Stat of the Day: Average QBs
by John Gennaro on Jan 11, 2010 3:43 PM PST
in San Diego Chargers Statistics
Email
PrintYou can blame this post on Zach. He of no short-term memory. Zach still has fears that the Chargers can't cover TEs and give up huge games to average QBs. In fact, the Chargers not playing well against "average QBs" is part of what is causing him fear heading into this Jets game. I decided I was going to go on a statistical journey to prove to him that he's nuts, and that Ron Rivera has fixed that problem.
So here's what I did. I took the QB rating of every QB that has played against the Chargers this season, and compared it against his QB for that game or games played against the Bolts.
Does the Chargers defense play worse against average QBs? I'm not doubting it wasn't true in 2008 or 2007, but it's certainly not true in 2009. To get a good scope of how they've defended "average" QBs, I'm going to eliminate any QBs that has a season QB rating of over 90 (only 12 guys accomplished such a feat). That leaves us with the following list:
Not a bad sample group, right? Let's see how each fared against their season QB rating when playing San Diego. In the case of Cassel, Orton and Russel, their QB ratings will be averaged.
| Season Rating | Game Rating | +/- | |
| Flacco | 88.9 | 96.6 | 7.7 |
| Orton | 86.8 | 85.4 | -1.4 |
| Campbell | 86.4 | 101.4 | 15 |
| Palmer | 83.6 | 97.3 | 13.7 |
| Young | 82.8 | 11.9 | -70.9 |
| Pennington | 76 | 76.4 | 0.4 |
| Henne | 75.2 | 44.2 | -31 |
| Cassel | 69.9 | 49.8 | -20.1 |
| Quinn | 67.2 | 95.7 | 28.5 |
| Russell | 50 | 52.2 | 2.2 |
So the two biggest boosts by average QBs against the Chargers this year have been by Jason Campbell, who was going against backups, Brady Quinn and Carson Palmer. Quinn and Palmer were allowed to throw short, underneath routes most of the day due to the zone coverages that were being played. Cassel and Henne were blitzed more.
I don't know which gameplan Rivera is going to go with against Mark Sanchez, but history tells us that a good game by Sanchez may say more about what the Chargers D was willing to give him than anything else.
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I see one flaw...
Are you saying JaMarcus Russell is average?
Best Season Ever.
by Wes on Jan 11, 2010 3:46 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Thats exactly what I thought!
Who needs the pistol when you have the TaZeR? Kenjon Barner, the Ducks officially licensed tazer since 2009.
I'd say Mark Sanchez is below average
Mountain West Connection ::Above the Rest::
Bolts From The Blue "There’s a gleam men. Let’s go get the gleam! Focus and Finish!!! One play at a time!!! Let's Go!!!"
Representing the San Diego State University Aztecs, home of the 2009 College Cheerleading National Champions in the all women's division.
by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Jan 11, 2010 3:57 PM PST reply actions
His QB rating this season is 63.0. Which makes him the 2nd worst QB the Chargers will see this season, just ahead of JaMarcus.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Jan 11, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
But of course
As we all know, QB rating measures nothing.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
by Wonko on Jan 11, 2010 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You’re here solely to ruin my fun.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Jan 11, 2010 5:07 PM PST up reply actions
Is that you jbox?
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Let's see how Sanchez performed in each game this season
@ HOU 84.3
NE 101.1
TEN 81.4
@ NO 27
@ MIA 87.5
BUF 8.3
@ OAK 107
MIA 100.3
JAC 59.3
@ NE 37.1
CAR 79
@ BUF 92.1
ATL 49.7
@ IND 78
CIN 60.2
That doesn't show how he performed
That only shows QB ratings.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
by Wonko on Jan 11, 2010 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't want people misrepresenting QB rating
It doesn’t measure performance or value or quality or effectiveness. It’s a lot like the save in baseball, it is a stat that is solely there to be a number without meaning. Stats for stats sake.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Not sure I agree.
Rating is an aggregate stat assembled to approximate the effect of the QB on the game.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Jan 11, 2010 8:24 PM PST up reply actions
“effect” is a very vague term the way you use it there.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Sure. It’s pretty easy to deconstruct football stats, as none of them give you a very good picture.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Jan 12, 2010 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
Not to beat a dead horse
But if you have a stat like VOA, you can apply a definition that makes enough sense for comparison purposes. You are measure how successful a play is vs the average play. So I can then use that to compare to players and know that a player with VOA 20% has been twice as successful vs the average in his situations as a player with 10%.
