Zach Wilson - "Different QB the 2nd Half of the Year"

[FidelioJet]

11 hours ago, Snook said:

If you’re going to remove the worst then you kinda have to remove the best. I think one of the hardest things about evaluating stats is that stats need a sort of balancing out before you can judge them. There are too many variables.

Remove it from what?

We're not giving out awards here - we're discussing if his second half was better than his first.

But it you insist on that and since we're talking about stats - his best game was in the first half.  You can have that one...I'll take the Eagles, Jax and Tampa games to see how he got better..

and use his best statistical (week 4 v. Tenn) to show how much better he is than that game by just watching them.

[Warfish]

22 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Remove it from what?

We're not giving out awards here - we're discussing if his second half was better than his first.

But it you insist on that and since we're talking about stats - his best game was in the first half.  You can have that one...I'll take the Eagles, Jax and Tampa games to see how he got better..

and use his best statistical (week 4 v. Tenn) to show how much better he is than that game by just watching them.

It's pretty common in statistical analysis to remove outliers, often taking out a best and a worst from the data set, then performing analysis of the remaining data set.  I believe it's intended to get more of a baseline normal performance without the effect of unusual outliers (like the Bills game).

If you really want to be a nerd, you could do a standard normal distribution of the statistics and then see if any of the games fall outside the standard deviation of +-3, removing any that do so as outliers, and then analyze the rest.  Been a while since I took Statistics, but I believe this is the way to handle outliers in statistical analysis more formally.

 

[Snook]

43 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Remove it from what?

We're not giving out awards here - we're discussing if his second half was better than his first.

But it you insist on that and since we're talking about stats - his best game was in the first half.  You can have that one...I'll take the Eagles, Jax and Tampa games to see how he got better..

and use his best statistical (week 4 v. Tenn) to show how much better he is than that game by just watching them.

My post was a response to removing the Buffalo game. I actually quoted it.

[FidelioJet]

15 minutes ago, Warfish said:

It's pretty common in statistical analysis to remove outliers, often taking out a best and a worst from the data set, then performing analysis of the remaining data set.  I believe it's intended to get more of a baseline normal performance without the effect of unusual outliers (like the Bills game).

If you really want to be a nerd, you could do a standard normal distribution of the statistics and then see if any of the games fall outside the standard deviation of +-3, removing any that do so as outliers, and then analyze the rest.  Been a while since I took Statistics, but I believe this is the way to handle outliers in statistical analysis more formally.

 

I get it...

I understand the concept - but we're not giving out awards here - we're trying to determine if he's gotten better - reviewing everything in the aggregate is a far better way to get that understanding, that should include non-statistical data.

With that said, I agree if this is solely for the purposes of statistical analysis - it's a reasonable exercise to undertake.  

In this scenario though his best performance would be in the first half of the year and worst would be in the 2nd...only making a stronger case for the 2nd half being better.

[GangGreened]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

For everyone who has posted some variation of "Zach had no talent around him to work with/support him, our skill players are "trash", how could he have done better", how do you feel about JD as GM so far?

I’d like to hear some responses to this as well. It appears we have become one of/the most injured team in football once JD took over though.

[FidelioJet]

18 minutes ago, Snook said:

My post was a response to removing the Buffalo game. I actually quoted it.

Yeah, you're right. I missed it.

I just think it's a silly exercise - but I understand your point.    Sorry 'bout that.

[Snook]

1 minute ago, FidelioJet said:

Yeah, you're right. I missed it.

I just think it's a silly exercise - but I understand your point.    Sorry 'bout that.

?

I agree with you completely 

[FidelioJet]

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I’m not locked in on him either way. It’s why I still prefer a more realistic QB2 than Flacco, since the lack of a serious alternative ensures Wilson’s the QB for another 10 games even if he’s terrible out of the gate for the first month, but I haven’t seen enough to throw in the towel on him either.

Games like Buffalo and Miami in particular here’s where I’m at: the situation was so ridiculous in each I’m not sharply critical of him for not having good numbers. But I’m also not crediting him as though he had good QB stats either. A lot of his post-yips second half were in raw deal games like that.

