The 2023 NFL Season Thread

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Go back to 1990 and it's like you're in another world.

The way the game is played has changed the way stats look. There's much less downfield passing and much more getting the ball to play makers in space. Everybody's using the West Coast offense to some extent with lots of pre-snap movement, passes behind the line, quick crossing routes, etc. Nobody does the old AFL-style mad bomber stuff anymore. It's designed to minimize INTs, maximize completion percentages, and rely on receivers/backs to make up the yardage with their speed and athleticism.

Bottom line, it's almost impossible to compare today's QBs to those of 30 years ago using stats.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by pilight

The way the game is played has changed the way stats look. There's much less downfield passing and much more getting the ball to play makers in space. Everybody's using the West Coast offense to some extent with lots of pre-snap movement, passes behind the line, quick crossing routes, etc. Nobody does the old AFL-style mad bomber stuff anymore. It's designed to minimize INTs, maximize completion percentages, and rely on receivers/backs to make up the yardage with their speed and athleticism.

Bottom line, it's almost impossible to compare today's QBs to those of 30 years ago using stats.

It *is* impossible, I agree... because the passing game is far, far more efficient than it was 30 years ago. Which is my whole point. The old "mad bomber" stuff resulted in picks as often as long bombs and 7 yard slants just plain create more first downs than 3 yard off-tackle runs. I agree that yeah, absolutely, what was once the West Coast is everywhere, the passing game itself has gotten a lot more sophisticated (to be fair, so have pass defenses - the zone blitz wasn't a thing in 1990, neither was the Cover 2 so much, even, and teams were still trying to do that 46 "all or nothing" defense that just plain doesn't work unless you're the 1985 Bears or I guess to a lesser degree the mid to late 80s Eagles).

But quarterbacks are also held to a way higher standard than they used to be, at the college as well as the pro level, and that's been a huge part of the revolution. 30 years ago Jameis Winston would not only have had a starting job, he'd probably have been a multi-time Pro Bowler.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

30 years ago Jameis Winston would not only have had a starting job, he'd probably have been a multi-time Pro Bowler.

Even leaving aside the lingering stigma about black QBs that still existed in the early 90s, I'm not sure that's true. His stats would have been very different, but not necessarily better. He'd still be borderline. IMO.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

I assume the names in bold are the ones you think are better than their counterpart, in which case you're not being fair to the modern QBs. Jimmy Garoppolo is clearly superior to Rick Mirer, as is DeShaun Watson to Holcomb/Couch. I don't see Culpepper as an equal to Cousins, while Matt Hasselbeck is closer to Geno Smith than you indicate. McNabb over Hurts is also highly debatable.

Your opinion...........Availability is important. & Jimmy G hardly ever is..............Watson should be better. But I only remember him having one good game this year..........For the same reason why Brees usually would be deemed better than Herbert, but Drew was a rookie in 03 & wasn;t the QB he would be yet. I tried to give heavier weight for what the QB was @ that season...............McNabb was in the 3rd of 4 consecutive conference champ appearances. I've got a lot of respect for Hurts, a LOOOOOTTT of respect, but he hasn't reached that level yet................Hasselback was in the early stages of a decade as Seattle's unquestioned starter. Geno hasn't reached that level yet........Let Hurts & Smith show the consistency their predecessors did over a longer period of time & I'd be willing to call it a draw or in their favor. But I think it would be premature to call them their equals or better.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

Even leaving aside the lingering stigma about black QBs that still existed in the early 90s, I'm not sure that's true. His stats would have been very different, but not necessarily better. He'd still be borderline. IMO.

Jamesis isn't playing cause you can't have a franchise devising gameplans dependent on a player who might be in court or suspension on any given Sunday.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Availability is important. & Jimmy G hardly ever is

As opposed to Mirer, who played 25 games from 1997-2003, an average of 3.6 per season. I guess you could call him available, as in he was available to anyone who called and offered him a minimum contract.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by pilight

Even leaving aside the lingering stigma about black QBs that still existed in the early 90s, I'm not sure that's true. His stats would have been very different, but not necessarily better. He'd still be borderline. IMO.

Good point about Black quarterbacks having a hard time getting work back then; to me that’s lowkey one of the reasons the bar is so much higher now (there just are a lot larger pool to choose from).

