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

[Thinking Skins]

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.

Uum, do you realize who we won with at QB? Theisman, Williams and Rypien. None of whom are all pro QBs, but we won SBs with them because our supporting cast was this. The QB play was pedestrian because the QBs were pedestrian. They put up great numbers because the supporting cast was so great.

[Fred Jones]

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.

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

Of course.

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 ----------

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

If your point was to say that it is team game and still requires 22 players to win, then you would be correct. Wow, I would never have thought of that.

Of course you want the most talented players at each position. What NFL coach would not want his team loaded. Of course you want all 22 players working together and following the direction of the coaches and executing their plays. What NFL team would not want that.

Your comment about Young makes no sense. Talent evaluation was never part of my post. If you want me to clarify I will state that the franchise QB has already been established that said player is a franchise QB. I never said or implied that we were talking potential here. Brady, Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Marino, Elway, ect. True franchise players. Now, I use them as examples because there is no debate they are franchise QB's.

Back to your point. Well, yes, it is a team game, but having a franchise QB means you are going to win more games with said high quality roster of talented players then you will if you only had an average NFL QB. If you want to debate the actual percentage a QB matters go ahead. I don't know how you would quantify that. Bottom line is a franchise QB gives a team a better chance at winning the SB than a non-franchise QB. To me, that is all that really matters.

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 08:42 PM ----------

Uum, do you realize who we won with at QB? Theisman, Williams and Rypien. None of whom are all pro QBs, but we won SBs with them because our supporting cast was this. The QB play was pedestrian because the QBs were pedestrian. They put up great numbers because the supporting cast was so great.

I disagree. If we had a franchise QB we would have had a better chance at winning the SB. Ryp clearly had a career year the year he one a SB. You could say the same about Williams as well. Who knows if we would have, but what if we had drafted Marino instead of Green in 83? I am glad we did not, but one wonders what if?

[Oldfan]

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

Betcha can't back up your 80/20 opinion with stats as I have.

A great QB can make his WRs look AMAZING. But good WRs rarely have the same effect on a QB.

How do you explain the effect that Welker and Moss had on Brady's stats?

From the worst to the best -- only the receiving corps.*Tom Brady didn't have a bona fide starter at WR to help him in 2006. Welker and Moss were added in 2007.

Brady 2006 -- 61.8 completion pct. -- 87.9 QBR*

Brady 2007 -- 68.9 completion pct -- 117.2 QBR

Also, I find it funny that you call everyone else a "dummy".

I don't write my posts for every reader. In calling my opponents dummies in the title, I wrote for the majority of readers who have a sense of humor and would realize that I was just joshing in a friendly manner.

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 09:10 PM ----------

If your point was to say that it is team game and still requires 22 players to win, then you would be correct. Wow, I would never have thought of that.

No, that isn't the point. The point has been explained about 14 times in this thread. If you don't have it by now, it's not going to happen.

[MartinC]

Uum, do you realize who we won with at QB? Theisman, Williams and Rypien. None of whom are all pro QBs, but we won SBs with them because our supporting cast was this. The QB play was pedestrian because the QBs were pedestrian. They put up great numbers because the supporting cast was so great.

Joey T was league MVP in 1983. Hes not an all time great but he was a very good QB for 4 year span and went to two Super Bowls in that period. I would not call him pedestrian.

I do agree though with your central point above and the premise of the OP from Oldfan - its not just about the QB and even the best need a good support cast to be successful.

[DieselPwr44]

Uum, do you realize who we won with at QB? Theisman, Williams and Rypien. None of whom are all pro QBs, but we won SBs with them because our supporting cast was this. The QB play was pedestrian because the QBs were pedestrian. They put up great numbers because the supporting cast was so great.

The supporting cast was always there. The QB performance was spotty.

Theismann had a short span of above average performance before he was done. Even before the Giants ended his career, Joey T was having a Brunell '06 season: absolutely putrid. He was done.

Jay Schroeder was inconsistent and Doug Williams caught fire at the end of the 87 season but did little else afterward.

