Alex Smith
Posted by Doug on July 17, 2006
Mr. Obvious: Alex Smith was bad last year.
Voice of Reason: Yeah, but he was a rookie.
Mr. Obvious: Yeah, but he was really bad.
Voice of Reason: Yeah, but he had no help at all. The 49ers were a total wreck last year.
Mr. Obvious: Yeah, but he was really, really bad.
Let's take a quick look at just how bad Alex Smith was last year. I will look at all quarterbacks since 1978 who threw at least 100 passes in their debut year. There are 85 quarterbacks meeting those criteria. Smith threw 11 interceptions in 165 attempts, for a rate of 6.7%. That's not the worst of the 85. Tommy Maddox, Dave Wilson, and Steve DeBerg all had higher interception rates in their debut years. But all those guys played in times when interceptions were more prevalent than they are now. When you divide each player's interception rate by the league interception rate, Smith's does look the worst.
Young QB YR TM IntRate LgRate Index
================================================
Alex Smith 2005 sfo 6.7 3.1 216.0
Tommy Maddox 1992 den 7.4 3.9 193.1
Ryan Fitzpatrick 2005 stl 5.9 3.1 192.0
Ryan Leaf 1998 sdg 6.1 3.3 186.6
Eric Zeier 1995 cle 5.6 3.0 183.3
Jake Plummer 1997 ari 5.1 3.0 167.2
Kurt Kittner 2003 atl 5.3 3.2 162.3
Dave Wilson 1981 nor 6.9 4.3 162.0
Mark Rypien 1988 was 6.2 3.9 160.0
Gus Frerotte 1994 was 5.0 3.1 159.6
Troy Aikman 1989 dal 6.1 3.9 159.2
Craig Krenzel 2004 chi 4.7 3.2 148.6
Peyton Manning 1998 ind 4.9 3.3 148.4
Heath Shuler 1994 was 4.5 3.1 144.5
Kerry Collins 1995 car 4.4 3.0 144.2
Eli Manning 2004 nyg 4.6 3.2 143.7
Craig Whelihan 1997 sdg 4.2 3.0 139.2
Index is the player's interception rate divided by the league rate and then multiplied by 100. Smith's 216 indicates that his intercpetion rate was about 2.16 times greater than the league rate last year.
If you look at yards per attempt (compared similarly to the league average), Smith ranks 75th of the 85 young quarterbacks. If you look at touchdown rate, he ranks 84th out of 85. If you add those ranks, you get 244, which ties him for the worst among the 85.
==== ranks =======
Young QB YR TM YPA INT TD TOT
================================================
Alex Smith 2005 sfo 75 85 84 244
Ryan Leaf 1998 sdg 79 82 83 244
Kurt Kittner 2003 atl 85 79 80 244
Craig Krenzel 2004 chi 71 74 73 218
Eric Zeier 1995 cle 73 81 63 217
Akili Smith 1999 cin 76 48 82 206
Eli Manning 2004 nyg 81 70 51 202
Jack Trudeau 1986 ind 80 38 78 196
Steve Deberg 1978 sfo 78 63 54 195
Dave Wilson 1981 nor 32 78 85 195
Kyle Mackey 1987 mia 74 51 66 191
Craig Whelihan 1997 sdg 60 69 58 187
Kyle Orton 2005 chi 82 45 60 187
Ryan Fitzpatrick 2005 stl 62 83 40 185
Steve Fuller 1979 kan 69 42 72 183
Troy Aikman 1989 dal 63 75 41 179
Chris Weinke 2001 car 70 34 75 179
Joey Harrington 2002 det 72 58 47 177
David Carr 2002 hou 57 40 77 174
Scott Zolak 1992 nwe 66 32 76 174
John Elway 1983 den 47 59 64 170
Steve Young 1985 tam 27 68 74 169
Scott Brunner 1980 nyg 77 49 37 163
Tim Hasselbeck 2003 was 59 57 45 161
Billy Joe Tolliver1989 sdg 64 41 55 160
Steve Walsh 1989 dal 53 35 71 159
Charlie Frye 2005 cle 44 53 62 159
Kyle Boller 2003 bal 61 60 38 159
Jeff Komlo 1979 det 48 64 44 156
Oliver Luck 1983 hou 52 66 35 153
Brent Pease 1987 hou 40 43 69 152
Mike Pagel 1982 bal 65 10 70 145
Rick Mirer 1993 sea 55 37 50 142
Quincy Carter 2001 dal 45 54 43 142
Boomer Esiason 1984 cin 83 9 49 141
Koy Detmer 1998 phi 67 17 57 141
Kerry Collins 1995 car 34 71 36 141
Tommy Maddox 1992 den 41 84 15 140
Neil Lomax 1981 stl 29 30 81 140
Tom Hodson 1990 nwe 51 23 65 139
Donovan McNabb 1999 phi 84 27 26 137
David Woodley 1980 mia 68 44 24 136
Gus Frerotte 1994 was 50 76 7 133
Heath Shuler 1994 was 37 72 23 132
Cade McNown 1999 chi 38 61 30 129
