QB Protection Nothing New
Does it seem that there have been more roughing-the-passer penalties in 2009 than in recent seasons? That has indeed been the case, but everything is not what it seems. Through the first six weeks of this season, there have been 35 roughing calls, or 5.83 per week. That stands in sharp contrast to the 59 overall in 2008 (3.47 per week over 17 weeks), 61 in 2007 (3.59), and you'd have to back to 2006 to find an equivalent average (110 overall, or 6.0 per week). The 2005 numbers prove that it's hardly a "new focus" -- there were 127 roughing calls in that season, or an average of 7.47 per week. The total was even higher in 2004; 135 overall and 7.94 per week.
So, the "new emphasis" is less that and more a return to form. It also puts a hole in the theory that the NFL has been enforcing more quarterback protection each year; this is instead a more common theme among officiating trends. Every year, the league's Competition Committee alters the focus officials are supposed to put on specific fouls. Wild year-to-year swings in penalty numbers frequently have to do with organic drop-offs in calls over time, and the NFL's subsequent realization that "X" amount of protection is good for the game. The "Brady Rule" has put the focus on a roughing-the-passer "overemphasis", but 2009 isn't the NFL's first go-round with the concept.
After the Baltimore Ravens made some pointed comments about the NFL possibly being focused in their general direction with those flags, but if the league actually does have a target, it resides further south. The Tennessee Titans have four roughing calls so far in 2009, tied with Baltimore for the NFL lead, and the Titans also led the league in 2008 and 2007.
So the next time you hear a player or announcer insist that the refs are calling roughing the passer in a more ticky-tack fashion than ever before... the truth is, the NFL has a ways to go to exceed the number of calls just a few years ago. What's happening now is simple regression to the mean -- no matter how we get there.
By
Doug Farrar
|
October 20, 2009; 11:31 AM ET
| Category:
Doug Farrar
,
Quarterbacks
Share This: Email | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: The Brady Rule Effect |
Next: Sack Leaders Aren't Built in a Day
Posted by: wawgt | October 21, 2009 11:25 AM
Doug,
Your numbers really miss an important point. This isn't about roughing the passer as much as it is about what constitutes roughing the passer. If you recall a few years back, the rule was changed to prevent knocking the QB down after he had released the ball hence the spike, then the hit to the head thing and now the Brady rule. Defensive players adapt to the new rules and penalties decline only to spike again when the rules change. The question now becomes are QBs protected too much. The performance difference in teams that have good QBs versus those who are only average has never appeared to be greater to me because everything is slanted to that one position. The end result being less parity across the league and the real potential to create a baseball style league with a few haves and many have nots. I doubt this is good for the NFL in the long run.
Posted by: andyb119 | October 21, 2009 8:13 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Doug, Calling a column "Smarter Stats" means you need to be on top of your game. You're conclusion that the NFL is not enforcing more quarterback protection is based on the faulty assumption that defensive players do not adjust their actions based on new rules. The real impact of the tighter enforcement can be seen on the front page of today's sport section: eight quarterbacks with an passer rating of more than 100.