[stupac2]

I don't buy the notion Garoppolo throws too many INTs. He may throw more than one would ideally like to see, but his record as a starting QB in the NFL is 23-5. This is the highest winning percentage of any QB in NFL history with at least 28 starts, and he's now 2-0 in the playoffs. In games Garoppolo threw more than 1 INT in the 2019 season, the Niners were 2-0.  Would you rather have wins, or the most impressive stats?  

Still, Garoppolo had the NFL's third highest Yards Per Pass Attempt in 2019. He was #5 in completion percentage and TD passes. He did throw the 8th most INTs in the league, and this hurts his ratings, but so what?  The Niners were also #5 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the second most points in the league.

If you took away how Jimmy G plays, refusing to make risky throws, he likely would not be as productive as he is nor win as much as he does. I've seen several examples of Garoppolo playing at an elite level on All-22 coaching videos this season. He diagnoses defenses pre and post-snap, moves defenders with his eyes, fired incredibly accurate passes between defenders that avoid his receivers getting hit hard, throws guys open, and hits them before they turn to look for the ball. I'm not trading his style that might lead to more picks for a more careful Jimmy G that doesn't win as much.

Aaron Rodgers had 4 INTs all year. He had one fewer TD pass than Jimmy G. At the same time, his team was #23 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the 15th most points.

I think the knock on Jimmy isn't necessarily that he throws too many INTs, but that he seems to have at least one "what on earth were you thinking?!?" throw per game. I haven't watched the Niners all year, but he had a couple of those against the Vikings where he seemed to just fail to see an underneath defender in position to break on the throw, one actually was intercepted. It would be one thing if he were tossing INTs while pushing the ball downfield while trailing, or punterceptions on 3rd and long, or whatever, but that doesn't seem to be the whole explanation.

[stupac2]

I don't buy the notion Garoppolo throws too many INTs. He may throw more than one would ideally like to see, but his record as a starting QB in the NFL is 23-5. This is the highest winning percentage of any QB in NFL history with at least 28 starts, and he's now 2-0 in the playoffs. In games Garoppolo threw more than 1 INT in the 2019 season, the Niners were 2-0.  Would you rather have wins, or the most impressive stats?  

Still, Garoppolo had the NFL's third highest Yards Per Pass Attempt in 2019. He was #5 in completion percentage and TD passes. He did throw the 8th most INTs in the league, and this hurts his ratings, but so what?  The Niners were also #5 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the second most points in the league.

If you took away how Jimmy G plays, refusing to make risky throws, he likely would not be as productive as he is nor win as much as he does. I've seen several examples of Garoppolo playing at an elite level on All-22 coaching videos this season. He diagnoses defenses pre and post-snap, moves defenders with his eyes, fired incredibly accurate passes between defenders that avoid his receivers getting hit hard, throws guys open, and hits them before they turn to look for the ball. I'm not trading his style that might lead to more picks for a more careful Jimmy G that doesn't win as much.

Aaron Rodgers had 4 INTs all year. He had one fewer TD pass than Jimmy G. At the same time, his team was #23 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the 15th most points.

I think the knock on Jimmy isn't necessarily that he throws too many INTs, but that he seems to have at least one "what on earth were you thinking?!?" throw per game. I haven't watched the Niners all year, but he had a couple of those against the Vikings where he seemed to just fail to see an underneath defender in position to break on the throw, one actually was intercepted. It would be one thing if he were tossing INTs while pushing the ball downfield while trailing, or punterceptions on 3rd and long, or whatever, but that doesn't seem to be the whole explanation.

[Mick]

I don't buy the notion Garoppolo throws too many INTs. He may throw more than one would ideally like to see, but his record as a starting QB in the NFL is 23-5. This is the highest winning percentage of any QB in NFL history with at least 28 starts, and he's now 2-0 in the playoffs. In games Garoppolo threw more than 1 INT in the 2019 season, the Niners were 2-0.  Would you rather have wins, or the most impressive stats?  

Still, Garoppolo had the NFL's third highest Yards Per Pass Attempt in 2019. He was #5 in completion percentage and TD passes. He did throw the 8th most INTs in the league, and this hurts his ratings, but so what?  The Niners were also #5 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the second most points in the league.

If you took away how Jimmy G plays, refusing to make risky throws, he likely would not be as productive as he is nor win as much as he does. I've seen several examples of Garoppolo playing at an elite level on All-22 coaching videos this season. He diagnoses defenses pre and post-snap, moves defenders with his eyes, fired incredibly accurate passes between defenders that avoid his receivers getting hit hard, throws guys open, and hits them before they turn to look for the ball. I'm not trading his style that might lead to more picks for a more careful Jimmy G that doesn't win as much.

Aaron Rodgers had 4 INTs all year. He had one fewer TD pass than Jimmy G. At the same time, his team was #23 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the 15th most points.

Remember this?

The Catch

Joe Montana threw three interceptions before The Catch and a 28-27 victory over the Cowboys in the 1982 NFC championship, leading to the 49ers first Super Bowl win.

