The Totally Transcendent Teddy Thread

[SemperFeist]

A 15 yard incompletion on a 3rd and 12 has the same end result as a 4 yard completion on a 3rd and 8, one just looks prettier on the box score. 

Min fact I'd actually give more credit to a quarterback who throws a 15 yard incompletion on 3rd down as opposed to a completion well short of the 1st down marker. At least the former is showing some situational awareness, and realizes where the ball needs to go to further the drive. 

[CriminalMind]

2 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

A 15 yard incompletion on a 3rd and 12 has the same end result as a 4 yard completion on a 3rd and 8, one just looks prettier on the box score. 

Min fact I'd actually give more credit to a quarterback who throws a 15 yard incompletion on 3rd down as opposed to a completion well short of the 1st down marker. At least the former is showing some situational awareness, and realizes where the ball needs to go to further the drive. 

I can't really share this sentiment, of both being equal. Both are not ideal, but both are certainly not equal.

What if poor OL protection forced the 4 yard dump off pass and the 15 yard pass to player never developed due to time restriction. Then your looking at what's better? a) 4 yard dump off pass b) sack for -10 yards c) throw away d) grounding for -10 yards

The only true thing we can make from last season, is that Bradford had a poor run game (and run blocking) and poor pass protection. And this adversely effected his ability to make passing plays downfield. Through all that he had a decent season.

[JDBrocks]

I think the point is that none of them acheived the desired result (first down), and that the outcome of the play results in the same thing (a punt). Statistically, the QB will look better, even though on crucial plays he was unable to convert 3rd downs in to 1st downs. Last season was not an abberation for Bradford in this regard. He has consistently been a league leader in failed completions.

Again, this wasn't entirely his fault last year, with the poor protection and a poor run game. The point I am trying to make is that the standard passing stats don't do a good job of capturing performance as a whole, of which situational awareness and risk aversion play key roles.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JDBrocks said:

I think the point is that none of them acheived the desired result (first down), and that the outcome of the play results in the same thing (a punt). Statistically, the QB will look better, even though on crucial plays he was unable to convert 3rd downs in to 1st downs. Last season was not an abberation for Bradford in this regard. He has consistently been a league leader in failed completions.

Again, this wasn't entirely his fault last year, with the poor protection and a poor run game. The point I am trying to make is that the standard passing stats don't do a good job of capturing performance as a whole, of which situational awareness and risk aversion play key roles.

I agree.  The posed question was about what statistic would I refer to as judging Bradford or Bridgewater as the qbotf.  What I wanted to say, but came out inelegantly, is that past statistics are fairly poor predictors if we see improvement in the offensive line and running game.  If those two things happen it will make available to us a better set of statistics to make a better educated guess as to who should be the man! 

[Purplexing]

The above contrived situation of an incomplete pass down field 15 yds vs. a completion of 5 yds... both on 3rd and 12 is ... contrived to criticize Bradford's NFL season record completion pct.   I'm not sure why we are discussing contrived situations, because within each are other circumstances that invalidate some aspects of those criticisms; e.g. completing a pass yields better field position, whether to punt or attempt a FG.  These type of scenario based criticisms always lead to circular arguments that yield little information or insight.

What I originally inquired about is why people are (or aren't) convinced that TB or SB is the QBOTF.  Whether it is key stats or how they perform in situations (3rd down and long), I'm curious as to why some fans already decided on TB ... or SB.  The discussion seems to have gone off the rails into trivial stats that are likely impacted by the offense on the field with TB and SB over the last two years; e.g. RB, OL, WRs, and OC. 

So, I'll settle for the above answers; i.e. some people don't have a clear explanation as to why they prefer one QB or aren't convinced on either as QBOTF.  They simply project off incomplete stats and too few snaps with a less talented supporting cast. 

 

[JDBrocks]

Talk about contrived... the fact is that Sam Bradford completes passes short of the first down marker on 3rd and 4th down  more often than other QBs, and is consistently one of the worst QBs in the league by that metric. 

