The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[Oldfan]

Fair Enough.

RG3 probably comes in around 15% given the % of rushes he has in this scheme so far.

Spread the other 85% across the rest of the sample and he calculates at being at least 5 times more important than anyone else within that 100%.

That's about right.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 04:55 PM ----------

Although it is not a perfect indicator of intelligence, some of these factors could be considered when making a 'grade'. These are fairly easy to see and focus on the decision making of a QB. 1) If a QB has a history of making mental errors (i.e. throwing into triple coverage, missing open receivers, bad penalties) 2) if they have poor game management (i.e. delay of game penalties, poor clock management) 3) If they effectively audible into productive plays, Im sure there are more as well but these can be seen and graded as effectively as judging mechanics.

Sorry, my friend. I read posters claiming to be able to grade those things and it usually ends up being a biased view. Their favorite QBs get praised for being great at those things and they slam QBs they don't like.

Only someone like the OC, who knows what the QB's assignment was, and who to blame, can do the job fairly.

[skinnyskins]

That's about right.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 04:55 PM ----------

Sorry, my friend. I read posters claiming to be able to grade those things and it usually ends up being a biased view. Their favorite QBs get praised for being great at those things and they slam QBs they don't like.

Only someone like the OC, who knows what the QB's assignment was, and who to blame, can do the job fairly.

Even if that were true, and it's entirely dependent on the individual, it's still much better than ignoring the mental aspect of a QBs responsibilities altogether. And you don't need to be the OC to see if the QB threw into tripe coverage, missed an open receiver, got called on a delay of game, caused a stupid penalty, etc..

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

That's about right.

Thanks. I thought so too...

[Oldfan]

Even if that were true, and it's entirely dependent on the individual, it's still much better than ignoring the mental aspect of a QBs responsibilities altogether. And you don't need to be the OC to see if the QB threw into tripe coverage, missed an open receiver, got called on a delay of game, caused a stupid penalty, etc..

All QBs make more mistakes when pressured. So, you're grading the QB who plays for team A and comparing him to the QB who plays for team B -- and you notice that A's QB makes fewer mistakes. Is it because he isn't pressured as much as the other guy? You can't tell.

Then you have scouts offering opinions on leadership. The most common comment on Jason Campbell's scouting report was that he was a natural leader. What is leadership? Can you define it in a football context?

I believe that if QB can throw a football accurately in high pressure situations, his teammates will follow him If he can't they won't.

[daveakl]

How the team simply stabilizes around RGIII. If we can stop being so damn gimmicky on offense and just get to league average or so on defense and special teams, this team will win 11 to 12 games a year in its sleep. I mean, the pass defense was historically bad for 8 weeks and the team can still harbor some playoff dreams. Imagine if the worst thing you could say about the secondary is "Eh...it's okay."

Prob not the right thread for this and I do not want to get off topic here but I think you are seeing the future of our offense, not something that is "gimmicky". I also think this is the future of the NFL. Watch what San Fran is doing now. Scary how much speed they are amassing at skill spots (just like us). Would love to see a new thread about the future of NFL offenses as a reaction to the speed rushers that more and more teams have on the edge.

[DogofWar1]

If you can first define what you mean by a franchise QB and then tell me how you graded QBs to determine a QB qualified as a franchise QB, you will change my mind if it makes sense.

Well, how everyone defines "franchise" QB will differ. There's a rough dividing line that usually pops up in the 80s of the passer rating. Of course, passer rating isn't a perfect measure, but when looked at across a career, it can give a pretty solid idea. The problem is that there isn't a hard and fast set of numbers one can use. There's no hard and fast TD-INT line, or Comp. % mark, or anything like that. It's sort of a estimated thing, but usually you can look at a QB's career stats, and make a judgement call of if they were a good QB or not. For my purposes, I'll be using QB rating, not because it's perfect, but because it's the best comprehensive measure without delving into a whole ton of stat categories that would require pages and pages to sift through.

Anyways, it might be better just to list them.

Teams that managed 3 playoff appearances in any 5 year stretch since 2000 (it actually wasn't the last ten years, rather I had used 2000 before) are:
Indy, Baltimore, Denver, New Orleans, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Tennessee, NYG, NYJ, New England, Seattle, Green Bay, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Dallas.

There's a few more teams likely to join that group within the next couple years. Houston (Schaub), Chicago (Cutler), San Francisco (Smith and maybe Kaepernick), and Cincinnati (Dalton) are all contending this year and have one within the last two years. Detroit (Stafford) too possibly, though something weird got lost in translation from last year to this.

