Divisional Round Quick Reads
by Vincent Verhei
Osweiler (os•wi•ler,ˌäs-wī-lər)
1. noun: Surname of a Houston Texans quarterback who was paid approximately $1.4 million per touchdown pass in the 2016 regular season.
2. noun: Description of an NFL game in which a quarterback throws 40 or more passes and gains less than 200 yards.
OK, I made that last one up. But it's appropriate, because it's an accomplishment that has become routine for Brock Osweiler, but is still very rare across the league.
According to Pro Football Reference, there were five Osweilers in the 1950s (including the playoffs); 25 in the 1960s; 13 in the 1970s; 30 in the 1980s; 54 in the 1990s; 59 in the 2000s; and 37 from 2010 to 2015. There's a lot of fluctuation there, obviously, but in the past three-plus decades it has been a fairly steady average of about five or six Osweilers across the league in any given season. Over the entire timeframe from 1950 to 2015, Bernie Kosar led all passers with five Osweilers, followed by Sam Bradford with four and then 18 players with three. Remember, these are career totals, including playoffs. In 65 years, nobody ever had more than two Osweilers in a season -- and even that only happened 14 times.
Brock Osweiler's Osweiler against New England in the divisional round was his fourth in 16 starts this season. Nobody else had more than one (though with eight other quarterbacks posting an Osweiler, this would have been a big year for them even without the Osweiler). In just one year as a full-time starter, Osweiler has tied Bradford for second place in career Osweilers.
Part of this is due to the era in which Osweiler is playing. Rules have never been friendlier to passers than they are now, which means all quarterbacks -- even bad ones -- are getting more opportunities to pass than ever before. Even a struggling quarterback is more likely to be productive than your average running game. If we change our thresholds to 30 or more attempts and fewer than 150 yards (still worse than a 5-yard average per attempt), we find a lot more games -- Jake Plummer is the leader with nine, followed by Mark Malone with eight and eight players with seven. If we go to 20 attempts and 100 yards, we find Craig Morton and Norm Snead tied with 12 games, followed by Dan Pastorini with 11 and Roman Gabriel with 10.
So no, Brock Osweiler is not the worst quarterback we have ever seen, and he's not the first quarterback to have some bad days. He is, however, the first quarterback to play this badly and still get opportunity after opportunity after opportunity, both in the sense that the Texans kept calling pass plays even as he struggled, and that the Texans left him in the lineup even after it was clear they could not win a championship with him. With a contract that is going to make it very difficult for Houston to find a new signal-caller over the offseason, there's a good chance we will see more Osweiler -- and more Osweilers -- in 2017
| Quarterbacks | |||||||||||
Rk |
Player |
Team |
CP/AT |
Yds |
TD |
INT |
Sacks |
Total DYAR |
Pass DYAR |
Rush DYAR |
Opp |
1. |
Matt Ryan | ATL | 26/37 |
338 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
156 |
156 |
0 |
SEA |
Ryan had four passes inside Seattle's 15-yard line. He completed all four for 31 total yards and four first downs, including three touchdowns. His magic pass length was 9 to 18 yards. On passes of that distance, he went 10-of-14 for 211 yards, with every completion going for a first down. He threw only one pass to the deep middle area of the field -- Seattle's weakness, given the absence of Earl Thomas -- and that pass was incomplete. However, to the short middle of the field, he went 8-of-10 for 118 yards -- 51 yards through the air, and 67 yards after the catch, many of those after Thomas' replacement Steven Terrell missed tackles. On third downs, he went 10-of-11 for 135 yards, though that includes four completions that failed to pick up a first down. | 2. |
Aaron Rodgers | GB | 28/43 |
356 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
92 |
83 |
9 |
DAL |
Rodgers led all quarterbacks this week in first-quarter DYAR. In the first frame, he went 8-of-11 for 126 yards. From that point forward, he was basically a replacement-level passer, with plenty of highs (three passes to Jared Cook: a 3-yard touchdown, a 26-yard gain in the third quarter, and of course the 36-yard gain on third-and-20 that set up the winning field goal) and lows (one interception; three sacks; and failures to convert on three plays with 3 yards or less to go for a first down). | 3. |
Dak Prescott | DAL | 24/37 |
302 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
74 |
70 |
4 |
GB |
Prescott and the Cowboys opened the fourth quarter down 15 points to Green Bay, but came back to tie the game -- twice. So it's not surprising he was the NFL's leader in fourth-quarter DYAR this week, going 10-of-13 for 116 yards and eight first downs (including two touchdowns), plus a 12-yard DPI and a 5-yard sack. | 4. |
Tom Brady | NE | 18/38 |
287 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
31 |
32 |
-1 |
HOU |
Houston's own offensive ineptitude masked just how ineffective Brady and the Patriots were for most of the second half. Brady's touchdown pass to James White put New England up 24-13 with more than 26 minutes left in the game. From that point forward, Brady went 4-of-16 for 48 yards and an interception. He cleaned up on third downs though: 5-of-8 for 145 yards with one touchdown and two sacks. | 5. |
Ben Roethlisberger | PIT | 20/31 |
224 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-4 |
-3 |
-1 |
KC |
From his own goal line to the Kansas City 30, Roethlisberger went 14-of-16 for 215 yards and 10 first downs. Inside the Kansas City 30, he went 7-of-15 for 9 yards (not a typo), one sack, one interception, and zero first downs (also not a typo). Two of those completions went backwards, and only one was considered a successful play. | 6. |
Russell Wilson | SEA | 17/30 |
225 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
-34 |
-43 |
10 |
ATL |
The vast majority of Wilson's passes (and successful plays) were thrown to his left. To the right, he went 5-of-9 for 60 yards (40 on one play); up the middle, he went 0-for-2. That's 12 of 14 successful completions thrown to his left. Wilson also took the biggest hit from opponent adjustments this week, though only 2 DYAR separated him from Aaron Rodgers, Dak Prescott, or Brock Osweiler in that regard. | 7. |
