New QBR and How Browns QB's Fair?

[BernietheKid]

Guide to the Total Quarterback Rating

Explaining the methodology and statistics behind ESPN's new QB metric

By Dean Oliver
Dir. Analytics, ESPN Stats & Information
Originally Published: August 4, 2011


Early in a scoreless game, a quarterback throws a 20-yard pass just by the reaching arms of a defender and into the hands of his intended receiver, who holds on despite the distraction, then scampers the remaining 15 yards for a touchdown.

Another quarterback, down 30-10 with five minutes left in the fourth quarter, throws a 3-yard screen pass to a running back, who maneuvers another 32 yards through prevent defense to pick up a first down deep in opponent territory.

Both are called good plays, but labeling them as "good" isn't enough. Each play has a different level of contribution to winning, and each play illustrates a different level of quarterback contribution. What is the quarterback's contribution to winning in each situation? Coaches want to know this; players want to know this; and fans want to know this.

The Total Quarterback Rating is a statistical measure that incorporates the contexts and details of those throws and what they mean for wins. It's built from the team level down to the quarterback, where we understand first what each play means to the team, then give credit to the quarterback for what happened on that play based on what he contributed.

At the team level, identifying what wins games is not revolutionary: scoring points and not allowing points. Back in the 1980s, "The Hidden Game of Football" did some pioneering work on that topic and on how yardage relates to points. We went back and updated what that book did … then we went further. At the individual level, more detailed information about what quarterbacks do is really necessary. Brian Burke at AdvancedNFLStats.com has done very good work in advancing that effort, and

FootballOutsiders.com has done some of this by charting data, but, for the past three years, ESPN has charted football games in immense detail. By putting all these ideas together and incorporating division of credit, we have built a metric of quarterback value, the Total Quarterback Rating, Total QBR or QBR for short.

What follows is a summary of what goes into QBR. It took several thousand lines of code to implement, but we'll keep this shorter.

Win Probability and Expected Points

The goal behind any player rating should be determining how much a player contributes to a win. We went back through 10 years of NFL play-by-play data to look at game situation (down, distance, yard line, clock time, timeouts, home field, field surface and score), along with the ultimate outcome of the game, to develop a win probability function.

This function treats every win the same, regardless of whether it was 45-3 or 24-23, though there is clearly a difference between such games. The first game represents total domination, whereas the other represents two fairly evenly matched teams. Because win probability treats every win the same, it misses some of what goes into the win, specifically many of the points that represent domination or the points that lead up to a last-second victory. So, although QBR uses win probability to assess how "clutch" a situation is, it uses expected points as the basis of evaluating quarterbacks. It has more of the details, and understands the difference between wins, but still strongly relates to wins in general.

The concept of expected points was discussed as early as the mid-1980s with Pete Palmer & Co. and "The Hidden Game of Football," in which they talk about "point potential." Their idea was that, as you move closer to the opponents' end zone, you are actually gaining points. Brian Burke took it further to note that third-and-10 from midfield, for instance, has fewer expected points than first-and-10 from midfield. In other words, down and distance also matter in terms of points. We took this even further to look at clock time, home field, timeouts and field surface to generate the expected points for any team given its situation in a drive. One particular situation to note is that, at the end of the half, a team is less likely to score any points than at most other times of the game, just because the half is going to expire.


It's useful to mention here that expected points are expected net points. It's possible that a team has expected points less than 0. This simply implies that the other team is generally more likely to score. This usually happens when a team is backed up deep in its own side of the field, especially if it is third or fourth down.


What then happens is an evaluation of expected points added. How does a team go from 1.1 expected points to 2.1? However it does it, that is 1.0 expected points to be distributed to the offensive players on the field. But how the team does it is what determines how credit is given to a quarterback.


Dividing Credit

Division of credit is the next step. Dividing credit among teammates is one of the most difficult but important aspects of sports. Teammates rely upon each other and, as the cliché goes, a team might not be the sum of its parts. By dividing credit, we are forcing the parts to sum up to the team, understanding the limitations but knowing that it is the best way statistically for the rating.

On a pass play, for instance, there are a few basic components:
• The pass protection
• The throw
• The catch
• The run after the catch

In the first segment, the blockers and the quarterback have responsibility for keeping the play alive, and the receivers have to get open for a QB to avoid a sack or having to throw the ball away. On the throw itself, a quarterback has to throw an accurate ball to the intended receiver. Certain receivers might run better or worse routes, so the ability of a QB to be on target also relates somewhat to the receivers. For the catch, it might be a very easy one where the QB laid it in right in stride and no defenders were there to distract the receiver. Or it could be that the QB threaded a needle and defenders absolutely hammered the receiver as he caught the ball, making it difficult to hold on. So even the catch is about both the receiver and the QB. Finally, the run after the catch depends on whether a QB hit the receiver in stride beyond the defense and on the ability of a receiver to be elusive. Whatever credit we give to the blockers, receivers and quarterback in these situations is designed to sum to the team expected points added.

The ESPN video tracking has been useful in helping to separate credit in plays like these. We track overthrows, underthrows, dropped passes, defended passes and yards after the catch. The big part was taking this information and analyzing how much of it was related to the QB, the receivers and the blockers. Not surprisingly, pass protection is related mostly to the QB and the offensive line, but yards after the catch is more about what the receiver does. Statistical analysis was able to show this, and we divided credit based on those things.

As a relevant side note, statistical analysis showed that what we call a dropped pass was not all a receiver's fault, either. A receiver might drop a ball because he wanted to run before catching it, because the defense distracted him, because it was a little bit behind him or because he was about to get hit by a defender. If the defender was there a half second before, the defender would have knocked the ball free and it would have been called a "defended pass," not a "dropped pass." There are shades of gray even on a dropped pass, and analysis showed that. Drops are less a QB's fault than defended passes or underthrows, but the QB does share some blame.

On most other plays, quarterbacks receive some portion of credit for the result of the play, including defensive pass interference, intentional grounding, scrambles, sacks, fumbles, fumble recoveries (Carson Palmer once recovered a teammate's fumble that saved the game for the Bengals) and throwaways.

On plays when the QB just hands off to a running back, we didn't assign any credit to the QB. Our NFL experts did suggest that some QBs are very good at interpreting defenses pre-snap and identifying better holes for their backs. However, they also told us it would be nearly impossible to incorporate. Because they suggested this, we built in the ability to give credit for QBs when they just handed off, but we couldn't find the right analysis to do it in 2011.

Clutch Index

The final major step is to look at how "clutch" the situation was when creating expected points. A normal play has a clutch index of 1.0. For instance, first-and-goal from the 10-yard line in a tie game at the start of the second quarter has a clutch index of almost exactly 1.0. A more clutch situation, one late in the game when the game is close -- the same situation as above but midway through the fourth quarter, for example -- has a clutch index of about 2.0. Maximum clutch indices are about 3.0, and minimum indices are about 0.3.

These clutch index values came from an analysis of how different situations affect a game's win probability on average. One way to think of it is in terms of pressure. A clutch play is defined before the play by how close the game appears to be. Down four points with three seconds to go and facing third-and-goal from the 3-yard line -- that is a high-pressure and high-clutch index situation because the play can realistically raise the odds of winning to almost 100 percent or bring them down from about 40 percent to almost zero percent. The same situation from midfield isn't as high pressure because it's very unlikely that the team will pull out the victory. Sure, a Hail Mary can pull the game out, but if it doesn't work, the team didn't fail on that play so much as it failed before then. On third-and-goal from the 3-yard line, failure means people will be talking about that final play and what went wrong.

The clutch indices are multiplied by the quarterback's expected points on plays when the QB had a significant contribution, then divided by the sum of the clutch indices and multiplied by 100 to get a clutch-valued expected points added per 100 plays.

A Rating from 0 to 100

The final step is transforming the clutch-valued expected points rate to a number from 0 to 100. This is just a mathematical formula with no significance other than to make it easier to communicate. A value of 90 and above sounds good whether you're talking about a season, a game or just third-and-long situations; a value of four or 14 doesn't sound very good; a value of 50 is average, and that is what QBR generates for an average performance.

That being said, the top values in a season tend to be about 75 and above, whereas the top values in a game are in the upper 90s. Aaron Rodgers might have gone 31-of-36 for 366 yards, with three passing TDs, another TD running, 19 first-down conversions, and eight conversions on third or fourth down in one game -- for a single-game Total QBR of 97.2 -- but he can't keep that up all year long. Pro Bowl-level performance for a season usually means a QBR of at least 65 or 70. We don't expect to see a season with a QBR in the 90s.

