Can Fitzpatrick be an upper echelon QB?

[Billsrhody]

I just think its interesting that folks have such a high opinion of Flacco......and a low opinion of Fitz

 

One of these QB's has been given an offensive line......went out of their way aquire wide reciever threats, oh and last but not least A DEFENSE TO ERASE HIS MISTAKES.....WHAT TEAM DOES FLACCO PLAY ON

 

Fitzy? He had the last place defense in the league backing him up.

 

For the record I am not high on Flacco...

 

I'm not sure if you were talking about me

[eball]

I dont think Flacco or Sanchez are viewed as elite.. and they've both had post season success.

Neither is viewed as elite, but with each you run into the "wins games" argument from their supporters. It's amazing what having a complete team does for how QBs are perceived.

 

Until last season, both of those QBs had reached the playoffs every year they were in the league, but neither has had particularly impressive stats. Calling Flacco's postseason performances "pedestrian" would be a compliment. With Sanchez, you can at least argue he played better in the postseason. But look what happened when the Jets fell short last year -- all of sudden, Sanchez is being critiqued and lots of folks think Tebow will eventually supplant him as the starter. Did Sanchez suddenly get worse? I don't think so.

 

Put Fitz on a team with an elite defense (as Flacco and Sanchez have enjoyed) and does anyone really think he wouldn't be at least as productive (wins and stats)?

[Thunderstealer]

Flacco is probably one of those guys that some will think of him as elite and some not.

The only thing elite about Sanchise to date is his paycheck.

 

 

If Flacco were traded magically to Denver tomorrow, There would be media sources favoring him over Peyton to be the starter this year and the future

 

If Fitz were traded magically to Denver tomorrow, He would be looked at by all sources as a competent back-up who-- god forbid, would be able to keep the ship from sinking until Peyton returns.

[John from Riverside]

If Flacco were traded magically to Denver tomorrow, There would be media sources favoring him over Peyton to be the starter this year and the future

 

If Fitz were traded magically to Denver tomorrow, He would be looked at by all sources as a competent back-up who-- god forbid, would be able to keep the ship from sinking until Peyton returns.

 

which means exactly what? That it makes the arguement that armchair GM's need to be doing just what they are doing?

 

Flacco had a pretty good defense backing him up....it is amazing what a team biult up AROUND the QB can change the perception of that QB.

 

 

Like I have said many times.....our defense is going to make a huge leap in production this year......Fitz is in his "prove it" year

[Billsrhody]

Neither is viewed as elite, but with each you run into the "wins games" argument from their supporters. It's amazing what having a complete team does for how QBs are perceived.

 

Until last season, both of those QBs had reached the playoffs every year they were in the league, but neither has had particularly impressive stats. Calling Flacco's postseason performances "pedestrian" would be a compliment. With Sanchez, you can at least argue he played better in the postseason. But look what happened when the Jets fell short last year -- all of sudden, Sanchez is being critiqued and lots of folks think Tebow will eventually supplant him as the starter. Did Sanchez suddenly get worse? I don't think so.

 

Put Fitz on a team with an elite defense (as Flacco and Sanchez have enjoyed) and does anyone really think he wouldn't be at least as productive (wins and stats)?

 

You framed that well, I think its a really good way to look at it.

 

Personally I think both Flacco and Sanchez are below elite, but I think of the 2 very differently. I don't think you'll find someone lower than I am on Mark Sanchez. I think he is incapable of bringing a team to a superbowl and is far away from being clutch. I don't think he'll get very much better and I absolutely would not want him on my team.

 

Flacco is another story. Flacco hasn't really been asked to do a lot in the Raven offense so far in his career, but I'm willing to bet that changes this year. He's 6'6" and has a cannon for an arm. He's been good as a game manager but showed in the playoffs last year that he can come up big in big games (2 games, 480 yds, 4 TDs, 1 INT). Don't forget, he lead a game tying drive at the end of the patriots game and Cundiff completely whiffed on the kick. The ravens were very close to getting to the superbowl last year.

 

If you compare Flacco and Sanchez head to head its no contest. Flacco is clearly the better QB. If I could trade Fitz for Flacco right now, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

To answer your question, I think Fitz would have performed better than sanchez, but not better than Flacco. Either way, I don't think Fitz would have a ring right now if he had instead been on the Jets or the Ravens.

