Statistical Odds of Bradford Starting Week 1

by RBramfan on May 21, 2010 4:55 PM CDT

I have been a member of TST for a couple months now and have been religiously reading the blogs, fanposts, fanshots and associated comments since then. I have even interjected a few comments. I really appreciate VanRam for this site and appreciate all the blogs by VanRam, 3k and ram_rod. For the most part, all of the fanposts are great and really thought out giving plenty of room for discussions. I also find it really interesting we actually have a Ram (thanks Kevin) on this site. So thanks to all the fans and moderators here at TST.

Now I just decided to step in a little deeper into my thoughts so here is my first fanpost. Excuse the grammar and spelling problems as I am more of a technician than a writer. After the jump are my thoughts.

To introduce myself, I have been a Ram fan for ?? years (let us just say I remember when the AFL first came into existence). I grew up in LA and currently live in "true" Northern California up by Redding so I am stuck in 9er territory like a couple of our other fans on this site. I have gone through "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat". It is really tough to lose to the 9ers especially since my wife is from this area and she and her whole family are 9er fans. The NFC championship game after the 1989 season really frustrated me more than the past three seasons have.

There has been some who have used Mike Sando’s article "Realistic expectations for Sam Bradford" for why Sam Bradford should not start week 1. If you read the article, he does not mention rookie QB’s that have started week 1, he uses number of starts their rookie season. This can easily mislead readers to think you shouldn’t start a rookie week 1 because only 5 QB’s have started all 16 games in their rookie season. Now do not get me wrong, I like Sando and his blog.

Why is this misleading? There are quite a few rookie QB’s that had started week 1 for their team. They just did not start all 16 games due to various reasons (injuries, effectiveness and length of season).

Another reason I thought this article might have been skewed a bit it is that it included all rookie QB’s and did not take into consideration just the 1st overall pick in the draft. When a team drafts a QB 1st overall that should tell us a few things about the team (very badly in need of a QB and probably a terrible won lost record the previous year) and that the QB should be the best in the class for the team. There may exceptions but for the most part, this holds true.

Before I get into the numbers of this thought, I wanted to explain a few things. First off, I wanted to compare apples to apples so I just used the QB’s picked 1st overall in the draft. All statistical information I used either came from NFL.com or pro-football-reference.com.

Here is a list of QB’s taken 1st overall from 1970 through 2009. This also shows if they played week 1 and their 1st week of start (bye weeks included).

Year	Name	Played wk 1	1st wk Start
1970	Terry Bradshaw	Yes	1
1971	Jim Plunket	Yes	1
1975	Steve Bartkowski	Yes	1
1983	John Elway	Yes	1
1987	Vinny Testaverde	No	12
1989	Troy Aikman	Yes	1
1990	Jeff George	Yes	1
1993	Drew Bledsoe	Yes	1
1998	Peyton Manning	Yes	1
1999	Tim Couch	Yes	2
2001	Michael Vick	Yes	17
2002	David Carr	Yes	1
2003	Carson Palmer	No	18
2004	Eli Manning	Yes	11
2005	Alex Smith	No	5
2007	JaMarcus Russell	No	17
2009	Matthew Stafford	Yes	1

Reviewing the above table, there were 17 QB’s taken 1st overall from 1970 through 2009. Of those 17, 10 started week 1, 1 started week 2 and 1 started week 5. The other 5 did not get their 1st start until after the 2nd half of the season though 2 (Vinny Testaverde & Eli Manning) did make an appearance in the 1st week. Notice, only 4 of 17 did not play their 1st week.

How did these QB’s do their 1st year. The table below shows some of the stats for each of the above QB’s with the exception of Carson Palmer as he sat out his Rookie Season.

