I know preseason games are meaningless, blah blah blah, but Aaron Rodgers looked pretty good against Pittsburgh’s second and third teams last Saturday. So good, in fact, that I wonder if Mike McCarthy secretly wishes Brett Favre would retire (for real) already. Favre is still the starter — and there’s no indication that’ll change anytime soon — but McCarthy does have some expectations for the 17-year vet: “Brett needs to go out and have his best year statistically that he’s had in quite some time … Completion percentage. Low interceptions…”
posted
8-15-2007 at 10:41 AM by
Ryan Wilson
||
Extra Points
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Your names and email address are required --- it's part of an effort to reduce comment spam -- but your email address won't be displayed.
If you create a comment, but it doesn't display, that's probably because it didn't pass through our spam filter (make any references to erectile dysfunction medication?), and is living in Comment Limbo Land. Please don't try to post it 14 more times -- try again once, and if it doesn't go through, then send an email to webmaster-at-footballoutsiders.com and let us know. Mentions of ED drugs, poker games, and anything you get email spam about will likely cause your comment to be held for moderation.
Please respect our discussion threads by refraining from the following:
- comments about politics
- ad hominem attacks on other commenters
- posts designed to promote another website
- thread-hijacking, particularly by turning threads that are not about Tom Brady or Peyton Manning into arguments about Brady vs. Manning
- discussing Spygate except in the Irrational Spygate Argument Thread.
Such comments may be deleted.
If you want to reference a link, put it in the URI field (go Rams!). Please don't put the 'less than' sign in the comment text -- it's seen as the beginning of an HTML tag, and that just messes everything up.
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Best thing about McCarthy is that he stands up to Favre and doesn’t let Brett pull that “I’m a gunslinger and I’m Brett Favre so live with it” crap.
Still not sold on Rodgers though. Still grateful GB has a league-average or slightly better QB. But McCarthy has done a good job with Favre.
:: Mike W — 8/15/2007 @ 10:55 am
I don’t know how anyone else feels about this, but I sure like those 7-1 odds on Green Bay winning the division.
:: jebmak — 8/15/2007 @ 11:18 am
Please come back next year Brett! We Love You Brett!!!
:: Mr. Beefy — 8/15/2007 @ 11:20 am
BadgerT1000, who of course watches the Packers more closely than I, stated here that Favre’s physical skills started to noticeably slip towards the end of last year. If this is the case, and the trend continues, there is little chance that he’ll improve his decision making enough to overcome that deficit.
Before the draft, my assessment of the NFC North was pretty close in line with PFP 2008’s win projections of this summer, with the Packers likely to have the most wins, followed by the Bears. I am less confident in that now, because I increasingly think that this might be the year in which we see real age in Favre, purely in terms of his physical throwing ability, and there is a chance that Grossman could improve.
If that happens, then the fate of the Packers will rest on an unknown, Aaron Rodgers, just like the fate of the Vikings depends on Tavaris Jackson, and much of the fate of the Lions depends on whether Calvin Johnson is the mutant hybrid of Randy Moss and Jerry Rice.
No, I’m not predicting 50 tds and 5000 yards for Kitna, but if Johnson has one of the all-time great rookie years, then the Lions could outscore enough people to be competitive.
:: Will Allen — 8/15/2007 @ 11:32 am
#4 Only if Kitna can get the ball off in 1.5 seconds. That line is awful.
:: chip — 8/15/2007 @ 11:57 am
I don’t think Favre’s decision making was the problem in 2005. It was the fact that the Packers had to put the ball in the air about 50 times a game just to stay competitive.
:: Tom — 8/15/2007 @ 12:06 pm
I don’t think it really matters whether Favre or Rogers is the QB. They’ll struggle until they have a good running game and some decent receivers, just like every other team would.
:: Sundown — 8/15/2007 @ 12:25 pm
Yeah, chip, and that is what prevents me from fully buying in to the “Lions will be suprisingly better” theme I’ve seen in a few places. Martz has never put a premium on protecting the qb anyways, and Kitna’s pretty old. Perhaps the the ot they got from the Broncos will be an upgrade, and I’ve read where Woody is in much better shape.
I really don’t like the Bears this year, for a variety of reasons, but there isn’t much reason to like anybody else in the division, either, especially if Favre has a fall-off physically.
:: Will Allen — 8/15/2007 @ 12:40 pm
jebmak (#2)-
If 7-1 odds are available that sounds like a good price. In the UK the best odds against a Green Bay division title are 6-1, with 5-1 the general price. But the under-over on regular season wins is interesting: the general quote is 7.5 with under favoured (you can get 13/10 against +7.5), but a couple of bookmakers list the over-under at 6.5 wins. If PFP is to be believed, over 6.5 would be a very strong play indeed. (I have taken a bit of that doubled up with Jacksonville +8.5).
:: Jim Kimber — 8/15/2007 @ 1:09 pm
But I am worried about the tough start to the schedule: home to Philly, at the Giants, home to San Diego. I can see the Packers starting 0-3.
:: Jim Kimber — 8/15/2007 @ 1:12 pm
Farve’s passes have been getting shorter and shorter lately, and more reliant on YAC for decent numbers.
He’s not good enough any more to overcome all the interceptions he throws.
:: Brian — 8/15/2007 @ 1:41 pm
I have watched every pass that Favre has thrown in his entire career, most of them three or four or five times on recordings.
He’s been declining for a while. The very strong teams of 2003 and 2004 camouflaged his decline and the weaker teams of 2005 and 2006 provided excuses for those inclined to look for them.
