Some Clarification is in Order: Mid-Season Quarterback Changes

by Topher Doll on Oct 26, 2011 2:00 PM MDT in Some Clarification is in Order

So with Tebow's first start a big W now in the books, I wanted to get some perspective on mid-season quarterback changes in the NFL. When I set out to do this Some Clarification is in Order, I wasn't sure what to expect, for most of these studies I have a general idea of what I am going to find, with this one I didn't have the foggiest idea. So with no real idea what I'd find, I set out without a clear set of boundaries for my research, and that's always a bad idea.

Once I went back a number of years I started seeing patterns and was able to put together the post you will now read. Now a huge disclaimer, take this post how you will. I am not in favor of seeing Orton on the field again, and believe Tebow should finish the season out, no matter how he plays. So please, I am just laying out history here, take it any way you want, but I'm not here to say mid-season quarterback changes are good or bad, though I do have personal ideas based on history.

Let's get to it.

The Parameters:

I decided, after starting this research, I would only go back a decade. I do this because during the past ten years there have been 63 teams that have switched quarterbacks, so the sample size is large enough, and if I went back another decade, the post would be even longer, and since I know I can only keep attention for so long, the shorter the better. So let's look at this:

- Look at 2001 to 2010
- Exclude injury changes. I do this because this wasn't a choice by the team, rather it had more to do with fate than a choice. So Orton's benching this season would be included, but Orton's benching from last season wouldn't be included.
- Since a team may have an injury quarterback switch and then have the two backups may have switch, so on the table the total games shown in the record may no add up to 16.
- Quarterbacks who are injured, but don't start as soon as they get healthy but start due to the current starters poor play is included. Grossman's return and Orton's benching in 2005 would fit that bill.
- I will include the players records.
- After I list all the quarterback changes, I will list whether that change was good in the short term, i.e. the switch saw immediate improvement. The 2006 Tennessee Titans switch from an 0-3 Collins to an 8-3 Young would be considered good. The 2004 New York Giants switch from a 5-4 Warner to a 1-6 Eli Manning would be considered bad. There is also the option of no change, for example the change lead to no improvement. Now I took into consideration offensive rankings and statistics, so while those aren't shown because of spacing issues, my verdict isn't based purely on record. I will also take into account starting a rookie or young QB, or vice versa. So if a team switches from a vet to a younger player and sees no change, I would include that under good since the team is able to judge the younger player and saw no downturn in play. The opposite would be true, benching a younger player for a vet and seeing no change would be labeled bad.
- I will also give a judgement on whether the move was good in the long term. This is based on whether that quarterback change led to further quarterback controversy, Vince Young and Kerry Collins constantly flip flopping was bad long term. We used the switch from Warner to Eli Manning as an example as a bad short term switch, but was good long term. Now the third option here, and that is No Effect. This is when all the quarterbacks involved in the switch are either not starters next season or they are not on the team. Take the Anderson/Hall?Skelton switch of last season, since all three are either off the team or not likely to ever start, those changes had no effect long term since the Cardinals went with Kevin Kolb.

Now I know there is a lot there so take your time, I can wait...

The Table:

NOTE: Like all my posts, and most posts on Mile High Report, this is best viewed on the Wide Setting, so please go to the top right of the page and make the switch from narrow to wide, it does wonders.