Kelly Stouffer 1988 sea 36 21 67 124
Rodney Peete 1989 det 7 55 59 121
Peyton Manning 1998 ind 30 73 16 119
Cody Carlson 1988 hou 20 67 28 115
Chad Hutchinson 2002 dal 35 33 46 114
Drew Bledsoe 1993 nwe 56 36 22 114
Vinny Testaverde 1987 tam 33 25 56 114
Mike McMahon 2001 det 58 1 52 111
Chris Chandler 1988 ind 18 62 29 109
Michael Vick 2001 atl 14 15 79 108
Byron Leftwich 2003 jax 16 52 34 102
Ken Karcher 1987 den 54 31 17 102
Jay Schroeder 1985 was 24 4 68 96
Tim Couch 1999 cle 42 28 25 95
Jim Everett 1986 ram 23 65 4 92
Ken O'Brien 1984 nyj 26 18 48 92
Jeff George 1990 ind 39 39 13 91
Jake Plummer 1997 ari 5 80 5 90
Bernie Kosar 1985 cle 43 7 39 89
Tony Banks 1996 stl 12 56 20 88
Bobby Hebert 1985 nor 31 3 53 87
Warren Moon 1984 hou 11 13 61 85
Patrick Ramsey 2002 was 17 47 21 85
Doug Williams 1978 tam 46 12 27 85
Phil Simms 1979 nyg 28 46 10 84
Jeff Garcia 1999 sfo 19 20 42 81
Mark Rypien 1988 was 3 77 1 81
Shaun King 1999 tam 49 16 8 73
Steve Beuerlein 1988 rai 21 11 33 65
Don Majkowski 1987 gnb 25 6 31 62
Ben Roethlisberger2004 pit 2 50 6 58
Dieter Brock 1985 ram 13 19 18 50
Neil O'Donnell 1991 pit 22 8 19 49
TJ Rubley 1993 ram 8 29 11 48
Charlie Batch 1998 det 9 5 32 46
Jim McMahon 1982 chi 15 14 14 43
Jim Kelly 1986 buf 6 22 12 40
Aaron Brooks 2000 nor 4 26 9 39
Marc Bulger 2002 stl 1 24 2 27
Dan Marino 1983 mia 10 2 3 15
As you can see, Smith is not in good company at the top of that list. But you don't have to scan too far down to see that some all-time greats appear in the top quartile of the list.
Two conclusions.
1. Smith wasn't just "rookie bad" last year. He was historically bad. Or at least his numbers were. Yes, the 49ers were a disaster last season, but there are a lot of quarterbacks on that list whose teams weren't very good and none of them posted numbers as bad as Smith's.
2. Despite that, I think the voice of reason is right. We can't write him off yet.
Related posts:
ShareThis
July 17th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Great analysis. Here's a decent follow up analysis for you:
Typically (i think, please confirm), 2nd year is when most quarterbacks make the leap, unlike WRs on the 3-year-plan. How did those same 85 QBs do in their sophomore campaign? We might be able to predict Alex Smith's #s based on that. (Especially if you can break it down by which got help the next year by a drafted stud TE or WR).
If there is any data on which drafted stud WRs and TEs the next year, it might also be fun to see how those WRs and TEs did in their rookie year. We're starting to drill rather deep though...
July 17th, 2006 at 9:41 am
I'm not so sure about 2nd year for QBs. Some make the leap then, but some of the all time greats take 3 years or more to get really good (Troy Aikman, Steve Young, Terry Bradshaw). Of course, some are good right away, so you never can tell. In any case, I don't think it's fair to write off a QB after one year, no matter how bad it is.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Doug, has any of your research tried to separate the player from the team? I don't buy the "he had no help at all" argument, and one of the reasons I don't buy it is that Tim Rattay, getting essentially the same "help" that Smith got, had significantly better numbers. Rattay still wasn't great, of course, but he was a lot better. What I'd love to see on that list is how the rookies compared to the veteran starters. In some cases, like Peyton Manning, the rookie played the whole season, but in most cases you can compare the rookie to a veteran who had the same teammates. I loved the research you did where you had wide receivers essentially compete with each other in each year that they were teammates. Is it possible to do that with quarterbacks?
