Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

ReplayIns14.jpg

» Scramble for the Ball: Getting it Right?

Instant replay review is one of the cornerstones of the modern NFL. The process and its myriad special rules have been internalized and constantly debated. Mike Kurtz wonders: is it worth it?

22 Dec 2009

Week 15 Quick Reads

by Bill Barnwell

Jerome Harrison, take a bow. For one week, you managed to overshadow every other NFL player, even the future Hall of Fame quarterback that threw for 500 yards.

How can an anonymous halfback run for 286 yards and three touchdowns? The idea just doesn't apply to other single-game records in sports. No spot starter strikes out 18 guys in a game. Reserve shooting guards don't go off for 83 points.

The answer is that Jerome Harrison simply shouldn't be an anonymous halfback. The fact that he was one until Sunday owes much more to the myopia that envelops football organizations than the weaknesses in his game.

A fifth-round pick out of Washington State in the 2006 NFL Draft, Harrison was selected by the Browns as a potential change-of-pace back to then-starter Reuben Droughns, who would be replaced in 2007 by the similar stylings of Jamal Lewis.

With Lewis came offensive linemen Joe Thomas and Eric Steinbach, and while the former Ravens star accrued what baseball fans might call "counting numbers" by carrying the ball over and over again, it's hard to find a back that's done more with less than Harrison. His 57 carries over those two years yielded 388 rushing yards, nearly 6.8 yards per carry. While one big run can adulterate those numbers, a rushing DVOA of 40.4% in 2007 and 52.7% in 2008 shows that he was producing on a per-carry basis. Lewis ran the ball far more frequently, but Harrison was so effective on his 57 touches that he had 160 DYAR, more than half of Lewis' 284 DYAR over 630 touches. His fantastic numbers in limited time earned him the sixth spot on Football Outsiders' Top 25 Prospects list for both 2008 and 2009.

The easy knock on a player like Harrison is that he's too small (5-foot-9, 205 pounds) to carry the full-time workload for an NFL team, and that teams need a back like Lewis to carry the heavy load while Harrison serves as a change of pace. That logic doesn't hold up to the light of day; fellow 5-foot-9 backs include Warrick Dunn (180 pounds), Frank Gore (215), Priest Holmes (213), Steve Slaton (197), and yes, even Emmitt Smith (210). Instead of giving Harrison a chance to play his way out of a job, the Romeo Crennel-era Browns chose to hand the ball off to the plodding Lewis for his ability to "push the pile". Lewis was so successful at doing so that the Browns ranked 15th and then 27th in power situations (runs with two yards or less to go on third or fourth down and/or within two yards of the end zone), and he had all of two carries for 30 yards or more during his Browns career.

Even the arrival of new head coach Eric Mangini didn't offer Harrison a chance to pick up consistent playing time. With Lewis injured in September -- probably because he wasn't big enough to carry the load -- Harrison came in and ran for 173 yards on 43 carries against the Ravens and the Bengals, while chipping in with ten catches for 64 yards. Lewis returned a week later, consigning Harrison to the bench once more. He ran for 117 yards, but it took him 31 carries and came against one of the league's worst run defenses, the Bills. Cleveland scored six points.

When Lewis went on IR after Week 12, Harrison got another chance, this time against the Chargers. He only ran for 35 yards on 10 carries, but caught seven passes for 62 yards, scoring twice. A week later, he got a total of nine touches against the Steelers, while rookie Chris Jennings got 20 carries. That led into Sunday, and Harrison's coming-out party.

The announcers gushed on Sunday about Harrison's rare combination of speed and size, how he still looked fresh in the fourth quarter after 30 carries. Some of that is context, of course; Harrison was playing the Chiefs. Then again, 15 other running backs start games against the Chiefs each year, and they don't run for 286 yards.

Harrison's the same back he always was, just given an opportunity to carry the ball more than ever before with the right matchup in front of him. Even if he doesn't end up being a full-time back at this level because of his pass blocking or because there's something about his size that doesn't affect those other starting-caliber halfbacks, it's pretty clear he deserved something better than one touch for every 11 that Jamal Lewis got over 2007-08. He deserved a bigger share of the pie and wasn't given any because of his size.

It's not strictly a running back thing, either -- both the league's top quarterback (Drew Brees) and most active wideout (Wes Welker) are far smaller than the prototypical player at their position. Bad organizations, like the Browns, find what's wrong with their players and use that as a reason to avoid giving them an opportunity. Good organizations look for a player's strengths and find a way to use them effectively. Based on what Harrison did against the Chiefs on Sunday, it's hard to make any argument against placing the Browns in the former category.

Quarterbacks
Rk
Player
Team
CP/AT
Yds
TD
INT
Total
DYAR
Pass
DYAR
Rush
DYAR
1.
Ben Roethlisberger PIT
29/46
503
3
0
287
287
-1
Roethlisberger's brilliant day came against DVOA's previously second-ranked pass defense, Green Bay. The Packers helped by taking awful angles to receivers after the catch; they also failed to read and react quickly in zone coverage. While he becomes the tenth quarterback in NFL history to throw for 500 yards in one game, his 287 total DYAR is the 11th-best in the DVOA Era (1994-2009). It's the third-best performance of the 2009 season, trailing behind only Drew Brees's and Tom Brady's days in Week 6.
MNF.
Eli Manning NYG
19/26
268
3
0
168
168
0
2.
Aaron Rodgers GB
26/48
383
3
0
161
149
12
His opposite number wasn't half bad, either. Rodgers started the game 2-for-10, albeit with one of the completions going for an 83-yard touchdown. He got better, particularly on third down; after that beginning stretch of ugliness ended, Rodgers converted seven of the nine third downs he faced, including a third-and-16 and a third-and-14, while averaging 19 yards per completion.
3.
Tony Romo DAL
22/34
312
1
0
149
142
7
Who leads the league in passing DYAR this December? You better believe it -- Romo's 498 narrowly holds the top spot over Philip Rivers' 478. If the original idea of Romo somehow being cursed in December wasn't absurd enough, he put that notion to bed on Saturday night. Next time: Romo takes a team-approved vacation without filling umpteen column inches in the process.
4.
Peyton Manning IND
23/30
308
4
1
140
140
0
Does he leap ahead of Drew Brees in the MVP race because his team is still undefeated? Is a perfect season enough to overcome the AP's tendency to avoid repeat winners? And will he play in Week 17 -- or even Week 16 -- to secure that perfect season? If he was playing the Jacksonville pass rush every week, it would be an easy decision. Manning dropped back against the Jaguars 69 times this year, and was sacked exactly once.
5.
Philip Rivers SD
24/37
308
3
2
123
129
-7
Rivers did his best work on second down. Of his ten completions for 15 yards or more, seven of them came on second down. They weren't short-yardage situations where the defense overcommitted against the run, either; Rivers picked up second-and-9 once, second-and-10 three times, and second-and-11 once.
6.
Matt Schaub HOU
28/39
367
1
0
119
142
-24
Although Schaub converted a third-and-1, his fumble on a subsequent third-and-1 is responsible for the majority of his -24 rushing DYAR. If Schaub was a halfback, Gary Kubiak would've benched him.
7.
Donovan McNabb PHI
21/35
306
1
2
119
106
12
Although Michael Vick has carved out a role as the Eagles' short-yardage quarterback, McNabb showed he can still get into the end zone with an eight-yard run for a score. He's also historically great on sneaks, which might come in handy if the Eagles are brave enough to go for it on fourth-and-short again anytime soon. Nearly half of McNabb's passes -- 17 of his 35 attempts -- were thrown to the right side of the field and within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage. Historically, McNabb struggles most throwing over the middle, where he often has issues with crossing patterns and fitting balls inbetween the linebackers and safeties.
8.
Joe Flacco BAL
21/29
234
4
0
115
122
-8
Flacco had a streak of eight consecutive completions on first down at one point in this game, yielding three first downs, two touchdowns, and 91 yards. Backup Troy Smith came in for mopup work in the fourth and picked up -39 DYAR, thanks mostly to an interception on his final pass.
Rk
Player
Team
CP/AT
Yds
TD
INT
Total
DYAR
Pass
DYAR
Rush
DYAR
9.
Matt Moore CAR
21/33
301
3
0
101
106
-5
Moore had issues with snaps and fumbled on a Jared Allen sack, or else his numbers would rank even higher. Give credit to the Panthers' offensive line, ravaged by injury, for keeping the pass rush mostly off of Moore and providing time for Steve Smith to get downfield. Moore threw only four passes to wide receivers not named Steve Smith. Moore's touchdown pass to Smith came on a third-and-26 play; in 2008, with third and between 24 and 28 to go, teams converted on exactly one of their 43 chances. This year, they're 3-of-42.
10.
Matt Ryan ATL
16/34
152
1
0
97
97
0
Ryan's raw numbers aren't particularly impressive, but he gets a huge boost from playing the Jets and their league-best pass defense. Anecdotally, it was a good showing for a quarterback playing the day after a snowstorm with a turf toe injury, but that's not included in the numbers. The bigger question is why Ryan was playing in the first place; turf toe injuries are famously difficult to get rid of, and the Falcons were eliminated from playoff contention by the Cowboys' win on Saturday night. Even if the odds of Ryan exacerbating his injury are slim, the best thing for the organization, long-term, is to sit Ryan down and let him start resting his toe now.
11.
Matt Cassel KC
23/39
331
2
0
88
84
4
Cassel's numbers would look even better if his receivers hadn't dropped a half-dozen passes. That's especially true of third down, where Cassel was 3-of-10 and only picked up two first downs. That very well may have ended up being the difference in the game.
12.
Josh Freeman TB
16/26
205
2
1
74
81
-7
Freeman started off the game with a pick over the middle, but he converted for a first down or a touchdown on six of his 12 third down attempts. Both of his touchdowns were on throws to his running backs, the only two throws the backs got all day. It seems like it might make sense to give them a couple more chances.
13.
David Garrard JAC
23/40
223
3
1
73
71
3
14.
Tom Brady NE
11/23
115
1
1
65
74
-9
Nearly 36 percent of Brady's real yardage -- 64 yards -- came on two pass interference penalties. That's three extra fantasy points that Brady owners didn't get, and it might end up costing them their shot at fantasy gold. When the Bills weren't interfering with Brady's receivers, they did a good job of keeping the play in front of them and wrapping up on tackles. And while tight end Benjamin Watson caught two late touchdown passes in Week 1, after middle linebacker Paul Posluszny broke his forearm, Posluszny helped kept Watson out of the box score altogether this week.
15.
Vince Young TEN
14/27
236
3
1
63
52
12
Young was 8-of-10 on third down, but his final three completions were all short of the sticks: A four-yard completion on third-and-5, a six-yard completion on third-and-9, and a seven-yard completion on third-and-7. That's not something Young does very often, though. On average, about 15.9 percent of third down plays end in a completion that's short of the first down marker; Young's at 13.2 percent, towards the bottom of the list. Among passers with 50 attempts on third down, the best at completing a meaningless pass is Trent Edwards, who completed a pass while still coming off the field a whopping 30.1 percent of the time. Alex Smith and Shaun Hill are 2-3 at 27.3 percent and 23.5 percent, respectively, with Jason Campbell and Ryan Fitzpatrick behind them. The quarterback who'd rather not give in? Philip Rivers, who only completed a pass that was short of the sticks 7.6 percent of the time. Also under 10 percent are Kyle Boller and Derek Anderson (each 9.7 percent), while Ben Roethlisberger's at 10.1 percent.
16.
Carson Palmer CIN
27/39
329
2
1
57
59
-2
Palmer's touchdown pass to Chad Ochocinco came with Antonio Cromartie in coverage. While Cromartie was viewed as a budding superstar after intercepting ten passes in 2007, he struggled through an injury-riddled 2008 and has been wildly inconstent in 2009. Four years into his career, it's difficult to tell what Cromartie is -- a ballhawk, an injury risk waiting to happen, a mediocre starting corner, a great athlete -- he's all those things at one time or another. It would be less of a problem if Antoine Cason was developing faster in the nickel, but Cason was expressly targeted on Palmer's second touchdown, a quick out to Laveranues Coles.
Rk
Player
Team
CP/AT
Yds
TD
INT
Total
DYAR
Pass
DYAR
Rush
DYAR
17.
Kyle Orton DEN
19/34
278
1
0
40
52
-12
Orton's biggest play, a 63-yard completion to Brandon Stokley, was a simple seam pattern that saw the Raiders' safeties just forget about covering Stokley altogether. The result was a wild goose chase to the endzone; fortunately, since the Raiders have such fast players, they were able to catch up after Stokley ran for 51 yards after the catch. Now it all makes sense!
18.
Drew Brees NO
29/45
298
1
1
39
33
6
Brees did his best, but the Cowboys' pass rush just dominated left tackle Jermon Bushrod and right tackle Jon Stinchcomb. When Brees doesn't have time to throw, his receivers can't get downfield, he can't get to the spots in the pocket he wants to, and he's hurried into making a throw before he's ready. And that makes every quarterback worse. Brees converted one of the seven third downs he faced; he'd been picking up just under 48 percent of his third down opportunities this year.
19.
JaMarcus Russell OAK
5/11
47
1
0
24
24
0
Maybe J.P. Losman motivated him with UFL stories. Russell also has a 32-yard pass interference penalty that's accounted for in his DYAR but not his raw numbers above.
20.
Brett Favre MIN
17/27
224
0
1
17
17
0
The same people writing the stories about Tony Romo not being able to win in December are moving onto the stories about Brett Favre breaking down in December every year. What's happening here has nothing to do with Favre's arm or the cold weather; all quarterbacks get worse as the season goes along, not just old ones. The cause of the problem is the play of the Vikings' offensive line, which has given Favre less time to throw over the past few weeks. Favre's also thrown more interceptions, which was going to happen; his interception ratio was historically low, let alone low for him, and no one's ever had an 8:1 touchdown-to-interception ratio. This is Favre regressing to the mean, not a sign that he's suddenly ill-suited for his position.
21.
Brady Quinn CLE
10/17
66
0
2
0
-14
14
The only reason Quinn made it to 0 passing DYAR is because five of his ten completions went for first downs. That's what happens when you have Jerome Harrison running for eight yards a carry; Quinn faced seven third downs, and five of them were with six yards or less to go.
22.
Charlie Frye OAK
10/17
68
0
1
-4
-16
12
23.
Chad Henne MIA
29/46
349
1
3
-7
-8
2
Henne's biggest pass of the day, a 57-yard completion to Brian Hartline, was a perfect example of the difference between good processes and good outcomes. Henne threw a bomb into double coverage, which dropped right into the hands of Michael Griffin. Before Griffin could establish possession, though, Hartline knocked the pass out of Griffin's hands and into his own, turning a bad throw into Henne's biggest play of the game.
24.
Daunte Culpepper DET
6/12
64
0
1
-12
-13
1
Rk
Player
Team
CP/AT
Yds
TD
INT
Total
DYAR
Pass
DYAR
Rush
DYAR
25.
Ryan Fitzpatrick BUF
17/25
178
1
1
-21
-21
0
At this point, the Bills are better off giving Brian Brohm the job. Fitzpatrick went 17-of-25, but only three of these completions were further than eight yards away from the line of scrimmage. He only threw one pass further than 17 yards downfield at all, and while the Patriots' defense got some pressure with a no-down linemen set, Fitzpatrick's inability to recognize the blitz and constant checkdowns forced the Bills into the football equivalent of smallball.
26.
Drew Stanton DET
10/19
72
0
1
-38
-41
2
Stanton started off with an interception on his opening series, an ugly throw to Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, but improved as the game went along. While he plunged in from the one-yard line (and attempted to imitate the Lambeau Leap while failing miserably), he only has two rushing DYAR because he scrambled on third-and-6 and third-and-7 and came up short both times.
27.
Kurt Warner ARI
24/37
233
2
1
-53
-53
0
The fact that Warner only threw one pick is a small miracle; the Lions dropped at least three more intereptions, and could have lucked into a couple more. While Larry Fitzgerald was in the lineup, he very clearly wasn't at 100 percent; it's tempting to blame the problems of Warner on Fitzgerald, but there's no reason Warner should have had trouble throwing to Anquan Boldin or Steve Breaston. In his defense, both Breaston and Ben Patrick got hit with passes in stride before they realized they had been targeted with a pass.
28.
Keith Null STL
18/27
173
1
1
-60
-60
0
At this rate of improvement, Null would be the best quarterback in football by Week 18. If only Roger Goodell had implemented his plans already...
29.
Alex Smith SF
20/37
177
1
3
-70
-74
4
MNF.
Jason Campbell WAS
16/28
192
1
2
-82
-97
15
30.
Matt Hasselbeck SEA
27/46
256
1
4
-87
-67
-20
OK, so one of the picks was a Hail Mary. Hasselbeck still threw three legit interceptions against the Buccaneers, one of the league's worst pass defenses. 16 of his completions came with the Seahawks down two scores or more late in the third quarter and throughout the fourth. While no one's pretending that Qwest Field is a fortress for the home team this year (well, outside of when the Sounders play), Seattle fans might want to make sure they get to the stadium for Week 17. It might very well be Hasselbeck's last home game as a member of the team.
31.
Mark Sanchez NYJ
19/31
226
1
3
-94
-89
-5
After an up-and-down season that started with most of the high points and ended with most of the low ones, it's pretty clear that Mark Sanchez wasn't the answer for this Jets team. He might have been a better choice than Kellen Clemens; we'll never know, since the Clemens that showed up against the Buccaneers had little confidence and a game plan designed to keep the ball in Thomas Jones's hands. He might be the right player for this team in the future, too. But the Jets are a veteran team, one that spent a lot of money two years ago to bring in a core of veterans designed to save Eric Mangini and Mike Tannenbaum's jobs and make a trip to the playoffs. They needed a Chris Redman or even -- yes -- a Brett Favre this year, someone to hold the fort while Sanchez got a year of practice reps. Instead, they rested their entire season on the hopes that Sanchez would be ready to play at an NFL level. And he simply wasn't.

