Alex Smith had the highest completion % on play-action passes in 2017

[oldman9er]

When QBs that are liked play well, it's cuz they're good!

When QBs that are disliked play well, it's cuz they are propped up by good teams! 

 

 

Same as it ever was... 

[HTTRDynasty]

41 minutes ago, Slateman said:

Get better at what?

Did it occur to you that the reason he was so good at play action last year was because he had the best rushing game in football? That two year in a row, the QB that leads in your cherry picked stat also had the leading rusher in the league that year?

No one is hating, but we're not hero worshiping him like some others. Alex Smith is a downgrade at QB. Literally everyone NFL front offices acknowledges this. Most people who watch football would acknowledge this.

Alex Smith is a good QB who doesn't stretch the field, but also doesn't turn the ball over. He's successful when he has a high quality cadre of support personnel, particularly at the "skill" positions.

It has been proven over and over that there is little to no correlation between how good a team is running the football to how good a team is at play-action passing.  Just one example:

 

[Slateman]

I'm going to need to see more than one season's worth of data to make that determination.

Also, "EXP" is simply the expected points. It's not a measure of how well a team runs the ball.

[Woz]

23 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

So, Alex gets better and we’re just supposed to ignore it?

It’s an important stat because if we run a lot of play action - which we do - he should be successful when Gruden calls those plays.

The offense we run is very similar to the offense that he was in while in Kansas City, Alex has stated that.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/2013-play-action-offense
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/2014-play-action-offense
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/2015-play-action-offense
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/2016-play-action-offense

Alex Smith's first four years in Kansas City. Granted, he didn't throw all of the passes for the Chiefs there so looking at Kansas City's stats as a team is not exact, but he had ~90%+ of all attempts so it's not a bad abstraction.

 

	Play Action Used on Dropback			Gains with PA (Passes & Scrambles)					Gains with PA (Passes Only)					Gains with Standard Dropback					Difference between PA and Standard
	Kansas City		NFL AVG	Kansas City			NFL Average		Kansas City			NFL Average		Kansas City			NFL Average		Kansas City			NFL Average
	%	Rank	%	Yds/Play	DVOA	Rank	Yds/Play	DVOA	Yds/Play	DVOA	Rank	Yds/Play	DVOA	Yds/Play	DVOA	Rank	Yds/Play	DVOA	+/- Y/P	+/- DVOA	Rank	Yds/Play	+/- DVOA
2013	25%	10th	21%	6.2	11.4%	20th	7.5	20.9%	6.2	10.0%	20th	7.5	19.5%	5.9	13.2%	14th	6.1	9.8%	0.3	-1.8%	23rd	1.4	11.1%
2014	30%	4th	21%	7.7	39.5%	7th	7.5	24.0%	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	5.2	0.6%	22nd	6.3	12.3%	2.5	38.9%	6th	1.2	11.7%
2015	20%	12th	19%	6.1	15.6%	21st	7.8	25.3%	6.2	16.0%	20th	7.9	24.5%	6.6	25.6%	11th	6.3	14.0%	-0.5	-9.9%	27th	1.5	12.3%
2016	17%	20th	18%	9.2	58.5%	4th	7.8	28.3%	9.1	58.1%	4th	7.9	27.8%	6.2	15.0%	12th	6.2	10.7%	2.9	43.5%	7th	1.6	17.7%

 

(*) The 2013 table didn't list the ranking for passes and scrambles, so I ranked it myself.
(**) The 2014 table didn't split out passes only for some reason.

 

They haven't put out the 2017 season's data yet, but I wanted to look at the Chiefs outside of the year that I think is an outlier.

First off, l want to point to the negligible gains that the Chiefs had when scrambles were included. For everyone talking up Smith's running ability, it doesn't seem to factor in all that much (at least on downs where they went play action).

Second, two of the four years, the Chiefs were somewhat mildly worse off from a DVOA perspective on play action plays than they were on standard dropbacks. This gets to a bit at what Slateman was getting at: a 6 yard completion on a 3rd & 7 isn't a success. The other two years they were wildly more successful on play action than standard dropbacks.