There are legitimate reasons for not putting up numbers. I accept that, so meh to late season stats — on a Jets team with lousy blocking and lousy WRs & TEs as though those are objective non-factors. But it’s also not objective assessment to automatically assume he’d have looked like a really good QB in the absence of those raw deals either. That’s too big of a grading curve for me.

We’ll see what he is next year with his rookie lumps in the rearview mirror, a better roster around him, and offensive coaches who should likewise only improve. If he falls on his face again we don’t need to see a third season of it.

Yes.

I think exactly for the reason you posted above we really just need to look at him as a player, how he looked on the field.  His comfort level, his eyes, his feet, his accuracy to determine if we believe he progressed.

Would he have put up bigger numbers had the team not been decimated?  I don't know - no way to know that.  I hope that  would have been the case - but we don't know. 

Only thing I know is he looked more like an NFL QB since coming back from an injury. 

Does that mean it will translate to next year? No. Does it mean he'll come back next year and not start dirting balls all over again? No...

But to me, there's clearly something there to build on and something to be optimistic about.

[bla bla bla]

Depends how you look at it, is the narrative post bye week he played well or post injury? I thought he looked good before the injury in the Pats game. Pass defense ranks, this is per PFF:

Before Bye: 20th, 2nd, 22nd, 6th, 26th

After After Bye: 2nd, 32nd, 14th, 5th, 9th, 29th, 3rd, 4th 

 

6 of the hardest 8 pass defenses on our schedule game after the bye week, if you want to remove that Pats game he got injured in then 5 of 7 defenses that were top half in the league came after the injury. I think we did see progress from Zach but unfortunately some of these are eye test things that that won't show up in box score:

- We know he knows how to check into different plays based on defensive alignment (even when ill advised, see Bucs game)

- Tried to catch defenses with 12 men on field

- Started working the hard count to get guys to jump offsides

- Started using his legs more

 

I'd also argue that his weapons did significantly change from 1st half vs 2nd half of the season, he went from a full compliment of weapons to scraps by the end of the year. I think it's enough to be encouraged going into next year, better than trending the opposite way.

[Peace Frog]

3 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

 

Would he have put up bigger numbers had the team not been decimated?  I don't know - no way to know that.  I hope that  would have been the case - but we don't know. 

 

While it's impossible to determine an outcome with "what ifs?,  I can't imagine he would not have put up even slightly better numbers had he had Moore and Davis (even with his drops) more available to him.  Not suggesting he would have put up huge numbers but he would have had to put up better numbers with his just some of his WRs there.  Elijah Moore, Corey Davis v Black, Jeff Smith, DJ Montgomery, Mims flaming out.  

Impossible to make a definitive determination but one can legitimately speculate.  

[JustInFudge]

18 hours ago, ZachEY said:

Yes - We're not talking about 2 equal halves.  So, while I respect Warfish's efforts as well, he's not comparing the data set of the emotions of the fans.  It's just about limiting the INTs, which, I think was also largely a function of putting a leash on him.  Great QBs threw INTs over this time - Wilson's highest passing total was 234 yards and he had only 2 games with over 7 yards per attempt.

What some are calling reason for optimism that Zach Wilson is improving and the future is bright, I'd call reason enough to think that there's still a chance he might not bust.

This is well said.  I dont think you can deny he improved, but it wasnt the type of improvement where you have a sudden confidence, he's the guy.  My optimism is definitely more that he's not a bust and can at least be serviceable vs. we have our franchise QB finally.   

 

18 hours ago, ZachEY said:

I may be alone here, and maybe I'm wrong, but if you don't score TDs, or at least move the ball effectively, I don't care that you don't throw INTs.  You're not effective.  Brett Favre turned the ball over a ton, but he was also highly effective.  Obviously we want to limit the turnovers, but "he didn't turn the ball over" isn't that laudable when he largely didn't do much of anything.

