Mahomes vs Burrow and quarterback discourse, featuring Carson Palmer

The former QB's recent comments on Mahomes vs Burrow is a terrific example of how bad quarterback discourse remains on the whole, even by smart people.

Quarterback discourse is, as a whole, a great deal better than it was 10 years ago when I started doing this job.

A lot more information and statistics are publicly available now. Film reviews that dive into the nuances of the position are more common. The voices in the industry now include people who talk about things in-depth rather than at the surface level. We’ve come a long ways.

But we’ve still got a long, long, LONG ways to go based on the most recent discourse surrounding Patrick Mahomes and Joe Burrow.

(Here is the link to the tweet pictured, as Twitter is still not allowing for embedding of tweets into Substack).

I’m not here to talk to you about Patrick Mahomes vs Joe Burrow. I happen to believe they are the two best quarterbacks in the league, with Mahomes being the superior of the two. I also believe I could make a convincing evidence-based argument as to why that belief is correct. But again, that’s not the point of this article. The point of this article is to talk about how far we still have to go with quarterback discourse and understanding what does (and doesn’t) make for legitimate discussion regarding the ability of players at the position. Here are some of the quotes from the article.

"I think Joe (Burrow) is the best quarterback in the league," Carson Palmer said last week on The QB Room podcast. "I know Patrick (Mahomes) is phenomenal, but I just think Joe's more consistent. He's more consistent. He's more accountable to run the system and the play that's called and not feel like, 'Well, he didn't win last time and get open for me, so I'm gonna do it with my feet,' and then before you know it, you're sacked for a four-yard loss because you tried to make two or three guys miss.

"Joe is just -- talk about not having a weakness -- mentally strong, physically tough, accurate, can throw it far enough, fast enough, gets the ball out quick, and then he can actually do a lot with his legs. He just rarely shows it. I think he's as athletic outside the pocket and can do a lot of the same things Patrick Mahomes has done. He hasn't done it and showed it yet. He's played more within his system and style. But I think he's the best quarterback in the league."

That’s the direct quote from Palmer himself. We’ll talk about why this is problematic (and it is, in multiple ways) in terms of adding to the discussion around a pair of genuinely terrific quarterbacks shortly. But first, here’s another quote from the article by Around The NFL discussing the quote.

Mahomes has the hardware to back up his claim as king of the hill, as well as a longer history of excellence and the most recent victory despite a 1-3 head-to-head record versus Burrow, but their stat lines during the past two seasons aren't remarkably far off.

Mahomes has completed 871 of 1,306 attempts (66.7 completion percentage) for 10,089 yards, 78 touchdowns and 25 interceptions over 34 regular-season games.

Meanwhile, Burrow has connected on 780 of his 1,126 attempts (69.3 completion percentage) in two fewer contests, amassing 9,086 yards, 69 TDs and 26 INTs.

PFF also awarded Burrow and Mahomes the two highest passing grades of 2022, with 90.0 and 89.2, respectively.

The much thinner points of Palmer's argument revolve around consistency and mobility, both outside the pocket and taking sacks. It's no knock against Burrow's reliability to deliver, but Mahomes has CVS-style receipts for record-breaking consistency by quarterbacking Kansas City to five straight AFC championship appearances at home.

To the writer’s credit, he did (later on in the piece) dive in a bit into the idea (put forth by Palmer’s quote) that Mahomes’ style of play would make him more likely to be sacked, noting that Mahomes has been sacked significantly fewer times over the last two seasons while scrambling for significantly more yardage. That at least goes somewhat towards discussing the merits of Palmer’s (apparent) claim regarding Mahomes’ style of play vs Burrow’s.

That said, the article itself contains issues of its own in how we discuss quarterbacks when attempting to compare them. And so we’ll dive into those as well, although the primary issue is with Palmer’s quote itself.

Let’s break things up occasionally with cool throws, shall we? This first one is from the most recent Super Bowl, where Mahomes played essentially a flawless game.

PHEW. All right, let’s talk about some of the ways quarterback discourse was failed with this Mahomes vs Burrow discussion, and how it’s quite representative of the most common issues seen when we’re talking about the most important position in football. We’ll start with Palmer’s quote and the multiple issues contained therein (yes, I just really wanted to say “therein”).

Given the NFL-wide nature of this topic, this article is unlocked for all. If you like going beyond the box score and trying to get past bad football discourse, think about subscribing to the CITN. You can do so for $12 a year by clicking the button below.