Now back to your regularly scheduled kvetching.

[Mick]

I don't buy the notion Garoppolo throws too many INTs. He may throw more than one would ideally like to see, but his record as a starting QB in the NFL is 23-5. This is the highest winning percentage of any QB in NFL history with at least 28 starts, and he's now 2-0 in the playoffs. In games Garoppolo threw more than 1 INT in the 2019 season, the Niners were 2-0.  Would you rather have wins, or the most impressive stats?  

Still, Garoppolo had the NFL's third highest Yards Per Pass Attempt in 2019. He was #5 in completion percentage and TD passes. He did throw the 8th most INTs in the league, and this hurts his ratings, but so what?  The Niners were also #5 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the second most points in the league.

If you took away how Jimmy G plays, refusing to make risky throws, he likely would not be as productive as he is nor win as much as he does. I've seen several examples of Garoppolo playing at an elite level on All-22 coaching videos this season. He diagnoses defenses pre and post-snap, moves defenders with his eyes, fired incredibly accurate passes between defenders that avoid his receivers getting hit hard, throws guys open, and hits them before they turn to look for the ball. I'm not trading his style that might lead to more picks for a more careful Jimmy G that doesn't win as much.

Aaron Rodgers had 4 INTs all year. He had one fewer TD pass than Jimmy G. At the same time, his team was #23 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the 15th most points.

Remember this?

The Catch

Joe Montana threw three interceptions before The Catch and a 28-27 victory over the Cowboys in the 1982 NFC championship, leading to the 49ers first Super Bowl win.

Now back to your regularly scheduled kvetching.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't buy the notion Garoppolo throws too many INTs. He may throw more than one would ideally like to see, but his record as a starting QB in the NFL is 23-5. This is the highest winning percentage of any QB in NFL history with at least 28 starts, and he's now 2-0 in the playoffs. In games Garoppolo threw more than 1 INT in the 2019 season, the Niners were 2-0.  Would you rather have wins, or the most impressive stats?  

Still, Garoppolo had the NFL's third highest Yards Per Pass Attempt in 2019. He was #5 in completion percentage and TD passes. He did throw the 8th most INTs in the league, and this hurts his ratings, but so what?  The Niners were also #5 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the second most points in the league.

If you took away how Jimmy G plays, refusing to make risky throws, he likely would not be as productive as he is nor win as much as he does. I've seen several examples of Garoppolo playing at an elite level on All-22 coaching videos this season. He diagnoses defenses pre and post-snap, moves defenders with his eyes, fired incredibly accurate passes between defenders that avoid his receivers getting hit hard, throws guys open, and hits them before they turn to look for the ball. I'm not trading his style that might lead to more picks for a more careful Jimmy G that doesn't win as much.

Aaron Rodgers had 4 INTs all year. He had one fewer TD pass than Jimmy G. At the same time, his team was #23 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the 15th most points.

Remember this?

The Catch

Joe Montana threw three interceptions before The Catch and a 28-27 victory over the Cowboys in the 1982 NFC championship, leading to the 49ers first Super Bowl win.

Now back to your regularly scheduled kvetching.

And the Niners had 5 total turnovers in that game.  I think Dallas had 6.  

I don't remember anyone claiming Montana couldn't be trusted after those 3 picks.  The fact is fantasy football has skewed how people judge QB performance, and not in a good way.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't buy the notion Garoppolo throws too many INTs. He may throw more than one would ideally like to see, but his record as a starting QB in the NFL is 23-5. This is the highest winning percentage of any QB in NFL history with at least 28 starts, and he's now 2-0 in the playoffs. In games Garoppolo threw more than 1 INT in the 2019 season, the Niners were 2-0.  Would you rather have wins, or the most impressive stats?  

Still, Garoppolo had the NFL's third highest Yards Per Pass Attempt in 2019. He was #5 in completion percentage and TD passes. He did throw the 8th most INTs in the league, and this hurts his ratings, but so what?  The Niners were also #5 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the second most points in the league.

If you took away how Jimmy G plays, refusing to make risky throws, he likely would not be as productive as he is nor win as much as he does. I've seen several examples of Garoppolo playing at an elite level on All-22 coaching videos this season. He diagnoses defenses pre and post-snap, moves defenders with his eyes, fired incredibly accurate passes between defenders that avoid his receivers getting hit hard, throws guys open, and hits them before they turn to look for the ball. I'm not trading his style that might lead to more picks for a more careful Jimmy G that doesn't win as much.

Aaron Rodgers had 4 INTs all year. He had one fewer TD pass than Jimmy G. At the same time, his team was #23 in 3rd Down conversions and scored the 15th most points.

Remember this?

The Catch

Joe Montana threw three interceptions before The Catch and a 28-27 victory over the Cowboys in the 1982 NFC championship, leading to the 49ers first Super Bowl win.

Now back to your regularly scheduled kvetching.

And the Niners had 5 total turnovers in that game.  I think Dallas had 6.  