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a pattern year in and year out.

So, maybe 2017 was a spectacular year. Maybe it is the new norm. I don't know if this stat tells us anything beyond that Alex Smith had a great year last year.

[turtle28]

5 hours ago, Slateman said:

Get better at what?

Did it occur to you that the reason he was so good at play action last year was because he had the best rushing game in football? That two year in a row, the QB that leads in your cherry picked stat also had the leading rusher in the league that year?

No one is hating, but we're not hero worshiping him like some others. Alex Smith is a downgrade at QB. Literally everyone NFL front offices acknowledges this. Most people who watch football would acknowledge this.

Alex Smith is a good QB who doesn't stretch the field, but also doesn't turn the ball over. He's successful when he has a high quality cadre of support personnel, particularly at the "skill" positions.

No, it just occurred to me that Alex Smith was good when playing off of play action; in the same way that Kirk and RG3 were before him.

I remember us talking about this stat with Kirk and RG3 while they were the starters and it was not reacted too in the same way.

When it dealt with Kirk or RG3 people just thought it was a good stat and we should be running play action often because it helps our qbs be more successful.

I think it’s debatable how much of a downgrade Alex is at QB vs Kirk and there’s certainly some areas where Alex is obviously better.

1. Kirk has a stronger arm and over their histories at QB he’s shown more of an ability to be successful on deep balls, but that had a lot to do with Kirk throwing to the best deep ball WR in NFL history - Desean Jackson - then it just being Kirk. I’ll also point out that as much as I love Kirk, this forum and Redskins nation regularly killed him for missing Djax on some deep balls when Djax was open; particularly in 2016. 

Outside of that, what exactly is Kirk better at then Alex Smith? Because I can’t think of one thing, it seems to me the rest of the stats are either equal or Alex is better at. 

As to your last paragraph well it’s a good thing we have a lot of talent at our skill positions and like is said in my second or third post on this topic all qbs need talent around them to be successful, even the elite ones.

[turtle28]

3 hours ago, Slateman said:

I'm going to need to see more than one season's worth of data to make that determination.

Also, "EXP" is simply the expected points. It's not a measure of how well a team runs the ball.

Oh please. Aren’t you the same guy that tried to tell us that pressures and hits on a QB don’t matter, only sacks do?

I like a qb who’s accurate and good at playaction. Yes, a good running game can help a passing game and the playaction pass as well but the reverse is true also. If we can keep a defense off balance with play action pass, that can also help the running game.

[Slateman]

Uh ... like every decent QB should be good off play action if they have a running game. You like a QB who's accurate and good at play action. We literally had that guy here and didn't want to keep him.

Cousins was a much better QB in the last three seasons that Alex Smith was. Smith's career year isn't as good as Cousins's worst year here as the starter.

Pressures and hits don't matter. They are not negative plays. They do not always result in a negative play.

[turtle28]

1 hour ago, Slateman said:

Uh ... like every decent QB should be good off play action if they have a running game. You like a QB who's accurate and good at play action. We literally had that guy here and didn't want to keep him.

Cousins was a much better QB in the last three seasons that Alex Smith was. Smith's career year isn't as good as Cousins's worst year here as the starter.

Pressures and hits don't matter. They are not negative plays. They do not always result in a negative play.

Well I wanted to keep Kirk but not only did the front office not want to retain him at the rate that Kirk wanted, Kirk didn’t want to stay in Washington either for multiple reasons. Especially after they didn’t sign him long term in Feb/March of 2016 on a deal that would look cheap today.

So given the fact that Kirk didn’t seem to want to stay and the front office didn’t want to make him the highest paid qb in the league;  the feeling was mutual there. Neither side wanted to be married to one another.

Alex and Kirk are pretty similar qbs. I’ve said it now for 3 months and clearly proven that at lot of the reasons Kirk had better stats in 2015 & 16 had to do with the pass happy offense he was in and the volume of passes he attempted vs how many attempts Smith had. Also add to equation that Kirk was throwing to two 1,000 yd receivers - which alex never has - and that had a lot to do with it too.

You didn’t list anyways that Kirk was better than Alex. I gave you one way that Kirk was better and I can’t think of any others.

