SBtS: Start 'em or Sit 'em

[YoHoChecko]

Stats Behind the Stats:
Start ‘em or Sit ‘em?
Investigating the myths behind rookie quarterbacks
By
Max Gross

Every time a quarterback is taken in the first round of the draft, a debate takes place as to whether that quarterback should play right away or sit for a year to learn the position on an NFL level. While common sense suggests that playing a rookie quarterback is bad for the team in the short-term, there is a school of thought among many football people that the only way to truly learn the position is to play, and that the on-field experience is invaluable to the quarterback. This thinking suggests that the short-term struggles of the team and quarterback are worth enduring in the name of long-term benefits in development, and thus more wins for the franchise. An assumption is also made within this line of thinking that any first-time starter at quarterback, even after a year or two on the bench, will struggle similarly to rookie quarterbacks. Therefore, leaving a player on the bench is only delaying a year of poor play and holding back the franchise, overall.

The contrasting side of the debate claims that a quarterback is better prepared to play in the league after sitting on the bench for at least a season, and thus will not experience “rookie struggles.” This line of thinking asks why a team should endure the slow learning curve of a quarterback on the field, usually resulting in a poor season, if the benefits of doing so are negligible, or maybe even non-existent.

By looking at first round quarterbacks taken in the drafts from 1994 to 2004 and how they played in their first three years, this debate can finally be settled. All quarterbacks will be included in the study except for Jim Druckenmiller and Rex Grossman, neither of whom had enough playing time in their first three seasons to measure development or impact on their teams, leaving 23 quarterbacks in the study. The players will be broken down into three groups: those who were given the role of starter from the outset, those that got some significant starting experience during their rookie seasons and those that played only in spot back-up duty their rookie seasons, and thus gained little on-field experience.

The 10 quarterbacks that were immediate starters are Heath Shuler, Kerry Collins, Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller and Ben Roethlisberger. Those that had some significant starting experience were Akili Smith, Cade McNown, Donovan McNabb, Patrick Ramsey and Eli Manning. Finally, the following eight players spent most of their first year (or more) on the bench: Trent Dilfer, Steve McNair, Daunte Culpepper, Chad Pennington, Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Philip Rivers and JP Losman.

Year One
In the first year after drafting quarterbacks in the first round, the rookie starters’ average stat line looked like this:
<table><tr><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> &#37; </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td></tr>
<tr><td>199</td><td> 373 </td><td> 53.5% </td><td> 2344 </td><td> 6.29 </td><td> 12 </td><td> 14 </td><td> 67.3</td></tr></table>

It should also be noted that out of the eight non-expansion teams that put a rookie into immediate starting duty, three decreased their win total from the previous season and only two improved their win total by more than one game. In all, the ten franchises that took this route averaged six wins in year one.

Similarly, the five quarterbacks that started the year behind a veteran, but at some point during the season were inserted into the starting line-up had an average stat line as follows:
<table><tr><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> % </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td></tr>
<tr><td>105 </td><td> 206 </td><td> 51.1% </td><td> 1160 </td><td> 5.64 </td><td> 7 </td><td> 8 </td><td> 62.6</td></tr></table>

These five teams had only one team with declining wins from the previous season, but none improved by more than two games. On average, these five teams won six games—an improvement of one game over the previous year’s average.

Meanwhile, the leading passers for the eight teams that kept their first-round picks on the bench came out with the following average stat line:
<table><tr><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> % </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td></tr>
<tr><td>226 </td><td> 379 </td><td> 59.7% </td><td> 2717 </td><td> 7.17 </td><td> 18 </td><td> 12 </td><td> 84.6</td></tr></table>

Of these eight teams, only one had a decline in wins from their previous seasons (The Vikings, coming off of a 15-win year). Five of the eight improved by more than one game, and the average total wins for these teams was eight games.

This information affirms the common sensical notion that playing a rookie quarterback significantly decreases the production from that position compared to the play of veterans. Furthermore, it is more likely to cause a decline in wins and incredibly rarely leads to immediate success for the team.

Year Two
While the data from year one was hardly groundbreaking, data from year two should be the most telling. This information will allow a comparison between the play of a first-year starter who has a year on the bench to that of a rookie, while also checking the merits of the idea that a year of playing experience puts a quarterback farther along in his development.

In their second year as full-time starters, the ten quarterbacks who played immediately showed improvement in their stat lines:
<table><tr><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> % </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td></tr>
<tr><td>203 </td><td> 352 </td><td> 57.8% </td><td> 2422 </td><td> 6.89 </td><td> 13 </td><td> 12 </td><td> 78.1</td></tr></table>

Only two of the teams saw their win totals decline, while half of them (five) saw an improvement of more than one win. Because many teams had a decline in wins the previous season, these improvements led only to an average of eight wins apiece. It should be noted that Manning’s Colts improved from three to 13 wins in year two.