In my opinion, a QB should be judged on how well he sustains drives, and how often those drives lead to points. I think he is great at not turning the ball over. I think that he is a very accurate passer. I also think that he leaves plays on the field and takes the high percentage completion that is less likely to convert a 3rd down to the detriment of the offense. Stats indicate as much.

How about you give your feeling on the subject, since you're clearly unsatisfied with the opinions that have been given. Instead of calling real scenarios that have  happened "contrived", why don't you enlighten the rest of us?

[Purplexing]

Enlightenment: Fran Tarkenton wrote a book titled "Better Scramble Than Lose".  His sentiment implies attempting to sustain a drive is important, and a QB must avoid a 'loss', whether that be a lost game, lost chance to gain yards, lost possession thru a fumble or INT.  But he didn't endorse risky plays with lower chance of success.

TB and SB and other QBs are faced with loss of field position if they are sacked.   Each has a way to avoid that, and there are varying degrees of risk involved in each; e.g. not running far enough, throwing an INT, fumbling / being stripped of the ball while sitting in the pocket, being sacked while waiting for a receiver to separate from a DB, etc.

I agree failing on 3rd down to convert is not a good thing.  But NFL games are won on two main 'wins' within the game; i.e. winning field position and winning the battle of turnovers.

There are multiple chances (possessions) in each game to score over those multiple possessions.  Failure on some 3rd downs isn't decisive, but turnovers and lost field position are quite often decisive.  Hence, your preferred stat to criticize SB is contrived.

My preferences follow the two key determinants of winning NFL games; i.e. positive turnover margin and positive field position changes.  Beyond that, the ability to lead others on a unit is a way to win through those players talents.  Example: a Vikings QB who can put the ball in Cooks' hands in the open field, whether it be by pitch out, short pass, or lateral, is going to help them win games.  The same applies to moving the football into better field position for Forbath to have a better chance to kick a FG.  Reading the D and executing the play are two key aspects of using team mates talent to gain yards and score points.

My opinion on successful QBs is summarized by 'better scramble than lose'.

Quote

 

 

[Krauser]

The criticism of Bradford isn't contrived at all.

The whole point of the offense is to move the ball enough to sustain drives and score points. Having a QB complete a higher percentage of passes is only valuable insofar as those completions produce first downs and touchdowns. Failed completions, especially on 3rd downs, kill drives and give the ball back to the opposition. They are a direct cause of losing games. They were a direct cause of the Vikings losing games last year -- or maybe you missed the Thanksgiving game in Detroit?

Bradford was very prone to checking down last year, even when the OL had given him time to be more aggressive. Those checkdowns inflated his completion percentage, but they didn't help his team win games. 

Here are the numbers:

3rd and 4+ pass plays: http://pfref.com/tiny/zZJBg . This includes sacks, completions, incompletions and interceptions.

Vikings average yards-to-go on these 3rd down passes was 9.11, a little more than average (8.92). Their average gain was 4.62, 4th worst in the league (avg 5.89) better only than the Jags, Rams and Niners. Their 1st down percentage was well below average at 29.3% (avg 32.8%), 6th worst in the league. So they were ineffective on 3rd downs.  

Just looking at the failed completions -- http://pfref.com/tiny/ibGnz -- the Vikings tied with the Rams for the most in the NFL at 41 -- these are completed passes on 3rd and 4+ that didn't produce a first down. Only 5 teams had more than 31, 6 teams had 22 or fewer. 

Meanwhile the Vikings only had 42 completed passes on 3rd and 4+ that did produce a first down -- http://pfref.com/tiny/bupxf -- and were in the bottom third of the league in that stat.

The best offenses produced far more first downs than not on completions in those 3rd and long situations. The Patriots had 56 first downs vs 27 failed completions, the Packers 53 vs 22, the Falcons 42 vs 29. But the Vikings were barely 50/50 to convert on *completed* passes on 3rd and 4+, 42 vs 41. Only the Rams had a worse ratio. 

[Klomp]

Unless you've seen the playbook, how can you say for certain that a pass to an RB is a checkdown? It's very possible it was his first read.

