If we lucked into a grade-A quarterback, how much difference would it make?

[Oldfan]

Using 100% to represent the total importance of all factors in winning NFL football games, it is possible to make an estimate and take some of the vagueness out of our football discussions.

20% -- Coaching
10% -- Special Teams
35% -- Defense
35% -- Offense

15% -- total running game
....8% -- RB
....7% -- Blockers

20% --Passing Game
....5% -- Protectors
....5% -- Receivers
....10% -- QB

Offense, defense, and special teams are weighed on a 3-3-1 ratio based on data source: footballoutsiders.com.

The 10% value for the QB is the average value of the position based on a 60/40 pass to run ratio. The value of the position can change somewhat with the scheme, but it does not change with the quality of the QB. In other words, the weight of the position and the grade of the QB are two distinct measurements.

The most important individual is the head coach, but he cannot be graded on wins and losses unless he has full control of his football team since the quality of his roster is an 80% factor in wins.

The second most important individual is the quarterback. When GM Mickey Loomis hired Sean Payton to coach and signed Drew Brees to play QB, he upgraded the two most important individual positions (30% estimated combined weight).

When Pittsburgh added Roethlesberger, he moved the team from a .550 win average to .600 -- almost a one-win improvement. At that level, the one win is the difference between a good team and one of championship caliber. However, the addition of a high-grade QB alone will not move a six-win team to championship level.

I have Jason Campbell graded as a C minus QB coming out from under center. I think he could have been upgraded to a B or B minus by putting him in a shotgun-based offense. Peyton is in the gun on 75% of his attempts; Brady on 65%. Instead, Mike traded for McNabb who gave us C minus quarterbacking because he doesn’t fit anybody’s scheme except the one Andy Reid built for him in Philly. Donovan was not an improvement at the QB position over Campbell.

So, to finally answer the question posed in the thread title... If we lucked into a grade-A QB, we would be upgraded from a C minus to an A at the position. That’s, at most, a one game upgrade. If we’re truly a six-win team, it would get us to seven.

[RichmondRedskin88]

I think a winning QB can change entire team's outlook. Teams have gone from horrible to playoff quickly because a good QB inspired the team. Taking into account the physical abilities of a QB is only half the thing. How the QB influences the team's mentality is the other half. QB is much more than just the passer. He's the guy everyone expects to be ice man when things get tough. None of the QBs the Skins have had lately could handle being "the guy". They cracked under the pressure of it. We need a leader.

[SWFLSkins]

I disagree with the value system on the QB's. I think an A QB or a top ten in the league guy can make a two to four game difference by themselves. I like the way you went about this though, I just feel that an A QB can really change the team around him and the results. Of course even an average QB and RB can look like an A+ with the dominate OL like the Skins had in the 80's-91.

One perplexing question has existed for far too long for the Redskins, Why have they been unable to get the guy? They had Sonny and Sam, the other QB's that won SB's I don't think would have without the teams that existed. Joey T. might have been the closest of late but really the Redskins have had this problem for awhile now.

[skinsdude]

I’m not sure that we had a grade-A quarterback even during the Super Bowl years but it’s a different game today. Recent history shows that you need a grade-A quarterback to be successful long term. A solid o-line doesn’t hurt either. Whether our coaching staff could take advantage of that kind of talent is another question.

[Oldfan]

I think a winning QB can change entire team's outlook. Teams have gone from horrible to playoff quickly because a good QB inspired the team. Taking into account the physical abilities of a QB is only half the thing. How the QB influences the team's mentality is the other half. QB is much more than just the passer. He's the guy everyone expects to be ice man when things get tough. None of the QBs the Skins have had lately could handle being "the guy". They cracked under the pressure of it. We need a leader.Sorry, such psychological explanations fall on deaf ears with me.

When teams win, folks are inclined to give QBs far more credit than they deserve. The reasons they give can't be supported.

[mjpanzer]

I respect what you are trying to do, I really do. Still, you cannot simply apply arbitrary percentage numbers to a complex game like professional football.

Truth is, a grade A quarterback changes everything. While there are a few exceptions, for most every team the leader on offense is always the quarterback. So as the quarterback goes, so does the offense. Furthermore, with a grade A QB suddenly free agents WR want to come play for your team, offensive lineman want to come protect one of the top guys.

It changes everything.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

It makes a big diff. Good teams have good QB's.

[MartinC]

I agree with the overall point you are making here - most fans overrate the importance and impact of the QB position in and off itself.

However I think you are underestimating the impact a significant improvement at the QB spot can have. I think part of that impact is that once you are satisfied you have found your grade A QB you can start to divert draft picks, free agenct dollars etc on other critical positions rather than chasing that grade A QB. A chase which tends to drag high draft picks and big chunks of salary cap into its vortex.

Take the Colts. They drafted Manning in 1998 and he started and they went 3-13. They had also gone 3-13 the year before. However in 1999 they went 13-3 which even by my maths is a ten games swing. So what happened? Well having got Manning in 1998 they drafted Edge James 4th overall in 1999 (they had already got Marvin Harrison in 1996) and James went for 1500 yards in his rookie season. 1999 was also the first year Harrison had over 1000 yards receiving.

Getting a grade A QB may only in itself add one or maybe two wins but the impact it has on your franchise, the effect it has on the performance of other players on your roster already (see Marvin Harrisons numbers) and the other moves it allows you to make when you dont have to spend picks and dollars on finding your QB can result in much more than wining one or two extra games.

It is more complex than find grade A QB = win championships. But its not a bad step to make as part of that journey.

[Oldfan]

I disagree with the value system on the QB's. I think an A QB or a top ten in the league guy can make a two to four game difference by themselves. I like the way you went about this though, I just feel that an A QB can really change the team around him and the results. Of course even an average QB and RB can look like an A+ with the dominate OL like the Skins had in the 80's-91.

One perplexing question has existed for far too long for the Redskins, Why have they been unable to get the guy? They had Sonny and Sam, the other QB's that won SB's I don't think would have without the teams that existed. Joey T. might have been the closest of late but really the Redskins have had this problem for awhile now.When a lousy QB is replaced by a grade A QB, the difference could approach two games, but that rarely happens.

Try using my approach to give the QB a much higher estimate. You'll find you end up with unrealistic numbers on the other factors.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 08:46 AM ----------


I’m not sure that we had a grade-A quarterback even during the Super Bowl years but it’s a different game today. Recent history shows that you need a grade-A quarterback to be successful long term. A solid o-line doesn’t hurt either. Whether our coaching staff could take advantage of that kind of talent is another question.You might be overestimating the rise in the QB's value. The pass/run ratio has risen from 50/50 to 60/40, but the QB is only half the passing game. While his value has risen, the value of his protectors and receivers has risen equally. The RB iss less important as a runner, but more important as a protector and receiver.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 08:50 AM ----------


I respect what you are trying to do, I really do. Still, you cannot simply apply arbitrary percentage numbers to a complex game like professional football. It's an estimate. The numbers are not arbitrary. The 3-3-1 ratio for the units and the 60/40 pass/run ratio, put constraints on the estimate.


Truth is, a grade A quarterback changes everything. While there are a few exceptions, for most every team the leader on offense is always the quarterback. So as the quarterback goes, so does the offense. Furthermore, with a grade A QB suddenly free agents WR want to come play for your team, offensive lineman want to come protect one of the top guys.Drafted players don't have a choice. Most sought-after FAs take the high bid.

[jflow78]

I don't think making up fake value systems is going to take much "vagueness" out of the discussion. It just adds to it.

[Oldfan]

Martin ~ I think part of that impact is that once you are satisfied you have found your grade A QB you can start to divert draft picks, free agenct dollars etc on other critical positions rather than chasing that grade A QB. A chase which tends to drag high draft picks and big chunks of salary cap into its vortex.

Here, you are assuming an incompetent front office which spends resources extravagantly in its quest for a QB. I don’t think my estimate should be judged by either extreme competence or extreme incompetence in NFL front offices.


It is more complex than find grade A QB = win championships. But its not a bad step to make as part of that journey.

Of course not.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 09:07 AM ----------


I don't think making up fake value systems is going to take much "vagueness" out of the discussion. It just adds to it.If you think my estimate is a fake, you can prove it so by using the same approach and coming up with much different numbers. Give it a try.

The units must conform to a 3-3-1 ratio, offense, defense, special teams. The passing game to a 60/40 pass/run ratio.

[MartinC]

Here, you are assuming an incompetent front office which spends resources extravagantly in its quest for a QB. I don’t think my estimate should be judged by either extreme competence or extreme incompetence in NFL front offices.

I dont think its a matter of competence - at least not at the extremes. Its just a fact that until you find your franchise QB you are always looking and that effects your draft strategy, how you approach free agency and your approach to trades etc. All this stops you using these resources and emotional energy on other important areas of your team.

How would you rationalise the ten game swing in wins the Colts saw in Mannings second year as a starter? I'm not claiming thats all down to Manning of course.

[Oldfan]

It makes a big diff. Good teams have good QB's.QBs look good on good teams.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 09:14 AM ----------


I dont think its a matter of competence - at least not at the extremes. Its just a fact that until you find your franchise QB you are always looking and that effects your draft strategy, how you approach free agency and your approach to trades etc. All this stops you using these resources and emotional energy on other important areas of your team.I see it as a matter of competence because what it takes to get a grade A quarterback is the ability to recognize one when he becomes available. There's no need to spend lots of time, draft picks, money or energy on the project unless you can't tell a grade A guy when you see him.

[MartinC]

I see it as a matter of competence because what it takes to get a grade A quarterback is the ability to recognize one when he becomes available. There's no need to spend lots of time, draft picks, money or energy on the project unless you can't tell a grade A guy when you see him.

Nah. Hindsight is 20/20 here. Even the very very best talent evaluators can't be sure who will and will not be a grade A QB until after the fact.

[skinsdude]

QBs look good on good teams.[COLOR="Gold"]

A grade-A quarterback can make an average team above average.

[Oldfan]

...How would you rationalise the ten game swing in wins the Colts saw in Mannings second year as a starter? I'm not claiming thats all down to Manning of course.How many wins do you attribute to Manning that year?

[Burgold]

I don't think it's the qb so much, though a great qb helps, but that leader. It's amazing how much harder people fight and concentrate when they believe. In the Gibbs I era, players used to talk about how they knew the coaches would figure it out and they would win. That's why having three different qbs and three different rbs didn't matter. They believed in JG. When you have a Manning or a Brady the players trust that guy to get it done when things are tough and they actually try just a little bit harder. That was the downside of Campbell. As many hits as he took and as tough as he was, he was never able to inspire his team and make those plays. I believe that's part of the reason for those infamous drops.

A better qb is important, a better leader is most important.

[The Tris]

Assuming this is a young, long term solution of a grade-A QB, the biggest impact would simply be filling one of the many holes on this team.

It would also provide a direction and stability - as in, hey this is our guy, we don't need to pour anymore resources into filling this position, now we need to focus completely on building a team around this player's and in turn this offense's skillset and identity.

I think that by solving the QB question, and bringing about the end of the over allocation of resources towards this single position (we have spent, by my count, two 1sts, one 2nd, two 3rds, and three 4ths on attempting to find a franchise passer the past 10 years, and will surely spend more next year at least), it will lift a huge burden from our team building strategy, and allow us to more effective use our resources to add important supplimental pieces that will be critical to the long term success of any QB and the team.

[Botched]

As a recent example of a QB's importance, the Cardinals were Superbowl contenders with Kurt Warner, and bottom feeders without him. They were very lucky to win 5 last year.

[Oldfan]

Nah. Hindsight is 20/20 here. Even the very very best talent evaluators can't be sure who will and will not be a grade A QB until after the fact.Who is talking about hindsight?

Obviously, if the talent evaluators are the very, very best, they have a much higher hit rate. So, their organization will not likely waste the resources on QBs that would be wasted with an incompetent evaluator.

As I said, it 's a matter of competence. My estimate shouldn't be judged by the extremes.

[The Tris]

As a recent example of a QB's importance, the Cardinals were Superbowl contenders with Kurt Warner, and bottom feeders without him. They were very lucky to win 5 last year.

Because Kurt Warner was the only player they lost.

(PS - The Cardinals win differential was only -5 last season, plus their SB year they won 9 games)

[MartinC]

How many wins do you attribute to Manning that year?

I dont attribute any wins to Manning alone. I think that view is flawed. What we saw was the effect of finding Manning, what that allowed the coaches to do re play calling, the impact that had on existing players such as Harrison, the use of draft picks on players like James to build around him and the direction of the wind etc etc - the cumulative effect was ten extra wins. There are too many moving parts in a football team to accurately attribute an outcome to anyone element IMO

[SWFLSkins]

A grade-A quarterback can make an average team above average.

Yeah it is a two way street. A really good team say the Ravens with Dilfer can win a SB. And I say that Indy without Manning would not have. That two to four game swing is a playoff vs. non-playoff swing or a lucky to be in the playoff vs. going somewhere in the playoffs. And as much as I admire OF's threads and discussions I never really understand why he does not value the intangible leadership factors a good QB brings to an offense. The same could be said about having a great DL or OL as well. The confidence elevates the entire organization from the fans, to the front office and of course the players. Brady-less Pats would make Belicheat look average, IMO.

[The Tris]

Brady-less Pats would make Belicheat look average, IMO.

Because we all know the team fell off a cliff when a 7th round draft pick took over for Brady...

[MisterPinstripe]

The perfect example is last year the Colts with Manning. Without Manning at QB last year, there is no way that team makes the playoffs. So many starters injured, but Manning was able to keep that offense going no matter who was in there. The QB CAN make all the difference on a team, they would have been in the range of 6-10 or 8-8 without him.

[Oldfan]

I don't think it's the qb so much, though a great qb helps, but that leader. It's amazing how much harder people fight and concentrate when they believe. In the Gibbs I era, players used to talk about how they knew the coaches would figure it out and they would win. That's why having three different qbs and three different rbs didn't matter. They believed in JG. When you have a Manning or a Brady the players trust that guy to get it done when things are tough and they actually try just a little bit harder. That was the downside of Campbell. As many hits as he took and as tough as he was, he was never able to inspire his team and make those plays. I believe that's part of the reason for those infamous drops.

A better qb is important, a better leader is most important.When teams win or lose, there's an 80% chance it's because they have more talent and a 20% chance it's better coaching. Usually it's both. IMO, the psychological reasons people try to give is baloney.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 09:35 AM ----------


I dont attribute any wins to Manning alone. I think that view is flawed. What we saw was the effect of finding Manning, what that allowed the coaches to do re play calling, the impact that had on existing players such as Harrison, the use of draft picks on players like James to build around him and the direction of the wind etc etc - the cumulative effect was ten extra wins. There are too many moving parts in a football team to accurately attribute an outcome to anyone element IMOSo, what you are saying it that you don't think that a reasonable estimate can be made to answer the question posed in the thread title. Is that it?

[Burgold]

When teams win or lose, there's an 80% chance it's because they have more talent and a 20% chance it's better coaching. Usually it's both. IMO, the psychological reasons people try to give is baloney.[COLOR="Gold"]

Let's say you're right. Do you realize how big a difference 20% is (impossible to quantify this by the way) in any given game. How big a difference is 20% more yards, 20% more first downs, 20% more points? If the Redskins scored on average 20% more points per game they'd have been 11-5 and probably Superbowl contenders.

[Oldfan]

The perfect example is last year the Colts with Manning. Without Manning at QB last year, there is no way that team makes the playoffs. So many starters injured, but Manning was able to keep that offense going no matter who was in there. The QB CAN make all the difference on a team, they would have been in the range of 6-10 or 8-8 without him.The Colts' scheme has Peyton in the shotgun 75% of the time.

When college QBs spend that much time in the shotgun spread, we call them "system QBs" and discount their achievments. Why isn't Peyton a "system QB?"

[Botched]

Because Kurt Warner was the only player they lost.

(PS - The Cardinals win differential was only -5 last season, plus their SB year they won 9 games)

I don't remember saying that. But what would you attribute their massive decline in offense to? The loss of Anquan Boldin?

And as far as "only -5", I hope that's a joke. If you don't think 5 wins is a huge differential, I don't know what to tell you.

[MattFancy]

A good QB can make a world of difference.

For example, look at the Falcons and Ravens when they drafted Ryan and Flacco respectively. The Falcons were one of the worst teams in the league the year before Ryan, since Matt Ryan, they've been a top tier team. Same with Flacco and the Ravens. Another example, the Rams. Not that they were spectacular last season, but they were one win away from making the playoffs, I believe Bradford played a significant role in that.

Also when you look at the top teams in the league, they all have one thing in common, top QBs.

Colts--Manning
Pats--Brady
Packers--Rodgers
Saints--Brees
Falcons--Ryan
Steelers--Roethlisberger
Ravens--Flacco

You get the point. But also on the flip side, look at the bad teams and they all have QB problems. Skins, 49ers, Vikings, Panthers, Browns, Bills, etc. I believe it all starts and ends with an elite QB. Sure some guys like Dilfer, Rypien, Williams, etc have won a SB. But the majority have been franchise QBs: Montana, Bradshaw, Staubach, Aikman, Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, Elway, Favre, to name a few.

I think with an elite QB counts for 3-4 wins a year by himself. So if we had one, instead of maybe winning 5 or 6 this year, we would win 8-10.

[skinsdude]

I think that the amount of importance that the average fan places on the quarterback position is somewhat comparable to the importance that the average GM places on it. Most teams with one of the first ten picks will look at quarterback first unless they are fairly comfortable with the QB that they have. They may not pick one but they will look. It’s just too important a position to overlook. In my opinion the two most important positions on a football team are quarterback and offensive left tackle.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

This year? Not alot but it would give us a franchise guy to to finally build the offense around. It would make the path to success alot easier and clearer.

[Oldfan]

Yeah it is a two way street. A really good team say the Ravens with Dilfer can win a SB. And I say that Indy without Manning would not have. That two to four game swing is a playoff vs. non-playoff swing or a lucky to be in the playoff vs. going somewhere in the playoffs. And as much as I admire OF's threads and discussions I never really understand why he does not value the intangible leadership factors a good QB brings to an offense. The same could be said about having a great DL or OL as well. The confidence elevates the entire organization from the fans, to the front office and of course the players. Brady-less Pats would make Belicheat look average, IMO.If there are mundane causes which adequately explain the effects and vague, complex causes offered which explain the effects, I much prefer the mundane. We all should. It's an application of Occam's Razor if you are familiar with that principle.

Confidence is not a cause of winning, it's an effect.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 09:52 AM ----------


This year? Not alot but it would give us a franchise guy to to finally build the offense around. It would make the path to success alot easier and clearer.Yes, it would indeed.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 09:57 AM ----------


I think that the amount of importance that the average fan places on the quarterback position is somewhat comparable to the importance that the average GM places on it. Most teams with one of the first ten picks will look at quarterback first unless they are fairly comfortable with the QB that they have. They may not pick one but they will look. It’s just too important a position to overlook. In my opinion the two most important positions on a football team are quarterback and offensive left tackle.My 10% estimate makes the QB position the most important by far. But, most fans would guess that estimate to be much too low.

Is the LT more important than the blindside edge rusher?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

So help me out here Of. If, using your theoretical rating system, for want of a better term, we conclude that a grade A QB only bumps us one more game in general in the win column; then are you then suggesting there's little point in upgrading to such a player unless you upgrade all the factors in accordance to balance out your rating system?

Hail.

[Hitman21ST]

Yes, it would indeed.

That being said, is it more important to have a grade A QB coming into a team without most of the other pieces in place and let them build around him, or have most of the offense's skill players already in the system and have them be ready and in place for the QB?

The 10% number of the effect of the QB would be more effective with the pieces in place, IMO.

