PFF's AFC East QB Pressure Profiles by Steve Palazzolo

I'm curious. What in dahell is a -1.6?

 

In all fairness, Luck could complete 33.3% but still be outstanding if those completions routinely extend drives and result in points. IMO what you get from those completions means more than the actual completion percentage itself b/c the context can vary dramatically. Look at our game, how many times did he turn what seemed to be a likely punt into a FD? How 'bout the 36 yard clutch TD throw to Hilton to give Indy a 20-14 lead? What value do you put on that compared to the value placed on completing 3 of 3 passes in a drive that result in a punt?

After all, if you throw two incompletions on 1st & 2nd down followed by moving the chains on 3rd, then it's a success set of downs despite the 33.3% completions. It's like baseball. Having 15 hits in a game is meaningless if you lose 3-2. I'll take 7 hits strung together for 5 runs even though it makes for a lower team average. What I recall seeing from Luck is like the 7 hit team.

 

This is where you could almost use something like a scoring system. Similar to Football Outsider's metrics or Estimated Points Added. You could score pressure situations like:

-1 = Interception
-.5 = Incompletion on 3rd Down
0 = Incompletion on 1st or 2nd Down
.5 = Completion on 1st, 2nd, 3rd Down short of 1st down marker
1 = Completion for first down/ TD

(It should be more nuanced than this, this was just a rough estimation)

Then you'd chart each play, compensating for drops, receivers catching the ball short of the 1st down marker, YAC, etc and you'd have a score rather than a completion percentage in pressure situations, 3rd downs, etc. Of course it would not tell the whole story, but it would give you a better feeling for how they did rather than completion percentage. Essentially it would be combining the play by play data/scoring of FO with the charting of PFF.

I say this not knowing how PFF grades QBs. This may be similar to how they do it?

 

Yes, definitely..... and it wouldn't be terribly hard to do once you've established appropriate values.

I wouldn't give a 3rd down completion that falls short of the 1st down marker the same value as a 1st or 2nd down completion. I might almost have to give it a negative value or 0 value depending on the context. IE: if there's no pressure and it's short of the sticks it should be a negative value; if there's pressure and it's short of the sticks it should be either a 0 value or slightly positive but not more than that of a 1st or 2nd down completion. Perhaps 0.25 for completion short of the sticks while under pressure, and -0.25 if short of the sticks w/ no pressure. But like you said, it's just a rough estimation.

 

An interception could Not be the fault of the Qb.

An incompletion can be the fault of multiple sources besides the Qb.

Completions can happen on bad throws.

First downs can happen by receivers making individual plays..

Will the point system account for those things?

 

Yes

 

Not necessarily. A large part of it would be coaching if he was told it was better to throw it away or take the sack than try to extend the play. I believe that was exactly what he was told early in the season. It is not uncommon to restrain inexperienced QBs with running ability in order to force them to make reads from the pocket. Many coaches view this as part of a long term QB building process.

 

How about if you shrug off two defenders in the backfield then throw the ball out of bounds to avoid a sure sack? That's not a sign of poor accuracy, it's making the best of a bad situation. Or if it's 3rd and long and the QB pushes the ball down field on a low percentage throw instead of taking the easy check down that has no chance of getting the first.

INTs can be the result of a bad read, bad throw, bad route, bad luck or bad hands, no way to tell from looking at statistics. That "clutch" TD to Hilton was a terrible decision by Luck, Sean Smith had an easy INT but lost the ball in the air and it goes down as a great play byLuck in the stats. Luck hit Smith in the hands with two other passes, the 3rd one coming with 3 minutes to go in the game. Had Smith made the play Miami would've had the ball down 3 at the Indy 30.



That's him, before he lets the ball squirt out of his grasp. Takes a lot of skill to drop a pass like that. As you can tell, I'm still pretty pissed about that game. Not only the dropped INTs but the 3rd and 10s, 12s, 14s, 16s that they were converting at a time when Miami had the league's best 3rd down defense.

