |
| Warren Moon | 1993 | 37 | HOU | 10 | 0.714 | 5.90 | 5.81 | 102% |
| Gary Cuozzo | 1970 | 29 | MIN | 10 | 0.833 | 5.57 | 5.51 | 101% |
| Kerry Collins | 2008 | 36 | TEN | 12 | 0.800 | 6.18 | 6.16 | 100% |
| John Elway | 1991 | 31 | DEN | 12 | 0.750 | 5.94 | 5.97 | 100% |
| Marc Wilson | 1985 | 28 | RAI | 11 | 0.846 | 5.80 | 5.83 | 100% |
| Tom Brady | 2001 | 24 | NWE | 11 | 0.786 | 5.79 | 5.87 | 99% |
| Eli Manning | 2008 | 27 | NYG | 12 | 0.750 | 6.06 | 6.16 | 98% |
| Scott Hunter | 1972 | 25 | GNB | 10 | 0.714 | 5.50 | 5.66 | 97% |
| Dieter Brock | 1985 | 34 | RAM | 11 | 0.733 | 5.55 | 5.83 | 95% |
| Ben Roethlisberger | 2008 | 26 | PIT | 12 | 0.750 | 5.86 | 6.16 | 95% |
| Jim Miller | 2001 | 30 | CHI | 11 | 0.846 | 5.49 | 5.87 | 93% |
| Dan Pastorini | 1975 | 26 | HOU | 10 | 0.714 | 5.04 | 5.45 | 92% |
| Steve Bono | 1995 | 33 | KAN | 13 | 0.813 | 5.48 | 5.96 | 92% |
| Neil O'Donnell | 1994 | 28 | PIT | 10 | 0.714 | 5.41 | 5.98 | 90% |
Now what the heck does all this mean? Wouldn't you rather have a quarterback that goes 12-4 but is below average in NY/A than a quarterback who is 11-5 but is above average in NY/A? Sure. But we only know that after the fact. Who would you rather have next year, the 12-4 "winner" or the 11-win QB who also put up good stats?
Of the 138 quarterbacks mentioned above, 9 of them were out of the league or played on different teams in the next season. Another 18 failed to start at least 8 games in the next season. That leaves 111 quarterbacks on whom we can perform some interesting analysis. I broke those quarterbacks down into five groups, based on where they fell along the scale of net yards per attempt relative to league average:
| NY/A Rat | #QBs | Ratio | Win% | Next Yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Over 130 | 16 | 136% | 0.828 | 0.667 |
| 120-129 | 25 | 124% | 0.794 | 0.678 |
| 110-119 | 32 | 115% | 0.785 | 0.661 |
| 100-109 | 26 | 106% | 0.787 | 0.628 |
| Below 100 | 9 | 95% | 0.774 | 0.552 |
For those fans of using correlation coefficients, the CC between winning percentage in year N and winning percentage in year N+1 was 0.09. The CC between NY/A ratio in Year N and winning percentage in year N+1 was 0.20. Consider what that means -- looking at NY/A doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the quarterback's defense or running game or coaching or special teams, something a team's record does take into account. But just using raw winning percentage from year to year was less helpful, in large part because of all of the random, fluky things that can happen in a football game that impacts the final result of the game. Net yards per attempt is much less skewed by outliers; because of that, it's a much better way to get a true understanding of a quarterback's ability than winning percentage. That's why it holds up better over the course of time.
What does this mean for Ryan? Remember, it's not like Ryan has been Trent Dilfer his whole career; Ryan ranked 3rd in the league in NY/A as a rookie in 2008. In '09, he regressed to a 6.0 average, a number he duplicated in 2010. Ryan has great pedigree and -- largely on the basis of his strong rookie season -- is still one of the most efficient passers in modern history through three seasons. I don't claim to know what changed for Ryan between 2008 and 2010, and I surely don't claim to know whether or not he can get back to that level of efficiency.
But I do think he's overrated. Quite heavily so, perhaps. I e-mailed PFR friend Brian Burke for his thoughts. Paraphrasing his response below, he also noted that Ryan was fortunate to come away with some wins this year, and might be overrated because:
1) Against the 49ers, Ryan threw a game-killing pick but Roddy White chased down the defender, forced a fumble and got the ball back. Ryan went on to get a win for that game. If White doesn't make that play, Ryan's Win Probability Added (WPA) takes a *huge* hit.
2) Roddy White in any other situation. White's WPA is 2.60, more than half of Ryan's WPA. When not throwing to White, Ryan isn't the same guy. He's good, but not anywhere close to what he is with White in the game.
3) Random variation. Ryan just happens to have his better moments in high leverage situations and his ugly moments when the game isn't on the line.
