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

[Hitman21ST]

If Luck is cancelled out by a factor of .92, does that mean OF thinks that if we draft Andrew Luck, Haynesworth will injure him?

[SwampEm]

No one is saying that. They're trying to come up with a percentage of the QB's worth to equate to more wins.

It depends on the team. Would you say that the cast of QB's on the 2000 Ravens contributed as much as Kurt Warner did on his Super Bowl winning Rams team?

[Mad Mike]

Using 100% to represent the total importance of all factors in winning NFL football games, it is possible to make an estimate and take some of the vagueness out of our football discussions.

20% -- Coaching

10% -- Special Teams

35% -- Defense

35% -- Offense

15% -- total running game

....8% -- RB

....7% -- Blockers

20% --Passing Game

....5% -- Protectors

....5% -- Receivers

....10% -- QB

Offense, defense, and special teams are weighed on a 3-3-1 ratio based on data source: footballoutsiders.com.

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.

The most important individual is the head coach, but he cannot be graded on wins and losses unless he has full control of his football team since the quality of his roster is an 80% factor in wins.

The second most important individual is the quarterback. When GM Mickey Loomis hired Sean Payton to coach and signed Drew Brees to play QB, he upgraded the two most important individual positions (30% estimated combined weight).

When Pittsburgh added Roethlesberger, he moved the team from a .550 win average to .600 -- almost a one-win improvement. At that level, the one win is the difference between a good team and one of championship caliber. However, the addition of a high-grade QB alone will not move a six-win team to championship level.

I have Jason Campbell graded as a C minus QB coming out from under center. I think he could have been upgraded to a B or B minus by putting him in a shotgun-based offense. Peyton is in the gun on 75% of his attempts; Brady on 65%. Instead, Mike traded for McNabb who gave us C minus quarterbacking because he doesn’t fit anybody’s scheme except the one Andy Reid built for him in Philly. Donovan was not an improvement at the QB position over Campbell.

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.

This may be one of the silliest posts ever to hit this board. QB is 10% of the winning equation? Really?

You should just stop talking now. :doh:

[pjfootballer]

It depends on the team. Would you say that the cast of QB's on the 2000 Ravens contributed as much as Kurt Warner did on his Super Bowl winning Rams team?

I'm not getting sucked into this argument. I've read the thread and everyone has their viewpoints. I was just telling you what they were trying to come up with and not my point of view. I'm not sure anyone was really equating a QBs worth to a SB. You may want to re-read the original OP. (which is righ above me).

[Oldfan]

Califan ~ I love that you said "IF" you had offered a logical argument lol ...At least you're admitting that your argument is not logical.

Argumentative. No point made.

What makes it reasonable besides the fact that YOU think it's reasonable?

Argumentative. No point,

And your "method" isn't explained...what you did was take your estimates and treat them as fact and then draw conclusions from them.

Not true. My method is explained in the OP.

...No, it's not up to the person presenting an argument to prove that the argument is a reasonable one lol ..

.

Ridiculous.

I've done so...twice, I might add lol ...

No, you have not.

Why? If it's flawed, why use it?

It isn’t flawed.

Your flawed logic insists that the percentages equal 100, when there's zero reason it needs to be. Well, unless you're working backwards and are starting off from a position that says there's no way of telling how many extra wins a team will have from one season to the next.

That makes no sense. 100% can be used to represent the whole of anything.

We KNOW AS FACT that teams often have more than 100% win improvement.

You’re confused. The 100% represents the whole weight of the positions in their importance to wins. It’s not a limit on improvement.

As has been said by too many people in too many posts, there is no base percentage that can be assigned to positions. I'll write that again just to get the point across once more...

Write it as many times as you like. You’re wrong.

What we keep saying is that flapping your arms real fast will not make you able to fly.

Silly false analogy. Make a logical point or get off the pot.

I think I can speak for most on this thread and say that what "percentage" a Grade-A quarterback played in any given team's win improvement during any given year will vary so wildly that it's asinine to try and affix a standard percentage value that applies across the board.

What you just said is that most posters in this thread don’t know what the hell this thread is about.

Translation: "If I give you a list of Grade D QBs it will most likely show how flawed my argument is, so I'm gonna leave that aspect vague so that I can continue arguing my flawed stance."

Translation of the translation: I’d really like to derail your thread with an off-topic tangent..

Here's a hint for anyone else thinking there's some validity to OF's assertions: when someone postulates a theory but refuses to give you data to test the theory with, that usually means they know it won't hold up. It also means that he himself didn't accurately enough test his theory, which was obvious anyway lol...my guess is that the Grades A-D will be as arbitrarily assigned as the percentages were.

What you just wrote reveals that you haven’t grasped an application of seventh-grade math.

Can you explain what makes it an exception? I'm betting you can't, and won't.

What makes it an exception? That’s a dumb question. Teams don’t routinely go from 3-13 one season to 13-3 the next. One that does is exceptional.

Omg lol!! ...

Just make your silly point.

Did you already forget that you said luck plays no role?

It doesn’t when one estimates wins since the presumption is made that the luck good and bad will cancel out. Luck obviously does not cancel out when games are actually played.

[Hitman21ST]

OF, people are asking you to elaborate your points. In reply, you just ask "why should I," assuming that people should take what you say as gospel. When asked to defend your position, you deflect and dodge so that you don't have to. If you expect people to take what you say as truth, you might want to be able to back up what you say, instead of dodging and deflecting.

It's not ridiculous at all for someone to expect you to prove your argument is reasonable. What you are saying is analogous to me saying "I can fly like Superman. Since you can't prove me wrong, I don't have to prove that I can. You should just take my word for it."

and don't deflect what I just said by saying "off topic" or "ridiculous." Actually address people who are showing how you are incorrect, and show them how you are right (if you can).

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Argumentative. No point made.

How is it argumentative when we both agree that you did not present a logical argument? lol

(psst: I think you meant to say if you presented a logic argument, not a "logical" one.

Argumentative. No point,

Oldfan lingo for "Damn...got no valid comeback for that."

Not true. My method is explained in the OP.

No it's not. You give your percentages but have yet to show HOW you arrived at those percentages. And if you're basing it simply off the 3-3-1 argument, there are so many flaws with doing it that way that you should cringe in embarrassment when doing so.

Ridiculous.

Oldfan lingo for "Damn...got no valid comeback for that."

No, you have not.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

Or should I say "prove that I haven't"

...because that, apparently, is all that is required as an acceptable retort.

It isn’t flawed.

Oldfan lingo for "Damn...got no valid comeback for that."

That makes no sense. 100% can be used to represent the whole of anything.

Right...but you're NOT representing the whole of ANYTHING...you're trying to predict the number of additional wins based on percentages. The logical way of doing it is the other way around--that is, to try and determine the percentages based on the number of wins--NOT to try and determine the number of wins based on percentages. You're doing it backwards (as I've said--and proven--several times now).

You’re confused. The 100% represents the whole weight of the positions in their importance to wins. It’s not a limit on improvement.

Oh, really ...

your words, yet again:

OF: "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."

OF: "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. "

And you claim your argument is not "limiting improvement" ...hoo, boy.

Trust me, OF...we see this, and we get that you're contradicting yourself like mf'er here lol...

Write it as many times as you like. You’re wrong.

Oldfan lingo for "Damn...got no valid comeback for that."

Silly false analogy. Make a logical point or get off the pot.

Oldfan lingo for "Damn...got no valid comeback for that."

What you just said is that most posters in this thread don’t know what the hell this thread is about.

Oldfan lingo for...well, you get the idea.

Translation of the translation: I’d really like to derail your thread with an off-topic tangent..

Raise your hands if you've noticed Oldfan ignoring the question instead of providing the data.

What you just wrote reveals that you haven’t grasped an application of seventh-grade math.

I think this is example #7 in his post of "when you can't attack the logic, attack the person using the logic" :yes:...

