The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[Captain Injury]

Agree that a QB's value to the team is better measured qualitatively. Quantitative assessment becomes mired in causality v correlation here as this thread shows. There are so many exceptions to any quantitative rules when generalizing this topic that those "rules" (measurements, estimates, percentages, etc...) truly take a far back seat to the exceptions and qualitative assessments.

[Hitman21ST]

The reader needs to bear in mind that the average quarterback position value does not change whether the quarterback is good, bad or mediocre. However, the scheme and play calling can change the QB position value. For example, the average scheme passes on 54.5% of their offensive plays. If the scheme called for more passing, the value of the QB position would go up. If the QB is asked to use his legs outside the pocket and throw on the move, the position value goes up.

So, we're back on this again, are we?

I've been enlightened though, and would agree that for an average team, the value of the quarterback is right around your figure.

Would you then agree that for our team (Carolina, Philly {when Vick is healthy}, and to some extent the Packers and Colts) the value of the QB is higher, and then conversely lower on teams that don't throw as much?

I don't have the ability to look at the numbers right now for each of those teams, the value is higher than an average team though because I'm pretty sure our ratio is higher than 54.5% pass plays, and we use RG3 to run. Same with Philly and Vick. Carolina might not throw as much, but Cam runs a lot. Both the Colts and Packers throw an absurd percentage of the time, and both Luck and Rodgers can run if necessary.

Then again, the value can change game to game and in some cases half to half or quarter to quarter, based on in-game adjustments.

[Art]

I wildly disagree with you Oldfan.

First, the media and "experts" are really only fully coming on board with the wholly dominant stature of today's elite QB. In the cap era, a great QB has meant consistently competitive organizations. While true an organization could rise up and be something good without an elite QB, either for a long stretch or for a magical year, the fact remains the most certain path toward a decade of being pretty good was finding an elite QB.

Obviously having an elite QB doesn't assure total success. See New Orleans. Scheme, defense, depth, offensive line all contribute toward the rise of a team around an elite QB. But why QB is so important is because he's ONE dude. If he's there, and good, and knows the system, you can lose, replace, retool around him and largely maintain a very solid team. Without a great QB you need a lot of other great pieces to be good over time and that is far harder.

The magic of an elite QB is obvious. Take Belichick. He's a guy I think blows. And he would be our defensive coordinator right now but for finding Tom Brady. I have the utmost respect for great coaching and great schemes. I find what Harbaugh is doing in San Francisco incredible. I think the Tampa Bay story could be incredible in a year or two if that proves real. But, the most certain path toward achievement is having a Top 5 player at that single position. Even when you are otherwise bad, like, say, US with a bad defense, no pass rush, average O-Line, limited receivers (BTW, some of this is overblown I think), a crappy kicking game, horrendous special teams and the like, we are interesting because a rookie is playing above his NFL age.

Joe Gibbs certainly revealed the value of a complete team without a true, franchise QB.

But that day is gone.

QB is the only position that actually has the potential to make all 21 other positions BETTER at the same moment. No other spot has that influence everywhere else. Great players at all positions influence other positions to a degree, but an elite QB alters the entire way the opposite team approaches you and makes it far easier to hide real weaknesses. I'm guessing in a couple years teams will have the game plan of "running the ball on us and keeping it away from us," as they did and do for years against Manning, Brees, Brady.

There is NOTHING like having a Top 5 player here.

Maybe we'll both enjoy that together sooner than we thought

[authentic]

wow, an Art post.. The world must really about to end soon.

[ZRagone]

Strangely enough this thread actually makes me wish ASF was still around with his crazy QB juding mechanism that declared Grossman a potential Franchise QB so as to see how RG3 stacks up in it.

And yeah, I think a QB has far more impact on the game outside of just his passing plays.

[Hitman21ST]

RG3's value in all of this is definitely higher than the "average" QB's contribution.

He contributes not only with his arm, but he can avoid pass rushers like literally no one else can and still deliver a spot on pass.

He can run.

Those two right there mean it's more than the 9.3% (if I had to put a number on it, I would say probably around 13-15%, with some value being taken away from the OL and RB).

