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

[Riggins77]

If Grade A QBs only get you one or two wins, how does that formula apply to Stafford or Bradford, both made an immediate impact on two ****ing horrible teams, both with average/below average O-lines. Granted Detroit has been building a pretty good defense, but one can't argue that they have a steller o-line and we know the Rams don't. Plus Bradford was throwing to no name WRs last year and he lit us up when we played them last season.

I agree with a lot of peeps on here, you can't apply percentages/numbers to a complex game like football and compare them numbers to winning franchises vs. losing franchises. Statistics are just what they are, stats/numbers. Hell two seasons ago when we had a top 5 defense, we still were like worst in the league on getting turnovers and gave up big plays when it mattered. We made the switch to the 3-4 without the personel last season and everyone got so pissed off about it and wanted to say if its not broke dont fix it and we ended up with a better record with one of the worst statistical defenses in the league than the year before. Stats mean very little sometimes.

[Est.1974]

We are saying that, if you had given Peyton the Magnificent or Tom Terrific the same support given Jason or Donovan, you would not now be thinking of them as elite QBs.

What about those 17 games OF ? I say we'd win on average another 2 per season. Minimum.

[Hitman21ST]

We are saying that, if you had given Peyton the Magnificent or Tom Terrific the same support given Jason or Donovan, you would not now be thinking of them as elite QBs.

Because the Colts had all-pro talent everywhere else while Manning was the QB...

[Win4us]

Nothing would change

We need way more than just 1 player

This is how I see it as well. With our current o-line he would more than likely finish his rookie season on ir.

[Oldfan]

What about those 17 games OF ? I say we'd win on average another 2 per season. Minimum.

Will you settle for two per season maximum? That's my final offer.

[Est.1974]

Will you settle for two per season maximum? That's my final offer.

Go on then, deal

Now, onto that 10% for special teams. You reckon with a decent kicker, we'd get another 2 wins per season on top of that ? I will get us to 16-0 somehow...

[RandyHolt]

I am sure its already been mentioned that we did luck into a grade A quarterback, McNabb.

Its just * Shanahan has a grade A ego, and they clashed, and we tanked.

It didnt help that we decided to rebuilt the defense at the same time, either.

[illone]

A great QB makes all others around him better.

One day the Skins will get one and your eyes will open, unless you are too old to see.

[Oldfan]

I am sure its already been mentioned that we did luck into a grade A quarterback, McNabb.

Its just * Shanahan has a grade A ego, and they clashed, and we tanked.

It didnt help that we decided to rebuilt the defense at the same time, either.

Right after the trade was made, I authored a thread predicting that McNabb would be only a small upgrade over Campbell because he didn't fit the offense. At this late stage of his career, I don't see him fitting anyone's offense because of his short-to- medium range inconsistency.

[Shkspr]

Using the Redskins as an example' date=' over the past 3 seasons we have lost something like 17 games by a touchdown or less.

Are we saying here that our record would not have changed that much, even with an elite QB ?

[/quote']

For the record, I think that what Oldfan is saying and what I am saying are two different things. Primarily, I think everyone is off base is in thinking that a fraction of a win isn't a huge chunk of the puzzle. That includes Oldfan for underestimating its significance as well as everyone else in overestimating its insignifigance (?!?!). To recap above, another poster pointed out that we've gone to the playoffs twice in the last nineteen years. I think with another win's worth of talent on the average, we'd have gone six or seven times. We probably would have put together at least one Super Bowl appearance, or at least a NFC Championship game or two. Furthermore, in looking at the resources we've thrown at the position, hitting on a franchise QB would mean we would have been able to upgrade other positions. How good a position would we be in if we'd traded the pick that would become Patrick Ramsey the year before and got Drew Brees? We could have locked him in and used all three of the Jason Campbell picks and both McNabb picks on linemen. That would add another half a win or more a year to our talent base and now we make the playoffs 60% of the time. So our record would almost CERTAINLY be better, vastly so.

Why would it be vastly better? Precisely BECAUSE we've lost something like 17 games by a touchdown or less. In some of those games, the incomplete passes or picks our guys have thrown are completions. Of course, that doesn't mean they have any effect on the scoreboard; there are lots of completions that don't extend a team's drive by more than a play or two. A few of them, however, will prevent the other team from scoring, or let us score, and that will show up in our record. But it seems like if we would have won five of those games that we lost because of having a better quarterback, lots of people here want to make the claim that an elite quarterback is worth five wins. That's what I think is silly - the notion that the quarterback should get five games of "credit" for really, being about 10% better than the other guy five times and deserving half a win of credit for the job he did.

