QB who can pass to victory - a myth?

Rock-A-Bye Beasley · November 13, 2019

14 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

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.

The premise is flawed BECAUSE you’re not asserting causation. Why should I care in that case?

Besides, even if I’m accepting everything I want a top-tier QB anyway. So that’s my answer.

Hapless Bills Fan · November 13, 2019

28 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.

We're really going here and you can respect it and me or don't. Before we go there though, tell me what you see as the premise of this thread? Because at least a couple of other people seem to have missed it.

28 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

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

And I wouldn't argue with that.

But given this, I would look very carefully at the impact of a rush game.

28 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

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 really didn't do this to make some big point about the current Bills offense. We need to score more points. We need to be better.

But I also didn't expect it to have the result it did. I expected it to be more neutral, or I expected it to change as I worked my way down the passing attempts.

Given this result, if I were running analytics for a football team I would at least deep dive into the impact of a run/pass balance on game outcomes.

And yes, of course you have a point that in the final assessment, it's not just what you dial up, but whether or not it works that matters.

Hapless Bills Fan · November 13, 2019

8 minutes ago, Chemical said:

The premise is flawed BECAUSE you’re not asserting causation. Why should I care in that case?

If you don't care, why read the thread?

If you don't understand that statistics is not about asserting causation, you possibly did more than just miss some lectures.

Quote

Besides, even if I’m accepting everything I want a top-tier QB anyway. So that’s my answer.

I want a pony. And dammit, a ticket to Belize.

Augie · November 13, 2019

6 minutes ago, Chemical said:

The premise is flawed BECAUSE you’re not asserting causation. Why should I care in that case?

Besides, even if I’m accepting everything I want a top-tier QB anyway. So that’s my answer.

I want a lake house in the mountains and a place in Florida for the winters. You get what you get, can you live with it? I’m managing so far. You OK?

Hapless Bills Fan · November 13, 2019

47 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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.

Damn. First years he played regularly, 7W-4L at 35 or over passes so same ~2-1 split as Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson have now. He only had 3 such games his first year though.

Augie · November 13, 2019

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I want a pony. And dammit, a ticket to Belize.

You made me look greedy! You may be more wise than I ever expected!

Shaw66 · November 13, 2019

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Damn. First years he played regularly, 7W-4L at 35 or over passes so same ~2-1 split as Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson have now. He only had 3 such games his first year though.

I did over 35. Seems like he wins every game with exactly 35 attempts.

As for causation, no one can anything with simple analysis. It's complicated. But I gave a logical explanation about why balance works best. I proposed a theory. And your data is consistent with the theory, so that's something.

Rock-A-Bye Beasley · November 13, 2019

19 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

If you don't care, why read the thread?

If you don't understand that statistics is not about asserting causation, you possibly did more than just miss some lectures.

I want a pony. And dammit, a ticket to Belize.

You keep saying I don’t understand which is not true. But good attempt at insulting me a second time with the same BS about missing lectures.

I’m not trying to be rude, just pointing out this is pointless if it’s not proving anything.

SlimShady'sSpaceForce · November 13, 2019

Based on what I’ve seen Josh has 4 comebacks and 5 game winning drives (right?)

the problem is the first 3 quarters

Make that

5 comebacks, 7 game-winning drives

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AlleJo02.htm

Edited November 13, 2019 by SlimShady'sGhost

oldmanfan · November 13, 2019

2 minutes ago, Chemical said:

You keep saying I don’t understand which is not true. But good attempt at insulting me a second time with the same BS about missing lectures.

I’m not trying to be rude, just pointing out this is pointless if it’s not proving anything.

It’s not pointless. It is an interesting data set that, if this were a scientific endeavor, would suggest further experimentation and analysis. Does it definitively prove or disprove anything? No.

Hapless Bills Fan · November 13, 2019

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It’s not pointless. It is an interesting data set that, if this were a scientific endeavor, would suggest further experimentation and analysis. Does it definitively prove or disprove anything? No.

someone who gets it.

Mr. WEO · November 13, 2019

1 hour 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 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, Mason Rudolph and Desean Watson. Mahomes and LJax even 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.

Isn the point of this analysis to assert that a team doesn't need a talented passer at QB? That high passing attempts alone, regardless of whether the QB is very good at throwing them, is a negative predictor of success? That you don't need a top passer to win a lot games?