But he also has a hand (or foot, should I say?) in the RB's contribution. The threat of him running will hold defenders, giving Morris fewer potential tacklers. That's something that can't really be quantified, but it has a definite impact.

Conversely, the read option play takes a small amount away from RG3 and puts it back on Morris - again by removing potential tacklers from the play (we can see this in the past two games, when Trent Cole and DeMarcus Ware both bit on the Morris dive, allowing Robert to run to their vacated spot). Those two probably cancel each other out, so I stand by my 13-15% figure. Just another tidbit to think about.

[Oldfan]

So, we're back on this again, are we? I've been enlightened though, and would agree that for an average team, the value of the quarterback is right around your figure.

Holy Hell! If I can enlighten you, anything's possible.

Would you then agree that for our team (Carolina, Philly {when Vick is healthy}, and to some extent the Packers and Colts) the value of the QB is higher, and then conversely lower on teams that don't throw as much?

I think our scheme make the QB position worth more,

I don't have the ability to look at the numbers right now for each of those teams, the value is higher than an average team though because I'm pretty sure our ratio is higher than 54.5% pass plays, and we use RG3 to run.

No, we run more than pass, but some of that is assigned to the QB position. 28.6 pass pergame and 31.4 run.

[Hitman21ST]

Holy Hell! If I can enlighten you, anything's possible.

I think most of it (and you'll laugh at this too) is me taking a step back and actually reading through the whole post and taking time to work the numbers myself.

I think our scheme make the QB position worth more,

Definitely agree. See my above post for how I view it.

No, we run more than pass, but some of that is assigned to the QB position. 28.6 pass pergame and 31.4 run.

Didn't know the numbers, so thanks.

[DC9]

On the vast majority of running plays, the QB doesn't do very much. I'm not going to add a significant percentage simply because it can be claimed that "he touches the ball on every play." I could give the center just as much credit if I allow that argument.

Are the safeties back because the quarterback has completed passes down the field like Jay Cutler or are they up because they know at worst they will give off a dump off pass like Jason Campbell?

[ncr2h]

Strangely enough this thread actually makes me wish ASF was still around with his crazy QB juding mechanism that declared Grossman a potential Franchise QB so as to see how RG3 stacks up in it.

And yeah, I think a QB has far more impact on the game outside of just his passing plays.

I feel like ASF at least updated his arguments from time to time. He went from the original model which projected both Brady Quinn and Matt Schaub as undiscovered gems (as well as predicting Eli Manning's success at least 1 year before it actually manifested on the field), to some tweaks that eliminated Quinn, to a whole different approach based around the sophomore season in college. He also seemed to incorporate reasonable suggestions and refuted arguments using facts. He also had other, unrelated predictions that he made over the years that were interesting as well.

I don't think OldFan has modified his argument at all in the 6 years or so that I've been lurking here. The OP in this thread could have been copy & pasted from 6 years ago for all I know (or 6 days ago, when there literally was this exact same thread except with a different title). We've already heard everything that anyone is going to say in this thread.

[redskins4ever28]

Im sorry but your wrong OP. The QB IS at LEAST 75% of the reason for winning in the NFL. I actually think college QBs have less a role then NFL qbs. Teams in college can win a national championship without a decent QB as long as they play good defense (ala Alabama and hopefully ND[GO IRISH] this year).

But in the pros, the QB is the reason a team is good or bad. You can sit there and play the mathematical side of it and do percentages and all that garbage, or you can just watch the games and you see what teams are good and what teams are bad, and of course the good teams have good to elite qbs.

The AFC: 3 tiers

Tier 1 ELITE QBs:

Texans, Patriots, Broncos, Steelers (with Ben) are all elite teams. The reason? Their QB's. Regardless of how well their Defense is playing, you and I both know the reason these guys are in every game is the QB. The only other team I would say is elite but Im not 100% sold on the QB is the Ravens, and Flacco looks elite at times, but I would say hes more of a above average QB that is streaky. Schaubs a beast, hes elite, you dont throw for 500 yards without being a top dog.