Defensive Adjustment

With this rating, we have intentionally not adjusted for opponents. This doesn't mean that we won't adjust for opponents as we use it but that we want QBR to be flexible for many purposes, and keeping opponents' strength out gives us that flexibility. As it stands, QBR can be broken down for all sorts of situations -- red zone, third-and-long, throwing to a certain receiver, in bad weather, against different defensive formations. We didn't want to muddy it up with opponent adjustments that aren't as useful for those situations. How to implement a defensive adjustment for third-and-long also might be different from one for the whole season. Beyond this, a defensive adjustment is often not a constant factor. A defense that looks good in Week 4 might not be as good after a few more weeks. Because it isn't a constant thing, it makes sense to leave that for analysis rather than constant incorporation into QBR.

There will be analyses that we do on ESPN that will suggest the use of an opponent adjustment, but we will do that when needed, not up front.

Concluding Thoughts

What underlies QBR is an understanding of how football works and a lot of detailed situational data. What it yields are results that should reflect that. It illustrates that converting on third-and-long is important to a quarterback. It shows that a pass that is in the air for 40 yards is more reflective of a quarterback than a pass that is in the air for 5 yards and the receiver has 35 yards of run after the catch. These premises should sound reasonable to football fans. They come out of a lot of statistical analysis, but they are also consistent with what coaches and players understand.

As we neared the end of the development of QBR, we talked to Ron Jaworski and Greg Cosell at NFL Films about its evolution. Cosell said at one point, "Football is not complex, but it is very detailed." I realized then that QBR is like that. It is very detailed, accounting for a lot of different situations, but it is not particularly complex. It really does try to see the game the way we have gotten used to seeing it in its elegant simplicity. We hope you, the fan, appreciate it, as well.

Explaining the statistics behind the Total Quarterback Rating - ESPN

[BernietheKid]

QBR Leaders: 2008-10

Over the three years that were charted to create the QBR, one name rises to the top, with Peyton Manning recording the best seasons.