That's why the Manning comparison re: turnovers was always so cartoonish.  Yes, Manning threw a lot of INTs his rookie year.  He also threw 17 more TDs and 1400 more yards than Wilson.  There's about a 50 yard difference in YPG as well.

I said this in a different thread a few days ago but I think Jets fans have ptsd when it comes to the turnovers.  We're so used to turnovers being of the embarrassing, back breaking, disastrous, come in bunches, types of turnovers that just not having one is a huge win.  Reality is, you can live with them as long as you make up for it with explosive plays.  That's the part that is unfortunate about the Wilson finish.  There was nothing explosive in the passing game (other than Cole taking a slat to the house).  The fluke run vs. Jax was cool but that was a once in a career type play.

I'd be more encouraged if Zach finished with 6 TD's and 4 picks with 60% + comp and a couple of 250+ types of games then I am just knowing he's capable of not wetting himself.

[FidelioJet]

2 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

While it's impossible to determine an outcome with "what ifs?,  I can't imagine he would not have put up even slightly better numbers had he had Moore and Davis (even with his drops) more available to him.  Not suggesting he would have put up huge numbers but he would have had to put up better numbers with his just some of his WRs there.  Elijah Moore, Corey Davis v Black, Jeff Smith, DJ Montgomery, Mims flaming out.  

Impossible to make a definitive determination but one can legitimately speculate.  

While I agree it's likely he would have but,  we did see a much more explosive offense in the first half of the Eagles game when he had Moore and a running game.  He continued to evolve in the pocket

That game was tricky as they only had one possession in the 3rd quarter and the defense was a mess...game was pretty much out of reach in the 4th.

And his pocket pretense, footwork, eyes and comfort level continued to get better in the coming weeks...

With that said - and let me be devils advocate for a second.

What if - the yips only went away because all of his talent was gone..he was playing more freely because he had nothing to lose.  And once the better players are back - he reverts back to steering instead of throwing.  I don't think that's the case, but who knows - which is why I leave open the possibllity that he may not have been more productive.  Although as mentioned above I do think the Eagles game sort of disproved that.

[Peace Frog]

11 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

 

What if - the yips only went away because all of his talent was gone..he was playing more freely because he had nothing to lose.  And once the better players are back - he reverts back to steering instead of throwing.  I don't think that's the case, but who knows - which is why I leave open the possibllity that he may not have been more productive.  Although as mentioned above I do think the Eagles game sort of disproved that.

I don't think the yips had anything to do with the talent around him, I thought he was overwhelmed by the speed of the game.

Once that seemed to settle for him, he looked more like the kid from BYU, (mostly) effortlessly hitting the layups.  As he gets more comfortable, those are going to be pitch and catch for him (IMHO).

[FidelioJet]

30 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

 

I'd be more encouraged if Zach finished with 6 TD's and 4 picks with 60% + comp and a couple of 250+ types of games then I am just knowing he's capable of not wetting himself.

Let me ask you a question though. 

Do you think the injuries to both the OL and WR's - caused him to have to simply play far more cautious?

I agree with what you're saying - being more explosive while taking a few more risks is likely the better outcome.  

But just being stupid is something else entirely.  

IMO, the injuries played a legitimate role in his ability to be more aggressive, without being irresponsible. 

 

[HighPitch]

1 hour ago, GangGreened said:

I’d like to hear some responses to this as well. It appears we have become one of/the most injured team in football once JD took over though.

It was like that before jd

[Sperm Edwards]

30 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Yes.

I think exactly for the reason you posted above we really just need to look at him as a player, how he looked on the field.  His comfort level, his eyes, his feet, his accuracy to determine if we believe he progressed.

Would he have put up bigger numbers had the team not been decimated?  I don't know - no way to know that.  I hope that  would have been the case - but we don't know. 

Only thing I know is he looked more like an NFL QB since coming back from an injury. 

Does that mean it will translate to next year? No. Does it mean he'll come back next year and not start dirting balls all over again? No...

But to me, there's clearly something there to build on and something to be optimistic about.

Hyper-critics have a legit eyeroll. Improvement was only relative, over the preposterously low bar he'd set for himself. 

