# Inside Info On Atlanta Falcons... **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 15, 2006, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541 "2006-10-15T17:09:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Golden\_Ass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@The\_Golden\_Ass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Golden_Ass)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/61 "2006-10-18T17:41:39Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] What does “one of the leading rushers” even mean? He had more rushing yards than a WR who ran the occasional reverse? [/QUOTE] It means in the dark years before Shanahan, at the end of the games when they flashed the stats and yards by each offense, it wasn’t entirely uncommon to see that most of the offensive yards in the game came from his arm or his legs. That may be more of a comment on how dismal the offense was in some of those seasons…But Elway could and did run. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/62 "2006-10-18T18:46:47Z")
[QUOTE=The Golden Ass] It means in the dark years before Shanahan, at the end of the games when they flashed the stats and yards by each offense, it wasn’t entirely uncommon to see that most of the offensive yards in the game came from his arm or his legs. That may be more of a comment on how dismal the offense was in some of those seasons…But Elway could and did run. [/QUOTE] hehheh, looking at [1987](http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den1987.htm) I can see what you mean. That was some dismal running attack they had back then. Ouch. Elway was no David Carr when it came to scrambling, but he could run around some. No doubt defensive coordinators lay awake nights trying to gameplan Carr’s running ability. That’s the premise, right? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/63 "2006-10-18T23:23:00Z")
David Carr runs for his life. Not the same thing at all. Another instance where the stats will bend you right over and have their way with you. If David Carr wasn’t a good athlete, you know what his team would have instead of those 300 yards or so he was scrambling for? 20 more sacks and some turnovers. All scrambles are not born equal. > [@Ellis Dee](#): > > And here we have the crux of the biscuit. Scrambling is less effective than passing, period. That’s the reason that no elite passer is scrambling up a storm in the NFL. Once they become elite passers, scrambling becomes counter-productive. By that logic, you realize every team should abandon the running game in general, right? No team averages more yards per rush than per pass. I’m not going to pretend that I think that’s what you’re saying, because I know you know better, but you have to at least realize that, yet again, a strict rate comparison is not the whole ball of wax. All scrambles are **not** born equal. What’s more efficient, a sack or a three yard scramble? An incompletion or a one yard scramble? An interception or a zero yard scramble? You continue to assume that no quarterback is capable of knowing when is and when isn’t an appropriate time to skedaddle. Why is that? Or, to put it another way – every quarterback runs sometimes. Why do the “smart” ones (the ones who don’t do it much) do it at all? After all, they’re smart quarterbacks. They should know it’s counter-productive. Come on, out with it – it’s not always counter-productive! > [@](#): > > My argument all along has been that pulling the ball down and running is a waste, because you’re going to need to become a passer if you want any kind of sustained success. Injuries are too likely for a scrambler, especially in this era of 16 game seasons with four playoff rounds. And when you have a guy whose second read is his legs, he is almost certainly doomed to fail in the playoffs when he faces the elite defenses. > > As for McNabb scrambling for 220 yards in his Superbowl year, that’s 14 yards per game. Fourteen yards is a far cry from being a scrambler. And on a side note, McNabb truly is an elite passer, and I would agree with your top 3 assessment. As much as I hate the Eagles, and have harbored a dislike for McNabb specifically, his superb play has won me over to grudging admiration. You downplay McNabb’s 220 rushing yards, but you’re holding up 300 as the magic “not a real quarterback” threshold. That’s 5 friggin’ yards a game difference between a “far cry from being a scrambler” and being the poster child for your too quick to run, not confident enough to make his reads, skittish, unreliable, can’t win in the postseason scrambler bogeyman. That’s significant enough to you that you can make the distinction that, on the one hand, McNabb’s no longer a scrambler and is now an elite quarterback, but on the other hand, it’s relevant that not many have gone over 300 and won? What if one of his scrambles had resulted in a missed tackle and 60 more yards? Then he’d be at 280. They’d have lost in the first round in that case, right? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/64 "2006-10-18T23:46:40Z")