Year	Team	Starting QB	Record	2nd QB	Record	3rd QB	Record	4th QB	Record	5th QB	Record	Short Term	Long Term
2010	Washington	McNabb	5-8	Grossman	1-2							Bad	No Effect
2010	Buffalo	Edwards	0-2	Fitzpatrick	4-9							Good	Good
2010	Tennessee	Young	3-2	Collins	1-0	Young	1-2	R. Smith	0-1	Collins	1-5	Bad	No Effect
2010	Carolina	Clausen	1-9	Moore	1-4	St. Pierre	0-1					No Change	No Effect
2010	Oakland	Campbell	1-1	Gradkowski	1-2	Campbell	4-1	Gradkowski	0-1	Campbell	2-1	Good	No Effect
2010	San Fran	A. Smith	1-6	T. Smith	3-2	A. Smith	2-2					Good	Good
2010	Arizona	Anderson	2-7	Hall	1-2	Skelton	2-2					No Change	No Effect
2009	Buffalo	Edwards	1-4	Fitzpatrick	4-5	Brohm	0-1	Fitzpatrick	1-0			Good	Good
2009	Tennessee	Collins	0-6	Young	5-1	Collins	1-0	Young	2-1			Good	Bad
2009	Cleveland	Quinn	0-3	Anderson	1-4	Quinn	2-4	Anderson	2-0			Good	No Effect
2009	Oakland	Russell	2-7	Gradkowski	2-2	Frye	1-2					Bad	No Effect
2009	Carolina	Delhomme	4-7	Moore	5-2							Good	No Effect
2009	Tampa Bay	Leftwich	0-2	Johnson	0-5	Freeman	3-6					Good	Good
2009	St. Louis	Bulger	0-2	Boller	0-3	Bulger	1-4	Boller	0-2	Null	0-4	Bad	No Effect
2009	San Fran	Hill	3-3	A. Smith	5-5							Good	Good
2008	Buffalo	Edwards	6-5	Losman	0-3	Edwards	1-1					Bad	Bad
2008	Cleveland	Anderson	3-5	Quinn	1-2	Anderson	0-1	Dorsey	0-3	Gradkowski	0-2	Bad	Bad
2008	Kansas City	Croyle	0-1	Thigpen	0-3	Huard	1-1	Croyle	0-1	Thigpen	1-9	Bad	No Effect
2008	Minnesota	Jackson	0-2	Frerotte	8-3							Good	No Effect
2008	Detroit	Kitna	0-4	Orlovsky	0-4	Culpepper	0-5	Orlovsky	0-3			No Change	No Effect
2008	San Fran	O'Sullivan	3-6	Hill	5-3							Good	No Effect
2007	Miami	Green	0-5	Lemon	0-5	Beck	0-4	Lemon	1-2			No Change	No Effect
2007	Buffalo	Losman	0-2	Edwards	3-2	Losman	2-2	Edwards	2-3			Bad	Bad
2007	Kansas City	Huard	4-5	Croyle	0-2	Huard	0-2	Croyle	0-3			Bad	Bad
2007	Oakland	J. McCown	0-2	Culpepper	2-3	J. McCown	0-2	Culpepper	1-2	McCown	1-3	Bad	No Effect
2007	Chicago	Grossman	1-2	Griese	3-3	Grossman	1-3	Orton	2-1			Good	Good
2007	Arizona	Leinart	1-2	Warner	7-6							Good	Good
2007	St. Louis	Bulger	0-4	Frerotte	1-2	Bulger	2-3	Berlin	0-1	Bulger	0-3	No Change	Bad
2007	Atlanta	Harrington	3-7	Leftwich	0-1	Harrington	0-2	Redman	1-2			No Change	No Effect