[Oldfan]

So help me out here Of. If, using your theoretical rating system, for want of a better term, we conclude that a grade A QB only bumps us one more game in general in the win column; then are you then suggesting there's little point in upgrading to such a player unless you upgrade all the factors in accordance to balance out your rating system?What I'm saying is that a grade-A QB would be a super upgrade. He's the second most important individual after the head coach. But, don't expect more than a one game improvement from the QB alone. It will take much more to get a six-win team to the elite level.

[mjpanzer]

Because we all know the team fell off a cliff when a 7th round draft pick took over for Brady...

Uhh they went 10-6 with Matt cassell who hadn't started a game since high school...

[zoony]

from where we were as of last year? 3 or 4 more wins, probably 4

[The Tris]

I don't remember saying that. But what would you attribute their massive decline in offense to? The loss of Anquan Boldin?

They lost Boldin, Dansby, and Rolle all in one offseason, as well as Warner.

You make it sound like Warner was the only reason this team was worse in 2010.

[Burgold]

I guess we should ask why such a high percentage of grade A quarterbacks fail then. Akili Smith, David Carr, Ryan Leif, Heath Shuler, etc. were all grade A qbs and rated worthy to be taken amongst the first handful of picks in an NFL draft. So, when the smoke cleared why were they Grade F qbs? A grade A qb without support is a failing qb.

[Oldfan]

That being said, is it more important to have a grade A QB coming into a team without most of the other pieces in place and let them build around him, or have most of the offense's skill players already in the system and have them be ready and in place for the QB?

The 10% number of the effect of the QB would be more effective with the pieces in place, IMO.I don't think it would make a difference, but I'd like to hear your reasoning. Maybe you've thought of something I'm missing.

As for the question, "when should we go after the grade A QB?" The answer has to be -- whenever you find one available.

[The Tris]

Uhh they went 10-6 with Matt cassell who hadn't started a game since high school...

sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm]
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony


Brady-less Pats would make Belicheat look average, IMO.


Because we all know the team fell off a cliff when a 7th round draft pick took over for Brady...

[mjpanzer]

It's an estimate. The numbers are not arbitrary. The 3-3-1 ratio for the units and the 60/40 pass/run ratio, put constraints on the estimate.

This just does not work. While a quarterback may be one third of an offense, you can't just suddenly provide a percentage to what effect he has on an offense.

People who don't think QB are worth much will point to teams that won without a great QB (Ravens, Bucs).

People who think QB are worth everything will point to pretty much every other team that has won a superbowl in the past twenty years.

Consider me part of the latter group.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 10:10 AM ----------


sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm]
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony


haha nooooo I agree with you. I was making fun of SWFLskins. Sorry for the confusion.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

What I'm saying is that a grade-A QB would be a super upgrade. He's the second most important individual after the head coach. But, don't expect more than a one game improvement from the QB alone. It will take much more to get a six-win team to the elite level.

Right, then in the main, we're on the exact same page then in it taking way more than a grade A QB to move from a 6 win team to an elite level, consistently challenging team. Where I differ slightly is in the difference said calibre QB can bring to the whole team above a mere one game swing. Even last season, I'd argue that given a grade A passer who could of finished off drives, instead of leaving us high and dry hoping on Gano to make 3. allied to the D keeping us in games, we'd of ended up with more than one win over the 6 we got. And that team was as FAR from elite as can be imaginable, and the final record would probably of flattered to deceive. But with a grade A passer, we'd of finished better than what we did. Even if that would of been misleading to how good we actually were.

The influence on even average players from a top echelon QB prepared to put a team on his back and lead them through really can't be understated IMHO.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

I guess we should ask why such a high percentage of grade A quarterbacks fail then. Akili Smith, David Carr, Ryan Leif, Heath Shuler, etc. were all grade A qbs and rated worthy to be taken amongst the first handful of picks in an NFL draft. So, when the smoke cleared why were they Grade F qbs? A grade A qb without support is a failing qb.Let's try not to confuse the issue with semantics. This thread is not about failed QBs who were given a high grade. My estimate of a one-game improvement assumes we find a grade-A quarterback.

[The Tris]

haha nooooo I agree with you. I was making fun of SWFLskins. Sorry for the confusion.

Cool, sorry for the snark.

And they actually went 11-5, and put up the 2nd most points in the NFL. Only 5 teams in the league had a better record.

But yeah, without Brady, the Pats would be nothing...

[Oldfan]

This just does not work. While a quarterback may be one third of an offense, you can't just suddenly provide a percentage to what effect he has on an offense.What I did was to estimate the effect the QB position has on winning (10%).


People who think QB are worth everything will point to pretty much every other team that has won a superbowl in the past twenty years. Consider me part of the latter group.How did you determine that those QBs of super Bowl winning teams were more than a 10% factor in their wins?

[aussieskin]

does a good team make a good QB or does it work the other way around plenty of teams have had great QB's but not won superbowls Miami for instance so as long as the skins are improving i dont care who the QB is. In the long run, the team needs to work together to get wins. A champion team will beat a team of champions

[Oldfan]

Right, then in the main, we're on the exact same page then in it taking way more than a grade A QB to move from a 6 win team to an elite level, consistently challenging team. Where I differ slightly is in the difference said calibre QB can bring to the whole team above a mere one game swing. Even last season, I'd argue that given a grade A passer who could of finished off drives, instead of leaving us high and dry hoping on Gano to make 3. allied to the D keeping us in games, we'd of ended up with more than one win over the 6 we got. And that team was as FAR from elite as can be imaginable, and the final record would probably of flattered to deceive. But with a grade A passer, we'd of finished better than what we did. Even if that would of been misleading to how good we actually were.

The influence on even average players from a top echelon QB prepared to put a team on his back and lead them through really can't be understated IMHO.

Hail.I graded last year's quarterbacking at a C minus level. Did you have it lower?

I ask because I'm looking at the upgrade from a C- to an A. It sounds like you have a wider spread.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 10:31 AM ----------


does a good team make a good QB or does it work the other way around...Teamwork is a two-way street. In the passing game, the QB is dependent on his scheme, the playcalling and his teammates while their performance is just as dependent on him

[mjpanzer]

What I did was to estimate the effect the QB position has on winning (10%).

How did you determine that those QBs of super Bowl winning teams were more than a 10% factor in their wins?


how did you determine it was 10%?

I just don't understand how you can suddenly say a QB has a 10% effect on a team winning or a 10% chance on the offense running succesfully.

It is more complicated than this. You can't just throw arbitrary "estimated" numbers around.

[RiggosMohawk]

OF i really enjoy your posts, but as much as we try I do not think we can really quantify the % importance in a general term - the importance of the quarterback varies depending on the players and system around him.

Of course Peyton Manning is my data point. My contention is that with Peyton playing all 16 games, the Colts will win AT LEAST 8 games every year, regardless of what else happens to their team - FA losses, injuries, bad play, tough schedule. It doesn't matter who is their HC, their WRs, or playing D. They will win 8 games a year just because he is their starting QB.

I also think that the coach factor should be somewhere around 33% to incorporate their game week AND game time importance. I do NOT think this % varies by the players on the team, or the system utilized. This shows why Peyton is so much valuable to the Colts than just the QB factor - he's calling the plays, he's formulating the offensive gameplan, he's making decisions to go for it on 4th down, to not play it safe on 3rd and long, to not settle for a FG in the RZ... It's also the #1 reason the Patriots won 11 games with Matt Cassel as their starter for 15 games.

[Hitman21ST]

I don't think it would make a difference, but I'd like to hear your reasoning. Maybe you've thought of something I'm missing.

For hypothetical purposes, let's assume Luck, Barkley, and Jones all came out two drafts ago (for Shanahan's first draft). Let's also assume for argument's sake that all three of them will be grade A QBs - the elite, franchise type QB.

We draft one of them with our first pick instead of Trent Williams. He comes in to the Redskins roster as it was this past season. Maybe we pick up a LT in the second round. Our wide receivers are the exact same group, running backs the exact same group, line still has the problems, etc.

Andrew Luck coming into that scenario would give the team an improvement. However, his rookie year would be one rough season. Little to no protection from the line, little help from the running backs and receivers. He would be bombarded with the defenses and blitzes he would have seen. We would be better than under Zorn, but not by much. Probably finish 5-11. That would equate to your one win improvement. Your 10% improvement isn't necessarily that effective, though, because he has little help around him.

Now let's assume they all came out this past draft. Instead of Kerrigan we draft one of the big three, and the rest of the draft goes the same way (Jenkins, Hankerson, Helu, Paul, etc.). Not knowing how this season will turn out, it's pretty much all prognostication from here on out. But we could safely assume that the line will be in better shape than it was last year, and our skill positions will have been upgraded. The rookie QB will still take his lumps, but a lot less than he would have last year,. The rookie skill players and O Line FA we're bringing in will all be learning the system with the QB, growing pains all together. With a grade A QB, we could go 8-8 this year. That would be a 2 game improvement, and the 10% would have been a little more effective.

Now let's flash forward one year. Say we go 6-10 again. We are able to draft one of the big three in the draft, either by trade up or one of them falling. We would have pretty much all the other positions in place for him: a line that has a year together and knows the system and each other's strengths and weaknesses, running backs who are familiar with the ZB running game and the pass pro calls and assignments, WRs and TEs who know the route combos and where the holes in the defenses are/will be. That rookie grade A QB coming in will be at a higher comfort level, because everyone around him already knows their assignments, they're not learning as they go. He doesn't take as many hits, doesn't make as many "bad" throws - the WRs don't mess the routes up. That could equate to a 3-4 game improvement. Same QB, same 10% effect, but it's more effective because his transition is easier and smoother.

[Oldfan]

how did you determine it was 10%?

I just don't understand how you can suddenly say a QB has a 10% effect on a team winning or a 10% chance on the offense running succesfully.

It is more complicated than this. You can't just throw arbitrary "estimated" numbers around.I made an estimate. I explained the ratios considered in making the estimate. There was nothing "sudden" or "arbitrary" about it. It's an estimate which allows me to communicate my answer to the question asked in the thread title.

[MartinC]

So, what you are saying it that you don't think that a reasonable estimate can be made to answer the question posed in the thread title. Is that it?

Essentially. As I said in my first post in this thread I think your point - that fans overestimate the impact of the QB position on wins and losses - is true. I just think there are too many moving parts and cause/effect to put any numbers on the impact. I think what we can all agree on though is that you are better off with a grade A QB than without one.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Right now, the talent really sucks so we would probably just rise to mediocrity.

During the Gibbs-Williams years, we would have been a Super Bowl contender.

The percentages that Oldfan are throwing around are some attempt at creating a football win-share percentage. For example, in baseball, I could probably tell you very accurately how much better or worse a team would be team if Player X replaced Player Y. I don't think that can be done in football, though I do think QB would be weighted far far far more heavily than right guard.

Joe Thomas does not make the Browns a contender. Aaron Rodgers probably would.

[skinsdude]

Is the LT more important than the blindside edge rusher?

I think that left tackle is more important because his ability has more to do with the success of his side of the ball because he both pass blocks and run blocks. An edge rusher can certainly impact a game but a left tackles play can more often directly lead to a large gain or score.

[jflow78]

Essentially. As I said in my first post in this thread I think your point - that fans overestimate the impact of the QB position on wins and losses - is true. I just think there are too many moving parts and cause/effect to put any numbers on the impact. I think what we can all agree on though is that you are better off with a grade A QB than without one.

That was pretty much my point as well, you just said it better. It's pretty hard to cut down a system with 32 teams and thousands of variables to a handful of percentages and say that those are less ambiguous than the thousands of pages already spent spouting stats and ratios and whatever else.

Just adding more numbers doesn't make the argument less complicated, it just dumbs down the argument. I'm not against that, but you're pretty much back at square one.

But, I agree with the premise that fans overestimate QB value.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I graded last year's quarterbacking at a C minus level. Did you have it lower?

I ask because I'm looking at the upgrade from a C- to an A. It sounds like you have a wider spread.

[

D/ C-. A lot of both the play calling and QB play was woeful last year.

But within that you still had a run game that averaged 4.2 yards per attempt, even given the poor state of the line and the boneheaded OC's pass/run inbalance; the two top receivers having a 44 reception, 871 yard debut year (Armstrong); and the best in the last 6 in terms of receptions, yards and TD's (Moss); allied to Cooley having a career year in receptions and yards, and Fred Davis being a productive beast the limited time the boneheaded OC actually allowed him onto the field (the same boneheaded OC who had a 605/351 pass/run disparity. All of which lead to him being the QB's friend in a pass first O); if we had anything approaching grade A QB play to go along with that I think it's fair to assert the overall offensive production would of been higher than a mere one win.

Which on a team that run games to the wire the majority of the year would of been a major swing.

Hail.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think that left tackle is more important because his ability has more to do with the success of his side of the ball because he both pass blocks and run blocks. An edge rusher can certainly impact a game but a left tackles play can more often directly lead to a large gain or score.

The Browns have possibly the best left tackle in football.

And they blow chunks.

Why?

[Oldfan]

RiggosMohawk ~ OF i really enjoy your posts, but as much as we try I do not think we can really quantify the % importance in a general term - the importance of the quarterback varies depending on the players and system around him.

You are confusing two measurements. The value of the QB position will vary somewhat from team to team because of scheme. It will not vary with the grade of the QB. If you took the value of the QB and stated it as a number, you could then multiply it by 10%, the value of the position, as part of a grid analysis to put a grade on the team.


Of course Peyton Manning is my data point. My contention is that with Peyton playing all 16 games, the Colts will win AT LEAST 8 games every year, regardless of what else happens to their team - FA losses, injuries, bad play, tough schedule. It doesn't matter who is their HC, their WRs, or playing D. They will win 8 games a year just because he is their starting QB.

So you put a much higher value on the QB position than I have. If Tom Brady isn’t the most overrated QB in NFL history, then I think Peyton certainly is.


I also think that the coach factor should be somewhere around 33% to incorporate their game week AND game time importance.

If you raise both the coaching factor and the QB factor, you have to reduce the other factors by an equal amount. I don’t think you could do that wihout coming up with some ridiculously low estimates on the value of the other positions. Why don’t you try making your own estimate so we can take a look at the numbers?

[Chachie]

We lucked into a B-grade QB in Jason Campbell and went nowhere. So I suppose an A-grade QB would take us to periodic first round appearances.

We need an A-grade front office and some line play. Maybe Bruce Allen will be that front office because he's at least addressing the line play situation. Maybe it's the long-abused Redskin fan in me but I'm skeptical.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It does seem strange that QBs are not that important yet all the recent Super Bowl winning teams seemed to have really good QBs - with the possible exception of the Giants and Eli because I still can't determine if Eli is good or bad. That would be a fun debate though.

It seems like you can occasionally be good with an average QB if you are exceptional in one other area and you get really good matchups in the playoffs.

Mark Rypien is probably one of the three mid-level QBs to win a Super Bowl since 1992. (Johnson and Dilfer being the other two. Your mileage may vary on Eli).

Aikman
Young
Favre
Elway
Warner
Brady
Roethlisberger
Manning
Manning
Brees
Rodgers

(I can people arguing over whether Roethlisberger deserves to be on that list. But the Steelers used to lose the AFC Title game every other year before he showed up and now they win the AFC Title game every other year. So...yea....).

[skinsdude]

The Browns have possibly the best left tackle in football.

And they blow chunks.

Why?

I would imagine that in addition to a multitude of other things; the fact that they do not have a quarterback.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I would imagine that in addition to a multitude of other things; the fact that they do not have a quarterback.

But LT is much more important than QB.

[skinsdude]

But LT is much more important than QB.

Says who????

[NLC1054]

I don't think it makes much difference if we don't put a team around him. For all the talent a guy like Matthew Stafford has (when he's healthy), the Lions are going to a tough team to beat this season because, despite his injuries, they've built a team around him, surrounded him with talent on offense and has a defense that's not going to screw him over.

If we somehow get a guy like Andrew Luck or something, I'd have no problem with it. I'd be happy. But I also wouldn't count on him and him alone to will the team to winning football games, at least not yet. I'd rather have a team ready made for a quarterback to take over the reigns and have some success right away (I think winning builds quarterbacks confidence).

In the long term, having a franchise quarterback is always going to have a positive long-term effect on the franchise. It's finding that guy that's hard. And the Redskins problem has always been we draft quarterbacks, and then surround them with none of the tools for them to success, at least not on the offensive side of the ball. Not every quarterback is going to will your team to 10 wins on talent alone if you've got Antwaan Randel El as your second best receiver by the nature of everyone else but Santana Moss sucking.

[Oldfan]

For hypothetical purposes, let's assume Luck, Barkley, and Jones all came out two drafts ago (for Shanahan's first draft). Let's also assume for argument's sake that all three of them will be grade A QBs - the elite, franchise type QB.

We draft one of them with our first pick instead of Trent Williams. He comes in to the Redskins roster as it was this past season. Maybe we pick up a LT in the second round. Our wide receivers are the exact same group, running backs the exact same group, line still has the problems, etc.

Andrew Luck coming into that scenario would give the team an improvement. However, his rookie year would be one rough season. Little to no protection from the line, little help from the running backs and receivers. He would be bombarded with the defenses and blitzes he would have seen. We would be better than under Zorn, but not by much. Probably finish 5-11. That would equate to your one win improvement. Your 10% improvement isn't necessarily that effective, though, because he has little help around him.

Now let's assume they all came out this past draft. Instead of Kerrigan we draft one of the big three, and the rest of the draft goes the same way (Jenkins, Hankerson, Helu, Paul, etc.). Not knowing how this season will turn out, it's pretty much all prognostication from here on out. But we could safely assume that the line will be in better shape than it was last year, and our skill positions will have been upgraded. The rookie QB will still take his lumps, but a lot less than he would have last year,. The rookie skill players and O Line FA we're bringing in will all be learning the system with the QB, growing pains all together. With a grade A QB, we could go 8-8 this year. That would be a 2 game improvement, and the 10% would have been a little more effective.

Now let's flash forward one year. Say we go 6-10 again. We are able to draft one of the big three in the draft, either by trade up or one of them falling. We would have pretty much all the other positions in place for him: a line that has a year together and knows the system and each other's strengths and weaknesses, running backs who are familiar with the ZB running game and the pass pro calls and assignments, WRs and TEs who know the route combos and where the holes in the defenses are/will be. That rookie grade A QB coming in will be at a higher comfort level, because everyone around him already knows their assignments, they're not learning as they go. He doesn't take as many hits, doesn't make as many "bad" throws - the WRs don't mess the routes up. That could equate to a 3-4 game improvement. Same QB, same 10% effect, but it's more effective because his transition is easier and smoother.
Okay, I kinda got lost in your hypotheticals, but I think I understand your point and, if I do, you are correct. I’ll use numbers to explain.

A four-win team would have a win percentage of .250. --- a 10% upgrade raises that to .275 or 4.4 wins.

A five-win team has a win percentage of .313 -- a 10% upgrade raises that to .344 or 5.5 wins.

A six-win team has a win percentage of .375 -- a 10% upgrade raises that to.413 or 6.6 wins.

Notice how the difference a grade A QB can make is increasing as the team that acquires him gets better. I think this is the effect you are explaining.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 11:45 AM ----------


It does seem strange that QBs are not that important yet all the recent Super Bowl winning teams seemed to have really good QBs - Circular reasoning isn't strange. It's actually quite common.

Super Bowl winners seem to have really good QBs

How do you know those QBs were really good?

What? Are you kidding? Those guys won Super Bowls!

[addicted]

So, to finally answer the question posed in the thread title... If we lucked into a grade-A QB, we would be upgraded from a C minus to an A at the position. That’s, at most, a one game upgrade. If we’re truly a six-win team, it would get us to seven.

Hahahaha

I've read your silly rants on here for years and saying that it would only mean a single game difference with grade A QB play ranks right up there with me as your latest post that we have the worst team in decades.