The reality is that he’s not nearly as good a QB as many people still think he is. As he’s aging, his reactions are slowing down just enough that he’s relying more on “anticipation” and forcing more and more balls into tighter and tighter windows.
I think that if you average his 2005 and 2006 seasons and adjust for about 10%-20% fewer attempts and you’ll have a very good picture of what his numbers will be this year.
Nobody wants to see Favre benched for poor play or embarass himself with some terrible performances. But he wouldn’t be the first great quarterback whose career ended that way.
Unlikely he’ll be more careful with the ball. Under pressure, everybody reverts to form and Favre will forget about his teammates and try to do it all himself. “Turn it loose” is his way of saying “Just throw it without regard to how it might hurt the team”.
:: PackerNation — 8/15/2007 @ 2:04 pm
Brett Favre will be the most overhyped player of the year, with all these records in his sights. I can’t wait for FOX to cut away from the Cardinals game to let me know Favre is *almost* going to break a record.
:: ArizonaCardinalsFan — 8/15/2007 @ 3:18 pm
Does anybody want to take a swing at the softball Cardinalsfan lobbed up in the air?
:: Phil — 8/15/2007 @ 3:21 pm
I’d rather watch the cardinals than watch favre break a record. Not a cardinals fan either.
:: sam — 8/15/2007 @ 3:53 pm
I think I would rather have a good o-line with mediocre skill players, than vice versa.
Edgerin James showed what a “great” player can do behind a bad line.
The line is a prerequisite to a good offense, and the Packers should have solid if unspectacular unit.
I think Favre will be ok. He can’t do everything he used to but it looks like McCarthy will keep him reigned in.
The defense should keep them close enough that “Super Brett” doesn’t have to save the day with a 50 yard touchdown in to triple coverage every other play.
:: Grant — 8/15/2007 @ 5:03 pm
16 - Wasn’t last year’s Vikings team a good o-line with mediocre skill players?
Say what you will about Favre, but he’s still a fairly exciting player to watch. The Vikings offense last season, not so much.
:: Randy S. — 8/15/2007 @ 5:37 pm
17: No, last year’s Vikings team was a good line with awful skill players.
:: Yaguar — 8/15/2007 @ 5:55 pm
“Us? To be honest, we love Favre. We hope he’ll stick around for quite some time. He’s a gunslinger and we love him gor that”
:: The NFL North Defensive Backs — 8/15/2007 @ 6:01 pm
Re:#9,10 Jim Kimber
I actually did get a 7-1 on the Packers. I also took the Jags at 7-2 to take the division as well. I usually like the o/u on wins, but I think that both of the super bowl teams are not quite as good as people think, which makes the win division a little more enticing.
You are right about the Packers’ schedule though, those first three, or even (I think) five weeks look pretty rough, but if they don’t give up, those last nine weeks look really good.
:: jebmak — 8/15/2007 @ 6:37 pm
Will:
What happened last year was that Favre lost his legs as the season wore on which had a ripple effect on his overall game. In PRIOR years Favre had regressed but when compared relative to the LEAGUE, as opposed to his own peak standard, the decline was manageable. But in 2005 the line was horrible and despite Favre actually being in about as good a shape as one could expect from their 35 year old qb the combination of so many complicating factors (offensive line, lack of quality receivers, coach throwing in the towel, getting pounded each game, age regression) caused him to have a disasterous season. In 2006 the team around him improved but he clearly took a significant step back. One from which no amount of arm strength can compensate. It’s entirely possible that the residual effects of the pounding he took in 2005 coupled with simple age caused the most serious decline to date. Or maybe it’s just time. Though to his credit Favre DID make a legitimate effort to make better decisions. Early on he was quite restrained. As the team floundered he pressed but with flagging legs the old “ooomph” simply wasn’t there. It ain’t all about arm strength.
Favre was a superlative and then more than respectable quarterback through 2004. If he had had a head coach with a firmer grip of the reins it’s possible that the ugly throws and decisions of later years could have been reduced by some margin. As I have often stated, Favre is the idiot savant of quarterbacks. The mental game ain’t his bag. Folks can criticize him for a lack of discipline but I find that a curious designation as I tend to associate such a trait with an athlete who is lazy (not Favre), allows himself to get out of shape (not Favre), misses games due to being out of shape and lazy (not Favre), and is regarded by teammates as a slacker (not Favre). Teammates have resented Favre because of the preferential treatment afforded by Sherman. But who is really at fault for that? Favre or the coach? Favre has always responded to the firm hand. He made his career under Holmgren and had a brief resurgence with McCarthy before his body began to give out.
I know there are some who have called for Favre to step down for many a year. Even some are Packer fans. And there are even those who have made it a life’s mission to denigrate, demean, and otherwise dismiss the efforts of a player who only knows that he wants to play football. Somebody ELSE is going to have the stones to take the football out of Favre’s hands. Because not being the smartest knife in the drawer and only following instinct he is going to keep putting on the pads until they lock him out or he can’t get up.
I have also found it puzzling that those who demand he step aside never seem to proffer an alternative. When Rodgers was drafted he was not a viable option. He was soft. Even Aaron has said as much. NOW he is ready for the rigors of the NFL. And NOW, maybe, McCarthy will find the strength to do what is needed when the time comes.
It sure as heck wasn’t going to be Mike Sherman. And anyone who suggests otherwise is more clueless than Sherman on draft day.
