DarkVictory23
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 2,012
- Reaction score
- 2,993
Let's dive into what realistic expectations for Sam Howell's recent performance should be, especially considering the chatter about his lack of first-team reps and how much that could explain what happened.
To set the record straight, I'm not giving up on Howell just yet. I didn't think the trade for him was a mistake then, and I don't now. Yes, his performance in the last game was bad (really bad as you'll see below), but it's premature to expect him to be fully prepared this season.
Now, onto setting realistic benchmarks for a backup quarterback like Howell. I think a useful metric to consider is Success Rate, which gauges the frequency of plays that advance the offense. This doesn't necessarily mean scoring touchdowns or completing long passes, just consistently making positive plays. While the 'average' success rate fluctuates, starting QBs this year have an average of around 46%.
So, comparing Howell to other backups who were suddenly called to action can provide some perspective.
In Week 2, Buffalo vs. Miami, Tua Tagovailoa exited in the third quarter with a 58% success rate. His replacement, Skylar Thompson, managed a 40% success rate.
Similarly, in Week 9, Las Vegas vs. Cincinnati, Desmond Ridder replaced Gardner Minshew, who had a 50% success rate (taking advantage of that Cinci defense), and Ridder's success rate fell to 35%.
These examples show that backup quarterbacks typically perform about a third less effectively than the starters they replace. This trend is consistent, with backups who haven't started a game falling short by an average of 28% compared to an average starter's success rate.
This brings us to Howell. Geno was achieving a 52% success rate before he exited the game: Howell--16%. A 69% decrease. This decline is not just bad; it's ridiculously bad.
So, for those who thought Howell looked really bad, even considering the circumstances, congrats: you were right. He was really bad, even when considering the circumstances.
So the question is: why am I not giving up on Howell? Because I fully expected that basically any quarterback, given our Offensive Line and Offensive Coordinator, would look really bad.
There's a common argument that if Geno is truly a good quarterback, he should elevate the performance of the offensive line and the team's overall baseline. This game should serve as a reminder that this is what's happening. It showcases the stark contrast when a less skilled quarterback takes the field behind this line, especially when asked to just pass from shotgun a bajillion times in a row.
Of course, it's also fair to just think Howell sucks.
---
For funsies, here's one more backup to starter success rate comparison:
Week 5, 2021: Los Angeles vs. Seattle
Geno Smith comes in for Russell Wilson. Russ had a 50% success rate. Geno had 52%.
A 4% improvement. So, yeah. There's that.
To set the record straight, I'm not giving up on Howell just yet. I didn't think the trade for him was a mistake then, and I don't now. Yes, his performance in the last game was bad (really bad as you'll see below), but it's premature to expect him to be fully prepared this season.
Now, onto setting realistic benchmarks for a backup quarterback like Howell. I think a useful metric to consider is Success Rate, which gauges the frequency of plays that advance the offense. This doesn't necessarily mean scoring touchdowns or completing long passes, just consistently making positive plays. While the 'average' success rate fluctuates, starting QBs this year have an average of around 46%.
So, comparing Howell to other backups who were suddenly called to action can provide some perspective.
In Week 2, Buffalo vs. Miami, Tua Tagovailoa exited in the third quarter with a 58% success rate. His replacement, Skylar Thompson, managed a 40% success rate.
Similarly, in Week 9, Las Vegas vs. Cincinnati, Desmond Ridder replaced Gardner Minshew, who had a 50% success rate (taking advantage of that Cinci defense), and Ridder's success rate fell to 35%.
These examples show that backup quarterbacks typically perform about a third less effectively than the starters they replace. This trend is consistent, with backups who haven't started a game falling short by an average of 28% compared to an average starter's success rate.
This brings us to Howell. Geno was achieving a 52% success rate before he exited the game: Howell--16%. A 69% decrease. This decline is not just bad; it's ridiculously bad.
So, for those who thought Howell looked really bad, even considering the circumstances, congrats: you were right. He was really bad, even when considering the circumstances.
So the question is: why am I not giving up on Howell? Because I fully expected that basically any quarterback, given our Offensive Line and Offensive Coordinator, would look really bad.
There's a common argument that if Geno is truly a good quarterback, he should elevate the performance of the offensive line and the team's overall baseline. This game should serve as a reminder that this is what's happening. It showcases the stark contrast when a less skilled quarterback takes the field behind this line, especially when asked to just pass from shotgun a bajillion times in a row.
Of course, it's also fair to just think Howell sucks.
---
For funsies, here's one more backup to starter success rate comparison:
Week 5, 2021: Los Angeles vs. Seattle
Geno Smith comes in for Russell Wilson. Russ had a 50% success rate. Geno had 52%.
A 4% improvement. So, yeah. There's that.
