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

[RiggosMohawk]

OF i really enjoy your posts, but as much as we try I do not think we can really quantify the % importance in a general term - the importance of the quarterback varies depending on the players and system around him.

Of course Peyton Manning is my data point. My contention is that with Peyton playing all 16 games, the Colts will win AT LEAST 8 games every year, regardless of what else happens to their team - FA losses, injuries, bad play, tough schedule. It doesn't matter who is their HC, their WRs, or playing D. They will win 8 games a year just because he is their starting QB.

I also think that the coach factor should be somewhere around 33% to incorporate their game week AND game time importance. I do NOT think this % varies by the players on the team, or the system utilized. This shows why Peyton is so much valuable to the Colts than just the QB factor - he's calling the plays, he's formulating the offensive gameplan, he's making decisions to go for it on 4th down, to not play it safe on 3rd and long, to not settle for a FG in the RZ... It's also the #1 reason the Patriots won 11 games with Matt Cassel as their starter for 15 games.

[Hitman21ST]

I don't think it would make a difference, but I'd like to hear your reasoning. Maybe you've thought of something I'm missing.

For hypothetical purposes, let's assume Luck, Barkley, and Jones all came out two drafts ago (for Shanahan's first draft). Let's also assume for argument's sake that all three of them will be grade A QBs - the elite, franchise type QB.

We draft one of them with our first pick instead of Trent Williams. He comes in to the Redskins roster as it was this past season. Maybe we pick up a LT in the second round. Our wide receivers are the exact same group, running backs the exact same group, line still has the problems, etc.

Andrew Luck coming into that scenario would give the team an improvement. However, his rookie year would be one rough season. Little to no protection from the line, little help from the running backs and receivers. He would be bombarded with the defenses and blitzes he would have seen. We would be better than under Zorn, but not by much. Probably finish 5-11. That would equate to your one win improvement. Your 10% improvement isn't necessarily that effective, though, because he has little help around him.

Now let's assume they all came out this past draft. Instead of Kerrigan we draft one of the big three, and the rest of the draft goes the same way (Jenkins, Hankerson, Helu, Paul, etc.). Not knowing how this season will turn out, it's pretty much all prognostication from here on out. But we could safely assume that the line will be in better shape than it was last year, and our skill positions will have been upgraded. The rookie QB will still take his lumps, but a lot less than he would have last year,. The rookie skill players and O Line FA we're bringing in will all be learning the system with the QB, growing pains all together. With a grade A QB, we could go 8-8 this year. That would be a 2 game improvement, and the 10% would have been a little more effective.

Now let's flash forward one year. Say we go 6-10 again. We are able to draft one of the big three in the draft, either by trade up or one of them falling. We would have pretty much all the other positions in place for him: a line that has a year together and knows the system and each other's strengths and weaknesses, running backs who are familiar with the ZB running game and the pass pro calls and assignments, WRs and TEs who know the route combos and where the holes in the defenses are/will be. That rookie grade A QB coming in will be at a higher comfort level, because everyone around him already knows their assignments, they're not learning as they go. He doesn't take as many hits, doesn't make as many "bad" throws - the WRs don't mess the routes up. That could equate to a 3-4 game improvement. Same QB, same 10% effect, but it's more effective because his transition is easier and smoother.

[Oldfan]

how did you determine it was 10%?

I just don't understand how you can suddenly say a QB has a 10% effect on a team winning or a 10% chance on the offense running succesfully.

It is more complicated than this. You can't just throw arbitrary "estimated" numbers around.

I made an estimate. I explained the ratios considered in making the estimate. There was nothing "sudden" or "arbitrary" about it. It's an estimate which allows me to communicate my answer to the question asked in the thread title.

[MartinC]

So, what you are saying it that you don't think that a reasonable estimate can be made to answer the question posed in the thread title. Is that it?

Essentially. As I said in my first post in this thread I think your point - that fans overestimate the impact of the QB position on wins and losses - is true. I just think there are too many moving parts and cause/effect to put any numbers on the impact. I think what we can all agree on though is that you are better off with a grade A QB than without one.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Right now, the talent really sucks so we would probably just rise to mediocrity.

During the Gibbs-Williams years, we would have been a Super Bowl contender.