I'm willing to give him a semi-clean slate next year. May as well let him start, unless some legit QB2 wipes the floor with him that summer (or unless he's injured) since his upside is clear: mobile, really fast release, strong arm, accuracy ability when he's settled down, and frankly he's young & relatively cheap for a starting QB.

Semi-clean slate because most of us are human, and it'll be impossible to ignore it if the issues he's got next year are the same as this year. Most notably, those short pass yips and the back-turning, backwards running around. He's got excellent mobility - amply more than a QB truly needs - but he doesn't nearly have the wheels of a Vick, Lamar Jackson, Murray, Fields, etc. 

We'll see. At least we're not locked into another year of Darnold at $19MM or whatever it is, heading into a draft with a reportedly weak QB class on top of that.

[Mogglez]

1 hour ago, JiFapono said:

This is well said.  I dont think you can deny he improved, but it wasnt the type of improvement where you have a sudden confidence, he's the guy.  My optimism is definitely more that he's not a bust and can at least be serviceable vs. we have our franchise QB finally.   

 

I said this in a different thread a few days ago but I think Jets fans have ptsd when it comes to the turnovers.  We're so used to turnovers being of the embarrassing, back breaking, disastrous, come in bunches, types of turnovers that just not having one is a huge win.  Reality is, you can live with them as long as you make up for it with explosive plays.  That's the part that is unfortunate about the Wilson finish.  There was nothing explosive in the passing game (other than Cole taking a slat to the house).  The fluke run vs. Jax was cool but that was a once in a career type play.

I'd be more encouraged if Zach finished with 6 TD's and 4 picks with 60% + comp and a couple of 250+ types of games then I am just knowing he's capable of not wetting himself.

The Tennessee game had a few big plays (roll out Bomb to Davis for a TD, 2 bombs to Cole for big gains) as did Week 1 (Roll out deep pass to Davis).  The throw he made to Keelan Cole against the Bucs was also impressive as any throw he made all year, it just fell inches short of being a Touchdown instead of just a long gainer.

While I do agree with the overarching sentiment, I do believe Zach has the talent to make these types of plays and have these types of games.  I just think he has to find a balance because was trying wayyyy too hard to play hero ball in the beginning of the year, instead of simply playing within the system.  Obviously all of the injuries to our offense didn’t help him create many of those plays either.

[FidelioJet]

37 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Hyper-critics have a legit eyeroll. Improvement was only relative, over the preposterously low bar he'd set for himself. 

 

Here's the thing - the bar was very low that he set for himself, completely agree...but that bar continued to rise throughout the year  and next year will start where he left off.

We can't change where he started, some people seem to want to do that - He was what he was -  it seems he wasn't nearly as ready/polished as I and probably JD thought - but he's made real and noticeable strides in the areas that, imo, matter most.  

The expectation that he would start out so raw and then over the course of 10 weeks turn into a superstar is where I'll roll my eyes.  It doesn't work that way.  it's a process.

As long as the bar continues to move in the right direction I will continue to be optimistic.

 

[dcJet]

It's good that Zach corrected the turnover problems this year because the alternative is Genoldchez territory.  I'm highly encouraged by that.  Let's see if Zach stays fixed.

Sammy had a horrible fumbling problem that he fixed, but he still was an INT machine so it didn't matter.

Sanchez incredibly averaged around 2 turnovers per game.  That is sickly bad and among the worst ever in NFL history for a long term starter. (I think Vinny beats him out all-time because of the color blindness problem he had early with Tampa Bay)

If Zach can average under one turnover per game next year while dialing up the passing numbers, that would "make it move".

 

[section314]

11 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

The Tennessee game had a few big plays (roll out Bomb to Davis for a TD, 2 bombs to Cole for big gains) as did Week 1 (Roll out deep pass to Davis).  The throw he made to Keelan Cole against the Bucs was also impressive as any throw he made all year, it just fell inches short of being a Touchdown instead of just a long gainer.

