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

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Here's another question: can a 2-14 team improve to 12-4 by virtue of their coaching and defense alone?

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 11:05 AM ----------

Prove to me that your estimate is reasonable.

"I gave you what I’m calling a reasonable estimate and I explained my method. It’s not up to me to prove that it’s reasonable. If you think it isn’t, proving it should be a snap if you can handle seventh grade math. " -Oldfan

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Can this post be peer-reviewed?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Can this post be peer-reviewed?

Oldfan would be insulted to consider any of us his peers lol ...

[Oldfan]

"It’s not up to me to prove that [my argument is] reasonable. " -Oldfan

You missed the point. My request made to Hitman was facetious. It was the same dumb request you made of me.

[Hitman21ST]

Prove to me that your estimate is reasonable.

Campbell came in in week 11 of 2006 with a roster in place. He went 2-5 over the last 7 weeks, and 5-7 until he was injured in week 14 of 2007. That's 7-12. That's just about right on with my estimate of a 6-7 win team with a roster in place.

McNabb wins 5 games with last year's roster. That would translate to 7-8 wins with a better roster. An "A" QB would be able to get us 9-10 wins with a roster in place.

Prove to me that's not reasonable.

[War Paint]

I think a top flight QB makes a huge difference on offense. A pro-bowl caliber QB elevates the play of all of those around him. Defense will fear being picked apart in the passing game, thus opening up the running game. A top QB is better when dealing with pressure, which will help the oline look better. A top QB will put the ball in the right places to where the receivers will be able to make plays. We are the one team in the NFC East that hasn't had consistency at QB, which is why we are usually in last place.

I'm not saying "all we need is a great QB, so we can get by with a practice squad quality line". I'm saying teams with high caliber QBs usually make the playoffs.

[Hitman21ST]

You missed the point. My request made to Hitman was facetious. It was the same dumb request you made of me.

Translation: "Damn, Cali trapped me. Time to get my Matrix on."

"That was close"

[Oldfan]

Campbell came in in week 11 of 2006 with a roster in place. He went 2-5 over the last 7 weeks, and 5-7 until he was injured in week 14 of 2007. That's 7-12. That's just about right on with my estimate of a 6-7 win team with a roster in place.

You claim that "That's about right on with my estimate," and you call your claim PROOF?

McNabb wins 5 games with last year's roster. That would translate to 7-8 wins with a better roster. An "A" QB would be able to get us 9-10 wins with a roster in place.

What proof do you have that McNabb would have won 5 with last year's roster? What proof do you have that a grade-A QB would win 9-10?

Your just making unsupported claims. You offered no proof.

Prove to me that's not reasonable.

According to you and your accomplice, I don't have to.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

You missed the point. My request made to Hitman was facetious. It was the same dumb request you made of me.

Asking someone to prove their point is "dumb". Gotcha. :thumbsup:

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 11:24 AM ----------

Translation: "Damn, Cali trapped me. Time to get my Matrix on."

"That was close"

[SwampEm]

I'm not getting sucked into this argument. I've read the thread and everyone has their viewpoints. I was just telling you what they were trying to come up with and not my point of view. I'm not sure anyone was really equating a QBs worth to a SB. You may want to re-read the original OP. (which is righ above me).

I realize this but you can't say that one position accounts for a set percentage of anything. It may be much much more or it may be way less. The famous football position of "protector" makes a huge difference on how good the QB, RB's, WR's, TE's, and ultimately the coach. Joe Montana could have been taking snaps for us over the last three years and not been very good because or "protectors" are not very good.

[Hitman21ST]

You claim that "That's about right on with my estimate," and you call your claim PROOF?

I estimated that Campbell would win 6-7 games with a roster in place. Campbell went 7-12 before he was injured in 2007. So yes, my proof that my estimate was correct was that Campbell won my estimated number of games. Look at the records.

What proof do you have that McNabb would have won 5 with last year's roster?

Maybe that McNabb went 5-8 before being pulled for Grossman?

What proof do you have that a grade-A QB would win 9-10?

The same proof that you have that an "A" QB would win 10% more games.

Your just making unsupported claims. You offered no proof.

See above. I haven't done anything you haven't done. In most cases, I've done more.

[Oldfan]

Asking someone to prove their point is "dumb".:

No, young friend. Try to keep the facts straight.

I can make an argument, but I can't prove to you it's logical. You either grasp it or you don't.

I can give you an estimate and claim it's reasonable; I can show you how it was done; but I can't prove to you it's reasonable. You either see it as reasonable or you don't.

