It's not all about the Almighty Quarterback, dummies!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The last three years with Warner, the Cards were #3, #7, and #11 in points. That's pretty good. This year - without Warner - they were 26th.

And you can't blame the D. The defense sucked every year. #27, #28, #14, #30.

I don't think I've ever argued that the QB was a paramount importance (though I'm beginning to lean that way because I think the league is evolving to a point where it's almost a 7 on 7 drill). But, some dudes are better than other dudes.

[Botched]

The Cards were not all that good, even when they were good. And they're not all that bad now. So, two key losses on offense can easily swing their fortunes. That doesn't prove much about the relative value of the QB position.

If you're going to completely disregard the difference between the Cardinals with Warner and post-Warner Arizona Cardinals, then I'm not going to spend another second debating. Have a nice afternoon.

[Taylor4Life]

If you're going to completely disregard the difference between the Pre-Warner and post-Warner Arizona Cardinals, then I'm not going to spend another second debating. Have a nice afternoon.

Warner deserves a lot of credit for his success in two different franchises, but you have to admit that he played with some downright studs in both places. It's all about putting the right pieces together... it's just not simply about finding your savior "franchise QB" and saying ok, we're done.

[TSO]

No, it's not ALL about the QB, Oldfan... but it's MORE about the QB than any other position on the team.

[Oldfan]

No, it's not ALL about the QB, Oldfan... but it's MORE about the QB than any other position on the team.

The discussion is about the value of the QB position. No one doubts that the position has more value than any other.

---------- Post added January-19th-2011 at 05:40 PM ----------

The last three years with Warner' date=' the Cards were #3, #7, and #11 in points. That's pretty good. This year - without Warner - they were 26th.[/quote']So, are you assuming that Warner was the sole cause?

And you can't blame the D. The defense sucked every year. #27, #28, #14, #30.

You are the one who touted Football Outsiders to me. Let's use their rankings: In 2009, the offense ranked #13 and the defense ranked #10. Both those ranking dropped significantly in 2010: Offense to #31, defense to #26. The most likely reason for such a severe drop in both is strength of schedule. This does not deny that going from a good QB to a bad one will have a significant effect on the passing game. The loss of Boldin is another factor.

I don't think I've ever argued that the QB was a paramount importance (though I'm beginning to lean that way because I think the league is evolving to a point where it's almost a 7 on 7 drill). But, some dudes are better than other dudes.

As the passing game becomes more important, the value of the QB and the value of everyone supporting the passing game will rise. On defense, the value of the people responsible for stopping the passing game will rise as well.

[PlayAction]

I think that Grossman is a dependable backup QB but probably only adequate as a starter. If he could greatly reduce his turnovers then I'd be happy with him as the starter. I have no idea what the Skins have with Beck. McNabb obviously was a mistake.

While it's not all about the QB, the position obviously is extremely important. So, if a true "franchise" QB were to be available at #10 then the Skins would be best served by drafting him. But, if the guy is only potentially good but not great then the QB decision must be compared with drafting a potentially great OLB, WR or DE. A great player in these other positions may improve the team results more than a modest upgrade in the QB (Skins are fairly lousy at OLB, DE and WR!).

[tex]

QB is still a strong need on this team no matter what is thought of the position in general. Both Kiper and McShay have the Skins taking Cam Newton with the 10th pick of the first round. Does not mean that's what will happen but it does demonstrate that both men currently think that the Redskins should spend a high draft pick on a qb.

[Commander Adama]

Oldfan for dummies?

[daveakl]

It's all about the Almighty Quarterback, dummies!

Let's look at the Vikings:

2008: 23.7 ppg

2009: 29.4 ppg

This shows that the Q added almost 6 points per game to the S almost a 25% increase!!!

Arizona Cardinals:

2007: 19.6 ppg

2008: 26.7 ppg

This shows that having Kurt Warner start every game increased the ppg by over 7, or almost 65%!!

:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Thinking Skins]

Cutler was the same QB in Denver that he was in Chicago. That proves that the difference we saw in his performances was due to the support factor.

Cutler is a far better QB than Orton, so he needs less support to win championships than Orton. Still, if Orton goes to a team that gives him the kind of support that Tom Brady gets with the Pats, he could end up in the HOF.

I love your OP, but I'd add that there are also other things to consider. For instance, I'm not saying that Young went and "matured" over their time off and suddenly became better QBs, but Young did learn to stop running first and passing second. That was a big reason behind his improvements. Also, Brady's offense today is (from what I hear) probably the closest thing in the NFL to a spread offense and has been doing so since 2007 (the year that Moss and Welker arrived). This could also explain why his numbers stayed up when Moss was "replaced" with Branch, but Brady still put up the second best year of his career. Another thing, which you mention in a later post, is years in the system. Thats what we were talking about with Campbell, that he never had the same coordinator for two years in a row for so long. Well guys like Brady and Manning (for instance) may seem to get better because they're running the same offense for their entire careers.

I'd say that Mike Martz may have helped Cutler more than Ron Turner.

That being said, the question of "can we look at numbers and say how good a QB is" may be very difficult to solve, but how closely can we approximate the worth of a QB with numbers? I think we can do so pretty well if we look at the right numbers.

- For instance, I wouldn't be interested in completion percentage as much as I'd be interested in number of drops vs overthrows vs underthrows, and on which routes they occurred. (We know for instance that Campbell didn't throw the deep ball too well but the 20 - 30 yarder was money).

- Just like I wouldn't be interested in their yards, but I'd rather know how many of those were yards after the catch vs the actual route run.

- Its also interesting to know how the QBs do against man coverage vs zone coverage.

[Taylor4Life]

It's all about the Almighty Quarterback, dummies!

Let's look at the Vikings:

2008: 23.7 ppg

2009: 29.4 ppg

This shows that the Q added almost 6 points per game to the S almost a 25% increase!!!

Arizona Cardinals:

2007: 19.6 ppg

2008: 26.7 ppg

This shows that having Kurt Warner start every game increased the ppg by over 7, or almost 65%!!

:D:D:D:D:D:D

Let me see if I can explain this with an analogy:

A master carpenter who has top of the line equipment at his disposal can build a much more impressive structure than he would if he were working with sub-par equipment. Brett Favre and Kurt Warner were essentially handed the keys to a $400,000 Lamborghini, while McNabb got the keys to a burned out Pinto.

On the other hand, a mediocre carpenter could still build a somewhat impressive structure with great equipment, but obviously would not be able to achieve what the master carpenter would with the same equipment. Orton is a good example of this phenomenon. He is a mediocre to average quarterback that was handed the keys to a talented offense, and while his stats improved, he didn't achieve as much as his more talented predecessor.

[2cents]

How about we just get great players at all positions and just let them play?

[KDawg]

How about we just get great players at all positions and just let them play?

/end thread

It's that easy, folks. What's all the discussion?

[2cents]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. If it was just that easy...

[WALL-LE]

but it is bro

[Mahons21]

but it is bro

Can you explain to me then why arguably the 3 best QB's in the NFL had 0 playoff wins this season? Brady/Manning/Brees

[chipwhich]

Oldfan,

Interesting how you grade the Q, based on QBR, yet you have no viable ratings means for the S.

Rivers had the Q and the S, yet nothing good came out of this. Of course the S really can't be measured as to the Y.

I thought Matt Schaub had the Q and the S, but they went south.

So your entire premise is you need decent Q play and S play to move forward.

Gotcha.

Sanchez didn't have the Q, but he had the S.

Rivers had the S and the Q.

Eli, Garrard?

I am not sure your theory holds much water but to pick a couple of HOF'ers, show how they played early in their career, then how they played as they matured as QB's. Then credit it all to the S, not to the Q. Or am I the only one confused. Chases tail.

[Annonymous Source]

Can you explain to me then why arguably the 3 best QB's in the NFL had 0 playoff wins this season? Brady/Manning/Brees

But they obviously werent the best QB's in the NFL because they didnt win when it counted.

In all seriousness though, the reason why having a great QB is so important is that if they get hot at the right time they can absolutely dominate for stretches of the schedule in ways that only Running backs can equal. This can lead to two different things

1) Greater ease of making the playoffs. If you have an essentially .500 team with a QB that gets hot and wins 4 straight games on virtuoso performances then odds are that you can make the playoffs that year. These sort of 3-5 game tears are common among the stronger QB's in the league. These sort of repeat playoff trips are the sign of a successful franchise.

2) Potential of a Superbowl run. When a great QB gets on a tear right at the start of the postseason it makes it very likely for his team to arrive at the Super Bowl. Two examples of this are Aaron Rodgers this year or Kurt Warner with the Cardinals.

Running Backs are also capable of these sorts of feats when in the right system, but they are far less valuable than QB's because their career lifespan is so much shorter.

Also none of this is arguing that it is all about the QB, but the QB is easily the most important position on the field. This is even more true when considering the statistical outlier concept I outlined above.

---------- Post added January-19th-2011 at 10:56 PM ----------

I am not sure your theory holds much water but to pick a couple of HOF'ers, show how they played early in their career, then how they played as they matured as QB's. Then credit it all to the S, not to the Q. Or am I the only one confused. Chases tail.

He is starting from one extreme side of the argumentative spectrum to engage with the people on the far side of the spectrum. As they share facts and analysis the end consensus will end up becoming something in between both points. In other posts in the thread he also says that QB is the most important position on the field, so it is more an effort to find statistically relevant data than it is a means of skewing data.

[The Tris]

When was the last time a team rode a RB to the Super Bowl?

Terrell Davis?

When was the last time a team rode a RB to the Super Bowl without an elite QB?

Marcus Allen?

I would not say that a hot RB is at all similar to a hot QB.

[Oldfan]

I love your OP, but I'd add that there are also other things to consider. For instance, I'm not saying that Young went and "matured" over their time off and suddenly became better QBs, but Young did learn to stop running first and passing second. That was a big reason behind his improvements.

If Walsh or a 49er coach improved Steve's game, that would come under the heading of "support." We know that the Bucs didn't think he had much potential. They dealt him for the final pick in the fourth round.

Also, Brady's offense today is (from what I hear) probably the closest thing in the NFL to a spread offense and has been doing so since 2007 (the year that Moss and Welker arrived).

How sure are you of your facts here? My copy of the Pro Football Prospectus for 2007, which lists 2006 stats, shows that the Pats were third in the NFL in Pct of passes from the shotgun with 55.8%. That much usage suggests that they were in the spread in 2006.

Another thing, which you mention in a later post, is years in the system. Thats what we were talking about with Campbell, that he never had the same coordinator for two years in a row for so long. Well guys like Brady and Manning (for instance) may seem to get better because they're running the same offense for their entire careers...I'd say that Mike Martz may have helped Cutler more than Ron Turner.

Years in the scheme, the scheme itself --both support elements -- right?

That being said, the question of "can we look at numbers and say how good a QB is" may be very difficult to solve, but how closely can we approximate the worth of a QB with numbers? I think we can do so pretty well if we look at the right numbers.

- For instance, I wouldn't be interested in completion percentage as much as I'd be interested in number of drops vs overthrows vs underthrows, and on which routes they occurred. (We know for instance that Campbell didn't throw the deep ball too well but the 20 - 30 yarder was money).

- Just like I wouldn't be interested in their yards, but I'd rather know how many of those were yards after the catch vs the actual route run.

- Its also interesting to know how the QBs do against man coverage vs zone coverage.

