Day 2 of the Post-Perrilloux Era

I thank Poseur for covering for me on the Perrilloux situation. I was in court all morning and into the afternoon so I couldn't post the breaking news.

If you click the "Perrilloux" label attached to this post, you will see that I have been a big defender of Ryan Perrilloux in the past. I have defended him on the same basis that Poseur semi-defended him below, which is that while he hasn't followed the rules, he's never done anything so harmful as to merit outright dismissal.

But with news of a positive drug test, allegedly from cocaine, and whispers that this was his problem all along, I am in agreement that the time has come for Ryan Perrilloux to leave the program.

The question is out there of what this will mean on the field. Some are already saying that Ryan leaving is a positive, due to his lack of leadership skills and lack of respect in the locker room. All of that may be true, but he was a studly talent. Losing his production cannot help, unless one of the other quarterbacks is better than expected.

So who is out there? Well, the headliner is Jarrett Lee, a redshirt freshman out of Texas. Here is what I said about Jarrett Lee a year ago when he was just joining the team:

You can tell from his stats that he is tall, slightly built, and not particularly fast. His videos show a solid arm, but he won't be confused with Jamarcus Russell's cannon. He's got good touch, and looks like he's a QB in the Danny Wuerffel mode, which is not a bad thing. He throws with good touch and finds the open man. If you want a more recent comparison, I think he looks a lot like a young Drew Tate. In his last two years of high school, he threw for 71 touchdowns and over 6000 yards, but I doubt you're going to see any of JR's patented 50 yard heaves while leaning on his back foot. Lee is more of a touch passer, but his videos suggest he does that well.

Lee is a solid talent. I don't think he has all-world potential or that he is a "can't miss" prospect, but he's solid. He has a good arm, but he's no Jamarcus Russell. He has nice mobility, probably in the Matt Flynn mold in that respect, but he's not Russell Shepard.

Obviously, because Lee is a redshirt freshman, he has not played a down at the college level. If you believe practice reports, Lee throws a really nice ball, but is not necessarily developing as a quarterback as quickly as one would hope. If he's going to take the reins of the team, he will have to work on reading defenses and making decisions as the offseason progresses. Ideally, he is a guy we would have liked to allow to develop in a backup role for another year or two before giving him a chance to win the job.

The other prime candidate for the starting job is transfer QB Andrew Hatch. His story is pretty well-known by now, but I'll recount it anyway. Hatch is from Nevada and was recruited by Gary Crowton to go to BYU. When Crowton was fired from BYU, Hatch switched his commitment to Harvard. Then, after a year, Hatch went on a Mormon mission, and when he returned he transferred to LSU. He is a junior.

Hatch played a bit last year, in the Middle Tennessee State game last year. He was 1 for 2 passing with 9 yards. He has also rushed 4 times for 27 yards. He is known primarily as a runner. He does not have the arm that Jarrett Lee has, but he is somewhat bigger than Lee. With Hatch, we would not be able to have much of a downfield passing game, which would negate some of the strengths of our receivers. Demetrius Byrd, in particular, would be hurt by Hatch being the regular QB. He would give us the running dimension that Lee doesn't give us, however. He could step right into Perrilloux's role of running the option and not miss a beat.

Don't count out Jordan Jefferson though. He is an incoming freshman out of Destrahan. Watching his videos, it is my opinion that Jefferson has better tools than Jarrett Lee. He has a strong arm and good legs. If you watch his videos, be sure to watch his senior videos. They are light years better than his junior videos. He is not a Jamarcus Russell or a Ryan Perrilloux in terms of talent (few are), nor is he as dynamic as Russell Shepard (though he is a much better passer right now), but he has the tools to be a very successful college QB.

This is a talented kid. He may well be the QB of the future, but it is awfully hard to come in and be the man as a true freshman. Lee has one year of development, maturation, and education on Jefferson. That makes a huge difference at this stage of their careers. You would really like to see Jefferson redshirt rather than play immediately.

Ideally, you would like to give both Lee and Jefferson a chance to understudy for a little while and then compete with each other for the starting job. That would mean that ideally you would want a veteran like Hatch to take the reins for a little while while Lee and Jefferson learn. But Hatch may not have the arm strength to be the man, and we may have to go with Jarrett Lee, and if he fails turn it over to Jefferson.

I suspect we'll see a situational rotation of Hatch and Lee next season, unless and until one or the other of them really emerges, which is likely to be Lee.

Spring Practice Over

Spring practice at LSU is officially over, with a special celebratory "Spring Game" on Saturday, open to the general public.

As everyone knows, Spring Games have taken on new meaning in the wake of the excitement brought on by a certain someone who arrived in Tuscaloosa a little over a year ago.  More on that perhaps tomorrow, but I want to talk about the actual players right now.

The big battles of the Spring were at quarterback, right tackle, safety, and cornerback.  Everyone knows the quarterback situation and why the battle between Jarrett Lee and Andrew Hatch was so important.  To hear talk, it appears that Lee has put a little distance between himself and Hatch.  Lee simply has a stronger and more accurate arm, and can make the throws better than Hatch.  Lee just has to learn game management and how to make the right decisions and he can be a very good quarterback.  He's got the physical tools, and reportedly has a very good work ethic.  He just has to put it all together.  Let's hope what he has won is the backup quarterback position.