Rank	Season	QB	Team	Action Plays	QBR
1	2009	Peyton Manning	IND	660	82.3
2	2008	Peyton Manning	IND	649	79.7
3	2009	Drew Brees	NO	613	77.2
4	2010	Tom Brady	NE	607	76.0
5	2008	Matt Ryan	ATL	570	72.6
6	2008	Chad Pennington	MIA	577	72.3
7	2009	Philip Rivers	SD	602	71.8
8	2008	Jay Cutler	DEN	741	71.3
9	2009	Matt Schaub	HOU	694	71.0
10	2009	Aaron Rodgers	GB	717	69.7
11	2010	Peyton Manning	IND	779	69.5
12	2009	Vince Young	TEN	347	69.2
13	2008	Matt Schaub	HOU	474	69.2
14	2008	Philip Rivers	SD	590	69.1
15	2010	Matt Ryan	ATL	709	68.6
16	2010	Aaron Rodgers	GB	627	67.9
17	2009	Ben Roethlisberger	PIT	652	67.3
18	2010	Michael Vick	PHI	547	66.6
19	2008	Kurt Warner	ARI	702	66.5
20	2010	Drew Brees	NO	760	65.9
21	2009	Eli Manning	NYG	613	65.9
22	2008	Aaron Rodgers	GB	691	64.5
23	2009	Kurt Warner	ARI	619	64.5
24	2009	Tony Romo	DAL	696	64.4
25	2010	Eli Manning	NYG	654	64.3
26	2008	Jake Delhomme	CAR	513	64.0
27	2010	Josh Freeman	TB	626	63.5
28	2010	Philip Rivers	SD	667	63.2
29	2009	Tom Brady	NE	677	63.2
30	2008	Drew Brees	NO	729	63.1
31	2009	Brett Favre	MIN	643	63.1
32	2008	Eli Manning	NYG	596	61.3
33	2008	Matt Cassel	NE	673	61.0
34	2008	Jeff Garcia	TB	462	60.7
35	2010	Ben Roethlisberger	PIT	500	59.8
36	2010	Tony Romo	DAL	251	58.1
37	2010	Joe Flacco	BAL	647	58.1
38	2010	Matt Schaub	HOU	678	57.8
39	2009	Matt Ryan	ATL	556	57.7
40	2009	Donovan McNabb	PHI	569	57.3
41	2010	David Garrard	JAC	510	57.3
42	2008	Shaun Hill	SF	366	57.0
43	2008	Kerry Collins	TEN	492	56.9
44	2010	Kerry Collins	TEN	342	56.0
45	2008	Jason Campbell	WAS	654	54.8
46	2008	Seneca Wallace	SEA	299	53.5
47	2009	Carson Palmer	CIN	615	53.2
48	2009	Kyle Orton	DEN	650	52.9
49	2009	Joe Flacco	BAL	632	52.6
50	2008	Donovan McNabb	PHI	671	51.9
51	2010	Matt Cassel	KC	566	51.2
52	2009	Chad Henne	MIA	538	51.1
53	2008	Dan Orlovsky	DET	301	51.1
54	2009	Jay Cutler	CHI	693	51.0
55	2008	Tyler Thigpen	KC	546	50.8
56	2008	David Garrard	JAC	711	50.8
57	2009	David Garrard	JAC	683	50.4
58	2008	Tony Romo	DAL	551	50.1
59	2008	Trent Edwards	BUF	480	49.7
60	2009	Jason Campbell	WAS	647	49.4
61	2010	Ryan Fitzpatrick	BUF	551	48.7
62	2010	Mark Sanchez	NYJ	619	47.4
63	2010	Carson Palmer	CIN	720	46.7
64	2010	Colt McCoy	CLE	290	46.6
65	2010	Kyle Orton	DEN	612	46.6
66	2008	Ben Roethlisberger	PIT	608	46.4
67	2010	Jon Kitna	DAL	409	46.1
68	2008	Kyle Orton	CHI	560	45.7
69	2010	Shaun Hill	DET	499	44.8
70	2010	Jason Campbell	OAK	479	43.8
71	2010	Jay Cutler	CHI	596	42.6
72	2010	Matt Hasselbeck	SEA	547	42.4
73	2009	Alex Smith	SF	463	42.2
74	2008	Gus Frerotte	MIN	394	42.1
75	2008	Brett Favre	NYJ	639	41.7
76	2008	Joe Flacco	BAL	586	41.6
77	2010	Chad Henne	MIA	604	41.4
78	2010	Donovan McNabb	WAS	596	41.0
79	2010	Sam Bradford	STL	732	41.0
80	2010	Alex Smith	SF	426	40.0
81	2008	Ryan Fitzpatrick	CIN	507	38.7
82	2010	Derek Anderson	ARI	387	35.9
83	2008	JaMarcus Russell	OAK	472	34.5
84	2009	Brady Quinn	CLE	321	33.2
85	2008	Marc Bulger	STL	556	33.0
86	2009	Matthew Stafford	DET	460	32.9
87	2009	Marc Bulger	STL	309	31.9
88	2009	Kerry Collins	TEN	256	31.5
89	2009	Mark Sanchez	NYJ	473	30.9
90	2008	Matt Hasselbeck	SEA	259	30.9
91	2009	Jake Delhomme	CAR	396	30.5
92	2009	Matt Cassel	KC	658	30.2
93	2009	Ryan Fitzpatrick	BUF	310	29.9
94	2008	Derek Anderson	CLE	366	29.6
95	2009	Matt Hasselbeck	SEA	592	26.7
96	2010	Brett Favre	MIN	459	25.8
97	2009	Josh Freeman	TB	373	25.8
98	2009	Trent Edwards	BUF	256	25.7
99	2008	J.T. O'Sullivan	SF	329	20.3
100	2010	Jimmy Clausen	CAR	397	11.7
101	2009	JaMarcus Russell	OAK	341	10.5

NFL -- Peyton Manning has top two QBR seasons - ESPN

[BernietheKid]

64

2010

Colt McCoy

CLE

290

46.6

In 2010 he was better than:
Kyle Orton, Jon Kitna, Jason Campbell, Sam Bradford, Shaun Hill, Jay Cutler, Matt Hasselbeck, Chad Henne, Donovan McNabb, Alex Smith, Derek Anderson, Brett Favre, Jimmy Clausen.

According to this he had a better rookie year than:
Sanchez, Freeman, and Stafford.