25 of 32 teams (the good and the bad) throw for more than 55% of their Offensive snaps. Also, lots of football has been played before 2019...

First down with their feet "anytime"? No such team. Tossing out outlier Baltimore (11 per game), the next best is under 8 poor game rushing. Baltimore has 12 per game--near the bottom. 25 teams have more than 11 passing first downs per game.

Bottom line: if your D is bad, you're gonna throw a lot.

Rock-A-Bye Beasley · November 13, 2019

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It’s not pointless. It is an interesting data set that, if this were a scientific endeavor, would suggest further experimentation and analysis. Does it definitively prove or disprove anything? No.

“What is the W-L outcome, actually, when a team's QB passes for most of the plays in a game?”

that question is pointless.

Hapless Bills Fan · November 13, 2019

30 minutes ago, Augie said:

You made me look greedy! You may be more wise than I ever expected!

I'm not sure but what a lake house in the mountains might be less expensive than a pony.
You can always rent it out when you're not using it.

9 minutes ago, Chemical said:

You keep saying I don’t understand which is not true. But good attempt at insulting me a second time with the same BS about missing lectures.

I’m not trying to be rude, just pointing out this is pointless if it’s not proving anything.

Except of course, that you keep demonstrating it is true. It's OK to not understand - lots of people today don't "get" how science works, hypothesis testing, statistics and so forth, but it's useful to know what you don't know. If I wanted to insult you, you would most unambiguously know it. Against my ethics here damn the luck.

This is how it works.

1) Someone has an idea - "Huh, everyone keeps talking about how important passing is in the NFL and it's a passing-centered league. I wonder what the actual W-L outcome is when teams pass more than they run? How could I look at that?"

2) A bit of thought given to what would be a reasonable test - "Hmmm, league average is 63 offensive plays per game. Let's just look at what happens when teams pass a bit more than they run, maybe 10% more. 55% pass plays. What would that be? 25 passes. I'm going to guess that teams win more than they lose when they pass more than 25 times. (that's called the hypothesis)

3) Collect the data and look at the result. Huh. Hypothesis rejected - teams actually don't win 2/3 of the time when they pass more than 25 times

4) Think about why that might be and do further studies to confirm or reject those reasons

There is also 2a) examine the test used and consider if the methodology was valid, but that's not what you're doing.

I mean, you can not care and all that, it's fine, but "pointless unless proving anything" or "premise flawed if it doesn't show causation" is just a fundamental lack of understanding of how science and engineering work and how statistics support them. Sorry for the lecture, helping people understand science is important to me in real life.

Hapless Bills Fan · November 13, 2019

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Isn the point of this analysis to assert that a team doesn't need a talented passer at QB? That high passing attempts alone, regardless of whether the QB is very good at throwing them, is a negative predictor of success? That you don't need a top passer to win a lot games?

25 of 32 teams (the good and the bad) throw for more than 55% of their Offensive snaps. Also, lots of football has been played before 2019...

First down with their feet "anytime"? No such team. Tossing out outlier Baltimore (11 per game), the next best is under 8 poor game rushing. Baltimore has 12 per game--near the bottom. 25 teams have more than 11 passing first downs per game.

Bottom line: if your D is bad, you're gonna throw a lot.

No, not at all. You need a talented QB to win, I'm sure of it. But there seems to be this idea that teams that pass a lot, win a lot; that a talented QB (with some talent around him on OL and WR) should be able to win on his arm, without much support from a run game.

That doesn't seem to be true so far this year, is the point.

The overall offensive snaps thing averages R/P balance over all games. Looking at individual games and the balance there vs outcome, is a different question.

oldmanfan · November 13, 2019

26 minutes ago, Chemical said:

“What is the W-L outcome, actually, when a team's QB passes for most of the plays in a game?”

that question is pointless.

No. It’s a question. The answer makes you go hmmmm. Wonder what that might mean? Maybe look a little deeper.

A lot of Nobel prize winners started by asking a simple question, then going hmmmm.

Rock-A-Bye Beasley · November 13, 2019

11 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I'm not sure but what a lake house in the mountains might be less expensive than a pony.
You can always rent it out when you're not using it.

