NFL WEEK 7: Minutes in Heaven

[Hamlet]

@Atamasama

You could make an argument that in today’s NFL, with the way the rules are and the way teams play now that Luckman might do much better but that’s impossible to know and we have to go by numbers. And Luckman was not good.

Comparing quarterbacking in the 40’s and 50’s to the 2010’s is ridiculously unfair. The game is completely different. Having to play both ways, pass interference rules, QB protection rules, and the sheer number of attempts, makes comparing stats from the 40’s to now just silly. Hell, the league average of completion percentage never got above 50 percent until 195 fucking 4.

Luckman led the league in completion percentage once and was top 4 almost every year he played. He led the league in passing yards 3 times, touchdowns 3 times, and td percentage twice. He only led the league once in interceptions and interception percentage. His TD percentage of 7.9 is the NFL’s best ever. He made 1st team All Pro 5 times and was the NFL’s MVP in 1943. All the while amassing 17 intereceptions while playing defense too.

He’s in the damn NFL Hall of Fame, something that Cutler and I have about the same odds of doing.

[Atamasama]

@Hamlet

He’s in the damn NFL Hall of Fame, something that Cutler and I have about the same odds of doing.

Compared to his contemporaries I don’t doubt he earned his place in the HoF.

But comparing players from the past to players of today is complicated. It’s not even the same game if you go back far enough. How do you judge the play of quarterbacks from the era that predated the forward pass? What about QBs that doubled as kickers or defensive players?

Doing that results in so many “what if” considerations that it’s nearly impossible. It’s like asking if Michael Jordan was a better basketball player than Babe Ruth was as a baseball player. As I said, the sport has changed so much.

[Hamlet]

@Atamasama

Compared to his contemporaries I don’t doubt he earned his place in the HoF.

But comparing players from the past to players of today is complicated. It’s not even the same game if you go back far enough. How do you judge the play of quarterbacks from the era that predated the forward pass? What about QBs that doubled as kickers or defensive players?

Doing that results in so many “what if” considerations that it’s nearly impossible. It’s like asking if Michael Jordan was a better basketball player than Babe Ruth was as a baseball player. As I said, the sport has changed so much.

I think we agree on this. My problem was your statement: “And Luckman was not good”, and the idea that Cutler’s stats advantage shows he’s a “better” QB than Luckman. On those points, I think you’re off base.

[kenobi_65]

@Atamasama

Cutler is the best Bears QB because the Bears have never had a decent QB in their entire history. That’s amazing. Statistically speaking, who do you consider better than Cutler and why?

Over the course of a career (thus, not counting Bears QBs who had good, but short, tenures, like Erik Kramer), it’s still Luckman.

As has been already pointed out, the game has changed so much since Luckman’s time that a direct comparison of his stats to modern stats is meaningless (and, yes, of course, you’re right, if you had a modern QB with Luckman’s stats, they wouldn’t make in in the NFL). In Luckman’s era, passing was distinctly secondary to the running game for offenses, and when they did throw the ball, it was primarily longer, downfield routes – the high completion rates (60+%) and low interception rates of the modern game are the result of the adoption of the West Coast offense and other variations on the short passing game.

A 50% completion percentage was pretty typical, even above average – here are the passing stats for 1947 (one of Luckman’s All-Pro years, and a year that wasn’t affected by WWII, as several of his other top seasons were) – of the guys who were their teams primary starting quarterbacks, only Luckman and Sammy Baugh were over 50%.

Similarly, interception rates were far, far higher than they are now, and a rate of over 5% (even close to 10%) was perfectly normal.

Luckman (link is to his page on Pro Football Reference) led the NFL in completion percentage once, in touchdowns three times, and in 1941, he had the lowest interception rate in the league – at 5.0%!

He was a five-time All-Pro, won four NFL championships, and along with Baugh, was one of the two best quarterbacks of his generation.

[kenobi_65]

@kenobi_65

A 50% completion percentage was pretty typical, even above average – here are the passing stats for 1947 (one of Luckman’s All-Pro years, and a year that wasn’t affected by WWII, as several of his other top seasons were) – of the guys who were their teams primary starting quarterbacks, only Luckman and Sammy Baugh were over 50%.

