Oldfan Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Q = the quarterback's individual performance S = the QB's Support system When you look at Tom Brady play, you are seeing a combination of Q + S. When you look at his stats, you are being offered the sum of Q + S. You can't measure Q by using the sum of Q + S. So, you can't compare Tom Brady to any other QB based on Q + S. Conclusion: If we intend to measure Q, the sum of Q + S is a useless number unless S is an insignificant factor. Is S an insignificant factor? To answer that question, we can start with Brady's stats. Tom Brady's stats in 2006 and 2007 seasons are interesting. They give us an idea of the weight of the receivers as a factor on the QB's performance. In 2006, the Patriots didn't have a legit starting receiver on the roster. In 2007, they added Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Brady 2006 -- 87.9 QBR Brady 2007 -- 117.2 QBR That's a 33.3% increase, and the only support system factor to change was the quality of the receivers. Now, let's look at the same QBs on different teams. What we really need to help us assess the value of S is the same QB moving from the worst NFL team to the best. Luckily, we have Steve Young's career to examine. Young 1985 Bucs -- 56.9 QBR Young 1986 Bucs -- 65.5 QBR Two-year average = 61.2 QBR 1987 - 1990 backed up Montana Young 1991 49er -- 101.8 QBR Young 1992 49er -- 107.0 QBR Two-year average: 104.4 QBR Steve Young's Q + S resulted in a 70.6% increase in QBR moving from the NFL's worst team to its best. This indicates that S, the value of the supporting system, is certainly not insignificant. In fact, it is probably of greater weight than the QB's individual performance. When Felix Hernandez of the Mariners won a Cy Young award for the 2010 season despite his 13-12 W/L record, it was a triumph for the world of baseball statistics. For the first time in the history of the game, the award was actually given for individual performance and not to a pitcher lucky enough to have a great W/L record because he got excellent support from his team. If someone someday creates a statistics-based formula which accurately measures the individual performance of a quarterback, it will expose all the QB pretenders of the past who rode to glory on the coattails of their coaches and teammates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 In the case of Brady and Young, do you think those numbers are skewed by the fact that they went from truly horrible wide receivers to the #1 and #2 best receivers of all time as their go to targets? Rice and Moss were such tremendous receivers that they would tend to improve anyone's numbers. So, yes, having good teammates is important. But in these instances, they went from bad to the absolute best. Pavarotti was a good singer in any building. Put him in the Milan Opera House and he was the best in the world. Actually, a better example may be Bob Dylan and Robbie Robertson. Dylan was writing songs that would be standards before they met. After they met, they literally changed the sound of popular music. Sinatra was great before he met Nelson Riddle. He was transcendent with him. Paul McCartney wrote some lovely songs in Wings. But he thrived when John Lennon was in the room. Scorsese and DeNiro are great separately. But together they make Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas. Also, this is a cut and paste job from something you wrote last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Dont agree at all! Add Brady's numbers this year. He had one of his best seasons with who...an insignificant S. And look at the Rams you could argue their S was worst than last year with all of their injuries add a good Q and see what happens. I would say its close to 75% Q and maybe 25% S. A good/great Q can win with an average S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mursilis Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Steve Young's Q + S resulted in a 70.6% increase in QBR moving from the NFL's worst team to its best. This indicates that S, the value of the supporting system, is certainly not insignificant. In fact, it is probably of greater weight than the QB's individual performance. OK, but how much of that increase was due to Young's own maturity and development over time? It seems to me that much of the QB performance is based on mental ability in addition to physical ability. Even the best QBs take (with few exceptions) 2-3 years to become elite (if they're ever going to get there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 OK, but how much of that increase was due to Young's own maturity and development over time? It seems to me that much of the QB performance is based on mental ability in addition to physical ability. Even the best QBs take (with few exceptions) 2-3 years to become elite (if they're ever going to get there). Going from the single worst franchise in the league to the best helped too. Jerry Rice would have elevated Heath Shuler's numbers too. True story: A very close family friend of ours had a son who set all kinds of school records at a 1-AA school. In a normal year, he would have won most of the 1-AA awards for QBs or at least been in the conversation. The problem was that his number one competition was Willie Totten who broke nearly all the 1-AA records that same year. It helped that Willie Totten's main target was Jerry Rice. The point is, giving Jerry Rice to a QB is like going back in time and giving an Uzi to Custer. I would say the same applies to Randy Moss - who only happened to be the main target on the two highest scoring offenses in history. I've said it before, if Randy Moss had played hard every down, they would have had to change the rules of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flock53 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I think we all know this is the ULTIMATE team sport. It isnt one coach (system) or player. That being said, would you rather have a "franchise" caliber QB and an average D or a top D and a journeyman type QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Point 1 - I hate Brady. And I love the fact people always point to that douchebag as the measuring stick for "QB greatness". I love it because Mr Clutch in his last three straight playoff games has lost every game. Hows this for the measuring stick: * 2007, Super Bowl XLII, 17-14 loss to Giants: Brady was 29-for-48 for 266 with one TD. This comes after his record-setting 50 TDs in the regular season. * 2009, wild card, 33-14 loss to Ravens: Brady went 23-for-42 for 154 yards with two TDs and three INTs. He also lost a fumble. * 2010, divisional, 28-21 loss to Jets: Brady went 29-for-45 for 299 yards with two TDs and one INT -- his first in three months. Mmmm tasty. So when it counts Mr Clutch isn't anymore. Couldn't resist pointing this out. As for Brady's true value you said "Now, let's look at the same QBs on different teams." Why not look no further then Matt Cassel in 2008? In 2008 week one Brady goes down with that injury and is out for the whole year. In comes Matt Cassel who up until that point only started ZERO games in the league. He comes in and orchestrates the offense and wins 11 games, losing 5. If there was ever a belief that the System doesn't play an equal part in making the QB then look no further then this. Cassel in his only year starting for the Patriots in his first starts of his professional career beat Tom Brady's QBR from 2006 with his mark of 89.4 but the thought is that Cassel isn't half the QB that Brady is. Like your point, this shows that the QB isn't everything in an offense. But if I already knew this does that excuse me from your dummy list? lol Point 2 - Sounds like a call out thread to me. ASF are you listening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Not to mention the game has changed since Young was on the field. Of course the supporting cast makes one better. But without that signal caller you are nothing. Say what you will about Bradshaw, McMahon and Dilfer, they were all above average quarterbacks, Dilfer the more "manager" of the three. The reason these teams seem to get better S's once the Q is in place is that, well, the Q is in place. You can then concentrate on the D. The Q will make the O S better by default and with top quality on defense, you have a winner. Add in a FA here and a top Lineman or WR there and you win. Getting that Q in place allows you to build a solid S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 In the case of Brady and Young' date=' do you think those numbers are skewed by the fact that they went from truly horrible wide receivers to the #1 and #2 best receivers of all time as their go to targets? Rice and Moss were such tremendous receivers that they would tend to improve anyone's numbers. So, yes, having good teammates is important. But in these instances, they went from bad to the absolute best.[/quote']Going from the best to the worst is the best way to isolate the value of S.Also, this is a cut and paste job from something you wrote last week.I reworked three posts, reworded them and combined them into making one point. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flock53 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Dont agree at all! Add Brady's numbers this year. He had one of his best seasons with who...an insignificant S. And look at the Rams you could argue their S was worst than last year with all of their injuries add a good Q and see what happens. I would say its close to 75% Q and maybe 25% S. A good/great Q can win with an average S. Look at the Rams and I see the same run game and a defense that went from 29th to 19th (total yard), 31st to 12th (scoring), +18 in sacks and +7 in TO's . YES they complement each other. A better offense that extends more drives makes a better defense and a defense that gets the offense more oppertunities makes a better offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible_Red40 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The Q & S of a QB also make the "W" (wide receiver performance) of the WR. They all go hand in hand. Wes Welker was really nothing more then an exciting little kick returner before going to New England, with little "S" going in his favor. Randy Moss was a nobody with Andrew Walter and Aaron Brooks, and a crayy "S" thorwing to him. If you have Q & S in a QB, good things will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrecker Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I think an average Q with an excellent S is not much different than an excellent Q with an average S as far as wins / losses. The main difference is can the excellent Q survive the season with an average S? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 Dont agree at all! Add Brady's numbers this year. He had one of his best seasons with who...an insignificant S. And look at the Rams you could argue their S was worst than last year with all of their injuries add a good Q and see what happens. I would say its close to 75% Q and maybe 25% S. A good/great Q can win with an average S. Your opinion on this year's Rams and Patriots aren't backed up with evidence. You are just tossing out subjective opinions here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Since alot of people like to give so much credit to 2 people, only 1 being a player, for the Patriots' success. Then how about giving some credit to Adam Vinateri because you could make the argument that if it wasn't for his game winning field goals in 2 of the Patriots 3 Super Bowls, Brady would probably be considered just a good QB who won a Super Bowl with a great team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 you mean players on a 53-man roster are affected by other players as well as the scheme they are in? QB is the most important position on the field and at the same time it's the most overrated position by fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flock53 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Not to mention the game has changed since Young was on the field. Of course the supporting cast makes one better. But without that signal caller you are nothing. Say what you will about Bradshaw, McMahon and Dilfer, they were all above average quarterbacks, Dilfer the more "manager" of the three. The reason these teams seem to get better S's once the Q is in place is that, well, the Q is in place. You can then concentrate on the D. The Q will make the O S better by default and with top quality on defense, you have a winner. Add in a FA here and a top Lineman or WR there and you win. Getting that Q in place allows you to build a solid S. What did Bradshaw/McMahon and Dilfer have in common??? A GREAT DEFENSE------DEFENSE wins championships. Only the Rams truly got away w/ outscoring people and making the other teams 1 dimensional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilbur58z Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Snyder totally ignores S. He just wants Q. Look how that's worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 OK, but how much of that increase was due to Young's own maturity and development over time? It seems to me that much of the QB performance is based on mental ability in addition to physical ability. Even the best QBs take (with few exceptions) 2-3 years to become elite (if they're ever going to get there)."Maturity" is a vague word. Just getting older wasn't going to make Young better. The fact that he learned more has as much or more to do with the coaching as part of his support system as anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrecker Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 "Maturity" is a vague word. Just getting older wasn't going to make Young better. The fact that he learned more has as much or more to do with the coaching as part of his support system as anything else. Watching Joe Montana from the sidelines every week didn't hurt either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible_Red40 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 And why drop the "dummies" bomb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flock53 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 And why drop the "dummies" bomb? Cause he cant yell at the kids to get off his lawn during winter months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 Not to mention the game has changed since Young was on the field. In what way has it changed and how would that change affect the argument I made in the OP? Getting that Q in place allows you to build a solid S.How does that work exactly? The Bucs had Steve Young. How did it help them build a support system for him?---------- Post added January-19th-2011 at 02:36 PM ---------- Watching Joe Montana from the sidelines every week didn't hurt either.Isn't that part of a supporting system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoRUSupposed2Be Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 It's always a good battle between ASF and Oldfan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 And why drop the "dummies" bomb?Just for fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flock53 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The Bucs gave up on him.....only 2 years and they probably had just as many needs to fill like we do now so they were unable to support him w/ talent. That would require a whole draft to be dedicated to the offense and still need a couple years to learn/gel.....he was already gone/traded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.