Objectively assessing our QBs

[thunderkyss]

I know this is probably a futile attempt, but I think it's worth a shot.

Most of us use the eyeball to determine if we've got a QB or not & there will be plenty of subjective discourse throughout the season, but... I was hoping we could identify some objective standard of what we'd like to see from our starting QB.

Sure, some of us are hoping beyond hope that Ryan Mallett is every bit the franchise QB that Andrew Luck is. Most likely that is not the case, we know it, may not want to admit it, but... hope against hope y'know.

So, I'm suggesting we discuss what objective measures we could use to determine if our QB is or is not meeting up to our expectation. I'll start with Matt Schaub. I know, I know... we want better than Matt Schaub. However, short of drafting a hot QB prospect, what are the odds that we'll actually find "better than Schaub" in a 7 year journeyman & a 3rd round drug dealer?

So... in 2012, Schaub's last good year (though the anti-Schaub started showing up late in the year) averaged a passer rating of 90, 64% completion, & 7.4 ypa. & of course, a TD:INT ratio greater than 2.

To me, I'm going to say our QB had a good game if he has a passer rating over 90, completes more than 60% of his passes, & averages more than 7 ypa. I don't expect him to throw 2 TDs per game, so as long as it's not negative, I won't hold it against him.

What do you think?

 

[JB]

I think I'd actually like to see them in operation, fully healthy and running our offense

 

[corytx8]

Someone who shows good command of the offense and has the ability to move the ball down the field without turning the ball over. I am not expecting a super QB this year.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

I want a QBR over 65, a Passer Rating over 90, over 4200 yards passing, > 30 TDs, < 16 INTs, > 63% completions.

And I want to win a lot more games than we lose.

 

[thunderkyss]

I want a QBR over 65, a Passer Rating over 90, over 4200 yards passing, > 30 TDs, < 16 INTs, > 63% completions.

And I want to win a lot more games than we lose.

I was hoping to do it on a per game basis. I know I mentioned Schaub's avg numbers, but during the season, the numbers I put up are what I'm going to be looking at on a per game basis.

I'm sure once the season starts, there will be a lot of shifting of goal posts. For instance, Fitz won more games than he lost (not lots), he had a passer rating over 90...

So you're looking for an average of 2 TDs per game. Which would be much better than what Schaub ever did... & I'm fine with that. However, I'm sure Hoyer won't get close to 30... especially not avg 1 INT/game. If he does, I'd be rooting for him to be our QB in 2016 as well.

So you're pulling for Mallett eh?

 

[Mollywhopper]

I like how 'objectively' Ryan Mallett is Pablo Escobar now.

 

[thunderkyss]

I like how 'objectively' Ryan Mallett is Pablo Escobar now.

Hyperbole isn't my strong suit.

 

[Mollywhopper]

Hyperbole isn't my strong suit.

Is speculative misrepresentation?

 

[thunderkyss]

Is speculative misrepresentation?

If you have to ask.

 

[amazing80]

19-0 or bust

 

[dalemurphy]

I know this is probably a futile attempt, but I think it's worth a shot.

Most of us use the eyeball to determine if we've got a QB or not & there will be plenty of subjective discourse throughout the season, but... I was hoping we could identify some objective standard of what we'd like to see from our starting QB.

Sure, some of us are hoping beyond hope that Ryan Mallett is every bit the franchise QB that Andrew Luck is. Most likely that is not the case, we know it, may not want to admit it, but... hope against hope y'know.

So, I'm suggesting we discuss what objective measures we could use to determine if our QB is or is not meeting up to our expectation. I'll start with Matt Schaub. I know, I know... we want better than Matt Schaub. However, short of drafting a hot QB prospect, what are the odds that we'll actually find "better than Schaub" in a 7 year journeyman & a 3rd round drug dealer?

So... in 2012, Schaub's last good year (though the anti-Schaub started showing up late in the year) averaged a passer rating of 90, 64% completion, & 7.4 ypa. & of course, a TD:INT ratio greater than 2.

To me, I'm going to say our QB had a good game if he has a passer rating over 90, completes more than 60% of his passes, & averages more than 7 ypa. I don't expect him to throw 2 TDs per game, so as long as it's not negative, I won't hold it against him.

What do you think?

I would like the quarterback play to be on par with Mallett's performance at Cleveland and nothing like Mallett's performance vs. Cincinnati.