:: BadgerT1000 — 8/15/2007 @ 8:43 pm
21, I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m just really really hoping he can keep the wheels from coming off this year, and then retires. If he comes back again, I’m convinced there’s no way he’d be able to keep it together, and he’d wind up getting benched. While I think he’ll enjoy it, I definitely think he truly could give a rats ass about breaking various records this year and that’s not the reason he came back for another season.
:: John — 8/15/2007 @ 10:49 pm
What a bunch of Favre bashers. So far in the televised scrimmage and the first preseason game, he’s looked like the same guy with the big arm, limited mobility, and always willing to force the ball into coverage. I’m biased as hell, but go read your Pro Football Prospectus 2007, p. 304: “Despite all constant talk about Favre’s demise, this has been his level play since 1998.” As the book says, Favre’s DVOA has been between 1% and 7% in 7 of the last 9 years.
:: Brandon — 8/16/2007 @ 1:37 am
Well said Badger. I also think that the thumb injury affects him more than people realize. He just isn’t gripping the ball as well as he did 10 years ago.
:: MCS — 8/16/2007 @ 9:35 am
MCS:
You are absolutely correct about the thumb injury. Since 1999 Favre has not been able to squeeze the ball as well as he once did particularly in cold weather. This has led to increased fumbles as well as the ball sailing out of his hand for what appear to be completely bizarre throws. The connection is pretty clear.
But I have stopped bringing up that injury since his detractors reply that since he’s playing it must not matter that much. Which I find nonsense. It’s more that Favre has the ability to produce while playing through an injury as opposed to the affect of the injury never existing.
One of Favre’s assets pre-thumb injury was his big hands and corresponding ability to squeeze the ball. Every scout around pointed out that if you wanted to determine what helped Favre play well in poor weather it was this combination–the big hands and strong grip.
The hands remain but the grip is seriously weakened. Hence, the decline in performance relative to his previous standard in poor conditions.
Thanks for pointing out that omission. Though don’t be surprised if anyone is still checking out this thread if it gets dismissed completely. That’s par for the course with folks who just want the simpleton’s explanation of “Favre stinks”.
:: BadgerT1000 — 8/16/2007 @ 10:10 am
23, we all know DVOA has its limitations (and yes, I did read that line PFP 2007). Also, limited mobility? Although he never had a ton a speed, he was a very mobile qb early in his career, and even today still has above average ability to avoid the rush. Favre is definitely one of the factors in GBs low adjusted sack rate.
:: John — 8/16/2007 @ 10:10 am
Here is where Farve stands as of 2006 regarding his lack of a deep passing threat.
http://www.bbnflstats.com/2007/08/2006-qb-air-yards.html
:: Brian — 8/16/2007 @ 6:28 pm
Post 27:
Your post suggests Favre doesn’t have a receiver capable of going deep. Your blog entry seems to say Favre CAN’T go deep.
Which is it?
By the way, the game plan in 2006 by McCarthy particularly early in the season was HIGHLY conservative. It was check down, check down, check down. And then more check down. So that’s something to consider.
Second, since Favre chased off Javon Walker (yes, it’s his own d*mn fault) there has not been a receiver on the roster really capable of breaking free of coverage downfield. Driver is a tremendous receiver but not a go deep guy. He’s a moves, get separation, get you 5-20 yards guy who every so often breaks free of coverage for a big gain. Jennings in 2006 was a Driver clone. Bubba Franks can’t separate from linebackers much less safeties so don’t anyone go there.
The Packers HAD a downfield threat in 2004 in Walker and if you check that season Favre hit Javon for some big plays. But again, Favre said stupid things, Walker rightly took offense, Favre refused to apologize and now the team is watching Walker light it up in Denver.
So ultimately, while Favre still CAN go downfield, there ain’t nobody there.
And it’s his own d*mn fault.
Though it wouldn’t have hurt if the coach had stepped in some time in 2005 and clobbered some sense into his qb. Even with Walker out with injury somebody should have been thinking of the future.
But Mike SHerman, as he did repeatedly in GB, refused to confront Favre.
Such a p*ssy…….
:: BadgerT1000 — 8/16/2007 @ 9:22 pm
Re:28
I completely agree QBs need WRs to get open for deep passes.
My only point on Brett is that without all those screen passes and check downs to the RBs for gobs of YAC, his numbers would be Andrew Walter-esque.
Plus, if you look at other teams with equally poor wide outs (BAL and NE of ‘06) come to mind), their QBs managed to have fewer INTs and more yards.
My personal opinion is that I’m tired of almost 10 years of hearing that GB needs to build a team around Favre so HE can win again. He’s a great competitor, but the reasons for GB’s recent difficulties include the QB position. The best thing you can say about him now is that he’s almost league average.
:: Brian — 8/16/2007 @ 11:26 pm
29:
“My only point on Brett is that without all those screen passes and check downs to the RBs for gobs of YAC, his numbers would be Andrew Walter-esque.”
What makes you think that YAC isn’t a reflection of QB talent? How do you know that the receivers would have as many YAC with a lesser QB? And please don’t tell me to follow the link in your name. All you showed is that Completion % and Interception % don’t correlate with YAC. That doesn’t prove that QBs don’t have an effect on YAC.
