Mark Vader Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 2 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Since this tends to favor qbs who run a lot, it would be interesting if see a historical study of how qbs who have such a % age. I’m sure Cam, Vick, etc. were very high with this %. Do you add in players like Steve Young & Fran Tarkenton as well?
ngbills Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 i think this is a dumb stat. All it shows is either the QB ran a lot or the RB had terrible games. Examples not that it is needed: QB 1 goes 4-28 for 57 yards; 4 carries for 13 yards. Team gains 13 yards rushing. Wow - what a game by that QB! 100% of the teams offense. QB 2 goes 28-30 for 300 yds; 0 carries; Team gains 200 yards rushing. We dont need QB2. He only accounted for 60% of the offense. Lets go sign QB 1.
H2o Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Virgil said: Too bad he's trash. We need more out of a QB. If he doesn't throw for 400 yards and score 50 points this week, cut him Yep, go back and watch the film. That 71% comp rate, 312 passing yds, 57 rushing yds, and 3 TD's don't tell the whole story. He was bad out there on Sunday. Edited September 15, 2020 by H2o
Billl Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 38 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Yes, it is correct. Total team yards are net yards. Otherwise the Giants would have to have had negative rushing yards aside from Jones; they didn’t. Nope https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/team/_/view/offense/stat/total/table/passing/sort/netTotalYards/dir/deschttps://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/view/offense/table/passing/sort/passingYards/dir/desc https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/view/offense/stat/rushing Sack yardage lost is credited to the team, not the individual player.
thebandit27 Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 1 minute ago, Billl said: Nope https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/team/_/view/offense/stat/total/table/passing/sort/netTotalYards/dir/deschttps://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/view/offense/table/passing/sort/passingYards/dir/desc https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/view/offense/stat/rushing Sack yardage lost is credited to the team, not the individual player. Yes, that’s what “net” means. That’s literally exactly what I said.
billsrul120 Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 21 minutes ago, ngbills said: i think this is a dumb stat. All it shows is either the QB ran a lot or the RB had terrible games. Examples not that it is needed: QB 1 goes 4-28 for 57 yards; 4 carries for 13 yards. Team gains 13 yards rushing. Wow - what a game by that QB! 100% of the teams offense. QB 2 goes 28-30 for 300 yds; 0 carries; Team gains 200 yards rushing. We dont need QB2. He only accounted for 60% of the offense. Lets go sign QB 1. As with most things some nuance is required. It is easy to see that this isn't a case of cherry picking stats considering he was top 5 in just passing yards alone this week. He produces a ton no matter how you look at it.
Billl Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 1 minute ago, thebandit27 said: Yes, that’s what “net” means. That’s literally exactly what I said. You’re joking, right? The TEAM had 291 net yards. Daniel Jones had 301 net yards. It’s literally the exact same method OP used...because it’s correct. He didn’t subtract sack yardage from Josh’s yardage total but did include the negative yardage when showing the team’s yardage. Josh Allen stats: 312 yards passing, 57 yards rushing, 369 total yards Team stats: 306 yards passing, 98 yards rushing, 404 total yards 369/404 = .913 (91.3%) <— Literally the exact number the OP cited. Daniel Jones stats: 279 yards passing, 22 yards rushing, 301 total yards Team stats: 262 yards passing, 69 yards rushing, 291 total yards 301/291 = 1.034 (103.4%)
thebandit27 Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 1 minute ago, Billl said: You’re joking, right? The TEAM had 291 net yards. Daniel Jones had 301 net yards. It’s literally the exact same method OP used...because it’s correct. He didn’t subtract sack yardage from Josh’s yardage total but did include the negative yardage when showing the team’s yardage. Josh Allen stats: 312 yards passing, 57 yards rushing, 369 total yards Team stats: 306 yards passing, 98 yards rushing, 404 total yards 369/404 = .913 (91.3%) <— Literally the exact number the OP cited. Daniel Jones stats: 279 yards passing, 22 yards rushing, 301 total yards Team stats: 262 yards passing, 69 yards rushing, 291 total yards 301/291 = 1.034 (103.4%) Dude, I wasn’t making a comment about the comparison to Allen; I was making a comment about the notion that Jones had over 100% of the team’s yards. This isn’t rocket science here