I don't remember anyone claiming Montana couldn't be trusted after those 3 picks.  The fact is fantasy football has skewed how people judge QB performance, and not in a good way.

[stupac2]

And the Niners had 5 total turnovers in that game.  I think Dallas had 6.  



I don't remember anyone claiming Montana couldn't be trusted after those 3 picks.  The fact is fantasy football has skewed how people judge QB performance, and not in a good way.

That was also nearly 40 years ago, the game has changed a lot. Look at the interception totals Favre threw in his MVP years, 13, 13, and 16, each of which was at least a 2.3% INT rate, which would be ~20th in the league today. And those were Favre's good years! He was over 20 in a bunch of seasons. The same is actually true of Montana, pretty similar numbers (~2.5% INT%, mid-teens interceptions). No one would say that Rodgers or Garoppolo are MVP candidates this year, but Montana's All-Pro years were similar in ANY/A. The game was just different back then, using that standard to judge modern players is asinine.

[stupac2]

And the Niners had 5 total turnovers in that game.  I think Dallas had 6.  



I don't remember anyone claiming Montana couldn't be trusted after those 3 picks.  The fact is fantasy football has skewed how people judge QB performance, and not in a good way.

That was also nearly 40 years ago, the game has changed a lot. Look at the interception totals Favre threw in his MVP years, 13, 13, and 16, each of which was at least a 2.3% INT rate, which would be ~20th in the league today. And those were Favre's good years! He was over 20 in a bunch of seasons. The same is actually true of Montana, pretty similar numbers (~2.5% INT%, mid-teens interceptions). No one would say that Rodgers or Garoppolo are MVP candidates this year, but Montana's All-Pro years were similar in ANY/A. The game was just different back then, using that standard to judge modern players is asinine.

[cardcrimson]

You think the game has changed? Johnny Unitas, arguably the greatest qb ever, threw 253 interceptions and 290 touchdowns. The int % was 4.9%.

[cardcrimson]

You think the game has changed? Johnny Unitas, arguably the greatest qb ever, threw 253 interceptions and 290 touchdowns. The int % was 4.9%.

[Goose]

The game has changed a lot over the years. Unitas had to worry about guys trying to physically destroy him on every play, and were allowed to do so. Outside the tackle box, doesn't matter, still intentional grounding. Pass defenders playing bump and run. Even Montana had a more restrictive set of rules to deal with. So, yes, you are going to throw more passes that are not right on the money and maybe defended well because you had no other good choice!

That said, how many interceptions you throw is significantly modulated by what your offensive and defensive strengths are. In some games you may have to take chances to have any shot at winning. Knowing when to hold em and when to fold em is part of the game, and that hasn't changed. That is part of the "art" in the game. The great QBs do it well, others do it less well.

[Goose]

The game has changed a lot over the years. Unitas had to worry about guys trying to physically destroy him on every play, and were allowed to do so. Outside the tackle box, doesn't matter, still intentional grounding. Pass defenders playing bump and run. Even Montana had a more restrictive set of rules to deal with. So, yes, you are going to throw more passes that are not right on the money and maybe defended well because you had no other good choice!

That said, how many interceptions you throw is significantly modulated by what your offensive and defensive strengths are. In some games you may have to take chances to have any shot at winning. Knowing when to hold em and when to fold em is part of the game, and that hasn't changed. That is part of the "art" in the game. The great QBs do it well, others do it less well.

[cardcrimson]

Both Namath and Stabler had an int % of 5.9%. Oddly, Stabler had 20 more td's, a significantly higher completion percentage, and a much better QB rating. They both won a Super Bowl, yet Namath is in the hall and Stabler isn't. The only things Joe had that Stabler didn't were minks, pantyhose, a fawning Cosell, and a guarantee.

[cardcrimson]

Both Namath and Stabler had an int % of 5.9%. Oddly, Stabler had 20 more td's, a significantly higher completion percentage, and a much better QB rating. They both won a Super Bowl, yet Namath is in the hall and Stabler isn't. The only things Joe had that Stabler didn't were minks, pantyhose, a fawning Cosell, and a guarantee.

[teejers1]

BThe only things Joe had that Stabler didn't were minks, pantyhose, a fawning Cosell, and a guarantee.

Well . . . what else is there?!?

[teejers1]

BThe only things Joe had that Stabler didn't were minks, pantyhose, a fawning Cosell, and a guarantee.

Well . . . what else is there?!?

[cardcrimson]

BThe only things Joe had that Stabler didn't were minks, pantyhose, a fawning Cosell, and a guarantee.

Well . . . what else is there?!?

Well, there was Wonderfully Wicked Wanda : https://twitter.com/super70ssports/statu...7136436231

And this, too. : https://twitter.com/super70ssports/statu...7136436231

[cardcrimson]

BThe only things Joe had that Stabler didn't were minks, pantyhose, a fawning Cosell, and a guarantee.

Well . . . what else is there?!?

