The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I never would have guessed that Brunell would have been in the top group of accurate passers in 2005, but he is.

KC Joyner, aka The Football Scientist, is a regular contributor to ESPN Insider.

Who was the NFL's most accurate passer in 2005? Whenever I bring up the issue of a quarterback's accuracy, I invariably receive a lot of feedback from readers wanting me to clarify what I mean.

An accurate pass can be described simply as a pass thrown within the receiver's catching frame -- the area where the receiver can reach out and get his hands on the ball. If the ball arrives within this frame, it is ruled an accurate pass. Otherwise, it is ruled an inaccurate pass.
Another question I am frequently asked is how do I account for passes thrown well over the head of a receiver, as well as passes thrown away or knocked down. I use a similar line of thinking to the catchable pass idea proposed in the TYPCA metric.

Any pass knocked down or thrown away is removed from the accuracy percentage calculations altogether. I also remove passes attempted when the quarterback is hit just as he throws the ball.

I do count intentional overthrows on deep passes as pass attempts, but they do not count as inaccurate passes. It is a subjective metric, but I use these rules to clarify the metric as much as possible.
I use a percentage basis to rank the quarterbacks, with the lowest inaccuracy percentage being the best. The following is a breakdown of the top five quarterbacks in this metric:

T4. Mark Brunell. Brunell's high accuracy percentage is even more impressive because he was very accurate at all depth levels. Brunell had the eighth-best deep pass accuracy percentage and also ranked in the top five in both the short- and medium-depth levels.

T4. Matt Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck had the same accuracy percentage as Brunell, but arrived at that number in a completely different way. Hasselbeck's medium and deep pass accuracy rates were average, but his short pass accuracy (91 percent) was phenomenal. The Seahawks' offensive improvement last year was mostly attributed to more consistent play from the receivers, but the quarterback certainly did his part.

T2. Brian Griese. Griese's accuracy metrics were unusual. He had the second-best short pass accuracy percentage, which is something you would expect from a quarterback in a Jon Gruden offense (Griese has since moved on to Chicago).

However, extremely accurate short-pass quarterbacks typically are not as accurate on deeper routes. Such was the case with Griese on medium passes, for which his percentage was merely average. But the odd part was that Griese ranked first in deep pass accuracy percentage. Even keeping in mind that he played in only six games last year, that is quite an accomplishment.

T2. Carson Palmer. Palmer's metrics indicate his passes get better the deeper he throws them. He ranked a mere 12th in short pass accuracy, but made up for it by placing in the top three in both medium and deep pass accuracy.

1. Marc Bulger. What makes this finding most amazing to me is that Bulger played in an offense that was one of the most vertically inclined in the entire league. Bulger had the fourth-highest percentage of deep passes and the sixth-highest percentage of medium passes, yet was still able to approach the 90 percent mark in the accuracy metric.

Bulger had the highest medium pass accuracy percentage, the third-best deep pass percentage, and the seventh-best short pass percentage. He is almost never mentioned as one of the top five quarterbacks in the NFL, but these metrics offer very convincing proof he belongs in that discussion.

As for where some of the other big-name quarterbacks ended up, here are the top 15 quarterbacks in this category:
1. Marc Bulger -- 10.2

2. Carson Palmer -- 11.2
2. Brian Griese -- 11.2
4. Matt Hasselbeck -- 11.8
4. Mark Brunell -- 11.8
6. Kelly Holcomb -- 12.3
7. Brad Johnson -- 12.5
8. Peyton Manning -- 12.6
9. Byron Leftwich -- 13.2
10. Drew Brees -- 13.8
11. Aaron Brooks -- 13.9
12. David Carr -- 14.0
13. Anthony Wright -- 14.4
14. Chris Simms -- 14.6
15. Steve McNair -- 15.0

Pretty interesting.

I thought if you gave Bledsoe time, he would pick you apart?
I don't see him on that list.

SkinsFanInHawai'i wrote:Pretty interesting.

I thought if you gave Bledsoe time, he would pick you apart?
I don't see him on that list.

That's because he never has any time!

This article smacks as the type where you decide the outcome and then write the article. I find it hard to believe that Brunell is #4.

The methodology is very subjective. It should also include factors such as 'touch' that affects catchability, timing of ball at the receiver, throwing when the receiver has no chance of completing the catch (ie, the DB is right there to hit at first touch), and so forth.

I can remember so many times last season wondering why did Brunell throw the ball away - or the pass so poorly that noone had a chance to catch it. It doen't help the O to go 4 and out - even if you don't turn over the ball.

Don't get me wrong, MB was not bad - but I don't think that he should be #4.

This year - perhaps. By having so many O weapons, that will open things up big time and then he'll have his choice of targets.

rick301 wrote:This article smacks as the type where you decide the outcome and then write the article. I find it hard to believe that Brunell is #4.

The methodology is very subjective. It should also include factors such as 'touch' that affects catchability, timing of ball at the receiver, throwing when the receiver has no chance of completing the catch (ie, the DB is right there to hit at first touch), and so forth.

