Jason Campbell vs. Tom Brady

[Oldfan]

In another thread, zoony asked me to estimate how many more games the Skins would win if we had Tom Brady at QB. I estimated one or two. Zoony and Jumbo estimated three to five. I don't think it's possible for any QB to make that much difference because the QB position doesn't have that much value. This estimate will help you understand my position:

Importance to winning = 100%

20% -- Coaching

10% -- Special Teams

35% -- Defense

35% -- Offense

Offense Broken Down:

15% -- Running Game

....7% -- RB

....8% -- Blockers

20% -- Passing Game

....5% -- Protectors

....5% -- Receivers

...10% -- QB

At ten per-cent, I have the QB as the most important position player by far, but he is still just a minor factor overall. If anyone thinks my estimate is too low, I challenge them to present their own breakdown using the same approach. I think they will find that they have to unreasonably lower the importance of other factors. My position is that QBs on losing teams get far more blame than they deserve while QBs on perennial winners are massively overrated.

With Jim Zorn's help, and his own hard work, Jason has cleaned up his mechanics which has helped his accuracy and given him a quicker release. Physically, his tools are as good or better than Brady's and he's a threat to run. Brady can't do much on his own. He has a good, accurate arm, but he needs a clean pocket to succeed. When pressured by the Giants in their Super Bowl, he threw like Marsha Brady.

If Tom Brady came to Washington, he'd leave behind his biggest advantage over Jason Campbell -- several years experience in the same disciplined offense which makes possible better reads and quicker reactions.

I estimated one or two more wins if Tom Brady came to the Skins. On second thought, I might have given him too much credit. One win difference. Maybe.

[dieselfan44]

The QB is the most important position on the field without question. A great one makes all the other positions great also...Besides Randy Moss, name an outstanding offensive player on the Patriots team...there's not one... he makes everyone raise to his level. And Moss wasn't even around when they were winning Super Bowls....

[Oldfan]

The QB is the most important position on the field without question. A great one makes all the other positions great also...Besides Randy Moss, name an outstanding offensive player on the Patriots team...there's not one... he makes everyone raise to his level. And Moss wasn't even around when they were winning Super Bowls....

I think that's a lot of hype. Belichik is the star of that program.

[MartinC]

The QB is the most important position on the field without question. A great one makes all the other positions great also...Besides Randy Moss, name an outstanding offensive player on the Patriots team...there's not one... he makes everyone raise to his level. And Moss wasn't even around when they were winning Super Bowls....

True, but yet the Patriots won 11 games last year with Matt Cassell at QB. Now Cassell may turn out to be a very good QB as well, but my money is that he will struggle with the Chiefs. Those 11 games the Patriots won last year were becuase of the excellent coaching, system and supporting cast Cassell had IMO.

I think Oldfan is undervaluing the importance of an elite QB though - with Brady healthy the Patriots won 16 games the year before and last year would probably have won say 14. Brady then would be worth say 3 games versus Cassell.

I think thats what he or a Peyton Manning would add here as well 3 or 4 games per year. Bear in mnd that would take us from an 8-8/9-7 type team to an 11-5/12-4 type team in the hunt for a championship every year. Thats huge.

[Oldfan]

True, but yet the Patriots won 11 games last year with Matt Cassell at QB. Now Cassell may turn out to be a very good QB as well, but my money is that he will struggle with the Chiefs. Those 11 games the Patriots won last year were becuase of the excellent coaching, system and supporting cast Cassell had IMO.

I think Oldfan is undervaluing the importance of an elite QB though - with Brady healthy the Patriots won 16 games the year before and last year would probably have won say 14. Brady then would be worth say 3 games versus Cassell.

I think thats what he or a Peyton Manning would add here as well 3 or 4 games per year. Bear in mnd that would take us from an 8-8/9-7 type team to an 11-5/12-4 type team in the hunt for a championship every year. Thats huge.

If you think my estimate of 10% for the QB's value is much too low, how much value would you put on it and which other factors have I overestimated in your opinion?

[gunslinger5]

Watch the very last play of the Patriots superbowl against the Giants. Brady throws it 70 yards *on a rope* to Randy Moss and it was nearly completed. Campbell has a strong arm but that strong? And Brady is regarded as having probably the most sound throwing mechanics in the game.

I think a more fair comparsion would be Campbell on the 2007 Patriots. Do they go 16-0 and make the superbowl?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

So just how much difference would the young Chicago gunslinger we both rate so highly of made in your opinion Of my good man?