The five players who had some significant starting experience as rookies were stepping into the role of full-time starters for the first time. However, their partial on-field training did not lead to the same level of improvement, but still increased their production:
<table><tr><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> % </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td></tr>
<tr><td>215 </td><td> 402 </td><td> 53.5% </td><td> 2438 </td><td> 6.07 </td><td> 14 </td><td> 11 </td><td> 72.3</td></tr></table>

Their teams, likewise, did not show the same level of improvement, as two of the five teams declined, two showed significant improvement and one team stood pat. In all, they averaged seven wins.

Meanwhile, six of the eight first-rounders who sat on the bench in year one took to the field as starters in their first significant NFL action (though one of the six didn’t take over right away—Steve McNair, and one didn’t remain the team’s full-time starter—JP Losman). These six players produced as follows:
<table><tr><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> % </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td></tr>
<tr><td>203 </td><td> 352 </td><td> 57.5% </td><td> 2514 </td><td> 7.14 </td><td> 14 </td><td> 12 </td><td> 79.0</td></tr></table>

Only one of the six teams had a decline in wins (the Bills with Losman), and the group averaged eight wins. So not only did the teams not suffer the same dips that rookie quarterbacks provided in terms of team success, but the quarterback performance was far better than the numbers posted by rookie starters. In fact, the players who sat the bench for year one posted slightly better year two numbers than either of the quarterback groups with on-field experience.

The Jets and Chargers chose to keep Pennington and Rivers on the bench for an additional year with Vinny Testaverde and Drew Brees at the helms, respectively. Those teams were getting good play from the quarterback position and were winning games (they averaged 10 wins that year), so no change was made.

The data from year two begins to debunk the myth of the value of on-field experience. Players who saw the field as starters for the first time in their second years showed no evidence of being behind in their development, and slight evidence that it may have been even more beneficial than a year on the field. When combining the two groups that saw significant playing time in year one and comparing those totals with players that stayed on the sidelines, those who sat for a year had more completions and attempts, higher completion percentage, more yards, more touchdowns and a higher yards per attempt. Meanwhile, both groups averaged the same win total on year two, showing that either way can be successful for the team.

Year Three
By year three, all players involved in the study will have seen the field for significant playing time, and the long-term effects of the decisions made about first-round quarterbacks can begin to be gauged. However, it does get a little complicated, because in year three, some teams begin to give up on their prospects. For instance, Heath Shuler, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith and Cade McNown had worn out their welcomes, and had limited playing time—if any. For that reason, their statistics will be excluded from averages, but their failures need to be noted. Additionally, the injury bug bites the study for the first time, as Michael Vick lost most of this season to a broken leg, and thus his statistics will also be removed from averages. Just because these players will be excluded from further statistical observations, it is necessary to remain mindful of their plights, as removing players removes the lowest performers, possibly increasing the overall average.

The eight remaining starters who had been starting since day one showed very marginal improvement from year two. With this much starting experience, it makes sense that their play may have leveled off by this time. Here’s how they fared in year three:
<table><tr><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> % </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td></tr>
<tr><td>252 </td><td> 428 </td><td> 58.8% </td><td> 2949 </td><td> 6.89 </td><td> 18 </td><td> 15 </td><td> 78.4</td></tr></table>

The total numbers increased, but the completion percentage and yards per attempt showed minimal change, if any. The teams all still averaged eight wins apiece, showing the numbers to be leveling off normally around what should be the league’s averages. The same could be said for the three remaining players who had some playing time as rookies, but with only three, the sample is too small to draw many conclusions. That being said, here’s how the remaining players performed in year three:
<table><tr><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> % </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td></tr>
<tr><td>252 </td><td> 429 </td><td> 58.7 </td><td> 2714 </td><td> 6.33 </td><td> 20 </td><td> 14 </td><td> 79.3</td></tr></table>

These numbers are very similar to the first-year full-time starters, and their teams also averaged eight wins.

The five players that had been held out of their first year but started in their second years continued to improve, albeit somewhat marginally. They finished year three with the following average stat line:
<table><tr><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> % </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td></tr>
<tr><td>266 </td><td> 440 </td><td> 60.5% </td><td> 3005 </td><td> 6.83 </td><td> 18 </td><td> 14 </td><td> 81.3</td></tr></table>

This group offers the first 3,000 yard, 60 percent, 80+ QB rating of the study thus far, aside from the veteran starters in year one. However, the win average dropped slightly to seven.