Well, there was Wonderfully Wicked Wanda : https://twitter.com/super70ssports/statu...7136436231

And this, too. : https://twitter.com/super70ssports/statu...7136436231

[OutsiderFan]

And the Niners had 5 total turnovers in that game.  I think Dallas had 6.  



I don't remember anyone claiming Montana couldn't be trusted after those 3 picks.  The fact is fantasy football has skewed how people judge QB performance, and not in a good way.

That was also nearly 40 years ago, the game has changed a lot. Look at the interception totals Favre threw in his MVP years, 13, 13, and 16, each of which was at least a 2.3% INT rate, which would be ~20th in the league today. And those were Favre's good years! He was over 20 in a bunch of seasons. The same is actually true of Montana, pretty similar numbers (~2.5% INT%, mid-teens interceptions). No one would say that Rodgers or Garoppolo are MVP candidates this year, but Montana's All-Pro years were similar in ANY/A. The game was just different back then, using that standard to judge modern players is asinine.

Kyle Shanahan, who knows a thing or two about football, was asked by a reporter a few weeks ago what stats he uses to judge QB effectiveness.  He said he doesn't look at stats and that "you guys pay way more attention to that stuff than me."  The only one he put any stock in is 3rd down conversions and wins. That's it. 

And even earlier in the season Shanahan was asked about interceptions and he said he doesn't want Garoppolo to stop taking risks because that's what makes him rack up those wins that are far and a way more important than interception rate. No, you don't want to be Jameis Winston with 30 TDs and 30 INTs (several pick 6s), but a 2-1 TD to INT ratio is very acceptable if the QB is winning games and getting to the Super Bowl.

[OutsiderFan]

And the Niners had 5 total turnovers in that game.  I think Dallas had 6.  



I don't remember anyone claiming Montana couldn't be trusted after those 3 picks.  The fact is fantasy football has skewed how people judge QB performance, and not in a good way.

That was also nearly 40 years ago, the game has changed a lot. Look at the interception totals Favre threw in his MVP years, 13, 13, and 16, each of which was at least a 2.3% INT rate, which would be ~20th in the league today. And those were Favre's good years! He was over 20 in a bunch of seasons. The same is actually true of Montana, pretty similar numbers (~2.5% INT%, mid-teens interceptions). No one would say that Rodgers or Garoppolo are MVP candidates this year, but Montana's All-Pro years were similar in ANY/A. The game was just different back then, using that standard to judge modern players is asinine.

Kyle Shanahan, who knows a thing or two about football, was asked by a reporter a few weeks ago what stats he uses to judge QB effectiveness.  He said he doesn't look at stats and that "you guys pay way more attention to that stuff than me."  The only one he put any stock in is 3rd down conversions and wins. That's it. 

And even earlier in the season Shanahan was asked about interceptions and he said he doesn't want Garoppolo to stop taking risks because that's what makes him rack up those wins that are far and a way more important than interception rate. No, you don't want to be Jameis Winston with 30 TDs and 30 INTs (several pick 6s), but a 2-1 TD to INT ratio is very acceptable if the QB is winning games and getting to the Super Bowl.

[BostonCard]

Back in the day, five thirty eight used to have a segment titled “gunslinger of the week”.  It went to QB’s who took risks when their team was behind.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ton...-the-year/

The idea being that it is worth taking risks by throwing downfield in an effort to get a big gain/touchdown, even if it increases the risk of an interception.

BC

[BostonCard]

Back in the day, five thirty eight used to have a segment titled “gunslinger of the week”.  It went to QB’s who took risks when their team was behind.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ton...-the-year/

The idea being that it is worth taking risks by throwing downfield in an effort to get a big gain/touchdown, even if it increases the risk of an interception.

BC

[stupac2]

And the Niners had 5 total turnovers in that game.  I think Dallas had 6.  



I don't remember anyone claiming Montana couldn't be trusted after those 3 picks.  The fact is fantasy football has skewed how people judge QB performance, and not in a good way.

That was also nearly 40 years ago, the game has changed a lot. Look at the interception totals Favre threw in his MVP years, 13, 13, and 16, each of which was at least a 2.3% INT rate, which would be ~20th in the league today. And those were Favre's good years! He was over 20 in a bunch of seasons. The same is actually true of Montana, pretty similar numbers (~2.5% INT%, mid-teens interceptions). No one would say that Rodgers or Garoppolo are MVP candidates this year, but Montana's All-Pro years were similar in ANY/A. The game was just different back then, using that standard to judge modern players is asinine.

Kyle Shanahan, who knows a thing or two about football, was asked by a reporter a few weeks ago what stats he uses to judge QB effectiveness.  He said he doesn't look at stats and that "you guys pay way more attention to that stuff than me."  The only one he put any stock in is 3rd down conversions and wins. That's it. 

And even earlier in the season Shanahan was asked about interceptions and he said he doesn't want Garoppolo to stop taking risks because that's what makes him rack up those wins that are far and a way more important than interception rate. No, you don't want to be Jameis Winston with 30 TDs and 30 INTs (several pick 6s), but a 2-1 TD to INT ratio is very acceptable if the QB is winning games and getting to the Super Bowl.