One thing that amused us, though, was the sudden simultaneous realization by Jets fans and the media that Sanchez was from California and would have to play in the awful winds and miserable conditions that often make up the Meadowlands in December. Did no one realize Sanchez was from California in April? Or that it was going to get windy in Jersey?
32.
Jay Cutler CHI
10/27
94
0
3
-188
-196
8
Even beyond the three picks, Cutler had three completions account for 65 yards. That means that he dropped back 26 other times and those plays resulted in seven completions for 29 yards. Just terrifyingly bad, this Bears offense.


Five most valuable running backs
Rk
Player
Team
Rush
Yds
Rush
TD
Rec
Yds
Rec
TD
Total
DYAR
Rush
DYAR
Rec
DYAR
1.
Jerome Harrison CLE
286
3
12
0
104
108
-4
Harrison's 108 rushing DYAR are the fourth-most in a single game in the DVOA Era, ranking behind only Corey Dillon's 246-yard game against the Titans in 1997 that yielded 122 DYAR, Joseph Addai's four-score, 121 DYAR performance against the Eagles in 2006, and the 109 DYAR Fred Taylor gained against the Steelers in his 234-yard game during the 2000 season. It's the highest total of the season by a wide margin, beating out the 73 rushing DYAR Frank Gore gained when he ran for 207 yards against the Seahawks in Week 2.

Running for 200 yards doesn't automatically mean that you're an elite running back, though. Willie Ellison set a then-NFL record by running for 247 yards in one game in 1971, but that was his only 1,000-yard season, and he needed every one of those yards to even get there. LeShon Johnson ran for 214 yards against the Saints in 1996, but only spread 741 rushing yards over his other 61 career games. Barry Word, Derrick Ward, Charlie Garner, and Frenchy Fuqua each had 200-yard games in their career. None were great, although they all had great days.
MNF.
Ahmad Bradshaw NYG
61
2
29
0
68
53
15
2.
Maurice Jones-Drew JAC
110
1
30
1
64
40
25
Jones-Drew caught a touchdown pass and picked up a first down on a second-and-11. He also converted three of the four first downs he faced, picking up six yards on third-and-7 on the other one.
3.
Jonathan Stewart CAR
109
1
14
1
53
32
21
DeAngelo Williams spent two years in DeShaun Foster's shadow before finally getting a chance to serve as the lead back, at which point he had a mammoth season. Stewart's currently occupying the same role behind Williams, and when the Panthers let Williams move on for salary cap reasons, Stewart will probably have a breakout year of his own. The difference, of couse, is that Stewart's at least sitting behind an elite back. Williams was sitting behind DeShaun Foster.

Stewart's great numbers come thanks to great blocking of the Williams Wall on the interior, and some badly missed tackles at the second level. The Vikings already miss E.J. Henderson.
4.
Jamaal Charles KC
154
1
16
0
51
51
0
The Jamal Lewis problem, reduxe. Charles got more than 10 carries one time last year; it was 18 carries against Tampa Bay, and he ran for 106 yards. This year, he started getting handed the ball more than ten times a game in Week 10, after nominal starter/famous person Larry Johnson hated his way off the team. Charles is averaging 19 carries and 102 rushing yards per game since then, better than five yards a pop. Johnson was averaging 2.8 yards per carry before departing. Why was Johnson playing over Charles the first seven weeks? Because he made a lot of money. That's a good reason not to give a running back a lot of money.
5.
Michael Bush OAK
133
1
11
0
43
41
3
Bush had been resting comfortably in Tom Cable's doghouse, but five runs of ten yards or more (including a 40-yard dash) and six first downs in 18 carries is a good way to work your way out. Bush only got his chance after Justin Fargas tweaked his knee early on; he might've pushed Fargas permanently to the bench. Then again, it is Oakland.


Least valuable running back
Rk
Player
Team
Rush
Yds
Rush
TD
Rec
Yds
Rec
TD
Total
DYAR
Rush
DYAR
Rec
DYAR
1.
Matt Forte CHI
68
0
0
0
-42
-28
-14
It's hard to run very far when your offensive line doesn't block all that well, but Forte was stuffed on the Ravens 1-yard line and fumbled twice.


Five most valuable wide receivers and tight ends
Rk
Player
Team
Rec
Att
Yds
Avg
TD
Total
DYAR
1.
Andre Johnson HOU
9
10
196
21.8
0
72
The only thing the Rams had that was capable of covering Andre Johnson was the roof, and even then, we think Johnson could've caught a jump ball over it. You'll rarely see a player physically dominate opposing cornerbacks the way that Johnson was on Sunday. Sure, it happens all the time in high school, and even the Michael Crabtree's and Calvin Johnson's of the world pull that stuff off in college, but Johnson was like a men amongst boys against the Rams. And it wasn't even a set of boys who were good at football for their age.
2.
Chris Chambers KC
5
5
114
22.8
1
63
Plenty of Chiefs' receivers dropped passes, but surprisingly, the much-maligned Chambers was not one of them. If this is the receiver he actually was -- three catches for 30 yards or more, and a nine-yard touchdown on a fade -- he'd be really valuable. Usually, though, this sort of production from him requires 13 incompletions or so to be mixed in, and by the time you've gotten him the ball that much, four weeks have passed.
3.
Vincent Jackson SD
5
7
108
21.6
2
62
Was Jackson on a mission to prove Leon Hall isn't actually all that great? Maybe, but he did expose some communication issues in the Bengals' secondary. There were repeated times where Jackson made his way downfield and corners, including Hall, thought they had safety help when they didn't. That would be one thing if they were playing, say, Army or the 1994 Nebraska Cornhuskers, but it's the Chargers! They throw the ball deep a lot! It's not a secret! Cincinnati will need to work on that if they end up playing the Colts or the Chargers in the playoffs.
4.
DeSean Jackson PHI
6
10
140
23.3
1
61
Jackson was the target on two picks, which doesn't affect his numbers beyond simply being recorded as an incompletion, but is still interesting. Jackson's now been the intended target on four picks, which is well behind the league leaders. Some of the guys you might expect are there -- Carolina's Steve Smith has been the target on nine picks, as has Braylon Edwards, while Calvin Johnson's at eight and Andre Johnson's at seven. Number one, though? Reggie Wayne. Peyton Manning's thrown 15 picks, and Wayne's been the target on ten of them. Wow.
5.
Randy Moss NE
5
7
70
14.0
1
58
Factor in the 43-yard defensive pass interference penalty he drew, bringing the Patriots down to the Bills 3-yard line, and he's at 113 yards on six catches. If only we knew what the Panthers' defensive backs thought about all this!


Least valuable wide receiver or tight end
Rk
Player
Team
Rec
Att
Yds
Avg
TD
Total
DYAR
1.
Deion Branch SEA
4
10
28
7.0
0
-54
Branch was targeted on three interceptions, and while those are just scored for him as incompletions, not a single one of his other four catches went for first downs.

(Ed. Note: Quick Reads appears on ESPN Insider on Monday, then gets republished on FO on Tuesdays, with added ratings for Monday Night Football.)

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 22 Dec 2009

180 comments, Last at 24 Dec 2009, 11:15pm by tuluse

Comments

1
by anonymiss (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:20am

When the Redskins look good, Campbell is improving. When the Redskins look bad, Campbell has no help.

24
by roguerouge :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:22am

They have him between 29 and 30th for the week.

2
by Dan :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:27am

He did a lot with his touches the past 2 years, but this year Harrison hadn't shown much: -20.6% rushing DVOA on 88 carries, worse than either Lewis (-12.2%) or Jennings (-4.6%), and a -16.4% receiving DVOA on 45 passes. And including his rookie season, he was down to about a 0% rushing DVOA for his career (59 DYAR on 165 carries). This one game will bring his career DVOA up to around 13% (which can happen when you get as many carries in the game as you had all of last season).

20
by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:00am

Yeah, I'm really not sold on DVOA/DYAR as a way of evaluating running backs in the first place, and when you throw in small sample size it's a recipe for disaster. I'm not saying Harrison shouldn't have got more time than he has been, but there's no reason to think he's actually much good. "Probably better than the washed-up wreckage of Jamal Lewis" is not much of a recommendation.

3
by dedkrikit (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:54am

Is Ben R. really a "future HoF'er" already? His first ring is of the Dilfer caliber, so I hope that isn't part of the equation.

