The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[Oldfan]

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....

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.

Am I wrong in assuming that your purpose is to compare QBs in order to rank them? Although it's called a "Quaterback Rating," it really doen't do that. What it does is to tell you, for example, is that the performance of the Colts passing game with Manning at QB has been better than the performance of the Ravens passing game with Joe Flacco st QB. That's not what you want to know. Is it?

Peyton Manning and 22 of the teammates and coaches weigh 5,304 pounds. Joe Flacco and 22 of his teammates weigh 5,330 pounds. Who weighs more, Peyton or Joe? You can't tell because I gave you a useless number if you wanted to find out whether Peyton or Joe weighed more. The quarterback rating is a useless number for rating QBs, IMO.

If you want to find out which is the better QB then you need to separate them from their team and grade them independently.

I use the so-called Quarterback Rating as a rough guide to grade the passing game of a team. It's not a bad stat for that purpose.

[daveakl]

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.

Works for me

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.

In the late 90's the 7 v 7 wave was hitting Texas and started spreading across the south. I think we are now starting to see NFL players that grew up playing this style all off season as well as coaches that have been around it enough to really work it into the NFL game. The speed of the edge rushers on D has forced it in some ways also.

[Bishop Hammer]

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

The Colts didn't tank to get Luck. That makes no sense whatsoever. If it was some team conspiracy then the players and coaches didn't get the memo because they all got sacked. I don't care how much someone likes their job they're not going to get themselves fired so their company gets better leaving them without a paycheck. The Colts have virtually a new roster and coaching staff. Almost ALL of the team from last year is gone.

[darrelgreenie]

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.

Okay, but I was responding only to say that our offense isn't similar to NEs. Everything else you mentioned, while true, isn't the aspect of your post I was responding.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 06:02 PM ----------

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.

I agree that the zone-read or the (umbrella term) read-option concepts arre here to stay. If a team has a QB capable of executing read-option it will be a weapon cutting edge teams use to augment their offense. And I find it ironic that Tebow helped teams see the viablilty of read-option concepts in the NFL.

[daveakl]

Okay, but I was responding only to say that our offense isn't similar to NEs. Everything else you mentioned, while true, isn't the aspect of your post I was responding.

I said that what we are running is the next step from what NE has been running the past few years. Not that what we are running is what they are/have been.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 11:10 PM ----------

I agree that the zone-read or the (umbrella term) read-option concepts arre here to stay. If a team has a QB capable of executing read-option it will be a weapon cutting edge teams use to augment their offense. And I find it ironic that Tebow helped teams see the viablilty of read-option concepts in the NFL.

I think coaches saw them win and thought, what if we had a QB that could do that but actually throw the ball well. lol

[skinnyskins]

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.

Yes, I can tell if a QB is under pressure. If they are under pressure on a play when they throw into triple coverage then that would not count against them as much as if they threw into triple coverage with a clean pocket. Over time, it is easy to see a pattern develop that can tell you if they constantly make bad decisions or not. Combined with other factors, such as penalties, calling audibles and their success, etc.. it is possible to get a good idea of the competency of a QB. Like I said, it's not a perfect measure, but it's better than not including it at all.

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.

I never said anything about leadership. But, it should be taken into account by the best means possible.

[darrelgreenie]

I said that what we are running is the next step from what NE has been running the past few years. Not that what we are running is what they are/have been.

I'm curious how would you describe our offense and how would you view NEs offense and what do you think makes our offense the next step from their offense?

[DogofWar1]

Am I wrong in assuming that your purpose is to compare QBs in order to rank them? Although it's called a "Quaterback Rating," it really doen't do that. What it does is to tell you, for example, is that the performance of the Colts passing game with Manning at QB has been better than the performance of the Ravens passing game with Joe Flacco st QB. That's not what you want to know. Is it?

Peyton Manning and 22 of the teammates and coaches weigh 5,304 pounds. Joe Flacco and 22 of his teammates weigh 5,330 pounds. Who weighs more, Peyton or Joe? You can't tell because I gave you a useless number if you wanted to find out whether Peyton or Joe weighed more. The quarterback rating is a useless number for rating QBs, IMO.

I use it as a rough guide to grade the passing game of a team. It's not a bad stat for that purpose.

If I wanted to rank QBs I'd just have grabbed the highest rated QBs of the past decade or so. Then I might have compared team records over their periods, and seen what the correlation was (my guess is it would be a positive correlation, but I don't have that data on hand).