There is only one remaining group, and it contains only two players. Again, this is a small sample, but stats cannot be ignored just for that reason. Starting for the first time as third-year players, Chad Pennington and Philip Rivers averaged the following stat line:
<table><tr><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> % </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td></tr>
<tr><td>280 </td><td> 430 </td><td> 65.2% </td><td> 3254 </td><td> 7.58 </td><td> 22 </td><td> 8 </td><td> 97.8</td></tr></table>

These two teams also averaged 12 wins. Naturally, the Chargers and Jets had much more going for them than their strong quarterback play, but the fact that these players performed so well in their first year as starters certainly goes to debunk the idea that on-field experience is the most important aspect of developing a quarterback. Now in the third year, it might seem appropriate to condense the study down to two groups: those with significant first-year playing experience, and those without. In such an analysis, you get the following results:
<table><tr><td></td><td>ATT</td><td>COMP</td><td> % </td><td>YARDS</td><td>YPA</td><td>TD</td><td>INT</td><td>RATE</td><td>WINS</td></tr>
<tr><td>With First-year:</td><td> 252 </td><td> 428 </td><td> 58.9% </td><td> 2885 </td><td>6.73</td><td>18 </td><td> 15 </td><td> 78.7 </td><td> 8</td></tr>
<tr><td>W/O First-year: </td><td> 236 </td><td> 383 </td><td> 61.6% </td><td> 2691 </td><td>7.03</td><td> 17 </td><td> 11 </td><td> 85.5 </td><td> 8</td></tr></table>

Again, a reminder that the group of first-year starters is absent four “draft busts,” and the group without first year experience is absent the pass-challenged Michael Vick. Those omissions are likely to have artificially inflated both of these averages a little, but especially the first-year starters. While that is not enough evidence to definitively claim that sitting for a year (or two) actually enhances the development of a quarterback moreso than getting onto the field, it is certainly enough to disprove the converse. There is absolutely no evidence that backs up the notion that a quarterback is better off long-term if he gets onto the field quickly to “take his lumps.” There is also no evidence that suggests that the teams that make that decision fare better in the long-term, as the winning averages even out around year two and stay approximately even. In fact, the only apparent advantage of playing a quarterback right away is that if it is not working out, teams are able to cut the ties by year three, possibly earlier than those quarterbacks who have seen less time on the field. Of course, that also brings up the point that the number of “draft busts” are significantly higher among quarterbacks forced onto the field during their first season, lending circumstantial evidence to the notion that playing in year one might actually decrease the chances for success among quarterbacks.

Additionally, with no evidence that any long-term benefits exist for playing rookie quarterbacks, it seems a good time to re-state the evidence from year one showing that rookie starters fare far worse than veterans, and often lead to a one-year decline for the team. This begs the question as to why a team would sacrifice some measure of success one season if it bears no long-term benefits. Indeed, it could be said to be a fool-hearty decision, unless the team is hoping for an improved draft pick the next year without the appearance of “tanking” a season.

Finally, it should be noted that the two quarterbacks who sat for two seasons combined to show better production (by QB rating) than all but four quarterbacks in the study showed in any single year (Roethlisberger, P. Manning, Palmer and Culpepper). Such a fact combined with the other data provided in this analysis suggests that each year of development on the bench may be worth slightly more than a year of development on the field, and indicates that the best chance to ensure that there is never a drop-off in team or quarterback performance is to let early picks at quarterback sit.

[jjflr]

great job of compiling all of the statistics and putting it together............

quick question, though, why only 1st round picks ?

marc bulger, tom brady, kurt warner, and jeff garcia are a few QB's that weren't 1st rounders necessarily that 'started' very early after joining the NFL and had a LOT of success early on for their first few years............

i would venture to say these 4 QB's alone would probably even out the stats quite a bit between the categories but great job of putting together the theory and following through with the stats...........

I can tell you put a LOT of time and energy into this article............good job

[YoHoChecko]

great job of compiling all of the statistics and putting it together............

quick question, though, why only 1st round picks ?

marc bulger, tom brady, kurt warner, and jeff garcia are a few QB's that weren't 1st rounders necessarily that 'started' very early after joining the NFL and had a LOT of success early on for their first few years............

i would venture to say these 4 QB's alone would probably even out the stats quite a bit between the categories but great job of putting together the theory and following through with the stats...........

I can tell you put a LOT of time and energy into this article............good job
None of those QBs started in their real first years.

-Brady sat one year with the Pats,
-Bulger was drafted two years before starting, spent time in a couple camps and practice squads as a rookie before sitting one year with the Rams,
-Warner was in camp for other teams before giving up on football for a while, then returning to the sport and excelling in the arena league
-and Jeff Garcia came from the CFL... not your typical NFL "rookie."
In fact, Warner and Garcia would have been considered "first year players," but not "rookies," by the definitions of the NFL, so if I were to include the players you mentioned, it would only serve to increase the numbers for players who did not start as rookies, considering that they didn't.

The reason I only looked at first round picks is because almost ALL later players sit before they play unless forced into action through injury. Usually, those players are the only ones that are the topic of any debate. No one questions whether or not they should put Bruce Gradkowski in from day one. He clearly is not a top option.

[whywerule]

...However, it does get a little complicated, because in year three, some teams begin to give up on their prospects. For instance, Trent Dilfer, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith and Cade McNown had worn out their welcomes, and had limited playing time—if any....
FWIW, Trent Dilfer played in every game his third year in the league. I am almost certain he started every game that season. He did have a pretty miserable third season, but the Bucs other options were those all-time greats Scott Milanovich and Casey Weldon. The Bucs really did not give up on him until his sixth season. In fact, Dilfer had a reasonably good fourth season when he made the Pro Bowl.

