Week 15 Quick Reads

December 15, 2014, 7:13 pm ET

176

Week 15 Quick Reads

Photo: USA Today Sports Images

by Vincent Verhei

Kansas City's victory over Oakland this weekend bucked several trends for the Chiefs and Alex Smith. Not so much because Kansas City won or Oakland lost; those have both happened plenty of times this season. The conquest was unique for Kansas City because they accomplished it with an unusual passing strategy. Smith threw seven deep balls that traveled more than 15 yards past the line of scrimmage against Oakland on Sunday, double his seasonal average of 3.5 per game and the most he has thrown in any contest since a Week 2 loss against Denver. Meanwhile, he threw only four passes to receivers behind the line of scrimmage; he is averaging 5.9 such passes per game this year.

Even after his "outburst" against Oakland, Smith is still throwing the shortest passes of any quarterback in the league this season. He has now thrown 83 passes to receivers behind the line of scrimmage this season (sixth-most in the league), but only 49 deep balls (31st). Further, Smith's average deep ball this season has only gone 22.2 yards downfield, shortest of any passer with at least 10 deep pass attempts. So even on the rare occasions when Smith has thrown deep, he has still thrown relatively short.

Add it all up, and Smith's average pass attempt this season has traveled only 5.9 yards beyond the line of scrimmage, far and away the shortest of any qualified passer this year. That's barely half of Drew Stanton's league-leading average pass depth (11.4 yards), about one-third shorter than the average pass depth this year (8.5 yards), and more than a yard shorter than the next shortest-throwing quarterback (Kyle Orton, 7.1 yards).

In fact, Smith's dink-and-dunkiness this season is nearly unprecedented in the past decade. We have pass depth data going back to 2005, and among those 450 quarterback-seasons with at least 200 pass plays, only once has a quarterback attempted shorter passes, on average, than Smith has this season:

Shortest Average Pass, 2005-2014
Year	Player	Team	Plays*	Avg. Gain*	DYAR*	DVOA*	Avg. Pass Depth	YAC/ Catch
2005	Kelly Holcomb	BUF	255	5.4	-114	-18.0%	5.7	5.5
2014	Alex Smith	KC	459	6.0	541	7.4%	5.9	6.0
2007	Steve McNair	BAL	218	4.8	-242	-28.1%	6.0	4.0
2006	David Carr	HOU	488	5.2	92	-8.2%	6.3	4.8
2013	Chad Henne	JAC	546	5.6	-94	-13.9%	6.6	6.0
2010	Sam Bradford	STL	626	5.3	-186	-15.6%	6.7	5.3
2010	Jimmy Clausen	CAR	339	4.0	-760	-48.0%	6.7	5.2
2010	Jon Kitna	DAL	339	6.7	233	-0.5%	6.7	6.5
2013	Alex Smith	KC	557	5.8	218	-5.0%	6.8	5.7
2009	Jason Campbell	WAS	555	6.1	181	-6.1%	6.9	6.3
* Includes sacks. Minimum 200 pass plays.

Some notes on this data: this is taken straight from play-by-play on the NFL GSIS website, which means it includes things like throwaways, passes tipped at the line, and plays where the quarterback was hit as he threw. The 2014 data is also incomplete, since there are still two weeks to go, and has some YAC errors that we haven't yet updated with corrected data. If you have watched Smith play this season, though, you know his presence on this list passes the smell test.

Smith actually appears on this list twice after two years in Kansas City, but he hasn't always thrown such short passes. (We'll get back to that in a bit.) It's quite notable that he's the only quarterback on this list who is actually having a good season. That's mostly because of his minuscule interception rate (1.4 percent, third-best in the league), but his receivers are also gaining 6.0 yards after the catch, much better than the league average of 5.3. That's a great credit to his receivers -- especially Travis Kelce (424 YAC on a team-leading 56 receptions) and Jamaal Charles (257 YAC on 33 catches) -- and also to Smith. The Chiefs quarterback isn't just throwing dumpoffs to outlet receivers who are getting tackled on contact, he's making smart decisions with the football and delivering accurate throws, getting the ball to guys in space and giving them opportunities to make plays. And it has been effective more often than not.

In fact, aside from Smith, most of the quarterbacks in this table were essentially at the end of their careers. Only two -- Sam Bradford, who was a rookie in 2010, and Jason Campbell, who has had a very weird career -- ever hit 200 passes in a season again. McNair retired, and the rest settled into whatever backup jobs they could find.

(By the way, if we cut our minimum to 100 pass plays, this list would be peppered with Steve Spagnuolo-era Rams quarterbacks, including Bradford, Kyle Boller, A.J. Feeley, and Keith Null. Those weren't just some of the worst offensive teams in the league, they were boring as well.)

And the other end of the spectrum? Here is a list of the deepest single-season passers since 2005. It is, frankly, fascinating:

Deepest Average Pass, 2005-2014
Year	Player	Team	Plays*	Avg. Gain*	DYAR*	DVOA*	Avg. Pass Depth	YAC/ Catch
2011	Tim Tebow	DEN	303	5.2	-222	-22.8%	13.1	4.8
2006	Michael Vick	ATL	437	5.1	-260	-20.4%	12.8	4.1
2014	Drew Stanton	ARI	255	6.9	242	4.5%	11.4	4.8
2014	Mike Glennon	TB	221	6.0	91	-4.2%	11.1	3.7
2005	Mike McMahon	PHI	233	4.9	-324	-33.6%	10.9	4.5
2006	Jason Campbell	WAS	214	5.8	135	-1.1%	10.8	4.9
2005	Michael Vick	ATL	424	5.4	36	-9.8%	10.8	4.1
2006	Tony Romo	DAL	362	7.7	696	18.9%	10.8	4.4
2005	Byron Leftwich	JAC	327	6.2	583	18.1%	10.8	4.3
2006	Matt Hasselbeck	SEA	406	5.7	15	-10.6%	10.7	3.5
* Includes sacks. Minimum 200 pass plays.

Tim Tebow completed less than half his passes in his miracle season of 2011, but he somewhat made up for it by hitting a number of big plays downfield. (His propensity for deep balls no doubt also contributed to his woefully low completion rate.) Michael Vick like Tebow, was a scatter-armed scrambler who amassed QB WINZ early in his career with big runs and long bombs. On a related note, the 2006 edition of Vince Young missed this list by a few thousandths of a yard; none of the three had sustained success as starters.

[ad placeholder 3]

Two quarterbacks from this season have taken a bombs-away approach. Drew Stanton has been around since 2007 and has a sub-60 percent completion rate. His best chance to win with Arizona is to go for the home run and let the Larry Fitzgeralds and John Browns and Michael Floyds of the world make plays downfield. Similarly, Mike Glennon is on a Tampa Bay team loaded with oversized jump-ballers, and he has been targeting them whenever he has been on the field. (Josh McCown's average throw has traveled 10.2 yards downfield, which is nothing to sneeze at.)

I'm not sure what was in the NFL waters in 2005 and 2006, but it produced a lot of long-bombing quarterbacks. It's no surprise to see Tony Romo, with his well-earned reputation as a gunslinger, in this table. Matt Hasselbeck is more unexpected; perhaps he was motivated by the midseason trade for Deion Branch to go deep more often. Leftwich in 2005 was throwing to 36-year-old Jimmy Smith and a pair of first-rounders in Reggie Williams (2004) and Matt Jones (2005). Both of those players proved to be busts, but not before Leftwich lobbed a few dozen rainbows their way. Mike McMahon was pressed into action when Donovan McNabb was injured. His long-ball ways produced few completions and eight interceptions, and he was out of the league the next year.

As for Cambpell, well, I told you he had a weird career.

A few other big-picture notes:

There is absolutely no pattern between average pass depth and DVOA. An XY scatter plot between the two variables just produces a giant blob.

[ad placeholder 4]

We would probably guess that quarterbacks throw shorter passes as they get older, and a very, very cursory glance at the data says that is probably true, though the difference is hardly drastic. Smith is one of ten quarterbacks with at least eight 100-play seasons since 2005; the others are Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Jay Cutler, Matt Hasselbeck, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, Phiip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, and Tony Romo. Only one of those ten men (Eli Manning) averaged deeper passes in 2010 and later than he did in 2009 and earlier, and that increase was from just 9.29 yards per throw to 9.34. Each of the other nine threw shorter passes after 2010 than they had before that; the biggest dropoff went to Smith, who averaged 8.9 yards per throw prior to 2010, but 7.1 yards per throw since then. As a group, these ten quarterbacks averaged 9.1 yards per throw from 2005-09, and 8.4 yards per throw from 2010-14.