To piggyback on the baseball analogy, a power hitter will have more KOs and a lower batting average than a lead off hitter, a QB who's pushing the ball down the field may have a lower completion rate than a QB's who's settling for shorter throws more, even if their accuracy is close to even. From what I've seen, Luck has a (Matt Schaub-ish) weaker arm than Tannehill and he throws down field more than most of the QB's, I think that explains much of the low completion %. He was pressured on a 37% of his throws according to PFF, but sacked only 5.6% of them, 15% of his pressures resulted in sacks. Tannehill was pressured 30% of the time, sacked 6.6% of the time, 21.5% of his pressures resulted in sacks.

I can't see any way to say one guy was better than the other under pressure based on stats. My opinion is that Luck was superb under pressure, a mini-Roethlisberger, it's based on watching him play not on stats. To each their own though.

 

I don't know if such a system would account for those, but I do feel confident that if one did it would find that more of the bad (incompletions and INTs caused by sources other than the QB) and less of the good (completions on bad throws or FDs b/c of receivers making individual plays) impacted the relatively negative perceptions held about RT here. Reality is that the clutch throw to Hilton mentioned above doesn't happen if Hilton doesn't get separation. In that case Luck probably would have thrown it away or been sacked or otherwise just failed to convert and people would think he wasn't as good under pressure as they do now. That's even if he was exactly as good as he is. The difference was the supporting cast in that case.

 

Sorry Raf, but this is making my head hurt. There was ZERO separation on this "clutch" throw.



Smith is in perfect position, Clemons took Wayne on the crosser so Smith has nothing to worry about except the backside post and he has an eternity to peel back and make the play. Meanwhile, Carroll is hugging Hilton's outside hip like TY was his date for Senior Prom so Luck has no choice but to lead him directly towards Smith and the easy INT. The 6-3 Sean Smith, I might add. Carroll is what, 5'11", TY is 5'9" and he came away with a virtual jump ball between two defenders.



Credit TY for making a play on the ball but it was hardly a clutch throw.

 

The fact that we are debating who was better under pressure, Luck or Tannehill is crazy.

I font care what metrics you show me, watch the games and its easy to see.

Tanned definitely got better and actually surprised me a bit but Luck was borderline magical.

 

I think I'd skip worrying about trying to assess all that on a play by play basis (b/c of the time consumption involved) and simply give each pass catching unit a value- a positive one, neutral, or negative. Then multiply the QB's final number by that value. Perhaps do the same thing with his Oline protection. A QB can't do it on his own so if he's helped or hampered by a poor surrounding cast it needs to be factored in. Unfortunately the WR-Oline values would have to be subjective, but, when in doubt give a neutral value.

 

#end thread

 

I thought you were making an argument FOR Luck?

 

LOL not at all. Matter of fact, Luck can kiss my ***, the entire Colts team can kiss my ***. But I give credit where it's due and he was tremendous under pressure, on tape. No numbers on a sheet gonna tell me different.





































Speaking of under pressure, I saw the Peach bowl this year, is Tajh Boyd out of the hospital yet?

 

Ok, but not every fan watches all 16 games of every QB, so in that regard the metrics have a place if they're done correctly and depict an accurate portrayal of what transpires on the field. Obviously it won't be an exact science but it can still be a useful tool to help supplement what the eye sees. Like GM, when in doubt I'll typically trust my eyes over the stats.

I like stats in the sense of using them to either confirm what my eyes are telling me or to serve as motivation to go back to the film to see if there's more to the player regarding that stat than meets the eye. For instance, if a WR has a lower YPC, rather than immediately labeling him inferior as a downfield receiver, I might go back to his film to see what the reason is b/c the stat itself isn't the ultimate determination. I mean, you can't say, "This receiver with 12.8 YPC is no good as a vertical threat b/c the stat says so". That's a circular argument.

 

That's not really a season long trend based on the numbers i posted a few pages back though. Luck had a 100 more passing opportunities and his ratios for TDs and INTs (for example) were pretty similar to Tannehill's.

