NFL 2011 Season

[faldor]

The only way you can compare the numbers is to the rest of the league THIS year. 

Sanchez had the 23rd best QB rating.  That's not good.

Of 47 qualifiers who threw at least 100 passes, right?

No, I'm not comparing him to FORTY SEVEN QB's who had 100 pass attempts.  That's ridiculous.  Sure out of EVERY starting QB in the league AND their backups, he ranks around the middle of the pack.  That's TERRIBLE!  Sanchez had 543 pass attempts this year.  How can you possibly compare him to Chad Henne, who had 112 pass attempts?  You'd have to narrow down the field GREATLY.  He ranked 23rd in QB rating, and there are 32 teams in the NFL.  So you can pretty much say he was 23 out of 32.  That's bad, no matter how you try to spin it.

A couple more stats.

Yards per game, he ranked 22nd.  Bad.

1st downs, he was actually decent, ranked 13th.

BUT, his 1st down % was not so good, ranked 20th.

Plays of 20+ yards, he was 20th.  Not good.

Plays of 40+ yards, he had TWO all season, which ranks him 33rd.  AWFUL!

I guess it depends on how you look at it.  If you want to focus solely on the numbers alone, then yeah he had an average season.  But if you compare to his counterparts (the other 31 starting QB's in the league), he had a BAD season.

[gilee7]

Nobody is giving the Broncos a chance this weekend, but it wouldn't surprise me if they pull it off. Crazy things happen in the NFL. Just this season the Rams beat the Saints and the Chiefs ended the Packers' undefeated streak. Last year the 7-9 Seahawks beat the Saints in the playoffs. The best team doesn't always win.

The Steelers are very banged up right now. Big Ben hasn't played well since injuring his ankle, and he apparently suffered a setback in last week's game. They've lost Mendenhall. Safety Ryan Clarke can't play because of the altitude. Several other key players are dealing with injuries. I think as long as Tebow takes care of the ball--- something he hasn't been doing as of late--- and makes enough plays to at least win the field position battle, Matt Prater and the Broncos defense could very well lead the team to victory. I would never bet money on it, but I'm picking the Broncos to pull off the shocker . . . Broncos win.

As for the other games, it's hard to imagine the Saints losing a game at home. They've looked like the best team in football during the past few weeks. Their game is the one I'm looking forward to the most. I expect both teams to flirt with or go over 40 points, but Brees outdoes Stafford in the end .... Saints win.

You never know which Giants team is going to show up, but I trust Eli Manning more than I trust Matt Ryan, who never plays as well in away games. Plus the Giants defense has started to pick it up as of late .... Giants win, and by a decent margin.

A lot of people are picking Cincy, but Houston still has the better defense and a much better running game. Plus Andre Johnson is going to play, which will make Yates look better than he probably is. I'll go with the home team . . . Texans win.

[gilee7]

And as for Sanchez .... In a time where rule changes have made it so that QBs can put up ridiculous numbers with relative ease, and in a season where two rookies--- Dalton and Newton--- looked better than Sanchez ever has, without either one of them having the benefit of training camp or a normal offseason, I think all those things point to signs that Sanchez is an average QB who hasn't shown much improvement during his three seasons in the NFL.

[faldor]

And as for Sanchez .... In a time where rule changes have made it so that QBs can put up ridiculous numbers with relative ease, and in a season where two rookies--- Dalton and Newton--- looked better than Sanchez ever has, without either one of them having the benefit of training camp or a normal offseason, I think all those things point to signs that Sanchez is an average QB who hasn't shown much improvement during his three seasons in the NFL.

that's a succinct description of what I was trying to point out.

And I do think the Pitt/Denver game will be close and low scoring. I don't see Tebow doing much of anything against the Blitzburgh defense though. So Denver would have to revert to how they played when Tebow first took over. McGahee and the defense need to have monster games. It's possible, and I hope it happens, but I just don't see it. Pittsburgh 13 Dever 6.

[Axl4Prez2004]

They all said I was crazy!  Texans win, and Axl4Prez is 1-0.  What's that?  The Lions are up 14-7?  If the Lions +10 1/2 cover, I'll be 2-0.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it...then realize I am right and the falcons +3 and Steelers -8 1/2 will cover.  OH YEEEAH!   

[tim_m]

Well i hope you are wrong about the Falcons.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Well i hope you are wrong about the Falcons.

Late Nahlins TD had me wrong on that game!  Order in the universe is restored!   

[AxlsMainMan]

Quite the nail-biter in Denver

[gilee7]

Nobody is giving the Broncos a chance this weekend, but it wouldn't surprise me if they pull it off. Crazy things happen in the NFL. Just this season the Rams beat the Saints and the Chiefs ended the Packers' undefeated streak. Last year the 7-9 Seahawks beat the Saints in the playoffs. The best team doesn't always win.

The Steelers are very banged up right now. Big Ben hasn't played well since injuring his ankle, and he apparently suffered a setback in last week's game. They've lost Mendenhall. Safety Ryan Clarke can't play because of the altitude. Several other key players are dealing with injuries. I think as long as Tebow takes care of the ball--- something he hasn't been doing as of late--- and makes enough plays to at least win the field position battle, Matt Prater and the Broncos defense could very well lead the team to victory. I would never bet money on it, but I'm picking the Broncos to pull off the shocker . . . Broncos win.

As for the other games, it's hard to imagine the Saints losing a game at home. They've looked like the best team in football during the past few weeks. Their game is the one I'm looking forward to the most. I expect both teams to flirt with or go over 40 points, but Brees outdoes Stafford in the end .... Saints win.

You never know which Giants team is going to show up, but I trust Eli Manning more than I trust Matt Ryan, who never plays as well in away games. Plus the Giants defense has started to pick it up as of late .... Giants win, and by a decent margin.

A lot of people are picking Cincy, but Houston still has the better defense and a much better running game. Plus Andre Johnson is going to play, which will make Yates look better than he probably is. I'll go with the home team . . . Texans win.

Just call me Nostradamus. A perfect 4-0, baby.

I had a feeling the Broncos might win this game, mainly due to the long list of injuries the Steelers have and also due to the total lack of respect the Broncos were given. It seems like any time a team is given no chance of winning by virtually everyone in America, that team somehow defies all logic. I never would've thought Tim Tebow would throw for 300+ yards against the Steelers, though.

None of this should be surprising though, considering on one team you've got an alleged rapist and on the other side you've got God's favorite son. The outcome was never in doubt.

[gnr85]

as much as i hate to say this Tebow did play a decent game, i just wonder how there gonna do vs Taco Tom

[Drew]

Atlanta scores only two points against the Giants? They have to be one of the most underachieving teams these past few years. Too bad they have to compete against New Orleans every year for the division.

[sandman]

Nobody is giving the Broncos a chance this weekend, but it wouldn't surprise me if they pull it off. Crazy things happen in the NFL. Just this season the Rams beat the Saints and the Chiefs ended the Packers' undefeated streak. Last year the 7-9 Seahawks beat the Saints in the playoffs. The best team doesn't always win.

The Steelers are very banged up right now. Big Ben hasn't played well since injuring his ankle, and he apparently suffered a setback in last week's game. They've lost Mendenhall. Safety Ryan Clarke can't play because of the altitude. Several other key players are dealing with injuries. I think as long as Tebow takes care of the ball--- something he hasn't been doing as of late--- and makes enough plays to at least win the field position battle, Matt Prater and the Broncos defense could very well lead the team to victory. I would never bet money on it, but I'm picking the Broncos to pull off the shocker . . . Broncos win.

As for the other games, it's hard to imagine the Saints losing a game at home. They've looked like the best team in football during the past few weeks. Their game is the one I'm looking forward to the most. I expect both teams to flirt with or go over 40 points, but Brees outdoes Stafford in the end .... Saints win.