Seriously are you in just complete denial to suggest that you can take football and make it a mathematical equation as you did and draw any conclusions from it?

This is the funniest thing I've read on here in years. Football is not a math problem pal. Luck plays a huge factor in the game today, its why they have said for decades....Any Given Sunday.

Anyway have fun with this debate. Can't really believe people buy into this crap but to each there own.

[The Tris]

But LT is much more important than QB.

When was this point made?

[Oldfan]

I think that left tackle is more important because his ability has more to do with the success of his side of the ball because he both pass blocks and run blocks. An edge rusher can certainly impact a game but a left tackles play can more often directly lead to a large gain or score.Sorry, can't agree with that. Whatever value the LT has his opponent, logically, has an equal value.

[skinsdude]

Sorry, can't agree with that. Whatever value the LT has his opponent, logically, has an equal value.

Why couldn't the same be said for the edge rusher? :) My point is that in my opinion the left tackle has the opportunity to be involved in more plays than the edge rusher.

[Loyal2Washington]

Because we all know the team fell off a cliff when a 7th round draft pick took over for Brady...
And you seem to forget the Pats under Belichick were a horrible 5-12 until Mo Lewis knocked Bledsoe out. By the time Cassell sniffed the field the Pats formed a winning culture around the organization and built a team of winners that had depth and skill at nearly every position thus leaving the Pats a strong team minus their best player. So why was Belichick able to build the roster up over that time? Probably had to do with Tom Brady coming in and saving his rear from Cleveland part II. Funny how Belichick became a genius all by himself.

[skinny21]

The only issue I can think of, off the top of my head, is the trickle down effect a good qb would have for us. An improved passing game would improve the running game, both of which should aid the defense and special teams. I would think that improving all of these things would lead to more than a 1 game difference.

Thats not to say I think we would be vastly improved with a grade A qb, but I would expect better than just a 1 game difference.

[The Tris]

And you seem to forget the Pats under Belichick were a horrible 5-12 until Mo Lewis knocked Bledsoe out. By the time Cassell sniffed the field the Pats formed a winning culture around the organization and built a team of winners that had depth and skill at nearly every position thus leaving the Pats a strong team minus their best player. So why was Belichick able to build the roster up over that time? Probably had to do with Tom Brady coming in and saving his rear from Cleveland part II. Funny how Belichick became a genius all by himself.

Yeah, because the reason the Pats struggled year one of the the rebuild was Drew Bledsoe, not the fact that Belichick completely purged the roster when he took over as the team was millions over the salary cap.

[Hitman21ST]

Okay, I kinda got lost in your hypotheticals, but I think I understand your point and, if I do, you are correct. I’ll use numbers to explain.

A four-win team would have a win percentage of .250. --- a 10% upgrade raises that to .275 or 4.4 wins.

A five-win team has a win percentage of .313 -- a 10% upgrade raises that to .344 or 5.5 wins.

A six-win team has a win percentage of .375 -- a 10% upgrade raises that to.413 or 6.6 wins.

Notice how the difference a grade A QB can make is increasing as the team that acquires him gets better. I think this is the effect you are explaining.

We're close to the same page. We're in the same ballpark, but you're on first and I'm on third. What I'm trying to say is that the effect of the quarterback is increased when his supporting cast is firmly in place. Andrew Luck (or Jones or Barkley) might have gotten us to 5 wins with Zorn's roster, but we could be a 9-10 win team in Luck's first year with an established line and skill players who aren't in their first year also.

[Oldfan]

The only issue I can think of, off the top of my head, is the trickle down effect a good qb would have for us. An improved passing game would improve the running game, both of which should aid the defense and special teams. I would think that improving all of these things would lead to more than a 1 game difference. What you are saying is that the QB position is worth significantly more than 10%. So, let's take the vagueness out of it. How much more? If it's 20% how should we subtract 10% from the other numbers?

You have to understand that if you give the QB more credit or blame, you have to take it away from others.

[The Tris]

Andrew Luck (or Jones or Barkley) might have gotten us to 5 wins with Zorn's roster, but we could be a 9-10 win team in Luck's first year with an established line and skill players who aren't in their first year also.

All you are really saying is the better the roster, the greater the effect of the QB.

[ds1001]

it would turn the team into at least a wild card contender

[Hitman21ST]

All you are really saying is the better the roster, the greater the effect of the QB.

Yup.

[Botched]

They lost Boldin, Dansby, and Rolle all in one offseason, as well as Warner.

You make it sound like Warner was the only reason this team was worse in 2010.

They also added players if I'm not mistaken. By far the biggest downgrade was at QB.

In 2010, the Cardinals' passing offense had the second worst YPA in the NFL, the worst completion percentage, second worst in total yards, second worst QB rating, and scored only 10 touchdowns total for the year. (Warner had 11TDs after 7 games the year before) They had more than a single passing touchdown in one game all season. They also had the worst 3rd down percentage in the league, meaning their defense was likely on the field as much or more than any other team.

Arizona's passing was abysmal in every way, and this after making a living through the air the two previous years. It's pretty obvious that QB play was the difference.

[Oldfan]

We're close to the same page. We're in the same ballpark, but you're on first and I'm on third. What I'm trying to say is that the effect of the quarterback is increased when his supporting cast is firmly in place. Andrew Luck (or Jones or Barkley) might have gotten us to 5 wins with Zorn's roster, but we could be a 9-10 win team in Luck's first year with an established line and skill players who aren't in their first year also.How many wins would you have expected with Campbell or McNabb at QB with an established line and skill players?

[Hitman21ST]

In their first year? Campbell 6-7, McNabb 7-8

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

When was this point made?

Skinsdude said it.

PS

The Matt Cassell thing is interesting. However, he is also a rather good QB

As for the QBs I listed. It may be circular reasoning. But they were all top-level picks - save Brady who screws up every discussion because he should not exist. He's the Mike Piazza of football. I kind of hate him.

So, people projected them to be awesome. And then they were awesome.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

In their first year? Campbell 6-7, McNabb 7-8

And folk actually want McNabb back.

Hail.

[skinsdude]

Skinsdude said it.

Show me where I said that. :)

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

How many wins would you have expected with Campbell or McNabb at QB with an established line and skill players?

No more than either put up. McNabb's finished as a starter in this league for my money. By mid-season his legs go, and everything else fellows. As for Captain Checkdown, well, he is what he is.

Better players can help an A grade QB take a team on to a whole other level. An average QB is an average QB, regardless of what's around him.

Hail.

[skinny21]

What you are saying is that the QB position is worth significantly more than 10%. So, let's take the vagueness out of it. How much more? If it's 20% how should we subtract 10% from the other numbers?

You have to understand that if you give the QB more credit or blame, you have to take it away from others.

Well, I wasn't saying only qb play effects other areas, more that they're all connected and rely on eachother to some degree. I only used it from a qb perspective since that was the subject of the thread.

I would think an improved defense would allow more chances for the offense. And therefor more opportunities for the place kicker. Sure, the kicker won't necessarily improve percentage-wise, but making 2/4 would be better than 1/2.

My impression is that just that all the aspects of the game are interrelated.

Perhaps I misunderstand your premise though and you have already accounted for this.

[The Tris]

They also added players if I'm not mistaken. By far the biggest downgrade was at QB.

In 2010, the Cardinals' passing offense had the second worst YPA in the NFL, the worst completion percentage, second worst in total yards, second worst QB rating, and scored only 10 touchdowns total for the year. (Warner had 11TDs after 7 games the year before) They had more than a single passing touchdown in one game all season. They also had the worst 3rd down percentage in the league, meaning their defense was likely on the field as much or more than any other team.

Arizona's passing was abysmal in every way, and this after making a living through the air the two previous years. It's pretty obvious that QB play was the difference.

Correct, their offense went from 11th in ppg to 26th. And that primarily had to do with Warner (and Boldin to a lesser degree).

But at the same time, their defense went from 14th in ppg to 30th. Did that primarily have to do with Warner?

Let's not pretend Kurt Warner was solely responsible for a 5 game swing or the wildly hyberbolic statement you made of "the Cardinals were Superbowl contenders with Kurt Warner, and bottom feeders without him".

You are doing exactly what the point of this thread is saying: overrating the impact of the QB.

[Oldfan]

In their first year? Campbell 6-7, McNabb 7-8So, you estimate a grade A QB would make a one game improvement over McNabb and I've estimated a one-game improvement over McNabb. The only difference between us it seems is that my estimate was made assuming that we are a six-win team while yours was made based on a hypothetically better team.

[Hitman21ST]

So, you estimate a grade A QB would make a one game improvement over McNabb and I've estimated a one-game improvement over McNabb. The only difference between us it seems is that my estimate was made assuming that we are a six-win team while yours was made based on a hypothetically better team.

At McNabb's best and new QB's worst, one game. More than likely two games, at best, three games.

My point was to say that ideally, you'd want to bring in that QB with a complete team already in place, rather than get that star QB and build around him, because he will be more effective that way.

[skinny21]

No more than either put up. McNabb's finished as a starter in this league for my money. By mid-season his legs go, and everything else fellows. As for Captain Checkdown, well, he is what he is.

Better players can help an A grade QB take a team on to a whole other level. An average QB is an average QB, regardless of what's around him.

Hail.

I hate to bring up Dilfer, but didn't he have a very good year their superbowl year? I would rate him around an average player, but IIRC he played well above average that year. I would think the play of those around him dictated that improvement.

Of course football history is not one of my strong pts so I could be wrong.

[ACW]

I think a winning QB can change entire team's outlook. Teams have gone from horrible to playoff quickly because a good QB inspired the team.Kurt Warner. And look how they regressed.

[The Tris]

The Matt Cassell thing is interesting. However, he is also a rather good QB.

Whats more interesting about Cassell is when he left the support system of the Pats and went to a rebuilding Chiefs team, his QB rating instantly dropped 20 points.

To put that in context, 20 points was the difference between Aaron Rodgers and Shaun Hill last year.

Now, he rebounded this year, coincidentally or not, in the 2nd year of the Chiefs rebuild as the entire team got better.

So I am not so sure if Cassel is an inherently good QB, or if he can excel when put in the right support system (which I would say is true for the vast majority of NFL QBs - and thus those who are currently in the right support system are overrated, and those not in the right support system are underrated).

[Oldfan]

No more than either put up. That can't be true.


Better players can help an A grade QB take a team on to a whole other level. An average QB is an average QB, regardless of what's around him.Teamwork is in play with grade A QBs, but not with grade C QBs. That's your position? For the cash prize of a miilion Euros... This is your final answer?:evilg:

[Hitman21ST]

I hate to bring up Dilfer, but didn't he have a very good year their superbowl year? I would rate him around an average player, but IIRC he played well above average that year. I would think the play of those around him dictated that improvement.

Of course football history is not one of my strong pts so I could be wrong.

134-226 for 1502 yards with 12 TD and 11 INT

[skinsdude]

I hate to bring up Dilfer, but didn't he have a very good year their superbowl year? I would rate him around an average player, but IIRC he played well above average that year. I would think the play of those around him dictated that improvement.

Of course football history is not one of my strong pts so I could be wrong.

I don't think that the Ravens offense as a whole had a very good year in 2000. They went 7 or 8 straight quarters without scoring an offensive touchdown.

[Hitman21ST]

I don't think that the Ravens offense as a whole had a very good year in 2000. They went 7 or 8 straight quarters without scoring an offensive touchdown.

Five straight weeks, no touchdowns. And they won two of those games. That's how good their defense was.

[Oldfan]

At McNabb's best and new QB's worst, one game. More than likely two games, at best, three games.At McNabb's best and the new QB's worst? Sounds to me like you just tap danced out of a corner.

[Hitman21ST]

At McNabb's best and the new QB's worst? Sounds to me like you just tap danced out of a corner.

You said one game. I estimated McNabb at 7-8 and the new QB at 9-10.

So, McNabb gets us 8, that's "his best." New QB gets us 9, that's "his worst." No tap dancing.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

That can't be true.

Teamwork is in play with grade A QBs, but not with grade C QBs. That's your position? For the cash prize of a miilion Euros... This is your final answer?:evilg:

Meh, Euro's are no good, we stuck to our guns and kept our own monetary system. I reject the offer. Pound sterling, dollars or nothing .....

The overall team can make a grade C QB better, but not by virtue of his play. There's exceptions of game managers doing well, like the 2000 Ravens above. But those instances for sustained success are few and far between.

Let's put it another way. Grade A QB's can make average talent around them better by virtue of their leadership and play. (Not great, but better.). Grade C QB's can win with better players, but rarely through improvement in their own performance. A once in a life time D like the 2000 Raven's example or stellar running game is usually needed to have the success we crave.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

I don't think that the Ravens offense as a whole had a very good year in 2000. They went 7 or 8 straight quarters without scoring an offensive touchdown.


Five straight weeks, no touchdowns. And they won two of those games. That's how good their defense was.

If memory serves, the Ravens offense was fourth in the league in points scored per drive for the year. I'd have to look it up. Jamal Lewis, the running game, along with Dilfer's ball control passing, made the defense look even better than they really were.

[Hitman21ST]

If memory serves, the Ravens offense was fourth in the league in points scored per drive for the year. I'd have to look it up. Jamal Lewis, the running game, along with Dilfer's ball control passing, made the defense look even better than they really were.

Their defense had four shutouts and allowed 165 points all season. That's just over 10 points a game (10.3)

One touchdown and two field goals and they would win. That's a dominant defense.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

[QUOTE=Oldfan;8381170]QBs look good on good teams.[COLOR="Gold"]

Take Brady and Manning off of their teams and see how good they look.

[The Tris]

Take Brady and Manning off of their teams and see how good they look.

Well luckily for you, we did it with Brady already. They really suffered without him.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2008.htm

(the support system is more important than the QB)

[ACW]

[QUOTE=Oldfan;8381170]QBs look good on good teams.[COLOR="Gold"]

Take Brady and Manning off of their teams and see how good they look.Hell, don't know about Brady, but I think Peyton would give us AT LEAST 2 more wins.

[JaxJoe]

I have to agree with the importance factors outlined in the original post. It's certainly hard to disagree. But I look at the attribution to more wins based upon the seasons results. For instance, if last season we had an 'A' QB, one could argue that the Houston, Detroit, and 2nd Giants games are all wins. Then the skins are a 9-7 team. With an arguably easier 2011 schedule and a second year in the 'system', one could argue the Skins are at least a 10-6 team. Therefore, an 'A' QB on a roster, upgraded from a 'C' minus QB, could add up to many more wins than just one, as your statistical analysis tries to prove. But I do agree with your analysis, given an unknown team. But when we address the Redskins, an upgrade to QB should translate to, probably, three wins or more.

[Mahons21]

Well luckily for you, we did it with Brady already. They really suffered without him.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2008.htm

(the support system is more important than the QB)

I think Brady is somewhat interchangeable, as those stats show, but I don't feel the same way for Manning. When you lose Manning you not only lose possibly the greatest QB of all time, but you also lose one hell of an offensive coordinator.

[Oldfan]

Their defense had four shutouts and allowed 165 points all season. That's just over 10 points a game (10.3)

One touchdown and two field goals and they would win. That's a dominant defense.There's no doubt they had a great defense. I'm saying that their offense was better than most people think. Ball control offenses are always underrated because longer drives result in fewer drives; fewer drives result in lower scores for both teams; lower scores make the defense look good and offenses look bad.

[Hitman21ST]

There's no doubt they had a great defense. I'm saying that their offense was better than most people think. Ball control offenses are always underrated because longer drives result in fewer drives; fewer drives result in lower scores for both teams; lower scores make the defense look good and offenses look bad.

Fair enough. I misunderstood. Did you read my explanation on McNabb vs. New QB?

[The Tris]

I think Brady is somewhat interchangeable, as those stats show, but I don't feel the same way for Manning. When you lose Manning you not only lose possibly the greatest QB of all time, but you also lose one hell of an offensive coordinator.

The exception does not disprove the rule.

[Botched]

Correct, their offense went from 11th in ppg to 26th.

But at the same time, their defense went from 14th in ppg to 30th.

Let's not pretend Kurt Warner was solely responsible for a 5 game swing or the wildly hyberbolic statement you made of "the Cardinals were Superbowl contenders with Kurt Warner, and bottom feeders without him".

You are doing exactly what the point of this thread is saying: overrating the impact of the QB.

As I noted, they had the worst 3rd down percentage in the league. It's hard to prevent the other team from scoring when your own offense can't stay on the field for more than 3 plays. A defense is going to tire quickly like that. Even so, their defense and special teams were directly responsible for 3 of their 5 wins.

The Cardinals played in, and nearly won the Superbowl with Kurt Warner at QB. In other words, they were Super Bowl contenders. They also won a playoff game the next year. The following year after Warner's retirement, they were last place in the worst division in the NFL. Teams in that position are regularly referred to as "bottom feeders". Calling a very accurate statement "wildly hyperbolic" is wildly ironic.

I'll wait for you to explain to me how I'm overrating the impact of the QB. Just saying I overrate them isn't a very convincing argument.

[Hitman21ST]

As I noted, they had the worst 3rd down percentage in the league. It's hard to prevent the other team from scoring when your own offense can't stay on the field for more than 3 plays. A defense is going to tire quickly like that. Even so, their defense and special teams were directly responsible for 3 of their 5 wins.

The Cardinals played in, and nearly won the Superbowl with Kurt Warner at QB. In other words, they were Super Bowl contenders. They also won a playoff game the next year. The following year after Warner's retirement, they were last place in the worst division in the NFL. Teams in that position are regularly referred to as "bottom feeders". Calling a very accurate statement "wildly hyperbolic" is wildly ironic.

I'll wait for you to explain to me how I'm overrating the impact of the QB. Just saying I overrate them isn't a very convincing argument.

The Cardinals were Super Bowl contenders with Karlos Dansby and bottom feeders without him.

[Oldfan]

I think Brady is somewhat interchangeable, as those stats show, but I don't feel the same way for Manning. When you lose Manning you not only lose possibly the greatest QB of all time, but you also lose one hell of an offensive coordinator.Tom Moore handed Peyton the smartest, most QB friendly, scheme in the NFL. If a college coach had done for a QB what Moore did for Peyton, the draftniks would be telling us to write off his inflated numbers because he's a system QB who throws 75% of his passes from the spread.

[The Tris]

I'll wait for you to explain to me how I'm overrating the impact of the QB. Just saying I overrate them isn't a very convincing argument.

Your claim of "the Cardinals were Superbowl contenders with Kurt Warner, and bottom feeders without him" implies that with him, the 2010 Cardinals would have been Super Bowl contenders.

However, Kurt Warner was no where near the only variable between the 2008-2009 Cardinals and the 2010 Cardinals. Yet you seem to think it was. Therefore, you are overrating the impact of the QB.

[Mahons21]

The exception does not disprove the rule.

I wasn't trying to disprove any rule, just giving my 2 cents on the QBs discussed. Clearly Peyton Manning is a once in a lifetime talent, and he can't be counted on as the norm

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 01:48 PM ----------


Tom Moore handed Peyton the smartest, most QB friendly, scheme in the NFL. If a college coach had done for a QB what Moore did for Peyton, the draftniks would be telling us to write off his inflated numbers because he's a system QB who throws 75% of his passes from the spread.
1.) I think you're overestimating how often Peyton throws from the spread and how QB friendly his scheme is.

EDIT** they run A LOT of 3 WR sets out of singleback IIRC, and I wouldn't consider that spread.

2.) Peyton's enormous impact with line calls that have nothing to do with Moore.

[Oldfan]

Fair enough. I misunderstood. Did you read my explanation on McNabb vs. New QB?

Yes. I misunderstood your comment.

Back to your point though, I don't really understand it. Aside from the increase I showed you with the math -- the better the team, the greater the improvement, I don't see any reason to expect more.