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

This is reeeeeally tough. I personally think that QBs are better today and it's not even close. Like, yeah, there are mediocre QBs today and there were mediocre QBs in 2000. A mediocre player today - Justin Fields, the 22nd rated QB for example - completes around 63% of their passes, averages about 7 yards per attempt, and in Fields' case has around twice as many TDs as picks (I'm not a big fan of using that but mostly because TDs are more of a function of the team's overall offensive ability than the particular QB, but Fields gets picked off 2.4% of the time).

In 2000, there was one fewer team so I'll go... #21, Brad Johnson. He completed 63% of his passes for 6.9 yards per attempt... and almost doubles Fields' pick rate at 4.2%. Johnson is rated low because of the picks so I'll move up to #20 instead: Rob Johnson (no relation IIRC), who completed 57%, averaged 6.8, and had a pick rate of 2.3%. So close to Fields but Fields is still a touch better, especially if you prefer consistency to long throws.

Go back to 1990 and it's like you're in another world. I'll take #18, which is way better relative to the league than Fields is to 2023, but even so: Vinny Testaverde completed 55.6% of his passes (that would be dead last in 2023, and not particularly close either) for 7.7 YPA (okay, that's nice; guess Vinny was throwing a lot further downfield)... and a 4.9% INT rate, close to 50% worse than the worst qualifying guy in 2023, Mac Jones (who has a 3.5%). I sorted by Adjusted Yards Per Attempts, which takes into account sacks and INTs (and, to a very small extent, TDs) and Fields, just as a passer alone and not taking into account his running (except of course when he ran himself into a sack), is half a yard better than Testaverde: 5.55 to 5.01. Testaverde's 5.01 would put him in between Deshaun Watson and Sam Howell.

Yes, there have been rule changes that have influenced things, and there has also been a big, big statistical revolution in football that has moved things more towards the pass. However, I'm looking at rates here and one of the things that's come along with the statistical revolution is an extreme, extreme aversion to interceptions. Interceptions are waaaay down: even with way, way, way more passes being thrown and, of course, a whole entire extra regular season game per team, teams averaged 13 interceptions last year compared to 17 in 1990. By my eye, I just plain do not see quarterbacks make as many just flat-out stupid decisions today as they did back then, and I'm a Seahawks fan who watches Geno Smith play every week.

I'd keep the comparisons to the last few decades. Once you start to go back to 1990 a lot of things were different. QBs couldn't even throw the ball away. One of the biggest differences that affect QBs are the overall defenses.

Back in the mid 80s, early 90s, you had some stacked defenses. Today, if you've seen one defense, you've seen them all. With a few exceptions. But even the best defenses of today are no longer dominant.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by thehef

As a Dolphins fan, there have been times this season where I've thought "maybe I'm wrong about Tua and he really is on his way to being an elite level QB." Tonight - especially on that last, futile drive - was a reminder that Tua is just not very good. His best moments are when he's able to quickly get the ball to his primary receivers (who are pretty talented bunch).

True that most QB's are not at their best when they face pressure, but the key to forcing Tua into some really poor decisions is to get pressure on him. When that happens, he is exposed as an ordinary-at-best QB.

He's not elite. Most QBs aren't. I'd say the large majority of QBs are dependent on the situation around them. It's not easy finding Burrow or Mahomes. Even Dak is probably playing Tony Romo level at best. Without the drunken interceptions.

But hey, at least Tua can do it given the opportunity. What more can you ask for?

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

He's not elite. Most QBs aren't. I'd say the large majority of QBs are dependent on the situation around them. It's not easy finding Burrow or Mahomes. Even Dak is probably playing Tony Romo level at best. Without the drunken interceptions.

All true. But, IMO, the difference between a) Tua with protection throwing to his wide-open primary receiver, and b) Tua getting pressured and either having to check off to another receiver, or just forcing the ball where he shouldn't throw it, or taking an unnecessary sack, is stark. More than just about any other QB. Sure, not every QB can do what Mahomes does under pressure, but Tua's under-pressure decisions are particularly poor. Last night was an example, and so was the loss the Chiefs.

Originally Posted by Ragnar

But hey, at least Tua can do it given the opportunity.

I don't know what it is in that sentence It is definitely not thrive under pressure... But ya, with protection and great skill players around him, Tua is decent. Take those away and he's worse than just about any QB in the league.