Tier 2 Average QB:

Dolphins, Bills, Bengals, Chargers, Colts, possibly Titans (this is also where Id put Flacco)/Ravens. These teams are all average at best. Why? They all have average QB's. Locker looks average to me at the moment, he may be better then that one day, but as of now hes average. Phillip Rivers was an elite QB until the past two years, now hes obviously looked average. I personally think hes lost the fire for the game that he once had, just my opinion though. And although I love RG3, I believe Luck and Griffin will both be elite one day, but as of right now Luck is just average, but hes good. Griffin I think is more elite, maybe cause of Im biased. Im talking AFC right now anyways so...

Now lets look at the bad QBs:

Jets, Browns, Jaguars, Chiefs, Raiders

Any franchise QBs here? LOL. I mean, honestly, you can make an argument about Palmer, but truth is, Palmer hasnt been good since he got his leg torn apart in the playoff game in 2006 (I think 2006). Ever since, hes been average at best. The other aformentioned teams I just named are absolute jokes. Look at the chiefs, I mean come on. Sanchez, yikes! Browns have had the same problem weve had for years, no QB. The Jaguars just replaced Gabbert with Henne and look what happens, they almost beat the Texans and actually beat the Titans, whats that tell you?

Now the NFC

I think theres a 4th tier in the NFC because there so many good teams, so here goes:

Absolute ELITE QB's:

Packers, Giants, Saints, Falcons. Out of these teams, only the Saints have a losing record, and lets face it, the only reason why they are any good right now is Brees. Take Brees away and this team is winless. I believe Eli is elite, and I also believe Matt Ryan should now be considered elite.

2nd Tier good-great QB:

Skins, Coyboys, Bears, Lions, Niners

Out of these teams, only the Niners stick out because of the QB. And honestly, Alex Smith threw 17 tds and 5 INTs last year, pretty dang good. The 49ers are the most complete team in football, so they will mask the QB more then most teams, but this is probably the only team in the NFL thats a GREAT team, without a solid QB option. I think personally without RG3 our team is 1-10. Hes pretty much been our entire team this year. With our terrible defense, do you really think Grossman was going to put up 30+ pts?

3rd tier: Average-below average QB play

Seahawks, Panthers, Bucs, Vikings

Wilson is having a great year, hes just been overshadowed by Grif and Luck, but he actually leads rookies in passing tds with 17, and has 8 INTs. Darn good for a rookie. But still, Id say hes average at the moment just because throws the ball maybe 15-20 times a game.Cam, Freeman and Ponder are all average at best right now, but their all young and the future will tell if they get better.

4th tier, below average-terrible:

Cardinals, Eagles (with Foles, obviously they are better with Vick), Rams

Cardinals are terrible. If they had a half decent QB that team would be so much better right now. Maybe Fitzgerald will jump ship and make the team trade him to DC for a bargain . Honestly, Foles doesnt look good at all either. As for the Rams. I know a lot of people here think Bradfords a decent or at least average QB, but I think he sucks. I think hes bottom tier period. My opinion doesnt mean much, but I just never seen him play and think to myself (wow, he could be something some day!).

The only 2 possibly questionable teams that are good without GREAT qbs are Ravens and Niners. Both have a great Oline, and a great defense. Especially the niners, who have an insane amount of 1st round draft picks on that team. Obviously thats rare.

Just watch the games, you know whos a good team and who isnt in this league. Good teams have good-great QB;s. Past 8 years the SB winner AND the SB teams both have been teams with elite QB play except for the loser in SB 41 (Rex Grossmans Bears).

2012: Eli vs Brady

2011: Rodgers vs Ben

2010: Brees vs Peyton

2009: Ben vs Warner

2008: Peyton vs Grossman

2007: Ben vs Hasselbeck (who was definitely elite at that time)

2006: Brady vs McNabb

2005: Brady vs Delhomme (Delhommes iffy, but I believe he was top 10 then)

Honestly, the ONLY 3 teams to win a Super Bowl the past 20 years without an elite qb were the Redskins in 91-92 season/sb, the 2000-2001 Ravens, and finally the 2002-2003 Bucs. Other than that its been a QB league. Sorry if you think the QB isnt as important as some, but the fact is: IT IS. No QB? No championship.

