Jump to content

QB who can pass to victory - a myth?


Recommended Posts

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The one that lets you move the ball and score points?

 

You must know that's a false dichotomy.  No one is saying it should be all run.  But I found it very interesting that the results were so poor when the QB is passing the majority of the plays.


so In a vaccum the way to score more points would be being able to go up the field more than 3 times vs being able to go up the field once. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:


this is a McD coached team. We don’t dictate we react and keep it close. 

 

No, nice try. YOU were just advocating we have to pass because it was c over 1. YOU can’t have it both ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


now the Biggest Myth in football is you have to be able to run the ball for Play Action to be effective. 

Just now, Augie said:

 

No, nice try. YOU were just advocating we have to pass because it was c over 1. YOU can’t have it both ways. 


nope was saying that is what McD and Daboll do. The matchup says pass they pass. They don’t dictate they react. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

There's a lot of talk about needing to find a QB who can win the game with his arm.

 

Now some would say I'm a football Australopithecine.  I love to watch a good defensive battle.  And I think nothing helps a young QB more than the knowldge his team can get a first down with their feet any time.  I think a balanced run-pass attack is critical for most QB's success.  But I'm told I should get with the era of Modern Football where passing must predominate.

 

Being a simple Hapless Fan, it occurred to me to ask a simple question:  What actually is the W-L outcome, actually, when a team's QB passes for most of the plays in a game?

 

I'll put the bottom line right up front here, then give you the details: 62% of the time, You Lose. 2% of the time, you Tie. 

 

Smoke That, Sports Fans: When the QB is slinging the rock a lot, almost 2/3 of the time your team ain't gonna win.

 

Now I know what some of you are probably thinking.  If I looked at most of the QB in the league, maybe that skewed the data.  The top passers win more, the bottom passers lose more.  But that isn't what I saw.  It was pretty consistent through ALL the QB.  Exceptions were Mr GOAT Tom Brady (7W, 1L).  Other exceptions who won 2x as much as they lost were Aaron Rodgers, Russ Wilson, Drew Brees.  Limited data on some positive newbies who won more than L but didn't have many high passing attempt games were Josh Allen, Jacoby Brisset, and Mason Rudolph.  LJax split.

 

So, Cro Magnon Football Fans: the Australopithecine here wants to raise the question, is the QB who can carry the team to victory with a blistering passing attack a myth?  There seem to be about 4 of 'em in the league right now.

 

OK, here's what I done:

 

Criterion: The league average #plays per PFR is 63.  So I defined "most of the plays" as "more than half" and chose >= 55% of the ave. # of plays as my cutoff.  That is 35 or more passes per game. 

 

Method: I looked at the top 34 QB based on passing attempts as of Week 10, then excluded the best (Tom Brady, 7-1) and the worst (Andy Dalton, 0-8) [that's a common statistical practice, to prevent outliers from skewing the data set].  I used the QB game stats in Pro Football Reference, sorted by pass attempts, and tallyed W-L-T.  Total games were 105.

 

 

 


If what you are getting at is that the Bills need to give Devin Singletary more carries and less passes for Josh, then I would agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good analysis, Hap, but it would be helpful to look at situational play-calling too. Some of those passes were thrown when the team was trailing by two scores, while others were part of the typical run/pass balance. It would be interesting to see how those situations affected the W-L records.

 

Any statisticians out there want to run an ANOVA test on this? ?

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:


you mean a 30 ranked run defense that was playing cover 1 all game to stop the run?  

 

No mention of McD in that quote. That sounds like you. Don’t try to pass the buck. Own it. 

 

 

 

.

Edited by Augie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phil The Thrill said:


If what you are getting at is that the Bills need to give Devin Singletary more carries and less passes for Josh, then I would agree

 

I expressed that viewpoint independent of this.

 

I was just curious what the W-L outcome actually is across the league when QBs other than Allen pass more than 55% of "typical" plays per game.

What I'm getting at is, it's often a L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I expressed that viewpoint independent of this.

 

I was just curious what the W-L outcome actually is across the league when QBs other than Allen pass more than 55% of "typical" plays per game.