Good info about good players being used incorrectly.

Dillon's monster game was against the Oilers, though.

9
by Justin Zeth :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 7:17am

About 2.5 more full seasons will put him past Bradshaw for the Steelers' career passing yards record; I suspect that and the two rings will get him in. He won't be a slam dunk, but someday someone will put him in there. The Hall of Fame is very kind to quarterbacks, and this one won a couple of rings for one of the league's alpha franchises. In 2025 or whatever Polamalu and maybe Ward will be the only 2000s Steelers in the Hall of Fame (at least the only ones who were around for both rings), and people will likely start thinking up excuses to put a couple more in.

I could be wrong, though; Lawrence Taylor is the only 1986-1990 Giant in the Hall of Fame, right?

Plus all that's if Roethlisberger lasts another 2-3 full seasons, which given the punishment he takes and the state of the Steelers' o-line is very much an open question.

Factoid that maybe only I find interesting: Warren Moon's 500/3/0 day in 1990 also came against an elite defense (the Chiefs).

14
by Travis :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 8:54am

Lawrence Taylor is the only 1986-1990 Giant in the Hall of Fame, right?

Harry Carson is in the Hall, but he only played for the 1986 Giants. Simms, Bavaro, and Ottis Anderson (and GM George Young) all made the initial list of 133 nominees this year, but none made it to the 25-person semifinal round.

On the coaching side, Parcells and Belichick will be in the Hall soon after they retire.

18
by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 9:52am

I fully expect Roethlisberger to be enshrined, though I don't particularly think he should be, at least based on his career to date. Ward absolutely does not belong in the hall, but the rings, the reputation for toughness and his Superbowl MVP award may get him there. Aaron Smith and Casey Hampton should both get consideration; Hampton won't, but Smith I could just about see getting in. Joey Porter will probably be shortlisted at some point, but I doubt he'll make it. Harrison had a high enough peak, but it looks to have been too short. Farrior was good, but not good enough. Faneca, however, I believe is very likely to make it.

I think there may be a similar issue with the 2001-2004 Patriots. Brady of course will make it and deserve to, though frankly the reason he belongs has pretty much nothing to do with his play from 2001 to 2003. But who else from those teams is really a slam-dunk Hall of Famer? Seymour's probably the closest: he was a dominant player on a very successful team, but his peak wasn't all that long. I guess he'll probably get in, and I guess I'm in favour of it. Law might be the second or third best corner of his generation, but his generation is Champ Bailey and then everyone else. He'll be marginal, and marginal is what he should be. Harrison may get some talk, but he really shouldn't, and he won't get in. Don't even talk to me about freakin' Vinatieri; if he gets in I'm hopping on the next Heathrow-Boston flight to personally shoot Peter King. The Patriots teams since their last Superbowl win have actually featured more elite players than the 2001-2004 sides - they just haven't had the same top-to-bottom roster quality.

37
by billsfan :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:56am

Why not Ward? Because they don't keep statistics for downfield blocks by WRs?

6 thousand-yard seasons, and two more within spitting distance (975)

883 catches. That's more than Lofton, Largent, Joiner, and Irvin, the last of whom is a marginal HOF-er at best.

78 TDs. More than Irvin, Joiner, Lofton, Monk.

He's behind all those guys in total yards, though not by much.

Statistically, he's not much different than Derrick Mason. But he also won 2 Super Bowls, along with one SB MVP, and played his whole career with one team. Unlike some contemporaries with better numbers, he hasn't bounced around from team to team and been repeatedly called out for quitting on plays. Or held a press conference to do sit-ups in his driveway.

(I also like the Eagles)

112
by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:17pm

"Because they don't keep statistics for downfield blocks by WRs?"

No, they certainly don't, but more relevantly because blocking is a far less important part of a WR's job than catching passes, and Ward was around the tenth best WR of his generation in that department.

"883 catches. That's more than Lofton, Largent, Joiner, and Irvin, the last of whom is a marginal HOF-er at best.

78 TDs. More than Irvin, Joiner, Lofton, Monk.

He's behind all those guys in total yards, though not by much."

He didn't play in the same era as those guys, so it's ridiculous to compare counting stats directly in that way. It's a lot easier for a WR to rack up yards now than it was then. Also, Monk's presence in the Hall is a joke.

"Statistically, he's not much different than Derrick Mason. But he also won 2 Super Bowls, along with one SB MVP, and played his whole career with one team. Unlike some contemporaries with better numbers, he hasn't bounced around from team to team and been repeatedly called out for quitting on plays. Or held a press conference to do sit-ups in his driveway."

Are you seriously suggesting Hines Ward is a better Hall of Fame candidate than Randy Moss or Terrell Owens? Seriously? Because frankly the key statement in your paragraph above is the first: statistically, he's not much different than Derrick Mason. You want to enshrine Derrick Mason?

166
by billsfan :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 10:20am

I'm an old-fashioned character guy, and that colors my perception of guys like Owens and Moss, numbers be damned. You're really suggesting that the guy who compared Free Agency to slavery and was cut by both the Eagles and Cowboys be enshrined? Moss is probably a lock.

He's certainly no Marvin Harrison, but Ward has numbers that are well above average, plays for a dynastic team that also happens to be one of the league's marquee franchises, and is an extremely marketable bi-racial athlete. He's similar to Michael Irvin (one fewer Pro Bowl, one fewer SB win, one more SB MVP), but without all the guns and the drugs.

It somewhat depends on how many more years he plays, and whether they win another Super Bowl, but when it comes time to start filling the Hall with guys from this decade, I wouldn't be surprised if, from the offensive side of the ball, Bettis/Roethlisberger/Ward end up there, in that order.

(I also like the Eagles)

167
by Feagles - King ... :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 10:49am

But if you're talking about character, aren't there issues with Ward's character as well? He's cited as one of the dirtiest players in the league, and he called out his quarterback in the media over resting with a concussion.

The guy may not be the biggest sinner, but he's no saint either.

176
by Mr Shush :: Thu, 12/24/2009 - 9:57am

I really don't think anything other than what a player did on the field should come into the discussion, and I'm pretty sure the criteria for enshrinement specifically state that the voters aren't supposed to consider character. OJ Simpson is in the hall, and I'm just fine with that.

178
by Feagles - King ... :: Thu, 12/24/2009 - 11:01am

I agree, I'm just saying that when you start bringing "character" into the discussion, it becomes a slippery slope.

Plus, you're relying on how the media portrays an athlete, which may or may not be accurate. One example - I worked out at a gym in Boston where a bunch of professional athletes would work out. I can think of at least two occasions where so called "bad character" guys were extremely pleasant, and a couple where "good character" guys were about as obnoxious and rude as you can get. It just so happened that the local media portrayed them in a certain manner.

81
by Andrew B :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:42pm

From the Patriots - Yes Vinateri will get in. So should Mike Vrabel, Willie McGinnest, Rodney Harrison, and Richard Seymour.

Steelers - Rothelisberger, Ward, Polamalu, Bettis, Faneca, Porter.

Remember they have to put 5 or 6 people per year in. That's actually quite a few when you think about it. Over the span of years of a team that is good, like the Steelers or Patriots, from 2000 to 2009, nearly 60 people need to be admitted into the Hall. That's plenty of space for all those guys. You could take 5 key guys each from the four best teams of the decade - Steelers, Patriots, Eagles, and Colts from the 2000 to 2009 period, and still leave 2/3 of the slots to the Hall for the rest of the league for guys like Tony Gonzalez or Ronde Barber or Steve Hutchison who were personally spectacular but played for also-rans. Its not like the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Washington Redskins, Arizona Cardinals, Houston Texans, Atlanta Falcons, and Oakland Raiders of the 2000's are going to be using up a lot of space in Canton.

The Original Andrew

90
by RickD :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 6:32pm

Vrabel? Unlikely. McGinest and Seymour seem like longshots to me. Seymour woouldn't be a longshot if he'd kept up his level of play after 2005. Harrison looks reasonably likely. Vinatieri may get in, if the HoF has any interest in rewarding kickers. (The name of the game is _foot_ball after all.)

115
by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:32pm

I don't even want to talk about Vinatieri. I'd vote for Neil Rackers before Vinatieri.

Vrabel will not get in. Dude was a pro-bowler precisely once in his career. That won't cut it. Joey Porter's a far better candidate, and he won't get in either.

McGinnest made a whole two pro-bowls, and was never an all-pro. He had fewer career sacks than Porter does to date, and had less of an all around game. He's not getting in.

Harrison was a two time all-pro, albeit at a low value position. He was, however, only a two time pro-bowler. He was a very good player for a great team, but he was primarily famous for being dirty and mouthy. He might make it, but he shouldn't.

Polamalu's a no-brainer. I fully understand why Roethlisberger will get in, even though I don't like it. Faneca will deserve his place, Porter won't get in but I wouldn't mind if he did, Ward and Bettis are talking head driven jokes. We should accept that this is the salary cap, free agency era. The best players don't necessarily play for the best teams (just ask Andre Johnson). The best teams don't necessarily have a bunch of great players. Ultimately, I believe Hall of Famers should routinely have opposing fans kecking themselves before games. Plenty of people have thought "Hines Ward is a good player. I hope we can do a good job covering him". Very few have thought "Oh shit, how the hell are we ever going to deal with Hines freakin' Ward?" That's the difference.

123
by Andrew B :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:08pm

Rackers? What has Rackers given the league besides the "Crown their ass" speech? Vinateri won two Super Bowl's at the buzzer, plus several playoff games. Think that's easy and not worth mention, ask Scott Norwood about it.

The Original Andrew

177
by Mr Shush :: Thu, 12/24/2009 - 10:01am

Obviously I don't think Rackers should get in, and I don't really think he's got a better case than Vinatieri, though he did have a higher peak - his 2005 season was historically great. My point is that the bar for a kicker to get into the Hall should be really, really high, and Vinatieri, to my mind, is nowhere close to it. I hate the fact that a few high profile kicks might get him in, because there are a lot of far more deserving players who will never make it.

162
by C (not verified) :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 9:35am

Agree with Shush

but I think guys benefit from their stereotype/style, and it makes a good story. It's talking points. " Vinateri is clutch!", " Hines Ward plays dirty!". I don't think any team game planed to stop Hines Ward the way they would Andre Johnson, TO, Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, Steve Smith etc.

125
by Bobman :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:14am

Andrew,
No way is 5 annual HOF inductees enough. Maybe when the league had 24 teams, but even then a lot of linemen and non-skill pos guys were shafted. Right now I bet you could name 20 active players who deserve it, but you couldn't even consider them because there are the guys from the past decade who deserve it but are back-logged (and also not yet eligible). Rough guess: 25 worthy guys eligible and backed up just since 1980, and another 25 bubble players, plus a dozen of each who are pending eligibility like Curtis Martin, Emmitt Smith, Steve McNair (bubble).

One could argue there should be a moratorium on skill position guys so the under-represented linemen and D players could get a fairer shake--meaning that you could have in 2020 an incoming HOF class with Andre Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Randy Moss, TO, Derrick Mason, Hines Ward, Tony Gonzales, Antonio Gates, Dallas Clark, Witten, Steve Smith, Wes Welker, Ochocinco, Fitzgerald, Boldin, Housh, Holt, (just trying to find potential guys with 5+ years of good production already)... and that's just guys who catch the ball! But that's impossible, of course, because voters would never put in a class of ALL receivers and the classes are limited to five, not the 17 I listed. (Okay, even if only 8 of those guys get in, and I think that's a pretty good bet that 8 will, it can't happen all at once, it would happen over the course of a decade or so, and that's just one position! What happens when the potential HOF-worthy QBs roll their odometers: Manning, Favre, Brady, Ben R, McNabb, Rivers, Brees, Warner, Jamarcus (caught you!).... These guys will mostly be getting in as well. How about the 5-to-1 OL to QB ratio on a team? The HOF has that roughly reversed. I don't know of any voters who would come out and say that QBs are "more worthy" of inclusion than their great linemen. It's just easier to vote for the guys who rack up stats.

There are a couple blocking fullbacks right now (don't ask, I forget their names) who are either still playing after a dozen years or just recently retired who have a track record of blocking for a 1,000 yard rusher just about every year of their career. These guys were money and did their job better than anyone else at their position--they did everything asked of them and did it well--so well that their battery-mates went on to the pro bowl, all pro teams, maybe the HOF. These guys, arguably deserve it. I am advocating for them and don't even know their names! (pathetic, or what? Good thing I am not a voter.) Lorenzo Neal is one, maybe Tony Richardson another? Mack Strong? But they deserve a shot they will never get, because there are bigger names ahead of them. I'll compare Neal to Peyton Manning in terms of doing everything he has to do at his position to be the best, to make his teammates the best, to make his team succeed. Yet because his position is arguably less important, prominent, measurable... blah. Maybe call it the HOF for QBs-only?