Look how good the Steelers and Bears look without Ben and Cutler? LOL. Campbell.... Oh Jason Campbell, how I dont miss you at all.

[Hitman21ST]

I don't think OldFan has modified his argument at all in the 6 years or so that I've been lurking here. The OP in this thread could have been copy & pasted from 6 years ago for all I know (or 6 days ago, when there literally was this exact same thread except with a different title). We've already heard everything that anyone is going to say in this thread.

When you're right though, do you really need to change your stance?

He wasn't giving every QB in the league a 9.3% contribution, but that is the baseline. It will vary from team to team and scheme to scheme. But the point still stands: the QB can't run every play, can't catch his own passes, can't block for himself, can't play defense, and can't play special teams.

You might be getting caught up in the numbers. That's one thing that kept catching me earlier on when I disagreed with OF. The whole team is 100%, and the QB is worth about 9.3% of that 100%. If he were just talking about the offense's performance (meaning the offense totals to 100% and not taking the defense or special teams into consideration), then the percentage number would be higher for the QB.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 02:11 PM ----------

Im sorry but your wrong OP. The QB IS at LEAST 75% of the reason for winning in the NFL. I actually think college QBs have less a role then NFL qbs. Teams in college can win a national championship without a decent QB as long as they play good defense (ala Alabama and hopefully ND[GO IRISH] this year).

So you're putting the rest of the team (defense and special teams included) at 25%? I'd be interested in seeing that breakdown.

2012: Eli vs Brady

The Giants defense still had to stop Brady, and their Special Teams was a big reason why they made it to the Super Bowl (two muffed punt recoveries, remember?)

2011: Rodgers vs Ben

Both Rodgers and Ben had great defenses to help them out. The Steelers made it more on their defense than on Ben.

2010: Brees vs Peyton

I forgot that Brees intercepted Peyton and ran it back for the game-icing pick 6...

2009: Ben vs Warner

Didn't James Harrison have a pretty important pick 6 in that game, too, or did Ben do that?

2008: Peyton vs Grossman

Bears made it on their defense and Special Teams. Unless Grossman returned all those kicks and punts for TDs...

2007: Ben vs Hasselbeck (who was definitely elite at that time)

Again, the Steelers make it based more on their defense than their O.

2006: Brady vs McNabb

2005: Brady vs Delhomme (Delhommes iffy, but I believe he was top 10 then)

Both of those Patriots defenses were very good. The Patriots offense was decent, but the defense was their strength.

[wrecker]

I think our scheme make the QB position worth more,

This is the chicken/egg thing again.

We wouldn't be running this scheme if it were not for the QB we have.

[redskins4ever28]

When you're right though, do you really need to change your stance?

He wasn't giving every QB in the league a 9.3% contribution, but that is the baseline. It will vary from team to team and scheme to scheme. But the point still stands: the QB can't run every play, can't catch his own passes, can't block for himself, can't play defense, and can't play special teams.

You might be getting caught up in the numbers. That's one thing that kept catching me earlier on when I disagreed with OF. The whole team is 100%, and the QB is worth about 9.3% of that 100%. If he were just talking about the offense's performance (meaning the offense totals to 100% and not taking the defense or special teams into consideration), then the percentage number would be higher for the QB.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 02:11 PM ----------

So you're putting the rest of the team (defense and special teams included) at 25%? I'd be interested in seeing that breakdown.

The Giants defense still had to stop Brady, and their Special Teams was a big reason why they made it to the Super Bowl (two muffed punt recoveries, remember?)

Both Rodgers and Ben had great defenses to help them out. The Steelers made it more on their defense than on Ben.

I forgot that Brees intercepted Peyton and ran it back for the game-icing pick 6...

Didn't James Harrison have a pretty important pick 6 in that game, too, or did Ben do that?

Bears made it on their defense and Special Teams. Unless Grossman returned all those kicks and punts for TDs...

