Brees vs. Rivers

Here we go again...

(ESPN Insider subscription required)

I thought the analysis would go a little deeper than it did. Basically, he points out that the Chargers failed to understand one of the truisms in football after the 2003 season. The offense wasn't bad, it was just unlucky because they stunk on 3rd down. The truism is that teams that are good on first and second down, but don't have similarly good performance on third down will tend to see their third down performance increase the following year. Football Outsiders saw this in 2004 when they first did their projections and predicted a successful offense for the Chargers that year (they almost threw out the projection system when that result came up, but decided to trust it instead).

Further analysis in the article basically shows that Brees has played better the last 3 years than Rivers, but having Merriman and Kaeding still keeps the Chargers from looking bad. However (and I've said this for years), if you don't draft Manning and instead go with Larry Fitzgerald in that draft, which would you rather have: Fitzgerald and Brees or Rivers, Merriman and Kaeding. I personally can't tell which is better, (the article claims that Brees/Fitzgerald would be) but I'm pretty sure the Chargers could have used Fitzgerald on the field in 2004 much more effectively than they could use Rivers.

about 1 month ago Wonko 12 comments 2 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Brees wasn't AJ's boy

You’re absolutely right Wonko. I thought they were crazy for drafting a quarterback when they they had Brees and all he needed was a big time 3rd down reciever and a half second to get rid of the ball, but it is what it is and I couldn’t be more pleased with Rivers

by RTChargerfan on Oct 14, 2009 4:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

and plus

Brees is a choker i n the playoffs but we will see if they both go into the playoffs boy wouldn’t that be a great superbowl? Chargers vs Saints

by BFTB_zach on Oct 15, 2009 4:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This seems to ignore the fact that Brees played rather poorly in 2003 and necessitated the drafting of a quarterback.

Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

by Richard Wade on Oct 15, 2009 11:21 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Also, a lot of Brees’ current value comes from his ability to throw the deep ball well, which is a skill he did not possess during his time with the Chargers.

by Richard Wade on Oct 15, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think there is a chicken or the egg argument there

I think Marty was a little afraid of the deep ball and didn’t really let Brees develop that skill. He definitely had the skill in college, but I think because he was more prone to interceptions in college, they didn’t want to risk it. He was also hurt by some of Boston’s horrible ball skills and I don’t think Parker, Conway and Dwight were the deep ball threats that he currently has in NO. I think the fact that LT had 100 receptions in 2003 speaks to this point. As I look at 2003, it is also very likely that they didn’t quite know what they had in Gates. Not sure what that means, but it seems important.

I don’t think it ignores that Brees played poorly, but rather that his poor play could be attributable to the third down issues. Which, as was pointed out, tend to regress towards first and second down performances over time.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Oct 16, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

57% completion rate or whatever he had isn’t something I think you can blame on poor 3rd down luck or whatever you want to call it. He was bad in ’03.

by Richard Wade on Oct 16, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not that he wasn't bad in 2003

Being bad on 3rd down still makes it a bad performance. It’s just that it’s the type of performance that is likely to have a bounceback performance follow it. Shame on the Chargers for not recognizing it when a virgin projection system done by amateurs could.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Oct 20, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Was Brees good on 1st and 2nd down that year? I don’t have the stats to consult on that?

by Richard Wade on Oct 20, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't really know that either

The Chargers were good on 1st and 2nd down (at least FO tells me so), but I don’t know about Brees specifically (I assume they vetted that, but they don’t say so specifically).

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Oct 21, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I didn't check any stats but,

Isn’t it usually easier to pass on 1st and 2nd down? Passing on 3rd down when the defense knows it’s coming is generally much more difficult.

by SJO on Oct 21, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would be more difficult in some cases

But that’s been taken into account because the less likely the third the down conversion attempt the more above average the performance would have to be to convert it. Basically, a team that would perform a certain level on first and second downs would perform at the same level on third downs. Maybe the confusion comes from what I mean by level, but I basically mean “compared to average performance”. If the team performs at an average level on 1st and 2nd downs and is faced with 3rd and 12, they would not be expected to convert that most of the time, but if it was 3rd and 2, they would be expected to. Basically, the 2003 Chargers did not meet their expectations on 3rd down compared to 1st and 2nd downs and so the next season they experienced a regression to the mean (plus the emergence of Antonio Gates) and were a much more productive offense. Similarly, you could have a team do the opposite where they can’t do anything on 1st and 2nd down, but convert a lot of long 3rd downs. That team would be expected to revert to a poor offense the next year (there are a few examples of teams that did this, but none come to mind).

The facts have backed this up for the last 15 years of football. So, it’s not really up for discussion unless there is some new evidence to be brought forward.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Oct 21, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs