Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Win or Lose, Boston Celtics' New Big 3 Era A Success

2011 NFL Draft: The Sanchez-Flacco Myth of QB Performance

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is Part 4 of a 5-part series on predicting the career performance of NFL QBs. Sorry about the delay, but had unexpected family obligations come up yesterday. I'll be posting Part 5 of Monday at 8 a.m. PDT.

I'm going to make a prediction. No, not one related to QBs - not yet at least. Rather, I'm going to predict that, if you haven't heard it already, some pundit on some network at some date and time between now and the 2011 NFL draft, will say about some QB, "If this guy is going to be a starter from Day 1, then the ideal situation is for him to get picked by a team with a good defense and running game. That early in his career, you're not going to want to try to win games with him passing the ball 30 times a game." Mark my words, you're going to hear it.

I'm pretty confident about that prediction because I've been hearing it for what seems like my entire adult life, and the cacophony has only gotten louder since highly-drafted QBs Mark Sanchez and Joe Flacco have thrived on teams with - wait for it - good defenses and running games. In this penultimate post of my series, I'm going to try to see whether there's any truth to this worn out draftnik cliché. So, today's question is, "Do highly drafted QBs who start during their first season have better careers if they're drafted to teams with better defenses and better running games?"*

After the jump, some mythbusting...

Star-divide

THE BASICS OF THE ANALYSIS

This was a pretty straightforward situation. First, again thanks to my Lewin Forecast data set, I identified a group of 30 QBs drafted from 1993-2006 who became the full-time starter for their team during their rookie season. I should note that there were actually 33 highly drafted QBs in my sample who started during their rookie year, but Kerry Collins, Tim Couch, and David Carr were all drafted by expansion teams, for which there were no previous-year DVOAs. Anyway, next, I calculated correlations between these QB's FFPts/G and a couple of team-related stats:

  1. Their team's Run Offense DVOA the year before they were drafted
  2. Their team's Defense DVOA the year before they were drafted

One criticism I can already hear is that this ignores what teams did during the offseason to improve their defenses and run offenses. There's really no way around this, but I have a hunch offseason roster moves would wash out here, with some teams making moves that work, some teams making moves that don't work, and some teams not making any moves at all to improve in those 2 areas.

So, the object is simple. To confirm the myth, we want to find statistically significant correlations. If we don't find them, it doesn't necessarily bust the myth. It just means that draftniks have, as of right now, no factual basis in repeating it over...and over...and over again.

FUN FACT

Before I get to the results, let me just point out that, with 53 QBs actually being taken in the first 2 rounds over those 14 drafts, the fact that 33 started in their first season means the recent NFL has had a "throw them in the fire" rate of 62.3%. If we loosen up our "throw them in the fire" definition, there were 7 more QBs that became the full-time starter in Week 1 of their 2nd season. Now, of the remaining 13 QBs in my sample, 4 never became the full-time starter for their team. Taking these all together, we find that less than 1 in 5 highly drafted QBs have the luxury of watching from the sidelines while they get up to speed with the NFL game. This fact alone makes it kind of ridiculous for people to constantly talk about highly drafted QBs waiting for a couple of years before they become the starter. In the NFL, this just doesn't happen that often. Either a team's really bad, and is forced to start the QB (See 2005 San Francisco 49ers), or the QB proves himself worthy of the starting job very quickly.

THE RESULTS

In Part 3, I mentioned previous-year Defense DVOA as a new variable I was looking at. The astute reader probably noticed that I didn't mention it in the list of variables that had significant correlations. And the non-brain-dead reader now realizes what the graph below is going to show (click to enlarge): 

Qb_ffptsg_by_prev_yr_defense_dvoa_medium

Check out that scintillating correlation coefficient! For those of you keeping track at home, that correlation translates to the following statement: About 99% of the career performance of highly drafted QBs has nothing to do with how good their new team's defense was the previous season. First half of the justification for pundit cliché down the tubes.

Let's see if things are much different for the QB's inherited run offense (click to enlarge):

Qb_ffptsg_by_prev_yr_run_offense_dvoa_medium

Even worse! This correlation basically says that, as was the case with the Wonderlic, a highly drafted QB's career performance has nothing whatsoever to do with how good their new team's run offense was the previous season.

