The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[skinnyskins]

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 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

A scout would never judge a QB solely on physical skill. The mental aspect of a QB is, I would argue, the most important aspect that separates a high caliber NFL QB from the rest. You even admit your method is incomplete. And, it is not intelligent to throw out very important aspects of model that grades QB's even if it is difficult to judge. Every player that enters the NFL is physically talented. The ones that have their head right and can make good decisions are the ones that are successful.

[Oldfan]

....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. ...

I agree. He can improve on those areas. However, I expect defenses to game plan as they do for Romo sits to pee. Keep him in the pocket.

Unlike Romo sits to pee, I think Robert will do well throwing from the pocket, but not AS WELL as he does on the move --especially with that smaller O-line which can't pass protect as well as they run block.

[jly0784]

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.

i say clown cause he doesnt even acknowledge or consider anyone elses point of view, its either his way or your dead wrong, no ifs ands or buts.... and as far as cutler being elite... 130 tds - 97 ints, and hes only made the playoffs once.... hes above average at best, cant even compare him to either manning, brady, brees, or rodgers, hell even big ben.... those guys are leaders, and have proven to be elite

[Oldfan]

A scout would never judge a QB solely on physical skill. The mental aspect of a QB is, I would argue, the most important aspect that separates a high caliber NFL QB from the rest. You even admit your method is incomplete. And, it is not intelligent to throw out very important aspects of model that grades QB's even if it is difficult to judge. Every player that enters the NFL is physically talented. The ones that have their head right and can make good decisions are the ones that are successful.

You can't see the mental aspects of a QB. It's foolish to try to grade them. (exception: ordinary intelligence can be measured)

If you have a way to do it from a fan's perspective, let me know. I'd be happy to add the mental game if the grading makes sense.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 04:42 PM ----------

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

The filing cabinet is a brain. When I use the word "grade," I'm using it figuratively. I remember skill sets of notable QBs going way back.

[skinnyskins]

You can't see the mental aspects of a QB. It's foolish to try to grade them. (exception: ordinary intelligence can be measured)

If you have a way to do it from a fan's perspective, let me know. I'd be happy to add the mental game if the grading makes sense.

Although it is not a perfect indicator of intelligence, some of these factors could be considered when making a 'grade'. These are fairly easy to see and focus on the decision making of a QB. 1) If a QB has a history of making mental errors (i.e. throwing into triple coverage, missing open receivers, bad penalties) 2) if they have poor game management (i.e. delay of game penalties, poor clock management) 3) If they effectively audible into productive plays, Im sure there are more as well but these can be seen and graded as effectively as judging mechanics.

[Oldfan]

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%.

That's about right.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 04:55 PM ----------

Although it is not a perfect indicator of intelligence' date=' some of these factors could be considered when making a 'grade'. These are fairly easy to see and focus on the decision making of a QB. 1) If a QB has a history of making mental errors (i.e. throwing into triple coverage, missing open receivers, bad penalties) 2) if they have poor game management (i.e. delay of game penalties, poor clock management) 3) If they effectively audible into productive plays, Im sure there are more as well but these can be seen and graded as effectively as judging mechanics.[/quote']Sorry, my friend. I read posters claiming to be able to grade those things and it usually ends up being a biased view. Their favorite QBs get praised for being great at those things and they slam QBs they don't like.

Only someone like the OC, who knows what the QB's assignment was, and who to blame, can do the job fairly.

[skinnyskins]

That's about right.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 04:55 PM ----------

Sorry, my friend. I read posters claiming to be able to grade those things and it usually ends up being a biased view. Their favorite QBs get praised for being great at those things and they slam QBs they don't like.

Only someone like the OC, who knows what the QB's assignment was, and who to blame, can do the job fairly.

Even if that were true, and it's entirely dependent on the individual, it's still much better than ignoring the mental aspect of a QBs responsibilities altogether. And you don't need to be the OC to see if the QB threw into tripe coverage, missed an open receiver, got called on a delay of game, caused a stupid penalty, etc..