With enough data, it would be possible to get closer to the goal of isolating the QB with the right formula. Football Outsiders is trying to do that. They have the most intelligent QB ranking tool available -- which is faint praise. When QBs move from team to team, though, their rankings swing wildly, an indicator that their rankings still have too much "team" in their QB stats.

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 04:06 AM ----------

Interesting how you grade the Q, based on QBR, yet you have no viable ratings means for the S.

The QBR is a poor tool to grade QBs because is grades both the QB and his support together (Q + S). But, for our use, to see how much that number jumped between the worst and the best team, is instructive. No, no one offers a reliable stat for S. If we had, we could subtract S from the QBR and have a reliable stat for Q.

Rivers had the Q and the S, yet nothing good came out of this. Of course the S really can't be measured as to the Y...I thought Matt Schaub had the Q and the S, but they went south.

If you made a point here, I missed it.

So your entire premise is you need decent Q play and S play to move forward.

No, what I showed here is that what we call a QB statistic, the QBR, in Young's case. is actually a stat that includes about 70.6% "noise." Noise = a term in use by statisticians to indicate the portion of the stat not measuring what it intends to measure, the QB in this case.

Let me put this another way: Let's start with imaginary QBs Smith and Wesson who we agree are exactly equal in ability. Smith is drafted by a good team which gives him support allowing him to play to 90% of his potential. Wesson is drafted by a bad team which allows him to perform only to 60% of his potential.

When you watch them play, you are seeing the QB performance interacting with the support system (Q + S). So, obviously, Smith will appear to your eyes as a much better QB. The statistics will reflect what you see (Q + S). Therefore, you cannot look at their performances or their stats and know that Smith and Wesson are equal in talent.

The only intelligent way to grade QBs is to learn to do it as a scout would. You look at the tangibles, what you can actually see. The intangibles are important, but the only experts are his coaches who grade him on film in the context of their scheme, and they can't be trusted to be impartial. The intangibles are important but they have a limited value, minor compared to the tangibles. My estimate is that 50% of the QB's value is in how well he throws a football: touch, accuracy, velocity. I'd put the legs at 25% and the intangibles at 25% -- so you can grade 75% of the QB by grading what you can see.

[Oldfan]

...He is starting from one extreme side of the argumentative spectrum to engage with the people on the far side of the spectrum. As they share facts and analysis the end consensus will end up becoming something in between both points. In other posts in the thread he also says that QB is the most important position on the field, so it is more an effort to find statistically relevant data than it is a means of skewing data.

No, you are missing something here. There are two QB questions:

1) Which position has the most impact on the outcome of football games?

2) How much impact does that position have on the outcome?

The answer to the first question is not being debated. It is that difference of opinion on the second question that we're discussing. Take any QB discussion thread, and this question is involved. I'm in the minority. I think that the impact-importance of the QB position is not more than 10-15% -- which is quite high for one player, but a minor factor overall.

[Newera]

All the final four quarterbacks in the playoffs -- first round picks. You just have to get your first round picks right. Not Campbell and Ramsey.

[Oldfan]

All the final four quarterbacks in the playoffs -- first round picks. You just have to get your first round picks right. Not Campbell and Ramsey.

That happens to be true this season. But, spending a #1 pick on a QB isn't essential.

Starr, Staubach, Montana, Young, Brady -- none were first round picks, but they all have multiple championship trophies on their resumes because they played for great coaches and on great teams.

[Commander Adama]

That happens to be true this season. But, spending a #1 pick on a QB isn't essential.

Starr, Staubach, Montana, Young, Brady -- none were first round picks, but they all have multiple championship trophies on their resumes because they played for great coaches and on great teams.

So are you implying they were not great Quarterbacks but would definitely agree you can find a diamond in the latter rounds and does not necessarily have to be in the 1st.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

Can you explain to me then why arguably the 3 best QB's in the NFL had 0 playoff wins this season? Brady/Manning/Brees

However they all made it to the playoffs right?