Matt39 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Long read- but worth the time http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/nfl-quarterbacks-air-yards-vs-yards-after-catch-1992-2012/23605/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 You have to love that the one animated gif in this article is of the Jets getting raped by the Pats and more specifically, good ole Danny Woodhead. While they are certainly some interesting stats, I'm not sure there is much to really take away from it. The second paragraph of the article kind of brings into question everything that comes after it: Some will argue the quarterback’s accuracy and ball placement is directly tied into the YAC. A well thrown pass in stride gives the receiver every chance to maximize YAC while a poorly thrown ball that needs adjusted to could see the receiver fall to the ground just to make the catch. While this certainly doesn't apply to everyone throughout the NFL, how exactly are these numbers supposed to identify when a crappy passer is responsible for the struggles of his WRs or vice versa? Anyone who's watched Sanchez's sorry ass for these past few years know about his notoriously constant tendency to throw the ball behind his receivers at any and all times, even on the simplest of friggin slant plays. In the case of a guy like Sanchez, that is easily verified by his abysmal completion percentage throughout his entire career, but it's not necessarily so blatantly obvious for other players. The point being, I think even with crappy WRs to throw to, proper ball placement is still going to account for far more yards than the occasional screen passes that the author seems to have his panties in a bunch over. Of course you can't dismiss the reality that there are some exceptional players in the league who are far better at racking up YAC than their fellow WRs/RBs, but you can't just look at numbers and assume it's one or the other. After all, we've also seen plenty of those types over the years get themselves killed, at least in part at the hands of some awful QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted July 23, 2013 Author Share Posted July 23, 2013 You have to love that the one animated gif in this article is of the Jets getting raped by the Pats and more specifically, good ole Danny Woodhead. Personally- the Browning Nagle stat was the best. Of course this gif surfaced last week as well: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 When I see a stat chart that sandwiches Mark Sanchez's career ranking #s smack in between Matt Ryan and John Elway, with minimal statistical difference among them, what does it tell me? It tells me that on its own the stat isn't worth paying attention to since two of them are/were pro bowlers almost every year and the third is a bottom-5 starting QB almost every year, For the most part, you have to use your eyes. Because you can have a few long plays that skew overall averages so much (like that one with Woodhead) that it suggests that is an average. And that can be dictated more by opportunity. If a guy is open in the flat, and the coverage left lots of daylight in front of him, then he can get 10, 20, 50 yards out of it. It would be interesting if they determined what the "average" YAC was by situation and then calculated what percentage of the time the QBs' passes yielded that YAC or more (i.e. who cares about YAC if the pass is completed in the EZ?). Say the "goal" is x% of the yards between the catch and the EZ. Just to make up a number, say a catch is made 50 yds from the EZ and the average YAC, league-wide over the past 1 year or 10 years or whatever, in that situation is 5 YAC. That's 10% of the distance. Or treat a certain distance between the catch and the EZ as "infinity" (what YAC difference should honestly be expected on a given play 85 yards to the EZ as opposed to 45 yards to the EZ?). Anyway, figure out based on whatever criteria is considered "meaningful" and then see what percentage of the time that average was achieved. It speaks more to a QB's ball placement (theoretically, anyway) if 5 of his passes in a row yielded 7.0 YAC than if one RB dumpoff yielded 30 yards and then 4 WR/TE completions yielded a total of 5 combined yards. In determining "averages" for YAC they are treated as equals. In reality, one is likely placing the ball far better than the other on a consistent basis and the 30 yard scamper by the RB is an anomaly. But if you're instead looking at how often a goal-YAC is reached, now you're looking at 100% vs 20% of completions getting >5.0 YAC or something). Or you should be looking at both stats at the very least. Strange that a football site called coldhardfootballfacts wouldn't take into account this cold hard football fact. I'd think a site like theirs (or FO or whatever) would have looked at both and come up with some ranking by weighting the two stats against each other. Just like for QBs one should look at both completion percentage AND yards per completion. Completing dumpoffs is easier than completing passes downfield, but straight completion percentage treats 1-yard passes exactly the same as 51-yard passes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Personally- the Browning Nagle stat was the best. Of course this gif surfaced last week as well: Ah thanks I tried to find this play last year when the butt fumble happened. Couldn't. Jets have a long history of outstanding QB play. Shuffle pass anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted July 23, 2013 Author Share Posted July 23, 2013 When I see a stat chart that sandwiches Mark Sanchez's career ranking #s smack in between Matt Ryan and John Elway, with minimal statistical difference among them, what does it tell