A little late, yet interesting - JCUTLER V RFITZPATRICK

[NoSaint]

 

 

I think the main thing you can take out of this isn't that Fitz is better than we thought, but that Cutler is not a very good QB (Been my opinion for a long time)...He has been living on the hype train his whole career, while never playing at a high level. He is an INT machine, always has been. Cutler has somehow always been talked about by many as a top tier QB, without ever having come close to earning that label. That is something that has always puzzled me. It's been 7 years of poor QBing now...

 

The general reasoning I hear for this is simple a host of excuses...

 

when you say discussed as a top tier qb, how high are you talking?

 

my impression has always been behind the top tier group but with the arm talent to join them if things come together.

[Orton's Arm]

It's a decent piece, but the big point the author leaves out is that he's comparing the best 4 years of Fitzpatrick's career, by far, to 4 typical Cutler years. Actually, you could argue that both his full years starting in Denver (with a good O-line and real receivers) were better than his average season in Chicago. I honestly don't feel like Cutler is overrated at all. Does anyone think he's a top 5 QB? I've never seen anyone say that. I doubt anyone besides Chicago homers would put him in the top 10, either. Fitz was about the 20th-best starter over the last 4 years, Cutler's probably something like 12th or 13th. The differences are:

 

1.) Cutler had no O-line, whereas Fitz had at least a decent one, possibly really good. (We'll see how much of the O-line's success was due to Chan's scheme.)

 

2.) Cutler isn't a limited player -- he can make all the throws, and has shown in individual games that he can win a game almost singlehandedly. He's not consistent enough to do it regularly, but Fitz was always a limited guy who needed a scheme to get guys open for him. Once defenses figured out how to play against that scheme, Fitz was pretty much toast.

 

Good post.

 

Just to add to what you've written, the article mentioned some statistical similarities between the two QBs (completion percentage, TD percentage, etc.) as well as one key statistical difference: yards per attempt. Trent Edwards has a career yards per attempt of 6.5; Tom Brady of 7.5. During the four year period in question, Fitz compiled a YPA of 6.7--not much better than Edwards--while Cutler's YPA was 7.1. At least according to the all-important yards per attempt stat; Cutler was about halfway between Fitzpatrick and Brady.

 

I have not seen evidence to suggest that a good defense boosts a QB's yards per attempt stat. Look at Trent Dilfer's career, for example. He spent the 2000 season with the Ravens; after which he went to Seattle. His yards per attempt in Seattle was much better than it had been with the Ravens; even though the Ravens of 2000 had one of the three best defenses in NFL history. If anything, the badness of the Bills' defense may have boosted Fitz's yards per attempt stat. Many of the yards he threw were in garbage time, when games were already out of reach. With a better defense, there would have been less garbage time, and fewer opportunities to pad his stats.

 

On the other hand, it stands to reason that a good offensive line would help improve a QB's stats. If a QB is forced to throw the ball away due to lack of pass protection, that hurts his YPA. When a QB can spend five or more seconds in the pocket looking for the very best downfield target, that's a great opportunity to boost his YPA. The article presented evidence which suggests the Bills had a better OL during the four years in question than did the Bears. The article also pointed out that the two teams' receiving corps were about even during the period in question.

 

In a nutshell, Cutler produced significantly better stats with what was probably a significantly inferior supporting cast. (Especially on the OL.) While Cutler is by no means a top-10 QB, he's proven significantly more over the course of his career than has Fitz.

[JESSEFEFFER]

You seem to be infatuated with ypa but when you consider sacks as part of the equation what happens to the numbers? The difference pretty much disappears, that's what. Getting rid of the ball to avoid a sack hurts comp% and ypa. Take the sack and both stats are unaffected. This was the Rob Johnson method to effective QB stat production. I'd rather have Fitz QB my team over Cutler because they produce about the same and Fitz is not a jerk.

[Orton's Arm]

You seem to be infatuated with ypa but when you consider sacks as part of the equation what happens to the numbers? The difference pretty much disappears, that's what. Getting rid of the ball to avoid a sack hurts comp% and ypa. Take the sack and both stats are unaffected. This was the Rob Johnson method to effective QB stat production. I'd rather have Fitz QB my team over Cutler because they produce about the same and Fitz is not a jerk.

