A Curious Note on AFCCG Passing

[Joel]

Out of the corner of my eye, I just happened to see in a video attached to that BR post about Chris Harris being the games "hidden MVP" (hard to dispute:)

Tom Brady 27/56 260 1 TD 2 Int
Peyton Manning 17/32 176 2 TD

Do you see it? Completion percentages have grown nearly every season since the NFLs birth nearly a century ago: But in the 2015 AFCCG, the winning QB was exactly ONE completion above and the loser ONE below 50%. A lot of that was because the winning D was #1 and the loser #2 in sacks this season, and neither team had offensive lines good enough to slow that onslaught much. Plus, this WAS in an article on Chris Harris being the games "hidden MVP."

I still found it intriguing though. No real point here (to my knowledge...) other than that; have a nice bye week. :)

[Dapper Dan]

It's interesting because in a league where QBs stats are heavily inflated, it's easier to pass, and teams are spreading out an passing more..you have two quarterbacks with not very good stats in the AFCCG. These are 2 of the 4 best teams in the NFL and 2 of the best QBs ever. That's why it's a team sport and that's why defense still matters.

[OrangeHoof]

And Brady couldn't muster 300 passing yards despite 56 attempts. That's why stats can be so misleading. Some would think Brady had an okay day passing.

[The Glue Factory]

Since Joel brings up the entire history of American football, I believe the early days used a rugby style ball which is much harder to grip for a pass. The modern tapered football didn't appear until 1934, 2 years AFTER the "modern" football era began. Additionally, forward passes were not legal until the early 20th century. Also consider the heavily favored defensive side of the game. Until the mid/late 90's DBs had a MUCH GREATER freedom to maul the receivers than they do now. PI was only called if the ball was considered catchable AND in near proximity AT THE TIME the foul occurred. PI was not called as much as it is now and offensive PI was an exceptionally rare call. Defensive holding was called on the DL only. Pushing off was a perfectly acceptable move and EVERYONE did it.

[TXBRONC]

If I have this right on NFLN just yesterday they said that is the first time in ****Shady's postseason career that he's been held to under 50% passing. If I have it right that's makes Denver's efforts even more impressive.

[Joel]

And Brady couldn't muster 300 passing yards despite 56 attempts. That's why stats can be so misleading. Some would think Brady had an okay day passing.
Not if they looked at that WHOLE stat line instead of just yards. I haven't bothered to figure his rating, but twice as many Ints as TDs and <5 yds/att is pretty awful.

[Joel]

Since Joel brings up the entire history of American football, I believe the early days used a rugby style ball which is much harder to grip for a pass. The modern tapered football didn't appear until 1934, 2 years AFTER the "modern" football era began. Additionally, forward passes were not legal until the early 20th century. Also consider the heavily favored defensive side of the game. Until the mid/late 90's DBs had a MUCH GREATER freedom to maul the receivers than they do now. PI was only called if the ball was considered catchable AND in near proximity AT THE TIME the foul occurred. PI was not called as much as it is now and offensive PI was an exceptionally rare call. Defensive holding was called on the DL only. Pushing off was a perfectly acceptable move and EVERYONE did it.
All true, though the 1905 rules changes were so long ago and fundamental previous "football" truly doesn't really qualify as the same game. We're not just talking defenseless player rules (though the earlier changes had a similar but more serious cause: Players were routinely DYING DURING GAMES, or soon thereafter.) The 7-man line was, is and was intended to be a far bigger deal than the forward pass. Before that it really was just rugby with blocking.

Also, Dorais and (Voss native) Rockne didn't just change the game by being among the first to actually USE the new-and-reproved forward pass, their countless hours of dorm discussion and practice led to Rocknes discovery those rugby balls went farther and straighter if given a twist them as he released them: The spiral. Still had to be 5 yards behind the line until the inaugural NFL Championship changed MANY things: Passing EVERYYWHERE behind the line, hashes and goal line goalposts.

[The Glue Factory]

Not if they looked at that WHOLE stat line instead of just yards. I haven't bothered to figure his rating, but twice as many Ints as TDs and <5 yds/att is pretty awful.

<10 per completion is even worse story of Brady's* performance!

[Spiritguy]

Tom Brady 27/56 260 1 TD 2 Int
Peyton Manning 17/32 176 2 TD

I wonder why they say Brady had 2 Int. It was three. Von, Stewart and Roby. Do they not count Roby's as an Int?

[The Glue Factory]

All true, though the 1905 rules changes were so long ago and fundamental previous "football" truly doesn't really qualify as the same game. We're not just talking defenseless player rules (though the earlier changes had a similar but more serious cause: Players were routinely DYING DURING GAMES, or soon thereafter.) The 7-man line was, is and was intended to be a far bigger deal than the forward pass. Before that it really was just rugby with blocking.

Also, Dorais and (Voss native) Rockne didn't just change the game by being among the first to actually USE the new-and-reproved forward pass, their countless hours of dorm discussion and practice led to Rocknes discovery those rugby balls went farther and straighter if given a twist them as he released them: The spiral. Still had to be 5 yards behind the line until the inaugural NFL Championship changed MANY things: Passing EVERYYWHERE behind the line, hashes and goal line goalposts.

Which is why I was saying it's not really that interesting that passing percentages are improving. In ancient times passing was nearly impossible beyond 10 yards. Within living memory passing was more difficult since the rules favored the defense immensely more than they do today. The evolution of the rules have catered to increasing passing percentages you mentioned.

[MOtorboat]

I wonder why they say Brady had 2 Int. It was three. Von, Stewart and Roby. Do they not count Roby's as an Int?

Statistics don't count on 2-point tries, except the person who scores gets two points added to his scoring stat.

And as far as the winning quarterback being less than 50 percent. It doesn't take long to see that that is not the norm for winning teams.

[Spiritguy]

Ahh ok, thank MO. :salute:

[Joel]

<10 per completion is even worse story of Brady's* performance!
I disagree, especially in Bradys dink and dunk West Coast crap. 12/comp would be good (only 8 teams topped it in 2015, and NE* was 9th with 11.9) and would've boosted his total yardage past 300. But his yds/att would've still been <6 and crap (ALL teams topped that, and NE* was 8th with 7.7) because he completed so FEW.

Yards/attempt is really the gold standard there (ask any Tebow critic. ;)) Why Passer Ratings started giving points for completions in the '70s I have no idea, but the timing was great for guys like Montana and Young: Walsh cooked up his dink and dunk offense to salvage his noodle-armed but accurate and smart (guy got a math Masters during the offseasons) starting Bengals QB at almost exactly the same time.


Which is why I was saying it's not really that interesting that passing percentages are improving. In ancient times passing was nearly impossible beyond 10 yards. Within living memory passing was more difficult since the rules favored the defense immensely more than they do today. The evolution of the rules have catered to increasing passing percentages you mentioned.
Depends what we mean by "ancient." The NFLs first QBs took pride in heaving balls a mile, not caring they missed as often as not: When they DID hit it was nearly always points. Story goes Arnie Herbers GB teammates once bet him he couldn't throw the length of the field if they gave him the roll, but his arm was so huge he just smiled, stood on his goal line, cocked, and launched the ball 85 yds through the air—then it bounced BACKWARD on impact because the angle was so steep.

Look up the starting QB stacks from the NFLs first couple decades and you'll see 1) their jaw-dropping AVERAGE completion was WELL beyond 10 yds (sometimes twice that) and 2) why that's such an awful QB metric. Herber never had less than 13.1 yds/comp in any season, peaked at 19.4 and retired with a career mark of 16.7, about half a yard more than he averaged the ONLY year (of 13) no one else had MORE. Since they went by total yards back then, he also won 3 passing titles, 2 passing titles and a partridge in the Hall of Fame. But his yds/att was never >8.0 (twice,) because his season completion percentage peaked at 45.2%.

Don't get me wrong, 8yds/att is very good (only 4 teams beat it this year) but anyone with more than TWICE as many CAREER yds/comp should have far more yds/att in his BEST SEASON. For the record, the NFL did use yds/att to crown the passing king from 1950-1960, but quit because guys like LaDainian Tomlinson managed just enough attempts to qualify, then beat out the top ACTUAL passers for the title.

Point being, even the infant NFLs QBs threw far more than most people think, and a long way: They just missed more than they hit (if that's what you meant by "passing was nearly impossible beyond 10 yds," okay.) And many of those misses were the bad kind; count Ints and they'd hit 50% completions a lot more often.

Also, once the T re-revolutionized the game in the '40s, NFL passers didn't look THAT different from modern ones; they just didn't like it because they could still churn out lots of yards on the ground, and did still have more Ints than now. Young and Montana have the top 2 season Passer Ratings among retired players (because it's really the West Coast Passer Rating) but Otto Graham's 1946 Rating is #3, only 0.3 pts behind Montana, and his 1947 Rating of 109.2 is 7th among retired players, tied with (wait for it...) Kurt Warners 1999 season.

That's right: The Greatest Show on Turfs SB-winning QBs season is tied with the SECOND best season a 1950s QB had. Warners beats Graham in CAREER Rating though: He's 2nd among former players (between Young and Montana,) while Grahams 86.6 is "only" 7th, just ahead of Marino (who's just ahead of Favre.) Weird thing is, Grahams best season ratings were back-to-back, but it was the NEXT season his Browns posted the first perfect season (but in the AAFC, so it doesn't count.)

[Joel]

Fine, since I'm here anyway and just discussed the Passer Rating System at length:

Manning: 90.1
Brady: 52.68

Yeah: Interceptions hurt Ratings a LOT, more than TDs help. Even though, statistically, a turnover's only costs a team about half as many points as a TD gains. There are a lot of things wrong with the Passer Rating System, but it recently got a huge credibility boost: There's a lot LESS wrong with it than ESPNs, and the NFL actually TELLS people how to calculate it (in a needlessly overcomplicated and probably deliberately confusing way.)

[Simple Jaded]

The problem with the passer rating is that it's so unforgiving to truly shitty passers.

[Joel]

The problem with the passer rating is that it's so unforgiving to truly shitty passers.
Actually, it's not: It rates them all 0, even though many are far worse. Just as 40/40 for 600 yds, 10 TDs and 0 Ints is WAY better than 35/40 for 400 yds, 5 TDs and 1 Int, even though the PRS says they're both a "perfect" 158.3. The PRS doesn't level the playing field, just the trees, undeservingly raising the very worst passers to a higher level while dropping the very best to a lower one.

The ACTUAL problem with the passer rating is it says dinking and dunking's the end all, be all of passing, so a guy who throws 3 yd passes all day but NEVER misses is "better" than a guy who throws TD bombs but only hits a third of them. The scoreboard says the guy with 5 TDs is blowing out the guy who doesn't even have a FIRST DOWN, but the passer rating says dink and dunk's winning, and just as lopsidedly.