 

[ObsiWan]

To me, I'm going to say our QB had a good game if he has a passer rating over 90, completes more than 60% of his passes, & averages more than 7 ypa. I don't expect him to throw 2 TDs per game, so as long as it's not negative, I won't hold it against him.

What do you think?

For the year, Fitzy had a 63.1% completion rate and a 95.3 rating and it got him benched.

I just want the QB, and I suspect it will be Hoyer, to keep the chains moving and not turn the ball over. Let the running game and defense win games for us. Don't help the other offense by throwing picks.

 

[JB]

For the year, Fitzy had a 63.1% completion rate and a 95.3 rating and it got him benched.

I just want the QB, and I suspect it will be Hoyer, to keep the chains moving and not turn the ball over. Let the running game and defense win games for us. Don't help the other offense by throwing picks.

I just want wins. I don't care if the qb has a rating of 40 as long as we win.


btw Obsi, we're degenerate's for being up at this time of morning unless we're starting our day... just thought you should know

 

[infantrycak]

I want a QBR over 65, a Passer Rating over 90, over 4200 yards passing, > 30 TDs, < 16 INTs, > 63% completions.

And I want to win a lot more games than we lose.

What he said.

For the year, Fitzy had a 63.1% completion rate and a 95.3 rating and it got him benched.
.

And a QBR of 55 - grossly exaggerated by one game to get to mediocre. Fitz was the definition of game manager, headed to the bench, place holder...wait,...soon to be traded/cut/benched AGAIN.

In Mallett we trust. Otherwise we're f"ked as two more years of JJ pass by.

By the way, where is the trade JJ thread?

 

[The Pencil Neck]

I was hoping to do it on a per game basis. I know I mentioned Schaub's avg numbers, but during the season, the numbers I put up are what I'm going to be looking at on a per game basis.

I'm sure once the season starts, there will be a lot of shifting of goal posts. For instance, Fitz won more games than he lost (not lots), he had a passer rating over 90...

So you're looking for an average of 2 TDs per game. Which would be much better than what Schaub ever did... & I'm fine with that. However, I'm sure Hoyer won't get close to 30... especially not avg 1 INT/game. If he does, I'd be rooting for him to be our QB in 2016 as well.

So you're pulling for Mallett eh?

Well, you can take my numbers and do it on a per-game basis.

That would be a QBR of around 65, a passer rating of over 90, about 265 yards per game, > 1.8 TD/game, < 1 INT/game, > 63% completion percentage.

Those are the numbers of a good top-10, maybe even top-5, QB. Schaub in 2009 was pretty close, except he failed on the TDs. It's basically Roethlisberger or Brady with fewer yards or an Aaron Rodgers.

That's what I want and that's what I'll be judging these guys by.

I expect it to be Mallett but I'd be just as happy if Savage or even Hoyer were able to step up and provide that sort of QB play.

 

[JB]

Well, you can take my numbers and do it on a per-game basis.

That would be a QBR of around 65, a passer rating of over 90, about 265 yards per game, > 1.8 TD/game, < 1 INT/game, > 63% completion percentage.

Those are the numbers of a good top-10, maybe even top-5, QB. Schaub in 2009 was pretty close, except he failed on the TDs. It's basically Roethlisberger or Brady with fewer yards or an Aaron Rodgers.

That's what I want and that's what I'll be judging these guys by.

I expect it to be Mallett but I'd be just as happy if Savage or even Hoyer were able to step up and provide that sort of QB play.

I'd be just as happy with a Campbell/Pastorini and a House of Pain defense which I think we are much closer to.

Ain't no 70's steelers in the league anymore

 

[sandman]

I want a QBR over 65, a Passer Rating over 90, over 4200 yards passing, > 30 TDs, < 16 INTs, > 63% completions.

And I want to win a lot more games than we lose.

Not counting QBR, but using all of the other criteria against 2014 stats, here is the QB that you want:

Peyton Manning
Aaron Rodgers
Ben Roethlisberger

Luck, Romo, Brady, Brees, Rivers, Eli, Flacco, Stafford and Ryan all missed those marks.

But you objectively want these stats from Hoyer or Mallet?

 

[infantrycak]

I'd be just as happy with a Campbell/Pastorini and a House of Pain defense which I think we are much closer to.