I have nothing against QBs, or RBs, or WRs. I just want a bigger tent. I think about a guy like Robert Mathis on the Colts, in about his 6th season with about 55 career sacks and 35+ forced fumbles (league leader in FF over the past 5 years--I think a guy who leads the league in INTS over that time has a leg up), one pro bowl (a second is likely this year). Guy LIVES in the opponents' backfield. Say he ends his career in 5 more years with 4 more pro bowls, 100 total sacks, 60 career FF, and uncountable QB pressures/hits (which are extremely valuable and often lead to INTs). I don't think his sack total will come close to getting him in, yet he was a key component of a SB winning D (one so far), and a D that finished top-5 scoring three times so far, and if trends hold, maybe 5-6 times in his career. He wouldprobably be worthy, but because he's overshadowed by Freeney (and Manning), plays in a small market, can fit in your pocket, probably will never lead the league with 15+ sacks, etc, may never even get voted on. And that's a shame.

I think there is a solid arguement that the 5-6 player limit is way too restrictive. Like the change to the Gregorian Calendar from the Julian one, hundreds of years ago when the western world skipped forward two weeks in an instant, I vote for a super-class when about 50 former greats from under-represented positions get in, then we go forward with maybe 8 slots a year....

138
by RickD :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:27am

Agree completely that they need to increase the number of players admitted. Five per year is way too few.

140
by Sifter :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:36am

It's a noble idea, but I'm not sure even the best modern FBs are worthy of the HOF. Mainly because their own team doesn't usually see them as important enough to keep on the field constantly.

My personal test is: would I have given up a lot of draft picks/value for this guy at the start of his career, knowing in advance how he'd play? The Ricky Williams rule if you like... So lets see, Adam Vinatieri? Pfft. Lorenzo Neal? Wouldn't give up much to get him. Terrell Davis? Now we're getting warmer. That's why I believe it's important that the more valuable positions get more recognition, because I see them as worth more to a team. Sure it's great to have good safety play, but how much would you give up to get a good safety? How about a very good one? Still not real valuable to my way of looking.

But in saying that, that's just my criteria and one of the great things about the HOF is the arguments it raises. "Big Ben is a lock!! Brees is a lock!!" "No they aren't they didn't do 'x' or win 'y'". In many ways it's great that the entry guidelines are kinda vague so that there is something to argue about. Would be a bit boring otherwise.

25
by wp4x4 (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:47am

Ben R is one of the top 5 QBs in today's game. One of if not the best in late game situations....a clear cut Hall of Famer regardless of what happens the rest of his career. I can't stand the Steelers, but Ben plays like another #7 I used to watch do the same things.

53
by Neoplatonist Bolthead (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 1:16pm

Sorry, man, but this is year 6 and he's a QB. He might technically become eligible after this year, but he's only halfway there given where the bar really is, especially as he has such a great crop of QBs before him and around him to compete with. I think there are about 7 or 8 guys right now that you gotta give major props as having either earned HOF (Brady, Manning, Favre) or being on what would be an HOF track in any other era (Ben, Brees, Rivers).

74
by billsfan :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:44pm

You're kidding, right? He's the youngest QB to win 2 Super Bowls, breaking the record set this decade by the guy everyone agrees is a mortal-lock, first-ballot hall-of-famer. Even though we probably agree that what I've just said is meaningless in terms of his actual ability as a QB, that's probably enough for the voters--it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Talent. Was Troy Aikman really that good?

(I also like the Eagles)

85
by Kurt :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 5:02pm

So, if the Giants win another Super Bowl in the next 5 or 6 years, does that put Eli in the HOF?

103
by Justin Zeth :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 8:47pm

Most likely, yes, it does.

139
by RickD :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:35am

Respectfully disagree.

Eli is not a great QB, didn't deserve the Super Bowl MVP, and would not deserve to be in the Hall if the Giants had a similar run driven by their defense.

Not that I think that's a huge worry.

Roethlisberger is himself not a particularly strong candidate. He's had some great games but has not maintained a high level of play. He's only been to one Pro Bowl so far, and looks unlikely to make one soon, as he's clearly behind Manning, Rivers, Brady, and Schaub right now. And that's only the AFC!

159
by Justin Zeth :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 8:45am

Yes, Eli Manning is no better than average and never has been and yet is regarded by ESPN as a superstar, and his Super Bowl MVP was the worst choice in the history of the award. And that's exactly why another championship will put him in the Hall of Fame--the media creates the narrative and then bends facts to fit it.

I didn't say he'll deserve it. I said he'll go in, if he wins another ring. And he will.

165
by billsfan :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 9:50am

Brady's 2001 SB MVP wasn't anything to write home about, either, but that was the first year that fan voting was taken into account, so like it or not, QBs will continue to get more of that particular award than they deserve.

(I also like the Eagles)

160
by Justin Zeth :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 8:46am

(deleted - double post)

114
by Andrew B :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:25pm

"or being on what would be an HOF track in any other era (Ben, Brees, Rivers)"

Drew Brees is not on any sort of track for being a Hall of Fame QB.

3 playoff appearances in 9 seasons? 1 championship game appaearance? A 55-51 record as a starter? 1-2 in playoff games? Only 4 winning seasons in 9 years? 3 pro-bowls in 9 years?

Are you crowing his ass because he's passed for 18,000 yards the past 4 years?

Its the Hall of Fame. Not the Hall of Stats.

Why don't you compare him to someone you don't even mention - McNabb? 82-45-1 as a starter, 9-6 in playoffs, 7 playoff appearances, 5 NFC championship games, 1 super bowl, 8 winning seasons in 11 years, 5 pro-bowls. All time NFL leader in interception percentage, also holds record for consecutive completed passes. Like I said, you don't even mention McNabb as a candidate, and you hold up someone like Brees as a near shoo-in? WTF?!?!?

The Original Andrew

137
by MC2 :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:24am

3 playoff appearances in 9 seasons? 1 championship game appaearance? A 55-51 record as a starter? 1-2 in playoff games? Only 4 winning seasons in 9 years? 3 pro-bowls in 9 years?

If you're really so opposed to using stats to evaluate HOF candidates, you better throw out those wins and losses, since they're stats too. They're just the wrong kind of stats, since they're used to measure teams, not individual players.

Individual players don't win or lose games by themselves, and thus, judging them on the basis of their team's performance is totally inappropriate. Guys like Barry Sanders and Dick Butkus never won much of anything during their careers. Does that make them unworthy HOFers?

142
by RickD :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:37am

You're seriously contending that McNabb is a better QB than Brees solely because the Eagles have been better than the Saints?

Football is a team game.

87
by DrewTS (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 5:50pm

Regardless of what happens the rest of his career? Poppycock. People probably said the same thing about Terrell Davis circa 1999, and last I heard, he's still considered a borderline candidate.

While Super Bowl wins certainly do add to a HOF resume, the fact is that counting stats do matter. If Large Ben destroys his knee tomorrow, he ends up with very pedestrian numbers for yards and TDs for a QB in the current era. He needs about another 10,000 yards and ~75 TDs. I think he'll get there with 3 more healthy seasons. A few more Pro-Bowls would probably help too. I'm not sure how you can be a Hall of Fame QB only making 1 Pro Bowl in your career. I know it's largely a popularity contest, but so is the HOF.

116
by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:37pm

Peyton, Brady, Rivers, Brees, Rodgers and Favre are all clearly better than Roethlisberger. I would also rather have Schaub, Warner, Palmer, McNabb and behind a competent line Cutler too. Probably others I currently forget to boot. Roethlisberger is not a top 5 QB.

35
by Sophandros :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:44am

"The Hall of Fame is very kind to quarterbacks"

Tell that to Ken Anderson.

-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.

145
by RickD :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:48am

Somebody has to be the best QB not in the Hall.

Anderson's problem is that he played for a lot of crappy Bengals team in an era dominated by the Cowboys and Steelers. Also, he only exceeded 3000 yards in a season twice. And this was during the era when Fouts exceeded 4000 yards 3 years in a row.

The love for Anderson is a recent thing. At the time, nobody really thought he was a future Hall of Famer. He was behind Bradshaw, Staubach (the big two), Fouts, Tarkenton, and maybe even Stabler. I don't remember ever thinking "Oh no, Ken Anderson is coming to town!" Whereas, if Fouts was in town...

42
by dedkrikit (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:23pm

Moon is my favorite player all-time. 527 yards in that game, right? The record is Norm Van Brocklin... and Easison has something between the two as a Cardinal.

69
by anonymiss (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:20pm

A shame Moon couldn't win in the playoffs. He never made it to a Conference title game.

10
by matt w (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 7:56am

Ben R.'s first ring really wasn't of Dilfer quality -- though Ben stank it up in the Super Bowl itself, he had an excellent regular season, with 35.1% DVOA -- second in the league behind P. Manning. His DYAR wasn't as high because he threw very few passes, but it was still seventh. T-Dilf, on the other hand, had a -24.6% DVOA in his Super Bowl year, good for 39th in both DVOA and DYAR, which was actually worse than Tony Banks, who he replaced. Which is another difference -- Ben started most of the Steelers' games that season (and boy, did we notice when Tommy Maddox was in for him).

Unless I've got mixed up on the years, which is possible at this hour of the morning.

All that said, I had the same reaction -- "Is Ben R. really a Hall-of-Famer?" But I think Justin is probably right that he has a good chance of getting in; and anyway, he is one of the big names of the NFL right now, so I think Bill was justified in boosting Ben's chances to make the rhetorical point.

51
by Staubach12 :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 1:07pm

Yes, he's a Hall of Famer. The first ring may have been of Dilfer caliber, but he did quite a bit to earn that second ring. I'm not convinced that Roethlisberger is one of the 5 or so best quarterbacks still playing (Manning, Brady, Brees, Favre, Rivers, and Romo all rate higher in my opinion). But Superbowl wins put QBs in the HOF--and I have no problem with that.

59
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 2:06pm

So if Brad Johnson, in his travels around the league, had landed in Baltimore instead of Washington, prior to getting to Tampa, that makes him a Hall of Famer?

One of the silliest things about the Pro Football Hall of Fame is the emphasis put on team accomplishments, when evaluating individual performance, in the most team-oriented sport. It is less ridiculous when done with quarterbacks, compared to other positions, but only very marginally so.

89
by Jimmy in Oz :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 6:24pm

Yeah Will. Brad makes it in because the HoF puts emphasis "on team accomplishments, when evaluating individual performance, in the most team-oriented sport." You've answered your own question really well. Remember Hall of Fame, not Hall of Best.

94
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 7:13pm

Well, golly, then I look forward to Ryan Leaf wearing an ugly yellow blazer. He's famous!

107
by MurphyZero :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 9:39pm

You're thinking of Hall of Infamy, and Leaf is already a member. I believe theirs is a brown blazer, or orange jumpsuit, which he is currently under review for donning.

95
by Staubach12 :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 7:15pm

+1

I'm all about using advanced stats to evaluate who is the best in the game today. However, that's not what the Hall of Fame is about. The HOF is a museum meant to preserve the great memories associated with the game. I want my HOF-ers to have great feats. Great stats are nice, but you can get in with good stats if everybody knows your name (see: Swann, Lynn).

97
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 7:28pm

Yeah, I just don't think getting lucky as to what roster you are drafted or signed to qualifies as a "great feat". If it is, by all means let us induct Preston Pearson, Marv Fleming, Matt Millen, and Mark Schlereth, among others.

99
by Staubach12 :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 7:45pm

How do any of those four qualify? Only Millen is a household name, and that's for his destruction of the Lions. When I talk about feats, I mean the sort of stuff you tell your kids about. Let me put it to you this way: HOF-ers are the people you'll tell your grandkids about when you are older. Their feats are the memories you want to pass down as part of the history of the game. When I'm older, I'll talk about Big Ben's rookie season, his game-winning drive in the Superbowl, and his 503-yard game, and I'll give those feats context by talking about Ben's very good stats. Conversely, Philip Rivers hasn't done anything yet that I'll want to tell my grandkids about, despite the fact that I think Rivers is a better QB (and despite the fact that I live in SD and the Chargers are my favorite AFC team).

100
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 8:09pm

Most of the people who talk about football to their kids don't know, to steal a phrase, whether the ball is blown up or stuffed. Fine. Have a "Hall of Fame". Let us just have some honesty about the institution, and put a sign out front which reads, "Induction into this hall is not meant to signify being far superior to one's football-playing peers.".

101
by Staubach12 :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 8:28pm

Here's the HOF's official mission statement:

"The Mission of the Pro Football Hall of Fame is:
To honor, preserve, educate and promote. . .
To honor individuals who have made outstanding contributions to professional football
To preserve professional football’s historic documents and artifacts
To educate the public regarding the origin, development and growth of professional football as an important part of American culture
To promote the positive values of the sport"

There's nothing there about enshrining the best players, just the ones who made the biggest contributions (feats).

104
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 9:09pm

Fine, just add my line, or remove the reference to education, since there is a common misconception that a player being clearly superior to his peers is the way to obtain enshrinement.

Oh hell, let's just do a robo-phone poll to a thousand NFL fans, and whomever gets talked about most to kids gets inducted. That way we can keep those offensive linemen out. How many kids get told about them?

109
by Staubach12 :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:08pm

About as many as are in the Hall of Fame

133
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:44am

Yep, and you just explained why Rayfield Wright took about 20 years longer to get in than he should have. Or why Bob Kuechenberg, along with more than a few other extremely deserving guys, are still not in. As soon as you reduce the place to a "Hall of Feats", you inevitably lose deserving focus on the contributions of guys who played away from the ball. The Pro Football Hall of Fame thus becomes nearly as ridiculous as the Heisman Trophy, an institution of recognition that does more to propagate ignorance than it does to educate what the game is about. That's what the question, "How many rings does that qb have?, does; it makes people less knowledgeable about professional football.

Like I said, if that's what people want, fine. Let us just rename it "The joint that recognizes football players in an especially superficial way".

144
by Staubach12 :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:47am

Let us just rename it "The joint that recognizes football players in an especially superficial way".

And how exactly is fame not superficial?

I think "Hall of Fame" sums it up pretty well.

152
by Staubach12 :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 3:08am

double post

153
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 3:35am

Fame isn't superficial when it is obtained via clearly superior performance, relative to one's peers, followed by recognition by a knowledgeable and informed audience. Fame becomes superficial when it is largely divorced from clearly superior performance, relative to one's peers, followed by recognition by an uninformed and ignorant audience. It is the difference between Claude Monet and Thomas Kinkade, or Otis Redding and Michael Bolton.

156
by Staubach12 :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 4:01am

Fame isn't superficial when it is obtained via clearly superior performance, relative to one's peers, followed by recognition by a knowledgeable and informed audience

I'd argue that what you have described is not fame at all.

Fame is widespread recognition, and, as you have stated, the average football fan knows very little. Therefore, fame cannot be the same thing as receiving recognition from a knowledgeable and informed audience.

It is certainly possible for the two phenomena you described to coincide (as is the case with Joe Montana, Claude Monet, and Otis Redding). But the fame aspect is always superficial almost by definition.

Look, my opinion is that the Hall of fame is a museum designed primarily for the casual fan who wants to see his favorite players enshrined. It also happens to collect lots of cool stuff from historic games (stuff that more informed fans would appreciate). I don't think it is supposed to be an arbiter of who was and was not a great player. In fact, philosophically, I would be opposed to such an organization.

157
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 4:30am

No, the fame of Claude Monet is not superficial in the least.

Fine, let's go with your notion of what this institution should be. Let us then get rid of the pretense that the selection is made by people who have informed themselves as to what constitutes a good football player. We should simply have a yearly poll, perhaps with call-ins during playoff halftimes, and the six or seven players that get their 800 number dialed the most get in. We can call it the "Hall of Most Google Hits".

If the place claims that one of it's goals is to educate, then it sure is strange that propagating ignorance is the path that has been chosen to accomplish that goal. Also, it is strange that you would not desire to have a small group of people be an "arbiter" of who was or was not a great player, but you wish to have that same group be an "arbiter" of who the causal fans' favorite players are. Why is one consensus of about three dozen guys more problematic than another consensus of the same group of guys?

119
by Andrew B :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:59pm

Exactly. Its a Hall of "Fame" not a Hall of "Stats".

The Original Andrew

126
by Bobman :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:20am

But O Linemen cannot rack up stats, but there have been roughly 150 on SB-winning teams, therefore... there should be MANY more in the HOF, right?

No stats but great feats = HOF, no?

134
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:51am

It is a completely false dichotomy to say we must either have a Hall of Fame, with "Fame" defined in a very superficial manner, or a "Hall of Stats".

147
by Staubach12 :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:51am

When only seven players are inducted every year, I think you really do have to make a choice. I'd be in favor of inducting more players and even reserving spots for defensive and "non-skill" offensive positions. With so few spots, however, I don't think there is enough room for it to be both a hall of fame and a hall of stats.

155
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 3:45am

It doesn't have to be either. Even if they just mandated that seven guys get in every year for the next five years, you wouldn't have to reduce the place to the most ridiculous means by which to define what constitutes the most outstanding contributions. The institution really has become every bit as silly as the Heisman Trophy, which has as much to to do with excellence in college football as Arby's has to to do with excellence in food.

102
by tuluse :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 8:29pm

Rivers played a playoff game with NO ACL!

121
by Andrew B :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:05pm

Yes, and McNabb did it with a broken ankle and Favre with a broken thumb and several games with a torn muscle. Whoopdeedoo.

The Original Andrew

136
by tuluse :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 1:25am

OK, but you just named 2 more future HOFers :)

Anyways the post I was responding to was looking for "feats" Rivers had performed. That was one.

106
by Marver :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 9:13pm

Rivers has a higher career QB Rating than any active QB.
Rivers' offense has averaged more points per game than any other QB in NFL history.
Rivers has never thrown more than 2 INT in any game in his entire career.

Go ahead and enshrine Trent Dilfer.

111
by Staubach12 :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:12pm

Career Passer ratings for Active QBs:

1. Aaron Rodgers - 96.6
2. Tony Romo - 95.6
3. Peyton Manning - 95.3
3. Philip Rivers - 95.3

And no, I don't want Dilfer in. And, yes, I think Rivers will make it into the HOF, he just hasn't earned it yet.

124
by Travis :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:17pm

Rodgers, Romo, and Rivers all sat on the bench their first 2+ years in the league, which probably helps their overall QB ratings since their averages aren't dragged down by a learning phase. This isn't to say they aren't very good quarterbacks.

128
by Bobman :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:23am

That's a good point--it hurts their career aggregate stats (if you divide by their years in the league rather than games played) but improves their ratings. (Brady fits that category too, no? Or was it just one year?) I mean, P Manning led the league in INTs his rookie year and that year's rating is about 20 points below his career avg. Eliminate that year and he looks pretty good.

141
by Sifter :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:36am

Hmm yes, but it can be taken too far. Does David Tyree get in the HOF? That's something I'll tell my grandkids about. Jerome Harrison carving up the Chiefs? Rob Bironas's 8 FGs? All story worthy, but I'd cry if these guys ever were placed in the HOF. Hall of Magic Moments maybe?

151
by Staubach12 :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 3:04am

Okay, but I did say that someone had to at least have good stats to get in because of amazing feats. Also, I said feats (plural), not feat.

Yes, I'd cry if those guys were enshrined as well. However, David Tyree's helmet, Jerome Harrison's Jersey, and Rob Bironas's K-Ball are all in the Hall of fame. So the hall does have a way of celebrating magic moments as well, and I think that's a good thing.

  • http://www.profootballhof.com/story/2009/7/16/giant-mementos-from-super-...
  • http://www.profootballhof.com/story/2009/12/21/cribbs-harrison-jerseys-c...
  • http://www.profootballhof.com/history/story.aspx?story_id=2580
  • 146
    by RickD :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:50am

    Just as somebody has to be the best QB not in the Hall, somebody has to be the weakest WR in the Hall.

    (I'm not fond of using outliers to characterize the nature of an entity.)

    72
    by commissionerleaf :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:28pm

    I don't think Roethlisberger is an HOF candidate yet. He's nowhere close to Kurt Warner levels of accomplishment (so far). But I'm confident he will be soon, and he already has the "Super Bowl wins" box checked on his resume.

    110
    by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:09pm

    Comparing anyone to Kurt Warner is pointless. He should and will be a Hall of Famer, but his career is beyond bizarre, and there will never be another like it. Leaving aside the vast gulf of mediocre production in the middle of it, or the fact that he was 28 before he got a start, consider this: the guy is #1, 2 and 3 on the all-time Superbowl single game passing yardage list, and all of those games were decided on the final possession against above average or better defenses. No-one else is ever going to have that statistic. It's freakish and wierd, like everything else about Warner's career. Warner gets in not only because he was that good but because his career was that odd and hence cool. Roethlisberger looks set to get in because he was pretty good and played for a team with great defense.

    161
    by C (not verified) :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 9:28am

    I agree and I agree Big Ben and Rivers are probably on track for the HOF, but after what, 5-6 years if they retired right now they don't deserve it. In 5-7 more years I'm sure they will deserve it, but if Ben got into another motorcycle accident or something I wouldn't put him in right now.

    4
    by Sean D. (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:17am

    It's hard for Antoine Cason to develop at the nickel when he doesn't play tyhat position. Steve Gregory plays there. Cason is just the 3rd CB on the depth chart. On most teams that would mean the nickel back, but not the Chargers. I don't think he even plays dime that much.

    5
    by Bobman :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:18am

    Can't Vince Young get some extra points for his solid, vicious revenge tackle after throwing a pick? It probably was not wise for a QB to lay his body on the line like that, but nice to see. I think a couple extra points are merited--he already got dinged for the pick in the first place,might as well give back some of those pts for savagery and being a "real football player..."

    30
    by roguerouge :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:07am

    Some things on the football field are so valuable, they can't be measured.

    71
    by Levente from Hungary :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:24pm

    For everything else there is MasterCard.

    129
    by Bobman :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:24am

    That joke was priceless.

    6
    by Mike Y :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:21am

    Nice to see my Bears having the worst QB and the worst RB of the week. That's gotta be hard to do.

    15
    by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 9:22am

    I think the key to stellar achievements like that is assembling a Dad's Army offensive line of geriatrics, kids and incompetents. I'm a big fan of both Cutler and Forte as players, but neither of them is well equipped, in the manner of a Roethlisberger or a Barry Sanders, to make the best of a bad job behind a terrible line.

    83
    by TomC :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:46pm

    I love the fact that you can make a "Dad's Army" reference here and expect people to get it. The only reason I did is because Monty Python enjoyed spoofing it ("Dad's Pooves", "Dad's Doctor", "On The Dad's Liver Batchelors at Large" whatever the hell that was supposed to mean).

    The strangest thing about that Bears game is that they drove the length of the field twice in the first half, including a not-horrible success rate on running plays. It looked like the OL was getting reasonable push on a good defense for the first time all season. Of course, they self-destructed in the red zone, but going into the half down 14-7, it really seemed like they had some life. Perhaps Harbaugh just had to politely remind his team who they were playing at halftime, 'cause the 3rd quarter was a complete ass-kicking.

    7
    by MC2 :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:49am

    Even though it's not DYAR's fault (since it can only "see" the stats, rather than the actual games), Matt Ryan was nowhere near a Top 10 QB this week. Yes, he was playing a tough defense, but he was also clearly not 100%, particularly in the sense of being used to the speed of the game. He made several very ill-advised throws that easily could have resulted in turnovers, including a couple that were just dropped by the Jets.

    Throw in the fact that he completed less than 50% of his passes while averaging less than 10 yards per completion, and you have one of the worst performances of his pro career (and I've seen them all). Fortunately for the Falcons, Sanchez was probably even worse than Ryan. It was a brutal game to watch.

    64
    by are-tee :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 2:57pm

    Actually, when you throw in all the dropped interceptions by the Jets, I thought Ryan was worse than Sanchez. I guess playing against the Falcons' porous D probably contributed to Sanchez's low ranking. But figure in that Thomas Jones had his worst game of the year and the three would-be scoring drives Sanchez had which led to botched FG's; he wasn't the reason the Jets lost this game. And I guess the last interception wasn't treated as a "Hail Mary", but it was thrown on third and long from deep in Jets' terittory with time running out.

    8
    by IsraelP (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 6:48am

    Does Ben get extra credit for spreading the ball enough that none of his receivers cracks your top five?

    108
    by MurphyZero :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 9:43pm

    Steelers had 5 receivers with over 70 yards receiving, Packers added 4 more. I wonder if that is a record (9 guys with 70+ yards receiving in a game), it probably has to be.

    11
    by C (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 8:08am

    Tom Brady 14th? I watched the game and it was hardly impressive. I find it hard to believe he played a better game than the 4 guys below him even when you factor in pass defense.

    13
    by Purds :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 8:33am

    It's hard to figure out DYAR and such. If you just look at the guy below Brady, Vince Young, and compare him to Brady's pure numbers, it's hard to think Vince was worse. If you give them both the same numbers through Brady's stats, then Vince threw the ball 4 times more than Brady, completing 3 of those passes for another 120+ yards and two touchdowns, but DYAR says it was a worse performance. Hard to get my head around that, when the write up says Young was 8 of 10 on thrid down. The DYAR must be including the pass interferences that Brady's receivers picked up, and those were two huge plays (as in yardage, not necessarily as game changers, as they occurred fairly early in the game, I think.)

    21
    by C (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:06am

    OK, I don't think he really had a better game than Vince Young, but move on down the list to Carson Palmer. 329 yards, 2 TDs on the road, and a good completion percentage. Is DVOA saying that the bills defense is that much better than San Diego's?

    I watched the tape on that game yesterday and Carson Palmer threw some absolute bullets and with accuracy. The first hard pass was thrown in the hole in the zone and I was like man, that was a hard throw and then the announcer (Simms?) was talking about how fast those passes were thrown. Palmer really does have one of the stronger + more accurate arms in the league.

    26
    by nat :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:48am

    Is DVOA saying that the bills defense is that much better than San Diego's?

    Yes. Because they are. Overwhelmingly and objectively.

    Bills: -17.2% pass defense DVOA.
    Chargers: +16.7% pass defense DVOA.

    Palmer got 41% (116.7/82.8 = 1.41) more production per play just by showing up. And presumably, he would get more plays just for showing up, too. Which he did.