[YoHoChecko]

FWIW, Trent Dilfer played in every game his third year in the league. I am almost certain he started every game that season. He did have a pretty miserable third season, but the Bucs other options were those all-time greats Scott Milanovich and Casey Weldon. The Bucs really did not give up on him until his sixth season. In fact, Dilfer had a reasonably good fourth season when he made the Pro Bowl.

That was a typographical error. I meant Heath Shuler. Dilfer's stats in year three were included in the figures, but Heath Shuler's were not, as he did not play. I apologize for the error; thanks for pointing that out.

[BigBenCan7]

I hate that there are so little replies to this thread, because it is such a great article, but there really isn't anything to argue. The stats are clear and dry right there, anyone would be foolish to try to put up a counter argument. That's why it's such a great article (and alas, the reason there are so few replies, ironic, no?).

The only thing I noticed was that if going by the definition you used for the second group ("the five quarterbacks that started the year behind a veteran, but at some point during the season were inserted into the starting line-up"), wouldn't Ben Roethlisberger fall into that group, rather than the first?

[YoHoChecko]

I hate that there are so little replies to this thread, because it is such a great article, but there really isn't anything to argue. The stats are clear and dry right there, anyone would be foolish to try to put up a counter argument. That's why it's such a great article (and alas, the reason there are so few replies, ironic, no?).

The only thing I noticed was that if going by the definition you used for the second group ("the five quarterbacks that started the year behind a veteran, but at some point during the season were inserted into the starting line-up"), wouldn't Ben Roethlisberger fall into that group, rather than the first?

I suppose Ben could, but if I'm not mistaken, he started 14 games, right?

My problem there was that in weeks 5-7, and then weeks 10-11, I had different starters take over. I couldn't decide how to classify players with 10 starts versus players with 6 starts versus players with 16 or 0. You'll notice Vick also started one or two games at the end of his rookie season, too... and Kyle Boller missed 5 or 6 games in the middle of his season. I thought about making a cut-off point in the season, but then realized that getting experience as a rookie was getting experience as a rookie. Mentally (and at the end of the article), I've lumped those groupss together, anyway... but to appease the masses, I knew I should draw a distinction between those that started a whole season, and those that started 6 games. I felt that Ben, at 14, was close enough (and honestly, I thought it was 15 at the time).

For me, Roethlisberger was their starting QB for almost that entire year, so there was less gray area there than with, say Eli Manning, Akili Smith and Donovan McNabb. (Does it annoy anyone else that gray and grey are both correct? pick one and go with it, english language!) Anyway, yes, Ben could be considered in the second group.

Thanks, though, for the kind words about the article. I was hoping for more discussion, and was shocked jjflr (who always tells me how rodgers' on the bench is holding back the franchise) didn't put up more of a fight than mentioning first-year players like Garcia and Warner, but hopefully, most feel as you do, and simply find the contention in the article satisfying enough to go unquestioned. Thanks again.

[jjflr]

I hate that there are so little replies to this thread, because it is such a great article,

I agree. As I stated previously, this took YoHo a LOT of time to put together (trust me, I know..........I've done a LOT of statistically-based articles for this site and they are VERY time-consuming)...............

this is a GREAT article...............when I feel motivated to do a counter-analysis, I will take a closer look at it statistically...............I only have 2 questions about the theory at this point

1) 'Was there enough data to determine an accurate conclusion since only 1st rounders over a 10-year period were used?

2) and secondly, and more importantly, the theory doesn't take into account the fact that the first round 'busts' very well could have sucked whether they started in the first, second, or third years............

Does anyone think that Ryan Leaf would have 'made it' if he had sat on the bench for a couple of years?

In addition, were there any first round QB's over the time period that didn't start AT ALL in their first 3 years ? If so, then they should be considered 'busts' and counted against the stats for the QB's who don't start immediately.

These are just a few thoughts off of the top of my head. YoHo may be able to answer some of them but I couldn't counter a full argument without doing an in-depth analysis of my own.........................

[YoHoChecko]

I agree. As I stated previously, this took YoHo a LOT of time to put together (trust me, I know..........I've done a LOT of statistically-based articles for this site and they are VERY time-consuming)...............

this is a GREAT article...............when I feel motivated to do a counter-analysis, I will take a closer look at it statistically...............I only have 2 questions about the theory at this point

1) 'Was there enough data to determine an accurate conclusion since only 1st rounders over a 10-year period were used?

2) and secondly, and more importantly, the theory doesn't take into account the fact that the first round 'busts' very well could have sucked whether they started in the first, second, or third years............

Does anyone think that Ryan Leaf would have 'made it' if he had sat on the bench for a couple of years?

In addition, were there any first round QB's over the time period that didn't start AT ALL in their first 3 years ? If so, then they should be considered 'busts' and counted against the stats for the QB's who don't start immediately.

These are just a few thoughts off of the top of my head. YoHo may be able to answer some of them but I couldn't counter a full argument without doing an in-depth analysis of my own.........................