Jordan Jefferson will arrive in the fall to challenge, but I really believe the staff would much prefer to redshirt Jefferson, though he may have to play if Perrilloux has further problems.  I think it's unrealistic, however, to believe a true freshman has a real chance to beat out a veteran at a position with such a long learning curve as quarterback. There is just too much to learn, and too many ways that the practice time that Lee has gotten will help him. Jefferson will be in the mix later in his career, but won't play this year unless there is attrition of quarterbacks or the veterans are ineffective.

At right tackle, we have to replace departed senior Carnell Stewart.  True sophomores Joseph Barksdale and Jarvis Jones engaged in a good battle for the position throughout Spring, but it appears that Barksdale leaves Spring with the upper hand.  Both Barksdale and Jones earned substantial playing time as true freshman reserves last year, and both figure to be on track to crack the starting lineup before long one way or another, but for now it appears Barksdale will be our 2008 starting right tackle barring injury. This is somewhat as expected, as Barksdale came in much more heralded (though at defensive tackle rather than offensive line) than Jarvis Jones, who frankly has been a big surprise since joining the team.

Cornerback is obviously a position where there is much wringing of hands and furrowing of brow.  We lost two seniors to graduation, and we had no one behind them get any substantial playing time.  The battle in the Spring was between four young players: Junior Chris Hawkins, Sophomore Jai Eugene, and redshirt freshmen Ron Brooks and John Williams.  Hawkins and Eugene ran with the 1's all Spring, and there were reports either Brooks or Williams may switch to offense at some point.  Eugene of course was a very highly prized recruit in Les Miles' first full recruiting class.  That class honestly has been somewhat disappointing, but if the members of that class are ever going to make a move to the top of the depth charts, now is the time.  I do not have any feeling on how these corners will look in the Fall when the games start, but for right now it looks like Eugene and Hawkins are our starting cornerbacks.

The arrival of Patrick Johnson in the Fall could shake that up.  He's a very highly regarded 5-star recruit out of Florida that many people think can win the job outright.  He has been described as the most physically gifted cornerback to come out of high school in several years, and the best cornerback prospect LSU has ever had.

Last but not least, at strong safety we have to replace All-American Craig Steltz.  The competition is between last year's backup Harry Coleman, who played so well in the BCSNCG when Steltz had to leave with an injury, and sophomore Chad Jones, who looks like an eventual All-American type but seems like more of a free safety than a strong safety.  Chad Jones skipped out on participating in baseball in order to concentrate on this competition.  These two guys split time at the 1's, and it appears the battle for the starting safety spot is not even close to being decided yet.

Quarterbacks at the Halfway Point

We're at roughly the halfway point in the season, and it's time to evaluate the SEC quarterbacks. Before the season, we developed the GeauxTuscaloosa Quarterback Productivity Index, a statistical measure designed to tell us which quarterbacks were being effective in their roles, by which is meant which quarterbacks are having success when the ball is in their hands.

The GTQBPI is determined by adding up passing yards and rushing yards, with a 20 yard bonus for all touchdowns and a 30 yard penalty for all interceptions, and dividing by the total number of pass attempts and rushing attempts. It provides a result in units of yards/play.

Here are the results so far this season, among quarterbacks who are currently starting for their team:

1. Tim Tebow, Florida, 9.11
2. Andre Woodson, Kentucky, 7.68
3. Erik Ainge, Tennessee, 7.50
4. Chris Smelley, USC, 6.79
5. Seth Adams, Ole Miss, 6.38
6. Casey Dick, Arkansas, 6.21
7. Matthew Stafford, Georgia, 6.02
8. Matt Flynn, LSU, 5.70
9. John Parker Wilson, Bama, 5.62
10. Chris Nickson, Vandy, 5.46
11. Brandon Cox, Auburn 4.85
12. Michael Henig, MSU 1.79

The first observation about this is that numbers are way down from last year. In 2006, a rating of 6.0 would have put you among the league worst, down with Michael Henig and Brent Schaeffer. This year, 6.0 is pretty much average. Last year, a 7.68 was good, but nothing spectacular. This year, it means you have an outside shot at the Heisman Trophy. That means that SEC teams are having a harder time passing this year than last year.

Second, there is a massive gulf between #1 and #2. The difference between Tebow and Woodson is about as big as the difference between Woodson and Casey Dick. And before you criticize any statistic that would put Casey Dick in the middle of the pack, realize that Arkansas doesn't ask Dick to do much. He's made fewer pass attempts than Matt Flynn, who has split time with Ryan Perrilloux and missed a game to injury. This statistic measures how you do with what you're asked to do, not how much you're actually helping your team win.

In a conference where quarterbacks' statistics are overall down, Tebow's are just as good as the #1 last year, Jamarcus Russell. Actually, the most effective QB in the conference this year is Ryan Perrilloux, but he's not the starter, so he's not on the list. Ryan comes in the game during a lot of goal line situations and racked up a lot of stats against an overmatched MTSU. But there's no denying he's been very effective. He's averaging over 10 yards per pass attempt, and he's scored more touchdowns than the starter has. Yes, LSU will be just fine with Perrilloux as the starter next year.