Quarterbacks
Rk	Player	Team	CP/AT	Yds	TD	INT	Total DYAR	Pass DYAR	Rush DYAR
1.	Tony Romo	DAL	22/31	265	3	0	161	162	0	This first-place ranking was mostly built on passes to Dez Bryant and Jason Witten. Take out throws to those two, and Romo went 14-of-20 for 132 yards and nine first downs, with three sacks. (It goes without saying that all quarterbacks would look worse if we removed throws to their best receivers.) He was also sacked three times, fumbling once.	2.	Drew Brees	NO	29/36	375	3	0	149	149	-1	3.	Ben Roethlisberger	PIT	27/34	360	0	0	144	144	0	Roethlisberger didn't throw for any touchdowns against Atlanta, but he cleaned up in short-yardage situations. With 4 yards or less to go for a first down, he went 5-of-5 with five first downs, gaining 92 yards in the process.										4.	Tom Brady	NE	21/35	287	2	1	119	108	10	Brady didn't have much luck throwing up the middle against Miami, going 5-of-9 for 56 yards and only two first downs.										5.	Joe Flacco	BAL	20/30	221	1	0	117	122	-6	Throwing to his left against Jacksonville, Flacco went 4-of-6 for only 25 yards and one first down.										6.	Matt Ryan	ATL	26/37	312	2	1	96	87	9	Ryan had a stretch over the second and third quarters where he completed a dozen passes in a row, gaining 169 yards and eight first downs (including a touchdown) in the process.										7.	Eli Manning	NYG	23/34	250	3	0	84	84	0	It was the Odell Beckham, Jr., show for the Giants. Not counting throws to ODB, Eli went 11-of-19 for 107 yards and only four first downs. Manning's first three passes all went to Beckham, resulting in one completion for only 6 yards. Manning's next six passes went to non-Beckham receivers to force the Washington defense to cover other receivers. This made Beckham a much more dangerous threat later in the game, as we shall see shortly. If you're surprised to see Manning so low, he had the biggest penalty due to opponent adjustments of any quarterback this week.										8.	Peyton Manning	DEN	14/20	233	1	0	84	84	0	Manning ripped up the Chargers with deep balls, going 5-of-7 for 156 yards and a touchdown. His first pass was a deep throw up the middle, completed for a 36-yard gain. He didn't throw another pass to the middle of the field.										9.	Alex Smith	KC	18/30	297	2	0	82	80	2	Smith struggled to finish drives against the Raiders. Inside the Oakland 40, Smith went 4-of-10 for 42 yards and only two first downs, including one touchdown.										10.	Derek Anderson	CAR	25/40	277	1	0	70	62	8	The Panthers had four drives of 10 plays or more against Tampa Bay, helped largely by Anderson's performance on his own half of the field, where he was nearly perfect, going 13-of-14 for 155 yards and 11 first downs.										11.	Charlie Whitehurst	TEN	10/23	203	0	0	36	32	4	On the Jets' half of the field, Whitehurst went 1-of-8 for 11 yards, plus a sack.	12.	Drew Stanton	ARI	12/20	109	0	0	10	11	-2	Stanton only threw for four first downs before getting injured. Three of those came on third downs, where he went 3-of-7 for 29 yards, plus a 36-yard DPI.
Rk	Player	Team	CP/AT	Yds	TD	INT	Total DYAR	Pass DYAR	Rush DYAR
13.	Teddy Bridgewater	MIN	31/39	315	1	2	9	-6	15	On third downs, Bridgewater went 4-of-6 for 31 yards and only one first down, with an interception. He had two fourth-down throws, completing one for 5 yards and a first down.	14.	Matthew Stafford	DET	17/28	153	1	0	3	8	-5	First five drives: 6-of-12 for 37 yards, no first downs. Rest of the game: 11-of-16 for 116 yards and eight first downs, including a touchdown.										15.	Philip Rivers	SD	24/41	232	1	2	3	4	-1	Rivers only threw four deep balls against Denver, all in the second half, three of them down by two scores in the fourth quarter. One was incomplete, two were complete for 37 yards, and one resulted in a 26-yard DPI.										16.	Ryan Tannehill	MIA	29/47	348	1	2	2	-7	9	In addition to his interceptions, Tannehill was sacked four times (fumbling once), and also fumbled a snap. He particularly struggled in the red zone, where he failed to throw a touchdown, going 2-of-5 for 15 yards with a sack-fumble, another sack, and the fumbled snap.										17.	Russell Wilson	SEA	12/24	168	1	1	-2	-15	13	On passes to receivers within 11 yards of the line of scrimmage, Wilson went 10-of-11 for 86 yards. On passes to receivers at least 32 yards downfield, he went 2-of-2 for 82 yards. In between, he went 0-for-11 with an interception. He was also sacked five times. He had three runs for 29 yards (not counting kneeldowns), including a 9-yard gain on first-and-10 and a 19-yard gain on second-and-5.										18.	Colin Kaepernick	SF	11/19	141	0	0	-14	-24	10	Kaepernick had six pass plays on Seattle's side of the field. He went 0-for-3 with three sacks. He was sacked six times in all. He also had nine runs for 46 yards and two first downs.										19.	Jake Locker	TEN	6/11	57	0	0	-16	-19	3	Locker's production was sort of the opposite of hit teammate Whitehurst. Locker made a play or two in scoring range, which is good, but on Tennessee's half of the field he went 4-of-8 for 17 yards and no first downs.										20.	Geno Smith	NYJ	17/28	179	1	0	-20	-22	1	Technically speaking, Smith got credit for a fourth-quarter comeback and a game-winning drive in this game. In the fourth quarter, he went 3-of-5 for 20 yards and two first downs, plus two sacks. He also gained 6 yards on a DPI.										21.	Ryan Lindley	ARI	4/10	30	0	0	-22	-22	0	Lindley only threw for one first down against St. Louis, even though he had five passes with 9 yards or less to go.										22.	Shaun Hill	STL	20/39	229	0	1	-24	-25	1	Hill went 13 plays between the second and third quarters without a first down, going 3-of-11 for 11 yards with two sacks.
Rk	Player	Team	CP/AT	Yds	TD	INT	Total DYAR	Pass DYAR	Rush DYAR
23.	Andrew Luck	IND	18/34	187	2	1	-37	-36	-1	Luck had a rotten day on third downs, going 2-of-9 for 42 yards with one touchdown, one other first down, one sack, and one pick-six.	24.	Andy Dalton	CIN	14/24	119	0	1	-55	-55	0	Dalton did not complete a pass more than 13 yards downfield against Cleveland, going 0-for-8 on deep balls.										25.	Tom Savage	HOU	10/19	127	0	1	-60	-43	-16	Savage did not throw a pass in the Indianapolis red zone. On the Colts' half of the field, he went 1-of-4 for 3 yards, including incompletions on third-and-1, third-and-4, and fourth-and-4.										26.	Kyle Orton	BUF	14/27	158	0	1	-66	-66	0	The amazing thing about Buffalo's upset of Green Bay is that the Bills won despite failing so many times to put the game away. Orton had eight plays across the 50 in the second half, three of them with a lead. He went 1-of-6 for 1 yard with no first downs and two sacks.										27.	Robert Griffin	WAS	18/27	236	1	0	-81	-73	-8	With about six minutes left in the third quarter and the game tied at 10, Griffin hit Andre Roberts for 61 yards to set up a go-ahead field goal. After that 61-yarder, he went 6-of-9 for 27 yards and one first down, with four sacks and a fumble. On the day, he was sacked seven times, fumbling twice.										28.	Aaron Rodgers	GB	17/42	185	0	2	-83	-84	1	40 percent completion rate, 34.3 NFL passer rating, 25 incompletions, all the worst marks of Rodgers' career. Our advance stats say it wasn't THAT bad, because Buffalo's defense is tremendous -- no quarterback got a bigger boost from opponent adjustments this week. Still, it was an awful game. Rodgers did not throw for a first down until there were 42 seconds left in the first quarter; up to that point, he had gone 2-of-11 for 12 yards. On third downs, he went 2-of-11 for 23 yards with two first downs and one interception. On deep passes, he went 1-of-10 for 20 yards with an interception.										29.	Mark Sanchez	PHI	17/28	252	0	2	-89	-89	0	Throwing to his left, Sanchez went 3-of-8 for 20 yards and one first down.										30.	Josh McCown	TB	13/28	154	1	1	-96	-111	14	The Panthers sacked McCown three times, all on third downs, and he fumbled every time. When he wasn't sacked on third down, he went 3-of-6 for 35 yards. Granted, all three of those completions went for third downs (including a touchdown), but that's still 0.8 yards per play on third downs, with three fumbles. Somebody please explain to me again why Mike Glennon is on the bench.										31.	Blake Bortles	JAC	21/37	210	0	1	-112	-110	-2	Bortles had two plays in the Baltimore red zone; he was sacked twice. He had 10 plays in the front zone (the area between Baltimore's 20- and 40-yard lines); he went 4-of-9 for 13 yards with no first downs and another sack. He was sacked eight times on the day, including four sacks facing a one-score deficit in the fourth quarter.										32.	Jay Cutler	CHI	17/31	194	2	3	-124	-131	7	33.	Derek Carr	OAK	27/55	222	1	0	-136	-136	0	It took Carr 22 plays before he got his first double-digit gain, a 13-yard completion on second-and-10 in the second quarter. Inside the Kansas CIty 40-yard line, he went 3-of-8 for 9 yards and a touchdown, with a 9-yard DPI and a sack.	34.	Johnny Manziel	CLE	10/18	80	0	2	-164	-148	-16	Manziel only had four successful completions against Cincinnati. That's as many as Jake Locker, Colt McCoy, Drew Stanton, or Ryan Fitzpatrick had this week, and they all left their games with injuries. Manziel did not pick up a first down until the Browns were down by 20; he did not convert a third down until they were down by 23. And those were his only two first downs of the day. On second downs, he went 1-of-4 for 4 yards with an interception and two sacks.

Five most valuable running backs (Total)
Rk	Player	Team	Runs	Rush Yds	Rush TD	Rec	Rec Yds	Rec TD	Total DYAR	Rush DYAR	Rec DYAR
1.	Eddie Lacy	GB	15	97	1	2/2	11	0	48	41	8	Lacy was a non-factor for most of Sunday, but for 16 minutes he was an unholy monster. One minute into the second quarter, he had four 10-plus-yard runs and a 1-yard touchdown. From that point forward, he had seven runs for 25 yards and no first downs.	2.	Matt Asiata	MIN	11	36	1	7/7	50	0	47	36	11	Slow, steady production. Asiata's longest carry gained only 9 yards, and he averaged only 3.3 yards per carry. However, all of his carries gained positive yardage, and he had five first downs in short-yardage situations.	3.	Marshawn Lynch	SEA	21	91	1	1/2	7	0	42	44	-2	Lynch had seven carries with 5 yards or less to go and picked up a first down six times, including a touchdown. The seventh carry: a 2-yard gain on third-and-3. He also had three 10-plus-yard runs, while being stuffed for no gain or a loss just twice.	4.	Pierre Thomas	NO	2	11	0	5/5	83	0	37	6	31	5.	Jonas Gray	NE	11	62	0	1/1	7	0	29	25	4	Six of Gray's carries gained 5 yards or more, including 13- and 14-yard runs, and he converted a third-and-2, while being stuffed for a loss just once.

Five most valuable running backs (Rushing)
Rk	Player	Team	Runs	Rush Yds	Rush TD	Rec	Rec Yds	Rec TD	Total DYAR	Rush DYAR	Rec DYAR
1.	Jeremy Hill	CIN	25	151	2	1/1	6	0	23	45	-23	Twenty-four of Hill's 25 carries gained at least 2 yards, which is outstanding. In addition to his two touchdowns, he had seven other first downs, including gains of 16, 20, and 21 yards. He finishes as the week's leading rusher despite a fourth-quarter fumble. He also fumbled on his only reception, so that's apparently a problem for him.	2.	Marshawn Lynch	SEA	21	91	1	1/2	7	0	42	44	-2	3.	Eddie Lacy	GB	15	97	1	2/2	11	0	48	41	8	4.	Matt Asiata	MIN	11	36	1	7/7	50	0	47	36	11	5.	Carlos Hyde	SF	6	55	0	0/0	0	0	29	29	0	Making the most of limited action: Five of Hyde's six carries gained 5 yards or more, including gains of 28 and 10 yards.

