Lamar vs Flacco

[sammymvpknight]

Honestly...it doesn’t matter. The Ravens will win some games in spite of their QB because their defense is pretty good. They’ll probably make the playoffs and be a quick out

[wackywabbit]

23 minutes ago, sammymvpknight said:

Honestly...it doesn’t matter. The Ravens will win some games in spite of their QB because their defense is pretty good. They’ll probably make the playoffs and be a quick out

Yea, they probably won't win the Super Bowl so nothing matters.

[wackywabbit]

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

It isn't like Flacco is a top 15 QB in fact he is 29th in rating at 84.2 this year. Jackson is well below that but brings offense with his legs. 

I'm waiting for the NFL community to move past passer rating, like when we realized yards per game is a garbage way to rank offenses. The Ravens offense (on the whole season) is 10th in yards per drive, 13th in points per drive, 11th in offense drive success rate, 17th in turnovers per drive and 9th in time of possession per drive. That means the offense is.... fine. Maybe, slightly above average.

src: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

The Ravens running backs were super-inefficient, before Lamar stepped in. Bottom 5 in efficiency. So, most of what was good/working about the offense is what goes through or benefits from the QB. So them being 28th as a team in passer rating tells me, that the passer rating doesn't represent the QB play very well. People should know by know that if you want a good passer rating, you can just throw short completions on 3rd and long.

[Ragnarok]

This will probably be unpopular, but I would put Flacco back in.  Lamar got some great experience, but obviously has a long way to go and is running more than you want.  Putting Flacco back in will give Lamar a chance to step back, really study what he did well and needs to work on, and focus on his mechanics.  

He won't be able really work on those mechanics while he is focused on starting.  Long term v short term.

Of course, that won't happen while they are winning because Harbaugh wants to keep his job.  

[Thomas5737]

28 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

I'm waiting for the NFL community to move past passer rating, like when we realized yards per game is a garbage way to rank offenses. The Ravens offense (on the whole season) is 10th in yards per drive, 13th in points per drive, 11th in offense drive success rate, 17th in turnovers per drive and 9th in time of possession per drive. That means the offense is.... fine. Maybe, slightly above average.

src: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

The Ravens running backs were super-inefficient, before Lamar stepped in. Bottom 5 in efficiency. So, most of what was good/working about the offense is what goes through or benefits from the QB. So them being 28th as a team in passer rating tells me, that the passer rating doesn't represent the QB play very well. People should know by know that if you want a good passer rating, you can just throw short completions on 3rd and long.

It's not perfect, TDs are probably valued too high. If you pass to the 1 and run it in it isn't really any  different than throwing it in but you will see a difference in your rating. It doesn't account for fumbles by the QB (QBR does but that one is really dumb). However, the top 5 in rating, Mahomes, Brees, Goff, Wilson and Rivers aren't there because they throw a 2 yard pass on 3rd and long, lets not be silly. Bortles, Beathard, Darnold, Rosen and Allen aren't at the bottom because of something that can't be calculated. 95% of the time it is accurate on how effective a QB has been throwing the ball. Maybe not over 1 game or 3 games but over several the things not accounted for or are weighed too heavily usually even out.

How would you like to judge QB play? Watch every game and account for every play personally? We don't have time for that. The great QBs all have great ratings. The terrible QBs all have terrible ratings.

[wackywabbit]

22 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

It's not perfect, TDs are probably valued too high. If you pass to the 1 and run it in it isn't really any  different than throwing it in but you will see a difference in your rating. It doesn't account for fumbles by the QB (QBR does but that one is really dumb). However, the top 5 in rating, Mahomes, Brees, Goff, Wilson and Rivers aren't there because they throw a 2 yard pass on 3rd and long, lets not be silly. Bortles, Beathard, Darnold, Rosen and Allen aren't at the bottom because of something that can't be calculated. 95% of the time it is accurate on how effective a QB has been throwing the ball. Maybe not over 1 game or 3 games but over several the things not accounted for or are weighed too heavily usually even out.

How would you like to judge QB play? Watch every game and account for every play personally? We don't have time for that. The great QBs all have great ratings. The terrible QBs all have terrible ratings.

QB play only matters in impacting how effective his offense is. There are only 3 things that matter for an offense:

1. How many points you get PER opportunity (aka drive)

2. How many yards you get per drive (to push field position)

3. How often you turn the ball over per drive (and make it easier for the opposing offense to score)

If you want to get fancy, find a way to account for kneel-down drives (not enough time/game already decided) or factor in how "costly" a turnover is (i.e. a deep interception is better than a fumble that gets taken back).

Basically, the stats I listed in my post are how I would judge QB play. No, I don't think there is a benefit to further isolating it to the QB with passer rating or similar stats; QBs, unlike any other position, are important enough to their unit that it's just about offensive success whether they are doing a good job or not. And no, I am not cherry picking those stats because they make the Ravens offense look more favorable, as I've posted 100+ times about how drive stats are all I care about.

