The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[Oldfan]

bingo

Can you define "magnitude" in this context for me? Give me an example of a play that would have greater average magnitude over a season.

[CGSKINS]

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 agree. We need to resign him ASAP. Dud is a stud who is coming into his own.

[Mad Mike]

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.

^ This.

If Griffin is not on this team we might still be looking for our first win. :doh:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I've been around the merry-go-round with OF many times on this.

I like the way he thinks. I like numbers. I like advanced stats.

The problem I have is that he is just pulling numbers out of thin air and demanding that we accept them.

That goofball with his QB prediction model may have been wrong, but at least - it seemed - that he was basing the math on something.

To me, the reason why RGIII is already the best QB in Redskins history and will make the Hall of Fame unless Shanahan freaking ruins him is his completion percentage combined with his YPA. The fact that he is so insanely accurate while throwing the ball downfield is astounding and is frankly something that has never been seen before. He is going to be better in the pocket than either Manning, Brady, Montana, or whoever else you want to throw out there. It won't matter what offensive scheme you put him in. Frankly, I wish we ran a different scheme, because I kind of hate this one and don't think it plays to his strengths at all.

The issue I have with RGIII is that I think people are misreading his strengths. Yes, he is probably already the greatest running QB of all time. The crazy thing, though, is that he is a better pocket passer than he is at anything else. He is Peyton Manning - if Peyton Manning just happened to have world class speed.

I would eliminate all the read-options and designed runs completely. I think that makes him easier to defend while putting him at unnecessary risk.

[Jumbo]

The problem I have is that he is just pulling numbers out of thin air and demanding that we accept them.

I don't think he demands acceptance of his arguments (or demands anything else).

I think that among a variety of things that entertain him in these threads---including just thinking about and discussing football beyond simpler levels of message board posting---are rigorously challenging people to prove a case on anything' date=' or support [u']any[/u] contention, with data, logic, or rational argument in more formal debate form (even though he occasionally departs from such himself and/or substitutes being obstinate or just "orneriness" as a prod :evilg:) as well as people seemingly assigning him some type power and influence over their own behaviors and choices.

Not that such is a real goal for OF IMO or many who like this sort of discourse, but one certainly can "wind them up and watch them spin" at times without trolling (in our MB parlance).

Some of the fundamental traits of classic debate are taking any pro or con position (side) on any matter and knowing how to best your opponent in constructing arguments and proving a case without care as to what side of what matter chosen. And it's a bonus if your opponent loses control of their emotions or focus without you being insulting in the normal sense, or engaging in any other socially untoward behaviors in the process.

I don't like any of that kind of stuff any more. I'm busy. I like the time-saving element of just letting idiots know they're idiots in service to my own dysfunctional development and grinding them beneath an iron heel of oppression.

[Oldfan]

...Some of the fundamental traits of classic debate are taking any pro or con position (side) on any matter and knowing how to best your opponent in constructing arguments and proving a case without care as to what side of what matter chosen...

I don't do that here. In the Stadium, there are enough popular opinions floating about that can be shot down by constructing a sound argument, that there's no need to take a position one doesn't believe in.

I do, on occasion, throw out an argument based on conditional premises that are unlikely just to stir up fun. My all-time favorite is the prediction of Patrick Ramsey's return that generated 600+ replies during a slow period in board activity. I'm proud of that one.

[Jumbo]

I don't do that here. In the Stadium, there are enough popular opinions floating about that can be shot down by constructing a sound argument, that there's no need to take a position one doesn't believe in.

I thought maybe I should have added that I believe you do take stances you pretty much mean (believe in their value), but I figured you'd know I knew that--probably worth making it clear to others, however.

Still, I imagine some (even unintentionally sought) of the gyrations so invoked have some entertainment value to you. It's obvious some are just received as annoying, and that applies to all parties involved.

[Warpath11]

I've been around the merry-go-round with OF many times on this.

I like the way he thinks. I like numbers. I like advanced stats.

The problem I have is that he is just pulling numbers out of thin air and demanding that we accept them.

That goofball with his QB prediction model may have been wrong' date=' but at least - it seemed - that he was basing the math on something.

To me, the reason why RGIII is already the best QB in Redskins history and will make the Hall of Fame unless Shanahan freaking ruins him is his completion percentage combined with his YPA. The fact that he is so insanely accurate while throwing the ball downfield is astounding and is frankly something that has never been seen before. He is going to be better in the pocket than either Manning, Brady, Montana, or whoever else you want to throw out there. It won't matter what offensive scheme you put him in. Frankly, I wish we ran a different scheme, because I kind of hate this one and don't think it plays to his strengths at all.