While I do agree with the overarching sentiment, I do believe Zach has the talent to make these types of plays and have these types of games.  I just think he has to find a balance because was trying wayyyy too hard to play hero ball in the beginning of the year, instead of simply playing within the system.  Obviously all of the injuries to our offense didn’t help him create many of those plays either.

Sent out the Bat signal for you in another thread  ?. Cam Clarke came up. Do your guys hear anything about him? Do they still like him/see a future for him here? Thanks as always.

[UnknownJetFan]

20 hours ago, Warfish said:

This is a sentiment I hear around the forum regularly, that Zach made alot of progress in the second half of the year, was a totally different QB than he was early on, etc.

So I wondered if there was anything in the actual statistical production that would help support that belief, something a bit less subjective that the "eye test" of fans.

Here are the results:

Zach Wilson Week 1-7 (327 Off. Snaps, 6 Games) -- 104 of 181 (57.46%) for 1,168 Passing Yards, 4 TD,  9 INT, 19 Sacks, 6.45 YPA, 8 Rushes for 22 Yards and 0 TD's, and 2 Fumbles.

Zach Wilson Week 12-18 (414 Off. Snaps, 7 Games) -- 109 of 202 (53.96%) for 1,166 Passing Yards, 5 TD, 2 INT, 25 Sacks, 5.77 YPA, 21 Rushes for 163 Yards and 4 TD's and 3 Fumbles.

A few positives stick out:

1. Reduced INT's over one additional game, from 9 (1.5/game) to 2 (0.3/game).  A big meaningful improvement here.

2. Increased rushing over one additional game, from 2.75/carry to 7.76/carry.  That big run late in the year certainly helps here, given the small sample size.

However, I'm sort of surprised how his actual passing production actually declined in the 2nd half:

 1. Completion % dropped from 57.5% to 54.0%.

2. Passing Yards/Game dropped from 194.7/game down to 166.6/game.

3. Sacks taken increased from 3.2/game to 3.6/game.

Now, I expect the argument in defense of these numbers to be injuries.  That despite lower per-game production, he was in fact actually playing much better but production was reduced because of diminished O-line play, better decision making and fewer snaps available from his better WR's.  

A look at some reputable O-line ranking site would be a good way to explore the weaker O-line later in the year idea.  

One might also argue we played better Defenses in the second half.  That would just take a review of each opponents Defensive Rankings if that interests you, with Miami, Tampa and Buffalo late it could certainly be true.

And one could, if they wished, look at each skill player, and how many snaps they played from weeks 1-7 and how many they played from weeks 12-18 to at least get a general idea of skill player availability to Zach during each period.

Out of my own curiosity on this one I tested Moore, arguably our best and most explosive WR this season:

Moore played 199 snaps in Weeks 1-7,  was targeted 26 times (5.2/game), made 9 catches (35%) for 79 yards (15.8 YPG)

Moore played 110 snaps in Weeks 12-13, missing Weeks 14-18, was targeted 20 times (10/game), made 10 catches (50%) for 123 yards (61.5 YPG).

Moore played 167 snaps in Weeks 8-11 without Wilson, was targeted 31 times (7.75/game), made 24 catches (77%) for 336 yards (84.0 YPG).

I know we have many Fans who think stats and analysis of them is meaningless or of very limited value. 

So they can feel free to ignore this information or provide their own analysis of it if they wish, no worries.  And some truly do believe the "eye test" is the only test that matters. 

I can respect that, but I think production, and analysis of it, has value and is of interest.  

Enjoy.

Where numbers get skewed is that games 1-7 the Jets could not run the ball at all, and most games were uncompetitive to the point where the 2nd half was playing catchup where a lot of passing was needed. That created higher passing yard production. In the 2nd half of the season the Jets were playing more like the offense or identity they should be for this system, which is running the ball generally over 100 yards per game which always results in much less passing yards. This is where stats always go out the window like if a QB uses a combination of passing and running on a lot or most drives and at the end of the drive the TD is a score by the RB, the QB deserves credit for a TD scoring drive, but all his stats say is QB has 0 TDs. I always consider that without the QBs effort there is no TD on those drives, so really a QBs TD stats should be Total Drive TDs="Passing TDs"+"Running TDs by QB"+"Running TDs by RBs". But in any event, that is why the eye test was better for Zack in the 2nd half of the season where with even less weapons than in the 1st half of the season he operated as good as most QBs in the league outside of probably the top 10 and they have much better weapons/teams even if we had no injuries.

