|
![]() |
Topic Starter |
Seize life. Be an ermine.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: My house
Casino cash: $-432449
![]() |
Historical Interception Percentages
Here's your dose of football history for the day.
As far as I can tell, no NFL player with 100 or more passing attempts has thrown more interceptions than completions. But one guy came pretty darn close. Pug Rentner, who played for the Boston Redskins and Chicago Bears from 1934 to 1937, was a "back" who both ran the ball and passed it. In his career, he completed 26 of 100 passes, throwing for 1 touchdown and 24 interceptions. His interception percentage of 24 percent is the highest in NFL history among players with 100 or more passing attempts. Here are the highest interception percentages among players with various minimum passing attempts.
There are a few things that I find interesting here. First, it appears that throwing a lot of interceptions isn't a big deal for top quarterbacks. Many of these guys are Hall of Famers and they're high among their peers on interception rate. Of course, for the most part getting 5,000 attempts may push you into the Hall based on longevity, but even with that, most would agree that Favre and Tarkenton and Unitas were top-notch quarterbacks. Guys like Arnie Herber and Bob Waterfield were also big stars in their day. I think if you throw a lot of touchdowns people don't notice the interceptions as much. Second, George Blanda really and truly sucked, but for some mysterious reason they kept putting him in starting lineups. That dude was a bad quarterback for decades. Third, Vinny Testaverde sure got a lot of opportunities relative to his accomplishments. Fourth, I notice that a lot of these guys had Hall of Fame receivers - James Lofton, Raymond Berry, Don Hutson, Charlie Joiner (rolls eyes), and Waterfield may have had one or two (Fears? Hirsch?). Did that mean that they took more risks? Or did that mean that the receivers were good enough to divert attention from the bad throws? Maybe Hall of Fame quarterbacks are manufactured by top-notch receivers. Finally, the rate goes down as attempts go up, which is probably to a minor extent a statistical centralization, but I think it's probably even more of a reflection of era. The modern era has longer careers and more attempts, and also a more effective anti-turnover design. Anyway, I just thought I'd share this. |
Posts: 145,217
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|