Ultimate Manning-Favre-Winston Comparison

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1242542
    tog
    Participant

    Seeing as this pops up ever so often (and a lot this season), let’s do a true, contextual Manning and Favre comparison for Winston to end the discussion.

    What I did was pulled the rankings in various statistical categories for the 3 QBs. So where that season did the QB rank in INTs, TDs, etc. Low numbers are always good.

    *For injury or suspension shortened season, I extrapolated the relevant statistics and denoted those seasons with an asterisk. So if Winston threw 10 TDs in 10 games, I extrapolated that season to 16 TDs and put in that ranking.

    *DYAR is Football Outsiders’ DVOA but on a per play basis.

    *I also included Cutler because… well you can see why.

    *Winston’s numbers are completely incomparable to Favre and Mannings. The only other argument is that somehow the team influenced these statistics. Those arguments have been refuted numerous times (for example, a bad defense often inflates QB stats). But even then, Manning over these 5 years probably had a worse defense and run game than the Bucs.

    If its not readable, let me know.

    maning-winston-favre

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...

    #1242549
    tatmanfish
    Participant

    Id call the defenses between the two close to a wash.

    Bucs defensive rankings per FO efficiency ratings-

    2015- 26th pass 9th rush

    2016- 6th pass 26th rush

    2017- 31st pass 19th rush

    2018- 30th pass 31st rush

    2019- 19th pass  1st rush

     

    Colts defensive rankings

     

    1998- 28th pass 28th rush

    1999- 23rd pass 24th rush

    2000- 20th pass 22nd rush

    2001- 26th pass 31st rush

    2002- 14th pass 19th rush

     

    Run game efficiency per FO-

     

    Bucs rushing efficency-

    2015- 11th rush

    2016- 30th rush

    2017- 25th rush

    2018- 24th rush

    2019- 23rd rush

     

    Colts rushing efficiency-

    1998- 24th rush

    1999- 18th rush

    2000- 4th rush

    2001- 11th rush

    2002- 25th rush

     

    So indy had a slightly better rushing attack over the same first 5 years.

    Based off thier efficiency ratings, Manning had a slightly better team at their disposal. Not arguing for or against your point, simply statin those numbers were easy to fin and dont exactly match your narrative of manning have a worse team around him.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242550
    SunnyD
    Participant

    <p style=”text-align: left;”>Hate ANY/A</p>
    Penalizes QBs for bad OL play.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242567
    tog
    Participant

    Based off thier efficiency ratings, Manning had a slightly better team at their disposal. Not arguing for or against your point, simply statin those numbers were easy to fin and dont exactly match your narrative of manning have a worse team around him.

    That’s why I said “probably” – I haven’t studied Mannings teams in depth enough. I did a quick look over DVOA and point/yardage totals. But I’m happy to accept the argument that Mannings team was slightly better. I don’t think it changes my argument one bit.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242571
    tog
    Participant

    <p style=”text-align: left;”>Hate ANY/A</p>
    Penalizes QBs for bad OL play.
    ————————————

    I could substitute in AY/A or whatever. You can even just ignore that column, doesn’t really matter.

    I prefer ANY/A because “sacks are first a QB stat”. Taking sacks is more on the QB than the OL.

    A great example is actually the Colts, who went from being ranked 3-1-1 2008-10 in sacks/per pass attempt to 14th when Manning left.

    Initial discussion here, but there’s a lot more evidence online. FO, ESPN and a lot of other places have written about it: http://www.thebiglead. com/2018/10/19/sacks-are-a-quarterback-stat/

    If you ignore sacks as well, you have an opposite problem. Vertical offensive QBs will be over-represented because the risk-reward of going vertical is ignored. That is, you’re rewarded for throwing deep but not penalized for the increased sacks that type of offense takes.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242605
    SunnyD
    Participant

    I don’t think you should ignore sacks completely but I also don’t think you should hold every single sack against the QB like ANY/A does.

    Ideally, you have an entity like PFF assess every single sack a QB takes and omit the sacks where the responsible OLineman gets a negative grade from the ANY/A calculation. It’s possible Winston would still not grade out well, I don’t know, but I do know he has played behind some really crummy offensive lineman.