4) Factors beyond his control. Against the Ravens, Ryan threw incomplete on a 3rd down on the final drive of the game, forcing an improbable 4th and long. Inexplicably, Suggs was called for a facemask when the replay showed it was actually Suggs who was the victim of a facemask. At the very least, the call should have been for offsetting penalties. The refs' confusion gave the Falcons a critical first down late in the game, and three plays later, White catches huge touchdown. Another example: if NO doesn't miss that FG in overtime, there's no following drive for Ryan to mount, which was worth huge WPA. There are probably a few other examples like those. Ryan was charmed in 2010.
5) Fumbles. He rarely does it, and NY/A doesn't capture that.
6) He's clutch. No, I don't believe in clutch, or at least pro-level QBs are the kind of guys significantly affected by pressure, but I can't disprove it. Maybe he really is 'clutch.' We've got to at least admit the possibility. Perhaps he's just smart in terms of 'situational' football. He knows when to take risks and when to throw the ball away. Most likely, however, this is just the same as #3 above.
He's an above average quarterback but he was very lucky in 2010.
Ultimately, it's hard for me to put Ryan down anywhere near where his NY/A ratio says he should be. He's a young guy who should be penciled in as the starter for his team for a long time: only a handful of teams have one of those. Drew Brees averaged 6.5 NY/A and finished 10th; Ryan averaged 6.0 NY/A and ranked 25th. There isn't a significant difference between those numbers, but the ranking disparity looks enormous. I don't think Ryan's a top-10 quarterback, but I think he's probably in that next tier behind them.
But that's as far as I'll go. Keep in mind that his "mediocre" passing numbers also came while playing 10 of his 16 games in domes and going up against a weak schedule. If anything, with some weather and schedule adjustments, Ryan might come out looking quite a bit farther outside of the top ten. He was a winner in 2010; for him to be a winner in 2011, he's likely going to have to play a whole lot better.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 18th, 2011 at 9:00 am and is filed under Quarterbacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Great post. I wonder if ANY/A - NY/A is constant over a career, or if fluctuates.
So if Ryan's not a top ten QB, then surely you can name ten who are better, right? Because I can't. Five yes, seven perhaps, but not ten.
Also, I'd much rather have Ryan on my team than Chad Henne, which is basically the choice the Fins made when they decided not to take Ryan first overall in the '08 draft.
BTW how do Sanchez and Flacco measure up by this criteria?
Ryan is a complete media concoction turning a very average QB into a superstar when the facts just don't back it up. I wish I had my old laptop running I had all the numbers of every QB from the last 15 years and their first 3 year stats across the board. It showed while Ryan has been decent, he is FAR from the franchise QB everyone makes him out to be. He has also played a ridiculous amount of games in a dome that help him pad his stats in perfect throwing environments.
DolFan-
The only QB's outside of Flacco who had a better first 3 years playing stat wise were Phillip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers. The difference of course is that those guys sat a combined 5 years, while Flacco played his rookie year on. Not Manning, not Brady, not anyone else has put up the (quality) stats Flacco has in his first 3 years. Look it up. Sanchez has obviously only played 2 years so I could not compare him, but needless to say he would be near the bottom of the list.
DolFan 316,
I might have to agree with you on that one: Hard to find 10 that are better than Matt Ryan. I happen to think he is a bit overrated -- it seems "the media" wants to shove the 'Matty Ice' nickname down our throats for a guy who is 0-2 in the playoffs. But it's tough to say he isn't Top 10.
The way I see it, there are 5 guys who one would certainly rather have at QB than Ryan: Brady, Brees, Manning, Rivers, Rodgers (in whatever order you like).
I would probably also rather have Roethlisberger than Ryan. So that gives me 6.
After that, couldn't you throw the young crop of QBs -- Sanchez, Flacco, Freeman, Ryan -- into a group with E. Manning and Schaub, and maybe Romo if he comes back healthy.
Aren't all 7 of those guys (so #7 thru #13) arguably about the same? Some strong qualities, but all have a huge question mark somewhere in their game. I couldn't pick out 4 of them that I would say are definitely better than Matt Ryan.
I don't know how they statistically match up (other than Sanchez being at the bottom of the list numbers-wise), but they just seem almost interchangeable to me.
Tom Steen,
Personally, I'd take Freeman, Schaub, Romo and Flacco, not to mention Vick, over Ryan every day of the week, and probably Eli as well. Sanchez isn't even in the conversation.
In fact, seeing how I'd rather have Bradford, Stafford, Cutler, Kolb, Cassel and Orton over Sanchez, I can confidently say he's not even in the top half of the league.