As is often pointed out here, what coaches say to the media and what they actually believe are very different. If Shanahan actually believes that then he hasn't looked into it, like, at all, because those statistics aren't stable year-to-year and thus aren't a good measure of ability. If you want to be all StAtS aRe DuMb then the things to look at things like rating (however you want to do it) from a clean pocket, which is far more stable.

Back in the day, five thirty eight used to have a segment titled “gunslinger of the week”.  It went to QB’s who took risks when their team was behind.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ton...-the-year/

The idea being that it is worth taking risks by throwing downfield in an effort to get a big gain/touchdown, even if it increases the risk of an interception.

BC

Right, which is why the ideal interception rate isn't 0, it means you're not taking enough risks. My entire point was that comparing eras to make that point is ridiculous because it was such a different game back then, interception rates that were excellent are now middling.

[stupac2]

And the Niners had 5 total turnovers in that game.  I think Dallas had 6.  



I don't remember anyone claiming Montana couldn't be trusted after those 3 picks.  The fact is fantasy football has skewed how people judge QB performance, and not in a good way.

That was also nearly 40 years ago, the game has changed a lot. Look at the interception totals Favre threw in his MVP years, 13, 13, and 16, each of which was at least a 2.3% INT rate, which would be ~20th in the league today. And those were Favre's good years! He was over 20 in a bunch of seasons. The same is actually true of Montana, pretty similar numbers (~2.5% INT%, mid-teens interceptions). No one would say that Rodgers or Garoppolo are MVP candidates this year, but Montana's All-Pro years were similar in ANY/A. The game was just different back then, using that standard to judge modern players is asinine.

Kyle Shanahan, who knows a thing or two about football, was asked by a reporter a few weeks ago what stats he uses to judge QB effectiveness.  He said he doesn't look at stats and that "you guys pay way more attention to that stuff than me."  The only one he put any stock in is 3rd down conversions and wins. That's it. 

And even earlier in the season Shanahan was asked about interceptions and he said he doesn't want Garoppolo to stop taking risks because that's what makes him rack up those wins that are far and a way more important than interception rate. No, you don't want to be Jameis Winston with 30 TDs and 30 INTs (several pick 6s), but a 2-1 TD to INT ratio is very acceptable if the QB is winning games and getting to the Super Bowl.

As is often pointed out here, what coaches say to the media and what they actually believe are very different. If Shanahan actually believes that then he hasn't looked into it, like, at all, because those statistics aren't stable year-to-year and thus aren't a good measure of ability. If you want to be all StAtS aRe DuMb then the things to look at things like rating (however you want to do it) from a clean pocket, which is far more stable.

Back in the day, five thirty eight used to have a segment titled “gunslinger of the week”.  It went to QB’s who took risks when their team was behind.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ton...-the-year/

The idea being that it is worth taking risks by throwing downfield in an effort to get a big gain/touchdown, even if it increases the risk of an interception.

BC

Right, which is why the ideal interception rate isn't 0, it means you're not taking enough risks. My entire point was that comparing eras to make that point is ridiculous because it was such a different game back then, interception rates that were excellent are now middling.

[OutsiderFan]

It sure would be interesting to see regression analysis for interception rates relative to the first year fantasy football was a thing, every year until now.

My theory is the only reason "the game has changed" is because of fantasy football.  As a fan in the 1980s, I don't remember anyone hardly ever talking about QB stats. I do remember discussion about Dan Marino throwing so many TDs in 1984, but that was the major exception to the rule. I think RB yards were always a topic of discussion, but passer rating wasn't a thing, and it seemed people judged off what their eyes told them about QBs more than stats per se.

I don't ever remember knowing how many TDs and INTs Joe Montana had.  I just knew he won games, often in the clutch.

[OutsiderFan]

It sure would be interesting to see regression analysis for interception rates relative to the first year fantasy football was a thing, every year until now.

My theory is the only reason "the game has changed" is because of fantasy football.  As a fan in the 1980s, I don't remember anyone hardly ever talking about QB stats. I do remember discussion about Dan Marino throwing so many TDs in 1984, but that was the major exception to the rule. I think RB yards were always a topic of discussion, but passer rating wasn't a thing, and it seemed people judged off what their eyes told them about QBs more than stats per se.

I don't ever remember knowing how many TDs and INTs Joe Montana had.  I just knew he won games, often in the clutch.

[Mick]

It sure would be interesting to see regression analysis for interception rates relative to the first year fantasy football was a thing, every year until now.

My theory is the only reason "the game has changed" is because of fantasy football.  As a fan in the 1980s, I don't remember anyone hardly ever talking about QB stats. I do remember discussion about Dan Marino throwing so many TDs in 1984, but that was the major exception to the rule. I think RB yards were always a topic of discussion, but passer rating wasn't a thing, and it seemed people judged off what their eyes told them about QBs more than stats per se.