Asking someone to prove their argument is logical is dumb. Asking them to prove reasonableness is dumb.

[In The Barrel]

I think a top flight QB makes a huge difference on offense. A pro-bowl caliber QB elevates the play of all of those around him. Defense will fear being picked apart in the passing game, thus opening up the running game. A top QB is better when dealing with pressure, which will help the oline look better. A top QB will put the ball in the right places to where the receivers will be able to make plays. We are the one team in the NFC East that hasn't had consistency at QB, which is why we are usually in last place.

I'm not saying "all we need is a great QB, so we can get by with a practice squad quality line". I'm saying teams with high caliber QBs usually make the playoffs.

This is spot on according to most analysts - top notch QBs change the entire game through 3 factors - 1) constant pressure on the opponents defense to come up with turnovers and big plays means they will gamble in protection and blitz packages - what then happens is the big plays happen or they slowly chip away with runs and high % passes scoring goes up and time of possession goes up. Also most top notch QBs can get it in when they are in the RZ, even with a middle pack OL. 2) Higher scoring, longer rest for your defense and pressure on the other teams Offense to pass, pass pass means better % of turnovers and sacks - which then leads to a better opinion of ones defense - even though they might not be top notch Defensive players - this is why IMO you see so many FA's come from Super Bowl teams the year before that get big $ then flame out in different teams with different offenses that suck - it changes the dynamic of the game if you are on the field more than the offense ( fatigue,game planning, start gambling to get turn overs...) 3) Respect is big too - if you have to respect a QBs big play ability or the ability to have a high % of completions the secondary cannot blitz as much and thus becomes one dimensional - look at Vick in the first 5 games - they could not figure out what to attack - giving him options - and setting up big plays. Then when you get enough tape on certain guys you can game plan and take more things away - cant really do that with Brees, Manning, Brady and to some degree Rodgers anymore. That is why they win - even without superstars other than 1 good receiver , good TE and 2 solid RBs and middle of he pack protection ( look at Indy's or GB's line and tell me they are Great..)

Bottom line is - QB is higher than 10% off the outcome - more like 30% for most teams. That is why the Redskins will not win much this year with the horses they have n the stable - not Derby quality. Cant compete on a 16 game schedule with those horses - ya - win some but not during the "stretch run" ...

[Oldfan]

I estimated that Campbell would win 6-7 games with a roster in place. Campbell went 7-12 before he was injured in 2007. So yes, my proof that my estimate was correct was that Campbell won my estimated number of games. Look at the records.

Maybe that McNabb went 5-8 before being pulled for Grossman?

The same proof that you have that an "A" QB would win 10% more games.

See above. I haven't done anything you haven't done. In most cases, I've done more.

You haven’t offered a shred of proof. Your “estimate” amounts to nothing but your claims based on your subjective opinions of rosters and quarterbacks.

You can’t offer proof that it is a reasonable estimate because there is none. We either accept your opinions or we don’t.

[pimpumd]

I can make an argument, but I can't prove to you it's logical. You either grasp it or you don't.

So, those reading your argument are either smart enough to grasp your argument, or too dumb to understand your argument. That leaves no room for the possibility that your argument is not logical to begin with. That's a pretty arrogant stance. It's not an "either, or" situation (either smart enough to "grasp" your argument or not). It's possible that you've presented an illogical or flawed argument, despite your unwillingness to acknowledge so.

[Oldfan]

In The Barrell ~ Bottom line is - QB is higher than 10% off the outcome - more like 30% for most teams.

Impossible. This would make the other 10 positions on offense, O-line, RB, receivers, worth about 5% total.

[Hitman21ST]

You haven’t offered a shred of proof. Your “estimate” amounts to nothing but your claims based on your subjective opinions of rosters and quarterbacks.

You can’t offer proof that it is a reasonable estimate because there is none. We either accept your opinions or we don’t.

My proof is that Campbell won 7 out of the first 19 he played. Prorated to 16 games, that's in between 6 and 7. That's EXACTLY what I estimated, and proved my estimate right.

McNabb went 5-8 before being pulled. With a better supporting cast, he would have done better. Not playoffs better, but probably improved to 7 or 8 games.

By the way, you seemed to accept my opinions earlier in the thread, when I first put them out there. Pretty convenient that now you don't.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 03:11 PM ----------

Impossible. This would make the other 10 positions on offense, O-line, RB, receivers, worth about 5% total.

