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

[Mad Mike]

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

Better yet, from oldfans own source - footballoutsiders.com, the top rated QBs...

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

compared to their teams standings last year...

http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=league&season=2010-REG&split=Overall

But of course it's all coincidence and I must prove the correlation while whatever numbers oldfan pulls out of his ass should be accepted as gospel.

[pjfootballer]

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.

I didn't. That's what I'm trying to say. It's not my thread, nor my argument. I'm having fun on the sidelines enjoying the ass whooping.

[Oldfan]

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

You are not keeping up. I made the same dumb requests of them that they made of me.

[thebluefood]

I'm a little conflicted about this.

On one hand, a modern NFL team lives and dies by the quarterback. If you don't have a solid quarterback behind center, your team is breaking even if you're lucky.

On the other hand, with the offensive line we currently have, even Peyton Manning would look like a journeyman. One thing that will never change about football is the vital importance of good blocking.

I think a grade-A quarterback would secure a couple more wins for us, but until we field a solid offensive line, we're not going to be competitive.

[Oldfan]

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

I misread.

[Hitman21ST]

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

The Colts lost Harrison and added Garcon (clearly a downgrade - if you don't acknowledge that then your football knowledge is next to none). The Pats lost Randy Moss and added Deion Branch and didn't lose a step. If the surrounding cast gets worse, the QB stays the same, and the team does as good, the QB is the key cog, and shows that the other offensive players don't matter percentage wise, and doesn't make them as valuable.

[maddogtre]

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.

.

I think the first error in this line of thought is the 3-3-1 ratio. Every team is different. The 2000 Ravens were a great defensive team with a poor offense. The Colts of the past 10 years would be the other side. The dominance of their Offense helped hide the defensive flaws. Therefore, you can't say that their O & D would each be 35%.

Also, when you dig down deeper, some offenses are run oriented and rely on the run and some are the other way around. Some rely on a great QB and great passing attack, while others rely on the running game (great Oline and RB). You can't just automatically say 20% passing, 15% rushing. Every team is different and the importance of each player changes from team to team.

[Oldfan]

The Colts lost Harrison and added Garcon (clearly a downgrade - if you don't acknowledge that then your football knowledge is next to none). The Pats lost Randy Moss and added Deion Branch and didn't lose a step. If the surrounding cast gets worse, the QB stays the same, and the team does as good, the QB is the key cog, and shows that the other offensive players don't matter percentage wise, and doesn't make them as valuable.

You can cherry-pick your facts to prove just about any theory you dream up. If we both do that we can go on for another hundred posts.

If you can convince yourself that the QB's 10 teammates combined are a 5% factor while the QB is 30%, that's all I need to know about your knowledge of the game.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You can cherry-pick your facts to prove just about any theory you dream up. If we both do that we can go on for another hundred posts.

If you can convince yourself that the QB's 11 teammates combined are a 5% factor while the QB is 30%, that's all I need to know about your knowledge of the game.

I think it varies from team to team.

I find it hard to imagine that Peyton Manning is only 10 percent responsible for his team's success.

I can't imagine them winning 4 games without him. That's a mediocre football team at the moment.

What you are looking for is a football equivalent to win shares.

WAR acknowledges that a really good player is worth more than an average player. You can't say a right fielder is 8 percent of a team's success if that right fielder is big-headed Barry Bonds. He was worth 250 wins to his team over his career all by himself.

[Hitman21ST]

You can cherry-pick your facts to prove just about any theory you dream up. If we both do that we can go on for another hundred posts.

If you can convince yourself that the QB's 11 teammates combined are a 5% factor while the QB is 30%, that's all I need to know about your knowledge of the game.

Are we playing in the CFL now?

Besides, I never said that it was ironclad that the QB was 30%. I said it was feasible with certain teams and gave you perfectly good examples. If I cherry-picked those stats about the Colts and Patriots, you should be able to give me counter-points from those two teams to show that those stats are bunk.

You believe the QB is only worth 10%. That the 16-0 Patriots would have gone 14-2 with Jon Kitna. And you think my football knowledge is out of whack?

[pjfootballer]

The Colts lost Harrison and added Garcon (clearly a downgrade - if you don't acknowledge that then your football knowledge is next to none). The Pats lost Randy Moss and added Deion Branch and didn't lose a step. If the surrounding cast gets worse, the QB stays the same, and the team does as good, the QB is the key cog, and shows that the other offensive players don't matter percentage wise, and doesn't make them as valuable.

Rogers lost Finley and Grant. New Orleans lost Bush, Pierre Thomas and Shockey for most parts of the year. Colts lost Addai against us. Chargers lost Tomlinson the the Jets. Just some more examples for you.

[Oldfan]

Maddogtre -- I think the first error in this line of thought is the 3-3-1 ratio. Every team is differeent. The 2000 Ravens were a great defensive team with a poor offense. The Colts of the past 10 years would be the other side. The dominance of their Offense helped hide the defensive flaws. Therefore, you can't say that their O & D would each be 35%.

