Should There Be A New Stat In The Nfl?

[Chicocheese]

Call me OCD, but I have a thing for people's stats. Particularly the Packers' QB. Aaron is one all-around awesome player, and I hate to see blemishes on his passing stats. In this case it is 2 of his 3 INT. One could make the argument that all of a QB's INT are a "receiver's mistake" but in Aaron's case it is true for these 2:

In week 4 I believe it was, Aaron threw a pass to James Jones, the ball hit James square in the hands, then ricocheted up and over his head, being caught by a Bronco (I think it was the Broncos.) just before the ball hit the ground.

Week 6, a similar play happens but this time Greg Jennings is the receiver who drops the pass (which I was stunned by, because I have nick-named Jennings the "Football Vacuum" because he seems to catch pretty much every pass that he gets his hands on...like his first TD catch in SB XLV! WOW, it still amazes me.)

The only true blue interception that Aaron has thrown was against the Bears in week 3, when Urlacher gaffled the bad pass.

What could these "dropped ball interceptions" or "deflected interceptions" be called? Should the negative mark be placed on the QB record, or the receiver's? Rodgers/the QB did his job, and got the ball to the receiver cleanly, and in Jennings'/ the WR's case if he would have caught the ball no INT would have been possible. It is unfair for the QB to be blamed for those interceptions in my eyes.

Thoughts? Like a said, this may just be my OCD flaring up. All in all I am STOKED about Rodgers' and the Packers' performance as a whole and stats don't win games, teams do...but this just irks me.

 

[ivo610]

Its fair for all QBs across the board. Listen to Pats fans, they have been complaining all season about how none of the ints are Bradys fault.

 

[Powarun]

I say we give the receiver the int stat. Ex: Jennings 77 amount of yards, 1 TD, and 1 int.

Also if we do that, then take away yards after the catch for a QB's total yardage.

 

[jerryricefumbled]

I hate seeing INTs get tacked to QBs when it's not really their fault. But lets be clear here that the Urlacher INT wasn't a bad pass, it was a bad READ, there is a difference.

 

[longtimefan]

The James Jones int was to high...

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[SpartaChris]

I say we give the receiver the int stat. Ex: Jennings 77 amount of yards, 1 TD, and 1 int.

Also if we do that, then take away yards after the catch for a QB's total yardage.

I agree for the most part, but a lot of times the YAC comes because of where the QB places the ball for the receiver to catch it. A well placed ball can lead to a ton of YAC, which I think should be credited to the QB AND the receiver.

 

[Future]

As longtimefan points out, many times a deflected INT is the result of a poor throw. Leave it as is.

 

[realcaliforniacheese]

The James Jones int was to high...

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Nah, Jones just didn't jump high enough.

 

[Bogart]

You could say this about Drew Brees too. He's had about 4 interceptions this season that were tipped out of the receiver's hands, but i don't think it's worth changing the rules over.

Last season some Jets fans wrote statements that they needed to start counting all the dropped interceptions Brady had and he would have had 10 picks instead of 5.

I don't think it should be changed.

If they did, there is so many interceptions in history that would have not counted.

 

[Kitten]

That's a really good point. It's not like a fumble where clearly whoever was in possession of the football was at fault. INTs are either the result of a bad or unwise pass or the receiver not making the catch. I don't think the mark (stat) should go against the QB if he was not directly responsible for play resulting in an INT. If it's the receiver's fault, the stat should go against him. But what would you label the stat? rINT for "receiver INT?"

I'm going to bring up Favre, close your eyes if you don't want to look. Favre had a mother load of INTs. If this stat were to go into effect and be retroactive, (a mind boggling process for the person who has to sit and review film on every one of every past QBs INTs), could we see a significant drop in Favre's INT rate?

It's an interesting concept, one that could have the potential to alter QBRs significantly.

 

[fettpett]

If they did, Favre would no longer own the INT title....espeically the playoff one where Schroeder was the cause of at lest 4 of the 6

 

[Kitten]

If they did, Favre would no longer own the INT title....espeically the playoff one where Schroeder was the cause of at lest 4 of the 6

That's exactly what I'm saying! Sucks that it's Favre but think if the power this could mean! It could alter the course of history forever!

