Chris Simms sounds off on Jets fans

[Sperm Edwards]

15 hours ago, JiFapono said:

Yet, it's the only position in the game that counts wins and losses as an official stat.

 

15 hours ago, Warfish said:

Do they?

I just checked NFL.com, and they do not have Wins/Losses tracked as an "official stat" for QB's.

I'm curious, if a QB plays the first quarter, but gets hurt, who gets the "official win" or "official loss" in that game, the starter, or the guy who came in in relief?  Do they track Saves in the NFL too?

 

15 hours ago, Warfish said:

Wins/Losses isn't an official stat for QB's.

Wins/Losses are tracked and awarded, unofficially, by several stat tracking entities.

If Wins/Losses were an official stat, you would know the "official rules" of who gets the win when two different QB's play in a game.

You clearly don't.  

Because they don't exist.

Because wins/losses is not an official QB stat.

But you knew that JiF, I literally know you knew that.  Lol.

 

14 hours ago, JiFapono said:

I'm not trying to be a dick but you 100% track records w/ QB's, we say it all the time, Joe Flacco is 1-9 as Jets starter yadayada, this is like super duper common and like it was celebrated  when Brady broke Favre records for wins.  So it's a thing.  Wiki says this fwiw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_career_quarterback_wins_leaders#:~:text=In the NFL%2C the starting,57–13–1).

The following is a list of the top National Football League (NFL) quarterbacks in regular season wins. In the NFL, the starting quarterback is the only position that is credited with records of wins and losses.

Tom Brady holds the record for the most regular season wins with 246. Otto Graham holds the record for the highest winning percentage with a minimum of 50 starts at .814 (57–13–1).

Brady also holds the record for the most postseason wins with 35, and the record for combined wins in the regular season and postseason, with 281.

Mr. Fish you tracked Flacco’s W/L record, too, and brought it up repeatedly.

On 9/15/2022 at 9:24 AM, Warfish said:

Flacco's 2-12 record (0-6 since joining the Jets) since leaving Baltimore

 

On 8/1/2022 at 6:03 PM, Warfish said:

Flacco, […] 2-11 in the games he plays. 

Because it was so recent I was sure I remembered you attributing bad W/L records to a Jets QB when that furthered your argument. I stopped looking after these two. but am pretty confident there are more.

Now that the rep icons are set for the time being, I may use this free time to abuse my mod privileges and change your user title to “Official JN Mover of Goalposts”

The crown is heaviest on the head that wears it, or something. Anyway, wear it with pride, brother.  

[Warfish]

16 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

 

 

 

Mr. Fish you tracked Flacco’s W/L record, too, and brought it up repeatedly.

 

Because it was so recent I was sure I remembered you attributing bad W/L records to a Jets QB when that furthered your argument. I stopped looking after these two. but am pretty confident there are more.

Now that the rep icons are set for the time being, I may use this free time to abuse my mod privileges and change your user title to “Official JN Mover of Goalposts”

The crown is heaviest on the head that wears it, or something. Anyway, wear it with pride, brother.  

Of course I’ve referenced wins and losses. As noted my favorite stat site tracks it as noted earlier.

No it’s not an official stat.

I love you old friend, but I’m not quite seeing the gotcha here. No goalposts have been moved. Referencing wins and losses is 100% ok, as long as you understand what you’re referencing and what it means, or perhaps more importantly, doesn’t mean. 

If you want to argue I was too hard on Flacco for citing a team stat against him, that might be fair.
 

[Sperm Edwards]

13 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I was too hard on Flacco for citing a team stat against him

And now it no longer suits a previously-repeated gotcha, since it's a winning record, and is therefore discarded as though it wasn't clung to like some trump card that erases any/all positive (or even not-negative) discourse.

The obvious connotation was previously attributing a bad W/L record to 1 QB, while waiving it away as irrelevant to a current QB's good W/L record. The "official" stat component is incidental, since you believed it an appropriately attributable stat yourself.

Anyway, the proper and more endearing response would've been:

Quote

****

All good, though.  

[JiF]

16 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

And now it no longer suits a previously-repeated gotcha, since it's a winning record, and is therefore discarded as though it wasn't clung to like some trump card that erases any/all positive (or even not-negative) discourse.

The obvious connotation was previously attributing a bad W/L record to 1 QB, while waiving it away as irrelevant to a current QB's good W/L record. The "official" stat component is incidental, since you believed it an appropriately attributable stat yourself.

Anyway, the proper and more endearing response would've been:

All good, though.  