ngbills Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 14 minutes ago, billsrul120 said: As with most things some nuance is required. It is easy to see that this isn't a case of cherry picking stats considering he was top 5 in just passing yards alone this week. He produces a ton no matter how you look at it. No question he produced. Just think its pointless to say he produced a certain percent of offense. That says more about the running backs than him. I dont think any team strives to have the QB be 100% of the offense. I would think most prefer a mix which means good balanced offense. A 60-80% number. 2
Putin Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 38 minutes ago, H2o said: Yep, go back and watch the film. That 71% comp rate, 312 passing yds, 57 rushing yds, and 3 TD's don't tell the whole story. He was bad out there on Sunday. Yes let’s forget ALL THAT and concentrate on the two fumbles and couple of missed throws!!!! 🙄
billsrul120 Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 5 minutes ago, ngbills said: No question he produced. Just think its pointless to say he produced a certain percent of offense. That says more about the running backs than him. I dont think any team strives to have the QB be 100% of the offense. I would think most prefer a mix which means good balanced offense. A 60-80% number. See I don't think teams strive to do anything but win the game. Any talk about how yards are gained is secondary to that, including how many yards rb's get vs what the qb accounts for. You are confusing the strategy (to be a winning team) with tactics (a certain split of yards gained). What we saw Sunday is that the Bills are capable of having a good offensive day and winning when the tactic involves Josh Allen carrying the offense almost single handedly.
Chaos Posted September 15, 2020 Author Posted September 15, 2020 Updated to remove YAC from QB stats: 1
Brianmoorman4jesus Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 That’s how Murray is going to be too. College offense just spilling into the NFL at this point.
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 3 hours ago, Mark Vader said: Do you add in players like Steve Young & Fran Tarkenton as well? I think it depends how much their running compared to their passing stats. Young has one season over 500 yards rushing so I think it’s a low percentage. FT never had over 400 yards rushing in a season. but this stat definitely favors running qb, kinda like fantasy football. Brady passed for 5,235 passing yards and 109!!! rushing yards in 2011. That’s a total of 5,344 yards. NE had 6,848 yards that year. So Brady’s % was 78%. In 2015, Bortles has 4,428 passing yards and 310 rushing for a total of 4,738 yards. The Jags had a total 5,581, making Bortles 85% of the Jags offense. Would you say that Bortles was carrying the Jags more than Brady was carrying the Pats? Kinda insane. Interesting stat but really doesn’t mean that much in the big picture. 1
billspro Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 6 hours ago, thebandit27 said: This is how it has been since his rookie season. He’s not a big part of the offense; he is the offense. It would be interesting to see him play with a good run game. 3 hours ago, ngbills said: i think this is a dumb stat. All it shows is either the QB ran a lot or the RB had terrible games. Examples not that it is needed: QB 1 goes 4-28 for 57 yards; 4 carries for 13 yards. Team gains 13 yards rushing. Wow - what a game by that QB! 100% of the teams offense. QB 2 goes 28-30 for 300 yds; 0 carries; Team gains 200 yards rushing. We dont need QB2. He only accounted for 60% of the offense. Lets go sign QB 1. you can find flaws in any stat. This stat over the course of the year will show the support from your running game. Allen has had very little running game support most of his career.
Mat68 Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 6 hours ago, thebandit27 said: This is how it has been since his rookie season. He’s not a big part of the offense; he is the offense. You can tell what media personalites actually watch Buffalo play. The offense goes as Allen goes. If Allen plays this way all season Buffalo are Superbowl contenders.
ngbills Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 1 hour ago, billspro said: It would be interesting to see him play with a good run game. you can find flaws in any stat. This stat over the course of the year will show the support from your running game. Allen has had very little running game support most of his career. Is this a quality or quantity issue? The Bills use Allen as part of the running game and I dont think it is because they lack a running game. It is part of the strategy because they value that part of his game. Singletary did have 750 yards on only 150 carries. I would speculate he is a 1000 yard rusher if he is given a big work load. Add in that Gore did rush for 600 last year and you had 1400 yards from your RB's. I would say regardless of Allen we have at least a decent running game. Add in Allen and it makes it a stronger one.
HomeTeam Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 That's great and all but I'd love to get the running game more involved. My dear is that Allen will get injured. He takes way too many hits.
Recommended Posts