 

> You seem to be infatuated with ypa but when you consider sacks as part of the equation what happens to the numbers? The difference pretty much disappears, that's what.

 

That's news to me. Statistically, the difference between Cutler and Fitzpatrick is substantial. I'd need a lot of convincing to be persuaded that sacks could make a difference like that go away. Specifically, I'd need to see quantitative analysis--not just unsupported opinions.

 

As for YPA: Kelly Holcomb and John Elway have very similar career completion percentages and QB ratings. Someone who looked at stats like those would think that the two QBs were statistically similar. But Elway has a commanding advantage over Holcomb in YPA; correctly revealing that Elway was by far the better quarterback. Holcomb's completion percentage and QB rating are inflated because he attempted a lot of short, high percentage passes. YPA is much harder to inflate.

 

> Getting rid of the ball to avoid a sack hurts comp% and ypa. Take the sack and both stats

> are unaffected. This was the Rob Johnson method to effective QB stat production.

 

Granted. But Jay Cutler is not Rob Johnson.

 

> I'd rather have Fitz QB my team over Cutler because they produce about the same and Fitz is not a jerk.

 

As stated earlier, their production isn't about the same. I'll grant that there are times when Cutler seems to march to the beat of his own drummer; and that there are times when he's annoying or disappointing as a result. On the other hand, you can rely on Fitz not to bring any personality-related drama into the locker room. But even though I too would prefer to have a Fitz personality in the locker room to a Cutler personality, I'm not convinced that Fitz's advantage there is sufficient to offset Cutler's edge in talent and production.

[Bill from NYC]

But Elway has a commanding advantage over Holcomb in YPA; correctly revealing that Elway was by far the better quarterback.

 

Great to see you posting!!!

 

My friend, do you truly think that YPA was the only factor in Elway being a better qb than Holcomb? I know that you do not.

 

Teams had to account for Elway's ability to run. They also had to account for his ability to throw tape measure long passes, as well as perhaps the best fastball ever. In short, there was no true way to defend against him. That said, it IS interesting that he didn't win a superbowl until he relied more on his running game. However, that was then.

This is another era. As you know, I was dragged kicking and screaming (and much of it by you and BADOL) into facing the reality that the game has dramatically changed. A young John Elway in this era would make Luck and RG111 look like bad qbs. Can you even begin to imagine a protected (by the rule changes) John Elway?

And imagine his salary if he was a UFA!!!! If Flacco is worth 21 mil and Rogers is worth 25, Elway would be worth 40 mil, because he had more talent than both of them combined.

 

Again, great to see you post!

[jethro_tull]

 

I'd rather have Fitz QB my team over Cutler because they produce about the same and Fitz is not a jerk.

 

 

winning isn't everything.......

[FireChan]

Good post.

 

Just to add to what you've written, the article mentioned some statistical similarities between the two QBs (completion percentage, TD percentage, etc.) as well as one key statistical difference: yards per attempt. Trent Edwards has a career yards per attempt of 6.5; Tom Brady of 7.5. During the four year period in question, Fitz compiled a YPA of 6.7--not much better than Edwards--while Cutler's YPA was 7.1. At least according to the all-important yards per attempt stat; Cutler was about halfway between Fitzpatrick and Brady.

 

I have not seen evidence to suggest that a good defense boosts a QB's yards per attempt stat. Look at Trent Dilfer's career, for example. He spent the 2000 season with the Ravens; after which he went to Seattle. His yards per attempt in Seattle was much better than it had been with the Ravens; even though the Ravens of 2000 had one of the three best defenses in NFL history. If anything, the badness of the Bills' defense may have boosted Fitz's yards per attempt stat. Many of the yards he threw were in garbage time, when games were already out of reach. With a better defense, there would have been less garbage time, and fewer opportunities to pad his stats.