Considering that the Colts, Packers, and Patriots are pretty much able to interchange OL, RB, WR without skipping a beat makes it fairly believable.

[JPCreativelab]

the percentage on each player changes each game, each quarter, even each play...

i dont like numbers, they can be manipulated into anything you want them to say, the truth is, heart and luck play more into each game than any statistic ever has.

[Oldfan]

So, those reading your argument are either smart enough to grasp your argument, or too dumb to understand your argument. That leaves no room for the possibility that your argument is not logical to begin with. That's a pretty arrogant stance. It's not an "either, or" situation (either smart enough to "grasp" your argument or not). It's possible that you've presented an illogical or flawed argument, despite your unwillingness to acknowledge so.

Your interpretation of my remark is obviously biased. You'd like to portray it in the worst possible light. However, the remark assumes I might make a logical argument. Whether it is logical or illogical is not relevant to the the point: either way, I can't prove it's logical. To ask me to do so is absurd.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You haven’t offered a shred of proof. Your “estimate” amounts to nothing but your claims based on your subjective opinions of rosters and quarterbacks.

You can’t offer proof that it is a reasonable estimate because there is none. We either accept your opinions or we don’t.

How is the fact that McNabb won five games last year not proof that McNabb could win give games last year?

[JPCreativelab]

Your interpretation of my remark is obviously biased. You'd like to portray it in the worst possible light. However, the remark assumes I might make a logical argument. Whether it is logical or illogical is not relevant to the the point: either way, I can't prove it's logical. To ask me to do so is absurd.

agreed, you can only prove if its popular or not, and which crowd its popular with, that is all.

[Mad Mike]

Asking someone to prove their argument is logical is dumb. Asking them to prove reasonableness is dumb.

No. THIS ^ is dumb. Hell, it's more than dumb. It's moronic.

Let's look at the very next post from you....

You haven’t offered a shred of proof. Your “estimate” amounts to nothing but your claims based on your subjective opinions of rosters and quarterbacks.

So it's dumb to expect you to prove your argument. But it's mandatory for everyone else. Riiiiiiiight.

You sir are an idiot. I say this not as an insult, but as an undeniable statement of fact based upon your own words.

[mjpanzer]

goodness.

Notice how the Packers won the superbowl without Ryan Grant or Finely?

Notice how Adrian Peterson and LT have never been to the superbowl?

Notice how the Colts and Patriots have had god knows who at RB?

Notice how the Saints get Drew Brees and suddenly they are superbowl champs?

Notice how Kurt Warner takes Arizona to the Superbowl, leaves, and they completely suck?

The QB is the most important position on the offense by a huge margin. I am sorry but RB don't really mean ****, and great WR owe a ton of their success to well placed balls by the QB (besides the top .001 percent who can catch from whomever).

The last RB who "carried" a team to the superbowl I can think of is Sean Alexander, but even he got injured in the playoffs (remember against the Skins?), and they still made it thanks to Hasselback. Teams just don't make it to the superbowl with a great RB anymore, and it is a reality the NFL has embraced. Getting a top quarterback like Matt Ryan or Josh Freeman completely turned around two sorry franchises in but one year. Even the Rams with Bradford made it to a respectable record.

I am not at all claiming that having a ****ty OL or WR corp does not matter, and when you bring in a rookie QB it certainly does. All I am saying is that the evidence in the past 10 years points to the fact that an elite QB makes a team elite, and not the other way around.

[Hitman21ST]

How is the fact that McNabb won five games last year not proof that McNabb could win give games last year?

:whoknows:

[Oldfan]

Hitman ~ My proof is that Campbell won 7 out of the first 19 he played. Prorated to 16 games, that's in between 6 and 7. That's EXACTLY what I estimated, and proved my estimate right.

Campbell’s 2006 performance with roster X tells us zero about how Campbell might perform with roster Y in a later year.

McNabb went 5-8 before being pulled. With a better supporting cast, he would have done better. Not playoffs better, but probably improved to 7 or 8 games.

But only if the supporting cast improves his performance by 2-3 games. How could you possibly project that?

By the way, you seemed to accept my opinions earlier in the thread, when I first put them out there. Pretty convenient that now you don't.

I didn’t disagree. That doesn’t imply agreement. It only implies I wasn't interested in debating it at that time.

Considering that the Colts, Packers, and Patriots are pretty much able to interchange OL, RB, WR without skipping a beat makes it fairly believable.

You logic escapes me. How does “interchangeability" reduce their worth?