Mark Rypien had one heck of a year in 1991 and then fell off the face of the Earth.

Now, imagine taking someone like a Marino..a guy you can pencil in at starter for 10 years and know you're going to get consistent play out of him year in, year out.

What could've been............

That's never happened here in my lifetime of watching Redskins football. We've only had brief flashes of superlative QB play.

[BKSkinsFan]

I must be extremely tired, because I'm reading that you believe the QB is the most important player on the field, but his play only has a 10% factor on a win or loss. I just can't see the logic in that, I must be a real dummy.

[Slacky McSlackAss]

Betcha can't back up your 80/20 opinion with stats as I have.

How do you explain the effect that Welker and Moss had on Brady's stats?

From the worst to the best -- only the receiving corps.*Tom Brady didn't have a bona fide starter at WR to help him in 2006. Welker and Moss were added in 2007.

Brady 2006 -- 61.8 completion pct. -- 87.9 QBR*

Brady 2007 -- 68.9 completion pct -- 117.2 QBR

Yet he still managed to lead that 2006 team to a 12-4 record. Listen, I'm not denying your theory. Obviously the supporting cast is very important to the success of a QB. But you cannot deny the fact that it is just as important to have a franchise caliber QB (which we don't have right now) as it is to have a supporting cast around him (which we only partially have).

Now I think we can both agree upon that and for this reason it makes drafting a franchise QB(read not picking one up in the 6th round) a priority.

[MR2Drift]

The issue with your argument Oldfan is that you are using such a small sample size to make a conclusion about Qbs in general. For all we know Young can be an outlier.

Not only that but you are using stats that are 14-20 years apart for Brady and Young. This assumes that the rules have not changed, which we all know have.

Add some more recent examples to try and see if your theory works. McNabb and Cutler both went to worse offenses, they should be good candidates.

[Oldfan]

The issue with your argument Oldfan is that you are using such a small sample size to make a conclusion about Qbs in general. For all we know Young can be an outlier.

Not only that but you are using stats that are 14-20 years apart for Brady and Young. This assumes that the rules have not changed, which we all know have.

Add some more recent examples to try and see if your theory works. McNabb and Cutler both went to worse offenses, they should be good candidates.

In previous threads, I have posted stats showing the dramatic effects of starters moving to worse and better teams using Orton, Cutler, Cassel, Plummer, and Garcia, who moved four times in four years. Here, I focused my argument on Steve Young because he's the only QB in NFL history to move from the worst team to the best. So, he's the best indicator we have of just how much difference the support system can make.

One might argue effectively that, with just a one QB sample, the 70.6% difference cannot be supported as an accurate value for the support effect. However, opponents will be hard-pressed to explain how such a huge difference could happen even once randomly.

Arguments on rules changes, etc. are weak. Rules changes have made the passing game more effective. Those rules would equally raise the impact the QB could make, the impact of coaches designing the pass plays, the impact the players supporting the QB in the passing game, and the impact of players defending the passing game. In the new era, there would be more emphasis on having RBs who are also good receivers. In the end, rules won't change the relative value of the QB much at all.

[Oldfan]

I must be extremely tired, because I'm reading that you believe the QB is the most important player on the field, but his play only has a 10% factor on a win or loss. I just can't see the logic in that, I must be a real dummy.

You have the other 10 players on offense, then the defense, special teams and coaching factors to make up the other 90%

10% for just one player is very high.

[Hubbs]

I swear, monuments could be built to Oldfan's unrelenting quest to convince anyone and everyone that quarterback is damn near the least important position in all of football. Even the title of this thread highlights the ultimate weakness in his argument: It's not all about the almighty quarterback. Not all about. Well, no ****, Sherlock. (Keep digging, Watson!) When you can find the person who said that the other offensive players don't matter at all, that there's absolutely no difference between Tom Brady throwing to Randy Moss and Tom Brady throwing to me, well, you might just have yourself a point.

