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

[Hitman21ST]

Argumentative crapola.

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

What, that averages can't be applied to specific examples? Unless you actually believe that AP was really only worth 4.21 yards per carry because that was the league average.

Your 10% estimate is based on a 60/40 pass/run ratio. That means that for teams that don't have the 60/40 ratio, the 10% is skewed. In actuality, from the OP:

The 10% value for the QB is the average value of the position based on a 60/40 pass to run ratio

That means that even if teams ran exactly a 60/40 ratio, the 10% isn't accurate, because it's an average, and you can't apply averages to specific examples.

[Oldfan]

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"

I can't prove **** to you until you grasp the concept I'm offering in the OP.

[Hitman21ST]

I can't prove **** to you until you grasp the concept I'm offering in the OP.

Here's the concept:

OF: "Here's an average value based on an average ratio of all the teams. Let me apply it to a specific case."

Anyone with any knowledge of math knows you can't take an average (let alone an average based on an average) and apply it to a specific case, and expect an accurate result.

[Oldfan]

Here's the concept:

OF: "Here's an average value based on an average ratio of all the teams. Let me apply it to a specific case."

Anyone with any knowledge of math knows you can't take an average (let alone an average based on an average) and apply it to a specific case, and expect an accurate result.

You created a strawman.

The purpose here was to get a somewhat reasonable estimate of how much difference a grade A QB would make when replacing a C minus QB on a true level six win team. Anyone who followed my math, should realize that these estimates some make of a 3-5 win difference are impossible. They're a joke.

[cphil006]

you mean Grade A playing for us... or Grade A on a previous team?

If we have a QB playing Grade A for us... then we are in the playoffs and seriously contending.

[Hitman21ST]

The purpose here was to get a somewhat reasonable estimate of how much difference a grade A QB would make when replacing a C minus QB on a true level six win team. Anyone who followed my math, should realize that these estimates some make of a 3-5 win difference are impossible. They're a joke.

They're "impossible," yet we see said improvements all the time. If they're "impossible," you wouldn't be seeing the Rams go from 1-15 to 7-9 with Bradford, the Bengals go from 8-8 to 11-5 under Carson Palmer, the Colts go from 3-13 to 13-3 thanks to Manning, the Bucs go from 3-13 to 10-6 with Josh Freeman, the Falcons go from 4-12 to 11-5 with Matt Ryan, or the Steelers go from 6-10 to 15-1 under Roethlisberger.

But all of those were impossible, huh?

Just an FYI, those have been all the grade "A" QBs that have taken over in recent history.

[The Tris]

They're "impossible," yet we see said improvements all the time. If they're "impossible," you wouldn't be seeing the Rams go from 1-15 to 7-9, the Bengals go from 8-8 to 11-5 under Carson Palmer, the Colts go from 3-13 to 13-3, the Bucs go from 3-13 to 10-6, the Falcons go from 4-12 to 11-5 with Matt Ryan, or the Steelers go from 6-10 to 15-1 under Roethlisberger.

But all of those were impossible, huh?

While I disagree that the most a Grade A passer can influence is a game or so improvement, none of the above QB changes happened in a vacuum.

They were part of offseasons full of upgrades, coaching changes, scheme adjustments, and completely different opponents.

To isolate the QB as the only variable is simply wrong.

[Hitman21ST]

While I disagree that the most a Grade A passer can influence is a game or so improvement, none of the above QB changes happened in a vacuum.

They were part of offseasons full of upgrades, coaching changes, scheme adjustments, and completely different opponents.

To isolate the QB as the only variable is simply wrong.

I'm not saying it was solely due to the QB, but then again, most of them were more than the 3-5 game improvement that OF said was impossible. It's entirely in the realm of feasibility to attribute 3-5 wins to the QB. With Roethlisberger, you can attribute a lot of the turnaround to him, as the Steelers haven't changed much of anything in forever, and he replaced Tommy Maddox.

The Falcons were helped a lot by Ryan. They had Joey Harrington and Byron Leftwich as their QBs after Vick was arrested.

[The Tris]

The Falcons were helped a lot by Ryan. They had Joey Harrington and Byron Leftwich as their QBs after Vick was arrested.

They also drafted or signed 8 new starters (besides Ryan) that offseason, and hired a completely new front office and coaching staff.

Nobody's saying Ryan wasn't essential. Nobody's saying the QB isn't the single most important positions.

I'm just saying you are overrating his overall importance to the massive overhaul of the team.

And thus, like most people, overrating the importance of the QB.