2007	San Fran	A. Smith	2-2	Dilfer	0-2	A. Smith	0-3	Dilfer	1-3	Hill	2-1	Good	Bad
2006	Tennessee	Collins	0-3	V. Young	8-3							Good	Good
2006	Jacksonville	Leftwich	3-3	Garrard	5-5							No Change	Good
2006	Cleveland	Frye	3-8	Anderson	0-3	Frye	0-2					Bad	Bad
2006	Miami	Culpepper	1-3	Harrington	5-6	Lemon	0-1					Bad	No Effect
2006	Oakland	Walter	2-5	Brooks	0-6	Walter	0-1					Bad	No Effect
2006	Denver	Plummer	7-4	Cutler	2-3							Bad	Good
2006	Dallas	Bledsoe	3-3	Romo	6-5							Good	Good
2006	Washington	Brunell	3-6	Campbell	2-5							No Change	Good
2006	Minnesota	Johnson	6-8	Jackson	0-2							Bad	Good
2006	Arizona	Warner	1-4	Leinart	4-7	Warner	0-1					No Change	Bad
2006	Tampa Bay	Gradkowski	3-8	Rattay	1-2							No Change	No Effect
2005	Buffalo	Losman	1-3	Holcomb	3-2							Good	No Effect
2005	Cleveland	Dilfer	4-7	Frye	2-3							No Change	No Effect
2005	Detroit	Harrington	4-7	Garcia	1-4							Bad	Bad
2005	Chicago	Orton	10-3	Grossman	2-1							No Change	No Effect
2005	New Orleans	Brooks	3-10	Bouman	0-3							Bad	No Effect
2005	San Fran	Seven		Quarterback		Changes						No Change	Bad
2004	Miami	Fiedler	0-1	Feeley	0-2	Fielder	1-5	Feely	3-3	Rosenfels	0-1	No Change	No Effect
2004	Cleveland	Garcia	3-7	McCown	0-4	Holocomb	1-1					Bad	No Effect
2004	New York Giants	Warner	5-4	E. Manning	1-6							Bad	Good
2004	Washington	Brunell	3-6	Ramsey	3-4							No Change	No Effect
2004	Chicago	J. Quinn	0-3	Krenzel	3-2	Hutchinson	1-4					No Change	No Effect
2003	Jacksonville	Brunell	0-3	Leftwich	5-8							Good	Good
2003	Cleveland	Holcomb	1-2	Couch	2-3	Holocomb	1-4	Couch	1-2			No Change	No Effect
2003	San Diego	Brees	2-9	Flutie	2-3							Good	Bad
2003	Chicago	Stewart	1-4	Chandler	3-3	Stewart	1-1					Good	No Effect
2003	Atlanta	D. Johnson	1-5	Kittner	1-3	D. Johnson	0-2	Vick	3-1			Good	Good
2002	Cincinnati	Frerotte	0-3	Akili Smith	0-1	Kitna	2-10					No Change	No Effect
2002	Pittsburgh	Stewart	1-2	Maddox	4-2-1	Stewart	2-0	Maddox	3-1			Good	No Effect
2002	Dallas	Carter	3-4	Hutchinson	2-7							Bad	Bad
2002	Washington	Matthews	1-2	Ramsey	1-2	Matthews	2-2	Wuerffel	1-2	Ramsey	2-1	No Change	Bad
2002	Chicago	Miller	1-4	Chandler	1-4	Miller	0-3	Chandler	1-1	Burris	0-1	Bad	No Effect
2001	Washington	George	0-2	Banks	8-6							Good	No Effect