[Darrell Green Fan]

I'm not going to bother reading 9 pages of this thread. I'll just make it simple: the teams that are contender every year: Pittsburg, NE, Indy, SD etc, have great QB play. Virtually every year there is one, if not 2, great QBs playing in the Super Bowl. When you consider the fact that there are, what, 5-6 truly great QBs out of 32 teams in any given year I think it's pretty clear what the pattern is. To say that it's not about the QB, especially now, is way off base IMO.

[Oldfan]

I swear, monuments could be built to Oldfan's unrelenting quest to convince anyone and everyone that quarterback is damn near the least important position in all of football.

Why then did I describe the QB position as the most important about five times in the thread which you didn't read?

Even the title of this thread highlights the ultimate weakness in his argument: It's not all about the almighty quarterback. Not all about. Well, no ****, Sherlock. (Keep digging, Watson!)

The title was meant to be provocative and amusing to people who have a sense of humor, Sherlock.

I laughed a while back when bulldog titled his thread "It's the Quarterback Stupid." Didn't you?

[MartinC]

You have the other 10 players on offense, then the defense, special teams and coaching factors to make up the other 90%

10% for just one player is very high.

Its also 50% lower than you were giving the QB last year in similar threads if my memory is correct - you had the QB at 20% then. QB standards have certainly fallen :evilg:

[Oldfan]

I'm not going to bother reading 9 pages of this thread. I'll just make it simple: the teams that are contender every year: Pittsburg, NE, Indy, SD etc, have great QB play. Virtually every year there is one, if not 2, great QBs playing in the Super Bowl. When you consider the fact that there are, what, 5-6 truly great QBs out of 32 teams in any given year I think it's pretty clear what the pattern is. To say that it's not about the QB, especially now, is way off base IMO.

I didn't bother reading past the first line.

---------- Post added January-21st-2011 at 09:20 AM ----------

Its also 50% lower than you were giving the QB last year in similar threads if my memory is correct - you ha the QB at 20% then. QB standards have certainly fallen :evilg:

You're mistaken.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I swear, monuments could be built to Oldfan's unrelenting quest to convince anyone and everyone that quarterback is damn near the least important position in all of football.

I've had my sparring matches with Oldfan for sure, but let's at least give him the respect of accurately depicting his point. We don't need 10 people coming in here and starting to argue against the fake points that others are attributing to him. He's said several times in this thread that the QB position is the most important on the field.

[Jbank31]

The person in the Patriots organization that "found" Tom Brady passed away years ago. And the story goes that his assesment at the time was that he believed that the kid might fit their system. The knock on Brady was that he didn't make fast enough decisions, which he found out by reading it off of someones desk. He worked to improve this skill and has become a great quarterback.

A side note: right after Mr. Raybeins' death, the great Patriot organization pulled the health benefits on his wife and daughter, and a job that the daughter held at the stadium was rescinded. The only member of the organization that ever called to check up on his widow was Drew Bledsoe even after he went to Buffalo.

[Oldfan]

The person in the Patriots organization that "found" Tom Brady passed away years ago. And the story goes that his assesment at the time was that he believed that the kid might fit their system. The knock on Brady was that he didn't make fast enough decisions, which he found out by reading it off of someones desk. He worked to improve this skill and has become a great quarterback.

A side note: right after Mr. Raybeins' death, the great Patriot organization pulled the health benefits on his wife and daughter, and a job that the daughter held at the stadium was rescinded. The only member of the organization that ever called to check up on his widow was Drew Bledsoe even after he went to Buffalo.

Interesting stuff. Beldsoe's stock just rose in my mind.

[JoeSkins]

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.

Be fair. More people than just posters on a message board would say the same, and do on a daily basis. That group includes greater football minds than anyone here.

[Oldfan]

Be fair. More people than just posters on a message board would say the same, and do on a daily basis. That group includes greater football minds than anyone here.

Greater baseball minds all agreed that the Cy Young winner was the guy with the best W/L record until statisticians were able to actually measure pitching perfromance. That's why I wrote in the OP:

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.