[Brown Warrior]

I like the effort and the concept but I think ESPN is forcing the issue trying to denigrate the QBR. It's tough for stats to include context or "clutch" without making it entirely subjective and more of a scouting tool... which is fine as more of a long-term thing.

But QBR focuses on YPA, which is a truly great and simple stat that says, "What's the average outcome of each throw by the QB?" The other key indicator is TD/INT ratio, which I think is important, too.

Moreoever, the QBR correlates really closely with the bottom line: winning.

[Flugel]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

I like the effort and the concept but I think ESPN is forcing the issue trying to denigrate the QBR. It's tough for stats to include context or "clutch" without making it entirely subjective and more of a scouting tool... which is fine as more of a long-term thing.

But QBR focuses on YPA, which is a truly great and simple stat that says, "What's the average outcome of each throw by the QB?" The other key indicator is TD/INT ratio, which I think is important, too.

Moreoever, the QBR correlates really closely with the bottom line: winning.

Exactly. It's like comparing Steve Young in Tampa to Steve Young in SF. The BETTER team produced the better QB rating. Same held true with previously maligned Doug Williams. And then there's Jeff Garcia in Detroit vrs Jeff Garcia in SF and Philly. Better team = better QB ratings. Same with Michael Vick. Same with Rich Gannon. Same with Chris Chandler, Same with Kurt Warner at Arizona & St Louis vrs NYG.

[Riffer X]

Nnamdi Asomugha, Johnathan Joseph among cornerbacks*making out well in free agency - Peter King - SI.com

I start a thread on this earlier in the week from Pete King. I like the concept because the current system is too much relegated to strictly numbers IMO. However, I am not sure they can quantify things the way they want. Perhaps using both will be good. Baseball did this with OPS and it has generally become accepted as the top stat for hitters.

The good thing is former QB's are heavily involved in the requirements, and not all good ones ie Dildofer. I would like something that doesn't penalize QB's for picks at the end of halves on Hail Mary's etc.

[Brown Warrior]

Yeah, it's not that I dislike it 'cuz I don't... it's just a little unwieldy. I like baseball's creative stats... they're kinda fun... so I have no problem with this. I just think QBR is a really good week-to-week stat.

Now, it woulda been nice if they'd found a way to make it work on a scale of 1-100 instead of 158.73970 or whatever (!).

Tom, I get where you're going, but QB is the most influential and important position in all of team sports by a pretty wide margin. Lots of other positions affect QB play, but nothing affects other positions nearly as much as the QB.

And the front of a defense affects the back more than the other way around. Pass rusher is to corner as QB is to WR!! I'm making a poster.

[Flugel]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

Yeah, it's not that I dislike it 'cuz I don't... it's just a little unwieldy. I like baseball's creative stats... they're kinda fun... so I have no problem with this. I just think QBR is a really good week-to-week stat.

Now, it woulda been nice if they'd found a way to make it work on a scale of 1-100 instead of 158.73970 or whatever (!).

Tom, I get where you're going, but QB is the most influential and important position in all of team sports by a pretty wide margin. Lots of other positions affect QB play, but nothing affects other positions nearly as much as the QB.

And the front of a defense affects the back more than the other way around. Pass rusher is to corner as QB is to WR!! I'm making a poster.

I'm not sure that point in bold is even being debated. I don't disagree about the importance of the QB position.

I just think don't think Steve Young's QB ratings in Tamap Bay told me who Steve Young is or who he can be. The TB media painted him out to be the same useless piece of crap they condemend Doug Williams, and Vinny T to being. Seemingly every one of those guys went on to be post season/SB starters as well as Pro Bowl performers when they went to environments suitable for success.

When did we notice Drew Brees was a stud? AFTER he gained access to Antonio Gates and Keenan McCardell not before. The numbers reflected better environment. Remember how many SoCal fans and media demanded that QB was the obvious 1st overall pick to better San Diego's franchise? Turns out - QB was about to be a team strength so it's a pretty screwup diagnosing that as major problem #1 off of unfair passer ratings of a QB that only started for less than 2 full seasons at the time.

And John Elway doesn't WIN Superbowls until he gains a 2000 yard rusher in Terrell Davis plus TE Shannon Sharpe.

Read Steve Young's autobiography that highlights the difference in success potential in SF's environment vrs Tampa's. Environment is 1 gigantic to a QB's passer ratings. Michael Vick to Philly or Randall Cunningham to Minnesota says all I need it to about that.

[Brown Warrior]

The numbers also reflect really good quarterbacks. But sure... a shitty sitch is a shitty sitch. It isn't black and white to be sure.

But I think you put Peyton Manning in Cleveland, he has more influence on those around him than they do on him, given a month of practice. There's just no other position in team sports quite like it.

But again... a good quarterback can absolutely be put in an untenable situation: bad protection, bad receivers, shitty system, predictable playcalling, always playing from behind, no running game, and so on.

And that quarterback can also be young, short of "getting it," in a system that doesn't suit him well, and so on. Young didn't just get into a better situation (undeniable)... he'll tell you he was a WAY better quarterback thanks to maturity... and Bill Walsh.

Speaking of Bill Walsh, anybody read "The Winning Edge?" Just read that it's considered the bible of football and coaching by just about everybody, including Belicheck.

[Flugel]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

The numbers also reflect really good quarterbacks. But sure... a shitty sitch is a shitty sitch. It isn't black and white to be sure.

But I think you put Peyton Manning in Cleveland,

Agreed! I think we've all said at times that things weren't fair for Tim Couch. However, Donovan McNabb went to the team that would have drafted first if we weren't re-enterign the league in 1999.

Good point about Manning. Consider this though: if surrounding environment didn't matter - they wouldn't have felt compelled to add Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Edge James, Joseph Addai, and Anthony Gonzalez in round 1 like they did.

Even though Joe Montana put an 8th round pick like Dwight Clark on the map - SF still felt like Jerry Rice solidifies the environment.

Think about it - why does Brady need Randy Moss that 1 year while America begins to notice Wes Welker CAN play WR in this league? Environment. That's what that was about at the time.

The topic is - are QB Ratings fair? Is it safe to say those rating make more sense when Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Steve Young, Doug Williams and Vinny Testaverde play in Utopian environments? Yes. That said, I remember the state of Texas concluding Jimmy Johnson was on crack for continuing to start Troy Aikmen over Steve Walsh back before the Herschel Walker changed everythign at warped speed. Alot of unfair conclusions were being made where QB ratings didn't tell the whole story. We know this; BUT there has to be some way to measure criteria whether it's fair or not. This is where you gotta apply experience and common sense to a situation when evaluating a passer so you don't knee jerk to draft Eli Manning when your franchise already has Drew Brees ready to play his very best football. I see why Marty Schottenheimer wanted to rip off his GM's head and shit down his neck when that team was 1 big play away from going the distance.

I was responding to the question of fariness. That said, I don't know if there's a better way to rate them Shep.

[King of Kings]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

But I think you put Peyton Manning in Cleveland, he has more influence on those around him than they do on him, given a month of practice. There's just no other position in team sports quite like it.

Maybe now but not as a rookie. Manning kind of had the benefit of walking into the perfect situation when he was drafted. The Colts at that time had just changed GM's and brought in the only guy who could make Buffalo a winner and the guy who took an expansion franchise to the NFC Championships in their 2nd year. On top of that he brought in the one HC who at that point was the only guy who had ever made the Saints even respectable.

Having two guys like that around, then Dungy around and crafting a roster around Peyton Manning was a HUGE help. As was Marvin Harrison and Edge and that offensive line. Although even then Lets not forget Manning was a bit up and down until they built the right team around him including elite RB's and TWO #1 WR's at the same time fr most of his career.

Now? Sure now you put him on any other team and they'll literally be better not only because he's great but because that aura will cause everyone to step their game up. You take away Bill Polian and his genius though and it's hard to say Manning would be looked at like he is. There's too many examples of the same situation playing out different elsewhere. Steve Young like Flugs said, Drew Brees, Troy Aikman, Joe Montana, Carson Palmer, Donovan McNabb ect. These guys were and are all great when everything around them is the right fit, when it isn't? They're part of the bum squad.

[Brown Warrior]

You said, "If the surrounding environment didn't matter." Nobody's said that. Just doing my job as the head of the Stop Strawmanning Foundation.

But it's amazing how Green Bay, New Orleans, Indy, and New England can plug receivers, RBs, and even LTs in and out of the lineup and keep producing. Who was Peyton's blindside protector last year? Charlie Brown?