Notes:

Short Term Stats:
- 23 changes were good (37%)
- 21 changes were bad (33%)
- 19 changes cause no change (30%)
Long Term Stats:
- 16 changes were good (25%)
- 14 changes were bad (22%)
- 33 changes cause no effect (52%)
So the biggest thing to me was that 52% of all quarterbacks involved in mid-season changes are either benched, traded or cut the following season. So half the time, all quarterbacks involved are not in the long term plans of the team.

Now I know some will disagree with a few of the short term and long term effects, and that's fine, but I did my best to base this on rankings, records, youth, stats as well as situations between players and coaches. I will say if you disagree with effect I listed, feel free to just look at everything except the last two columns. So there you have it, a historical look at quarterback changes and make your own conclusions. Hope this was helpful for those like myself who wanted to look mid-season quarterback changes.

Tweet Comment 36 comments | 5 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Max delivers again!

This is pretty interesting stuff Max although I’m not real sure what to make of it other than you do not want to be a team that continuously makes QB changes in midseason. After I read you disclaimer I thought there may be some profound revelation but it was about what you’d expect. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn’t and more often than not the effect was marginal, probably because the team was so bad and changing the QB didn’t matter. What do you think it means?

"It was my fault we were behind to begin with and I'm just proud of my teammates for continuing to fight and believe and make the comeback possible"
Tebow- When asked how he was able to come from 15 points down with 3 minutes to go.

by asinsoin on Oct 26, 2011 2:11 PM MDT reply actions

I do think what you are saying is partially correct

Bad teams are much more likely to change quarterbacks, and so that change may help the team, but because the team is so bad, it may not matter much. That is one reason I really looked at offensive stats to see if they went up with the change at quarterback. One thing to note though is when you change from one vet to another, you expect improvement to put it simply. Since it isn’t a rookie or younger player, you want to see improvement and if you stay at a similar level, that lack of change is considered a failure since you were expecting improvement. When we made the change, we weren’t really expecting improvement, and haven’t really seen it yet, but that’s fine because Tebow is a young guy and that was the main reason we made the change.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Oct 26, 2011 2:17 PM MDT up reply actions

What do you mean haven't seen improvement yet?

We’re undefeated since the change :) .

by asinsoin on Oct 26, 2011 2:20 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs

so if we lost to the team with the longest losing record in the NFL..

what then? And in case you didn’t notice.. we nearly did and probably should have lost.

by heykyleinsf on Oct 26, 2011 2:23 PM MDT up reply actions

Nice sense of humor Debbie!

by asinsoin on Oct 26, 2011 2:43 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs

Haha

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Oct 26, 2011 2:26 PM MDT up reply actions

This is another reason why we draft QB in the first round

as if the payoffs weren’t enough to see what Cincy got for Palmer, Philly got for Kolb, SD got for Whitehurst and Green Bay drafting Rodgers in the first round five years before Favre’s retirement. It’s not even an insurance policy… it’s the best no-brainer investment.
We are looking at a losing record this year and a draft with a record surplus of great QBs. We have to draft QB first next year no matter what Tebow does.. good bad or indifferent.

by heykyleinsf on Oct 26, 2011 2:21 PM MDT reply actions

I personally hope we don't draft a QB

Because I feel we can take another year to test Tebow and draft a DT or DB early, but if Tebow sucks bad enough, I wouldn’t be totally against drafting a QB.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Oct 26, 2011 2:29 PM MDT up reply actions

Other than Luck

I don’t see this class being any better than last years. Barkely and Jones certainly don’t look like automatic starters and no better
If anything my take away from Max’s post as well as this game is that it takes a team to win games. If Tebow is average and trending up we need to continue to build other positionsthrough the draft.

by asinsoin on Oct 26, 2011 2:55 PM MDT up reply actions

Hear! Hear!

We need to let the Luck Draft wait another year and get the other players we need at other positions to back our teams play and to give Tim a fair shot at on the field improvements. There is a Luck every year but not a Tebow.

It is better to keep silent, and appear to be wise, then to ramble on and remove all doubt! The Wisest Man, Solomon.

by metalman5050 on Oct 26, 2011 3:27 PM MDT up reply actions

you got it wrong, we are lookin for a better record than last year.

that’s called progress, and in the 1st year of EF_ we should expect in the draft we NEED DEFENSE to win a few games.

by Eddiemac87 on Oct 27, 2011 3:12 AM MDT up reply actions

your gig is honestly getting old negative nancy

And that chart has a bunch of mistakes regarding wins and losses but good post and effort on this max. I enjoy your opinion even though Its wednesday and im already so sick of Tebow talk.

Perspective is not taught at MHR, so stop reading the DP and go get some.

by BroncofanfromBoston on Oct 26, 2011 2:25 PM MDT reply actions

Negative Nancy?

