The supposed "return to excellence" that was Michael Vick in the first 2 weeks of the 2010 NFL season has motivated me to finally fully elaborate on my complete loathing of the phenomenon that is the dual-threat, running/"mobile" quarterback. I'm going to do as best as I can to examine all of these types of quarterbacks who have come into the league into the last 10 years, starting with Michael Vick's draft year of 2001. We'll go from there.
Overall, Name, College Team - Drafted by
2001 Draft
1. Michael Vick, Virginia Tech - Atlanta
53. Quincy Carter, Georgia - Dallas
149. Mike McMahon, Rutgers - Detroit
2002
108. David Garrard, East Carolina - Jacksonville
2003
110. Seneca Wallace, Iowa State - Seattle
2004
250. Bradlee Van Pelt, Colorado State - Denver
2005
1. Alex Smith, Utah - San Francisco
121. Stefan Lefors, Louisville - Carolina
152. Adrian McPherson, Florida State - New Orleans
2006
1. Vince Young, Texas - Tennessee
64. Tarvarais Jackson, Alabama State - Minnesota
103. Brad Smith, Missouri - New York (A)
193. Reggie McNeal, Texas A&M - Cincinnati
223. D.J. Shockley, Georgia - Atlanta
2007
103. Isaiah Stanback, Washington - Dallas
174. Troy Smith, Ohio State - Baltimore
2008
94. Kevin O'Connell, San Diego State - New England
156. Dennis Dixon, Oregon - Pittsburgh
160. Josh Johnson, San Diego - Tampa Bay
2009
17. Josh Freeman, Kansas State - Tampa Bay
44. Pat White, West Virginia - Miami
101. Stephen McGee, Texas A&M - Dallas
2010
25. Tim Tebow, Florida - Denver
85. Colt McCoy, Texas - Cleveland
89. Armanti Edwards, Appalachian State - Carolina
122. Mike Kafka, Northwestern - Philadelphia
181. Dan LeFevour, Central Michigan - Chicago
199. Joe Webb, UAB - Minnesota
250. Zac Robinson, Oklahoma State - New England
So, an observant person will see that this trend has grown (significantly) in recent years. Of all of these "mobile" quarterbacks, how many do you know? Not even the successful ones, just people you've heard of and know a little about? I'll give you Vick, Carter, Garrard, Wallace, A. Smith, Young, Jackson, T. Smith, Dixon, Johnson, Freeman, White, Tebow, and McCoy. That's 14 out of 29. Not bad. Let's examine those 14 that you've "heard of," though.
Vick- We all know.
Carter- Played for 4 seasons, last in 2004. Accounted for Cowboys' only playoff appearance from 2000-2005.
Garrard- 9th season with the Jags, 5th year as starter. Because Byron Leftwich wasn't very effective.
Wallace- 8th season, 1st with the Browns after 7 with the Seahawks. Career backup. Played receiver in their Super Bowl loss to the Steelers. Receiver. Yeah.
A. Smith- Overall Number 1 pick by Niners in '05. Started 42 of possible 82 games in that span.
Young- 5th year with the Titans. Been involved in a lot of controversial topics. You probably know.
Jackson- 5th year with Vikings. Started 19 of possible 66 games. The reason the Vikings didn't have a run game. Because you didn't have to worry about him beating you.
T. Smith- 4th year, first with 49ers after 3 with Ravens. You only know him because he won the Heisman. And you probably forgot about that.
Dixon- 3rd season with the Steelers. Been in the news with Roethlisberger out. Dynamic threat at Oregon.
Johnson- I lied. You haven't heard of him. Unless you live in Tampa. Or attended the University of San Diego. Which you don't. And didn't.
Freeman- 2nd year with Tampa Bay. Fairly productive. "Lots of upside."
White- You know him because he was Steve Slaton's QB at West Virginia. Now? Signed a minor league contract with the Kansas City Royals. To play baseball. Yeah.
Tebow- We all know.
McCoy- Rookie with Cleveland. Winningest quarterback in NCAA history. Only a matter of time until he takes over for Delhomme.