[reddogblitz]

Flacco was also a first round draft pick which gives a guy an inside track on being a "Franchise QB".

 

As far as the 7.2 - 7.4 or higher theory (why not just 7.2 or higher?), Tony Romo's career YPA is 8.0. Phillip Rivers' is also 8.0. They're both losers/choke artists. Are they still "Franchise QB"s?

[eball]

You framed that well, I think its a really good way to look at it.

 

Personally I think both Flacco and Sanchez are below elite, but I think of the 2 very differently. I don't think you'll find someone lower than I am on Mark Sanchez. I think he is incapable of bringing a team to a superbowl and is far away from being clutch. I don't think he'll get very much better and I absolutely would not want him on my team.

 

Flacco is another story. Flacco hasn't really been asked to do a lot in the Raven offense so far in his career, but I'm willing to bet that changes this year. He's 6'6" and has a cannon for an arm. He's been good as a game manager but showed in the playoffs last year that he can come up big in big games (2 games, 480 yds, 4 TDs, 1 INT). Don't forget, he lead a game tying drive at the end of the patriots game and Cundiff completely whiffed on the kick. The ravens were very close to getting to the superbowl last year.

 

If you compare Flacco and Sanchez head to head its no contest. Flacco is clearly the better QB. If I could trade Fitz for Flacco right now, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

To answer your question, I think Fitz would have performed better than sanchez, but not better than Flacco. Either way, I don't think Fitz would have a ring right now if he had instead been on the Jets or the Ravens.

After I typed my post I looked at the career stats, and you are correct, Sanchez doesn't belong in the same conversation with Flacco. Still, Flacco's career rating of 86 and yards per attempt of 7.1 aren't "elite" when you consider the teams he's had the opportunity to play on. Fitz's numbers over the last two seasons are in the neighborhood of Flacco's (rating around 80, ypa 6.8). What has held Fitz back are the interceptions. Flacco has done a much better job of not turning the ball over, which again begs the question -- what does having an elite defense behind you mean for a QB? I think it means you are ahead (or close) in every game, and therefore you're not forced into risky decisions while trying to make plays.

 

I can't say enough about how ready I am to see Fitz in this offense for the 3rd consecutive year, with what we all believe will be at least a top ten defense backing him up.

[paintmyhouse]

Neither is viewed as elite, but with each you run into the "wins games" argument from their supporters. It's amazing what having a complete team does for how QBs are perceived.

 

Until last season, both of those QBs had reached the playoffs every year they were in the league, but neither has had particularly impressive stats. Calling Flacco's postseason performances "pedestrian" would be a compliment. With Sanchez, you can at least argue he played better in the postseason. But look what happened when the Jets fell short last year -- all of sudden, Sanchez is being critiqued and lots of folks think Tebow will eventually supplant him as the starter. Did Sanchez suddenly get worse? I don't think so.

 

Put Fitz on a team with an elite defense (as Flacco and Sanchez have enjoyed) and does anyone really think he wouldn't be at least as productive (wins and stats)?

 

Umm, Flacco was solid in the playoffs last year, in fact he was close to really awesome. He outplayed Brady and had his team in position to win. Check his stats, you will see different.

 

As far as Sanchez, dude has been impressive in the playoffs when his team got in. Hard to deny it. Over 94 QB rating, over 60% completions, 9 TDs to 3 INTs, in 6 total games. I think the Jets are crazy if they give up on Sanchez.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SancMa00/gamelog/post/

Edited July 23, 2012 by paintmyhouse

[Billsrhody]

I can't say enough about how ready I am to see Fitz in this offense for the 3rd consecutive year, with what we all believe will be at least a top ten defense backing him up.

 

I'm with you there.. I finally feel like this team is headed in the right direction and I couldn't be happier.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Umm, Flacco was solid in the playoffs last year, in fact he was close to really awesome. He outplayed Brady and had his team in position to win. Check his stats, you will see different.

 

As far as Sanchez, dude has been impressive in the playoffs when his team got in. Hard to deny it. Over 94 QB rating, over 60% completions, 9 TDs to 3 INTs, in 6 total games. I think the Jets are crazy if they give up on Sanchez.

 

http://www.pro-footb...0/gamelog/post/

 

Clever, my little little. Very clever. But not quite clever enough. Please don't feed the troll

 

Back under the bridge with you now!