The percentages that Oldfan are throwing around are some attempt at creating a football win-share percentage. For example, in baseball, I could probably tell you very accurately how much better or worse a team would be team if Player X replaced Player Y. I don't think that can be done in football, though I do think QB would be weighted far far far more heavily than right guard.

Joe Thomas does not make the Browns a contender. Aaron Rodgers probably would.

[skinsdude]

Is the LT more important than the blindside edge rusher?

I think that left tackle is more important because his ability has more to do with the success of his side of the ball because he both pass blocks and run blocks. An edge rusher can certainly impact a game but a left tackles play can more often directly lead to a large gain or score.

[jflow78]

Essentially. As I said in my first post in this thread I think your point - that fans overestimate the impact of the QB position on wins and losses - is true. I just think there are too many moving parts and cause/effect to put any numbers on the impact. I think what we can all agree on though is that you are better off with a grade A QB than without one.

That was pretty much my point as well, you just said it better. It's pretty hard to cut down a system with 32 teams and thousands of variables to a handful of percentages and say that those are less ambiguous than the thousands of pages already spent spouting stats and ratios and whatever else.

Just adding more numbers doesn't make the argument less complicated, it just dumbs down the argument. I'm not against that, but you're pretty much back at square one.

But, I agree with the premise that fans overestimate QB value.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I graded last year's quarterbacking at a C minus level. Did you have it lower?

I ask because I'm looking at the upgrade from a C- to an A. It sounds like you have a wider spread.

[

D/ C-. A lot of both the play calling and QB play was woeful last year.

But within that you still had a run game that averaged 4.2 yards per attempt, even given the poor state of the line and the boneheaded OC's pass/run inbalance; the two top receivers having a 44 reception, 871 yard debut year (Armstrong); and the best in the last 6 in terms of receptions, yards and TD's (Moss); allied to Cooley having a career year in receptions and yards, and Fred Davis being a productive beast the limited time the boneheaded OC actually allowed him onto the field (the same boneheaded OC who had a 605/351 pass/run disparity. All of which lead to him being the QB's friend in a pass first O); if we had anything approaching grade A QB play to go along with that I think it's fair to assert the overall offensive production would of been higher than a mere one win.

Which on a team that run games to the wire the majority of the year would of been a major swing.

Hail.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think that left tackle is more important because his ability has more to do with the success of his side of the ball because he both pass blocks and run blocks. An edge rusher can certainly impact a game but a left tackles play can more often directly lead to a large gain or score.

The Browns have possibly the best left tackle in football.

And they blow chunks.

Why?

[Oldfan]

RiggosMohawk ~ OF i really enjoy your posts, but as much as we try I do not think we can really quantify the % importance in a general term - the importance of the quarterback varies depending on the players and system around him.

You are confusing two measurements. The value of the QB position will vary somewhat from team to team because of scheme. It will not vary with the grade of the QB. If you took the value of the QB and stated it as a number, you could then multiply it by 10%, the value of the position, as part of a grid analysis to put a grade on the team.

Of course Peyton Manning is my data point. My contention is that with Peyton playing all 16 games, the Colts will win AT LEAST 8 games every year, regardless of what else happens to their team - FA losses, injuries, bad play, tough schedule. It doesn't matter who is their HC, their WRs, or playing D. They will win 8 games a year just because he is their starting QB.

So you put a much higher value on the QB position than I have. If Tom Brady isn’t the most overrated QB in NFL history, then I think Peyton certainly is.

I also think that the coach factor should be somewhere around 33% to incorporate their game week AND game time importance.

If you raise both the coaching factor and the QB factor, you have to reduce the other factors by an equal amount. I don’t think you could do that wihout coming up with some ridiculously low estimates on the value of the other positions. Why don’t you try making your own estimate so we can take a look at the numbers?

[Chachie]

We lucked into a B-grade QB in Jason Campbell and went nowhere. So I suppose an A-grade QB would take us to periodic first round appearances.

We need an A-grade front office and some line play. Maybe Bruce Allen will be that front office because he's at least addressing the line play situation. Maybe it's the long-abused Redskin fan in me but I'm skeptical.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It does seem strange that QBs are not that important yet all the recent Super Bowl winning teams seemed to have really good QBs - with the possible exception of the Giants and Eli because I still can't determine if Eli is good or bad. That would be a fun debate though.

