The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[Oldfan]

This is the chicken/egg thing again.

Again? There was no chicken-egg before.

But, of course our scheme is being built around Robert. That fact doesn't contradict anything I've argued.

[Art]

OF.

I don't believe I used any circular reasoning at all.

An elite QB may be an elite QB and not have won 3 Super Bowls. Maybe not even ANY, though, often, once you are there, you get one at least. An elite QB is someone who's play over time clearly lifts everyone around him. Peyton Manning should probably be on his way to consecutive MVP awards. Though RGIII may take it from him this year, the man should have won it last year as no single player in history has ever so demonstrated the total impact of an elite QB on team performance as did Peyton. Take Luck this year. Though not elite at this point, he shows what competence at that position can do as well.

The Colts were contenders. All the time. Manning goes out and they are the worst team in football. Immediately.

Belichick is about to be fired. Bledsoe goes out, Brady comes in and that team is great for a decade.

An elite QB obviously has supporting numbers, but is more than that. It's someone you can see when you watch him. His numbers are different than someone else's numbers. Brees and Brady and Manning play differently than Stafford, though Stafford may have 5000 yards in a year. The ball comes out early. On time. There's efficiency to how they play and how their team performs. They show up and everything is better.

Brees, this year, shows the value of coaching as well. That team started to stabilize when Vitt came back. Clearly coaching is still very important in the NFL. More than other sports. But, the NFL is now something no other league is either. It's a ONE PLAYER MUST BE great and your team is pretty good at least. Basketball you need two great ones in five. And there are more great ones. Baseball needs more. When Brad Johnson had a career year, we were very competitive. When he fell back, we did too. Our spikes in positive performance have all been tied to excellent QB play for some stretch. Not that Todd Collins was elite, but he played near that level for several wonderful weeks.

Football there has never been a situation where a team has a great QB where that team hasn't been very competitive for the duration of that QB's great play. No other position has the influence of the rare breed QB. We are in an era of pretty good QB play, or at least elevated numbers. That does not mean they are all elite. There are three to five who qualify there. Those players may have a couple of bad games, but generally so impact each play of the game, whether they are in or not, the entire season is different with them.

Now, at this time the NFL is still owned by pocket passers. RGIII is the first pocket passer with true mobile QB skills, so maybe he joins that level.

He does, absolutely, need help. But, as a rookie we're scoring 26 or whatever a game. Inefficiently. He bumps our points and improves our efficiency in his second year, our defense plays differently and better without any changes. Even with Haslett.

Still, the biggest improvement we'll have from this year to next is how RGIII progresses.

[Oldfan]

...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.

If you can first define what you mean by a franchise QB and then tell me how you graded QBs to determine a QB qualified as a franchise QB, you will change my mind if it makes sense.

[Mahons21]

I think people are really underestimating how drastic the difference would be from a Robert Griffin, who with the scheme lets say accounts for 15%, and a Kirk Cousins who let's say accounts for 8%.

Going from Grade A performance from 15% of the team(Griffin), to 8% of a Grade C performance (Cousins) is a big time difference.

For one Griffin accounts for a larger percentage, thus the other 7% between scheme/line/RB/WRs need to take on an increased role, and how many of them are keeping up with Grade A performances? Will the scheme remain Grade A with a different QB? Will the RB be able to handle the additional value placed on him, and keep his level of performance? Will the WRs be able to take on a larger role in the passing games, ie making plays?

Furthermore, football is a game won by inches. Going from Grade A performance to Grade C performance, can mean the difference in keeping drives alive, and in scoring TDs. How many games in the end are the difference of one score? If having the Griffin compared to that Cousins could give you that one additional scoring drive. That could be the difference in being a 5-11 team (That lost 5 games by 1 score or less) and a 10-6 team.

I don't think you're very far off with the percentages, and I think a lot of people think they disagree with you a lot more than the actually do.

[redskins4ever28]

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.