The issue I have with RGIII is that I think people are misreading his strengths. Yes, he is probably already the greatest running QB of all time. The crazy thing, though, is that he is a better pocket passer than he is at anything else. He is Peyton Manning - if Peyton Manning just happened to have world class speed.

I would eliminate all the read-options and designed runs completely. I think that makes him easier to defend while putting him at unnecessary risk.[/quote']

I dont think the offense you see RGIII in today will be the offense he will operate later in his career. Unfortunately, we do not have the horses up front, outside of Trent Williams, to go to a straight drop back passing game. Until the talent along the o-line is addressed we will continue to see the zone read offense, having said that as the talent improves I think a more traditional drop back passing game will be utilized. Though having the ability to go between both concepts (zone read and traditional) would be downright scary for a d-coordinator and IMO that is where this offense is ultmately heading. In addition to all that I think the Skins are bringing RGIII along slowly since he is not as developed in the straight drop back game as other QBs. Arts post earlier hit on this very well (post #83).

[Dan T.]

Why do we not see RG3 on play action rollouts and sprintouts more often? It seems like the Shanahans rolled out Rex Grossman more than they do Griffin. I would like to see outside backers and cornerbacks crap their pants in panic as they decide whether to stay with their man or peel off and charge a rolled out RG3 in open space. That would be entertaining.

[Jethrodsp]

The bottom line is every QB is worth about 10% of their teams success, a high number for an individual player.

Whether a team is more or less successful depends on whether it has a quarterback that makes his 10% contribution in a positive way.

[Oldfan]

The bottom line is every QB is worth about 10% of their teams success, a high number for an individual player.

Whether a team is more or less successful depends on whether it has a quarterback that makes his 10% contribution in a positive way.

That bottom line is close enough that I won't quibble. I like it.

---------- Post added November-28th-2012 at 03:46 PM ----------

...I like the way he thinks. I like numbers. I like advanced stats...

But you hate it when people mess with your cherished beliefs.

I understand. Really I do.

[skinzwiz]

Just to add to this thread, I do agree the QBs get way too much credit. I watch a NFL Network debate about whether RGIII was the greatest rookie of all time and those that were arguing against made absolutely no sense. I am not saying RGIII IS the greatest (even though I really feel that way), but my issue was this:

One of the people talking said stats dont matter at all and that only wins should be considered. He said RGIII wasn't even the greatest rookie QB of all time. Then his reasoning was that guys like Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco and Roethlisberger "led" their team to the playoffs.

Ummmm disregard the great supporting casts these guys had. These people act like its all on the QB. Seriously....Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco?? **** no!

[Jumbo]

Then his reasoning was that guys like Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco and Roethlisberger "led" their team to the playoffs.

Amazingly stupid, yet given air time on a major sports media outlet. It should give perspective to frustration with the "stupid" found on internet message boards.

[KDawg]

I don't get why this seems to far fetched to people. The AVERAGE impact is around 9%. A team that relies more heavily on qb run/pass makes that number go up slightly. But man, even 9% is a ridiculously high number. One player is worth 1/10 of your football team's production. And 9% is a very impactful number.

[Romberjo]

I appreciate the skewering of untethered conventional wisdom and pundit blather (e.g., qb = 75%) and the effort to be empirically substantiated. And I partially agree with your initial presumption--that the total offense should only account for perhaps 45% of a team's overall strength (same amount as for defense, and reserving something for special teams), so even if a qb accounts for fully half a team's offensive prowess, that's still only 22.5% of team strength, which is in the neighborhood you're suggesting, and way lower than conventional wisdom suggests.

I have some quibbles with your approach, though. First, I think the (discounted) percentage of pass plays is a quite rough approximation of value. As one or two have noted (among the few who have actually meaningfully engaged with your analysis), qb passing prowess is quite interdependent with running success. So having a very strong passing qb not only significantly affects the team's passing game, it also significantly helps the team's running game (e.g., no 8th player in the box). Of course, as you note, it's all interrelated--the capabilities of other offensive players also help the qb/passing game. The point is that percentage of passing plays is a very rough measure of the qb's value.

Second, at an intuitive (but nonetheless empirically verifiable) level, your 10% estimate seems low, and there's a reason, notwithstanding the fact that offensive passing plays are only 25% or so of a team's plays. As you note, 10% (average, cross-scheme) qb value means that in practice qb's will provide a value b/w 1 and 10%; this in turn means that the marginal difference b/w a pretty bad qb (a 3) and a quite good qb (a 7) would only be 4% of a team's total strength. That just seems implausibly low.

Thinking further, the relevant comparison for assessing qb component of team strength is really the marginal difference in qb value away from an average replacement (a 5), as compared to the distance from the average cumulative value of the rest of the team (i.e., 45 in your model, on average, assuming average players for the other 90% of the team). The non-qb team value is relatively likely to be fairly near 45, given the equalizing pressure of the salary cap and the large number of players involved (and the bell curve distribution of talent at those other positions).

