PDA

View Full Version : Enough with the "Elways Completion percentage was only 59%" - It's a different era



Tned
11-28-2011, 08:41 AM
Ok, because I'm lazy, I dug up the post that I made a few days over four years ago when over-exuberant fans started comparing Cutler's first/second year numbers to Elway, Marino and company. It shows how QB production has changed, and how you can't make valid comparisons to the past:


Ok, now the comment.

As I have said before, I don't think you can compare Elway and Cutler easily, because even with all the injuries this year, Cutler has more talent around him than Elway.

However, there is another thing to consider. Can anyone remember a more dominant time for QBs in the NFL?

Through 12 week, there are 24, yes 24, out of the 30 QBs with completion percentages OVER 60%. Of those, 22 of them have at least 1100 yards passing, so that number isn't padded by a bunch of backup QBs that through a couple passes. That is from the list of qualified (14 passes per game average).

There are two more that are over 59%, and only Alex Smith is below 56%.

Contrast that with Hall of Famer Troy Aikmen, who was under 60% 6 of his 12 seasons. Only twice was he over 65%, but this season we have 13 QBs at 64.9% or higher.

How about Marino? Only 5 times in his 17 seasons was Marino over 60%, and never cracked 65% (64.1% and 64.2% were his two highest seasons). So, based purely on judging 'current' stats against those from another era, Joe Kitna, Garcia, Garrrard, Pennington, Breese, etc. are all 'greater' starters or have 'beat' a QB like Dan Marino or Troy Aikmen.

The inflated QB stats don't stop with completion percentage. There are 10 QBs averaging over 250 yards a game (4000 yards over 16 games). Only 8, yes 8, of Marino's 17 years did he average over 250 yards a game. The NFL all time leader in passing yards averaged over 250 yards a game less than half of his seasons, yet this year we have 10 QBs averaging over 250 yards a game.

Another interesting stat. There are 12 QB's averaging over 7.5 yards per attempt. Again, comparing that to the 'great' Marino, only 6, yes 6, of his 17 years did he average over 7.5 yards per attempt. Only twice did he have a YPA over 7.6, but this year we have 7 QBs that are at 7.7 or higher, including some dominant names like: Garrard, Kitna and Schaub, with Cutler, Anderson and Garcia at 7.6, which equals Marino's best in all but two of his seasons, and is better than Marino did in 13 of his 17 seasons.

Conclusion? You cannot compare QB stats from a rookie season 24 years ago, to today. For whatever reason, we are experiencing a 'juiced ball' type era, when it comes to QB stats. It doesn't end with completion percentage, YPA and yards per game, there are 11 QBs with passer ratings over 90. A slew of QBs with TD:INT ratings approaching or way over 2:1. It goes on and on.

QBs like Garcia, Kitna, Schaub, and many others (not to mention the Palmer's, Brady's, Manning's and Romo's) are having years that approach the greatest years of our greatest Hall of Fame QBs.

So, while I am a huge Cutler fan, and think he will likely be one of the 'great' ones in time, comparisons like the Cutler to Elway stat comparisons can be very deceptive, because QB stats are inflated like no other time in NFL history.

OrangeHoof
11-28-2011, 11:23 AM
In Elway's time, there were fewer checkdown options. Seven or eight might stay in to block and only a couple of receivers went out for the pass. While Tebow has been using multiple TE sets quite often, there's almost always a back or a TE designed as the checkdown option. Of course, you still have to complete the pass but Elway threw deep more often in the early 1980s than Tebow is doing now.

wayninja
11-28-2011, 11:28 AM
It may be fairly obvious, but the rules regarding contact/pass interference/roughness have directly affected the ability and willingness of offenses to go pass-centric. When guys like Marino, Elway and Aikman were playing, you could mug receivers all the way down the field and PI had to be crazy blatant to be called, making the prospect of passing much more risky and much more difficult. Guys going over the middle were in big danger of taking crushing hits after the catch and it was perfectly legal.

Anyone who actually watched football in those days knows this without having it explained though. It's just a younger generation who want to try to compare stats apples to apples.

NightTrainLayne
11-28-2011, 11:38 AM
Well-said Tned.

It is interesting to me however, that with the type of offense we are running, Tebow's #'s might compare better to previous era's than other pass-oriented offenses might.

In other words, yes the NFL is much different now than the early 80's when Elway came into the league, but we are running a much different offense than the current NFL seems to engender.