Using Completion % as a way to measure accuracy ignores the fact that the kind of accuracy that contributes to a high Completion % isn’t necessarily the same kind of accuracy that contributes to YAC. For instance, if QB A consistently gets the ball close enough to a receiver that the receiver can catch the ball right before getting drilled by a defender, he might very easily get a high completion %. However, that type of accuracy would be useless for generating YAC, because QB A wouldn’t be getting them the ball with enough time to run past any defenders. On the other hand, QB B isn’t as consistent about getting the ball near his receivers, but when he does, he always hits them in stride, allowing them to continue running past defenders instead of getting drilled. QB B would have a relatively low Completion % and yet a very high YAC. So you can’t just dismiss the idea of QBs contributing to YAC so easily.
Also, if QBs didn’t have any effect on YAC, then how come Donovan McNabb averaged 7.4 YAC, while Jeff Garcia averaged only 4.1 YAC, with the exact same receivers?!
Click the link in my name to see the FO article discussing QB YAC, and you’ll find that QBs are relatively consistent in YAC from year to year.
“The best thing you can say about him now is that he’s almost league average.”
Well, since his DVOA was positive last year (and for the last 7+ years), despite the fact that he has only one good receiver to throw to, and his line was breaking in 2 new guards, I’m going to go out on a limb and say he’s still an above average NFL quarterback.
:: Alex — 8/17/2007 @ 1:35 am
#13
You should be thankful when they cut away from the Cardinals games, you may actually get something in HD.
:: Hyatt — 8/17/2007 @ 9:50 am
YAC is uncorrelated to QB accuracy. It’s extremely strong and unbiased evidence. I expected to find the opposite, but I’m surprised just as you are.
The difference between McNabb’s and Garcia’s YAC can be explained by what kind of throws they’re attempting. McNabb was likely checking down to Westbrook and other outlet receivers, while Garcia was going deep more often.
I’ll grant you that Favre doesn’t enjoy a great receiving corps, but neither do many QBs who manage to do better.
DVOA isn’t the only measure of a QB. I understand that Favre is a very emotional issue for some (like my brother-in-law). No amount of empirical evidence will convince the cheeseheads to let go. But try this one: Brad Johnson did just as well last year, and he’s watching this season on a Samsung.
In all honesty, there is a gaping logical fallacy in the FO article you refer to. It says that there is a 0.33 correlation in QB YAC from year-to-year and a 0.41 correlation for QBs on the same team. In fact, that is completely what we’d expect if YAC is predominatnly dependent on the receiver corps.
[Here’s the math: r-squared of 0.41 correlation between QB on same team and YAC = 0.16. R-squared of all QBs = 0.11. So, the proportion of variance in YAC accounted for by a QB independent of his receiver corps is 0.16 - 0.11 = 0.05. That’s a whopping 5% of YAC variance attributable to the QB.]
In other words, the numbers cited in that article are completely consistent with the opposite of what the article contends.
The bottom line is: Favre is not only inaccurate, he also throws short. That’s bad, and there’s no way around that.
PS Alex–no hard feelings, this is all just in fun. We’ll see how Favre does in 2007. Prediction: Aaron Rodgers is starting by mid-season and Favre goes nuclear.
:: Brian — 8/18/2007 @ 1:20 am
I took another look at that article. It only compared 2005 and part of 2006. My study looked at 2002-2006.
Here are some quotes from the article that indicate how far the author has to contort the analysis to fit his premise:
“Last year’s top quarterback in YAC was Jake Delhomme, and he’s fallen to the middle of the pack this year…The rest of this year’s top five: Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard, Mark Brunell, and Brett Favre. Brunell was third last year, but Garrard was near the bottom of the YAC rankings last year…Garrard went from 43rd to third, and Leftwich went from 33rd to eighth…Tom Brady was one of last year’s leaders, but he’s middle of the pack this year …The bottom five: Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Joey Harrington, Peyton Manning, Steve McNair. All of those guys were middle of the pack in 2005 except Hasselbeck …
There are a lot of other guys who are near the bottom in YAC both years, though — they just aren’t bottom FIVE this season.”
That’s a lot of QBs swinging wildly from top to middle to bottom in terms of YAC, just in one year. If YAC is dependent on QBs, why is there a laundry list of passers who jump from top to bottom of the list?
Also, note the explanation for Delhomme and Brady. The author contends their year-to-year difference in YAC is due to their receivers.
:: Brian — 8/18/2007 @ 1:39 am
I took another look at that article. It only compared 2005 and part of 2006. My study looked at 2002-2006.
Here are some quotes from the article that indicate how far the author has to contort the analysis to fit his premise:
“Last year’s top quarterback in YAC was Jake Delhomme, and he’s fallen to the middle of the pack this year…The rest of this year’s top five: Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard, Mark Brunell, and Brett Favre. Brunell was third last year, but Garrard was near the bottom of the YAC rankings last year…Garrard went from 43rd to third, and Leftwich went from 33rd to eighth…Tom Brady was one of last year’s leaders, but he’s middle of the pack this year …The bottom five: Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Joey Harrington, Peyton Manning, Steve McNair. All of those guys were middle of the pack in 2005 except Hasselbeck …
There are a lot of other guys who are near the bottom in YAC both years, though — they just aren’t bottom FIVE this season.”
That’s a lot of QBs swinging wildly from top to middle to bottom in terms of YAC, just in one year. If YAC is dependent on QBs, why is there a laundry list of passers who jump from top to bottom of the list?
Also, note the explanation for Delhomme and Brady. The author contends their year-to-year difference in YAC is due to their receivers.
:: Brian — 8/18/2007 @ 1:39 am
I took another look at that article. It only compared 2005 and part of 2006. My study looked at 2002-2006.