I'll answer your last question first: Rex Grossman waited, started at the very end of the year, then started three games and got hurt... then got hurt for most of the season and started only three games. So he waited, and then got injured twice. Druckenmiller played in only four games, all in his first year but I think mostly as a back-up (only 52 pass attempts), so those sort of count.

Now, mentioning those, that is why I greatly de-emphasized the bust factor. I only mentioned it towards the end as possible circumstantial evidence that playing right away might decrease success rate. That point, however, was not the main contention. The main contention was simply disproving the idea that on-field playing experience accelerates or aids development moreso than off-the field development. Given the similarity in their year two and three numbers, I think this successfully shows that. Added to the massive success of the two players that waited two years before starting showed NO signs of slowed development.

As for the sample size, it is too small to be definitive. However, it's difficult to figure out how to expand. The reason first-round picks were chosen is because all these guys are assumed to be, at the very least, very talented (though nutcase factor is not measured). I can either stretch back farther in time, or expand the study to the first-day.

However, as I have stated, most guys drafted outside the first round wait to play, whereas with first round picks it was 10 play right away, 8 wait, 5 in between... fairly even. By increasing to the entire first day, I'm injecting less-talented QBs (presumably) into only one group. If doing so still kept a balance of play as rookies and play after waiting, it would be acceptable, but operating under the assumption that MOST first round picks have more talent than most later picks, and that MOST quarterbacks drafted outside of the first round sit the bench for at least a year, inclusion into the study would be statistically unsound. You're injecting lesser talent into one group, while leaving the other untouched.

If you look at it, even the most talented guys taken early in round two (Drew Brees, Brett Favre) are drafted to sit the bench.

So if/when I extend this (which I would like to) I feel strongly that only first rounders should be included, but I might go back to 1983 (as far back as nfl.com's by-position draft history goes), though if I do that, you'll see decidedly less QBs are taken in the first round (at least a preliminary skimming would so indicate). That would allow John Elway and Dan Marino into the equation. (uh oh) My only fear in that is how different the pro game is now than it was then, and how different the draft strategy was then compared to now.

If you do choose to do a more thorough statistical analysis (rather than get three more high scores) I'd be interested to see critiques, because I didn't have to manipulate these numbers to make the points I wanted to. They were fairly clean, cut and dry. Though there are other things I thought about compiling, like pro bowl appearances. This study is simplistic, in dealing with averages, but not with variation. I didn't look to see the distribution of players who excel versus players who fail. How high and low the ceilings were. A measure of the number of of guys from each group that ended up pro-bowlers would be interesting, and in the guys that sat it'd be interesting to see how many flamed out after a couple more years... but that would run into the current if it went too much farther.

[jjflr]

If you do choose to do a more thorough statistical analysis (rather than get three more high scores) .



BAWHAHAHAHA !!

I can't believe you just said that !!!!!!!!!!!

Mom, is that you??

:rofl: :chuckle: :laughat: :lolcry:

That's classic................

as far as doing a full counter-analysis, I will take a look at it at some point............I promise.......:cool: .......

were there any first round QB's that didn't play at all their first 3 years during your time period ?

[YoHoChecko]

BAWHAHAHAHA !!

I can't believe you just said that !!!!!!!!!!!

Mom, is that you??

:rofl: :chuckle: :laughat: :lolcry:

That's classic................

as far as doing a full counter-analysis, I will take a look at it at some point............I promise.......:cool: .......

were there any first round QB's that didn't play at all their first 3 years during your time period ?

First rounders? Nope. Like I said, the closest it came was Grossman and Druckenmiller. And also like I said, the bust factor was a minimal piece to my point, anyway.

And don't feel the urgency to counter-analyze if you're not feeling it. I'd be perfectly content with the notion that I've got you mostly convinced that, at the least, a young benched QB isn't hurting himself or the team.

[GBneedsDCnOC]

First rounders? Nope. Like I said, the closest it came was Grossman and Druckenmiller. And also like I said, the bust factor was a minimal piece to my point, anyway.

And don't feel the urgency to counter-analyze if you're not feeling it. I'd be perfectly content with the notion that I've got you mostly convinced that, at the least, a young benched QB isn't hurting himself or the team.


would u mind droppin my stepdad an email and tellin him that please??? hes so hellbent that were wasting rogers talent by him being on the bench all the time

[jjflr]

I'd be perfectly content with the notion that I've got you mostly convinced that, at the least, a young benched QB isn't hurting himself or the team.


well, but Rodgers sitting on the bench isn't the only part of the equation with the Green Bay situation...........the fact that Favre is now a below average QB and the organization feels the need to chuck the ball up in the air too much is a bigger issue in my mind than Rodgers riding the pine.............

[YoHoChecko]

would u mind droppin my stepdad an email and tellin him that please??? hes so hellbent that were wasting rogers talent by him being on the bench all the time

E-mail him this article, then... though if he doesn't feel like reading the whole thing, just say that statistics indicate that players who sit the bench show no ill effects as compared with players who play immediately, and that two of the most successful first-year starters in the past 10-15 years were third-year players when they got their chance.