You know, it's funny, immediately after conceding that it's not an official stat, ESPN who apparently doesnt track this, put up a stat about how Brady hasnt lost 3 games in a row in 20 years.  Now seeing that my boy War readily sites QB's records as a thing, and so does ESPN, well, I dont even know what to say anymore. 

[bla bla bla]

8 hours ago, hotrodcharlie said:

The guy has 1 touchdown pass all season and Chris Simms has a problem with critics hahaha

Zach's been rough but box score isn't the way to view his 4 games. Kid was 2 yards away from having 5 TDs and 2 INTs (one of which wasn't his fault). I want to see this team when we need to pass, I don't think we have really had our back against the wall since week 4 vs Pitt.

He'll be asked to lift us up this week, hope he can ball out and end these narratives. 

[jetstream23]

 

[JiF]

36 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

 

Ummmmm, it was 1 player.  1.

[jetstream23]

17 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

Ummmmm, it was 1 player.  1.

I'll take the results over what we had Weeks 1 thru 3.

 

 

[Integrity28]

7 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

@Warfish did at some point!

I haven’t listened to that guy in yeeaaaarrsss. 🤣♥️

[Stark]

19 hours ago, Paradis said:

Even in the face of redundancy. 

Truthfully, i envy you and others. This level of scrutiny brings no charm to my day. 

its getting tired. we as JETS fans can be happy the TEAM is doing well and at the same time be constructively critical that our QB's performance since he's been a starter has been mostly underwhelming and leaves a lot to be desired.

both can be true. ZW right now is rookie season Mark Sanchez, game plan is almost the same. 

 

ITs time for ZW to step up and start to prove he's legitimately capable of being a good to very good QB. no more well you know, he's not really gonna show anything until after the BYE. Breece is gone ZW needs to play better, flat out no BS. Yeah we are winning games with Z as starter but, if you are being honest just about any QB could have been behind center the way the team has been playing. 

[jgb]

19 hours ago, batman10023 said:

i like the JoeWNamath homer instead of this new character 

Just wait a few hours, he will be back. 

[jgb]

2 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

Zach's been rough but box score isn't the way to view his 4 games. Kid was 2 yards away from having 5 TDs and 2 INTs (one of which wasn't his fault). I want to see this team when we need to pass, I don't think we have really had our back against the wall since week 4 vs Pitt.

He'll be asked to lift us up this week, hope he can ball out and end these narratives. 

This is exactly why we need statistics. If you want to play this game you also need to consider all the almost-turnovers or defensive mistakes that led to offensive gains and take those away, as well. You can’t just write off the negative “flukes.”

Of course, the best thing to do is to consider the entire dataset.

[Warfish]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

And now it no longer suits a previously-repeated gotcha, since it's a winning record, and is therefore discarded as though it wasn't clung to like some trump card that erases any/all positive (or even not-negative) discourse.

The obvious connotation was previously attributing a bad W/L record to 1 QB, while waiving it away as irrelevant to a current QB's good W/L record. The "official" stat component is incidental, since you believed it an appropriately attributable stat yourself.

Anyway, the proper and more endearing response would've been:

All good, though.  

I had a reply all written to this.....and then my cellphone battery died, lol.  So much for that.

Short(ish) version then: 

• The "official stat" component was the core of my exchange with JiF.  Not an incidental.
• Yes, I cite W/L in Games Started, in addition to other stats, to get the bigger picture of a player.
• No, Zach being 4-0 isn't discarded.  Nor is it taken as a simplistic single meaningful metric for if he is playing well.
• If someone wants to think 4-0 is the only stat worth consideration for Zach, great.
• If someone wants to think Flacco's post-Ravens record as a starter isn't primarily on him, and my citing it as criticism is unfair, great.   
• If someone isn't concerned that Zach is consistently one of the worst producing QB's in the NFL last year and this year so far, great.

It's not about me old friend, or if I'm a hypocrite (which surely sometimes I am, like everyone), or if I move goalposts (which isn't really the right rhetorical phrase here for inconsistent standards between two different guys) it's about Zach, his production at the QB position, and the team's future and if our winning can be maintained.  

[SoFlaJets]

Not only have we been winning because of some pretty good defensive games, the side of the ball that we were always guaranteed to be watching let up 3rd and 23 yard conversions for the past decade - regardless of who was coaching, but we've also been getting some great production from the Special Teams units the punter, the KO unit and the FG unit with Greg the Leg- so despite having the worst QB and passing production in the NFL and watching Zach getting lucky (for a change) and every tipped ball not ending up in the defenders arms. I hope it continues and I will keep rooting for the Jets and for this QB to "make one play Zach, come on give us ONE play"

[y2k8]

 

When did Chris Simms get such a potty mouth.

