Chase Stuart
Footballguy
2007 stats
326/532, 3,645 yards, 23 TD, 17 INT
326/532, 3,645 yards, 23 TD, 17 INT
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
What do you think of this hypothetical QB? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chase Stuart
- Start date
Anonymous Internet User
Footballguy
if i had to guess without cheating -- the combined QB stats for the falcons last year?
Ozymandias
Footballguy
Hypothetically, he looks very close to a Superbowl winner.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Just to cut off the guesswork, this isn't going to "expose" any particular QB. It's not a trick question.I'm curious to see why people think of these stats, mostly because I think my interpretation of them is different from most people's, and I'm trying to get a better baseline in my head.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Are they impressive? Above average? Average? Below average? Bad?And if we could divorce ourselves from the fantasy world, are they impressive in the real NFL?
Anonymous Internet User
Footballguy
11.18 yards per completion isn't terrible. ranks up there with most of the decent QBs.the TD/Int ratio isn't concerning, but the number of TDs is concerning when considering the number of pass attempts. looks like the offense passed very frequently, but didn't score often through the passing attack. this gives two scenarios: either the offense was effective in moving the ball and the team had lots of rushing TDs instead of passing TDs; or, the offense was entirely ineffective and was forced to play from behind frequently. that would be my interpretation of the stats, chase.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
OK, I'll play.3,645/532 = 6.85 YPA which would rank 15th best among the 23 QBs last year with 300 or more attempts.
326/532 = 61.3% completion % which would rank 17th best among the 23 QBs last year with 300 or more attempts.
23/532 = 4.3% TD % which would rank 12th best among the 23 QBs last year with 300 or more attempts.
17/532 = 3.2% INT % which would rank 14th best among the 23 QBs last year with 300 or more attempts.
Overall, I'd put this QB somewhere around 14th or 15th out of 23 QBs, or on a 32 QB scale he'd be about 20th.
If this QB's NFL team is a winning team, he isn't the one who would deserve the credit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Thanks.
Futeki
Footballguy
It looks like the NFL team averages to me. Therefore, mediocre for a complete season played.
He's average as a passer.
What are his rushing stats?
What are his rushing stats?
He threw touchdowns on 4.3% of his pass attempts. The NFL average is generally around 4.1%.
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
Thats a solid starter in the NFL, nothing spectacular, but he's probably shouldnt be in danger of losing his job. On the whole, better numbers than Eli last year.
A
awesomeness
Guest
Looking at those stats, they scream Eli Manning to me.
Decent QB who most likely will win you 1 game a season, if any, but someone who is pretty consistently average in FF terms.
Decent QB who most likely will win you 1 game a season, if any, but someone who is pretty consistently average in FF terms.
Andy Herron
Footballguy
While I fully realize it's strickly hypothetical, in just looking at the numbers it brings Matt Hasselbeck to mind in my eyes.
Fairly solid QB, but not spectacular. Certainly productive.
Fairly solid QB, but not spectacular. Certainly productive.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Did he play a full 16 games? Did his team win? How were his receivers? Did he lead the team to touchdowns, only to have a running back score them instead? Were most of the TDs in garbage time, or were most of the INTs in a single game? Did he make late game comebacks? Did he play indoors or outdoors?
DawnBTVS
Footballguy
2007 stats
326/532, 3,645 yards, 23 TD, 17 INT
My thoughts...
#1: Comes from a predominantly pass happy offense as he would average 20-33 per game. Unless it's a perfect 33 every game, that means his arm was relied on to try and win a ballgame or two.
#2: Averaged 6.9 YPA, meaning a solid enough year. They go down the field but he isn't afraid to throw screens or dump it off at times when necessary.
#3: Decent decision maker as he completed 61.3% of his throws. Decent may be too high though, since he averaged 1 INT for every 31 throws. That also comes out to 1 INT for every 19 completions. So given a 16 game schedule and the above averages, he'd be "guaranteed" 1 INT per game. I don't want the other team getting 1 'free' possession at the cost of my own team.
#4: He threw 6 more TD than INT. Not the greatest ratio (1.35) but not the worst either. I'd prefer something higher though, even if it means fewer TD.
Me personally, if I were a GM I'd be displeased with those stats. I want a smart QB who limits his mistakes and depending on where the INT are thrown, they could be devastating for the team (i.e. an INT inside his own 50). I like the completion % and YPA but he would be on a 1 year leash for me. I'd likely draft a 2nd-3rd round QB in case he falters some the next season.
With similar attempts, my ideal QB would be similar to even a Brad Johnson 1999 year (316-519, 4005, 24-13).
326/532, 3,645 yards, 23 TD, 17 INT
My thoughts...
#1: Comes from a predominantly pass happy offense as he would average 20-33 per game. Unless it's a perfect 33 every game, that means his arm was relied on to try and win a ballgame or two.
#2: Averaged 6.9 YPA, meaning a solid enough year. They go down the field but he isn't afraid to throw screens or dump it off at times when necessary.
#3: Decent decision maker as he completed 61.3% of his throws. Decent may be too high though, since he averaged 1 INT for every 31 throws. That also comes out to 1 INT for every 19 completions. So given a 16 game schedule and the above averages, he'd be "guaranteed" 1 INT per game. I don't want the other team getting 1 'free' possession at the cost of my own team.
#4: He threw 6 more TD than INT. Not the greatest ratio (1.35) but not the worst either. I'd prefer something higher though, even if it means fewer TD.
Me personally, if I were a GM I'd be displeased with those stats. I want a smart QB who limits his mistakes and depending on where the INT are thrown, they could be devastating for the team (i.e. an INT inside his own 50). I like the completion % and YPA but he would be on a 1 year leash for me. I'd likely draft a 2nd-3rd round QB in case he falters some the next season.
With similar attempts, my ideal QB would be similar to even a Brad Johnson 1999 year (316-519, 4005, 24-13).
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, does he throw a pretty spiral? What was his Wonderlic? Any arrests for DUIs or other offenses?C'mon Chase, give us the full story.
GregR_2
Footballguy
Somewhere around average stats for a QB. Maybe slightly below. Some are above average (total yards). Some are a little below average (completion percentage, yards per attempt). TD to INT is probably very average.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Wait just a minute. You're smart enough to understand the fallacies in your own argument. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were ####### with me.Also, does he throw a pretty spiral? What was his Wonderlic? Any arrests for DUIs or other offenses?C'mon Chase, give us the full story.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
As many have guessed, these numbers are average. They're essentially the league totals from last season, divided by 32, with some rounding up.
I guess the follow-up question is 'is a QB that puts up these numbers average or above average?'
I guess the follow-up question is 'is a QB that puts up these numbers average or above average?'
Last edited by a moderator:
Anonymous Internet User
Footballguy
I'd consider this QB slightly above average for fantasy, since the yardage is decent.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
That depends on how his schedule that season compared to league averages. But it's pretty much Eli Manning stats; so it's obviously good enough to win a Super Bowl.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
While the numbers may be average, as my post #10 above indicated they are below average if only taking into account QBs with 300 attempts or more. Obviously this weeds out a lot of the... well, weeds. So, as a starting QB, this would be a below average guy.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't say these are pretty much Eli Manning's stats, these are the stats of a QB who threw 3 less INT's, 300 more yards, and had 5% higher completion percentage than Eli Manning. Big enough difference to warrant categorizing these as a level higher than Manning.
I would say these stats are above average, BTW.
I would say these stats are above average, BTW.
I'd say below average. The QB to me looks like a guy who isn't necessarily a liability, but unless I believed the QB was going to continue to grow, I would be looking seriously for an upgrade this offseason. Those numbers might be average for the whole NFL, but they're below average for a STARTING CALIBER QB (remember, some teams did not field a "starting caliber QB" last year, and a lot of backups and rookies attempted passes, so those averages are significantly below what you would expect out of even a below-average established, non-journeyman, starter-caliber QB).If my QB isn't consistently averaging 7+ yards per attempt, I'm looking for a new QB. Period.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I think it's telling that so many people can look at the same stats and think they're above average, below average, or exactly what they are - average.
Nobody is wrong here, but they're not right, either. You simply can't tell how good a QB is by looking at stats alone.
Nobody is wrong here, but they're not right, either. You simply can't tell how good a QB is by looking at stats alone.
bostonfred
Footballguy
So you'd have dumped Drew Brees after three years in the league, who didn't have a 7.0 YPA in the first three years of his career, and has only done so twice in his career? Tom Brady and John Elway took their teams to their first Superbowl with sub 7 ERAs. You can't judge the QB by his statistics alone. It just doesn't work that way.
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
Chase,It's all about perspective - and the overall quality of QBs.
There's usually a debate about QBs going to the Pro Bowl, but if 1-2 drop out (and 3 are selected) then there's a scramble to find a suitable alternate. That tells you that there are 4-5 good/great QBs in each conference, and then you get the average QBs or worse.