Also point out that while Rodgers will be a 4th-year player in 2008, he will only be 24 years old when he takes over, which is younger than, say, Matt Schaub is right now.

I will say, though, that it's a shame that a first-round pick has to wait so long (also, by the end of this year, jjflr, Rodgers will probably be one of those first-round picks with no significant playing time in his first 3 years)

[YoHoChecko]

well, but Rodgers sitting on the bench isn't the only part of the equation with the Green Bay situation...........the fact that Favre is now a below average QB and the organization feels the need to chuck the ball up in the air too much is a bigger issue in my mind than Rodgers riding the pine.............

The over-emphasis on passing has nothing to do with Favre's presence, and I feel that Favre is actually still at least an average QB when used in appropriate amounts (if you remember my article on his performance after a certain number of attempts). Favre AND the team would be best served by running the ball more, and the team's insistence on passing should be curbed BECAUSE they have Favre, not in spite of it. So, in short, the team is being hurt by the fact that they pass too much, not by the fact that Favre is the starting QB rather than Rodgers.

[jjflr]

The over-emphasis on passing has nothing to do with Favre's presence, and I feel that Favre is actually an above-average QB when used in appropriate amounts (if you remember my article on his performance after a certain number of attempts). Favre AND the team would be best served by running the ball more, and the team's insistence on passing should be curbed BECAUSE they have Favre, not in spite of it. So, in short, the team is being hurt by the fact that they pass too much, not by the fact that Favre is the starting QB rather than Rodgers.

You've got some 'splainin to do...............

you're changing your story on this..............

how can you still insist that their over-emphasis on passing has nothing to do with Favre's presence and then follow it up by saying that Favre and the team would be best served by running the ball more (which would indicate that they have a viable running game, which was always MY argument)

your opinion WAS that the Packers running game is horrible and therefore the coaches feel the need to have Favre chuck the ball up over 38 times a game (his average over the last 2 seasons)............

my contention has been that the running game is not as bad as you're making it out to be.........at least last year.........in 2005, yes, it was bad but the WHOLE team, including the defense, was HORRIBLE.................

In 2006, there was nothing wrong with the production the Packers were getting out of the running game and maybe if they focused on it a little more instead of feeling the need to chuck the ball in the air 38 times a game, it would have been even better..................

Favre is no longer a good QB..........the team made a concerted effort last year to help Favre reduce his 'mistakes', because they felt he was hurting the team with INT's................it worked............his INT's went down but so did his completion percentage (by a LOT) and yards per attempt and the offense overall didn't make any improvements..............it helped the 'team' overall because it put the defense in fewer bad situations but is that what this has come to ?.............Brett, we're going to throw the ball WAY more than we should but just don't lose the game for us......

huh?

Brett Favre is below average at this point and the coaches are not running the offense properly in Green Bay...............I am convinced of this...........I'm sure of this just as I'm sure the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning..................

[YoHoChecko]

My contention there is that throwing the ball so often hurts Favre. That's all. That if they were throwing the ball so often FOR Favre, they'd be being counter-productive, as more throws hurts his performance, therefore, it would make NO sense for your contention to be true: that the team throws the ball more because Favre is the QB.

In stating that I think they should run more, it does not imply faith in their running game--especially in the first half of last season. It took a long time for that line to come together (despite Green doing well against the Bears in week one). Three rookies combined for 38 starts on that line. One of them was a TE until his junior year in college. Not to mention the new run-blocking scheme. So I understand that McCarthy might get away from the run.

Then, teams pass more when playing from behind, and the Packers spent a majority of the season playing from behind.

Because of those two factors, they ran the ball less, not because they were trying to please Favre or because they were focusing their offensive schemes around him...

My only point is that the reasons they are throwing too much are NOT because they're focusing on Favre, but because they were making amends for other deficiencies. I also, however, did not say that I agreed with doing so all the time.

I didn't contradict myself at all in saying that I think the Packers should throw the ball less, but also saying that the reasons they didn't do it are because their run game lacked consistent effectiveness and because the team was playing from behind too often. Even getting 2 or 3 yards/carry on first and second down would have been far better than what they did most of last season. Insisting that they run the ball more in no way, shape or form implies that their running game was "viable." It was a growth process for the line and for the coaching staff. The Packers' line struggled early as they gelled and improved. The Packers' coaching staff didn't call enough runs. Both can be true. As I said, even 2-3 yards per carry would have been ok for the bulk of the extra carries.

Even with a healthy Duece McAllister in New Orleans, McCarthy threw the ball 530+ times every year on those 9-8/8-8 teams.

Basically, I did a lot of writing to say this: I in no way changed any story or made any contradictions. The Packers are not throwing the ball too much out of an infatuation with Brett Favre, and everyone would be better served if they ran the ball more.