[JoeSkins]

Greater baseball minds all agreed that the Cy Young winner was the guy with the best W/L record until statisticians were able to actually measure pitching perfromance. That's why I wrote in the OP:

I read the OP; there's no need to throw that back at me as if I didn't. I wouldn't chalk the Felix Hernandez Cy Young up as such a huge win for you (and baseball, I'm sure you'd say) until it happens a few more times. After all, there is such a thing as an anomoly. If the top winners resume their position as Cy Young winners, then the experts will resume their mistake-making, meaning again that it's not just fans but also experts.

Edit: Above, by "top winners," I mean best W/L ratio.

[Oldfan]

I read the OP; there's no need to throw that back at me as if I didn't. I wouldn't chalk the Felix Hernandez Cy Young up as such a huge win for you (and baseball, I'm sure you'd say) until it happens a few more times. After all, there is such a thing as an anomoly. If the top winners resume their position as Cy Young winners, then the experts will resume their mistake-making, meaning again that it's not just fans but also experts.

Edit: Above, by "top winners," I mean best W/L ratio.

How was I to know you read the OP? More than half the posters in this thread obviously didn't.

How could it be an anomaly? The Cy Young selections aren't random events or variable in a statistic. The Hernandez selection couldn't possibly happen even once unless the selection process changed.

[KDawg]

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.

First off, I feel like it's important to repost this, since so many seemed to have missed it.

I swear, monuments could be built to Oldfan's unrelenting quest to convince anyone and everyone that quarterback is damn near the least important position in all of football. Even the title of this thread highlights the ultimate weakness in his argument: It's not all about the almighty quarterback. Not all about. Well, no ****, Sherlock. (Keep digging, Watson!) When you can find the person who said that the other offensive players don't matter at all, that there's absolutely no difference between Tom Brady throwing to Randy Moss and Tom Brady throwing to me, well, you might just have yourself a point.

I've had my sparring matches with Oldfan for sure, but let's at least give him the respect of accurately depicting his point. We don't need 10 people coming in here and starting to argue against the fake points that others are attributing to him. He's said several times in this thread that the QB position is the most important on the field.

That's Hubbs typical style. Come in, be sarcastic, emphasize points that were never made by the OP and add very little to the conversation.

10% importance for one player is HUGE when you consider how many players make up a starting team.

Let's assume that there are eleven different players on all three units (O, D, ST)

That's 33 players.

The Redskins have 21 coaches.

That's a total of 54 people.

Plus Bruce Allen. 55.

Plus however many scouts they have.

Then you have to include all the other players who play/get signed and play...When it's all said and done, let's figure there's about 100 people that are instrumental in the Redskins on field success.

Each person, at face value would be worth 1%.

Oldfan's premise is that the quarterback is worth 10x any other person using that premise.

QB = 10%

99 others = 90%

If that's the case, that's a gigantic number.

[JoeSkins]

How was I to know you read the OP? More than half the posters in this thread obviously didn't.

How could it be an anomaly? The Cy Young selections aren't random events. The Hernandez selection couldn't possibly happen even once unless the selection process changed.

I should have been more clear. Hernandez's selection could, in the future, turn out to be anomolous if wins and losses go back to being the greatest "metric" (if you can even call it that) in Cy Young decisions. That would mean that only once was the process capable of selecting someone based on more individually-based statistics.

Remember, it's still a vote, and until the award just becomes the result of a formula then there's always a chance for relapse.

Edit for further clarity: I'm speculating somewhat cynically about the future, obviously.

[Oldfan]

I should have been more clear. Hernandez's selection could, in the future, turn out to be anomolous if wins and losses go back to being the greatest "metric" (if you can even call it that) in Cy Young decisions. That would mean that only once was the process capable of selecting someone based on more individually-based statistics.

Remember, it's still a vote, and until the award just becomes the result of a formula then there's always a chance for relapse.

Edit for further clarity: I'm speculating somewhat cynically about the future, obviously.

Alright, I'll grant your point that it is possible, though unlikely, that baseball experts will revert to their stupid ways and give the Cy Young, an award implying individual achievement, to a pitcher lucky enough to have great team support.