January 19, 2011
Colt McCoy & the Arm Strength Conundrum

Although a lot of Browns fans are excited by the possibility that Colt McCoy could finally be The Guy,a lot of analysts have agreed that there’s a dark shadow hovering over him.  People love his leadership. They love his work ethic. They love his intelligence and the way he performed under pressure. But from Tony Grossi onward, the word is that McCoy’s arm strength is “a concern” moving forward.

This notion irritates the hell out of me. Not because I’m blindly onboard with Colt McCoy, but because one of my pet peeves in sports is the tendency for people to believe that as soon as an athlete begins his second year, his strengths and weaknesses are frozen in place. He will never become significantly better at anything than what he already is. It’s as if a timer gets started on the day the athlete is drafted, and as soon as it goes off a couple of years later, the cement has set.

I’ll admit that by and large, huge improvements are not the norm. (Holland, feel free to jump in and drop some knowledge on the remarkable year-to-year consistency in NBA players’ stats.) However, if you’re looking at the right types of athletes, you can find plenty of examples of major strides being made.

For instance, let’s switch sports briefly. Steve Nash’s FT% for 2 of his first 3 years in the NBA was ~82.5%. In year 4, he improved to 88.2% and has never dropped below that rate in the succeeding 11 years. In fact, he’s shot 90% or better in 8 of those 11 years.

Returning to the NFL, Drew Brees showed similarly significant statistical improvement a few years into his professional career. In his first three seasons in the league, Brees’ completion percentages were 55.6%, 60.8%, and 57.6% respectively. In his fourth year, his completion percentage jumped to 65.5%. From year 4 to the present, his average annual completion percentage is 66.5%, and his worst year in that span is a still-impressive 64.3%.

What do these two athletes share in common? They were both undersized. Neither was born with the type of overwhelming athleticism that you’d see in, say, LeBron or Mike Vick. And both are renowned for their incredible hard work and dedication to the game.

All of these characteristics are (supposedly) true of Colt McCoy as well.

However, people may look at FT% in basketball and completion % in the NFL and say that those are somehow different than arm strength. They’re about skill and precision, not brute force. Learned, not innate qualities.

Somehow, arm strength is just regarded as being different.

But this past Monday, NFL correspondent Michael Lombardi wrote a column praising Aaron Rodgers. This, in itself, is not special, as the sports media has now universally agreed that Rodgers is The Next Great Quarterback. Even casual NFL fans have elevated him to elite status. In fact, I’m fairly certain that there are babies all over Wisconsin who have delayed trying to crawl so that they can learn to do Rodgers’s “championship belt” gesture instead.

What makes Lombardi’s column worth mentioning in this context is the following passage: 

The one noticeable area of improvement from his time in college to now is his arm strength. He never displayed this type of rocket or the ability to throw the ball from every angle. He had a good arm, now he has a powerful arm. Part of the reason for the increased velocity is that in college he…appeared as if the weight room was for linemen, not quarterbacks. Now he looks like he enjoys the weight room and has made his meek body into one that can take a hit and drive the football.

This officially marks the first time that I have ever seen a respectable NFL analyst make the argument that a quarterback’s arm strength can be significantly improved once he reaches the pro ranks. In other words, thanks to Lombardi, I can now point to a highly regarded expert who shares my opinion that this arm strength conundrum is garbage.

Does this mean that I believe a 90 lb chess champ could transform himself into a guy who can throw a football through a bank vault the way Rodgers can? Not necessarily, no. I think there’s some level of proficiency in a specialized field like this that can’t be acquired artificially. But I do believe that it means a pro athlete can go from being decent at something to being very good to great at that same thing—provided he really, truly goes after it.

Clearly, McCoy has some arm strength already. He wouldn’t have been a 4 year starter at Texas and a third round pick in the NFL (Holmgren’s quarterback-induced hard-on aside) if he didn’t. The question becomes, will he have the dedication and work ethic to make the same types of serious improvements that players like Nash, Brees, and Rodgers have made? If so, the Browns may truly have a solution at the QB spot. If not, then it’s back to the drawing board again.

But for now, take some comfort in the fact that Aaron Rodgers has shown that the arm strength issue is not, in fact, genetic-or-bust.

-T

December 17, 2010
Mangini: Losing His Edge?