Anyways, of those teams, the QBs on board when they went were (* indicates they won 3 on their own) plus their career QB rating:
Indy - Manning* - 95.4
Baltimore - Flacco* - 86.1
Denver - Plummer* - 74.6
NO - Brees* - 94.4
St. Louis - Warner - 93.7/Bulger - 84.4
Philly - McNabb* - 85.6
Tampa - King - 73.4/Johnson - 82.5
Oakland - Gannon* - 84.7
Tenn - McNair* - 82.8
NYG - Collins - 73.8/Manning* - 82.2
NYJ - Pennington - 90.1, Testaverde - 75, Sanchez - 72.8
NE - Brady* - 97
Seattle - Hasselback* - 82.2
Green Bay - Farve* - 86/Rodgers* - 104.7
Atlanta - Ryan* - 89.4
Pittsburgh - Stewart - 70.7/Big Ben* - 92.8
San Diego - Rivers* - 94.8
Dallas - Romo* - 95.3

So anyways, of the 18 teams that managed the playoffs consistently, 15 had individual QBs responsible for 3 plus appearances. Meanwhile 6 had some combination of QBs. Obviously that adds up to more than 18 because some teams had a QBs who got them an appearance or two, and were then replaced by a QB who got them 3 on their own (Stewart/BigBen and Collins/Manning, and than Farve/Rodgers who both got 3+ appearances on their own).

Average rating of 16 QBs who managed 3 playoff appearances on their own: 89.25
Average rating of 9 QBs who were a part of 3 appearances, but not on their own: 79.6

Now, just for the sake of a reference point, the closest QB to the average for a QB managing playoffs consistently is Matt Ryan (89.4 rating vs. 89.25 average). Now, obviously Ryan has that annoying tendency to choke in the postseason, but beyond that he's a great regular season QB, and most teams would love to have a guy like him.

The immediate argument that comes up against QBs is usually that defense wins championships, or something like that, and that QBs can sort of limp along. However, if that was the case, one would think we'd see some QBs who had 3+ appearances in the 70s, but that's not the case, the only QB in the 70s is Plummer. (It's probably worth noting that Alex Smith has a career rating of 79, and despite efficient play would probably average around there for his career, if not slightly higher than 80)

Now, let's not discount defense, because there's a couple guys like Eli and McNair who had low 80s but managed 3 appearances on their own, so defense definitely plays a role. That being said, there appears to be a wall around 80 (Plummer being the exception) for consistent playoff appearances.

Also, from a QB's perspective, defense can help win games, but it's rarely going to make a huge difference in a QB's play, a poor QB will still make mistakes regardless of how good the defense is.

The better argument against QBs is that offensive talent outside of QB leads to inflated ratings, mainly through talented WRs. Oline isn't a huge factor, because again, a poor passer is a poor passer is a poor passer, and all the time in the world won't change that. They might play "better," but better probably means in the 70s vs. the 50s. Oline is a skill multiplier, but the skill has to be there first.

So the key argument remaining is that QBs are inflated by solid surrounding weapons, not their own abilities, and honestly we could probably argue that back and forth until we're blue in the face, so I'll stop now, since I sort of have a wall of text already.

EDIT: Oh thank goodness, I hit post and it gave that service unavailable page, and was really worried that my wall of text would be lost :p.

[daveakl]

I completely disagree. Our offense is gimmicky because we don't have a lot of talent, we rely on confusion and mis-direction to generate production.

Or is our "gimmicky" offense more a representation of the next step from what NE has been running the past few years. We can go into more detail in another thread if you like.

[Mahons21]

Or is our "gimmicky" offense more a representation of the next step from what NE has been running the past few years. We can go into more detail in another thread if you like.

I don't think our offense is very similar to NEs at all. Furthermore, they attempted to move towards a 2 te single back formation that resembles more traditional offenses, but injuries got in the way.

If you'd like to open up another thread about it that's fine.

[Burgold]

I don't think our offense is very similar to NEs at all. Furthermore, they attempted to move towards a 2 te single back formation that resembles more traditional offenses, but injuries got in the way.

If you'd like to open up another thread about it that's fine.

In a way though, Logan Paulson is more valuable than Davis.

I think because defensive coordinators decided they needed to account for Davis because of his speed, but Paulson doesn't... Paulson is much easier lost because people need to concentrate on Robinson, Garcon, et al.

At any rate, that's my explanation for him getting so wide open and making so many big plays for us in recent weeks.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

The larger O-line question is: What will Mike do if defenses become adept at keeping Robert in the pocket as they try to do with Romo? I have no doubt that RG3 can pass from the pocket, but that smaller O-line isn't very good at protecting him.

Not to take your thread in another, all be it semi related direction again my good man; but that is indeed the question and one that's been nagging away at me all year.

It's good to see someone else agrees on the line that has been WAY over hyped on here of late to the point of some posters actually suggesting it's good enough to go forward with. Totally neglecting the part the genius in the 10 shirt and some highly inventive, oft confusing for the opposition play calling has played in making 3-4 of the group look a whole bunch better than they actually are.

But I won't detract from the QB any further and return you to the topic at hand.

Hail.

[bedlamVR]

... wait what ?