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Clever, my little little. Very clever. But not quite clever enough. Please don't feed the troll

 

Back under the bridge with you now!

Yep.

 

My ignore list is burgeoning.

 

 

[Thunderstealer]

which means exactly what? That it makes the arguement that armchair GM's need to be doing just what they are doing?

 

Flacco had a pretty good defense backing him up....it is amazing what a team biult up AROUND the QB can change the perception of that QB.

 

 

Like I have said many times.....our defense is going to make a huge leap in production this year......Fitz is in his "prove it" year

 

This year Fitz will have the luxuries the "star" QB's have had. Depth at almost every position. O and D.

[bowery4]

You framed that well, I think its a really good way to look at it.

 

Personally I think both Flacco and Sanchez are below elite, but I think of the 2 very differently. I don't think you'll find someone lower than I am on Mark Sanchez. I think he is incapable of bringing a team to a superbowl and is far away from being clutch. I don't think he'll get very much better and I absolutely would not want him on my team.

 

Flacco is another story. Flacco hasn't really been asked to do a lot in the Raven offense so far in his career, but I'm willing to bet that changes this year. He's 6'6" and has a cannon for an arm. He's been good as a game manager but showed in the playoffs last year that he can come up big in big games (2 games, 480 yds, 4 TDs, 1 INT). Don't forget, he lead a game tying drive at the end of the patriots game and Cundiff completely whiffed on the kick. The ravens were very close to getting to the superbowl last year.

 

If you compare Flacco and Sanchez head to head its no contest. Flacco is clearly the better QB. If I could trade Fitz for Flacco right now, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

To answer your question, I think Fitz would have performed better than sanchez, but not better than Flacco. Either way, I don't think Fitz would have a ring right now if he had instead been on the Jets or the Ravens.

 

Really Fitz and Flacco are very close to the same player at times but Flacco has the better long ball, he is really not that great at the intermediate ball. He also gets sloppy (and can be crazy inaccurate same as Fitz but maybe is getting over that (as evidenced by the POs last year).

 

 

 

Flacco was also a first round draft pick which gives a guy an inside track on being a "Franchise QB".

 

As far as the 7.2 - 7.4 or higher theory (why not just 7.2 or higher?), Tony Romo's career YPA is 8.0. Phillip Rivers' is also 8.0. They're both losers/choke artists. Are they still "Franchise QB"s?

:w00t: :w00t:

 

After I typed my post I looked at the career stats, and you are correct, Sanchez doesn't belong in the same conversation with Flacco. Still, Flacco's career rating of 86 and yards per attempt of 7.1 aren't "elite" when you consider the teams he's had the opportunity to play on. Fitz's numbers over the last two seasons are in the neighborhood of Flacco's (rating around 80, ypa 6.8). What has held Fitz back are the interceptions. Flacco has done a much better job of not turning the ball over, which again begs the question -- what does having an elite defense behind you mean for a QB? I think it means you are ahead (or close) in every game, and therefore you're not forced into risky decisions while trying to make plays.

 

I can't say enough about how ready I am to see Fitz in this offense for the 3rd consecutive year, with what we all believe will be at least a top ten defense backing him up.

Where is my bag of popcorn Icon?

BTW I think Fitz has the advantage over Joe, he has the team leadership in a way that Jimbo had it, I hope it continues and expect some improvement (as does the FO and staff IMO) he will be better than Joe this year. That is my bold prediction for the season.

[Billsrhody]

:w00t: :w00t:

 

I'd rather have Romo or Rivers than Fitz. They might not have won in the playoffs yet.. but they've proved to be elite regular season quaterbacks. Lets not forget, Peyton Manning didn't win in the playoffs until he was in his 9th year. Both Romo and Rivers have only been starters for 6 years.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Billsrhody

[paintmyhouse]

Clever, my little little. Very clever. But not quite clever enough. Please don't feed the troll

 

Back under the bridge with you now!

 

Well, it just was not true what eball said, Flacco was really good in the playoffs last year, and Sanchez has played like an elite QB in the playoffs thus far in his career.

 

Not sure what I was wrong about.

