Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web



16 Oct 2009

Peak Quarterbacks, Part II

Neil Paine at P-F-R has a second look at projecting peak performance for quarterbacks using YAR estimates.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 16 Oct 2009

32 comments, Last at 19 Oct 2009, 3:36pm by Bowl Game Anomaly

Comments

1
by djanyreason :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 3:57pm

Peyton Manning is clearly rated too high in 9-consecutive-year peak because he doesn't have enough Super Bowl rings. Tom Brady is way better than this.

3
by Bobman :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 4:30pm

Next week is the much-awaited clutch/choker analysis tabulated by Gator and Patriot fans, the only two groups still desperately clinging to such myths.

What kills me is how 2008, an MVP year, isn't in ANY of Manning's best consecutive streaks. I know it started out rocky, but ended with a flourish. Weird. But damn, when you add up your best statistical seasons and can say "Oh, don't include that MVP year, it was no good," I think you have a pretty good opus,eh?

15
by matt w (not verified) :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 7:32pm

I believe the original poster is using the regulation zlionsfan DVOA troll template, and is not serious.

18
by JasonG (not verified) :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 8:22pm

But he forgot egregious misspellings so it was harder to grasp the intended ignorance.

25
by bsr (not verified) :: Sat, 10/17/2009 - 6:13pm

Maybe because football isn't all about compiling stats? Oh no, that can't be it.

2
by Keith (1) (not verified) :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 4:02pm

So, Peyton Manning has been the best the longest? SHOCKING.

12
by Theo :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 6:43pm

BREAKING: water still wet.

4
by Craig B (not verified) :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 4:52pm

I am always amused by Patriot nation when they maintain that Brady is better than Peyton M. because of more rings. They conveniently forget to include one Terry Bradshaw in the discussion when they do that. There are probably not more than a couple of dozen Steelers fans deluded enough to think that Terry B is the greatest QB of the Super Bowl era. I find it amusing that his principal support comes in left-handed fashion from Patriots nation.

It will be interesting to see how much longer the Patriots' front office can continue the "come play for us at under market value, and win a ring" scam now that the O-line is unable to protect Brady and the defense can't dominate the line of scrimmage any more. Maybe without the aid of the under-market scam, we will find out just how good a QB Brady is. I find his rankings in these articles to be pretty reasonable.

7
by JasonG (not verified) :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 6:13pm

See, I'm always amused ... no, I can't that back, it's completely infuriating at this day and age that QBs are measured by wins and losses. Football is the ultimate team game. Eleven men elaborately orchestrated to take on another group of elaborately orchestrated eleven men. Then introduce 22 more men, plus schemes, when the ball switches teams. Then there are 6 special teams scenarios with different personnel as well. Why is any one individual credited with wins and losses? Centers don't get evaluated by their won-loss record. Middle linebackers don't. None of the other 21 starters or 52 rostered men do. Any explanation why QBs should be evaluated in such a way is either unreasonable or short-sighted.

Tom Brady is a very good QB. He's absolutely excellent with a good offensive line, lots of time to throw, a very good group of receivers and creative plays. He's not as good when he's injured, his line isn't as good, he's under more pressure and his receivers are injured or not as good. Is this really that profound a statement? Is it really that hard for people to understand? It applies to every QB that ever existed on this planet. He alone does not dictate wins and losses. And I haven't even brought in the impact the quality of his defense and special teams (more than 50% of the game), of which he has ZERO impact on.

Tom Brady did not win 3 Super Bowls. The New England Patriots TEAM won 3 SBs. The Indianapolis Colts TEAM won 1 SB. Everybody please stop measuring Brady and Manning just by those last two sentences. It's ignorant beyond belief.

23
by bsr (not verified) :: Sat, 10/17/2009 - 12:00pm

I am always amused when QBs can't be measured by wins and loses because it is a team sport but Peyton Manning apparently is single handedly responsible for all of his passing stats. Apparently he can block for himself and catch his own passes.

How about we don't measure QBs by any one single accomplishment and instead look at the whole package? Regular season performance, playoff performance, yards, TDs, QB rating, YAR, Wins, Losses, Superbowls, everything all together. There isn't just one way to rate a QB.

8
by Boston Dan :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 6:26pm

BrianB: "Maybe without the aid of the under-market scam, we will find out just how good a QB Brady is. I find his rankings in these articles to be pretty reasonable."

Do you think we've yet to find out how good he really is or that his rankings in these articles is pretty reasonable?

For the record, I am a rational Pats fan that knows Manning is better.

5
by Independent George :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 5:02pm

Are we going to have to re-open the irrational thread because of this?

6
by Bobman :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 5:53pm

NO! Like the chamber of secrets at Hogwarts, it should remain closed (except for the truly intrepid willing op open old wounds and battle evil). My snipe at Pats fans above CLEARLY should have said a minority of fans feel that way. (Gator fans... not so sure).

For the record, Bradshaw was a tremendous leader, but was also surrounded by a bevy of roided-up HOFers. And his stats on the surface look worse because of the dead-ball era in which he layed for about 5 seasons. Plus he's a jackass.

I know that there is a perception of the Pats paying under-market but is that really the case? I just don't buy it. Cap hits are funny things, a couple years ago Brady was a couple mill more than Manning simply because of the timing of their last extensions. Next year I think Manning's cap hit jumps by about $10M to something like $25M, again because of bonuses and timing. Wait for the onslaught of criticism on that one, as if he suddenly put a gun to Irsay's head, when it was in the initial agreement for a few years. They'll probably rejigger before then, anyway.

But if anybody has actual numbers to support or debunk the Pats paying under-market, I'd like to see them. It makes no real sense with a cap, because if you are near the cap (using all your resources) and you underpay player X, then you are over-paying player Z, right? And if you stay well under cap all year, then you are just short-changing your team's chances and your fans too. And Kraft does not do that. In the end, logic suggests it all evens out.

9
by Boston Dan :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 6:26pm

"But if anybody has actual numbers to support or debunk the Pats paying under-market, I'd like to see them."

http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/06/26/moneyball-nfl-style/

Pats 10th in "committed cash" 2004-2008 seasons. Out of nine teams ahead of them in spending, two were also Super Bowl winners. Colts and Steelers.

Eagles at 20th. Giants at 19th. CHEAPSKATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10
by MJK :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 6:31pm

Barring Tedy Bruschi and perhaps Kevin Faulk, I can't think of a single other Patriot off the top of my head that "took a home town discount" to play for the Patriots. And every team always has a couple of guys that will turn down more money to stay with the club they've played a long time for and like.

The Patriots DID for a while have a bunch of young players outperforming their contracts, but that had nothing to do with the Patriots FO paying under market for talent...it was more about them drafting well and so they had good players still on their rookie deals. But this is a mark of nearly every successful team (like the Eagles, Colts, Steelers, etc.). And, as such situations often do, most ended badly (Asante Samuel, Deion Branch).

I can think of a couple of veteran free agents that may have come to New England for slightly less money than other teams were offering (Harrison and Seau spring to mind), with the hope of getting a ring, but again, I think many successful teams have one or two such players. For the most part, when the Patriots scored a major free agent, they did it by out-bidding everyone else (Adalius Thomas, Ted Washington, etc.). And they have had just as many free agents they missed who didn't come to New England even though the Patriots outbid everyone else (Derek Mason).

24
by T. Diddy :: Sat, 10/17/2009 - 12:37pm

IIRC, Troy Brown took a lower salary to stay with the Patriots over the Saints at one point, but he stayed with the Patriots because his local endorsement deals more than made up the salary difference, so that's a bad example.

http://www.patriots.com/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pid=12152&pcid=...

11
by Groy (not verified) :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 6:36pm

The notion of "underpay player X means you overpay player Z" is rather flawed.

Instead, the idea is that a player on the open market has some value, say $10- the largest contract a team is willing to pay him. The Pats offer a contract of $7 and a Superbowl ring. They then repeat this with every player they sign, filling up all cap space. So the argument is that if each Pats player theoretically signed with the team that offered them the most money, and you totaled that up, the cap value of those theoretical contracts in aggregate would be much higher than the available cap space the Pats have. Hence the "underpayment" argument.

I have no idea if it is true, but that's what the argument is. In a nutshell, that the marginal value of a few extra million dollars isn't worth as much to some players as an increased likelihood of winning a ring.

13
by MJK :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 6:43pm

Regarding the Patriots "scam" on getting veteran free agents for under market value because they want to play for a winner:

I just ran over the Pats roster. Of their current 59 players on the active roster or one of the three injury-related reserve lists, 30 were originally drafted by the Patriots. 9 were signed as rookie free agents. 4 were acquired through trades, 1 claimed off of waivers. Just 15 were veteran players acquired through free agency. Here they are:

Sam Aiken
Chris Baker
Tully Banta-Cain
Leigh Bodden
Joey Galloway
Chris Hanson
Brandon McGowan
Sammy Morris
Rob Ninkovitch
Junior Seau
Kendall Simmons
Shawn Springs
Fred Taylor
Adalius Thomas
Mark Levoir

The Patriots clearly outbid for Adalius Thomas. He too no "I want a ring" discount.

I'll grant you that Junior Seau and possibly Fred Taylor, Shawn Springs, Joey Galloway, and Chris Hanson might have taken under-market deals to play for the Pats in hopes of getting a ring. However, these players were hardly in incredible in demand...most of them are aging veterans that wanted one last chance at a ring, and it's not like the Pats were making a killing off of underpaying them.

With the exception of Leigh Bodden and Brandon McGowan (who have won starting jobs), the rest of these players are little-used role players who had been cast off by their former teams and who weren't exactly major chips on the free agent market.

I just don't see a huge list of valuable impact players playing for the Pats for well below what they're worth just to get a ring. In fact, 75% of the Patriots roster are either acquired through trade or "home grown"--drafted or signed as a RFA and developed by the team

14
by ChiTown11111 (not verified) :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 6:57pm

Didn't moss have a short contract way under market value at one point? I know hes getting his now, but I think 2007 he was getting payed a pittance. Here is a piece of an article about it.

"Moss took a pay cut to facilitate the trade. He ripped up the final year of an eight-year, $75 million deal that he signed with the Minnesota Vikings in 2001 and reduced his salary for the 2007 season from $9.75 million to $3 million. Moss ended up earning an additional $2 million in incentives from the Patriots."

He makes about 9 mil a year now, 5 million for 2007 Moss was probably the greatest underpay in history for a non-rookie contract.

17
by MJK :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 7:54pm

First off, I think ripping up his contract had more to do with getting out of Oakland than it had to do with "getting a ring" with the Patriots. He did have a short list of teams that he would rip up the contract for, but it was longer than just the Patriots. Basically, he told the Raiders he'd tear up his contract and accept a trade to any of about five teams, if I recall correctly, all of which had above average QB's and were playoff contenders. So maybe the Pats did get a break there, but it's not like they're reaping a benefit that any other successful team doesn't reap.

Secondly, if he made $5M in 2007, and $9M a year now (i.e. 2008-2009, at least), that means that he's going to end up getting an average of $7.7M a year for three years. That's the equivalent of a veteran FA signing a contract with a $15M signing bonus and then getting $4M a year. Now I'll admit that that's a little bit low for a top 5 WR, but not crazily so. And remember, at the time the trade was made, a great many people, I would say at least half of people out there, thought he'd be a bust in New England...that they had finally introduced a locker room cancer that even they couldn't tame. I'm not sure, had Moss played his last year in Oakland and made his $9M (dogging it, of course), that he would have then found any team willing to offer him as much money.

19
by Sifter :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 10:37pm

I'm pretty sure in 2008 the Eagles offered a pretty large sum for Randy Moss, but he decided to stick with the Pats despite a little extra cash being on the Eagles contract. I'm not sure whether the Eagles were one of the 'possibles' for Randy in '07, but they went for him pretty hard in '08.

