PDaDdy Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Something I have been pondering this year due to the holy war regarding the importance of QB vs OL. I of course have my opinion as well but I think the sane conclusion is that a QB can't be effective if his line can't keep him on his feet or open holes in the run game. This lead me to what I feel is really needed in these discussions. A stat that I wish could be found. Average Time to Throw (ATT)!!!!! This to me would be a great GREAT stat to truly gauge whether it is the QB or the OL that is responsible for the sack numbers and a teams offensive success. ATT low and sacks low = QB is getting rid of the ball quickly possibly making his line look better ATT high and sacks low = OL doing a great job of protecting affording their QB lots of time ATT low and sacks high = OL it terrible and they are getting their QB killed ATT high and sacks high = QB is holding on to the ball too long
Mike in Syracuse Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Interesting idea but it would be a useless stat. The TTT is predicated on the pattern and usually the pre-read. ATT on a quick slat that goes for 2 yards would look great but the ATT on a 60yd bomb that's completed for a TD would be a big number.
Rockinon Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Would be cool, but I don't think there is a way to accurately keep track of this. People would need to be hired just to report on such a stat.
K-9 Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Something I have been pondering this year due to the holy war regarding the importance of QB vs OL. I of course have my opinion as well but I think the sane conclusion is that a QB can't be effective if his line can't keep him on his feet or open holes in the run game. This lead me to what I feel is really needed in these discussions. A stat that I wish could be found. Average Time to Throw (ATT)!!!!! This to me would be a great GREAT stat to truly gauge whether it is the QB or the OL that is responsible for the sack numbers and a teams offensive success. ATT low and sacks low = QB is getting rid of the ball quickly possibly making his line look better ATT high and sacks low = OL doing a great job of protecting affording their QB lots of time ATT low and sacks high = OL it terrible and they are getting their QB killed ATT high and sacks high = QB is holding on to the ball too long How soon can you get started on this project? It will revolutionize the way QBs and OLmen are evaluated. "Sure, he's got all the tools, but what's the ATT for that QB?" Save yourself some trouble and know that regardless whether it's a 3, 5, or 7 step drop or a designed rollout for a moving pocket, a QB must get rid of the ball within 4 seconds. Ideally, the less steps in the drop, the sooner he delivers, but general rule of thumb is NEVER longer than 4 seconds, regardless. Lineman are not expected to hold blocks that long. QBs must go through their progressions within that time frame. Receivers also must make reads and route adjustments as well. What if an RB whiffs on a block? Is that on the Oline? Especially when the RB blatantly misses his pass blocking assignment on a blitz? What if a QB can't read a D to save his life and fails to make the proper audible to counter a blitz? Is that also on the OLine? You see, in the "real world" your ATT has so much more to do with personnel OTHER than the 5 guys up front. And unless ALL variables are accounted for it's would be a futile exercise. GO BILLS!!!
PDaDdy Posted March 4, 2010 Author Posted March 4, 2010 Interesting idea but it would be a useless stat. The TTT is predicated on the pattern and usually the pre-read. ATT on a quick slat that goes for 2 yards would look great but the ATT on a 60yd bomb that's completed for a TD would be a big number. Not useless at all. If your line can't protect you can't throw patterns that take a long time. That tells us something. If a team has a high ATT that means that the QB has time to throw those patterns. This would speak to the line being very good at protection slightly skewed for mobile and huge hard to take down QBs that can stay on their feet a little longer. In other words the ATT on a 60yd in the air bomb would indicate that the OL was good enough to give the QB that time. The ATT on a 2 yard slat basically indicates that the QB got rid of the ball quickly which wouldn't necessarily say anything bad or good about the OL. Generally I think you can see that it would stand to reason that a high ATT means that the line is buying their QB all of that time and affording him great pass protection. Depending on the sack total as in the 4 scenarios I laid out the QB may be holding on to the ball too long causing high sacks OR the QB is getting rid of the ball appropriately causing a low sack count.
BillnutinHouston Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Your general concept is very interesting. The question is reliability - how can you be sure that you're measuring what you're trying to measure. For example, the QB's willingness to pull the trigger is a variable that plays into your results, and this could skew your results. For example, playing behind similar OL's, Trent Edwards and Jay Cutler may show very different ATT's - but this could be due to Cutler's willingness to throw into coverage in cases where Edwards was not. So, the ATT would measure the overall offensive unit (OL + QB play) rather than a specific position. Also, the type of patterns used by a team would affect the stat.
PDaDdy Posted March 4, 2010 Author Posted March 4, 2010 Would be cool, but I don't think there is a way to accurately keep track of this. People would need to be hired just to report on such a stat. Possibly but people still try to attribute sacks to individual OLinemen. Nobody really knows what the protection call was an who was responsible for the guy that eventually got to the QB. Hell we don't even really know if it is the OLineman's fault of the QB for holding on to the ball to long but we try to track it anyway and claim that his guy or that guy even though they made the probowl still sucks.
