Comments on: The History of the Black QB: Part III football, statistics, and football statistics (and other stuff) Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:52:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: son of brock landers Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:40:23 +0000 I am pessimistic about Vince Young. He ran a 1 read offense in college. Look at your 1 option, if covered, scramble. Norm Chow had him in a 1 read offense in his first year starting to ease his transition to the NFL. This season they asked him to move beyond 1 read, and it produced awful results. Yes, he does have bad receivers, but he can't read defenses well, forces balls into coverage, and has passes batted down often for a guy who is 6 foot 5.

By: JKL Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:49:59 +0000 Just so I'm clear, I'm not arguing that Cunningham was good at avoiding sacks early in his career, or that it was a product of his line. I think a QB is at least as responsible for sack rate as the line. I'm only saying that the sack rate as calculated will overstate Cunningham's sack rate, because it doesn't consider the sacks he avoided by running. His rate is still on the well above average even if we added all rushes into the denominator.

Jason W, I would agree with you, to an extent. I would want to know how many first downs QB A picked up on those 8 throws relative to how many QB B picked up on the runs. If A gained more yards, but B picked up a higher % of first downs, it may be closer to a wash.

By: Chase Stuart Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:23:20 +0000 I started a poll over on the Footballguys message board. Here's something I posted there for those who think Cunningham's sack #s are just the product of a bad offensive line.

[I]n '90 and '92 the Eagles QBs as a group were 2nd in sack yards lost. In '91, the year Cunningham played one game, the Eagles QBs as a group were 11th in sack yards lost. In Cunningham's last year with the team, the 'Birds QBs as a group ranked 2nd in sack yards lost. The next season, they ranked 14th.

That's far from clear and convincing evidence that the Philadelphia OL under Cunningham was at least average. But I think it might shift the burden of proof a bit.

By: Jason W Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:13:24 +0000 There's no doubt Cunningham had an awful line when he was in Philly, but I once heard someone say that the reason he took so many sacks was that, because of his scrambling, the offensive linemen didn't know where to block for him.

JKL, I agree that your quarterback A/quarterback B comparison is one reason why Randall Cunningham and other scramblers might lose points for their seemingly high sack totals. The other question, though, is what do those quarterbacks do with those pass attempts?

If we assume they are the same in their 24 shared attempts and two sacks, we then compare where they're different: A's 8 rushes to B's 8 passes. 8 passes are very likely to gain more yardage than 8 rushes. That's why QB B gets rated higher in a pure "yards per attempt"-based model. If QB A was less of a runner and more of a smart/strong-armed/quick-release/cool-headed (take your pick) QB who could find the open man and pick up 15 yards rather than scramble for 6, he'd be rated higher.

By: JKL Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:42:21 +0000 Bowman,

Garrard just turned 30 yesterday, so he was 29 last season. Warren Moon, Trent Green, Kurt Warner, Jeff Garcia, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, and Bill Kenney all come to mind as guys who got their first real opportunities to start between ages 27-29, and had pretty good careers.

Of course, when the age increases, you also get a lot more guys like Steve Bono, Jay Fiedler, Hugh Millen or Tommy Maddox, than you would if he was age 24.

I would guess that the interception portion of his 2007 season was a fluke that will be difficult to repeat. This does not mean that he was not responsible for the low int's, just that it is the least consistent "QB skill", because (1) it is a relatively rare event per attempt, (2) things such tipped passes at the line falling into a defender's hands or not, a receiver juggling a pass which goes in to a defender's hands or not, or a pass going into a defender's hands, and whether he holds it or not, are out of the qb's control, and (3) game context, will the Jags be trailing in the 4th more in 2008? are all factors.

However, his YPA and TD% are reasons to think he is not an overall "fluke".

By: JKL Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:37:18 +0000 My gut reaction is I don't have as much a problem with simply adding in both rush yards and rush attempts to the NAYPA formula, without any adjustments such as rushes over 3.0 YPC, etc. Sure, there's some noise, but I wouldn't be too concerned over the kneel downs too much.

By: JKL Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:28:51 +0000

He [Cunningham] actually finished with a below average net adjusted yards per attempt ratio in all but one of his seasons as an Eagle.

Here, you are comparing him to the league average, which includes all the lead-footed passers. However, the NAYPA will overstate Cunningham's sack rate, and thus understate his passing value. In most cases, a rush attempt is a sack avoided, every bit as much as a pass incompletion or completion. Sure, there are going to be a few attempts that are by design, but for the most part, these attempts are occurring on original passing plays. But unlike the quarterback who throws it away, Cunningham does not get credit for getting away from a sack. His sack rate would still be high, but would be reduced by about 1.5% if you calculated NAYPA as [sacks/(sacks + pass attempts + rush attempts)].

Quarterback A throws 24 passes, runs the ball 8 times, and has 2 sacks. Quarterback B throws 32 passes, no rushes, and has 2 sacks. QB A has a sack rate of 8.3%, while QB B has a sack rate of 6.3%, but I would say they are roughly equal in their ability to avoid sacks.

I know you were touching on this with your previous post. I'm not sure if I can suggest an alternative that fairly captures it for a formula like AYNPA, because you would have to quantify the value of the rushing yards vs the passing yards to also include rush attempts in the denominator.

By: bowman Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:23:51 +0000 David Garrard is 30, which is normally not considered "young". However, he doesn't have the wear and tear of the average QB that has been starting for 6 years, so perhaps he's "football young?"

Garrard's status as a 5-year backup is unusual, so similarity scores and comparisons to peers are probably not totally accurate. Assuming his 2007 performance isn't a fluke, are there any legitamately good QBs that sat on the bench for so long?