[Mahons21]

I'm not saying it was solely due to the QB, but then again, most of them were more than the 3-5 game improvement that OF said was impossible. It's entirely in the realm of feasibility to attribute 3-5 wins to the QB. With Roethlisberger, you can attribute a lot of the turnaround to him, as the Steelers haven't changed much of anything in forever, and he replaced Tommy Maddox.

Roethlisberger's rookie year coincided with the return of one of the greatest DC's of all time in Dick Lebeau.

The Falcons were helped a lot by Ryan. They had Joey Harrington and Byron Leftwich as their QBs after Vick was arrested.

They've also been helped by one of the league's leading rushers, an improved offensive line, and much better coaching.

I think a QB alone could give you a 2-game swing if you go from the worst of the worst to the best of the best.

[Hitman21ST]

Roethlisberger's rookie year coincided with the return of one of the greatest DC's of all time in Dick Lebeau.

They've also been helped by one of the league's leading rushers, an improved offensive line, and much better coaching.

I think a QB alone could give you a 2-game swing if you go from the worst of the worst to the best of the best.

Did the scheme or players change significantly when LeBeau came back? I honestly don't know. If it didn't, can you put that much on Lebeau?

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 01:16 PM ----------

And thus, like most people, overrating the importance of the QB.

I didn't say that Ryan was solely responsible. But it's not too far-fetched to think that Ryan could be credited with at least three of those seven games.

What about Bradford or Josh Freeman? They had significant swings with not nearly the same personnel turnover the Falcons had.

[Mahons21]

Did the scheme or players change significantly when LeBeau came back? I honestly don't know. If it didn't, can you put that much on Lebeau?

It remained a 34 but now you have Lebeau calling the plays, designing the scheme and designing the weekly gameplan. You don't necessarily have to put it all on Lebeau either, just putting players in a better situation to succeed can take a grade C player from one scheme to a grade B player in another, so in essence he helped the defense category out as well as the coaching category.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 01:27 PM ----------

What about Bradford or Josh Freeman? They had significant swings with not nearly the same personnel turnover the Falcons had.

Freeman's emergence also coincides with the emergence of other players like Mike Williams, LeGarrette Blount and to a lesser extent Arrelious Benn. I don't know enough about the Bradford situation to discuss it, but he is one of the once in a lifetime type Qb's where I could potentially see him adding a 2-game swing.

[The Tris]

Rams had 8 new starters in 2010 (not including Bradford). The upgrade from Alex Barron to Rodger Saffold alone had a massive impact.

Not to mention Chris Long was a rotational guy in 2009, James Laurenitis was a rookie, and Jason Smith was still adjusting to RT.

Bucs had 9 new starters in 2010 (not including Freeman). Specifically, they had 3 of 4 new DL, as well as RB and both WRs.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

a great QB can elevate everyone around him. 1 stud carrying 10 guys is a lot more feasible than 10 studs carrying 1 guy.

but with our current roster, if john beck were somehow to be on the matt schaub/tony Romo sits to pee level, our ceiling would be about 10 wins. we still dont have the defense to make it happen, and we dont have enough elite offensive talent (dominant RB or WR).

[Hitman21ST]

It remained a 34 but now you have Lebeau calling the plays, designing the scheme and designing the weekly gameplan. You don't necessarily have to put it all on Lebeau either, just putting players in a better situation to succeed can take a grade C player from one scheme to a grade B player in another, so in essence he helped the defense category out as well as the coaching category.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 01:27 PM ----------

Freeman's emergence also coincides with the emergence of other players like Mike Williams, LeGarrette Blount and to a lesser extent Arrelious Benn. I don't know enough about the Bradford situation to discuss it, but he is one of the once in a lifetime type Qb's where I could potentially see him adding a 2-game swing.

Fair enough. But again, I wasn't trying to put it all on the QB. I was just contending that OF was wrong in his assessment that the QB can provide a 3-5 game swing being a "joke" and "impossible." His numbers are based off on an average of an average, and you can't accurately estimate anything with an average of an average, especially with as many variables as are in play.

[Mahons21]

a great QB can elevate everyone around him. 1 stud carrying 10 guys is a lot more feasible than 10 studs carrying 1 guy.

Neither scenario is very feasible. Very few QB's if any in the history of the NFL have carried a team around them --P Manning being the closest-- so that strategy isn't very feasible, but neither is expecting to be able to afford 10 studs.

A feasible scenario is 11 NFL players fulfilling their own responsibilities within a given scheme, not being forced to carry the players around you, with a stud or two in the mix.

but with our current roster, if john beck were somehow to be on the matt schaub/tony Romo sits to pee level, our ceiling would be about 10 wins. we still dont have the defense to make it happen, and we dont have enough elite offensive talent (dominant RB or WR).