I still don't think you can compare them straight across, but the point is that Tebow is actually doing a pretty good job of doing the things that he can do. He may have a limited resume, but what he does, he is doing well.

Hope that makes some semblance of sense. We need and want him to improve in other areas and develop, but he's doing a good enough job to be able to continue that development imo.

nevcraw
11-28-2011, 11:57 AM
Well-said Tned.

It is interesting to me however, that with the type of offense we are running, Tebow's #'s might compare better to previous era's than other pass-oriented offenses might.

In other words, yes the NFL is much different now than the early 80's when Elway came into the league, but we are running a much different offense than the current NFL seems to engender.

I still don't think you can compare them straight across, but the point is that Tebow is actually doing a pretty good job of doing the things that he can do. He may have a limited resume, but what he does, he is doing well.

Hope that makes some semblance of sense. We need and want him to improve in other areas and develop, but he's doing a good enough job to be able to continue that development imo.

this>>

FlyByU
11-28-2011, 12:08 PM
Ok, because I'm lazy, I dug up the post that I made a few days over four years ago when over-exuberant fans started comparing Cutler's first/second year numbers to Elway, Marino and company. It shows how QB production has changed, and how you can't make valid comparisons to the past:

The reason for this is because Roger Goodell's neutering of the Defense with all these feely feely rules/fines. If Paul Tagliabue was still in it sure wouldn't be like it is now that is for sure. When you tell a D that they cannot touch a WR until he has ball control or control of his body then you have WR very brave to catch across the middle and everywhere else. D's in fear of penalties/fines and wont play near as hard or as effective. Look at Moore he was good until he got his neutering in Preseason every since he hasn't been worth any thing. NFL is working on neutering Von right now with that stupid fine on him. If I was a player like Von or like Moore was in college I would ask for about 1 million more a year to pay for fines. Hell the NFL would get a lot richer off me.

DenBronx
11-28-2011, 12:52 PM
If TT can ever get his comp % near 59% he will be the most dangerous QB in the NFL.

Simply because he's a dual threat.

Nomad
11-28-2011, 01:11 PM
The reason for this is because Roger Goodell's neutering of the Defense with all these feely feely rules/fines. If Paul Tagliabue was still in it sure wouldn't be like it is now that is for sure. When you tell a D that they cannot touch a WR until he has ball control or control of his body then you have WR very brave to catch across the middle and everywhere else. D's in fear of penalties/fines and wont play near as hard or as effective. Look at Moore he was good until he got his neutering in Preseason every since he hasn't been worth any thing. NFL is working on neutering Von right now with that stupid fine on him. If I was a player like Von or like Moore was in college I would ask for about 1 million more a year to pay for fines. Hell the NFL would get a lot richer off me.

I always thought it was the owners and players who want these rules and came up with the fines while Goodell just enforces them perhaps going a little overboard with the enforcement.....I could be wrong.

Tned
11-28-2011, 01:27 PM
Well-said Tned.

It is interesting to me however, that with the type of offense we are running, Tebow's #'s might compare better to previous era's than other pass-oriented offenses might.

In other words, yes the NFL is much different now than the early 80's when Elway came into the league, but we are running a much different offense than the current NFL seems to engender.

I still don't think you can compare them straight across, but the point is that Tebow is actually doing a pretty good job of doing the things that he can do. He may have a limited resume, but what he does, he is doing well.

Hope that makes some semblance of sense. We need and want him to improve in other areas and develop, but he's doing a good enough job to be able to continue that development imo.

Good point. I still think the fact that the rules are so passing friendly means that you need to have a higher completion percentage compared to years past. However, on the other hand Tebow does run in many situations where other current QBs would throw little bubble screens, or other short passes, so the Broncos scheme doesn't allow for the "cheap" completions that most QBs get to pad their stats with.

vhatever
11-28-2011, 01:30 PM
The main reason for the increase in accuracy is all the plays in the middle of the field and the "dink and dunk" passing game that has replaced a lot of teams running games.

If receivers weren't protected from being laid out "until they turn up field". you'd see a ton of these receivers leaving games in stretchers. Extra QB protection also increases the ability for a QB to stand in the pocket in general. Meanwhile, old school running style for short yardage are still gonna take the monster hits.

The rules have changed to value short passing over a decent rushing game, essentially.