But I digress. Tim Tebow should really be getting a lot more Heisman talk. He's been by far the most effective and most important quarterback in the best conference. His team goes where he takes them, and they've gone pretty far to this point.

My third observation is that Ole Miss can suddenly pass the ball pretty well. Seth Adams' numbers are not an artifact of a low number of attempts. He's 3rd in the league in passing yards, and tied for 3rd in touchdown passes. He's been pretty darn good, and you have to give him some credit here. He was a former walk-on whose stats are better than those of Matthew Stafford, John Parker Wilson, and Matt Flynn.

Fourth, Matt Flynn has not been very effective this year, his first and only year as the starting quarterback. You can say it is because of his ankle injury, but his numbers weren't all that great before his injury. Simply put, he has struggled. The numbers are definitely down a bit since he and Early Doucet got injured, and you can see it in the play on the field without even looking at the numbers. Part of that is because of drops by the receivers, but part is due to just plain old ineffectiveness. Hopefully now with Flynn looking a lot healthier and Doucet back on the field, we will see a more effective passing game.

Week 2: Around the SEC

South Carolina at Georgia: After looking very mediocre against ULL last week, South Carolina showed a little of why I predicted they'd be a factor in the SEC East last night. South Carolina rode a solid running game and a stout defense to a tense, ugly victory over UGA. They now sit alone in first place in the East. Matthew Stafford, who I think has the most potential of any young QB in the conference, looked very, very mediocre last night in completing less than half of his passes for less than 5 yards per attempt. Blake Mitchell wasn't great, but he was better than Stafford.

Bama at Vandy: I may have to revise my opinion of Bama. They looked pretty darn good against a team I think is pretty darn good themselves. Freshman running back Terry Grant made a bid for the GeauxTuscaloosa SEC Offensive Player of the Week in rushing for 173 yards and 2 touchdowns. Some untimely penalties early in the game really hurt Vandy, taking away big plays, and they never recovered. The Bama defense looked better than advertised, and the running game is making up for a passing game that has been disappointing so far.

Troy at Florida: The Tim Tebow show continues, as he scored 5 touchdowns (3 passing, 2 rushing) and racked up 329 yards of total offense. He was the leading rusher on the game for either team. He is the second consecutive recipient of the GeauxTuscaloosa SEC Offensive Player of the Week (I don't give out a Defensive Player of the Week award because stats are too hard to find). That Florida defense, however, gives up some points. We'll see what happens next week and see if Florida is a legit contender.

Missouri at Ole Miss: A great effort by BenJarvis Green-Ellis goes to waste. He rushed for a whopping 236 yards in a losing effort. Ole Miss just couldn't stop Missouri at all. Chase Daniel's line at QB was 31 for 43 with 330 yards, 5 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. Plus, he rushed for 66 yards, as Ole Miss gave up 559 yards of total offense. I honestly thought Ole Miss's defense would be pretty solid this year. Guess I was wrong.

Southern Miss at Tennessee: Tennessee overcame a slow start to pull away at the end. Erik Ainge had a pretty good line. He's been a solid QB his whole career, but has gotten a rap of not playing well in the big games. NEWS FLASH: No SEC QB played well against Florida or LSU in the last couple years. He'll get a chance for redemption next week in a game that will probably make or break his legacy as a college QB.

Mississippi State at Tulane: Michael Henig had a solid game following up his horrid stat line against LSU. He was 21 of 31 for 223 yards, 1 touchdown, and 1 interception. The Bulldogs won handily.

South Florida at Auburn: Something stinks, and it's Auburn's offense. If not for Michael Henig's horrible game against LSU, Brandon Cox would be the lowest-rated QB in the league. Cox was 16 of 35 for 165 yards, 1 touchdown, and 2 interceptions in an overtime loss to the Bulls. Neither of Auburn's two big rushers had Auburn averaged more than 4.4 yards per carry. I didn't watch any of this game, but I suspect the culprit once again was poor blocking.

Kent State at Kentucky: I have nothing interesting to say about this contest.

Most Productive QB of the Week: Tim Tebow's GTQBPI (GeauxTuscaloosa Quarterback Productivity Index) was 10.21 yards per play, which was the best in the league among starters. Perrilloux's was 16.21 yards per play in a backup role. If he keeps playing at that high of a level, I'll have to start ranking him based on cumulative stats.

Least Productive QB of the Week: Chris Nickson of Vandy was 5 for 18 for 67 yards and one interception, and was in the negatives in rushing, earning him a 1.43 yards per play GTQBPI. Brandon Cox thanks him.