Man, on the one hand, it’s great that pro-football-reference’s data is available for download. On the other hand, it’s really not great that I have to try to teach myself how to use Excel to make the data tell me anything important. Stupid learning. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/65 "2006-10-19T03:35:15Z")
[QUOTE=Jimmy Chitwood] Man, on the one hand, it’s great that pro-football-reference’s data is available for download. On the other hand, it’s really not great that I have to try to teach myself how to use Excel to make the data tell me anything important. Stupid learning. [/QUOTE] I’m happy to email you an Access database version of it if you like. (Even if building queries would be a higher learning curve, each thing learned would be much more useful for analysis.) That goes for anyone else who is interested. **Jimmy** , 300 yards is 18.85 yards per game. How can you possibly say that 5 yards is an inconsequential amount compared to 18.75? 27% is not inconsequential. **Trunk** , I see that Favre scrambles for 6.25 yards per game. You labeled him as in between a pocket passer and a scrambler. I contend that you are completely wrong; he is a pure pocket passer. Guys who scramble for more yards per game include Trent Green, Trent Dilfer, Chris Chandler, and Byron Leftwich. None of those guys are considered anywhere near a scrambler by anybody, least of all themselves. Inside the NFL had an interesting piece on exactly this discussion tonight. (Repeated throughout the week.) They spoke with Vick, who said he wants to run less and pass from the pocket more. One of his reasons is that he’s banged up and wonders if his career will be cut short by all the running. He also wonders what he would be like in a place like Indianapolis that has real receivers. And also what it would be like to have a coach who allowed him to check to different plays at the line. As much as I’m not a fan of Vick, I’m pissed for the guy after seeing that piece. He seems to be being treated as a dumb black quarterback who can’t be trusted to pass and is told to run instead of trying to develop him as a passer (like McNabb was), and that’s offensive on any level. Like me, they also characterized him as the best scrambling quarterback ever. **Jimmy** , do you really think there has been no change in McNabb? Ignoring his first few years when all new QBs struggle, let’s compare his 2001-2003 numbers to his 2004-2006 numbers: Old: 771 of 1332 (58%) for 8738 yards, 58 TDs 29 Ints; Rating: 83.10 New: 633 of 1034 (61%) for 8231 yards, 60 TDs 19 Ints; Rating: 97.95 He looks clearly better to me now that he’s running less; the “old” McNabb ran once for every 6 pass attempts, while the “new” McNabb scrambles once every 12 attempts. His yards per attempt went up 21% from 6.6 to 8.0, and his yards per completion went up 15% from 11.3 to 13.0. So he’s scrambling half as much, has a higher completion percentage on longer throws, a significantly higher passer rating, and you think he’s still the same guy? To me the difference is like night and day. Honestly, I’m surprised you don’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/66 "2006-10-19T08:57:23Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > I thought I posted above where we had 5 superbowl victories from scrambling quarterbacks. > > And, that’s not counting two from Favre, who is probably somewhere in between. > > That’s over 10% of all Superbowls won by scrambling quarterbacks. Since you have a math degree, perhaps you could help me out and detail how counting to 5 works. A simple quote of the five victories you listed would be sufficient. > [@Trunk](#): > > Besides, Ellis cherry picked one statistic to focus on and then claimed that that statistic is indicative of playoff failure. You don’t think I could find a stat like “TE yards receiving” or “tackles by the weak side linebacker” and draw some conclusiong like “if the weak side linebacker leads your team in tackles you do poorly in the superbowl.” No, I don’t think you could find one that is unrelated to winning. For example, Jimmy tried with his 33 TD pass criteria… > [@Jimmy Chitwood](#): > > How many quarterbacks