Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by Joecool:
He's not even handsome anymore.

Blasphemy!

My thoughts on Jimmy

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
i swear, this place. Your boss comes to you and says, "I just hired someone who I think can replace you. He's not ready to do your job yet so I want to keep you around for one more year so you can show him the ropes AND I want you to take a 50% cut in salary for the privilege of doing it, You don't have any problem with that, right?"

I'm sure all of you armchair GM's would just jump at the chance to take that deal or that those near and dear to you who count on your financial support would be down with it. Oh, we don't need to send the kids to college this year. Oh, I'm sure the bank will let us skip some of our mortgage payments. Given that Jimmy's take home is probably a lot higher than any of yours I don't imagine he has those kind of immediate concerns, but I assume you get the point.

Thank you good one. All this pay cut talk is

No one is taking a pay cut to hang around as backup in a hella awkward situation.

Its comically absurd that this has been suggested at all this offseason.

And for the record, I still would have zero interest in Jimmy back at 50% of his current salary. It's better than $27M, but still no thanks.

Betting now I would say if Jimmy is on the roster come season start he's going to start.

Betting on if they cut him I would bet they won't because if they had balls they would have already cut him and avoided this whole mess.

This leaves me praying for a preseason injury so it can seem like it was all planned when they trade him and get some good compensation.

He is not going to hold the clipboard for 27 million so if he's here he's starting.

They should have cut him already the drama isn't worth their expected first or second round compensation they want.

Shanny and lynch are garbage picking anyway in the first hundred or so guys. The scouts and late round picks are consistently better in the late rounds than our FO. They probably miss on whatever early round pick they wanted as compensation anyway.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
I think you can get a lot of information form this metric I just made:

(Completed Air Yards + (45*Passing TD) - (20*Interceptions))/(Passes Attempted)*

This takes into account most of the important factors, and it normalizes for attempts, while also subtracting most of the contributions of WRs, TEs, and RBs by using completed air yards instead of total yards. Now, if you want to take it a step further, you can add sacks and yards lost to that with this: (Completed Air Yards - Sack Yards Lost + (45*Passing TD) - (20*Interceptions)/(Passes Attempted + Times Sacked).

*If the QB passed for two digits of attempts, change the 45 and 20 to 4.5 and 2.0 (the coefficient on the TD and INT is to make the TDs and INTs the same number of digits as attempts. Why 45 for TDs and 20 for INTs? Because while INTs hurt you, scoring points is what wins games. If you're not throwing INTs, you're not attacking the defense. But if you're throwing too many, you hurt your team. A ratio greater than 2:1 seems ideal. These coefficients could be adjusted, of course).

.
.

Just for s**ts and giggles, here is how Jimmy and a few other QBs compare with this metric. These are just randomly selected QBs off the top of my head:

Vs. some of the best QBs.
Jimmy: (1844 + (45*20) - (20*12))/(441) = 5.68
Stafford: (2160 + (45*41) - (20*17))/(601) = 6.10
Brady: (2762 + (45*43) - (20*12))/(719) = 6.19
Rodgers: (1947 + (45*37) - (20*4))/(531) = 6.65
Mahomes: (2140 + (45*37) - (20*13))/(658) = 5.39
Herbert: (2627 + (45*38) - (20*15))/(672) = 6.01
Josh Allen: (2664 + (45*36) - (20*15))/(646) =6.17
Prescott: (2425 + (45*37) - (20*10))/(596) = 6.53
Wilson: (1730 + (45*25) - (20*6))/(400) = 6.83 (<== this is a problem... no way this asshat is the best QB)

Some controls with lesser QBs:

Murray: (1986 + (45*24) - (20*10))/(481) =5.96
Ryan: (2244 + (45*20) - (20*12))/(560) = 5.12
Tannehill: (1958 + (45*21) - (20*14))/(531) = 4.94
Heinickie: (1655 + (45*20) - (20*15))/(494) = 4.56
Mac Jones: (2027 + (45*22) - (20*13))/(521) = 5.29

And of course:
Lance: (315 + (4.5*7) - (2.0*2))/(71) = 4.8*

Most of this is unsurprising. What is quite surprising is that Mahomes ranks so low, given his stellar TD to INT ratio. This tells me there's probably something wrong with this metric. But then again, he did struggle for a good portion of the year. However, Russell Wilson is not the best QB. So I'll work on this some more.