[Est.1974]

That's about right.

Thanks. I thought so too...

[Oldfan]

Even if that were true, and it's entirely dependent on the individual, it's still much better than ignoring the mental aspect of a QBs responsibilities altogether. And you don't need to be the OC to see if the QB threw into tripe coverage, missed an open receiver, got called on a delay of game, caused a stupid penalty, etc..

All QBs make more mistakes when pressured. So, you're grading the QB who plays for team A and comparing him to the QB who plays for team B -- and you notice that A's QB makes fewer mistakes. Is it because he isn't pressured as much as the other guy? You can't tell.

Then you have scouts offering opinions on leadership. The most common comment on Jason Campbell's scouting report was that he was a natural leader. What is leadership? Can you define it in a football context?

I believe that if QB can throw a football accurately in high pressure situations, his teammates will follow him If he can't they won't.

[daveakl]

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' date=' 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']

Prob not the right thread for this and I do not want to get off topic here but I think you are seeing the future of our offense, not something that is "gimmicky". I also think this is the future of the NFL. Watch what San Fran is doing now. Scary how much speed they are amassing at skill spots (just like us). Would love to see a new thread about the future of NFL offenses as a reaction to the speed rushers that more and more teams have on the edge.

[DogofWar1]

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.

Well, how everyone defines "franchise" QB will differ. There's a rough dividing line that usually pops up in the 80s of the passer rating. Of course, passer rating isn't a perfect measure, but when looked at across a career, it can give a pretty solid idea. The problem is that there isn't a hard and fast set of numbers one can use. There's no hard and fast TD-INT line, or Comp. % mark, or anything like that. It's sort of a estimated thing, but usually you can look at a QB's career stats, and make a judgement call of if they were a good QB or not. For my purposes, I'll be using QB rating, not because it's perfect, but because it's the best comprehensive measure without delving into a whole ton of stat categories that would require pages and pages to sift through.

Anyways, it might be better just to list them.

Teams that managed 3 playoff appearances in any 5 year stretch since 2000 (it actually wasn't the last ten years, rather I had used 2000 before) are:

Indy, Baltimore, Denver, New Orleans, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Tennessee, NYG, NYJ, New England, Seattle, Green Bay, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Dallas.

There's a few more teams likely to join that group within the next couple years. Houston (Schaub), Chicago (Cutler), San Francisco (Smith and maybe Kaepernick), and Cincinnati (Dalton) are all contending this year and have one within the last two years. Detroit (Stafford) too possibly, though something weird got lost in translation from last year to this.

Anyways, of those teams, the QBs on board when they went were (* indicates they won 3 on their own) plus their career QB rating:

Indy - Manning* - 95.4

Baltimore - Flacco* - 86.1

Denver - Plummer* - 74.6

NO - Brees* - 94.4

St. Louis - Warner - 93.7/Bulger - 84.4

Philly - McNabb* - 85.6

Tampa - King - 73.4/Johnson - 82.5

Oakland - Gannon* - 84.7

Tenn - McNair* - 82.8

NYG - Collins - 73.8/Manning* - 82.2

NYJ - Pennington - 90.1, Testaverde - 75, Sanchez - 72.8

NE - Brady* - 97

Seattle - Hasselback* - 82.2

Green Bay - Farve* - 86/Rodgers* - 104.7

Atlanta - Ryan* - 89.4

Pittsburgh - Stewart - 70.7/Big Ben* - 92.8

San Diego - Rivers* - 94.8

Dallas - Romo sits to pee* - 95.3

So anyways, of the 18 teams that managed the playoffs consistently, 15 had individual QBs responsible for 3 plus appearances. Meanwhile 6 had some combination of QBs. Obviously that adds up to more than 18 because some teams had a QBs who got them an appearance or two, and were then replaced by a QB who got them 3 on their own (Stewart/BigBen and Collins/Manning, and than Farve/Rodgers who both got 3+ appearances on their own).