Logically, if the QB factor is worth move with better teams, the other positions and the coaching factor would have to decrease in importance. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Botched]

The Cardinals were Super Bowl contenders with Karlos Dansby and bottom feeders without him.

Except that his replacement played very well. Warner's replacements were not even in the same universe as him.


Your claim of "the Cardinals were Superbowl contenders with Kurt Warner, and bottom feeders without him" implies that with him, the 2010 Cardinals would have been Super Bowl contenders.

However, Kurt Warner was no where near the only variable between the 2008-2009 Cardinals and the 2010 Cardinals. Yet you seem to think it was. Therefore, you are overrating the impact of the QB.

I haven't said once that Kurt Warner was the only variable in the Cardinals. These type of arguments are strawmen that seem to pop up in every Oldfan QB thread.

So here you go: Kurt Warner was, by far, without any doubt, the absolute, #1 biggest factor in the Cardinals' success by a considerable margin. His departure was, by far, without any doubt, the #1 biggest factor in their failure by a considerable margin. No other changes to the team had an impact that was even close.

[bikie]

so if you listed all the QB's you grade as "A's" and replaced them with QB's you grade "C's" you would stand behind the logic that the team on the average would only lose one more game per year with the "C's" starting and playing all games?

[Oldfan]

I wasn't trying to disprove any rule, just giving my 2 cents on the QBs discussed. Clearly Peyton Manning is a once in a lifetime talent, and he can't be counted on as the norm

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 01:48 PM ----------


1.) I think you're overestimating how often Peyton throws from the spread and how QB friendly his scheme is.

EDIT** they run A LOT of 3 WR sets out of singleback IIRC, and I wouldn't consider that spread.

2.) Peyton's enormous impact with line calls that have nothing to do with Moore.Peyton is the smartest QB in the game. He makes a difference at the LoS. But, he's not a great passer. His numbers look great because he has been given a smaller number of pass plays to practice and he throws the most passes from the gun in the NFL (nearly all passers are more accurate from the gun).

[Hitman21ST]

Yes. I misunderstood your comment.

Back to your point though, I don't really understand it. Aside from the increase I showed you with the math -- the better the team, the greater the improvement, I don't see any reason to expect more.

Logically, if the QB factor is worth move with better teams, the other positions and the coaching factor would have to decrease in importance. That doesn't make sense to me.

OK, I think I understand now what we're both saying. You're saying that no matter the quality of the QB, his influence is 10%. I think that the "A" QB gives the 10%, but a "C" QB might only give you 6% (or whatever), provided the "C" QB produces at 60% the rate of the "A" QB. Thus, given the same roster, an "A" QB will give you more wins than a "C" QB. (Campbell only gets the team 6-7 wins, while new QB gets the team 9-10 wins).

The "C" QB's influence, even though he is doing everything he can, is less than the "A" QB's influence on number of wins. Your 10% number is still viable, it's just "less" of a 10% than an "A" QB's.

[Oldfan]

so if you listed all the QB's you grade as "A's" and replaced them with QB's you grade "C's" you would stand behind the logic that the team on the average would only lose one more game per year with the "C's" starting and playing all games?No. Based on a six-win team grade C quarterbacked, the actual difference with a grade A upgrade would work out to about half a game, but I rounded up to make it a full game. The actual difference would increase when the grade A replacement plays for better teams.

[terryb101]

Using 100% to represent the total importance of all factors in winning NFL football games, it is possible to make an estimate and take some of the vagueness out of our football discussions.

20% -- Coaching
10% -- Special Teams
35% -- Defense
35% -- Offense

15% -- total running game
....8% -- RB
....7% -- Blockers

20% --Passing Game
....5% -- Protectors
....5% -- Receivers
....10% -- QB

Offense, defense, and special teams are weighed on a 3-3-1 ratio based on data source: footballoutsiders.com.

The 10% value for the QB is the average value of the position based on a 60/40 pass to run ratio. The value of the position can change somewhat with the scheme, but it does not change with the quality of the QB. In other words, the weight of the position and the grade of the QB are two distinct measurements.

The most important individual is the head coach, but he cannot be graded on wins and losses unless he has full control of his football team since the quality of his roster is an 80% factor in wins.

The second most important individual is the quarterback. When GM Mickey Loomis hired Sean Payton to coach and signed Drew Brees to play QB, he upgraded the two most important individual positions (30% estimated combined weight).

When Pittsburgh added Roethlesberger, he moved the team from a .550 win average to .600. That is a 10% upgrade, but almost a one-win improvement. At that level, the one win is the difference between a good team and one of championship caliber. However, the addition of a high-grade QB alone will not move a six-win team to championship level.

I have Jason Campbell graded as a C minus QB coming out from under center. I think he could have been upgraded to a B or B minus by putting him in a shotgun-based offense. Peyton is in the gun on 75% of his attempts; Brady on 65%. Instead, Mike traded for McNabb who gave us C minus quarterbacking because he doesn’t fit anybody’s scheme except the one Andy Reid built for him in Philly. Donovan was not an improvement at the QB position over Campbell.

So, to finally answer the question posed in the thread title... If we lucked into a grade-A QB, we would be upgraded from a C minus to an A at the position. That’s, at most, a one game upgrade. If we’re truly a six-win team, it would get us to seven.
dont be so diffcult. answer..slim to none and slim just left.. need way more than the greatest qb ever. need people on d that can tackle, and read their keys, need running backs, wide outs, blockers ..shall we go on?

[bikie]

No. Based on a six-win team grade C quarterbacked, the actual difference with a grade A upgrade would work out to about half a game, but I rounded up to make it a full game. The actual difference would increase when the grade A replacement plays for better teams.

so the same would be said then if you downgraded a team from an A qb to a C qb... on a good team with an A qb, replacing him with a C qb would mean how many more losses per season?

I think the packers are a good team and rogers an A qb, say you replace him with a C qb, how many more losses would you expect per season?

[Hiro]

I understand you trying to operationalize a QB's effect on a team, but I think upgrading from a C to an A does more to a team than just two wins.

Look at the progress teams made under good QBs like Sam Bradford, Matt Ryan, and Josh Freeman. All three of these QBs came to what were considered poor teams. These three made a huge difference in how their organizations are perceived, and how many wins their teams got.

As others have said, I think a grade-A QB has a much greater effect on your organization than a mere two wins. A grade-A QB means your team has a face, a true leader that FAs will love to come to. There's a reason why the QB is considered to be the most important and hardest position to fill in all of sports.

[sportjunkie07]

i know you are trying to quantify a qb's play, but throw out all of the statistics for a second and use some common sense.

do you really think the packers only lose 1 or 2 games more than last year if they have a grade F qb at the helm?

or, do the titans only win one more game with peyton manning at qb?

the answer is that the disparity between a grade F/grade A qb is a lot more than you think.

[pimpumd]

Peyton is the smartest QB in the game. He makes a difference at the LoS. But, he's not a great passer. His numbers look great because he has been given a smaller number of pass plays to practice and he throws the most passes from the gun in the NFL (nearly all passers are more accurate from the gun).

How do you know this? Do you know how Peyton would perform in a different NFL system? I can just as easily say that Peyton's numbers are great because he's a great passer.

[addicted]

How do you know this? Do you know how Peyton would perform in a different NFL system? I can just as easily say that Peyton's numbers are great because he's a great passer.

Its the same logic he uses to say this:

"So, to finally answer the question posed in the thread title... If we lucked into a grade-A QB, we would be upgraded from a C minus to an A at the position. That’s, at most, a one game upgrade. If we’re truly a six-win team, it would get us to seven."

He just makes something up and throws it at the wall and people seem to think he's right.

I think its something in the water causing this maddness

BTW If that were at all true how do you explain all of the times teams like the Eagles who after they got McNabb, the Colts who were a 1 win season winner without Payton, the Steelers who get Rothesberger and all the rest of them who we get to watch them go from losers to 10 wins a year or two later contenders

[Oldfan]

Hitman ~ OK, I think I understand now what we're both saying. You're saying that no matter the quality of the QB, his influence is 10%. I think that the "A" QB gives the 10%, but a "C" QB might only give you 6% (or whatever), provided the "C" QB produces at 60% the rate of the "A" QB. Thus, given the same roster, an "A" QB will give you more wins than a "C" QB. (Campbell only gets the team 6-7 wins, while new QB gets the team 9-10 wins).


From the OP:



The 10% value for the QB is the average value of the position based on a 60/40 pass to run ratio. The value of the position can change somewhat with the scheme, but it does not change with the quality of the QB. In other words, the weight of the position and the grade of the QB are two distinct measurements.

Measurement No. 1 ) the importance of the QB position 10%

Measurement No. 2) the grade of the QB

If we were going to be precise, we would first need to quantify the QB grades so that we could then multiply both measurements. That’s pretty much what you did in a round about way.

My actual measurement would be about one-half a game if we were to replace McNabb with a grade A quarterback. I just rounded up to one game because I don’t want to give people the impression that I’m offering a precision tool here. It’s just a better way of making a reasonable estimate.

[PokerPacker]

i know you are trying to quantify a qb's play, but throw out all of the statistics for a second and use some common sense.

do you really think the packers only lose 1 or 2 games more than last year if they have a grade F qb at the helm?

or, do the titans only win one more game with peyton manning at qb?

the answer is that the disparity between a grade F/grade A qb is a lot more than you think.

especially considering we didn't have a running game until James Starks entered at the end of the season.

[Oldfan]

so the same would be said then if you downgraded a team from an A qb to a C qb... on a good team with an A qb, replacing him with a C qb would mean how many more losses per season?

I think the packers are a good team and rogers an A qb, say you replace him with a C qb, how many more losses would you expect per season?Bear in mind I said in the OP that scheme fit can influence the QB position. So, assuming the grade C quarterback fits the scheme, a one game loss is about right.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 03:23 PM ----------


I understand you trying to operationalize a QB's effect on a team, but I think upgrading from a C to an A does more to a team than just two wins.

Look at the progress teams made under good QBs like Sam Bradford, Matt Ryan, and Josh Freeman. All three of these QBs came to what were considered poor teams. These three made a huge difference in how their organizations are perceived, and how many wins their teams got.

As others have said, I think a grade-A QB has a much greater effect on your organization than a mere two wins. A grade-A QB means your team has a face, a true leader that FAs will love to come to. There's a reason why the QB is considered to be the most important and hardest position to fill in all of sports.If the QB is worth far more than 10%, you should be able to do an estimate following the same guidelines I did, and show the QB to be a much bigger factor. Give it a try. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

As for Ryan and Bradford, there's no way to tell how much of a factor they were because there were a number of other changes within the organization at the same time.

[Califan007]

I can't think of a team that got a bonafide Grade-A quarterback and didn't noticeably improve while he was there.

I can think of teams that got a bonafide Grade-A running back, or WR, or OT, or LB, or CB, placekickers or even a bonafide Grade-A head coach that didn't improve to any real degree.

[Oldfan]

How do you know this? Do you know how Peyton would perform in a different NFL system? I can just as easily say that Peyton's numbers are great because he's a great passer.I don't see why my standard of proof should be higher than the poster I replied to.


Originally Posted by Mahons21
I think Brady is somewhat interchangeable, as those stats show, but I don't feel the same way for Manning. When you lose Manning you not only lose possibly the greatest QB of all time, but you also lose one hell of an offensive coordinator.


---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 03:31 PM ----------


I can't think of a team that got a bonafide Grade-A quarterback and didn't noticeably improve while he was there. .A 10% improvement is noticeable.

[MartinC]

As for Ryan and Bradford, there's no way to tell how much of a factor they were because there were a number of other changes within the organization at the same time.

Quite. That's pretty much what I have said a couple of times in this thread - too many moving parts to usefully assign any given value to impact of a given QB. I think that's the case with any franchise not just the Falcons and Rams.

[Oldfan]

Quite. That's pretty much what I have said a couple of times in this thread - too many moving parts to usefully assign any given value to impact of a given QB. I think that's the case with any franchise not just the Falcons and Rams.Does the estimate I made in the OP look unreasonable to you? Can you manipulate the numbers to end up with an estimate much greater than 10% for the QB and reduce the other estimates by a like amount and stay within reason?

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 03:41 PM ----------


i know you are trying to quantify a qb's play, but throw out all of the statistics for a second and use some common sense.

do you really think the packers only lose 1 or 2 games more than last year if they have a grade F qb at the helm?

or, do the titans only win one more game with peyton manning at qb?

the answer is that the disparity between a grade F/grade A qb is a lot more than you think.I don't use an F grade. I divide QBs into four groups of eight (32 teams) D is my lowest. the grade D NFL quarterbacks are still pretty good. The NFL, after all, is a league where parity reigns.

Iv'e already answer the packers question using a grade C quarterback.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

At McNabb's best and new QB's worst, one game. More than likely two games, at best, three games.

My point was to say that ideally, you'd want to bring in that QB with a complete team already in place, rather than get that star QB and build around him, because he will be more effective that way.

Except that's not what usually happens. Peyton went to an awful team. Rivers went to an awful team. The only reason the Steelers got Roethlisberger is because they were uncharacteristically really bad in 2003. The Giants stunk when they got Eli. Aikman went to a truly awful Cowboys team. He was a 3rd round pick but the 49ers stunk when they got Montana. The Chargers stunks when they got Rivers.

Rodgers is the exception.

I keep hearing, "Wait until we are good to get a QB."

The problem is - generally - once you are good, you CAN'T get a good QB outside of free agency or blind dumb luck (like the Vick situation). And in all honesty, the only major free agenct QB of the last decade is Brees. And he should have never been available except San Diego thought he was too injured to be much of anything and had invested heavily in Rivers. The Brees-Rivers situation is actually quite interesting. It proves that you can let an MVP-level QB walk away....as long as you have an MVP-level QB on the bench.

Also, I hate Philip Rivers. I don't understand how a QB with less arm strength than me is that ****ing good.

I don't like it when players do things I don't understand. I want life to be explicable. I also want "explicable" to be a word.



---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 02:43 PM ----------

By the way, I like OldFan's completely made up numbers.

There is a 63 pecent chance that they are 72 percent accurate.

[MartinC]

Does the estimate I made in the OP look unreasonable to you? Can you manipulate the numbers to end up with an estimate much greater than 10% for the QB and reduce the other estimates by a like amount and stay within reason?

10% for the personal contribution of the QB looks like a reasonable estimate. But the impact - the difference if you like - that the QB makes on wins and losses is not as simple as that 10%. There is the impact the QB makes on the ability of coaches to adjust their game planning, the impact he has on the production of the receivers, the way he opens up the running game by moving that 8th man out of the box, the way having a grade A QB allows you to spend your high draft picks and free agent dollars on other important positions etc etc. Most of this is outside the pure 10% you have not unreasonably assigned to the QBs individual contribution.

Football is not a science experiment and you can't separate the various factors and observe like a lab experiment what happens if you change variables because as you noted there are too many other things changing at the same time. If you can't tell how much of a factor Bradford and Ryan are on their teams why can you tell this for any other QB?

[Oldfan]

...By the way, I like OldFan's completely made up numbers. I'll issue the same challenge to you as the others who made this claim. You could easily prove my estimate is garbage by using the same method and coming up with a much bigger number for the QB while keeping the other numbers realistic. So far, no one has answered the bell.

[Califan007]

A 10% improvement is noticeable.
A 10% improvement of what, exactly?

Wins? A team that went 4-12 ends up improving by 10% more wins? Can you go 4.4-11.6? lol...

Yards? A team that threw for 3,200 yards now throws for 3,520 yards. How noticeable will that really be?

Points? A team that averged 17.4 ppg is now averaging 19.4 ppt...I guess that could qualify.

But that 10% improvement can too easily be offset by a wide range of other factors on the team...sure, they are scoring 10% more points now, but maybe they're giving up 12% more points as well...or allowing opposing offenses to have 10% longer drives...or missing 10% more FGs...etc, etc, yadda yadda.

As others have said, using some arbitrary percentages is faulty to begin with...plus your formula seems to completely avoid the reality of how much a good passing game and a Grade-A quarterback effects the running game...in your formula only the protection and the RBs themselves have any positive or negative effect on the running game, and the ability of that Grade-A quarterback to stretch the field and keep defenses honest is irrelevant. And you're already well-known for tossing aside the intangibles that players bring to their position, especially to the most important position on the team. Treating players as if they are computer generated beings that will operate as well or as poorly as the software that is plugged into them is not a very good way of assessing the game and a team.

I also think by using percentages you diminish the very positive (or negative) effect that special teams can play. In fact, each play on STs is by definition more important than each individual play on either offense or defense, in the fact that you don't get second chances on ST plays. If a QB throws downfield and overthrows his WR, oh well...unless it was 4th down he'll get another chance right away. But every play on special teams is a 4th down play...a punter shanks a punt, he doesn't get the ball back for another try...he isn't given 3-4 plays to go 10 yards...the placekicker isn't given 3-4 chances to make the field goal. They've got one shot at making that play...consistency is key there. Unlike on offense and defense, there is no way to cover up the flaws of STs players.

[skinsdude]

It appears as though the consensus feels that it is impossible to determine the affect that a franchise quarterback will have on a team based on grades and percentages.

[Oldfan]

10% for the personal contribution of the QB looks like a reasonable estimate. But the impact - the difference if you like - that the QB makes on wins and losses is not as simple as that 10%. There is the impact the QB makes on the ability of coaches to adjust their game planning, the impact he has on the production of the receivers, the way he opens up the running game by moving that 8th man out of the box, the way having a grade A QB allows you to spend your high draft picks and free agent dollars on other important positions etc etc. Most of this is outside the pure 10% you have not unreasonably assigned to the QBs individual contribution.

Football is not a science experiment and you can't separate the various factors and observe like a lab experiment what happens if you change variables because as you noted there are too many other things changing at the same time. If you can't tell how much of a factor Bradford and Ryan are on their teams why can you tell this for any other QB?When I use the scale of 100%, it encompasses everything. So, I can’t give the QB a higher percentage without taking the equivalent amount away from other positions. There is nothing “outside of the pure 10%” to give.

I think you are trying to go beyond the value of the position (10%) and argue the effects of the quality of the QB on his new team.

If our objective was to grade the entire team, we would quantify the value of all the positions, quantify the grades of the players and the head coach, and then multiply those factors in a grid analysis. The grades and the value of the positions would be two distinct numbers.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 04:08 PM ----------


It appears as though the consensus feels that it is impossible to determine the affect that a franchise quarterback will have on a team based on grades and percentages.
In*logic, an*argumentum ad populum*(Latin*for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument*that concludes a*proposition*to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[MartinC]

When I use the scale of 100%, it encompasses everything. So, I can’t give the QB a higher percentage without taking the equivalent amount away from other positions. There is nothing “outside of the pure 10%” to give.

I think you are trying to go beyond the value of the position (10%) and argue the effects of the quality of the QB on his new team.

If our objective was to grade the entire team, we would quantify the value of all the positions, quantify the grades of the players and the head coach, and then multiply those factors in a grid analysis. The grades and the value of the positions would be two distinct numbers.

The question you pose in the OP is how much difference a grade A QB makes on wins and losses. I'm saying that it's not possible to answer this question simply by using the percentage contribution of the positions. There are too many other factors.

In an earlier post you stated that it was not possible to tell what the impact was that Ryan and Bradford had on their teams because there were too many other things happening for those franchises. I agree. Can you explain why that would be any different for any other QB or franchise?

[pjfootballer]

I feel like I've seen this thread before. I don't know why, it feels like this has been discussed before, but with a different title.

[Oldfan]

Califan ~ A 10% improvement of what, exactly?

A ten-per cent improvement in wins. A legit eight-win team would have a win pct of .500. A 10% improvement would raise it to .550 or 8.8 wins. With the luck factors canceling out, that’s probably 9 wins.


As others have said, using some arbitrary percentages is faulty to begin with...

As I’ve told others, they aren’t arbitrary. If they were, it should be easy for you to prove it.