    I also think Y/A adds context to some of the INT numbers. Wentz has only thrown 7 INTs this year but I don’t think he is playing better than Jameis and that is evident when you compare their Y/A. Winston pushes the ball down field at a higher rate than Favre and Cutler did in their careers.

    I think comparisons between Favre and Jameis are pretty thin regardless of what side of the aisle you are on because Favre played so much of his career in a very different era of NFL football.

    I personally think a lot of the animosity towards Jameis is a product of the QB class of the last decade or so. I can’t remember another time when there were so many HOF and borderline HOF QBs playing at once (Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Roethlisberger, Warner, Rivers, Romo etc). I think there is this group think amongst the media and the public that if a QB isn’t throwing 38 TDs to 8 INTs said QB = bad because they have been watching so many QBs play at that elite level the past 10-12 years. Jameis doesn’t fit that mold. He is one of the most unique QBs ever (he may become the 8th passer in NFL history to throw for 5,000 yards in the same year he throws 30+ INTs). I’m in favor of giving Jameis another year. There is an argument to be made that Jameis played well enough for this team to have 7-8 wins right now and either special teams or defense cost them the win. The one year of Jameis’ career in which this team had an average defense they won 9 games. I’d like to see what this team can do with Jameis in year two of the Bowles era before we blow it up and roll the dice on a QB that may very well end up being worse than Winston.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242623
    kenntak
    Participant

    @tog I have been posting similar stuff and saying the same thing, but you did a much better job with the stats and analysis. Thanks for all of that work. I hope now, maybe those absurd comparisons will finally stop

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242637
    Graham
    Participant

    I appreciate the work.  I’ve made the comparison to Favre as I had the pleasure of watching him play through his prime.  The style similarities between the two players rings true to me.  This is certainly a more accurate way of comparing QBs than just the “eye test.”

    This comparison table also points out what we all know to be true about Jameis.  He can throw the Hell out of a football and he makes plays, but that ability is negated by his propensity to turn the football over.  Which, ultimately, makes him about an average NFL QB from an analytics perspective.

    Jameis has shown that he does do enough to win in spite of the turnovers when other facets of the team show up.  I, personally, would rather gamble on the light coming on for a 25 year old player with Winston’s arm talent more than I want to start over with an  unknown rookie. If that light comes on AND those other facets show up?  Then we’re in business.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242640
    GIJoeWasThere
    Participant

    11 Winston goobers with the downvote.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242646
    VirgilCaine
    Participant

    How does Winston compare to Brad Johnson? Obviously we do not have the defense, but if you believe our run game and defense should improve over the next few years …do we need Winston to be Favre or Manning?

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242661
    creamsicles
    Participant

    There’s more than one way to build a team, but I think above average QB play is my preferred route… and fwiw, my fading memory believes Johnson was above average that year and excellent with a clean pocket.  FSU QBs are the Bucs’ path to the super bowl… lol.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242662
    Nobody
    Participant

    I don’t think “do we need Jameis to be <insert play-making QB> or can he just be <insert game-manager>” is on the table.

    Play-making, aggression, boldness is absolutely a fundamental, intractable part of his DNA.

    The only two questions with Jameis are:

    1) “Can his (often too much) bold aggression be tempered to a minor degree such that a new and reduced propensity (and related cost) for turnovers is outdone by his successful playmaking aggression?”

    2) “Can this model of QB play be consistent? (eg smooth data from game to game when it comes to Turnovers and Playmaking vs abrupt spikes)”

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242663
    Nobody
    Participant

    The problem with 2 is that “spikey play” is literally the death-knell of a playoff run. You can be great for the Wild Card game and the Divisionsl game…but you then put up 3-4 Turnovers from the QB position in the Conference Game?

    Toast.

    You need to know, for sure, that your QB can reliably put up a smooth, winning dataset worth of play in a 4 game series against difficult competition. If that isn’t in the cards…you aren’t competing for a Super Bowl.

    If you aren’t competing for a Super Bowl…what’s the point?

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242668
    SunnyD
    Participant

    I think even bad QBs can put together a 4 game run of great play to win a SB.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #1242669
    Nobody
    Participant

    I agree that they can (meaning it’s possible).

    But they can’t be relied upon to do it (which is the work the qualifier “reliably” was meant to do there).

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.