Quick search and this link mentions it at least, not much detail though:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/1398/eagles-miss-out-on-gross

16
by djanyreason :: Fri, 10/16/2009 - 7:34pm

Man... I thought using the approved FO mad lib would've made the fact that I was joking kinda obvious...

20
by Aloysius Mephistopheles (not verified) :: Sat, 10/17/2009 - 7:04am

Really surprising Stabler and Favre grade out ahead of Graham. Figured that 9.0 career Y/A would push Otto up the charts. I'd expect Favre to do well on this kind of an analysis - He rarely achieved a historically great level of play, but he's obviously played at a high level for a VERY long time. If you stretched it out to best fifteen consecutive seasons he'd be near the top. Stabler's ranking is buoyed by the unbelievably good seasons he had in '74 and '76, but he was very inconsistent in his career. I believe Paul Zimmerman once insinuated in a roundabout fashion that The Snake shaved points. I have no idea what basis, if any, he had for that, but he's right that the inconsistency is pretty striking.

22
by Gruntled (not verified) :: Sat, 10/17/2009 - 11:30am

Nobody in the top 25 over a 9 year period (consecutive or 'any') has a worse 'best 3 years' than Favre except... Elway. Favre is 34th in 'best 3 years' and Elway is 48th. Favre jumps 19 places from best 3 to best 9, but Elway jumps 25 places. Both Unitas and Tarkenton climb steadily as you add years, but they're not very far down the list on best 3 either.

Other than Bert Jones (injuries), it is actually pretty surprising (to me at least) how many of the guys in the top 10 of 'best 3 years' also had outstanding extended careers. Luckman, and especially Graham drop pretty steadily as you add years, and their overall standings are clearly propped up by those great years, but they both still end up in the top 25.

Favre and Elway are anomalous in terms of truly outstanding years vs. long term performance and I'm not sure what to make of that, though it's interesting where they both tend to come up in terms of discussions of all time greats.

21
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Sat, 10/17/2009 - 10:52am

I don't know how many of the nine consecutive years for Tarkenton were pre 1972, but to beat a dead horse, folks, no other great qb comes close to a accomplishing what Tarkenton did with lousy teammates surrounding him. There is a reason why Dr. Z has written that a Monday Night game in 1971, featuring a terrible Giants team on the road against a championship Cowboys team, had the single greatest individual performance Z ever saw, and Z saw a lot of football. I saw that game, too; it is about my earliest memory of regular season game. Tarkenton single-handedly, against a team stocked with Hall of Famers, fought them to a near stand-still. He did that sort of thing, week after week, until he was past his physical prime, 12 years into his career.

I'll still put my vote in for Tarkenton as best ever.

27
by bravehoptoad :: Sun, 10/18/2009 - 12:12pm

Agree.

Nothing else to add, really, just that those Tarkenton Minnesota teams were terrible. That the guy has decent stats at all is flabbergasting.

26
by mrparker (not verified) :: Sun, 10/18/2009 - 11:44am

IMO, the way to settle this argument once and for all is to gather their numbers in some meaningful fashion against good defenses.

28
by bravehoptoad :: Sun, 10/18/2009 - 12:13pm

How far back is it possible for the DVOA era to go? Will we someday have DVOA for Sid Luckman?

29
by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Sun, 10/18/2009 - 8:25pm

No. Aaron and co. have already run into problems collecting complete play-by-play for 1993. I suspect that DVOA will never extend back earlier than the mid 80's at best. PBP simply does not exist for most games back before then.

31
by andrew :: Mon, 10/19/2009 - 2:54pm

But film of these games exists, right?

We can hope that someday, someone will watch and do play by play.

32
by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Mon, 10/19/2009 - 3:36pm

Maybe, maybe not. In many cases, probably not.

30
by andrew :: Mon, 10/19/2009 - 2:54pm

What' I'd like to see is the reverse... the worst quarterbacks over extended periods of time.

The article divides by the # of years regardless of how long they played, but to find those quarterbacks who truly stuck around and sucked over the entire time, we'd have to require them to play all the years involved...

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.