What I'm getting at is, it's often a L


I think with the exception of the names you mentioned, you do need to have more of a balanced (attack? -mod)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Yep, good work and very interesting. It seems that the QB you describe is not a myth, but exists only in the rarified air that all fans want their QB to occupy. There are only a few of these around; some are near the end of their storied careers and a few notable others are off to a great start to take their place. If you win that QB lottery your team can be set for 10-15 years or more ( these days). When it doesn’t happen fans want to bang their fists on the table, calling for firings all around. It’s just a total crapshoot, and fans today only want to wait about a season and a half before moving on to another guy. So what to do ? A GM could probably draft a 1st round QB every year for 5 years and still not end up with one of your 4 truly elite guys. It’s notable that zero NFL teams do this. Fwiw the Bills are probably going to stick with Josh Allen until the end of the 2020 season, though many already want him gone. It appears all us fans can do is be patient, but if you’re waiting for that top 5 elite guy your favorite team might not ever get one. 

 

I haven't looked back, but I'm pretty durn sure that if I did the same exercise with the first 3-4 years of Brady's or Wilson's career I'd find the same thing - more L than W

Brees, for the first 3 years of his career I know I would.

Rodgers not sure, but he spent a couple years on the bench first so there's that.

Even the guys with storied careers now didn't start that way.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Down 3 TD’s in the second half? Or down more like, 3-6 points with plenty of time left in the game? 

 

Your “end thread” doesn’t even make sense. 

.

 

I was answering the first question. The entire premise is flawed because a higher # of pass attempts may correlate to lower win percentage. But correlations do not equal causality. You learn this in the first day of any statistics class. I thought that was obvious and didn’t need to explain myself. 

 

If a team is trailing they are going to pass more. That probably skews the data toward lower win percentage when pass attempts are high. 

 

Besides, I want one of those top-tier QBs that can win the game by passing a lot. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find this too surprising.   

 

I think most fans are selective listeners.  They are overly impressed by - and remember - when Rodgers or Wilson or Mahomes has some monster game, like 32 for 42, 410 yards and 4 TDs, but they forget all the times when the broadcasters tell us that Ryan was 33 for 48 for 380 yards in a losing effort.   Most of the games, as your analysis makes clear, that QBs are throwing the ball a lot, the QB is trying to come from behind.  He may be posting big numbers, but he's posting them chasing the lead.  

 

Granted, it's become more of a passing league, but even so, if you pass too much, your offense becomes predictable and easier to stop.   There's always been a very simple formula:  If your opponent can run and can't pass, you put 8 in the box and stop the run.  That's what Seattle did last night.  If your opponent can pass but can't run, you rush 3 and drop 8 into a zone.  You may give up yardage in the middle of the field, but your opponent will struggle in the red zone, and you'll get the occasional coverage sack.  

 

The offensive theory that has the best sustained success (and it's the theory that McDermott often talks about) is forcing the defense to defend the entire field.   Eight in the box only defends the line of scrimmage, because the defense knows it doesn't have to defend downfield.  Rush 3 drop 8 defends downfield and disregards the LOS.  Only by having an offense that can attack everywhere, vertically and horizontally, can you force the defense to defend the entire field.  That spreads out the defense and creates gaps you can attack.  Even better, if you can run effectively, you get the benefit of play action, which creates momentary gaps you can attack.  

 

People misinterpret HOW the NFL has become a passing league.   It's not so much that teams are passing MORE.  It's that teams are MORE EFFECTIVE passing.   In the 50s, the measure of a good QB was if he could complete 50% of his passes.  Now a good QB is completing 65%. - 14 QBS are over 65% this season, and 3 are over 70%   The announcers always tell you when a QB is on a run - he has 8 or 10 or 12 completions in a row.  That never happened in earlier eras.   When you complete a higher percentage of passes, your yards per attempt go up.  As has become clear, if you can get 8 yards per attempt passing and 4 yards per rush, passing becomes very attractive.  But the REASON you can get 8 yards per attempt is because you force the defense to respect the run, which gives you one on one matchups and allows you to create openings with play action.   Once you stop running, the defense can play more zone and can ignore the play action, completions go down, and yards per attempt go down.  And that's what happens to most QBs chasing a lead in the second half.  They pass more, the defense sits on the pass, yards per attempt go down, and the QB loses.

 

That's exactly why the people here who are complaining about the run-pass ratio against the Browns are right.  As we saw with Allen, when pass attempts go up, completion percentage generally goes down, and once that happens yards per attempt drop and drives stall.  You have to be able to run.  Either the Bills can't because the line still isn't good enough, or they won't, which is bad coaching.   I think it's the line.  We need to remember that the Bills couldn't run at all last season, except for the fact that Allen was on the move so much.   This year the Bills are prudently limiting Allen's rushing attempts, and they're having trouble getting consistent yardage on the ground.  We all got excited about the free agent acquisitions and Ford, but other than Morse, none of the newcomers had had any great success in the NFL.  