Again, the Steelers make it based more on their defense than their O.

Both of those Patriots defenses were very good. The Patriots offense was decent, but the defense was their strength.

Man, anyone can sit here and pick at certain aspects or plays of those teams that made them great or the season special. But my point is, plain and simple: Do ANY of those teams I mentioned, other than maybe the 2006 Bears, go to the Superbowl with a QB thats not on that high level? The answer is no. As for your "breakdown" that you requested. Im not saying the QB plays defense, and Im not saying the play special teams. What i am saying, that with a QB your defense can play differently. Funny how the Redskins are getting so many turnovers this year but allowing a lot of points/yards isnt it? The reason? Because our defense can take more risks with Griff scoring 30+. Same thing with the Colts before Manning left. They used to be able to take risks knowing Peyton would get them the points if it failed. You can sit here and say "Qb is only 9.3%", but come on dude, seriously, answer my other questions: How are the Bears and Steelers without Cutler and Ben??? Especially since I bet your probably the one of those people that used to say Campbell was a good QB. Campbell looked like a little girl last week. And Batch and Lefty, lol. Please. Your argument is fair, and you make good points, but its wrong. I can sit here and say "Well the QB doesnt play defense or Special Teams" but you know it, and I know it, you need a great QB in this league to be considered a contender. They may not tackle, but unless you got a clutch QB that can sling it, you will be on the outside looking in.

[Oldfan]

I wildly disagree with you Oldfan.

Here's the typical argument I hear from people who debate on your side of the issue, Art.

Claim: You need a frachise QB like Lucky Stiff to win Super Bowls!

Q: How did you determine that Lucky is a franchise QB?

A: Are you kidding? The guy won three Super Bowls!

That's circular reasoning.

When I look at Tom Brady, I see a Grade A pocket Passer. That's as high as I grade, but I see him as massively overrated because his position is massively overrated. Rich Gosselin thinks it's worth a ridiculous 75%.

Brady can extend plays in the pocket, but he can't throw on the run. The defense's game plan is simple: get him to move his feet. That's why the Giants, with their pass rush talent, match up well against the Patriots. He's an outstanding passer, but he has flaws like most QBs. He has a bad habit of throwing off his back foot under pressure. Some QBs can get away with that, but Brady's ball floats.

There is nothing you can see about his physical skill set to place him above a five or six other QBs in the NFL. His performance is better because he plays for a better team. All QBs on winners get more credit than deserve. All QBs on losers take more blame than they deserve.

You said he makes all 21 players around him better. I see teamwork as a two-way street. He makes them better. They make him better.

That 9.3% is a very big number for one player and it's an average. The value of a QB in the Shanahan offense is higher than in Belichik's. Athlete-QBs are a greater threat than pocket passers. If you argue that QBs can be difference makers, we're on the same page. But when your position is that Belichik blows and he'd be nowhere without Brady, we're really far apart.

There is NOTHING like having a Top 5 player here.

Maybe we'll both enjoy that together sooner than we thought

Robert is the best QB ever to play the game, IMO. But, he's still going to need more help. Otherwise, he will end up with the experts like Gosselin saying that it's a shame that someone with all that talent just couldn't handle the big games like Brady or similar nonsense.

[Wildbunny]

If a whole team is 100%.

Then, with 53 on the roster, the QB is only 1.88% of it. Or 3.77% if you adds in the back-up.

I love % and how to turn them the way you want.

[Hitman21ST]