I can remember so many times last season wondering why did Brunell throw the ball away - or the pass so poorly that noone had a chance to catch it. It doen't help the O to go 4 and out - even if you don't turn over the ball.

Don't get me wrong, MB was not bad - but I don't think that he should be #4.

This year - perhaps. By having so many O weapons, that will open things up big time and then he'll have his choice of targets.

He was extremely accurate last year. At one point he lead the league in TD-to-INT ratio.

rick301 wrote:This article smacks as the type where you decide the outcome and then write the article. I find it hard to believe that Brunell is #4.

The methodology is very subjective. It should also include factors such as 'touch' that affects catchability, timing of ball at the receiver, throwing when the receiver has no chance of completing the catch (ie, the DB is right there to hit at first touch), and so forth.

I can remember so many times last season wondering why did Brunell throw the ball away - or the pass so poorly that noone had a chance to catch it. It doen't help the O to go 4 and out - even if you don't turn over the ball.

Don't get me wrong, MB was not bad - but I don't think that he should be #4.

This year - perhaps. By having so many O weapons, that will open things up big time and then he'll have his choice of targets.

I can't agree with you. If he decided the outcome prior to writing the article, would he have put Brunell 4th? Brian Griese 2nd? Peyton Manning 8th? No, It would have gone Peyton #1, Favre #2, and Brady #3.

rick301 wrote:This article smacks as the type where you decide the outcome and then write the article. I find it hard to believe that Brunell is #4.

The methodology is very subjective. It should also include factors such as 'touch' that affects catchability, timing of ball at the receiver, throwing when the receiver has no chance of completing the catch (ie, the DB is right there to hit at first touch), and so forth.

I can remember so many times last season wondering why did Brunell throw the ball away - or the pass so poorly that noone had a chance to catch it. It doen't help the O to go 4 and out - even if you don't turn over the ball.

Don't get me wrong, MB was not bad - but I don't think that he should be #4.

This year - perhaps. By having so many O weapons, that will open things up big time and then he'll have his choice of targets.

I'm not certain at how you arrived at that conclusion that he knew the answers before posing the questions, the writer clearly stated his criteria and then listed the people who met said criteria. You might think his formula isn't a reliable measure of accuracy but he did take the time to establish a standard and then identified people who meet that standard.
I harken back to the Dallas game, the bombs to Moss were perfect.

Whatever can be said for this system, it can't pretend to measure a QB's effectiveness. Does anyone think that Brian Greise was the 2nd best QB in the league last yr?

yupchagee wrote:Whatever can be said for this system, it can't pretend to measure a QB's effectiveness. Does anyone think that Brian Greise was the 2nd best QB in the league last yr?

Yes, three people: Brian Greise and his parents

Fios wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Whatever can be said for this system, it can't pretend to measure a QB's effectiveness. Does anyone think that Brian Greise was the 2nd best QB in the league last yr?

Yes, three people: Brian Greise and his parents

How bad are you, when even your parents think you are 2nd best?

And he has been criticized all year too.

Fios wrote:I harken back to the Dallas game, the bombs to Moss were perfect.

Well those were just luck so they don't count right?

yupchagee wrote:Whatever can be said for this system, it can't pretend to measure a QB's effectiveness. Does anyone think that Brian Greise was the 2nd best QB in the league last yr?

Having fun with your straw man? This metric isn't supposed to determine who is the "best", but merely who is the most accurate. It isn't perfect (and highly subjective), but it is more useful that something like completion percentage.

Football isn't a game that can be easily summed up with numbers like baseball and to a lesser extent basketball. Any real strides that are going to be made in the field of football statistics are going to involve subjectivity.

And I do consider Brian Griese to be one of the more accurate quarterbacks in the NFL. Unfortunately for Bear fans, great accuracy alone does not make a great quarterback.

LOL, goodness Brunell is going to need to have a 100% completion rate for 2006 before any of you guys will give the guy his props. The man killed last year and I think this goes to show that the problem wasn't him falling apart at the end of the season but the lack of receivers and defenses exploiting that.

If no one else says it, GOOD JOB MARK. You led this offense till a new plateau. You aided in 3 Redskins under your command breaking all time records. You aided this offense in being good enough to compliment an already potent defense.

JSPB22 wrote:

Fios wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Whatever can be said for this system, it can't pretend to measure a QB's effectiveness. Does anyone think that Brian Greise was the 2nd best QB in the league last yr?

Yes, three people: Brian Greise and his parents

How bad are you, when even your parents think you are 2nd best?

Everyone is on Peyton's Bandwagon.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Whatever can be said for this system, it can't pretend to measure a QB's effectiveness. Does anyone think that Brian Greise was the 2nd best QB in the league last yr?

Having fun with your straw man? This metric isn't supposed to determine who is the "best", but merely who is the most accurate. It isn't perfect (and highly subjective), but it is more useful that something like completion percentage.