Alex Smith | KC | 20/35 |
172 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-38 |
-35 |
-3 |
PIT |
On third and fourth downs, Smith went 4-of-10 for 44 yards with four conversions and one sack. That includes two conversions on two fourth-down plays. | 8. |
Brock Osweiler | HOU | 23/40 |
198 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
-188 |
-195 |
7 |
NE |
Osweiler had 19 plays in New England territory, plus one more at the Houston 46. He went 9-of-20 for 77 yards with three first downs and two interceptions. He is the first player to throw at least three interceptions and average less than 5 yards per attempt since -- well, since the last Houston game, when Connor Cook did it. Before that you have to go back to Ryan Fitzpatrick's six picks against Arizona in September. |
| Five Best Running Backs by DYAR (Total) | ||||||||||||
Rk |
Player |
Team |
Runs |
Rush Yds |
Rush TD |
Rec |
Rec Yds |
Rec TD |
Total DYAR |
Rush DYAR |
Rec DYAR |
Opp |
1. |
Devonta Freeman | ATL | 14 |
45 |
1 |
4/5 |
80 |
0 |
60 |
30 |
30 |
SEA |
Pretty much every team that played this weekend except Atlanta had a very good run defense. Eleven running backs had enough touches to qualify for our tables. Nine of those players gained DYAR after opponent adjustments, and five gained 30 or more. Freeman became just the second running back to break 125 yards from scrimmage against Seattle this season (David Johnson did it twice). He had three first downs on the ground, the longest a 13-yarder, while getting hit for no gain or a loss just three times. Most of his receiving value comes from one big catch, a 53-yard gain on third-and-4. | 2. |
Tevin Coleman | ATL | 11 |
57 |
0 |
3/4 |
22 |
1 |
58 |
35 |
23 |
SEA |
Coleman had four first downs on the ground, including a 15-yarder, while getting hit for a loss just once. Two of Coleman's receptions produced first downs too. | 3. |
Ty Montgomery | GB | 11 |
47 |
2 |
5/8 |
34 |
0 |
52 |
34 |
19 |
DAL |
Montgomery had four first-half runs: a 15-yard run for a first down, a 7-yard gain on first-and-10, and touchdowns of 3 and 1 yards. He did not run for a first down in the second half, but in the whole game he was hit for a loss just once. He added four first downs in the air, including one on a 10-yard DPI. | 4. |
Ezekiel Elliott | DAL | 22 |
125 |
0 |
1/1 |
-2 |
0 |
41 |
49 |
-8 |
GB |
Five first downs on the ground, including gains of 22 and 12 yards, while getting hit for no gain just once. | 5. |
Jonathan Grimes | HOU | 2 |
11 |
0 |
4/4 |
43 |
0 |
25 |
6 |
19 |
NE |
Three of Grimes' catches went for first downs; the other was a 15-yard gain on first-and-20. |
| Five Best Running Backs by DYAR (Rushing) | ||||||||||||
Rk |
Player |
Team |
Runs |
Rush Yds |
Rush TD |
Rec |
Rec Yds |
Rec TD |
Total DYAR |
Rush DYAR |
Rec DYAR |
Opp |
1. |
Ezekiel Elliott | DAL | 22 |
125 |
0 |
1/1 |
-2 |
0 |
41 |
49 |
-8 |
GB |
2. |
Le'Veon Bell | PIT | 30 |
170 |
0 |
2/5 |
-4 |
0 |
13 |
40 |
-27 |
KC |
Ten first downs on the ground, including gains of 11, 17, and 38 yards, with four hits for no gain or a loss. | 3. |
Tevin Coleman | ATL | 11 |
57 |
0 |
3/4 |
22 |
1 |
58 |
35 |
23 |
SEA |
4. |
Ty Montgomery | GB | 11 |
47 |
2 |
5/8 |
34 |
0 |
52 |
34 |
19 |
DAL |
5. |
Devonta Freeman | ATL | 14 |
45 |
1 |
4/5 |
80 |
0 |
60 |
30 |
30 |
SEA |
| Worst Running Back by DYAR (Total) | ||||||||||||
Rk |
Player |
Team |
Runs |
Rush Yds |
Rush TD |
Rec |
Rec Yds |
Rec TD |
Total DYAR |
Rush DYAR |
Rec DYAR |
Opp |
1. |
Thomas Rawls | SEA | 11 |
34 |
0 |
0/0 |
0 |
0 |
-13 |
-13 |
0 |
ATL |
Rawls and LeGarrette Blount were the only qualifying runners this week to go down after opponent adjustments. He had three first downs on the ground, the longest for 11 yards, but was hit for no gain or a loss four times. |
| Worst Running Back by DYAR (Rushing) | ||||||||||||
Rk |
Player |
Team |
Runs |
Rush Yds |
Rush TD |
Rec |
Rec Yds |
Rec TD |
Total DYAR |
Rush DYAR |
Rec DYAR |
Opp |
1. |
Thomas Rawls | SEA | 11 |
34 |
0 |
0/0 |
0 |
0 |
-13 |
-13 |
0 |
ATL |
| Five Best Wide Receivers and Tight Ends by DYAR | ||||||||||
Rk |
Player |
Team |
Rec |
Att |
Yds |
Avg |
TD |
Total DYAR |
Opp |
1. |
Chris Hogan | NE | 4 |
4 |
95 |
23.8 |
0 |
68 |
HOU |
All four of Hogan's catches went for first downs, and he gained a fifth first down on a 30-yard DPI. | 2. |
Dez Bryant | DAL | 9 |
12 |
132 |
14.7 |
2 |
54 |
GB |
Only three of Bryant's catches failed to produce first downs, and one of those was a 19-yard gain on second-and-21. He also drew a DPI for 12 yards and another first down. | 3. |
Julian Edelman | NE | 8 |
13 |
137 |
17.1 |
0 |
52 |
HOU |
Edelman's DYAR total includes 41 DYAR receiving, 10 DYAR rushing for his one carry for 12 yards. He had first downs on catches of 48, 26, 14, and 26 yards, but his last six targets resulted in one catch for 3 yards. | 4. |
Julio Jones | ATL | 6 |
8 |
67 |
11.2 |
1 |
35 |
SEA |
Five of Jones' catches went for first downs; the sixth was an 8-yard gain on first-and-10. He converted both of his third-down targets. | 5. |
Jesse James | PIT | 5 |
6 |
83 |
16.6 |
0 |
34 |
KC |
Four of James' catches went for first downs; the fifth was a 5-yard gain on first-and-10. In fact all of James' targets came on first-and-10. |
| Worst Wide Receiver or Tight End by DYAR | ||||||||||
Rk |
Player |
Team |
Rec |
Att |
Yds |
Avg |
TD |
Total DYAR |
Opp |
1. |
Ryan Griffin | HOU | 0 |
3 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
-21 |
NE |
It's actually worse than it looks. All of Griffin's targets came with 5 yards or less to go for a first down, two were failed third-down plays, and one was intercepted. |
Comments
103 comments, Last at 18 Jan 2017, 8:51pm
#1 by big10freak // Jan 16, 2017 - 6:47pm
Packer fans don't want to hear it but Rodgers seems to be every so often underthrowing intermediate and deeper passes (non Hail Mary division) as it looks like he is trying to make some kind of long touch pass. His most success is on the send that sucker on a line pass. I am not going to try and meddle with a wizard as they are subtle and quick to anger but he might want to do a little more grip and rip it.
Granted he might be trying to help his receivers who have at times had a case of the dropsies .
#3 by Flounder // Jan 16, 2017 - 8:00pm
The INT was just....so odd, and one of his worst throws of the year. As he was letting the pass go, I leapt off my couch, my arms raised triumphantly as I anticipated the ball hitting Adams - who had a step and a half on his man - in stride with an oncoming safety who was going to get there a step too late.
Instead I wound up with my hands on my head, looking on stupidly as the INT was returned.
#64 by EnderCN // Jan 18, 2017 - 12:11am
Adams broke the wrong way and gave up when he realized his mistake. That INT was nothing to do with Rodgers most likely though I guess it is plausible Adams ran the right route and Rodgers was wrong, most likely it wasn't the case though since Adams is a bit of an air head.
#75 by Flounder // Jan 18, 2017 - 9:25am
I have heard this floated around, but it doesn't make sense, and seems to be solely based on Rodgers looking pissed at Adams after the play.
Why would that route break to the inside, directly into safety help? It makes zero sense. Rodgers was probably annoyed Adams did nothing to try to break up the INT, which he arguably should have.
It was just a poor throw.
#2 by Dan // Jan 16, 2017 - 7:11pm
I think that a big part of what's happening with osweilers is a coincidence from particular cutoffs.
If you make the criteria "40+ attempts and below 5.0 YPA" then Drew Bledsoe leads the way with 11 followed by Sam Bradford with 8; Osweiler has 4 and Derek Carr has 5. Lots of Bledsoe's 13 high-volume low-yardage games involved 50ish attempts for 200-250 yards, which don't show up when you make 200 yards a firm cutoff.
Reduce the cutoff to 39 attempts instead of 40, and you add a couple more Bledsoe games (up to 13) and Kerry Collins moves into second with 9; Osweiler still has 4.
#4 by RickD // Jan 16, 2017 - 8:37pm
Interesting point, but there is a meaning to using 200 yards as a firm cutoff that is quite different from having 5.0 YPA as the cutoff. As the number of passes increases above 40, the latter threshold is much looser than the former.
#10 by MilkmanDanimal // Jan 16, 2017 - 11:29pm
These sorts of stats are always arbitrary, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. Ronde Barber was the first member of the "40-25 club", in that he was the first guy to ever have 40 picks and 25 sacks. It's not like that's a "real" stat, but it's useful to illustrate the fact that Ronde Barber was an incredibly versatile player who could do all sorts of things really well. Nobody was waiting for somebody to hit the magic 40-25 threshold, it's just useful to illustrate what he could do.
Likewise, the Osweiler is a useful stat to demonstrate repeated incompetence. Sure, you could put the cutoff in all sorts of ways, but this one's just a good, solid "Brock Osweiler sucks" stat as-is.
#15 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 17, 2017 - 8:33am
Maybe.
There are a bunch of guys who played before 1982 with 40+ INTs and suspiciously high safety and/or fumbles recovered stats.
Willie Brown, Larry Wilson, Jimmy Johnson, Paul Krause, Willie Wood, Donnie Shell, Night Train Lane, maybe Mel Renfro
Lane, given his position, has a decent chance of having been a 40-25 guy.
#25 by Flounder // Jan 17, 2017 - 10:13am
It saddens me that he's not going to get there. If GB had managed back to back superbowls, I think he would have had a shot because then there would be a perception that more players on a back-to-back superbowl winning roster should make it in.
#40 by MilkmanDanimal // Jan 17, 2017 - 1:21pm
Yeah, which kind of serves the whole "made up stat" thing for Ronde; if Butler gets two more picks, he gets himself a membership in that incredibly-arbitrary club.
As for the players prior to sacks being an official stat, I'm sure there's probably a bunch of people who'd hit those levels, along with Deacon Jones presumably annihilating all sorts of sack-related records. Different time, less competition, all that.
#5 by ddoubleday // Jan 16, 2017 - 9:48pm
Jonathan Grimes was twice as valuable as LeVeon Bell? I don't think DYAR measures what you think it measures. Your simple definition "DYAR means a running back with more total value." It is absurd on its face. Bell wasn't even among the top 5 backs in the weekend games?
You need to come up with an adjustment that accounts for when a defense knows a back is going to get the ball over and over and they can't do much to stop it.
#29 by RickD // Jan 17, 2017 - 10:53am
DYAR doesn't mean total value, it means value above replacement.
Bell appears to have had an awful day receiving. I agree that the eyeball test would have had Bell far ahead of Grimes.
Bell was getting the ball "over and over" because he was successful. It's not like he's the only weapon on the Steelers. I cannot think any defense would dare overstack the box when Antonio Brown is there to run deep routes.
#6 by oaktoon // Jan 16, 2017 - 10:31pm
Legacy Time for the 4 superb QBs..
Brady can't do much more-- he is a consensus GOAT-- or at least if one can even compare between eras--he will pass Montana with 5 rings though and that means something. The real question is what might be happening should Rodgers win this year-- Brady gets the cumulative title but it may be eaten away a bit in terms of sheer brilliance;
Roethlisberger could be playing in his 4th SB-- and could win his 3rd... would place him at a level with Aikman and behind only the troika of Montana, Bradshaw and Brady for SB wins-- is he creeping into Top 10 modern era status? (Post Unitas-Starr 1960s, that is) If one accepts that Montana-Brady-Manning-Elway-Marino-Favre-Staubach-Young are in already-- and Brees and Rodgers are the two contemporaries Big Ben trails, it's hard to see him cracking that list under any circumstances. But 3 SB wins and conceivably an AFC title win over Brady and a SB win over Rodgers is pretty heady company;
Ryan is the simplest legacy claim-- he simply wants to move into at least the Hall of Very Good, which a 1-4 postseason record/failures prevents;
As for Rodgers he will never amass the cumulative stats of Favre or Manning-- and amost certainly not Brady either, for that matter. it is extremely doubtful that he will ever get near Brady's mark of 6 (and perhaps 7) SB appearances or the 4 SB wins of the two other No Cal compatriots-- Brady by birth, Montana by adoption... (Sorry, Terry. You don't fit in this comparison, and not simply because you come from Louisiana) But a Sb win with this team-- winning 10, in effect, win or go home games in a row (the finale in Detroit didn't turn out to be so, but that was only known at the last moment)-- Ben of course could be working on an 11 game win streak-- with the heroics he has already demonstrated, will cement his singular place in the Otherworldly Talent category and open the door for him to, as Jason Garrett opined last night, reach Top Three status all-time.