[jjflr]

That if they were throwing the ball so often FOR Favre, they'd be being counter-productive, as more throws hurts his performance, therefore, it would make NO sense for your contention to be true: that the team throws the ball more because Favre is the QB.



well, first of all, ANY team is going to increase their passing % when they are 'behind'...........however, the Packers weren't 'behind' any more last year than most teams...................the Packers were throwing the ball too much from the 1st play of every game.................(Favre had just as many attempts in the 1st halves as he did in 2nd halves)

as far as your comment above, IF that is true then please explain why YOU think the Packers coaches continue to throw the ball at an alarming rate because, logically, there are only 2 choices left to explain the situation:

1) the running game sucks
2) the Packers coaches believe in a pass/run ratio of 60/40

either way, you know I'm going to have an answer for both.............;)

the running game did NOT suck in 2006 and I will lay it all out if needed...........it was 'average' and should have been utilized more.............mistake by the coaches............

and IF the Packers coaches believe in a pass/run ratio of 60/40, then we are BOTH in agreement that Favre is not the QB that should be under center for that type of offense............maybe for different reasons (yours is based on number of attempts--mine is based simply on the fact that I don't think he's very good anymore)..............but we both still agree that the coaches have the wrong offense in place for the wrong QB.........................another mistake by the coaches..........

the only true answer that we know for sure on this subject is that the coaches are not running the right offense in some fashion (either with pass/run ratio or with the wrong players on the field)...........

THIS cannot be disputed................

[YoHoChecko]

well, first of all, ANY team is going to increase their passing % when they are 'behind'...........however, the Packers weren't 'behind' any more last year than most teams...................the Packers were throwing the ball too much from the 1st play of every game.................(Favre had just as many attempts in the 1st halves as he did in 2nd halves)

as far as your comment above, IF that is true then please explain why YOU think the Packers coaches continue to throw the ball at an alarming rate because, logically, there are only 2 choices left to explain the situation:

1) the running game sucks
2) the Packers coaches believe in a pass/run ratio of 60/40

either way, you know I'm going to have an answer for both.............;)

the running game did NOT suck in 2006 and I will lay it all out if needed...........it was 'average' and should have been utilized more.............mistake by the coaches............

and IF the Packers coaches believe in a pass/run ratio of 60/40, then we are BOTH in agreement that Favre is not the QB that should be under center for that type of offense............maybe for different reasons (yours is based on number of attempts--mine is based simply on the fact that I don't think he's very good anymore)..............but we both still agree that the coaches have the wrong offense in place for the wrong QB.........................another mistake by the coaches..........

the only true answer that we know for sure on this subject is that the coaches are not running the right offense in some fashion (either with pass/run ratio or with the wrong players on the field)...........

THIS cannot be disputed................

You got something right! My response is: bad coaching. McCarthy claims to desire a run-first scheme, but his history and his actions don't agree. He knows the value of the run game, he knows that he needs to run the ball more to be successful, but in the flow of the game, he always falls back on the passing game, as his history is with QB coaching and he controls the passing game. The offense works best with a successful run game; Favre fits this offense. The play-caller just errs consistently on the side of the pass.

I think McCarthy is a good motivator and relates well to the players and has a good mentality to be a head coach, but his Xs and Os are simply average. He wasn't an overly successful coordinator, you remember. I'm not anti-McCarthy, but I do question a lot, and I'm curious to see if he can walk the walk instead of just talking about the importance of the run game all the time without calling the plays to show that. He gets lost in the "flow of the game" too often.

I think they need to run on first down far more often than they do. It's simply poor play-calling as an overreaction to having a struggling scoring defense and a struggling running game. And please stop trying to tell me that the running game didn't struggle many times throughout the season. It did.

They were 19th in the league in yards per carry at 3.9
They converted only 44% of 3rd and shorts (22nd in the league)
They were in the bottom half of the league in 10+ yard runs
They were in the bottom half of the league in first downs/carry
Their Red Zone running game stunk

These are all things that are evaluated regardless of how many carries were attempted. The running game struggled last year. It's a fact. However, I still think McCarthy should have stuck with it more than he did. He, however, abandoned it due to those struggles and due to the fact that the Packers defense finished 25th in scoring defense.

This is not a system that says throw 610 times and run 430 times. It's more of a 55/45 system, but circumstances led McCarthy to abandon his rhetoric and he made poor coaching decisions.

[jjflr]

And please stop trying to tell me that the running game didn't struggle many times throughout the season. It did.

They were 19th in the league in yards per carry at 3.9
They converted only 44% of 3rd and shorts (22nd in the league)
They were in the bottom half of the league in 10+ yard runs
They were in the bottom half of the league in first downs/carry
Their Red Zone running game stunk

.

I never said it didn't 'struggle', I just said it wasn't so horrible that it should have been abandoned, which is the reason you were giving me previously for the Packer's decision to throw it too much...................

Fact is, the Packers run game was not horrible...........it wasn't even 'bad'..........and considering that the starting RB from week to week was a question mark, I think they did incredibly well...............

