The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[darrelgreenie]

(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.

I disagree, I'm struggling to see how our offense is an evolution from their offenses.

Our offense is currently a balanced offense that seldom uses spread formations. Most of our plays comes from typical base formations (I-Form, Offset I etc.) except Griffin is in shotgun making it appear as exotic Pistol formation. We're have one of the most play-action oriented passing offenses. We seldom use 5 pass catchers and seldom use a short passing in leiu of a run. We don't use up tempo or no huddle often. We don't feature multiple TEs in our base offense nor as part of the passing game. We do very little drop back passing unless there is some run/play action attached.

[daveakl]

I disagree, I'm struggling to see how our offense is an evolution from their offenses.

Our offense is currently a balanced offense that seldom uses spread formations. Most of our plays comes from typical base formations (I-Form, Offset I etc.) except Griffin is in shotgun making it appear as exotic Pistol formation. We're have one of the most play-action oriented passing offenses. We seldom use 5 pass catchers and seldom use a short passing in leiu of a run. We don't use up tempo or no huddle often. We don't feature multiple TEs in our base offense nor as part of the passing game. We do very little drop back passing unless there is some run/play action attached.

It's not as much about the formation as it is the concept. We have 5 pass catchers on the field at a time more often then not (we just don't operate out of a spread as much). Many times it's multiple pass catchers in the backfield (Moss or Banks). The spread portion was great for NE in putting up points, but did not get SB victories as better defenses were able to knock the WR's off the short routes and NE couldn't run the ball. I also think we will move to having more spread formations as our O-Line improves in blocking for longer developing pass plays without having to keep more blockers in and less people in routes.

[DogofWar1]

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.

Oh of course teamwork is a two way street, but Kurt Warner won a SB, and led the Rams to another SB game before Fitzgerald was even out of high school. Warner was really really good, as he played well across his entire career in multiple places, and he was the highest rated QB of all the QBs who did not consistently make the playoffs since 2000.

The thing is, look at the Cardinals with Warner and Fitzgerald, and then look at the Cardinals with Kolb/Skelton and Fitzgerald. Same top WR, different QB. The team's record plunged, and despite having probably the #1 or #2 WR in the NFL, Kolb and Skelton aren't performing well, their career QB ratings are 79 and 66 respectively.

It's true that everything interlocks on offenses, but over periods of multiple years franchise QBs perform consistently well while poor QBs will stumble at various points, and eventually be exposed, and the rest of the offense usually can do little to help them.

Cassel has Dwayne Bowe, Jamaal Charles, and has been sacked 25th most times in the league. I'd say that his support system is pretty decent. Maybe, not great, but decent enough. Meanwhile, his QB rating is 66, with a 6-12 TD/INT. Or turnover machine Vick. Guy has Jackson, Maclin, McCoy and Celek, and yet throws INTs like party favors. And that's before we get to his fumbles.

Again, everything is a correlation, and trying to tie it back to causation is incredibly difficult, but the point I'm making is that when you look at a playoff team, and especially at consistent playoff teams, you see teams with all manners of defenses, running games, Olines, WR corps, etc. but one thing that tends to hold constant is that the QB is good.

Generally you do need more than a QB to be a consistent playoff contender, but you NEED the QB before anything else.

It's worth reiterating that I don't think a QB is 75% of the value of a team's success, but I don't think it's 10% either. I would argue for somewhere between 20%-40%, depending on scheme, strength of defense, running game, etc., and probably averaging around 33% for the league as a whole.

[Oldfan]

...Ok, so I just did a little reading and researching and 60-75% is a bit much, but heres my final opinion on the team:

45% QB
10% coaching
20% Oline/RB/WR
20% defense
5% special teams

You squeezed everything else down to make the QB worth 45% but you have a problem. You have the offense including the QB totalling 65% and the defense at 20%. In order to make that make sense, you will have to explain how scoring seven points is so much more important than keeping the opponent from scoring seven points. In other words, offense and defense have to have equal weight.