Should be fun-- this is a rare weekend to marvel at the abilities of four pretty special players.
#36 by Bright Blue Shorts // Jan 17, 2017 - 12:56pm
But when you have players like Montana, Brady and Manning who have stats + rings + leadership they're always going to appear higher up the list than the guy who just has stats (Dan Marino) or the guy who just has rings (Flacco) or the guy who has rings and leadership (Elway)
#46 by dmstorm22 // Jan 17, 2017 - 2:22pm
For real, I thought that initially was about Peyton and my blood pressure rose 200%.
Although, in isolation saying Peyton has one legit ring and one Dilfer-esque ring is accurate.
But that's why we shouldn't judge them by rings.
#49 by dmstorm22 // Jan 17, 2017 - 2:41pm
AFCCG I don't think so. I think Peyton played well in that game, and came inches away from a TD in the 4th quarter that would have made it 24-12 and iced the game. To be fair, the throw wasn't great.
Super Bowl? Maybe. I think Peyton was better than the numbers. The Panthers defense dominated the OL, the INT was a bad decision but an incredible play by Ealy to catch it, and Peyton had a few nice throws on the FG drive to start the game and in the second half to make it 16-7.
#77 by doktarr // Jan 18, 2017 - 11:09am
I would have said yes at the time, probably, but this year has revealed that Osweiler was worse than we thought. (Or at least, worse than I thought. FO did a film room piece on him right after he signed in Houston that was basically "HE SUCKS" in flashing bold lettering.)
The first drive, where they surprised Carolina by having Manning come out throwing, was effective. He wasn't really effective for any consistent stretch after that. I think Osweiler probably brings it home if Manning got hurt after the first drive, but who knows.
#55 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 17, 2017 - 4:20pm
Poor Kurt Warner.
Three times he's tied or put his team ahead in the last 2:30. Those drives were 64 yards, 55 yards, and 73 yards. The longest drive took 3 plays and 14 seconds.
His defense, on those three next drives, have allowed drives of 53 yards, 87 yards, and 78 yards -- all in less than two minutes.
The one time he got the ball back after his defense was done screwing up, he drove 33 yards in 14 seconds before a sack ended the game.
Kurt Warner was terrifying in the playoffs, even given his Rodgerian luck.
#60 by oaktoon // Jan 17, 2017 - 7:17pm
Skeeee-up, listen up now.
OK-- as the one who began this thread, i come down squarely in the middle of this discussion. it is as asinine to make the rings the only or supreme test of greatness as it is to give them no value whatsoever. For argument's sake, assume Montana's pass to Clark flutters a little higher and the 49ers don't even go to the SB in 1981, and then he either doesn't see John Candy or misses Taylor flashing to the middle, and they don't win the 3rd of his 4 rings either. He would be viewed differently by the vast majority of NFL fans, players, broadcasters, analysts, etc than in fact he is and has been for nearly 30 years... And if Rodgers' pass to Jennings in the 4th quarter is thrown four inches lower and either intercepted or falls incomplete, Big Ben gets the ball back and the Steelers score late to win SB 45, both of those guys are viewed differently now as well.
I think all 4 of these guys-- even Ryan-- have fairly secure places in terms of legacy. Even if Ryan loses Sunday he'll win the MVP and advance out of a more mediocre to good classification into a better group of QBs-- as he should... But don't tell me how any of the 3 remaining games play out won't color at least the nuances of how these four get judged-- they will and they should.
#62 by Will Allen // Jan 17, 2017 - 10:05pm
I kind of think you miss the point. It isn't that a small change in qb perfrmance switches the winner and loser of a close playoff game. It is that a small change in random events, or small change in something that has nothing to do with qb performance changes the winner and loser of a close playoff game. In other words, using "w" or "l" in a close playoff game in order to make significant delineation between greatgood qbs, is a very specious practice. The "w" or "l" isn't telling you what you think it is telling you. Again, change about 5 or 6 plays, that have nothing to do with QB performance, and Tom Brady's playoff wins drop from 23 to about 11, and he might only have 1, or even 0 championships. On the other hand, change a couple other plays that have nothing to do with qb performance, and he has 6 championships. When a metric can go from not even being among career leaders, to being GOAT, based upon 7 or 8 plays that have nothing to do with the player being evaluated, the metric is useless.
The outcomes of close playoff games tell us practically nothing, with regard to individual player performance, especially for an entire career. It is a metric that obscures a lot more than it illuminates.
#66 by eagle97a // Jan 18, 2017 - 2:29am
Oaktoon can correct me if I'm wrong but I think what he's trying to say is the nuances in judging qb performances are impacted by w-l and championships but not necessarily in a quantitative way. Its more about perception in ranking qbs but qualitatively. He does have a disclaimer that everything goes into judging qbs including "hard" individual stats like yards, tds, ints or advanced ones like ANY/A+ etc. And we all know those "individual" stats people are prating about are not really individual stats in a baseball sense since all of them require the efforts of the o-line and skill positions for the offense and obviously this applies to defense and ST as well. And to use your example of 7 or 8 random plays changing the narrative or perception of a certain player with regards to GOAT-hood among qbs, what the argument does is to make all the other accomplishments and effort that the team and the qb himself put into making it into those situations that matter (playoff games)almost valueless. That they manage to reap some good luck in those situations doesn't make those plays totally without value in the judgement of players. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that luck has a weak correlation with preparation and regardless of what others might think I believe that good/great preparation is a hallmark of an elite and good player and should be part of the evaluation of football players. Now preparation and work ethic could be hard to measure but it's definitely a skill and has better evaluation value than combine numbers which IMO are the only truly individual stats in football but worse than useless for evaluation purposes.