You and both know, Ryan's numbers would have been pretty different had he had Luck's supporting cast.

 

yes.




























....... but all the gassed LSU defenders who had to help each other off the field stayed for further testing.

 

Definitely.

 

How can Tannehill not have excellent "escapability" and still complete a higher percentage of passes under pressure? Succumbing to pressure means you can't throw the ball, because you're sacked.

 

But wait, according to PFF Hartline had a higher TD/1st down % than anyone on the Colts, and Bess was better than all of them except for Wayne. So if Tannehill had Luck's WRs he would have thrown for fewer TDs and first downs???

 

It a little more nuanced than you're making it. I'm not sure there is a statistic that's going to to explain it fairly.

 

Sure thing. TD and 1st dwn percentages is the same thing as overall TDs and 1st dwns. No. No, no that's a bad GM, bad.

 

the difference between Fin-O's willy and the national average?

 

The argument against isn't nuanced though. The argument is that Luck is Super Jesus Buddha and Ryan is...not bad.

 

LOL. Yes, very bad.

 

I used "clutch" sarcastically. I was pointing out that Luck got credit for being a play maker on that throw. IMO he made a bad decision but got lucky that Hilton was able to get separation at the end.

I'm a big Luck fan, but I'm bristling at the implication that Luck was in another stratosphere compared to RT. Early on in the season, Luck was clearly ahead. His experience let him use the whole playbook and be more decisive as to when to run. His receivers made more plays for him even though his throws more wild. But by the last quarter of the season when RT was healthier and had a little more experience, the gap was very close. Not just overall, but in terms of mobility in the pocket and making plays when pressured.

 

Is that how it came out? B/c I certainly didn't mean it that way. I thought Raf laid it out pretty well. RT was decent pre-injury, took a turn for the worse after the @Jets game and improved steadily once he was healthy again. Luck OTOH was consistently among the best at dealing with the pressure so I give him the respect he deserves in that category.

I still think Tannehill has more speed and acceleration, a stronger arm, more accuracy-especially outside the numbers and on the move, an ability run zone read that Luck lacks, more room to improve as he gets more experience, coaching, and better skill players to get the ball to.

 

Oops, my bad then. Gotta get my sarcasm meter checked .

 

RT had an exceptional season not throwing to any big name receivers, and still managing to beat great teams, such as, the Seahawks and the Bangles. Both teams saw the playoffs last year. Ryan also lost two games in over time, and lost to Andrew Luck only by a field goal.

 

I've been trying to say this the whole thread, while at the same time understand what these stats are trying to tell us, my only conclusion is that Luck will take off early and display that elite ability while Ryan will stare down the barrell..the latter giving the play a higher percentage to be complete, the former being more explosive in terms of the games outcome.

Bro, your not the only one who carries a grudge on that game, the corner play by smith was atrocious, and Carroll was outmatched..I knew Smith would be walkin after that game.

 

Week 2 Deej, redemption time.

They're second on my list this season, right behind New England.

 

I'm gonna lose it Fin...lol.

Your lost in the stats, or blinded, I feel like your not understanding a word I'm saying and I've been trying to be so concise and take into account your POV, I've repeatedly said, as far as breaking the pocket, scrambling around and making a play, the two Qbs are not in the same league, However, I'm trying to find out why this stat doesn't measure up to what I see, and my only conclusion is, Ryan completes his passes at a higher percentage before the moment of bailing out far more than luck does, and thus resulting in a few more completions..

Playmaking ability..do you think Ryan is as good as play maker at Qb then Luck was because some stat says so?... If you do then lets just end the conversation because I don't..what I have been trying to understand in this stat thread from you, Rafs and others is, how much of that difference that i think there is, is due to inexperience and coaching to constrict him to the pocket, and how much of that completion percentage is due to Ryan being able to stare down the barrel longer than Luck.

 

a little

 

Luck's YPA was 6.1 under pressure. How explosive could he have consistently been?

At the same time, Tannehill's was in the 7's range. With 50% accuracy, he wasn't really checking down.

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2