[Art]

Oldfan, I have to credit you with a willingness to engage in a conversation and debate your point.

No matter how wrong you are .

Good stuff.

[skinfan2k]

This simply is taking into consideration the percentage of the plays that the QB is involved and not the magnitude of the plays that the QB is involved in which has an impact on every other single play in the game.

[Oldfan]

Oh of course teamwork is a two way street, but Kurt Warner won a SB, and led the Rams to another SB game before Fitzgerald was even out of high school.

Warner's career is much like Jeff Garcia's. They are examples of how dependent a QB's performance is on his support. Warner was up and down. He lost his starting job in New York and played mostly a backup role for two seasons in St. Louis before hooking up with Fitzgerald and Boldin.

The thing is, look at the Cardinals with Warner and Fitzgerald, and then look at the Cardinals with Kolb/Skelton and Fitzgerald.

Did I say the QB position isn't important? Or that all QBs are equal?

It's true that everything interlocks on offenses, but over periods of multiple years franchise QBs perform consistently well while poor QBs will stumble at various points, and eventually be exposed, and the rest of the offense usually can do little to help them.

I don't know what a franchise QB is. I've asked the question twice recently and got five definitions -- all different.

A high-grade QB can make a big difference, but not 40% 50% 75% or anything even close to those numbers.

Again, everything is a correlation, and trying to tie it back to causation is incredibly difficult, but the point I'm making is that when you look at a playoff team, and especially at consistent playoff teams, you see teams with all manners of defenses, running games, Olines, WR corps, etc. but one thing that tends to hold constant is that the QB is good.

If you look at good teams, the QB's performance looks good -- but you have no idea by looking at his performance how he compares to other QBs.

The support system might allow the QB to play at 90% of his potential or 70%. You have no idea by watching his perormance.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 10:54 PM ----------

Oldfan, I have to credit you with a willingness to engage in a conversation and debate your point.

No matter how wrong you are .

Good stuff.

What NFL Football needs is a good dose of sabremetrics, a way to actually grade a QB that is statistically sound. That would be an eye opener.

Last week I read an opinion that Eli Manning should now be considered elite since he had won two Super Bowls. The flaw in that logic made my eyes cross. But the author of that opinion wasn't some clueless poster in the Stadium. It was Brian Billick blogging for the NFL.

I went back to find it. The article was still there, but it had been edited. No mention of Eli.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 11:09 PM ----------

This simply is taking into consideration the percentage of the plays that the QB is involved and not the magnitude of the plays that the QB is involved in which has an impact on every other single play in the game.

How would one go about measuring the magnitude a play? And, if you're saying that passes have a greater magnitude, wouldn't the defenses stop of the opponent's passing game be of equal magnitude?

[Mahons21]

Shot in the dark here OF, but something tells me you're a big fan of Nate Silver.

I've actually been thinking about going back to school at either UMD or Hopkins to get a masters in applied economics, certainly an interesting topic.

[mudhog]

So if Griffin goes out, the Redskins 90.7% as good with Cousins under center?

So, Henry finally gets to the crux of the matter. It's all semantics. We know the drop-off from RGIII to cousins is more than 9.3%. And we think, that the 75% and 85% that Oldfan gave us in the OP are a little high. Therefore, it's gotta fall somewhere in between.

We know damn well, the drop-off between RGIII and Cousins will be way more than 10%. Just as we know pulling Cutler out of the Bears scheme and plugging Campbell, would be more. Campbell and Cousins are both back-ups(one with more experience to one with more talent), but I predict that the fall-off in production/wins for Cousins would be much less due to the fact he is more inately talented. Therefore, we have something immeasurable, as in the OP.

Now, if you pulled Brady out of his scheme and plugged in RGIII, you would probably have a drop-off in production/wins, but it wouldn't be due to lack of talent. Lack of experience in a scheme obviously. But, I would have to say that RGIII is way more talented than Brady. Thus, another immeasurable.