Joel
11-28-2011, 02:45 PM
The reason for this is because Roger Goodell's neutering of the Defense with all these feely feely rules/fines. If Paul Tagliabue was still in it sure wouldn't be like it is now that is for sure. When you tell a D that they cannot touch a WR until he has ball control or control of his body then you have WR very brave to catch across the middle and everywhere else. D's in fear of penalties/fines and wont play near as hard or as effective. Look at Moore he was good until he got his neutering in Preseason every since he hasn't been worth any thing. NFL is working on neutering Von right now with that stupid fine on him. If I was a player like Von or like Moore was in college I would ask for about 1 million more a year to pay for fines. Hell the NFL would get a lot richer off me.
Actually, Tagliabue started the trend of restricting DBs; it was on his watch that we got the rule against ANY contact beyond five yards. The Cowboys repeat Super Bowl winners had a VERY effective Texas A&M CB named Kevin Smith, easilyl missed in the Aggie annals because when Dallas drafted him he was replaced by his backup, a fella by the name of Aaron Glenn, whom he'd kept on the bench for two years.

Smith covered Jerry Rice when the Cowboys beat SF in back to back Conference Championships, and habitually used hand checks to great effect against receivers. Nothing major, just a quick balancing brush to estabilsh position; it probably wouldn't even be called today because he was "looking back for the ball," and it wasn't called before 1994 either. But that year they put in a new rule: ANY and ALL contact beyond five yards is a 5 yard illegal contact penalty and an automatic first down. That radically changed Smiths effectiveness as a cornerback, enough to prevent a Cowboys threepeat and make SF (rather than Dallas) the first team to win 5 titles. Granted turnovers on their first three Conference Championship possessions helped, but the "Kevin Smith rule" was integral to the three resulting TDs in a game Dallas lost by 10. 1994 was also the year the League introduced the salary cap to end the practice (notably abused by San Francisco) of owners simply buying up the 45 best players in the League at any price; San Francisco immediately signed Deion Sanders to a huge 1 year contract aimed squarely at Dallas, complying with his demands and the caps by also signing an exclusive stadium concession contract with Pepsi, among the terms of which was Pepsi getting Deion for endorsements and providing him the huge pay day SF agreed to but could not directly fulfill under the terms of the cap. Jerry Jones naturally appealed to the Commissioner, who declared the agreement in accordance with the salary cap and SF had Deion to cover Michael Irvin in the Conference Championship. The rest, as they say is history (not to be outdone, Jones responded the following year, when Sanders' one year deal expired, by offering the same deal as part of a SEVEN year contract; that kind of maneuvering was great for Jones and the Cowboys, who won an additional Super Bowl thereafter, but pretty much gutted the spirit of the cap while satisfying the letter.)

Unfortunately, none of Pete Rozelles successors has been worthy to shine his shoes. Sad but true; the League has never been the same since he left.


We need and want him to improve in other areas and develop, but he's doing a good enough job to be able to continue that development imo.
That really is the bottom line: Tebow has earned the starting job through at least the start of next season, and given his work ethic, intelligence and natural physical ability I am confident that a REAL off season working intensely with Elway will make him a MUCH better pro passer. Until then, we don't have time to give our starting QB a two month passing clinic in the middle of the season in between regular practices, learning the playbook and watching game tape on the next opponent, so we'll keep playing to Tebows current strengths. Next year he'll be a more balanced quarterback and we'll play to THOSE strengths, meaning the option crap will mostly go bye-bye. We'll be a team with a generally solid and improving passer who's elusive, durable and very dangerous with his feet, but isn't plowing head first into linebackers every other play. If defences want to load eight men in the box and keep playing the option... awesome.... :)

The main reason for the increase in accuracy is all the plays in the middle of the field and the "dink and dunk" passing game that has replaced a lot of teams running games.

If receivers weren't protected from being laid out "until they turn up field". you'd see a ton of these receivers leaving games in stretchers. Extra QB protection also increases the ability for a QB to stand in the pocket in general. Meanwhile, old school running style for short yardage are still gonna take the monster hits.

The rules have changed to value short passing over a decent rushing game, essentially.
Never seemed to bother Jerry Rice, Dwight Clark or Brent Jones. It is not that they are better protected from injury, it's that there are SO many ways defenses can make great plays and give up an automatic first down due to penalties. Meanwhile, as you say, as long as you don't lead with your helmet or tackle a guy by his facemask you can grind a runningback into the turf, and whether he's taking a pitch or already has the ball at the time is completely irrelevant (apart from the fact that it's more likely to be a fumble (not an automatic first down) if you arrive as or before the ball does.) Most defenders used to rely on the fact that as long as they didn't hit the receiver until the ball arrived they could lay him out and the chances were REALLY good he wouldn't be able to hold on (the line was, of course, "you might as well catch it: He's gonna hit you anyway....") And, of course, if a ball were TIPPED, well, no edged weapons; otherwise, anything goes.