 

[fettpett]

That's exactly what I'm saying! Sucks that it's Favre but think if the power this could mean! It could alter the course of history forever!

lol, it's still on the QB for throwing the ball in the right place. I agree that some onus should go on the WR other than just a drop but the QB is responsible for where he throws the ball as well, regardless of where the WR is suppose to be.

 

[Eric87]

There is no such thing as an individual passing stat. That's what I think. If you're going to take away the INTs from the QB, you have to take away the TDs and yards too. You can't just give the QB the air distance the receiver the ground distance, because that ignores the receiver's route and the QB's accuracy.

And probably 25% of the time, we don't really know whose fault an INT is anyways. Bad read, bad pass or bad route... or great defensive play? Or a big wind gust? Frequently it's hard to know for sure.

Are we going to give INTs to Tackles who allow the QB to get hit while throwing? Some stuff you just have to watch the games to understand what happened.

 

[Kitten]

lol, it's still on the QB for throwing the ball in the right place. I agree that some onus should go on the WR other than just a drop but the QB is responsible for where he throws the ball as well, regardless of where the WR is suppose to be.

Oh my! You've never seen Pinkston (sp?) this WR the freakin Eagles had about 10 years ago. He was God awful, he would of made even Aaron Rodgers look terrible. Eagles QB then was McNabb and I hold Pinkston responsible for 15% of McNabb's INTs. I'm exaggerating for effect but let me explain what this WR would do. He'd duck the ball. I swear, if he saw that ball coming his way with a defensive player in pursuit, he'd either deliberately step out of bounds or move away from the ball to avoid being hit from an oncoming defensive player. Once he didn't duck out of the way quickly enough and he hurt his pinky, you'd think the player had bit off his pinky and was standing above him munching on it the way Pinkston was carrying on. Any balls that were thrown to Pinkston that resulted in an INT, and there were many, were not the fault of McNabb in the least. It's not his fault the receiver won't catch or can't catch the ball. Pinkston is an extreme case, but he lasted in Philly a number of years and he was a real nightmare.

Just saying... it not always the QB for throwing the ball. It's a two way street. The receiver has to be able to catch it, especially if it's a perfectly thrown ball.

 

[Chicocheese]

There is no such thing as an individual passing stat. That's what I think. If you're going to take away the INTs from the QB, you have to take away the TDs and yards too. You can't just give the QB the air distance the receiver the ground distance, because that ignores the receiver's route and the QB's accuracy.

And probably 25% of the time, we don't really know whose fault an INT is anyways. Bad read, bad pass or bad route... or great defensive play? Or a big wind gust? Frequently it's hard to know for sure.

Are we going to give INTs to Tackles who allow the QB to get hit while throwing? Some stuff you just have to watch the games to understand what happened.

I'm just saying if the ball is dropped by the receiver, the mark shouldn't go against the QB. I'm not saying that it should go against the WR either, but IMO the receiver is more at fault. Now, if the receiver's route gets jumped, or the QB just straight up tosses the ball to the defense that would be the QB fault. Even if the QB gets hit as he throws that should go against the QB too, because he should have either not thrown the ball, or the defense did it's job and affected the pass. However, when the QB makes a clean throw, and the receiver just botches the catch (that is, with out any defensive involvement up until that point.) that is NOT the defense affecting the pass, and as such should not be a mark against the QB.

Now, in the case of the Urlacher INT that was bad read that therefore an interception on Rodger's fault.

Also, @longtimefan the James Jones dropped pass INT was not too high. He jumped high enough, and got his hands squarely on the ball. He simply did not catch it. The WR in the NFL get paid a lot of money to catch a football, even if they have to jump a bit. Also, I am not harping on James Jones, Greg Jennings, or anyone else in the Packers' receiving corps I am just stating what I see and that I think the INT should not be counted against the QB.

Perhaps you could call it a DINT, or a Deflected Interception. A stat that is purely defensive. The mark goes against neither the QB or the WR, but is credited to the defensive player who catches the loose ball. I do believe that defenses should get credit for these interceptions, since they made the play on the loose, airborne ball and caught it. Should the stat be retroactive? No. Should it go into affect? IMO yes. Think of it like in baseball, how a Save became a stat. MLB didn't go back and see who DID get saves in the past, but they started recording them per their rules as to what a Save is.