[skinpride1]

What about the rest of the players on the team? We need A and B players at all positions.

I was watching NFL films the other week on Chuck Noll and how he took a poor Steelers team and turned them into a dynasty in the 70's.

What was one of his first moves????

He told many of the players they would not be on the team next season because they simply where not good enough.

He canned a bunch of C players and replaced them with A player talent,

It really hasn't changed for the teams that win championships.

The skins need a boat load of young talented players for the future.

I think this years draft was a start and we need a skilled team and maybe we can get our q.b soon in the draft.

[JerseyGator]

The QB position is so overrated in the NFL. A lot of QBs could succeed in the right system. GB ended last year with 4 very good WRs that they drafted and groomed. What do they do in the draft - get another one in Kentucky's Cobb.

People thought Cutler would light up the league in Ron Turner's system in Chicago two years ago after Rex left. He was more of a turnover machine than Grossman. So predictable.

[DieselPwr44]

People thought Cutler would light up the league in Ron Turner's system in Chicago two years ago after Rex left. He was more of a turnover machine than Grossman. So predictable.

That's because despite being physically talented,you also have to be mentally competent football-wise to play QB in this league.

Jake Cutler is the modern day Jeff George.

[Chicken Fried]

Just look at what Sam Bradford did for the Rams in only one year.

[mcarey032]

The Bucs won with brad Johnson who was here. He wasn't elite, but he was pretty good. You can win with above average Qbs. They don't have to be elite. P Manning has won only one SB and is considered the best by many in the game. Eli Manning is above average and he won a SB. There are plenty of examples of average/above average Qbs who have won. It's nice to have a drew brees, Peyton manning or Tom Brady, but it isn't a requirement to win the super bowl.

[RandyHolt]

Right after the trade was made, I authored a thread predicting that McNabb would be only a small upgrade over Campbell because he didn't fit the offense. At this late stage of his career, I don't see him fitting anyone's offense because of his short-to- medium range inconsistency.

I didnt like the trade either. I always felt his grounders kept the Skins Iggles games close. Right on cue, every time. But in the grand scheme of football, he is the closest thing to a grade A QB we could land. Obviously Dan Allen or Shanny thought he was darn good too. What a disaster it turned out to me. At least we let him throw deep quite a bit. With Armstrong a noob the only guy going deep and a questionable line, it just wasnt a smart pickup. Moss our best deep guy, still stuck being Art Monk for us.

[SkinsFTW]

There has been several instances where a team loses their QB and they lose 4-6 more games so I'd start there but it really depends on the offense. A Marty Schottenheimer style run offense isn't going to change that much if you put Dan Marino in it but put him in what Belichick runs right now and he'd do even better than what Brady has.

No way is a great QB a 1 win difference. I'd say 3-4 at least. Also, a great QB in the wrong system isn't going to make the same difference.

[Oldfan]

There has been several instances where a team loses their QB and they lose 4-6 more games so I'd start there but it really depends on the offense. A Marty Schottenheimer style run offense isn't going to change that much if you put Dan Marino in it but put him in what Belichick runs right now and he'd do even better than what Brady has.

No way is a great QB a 1 win difference. I'd say 3-4 at least. Also, a great QB in the wrong system isn't going to make the same difference.

Your take on this won't add up. On the one hand you say that a QB can be worth 3-4 games by himself. On the other you say the wrong scheme can cancel out the value of the QB. So, you have the scheme and the QB valued at 3-4 games each. If you think of 100% representing the entire value, you leave negligible value for the other 10 players on the offense, the other 11 on defense, and the value of special teams. Defense alone has to be worth as much as the offense, and the QB can't be worth the entire offense.

[Hitman21ST]

Your take on this won't add up. On the one hand you say that a QB can be worth 3-4 games by himself. On the other you say the wrong scheme can cancel out the value of the QB. So, you have the scheme and the QB valued at 3-4 games each. If you think of 100% representing the entire value, you leave negligible value for the other 10 players on the offense, the other 11 on defense, and the value of special teams.

And you can't put a specific number on any one player. You said in the OP that it's an average, based on the average of a 60/40 ratio. That means that it's not going to be the same for each team, that some teams he's worth more and others less. You can't put a specific number for a specific team and call it a generality. The Vikings will focus more on the running game, so AP will be worth more than your average. The running back for the Colts is going to be worth less than your average. Manning is going to be worth more than 10% more than likely, and Alex Smith is probably going to be worth less. It's going to vary from team to team, and it's an exercise in futility trying to put a specific number on any position. You have your ideas what each person is "worth," and you're trying to get us all to agree with you, when it's fairly clear that we're not going to. That doesn't make you wrong, nor does it make us wrong. You stated averages in your OP, then want us to list specifics, and you act as if your averages should be taken as gospel, when it's obvious that Manning is worth more than one or two wins per season to the Colts, and Alex Smith is probably worth less.

Yes. Manning is worth more, which means that each of the other positions are worth less. Wide Receiver and Running Back are worth less in the Colts offense, because as they have shown over the past few years, it does not matter who they have at those positions (be it an above average receiver/running back, average receiver/running back, or below average receiver/running back), they are still going to win 11+ games and make the playoffs. Nor does it matter who the coach is, because the Colts played just as well with Caldwell as they did with Dungy, and Caldwell is a major dropoff in coaching ability. Manning is the crux of that team. He is worth more than 10% to their franchise.

You want us to take your average and apply it to every position on every team across the board, which isn't a good way of determining how much of a difference a grade "A" QB would make. By definition, a grade "A" quarterback is above average, so the effect will be above the average (meaning more than 10%). Unless you want to call grade "A" average, in which case the average for QBs isn't 10%, because not every quarterback is grade "A."

The same can be applied to any other position you want. Your numbers are great for an average, but are worthless when it comes to determining an individual player's effectiveness. There were 13,922 rushing attempts last year, league-wide, for a total of 58,607 rushing yards. That's an average of 4.21 yards per carry.

You can't glean from that average that Adrian Peterson was only worth 4.21 yards per carry last year. AP had 283 rushes for 1298 yards, for a 4.59 average yards per carry. Any attempt to say that AP was only worth 4.21 yards per carry last year would be blatantly false, just like any attempt to say that a grade "A" quarterback is only worth 10% is blatantly false.

Rack me I'm out.

[Oldfan]

Hitman,

If there is a first rule in debate, it has to be, “Make sure you understand your opponent’s position.” Your post shows that you have never understood mine.

Read this from the OP once more:

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.

I repeated this same distinction with you and others at least ten times during the thread and you still are confusing the two measurements.

The grade of the QB, whether it’s Manning or Smith, does not affect the value of the position. It’s a separate measurement that we need when we try to figure out how many wins are likely when we replace say a grade D QB with a grade A.

Read math-literate Shkspr’s posts. He understands what I did. He thinks the estimate I made in the OP for the position and the estimate of a one-game improvement in the true value of the team are about right. He argues that everyone, including me, underestimates the effects of a one game true-value improvement on the odds of reaching the playoffs. He’s probably right.

[Hitman21ST]

Read math-literate Shkspr’s posts. He understands what I did. He thinks the estimate I made in the OP for the position and the estimate of a one-game improvement in the true value of the team are about right. He argues that everyone, including me, underestimates the effects of a one game improvement on the odds of reaching the playoffs. He’s probably right.

He actually said that the "fraction" of the game that you alluded to would mean a VASTLY better record (i.e. more than one game per season, simply because we have lost so many games by less than one TD, and a better QB would turn most of those losses to wins). A VASTLY better record is more than one game per season.

Your assumption in the OP is wrong. I just showed you why it was wrong in the post above. You can't take a generality and apply to to a single data source and claim you are right. Nor can you just simply say "the 10% doesn't change" because as I just showed, it clearly can, because it is an AVERAGE. As in, not a specific example. You can't apply the AVERAGE league wide and say "here it is" because it's incredibly inaccurate.

Here's your argument applied to my RB example:

"The average ypc last year was 4.21. It didn't change with the quality of the RB. Therefore, every RB was worth 4.21 ypc."

That's absolutely not true, because I showed AP was worth 4.59 ypc.

In addition, the 60/40 ratio is an average too. Not every team is 60/40. So your 10% based on the 60/40 is inaccurate to teams that have a different ratio.

[Oldfan]

Hitman, you haven't understood my position and now you show you didn't understand Shspr's position. There's no point in further debate.

[KCClybun]

Hitman, you haven't understood my position and now you show you didn't understand Shspr's position. There's no point in further debate.

It's funny how everytime someone calls you on your bull there's "no point in further debate". If you have a position you believe it you'd have no problem debating it.

[Hitman21ST]

Hitman, you haven't understood my position and now you show you didn't understand Shspr's position. There's no point in further debate.

It's funny, Shkspr agrees with you so he's "math literate."

I gave you actual math to prove how your 10% number can't be used for specific examples, and I'm wrong. Show me how someone can apply an average to a specific example and that be called "gospel"

[Oldfan]

It's funny how everytime someone calls you on your bull there's "no point in further debate". If you have a position you believe it you'd have no problem debating it.

Argumentative crapola.

How are you supposed to debate a math concept that someone doesn't understand?