have thrown for more than 33 or more touchdowns in a single season and won the Super Bowl that same year? Three, I think. Does that mean that you want your quarterback to keep his touchdown passes down? Yes, that’s exactly what that means. Unlike the Eagles, every other team recognizes that you need to feature the running game to have success in the playoffs. Thus, you should be focused on building a solid ground attack (and defense, unlike the 2004 Falcons who had the worst defense in the league) instead of throwing pretty passes all season long only to find out that shit won’t cut it on frozen fields against stout defenses. Ask Peyton Manning and Dan Marino about how the winters in New England and Buffalo treated their vaunted aerial attacks when the playoffs rolled around. I agree that not all scrambling is bad. Sometimes it can be just the thing to turn the tide. So can a halfback option pass, but you _feature_ goofy shit like that at your peril, as evidenced by the lack of success scramblers have at getting to or winning Superbowls **until they stop scrambling**. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/67 "2006-10-19T09:38:12Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] He looks clearly better to me now that he’s running less; the “old” McNabb ran once for every 6 pass attempts, while the “new” McNabb scrambles once every 12 attempts. His yards per attempt went up 21% from 6.6 to 8.0, and his yards per completion went up 15% from 11.3 to 13.0. So he’s scrambling half as much, has a higher completion percentage on longer throws, a significantly higher passer rating, and you think he’s still the same guy? To me the difference is like night and day. Honestly, I’m surprised you don’t see it. [/QUOTE] His point was that you can change the talent/scheme/whatever around him, and change his numbers to being more of a pocket passer, even without any development from the quarterback himself. His receiving talent especially improved. If, before, he mostly ran when the coverage was too good, then having receivers that can get open will make him pass more and run less. I’m not necesarily saying he hasn’t improved - it’s just that you can’t necesarily chalk up his stats to a change in his philosophy, there are other factors. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/68 "2006-10-19T12:18:01Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] Since you have a math degree, perhaps you could help me out and detail how counting to 5 works. A simple quote of the five victories you listed would be sufficient. [/QUOTE] > [@Trunk](#): > > 1988 – SF QBs combined for 316 yards and won the superbowl. **That’s 1. Are you still with me?** > > 1989 – SF QBs combined for over 300 yards rushing, and they won the SB. **That’s 2. Still there?** > > 1994 – Young rushed for 293. Won the SB. **Three. Getting close** > > 1997 – Elway rushed for 218 and won the SB **Four** > > Jesus – we’re up to about 10% of superbowls WON by scrambling QBs. No, the last two didn’t achieve some arbitrary number like 300, but make no mistake, they are scramblers. > > And, Elway won another one. \*\*FIVE. Oh, Jesus, he didn’t put it in the dated list with the rest of 'em. He tricked me. No fair. \*\* I’ve now had to quote myself twice just to “converse” with you. If that’s not enough evidence that you’re a complete waste of my time, my exit from the thread should provide the balance. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/69 "2006-10-19T16:07:25Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] **Jimmy** , 300 yards is 18.85 yards per game. How can you possibly say that 5 yards is an inconsequential amount compared to 18.75? 27% is not inconsequential. [/quote] ??? 300 yards/16 games =18.75 220 yards/16 games = 13.75 5 yards/game difference between not a scrambler and scrambler. Eh? > [@](#): > > **Jimmy** , do you really think there has been no change in McNabb? Ignoring his first few years when all new QBs struggle, let’s compare his 2001-2003 numbers to his 2004-2006 numbers: > > Old: 771 of 1332 (58%) for 8738 yards, 58 TDs 29 Ints; Rating: 83.10 > New: 633 of 1034 (61%) for 8231 yards, 60 TDs 19 Ints; Rating: 97.95 > > He looks clearly better to me now that he’s running less; the “old” McNabb ran once for every 6 pass attempts, while the “new” McNabb scrambles once every 12 attempts. His yards per attempt went up 21% from 6.6 to 8.0, and his yards per completion went up 15% from 11.3 to 13.0. > > So he’s scrambling half as much, has a higher completion percentage on longer throws, a significantly higher passer rating, and you think he’s still the same guy? To me the difference is like night and day. Honestly, I’m surprised you don’t see it. I don’t know how many times you want me to say this. I’d like to think I’m being fairly clear about my position here. Never said McNabb’s numbers aren’t better. Never said that running while RECEIVERS ARE OPEN is a good idea. It’s. The. Receivers. Na Brown. Charles Johnson. Todd Pinkston. Billy McMullen. Freddie Mitchell. James Thrash. Running has become a relatively less valuable option, because now he’s got better options to throw to. For as much as I feel like 50% of my total posts to the board have been about this one issue, it sure doesn’t seem to be coming across. Thanks, **SenorBeef**. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/70 "2006-10-20T01:18:55Z")
[QUOTE=Trunk] I’ve now had to quote myself twice just to “converse” with you. If that’s not enough evidence that you’re a complete waste of my time, my exit from the thread should provide the balance. [/QUOTE] Yeah, Elway sure was scrambling up a storm in 1998, with 94 whole yards on the ground. No doubt those 94 yards were the key to their success. That you included such a complete pocket passer as a scrambler winning a Superbowl shows that your exit won’t be lamented. > [@Jimmy Chitwood](#): > > Never said McNabb’s numbers aren’t better. Never said that running while RECEIVERS ARE OPEN is a good idea. It’s. The. Receivers. Na Brown. Charles Johnson. Todd Pinkston. Billy McMullen. Freddie Mitchell. James Thrash. Running has become a relatively less valuable option, because now he’s got better options to throw to. For as much as I feel like 50% of my total posts to the board have been about this one issue, it sure doesn’t seem to be coming across. Oh, so _that_ explains why Tom Brady is scrambling all the time this year. Makes perfect sense. No, wait a minute, as it turns out, good passers don’t scramble even when their receivers suck balls. Except for McNabb, of course. ---
**Author:** ![unwashed\_brain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/a9adbd/32.png) [@unwashed\_brain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unwashed_brain)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/71 "2006-10-20T04:33:06Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] Yeah, Elway sure was scrambling up a storm in 1998, with 94 whole yards on the ground. No doubt those 94 yards were the key to their success. That you included such a complete pocket passer as a scrambler winning a Superbowl shows that your exit won’t be lamented. [/QUOTE] Elway didn’t change…the talent around him did. Scrambling isn’t a strategy so much as it is a reaction to a FUBAR’d passing play. What’s different about Vick is that he has rushing plays designed for him. That isn’t scrambling. He does scramble, but not all of his rushing yards are from scrambling. You’re ignoring SOOOOOO many other factors that contribute to a QB’s season-total rushing yards: How many quarterback rushing plays were actually called by the coordinator? Did the quarterback throw primarily out of 3-step drop? Did the quarterback throw primarily out of 5-step drop? What was the quality of the QB’s OL? What was the quality of the QB’s WR’s? Did the team have an All-World RB? Was the team’s RB good at picking up the rush? A scrambling QB can be loosely defined as one who is fast enough or shifty enough to occasionally choose to run the ball instead of throwing it away in a situation where there is nobody observably open or they are under threat of being sacked by the opposition. By anyone’s standards (except yours perhaps) Elway and Young were scramblers. If they had less rushing yards in their super bowl years it was likely because the talent around them played better that year and they weren’t FORCED to scramble. No coach or owner wants their QB to take additional hits, but Vick is so fast and elusive that in the Falcons’ view the reward outweighs the risk. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/72 "2006-10-20T12:30:39Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] No, wait a minute, as it turns out, good passers don’t scramble even when their receivers suck balls. Except for McNabb, of course. [/QUOTE] Four questions. Are you reading what anybody besides yourself is writing? Do you dispute that the quality of McNabb’s receivers was abysmal during the first period you cited? Do you dispute that the quality of McNabb’s receivers was improved during the latter period? Is it even fucking logically possible that the quality of one side of the equation can improve drastically without affecting the quality of the product as a whole? ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/73 "2006-10-20T13:39:52Z")
> [@unwashed brain](#): > > Scrambling isn’t a strategy so much as it is a reaction to a FUBAR’d passing play. [..] Vick [..] has rushing plays designed for him. That isn’t scrambling. > > You’re ignoring SOOOOOO many other factors that contribute to a QB’s season-total rushing yards: > […] > No coach or owner wants their QB to take additional hits, but Vick is so fast and elusive that in the Falcons’ view the reward outweighs the risk. I’m not ignoring any of those factors; I’m saying that every factor that contributes to scrambling is contra-indicated for winning a Superbowl. Bad receivers, OL, or RB? You aren’t going to even have a chance. A plethora of FUBAR’d passing plays? Yeah, don’t bet on them no matter what odds you get. Calling quarterback run plays in the huddle? That’s a game of russian roulette that will get your guy killed when he faces the elite defenses in the playoffs. I think the Falcons are nuts having Vick run on so many plays, and Vick himself apparently agrees with me judging by his interview this past Wednesday. I agree that scrambling (as opposed to called runs) is a reaction to a deficiency on your team. _That’s the whole friggin’ point._ It’s those deficiencies that will keep you home on Superbowl Sunday. Quarterback rushing yards is actually a very effective metric for measuring a whole host of deficiencies on a team, and as it turns out once those deficiencies add up to 300 scrambling yards, you almost certainly have no chance to win a Superbowl. (McNair was a true stud to get so close to a ring, but part of that anomaly was due to the equally anomalous defensively-challenged Rams being their opponent. They would have gotten killed by the Bucs.) Of note is that the only teams to overcome the 300 yard barrier were the super-teams of the 49ers back in the late 80s. That was just before the salary cap era was instituted, and Paul Tagliabue specifically cited them as a driving reason he wanted a salary cap in the first place. He didn’t want teams to be able to carry two superstar quarterbacks by outspending everyone else, because leaving a stud quarterback to languish on the bench is no good for the league. That’s why they were able to scramble for 300+ yards and win two Superbowls; they had two HOF quarterbacks on the roster to be able to whether the punishment. Montana missed multiple games in both those seasons. And you’re crazy if you think Elway was a scrambler in 98. That helicopter hit by the Packers the year before ended his scrambling days. [QUOTE=Jimmy Chitwood] Are you reading what anybody besides yourself is writing? Do you dispute that the quality of McNabb’s receivers was abysmal during the first period you cited? Do you dispute that the quality of McNabb’s receivers was improved during the latter period? Is it even fucking logically possible that the quality of one side of the equation can improve drastically without affecting the quality of the product as a whole? [/QUOTE] Do you fucking read what I write? I dispute that the Eagles receivers in the first era were worse than the Patriots receivers are this year. The Eagles receivers were actually a damn sight better. And yet it doesn’t seem to have affected Brady all that much in either his scrambling tendencies or his pass distribution. I dispute that McNabb’s receivers were better when TO went down for however many games he was sidelined by that bullshit Roy Williams tackle. Tell me, who were the receivers then that were so much better? You got any names? And to clarify, are you suggesting that _nobody_ could have thrown to those receivers? Peyton Manning and Tom Brady would have had nobody to throw to as well? Or was it just McNabb (or anyone who was athletic enough to run, eg Culpepper) who would have given up on them? Scrambling doesn’t have to be a **causative** agent in preventing playoff success. It can be the **result** of deficiencies that prevent playoff success. In both cases, my argument is unchanged and still true: 300+ scramblings yards = no Lombardi Trophy for you. Try again next year without so much scrambling. I’ve explained this to you just as many times as you’ve explained that the Eagles receivers were awful. Why you don’t get it is beyond me. Guess what? Shit receivers = no Superbowl win if your only recourse is to pull down the ball and scramble. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541/74 "2006-10-21T01:11:16Z")
Right behind you, **Trunk**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inside-info-on-atlanta-falcons/376541.md?page=3)