Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Oldfan

Recommended Posts

Peyton is the smartest QB in the game. He makes a difference at the LoS. But, he's not a great passer. His numbers look great because he has been given a smaller number of pass plays to practice and he throws the most passes from the gun in the NFL (nearly all passers are more accurate from the gun).

How do you know this? Do you know how Peyton would perform in a different NFL system? I can just as easily say that Peyton's numbers are great because he's a great passer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know this? Do you know how Peyton would perform in a different NFL system? I can just as easily say that Peyton's numbers are great because he's a great passer.

Its the same logic he uses to say this:

"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."

He just makes something up and throws it at the wall and people seem to think he's right.

I think its something in the water causing this maddness

BTW If that were at all true how do you explain all of the times teams like the Eagles who after they got McNabb, the Colts who were a 1 win season winner without Payton, the Steelers who get Rothesberger and all the rest of them who we get to watch them go from losers to 10 wins a year or two later contenders

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitman ~ OK, I think I understand now what we're both saying. You're saying that no matter the quality of the QB, his influence is 10%. I think that the "A" QB gives the 10%, but a "C" QB might only give you 6% (or whatever), provided the "C" QB produces at 60% the rate of the "A" QB. Thus, given the same roster, an "A" QB will give you more wins than a "C" QB. (Campbell only gets the team 6-7 wins, while new QB gets the team 9-10 wins).

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. 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.

Measurement No. 1 ) the importance of the QB position 10%

Measurement No. 2) the grade of the QB

If we were going to be precise, we would first need to quantify the QB grades so that we could then multiply both measurements. That’s pretty much what you did in a round about way.

My actual measurement would be about one-half a game if we were to replace McNabb with a grade A quarterback. I just rounded up to one game because I don’t want to give people the impression that I’m offering a precision tool here. It’s just a better way of making a reasonable estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know you are trying to quantify a qb's play, but throw out all of the statistics for a second and use some common sense.

do you really think the packers only lose 1 or 2 games more than last year if they have a grade F qb at the helm?

or, do the titans only win one more game with peyton manning at qb?

the answer is that the disparity between a grade F/grade A qb is a lot more than you think.

especially considering we didn't have a running game until James Starks entered at the end of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so the same would be said then if you downgraded a team from an A qb to a C qb... on a good team with an A qb, replacing him with a C qb would mean how many more losses per season?

I think the packers are a good team and rogers an A qb, say you replace him with a C qb, how many more losses would you expect per season?

Bear in mind I said in the OP that scheme fit can influence the QB position. So, assuming the grade C quarterback fits the scheme, a one game loss is about right.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 03:23 PM ----------

I understand you trying to operationalize a QB's effect on a team, but I think upgrading from a C to an A does more to a team than just two wins.

Look at the progress teams made under good QBs like Sam Bradford, Matt Ryan, and Josh Freeman. All three of these QBs came to what were considered poor teams. These three made a huge difference in how their organizations are perceived, and how many wins their teams got.

As others have said, I think a grade-A QB has a much greater effect on your organization than a mere two wins. A grade-A QB means your team has a face, a true leader that FAs will love to come to. There's a reason why the QB is considered to be the most important and hardest position to fill in all of sports.

If the QB is worth far more than 10%, you should be able to do an estimate following the same guidelines I did, and show the QB to be a much bigger factor. Give it a try. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

As for Ryan and Bradford, there's no way to tell how much of a factor they were because there were a number of other changes within the organization at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know this? Do you know how Peyton would perform in a different NFL system? I can just as easily say that Peyton's numbers are great because he's a great passer.
I don't see why my standard of proof should be higher than the poster I replied to.
Originally Posted by Mahons21

I think Brady is somewhat interchangeable, as those stats show, but I don't feel the same way for Manning. When you lose Manning you not only lose possibly the greatest QB of all time, but you also lose one hell of an offensive coordinator.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 03:31 PM ----------

I can't think of a team that got a bonafide Grade-A quarterback and didn't noticeably improve while he was there. .
A 10% improvement is noticeable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Ryan and Bradford, there's no way to tell how much of a factor they were because there were a number of other changes within the organization at the same time.