Notes on Week 1

After watching a lot of football on Saturday, here are some notes:

1. LSU played dominating defense without really giving VT anything to prepare for. We rarely blitzed, and when we did it was usually a simple linebacker blitz. We only brought one corner blitz, and that was way at the end of the game, and Jai Eugene was the blitzer. We stayed in either a 4-3-4 or a 4-2-5 the whole game, with McCray playing like a linebacker, and we played a lot of zone. I'm sure Bo Pelini will be giving VT a lot of different looks, with lots more blitzes and lots more bluff blitzes.
2. Other top teams had much more smooth and fluid passing games than we did. We seemed to have trouble getting wide receivers the ball in space, where other teams were able to do it with some regularity. Like I said before, I think our five receiver sets with everyone making short to intermediate routes clogged the field pretty good. If we have 5 wide receivers in the pattern, I think at least 2 of them need to running a 20+ yard pattern if for no other reason than to clear the intermediate field of defenders.
3. Virginia Tech did not look good in their first game. Their defense didn't tackle well. Their offensive line didn't open any holes in the rushing game. The pass protection broke down frequently. If they hadn't gotten that defensive touchdown, this game would have been a fight to the finish.
4. Using GeauxTuscaloosa's statistical analysis for QBs, the best SEC quarterback of the week was Tim Tebow of Florida. He made 17 pass attempts for an even 300 yards with 3 touchdowns and zero interceptions. He also had 38 yards rushing on 8 attempts with one additional touchdown. Those numbers gave him an eye-popping GTQBPI (GeauxTuscaloosa Quarterback Productivity Index) of 16.72 yards per play. Chris Nickson of Vandy had the second highest at 11.72 yards per play. The worst of the week was obviously Michael Henig, who was actually well into negative numbers. Matt Flynn scored 7.0 yards per play, good for 6th among starting QBs.
5. Of course, Florida was playing Western Kentucky, and from the little bit of the game I saw, they really opened up the offense. They made a lot of downfield throws. I think I remember even seeing a flee-flicker. Vandy played 1-AA Richmond. I'm sorry, that's "Football Championship Subdivision" team Richmond. The knock on Nickson was that he threw a lot of interceptions last year, and got most of his passing yards by throwing to one receiver: Earl Bennett. Nickson didn't throw any interceptions, but he threw 221 of his 281 passing yards and 3 of his 4 touchdowns to Earl Bennett. I maintain that if any team has the corners to cover Earl Bennett, Nickson will struggle in the passing game.
6. Speaking of "Football Championship Subdivision", assuming both finish undefeated, who would be more deserving of a BCS bowl berth? App State or Hawaii?
   
7. Auburn got a little lucky beating K-State. Their offensive line was horrible, but their defense played pretty well. With K-State down by 3 points late in the game, and with Quentin Groves beating their left tackle play after play, the K-State playcaller steadfastly refused to give the left tackle any help at all. In the decisive play of the game, Groves sprinted right past the left tackle and got a free shot on the QB, forcing a fumble that was returned for a touchdown. In a game where K-State had outplayed Auburn most of the night, they ended up losing by 10, thanks in part to some shoddy playcalling by someone who apparently wasn't watching the game.
8. I didn't watch much of the Bama game, but it looks like they have some speedy and shifty running backs. Considering the competition, John Parker Wilson didn't exactly put up stellar numbers (GTQBPI of 7.38), but Terry Grant routinely was able to get to the corner and turn it upfield for a big gain.
9. My pet team in the East, South Carolina, didn't exactly light it up against Louisiana-Lafayette. Maybe Blake Mitchell being suspended is what did it. They will need Mitchell, and they will need him to be good, if they're going to compete in the East, because Florida looked awesome and Georgia looked better than expected.
10. I don't put a lot of stock into the Tennessee loss at Cal. Yeah, Tennessee's defense looked awful trying to stop all those speedy Cal players, but Cal is the 2nd best team in the Pac-10, and they were playing at home. Tennessee is probably at best the 4th best team in the SEC right now, and they may be much lower than that. Erik Ainge, by the way, looked pretty good until Tennessee got behind and they went almost exclusively to the pass. I'd like to say it would have gone better for Tennessee if they'd had Lamarcus Coker, who may be the 3rd best running back in the SEC, but Coker wouldn't have helped their defense any.

Looking forward to next week.

Surprises

There have been a few surprises in camp so far. Some players have come out of nowhere to get in the mix for playing time.

The biggest surprise of camp has to be Kirston Pittman (no relation). He's the last remaining player to have actually been a contributor to the 2003 national championship team. He was a defensive end and a pass-rushing specialist on that team, recording 15 tackles with 2 sacks. He earned Freshman All-SEC honors backing up Marquis Hill.

In his sophomore year, he continued as a pass-rushing specialist playing behind Melvin Oliver, and had another fairly productive year. But then the injuries came, and Kirston Pittman didn't play a down in either 2005 or 2006, taking a redshirt in one of those years. He was then pretty much written off by the casual fan, who expected nothing more than spot-duty for him if he could get himself healthy.

Well, instead of spot duty, he appears to have beaten out Rahim Alem and Tremaine Johnson for the starting job at right defensive end. He's reportedly been spending a lot of time in the backfield in practice. As an unlikely link to the 2003 team, he should provide leadership and experience.

Who knows, he could maybe even apply to get a medical redshirt for the 2006 season and return next year as well.

The other big surprise of camp has been quarterback Andrew Hatch, who transferred to LSU from Harvard. That's right. Harvard. He was recruited to a couple Division I schools but chose to go to Harvard instead, but decided to leave Harvard to walk-on at LSU.

It sounds like he's impressed coaches enough to let him slide into the #3 quarterback role, allowing the coaches to redshirt Jarrett Lee if they choose. Hatch will likely never play a meaningful down at LSU, but if he can be an adequate emergency QB, it will pay dividends down the road by giving Jarrett Lee an extra year of eligibility.

Hatch is, by eligibility, a sophomore.

A Discussion I Keep Getting Into

It seems like approximately once per month, I end up on some message board responding to someone who says something to the effect of, "South Carolina will never be any good as long as they have Blake Mitchell at quarterback," or, "Blake Mitchell sucks." I always respond with a post defending Blake Mitchell and saying that he will be one of the better QBs in the SEC. Then I always get a response expressing incredulity at how I can possibly defend a quarterback as terrible as Blake Mitchell.

It has become conventional wisdom that Blake Mitchell is a mediocre QB. The conventional wisdom is wrong. Blake Mitchell is not a great QB, but he's a pretty good QB. Short of great, but better than average. The proof? Just look at his stats.

Of course, I have talked about evaluating quarterbacks statistically in the past. I look at rate stats exclusively, which I think is the proper thing to do. Of course, a team that throws the ball 400 times in a season may be less effective at it on a per-pass basis than a team that throws the ball 300 times due to the defenses keying on the pass, but I think the sins of looking at cumulative stats is even worse. If you look only at cumulative stats, you start overrating system quarterbacks or quarterbacks on teams that fell behind in a lot of games and had to pass a lot.

I developed a formula for evaluating QBs:

Rating = (yards passing + yards running -yards lost by sack + 20*Touchdowns -30*Turnovers)/(# of designed passing plays).

I would have preferred a more sophisticated formula that took account of first down throws, but the statistics just aren't available in a form I can use. This formula however gives results that are useful in that they account for yards per attempt, touchdowns, and interceptions without artificially inflating the value of short completions like the conventional passer rating does. It also accounts for the skills a running quarterback brings by looking at rushing yards, rushing touchdowns, etc.

In evaluating SEC quarterbacks from last season, I was surprised to discover that Blake Mitchell had the second best rate stats in the league, behind only Jamarcus Russell. How did this happen? Well, Mitchell had a very high yards-per-attempt statistic, second only to Russell. Higher than Andre Woodson's. Higher than Erik Ainge's. MUCH higher than John Parker Wilson's. Much higher than Brandon Cox's or Matthew Stafford's or Chris Leak's. Granted, he had much fewer attempts than any of those guys, because he wasn't the full-time starter. But, he also had a better ypa statistic than the OTHER quarterback on his team.

"But he is inconsistent," they say. Well, he was benched at one point for several games last season. That is true, but was he actually an inconsistent quarterback? Again, the statistics say no. At least, they say that if Blake Mitchell was inconsistent, so was every other quarterback in the SEC. Let's compare Mitchell to a few of the better QBs in the SEC last year: Leak, Russell, and Wilson.

• Inaccurate games: Mitchell had one game last season with less than a 50% completion rate, a game in which he only had 11 attempts. Jamarcus had none. Leak had none, but had one game with exactly 50% and another very close to it. Wilson had two such games.
• Inaccurate games, part 2: Mitchell had two games last year with more interceptions than touchdowns. Jamarcus had one. Leak had 3 games with more interceptions than touchdowns. Wilson had two.
• Games with fewer than 200 yards passing: In his 7 games with greater than 20 attempts, Mitchell had 2 games with fewer than 200 yards passing. Jamarcus had 2 such games (with more starts, of course, and to be fair he was much closer to 200 in those games than Mitchell was in his). Leak had five (!) games with less than 200 yards passing with greater than 20 pass attempts. Wilson had two.
• Games without a touchdown pass: This is where Mitchell really falls. In 4 of the 7 games in which he made 20 or more pass attempts, he failed to get a touchdown pass. In one of those, he managed to get a touchdown run, but to be consistent we should say he wasn't particularly good at putting the ball int he end zone consistently. Russell had one game where he failed to score. Leak also had one. Wilson had three.

OK, he's not Jamarcus Russell, but no one is. Mitchell is not quite in that league, but neither was Leak or Wilson. No one is, except maybe Woodson, who doesn't have the supporting cast around him. Mitchell's consistency compares favorably to that of a guy who won the national championship and a guy who many people believe is on his way to an All-SEC season.

The response is, "But he had Sidney Rice." Rice was a good receiver, picked in the 2nd round of the NFL draft. Russell had two 1st round receivers and another who likely will be. Leak had Dallas Baker, Caldwell, and Harvin. Wilson had DJ Hall. Ainge had Robert Meachum. Woodson had Keenan Burton. Chris Nickson had Earl Bennett. It's an argument that can be made of ANY half-way decent QB in the SEC last year, and therefore it really can't be used to single out Mitchell.