Here are some quotes from the article that indicate how far the author has to contort the analysis to fit his premise:
“Last year’s top quarterback in YAC was Jake Delhomme, and he’s fallen to the middle of the pack this year…The rest of this year’s top five: Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard, Mark Brunell, and Brett Favre. Brunell was third last year, but Garrard was near the bottom of the YAC rankings last year…Garrard went from 43rd to third, and Leftwich went from 33rd to eighth…Tom Brady was one of last year’s leaders, but he’s middle of the pack this year …The bottom five: Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Joey Harrington, Peyton Manning, Steve McNair. All of those guys were middle of the pack in 2005 except Hasselbeck …
There are a lot of other guys who are near the bottom in YAC both years, though — they just aren’t bottom FIVE this season.”
That’s a lot of QBs swinging wildly from top to middle to bottom in terms of YAC, just in one year. If YAC is dependent on QBs, why is there a laundry list of passers who jump from top to bottom of the list?
Also, note the explanation for Delhomme and Brady. The author contends their year-to-year difference in YAC is due to their receivers.
:: Brian — 8/18/2007 @ 1:39 am
I took another look at that article. It only compared 2005 and part of 2006. My study looked at 2002-2006.
Here are some quotes from the article that indicate how far the author has to contort the analysis to fit his premise:
“Last year’s top quarterback in YAC was Jake Delhomme, and he’s fallen to the middle of the pack this year…The rest of this year’s top five: Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard, Mark Brunell, and Brett Favre. Brunell was third last year, but Garrard was near the bottom of the YAC rankings last year…Garrard went from 43rd to third, and Leftwich went from 33rd to eighth…Tom Brady was one of last year’s leaders, but he’s middle of the pack this year …The bottom five: Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Joey Harrington, Peyton Manning, Steve McNair. All of those guys were middle of the pack in 2005 except Hasselbeck …
There are a lot of other guys who are near the bottom in YAC both years, though — they just aren’t bottom FIVE this season.”
That’s a lot of QBs swinging wildly from top to middle to bottom in terms of YAC, just in one year. If YAC is dependent on QBs, why is there a laundry list of passers who jump from top to bottom of the list?
Also, note the explanation for Delhomme and Brady. The author contends their year-to-year difference in YAC is due to their receivers.
:: Brian — 8/18/2007 @ 1:39 am
I took another look at that article. It only compared 2005 and part of 2006. My study looked at 2002-2006.
Here are some quotes from the article that indicate how far the author has to contort the analysis to fit his premise:
“Last year’s top quarterback in YAC was Jake Delhomme, and he’s fallen to the middle of the pack this year…The rest of this year’s top five: Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard, Mark Brunell, and Brett Favre. Brunell was third last year, but Garrard was near the bottom of the YAC rankings last year…Garrard went from 43rd to third, and Leftwich went from 33rd to eighth…Tom Brady was one of last year’s leaders, but he’s middle of the pack this year …The bottom five: Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Joey Harrington, Peyton Manning, Steve McNair. All of those guys were middle of the pack in 2005 except Hasselbeck …
There are a lot of other guys who are near the bottom in YAC both years, though — they just aren’t bottom FIVE this season.”
That’s a lot of QBs swinging wildly from top to middle to bottom in terms of YAC, just in one year. If YAC is dependent on QBs, why is there a laundry list of passers who jump from top to bottom of the list?
Also, note the explanation for Delhomme and Brady. The author contends their year-to-year difference in YAC is due to their receivers.
:: Brian — 8/18/2007 @ 1:39 am
I took another look at that article. It only compared 2005 and part of 2006. My study looked at 2002-2006.
Here are some quotes from the article that indicate how far the author has to contort the analysis to fit his premise:
“Last year’s top quarterback in YAC was Jake Delhomme, and he’s fallen to the middle of the pack this year…The rest of this year’s top five: Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard, Mark Brunell, and Brett Favre. Brunell was third last year, but Garrard was near the bottom of the YAC rankings last year…Garrard went from 43rd to third, and Leftwich went from 33rd to eighth…Tom Brady was one of last year’s leaders, but he’s middle of the pack this year …The bottom five: Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Joey Harrington, Peyton Manning, Steve McNair. All of those guys were middle of the pack in 2005 except Hasselbeck …
There are a lot of other guys who are near the bottom in YAC both years, though — they just aren’t bottom FIVE this season.”
That’s a lot of QBs swinging wildly from top to middle to bottom in terms of YAC, just in one year. If YAC is dependent on QBs, why is there a laundry list of passers who jump from top to bottom of the list?
Also, note the explanation for Delhomme and Brady. The author contends their year-to-year difference in YAC is due to their receivers.
:: Brian — 8/18/2007 @ 1:39 am
Oops.
:: Brian — 8/18/2007 @ 1:41 am
YAC is uncorrelated to QB accuracy. It’s extremely strong and unbiased evidence. I expected to find the opposite, but I’m surprised just as you are.
First off, I wasn’t surprised about it. Secondly, QB accuracy is not the same as completion %, so you’ve only proven that YAC is uncorrelated to Completion %. Which is interesting, but it doesn’t prove that QBs have no effect on YAC. You’ve basically said that since YAC doesn’t correlate with Completion %, it therefore doesn’t correlate with any skill that a QB has. You’re jumping to conclusions way too fast, there.
DVOA isn’t the only measure of a QB. I understand that Favre is a very emotional issue for some (like my brother-in-law). No amount of empirical evidence will convince the cheeseheads to let go. But try this one: Brad Johnson did just as well last year, and he’s watching this season on a Samsung.