Ain't no 70's steelers in the league anymore

As much as I loathe those Steelers and don't particularly like Bradshaw, they didn't do it with some unmemmorable hack, or remembered only for being carried (Dilfer, Johnson) at QB.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Not counting QBR, but using all of the other criteria against 2014 stats, here is the QB that you want:

Peyton Manning
Aaron Rodgers
Ben Roethlisberger

Luck, Romo, Brady, Brees, Rivers, Eli, Flacco, Stafford and Ryan all missed those marks.

But you objectively want these stats from Hoyer or Mallet?

You don't?

 

[JB]

As much as I loathe those Steelers and don't particularly like Bradshaw, they didn't do it with some unmemmorable hack, or remembered only for being carried (Dilfer, Johnson) at QB.

Best I remember is that Bradshaw threw it up and Stallworth and Swann went and got it. A good running game and an all-time great defense won them the rings... Bradshaw wasn't Dilfer, but he wasn't Staubach or Montana either

 

[sandman]

You don't?

What I want, and what I can realistically expect from either of them, are two completely different things.

I'll take Russell Wilson types numbers from either of them as long as Foster stays healthy and the defense becomes dominant.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

What I want, and what I can realistically expect from either of them, are two completely different things.

I'll take Russell Wilson types numbers from either of them as long as Foster stays healthy and the defense becomes dominant.

This is what I want out of my QB position and it's the standard that I'll judge them against as a QB.

If our QB had Russell Wilson type of numbers then I'd be wanting him to throw for more yards and more TDs. I'd want his QBR to be higher, although it's really close to where I want it.

If our QB had Romo type of numbers, I'd be totally happy with that because his QBR was so high that I'd forgive him the lack of yardage. 9 interceptions is only 1 more than my mark, so I wouldn't be too worried about that.

If our QB had Drew Brees type of numbers, I'd be upset at his number of interceptions.

If our QB is not one of the elite, top 3-4 QBs in the league, then I want improvement from that position.

I think Mallett is good enough to get those numbers, but I'd be happy if we were winning and he was in the ballpark with a higher QBR. I don't know if he's durable enough.

I expect Mallett to win this QB job hands down over Hoyer.

 

[Marshall]

For the year, Fitzy had a 63.1% completion rate and a 95.3 rating and it got him benched.

I just want the QB, and I suspect it will be Hoyer, to keep the chains moving and not turn the ball over. Let the running game and defense win games for us. Don't help the other offense by throwing picks.

I want a 60% third down conversion rate in the red zone.

 

[thunderkyss]

For the year, Fitzy had a 63.1% completion rate and a 95.3 rating and it got him benched.

That's true, but he only had four games meeting all three criteria of >90 passer rating, >7 ypa, & > 60% completion before he got benched after two consecutive games of not hitting on at least 2 of the three. We were one game below .500 & Fitz was 4 of 9 on hitting the three.

I just want wins. I don't care if the qb has a rating of 40 as long as we win.

The thread title clearly states "Objectively assessing our QBs" & you're saying you don't care to objectively assess our QBs....

This is what I want out of my QB position and it's the standard that I'll judge them against as a QB.

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that.

I think Mallett is good enough to get those numbers, but I'd be happy if we were winning and he was in the ballpark with a higher QBR. I don't know if he's durable enough.

& that's cool. Some of us don't have that kind of faith in Mallett, or in his abilities to do so. I hope you're right, because that would probably mean I'll get to use both play off tickets I'll be forced to buy in December.

& I'm good with that.

But yeah, I'm sure it goes without saying that winning is more important. One of the things I'm trying to get here, is an objective measure of whether or not our QB is helping us win. Fitz didn't play poorly, overall. But I don't believe he was a big factor in most of our wins.

QBR may be the one stat (not that I'm looking for one) that reflects that & is easily found. I usually don't put much stock into it, but I'll have to look.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that.

& that's cool. Some of us don't have that kind of faith in Mallett, or in his abilities to do so. I hope you're right, because that would probably mean I'll get to use both play off tickets I'll be forced to buy in December.

& I'm good with that.

But yeah, I'm sure it goes without saying that winning is more important. One of the things I'm trying to get here, is an objective measure of whether or not our QB is helping us win. Fitz didn't play poorly, overall. But I don't believe he was a big factor in most of our wins.