So, I think that pretty much sums it up. Once again, I've discovered that NFL draft pundits are basically living in an alternate reality. But, of course, you didn't need me to tell you that. I'll leave any discussion points you might have to the comments section. See you Monday for the rockets-red-glaring grand finale.

*Sample-size related caveats apply.

Comment 19 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I knew it!

But then the pundits make that statement about the team’s ability to win games, not the QB performance. Sanchez and Flacco aren’t very good QBs.

The benefit to the strong running game and defense is that you limit the number of passes the QB has to make and thereby make your QB “servicable,” since below average performance will do if the running game and defense are strong. You therefore have more time to see if you picked the right guy, without having to endure humiliating season after humilating season.

Furthermore, as long as you keep the running game and defense up, in a couple of years you can try drafting another QB, this time chosen with the magical formula that you will unveil next week, and have a couple of years to see if that guy turns into a star, and you’ll win a fair amount of games while waiting.

by reedkrase on Apr 22, 2011 4:54 PM PDT reply actions  

comment

I deleted the reply you made because there some kind of screwy html crossing out other things on the page. Feel free to re-post if you want

by David Fucillo on Apr 22, 2011 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Whoa whoa whoa. Flacco is a really, really, really good quarterback.

Currently stifling the bacon, the world.

by howtheyscored on Apr 22, 2011 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

In 2008 and 2009

he posted average QB ratings (low 80s) and average stats. I agree that he did much better in 2010, with a 93 QB rating and 3600 yards + passing. 2011 will tell if he actually turned a corner.

by reedkrase on Apr 25, 2011 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Also: I don’t think Danny’s making any statement about the idea that a team with a good defense and a good running game will be better prepared to win in the short term. That’s plain on its face.

He’s noting that the argument that putting a young quarterback on one of these teams is beneficial to that quarterback’s development has absolutely no evidence to support it (basically, the: "he can get real game experience, but he doesn’t have to shoulder the load, so he’ll be better in the long run).

Largely, I feel this kind of supports something I’ve been saying for a while: When everything is said and done, it’s the talent of the player that matters. Not the team he’s brought into. Not the system he’s tasked with learning. To borrow an awful cliche: The cream will rise.

Currently stifling the bacon, the world.

by howtheyscored on Apr 22, 2011 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

but shouldn't you have taken the run offense and defense stats

from the year the QBs actually played as opposed to prior? As you mention, changes in the offseason can totally change a team’s performance. The Jets and Ravens posted strong run and defense stats while their new QB started. This was (or may have been) the key piece in these QBs’ development

by reedkrase on Apr 25, 2011 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

Is part 5 about sitting a QB?

Or did I miss it?

Kellen Moore is awesome
Katie Mcgrath is our savior
Im not competitive I just addicted to winning.

by manraj7 on Apr 22, 2011 7:13 PM PDT reply actions  

This post touches on it a little:
Before I get to the results, let me just point out that, with 53 QBs actually being taken in the first 2 rounds over those 14 drafts, the fact that 33 started in their first season means the recent NFL has had a “throw them in the fire” rate of 62.3%. If we loosen up our “throw them in the fire” definition, there were 7 more QBs that became the full-time starter in Week 1 of their 2nd season. Now, of the remaining 13 QBs in my sample, 4 never became the full-time starter for their team. Taking these all together, we find that less than 1 in 5 highly drafted QBs have the luxury of watching from the sidelines while they get up to speed with the NFL game. This fact alone makes it kind of ridiculous for people to constantly talk about highly drafted QBs waiting for a couple of years before they become the starter. In the NFL, this just doesn’t happen that often. Either a team’s really bad, and is forced to start the QB (See 2005 San Francisco 49ers), or the QB proves himself worthy of the starting job very quickly.

The thing to take away, really, is that regardless of the arguments for or against sitting a young quarterback (at the level we’re describing), it almost never happens.

Currently stifling the bacon, the world.

by howtheyscored on Apr 22, 2011 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

He’s a guy you’d definitely want to sit for several years.

Currently stifling the bacon, the world.

by howtheyscored on Apr 22, 2011 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

pat devlin please

"Winning means being unafraid to lose." – Fran Tarkenton

by Nelow on Apr 22, 2011 9:25 PM PDT reply actions  

this is flawed.

You’re using fantasy points per game as the measure of a quarterback’s success. While that is one perfectly valid way to define it, it certainly isn’t the only way. If you plot wins instead, then I’m sure it will be higher. Then again, that is also skewed because the teams which have better defenses and run games would win more games without the new quarterback, too.