Lastly, if you remove RGIII and plug in Grossman, the defensive scheme changes and we get a drop in production/wins. Just because of what RGIII could do with his legs, means we will face a different Giants D this Monday, than Rogers did Sunday night. Again, immeasurable. Again, it must be explained away in the best possible language at the time.

Do I agree with the OP, that 75% and 85% sound a little high? Yes. But, at the same time, I am not willing to put such a low-ball percentage on it as Oldfan. A good quarterback is just too integral to the performance and success of any organization.

Hail

[SWFLSkins]

RGIII IS our team.

I don't know what percentage you'd like to put on that but the percentage of doing much of anything decreases immeasurably without him. We have a line for one that's getting great praise, but is still an average to below average unit aside from Williams and maybe Lichtensteiger. All being made to look considerably better than they are thanks to #10. (And in part great scheming to utilize 10's unique talents.).

And I'm still convinced without Robert, Shanahan would of seen it all unravel after the Carolina debacle, and his ridiculous comments afterward. IMHO, and opinion is all we have as we're all on the outside looking in, Robert held it all together by his tremendous example the players all believe in over the bye. Not the coaching staff.

As regards this team, right now, I honestly don't think you can understate the importance of RGIII. Nor do I think you can over inflate him as regards a percentage number. On whatever scale you wish to use.

Hail.

I think and walk with me for a second, Shanahan knows more about motivating guys then you give him credit for GHH. He said Carolina was a must win, the team came out flat at home and laid an egg. He, like the fans was really pissed. Besides it didn't backfire did it?

He masterfully made those comments and then regressed, I maybe alone but I don't think it was a mistake by him. You must remember this is a guy known for his cunning use of the media and words. He speaks little but says much. I don't think it goes against his plan to fire the team up by mistake and have them rally round Robert.

[Oldfan]

Shot in the dark here OF, but something tells me you're a big fan of Nate Silver.

I've actually been thinking about going back to school at either UMD or Hopkins to get a masters in applied economics, certainly an interesting topic.

In thinking style, I'm a self-described futurist. I make predictions. So, while I wouldn't call myself his big fan, I'm fascinated by what Nate Silver and others like him are doing.

A Math guy giving a Ted Talk said that Math Ed should be ultimately aimed at Probability and Statistics rather than Calculus. As a card-carrying pragmatist, I agree. Most decisions involve selecting the option with the highest probability of success and statistics can help identify the right option.

Maybe you already know that Bill Belichik and Ernie Adams majored in Economics. I've read that Adams employed an economist (Sackrowitz) to study the two-point conversion; and Belichik was reportedly was the only NFL coach to take seriously economist David Romer's study which criticized NFL coaches for not going for it more often on fourth down in plus territory. I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg up in Foxboro.

With an understanding of very basic economics, anyone could have predicted that the Gibbs strategy of trading picks for veterans and going aggressively into free agency was 180 degrees wrong and likely to fail. I raised the issue in this forum explaining that the draft was a closed market and free agency was an open market. I then explained the implications. A few months later, an economist published an online article comparing the Redskins' approach to the Patriots. He came to the same conclusion I did using the jargon of an economist. He added that, if the Skins didn't have a monopoly on the game in Washington, they would be going bankrupt.

If it's possible for you, I'd encourage a pursuit in this field. It's the future.

---------- Post added November-28th-2012 at 10:52 AM ----------

So, Henry finally gets to the crux of the matter. It's all semantics. We know the drop-off from RGIII to cousins is more than 9.3%. And we think, that the 75% and 85% that Oldfan gave us in the OP are a little high. Therefore, it's gotta fall somewhere in between.

Several posters, including you and Henry, did not understand this paragraph 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.

What this means is that the value of the position would surely go down because Shanahan could not ask Cousins to do the same things the scheme required of RG3. He would compensate with a different game plan.

However, the most important thing you are missing is that the value of the position and the talent grade of the QB are two different numbers. Raising the issue of Cousins coming in for RG3 is not relevant in our discussion.