What makes it an exception? That’s a dumb question. Teams don’t routinely go from 3-13 one season to 13-3 the next. One that does is exceptional.

Once again, you misunderstood...I wasn't asking what makes the win total improvement an exception...I was asking why this should be an exception from your stance and equation. All you've said was that "anything that my equation can't explain doesn't count" ...

Just make your silly point.

Example #8...and counting lol...

It doesn’t when one estimates wins since the presumption is made that the luck good or bad will cancel out. Luck obviously does not cancel out when games are actually played.

Then where is the "luck" percentage in your equation? Any equation that leaves out something that can play an obvious role in the outcome MUST be considered flawed by definition. But there are a multitude of areas in which you failed to consider the things that happen "when games are actually played"...which is, of course, yet another reason why your initial stance is flawed beyond recognition.

[Oldfan]

OF, people are asking you to elaborate your points. In reply, you just ask "why should I," assuming that people should take what you say as gospel. When asked to defend your position, you deflect and dodge so that you don't have to. If you expect people to take what you say as truth, you might want to be able to back up what you say, instead of dodging and deflecting.

It's not ridiculous at all for someone to expect you to prove your argument is reasonable. What you are saying is analogous to me saying "I can fly like Superman. Since you can't prove me wrong, I don't have to prove that I can. You should just take my word for it."

and don't deflect what I just said by saying "off topic" or "ridiculous." Actually address people who are showing how you are incorrect, and show them how you are right (if you can).

Your post is an argument. Prove to me that it's logical.

[Hitman21ST]

Raise your hands if you've noticed Oldfan ignoring the question instead of providing the data.

[Geneva]

A good QB is the key to any NFL team. With one you win without one you don't.

[Hitman21ST]

Your post is an argument. Prove to me that it's logical.

Why is it logical to prove what you're saying is right? Because if you don't and continually refuse to do so, people will see that you're full of it with no real reasoning behind what you say.

Now, prove to me that your post is reasonable.

BTW, that was a nice deflection again. You have yet to actually answer a direct question.

[Laxpunk2006]

Have you considered the possibility that those people are smarter than you are?

I'm well aware of the fact that there are people in this world much more intelligent than myself. I can even accept the possibility that they might frequent these boards. A civil discussion with you may be easier if you accepted the same. I would hardly qualify arguing a strangers arbitrary formula for success proof of grand intellect.

I find it(not at all) surprising that you don't mind going off topic to question my intelligence but refuse to provide further examples of Grade D quarterbacks when that could be helpful to some in this discussion.

Instead you continually provoke other posters while challenging them to use a made up system to disprove your made up formula.

[Oldfan]

Why is it logical to prove what you're saying is right? Because if you don't and continually refuse to do so, people will see that you're full of it with no real reasoning behind what you say.

Now, prove to me that your post is reasonable.

Why are you ducking the question? I asked you to prove that your post was logical. If your post was logical, you should be able to prove it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Your post is an argument. Prove to me that it's logical.

I can, easily :yes:

Hitman: "What you are saying is analogous to me saying "I can fly like Superman. Since you can't prove me wrong, I don't have to prove that I can. You should just take my word for it."

Using the logic filter:

Hitman: "What you are saying is:

A=B

Therefore, A=C

You can't prove that A does not = C so therefore I am right

That's illogical."

[Hitman21ST]

Why are you ducking the question? I asked you to prove that your post was logical. If your post was logical, you should be able to prove it.

If you don't and continually refuse to do so, people will see that you're full of it with no real reasoning behind what you say.

Why are you ducking my question?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I guess the only way OF's chart works is if you assign values to individuals and then multiply that number by their percentage.

So, let's assume that Belichik is 95 out of 100.

Was that the same ranking in Cleveland?

Did he give his Browns team a total contribution of 190 points every time they took the field? Or did he get better?

What number do you assign Brady?

How does that compare to Eric Zeier?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Why is it logical to prove what you're saying is right? Because if you don't and continually refuse to do so, people will see that you're full of it with no real reasoning behind what you say.

Now, prove to me that your post is reasonable.

