The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[Oldfan]

As regular readers know, I have been waging a one-man battle in the Stadium for years against what I believe to be rampant stupidity on 1) the way quarterbacks are graded and 2) the value of the quarterback position. My charge is that typical fans are simply jumping on bandwagon opinions without thought. The "experts" who keep the bandwagon rolling are people like Rick Gosselin, Hall of Fame football writer for the Dallas Morning News who recently wrote:

"With all the rule changes over the years that have handcuffed defenses, football is now a game played in the hands of the quarterback. I’ve long believed the quarterback position is 85 percent of a championship equation in college and 75 percent in the NFL."

While the quarterback position is certainly the most important on any NFL team, that 75% estimate is world-class dumb. The average NFL team over the past nine years, passed the football 33 times per game while the offense, defense and special teams were involved in 142.4 plays in the average game. 33 divided by 142.4 is 23.2%.

In other words, if the quarterback designed the scheme, trained all the players, called his own plays, needed no protection, passed the ball, and then ran downfield to catch it, his position would be worth about 23%. Gosselin's 75% estimate is an example of the kind of absurdity that propels the bandwagon thinking on quarterbacks.

If we give the coaching (scheme, training and playcalling) its due and value the average QB position as equal in worth to all ten of his teammates in the passing game put together, the average quarterback position value is about 9.3%. That number makes him the most important player on the field by far.

This thread is concerned only with the value of the position

The reader needs to bear in mind that the average quarterback position value does not change whether the quarterback is good, bad or mediocre. However, the scheme and play calling can change the QB position value. For example, the average scheme passes on 54.5% of their offensive plays. If the scheme called for more passing, the value of the QB position would go up. If the QB is asked to use his legs outside the pocket and throw on the move, the position value goes up. Example:

The value of a specific NFL team's QB position is 10% based on a pocket passer averaging 35 throws per game. Using a scale of five to grade the talent of pocket passers, an average pocket passer is a three. The top grade passer is a five.

So, .10 X 3 = .30 and .10 X 5 = .50

However, for this discussion, you must understand that we are only concerned with estimating the value of the position, .10 in this example. So, QB grades on his talent are not relevant.

The stats used in this estimate were obtained as follows:

The average pass and rush attempts were based on the 16th ranked teams over a nine-year stretch (2003 - 2011). The special teams stats were based on a 176 game sample in 2012.

33.0 -- pass attempts
27.6 -- rush attempts
02.2 -- FG attempts
02.7 -- XP attempts
05.2 -- punts*
05.7 -- kickoffs

71.2 -- for each team on offense
71.2 -- for each team on defense

142.4 -- average team total of plays per game

[ *I just noticed that I did not add in the 5.2 for punts which would give me a slightly stronger argument. I'll just leave it as it is.]

23.2% -- the 33 pass attempts as % of 142.4
18.6% -- after reduction for 20% coaching factor: techniques, playcalling, scheme
09.3% -- after reducing for 50% value of protection and receivers

9.3% -- value of the average QB position

Since this calculation isn't a precision instrument, let's round that number up to 10%
A 10% impact is a big number for one player in a league where parity reigns.



My primary source for stats:

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/rankings/

[DC9]

Well... in college he is way wrong. Everette Golston is going to be good... but he's barely "okay" right now and that's from a Notre Dame fan. And say what you want about AJ McCarron's W-L record, but he's nothing to write home about. Aaron Murray will contribute on Sunday's however.

Good post OF.

[JoeSkins]

Well... in college he is way wrong. Everette Golston is going to be good... but he's barely "okay" right now and that's from a Notre Dame fan. And say what you want about AJ McCarron's W-L record, but he's nothing to write home about. Aaron Murray will contribute on Sunday's however.

Good post OF.

Why can't Notre Dame's own fans get Everett Golson's name right? I'll walk that back a bit though, since almost no one on TV or in print gets it right either, contributing to the problem.

[wrecker]

I wonder what percentage of points scored per game come from the hand of the QB?

[DC9]

I wonder what percentage of points scored per game come from the hand of the QB?

You could argue that 100% of the Redskins points come from the hand/legs of the quarterback. But that's definitely a scheme thing.

EDIT: Albeit, indirectly on some occasions, but it's the threat that's what counts. So really the argument should be about coaching scheme and whether they are a run to set up the pass or pass to set up the run type of coach and how they use their players. But obviously the most important piece in the pro game is the Quarterback far and away. 75% is a bit much of a percentage, but it's well over 40% in my opinion and maybe higher than 50%.

[Oldfan]

... But obviously the most important piece in the pro game is the Quarterback far and away. 75% is a bit much of a percentage, but it's well over 40% in my opinion and maybe higher than 50%.

How can you give the QB 40-50% when he doesn't play special teams, defense, or play the RB position? That's 75 - 80% of the plays right there.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 11:46 AM ----------

With a crappy quarterback, a defense is more inclined to overplay the run knowing that the QB's crappiness makes them less susceptible to getting beat through the air. As far as I can tell, your numbers don't account for that. That's just one example of weakness I see in your formula. Sometimes numbers and percentages alone don't tell the whole story. How does your scheme take into account the ability of a quarterback to extend a play in the pocket vs. one who stands like a statue? The numbers won't show that either.