 

On the other hand, it stands to reason that a good offensive line would help improve a QB's stats. If a QB is forced to throw the ball away due to lack of pass protection, that hurts his YPA. When a QB can spend five or more seconds in the pocket looking for the very best downfield target, that's a great opportunity to boost his YPA. The article presented evidence which suggests the Bills had a better OL during the four years in question than did the Bears. The article also pointed out that the two teams' receiving corps were about even during the period in question.

 

In a nutshell, Cutler produced significantly better stats with what was probably a significantly inferior supporting cast. (Especially on the OL.) While Cutler is by no means a top-10 QB, he's proven significantly more over the course of his career than has Fitz.

 

Cutler has had better wide recievers and a better defense in the last 3 years. I don't consider that inferior.

[Orton's Arm]

Great to see you posting!!!

 

My friend, do you truly think that YPA was the only factor in Elway being a better qb than Holcomb? I know that you do not.

 

Teams had to account for Elway's ability to run. They also had to account for his ability to throw tape measure long passes, as well as perhaps the best fastball ever. In short, there was no true way to defend against him. That said, it IS interesting that he didn't win a superbowl until he relied more on his running game. However, that was then.

This is another era. As you know, I was dragged kicking and screaming (and much of it by you and BADOL) into facing the reality that the game has dramatically changed. A young John Elway in this era would make Luck and RG111 look like bad qbs. Can you even begin to imagine a protected (by the rule changes) John Elway?

And imagine his salary if he was a UFA!!!! If Flacco is worth 21 mil and Rogers is worth 25, Elway would be worth 40 mil, because he had more talent than both of them combined.

 

Again, great to see you post!

 

Thanks for the kind words. You're one of my favorite posters on these boards, and it's good to hear from you as well.

 

> My friend, do you truly think that YPA was the only factor in Elway being a better qb than Holcomb? I know that you do not.

 

Agreed. Elway's YPA understates his value as a QB. But even though YPA isn't perfect, it's at least less bad than other stats. Consider the following:

 

Completion percentage

Trent Edwards: 60.6

John Elway: 56.9

 

QB rating

Trent Edwards: 75.5

John Elway: 79.9

 

Someone looking just at those two stats would think that Trent Edwards and John Elway played at about the same level. The reason those two statistical measures are useless is because a QB can artificially inflate his QB rating by going for a lot of dump-off passes (as Edwards did). Or, he can artificially deflate his QB rating and completion percentage by focusing more on vertical passes (as Elway did). Any time someone starts talking about how great Fitz is in terms of completion percentage or QB rating, I think of the fact that Trent Edwards and Kelly Holcomb have roughly the same completion percentages and QB ratings as Elway.

 

> Teams had to account for Elway's ability to run. They also had to account for his ability to throw tape measure

> long passes, as well as perhaps the best fastball ever. In short, there was no true way to defend against him.

 

Agreed.

 

> That said, it IS interesting that he didn't win a superbowl until he relied more on his running game. However, that was then.

 

I would argue that during the '80s, the Broncos weren't as strong a football team as their Super Bowl opponents.

 

Fall of '86/January of '87: The NY Giants went 14-2 in the regular season, and allowed a total of 3 points in their two postseason games leading up to the Super Bowl. In the Super Bowl itself, the Broncos scored 20 points--which was very good, especially against that Giants' defense. However, the Giants' offense scored 39 points. That Giants team is considered one of the best in NFL history.

 

Fall of '87/January of '88: In the Super Bowl between the Broncos and the Redskins, the Broncos defense allowed 42 points--including 35 points in the second quarter alone. The Broncos allowed five sacks; and Elway threw three interceptions.

 

Fall of '89/January of '90: In this Super Bowl, the Denver Broncos faced Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, and the rest of the elite 49ers offense. The 49ers also had the third best scoring defense in the NFL. The 49ers won that game by a score of 55-10.

 

That 49ers team emphasized the pass more strongly than the run. The 49ers used short passes as a substitute for running plays. If you're throwing short, quick passes, you're not all that vulnerable to the pass rush. There isn't a huge need to use running plays to punish teams for too much emphasis on the pass rush. A short pass completed too quickly for the pass rush to get there is punishment enough. Elway and the Broncos tended to emphasize longer passes--passing plays which take more time to develop. A team like that needs to put more emphasis on the running game. If they don't then their opponents will sell out on the pass rush as a means of shutting down the deep passing game.