KRC Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Do we blame the QB or OL when the receiver does not make the proper blitz reads? Do we blame the QB or OL when the receiver does not get open? How about when the RB misses his blocking assignments? Another useless stat for fantasy football geeks to take out of context to make it sound like they know football.
PDaDdy Posted March 4, 2010 Author Posted March 4, 2010 Your general concept is very interesting. The question is reliability - how can you be sure that you're measuring what you're trying to measure. For example, the QB's willingness to pull the trigger is a variable that plays into your results, and this could skew your results. For example, playing behind similar OL's, Trent Edwards and Jay Cutler may show very different ATT's - but this could be due to Cutler's willingness to throw into coverage in cases where Edwards was not. So, the ATT would measure the overall offensive unit (OL + QB play) rather than a specific position. Also, the type of patterns used by a team would affect the stat. you make good points. Offensive scheme can have an effect like the West Coast offense. Generally it is predicated on quicker passing which keeps down the ATT. If the OL is doing their job the team should have a low sack number. If they are not the QB even though playing in the west coast will have a high sack number. High sacks + low ATT = bad OL. QB willingness to pull the trigger or not pull the trigger for that matter is all figured in when used with sacks as I have suggested. This is really just a stat to measure is it the OL or the QB that is responsible for success as far as sacks are concerned. I'm curious as far as willingness to throw with the examples of Cutler vs Edwards, how would this invalidate the statistic? Regardless of how long they either are willing to throw there is a maximum time cut off. Perhaps Edwards might wait all day if he had the time ....but he doesn't... the OL will break down at some point. To make your example even more concrete I offer this. If Cutler gets rid of the ball faster, has a lower ATT and also lower sacks because he gets rid of the ball in time...then we have the first scenario. QB gets the ball out fast. If Edwards holds on to the ball driving up the ATT and has more sacks then we have scenario 4 where the QB holds on to the ball too long. This is NOT how I viewed last year to play out but going with your hypothetical situation it still fits into my model I feel.
Pete Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 It is tough to quantify- damn near impossible. So much is on the QB. Diagnosis, checking off, quick release. pocket presence, scrambling, good decisions, style offense, designed plays......
PDaDdy Posted March 4, 2010 Author Posted March 4, 2010 Do we blame the QB or OL when the receiver does not make the proper blitz reads? Do we blame the QB or OL when the receiver does not get open? How about when the RB misses his blocking assignments? Another useless stat for fantasy football geeks to take out of context to make it sound like they know football. Ah yes another stats mean nothing guy. Thanks for your contribution!...LOL. those are all indeed factors though. Let's explore them. 1) WR doesn't make blitz read....Still the QBs job to get the ball out....if he doesn't this will be reflected in incompletions or sacks. Since we are only concerned with ATT and sacks if this results in a sack vs an incomplete....QBs fault. 2) Regardless of open WR or not QB has to do something with the ball. Throw it away outside the tackles, sail it over the head of a WR and out of bounds, throw it at the feet of a RB. If the QB takes a sack he held onto the ball too long. If that happens quickly, low ATT, his line sucks...if he gets sacked after several seconds, high ATT, it;s the QBs fault for not getting rid of it. 3) RB misses his blocking assignment. You have an actual very relevant point here. Perhaps the statement should be the QBs protection was good which can include RBs and TEs. This would account for RBs and TEs in pass protection 1 and 2 aren't factors but 3 is and I should change the interpretation of the ATT and sack stats to make it QB vs Pass protection and who is responsible for the teams success as it applies to sacks and pass protection.
PDaDdy Posted March 4, 2010 Author Posted March 4, 2010 It is tough to quantify- damn near impossible. So much is on the QB. Diagnosis, checking off, quick release. pocket presence, scrambling, good decisions, style offense, designed plays...... ATT is extremely easy to quantify. Look at the clock at the snap of the ball...look at the clock when the ball leaves the QB's hand. So much IS on the QB but all of those responsibilities how no bearing on invalidating ATT as a stat. ATT is what it is and is measurable. Sacks are what they are and they are measurable. If the QBs ATT is high and the sack total is high it means the OL is giving the QB time but the QB is unable to handle all of the things that are "on them" in the sufficient time allotted.
K-9 Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Ah yes another stats mean nothing guy. Thanks for your contribution!...LOL. Certainly one as learned about the game and respected for his contributions as a published historian of it, KRC needs no defending from me but stats mean absolutely NOTHING in the absence of context. Your ATT leaves out too many variables to give the stat the context it needs to be relevant. But you go right ahead and develop that stat. It will be interesting to see what you come up with. I just can't believe that in all these decades of pro football and with the advent of statistical warehouses like Elias and others for every sport, that nobody, NOBODY has ever thought of the ATT until now. I don't think Pro Football Focus or whatever it is has the ATT. Seriously, if you are dedicated to the idea, then develop it and write letters to pro and college teams. It may catch on. Stranger things have happened. GO BILLS!!!
