The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

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

Why would we not re-sign someone in their prime when we neither have anyone of that caliber at the position as of now; and would only have to wait for either Paul to fully develop or go out and pay the price for someone to fill his shoes?

I keep seeing this not only being asked, but floated by some as FreddieD being gone. Unless he's slipped and transgressed with the weed again that we don't know about, I don't get it.

Outside of 10, he's arguably the top play maker on the team.

Hail.

[Mahons21]

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.

I agree whole heartedly that the "gimmicky" offense is extremely well thought out. My point about the offense had been that it was based on mis-direction and confusion, largely due to the lack of talent we have across the line. I certainly wasn't try to criticize the offense, I think it's absolutely genius, one of the most impressive things I've seen regarding the evolution of NFL offenses.

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)

I'm not entirely sure I believe that just yet. I could very easily see that being the case, but I could also see the pistol slowly fade away and that wouldn't surprise me either. The couple of plays I believe are here to stay ar the read-option and the QB draw from a spread formation.

[zskins]

So to recap: OF watches football games in total enjoyment .01% of the time. For 99.9% he is "grading" the players, teams, coaches, etc... Matter of fact he even has a calculation of what % of the time Banks feet spend time going sideways compared to forward.

But seriously, I know what you are saying. Got it when you said the number assigned to QB can't be changed. So total "weight "of the QB is the same % wise but not talent wise. Talent will make a team win but the position itself is still assigned the importance of that position the same %.

[daveakl]

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.

A lot of what NE is doing isn't always based around snapping it faster. Their total plays per game is about the same as Detroit and Indy. They hurry to the line and force the D to keep the same personal on the field. If they sense a weakness then they will exploit it over and over through a faster snap, but otherwise they audible a ton after being set. If our D was better I think we would be running more up tempo. When RGIII has another year under his belt I think we will see a lot more of this also.

[Mahons21]

Why would we not re-sign someone in their prime when we neither have anyone of that caliber at the position as of now; and would only have to wait for either Paul to fully develop or go out and pay the price for someone to fill his shoes?

I keep seeing this not only being asked, but floated by some as FreddieD being gone. Unless he's slipped and transgressed with the weed again that we don't know about, I don't get it.

Outside of 10, he's arguably the top play maker on the team.

Hail.

I'm not advocating for him to be gone. However I don't think it's a certainty he remains here, and it's something I believe is worth monitoring. If you don't want to monitor it that's fine.

[Oldfan]

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....

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.

Am I wrong in assuming that your purpose is to compare QBs in order to rank them? Although it's called a "Quaterback Rating," it really doen't do that. What it does is to tell you, for example, is that the performance of the Colts passing game with Manning at QB has been better than the performance of the Ravens passing game with Joe Flacco st QB. That's not what you want to know. Is it?

Peyton Manning and 22 of the teammates and coaches weigh 5,304 pounds. Joe Flacco and 22 of his teammates weigh 5,330 pounds. Who weighs more, Peyton or Joe? You can't tell because I gave you a useless number if you wanted to find out whether Peyton or Joe weighed more. The quarterback rating is a useless number for rating QBs, IMO.

If you want to find out which is the better QB then you need to separate them from their team and grade them independently.

I use the so-called Quarterback Rating as a rough guide to grade the passing game of a team. It's not a bad stat for that purpose.

[daveakl]

I agree whole heartedly that the "gimmicky" offense is extremely well thought out. My point about the offense had been that it was based on mis-direction and confusion, largely due to the lack of talent we have across the line. I certainly wasn't try to criticize the offense, I think it's absolutely genius, one of the most impressive things I've seen regarding the evolution of NFL offenses.

Works for me

I'm not entirely sure I believe that just yet. I could very easily see that being the case, but I could also see the pistol slowly fade away and that wouldn't surprise me either. The couple of plays I believe are here to stay ar the read-option and the QB draw from a spread formation.

In the late 90's the 7 v 7 wave was hitting Texas and started spreading across the south. I think we are now starting to see NFL players that grew up playing this style all off season as well as coaches that have been around it enough to really work it into the NFL game. The speed of the edge rushers on D has forced it in some ways also.

[Bishop Hammer]

Colts were tanking for Luck. No question in my mind.

Never said it wasn't a QB league. I've even said the QB is the most important position, and gave him the highest percentage. What you're doing is putting too much of a value on it.