[clutches pearls]

Anyway, big week for Zach. He needs to step it up vs the Pats on Sunday.

He's looking like Sanchez year 2. On the bus but not driving it.

[Sperm Edwards]

46 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I had a reply all written to this.....and then my cellphone battery died, lol.  So much for that.

Short(ish) version then: 

• The "official stat" component was the core of my exchange with JiF.  Not an incidental.
• Yes, I cite W/L in Games Started, in addition to other stats, to get the bigger picture of a player.
• No, Zach being 4-0 isn't discarded.  Nor is it taken as a simplistic single meaningful metric for if he is playing well.
• If someone wants to think 4-0 is the only stat worth consideration for Zach, great.
• If someone wants to think Flacco's post-Ravens record as a starter isn't primarily on him, and my citing it as criticism is unfair, great.   
• If someone isn't concerned that Zach is consistently one of the worst producing QB's in the NFL last year and this year so far, great.

It's not about me old friend, or if I'm a hypocrite (which surely sometimes I am, like everyone), or if I move goalposts (which isn't really the right rhetorical phrase here for inconsistent standards between two different guys) it's about Zach, his production at the QB position, and the team's future and if our winning can be maintained.  

I think you've straw-man'd in a few different places in this one post.

No one here is suggesting any of your your last 3 bullet points - literally half of the ones you make here - so there's that. Find the people who dismiss any/all of Wilson's struggles and suggest it's all 100% meaningless (i.e. unworthy of consideration).

Also it's clear you posited a QB's W/L record's lack of being an official stat specifically in order to degrade its importance, because Wilson is impressing very few people this side of Chris Simms, and yet the team's 4-0 with him at the helm. There's no other reason for you to have done so. Just a few months ago you were touting it as being particularly significant when it was used to reflect a different QB. You kinda want it both ways when it suits an argument, not that we all haven't done so from time to time.

Your critique of Flacco - of whom I'm no great fan but you brought up this point - eliminates any discussion of defense performance. Opponents have averaged just over 30ppg in his Jets starts; 23ppg in his Broncos starts. But again, average can be misleading; giving up 34 points in 1 game and a shutout in the next game comes to 17ppg average, which is or should be very winnable in 2 of 2 games. Except in practice that wouldn't have been the case in either. In reality, one was a hyper-tough assignment and one a hyper-easy assignment for a washed-up has-been. This is part of the fallacy of averages telling the whole "stats" story without seeking anything deeper. I'm not one to make the argument he didn't suck or have been benched, but to ignore the other side of the ball altogether, as though it suggests that has zero impact, is not a convincing take either. And before you turn it around with an, "OK so you think Flacco is [good, blameless, etc.]" I'll add again that I think nothing of the kind.

IOW none of these purported arguments are really refuting anyone. Find me a person who renders Wilson blameless or has zero issues with his play, and isn't merely responding in a way you dislike because they've heard it enough already; they know.

Also moving the goalposts is absolutely the correct phrase; it's being used as a prime - if not only - measurement for assessing one QB, but when that doesn't work for another QB, only then is context needed. Moving the goalposts.

Also this is good. We haven't done this in a while. 

I can feel the juices rushing back to my balls as we speak.

[SuicidalSince98]

20 hours ago, Vader said:

Simms obviously didn't watch the game.

When you don’t care about who wins or loses you don’t let the overall emotions of the game cloud your judgment of the QB 

[Flea Flicking Frank]

12 hours ago, DetroitRed said:

There was absolutely free runners on Sunday.   But sometimes he needs to hit a hot immediately or  throw it away .  Still too many bad decisions.

Completely agree, he needs to get better, that is without question, but to say he was running from air is just beyond false

[TheClashFan]

19 hours ago, All Gas, No Gase said:

This is why I haven’t given up on Zach yet. If he played every quarter like he plays the 4th quarter we would be ecstatic. He has a completion percentage of 85.7% and a rating of 124.9 in the 4th quarter. Even in the Denver game he completed 5 passes in a row in the last quarter. 

If he ever figures out how to turn that mental switch on for the whole game then we will be a powerhouse. I hope he can. 
https://www.footballdb.com/players/zach-wilson-wilsoza02/splits/2022

Maybe play Mike White or Flacco for 3 quarters, then bring ZW in for the win?

