The current standard for top quarterbacks:

[blizofoz45]

Looking at the numbers these days and the discussion of the worth and value of some quarterbacks, I decided there needs to be a new standard for being a top dollar QB.

It used to be a 2 to 1 TD to INT ratio put you in the "good" category.  Top 10.  That's 24 TDs to 12 INTs for example.

That's no longer the case.  It's more like a 5 to 1 TD to INT ratio.  Once you get into that ratio there's only 5 or 6 truly top quarterbacks worth the money and everybody is middling or below average.

TD   INT Lamar Jackson              36   6 Russell Wilson               31   5 Drew Brees                     27   4 Patrick Mahomes          26   5 Aaron Rodgers               26   4   Four of those five QBs have won a super bowl and I don't think that's a coincidence.  There's alot of discussion of whether certain quarterbacks are worth franchise money (Dak) and I think this is a good starting point in the current ruleset of the NFL.  I don't need to be reminded that QBs have won the superbowl off the back of lesser seasons.  I'm just establishing a baseline for the very best players and determining the value of their contributions.

[dtait93]

So theoretically, a QB that threw 40 TD and 10 INT wouldn’t be considered a top QB by your standard?

[blizofoz45]

4 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

So theoretically, a QB that threw 40 TD and 10 INT wouldn’t be considered a top QB by your standard?

That's like the inverse of when a halfback throws a touchdown and has a perfect passer rating on the season.  He doesn't get listed with the top quarterbacks and people are smart enough to understand why.

A 4 to 1 ratio on 24 TDs is different from 40 TDs to only 10 INTs.

So in that case I'd give said theoretical QB a pass and call them elite.

[dtait93]

1 minute ago, blizofoz45 said:

That's like the inverse of when a halfback throws a touchdown and has a perfect passer rating on the season.  He doesn't get listed with the top quarterbacks and people are smart enough to understand why.

A 4 to 1 ratio on 24 TDs is different from 40 TDs to only 10 INTs.

So in that case I'd give said theoretical QB a pass and call them elite.

A 24/6 ratio is nearly equal to Rodgers 26/4 and Mahomies 26/5

[diamondbull424]

41 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

A 24/6 ratio is nearly equal to Rodgers 26/4 and Mahomies 26/5

I think the point isn’t that you take these seasons as a stand-alone. More likely if a QB can consistently place himself around the 5-1 mark than it makes them “elite”. Just like back in the day one 4000 yd season from Dante Culpepper didn’t suddenly make him elite, but if over a few seasons that’s his output, he’s “comfortably” an “elite” QB.

I agree with that standard. It makes a lot of sense. For some time I’ve been starting to think with the varying differences in offenses and how much one team passes vs another runs... TDs were the great equalizer. One caveat might however be that with the possibility for more mobile QBs overall TDs to Turnover ratio (fumbles lost/Int) might be a better indicator. But this is similar.

[Hukos]

TD to INT ratio is about as useful as a statistic as "x RB is 12-0 when he gets 30+ carries". It's entirely based on game scripts. All TD/INT ratio shows is how good the team is, and nothing more.

The sooner people stop using it as a standard, the better. It doesn't provide any useful information that you couldn't gleam from the record of the team the QB is on.

[Drained]

13 minutes ago, Hukos said:

TD to INT ratio is about as useful as a statistic as "x RB is 12-0 when he gets 30+ carries". It's entirely based on game scripts. All TD/INT ratio shows is how good the team is, and nothing more.

The sooner people stop using it as a standard, the better. It doesn't provide any useful information that you couldn't gleam from the record of the team the QB is on.

agreed, the only thing it tells us is how good a QB is at reading defenses, if you saw Jameis' TD to INT ratio you'd think "wow, he's never had a good game this season, huh"

[Hukos]

6 minutes ago, Drained said:

agreed, the only thing it tells us is how good a QB is at reading defenses, if you saw Jameis' TD to INT ratio you'd think "wow, he's never had a good game this season, huh"

I mean, is it more impressive for a QB to thread the needle in double coverage and hits a WR between the corner and safety 50+ yards downfield, while the next play the RB takes the easy 1 yard touchdown - or is it more impressive that the QB does a playaction rollout on the 2 yard line and finds a tight end wide open that's uncovered?

When you're losing you're also going to throw more interceptions. When the opposing team is up 2-3+ touchdowns, and they're milking 5+ minutes every possession, you don't have time to screw around with easy checkdowns, you need to score and score quickly. Which is usually going to snowball into some interceptions. Teams that score early and run a lot to end the game will of course, have fewer interceptions. They just don't need to put the ball in the air as much. Teams with bad defenses will be losing more, so you can ever have QBs that are potentially playing at an elite level have more interceptions because they're taking riskier throws.

