Quarterback "efficiency" is not always a reliable variable in winning in the NFL

Quarterback “efficiency” in the NFL is measured in a number of different ways. Statistically, there is the “passer rating,” the most commonly used standard, while ESPN has invented something that few people understand called the “Total QBR,” which is supposed to be an indicator of  “quality” play over “quantity.” Of course in the past quarterbacks would not have “measured up” to today’s standards in either measure; Bart Starr—considered the most efficient passer during the Lombardi years, leading the NFL in passer rating three times in five years—had a career rating of “only” 80.5. Johnny Unitas—considered the “standard” for NFL quarterbacks for years—only had a 78.2 career rating.

Thus quarterbacks of certain eras can only be “measured” in relation to other quarterbacks of their time. Still, some quarterbacks—like Joe Namath and Troy Aikman—didn’t quite measure up to the expected quarterback play of their own eras; Namath had a 65.5 passer rating, and Aikman had an 81.5 rating and was clearly dependent on the play of Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin, who during the Cowboys’ peak years accounted for 60 percent of the team’s offense. 

Namath and Aikman’s Hall of Fame credentials were based solely on “quality” wins, meaning Super Bowls. One suspects that because Namath was a “celebrity” playing in such a huge media market like New York, his “credentials” were given an added boost; on the other hand, perhaps it was because of his “vanilla” personality that Phil Simms—who had perhaps the most efficient quarterback performance ever in Super Bowl XXI, and clearly a better quarterback than Namath—has yet to come close to being considered HOF “material.”

This past Sunday saw two performances that show how drastic quarterback play can be with somewhat similar results, or at least their teams won the game. Nick Foles—who many people think should have been the Philadelphia Eagles’ starting quarterback from the beginning, given Michael Vicks’ history of injury—had perhaps the most efficient passing performance in NFL history against the Oakland Raiders in a 49-20 drubbing on the road. Foles completed 22 of 28 pass attempts for 406 yards, an NFL record-tying 7 touchdown passes and no interceptions for a “max” 158.3 passer rating and a 99.1 QBR. His counterpart, Terrell Pryor, has thrown just 5 TD passes all season.

On the other side of the country, the New York Jets somehow won yet another mind-numbing game, this time against the New Orleans Saints; Geno Smith—who all over the tweety-sphere is compared to the greats of all-time despite his current ranking of 30^th in the NFL—had another statistically ineffective performance, with a 62.4 passer rating and a 14.8 QBR.  How “lucky” have the Jets been? They have a winning record despite being out-scored by 69 points by their opponents through nine games.

Thus it seems that high quarterback “efficiency” is not necessarily “necessary” for a team to win, at least in the short term. Too often we have seen the unexpected before the inevitable crashing landing. It is not often that you see cases like Terry Bradshaw, who was considered a gigantic “bust” after his first several seasons in the league (he had a league high 24 interceptions, and low 30.4 passer rating in his rookie season), but eventually he won  four Super Bowls and a “bust” in the Hall of Fame. 

Perhaps Foles may never come close to repeating his performance against the Raiders, and Smith may improve enough to prove that the Jets’ winning record isn’t the complete fluke that it clearly is now;  all we know for certain is that on “any given Sunday,” football can be unpredictable.