Except of course, that you keep demonstrating it is true. It's OK to not understand - lots of people today don't "get" how science works, hypothesis testing, statistics and so forth, but it's useful to know what you don't know. If I wanted to insult you, you would most unambiguously know it. Against my ethics here damn the luck.

This is how it works.

1) Someone has an idea - "Huh, everyone keeps talking about how important passing is in the NFL and it's a passing-centered league. I wonder what the actual W-L outcome is when teams pass more than they run? How could I look at that?"

2) A bit of thought given to what would be a reasonable test - "Hmmm, league average is 63 offensive plays per game. Let's just look at what happens when teams pass a bit more than they run, maybe 10% more. 55% pass plays. What would that be? 25 passes. I'm going to guess that teams win more than they lose when they pass more than 25 times. (that's called the hypothesis)

3) Collect the data and look at the result. Huh. Hypothesis rejected - teams actually don't win 2/3 of the time when they pass more than 25 times

4) Think about why that might be and do further studies to confirm or reject those reasons

There is also 2a) examine the test used and consider if the methodology was valid, but that's not what you're doing.

I mean, you can not care and all that, it's fine, but "pointless unless proving anything" or "premise flawed if it doesn't show causation" is just a fundamental lack of understanding of how science and engineering work and how statistics support them. Sorry for the lecture, helping people understand science is important to me in real life.

Pointless drivel. The initial question is so useless that all your “scientific” analysis is a waste of time.

(I have multiple college degrees btw so don’t waste your time)

” I wonder what the actual W-L outcome is when teams pass more than they run? “

Once you answer that question then what? What does it tell you if it’s only a correlation and a loose one at that?

Nextmanup · November 13, 2019

Winning with the arm of your QB doesn't mean "throw all the time" so in that sense, this experiment is flawed before it begins.

You are also going to retrieve tons of "bad" data from teams that are getting blown out and have to go into pass mode early and stay there for large portions of the game.

It's kind of a foolish experiment.

I think we can all agree that your chances of winning are better if you have a good throwing passer.

Don't take my word for it. have a look at the final 4 teams each year for the last decade and report back on whether or not they had a good passing QB.

oldmanfan · November 13, 2019

5 minutes ago, Chemical said:

Pointless drivel. The initial question is so useless that all your “scientific” analysis is a waste of time.

(I have multiple college degrees btw so don’t waste your time)

” I wonder what the actual W-L outcome is when teams pass more than they run? “

Once you answer that question then what? What does it tell you if it’s only a correlation and a loose one at that?

It tells you to look deeper into the question. Again, it is not meant to provide a definitive answer.

I’d be curious what your degrees are in and whether you’ve conducted research.

5 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

Winning with the arm of your QB doesn't mean "throw all the time" so in that sense, this experiment is flawed before it begins.

You are also going to retrieve tons of "bad" data from teams that are getting blown out and have to go into pass mode early and stay there for large portions of the game.

It's kind of a foolish experiment.

I think we can all agree that your chances of winning are better if you have a good throwing passer.

Don't take my word for it. have a look at the final 4 teams each year for the last decade and report back on whether or not they had a good passing QB.

You need a good passer. But you might also benefit from a good runner.

Jerome007 · November 13, 2019

25 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You need a good passer. But you might also benefit from a good runner.

A great offensive line makes both suddenly look way better. A lot of pieces matter in the puzzle. Yet all teams have string and weak points. Good coaches adjust to their own and their opponents'. Once in a while, a team is stacked at some positions, but even then, it's most often close fights, and Any Given Sunday applies.

oldmanfan · November 13, 2019

8 minutes ago, Jerome007 said:

A great offensive line makes both suddenly look way better. A lot of pieces matter in the puzzle. Yet all teams have string and weak points. Good coaches adjust to their own and their opponents'. Once in a while, a team is stacked at some positions, but even then, it's most often close fights, and Any Given Sunday applies.

Well stated

dubs · November 13, 2019

3 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

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

this is what saw time after time. Single high safety, tight bump off the LOS. That just screams go deep, which we couldn’t hit.