BTW, that was a nice deflection again. You have yet to actually answer a direct question.

It's not his goal to have an actual debate on his theory. In his threads it rarely is ...

It's a shame, too, because his theories tend to at least be a bit interesting, even if the logic is flawed beyond recognition. This could have turned into 20 pages of fine-tuning the "Percentages Theory" as presented by Oldfan. Instead it's become an exercise in futility and an Oldfan condescension marathon. It might be wiser at this point to just discuss the theory among everyone else on the thread besides Oldfan lol...we'd probably come away with a far more constructive dialog.

[Oldfan]

If you don't and continually refuse to do so, people will see that you're full of it with no real reasoning behind what you say.

Why are you ducking my question?

Let's stop playing games. The question I asked you was absurd. You can't prove to me that your argument was logical. I either see the logic and agree or I don't see it and counter.

Califan's request is absurd. I can't pound the logic of my argument into your head, nor can I prove reasonableness.

[Hitman21ST]

It's a shame, too, because his theories tend to at least be a bit interesting, even if the logic is flawed beyond recognition. This could have turned into 20 pages of fine-tuning the "Percentages Theory" as presented by Oldfan. Instead it's become an exercise in futility and an Oldfan condescension marathon. It might be wiser at this point to just discuss the theory among everyone else on the thread besides Oldfan lol...we'd probably come away with a far more constructive dialog.

True, true.

Did you see my explanation of Campbell, McNabb, and a drafted QB in win totals? Basically, it was Campbell would net 6-7 wins with a roster in place in his first year; McNabb, probably 7-8 wins; and an "A" QB would get probably 9-10 wins - with the roster in place. I know those are all estimates, but they're fairly conservative and IMO anyway, accurate. Calling Campbell a "C" QB means there's between a 28 and 66% improvement in number of wins based on the quality of the QB. How does that sound?

[pjfootballer]

Just for fun to lighten the mood.

One more for good times

[Oldfan]

True, true.

Did you see my explanation of Campbell, McNabb, and a drafted QB in win totals? Basically, it was Campbell would net 6-7 wins with a roster in place in his first year; McNabb, probably 7-8 wins; and an "A" QB would get probably 9-10 wins - with the roster in place. I know those are all estimates, but they're fairly conservative and IMO anyway, accurate. Calling Campbell a "C" QB means there's between a 28 and 66% improvement in number of wins based on the quality of the QB. How does that sound?

You estimate was pulled out of your ass.

[Hitman21ST]

You estimate was pulled out of your ass.

As was yours.

However, mine has basis. Campbell came in in week 11 of 2006 with a roster in place. He went 2-5 over the last 7 weeks, and 5-7 until he was injured in week 14 of 2007. That's 7-12. That's just about right on with my estimate of a 6-7 win team with a roster in place.

McNabb wins 5 games with last year's roster. That would translate to 7-8 wins with a better roster. An "A" QB would be able to get us 9-10 wins with a roster in place.

[skinsdude]

You estimate was pulled out of your ass.

Oh this is getting good. :ols:

[Califan007 The Constipated]

True, true.

Did you see my explanation of Campbell, McNabb, and a drafted QB in win totals? Basically, it was Campbell would net 6-7 wins with a roster in place in his first year; McNabb, probably 7-8 wins; and an "A" QB would get probably 9-10 wins - with the roster in place. I know those are all estimates, but they're fairly conservative and IMO anyway, accurate. Calling Campbell a "C" QB means there's between a 28 and 66% improvement in number of wins based on the quality of the QB. How does that sound?

I remember reading the post with the 28%-66% estimate, which I thought fell more in line with the total "additional wins percentage" argument I've been making.

If you've got a team with 95% of the positions already in place (no real need to upgrade any positions, every unit is set) a game-manager QB (JC) can steer that team to the playoffs, imo. A playmaking QB (McNabb) can take it to the SB with some lucky bounces. An elite franchise QB (Manning) can win the SB.

[Oldfan]

As was yours.

Prove to me that your estimate is reasonable.