In short outcome of playoff games matter but evaluating it in a vacuum is not the best practice. That is why HOF voters put some weight in playoff games since its part and parcel of a team game like football. IMO individual performance in football is very hard to measure and it's a valid to question if there are any individual stats in football at all.
#67 by Will Allen // Jan 18, 2017 - 4:27am
Sorry, but if what you are trying to do is evaluate individual player performance, in a manner which has some resemblence to actual observation, the won/loss record of playoff games is a worse than useless metric.
At least with other metrics, for all their limitations, we know we are describing something the player did. Using playoff w/l record to describe player performance is akin to evaluating the performance of a 1st grade teacher by how a randomly chosen student in the teacher's class scores on the SAT 16 years latet.
#68 by eagle97a // Jan 18, 2017 - 5:53am
I never said evaluating a players' performance using playoff w-l records solely. Its part and parcel of evaluation that includes trad stats, advanced stats, accomplishments etc. All of this factors into the evaluation.
As for other limited metrics that describe what a player did, its more accurate to state that those metrics describe what a unit (offense, defense, st)or what the players did. As I mentioned all football stats are team stats except for combine stats like 40 times etc. We seem to forget that passing TDs as an example is not just a qb throwing a football, its also receivers running their routes and/or blocking, linemen blocking and the play called by the OC. We should be reminded of that fact every now and then.
#69 by Will Allen // Jan 18, 2017 - 8:00am
Using it at all is an error, if what you seek is insight with regard to how well a player performed. A td pass, as context dependent as it is, at least measures the player doing something. The "w" or the "l" does not measure anything the player has done. It is useless.
#70 by eagle97a // Jan 18, 2017 - 8:19am
We have a conceptual difference here. You want to disregard w-l record completely in evaluating players in a game where the primary goal is to win and all stats are subordinate to the goal of winning. Taking the other side of the argument; a TD is useless as a measure when you lose.
#73 by Will Allen // Jan 18, 2017 - 8:51am
That's just repeating the mistake of not understanding what you are attempting to measure. We aren't trying to measure team performance, and it simply is a logical fallacy that the "l" means the player's performance has no value. If this were true, the Falcons, for ecample, would have not tried to acquire Alex Mack from the Browms.
#74 by eagle97a // Jan 18, 2017 - 9:19am
Let me be clearer. You are trying to say that w-l record has no place in measuring individual player performance in a team game. What I'm saying is there is no individual performances in football, full stop. We can measure all we want but the performances are all team performances and only combine numbers qualify as indvidual performance measures. What we are doing here is not so much measure but evaluate performances in a team context. Some may be quantitative, others qualitative but the goal is to evaluate and part of that evaluation is measurement of quantitative metrics.
We obviously have different takes on evaluations and I'm a bit surprised you disregard playoff w-l records even just as minor data points in qb evals when qbs as a position have a very significant impact on winning or losing games. I'll let you go on now since its very clear you disregard w-l datapoints in your assessments.
#83 by doktarr // Jan 18, 2017 - 12:04pm
I agree that giving playoff W-L zero weight is overstating the case. But it is literally one of the worst tools available; it's hard to come up with a stat that is MORE context dependent than the number of team wins you participated in, measured exclusively in games where your appearance in those games was conditional on the team having won previous games.
You're correct that all stats in football are context dependent, but some are much much more context dependent than others. Evaluating the results of plays where that player was directly involved, over the course of a long career, is at least smoothing out a significant amount of the noise (opponent strength, at least some of the teammate effects, just the random variation from play to play). Looking at something like rings does none of that.
#101 by eagle97a // Jan 18, 2017 - 5:09pm
I wouldn't have answered back since I believe football punditry including football stats are very similar to politics and its attendant polls and surveys, full of crap, biases etc but since you put in your 2 cents... I did not say w-l records are a tool, what I said is they are a minor part of the evaluation process. I did not say w-l records are a metric, what I said is they are a part of the evaluation process. It also is particularly difficult for playoff games because of the one and done format but that doesn't mean its valueless and has no minor merit in the evaluation process.
Football stats have different levels of context dependency but we cannot definitively assign weight to those stats about the level of "individuality" they possess so we can weed out those "team" stats and proclaim so and so player as the GOAT because of his "individual" stats. The problem here is people lose sight of the fact that all football numbers (again with the exception of combine numbers) are team efforts and IMO this mindset is the product of fantasy football and ESPN highlights which color the perception of people re football stats.
As an example I favor drive stats as more representative of a qb and his units' performance and I don't see a lot of people using them with the exception of Scott here in FO and few others. I did a qb comparison using Points For/ Game average per season as a very rough proxy for drive stats comparison. Obviously defense/st scores are ignored in this. I categorized their numbers into 3 buckets (>24 points, 24-29.99+ points, <= 30 points). They stand in arbitrarily for mediocre, competent and excellent offenses. They are arbitrary but 24 to 29.99 points is roughly equivalent to 3TDs and an FG to 4TDs approx. scored in a game. The study is only for the reg. season up to the 2015 season.
QB A QB B
mediocre seasons >24 3 3
competent seasons 24-29.99 7 10
excellent seasons <=30 4 4
Other than the fact that QB B has had a longer career they functionally have the same reg. season career but QB B is lauded as the GOAT at least for reg. season numbers. QB B actually won an MVP while averaging less 24 points scored in a game that season (albeit very close)
To close all I'm saying is football stats are team efforts and context dependent. We always have to keep that in mind.
Apologies for the formatting in short;
QB A has 3 mediocre seasons, 7 competent and 4 excellent
QB B has 3 mediocre seasons, 10 competent and 4 excellent
#88 by Will Allen // Jan 18, 2017 - 1:12pm
Not just w-l data points, which are bad enough, but playoff datapoints especially, given the QBs with the most have about 30, which is just a worthless sample size. That's before we get to the implications of the playoff datapoints being accumulated in a one and done format, which means random events in an early playoff game have an inordinate effect on the generation of further data points. The whole thing is pointless, in terms of measuring the value of a player's performance.
At least when I look at at qb's career passing stats (hopefully DYAR, so I can get some sense of playing in a strong/weak division/conference) I am actually measuring something the I know the qb did individually, no matter how dependent on teammates, and, very, very, importantly, I am dealing with sample sizes which have several thousand data points. If qbs careers lasted 3000 years, using playoff w-l records would have exponentialy more utility, but until qbs are made immortal, I think I'll ignore that metric.