A catchphrase without substance

One of my favorite quotes from the show “Community” was made by character Jeff Winger. In response to an emotional appeal from a friend during an argument, his response to their statement was to say, “Profound, but technically meaningless.”

That statement can apply to a lot of purported arguments. But specifically, it applies to something we commonly see when discussing quarterbacks; Catchphrases without substance or backing.

He's more consistent. He's more accountable to run the system and the play that's called and not feel like, 'Well, he didn't win last time and get open for me, so I'm gonna do it with my feet,'

This is a terrific example of just such a statement. Consistency is certainly important for a quarterback. So when one says that it is a way a QB is superior, on the surface it sounds quite meaningful. But when the word is utilized in this manner, it loses all actual meaning because there’s no real information provided.

Consistent at WHAT, exactly? Consistent at running the offense? That would make sense based on the rest of the quote, but Palmer makes no statement as to why he believes Mahomes is “less accountable” than Burrow in running Reid’s offense (which is notoriously detail-oriented, but I digress). He just says it, then provides a hypothetical anecdote, and treats that as proving the “more accountable” comment, which then is treated as having proven the “consistency” comment. Analysis!

And yet, none of it was proven. See how that works? He’s better at X because of Y, and Y is true because of Z, and yet Z is… well, nothing really. Again, a hypothetical anecdote that doesn’t dive into whether or not this scenario actually occurs (which would be much more relevant to a discussion of the players) is all we get. But if you go far enough down the road of X, Y, Z, it becomes harder to track the connections of what is proving what and people will often just nod along.

The question one should always be ready to ask is “what do you mean by that?”

And in this case, what does one mean by consistency? Consistency in what area? Accuracy? Pocket presence? pre-and-post-snap reads? Taking care of the ball? Locating the open receiver? Without providing the “what” and then detailing exactly how one goes about finding the “what,” a word that should matter a great deal (consistency) loses its meaning. We don’t know what we’re actually comparing between the two players, which means we don’t have any methodology to get there.

Let me give you a counterexample. When I chart quarterbacks, I discuss what specifically I’m charting and lay out what it means and what it is meant to measure. This isn’t because I’m super duper great (though I’d love for you all to feel that way), it’s simply because the point of it all is to convey information and doing so is meaningless if we don’t define the terms.

Like, what does it mean to create yards? Imagine if I just said “Mahomes is better at creating yards than other quarterbacks,” but never decided on a system of how to track it. It would become a catchphrase without substance. But if instead, I laid out a definition that created yards means as follows:

This is a way to quantify how often the QB is making things happen when things break down on offense due to pressure, no one getting open, etc. It’s a way to really see how often a QB is “carrying” the offense.

With a definition in hand, we then can find those plays and quantify how often they occur, as well as how many yards they gain a team in a given game. We could then compare that to other quarterbacks to find who is better at creating yards.

It’s not a perfect system, as there’s some subjectivity to it (as there is in all film review). But by defining terms, figuring out the question we’re trying to answer, and laying out the methodology publicly, one can at least generate some… well, consistency in how one reviews quarterbacks, and then compare them.

Catchphrases without substance are one of the most common problems with QB discourse, which is why I spent so much time on it. But there were multiple other problems here.

Claims offered as truths without evidence

Palmer’s statement about Mahomes’ “lack of accountability” within his offense is coupled with a hypothetical anecdote about not trusting a receiver and running one’s self into a sack. That sounds like a bad QB play, and it would be! And hey, a lack of accountability in running an offense would be bad as well!

The problem is that these are statements made with no evidence. Palmer doesn’t bother to say why he believes these things apply to Mahomes. He just offers them as truths and that’s the end of it.

In critical thinking, the premises (facts, as it were) provide the foundation of a conclusion. If the premises are true and they logically lead to the conclusion that’s being pushed, then one has followed proper critical thought. But what if premises aren’t fact-checked? Then the “legs of the table” are of an unknown structural integrity and the whole thing may come crashing down.

This happens all the time with quarterback discussion, usually as we attempt to compare them. It could be any number of claims: Poor (or great) accuracy, lousy (or terrific) pocket presence, the ability (or lack thereof) to progress calmly through reads and find the open receiver… in this case it’s a claim about operating the offensive structure. So often, statements are just made without providing any sort of evidence, and they’re supposed to be taken as truths.