me? It tells me that on its own the stat isn't worth paying attention to since two of them are/were pro bowlers almost every year and the third is a bottom-5 starting QB almost every year, For the most part, you have to use your eyes. Because you can have a few long plays that skew overall averages so much (like that one with Woodhead) that it suggests that is an average. And that can be dictated more by opportunity. If a guy is open in the flat, and the coverage left lots of daylight in front of him, then he can get 10, 20, 50 yards out of it. It would be interesting if they determined what the "average" YAC was by situation and then calculated what percentage of the time the QBs' passes yielded that YAC or more (i.e. who cares about YAC if the pass is completed in the EZ?). Say the "goal" is x% of the yards between the catch and the EZ. Just to make up a number, say a catch is made 50 yds from the EZ and the average YAC, league-wide over the past 1 year or 10 years or whatever, in that situation is 5 YAC. That's 10% of the distance. Or treat a certain distance between the catch and the EZ as "infinity" (what YAC difference should honestly be expected on a given play 85 yards to the EZ as opposed to 45 yards to the EZ?). Anyway, figure out based on whatever criteria is considered "meaningful" and then see what percentage of the time that average was achieved. It speaks more to a QB's ball placement (theoretically, anyway) if 5 of his passes in a row yielded 7.0 YAC than if one RB dumpoff yielded 30 yards and then 4 WR/TE completions yielded a total of 5 combined yards. In determining "averages" for YAC they are treated as equals. In reality, one is likely placing the ball far better than the other on a consistent basis and the 30 yard scamper by the RB is an anomaly. But if you're instead looking at how often a goal-YAC is reached, now you're looking at 100% vs 20% of completions getting >5.0 YAC or something). Or you should be looking at both stats at the very least. Strange that a football site called coldhardfootballfacts wouldn't take into account this cold hard football fact. I'd think a site like theirs (or FO or whatever) would have looked at both and come up with some ranking by weighting the two stats against each other. Just like for QBs one should look at both completion percentage AND yards per completion. Completing dumpoffs is easier than completing passes downfield, but straight completion percentage treats 1-yard passes exactly the same as 51-yard passes. Sperm coming into my thread and crushing the buildings ala Snoop Doggy Dog. Nicely done. How long did that post tak you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Sperm coming into my thread and crushing the buildings ala Snoop Doggy Dog. Nicely done. How long did that post tak you? 10 minutes? I don't know I wasn't looking at the clock. However long it took to type it plus a couple of minutes to rewrite a sentence here or there. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted July 23, 2013 Author Share Posted July 23, 2013 10 minutes? I don't know I wasn't looking at the clock. However long it took to type it plus a couple of minutes to rewrite a sentence here or there. Why? I was kidding. It was a great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 I was kidding. It was a great post. I saw that chart that went, in sequence, Ryan-Sanchez-Elway. And then I was like, what stupid stat would ever have those 3 equally ranked as passers? And I needed to do my part to squash the stat like a bug, lest Sanchez be viewed upon favorably by anyone who isn't offering us draft picks for him right now. If we had a real passer/playmaker instead of this jerkoff we'd have been in at least 1 superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted July 23, 2013 Author Share Posted July 23, 2013 I saw that chart that went, in sequence, Ryan-Sanchez-Elway. And then I was like, what stupid stat would ever have those 3 equally ranked as passers? And I needed to do my part to squash the stat like a bug, lest Sanchez be viewed upon favorably by anyone who isn't offering us draft picks for him right now. If we had a real passer/playmaker instead of this jerkoff we'd have been in at least 1 superbowl. A buttfumble gif would have sufficed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 A buttfumble gif would have sufficed lol If only they were readily available on the internet. If only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeKlecko Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Ah thanks I tried to find this play last year when the butt fumble happened. Couldn't. Jets have a long history of outstanding QB play. Shuffle pass anyone? Yeah, can't believe there's not a gif out there for it too. Wasn't that Bubby Brister, or was that Jack Trudeau? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Yeah, can't believe there's not a gif out there for it too. Wasn't that Bubby Brister, or was that Jack Trudeau? Brister I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeKlecko Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Brister I believe I'm pretty sure it was Brister, but think Trudeau had a lateral or an aborted handoff or fumble that looked about as stupid and went for 6 in the wrong direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted July 23, 2013 Author Share Posted July 23, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peebag Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 check out the vid at 3:08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEKn4b13wSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 It's funny that Sam Mills (R.I.P) is the guy on the receiving end of both those gifts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.