Man, anyone can sit here and pick at certain aspects or plays of those teams that made them great or the season special. But my point is, plain and simple: Do ANY of those teams I mentioned, other than maybe the 2006 Bears, go to the Superbowl with a QB thats not on that high level? The answer is no. As for your "breakdown" that you requested. Im not saying the QB plays defense, and Im not saying the play special teams. What i am saying, that with a QB your defense can play differently. Funny how the Redskins are getting so many turnovers this year but allowing a lot of points/yards isnt it? The reason? Because our defense can take more risks with Griff scoring 30+. Same thing with the Colts before Manning left. They used to be able to take risks knowing Peyton would get them the points if it failed. You can sit here and say "Qb is only 9.3%", but come on dude, seriously, answer my other questions: How are the Bears and Steelers without Cutler and Ben??? Especially since I bet your probably the one of those people that used to say Campbell was a good QB. Campbell looked like a little girl last week. And Batch and Lefty, lol. Please. Your argument is fair, and you make good points, but its wrong. I can sit here and say "Well the QB doesnt play defense or Special Teams" but you know it, and I know it, you need a great QB in this league to be considered a contender. They may not tackle, but unless you got a clutch QB that can sling it, you will be on the outside looking in.

First off, I'm pretty sure I never said Campbell was a good QB. The most I might have said is that he needs continuity and he could become good.

Secondly, the Steelers made the Super Bowl with Neil O'Donnell. Bears with Rex Grossman. Seahawks with a great running game (Alexander went for over 1800 yards rushing and had 20 TDs that season). Patriots made it on their defenses. Eli wouldn't have won either of his Super Bowls without his defense, or have you forgotten the sacks and turnovers that plagued Brady in those two games?

Thirdly, the 9.3% figure is fairly large given that he's just one person. Every other percentage is given to a group. The QB is the only "group" that consists of one person.

Finally, your 75% figure is so grossly wrong. The QB is on the field for less than 50% of the plays. Sure, the defense can play differently, but that has no say in the contribution of the QB - nevermind that we've said that RG3 is worth more than that (probably in the range of 13-15%). By you saying he's worth 75% that means that he's essentially doing everything himself. Blocking, catching, tackling included. RG3 wouldn't look nearly as good if it weren't for his receivers catching the passes and his OL blocking.

You still haven't given your breakdown of the percentage of the contribution for the defense and special teams - let alone the receivers, running backs, and OL.

[skinnyskins]

On the vast majority of running plays, the QB doesn't do very much. I'm not going to add a significant percentage simply because it can be claimed that "he touches the ball on every play." I could give the center just as much credit if I allow that argument.

This misses the point. The value added is identifying the coverage and calling the audible into another play, be it passing or running. He wasn't saying the handoff to the RB is valuable.

[Oldfan]

I feel like ASF at least updated his arguments from time to time....I don't think OldFan has modified his argument at all in the 6 years or so that I've been lurking here. ....

A sound argument doesn't need to be "updated." I came to the same estimate here using a different method that before. This one is based on the number of passing plays as a percentage of the total plays per game.

[redskins4ever28]

If a whole team is 100%.

Then, with 53 on the roster, the QB is only 1.88% of it. Or 3.77% if you adds in the back-up.

I love % and how to turn them the way you want.

This.

Couldnt have said it better. You could also say that the QB touches the ball on 99% of offensive plays so the QB is 50% of the team (other 50% defense). So people can sit there and swing percentages whatever way they want, it doesnt matter.

As for the guy who said some argue a qbs not elite until they win a SB, thats rubbish. Brees was elite before the SB, of course Peyton was too. Eli became elite Id say a year ago, but not because of his second SB, because of his 4993 yard season. Stafford just moved up and hes as close to elite as you can get except he still throws a lot of picks. Schaubs elite, no ring, Brady hasnt had a ring in a decade, Romo sits to pee is close to elite, and hes a choke artist, heck I think Vick was elite, until philly media murdered his confidence. Rodgers was elite before and after the SB. Matt Ryans elite, no ring. And yes I think Robert Griffin III and Luck are both close to elite.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 02:58 PM ----------

First off, I'm pretty sure I never said Campbell was a good QB. The most I might have said is that he needs continuity and he could become good.

Secondly, the Steelers made the Super Bowl with Neil O'Donnell. Bears with Rex Grossman. Seahawks with a great running game (Alexander went for over 1800 yards rushing and had 20 TDs that season). Patriots made it on their defenses. Eli wouldn't have won either of his Super Bowls without his defense, or have you forgotten the sacks and turnovers that plagued Brady in those two games?

