Is Carson Palmer's regression simply a bad year?

by Kirkendall on Nov 19, 2007 11:34 AM EST in Analysis

"It will be tough to forget this one. Any time you throw a pick, it's frustrating. When you throw four and don't give your team a chance to win, it just feels horrible. I can't stop thinking about a number of different plays. The only way to get rid of this feeling is to get a win, and it's going to be a long time until we have a chance to do that."
- Carson Palmer following 35-27 loss to Arizona.

Before his four thrown interceptions Sunday, Palmer had three games with three interceptions -- his previous worst interception output. Two were during his rookie season -- September 26 (Ravens) and November 28 (Cleveland). His third came in 2006 -- December 10 against Oakland. His 52 pass attempts marks the second time he's thrown 50 passes or more in a single game this season -- 0-2.

For his career, when Palmer throws 40 times or more in a single-game, the Bengals are 2-7. When he throws 30 times or less, the Bengals are 7-4. Another note here. Between 2004 and 2005, Palmer only passed 40 times or more twice. He threw 40 passes in a single game, between 2006 and 2007, seven times. The Bengals record: 2006 (1-2), 2007 (0-4).

I refuse to acknowledge that Palmer is why we're a bad team. Chad Johnson is the league's worst elite receiver this year (he threw his arms up once not even knowing the play, how does that happen?) and the team had no #3 receiver during Chris Henry's suspension. Rudi Johnson's stock has depreciated too much to be effective. The offensive line, in a two year span, went from one of the league's best to pass effective (4.4% ASR, 8th), but compromised for the rush (3.90 AFY, 26th).

But when Palmer goes, the Bengals go. The Bengals are 28-27 in 55 career Carson Palmer starts. The breakdown between losses and wins in all 55 starts.

	Comp %	Yards	TDs	INTs	Passer
Wins (28)	67%	6,806	56	25	99.8
Losses (27)	61%	6,755	40	33	82.0

When the Bengals are losing.

Comp %	Yards	TDs	INTs	Passer
63%	6,512	47	30	88.8

It's not that Palmer is bad. But when the team is losing or loses, Palmer is very average. And when you're average, you're not the type of player that loads your team on your shoulders to win.

One has to wonder if this is regression or just having one bad year. Look at the numbers in the 4th quarter with the deficit within 7 points -- winning and losing. Then compare 2007 against 2005 and 2006 combined -- when the team went 19-13.

	Comp %	Yards	TDs	INTs	Passer
2007	56%	681	4	5	66.6
05-06	63%	1,575	13	3	105.4
Total	59%	3,010	21	14	85.1

Total includes 2004.

Within two minutes of either half.

	Comp %	Yards	TDs	INTs	Passer
2007	59%	280	0	4	40.1
05-06	67%	910	11	3	104.3
Total	63%	1,558	11	11	78.0

Total includes 2004.

What do you think? Do you think that it's just a bad year from Palmer? Is the supporting cast too little? Or is this a forecast of things to come?

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

It's About the Run

Palmer is having an off year and a big part of the reason why is the lack of a running game. Other issues include the o-line, the lack of a 3rd wideout for the first 8 games and, yes, a dismaying number of brain farts by Palmer himself. But I think the lack of a run game is key problem. Since defenses don't have to worry about the Bengals running the ball, they can drop a boatload of DBs into zone coverages and chase interceptions.

by BeerRun on Nov 19, 2007 4:49 PM EST 0 recs

After suffering through all the QBs since Esiason

I refuse to believe this is a sign of things to come. In my post, I showed that Manning had a pretty rough 4th year as starter. And even this season, I argue that he is a better QB than Manning. And he's doing without near the supporting cast that Manning has.

It's isn't just that the Bengals aren't running, they can't! There is absolutely no reason for a team to put 8 or more in the box. At least 4 players can be in coverage at all times.

by sledridge on Nov 19, 2007 7:13 PM EST 0 recs

Yup.

"It's isn't just that the Bengals aren't running, they can't! There is absolutely no reason for a team to put 8 or more in the box. At least 4 players can be in coverage at all times."

Exactly. The Bengals don't have a dominant o-line -- it's not as bad as some would have you believe, but it isn't going to consistently blow open big holes for an RB -- or a dominant RB with special speed or quicks who can make plays on his own.

The result? Palmer has to throw 50 times a game. And when you throw the ball that much, it's inevitable that some Bad Things are going to happen.

All of that said, Palmer DOES have to smarten up. He made a bunch of really dumb throws yesterday and could have had a couple more picks than he did. Remember, Carson, punts are better than picks. If it isn't there, throw it away and live to fight another day.

by BeerRun on Nov 19, 2007 9:41 PM EST 0 recs

RE

"Remember, Carson, punts are better than picks. If it isn't there, throw it away and live to fight another day."

That's another thing, JC. Can he afford to do that in his mind? Surely he's thinking that if he doesn't make the play now, that the defense will put them in a greater hole next time around.

by Kirkendall on Nov 20, 2007 9:02 AM EST up 0 recs

I agree:

"Surely he's thinking that if he doesn't make the play now, that the defense will put them in a greater hole next time around."

I don't think there's any doubt about that. And IMHO Marvin needs to squelch that line of thinking. It's what's causing him to press, and in turn leading to bad decisions and throws.

Carson has to take care of what he can take care of, and let Marvin and Chuck and the defensive players worry about the D. If he keeps trying to bear responsiblity for everything, there will just be a lot more games like Sunday's.

by BeerRun on Nov 20, 2007 2:24 PM EST 0 recs