 

> Can you even begin to imagine a protected (by the rule changes) John Elway?

 

That would be awesome!

[JESSEFEFFER]

> You seem to be infatuated with ypa but when you consider sacks as part of the equation what happens to the numbers? The difference pretty much disappears, that's what.

 

That's news to me. Statistically, the difference between Cutler and Fitzpatrick is substantial. I'd need a lot of convincing to be persuaded that sacks could make a difference like that go away. Specifically, I'd need to see quantitative analysis--not just unsupported opinions.

 

As for YPA: Kelly Holcomb and John Elway have very similar career completion percentages and QB ratings. Someone who looked at stats like those would think that the two QBs were statistically similar. But Elway has a commanding advantage over Holcomb in YPA; correctly revealing that Elway was by far the better quarterback. Holcomb's completion percentage and QB rating are inflated because he attempted a lot of short, high percentage passes. YPA is much harder to inflate.

 

> Getting rid of the ball to avoid a sack hurts comp% and ypa. Take the sack and both stats

> are unaffected. This was the Rob Johnson method to effective QB stat production.

 

Granted. But Jay Cutler is not Rob Johnson.

 

> I'd rather have Fitz QB my team over Cutler because they produce about the same and Fitz is not a jerk.

 

As stated earlier, their production isn't about the same. I'll grant that there are times when Cutler seems to march to the beat of his own drummer; and that there are times when he's annoying or disappointing as a result. On the other hand, you can rely on Fitz not to bring any personality-related drama into the locker room. But even though I too would prefer to have a Fitz personality in the locker room to a Cutler personality, I'm not convinced that Fitz's advantage there is sufficient to offset Cutler's edge in talent and production.

 

The numbers from Pro Football Reference. Specifically the NY/A category (Net Yards per Attempt) defined as ((Passing yards - sack yards)/ (pass attempts + sacks))

 

Jay Cutler 2012...5.90 2011....6.41 2010.....6.04

 

Ryan Fitz 2012....6.05 2011....6.23 2010....6.14

 

So where's the big difference between them? It's pretty much nonexistent is the answer.

 

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/

 

winning isn't everything.......

 

Is this from the "the other 51 men on the roster are irrelevant--It's all on the QB" line of thinking?

[Orton's Arm]

The numbers from Pro Football Reference. Specifically the NY/A category (Net Yards per Attempt) defined as ((Passing yards - sack yards)/ (pass attempts + sacks))

 

Jay Cutler 2012...5.90 2011....6.41 2010.....6.04

 

Ryan Fitz 2012....6.05 2011....6.23 2010....6.14

 

So where's the big difference between them? It's pretty much nonexistent is the answer.

 

 

http://www.pro-footb...ce.com/players/

 

 

 

Is this from the "the other 51 men on the roster are irrelevant--It's all on the QB" line of thinking?

 

> Specifically the NY/A category (Net Yards per Attempt) defined as ((Passing yards - sack yards)/ (pass attempts + sacks))

 

I admit that taking sacks into account made a bigger difference in the stats than I'd realized. I'll also grant that Fitz makes his offensive line look better than it really is; and Cutler makes it look worse. On the other hand, Cutler has had a significantly worse OL in Chicago than Fitz had in Buffalo. Making it look as though Cutler was solely responsible for the difference in sacks seems like a case of letting the Chicago OL off the hook.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that all those extra sacks Cutler took were half his own fault, and half the fault of his offensive line. During his time in Buffalo, Fitz achieved a YPA of 6.7; as opposed to 7.1 for Cutler in Chicago. In Buffalo, Fitz achieved a 6.02 net yards per pass attempt (the stat you used), versus 6.02 for Cutler in Chicago. If you average YPA with net yards per pass attempt, you get 6.56 for Cutler in Chicago, and 6.36 for Fitzpatrick in Buffalo. In addition, Fitz had a 3.7 INT percentage in Buffalo; whereas Cutler had a 3.6 INT percentage in Chicago. Overall, Cutler has better numbers than Fitz, but it's not a huge difference.