I disagree about coaching. I really do. I think people are over-reacting to the Saints coaching. The Saints can beat any team, and I wasnt counting coaching in my %, I was talking about football players. If you add in the coaching aspect, then Id say 60% still lies on the QB, the new 15% relies on the coaching/scheme etc. And thats the beauty of the NFL, any given Sunday can beat any team, doesnt mean it would happen a lot. But it will happen here and there. Maybe the Chiefs beat the Saints 3/100 times. That game just so happened to be 1 of those 3 times where it would happen. The Chiefs didnt have a lead in that entire game except for when they won in the end in OT. The Chiefs are actually a great example. SOOO many people said the Chiefs had one of the, if not then the, best roster in the NFL other then QB. Yet here they are, worst team in the NFL. If you put almost any decent QB behind that team, they have 4 more wins, at least. And still, I would like your opinion on why the Steelers and Bears are so terrible without their QBs if QB is only 10% of the game? And explain to me why the Colts were 2-14 last year? Tell me its not a QB league and Id tell you your crazy. People that know a LOT more about football then either you or I know its a QBs league and that the difference between a good and elite QB is the difference between a wild card, and a super bowl.

Ok, so I just did a little reading and researching and 60-75% is a bit much, but heres my final opinion on the team:

45% QB

10% coaching

20% Oline/RB/WR

20% defense

5% special teams

This is more realistic then what I originally said, but I was pretty much saying that %age on impulse of how imporant I feel the QB is.

However, I will say I think its Much more important to have a great QB then it is to have a great team. For example, Id rather have a C- team with an A+ QB then a A+ team with a C- QB.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Still, the biggest improvement we'll have from this year to next is how RGIII progresses.

I'm actually not 100 percent sure of that, just because I'm not sure how much better RGIII can actually get. He's not going to complete 80 percent of his passes (I don't suspect). I think the true determining factor going foward are two things:

1. That RGIII not regress next year. I still have a small fear that there is an element of luck and mystery involved here - though that fear fades each week. Historically, there also always seems to be a minor step back for first year wonders in their second season. I'm 99 percent sure that RGIII is not Michael Vick. I'm pretty sure he is not Cam Newton (who is still pretty damn good by the way). I don't think he is going to be mediocre next year. But this level of play at least makes you ask, "Is this really sustainable?"

2. How the team simply stabilizes around RGIII. If we can stop being so damn gimmicky on offense and just get to league average or so on defense and special teams, this team will win 11 to 12 games a year in its sleep. I mean, the pass defense was historically bad for 8 weeks and the team can still harbor some playoff dreams. Imagine if the worst thing you could say about the secondary is "Eh...it's okay."

[Mahons21]

The biggest difference I've seen between the struggles we've had and the success we've had, has been in the WRs. That extreme being PIT, where we had what 10 drops? To the last coupe weeks where we saw Moss making a play on the ball v double coverage, Paulsen making a catch and extending. Skittles catching bombs. Hankerson using his big body as a possession receiver. And again back to Moss, that toe tap... Garcon's athleticism.

RG3's play, in my opinion, has remained relatively constant.

[Art]

I'm actually not 100 percent sure of that' date=' just because I'm not sure how much better RGIII can actually get. He's not going to complete 80 percent of his passes (I don't suspect). I think the true determining factor going foward are two things:

1. That RGIII not regress next year. I still have a small fear that there is an element of luck and mystery involved here - though that fear fades each week. Historically, there also always seems to be a minor step back for first year wonders in their second season. I'm 99 percent sure that RGIII is not Michael Vick. I'm pretty sure he is not Cam Newton (who is still pretty damn good by the way). I don't think he is going to be mediocre next year. But this level of play at least makes you ask, "Is this really sustainable?"

2. How the team simply stabilizes around RGIII. If we can stop being so damn gimmicky on offense and just get to league average or so on defense and special teams, this team will win 11 to 12 games a year in its sleep. I mean, the pass defense was historically bad for 8 weeks and the team can still harbor some playoff dreams. Imagine if the worst thing you could say about the secondary is "Eh...it's okay."[/quote']

Let me say this, then. He may have fewer TDs, more interceptions, a lower completion percentage and STILL improve wildly. I agree with you the numbers are pretty pure and pristine now. I think it's right to think and say it's not likely we'll see 70 percent, 16-4 TD to INT, etc. But, where he can improve is an area they haven't really shown yet. For all the neat nature of our offense, we're NOT a come from behind, pocket passing, read and throw team. Not yet. The team is teaching RGIII reads in this style. His athletic ability creates time that disappears in pure passing situations.

He's still actually quite slow to deliver, especially on deep passes. He's not totally great, yet, at anticipating routes and throws. He seems to be getting better and so doing, with his skills, will make the offense more efficient, if a tad less explosive. In this area if we improve our third downs five to 10 percent our defense will improve 5 to 10 spots, or more, depending on whether we convert.