Rather, since the goal is consistent playoff appearances, I tried to see what each team that consistently made the playoffs had at the QB position, whether it was stable or not, and what the ratings of the QBs were. The results were that the average QB for a consistent playoff team is "similar" to Matt Ryan.

Ideally, we would get the QB rating of every QB since 2000, and then compare that to the record of their team, playoff appearances, etc., and then of course grab all the data concerning defenses, and also try and grade Olines and WR corps, weighing them all, etc. etc. but the amount of data you'd have to go through would be tremendous.

That's why I mentioned that WR corps, and to a lesser extent I think, the Oline, play a role in the success of a QB, but it's very tough to be certain, especially with WRs, whether the QB makes the WRs or the WRs make the QB. Take AA for example, he had very good stats in 2010, and yet now can't even stick with a team. McNabb's ability to throw deep made him, instead of him making McNabb. For another quick example, take Blackmon and Gabbert/Henne. Blackmon did next to nothing before Henne got in there, he alone couldn't help Gabbert. Now, with Henne, Blackmon is playing much better. It's probably a combination of both, but tough to weigh the impact either has. I think ultimately the QB plays far and away the largest role in the success of a team's passing game, which is why I felt that passer rating was a decent metric to use.

And again, while defenses definitely play a role in consistent success, there seems to be a wall that they run into with QBs who play below a certain level.

[daveakl]

I'm curious how would you describe our offense and how would you view NEs offense and what do you think makes our offense the next step from their offense?

(trying to be super simple here and not get into a long winded response) I think NE started with the Erhardt- Perkins as it's base. Then with the addition of Moss and Welker they lost some of their power running aspects, removed the FB, and went more 5 pass catchers using the short pass as the power run. Picking up 3-5 yards through the air was just as good and Brady is accurate enough to make that work. With Gronk and Hernandez I think they were moving back this year towards a two TE set with two WR's and a RB who actually was more of a power back then the woodhead mold of the past few years.

While we are def not based off the Erhardt style, I think we took what NE and FL have been doing and combined them to make what they jokingly called "East Coast Offense". You see the zone read, short bubble screens, quick slants, play action deep, option, as well as toss sweeps.

[Oldfan]

...9.3% man why do people want to put so many numbers to a game - that is so variable ...

My purpose is to communicate better. If I had said that the QB position is the most important, but still a minor factor, you wouldn't know how much of a minor factor.

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 ?

No.

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 ?

No.

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 ....

Gosselin was very careful to compare college and NFL. He's a writer. He used those percentages just as I did to better communicate with his readers.

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 .

I didn't understand what you were trying to say.

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 .

My OP wasn't a model intended for that purpose.

- 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 .

He calls the play and hands off on a run. He is more intimately involved with the passing game -- and not at all with the coaching, the defense or the special teams.

- 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 .

Of course.

- 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

Yes, so there's an offset in those factors.

- 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 .

Of course. Are we going to go through the entire game of football?

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 .

The defense is mainly to keep the opponent from scoring. If the team gets behind on the scoreboard, the QB often has to take risks to catch up and ends up looking very bad.

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 ...

.

Repetition of point previously made.

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 .

Read this again from the OP.

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.

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

May I assume that if that 75% was anything more than something you pulled out of your ass, you would have offered reasons to support it just as I did?

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 06:45 PM ----------

...That's why I mentioned that WR corps, and to a lesser extent I think, the Oline, play a role in the success of a QB, but it's very tough to be certain, especially with WRs, whether the QB makes the WRs or the WRs make the QB. Take AA for example, he had very good stats in 2010, and yet now can't even stick with a team. McNabb's ability to throw deep made him, instead of him making McNabb. For another quick example, take Blackmon and Gabbert/Henne. Blackmon did next to nothing before Henne got in there, he alone couldn't help Gabbert. Now, with Henne, Blackmon is playing much better. It's probably a combination of both, but tough to weigh the impact either has. I think ultimately the QB plays far and away the largest role in the success of a team's passing game, which is why I felt that passer rating was a decent metric to use....

Teamwork makes a difference to all players involved. Kurt Warner could lob passes into double coverage knowing that Larry Fitgerald could come down with it or, at the least, knock it down. For any other QB, he pass would have been labeled a bad read and a likely INT for the passer. How do you take Warner's QB rating and then try to compare it to other QBs who don't have a Fitzgerald to throw to? And Fitzgerald's production will go down without Warner to lob him passes.

