Why quarterbacks are overemphasized

A while ago, I wrote about the NFL’s superior use of storytelling as a reason for its tremendous success. Storytelling and the narrative form can be great, but as I wrote earlier today, it can also lead to oversimplification. The biggest problems in this area occur when everyone starts chasing the same storyline instead of working on their own. There are usually at least 10 different angles you can take with any team sport, and they all have their merits. Moreover, as all stories leave certain details out of necessity, reading multiple storylines and angles can give the reader a much clearer impression of what actually went on than a single piece. Of course, this falls to pieces when everyone starts chasing the same story, overemphasizing the importance of one player or event and minimizing the contributions of others in the process.

One of the best examples of this in sports is quarterbacks in the NFL. Yes, they’re quite likely the most important player on the team thanks to the sheer amount of plays they have to make each game and the drastic differences in outcomes based on what they do. A missed block by an offensive lineman or a poor route by a wide receiver doesn’t necessarily result in disaster, but a difference of a few inches to the right or left on a thrown ball can turn a touchdown into a pick-six, resulting in a 14-point swing. Other players can have that effect too, as that missed block or route can also turn a successful play into an interception, but the precision required of quarterbacks and the sheer amount of key plays they have to make every game does tend to make them rather important to the outcome of a game.

However, this importance has been inflated well beyond its actual value by many of the media, turning quarterbacks from key components of a team into the absolute centre of attention. This has led to such silly things as win-loss records for quarterbacks, which we don’t see for any other player. Yes, quarterbacks play a significant role in their team’s success, but it’s still just a role; Peyton Manning and Drew Brees would still be talented players if they played for the Cleveland Browns or Detroit Lions, but their stats wouldn’t be as impressive and they’d win far less games. The media’s quarterback love affair gets even worse when there’s a storyline involving both team’s pivots, such as Brett Favre’s return to Green Bay against his replacement Aaron Rodgers two weeks ago, or yesterday’s clash of Eli Manning and Philip Rivers, two quarterbacks once traded for each other. In these clashes, the stories tend to become all about the quarterbacks, and that isn’t necessarily accurate.

For example, consider that Favre-Rodgers clash, which was hyped beyond all proportion. It turned out to be a great game, and Favre’s Vikings came out on top, making the post-game stories all about him. I was in Wisconsin at the time and listening to Milwaukee sports radio the day after the game, and all the discussion was about Favre and Rodgers, and if Packers’ GM Ted Thompson made the right decision two years ago to move on without Favre. Most of the commentators were of the opinion that he didn’t. However, what was lost in the discussion was that Rodgers actually had just as strong of a day by many measures.

Rodgers finished the day with 26 completions for 287 yards and three touchdowns on 41 passing attempts. He put up a completion percentage of 63.4 per cent and wasn’t intercepted. He also ran five times for 52 yards. He was sacked six times and fumbled once, partly thanks to holding on to the ball for too long, but his offensive line was manhandled all day long by the Vikings’ defensive front.

Favre did have a strong day against Green Bay, completing 17 of 28 passes (60.7 per cent) for 244 yards and four touchdowns without being intercepted or sacked. However, that was made a lot easier for him by some spectacular yards after the catch from receivers like Percy Harvin. He also had superior blocking from his offensive line and faced an ineffective Green Bay pass rush, giving him plenty of time to find targets. Moreover, Favre had arguably the game’s best running back on his side in Adrian Peterson, while Rodgers was stuck with the relatively ineffectual Ryan Grant. Their stats basically work out to a draw (with Favre having the edge in touchdowns, fumbles and sacks, but Rodgers leading in passing yards, rushing yards and completion percentage), which is impressive considering that Favre had much better teammates and was working under much better conditions. Rodgers was running for his life all day, while Favre had all the time in the world. Given those conditions, a draw in quarterback stats looks like an awfully decent result for Rodgers.

The season statistics tell a similar story. On the year, Rodgers has completed 164 of 260 passes, or 63.1 per cent. He’s put up 2255 passing yards and 16 touchdowns against five interceptions, three of which came in yesterday’s poor performance against Tampa Bay. He also has 214 rushing yards on 32 attempts. He has been sacked 37 times and fumbled four times, only two of which were lost. By contrast, Favre has completed 174 of 256 passes (68.0 per cent) for 244 1925 yards and 16 touchdowns, and has been intercepted three times. He’s been sacked 18 times and has fumbled once. There isn’t too much to choose between there; Rodgers has the edge in passing and rushing yards, but Favre leads in efficiency and turnovers. Again, considering that Rodgers is working under much more difficult conditions, this doesn’t look bad for him at all.

This shows some of the limitations of the narrative form. Because quarterbacks tend to be a large part of the story, they’re often turned into THE story, which ignores much of the crucial context. Other examples include yesterday’s Giants-Chargers game, where the somewhat-surprising struggles of both teams’ rushing attacks and defences were largely passed over thanks to the quarterback drama, or even the questioning of the Kyle Orton – Jay Cutler trade thanks to the Bears’ struggles and the Broncos’ success. It’s quite possible that Cutler isn’t as good as everyone thought and that Orton is better than many gave him credit for, but you again have to consider their surroundings; Orton has a much stronger team, especially in the ground game, on defence and on the offensive line, but possibly also in the receiving corps, Despite even those factors, Cutler still leads Orton in passing yards (2046 to 1617), touchdowns (14 to 9), passing yards per game (255.8 to 231.0) and rushing yards (109 to 24), and they have the same completion percentage (63.6). Yet, the story’s been throughout that the Broncos improved their quarterback situation by trading Cutler for Orton. In a way, this might be true, as Cutler was very unhappy with head coach Josh McDaniels and his plans to switch to a more rushing-based attack, and the Broncos were able to land a couple of key draft picks in the trade as well, but I’d still argue that Cutler is the better quarterback. Of course, comparing the two directly is difficult thanks to Denver’s offensive line and ground-focused game.

Does this mean we should give up on narratives and stop talking about quarterbacks? Not at all. Quarterbacks still have a crucial role to play, and they still deserve lots of attention. However, it might not hurt to mention their circumstances and teammates more frequently, and it would be a good idea to scrap the notion that games are won and lost only because of how a team’s quarterback plays. In the NFL, there are 10 other offensive players and eleven defensive players on the field at the same time as any quarterback, and they all have a say in how games unfold too, as do the special-teams personnel, the head coaches, the offensive and defensive coordinators and many others. Let’s not overlook them in our discussions of the league.

Tags: aaron rodgers, Adrian Peterson, andrew bucholtz, Brett Favre, Jay Cutler, kyle orton, narrativium, nfl, quarterbacks, ryan grant, sports media, stories
Categories: Domestics, Drunken Ramblings

This entry was posted on Monday, November 9th, 2009 at 5:56 pm and is filed under Domestics, Drunken Ramblings. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.