And even still, a pass behind the sticks doesn't necessarily mean the player is going to be tackled behind the sticks. Someone like Cook is arguably our most talented skill position player with the ball in his hands. Shouldn't they try to get the ball to the best player and trust him to make a play, or is that only for when it fits a certain narrative?

A "failed completion" is still much better than an interception. Not sure why the belief here is that more interceptions would be better.

[Purplexing]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

The criticism of Bradford isn't contrived at all.

The whole point of the offense is to move the ball enough to sustain drives and score points. Having a QB complete a higher percentage of passes is only valuable insofar as those completions produce first downs and touchdowns. Failed completions, especially on 3rd downs, kill drives and give the ball back to the opposition. They are a direct cause of losing games. They were a direct cause of the Vikings losing games last year -- or maybe you missed the Thanksgiving game in Detroit?

Bradford was very prone to checking down last year, even when the OL had given him time to be more aggressive. Those checkdowns inflated his completion percentage, but they didn't help his team win games. 

Here are the numbers:

3rd and 4+ pass plays: http://pfref.com/tiny/zZJBg . This includes sacks, completions, incompletions and interceptions.

Vikings average yards-to-go on these 3rd down passes was 9.11, a little more than average (8.92). Their average gain was 4.62, 4th worst in the league (avg 5.89) better only than the Jags, Rams and Niners. Their 1st down percentage was well below average at 29.3% (avg 32.8%), 6th worst in the league. So they were ineffective on 3rd downs.  

Just looking at the failed completions -- http://pfref.com/tiny/ibGnz -- the Vikings tied with the Rams for the most in the NFL at 41 -- these are completed passes on 3rd and 4+ that didn't produce a first down. Only 5 teams had more than 31, 6 teams had 22 or fewer. 

Meanwhile the Vikings only had 42 completed passes on 3rd and 4+ that did produce a first down -- http://pfref.com/tiny/bupxf -- and were in the bottom third of the league in that stat.

The best offenses produced far more first downs than not on completions in those 3rd and long situations. The Patriots had 56 first downs vs 27 failed completions, the Packers 53 vs 22, the Falcons 42 vs 29. But the Vikings were barely 50/50 to convert on *completed* passes on 3rd and 4+, 42 vs 41. Only the Rams had a worse ratio. 

I wrote a detailed comment which was deleted because I took so long to write it that I was logged off the system.

I'll replicate it tomorrow.

For now, my comments hinged upon the tight variance of the two tables of stats, one of which seems inconsistent with the description.

Example: 29.3 % isn't significantly different from the 32.8% NFL avg completion %, and it translates to 5 less conversions over roughly 140 attempts (eyeball avg)... which might or might not lose a game or two.  Likewise, 4.62 doesn't appear to be significantly lower than the avg 5.89 gain, but the std deviation is needed to see whether that is so.  TOMORROW is another day to look at the significance.

[Klomp]

There are a couple of things that worry me about the thought of calling Teddy our QBOTF today:

1. Major injury questions. This should be obvious.

2. Even once he returns, where will he be? I think everyone looks at the hype of the 2016 preseason and assumes that's where he'll pick up, but remember that we never saw 2016 Bridgewater in a meaningful game. The last we saw him in meaningful action, he threw for under 200 yards in 8 of his last 11 games. I know everyone was gushing over the eye test against San Diego last preseason, but remember those were vanilla defenses and we only saw about a handful of drives total.

 

Sam has his deficiencies too, many of which have been outlined here. Checking down is an issue, but I think some overblow how big of an issue it is. It seems to me some people completely ignore all of his passing numbers because of it, which isn't fair.

Pocket presence/movement is an issue for Bradford, but I believe he deserves some credit for his pocket poise. There are at least two plays that come to mind.

 

Plain and simple, those are the types of plays a franchise quarterback makes. You don't want him to take those hits, but you want to know that he can make them. Those also are two examples of why you can't totally dismiss the dink-and-dunk (though the second pass was short of the sticks, so I guess it was a poor decision and he shouldn't have passed it to Wright).