If anything else this shows that starting Tebow is more likely to make us better than worse. As for the wins and losses, got them from NFL.com and Prof Football Reference, if you have an issue, please take it up with them.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Oct 26, 2011 2:28 PM MDT up reply actions

I didn't write about Tebow. :P

Max is hardly a nancy….or negative. He just told us that about half of the QBs that take over midseason turn out to be the long term answer. This is good!

Follow @MHR_TimLynch

by Tim Lynch on Oct 26, 2011 2:54 PM MDT up reply actions

Max is NOT negative Nancy...He is STAT MAN!

by asinsoin on Oct 26, 2011 3:00 PM MDT up reply actions

Haha I hope I'm not a nancy

Though there used to be a member here named Negative Nelly.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Oct 26, 2011 3:33 PM MDT up reply actions

Thanks Max for breaking it down...

by bfree2bronc on Oct 26, 2011 2:28 PM MDT reply actions

Haha It's a little stale

But I figured that if I learned something from it, better to post it than letting it go to waste. I’m just not a juicy writer.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Oct 26, 2011 2:30 PM MDT up reply actions

Against the odds

The data suggests that most replacement QBs do not do well. If Tebow is successful in the W-L column, that will be especially impressive. If he is not, it is normal or part of his learning or a reflection on other aspects of the team. Whatever, no doubt it will be exciting and fun and that beats predictability, dullness, and losses without hope.

by NZbronco on Oct 26, 2011 2:43 PM MDT reply actions

nice analysis demon….

To be the man, you got to beat the man!!

by wisco on Oct 26, 2011 2:49 PM MDT reply actions

2001 New England Patriots

Most pre-season pundits had the Patriots winning at most 5 games in the 2001 season.

Drew Bledsoe had just signed a $100m contract and looked like a permanent fixture at New England until the latter half of the decade.

Bill Belichick is a traditional coach who did not believe in switching QB’s wllly-nilly and beside the point how do you just replacing a man who was selected #1 in the first round and coming off a $100m contract with a 6th round draft choice making $299,000 a year?

This had all the makings of the Patriots finishing in the cellar in 2001 and in subsequent seasons as well.

If before the 2nd game of the 2001 season against the Jets, if any sport’s pundit had been asked who would be out of the NFL first, to a man they would have chosen Tom Brady. Even Brady himself admitted he would now be selling insurance and not in the NFL and certainly imho he would not married to Gisele, if not for the most pivotal play to occur in the 21st century in the NFL.

For those too young to remember, Drew Bledsoe towards the end of the Jets game went back to pass and to escape the rush he ran towards the sideline and just before he went out of bounds, Jets’ defensive linebacker, Mo Lewis, with one terrific hit that put Bledsoe in the hospital and on the sidelines for two months, and changed the history of the New England Patriots and the NFL.

Belichick was forced into playing back-up unknown QB Tom Brady for the next two months and he performed so well, Belichick made the gutsy decision to stay with Brady as his starting QB for the remainder of the season and as they say the rest is history.

Now why do I mention this on a Broncos’ thread? Tim Tebow could do the same for Denver. You just never know. I would not discount it at all.

by technopeasant on Oct 26, 2011 3:05 PM MDT reply actions

I didn't include injuries because that was all fate

Also Brady was a huge part of the Pats success for the past decade, but in 2001 the Pats had a top tier D, so I’m not expecting us to win any Super Bowls anytime soon.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Oct 26, 2011 3:34 PM MDT up reply actions

should of started Tebow from the beginning of the year and saved you a lot of work :)

any stats out there that show how a team does with a qb that is not in the plans but starts anyway but then is replaced?

good reading, don’t know what it all means cause we could fall in anyone of those catagories..

