Quarterback Metric, 2015 Season
 

For the last several years, I’ve published a metric for NFL quarterbacks. Because there’s so much variation from game to game, I find these numbers more significant over the course of an entire season. I adjust these scores based on … Continue reading →

More...

Wow, Luck was the worst quarterback? How does something like that happen?!

They brought in all those veterans in the offseason, there was no cohesion... XD

He was playing hurt. That was obvious from watching him.

Well, there ya go. Didn't watch much Indy this year.

Aaron Rodgers. Wonder if that's a blip of a season or a tailing off.

I think he's done :D

Losing three of his top 6 receivers for extended time (including their #1) didn't help. Nor did going 3-4 games without his tackles. It was a weird year for GB, but I wouldn't read too much into it. Rodgers did manage nearly 500 yards, 4 TDs and 1 INT in the two road playoff games (without Nelson and Cobb for much of the AZ game). He'll be OK. I don't think losing McCarthy as playcaller (until the end of the season) helped - nor did their schedule. GB played 8 games against the top 7 scoring defenses in 2015 - with 5 of those contests on the road. They went much of the season with old man James Jones and historically bad Davante Adams as 2 of their only 3 receiving options. Teams doubled Cobb and made Aaron throw to Jones and Adams to beat them. Those two just weren't able to beat man coverage on most games.

The hope is with Nelson and Montgomery coming back from injury, combined with Cobb, Abbrederis (also hurt) and Janis coming back - the receiving options should be better in 2016.

I saw a lot of Green Bay, too. If I had to guess, they never recovered from losing Jordy Nelson in pre-season. The offensive line wasn't very good, either.

Certainly, the quarterback metric isn't an absolute. I think it's better than QBR because it adjusts to the league totals and it's based on many more statistics. But teams aren't just one player and we need to rely heavily on scouting as well as numbers.

I think Luck and Peyton Manning had bad seasons because of injury. They weren't accurate passers like they had been in the past. But Rodgers was mostly the same guy - his interceptions remained freakishly-low for someone who makes all the throws he makes. He seemed to be hanging on the ball longer, throwing away more balls.

Eventually, I'd like to be able to measure more. I'd like to get running and sacks into the measure, which will more accurately assess players like Cam Newton, who is thoroughly average in the measure but obviously a game-changer on the field. But full accuracy will require some sort of assessment of the personnel around the player, and that requires either new statistics or a scouting element.

Blaine Gabbert is higher on that list than I would have expected.

Well, he almost has to be, if your "expected" looked like most of ours.

Bad luck, I guess.

I love me some good Andy.

I am not sure how Bridgewater could have possibly been rating higher than Rodgers no matter what metrics you use. Bridgewater may be accurate on short passes but he doesnt throw deep enough to even keep the defense honest.

I see talent in Bridgewater and decent upside in Bridgewater but as a QB he meant so little to the Viking success this past year. He doesnt turn the ball over much but he also doesnt take many chances. He really needs to at least threaten the deep ball to keep the safetys from crowding the line.

Interesting that he'll be a UFA after the 2016 season.

Would I take Bridgewater ahead of Rodgers, even taking age into account? Absolutely not.

I think if you look at Rodgers' stats in 2015, you'll be a little surprised. My research suggests completion percentage and yards per pass attempt are much more important than some would think. If you compare the metric across their careers - it's not even close.

But it is a team sport. Does Rodgers throw the ball more? Yes. Does Bridgewater have a better line and do defenses have to stack it for Peterson? Yes.

I'd like to have a metric that covers the complete contribution like you can find with baseball, but that's not possible today.

Im sorry! I didnt want it to make it seem like I was ripping on your metrics. I think it is as good as any I have seen.

Just that there is still so much noise in trying to do these type of football metrics. I used to glance at PFF but I lost hope in that when Doug Martin went from a top 5 RB one year to a bottom 5 the very next year in their "scouted" rating. In my opinion if an athletic position(RB) can be that extreme there is still too much noise in trying to eliminate variables.

Even the Luck situation would seem a little extreme despite being awful this year and being injured. I am guessing he was top 5 on your list the previous year?

Considering this doesn't take sacks or rushing yards into account, this is a highly encouraging rating for Russell Wilson. I'd have to think that with runs and avoiding sacks included he'd be in the top spot.