PDaDdy Posted March 4, 2010 Author Posted March 4, 2010 Certainly one as learned about the game and respected for his contributions as a published historian of it, KRC needs no defending from me but stats mean absolutely NOTHING in the absence of context. Your ATT leaves out too many variables to give the stat the context it needs to be relevant. But you go right ahead and develop that stat. It will be interesting to see what you come up with. I just can't believe that in all these decades of pro football and with the advent of statistical warehouses like Elias and others for every sport, that nobody, NOBODY has ever thought of the ATT until now. I don't think Pro Football Focus or whatever it is has the ATT. Seriously, if you are dedicated to the idea, then develop it and write letters to pro and college teams. It may catch on. Stranger things have happened. GO BILLS!!! I agree stats aren't very useful without context but that is exactly what I provided above. The ATT stat is not to be looked at in a vacuum and I made no such suggestion or claim. Please don't assume other wise. In fact the whole point of thinking up the stat was to help make "sacks" themselves more useful. Sacks don't tell the whole story if a QB had enough time or if he had plenty of time and he just held on too long. Tell me honestly would you have us throw out completion percentage? Sacks? INTs? Points scored? They are just measurable numbers after all and can't be looked at in a vacuum. Instead of trying to be a doubting Thomas perhaps you could see that this stat when coupled with others actually helps to give a clearer picture of what is really happening which is exactly what I did above.
Mr. WEO Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 What would be the point of this stat? If your QB holds on to the ball too long, despite good coverage and open receivers---he's not that good. If he's getting decked quickly after the snap of the ball, he's not well protected. This is already known. How would a coaching staff not be able to see this on film? What new information would the staff have that is not already evident? I agree with others who say it is a meaningless stat and doesn't need to be a unique metric to be measured.
Gabe Northern Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Another problem is that the QB changes his reads and behavior based on pass rush. So you could have a guy getting rid of the ball quickly just to avoid getting hammered. I find people on this board are merciless about Edwards missing guys down field. Edwards could get hammered on four consecutive dropbacks, but then everyone remembers how he failed to look down filed on that "one play I saw Lee running wide open." Suddenly it's his fault and starting Det Lions cast-offs at OL has nothing to do with our problem. The key is establishing a rhythm. If a QB thinks that his OL can't match up with a 4 man pass rush, he's not going to be looking down field.
PDaDdy Posted March 4, 2010 Author Posted March 4, 2010 What would be the point of this stat? If your QB holds on to the ball too long, despite good coverage and open receivers---he's not that good. If he's getting decked quickly after the snap of the ball, he's not well protected. This is already known. How would a coaching staff not be able to see this on film? What new information would the staff have that is not already evident? I agree with others who say it is a meaningless stat and doesn't need to be a unique metric to be measured. Again this stat isn't to be looked at in a vacuum. ANY stat that is currently kept can't be looked at in a vacuum, including sacks, completion percentage, TD, INTs, etc etc. I don't hear you advocating that we get rid of all stats and just let the coaches make qualitative assessments. You're one of those bury their head in the sand guys when it comes to stats because you don't have the ability to determine what it is they show you and what it is they don't. If your asking what the point is of the stat I highly suggest you actually read what it is that was written. You say "If he's getting decked quickly after the snap of the ball, he's not well protected." Well...how do you measure that? When one guy says team X has a great offensive line that keeps their QB on his feet and some other guy says their line sucks and it is the QB that makes the line look better, how do you determine who is correct? As you yourself have said in a word way that was not very precise is exactly what I have suggested. If the QB is getting decked quickly after the snap, low ATT, the line stinks. The only difference between our statements is that I am suggesting putting an actual number with it making it quantitative instead of qualitative. You can argue qualitative opinions all day which are worthless. Quantitative assessments however can't be. Three is less than Four....nothing to argue. This stat won't ever be able to make this that clear cut but it certainly will help to make it clearer. If someone says that The colts line is not very good and that Peyton Manning makes their offensive line look better than it is but you can show that on average he takes 5 seconds to throw the ball you can safely say that the line is doing their job and doing it well. Before you have an aneurysm I am not saying that he has that long to throw on average. It is an example for discussion.
PDaDdy Posted March 4, 2010 Author Posted March 4, 2010 Another problem is that the QB changes his reads and behavior based on pass rush. So you could have a guy getting rid of the ball quickly just to avoid getting hammered. Exactly....this would lead to a low ATT which could point towards his line not affording him enough time to throw. I find people on this board are merciless about Edwards missing guys down field. Edwards could get hammered on four consecutive dropbacks, but then everyone remembers how he failed to look down filed on that "one play I saw Lee running wide open." Suddenly it's his fault and starting Det Lions cast-offs at OL has nothing to do with our problem. The key is establishing a rhythm. If a QB thinks that his OL can't match up with a 4 man pass rush, he's not going to be looking down field. I don't like Trent as our QB in the least but he absolutely suffered from those problems
Recommended Posts