Wow. Just...wow.
Freeman, Bradford, Stafford, Romo, Cutler and KOLB over Ryan??? Schaub is equal at beat. Let me know when he gets the Texans to the playoffs. As John McEnroe used to say, you cannot be serious!!!
This backlash against Ryan (which is clearly what this is) surprises me, since I don't recall any recent media hype of him as the Next Big Thing. Anybody who doesn;t even have Ryan in the top half of the league is someone who clearly has a personal hatred of him for whatever reason.
Not to digress from the topic of the original post, but you people make me laugh with all the Sanchez bashing. I know it's very chic to be a Jet-hater these days because of all of Rex Ryan's buffoonery (which, I'll admit, would annoy the crap out of me if I weren't a fan), but to say that Sanchez "isn't even in the conversation" is asinine. In six career playoff starts, all on the road, Sanchez is 96-for-158 passing for 1200 yards, with 9 tds and 3 picks, and has been sacked 4 times for 26 yards. This equates to a NY/A of 7.25...ON THE ROAD IN THE PLAYOFFS, GUYS! He has already, at the tender age of 24, started, and won, more playoff games than any quarterback in the history of the franchise. He's beaten Tom Brady and Peyton Manning on the road, in successive weeks. Are you people kidding me???
Look, I'm not trying to stir the pot here, and I appreciate the value of statistics as much as anybody. And I'll be the first to admit that his regular season stats, when viewed from the "stat geek" perspective (and I mean that term affectionately), are pedestrian at best. But it just seems to me that the anti-Jet backlash has reached the point now where supposedly intelligent football fans (which I know the overwhelming majority of the contributors here are) are just ignoring the reality of the situation. For anybody to sit here and say he'd rather have Kevin Kolb (!) than Mark Sanchez is just being petty, and more in line with stuff you'd read on a yahoo blog post. Get real, guys...
"He's beaten Tom Brady and Peyton Manning on the road, in successive weeks. Are you people kidding me???"
Does he play both ways? He, along with the rest of the Jets, beat the Pat and Colts, he didn't see the field when Manning and Brady had possession.
Carving out a small subsection of someone's overall work (road playoff games) and using that to say that the rest of his work is wrong is ass-backwards. Aaron Rodgers effect - only in reverse.
(For the record, I enjoy having Rex Ryan in the league. I think there should always be 1 Ryan around to play court jester.)
RE: 9
Yes, six road playoff games are a small sample. But so is two seasons in the league prior to the age of 24 (after only one year as a starter on the college level), and yet that does not stop people from making the ridiculous claim that he doesn't even belong in the same conversation with guys like Kyle Orton and Kevin Kolb. The point is, people dismiss him as completely irrelevent, when his career is just getting started. I honestly don't know how good he's going to be; all I know is he's not getting a fair shake, and I think it's because of the anti-Jet backlash.
Meanwhile, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning don't play defense either, but that doesn't stop people from crediting them for wins and blaming them for losses.
And your comment regarding Rex Ryan being a court jester just proves my point. Non-Jet fans fall into one of two categories: A) they either hate him, because he can't keep his mouth shut, or B) they love him, because he can't keep his mouth shut. None of it has anything to do with football, and frankly it's just a big distraction. The team has won, so he gets away with it, but once he puts up his first 6-10 (as everyone eventually does), things are going to get ugly.
The main thing I take away here is that Matt Ryan is a little overrated. He gets a lot of credit in the media, but his YPA has been way down the last two years. That's not good for someone wanting to become an elite franchise QB. I'm not sure what's changed from his rookie year, but he now takes a lot more attempts to get his yards the last two years. I do think his 3 year career does point to him being a QB you can trust in the 4th quarter with the game on the line, so maybe he makes up for some of his lesser stats by making those key plays in several games a year. Most of the QBs near the bottom of that list did that several times in that particular season. That's how they cracked the 10 win minimum to show up here, because if they didn't come through, they wouldn't have made the cut.
As for the math, I'm seeing that all 5 groups of QBs saw their win % go down. Not surprising, since few teams in history are able to string together 10+ win seasons. For the Below 100 group (which I believe you're saying Ryan belongs in for 2010), I identified them as O'Donnell, Bono, Pastorini, Miller, Roethlisberger, Eli, Brady, Wilson and Elway. I came up with slightly different numbers than in the table. I have .773 win % (102-30) for year 1, and .564 win % (62-48) for Next Year. I think Ryan definitely fits into the Ben/Eli/Brady/Elway group more than he does the other guys.
Atlanta will win fewer games in 2011, but I think Ryan will have a better season. He just won't get as much credit from the media because of the lesser record.