    88
    by Marver :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 6:19pm

    Not really. A ton of the Bills' value in pass defense comes from interceptions. They have the highest defensive interception rate in the NFL. But defensive interception rate is almost entirely non-predictive (games 1-8 defensive interception rate correlates with games 9-16 defensive interception rate at just .08!). The control for the interception is almost entirely the quarterback's, evident by a self-correlation about 4 times stronger.

    A defense's ability to limit the opposing offense's passing efficiency correlates FAR higher (0.29) than DInterception rate (.08) so examining that is far better way of evaluating the two teams against the pass. By that measure, the Bills are worth half a yard per passing attempt.

    98
    by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 7:40pm

    But defensive interception rate is almost entirely non-predictive

    The 'adjusted BS rate' stat that Niners Nation derived, which contained an interception rate that had to be adjusted because it was strongly affected (with an correlation coefficient of 0.483) by the opposing team's defensive interception rate.

    It's entirely possible that the majority of the control a defense has is a modifier on a QB's interception rate. That'd explain a weak correlation between two halves of the season because the predominant effect would be the opposing QB's interception rate.

    105
    by Marver :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 9:10pm

    The problem with the correlation coefficient there was that a team replays 3/13 of its opponents over the course of the season (divisional opponents). When the replay occurs, the result of the game will say 'the interception rate in this game was affected by the defense's interception rate this season', which it will necessarily say because that defense has already played that quarterback this season -- and that quarterback's ability to throw an interception against that defense should remain constant. The effect of 3 games in a sample of 16 will certainly have a measurable difference, in favor of incorrectly strengthening the correlation coefficient.

    Year-to-year defensive interception rate is BARELY correlated, games 1-8 compared to games 9-16 defensive interception rate is BARELY correlated; I have a hard time believing that forcing defensive interception is a true, significant attribute.

    Just look at the Bills this season anecdotally. Here are the quarterbacks they've faced: Tom Brady, Byron Leftwich, Drew Brees, Chad Henne, Derek Anderson, Mark Sanchez, Jake Delhomme, Matt Schaub, Vince Young, David Garrard, Chad Henne, Mark Sanchez, Matt Cassel, Tom Brady.

    Compare that to the Browns (lowest DINT%): Brett Favre, Kyle Orton, Joe Flacco, Carson Palmer, Trent Edwards, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Jay Cutler, Joe Flacco, Matt Stafford, Carson Palmer, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Cassel.

    113
    by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:19pm

    The problem with the correlation coefficient there was that a team replays 3/13 of its opponents over the course of the season (divisional opponents).

    Do you know this for a fact, or are you surmising? When I contacted the author he said that it was non-common games (i.e. excluding games vs same opponent from the defensive interception rate). He didn't see a correlation with fumble rate (i.e. defensive forced fumbles aren't significantly predictive), which you would expect if it was an artifact.

    Year-to-year defensive interception rate

    You keep stressing defensive interception rate. If defensive interceptions are a modifier on offensive interception rate, you wouldn't see it in a direct correlation if the spread in offensive interception rates is higher than the modifiers.

    I have a hard time believing that forcing defensive interception is a true, significant attribute.

    Why? Defensive interceptions for players are somewhat persistent: if you correlate interceptions/game in one year vs. interceptions/game in the next year for cornerbacks, there's a moderate correlation (R^2 of ~0.1, p ~ 0.3 a year or two ago, using starting CBs and a span of ~4 years or so - the smallish R^2 isn't that surprising given that counting error would dominate), and that includes players who jump teams, so repeated exposure to certain QBs would be diluted.

    127
    by Marver :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:20am

    You keep stressing defensive interception rate. If defensive interceptions are a modifier on offensive interception rate, you wouldn't see it in a direct correlation if the spread in offensive interception rates is higher than the modifiers.

    You would over a large time-frame or sample, like a league-wide multi-year study. At least 7 (between 7-9) games in year 2 are played against the same opponent (and, likely, the same quarterback) as year 1. Based on that alone you'd expect to see some slight year-to-year correlation (assuming only the quarterback were in control of the INT), which you do at .08. What you're saying is that because the spread in INT% of the other quarterbacks you play from year-to-year varies too widely, you can't accurately measure the modifier. I'm not sold.

    And I suppose it could be true; but it doesn't change the result that the offensive still holds drastically larger control for the INT than the defense, the whole premise of this argument. The Bills are being largely credited in DVOA for defensive interceptions, and what HAS happened, DEF DVOA, was (erroneously) being used to show how some quarterbacks rate higher than others in this week's DVOA. The Bills defensive interception rate, which is largely random with respect to the defense, was therefore used as justification in the calculation of a quarterback's performance that week, even though the random results of past weeks (the largest component of DEF INT%) don't dictate future performance (the actual talent of the Bills defense).

    143
    by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:37am

    You would over a large time-frame or sample, like a league-wide multi-year study.

    Why? If it's just the wrong model, it's just a wrong model, and that's all the correlation coefficient would be telling you.

    It's easy to generate a model that has no correlation coefficient with the wrong model, and a very strong one with the right one.

    And considering I did have a multi-year league-wide study that shows that defensive interceptions persist somewhat for cornerbacks, I think it's pretty unlikely that defensive interceptions are purely non-predictive.

    The Bills are being largely credited in DVOA for defensive interceptions

    Defensive interceptions aren't context free here - the Bills are being evaluated for their performance relative to the offense they're playing. Which is the same as saying that defensive interceptions are treated as a modifier on offensive interception rate.

    I don't think the fact that defensive interception rate doesn't persist can be used as a criticism for any stat that uses interceptions. Bad math is just bad math, it doesn't mean the data is bad.

    117
    by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:48pm

    "I have a hard time believing that forcing defensive interception is a true, significant attribute."

    Come on. Extremely hard to assess statistically due to small sample size and high variance, sure. The fact remains that good pass rushes will force more ill advised throws, leading to a higher interception percentage, and that a certain kind of quality DB, who is given to risk-taking, will make more interceptions (Reid, Samuel). Other DBs have great cover skills but hands of stone (Sheldon Brown). That statistical approaches find something tough to measure is very far from being compelling evidence that it is not a real effect.

    130
    by Marver :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:25am

    I think you and I have different benchmarks for believing something. And I think you're overlooking the term 'significant'. Even if it were a real attribute, it's amplitude is necessarily small, or else it wouldn't escape detection in many correlative tests. The fact it's used as an entirely NOT random statistic -- giving it full-weight -- and then projected into an opponent's DVOA is nothing short of bad statistics.

    I may be skeptic on when to believe something -- ie, show me it exists -- but at least I'm not telling people to believe something -- ie, injecting opponent DVOA into the offense's numbers -- that almost certainly doesn't exist at the amplitude they're (FO) professing.

    174
    by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 8:11pm

    Even if it were a real attribute, it's amplitude is necessarily small, or else it wouldn't escape detection in many correlative tests.

    Yeah, statistics doesn't work that way. Just because the correlation coefficient using one model is wrong doesn't imply that it's necessarily small in another. You just presume D_ir(wk9-16)=D_ir(wk1-8), and the model says "not really". If the true model is really D_ir(wk9-16)=(D_ir(wk1-8)/O_ir(wk1-8))*(O_ir(wk9-16) if the scatter in O_ir(wk1-8)/O_ir(wk9-16) is large enough, even if the correlation was absolutely perfect, you'd never see it.

    The fact it's used as an entirely NOT random statistic -- giving it full-weight -- and then projected into an opponent's DVOA is nothing short of bad statistics.

    It's not given full weight. A team that intercepts an interception-prone QB won't have as strong a defensive DVOA as a team that intercepts a league-average interception-rate QB. Which makes it closer to the above model than just including defensive interception rate.

    (It's also worth noting that Buffalo has the smallest variance in defensive DVOA of any team - if their pass defense skills were primarily coming from random interceptions, that wouldn't be very likely.)

    that almost certainly doesn't exist at the amplitude they're (FO) professing.

    From the FAQ, DVOA is a balance between predictivity and retrodictivity. It's not meant to be perfectly predictive.

    23
    by nat :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:19am

    Just because you find it hard to understand DYAR, that's no excuse to give up.

    The 'D' in 'DYAR' stands for defense-adjusted. I noticed you didn't mention the defenses at all in your post. That could explain your confusion. I'll break it down.

    Brady was playing the third best pass defense (as judged by objective statistics - DVOA) in the league. On average, you would expect his unadjusted stats to drop by 17.2%. That is, his baseline for comparison is 82.8% of an average performance against an average pass defense.

    For contrast, the third worst passing defense was up against Peyton Manning and the Colts receiving corps. Poor sods. Manning's baseline of comparison would be 131.1%. That's 1.58 times Brady's baseline. And that's for judging the average play. DYAR gets magnified, because it's your unadjusted success that determines how often you can extend drives and rack up more plays and therefore yards.

    The upshot is that defense adjustments matter a lot more than you would naively think for DVOA, and under-adjust DYAR (which is intended - DYAR adjusts for the defense per play, but doesn't try to adjust for defenses allowing more or fewer plays).

    By the way, I'm pretty sure that Manning had the better passing DVOA this week, too. His DYAR per pass play was higher. The same cannot be said about Vince Young, who was playing against a slightly better than average pass defense. That's about a 20% easier task than Brady had.

    It matters who you're playing.

    28
    by Purds :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:50am

    I see what you're saying, Nat, but the upshot then, this late in the year, is that DYAR rank (one QB relative to another QB) in an individual game is realistically almost purely dependent upon the opponent's defense. If you use the example you gave, then Manning needs to play 58% better just to be even with Brady, given the opponents, right? So, if Brady goes 5 for 10 converting 3rd downs, and runs up 100 yards and 2 touchdowns in those passes, Manning would need to go 8 for 10 for 158 yards and 3 touchdowns to just tie him, right? If Manning is 7 for 10 for 157 yards and 3 TD's, he is ranked below Brady in DYAR. That's a heavy adjustment.

    My other point was that we don't know exactly the formula, so it's hard to get my head around it some times, and often I forget that the stats listed in the table above do not include all the factors, such as the penalty yards accrued in the Pats game (noted in the comments below the Brady note.)

    29
    by Purds :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:52am

    The other thing I have a hard time understanding is how Buffalo's pass defense can be so good -- I believe it, but watching that incompetent offense, it's hard to believe anything on that team is good.

    31
    by nat :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:13am

    Yes, it's easy to think of the Bills as incompetent. But their pass defense is awesome.

    They average 2 sacks, 2 interceptions, less than one passing TD, and 185 yards per game on passing defense. They do this while racking up one extra defensive penalty per game over average - so they're not getting away with DPI on every play or anything like that.

    You could argue that the low yardage is because teams attack the Bills on the ground. But that only makes the sack and interception totals look even better.

    I think the Bills have figured out on defense what the rest of the league has figured out on offense: It's worth sacrificing the running game to be really good at the pass.

    36
    by C (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:54am

    I understand D-efense matters but Vince Young had 3 TD's, Palmer had nearly 3 times as many passing yards and he had an extra TD.

    Buffalo has good corners, but I feel like they over adjusted and Brady didn't look that good in the game. I also think Merriman has been coming back, and that SD's pass defense is better than they were early in the year, but Ocho Cinco beat Crowbar in a sweet double move.

    I'd think that Buffalo does sacrafice some run defense ( like the Colts) and the pats looked good on the ground, but didn't look good passing. I'd speculate that the whole bad run defense with the Bills throws off the defensive rankings but who knows. I think DVOA overrated the turnover, making a defense like the Saints look better than they really are ( despite injuries).

    I watched both games and in my opinion Palmer played a better game, I taped the Titans/Miami game and I'll watch it later, but Brady didn't look like a verge top 10 QB... pass defense and all.

    55
    by Still Alive (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 1:29pm

    You realize a TD is worth about the same as 2 yards...

    56
    by Eddo :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 1:52pm

    According to the original adjusted yards per attempt stat, which I believe was first used in The Hidden Game of Football, which DYAR is based on, a passing touchdown counts as 10 yards.

    P-F-R recently recalibrated AY/A, and changed TDs to be worth 20 yards.

    86
    by JSM (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 5:13pm

    But Brady isn't a "verge top 10 QB" for week 15.

    He is # 14 (15 if you include MNF) and is a full 32 DYAR behind the #10 QB (Matt Ryan). Hmmm, 97 for Ryan vs 65 for Brady - seems like Brady is about 45% away from being on the "verge" this week.

    48
    by mm (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:51pm

    The Bills defended the pass better than just about anyone else the Saints played this year. Of course, the Saints were able to run all over them.

    39
    by nat :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:03pm

    I assume you have no problem accepting that the Colts are 45% above average (per play) on passing offense. Why does it surprise you that pass defenses can also be very good or very bad?

    41
    by C (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:22pm

    45% above average sounds high and it would depend on results vs reality.

    Pass defenses can be good or bad, but I don't believe they exist in a vacume and the fact that the Bills run defense stunk seems like it could be effecting it. Buffalo plays outdoors in a stadium that can get very windy and very cold as well.

    If the Colts are winning games, and people HAVE to pass, and they might/might not be in desperation mode... Desperation mode leads to people doing things they might not otherwise do, which leads to picks/sacks/turnovers... SEE Saints. I don't think their defense ( or pass defense) are that great but then again with that offense they don't have to be.

