QB statistical analysis for week 7

[caradoc]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6090840

by Football Outsiders

[caradoc]

Vick Stats and note:
Rk    Player    Team    CP/AT    YDS    TD    INT    Total DPAR    Pass DPAR    Rush DPAR
7.    Michael Vick    ATL    18/30    232    4    2    8.0    6.0    2.0
Remember that Vick has one of these games every year, where he seems to be making a dramatic leap forward as a passer. Two years ago, it was Week 8, when Vick went 18-for-24 against Denver. Last year, he had two of these games, against Miami in Week 9 and Tampa Bay in Week 11. Each time, the improvements did not hold up over the rest of the season. Will this year be different?

[caradoc]

Ooh and this is interesting on Joey (stats/ranking wk 7 only):
Least valuable wide receiver or tight end
Rk    Player    Team    REC    ATT    YDS    AVG    TD    Total DPAR
1.    Joey Galloway    TB    0    6    0    0    0    -3.5
While both quarterbacks and receivers deserve blame for incomplete passes, I'm guessing that Galloway's struggles this year have less to do with him and more to do with bad passing. He caught 55 percent of intended passes in 2005, but he's caught just 38 percent of intended passes in 2006. There's been no change with the switch from Simms to Gradkowski.
Other notable performances: Ernest Wilford (2-of-6, 26 yards, one fumble, -3.4 DPAR); Chris Chambers (2-of-9, 29 yards, 3.0 DPAR).

[Boid Fink]

Ooh and this is interesting on Joey (stats/ranking wk 7 only):
Least valuable wide receiver or tight end
Rk    Player    Team    REC    ATT    YDS    AVG    TD    Total DPAR
1.    Joey Galloway    TB    0    6    0    0    0    -3.5
While both quarterbacks and receivers deserve blame for incomplete passes, I'm guessing that Galloway's struggles this year have less to do with him and more to do with bad passing. He caught 55 percent of intended passes in 2005, but he's caught just 38 percent of intended passes in 2006. There's been no change with the switch from Simms to Gradkowski.
Other notable performances: Ernest Wilford (2-of-6, 26 yards, one fumble, -3.4 DPAR); Chris Chambers (2-of-9, 29 yards, 3.0 DPAR).

Yeah, Gradkowski has a much better deep ball than Chris. [banghead]

[caradoc]

what part of "There's been no change with the switch from Simms to Gradkowski." gave you the idea they were pimpin' Bruce's arm?  They're saying that overall this year there hasn't been much of a difference in Joey's receptions from EITHER QB.

[LA BUC]

Hands are the first to go

[Boid Fink]

what part of "There's been no change with the switch from Simms to Gradkowski." gave you the idea they were pimpin' Bruce's arm? They're saying that overall this year there hasn't been much of a difference in Joey's receptions from EITHER QB.

Bruce has reduced Joeys role in this offense, IMO.  And yeah, I did not know who was saying what in your post. Was it you, or the author?  You know?  But thanks for clarification, I get it now. 

AS for no change in QBs, that can be a misconstrued statement.  JG got along well with Simms(in terms of football), and actually thrived with him at the helm.   

[caradoc]

But there's no difference this year statisticly. 
I agree that the role has changed/will change, Brice spreads it more, but the thrown to/caught ratio is apparently the same

[Boid Fink]

But there's no difference this year statisticly.
I agree that the role has changed/will change, Brice spreads it more, but the thrown to/caught ratio is apparently the same

A different ball, thrown to a different place on the field makes a huge difference man.  Joey is designed to make defenses pay with his wheels.  He is not a posession guy.  He probably is getting the dropsies because he is worried about getting popped on the short routes.  Not to be excused, but it changes the mindset for sure.

[OpTiOnMaStA]

In fantasy ball he has really screwed me this year. He wasn't good when Simms was the QB, either.

It isn't Galloway though - he gets open and doesn't really drop the ball. It has been both QBs who haven't really got the ball to him as much as they could have and should have.