Jason Campbell vs. Tom Brady

[Oldfan]

So I guess his .400 winning % pre-Brady and his .775 % post Brady is mere coincidence.

False dichotomy. The upturn in Belichik's success was not coincidence, nor is Brady the sole cause.

[mardi gras skin]

Also, Brady's ability to sell the play action is a thing of beauty. He makes the opposing defense play WORSE than they would otherwise play. Its not always the case that the Pat's WR burned corner. Brady often burns the corner on behalf of his receivers.

[Oldfan]

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

That percentage varies a little. QBs who run a disciplined offense like Belichik's are not as important as players like Jay Cutler was to Shanahan last season because they offense was built around the QB's talent.

Why do you think QBs should be worth much more? What other part of the team have I overestimated?

[MartinC]

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.

Your right, as I said Math is not my bag. Lets keep this really simple - tell me how you would feel if Jason was traded straight up for Tom Brady?

A) In Ecstasy

Euphoric

C) Making plans to get tickets for the Super Bowl and posting on every Cowboys fan site you could find

A QB like Brady makes us a 10+ game winner every year whatever the maths IMO.

[Oldfan]

What about the ability of the quarterback to make others better at their positions?

That interaction (teamwork) works both ways, not just one.

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.

That explanation is just too mystical for me.

[KingGibbs]

False dichotomy. The upturn in Belichik's success was not coincidence, nor is Brady the sole cause.

Take Peyton Manning out of the equation. How successful would the Colts offense be?

Take Drew Brees out of the equation. How successful would the Saints offense be?

How is it that Atlanta and Baltimore's offenses were stagnant at best until they drafted competent QB's?

You're formula is so "fractured " it's not even funny. Just look at the history of the NFL and see what has happened to those teams that lost their franchise QB's due to injury and their "10% value."

Sorry, but common sense trumps intelligence on this one.

[Oldfan]

Your right, as I said Math is not my bag. Lets keep this really simple - tell me how you would feel if Jason was traded straight up for Tom Brady?

Not nearly as good as I would have if we had traded Campbell to Denver for Jay Cutler straight up. Brady coming off knee surgery doesn't excite me.

[Oldfan]

Take Peyton Manning out of the equation.

Quote me. Where did I say that a good QB doesn't make a team better?

Sorry, but common sense trumps intelligence on this one.

Common sense isn't all that common. NFL quarterbacks have been telling fans for years that it's a team game and they get too much credit and blame. Why don't you listen?

[KingGibbs]

Quote me. Where did I say that a good QB doesn't make a team better?

So you admit that they are valued at more then the 10% you came up with?

Common sense isn't all that common. NFL quarterbacks have been telling fans for years that it's a team game and they get too much credit and blame. Why don't you listen?

It's called public relations.

[Oldfan]

You think Jason even throws that ball to Moss with Hall's coverage? No Way.

Why not? He completed a more difficult pass to a well-covered Moss for a big play.

[Oldfan]

It's called public relations.

What do you mean?

[mardi gras skin]

That interaction (teamwork) works both ways, not just one.

I disagree. It is not the wide receiver's responsibility to lead the team. He doesn't manage the play that's been called. His responsibility is to execute his part of the play. The quarterback's responsibility to manage the entire play, to quickly evaluate how the play is unfolding and to make decisions about where and how that play will develop. He controls the way in which the entire play develops. A wide receiver executing a perfectly run route is helpless to make a difference if the quarterback fails to execute. Conversely, a single wide receiver is unable to keep a quarterback from executing a winning play.

Their positions aren't mutually dependent on each other. The wide receiver is limited in just how far he can go to make those around him better. The quarterback has the ability to make every player at every position better on every snap of the ball.

That explanation is just too mystical for me.

Are you an engineer?

[Wyvern]

Sorry Oldfan, to be presenting the problem without offering a possible solution.

As much as I appreciate this exercise, I can't --beyond engaging in the hypothetical-- see how one can easily calculate the impact of Brady on team wins over Campbell. After all, we're all familiar with the adage about the total value of the team being greater than the sum of its parts. And we can't even agree on the impact of Campbell.

Let me explain further. I'm not certain how much better the Skins would be with Brady at QB -- but I suspect the passing game would probably be better. If the passing game was better, the running game would probably be better. And the coaches, with Brady executing their play-calls would probably seem "smarter" as it is possible that more of their plays would work better. Less 3-and-outs would likely make the defense better too. Getting up by more than 3 points and having the "winner's confidence" that Brady brings to an offense could be one of those intangibles that results in snatching victory out of the jaws of defeat.

But I'm not sure how that plugs into a mathematical formula or in calculations of how many more games are won with Brady. For example is the coaches' weighting different before the game, than during the game? If teams have to defend against Brady to Santana as the Skins most dangerous threat, maybe Portis or Cooley gets less attention and have great games, do they consequently receive more weighting for that game? What about the defensive game plans the Skins wouid face?

Then there is the question we'd all rather not think about -- how long would Brady last with the current Skin's O-line protecting him? After all, Brady is not mobile.

My point is that a assigning single percentage to a QB does not capture the catalytic impact he has on many phases of the game -- --including the intangibles. And basing any further calculations on that single percentage might be extremely difficult.

[SauzzBozz]

wonder how brady would have faired taking on 38 sacks and vise versa, if JC had a line that would give him more of a pocket.....also in saying that, JC is way more mobile than brady so if that was the case, i think it would even things up even just a little bit.

[mardi gras skin]

wonder how brady would have faired taking on 38 sacks and vise versa, if JC had a line that would give him more of a pocket.....also in saying that, JC is way more mobile than brady so if that was the case, i think it would even things up even just a little bit.

Brady doesn't put himself in position to be sacked as often as Campbell does.

[I_Bleed_B&G]

JC couldn't hold a *Candle*against Brady. They should not be mentioned in the same breath

[MartinC]

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.

Nope - thats the difference betwen a great receiver (Randy Moss) and one who is still learning the NFL game (say Kelly). Randy ran that route so he used his frame to box out Hall so that even though Hall was step for step with him he gave his QB a place to throw the ball - inside and leading him - where only the receiver could make a play. The DB would have had to go through the receiver to break up the pass and give away the PI call.

Meanwhile on the fade route we throw to Kelly he fails to get his body in between the DB and his QB giving him the back shoulder to aim for or to get his shoulders turned so he can make a play on the ball leaving the DB boxed out.

Little things in how a receiver runs a route that make a huge difference to the end result.

Note though that Moss was a walking disaster in Oakland with a bad O'line and poor QB play all of which resulted in Moss losing interest and producing squat. Give him a Brady behind a good O'line and he looks All Pro again. Its all interconnected - which is Oldfans basic point really. Just that I think an elite QB makes more of difference than he does.

[Oldfan]

I disagree. It is not the wide receiver's responsibility to lead the team. He doesn't manage the play that's been called. His responsibility is to execute his part of the play. The quarterback's responsibility to manage the entire play, to quickly evaluate how the play is unfolding and to make decisions about where and how that play will develop. He controls the way in which the entire play develops. A wide receiver executing a perfectly run route is helpless to make a difference if the quarterback fails to execute. Conversely, a single wide receiver is unable to keep a quarterback from executing a winning play.

How can you watch Tom Brady and Kurt Warner tossing up jump balls for double-covered Moss and Fitzgerald expecting them to either catch it or prevent the interception and not realize that teamwork is a two-way street?

Their positions aren't mutually dependent on each other. The wide receiver is limited in just how far he can go to make those around him better. The quarterback has the ability to make every player at every position better on every snap of the ball.

That's why I gave his position more value. It's true that, in the passing game, his teammates are dependent on him; but the QB's performance is just as dependent on his ten teammates. It's not just one-way.

[I_Bleed_B&G]

wonder how brady would have faired taking on 38 sacks and vise versa, if JC had a line that would give him more of a pocket.....also in saying that, JC is way more mobile than brady so if that was the case, i think it would even things up even just a little bit.

Have you seen Brady's pocket presence. The dude is the best at it. Just moves side to side and up and down. He is like a joystick. He just moves slightly in up and avoids the on coming pass rush from the outside. Dude gets ride of the ball so fast. You can't compare him to JC.

[SolidSnake84]

okay i hope i dont get banned for participating in another QB debate, but lets just simply look at everything that Brady can do, and Campbell can't:

Brady:

Throws downfield

Reads the defense

can make adjustments at LOS

Moves with the pocket or can avoid the pass rush instead of being sacked.

Expert knowledge of offense.

Campbell:

I can't think of anything that he does that Brady cannot do. Jason brings nothing to the game that is surperior to Brady...he is worse in every category

[Hubbs]

So, just to be clear, according to Oldfan, the Ravens would have gone 11-5 with Kyle Boller as their starter last year. Right?

[mnb123]

wonder how brady would have faired taking on 38 sacks and vise versa, if JC had a line that would give him more of a pocket.....also in saying that, JC is way more mobile than brady so if that was the case, i think it would even things up even just a little bit.

Brady's sack totals have ranged from 21-41 throughout his career. That ranges from average to bad.

For some reason people get the impression that the guy sits back there untouched and plays catch with his receivers all day.

[MustangSteve]

When JC plays up to his potential, which is just a good and solid QB, this team wins. When JC played poorly like the 2nd half of last season, we lose. So I say we win no less then 12 games under Brady, because he is a great QB who plays good the entire season.

[MartinC]

okay i hope i dont get banned for participating in another QB debate, but lets just simply look at everything that Brady can do, and Campbell can't:

Brady:

Throws downfield

Reads the defense

can make adjustments at LOS

Moves with the pocket or can avoid the pass rush instead of being sacked.

Expert knowledge of offense.

Campbell:

I can't think of anything that he does that Brady cannot do. Jason brings nothing to the game that is surperior to Brady...he is worse in every category

Campbell is MUCH more mobile than Brady, thats not even debatable. Might be a small thing but don't let your overall opinion of Campbell blind you to things he does do well. No way Brady scores on the scramble that JC took in against the Pats.

I'm not aruging by the way that Jason is anything like the QB Brady is just can't let you get away with a blanket statement that Jason is worse in every category than Brady when thats clearly incorrect.

[Oldfan]

As much as I appreciate this exercise, I can't --beyond engaging in the hypothetical-- see how one can easily calculate the impact of Brady on team wins over Campbell.

We can't calculate wins. We can only take it as far as I did. We can quantify a reasonable estimate of the position's value which displaces vague notions of its great importance.

My point is that a assigning single percentage to a QB does not capture the catalytic impact he has on many phases of the game -- --including the intangibles. And basing any further calculations on that single percentage might be extremely difficult.

An earlier poster made a similar point. Like you, he seemed to think that Brady's influence on the team would be one-way and positive when, in fact this interaction (teamwork) works both ways. For example, he would not bring with him the experience in Belichik's scheme which helps him make better reads and permits faster reactions. He would have to start over, and with less talent helping him.