July 17th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
A couple of questions/observations:
-It's never good to have Ryan Leaf as your closest comparable.
-In line with the question about 2nd year, 3rd year, etc., statistically, when can you write off a Quarterback who is performing below a certain level of atrocity. In other words, what would Alex Smith's numbers have to look like at the end of this year to say with a fair amount of confidence that the 49ers should be shopping for a starting QB in 2007?
-Even though his rookie year was before the time period of the study, where approximately would Terry Bradshaw rate using this analysis?
-It doesnt feel quite right to just use the season in question's average in each category as the comparison baseline. For example, when I look at the above list, in 1992, the int rate was 3.9, but it was 3.1 in 1994 and 3.0 in 1995. Maddox may get an artificial boost because his rookie year happened to be in an abberant year that had nothing to do with a general trend. Perhaps using a 5 year window (2 years on each side + year in question) would reduce this effect. Of course, this will not help Alex Smith much.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
"Maddox may get an artificial boost because his rookie year happened to be in an abberant year"
Well, why shouldn't he? Maddox's performance came in a season in which it was relatively hard to avoid interceptions. I don't know the reason. Maybe the league told the officials to ease off on calling defensive pass interference, making it easier for the defense to get into position to get the pick. Maybe there happened to be a lot of talented defensive players and smart defensive coaches, and the offenses hadn't caught up. Maybe it was just random variation. But in any event, why wouldn't we compare Maddox to the actual environment he played in?
July 17th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Funny, I was just thinking about this on the drive home. Even though it's mostly just for fun --- I'd never argue that those WR rankings are "right" --- I think that's my favorite bit of research that I've ever done.
At the time, I remember considering the possibility of extending it to running backs, but I decided it would never work.
But I never thought of trying it with QBs until a few hours ago. Then I read your comment, and the Tim Rattay comment is a very good one.
I could compare only QBs who each got more than 150 passing attempts for the same team. That might be interesting, but wouldn't yield enough pairs of QB seasons to produce rankings that would pass the laugh test.
I wonder what would happen if I counted comparisons between QBs on the same team in consecutive years. That way, Alex Smith could be compared not only to Tim Rattay in 2005, but also to Tim Rattay in 2004, and to Ken Dorsey in 2004. Rattay and Dorsey can be compared to Garcia 2003. And Garcia can be compared to the likes of Steve Young, Tim Couch, Kelly Holcombe, Charlie Frye, and Joey Harrington.
I guarantee you this will produce some wacky rankings and it'll have to be very clearly labeled "For entertainment purposes only," but it might point out some interesting facts. And it'll be fun.
This is definitely on the to-do list.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Yes, alex was horrifically bad but Rattay and the others weren't doing much better. Rattay was throwing picks at about a 6% clip. That's not exactly awesome. Granted his yards per attempt was somewhat decent at 6.9.
Pretty much all of the Niners QB's performed at very awful level. Alex Smith's performance just happened to be record breakingly awful. Given that he was a rookie
I'm still hoping he can turn it around as a Niner fan.
A few key things that need to happen:
1.Vernon Davis and a healthy Eric Johnson being reliable outlet targets since the Wr core is still pretty weak.
2. Improvement from the O-line in pass blocking. If the O-line can't block, no QB will have success. Just look what Pittsburgh was able to do to Manning for
about 80% of the game.
3. The defense not putting the offense in a such a huge hole that passing is the only real option.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
"Rattay and the others weren’t doing much better."
Uh, yeah, they were. Smith accounted for 42% of the 49ers' pass attempts. He accounted for 41% of their completions. He accounted for 40% of the 49ers' pass yards. He accounted for 12.5% of the 49ers' pass touchdowns. He accounted for 52% of the 49ers' interceptions. He accounted for 60% of the 49ers' sacks. Notice how on all three good stats, Smith accounted for less than he should have, and how on both bad stats, Smith accounted for more than he should have? Please explain by what standard you don't think the 49ers' other quarterbacks were much better than Smith.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I don't have time to look it up, but I think it would be fascinating to take every quarterback who had between 25% and 75% of his team's passes and do the above exercise. How many guys are on the wrong side of their team's ledger on all five stats: completions, yards, touchdowns, interceptions, and sacks?
July 17th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
I don't really care about the low TD total. Shit by that standard Aikman is a poor QB then. But everyone know that Emmitt took away many potential TD's from Aikman.