So i think experiments like this have a lot more value than some talking head making a dream list based on ratings self interest. You are taking a formula and applying it to everyone. Its hard. Signing a coefficient two different events like touchdowns and interceptions fundamentally just doesn't make sense. There should be a more comprehensive way of quantitatively evaluating the contributions of a quarterback to the overall efficiency of the offense. All of the terms in the equation should have the same Dimension if they are to be added and subtracted. Like yards. But how do you turn events like touchdowns interceptions in to yards?hmmm. I have to think about that one.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
I think you can get a lot of information form this metric I just made:

(Completed Air Yards + (45*Passing TD) - (20*Interceptions))/(Passes Attempted)*

This takes into account most of the important factors, and it normalizes for attempts, while also subtracting most of the contributions of WRs, TEs, and RBs by using completed air yards instead of total yards. Now, if you want to take it a step further, you can add sacks and yards lost to that with this: (Completed Air Yards - Sack Yards Lost + (45*Passing TD) - (20*Interceptions)/(Passes Attempted + Times Sacked).

*If the QB passed for two digits of attempts, change the 45 and 20 to 4.5 and 2.0 (the coefficient on the TD and INT is to make the TDs and INTs the same number of digits as attempts. Why 45 for TDs and 20 for INTs? Because while INTs hurt you, scoring points is what wins games. If you're not throwing INTs, you're not attacking the defense. But if you're throwing too many, you hurt your team. A ratio greater than 2:1 seems ideal. These coefficients could be adjusted, of course).

.
.

Just for s**ts and giggles, here is how Jimmy and a few other QBs compare with this metric. These are just randomly selected QBs off the top of my head:

Vs. some of the best QBs.
Jimmy: (1844 + (45*20) - (20*12))/(441) = 5.68
Stafford: (2160 + (45*41) - (20*17))/(601) = 6.10
Brady: (2762 + (45*43) - (20*12))/(719) = 6.19
Rodgers: (1947 + (45*37) - (20*4))/(531) = 6.65
Mahomes: (2140 + (45*37) - (20*13))/(658) = 5.39
Herbert: (2627 + (45*38) - (20*15))/(672) = 6.01
Josh Allen: (2664 + (45*36) - (20*15))/(646) =6.17
Prescott: (2425 + (45*37) - (20*10))/(596) = 6.53
Wilson: (1730 + (45*25) - (20*6))/(400) = 6.83 (<== this is a problem... no way this asshat is the best QB)

Some controls with lesser QBs:

Murray: (1986 + (45*24) - (20*10))/(481) =5.96
Ryan: (2244 + (45*20) - (20*12))/(560) = 5.12
Tannehill: (1958 + (45*21) - (20*14))/(531) = 4.94
Heinickie: (1655 + (45*20) - (20*15))/(494) = 4.56
Mac Jones: (2027 + (45*22) - (20*13))/(521) = 5.29

And of course:
Lance: (315 + (4.5*7) - (2.0*2))/(71) = 4.8*

Most of this is unsurprising. What is quite surprising is that Mahomes ranks so low, given his stellar TD to INT ratio. This tells me there's probably something wrong with this metric. But then again, he did struggle for a good portion of the year. However, Russell Wilson is not the best QB. So I'll work on this some more.

So i think experiments like this have a lot more value than some talking head making a dream list based on ratings self interest. You are taking a formula and applying it to everyone. Its hard. Signing a coefficient two different events like touchdowns and interceptions fundamentally just doesn't make sense. There should be a more comprehensive way of quantitatively evaluating the contributions of a quarterback to the overall efficiency of the offense. All of the terms in the equation should have the same Dimension if they are to be added and subtracted. Like yards. But how do you turn events like touchdowns interceptions in to yards?hmmm. I have to think about that one.

No, it ABSOLUTELY makes sense. You need to get total yards, touchdowns and interceptions to be the same order of magnitude or else your formula will have yards being ten times more important than touchdowns.

"All the terms in this equation should have the same Dimension if they are to be added and subtracted"

That is PRECISELY the point of the coefficients. I didn't write the dimensions on the coefficients, but they were certainly there. Here they are:

The coefficient for TDs: 45 yards/touchdown.
The coefficient for INTs: 20 yards/interception.

If you know anything about dimensional analysis, the final unit of the metric is yards/attempt.

One other consideration: I didn't directly take completion percentage into effect. Now, in a sense, it's kind of included, since if you're not completing passes, you'll have a higher attempt but a lower yardage per pass. But, I'll worry about that in the next iteration. For now, I will ignore completion percentage. On my next attempt at this, I'll add it with a coefficient of 10 in order to make it the same order of magnitude as attempts (unless the attempts are two digits, as described below at the "new formula").