Thirdly, the 9.3% figure is fairly large given that he's just one person. Every other percentage is given to a group. The QB is the only "group" that consists of one person.

Finally, your 75% figure is so grossly wrong. The QB is on the field for less than 50% of the plays. Sure, the defense can play differently, but that has no say in the contribution of the QB - nevermind that we've said that RG3 is worth more than that (probably in the range of 13-15%). By you saying he's worth 75% that means that he's essentially doing everything himself. Blocking, catching, tackling included. RG3 wouldn't look nearly as good if it weren't for his receivers catching the passes and his OL blocking.

You still haven't given your breakdown of the percentage of the contribution for the defense and special teams - let alone the receivers, running backs, and OL.

I was trying to make a point that you can sit here and do the mathematical breakdown how you did, but it doesnt mean anything. As you can read in my post I just made about how percentages of plays and when a position is on the field means nothing to how important the position is.

Maybe the QB position is 75% of importance to the team, and the rest of the team is 25%. 75% QB, 10% defense, 10% Oline/WRs, and 5% special teams. Does it seem like a crazy number? Absolutely. But I feel it to be true. The funny thing is, these are all opinions, and obviously your stuck on yours, and thats fine. But Im stuck on mine as well, and there is no one in this world that can tell me the QB is only 10% of the team or of importance to the team. Maybe in the 80s? Sure. Now? No way. I would take Drew Brees with a bunch of undrafted free agent practice squad players over Jason Campbell and a bunch of starters, 24/7, and I feel strongly that if you got Brees with a team of nobodys vs a guy like Campbell with a team of first stringers, that Brees beats Campbells teeam 97/100 times.

[Oldfan]

If a whole team is 100%.

Then, with 53 on the roster, the QB is only 1.88% of it. Or 3.77% if you adds in the back-up.

I love % and how to turn them the way you want.

If all positions in Football had equal importance in wins and losses, you'd be right. But, they don't and you're not.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If Gibbs had RGIII as his QB during his second tenure here, he would have at the very least played in 2 Super Bowls.

(I actually don't think Super Bowls are a particularly good way of measuring great teams any longer. I don't think it's been a good measuring stick in at least 20 years. Two weeks off...neutral field....insane media hype...weird halftime show....Like the BCS title game, it's turned into this weird exhibition game. I think the conference championship games generally tell you who the three best teams in the league are - one team is always some weird gate crasher like the Jets - and after that, it's all a coin flip).

[Oldfan]

This misses the point. The value added is identifying the coverage and calling the audible into another play, be it passing or running. He wasn't saying the handoff to the RB is valuable.

He said two things and you are confusing them.

Calling the audible is a factor in grading the player and not relevant to the value of the position.

"He touches the ball on every play," is a relevant but weak argument for the reason I stated.

[Hitman21ST]

I was trying to make a point that you can sit here and do the mathematical breakdown how you did, but it doesnt mean anything. As you can read in my post I just made about how percentages of plays and when a position is on the field means nothing to how important the position is.

Maybe the QB position is 75% of importance to the team, and the rest of the team is 25%. 75% QB, 10% defense, 10% Oline/WRs, and 5% special teams. Does it seem like a crazy number? Absolutely. But I feel it to be true. The funny thing is, these are all opinions, and obviously your stuck on yours, and thats fine. But Im stuck on mine as well, and there is no one in this world that can tell me the QB is only 10% of the team or of importance to the team. Maybe in the 80s? Sure. Now? No way. I would take Drew Brees with a bunch of undrafted free agent practice squad players over Jason Campbell and a bunch of starters, 24/7, and I feel strongly that if you got Brees with a team of nobodys vs a guy like Campbell with a team of first stringers, that Brees beats Campbells teeam 97/100 times.

So what's coaching worth then?

Really? Then how did the Brees-led Saints lose to the Chiefs in week 3 or the 49ers last week? How have the Chiefs won any games? How did the Cardinals start 4-0?

The Saints lost their games mostly because of the coaching aspect (being on your third string HC would be a shot to any team). If Brees was worth 75%, then the Saints would be 9-2 right now.