Logically, it’s just as important to score seven points as it is to stop the opponent from scoring seven points. The 2000 Ravens defense was better than the offense, but their offense was just as important to wins as the defense. You have two factors here: The importance of the unit to winning, and the quality of the unit. My estimate is not concerned with the quality of the unit.

Also, when you dig down deeper, some offenses are run oriented and rely on the run and some are the other way around. Some rely on a great QB and great passing attack, while others rely on the running game (great Oline and RB). You can't just automatically say 20% passing, 15% rushing. Every team is different and the importance of each player changes from team to team.

I specified a 60/40 pass/run ratio. My estimates were made on that basis. So, the problem you cite isn’t a problem. Furthermore, the estimates were averages., so there’s no claim being made that all teams, at all positions, would fit the profile.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 04:29 PM ----------

...What you are looking for is a football equivalent to win shares.

WAR acknowledges that a really good player is worth more than an average player. You can't say a right fielder is 8 percent of a team's success if that right fielder is big-headed Barry Bonds. He was worth 250 wins to his team over his career all by himself.

As I have said several times' date=' my estimate evaluates the average value of the position. I'm unconcerned with the quality of the player.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 04:34 PM ----------

...Besides, I never said that it was ironclad that the QB was 30%. I said it was feasible with certain teams and gave you perfectly good examples. If I cherry-picked those stats about the Colts and Patriots, you should be able to give me counter-points from those two teams to show that those stats are bunk.

I can give you two pass catching young TEs to add to Branch which more than offsets Moss. And, we can cherry-pick those stats for a dozen teams to waste our time.

You believe the QB is only worth 10%. That the 16-0 Patriots would have gone 14-2 with Jon Kitna. And you think my football knowledge is out of whack?

Yes, you and about 80% of people who think they know football are out of whack on the QB question.

[Hitman21ST]

As I have said several times, my estimate evaluates the average value of the position. I'm unconcerned with the quality of the player.

So why have the "grade-A" quarterback? Shouldn't any quarterback do?

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 04:39 PM ----------

I can give you two pass catching young TEs to add to Branch which more than offsets Moss. And, we can cherry-pick those stats for a dozen teams to waste our time.

Funny. I didn't know two pass-catching Tight Ends equaled the vertical threat of Moss.

Yes, you and about 80% of people who think they know football are out of whack on the QB question.

And you're right on the QB question why? How do you know you're right and we're wrong?

[Oldfan]

So why have the "grade-A" quarterback? Shouldn't any quarterback do?

In what context? How am I using the grade-A QB?

[Hitman21ST]

In what context? How am I using the grade-A QB?

You said it shouldn't matter. But in your original question, you specified a "grade-A" QB. Why do you specify a grade A if it doesn't matter?

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 04:44 PM ----------

Here's a question for you OF. If you take Manning from the Colts last year, and put in Curtis Painter, do they even win 8 games?

[Oldfan]

..Funny. I didn't know two pass-catching Tight Ends equaled the vertical threat of Moss.

You think 34 year-old Brady got better since Moss left?

And you're right on the QB question why? How do you know you're right and we're wrong?

I gave you part of the answer in this thread, but you won't listen or you don't understand. Why should I give you more?

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 04:52 PM ----------

You said it shouldn't matter.

Quote me -- and add LKB's remarks to add context.

Here's a question for you OF. If you take Manning from the Colts last year, and put in Curtis Painter, do they even win 8 games?

I don't know. I have only seen Painter play once briefly. Are you an expert on Painter's abilities?

[Hitman21ST]

You think 34 year-old Brady got better since Moss left?

He was actually just about the same. Approximately the same completion percentage, ypg, and TD per game.

Either way, it proves my point. The Patriots pieces are interchangeable, save for Brady. It doesn't matter who else you have there, Brady makes that team.

I gave you part of the answer in this thread, but you won't listen or you don't understand. Why should I give you more?

The part of the answer you gave was essentially "because I said so." That's why you should give more.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 05:05 PM ----------

Quote me -- and add LKB's remarks to add context.

Don't need to quote you. You just admitted to it. Your original question was "How much difference would a grade "A" QB make?" LKB gave you the wins above replacement stat, which would answer that question: "how much difference would there be between a grade "A" qb and a lesser QB?" Which is exactly what your original premise wanted to know.

I don't know. I have only seen Painter play once briefly. Are you an expert on Painter's abilities?

You don't need to be an expert to know that Painter at the helm of the Colts would result in a losing season.

[Oldfan]

...Either way, it proves my point. The Patriots pieces are interchangeable, save for Brady. It doesn't matter who else you have there, Brady makes that team...

If Tom Brady had been drafted in the sixth round by the Saints, he would be Marc Bulger. If Bulger had been drafted in the sixth by the Patriots, he would be a sure-fire HOF first ballot selection.

