Alex Smith: Catalyst or Product?

[PhataLerror 370]

Adam Teicher wrote an interesting article about Alex Smith on ESPN: "Going Off of QBR, Alex Smith Much Better Than NFL's 16th-Best QB"

 

I've long maintained that QBR is an awful ranking tool, and ESPN has acknowledged its own challenges in maintaining the credibility of the algorithm with each passing tweak. Even so, I was dumbfounded when I saw ESPN's single-game ranking of Smith against the Chargers: Smith ranked as the 29th-best quarterback with an 8.6 ranking. To compare, Andy Dalton's anemic three-turnover performance in a 10-27 loss to the Chargers during the 2013 post-season resulted in an 8.3 ranking. And to reference a floor we may be more familiar with, Brian Hoyer's five-turnover shutout loss in the 2015 post-season netted him a 5.7 ranking. So why does Smith's mistake-free performance behind two backup linemen in a tough road matchup compare so similarly to the former?

 

This is a reminder of why QBR should never have been taken seriously, and never should be.

[KCSLC2008 606]

The truth is that football is a team sport that is influenced by luck, injuries, weather, coin toss, etc.

 

I think Alex is a leader in many ways from experience to mental toughness to physical toughness, etc. but I don't really see him as a "catalyst."

 

But if he is a product, as in doing well because we have Hunt, Hill, etc. and Reid, then those products would also be contributing to the shortcomings of previous years. We can't have it as one doing well because others are great around them but then dismiss when one suffers with no one.

 

Smith, of course, can make it worse for receivers who would produce more with a different quarterback. He can also hold on the ball too long or have happy feet and that makes potential production suffer. But as a team game, the tight ends and running back would also produce more with Smith then a different quarterback who would get it to the receivers more. The point was winning and we were winning. Of course, that was regular season. Even when we produced numbers in the process and we lost. Even when we did get to the end and completed a two-point conversion, it was called back. (Yes, there were other moments in that game we could've won it and that includes the quarterback.)

 

Charles did well not because he had a spike in rushing yards but rather that he became more of an all-around back receiving more with Smith. Some of the improvement in the running game can be from an experienced quarterback making pre-snap reads or changes at the line. But if that's the case, they would give more blame for certain sacks. Experience can also have a negative affect if it makes happy feet more likely.

 

If that sounds convoluted it is because it is. A team game is influenced by so many things. Even the greats and maybe especially the greats have benefited from their coach, supporting cast, injuries, luck, and offensive coordinator philosophies. And they benefit from their own talent, experience, and skill. And will. I hope we have more urgency without being stupid.

[KCSLC2008 606]

As a supporter of Smith, I do want to tap the brakes a bit. I've always thought that we could win with Smith but it wasn't like I would feel about Brady or Montana. I didn't think it needed a Bears defense, and I would not have categorized a win as Dilfering it. And while I did not expect it, I did think we could and I think we can.

 

But we are not in a moment of an "I told you so." We haven't proven anything. We haven't really made a switch. We are delivering what we can right now and we hope it continues. The whole team. If we win the Super Bowl, I think we can accept another year with Smith. I mean, we would have matched our Super Bowl wins for our franchise. I know Mahomes is the next guy and it could be as soon as next year even if we win the Super Bowl and I would hope that would be a time we could get the most return in a trade (though, I would feel bad for Smith, not Chiefs). But I do like what I saw in week one and week two for different reasons.

[oldtimer 8,687]

Adam Teicher wrote an interesting article about Alex Smith on ESPN: "Going Off of QBR, Alex Smith Much Better Than NFL's 16th-Best QB"

 

I've long maintained that QBR is an awful ranking tool, and ESPN has acknowledged its own challenges in maintaining the credibility of the algorithm with each passing tweak. Even so, I was dumbfounded when I saw ESPN's single-game ranking of Smith against the Chargers: Smith ranked as the 29th-best quarterback with an 8.6 ranking. To compare, Andy Dalton's anemic three-turnover performance in a 10-27 loss to the Chargers during the 2013 post-season resulted in an 8.3 ranking. And to reference a floor we may be more familiar with, Brian Hoyer's five-turnover shutout loss in the 2015 post-season netted him a 5.7 ranking. So why does Smith's mistake-free performance behind two backup linemen in a tough road matchup compare so similarly to the former?

 

This is a reminder of why QBR should never have been taken seriously, and never should be.

 

 

the first 6 words are wrong

[sith13 1,746]

They keep trying to find new metrics to rank players but the numbers never reflect the entire truth. Some numbers give indication towards a certain area but that's pretty much it.