I don't ever remember knowing how many TDs and INTs Joe Montana had.  I just knew he won games, often in the clutch.

Joe had a lot of INTs, although his last year in the NFL he led the league in lowest INT %.  Joe was a winner.  117-47 overall, 100-39 with SF.

As for stats...I remember having Darryl Lamonica's football card and devouring the QB stats.  THAT dude was 66-16-6 overall, between Buffalo and Oakland.  He started 40-4-1.  And his INT percentage was twice as high as Joe's.  Not bad for a kid from Fresno...

Career-wise, Joe is #71 all-time in INTs with 139, right ahead of LaMonica who had 138. Steve Young had 107. Brodie had 224 (#18 all time). Frankie Albert had 98, good for #124 all time. Elway had 226 (#17 all time). Plunkett had 198, #29 all time.

[Mick]

It sure would be interesting to see regression analysis for interception rates relative to the first year fantasy football was a thing, every year until now.

My theory is the only reason "the game has changed" is because of fantasy football.  As a fan in the 1980s, I don't remember anyone hardly ever talking about QB stats. I do remember discussion about Dan Marino throwing so many TDs in 1984, but that was the major exception to the rule. I think RB yards were always a topic of discussion, but passer rating wasn't a thing, and it seemed people judged off what their eyes told them about QBs more than stats per se.

I don't ever remember knowing how many TDs and INTs Joe Montana had.  I just knew he won games, often in the clutch.

Joe had a lot of INTs, although his last year in the NFL he led the league in lowest INT %.  Joe was a winner.  117-47 overall, 100-39 with SF.

As for stats...I remember having Darryl Lamonica's football card and devouring the QB stats.  THAT dude was 66-16-6 overall, between Buffalo and Oakland.  He started 40-4-1.  And his INT percentage was twice as high as Joe's.  Not bad for a kid from Fresno...

Career-wise, Joe is #71 all-time in INTs with 139, right ahead of LaMonica who had 138. Steve Young had 107. Brodie had 224 (#18 all time). Frankie Albert had 98, good for #124 all time. Elway had 226 (#17 all time). Plunkett had 198, #29 all time.

[BostonCard]

As is often pointed out here, what coaches say to the media and what they actually believe are very different. If Shanahan actually believes that then he hasn't looked into it, like, at all, because those statistics aren't stable year-to-year and thus aren't a good measure of ability. If you want to be all StAtS aRe DuMb then the things to look at things like rating (however you want to do it) from a clean pocket, which is far more stable.

I agree generally, but we do have to remember that statistics are a way of summarizing data in aggregate.  For us fans, who are not focused on a specific QB and whose full time job isn't to worry about these things, that makes a lot of sense.  For a coach, who is only worried about evaluating the QB they have, they can actually look at every singe dropback with the all-22 view and make important assessments: did the QB read the defense correctly, sense the pressure, find the open receiver, make the throw accurately and with enough arm strength.

When coaching the QB to become more effective, which is what they should be doing, saying "you throw too many interceptions" is not actually helpful to the QB.  On the other hand, saying, "on this particular play, all the receivers were well-covered, we were leading and it was first and ten, so throwing the ball away (or even taking the sack) would have been a better decision than throwing into coverage" actually is actionable in future, similar situations.

That's not to say that there aren't some places where statistics can be helpful, of course, or that your broader point about coaches answering questions with a particular goal in mind isn't true.

BC

[BostonCard]

As is often pointed out here, what coaches say to the media and what they actually believe are very different. If Shanahan actually believes that then he hasn't looked into it, like, at all, because those statistics aren't stable year-to-year and thus aren't a good measure of ability. If you want to be all StAtS aRe DuMb then the things to look at things like rating (however you want to do it) from a clean pocket, which is far more stable.

I agree generally, but we do have to remember that statistics are a way of summarizing data in aggregate.  For us fans, who are not focused on a specific QB and whose full time job isn't to worry about these things, that makes a lot of sense.  For a coach, who is only worried about evaluating the QB they have, they can actually look at every singe dropback with the all-22 view and make important assessments: did the QB read the defense correctly, sense the pressure, find the open receiver, make the throw accurately and with enough arm strength.

When coaching the QB to become more effective, which is what they should be doing, saying "you throw too many interceptions" is not actually helpful to the QB.  On the other hand, saying, "on this particular play, all the receivers were well-covered, we were leading and it was first and ten, so throwing the ball away (or even taking the sack) would have been a better decision than throwing into coverage" actually is actionable in future, similar situations.

That's not to say that there aren't some places where statistics can be helpful, of course, or that your broader point about coaches answering questions with a particular goal in mind isn't true.

BC

[lex24]

As is often pointed out here, what coaches say to the media and what they actually believe are very different. If Shanahan actually believes that then he hasn't looked into it, like, at all, because those statistics aren't stable year-to-year and thus aren't a good measure of ability. If you want to be all StAtS aRe DuMb then the things to look at things like rating (however you want to do it) from a clean pocket, which is far more stable.