NightTerror218
11-28-2011, 02:57 PM
It may be fairly obvious, but the rules regarding contact/pass interference/roughness have directly affected the ability and willingness of offenses to go pass-centric. When guys like Marino, Elway and Aikman were playing, you could mug receivers all the way down the field and PI had to be crazy blatant to be called, making the prospect of passing much more risky and much more difficult. Guys going over the middle were in big danger of taking crushing hits after the catch and it was perfectly legal.

Anyone who actually watched football in those days knows this without having it explained though. It's just a younger generation who want to try to compare stats apples to apples.

I name for you....ATWATER!!!!!!

FlyByU
11-28-2011, 02:58 PM
Actually, Tagliabue started the trend of restricting DBs; it was on his watch that we got the rule against ANY contact beyond five yards. The Cowboys repeat Super Bowl winners had a VERY effective Texas A&M CB named Kevin Smith, easilyl missed in the Aggie annals because when Dallas drafted him he was replaced by his backup, a fella by the name of Aaron Glenn, whom he'd kept on the bench for two years.

Smith covered Jerry Rice when the Cowboys beat SF in back to back Conference Championships, and habitually used hand checks to great effect against receivers. Nothing major, just a quick balancing brush to estabilsh position; it probably wouldn't even be called today because he was "looking back for the ball," and it wasn't called before 1994 either. But that year they put in a new rule: ANY and ALL contact beyond five yards is a 5 yard illegal contact penalty and an automatic first down. That radically changed Smiths effectiveness as a cornerback, enough to prevent a Cowboys threepeat and make SF (rather than Dallas) the first team to win 5 titles. Granted turnovers on their first three Conference Championship possessions helped, but the "Kevin Smith rule" was integral to the three resulting TDs in a game Dallas lost by 10. 1994 was also the year the League introduced the salary cap to end the practice (notably abused by San Francisco) of owners simply buying up the 45 best players in the League at any price; San Francisco immediately signed Deion Sanders to a huge 1 year contract aimed squarely at Dallas, complying with his demands and the caps by also signing an exclusive stadium concession contract with Pepsi, among the terms of which was Pepsi getting Deion for endorsements and providing him the huge pay day SF agreed to but could not directly fulfill under the terms of the cap. Jerry Jones naturally appealed to the Commissioner, who declared the agreement in accordance with the salary cap and SF had Deion to cover Michael Irvin in the Conference Championship. The rest, as they say is history (not to be outdone, Jones responded the following year, when Sanders' one year deal expired, by offering the same deal as part of a SEVEN year contract; that kind of maneuvering was great for Jones and the Cowboys, who won an additional Super Bowl thereafter, but pretty much gutted the spirit of the cap while satisfying the letter.)

Unfortunately, none of Pete Rozelles successors has been worthy to shine his shoes. Sad but true; the League has never been the same since he left.

OK that is who I was thinking of Pete Rozelles. Tagliabue I put by brain fart sorry.

FlyByU
11-28-2011, 03:00 PM
I always thought it was the owners and players who want these rules and came up with the fines while Goodell just enforces them perhaps going a little overboard with the enforcement.....I could be wrong.

So you think the Defensive Players had a say in all this. If they did they dug their own grave then.

Joel
11-28-2011, 03:07 PM
OK that is who I was thinking of Pete Rozelles. Tagliabue I put by brain fart sorry.
Ah, OK then, no biggy. Although confusing Tagliabue with Rozelle is just... wrong. :tsk:

Fullback32
11-28-2011, 03:09 PM
Granted turnovers on their first three Conference Championship possessions helped, but the "Kevin Smith rule" was integral to the three resulting TDs in a game Dallas lost by 10.

Maybe, but those turnovers killed it more than the new rule. I submit that if those don't happen and the 49ers aren't up 21-0 with seven minutes remaining in the first quarter, the Forty-Whiners lose that game. The Cowboys Threepeat. Add in the distraction of the Idiot From Oklahoma being the head coach, well, Steve Young get a SB ring and into the HOF. Way to go Jerruh.

That being said, those rule changes did affect the game overall though and point taken.

FlyByU
11-28-2011, 03:09 PM
Ah, OK then, no biggy. Although confusing Tagliabue with Rozelle is just... wrong. :tsk:

I agree totally wrong and horrible on my part.

BroncoTech
11-28-2011, 03:43 PM
I tend to disagree that the so-called 'passing era' of football actually exists. Take a look at the names of QB's where passing yardage exceeded 500 yards in a game.
* Norm Van Brocklin 554 yards (1951)
* Warren Moon 527 yards
* Boomer Esiason 522 yards
* Dan Marino 521 yards
* Tom Brady 517 yards
* Phil Simms 513 yards
* Drew Brees 510 yards
* Vince Ferragamo 509 yards
* Y.A. Tittle 505 yards
* Elvis Grbac 504 yards
* Ben Roethlisberger 503 yards

I think you could conclude that every generation of passers in the modern era have had prolific passers despite rule changes etc.

NightTrainLayne
11-28-2011, 04:01 PM
I tend to disagree that the so-called 'passing era' of football actually exists. Take a look at the names of QB's where passing yardage exceeded 500 yards in a game.
* Norm Van Brocklin 554 yards (1951)
* Warren Moon 527 yards
* Boomer Esiason 522 yards
* Dan Marino 521 yards
* Tom Brady 517 yards
* Phil Simms 513 yards
* Drew Brees 510 yards
* Vince Ferragamo 509 yards
* Y.A. Tittle 505 yards
* Elvis Grbac 504 yards
* Ben Roethlisberger 503 yards

I think you could conclude that every generation of passers in the modern era have had prolific passers despite rule changes etc.

Anything can happen in one game. But one game doesn't tell the whole story. I don't think there's any doubt that due to rule changes and game evolution that this is an era of much greater QB production.

There's nothing really inherently wrong with that, it's just what it is.

BroncoTech
11-29-2011, 12:04 AM
I still see a lot of company in the leading career passers in Elway's era and before. Maybe if you were to aggregate all QB's average it might show how we turned into a passing league.



Rank Player (age), + - HOFer, Bold - Active Yds Years Teams
1. Brett Favre 71,838 1991-2010 4TM
2. Dan Marino+ 61,361 1983-1999 mia
3. Peyton Manning (34) 54,828 1998-2011 clt
4. John Elway+ 51,475 1983-1998 den
5. Warren Moon+ 49,325 1984-2000 4TM
6. Fran Tarkenton+ 47,003 1961-1978 2TM
7. Vinny Testaverde 46,233 1987-2007 7TM
8. Drew Bledsoe 44,611 1993-2006 3TM
9. Dan Fouts+ 43,040 1973-1987 sdg
10. Kerry Collins (38) 40,922 1995-2011 6TM
11. Joe Montana+ 40,551 1979-1994 2TM
12. Johnny Unitas+ 40,239 1956-1973 2TM
13. Drew Brees (31) 38,592 2001-2011 2TM
14. Tom Brady (33) 38,371 2000-2011 nwe
15. Dave Krieg 38,147 1980-1998 6TM
16. Boomer Esiason 37,920 1984-1997 3TM
17. Donovan McNabb (34) 37,276 1999-2011 3TM
18. Jim Kelly+ 35,467 1986-1996 buf
19. Jim Everett 34,837 1986-1997 3TM
20. Jim Hart 34,665 1966-1984 2TM

DenBronx
11-29-2011, 02:41 AM
I still see a lot of company in the leading career passers in Elway's era and before. Maybe if you were to aggregate all QB's average it might show how we turned into a passing league.



Rank Player (age), + - HOFer, Bold - Active Yds Years Teams
1. Brett Favre 71,838 1991-2010 4TM
2. Dan Marino+ 61,361 1983-1999 mia
3. Peyton Manning (34) 54,828 1998-2011 clt
4. John Elway+ 51,475 1983-1998 den
5. Warren Moon+ 49,325 1984-2000 4TM
6. Fran Tarkenton+ 47,003 1961-1978 2TM
7. Vinny Testaverde 46,233 1987-2007 7TM
8. Drew Bledsoe 44,611 1993-2006 3TM
9. Dan Fouts+ 43,040 1973-1987 sdg
10. Kerry Collins (38) 40,922 1995-2011 6TM
11. Joe Montana+ 40,551 1979-1994 2TM
12. Johnny Unitas+ 40,239 1956-1973 2TM
13. Drew Brees (31) 38,592 2001-2011 2TM
14. Tom Brady (33) 38,371 2000-2011 nwe
15. Dave Krieg 38,147 1980-1998 6TM
16. Boomer Esiason 37,920 1984-1997 3TM
17. Donovan McNabb (34) 37,276 1999-2011 3TM
18. Jim Kelly+ 35,467 1986-1996 buf
19. Jim Everett 34,837 1986-1997 3TM
20. Jim Hart 34,665 1966-1984 2TM


^^^^
This tells the whole story....almost all of them are pocket passing QBs.

Poet
11-29-2011, 02:42 AM
It's a mix and mash of reasons. The biggest reason isn't the change of what you can do to a WR - watch how guys like Revis, Nnamdi, Champ, and Joseph are refed and then look at other DB's. The NFL basically treats corners like the NBA does stars. You have to be a stud to get away with crap, but if you're that type of star, or that good you're going to get away with way more.

More importantly, it's the QB rules. When WR's are typically taller than the DB's and have the great advantage of knowing where they are going and the play it's already a killer, that's why back in the day DB's had the advantage. But when you even tweak those rules a little AND the QB basically can't get hit hard...oh boy.

As far as that list goes, look at the guys on that list and then look at the QB's coming close to those numbers. Boomer Esiason and Collins both had excellent careers and they're in the bottom half of that list, holy shit.

Look at the numbers that Schuab is putting up, do you really think he's THAT good? I don't even think he's realistically better than Boomer.

It is very much a passing league now. You're starting to see teams like NO and GB eschew having high stock in a few great offensive players and just find above average or niche players and run an overall scheme with monster QB's.

Those short routes just absolutely kill most defenses - you have to be Baltimore and Pittsburgh level good just to even justify playing the game more often than not.

Joel
11-29-2011, 09:17 AM
Maybe, but those turnovers killed it more than the new rule. I submit that if those don't happen and the 49ers aren't up 21-0 with seven minutes remaining in the first quarter, the Forty-Whiners lose that game. The Cowboys Threepeat. Add in the distraction of the Idiot From Oklahoma being the head coach, well, Steve Young get a SB ring and into the HOF. Way to go Jerruh.

That being said, those rule changes did affect the game overall though and point taken.
Agreed on all points: Putting Kevin Smith in a straightjacket (and letting the '9ers via Pepsi ignore the inaugural cap,) helped score those TDs but without the turnovers and the short field they are not even possible. For fans of Landrys Cowboys, Jerry Jones has truly been a mixed blessing who owes three Super Bowl rings to Jimmy Johnson even if he wasn't around for the last one. It says something about Jerry that even his best friend couldn't stand working for him for five years. Memories of that game are particularly bitter for me, because my father was one of those Landry fans from the beginning, and he died just a couple months after the game, the last NFL game he ever saw.

Joel
11-29-2011, 09:35 AM
I tend to disagree that the so-called 'passing era' of football actually exists. Take a look at the names of QB's where passing yardage exceeded 500 yards in a game.
* Norm Van Brocklin 554 yards (1951)
* Warren Moon 527 yards
* Boomer Esiason 522 yards
* Dan Marino 521 yards
* Tom Brady 517 yards
* Phil Simms 513 yards
* Drew Brees 510 yards
* Vince Ferragamo 509 yards
* Y.A. Tittle 505 yards
* Elvis Grbac 504 yards
* Ben Roethlisberger 503 yards

I think you could conclude that every generation of passers in the modern era have had prolific passers despite rule changes etc.
If you add in whether those QBs won or lost each of the games where they had 500 passing yards I think you will begin to see the difference. Once upon a time, teams only threw that much when they trailed badly late, and often as not an incompletion, interception or the other team plowing through their hopeless D to retain or regain the lead following each score meant they still lost. Passing for >400 yards was indicative of defeat; hell, passing for >300 yards was just 25 years ago, which was considered a "passing era" at the time as much as the current one is now. In comparison to the previous half century of pro football, it was. I would call it "The Theory of Relativity" except The Hidden Game of Football already used that title for their chapter on comparing stats from different generations. The books second chapter (How Football Got That Way) concludes with this statement about the '80s "passing era:"


About ten years ago, the NFL more or less admitted that the defenses had learned to handle the offenses. They literally gave the offenses a hand by letting the blockers use theirs. At the same time they put the clamps on the defensive secondary's custom of hanging all over receivers. In other words, they made it easier to pass, without doing a thing to help the runners.