Teamwork is a two-way street.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 06:53 PM ----------

Yes, I can tell if a QB is under pressure. If they are under pressure on a play when they throw into triple coverage then that would not count against them as much as if they threw into triple coverage with a clean pocket. Over time, it is easy to see a pattern develop that can tell you if they constantly make bad decisions or not. Combined with other factors, such as penalties, calling audibles and their success, etc.. it is possible to get a good idea of the competency of a QB. Like I said, it's not a perfect measure, but it's better than not including it at all.

Well then, you should include those intangibles in your grading.

I never said anything about leadership. But, it should be taken into account by the best means possible.

Even if you can't define it, can't see it, and don't know whether the QB actually has it or not?

[darrelgreenie]

(trying to be super simple here and not get into a long winded response) I think NE started with the Erhardt- Perkins as it's base. Then with the addition of Moss and Welker they lost some of their power running aspects, removed the FB, and went more 5 pass catchers using the short pass as the power run. Picking up 3-5 yards through the air was just as good and Brady is accurate enough to make that work. With Gronk and Hernandez I think they were moving back this year towards a two TE set with two WR's and a RB who actually was more of a power back then the woodhead mold of the past few years.

While we are def not based off the Erhardt style, I think we took what NE and FL have been doing and combined them to make what they jokingly called "East Coast Offense". You see the zone read, short bubble screens, quick slants, play action deep, option, as well as toss sweeps.

I disagree, I'm struggling to see how our offense is an evolution from their offenses.

Our offense is currently a balanced offense that seldom uses spread formations. Most of our plays comes from typical base formations (I-Form, Offset I etc.) except Griffin is in shotgun making it appear as exotic Pistol formation. We're have one of the most play-action oriented passing offenses. We seldom use 5 pass catchers and seldom use a short passing in leiu of a run. We don't use up tempo or no huddle often. We don't feature multiple TEs in our base offense nor as part of the passing game. We do very little drop back passing unless there is some run/play action attached.

[daveakl]

I disagree, I'm struggling to see how our offense is an evolution from their offenses.

Our offense is currently a balanced offense that seldom uses spread formations. Most of our plays comes from typical base formations (I-Form, Offset I etc.) except Griffin is in shotgun making it appear as exotic Pistol formation. We're have one of the most play-action oriented passing offenses. We seldom use 5 pass catchers and seldom use a short passing in leiu of a run. We don't use up tempo or no huddle often. We don't feature multiple TEs in our base offense nor as part of the passing game. We do very little drop back passing unless there is some run/play action attached.

It's not as much about the formation as it is the concept. We have 5 pass catchers on the field at a time more often then not (we just don't operate out of a spread as much). Many times it's multiple pass catchers in the backfield (Moss or Banks). The spread portion was great for NE in putting up points, but did not get SB victories as better defenses were able to knock the WR's off the short routes and NE couldn't run the ball. I also think we will move to having more spread formations as our O-Line improves in blocking for longer developing pass plays without having to keep more blockers in and less people in routes.

[DogofWar1]

Teamwork makes a difference to all players involved. Kurt Warner could lob passes into double coverage knowing that Larry Fitgerald could come down with it or, at the least, knock it down. For any other QB, he pass would have been labeled a bad read and a likely INT for the passer. How do you take Warner's QB rating and then try to compare it to other QBs who don't have a Fitzgerald to throw to? And Fitzgerald's production will go down without Warner to lob him passes.

Teamwork is a two-way street.

Oh of course teamwork is a two way street, but Kurt Warner won a SB, and led the Rams to another SB game before Fitzgerald was even out of high school. Warner was really really good, as he played well across his entire career in multiple places, and he was the highest rated QB of all the QBs who did not consistently make the playoffs since 2000.

The thing is, look at the Cardinals with Warner and Fitzgerald, and then look at the Cardinals with Kolb/Skelton and Fitzgerald. Same top WR, different QB. The team's record plunged, and despite having probably the #1 or #2 WR in the NFL, Kolb and Skelton aren't performing well, their career QB ratings are 79 and 66 respectively.

It's true that everything interlocks on offenses, but over periods of multiple years franchise QBs perform consistently well while poor QBs will stumble at various points, and eventually be exposed, and the rest of the offense usually can do little to help them.

