Statistical analysis of Vince Young and Tarvaris Jackson

[HOUSE]

Statistics are scary......

[GG]

If you've actually watched the games, you'd think differently. This is where stats are deceiving. There's a reason why Matt Flynn, Matt Cassel, and Kevin Kolb were highly chased after their tenure with their old teams. They played well in their last years of their contracts.

 

Time honored tradition on TSW. When you're losing an argument, time to double down.

[Fan in Chicago]

 

It's clear to see who has the higher upside. TJ consistently got better throughout the season. In games against the Bills 2012 opponents, he fared well. In games in December and in cold weather, he was PERFECT. Vince on the other hand was not consistent. Every week he was up and down, and he not only played poorly against Bills opponents but he was downright awful in cold weather.

 

Good move by the front office.

 

Very good work. Not only did you bring stats to the table but you also tracked meaningful stats. Do keep this board honest with your data analysis. Much appreciated.

[ronnieroscoe]

There is no question in 2012...t Jack is better than vy...the only question is if he is better than Fitz...which we may find out...also note first half of season very difficult, last half easy...sets up nice for relief pitcher to shine

 

There is no question in 2012...t Jack is better than vy...the only question is if he is better than Fitz...which we may find out...also note first half of season very difficult, last half easy...sets up nice for relief pitcher to shine

[Orton's Arm]

All I'm saying is Tarvaris might play better than those stats indicate. Or he could completely bomb and be the worst QB to wear a Bills uniform. It means nothing. Different QBs play well in some systems and others don't. Look at Kevin Kolb. He looked like a STUD and his numbers in Philly were amazing. Well...just look at him in a different system on a different team. So you're still going to go off his numbers he put up in Philly?

Maybe I'm misreading you, but the above seems a lot like an all-or-nothing perspective. Either a piece of information gives you a 100% chance of making the right decision (all) or else it's worth nothing.

 

I don't know if you're using that all-or-nothing logic or not. But even if you're not, others here certainly have. Suppose one were to take that logic and apply it to making loans. Banks would say, "There are some cases in which people with high credit ratings have defaulted on loans. There have also been times when people with low credit ratings have paid back their loans as agreed. Therefore, credit ratings mean nothing, and we'll stop using them." Concepts like "more likely" and "less likely" get thrown out the window, because there is no room for them within this all or nothing logic.

 

The OP has shown that Travaris Jackson played reasonably well in Seattle. As you pointed out, that's not a guarantee he'll play well in Buffalo. But all else being equal, which QB would you think is more likely to play well here: someone with bad stats from his previous stints, or someone who did well previously?

 

Dismissing what the OP wrote (as your earlier posts seemed to do) contributes nothing to this thread. If you want to make the case that Travaris Jackson might be another Kolb story waiting to happen, fine. Make that case. Show us why you think Buffalo's offensive system is a worse fit for Travaris Jackson than Seattle's had been. Or show us how defenses will adapt to Travaris Jackson's style of play after they're done figuring out his weaknesses.

 

Maybe you're not familiar enough with Travaris Jackson's strengths and weaknesses, or with Seattle's offensive system, to want to make arguments like that. That's okay too. I'd be perfectly happy with you reminding us that his comparative success in Seattle is not a guarantee of success in Buffalo.

 

Then again, there are no guarantees in football. You could trade for a franchise QB in the prime of his career, only to have him experience a career-ending injury the very next week. There are no guarantees--there are only varying degrees of probability. The OP has made a meaningful contribution to that discussion of probability.

[John from Riverside]

I drafted a post in another thread showcasing some of this information but I thought it deserved it's own thread, and therefore went into more detail. The signing of Tarvaris Jackson was an absolutely solid move, and further solidifies my trust in the current front office. Vince Young was a weakness, and Thigpen is at best a quality control coach. There are some eye catching statistics that certainly point to why Buddy made this move.

 

2011 was TJ's first and only year in Seattle. While he started off slowly, his play in the second half of the season (presumably once he felt comfortable with their playbook) rose considerably.

 

First 8 games: 73 QB rating, 6 TD's, 9 INT's

Last 8 games: 85 QB rating, 8 TD's, 4 INT's

 

 

As you can see, he not only put up better numbers in the 2nd half of the season, but he also became more consistent.

 

* In games against the BIlls 2012 opponents, TJ completed 60% of his passes for 1125 yards, 7 TD's, and 5 INT's. He also had 55 yards on the ground.