But why was he benched? Well, according to Spurrier, he was benched because his offensive line wasn't very good and he wanted a more effective running quarterback in there. When his offensive line solidified, Mitchell returned to the starter spot and completed almost 70% of his passes the rest of the season. He's going to be a senior and he's got the best team around him that he's ever had. He's set up for a potential run at the SEC East, which I'm hoping will happen. It's time someone other than the big three won the East.

I hope I'm done having this argument. There is really no basis in fact for the argument that Mitchell isn't any good. He's not great, but he's not bad either. And he's more than capable of leading his team to success, unless you just don't believe facts are facts.

LSU Quarterback Situation

On Friday, one or two people on TigerDroppings accused me of idiocy because I

a. Said that Blake Mitchell was a pretty good quarterback, and
b. Said that at this point I would probably take Blake Mitchell over Matt Flynn.

Then on Saturday, eyewitness reports from the LSU Spring Game said that Flynn looked pretty average and that Perrilloux looked below average. Suddenly, LSU Nation had a bona fide quarterbacking crisis. I wonder if my statement that I would prefer Blake Mitchell at this point would be more popular. I didn't read all the "woe are us" threads, but I doubt anyone made any mention of my day-old statements. On such a high-traffic, high-content site like TigerDroppings, memories usually fade pretty quickly.

Believe me, I was as surprised as anyone could be to find out, through a look at actual statistics, that Mitchell was the second most productive QB in the conference last year, measured on a "per play" basis. I would have guessed he'd have come out behind Leak, Ainge, and Woodson at least. But no; he was ahead of all of them, and behind only Jamarcus Russell. People scoffed. People mocked. People pointed out that Mitchell was benched halfway through the year.

People also pointed out that Mitchell had Sidney Rice to throw to. I don't buy that this made that much of a difference. After all, Leak had Baker, Harvin, and Caldwell. Ainge had Meachem. Woodson had... umm.. well, I'm not sure he had anybody at all. Mitchell was ahead of all of them. Also, Syvelle Newton also had Sidney Rice to throw to, and he ended up behind Mitchell too.

Anyway, enough about Mitchell. This post is supposed to be about Matt Flynn. Reports out off pre-Spring Game practices were that he was doing well. Reports from the game itself differ. I haven't watched one second of practice, so I don't really know. However, I know one thing that troubles me terribly: No SEC team will be starting a QB who took fewer meaningful snaps in 2006 than did Matt Flynn. If that's not a potential team weakness, I don't know what is.

Only one other team will be replacing their full-time starting QB, and that is Florida. Florida at least has the benefit of having gotten Tim Tebow significant meaningful playing time in 2006. Don't get me wrong; Tebow still has to prove he can perform every down and deal with the inevitable adversity that comes with being a starter. For a sophomore, however, he has quite a bit of competitive experience.

Flynn, as a 5th year senior, has significant practice experience going against some of the best defenses in the country. He has a lot of mop-up duty experience. He had a very good game against Miami in the Peach Bowl two years ago. He had some other less than spectacular appearances in his career as well. I ultimately think Flynn will be a very good QB, but we can't overlook the fact that his level of responsibility has never been what it will be next year, and he is NOT the quarterback that Jamarcus Russell was. Russell was special, and could do things that a defense had never seen before. Flynn is a more conventional talent. There are bound to be some growing pains as he improves.

The good news is that he will have what may be an exceptionally good running attack to lean on while he gets accustomed to being The Man. And he will have an exceptionally good defense erasing any errors.

Crunching the Numbers on the Quarterbacks

If you remember a while back, I proposed a formula for evaluating quarterbacks. It was:

Rating = (yards passing + yards running -yards lost by sack + 20*Touchdowns -30*Turnovers)/(# of designed passing plays).

To recap, the main features of my rating are that it:

• cuts down the credit given for completing passes for short gains,
• rewards passers who avoid sacks and get positive yardage on the ground,
• penalizes turnovers more than does the conventional passer rating, and
  
• expresses the result in an easily comprehensible yards-per-passing-play format rather than a completely incomprehensible format.
  

Well, there's a mild problem with this formula. The statistics available to me do not differentiate between sacks, scrambles, and designed runs. They're all counted as "carries", which is incredibly dumb, especially for sacks, which are clearly and obviously yards lost in the passing game. I also have no statistics on fumbles, so I just have to skip those. I wanted to evaluate the 2006 SEC quarterbacks, so I evaluated them without differentiating between the types of runs. The results are below. I only included quarterbacks who started. Because I couldn't figure out how to make a usable table out of this, I'll just list the results:

Jamarcus Russell, LSU, 9.16
Blake Mitchell, S. Car., 8.26
Erik Ainge, Tenn., 8.07
Andre Woodson, UK, 7.79
Chris Leak, Fla. 7.02
Syvelle newton, S. Car. 7.00
Casey Dick, Ark., 6.99
Chris Nickson, Vandy, 6.55
Brandon Cox, Aub., 6.37
John Parker Wilson, Bama, 6.14
Omarr Conner, MSU, 6.13
Michael Henig, MSU, 5.82
Matthew Stafford, UGA, 5.78
Mitch Mustain, Ark. 5.68
Jonathan Crompton, Tenn., 5.35
Brent Schaeffer, Ole Miss, 4.27

I can only represent to you that I devised the formula and wrote the previous post without knowing the results. I did not know that my formula would result in Jamarcus Russell being in a class by himself. I thought he might be, because I think he really WAS in a class by himself. The thing is, even if you use conventional passer ratings, he was still in a class by himself. He was the highest rated, with a 167 rating. Woodson was second with a 154 rating. By either measure, Jamarcus was clearly the most effective quarterback in the SEC.