Semper brought up the clutch gene with Teddy, and he has a point. However, Sam isn't completely unclutch. Remember the first Detroit game when he drove the offense down the field for what should've been the game-winning TD? And while you say the Dallas game proves he's not clutch because of that last play, who put the team in that situation to be on the goal line in the first place?

Those are just a couple of points to balance out this issue. I can't even believe Bradford is this hated by so many Vikings fans. He had arguably one of the five greatest passing seasons in franchise history. I don't even care about the NFL record. If his percentage was 67% I'd say the same thing.

As I've said multiple times, I believe a very realistic option next summer is to use either the franchise tag or the transition tag on Bradford, especially if Bridgewater's contract tolls. That gives another full offseason to decide what to do at quarterback.

This is a team that's going to be built on a great defense and running the ball. You don't need a Top 5 quarterback in order to win that way.

Teddy's floor is probably a little lower than Sam's right now due to the injury, but I believe both players' ceilings are very similar. I think Sam's floor is middle of the pack, while Teddy's is probably early 20s. Both have upside to be in the back half of the Top 10 of NFL signal-callers though, which should be more than enough to win with this defense.

[Purplexing]

I agree with Klomp on many of his points.  My earlier question to posters about why they support one QB or another hasn't yet yielded conclusive reasons for supporting one QB at this point.  Yet, I've read some posts that claim it.   AFAIAC, it's only biased opinion thus far, as neither QB has provided mutually agreed upon justification to become the QBOTF of the Vikings.

But, again, if you believe one QB has shown themselves as QBOTF,  please state the credible/significant stats, (meaningful) game experience not captured by stats, or off field leadership examples that supports your opinion.  If you claim something like 'he has the look of confidence' or 'he looks like a deer caught in headlights out there', please list a few such examples.

[JDBrocks]

@Purplexing, Why do you need justification on this matter? Why can't people on an internet forum just have opinions? It's pretty clear that there isn't a large enough sample size, and that the conditions under which both players have performed are so drastically different that it's impossible to make a cut and dried conclusion. Which leaves.... Opinions, speculation, preference, the eyeball test, etc. 

Here's a twist to bake your noodle: What if NIETHER guy is the QBOTF? This is not a binary question.

What ever stat you are looking for doesn't exist. Additionally, it seems as though you have already made up your mind that Bradford is the better QB, if I am following your post above.

Which stats have been posted that aren't credible? Why are they not credible? You certainly have a lot of opinions for a guy accusing others of conjecture/contriving/bias.

 

[perrynoid]

But we can make it a binary question, right?  Either "SB or TB will be our QB of the future" or "Someone else, either via the draft, trade or FA will be our QBOTF".  Here is why I think the coaching staff and front office will lean towards the former option.  The NFL is a "win now" business, and the current coaching staff wants to keep their jobs.  So does the front office.  Further, it is commonly believed that our "window of opportunity" is open right now due to our outstanding defense.  We would hate to see great defensive efforts wasted while we groom a newly-drafted QB or newly acquired FA QB. We have recently seen a commitment from the FO on locking down our top defensive talent.  And it is difficult to envision a scenario in which another team trades us a franchise QB.

Thus, our statistically most likely options are SB or TB.  I am hopeful one of them will show enough that they will end up as our QBOTF.  While they both have their flaws, it is reasonable to think they might be able to bring us to the promised land of a SB victory.  Grandpa is still available ha ha!

[Cearbhall]

I am not sold on either Teddy or Sam as the QBOTF yet. However, I am more convinced that Sam cannot be the QBOTF than I am of Teddy. Teddy might not be the answer but he has a higher probability of becoming the answer than Sam IMO.

Stats are not, and should not be, required to prove a QB is or isn't the QBOTF but the most telling stat is wins and losses. Teddy has a career winning percentage well north of .500. Meanwhile, Sam has been in the league several years and has yet to lead a team to over .500 in a season. Last year Sam was 7-8. I am not convinced that will be peak Bradford but that is above average Bradford. He might turn in a winning season eventually. Given the near-elite defense the Vikings have it might even be this year. However, Bradford does not look like a QB that will ever be a reliable franchise QB over a long duration. He is not a guy that a team will ever be able to count on to carry a team for any duration.