Our offense is gimmicky because we don't fully trust RGIII to be a pure, standard, Andrew Luck, yet. That's being built each game. Read this, throw based on that read. VERY defined reads. Similar to college, but expanding every week. It's this area that makes the team better if he improves here, even if his numbers suffer for it.

[deejaydana]

Isn't the imminent benching of Alex Smith proof that, on some level at least, that the QB rating is flawed? I mean, Smith has had a stellar QB rating this year when he's been in but I don't think anyone would ever mistake him as a game-changer and he's certainly not 'dynamic' at the position. QB rating as it stands doesn't seem to measure intangibles.

[Hitman21ST]

explain to me why the Colts were 2-14 last year? Tell me its not a QB league and Id tell you your crazy. People that know a LOT more about football then either you or I know its a QBs league and that the difference between a good and elite QB is the difference between a wild card, and a super bowl.

Colts were tanking for Luck. No question in my mind.

Never said it wasn't a QB league. I've even said the QB is the most important position, and gave him the highest percentage. What you're doing is putting too much of a value on it.

Seriously, OF, get out of my head

[Mahons21]

Colts were tanking for Luck. No question in my mind.

Never said it wasn't a QB league. I've even said the QB is the most important position, and gave him the highest percentage. What you're doing is putting too much of a value on it.

Seriously, OF, get out of my head

You're starting to see the light! Big difference from some debates we had this past offseason, though I will say I'm quite pleased that we ended up with RG3.

[HeluCopter29]

Isn't the imminent benching of Alex Smith proof that, on some level at least, that the QB rating is flawed? I mean, Smith has had a stellar QB rating this year when he's been in but I don't think anyone would ever mistake him as a game-changer and he's certainly not 'dynamic' at the position. QB rating as it stands doesn't seem to measure intangibles.

I think it's also evidence that a great QB isn't this necessary item everyone's talked about.

Remember when the Cowboys could run the ball pretty well? They actually made the playoffs a couple times. Now, they have no running game and the team is on the verge of collapse.

All kidding aside, it's not just Romo sits to pee.

[skinnyskins]

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.

How is the ability to call an effective audible not valuable to the position? It adds tremendous value by switching a play with a low probability of success to a play with a higher probability of success against the particular defensive scheme identified by the QB. No other position on the offense does that so it adds value to the QB position.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Isn't the imminent benching of Alex Smith proof that, on some level at least, that the QB rating is flawed? I mean, Smith has had a stellar QB rating this year when he's been in but I don't think anyone would ever mistake him as a game-changer and he's certainly not 'dynamic' at the position. QB rating as it stands doesn't seem to measure intangibles.

The QB Rating doesn't measure very much at all. It's a horrible measuring stick.

Only three stats really interest me with QBs: Completion percentage, YPA, and TD:Int Ratio...with the last one not mattering really that much. Smith is actually pretty high in all those categories this year so I'm slightly confused as to what Harbaugh is doing. I don't trust Smith long-term, but I trust him more against the Falcons in January.

Good teams don't often switch QBs in the latter half of a season and live to tell the tale.

[redskins4ever28]

Colts were tanking for Luck. No question in my mind.

Never said it wasn't a QB league. I've even said the QB is the most important position, and gave him the highest percentage. What you're doing is putting too much of a value on it.

Seriously, OF, get out of my head

Well, finally we agree on something. I think after week 6, the Colts did tank on purpose for Luck. Which angers me even more. I hate Jim Irsay.

How do the Colts get so lucky to have the top 4 best QB prospects out of college fall into their lap in the past 30 years? They had the 1st pick when Elway came out, even though he demanded he would not play for that team. Then Jeff George, and yes George was one of the highest rated college to pro QBs of all time, he just ended up not being that good. Then Manning, and now Luck. Seriously, the horse shoe is a lucky charm. Irsays father was a jerk and so is he (and Im only 28 years old but Ive read a lot about Irsays daddy). And secondly, Irsay tweets like a 13 year old girl.

Also, to the above person mentioning Romo sits to pee and the Cowgirls. Right now, Romo sits to pee is getting so much hate, and hes the only reason that team is even competitive. Can you imagine Matt Cassel, Jason Campbell, or Kevin Kolb on the Cowboys right now? Theyd be winless.

[deejaydana]

I think it's also evidence that a great QB isn't this necessary item everyone's talked about.

Remember when the Cowboys could run the ball pretty well? They actually made the playoffs a couple times. Now, they have no running game and the team is on the verge of collapse.

