If we lucked into a grade-A quarterback, how much difference would it make?

[Oldfan]

Using 100% to represent the total importance of all factors in winning NFL football games, it is possible to make an estimate and take some of the vagueness out of our football discussions.

20% -- Coaching

10% -- Special Teams

35% -- Defense

35% -- Offense

15% -- total running game

....8% -- RB

....7% -- Blockers

20% --Passing Game

....5% -- Protectors

....5% -- Receivers

....10% -- QB

Offense, defense, and special teams are weighed on a 3-3-1 ratio based on data source: footballoutsiders.com.

The 10% value for the QB is the average value of the position based on a 60/40 pass to run ratio. The value of the position can change somewhat with the scheme, but it does not change with the quality of the QB. In other words, the weight of the position and the grade of the QB are two distinct measurements.

The most important individual is the head coach, but he cannot be graded on wins and losses unless he has full control of his football team since the quality of his roster is an 80% factor in wins.

The second most important individual is the quarterback. When GM Mickey Loomis hired Sean Payton to coach and signed Drew Brees to play QB, he upgraded the two most important individual positions (30% estimated combined weight).

When Pittsburgh added Roethlesberger, he moved the team from a .550 win average to .600 -- almost a one-win improvement. At that level, the one win is the difference between a good team and one of championship caliber. However, the addition of a high-grade QB alone will not move a six-win team to championship level.

I have Jason Campbell graded as a C minus QB coming out from under center. I think he could have been upgraded to a B or B minus by putting him in a shotgun-based offense. Peyton is in the gun on 75% of his attempts; Brady on 65%. Instead, Mike traded for McNabb who gave us C minus quarterbacking because he doesn’t fit anybody’s scheme except the one Andy Reid built for him in Philly. Donovan was not an improvement at the QB position over Campbell.

So, to finally answer the question posed in the thread title... If we lucked into a grade-A QB, we would be upgraded from a C minus to an A at the position. That’s, at most, a one game upgrade. If we’re truly a six-win team, it would get us to seven.

[RichmondRedskin88]

I think a winning QB can change entire team's outlook. Teams have gone from horrible to playoff quickly because a good QB inspired the team. Taking into account the physical abilities of a QB is only half the thing. How the QB influences the team's mentality is the other half. QB is much more than just the passer. He's the guy everyone expects to be ice man when things get tough. None of the QBs the Skins have had lately could handle being "the guy". They cracked under the pressure of it. We need a leader.

[SWFLSkins]

I disagree with the value system on the QB's. I think an A QB or a top ten in the league guy can make a two to four game difference by themselves. I like the way you went about this though, I just feel that an A QB can really change the team around him and the results. Of course even an average QB and RB can look like an A+ with the dominate OL like the Skins had in the 80's-91.

One perplexing question has existed for far too long for the Redskins, Why have they been unable to get the guy? They had Sonny and Sam, the other QB's that won SB's I don't think would have without the teams that existed. Joey T. might have been the closest of late but really the Redskins have had this problem for awhile now.

[skinsdude]

I’m not sure that we had a grade-A quarterback even during the Super Bowl years but it’s a different game today. Recent history shows that you need a grade-A quarterback to be successful long term. A solid o-line doesn’t hurt either. Whether our coaching staff could take advantage of that kind of talent is another question.

[Oldfan]

I think a winning QB can change entire team's outlook. Teams have gone from horrible to playoff quickly because a good QB inspired the team. Taking into account the physical abilities of a QB is only half the thing. How the QB influences the team's mentality is the other half. QB is much more than just the passer. He's the guy everyone expects to be ice man when things get tough. None of the QBs the Skins have had lately could handle being "the guy". They cracked under the pressure of it. We need a leader.

Sorry, such psychological explanations fall on deaf ears with me.

When teams win, folks are inclined to give QBs far more credit than they deserve. The reasons they give can't be supported.

[mjpanzer]

I respect what you are trying to do, I really do. Still, you cannot simply apply arbitrary percentage numbers to a complex game like professional football.

Truth is, a grade A quarterback changes everything. While there are a few exceptions, for most every team the leader on offense is always the quarterback. So as the quarterback goes, so does the offense. Furthermore, with a grade A QB suddenly free agents WR want to come play for your team, offensive lineman want to come protect one of the top guys.

It changes everything.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

It makes a big diff. Good teams have good QB's.

[MartinC]

I agree with the overall point you are making here - most fans overrate the importance and impact of the QB position in and off itself.

However I think you are underestimating the impact a significant improvement at the QB spot can have. I think part of that impact is that once you are satisfied you have found your grade A QB you can start to divert draft picks, free agenct dollars etc on other critical positions rather than chasing that grade A QB. A chase which tends to drag high draft picks and big chunks of salary cap into its vortex.