QBR may be the one stat (not that I'm looking for one) that reflects that & is easily found. I usually don't put much stock into it, but I'll have to look.

I think QBR is a kind of a subjective stat where someone compares what a QB does against some sort of "average QB baseline". BUT. As a number goes, it looks good. I don't know how scientifically it's generated.

Fitzpatrick had a 55 rating last year and that's a slightly above average rating, but that also includes the lights-out game against the Titans. I think overall, he was average-ish.

A mid-70 score is Pro Bowl/Elite level play.

A mid-60 score is a good QB with a shot at the Pro Bowl. That's the sort of play I want out of my QB (although obviously, better play is even better.)

But if we win and get into the playoffs with only medium level QB play (like we had with Fitzpatrick last year), then I'm still going to want to upgrade the QB position somehow because I'll believe that the QB is holding us back.

 

[Number19]

Put me in the same camp as ObsiWan and JB. I want a QB who can successfully execute OB's offense, keep the mistakes down and get the wins. A playoff berth is the goal, not individual stats.

 

[thunderkyss]

But if we win and get into the playoffs with only medium level QB play (like we had with Fitzpatrick last year), then I'm still going to want to upgrade the QB position somehow because I'll believe that the QB is holding us back.

Agreed with everything but this. If it's Mallett, I'm willing to go another year if there isn't an "Andrew Luck" within reach.

If it's Hoyer, then I want Savage fast tracked & I want to reach on a QB in the draft, just in case.

With Mallett, if he's playing that well, there's reason to believe he will get better with time. Hoyer, maybe... but he's had enough field time to feel he is what he is.

 

[thunderkyss]

Put me in the same camp as ObsiWan and JB. I want a QB who can successfully execute OB's offense, keep the mistakes down and get the wins. A playoff berth is the goal, not individual stats.

Right... this is to objectively determine whether we're dealing with Trent Dilfer or Russell Wilson.

Is our QB attributing to the wins, or are we winning in spite of him?

 

[Marshall]

That's true, but he only had four games meeting all three criteria of >90 passer rating, >7 ypa, & > 60% completion before he got benched after two consecutive games of not hitting on at least 2 of the three. We were one game below .500 & Fitz was 4 of 9 on hitting the three.





The thread title clearly states "Objectively assessing our QBs" & you're saying you don't care to objectively assess our QBs....





Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that.



& that's cool. Some of us don't have that kind of faith in Mallett, or in his abilities to do so. I hope you're right, because that would probably mean I'll get to use both play off tickets I'll be forced to buy in December.

& I'm good with that.

But yeah, I'm sure it goes without saying that winning is more important. One of the things I'm trying to get here, is an objective measure of whether or not our QB is helping us win. Fitz didn't play poorly, overall. But I don't believe he was a big factor in most of our wins.

QBR may be the one stat (not that I'm looking for one) that reflects that & is easily found. I usually don't put much stock into it, but I'll have to look.

If we think of average as the 16th best starter (The Median Avg vs. Mean Avg.) in the NFL and consider that as the point of diminishing returns on whether he helps or hurts his team, then you can find an objective baseline for each statistic.

 

[eriadoc]

I know this is probably a futile attempt, but I think it's worth a shot.

Most of us use the eyeball to determine if we've got a QB or not & there will be plenty of subjective discourse throughout the season, but... I was hoping we could identify some objective standard of what we'd like to see from our starting QB.

Sure, some of us are hoping beyond hope that Ryan Mallett is every bit the franchise QB that Andrew Luck is. Most likely that is not the case, we know it, may not want to admit it, but... hope against hope y'know.

So, I'm suggesting we discuss what objective measures we could use to determine if our QB is or is not meeting up to our expectation. I'll start with Matt Schaub. I know, I know... we want better than Matt Schaub. However, short of drafting a hot QB prospect, what are the odds that we'll actually find "better than Schaub" in a 7 year journeyman & a 3rd round drug dealer?

So... in 2012, Schaub's last good year (though the anti-Schaub started showing up late in the year) averaged a passer rating of 90, 64% completion, & 7.4 ypa. & of course, a TD:INT ratio greater than 2.

To me, I'm going to say our QB had a good game if he has a passer rating over 90, completes more than 60% of his passes, & averages more than 7 ypa. I don't expect him to throw 2 TDs per game, so as long as it's not negative, I won't hold it against him.