[dcJet]

just looked up Zach's turnover stats - 16 in 13 games.

Not bad after a horrible start.  I'd like to see it be like 10-12 in 17 games next year.  

Sam had 20 in 13 games his rookie year.
Geno had 29 in 16 games.
Sanchez had 30 in 15 games.  Yikes!

Zach has a chance to be a very good QB.  

[Sperm Edwards]

15 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Here's the thing - the bar was very low that he set for himself, completely agree...but that bar continued to rise throughout the year  and next year will start where he left off.

We can't change where he started, some people seem to want to do that - He was what he was -  it seems he wasn't nearly as ready/polished as I and probably JD thought - but he's made real and noticeable strides in the areas that, imo, matter most.  

The expectation that he would start out so raw and then over the course of 10 weeks turn into a superstar is where I'll roll my eyes.  It doesn't work that way.  it's a process.

As long as the bar continues to move in the right direction I will continue to be optimistic.

 

No, the bar was set very low by himself. He then eclipsed that low bar. Don't make more of it than it is. If he was outstanding in the first half of the season people would be talking about how badly he'd regressed in the second half, relative lack of help/wepponz or not.

[Warfish]

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, the bar was set very low by himself. He then eclipsed that low bar. Don't make more of it than it is. If he was outstanding in the first half of the season people would be talking about how badly he'd regressed in the second half, relative lack of help/wepponz or not.

If he had been outstanding this season, everyone saying  "stats don't matter" would, in fact, be saying that stats matter, alot, lol. 

[FidelioJet]

25 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, the bar was set very low by himself. He then eclipsed that low bar. Don't make more of it than it is. If he was outstanding in the first half of the season people would be talking about how badly he'd regressed in the second half, relative lack of help/wepponz or not.

What?

Yes, who said otherwise? Who's making it out to be more?

The bar was set low by him because that's where he was as a player - he looked lost and played poorly because those were his capabilities.  Not, he had simply had a bad game thing - and just happened to have better games in the second half.  it wasn't a function of luck or circumstance that he was better in the second half.

He played better in the second half of the season because he became a better football player - he evolved as a player.  All functions of practice, reps, learning etc.

When you start from a low bar - you have a longer way to go to get to the top.  Not a very difficult concept....

 

 

[FidelioJet]

Just now, Warfish said:

If he had been outstanding this season, everyone saying  "stats don't matter" would, in fact, be saying that stats matter, alot, lol. 

Not true - as you can go back and look at my post pre-season.  I discussed ad nauseam how stats weren't and shouldn't be a concern with a rookie QB.  Go back to Darnold, go back to Sanchez.

It's crazy to look at these guys with that approach.  It means little to nothing.  

[Warfish]

1 minute ago, FidelioJet said:

Not true - as you can go back and look at my post pre-season.  I discussed ad nauseam how stats weren't and shouldn't be a concern with a rookie QB.  Go back to Darnold, go back to Sanchez.

It's crazy to look at these guys with that approach.  It means little to nothing.  

Perhaps not for you.  This isn't my first rodeo mate, I know it's true for others, lol.

[Snell41]

Oy ******* vey

Same way I’ve felt watching this kid all season. It’s ok, one more season and he’ll be gone and hopefully we find a viable replacement.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[JustInFudge]

1 hour ago, FidelioJet said:

Let me ask you a question though. 

Do you think the injuries to both the OL and WR's - caused him to have to simply play far more cautious?

I agree with what you're saying - being more explosive while taking a few more risks is likely the better outcome.  

But just being stupid is something else entirely.  

IMO, the injuries played a legitimate role in his ability to be more aggressive, without being irresponsible. 