Year	Name	Team	Starts	Games	Attempts	Comp	TD	Int	Sacked	QB Rating
1970	Terry Bradshaw	PITT	8	13	218	83	6	24	25	30.4
1971	Jim Plunkett	NE	14	14	328	158	19	16	36	68.6
1975	Steve Bartkowski	ATL	11	11	255	115	13	15	19	59.3
1983	John Elway	DEN	10	11	259	123	7	14	28	54.9
1987	Vinny Testaverde	TB	4	6	165	71	5	6	18	60.2
1989	Troy Aikman	DAL	11	11	293	155	9	18	19	55.7
1990	Jeff George	IND	12	13	334	181	16	13	37	73.8
1993	Drew Bledsoe	NE	12	13	429	214	15	15	16	65
1998	Peyton Manning	IND	16	16	575	326	26	28	22	71.2
1999	Tim Couch	CLE	14	15	399	223	15	13	56	73.2
2001	Michael Vick	ATL	2	8	113	50	2	3	21	62.7
2002	David Carr	HOU	16	16	444	233	9	15	76	62.8
2004	Eli Manning	NYG	7	9	197	95	6	9	13	55.4
2005	Alex Smith	SF	7	9	165	84	1	11	29	48
2007	JaMarcus Russell	OAK	1	4	66	36	2	4	6	55.9
2009	Matthew Stafford	DET	10	10	377	201	13	20	24	61

Notice, 3 of these QB’s did manage to start all their games in their rookie season. Jim Plunkett played when the season was only 14 games.

For fun, I have listed the QB’s who started their rookie year, their rookie won-lost record and team won-lost record. We must remember though, for the most part, these teams picked 1st because they were bad teams.

Year	Name	QB Record	Team Record
1970	Terry Bradshaw	3-5	5-9
1971	Jim Plunket	6-8	6-8
1975	Steve Bartkowski	4-7	4-10
1983	John Elway	4-6	9-7
1987	Vinny Testaverde	0-4	4-11
1989	Troy Aikman	0-11	1-15
1990	Jeff George	5-7	7-9
1993	Drew Bledsoe	5-7	5-11
1998	Peyton Manning	3-13	3-13
1999	Tim Couch	2-12	2-14
2001	Michael Vick	1-1	7-9
2002	David Carr	4-12	4-12
2004	Eli Manning	1-6	6-10
2005	Alex Smith	2-5	4-12
2007	JaMarcus Russell	0-1	4-12
2009	Matthew Stafford	2-8	2-14

So in summary what do the above tables show?

1. Sam has a 10 in 17 chance to start week 1 @ 59%

2. Sam has a 13 in 17 chance to appear in week 1 @ 76%

3. We have a great chance of another losing season

4. Sam’s stats will be average at best when he does play.

Again, I just wanted to stress this is a statistical analysis to compare what can be expected for Sam Bradford in his rookie year. This does not predicate when he will get his 1st chance for real game experience or how well he will do. I do believe Sam should not start until the coaches feel he is ready. Would I like to see him week 1, yes, but that is just what I would like, not when I think he should.

Thanks for taking your valuable time for reading.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Yay another losing season :)

by Tevin T. Broner on May 21, 2010 8:32 PM CDT reply actions

It's really interesting

to see how poorly all of them played in their rookie years. Most of them completed less than half their passes, most had more interceptions than TDs, and none of them had a passer rating as high as 75.0. When you add in that our receivers weren’t effective last year, you have to wonder if Bradford has much of a chance to do better than most of the other rookie QBs in the analysis. If all this really applies to him, it wouldn’t appear there is much point in rushing him into action this year before he is ready.

by andyrose on May 21, 2010 10:58 PM CDT reply actions

Yeah when people talk about expectations for this year

I always recall Aikman’s rookie year: 1-15 team. Twice as many ints as touchdowns. I don’t think Michael Irvin had fully come on at the time. Some players we came to know well were still nobodies on a bad team.

But the Cowboys were rebuilding, and the following year were up and comers with like a 7-9 record. That 1990 team played with a lot of heart and came on strong towards the end of the season and I remember thinking that was a team to look out for…

Not to say we’d follow that same trajectory, but to me it goes to show a bumpy start is far from a bad thing.

by kswiss on May 22, 2010 2:51 AM CDT up reply actions

here's encouragement that Bradford's stats this season will mean nothing for his career

Top 5 QB according to QB Rating
1. Jeff George
2. Tim Couch
3. Peyton Manning
4. Jim Plunkett
5. David Carr

one average, two HOFs (one future), and two busts

just for fun, worse QB ratings (at least 8 starts)
1. Terry Bradshaw by far
2. John Elway
3. Eli Manning
4. Troy Aikman
5. Steve Bartkowski