Similarly, I can do the same for yards, interceptions, completion %. But, with quarterback rating, all I know is that a QB with 50.0 rating has half the rating of 100.0. I don’t know if he’s twice as successful vs the average, twice as accurate, twice as good at throwing touchdowns or anything like that. So basically comparing two ratings is worthless because I don’t know what exactly it means to be higher rated. And even if you broke it down into components, you still start asking yourself “Why is this the formula?” “Why does it get cut off at 158.3?” “Why do all these constants (0.3, 3, 4, 0.2, 2, 0.095, 2.375, 100, 6, 2.375) get used?” “Why is completion percentage approximately twice as important as yards/pass attempts?” It’s a lot of weird, unexplained calculations to make and then just take for granted that you can derive meaning out of it. I prefer stats where you can actual use them to compare two players in a certain area.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
No
Heres the top 15 CAREER qb ratings of ALL NFL HISTORY. You think this list represents the 15 best quarterbacks of all time??
1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Steve Young
3. Philip Rivers
4. Tony Romo
5. Peyton Manning
6. Kurt Warner
7. Tom Brady
8. Joe Montana
9. Drew Brees
10. Ben Roethlisberger
11. Matt Schaub
12. Chad Pennington
13. Carson Palmer
14. Daunte Culpepper
15. Jeff Garcia
Why would it?
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
No, but when you break down those players, it’s a few legends of old, and a whole bunch of very good players from the Golden Age of Quarterbacking (in which we live today). If you separate the old legends out, and then look at the remaining players in terms of their careers as a whole, you get a pretty sensible ranking that only fails to take account for experience and earned glory. If you look at all those guys by career, they’re all either winners or were at one point thought to be hot stuff, like Culpepper and Palmer.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Jan 12, 2010 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
You're proving my point for me
Obviously, I know that the ratios it chooses will be biased towards better quarterbacks scoring higher. But, after it does that the results are essentially random and you have a nonsensible ranking of QBs. You basically have no idea what was ranked, you only know that the ones at the top of the list didn’t have bad numbers.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Saves don't go down with blown saves
or runs given up, so in that sense, QB rating is a bit different. But I agree with the main point, that it is a subpar stat to measure QB effectiveness. Better way to demonstrate the point is to find counter-examples: less/ineffective QBs with high ratings, and highly effective QBs with lower ratings. I would assume that similar data exists somewhere at FO.
Hard to say
You’re dealing with a rookie QB who is growing. For all we know he had moved into “average” qb status by now. But, his 2009 performance is decidedly below average, so it’s also hard to say that he’s actually moved past that.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
DVOA and DYAR are not reliable either
How do you know the corner didn’t slip on the play. It was a bad throw, but completed only because the defender made an error. Or how do you know if the O-lineman didn’t do their job, allowed pressure to force an incompletion? Or how do you know if a ball was tipped by the defender, and should be intercepted, but then caught by the receiver? Or if the first team offense was being rested? The point is you are not measuring if the success was based on the QB doing some thing good, or the Defense doing something bad.
Stats are just to aid in comparison. No stat is better than another stat.
Stats are just to aid in comparison
This is more or less accurate.
No stat is better than another stat.
This is 100% false.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Jan 13, 2010 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
Depends what you are using them for
Obviously some stats are better for comparing different things, so unless you have a subject of comparison, you cannot simply state that this stat is better than that one.
So, are you going to tell me
That a scout or NFL expert could watch Sanchez in 2009 and say he was anything other than decidedly below average by NFL standards (and I’m talking all QBs, not just rookies, evaluating him as a rookie is a different topic)?
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
No I'm not telling you that at all.
I’m simply saying based on the discussion above about the usefulness of QB Rating, or DVOA, or DYAR or whatever the case may be, that these are all simply tools to compare, and one is not better than the other. You cannot discount QB Rating, as it is still a useful tool to compare QB’s, You can limit the strength of this comparison tool, but don’t discount it altogether.
But I didn't even say anything about DVOA there
I said:
You’re dealing with a rookie QB who is growing. For all we know he had moved into "average" qb status by now. But, his 2009 performance is decidedly below average, so it’s also hard to say that he’s actually moved past that.
What does that have to do with QB Rating, DVOA or DYAR?
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Wow
Okay. Then you totally missed the point on that one as well. All I was saying is that it measured something. You can actually break the stat down to a concept that you are trying to get a quantity for. All the caveats about people falling down or whatever don’t matter because you are simply trying to measure whether the play succeeded or not. You aren’t concerned about the how in that case. In the long run, yes you should you be, but in the short run you are just trying to establish a baseline for whether or not something was successful. You can use it for comparison purposes where you can see offense A with 20.0% VOA and offense B with 10% and you can see that the average play by offense A is twice as successful as offense B.