It's not an artifact or an accident. He was second in the league in yards and in touchdowns, behind Andre Woodson in both, who had almost 80 more pass attempts. Speaking of Woodson, Kentucky put the ball in his hands a LOT. If he hadn't been sacked so many times, he would have been fairly close to Jamarcus. On the other hand, one of the strengths of Jamarcus's game is the fact that he is so hard to sack. As a result, he finished almost 1 full yard/play ahead of every other starting quarterback.

If Kentucky could run the ball, they'd be dangerous.

Who got hurt the most by my changes to the formula? Brandon Cox, Andre Woodson, and John Parker Wilson. Cox and Wilson lost a lot of yards to sacks, and Wilson had a relatively poor touchdown to interception ratio, which is underpenalized in the conventional formula. Cox, by the way, was the least effective veteran starter in the SEC. No one who had been a regular starter in 2005 performed worse than Cox. Who got helped the most? Probably Chris Nickson of Vandy, whose 9 touchdown runs really helped his rating. However, he also gave up a lot of points by throwing a lot of interceptions.

I also think it's interesting that under either measure, Brent Schaeffer was the least effective quarterback in the SEC last year. I'm careful in my wording here. I don't say "worst". I say "least effective". Obviously, nobody on the football field operates by himself. A quarterback is dependent upon his blockers and his receivers to give him the opportunity to be successful. Therefore, no single statistic can measure how "good" a quarterback is, independent of the players around him. We can only measure how "effective" he is, which is dependent on the other personnel. This isn't to say that ratings are independent of skill. Clearly they are not independent, but we have to recognize the limitations inherent in this formulation.

Notice also where the true freshmen are: very near the bottom. This goes to show something I will touch on again. It's never a good idea to start a true freshman at quarterback.

What does all this mean for next year? Well, the top returning starters are Tim Tebow (who isn't included in my chart, but he was very effective in his time on the field, but will have to show it every down) and Blake Mitchell.

Blake Mitchell? I have to admit that was a surprise. Wasn't he benched? He has a very solid yards/attempt number and doesn't lose a lot of yards in the running game. His TD/interception ration is weak, but he made up for it in other areas. Even under the conventional formula, he's solidly mid-pack among SEC starters (higher than Leak, for example). When you consider that both Woodson and Ainge lost yards running and Mitchell didn't, Mitchell starts to look a lot better.

Blake Mitchell was statistically the second most effective starting QB in the SEC in the time he was in the game, and got benched in favor of Syvelle Newton, who incidentally wasn't nearly as effective. I'm willing to accept the proposition that Mitchell's stats are inflated by the fact that he had Sidney Rice, but that doesn't explain why Newton was less effective.

Players to watch for next year: Ainge, Mitchell, and Woodson. If Cox can move his legs, and if Auburn has any receivers, he should be very effective next year.

I'll definitely be keeping up with this during the season. If I keep up with it game-by-game, I may even be able to refine the numbers by getting better statistics on quarterback fumbles. It'll be interesting to see how young QBs like Casey Dick and John Parker Wilson progress.

Passer ratings?

Most football fans pay attention to statistics, at least a little bit. Some statistics are very basic and understandable even by a novice. Others are a lot more complex and obscure. Some positions (offensive line) have no real statistics to gauge performance. Most of the stats you see are of the simple variety. It's pretty easy to know what "yards" means when talking about a running back. It's pretty easy to know what "completion percentage" means when talking about a quarterback. The "passer rating" falls into the opposite category.

How many times have you seen "passer rating" or "quarterback rating" discussed or mentioned? You've probably heard it quite a lot. How many times has anyone in the media actually explained what it is? Personally, I can't swear I've ever heard a television talking head actually discuss how passer rating is formulated. I don't understand why this is so, but I am here to educate you about it.

College and pro football each have their own ratings, and you can't really compare the numbers to each other. I'll focus on college. For college football, here is the formula for passer rating:

(100*Completions/attempts) + (8.4*yards/attempts) + (330*Touchdowns/attempts) - (200*Interceptions/attempt) = Passer rating

That clears it all up for you, doesn't it? Well, let's do some algebra and go a little deeper. If you do some factoring, here's what it comes down to:

8.4*(Yards passing + 11.9*Completions + 39.3*Touchdowns - 23.8*Interceptions)/(Number of attempts) = Passer Rating

I think this is a much more useful way to show it. It shows the rating for what it is. It's a measure of yards per pass attempt, with certain bonuses and penalties. There is a 39.3 yard bonus for throwing a touchdown, a 23.8 yard penalty for throwing an interception, plus a weird 11.9 yard bonus every time the ball doesn't fall incomplete. All of that is then multiplied by 8.4, apparently for no other reason than to multiply by some arbitrary number.