Football isn't a game that can be easily summed up with numbers like baseball and to a lesser extent basketball. Any real strides that are going to be made in the field of football statistics are going to involve subjectivity.

And I do consider Brian Griese to be one of the more accurate quarterbacks in the NFL. Unfortunately for Bear fans, great accuracy alone does not make a great quarterback.

So, do you think Greise was the 2nd most accurate QB last yr? My point is that this, like most contrived metrics are meaningless.

yupchagee wrote:My point is that this, like most contrived metrics are meaningless.

Are not all metrics contrived?

con·trive verb

1. To plan with cleverness or ingenuity; devise: contrive ways to amuse the children.
2. To invent or fabricate, especially by improvisation: contrived a swing from hanging vines.
3. To plan with evil intent; scheme: contrived a plot to seize power.
4. To bring about, as by scheming; manage: somehow contrived to get past the guards unnoticed.

yupchagee wrote:So, do you think Greise was the 2nd most accurate QB last yr?

I haven't watched every snap (like Joyner has), but Griese's best attribute by far is his accuracy, and you may remember he led the league in completion percentage in 2004. I'm suprised he finished second, but it doesn't shock me, and that result certainly doesn't lead me to dismiss the work.

yupchagee wrote:My point is that this, like most contrived metrics are meaningless.

Your point is wrong. Just because you don't agree with the results doesn't make it meaningless. Specifically, what is wrong with this metric that isn't also a problem in a statistic like completion percentage (and therefore quarterback rating)?

The metric isn't perfect, but it also isn't worthless.

On another note, I would love to see the career numbers for Patrick Ramsey. I'm sure they aren't accessible, so I guess I'm just wishing aloud.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

yupchagee wrote:So, do you think Greise was the 2nd most accurate QB last yr?

I haven't watched every snap (like Joyner has), but Griese's best attribute by far is his accuracy, and you may remember he led the league in completion percentage in 2004. I'm suprised he finished second, but it doesn't shock me, and that result certainly doesn't lead me to dismiss the work.

yupchagee wrote:My point is that this, like most contrived metrics are meaningless.

Your point is wrong. Just because you don't agree with the results doesn't make it meaningless. Specifically, what is wrong with this metric that isn't also a problem in a statistic like completion percentage (and therefore quarterback rating)?

The metric isn't perfect, but it also isn't worthless.

On another note, I would love to see the career numbers for Patrick Ramsey. I'm sure they aren't accessible, so I guess I'm just wishing aloud.

QB ratinf is also contrived. Completion % isn't, but certainly doesn't tell the whole story. No single # can.

yupchagee wrote:QB ratinf is also contrived. Completion % isn't, but certainly doesn't tell the whole story. No single # can.

No one ever said a single number could, and no one ever said Joyner's accuracy percentage was supposed to do that.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

yupchagee wrote:QB rating is also contrived. Completion % isn't, but certainly doesn't tell the whole story. No single # can.

No one ever said a single number could, and no one ever said Joyner's accuracy percentage was supposed to do that.

But does Joyners metric tell us anything about how good a QB is? Is it an improvement on other metrics already in common use (like QB rating)? I don't think so.

yupchagee wrote:But does Joyners metric tell us anything about how good a QB is? Is it an improvement on other metrics already in common use (like QB rating)?

It does and it is. This metric isn't perfect, but it does strip away some of the problems with completion percentage.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

yupchagee wrote:But does Joyners metric tell us anything about how good a QB is? Is it an improvement on other metrics already in common use (like QB rating)?

It does and it is. This metric isn't perfect, but it does strip away some of the problems with completion percentage.

Exactly what problems does it strip away?

This article has Marc Bulger at no.1 thats all I have to say.

yupchagee wrote:Exactly what problems does it strip away?

Really? It removes passes thrown away, passes batted down at the line of scrimmage and passes when the quarterback is hit as he throws. All three of which are included in completion percentage.

Furthermore, it tells us how often the quarterback actually gets the ball to the receiver, as opposed to how often the receiver catches the pass.

A big reason Peyton Manning ranks higher in completion percentage as opposed to accuracy percentage is because he has a great offensive line who don't allow a lot of pressure and great wide receivers who don't drop a lot of passes. That doesn't mean he isn't a great quarterback, just that he is blessed with talent around him.

Patrick Ramsey's completion percentage in 2003 was a miserable 53.1. But Redskins fans know he was getting killed by a brutal pass rush and had Rod Gardner as a wideout. Accuracy percentage wouldn't tell the whole story, but it would tell more of it.

John Manfreda wrote:This article has Marc Bulger at no.1 thats all I have to say.

Marc Bulger finished 2005 with a 66.9 completion percentage (4th in NFL) and a 94.4 quarterback rating (5th in NFL). I'd ask you to expand on your statement and perhaps explain why Marc Bulger debunks Joyner, but since you've already said all you have to say, I'll just assume it surprised you because the rankings didn't correspond with your fantasy cheat sheet.