Is the NFL close to starting QB saturation?

[jmt57]

Here is the thing with trying to use stats to judge football players. You can't.

Bortles 2015 vs Brady 2004

It id utterly impossible to compare two quarterbacks via statistics, since the two have different everything - different coaches, offensive linemen, receivers, running backs, receivers, etc. There are so many different variables that greatly impact a quarterback's performance, yet few take that into consideration.

While I believe you have a valid point, I'd really like to compare two players from the same year instead.

The game has changed dramatically over the course of Brady's career. He led the NFL with 28 touchdown passes in 2002; that would have ranked 14th in 2015. In 2004 there were 11 starting quarterbacks with passer ratings over 90; last year there were 17, the year before there were 19.

2015 stats are better than 2004 stats across the board, which makes comparing Bortles' 2015 stats to Brady's 2004 stats meaningless. If you are going to compare, then the best way would be to see how each ranked in various stats that year, rather than just comparing the raw stats.

In this case:

Passing Yards
7th - --2015 Bortles - (4,428)
10th -- 2004 Brady - (3,692)

Touchdowns
2nd (tie) - 2015 Bortles - (35)
6th -- 2014 Brady - (28)

Interceptions
32nd - 2015 Bortles - (18)
12th -- 2004 Brady - (14)

Interception Percentage
21st -- 2015 Bortles - (3.0)
8th --- 2004 Brady - (3.0)

Passer Rating
23rd - 2015 Bortles - (88.2)
9th -- 2004 Brady - (92.6)

Completion Percentage
31st -- 2015 Bortles - (58.6)
17th -- 2004 Brady - (60.8)

Yards per Attempt
15th -- 2015 Bortles - (7.31)
10th -- 2004 Brady - (7.79)


Bortles does better in passing yards and TD passes, but it's not close at all in interceptions, passer rating and completion percentage.

Combining all these categories Bortles' average rank was 19th, while Brady's average rank was 10th. That's how much of a difference there is in the passing game between those two years. Head to head the two players raw numbers look the same, but in reality one quarterback's season was far superior to the other's.

 

[varjao]

Andy lol.

Andy I'm simply adding some context to the Carr discussion. I think he's a very good QB.

And I absolutely think Mariota is as good if not better. Esp when you look at everything (Experience in the league, team their surrounded with, their overall impact etc)

And again I'm just pointing out out that Oakland is due to regress if you believe in this trend save the Colts

2015 Denver Broncos (9-3 in close games, 12-4 record to 9-7 in 2016)

2015 Carolina Panthers (6-1 in close games, 15-1 record to 8-8 in 2016)

2014 Green Bay Packers (5-0 in close games, 12-4 record to 10-6 in 2015)

2014 Detroit Lions (6-1 in close games, 11-5 record to 7-9 in 2015)

2012 Houston Texans (5-0 in close games, 12-4 record to 2-14 in 2013)

2012 Atlanta Falcons (7-2 in close games, 13-3 record to 4-12 in 2013)

2011 Oakland Raiders (7-2 in close games, 8-8 record to 4-12 in 2012)

2010 Atlanta Falcons (7-2 in close games, 13-3 record to 10-6 in 2011)

2009 San Diego Chargers (6-1 in close games, 13-3 record to 9-7 in 2010)

2009 Indianapolis Colts (7-0 in close games, 14-2 record to 10-6 in 2010)

2008 Miami Dolphins (7-2 in close games, 11-5 record to 7-9 in 2009)


As far as Lynch is concerned no one knows exactly how hes feeling today. Which is all that matters.

Seattles olines were borderline awful at times and average most.

Oakland has a great line and their running style suits him fine. And it's not like they don't have plenty of other weapons.

What exactly does this trend says?

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

What exactly does this trend says?

Basically that "lucky" teams regress after so many wins by a single score. Teams listed above all fall into that category and did worse the year after.

Oakland is more likely looking at 9-10 wins than a repeat of last year

 

[Ring 6]

It id utterly impossible to compare two quarterbacks via statistics, since the two have different everything - different coaches, offensive linemen, receivers, running backs, receivers, etc. There are so many different variables that greatly impact a quarterback's performance, yet few take that into consideration.

While I believe you have a valid point, I'd really like to compare two players from the same year instead.

The game has changed dramatically over the course of Brady's career. He led the NFL with 28 touchdown passes in 2002; that would have ranked 14th in 2015. In 2004 there were 11 starting quarterbacks with passer ratings over 90; last year there were 17, the year before there were 19.

2015 stats are better than 2004 stats across the board, which makes comparing Bortles' 2015 stats to Brady's 2004 stats meaningless. If you are going to compare, then the best way would be to see how each ranked in various stats that year, rather than just comparing the raw stats.

In this case:

Passing Yards
7th - --2015 Bortles - (4,428)
10th -- 2004 Brady - (3,692)

Touchdowns
2nd (tie) - 2015 Bortles - (35)
6th -- 2014 Brady - (28)

Interceptions
32nd - 2015 Bortles - (18)
12th -- 2004 Brady - (14)

Interception Percentage
21st -- 2015 Bortles - (3.0)
8th --- 2004 Brady - (3.0)

Passer Rating
23rd - 2015 Bortles - (88.2)
9th -- 2004 Brady - (92.6)

Completion Percentage
31st -- 2015 Bortles - (58.6)
17th -- 2004 Brady - (60.8)

Yards per Attempt
15th -- 2015 Bortles - (7.31)
10th -- 2004 Brady - (7.79)


Bortles does better in passing yards and TD passes, but it's not close at all in interceptions, passer rating and completion percentage.

Combining all these categories Bortles' average rank was 19th, while Brady's average rank was 10th. That's how much of a difference there is in the passing game between those two years. Head to head the two players raw numbers look the same, but in reality one quarterback's season was far superior to the other's.

I made this example for 2 reasons.
First because a comment was made that bortles never sniffed Marriotts numbers when he exceeded them, then someone brought up ints, someone else brought up Brady and o showed a QB with 14 ints went 17-2 so 18 probably doesn't disqualify all of his stats.

Secondly to show that you can't compare QBs with stats which this is obvious proof of.

 

[Deus Irae]

Andy I'm simply adding some context to the Carr discussion. I think he's a very good QB.

And I absolutely think Mariota is as good if not better.

He's not

 

[stinkypete]

No way.

Out of the group of Kizer, Bortles, Watson, Mahomes, Lynch, Wentz, Goff and Trubisky, probably half are going to bust outright. Another couple are going to peak out as merely adequate - Alex Smith or Tannahill types.

Taylor has never been better than a .500 QB, and Bradford has only reached .500 once.

Brady, Brees, Roethlisburger, Manning and Rivers will all likely be out of the league within 5 years. Rodgers could be as well.

 

[Ring 6]

Basically that "lucky" teams regress after so many wins by a single score. Teams listed above all fall into that category and did worse the year after.

Oakland is more likely looking at 9-10 wins than a repeat of last year

No, what it says is some teams decline and some improve.
Teams won close games by making plays. It's not a math problem. its not like flipping a coin that will even out over time.

 

[varjao]

No way.

Out of the group of Kizer, Bortles, Watson, Mahomes, Lynch, Wentz, Goff and Trubisky, probably half are going to bust outright. Another couple are going to peak out as merely adequate - Alex Smith or Tannahill types.

Yeah, agree. From that list I will put by chips on Watson, I think at least the mental strength he has already shown in College. Now needs to put in the hard work, I think he can be a good QB in the NFL.