Least valuable running back (Total)
Rk	Player	Team	Runs	Rush Yds	Rush TD	Rec	Rec Yds	Rec TD	Total DYAR	Rush DYAR	Rec DYAR
1.	Jonathan Stewart	CAR	22	76	0	1/1	6	0	-35	-36	1	Stewart had three 10-plus-yard runs, but only one other first down on the day. Meanwhile, he was hit for no gain or a loss seven times and fumbled twice.

Least valuable running back (Rushing)
Rk	Player	Team	Runs	Rush Yds	Rush TD	Rec	Rec Yds	Rec TD	Total DYAR	Rush DYAR	Rec DYAR
1.	Jonathan Stewart	CAR	22	76	0	1/1	6	0	-35	-36	1

Five most valuable wide receivers and tight ends
Rk	Player	Team	Rec	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Total DYAR
1.	Dez Bryant	DAL	6	7	114	19.0	3	83	All of Bryant's receptions produced first downs, and four of them gained 20 or more yards. His only failed play was an incomplete pass on second-and-24.	2.	Odell Beckham	NYG	12	15	143	11.9	3	66	As mentioned earlier, most of Beckham's action came late in the game. He had four targets in the first quarter, one in the second, five in the third, and seven in the fourth. (Yes, that is 17 targets; it includes a pair of DPIs for 40 total yards that are not listed in his receiving stats in the table, but are accounted for in his DYAR.) At one point over the third and fourth quarters he picked up a first down on five targets in a row, gaining 96 yards and a touchdown in the process.	3.	Mike Wallace	MIA	5	7	104	20.8	1	48	Four of Wallace's completions produced first downs; the fifth was a 7-yard gain on second-and-10. His incompletions came on third-and-10 and third-and-18.	4.	Devin Hester	ATL	5	6	85	17.0	1	41	First three targets: 5-yard gain on third-and-2, 17-yard touchdown on third-and-6, 46-yard gain on first-and-10. He did not pick up another first down, though his last two catches were successful plays.	5.	Antonio Brown	PIT	10	10	123	12.3	0	36	Brown is dinged a bit for his failed completions, including a 10-yard gain on third-and-17 and an 11-yard gain on third-and-13.

Least valuable wide receiver or tight end
Rk	Player	Team	Rec	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Total DYAR
1.	Marqise Lee	JAC	4	9	14	3.5	0	-51	Lee's four completions: 1-yard loss on second-and-8; 2-yard gain on second-and-5; 13-yard gain on third-and-1; zero-yard gain on first-and-10. And then he failed to catch five passes on top of that.

Football Outisders+ Perks & Features image

Comments

176 comments, Last at 19 Dec 2014, 12:39am

#1 by Perfundle // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:49am

Buffalo's defense is tremendous, yes, but as DVOA-leading pass defenses go it's currently the weakest relative to the league average since at least 1989, although it'll tick up noticeably after this week.

By the way, the page for the 1989 defensive efficiency ratings doesn't have a drop-down menu.

#18 by Aaron Schatz // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:52am

Aha! I just fixed that. Thanks.

#2 by Perfundle // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:58am

I just realized that there wasn't any news about Smith finally throwing a TD pass to a wide receiver, which means that at least that trend didn't get bucked. Only two more games to go!

#3 by TimK // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:31am

70 yard pass to RB, 20 yard pass to TE, so respectable distances out for touchdown passes, but still none to a WR...

#4 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 6:50am

Eye roll about the Romo section. One suspects that if the top spot were Manning or Brady, there'd have been no attempt to try to diminish the result, and instead it would have been phrased as "Star QB naturally got his best results from his best options!" and then some Gronk/Welker build-up would have followed.

#6 by Lyford // Dec 16, 2014 - 7:11am

That might be a more compelling complaint if the Brady section did not read, in its entirety, "Brady didn't have much luck throwing up the middle against Miami, going 5-of-9 for 56 yards and only two first downs."

#7 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 7:28am

You missed the point. Brady didn't have the day's best QB performance. My point wasn't that Brady/Manning are always spoken of highly. It was that the narrative seems to be that when they do have great performances, it's because they're great. Romo does it and it's because he had a good WR and TE.

#9 by Otis Taylor89 // Dec 16, 2014 - 7:58am

Well he does have a top 3 WR and probably a HOF TE - what is your point?

#10 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 8:04am

Well, I don't have much issue with this quick reads blurb, given it also says the same phenomena would be seen with other great qbs, but per my post below, Romo really has been the recipient of an extraordinary volume of dumb criticism.

#14 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:13am

I don't disagree, Will Allen-- though I admit that I'm a little too young for Fran.

Perhaps I was just grumpy this morning about Aaron's comment, but I feel like given the narratives, Brady or Manning would be lionized with their performance without mentioning guys like Gronk-- who is routinely considered to be among the best players in the NFL now, regardless of position. Or Welker, who has long been considered amazing. It was just odd phrasing-- without his two best receiving options, Romo was just normal. He mitigates this by saying that most QBs would be, but since that's true, why say it for Romo?

Whichever.

#16 by ZDNeal // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:41am

Is 14-20 with 9 first downs bad? Could they give us the DVOA (not dyar) on that? It seems like getting 9 first downs on 20 passes is actually pretty good. I'm sort of confused by the blurb.

Look at Stafford's blurb:

14. Matthew Stafford DET 17/28 153 1 0 3 8 -5

First five drives: 6-of-12 for 37 yards, no first downs. Rest of the game: 11-of-16 for 116 yards and eight first downs, including a touchdown.

He essentially is the good part of Stafford's game throwing to people other than his first two options.

#19 by Aaron Schatz // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:53am

Wait, what comment did I make about Tony Romo?

#26 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:31am

#25 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:29am

Sorry Aaron! I meant Vince!!

#27 by RickD // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:31am

Apparently it was wrong to note that most of his success was to Bryant and Witten. Because you wouldn't do that to Brady or Manning or Rodgers. Even though three lines lower you do that to Brady.

#38 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:51am

Again, missing the point. But no worries. I just went through the last 6 or 7 quick reads and see how I am just applying selection bias and am a bit out of line in my critique. So I take the whole thing back.

#20 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:57am

You are correct, that's it a little silly to make an assertion, along the lines of "Player A wasn't all that good, once you take away his really good plays".

#13 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:06am

If you couldn't get it from the original post, then it's not worth it.

#88 by Anon Ymous // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:58pm

NM, just read nat's more insightful response.

#31 by nat // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:39am

1) It's not a Brady-Manning thing. It's that Quick Reads are quick tidbits, usually picked for novelty rather than insight. Me, I'd prefer insight. But novelty is quicker to write. And insight is boring when it just confirms the obvious.
2) Vince is far better than some people who have had the Quick Read gig. He's only occasionally silly.
3) It's a fun game to see which blurbs you can give the opposite spin.

Romo: great use of mismatches. Excellent decision-making.
Roethlisberger: despite moving the chains in general, had red zone issues all day.
Brady: excellent results throwing to the outside. Nice variety in his targets.
Flacco: good results to the right and center.
Ryan: streaky and inconsistent.
E.Manning: VOA shows a great day. Smart play to avoid mistakes rather than try to compile more stats.
P.Manning: totally reliant on D.Thomas, throwing more than half his passes that way.
Smith: Excellent play on his own side of the field helped his team dominate field position all day.

etc.

#35 by Hurt Bones // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:44am

Really kudos to Vince. He has write 32+ blurbs on QB performance each week with a max of a couple of sentences and make those blurbs play specific.

#40 by nat // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:54am

I agree.

My counter-spinning notwithstanding, Vince does a good job.

#39 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:54am

Fair enough. I will chalk this up to being grumpy in the morning after a long plane ride and drive home. I've been visiting FO almost daily for the last 10 years. Aside from my Gmail account, the NY Times and perhaps ESPN, there isn't another website I have been as loyal to. And there's a reason for that: these guys are great and entertaining and smart. My apologies for grumpiness, Vince. (And Aaron.)

#42 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:58am

This is a man who understands how not to tempt the FOMBC.

#48 by nat // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:06am

Well said, and gentlemanly.

FWIW, you were right to roll your eyes about the Romo blurb, just wrong to think it was a bias issue and not just one of getting a bit too cute in the search for a novel analysis.

Heck, it was obvious that Vince himself thought he was being too cute.

So no worries.

#5 by Jerry // Dec 16, 2014 - 6:55am

As far as the last paragraph before the tables goes, I'm wondering whether there are two things at work. Has the average distance leaguewide remained the same, or is it getting shorter as a replacement for the run? Or is it all due to QBs aging? This may be more research than you want to do for one paragraph of Quick Reads, but it seems interesting.

#8 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 7:58am

As bad as Cutler was last night, he actually is still on pace to have one of his higher DYAR rankings in his career. It's funny how expectations and trend lines affect perceptions.

(edit) In contrast, Romo may have yet another top 10 DYAR ranking, about the, what, 8th of his career? With around 4 top 5? With the majority of those with lousy offensive lines, and many with lousy defenses? That guy may have received more stupid criticism than any qb since Tarkenton, prior to Tarkenton getting traded back to the Vikings.

#12 by BJR // Dec 16, 2014 - 8:50am

It's gonna be great in the Cowboys first playoff game when Romo throws a game clinching 4th quarter interception after his defence has been shredded all day.

Edit: I think (at least from my vantage point) that the general perception of Romo is now simply that he is a good QB, and it really is only a few real blowhards who cling to the mindless narratives.

#21 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:00am

Hey, there were still dummies who tried to use, predictably, the last Super Bowl as a serious criticism of Peyton Manning's career.

#22 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:17am

I think Tanier nailed the exact moment when the casual Romo haters finally realized that the Romo as a choker meme made no sense: Week 17 of 2013 (http://goo.gl/dMpU78). It took Romo leading a major comeback with a ruptured disc in week 16 and Orton throwing the game-clinching interception the next week, but most people finally woke up. Now it's just Deion Sanders, a handful of the most irrational Eagles fans, and the idiots at NBC who cling to said mindless narratives.

That being said, Romo probably got more undeserved criticism during his first 8 years as a starter than any QB in NFL history.

#28 by RickD // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:34am

Romo got the choker label for a small number of games early in his career. It's unfortunate, but early perceptions have excessive staying power. It took years for Peyton Manning to shed the label, which was also based on a very small number of games. Manning really only did that by beating the Pats and winning a Super Bowl.

It's unfair, but Romo is going to need that kind of run to quiet his critics. If the Cowboys make the NFC championship game, but then lose to Seattle, it'll again all be Romo's fault.