Take the Colts. They drafted Manning in 1998 and he started and they went 3-13. They had also gone 3-13 the year before. However in 1999 they went 13-3 which even by my maths is a ten games swing. So what happened? Well having got Manning in 1998 they drafted Edge James 4th overall in 1999 (they had already got Marvin Harrison in 1996) and James went for 1500 yards in his rookie season. 1999 was also the first year Harrison had over 1000 yards receiving.

Getting a grade A QB may only in itself add one or maybe two wins but the impact it has on your franchise, the effect it has on the performance of other players on your roster already (see Marvin Harrisons numbers) and the other moves it allows you to make when you dont have to spend picks and dollars on finding your QB can result in much more than wining one or two extra games.

It is more complex than find grade A QB = win championships. But its not a bad step to make as part of that journey.

[Oldfan]

I disagree with the value system on the QB's. I think an A QB or a top ten in the league guy can make a two to four game difference by themselves. I like the way you went about this though, I just feel that an A QB can really change the team around him and the results. Of course even an average QB and RB can look like an A+ with the dominate OL like the Skins had in the 80's-91.

One perplexing question has existed for far too long for the Redskins, Why have they been unable to get the guy? They had Sonny and Sam, the other QB's that won SB's I don't think would have without the teams that existed. Joey T. might have been the closest of late but really the Redskins have had this problem for awhile now.

When a lousy QB is replaced by a grade A QB, the difference could approach two games, but that rarely happens.

Try using my approach to give the QB a much higher estimate. You'll find you end up with unrealistic numbers on the other factors.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 08:46 AM ----------

I’m not sure that we had a grade-A quarterback even during the Super Bowl years but it’s a different game today. Recent history shows that you need a grade-A quarterback to be successful long term. A solid o-line doesn’t hurt either. Whether our coaching staff could take advantage of that kind of talent is another question.

You might be overestimating the rise in the QB's value. The pass/run ratio has risen from 50/50 to 60/40, but the QB is only half the passing game. While his value has risen, the value of his protectors and receivers has risen equally. The RB iss less important as a runner, but more important as a protector and receiver.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 08:50 AM ----------

I respect what you are trying to do, I really do. Still, you cannot simply apply arbitrary percentage numbers to a complex game like professional football.

It's an estimate. The numbers are not arbitrary. The 3-3-1 ratio for the units and the 60/40 pass/run ratio, put constraints on the estimate.

Truth is, a grade A quarterback changes everything. While there are a few exceptions, for most every team the leader on offense is always the quarterback. So as the quarterback goes, so does the offense. Furthermore, with a grade A QB suddenly free agents WR want to come play for your team, offensive lineman want to come protect one of the top guys.

Drafted players don't have a choice. Most sought-after FAs take the high bid.

[jflow78]

I don't think making up fake value systems is going to take much "vagueness" out of the discussion. It just adds to it.

[Oldfan]

Martin ~ I think part of that impact is that once you are satisfied you have found your grade A QB you can start to divert draft picks, free agenct dollars etc on other critical positions rather than chasing that grade A QB. A chase which tends to drag high draft picks and big chunks of salary cap into its vortex.

Here, you are assuming an incompetent front office which spends resources extravagantly in its quest for a QB. I don’t think my estimate should be judged by either extreme competence or extreme incompetence in NFL front offices.

It is more complex than find grade A QB = win championships. But its not a bad step to make as part of that journey.

Of course not.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 09:07 AM ----------

I don't think making up fake value systems is going to take much "vagueness" out of the discussion. It just adds to it.

If you think my estimate is a fake, you can prove it so by using the same approach and coming up with much different numbers. Give it a try.

The units must conform to a 3-3-1 ratio, offense, defense, special teams. The passing game to a 60/40 pass/run ratio.

[MartinC]

Here, you are assuming an incompetent front office which spends resources extravagantly in its quest for a QB. I don’t think my estimate should be judged by either extreme competence or extreme incompetence in NFL front offices.

I dont think its a matter of competence - at least not at the extremes. Its just a fact that until you find your franchise QB you are always looking and that effects your draft strategy, how you approach free agency and your approach to trades etc. All this stops you using these resources and emotional energy on other important areas of your team.

How would you rationalise the ten game swing in wins the Colts saw in Mannings second year as a starter? I'm not claiming thats all down to Manning of course.

[Oldfan]

It makes a big diff. Good teams have good QB's.

QBs look good on good teams.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 09:14 AM ----------

I dont think its a matter of competence - at least not at the extremes. Its just a fact that until you find your franchise QB you are always looking and that effects your draft strategy, how you approach free agency and your approach to trades etc. All this stops you using these resources and emotional energy on other important areas of your team.

