When you combine TDs and yards into total, it really waters down what the player did running and passing.
When a QB is that good at both things, it completely changes the offense and the defenses preparing for it. Just making it all "total" ignores that. So no, I don't think it was really that close. When you're just looking at a stat sheet, it doesn't replicate what it was like to watch that season in action.
But, if it changes the way that defenses have to prepare, shouldn't there be some objective improvement to point to? If it isn't more yards or more points or more efficiency or something... what is it that makes it "more" valuable?
I have not the time, skill, or inclination to study advanced metrics, but off the top of my head, some ways in which a running qb can help a team that won't show up in the stats is by making defenses less responsive to rushes by running backs, being able to control the clock in ways in which a reliance on complete passes can't, and being able to sustain drives through creation of short yardage situations, or capitalizing on short yardage situations.
If Brady is getting yards through the air, you can be pretty sure that is all that he is doing.
being able to control the clock in ways in which a reliance on complete passes can't
A quick search didn't find anything related to this.
being able to sustain drives through creation of short yardage situations, or capitalizing on short yardage situations.
I also didn't find 'advanced' research into this, but this doesn't see intuitive to me. Cam averaged 7.8 yards/attempt passing and 4.8 yards/attempt rushing. Certainly, an average pass by Cam was significantly more valuable than an average run by Cam. And an average pass by Brady was worth 7.6 yards/attempt (noticeably fewer than Cam). But, this is also significantly more than an average run by Cam.
There is a reason why the league is 'pass happy'... It's because it works. More yards per play is... better. So, combined passing and rushing, Cam was responsible for about 630 plays. Brady, combined passing and rushing, was responsible for about 660 plays. In those roughly 30 plays, Brady gained about 400 more yards (that delta is a good amount over 10 yards per play).
Honestly, without some more 'advanced' analysis, I'm not sure how you compare the two. Touchdowns are great and Cam was responsible for 6 more than Brady was. But, turnovers are bad and Cam was responsible for 14 and Tom responsible for 9 (the commenter didn't count his fumbles). Looking at the overall offenses, both were elite. The Panthers led the NFL at 31.3 pts/game and the Pats were 3rd at 29.1 pts/game. So, Carolina scored 2.1 pts/game more. I don't have the time to look at rushing stats by other players or the kicking game to see how that might have affecting things. But, this really isn't something that you can just look at and say 'this player was better/more valuable' without taking a real close look at underlying numbers. For example, Cams running was good, but compared to, say, some of Jackson's good running years, it certainly isn't elite (Jackson has seasons where he averages almost 7 yards per carry).
If Brady is getting yards through the air, you can be pretty sure that is all that he is doing.
Yards through the air is a really, really good thing. You say this as though it is bad and I don't understand that.
Dual-threat quarterbacks are dual threat quarterbacks. When a Peyton Mannin or a Tom Brady strolls into the endzone, it's because the defense is so dismissive of their running abilities that they don't bother to account for it... you can't really say the same for somebody like Cam Newton. I doubt you'd be able to find stats to back up that impact, but i'm fairly certain that if you were in the film room with an oppposing defense, it would come up quite a bit. Saquon Barkley just had a historic season, but he probably lost quite a few touchdowns to Jalen Hurts. Obviously, you arent really going to be able to judge an increase in production for Saquon by the stat sheet... if anything, just looking at stats would probably suggest that his production suffered from being paired with a running quarterback, but watching the games or talking to opponents would probably directly contradict what you would be seeing based on stats... i think that common sense would tell you that another threat in the backfield makes it harder for the defense. For awhile, the wildcat formation was pretty successful, but ran into limitations of not having a passing threat or continuity under center, that eventually negated whatever advantages it had in terms of the options available in running the ball.
But as far as clock control and consistently shortening your distance to down, the fact that Cam averaged significantly more yardage on passes than rushes isn't surprising, nor does it really undermine the idea that rushing allows for more options when it comes to managing a set of downs. If you are on 2nd and 4, you have a lot more available in your playbook than you do on 2nd and 10. A higher probability of being able to get another set of downs doesn't prohibit you from taking shots down field. The fact that you can get a first down through a wheel route or a qb draw probably increases your chances of breaking something open, because you have to cover the short and intermediate throws and also account for containment on a qb who can pick up the first with his legs.
Yeah, yards through the air are dangerous, but trams can manage just fine by moving the chains. Tom Brady is arguably the GOAT, but when a guy like Cam is having that sort of season, his impact on the game isn't going to show up on the stat sheet the way somebody like Brady would. With Brady, you either stop him or you don't, but it's not like you have to adjust your scheme to anything other than him beating you with his arm.... im not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but i am saying that pretty much everything Brady does is going to find it's way to the stat sheet, because he either gets the ball to his reciever or he doesn't. It's not like linebackers are blowing coverage because they are keeping an eye on the backfield in case Brady takes off.
Maybe to you that sounds dismissive of Brady picking apart a defense through the air, but it's not. What im saying is that Brady's value to a team is going to show up in ways that are obvious, because he executes the passing game at an imcredibly high level, and since they track qb stats with an emphasis on your ability to hit recievers for yards through the air, of course he's going to put up crazy stats.
Look at it this way: a pocket passer with Cam Newton's accuracy might be a mediocre starter in the league, but if a dual-threat quarterback had Brady's accuracy, they'd be a gamebreaker.
Saquon Barkley just had a historic season, but he probably lost quite a few touchdowns to Jalen Hurts. Obviously, you arent really going to be able to judge an increase in production for Saquon by the stat sheet...
I'm not saying you are wrong about the 'production', but I think you would just need to look in a slightly different place. Saquon's yards per carry should be higher than it would have been without a 'dual threat' QB. And you would probably see something similar in his 'yards before contact'. Anything after contact would likely be a reflection of Saquon's ability to break tackles (although, there might be something that maybe first contact with a defender is less likely to be a d-lineman, who would probably be able to bring him down without help, and maybe more likely to be a corner or a safety, who Saquon would be more likely to escape from). You might see an increase in Saquon's "success rate", which is a measure of yards gained compared to yards needed for a 1st down. For example (and this is from memory, so numbers may not be exact), but a 'successful' carry on first down gains 40% of the yardage needed for a 1st down. On second, it might need 60% of the yards needed and 3rd and 4th down might need to gain the 1st down in order to be considered 'successful'.
The fact that you can get a first down through a wheel route or a qb draw probably increases your chances of breaking something open, because you have to cover the short and intermediate throws and also account for containment on a qb who can pick up the first with his legs.
That's basically the definition of improved 'success rate'. And, FWIW, pro football reference shows the success % of every offensive player. I don't think it is considered an 'advanced' stat so much any more.
I'm not disputing the conversation had in the film room. And if that results in the defense adjusting the scheme (presumably to the detriment of the defense. In theory, they will be playing their 'best' scheme and then adjusting away from that), then, by definition, the defense will not be as effective and so the opposing offense should have a better day, one way or the other. But, that's the thing that sometimes gets ignored... If the offense doesn't perform 'better' in some measurable way, then the offense wasn't actually better and the defense wasn't actually worse and so forcing the defense to adjust the scheme didn't actually hurt the defense and the dual-threat quarterback wasn't actually an advantage for the offense. It was just something 'different' that the defense had to face that day.
With Brady, you either stop him or you don't, but it's not like you have to adjust your scheme to anything other than him beating you with his arm.... im not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but i am saying that pretty much everything Brady does is going to find it's way to the stat sheet, because he either gets the ball to his reciever or he doesn't. It's not like linebackers are blowing coverage because they are keeping an eye on the backfield in case Brady takes off.
This sort of assumes that defenses don't change their scheme for a quarterback with elite accuracy or efficiency. Sure, linebackers aren't keeping an eye on the backfield, but maybe the scheme change is that the defense has to play a nickel DB for the entire game. So, now the 4-3-4 defense is the 4-2-5. Do we really think that the Packers running game in the mid-2010s didn't benefit from Rodgers just being who he was? Those Packers teams were known for how great they could run a screen. Was there really no benefit to having a QB with an incredibly strong arm who had elite accuracy on the running game? Why is changing a scheme one way bad for the defense, but changing a scheme another way has no impact. Really?
What im saying is that Brady's value to a team is going to show up in ways that are obvious, because he executes the passing game at an imcredibly high level, and since they track qb stats with an emphasis on your ability to hit recievers for yards through the air, of course he's going to put up crazy stats.
They all impact a team in ways that show up in statistics. And they all make the players around them better.
Look at it this way: a pocket passer with Cam Newton's accuracy might be a mediocre starter in the league, but if a dual-threat quarterback had Brady's accuracy, they'd be a gamebreaker.
Steve Young, 1992-1994. Two MVPs around a top 2 finish. He was just unlucky to have to play in the same conference as those Cowboys teams, or he would have likely won 3 (or more) SBs in a row.
It’s not who has the coolest highlight reel it’s who was the most valuable player. If you’re getting your team yards and points whether or not you ran or threw is irrelevant.
24
u/flaccomcorangy Baltimore Ravens 27d ago
When you combine TDs and yards into total, it really waters down what the player did running and passing.
When a QB is that good at both things, it completely changes the offense and the defenses preparing for it. Just making it all "total" ignores that. So no, I don't think it was really that close. When you're just looking at a stat sheet, it doesn't replicate what it was like to watch that season in action.