All that said, I didn't like Russell Wilson coming out on top. He's an elite QB, sure, but most around the world feel that Aaron Rodgers is the best QB. So, I'm going to play around with the coefficients. Although, it may actually be that this metric is right. After all, Wilson is a QB who throws the ball down the field. He's not relying on his WRs. They are relying on him. But on the other hand, his QBR was ranked only 10th. Then again, I don't have a lot of faith in total QBR other than to be in the ball park. But that said, I don't think they're off by TEN rankings. Maybe five.

So what I'll try this time is to weight touchdowns and interceptions equally, and I'll use a coefficient that will weigh them on the closer side to being as important as completed air yards. In order to do that, I may have to make the coefficient bigger than the 45 I chose, but for now, I'll stick with 45 (presently this means that completed air yards is weighted more than TDs minus INTs; at first glance, as a Jimmy fan, you might not like that. But you will when you realize that Jimmy's TD-INT is 8, while Matthew Stafford's is 24. We don't need a metric that makes Stafford 1.5 to 3 times better than Jimmy).

.
.
.

So the new formula is this (probably the second to last one):

(Completed Air Yards + (45*Passing TD) - (45*Interceptions))/(Passes Attempted)*

*Again, the coefficient will be whatever is necessary to make the TDs and INTs coefficients be dependent on the order of magnitude of attempts. If the attempts are three digits, the coefficients will be two digits. If attempts are two digits, the coefficients will be 1 digit (by moving the decimal place). If the attempts are one digit, the coefficients will be in the tenths.

.
.
.
.
.

I am pleased to say that by weighting touchdowns and interceptions evenly, Trey Lance is second among rookies, which seems accurate (I think he surpassed Jones by the Texans game, however).

And now I'll do all of the starting QBs so we can see where Jimmy actually ranks with this metric. :
(when there are more than two decimal places, it is to get accurate results on players who tie with only two digits considered)
.
~~~DRUM ROLL PLEASE~~~
.
.
Rodgers: (1947 + (45*37) - (45*4))/(531) = 6.4632
Russell Wilson: (1730 + (45*25) - (45*6))/(400) = 6.4625
Cousins: (2415 + (45*33) - (45*7))/(561) = 6.39 (Like it or not, Cousins' numbers were outstanding. He ranked 4th in NFL passer rating.)
Burrow: (2332 + (45*34) - (45*14))/(520) = 6.22
Prescott: (2425 + (45*37) - (45*10))/(596) = 6.11
Brady: (2762 + (45*43) - (45*12))/(719) = 5.78
Allen: (2664 + (45*36) - (45*15))/(646) = 5.59
Wentz: (1913 + (45*27) - (45*7))/(516) = 5.4516
Herbert: (2627 + (45*38) - (45*15))/(672) = 5.4494
Murray: (1986 + (45*24) - (45*10))/(481) = 5.44
Stafford: (2160 + (45*41) - (45*17))/(601) = 5.39
Bridgewater: (1658 + (45*18) - (45*7))/(426) = 5.05
Garoppolo: (1844 + (45*20) - (45*12))/(441) = 5.00
Mahomes: (2140 + (45*37) - (45*13))/(658) = 4.894
Jackson: (1734 + (45*16) - (45*13))/(382) = 4.893 (Jackson will be undervalued because this is strictly a passing stat)
Carr: (2525 + (45*23) - (45*14))/(626) = 4.68
Mac Jones: (2027 + (45*22) - (45*13))/(521) = 4.67
Ryan: (2244 + (45*20) - (45*12))/(560) = 4.65
Hurts: (1681 + (45*16) - (45*9))/(432) = 4.62
Tua: (1436 + (45*16) - (45*10))/(388) = 4.40
Mayfield: (1632 + (45*17) - (45*13))/(418) = 4.33
Davis Mills: (1419 + (45*16) - (45*10))/(394) = 4.29
Tannehill: (1958 + (45*21) - (45*14))/(531) = 4.28
Daniel Jones: (1334 + (45*10) - (45*7))/(361) = 4.10
Jared Goff: (1490 + (45*19) - (45*8))/(494) = 4.02
Justin Fields: (1178 + (45*7) - (45*10))/(270) = 3.86
Heinickie: (1655 + (45*20) - (45*15))/(494) = 3.81
Zach Wilson: (1245 + (45*9) - (45*11))/(383) = 3.02
Lawrence: (2004 + (45*12) - (45*17))/(602) = 2.96
Darnold: (1151 + (45*9) - (45*13))/(406) = 2.39

So, by this metric, Sam Darnold was the worst qualifying QB in the NFL. Interestingly enough, Garoppolo ranks 13 here, exactly the same as Total QBR.
.
.

And a few others:

Watson from his last season: (2847 + (45*33) - (45*7))/(544) = 7.38—and THAT'S why the Browns guaranteed $230 million.

Trey Lance: (315 + (4.5*5) - (4.5*2))/(71) = 4.63* Which is second among rookies. (This would be 4.91 if I used the adjustment discussed in the next post, which honestly I feel makes more sense)

Mahomes' 2018 season (the only 50+ TD season that has completed air yards stats): (2489 + (45*50) - (45*12))/(580) = 7.24

I mean, it's a bit odd that Watson's 2020 season is the highest ranking. But then again, his yards per attempt were an absurd 8.9. The ball was racing down the field.

.
.
.
.
.

Possible adjustments for a more accurate metric:

(1) Instead of a standard coefficient, it would probably be better to use a function that is dependent on attempts. That way, the approximate contribution to the final number will be closer in size to completed air yards, thereby weighting CAY, TDs, and INTs equally. An additional benefit is there wouldn't need to be shady business to bring in QBs with significantly fewer attempts into the comparison.

Now, while attempts do come into the equation with this metric, it is a simple denominator, which fails to account for the difference in the way that CAY, TDs, and INTs are weighted. On the other hand, it may be that the true value of quarterback play involves differential weighting for these three categories. But what is that accurate weighing? What is most important to measure a QB's performance? How much he contributes to the yards of a given pass? How many TDs he throws? How many INTs he throws?

.

(2) It may be helpful to include one additional term for completion percentage. As it stands now, COMP% is partially taken into account by attempt: if you're not completing passes, your yards/attempt is going down. But, that only partially takes it into account.

.

(3) One could consider adding a fourth (or fifth) category to the terms added together: this same metric, except only for 4th quarter statistics. That way crunch time is somewhat accounted for. It would perhaps be better to divide that number by how many fourth quarters are played, and then either add that to the total, or add it in the numerator. But there is no way I'm going to do that much work.

Honestly, I'm pretty happy with this metric. There are a few anomalies, but it mostly fits with what you'd expect. The great QBs are at the top, the horrible ones at the bottom. Jimmy is about where he belongs, in the "above average" category. Instead of total yards it uses completed air yards, which maximizes QB contribution on passes, instead of taking credit from WRs and handing it to quarterbacks.

There are questions about the weighting of the numbers, and completion percentage isn't directly taking into account. But then, if I did, it would inaccurately favor QBs who always threw it short, which would over value quarterbacks who were contributing less to their team's success than QBs throwing the ball more down the field. However, using completed air yards may mitigate that effect to an extent.

I'll think about it, but for now, I'd say what I have is pretty darn good.

.
.

EDIT:
One other consideration regarding QBs who fail to meet qualifying attempts. Because of how TDs and INTs are weighted using coefficients instead of functions, it might be better to have tiers for QBs with under 200 attempts.

*For QBs with between 100 and 200 attempts: Multiply the TD and INT coefficients by .5. This would make Winston's "adjusted passer rating," as I am calling it be 5.20, which makes sense to me given his 14 to 3 TD/INT ratio.

*For QBs with under 100 attempts: Multiply the TD and INT coefficients by .25. This changes Trey's "adjusted passer rating" from 4.63 to 4.91, which would make him the best of the rookie QBs. Some would would dispute this, but a 5 to 2 TD to INT ratio, with an absurd 7 TD percentage, presents a compelling argument.

This makes sense in another sense as well, since the average attempts are around 400. So under 200, TDs/INTs count half as much in the weighing, and when you drop below 100 attempts, they count a quarter as much.

.
.

ALL THAT SAID, a superior way would be to make the coefficients functions instead, which depend on attempts in a way that will make CAY, TDs, and INTs weigh, on average, about the same. What would make it even more effective, is to normalize the numbers so that each contribution is about what you'd expect from a single game. That way it can be used on a weekly basis as well as season basis.

.
.
Lastly: It may be worth while to see how each of these three stats correlate with winning. Winning is, of course, greatly dependent on roster surrounding the QB, so this shouldn't be taking too far, but it may provide some insight into what the weighing of these numbers should be.

Jimmy flat foot needs to hurry up and pass his physical.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Honestly, I'm pretty happy with this metric. There are a few anomalies, but it mostly fits with what you'd expect. The great QBs are at the top, the horrible ones at the bottom. Jimmy is about where he belongs, in the "above average" category. Instead of total yards it uses completed air yards, which maximizes QB contribution on passes, instead of taking credit from WRs and handing it to quarterbacks.

There are questions about the weighting of the numbers, and completion percentage isn't directly taking into account. But then, if I did, it would inaccurately favor QBs who always threw it short, which would over value quarterbacks who were contributing less to their team's success than QBs throwing the ball more down the field. However, using completed air yards may mitigate that effect to an extent.

I'll think about it, but for now, I'd say what I have is pretty darn good.

.
.

EDIT:
One other consideration regarding QBs who fail to meet qualifying attempts. Because of how TDs and INTs are weighted using coefficients instead of functions, it might be better to have tiers for QBs with under 200 attempts.

*For QBs with between 100 and 200 attempts: Multiply the TD and INT coefficients by .5. This would make Winston's "adjusted passer rating," as I am calling it be 5.20, which makes sense to me given his 14 to 3 TD/INT ratio.

*For QBs with under 100 attempts: Multiply the TD and INT coefficients by .25. This changes Trey's "adjusted passer rating" from 4.63 to 4.91, which would make him the best of the rookie QBs. Some would would dispute this, but a 5 to 2 TD to INT ratio, with an absurd 7 TD percentage, presents a compelling argument.

This makes sense in another sense as well, since the average attempts are around 400. So under 200, TDs/INTs count half as much in the weighing, and when you drop below 100 attempts, they count a quarter as much.

.
.

ALL THAT SAID, a superior way would be to make the coefficients functions instead, which depend on attempts in a way that will make CAY, TDs, and INTs weigh, on average, about the same. What would make it even more effective, is to normalize the numbers so that each contribution is about what you'd expect from a single game. That way it can be used on a weekly basis as well as season basis.

.
.
Lastly: It may be worth while to see how each of these three stats correlate with winning. Winning is, of course, greatly dependent on roster surrounding the QB, so this shouldn't be taking too far, but it may provide some insight into what the weighing of these numbers should be.

Thanks for all the comeback. I don't have time to get into it now but I'd like to try and revisit this later tonight or tomorrow. What I'm referring to buy dimensional analysis and quite the concept you are working with in regard to scalar coefficients. The concept of dimensional analysis implies that the quality of the items that are being compared must be the same in order to perform arithmetic computation on the items. It's not like adding quarts in gallons of the same fluid it's like translating apples and oranges to a common object so they can be added together for example fruit I can't add 33 apples and six oranges but I can add three pieces of fruit and eight pieces of fruit. So when we're comparing touchdowns and interceptions they're both different sorts of places which have their own characteristics and are impactful on a game. But because they're not quite the same thing it's difficult to put them into a formula which attempts to perform arithmetic on both different concepts. I'll come back a little bit later and try to explain myself better

Originally posted by mayo49:
Jimmy flat foot needs to hurry up and pass his physical.

W why? So he can claim his roster bonus? Haha

Besides the post whore thread in PL, is this the largest thread in WZ history?

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by mayo49:
Jimmy flat foot needs to hurry up and pass his physical.

W why? So we can claim his roster bonus? Haha

Yeah, 3 more months before he can start throwing.

Originally posted by mayo49:

Jimmy flat foot needs to hurry up and pass his physical.

Few more month to cut the bum

It's another way to look at QBs and even though it uses different metrics, it's what ESPN was trying to do when they created QBR. However when you use any of those formulas you end up seeing highly thought of QBs ranked lower than some that most feel are very average.

Most people would have Mahomes, Carr and Ryan ranked ahead of JG and few would have Bridgewater ahead of him and yet that's the way it shakes out in one of those charts. What it tells me is there are way more things that go into being a great QB than stats. Even the stats can be affected by who the play caller is, the caliber of the receivers and if he plays in a lot of bad weather. No matter how much we try, there is no perfect way to rate QBs. In the end it comes down to how teams and GMs view them. That's what matters when it comes to drafts, trades and contracts.

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:

Originally posted by mayo49:
Jimmy flat foot needs to hurry up and pass his physical.

Few more month to cut the bum

it will never happen, that would mean lynch would be forced to say he may have made a miscalculation