 

[Warfish]

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think you've straw-man'd in a few different places in this one post.

No one here is suggesting any of your your last 3 bullet points - literally half of the ones you make here - so there's that. Find the people who dismiss any/all of Wilson's struggles and suggest it's all 100% meaningless (i.e. unworthy of consideration).

I think you might want to read the forum a bit more broadly.  But I'll concede, primarily because I lack any desire to go searching for examples of the "He's 4-0 and winning is all that matters" post type.

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Also it's clear you posited a QB's W/L record's lack of being an official stat specifically in order to degrade its importance, because Wilson is impressing very few people this side of Chris Simms, and yet the team's 4-0 with him at the helm.

Yes.

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

There's no other reason for you to have done so.

I disagree.  I think a better understanding of the fact it's not an official stat, and has severe flaws as a primary evaluation tool for QB's, is actually worthy of posting. 

Again, the Teddy Bridgewater example, played 1 play, is assigned a "loss in games he started" by those who track W/L, while Taylor played the whole game and wasn't given a loss, is worth folks knowing.

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Just a few months ago you were touting it as being particularly significant when it was used to reflect a different QB.

Yes.

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You kinda want it both ways when it suits an argument, not that we all haven't done so from time to time.

I think this is a overly simplistic interpretation.  The two situations being evaluated are not equals.

In one we have a worn out old veteran QB playing it safe, and playing very poorly.  His W/L record in games he started is very much related to his weak play, but admittedly is also related to the weak teams he played for.  While his production stats are more moderate, his overall play is poor.

In the other we have a young #2 overall pick producing at a worst-in-NFL clip, for a team with very good Defensive play and a dominant running attack, and he's winning.  Not because of him.  In spite of him.

This is not a contradictory evaluation, it's individual evaluations of two very different players in two very different situations.

You'll note I generally don't hold Zach's horrible 3-10 record in games he started last year against him when I speak of him.  I stick to his league-worst passing production.  We lost last year because we weren't a great team overall, primarily, and we were led by a not great QB.  Plenty of blame to spread around.

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Also moving the goalposts is absolutely the correct phrase; it's being used as a prime - if not only - measurement for assessing one QB, but when that doesn't work for another QB, only then is context needed. Moving the goalposts.

Wikipedia:  Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal -based sports, that means to change the rule or criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage. [1]

I don't agree that that is what I have done in my evaluations of Zach and Flacco.

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Also this is good. We haven't done this in a while. 

I can feel the juices rushing back to my balls as we speak.

I aim to please my friend.

[bitonti]

Wins are a team stat 

No one says the Jets are 5-2 with Greg Z at kicker 

Or better yet the Jets are undefeated with Duane brown at LT 

[Fantasy Island]

18 hours ago, CanadienJetsFan said:

Your opinion I respect but you shouldn’t be that harsh…

Mets fan?

he is holding back, actually we all are because positive vibes and stuff

[Fantasy Island]

7 minutes ago, bitonti said:

Wins are a team stat 

No one says the Jets are 5-2 with Greg Z at kicker 

Or better yet the Jets are undefeated with Duane brown at LT 

They should, he has more points than Zach.

[T0mShane]

1 hour ago, jetstream23 said:

I'll take the results over what we had Weeks 1 thru 3.

 

 

 

[Flea Flicking Frank]

12 minutes ago, bitonti said:

Wins are a team stat 

No one says the Jets are 5-2 with Greg Z at kicker 

Or better yet the Jets are undefeated with Duane brown at LT 

So your stance if I am getting this is, Wins are a team stat, that have little to do with the QB, unless the QB puts up fancy stats. If the team loses, its all the QB's fault. 

Offense is 100% about the QB, the O line doesnt matter, the WRs don't matter, the RB's don't matter, the playcalling doesn't matter? All that matters for offense is if the QB looks good, its not a team game, but Wins are a team stat?

Do you believe this? Are you by chance a politician, because this spin is politician esque. 

[HawkeyeJet]

48 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

 

What the PFF guy fails to mention here is the discrepancy in how those pressures come about.  In his 3 starts, Flacco was blitzed on about 23% of his drop backs.  In his 4 starts, Wilson has been blitzed about 46% of his dropbacks.  I think it can be debated why that matters, but it tells me that defenses aren’t scared of Flacco beating them vs pressure or not.   Can’t  say this for sure without watching each snap, but I would say it’s likely Zach’s initial required response time on a given play is generally shorter than Flaccos has been because he’s facing blitzed much more frequently. 