Average rating of 16 QBs who managed 3 playoff appearances on their own: 89.25

Average rating of 9 QBs who were a part of 3 appearances, but not on their own: 79.6

Now, just for the sake of a reference point, the closest QB to the average for a QB managing playoffs consistently is Matt Ryan (89.4 rating vs. 89.25 average). Now, obviously Ryan has that annoying tendency to choke in the postseason, but beyond that he's a great regular season QB, and most teams would love to have a guy like him.

The immediate argument that comes up against QBs is usually that defense wins championships, or something like that, and that QBs can sort of limp along. However, if that was the case, one would think we'd see some QBs who had 3+ appearances in the 70s, but that's not the case, the only QB in the 70s is Plummer. (It's probably worth noting that Alex Smith has a career rating of 79, and despite efficient play would probably average around there for his career, if not slightly higher than 80)

Now, let's not discount defense, because there's a couple guys like Eli and McNair who had low 80s but managed 3 appearances on their own, so defense definitely plays a role. That being said, there appears to be a wall around 80 (Plummer being the exception) for consistent playoff appearances.

Also, from a QB's perspective, defense can help win games, but it's rarely going to make a huge difference in a QB's play, a poor QB will still make mistakes regardless of how good the defense is.

The better argument against QBs is that offensive talent outside of QB leads to inflated ratings, mainly through talented WRs. Oline isn't a huge factor, because again, a poor passer is a poor passer is a poor passer, and all the time in the world won't change that. They might play "better," but better probably means in the 70s vs. the 50s. Oline is a skill multiplier, but the skill has to be there first.

So the key argument remaining is that QBs are inflated by solid surrounding weapons, not their own abilities, and honestly we could probably argue that back and forth until we're blue in the face, so I'll stop now, since I sort of have a wall of text already.

EDIT: Oh thank goodness, I hit post and it gave that service unavailable page, and was really worried that my wall of text would be lost .

[daveakl]

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.

Or is our "gimmicky" offense more a representation of the next step from what NE has been running the past few years. We can go into more detail in another thread if you like.

[Mahons21]

Or is our "gimmicky" offense more a representation of the next step from what NE has been running the past few years. We can go into more detail in another thread if you like.

I don't think our offense is very similar to NEs at all. Furthermore, they attempted to move towards a 2 te single back formation that resembles more traditional offenses, but injuries got in the way.

If you'd like to open up another thread about it that's fine.

[Burgold]

I don't think our offense is very similar to NEs at all. Furthermore, they attempted to move towards a 2 te single back formation that resembles more traditional offenses, but injuries got in the way.

If you'd like to open up another thread about it that's fine.

In a way though, Logan Paulson is more valuable than Davis.

I think because defensive coordinators decided they needed to account for Davis because of his speed, but Paulson doesn't... Paulson is much easier lost because people need to concentrate on Robinson, Garcon, et al.

At any rate, that's my explanation for him getting so wide open and making so many big plays for us in recent weeks.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

The larger O-line question is: What will Mike do if defenses become adept at keeping Robert in the pocket as they try to do with Romo sits to pee? I have no doubt that RG3 can pass from the pocket, but that smaller O-line isn't very good at protecting him.

Not to take your thread in another, all be it semi related direction again my good man; but that is indeed the question and one that's been nagging away at me all year.

It's good to see someone else agrees on the line that has been WAY over hyped on here of late to the point of some posters actually suggesting it's good enough to go forward with. Totally neglecting the part the genius in the 10 shirt and some highly inventive, oft confusing for the opposition play calling has played in making 3-4 of the group look a whole bunch better than they actually are.

But I won't detract from the QB any further and return you to the topic at hand.

Hail.

[bedlamVR]

... wait what ?

9.3% man why do people want to put so many numbers to a game - that is so variable ... if the QB is (for the sake of easy maths .. 10%) of the teams composition then does that mean the starter should consume 10% of the teams resources so 10% of the salary cap and 10% of the draft picks should go find to a starting QB (1 full years worth of drafts in 10) or is it something that no so simple ?