#80 by doktarr // Jan 18, 2017 - 11:29am
You don't have to even make the players themselves play incrementally worse. You can change the ring totals or playoff records of the great QBs drastically just by changing what happens in plays when they are not on the field. Someone just pointed out how Kurt Warner led tying or lead-taking drives in the closing minutes of both of his super bowl losses, only to watch his defense get shredded. Vinatieri's kick in the snow game against the Raiders, or in either of the first two Super Bowls. You can keep going.
#85 by MilkmanDanimal // Jan 18, 2017 - 12:43pm
Yeah, this is why "TEH WINZ" is a silly argument; it's about how a player plays, not whether the team in total wins that is the only vaguely logical way to evaluate how the player played. Win vs. loss is how you evaluate how the team in total played, not an individual.
Kurt Warner lost two Super Bowls, and was undoubtedly and inexpressably better in both of those losses than Peyton Manning was in winning the Super Bowl last year, or, honestly, was in all probability far better than Peyton Manning was in winning the Super Bowl ten years ago. Based on performance in three games each (which is totally the best way to evaluate a career, obviously), I'd easily rank Warner's individual performances in his three Super Bowls as 1-2-3, and Peyton's as 4 plus an extremely-distant 5 and 6.
Vinatieri's kick in the snow game is huge, but so is the fact that Vinatieri provided the winning points in the first three Patriots Super Bowl wins. If he misses a kick, Tom Brady is somehow a worse QB? "Warner" lost that Arizona-Pittsburgh Super Bowl when Santonio Holmes makes one of the all-time great catches and "Kaepernick" lost that SF-Baltimore Super Bowl because there wasn't a great final catch and how is this even an argument?
The fact this discussion is happening in the year after the Broncos won a Super Bowl with the festering corpse of what was left of the remaining embers of the last whiffs of what Peyton Manning used to be makes it extra bizarre. It's up there with the Super Bowl XL Roethlesberger stinkbomb over the Seahawks for the worst performances by a winning QB in the vaguely modern era.
#93 by runaway robot // Jan 18, 2017 - 3:40pm
For the first 50-or-so minutes of SB 43, over 80% of the game, the score was Kurt's Offense 7, Steelers Defense 7.
Not hammering on Warner, who was a great QB and an even greater story, but his performance in that game tends to be overrated.
#95 by doktarr // Jan 18, 2017 - 4:01pm
I'm confused why you think this is a reply to what I said. Yes, Peyton Manning was bad in his last season. (Actually his last season and a third, but it's obscured because his stats before the leg injury in 2014 were characteristically amazing, so the bad last 5 games and playoff loss get averaged out.)
I mean seriously, who wins a Super Bowl passing for less than 100 attempts, less than 600 yards, a pick, and only one TD?
... oh, sorry, that's Brady's line from 2001. Manning had 2 TDs.
Sorry, now that I've had my fun, the point is you're making a highly subjective assessment of a handful of games where the player was only there by dint of team performance, and thinking it means something meaningful about a player's overall career. It doesn't.
#103 by doktarr // Jan 18, 2017 - 8:51pm
Yeah, I misinterpreted his point as "We shouldn't measure QBs by playoff wins and losses, we should measure them by a qualitative assessment of their pla in playoff games". Turns out he was just making the same point as me, and replying not to disagree but to pile on.
#99 by MilkmanDanimal // Jan 18, 2017 - 4:50pm
It was more of generally agreeing with you and commenting on the discussion in the thread in general, so not a specific replay as much as workday rambling. And, yes, there's a highly subjective assessment of a handful of games, and it's a silly thing. Just pointing out that Kurt Warner played well in losses and Peyton generally not as well in wins, so wins are a silly form of measurement on a whole host of levels.
#63 by EnderCN // Jan 17, 2017 - 11:58pm
The moment someone mentions rings in a best QB discussion you know they are a moron, seriously. Montana and Brady are such huge products of the system that was just so much better than the opposition. A league average QB would have given those teams 2+ rings. They are great QBs don't get me wrong but the number of rings have nothing to do with it, any decent QB would have given those teams multiple rings.
#76 by MilkmanDanimal // Jan 18, 2017 - 10:11am
I'm not sure that disparaging Montana and Brady as being just "such huge products of the system" is any better than counting rings. Joe Montana was the perfect QB for Bill Walsh's system, and proved that by being arguably the GOAT at the position. Tom Brady has played in a variety of offensive styles, and is again arguably the GOAT at the position.
Saying "Montana was a product of the system" would be like disparaging Jerry Rice's career because he had the opportunity to catch balls from Montana and Young or saying Elway was just a stats accumulator until TD showed up to carry him to victory or Marino just had huge numbers because his team had crappy RBs so they had to throw all the time. Every player is a product of the system, and there is no conceivable way to state "any decent QB would have given those teams multiple rings" without being forcibly taken to the side and put into the concussion protocol.
"Counting rings" and "just a product of the system" are the largely equivalent sides of the official Stupid Football Discussion coin.
#9 by PatsFan // Jan 16, 2017 - 11:10pm
Yeah, really! I literally do not recall ever seeing a Brady game with as many moonballs as that. Let alone successful ones.
That's why I never felt comfortable with that game -- nothing the offense was doing, save the drive that made it 24-13, felt at all sustainable.
#12 by Vincent Verhei // Jan 17, 2017 - 2:59am
Jonathan Grimes was twice as valuable as LeVeon Bell? I don't think DYAR measures what you think it measures. Your simple definition "DYAR means a running back with more total value." It is absurd on its face. Bell wasn't even among the top 5 backs in the weekend games?
You need to come up with an adjustment that accounts for when a defense knows a back is going to get the ball over and over and they can't do much to stop it.
Check the second running back table, the one that ranks running backs by rushing value only. Bell was second in rushing value to Ezekiel Elliott, mainly because he had more zero-yard runs and losses than Elliott did.
The reason Grimes had more total value than Bell is because Bell's receiving numbers were GOD AWFUL. He literally never went forward -- three incompletions, a 1-yard loss, and a 3-yard loss. Four of those came inside the Kansas City 30, and led directly to Pittsburgh not getting touchdowns.
Surprised Cook wasn't one of the top 5 receivers. Five of his six catches were for first downs, including one TD, and the other was a gain of six on 1st and 10.
Somebody else mentioned this, but yes, 11 targets, including five incompletions.
#14 by big10freak // Jan 17, 2017 - 8:28am
Yup. Cook definitely has moments and yes he creates mismatches but there is also a reason the guy did not have teams rushing to sign him. He's pretty inconsistent and at times for no apparent reason he will just not work to get the ball. That and he will slow up on routes also for no apparent reason leading observers to think Rodgers overthrew a pass.