I see it as a matter of competence because what it takes to get a grade A quarterback is the ability to recognize one when he becomes available. There's no need to spend lots of time, draft picks, money or energy on the project unless you can't tell a grade A guy when you see him.

[MartinC]

I see it as a matter of competence because what it takes to get a grade A quarterback is the ability to recognize one when he becomes available. There's no need to spend lots of time, draft picks, money or energy on the project unless you can't tell a grade A guy when you see him.

Nah. Hindsight is 20/20 here. Even the very very best talent evaluators can't be sure who will and will not be a grade A QB until after the fact.

[skinsdude]

QBs look good on good teams.

A grade-A quarterback can make an average team above average.

[Oldfan]

...How would you rationalise the ten game swing in wins the Colts saw in Mannings second year as a starter? I'm not claiming thats all down to Manning of course.

How many wins do you attribute to Manning that year?

[Burgold]

I don't think it's the qb so much, though a great qb helps, but that leader. It's amazing how much harder people fight and concentrate when they believe. In the Gibbs I era, players used to talk about how they knew the coaches would figure it out and they would win. That's why having three different qbs and three different rbs didn't matter. They believed in JG. When you have a Manning or a Brady the players trust that guy to get it done when things are tough and they actually try just a little bit harder. That was the downside of Campbell. As many hits as he took and as tough as he was, he was never able to inspire his team and make those plays. I believe that's part of the reason for those infamous drops.

A better qb is important, a better leader is most important.

[The Tris]

Assuming this is a young, long term solution of a grade-A QB, the biggest impact would simply be filling one of the many holes on this team.

It would also provide a direction and stability - as in, hey this is our guy, we don't need to pour anymore resources into filling this position, now we need to focus completely on building a team around this player's and in turn this offense's skillset and identity.

I think that by solving the QB question, and bringing about the end of the over allocation of resources towards this single position (we have spent, by my count, two 1sts, one 2nd, two 3rds, and three 4ths on attempting to find a franchise passer the past 10 years, and will surely spend more next year at least), it will lift a huge burden from our team building strategy, and allow us to more effective use our resources to add important supplimental pieces that will be critical to the long term success of any QB and the team.

[Botched]

As a recent example of a QB's importance, the Cardinals were Superbowl contenders with Kurt Warner, and bottom feeders without him. They were very lucky to win 5 last year.

[Oldfan]

Nah. Hindsight is 20/20 here. Even the very very best talent evaluators can't be sure who will and will not be a grade A QB until after the fact.

Who is talking about hindsight?

Obviously, if the talent evaluators are the very, very best, they have a much higher hit rate. So, their organization will not likely waste the resources on QBs that would be wasted with an incompetent evaluator.

As I said, it 's a matter of competence. My estimate shouldn't be judged by the extremes.

[The Tris]

As a recent example of a QB's importance, the Cardinals were Superbowl contenders with Kurt Warner, and bottom feeders without him. They were very lucky to win 5 last year.

Because Kurt Warner was the only player they lost.

(PS - The Cardinals win differential was only -5 last season, plus their SB year they won 9 games)

[MartinC]

How many wins do you attribute to Manning that year?

I dont attribute any wins to Manning alone. I think that view is flawed. What we saw was the effect of finding Manning, what that allowed the coaches to do re play calling, the impact that had on existing players such as Harrison, the use of draft picks on players like James to build around him and the direction of the wind etc etc - the cumulative effect was ten extra wins. There are too many moving parts in a football team to accurately attribute an outcome to anyone element IMO

[SWFLSkins]

A grade-A quarterback can make an average team above average.

Yeah it is a two way street. A really good team say the Ravens with Dilfer can win a SB. And I say that Indy without Manning would not have. That two to four game swing is a playoff vs. non-playoff swing or a lucky to be in the playoff vs. going somewhere in the playoffs. And as much as I admire OF's threads and discussions I never really understand why he does not value the intangible leadership factors a good QB brings to an offense. The same could be said about having a great DL or OL as well. The confidence elevates the entire organization from the fans, to the front office and of course the players. Brady-less Pats would make Belicheat look average, IMO.

[The Tris]

Brady-less Pats would make Belicheat look average, IMO.

Because we all know the team fell off a cliff when a 7th round draft pick took over for Brady...

[MisterPinstripe]

The perfect example is last year the Colts with Manning. Without Manning at QB last year, there is no way that team makes the playoffs. So many starters injured, but Manning was able to keep that offense going no matter who was in there. The QB CAN make all the difference on a team, they would have been in the range of 6-10 or 8-8 without him.