All kidding aside, it's not just Romo sits to pee.

Hmmmm. Yeah, but I think there are many places you can lay blame regards where the Cowboys are failing. They aren't coached well, they lack all kinds of discipline. I actually think Romo sits to pee is an above average QB but he is only a part of the problem with that team. A true franchise QB really can lift everyone, case in point would be us, or the Colts, this year.

[Mahons21]

Our offense is gimmicky because we don't fully trust RGIII to be a pure, standard, Andrew Luck, yet. That's being built each game. Read this, throw based on that read. VERY defined reads. Similar to college, but expanding every week. It's this area that makes the team better if he improves here, even if his numbers suffer for it.

I completely disagree. Our offense is gimmicky because we don't have a lot of talent, we rely on confusion and mis-direction to generate production. This is not because RG3 can't go through his reads in my opinion. Rather it is due to his surroundings. If our o-line was asked to block for a drop back passing game like a Brees/Manning they'd resemble the Saints o-line v 49ers, though it would only take an average defense not the 49ers. In other words, Griffin would be dealing with a crumbling pocket throwing into 8 defenders. That's not a situation QB will succeed in, no point in throwing your young QB into it. This doesn't even begin to touch our receiving corps, who up until a couple weeks ago couldn't catch a cold.

[deejaydana]

The QB Rating doesn't measure very much at all. It's a horrible measuring stick.

Only three stats really interest me with QBs: Completion percentage' date=' YPA, and TD:Int Ratio...with the last one not mattering really that much. Smith is actually pretty high in all those categories this year so I'm slightly confused as to what Harbaugh is doing. I don't trust Smith long-term, but I trust him more against the Falcons in January.

Good teams don't often switch QBs in the latter half of a season and live to tell the tale.[/quote'] I think Smith's stats are really deceptive though because Harbaugh is smart enough to play to his strengths and he keeps Smith on a short lease. It literally is a case of the coach saying in so many words: "Don't **** this up for us QB," so it's hardly a ringing endorsement to begin with and hence the Kaepernick switcheroo. That defense of theirs can mask what is, in Smith, an average QB. I see him in KC or some other QB starved team next year.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Hmmmm. Yeah, but I think there are many places you can lay blame regards where the Cowboys are failing. They aren't coached well, they lack all kinds of discipline. I actually think Romo sits to pee is an above average QB but he is only a part of the problem with that team. A true franchise QB really can lift everyone, case in point would be us, or the Colts, this year.

I think Romo sits to pee is actually pretty good and imagine that the Cowboys would be historically bad if they had, like, the Cardinals' QB situation. Which I think they will have once Romo sits to pee is finally finished because Jerry Jones is an old, senile man.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 05:00 PM ----------

I think Smith's stats are really deceptive though because Harbaugh is smart enough to play to his strengths and he keeps Smith on a short lease. It literally is a case of the coach saying in so many words: "Don't **** this up for us QB," so it's hardly a ringing endorsement to begin with and hence the Kaepernick switcheroo. That defense of theirs can mask what is, in Smith, an average QB. I see him in KC or some other QB starved team next year.

Oh, I don't think Smith is good...but he has been good this year. That happens sometimes. I think he is overdue to fall back to earth - which obviously Harbaugh thinks too. I think I would just wait to make the switch until the off-season, but I'm not a Harbaugh (thank God).

I also don't think San Francisco can win the Super Bowl with either QB they have.

[deejaydana]

Oh' date=' I don't think Smith is good...but he has been good this year. That happens sometimes. I think he is overdue to fall back to earth - which obviously Harbaugh thinks to. I think I would just wait to make the switch until the off-season, but I'm not a Harbaugh (thank God).[/quote']

I think the fact that they looked (in the Chicago game anyway) markedly better with the backup QB was all they needed to let Smith ride the pine. The fact that Kaepernick, who might also be only an average QB as well, provides much more mobility, just makes an already top tier team, that much harder to beat. He'll make mistakes for sure, but I don't see Smith ever playing a leading role in SF again unless they do some non-standard 1,2 QB approach that really doesn't exist in the modern game. Ok, rambling done on my part.

[Est.1974]

9.3% -- value of the average QB position

Fair Enough.

RG3 probably comes in around 15% given the % of rushes he has in this scheme so far.

Spread the other 85% across the rest of the sample and he calculates at being at least 5 times more important than anyone else within that 100%.