Wait, Brad Johnson was just as good in what rankings? Your rankings? You can’t use those rankings to prove you’re right, they’re the ones being disputed. By DPAR, Favre was better than Johnson by a million miles. Granted, he had more good receivers (1, instead of 0), but still, Favre performed better than Johnson did. And I’m not some sobbing cheesehead, I just object to the idea that just because someone doesn’t throw deep, he’s not a good QB.
The difference between McNabb’s and Garcia’s YAC can be explained by what kind of throws they’re attempting. McNabb was likely checking down to Westbrook and other outlet receivers, while Garcia was going deep more often.
Am I trippin, or did you just say Garcia was a better QB than McNabb last year?!?
…OK, I see. In addition to having moxie, swagger, and leadership, and being a clutch winner, Garcia was better than McNabb because he threw deeper passes. Yep, totally. They never should’ve let Garcia take his cannon arm to Tampa Bay. McNabb is just a glorified game manager who scrapes by with check downs and screens, letting his WRs and RBs do all the work, while he takes all the glory. Rush Limbaugh was right, McNabb is overrated.
(/sarcasm)
Seriously, you start to lose credibility when you say things like Garcia was better than McNabb.
Philadelphia’s Offensive DVOA was lower with Garcia throwing “deeper passes” than it was with McNabb’s “checkdowns”, despite the fact that they had the same teammates and coaches. There are only a few reasonable explanations for this:
1) Garcia was not as good as McNabb at throwing the types of passes that gain lots of YAC.
2) Garcia was just as good at the short throws, but preferred to throw deep because
a) he was stupid, and thought that the offense would be better if he did, or
b) he was selfish, and wanted to be known as a gunslinger.
3) Garcia was just as good at shorter throws, and wanted to throw more of them to help the team, but the coaches pushed him to throw deep more, because they were stupid.
That’s pretty much it. Maybe there are a few others, but I think these are the main ones. So, which explanation is it?
1) I’m going with this one.
2)
a) Quick, who are the only QBs in NFL history with more pass attempts and fewer interceptions than Jeff Garcia? Answer: Neil O’Donnell and some guy named McNabb. Not much room for stupid people on that list.
b) I’m going to charitably assume that Garcia isn’t that selfish.
3) Contrary to public opinion, Andy Reid and the other Eagles coaches do know how to run an NFL offense. They didn’t have a top-10 offense for three of the last four years by luck.
I don’t care how many “air yards per attempt” Garcia had last year, he wasn’t better than McNabb.
:: Alex — 8/18/2007 @ 12:20 pm
McNabb is an excellent QB, but something obviously clicked for Garcia last year. Remember, Garcia had a couple very strong years in SF. I’m not saying Garcia IS better, just that in 2006, for 6 games, he DID better.
The list I posted is only based on Air Yards so far. I have not factored in sacks and interceptions yet. I’ll have that on Monday. You’ll see Garcia still edges McNabb, but they are very close.
Who had a better winning % as QB last year, Garcia or McNabb? By the way, how many wins is swagger worth?
Here is a very plausible answer to your question about why Garcia threw deeper: Opposing defenses took away the short routes, and Garcia was able to adapt.
—————
Favre: 56% completion rate, 6.3 yards/att, 72.7 NFL QB Rating
Johnson: 62% completion rate, 6.3 yards/att, 72.0 NFL QB Rating
—————
I’m not the only person that notices this. Favre’s own coach said it best: “Brett needs to go out and have his best year statistically that he’s had in quite some time.”
I’m not claiming Air Yards is the perfect measure of a QB, but it’s much better than total yards. At the very least, it’s enlightening to know how a QB tends to get his yards.
The reason why it’s a better measure is simple. Short passes are easier to complete, deep passes are harder. It’s almost always better to have a deep throw than a short throw.
Lastly, it’s better have an accurate deep passer (Garcia) than an inaccurate short passer (Favre).
I’m sure by week 9 Brett will do great holding that cliboard and wearing his ballcap! Maybe GB can trade for Garcia next year?
:: Brian — 8/18/2007 @ 1:16 pm
I forgot to respond to your point about McNabb being better at throwing passes that get a lot of YAC.
That could be true but that’s not saying much. YAC doesn’t come from big passes where the WR jukes the DB and runs for a touchdown. It comes overwhelmingly from short outlet passes to RBs.
In the past 5 years, 49 out of the top 50 players in YAC/reception were running backs. A TE (Cooley) was the other. I’ve got all the data if you like, but I won’t list all the players here.
One of the top 5 players in YAC was Ahman Green in 2006 (9.6 yds/rec). Westbrook was in the top 10.
To say McNabb was better at throwing outlets to his RB than Garcia isn’t worth much. David Carr or Charlie Frye can do that.
:: Brian — 8/18/2007 @ 3:09 pm
I’m not saying Garcia IS better, just that in 2006, for 6 games, he DID better.
But he didn’t. His DVOA was lower than McNabb’s, despite having the exact same team, system, coaches, etc. He wasn’t worse by much, but he didn’t play better.
Who had a better winning % as QB last year, Garcia or McNabb?
It is not McNabb’s job to block long, game-winning field goals, or cause the Eagles to have better luck. The Eagles weren’t a better team with Garcia, their luck just evened out. They weren’t much worse, because Garcia wasn’t much of a drop-off from McNabb, but they definitely weren’t better.
By the way, how many wins is swagger worth?