 

* Now here is where it gets very enticing. In December, he threw for 800 yards, 4 TD's, 0 INT's, and had a 98.8 QB rating. In games where it was 40 degrees or colder, he was 53 of 79 for 641 yards, 67% completion rating, 3 TD's, 0 INT's, and 104.5 QB rating.

 

* In the Red Zone, he had 10 TD's and only 1 INT. It is worth noting that he does take a relatively high percentage of sacks in the red zone - 12% of all red-zone drop backs - likely due to his tendency to scramble under pressure.

 

I personally love the move. I think he is a tremendous upgrade over Vince Young. And here is why (Vince Young stats to follow):

 

* In games against the BIlls 2012 opponents, Young threw for 608 yards, 2 TD's, and 5 INT's and a fumble. He also had 72 yards on the ground.

 

* In December, Vince Young threw for 208 yards, on 58% passing, with 1 TD's, 4 INT's, and 2 fumbles. All of these games were under 40 degrees.

 

* In the Red Zone, he completed 56% of his passes, however 7 of those were TD's and he had 2 interceptions.

 

Side by Side Analysis

 

Against Bills 2012 Opponents

 

TJ: 1,125 yards, 7 TD's, 5 INT's, 55 yards rushing

Young: 608 yards, 2 TD's, 5 INT's, 1 fumble, 72 yards rushing

 

In December/Games under 40 degrees

 

TJ: 67%, 641 yards, 3 TD's, 0 INT, 104 QB rating

Young: 56%, 208 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT's, 2 fumbles. 65 QB rating

 

It's clear to see who has the higher upside. TJ consistently got better throughout the season. In games against the Bills 2012 opponents, he fared well. In games in December and in cold weather, he was PERFECT. Vince on the other hand was not consistent. Every week he was up and down, and he not only played poorly against Bills opponents but he was downright awful in cold weather.

 

Good move by the front office.

 

I like you....please stick around

[ajzepp]

You're wrong again. His last year in Philly he played poorly. In fact, it was probably his worst year. He averaged 6 yards per pass - one of the lowest averages of his career. He threw 7 TD's. 7 INT's, and had 6 fumbles with a 76 QB rating.

 

[djp14150]

If you've actually watched the games, you'd think differently. This is where stats are deceiving. There's a reason why Matt Flynn, Matt Cassel, and Kevin Kolb were highly chased after their tenure with their old teams. They played well in their last years of their contracts.

 

I did--I live in the Seattle area....

 

The the NFL works is highly based on system. If a QB understands the system that goes tot heir stength they turn out great. The other aspect is system stability. What kills QBs is having to constantly change systems. The far bigger factor in success of young QBs is being in a system that doesnt change.

 

A problem with JP and with Alex Smith of SF is that they went through a new OC just about every year. That is a nightmare scenario.

 

TJ knew the system...Minnesota OC came to Seattle which is why TJ went to Seattle. He knew the playbook---but he didnt know his teammates. He would have known one--Sidney Rice but he was lost for the year in the preseason.

 

Their schedule ....

 

@SF--close game--made 19-17 late in the the 4th before SF had a 100+ yr KO return after the TD drive and then added on a punt return TD both under 4 min to go

@PIT-loss

ARIZ-won

ATL---nissed a game winning FG on the last play of the game.

@ NYG--won

@ CLE--bad loss---TJ didnt play...Lynch didnt play

CIN--It was 17-12 then 20-12 in the 4th before CIN had two returns TDs (punt return and a INT return)

@ DAL-loss (not as horrendous as Buffalo)

 

this point the were 2-6...they then go 5-1 playing:

 

BAL-win

@ STL-win

WASH-loss...they had a 17-7 with about 10 min to go before WAS scored 2 TDs and a FG to win.

PHL-Win

STL-win

 

They get to 7-7 in the playoff race...had they won ATL they would have had full control of their playoff fate

 

SF--loss---seattle had a 17-16 lead till a late 4th FG gave SF the lead/win

@AZ-loss in meaningless game

Edited August 28, 2012 by djp14150

[John from Riverside]

Hey flea.....just because he is went through the trouble to back up his opinion doesnt mean you should be ragging on it.....

 

I swear to christ the "your not better then me" syndrom of some peope on this board

[CodeMonkey]

You couldn't tell just by watching Vince play this preseason that he's playing bad? You needed a chart to figure all this out?

But preseason is meaningless remember.