What do you think?

Playing QB is 80% between the ears. Reading defenses, grasping offensive schemes and strategy, knowing what the defense is trying to do, knowing what every other player on offense is supposed to do, etc. If a QB has all that, but doesn't have the physical tools to exploit what he knows, then he's not going to be extremely successful. He may still have some success (Chad Pennington comes to mind). If a QB has all the physical tools, but lacks the knowledge or acumen, he may wow some people for a short time, but he's not going to succeed in the long term. The rare ones put both together and continue to improve.

Mallett has the physical tools and I think he has the acumen for the position. But he's had to grow into it a little bit, and no matter who you are, it takes reps to get great at something. Too often in the NFL, guys don't get the reps unless they had the physical tools to get drafted highly. Mallett has a rare chance here, so I hope he makes te best of it.

As for what I'm looking for - I want a guy who seems to have a knack for making the smart play at the right time and the big play at the right time. Interceptions and fumbles happen, but stupid interceptions and fumbles are worrisome. Stats are nice, and can be an indicator of a good game, but they don't really tell the whole story. People scoff at Troy Aikman's stats, but he's a good example of a guy who could make any throw he wanted anytime he wanted, but he stuck to the game plan and scheme and let those big behemoths up front dictate the game. When he had to make a throw, he did. When he had to take over a game, he did. Russell Wilson is a great example today, I think. People fall in love with the big numbers and highlight plays, but give me a guy like Wilson who can do it all, but understands that the team is best suited by sticking to a strategy. People don't think a guy like Wilson is "elite" because he doesn't put up the stats of someone like Brees, Manning, or Rogers, but I think he's elite because he plays within the team's plan and they win because of it. He can take over a game if he needs to, but he does exactly what a QB is supposed to do - run things. He gets his playmakers involved, he turns no-name WRs into playmakers, and he lets his running game and defense do their job.

Dan Marino/Dan Fouts vs. Joe Montana is another example. No doubt Marino and Fouts were great QBs. They put up awesome stats and surpassed Montana in all categories except one.

 

[Marshall]

Playing QB is 80% between the ears. Reading defenses, grasping offensive schemes and strategy, knowing what the defense is trying to do, knowing what every other player on offense is supposed to do, etc. If a QB has all that, but doesn't have the physical tools to exploit what he knows, then he's not going to be extremely successful. He may still have some success (Chad Pennington comes to mind). If a QB has all the physical tools, but lacks the knowledge or acumen, he may wow some people for a short time, but he's not going to succeed in the long term. The rare ones put both together and continue to improve.

Mallett has the physical tools and I think he has the acumen for the position. But he's had to grow into it a little bit, and no matter who you are, it takes reps to get great at something. Too often in the NFL, guys don't get the reps unless they had the physical tools to get drafted highly. Mallett has a rare chance here, so I hope he makes te best of it.

As for what I'm looking for - I want a guy who seems to have a knack for making the smart play at the right time and the big play at the right time. Interceptions and fumbles happen, but stupid interceptions and fumbles are worrisome. Stats are nice, and can be an indicator of a good game, but they don't really tell the whole story. People scoff at Troy Aikman's stats, but he's a good example of a guy who could make any throw he wanted anytime he wanted, but he stuck to the game plan and scheme and let those big behemoths up front dictate the game. When he had to make a throw, he did. When he had to take over a game, he did. Russell Wilson is a great example today, I think. People fall in love with the big numbers and highlight plays, but give me a guy like Wilson who can do it all, but understands that the team is best suited by sticking to a strategy. People don't think a guy like Wilson is "elite" because he doesn't put up the stats of someone like Brees, Manning, or Rogers, but I think he's elite because he plays within the team's plan and they win because of it. He can take over a game if he needs to, but he does exactly what a QB is supposed to do - run things. He gets his playmakers involved, he turns no-name WRs into playmakers, and he lets his running game and defense do their job.

Dan Marino/Dan Fouts vs. Joe Montana is another example. No doubt Marino and Fouts were great QBs. They put up awesome stats and surpassed Montana in all categories except one.

And yet many would have you believe the rest of the teams were inconsequential to their QBs success in winning Superbowls.

 

[cland]

Why ESPN's QBR stat is deeply flawed.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Agreed with everything but this. If it's Mallett, I'm willing to go another year if there isn't an "Andrew Luck" within reach.