 

I'm always using Belichick as an example, because he does so much right.   His philosophy is that his teams will be able to do everything.  They'll run inside, run outside, play a possession passing game and play a deep passing game.  A reporter asked him once what style he prefers to play.  Belichick looked at the guy like he was idiot, paused, and said "we like to play the style that wins the game we're playing."  The lesson for Daboll and Allen is simple:  If the Browns are going to blitz a lot, you have to have the plays to counter the blitz and have to make the reads and make the plays.  Some of those plays are going to be running plays that attack the gaps the blitzing linebackers have abandoned.   Allen has to check into those plays, and he has to execute them.   

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Yep, good work and very interesting. It seems that the QB you describe is not a myth, but exists only in the rarified air that all fans want their QB to occupy. There are only a few of these around; some are near the end of their storied careers and a few notable others are off to a great start to take their place. If you win that QB lottery your team can be set for 10-15 years or more ( these days). When it doesn’t happen fans want to bang their fists on the table, calling for firings all around. It’s just a total crapshoot, and fans today only want to wait about a season and a half before moving on to another guy. So what to do ? A GM could probably draft a 1st round QB every year for 5 years and still not end up with one of your 4 truly elite guys. It’s notable that zero NFL teams do this. Fwiw the Bills are probably going to stick with Josh Allen until the end of the 2020 season, though many already want him gone. It appears all us fans can do is be patient, but if you’re waiting for that top 5 elite guy your favorite team might not ever get one. 

Great post!  Our own Jim Kelly struggled mightily at first and look what happened. The point is Allen is here for a while so you all need to get used to it. I think Pegula is all in with McD and Beane’s vision and they will be here for the foreseeable future. Allen is their guy so he will too.
 

If guys like Winston, Mariotta, Tannehill, etc got as long as they have, then Allen will too. He has the tools and he’s no where near as bad as some of you think he is. Yes his deep ball needs to come around, but last year he struggled with the short to intermediate throws and now it’s a strength. He’ll work on the long stuff and get better this off-season. 
 

it’s kind of pathetic in my opinion to read some of the posts on here calling for this kid’s head after 20 starts. He’s 11-9 with a pretty bad roster on offense. Going 5-6 last year with the crap he had to work with was a minor miracle. You guys act like we have some right to have the next Brady/Rodgers/Brees. We don’t. They come along very rarely. If we can get average to above average play from Allen for the next 10-12, that should be good enough. And who knows?  He might even be better than above average. I won’t put anything past him. He’s a hard worker and wants to be great.  

Edited by whorlnut
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chemical said:

 

I was answering the first question. The entire premise is flawed because a higher # of pass attempts may correlate to lower win percentage. But correlations do not equal causality. You learn this in the first day of any statistics class. I thought that was obvious and didn’t need to explain myself. 

 

If a team is trailing they are going to pass more. That probably skews the data toward lower win percentage when pass attempts are high. 

 

Besides, I want one of those top-tier QBs that can win the game by passing a lot. 

 

 

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I took stats and everything else. We have not been behind much and the Cleveland game was ridiculous.

 

To the bigger picture, that will be true to some extent, but the numbers speak for themselves, IMO. You have to be able to run the ball. The extent to which it is skewed leads me to believe it’s more than just playing catchup ball. But, of course you can make numbers look like almost anything you want. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I haven't looked back, but I'm pretty durn sure that if I did the same exercise with the first 3-4 years of Brady's or Wilson's career I'd find the same thing - more L than W

Brees, for the first 3 years of his career I know I would.

Rodgers not sure, but he spent a couple years on the bench first so there's that.

Even the guys with storied careers now didn't start that way.

I just eye-balled Brady's first few years.  Looks like he was around .500 when he threw over 35.  Which means his winning percentage was better when he threw 35 or under.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:


irrelevant in my point. Which would give you the opportunity to score more points. A RB going for 120 (good game by Running standards). Or a QB going for 320 (good yardage game by passing standards)

Depends.  Are you gaining your passing yards outside the red zone?   Or get 12 runs for 10 yards from their 10 yard line?

 

Teams that can do both and play good D win games.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

We're really going here Hap? 

 

I have immense respect for you and everything you do for this board; but I take exception to the premise of this thread.

 

If the have the right QB and yes, the right OC/weapons, passing nets you far more than the Bills are currently achieving. 