Are a good run game and defense essential to a young quarterback’s development? No. But let’s be honest here – every quarterback-lacking team would love to have a young quarterback with potential, a strong defense, and a solid run game.

by tigerking on Apr 23, 2011 12:04 AM PDT reply actions  

Wins is a terrible way to do it.

Danny chose long ago to do Fantasy Points per Game because it’s a concept that is accessible to the average fan. Doing something like DVOA/G would be great, but it would also turn 85% of the population away without a second glance.

Currently stifling the bacon, the world.

by howtheyscored on Apr 23, 2011 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well

It depends on the question you are asking.

If you want to know “What combined characteristics of a college quarterback and the team that chooses him affect how many fantasy points per game a quarterback scores?” then this is a good and valid choice.

If you want to know something about what combined characteristics of a college QB and his destination affect the success of his career, then this does not answer the question — so what does it matter if it is accessible if it is flawed?

by Ougadas on Apr 23, 2011 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

But let’s be honest here – every quarterback-lacking team would love to have a young quarterback with potential, a strong defense, and a solid run game.

Also: Danny is NOT making any case against this. None. Of course teams would love to bring a young quarterback, or an old quarterback, or a monkey quarterback onto a team that has a good defense and run game. The study was to see if that is actually helpful for the development of the player. It has nothing, directly, to do with the success of the team.

Currently stifling the bacon, the world.

by howtheyscored on Apr 23, 2011 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

With this set up

We got Gore. By himself our running game is a solid B. Good offensive linemen? Forget about it.

Defense, if we draft young defensive men this year any QB we take can thrive. Even Alex Smith can thrive with the right scheme.

Our biggest problem last year was scoring. Something Mike Singletary was against.( Defense coach)

by 49erfannm on Apr 23, 2011 12:33 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

I still don't think you want to be using FFP/G

Fantasy points includes aggregate yardage, which is a function of attempts, and minus points for interceptions, which some very good statistical analysis has suggested are more random events than the football pundits say — with quarterback skill only decreasing the variance.

So this creates some noise in your data that is clearly not what you are trying to measure.

You should probably have started with a base of other statistical work that tries to evaluate what metrics of quarterback play truly measure quarterback success.

A better candidate would have been Real YPA, which accounts for a very basic question related to quarterback skill — every time I ask this guy to throw, how many yards can I expect to get?

Based on this I’m not sure you are reaching the meaningful conclusion that you want because the data you are using doesn’t measure what you want to measure.

by Ougadas on Apr 23, 2011 12:55 AM PDT reply actions  

I have to agree with those complaining...

…about the Fantasy Points Per Game. To my mind, this alienates BOTH casual fans and stat heads alike. I also think Ougadas is right that you’re introducing a lot of noise into the data, which is even more problematic because your samples are so small.

That said, I enjoy everything you write, Danny, so keep up the great work! BTW, did you have any input in the FO refinement of the Lewin Career Forecast?

by Bigmouth on Apr 23, 2011 12:06 PM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Media Requests please email ninersnation@gmail.com

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Site Decorum: Remember, We Are ALL 49er Fans

Recent FanPosts

Small
Concussions...
Small
Is Harbaugh lying or does he mean what he says?
872_small
Where have you seen 49er players?
Download2_small
Can the 49'ers Maintain their Turnover Differential in 2012?
Sfak_small
Why are you a 49er fan?
6a00e5500c77218833011168f234b4970c_small
FOX: "How To Save The Sport"
Small
Old Spice Patrick Willis Football ProCamp
Dave_small
Call For Moderators
Steve_young_small
Game Day Food

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Head Ball Coach

Dave_small David Fucillo

Howtheyscoredcat_small howtheyscored

313483_2054510893373_1562580382_31984672_1965025_n_small James Brady

Coordinator

Pirates_small smileyman

Bowman_avi_sm_small Tre9er

Assistant Coach

Pixies_logo_small (Florida) Danny Tuccitto

Memento-lies_small urnext

Me_on_beach_small WesHanson

Dylan_cannes_small Dylan DeSimone

Officiating Crew

Jackalope_card_small wjackalope

These3words_small these3words

Joe_and_bill_small twolfe2

428030_10150598134996875_112852666874_9167376_1157036734_n_small mikeinsp