#34 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:43am

Agreed. However, the Romo hate was more a combination of the criticism hurled at Peyton Manning (good QB who chokes in big games) and Donovan McNabb (hometown fans irrationally wanting to replace a good QB with anybody else for reasons they cannot articulate). Honestly, the worst part of the Romo hate was that Cowboys fans were just as likely to engage in it as everybody else (trust me, I live in Texas, and the fan base was split 50-50 over Romo until this year).

#30 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:37am

I think his reputation has also been hurt by the team he plays for - the hype machine gears up so quickly for the Cowboys that it becomes oppressive fast and a natural reaction is to pump the breaks. Earlier this season, Romo/Murray/Bryant was getting constant, straight-faced comparison to The Triplets. So, Romo through no fault of his own gets caught up in that hype war where the positive comparisons are insane and the push-back is probably even more irrational and hate-filled. Regardless of their recent status, the Cowboys have to be one of the more universally disliked franchises in all of pro sports and so Romo's reputation (which it seems pretty obvious should be: he's somewhere between very good and great) gets battered just by him being in that uniform.

His reputation is just all caught up in that larger tug-of-war where the moment the Cowboys show signs of life "They're back! They're like the 90's Cowboys and this o-line might be EVEN BETTER!" - for comparison, the defending champion Seahawks can play a couple of mediocre games midseason and be written off. It's not Romo's fault, but the hype machine certainly has focused on him to a degree that's out of kilter for a QB who hasn't played on a consistently playoff-bound team. The push-back against Romo is all about the media's Cowboys fixation...

#36 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:47am

The dumbest stuff occurred in the latter Wade Phillips years, when you had halfwits on radio and t.v. talking about how Romo was falling short, what with all the "talent" surrounding him. I always wondered how many hallucinogenic frogs these folks were licking, prior to watching the Cowboys play, as Romo got chased all over the field, trying to keep his team in the game while the Cowboys secondary was getting shredded.

#41 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:55am

That's definitely true - but I also remember some of those Philips team being hyped up as serious Superbowl contenders. He was "falling short" in the context of the ridiculous media attention that the Cowboys attract. It's a funny thing, he was a big part of why the Cowboys got excessively promoted as a contender, but he wasn't quite on the Rodgers/Brees/Manning level where he could carry a team with a bad defense and/or weak running game all the way to the playoffs on his shoulders so he was relentlessly slammed for being just below Hall of Fame level great. If he played for the Titans or something, he'd be universally regarded as a top QB, there's no doubt...

#45 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:58am

Ahem

#49 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:10am

Do people really think that play is an example of why Romo's bad? If not for a miracle tackle from the defender, Romo would have made one of the craziest saves in the history of the game. I always see that play and think "Holy cow, Romo was a fingernail away from making one of the most spectacular plays I've ever seen." As for the botched hold, I'm not sure it's his fault, but it's debatable. It seems more unfortunate that he's the holder (and gets blamed) than the bad play being his fault in any meaningful way.

#50 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:14am

Well, here is an NFL films short on Romo produced about two weeks ago.
"The Five Faces of Romo: The Goat"
http://goo.gl/ATvM3t

#55 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:19am

No, no! I was using that as an example of how Romo amazingly turned crap into something. I am 100% a Romo apologist. Him turning what most of the time would have been a huge sack for a loss into a first down was amazing.

And even on the botched hold-- watch it again. He is about a foot short of turning that into a conversion. I am fairly sure that 90% of QBs (let alone holders) in the league would have been squashed 5 yards behind the LOS.

#57 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:23am

I agree with you. It's just that most people think of it as proof that he is a choker.

#58 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:25am

Ha - we agree. I guess it would have been more accurate for me to say "I know some people hold that play up as the quintessential Romo choke. I believe those people to be idiots."

#79 by tictoc // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:40pm

While I have always enjoyed the Romo botched hold (was at the game). Every time I re-watch it I'm amazed at Big Play Babs and what he did to get Romo down just shy of the First down and/or touchdown. How simply that play could of been an heroic save for Romo and the Cowboys.

#60 by Karl Cuba // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:58am

Every time you make this argument (and this must be attempt no 72654) you over exaggerate how bad his pass protection was and never give any mention to him having played with close to as good a group of receiving targets as any qb has ever had over the length of his career. Witten, Owens, Bryant, healthy Austin, Bennett, a solid bunch of third receivers and usually good running backs.

As much as some of the press continues to repeat the 'Romo chokes' trope, you repeat the 'Romo has the worst blocking ever' trope and these days you use his coach, his defense and his owner as well.

I think most sane observers have him about right nowadays: he's a good qb who can be a bit streaky, there's no need for the battered Romo Christmas charity appeal.

#61 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:07pm

You are inaccurate when you claim (for the 72563rd time, if we are counting) I've exaggerated how poor his pass protection was in most seasons. Absent Parcells, the coaching has been awful. This is indisputably true, and it is indisputably true that the poor coaching is in good measure due to the Cowboys having among the worst owners in the league. This is plainly a fact. Now, if you want to imply that bad coaching and ownership are mostly irrelevant factors, in regards to qb productivity, go right ahead. It would be plainly inaccurate as well.

#62 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:28pm

Don't forget that the Cowboys had the worst defenses in franchise history (up to that point) in 2010, 2012, and 2013. Cowboys fans are happy to have the 28th ranked defense (in DVOA) this year because it's the first defense in recent memory that can make occasional stops and get turnovers. Remember, multiple opponents never even had to punt against Dallas last year.

#65 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:38pm

I should note that I think their coaching staff improved a lot this year, because Linehan is a good match for their personnel and Marinelli is just flat out one of the best defensive coaches in the league. I'll also concede that the stupid criticism of Romo has receded. After all, he has been a starter now for 9 years, has only finished lower than 8th by DYAR twice, and has never finished lower than 11 by DVOA. Even the dimmest observers of the game eventually catch something that resembles a clue.

Are there any metrics which support the proposition that Romo's variance is greater than is normally seen in qbs that finish between 4 and 8 by DYAR? I'm not trying to play "gotcha" with Karl; I'm truly curious.

#66 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:45pm

My own subjective assessment is that Romo has been very consistent. I don't get Karl's "streaky" comment either.

#72 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:02pm

I have a suspicion that it is a notion that mostly holds true only if Romo is being compared to the best qbs ever, like a Manning or Brady, which means it is somewhat limited in it's usefulness.

#76 by Karl Cuba // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:22pm

The reason I said streaky is that sometimes he'll be playing very well, his offense will be in complete control and then he makes an inexplicably bad throw or two. Over the course of a full season that stuff averages out so his yearly DYAR etc is consistent, it's that while he is generally good, he can screw up any particular game. He's been better this year but right now even Will would struggle to put the case that he isn't surrounded by a tremendous offense.

#78 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:37pm

Streaky is fair insofar as there has to be some word to describe his occasional meltdowns. Those times when he'll suddenly take a few sacks, throw an interception and then do something else boneheaded in a short span definitely get weighted too much in assessing Romo's overall career, but you can't go the other way and deny those meltdown stretches happen from time to time. And those streaks are disastrous to an extent that goes beyond "well, but only in comparison to Rodgers and Brady!" Romo has taken plenty of unfair hits from fans and the media, but don't swing the pendulum too far the other way.

#85 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:54pm

Does he have meltdown stretches any more frequently than other qbs who aren't first ballot HOFers? Again, I'm not trying to argue here; I legitimately don't know. However, if the point is merely another way of saying that Romo isn't a first ballot HOFer, I don't know how notable that is.

#89 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:59pm

I guess we're agreeing. I don't have any numbers either. He's certainly no worse in that regard than Eli Manning, who (barring a ring for Romo) will probably make it to the HOF before him.

#152 by commissionerleaf // Dec 16, 2014 - 8:56pm

Neither should ever get in.

#153 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:17pm

I'd support neither for induction, but if Eli gets in, because David Tyree pinned a ball to his helmet, and Eli had three terrific games in another year, while the Giants had great d-line performances in both runs, while the clearly superior Romo never gets a sniff, the HOF will have become an even more ridiculous institution.

#80 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:40pm

Do we have any metrics which support the proposition that he is worse in this regard than any other qb who is not a first ballot Hall of Famer?

Why on earth would I attempt to deny the quality of the current offensive line and other offensive teammates? The moment they drafted Tyron Smith I said it was going to be more fun to see Romo play with better protection.

#82 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:45pm

And yet his numbers this year aren't out of line with his career stats.

#84 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:53pm

Actually, his per-play numbers are easily the best of his career. His YPA had been steadily declining from 2010 to 2013, but they are up significantly this year.

#86 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:57pm

DVOA disagrees. He's 6th in DVOA (a per-play metric) which is in line with his past three rankings: #7, #7 and #4. He has always been good, he's good again this year, the greatness of this o-line versus past Romo o-line's is being wildly overstated.

#93 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:07pm

The O line is still below average (19th) in pass blocking. The improvement is that they are now the best run blocking line in the league, which means that Romo actually has a run game to balance the offense.

#114 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:53pm

I'll agree with Roger here. The line's ability to run block has improved and taken a lot of pressure off Romo. It is so great to see Dallas line up and not think "here's another pass" every time. It's also great to see Dallas in 2nd-and-5 and 3rd-and-2 situations way more than we used to see.

#142 by Thomas_beardown // Dec 16, 2014 - 4:53pm

You might want to double check that. His DVOA rankings the last 3 years are 10th, 10th, and 4th.

#87 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:57pm

Also, he is doing this despite it being obvious that he is past his physical prime. Again, the parallels with Tarkenton are interesting, which is not to say that Romo's career approaches Tarkenton's, or is likely to.

#91 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:01pm

Maybe past his physical prime for scrambling (maybe.) But there's no drop in arm-strength or accuracy on his deep ball right now. He certainly has displayed very reasonable escapability all season, if not out and out scrambling skill. I think the argument is getting over-stated.

#97 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:09pm

He has been unable to throw deep since the back fractures in the Redskins game. That's a major reason why Terrance Williams (the team's deep threat) practically disappeared from the offense and was replaced with Beasley.

#112 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:49pm

If "right now" means "week 16", then you may be right. Maybe. There is no doubt that early this year he was still recovering from years of abuse, and durability does fade with age.

#119 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:03pm

Oh for sure he had a few games where he was ailing. But for the majority of this season he's been his usual self. I would never bet on him lasting even another single big hit, his durability is definitely his big concern right now.

#74 by Karl Cuba // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:10pm

Will, that's just a list of you saying 'no it isn't, not really a proper attempt to argue the point. You haven't addressed the wealth of talent at RB, TE or receiver. Romo isn't the only quarterback who has had some poor pass blocking, it's the normal state of affairs for at least half the teams in the league every year. You usually point to (multiple probowler) Flozell Adams but I'll see your Adams and raise you the like of Kwame Harris and Jamarcus Webb.