[TDO'Kearney]

You couldn't tell just by watching Vince play this preseason that he's playing bad? You needed a chart to figure all this out?

Moreover, how many times do we complain that ppl just spout stuff with no logic? Then we complain when we have to read a chart? Sheesh.

[Turbosrrgood]

Haha, what an entertaining thread. I love seeing guys with baseless off the cuff comments being proven wrong over and over again...

 

Great work by the way OP, interesting stuff. Most of the logical people reading the post appreciated it.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Turbosrrgood

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Start Fitz the 1st 8 games and Jackson the final 8 games.

[Malazan]

Time honored tradition on TSW. When you're losing an argument, time to double down.

 

Hell, at TSW, a lot of posted seem to argue with themselves and double down before anyone schools them. This board is filled with people who would rather base things on their 'feelings' than actual data.

[Sisyphean Bills]

2011 was TJ's first and only year in Seattle. While he started off slowly, his play in the second half of the season (presumably once he felt comfortable with their playbook) rose considerably.

 

First 8 games: 73 QB rating, 6 TD's, 9 INT's

Last 8 games: 85 QB rating, 8 TD's, 4 INT's

 

Your presumption is incorrect. Jackson was brought to Seattle because he was already familiar with the Vikings offense and the Seahawks had just brought the Vikings former OC on board. OTOH, just because he had familiarity with the system doesn't mean the other 10 guys on offense had a clue. On the third hand, Russell Wilson seems to be picking it up rather quickly.

[LiterateStylish]

 

 

Your presumption is incorrect. Jackson was brought to Seattle because he was already familiar with the Vikings offense and the Seahawks had just brought the Vikings former OC on board. OTOH, just because he had familiarity with the system doesn't mean the other 10 guys on offense had a clue. On the third hand, Russell Wilson seems to be picking it up rather quickly.

 

Good points. Im not sure what to make of it.

[3rdand12]

Hell, at TSW, a lot of posted seem to argue with themselves and double down before anyone schools them. This board is filled with people who would rather base things on their 'feelings' than actual data.

well both are welcome i hope.

I do take issue with folks who "did not see the game but.." I rarely look at stats but i do my best to watch closely. and pay attention the the goings ons.

[silvermike]

Maybe I'm misreading you, but the above seems a lot like an all-or-nothing perspective. Either a piece of information gives you a 100% chance of making the right decision (all) or else it's worth nothing.

 

I don't know if you're using that all-or-nothing logic or not. But even if you're not, others here certainly have. Suppose one were to take that logic and apply it to making loans. Banks would say, "There are some cases in which people with high credit ratings have defaulted on loans. There have also been times when people with low credit ratings have paid back their loans as agreed. Therefore, credit ratings mean nothing, and we'll stop using them." Concepts like "more likely" and "less likely" get thrown out the window, because there is no room for them within this all or nothing logic.

 

The OP has shown that Travaris Jackson played reasonably well in Seattle. As you pointed out, that's not a guarantee he'll play well in Buffalo. But all else being equal, which QB would you think is more likely to play well here: someone with bad stats from his previous stints, or someone who did well previously?

 

Dismissing what the OP wrote (as your earlier posts seemed to do) contributes nothing to this thread. If you want to make the case that Travaris Jackson might be another Kolb story waiting to happen, fine. Make that case. Show us why you think Buffalo's offensive system is a worse fit for Travaris Jackson than Seattle's had been. Or show us how defenses will adapt to Travaris Jackson's style of play after they're done figuring out his weaknesses.

 

Maybe you're not familiar enough with Travaris Jackson's strengths and weaknesses, or with Seattle's offensive system, to want to make arguments like that. That's okay too. I'd be perfectly happy with you reminding us that his comparative success in Seattle is not a guarantee of success in Buffalo.

 

Then again, there are no guarantees in football. You could trade for a franchise QB in the prime of his career, only to have him experience a career-ending injury the very next week. There are no guarantees--there are only varying degrees of probability. The OP has made a meaningful contribution to that discussion of probability.

 

I was going to say essentially this, so I'll just say "+1." Nicely done. FleaMoulds80 seems to be bent on being as dumb as possible as loudly as possible, and I think I'm going to reach for my ignore button.

[Charles Romes]

I like the graph. It looks cool and solidifies the impression that you know what you ate taking about.

[Astrobot]

LS, you are the Wall's most interesting man.

Hope you and your stats stick around.