So three hall of famers, and two franchise quarterbacks (not quite HOFs)

basically, don’t grade him in his rookie season, because it doesn’t matter… 2nd season matters

Rasmus can hit lefties
cardinalred
St. Louis Sports blog

by stlcardsfan4 on May 21, 2010 11:49 PM CDT reply actions

Yep, keep him healthy and let him learn the system

and what the NFL is like in his first year. Then expect better things in his second year. There’s no use getting him killed or ruining his confidence in year 1 just to try to win another game or two.

by andyrose on May 22, 2010 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions

Great Article

The best I’ve seen on this site in awhile (no offense to other authors). Looking forward to future articles.

Julio Jones for Rams 2011

by kinzav29 on May 22, 2010 1:17 PM CDT reply actions

Thank you

I do agree, we have many fans that post great articles.

by RBramfan on May 24, 2010 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Good post but

I love stats stuff like this but I don’t think stats on the whole will indicate what Spags will do. I think if you had stats on what Spags has done in the past it’d have a lot more merit. As FaulkFan pointed out, Spags “requires that every rookie earn his spot on the roster and nobody gets a free ticket for a starting position.” I added that I thought Feeley also gave them the best chance to win in the beginning but his larger point about earning a starting position is (I think) a much bigger consideration when thinking about whether Bradford will start or not.

But hey, its all fun speculation until it happens.

I do see your point about not starting week 1 isn’t the same as starting all games.

On another topic, I’m 100% in favor of keeping expectations for rookies in check like most of the comments above mine do (at least, they were at the time I am posting this).
Since neither QB has a realistic shot at getting them to the playoffs the priority really should be on bringing up Bradford in the best possible way with what they’ve got.

by CoachConnors on May 23, 2010 1:46 AM CDT reply actions

I know QB is much tougher position to "earn" a start

But if we go with Spags’ recent history
Smith & JL both started game 1 against Seattle
BFB got some playing time in his 1st game also
If Spags & Shurmer feel SB is ready to start, he will most likely start..“Rookie Triangle of Death” or not ;-)

by RBramfan on May 24, 2010 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions

Forgot to mention. thanks for the compliment

by RBramfan on May 24, 2010 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions

How can someone let their first overall pick get sacked 76 times in his rookie season?

Onubon > Gates

by Carneros on May 23, 2010 9:54 AM CDT reply actions

Haha I was thinking the same thing.

I’ve heard that stat before numerous times but it never ceases to have an impact when I come across it. That’s 4.75 sacks a game. And that’s just an average! I mean, what were the most sacks he took in one game? 7,8,9,10? Not to mention hits.

Wow, poor kid.

by kswiss on May 23, 2010 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Might be possible if your team has too much rookiness

For example, lets say you start the Rookie Triangle of Death.
The Left side…..the Right side…..the Quarterback.

Then if you have in injury to your RB and have to put in an inexperienced guy who has trouble picking up blitzes, your QB would get abused all day.

by CoachConnors on May 23, 2010 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Not making any predictions or anything, are you?

by andyrose on May 23, 2010 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions

How did I not see that one coming?

I highly doubt Bradford would start all 16. So 4.75 a game in say, 10 games would still only give him 47.5. Just sayin’.

by kswiss on May 23, 2010 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't mean to imply thats going to happen with the Rams

I don’t think Bradford will start all 16, I don’t think a rookie will start at RT either, although that’s just a guess, and I don’t think the Rams line is bad enough to set any sack records.

I’m not really trying to say anything more than what I literally said, that I can see a situation where a QB would have outrageous sack totals.

Maybe I sound like I’m implying more than that, but I’m really not. I have come to believe they’ll protect Bradford, whether by not playing him too soon or by choosing his protectors smartly, whatever it takes.

by CoachConnors on May 23, 2010 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions

I was being kind of facetious

because I found it funny that I walked right into another reiteration of your now aptly named Rookie Triangle of Death theory. A totally reasonable one at that, I just get a kick out of how you’re able to work it into different conversations. I didn’t see this one coming since I was talking about Carr. I do hear your point.

I’m also of the thinking that they’ll protect him or at least not throw him into an impossible situation.

by kswiss on May 23, 2010 11:24 PM CDT up reply actions