Slight amendment to that – Philadelphia’s Tommy Thompson was over 50%, and, based on the team’s stats for '47, was their primary passer, but I missed on him because PFR only lists him with one start in that year.

[Chisquirrel]

@Atamasama

But comparing players from the past to players of today is complicated.

And yet you insist on doing just that. Quick, who has more passing yards, higher completion percentage and a better TD/INT ratio - Bart Starr or Andy Dalton?

Will you seriously try to say Dalton is better at literally anything other than sucking the souls of his fans from their bodies with playoff failure?

[racepug]

@Atamasama

How do you judge the play of quarterbacks from the era that predated the forward pass? What about QBs that doubled as kickers or defensive players?

Exactly. While acknowledging the quarterbacks from the early days that excelled in their era, my fellow “football nerds” still aren’t quite willing to put those guys in the same class of top QBs of the last 40 or 50 years.

[racepug]

@Chisquirrel

And yet you insist on doing just that. Quick, who has more passing yards, higher completion percentage and a better TD/INT ratio - Bart Starr or Andy Dalton?

Another example: if I’m not mistaken, Jim Harbaugh’s final overall QB rating as a Colt is higher than the one that “Johnny U.” finished with. But nobody in their right mind is ever going to argue that Jim Harbaugh was a better N.F.L. quarterback than “Johnny U.” was.

[racepug]

I’m watching the rugby World Cup and it reminds me that footballs back then were shaped more like rugby balls are today (and always have been, as far as I know). I saw a show once where Boomer Esiason tried to throw one of the old footballs and he acknowledged how it could take some getting used to for a modern player. Something else to keep in mind when thinking about old time QBs vs. current ones.

[kenobi_65]

@racepug

I’m watching the rugby World Cup and it reminds me that footballs back then were shaped more like rugby balls are today (and always have been, as far as I know). I saw a show once where Boomer Esiason tried to throw one of the old footballs and he acknowledged how it could take some getting used to for a modern player. Something else to keep in mind when thinking about old time QBs vs. current ones.

True, though the NFL ball took on its current proportions in 1935. So, guys like Baugh and Luckman, in the late 1930s and 1940s, were playing with (more or less) the same ball that quarterbacks are using today.

[kenobi_65]

Aaron Rodgers is having a pretty good day so far. At the moment, his stats are 24/29 passing, 355 yards, 4 touchdowns, no interceptions, plus a rushing touchdown.

On the other hand, it also looks like the Raiders have been solving the Packers’ defense. Carr isn’t often getting pressured, receivers are open, and Jacobs has been rushing well.

[dalej42]

Just an observation, but has TV coverage actually gotten slightly better with less emphasis on fantasy? I remember a few years ago where you were bombarded with ads for the one day fantasy leagues and it seemed the entire game coverage was based on fantasy stats.

[asahi]

First weekend in a while I’ve had a chance to just watch NFL Sunday and I’m impressed. Rainy weather along the East Coast makes for real football weather conditions. Those games in Washington and New York were beautiful, and I’m not being sarcastic.

[Atamasama]

Seattle game is also wet. It’s a wet weekend on both coasts!

[asahi]

@Atamasama

Seattle game is also wet. It’s a wet weekend on both coasts!

I see that.

Love it.

Not ready for snow yet, so rain’s just fine.

[Superdude]

Colts hold off the Texans, sit at the top of the division at 6-2.

[Southern_Yankee]

@Superdude

Colts hold off the Texans, sit at the top of the division at 6-2.

Does this say anything about Luck? Or did the team just a do a good job of preparing for not having him?

[Atamasama]

@Southern_Yankee

Does this say anything about Luck? Or did the team just a do a good job of preparing for not having him?

My guess is that the Colts put in a lot of good pieces to build around Luck, and now Brisett is enjoying that infrastructure.

[asahi]

@Southern_Yankee

Does this say anything about Luck? Or did the team just a do a good job of preparing for not having him?

I think the Colts were prepared to win without Luck. Brissett (sp?) has proven to be a reliable QB and a good fit in Reich’s scheme.

[asahi]

Anyone else notice how assistants who leave Bill Belichick are never nearly as good as Bill Belichick?