[DogofWar1]

In college QBs are not required for a national championship. Look at Bama, their QBs are not really 1st round material, but they win. Why? Because of defense and strong ground game, and a decent enough QB to hold their own in a pinch. The biggest problem is that QBs in college often cannot overcome everything and win every game on their own. That's why a lot of teams with very good QBs will end up 9-3 or 10-2, while well rounded teams or teams with passable QBs and elite defenses end up with 1 loss or undefeated.

In the NFL though, the QB is far and away the most important position, and while I wouldn't say they are worth 75% of a team's success, they are easily worth probably at least 33% of a team's success.

You rated QB importance based on # of plays they are responsible for, but I think you undervalue the worth of those plays they are responsible for, and the points they score.

Consider the Redskins-Cowboys game, we had 437 total yards on offense, 311 being passing, 142 being rushing (and lost 16 yards from sacks). Our passing game was thus responsible for 71% of our total yardage. In addition, take into account the 4-1 TD ratio. Passing was responsible for 28 of our 38 points or 73% of our points.

Now, there are things that mitigate those things a bit. Receivers like Garcon can grab lots of YAC. Guys like Robinson deserve credit for being able to get open deep down the field. Guys like Moss deserve credit for making that tough grab and keeping his feet down.

The thing is, replace RGIII with Grossman. Can we say with certainty Grossman makes that throw to Garcon? Or hits Robinson 50 yards downfield in stride? Or threads the needle to Moss in the endzone? Ultimately, I'd say the QB's throw and ball placement is as important to the receiver's capabilities. It doesn't matter if a receiver is faster than everyone on the field, if he has to stop or come back to catch the ball, he's probably going to be tackled, or if he's in a position to catch the ball in the endzone, the QB must be capable of delivering the ball.

The other thing that is often mentioned is that the running game can set up the passing game, but it can also work the other way around, it's just harder to set up the running game with the passing game. And again, setting up the passing game won't do much good if the QB can't deliver the ball effectively. And then there's things that have nothing to do with the actual throw, like play calling, audibles, faking handoffs, pump-fakes, etc. These are things that can put a team in much better position to score, without requiring a throw. A pump-fake into a delayed handoff can be a huge benefit in the running game, but you need a QB to be able to execute it. And being able to effectively read the defense and play-call at the line is vital.

There's also the question of the offensive line, and that a good offensive line, by giving enough time, can help a QB perform much better. This is true, but only to a certain extent. For example, Cleveland has a fairly solid offensive line, has for a few years, and yet consistently has one of the worst offenses, and that can be placed directly at the feet of the QB. Weedon is not mobile, so 20 sacks for his team is rather low, and yet he's not playing well, and the offense is poor as a result.

The opposite extreme is Rodgers. He's been sacked 37 times, has a terrible Oline, and yet has a QB rating above 100, with 28-7 TD/INT. Ideally you have the best of both worlds like the Patriots, who have a great Oline and a great QB, but if you had to pick a great Oline, average QB, vs. average Oline, great QB, team success dictates you'd normally prefer the latter.

From the offensive side of the ball, the QB is far and away the most important guy on the field. There is a fairly strong correlation between good QB play and offensive success, as well as good QB play and team record. It is not always the case, but it is the case more often than not.

That is not to say that good QB play is the only thing, the rest of the offense must be able to contribute, and the defense does play an important role as well. But consistently winning teams have consistently good QBs, and while that fact may be a correlation, it's a darn strong correlation. More importantly, pretty much all the data we're working with is based on correlations, and most of the ways you cut the data will show the better the QB, the more successful the team.

I remember when we were debating over whether it made sense to draft a QB early, and trade up for Griffin, or not, I looked at any teams that had made the playoffs any more than 3 times in any 5 year period over the last 10 years, and the results were pretty much that QBs drafted earlier were more successful in terms of stats, wins, and playoff appearances, and argued for trading up for Griffin. However, bringing that data forward to this debate, almost every team that had 3 or more playoff appearances over a 5 year period had what could be considered a "franchise QB." I don't have all that data on hand, but if I have time I'll try to recompile it.