Seriously, OF, get out of my head

The Colts didn't tank to get Luck. That makes no sense whatsoever. If it was some team conspiracy then the players and coaches didn't get the memo because they all got sacked. I don't care how much someone likes their job they're not going to get themselves fired so their company gets better leaving them without a paycheck. The Colts have virtually a new roster and coaching staff. Almost ALL of the team from last year is gone.

[darrelgreenie]

A lot of what NE is doing isn't always based around snapping it faster. Their total plays per game is about the same as Detroit and Indy. They hurry to the line and force the D to keep the same personal on the field. If they sense a weakness then they will exploit it over and over through a faster snap, but otherwise they audible a ton after being set. If our D was better I think we would be running more up tempo. When RGIII has another year under his belt I think we will see a lot more of this also.

Okay, but I was responding only to say that our offense isn't similar to NEs. Everything else you mentioned, while true, isn't the aspect of your post I was responding.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 06:02 PM ----------

I'm not entirely sure I believe that just yet. I could very easily see that being the case, but I could also see the pistol slowly fade away and that wouldn't surprise me either. The couple of plays I believe are here to stay ar the read-option and the QB draw from a spread formation.

I agree that the zone-read or the (umbrella term) read-option concepts arre here to stay. If a team has a QB capable of executing read-option it will be a weapon cutting edge teams use to augment their offense. And I find it ironic that Tebow helped teams see the viablilty of read-option concepts in the NFL.

[daveakl]

Okay, but I was responding only to say that our offense isn't similar to NEs. Everything else you mentioned, while true, isn't the aspect of your post I was responding.

I said that what we are running is the next step from what NE has been running the past few years. Not that what we are running is what they are/have been.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 11:10 PM ----------

I agree that the zone-read or the (umbrella term) read-option concepts arre here to stay. If a team has a QB capable of executing read-option it will be a weapon cutting edge teams use to augment their offense. And I find it ironic that Tebow helped teams see the viablilty of read-option concepts in the NFL.

I think coaches saw them win and thought, what if we had a QB that could do that but actually throw the ball well. lol

[skinnyskins]

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.

Yes, I can tell if a QB is under pressure. If they are under pressure on a play when they throw into triple coverage then that would not count against them as much as if they threw into triple coverage with a clean pocket. Over time, it is easy to see a pattern develop that can tell you if they constantly make bad decisions or not. Combined with other factors, such as penalties, calling audibles and their success, etc.. it is possible to get a good idea of the competency of a QB. Like I said, it's not a perfect measure, but it's better than not including it at all.

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.

I never said anything about leadership. But, it should be taken into account by the best means possible.

[darrelgreenie]

I said that what we are running is the next step from what NE has been running the past few years. Not that what we are running is what they are/have been.

I'm curious how would you describe our offense and how would you view NEs offense and what do you think makes our offense the next step from their offense?

[DogofWar1]

Am I wrong in assuming that your purpose is to compare QBs in order to rank them? Although it's called a "Quaterback Rating," it really doen't do that. What it does is to tell you, for example, is that the performance of the Colts passing game with Manning at QB has been better than the performance of the Ravens passing game with Joe Flacco st QB. That's not what you want to know. Is it?

Peyton Manning and 22 of the teammates and coaches weigh 5,304 pounds. Joe Flacco and 22 of his teammates weigh 5,330 pounds. Who weighs more, Peyton or Joe? You can't tell because I gave you a useless number if you wanted to find out whether Peyton or Joe weighed more. The quarterback rating is a useless number for rating QBs, IMO.

I use it as a rough guide to grade the passing game of a team. It's not a bad stat for that purpose.

If I wanted to rank QBs I'd just have grabbed the highest rated QBs of the past decade or so. Then I might have compared team records over their periods, and seen what the correlation was (my guess is it would be a positive correlation, but I don't have that data on hand).

Rather, since the goal is consistent playoff appearances, I tried to see what each team that consistently made the playoffs had at the QB position, whether it was stable or not, and what the ratings of the QBs were. The results were that the average QB for a consistent playoff team is "similar" to Matt Ryan.

Ideally, we would get the QB rating of every QB since 2000, and then compare that to the record of their team, playoff appearances, etc., and then of course grab all the data concerning defenses, and also try and grade Olines and WR corps, weighing them all, etc. etc. but the amount of data you'd have to go through would be tremendous.

