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

[Oldfan]

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.

What you are saying is that the QB position is worth significantly more than 10%. So, let's take the vagueness out of it. How much more? If it's 20% how should we subtract 10% from the other numbers?

You have to understand that if you give the QB more credit or blame, you have to take it away from others.

[The Tris]

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.

All you are really saying is the better the roster, the greater the effect of the QB.

[ds1001]

it would turn the team into at least a wild card contender

[Hitman21ST]

All you are really saying is the better the roster, the greater the effect of the QB.

Yup.

[Botched]

They lost Boldin, Dansby, and Rolle all in one offseason, as well as Warner.

You make it sound like Warner was the only reason this team was worse in 2010.

They also added players if I'm not mistaken. By far the biggest downgrade was at QB.

In 2010, the Cardinals' passing offense had the second worst YPA in the NFL, the worst completion percentage, second worst in total yards, second worst QB rating, and scored only 10 touchdowns total for the year. (Warner had 11TDs after 7 games the year before) They had more than a single passing touchdown in one game all season. They also had the worst 3rd down percentage in the league, meaning their defense was likely on the field as much or more than any other team.

Arizona's passing was abysmal in every way, and this after making a living through the air the two previous years. It's pretty obvious that QB play was the difference.

[Oldfan]

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.

How many wins would you have expected with Campbell or McNabb at QB with an established line and skill players?

[Hitman21ST]

In their first year? Campbell 6-7, McNabb 7-8

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

When was this point made?

Skinsdude said it.

PS

The Matt Cassell thing is interesting. However, he is also a rather good QB

As for the QBs I listed. It may be circular reasoning. But they were all top-level picks - save Brady who screws up every discussion because he should not exist. He's the Mike Piazza of football. I kind of hate him.

So, people projected them to be awesome. And then they were awesome.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

In their first year? Campbell 6-7, McNabb 7-8

And folk actually want McNabb back.

Hail.

[skinsdude]

Skinsdude said it.

Show me where I said that.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

How many wins would you have expected with Campbell or McNabb at QB with an established line and skill players?

No more than either put up. McNabb's finished as a starter in this league for my money. By mid-season his legs go, and everything else fellows. As for Captain Checkdown, well, he is what he is.

Better players can help an A grade QB take a team on to a whole other level. An average QB is an average QB, regardless of what's around him.

Hail.

[skinny21]

What you are saying is that the QB position is worth significantly more than 10%. So, let's take the vagueness out of it. How much more? If it's 20% how should we subtract 10% from the other numbers?

You have to understand that if you give the QB more credit or blame, you have to take it away from others.

Well, I wasn't saying only qb play effects other areas, more that they're all connected and rely on eachother to some degree. I only used it from a qb perspective since that was the subject of the thread.

I would think an improved defense would allow more chances for the offense. And therefor more opportunities for the place kicker. Sure, the kicker won't necessarily improve percentage-wise, but making 2/4 would be better than 1/2.

My impression is that just that all the aspects of the game are interrelated.

Perhaps I misunderstand your premise though and you have already accounted for this.

[The Tris]

They also added players if I'm not mistaken. By far the biggest downgrade was at QB.

In 2010, the Cardinals' passing offense had the second worst YPA in the NFL, the worst completion percentage, second worst in total yards, second worst QB rating, and scored only 10 touchdowns total for the year. (Warner had 11TDs after 7 games the year before) They had more than a single passing touchdown in one game all season. They also had the worst 3rd down percentage in the league, meaning their defense was likely on the field as much or more than any other team.

Arizona's passing was abysmal in every way, and this after making a living through the air the two previous years. It's pretty obvious that QB play was the difference.

Correct, their offense went from 11th in ppg to 26th. And that primarily had to do with Warner (and Boldin to a lesser degree).

But at the same time, their defense went from 14th in ppg to 30th. Did that primarily have to do with Warner?

Let's not pretend Kurt Warner was solely responsible for a 5 game swing or the wildly hyberbolic statement you made of "the Cardinals were Superbowl contenders with Kurt Warner, and bottom feeders without him".

You are doing exactly what the point of this thread is saying: overrating the impact of the QB.

[Oldfan]

In their first year? Campbell 6-7, McNabb 7-8

So, you estimate a grade A QB would make a one game improvement over McNabb and I've estimated a one-game improvement over McNabb. The only difference between us it seems is that my estimate was made assuming that we are a six-win team while yours was made based on a hypothetically better team.

