Various Passing Statistics Through 10/24/2016

[BigRedBuster]

I agree with the "yards per attempt" being a very important stat. However, when you really have a potent offense, is when you have a high "yards per attempt" and also a high completion percentage. That probably means you have a very efficient QB, good WRs that are getting open and yards after the catch. If you have that, the running game opens way up.

No matter what, when you are sitting at a 50% or worse completion percentage, the other stats become less and less meaningful.

I disagree with that. If you have an amazing run game, and then you only use play action/deep passes the 50% mark could be acceptable.

I think that people confuse completion % with passing accuracy and efficiency too often. Yes, they are somewhat related, but not 100%.

Sam Bradford set a NFL record for highest completion % this year, but I don't think many would say that Minnesota's passing offense was efficient and great.

So, Sam Bradford set a record with completion percentage but their offense struggled.

Nebraska had a 50% completion percentage and their offense struggled.

Pretty much sums up what everyone, including me, is saying. You can't look at one stat and claim that's the end all be all.

I didn't say at 50% completion, the other stats are meaningless. I said less meaningful.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I agree with the "yards per attempt" being a very important stat. However, when you really have a potent offense, is when you have a high "yards per attempt" and also a high completion percentage. That probably means you have a very efficient QB, good WRs that are getting open and yards after the catch. If you have that, the running game opens way up.

No matter what, when you are sitting at a 50% or worse completion percentage, the other stats become less and less meaningful.

I disagree with that. If you have an amazing run game, and then you only use play action/deep passes the 50% mark could be acceptable.

I think that people confuse completion % with passing accuracy and efficiency too often. Yes, they are somewhat related, but not 100%.

Sam Bradford set a NFL record for highest completion % this year, but I don't think many would say that Minnesota's passing offense was efficient and great.

So, Sam Bradford set a record with completion percentage but their offense struggled.

Nebraska had a 50% completion percentage and their offense struggled.

Pretty much sums up what everyone, including me, is saying. You can't look at one stat and claim that's the end all be all.

I didn't say at 50% completion, the other stats are meaningless. I said less meaningful.

Fair enough.

 

[Mavric]

I agree with the "yards per attempt" being a very important stat. However, when you really have a potent offense, is when you have a high "yards per attempt" and also a high completion percentage. That probably means you have a very efficient QB, good WRs that are getting open and yards after the catch. If you have that, the running game opens way up.

No matter what, when you are sitting at a 50% or worse completion percentage, the other stats become less and less meaningful.

I disagree with that. If you have an amazing run game, and then you only use play action/deep passes the 50% mark could be acceptable.

I think that people confuse completion % with passing accuracy and efficiency too often. Yes, they are somewhat related, but not 100%.

Sam Bradford set a NFL record for highest completion % this year, but I don't think many would say that Minnesota's passing offense was efficient and great.

So, Sam Bradford set a record with completion percentage but their offense struggled.

Nebraska had a 50% completion percentage and their offense struggled.

Pretty much sums up what everyone, including me, is saying. You can't look at one stat and claim that's the end all be all.

I didn't say at 50% completion, the other stats are meaningless. I said less meaningful.

I think a lot of that is the difference between the NFL and college. I think ColoradoHusk is right in college - if you have an elite running game you don't have to be as high in completion percentage, especially if your yards per attempt is high. Air Force was #1 in yards per attempt even though they only completed 45% of their passes, but since they are an excellent rushing team that's a good compliment. Navy is #2 in yards per attempt.

Bradford was #1 in completion percentage but #19 in yards per attempt, which is exactly why they were pointing out that stat. They were also dead last in rushing, so they weren't that good at either.

Nebraska was #122 in completion percentage and we were only #78 in yards per attempt so we weren't very good at either.

Other than the triple option teams, teams that were in the Top 20 in yards per attempt include Oklahoma, Western Kentucky, Penn State, Oklahoma State, Washington, Louisville and Texas Tech - teams that had pretty good offenses. It's not the end all, but I think it gives you a pretty good idea.

 

[LAblackshirt]

I know a lot of Husker fans get down on Tommy for his "low" completion percentage and that he's not an accurate/efficient passer. I think completion % is only one measure to evaluate a QB, and there are many other valuable stats to measure how well a QB (especially Tommy) is playing.

While NU ranks in the 100's in completion percentage..

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/completion-pct

NU is in the top 20 in yards per attempt (#1 in the B1G)

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/yards-per-pass-attempt

#6 in the country in yards per completion (#1 in the B1G by far)

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/yards-per-completion

In the top 10 in team QB sacked percentage (also #1 in the B1G)

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/qb-sacked-pct

Just giving some people food for thought.

This is cool, thanks for digging up the research. Definitely interesting. What I have found in my research about which statistics are most indicative of a QB's performance, is that almost all of them offer snapshots with limited perspective. The best thing I have found if you want a real answer, is what Pro Football Focus is doing these days. Assigning numerical values to every play based on every relevant QB controlled element. I'm not sure how much they really do it for College Football right now, but I know they have put out some college player rankings based on their system,

For example: Armstrong throws a pass to the flat, but puts it behind Abdullah making him stop his forward motion and go back to get it. He stops on a dime, extends and makes an outstanding catch, despite the poor throw. Abdullah then jukes out the two tacklers who are unblocked (due to the play timing being thrown off by an inaccurate throw), trucks the safety and takes it to the house for 60+ yards.

• Pro Football Focus takes this play and has a knowledgeable person analyze it and score it between -.5 (worst), and .5 (best). They will note the throw being inaccurate, the bad timing it caused, and the poor mechanics that caused the inaccuracy and assign it (correctly) a bad score. This will then directly affect the rating they give him.
• Completion %- this play makes Tommy look good.
• Yards Per Attempt- this play makes Tommy look good.
• Yards Per Completion- this play makes Tommy look good
• QB sacked percentage- this play makes Tommy look good

This pretty well illustrates the problem with most statistics, but obviously they still stand for something. I am very much in the camp that Armstrong was one of the worst active QB's (in terms of passing) in Power 5 football. Not meant to be a shot at him, he was a terrific athlete, leader, and a great husker to be sure. PFF ranked him the worst in the conference in terms of passing through the first 7 games (his best games really) so that's kind of my base for thinking that. I feel Riley and Langs by all accounts tried to make this as easy of an offense with as easy of throws as they could and he still couldn't find any real success. There were countless great offensive play calls leaving wide-outs completely open that Tommy just couldn't see, or throw to accurately.