[jly0784]

isnt oldfan the same clown who claims cutler is an elite qb??? dont give me crap about how bad campbell was against san fran, they would have done that against anyone that ngiht, they were playing inspired ball

[Oldfan]

OF...I don't believe I used any circular reasoning at all.

No, you didn't. I didn't mean to imply that you had.

An elite QB is someone who's play over time clearly lifts everyone around him.

What you see clearly isn't evident to me. As I said, I see teamwork.

Peyton Manning should probably be on his way to consecutive MVP awards.

As the most important position, the QB of a winner will win MVPs by default unless a teammate has a dominant performance. The MVP is a team award, not a QB award.

The Colts were contenders. All the time. Manning goes out and they are the worst team in football. Immediately.

If he stayed, Brady faced new coaches, new scheme, new supporting talent. In Denver, he has the same scheme he has run for a decade with far more talent. Brady was either very lucky to get outta Dodge or he plans well.

Belichick is about to be fired. Bledsoe goes out, Brady comes in and that team is great for a decade.

You are confusing cause with coincidence. Kraft never considered firing Belichik and Brady's performance wasn't that much better than Bledsoe's in the beginning. Belichik is constantly ahead of the curve on both offense and defense.

Brees and Brady and Manning play differently than Stafford, though Stafford may have 5000 yards in a year. The ball comes out early. On time. There's efficiency to how they play and how their team performs. They show up and everything is better.

I can't see that. I think you are seeing things I don't because you can't see anything physical he can do with his arm or his legs to account for the difference in performance. What you see is Brady. What I see is Brady performing as an important player on the Patriots team.

Brees, this year, shows the value of coaching as well. That team started to stabilize when Vitt came back. Clearly coaching is still very important in the NFL. More than other sports. But, the NFL is now something no other league is either. It's a ONE PLAYER MUST BE great and your team is pretty good at least. Basketball you need two great ones in five. And there are more great ones. Baseball needs more. When Brad Johnson had a career year, we were very competitive. When he fell back, we did too. Our spikes in positive performance have all been tied to excellent QB play for some stretch. Not that Todd Collins was elite, but he played near that level for several wonderful weeks.

Baseball is more of an individual spot played in a team concept. Basketball has only five positions to grade. Football is the consummate team sport with a whole bunch of players and coaches. Grading individuals is tough.

Football there has never been a situation where a team has a great QB where that team hasn't been very competitive for the duration of that QB's great play. No other position has the influence of the rare breed QB. We are in an era of pretty good QB play, or at least elevated numbers. That does not mean they are all elite. There are three to five who qualify there. Those players may have a couple of bad games, but generally so impact each play of the game, whether they are in or not, the entire season is different with them.

Archie Manning was the best athlete-QB in the game in his day. I have him graded as better than Peyton and Eli by a wide margin. He played for the pathetic Saints though. His career W/L record was something like 35 - 100. In today's NFL game with parity, Archie might have been enough difference to make his team a winner. It's hard to say.

I judge NFL QBs as a scout might -- but only on their physical skill set. My position is that, while my method is incomplete, it's the only intelligent way to go about it. Here's a link to a recent thread which explains how I go about it and why if you're interested.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?373946-RG3-posts-the-highest-QBTG-ever

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Archie Manning was the best athlete-QB in the game in his day. I have him graded as better than Peyton and Eli by a wide margin. He played for the pathetic Saints though. His career W/L record was something like 35 - 100. In today's NFL game with parity, Archie might have been enough difference to make his team a winner. It's hard to say.

I judge NFL QBs as a scout might only on their physical skill set. My position is that, while my method is incomplete, it's the only intelligent way to go about it. Here's a like to a recent thread which explains how I go about it and why if you're interested.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?373946-RG3-posts-the-highest-QBTG-ever

I would pay money to see the filing cabinet where you seem to have a grade for every QB since the mid-60s.

[deejaydana]

isnt oldfan the same clown who claims cutler is an elite qb??? dont give me crap about how bad campbell was against san fran, they would have done that against anyone that ngiht, they were playing inspired ball

Cutler's biggest short coming is his attitude, which has never been good really. His O-line is not very good either BUT I will say he very definitely is borderline elite. I also don't think a poster like Oldfan, with all the work he puts in, should be called a clown. At least the guy is adding some value to the board and he's clearly done some analysis and thought his information out. We're all entitled to our opinions here amigo.