Rodgers keep talking him up I suspect because he wants to keep Cook engaged and focused. Because this approach by other receivers has gotten the hammer from Rodgers in the past
#18 by DisplacedPackerFan // Jan 17, 2017 - 9:05am
I had initially put that down to the QB's he played with in Ten and St. Louis. Then when I saw it with the Packers I put it down to getting familiar with the offense and later lingering injuries. Now I think I was being to generous as well.
As to Rodgers praise, he puts a lot of stock in practice performance, which is reasonable. He constantly talks up Janis too, who is just as inconsistent on game days, and has always defended Adams. Rodgers also lobbies for Abbrederis (when he's healthy). While Rodgers and most famously Jennings had some bad blood I heard reports out of MN after Jennings left that he wasn't always the most focused in practices there either.
Going way on a tangent here, but there have been player criticisms of how Rodgers leads, especially from those who played with Favre as well as Rodgers. I always felt there was some legitimacy. Not everyone learns (and that's what practice is) the same way. Not everyone performs the same way. I can easily see Rodgers not understanding this and being very inflexible that one and only one way works. Favre was a very charismatic guy, which makes it easy for people to naturally follow him, regardless of anything else, and Rodgers I think was very different. Different is easy to call bad.
So I'm not sure it's that Rodgers is just trying to keep Cook engaged. Abbrederis from all accounts is a baller in practice, same with Janis, same with Adams. If you believe, as I do, that Rodgers loves that in players, then it could be that Cook shines in practice consistently too. That he shows a dedication to detail during the rest of the week. This is always a problem for fans judging why some players get on the field more than others. We don't see the work they put in everyday. It's tough to judge just on game day, even though it seems easy to weigh that performance much much higher, because it is the goal. But if you're in charge it's also hard to gamble on the guy who you think might play better on game day if there are three guys who constantly kick his ass the rest of the week.
#23 by big10freak // Jan 17, 2017 - 10:09am
Understood. And frankly, I think the Rodgers way is the preferred approach. Favre was out of shape and sloppy from 1999-2006 which always showed up at the worst possible times (playoffs typically) because he openly hated practice and made fun of players who as you put it 'balled' in practice. He was the Whitey Ford of the Packers. Just save it for the games man.
Well, most players cannot make that happen. I do not think it is a coincidence that so few players drafted developed into something under Sherman given that his best guy was Favre who provided a bad example for non extremely gifted or non self motivated players. Is it a big shock that Aaron Kampmann was the exception as Kampmann by all accounts was a man possessed to be a good NFL player?
Rodgers may alienate some guys but I suspect that is offset by all the guys who push to get the best from themselves. If nothing else motivated by getting 12 off their case
#13 by Bright Blue Shorts // Jan 17, 2017 - 5:30am
I guess Osweiler would have been over 200 if Will Fuller hadn't dropped that ball that Osweiler placed in his hands. Talk about bad breaks. We all know how bad Osweiler looked through that game yet when he put it right on the money his receiver screw things up.
But I'm not trying to make excuses for him.
What I'm wondering is if this is the difference a Brady/Manning has. Because they rarely play badly, their teammates are always expecting good things to happen. They know the ball will be there. Whereas if you have doubt in your QB's ability, you're never playing with a settled mind.
(And yes, I know Fuller has had a case of the drops all season).
#17 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 17, 2017 - 8:37am
I think it goes both ways. A good QB has the capacity to freeze out a bad WR. If you can fit in a throw to anyone, why throw to the headcase with stone hands?
Unless you're Carson Wentz, and all of your WRs are like that.
#27 by Arkaein // Jan 17, 2017 - 10:15am
No only the Full play, but also the slightly more difficult dropped TD by Fiedorowicz earlier.
Instead of drives ending in a FG and a punt (if I'm remembering correctly), they could have had 2 TDs. At the time of the Fuller drop I believe they were trailing by 11? Could have been a tie game.
So not only would Osweiler have significantly better stats, but the game situation would have changed enough that the Texans could have stuck with their typically conservative game plan relying on the run game and defense. Speculatively, rather than Osweiler throwing a bunch in fairly desperate circumstances, this might have prevented at least one of his INTs.
A 3 TD, 2 INT game would have looked a lot different.
#42 by Hoodie_Sleeves // Jan 17, 2017 - 1:51pm
And had Floyd not butterfingered a ball,and had Dion Lewis not fumbled, it would have been 41-3.
Speculating is silly. Fuller has had problems with drops all season, and there were several interceptable balls that maybe get picked off in your alternate reality. Yes, things could have gone differently, but there's no reason to think that things would have been better.
#56 by Arkaein // Jan 17, 2017 - 4:22pm
So forget about the speculation. Osweiler would have had 3 TDs if his receivers had only caught what were probably his two best throws of the night. The QB can only throw the ball, and DYAR is penalizing Osweiler in part for the failures of his teammates.
I'm not trying to make some point that Osweiler played well, he didn't. But if speculation is silly, then so is rating players by DYAR without providing context that doesn't show up in the stat sheet.
#21 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 17, 2017 - 9:59am
I'm frankly shocked that Joey Harrington doesn't have more "Osweilers" to his resume. I always seemed to remember the mid 2000s Lions constantly being behind, forcing Harrington to drop back 35-40 times a game, and repeatedly throwing 5 yard dumpoffs.
#28 by DEW // Jan 17, 2017 - 10:33am
In all fairness to Houston, they did give up on Osweiler during the season, planted him on the bench, and gave Tom Savage the job. Then Savage was reminded that concussions are not a minor problem, and Osweiler got the job back by default. Not that Savage was all that and a bag of chips or anything.
The point about 2017 still stands, though. They're stuck with Os and his huge cap hit, which means that even if they have the courage to admit their mistake and leave him benched, then it means that they either have to start Savage ahead of him or get lucky enough to find a Dak Prescott (or even a Carson Wentz) in a weak quarterback class.
#47 by Bright Blue Shorts // Jan 17, 2017 - 2:26pm
So maybe there's a better question ... is it better to:
- have Osweiler on the bench as the backup
- or go for one of the standard backups available (Cassell? Sanchez? Fitzgerald? McCown?); have them learn the playing system; and probably add another $2-3m onto Os's cap hit taking it all to something like $28m
Unless there is a definitively better QB out there, I'm suspecting keeping him is the best option.