And whatever the faults Garrett has add a head coach, I think he's been a decent offensive coordinator and Son of Bum is one of the great defensive coordinators of the past thirty years.

Yes, Jerry Jones is a tool. Nobody disagrees with that. He might even be the worst offender out of the rather tawdry ranks of the meddlesome billionaires that own NFL franchises. It's still a bit of a stretch to say he directly drags down Romo's performance. His biggest fault as a GM is that he has spent too large a proportion of the Cowboys' resources on toys for Romo leaving holes at linebacker, safety and yes, at guard. However, on the whole I'd say the supporting offensive cast has been good.

#77 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:33pm

Karl, all you did was make an assertion, absent any proof whatsoever, that I've exaggerated how poor Romo's protection has been for most of his career. You have now have pointed to Flozell Adams' multiple pro bowls, which ignores that Adams was 31, and as is typical, making Pro Bowls on reputation, and a monumental penalty machine, by the time Romo was starting, and Adams was never a truly superior pass protector. Don't take my word for it. Aikman knows something about pass protection, and in those years he frequently noted that the Cowboys were just awful at protecting the passer. If you think it is normal for a guy to nearly always finish in the top 10 by DYAR and DVOA, for many years, with terrible pass protection, terrible defense, and terrible coaching (Wade as defensive coordinator is a completely different proposition than Wade as head coach) and terrible ownership, we will have to differ.

#81 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:44pm

Do you think it's unusual for a QB consistently supported by a great running game, great wr's and a HOF tight end to put up good numbers? Romo is good, but he wasn't without support. It was never a case of like Donovan McNabb throwing to Pinkston, Thrash and LJ Smith. All good QB's have had some element of adversity to overcome, very few find themselves in absolutely perfect situations. Rodgers, Brees and Manning have all been frequently hamstrung by terrible defenses, poor running games and sometimes even questionable coaching. Romo is not some crazy outlier in terms of being a great player on an inconceivably bad team with no support. This isn't James Wilder or Archie Manning we're discussing.

#90 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:00pm

Romo has only had a great running game once (this year). The only other times he has had good running games were in 2007 (ranked 10th in DVOA) and last year when the run game was effective, but the cowboys had the fewest running plays of any team in the league (and the fewest in team history).

Every other year, the Cowboys have had bad running games (usually bottom 10).

#92 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:05pm

Look, I just glanced at one random year and their 2008 running game DVOA was 7th. I'm not going to go year by year, but that's at least three years he's (2007, 2008 and this year) he's been supported by a great running game. That's more than some QB's ever get. And two of those years (2007 & 2008) are back when he supposedly had no help.

#96 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:08pm

Jesus man, I just looked it up and in 2009, they were 3rd in DVOA. Last year they were 5th. He's had GREAT running game support.

#100 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:14pm

2010--15th in rushing
2011--27th in rushing
2012--24th in rushing
2013--5th in rushing DVOA (but they ran the ball less than any other team, so it didn't help. They actually set a franchise record for fewest rushing yards in a season)

#104 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:16pm

So, 2 down years? I'm not sure if you think those numbers support your point (they don't) or if you're admitting you're wrong.

#107 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:29pm

My point is only that Romo has not been "consistently supported by a great running game" as you claimed. The Cowboys had four consecutive years without a run game (either because the coaches were too stupid to run the ball [and success rates go up when you run the ball so infrequently the opposition doesn't bother to defend it] or because the run game was ineffective).

#103 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:15pm

They were 27th in 2011 24th in 2012. 15th in 2010. That's "consistently great"?

#99 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:11pm

The Cowboys have not had a consistently great running game in the nine years that Romo has started. They've finished in the bottom 10 by rushing DVOA nearly as many times as they finished in the top 5. If the argument is that Romo isn't a first ballot HOFer, or even a HOFer, I really don't disagree.

#105 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:19pm

Top 10 in 5 out of 8 years? 2 bad years? That's great running game support. And Bottom "10" versus Top "5" - give me a fucking break, man.

#109 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:36pm

Yes, give me a break The term "consistently great" has a definition. If you think you can miss being in the top 20% 5 out of 9 years, and still be accurately considered "consistently great", I disagree. Being 10th in a league of 32 is not "great", unless you think there are 10 "great" teams every year. I don't.

#115 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:56pm

Ok - if you're going to parse definitions and twist endpoints to prove your (incorrect) analysis, then here's some inarguable ones:

In the past 8 seasons, Romo has most frequently had a productive, inarguably above average running game to support him.

With the second most frequency after that, he has had a Top 5 (by DVOA) running game.

He has least frequently had a Bottom 5 (by DVOA) running game.

He has most frequently had support from his running game. The argument that he has not had frequent support from his running game is false. If you turn around and say "I never said he didn't have any support from his running game!" save your breath. I'm not interested in moving the goal-posts around on "great" and "consistently." Romo had running game support, period and his success is not in spite of the running game as you seemed to be arguing earlier. If that's not what you're arguing, I genuinely don't care anymore.

#120 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:03pm

Of course, I never put forth the false argument he has not had frequent support from his running game. I observed it was inaccurate to assert that the Cowboys running game has been "consistently great" since Romo became starter. This observation has the virtue of being true.

If you had simply written that Romo's run support has more often than not been above average, with a couple of great years, I would not have disagreed at all. That isn't what you wrote.

#122 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:11pm

I'm the one who stated that Romo's run support has been poor, and I stand corrected. He had good run support from 2006-2009, was injured for most of 2010 (when he had average run support), had terrible run support in 2011 and 2012, and had a coaching staff that used the run game at a historically low rate in 2013 (franchise record for fewest rushing yards despite its success on a per-play basis).

#125 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:18pm

I was surprised that the Cowboys had two years when they were in the bottom 10, and, prior to this year, only three when they were in the top 6.

#126 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:18pm

I was surprised that the Cowboys had two years when they were in the bottom 10, and, prior to this year, only three when they were in the top 6.

#128 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:31pm

Well, since I successfully convinced the person I was arguing with of my point (once again, still not sure what your point is other than to be as unclear as possible so as not to have to concede any points), I'll take issue with your semantics.

Give me a definition of consistently great and we can see if the Cowboys match your definition. This is not rhetorical, I'm curious your definition, we see if the 2006-2014 Cowboys match it and if there are any teams over a similar span that do match it. Possibly no team has ever had a consistently great run game to your liking because you're set the bar awful high if these Cowboys don't qualify.

As pointed out right below you - in 6 of the 8 years Romo was a starter they (in 2006, which I've left out until now, they were rated #6) They had a top 10 running game, in 5 out of 8 season they had a Top 7, in 3 out of 8 a Top 5. That's the very definition of consistent positive production. Not "unabated" positive production or "unfailingly" positive production or "only" positive production but consistent. So you can't be objecting to the observable meaning of of the word consistent.

So, I guess you don't think those numbers are great. At very least that's debatable. You will observe that great in fact has a soft meaning in this case. Give me a hard number or definition of the word great in this context and you might find that many reasonable people have a slightly or even wildly different definition. You have not caught me in some logical fallacy to use the word great to describe these rushing attacks, only that I have a slightly lower threshold for the word great. The word "best" or the phrase "Top 3," those would have hard definitions in this context, so if you are so very careful to observe what I wrote, you will see I didn't use those words. That's why I am asking for your clear, observable definition of the word "great," so we can see if the Cowboys meet it.

Don't use squishy words without concrete empirical definitions or tell me what you saw with your eyes that can't be quantified because I disagree with you - we know that already! I think those running attacks qualify as great based on my own eyes and then comparing them to numbers. I have a feeling that no team in the history of the NFL is going to be able to meet your definition for consistently great...

#135 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 4:02pm

I think I'm being pretty loose with the term "great, when I've stated that if you aren't in the top 20%, which is six teams, in any category, you haven't been great. Has there ever been a team which has been "consistently great" in any category, over 9 years? I suspect so. Very few teams focus on running much over the past 10 years, however, so I'd be surprised if anybody has been "consistently great" at running in the DVOA era, although I'd guess the Cowboys of the nineties have the best chance.

I'm sorry if you think I'm being unclear.

(edit) I see the Cowboys had 5 top 6 finishes in rushing DVOA from 1992-2000, with those 5 actually occurring in a 7 year span. I'd say that is consistently great. Yes, I also suspect that having a top 20% finish in any category in 5 of 7 years is pretty rare. By definition, I'd say being consistently great is pretty rare.

(2nd edit) A quick scan of the Steelers in the Cowher era shows a bunch of top 6 rushing DVOA finishes, so it may be that it isn't as rare as I expected, thus meaning that top 6 is defining "great" too liberally.

#121 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:09pm

I never once argued or implied that Romo's success was "in spite of the running game". Words have definitions. Use the right ones and you won't have to ask people to give you "a fucking break", when they (politely) note that the words you have employed don't match up with the observable world.

#102 by Karl Cuba // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:14pm

I'm not trying to suggest his pass protection has been good, just that many guys have to deal with bad blocking, bad coaching too.

Will you concede that he had a really special group of receivers over the course of his career? Does that boost the expected returns on DYAR?

#106 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:24pm

I will agree that he has had some great receivers in his career (Owens and Bryant) and one low-end #1 with injury problems (Austin). However, he also has had a few years with Patrick Crayton or Roy Williams as his #2 receivers. Are they really special? No. But they are above average. Look at what Laurent Robinson did in his only year with Romo (858 yards and 11 TDs on 80 targets); the guy had 344 yards and 2 TDs on 75 targets the previous year and was out of football within a year of leaving the Cowboys.

You also have to look at the fact that Romo makes receivers much better.

#110 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:43pm

He has had a HOF tight end. 3 years of Terrell Owens. A year of a good Terry Glenn. Some other nice receivers. As I've stated previously, that has been a boost to his career. I've never claimed the guy is a HOFer.

(edit) Yes, Bryant's last 3 years have been terrific as well.

#111 by Karl Cuba // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:47pm

I think we might be arguing past each other. My view is that he a good qb, a probowl-ish player and I think that's what most people think. So from my perspective there isn't any need to defend his record. However, it could well be that because I'm on the UK I am somewhat insulated from the nonsense that gets thrown his way which you feel the need to defend him from. Maybe stop listening to sports talk radio?

#113 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:53pm

I don't think either one of us has a firm grasp of what "most people" think of Tony Romo. All I can do is observe what is observable.