Rex Ryan is a court jester in the same way that finding out you have prostate cancer is hilarious. That is all.
It's far from official, but STATS (and whatever sites just copy/paste their free-stats) list the number of "poor throws" by each QB, and Matt Ryan had 96 -- 16.81%, which ranked 25th of all QBs (min 200 att), and 2nd to last of all 2010 play-off QBs (Sanchez was 30th with 18.34%). Eli Manning who had 25 INT was actually 6th best with only 12.99% (70/539) -- one spot ahead of Mr 4 INT Tom Brady (13.01%). It's far from a transparent stat (what constitutes "poor"?....but as long as it's applied the same to all QBs it should be alright), but it lends credence to the belief that INTs are totally random and arn't a good measurement of individual QB talent.
fyi: Playoff QBs (rank)
Brees (2), Brady (7), Cutler (10), P Manning (11), Vick (12), Rodgers (15), Cassel (18), Flacco (20), Hasselbeck (23), Roethlisberger (24), Ryan (25), Sanchez (30)
notables (not in 2010 playoffs): E. Manning (6), Palmer (8), Rivers (13), Freeman (16), McCoy (17), Clausen (21), Bradford (27shocking!), McNabb (32)
"I'm not sure what's changed from his rookie year"
Tony Gonzales. He's become a bit of a Checkdown Charlie, which is why is ypa is down.
@ Tim--even as a Saints fan, that isn't a bad thing for Ryan.
IMO, I think that Tony Gonzalez may be EXACTLY what has caused the diversion in Ryan's stats vs. wins. In other words, he's throwing <10 yd passes to TG, which are positive, low-risk plays that keep the chains moving. I remember reading that TG had his lowest ypc in his CAREER (iirc) in 2010; if not, it was his lowest in 10 yrs or so--another stat that tends to reenforce your comment. I can personally attest that in the 1st Saints/Falcons game last year, TG KILLED us with 9 & 10 yd. passes on 3rd and 4th downs to move the chains. (Wait--the stats say 8 for 110. Let's check the Game Book at NFL.com) He was targeted 10 times--7 on 3rd or 4th down, all of 7 yds or more except the 4th & 2. EVERY TIME he converted, including a TD--although one 3rd & 7 was nullified by an ATL penalty. The other 3 were: a 34 yd completion on a 1st & 10; 2nd & 14, he picked up 6--and then picked up 14 on the 3rd and 8 the play afterward; and on 2nd & 16, he picked up a 25 yd DPI. Ten targets, nine successes, one of which was nullified by penalty, and the unsuccessful play was rectified by TG the following play. Man--that sounds like a QB's best friend--and sounds like Matt Ryan has traded longer, higher-risk passes for "dump-offs" to his HOF TE that move the chains and frustrate DC's, DB's, and fans alike.
Now remember, I'm a Saints' fan--but imo, Matt Ryan plays better than his stats, because they tend to play conservative with Turner & Gonzalez. But boy, I HATE WITH A PASSION the fact that Drew Brees' window is closing because Matt Ryan and Josh Freeman will be the best QB's in the division in a few years. Right now, Brees is at WORST the 4th-best QB behind Brady, Manning & Rodgers (in any order). I fear in three years he might be the 3rd best IN HIS DIVISION.
Joseph,
That doesn't refute the point. In the game you're discussing, Gonzalez was targeted 9 times (the penalty play does not count as a target) and caught 8 passes for 110 yards and a touchdown. Assuming Ryan wasn't sacked when Gonzalez was the primary target, that means on plays directed towards TG, Ryan averaged 14.4 ANY/A and 12.2 NY/A (and also 12.2 Y/A).
If he's playing conservative football with that sort of deadly efficiency, he'd be the best QB in football. But Ryan gained 118 passing yards on his other 21 throws that day -- an ugly 5.6 Y/A ratio. At least based on that one game, Gonzalez is making Ryan's stats much better, not worse.
Ryan to Gonzalez (2010): 70/109 for 656 yards, 6.02 YPA
Ryan to others (2010): 287/462 for 3049 yards, 6.60 YPA
Ryan to all (2010): 357/571 for 3705 yards, 6.49 YPA
So that did make some impact last year. The 08 Falcons basically didn't use the TE as a receiver. Now that he's had Gonzalez, he has had more short throws to that position, and to an aging player. But 6.60 to everyone but Gonzalez is still pretty low.
I don't know how it compares to other data, but a 64% completion rate on "short throws to the TE" doesn't sound very good to me, either.