For completion % you can do the same thing. You are measuring how often a QB can complete the passes he throws. When you see the stat you can understand that you are not measuring how effective the QB played or how poorly the defense played, but just that you know how often balls thrown by the QB were caught. You can even compare it to other QBs. QB A has 70% completion percentage and QB B has a 50% completion, so you know that QB A completes 20 % more passes than QB B.
For yards per catch you can do the same thing. You are measuring how many yards from the line of scrimmage the player making a reception will get on average. When you see the stat you can understand that you are not measuring how effective the receiver played or how poorly the defense played, but just that you know what was a typical amount of yardage that receiver would get on a catch. You can even use it for comparison purposes. Our favorite WR gets 15.0 YPC and the rest of his team gets 12.0 YPC, so you can extrapolate that the WR is getting 3 more YPC than his typical teammate.
For QB Rating, you can’t do that because there is not basic unit or concept that you can measure with it. Plain and simple. It’s a statistician’s nightmare of stats gone wild. That’s all I was trying to say.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
So why not use the Average QB Rating in the NFL as baseline for QB Rating?
I could make up my own stat of how many stains on a QB helmet.
Stain=1 point
Scratch=2 points
Divided by # of Pass Attempts
This can be used as a comparison tool of how much pressure each QB faces. Sure it’s usefulness only goes so far, but you can’t say it’s worthless. It’s no better than comparing pressure by hurries or sacks, because you’re not taking into account the offensive line protection, defensive scheme, how easily a helmet gets scratched, whether the QB actually falls down after getting hit, etc. Same goes for DVOA. If you’re just concerned with comparison to baseline, then take a baseline measurement for the league. If I misunderstood you, then I apologize, but you can find a baseline for quantitative stats.
That doesn't work (you've got to know this and are just being argumentitive at this point, too, which sucks)
Even if I know that my QB is 30% better than QB rating baseline or has 30 somethings (points? rates?) of QB rating, I still don’t know what that means. I don’t know anything more about my QB than he accumulated more of the rating than the other QB. I can tell by how much or by what percentage more, but I don’t have anything tangible to do with the data. There’s no element of successfulness that the QB achieved, there is no additional yardage I can quantify, there is nothing. NOTHING! And until someone can find something that QB rating measures then its an empty stat. Just like that stain, scratch stat. The two are equivalent. Wait, no they are not. I can probably use the stain and scratches as some statistical analysis for how much work the equipment staff can do. Damn. I just lost more respect for the QB rating stat. I didn’t even think that was possible.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
I see where you are going, but I disagree
QB Rating is comprised of stats ie TD passes, INT, yards, yards per attempt, etc. So if those are considered valuable stats, then regardless of what formula is used to determine QB Rating, the QB Rating itself becomes a valuable stat.
Nothing quite like breaking something down logically only to be met with an “I disagree.”
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Jan 13, 2010 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
Nope
It only has value because you believe it has value. It has no intrinsic value other than that. It’s like believing that you saw the Virgin Mary in the clouds. It has no value except to the people who believe they saw it.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
OMG. I'm so proud of myself
I can even use your logic to further my analogy.
Clouds have value to meteorology, the Virgin Mary has value to theology and eyesight has value to biology. Therefore, seeing the Virgin Mary in the clouds must have value, no matter the who sees it. It is valuable that way.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Kind of hard to grade Henne for that game
Considering the situation he was thrown into and at the time, he was the backup who came in in the middle of the game, I don’t think it’s really a fair comparison.
But then again, he did post a 130.4 rating against the Jets just two weeks later so maybe it’s okay to use him, heh.
This
is what I was thinking; the first part…
"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman
by Brian (DaBolts) on Jan 11, 2010 4:06 PM PST up reply actions
I haven't been this nervous about a game since the Tennessee trip.
So this could be a good thing.
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Jan 11, 2010 4:04 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
me too
Our defense has to step up big in this game. We don’t necessarily have to shut down their running game, but at least slow it down and force them to pass and get some three and outs. We can’t let them convert third and long. Also, field possition will be important. everyone just do their job, don’t try to be a “hero” and get out of position. It would also be nice if merriman can have the best game of the year (so far) for him.
He is up and down, he has had 4 games with his rating of 100+, 4 more of 80-100, his overall one has really been brought down by some early season nightmares, like his 8.3 performance against Buffalo and 27.0 against New Orleans. He’s a rookie, he was always going to have some ups and downs, but he has definitely improved over the last month or so.