In contrast, b/c the qb is a single player, there's likely to be greater variability--and I think fold in the fact that the supply of NFL-capable qb's is far more limited than at other positions, so you're picking from the far right tail of the bell curve, so there's more likely to be an even/broad distribution of talent, rather than clumping at the average NFL qb value. I.e., there's a lot more difference in value b/w the 5th best qb in the league and the 25th than there is b/w the 5th best rb in the league and the 25th, and even more to the point, b/w the 15th best wr or og and the 75th.

I have a hazy memory of a consistent recent football outsiders post, I think in the Post, which calculates Robert's points per game contribution as compared to Grossman's, and finds that it translates to roughly 4 points per game, which translates to something like 4 wins over a season. That's more than 10% in my book (and certainly more than 6%, for perhaps a 9 compared to a 3). Here's a link to ESPN's Total Quarterback Rating http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr, see also http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb2012 which attempts to capture the expected points a qb contributes above an average (and a fringe) replacement. And I see your inevitable rejoinder, that the QBR confounds the contribution of the qb and of the rest of the team on plays in which the qb is involved. But I'd think that if you ran a comparison of a team's offensive performance holding everything steady as best you could except for qb, you'd get numbers suggesting the effect of qb play on expected points per game to be somewhat higher than the 10% you suggest. But not all that much higher.

[KDawg]

I have a hazy memory of a consistent recent football outsiders post, I think in the Post, which calculates Robert's points per game contribution as compared to Grossman's, and finds that it translates to roughly 4 points per game, which translates to something like 4 wins over a season.

First, I want to compliment you on a great post.

Second, in the statement I quoted above, how does one come up with those numbers? Griffin's points per game contribution is four. How? I don't believe there is any way to directly isolate that statistic. We can use conjecture and educated guess to assume that Griffin's point contribution is significant, but I'm not quite sure there is any real way to find that number. You can't even compare across seasons as Griffin and Grossman had very different offensive personnel at their disposal.

Third, how does one assume that four points per game translates into four wins over the course of a season?

[Mania]

I don't do that here. In the Stadium, there are enough popular opinions floating about that can be shot down by constructing a sound argument, that there's no need to take a position one doesn't believe in.

I do, on occasion, throw out an argument based on conditional premises that are unlikely just to stir up fun. My all-time favorite is the prediction of Patrick Ramsey's return that generated 600+ replies during a slow period in board activity. I'm proud of that one.

OF, whether I agree or disagree with your posts, generally I enjoy them. Keep posting. I do remember the Ramsey post and yes it was good fun.

[Oldfan]

I appreciate the skewering of untethered conventional wisdom and pundit blather (e.g., qb = 75%) and the effort to be empirically substantiated. And I partially agree with your initial presumption--that the total offense should only account for perhaps 45% of a team's overall strength (same amount as for defense, and reserving something for special teams), so even if a qb accounts for fully half a team's offensive prowess, that's still only 22.5% of team strength, which is in the neighborhood you're suggesting, and way lower than conventional wisdom suggests.

In a long, ongoing Stadium debate on the topic of the value of the QB position, I have been asking opponents to give me a percentage reflecting their opinion. Wisely, they ignored my request, preferring to stick with vague claims. Rick Gosselin's 75% offered a unique skewering opportunity.

I have some quibbles with your approach, though. First, I think the (discounted) percentage of pass plays is a quite rough approximation of value. As one or two have noted (among the few who have actually meaningfully engaged with your analysis), qb passing prowess is quite interdependent with running success. So having a very strong passing qb not only significantly affects the team's passing game, it also significantly helps the team's running game (e.g., no 8th player in the box). Of course, as you note, it's all interrelated--the capabilities of other offensive players also help the qb/passing game. The point is that percentage of passing plays is a very rough measure of the qb's value.

Granted. The percentage of passing plays is indeed a rough measure. I just can't think of a better one. It seems to me that all the other QB related stats measure Team + QB performance.

Second, at an intuitive (but nonetheless empirically verifiable) level, your 10% estimate seems low, and there's a reason, notwithstanding the fact that offensive passing plays are only 25% or so of a team's plays. As you note, 10% (average, cross-scheme) qb value means that in practice qb's will provide a value b/w 1 and 10%; this in turn means that the marginal difference b/w a pretty bad qb (a 3) and a quite good qb (a 7) would only be 4% of a team's total strength. That just seems implausibly low.

The average NFL team scored around 400 points in 2011. A 4% increase would bring that to 416 points -- one more point per game on average. That's a significant increase for one player in a league where all 32 teams are very close to the average and, consequently, so many games decided by one point or go into overtime for the lack of one more point by either team.

