Better Winning% . . . Teams w/QBs that had (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

With all this talk about Vick and Young, I looked up the NFL records for teams that had a QB with either 500+ rushing yards (22 teams) or 4,300 passing yards (26 teams) in a season.The 500+ rushing yard teams include:Michael Vick, Daunte Culpepper, Kordell Stewart, Rich Gannon, Donovan McNabb, Steve McNair, Randall Cunningham, Steve Young, Steve Grogan, Bobby Douglass, Greg Landry, and Billy KilmerThe 4,300+ pasing yard teams includeaunte Culpepper, Trent Green, Peyton Manning, Drew Bledsoe, Rich Gannon, Kurt Warner, Steve Beuerlein, Mark Brunell, Brett Favre, Scott Mitchell, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Everett, Don Majkowski, Neil Lomax, Lynn Dickey, Bill Kenney, and Dan FoutsOnce we get some votes, I'll go over what I found.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

I voted for the runners.Considering that the ground game moves the ball and chews up clock, I would favor that vs. the 300-400 yard passing game. Those big yardage games usually come from teams that are trying to catch up and have become one-dimensional.Apparently the Cardinals enter every stadium down 21-0.

 

[coolnerd]

I see that Gannon and Culpepper are the only ones on the both lists. Given what i think of thier careers is Culpepper the only one who did this trick in the same year.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Those big yardage games usually come from teams that are trying to catch up and have become one-dimensional.

That would be my opinion as well.

 

[SSOG]

Definitely the runners. Sometimes, teams throw for an exorbitant amount of yards because their offense is just really good, and sometimes they throw for an exorbitant amount of yards because their defense is just really bad.Just look at Denver. Last year, Plummer throws for a team record, and the Broncos go 10-6. This year, he throws for under 3400, and the team goes 13-3.Personally, I predict that the rushing yardage by a QB will have no correlation with the quality of the team's defense, and will therefore have a higher correlation with winning. I don't think that means that rushing from the QB does more to help a team win than passing from a QB, I simply think that lurking variables will skew the results so that it APPEARS that way.Curious to see what really comes out, though.

 

[David Yudkin]

Surprisingly, BOTH sets of teams overall fared extremely well.The 500+ yard rushing teams posted a cumulative 194-141-6 record (.578). It would have been higher except the hnadful of teams had poor records were not very good. Ten of the 22 teams won at least 10 games. Only 5 teams had a losing record.The 4,300+ yard passing teams posted a cumulative 254-162 record (.611). Fifteen of the 26 teams won at least 10 games. Only 3 teams had a losing record.I'm not sure that we could draw any firm conclusions that these teams were necessarily better because of these extreme rushing or passing stats. As others have mentioned, how the teams' defense performed likely had as big an impact on their overall record.However, I do think that we can at least say that it is very possible to stay competitive with a QB that racks up either rushing or passing yardage.

 

[ajlight]

Surprisingly, BOTH sets of teams overall fared extremely well.

The 500+ yard rushing teams posted a cumulative 194-141-6 record (.578). It would have been higher except the hnadful of teams had poor records were not very good. Ten of the 22 teams won at least 10 games. Only 5 teams had a losing record.

The 4,300+ yard passing teams posted a cumulative 254-162 record (.611). Fifteen of the 26 teams won at least 10 games. Only 3 teams had a losing record.

I'm not sure that we could draw any firm conclusions that these teams were necessarily better because of these extreme rushing or passing stats. As others have mentioned, how the teams' defense performed likely had as big an impact on their overall record.

However, I do think that we can at least say that it is very possible to stay competitive with a QB that racks up either rushing or passing yardage.

Very suprising outcome. On the surface you'd tend to believe what others posted here prior in that a team whose primary movement of the ball is through passing (and a whole lot of it) vs. a team who was able to run the ball consistently even at the QB position.At the very least I would've guessed the split would've been something like .575 vs. .500 or something similar.

 

[santo71]

Here's a quick one, how many teams in the playoffs this season had a QB that rushed for over 200 yds?No peaking.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Here's a quick one, how many teams in the playoffs this season had a QB that rushed for over 200 yds?

No peaking.

Well, considering only three did it, and they played for NO, Houston, and Atlanta, then zero.I don't see what that means, other than there are very few QBs who run for 200 yards.

 

[wannabee]

Here's a quick one, how many teams in the playoffs this season had a QB that rushed for over 200 yds?

No peaking.

Well, considering only three did it, and they played for NO, Houston, and Atlanta, then zero.I don't see what that means, other than there are very few QBs who run for 200 yards.

You peaked!

 

[Keys Myaths]

Here's a quick one, how many teams in the playoffs this season had a QB that rushed for over 200 yds?

No peaking.

Well, considering only three did it, and they played for NO, Houston, and Atlanta, then zero.I don't see what that means, other than there are very few QBs who run for 200 yards.

You peaked!

I was finishing up the QB final totals when I saw this post. Too easy.

 

[Family Matters]

Surprisingly, BOTH sets of teams overall fared extremely well.

The 500+ yard rushing teams posted a cumulative 194-141-6 record (.578). It would have been higher except the hnadful of teams had poor records were not very good. Ten of the 22 teams won at least 10 games. Only 5 teams had a losing record.