    I do think the Colts have a good pass defense ( good pass rush, speedy back 7 with a hitter in Beathea), but it reminds me of the Greatest Show on Turf Rams were announcers were hyping up the fact that they had the #1 run defense in the league... based on yards. Yeah, but when your team is putting up 40 points, teams have an incentive NOT to run. The Colts defense ( and Saints) defense is in a different situation than other teams.

    The Colts built a team that could pass and stop the pass, they don't seem as concerned about giving up rushing yards over and over, shortening the game because they do have the most efficient QB in the game. They built a team that can defend the pass, because they want to be able to protect leads because they can score so many points.

    I think that sometimes defenses with weak offenses ( like the Redskins) or Raiders from a couple years ago can be overrated. Teams know that the offense doesn't pose much threat, and don't attack the defense in the same way they would if they had a good offense. If you are up 14 points on say the Raiders, Browns, or Redskins, you probably are more concerned with NOT turning the ball over than scoring points. You run more conservative plays to reflect that, and that's how the Redskins are 4th in defense in conventional stats...

    50
    by nat :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:56pm

    The Colts offensive passing DVOA is 45.6%. That's after a slight hit for playing against an easy-ish schedule. Their unadjusted result is more than 50% over average.

    I don't think that is at all controversial. It is simply what happened. They are a very good passing team.

    Similarly, the Jaguars passing defense has a DVOA of 31.1%. Over the course of the season, their defense has inflated their opponents passing effectiveness by 31.1%. That's also not controversial. It's simply what has happened. Maybe they do it by psychic powers. Maybe they do it by being physically bad. It really doesn't matter. Play the Jaguars and your passing offense will look better than it is.

    For an average game between these two teams, you would expect the Colts offense to be 1.456 * 1.311 = 1.909 as effective per pass play than an average offense would be against an average defense. If that happens, we assume that some portion of that was Manning being Manning, and some portion of that was the Jaguars being damp dishtowels. If the Colts are only 31.1% more effective than an average team against an average defense, then we credit Manning with playing as well as an average QB. That's what defense adjustments do.

    None of this is hard or even insightful. It always amazes me that people have this blind spot. It matters who you're playing.

    58
    by C (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 2:05pm

    I understand that it's harder to be effective and rack up stats vs good defenses. My point is that I don't think Brady had a better game than Palmer or Young and that it's not so easy to compare QB A vs defense X to QB B against defense Y. I'm also not sure if the Bills pass D is as good as they say it is. Could a great game against the Saints have skewed the stats a little bit? Plus offenses and defenses get better/worse as the year goes on based on injury and such.

    I seem to recall FO suggesting Brees fantasy owners to bench Brees after the Saints played the Bills and weren't that great but he bounces back with a monster game.

    Now I'm curious to look at the tape in that Saints/Bills game and see if it was more on the Saints offensive blunders ( they happen sometimes, especially early in the year), or if the Bills played to a caliber of the 3rd best pass defense in the league.

    I don't think FO stats are junk, I just watched both the Patriots game and the Chargers game and Palmer looked more impressive IMO. Sometimes you have to look beyond the results as well ( Phillip Rivers threw an INT to Keith Rivers, but it totally wasn't his fault), I forget the Palmer INT off the top of my head but he played a good game.

    78
    by Eddo :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:25pm

    "I seem to recall FO suggesting Brees fantasy owners to bench Brees after the Saints played the Bills and weren't that great but he bounces back with a monster game."

    The only FO column that gives out fantasy advice is Scramble, and in the issue following the Saints-Bills game, there is no advice given regarding Brees at all.

    EDIT: I forgot about the ESPN fantasy +/- column. I don't have Insider, but Brees was going up against another good pass defense (especially in week 4) the next week, the Jets, so suggesting he could be expected to disappoint a little is not a bad idea.

    EDIT #2: And he didn't have a monster game the week after the Saints played the Bills. In week 4, he went 20/32 for 190 yards and no touchdowns.

    131
    by Bobman :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:35am

    Nat,
    Just anally checking methodoogy, but wouldn't you take the Colts offensive DVOA in games that EXCLUDE the Jags and the Jags DVOA in games that EXCLUDE the Colts to figure out what to predict for their performances? (If both teams were closer to the baseline it might be okay, but the Colts number is probably enhanced by playing the Jags, and vice-versa, no? I bet the same holds true for each teams run games as well as the jags run well and stop the run and the Colts don't, and they play each other twice a year.) I THINK that's the way to do it, but maybe because those numbres are opponent-adjusted, it doesn't matter. Not a big deal.

    The rest of your post looks right to me.

    63
    by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 2:42pm

    45% above average sounds high and it would depend on results vs reality.

    Indy puts up an average of 39 yards/drive - the average is around 30. That's about 33% more yardage per drive than average for their offense - and that includes both passing, rushing, and false starts/delay of game penalties. 45% above average for just the passing plays doesn't sound high at all.

    46
    by Dan :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:48pm

    Young also had 2 sacks and a fumble (his teammate recovered, but DVOA does not care). Brady had none of either.

    149
    by RickD :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:59am

    Why are you guys talking about DYAR without talking about what it measures?

    Look at the first line of text after Young is mentioned: he threw three passes on 3rd down that were caught short of the first down marker. The FO system hates that kind of thing!

    Also, from the Jamarcus Russell comment we can see that QBs get some credit for PI calls that help the offense, and the Pats had three such calls.

    The PI call on Moss was definitely a game changer. It came when the Pats were trailing 3-0 and led to their first TD.

    169
    by coboney :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 1:02pm

    I believe DVOA counts PIs - but there are mentions that DYAR doesn't overall.

    And ya FO stats HATE unsucessful 3rd down plays.

    12
    by Levente from Hungary :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 8:23am

    It was mind boggling how commentators keep pointing out that Drew Stanton "lead the Lions" back from a 17-point deficit.
    He contributed on exactly 1 drive (OK, to be fair with him, he was a main force behind that drive), but had nothing to do with the INT return, the 60-yard rush and the FG.

    I find it ridiculous to say the caused the turnaround.

    73
    by zlionsfan :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:36pm

    It's probably the same people who are pointing out how Brady Quinn is "turning around" the Browns' season.

    132
    by Bobman :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:39am

    And the same ones who credit a QB with a late come-back win when his team trailed by 3 in the 4th quarter but the D had a pick-six to win it, or the ST ran back a kick. Or an RB broke a 50-yard TD run. That win goes on his permanent record (along with dipping Mary Ellen's pigtails in the ink well in 2nd grade.) QBs, as important as they are, always get too much credit and blame.

    And you know who I blame for THAT? You guessed it... QBs.

    16
    by DGL :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 9:26am

    Meta-comment: I hope you guys are getting a lot of money from ESPN for QR, because you're sure as hell not getting much exposure. It's almost never "above the fold" on their NFL page, and most weeks the only way I can find it is to search on "quick reads"; this week, as of midnight Monday (EST) I couldn't even find it that way - the first time I've seen it is here this morning.

    (Yes, I pay for Insider.)

    33
    by Tom Gower :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:19am

    Bill has started posting a link on FO's twitter feed (accessible from the left sidebar) after it goes up. Alternatively, if you search for Bill Barnwell, it shows up under his name. But, yes, I personally agree that it seems overly difficult to find on ESPN's site.

    54
    by Temo :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 1:17pm

    Well, Simmons gave Barnwell a shout out on his twitter, which has like 1 million followers. And only like 90% of them are bots, so there maybe 100K who read that tweet.

    Ok, so half of those guys don't actually use twitter, so 50K. That's still something.

    17
    by Cowboy78 (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 9:52am

    How is Miles Austin not in the top 5 most productive WR's? He had 9 rec for 173 yards and a TD, he had a better day than Randy Moss did.

    27
    by Noah of Arkadia :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:49am

    That's not how it works over here, cowboy. Check out the info about advanced stats

    158
    by jebmak :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 8:41am

    HAH! I thought that you were talking down to him a little bit by calling him cowboy. And then I saw his handle.

    75
    by Vincent Verhei :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:05pm

    I'd imagine the six incompletions thrown his way had something to do with it.

    163
    by Temo :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 9:40am

    Even if that was due to them avoiding throwing to Roy Williams at all costs? :p

    170
    by coboney :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 1:04pm

    Sadly FO stats do not yet have a Roy Williams modifier to account for his inability to play football. So Miles Austin doesn't get a bonus for 'not roy williams' instead taking a penalty for being not roy Williams.

    Hopefully when Jerry admits that Roy was a mistake (Or has someone take the blame ) we can stop seeing the "Not-Roy Williams" stat injuries stop.

    164
    by Temo :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 9:41am

    double post.

    19
    by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 9:54am

    I really looked forward to see that Chicago offens go nuts with all their different styles of recievers and strong armed QB. The disappointment.

    Sean Payton would make that offense, if nothing else, very entertaining to watch.

    40
    by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:09pm

    The genetically engineered coach, created from the DNA of Sean Payton, Bill Walsh, Sid Gillman, and Vince Lombardi, couldn't make an offense, with that line, look entertaining. As the Vikings are experiencing now, if your offensive line just gets whipped, play after play, everything else looks like dung, reducing scheme and playcalling to trivialities.

    118
    by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:58pm

    I agree. What I would be intrigued to find out is whether the same rule applies to Mike Leach. He's not asking his offensive line to do even remotely the same thing. It wouldn't surprise me if applying his system to the pro level got your quarterback killed even with very good OL talent, but I also wouldn't be that surprised if it enabled an offense to work effectively with no OL talent whatsoever.

    148
    by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:54am

    You might want to give that a try with a guy you drafted in the third round, as opposed to a guy you just traded two number ones, and a decent qb, to obtain. They could market his jersey, with his focus group-developed nickname: Fresh Meat.

    22
    by Aloysius Mephistopheles (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:13am

    I must defend the honor of one of my favorite players ever, Charlie Garner. Garner had over 10,000 career YFS despite only having four seasons as a full-time starter. He had one season in Oakland where he just missed 1000 yards rushing and 1000 yards receiving. His 200-yard rushing game was a big one, but it wasn't his only big game, and it wasn't one of two or three either. If anything, Garner's another perfect example of a 'too small to get it done' player that was forced to wait too long for the opportunities he deserved.

    32
    by CoachDave :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:15am

    The fact that Big Ben is even being mentioned as a "potential HOFer" at this point in his career has nothing to do with his performance and everything to do with the ridiculous weight that HOF voters put on TEAM Super Bowl accomplishments when talking about a positional player, especially QB.

    Zero All Pro awards, One Pro Bowl, never led the league in anything but "number of INTs"...played for most of his career (so far) in a "defense first, rushing game second" oriented team. This is HOF material?

    Come on.

    43
    by Shalimar (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:24pm

    If you actually watch him play every week, yes. All Pros and Pro Bowls aren't the end-all when you play your whole career in the same conference as Brady and Manning, two of the best of all time. If Roethlisberger were in the NFC, he would have been to the Pro Bowl most years. Furthermore, he may well be an above average QB who just happens to be perfectly suited to the offense he runs, but it's still very hard to imagine anyone else running the Pittsburgh offense as well. He has the right skillset for where he ended up and plays very well in context, which is all it takes to get into the Hall if you do it long enough.

    172
    by CoachDave :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 4:39pm

    "He has the right skillset for where he ended up and plays very well in context, which is all it takes to get into the Hall if you do it long enough."

    Nobody makes up more quality whargabbl BS like Steeler Homers.

    So now it's the "Hall of Plays Very Well in Context For A Long Time"? That's priceless.

    45
    by matt w (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:32pm

    In 2005 he led the league in TD%, yards/attempt, and yards/completion (by more than a yard). And, um, in 2007 and 2009 he led the league in yards lost to sacks.

    Anyway, it's too soon to judge his career, and the HOF definitely exaggerates super bowl rings, but BRoeth has been an elite QB at times even if the Steelers' style means he didn't accumulate counting stats.

    47
    by billsfan :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:50pm

    You are just repeating many of the criticisms of pre-2007 Tom Brady. Ben has at least shown earlier an ability to throw accurately more than 5 yards down the field.

    Roethlisberger also has a better YPA than Brady, Brees, and Manning, FWIW.

    Pro Bowls are meaningless.

    (I also like the Eagles)

    60
    by C (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 2:09pm

    Big Ben was a game manager early in his career, but he's gotten better and is a very good QB. The similarity I see with Pre-2007 Brady is that if Roethlisburger played on a team with a crappier defense he'd put up better passing numbers, more shoot outs, more points needed.... But since his defense was good pretty much every year, look at his efficiency. He's good, don't just judge him by his numbers, if he needed to throw for more yards he could.

    61
    by matt w (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 2:25pm

    Well, as I keep saying, even early on he wasn't really a game manager except in the sense that he didn't throw a lot. In 2005 his efficiency numbers were very very good, but he only threw 298 passes (in 12 or 13 starts I think) -- literally only half as many as Eli Manning, who had the most passes of any QB whose name is printable on this site. (I'm using FO's stats which I think might count dropbacks rather than passes? Not sure.)

    The way he stank it up in XL obscures how good he was during the season. Since then it's a little harder to judge him since the o-line has deteriorated.