[Hitman21ST]

So, you estimate a grade A QB would make a one game improvement over McNabb and I've estimated a one-game improvement over McNabb. The only difference between us it seems is that my estimate was made assuming that we are a six-win team while yours was made based on a hypothetically better team.

At McNabb's best and new QB's worst, one game. More than likely two games, at best, three games.

My point was to say that ideally, you'd want to bring in that QB with a complete team already in place, rather than get that star QB and build around him, because he will be more effective that way.

[skinny21]

No more than either put up. McNabb's finished as a starter in this league for my money. By mid-season his legs go, and everything else fellows. As for Captain Checkdown, well, he is what he is.

Better players can help an A grade QB take a team on to a whole other level. An average QB is an average QB, regardless of what's around him.

Hail.

I hate to bring up Dilfer, but didn't he have a very good year their superbowl year? I would rate him around an average player, but IIRC he played well above average that year. I would think the play of those around him dictated that improvement.

Of course football history is not one of my strong pts so I could be wrong.

[ACW]

I think a winning QB can change entire team's outlook. Teams have gone from horrible to playoff quickly because a good QB inspired the team.

Kurt Warner. And look how they regressed.

[The Tris]

The Matt Cassell thing is interesting. However' date=' he is also a rather good QB.[/quote']

Whats more interesting about Cassell is when he left the support system of the Pats and went to a rebuilding Chiefs team, his QB rating instantly dropped 20 points.

To put that in context, 20 points was the difference between Aaron Rodgers and Shaun Hill last year.

Now, he rebounded this year, coincidentally or not, in the 2nd year of the Chiefs rebuild as the entire team got better.

So I am not so sure if Cassel is an inherently good QB, or if he can excel when put in the right support system (which I would say is true for the vast majority of NFL QBs - and thus those who are currently in the right support system are overrated, and those not in the right support system are underrated).

[Oldfan]

No more than either put up.

That can't be true.

Better players can help an A grade QB take a team on to a whole other level. An average QB is an average QB, regardless of what's around him.

Teamwork is in play with grade A QBs, but not with grade C QBs. That's your position? For the cash prize of a miilion Euros... This is your final answer?:evilg:

[Hitman21ST]

I hate to bring up Dilfer, but didn't he have a very good year their superbowl year? I would rate him around an average player, but IIRC he played well above average that year. I would think the play of those around him dictated that improvement.

Of course football history is not one of my strong pts so I could be wrong.

134-226 for 1502 yards with 12 TD and 11 INT

[skinsdude]

I hate to bring up Dilfer, but didn't he have a very good year their superbowl year? I would rate him around an average player, but IIRC he played well above average that year. I would think the play of those around him dictated that improvement.

Of course football history is not one of my strong pts so I could be wrong.

I don't think that the Ravens offense as a whole had a very good year in 2000. They went 7 or 8 straight quarters without scoring an offensive touchdown.

[Hitman21ST]

I don't think that the Ravens offense as a whole had a very good year in 2000. They went 7 or 8 straight quarters without scoring an offensive touchdown.

Five straight weeks, no touchdowns. And they won two of those games. That's how good their defense was.

[Oldfan]

At McNabb's best and new QB's worst, one game. More than likely two games, at best, three games.

At McNabb's best and the new QB's worst? Sounds to me like you just tap danced out of a corner.

[Hitman21ST]

At McNabb's best and the new QB's worst? Sounds to me like you just tap danced out of a corner.

You said one game. I estimated McNabb at 7-8 and the new QB at 9-10.

So, McNabb gets us 8, that's "his best." New QB gets us 9, that's "his worst." No tap dancing.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

That can't be true.

Teamwork is in play with grade A QBs, but not with grade C QBs. That's your position? For the cash prize of a miilion Euros... This is your final answer?:evilg:

Meh, Euro's are no good, we stuck to our guns and kept our own monetary system. I reject the offer. Pound sterling, dollars or nothing .....

The overall team can make a grade C QB better, but not by virtue of his play. There's exceptions of game managers doing well, like the 2000 Ravens above. But those instances for sustained success are few and far between.

Let's put it another way. Grade A QB's can make average talent around them better by virtue of their leadership and play. (Not great, but better.). Grade C QB's can win with better players, but rarely through improvement in their own performance. A once in a life time D like the 2000 Raven's example or stellar running game is usually needed to have the success we crave.

Hail.