Edited July 24, 2012 by paintmyhouse

[Orton's Arm]

Thanks. Nice response, and I likewise appreciate the good discussion. To save time, I'll indicate your points that I want to respond to with >

 

>(Brady's) career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. I feel that for a QB to be considered franchise, one of the following should be true. 1) He should have a career average of between 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt or better. 2) You should be able to count on him for 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt for >the upcoming season based on the last several years of data.

 

Brady is a "franchise" QB by anyone's definition, and one of the best QB in the league today, maybe of all time. My question is: if the YPA statistic really reflects the whole team - the quality of the offensive line in allowing time to throw, the ability of the receivers to run after the catch as well as the QB - isn't annointing a QB "Franchise" on the basis of YPA, just equivalent to saying he's a quality QB playing on a quality team

 

> a QB can affect YAC. Joe Montana, for example, would hit his receivers in perfect stride; setting them up for good YAC. That said, I'll grant that YAC rewards QBs for having good receivers. It's hard to think of any passing statistics not subject to that flaw.

> Part of that is because Tom Brady and Drew Brees are good at hitting their WRs in stride; setting them up for good YAC.

 

Granted that QB accuracy and pass placement impact YAC. Still, when I think of Welker, I think of the trademark way he scrunches down small after a catch, makes defenders miss, then expands and takes off. When I think of Gronkowski, I think of the trademark way he keeps plowing along after contact, defenders draped and hanging off him like bizarro-world confetti. QB accuracy is part of the story, but only part.

 

I said: > Y/A also reflects completion percentage since it's based upon passes attempted, which again, has to do with the quality of the receivers as well as the quality of the quarterback.

 

> I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

 

I'm questioning whether Y/A, which includes completion percentage, is really the ultimate metric for judging the "franchise" quality of a QB? Or is it just a combination of a stat reflecting his accuracy (completion percentage) with a measure of the ability of his receivers to collect yards after catch?

 

> I used to use quarterback rating as the most important statistical measure. Then it came to my attention that John Elway had a quarterback rating of 79.9, while Kelly Holcomb had a QB rating of 79.2. I have a higher opinion of Holcomb than most, but this is ridiculous!

 

I can't disagree that QB rating has its flaws. It's something to look at, but it's only one thing to look at.

 

>The formula of NOAY/DB (mentioned in an article to which you'd linked) may have promise. But it too has flaws. QBs are assigned 100% of the blame for any sacks they take; thereby punishing QBs who play behind bad offensive lines. QBs are not given any credit for their receivers' YAC; >thereby depriving QBs like Montana of any credit for the YAC they help create. I'm not saying these flaws are better or worse than those associated with yards per attempt.

 

It's a valid point that QB do help create YAC. Still, I think it's a point to question whether Y/A, as a measure of QB quality, is inflated by the same measure - YAC having a lot to do with the WR's talent as well (see above about Welker and Gronk)

Thank for the well thought-out response.

 

> I can't disagree that QB rating has its flaws. It's something to look at, but it's only one thing to look at.

 

Agreed. The core problem with QB rating is that it takes completion percentage into account. That means it unfairly rewards QBs who emphasize the short passing game--like Holcomb--while unfairly punishing QBs like Elway who emphasize higher yardage throws. It's comparing apples to oranges. Yards per attempt gives a much more apples-to-apples comparison of Holcomb's and Elway's respective careers.

 

> I'm questioning whether Y/A, which includes completion percentage, is really

> the ultimate metric for judging the "franchise" quality of a QB? Or is it

> just a combination of a stat reflecting his accuracy (completion percentage)

> with a measure of the ability of his receivers to collect yards after catch?

 

See above for my thoughts about completion percentage. I'll grant the validity of a point you made elsewhere--that there are many cases in which receivers pile up good YAC stats not because the QB hit them in perfect stride, but because of the receivers' own talents and efforts.

 

Possibly, one could judge QBs on the basis of yards per attempt - yards after the catch. I would like to see QBs' career averages computed on that basis, side by side with a list of QBs ranked by yards per attempt. If you are aware of any websites which have complied these data, please let me know. But don't feel obligated to invest tons of time in a Google search for this.

 

> My question is: if the YPA statistic really reflects the whole team - the quality of the

> offensive line in allowing time to throw, the ability of the receivers to run after the

> catch as well as the QB - isn't annointing a QB "Franchise" on the basis of YPA, just

> equivalent to saying he's a quality QB playing on a quality team

 

What you have described is a plausible possibility. As such, it's something which should be tested empirically. Empirical evidence which would support that possibility would consist of QBs who were themselves clearly playing at or near a franchise level, but who weren't generating good yards per attempt stats due to the failings of those around them. Another source of empirical evidence would be QBs who played at a mediocre level, but who had good yards per attempt stats due to the high quality of their teammates.