Part of this makes a lot of sense. Yards per attempt has a pretty clear meaning to a quarterback, and I think everyone can grasp its importance in evaluating a player. Likewise, the number of touchdowns and the number of interceptions a player throws are also extremely important.

There are a number of weaknesses in this statistic, however. The most important weakness is that it does not reward a quarterback for escaping the rush and gaining yards on the ground, a key part of many modern quarterbacks' games. Consider the following scenario:

Quarterback drops back to pass. The defense gets a good rush and the quarterback escapes out of the pocket. He continues looking for his receivers, but the receivers aren't getting open and the QB will be sacked if he doesn't do something. Should he a) stand there and take a sack, or b) try to get out of the pocket and run for positive yardage? Assume that playclock effects are not important at this stage of the game.

Any good quarterback will try to run for it and get whatever he can get. Some will be better at it than others. However, the passer rating will not reflect these differences. As far as the passer rating is concerned, the quarterback who runs for an electrifying 50 yard touchdown will get the same result as the one who trips over his own feet in the backfield.

This problem can and should be fixed by taking out the "yards per attempt" and using instead a "yards per designed pass play", which would include passing yards as well as yards gained or lost on the ground, with the number of attempts changed to include all times the quarterback drops back to pass. Go ahead and count rushing touchdowns among the number of touchdowns as well.

Another weakness is that second term. I don't understand the second term, which seems to reward a quarterback simply for completing a pass, even if the pass made no yardage, or even lost yardage. Consider the above scenario, but changed in this way:

Quarterback drops back to pass. The pocket collapses before the receivers break open. The quarterback is surrounded, unable to escape the pocket. Should he a) stand there and take a sack, or b) throw the ball away? Assume that playclock effects are not important at this stage of the game.

While no quarterback will simply take the sack in this situation if he has a choice, his Passer Rating will suffer for his decision to throw it away, because it will increase his number of pass attempts. In that scenario, your passer rating will stay the same if you simply take the sack. In fact, you can actually improve your passer rating by throwing a completed pass that loses yards, so long as it loses less than 11.9 yards.

I'm not suggesting that a quarterback, mindful of his "rating", will deliberately take an action that will hurt his team. I am merely saying that in this common situation, where a player has two choices, the primary statistic that gauges his performance will actually suffer if he makes the correct choice. That, to me, is a serious deficiency in the quarterback rating, and renders it almost unusable.

I would recommend removing this term and instead have a term that gives a quarterback a bonus not for simply completing a pass, but for gaining a first down. After all, it's a lot better to get 11 yards on 3rd-and-10 than it is to get 9, but your passer rating will hardly notice the difference.

Lastly, I don't like the magnitudes of the bonuses. Is a touchdown really worth the same as a 39 yard pass? Is an interception the equivalent of 24 yards lost? I don't buy it. For one, it means that a quarterback who throws almost twice as many interceptions as he does touchdowns is about as good a quarterback as one who throws none of either. Of course, you'll be hard-pressed to find a quarterback who throws neither touchdowns nor interceptions, but it implies a quarterback who throws 1.65 interceptions for every touchdown pass is statistically "neutral". And here I was thinking that Rex Grossman's 23 touchdowns and 20 interceptions last year was bad. Shows you what I know; his passer rating was helped more by the touchdowns than it was hurt by the interceptions. A lot more.

When you hear about Passer Ratings, realize that it is a measure of yards per pass attempt, with a 40 yard bonus for touchdowns and a 24 yard penalty for interceptions, plus another factor that makes little sense, all multiplied by an arbitrary number. Realize also that it fails to reward quarterbacks who help their teams through running out of trouble. Realize further that it actually penalizes a quarterback for throwing the ball away to avoid a sack, and artificially puffs up a quarterback who throws a lot of short completions. I don't like it as a measure of quarterbacks.

I prefer giving the quarterback a 20 yard bonus for a touchdown, and a 30 yard penalty for an interception. It means that a QB who has a 1.5:1 touchdown to interception ratio is statistically neutral in that regard, and I think it more accurately reflects the field position lost be a typical interception. And while we're at it, let's count the times a quarterback loses a fumble the same way we'd count an interception. It just makes sense.

Here's the formula I would use (I'll take out the 8.4 factor just on principle):

Passer Rating = (yards passing + yards rushing - yards lost by sack + 5*First down completions and runs + 20*Number of Touchdowns - 30*Number of Turnovers)/(Number of called pass plays).

My formula ha the features I talked about, plus it gives a 5 yard bonus for making a first down. After all, a pass that goes for 11 yards on 3rd-and-10 is much better than a pass that goes for 9 yards, but the conventional passer rating will hardly notice the difference.

It all makes so much more sense to me to use this measure than it does to use the traditional Passer Rating, but it isn't going to happen. This formula isn't even particularly useful to me because they don't keep track of 1st down throws (and runs). I can't compile these numbers even for my own benefit. I can, however, use it if I take out the 1st-down bonus, leaving the following formula:

Passer Rating = (yards passing + yards rushing - yards lost by sack + 20*Number of Touchdowns - 30*Number of Turnovers)/(Number of called pass plays).

Next time, we start compiling some numbers.