Also, Alex Smith only played in 15 games last year because Andy Reid sat him out week 17 so he didn’t get injured before the playoffs. If Alex had played week 17 last year he would have put up better stats than Kirk did in 2015 & 2017.  Probably 2300 yards, 28 or 29 tds and only 5 ints for a 105 or 106 rtg.

You’re obviously ignoring turnovers too. If you factor that into the mix, Alex is a better QB overall. Alex had 14 less turnovers than Kirk last year which adds to the reasons why the Chiefs had more wins than the Redskins other than their running game and better health with their pro bowl TE.

Presures and hits on Qbs do matter because they can force the QBs into turnovers or mistakes. If a QB is hit and pressured a lot he may get gun shy which can also lead to mistakes if the QB is afraid of getting hit. So, if a QB is pressured and throws an int, that’s a negative play. If a qb is hit and fumbles,  that’s a negative play. If a qb is hit or pressured and has to get rid of the ball quicker than he wanted to and it causes an incompletion that’s a negative play.

[Woz]

Just now, turtle28 said:

other than their running game and better health with their pro bowl TE.

that's a pretty large exception ...

[Slateman]

7 minutes ago, Woz said:

that's a pretty large exception ...

And their better receivers. And their better defense. And their better offensive coordinator.

[turtle28]

6 minutes ago, Slateman said:

And their better receivers. And their better defense. And their better offensive coordinator.

They had 1 better WR than ours (Hill). The defenses were pretty equal  as oldman9er constantly points out. KCs D wasn’t good last year, in the beginning of the year before our defense had a lot of injuries our D was actually playing better.

[turtle28]

17 minutes ago, Woz said:

that's a pretty large exception ...

Sure, but let’s stick to my entire point and not take half a sentence out of it so it totally changes the context.

Alex Smith having 14 less turnovers than Kirk is also a big reason as to why the Chiefs won more games.

There’s a reason why Alex’s rating is 10 points higher than Kirk’s and most of that has to do with less interceptions.

[oldman9er]

18 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

Sure, but let’s stick to my entire point and not take half a sentence out of it so it totally changes the context.

Alex Smith having 14 less turnovers than Kirk is also a big reason as to why the Chiefs won more games.

There’s a reason why Alex’s rating is 10 points higher than Kirk’s and most of that has to do with less interceptions.

 

Maybe just let it go. Dude's just not going to get a fair shake.

It's okay. Top 5 winningest QB over the last 5 years regardless of fan mindset. 

 

 

[MKnight82]

21 minutes ago, oldman9er said:

 

Maybe just let it go. Dude's just not going to get a fair shake.

It's okay. Top 5 winningest QB over the last 5 years regardless of fan mindset. 

 

 

WIns are a team stat.

[Woz]

Just now, turtle28 said:

Sure, but let’s stick to my entire point and not take half a sentence out of it so it totally changes the context.

Alex Smith having 14 less turnovers than Kirk is also a big reason as to why the Chiefs won more games.

There’s a reason why Alex’s rating is 10 points higher than Kirk’s and most of that has to do with less interceptions.

Okay ... you want me to go through your entire argument, so be it:

6 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

I’ve said it now for 3 months and clearly proven that at lot of the reasons Kirk had better stats in 2015 & 16 had to do with the pass happy offense he was in and the volume of passes he attempted vs how many attempts Smith had

And I've shown you repeatedly (and you've ignored) that their rate statistics (to make it clear, those would be statistics that are INDEPENDENT OF ATTEMPTS) shows that they are actually different quarterbacks.

8 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

Also add to equation that Kirk was throwing to two 1,000 yd receivers - which alex never has - and that had a lot to do with it too.

 

Which only occurred in a single year: 2016. And as e16 pointed out, just barely is that true (Garcon had 1041 yards, Jackson had 1005 yards).

If you are considering how those receivers did in their entire career with the Redskins, then okay, you get to add 2013 (Garcon had 1346 yards) but you have to temper that with the fact that Cousins only played in five games and started three that year. They also didn't have a receiver with more than 500 yards that year. You can also add 2014 for Jackson (1169 yards), but that year saw Cousins only playing in six games and starting five.