 

Hard to pin it on just injuries.  I think it was beaten into his head post injury to play boring.  So, I think he was neutered by the coaching staff but I'm not mad at it.  He was a liability and needed to be broken down, but he was cautious with a full complement as much as he was with shambles over the last 3 games.  And he played well vs. Tampa, taking what they gave him.  Bad vs. the Bills trying to do too much and leaving plays on the field, IMO.  And then he was whatever vs. Jax because they were running the ball so well, so it's hard to say but 9 TD's in 13 games vs. 12 from his back up QB's in 4 games, makes me think it's probably more him than anything else. 

[Dinamite]

21 hours ago, Warfish said:

This is a sentiment I hear around the forum regularly, that Zach made alot of progress in the second half of the year, was a totally different QB than he was early on, etc.

So I wondered if there was anything in the actual statistical production that would help support that belief, something a bit less subjective that the "eye test" of fans.

Here are the results:

Zach Wilson Week 1-7 (327 Off. Snaps, 6 Games) -- 104 of 181 (57.46%) for 1,168 Passing Yards, 4 TD,  9 INT, 19 Sacks, 6.45 YPA, 8 Rushes for 22 Yards and 0 TD's, and 2 Fumbles.

Zach Wilson Week 12-18 (414 Off. Snaps, 7 Games) -- 109 of 202 (53.96%) for 1,166 Passing Yards, 5 TD, 2 INT, 25 Sacks, 5.77 YPA, 21 Rushes for 163 Yards and 4 TD's and 3 Fumbles.

A few positives stick out:

1. Reduced INT's over one additional game, from 9 (1.5/game) to 2 (0.3/game).  A big meaningful improvement here.

2. Increased rushing over one additional game, from 2.75/carry to 7.76/carry.  That big run late in the year certainly helps here, given the small sample size.

However, I'm sort of surprised how his actual passing production actually declined in the 2nd half:

 1. Completion % dropped from 57.5% to 54.0%.

2. Passing Yards/Game dropped from 194.7/game down to 166.6/game.

3. Sacks taken increased from 3.2/game to 3.6/game.

Now, I expect the argument in defense of these numbers to be injuries.  That despite lower per-game production, he was in fact actually playing much better but production was reduced because of diminished O-line play, better decision making and fewer snaps available from his better WR's.  

A look at some reputable O-line ranking site would be a good way to explore the weaker O-line later in the year idea.  

One might also argue we played better Defenses in the second half.  That would just take a review of each opponents Defensive Rankings if that interests you, with Miami, Tampa and Buffalo late it could certainly be true.

And one could, if they wished, look at each skill player, and how many snaps they played from weeks 1-7 and how many they played from weeks 12-18 to at least get a general idea of skill player availability to Zach during each period.

Out of my own curiosity on this one I tested Moore, arguably our best and most explosive WR this season:

Moore played 199 snaps in Weeks 1-7,  was targeted 26 times (5.2/game), made 9 catches (35%) for 79 yards (15.8 YPG)

Moore played 110 snaps in Weeks 12-13, missing Weeks 14-18, was targeted 20 times (10/game), made 10 catches (50%) for 123 yards (61.5 YPG).

Moore played 167 snaps in Weeks 8-11 without Wilson, was targeted 31 times (7.75/game), made 24 catches (77%) for 336 yards (84.0 YPG).

I know we have many Fans who think stats and analysis of them is meaningless or of very limited value. 

So they can feel free to ignore this information or provide their own analysis of it if they wish, no worries.  And some truly do believe the "eye test" is the only test that matters. 

I can respect that, but I think production, and analysis of it, has value and is of interest.  

Enjoy.

Thanks for this post and the research that went into it.  It does seem clear that Zach could have benefitted from a "red shirt" period.   I am cautiously optimistic that he is eager to improve from the lessons of this year and an off-season of training and studying will help him immensely (with a QB coach that was part of the staff in John Beck!).  