[NoSaint]

 

 

> Specifically the NY/A category (Net Yards per Attempt) defined as ((Passing yards - sack yards)/ (pass attempts + sacks))

 

I admit that taking sacks into account made a bigger difference in the stats than I'd realized. I'll also grant that Fitz makes his offensive line look better than it really is; and Cutler makes it look worse. On the other hand, Cutler has had a significantly worse OL in Chicago than Fitz had in Buffalo. Making it look as though Cutler was solely responsible for the difference in sacks seems like a case of letting the Chicago OL off the hook.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that all those extra sacks Cutler took were half his own fault, and half the fault of his offensive line. During his time in Buffalo, Fitz achieved a YPA of 6.7; as opposed to 7.1 for Cutler in Chicago. In Buffalo, Fitz achieved a 6.02 net yards per pass attempt (the stat you used), versus 6.02 for Cutler in Chicago. If you average YPA with net yards per pass attempt, you get 6.56 for Cutler in Chicago, and 6.36 for Fitzpatrick in Buffalo. In addition, Fitz had a 3.7 INT percentage in Buffalo; whereas Cutler had a 3.6 INT percentage in Chicago. Overall, Cutler has better numbers than Fitz, but it's not a huge difference.

 

the biggest difference, and this being opinion but i doubt an unpopular one - Fitz was at his max potential, Cutler may have a much higher ceiling.

[K-9]

the biggest difference, and this being opinion but i doubt an unpopular one - Fitz was at his max potential, Cutler may have a much higher ceiling.

 

As long as he is lazy in the pocket, he'll continue to make his trademark boneheaded plays. I doubt he'll change any time soon if he hasn't already. I think he's at his ceiling.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

 

 

As long as he is lazy in the pocket, he'll continue to make his trademark boneheaded plays. I doubt he'll change any time soon if he hasn't already. I think he's at his ceiling.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

thats the "may" and why i dont think you see him on many top 10 lists at this point. i think its far more possible that given a good line he settles down than fitz suddenly gets a rocket arm though.

[K-9]

thats the "may" and why i dont think you see him on many top 10 lists at this point. i think its far more possible that given a good line he settles down than fitz suddenly gets a rocket arm though.

 

Some of Cutler's greatest boneheaded plays have occurred when he's had all day in the pocket. After seven years in the league he is STILL doing the same stupid things. So, Fitz developing a rocket arm vs. Cutler developing a rocket-science brain at this stage of their careers is a push.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

the biggest difference, and this being opinion but i doubt an unpopular one - Fitz was at his max potential, Cutler may have a much higher ceiling.

 

I used to think more highly of Cutler's ceiling than is now the case. A few weeks ago, I read an article which went into detail about his limitations. It broke down a play, showed what a hypothetical perfect quarterback would have done, and contrasted that to what Cutler actually did. The overly slow, flawed decision-making Cutler evinced on that play was not a one-time thing, but part of a pattern.

 

Cutler is a more accurate, more physically gifted quarterback than Fitz; and overall has played at a somewhat higher level. But unless he significantly increases the speed and quality of his decision-making, there will continue to be a substantial difference between his play and the top-5 quarterbacks' play.

[NoSaint]

 

I used to think more highly of Cutler's ceiling than is now the case.

 

and i think thats why you see him in the 10-15 group more than the 5-10 grouping these days.

 

 

 

Some of Cutler's greatest boneheaded plays have occurred when he's had all day in the pocket. After seven years in the league he is STILL doing the same stupid things. So, Fitz developing a rocket arm vs. Cutler developing a rocket-science brain at this stage of their careers is a push.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

i dont think we are far off. i dont expect cutler to become a sudden student of the game but i do think with a bit less pressure on a consistent basis, feeling less ghosts, etc... he still has a better chance of improving his decision making than fitz does of truly improving his arm.

[K-9]

and i think thats why you see him in the 10-15 group more than the 5-10 grouping these days.

 

I never had Cutler in my 5-10 group. He's never been in my top 20. He's just too stupid and lazy in the pocket for my tastes.

 

Sexy arm, though.

 

Oh, and nice hair.

 

GO BILLS!!!