For better or worse, a quarterback's influence on the success of an offense is way disproportional to any other player. Percentages aside.

Read this part again, please:

The reader needs to bear in mind that the average quarterback position value does not change whether the quarterback is good, bad or mediocre. However, the scheme and play calling can change the QB position value. For example, the average scheme passes on 54.5% of their offensive plays. If the scheme called for more passing, the value of the QB position would go up. If the QB is asked to use his legs outside the pocket and throw on the move, the position value goes up.

[DC9]

How can you give the QB 40-50% when he doesn't play special teams, defense, or play the RB position? That's 75 - 80% of the plays right there.

It's like this... if Jay Cutler plays and the offense scores... the defense can blitz because they have the lead... thus making the opposing one dimensional so that they can catch up (see the Redskins vs Cowboys, Redskins vs Eagles game)... if you have Jason Campbell at QB... then the offense doesn't score... and you have to defend the run and the pass. Even when you are the number 1 defense in the NFL... and you have the best returner in NFL history on your special teams... and a pro bowl kicker in Robbie Gould.

[redskins4ever28]

Im sorry but your wrong OP. The QB IS at LEAST 75% of the reason for winning in the NFL. I actually think college QBs have less a role then NFL qbs. Teams in college can win a national championship without a decent QB as long as they play good defense (ala Alabama and hopefully ND[GO IRISH] this year).

But in the pros, the QB is the reason a team is good or bad. You can sit there and play the mathematical side of it and do percentages and all that garbage, or you can just watch the games and you see what teams are good and what teams are bad, and of course the good teams have good to elite qbs.

The AFC: 3 tiers

Tier 1 ELITE QBs:
Texans, Patriots, Broncos, Steelers (with Ben) are all elite teams. The reason? Their QB's. Regardless of how well their Defense is playing, you and I both know the reason these guys are in every game is the QB. The only other team I would say is elite but Im not 100% sold on the QB is the Ravens, and Flacco looks elite at times, but I would say hes more of a above average QB that is streaky. Schaubs a beast, hes elite, you dont throw for 500 yards without being a top dog.

Tier 2 Average QB:

Dolphins, Bills, Bengals, Chargers, Colts, possibly Titans (this is also where Id put Flacco)/Ravens. These teams are all average at best. Why? They all have average QB's. Locker looks average to me at the moment, he may be better then that one day, but as of now hes average. Phillip Rivers was an elite QB until the past two years, now hes obviously looked average. I personally think hes lost the fire for the game that he once had, just my opinion though. And although I love RG3, I believe Luck and Griffin will both be elite one day, but as of right now Luck is just average, but hes good. Griffin I think is more elite, maybe cause of Im biased. Im talking AFC right now anyways so...

Now lets look at the bad QBs:
Jets, Browns, Jaguars, Chiefs, Raiders
Any franchise QBs here? LOL. I mean, honestly, you can make an argument about Palmer, but truth is, Palmer hasnt been good since he got his leg torn apart in the playoff game in 2006 (I think 2006). Ever since, hes been average at best. The other aformentioned teams I just named are absolute jokes. Look at the chiefs, I mean come on. Sanchez, yikes! Browns have had the same problem weve had for years, no QB. The Jaguars just replaced Gabbert with Henne and look what happens, they almost beat the Texans and actually beat the Titans, whats that tell you?

Now the NFC

I think theres a 4th tier in the NFC because there so many good teams, so here goes:

Absolute ELITE QB's:
Packers, Giants, Saints, Falcons. Out of these teams, only the Saints have a losing record, and lets face it, the only reason why they are any good right now is Brees. Take Brees away and this team is winless. I believe Eli is elite, and I also believe Matt Ryan should now be considered elite.
2nd Tier good-great QB:
Skins, Coyboys, Bears, Lions, Niners
Out of these teams, only the Niners stick out because of the QB. And honestly, Alex Smith threw 17 tds and 5 INTs last year, pretty dang good. The 49ers are the most complete team in football, so they will mask the QB more then most teams, but this is probably the only team in the NFL thats a GREAT team, without a solid QB option. I think personally without RG3 our team is 1-10. Hes pretty much been our entire team this year. With our terrible defense, do you really think Grossman was going to put up 30+ pts?
3rd tier: Average-below average QB play
Seahawks, Panthers, Bucs, Vikings
Wilson is having a great year, hes just been overshadowed by Grif and Luck, but he actually leads rookies in passing tds with 17, and has 8 INTs. Darn good for a rookie. But still, Id say hes average at the moment just because throws the ball maybe 15-20 times a game.Cam, Freeman and Ponder are all average at best right now, but their all young and the future will tell if they get better.

4th tier, below average-terrible:
Cardinals, Eagles (with Foles, obviously they are better with Vick), Rams
Cardinals are terrible. If they had a half decent QB that team would be so much better right now. Maybe Fitzgerald will jump ship and make the team trade him to DC for a bargain . Honestly, Foles doesnt look good at all either. As for the Rams. I know a lot of people here think Bradfords a decent or at least average QB, but I think he sucks. I think hes bottom tier period. My opinion doesnt mean much, but I just never seen him play and think to myself (wow, he could be something some day!).