    62
    by C (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 2:36pm

    But early on the Steelers the field down to make 1/2 field reads and more simplier reads, max protection etc. I'm not saying Ben was bad, but he was limited in what he could do and I don't think he could have ripped off good 300 yard passing games for the team if they needed that to win. I'm not saying Game Manager in a sense that he was "bad", but more that he was "limited". But he was young, the Steelers coaches put him in a position to succeed, and he did what he was asked to do.

    A few years ago though I saw Ben light up the Bengals for 3-400 yards in a game. This is when he still had the "game manager" label, and if you put it all into context you are right, he was a better QB before people realized it. It shouldn't he held against him that he was on a good team that won games.

    I do think he was efficient, and I care more about efficiency on winning teams, and I want to see yards/stats more on losing teams. For example, Eli Manning didn't have the best statistical game last night ( yards wise at least), but he was super super efficient.

    I'll also agree with the guy who pointed out Ben's success in the 2 min drill. I think it shows that he understands the passing game and could put up better stats if needed.

    82
    by DGL :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:44pm

    "He's good, don't just judge him by his numbers, if he needed to throw for more yards he could."

    As he demonstrated Sunday...

    84
    by Jeff Fogle :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:58pm

    Worth remembering the career arcs of quarterbacks. Ben is in his age 27 season only. Brady's 32.

    Ages 25-26-27
    Brady: 79 TD's, 40 INT's, passer rating in high 80's
    Ben: 71 TD's, 37 INT's, passer rating in low 90's

    Ben has 2 more games this year, meaning he'll probably move up closer to Brady's volume in the first two stats, but has a chance to drop down rating wise. You'd have to call them fairly similar quarterbacks at similar ages. Note that Brady went 14-2 in two of those seasons...so the comparison includes very good seasons for both guys.

    Saw somebody say QB's peak from ages 28-32. Haven't seen that study or article, but let's assume that's right for the sake of argument. If Ben has solid stats and two SB wins before his peak...then he peaks at better than what we're seeing now...then he plateaus the way others in that class do...there won't be much debate about whether or not he's a HOF caliber QB. He's at least "on pace" now for that kind of career given his production and SB wins before the peak of the arc.

    120
    by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:04pm

    But not all QBs age at the same rate. Brady was nothing special till 2004 at the earliest, whereas Rothelisberger was effective from the get-go. On the other hand, Brady is a classic pocket QB with a good feel for avoiding the hits, whereas Roethlisberger invites people to pulverise him while metaphorically stating that he can simply take it. That seems to me reason to suspect that Roethlisberger may well decline through injury at an earlier age than Brady.

    135
    by Jeff Fogle :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 1:19am

    Agree that each QB is an individual. Disagree with your assessments of when people became special.

    Brady
    2002: 28 TD's, 14 INTs (age 25 season)
    2003: 23/12
    2004: 28/14
    2005: 26/14
    2006: 24/12

    Roethlisberger

    2006: 18 TD's, 23 INT's (still just 24)
    2008: 17 TD's, 15 INT's

    Brady's stats in those key elements were very similar from 2002-06, not suggesting "nothing special until 2004 at the earliest." Ben struggled in 2006, and didn't set the world on fire last year in the championship season. He's got better numbers as a passer this year though the team isn't doing as well on the whole.

    If you look at ages 25-27 for both in composite, they're fairly similar, as mentioned in my earlier post.

    I agree that Ben's longevity might be in question if he keeps inviting hits the way he does. Maturity may bring the better part of valor in his decision-making in that regard. If it doesn't...it could be tough to sustain a HOF type career. I'd guess part of the QB career arc involves getting smarter about how to protect yourself.

    173
    by commissionerleaf :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 5:23pm

    I'd say Brady wasn't anything special until 2007 at the earliest... and Roethlisberger still isn't. Because they have played on teams with great defenses they will undoubtedly eventually make the Hall of Fame (Brady's 2007 will probably help, although it appears he's back to 2003-2006 form now, even with Moss and Welker).

    Neither of them is remotely as impressive over the course of their career as Manning or Brees, and statistically, Roethlisberger isn't any more impressive than the OTHER Manning. He could easily wash out of the NFL with a knee injury next year without a statistical profile more impressive than a random 3 year swathe of pre-2009 Matt Hasselbeck.

    Actually, Roethlisberger's probably most similar to Brett Favre; a decent, aggressive quarterback who is perennially overrated because he played alongside truly stellar defenders early in his career.

    175
    by Mr Shush :: Thu, 12/24/2009 - 9:40am

    I actually think Brady's most impressive seasons were 2005 and 2006, once you factor in the paucity of supporting talent he had to work with in those seasons compared to the awesomeness of the 2007 receiving corps. He should probably have been the MVP in 2005 (though decent cases could also be made for Walter Jones and Steve Smith).

    180
    by Jeff Fogle :: Thu, 12/24/2009 - 11:53pm

    Age 25-26-27 seasons:
    Roethlisberger 71 TD's, 37 INT's
    Eli Manning: 68 TD's, 48 INT's
    Matt Hasselbeck: 23 TD's, 18 INT's

    Hasselbeck did start excelling at age 28, and had a five year run through age 32 that is very much in line with what people have been saying about that age hunk being the peak years of a QB. Taking composite totals from any random three year hunk from those PEAK years will line up well well with Roethlisberger's most recent three PRE-PEAK years. Hasselbeck reached the Pro-Bowl three times in that five year stretch.

    So, Ben in his age 25-26-27 seasons is in line with the Hasselbeck performance that allowed him to reach the Pro Bowl three times in five years.

    If the career arc follows norms for Ben...he's about to get BETTER than that level. He's already at that level pre-peak. Yes, if his career ends soon with a blown out knee, his pre-peak years would only have matched Hasselbeck's best years.

    Tom Brady's "specialness" according to the DVOA rankings at this site.

    2002-2003: 9th both years, so, top 10 in a 32-team league
    2004-2006: 4-3-5, so, top 5 in a 32-team league all three years
    2007-2009: 1-injured-1 (currently), so, top 1 in a 32-team league league

    If you assume a margin of error of a few spots because reasonable minds can differ, it's still very tough to make the case that Brady wasn't special until 2007. He wasn't top-ranked until then. He was special well before then.

    Merry Xmas everyone...

    179
    by tuluse :: Thu, 12/24/2009 - 11:15pm

    I would have really liked to see Steve Smith win it, since he carried the Carolina offense. I mean how many receivers can make a claim like that?

    A Walter Jones, Steve Hutchenson co-mvp would have been awesome too.

    150
    by RickD :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 3:02am

    Pro Bowls are hardly meaningless. They serve as a measure of how widely respected a player was compared to his peers. And they definitely are considered by Hall of Fame voters.

    49
    by Bruce G. (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:52pm

    It does seem that way Dave, far too often, but then why such debate about Kurt Warner? And I doubt Dilfer is gonna make it ;) But I agree with you, often too much weight put on the ring, not on the player.

    34
    by White Rose Duelist :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:22am

    What was Hunter the Punter's DYAR for his near-pick-six at the end of the first half?

    38
    by Mike B. In Va :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:00pm

    I had to feel for him. He got crushed for that stupid play.

    91
    by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 6:40pm

    Considering all he was supposed to do is catch the punt and throw over to the sidelines to the WR who was standing there waiting for his pass, I don't feel that bad. He had plenty of time - he just panicked.

    Play could've worked, too - even though the Giants saw what was coming, they still only had 5 players on that side of the field, with 8 Redskins. 7 blockers for 5 guys to get 4 yards - should be good odds for that.

    92
    by tuluse :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 6:55pm

    It was 2 seconds left in the half, it had to be TD or bust.

    96
    by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 7:23pm

    I wouldn't say seven blockers on a sideline for 5 guys is terrible odds for a TD, either.

    44
    by C (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:31pm

    What was Todd Collins DYAR after 1 3rd down play?

    52
    by Phil O'sopher (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 1:11pm

    Every Browns fan in Cleveland has been screaming for Harrison to see an increased roll, but Crennel and now Mangini kept him on the bench for no explainable reason. Mangini even had him inactive one game for no reason.

    Glad to see the kid have an elite level of success, even if it was only one game. He is a free agent this offseason, so one team will get a very capable RB for not much money. If I was him, I would sign anywhere but Cleveland.

    122
    by Mr Shush :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 11:06pm

    "He is a free agent this offseason"

    Not if no new CBA is agreed between now and then. Or rather, he'll be an RFA - and much good may that do him.

    57
    by Packerpalooza (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 2:01pm

    The size thing is very prevalent is baseball. Short pitchers are regarded as afterthoughts by most major league scouts.

    65
    by MarkV :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:05pm

    Not sure if you can or are interested in it, but I would very much love to see what knowshown Moreno got on the DYAR scale.

    66
    by Todd T (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:07pm

    Another back who got 200+ but left no mark on the league otherwise - and probably the most famous example - was Timmy Smith for Washington in the Super Bowl against Denver. It was 1/3 of his career yardage.

    67
    by Nathan :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:11pm

    I had no idea about the DYAR Harrison was putting up in his backup role, but as someone who has watched maybe 4 Browns games tops in the last 3 years even I knew that Harrison should be getting way more touches. It was obvious just by watching the guy run and catch the ball out of the backfield. It was also obvious that Lewis is DONE. If I were a Browns fan I would be furious right now as I can only assume they've been clamoring for more Harrison for years.

    168
    by Phil Osopher :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 11:34am

    Yes and Yes

    68
    by E :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:12pm

    I find it amazing that in week 15 - and after being cut during the season - Chris Chambers finds himself on a list with Andre Johnson, Vincent Jackson, Desean Jackson and Randy Moss. He's a FO whipping-boy (and rightfully so) to the point where even this week he gets nothing but ridicule in Bill's write-up. But Chambers has been excellent since being picked up by KC. Consider:

    In 7 games with KC, Chambers has 195 DYAR, which has to be in the top 5 in the league, if not number 1. And we know that QB play has some impact on DYAR, so it's worth looking at the context: in the same offense, Bowe (supposedly a top NFL WR) has 50 DYAR on the season, Wade has negative 78 and Bradley has negative 99.

    Chambers' DVOA entering this week was -3.7%, but it was -49.6% when he was cut by SD. Assuming his DVOA for the season is now positive in the high single digits, it must be well over 50% in his time in KC.

    Wide receivers typically do worse when switching teams, and invariably do worse when that switch is midseason. So the question is ... what in the world has gotten into Chris Chambers?

    70
    by McAnonymous (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:21pm

    Chambers stepped it up after going from the Dolphins to the Chargers a few years ago, so it's nothing new. I think the equation here is "chip on shoulder" + "no one else for Cassel to throw to" = better season.

    76
    by Noah of Arkadia :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:05pm

    Actually, Barnwell actually lay off Chambers with the long pass study shortly before he was cut, so chances are he is being used better than he previously was.

    Also, "no one else for Cassel to throw" = double teams.

    That's a terrible equation for any receiver, especially considering the "Cassel" bit.

    171
    by coboney :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 1:06pm

    On a note - Bowe was back this week so there was another target.

    On another note KC has no line making Downfield passing tougher to do. As for whats led to this resurchange from Chambers I don't really have a clue though it might help that he's not the number 3 target somewhat on his team.

    77
    by McAnonymous (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:14pm

    "The quarterback who'd rather not give in? Philip Rivers, who only completed a pass that was short of the sticks 7.6 percent of the time. Also under 10 percent are Kyle Boller and Derek Anderson (each 9.7 percent), while Ben Roethlisberger's at 10.1 percent."

    Whoa - I have no idea what to do with that little statistical nugget. Kudos to Rivers for trying not to waste a play... but I don't like being in the same sentence as Boller and any Browns QB. I wonder if there is any correlation to receivers who get yards after the catch? Completions short of the sticks seem to make sense when you are throwing to someone who extends the play. Charger players outside of Sproles and LT (the few times he gets thrown to) are more of the "catch-and-get-tackled" sort.

    79
    by Hurt Bones :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:30pm

    Having watched a lot of Kyle Boller, I think the operative word is completed not attempted. Short passes were not his strength. I also wonder if there is a correlation between those low percentage quarterbacks and the likelihood that they are sacked on third and long.

    Do they wait longer for a first down pass and risk a sack rather than throw a shorter pass even if it doesn't result in a first down?

    80
    by Todd T (not verified) :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 4:41pm

    As I read it, these percentages are measured against the number of plays in that situation, not of completions. Thus there are two ways to get a low percentage short of the sticks: throw downfield, or never complete passes.

    93
    by jpo287 :: Tue, 12/22/2009 - 7:00pm

    "Moore threw only four passes to wide receivers not named Steve Smith. "

    What you fail to mention is that he spread the ball out to 9 different players. In addition his three TD's wre to three different players. One of those TD's - Hoover's - was his first since 2005 and the other, the other - Stewart's - was his first receiving TD EVER!

    I'm certainly not saying he's the next Brady or Romo, but he's does show something that can at least give us Panther's fan' a little hope.

    154
    by Anonguy :: Wed, 12/23/2009 - 3:40am

    As opposed to the 9 different defenders Delhomme usually hits mirite?