Quite. That's pretty much what I have said a couple of times in this thread - too many moving parts to usefully assign any given value to impact of a given QB. I think that's the case with any franchise not just the Falcons and Rams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite. That's pretty much what I have said a couple of times in this thread - too many moving parts to usefully assign any given value to impact of a given QB. I think that's the case with any franchise not just the Falcons and Rams.
Does the estimate I made in the OP look unreasonable to you? Can you manipulate the numbers to end up with an estimate much greater than 10% for the QB and reduce the other estimates by a like amount and stay within reason?

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 03:41 PM ----------

i know you are trying to quantify a qb's play, but throw out all of the statistics for a second and use some common sense.

do you really think the packers only lose 1 or 2 games more than last year if they have a grade F qb at the helm?

or, do the titans only win one more game with peyton manning at qb?

the answer is that the disparity between a grade F/grade A qb is a lot more than you think.

I don't use an F grade. I divide QBs into four groups of eight (32 teams) D is my lowest. the grade D NFL quarterbacks are still pretty good. The NFL, after all, is a league where parity reigns.

Iv'e already answer the packers question using a grade C quarterback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Except that's not what usually happens. Peyton went to an awful team. Rivers went to an awful team. The only reason the Steelers got Roethlisberger is because they were uncharacteristically really bad in 2003. The Giants stunk when they got Eli. Aikman went to a truly awful Cowboys team. He was a 3rd round pick but the 49ers stunk when they got Montana. The Chargers stunks when they got Rivers.

Rodgers is the exception.

I keep hearing, "Wait until we are good to get a QB."

The problem is - generally - once you are good, you CAN'T get a good QB outside of free agency or blind dumb luck (like the Vick situation). And in all honesty, the only major free agenct QB of the last decade is Brees. And he should have never been available except San Diego thought he was too injured to be much of anything and had invested heavily in Rivers. The Brees-Rivers situation is actually quite interesting. It proves that you can let an MVP-level QB walk away....as long as you have an MVP-level QB on the bench.

Also, I hate Philip Rivers. I don't understand how a QB with less arm strength than me is that ****ing good.

I don't like it when players do things I don't understand. I want life to be explicable. I also want "explicable" to be a word.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 02:43 PM ----------

By the way, I like OldFan's completely made up numbers.

There is a 63 pecent chance that they are 72 percent accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the estimate I made in the OP look unreasonable to you? Can you manipulate the numbers to end up with an estimate much greater than 10% for the QB and reduce the other estimates by a like amount and stay within reason?

10% for the personal contribution of the QB looks like a reasonable estimate. But the impact - the difference if you like - that the QB makes on wins and losses is not as simple as that 10%. There is the impact the QB makes on the ability of coaches to adjust their game planning, the impact he has on the production of the receivers, the way he opens up the running game by moving that 8th man out of the box, the way having a grade A QB allows you to spend your high draft picks and free agent dollars on other important positions etc etc. Most of this is outside the pure 10% you have not unreasonably assigned to the QBs individual contribution.

Football is not a science experiment and you can't separate the various factors and observe like a lab experiment what happens if you change variables because as you noted there are too many other things changing at the same time. If you can't tell how much of a factor Bradford and Ryan are on their teams why can you tell this for any other QB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...By the way' date=' I like OldFan's completely made up numbers. [/quote']I'll issue the same challenge to you as the others who made this claim. You could easily prove my estimate is garbage by using the same method and coming up with a much bigger number for the QB while keeping the other numbers realistic. So far, no one has answered the bell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 10% improvement is noticeable.

A 10% improvement of what, exactly?

Wins? A team that went 4-12 ends up improving by 10% more wins? Can you go 4.4-11.6? lol...

Yards? A team that threw for 3,200 yards now throws for 3,520 yards. How noticeable will that really be?

Points? A team that averged 17.4 ppg is now averaging 19.4 ppt...I guess that could qualify.