If it's Hoyer, then I want Savage fast tracked & I want to reach on a QB in the draft, just in case.

With Mallett, if he's playing that well, there's reason to believe he will get better with time. Hoyer, maybe... but he's had enough field time to feel he is what he is.

"Upgrade the QB position somehow" doesn't necessarily mean change the player. It just means that the person playing the position needs to improve to be where I want him to be.

 

[thunderkyss]

People scoff at Troy Aikman's stats, but he's a good example of a guy who could make any throw he wanted anytime he wanted, but he stuck to the game plan and scheme and let those big behemoths up front dictate the game.

Absolutely, a perfect example, as is Russell Wilson.

That's why I'm not including stats like ypg, or even TDs.

I'm sure, though I haven't checked, Wilson & Aikman would have hit my three in the majority of the games they've played.

90 passer rating, 60% completion, 7+ ypa

 

[thunderkyss]

"Upgrade the QB position somehow" doesn't necessarily mean change the player. It just means that the person playing the position needs to improve to be where I want him to be.

Oh... I want Hoyer gone if he doesn't look like the second coming of Rich Gannon after two qtrs of football.

 

[Double Barrel]

Best I remember is that Bradshaw threw it up and Stallworth and Swann went and got it. A good running game and an all-time great defense won them the rings... Bradshaw wasn't Dilfer, but he wasn't Staubach or Montana either

The Steelers did lead the league in passing offense for one of those Super Bowl years. Maybe the 1978 season when Bradshaw won the MVP?

As far as what I want in our QB, three things: ball security, high third down conversion rate, and the clutch factor.

 

[disaacks3]

This is what I want out of my QB position and it's the standard that I'll judge them against as a QB.

If our QB had Russell Wilson type of numbers then I'd be wanting him to throw for more yards and more TDs. I'd want his QBR to be higher, although it's really close to where I want it.

If our QB had Romo type of numbers, I'd be totally happy with that because his QBR was so high that I'd forgive him the lack of yardage. 9 interceptions is only 1 more than my mark, so I wouldn't be too worried about that.

If our QB had Drew Brees type of numbers, I'd be upset at his number of interceptions.

If our QB is not one of the elite, top 3-4 QBs in the league, then I want improvement from that position.

I think Mallett is good enough to get those numbers, but I'd be happy if we were winning and he was in the ballpark with a higher QBR. I don't know if he's durable enough.

I expect Mallett to win this QB job hands down over Hoyer.

You set a lofty goal, but are at least willing to tweak it if the QB has other strenghts. I too expect Mallett to win the job, but I'm wondering if he'll be 100% by the end of pre-season and Hoyer gets the nod by default.


...and yes, I know Mallett should be up to speed by then, but the Texans overall track record on recovery times scares the beejezus out of me.

 

[ObsiWan]

Right... this is to objectively determine whether we're dealing with Trent Dilfer or Russell Wilson.

Is our QB attributing to the wins, or are we winning in spite of him?

If I were to pick QB metrics to indicate direct contributions to team success, they would be 4th qtr comebacks and game-winning drives.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

If I were to pick QB metrics to indicate direct contributions to team success, they would be 4th qtr comebacks and game-winning drives.

I don't know about that. It's like Elway said, the only reason he had some many 4th qtr comebacks was because he didn't play good enough the first three quarters.

 

[ObsiWan]

I don't know about that. It's like Elway said, the only reason he had some many 4th qtr comebacks was because he didn't play good enough the first three quarters.

Yeah, but it sure is good to know that it's there when you need it.

We saw it first hand from Russell Wilson right here in Reliant. We had them beat until Wilson took over the damn game in the 4th qtr.

And as far as those other stats....

Over the past three seasons Drew Brees averaged 5100 yds, 39 TDs, 16 INTs. In only one of those years did they make the playoffs. The other two years they finished 7-9.

Meanwhile, in game manager-land, Russell Wilson averaged 3300+ yds, 24 TDs, 8.67 INTs over the same period. And his team went to three NFC championship games winning two and picking up one SB trophy and was one inexplicable play call from another.

All that to say that gaudy passing numbers don't always translate into team success.

 

[eriadoc]

The Steelers did lead the league in passing offense for one of those Super Bowl years. Maybe the 1978 season when Bradshaw won the MVP?