..plus your formula seems to completely avoid the reality of how much a good passing game and a Grade-A quarterback effects the running game...

The running game affects the passing game as well. Teamwork isn’t a one way street.


Treating players as if they are computer generated beings that will operate as well or as poorly as the software that is plugged into them is not a very good way of assessing the game and a team.

I’m using seventh grade math to make a better estimate of factors that most fans pull out of their litisimus.


I also think by using percentages you diminish the very positive (or negative) effect that special teams can play.

The value given the special teams came from the stats guys at footballoutsider.com. It’s based on about 20 years of data. Again, better than a guess coming out of the old litisimus.

[MartinC]

A ten-per cent improvement in wins. A legit eight-win team would have a win pct of .500. A 10% improvement would raise it to .550 or 8.8 wins. With the luck factors canceling out, that’s probably 9 wins.

Over 40% of NFL games are won/lost by 7 points or less. A 10% improvement game by game could have more impact on won/loss than you are stating.

[Oldfan]

Over 40% of NFL games are won/lost by 7 points or less. A 10% improvement game by game could have more impact on won/loss than you are stating.You missed me on that one. I don't know how to apply the improvement game by game. Can you offer an example?

[skinfan2k]

Andrew Luck, and Sam Bradford will be top 5 qbs for the next decade just watch.

[MartinC]

You missed me on that one. I don't know how to apply the improvement game by game. Can you offer an example?

So rather than applying the ten percent improvement on wins to the season win total apply it to the performance game by game. If almost half a teams losses are by 7 points or less a ten percent improvement game by game might result in more than a single game improvment. If we lose a game 10-9 a 10% improvement in our performance in that game would switch I from a loss to a win.

By the way you have not responded to the question I posed in an earlier post as below.

The question you pose in the OP is how much difference a grade A QB makes on wins and losses. I'm saying that it's not possible to answer this question simply by using the percentage contribution of the positions. There are too many other factors.

In an earlier post you stated that it was not possible to tell what the impact was that Ryan and Bradford had on their teams because there were too many other things happening for those franchises. I agree. Can you explain why that would be any different for any other QB or franchise?

[Oldfan]

I feel like I've seen this thread before. I don't know why, it feels like this has been discussed before, but with a different title.You probably remember the thread that introduced the idea of using an estimate like the one in the OP. Here, I've applied it to the task of answering the question in the thread title.

[sportjunkie07]

[/COLOR]I don't use an F grade. I divide QBs into four groups of eight (32 teams) D is my lowest. the grade D NFL quarterbacks are still pretty good. The NFL, after all, is a league where parity reigns.

Iv'e already answer the packers question using a grade C quarterback.

10% is way too low of an estimation. consider the fact that 100% of all offensive plays (since you are allowing a % for special teams) start at the qb; he has a direct affect on every play. he is worth much more than 10%. a qb even has a affect before the play with pre-snap reads and audibles.

bottom line, you cannot make an estimation for the level of importance for a qb. every scheme is different. every team relies on certain players more than others. the affect on each team would be different.

what is common sense though is that if you take manning off of the colts, they struggle, and by a lot more than 1 game. if you add manning to the bills, the bills would greatly improve. these things are obvious to nearly everyone except a crazy few that misguidingly attach a 10% number to all qb's.

[SWFLSkins]

This just does not work. While a quarterback may be one third of an offense, you can't just suddenly provide a percentage to what effect he has on an offense.

People who don't think QB are worth much will point to teams that won without a great QB (Ravens, Bucs).

People who think QB are worth everything will point to pretty much every other team that has won a superbowl in the past twenty years.

Consider me part of the latter group.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 10:10 AM ----------




haha nooooo I agree with you. I was making fun of SWFLskins. Sorry for the confusion.


Cool, sorry for the snark.

And they actually went 11-5, and put up the 2nd most points in the NFL. Only 5 teams in the league had a better record.

But yeah, without Brady, the Pats would be nothing...

But would Cassel have been able to do the same on the heels of another average at best QB. Belicheat had time to get the other guy and let him learn without the immediate pressure of starting and running the team himself. I still feel that the overall impact of a dynamic QB is being undervalued. And that was my point. Rothlesberger went to a good team and made them instantly champs. I will add that this is a great discussion and my mind is still not totally convinced one way or the other as far as OF numbers go. The fact that he is considering all parts of the team has merit for sure.

[Califan007]

A ten-per cent improvement in wins. A legit eight-win team would have a win pct of .500. A 10% improvement would raise it to .550 or 8.8 wins. With the luck factors canceling out, that’s probably 9 wins.


So by your analysis, The most a QB can effect the team is 10%. Right?

Which means the only thing that varies is whether or not the QB effects the team positively or negatively.

Put another way, a Grade-A franchise QB will effect the team in a positive way by 10%--and you said it would be 10% more wins. Likewise, a gawd-awful QB would effect the team in a negative way by no more than 10%--in this case, 10% more losses.

the difference between the absolute best QB and the absolute worst QB is a 20% swing in wins, all other things on the team being the same.

That means that the amount of wins that the absolute best QB can add to a team is 20% more wins than the absolute worst.

Which means that, all other things remaining exactly the same, the 2007 Patriots, who went 16-0 during the season, would have gone 13-3 if JaMarcus Russell had been their QB all season instead of Tom Brady.

Gotcha. :thumbsup:

[Oldfan]

So rather than applying the ten percent improvement on wins to the season win total apply it to the performance game by game. If almost half a teams losses are by 7 points or less a ten percent improvement game by game might result in more than a single game improvment. If we lose a game 10-9 a 10% improvement in our performance in that game would switch I from a loss to a win.

I wouldn’t know what stats to use to calculate a 10% improvement in our performnce.
Moreover, the scores of the games that might swing would simply be a matter of luck.



By the way you have not responded to the question I posed in an earlier post as below.

The question you pose in the OP is how much difference a grade A QB makes on wins and losses. I'm saying that it's not possible to answer this question simply by using the percentage contribution of the positions. There are too many other factors.

In an earlier post you stated that it was not possible to tell what the impact was that Ryan and Bradford had on their teams because there were too many other things happening for those franchises. I agree. Can you explain why that would be any different for any other QB or franchise?

Apples: 10 per-cent on the average is a reasonable estimate of the importance to wins of the QB position

Oranges: QB Bradford made a difference of five games in his team’s season.

[sportjunkie07]

Which means that, all other things remaining exactly the same, the 2007 Patriots, who went 16-0 during the season, would have gone 13-3 if JaMarcus Russell had been their QB all season instead of Tom Brady.

Gotcha. :thumbsup:

thank you for explaining oldfan's point perfectly.

[ConnSKINS26]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree that a true Grade A QB only makes up 10% of a team's success.

I generally agree with your talent vs. Scheme outlook in regards to QB's, especially Brady.

But can I agree that Brees, Rivers, Peyton, and Warner only make up (or made up) ten percent of their team's success? No. And while you may argue that some (or all) of these are exceptions to the rule, I would argue that these are my standards for a Grade A QB. Flacco, Freeman, and the like may function and fit perfectly well as franchise QB's, but they aren't Grade A. At least, not yet.

So framed that way, i cant agree with your OP, though as I said, I do agree that there are many system QB's who reap the glory and the hype. I think that a true "Grade A" franchise QB has a much larger effect on their team's success than your average 10%.

[Oldfan]

SJ07 ~ 10% is way too low of an estimation. consider the fact that 100% of all offensive plays (since you are allowing a % for special teams) start at the qb; he has a direct affect on every play. he is worth much more than 10%. a qb even has a affect before the play with pre-snap reads and audibles.

Weak. YOU could be taught to hand the ball off on 40% of the plays. The QB only makes a difference on 60% on average.


bottom line, you cannot make an estimation for the level of importance for a qb. every scheme is different. every team relies on certain players more than others. the affect on each team would be different.

That’s why my estimate is the average value of the position based on a 60/40 pass/run ratio. Averages make those differences meaningless.


what is common sense though is that if you take manning off of the colts, they struggle, and by a lot more than 1 game. if you add manning to the bills, the bills would greatly improve. these things are obvious to nearly everyone except a crazy few that misguidingly attach a 10% number to all qb's.

So, your opinion is that I’m wrong, but you are out of arguments.

[sportjunkie07]

So, your opinion is that I’m wrong, but you are out of arguments.

common sense is a strong argument.

and we've had this discussion before in a similar thread. it boils down to common sense vs. trying to put a number on a qb's importance.

[Oldfan]

Califan ~ Likewise, a gawd-awful QB would effect the team in a negative way by no more than 10%--in this case, 10% more losses.

No, I anticipated that someone would try to play this game. Earlier, I explained that I only use four QB grades A, B, C, D -- A grade-D QB would be one who had proven he can start in the NFL, but he’s not as good as the A, B, C grade QBs. John Kitna was a grade-D guy.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 05:53 PM ----------


common sense is a strong argument.

and we've had this discussion before in a similar thread. it boils down to common sense vs. trying to put a number on a qb's importance.Common sense isn't common. You have just proved that.

[Califan007]

No, I anticipated that someone would try to play this game. Earlier, I explained that I only use four QB grades A, B, C, D -- A grade-D QB would be one who had proven he can start in the NFL, but he’s not as good as the A, B, C grade QBs. John Kitna was a grade-D guy.
Fine. If John Kitna is the starting QB for the Patriots all year in 2007, they go 13-3. Correct?

And for the record, who else is a "Grade D" quarterback?

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 02:56 PM ----------



Common sense isn't common. You have just proved that.

In other words, you are out of arguments.

[Oldfan]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree that a true Grade A QB only makes up 10% of a team's success.

I generally agree with your talent vs. Scheme outlook in regards to QB's, especially Brady.

But can I agree that Brees, Rivers, Peyton, and Warner only make up (or made up) ten percent of their team's success? No. And while you may argue that some (or all) of these are exceptions to the rule, I would argue that these are my standards for a Grade A QB. Flacco, Freeman, and the like may function and fit perfectly well as franchise QB's, but they aren't Grade A. At least, not yet.

So framed that way, i cant agree with your OP, though as I said, I do agree that there are many system QB's who reap the glory and the hype. I think that a true "Grade A" franchise QB has a much larger effect on their team's success than your average 10%.Well, you said you don't agree, but I didn't find a counter to the points I made or any specific challenge to my estimate.

If my estimate is seriously flawed someone should be able to do a comparable estimate showing a much larger number for the QB. So far, no one has.

[skinfan2k]

The quarterback is the only position to change a team's record from 3-13 to 9-7 in 1 year. 10% my ass lol. Also, Oldfan, QBs affect runnings plays. its just not simply handing off to the RB

[sportjunkie07]

[/COLOR]Common sense isn't common. You have just proved that.

Common sense, as described by Merriam-Webster, is defined as beliefs or propositions that most people consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people "in common"

myself, califan, skinfan2k, etc.. 90% of people in this thread agree, and they dont need statistics to prove it. thats common sense.

[Oldfan]

Fine. If John Kitna is the starting QB for the Patriots all year in 2007, they go 13-3. Correct? I'd say 14-2 in all probably. There isn't that much spread between A and D grades.


And for the record, who else is a "Grade D" quarterback?I gave you Kitna as an example. More would serve no purpose here.


In other words, you are out of arguments.Without Googling it, give me a definition for "argument" in the logical context. I ask because you didn't seem to know in this thread and another.:evilg:

[Loyal2Washington]

Yeah, because the reason the Pats struggled year one of the the rebuild was Drew Bledsoe, not the fact that Belichick completely purged the roster when he took over as the team was millions over the salary cap.
Tris you're smarter then that. You can throw out excuse after excuse the only real concrete evidence is this

Belichick before Brady- 41-56 with one playoff appearance in 5 seasons
Belichick after Brady- 121-38 with 8 playoff appearances, 4 SB appearances, and 3 SB wins

He was a well below avg. HC in the NFL before the Bledsoe injury. Now I'll give you Belichick is a great DC but coordinators don't always translate into great HC's.
Also the Pats were 8-8 the year before Belichick got there so it was hardly a Mike Shanahan-Redskin type of scenario, so the rebuild argument is kind of a stretch unless you think the Pats were rebuilding off an 8-8 season. Oh and Belichick did not have control of the roster so he purged nothing without Pioli and Kraft checking off on it. If you look at there roster of who Belichick already had it was hardly an empty roster, he walked into a team that already had Bledsoe, Bruschi, Chris Slade, Lawyer Malloy, Ted Johnson, Bruce Armstrong and Willie McGinest just to name a few and he still managed to take an 8-8 team with a solid nucleus and go 5-12 his first 17 games, including going 3-8 the last 11 of those 17 games.

Insert franchise HOF quarterback and presto instant dynasty.

[Califan007]

Well, you said you don't agree, but I didn't find a counter to the points I made or any specific challenge to my estimate.

If my estimate is seriously flawed someone should be able to do a comparable estimate showing a much larger number for the QB. So far, no one has.

What's there for us to counter? Where is your detailed explaination of why a QB will only play a 10% role in their team's success? It sure wasn't in the OP.

"The 10% value for the QB is the average value of the position based on a 60/40 pass to run ratio."

That is flawed right from the get-go, because it makes the assumption that the QB only has an effect on the 60% of the offense that is the passing game. It also ignores those QBs who are legitimate running threats.


"The value of the position can change somewhat with the scheme, but it does not change with the quality of the QB."

This makes zero sense. If the importance of the QB position is inflated by an offensive scheme, then the quality of the quarterback IN that system becomes even more important, and thus his value becomes even more inflated. A system that requires the QB to play a larger role in the offense than the average offense will, by default, make the quality OF that QB play a more valuable role in the team's fortunes.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 03:12 PM ----------


I'd say 14-2 in all probably. There isn't that much spread between A and D grades.
I think that tells everyone all they need to know.


I gave you Kitna as an example. More would serve no purpose here.
How about leaving that decision up to me, eh sport? lol ;)

Who are the other "Grade D" quarterbacks in your opinion? We can't test your hypothesis unless you give us data we can plug into the equation. So give us some in the form of "Grade D" quarterbacks.



Without Googling it, give me a definition for "argument" in the logical context. I ask because you didn't seem to know in this thread and another.:evilg:

Going by your definition earlier, NOT having an argument is when someone doesn't say anything concrete or factual to refute your point. ;)

[Oldfan]

Common sense, as described by Merriam-Webster, is defined as beliefs or propositions that most people consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people "in common"

myself, califan, skinfan2k, etc.. 90% of people in this thread agree, and they dont need statistics to prove it. thats common sense.I see your problem. You think that the dictionary's description of "propositions that most people consider prudent and of sound judgment" applies to opinions on such thing as quarterbacks. It does not. The applicable term that applies to such opinions:


The Bandwagon Fallacy is committed whenever one argues for an idea based upon an irrelevant appeal to its popularity.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 06:33 PM ----------


Califan007 ~ What's there for us to counter? Where is your detailed explaination of why a QB will only play a 10% role in their team's success? It sure wasn't in the OP.

I’ve explained four-five times how a challenger can prove my estimate bogus. Read the thread.


That is flawed right from the get-go, because it makes the assumption that the QB only has an effect on the 60% of the offense that is the passing game. It also ignores those QBs who are legitimate running threats.

The 10% is an average. Averages take differences into account.


This makes zero sense. If the importance of the QB position is inflated by an offensive scheme, then the quality of the quarterback IN that system becomes even more important..

I don’t have the patience to explain this again. Read the thread.


I think that tells everyone all they need to know.

You mean "everyone" on your bandwagon?


Going by your definition earlier, it's when someone doesn't say anything concrete or factual to refute your point.

How about when you want to know whether it’s an argument or not, you ask me?:ols:

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 06:35 PM ----------


The quarterback is the only position to change a team's record from 3-13 to 9-7 in 1 year.There is no way to tell how much of a factor the QB change influenced such a disparity. Lots of factors were in play.

[Hitman21ST]

If my estimate is seriously flawed someone should be able to do a comparable estimate showing a much larger number for the QB. So far, no one has.

I actually did. I compared the Zorn roster with Campbell vs. the Zorn roster with an "A" QB, and then a much more complete roster with the same two QBs.

I gave you numbers. First year estimate on the complete roster for Campbell would yield 6-7 wins, and first year estimate on the complete roster for "A" QB would yield 9-10 wins. Conservative estimate that's a two game improvement, at the high end that would be a 4 game improvement. Considering we agreed that Campbell is a "C" QB, the range of improvement for an "A" QB is 28.5% - 66% (7 wins up to 9 wins or 6 wins up to 10). Considering that you and I had a civil discussion on this and we came to an agreement on it, I would say we've come up with a much larger number

[Oldfan]

I... Considering that you and I had a civil discussion on this and we came to an agreement on it, I would say we've come up with a much larger numberYou can say it, but it's not true.

[gutlead74]

Well the equation the op invented supported his argument completely so he must be right.

I think we will win the super bowl in 11 because
Monkey farts= 20%
leprechaun condoms = 30%
and panda dung = 50%
That clearly equals 100% so skins win in 11!!

[Califan007]

I’ve explained four-five times how a challenger can prove my estimate bogus. Read the thread.
How about you first prove your estimate accurate? lol...How exactly did you come up with the QB having no more than a 10% effect on the team's success or failure? Once you do that, we will all gladly give you multiple valid reasons why your explanation is flawed.

Are you able to do that? Have you done it already? (I mean beyond the "QBs only have a 10% effect on the team's success because I say so" argument, that is)...If you have, just point me to the appropriate post.

And interestingly enough, you decided to just skip over my other request for a list of "Grade D" quarterbacks so that we may more thoroughly test your hypothesis and understand your "logic" (such as it is)...

For someone who seems so sure of their opinion, this should be a piece o' cake to do. :thumbsup:...and you should be EAGER to do so, what with your methodology being as infallible as it is and all.

[PokerPacker]

percentages don't work for this, I don't think. there are too many intertwining parts. for example, if you have a great runningback but no offensive line, the runningback will be ineffective. If you have a highly accurate QB behind that awful line, he'll be pummeled to the ground and won't have a chance to show off that accuracy. I think it would take a lot of thought to come up with a reliable system of how important the parts are.

On the other hand, if you have a great O-line and a great QB, and great WRs, the importance of the runningback diminishes. A poor runningback will affect the team, but after, say "good", you're dealing with diminishing returns, so perhaps his value would be measured as an inverted negative exponential function plus a constant where as t goes to infinity it approaches said constant which would be his maximum individual value. You'd have another similar function for the o-line. But then the change-up would be a function factoring in both the O-line and the runningback because the two of them are greater than the sum of their parts.

so for example, you'd have V = x(-e^-t) + c : where V = value, e = euler's number, t = talent, and c = the constant we decide is the greatest value of the individual position of runningback, x = the rate of growth in value (that would be a constant like c that we decide would determine how the law of diminishing returns affects the position). And to see one that takes two positions into account, youd have V = x(-e^-(t1*t2)) + c : where t1 is the talent of position 1 and t2 is the value of position two. So get the total value of the runningback taking his individual value into consideration and the talent of the O-line in front of him, it'd be V = x1(-e^-t1) + x2(-e^-(t1*t2)) + c1 + c2

any math geeks out there want to help turn this value system into a reality?
also, I'm considering the possibility of it being a logarithmic function of sorts, too, but I'm not sure how I'd make that one work.

[Laxpunk2006]

It amazes me that anyone still attempts to have logical, intelligent discussions with Oldfan.

[Califan007]

By the way, a HUGE reason why using percentages the way OF has done here is flawed is because of teams like the Colts.

Simple math shows why this is:

The percentages are supposed to show how much having a "Grade A" person at each position will increase the team's wins...


Me: "A 10% improvement of what, exactly?"

OF: "A ten-per cent improvement in wins. A legit eight-win team would have a win pct of .500. A 10% improvement would raise it to .550 or 8.8 wins. With the luck factors canceling out, that’s probably 9 wins."