Cassel has Dwayne Bowe, Jamaal Charles, and has been sacked 25th most times in the league. I'd say that his support system is pretty decent. Maybe, not great, but decent enough. Meanwhile, his QB rating is 66, with a 6-12 TD/INT. Or turnover machine Vick. Guy has Jackson, Maclin, McCoy and Celek, and yet throws INTs like party favors. And that's before we get to his fumbles.

Again, everything is a correlation, and trying to tie it back to causation is incredibly difficult, but the point I'm making is that when you look at a playoff team, and especially at consistent playoff teams, you see teams with all manners of defenses, running games, Olines, WR corps, etc. but one thing that tends to hold constant is that the QB is good.

Generally you do need more than a QB to be a consistent playoff contender, but you NEED the QB before anything else.

It's worth reiterating that I don't think a QB is 75% of the value of a team's success, but I don't think it's 10% either. I would argue for somewhere between 20%-40%, depending on scheme, strength of defense, running game, etc., and probably averaging around 33% for the league as a whole.

[Oldfan]

...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

You squeezed everything else down to make the QB worth 45% but you have a problem. You have the offense including the QB totalling 65% and the defense at 20%. In order to make that make sense, you will have to explain how scoring seven points is so much more important than keeping the opponent from scoring seven points. In other words, offense and defense have to have equal weight.

[Art]

Oldfan, I have to credit you with a willingness to engage in a conversation and debate your point.

No matter how wrong you are .

Good stuff.

[skinfan2k]

This simply is taking into consideration the percentage of the plays that the QB is involved and not the magnitude of the plays that the QB is involved in which has an impact on every other single play in the game.

[Oldfan]

Oh of course teamwork is a two way street, but Kurt Warner won a SB, and led the Rams to another SB game before Fitzgerald was even out of high school.

Warner's career is much like Jeff Garcia's. They are examples of how dependent a QB's performance is on his support. Warner was up and down. He lost his starting job in New York and played mostly a backup role for two seasons in St. Louis before hooking up with Fitzgerald and Boldin.

The thing is, look at the Cardinals with Warner and Fitzgerald, and then look at the Cardinals with Kolb/Skelton and Fitzgerald.

Did I say the QB position isn't important? Or that all QBs are equal?

It's true that everything interlocks on offenses, but over periods of multiple years franchise QBs perform consistently well while poor QBs will stumble at various points, and eventually be exposed, and the rest of the offense usually can do little to help them.

I don't know what a franchise QB is. I've asked the question twice recently and got five definitions -- all different.

A high-grade QB can make a big difference, but not 40% 50% 75% or anything even close to those numbers.

Again, everything is a correlation, and trying to tie it back to causation is incredibly difficult, but the point I'm making is that when you look at a playoff team, and especially at consistent playoff teams, you see teams with all manners of defenses, running games, Olines, WR corps, etc. but one thing that tends to hold constant is that the QB is good.

If you look at good teams, the QB's performance looks good -- but you have no idea by looking at his performance how he compares to other QBs.

The support system might allow the QB to play at 90% of his potential or 70%. You have no idea by watching his perormance.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 10:54 PM ----------

Oldfan, I have to credit you with a willingness to engage in a conversation and debate your point.

No matter how wrong you are .

Good stuff.

:pfft:

What NFL Football needs is a good dose of sabremetrics, a way to actually grade a QB that is statistically sound. That would be an eye opener.

Last week I read an opinion that Eli Manning should now be considered elite since he had won two Super Bowls. The flaw in that logic made my eyes cross. But the author of that opinion wasn't some clueless poster in the Stadium. It was Brian Billick blogging for the NFL.

I went back to find it. The article was still there, but it had been edited. No mention of Eli.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 11:09 PM ----------

This simply is taking into consideration the percentage of the plays that the QB is involved and not the magnitude of the plays that the QB is involved in which has an impact on every other single play in the game.

How would one go about measuring the magnitude a play? And, if you're saying that passes have a greater magnitude, wouldn't the defenses stop of the opponent's passing game be of equal magnitude?

[Mahons21]

Shot in the dark here OF, but something tells me you're a big fan of Nate Silver.

I've actually been thinking about going back to school at either UMD or Hopkins to get a masters in applied economics, certainly an interesting topic.

[mudhog]

So if Griffin goes out, the Redskins 90.7% as good with Cousins under center?

So, Henry finally gets to the crux of the matter. It's all semantics. We know the drop-off from RGIII to cousins is more than 9.3%. And we think, that the 75% and 85% that Oldfan gave us in the OP are a little high. Therefore, it's gotta fall somewhere in between.