I agree generally, but we do have to remember that statistics are a way of summarizing data in aggregate.  For us fans, who are not focused on a specific QB and whose full time job isn't to worry about these things, that makes a lot of sense.  For a coach, who is only worried about evaluating the QB they have, they can actually look at every singe dropback with the all-22 view and make important assessments: did the QB read the defense correctly, sense the pressure, find the open receiver, make the throw accurately and with enough arm strength.

When coaching the QB to become more effective, which is what they should be doing, saying "you throw too many interceptions" is not actually helpful to the QB.  On the other hand, saying, "on this particular play, all the receivers were well-covered, we were leading and it was first and ten, so throwing the ball away (or even taking the sack) would have been a better decision than throwing into coverage" actually is actionable in future, similar situations.

That's not to say that there aren't some places where statistics can be helpful, of course, or that your broader point about coaches answering questions with a particular goal in mind isn't true.

BC

 What quarterback does on third down may not be a good  predictor – but certainly from a coaches standpoint it’s damn important because it pertains to sustaining drives.   Important stats and predictive stats aren’t necessarily the same thing. Best example I can give us RBIs. So many people will say oh they’re not predictive because circumstances etc. etc. etc. True. They are however important. Try to win games  without them. Good luck. The thing about stats the analytical side of things is always looking at the predictive side.  And I’m sure that’s helpful. No doubt. But it’s not the end of the discussion. Or at least it shouldn’t be

[lex24]

As is often pointed out here, what coaches say to the media and what they actually believe are very different. If Shanahan actually believes that then he hasn't looked into it, like, at all, because those statistics aren't stable year-to-year and thus aren't a good measure of ability. If you want to be all StAtS aRe DuMb then the things to look at things like rating (however you want to do it) from a clean pocket, which is far more stable.

I agree generally, but we do have to remember that statistics are a way of summarizing data in aggregate.  For us fans, who are not focused on a specific QB and whose full time job isn't to worry about these things, that makes a lot of sense.  For a coach, who is only worried about evaluating the QB they have, they can actually look at every singe dropback with the all-22 view and make important assessments: did the QB read the defense correctly, sense the pressure, find the open receiver, make the throw accurately and with enough arm strength.

When coaching the QB to become more effective, which is what they should be doing, saying "you throw too many interceptions" is not actually helpful to the QB.  On the other hand, saying, "on this particular play, all the receivers were well-covered, we were leading and it was first and ten, so throwing the ball away (or even taking the sack) would have been a better decision than throwing into coverage" actually is actionable in future, similar situations.

That's not to say that there aren't some places where statistics can be helpful, of course, or that your broader point about coaches answering questions with a particular goal in mind isn't true.

BC

 What quarterback does on third down may not be a good  predictor – but certainly from a coaches standpoint it’s damn important because it pertains to sustaining drives.   Important stats and predictive stats aren’t necessarily the same thing. Best example I can give us RBIs. So many people will say oh they’re not predictive because circumstances etc. etc. etc. True. They are however important. Try to win games  without them. Good luck. The thing about stats the analytical side of things is always looking at the predictive side.  And I’m sure that’s helpful. No doubt. But it’s not the end of the discussion. Or at least it shouldn’t be

[CardinalSagehen]

I know one QB who had a feel for when to be aggressive and push the envelope when the game situation required... Andrew Luck.  

We didn’t see this as much at Stanford because he very rarely trailed in the game and the system was inherently conservative, but we definitely saw this at Indy. I’m sure any thorough analysis would show that his influence on winning games outstripped his conventional stats, which weren’t bad but were always bogged down by relatively low completion rates and high interception rates.

[CardinalSagehen]

I know one QB who had a feel for when to be aggressive and push the envelope when the game situation required... Andrew Luck.  

We didn’t see this as much at Stanford because he very rarely trailed in the game and the system was inherently conservative, but we definitely saw this at Indy. I’m sure any thorough analysis would show that his influence on winning games outstripped his conventional stats, which weren’t bad but were always bogged down by relatively low completion rates and high interception rates.

[BostonCard]

I know one QB who had a feel for when to be aggressive and push the envelope when the game situation required... Andrew Luck.  

We didn’t see this as much at Stanford because he very rarely trailed in the game and the system was inherently conservative, but we definitely saw this at Indy. I’m sure any thorough analysis would show that his influence on winning games outstripped his conventional stats, which weren’t bad but were always bogged down by relatively low completion rates and high interception rates.