The argument, based on the "logic" in the OP and what Oldfan said later in the thread, clearly states that even having a top of the line "Grade A" quarterback will give you AT MOST 10% more wins.

So let's take that logic to all facets of the team, using OF's own percentages, and apply them to the 3-13 Colts:

20% -- Coaching (0.6 more wins)
10% -- Special Teams (0.3 more wins)
35% -- Defense (1 more win)
35% -- Offense (1 more win)

A 3-13 team, having all starters suddenly playing at a "Grade A" level the next season, should only produce 3 more wins. That's it.

If the entire roster of starters were playing at a "Grade D" level when the team went 3-13, then at MOST the team would improve to is 9-7 (a 200% swing, from Grade D to Grade A performances all around).

Yet the Colts went from 3-13 to 13-3...they gained 10 more wins...which means they inproved their wins by over 330%.

But that can't be...because OF's hypothesis does NOT allow for any player or coach to be responsible for more than their allotted percentage of extra wins.

They only added in 6 new starters from their 3-13 season to their 13-3 season. A 330% improvement in wins would require a complete overhaul of all three units, along with a new head coach...not just 6 new players. And even THEN it would only result in 6 more wins, not 10.

Or maybe the entire team was full of "Grade F" players who magically became "Grade A" players in one offseason lol...yeah, that makes sense...the entire team--including the head coach--all improved astronomically in 9 months. Makes FAR more sense than saying the percentage model in the OP is flawed.

But what about the other 4 wins? Where did they come from?...Maybe "luck" gave them 4 extra wins. No, can't be that, because he said "luck factors" cancel themselves out and play no real role in a team's improvement.

Hmmm...those extra wins are damn near impossible to explain.

Or maybe, just maybe, Oldfan got his logic backwards. Maybe its not that a "Grade A" quarterback will only give a team 10% more wins...maybe it's that, of the extra wins a team does gain in one season, the "Grade A" QB was responsible for 10% of that additional win total. Wouldn't that make more sense?

Of course it would :ols:...and if OF was more intent on finding an accurate measure of a "Grade A" quarterback's effect on a team than merely defending his belief that he already HAS found that measure, he would have seen the error of his logic earlier.

[MartinC]

As for Ryan and Bradford, there's no way to tell how much of a factor they were because there were a number of other changes within the organization at the same time.



There is no way to tell how much of a factor the QB change influenced such a disparity. Lots of factors were in play.

My point in this thread has been that it's not possible through the isolation of the position percentages you provide (which I have no problem with) to calculate the difference a grade A QB makes. There are too many other factors and it's not possible to isolate cause/effect.

The two statements from you above from your own mouth confirm you agree.

You seem to keep dragging any dispute back to "show me why my stats are wrong". It's not that the stats you provide are wrong but that you are trying to use them to show something they can't.

Good chatting but thats me out of this discussion. I think we have taken it as far as we can.

[MartinC]

so for example, you'd have V = x(-e^-t) + c : where V = value, e = euler's number, t = talent, and c = the constant we decide is the greatest value of the individual position of runningback, x = the rate of growth in value (that would be a constant like c that we decide would determine how the law of diminishing returns affects the position). And to see one that takes two positions into account, youd have V = x(-e^-(t1*t2)) + c : where t1 is the talent of position 1 and t2 is the value of position two. So get the total value of the runningback taking his individual value into consideration and the talent of the O-line in front of him, it'd be V = x1(-e^-t1) + x2(-e^-(t1*t2)) + c1 + c2

See this is exactly what I have been saying. Well sort of. :silly:

[Oldfan]

How about you first prove your estimate accurate? lol...How exactly did you come up with the QB having no more than a 10% effect on the team's success or failure? Once you do that, we will all gladly give you multiple valid reasons why your explanation is flawed.

Are you able to do that? Have you done it already? (I mean beyond the "QBs only have a 10% effect on the team's success because I say so" argument, that is)...If you have, just point me to the appropriate post.

And interestingly enough, you decided to just skip over my other request for a list of "Grade D" quarterbacks so that we may more thoroughly test your hypothesis and understand your "logic" (such as it is)...

For someone who seems so sure of their opinion, this should be a piece o' cake to do. :thumbsup:...and you should be EAGER to do so, what with your methodology being as infallible as it is and all.You’re making a dumb request. If I had offered a logical argument, would you ask me to prove that it’s logical?

I gave you what I’m calling a reasonable estimate and I explained my method. It’s not up to me to prove that it’s reasonable. If you think it isn’t, proving it should be a snap if you can handle seventh grade math.
Use the 3 - 3 - 1 ratio for offense, defense, special teams. Use the 60/40 pass/run ratio. Have your estimate total 100%... and see if you can come up with a much higher estimate for the QB without reducing the other positions to unreasonable levels.

In the two threads where I’ve used this estimate, I’ve had 20 -25 posters call my numbers “arbitrary,” but only one made a sincere effort to post his own. Before I could get to it, another poster showed that, when adjusted to the same basis as mine, the challenger had come up with 9% for the QB.

And no, I’m not going off-topic to give you a list of grade D QBs.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 07:04 AM ----------


percentages don't work for this, I don't think. there are too many intertwining parts. for example, if you have a great runningback but no offensive line, the runningback will be ineffective. If you have a highly accurate QB behind that awful line, he'll be pummeled to the ground and won't have a chance to show off that accuracy. I think it would take a lot of thought to come up with a reliable system of how important the parts are.

On the other hand, if you have a great O-line and a great QB, and great WRs, the importance of the runningback diminishes. A poor runningback will affect the team, but after, say "good", you're dealing with diminishing returns, so perhaps his value would be measured as an inverted negative exponential function plus a constant where as t goes to infinity it approaches said constant which would be his maximum individual value. You'd have another similar function for the o-line. But then the change-up would be a function factoring in both the O-line and the runningback because the two of them are greater than the sum of their parts.

so for example, you'd have V = x(-e^-t) + c : where V = value, e = euler's number, t = talent, and c = the constant we decide is the greatest value of the individual position of runningback, x = the rate of growth in value (that would be a constant like c that we decide would determine how the law of diminishing returns affects the position). And to see one that takes two positions into account, youd have V = x(-e^-(t1*t2)) + c : where t1 is the talent of position 1 and t2 is the value of position two. So get the total value of the runningback taking his individual value into consideration and the talent of the O-line in front of him, it'd be V = x1(-e^-t1) + x2(-e^-(t1*t2)) + c1 + c2

any math geeks out there want to help turn this value system into a reality?
also, I'm considering the possibility of it being a logarithmic function of sorts, too, but I'm not sure how I'd make that one work.You are trying to go beyond the purpose of my estimate. I am not trying to come up with a formula to weigh the efficiency of a football team. My estimate is of the relative importance positions have to wins. It estimates just one number useful in trying to weigh the efficiency of a team.

The quality of the running back, the quality of the O-line, and the quality of the QB -- these factors that concern you -- have no bearing on the average importance of those positions. In other words, if y represents the quality-value of Tom Brady, then maybe .10y could become part of a grid analysis to weigh Tom Brady’s contribution to his team’s final grade.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 07:47 AM ----------


By the way, a HUGE reason why using percentages the way OF has done here is flawed is because of teams like the Colts.

Simple math shows why this is:

The percentages are supposed to show how much having a "Grade A" person at each position will increase the team's wins...



The argument, based on the "logic" in the OP and what Oldfan said later in the thread, clearly states that even having a top of the line "Grade A" quarterback will give you AT MOST 10% more wins.

So let's take that logic to all facets of the team, using OF's own percentages, and apply them to the 3-13 Colts:

20% -- Coaching (0.6 more wins)
10% -- Special Teams (0.3 more wins)
35% -- Defense (1 more win)
35% -- Offense (1 more win)

A 3-13 team, having all starters suddenly playing at a "Grade A" level the next season, should only produce 3 more wins. That's it.

If the entire roster of starters were playing at a "Grade D" level when the team went 3-13, then at MOST the team would improve to is 9-7 (a 200% swing, from Grade D to Grade A performances all around).

Yet the Colts went from 3-13 to 13-3...they gained 10 more wins...which means they inproved their wins by over 330%.

But that can't be...because OF's hypothesis does NOT allow for any player or coach to be responsible for more than their allotted percentage of extra wins.

They only added in 6 new starters from their 3-13 season to their 13-3 season. A 330% improvement in wins would require a complete overhaul of all three units, along with a new head coach...not just 6 new players. And even THEN it would only result in 6 more wins, not 10.

Or maybe the entire team was full of "Grade F" players who magically became "Grade A" players in one offseason lol...yeah, that makes sense...the entire team--including the head coach--all improved astronomically in 9 months. Makes FAR more sense than saying the percentage model in the OP is flawed.

But what about the other 4 wins? Where did they come from?...Maybe "luck" gave them 4 extra wins. No, can't be that, because he said "luck factors" cancel themselves out and play no real role in a team's improvement.

Hmmm...those extra wins are damn near impossible to explain.

Or maybe, just maybe, Oldfan got his logic backwards. Maybe its not that a "Grade A" quarterback will only give a team 10% more wins...maybe it's that, of the extra wins a team does gain in one season, the "Grade A" QB was responsible for 10% of that additional win total. Wouldn't that make more sense?

Of course it would :ols:...and if OF was more intent on finding an accurate measure of a "Grade A" quarterback's effect on a team than merely defending his belief that he already HAS found that measure, he would have seen the error of his logic earlier.Cali, you can cherry-pick an exception but it won’t disprove a general rule. And, you can cherry-pick an exceptional jump from 3-13 to 13-3 but it won’t disprove an estimate based on Probability.

Did the Colts actually improve by ten games in one year? Surely they didn’t, because they were back to six wins two years later. They didn’t get back to the 13 game level for six years. The 3-13 to 13-3 was an anomaly. Some improvement is likely, but there was most likely a combination of bad luck in the 3-13 season and good luck in the 13-3 season added in.

[Shkspr]

A team with a true talent level of a .500 will win 10+ games (and be a good candidate to make the playoffs) about 20% of the time. A team with a true talent level of .600 will win 10+ games 52% of the time. That's standard, easy to figure binomial distribution. So an improvement of 10% in the real talent level of a team makes a team two and a half times as likely to be a playoff team.

By the same token, a jump in the true talent level of a team from .450 to .550 changes the chances of a team winning 10+ games from 10% to 36%. So if we lucked into a grade A quarterback? We'd be twice as good to three times as good, if you assume "playoff caliber" is good.

FWIW, if you assume the 2007 Patriots chance of going 16 and 0 during the season was as likely as hitting a 20-1 shot, then you're arguing that they had a true talent level of 13-3. A 13-3 team has just as much chance of going 10-6 as it does 16-0.

[stevemcqueen1]

Lucking into a grade a QB how? With a guy already on the roster? Or getting a guy in FA in his prime like Drew Brees?

Getting a grade A QB would change everything about our team building process from here on out. You can stop searching for one in the draft when that happens. Your window officially begins and you start shifting your entire focus towards supporting that QB and filling out the roster with auxiliary pieces.

It doesn't mean we'd necessarily win more games in year one. It means we'll have a realistic chance to win a Superbowl eventually during his window of effectiveness.

[Oldfan]

A team with a true talent level of a .500 will win 10+ games (and be a good candidate to make the playoffs) about 20% of the time. A team with a true talent level of .600 will win 10+ games 52% of the time. That's standard, easy to figure binomial distribution. So an improvement of 10% in the real talent level of a team makes a team two and a half times as likely to be a playoff team.

By the same token, a jump in the true talent level of a team from .450 to .550 changes the chances of a team winning 10+ games from 10% to 36%. So if we lucked into a grade A quarterback? We'd be twice as good to three times as good, if you assume "playoff caliber" is good.

FWIW, if you assume the 2007 Patriots chance of going 16 and 0 during the season was as likely as hitting a 20-1 shot, then you're arguing that they had a true talent level of 13-3. A 13-3 team has just as much chance of going 10-6 as it does 16-0.
Here, I began by assuming that we were a true six-win team quarterbacked at C minus level. Since our quarterbacking wasn’t bottom-grade, the full 10% improvement isn’t in play. So, I ballpark-estimated a one-win improvement (.375 to .438) if we lucked into a grade-A quarterback. So, let’s assume we would become truly a seven-win team with a grade-A quarterback. What are the chances of winning 10+ games and making the playoffs? Would you mind figuring that out for us?

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 09:51 AM ----------


Lucking into a grade a QB how? With a guy already on the roster? Or getting a guy in FA in his prime like Drew Brees?

Getting a grade A QB would change everything about our team building process from here on out. You can stop searching for one in the draft when that happens. Your window officially begins and you start shifting your entire focus towards supporting that QB and filling out the roster with auxiliary pieces.

It doesn't mean we'd necessarily win more games in year one. It means we'll have a realistic chance to win a Superbowl eventually during his window of effectiveness.You are going beyond the scope of our topic. We aren’t trying to speculate on how we might find a grade-A guy, or how the acquistion might alter our plans.

Everyone agrees that the QB plays the most important position on the field, but there’s a wide difference of opinion on just how important he is. When I estimate that he’s a 10% factor, they don’t realize that it’s a very big number for one position. Some think that Brady or Manning are worth four or five wins to their teams.

[skinsdude]

It amazes me that anyone still attempts to have logical, intelligent discussions with Oldfan.

I think that Oldfan just likes to initiate discussion on various topics. It gets different points of view out in the open.

[Oldfan]

It amazes me that anyone still attempts to have logical, intelligent discussions with Oldfan.Have you considered the possibility that those people are smarter than you are?

[Mahons21]

I think that Oldfan just likes to initiate discussion on various topics. It gets different points of view out in the open.

+1, and I'm glad he does it, he's great at keeping a lively discussion going on the board when all else seems dead.

[Enzo]

A smart average (C+ to C-) QB behind a great O-line & with good receivers is better that B to A+ QB behind an O-line that stinks. The Redskins in reality never had a great QB during their Super Bowl years of the 1980s to early 1990s but they had great O-lines, great Receivers, & a power running game.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'll issue the same challenge to you as the others who made this claim. You could easily prove my estimate is garbage by using the same method and coming up with a much bigger number for the QB while keeping the other numbers realistic. So far, no one has answered the bell.

I'm not going to make up numbers on my own to counter the made-up numbers that you made up.

There is no way to quantify this stuff.

[Oldfan]

I'm not going to make up numbers on my own to counter the made-up numbers that you made up.

There is no way to quantify this stuff.That's a cop out.

Use the same structure, start with a significantly higher number for the QB and try to keep the other numbers in the realm of reason.

If you can do it, you prove me wrong.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think that Oldfan just likes to initiate discussion on various topics. It gets different points of view out in the open.

He has really interesting ideas. He is just really bad at math.

Who is the dude that came up with methodology for measuring QB success rate in the NFL? I liked talking with him more because there was some kind of actual methodolgy behind his madness. It may have been wrong; in fact, he admitted that it was likely wrong. But it was a place to discuss things.

OF comes up with "QBs are not as important as systems." That is an interesting argument. And then he comes up with a half-assed methodolgy that he never tweaks.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 10:00 AM ----------


That's a cop out.

Use the same structure, start with a significantly higher number for the QB and try to keep the other numbers in the realm of reason.

If you can do it, you prove me wrong.

Okay. QBs are 90 percent responsible for wins. Kickers are 5 percent. Home field advantage is 5 percent. Nothing else matters.

Beat that, mother ****er.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 10:04 AM ----------


A smart average (C+ to C-) QB behind a great O-line & with good receivers is better that B to A+ QB behind an O-line that stinks. The Redskins in reality never had a great QB during their Super Bowl years of the 1980s to early 1990s but they had great O-lines, great Receivers, & a power running game.

And they are pretty much the only team to use that formula successfully?

It's entirely possible that Redskins' fans are really bad at figuring out the values of QBs, because what Gibbs did is the equivalent of discovering fusion. No other team has come close to replicating the "Eh...throw anyone behind center and it will all work itself out" approach.

The only formula that really seems consistent is that you can win with an all-world defense and average QB. But even that seems to have worked only three times in 45 attempts.

Giants with Hostetler
Ravens with Dilfer
Bucs with Johnson (who I actually think is much better than the other two)

[SwampEm]

Name a QB who was passing leader, and super bowl champion in the same year and I will agree with this thread.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 11:09 AM ----------

Actually a good percentage of Passing Leaders do not even make the playoffs.

Year Team pyd Player
2010 SDG 4710 Philip Rivers No postseason
2009 HOU 4770 Matt Schaub No postseason
2008 NOR 5069 Drew Brees No postseason
2007 NWE 4806 Tom Brady L - Super Bowl
2006 NOR 4418 Drew Brees L - Conference
2005 NWE 4110 Tom Brady L - Division
2004 MIN 4717 Daunte Culpepper L - Division
2003 IND 4267 Peyton Manning L - Conference
2002 OAK 4689 Rich Gannon L - Super Bowl
2001 STL 4830 Kurt Warner L - Super Bowl
2000 IND 4413 Peyton Manning L - Wildcard
1999 CAR 4436 Steve Beuerlein No postseason
1998 GNB 4212 Brett Favre L - Wildcard
1997 OAK 3917 Jeff George No postseason
1996 JAX 4367 Mark Brunell L - Conference
1995 GNB 4413 Brett Favre L - Conference
1994 NWE 4555 Drew Bledsoe L - Wildcard
1993 DEN 4030 John Elway L - Wildcard
1992 MIA 4116 Dan Marino L - Conference
1991 HOU 4690 Warren Moon L - Division
1990 HOU 4689 Warren Moon L - Wildcard
1989 GNB 4318 Don Majkowski No postseason
1988 MIA 4434 Dan Marino No postseason
1987 STL 3387 Neil Lomax No postseason
1986 MIA 4746 Dan Marino No postseason
1985 MIA 4137 Dan Marino L - Conference
1984 MIA 5084 Dan Marino L - Super Bowl
1983 GNB 4458 Lynn Dickey No postseason
1982 SDG 2883 Dan Fouts L - Division
1981 SDG 4802 Dan Fouts L - Conference
1980 SDG 4715 Dan Fouts L - Conference
1979 SDG 4082 Dan Fouts L - Division
1978 MIN 3468 Fran Tarkenton L - Division
1977 BUF 2803 Joe Ferguson No postseason
1976 BAL 3104 Bert Jones L - Division
1975 CIN 3169 Ken Anderson L - Division
1974 CIN 2667 Ken Anderson No postseason
1973 PHI 3219 Roman Gabriel No postseason
1972 NYJ 2816 Joe Namath No postseason
1971 SDG 3075 John Hadl No postseason
1970 SFO 2941 John Brodie L - Conference
1969 OAK 3302 Daryle Lamonica L - Conference
1969 WAS 3102 Sonny Jurgensen No postseason
1968 SDG 3473 John Hadl No postseason
1968 SFO 3020 John Brodie No postseason
1967 NYJ 4007 Joe Namath No postseason
1967 WAS 3747 Sonny Jurgensen No postseason
1966 NYJ 3379 Joe Namath No postseason
1966 WAS 3379 Sonny Jurgensen No postseason

[Oldfan]

LKB ~ OF comes up with "QBs are not as important as systems." That is an interesting argument.

That’s not one of mine.


And then he comes up with a half-assed methodolgy that he never tweaks.

Why tweak it? It’s fine as it is.


Okay. QBs are 90 percent responsible for wins. Kickers are 5 percent. Home field advantage is 5 percent. Nothing else matters.

If my estimate is crap, it should be easy for you to prove it. It would only take ten minutes. I’d bet you have tried and failed.


The only formula that really seems consistent is that you can win with an all-world defense and average QB. But even that seems to have worked only three times in 45 attempts.