Originally Posted by Ragnar

What more can you ask for?

I want a really good QB. Not an average one who - if surrounded by superior talent and in a solid system can make the simple plays... Sure, not everybody can have Mahomes. But Miami could've had Herbert (that's who I wanted). I think that Herbert in McDaniel's offense & with those weapons would be healthy-Burrow level, at least.

And actually, in looking around the league at the other starting QB's, there are probably only 3 or 4 whom I'd take Tua over. Guys like Geno, Mac Jones and, well... that's about it.

That all said, in these upcoming key games against Dallas, Baltimore, and Buffalo - and come playoff time assuming the 'fins hold on - I will absolutely be rooting for Tua to make me look like an idiot. But I have zero confidence that Tua is capable of leading Miami on any kind of playoff run... We shall see...

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

As opposed to Mirer, who played 25 games from 1997-2003, an average of 3.6 per season. I guess you could call him available, as in he was available to anyone who called and offered him a minimum contract.

Which is why I didn't say either was better than the other. They are a push.

[Cobra Mgr]

Hope Araiza gets every penny he can bleed from these bloodsuckers & he can resume his NFL career.

[Cobra Mgr]

I've said this before, but I want to say it again. I hate NFL owners tout how much revenue they bring to communities in order to extort billion dollar welfare stadiums from the public, and then play regular season games overseas for fans who never paid any of their tax dollars to house the owners business.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by thehef

I want a really good QB. Not an average one who - if surrounded by superior talent and in a solid system can make the simple plays... Sure, not everybody can have Mahomes. But Miami could've had Herbert (that's who I wanted). I think that Herbert in McDaniel's offense & with those weapons would be healthy-Burrow level, at least.

That all said, in these upcoming key games against Dallas, Baltimore, and Buffalo - and come playoff time assuming the 'fins hold on - I will absolutely be rooting for Tua to make me look like an idiot. But I have zero confidence that Tua is capable of leading Miami on any kind of playoff run... We shall see...

I'll say it again, most QBs are like this. Dak usually gets the ball out quick, but when he can't what does he do? He has to break the pocket and improvise. If you're not Tom Brady, Rodgers, or Peyton Manning, you're in the same boat. Take CD Lamb out of the equation and Dak isn't being considered for MVP. Minus a scant few QBs, team talent, coaching, and game plan rule the day.

Lets see what happens over the next few weeks. Both the Cowboys and dolphins have tough games.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I'd keep the comparisons to the last few decades. Once you start to go back to 1990 a lot of things were different. QBs couldn't even throw the ball away.

That's simply not true. The grounding rules were different from what they are now but you could gun the ball through the end zone throughout the 80s and into the 90s.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

That's simply not true. The grounding rules were different from what they are now but you could gun the ball through the end zone throughout the 80s and into the 90s.

Yeah, but a WR has to be in the area. You're just throwing it over their heads. I'm talking about being allowed to throw it away regardless of where WRs are. If a QB is out of the pocket, he can throw the ball anywhere as long as it reaches the LOS.

[Syd Thrift]

I don't remember exactly when the rule went away but in the 80s and into the early 90s you could just chuck the ball into the end zone stands and that didn't count as grounding. Dan Marino used to do that all the time. I guess the catch there is that you had to be close enough to the other end zone that you can reach the stands to chuck it in but it was 100% a thing.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I've said this before, but I want to say it again. I hate NFL owners tout how much revenue they bring to communities in order to extort billion dollar welfare stadiums from the public, and then play regular season games overseas for fans who never paid any of their tax dollars to house the owners business.

That's not very forward thinking. Playing international games obviously grows the popularity of the sport and more popularity means more money for NFL communities.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

That's not very forward thinking. Playing international games obviously grows the popularity of the sport and more popularity means more money for NFL communities.

A. How does playing Brasil give Jacksonville,FL more $?

B. Why doesn't Liverpool, Dortmund or Barcelona play regular season games that count in America if playing on foreign soil grows the game & help their communities?

[thehef]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

That's not very forward thinking. Playing international games obviously grows the popularity of the sport and more popularity means more money for NFL communities.

Good point. If you build the game internationally, that leads to more merch, and especially more value to things like broadcast & streaming rights, which of course gets shared with the teams.