From a FF perspective, most leagues have 12 starters each week. Thats > average, so you expect / want numbers that are > average.
As for "average" and looking at that stat line - just because you take the league average doesn't mean you get an average QB. You've included every QB that took a snap last year - and last year was a record for the # of QBs to get at least one start (64). That's way too many.
Again about perspective - if you have a sample size of 64, and the first 24 are well below average, the next 18 are adequate, the next 10 are good and the next 10 are great, the average will be << great and < good - and possibly not even adequate (as the mean QB is in the lower third of the adequate category).
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
That's not the case. The 24 that are well below average will have many fewer attempts than the top 20 QBs. Someone like Derek Anderson was only a hair above average last year, and basically exactly average if you consider he had a pretty easy schedule. Does that strike you as the average being in the lower third of the adequate category?
The only thing that matters in the real NFL are wins.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Who would you rather have on your team -- Tarvaris Jackson or Carson Palmer?
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
I never said (nor meant to imply) that they had equal weights.I am saying that these players collectively pull down the average. A contributing factor to that is that there were too many QBs that got at least one start last year - and to turn it on its head, the normal starting QBs had too few starts. Only 12 QBs IIRC started 16 games.
This would also be the same, however, on a PPG basis. If there's a Gradkowski start or a David Carr start in the mix, that pulls the numbers down.
As to your original question about the league average numbers, I'd really have to check the numbers you posted here but I'd take DA numbers any day. He was the #5 FF QB last year, wasn't he?
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Contrary to popular belief, last year really wasn't a down year. Part of it was Brady, but QBs in 2007 had the second most successful season ever. It might be awhile before the 2004 numbers are broken.http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=482]Ths post chronicles the league-wide adjusted yards per attempt average for all QBs over the years. I'm using AY/A because I know you really like it.
2007 5.852006 5.852005 5.792004 6.072003 5.572002 5.752001 5.652000 5.681999 5.631998 5.791997 5.711996 5.541995 5.791994 5.741993 5.591992 5.511991 5.691990 5.831989 5.811988 5.541987 5.731986 5.591985 5.581984 5.731983 5.641982 5.471981 5.511980 5.381979 5.201978 4.691977 4.311976 4.861975 4.691974 4.521973 4.591972 4.851971 4.511970 4.81FWIW, Derek Anderson averaged 6.11 AY/A, which is obviously a few tenths of a point above average. However, Derek Anderson's SOS was a few tenths of a point below average, so that's sort of a wash. He was slightly above average against a slightly below average schedule.He was a great fantasy football player because he played 16 games and threw a lot of touchdowns. I've been harping on this for years, in my rearview QB analysis that QBs that play 16 games are always overvalued. It's really not difficult to finish top 10 if you play 16 games. QBs score so many FPs, that any missed time really sets you back. Of course, DA was really helped by the 29 TDs and not just a compiler, but as far as his ratios go, he wasn't very impressive. (He was impressive for a 24 year old first time starter, but that's a different question.)
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
Using the new FBG scoring w/ 5 points for TDs and -2 for an INT that's 182.25 + 115 - 34 FP, or 261.25 points, or 16.3 PPG (if I did that math in my head right).That's on par with Jon Kitna, who was QB12 last year (4066-18-20).Only 9 QBs had > 3,645 pass yds. last year.Only 11 QBs had 23 or more pass TDs last year.On a PPG basis, QB numbers have rushing numbers in them, but 17 QBs had 16.3 or more PPG. Maybe moving the line up 2 points for rushing numbers to 18.3 / game gives better perspective, as 11 QBs had > 18.3 PPG.So Kitna / Eli / DA - they all hit right around the average numbers.It's an interesting point Chase, but I think it is human nature to expect > average performance and to not appreciate average production - even though 50% of the time a change would make things worse.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I actually was going the other way. I think average performance is generally overvalued, when it comes with a lot of pass attempts.
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
I couldn't agree with you more - which is why I always think that a QB like Philip Rivers will be overrated. He's durable, but average at best. QB2 material, not QB1.
radballs
Footballguy
I agree. Way too many variables to make a managerial decision just based on statistics. Not to mention the age of the QB. If he's a vet, you're more likely to move on. If he's a rookie, this might have made a fantastic introductory campaign.
radballs
Footballguy
Good points Jeff. Also, about your first statement regarding the new QB FBG scoring: I'm a bit confused if those changes are incorporated into the current projections. I looked at them last night and right above the QB numbers, Dodds quoted the old scoring basis 4 and -1. Just curious. TIA.