Even casual Browns fans had to have been shocked by Eric Mangini yesterday. He did something so utterly out of character, so foreign to my understanding of his coaching philosophy, so staggeringly unexpected that I’m still trying to come to terms with it.

That’s right: he named Colt McCoy the starter not only for this Sunday vs the Bengals…but for the remainder of the 2010 season.

You read that correctly. Three. Whole. Games. Without. Speculation.

As much as I agree with the choice to play McCoy over…well, everyone else, I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed in Mangini on this one. It’s not about the decision, it’s about the announcement.

Frankly, I think it’s the first clear indication that he’s concerned about his job security. 

Mangini is not a perfect coach by any stretch of the imagination. He’s still young, and he’s still learning. But one aspect I’ve always liked about him is his unflinching belief in a small set of core values: discipline, hard work, and intelligence.

The last of these is the most important to the issue at hand. Mangini is a guy who believes that you can win by outsmarting your opponent.  It’s one of the big reasons he made Alex Mack, the winner of the Draddy Trophy, AKA the “academic Heisman,” his first draft choice in Cleveland. It’s the reason he constantly refers to watching tape as being “in the classroom.”

Most of all, though, it’s the reason that he reveals as little as possible about his starting quarterback on a week-to-week basis.

As we all know by now, Mangini believes that his team builds an advantage in every minute he forces an opposing coaching staff to waste preparing for a player who might not actually play. His James Bond-like resistance to divulging the identity of his starting QB has become an almost weekly sideshow for the past two seasons. It’s just a small part of the puzzle that led Michael Lombardi to dub Mangini “The Secret.”

In that sense, it’s mind-blowing to get an answer from Mangini on a Thursday as to who the starter will be this week, let alone for the next two beyond it.

It also indicates at least one of three things: first, that Mangini is clearly convinced that McCoy is the best quarterback he has; second, that his confidence in his belief system has been shaken enough that he’s abandoning one of his core coaching principles; and third, that he’s realized it may be smart for his job prospects to give Holmgren something he wants by auditioning McCoy in winter weather.

My read is that number one and number three are true. I’m not convinced of two, simply because of this: I believe that Mangini is smart enough to know that it’s preferable to have a quarterback good enough to be a foregone conclusion than it is to create mystery over two jokers.

I don’t think Mangini is wholly convinced that McCoy is the franchise just yet. But I do think that he’s convinced that, out of the names on his depth chart, McCoy has the best shot at it. Officially naming him the starter for the rest of the season is a small concession to Holmgren and Heckert that could potentially pay great dividends.

My prediction: if the Browns can manage to beat Cincinnati and play both Baltimore and Pittsburgh tough, Mangini will sacrifice Daboll at the Altar of Holmgren and keep his job for next season. Making this move with McCoy now puts him in the best position for that outcome. We’ll know in about four weeks whether or not it pays off for him.

-T

October 13, 2010
Quarterback Psychology

Before I get started with this post, I have one relevant piece of house-keeping that needs to be addressed.

As those of you who know me well already know, I have had a rule for years that stems from a certain golfer and his branding. Stated simply, unless it’s the name on his birth certificate, I refuse to call another grown man by the name of an animal (like, say, “Tiger”) without batting an eyelash. Hence, you will only ever hear me use the name “Eldrick Woods” in the rare instance that I’m talking about golf or the less rare instance that I’m talking about hookers, party girls, phone sex, or why marriage is a bad idea.

Why am I bringing this up now? Because as of now (well, technically as of this post a couple of weeks ago), I am extending the same rule to this week’s unofficially-official Browns starting QB:  Daniel McCoy. Because the only thing that sounds more absurd than calling another grown man “Tiger” is calling another grown man “Colt.”

With that out of the way, let’s discuss what Daniel McCoy is up against this Sunday.

According to our friends at Advanced NFL Stats, the Steelers are currently ranked 7th in the league in Defensive Efficiency. As I pointed out Sunday, through their first four games the Steelers are also forcing an average of 4 turnovers per game. They are 3-1, playing at home, energized by the return of noted John Kruk impersonator Ben Roethlisberger, and collectively out for revenge to make up for their pathetic loss to the Browns in Cleveland during the home stretch of the 2009 season.

All of this is bad news for Daniel. I know it, he knows it, fans know it, other writers know it.