You undervalue the importance of luck in football, and how a ball bouncing one way can change everything.

We had 4 losses last season of 3 pts, 1 loss of 1 pt, and 1 loss of 4 pts. That's a total of 17 pts deciding 6 games. If the team can put up 3 more FG's and allow 3 less FG's that's a 6 game swing. Considering McNabb didn't play to the level of Romo sits to pee/Schaub last season, we would proabbly be upgrading at the following spots; QB (which you clearly believe is extremely vital), RB, OLB, NT, FS, WR

Getting worse at possibly CB, and C with an aging Rabach or unproven Monty.

In addition most of the players will have now spent a year in the system, and will be more familiar/comfortable.

I think they could easily hit 10 wins if they reached their potential.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Neither scenario is very feasible. Very few QB's if any in the history of the NFL have carried a team around them --P Manning being the closest-- so that strategy isn't very feasible, but neither is expecting to be able to afford 10 studs.

A feasible scenario is 11 NFL players fulfilling their own responsibilities within a given scheme, not being forced to carry the players around you, with a stud or two in the mix.

current guys carrying their offense: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Phillip Rivers, Michael Vick (last year), Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisburger. are these guys rare? yes. do they exist? absolutely. id even put Sam Bradford in that category as well, he elevated that entire team last year. We're never going to consistently contend in the NFL without one of these guys. unless we want to be the ravens, who win 11 games every year and get embarrassed in the playoffs because their QB is weak.

You undervalue the importance of luck in football, and how a ball bouncing one way can change everything.

We had 4 losses last season of 3 pts, 1 loss of 1 pt, and 1 loss of 4 pts. That's a total of 17 pts deciding 6 games. If the team can put up 3 more FG's and allow 3 less FG's that's a 6 game swing. Considering McNabb didn't play to the level of Romo sits to pee/Schaub last season, we would proabbly be upgrading at the following spots; QB (which you clearly believe is extremely vital), RB, OLB, NT, FS, WR

Getting worse at possibly CB, and C with an aging Rabach or unproven Monty.

In addition most of the players will have now spent a year in the system, and will be more familiar/comfortable.

I think they could easily hit 10 wins if they reached their potential.

that swings the other way as well for every team, which always balances out. last season we were just as close to 0-16 as we were to 10-6. The fluky halftime play against the cowboys doesnt happen, we lose. Mason Crosby doesnt hit the uprights at home, we lose. Jason Avant catches that last second heave bomb, we lose. Mcnabb has that pick 6 in the bears game not called back, we lose. point blank: good teams win games, weak teams do not. we are not a good team currently and werent last year. lots of teams get close or almost win, thats simply loser talk. getting close means nothing to me, the only solace in that is that we arent getting blown out constantly. we always keep it close and then fold when it counts, its just the way this team operates.

the 08 lions who went 0-16 lost 5 of their games by 1 possession or less. does that mean they were close to being 5-11 had they reached their potential? no, they were dreadful. the 4-12 redskins a year ago lost a lot of games by a few points. could they have been better? hell no, we were awful. 9 times out of 10, the score tells the real story. so im not going to buy into luck. nobody ever wins it all by getting lucky.

[Hitman21ST]

so im not going to buy into luck. nobody ever wins it all by getting lucky.

Ah, I see you multiplied by .92

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Ah, I see you multiplied by .92

lol. i just dont like when people talk about the luck factor. no team ever just slides through on constant luck. if youre lucky one day, youre gonna be unlucky another day. you get a bounce in your favor one game, its gonna go against you in another. it always balances out. every team has opportunities and the good ones are the ones that capitalize on them. the bad ones are the ones who say "we were so close".

[JPCreativelab]

lol. i just dont like when people talk about the luck factor. no team ever just slides through on constant luck. if youre lucky one day, youre gonna be unlucky another day. you get a bounce in your favor one game, its gonna go against you in another. it always balances out. every team has opportunities and the good ones are the ones that capitalize on them. the bad ones are the ones who say "we were so close".

i dont think luck has ever attributed to a team's complete success, but i do believe that by massaging numbers you will never show anything, because you are leaving out many important factors, which include luck...also include heart, courage, peer pressure, mood, leadership...illness, weather, schedules, etc...there are too many to even list them all.

massaging of numbers would work great if football was a game of machines or computers, and not men.