Does Patrick Mahomes take more sacks than Joe Burrow that are on him? Does he operate his offense without as much accountability? Does he bail out more consistently and get his team into trouble? Is he more of an up and down player (as is implied)? I have my opinions on all of those things, but note that nothing is provided for the listener in the above conversation to know whether those things have been researched (and how they were researched) to ascertain their truth. And yet they’re offered as truths and foundational premises to his conclusion, at that!

Perhaps, by some measures, all of the things Palmer is claiming about Mahomes vs Burrow are true. But we don’t know that, and it’s just expected to be taken as a fact despite no evidence being provided.

What usually happens in those situations is that people choose whether to believe the speaker based on their already-held opinions. And nothing is really accomplished.

“If this, than that” arguments

I’ll spend a tad less time on this because we’ve touched on it elsewhere. But one of Palmer’s rationales for Burrow being superior to Mahomes is that Palmer believes Burrow can do the things Mahomes does, he just “hasn’t shown it” yet.

This is another very common argument made when discussing players; The hypothetical being treated as tangible for sake of argument. Stating you believe a player can do things he hasn’t previously done, particularly a player with multiple years of tape, should place the burden on you to say why you believe he can do said things. Instead, what happens far too often is what happens here… Belief in something is treated as a rationale in and of itself. That may work in matters of faith at times, but it’s more difficult when trying to discuss something like “who is the better quarterback” (and really, shouldn’t be used too often when discussing faith, either. But I digress).

Remember, when comparing players, it’s not “who would be better if Player X did this and Player Y did that.” When we do so, we’re comparing projections of players at best, and imaginary players at worst.

Stats without substance

We’re done picking on Palmer. Let’s move on to this portion of the article:

… but their stat lines during the past two seasons aren't remarkably far off.

Mahomes has completed 871 of 1,306 attempts (66.7 completion percentage) for 10,089 yards, 78 touchdowns and 25 interceptions over 34 regular-season games.

Meanwhile, Burrow has connected on 780 of his 1,126 attempts (69.3 completion percentage) in two fewer contests, amassing 9,086 yards, 69 TDs and 26 INTs.

For starters, utilizing statistics when talking about quarterbacks often leads to very incomplete data. I’ve talked about this so often that I don’t think it’s worth re-hashing at this point (here’s an article I wrote years ago for The Athletic talking about the problems it causes). That said, if one must utilize statistics to talk quarterbacks, going with “counting stats” over things that measure efficiency (like DVOA, EPA per play, etc) is a mistake.

It’s even more of a mistake now that the tools are available to narrow statistics to situations that better measure quarterback play, like this chart from rbsdm.com that lays out QB efficiency when games are in question (basically excluding garbage time).

We have the tools available to us to talk about “better” statistics that more accurately isolate quarterback play, and yet we don’t. And it hurts the discourse.

Another problem that is commonly seen in statistical arguments (we’re going for a twofer here!) is the arbitrary cutoff. We find this in the “over the last two seasons” portion regarding Mahomes vs Burrow. The author makes no mention as to why he decided to only go with the last two seasons (though one could make legitimate arguments for recent information being better or leaving out Burrow’s rookie season, they aren’t made here). And of course, had he decided to include all games played by both quarterbacks the numbers change substantially.

That at least creates the appearance of picking cutoff lines to support a certain side of the argument (that they are relatively similar statistically). Again, better reasons could well exist for that cutoff. But they aren’t given. And that happens all the time when we talk statistics. Some variation of “since Week 9…” is something we’ve heard countless times before a stat is provided. And it can be problematic for a larger conversation.

QB winz

I don’t really have to say it, but I will; Judging a quarterback over whether his team won/lost a particular game is foolish. There are far too many variables outside the control of the quarterback. If one moves to full seasons or multiple seasons, it becomes a bit more reliable, but is still so far from perfect that it’s an argument one should steer away from almost entirely UNLESS one wants to talk about how the quarterback specifically spearheaded those wins.

This argument will never die, because at the end of the day the world loves a winner. But it doesn’t add much to the discourse.

These conversations have come a long ways over the last decade, they really have. But until we stop making the mistakes talked about here, they’re going to remain far off from where they should be. And people will know less about the best sport in the world because of it.

If you made it to the end of this article, you’re either a diehard Chiefs fan or someone who likes to get into the nuance of football. Either way, I think a subscription is something you would enjoy. Hey, look, it’s that “subscribe for $12 a year” button again!