But that 10% improvement can too easily be offset by a wide range of other factors on the team...sure, they are scoring 10% more points now, but maybe they're giving up 12% more points as well...or allowing opposing offenses to have 10% longer drives...or missing 10% more FGs...etc, etc, yadda yadda.

As others have said, using some arbitrary percentages is faulty to begin with...plus your formula seems to completely avoid the reality of how much a good passing game and a Grade-A quarterback effects the running game...in your formula only the protection and the RBs themselves have any positive or negative effect on the running game, and the ability of that Grade-A quarterback to stretch the field and keep defenses honest is irrelevant. And you're already well-known for tossing aside the intangibles that players bring to their position, especially to the most important position on the team. Treating players as if they are computer generated beings that will operate as well or as poorly as the software that is plugged into them is not a very good way of assessing the game and a team.

I also think by using percentages you diminish the very positive (or negative) effect that special teams can play. In fact, each play on STs is by definition more important than each individual play on either offense or defense, in the fact that you don't get second chances on ST plays. If a QB throws downfield and overthrows his WR, oh well...unless it was 4th down he'll get another chance right away. But every play on special teams is a 4th down play...a punter shanks a punt, he doesn't get the ball back for another try...he isn't given 3-4 plays to go 10 yards...the placekicker isn't given 3-4 chances to make the field goal. They've got one shot at making that play...consistency is key there. Unlike on offense and defense, there is no way to cover up the flaws of STs players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10% for the personal contribution of the QB looks like a reasonable estimate. But the impact - the difference if you like - that the QB makes on wins and losses is not as simple as that 10%. There is the impact the QB makes on the ability of coaches to adjust their game planning, the impact he has on the production of the receivers, the way he opens up the running game by moving that 8th man out of the box, the way having a grade A QB allows you to spend your high draft picks and free agent dollars on other important positions etc etc. Most of this is outside the pure 10% you have not unreasonably assigned to the QBs individual contribution.

Football is not a science experiment and you can't separate the various factors and observe like a lab experiment what happens if you change variables because as you noted there are too many other things changing at the same time. If you can't tell how much of a factor Bradford and Ryan are on their teams why can you tell this for any other QB?

When I use the scale of 100%, it encompasses everything. So, I can’t give the QB a higher percentage without taking the equivalent amount away from other positions. There is nothing “outside of the pure 10%” to give.

I think you are trying to go beyond the value of the position (10%) and argue the effects of the quality of the QB on his new team.

If our objective was to grade the entire team, we would quantify the value of all the positions, quantify the grades of the players and the head coach, and then multiply those factors in a grid analysis. The grades and the value of the positions would be two distinct numbers.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 04:08 PM ----------

It appears as though the consensus feels that it is impossible to determine the affect that a franchise quarterback will have on a team based on grades and percentages.
In*logic, an*argumentum ad populum*(Latin*for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument*that concludes a*proposition*to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I use the scale of 100%, it encompasses everything. So, I can’t give the QB a higher percentage without taking the equivalent amount away from other positions. There is nothing “outside of the pure 10%” to give.

I think you are trying to go beyond the value of the position (10%) and argue the effects of the quality of the QB on his new team.

If our objective was to grade the entire team, we would quantify the value of all the positions, quantify the grades of the players and the head coach, and then multiply those factors in a grid analysis. The grades and the value of the positions would be two distinct numbers.

The question you pose in the OP is how much difference a grade A QB makes on wins and losses. I'm saying that it's not possible to answer this question simply by using the percentage contribution of the positions. There are too many other factors.

In an earlier post you stated that it was not possible to tell what the impact was that Ryan and Bradford had on their teams because there were too many other things happening for those franchises. I agree. Can you explain why that would be any different for any other QB or franchise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Califan ~ A 10% improvement of what, exactly?

A ten-per cent improvement in wins. A legit eight-win team would have a win pct of .500. A 10% improvement would raise it to .550 or 8.8 wins. With the luck factors canceling out, that’s probably 9 wins.

As others have said, using some arbitrary percentages is faulty to begin with...

As I’ve told others, they aren’t arbitrary. If they were, it should be easy for you to prove it.