The year the Mel Blount rule came into effect. People didn't think the Steelers could win offensively, so a lot of folks were liking the idea of the Mel Blount rule. They didn't count on Bradshaw airing it out immediately. When people stopped mugging his guys, he put it up a lot (for that era). He led the league in passing TDs.

And Bradshaw was the AP MVP, but not the PFWA MVP. That award went to Rookie of the Year, and AP Offensive Player of the Year, Earl.

 

[infantrycak]

Why ESPN's QBR stat is deeply flawed.

Crap article with factual errors all over. Such as Orlovsky started 7 games not 10 and had a 46 QBR not 51. Thigpen started 11 games not 14 and had a 45 QBR not 50.8. And Big Ben had a pretty much **** year in 2008 - way outside his career norm. All in a rant against QBR because it isn't their stat and in favor of rating which also puts all 3 QBs in the same cruddy 75-80 range.

 

[Hervoyel]

I just can't do it. I don't want to objectively assess our QB's. I want to choose one and follow him as if I was instructed to do so BY THE WORD OF GOD ALMIGHTY! I don't want a realistic view. I want to follow a Messiah when it comes to football not a man.

Ryan Mallett is going to make the world forget about Tom Brady and Joe Montana both (at the same time) and he's going to do it this year and I'm going to believe that until it's proven otherwise. Then, should that not happen I'm going to expect nothing short of brilliance from whatever guy steps up next!

 

[Playoffs]

My focus with Mal/Hoyer will be on accuracy, but the only way I know to do it is to rewatch the All-22 play by play and make judgements within the context of each play.

While I enjoy the comparative stats like QBR -- but not the gobbledygookified inaccessible stuff from FO and CHFF -- I'm more interested in plus/minus plays and improvement/regression.

 

[chicagotexan2]

My realistic view is this

Savage if the INDY is any indicator then he's David Carr reincarnate. I hope he was just overwhelmed by being thrown into the fire, but not too hopeful.

Hoyer has shown flashes of being a solid but also played poorly enough to get benched. Way too inconsistent and we had that with Fitzpatrick last season.

Mallet's sample size was small but it was good. I am just concerned that it took him so long to finally beat out Fitzpatrick. Hopefully this season he's prepared to make big jump. I'll be honest I am going into this season hoping the QB doesn't eff it up instead of going into the season believing the QB will light it up.

 

[Mr teX]

I know this is probably a futile attempt, but I think it's worth a shot.

Most of us use the eyeball to determine if we've got a QB or not & there will be plenty of subjective discourse throughout the season, but... I was hoping we could identify some objective standard of what we'd like to see from our starting QB.

Sure, some of us are hoping beyond hope that Ryan Mallett is every bit the franchise QB that Andrew Luck is. Most likely that is not the case, we know it, may not want to admit it, but... hope against hope y'know.

So, I'm suggesting we discuss what objective measures we could use to determine if our QB is or is not meeting up to our expectation. I'll start with Matt Schaub. I know, I know... we want better than Matt Schaub. However, short of drafting a hot QB prospect, what are the odds that we'll actually find "better than Schaub" in a 7 year journeyman & a 3rd round drug dealer?

So... in 2012, Schaub's last good year (though the anti-Schaub started showing up late in the year) averaged a passer rating of 90, 64% completion, & 7.4 ypa. & of course, a TD:INT ratio greater than 2.

To me, I'm going to say our QB had a good game if he has a passer rating over 90, completes more than 60% of his passes, & averages more than 7 ypa. I don't expect him to throw 2 TDs per game, so as long as it's not negative, I won't hold it against him.

What do you think?

From a quantifiable standpoint, whomever it is needs to avg, be on pace or be better than 250-285 yds passing, 1.8 TD's and .08 ints/TO's per game for me to think we may have something.

unquantifiable, i want to see poise in the pocket, and toughness...not foolish toughness that will get you broke up or the kind that hurts the team; mental toughness. Nothing worse than a mentally weak qb...see RG3.

 

[Double Barrel]

I don't know about that. It's like Elway said, the only reason he had some many 4th qtr comebacks was because he didn't play good enough the first three quarters.

Flip that around, though. A QB that can overcome his own bad performance for three quarters in order to lead his team to victory from behind in the fourth quarter is what separates the good ones from the mediocre ones.