Well, if you believe the mainstream media, 3 or 4. ;)
Here is a very plausible answer to your question about why Garcia threw deeper: Opposing defenses took away the short routes, and Garcia was able to adapt.
Man, it’s a wonder that opposing defenses didn’t do that to McNabb. If he wasn’t able to adapt, they could’ve shut him down instead of letting him run wild, like he did. Wait a second. Maybe they didn’t do that because they knew that if they did, he’d throw bombs all day and they’d be really screwed. Nope, that can’t be it, the defenses the Eagles faced early in the year just had stupid coordinators.
Favre: 56% completion rate, 6.3 yards/att, 72.7 NFL QB Rating
Johnson: 62% completion rate, 6.3 yards/att, 72.0 NFL QB Rating
Favre: 4.0% DVOA, 46.0 DPAR
Johnson: -12.2% DVOA, 1.8 DPAR
Favre was far better at converting first downs and keeping drives alive, and he faced slightly tougher defenses. That’s why he played better last year.
Favre’s own coach said it best: “Brett needs to go out and have his best year statistically that he’s had in quite some time.�
I agree with the coach. If Green Bay is going to win the Super Bowl, he definitely needs to have his best year in quite some time. He would probably need to be a top-5 passer for that team to win a SB, and he hasn’t been in the top 5 in DPAR since 2001. That’s not at all inconsistent with him being a somewhat above average QB on a team with random guys at most other skill positions.
At the very least, it’s enlightening to know how a QB tends to get his yards.
I absolutely agree. But I just have a problem with going from, “oh, that’s interesting that he got more yards from YAC than this other guy” to saying that YAC isn’t an indicator of a QB’s skill.
Lastly, it’s better have an accurate deep passer (Garcia) than an inaccurate short passer (Favre).
You’re saying Garcia was better than Favre last year? Yeah, I agree with that, too. I’m in a pretty agreeable mood, it seems. Very good is better than somewhat above average.
Short passes are easier to complete, deep passes are harder.
(/agreeable mood)
Not necessarily. It depends on what the defense does. If the safeties are playing close to the line, and the CBs aren’t giving the WRs any cushion, short passes are harder. Any idiot with a decent arm can throw a pass 20-25 yards to a WR if he’s wide open, which he often would be in those circumstances.
That could be true but that’s not saying much. YAC doesn’t come from big passes where the WR jukes the DB and runs for a touchdown. It comes overwhelmingly from short outlet passes to RBs…To say McNabb was better at throwing outlets to his RB than Garcia isn’t worth much. David Carr or Charlie Frye can do that.
I guess I haven’t been explaining things very clearly. While I do think there is some difference in the skill level of various QBs in throwing outlet passes to RBs, and WR screens, that’s not really where the QB’s main contribution to YAC lies.
You’re right, of course, that any idiot can throw a pass 4 yards to a RB and watch him run 10 yards with it. The thing is, if any idiot were behind center, the CBs and safeties wouldn’t need to play back as far from the line of scrimmage, and the RB wouldn’t have any room to run before being tackled.
Imagine you’re an NFL Defensive Coordinator. The opposing team has a QB who’s great at throwing deep passes. You understandably don’t want him to throw those passes when he plays your team, so you have your safeties play farther back from the line of scrimmage, and your CBs give the WRs plenty of cushion. This allows your secondary to be in better position to defend against deep passes.
But you don’t get something for nothing: being in better position to defend against deep passes leaves you in worse position to defend short passes. So, if you’re the QB, and the team leaves it’s secondary farther back because they’re afraid of your arm, you would naturally choose to throw a shorter pass (well, unless you’re Rex Grossman, but I digress). This would let your WR/RB gain lots of YAC because all of the defenders are too far downfield to catch them quickly.
So, the skill of getting YAC isn’t so much in actually throwing the ball to the WR/RB, it’s being good enough at deep throws that the defense is forced to give you the opportunity to make such a throw.
I mean, yes, if all a QB ever does is checkdowns to RBs, then he hasn’t really done anything too special. But virtually no NFL defense will let a QB constantly beat them with checkdowns without testing their ability on a deep pass at least once in a game. And even if they did, that’s only if they’ve watched a lot of tape of that guy destroying opponents with deep throws.
Specifically, regarding McNabb and Garcia, if you click the link in my name, you’ll see an FO mailbag describing the QBs with the best completion percentages by pass distance. McNabb is one of the best in the NFL at deep passes. He’s better than Garcia, and almost anyone else. This would naturally lead one to wonder, if he’s so good at it, why he doesn’t do it more often. However, if he threw deep when the defense was playing it’s safeties and CBs back from the line, he would become Rex Grossman, instead of an elite QB. Defenses understandably didn’t want him throwing it deep, and so they played a little further back off the line than normal. When they did this, McNabb made the smart decision to throw a short pass to Westbrook, et al., and snicker as he watched the defense desperately try to get back in position to make the tackle. Defenses gave him this opportunity quite often. And can you blame them? After watching him throw one long bomb, I’d be mighty tempted to force him to make a few dozen short passes the rest of the game, and hope that my defense could force a fumble eventually, or something like that.
