| Year | QBrec | Cmp | Att | Cmp% | Yards | TD | TD% | Int | Int% | Y/A | Y/C | PRate | ESPN QBR | Sk | Yds | NY/A | ANY/A | Sk% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 1-6-0 | 95 | 197 | 48.2 | 1043 | 6 | 3.0 | 9 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 11.0 | 55.4 | 13 | 83 | 4.57 | 3.21 | 6.2 | |
| 2005 | 11-5-0 | 294 | 557 | 52.8 | 3762 | 24 | 4.3 | 17 | 3.1 | 6.8 | 12.8 | 75.9 | 28 | 184 | 6.12 | 5.63 | 4.8 | |
| 2006 | 8-8-0 | 301 | 522 | 57.7 | 3244 | 24 | 4.6 | 18 | 3.4 | 6.2 | 10.8 | 77.0 | 25 | 186 | 5.59 | 4.99 | 4.6 | |
| 2007 | 10-6-0 | 297 | 529 | 56.1 | 3336 | 23 | 4.3 | 20 | 3.8 | 6.3 | 11.2 | 73.9 | 27 | 217 | 5.61 | 4.82 | 4.9 | |
| 2008* | 12-4-0 | 289 | 479 | 60.3 | 3238 | 21 | 4.4 | 10 | 2.1 | 6.8 | 11.2 | 86.4 | 62.56 | 27 | 174 | 6.06 | 6.00 | 5.3 |
| 2009 | 8-8-0 | 317 | 509 | 62.3 | 4021 | 27 | 5.3 | 14 | 2.8 | 7.9 | 12.7 | 93.1 | 69.75 | 30 | 216 | 7.06 | 6.89 | 5.6 |
| 2010 | 10-6-0 | 339 | 539 | 62.9 | 4002 | 31 | 5.8 | 25 | 4.6 | 7.4 | 11.8 | 85.3 | 65.88 | 16 | 117 | 7.00 | 6.09 | 2.9 |
| 2011* | 9-7-0 | 359 | 589 | 61.0 | 4933 | 29 | 4.9 | 16 | 2.7 | 8.4 | 13.7 | 92.9 | 59.39 | 28 | 199 | 7.67 | 7.45 | 4.5 |
| 2012* | 9-7-0 | 321 | 536 | 59.9 | 3948 | 26 | 4.9 | 15 | 2.8 | 7.4 | 12.3 | 87.2 | 67.39 | 19 | 136 | 6.87 | 6.59 | 3.4 |
| Career | 78-57-0 | 2612 | 4457 | 58.6 | 31527 | 211 | 4.7 | 144 | 3.2 | 7.1 | 12.1 | 82.7 | 213 | 1512 | 6.43 | 5.94 | 4.6 |
In 2011, Eli Manning threw for 4,933 yards and won the Super Bowl. Last year, he threw for 3948 yards and missed the playoffs. It’s tempting to think that something was “wrong” with Manning last year. Another narrative would be that 2011 was a career year far out of line with anything else he’s done, which would make 2012 was the real Manning. I’m not sure I buy either of those explanations.
Let’s start by comparing Manning’s numbers in 2011 and 2012. Yes, his passing yards dropped, but that’s a meaningless metric on its own. He threw 53 fewer passes in 2012, a partial explanation for why his yards declined. And while his yards per attempt did drop from 8.4 to 7.4, about 20% of that dip was mitigated by the fact that he took fewer sacks (his Net Yards per Attempt dropped from 7.7 to 6.9). In addition to improving his sack rate, Manning’s touchdown and interception rates were virtually identical, which means his decline was limited to pass attempts and yards per attempt.
We can break down the numbers on why his yards per attempt declined thanks to some additional data courtesy of NFLGSIS. In 2011, Manning averaged 8.4 yards per attempt. That was a result of three things: a 61.0% completion rate, 5.82 yards after the catch (per completion), and 7.92 Air Yards per Completed Pass. In 2012, Manning averaged 7.4 yards per attempt, with a 59.9% completion rate, 4.33 average YAC, and 7.97 Air Yards per Completed Pass.
The tiny drop in completion percentage is more than offset by the better sack rate, and if Manning was throwing incomplete passes instead of taking sacks, that’s a good thing. As for what happens when he completed a pass, his entire decline was in the form of yards after the catch. In 2011, he ranked 3rd in Air Yards per Completed Pass and 6th in YAC per completion; in 2012, he ranked 2nd in AY/CP and 30th in YAC per completion.
Now there’s some evidence to indicate YAC might be more on the quarterback than Air Yards. Other studies, and what I think is popular opinion, is that YAC is more about the receiver than the quarterback. But let’s further investigate why the Giants dipped in YAC. The table below shows a more precise breakdown. For both 2011 (in blue) and 2012 (in red), you can see the number of Receptions, Air Yards per Reception, YAC per reception, and Yards per Reception. The rows show each of the Giants top three receivers, top tight end, and top running back, along with the other players at wide receiver, tight end, and running back.
[continue reading…]