In 1982 for the first time, NFL teams-in-total passed more than they ran. It used to be said that teams that threw more than they galloped never won. It also used to be said that the world was flat. Of the four teams in the 1986 AFC and NFC championship games, three had more passes than running plays during the season.

It only took three quarters of a century, but the forward pass has arrived.
Emphasis above is mine, and for the record: Any football fan that has not read this book is guilty of dereliction of duty (just ask the guys at Football Outsiders, who basically built their site on it.)


I still see a lot of company in the leading career passers in Elway's era and before. Maybe if you were to aggregate all QB's average it might show how we turned into a passing league.



Rank Player (age), + - HOFer, Bold - Active Yds Years Teams
1. Brett Favre 71,838 1991-2010 4TM
2. Dan Marino+ 61,361 1983-1999 mia
3. Peyton Manning (34) 54,828 1998-2011 clt
4. John Elway+ 51,475 1983-1998 den
5. Warren Moon+ 49,325 1984-2000 4TM
6. Fran Tarkenton+ 47,003 1961-1978 2TM
7. Vinny Testaverde 46,233 1987-2007 7TM
8. Drew Bledsoe 44,611 1993-2006 3TM
9. Dan Fouts+ 43,040 1973-1987 sdg
10. Kerry Collins (38) 40,922 1995-2011 6TM
11. Joe Montana+ 40,551 1979-1994 2TM
12. Johnny Unitas+ 40,239 1956-1973 2TM
13. Drew Brees (31) 38,592 2001-2011 2TM
14. Tom Brady (33) 38,371 2000-2011 nwe
15. Dave Krieg 38,147 1980-1998 6TM
16. Boomer Esiason 37,920 1984-1997 3TM
17. Donovan McNabb (34) 37,276 1999-2011 3TM
18. Jim Kelly+ 35,467 1986-1996 buf
19. Jim Everett 34,837 1986-1997 3TM
20. Jim Hart 34,665 1966-1984 2TM

That "and before" tells the story, for the reasons I just described (and also, in part, because of 14 game seasons prior to 1978.). There are plenty of top yardage passers from Elways era, because it only ended a decade ago. How many are there from before 1980 though? Three:

Fran Tarkenton, who owned every NFL passing record until Marino came along, because his Vikings teams had HoF Ds and TERRIBLE offenses basically consisting of him and Lynn Swann. Tarkenton set the standard for QB who scramble for their lives before throwing passes to secure miraculous come from behind victories.

Dan Fouts, the centerpiece of "Air" Coryells pioneering San Diego offense that spawned the infamous "West Coast Offense" that is a product of all the pass friendly rules changes over the years and spawned the prolific passing we've observed since. Anyone who played for Don Coryell long was going to rack up a ton of passing yards, especially throwing to guys like Charlie Joiner and Kellen Winslow (who, at 6-5 251 lbs., would be a frighteningly huge target even by todays standards.)

Unitas was... Unitas; any list of all time great QBs that didn't put him in the top 20 would have something deeply wrong with it (it is kind of odd for this one to put Testaverde and Collins ahead of him, but it's going by totals and Unitas played 14 game seasons.)

Saying todays QB passing numbers are comparable to those from 10 or 20 years ago is like saying "jets haven't changed flying much; an F-22 Raptor isn't much faster than an F-86 Sabre Jet." Yeah, 'cos they're both JETS, and MUCH faster than a P-38 "Lightning," let alone a Fokker D-7. If we look at NFL game averages over the years, passing attempts rarely went above 30 until the '80s, and completion percentage rarely went above 50% until the '70s. By those standards, Elways era and the current one are both part of an unprecedented passing era.

Npba900
11-29-2011, 11:43 AM
I'm still going to go with Elway's stance here. He belilves you win consistently and long term with a QB and offense that can consistently and accurately throw the ball and operate from within the pocket.

Short term wise short of injury what Tebow and the Defense has been able to accomplish the last 6 weeks is utterly amazing!

But I can't envision Tebow Ball winning Super Bowls. However, I'll be a believer should it ever happen.