We know damn well, the drop-off between RGIII and Cousins will be way more than 10%. Just as we know pulling Cutler out of the Bears scheme and plugging Campbell, would be more. Campbell and Cousins are both back-ups(one with more experience to one with more talent), but I predict that the fall-off in production/wins for Cousins would be much less due to the fact he is more inately talented. Therefore, we have something immeasurable, as in the OP.

Now, if you pulled Brady out of his scheme and plugged in RGIII, you would probably have a drop-off in production/wins, but it wouldn't be due to lack of talent. Lack of experience in a scheme obviously. But, I would have to say that RGIII is way more talented than Brady. Thus, another immeasurable.

Lastly, if you remove RGIII and plug in Grossman, the defensive scheme changes and we get a drop in production/wins. Just because of what RGIII could do with his legs, means we will face a different Giants D this Monday, than Rogers did Sunday night. Again, immeasurable. Again, it must be explained away in the best possible language at the time.

Do I agree with the OP, that 75% and 85% sound a little high? Yes. But, at the same time, I am not willing to put such a low-ball percentage on it as Oldfan. A good quarterback is just too integral to the performance and success of any organization.

Hail

[SWFLSkins]

RGIII IS our team.

I don't know what percentage you'd like to put on that but the percentage of doing much of anything decreases immeasurably without him. We have a line for one that's getting great praise, but is still an average to below average unit aside from Williams and maybe Lichtensteiger. All being made to look considerably better than they are thanks to #10. (And in part great scheming to utilize 10's unique talents.).

And I'm still convinced without Robert, Shanahan would of seen it all unravel after the Carolina debacle, and his ridiculous comments afterward. IMHO, and opinion is all we have as we're all on the outside looking in, Robert held it all together by his tremendous example the players all believe in over the bye. Not the coaching staff.

As regards this team, right now, I honestly don't think you can understate the importance of RGIII. Nor do I think you can over inflate him as regards a percentage number. On whatever scale you wish to use.

Hail.

I think and walk with me for a second, Shanahan knows more about motivating guys then you give him credit for GHH. He said Carolina was a must win, the team came out flat at home and laid an egg. He, like the fans was really pissed. Besides it didn't backfire did it?

He masterfully made those comments and then regressed, I maybe alone but I don't think it was a mistake by him. You must remember this is a guy known for his cunning use of the media and words. He speaks little but says much. I don't think it goes against his plan to fire the team up by mistake and have them rally round Robert.

[Oldfan]

Shot in the dark here OF, but something tells me you're a big fan of Nate Silver.

I've actually been thinking about going back to school at either UMD or Hopkins to get a masters in applied economics, certainly an interesting topic.

In thinking style, I'm a self-described futurist. I make predictions. So, while I wouldn't call myself his big fan, I'm fascinated by what Nate Silver and others like him are doing.

A Math guy giving a Ted Talk said that Math Ed should be ultimately aimed at Probability and Statistics rather than Calculus. As a card-carrying pragmatist, I agree. Most decisions involve selecting the option with the highest probability of success and statistics can help identify the right option.

Maybe you already know that Bill Belichik and Ernie Adams majored in Economics. I've read that Adams employed an economist (Sackrowitz) to study the two-point conversion; and Belichik was reportedly was the only NFL coach to take seriously economist David Romer's study which criticized NFL coaches for not going for it more often on fourth down in plus territory. I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg up in Foxboro.

With an understanding of very basic economics, anyone could have predicted that the Gibbs strategy of trading picks for veterans and going aggressively into free agency was 180 degrees wrong and likely to fail. I raised the issue in this forum explaining that the draft was a closed market and free agency was an open market. I then explained the implications. A few months later, an economist published an online article comparing the Redskins' approach to the Patriots. He came to the same conclusion I did using the jargon of an economist. He added that, if the Skins didn't have a monopoly on the game in Washington, they would be going bankrupt.

If it's possible for you, I'd encourage a pursuit in this field. It's the future.

---------- Post added November-28th-2012 at 10:52 AM ----------

So, Henry finally gets to the crux of the matter. It's all semantics. We know the drop-off from RGIII to cousins is more than 9.3%. And we think, that the 75% and 85% that Oldfan gave us in the OP are a little high. Therefore, it's gotta fall somewhere in between.

Several posters, including you and Henry, did not understand this paragraph from the OP:

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.

What this means is that the value of the position would surely go down because Shanahan could not ask Cousins to do the same things the scheme required of RG3. He would compensate with a different game plan.