[JustInFudge]

1 hour ago, Mogglez said:

The Tennessee game had a few big plays (roll out Bomb to Davis for a TD, 2 bombs to Cole for big gains) as did Week 1 (Roll out deep pass to Davis).  The throw he made to Keelan Cole against the Bucs was also impressive as any throw he made all year, it just fell inches short of being a Touchdown instead of just a long gainer.

While I do agree with the overarching sentiment, I do believe Zach has the talent to make these types of plays and have these types of games.  I just think he has to find a balance because was trying wayyyy too hard to play hero ball in the beginning of the year, instead of simply playing within the system.  Obviously all of the injuries to our offense didn’t help him create many of those plays either.

I was specifically referring to his finish post injury play, but Tenn. is an example of what I was referring to.  That is a game you can live with from your QB even though he had turnovers and wasnt perfect because he had explosive plays to make up for it.  My point is, I'd rather have seen 4 games like that to finish the season rather than 4 games of him not turning it over but overall was mostly ineffective.  

Does he have the ability?  Sure.  Most QB's have the ability.  Whether they can do it consistently over 17 weeks is a different story and I dont think Zach did anything to give you confidence that he can.  Yes, I understand there were injuries, but the examples were few and far between with a full complement and it doesnt help that he had 9 TDs in 13 games while his 3 back up QB's accounted for 12 TDs in 4 games.  

 

[FootballLove]

Nice summary Warfish. To my eyes, two things happened for Zack to become a better player in the 2nd half.

First, to start the season LeFleur built game plans the relied on Zack's arm. LeFleur tried to take advantage of Zack's gun slinger mentality. Essentially, he put too much on Zack's plate, and Zack being Zack tried to air it out and win every game. It worked against the Titans, but that's it. That air raid strategy crashed and burned.

LeFleur moved to the booth and soon after that we had the Mike White 400 yrd day w/o a single pass going for more than 2 yards (wink). That game showed Zack how to be successful w/o playing Brett Favre every week. Zack had a live example with HIS team how the offense could be run and work out.

LeFleur also started calling conservative games, relying more on our run game and also the defense, both of which had improved by midseason. By defense, I mean LeFleur made it OK for Zack to throw it away, avoid the sack, and punt if need be. No need to throw a prayer into triple overage to avoid punting. Playing it safer, punting and relying on the D became part of our game.

Basically, we saw Zack and LeFleur grow up before our eyes. Both will be much better in 2022. And much much better in 23. Just my take...

[Peace Frog]

15 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

 but 9 TD's in 13 games vs. 12 from his back up QB's in 4 games, makes me think it's probably more him than anything else. 

 

4 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

it doesnt help that he had 9 TDs in 13 games while his 3 back up QB's accounted for 12 TDs in 4 games.  

 

Is this going to be your cut and paste response until next September?

Garbage time TDs by Josh Johnson in a blowout? 

One GREAT game by White and then a flame out?

TDs by a veteran SB winning QB with a full compliment of WRs and RBs?

Zach was awful to start the year.  Awful.  

He ended up on the uptick and flipped his total TDs to INTs by quite a lot.  

 

[slimjasi]

1 hour ago, dcJet said:

just looked up Zach's turnover stats - 16 in 13 games.

Not bad after a horrible start.  I'd like to see it be like 10-12 in 17 games next year.  

Sam had 20 in 13 games his rookie year.
Geno had 29 in 16 games.
Sanchez had 30 in 15 games.  Yikes!

Zach has a chance to be a very good QB.  

We have had so many turnover-prone QBs here. It’s insane. How nice would it be for that to change? 

[JustInFudge]

1 minute ago, Peace Frog said:

 

Is this going to be your cut and paste response until next September?

Garbage time TDs by Josh Johnson in a blowout? 

One GREAT game by White and then a flame out?

TDs by a veteran SB winning QB with a full compliment of WRs and RBs?

Zach was awful to start the year.  Awful.  

He ended up on the uptick and flipped his total TDs to INTs by quite a lot.  

 

I didnt plan on it, but now that you asked, I have it saved for quick response.

Thanks,