It seems like you can occasionally be good with an average QB if you are exceptional in one other area and you get really good matchups in the playoffs.

Mark Rypien is probably one of the three mid-level QBs to win a Super Bowl since 1992. (Johnson and Dilfer being the other two. Your mileage may vary on Eli).

Aikman

Young

Favre

Elway

Warner

Brady

Roethlisberger

Manning

Manning

Brees

Rodgers

(I can people arguing over whether Roethlisberger deserves to be on that list. But the Steelers used to lose the AFC Title game every other year before he showed up and now they win the AFC Title game every other year. So...yea....).

[skinsdude]

The Browns have possibly the best left tackle in football.

And they blow chunks.

Why?

I would imagine that in addition to a multitude of other things; the fact that they do not have a quarterback.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I would imagine that in addition to a multitude of other things; the fact that they do not have a quarterback.

But LT is much more important than QB.

[skinsdude]

But LT is much more important than QB.

Says who????

[KCClybun]

I don't think it makes much difference if we don't put a team around him. For all the talent a guy like Matthew Stafford has (when he's healthy), the Lions are going to a tough team to beat this season because, despite his injuries, they've built a team around him, surrounded him with talent on offense and has a defense that's not going to screw him over.

If we somehow get a guy like Andrew Luck or something, I'd have no problem with it. I'd be happy. But I also wouldn't count on him and him alone to will the team to winning football games, at least not yet. I'd rather have a team ready made for a quarterback to take over the reigns and have some success right away (I think winning builds quarterbacks confidence).

In the long term, having a franchise quarterback is always going to have a positive long-term effect on the franchise. It's finding that guy that's hard. And the Redskins problem has always been we draft quarterbacks, and then surround them with none of the tools for them to success, at least not on the offensive side of the ball. Not every quarterback is going to will your team to 10 wins on talent alone if you've got Antwaan Randel El as your second best receiver by the nature of everyone else but Santana Moss sucking.

[Oldfan]

For hypothetical purposes, let's assume Luck, Barkley, and Jones all came out two drafts ago (for Shanahan's first draft). Let's also assume for argument's sake that all three of them will be grade A QBs - the elite, franchise type QB.

We draft one of them with our first pick instead of Trent Williams. He comes in to the Redskins roster as it was this past season. Maybe we pick up a LT in the second round. Our wide receivers are the exact same group, running backs the exact same group, line still has the problems, etc.

Andrew Luck coming into that scenario would give the team an improvement. However, his rookie year would be one rough season. Little to no protection from the line, little help from the running backs and receivers. He would be bombarded with the defenses and blitzes he would have seen. We would be better than under Zorn, but not by much. Probably finish 5-11. That would equate to your one win improvement. Your 10% improvement isn't necessarily that effective, though, because he has little help around him.

Now let's assume they all came out this past draft. Instead of Kerrigan we draft one of the big three, and the rest of the draft goes the same way (Jenkins, Hankerson, Helu, Paul, etc.). Not knowing how this season will turn out, it's pretty much all prognostication from here on out. But we could safely assume that the line will be in better shape than it was last year, and our skill positions will have been upgraded. The rookie QB will still take his lumps, but a lot less than he would have last year,. The rookie skill players and O Line FA we're bringing in will all be learning the system with the QB, growing pains all together. With a grade A QB, we could go 8-8 this year. That would be a 2 game improvement, and the 10% would have been a little more effective.

Now let's flash forward one year. Say we go 6-10 again. We are able to draft one of the big three in the draft, either by trade up or one of them falling. We would have pretty much all the other positions in place for him: a line that has a year together and knows the system and each other's strengths and weaknesses, running backs who are familiar with the ZB running game and the pass pro calls and assignments, WRs and TEs who know the route combos and where the holes in the defenses are/will be. That rookie grade A QB coming in will be at a higher comfort level, because everyone around him already knows their assignments, they're not learning as they go. He doesn't take as many hits, doesn't make as many "bad" throws - the WRs don't mess the routes up. That could equate to a 3-4 game improvement. Same QB, same 10% effect, but it's more effective because his transition is easier and smoother.

Okay, I kinda got lost in your hypotheticals, but I think I understand your point and, if I do, you are correct. I’ll use numbers to explain.