 

Thus far, I have encountered very little of either category of empirical evidence. While all a quarterback's stats will be affected by the quality of his teammates, a quarterback's yards per attempt stat seems to be a fairly robust indicator of the quality of his individual performance.

 

That said, I'll agree that John Elway's yards per attempt stat understates the quality of his play, and is indicative of the fact that he wasn't always surrounded with the world's best offensive talent. I do not necessarily object to the idea of taking into account the quality of QBs' offensive supporting casts, when looking at yards per attempt stats. (That said, yards per attempt comes a lot closer to indicating the true level of Elway's play than, for example, QB rating.)

Edited July 24, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[Orton's Arm]

Rob Johnson at his peak was therefore a franchise QB. He averaged 7.6 ypa in 1999 and 7.3 ypa in 2000. For two years, he met your criteria. It's hard to quantify "franchise QB" but if I were to attempt it, I'd probably look at total yards (or yards per game). Guys like Brees and Brady move their teams up and down the field with the arms, not by handing off.

 

I think the argument that a QB is often labeled a "franchise QB" after a SB win (however much the QB contributed) is a fair one.

 

Incidentally, Bledsoe led the Pats to the SB in 1996 (which they lost), averaging only 6.6 ypa that season (same as his entire career in NE). But he passed for over 4,000 yards that year and went to the Pro Bowl.

You have helped expose one of the weaknesses of the yards per attempt stat. That stat does not punish QBs for taking a lot of sacks. And Johnson took a lot of sacks!

 

Yards per attempt overstates the quality of Rob Johnson's play, because that stat doesn't illuminate the fact that Johnson was a sack waiting to happen. On the other hand, when Johnson wasn't being sacked or carted off the field, he was a very effective and accurate passer. His high yards per attempt stat correctly indicates that.

 

If Johnson had been able to solve the whole "sack waiting to happen" thing, he had the throwing accuracy necessary to become a franchise QB. I could be wrong, but I think that after a certain point he took so much punishment that he lost the fire he'd had early in his career.

 

The lesson here is that yards per attempt will overstate the quality of any QB who's a sack waiting to happen.

 

> It's hard to quantify "franchise QB" but if I were to attempt it, I'd probably look at total yards (or yards per game).

 

The problem with that measurement is that it rewards QBs who play on pass-happy offenses, while punishing those who play on run-oriented offenses. Fitz has put up similar yardage totals to Kelly. Does that mean Fitz is roughly as good as Kelly? Of course not! The offenses with which Kelly was associated were about 50/50 run/pass; whereas Fitz's offenses have been very pass-happy indeed! Kelly's yards per attempt is significantly higher than Fitz's.

 

> I think the argument that a QB is often labeled a "franchise QB" after a SB win (however much the QB contributed) is a fair one.

 

The problem with the above definition is that according to it, Trent Dilfer was a franchise QB, while Dan Marino wasn't. Football is a team sport. The credit for a win should never be assigned wholly to one player.

[You herd it hear last]

YPA= a stat that shows how efficiently you move your team (and talent in other places helps) down the field and setting your team up for the best chance to score points. I do think what skews it a little is when you have the threat of a good running attack, allowing for a "lesser talented" QB's success. Now a player without that go to RB and STILL gets the job done?...well that's you're 1st ballot kinda guy...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Thank for the well thought-out response.

 

You're welcome. Good discussion is what keeps me here.

 

Agreed. The core problem with QB rating is that it takes completion percentage into account. That means it unfairly rewards QBs who emphasize the short passing game--like Holcomb--while unfairly punishing QBs like Elway who emphasize higher yardage throws. It's comparing apples to oranges. Yards per attempt gives a much more apples-to-apples comparison of Holcomb's and Elway's respective careers.

 

Agree it emphasizes completion. There's another problem - since it relies entirely on percentages, it makes QB who don't throw very much overall or who can't complete a season look better than they probably are, eg Tebow. His TD percentage ain't bad. But he just doesn't pass enough to carry a team in this league, and if he tried, his completion percentage would tank.