Indeed, Luck took home the gunslinger of the week award several times in Indie.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ske...-the-pats/

It’s fitting that Luck should be the inaugural winner of this award, since he had one of the greatest gunslinger-y games of all time in last year’s playoffs against Kansas City. After KC scored to push its lead to 31-10 late in the first half, I tweeted:
If Andrew Luck doesn't throw at least 3 interceptions in the 2nd half,* I'm through with him. (*or win)
— Benjamin Morris (@skepticalsports) January 4, 2014

Luck proceeded to throw three interceptions, and at one point — down 38-10 in the third — the odds of a Colts victory were as low as 0.1 percent. But he also threw three more touchdowns and memorably took a Donald Brown fumble to the house. That play drew them within 3 points, and then it seemed inevitable:
Me: Andrew, I said 3 INT *or* win game. Luck: Logical "or", dude.
— Benjamin Morris (@skepticalsports) January 5, 2014

Indianapolis got the win, and Luck added a playoff gem to his collection of fourth-quarter comebacks in the last two years.

BC

[BostonCard]

I know one QB who had a feel for when to be aggressive and push the envelope when the game situation required... Andrew Luck.  

We didn’t see this as much at Stanford because he very rarely trailed in the game and the system was inherently conservative, but we definitely saw this at Indy. I’m sure any thorough analysis would show that his influence on winning games outstripped his conventional stats, which weren’t bad but were always bogged down by relatively low completion rates and high interception rates.

Indeed, Luck took home the gunslinger of the week award several times in Indie.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ske...-the-pats/

It’s fitting that Luck should be the inaugural winner of this award, since he had one of the greatest gunslinger-y games of all time in last year’s playoffs against Kansas City. After KC scored to push its lead to 31-10 late in the first half, I tweeted:
If Andrew Luck doesn't throw at least 3 interceptions in the 2nd half,* I'm through with him. (*or win)
— Benjamin Morris (@skepticalsports) January 4, 2014

Luck proceeded to throw three interceptions, and at one point — down 38-10 in the third — the odds of a Colts victory were as low as 0.1 percent. But he also threw three more touchdowns and memorably took a Donald Brown fumble to the house. That play drew them within 3 points, and then it seemed inevitable:
Me: Andrew, I said 3 INT *or* win game. Luck: Logical "or", dude.
— Benjamin Morris (@skepticalsports) January 5, 2014

Indianapolis got the win, and Luck added a playoff gem to his collection of fourth-quarter comebacks in the last two years.

BC

[CardinalSagehen]

I know one QB who had a feel for when to be aggressive and push the envelope when the game situation required... Andrew Luck.  

We didn’t see this as much at Stanford because he very rarely trailed in the game and the system was inherently conservative, but we definitely saw this at Indy. I’m sure any thorough analysis would show that his influence on winning games outstripped his conventional stats, which weren’t bad but were always bogged down by relatively low completion rates and high interception rates.

Indeed, Luck took home the gunslinger of the week award several times in Indie.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ske...-the-pats/

It’s fitting that Luck should be the inaugural winner of this award, since he had one of the greatest gunslinger-y games of all time in last year’s playoffs against Kansas City. After KC scored to push its lead to 31-10 late in the first half, I tweeted:
If Andrew Luck doesn't throw at least 3 interceptions in the 2nd half,* I'm through with him. (*or win)
— Benjamin Morris (@skepticalsports) January 4, 2014

Luck proceeded to throw three interceptions, and at one point — down 38-10 in the third — the odds of a Colts victory were as low as 0.1 percent. But he also threw three more touchdowns and memorably took a Donald Brown fumble to the house. That play drew them within 3 points, and then it seemed inevitable:
Me: Andrew, I said 3 INT *or* win game. Luck: Logical "or", dude.
— Benjamin Morris (@skepticalsports) January 5, 2014

Indianapolis got the win, and Luck added a playoff gem to his collection of fourth-quarter comebacks in the last two years.

BC

Thanks BC.  Great reference, and funny tweets.

[CardinalSagehen]

I know one QB who had a feel for when to be aggressive and push the envelope when the game situation required... Andrew Luck.  

We didn’t see this as much at Stanford because he very rarely trailed in the game and the system was inherently conservative, but we definitely saw this at Indy. I’m sure any thorough analysis would show that his influence on winning games outstripped his conventional stats, which weren’t bad but were always bogged down by relatively low completion rates and high interception rates.

Indeed, Luck took home the gunslinger of the week award several times in Indie.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ske...-the-pats/

It’s fitting that Luck should be the inaugural winner of this award, since he had one of the greatest gunslinger-y games of all time in last year’s playoffs against Kansas City. After KC scored to push its lead to 31-10 late in the first half, I tweeted:
If Andrew Luck doesn't throw at least 3 interceptions in the 2nd half,* I'm through with him. (*or win)
— Benjamin Morris (@skepticalsports) January 4, 2014

Luck proceeded to throw three interceptions, and at one point — down 38-10 in the third — the odds of a Colts victory were as low as 0.1 percent. But he also threw three more touchdowns and memorably took a Donald Brown fumble to the house. That play drew them within 3 points, and then it seemed inevitable:
Me: Andrew, I said 3 INT *or* win game. Luck: Logical "or", dude.
— Benjamin Morris (@skepticalsports) January 5, 2014

Indianapolis got the win, and Luck added a playoff gem to his collection of fourth-quarter comebacks in the last two years.

BC

Thanks BC.  Great reference, and funny tweets.