Garcia, on the other hand, didn’t have as strong an arm as McNabb, and wasn’t as good at deep passes. He could make them, if the WR got enough separation, but he wasn’t so good that defenses would be particularly afraid of his arm. What he was good at was the short-to-intermediate length passes, like the 8 yard hooks Art Monk is famous for catching, where the WR wouldn’t gain much YAC because he’s going in the wrong direction when he catches it. If you take out his YAC, and just look at how far he was throwing the ball in the air, his average distance (on completions, anyway) was about 8 or 9 yards. That’s not really a deep pass, it’s more in the intermediate range. Basically, he was consistently completing 8 yard hooks, and other intermediate length passes, while occasionally going deep when he got the chance.
Now, Garcia was very good at those short and intermediate length passes, but there is a good reason why McNabb had a better YAC: McNabb was better at deep throws, and defenses knew this, and let him gain lots of yards throwing shorter passes to Westbrook, because the alternative was far worse. That’s why YAC are at least partly due to a QB’s skill, in addition to the skill of the people catching the ball.
:: Alex — 8/18/2007 @ 7:21 pm
Sorry about the long post. I Guess I was channeling Tolstoy for a while there.
:: Alex — 8/18/2007 @ 8:35 pm
Alex-
You’ll be releived to know that after factoring in rushing and fumbles, McNabb edges Garcia in Wins Added for 2006 (1.22 vs. 0.96 wins per 16 games).
Unfortunately, Favre still stinks (-1.07 wins).
:: Brian — 8/19/2007 @ 9:28 pm
You’ll be releived to know that after factoring in rushing and fumbles, McNabb edges Garcia in Wins Added for 2006 (1.22 vs. 0.96 wins per 16 games).
That does make me feel a little better.
Unfortunately, Favre still stinks (-1.07 wins).
See, here’s the problem I have with this: Favre had conventional statistics (and air yards/attempt) that were virtually identical to Brad Johnson’s. Yet Favre destroyed Johnson in DPAR.
This tells us something important: Favre accumulated his statistics in more difficult and important situations than Johnson did.
For instance, consider the following scenario:
-Favre throws a 6 yard pass (which goes 4 yards in the air) on 3rd and 3.
-Johnson also throws a 6 yard pass (which goes 4 yards in the air) on 3rd and 12.
Both of these passes give the QB the same yards/att, QB rating, comp %, and even the same air yards/att. But while one of them is a valuable, relatively difficult throw, the other is a useless checkdown that the defense probably wasn’t even trying to stop. You see where I’m going here? There’s a reason Green Bay was 11th in the NFL in 3rd down conversion %, while Minnesota was 28th.
Obviously, you’re not going to be able to account for this without having the play-by-play, and to account for situational differences with air yards, you’d need the game-charting data, or something like it. I imagine that would be a pain to do, and it probably wouldn’t matter too much in general, but in some cases it’s important.
Specifically, if you want to make the case that DPAR is wrong about Favre, then you’re going to have to show that not only did he have a low air yards/att, but that his air yards/att in each situation was (on average) lower than the average air yards/att in that situation.
In any case, I think you’re research is fascinating stuff, so keep it up. Just be careful about jumping to conclusions.
:: Alex — 8/19/2007 @ 11:37 pm
DPAR and DVOA are useful, but they to some degree “beg the question” in most classical sense. In other words, they say a player is good because he was successful. It’s a little circular.
Keep in mind my original point: QB successes credited to Favre by DPAR/DVOA include all those YAC yards that Ahman Green scrambled for. QB DPAR/DVOA is valuable, but they say as much about the GB short-pass receivers as it does about Favre.
Anyway, you really motivated me to do my homework:
http://www.bbnflstats.com/2007/08/who-gets-credit-for-yac-follow-up.html
Thanks for keeping me honest, and I’ll make sure to look out for your comments on FO.
:: Brian — 8/20/2007 @ 11:53 pm
More here: http://www.bbnflstats.com/2007/08/yac-receiver-correlation.html
:: Brian — 8/21/2007 @ 2:24 pm
DPAR and DVOA are useful, but they to some degree “beg the question� in most classical sense. In other words, they say a player is good because he was successful.
There are only two explanations for how a player could be successful in an opponent and situation adjusted statistic:
1) He is good.
2) His teammates are good enough that he looks better than he is.
That’s all DPAR and DVOA claim to say. It’s not circular at all.
Wrt Favre, I get that Ahman Green was good, and that he got a lot of YAC, but you’re not taking into account that Favre was throwing in an inordinate amount of short-yardage situations. Throwing in short-yardage situations leads to lower Yards/Att (and lower Air Yards/Att) simply because of the situation.
For instance, say it’s 3rd-and-2. Favre throws a dumpoff to Ahman Green that goes 3 yards in the air, and Green runs 8 yards with it. Your rankings think that’s a bad pass by Favre, because it only went 3 yards in the air, despite the fact that his throw would have gained a first down without any YAC.
Unless you adjust for the situation, you’re basically punishing QBs for throwing successful passes in situations that only require a few yards. And I’m not just saying this because I like Brett Favre. Tom Brady is another QB that’s underrated in your rankings for much the same reason, and I hate his guts. But if you’re going to try to tell me that his receivers, the best of whom was Reche “Bug Eyes” Caldwell, were making him look better than he was, then we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
Oh, and one other thing:
YAC doesn’t come from big passes where the WR jukes the DB and runs for a touchdown. It comes overwhelmingly from short outlet passes to RBs.
I don’t know about that. In 2006, anyway, the Packers’ Running Backs accounted for about 43% of the team’s total YAC. Hardly an overwhelming proportion there. Sure, RBs gain more YAC per reception, but they typically don’t get as many receptions as the wide receivers and tight ends.
:: Alex — 8/24/2007 @ 3:16 pm