by pwsbronco on Oct 26, 2011 3:42 PM MDT reply actions

Another thought provoking read max, thanks. Not sure what this will mean but as

I looked at the chart I began to wonder which teams did not make a QB change under your parameters for those 10 years. I was wondering if changing QBs mid-stream was a sign of a franchise in chaos or a stable franchise? The chart reveals that 8 teams did not make a QB change (using your parameters), they were: Green Bay, Philly, Seattle, New England, Jets, Baltimore, Houston, Indy.
Green Bay, N.E., and Indy were obvious to me given their QB situation over that period. Philly and Baltimore I attribute to those franchises being more “stable” than some but I have no idea why Seattle, Jets and Houston would be on the list. I would have guessed given the state of how they’ve done over that period we would have seen some mid-season changes. Perhaps you guys have some opinions? (silly question…)
FYI, just because I did it… here are the teams that were on the list and how many seasons out of the 10 covered they made a change mid-season:
6x Cleveland
5x Washington, Buffalo, San Fran., Chicago
4x- Oakland
3x- Tennessee, AZ, Miami
2x- Carolina, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, KC, Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Dallas
1x- Denver, New Orleans, NY Giants, San Diego, Cincinnati

Performance-wise this lines up with my “gut” feeling of how competitive those teams were over that 10 yr .span for the most part. Perhaps someone with more patience than me can match those teams up with their w-l record over the 10 yrs. It does prove to me that stability at QB really is a plus.

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

by rubincarterrocks on Oct 26, 2011 4:46 PM MDT reply actions

(oops, sorry about the strike outs, not sure how that happened but they don't mean anything)

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

by rubincarterrocks on Oct 26, 2011 4:47 PM MDT up reply actions

Thanks for your thoughts

And it is interesting to note which teams do this more often, you can really see what type of coach the team has based on how many QB changes they go through, or should go through. The list of team that don’t have a major change is also interesting. Let’s break down some of them:
- Seattle: The reason they didn’t really have this issue is because once Matt Hasselbeck beat Jon Kitna out for the job, he played well enough to keep it. Add in Holmgren, like Andy Reid, knows how to get the most out of QB’s, and instability is a bad thing in their systems. Now their current situation is different though. But if you look at 2001 to 2010, the Seahawks were always fighting for that division, winning it, or making the playoffs, six times in ten years, so we often forget that they were pretty good for the past decade.
- The Jets for the most part rode with Chad Pennington, who actually was very good there, but injuries were the reason for his moving on, and a number of QB’s saw action with the Jet’s but they only played because of CP10’s injuries. Add in one season of Favre and now Sanchez, they’ve been solid, if unspectacular, in the past decade.
- Houston had David Carr from their founding draft, and despite terrible play, Carr wasn’t that teams biggest issue, and it wasn’t till Matt Schaub came along they really replaced him. When you have a top draft pick like Carr, you have to kind of ride him, even if he struggles, similar to Alex Smith, though Houston was patient, SF has had no problem pulling Smith for a few games.

Great thoughts, and one final comment, it seems QB changes have become more common as the decade has worn on.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Oct 26, 2011 5:00 PM MDT up reply actions

once more, good job and rec'd

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

by rubincarterrocks on Oct 26, 2011 5:15 PM MDT up reply actions

Nice work Max very well done

by Hoopforia on Oct 26, 2011 5:13 PM MDT reply actions

I appreciate the work

But like most stats, this does not tell the whole story. This one is particularly lacking any sort of context. Bad teams losing by 30 points a game switching QBs and losing by 5 points a game is huge improvement that most fan bases recognize. Similarly, mediocre teams on a downward spiral and getting beat by bad teams can make a switch and still get beat by the elite. Without going to the level of analyzing each QBs individual performance and the effect it had on the rest of the team (i.e. did their best playmakers go in the tank?), there is little context. And even that level probably requires some crazy advanced stats to determine how effective the QB/Team were against the opponents that they actually played.

