The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[Oldfan]

I get the point that you are attempting to make, but I think that what the QB reads and adjusts to makes an impact on every play. Every QB makes them. That should add some value imo.

On the vast majority of running plays, the QB doesn't do very much. I'm not going to add a significant percentage simply because it can be claimed that "he touches the ball on every play." I could give the center just as much credit if I allow that argument.

[TheDane]

Chicken, meet Egg.

What if a quarterback DOESN'T make a play? What is his worth, then? What if he extends a drive at the right time to give his D a breather? What if he raises the level of his teammates by being a coach on the field? What if he raises the level of his teammates by being a leader off the field?

Trying to quantify a QB's importance is a fool's errand. Unfortunately, this is a rare case where "gut feel" outweighs statistics.

[Oldfan]

...So factoring all that in, I'd say the QB in Shanahan's scheme is closer to 10-20% of the total team performance..

Remember, the 9.3% is an estimated average. If we were to do this team-by-team, several scheme factors would have to be considered including the pass-to-run ratio and what the QB is asked to do on his own. However, your top end of 20% seems high just on a seat-of the pants judgment.

Bear in mind, you are working with 100% representing the whole, so you can't make the QB worth more unless you can argue that other positions on the team are worth less. In RG3's case, the argument that the O-line position has less value than the average NFL line would hold up, but I doubt that you could make 20% hold up.

I agree with your other points.

[darrelgreenie]

Jesus Christ.

Why?

They are freaking dreadful on offense without him.

There.

The Steelers outgained the Ravens by 100 yards, the Ravens lone touchdown came on special teams by Jacoby Jones.

In a 20-14 loss do you think a team improves their chances to win if they don't fumble the ball away 5 times?

I ask again: Is it possible for a team to be non-competitive on offense and still be a competitive team?

[Oldfan]

Chicken, meet Egg.

What if a quarterback DOESN'T make a play? What is his worth, then? What if he extends a drive at the right time to give his D a breather? What if he raises the level of his teammates by being a coach on the field? What if he raises the level of his teammates by being a leader off the field?

Trying to quantify a QB's importance is a fool's errand. Unfortunately, this is a rare case where "gut feel" outweighs statistics.

If the QB doesn't make a play. His grade goes down, but his position value, which is determined by the coach who designs the scheme and the play caller, is unaffected as I said in the OP.

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.

[Captain Injury]

Agree that a QB's value to the team is better measured qualitatively. Quantitative assessment becomes mired in causality v correlation here as this thread shows. There are so many exceptions to any quantitative rules when generalizing this topic that those "rules" (measurements, estimates, percentages, etc...) truly take a far back seat to the exceptions and qualitative assessments.

[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.

[Art]

I wildly disagree with you Oldfan.

First, the media and "experts" are really only fully coming on board with the wholly dominant stature of today's elite QB. In the cap era, a great QB has meant consistently competitive organizations. While true an organization could rise up and be something good without an elite QB, either for a long stretch or for a magical year, the fact remains the most certain path toward a decade of being pretty good was finding an elite QB.

Obviously having an elite QB doesn't assure total success. See New Orleans. Scheme, defense, depth, offensive line all contribute toward the rise of a team around an elite QB. But why QB is so important is because he's ONE dude. If he's there, and good, and knows the system, you can lose, replace, retool around him and largely maintain a very solid team. Without a great QB you need a lot of other great pieces to be good over time and that is far harder.

The magic of an elite QB is obvious. Take Belichick. He's a guy I think blows. And he would be our defensive coordinator right now but for finding Tom Brady. I have the utmost respect for great coaching and great schemes. I find what Harbaugh is doing in San Francisco incredible. I think the Tampa Bay story could be incredible in a year or two if that proves real. But, the most certain path toward achievement is having a Top 5 player at that single position. Even when you are otherwise bad, like, say, US with a bad defense, no pass rush, average O-Line, limited receivers (BTW, some of this is overblown I think), a crappy kicking game, horrendous special teams and the like, we are interesting because a rookie is playing above his NFL age.

Joe Gibbs certainly revealed the value of a complete team without a true, franchise QB.

But that day is gone.

QB is the only position that actually has the potential to make all 21 other positions BETTER at the same moment. No other spot has that influence everywhere else. Great players at all positions influence other positions to a degree, but an elite QB alters the entire way the opposite team approaches you and makes it far easier to hide real weaknesses. I'm guessing in a couple years teams will have the game plan of "running the ball on us and keeping it away from us," as they did and do for years against Manning, Brees, Brady.

There is NOTHING like having a Top 5 player here.

Maybe we'll both enjoy that together sooner than we thought

[authentic]

wow, an Art post.. The world must really about to end soon.

[ZRagone]

Strangely enough this thread actually makes me wish ASF was still around with his crazy QB juding mechanism that declared Grossman a potential Franchise QB so as to see how RG3 stacks up in it.

And yeah, I think a QB has far more impact on the game outside of just his passing plays.

[Hitman21ST]

RG3's value in all of this is definitely higher than the "average" QB's contribution.

He contributes not only with his arm, but he can avoid pass rushers like literally no one else can and still deliver a spot on pass.
He can run.

Those two right there mean it's more than the 9.3% (if I had to put a number on it, I would say probably around 13-15%, with some value being taken away from the OL and RB).

But he also has a hand (or foot, should I say?) in the RB's contribution. The threat of him running will hold defenders, giving Morris fewer potential tacklers. That's something that can't really be quantified, but it has a definite impact.

Conversely, the read option play takes a small amount away from RG3 and puts it back on Morris - again by removing potential tacklers from the play (we can see this in the past two games, when Trent Cole and DeMarcus Ware both bit on the Morris dive, allowing Robert to run to their vacated spot). Those two probably cancel each other out, so I stand by my 13-15% figure. Just another tidbit to think about.

[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.

[Hitman21ST]

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

I think most of it (and you'll laugh at this too) is me taking a step back and actually reading through the whole post and taking time to work the numbers myself.

I think our scheme make the QB position worth more,

Definitely agree. See my above post for how I view it.

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

Didn't know the numbers, so thanks.

[DC9]

On the vast majority of running plays, the QB doesn't do very much. I'm not going to add a significant percentage simply because it can be claimed that "he touches the ball on every play." I could give the center just as much credit if I allow that argument.

Are the safeties back because the quarterback has completed passes down the field like Jay Cutler or are they up because they know at worst they will give off a dump off pass like Jason Campbell?

[ncr2h]

Strangely enough this thread actually makes me wish ASF was still around with his crazy QB juding mechanism that declared Grossman a potential Franchise QB so as to see how RG3 stacks up in it.

And yeah, I think a QB has far more impact on the game outside of just his passing plays.

I feel like ASF at least updated his arguments from time to time. He went from the original model which projected both Brady Quinn and Matt Schaub as undiscovered gems (as well as predicting Eli Manning's success at least 1 year before it actually manifested on the field), to some tweaks that eliminated Quinn, to a whole different approach based around the sophomore season in college. He also seemed to incorporate reasonable suggestions and refuted arguments using facts. He also had other, unrelated predictions that he made over the years that were interesting as well.

I don't think OldFan has modified his argument at all in the 6 years or so that I've been lurking here. The OP in this thread could have been copy & pasted from 6 years ago for all I know (or 6 days ago, when there literally was this exact same thread except with a different title). We've already heard everything that anyone is going to say in this thread.