#116 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:57pm

You seem pretty good at observing unobservable things as well.

#123 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:11pm

Ok, whatever you say.

#124 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:17pm

Tangentially related, but re the HOF TE-- I recall recently when Romo was singing Witten's praises and USA Today's inane "FTW" blog pointed it out. The link is here:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/10/jason-witten-tony-romo-best-dallas-cowboys-player-ever-all-time

We can all agree that Witten is going to have to line up behind a number of greats-- Roger Staubach, Bob Lilly, Randy White, Tony Dorsett, Emmitt Smith, Mel Renfro, and I'm sure some others-- it is true that Witten is one of the Cowboys' greats.

What struck me, though, was this comment from FTW's Chris Chase:

"Witten has never been the best tight end in professional football. That honor has belonged to either Antonio Gates, Tony Gonzalez, Rob Gronkowski or Jimmy Graham. If he makes the Hall of Fame, it’ll be because the Hall lets in far too many people. Few have ever looked at Jason Witten and thought, 'there’s a Hall of Famer.'"

When I read this I thought it was nuts because I've seen here and elsewhere plenty of people who have thought that Witten was a likely HOF candidate. He has numbers and career length, and that... je ne sais quoi that happens with really good players who just manage to always make game story lines with key blocks, sacks, receptions, touchdowns, catches, runs, passes, returns, etc.

Am I-- and a number of FO commenters-- crazy? Or is this FTW hack just that-- a hack who has put all of two seconds into thinking about actual football while writing for America's Highlights for Adults?

#127 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:24pm

Anybody who puts forth the possibility that the Hall of Fame "lets in too many people" is one of those numbnuts I referenced before, for whom the contents of the ball remain a mystery.

#129 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:31pm

As far as the greatest Cowboy, I always like to separate qbs from the other positions, and to me the greatest Cowboy, non-qb division, is Bob Lilly.

#131 by Karl Cuba // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:42pm

I'd put Witten in. He was often the second best and up against some all time greats, his consistency is really quite remarkable.

#132 by Ryan // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:45pm

I....would not consider Chris Chase a football expert. He likely decides "best tight end in football" by "how many times have I seen this guy's name in a headline."

#134 by Otis Taylor89 // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:58pm

You could say the same about so many HOFs. I know it's a different case, but was cFranco Harris ever the best RB in football? He probably wasn't even in the top 5 in many years.
Wittens career has been pretty amaizing, will have over 10,000 receiving yards and will probably have over 1,000 catches, 4 years of over 90 catches, never gets hurt, pretty good blocker - I say he's almost a no brainer.

#148 by armchair journ… // Dec 16, 2014 - 7:05pm

Agree completely.. Witten kills it on the consistency/longevity meter.

For humans anyway... It ain't his fault that Tony Gonzalez is a mutant.

I've always assumed he was going straight to the Hall.

//AJMQB

#33 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:42am

By your moniker, it may be reasonable to guess that you saw Tarkenton play, as I did. Now, my memory of him starts about 1969 or 1970, when I first started paying attention to the sport, but that was his ninth or tenth year, and you cannot believe the way he was criticized, directed at a guy who can reasonably be labeled as one of the top 5 qbs of all time. There were people, actually a lot of people, many of them "experts", saying he was bad at his job. Since I was 5 years old, I've known that a substantial percentage of fans of the game don't know, to quote the great Parcells, whether the ball is blown up or stuffed.

#44 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:58am

Actually, I was born in 1980. I just happen to like Staubach more than any other Cowboy. I have only known Tarkenton as a Hall of Famer and have only seen him via NFL films and replays. Tarkenton was probably the best QB of his era. Unfortunately, given the level of intelligence that often passes as sports analysis, it doesn't surprise me that he was so unfairly criticized.

#47 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:02am

Tarkenton and Romo is actually a cool comparison because I think their reputations also both suffered from not playing "right" - too improvisational, too willing to take risks, too willing to play outside of the pocket, just both seemed like they are having too much fun out there. And there's nothing that a certain kind of fan hates more than a player who has too much fun (especially without a championship to show for it.)

#71 by Raiderjoe // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:58pm

Like Staubach more but it can be argued either wayh as to whether staubahc was betetr or if F. Tarkenton was better than Staubach,. Certainly both better tjhan T. Bradshaw and K. Anderson

#73 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:08pm

Staubach was great, great, great. The one thing I'd argue in favor of Tarkenton is that Staubach never had to try to be productive with consistently lesser teammates and coaches surrounding him, whereas this was the norm for Tarkenton until he was 32 years old.

#108 by justanothersteve // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:30pm

I think the main reason Tark was criticized for so long was because he was unconventional. Great QBs didn't scramble back then. Unitas, Starr, Namath, Dawson, Jurgenson, Gabriel, and Lamonica were all classic drop back passers. The expert consensus was that scrambling was something only bad QBs did. Tarkenton would sometimes run around behind the line of scrimmage for ten or more seconds looking for an open receiver. Nobody back then realized it was all he could do to make his offense competitive.

#117 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:00pm

It's funny - if you see a clip of a classic Tarkenton scramble now, it doesn't even look crazy, you see a couple plays every week where Rodgers or Wilson or Romo dances around behind the line for a half dozen seconds, but you're right that back then nobody but nobody who was good was doing that.

#75 by EricL // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:21pm

I liked Staubach as a kid because an uncle of mine was one of his top receivers at Navy.

Doesn't mean I've ever liked the Cowboys, though. I was an Air Coryell fan as a kid. John Jefferson was, in fact, all that AND a bag of chips.

I vaguely remember Tarkenton. All I really remember, though, is lots and lots of running around the backfield like he's being chased by a swarm of hornets.

#136 by SandyRiver // Dec 16, 2014 - 4:09pm

Given the relative sizes of the people involved, more like a swarm of rhinos.

#11 by big10freak // Dec 16, 2014 - 8:07am

I work to avoid criticizing playcalling, but I do think Mike McCarthy 'owns' some of the second half in that his qb was clearly off. As in missing throws with regularity and his running back is getting good chunks with the opponent playing only six guys near the line and still heavy on the pass plays.

This wasn't Detroit where you could excuse it being early in the season and the run blocking still not in synch. GB has been running the ball pretty well the last 5-6 weeks.

Why MM cannot accept running the ball as a centerpiece of the offense in some games is a mystery.

Mike Sherman saved his d8mn job for a few years by moving the offense from Favre centered to Green centered. I am NOT suggesting that type of dramatic shift. But at least do it every so often in a given game given taht your offensive line can make it happen.

Grumble, grumble

#51 by Ryan // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:14am

I'd point this comment out to any Denver fans who are worried that Peyton isn't putting up 350yds/3TDs a game.

#54 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:17am

ARe Denver fans worried? The sense I get is that they're delighted that CJ Anderson can carry some of the load. I've heard more than one "this is like the 1998 team!" comment from the less level-headed Broncos fans..

#63 by Ryan // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:30pm

Well, as I noted on Audibles, it IS (via a very very small sample size) a similar transition--taking the load off the star QB, run, defense, etc. Not that they're blowing teams out or the single most dominant team in the league, but the foundation has changed oh so slightly. (The defense has been more or less excellent all year.)

I can't speak for Denver fans but I grew up on Peyton in Indy and I think what they're doing right now is super smart. The St. Louis game was certainly that team's nadir. I know teams never say they look ahead, but I think Fox & Co are already thinking about how to beat New England in Foxboro, and this is what they'll need.

#69 by BroncFan07 // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:55pm

As a Denver fan, what worries me is that they've slipped to the extreme end of the John Fox Spectrum. That is, they're kicking field goals from the 2 and 1 yard lines. He even used to do that with Tebow, who was the most 4th and 1 QB ever.

#149 by armchair journ… // Dec 16, 2014 - 7:13pm

That has to be the best Tebow description I've ever read.

Certainly if we limit it to positive ones.. Though, in all fairness, its not like there were many positive attributes to riff off of..

//AJMQB

#83 by Hang50 // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:48pm

This Broncos fan is certainly not worried, at least about the run/pass mix. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Peyton is playing with an injury that occasionally results in the high, floating passes we've been seeing the past few weeks.

I am pleasantly surprised at how well Jack Del Rio has prepared his defense for each game, and not surprised at all to see a lack of in-game adjustments that allow opponents to mount comebacks in the second half. (Also, I'm very happy Denver was able to resign Chris Harris, a great, great move.)

#15 by Pottsville Mar… // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:18am

Speaking of average pass length, I've been wondering all season how 2014 Matt Stafford compares to 2013 Matt Stafford. Last year the Lions seemed to have a very downfield passing approach, whereas this year they seem to be much more dink-and-dunk. I realize that Megatron's injury and the addition of a YAC monster like Tate have something to do with that, but the change seems systematic as well.

Stafford seems much less comfortable in this style of offense, and I think it's really hurt the Lions. It diminishes the importance of Stafford's arm strength, and magnifies the effect of his inconsistency. It's especially odd because Jim Caldwell came from Baltimore, which has seemed to have a run-run-bomb offensive approach the past few years.

#17 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:47am

I think it's by design not only because of Tate, but also by necessity because the offensive line had struggled so much early in the year, and Stafford was getting David Carr'ed. They definitely tried to throw downfield more earlier in the year, and the line couldn't hold their blocks long enoough. I think they overdid it against Minnesota, hamstringing themselves on offensive, and nearly got upset because of it. They're going to have to get more aggressive and take some risks against the better teams like Green Bay and whoever they end up playing in the playoffs.

#23 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:24am

For the first time in probably 15 years, I don't know what I want to happen with the Eagles. When Sanchez played awful versus the Seahawks and they lost because of it, I wasn't exactly happy, but I felt like at least what should be obvious would finally get some traction: Foles should be back in the line-up ASAP. But there was no talk of it. Foles "accidentally" letting it slip to the media pre-game that he felt like he could play that day versus the Seahawks didn't even rate consideration.

After the Cowboys game, Sanchez has proven decisively that he stinks and the Eagles likely won't make the playoffs because of it. Chip Kelly got up in front of the press yesterday and said he was "unsure" of Foles' status and who would be the starter going forward. He talked about how he still believes in Sanchez. It's just horrible mismanagement of something that should have been obvious from the start: Mark Sanchez should not be the starting QB this team.

Kelly's personel decisions have been generally awful, not the least of which is his handling of the QB situation from the moment he arrived. He's been winning with players developed by Andy Reid or brought in as free agents. I'm afraid he believes his own hype and it's totally undermining his positives as a coach - he feels free to cut their #1 wr, give a big contract to a crummy career back-up wr and bench the only QB with whom he's had success. He brings in a host of former Oregon players to "create culture" and then (like Josh Huff) they are game-changingly bad.