From fairly recent Broncos history, I personally feel that Jake was already well on his way to the self implosion and he was stinking it up on the field. I do not think he would have fared much differently than Jay did as far as record goes. We were squeaking out victories IN SPITE of Plummer, and that was going to come to an end. Your chart shows that as short term bad. I say it was short term neutral. It is impossible to see 7-4 and 2-3 and make that kind of conclusion. I saw those games and I remember wondering why Plummer was playing so poorly.

by Da Bum on Oct 26, 2011 7:36 PM MDT reply actions

I actually put as much context into each change as possible

Having about a half page little explanation about the change and why it happened, as well as each QB’s specific stats, though it would be far to long to make a post. My judgement for short term and long term are almost entirely created from the context rather than just the records.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Oct 26, 2011 8:09 PM MDT up reply actions

Thanks for the efforts

The stat in there that seems truly telling to me is the one that deals with whether one or both guys are with their team the next year. I see the starter that gets replaced being sent packing (what else do you do with an uhappy, overpaid backup?) I sincerely hope that the trend of the replacement also being sent packing is more a reflection of the almost certain turnover of the staff at that point. Without something disasterously unscrupulous happening, I do not forsee that kind of turnover for our Broncos next year (although I hope McCoy improves dramatically or we go looking for a new OC – he has not put anyone on our team in very good position, including Orton…)

by Da Bum on Oct 27, 2011 8:52 AM MDT up reply actions

My take on stats...

Thanks for the analysis maxwellsdemon. My own take away is that 67% of the time, changes were “not bad” short term…while a whopping 77% of the time, changes were “not bad” long term.

To me, this reinforces the reason to make a change…vast majority of the time you are no worse off than without making the change.

That’s just how I read the stats though.

by BCBronco on Oct 26, 2011 10:23 PM MDT reply actions

but the sample is biased, so of course it is going to show that

because the other category of “not making a switch” is completely excluded… the data is counter-factual… i.e., there is no way to tell what would have happened had a switch NOT been made.

We can probably surmise however that most of the time, NOT making a switch is the right call… e.g., (an extreme case) benching Brady for his backup, etc. is probably a bad idea. In such a case, all those cases where a change was NOT made are successes, and if you’d “switched”, you’d have seen poor outcomes. While there are obviously some cases where perhaps a swicth should’ve been made but wasn’t, my guess is those numbers are far fewer than the cases where “no switch” was the correct move.

by cjfarls on Oct 27, 2011 3:22 PM MDT up reply actions

Clarification

Good point; however, my read is that – in cases where a quarterback change is even considered to be an option (as in the examples that Max referenced) – it appears that you are no worse off to make the change. So, obviously, you don’t pull Brady…however, if it was at the point where the team “might” consider pulling Brady – seems reasonable to at least try it.

As you said, the sample doesn’t include all the possibilities, but it does include all the possibilities where a quarterback switch was likely in discussion. At that point, seems to make sense to go ahead and try.

Just my .02

by BCBronco on Oct 28, 2011 5:41 PM MDT up reply actions

still doesn't work as it DOES NOT include all the possibilities in discussion

this analysis does NOT include the cases where a change was considered, but they decided against it. It only includes when a change was actually made. Unless we were in the coaches office, there is no way to tell how often a change ws considered but NOT made. Agree that the Brady case was extreme, but it just highlights the difficulty in getting a full sample.

The only way I think you could even get close to such an analysis would be to look for cases where perhaps a starting QB has a rough stretch (say 3 games below 70 QBR), and a change WAS NOT made. You would also have to look for cases where perhaps a young QB supplants an established vet the following year (which would have been the case this year if we’d decided to NOT change), as you know the coaches were at least considering a change earlier unless the vet was totally lights out.

In any case, adding those cases almost assuredly pushes the change into the negative success rate (given how close it is even without those cases included). Basically, I don’t think this is a generalizable event and falls to the specifics of the situation.

In our case, we had a vet QB regularly throwing up sub-70 QBRs…. in such a case, a move is probably warranted (just as it was with Plummer). If Orton had been playing better, it is a MUCH tougher call.

by cjfarls on Nov 9, 2011 11:25 AM MST up reply actions