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
Believe me, we're all adjusting to the new scoring.I believe it is defaulted to the new scoring (last year's numbers all are).
Yes you can.First off, read the second sentence of my post. "unless I believed the QB was going to continue to grow, I would be seriously looking for an upgrade this offseason". Drew Brees was a 2nd-round draft pick with three years under his belt- there was PLENTY of reason to believe he still had some growing room left. Tom Brady was in his first season as a starter when he led the Patriots to a SB with a sub-7 ypc, so it'd be INSANE to think he was done growing. John Elway played in a different era of football and isn't relevant to this discussion- his first superbowl appearance was over 20 years ago now.
Second off, no statistics correlate better to wins than ypa and ypa allowed. Like it or not, it's a passing league, and if you ever hope to achieve consistent excellence, you need a consistently excellent passer.
Third off, obviously I wouldn't manage my team with nothing but hard non-negotiable rules that failed to take into account situation. It's not like I'd cut my QB if he had 6.99 ypa and give him an extension if he had 7.00. If my QB was averaging 50 rushing yards per game to go with his 6.8 ypa, I'd look upon it a lot more favorably. If my #1 wide receiver was a Justin Gage type, I'd probably be a lot happier with 6.9 ypa than I would if my #1 receiver was Braylon Edwards or Randy Moss. I'm just saying that a QB's ypa are such an incredibly important measure of his quality. Many people look at a QB's yards or his TDs and make sweeping statements about how the QB did that season, but I strongly believe that no simple stat shows how much a QB is contributing to his team more than ypa. I think you can be good, even great, with a low-ypa guy under center, I just think it's a very big liability.
Even if my starting QB was serviceable, I would not approach the position with a mindset that serviceable was acceptable. I would rather have a 20% chance at Peyton Manning or Tom Brady and an 80% chance at Ryan Leaf than a 100% chance at Eli Manning.
From a fantasy perspective...this is a solid QB2, no more, no less. But that's not the real question, is it?Had the QB of a "loaded" team (Indy, NE, Dallas) put up these types of numbers, then we could fairly call this QB a liability. If the QB of a talent starved team (think Chicago with that line, Atlanta, Miami) put up those numbers, we'd be thrilled. A rookie in his first year, we're , a veteran on an average team we're 
and actively looking for an upgrade (but not desperate for it).Numbers in a vacuum are just that...numbers. Unless they are at one of the extreme ends of achievability (record highs or lows), they hold little meaning at all without context.
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
Also on this points, if he runs a team that has a strong run game, these are great numbers as well.If the offense was passing dominant, maybe not so much.renesauz said:bostonfred said:From a fantasy perspective...this is a solid QB2, no more, no less. But that's not the real question, is it?Had the QB of a "loaded" team (Indy, NE, Dallas) put up these types of numbers, then we could fairly call this QB a liability. If the QB of a talent starved team (think Chicago with that line, Atlanta, Miami) put up those numbers, we'd be thrilled. A rookie in his first year, we're
, a veteran on an average team we're
and actively looking for an upgrade (but not desperate for it).Numbers in a vacuum are just that...numbers. Unless they are at one of the extreme ends of achievability (record highs or lows), they hold little meaning at all without context.
GregR_2
Footballguy
Even moreso that they an individual stat can be average and below or above average at the same time. For example, the passing yards may be average (mean) for a team, but they are top 10 for a QB which is well above average (median average). At the same time, the team mean average completion percentage would only be good enough to be the 22nd best QB. But then some teams (Jets, Texans, Chiefs etc) have more than one QB who had enough pass attempts to be included in such a look at the QBs while other teams starters were doing worse than those backups.Also of course part of that is because when we tend to talk about season results for QBs we don't normally prorate the guys who didn't play a full season, while if Chase was using team average he is getting full 16 game seasons which makes a difference for something like passing yards.bostonfred said:
I definitely see the irony there. I would have loved to have Eli Manning back when he was an unknown, the kind of guy who had a 20% chance of being the next Peyton Manning. Now that he's a known quantity, a guy who has a 100% chance of being Eli Manning, I would be looking to upgrade. I'm just not sold on him as an NFL player, and I genuinely believe that if he was going to ascend to the next level, he would have done it by now. QBs don't take that long to develop, Rich Gannon and Brad Johnson notwithstanding.
Similar threads