ALL QBs will have bad games. The great ones can pull out of the nose dive in order to win the game before the clock strikes 0:00.

Plus, Elway's attitude gives no credit to opposing defenses. Sometimes defenses have a great game plan and/or great players. Expecting great performance from a QB for four quarters against a great defense is unrealistic. There is give and take throughout the games. There is a reason why comeback victories and game winning drives are a statistic for QBs. It means something as a measuring stick.

Besides, we - as a Houston football fans - know all too well a QB that can post a perfect half game but cannot seal the deal. I'd rather have a QB that finishes strong instead of chokes out under pressure.

 

[Mr teX]

Flip that around, though. A QB that can overcome his own bad performance for three quarters in order to lead his team to victory from behind in the fourth quarter is what separates the good ones from the mediocre ones.

ALL QBs will have bad games. The great ones can pull out of the nose dive in order to win the game before the clock strikes 0:00.

Plus, Elway's attitude gives no credit to opposing defenses. Sometimes defenses have a great game plan and/or great players. Expecting great performance from a QB for four quarters against a great defense is unrealistic. There is give and take throughout the games. There is a reason why comeback victories and game winning drives are a statistic for QBs. It means something as a measuring stick.

Besides, we - as a Houston football fans - know all too well a QB that can post a perfect half game but cannot seal the deal. I'd rather have a QB that finishes strong instead of chokes out under pressure.

Yeah and its a terrible way to try and measure the "clutchness" of a qb too. Football is too team oriented for a stat like that to mean much of anything. Many of these game winning drives the qb is not even the actual guy winning it...it's the kicker. For instance, are we going to equivocate Brady's game winning drive in the SB against the Rams alongside say Montana's game winning drive against the Bengals in 89' or even Elway's 99 yd drive against the Browns?


Not bagging on you DB, i know its not a stat you made up, i just hate it when people try to use that stat as some kind of indicator of a qb's clutchness. Too many things have to go right for those kinds of drives to take place and be successful.

 

[santo]

Yeah and its a terrible way to try and measure the "clutchness" of a qb too. Football is too team oriented for a stat like that to mean much of anything. Many of these game winning drives the qb is not even the actual guy winning it...it's the kicker. For instance, are we going to equivocate Brady's game winning drive in the SB against the Rams alongside say Montana's game winning drive against the Bengals in 89' or even Elway's 99 yd drive against the Browns?


Not bagging on you DB, i know its not a stat you made up, i just hate it when people try to use that stat as some kind of indicator of a qb's clutchness. Too many things have to go right for those kinds of drives to take place and be successful.

But somebody has to get that kicker there, unless you break it down to how many times the running back got the kicker down field, but since they are running out of time, it's mainly the qb passing the ball.

 

[disaacks3]

Yeah and its a terrible way to try and measure the "clutchness" of a qb too. Football is too team oriented for a stat like that to mean much of anything. Many of these game winning drives the qb is not even the actual guy winning it...it's the kicker. For instance, are we going to equivocate Brady's game winning drive in the SB against the Rams alongside say Montana's game winning drive against the Bengals in 89' or even Elway's 99 yd drive against the Browns?


Not bagging on you DB, i know its not a stat you made up, i just hate it when people try to use that stat as some kind of indicator of a qb's clutchness. Too many things have to go right for those kinds of drives to take place and be successful.

It may not be as bad an indicator as you think. Link

The current "active" top 10 in the Regular Season: P. Manning, T. Brady, E. Manning, B. Roethlisberger, D. Brees, T. Romo, P. Rivers, M. Ryan, C. Palmer, J. Cutler

The current "all-time" top 10 in the Regular Season: P. Manning, D. Marino, J. Elway, T. Brady, J. Montana, F. Tarkenton, B. Favre, V. Testaverde, J. Unitas, W. Moon

The current "active" top 10 in the Playoffs: T. Brady, E. Manning, R. Wilson, M. Sanchez, B. Roethlisberger, C. Kaepernick, M. Hasselbeck, D. Brees, M. Ryan, T. Romo, A. Rodgers

The current "all-time" top 10 in the Playoffs: T. Brady, J. Montana, E. Manning, J. Elway, T. Bradshaw, D. Fouts, D. Marino, K. Stabler, R. Wilson, D. Brees.