You never know which Giants team is going to show up, but I trust Eli Manning more than I trust Matt Ryan, who never plays as well in away games. Plus the Giants defense has started to pick it up as of late .... Giants win, and by a decent margin.

A lot of people are picking Cincy, but Houston still has the better defense and a much better running game. Plus Andre Johnson is going to play, which will make Yates look better than he probably is. I'll go with the home team . . . Texans win.

Just call me Nostradamus. A perfect 4-0, baby.

I had a feeling the Broncos might win this game, mainly due to the long list of injuries the Steelers have and also due to the total lack of respect the Broncos were given. It seems like any time a team is given no chance of winning by virtually everyone in America, that team somehow defies all logic. I never would've thought Tim Tebow would throw for 300+ yards against the Steelers, though.

None of this should be surprising though, considering on one team you've got an alleged rapist and on the other side you've got God's favorite son. The outcome was never in doubt.

that's impressive. going 4-0 in the playoffs is tough. not only that, but you nailed each game with your predictions. well done. 

the games bored me all weekend, until that denver game. that was incredible! tebow stepped it up big time with a clutch performance. he played his best game in the playoffs, and made a perfect throw when the pressure was the greatest. what a story.   

[pilferk]

No, I'm not comparing him to FORTY SEVEN QB's who had 100 pass attempts.  That's ridiculous.  Sure out of EVERY starting QB in the league AND their backups, he ranks around the middle of the pack.  That's TERRIBLE!  Sanchez had 543 pass attempts this year.  How can you possibly compare him to Chad Henne, who had 112 pass attempts?  You'd have to narrow down the field GREATLY.  He ranked 23rd in QB rating, and there are 32 teams in the NFL.  So you can pretty much say he was 23 out of 32.  That's bad, no matter how you try to spin it.

Then you're not using the metric for the denominator pretty much every other person on the planet uses.

That 100 attempts metric isn't one defined by me.  It's one used by pretty much every analytic site, fantasy site, etc on the planet.  It's like the AB's denominator in baseball.

Yes, there were 32 teams. Which means precisely nothing.

And there's the disconnect.

[pilferk]

VERY happy with the G-men's performance.  Now they run into the buzz saw that is GB.  Last game was respectable...if they can catch a couple breaks, and if their defense can put some pressure on Rogers....they  might have a shot.

STUNNED by the Bronco's performance.....even with injuries, I thought the Steelers could contain them.

[faldor]

No, I'm not comparing him to FORTY SEVEN QB's who had 100 pass attempts.  That's ridiculous.  Sure out of EVERY starting QB in the league AND their backups, he ranks around the middle of the pack.  That's TERRIBLE!  Sanchez had 543 pass attempts this year.  How can you possibly compare him to Chad Henne, who had 112 pass attempts?  You'd have to narrow down the field GREATLY.  He ranked 23rd in QB rating, and there are 32 teams in the NFL.  So you can pretty much say he was 23 out of 32.  That's bad, no matter how you try to spin it.

Then you're not using the metric for the denominator pretty much every other person on the planet uses.

That 100 attempts metric isn't one defined by me.  It's one used by pretty much every analytic site, fantasy site, etc on the planet.  It's like the AB's denominator in baseball.

Yes, there were 32 teams. Which means precisely nothing.

And there's the disconnect.

If you want to compare Mark Sanchez's year to Chad Henne, when he threw 400 more passes, fine.  Seems a little crazy to me though.

From www.nfl.com

* To qualify for passer rating, the player must have thrown at least 14 passes/game.

That would equate to 224 pass attempts.

He ranks 23rd out of 33 on that list.  Bad.  Now if you want to say he had a better season than guys who got injured or who were thrust into the role like Vince Young and Seneca Wallace be my guest.  Even if you do that though, Sanchez had a lower QB rating than guys like TJ Yates, Caleb Haine, Chad Henne, Dan Orlovsky, and even Donovan McNabb.  There's a guy who was released because he was so bad, but by the numbers he was better than Sanchez.  If that's not the definition of having a bad season, I don't know what is.  Obviously Sanchez is going to have more passing yards, TD's, etc. than guys who had 400 less pass attempts.  That doesn't make his season any better though. 