So, that's a canard.

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

You didn’t list anyways that Kirk was better than Alex. I gave you one way that Kirk was better and I can’t think of any others.

I had left this one alone but since you objected to my only pointing out the one glaring flaw, I'll take this one on as well:

• Age
• Completion% (over past five years = 65.4% for Kirk vs. 65.1% for Alex;  if we just constrain it to the last three when Kirk was a full time starter = 67.0% for Kirk vs. 66.7% for Alex)
• TD% (five years = 4.6% for Kirk vs. 4.2% for Alex; 4.8% vs. 4.2%)
• Yards per attempt (five years = 7.7 for Kirk vs. 7.2 for Alex; three years = 7.8 for Kirk vs. 7.5 for Alex)

I can go into the advanced stats but it doesn't get any better for your side of the argument. The only basic stat that Alex Smith is better at than Kirk Cousins is interception percentage. That has never been denied.

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

Also, Alex Smith only played in 15 games last year because Andy Reid sat him out week 17 so he didn’t get injured before the playoffs. If Alex had played week 17 last year he would have put up better stats than Kirk did in 2015 & 2017.  Probably 2300 yards, 28 or 29 tds and only 5 ints for a 105 or 106 rtg.

I assume you are trying to say he would have ended up with 4300 yards, and 28/29 touchdowns vs 5 interceptions.

First off, complete conjecture.
Second, those are cumulative stats not rate stats. If you're going to project someone's stats forward like that, then just use the rate stats in the first place.
Third, even if you are correct, then this would still have been Alex Smith's singular best season by a significant amount. His yards/game in 2017 was 36.0 yards more than any previous year. Yards per attempt? Tied for his career best, which is 0.8 yards over his career average. Fewest interception rate in his career.

All in all ... wait for it ... Alex Smith had his best year in his career. By a lot. Simple regression to the mean based on nothing else changing would expect that to come down. A whole new team and teammates? That's asking a lot.

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

You’re obviously ignoring turnovers too. If you factor that into the mix, Alex is a better QB overall. Alex had 14 less turnovers than Kirk last year which adds to the reasons why the Chiefs had more wins than the Redskins other than their running game and better health with their pro bowl TE.

Here's your context that got you so upset.

Let me highlight that again: "Alex had 14 less turnovers than Kirk last year" (fair point) "which adds to the reasons why the Chiefs had more wins than the Redskins" (as MKnight has pointed out, wins are a team stat) "other than their running game and better health with their pro bowl TE." (only a minor thing, right?).

Oh yeah, and it COMPLETELY ignores the M*A*S*H* unit the Redskins were trotting out as an offensive line in front of Cousins last season.

But don't let that get in the way of your righteous dudgeon. (let me edumacate you all)

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

Presures and hits on Qbs do matter because they can force the QBs into turnovers or mistakes.

Note the use of the conditional in your own sentence.

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

If a QB is hit and pressured a lot he may get gun shy which can also lead to mistakes if the QB is afraid of getting hit

Again, a conditional. Also, unless the offense is running without a line, there's some other factors involved (see my previous comment about the quality of the offensive line in front of Kirk last season who coincidentally had the worst season of his career)

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

So, if a QB is pressured and throws an int, that’s a negative play.

The interception is the negative play.

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

If a qb is hit and fumbles,  that’s a negative play.

1. You just changed from a pressure to a hit.
2. You just changed from a hit to a strip. Again, in this case, the fumble is the negative play.

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

If a qb is hit or pressured and has to get rid of the ball quicker than he wanted to and it causes an incompletion that’s a negative play.

And unlike the two previous cases, this one is nowhere near as bad for the offense. In most cases, teams would prefer that the quarterback get rid of the ball, hence why it's considered a good thing when a quarterback heaves the ball to his coach on the sidelines.

This last one is not like the other two.

Yes, pressures and hits can lead to these mistakes and to cause the opposing team to tense up/become more conservative in their play calling. But it does not necessarily follow that they will.

 

So, is that enough context for you?