The Packers coaches, however, did a horrible job of play calling and/or game planning ...................... I could count on ONE hand the number of QB's that justify a 60/40 ratio in this league and Favre is NOT one of them............and their play-calling and game-planning is ALL the more inexcusable considering that the Packers running game was not the worst in the league...........heck, it was almost middle of the road for the NFL...........probably I would call it 'below average' but it's still more than enough to game-plan around and not abandon completely, which is basically what the Packers have done................

[YoHoChecko]

I never said it didn't 'struggle', I just said it wasn't so horrible that it should have been abandoned, which is the reason you were giving me previously for the Packer's decision to throw it too much...................

Fact is, the Packers run game was not horrible...........it wasn't even 'bad'..........and considering that the starting RB from week to week was a question mark, I think they did incredibly well...............

The Packers coaches, however, did a horrible job of play calling and/or game planning ...................... I could count on ONE hand the number of QB's that justify a 60/40 ratio in this league and Favre is NOT one of them............and their play-calling and game-planning is ALL the more inexcusable considering that the Packers running game was not the worst in the league...........heck, it was almost middle of the road for the NFL...........probably I would call it 'below average' but it's still more than enough to game-plan around and not abandon completely, which is basically what the Packers have done................
OK, so now we agree. It is not Brett Favre being on the field and Aaron Rodgers being on the bench holding back the team... it is the coaching/play-calling (as I would certainly imagine that Aaron Rodgers is not among the 4 or 5 players that you think justify a 60/40 ratio). Besides, a study I did two years ago shows that limited attempts in the first year as a starter/in a new system is the best way to develop a QB anyway, so they would need to dramatically cut the passing attempts with Rodgers OR with Favre.

[jjflr]

. It is not Brett Favre being on the field and Aaron Rodgers being on the bench holding back the team... it is the coaching/play-calling (as I would certainly imagine that Aaron Rodgers is not among the 4 or 5 players that you think justify a 60/40 ratio). .

Well, now wait a minute..............those are 2 different topics...........

we were discussing:

"should the Packers pass/run ratio be 60/40" and we came to an agreement that with all of the players on the roster last season, the answer is 'no' and the coaching staff made huge mistakes............

the question about Brett Favre in particular is a completely different subject..........

Whether the coaching staff is using what he has 'left' wisely or not really has no impact on my feeling about Favre...............

my concern about the never-ending Favre career is more of a 'long-term' impact on the franchise..................not just last season or this season.............

Ironically, the tail-end of Favre's career is reminding me a lot of the tail-end of Dan Marino's career, who holds all of the records that Favre so badly wants to beat...............(I just hope, for Packers fans sake, that it doesn't take Green Bay as long to re-build when Brett leaves)...........

[YoHoChecko]

Well, now wait a minute..............those are 2 different topics...........

we were discussing:

"should the Packers pass/run ration be 60/40" and we came to an agreement that with all of the players on the roster last season, the answer is 'no' and the coaching staff made huge mistakes............

the question about Brett Favre in particular is a completely different subject..........

Whether the coaching staff is using what he has 'left' wisely or not really has no impact on my feeling about Favre...............

Ironically, the tail-end of Favre's career is reminding me a lot of the tail-end of Dan Marino's career...............(I just hope, for Packers fans sake, that it doesn't take Green Bay as long to re-build when Brett leaves)...........
But this conversation STARTED on the idea that Favre is hurting the team. This is not a question of Favre's ability; you say he's below average, I say above... but we're both fishing in the same pond on that. It's about if his presence is holding the team back or hurting the team, long or short term. I have disproved that Rodgers' development is being hurt. I have come to an agreement with you that the passing attempts are due to bad play-calling, not due to an indulgence of Favre's presence. I have formerly shown that Favre is still a pretty good QB when held to a limited amount of attempts....

Keep in mind, you're talking to a guy who wrote an article on why Favre should retire. I know he's lost some. But now that he HAS decided to stay, the team needs to correct the deficiencies in the running game (calling enough run plays) in a HURRY to make it work. The O-line is coming together, advancing another year and getting stronger. The RB and the play-calling needs to follow. Now, to me, I don't see that as being detrimental to the team... forcing them to rush to establish a running game.

By the way, as of last year going into this year, I am officially ready to admit that this reminds me of the Dan Marino career ending... except that favre doesn't have that huge bulky knee brace and has to take a false start step before every play to back-peddle from center in time... but I get the point.

Look, Favre isn't what he used to be. But he's not "hurting the team." Not in the long-term or the short-term. Favre's here now. Rodgers will be there when he leaves. Until then, they are continuing to build (re-build) and improve the rest of the team. The transition should be fairly smooth (in fact, going from an average aging QB to a first-year starter will be much easier than going from a star QB to a first-year starter, because the team will not be built based on the strength of the star (how ya like THAT spin?))

[jjflr]

The transition should be fairly smooth (in fact, going from an average aging QB to a first-year starter will be much easier than going from a star QB to a first-year starter, because the team will not be built based on the strength of the star (how ya like THAT spin?))

Spin it, baby, spin it...............:cooldude: