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

[TheLongshot]

This thread is amusing when things are pretty simple. Really, because a QB affects so much of an offense:

* A great QB can raise the level of his teammates.

* A poor QB and lower the level of his teammates.

Course, so does any other position, but it is moreso for QBs. That being said, QBs are also dependant on an offensive system that works well with what the QB does, and the players around him being able to make such a system work. If you have receivers who have a hard time getting open, can't run the right routes, have an OL who can't protect you, have an offensive system that doesn't play to the strengths of the QB, that is all going to lower such a QB's efficiency.

The point of the thread, as I see it, is that a QB is not a cure-all for your problems. I also don't think QBs become great simply by existing. They become great because there is a good synergy between the QB, coaching staff and the other players on the team. If you don't have that, it is going to make it difficult for any QB to succeed.

Typically, the best QBs are guys who generally have been working under similar systems for most of their careers and not only know those systems inside and out, but can execute them at a high level.

[Taylor4Life]

This thread is amusing when things are pretty simple. Really, because a QB affects so much of an offense...

Yes, it is pretty funny. I think most coaches and football professionals understand your points and take them for granted, but I admit that most of the points that you made in your post were lost on me for a long time (as they probably are for a good portion of the media and fanbase).

[Oldfan]

This thread is amusing when things are pretty simple. Really, because a QB affects so much of an offense:

* A great QB can raise the level of his teammates.

* A poor QB and lower the level of his teammates.

Course, so does any other position, but it is moreso for QBs. That being said, QBs are also dependant on an offensive system that works well with what the QB does, and the players around him being able to make such a system work. If you have receivers who have a hard time getting open, can't run the right routes, have an OL who can't protect you, have an offensive system that doesn't play to the strengths of the QB, that is all going to lower such a QB's efficiency.

The point of the thread, as I see it, is that a QB is not a cure-all for your problems. I also don't think QBs become great simply by existing. They become great because there is a good synergy between the QB, coaching staff and the other players on the team. If you don't have that, it is going to make it difficult for any QB to succeed.

Typically, the best QBs are guys who generally have been working under similar systems for most of their careers and not only know those systems inside and out, but can execute them at a high level.

I'd sum up this way: "Teamwork" is an interaction that flows in both directions. The QB's performance has the most influence on the outcome of a game. At the same time, the quality of his performance is very dependent on the quality of his coaches and teammates. Thus, you can't look at the performance of Steve Young in Tampa Bay and say he stinks; nor can you look at his performance in San Francisco and say he's great.

In order to fairly grade QBs, and compare them to each other, it has to be done by isolating them from their support systems.

[TheLongshot]

In order to fairly grade QBs, and compare them to each other, it has to be done by isolating them from their support systems.

IMO, mostly an impossible job. Even then, I'm not sure it would tell you all that much.

[Oldfan]

IMO, mostly an impossible job. Even then, I'm not sure it would tell you all that much.

Impossible statistically, I agree. That's why I grade QBs as a scout would -- which gives me much different opinions than most fans and the media.

[wrecker]

Typically, the best QBs are guys who generally have been working under similar systems for most of their careers and not only know those systems inside and out, but can execute them at a high level.

The argument could also be made that because he is a great QB and can execute at a high level is the reason why the system is successful.

[The Tris]

Impossible statistically, I agree. That's why I grade QBs as a scout would -- which gives me much different opinions than most fans and the media.

Of course, there you run into the inherant issue with scouting - its highly subjective nature.

[Oldfan]

The argument could also be made that because he is a great QB and can execute at a high level is the reason why the system is successful.

The wild swings in stats that happen when QBs change teams, like the Steve Young example in the OP, won't support your argument. If you were right, Tampa Bay would have won football games and kept Young.

[wrecker]

The wild swings in stats that happen when QBs change teams, like the Steve Young example in the OP, won't support your argument. If you were right, Tampa Bay would have won football games and kept Young.

I don't feel Steve Young is a good example because he sat behind a HOF QB for a few years learning the game before he stepped on the field again. Steve Young was probably no where near the talent at Tampa Bay as he was when he got his chance with the 49ers. I could speculate that Patrick Ramsey and Jason Campbell would have been a much better product if they had been given the same luxury.

[2cents]

I think the problem comes in where everyone is trying to find an absolute answer for things that have way too many factors to quantify and qualify with certainty all the time. It just can't be done.

[TheLongshot]

The argument could also be made that because he is a great QB and can execute at a high level is the reason why the system is successful.

Considering all the moving parts in an NFL offense nowadays that need to move in sync to have success, that is unlikely to happen for any length of time.

[Oldfan]

Of course, there you run into the inherant issue with scouting - its highly subjective nature.

Yes, it's subjective, but we're mostly grading things we can see, the tangibles. If I claim that Jay Cutler, based on the tangibles, is a more gifted QB than Manning or Brady, I won't get much argument. If I claim he's a better QB, posters question my sanity because they are looking at QB performances in the context of his support system

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 02:24 PM ----------

I don't feel Steve Young is a good example because he sat behind a HOF QB for a few years learning the game before he stepped on the field again. Steve Young was probably no where near the talent at Tampa Bay as he was when he got his chance with the 49ers. I could speculate that Patrick Ramsey and Jason Campbell would have been a much better product if they had been given the same luxury.

Even if you are right, which I doubt, you are arguing that the supporting system had an effect on the QB. That's not what you argued earlier.

The argument could also be made that because he is a great QB and can execute at a high level is the reason why the system is successful.

[wrecker]

Considering all the moving parts in an NFL offense nowadays that need to move in sync to have success, that is unlikely to happen for any length of time.

Yes. I agree, but a great QB can get you through some rough spots until the other moving parts get in sync. (Aaron Rodgers won enough games during an injury plagued season to still get into the playoffs. Now that the team is healthy they are on a roll)

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 02:42 PM ----------

[/color]Even if you are right, which I doubt, you are arguing that the supporting system had an effect on the QB. That's not what you argued earlier.

I never said the support system does not have an effect on the QB. That would be crazy. What I am saying is that a great QB can singlehandedly raise the teams overall play more than a great support system can raise a fair to average QB's play in the majority of cases. Of course there will always be exceptions and specific examples that would counter this, and using Steve Young in Tampa vs San Fran is one of these examples. Trent Dilfer in Baltimore would be another.

[TheLongshot]

Yes. I agree, but a great QB can get you through some rough spots until the other moving parts get in sync. (Aaron Rodgers won enough games during an injury plagued season to still get into the playoffs. Now that the team is healthy they are on a roll)

It isn't like he was throwing to a bunch of guys off the street. He has Greg Jennings and Donald Driver to throw to, who have plenty of experience in this offense. Even the youngster of the group, Nelson, has three years of experience in the offense.

[wrecker]

It isn't like he was throwing to a bunch of guys off the street. He has Greg Jennings and Donald Driver to throw to, who have plenty of experience in this offense. Even the youngster of the group, Nelson, has three years of experience in the offense.

FYI Donald Driver was stuggling with a quad injury from week 6 thru week 12 and sat out week 9 against Dallas and I believe week 10 against Minn because of it.

[Thinking Skins]

Yes. I agree, but a great QB can get you through some rough spots until the other moving parts get in sync. (Aaron Rodgers won enough games during an injury plagued season to still get into the playoffs. Now that the team is healthy they are on a roll)

Yeah, and in the one game Rodgers missed, Matt Flynn came in and threw for 433 yards and 3 TDs. That goes a long way in helping show that Rodgers has a really good supporting cast.

[Oldfan]

The Bears have been lucky in avoiding injuries, but don't look for them to cave in now that Green Bay is healthy. Chicago's defense and special teams have been holding them together, meanwhile their offense has been improving week-by-week.

I recommend taking the Bears and three and a half points.

[wrecker]

Yeah, and in the one game Rodgers missed, Matt Flynn came in and threw for 433 yards and 3 TDs. That goes a long way in helping show that Rodgers has a really good supporting cast.

Rodgers missed 2 games where Flynn started. They lost to the Lions 7-3 week 14 (15/26 177yds 0 TDs) and lost to the Patriots 31-27 week 15 (24/37 251 yds 3 TD 1 INT).

[The Tris]

OT, I think Matt Flynn is a solid young QB. That is the value in taking a late round QB (he was a 7th rounder).

Developmental project who either eventually becomes your starter, or you trade for a pick down the road (like what Atlanta did with Schaub, San Diego did with Whitehurst, and what I would expect Green Bay to do with Flynn when his contract is up this season).

[Newera]

I think a lot of you are missing this point that Oldfan is making. I agree with him in the principle that the quarterback isn't the end all be all. Scheme fit, players around him, play calling and many other factors go into how effective a team is. Note the use of the word "team". A quarterback himself will win zero football games. Don't believe me? Put Peyton Manning on the field with no offensive line. Or no wide receivers. Or no running backs. See how well he does. I realize this is a very basic statement, but its one that I think gets overlooked in this media boom day and age.

A quarterback has more value than any other position. It's obvious. But every position has value. You can't say, "Well hey, our right tackle sucks, but we have a great quarterback!" If your right tackle stinks, you have to make a gameplan to help him out, thus taking away some of your weapons (a back, a tight end, a pulling guard, etc.) Every player on the field that doesn't fit what you need is a handicap. You can't get the job done properly without the necessary planning and proper evaluation.

Kurt Warner is a very good example, Botched, in proving that the quarterback is important, but he's certainly not the sole factor in Arizona's collapse.

Every facet of a football game is dependent on another facet. The defense helps the offense, the offense helps the defense, the special teams can help both and both can help special teams. Every play matters.

Arizona lost a few players last year. Anquan Boldin, Kurt Warner, Karlos Dansby and Antrel Rolle to name a few.

Those are four key players. Kurt Warner alone didn't make that 7 point difference. They all did.

That said, Kurt Warner certainly helped. A good quarterback can take a decent team and guide them by limiting mistakes and capitalizing on defensive miscues. But when you go from a good quarterback to a very bad quarterback situation, you're going to have drop off. They didn't just downgrade slightly when they lost Warner...