A four-win team would have a win percentage of .250. --- a 10% upgrade raises that to .275 or 4.4 wins.

A five-win team has a win percentage of .313 -- a 10% upgrade raises that to .344 or 5.5 wins.

A six-win team has a win percentage of .375 -- a 10% upgrade raises that to.413 or 6.6 wins.

Notice how the difference a grade A QB can make is increasing as the team that acquires him gets better. I think this is the effect you are explaining.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 11:45 AM ----------

It does seem strange that QBs are not that important yet all the recent Super Bowl winning teams seemed to have really good QBs -

Circular reasoning isn't strange. It's actually quite common.

Super Bowl winners seem to have really good QBs

How do you know those QBs were really good?

What? Are you kidding? Those guys won Super Bowls!

[addicted]

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.

Hahahaha

I've read your silly rants on here for years and saying that it would only mean a single game difference with grade A QB play ranks right up there with me as your latest post that we have the worst team in decades.

Seriously are you in just complete denial to suggest that you can take football and make it a mathematical equation as you did and draw any conclusions from it?

This is the funniest thing I've read on here in years. Football is not a math problem pal. Luck plays a huge factor in the game today, its why they have said for decades....Any Given Sunday.

Anyway have fun with this debate. Can't really believe people buy into this crap but to each there own.

[The Tris]

But LT is much more important than QB.

When was this point made?

[Oldfan]

I think that left tackle is more important because his ability has more to do with the success of his side of the ball because he both pass blocks and run blocks. An edge rusher can certainly impact a game but a left tackles play can more often directly lead to a large gain or score.

Sorry, can't agree with that. Whatever value the LT has his opponent, logically, has an equal value.

[skinsdude]

Sorry, can't agree with that. Whatever value the LT has his opponent, logically, has an equal value.

Why couldn't the same be said for the edge rusher? My point is that in my opinion the left tackle has the opportunity to be involved in more plays than the edge rusher.

[Loyal2Washington]

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

And you seem to forget the Pats under Belichick were a horrible 5-12 until Mo Lewis knocked Bledsoe out. By the time Cassell sniffed the field the Pats formed a winning culture around the organization and built a team of winners that had depth and skill at nearly every position thus leaving the Pats a strong team minus their best player. So why was Belichick able to build the roster up over that time? Probably had to do with Tom Brady coming in and saving his rear from Cleveland part II. Funny how Belichick became a genius all by himself.

[skinny21]

The only issue I can think of, off the top of my head, is the trickle down effect a good qb would have for us. An improved passing game would improve the running game, both of which should aid the defense and special teams. I would think that improving all of these things would lead to more than a 1 game difference.

Thats not to say I think we would be vastly improved with a grade A qb, but I would expect better than just a 1 game difference.

[The Tris]

And you seem to forget the Pats under Belichick were a horrible 5-12 until Mo Lewis knocked Bledsoe out. By the time Cassell sniffed the field the Pats formed a winning culture around the organization and built a team of winners that had depth and skill at nearly every position thus leaving the Pats a strong team minus their best player. So why was Belichick able to build the roster up over that time? Probably had to do with Tom Brady coming in and saving his rear from Cleveland part II. Funny how Belichick became a genius all by himself.

Yeah, because the reason the Pats struggled year one of the the rebuild was Drew Bledsoe, not the fact that Belichick completely purged the roster when he took over as the team was millions over the salary cap.

[Hitman21ST]

Okay, I kinda got lost in your hypotheticals, but I think I understand your point and, if I do, you are correct. I’ll use numbers to explain.

A four-win team would have a win percentage of .250. --- a 10% upgrade raises that to .275 or 4.4 wins.

A five-win team has a win percentage of .313 -- a 10% upgrade raises that to .344 or 5.5 wins.

A six-win team has a win percentage of .375 -- a 10% upgrade raises that to.413 or 6.6 wins.

Notice how the difference a grade A QB can make is increasing as the team that acquires him gets better. I think this is the effect you are explaining.

We're close to the same page. We're in the same ballpark, but you're on first and I'm on third. What I'm trying to say is that the effect of the quarterback is increased when his supporting cast is firmly in place. Andrew Luck (or Jones or Barkley) might have gotten us to 5 wins with Zorn's roster, but we could be a 9-10 win team in Luck's first year with an established line and skill players who aren't in their first year also.