|
Grittybeard posted:Let me try to see what this might have looked like back in 1990. I was thinking the same. I think almost by definition and the nature of competition, in any given year "about a third" of NFL QB's would be considered "bad". I don't think there's a "quarterback crisis" at all but, if there is, one factor may be the trend towards playing really young players early on rather than sitting them for a few years like teams used to do. Right now, we have: Great: Aaron Rogers Cam Newton Tom Brady Drew Brees Ben Roethlisberger Russel Wilson Really Good/Above Average Tony Romo Matt Ryan Matt Stafford Andrew Luck Phillips Rivers Eli Manning Joe Flacco Adequate Andy Dalton Ryan Fitzpatrick Alex Smith Jay Cutler Kirk Cousins Carson Palmer Ryan Tannehill Sam Bradford Rising Too early to say Carson Wentz Teddy Bridgewater Blake Bortles Marcus Mariotta Derek Carr Jameious Winston Brock Osweller Dak Prescott Tyrod Taylor Trevor Seiman Paxton Lynch Jared Goff Jimmy Garapolo Complete poo poo/Hopeless Case Keenum Mark Sanchez (is he in the league?) Blaine Gabbert RG3 Shaun Hill I don't know what to make of Kaepernick. I always thought he could play. I don't see a crisis here. Luck, Bortles, Winston, Mariotta, Wentz and Carr look to have bright futures. If anything, I think the position is on the rise. For comparison, I went back and looked at starters from 10 years ago, 2006: There are names on there like John Kitna, Chad Pennington, Rex Grossman, JP Losman, Jake Delhomme, David Carr, Matt Leinart, Vince Young, David Huard, David Garrard, Bruce Gradkowski, Byron Leftwich, Brad Johnson and Aaron Brooks. I think the ration of great to good to average to poo poo is about the same as it's always been.
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
There's a couple NFL QB's I still can't get a handle on. RG3 and Kaepernick showed enough to me to convince me that they could really play and somehow they both wound up in the "complete dogshit" category. I can't recall a recent QB who experienced such a rapid fall from grace; a future star who is now universally regarded as sucking. These two guys in particular seemed destined for stardom. Who else came out and set the league on fire so fast and then fell just as quickly like that? Maybe Nick Foles? I guess the jury is out on Luck but I think he'll be fine, he's just on a bad team.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
NC-17 posted:Carson Palmer adequate? wtf OK. Bump him up. I'm looking at his entire career here. Rating him higher only solidifies my point though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:
Why? Does Matt Ryan suck? Or did I rate him too low for you? So far I've been called out on Ryan and Carson Palmer, neither of which invalidates my argument, btw, and their lifetime stats seem to generally bear out my rankings. If we want to argue the difference between a "B" and an "A", I suppose we could but I'm not sure how it effects the overall point I made, which is that there's not really a "quarterback competency crisis" in the NFL at all. Carson Palmer and Matt Ryan are both perfectly good, solid NFL QB's, neither of which I think are going to the Hall of Fame or anything
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
I'm just saying no matter how you slot the guys, like I did, that compared to stuff that was going a decade ago (or even two decades) the ratio of good to great to average to suck is about the same. I'd say overall, it's slightly better but I haven't dug that far. I pulled that list more or less off the top of my head, only going back to check stats for Ryan and Palmer after a few guys called me out. I suppose you could slide Cutler and Tannehill down into "hopeless" by now, but, semantics aside, the ratio of great to decent to poor seem to me about the same as they've always been. People are quibbling over my ratings instead of looking at my overall point, which is that I disagree with the OP. Mariotta, Wentz, Luck, Bridgewater, Winston, Bortles, Carr (and even Prescott) could all become future stars. There's no crisis at the position.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Make hot takes, get hot replies. I didn't think my take was all that hot. Speaking of that though, someone brought up the much higher percentage of black athletes playing quarterback these days and today I heard a talk show host say that, after tonight, when New England starts whatever the gently caress his name is, that there will only be ONE team who's never started a black quarterback. Can you guess what team it is? The New York Giants. Without looking it up, I was going through the teams and trying to recall from memory if this was true. Off the top of my head, I can't remember any black QB starters from the Chargers, the Colts, the Chiefs, the Texans, the Broncos, the Dolphins or the Cardinals. Some teams took me a while but I'm still stick on the ones I listed. Didn't Warren Moon play for the Chiefs? I think Tony Banks played for the Texans in the expansion year or something but all I remember is David Carr. I'm totally stumped on the other ones but I know I can google it. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Also, probably safe at this point to move Cutler, Fitzgerald and probably Tannehill down into the "poo poo" category but, at the same time, probably equally safe to move Wentz, Prescott and Seimen up into "good" or "adequate" too. I don't see a competency crisis at the position in any way whatsoever. Just for kicks, I went back again - 20 years ago this time - and looked at the starters for each team. http://www.footballdb.com/stats/stats.html?mode=P&yr=1996&lg=NFL You've got Elway, Favre, Young, Aikmen and Marino (plus Jim Kelly and Boomer Esiason on the back end of their careers) but you've also got (decent) players like Bledsoe, Brad Johnson, Jef Hostetler along with guys like Jeff Blake, Ty Detmer, Chris Chandler, Gus Ferrotte, Kerry Collins, Stan Humphries, Scott Mitchell, Kent Graham (?), Bobby Hebert, Jim Harbaugh, Dave Krieg, Mark Brunell, Mike Tomzack and Tony Banks. Hardly legends.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Probably true but I wonder how much of that has to do with the increased ratio of passing to running plays? Maybe if anything there's a crisis of offensive lineman. You don't see teams these days just grind a defense down like the Redskins, the Giants, the Steelers and the Cowboys used to do. Only a few teams really just line up and punch you in the mouth anymore behind a wall of big angry ogres. For a long time there, several O-lines were the very definition of the team (90's Cowboys, 80's Redskins, 70's Raiders and Dolphins). Lastly, and pretty unrelated, I've always wondered how much the idea that "good teams run the football" has to with those winning teams usually being ahead and running the clock, hence running the ball more often and racking up more rushing yards. Teams that are routinely getting their asses kicked tend to throw more and vice versa. Anyone got any cool books or websites that analyze "football by the numbers" the way Bill James and Sabermetricians do with baseball? Correlating overall stats with winning and losing? I've always looked at yards per play, yards per play allowed and turnover differential as the most important stats, and I love reading this sort of thing, but football is so much different than baseball to analyze this way because it's so much more contextual. I've noticed over the last few years that these stats don't always translate to on field success the way they used to. A good team might give a lot of passing yards simply because they're ahead a lot and playing prevent. Similarly, they might have high rushing totals since they're protecting a lot of leads and grinding clock. TL/DR: I'm interested in good books or websites that analyze player and team performance using numbers , stats and context.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Badfinger posted:^^ People will baby whine because they hate numbers that they didn't grow up with and they can't trust with just a single glance, but your starting point on this is definitely Football Outsiders. Thanks for this. I've always liked crunching stats ever since I played table top card and dice sports games (Strat-O-Matic, Statis Pro, Avalon Hill, etc.) and first discovered Bill James "Baseball Abstract". Football, basketball and hockey are much harder to analyze this way since there's so many more players active during play. Like, a lot of baseball is "Pitcher vs. batter". With football, you have offensive line vs d-line, receivers vs coverage, guys blitzing or dropping back, down and distance, play calls, dropped passes, etc. I've always wondered what the one most consistent stat is for winning teams versus losing ones. Obviously it's PPG vs. PPGA, overall, but what translates into that? I'd guess it's turnover differential and yards per play differential. NFL stats can be weird to make sense of in a vacuum. "Total Yards Allowed (or gained)", which is how the NFL rates offense and defense, can be deceiving because teams that are up big give up a lot of garbage yards and trailing teams gain a lot of them. Like, right now, the Eagles lead the league in PPG but I don't think anyone thinks they have the best offense in the NFL. The Falcons lead in YPG and, again, I don't think anyone thinks Atlanta is the best offensive team in the league either. I'll check out that website.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 18:21
|
|