It's like you're getting A's in Science and then all of a sudden you get a F. That was the type of drop off Arizona had at the quarterback position. Anderson is not a good quarterback, and Hall and Skelton are both very young and still learning. Combine that with the fact that they had some offensive struggles (and defensive struggles) and you come up with a much less polished and ready product.

I think Arizona would have done decently with a, going back to the grades analogy, drop from an A quarterback to a C quarterback.

I don't want to speak for Oldfan here, but I don't think he's at all saying the quarterback position isn't of great value. It's just not as great a value as many seem to believe.

Good points. But Boldin did have a much better year in Arizona then he did in Baltimore this year. After all, Warner is a Hall Of Famer.

[Oldfan]

...But Boldin did have a much better year in Arizona then he did in Baltimore this year. After all, Warner is a Hall Of Famer.

Is it possible that Boldin made Warner look good too? Is it possible that Flacco and Boldin both would have looked better against NFC West defenses? It's not all about Kurt Warner being wonderful.

[Fred Jones]

Is it possible that Boldin made Warner look good too? Is it possible that Flacco and Boldin both would have looked better against NFC West defenses? It's not all about Kurt Warner being wonderful.

Oldfan, anything is possible, just like your original post and point of this thread. However, that does not make it right.

Of course an offensive line makes the QB and RB's better. Of course a quality WR makes the QB better. It is also true that a bad Oline and bad receivers can degrade the performance of a QB.

However, those factors, basically, affect the stats and not the actual talent and skill of the QB. If he is a franchise level player his talent and skill do not diminish because of bad players around him. Said QB would have a harder time winning, and surrounding him with talent would make it easier for him to win, but it does not change the quality of the player.

Elway and Marino are good examples. Better players around each would have led to more SB victories.

So, what I am saying, is that I will take a franchise QB 10 out of 10 times and said franchise QB will win games simply because he a franchise QB. Surround him with talent and said franchise QB will compete for the SB every year. Just like many of the QB's mentioned in this thread.

[DieselPwr44]

The Washington Redskins had one of the premier WR corps of the 80's (especially with Monk,Sanders and Clark) plus an above average receiving TE in Didier.

Plus to go along with this, one of the most dominant Olines in league history.

Yet they failed to win championships when the performance of the QB was pedestrian.

Had the Redskins had dependable QB play during that decade, it is my firm belief that they'd have more than three rings and be considered team of the decade.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, anything is possible, just like your original post and point of this thread. However, that does not make it right.

Alright, let me make the points you quoted clear. It is LIKELY that Boldin made Warner better also because that's the way teamwork works. And it is LIKELY that Boldin and Flacco would have both looked better playing against the defenses of a weaker division because we know that happens routinely.

However, those factors, basically, affect the stats and not the actual talent and skill of the QB. If he is a franchise level player his talent and skill do not diminish because of bad players around him. Said QB would have a harder time winning, and surrounding him with talent would make it easier for him to win, but it does not change the quality of the player.

Of course it would not change his ability, but it would affect his performance -- which is what fans see and what stats measure.

Elway and Marino are good examples. Better players around each would have led to more SB victories.

Of course.

So, what I am saying, is that I will take a franchise QB 10 out of 10 times and said franchise QB will win games simply because he a franchise QB....

Okay, now one small matter. How do you tell a franchise QB from a bum based on his performance which depends on his supporting cast?

Let's make you a fan of the Tampa Bay Bucs in the years 1985 and 1986. Explain your method of determining that Steve Young had the potential to become a HOF franchise QB.

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 07:31 PM ----------

The Washington Redskins had one of the premier WR corps of the 80's (especially with Monk,Sanders and Clark) plus an above average receiving TE in Didier.

Plus to go along with this, one of the most dominant Olines in league history.

Yet they failed to win championships when the performance of the QB was pedestrian.

Had the Redskins had dependable QB play during that decade, it is my firm belief that they'd have more than three rings and be considered team of the decade.

You are making an argument that the QB is an important position -- a point that no one is debating.

My position is that the QB is the most important player, but still a minor factor in the outcome of football games -- I'd estimate about 10%. My OP offers evidence of how much the QB's performance depends on his supporting cast and scheme. I've offered evidence to back up statements like these:

"I don't care what quarterback you have, you have to have a good supporting cast. And not only a good supporting cast, you have to have a system that really relates to the players. That's what you're working for as a head coach in the National Football League, to put all of that together." ~ Mike Shanahan

[Slacky McSlackAss]

It's definitely not 100% Q and 0% S but a combination of both (probably something like 80% Q 20% S)

A great QB can make his WRs look AMAZING. But good WRs rarely have the same effect on a QB. Your QB is the leader of your offense, he's the field general, and arguably the most important player on the team. This is why it is paramount that we draft a QB in the early rounds either this year or next.

Also, I find it funny that you call everyone else a "dummy". I've read some pretty asinine posts from you over the years oldfan, mainly your repeated idea that finding a QB like Brady in the 6th round is like a regular occurrence.