Since you assume that any QB whose team wins a Super Bowl must be a super QB, the surprising thing about your statement is that you found three exceptions.

[Califan007]

Name a QB who was passing leader, and super bowl champion in the same year and I will agree with this thread.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 11:09 AM ----------

Actually a good percentage of Passing Leaders do not even make the playoffs.

If you base "passing leader" only on yards, sure.

If you base "passing leader" on QB rating, then Drew Brees did it in 2009...(lead the league in highest passer rating and won the SB)

Besides, what's the importance of a QB being a passing leader and winning the SB in the same year?

More telling would be how many QBs who have lead the league in passing have also won a SB? Lining both up in the same year is irrelevant.

More telling would be how many QBs who have won a SB were also a top 5 QB in the league that year? Because most years the top 5 QBs aren't separated by some significant amount in terms of rating, yards, Tds, etc, etc...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If my estimate is crap, it should be easy for you to prove it. It would only take ten minutes. I’d bet you have tried and failed.


Your estimate is made up.

It's like me saying winning basketball is 18 pecent shooting guards, 20 percent center, 14 pecent shoe contracts, 10 percent coaching, and paternity suits make up the difference. How do I counter made up numbers?

If it is so easy, counter your own argument.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

It's like me saying winning basketball is 18 pecent shooting guards, 20 percent center, 14 pecent shoe contracts, 10 percent coaching, and paternity suits make up the difference. How do I counter made up numbers?




That made me lol.

Love this topic. Now if i can just get some free time at work to read the whole thing id love to comment on it.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

Swampem, just looking at 2010-2000 on your list. 70% of them made the playoffs and 30% made it to the superbow.

[Dro89]

If we lucked into a grade-A quarterback, how much difference would it make?


http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2456/iseewhatyoudidtherew.png


i see wut you did thur

[SwampEm]

Swampem, just looking at 2010-2000 on your list. 70% of them made the playoffs and 30% made it to the superbowl.

0% in the last three years though. What I am getting at is that the QB does not make the entire team. There are other ways to win it.
The same sort of stat holds true for the NBA. No regular season scoring leader has won the NBA championship in the same year since Shaq did it in 1999-2000. Of course every team would take Kevin Durant, etc etc, however it doesn't guarantee you a winner.

[Califan007]

You’re making a dumb request. If I had offered a logical argument, would you ask me to prove that it’s logical?
I love that you said "IF" you had offered a logical argument lol :ols:...At least you're admitting that your argument is not logical. ;)



I gave you what I’m calling a reasonable estimate and I explained my method.
What makes it reasonable besides the fact that YOU think it's reasonable?

And your "method" isn't explained...what you did was take your estimates and treat them as fact and then draw conclusions from them. You have yet to explain why a QB will ONLY be responsible for 10% of a team's success. Again, if you had, you would have re-quoted it as a response, if for no other reason than to prove me wrong beyond measure. Instead, you've only said it's not your responsibility TO explain it lol.



It’s not up to me to prove that it’s reasonable.
:rotflmao:...No, it's not up to the person presenting an argument to prove that the argument is a reasonable one lol ;)...



If you think it isn’t, proving it should be a snap if you can handle seventh grade math.
I've done so...twice, I might add lol :yes:...



Use the 3 - 3 - 1 ratio for offense, defense, special teams.
Why? If it's flawed, why use it?



Have your estimate total 100%...
And there's where you screw up.

Your flawed logic insists that the percentages equal 100, when there's zero reason it needs to be. Well, unless you're working backwards and are starting off from a position that says there's no way of telling how many extra wins a team will have from one season to the next.

We KNOW AS FACT that teams often have more than 100% win improvement. We KNOW AS FACT that teams often have more than 200% win improvement. We KNOW AS FACT that teams have even had more than 300% win improvement. So "have your estimate total 100" is flawed logic at its core.



and see if you can come up with a much higher estimate for the QB without reducing the other positions to unreasonable levels.
That's the thing: you don't HAVE to reduce the other positions at all if you don't stick to the "must equal 100%" mantra...put another way, let's say this:

A Grade-A quarterback can add 50% more wins...a Grade-A coach can add 30% more wins...a Grade-A defense can add 40% more wins...

But wait, Califan...that's 120%!! That doesn't make any sense!!

Yes, it does. What it means is that the "Grade-A" QB/coach/defense can add "x" percentage more wins to a team. So that means adding a Grade-A QB to a team that, say, goes 6-10 can add roughly 3 more wins...if they ALSO have a Grade-A coach that could add as much as another 1-2 wins...if they ALSO add a Grade-A defense, that can add another 2 wins...

So having a Grade-A QB, a Grade-A coach and a Grade-A defense to that 6-10 team could increase that team's win total by as much as 7 games. And breaking out the calculator since I barely know 7th grade math ;)...that is a win increase of: 117%!! Almost matches up perfectly to my logic.

But as has been said by too many people in too many posts, there is no base percentage that can be assigned to positions. I'll write that again just to get the point across once more...

There is no base percentage that can be assigned to positions in terms of increased wins.

What you keep saying is that if you flap your arms really fast, you can fly. What we keep saying is that flapping your arms real fast will not make you able to fly, that there's more to it than that. What you keep saying is to prove it by jumping off a cliff and showing it won't work. What we keep saying in return is jump off the cliff yourself and prove that it will. When someone actually does so and falls instead of flying, you claim they didn't flap their arms right and that you still haven't been proven wrong lol.

I think I can speak for most on this thread and say that what "percentage" a Grade-A quarterback played in any given team's win improvement during any given year will vary so wildly that it's asinine to try and affix a standard percentage value that applies across the board.


And no, I’m not going off-topic to give you a list of grade D QBs.
Translation: "If I give you a list of Grade D QBs it will most likely show how flawed my argument is, so I'm gonna leave that aspect vague so that I can continue arguing my flawed stance."

Here's a hint for anyone else thinking there's some validity to OF's assertions: when someone postulates a theory but refuses to give you data to test the theory with, that usually means they know it won't hold up. It also means that he himself didn't accurately enough test his theory, which was obvious anyway lol...my guess is that the Grades A-D will be as arbitrarily assigned as the percentages were.




Cali, you can cherry-pick an exception but it won’t disprove a general rule. And, you can cherry-pick an exceptional jump from 3-13 to 13-3 but it won’t disprove an estimate based on Probability.
Can you explain what makes it an exception? I'm betting you can't, and won't.

Your model was flawed from the get-go.



Did the Colts actually improve by ten games in one year? Surely they didn’t, because they were back to six wins two years later.
Omg lol!! :ols: :ols:...

You do realize, of course, that you still need to explain where those wins came from if the team was not "really" 13-3 that year. You already said luck plays no part in the equation. So what could have possibly made the team improve their win total that much?



They didn’t get back to the 13 game level for six years.
They don't need to "get back to the 13 game level"...Your equation was NOT about consistency...it was to explain the increased number of wins any given team could expect by having a Grade-A performance at QB in any given year.

If you want some consistency, though, let's use the 1998 Rams :thumbsup:...

1998 Rams: 4-12
1999 Rams: 13-3
2000 Rams: 10-6
2001 Rams: 14-2




The 3-13 to 13-3 was an anomaly. Some improvement is likely, but there was most likely a combination of bad luck in the 3-13 season and good luck in the 13-3 season added in.

Did you already forget that you said luck plays no role? Hell, I even quoted you saying so in the post you're responding to :ols:...

You: "A 10% improvement would raise it to .550 or 8.8 wins. With the luck factors canceling out, that’s probably 9 wins."

Of course you contradicted that aspect later:

You: "Moreover, the scores of the games that might swing would simply be a matter of luck."

Either "luck factors" cancel out, or they do not. You don't get to pick and choose when they serve your purpose.

[Hitman21ST]

You can say it, but it's not true.

But when you say it, it is?

[Califan007]

+1, and I'm glad he does it, he's great at keeping a lively discussion going on the board when all else seems dead.
-1 lol...I don't think he does it to initiate lively debate...I think he does it to stir the pot by picking a viewpoint that he knows ahead of time people will not agree with, presenting the viewpoint couched in numbers and percentages that don't really apply and can't be proven either way...then spends 95% of his posts telling people to "prove me wrong" and then skipping over viewpoints that do just that and focusing on posts that allow him to continue defending his original thought process.

[Hitman21ST]

Either "luck factors" cancel out, or they do not. You don't get to pick and choose when they serve your purpose.

No no no Cali, you have to multiply that by .92 to have the luck cancel out, don't you know?

[skinsdude]

It appears as though the consensus feels that it is impossible to determine the affect that a franchise quarterback will have on a team based on grades and percentages.

I have never quoted myself before but it seems as though it still applies. :ols:

[Califan007]

No no no Cali, you have to multiply that by .92 to have the luck cancel out, don't you know?

D'oh! :doh:...I forgot to carry the 2, didn't I?

[pjfootballer]

0% in the last three years though. What I am getting at is that the QB does not make the entire team. There are other ways to win it.
The same sort of stat holds true for the NBA. No regular season scoring leader has won the NBA championship in the same year since Shaq did it in 1999-2000. Of course every team would take Kevin Durant, etc etc, however it doesn't guarantee you a winner.

No one is saying that. They're trying to come up with a percentage of the QB's worth to equate to more wins.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 12:42 PM ----------


IEither "luck factors" cancel out, or they do not. You don't get to pick and choose when they serve your purpose.

Didn't want to quote the whole thing, but Great Post!!

[Hitman21ST]

If Luck is cancelled out by a factor of .92, does that mean OF thinks that if we draft Andrew Luck, Haynesworth will injure him?

[SwampEm]

No one is saying that. They're trying to come up with a percentage of the QB's worth to equate to more wins.

It depends on the team. Would you say that the cast of QB's on the 2000 Ravens contributed as much as Kurt Warner did on his Super Bowl winning Rams team?

[Mad Mike]

Using 100% to represent the total importance of all factors in winning NFL football games, it is possible to make an estimate and take some of the vagueness out of our football discussions.

20% -- Coaching
10% -- Special Teams
35% -- Defense
35% -- Offense

15% -- total running game
....8% -- RB
....7% -- Blockers

20% --Passing Game
....5% -- Protectors
....5% -- Receivers
....10% -- QB

Offense, defense, and special teams are weighed on a 3-3-1 ratio based on data source: footballoutsiders.com.

The 10% value for the QB is the average value of the position based on a 60/40 pass to run ratio. The value of the position can change somewhat with the scheme, but it does not change with the quality of the QB. In other words, the weight of the position and the grade of the QB are two distinct measurements.

The most important individual is the head coach, but he cannot be graded on wins and losses unless he has full control of his football team since the quality of his roster is an 80% factor in wins.

The second most important individual is the quarterback. When GM Mickey Loomis hired Sean Payton to coach and signed Drew Brees to play QB, he upgraded the two most important individual positions (30% estimated combined weight).

When Pittsburgh added Roethlesberger, he moved the team from a .550 win average to .600 -- almost a one-win improvement. At that level, the one win is the difference between a good team and one of championship caliber. However, the addition of a high-grade QB alone will not move a six-win team to championship level.

I have Jason Campbell graded as a C minus QB coming out from under center. I think he could have been upgraded to a B or B minus by putting him in a shotgun-based offense. Peyton is in the gun on 75% of his attempts; Brady on 65%. Instead, Mike traded for McNabb who gave us C minus quarterbacking because he doesn’t fit anybody’s scheme except the one Andy Reid built for him in Philly. Donovan was not an improvement at the QB position over Campbell.

So, to finally answer the question posed in the thread title... If we lucked into a grade-A QB, we would be upgraded from a C minus to an A at the position. That’s, at most, a one game upgrade. If we’re truly a six-win team, it would get us to seven.

This may be one of the silliest posts ever to hit this board. QB is 10% of the winning equation? Really?

You should just stop talking now. :doh:

[pjfootballer]

It depends on the team. Would you say that the cast of QB's on the 2000 Ravens contributed as much as Kurt Warner did on his Super Bowl winning Rams team?

I'm not getting sucked into this argument. I've read the thread and everyone has their viewpoints. I was just telling you what they were trying to come up with and not my point of view. I'm not sure anyone was really equating a QBs worth to a SB. You may want to re-read the original OP. (which is righ above me).

[Oldfan]

Califan ~ I love that you said "IF" you had offered a logical argument lol ...At least you're admitting that your argument is not logical.

Argumentative. No point made.


What makes it reasonable besides the fact that YOU think it's reasonable?

Argumentative. No point,


And your "method" isn't explained...what you did was take your estimates and treat them as fact and then draw conclusions from them.

Not true. My method is explained in the OP.



...No, it's not up to the person presenting an argument to prove that the argument is a reasonable one lol ...

Ridiculous.



I've done so...twice, I might add lol ...

No, you have not.



Why? If it's flawed, why use it?

It isn’t flawed.



Your flawed logic insists that the percentages equal 100, when there's zero reason it needs to be. Well, unless you're working backwards and are starting off from a position that says there's no way of telling how many extra wins a team will have from one season to the next.

That makes no sense. 100% can be used to represent the whole of anything.


We KNOW AS FACT that teams often have more than 100% win improvement.

You’re confused. The 100% represents the whole weight of the positions in their importance to wins. It’s not a limit on improvement.


As has been said by too many people in too many posts, there is no base percentage that can be assigned to positions. I'll write that again just to get the point across once more...

Write it as many times as you like. You’re wrong.


What we keep saying is that flapping your arms real fast will not make you able to fly.

Silly false analogy. Make a logical point or get off the pot.


I think I can speak for most on this thread and say that what "percentage" a Grade-A quarterback played in any given team's win improvement during any given year will vary so wildly that it's asinine to try and affix a standard percentage value that applies across the board.

What you just said is that most posters in this thread don’t know what the hell this thread is about.


Translation: "If I give you a list of Grade D QBs it will most likely show how flawed my argument is, so I'm gonna leave that aspect vague so that I can continue arguing my flawed stance."

Translation of the translation: I’d really like to derail your thread with an off-topic tangent..


Here's a hint for anyone else thinking there's some validity to OF's assertions: when someone postulates a theory but refuses to give you data to test the theory with, that usually means they know it won't hold up. It also means that he himself didn't accurately enough test his theory, which was obvious anyway lol...my guess is that the Grades A-D will be as arbitrarily assigned as the percentages were.

What you just wrote reveals that you haven’t grasped an application of seventh-grade math.


Can you explain what makes it an exception? I'm betting you can't, and won't.

What makes it an exception? That’s a dumb question. Teams don’t routinely go from 3-13 one season to 13-3 the next. One that does is exceptional.


Omg lol!! ...

Just make your silly point.


Did you already forget that you said luck plays no role?

It doesn’t when one estimates wins since the presumption is made that the luck good and bad will cancel out. Luck obviously does not cancel out when games are actually played.

[Hitman21ST]

OF, people are asking you to elaborate your points. In reply, you just ask "why should I," assuming that people should take what you say as gospel. When asked to defend your position, you deflect and dodge so that you don't have to. If you expect people to take what you say as truth, you might want to be able to back up what you say, instead of dodging and deflecting.

It's not ridiculous at all for someone to expect you to prove your argument is reasonable. What you are saying is analogous to me saying "I can fly like Superman. Since you can't prove me wrong, I don't have to prove that I can. You should just take my word for it."

and don't deflect what I just said by saying "off topic" or "ridiculous." Actually address people who are showing how you are incorrect, and show them how you are right (if you can).

[Califan007]

Argumentative. No point made.
How is it argumentative when we both agree that you did not present a logical argument? lol

(psst: I think you meant to say if you presented a logic argument, not a "logical" one.




Argumentative. No point,
Oldfan lingo for "Damn...got no valid comeback for that."




Not true. My method is explained in the OP.
No it's not. You give your percentages but have yet to show HOW you arrived at those percentages. And if you're basing it simply off the 3-3-1 argument, there are so many flaws with doing it that way that you should cringe in embarrassment when doing so.




Ridiculous.
Oldfan lingo for "Damn...got no valid comeback for that."



No, you have not.
You can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

Or should I say "prove that I haven't" ;)

...because that, apparently, is all that is required as an acceptable retort.



It isn’t flawed.
Oldfan lingo for "Damn...got no valid comeback for that."



That makes no sense. 100% can be used to represent the whole of anything.
Right...but you're NOT representing the whole of ANYTHING...you're trying to predict the number of additional wins based on percentages. The logical way of doing it is the other way around--that is, to try and determine the percentages based on the number of wins--NOT to try and determine the number of wins based on percentages. You're doing it backwards (as I've said--and proven--several times now).




You’re confused. The 100% represents the whole weight of the positions in their importance to wins. It’s not a limit on improvement.
Oh, really :ols:...

your words, yet again:

OF: "A ten-per cent improvement in wins. A legit eight-win team would have a win pct of .500. A 10% improvement would raise it to .550 or 8.8 wins. With the luck factors canceling out, that’s probably 9 wins."

OF: "So, to finally answer the question posed in the thread title... If we lucked into a grade-A QB, we would be upgraded from a C minus to an A at the position. That’s, at most, a one game upgrade. If we’re truly a six-win team, it would get us to seven. "

And you claim your argument is not "limiting improvement" :ols:...hoo, boy.

Trust me, OF...we see this, and we get that you're contradicting yourself like mf'er here lol...




Write it as many times as you like. You’re wrong.
Oldfan lingo for "Damn...got no valid comeback for that."



Silly false analogy. Make a logical point or get off the pot.
Oldfan lingo for "Damn...got no valid comeback for that."



What you just said is that most posters in this thread don’t know what the hell this thread is about.
Oldfan lingo for...well, you get the idea. ;)




Translation of the translation: I’d really like to derail your thread with an off-topic tangent..
Raise your hands if you've noticed Oldfan ignoring the question instead of providing the data.




What you just wrote reveals that you haven’t grasped an application of seventh-grade math.
I think this is example #7 in his post of "when you can't attack the logic, attack the person using the logic" :yes:...




What makes it an exception? That’s a dumb question. Teams don’t routinely go from 3-13 one season to 13-3 the next. One that does is exceptional.
Once again, you misunderstood...I wasn't asking what makes the win total improvement an exception...I was asking why this should be an exception from your stance and equation. All you've said was that "anything that my equation can't explain doesn't count" :ols:...



Just make your silly point.
Example #8...and counting lol...



It doesn’t when one estimates wins since the presumption is made that the luck good or bad will cancel out. Luck obviously does not cancel out when games are actually played.
Then where is the "luck" percentage in your equation? Any equation that leaves out something that can play an obvious role in the outcome MUST be considered flawed by definition. But there are a multitude of areas in which you failed to consider the things that happen "when games are actually played"...which is, of course, yet another reason why your initial stance is flawed beyond recognition.

[Oldfan]

OF, people are asking you to elaborate your points. In reply, you just ask "why should I," assuming that people should take what you say as gospel. When asked to defend your position, you deflect and dodge so that you don't have to. If you expect people to take what you say as truth, you might want to be able to back up what you say, instead of dodging and deflecting.

It's not ridiculous at all for someone to expect you to prove your argument is reasonable. What you are saying is analogous to me saying "I can fly like Superman. Since you can't prove me wrong, I don't have to prove that I can. You should just take my word for it."

and don't deflect what I just said by saying "off topic" or "ridiculous." Actually address people who are showing how you are incorrect, and show them how you are right (if you can).Your post is an argument. Prove to me that it's logical.

[Hitman21ST]

Raise your hands if you've noticed Oldfan ignoring the question instead of providing the data.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2u2jtzDUE5k/SjIzLlvxLBI/AAAAAAAAAGk/DmZkwE4ytjs/s400/Raiseyourhands.jpg

[Geneva]

A good QB is the key to any NFL team. With one you win without one you don't.

[Hitman21ST]

Your post is an argument. Prove to me that it's logical.

Why is it logical to prove what you're saying is right? Because if you don't and continually refuse to do so, people will see that you're full of it with no real reasoning behind what you say.