 

See above for my thoughts about completion percentage. I'll grant the validity of a point you made elsewhere--that there are many cases in which receivers pile up good YAC stats not because the QB hit them in perfect stride, but because of the receivers' own talents and efforts.

 

Possibly, one could judge QBs on the basis of yards per attempt - yards after the catch. I would like to see QBs' career averages computed on that basis, side by side with a list of QBs ranked by yards per attempt. If you are aware of any websites which have complied these data, please let me know. But don't feel obligated to invest tons of time in a Google search for this.

 

I never invest tons of time. I'm a working parent with a long hours job and a TBD hobby . I THINK Cold, Hard Football Facts has a statistic like this - but not for career averages, just yearly. They've also become a Pay for Access site and I don't currently pay - I'm tempted, but it's a way down on my "inessentials" budget list.

 

I have no problem with looking at Y/A as a QB metric. I just don't think it should be taken as the be-all, end-all of judging QB quality, because of the YAC thing. Brady throws a lot more dink-n-dunk passes then most people appreciate, and gets tremendous YAC from Welker and Gronk, the former because he's slippery and the latter because he's a freakin' tank who's hard for the average DB to bring down.

 

Someone has a website which breaks down QB completions by in-the-air distance and YAC - I've lost the link, anyone have it?

[Orton's Arm]

You're welcome. Good discussion is what keeps me here.

 

 

 

Agree it emphasizes completion. There's another problem - since it relies entirely on percentages, it makes QB who don't throw very much overall or who can't complete a season look better than they probably are, eg Tebow. His TD percentage ain't bad. But he just doesn't pass enough to carry a team in this league, and if he tried, his completion percentage would tank.

 

 

 

I never invest tons of time. I'm a working parent with a long hours job and a TBD hobby . I THINK Cold, Hard Football Facts has a statistic like this - but not for career averages, just yearly. They've also become a Pay for Access site and I don't currently pay - I'm tempted, but it's a way down on my "inessentials" budget list.

 

I have no problem with looking at Y/A as a QB metric. I just don't think it should be taken as the be-all, end-all of judging QB quality, because of the YAC thing. Brady throws a lot more dink-n-dunk passes then most people appreciate, and gets tremendous YAC from Welker and Gronk, the former because he's slippery and the latter because he's a freakin' tank who's hard for the average DB to bring down.

 

Someone has a website which breaks down QB completions by in-the-air distance and YAC - I've lost the link, anyone have it?

I think that you and I are fairly similar. I'm here for the discussions, and am usually fairly busy with other things!

 

> His TD percentage ain't bad. But he just doesn't pass enough to carry a team in this

> league, and if he tried, his completion percentage would tank.

 

It's probably asking too much for any one statistic to tell the whole story. Most of the stats we've been discussing can give at least some indication about whether a guy was productive while he was in there. But can he continue to produce as much, on a per-play basis, if he's the full-time starter? What happens after defenses adjust to his style of play?

 

A well-designed, complex statistical model might shed some light on the above questions. But relatively simple stats, like yards per attempt or QB rating, will not.

 

To return to the subject of Tebow: I personally feel that the main determinant of a QB's completion percentage is whether he's in an offense geared around a short passing attack. Dumping the ball off short is a very effective way for a QB to inflate his own completion percentage.

 

I looked at Tebow's yards per attempt. He had a very good 8.0 yards per attempt in his rookie year; which fell to 6.4 yards per attempt in his second year. Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt. The statistics clearly show Tebow had a disappointing second year; and evidently the Broncos felt the same way.

 

> I have no problem with looking at Y/A as a QB metric. I just don't think it should be

> taken as the be-all, end-all of judging QB quality, because of the YAC thing.

 

I can live with that. If someone wants to start citing what I'll call "adjusted yards per attempt" I certainly won't object. (I'm defining "adjusted yards per attempt" as yards per attempt minus yards after the catch.) But career data like that does not appear to be readily available. Further, I'm not 100% sold on the idea that yards per attempt is a worse stat than "adjusted yards per attempt" would be. I'd like to see data about QBs' career adjusted yards per attempt numbers before becoming fully sold.

 

Until data like the above is compiled and made freely available, I think that yards per attempt represents the best available starting point in discussions about QB performance. But any statistic like that isn't going to tell the whole story.