This is the kind of nuance that TD/INT ratio fails to capture.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Hukos

[Matts4313]

First of all, I strongly disagree that TD:INT was ever "the" stat for judging good QBs. And I dont think it ever will be.

Secondly, Wilson has only hit your 5 ratio 2 in 8 years. Or 25% of the time. Dak (your call out, not mine) has hit it 1 in 4 years. 25%. 

So is your hypothesis that Dak is equally as deserving as Wilson of the highest paid contract in the NFL? 

 

Aarod (low ints) and Mahomes (very high TDs) are freak examples. No one is like them. But:

Jackson has done it 50% of the time

Brees has done it 11% of the time

Brady has done it 25% of the time

Peyton did it 5% of the time

 

See the problem here?

[blizofoz45]

11 minutes ago, Hukos said:

TD to INT ratio is about as useful as a statistic as "x RB is 12-0 when he gets 30+ carries". It's entirely based on game scripts. All TD/INT ratio shows is how good the team is, and nothing more.

The sooner people stop using it as a standard, the better. It doesn't provide any useful information that you couldn't gleam from the record of the team the QB is on.

The idea is to peel away as many stats as possible and just grade a QB individually and isolate on how well he passes the ball for points vs. turning it over.  It's tough because it eliminates guys who have multiple rings like Brady and Roflburger, players who have obviously benefited from a strong supporting cast.

That's good news for the rest of the league because it shows you can build and coach a championship team around a QB who didn't have a stellar season.  

But it also means you need to leave plenty of room in the cap for that supporting cast, which is a major factor in deciding what a QB's worth to your franchise in dollars.

 

[Hukos]

1 minute ago, blizofoz45 said:

The idea is to peel away as many stats as possible and just grade a QB individually and isolate on how well he passes the ball for points vs. turning it over. 

Then you're basically asking which QBs have good defenses and which ones don't. If you go full Alex Smith while down 3 touchdowns, you're going to lose 99% of the time.

[Matts4313]

1 hour ago, blizofoz45 said:

There's alot of discussion of whether certain quarterbacks are worth franchise money (Dak) and I think this is a good starting point in the current ruleset of the NFL.

Additionally, just because you called him out:

Goff has never done it

Wentz has never done it (THOUGH SUPERBOWL CHAMP NICK FOLES HAS)

Luck never did it

Big Ben hasnt done it

Matt Ryan has done it 17% of the time

 

I could keep going; but what you are doing is living in the moment friend. 5 TD:INT ratio seasons are flukey. That will never ever be the standard. 

[Matts4313]

11 minutes ago, Hukos said:

I mean, is it more impressive for a QB to thread the needle in double coverage and hits a WR between the corner and safety 50+ yards downfield, while the next play the RB takes the easy 1 yard touchdown - or is it more impressive that the QB does a playaction rollout on the 2 yard line and finds a tight end wide open that's uncovered?

When you're losing you're also going to throw more interceptions. When the opposing team is up 2-3+ touchdowns, and they're milking 5+ minutes every possession, you don't have time to screw around with easy checkdowns, you need to score and score quickly. Which is usually going to snowball into some interceptions. Teams that score early and run a lot to end the game will of course, have fewer interceptions. They just don't need to put the ball in the air as much. Teams with bad defenses will be losing more, so you can ever have QBs that are potentially playing at an elite level have more interceptions because they're taking riskier throws.

This is the kind of nuance that TD/INT ratio fails to capture.

And it excludes things like INTs that are the WRs fault, hail marys, down and distance, etc. You are spot on here. 

[Hukos]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

And it excludes things like INTs that are the WRs fault, hail marys, down and distance, etc. You are spot on here. 

Going by this dude's standards, Drew Brees was almost never an elite QB even though he was carrying some GARBAGE defenses on his back, which forced him into riskier throws that resulted in more interceptions than guys like Rodgers or Brady or Manning did. They should have just gotten rid of that bum a long time ago.

The whole point of a statistic is to either be descriptive or predictive. It needs to show us important information on how that player played (descriptive), or it needs to be a useful indicator for future success (predictive). TD/INT ratio does neither.

[dtait93]

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

I think the point isn’t that you take these seasons as a stand-alone. More likely if a QB can consistently place himself around the 5-1 mark than it makes them “elite”. Just like back in the day one 4000 yd season from Dante Culpepper didn’t suddenly make him elite, but if over a few seasons that’s his output, he’s “comfortably” an “elite” QB.

I agree with that standard. It makes a lot of sense. For some time I’ve been starting to think with the varying differences in offenses and how much one team passes vs another runs... TDs were the great equalizer. One caveat might however be that with the possibility for more mobile QBs overall TDs to Turnover ratio (fumbles lost/Int) might be a better indicator. But this is similar.

I was just trying to figure out where he drew the line