Now, prove to me that your post is reasonable.

BTW, that was a nice deflection again. You have yet to actually answer a direct question.

[Laxpunk2006]

Have you considered the possibility that those people are smarter than you are?

I'm well aware of the fact that there are people in this world much more intelligent than myself. I can even accept the possibility that they might frequent these boards. A civil discussion with you may be easier if you accepted the same. I would hardly qualify arguing a strangers arbitrary formula for success proof of grand intellect.

I find it(not at all) surprising that you don't mind going off topic to question my intelligence but refuse to provide further examples of Grade D quarterbacks when that could be helpful to some in this discussion.

Instead you continually provoke other posters while challenging them to use a made up system to disprove your made up formula.

[Oldfan]

Why is it logical to prove what you're saying is right? Because if you don't and continually refuse to do so, people will see that you're full of it with no real reasoning behind what you say.

Now, prove to me that your post is reasonable.Why are you ducking the question? I asked you to prove that your post was logical. If your post was logical, you should be able to prove it.

[Califan007]

Your post is an argument. Prove to me that it's logical.

I can, easily :yes:

Hitman: "What you are saying is analogous to me saying "I can fly like Superman. Since you can't prove me wrong, I don't have to prove that I can. You should just take my word for it."

Using the logic filter:

Hitman: "What you are saying is:

A=B
Therefore, A=C
You can't prove that A does not = C so therefore I am right

That's illogical."

[Hitman21ST]

Why are you ducking the question? I asked you to prove that your post was logical. If your post was logical, you should be able to prove it.

If you don't and continually refuse to do so, people will see that you're full of it with no real reasoning behind what you say.

Why are you ducking my question?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I guess the only way OF's chart works is if you assign values to individuals and then multiply that number by their percentage.

So, let's assume that Belichik is 95 out of 100.

Was that the same ranking in Cleveland?

Did he give his Browns team a total contribution of 190 points every time they took the field? Or did he get better?

What number do you assign Brady?

How does that compare to Eric Zeier?

[Califan007]

Why is it logical to prove what you're saying is right? Because if you don't and continually refuse to do so, people will see that you're full of it with no real reasoning behind what you say.

Now, prove to me that your post is reasonable.

BTW, that was a nice deflection again. You have yet to actually answer a direct question.

It's not his goal to have an actual debate on his theory. In his threads it rarely is :ols:...

It's a shame, too, because his theories tend to at least be a bit interesting, even if the logic is flawed beyond recognition. This could have turned into 20 pages of fine-tuning the "Percentages Theory" as presented by Oldfan. Instead it's become an exercise in futility and an Oldfan condescension marathon. It might be wiser at this point to just discuss the theory among everyone else on the thread besides Oldfan lol...we'd probably come away with a far more constructive dialog.

[Oldfan]

If you don't and continually refuse to do so, people will see that you're full of it with no real reasoning behind what you say.

Why are you ducking my question?Let's stop playing games. The question I asked you was absurd. You can't prove to me that your argument was logical. I either see the logic and agree or I don't see it and counter.

Califan's request is absurd. I can't pound the logic of my argument into your head, nor can I prove reasonableness.

[Hitman21ST]

It's a shame, too, because his theories tend to at least be a bit interesting, even if the logic is flawed beyond recognition. This could have turned into 20 pages of fine-tuning the "Percentages Theory" as presented by Oldfan. Instead it's become an exercise in futility and an Oldfan condescension marathon. It might be wiser at this point to just discuss the theory among everyone else on the thread besides Oldfan lol...we'd probably come away with a far more constructive dialog.

True, true.

Did you see my explanation of Campbell, McNabb, and a drafted QB in win totals? Basically, it was Campbell would net 6-7 wins with a roster in place in his first year; McNabb, probably 7-8 wins; and an "A" QB would get probably 9-10 wins - with the roster in place. I know those are all estimates, but they're fairly conservative and IMO anyway, accurate. Calling Campbell a "C" QB means there's between a 28 and 66% improvement in number of wins based on the quality of the QB. How does that sound?

[pjfootballer]

http://www.retromodo.com/images/spockill/logo.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_e4T0gAOoxuo/TKrOYHEtS4I/AAAAAAAADmU/idiPrKU_eRY/s1600/spock-illogical2.png
http://depletedcranium.com/mrspoctalk.jpg

Just for fun to lighten the mood.:ols:

One more for good times

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/4/20/b9d8ba9f-486c-45ed-9431-a9a651ff9afc.jpg

[Oldfan]

True, true.

Did you see my explanation of Campbell, McNabb, and a drafted QB in win totals? Basically, it was Campbell would net 6-7 wins with a roster in place in his first year; McNabb, probably 7-8 wins; and an "A" QB would get probably 9-10 wins - with the roster in place. I know those are all estimates, but they're fairly conservative and IMO anyway, accurate. Calling Campbell a "C" QB means there's between a 28 and 66% improvement in number of wins based on the quality of the QB. How does that sound?You estimate was pulled out of your ass.

[Hitman21ST]

You estimate was pulled out of your ass.

As was yours.

However, mine has basis. Campbell came in in week 11 of 2006 with a roster in place. He went 2-5 over the last 7 weeks, and 5-7 until he was injured in week 14 of 2007. That's 7-12. That's just about right on with my estimate of a 6-7 win team with a roster in place.

McNabb wins 5 games with last year's roster. That would translate to 7-8 wins with a better roster. An "A" QB would be able to get us 9-10 wins with a roster in place.

[skinsdude]

You estimate was pulled out of your ass.

Oh this is getting good. :ols: :ols:

[Califan007]

True, true.

Did you see my explanation of Campbell, McNabb, and a drafted QB in win totals? Basically, it was Campbell would net 6-7 wins with a roster in place in his first year; McNabb, probably 7-8 wins; and an "A" QB would get probably 9-10 wins - with the roster in place. I know those are all estimates, but they're fairly conservative and IMO anyway, accurate. Calling Campbell a "C" QB means there's between a 28 and 66% improvement in number of wins based on the quality of the QB. How does that sound?
I remember reading the post with the 28%-66% estimate, which I thought fell more in line with the total "additional wins percentage" argument I've been making.

If you've got a team with 95% of the positions already in place (no real need to upgrade any positions, every unit is set) a game-manager QB (JC) can steer that team to the playoffs, imo. A playmaking QB (McNabb) can take it to the SB with some lucky bounces. An elite franchise QB (Manning) can win the SB.

[Oldfan]

As was yours.Prove to me that your estimate is reasonable.

[Califan007]

Here's another question: can a 2-14 team improve to 12-4 by virtue of their coaching and defense alone?

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 11:05 AM ----------


Prove to me that your estimate is reasonable.

"I gave you what I’m calling a reasonable estimate and I explained my method. It’s not up to me to prove that it’s reasonable. If you think it isn’t, proving it should be a snap if you can handle seventh grade math. " -Oldfan

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Can this post be peer-reviewed?

[Califan007]

Can this post be peer-reviewed?
Oldfan would be insulted to consider any of us his peers lol :ols:...

[Oldfan]

"It’s not up to me to prove that [my argument is] reasonable. " -OldfanYou missed the point. My request made to Hitman was facetious. It was the same dumb request you made of me.

[Hitman21ST]

Prove to me that your estimate is reasonable.

Campbell came in in week 11 of 2006 with a roster in place. He went 2-5 over the last 7 weeks, and 5-7 until he was injured in week 14 of 2007. That's 7-12. That's just about right on with my estimate of a 6-7 win team with a roster in place.

McNabb wins 5 games with last year's roster. That would translate to 7-8 wins with a better roster. An "A" QB would be able to get us 9-10 wins with a roster in place.

Prove to me that's not reasonable.

[War Paint]

I think a top flight QB makes a huge difference on offense. A pro-bowl caliber QB elevates the play of all of those around him. Defense will fear being picked apart in the passing game, thus opening up the running game. A top QB is better when dealing with pressure, which will help the oline look better. A top QB will put the ball in the right places to where the receivers will be able to make plays. We are the one team in the NFC East that hasn't had consistency at QB, which is why we are usually in last place.

I'm not saying "all we need is a great QB, so we can get by with a practice squad quality line". I'm saying teams with high caliber QBs usually make the playoffs.

[Hitman21ST]

You missed the point. My request made to Hitman was facetious. It was the same dumb request you made of me.

Translation: "Damn, Cali trapped me. Time to get my Matrix on."

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aw_uK9XcPH8/Sa4khympE7I/AAAAAAAABlQ/RtBqgBt6ZZQ/s320/neo+dodges+bullets.jpg

"That was close"

[Oldfan]

Campbell came in in week 11 of 2006 with a roster in place. He went 2-5 over the last 7 weeks, and 5-7 until he was injured in week 14 of 2007. That's 7-12. That's just about right on with my estimate of a 6-7 win team with a roster in place.You claim that "That's about right on with my estimate," and you call your claim PROOF?


McNabb wins 5 games with last year's roster. That would translate to 7-8 wins with a better roster. An "A" QB would be able to get us 9-10 wins with a roster in place.What proof do you have that McNabb would have won 5 with last year's roster? What proof do you have that a grade-A QB would win 9-10?

Your just making unsupported claims. You offered no proof.


Prove to me that's not reasonable.According to you and your accomplice, I don't have to.

[Califan007]

You missed the point. My request made to Hitman was facetious. It was the same dumb request you made of me.

Asking someone to prove their point is "dumb". Gotcha. :thumbsup:

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 11:24 AM ----------


Translation: "Damn, Cali trapped me. Time to get my Matrix on."

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aw_uK9XcPH8/Sa4khympE7I/AAAAAAAABlQ/RtBqgBt6ZZQ/s320/neo+dodges+bullets.jpg

"That was close"

:ols:

[SwampEm]

I'm not getting sucked into this argument. I've read the thread and everyone has their viewpoints. I was just telling you what they were trying to come up with and not my point of view. I'm not sure anyone was really equating a QBs worth to a SB. You may want to re-read the original OP. (which is righ above me).

I realize this but you can't say that one position accounts for a set percentage of anything. It may be much much more or it may be way less. The famous football position of "protector" makes a huge difference on how good the QB, RB's, WR's, TE's, and ultimately the coach. Joe Montana could have been taking snaps for us over the last three years and not been very good because or "protectors" are not very good.

[Hitman21ST]

You claim that "That's about right on with my estimate," and you call your claim PROOF?

I estimated that Campbell would win 6-7 games with a roster in place. Campbell went 7-12 before he was injured in 2007. So yes, my proof that my estimate was correct was that Campbell won my estimated number of games. Look at the records.


What proof do you have that McNabb would have won 5 with last year's roster?

Maybe that McNabb went 5-8 before being pulled for Grossman?



What proof do you have that a grade-A QB would win 9-10?

The same proof that you have that an "A" QB would win 10% more games.


Your just making unsupported claims. You offered no proof.

See above. I haven't done anything you haven't done. In most cases, I've done more.

[Oldfan]

Asking someone to prove their point is "dumb".:No, young friend. Try to keep the facts straight.

I can make an argument, but I can't prove to you it's logical. You either grasp it or you don't.

I can give you an estimate and claim it's reasonable; I can show you how it was done; but I can't prove to you it's reasonable. You either see it as reasonable or you don't.

Asking someone to prove their argument is logical is dumb. Asking them to prove reasonableness is dumb.

[In The Barrel]

I think a top flight QB makes a huge difference on offense. A pro-bowl caliber QB elevates the play of all of those around him. Defense will fear being picked apart in the passing game, thus opening up the running game. A top QB is better when dealing with pressure, which will help the oline look better. A top QB will put the ball in the right places to where the receivers will be able to make plays. We are the one team in the NFC East that hasn't had consistency at QB, which is why we are usually in last place.

I'm not saying "all we need is a great QB, so we can get by with a practice squad quality line". I'm saying teams with high caliber QBs usually make the playoffs.

This is spot on according to most analysts - top notch QBs change the entire game through 3 factors - 1) constant pressure on the opponents defense to come up with turnovers and big plays means they will gamble in protection and blitz packages - what then happens is the big plays happen or they slowly chip away with runs and high % passes scoring goes up and time of possession goes up. Also most top notch QBs can get it in when they are in the RZ, even with a middle pack OL. 2) Higher scoring, longer rest for your defense and pressure on the other teams Offense to pass, pass pass means better % of turnovers and sacks - which then leads to a better opinion of ones defense - even though they might not be top notch Defensive players - this is why IMO you see so many FA's come from Super Bowl teams the year before that get big $ then flame out in different teams with different offenses that suck - it changes the dynamic of the game if you are on the field more than the offense ( fatigue,game planning, start gambling to get turn overs...) 3) Respect is big too - if you have to respect a QBs big play ability or the ability to have a high % of completions the secondary cannot blitz as much and thus becomes one dimensional - look at Vick in the first 5 games - they could not figure out what to attack - giving him options - and setting up big plays. Then when you get enough tape on certain guys you can game plan and take more things away - cant really do that with Brees, Manning, Brady and to some degree Rodgers anymore. That is why they win - even without superstars other than 1 good receiver , good TE and 2 solid RBs and middle of he pack protection ( look at Indy's or GB's line and tell me they are Great..)

Bottom line is - QB is higher than 10% off the outcome - more like 30% for most teams. That is why the Redskins will not win much this year with the horses they have n the stable - not Derby quality. Cant compete on a 16 game schedule with those horses - ya - win some but not during the "stretch run" ...

[Oldfan]

I estimated that Campbell would win 6-7 games with a roster in place. Campbell went 7-12 before he was injured in 2007. So yes, my proof that my estimate was correct was that Campbell won my estimated number of games. Look at the records.



Maybe that McNabb went 5-8 before being pulled for Grossman?




The same proof that you have that an "A" QB would win 10% more games.



See above. I haven't done anything you haven't done. In most cases, I've done more.You haven’t offered a shred of proof. Your “estimate” amounts to nothing but your claims based on your subjective opinions of rosters and quarterbacks.

You can’t offer proof that it is a reasonable estimate because there is none. We either accept your opinions or we don’t.

[pimpumd]

I can make an argument, but I can't prove to you it's logical. You either grasp it or you don't.

So, those reading your argument are either smart enough to grasp your argument, or too dumb to understand your argument. That leaves no room for the possibility that your argument is not logical to begin with. That's a pretty arrogant stance. It's not an "either, or" situation (either smart enough to "grasp" your argument or not). It's possible that you've presented an illogical or flawed argument, despite your unwillingness to acknowledge so.

[Oldfan]

In The Barrell ~ Bottom line is - QB is higher than 10% off the outcome - more like 30% for most teams.

Impossible. This would make the other 10 positions on offense, O-line, RB, receivers, worth about 5% total.

[Hitman21ST]

You haven’t offered a shred of proof. Your “estimate” amounts to nothing but your claims based on your subjective opinions of rosters and quarterbacks.

You can’t offer proof that it is a reasonable estimate because there is none. We either accept your opinions or we don’t.

My proof is that Campbell won 7 out of the first 19 he played. Prorated to 16 games, that's in between 6 and 7. That's EXACTLY what I estimated, and proved my estimate right.

McNabb went 5-8 before being pulled. With a better supporting cast, he would have done better. Not playoffs better, but probably improved to 7 or 8 games.

By the way, you seemed to accept my opinions earlier in the thread, when I first put them out there. Pretty convenient that now you don't.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 03:11 PM ----------


Impossible. This would make the other 10 positions on offense, O-line, RB, receivers, worth about 5% total.

Considering that the Colts, Packers, and Patriots are pretty much able to interchange OL, RB, WR without skipping a beat makes it fairly believable.

[JPCreativelab]

the percentage on each player changes each game, each quarter, even each play...

i dont like numbers, they can be manipulated into anything you want them to say, the truth is, heart and luck play more into each game than any statistic ever has.

[Oldfan]

So, those reading your argument are either smart enough to grasp your argument, or too dumb to understand your argument. That leaves no room for the possibility that your argument is not logical to begin with. That's a pretty arrogant stance. It's not an "either, or" situation (either smart enough to "grasp" your argument or not). It's possible that you've presented an illogical or flawed argument, despite your unwillingness to acknowledge so.Your interpretation of my remark is obviously biased. You'd like to portray it in the worst possible light. However, the remark assumes I might make a logical argument. Whether it is logical or illogical is not relevant to the the point: either way, I can't prove it's logical. To ask me to do so is absurd.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You haven’t offered a shred of proof. Your “estimate” amounts to nothing but your claims based on your subjective opinions of rosters and quarterbacks.

You can’t offer proof that it is a reasonable estimate because there is none. We either accept your opinions or we don’t.

How is the fact that McNabb won five games last year not proof that McNabb could win give games last year?

[JPCreativelab]

Your interpretation of my remark is obviously biased. You'd like to portray it in the worst possible light. However, the remark assumes I might make a logical argument. Whether it is logical or illogical is not relevant to the the point: either way, I can't prove it's logical. To ask me to do so is absurd.

agreed, you can only prove if its popular or not, and which crowd its popular with, that is all.

[Mad Mike]

Asking someone to prove their argument is logical is dumb. Asking them to prove reasonableness is dumb.

No. THIS ^ is dumb. Hell, it's more than dumb. It's moronic.

Let's look at the very next post from you....


You haven’t offered a shred of proof. Your “estimate” amounts to nothing but your claims based on your subjective opinions of rosters and quarterbacks.

So it's dumb to expect you to prove your argument. But it's mandatory for everyone else. Riiiiiiiight.

You sir are an idiot. I say this not as an insult, but as an undeniable statement of fact based upon your own words.

[mjpanzer]

goodness.

Notice how the Packers won the superbowl without Ryan Grant or Finely?
Notice how Adrian Peterson and LT have never been to the superbowl?
Notice how the Colts and Patriots have had god knows who at RB?
Notice how the Saints get Drew Brees and suddenly they are superbowl champs?
Notice how Kurt Warner takes Arizona to the Superbowl, leaves, and they completely suck?

The QB is the most important position on the offense by a huge margin. I am sorry but RB don't really mean ****, and great WR owe a ton of their success to well placed balls by the QB (besides the top .001 percent who can catch from whomever).

The last RB who "carried" a team to the superbowl I can think of is Sean Alexander, but even he got injured in the playoffs (remember against the Skins?), and they still made it thanks to Hasselback. Teams just don't make it to the superbowl with a great RB anymore, and it is a reality the NFL has embraced. Getting a top quarterback like Matt Ryan or Josh Freeman completely turned around two sorry franchises in but one year. Even the Rams with Bradford made it to a respectable record.

I am not at all claiming that having a ****ty OL or WR corp does not matter, and when you bring in a rookie QB it certainly does. All I am saying is that the evidence in the past 10 years points to the fact that an elite QB makes a team elite, and not the other way around.

[Hitman21ST]

How is the fact that McNabb won five games last year not proof that McNabb could win give games last year?

:ols:

:whoknows:

[Oldfan]

Hitman ~ My proof is that Campbell won 7 out of the first 19 he played. Prorated to 16 games, that's in between 6 and 7. That's EXACTLY what I estimated, and proved my estimate right.

Campbell’s 2006 performance with roster X tells us zero about how Campbell might perform with roster Y in a later year.


McNabb went 5-8 before being pulled. With a better supporting cast, he would have done better. Not playoffs better, but probably improved to 7 or 8 games.

But only if the supporting cast improves his performance by 2-3 games. How could you possibly project that?


By the way, you seemed to accept my opinions earlier in the thread, when I first put them out there. Pretty convenient that now you don't.

I didn’t disagree. That doesn’t imply agreement. It only implies I wasn't interested in debating it at that time.


Considering that the Colts, Packers, and Patriots are pretty much able to interchange OL, RB, WR without skipping a beat makes it fairly believable.

You logic escapes me. How does “interchangeability" reduce their worth?