[pilferk]

If you want to compare Mark Sanchez's year to Chad Henne, when he threw 400 more passes, fine.  Seems a little crazy to me though.

From www.nfl.com

* To qualify for passer rating, the player must have thrown at least 14 passes/game.

That would equate to 224 pass attempts.

He ranks 23rd out of 33 on that list.  Bad.  Now if you want to say he had a better season than guys who got injured or who were thrust into the role like Vince Young and Seneca Wallace be my guest.  Even if you do that though, Sanchez had a lower QB rating than guys like TJ Yates, Caleb Haine, Chad Henne, Dan Orlovsky, and even Donovan McNabb.  There's a guy who was released because he was so bad, but by the numbers he was better than Sanchez.  If that's not the definition of having a bad season, I don't know what is.  Obviously Sanchez is going to have more passing yards, TD's, etc. than guys who had 400 less pass attempts.  That doesn't make his season any better though. 

He was average by every (reasonable) metric, measured by (reasonable) denominators....and better than that when compared with a whole host of other QB's in (and in sum total) their first 3 seasons, historically.

Even his QBR  shows that....it was close to 80.

I think we've hit the end of the discussion though.  I think we can succinctly summarize our difference of opinion:

1) You want to compare his numbers to guys like Brees and Brady...established vets who've been in the league for a LONG time.  I prefer to look at his numbers in comparison to other guys at exactly the same points in their careers.

2) You want to compare his season stats ONLY against the guys who had the longevity, talent, and lack of injuries that would allow them 225+ pass attempts, rather than the larger (and more complete) list of guys who were active this year, and might not have been able to garner as many attempts (for a variety of reasons) which I (and most stat farms) prefer.

I'll comfortably stand behind by position that he had an average season, and the numbers show that. 

I'm sure you'll comfortably stand behind yours, too, and your position that the numbers support it.

[faldor]

If you want to compare Mark Sanchez's year to Chad Henne, when he threw 400 more passes, fine.  Seems a little crazy to me though.

From www.nfl.com

* To qualify for passer rating, the player must have thrown at least 14 passes/game.

That would equate to 224 pass attempts.

He ranks 23rd out of 33 on that list.  Bad.  Now if you want to say he had a better season than guys who got injured or who were thrust into the role like Vince Young and Seneca Wallace be my guest.  Even if you do that though, Sanchez had a lower QB rating than guys like TJ Yates, Caleb Haine, Chad Henne, Dan Orlovsky, and even Donovan McNabb.  There's a guy who was released because he was so bad, but by the numbers he was better than Sanchez.  If that's not the definition of having a bad season, I don't know what is.  Obviously Sanchez is going to have more passing yards, TD's, etc. than guys who had 400 less pass attempts.  That doesn't make his season any better though. 

He was average by every (reasonable) metric, measured by (reasonable) denominators....and better than that when compared with a whole host of other QB's in (and in sum total) their first 3 seasons, historically.

Even his QBR  shows that....it was close to 80.

I think we've hit the end of the discussion though.  I think we can succinctly summarize our difference of opinion:

1) You want to compare his numbers to guys like Brees and Brady...established vets who've been in the league for a LONG time.  I prefer to look at his numbers in comparison to other guys at exactly the same points in their careers.

2) You want to compare his season stats ONLY against the guys who had the longevity, talent, and lack of injuries that would allow them 225+ pass attempts, rather than the larger (and more complete) list of guys who were active this year, and might not have been able to garner as many attempts (for a variety of reasons) which I (and most stat farms) prefer.

I'll comfortably stand behind by position that he had an average season, and the numbers show that. 

I'm sure you'll comfortably stand behind yours, too, and your position that the numbers support it.