 

The problem is not running less, passing more, running more, passing less; The problem is the efficacy of these things. They are just not getting it done. I don't know about Devin. He doesn't look like some game breaker. He's not bad, but he's not the kind of electrifying player you'd like to see considering his role. He's no Alvin Kamara. It wasn't a great pick IMO nor have any of the offensive picks.

 

Where are the rising stars on offense? Where are the studs? That's the problem. It's not playcalling. It's personnel. I believe that they will address this in the offseason, but they d*** well better get it right this time. I have my doubts.

 

I think Allen should be better than THIS, even if I understand the excuses/reasoning. But they really don't have "playmakers." Beane needs to put up or shut up this offseason in regards to the talent he acquires.

I totally agree. Allen can be the guy but he needs more than Brown and Beasley. People can say you don’t need a true number one all they want but you can’t tell me a Mike Evans or Julio Jones wouldn’t help this offense. Brown can be an excellent two and Beasley is our slot guy but we need a one. Someone like Tee Higgins or CeeDee Lamb would go well with this team. 
 

We also need a few more stud linemen. If we got a good RT in the draft we could move Ford to LG and that would take care of a lot of problems. 
 

This team is close and so is Allen. We just need more pieces and another off-season. I want instant gratification too but it’s sort of unrealistic at this point. We might sneak into the playoffs, but then again we might not either. Either way, 2020 has always been the target year IMO that we would really compete. 

Edited by whorlnut
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

I was answering the first question. The entire premise is flawed because a higher # of pass attempts may correlate to lower win percentage. But correlations do not equal causality. You learn this in the first day of any statistics class. I thought that was obvious and didn’t need to explain myself. 

 

If a team is trailing they are going to pass more. That probably skews the data toward lower win percentage when pass attempts are high.

 

Um, I think you might have skipped a couple lectures. There's nothing in Statistics 101 that says a premise is flawed because a demonstrated correlation does not address causation.

 

Sure, correlation is not causation.  The question I was asking was not asserting causation.  I was simply asking: what is the outcome when [EVENT] occurs?  To put it in Statisics 101 terms, I was testing the null hypotheses that passing 35 or more times per game is not correlated or is positively correlated with winning.  Passing 35 or more times per game is negatively correlated with winning.  The null hypotheses are rejected. 

Now, one can then ask a follow-on question such as: are high numbers of passing attempts by a team correlated with the team trailing in score?  One would have to define some sort of threshold for how much of a score deficit and at what stage of the game.  And you might be correct.

 

Or you might be surprised - while 300+ yard passing games used to have a slight negative correlation with losing, that's changed of recent years to neutral or a slight positive correlation.  I actually wasn't expecting this. 

 

I think it may be stronger correlation with losing because throwing lots of passes doesn't necessarily mean one is gaining lots of yards.  Looking at 300 yd games is looking at games where a team has passed a lot of times successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

What is a better game in terms of trying to get to points often?
 

a RB going for 120

 

or a QB going for 320


The fact that you had to ask gives pause: we have given up many 100+ rushers but not points. 320 passing is a different story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

Good analysis, Hap, but it would be helpful to look at situational play-calling too. Some of those passes were thrown when the team was trailing by two scores, while others were part of the typical run/pass balance. It would be interesting to see how those situations affected the W-L records.

 

Any statisticians out there want to run an ANOVA test on this? ?

 

 

I've run enough tests of statistical significance in my time to have a pretty good sense of how they'll turn out ?.

 

It would be helpful to look at lots of things, but that's not the point.  I'm a simple Hapless Fan, and I asked a simple question and got an answer. 

 

I'm sure you're correct if one drills into situational play calling, one will pretty easily find places where a pass-heavy offense is advantageous or neutral to the outcome (the outcome was determined prior to the shootout)
 

If we want to think about this in the context of the Bills-Browns game though, the maximum score the Bills were behind was 6 points from early in the 1st through the middle of the 2nd Q.  For the rest of the game we were either leading, tied, or behind by only a FG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The take away from this exercise, to me, is some people are truly half glass empty people and cannot see a positive if it stared them in the face. They loathe simply to loathe. 
 

Why even root for this team? If you believe yourself to be that much better, why aren’t you in the NFL ranks? Discussion is always welcome so long as it’s rational. If not, then what’s the point?

 

This team is 6-3. That’s a positive. Last year it was if Josh fixes his short game all will be well. He’s done that. Then it was if he stops turning the ball over. He’s done that. Still, calling for his head. 
 

It’s all just silly. When steering a large ship, everything is INCREMENTAL. Time to recognize this fact. 
 

Mahomes threw for what the other night? 400+? Still lost. That’s reality. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...