That brings me to my next point: What would a DINT be? A DINT would a pass that is tipped by an OFFENSIVE player ONLY that is making a play on the ball, that ends up being caught by a defensive player. So, what I am saying is that if Jay Cutler throws a ball to Forte, and the ball is dropped/tipped by Forte and Woodson ends up snagging the ball, that would be a DINT. Now, if Cutler tossed the ball to Forte, and Raji tipped it, and Woodson ended up snagging the ball that would remain an INT since the defense made the play on the ball/caused the tip that allowed the ball to be intercepted. Lastly, say Cutler threw the ball and it bounced off of one of his O-lineman's helmet or shoulder, then landed in the Packers' hands, that would also remain an INT because it was an error pass, not an error catch.

Call me crazy, but I think this would be a good new stat too have. It wouldn't be hard to categorize and could take affect without having to adjust your play style. Unlike the bogus Roughing the Passer/Kicker calls when the defensive player is flying in the air BEFORE the QB (or kicker) gets rid of the ball, but since the defender makes contact with the passer/kicker after the ball is released, it is called RTP/K and now you have to change how you play the game because you are worried of getting called for a penalty or worse.

Thanks for you time!

--Rob.

 

[longtimefan]

As longtimefan points out, many times a deflected INT is the result of a poor throw. Leave it as is.

Exactly

Who will determain that it was a tipped pass from a poorly thrown ball, or the wr/rb just muffed it?

I think the Denver int was result of bad throw (to high) others feel it was JJ fault for not going high enough

Leaving way to much to personal interpretation

 

[Greenbayphil]

Just leave it as it is, all the stats (Apart from ESPN's QBR) show a pretty good representation of how everyone has done.

 

[gmann001]

The James Jones int was to high...

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Agreed...that one shouldn't be tagged against James Jones. The whole "who's at fault" allows alot of interpretation. Then you have just like good/bad penalty calls... people can argue both sides on many.

 

[ivo610]

I highly doubt I will ever see a ratio of TD to INT like Brady did last year. That was insane.

 

[Forget Favre]

Aren't there enough stats as it is?
It's crazy and overwhelming.
You put in this stat and then everyone else will want things changed to.
Completions made while wearing Reeboks vs Nikes.
Tackles made while eating pizza vs hamburger the night before.
Receptions made from wearing this brand of jock strap etc etc.

When A-Rod starts throwing 50 or more INTs per season as his predecessor did, then we can start discussing changing the stats.
But A-Rods INT numbers are so low, there's really no need.

 

[Bogart]

That's exactly what I'm saying! Sucks that it's Favre but think if the power this could mean! It could alter the course of history forever!

LOL and before Favre, Moon was the interception leader, which is understandable when you average 35-45 passes a game, you're going to throw interceptions here and there.

 

[Eric87]

When A-Rod starts throwing 50 or more INTs per season as his predecessor did, then we can start discussing changing the stats.
But A-Rods INT numbers are so low, there's really no need.

The most INTs Favre ever threw in a season was 29 in 2005.
The most in NFL history in a single season is 42 for George Blanda with the 1962 Houston Oilers.

Favre led the league in INTs three times, however he also threw less than 20 INTs in 13 of his 19 seasons as a starter.

For his career, the number of INTs Favre threw was basically average. He just played for a really long time.

 

[Eric87]

LOL and before Favre, Moon was the interception leader, which is understandable when you average 35-45 passes a game, you're going to throw interceptions here and there.

Moon is 13th in career INTs. George Blanda is #2.

1. Favre 336
2. Blanda 277
3. John Hadl 268
...
13. Warren Moon 233

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_int_career.htm

 

[Bogart]

Moon is 13th in career INTs. George Blanda is #2.

1. Favre 336
2. Blanda 277
3. John Hadl 268
...
13. Warren Moon 233

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_int_career.htm

I thought Moon was in the top 5, thanks for the corrections, I need to go back to that site and study up.