..plus your formula seems to completely avoid the reality of how much a good passing game and a Grade-A quarterback effects the running game...

The running game affects the passing game as well. Teamwork isn’t a one way street.

Treating players as if they are computer generated beings that will operate as well or as poorly as the software that is plugged into them is not a very good way of assessing the game and a team.

I’m using seventh grade math to make a better estimate of factors that most fans pull out of their litisimus.

I also think by using percentages you diminish the very positive (or negative) effect that special teams can play.

The value given the special teams came from the stats guys at footballoutsider.com. It’s based on about 20 years of data. Again, better than a guess coming out of the old litisimus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ten-per cent improvement in wins. A legit eight-win team would have a win pct of .500. A 10% improvement would raise it to .550 or 8.8 wins. With the luck factors canceling out, that’s probably 9 wins.

Over 40% of NFL games are won/lost by 7 points or less. A 10% improvement game by game could have more impact on won/loss than you are stating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over 40% of NFL games are won/lost by 7 points or less. A 10% improvement game by game could have more impact on won/loss than you are stating.
You missed me on that one. I don't know how to apply the improvement game by game. Can you offer an example?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed me on that one. I don't know how to apply the improvement game by game. Can you offer an example?

So rather than applying the ten percent improvement on wins to the season win total apply it to the performance game by game. If almost half a teams losses are by 7 points or less a ten percent improvement game by game might result in more than a single game improvment. If we lose a game 10-9 a 10% improvement in our performance in that game would switch I from a loss to a win.

By the way you have not responded to the question I posed in an earlier post as below.

The question you pose in the OP is how much difference a grade A QB makes on wins and losses. I'm saying that it's not possible to answer this question simply by using the percentage contribution of the positions. There are too many other factors.

In an earlier post you stated that it was not possible to tell what the impact was that Ryan and Bradford had on their teams because there were too many other things happening for those franchises. I agree. Can you explain why that would be any different for any other QB or franchise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I've seen this thread before. I don't know why, it feels like this has been discussed before, but with a different title.
You probably remember the thread that introduced the idea of using an estimate like the one in the OP. Here, I've applied it to the task of answering the question in the thread title.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/color]I don't use an F grade. I divide QBs into four groups of eight (32 teams) D is my lowest. the grade D NFL quarterbacks are still pretty good. The NFL, after all, is a league where parity reigns.

Iv'e already answer the packers question using a grade C quarterback.

10% is way too low of an estimation. consider the fact that 100% of all offensive plays (since you are allowing a % for special teams) start at the qb; he has a direct affect on every play. he is worth much more than 10%. a qb even has a affect before the play with pre-snap reads and audibles.

bottom line, you cannot make an estimation for the level of importance for a qb. every scheme is different. every team relies on certain players more than others. the affect on each team would be different.

what is common sense though is that if you take manning off of the colts, they struggle, and by a lot more than 1 game. if you add manning to the bills, the bills would greatly improve. these things are obvious to nearly everyone except a crazy few that misguidingly attach a 10% number to all qb's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just does not work. While a quarterback may be one third of an offense, you can't just suddenly provide a percentage to what effect he has on an offense.

People who don't think QB are worth much will point to teams that won without a great QB (Ravens, Bucs).

People who think QB are worth everything will point to pretty much every other team that has won a superbowl in the past twenty years.

Consider me part of the latter group.

---------- Post added July-14th-2011 at 10:10 AM ----------

haha nooooo I agree with you. I was making fun of SWFLskins. Sorry for the confusion.

Cool, sorry for the snark.

And they actually went 11-5, and put up the 2nd most points in the NFL. Only 5 teams in the league had a better record.

But yeah, without Brady, the Pats would be nothing...

But would Cassel have been able to do the same on the heels of another average at best QB. Belicheat had time to get the other guy and let him learn without the immediate pressure of starting and running the team himself. I still feel that the overall impact of a dynamic QB is being undervalued. And that was my point. Rothlesberger went to a good team and made them instantly champs. I will add that this is a great discussion and my mind is still not totally convinced one way or the other as far as OF numbers go. The fact that he is considering all parts of the team has merit for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...