Also without a QB - and i mean any QB then the team should be 90% effective - So a team that wins 10 games a season would win 9 games a season without the QB ?

And I have read the thread points and counter points and I get the point . People emotionally pulls a number out his ass (75%) and you sat down to disprove this ass stat wrong - with the devil of all tools - statistics ....

You also break it down that all the players are trained to the schemes like little robots - and so have a quantifiable value in terms of a win - but the thing is - they don't have equal value in a win . Some players contribution no matter how well they play their position in the scheme - All they can do is make sure the team does not loose .

But the other problem I have with the OP and counter points is - the QB might only account 10% (i like easy math) for the win in his physical attributes and abilities - but maths cannot begin to model what it takes to make a team win or loose .

- In very loose terms if the QB is the brain of the team, he sends out orders to get the offense to work properly . He translates the orders and the schemes of the coaches on the field - he reads the defense and audibles to alert the team to the defense . Everything works through the QB .

- The offensive line blocks - but they can only protect a QB of he has some awareness of what they are doing - They can move the pocket but the QB has to take advantage of the blocks otherwise they have no value .

- The RB can take the ball and run - making the play with little contribution from the QB - HOWEVER just as the run sets up the pass the pass sets up the run - if the QB is ineffective then the RB has a high probability to become effective as defenders cheat up to the line and the RB becomes less effective

- WR and TES can help out QB by running crisp routes, being on the same page on option plays and making plays on the ball plucking the errant ball out the air - but no matter who your WR or TE is they are not going to have an impact without the throws of the QB .

The defense can score - but seriously - what team has ever made the superbowl with more defensive points than offensive points . Equally the special teams can score but their sole purpose is to make the game more difficult for the opposing offenses and winning the land war for field position for the offense to take over .

Also outside the center the QB has the ball in his hands on more plays than anyone else in the game . And as such has the biggest oportunity to mess up and help the team loose ....

And this is where I think the OP has missed the point in the original ass stat of 75% he went to disprove . There was no math or advanced reasoning behind the number - but as much as an impact the QB has positively in terms of winning a game (which can be semi quantified in terms of passes and completions etc) he can also have a massive negative effect on the team ...if the QB has a horrible game then the chances of winning deminish remarkably no matter the scheme, no matter the other skill positions, the defense or the special teams, if the QB is not right then it is an uphill battle - it is possible to win even if the QB has an on field embolism - but it much much much harder .

In this regard - even though he is only one person - even though he only has the ball in his hand a specific number of times and only has to do so much - i think the 75% is much closer to the actual impact of the QB than the reasoned and calculated 9.3% in the OP

[daveakl]

I don't think our offense is very similar to NEs at all. Furthermore, they attempted to move towards a 2 te single back formation that resembles more traditional offenses, but injuries got in the way.

If you'd like to open up another thread about it that's fine.

Sounds like NE lol

Rumor has it that BB was tired of losing the playoffs the last few years and blamed it on not being able to run the ball, esp against better defenses. MS spent time at Florida (NCAA) and NE during his time out of coaching learning their offenses. I'm sure some of that info was shared with KS. The sheer amount of speed they are trying to put on the field at the same time (PG, AR, SM at WR and then FD and NP at TE) with RGIII and Morris in the backfield is outstanding. Having motion and formations that force mismatches are def. designed. What may look like a gimmick is very well thought out.

What is even more exciting is when RGIII has had more time with this group and looking at NFL defenses through game exp. The evolution of the NFL offense is here (and in SF, but that's a different story)

[Mahons21]

In a way though, Logan Paulson is more valuable than Davis.

I think because defensive coordinators decided they needed to account for Davis because of his speed, but Paulson doesn't... Paulson is much easier lost because people need to concentrate on Robinson, Garcon, et al.

At any rate, that's my explanation for him getting so wide open and making so many big plays for us in recent weeks.