Hail.

[MartinC]

If you think my estimate of 10% for the QB's value is much too low, how much value would you put on it and which other factors have I overestimated in your opinion?

I did not say much too low. You are saying a great QB might make a 1 or 2 game difference and I'm saying 3 or 4 games. Thats not night and day, but it is significant over a 16 game season

To answer your question directly though ..... Lets assume the 35% figure you give for the contribution the offense makes to winning to be correct. I think where I would adjust your breakdown would be that with an elite QB you put more emphasis on the importance of the passing game relative to the running game which would be reflected in your scheme and play calling.

You had passing at 20% and running and 15%. If you think about the Patriots as an example their running game is far less important in their offensive scheme with Brady under centre than their running game. Lets say its more 25% passing 10% running. That might break down as

Running - 10%

4% RB

6% Blocking

Passing - 25%

5% WR

7% Blocking

13% QB

Not a huge difference to your figures but it makes the QB more significant.

[Oldfan]

Watch the very last play of the Patriots superbowl against the Giants. Brady throws it 70 yards *on a rope* to Randy Moss and it was nearly completed. Campbell has a strong arm but that strong? And Brady is regarded as having probably the most sound throwing mechanics in the game.

Brady has never thrown a football 70 yards on a rope in his life. His arm strength is only average. Brady's mechanics are good, but he doen't come close to Carson Palmer or Jay Cutler as a passer.

I think a more fair comparsion would be Campbell on the 2007 Patriots. Do they go 16-0 and make the superbowl?

What's more fair about that? It's just a different question and the answer is probably not.

[fansince62]

good luck with this one!

1) no one has to accept numbers drawn out of the ole OF black hat at random!

2) the whole structure of the argument completely glosses over the great variety in formulas for success we have observed over the last 5, 10, 15, 20....you pick em....years

I just don't get why it is teams like the Colts pay players like Manning so much cashola. afterall, they only acconut for 10% of the overall winning formula........I'm smellin a conspiracy!!!!!!

on the other hand....your efforts at provoking debate ALWAYS prove entertaining and above board....

[gunslinger5]

Brady has never thrown a football 70 yards on a rope in his life. His arm strength is only average.

As I said, actually watch that play then get back to me.

How many yards the ball travelled in the air is not subjective.

[KingGibbs]

good luck with this one!

1) no one has to accept numbers drawn out of the ole OF black hat at random!

2) the whole structure of the argument completely glosses over the great variety in formulas for success we have observed over the last 5, 10, 15, 20....you pick em....years

I just don't get why it is teams like the Colts pay players like Manning so much cashola. afterall, they only acconut for 10% of the overall winning formula........I'm smellin a conspiracy!!!!!!

on the other hand....your efforts at provoking debate ALWAYS prove entertaining and above board....

Ha ha. The voice of reason. While I appreciate the time OF took to come up with the formula, It looks nothing short of a list of excuses for JC in case he squanders another year.

[Oldfan]

13% QB...Not a huge difference to your figures but it makes the QB more significant.

Let's work with your 13% -- but now let's remember that we are not talking about giving Tom Brady a 13% value and Jason Campbell nothing. That's the value of the position they both play. So, the difference in their abilities would have a much smaller impact on wins. Yet, you are estimating a 19% to 25% impact on a 16 game schedule.

[Oldfan]

fansince62;

1) no one has to accept numbers drawn out of the ole OF black hat at random!

If mine are unreasonable, present you own numbers (unless you prefer vagueness clouding your opinions).

2) the whole structure of the argument completely glosses over the great variety in formulas for success we have observed over the last 5, 10, 15, 20....you pick em....years

The numbers would change somewhat depending on the scheme. I based mine on two disciplined offenses, ours and the Pats.

I just don't get why it is teams like the Colts pay players like Manning so much cashola. afterall, they only acconut for 10% of the overall winning formula........I'm smellin a conspiracy!!!!!!

As I said, QBs are the most valuable position players.

[The Rook]

How esoteric (and fun). I will accept your %'s, but they do not translate to W/L or even points on the board. The missing value is quality, so that the formula should be more of a matrix.

If I make a stew and 10% is meat, but the meat is poor quality, the stew is lost.

Hmmm .... stew.

:helmet: The Rook

[Oldfan]

Ha ha. The voice of reason. While I appreciate the time OF took to come up with the formula, It looks nothing short of a list of excuses for JC in case he squanders another year.

Fractured logic.