Obviously neither of us is going to budge on this, but I am NOT comparing Sanchez to Brees and Brady.  Absolutely not.  They shouldn't even be in the same sentence.  I am comparing him to 33 other QB's who threw over 224 passes this year.  Within that group he ranked 23rd as far as QB rating.  I don't know how you possibly can compare him to guys that threw 100 passes this year.  Maybe you have some stats that I don't know about, but it doesn't seem like a fair comparison to me.  Even if you do compare him to guys like Orlovsky, Haine, Yates, etc.  Sanchez STILL has a lower QBR.  So I'm not sure what you're going on. 

It's also very difficult to compare THIS era of the NFL with that of 10 years ago.  There's a reason Dan Marino's record(s) stood for so long and only now a handful of guys are surpassing them with ease.  If he put up these stats 10 years ago, I'd say it would be a good season, not in 2011 though.  Lastly, Sanchez wasn't exactly a stiff coming out of college.  He was the FIFTH overall pick.  We're not talking about some guy they took a chance on in the 3rd round.  I think a lot of people expected more improvement from him by this point.

[LongGoneDay]

If you want to compare Mark Sanchez's year to Chad Henne, when he threw 400 more passes, fine.  Seems a little crazy to me though.

From www.nfl.com

* To qualify for passer rating, the player must have thrown at least 14 passes/game.

That would equate to 224 pass attempts.

He ranks 23rd out of 33 on that list.  Bad.  Now if you want to say he had a better season than guys who got injured or who were thrust into the role like Vince Young and Seneca Wallace be my guest.  Even if you do that though, Sanchez had a lower QB rating than guys like TJ Yates, Caleb Haine, Chad Henne, Dan Orlovsky, and even Donovan McNabb.  There's a guy who was released because he was so bad, but by the numbers he was better than Sanchez.  If that's not the definition of having a bad season, I don't know what is.  Obviously Sanchez is going to have more passing yards, TD's, etc. than guys who had 400 less pass attempts.  That doesn't make his season any better though. 

1) You want to compare his numbers to guys like Brees and Brady...established vets who've been in the league for a LONG time.  I prefer to look at his numbers in comparison to other guys at exactly the same points in their careers.

Brady was wearing 2 SB rings by the time he was at the stage of his career Sanchez is at today.
Jets underachieved as a team this year. It starts at the top. Gotta wonder about a team that names Holmes as it's captain.
A lot has to fall on the QBs shoulders, though. He's still young, but Sanchez was and is mediocre at best at this point in his career in my opinion.

[tim_m]

I still think a big part of the problem is the team we put around him this year, it just wasn't very good. We gave we ditched Cotchery for two old receivers and a trouble maker. That surely isn't gonna help a young QB improve and the running game was total shit. You have to blame more than Sanchez for the mess we were on offense this year.

[pilferk]

Obviously neither of us is going to budge on this, but I am NOT comparing Sanchez to Brees and Brady.  Absolutely not.  They shouldn't even be in the same sentence. 

But you are...because that's what you're setting your expectation level at for this 3rd year QB.  You said it yourself:  His stats aren't "great" compared to the gunslinging that went on this  year.  By and large...who was the gunslinging coming from?  MOSTLY from the established QB's (sure, there were a couple exceptions with some rookies....lets see where they are next year, after the league has figured them out, and prepped for them).

I am comparing him to 33 other QB's who threw over 224 passes this year.  Within that group he ranked 23rd as far as QB rating.  I don't know how you possibly can compare him to guys that threw 100 passes this year.  Maybe you have some stats that I don't know about, but it doesn't seem like a fair comparison to me.  Even if you do compare him to guys like Orlovsky, Haine, Yates, etc.  Sanchez STILL has a lower QBR.  So I'm not sure what you're going on. 

You said it, right there: Within that group.

To me, "average" means "average'...not "average when looking at him only compared to the top 2/3 of active QBs".  To simplify:  When computing the average grade for a class, you wouldn't just look at the grade posted by A, B, and C students, right?  As long as the student didn't have an INC...you'd include them in the "average" calculation/consideration.  I dont' think, by any stretch, you equate INC to < 224 passes. 