There are clearly a ton of positives to him as a coach, so I don't want to write him off, but I feel like sneaking into the playoffs with Sanchez at the helm is probably with the worst thing that could happen because Kelly will continue to believe in his own genius and make these unjustifiable personnel decisions. On the other hand, I've never once in my life rooted against the Eagles, especially to miss the playoffs. And then if they miss the playoffs, I have a sinking feeling they'll move on from Foles and next year will be even worse as they try to develop the 4th or 5th best QB in the draft or bring in another Sanchez-esque project for his "QB-proof" system.

I mean, right now, I keep thinking of Wade Phillips. That's not what you want to think of when considering the behavior of your head coach.

#29 by RickD // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:37am

I have to say that this idea that Sanchez should start over a healthy Foles is baffling. I don't care if Foles had some bad games this season, his ceiling is much higher than Sanchez's.

#37 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:50am

That's the fucking thing about Foles: his ceiling is literally as high as Peyton Manning's, in the best season of Manning's career. We know that's Foles' ceiling because he's already achieved it. It's not good for Kelly that the reaction seems to be "no, that's Kelly and his system's ceiling" because I think talent matters a huge amount at the NFL level - right now Kelly clearly doesn't: he's treated the two players with the most success for him (Foles and DJax) as entirely expendable. That's insane. A couple more years of that and it'll be a team full of Josh Huffs and Zach Ertzes.

Kelly has been lucky because he inherited a team that didn't need rebuilding: Maclin, Jackson, McCoy, Foles, Celek, the entire offensive line (save RT) and even Riley Cooper were all Andy Reid guys. I look at the first two drafts under Kelly and I don't see the future of this team. I'm worried Kelly is going to be given carte blanche for too long and then the team is going to crater with the shell of RGIII throwing passes to Josh Huff, Zach Ertz and Jordan Matthews while McCoy is banging into an aging o-line over and over again for a mix of 3 yard gains and 2 yard losses.

Getting rid of DeSean was depressing. Giving up on Foles is bad, bad news. I just don't see good outcomes here.

#52 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:15am

One more weird thing I noticed: a lot gets made of how Foles lacks the athleticism to take full advantage of Kelly's read-option system and that a more natural athlete like Sanchez opens things up in that regard. Well, Foles' rushing DVOA is higher than Sanchez's. There's literally nothing Sanchez has done better than Foles.

#137 by SandyRiver // Dec 16, 2014 - 4:16pm

Totally agree that giving up on Foles now would be idiotic. However, I'm not sure whether his 2013 represents ceiling or fluke. A couple seasons with TD/INT numbers in the 35/13 range would support the former, but right now it seems a bit early to rank his potential with top-seasons (and the plural is crucial, IMO) Peyton or Rodgers.

#160 by chemical burn // Dec 17, 2014 - 4:22pm

Oh, I agree 100% that there's no reason to assume he'll regularly perform at that ceiling he's already established. The jury is out on Foles, as it is on a lot of his contemporaries (that have shown promise, but lower ceilings) like Kaepernick, RGIII, Tannenhill and Andy Dalton. Unlike those guys, we KNOW he can put up numbers equal to Rodgers, Manning and Brees because he has already done so once. Whether or not he ever will again is a completely legit question - and it's reasonable to lean towards the answer that he won't ever do it again.

But... the downright bizarre thing that I think is happening with Foles is that his amazing 2013 numbers are being treated as somewhere in the neighborhood of a baseline for what a quarterback SHOULD produce under Chip Kelly. Right now, the perception is that a quarterback SHOULD put up 4,500 yard 35td/13int seasons in a Chip Kelly offense. Through the lens of that perception, folks think that Foles exceeding those numbers doesn't mean Foles did anything special, only that he slightly over-performed the "natural" baseline for a Kelly offense.

This is bananas.

Foles' 2013 numbers are astoundingly good and the way they get casually dismissed is weird - you just don't see QB's do what he did (especially young QB's in their second year!) and just get waved off like they're nothing. The culprit is that imaginary baseline for what a Chip Kelly QB should be doing and, honestly, having watched almost two full seasons of it now, I'm not sure that the perception isn't entirely backwards. I personally think there's more evidence that Kelly benefitted from Foles than vice versa. Barkley, Vick, Sanchez back me up on it...

#161 by chemical burn // Dec 17, 2014 - 4:51pm

One more funny thing about Foles: there's a perception that he had some "bad" games this season, RickD mentions it above, and it's not really true. He had a single bad game - he did indeed have a pretty bad game against the 49er's, but the Eagles were starting their 8th and 9th o-linemen in that game and the offense in general was just a mess. Other than that, the games where he's said to have been bad, he's being held to an insane standard. For example, one of them is the Jaguars game where he started slow but ended with 320 yards and 2 TD's!/0 INT's! These are the kind of "bad" games he had this year - after the Jaguars game you can find comments on this very site where people were writing "yeah, but if you watch the All-22, he should have had 500 yards and 5 TD's." It gets said with a straight face.

You look at, like, the Rams game where he had 207 yards and 2TD/1INT and people are openly wondering if he should be benched. After a game they won and scored 34 points while starting 3 back-up o-lineman and their leading RB averaged 3.3 y/c, fumbled once and was tackled for a loss 5 times. And their defense choked away a 34-7 lead. This is a game where Foles was criticized for his performance. The nadir of his season, the 49er's game, he threw two interceptions, but he's getting no help - as a team, they had 22 rushing yards on 12 carries. McCoy averaged 1.7 y/c and Zach Ertz and Riley Cooper both fumbled the ball away. It was a team-wide disaster and Foles brilliant (ultimately failed) drive at the end of the game was the only bright-spot.

According to DVOA, his bad season has been better than Russell Wilson's (as a passer) and very similar to Ryan Tannenhill's "breakout" year. And apart from the 49er's game, you can go through the schedule but just can't find games where he's having a total meltdown. The ones that get brought up are, like, the Cardinals game where he had 411 yards 2TD/2INT and didn't take a single sack against the #6 defense (by DVOA.) Tannenhill has two games all year where he managed to put up 300 yards - and he threw 1TD/2INT in one of them. Kaepernick threw for 300 yard once all year. It's maddening the standard to which he's being held...

#70 by Raiderjoe // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:56pm

Smnachez turd-like quarterback with limited upside. Sanchez neesd gerta protection from lineman and needs good ground attack. Files better, can succeed with less help. Foels more decisive with throws. Foles should start when healthy.

#98 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:09pm

Tell that to Chip Kelly - Foles told the media two weeks ago he's ready to play.

#59 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:43am

You don't think-- and I don't follow Philly except as an NFC East rival-- that perhaps trying to find a more read-option-ish QB would be a good idea?

The good news is that it seems like the NYG and WAS are going to be bad for a bit, and Dallas will almost certainly regress next year (though perhaps their defense might improve a tad with some key injuries returning there is no way the offense plays as well), PHL should be poised for good things next year regardless...

(And that said, I'm not convinced Dallas is going to make it this year. Obviously the control-your-own-destiny thing helps, but IND at home and WAS on the road aren't ideal.)

#64 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:36pm

What I'm convinced of is this: good QB's are the rarest and most valuable commodity in the NFL. If you have a good QB, you should make every effort to hold on to him. If there is a reasonable chance you have a good QB on your roster, you should make every effort to determine his actual level of talent before you make any decisions about what to do with this potentially valuable and rare commodity.

Here are the basic issues:
1) Four different QB's have started games for Chip Kelly. Three of the four (Vick, Barkley and Sanchez) have been awful. In 2013, Foles delivered a performance on the level with literally one of the greatest QB performances of all time. In 2014, with a messed up supporting cast, he was very slightly above average.

2) If you consider just the 2014 season of all Foles' contemporaries at QB (I'm saying guys taken since 2011, the year before Foles was drafted, but that includes guys like Cam Newtown and Colin Kaepernick), there is exactly one QB who has been inarguably better in 2014 than Foles: Andrew Luck, a once-in-a-blue-moon AAA+ talent. There are two QB's who arguably had a better 2014 (and this is just considering their performance in 2014 alone): Russell Wilson and Ryan Tannenhill. It would be tough to argue that any other QB taken since 2011 has definitely played better than Foles this year. Kirk Cousins? Andy Dalton? You can say, "but Newton. Kaepernick and RGIII were just having down years!" Why wouldn't the same be said for Foles? And it should be noted his "down year" is not nearly as down as any of those guys.

3) I've seen a running QB in Kelly's system and he sucked: Vick was terrible under Kelly and if he had continued on as the starter, the Eagles wouldn't have made the playoffs. Maybe Vick was washed up? Well, not in terms of his running game, which was very productive under Kelly. It was his best rushing performance since his Atlanta days. In fact, his overall performance resembled his Atlanta performances in terms of DVOA/DYAR and overall crumminess as a passer.

So, there is no guarantee any old QB will be good under Kelly. The opposite seems to be true: the QB matters more than the system under Kelly. A running QB is not inherently better for Kelly's offense - the best running QB of all-time was in fact bad in Kelly's system. Of the 48 QB's taken since 2011, only three of them could even be argued to have been better than Foles in his DOWN year. By all accounts, they are getting ready to get rid of a rare and valuable commodity to replace it with something unproven. That they're doing so based on a fantasy (the fantasy of Kelly's QB-Proof System of Unlimited Potential) is what's troubling.

To get a QB who had a superior 2014 in comparison to Foles 2014, you must likely give a high draft pick (Luck or Tannenhill) or hope a insanely talented player is two inches too short and goes into an idiotic freefall in the draft. If a player of Wilson's caliber is available in the 3rd (or even 2nd) round, then yes, the Eagles should definitely take him. But to get rid of Foles is incredibly short-sighted considering all these factors: the demonstrated production ceiling of Foles (higher than any young QB in the league, higher than the average season for Manning, Brady or Rodgers), Foles' performance in comparison to other QB's in Kelly's system, Foles' "down year" performance in comparison to other young QB's having a down year in 2014, the state of the Eagles offense in terms of injuries and rb/wr support when Foles was a starter, the cost of replacing Foles (1st or 8th overal pick for a Luck or Tannenhill), the value to be had in flipping him (his trade value being heavily depreciated by the fantasy of Kelly's system) and the simple fact that getting rid of good QB is just about the stupidest thing you can do in the NFL. Even if you believe Foles to be unproven as a talent just risking him before it is proven is stupid.