SinceThe70s · November 13, 2019

On 11/2/2019 at 5:59 PM, SinceThe70s said:

I thought it would be interesting to extend this to rushing yards. I didn't bother with points scored - because the easiest way I found to get the wins/losses didn't include it. I'm not sure why you got 55% for 300+ whereas I got around 54%, but close enough. Also, there are only 256 games in a regular season so I'm not sure where you came up with 2370 games over 4 1/2 years. My total games (without ties) came to 1141. I also used more granular intervals to see if there were trends: 25 for rushing and 40 for passing.

It appears to me that there's a more direct correlation between rushing yards and winning than passing yards and winning. Whether this is cause or effect is either debatable or beyond my ability to determine through stats. Anyway, what jumps out for me is that the winning percentage for passing yards plateaus and even at the 240-280 range for passing yards the percentage is favorable. So far this year the Bills average 215 passing yards and 130 rushing yards per game which puts them at 51% and 66% on the passing and rushing chart below respectively. They're actual winning percentage is 71%. Here's the data I pulled using the same site:

Rushing Yds W L Win % Passing Yds W L Win %
>275 10 0 100% >440 10 10 50%
250-275 19 2 90% 400-440 17 14 55%
225-250 30 6 83% 360-400 43 40 52%
200-225 45 10 82% 320-360 106 89 54%
175-200 92 31 75% 280-320 178 153 54%
150-175 153 64 71% 240-280 223 191 54%
125-150 203 104 66% 200-240 230 225 51%
100-125 239 211 53% 160-200 190 209 48%
75-100 208 280 43% 120-160 98 129 43%
50-75 107 272 28% 80-120 40 54 43%
25-50 32 141 18% 40-80 6 24 20%
0-25 3 20 13% 0-40 0 3 0%

3 hours 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

Disclosure: I'll admit that quoting myself is bad form AND I'm not clear on your 'better game' criteria. To me a better game is winning. Caveats out of the way:

In another thread I pulled the stats above which to me shows a clear correlation between winning and rushing yards and a not so clear correlation between winning and passing yards.

The stats above would suggest that a RB going for 120 is comparable to a a QB throwing for 320. However, make it 125 on the ground and things look differently. Make it 400 in the air and nothing changes.

Hapless Bills Fan · November 13, 2019

1 hour ago, dubs said:

this is what saw time after time. Single high safety, tight bump off the LOS. That just screams go deep, which we couldn’t hit.

It does. But an OC has to adjust to the strengths and limitations of his actual Jimmies and Joes.

7 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

Disclosure: I'll admit that quoting myself is bad form AND I'm not clear on your 'better game' criteria. To me a better game is winning. Caveats out of the way:

In another thread I pulled the stats above which to me shows a clear correlation between winning and rushing yards and a not so clear correlation between winning and passing yards.

The stats above would suggest that a RB going for 120 is comparable to a a QB throwing for 320. However, make it 125 on the ground and things look differently. Make it 400 in the air and nothing changes.

I'm glad you quoted yourself. Wish you added the link. That looks like interesting stuff. Mango's thread, is it?
Fundamentally, it confirms something I found empirically when I was rummaging around with QB quality vs draft position: that a QB has to generate around 220 ypg to be a guy the team can win with consistently (your brackets are 200-240/240-260 - so somewhere between 200-260). But then more yards don't really correlate with more wins. Interesting.

Search function...*rummage rummage*

(you can click on the posting date under your screen name to get the direct link to the post, FYI)

Reed83HOF · November 13, 2019

4 hours 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.

.

OK boomer

Not really and I agree, just wanted to try that out :nana:

4 hours ago, 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.

Not a lot of great QBs and great QB play LOL

You can go back to Marino, if he had a balanced running game - they would have been a lot tougher

Reed83HOF · November 13, 2019

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

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.

Best post I have seen here in awhile!

Thurman#1 · November 13, 2019

I'm

6 hours 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 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, Mason Rudolph and Desean Watson. Mahomes and LJax even 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.

Didn't want to read through the whole thread. And I assume somebody already said this, but maybe it's worth repeating.

Most QBs who throw a lot do so because their team is already well behind. So of course you're going to see most QBs who throw a lot lose. And teams that are well ahead are going to want to burn time so they will run more.

So the problem isn't that teams that pass a lot lose. It's that teams that are losing pass a lot.

It would be interesting (but a squatload of work) to look at win-loss records of teams with QBs who throw a high percentage of the time without being, for example, more than six points behind. I suspect that win-loss record would be a ton better.