I added this to the OP. It might help to explain the concept:

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 one 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.



---------- Post added November-28th-2012 at 10:59 AM ----------

I think and walk with me for a second, Shanahan knows more about motivating guys then you give him credit for GHH. He said Carolina was a must win, the team came out flat at home and laid an egg. He, like the fans was really pissed. Besides it didn't backfire did it?

He masterfully made those comments and then regressed, I maybe alone but I don't think it was a mistake by him. You must remember this is a guy known for his cunning use of the media and words. He speaks little but says much. I don't think it goes against his plan to fire the team up by mistake and have them rally round Robert.

It's more likely that Mike just stuck his foot in his mouth again.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I think and walk with me for a second, Shanahan knows more about motivating guys then you give him credit for GHH. He said Carolina was a must win, the team came out flat at home and laid an egg. He, like the fans was really pissed. Besides it didn't backfire did it?

He masterfully made those comments and then regressed, I maybe alone but I don't think it was a mistake by him. You must remember this is a guy known for his cunning use of the media and words. He speaks little but says much. I don't think it goes against his plan to fire the team up by mistake and have them rally round Robert.

Sorry man, not buying it for a second. You may be right. I may be a million miles wrong.

But there's NO way you'll convince me, even with a gun to my head, those words were a premeditated attempt to motivate his players. Nor do I think it doesn't ALL fall apart were it not for the leadership and motivation by example of 10. A player every other fully believes in to see them through.

Shanahan's done a lot of good here. He's also done a lot of bad. The Carolina debacle was just the latest of the bad. He's one lucky ass coach it stabilized after that IMHO. And he should be thanking God nightly for 10.

And with the bad and mistakes that continue to go along with the good, I think it's perfectly reasonable and justified when anyone wants to have a debate on him. Sadly, too many B&G blinkered 'homers' do not and often shout the loudest.

Hail.

[wrecker]

Sorry man, not buying it for a second. You may be right. I may be a million miles wrong.

But there's NO way you'll convince me, even with a gun to my head, those words were a premeditated attempt to motivate his players. Nor do I think it doesn't ALL fall apart were it not for the leadership and motivation by example of 10. A player every other fully believes in to see them through.

Shanahan's done a lot of good here. He's also done a lot of bad. The Carolina debacle was just the latest of the bad. He's one lucky ass coach it stabilized after that IMHO. And he should be thanking God nightly for 10.

And with the bad and mistakes that continue to go along with the good, I think it's perfectly reasonable and justified when anyone wants to have a debate on him. Sadly, too many B&G blinkered 'homers' do not and often shout the loudest.

Hail.

I agree with this 100%.

[DogofWar1]

I think I like Shanahan a little bit more than GHH does, but I think he has a point.

With all the injuries we've had, and the total collapse of the defense, this is the kind of situation where coaches lose control of everything, and the team ends up 2-14 or something, and the coach gets fired.

If our team is perfectly healthy with Grossman (or Tannehill, or whoever we have if we don't have RGIII) under center, I think we compete for 8-8, maybe 9-7. But with our injuries, without #10, we'd be lucky to get anywhere close to 5-11. So in that respect, Shanahan is very lucky.

It was a very good thing for him to move up and get his guy then. I was a proponent of giving Shanahan 4 years to find success (and his QB) provided he could keep his head above water. Clearly, without RGIII, that would not have happened. Good move by him, but also a lucky one.

On a separate note, I'm working on this big stat database that going to try and put some numbers behind my usual eye-balling. In the end, I'm hoping to have a range of approximate value of the QB position on average for the league. It won't be exact (nothing ever is), but I'm hoping to be able to show correlations, strong, weak, non-existent, etc, and make conclusions based on that. That will probably take a few days though.

[SkinsFanMania]

This simply is taking into consideration the percentage of the plays that the QB is involved and not the magnitude of the plays that the QB is involved in which has an impact on every other single play in the game.

bingo