![]() This is somewhat puzzling given that Carr ran a faster 40 and had a higher vertical leap at the combine than Prescott, so he’s not exactly at an athletic disadvantage. Carr gained 5 first downs (0 TDs) on 38 rushing attempts (13% of rushes for 1st downs), while Prescott gained 21 first downs (6 TDs) on 57 rushing attempts (37%). In terms of expected points added through the ground, Prescott was #3 in the NFL and Carr was dead last out of 30 qualified QBs. One of the most frustrating things about popular discourse surrounding quarterbacks is the complete disregard of a QB’s rushing value. This is one of the advantages of a statistic like QBR, where a QB is rewarded for the plays he makes (including those with his legs) rather than how he looks doing it. Is this a reason to discount the mobile QB? No! Yards, first downs, and touchdowns gained by taking advantage of a QB’s mobility count just the same as plays from the pocket. Does this make some of the mobile QB’s throws easier? Yes. In fact, in my recent study of offensive line play, the Raiders appear to be better at pass protection than the Cowboys.īefore I get shouted down by the “WATCH THE GAMES!!!” crowd:ĭak Prescott is only good because of Elliot and his offensive line /vG1NneiZPD- Ben B July 14, 2017Ī mobile QB opens up a lot of plays and puts extra stress on the defense that QBs who are not rushing threats simply cannot. We can’t even point to Prescott enjoying the benefits of Dallas’ excellent offensive line as an advantage over Carr’s situation because the Raiders also have a great offensive line. ![]() In 2016, Prescott was better and younger, and going forward he carries a substantially smaller cap hit. Taking each player’s 2016 QBR at face value, a team headed by Carr would be expected to win about 62% of their games, compared to 82% for Prescott (and yes, QBR is predictive of team success - possibly more than any other measure of QB play). For example, QBR is scaled so that a player’s QBR represents expected win percentage based on QB play. The difference between the two in 2016 was enormous. In Derek Carr’s three seasons, he has never played better than in 2016, and Prescott’s 2016 rookie season was substantially more efficient than Carr’s 2016 (and no, it is not easier to be more efficient when throwing at a lower volume):ĭerek Carr and Dak Prescott in 2016 Statistic The film comes later in this piece, but before anyone accuses me of cherry-picking individual plays, statistics measure the result of every play of the season. This might look silly in a year if Carr improves as much as he did between 20.Why is this on a Seahawks website? (a) Because all of the bad arguments that were used against Wilson early in his career (e.g., he only looks good because of his teammates, he’s only efficient because he throws at low volume, the plays he creates with his legs outside of the pocket don’t count) that have proven to be bad arguments as Wilson has maintained a high level for five seasons are now being applied to Prescott and (b) Derek Carr is lame.However, I’d argue that none of these is the craziest omission, which is the inexplicable choice of Derek Carr over Dak Prescott. ![]() That’s right: these experts would rather have Carr for the next three years than players like Russell Wilson, Drew Brees, Andrew Luck, Ben Roethlisberger, and the last two MVP winners, Matt Ryan and Cam Newton. It was no surprise that Aaron Rodgers ranked #1, but following behind him at #2 was Derek Carr. One of the categories was quarterback, with teams ranked #1-32 based on their QB situation for the next three seasons. ![]() The best QBs to have for the next three seasonsĪ recent ESPN Insider article by their illustrious panel of experts ranked the 32 teams in terms of which NFL franchises are in the best shape for the next three seasons.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |