Rational Hope: Bad Quarterback Bingo
Seahawks fans know all too well how a run of bad quarterbacks can make an average defense look like world beaters. Though there are no Alex Smiths or A.J. Feeleys in the mix for the Bears, they have faced quite a few quarterbacks of lacking or questionable ability.
In week one, the Bears faced Matthew Stafford, knocked him out of the game, and then Shaun Hill after Hill subbed in. In week five, the Bears faced Jimmy Clausen, knocked him out of the game, and then Matt Moore after Moore subbed in. In week 10, the Bears beat down old man Brett Favre. The following week Chicago matched against Tyler Thigpen and the Dolphins. It was Thigpen's first significant regular season action since 2008. In week 13, the Bears faced Drew Stanton. I like Stanton, but it's hard to know exactly how good he is. Everyone loved Derek Anderson in 2007, but Anderson fell to Earth like so much space garbage. In week 15, Chicago beat down old man Brett Favre again, knocked him out of the game, and faced Joe Webb after Webb subbed in. It was the rookie’s first meaningful action of his career. In week 16, the Bears faced Mark Sanchez. Sanchez had some success, and Sanchez is among the worst starting quarterbacks in the NFL.
Seahawks fans did not know for sure that the run of jobber quarterbacks the team faced in 2007 was a big part of the defense playing so well, but it seems obvious in retrospect. Trent Dilfer, Jeff Garcia, Marc Bulger, Gus Frerotte and A.J. Feeley were all at or near the end of their careers. Matt Moore and Troy Smith were rookies then and low level backups now. Alex Smith and Rex Grossman are busts.
Likewise, maybe someday Stafford, Clausen, Webb, Thigpen, Sanchez and Stanton will be good quarterbacks, but none are good quarterbacks now and none have exhibited much to make me believe they are about to become good quarterbacks. The big picture is that it's hard to know how good a defense is when it's facing rookies, the soon to be retired, journeymen and backups. Advanced stats adjust for quality of opponent, but it's hard to account for the precise difference between a starter and a backup, a game starter and the player that substitutes in after injury, and to account for the wildly variable performance of bad quarterbacks.
Perhaps the single most damaging thing a quarterback can do, throw an interception, is infrequent and unpredictable and can bunch up against some opponents and not happen at all against others. We know from a larger sample which quarterbacks are interception prone, but the most interception prone quarterback in football, Eli Manning, only threw an interception in 4.6% of pass attempts. Over 34 attempts, a typical game for Manning, that still only yields about 1.5 interceptions. And in practice, sometimes Manning avoided interceptions all together as he did against the Bears fifth ranked pass defense, and sometimes he exploded for five picks in 83 attempts, as he did over two games against the Cowboys 28th ranked pass defense.
Facing bad quarterbacks is like playing with loaded dice. You don't win every roll, but probability is switched in your favor. The Bears faced quite a few truly bad quarterbacks, and in seven games, those quarterbacks and the teams they helmed accounted for 19 of the Bears 35 turnovers on defense. Maybe Chicago just exploited the competition they faced, and maybe the competition they faced made Chicago look like a much better defense than it actually is.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The other side of Bad QB Bingo
Cutler gets knocked out of the game and Todd Collins comes in and the 2010 defense can play like it’s 2007.
Seahawks 41 Saints 36: Beast Mode.
For a minute I thought you were talking about us
I’m rooting for Matt to still have that jar of lightning from last week.
by BrooklynPreacher on Jan 13, 2011 5:29 PM PST reply actions
Looking at the conditions I doubt it
But if Martz channels his pass happy gimmick again I think the defense can win the game.
Seahawks 41 Saints 36: Beast Mode.
After reading John's post above re: Martz's relative stubborness
This gives me unexpected hope…
by BrooklynPreacher on Jan 13, 2011 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
Don't tell this to Bears fans...
They will deny this and any evidence you have that may bring doubt upon their ultimate superiority. It’s funny how they take into consideration all the weaknesses of a team they know nothing about, while they forget about their own obvious flaws…Here’s to hoping the Seahawks know more about the Bears than their fans do…
I showed a friend of mine who is a Bears fan and this is essentially what happened.
At least we can recognize our flaws, and why we aren’t that good! Denial is annoying if you’re reading this, Kyle! :)
by BrettJMiller on Jan 13, 2011 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
Nah, we've discussed it, and every other point brought up against our record, ad nauseum.
We’re just sick of hearing it.
by Steven Schweickert on Jan 13, 2011 8:06 PM PST up reply actions
It's human nature
People tend to excuse their failures and take their successes at face value. All the Bears fans I’ve heard from in the past week have a hundred and one reasons why the Seahawks weren’t really better than the Bears in their earlier meeting — it was Briggs being injured, it was a holding call on a kickoff, there was some flukey blocking breakdown that will never happen again, etc. etc. (Hester’s return when the game was pretty much decided, though — nope, that’s just Hester doing what Hester does.) What we sometimes don’t realize is that just about every team in every game can list five things that might have gone differently and changed the outcome; people skew their analysis when they’re so one-sided about it.
I also heard similar things from Charger fans earlier in the season, lamenting the two kickoff returns as bizarre flukes while neglecting to mention the two TD opportunities the Seahawks squandered in the first half.
by Suburban Shocker on Jan 14, 2011 8:11 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Is this rational hope?
Do you think that our QBs are better than those other “bad” quarterbacks?
Or are you just saying that their defense is probably over rated?
The Bears also faced Aaron Rodgers (twice, I think), Tom Brady, Michael Vick and Tony Romo
Does that, in any way, balance out the 7 awful QBs the Bears have faced this season? I don’t recall them destroying an of those guys, but I think they won all those games except against the Patriots (I’m pretty sure the Bears swept the Packers).
The Packers won in week 17.
They eked out a victory. It was a sloppy (offensively), defense dominated game.
by jubelthebear on Jan 13, 2011 9:58 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, that occurred to me a little while later
But in the one game where the outcome DID matter for BOTH teams, the Bears won.
Given that the bears did not rest most of their starters
I was under the impression the outcome did matter to them.
by jubelthebear on Jan 14, 2011 5:44 AM PST up reply actions
Eh, not really...
The Bears played their starters… But there wasn’t much in the gameplan or anything. At lot of low injury risk plays, not a lot of hard hitting. It was a lot of “Get through this healthy, stay sharp, don’t get hurt… But beat the Packers.” Kinda hard to do that playing so vanilla.
by Steven Schweickert on Jan 14, 2011 5:58 AM PST up reply actions
That's a strange assessment of a game in which Cutler threw 39 passes and was sacked six times.
by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2011 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Martz was just trying to protect his QB
If they had really wanted to win that game, Martz would have opened things up and Cutler would have been sacked at least 8-10 times.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 14, 2011 2:02 PM PST up reply actions
I know...
But I don’t think it’s far off at all. Most of the pass plays were sidelines, outs, and short; low injury risk plays to the WRs. Nobody really had to go up for a ball, stretch or anything like that.
That being said… The six sacks were a concern, and through the game I was wondering if the line was just avoiding getting hurt themselves, as opposed to playing full force (and thus, more injury risk).
by Steven Schweickert on Jan 15, 2011 6:08 AM PST up reply actions
Complete list of QBs faced by the Bears:
Matt Stafford / Shaun Hill
Tony Romo (pre-quitting on Phillips)
Aaron Rodgers (P)
Eli Manning
Jimmy Clausen / Matt Moore
Matt Hasselbeck (P)
Donovan McNabb
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Brett Favre
Tyler Thigpen
Michael Vick (P)
Drew Stanton
Tom Brady (P)
Brett Favre / Joe Webb
Mark Sanchez (P)
Aaron Rodgers (P)
Five quarterbacks the Bears played this year are playoff QBs, for what it’s worth. Against those five quarterbacks (six games), they are 3-3 (3-2 if you truly believe week 17 had zero meaning to the Bears and they didn’t care; the record says an L so whatever). In those games, the QBs stat lines went (in order of when we faced them):
34-45, 316, 1-1 (17 pts)
25-40, 242, 1-0 (23 pts) – Hasselbeck
29-44, 333, 2-1 (26 pts)
27-40, 369, 2-0 (36 pts)
24-38, 269, 1-1 (34 pts)
19-28, 229, 1-1 (10 pts)
by Steven Schweickert on Jan 14, 2011 5:44 AM PST up reply actions
For what it's worth, Romo was playing pretty well until he got his collerbone broke
The team probably quit on Wade before that, but Romo’s stats were still good.
Six is not a "G" number.
46-60. Bingo is like the NFL, certain positions get certain numbers. :)
Cake for me too, please.
lol
Maybe Chicago just exploited the competition they faced, and maybe the competition they faced made Chicago look like a much better defense than it actually is.
Maybe New Orleans made yall forget it was a reason Seattle was 7-9….
Maybe the fact that all of 9 of the losses were by blowout
Maybe it was the 3 games seattle had no more than 7 pts
Talk about exploited competition? Hahahahahahahahaha
Your whole division were bottom feeders, even the “champs”….
not trying to pick a fight but im just saying
I respect your OPINION but i also value the FACTS, To save time, lets just ASSume IM NEVER WRONG
by Tommy Ohyeah Mcduffie on Jan 15, 2011 12:03 PM PST reply actions

by 




