So, to me, you're saying that, compared to the A, B, and C students...his grades were below average.  THAT'S what sticking to the 224 pass mark does.

While I realize the data has to be segmented, to some extent (so you're not comparing QB's to a back throwing a pass on a stunt play)....using the 224 pass mark is FAR too severe when talking about comparing QB's IN THE LEAGUE. 

My stats, generally, come from various stat farms and fantasy sites (largely because they're more exhaustive) rather than just the league site.  Footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb is a decent one.

As for QBR...taken right from the definition:

According to ESPN, QBR was developed to measure the degree to which a quarterback contributed to scoring points for the team, and also to a win by the team. For example, completing a pass to earn a first down at the quarterback's own 20-yard-line with 30 seconds left in the game is unlikely to lead to any points for his team, but if they are already leading it increases the probability of winning, as it usually enables the leading team to run out the clock. This second criterion is quantified using a "win probability" function which ESPN developed by analyzing data for each play of NFL games over the previous decade.

The computation requires an examination of each play in which the quarterback was involved. For each play, the change in the expected value of the points scored by the two teams is determined along with the maximum possible change in points for each team. The net points gained by the offense on the play are divided between the players involved in the play based on how much each contributed to the points gained or lost. For example, on a play where the quarterback immediately hands the ball off to a running back after the snap, the quarterback's contribution is negligible. On passing plays the quarterback is likely to have a major contribution, along with the blockers and the receiver. The resulting value is compared the maximum possible net point gain, and this comparison leads to a "net points percentage" value between 0 and 100 for the quarterback on each play which roughly represents the percentage of the possible point gain that the quarterback produced. This value is transformed so that a value of 50 represents the average net point gain of an NFL quarterback on the play.

The win probability function is then used to compute a "clutch index" for each play ranging from 0.3 to 3.0, with higher values corresponding to plays that have a greater influence on winning or losing the game. The QBR is obtained by taking the weighted average of the "points gained percentage" for each play, with each play having a weight equal to its clutch index. Thus the QBR has a range from 0 to 100 with 50 being considered average.

Thus....>50 QBR means above average in comparison to the rest of the league....at least according to ESPN's definition.

If you look amongst "qualified" players....his QBR was about 6 points below the standard average.

Also...in the NFL stats page you sent...you know they listing PASSER RATING...not QBR, right?

It's also very difficult to compare THIS era of the NFL with that of 10 years ago.  There's a reason Dan Marino's record(s) stood for so long and only now a handful of guys are surpassing them with ease.  If he put up these stats 10 years ago, I'd say it would be a good season, not in 2011 though.  Lastly, Sanchez wasn't exactly a stiff coming out of college.  He was the FIFTH overall pick.  We're not talking about some guy they took a chance on in the 3rd round.  I think a lot of people expected more improvement from him by this point.

I agree.  But I'm talking about comparing him to the progression of guys ACTIVE in the league, right now.  Manning, Brees, Vick, Brady and others...and where they were at in their 3rd year (and through 3 years).  Historically, I think that's a far "fairer" comparison than looking at his numbers, comparing him to those guys NOW, and saying the guy had a "bad" season.  As you, yourself, said earlier....he shouldn't be compared with those guys (but, of course, there they are...right on the list you're using).

He was the 5th overall pick...who started for how many games in college?  Not a stiff...but not exactly the most experienced QB coming out of college.

Define "a lot of people"?  A lot of fans? Maybe...but then fans expectations are often unreasonable.  ESPECIALLY after you come into the league and the team goes to 2 straight AFC championships.  Funny, though...I didn't hear much in the way of complaints about his stats those 2 years...and they were WORSE than his stats, this year.

Manning is a great example.  His stats were WORSE than Sanchez his first 3 years...but showed improvement each year.  Not leaps and bounds, but improvement.  The press, and fans, were screaming for his head on a pike....but not the organization.  They looked at historical QB progression and were OK with where he was.

That's turned out pretty well for the G-men, IMHO.

Anyway...I think that's about as clear as I can be about my position.  Time to "Mo Vaughn".