There is no disputing Zach has been poor against pressure, but teams seem to feel the need to blitz to get him in that uncomfortable situation.  He and the coaches need to figure out a better way to handle the blitz.

[Supersonic]

14 hours ago, doitny said:

thats great. so what do we do against the good teams where the OL plays bad.? i guess you didnt see how Fields handle the pressure last night. 10x better than Zach.

 

yeah me and 100 other people on this site. next bad game it will be 200. what about you? you gonna be the last guy left or just go down with the ship?

I'm a leader, not a follower.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

I think you might want to read the forum a bit more broadly.  But I'll concede, primarily because I lack any desire to go searching for examples of the "He's 4-0 and winning is all that matters" post type.

Yes.

I disagree.  I think a better understanding of the fact it's not an official stat, and has severe flaws as a primary evaluation tool for QB's, is actually worthy of posting. 

Again, the Teddy Bridgewater example, played 1 play, is assigned a "loss in games he started" by those who track W/L, while Taylor played the whole game and wasn't given a loss, is worth folks knowing.

Yes.

I think this is a overly simplistic interpretation.  The two situations being evaluated are not equals.

In one we have a worn out old veteran QB playing it safe, and playing very poorly.  His W/L record in games he started is very much related to his weak play, but admittedly is also related to the weak teams he played for.  While his production stats are more moderate, his overall play is poor.

In the other we have a young #2 overall pick producing at a worst-in-NFL clip, for a team with very good Defensive play and a dominant running attack, and he's winning.  Not because of him.  In spite of him.

This is not a contradictory evaluation, it's individual evaluations of two very different players in two very different situations.

You'll note I generally don't hold Zach's horrible 3-10 record in games he started last year against him when I speak of him.  I stick to his league-worst passing production.  We lost last year because we weren't a great team overall, primarily, and we were led by a not great QB.  Plenty of blame to spread around.

Wikipedia:  Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal -based sports, that means to change the rule or criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage. [1]

I don't agree that that is what I have done in my evaluations of Zach and Flacco.

I aim to please my friend.

I don't see much of anyone saying he's doing great. I see a lot of people not unhappy because of the wins, not unhappy because those wins make it easier to weather what'd otherwise be facepalmy growing pains & learning on the job while showing flashes here & there. I also see people rushing to his defense just to stick up for the team's player (in a way that less of what they view as persecution would lead to less enthusiastic defense of his play.

W/L record is and was only being discussed in the first place as a stat - official or not - because of Wilson's sucky passing stats/production. I think that's pretty obvious & since it's easy enough to see where it originated in this thread, it's silly to pretend otherwise. 

And yes, that wikipedia definition is precisely what I'm saying: you were changing the criteria for what should used to judge poor QB play. First it was W/L record alone (not W/L record plus a bunch of Flacco stats). When you want to argue that doesn't fly with Wilson this year, you changed the criteria, i.e. you moved the metaphorical goalposts further back. 

 

[jNYC1]

NFL QBs face pressure on 30-40% of passing attempts (irrespective of blitzing). 

Zach is able to escape pressure but provides little to no positive production in those scenarios. 

The lack of production under pressure, invites more pressure (ie blitzing.)

If Zach can figure out how to produce positive yards under pressure, I will be all aboard the Zach is good train!

 

[jNYC1]

I do think Zach thinks he should go deep when under pressure in order to penalize defenses. 

The reality is hitting an easier check down in space provides a higher probability successful play and a higher probability explosive play.

[DetroitRed]

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

 

That dude is not an objective source 

[bla bla bla]

2 hours ago, jgb said:

This is exactly why we need statistics. If you want to play this game you also need to consider all the almost-turnovers or defensive mistakes that led to offensive gains and take those away, as well. You can’t just write off the negative “flukes.”

Of course, the best thing to do is to consider the entire dataset.

Oo 100%. I'm a big fan of turnover worthy plays, adj comp %, and drop % as stats. None of those show missed reads so there is still context missing but I think those are pretty decent things to look at.

QBs who played 50% snaps

TWP - 7 - that would rank 19, oddly enough that would have him perfectly between Jimmy G and Flacco.

Adj % - 73.6% - that would rank him 19, between Mills and Lawrence. 

Drop % - 9.4% - would rank him 3rd (Flacco being 4th). There is clearly an issue with Jets pass catchers holding onto the football.

 

19th is better than I would have thought to me honest. I think that is encouraging considering the defenses we have faced and the improvement that could be coming given the back half of the schedule. 