If you people are going to watch the game, you really should learn how to grade QBs apart from their supporting cast. Just going around mindlessly repeating the Bandwagon mantras is kinda weak.

The part of the answer you gave was essentially "because I said so." That's why you should give more.

You're still insisting that you can prove reasonableness. Pitiful.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

[Oldfan]

...Don't need to quote you. You just admitted to it.

If you would learn to debate, you wouldn't need to resort to taking quotes out of context to distort meanings. The only thing you accomplished is showing your lack of regard for the truth.

[Mad Mike]

Oldfan should be banned from this board for conduct detrimental to the Washington Redskins.

Since according to oldfan himself, I should not have to prove the reasonableness of my argument, I hereby ask that the mods yield to my undeniable logic.

:evilg:

[wildbill1952]

I would guess that since none of have time to do a 4000 page treatise on the subject, all facts could be considered to be "cherry-picked".

I would note that of all three redskin Super Bowls, Joe Thesimann comes closest to being an elite QB. Rypien and Williams would only be considered average, at best. But all three had excellent supporting casts. In fact, one could easily speculate that if offense were made up only of receving corps, running backs, OL and QB, that in each and every Super Bowl winning Redskin team, the QB was outclassed in each instance by the supporting cast.

I would also suggest looking at recent events, since many of the youngest fans on this board tend to discount teams prior to 2000 as "different than today's NFL". Look at Matt Cassel for my cherry-picked example.

Matt Cassel is the constant in my case in point.The variable in this case is the supporting cast - i.e. the receivers, the coaches, the offensive line. The results show a dramatic difference using the same constant - Matt Cassel. With the Patriots in 2008, he produces 11 wins. He throws for 21 touchdowns and 11 interceptions. He throws for 3693 yards. They miss the playoffs, but the team is obviously still a very good team.

Take the same QB, the same Matt Cassell. Change the supporting cast by moving him to Kansas City, running an offense very similar to New England's.. Does he have an 11 win season, a 3600+ passing attack? No. The stats are clear. In 2009, the same 11 game winning QB produces 4 wins with Kansas City, In 2009, with Kansas City, he has 2924 yards, 16 TD and 16 Interceptions.

The point is obvious. Same QB, different supporting cast - different results. I can't say that the 10% the QB brings to the table is perfectly accurate, but it appears close.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan should be banned from this board for conduct detrimental to the Washington Redskins.

Since according to oldfan himself, I should not have to prove the reasonableness of my argument, I hereby ask that the mods yield to my undeniable logic.

Mike, you should not have to prove the reasonableness because you can't. All you can do is claim it. On the other hand, that you should not have to prove it does not mean that others can't judge for themselves.

Did you follow that this time, or should I try again?

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 05:51 PM ----------

I would guess that since none of have time to do a 4000 page treatise on the subject, all facts could be considered to be "cherry-picked".

I would note that of all three redskin Super Bowls, Joe Thesimann comes closest to being an elite QB. Rypien and Williams would only be considered average, at best. But all three had excellent supporting casts. In fact, one could easily speculate that if offense were made up only of receving corps, running backs, OL and QB, that in each and every Super Bowl winning Redskin team, the QB was outclassed in each instance by the supporting cast.

I would also suggest looking at recent events, since many of the youngest fans on this board tend to discount teams prior to 2000 as "different than today's NFL". Look at Matt Cassel for my cherry-picked example.

Matt Cassel is the constant in my case in point.The variable in this case is the supporting cast - i.e. the receivers, the coaches, the offensive line. The results show a dramatic difference using the same constant - Matt Cassel. With the Patriots in 2008, he produces 11 wins. He throws for 21 touchdowns and 11 interceptions. He throws for 3693 yards. They miss the playoffs, but the team is obviously still a very good team.

Take the same QB, the same Matt Cassell. Change the supporting cast by moving him to Kansas City, running an offense very similar to New England's.. Does he have an 11 win season, a 3600+ passing attack? No. The stats are clear. In 2009, the same 11 game winning QB produces 4 wins with Kansas City, In 2009, with Kansas City, he has 2924 yards, 16 TD and 16 Interceptions.

The point is obvious. Same QB, different supporting cast - different results. I can't say that the 10% the QB brings to the table is perfectly accurate, but it appears close.

Jeff Garcia's stats are interesting on this point. As I recall he had wildly swinging stats with three different teams in consecutive seasons. Jake Plummer. Steve Young.

[Est.1974]

I'd consider 10% a significant number stated in this context. If anything, I think it enforces the importance of the position.

[Mad Mike]

Mike, you should not have to prove the reasonableness because you can't. All you can do is claim it. On the other hand, that you should not have to prove it does not mean that others can't judge for themselves.

Did you follow that this time, or should I try again?

So I guess we should dump our entire criminal justice system.

Henceforth, all trials will proceed according to this format:

prosecution - "your honor, he's guilty as hell"

defense - "Nu uh"