[MartinC]

Let's work with your 13% -- but now let's remember that we are not talking about giving Tom Brady a 13% value and Jason Campbell nothing. That's the value of the position they both play. So, the difference in their abilities would have a much smaller impact on wins. Yet, you are estimating a 19% to 25% impact on a 16 game schedule.

I'm a business and marketing grad not math so we are starting to get out of my comfort zone. Also lets remember these are number we are plucking out of a hat so they should be taken as an illustration only not as absolute values. However lets plough on

Your saying 10% to the QB and I'm saying higher, maybe 13%. Don't forget thats 10% and 13% as a proportion of 35% that we are saying is the contrubution the offense makes to winning. 10% as a proprtion of 35% is 28%. 13% as a proportion of 35% is 37% - thats a 10% jump.

10% over 16 games is 1.6 - thats an extra 1.6 games per year I'm saying the great QB would bring you ON TOP of the 1 to 2 games a year you say he would bring. Thats how you get the math to line up to the 3 or 4 game jump I'm thinking. For any Maths grad out there I know that does not take into account the effect of the other 65% and is inaccurate - I'm just trying to show how the QBs influence is multiplied beyond pure numbers.

All very entertaining and all proving zero of course. I think we can all agree though that we would be very pleased if a trade is announced tonight of Jason Campbell straight up for Tom Brady

[Oldfan]

How esoteric (and fun). I will accept your %'s, but they do not translate to W/L or even points on the board. The missing value is quality, so that the formula should be more of a matrix.

You are correct. If we used numbers to grade Campbell and Brady, we could do a grid analysis. But, it would still fall short of the goal since we don't have enough data to estimate wins and losses.

The value of my estimate is that it makes my position less vague than using words alone.

[TimmySmith]

I think that's a lot of hype. Belichik is the star of that program.

So I guess his .400 winning % pre-Brady and his .775 % post Brady is mere coincidence. Skins are 12-4 last year with Brady.

[Vicious]

So I guess his .400 winning % pre-Brady and his .775 % post Brady is mere coincidence. Skins are 12-4 last year with Brady.

Yeah, Brady looked fantastic in the Superbowl. No QB can play behind Geisinger vs Bart Scott, so just be quiet.

Also, who is he going to throw too? Even the receivers didn't know the offense. But whatever, logic fails people, especially when it comes to football.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

It seems you've hit the nail on the head OldFan.

There was a reason that Brady went in the 6th round but there was also another reason that Belichick found the perfect quaterback for his system.

[Oldfan]

Your saying 10% to the QB and I'm saying higher, maybe 13%. Don't forget thats 10% and 13% as a proportion of 35% that we are saying is the contrubution the offense makes to winning. 10% as a proprtion of 35% is 28%. 13% as a proportion of 35% is 37% - thats a 10% jump.

10% over 16 games is 1.6 - thats an extra 1.6 games per year I'm saying the great QB would bring you ON TOP of the 1 to 2 games a year you say he would bring. Thats how you get the math to line up to the 3 or 4 game jump I'm thinking. For any Maths grad out there I know that does not take into account the effect of the other 65% and is inaccurate - I'm just trying to show how the QBs influence is multiplied beyond pure numbers.

1) The added value you gave the QB does not add to the value of the offense. It's still 35%

2) As I pointed out earlier, the 13% is the position value, not the value of the difference between Campbell and Brady so your 1.6 games doesn't work.

[mardi gras skin]

What about the ability of the quarterback to make others better at their positions? Does the offensive line execute their blocks better because they can trust Brady to execute the play precisely the way it was practiced? Do the wide receivers run a better route because they aren't used to adjusting for a poorly thrown ball? Does the defense play with more confidence and aggressiveness because they know that the game doesn't rest on their shoulders, putting them in a prevent mindset?

I think a good quarterback can have an effect on the game that reaches beyond his own position on the field. That's how a good quarterback accounts for more wins than one would expect from your percentages.

[TimmySmith]

Yeah, Brady looked fantastic in the Superbowl. No QB can play behind Geisinger vs Bart Scott, so just be quiet.

Also, who is he going to throw too? Even the receivers didn't know the offense. But whatever, logic fails people, especially when it comes to football.

Please do a little research and name the Pats WR for their SB wins. It helps everyone out when a QB is willing to throw to a WR that does not have 3 steps on the D. You think Jason even throws that ball to Moss with Hall's coverage? No Way.

[budski]

Without doing a whole bunch of math, please explain how Marino, Elway, and slew of other QB's only count for 10%.