The only 2 possibly questionable teams that are good without GREAT qbs are Ravens and Niners. Both have a great Oline, and a great defense. Especially the niners, who have an insane amount of 1st round draft picks on that team. Obviously thats rare.

Just watch the games, you know whos a good team and who isnt in this league. Good teams have good-great QB;s. Past 8 years the SB winner AND the SB teams both have been teams with elite QB play except for the loser in SB 41 (Rex Grossmans Bears).
2012: Eli vs Brady
2011: Rodgers vs Ben
2010: Brees vs Peyton
2009: Ben vs Warner
2008: Peyton vs Grossman
2007: Ben vs Hasselbeck (who was definitely elite at that time)
2006: Brady vs McNabb
2005: Brady vs Delhomme (Delhommes iffy, but I believe he was top 10 then)

Honestly, the ONLY 3 teams to win a Super Bowl the past 20 years without an elite qb were the Redskins in 91-92 season/sb, the 2000-2001 Ravens, and finally the 2002-2003 Bucs. Other than that its been a QB league. Sorry if you think the QB isnt as important as some, but the fact is: IT IS. No QB? No championship.

Look how good the Steelers and Bears look without Ben and Cutler? LOL. Campbell.... Oh Jason Campbell, how I dont miss you at all.

[Dan T.]

How can you give the QB 40-50% when he doesn't play special teams, defense, or play the RB position? That's 75 - 80% of the plays right there.

Is there a different influence on a defense from a quarterback who goes 3 and out most offensive possessions vs. a quarterback who leads scoring drives? In neither case is the quarterback playing defense, but his play certainly affects the D.

[Hitman21ST]

The reader needs to bear in mind that the average quarterback position value does not change whether the quarterback is good, bad or mediocre. However, the scheme and play calling can change the QB position value. For example, the average scheme passes on 54.5% of their offensive plays. If the scheme called for more passing, the value of the QB position would go up. If the QB is asked to use his legs outside the pocket and throw on the move, the position value goes up.

So, we're back on this again, are we?

I've been enlightened though, and would agree that for an average team, the value of the quarterback is right around your figure.

Would you then agree that for our team (Carolina, Philly {when Vick is healthy}, and to some extent the Packers and Colts) the value of the QB is higher, and then conversely lower on teams that don't throw as much?

I don't have the ability to look at the numbers right now for each of those teams, the value is higher than an average team though because I'm pretty sure our ratio is higher than 54.5% pass plays, and we use RG3 to run. Same with Philly and Vick. Carolina might not throw as much, but Cam runs a lot. Both the Colts and Packers throw an absurd percentage of the time, and both Luck and Rodgers can run if necessary.

Then again, the value can change game to game and in some cases half to half or quarter to quarter, based on in-game adjustments.

[Oldfan]

So, we're back on this again, are we? I've been enlightened though, and would agree that for an average team, the value of the quarterback is right around your figure.

Holy Hell! If I can enlighten you, anything's possible.

Would you then agree that for our team (Carolina, Philly {when Vick is healthy}, and to some extent the Packers and Colts) the value of the QB is higher, and then conversely lower on teams that don't throw as much?

I think our scheme make the QB position worth more,

I don't have the ability to look at the numbers right now for each of those teams, the value is higher than an average team though because I'm pretty sure our ratio is higher than 54.5% pass plays, and we use RG3 to run.

No, we run more than pass, but some of that is assigned to the QB position. 28.6 pass pergame and 31.4 run.

[KDawg]

I wonder what percentage of points scored per game come from the hand of the QB?

Most. Why? Because the quarterback touches the ball on nearly every play aside from wildcat formations and direct snaps. But it's not a relevent statistic to the discussion.

[MisterPinstripe]

Most. Why? Because the quarterback touches the ball on nearly every play aside from wildcat formations and direct snaps. But it's not a relevent statistic to the discussion.

You also have to take into account the QB calling plays at the line, making adjustments. Also the impact of good QB on the run game. There are a lot of aspects of a football game that the QB has an effect on that you cant measure.

[Oldfan]

I wonder what percentage of points scored per game come from the hand of the QB?

If you mean the % that TD passes contribute, that should be easy enough to figure out. But, that number wouldn't tell us much since most drives combine the pass and run -- and yardage alone would not tell us about their importance to the drive.

[DC9]

If you mean the % that TD passes contribute, that should be easy enough to figure out. But, that number wouldn't tell us much since most drives combine the pass and run -- and yardage alone would not tell us about their importance to the drive.

Say that you have the exact same team that is quarterbacked by one guy one week, and a different guy the next week... with vastly different results. What percentage of the blame would you put on the fact that a backup was in there?

Like, if Jay Cutler got hurt, and Jason Campbell came in and stunk it up... would you say that 75% of the blame is on the rest of the team or 100% of the loss goes to Cutler not being there?