I’ve started hearing grumbling from “the fans” about what a terrible idea it is to start McCoy Sunday against the ferocious Steeler defense. However, their reasoning is not because it makes the Browns an even more tremendous long shot in the game than they would have been with Jake DelHomme under center. And it’s not because they’re afraid that McCoy will end up getting injured as a byproduct of his lack of experience in this particularly hostile environment.

No, the main reason I’m hearing people complain about this is because of the effect it may have on McCoy’s psyche for the rest of his career.

The argument goes like this: Daniel McCoy is a promising young quarterback with an impressive NCAA resume. Instead of rushing him into the game to try to save the Browns’ offense, he should be brought along slowly, carefully, until he’s ready to be inserted into the starting line-up with a full understanding of the offense, a full sense of how the NFL is different from the NCAA, and the best possible chance at success. He should be mentored, nurtured, encouraged, and above all else, protected both physically and psychologically.

If McCoy is thrown into the fire too soon, the argument goes, it could shatter him mentally. He could be so traumatized by his own poor performance that his confidence erodes permanently. He starts to wonder if he has the talent to succeed at the next level, and this psychological injury starts to leak into his performance. It’s a vicious cycle, and by the end of it, Daniel McCoy never reaches his full potential, which is undoubtedly as a top-shelf NFL quarterback.

After deliberating about this long and hard, I have determined that it may in fact be the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard about either football or psychology.

Look, I agree with the sentiment that this is one of the three worst teams on the 2010 schedule for McCoy to begin his NFL career against (Steelers, Ravens, Jets). I also agree with the sentiment that no one should expect him to play well. But I absolutely disagree with the notion that this game will in some broad sense make or break him psychologically for the rest of his career.

One of the main reasons I disagree with it is because of the example on which these people are basing their theory: the one, the only, Body by Quinn.

In the revisionist history of Quinn apologists, BBQ’s career was derailed by mismanagement from the coaching staff, not by his by now almost universally accepted lack of talent at playing quarterback. Gassed by McCoy’s similarly impressive win-loss record in college, these Quinn apologists fear that McCoy will be unfairly “ruined” in the same fashion, beginning with his debut at Heinz Field this Sunday.

Here’s my perspective: as far as I can tell, being a quarterback is as much mental as it is physical. To a certain extent, you either have it or you don’t.

If you’re the type of person who’s built to play QB in the NFL, you are not going to be scarred for life because you had to make an emergency start against a good defense before the team planned on ever having to play you. Conversely, if you are the type of person whose lifelong confidence can be shattered by throwing a bunch of interceptions in a game that basically qualifies as a free pass because you weren’t intended to play until at least 2011, you shouldn’t be an NFL quarterback.

Furthermore, if you’re this second type of person, then I think it’s the responsibility of the team that drafted you to figure this out as soon as humanly possible so that they can move on if necessary and find a real long-term solution at the position.

In that sense, having to start McCoy this Sunday—and in all likelihood, at least the next two Sundays after—could be one of the most valuable things the coaching staff / management could ask for. It will give them an opportunity to evaluate McCoy based not so much on how he’s progressed in his understanding of the offense since training camp, but on how he handles the adversity that will almost undoubtedly come from being brutalized for the next 2-3 games.

However, I remain steadfast in my belief that the anxious fans who fear for Daniel McCoy’s mental well-being have the causality backwards. More often than not, I would theorize, young players don’t fail ultimately because premature exposure to tough games weakens them; they fail ultimately because they were weak to begin with and tough games exposed that quality.

So when McCoy takes the field against the Steelers this Sunday, relax. It’s not going to affect Daniel McCoy’s career trajectory. Because on some level, the outcome was determined long ago.

-T

March 15, 2010
The Accuracy of a Passer

In the fallout of the Body By Quinn trade, many, many people have referenced completion percentages when discussing Quinn’s accuracy - or lack thereof.

I wanted to amend these stats by saying that accuracy goes beyond completion percentage - sometimes a completed pass can still be inaccurate if the receiver makes a great, good, or even average catch. One thing to keep in mind is yards after the catch. If a pass is thrown perfectly, it can lead to a lot more yards after the catch than a pass that is too far off target for the receiver to do anything else but fall to the ground after he contorts his body to grab it. 

There are two levels of accuracy, I would argue - hitting the receiver at all and then hitting the receiver perfectly. 

I will spend the rest of the NFL offseason trying to come up with a name for each level. In the meantime, I think we can all confidently agree that Quinn and DA had neither.