Yes, Alex Smith was much worse than Rattay. Dorsey and Picket had such limited attempts its hard to draw any real conclusions.
BUT, Rattay was much worse than just about every other starting QB in the league so that's not saying much. Sorry if getting 6% of your passes (Rattay) picked off doesn't get a ringing endorsement from me. Sure he was better but I'd rather throw Alex into the fire and see if he improves.
MDS- The other thing if you want to do that comparison for all QB's (25-75% of passes) is that the defenses the qb's played play a big role.I'm sure there will be a number of cases where one QB lucks out and gets to play more of the inferior defenses thus clouding the real numbers.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:28 am
I think Smith's #1 draft status is important when noting comparables. The guys who were drafted really high but sucked as rookies are comparables. Guys like Kurt Kittner and Ryan Fitzpatrick aren't. They were never meant to be starting in the first place.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:37 am
[...] Support pro-football-reference.com « Alex Smith [...]
August 6th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Just a thought here. MDS, you posted this comment
"I don’t buy the “he had no help at all” argument, and one of the reasons I don’t buy it is that Tim Rattay, getting essentially the same “help” that Smith got, had significantly better numbers"
That may be true, but thats an irrelevant comment outside of the scope of the articles topic. Yes, Rattay had better numbers, probably due to the fact that he was/is a veteran. The focus of the article was comparisons to other rookies, thus comparing him to Rattay has little utility.
Additionally, I could be wrong on this one but I think that the Niners were healthier when Rattay was QB (I know Battle was there and wasn't when Alex played). Didn't we sustain injuries on the line that put more pressure on Smith? Not sure...
August 7th, 2006 at 9:46 am
All this stuff proves is what we already know: Alex Smith had a very poor year. But in order for any of these stats to make sense, one would have to analyze the relative effectiveness of comparable offensive line play as well as the quality of the wide receivers.
My premise is that the 2005 San Francisco 49ers were one of the most impotent offensive teams in history, and Smith was not alone in earning that honor. Just look at the utterly terrible running game. Until the last 3 games, the run games was just as bad as the passing game.
Summarily, looking at Alex Smith in this fashion is a meaningless exercise.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:52 am
August 7th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
So I learned that not only did Alex have a bad year it was really bad in historical context of the History of the NFL. What does this mean? It doesn't really mean anything. We knew last year was going to be rough but did Alex show improvement towards the end of the year. Yes. He has so many weapons this year and it seems like the offense is much easier to grasp. I think you are going to see a total different quarterback. The guy is only 22 years old. We don't need him to be Joe or Steve, we just need him to spread the ball around to his weapons and not make stupid turnovers. And as he gets more comfortable then they can really start airing out the ball. VD, Gilmore, Bryant, Walker, Robinson, EJ......that's a whole lot of new guys to work with. EJ is former Pro Bowler who is going to have trouble getting as much playing time.
Another thing.....our O line is going to be totally different from last year. I think this is going to be a strength of our team. Synder is pushing Kwame's ass to perform. Jennings better watch his back too from Synder. Smiley is bigger meaner and nastier. Allen gives us so much Veteran leadership. I think he will have a lot more time in the pocket this year and our running game too will help our passing game. This is not your 2005 49ers!
August 8th, 2006 at 5:52 am
[...] I guess he’s under no obligation to be a cheerleader for his former organization, and I usually appreciate non-cookie-cutter comments from athletes, but this just feels wrong to me. On the other hand, maybe it just means Jerry is a reader of the p-f-r blog. [...]
August 8th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Statistical analysis is great, but never for football. If you want stats which truly reflect a game go to baseball.
There are way to many variables to ever put any deference in statistics when refering to the game of football for such reasons inter alia:
1. 11 players on the offense all functioning as one unit, where one player fails that consequence is felt elsewhere.
2. What is the coaching staff situation? Are all players learning the system for the first time? Are there other players of rookie status on the offense? Was the defense good enough to compensate for the offense to help put the offense in good situations? How old was the rookie?
- All of these questions lead to deletarious answers for A. Smith.
Any one who wishes to accuse A. Smith for the his problems is and chooses to be a fool. Facts:
-He was 21 years old, at least 2 years younger then the super majority of those on the list above.
-There was no probowlers on the offense last year to help out and no probowlers on the entire team.
-He was not the only rookie starting last year. 2 Olineman and other lineman were brought of the street.
-No other offensive threats, we had the absolute worst skill position talent in the league last year by a large margin.
Give the guy a break already.