However, the most important thing you are missing is that the value of the position and the talent grade of the QB are two different numbers. Raising the issue of Cousins coming in for RG3 is not relevant in our discussion.

I added this to the OP. It might help to explain the concept:

Example:

The value of a specific NFL team's QB position is 10% based on a pocket passer averaging 35 throws per game. Using a scale of five to grade the talent of pocket passers, an average one is a three. The top grade passer is a five.

So, .10 X 3 = .30 and .10 X 5 = .50

However, for this discussion, you must understand that we are only concerned with estimating the value of the position, .10 in this example. So, QB grades on his talent are not relevant.

---------- Post added November-28th-2012 at 10:59 AM ----------

I think and walk with me for a second, Shanahan knows more about motivating guys then you give him credit for GHH. He said Carolina was a must win, the team came out flat at home and laid an egg. He, like the fans was really pissed. Besides it didn't backfire did it?

He masterfully made those comments and then regressed, I maybe alone but I don't think it was a mistake by him. You must remember this is a guy known for his cunning use of the media and words. He speaks little but says much. I don't think it goes against his plan to fire the team up by mistake and have them rally round Robert.

It's more likely that Mike just stuck his foot in his mouth again.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I think and walk with me for a second, Shanahan knows more about motivating guys then you give him credit for GHH. He said Carolina was a must win, the team came out flat at home and laid an egg. He, like the fans was really pissed. Besides it didn't backfire did it?

He masterfully made those comments and then regressed, I maybe alone but I don't think it was a mistake by him. You must remember this is a guy known for his cunning use of the media and words. He speaks little but says much. I don't think it goes against his plan to fire the team up by mistake and have them rally round Robert.

Sorry man, not buying it for a second. You may be right. I may be a million miles wrong.

But there's NO way you'll convince me, even with a gun to my head, those words were a premeditated attempt to motivate his players. Nor do I think it doesn't ALL fall apart were it not for the leadership and motivation by example of 10. A player every other fully believes in to see them through.

Shanahan's done a lot of good here. He's also done a lot of bad. The Carolina debacle was just the latest of the bad. He's one lucky ass coach it stabilized after that IMHO. And he should be thanking God nightly for 10.

And with the bad and mistakes that continue to go along with the good, I think it's perfectly reasonable and justified when anyone wants to have a debate on him. Sadly, too many B&G blinkered 'homers' do not and often shout the loudest.

Hail.

[wrecker]

Sorry man, not buying it for a second. You may be right. I may be a million miles wrong.

But there's NO way you'll convince me, even with a gun to my head, those words were a premeditated attempt to motivate his players. Nor do I think it doesn't ALL fall apart were it not for the leadership and motivation by example of 10. A player every other fully believes in to see them through.

Shanahan's done a lot of good here. He's also done a lot of bad. The Carolina debacle was just the latest of the bad. He's one lucky ass coach it stabilized after that IMHO. And he should be thanking God nightly for 10.

And with the bad and mistakes that continue to go along with the good, I think it's perfectly reasonable and justified when anyone wants to have a debate on him. Sadly, too many B&G blinkered 'homers' do not and often shout the loudest.

Hail.

I agree with this 100%.

[DogofWar1]

I think I like Shanahan a little bit more than GHH does, but I think he has a point.

With all the injuries we've had, and the total collapse of the defense, this is the kind of situation where coaches lose control of everything, and the team ends up 2-14 or something, and the coach gets fired.

If our team is perfectly healthy with Grossman (or Tannehill, or whoever we have if we don't have RGIII) under center, I think we compete for 8-8, maybe 9-7. But with our injuries, without #10, we'd be lucky to get anywhere close to 5-11. So in that respect, Shanahan is very lucky.

It was a very good thing for him to move up and get his guy then. I was a proponent of giving Shanahan 4 years to find success (and his QB) provided he could keep his head above water. Clearly, without RGIII, that would not have happened. Good move by him, but also a lucky one.

On a separate note, I'm working on this big stat database that going to try and put some numbers behind my usual eye-balling. In the end, I'm hoping to have a range of approximate value of the QB position on average for the league. It won't be exact (nothing ever is), but I'm hoping to be able to show correlations, strong, weak, non-existent, etc, and make conclusions based on that. That will probably take a few days though.

[Mania]

This simply is taking into consideration the percentage of the plays that the QB is involved and not the magnitude of the plays that the QB is involved in which has an impact on every other single play in the game.

bingo