Writer/Assistant editor
Eternal optimist
New York Jets
Gang Green Nation
www.ganggreennation.com
The question would be
Is he better than any of the QBs on that list? For reference, John left off: Roethlisberger, E. Manning, Romo and McNabb.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
They were left off because they had QB ratings of over 90
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Jan 11, 2010 5:08 PM PST up reply actions
New England was a bad game, another rookie performance, and nobody had a good game against Atlanta. cincy he threw few passes, few drops, we just ran, ran and ran some more. if he has one of his rookie games, we lose this game hands down, no questions asked, but he has the ability and the skill set to perform, just like he did in the Cincinatti game last weekend with a rating of 130 odd
Writer/Assistant editor
Eternal optimist
New York Jets
Gang Green Nation
www.ganggreennation.com
Opponent’s average passer rating (NFL rank):
San Diego: 79.0 (13th)
New York Jets: 58.4 (1st)
There’s no questioning their passing defense
Well, when you present it like that
There is plenty to question.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
by Wonko on Jan 11, 2010 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Wonko doesn't like passer rating.
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Jan 11, 2010 4:33 PM PST up reply actions
I'm sorry, but if your opponent's average PR is 58.4 you have a good defense.
Quibble away, but there’s no way you’re holding NFL teams to 58.4 without a good defense. You could have a .400 schedule, and an average defense would still be way under 58.4.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Jan 11, 2010 8:27 PM PST up reply actions
Supposed to be a reply to Wonko's post below.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Jan 11, 2010 8:27 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't say that you didn't have a good defense
I was just saying that it wasn’t unquestionable.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
It wasn't even that this time
The statistic was out of context since I don’t know the baseline for the QBs they faced. So the way he presented it left me with that question. Therefore, there was some questioning.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Looks like Sanchez can be good, he's just inconsistent.
But that’s based on QB rating, and that doesn’t always tell the story. I think if we get up quick and force them to put the game in Sanchez’s hands, we will have them right where we want them.
When I thought about " Do chargers play worse against average QBs"
that means the team spent already a lot of money on their defense and running game and now spent money on a first round quarterback and I’m guessing this is gonna be bad for the chargers. idk how to feel
Reppin SD (Z-G)
And this is not a dissimilar team/situation. A passing game with a QB who could be anywhere from great to terrible and doesn’t have a great receiver. Dependent upon the running game. A QB that’s young enough that he can be confused if you throw different looks and blitzes at him.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Jan 12, 2010 2:22 AM PST up reply actions
KEYS to WINNING
Score more points than the other team. Statistics like these don’t work in football because situational defensive strategy has a lot to do with it. Quinn had a higher rating because he made plays in garbage time. Flacco has a higher rating because at that time Rivera had not yet adjusted to the post-Jamal-Williams model.
The Chargers have been employing a bend-don’t-break approach which forces the other offense to play consistently and denies them the opportunity to rely on a big play. It’s harder to score on 11 plays than it is on a broken coverage etc.
I got a fever and the only prescription is... more Kowbell!
by melvintoast on Jan 11, 2010 7:56 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
This.
This is what keeps me from worrying too much about this game. The Bolts might be in trouble if they come out cold and cough it up, but that would be very uncharacteristic. Otherwise, they’ll put up enough points to hold on. I’m totally not sweating the run defense or Sanchez: I’m only concerned that sometimes a great pass D shows up a great passing O. The real key to the game is to keep following the model:
- Protect the ball (easy with these WRs)
- Score or punt deep almost every drive (again, easy, which is why this team is scary)
- Don’t give up a bunch of penalties (they make it look easy)
- Stay stingy in the red zone (not easy, but working so far)
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Jan 11, 2010 8:37 PM PST up reply actions
Spread
I’m so confident (not over, they still have to play the game) that the only question for me is if the Chargers will cover the spread or not.
I think they’ll largely do that.
Sanchez will not throw more than 20 passes
Ryan and young Schotty know they have to run the ball to be effective just like the Ravens did in their SB year. They want a tight, physical game where a turnover or special teams play decides the game. Bolts defense needs to focus on the running game. I expect to see them run towards Cromartie’s side every chance they can since he seems allergic to contact (unless it involves one of his skanks, errr, baby mamas).
by Duck99 on Jan 12, 2010 7:39 AM PST via mobile reply actions
At this point in the year, Sanchez will HAVE to throw, Rex Ryan will probably be willing to let him loose a little, since he knows Rivera will be playing the run. I think the main defensive focus will actually be the Corners covering Cotchery and Edwards. The other 8 guys will be within 10 yards of the LOS and Weddle will probably be deep ready to read the offense.
by Superduperboltman on Jan 12, 2010 7:52 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bolts From The Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
BFTB Apparel Store
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
