Top 10 NFL Elusive QBs

[replive]

are those lost fumbles or just fumbles in general?

e: looked it up and those seem to be fumbles in general, not lost fumbles. calling them turnovers is misleading.

[Stumpy]

I can see your point, but IMO, fumbles vs fumble lost is irrelevant, as recovering one is usually luck of the draw anyways. If you put the ball on the ground, you put the ball on the ground.

[replive]

IMO, recovering fumbles vs fumble lost is irrelevant, as recovering one is usually luck of the draw anyways. If you put the ball on the ground, you put the ball on the ground.

there are many kinds of fumbles. many times, the fumble occurs with qb-center exchange or qb-hb exchange, both of which have little to do with being a runner. of course, this should occur evenly regardless of whether or not a qb is a runner or not (unless there is a positive correlation between being a runner and running with the rb more, but it's probably small enough to not really matter). i would be curious if qb fumbles are recovered less often or more often than rb fumbles, though.

still, calling them turnovers shows a bias, since non-lost fumbles are by definition not a turnover and thus should not be counted towards a "turnover" stat. if you want to say they fumble more, that's fine, but calling all of those fumbles turnovers is simply disingenuous.

[replive]

it's just a semantics argument anyway. you raise an interesting point i hadn't considered before.

[mav1234]

it'd be nice to create a top ten list of non-mobile qbs to compare it to, but creating such a list isn't super easy considering many of the all time greats were able to move around to complete plays.

[Stumpy]

still, calling them turnovers shows a bias, since non-lost fumbles are by definition not a turnover and thus should not be counted towards a "turnover" stat. if you want to say they fumble more, that's fine, but calling all of those fumbles turnovers is simply disingenuous.

You're right I shouldn't have said turnovers. If they were not images I would change the wording.

Also, despite my bias against running QBs, the lack of distinction in those stats was not intentional. I just forgot to look for fumbles lost when looking up stats. :redface:

[Stumpy]

fixed it kinda

[micnificent28]

Pop Quiz: Out of those ten, how many have Super Bowl rings? :lol:

And for the record, having a mobile/elusive quarterback is a good thing only if he's also a good passer. If he's not so hot in the pass department, all the running ability in the world doesn't mean squat. It might get you some nice highlight reels on ESPN, but it won't get you championships.

This arguement holds little water. The old how many of these quarterbacks have rings situation is alittle inflated. The"moblie" qaurterback is still fairely new,While they've been around in small supply since the start of the nfl. Never more than a handful.

So if there are say 5 mobile QBs in the league at any given time what are the odds that one of them are going to win the superbowl? 5 in 32? Of course by comparing pocket passer to a five and 32 ratio they look better. The nfl is evolving and the need to move in the pocket is breeding a new kind of passer.

Just because the numbers are on one side doesn't mean one or the other can't win the big dance.

[replive]

it'd be nice to create a top ten list of non-mobile qbs to compare it to, but creating such a list isn't super easy considering many of the all time greats were able to move around to complete plays.

we'd have to agree on some arbitrary metric on which to define "elusiveness" (40 times or rushing yards or something else) and it really would get really silly. i do suspect that running qbs fumble more as (i would imagine) they get hit more, increasing the chances of a fumble.

[mav1234]

we'd have to agree on some arbitrary metric on which to define "elusiveness" (40 times or rushing yards or something else) and it really would get really silly. i do suspect that running qbs fumble more as (i would imagine) they get hit more, increasing the chances of a fumble.

I actually think you'd want to do something with the yards per carry. Maybe something like under 3 or 2.5 = non-mobile or something, or go by yards per game... That would show very limited scrambling and limited mobility.

[replive]

I actually think you'd want to do something with the yards per carry. Maybe something like under 3 or 2.5 = non-mobile or something, or go by yards per game... That would show very limited scrambling and limited mobility.

i was thinking the same thing, but only with stats where sacks count as passing yards rather than rushing yards (i think they do this by default, but i dunno). rushing attempts might also play in somewhere (but of course, some don't run past the line of scrimmage as much as others).

[Stumpy]

No true metric here on these, but I don't think anyone would classify these current QBs as elusive...

Peyton Manning

416 TDs 198 INT 57 FUM

Tom Brady

268 TDs 103 INT 71 FUM

Drew Brees

242 TDs 132 INT 66 FUM

Phillip Rivers

138 TDs 58 INT 43 FUM

Total

1064 TDs 491 INT 237 FUM

(491+237) / 1064 = 0.68 so 17 INTs+FUM for ever 25 TDs

[replive]

I thought I'd compare the fumbles lost for the sample of players Stumpy was looking at: Fumbles lost Manning: 15/57 26.3% Brees: 26/66 39.39% Rivers: 19/43 44.18% Brady: 32/72 44.44% <b>Total<b/>: 92/238 38.66% And: McNair: 43/99 43.43% Stewart: 20/44 45.45% McNabb: 46/93 49.46% Vick: 30/66 45.45% <b>Total<b/>: 139/302 46.03% To be fair, Manning <i>really<i/> skewed the numbers towards the "non-elusive" side. Obviously, the sample size is way too small to make any conclusions on this data, and the players were hand-picked, but it's an interesting start. I didn't compare fumbles/season so I didn't really see if the "elusive" style QBs were more likely to fumble but that's for another time.

[replive]

I thought I'd compare the fumbles lost for the sample of players Stumpy was looking at:

Fumbles lost

Manning:

15/57 (26.3%)

Brees:

26/66 (39.39%)

Rivers:

19/43 (44.18%)

Brady:

32/72 (44.44%)

Total:

92/238 (38.66%)

And:

McNair:

43/99 (43.43%)

Stewart:

20/44 (45.45%)

McNabb:

46/93 (49.46%)

Vick:

30/66 (45.45%)

Total:

139/302 (46.03%)

To be fair, Manning really skewed the numbers towards the "non-elusive" side. Obviously, the sample size is way too small to make any conclusions on this data, and the players were hand-picked, but it's an interesting start.

I didn't compare fumbles/season or fumbles/(pass+rush attempts) so I didn't really see if the "elusive" QBs were more likely to fumble but that's for another time.