I just can't see Tebow taking hits and enduring running the ball 15-25 times a game and staying upright and healthy from now until 20112, 2013-14. All it takes is one single hit and suddenly there's no Tebow! Then who will step in and continue Tebow Ball????

catfish
11-29-2011, 12:55 PM
I'm still going to go with Elway's stance here. He belilves you win consistently and long term with a QB and offense that can consistently and accurately throw the ball and operate from within the pocket.

Short term wise short of injury what Tebow and the Defense has been able to accomplish the last 6 weeks is utterly amazing!

But I can't envision Tebow Ball winning Super Bowls. However, I'll be a believer should it ever happen.

I just can't see Tebow taking hits and enduring running the ball 15-25 times a game and staying upright and healthy from now until 20112, 2013-14. All it takes is one single hit and suddenly there's no Tebow! Then who will step in and continue Tebow Ball????


I actually have q question regarding the rule changes/QB durability.

We have seen a large number of pocket QB's injured this year. With the new rule changes in effect giving the edge to the WR in the passing game it appears teams have decided the only way to defend effectively is to have a dominant pass rush and hit the QB before the WR can get open.

My question is do you feel that the rule changes to up the scores/open the passing game are actually serving to create a dangerous situation where the only way to properly defend against a passing team is to hit the QB early and often?

wayninja
11-29-2011, 01:26 PM
But I can't envision Tebow Ball winning Super Bowls. However, I'll be a believer should it ever happen.

Sorry, but this just strikes me as very funny.

Npba900
11-29-2011, 01:56 PM
I actually have q question regarding the rule changes/QB durability.

We have seen a large number of pocket QB's injured this year. With the new rule changes in effect giving the edge to the WR in the passing game it appears teams have decided the only way to defend effectively is to have a dominant pass rush and hit the QB before the WR can get open.

My question is do you feel that the rule changes to up the scores/open the passing game are actually serving to create a dangerous situation where the only way to properly defend against a passing team is to hit the QB early and often?

Good point. Yes I agree with your analysis. Although the rules were changed to protect your glamour franchise QB, the new rule of protecting the QB has made the QB's softer in a sense that they can't take the hits and aren't as tough as QB's in past generations.

See this is the wild card in a sense when comes to Tebow. Whereas the QB's in the pocket receives special treatment in the severity of the hits they do not take and still get injured.

However, when it comes to Tebow, once he's outside the pocket and running the ball he is risking taking more severe hits from more than just one player. Thus increasing his chances of wearing down or getting injured.

QB's that perform from the pocket may endure at worst 5 sacks/tackles per game. However, Tebow's running style within the spread offense will open him up to getting tackled 15-20 times (by more than one tackler) vs getting sacked 5 times or less. Therein lies Tim's enduring greater punishment and increasing the odds of injury.

Npba900
11-29-2011, 02:01 PM
Sorry, but this just strikes me as very funny.

I hear ya!:lol: I look at it as an impossibility of a spread option/read run oriented offensive scheme with an inconsistent passing attack ever winning a Super Bowl, let alone winning consistently in the playoffs.

However, the impossible will always remain impossible until someone proves otherwise.

Joel
11-29-2011, 03:25 PM
I'm still going to go with Elway's stance here. He belilves you win consistently and long term with a QB and offense that can consistently and accurately throw the ball and operate from within the pocket.

Short term wise short of injury what Tebow and the Defense has been able to accomplish the last 6 weeks is utterly amazing!

But I can't envision Tebow Ball winning Super Bowls. However, I'll be a believer should it ever happen.

I just can't see Tebow taking hits and enduring running the ball 15-25 times a game and staying upright and healthy from now until 20112, 2013-14. All it takes is one single hit and suddenly there's no Tebow! Then who will step in and continue Tebow Ball????
That's one of many reasons we won't run the option next year: Even if we could win Super Bowls with offense designed around a freakish athlete like Tebow, the nature of freakish athletes is that they aren't common enough to have multiple examples on the same roster. I can totally see Tebow winning a Super Bowl once he gets used to reading defences and finding check downs quickly, both of which I expect to happen. No, it's never going to happen running the option, but I haven't forgotten that probably the most famous play of John Elways career was made with his feet in a Super Bowl win, and I bet Elway hasn't either. The versatility and play extending ability Tebow brings to the table will remain an asset after he becomes a quality pocket passer, which I do expect to happen after an off season or two working on the areas where he is still too deficient, because:

1) There are no longer many such areas,
2) All of them are very teachable and
3) Tebow has consistently displayed the diligence and intelligence necessary to learn them.