Now you want to talk about successful? With a large stretch on the definition of that word, we'll include Vick, Carter, Garrard, Wallace, A. Smith, Young and Jackson. When I actually determine some sort of scale for being "successful," I will post it. But I will only actually say that Vick, Garrard, Wallace and Young are successful. Carter only played 4 seasons, and was out of the league 1 year after leading the Cowboys to the playoffs. Garrard has sustained himself as a starting quarterback for multiple years. Wallace's longevity alone allows for this classification. Young simply by name and the fact that he's started more games than he hasn't in his career.
So, out of the 29 mobile/running quarterbacks selected in the last 10 years of the draft, only 4 have become "successful." I don't know what the percentage of players that get drafted and being successful is, but I know that 14% is not good.
Now to the statistics part of this blog. I am a huge fan of the Quarterback Rating. It's mildly complicated. All you have to know is that a perfect rating requires at least a 77.5% completion rate, at least 12.5 yards per attempt, a touchdown on at least 11.875% of attempts, and no interceptions. The maximum rating achievable is 158.3. Minimum is 0. We'll say that an average game for a quarterback is 18 for 30 (60%), 210 yards (7 yrds/att), 1.5 TD, 1 INT. That would be a rating of 84.2. So we'll say that the average quarterback performance is a rating of 84.2. The records over the last few years of the quarterbacks with ratings above and below that mark (amongst quarterbacks that qualify):
Above Below
2009 151-83* (.645) 88-115** (.433)
2008 159-112 (.587) 81-92 (.468)
2007 135-82 (.622) 86-98 (.467)
2006 90-59 (.604) 140-146 (.490)
2005 136-74 (.648) 90-132 (.405)***
*Includes 4-12 Jason Campbell
**Includes 9-5 Matt Ryan, 8-2 Vince Young
***Kyle Orton went 10-5 despite having a league-worst 59.7 rating
And now, a comparison of Quarterback Ratings for "Mobile" vs "Pocket" quarterbacks, amongst those drafted since 2001 with a minimum of 30 games played if drafted before 2007, 10 if after.
Mobile
Michael Vick's career rating is 76.8, with a career-high of 81.6 in his 2nd year.
Quincy Carter: 71.7, 72.3
David Garrard: 84.9, 102.2
Seneca Wallace: 82.5, 87.0
Alex Smith: 69.0, 81.5
Vince Young: 72.8, 82.8
Tarvaris Jackson: 77.9, 95.4
Troy Smith (14 G): 79.7
Josh Freeman (12 G): 65.1
Pocket
Drew Brees: 92.1, 109.6
Sage Rosenfels: 81.2
David Carr: 75.2, 83.5
Joey Harrington: 69.4, 77.5
Patrick Ramsey: 74.9, 75.8
Josh McCown: 71.3, 74.9
Carson Palmer: 87.7, 101.1
Byron Leftwich: 79.6, 89.3
Kyle Boller: 70.6, 75.2
Rex Grossman: 69.5,73.9
Eli Manning: 79.3, 93.1
Philip Rivers: 96.2, 105.5
Ben Roethlisberger: 91.7, 104.1
J.P. Losman: 75.6, 84.9
Matt Schaub: 91.9, 98.6
Aaron Rodgers: 97.1, 103.2
Kyle Orton: 78.1, 86.8
Derek Anderson: 69.5, 82.5
Matt Cassel: 78.5, 89.4
Jay Cutler: 85.1, 88.5
JaMarcus Russell: 65.2, 77.1
Brady Quinn (14 G): 66.8
Kevin Kolb (13 G): 67.8
Trent Edwards: 76.8, 85.4
Tyler Thigpen (17 G): 73.8
Matt Ryan: 84.6, 87.7
Joe Flacco: 81.5, 88.9
Chad Henne (19 G): 76.1
Matt Flynn (22 G): 37.4 (17 pass attempts in 22 games...)
Matthew Stafford (11 G): 61.9
Mark Sanchez (17 G): 67.1
So, of the mobile quarterbacks drafted since 2001, only David Garrard has a career QB rating that's better than average, and only by 7 tenths of a point. And only 3 more of the 9 have a rating over 75. Compare that to the pocket QB's, where 8 of the 31 have a rating over 84.2 and 10 others are over 75.