#24 by BroncFan07 // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:26am

Wonder where Bobby Hoying would have ranked on the dink and dunk list.

#32 by Hurt Bones // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:41am

“Tom Brady’s legs propel him to 4th in DYAR”

A possible headline we aren’t likely to see again. Speaking of QB rushing DYAR. Flacco has -6. He only rushed twice so that failed sneak (3rd and a ‘full’ 1 from the JAX 31) must have been pretty costly. The other run was a 10 yard gain on 3rd and 5 from the RAV 42. Just curious.
Don’t get me wrong, I was screaming at the TV ‘no sneak!, no sneak!’. The line just hadn’t been getting any push against the Jags all game. Even though sneaks have been pretty successful for the Ravens this year, it was a full yard, and I thought doomed to fail.

#43 by MarkV // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:58am

I am not sure if this is easy (or possible) to find, but this week sure looks exceptionally below average for league QB play as a whole. My fast math says the QBs combined this week for -85 passing DYAR.

On the season the weekly average is 789. I wonder if this makes the bottom 10 weeks for QB play of DVOA era.

#46 by Boots Day // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:01am

Was the note about Eli Manning getting the biggest opponent adjustment of the week written before the Monday night game? Honestly, 29-for-36 for 375 yards, three touchdowns and no INTs looks to be about an average game against that Bears defense.

#67 by Perfundle // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:47pm

Well, the QB with the biggest opponent adjustment should be the one who played the worst pass defense, and Eli faced 32nd-ranked Washington.

#53 by Paul R // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:17am

Wouldn't average pass attempts be affected by the players on the roster? If the team has a bunch of sprinters who can get behind the safeties, naturally the QB would throw deep more often. A team with a strong running game and good tight ends wouldn't go long as much.

#56 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:23am

I think that's actually one of the best aspects of Reid as a coach, how he builds his team according the strengths of his personnel. The strength of that crummy KC roster he inherited was is running game and pass-catching back. The best available QB was a guy with a weak arm who excels at throwing short, accurate passes and has good ball security. Build your team from there.

#95 by PatsFan // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:07pm

I think that's actually one of the best aspects of Reid as a coach, how he builds his team according the strengths of his personnel.

Are there actually coaches that don't do that?? I mean, sure, there must be coaches who try that and execute badly, but are there really coaches that don't even operate that way? (I give a pass when the entire team is pretty much crap and the best thing to do is blow the whole thing up.)

#101 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:14pm

Chip Kelly. The contrast is striking. He let DeSean Jackson go in part because he wants big WR's. He refuses to bench Fletcher or Williams for Boykin (who is miles better than either) because he want his CB's to be tall and strong.

Also, the Giants this year have been perversely committed to playing against their QB and WR's strengths on offense. It's kinda nuts to see in action, actually. So yes, a lot of (bad) coaches don't build to their team's strengths. You've been watching a great coach up there in NE too long if you don't notice stuff like Jay Gruden misusing RGIII or Wisenhunt jamming big, strong, immobile QB's into the line-up happening on the reg all around the league.

#130 by LyleNM // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:39pm

Actually, coaches don't do that all the time. Ever hear of a new coach who comes in and wants to install a 3-4 defense instead of the 4-3 that they were running and promptly sells off the 4-3 DEs for pennies on the dollar? The coaches who let talented players go who "don't fit their scheme" (see Desean Jackson)? Coaches like Carroll and Reid and some others (Belichick?) fit their scheme to the players' abilities. Most coaches demand that the players fit their schemes.

#139 by Lyford // Dec 16, 2014 - 4:30pm

There's a great quote I ran across 10 years ago from a guy who worked as an area scout under Belichick when he was in Cleveland:

"I remember sitting in a meeting with Bill that first year in Cleveland and the scouts were going around explaining what this guy does wrong and what this other guy does wrong and on and on. It was all criticism. And Bill said, 'Stop telling me what this guy does wrong. I want to know what he does well. Let's focus on that, and I won't even worry about the rest of it. We just won't ask him to do those things.'

"And you can see he still does that. Everyone else seems to be looking for the perfect player, and he's just the opposite. He says, 'Find out what they do well, we'll use them in that situation for 20 snaps and be thrilled with it.'"

#157 by mehllageman56 // Dec 17, 2014 - 2:51pm

Mangini did that in New York. He switched to a 3-4 in 2006, made the defense worse, and then traded Jonathan Vilma to New Orleans a year or two later. Granted, drafting David Harris allowed him to trade Vilma. The only reason they made the playoffs in 2006 was Pennington's revival and a super easy schedule. I'm worried whoever replaces Rex will do the same thing, only switching to a 4-3 and making a bunch of their defensive linemen worthless.

#163 by chemical burn // Dec 17, 2014 - 5:13pm

This is another interesting Reid vs. Kelly comparison - Kelly came into Philadelphia and immediately switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 despite not having the personnel for it. Amongst other things, it switched their best pass-rusher and their 2010 1st round pick (Cole and Graham) out of their natural DE position into OLB's. It also put their 2012 1st round pick (Cox) into a position he had never played before. It also required on boosting their thinnest position group under Reid - there were only two passable LB's on the roster when Kelly took it over. It has worked out ok for them, but I think the overall came at the expense of dealing with their messed-up secondary.

They couldn't invest everywhere at once, so they used key draft picks and free agent money to bolster the d-line and LB corps. The switch meant too much had to be fixed simultaneously and to deal with the secondary, they were forced to bring in cut-rate free agents like Bradley Fletcher and Patrick Chung and hope a 6th round rookie could be out Nate Allen for a starting job. Their plan to build a strong front 7 for the 3-4 defense has worked ok thus far, but it doesn't really matter because their secondary is so unbelievably bad and, furthermore, can't handle the man-coverage assignments that Billy Davis insists on giving them as part of his philosophy.

Meanwhile Reid, who had run a 4-3 his entire career in Philadelphia and always skimped on LB's, takes a look at his KC roster and says "shit, we're building this defense around these excellent linebackers and that dominant nose tackle!" Now, of course, DVOA likes Philly's defense more than KC's, so which method is better is certainly up for debate (although Philly's 20th pass/6th run defense ranking support my point about the front 7 vs. the secondary and KC's defense was one of the worst in the league by DVOA before Reid took over.) But it's a nice contrast demonstrate how a coach may or may not build to his roster's strengths...

#143 by Thomas_beardown // Dec 16, 2014 - 5:05pm

A lot of coaches believe in doing things a certain way and finding players who can do that instead of adapting their ways of doing things to the players in front of them. For the most extreme modern example I can think of, look at Mike Martz.

I'm not entirely sure it's necessarily bad or wrong either. It's pretty much how Tony Dungy operated on defense and it produced some good results.

#158 by mehllageman56 // Dec 17, 2014 - 2:52pm

I think I'd rather be Belichick.

#164 by Thomas_beardown // Dec 17, 2014 - 5:19pm

Well sure, but you can do a damn sight worse than Tony Dungy.

Jeez louise are we grading coaches on a first or worse basis here?

#170 by mehllageman56 // Dec 18, 2014 - 1:27am

Look, I think Dungy was a great coach, but I'd much prefer the guy who can tweak his system to fit his own players.

#171 by chemical burn // Dec 18, 2014 - 1:59am

I think that's fair - those Colts missed out on another ring or two because their defense, I never really considered how mismanagement of their personnel could have played a factor in the defensive failings. And it's true their secondary just never seemed to work with the schemes they were running...

#172 by Thomas_beardown // Dec 18, 2014 - 2:30am

If you want to find a reason for the Colts under-performing in the playoffs, you might want to check Marvin Harrison's statlines.

The Dungy Colt's lost playoff games 0-41, 14-28, 3-20, 18-21, 24-28, and 17-23. I'm not sure you can just blame the defense here.

#173 by chemical burn // Dec 18, 2014 - 2:54am

Oh sure, the offense fell down plenty. However, there was no chance of their defense winning games for them - if the offense faltered those teams were cooked, which is not a formula that many teams that win multiple championships adhere to. An even slightly better defense puts them over the top in some of those close games and keeps them on the road to another championship. The offense underperformed, the mediocre defensive outing were normal performances - in those loses they didn't once hold a team under 20 and three times gave up 4 or more TD's. That's not good, even if the offense was worse (and heavily underperformed.)

Overall DVOA

Position

Line Stats

Other

Historical Lookups

Single Game DVOA & PGWE

Defense

Position

Stat Splits by

Team & Player Research

Betting

Vincent Verhei

Week 15 Quick Reads

Comments

#1 by Perfundle // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:49am

#18 by Aaron Schatz // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:52am

#2 by Perfundle // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:58am

#3 by TimK // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:31am

#4 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 6:50am

#6 by Lyford // Dec 16, 2014 - 7:11am

#7 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 7:28am

#9 by Otis Taylor89 // Dec 16, 2014 - 7:58am

#10 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 8:04am

#14 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:13am

#16 by ZDNeal // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:41am

#19 by Aaron Schatz // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:53am

#26 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:31am

#25 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:29am

#27 by RickD // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:31am

#38 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:51am

#20 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:57am

#13 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:06am

#88 by Anon Ymous // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:58pm

#31 by nat // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:39am

#35 by Hurt Bones // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:44am

#40 by nat // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:54am

#39 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:54am

#42 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:58am

#48 by nat // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:06am

#5 by Jerry // Dec 16, 2014 - 6:55am

#8 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 7:58am

#12 by BJR // Dec 16, 2014 - 8:50am

#21 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:00am

#22 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:17am

#28 by RickD // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:34am

#34 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:43am

#30 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:37am

#36 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:47am

#41 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:55am

#45 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 10:58am

#49 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:10am

#50 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:14am

#55 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:19am

#57 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:23am

#58 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:25am

#79 by tictoc // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:40pm

#60 by Karl Cuba // Dec 16, 2014 - 11:58am

#61 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:07pm

#62 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:28pm

#65 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:38pm

#66 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 12:45pm

#72 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:02pm

#76 by Karl Cuba // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:22pm

#78 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:37pm

#85 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:54pm

#89 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:59pm

#152 by commissionerleaf // Dec 16, 2014 - 8:56pm

#153 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 9:17pm

#80 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:40pm

#82 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:45pm

#84 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:53pm

#86 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:57pm

#93 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:07pm

#114 by Lance // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:53pm

#142 by Thomas_beardown // Dec 16, 2014 - 4:53pm

#87 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 1:57pm

#91 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:01pm

#97 by Staubach12 // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:09pm

#112 by Will Allen // Dec 16, 2014 - 2:49pm

#119 by chemical burn // Dec 16, 2014 - 3:03pm