[Thomas5737]

27 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

QB play only matters in impacting how effective his offense is. There are only 3 things that matter for an offense:

1. How many points you get PER opportunity (aka drive)

2. How many yards you get per drive (to push field position)

3. How often you turn the ball over per drive (and make it easier for the opposing offense to score)

If you want to get fancy, find a way to account for kneel-down drives (not enough time/game already decided) or factor in how "costly" a turnover is (i.e. a deep interception is better than a fumble that gets taken back).

Basically, the stats I listed in my post are how I would judge QB play. No, I don't think there is a benefit to further isolating it to the QB with passer rating or similar stats; QBs, unlike any other position, are important enough to their unit that it's just about offensive success whether they are doing a good job or not. And no, I am not cherry picking those stats because they make the Ravens offense look more favorable, as I've posted 100+ times about how drive stats are all I care about.

So if you run every play and average 6 yards per carry and never turn the ball over and score at a high rate then you have yourself a great QB?

[wackywabbit]

5 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

So if you run every play and average 6 yards per carry and never turn the ball over and score at a high rate then you have yourself a great QB?

I'm not changing anything, that's for sure. 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

10 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

I'm waiting for the NFL community to move past passer rating, like when we realized yards per game is a garbage way to rank offenses. The Ravens offense (on the whole season) is 10th in yards per drive, 13th in points per drive, 11th in offense drive success rate, 17th in turnovers per drive and 9th in time of possession per drive. That means the offense is.... fine. Maybe, slightly above average.

src: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

The Ravens running backs were super-inefficient, before Lamar stepped in. Bottom 5 in efficiency. So, most of what was good/working about the offense is what goes through or benefits from the QB. So them being 28th as a team in passer rating tells me, that the passer rating doesn't represent the QB play very well. People should know by know that if you want a good passer rating, you can just throw short completions on 3rd and long.

Are these the stats of our offense as of now, or before Lamar took over?

[FinSting]

10 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

I'm waiting for the NFL community to move past passer rating, like when we realized yards per game is a garbage way to rank offenses.

It's just stats, so many ways to look at them. Like a team can be truly horrible in offense, but get that one important play that wins them a game. Or have a high passer rating yet lose the game. 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

8 minutes ago, FinSting said:

It's just stats, so many ways to look at them. Like a team can be truly horrible in offense, but get that one important play that wins them a game. Or have a high passer rating yet lose the game. 

Or in our current case, be a bad passing team but still be a much better offense AND have much better QB play than we did before with Flacco, who is a better passer.

[BleedTheClock]

I'd put Flacco in on the shortest of leashes. I don't think Lamar Jackson is ready to lead a Baltimore team into post-season play and do any damage yet. I'd play Flacco until you're out of contention or he slips up...like...at all. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

You roll with Lamar the rest of the way. Flacco's tenure in Baltimore has run its course. Lamar is certainly flawed but they are playing a style that gives them a chance every week. When you are that dominant in the run game and able to control the clock with a top level defense, you will be in there til the end. We kind of know what this team is with Flacco, don't know though if Lamar has another level he can get to this year. 

[childofpudding]

10 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

QB play only matters in impacting how effective his offense is. There are only 3 things that matter for an offense:

1. How many points you get PER opportunity (aka drive)

2. How many yards you get per drive (to push field position)

3. How often you turn the ball over per drive (and make it easier for the opposing offense to score)

If you want to get fancy, find a way to account for kneel-down drives (not enough time/game already decided) or factor in how "costly" a turnover is (i.e. a deep interception is better than a fumble that gets taken back).

Basically, the stats I listed in my post are how I would judge QB play. No, I don't think there is a benefit to further isolating it to the QB with passer rating or similar stats; QBs, unlike any other position, are important enough to their unit that it's just about offensive success whether they are doing a good job or not. And no, I am not cherry picking those stats because they make the Ravens offense look more favorable, as I've posted 100+ times about how drive stats are all I care about.

Right, but what leads most to more pts/drive and yds/drive? The highest correlation is with net yards per pass attempt (ie. yards per dropback) and adjusted net yards per pass attempt (ie. yards per dropback that accounts for passing TDs and INTs).

The main reason passer rating is flawed, as you alluded to, is because of completion percentage being built in. And it's actually built in twice, directly via the completion% factor, and also indirectly via the yards/attempt factor. Higher NY/A and ANY/A, both passing stats, are what most often leads to more yards per drive and more points per drive, which are the best way to measure the success of an offense.

[BleedTheClock]

On the stats debate, you can never speak in absolutes. Stats matter, but only so much and it really does vary depending on the situation. I've seen a ton of Lamar Jackson in his first few appearances as the starter and I can say that I haven't been impressed at all yet. He has poor ball placement and makes poor decisions. I've seen a few dropped interceptions, which also help his stats. He's very raw. I like Jackson a lot and think he'll be ok, but thus far, I would not say he's shown signs that he's going to be a stud QB. As a prospect he was extremely raw. And thus far in his NFL career, I'm seeing a lot of the same things. He's a nightmarish weapon, but I don't ever expect him to be a good passer. Serviceable maybe. But good? I don't ever see that happening.