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't know that I'd say Paulsen is more valuable to Davis. Anyone that makes a DC scheme for them is more valuable then someone who doesn't, because you're already limiting what they can do. In addition you have to give Davis credit for the attention he takes that allows other guys to get open.

I think the Davis contract situation will be an interesting one to watch play out. What about you?

[DogofWar1]

At any rate, that's my explanation for him getting so wide open and making so many big plays for us in recent weeks.

Logan Paulson is a ninja.

[darrelgreenie]

Sounds like NE

NE (this season) borrowed hurry-up concepts and simple one word terminology from college to play faster i.e up tempo and run more plays per game but they still run a traditional NFL offense. I don't see how that is similar to our offense.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

..... I think the Davis contract situation will be an interesting one to watch play out. What about you?

Why would we not re-sign someone in their prime when we neither have anyone of that caliber at the position as of now; and would only have to wait for either Paul to fully develop or go out and pay the price for someone to fill his shoes?

I keep seeing this not only being asked, but floated by some as FreddieD being gone. Unless he's slipped and transgressed with the weed again that we don't know about, I don't get it.

Outside of 10, he's arguably the top play maker on the team.

Hail.

[Mahons21]

Sounds like NE lol

Rumor has it that BB was tired of losing the playoffs the last few years and blamed it on not being able to run the ball, esp against better defenses. MS spent time at Florida (NCAA) and NE during his time out of coaching learning their offenses. I'm sure some of that info was shared with KS. The sheer amount of speed they are trying to put on the field at the same time (PG, AR, SM at WR and then FD and NP at TE) with RGIII and Morris in the backfield is outstanding. Having motion and formations that force mismatches are def. designed. What may look like a gimmick is very well thought out.

I agree whole heartedly that the "gimmicky" offense is extremely well thought out. My point about the offense had been that it was based on mis-direction and confusion, largely due to the lack of talent we have across the line. I certainly wasn't try to criticize the offense, I think it's absolutely genius, one of the most impressive things I've seen regarding the evolution of NFL offenses.

What is even more exciting is when RGIII has had more time with this group and looking at NFL defenses through game exp. The evolution of the NFL offense is here (and in SF, but that's a different story)

I'm not entirely sure I believe that just yet. I could very easily see that being the case, but I could also see the pistol slowly fade away and that wouldn't surprise me either. The couple of plays I believe are here to stay ar the read-option and the QB draw from a spread formation.

[zCommander]

So to recap: OF watches football games in total enjoyment .01% of the time. For 99.9% he is "grading" the players, teams, coaches, etc... Matter of fact he even has a calculation of what % of the time Banks feet spend time going sideways compared to forward.

But seriously, I know what you are saying. Got it when you said the number assigned to QB can't be changed. So total "weight "of the QB is the same % wise but not talent wise. Talent will make a team win but the position itself is still assigned the importance of that position the same %.

[daveakl]

NE (this season) borrowed hurry-up concepts and simple one word terminology from college to play faster i.e up tempo and run more plays per game but they still run a traditional NFL offense. I don't see how that is similar to our offense.

A lot of what NE is doing isn't always based around snapping it faster. Their total plays per game is about the same as Detroit and Indy. They hurry to the line and force the D to keep the same personal on the field. If they sense a weakness then they will exploit it over and over through a faster snap, but otherwise they audible a ton after being set. If our D was better I think we would be running more up tempo. When RGIII has another year under his belt I think we will see a lot more of this also.

[Mahons21]

Why would we not re-sign someone in their prime when we neither have anyone of that caliber at the position as of now; and would only have to wait for either Paul to fully develop or go out and pay the price for someone to fill his shoes?

I keep seeing this not only being asked, but floated by some as FreddieD being gone. Unless he's slipped and transgressed with the weed again that we don't know about, I don't get it.

Outside of 10, he's arguably the top play maker on the team.

Hail.

I'm not advocating for him to be gone. However I don't think it's a certainty he remains here, and it's something I believe is worth monitoring. If you don't want to monitor it that's fine.