The good thing about the quarterback rating system is that it doesn't matter how much or little the quarterback throws, it's an accurate assessment of how successful he is when he does throw the ball. With a strict focus on completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown rate, and interception rate, it determines quite precisely whether a quarterback is performing well or not. According to the above statistics, pocket quarterbacks have a tendency to produce much better quarterback ratings, which produce better records. And I don't know about you, but I want my team putting up victories, not losses.
The other side to this that I have yet to address is the fact that when quarterbacks leave the pocket area (which is rare for pocket quarterbacks, frequent for mobile ones), they are exposing themselves to the dangers of being tackled/hit hard by linebackers/safeties/pursuing defensive linemen. Which leads to injuries. Lots of them. Staying in the pocket keeps the quarterback behind his offensive linemen, who's only job is to protect him. Ummm. Pretty sure I want my most important, highest paid player to BE PROTECTED. Just saying.
SOOOOO.... All of this boils down to one thing: When a decision is to be made between drafting/playing a pocket quarterback versus a running/mobile quarterback, I'm always taking the pocket quarterback. Quarterbacks throw the ball, running backs run the ball. That's what they're there for. That's the way it's been since the invention of the forward pass. And that's the way I'm going to keep it.
PS: Except in the college game, of course. Players like Denard Robinson are the most entertaining people to watch in sports, and usually lead to spectacular plays and winning records. It just doesn't translate to the NFL. Defenses are better, players are bigger and faster. That's just the way it is.
2 comments:
Im not a football or stats buff like you, but I have some thoughts.
1st - You mention the entertainment value of Denard Robinson. I want that in a NFL quarterback too. What I like about running QBs is their unpredictability.
2nd- There are lots of things that the QB rating doesnt take into account running touchdowns, runs for first downs and importantly, number of times he is rushed. A running quarterback makes all of his recievers better because the D has to worry about the run even after the running back has left.
3rd- The IDEA of a QB who is versitile sounds really good. Wouldn't we want players to be able to do lots of different things? Wouldn't you want a RB who can throw? I just like the concept of having lost of options. Kinda my take on Ultimate as well.
I'd like to address them all individually, but that's just not possible because it all kind of goes together.
A running quarterback also makes his offensive line much worse. I wish I could look up stats as to how often a holding penalty is given to a lineman because the quarterback is no longer where he should be, in the pocket. That's how protection works, all the linemen working together to protect a single area. When the quarterback leaves that area, the line can no longer do that collectively, are forced to adjust their blocking, and often that results in penalty. Not to mention the fact that once a quarterback rolls out, the play becomes chaos. Sometimes a receiver finds open space and a big play happens. Sometimes a quarterback thinks he knows what the receiver is going to do, the receiver doesn't do that, and an interception happens.
As for player versatility, that is something that is pretty rare in most sports. There's a reason there's only 2 positions in Ultimate, but 4 in hockey, 5 in basketball, 9 in baseball, and at least 7 on each side of the ball in football.
To answer you're questions, no, we wouldn't want players to be able to do a lot of things, because then you'd have multiple players who are only be good at everything and not really good at anything going up against players who are really good at each of their specialties. I mean, look at the quarterbacks in the league right now. These guys have been playing the position their whole lives, and yet, less than half of them are actually really good at it. Imagine if those guys took a lot of time away from what makes them the best, and tried to expand the other parts of their game that would never actually get very good. Everyone would suck. There is way too much that goes into being a good quarterback. Besides the physical skills of having a strong arm and good vision, he has to be able to process a ridiculous amount of information (defensive formations and adjustments, receiver progressions, blitzes, etc.) in a short amount of time (10 seconds pre-snap, 3-5 seconds post-snap), dozens of times a game. That's usually too much for the quarterback alone to handle, who's actually trained to handle it. There's no way in hell I'm trying to get my running back to try to deal with that stuff, too.
In professional sports, specialization is key. Excelling at your position, and your position alone, leads to successful individuals and successful teams.
Post a Comment