That's why I mentioned that WR corps, and to a lesser extent I think, the Oline, play a role in the success of a QB, but it's very tough to be certain, especially with WRs, whether the QB makes the WRs or the WRs make the QB. Take AA for example, he had very good stats in 2010, and yet now can't even stick with a team. McNabb's ability to throw deep made him, instead of him making McNabb. For another quick example, take Blackmon and Gabbert/Henne. Blackmon did next to nothing before Henne got in there, he alone couldn't help Gabbert. Now, with Henne, Blackmon is playing much better. It's probably a combination of both, but tough to weigh the impact either has. I think ultimately the QB plays far and away the largest role in the success of a team's passing game, which is why I felt that passer rating was a decent metric to use.

And again, while defenses definitely play a role in consistent success, there seems to be a wall that they run into with QBs who play below a certain level.

[daveakl]

I'm curious how would you describe our offense and how would you view NEs offense and what do you think makes our offense the next step from their offense?

(trying to be super simple here and not get into a long winded response) I think NE started with the Erhardt- Perkins as it's base. Then with the addition of Moss and Welker they lost some of their power running aspects, removed the FB, and went more 5 pass catchers using the short pass as the power run. Picking up 3-5 yards through the air was just as good and Brady is accurate enough to make that work. With Gronk and Hernandez I think they were moving back this year towards a two TE set with two WR's and a RB who actually was more of a power back then the woodhead mold of the past few years.

While we are def not based off the Erhardt style, I think we took what NE and FL have been doing and combined them to make what they jokingly called "East Coast Offense". You see the zone read, short bubble screens, quick slants, play action deep, option, as well as toss sweeps.

[Oldfan]

...9.3% man why do people want to put so many numbers to a game - that is so variable ...

My purpose is to communicate better. If I had said that the QB position is the most important, but still a minor factor, you wouldn't know how much of a minor factor.

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 ?

No.

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 ?

No.

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 ....

Gosselin was very careful to compare college and NFL. He's a writer. He used those percentages just as I did to better communicate with his readers.

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 .

I didn't understand what you were trying to say.

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 .

My OP wasn't a model intended for that purpose.

- 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 .

He calls the play and hands off on a run. He is more intimately involved with the passing game -- and not at all with the coaching, the defense or the special teams.

- 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 .

Of course.

- 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

Yes, so there's an offset in those factors.

- 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 .

Of course. Are we going to go through the entire game of football?

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 .

The defense is mainly to keep the opponent from scoring. If the team gets behind on the scoreboard, the QB often has to take risks to catch up and ends up looking very bad.

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 ...

.

Repetition of point previously made.

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 .

Read this again from 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.

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

May I assume that if that 75% was anything more than something you pulled out of your ass, you would have offered reasons to support it just as I did?

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 06:45 PM ----------

...That's why I mentioned that WR corps, and to a lesser extent I think, the Oline, play a role in the success of a QB, but it's very tough to be certain, especially with WRs, whether the QB makes the WRs or the WRs make the QB. Take AA for example, he had very good stats in 2010, and yet now can't even stick with a team. McNabb's ability to throw deep made him, instead of him making McNabb. For another quick example, take Blackmon and Gabbert/Henne. Blackmon did next to nothing before Henne got in there, he alone couldn't help Gabbert. Now, with Henne, Blackmon is playing much better. It's probably a combination of both, but tough to weigh the impact either has. I think ultimately the QB plays far and away the largest role in the success of a team's passing game, which is why I felt that passer rating was a decent metric to use....

Teamwork makes a difference to all players involved. Kurt Warner could lob passes into double coverage knowing that Larry Fitgerald could come down with it or, at the least, knock it down. For any other QB, he pass would have been labeled a bad read and a likely INT for the passer. How do you take Warner's QB rating and then try to compare it to other QBs who don't have a Fitzgerald to throw to? And Fitzgerald's production will go down without Warner to lob him passes.

Teamwork is a two-way street.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 06:53 PM ----------

Yes, I can tell if a QB is under pressure. If they are under pressure on a play when they throw into triple coverage then that would not count against them as much as if they threw into triple coverage with a clean pocket. Over time, it is easy to see a pattern develop that can tell you if they constantly make bad decisions or not. Combined with other factors, such as penalties, calling audibles and their success, etc.. it is possible to get a good idea of the competency of a QB. Like I said, it's not a perfect measure, but it's better than not including it at all.

Well then, you should include those intangibles in your grading.

I never said anything about leadership. But, it should be taken into account by the best means possible.

Even if you can't define it, can't see it, and don't know whether the QB actually has it or not?