The 4,300+ yard passing teams posted a cumulative 254-162 record (.611). Fifteen of the 26 teams won at least 10 games. Only 3 teams had a losing record.

I'm not sure that we could draw any firm conclusions that these teams were necessarily better because of these extreme rushing or passing stats. As others have mentioned, how the teams' defense performed likely had as big an impact on their overall record.

However, I do think that we can at least say that it is very possible to stay competitive with a QB that racks up either rushing or passing yardage.

Let me give a different spin on what it could mean:.611 win % = 9.77 wins in a 16 game season.

.578 win % = 9.2 wins per season.

So we're talking a difference of 10 wins versus 9 wins. Most 10 win teams make the playoffs. 9 win teams do not always make the playoffs.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Surprisingly, BOTH sets of teams overall fared extremely well.

The 500+ yard rushing teams posted a cumulative 194-141-6 record (.578). It would have been higher except the hnadful of teams had poor records were not very good. Ten of the 22 teams won at least 10 games. Only 5 teams had a losing record.

The 4,300+ yard passing teams posted a cumulative 254-162 record (.611). Fifteen of the 26 teams won at least 10 games. Only 3 teams had a losing record.

I'm not sure that we could draw any firm conclusions that these teams were necessarily better because of these extreme rushing or passing stats. As others have mentioned, how the teams' defense performed likely had as big an impact on their overall record.

However, I do think that we can at least say that it is very possible to stay competitive with a QB that racks up either rushing or passing yardage.

Let me give a different spin on what it could mean:.611 win % = 9.77 wins in a 16 game season.

.578 win % = 9.2 wins per season.

So we're talking a difference of 10 wins versus 9 wins. Most 10 win teams make the playoffs. 9 win teams do not always make the playoffs.

I agree...seems to me the standard deviation in this would be pretty low, given the amount of 10-6, 9-7, 8-8 teams in the NFL...moreso than the extremes. So, a half-win edge for the 4,300+ passing teams (I'm guessing, now) should have enough statistical significance to conclude that the passing teams generally fare better than the rushing teams.

 

[David Yudkin]

Surprisingly, BOTH sets of teams overall fared extremely well.

The 500+ yard rushing teams posted a cumulative 194-141-6 record (.578).  It would have been higher except the hnadful of teams had poor records were not very good.  Ten of the 22 teams won at least 10 games.  Only 5 teams had a losing record.

The 4,300+ yard passing teams posted a cumulative 254-162 record (.611).  Fifteen of the 26 teams won at least 10 games.  Only 3 teams had a losing record.

I'm not sure that we could draw any firm conclusions that these teams were necessarily better because of these extreme rushing or passing stats.  As others have mentioned, how the teams' defense performed likely had as big an impact on their overall record.

However, I do think that we can at least say that it is very possible to stay competitive with a QB that racks up either rushing or passing yardage.

Let me give a different spin on what it could mean:.611 win % = 9.77 wins in a 16 game season.

.578 win % = 9.2 wins per season.

So we're talking a difference of 10 wins versus 9 wins. Most 10 win teams make the playoffs. 9 win teams do not always make the playoffs.

Rushing QB teams: 10 made playoffs, 12 did not, 0 SB titlesPassing QB teams: 17 made playoffs, 9 did not, 1 SB title (99 Rams)

 

[Keys Myaths]

Rushing QB teams: 10 made playoffs, 12 did not, 0 SB titles

Passing QB teams: 17 made playoffs, 9 did not, 1 SB title (99 Rams)

The lack of SB titles makes me wonder (1 team out of 27, expected 2.25)...were most of these teams lower seeds in the playoffs? That would support my theory...

 

[Family Matters]

Surprisingly, BOTH sets of teams overall fared extremely well.

The 500+ yard rushing teams posted a cumulative 194-141-6 record (.578).  It would have been higher except the hnadful of teams had poor records were not very good.  Ten of the 22 teams won at least 10 games.  Only 5 teams had a losing record.

The 4,300+ yard passing teams posted a cumulative 254-162 record (.611).  Fifteen of the 26 teams won at least 10 games.  Only 3 teams had a losing record.

I'm not sure that we could draw any firm conclusions that these teams were necessarily better because of these extreme rushing or passing stats.  As others have mentioned, how the teams' defense performed likely had as big an impact on their overall record.

However, I do think that we can at least say that it is very possible to stay competitive with a QB that racks up either rushing or passing yardage.

Let me give a different spin on what it could mean:.611 win % = 9.77 wins in a 16 game season.

.578 win % = 9.2 wins per season.

So we're talking a difference of 10 wins versus 9 wins. Most 10 win teams make the playoffs. 9 win teams do not always make the playoffs.

Rushing QB teams: 10 made playoffs, 12 did not, 0 SB titlesPassing QB teams: 17 made playoffs, 9 did not, 1 SB title (99 Rams)

Sounds like it supports what I said but it doesn't mean SB wins. When you think about the numbers as you propose then you realize these numbers tend to be a bit to the extreme from the norm. The most likey reason for that is a less than acceptable defense. At least that would support the need for the extreme stats. It would also explain the lack of SB success.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

Any reason for 4300 vs say 4000?

 

[David Yudkin]

Any reason for 4300 vs say 4000?

Yes. The data set for 4,000 was almost triple that of the 500 yard rushing QBs, so to keep the sample size similar I upped the passing total to get to a more similar number for comparison.