9.3% man why do people want to put so many numbers to a game - that is so variable ... if the QB is (for the sake of easy maths .. 10%) of the teams composition then does that mean the starter should consume 10% of the teams resources so 10% of the salary cap and 10% of the draft picks should go find to a starting QB (1 full years worth of drafts in 10) or is it something that no so simple ?

Also without a QB - and i mean any QB then the team should be 90% effective - So a team that wins 10 games a season would win 9 games a season without the QB ?

And I have read the thread points and counter points and I get the point . People emotionally pulls a number out his ass (75%) and you sat down to disprove this ass stat wrong - with the devil of all tools - statistics ....

You also break it down that all the players are trained to the schemes like little robots - and so have a quantifiable value in terms of a win - but the thing is - they don't have equal value in a win . Some players contribution no matter how well they play their position in the scheme - All they can do is make sure the team does not loose .

But the other problem I have with the OP and counter points is - the QB might only account 10% (i like easy math) for the win in his physical attributes and abilities - but maths cannot begin to model what it takes to make a team win or loose .

- In very loose terms if the QB is the brain of the team, he sends out orders to get the offense to work properly . He translates the orders and the schemes of the coaches on the field - he reads the defense and audibles to alert the team to the defense . Everything works through the QB .

- The offensive line blocks - but they can only protect a QB of he has some awareness of what they are doing - They can move the pocket but the QB has to take advantage of the blocks otherwise they have no value .
- The RB can take the ball and run - making the play with little contribution from the QB - HOWEVER just as the run sets up the pass the pass sets up the run - if the QB is ineffective then the RB has a high probability to become effective as defenders cheat up to the line and the RB becomes less effective
- WR and TES can help out QB by running crisp routes, being on the same page on option plays and making plays on the ball plucking the errant ball out the air - but no matter who your WR or TE is they are not going to have an impact without the throws of the QB .

The defense can score - but seriously - what team has ever made the superbowl with more defensive points than offensive points . Equally the special teams can score but their sole purpose is to make the game more difficult for the opposing offenses and winning the land war for field position for the offense to take over .

Also outside the center the QB has the ball in his hands on more plays than anyone else in the game . And as such has the biggest oportunity to mess up and help the team loose ....

And this is where I think the OP has missed the point in the original ass stat of 75% he went to disprove . There was no math or advanced reasoning behind the number - but as much as an impact the QB has positively in terms of winning a game (which can be semi quantified in terms of passes and completions etc) he can also have a massive negative effect on the team ...if the QB has a horrible game then the chances of winning deminish remarkably no matter the scheme, no matter the other skill positions, the defense or the special teams, if the QB is not right then it is an uphill battle - it is possible to win even if the QB has an on field embolism - but it much much much harder .

In this regard - even though he is only one person - even though he only has the ball in his hand a specific number of times and only has to do so much - i think the 75% is much closer to the actual impact of the QB than the reasoned and calculated 9.3% in the OP

[daveakl]

I don't think our offense is very similar to NEs at all. Furthermore, they attempted to move towards a 2 te single back formation that resembles more traditional offenses, but injuries got in the way.

If you'd like to open up another thread about it that's fine.

Sounds like NE lol

Rumor has it that BB was tired of losing the playoffs the last few years and blamed it on not being able to run the ball, esp against better defenses. MS spent time at Florida (NCAA) and NE during his time out of coaching learning their offenses. I'm sure some of that info was shared with KS. The sheer amount of speed they are trying to put on the field at the same time (PG, AR, SM at WR and then FD and NP at TE) with RGIII and Morris in the backfield is outstanding. Having motion and formations that force mismatches are def. designed. What may look like a gimmick is very well thought out.

What is even more exciting is when RGIII has had more time with this group and looking at NFL defenses through game exp. The evolution of the NFL offense is here (and in SF, but that's a different story)

[Mahons21]

In a way though, Logan Paulson is more valuable than Davis.

I think because defensive coordinators decided they needed to account for Davis because of his speed, but Paulson doesn't... Paulson is much easier lost because people need to concentrate on Robinson, Garcon, et al.

At any rate, that's my explanation for him getting so wide open and making so many big plays for us in recent weeks.

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't know that I'd say Paulsen is more valuable to Davis. Anyone that makes a DC scheme for them is more valuable then someone who doesn't, because you're already limiting what they can do. In addition you have to give Davis credit for the attention he takes that allows other guys to get open.

I think the Davis contract situation will be an interesting one to watch play out. What about you?

[DogofWar1]

At any rate, that's my explanation for him getting so wide open and making so many big plays for us in recent weeks.

Logan Paulson is a ninja.

[darrelgreenie]

Sounds like NE

NE (this season) borrowed hurry-up concepts and simple one word terminology from college to play faster i.e up tempo and run more plays per game but they still run a traditional NFL offense. I don't see how that is similar to our offense.