The Texans really backed themselves into a corner here.
#61 by SFC B // Jan 17, 2017 - 9:53pm
The Texans let Fitzpatrick go for the Hoyer/Mallett abomination of 2015. Fitzpatrick-level QBing probably wins the Texans an extra game or two during the RS. Heck, had he not broken his leg when he did in 2014 they probably make the playoffs that year.
The Texans have a "competent QB Level" of "Okay Ryan Fitzpatrick". They have failed to attain that level for two seasons and 5 QBs. The good news is they don't have the body horror which is "Cleveland Browns QB Jersey".
Yet.
#71 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jan 18, 2017 - 8:37am
Which Fitzpatrick?
The 2015 model or the 2016 model?
Because, if anything, the 2016 Jets had worse QB play than the 2016 Texans. Fitzpatrick, in three fewer games, had three more TOs, and five fewer TDs. His QBR (for what little it's worth), was actually lower. But he had a higher ALEX!
As much as we all love crapping on Brian Hoyer, he went 10-6 as a Browns QB, took Houston to the playoffs, and was 7th in DVOA this year (on the Bears!). For a guy who consistently finds himself surrounded by the talent equivalent of a manure settling pond, he does pretty well.
#37 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 17, 2017 - 12:57pm
Man, I guess being a "players coach" has its limitations. Get publicly disrespected by your star WR, can't bench him because its the AFCCG and you will certainly lose without him.
--------------------------------------
The standard is the standard!
#84 by Anon Ymous // Jan 18, 2017 - 12:41pm
Agreed. Maybe having Welker leads to a play call that saves Brady from making the awful screen interception, but it's not like NE moved the ball at will once Wes came back on the field. NY just kicked their asses that day, both physically and mentally.
#89 by oaktoon // Jan 18, 2017 - 2:00pm
The sample size counterargument has merit, of course, though I suspect the actual participants would tend to downplay it on the theory that they felt/feel much more challenged and tested by playoff games-- they're not just one of 16 every year-- and thus they themselves assign a lot more weight to those games.
As for the bigger debate here, I come at it from a slightly different place. One can argue that, and no more vividly and tragically than last November, in a presidential campaign X would have beaten Y if only x,000 votes in y states had changed hands. When in fact, and Trump nearly negated this dynamic but ultimately his election too was proof of it, those microresults are the product of many other more macro factors that apply to the entire sample-- the national vote-- and it is not so simple as to say just change 13000 votes in Wisconsin, half that many in Michigan, and 40000 votes in Pennsylvania and the outcome changes. Montana was so skilled he got the ball to Clark in the back of the end zone, and to Taylor vs the Bengals, and Rodgers hit Jennings with the clinching pass to set up the FG which pretty much iced the game, etc., etc.. In other words, random plays/events are not so random after all. (Tyree, Manningham and Brady's near misses vs the Giants to the contrary) That the seemingly unfair and bloated judgments we make about this small subsample of postseason games are, in fact, founded on significantly larger truths that those games generally,-- not universally, but generally--uncover. And that the QB position even in a game with 21 other people on the field is a big enough deal that the play from that position can have a large impact on any of these games. As Colin Cowherd put it, nobody outside of QB affects a line by even a point-- whether healthy or injured-- but if Rodgers were announced as out for Atlanta, and it was Brett Hundley instead, the line might jump by at least a touchdown. At least.
And he's right. So again-- legacy is real. The outcomes of these games are real. And our perceptions of each of these four may-- actually, will-- change-- not by a lot, mind you-- in the next three weeks.
#92 by Will Allen // Jan 18, 2017 - 3:11pm
I think you miss the meaning of randomness. The slight ball movement of Brady's hands, in conjunction with the state of the rules in January 2001, was random. Tom Brady would not be any better, or any worse, a qb if the current rules had been in place during that game, but that random rules interpretation represents 15% of Brady's playoff wins, and one of his championships. The randomness of Stephen Neal's injury in the 1st Pats/Giants Super Bowl may well have cost Brady a championship, but then the random injuries to Seahawks during that Super Bowl may have given Brady a championship. A couple of randomly sprinkled zebra calls gives Roethisberger a Super Bowl victory. 50% of his total to date. Don't make me go through the number of playoff games which would have their outcome changed by a small change in random fumble recoveries. Then we get to stuff that isn't random, but didn't have anything to do with qb performance, which swung the outcome of close playoff games. Jim Kelly isn't a Super Bowl champ because Norwood is wide right. Brady picks up multiple playoff wins and championships due to Vinitieri's excellence on a few kicks which were not chip shots.
Again, if qbs had several thousand playoff games, we could give exponentially more weight to playoff w-l results. The fact that the participants say they assign more weight to the games doesn't change the fact that the sample size is tiny, which means we can't any confidence that the noise (stuff that has nothing to with qb performance, but determines the "w" or the "l") is being smoothed out. Which means it has zero value, if the question is "how well did this qb, relative to other qbs, play, during his career?".
As to what perceptions will be, well, human cognitive abilities being what they are, there is no accounting for that. Some people used to call Peyton Manning a choker, and probably still do.
#98 by oaktoon // Jan 18, 2017 - 4:46pm
I understand the meaning of randomness completely. I'm arguing that the four inches Rodgers found above the Steeler defender, or the one slot/path Montana found to hit Clark-- or a bunch of other plays which helped the winners win and the losers lose-- are not simply or always random events-- they are the product of ability. And that those postseason games cannot and should be treated as "just another game" because the situation is more likely to bring out those ability factors than not. Does that mean that a playoff game is twice as important as one of the 16-- 25% more significant? 50%? I don't know-- nor do you. But it's not the same... And there's much more than zero value
#100 by Will Allen // Jan 18, 2017 - 5:09pm
If you want to develop the body of evidence which can inform us how to weight playoff passing and rushing attempts, compared to regular season attempts, I'd be happy to see it. That has nothing to do with attributing value to playoff w-l records, which are meaningless for evaluating a qb's career in an empirical manner.
#94 by pachoo5 // Jan 18, 2017 - 3:52pm
It's funny how different the QB grading is here versus Pro Football Focus for last week. I agree with Football Outsiders. Ryan by far had the best passing game of the eight QBs. Meanwhile, at Pro Football Focus they rated Russell Wilson as having a better game than Ryan last week LOL. PFF is so biased towards the Seahawks, and especially Wilson, it is absurd.