[Oldfan]

lol. i just dont like when people talk about the luck factor. no team ever just slides through on constant luck. if youre lucky one day, youre gonna be unlucky another day. you get a bounce in your favor one game, its gonna go against you in another. it always balances out. every team has opportunities and the good ones are the ones that capitalize on them. the bad ones are the ones who say "we were so close".

This is the only statement you've made that I can agree with. Luck will balance out over time, but the length of time can vary. It doesn't always balance out over a single 16-game season.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

This is the only statement you've made that I can agree with. Luck will balance out over time, but the length of time can vary. It doesn't always balance out over a single 16-game season.

youd have to someone prove to me that one team was luckier than another for me to agree with you about the balance over a 16 game season. i think thatd be next to impossible.

[Mahons21]

that swings the other way as well for every team, which always balances out. last season we were just as close to 0-16 as we were to 10-6.

but with our current roster, if john beck were somehow to be on the matt schaub/tony Romo sits to pee level, our ceiling would be about 10 wins

So you think last years team, and this years team with QB play at the level of Romo sits to pee/Schaub as well as all the other upgrades, have the same ceiling?

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

So you think last years team, and this years team with QB play at the level of Romo sits to pee/Schaub as well as all the other upgrades, have the same ceiling?

last years team with Romo sits to pee/schaub at QB was probably around 8-8 due to our defensive problems. we gave up 27+ points 7 times, lost all games. there were a few games where a better offense would have netted a win (minnesota, tampa, last NY game) but all in all i think 8-8 was our ceiling. we still lacked any sort of explosive dominant player on offense. and giving up 27 points that many times, even having a very good QB without a real playmaker wouldnt have helped that much.

this year is a total mystery so i dont know yet. i do know we have a lot of "what if's" and "maybe's" and those usually result in poor performance. we got younger which i like, but that also means we got a lot less experienced. so a legit QB with a bunch of what if/maybe rookies and a potentially improved defense, probably around the same. inexperience means more turnovers/missed assignment type stuff, but the improved defense might keep some games closer for us and with a better QB that could proven helpful. still not ready to win, and definitely not 10 game winning.

remember the last time we won 10 games? we had a dominant RB in CP, we had a dominant WR in santana moss (both of these guys in their prime), we had a close to dominant tight end, a vet QB that knew how to manage games well and make some big throws when it counted, and we had a close to dominant oline with multiple pro bowlers in their prime, and a hall of fame coach. not to mention a defense featuring numerous great players at the time (taylor, washington, griffin, springs, clark). and with that group, the best we could do is 10 wins. and you wanna tell me that what we have now, if we were to reach our potential we could get to that? not a chance.

[Oldfan]

In the OP, I began by assuming the the Redskins are now a true six-win team. That's a conditional premise. I don't know that it's true, but since we won six last season, it's the most reasonable place to start to make an estimate. By "true level," I'm saying that, if this team played, say, 100 seasons, it would average six wins. And, when I estimate that a grade A QB would improve us by one win over a grade C QB to a seven-win true level, I'm saying that the team over 100 seasons would average seven wins.

It is not possible for a QB to make a 3-5 game improvement in the true level of his new team because that would leave absurdly low values for the coaches and the other position players.

The Raiders improved by three wins last season. Grade C Jason Campbell probably helped because Oakland didn't have a grade C QB on their roster, but he wasn't solely responsible for the improvement.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 03:39 PM ----------

youd have to someone prove to me that one team was luckier than another for me to agree with you about the balance over a 16 game season. i think thatd be next to impossible.

I'm not not concerned enough to want to prove anything to you. However, a few months ago, I came across Brian Burke at Advanced Stats doing a study on it. That article might be enlightening.

In an earlier post, Shkspr posted 16-game segments of the Nats first 80 games to make a point applicable here. They looked like this.

9-7

6-10

6-10

7-9

12-4

The Nats played .500 baseball in the first half. In the NFL, that would equal eight wins. If a true 8-win football team played five seasons, their records would vary like the Nats records because of strength of schedule, injuries, or just the way the ball bounced.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 04:08 PM ----------

i dont think luck has ever attributed to a team's complete success, but i do believe that by massaging numbers you will never show anything, because you are leaving out many important factors, which include luck...also include heart, courage, peer pressure, mood, leadership...illness, weather, schedules, etc...there are too many to even list them all.

massaging of numbers would work great if football was a game of machines or computers, and not men.

A study on line pinpoints the average value of a turnover at four points. That number will include luck...it will also include heart, courage, peer pressure, mood, leadership...illness, weather, schedules, or any other factor you can dream up because the final result is always a matter of subtracting the number in y from the number in x.