Is Matt Ryan the best qb ever? No. But he is a very good one. His stats suffer because he doesn't throw as much as u would think. Michael Turner has logged 300+ carries every year ,370 one time . Gonzalez and Roddy White are his ONLY receiving options. Its not hard to cover 2 people. Plus.Mike "gadget" Mularkey calls the same plays over and over again. The scheme is very predictable. All your top qbs would have reduced stats in that situation.
@Chase #16--I picked that one game not to refute your point, but to show that he likes to hit Gonzalez on throws that are generally just beyond the sticks. Since the Falcons tend to lean on Turner, they tend to be 3rd and short/medium--thus a low YPA, which Scott #17 seems to indicate.
Also, since Gonzalez had a career?-low YPC, this seems to back that, too.
My main point was that Tim is spot-on--Gonzalez is pulling Ryan's stats "down", but helping Ryan become a "better" QB. If Ryan had the Gonzalez of 2000-2005, he'd be even better.
Falcon fan here, I think there are a couple of reasons for Ryan's numbers dropping off the last two years. One is the falcons revamped the D over the last two years and they used a ball control offense to keep the D off the field. When the O couldn't stay on the field in the playoffs, it got ugly really quick.
Second point is lack of players to stretch the field on O- in 08 Norwood played in all 16 games , HD had a rookie season with some nice moments and Ryan was a top ten QB in 20+ and 40+ yard passes. They gave the O a dimension they haven't has since. Both Norwood and HD have been injured the last two years and have taken away the explosiveness the O had in 08.
Norwood is probably gone, HD is two years from his knee injury, Falcons have been harping on "explosive players" since the GB debacle.
What I expect to happen is they'll get Ryan some new toys next year, the D should be stronger and you'll see Ryan returning to 08 type numbers. Schedule is tougher, victories will go down, but Ryan will be better.
Not a Falcon fan here, but was a big William Andrews fan during his time with Atlanta. I think Matt Ryan will be fine, we must remember Aaron Rodgers was being criticized for his postseason play before these most recent playoffs. The Falcons have a solid organization, and should be a factor in the NFC for years to come.
@DolFan 316 (post 7):
Wow... just... wow...
Your reading comprehension needs A LOT of work. I put only Romo and Schaub over Ryan. The rest are over Sanchez. Please, try a little harder next time...
@Las Vegas Wildcards:
People were critizising Rodgers for his postseason play? Were these the same people praising Sanchez for being the reason the Jets made two AFC championships in a row?
I appreciate the work that was put into this breakdown and though i don't agree with its conclusions, its still a nice thing to see.
Now, I think this sort of conclusion comes from a mentality that thinks that all sports can be judged equally well based on advanced statistical measure. Though this approach may work in baseball, I don't believe it lends itself well to football at all.
Football, far more than baseball, is soooo dependent on scheme that to compare any two QBs just doesn't accurately paint a picture of a given QB's proficiency, IMO. Having watched a vast majority of the Falcons games since the Matt Ryan-era began, I can say that this isn't an offense that makes downfield throws part of its objective. We know Matt is capable of these types of throws because he made them in his first year. And there are scores of downfield, deeper throws that Matt has made in big spots when he has more control over the tenor and direction of the offense. But as a baseline, its jut not an offense built on stretching the field...its an offense built on a high rep RB, underneath curl routes to the TE and 5-7 yard outs to a stud WR. It doesnt use very much misdirection, doesnt use a ton of trickery and doesnt even really utilize screen passes to keep a defense back on its heels a bit.
What I would really be interested in seeing is what Matt's advanced statistical numbers look like in No Huddle situations, where he has more responsibility for the calls and tends to (at least in my opinion) push the ball downfield more. I'd be willing to bet those numbers would look a lot better, both in relation to his current numbers and in relation to the rest of the league.
"Wins" arent really a stat I like to point to as something to really assign a QB but "luck" isnt really a legitimate thing either. I can recall all sorts of "lucky" plays that have worked out in favor of other QBs in this league for years. From mega-breaks such as the Tuck Rule to Jay Cutler's penchant for throwing interception at Packer defenders that get called back for assorted penalties or just plain dropped. Luck is part of the game...and to point to a few plays as "lucky" in order to criticize Matt seems to be a bit disingenuous without applying the same highly subjective standard to the rest of the crop of QBs.
All I know is that from what I see of him, he operates at a high level most of the time and is responsible for a large portion of the success we have. Sure, thats representative of another of the challenges that assessing QBs presents...where to draw the line between QB performance and WR performance or OL performance. Its not an easy game and I appreciate your efforts at doing so. I just think unless you're going to go fine-toothed comb over each and everyone of the seasons you chronicled up there ^, we probably can't get an accurate picture of correlations or really assessment at all.
Just my two cents...