[T0mShane]

31 minutes ago, HawkeyeJet said:

but it tells me that defenses aren’t scared of Flacco beating them vs pressure or not.   Can’t  say this for sure without watching each snap, but I would say it’s likely Zach’s initial required response time on a given play is generally shorter than Flaccos has been because he’s facing blitzed much more frequently.

Not to be snarky, but I think the conclusion is 180 degrees backwards. They blitz Zach Wilson because he has a 12.7 passer rating when pressured (good for 37th in the NFL) and—astonishingly—has only crossed the line of scrimmage (scrambles) on those pressures three times. Teams blitz Zach Wilson because it’s easy money with no downside. RE: Flacco, you don’t blitz him because he’s a statue and you can pressure him with your base DL. Flacco faced pressure on 22% of his dropbacks while playing with Connor McDermott at tackle, but put up a QB rating of 64.3 on pressured dropbacks. He was not good, but he at least demonstrated an ability to make teams pay for the blitz that Zach has not shown. 
 

As an aside, Ben Solak has an interesting article up right now about the Colts move to Sam Ehlinger, and uses that to frame a larger discussion about the need for mobile QBs, particularly this season. Summation: defenses are absolutely going to pressure your quarterback and they’re not going to let you throw it deep, so it’s a contest to see which team can complete the most 8 yard passes while, at the same time, not having a negative play (which dramatically reduces percentage of successful drives). The Jets have been able to avoid negative plays, and they get a lot of those 5- to 8-yard plays from their backs, which has substituted for conventionally good QB play. If they stop getting those 8-yard gains now that Breece is gone and as teams catch up with LaFleur successfully running the Wing-T, it’s all going to land in Zach’s lap to replace them. Good test of if he can this weekend. 

[jgb]

10 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

Oo 100%. I'm a big fan of turnover worthy plays, adj comp %, and drop % as stats. None of those show missed reads so there is still context missing but I think those are pretty decent things to look at.

QBs who played 50% snaps

TWP - 7 - that would rank 19, oddly enough that would have him perfectly between Jimmy G and Flacco.

Adj % - 73.6% - that would rank him 19, between Mills and Lawrence. 

Drop % - 9.4% - would rank him 3rd (Flacco being 4th). There is clearly an issue with Jets pass catchers holding onto the football.

 

19th is better than I would have thought to me honest. I think that is encouraging considering the defenses we have faced and the improvement that could be coming given the back half of the schedule. 

Agree those are interesting stats. The difference is that those stats express the variable as a % of total population of plays -- i.e., the entire data set. They don't say "well if you take out his two worst games, he had an adjusted completion percentage of..."

[T0mShane]

1 minute ago, T0mShane said:

Not to be snarky, but I think the conclusion is 180 degrees backwards. They blitz Zach Wilson because he has a 12.7 passer rating when pressured (good for 37th in the NFL) and—astonishingly—has only crossed the line of scrimmage (scrambles) on those pressures three times. Teams blitz Zach Wilson because it’s easy money with no downside. RE: Flacco, you don’t blitz him because he’s a statue and you can pressure him with your base DL. Flacco faced pressure on 22% of his dropbacks while playing with Connor McDermott at tackle, but put up a QB rating of 64.3 on pressured dropbacks. He was not good, but he at least demonstrated an ability to make teams pay for the blitz that Zach has not shown. 
 

As an aside, Ben Solak has an interesting article up right now about the Colts move to Sam Ehlinger, and uses that to frame a larger discussion about the need for mobile QBs, particularly this season. Summation: defenses are absolutely going to pressure your quarterback and they’re not going to let you throw it deep, so it’s a contest to see which team can complete the most 8 yard passes while, at the same time, not having a negative play (which dramatically reduces percentage of successful drives). The Jets have been able to avoid negative plays, and they get a lot of those 5- to 8-yard plays from their backs, which has substituted for conventionally good QB play. If they stop getting those 8-yard gains now that Breece is gone and as teams catch up with LaFleur successfully running the Wing-T, it’s all going to land in Zach’s lap to replace them. Good test of if he can this weekend. 

Solak article. Takes some liberties, but still an interesting read. Nate Tice also has a good companion article on what the Bears transitioned to this week with Fields. I don’t think they can replicate that with Zach because Zach wouldn’t hold up, but interesting nonetheless.

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2022/10/25/23422203/indianapolis-colts-sam-ehlinger-matt-ryan-scrambling