Thinking further, the relevant comparison for assessing qb component of team strength is really the marginal difference in qb value away from an average replacement (a 5), as compared to the distance from the average cumulative value of the rest of the team (i.e., 45 in your model, on average, assuming average players for the other 90% of the team). The non-qb team value is relatively likely to be fairly near 45, given the equalizing pressure of the salary cap and the large number of players involved (and the bell curve distribution of talent at those other positions).

Okay, but you are still one-step short of good model; aren't you? You don't know the value of the average replacement with respect to team strength. If our aim is to put a value on the position, doesn't that bring us back to square one?

In contrast, b/c the qb is a single player, there's likely to be greater variability--and I think fold in the fact that the supply of NFL-capable qb's is far more limited than at other positions, so you're picking from the far right tail of the bell curve, so there's more likely to be an even/broad distribution of talent, rather than clumping at the average NFL qb value. I.e., there's a lot more difference in value b/w the 5th best qb in the league and the 25th than there is b/w the 5th best rb in the league and the 25th, and even more to the point, b/w the 15th best wr or og and the 75th.

Why are we concerned with the talent distribution if our aim is to put a value on the position? When Belichik designed his scheme with a pocket passer in mind, and he decises to throw 60% of the time on offensive plays, he determined the value of the QB position for his team. The performance factor will change, but the value of the position doesn't change whether the QB is Brady or Cassel.

I have a hazy memory of a consistent recent football outsiders post, I think in the Post, which calculates Robert's points per game contribution as compared to Grossman's, and finds that it translates to roughly 4 points per game, which translates to something like 4 wins over a season. That's more than 10% in my book (and certainly more than 6%, for perhaps a 9 compared to a 3). Here's a link to ESPN's Total Quarterback Rating http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr, see also http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb2012 which attempts to capture the expected points a qb contributes above an average (and a fringe) replacement. And I see your inevitable rejoinder, that the QBR confounds the contribution of the qb and of the rest of the team on plays in which the qb is involved. But I'd think that if you ran a comparison of a team's offensive performance holding everything steady as best you could except for qb, you'd get numbers suggesting the effect of qb play on expected points per game to be somewhat higher than the 10% you suggest. But not all that much higher.

You might very well be right. My approach gives only a rough estimate, but it's good enough for my purpose which is to persuade impartial minds to question bandwagon opinions on QBs.

You are thinking of Brian Burke's EPA. I haven't had a chance to study his approach yet, but I have provided a link below to his site. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the EPA model if you have the time to look at it.

That four added wins EPA result for RG3 is a huge number. I'd love to believe it's accurate, but I'm skeptical.

Replacing Grossman with Griffin involves an increase in two factors. First, you have a much more talented QB, and then there's the fact that Shanahan can design his scheme to add value to the position. For example, Robert's mobility allows Mike to move him on pass plays which makes protecting him a whole lot easier. With Grossman at the position, our smaller O-line struggled to protect him in the pocket, so Kyle was limited to calling a passing game with few of the slower developing pass routes.

http://www.advancednflstats.com

---------- Post added November-29th-2012 at 09:33 AM ----------

OF, whether I agree or disagree with your posts, generally I enjoy them. Keep posting. I do remember the Ramsey post and yes it was good fun.

Much appreciated.

---------- Post added November-29th-2012 at 09:39 AM ----------

...Second, in the statement I quoted above, how does one come up with those numbers? Griffin's points per game contribution is four. How? I don't believe there is any way to directly isolate that statistic. We can use conjecture and educated guess to assume that Griffin's point contribution is significant, but I'm not quite sure there is any real way to find that number. You can't even compare across seasons as Griffin and Grossman had very different offensive personnel at their disposal.

Third, how does one assume that four points per game translates into four wins over the course of a season?

I don't think the poster can answer your questions since he isn't familiar with Brian Burke's EPA. I'm not either. Here's the link to the site where the EPA is explained. You will have to search the site.

http://www.advancednflstats.com

[Bacon]

I used to agree with OF on this issue. Then I saw the Bears and Steelers without their starting QBs, who grew immeasurably worse.

[Oldfan]

I used to agree with OF on this issue. Then I saw the Bears and Steelers without their starting QBs, who grew immeasurably worse.

10% is a big factor especially when a team's strategy results in them playing close, low scoring games.

[Jethrodsp]

I used to agree with OF on this issue. Then I saw the Bears and Steelers without their starting QBs, who grew immeasurably worse.

Thinking about it further, it occurs to me that you could possibly predict the outcome of games based on assigning values to the percentage impact of each position (or player).

For instance, Jay Cutler or Ben Rothlisberger may play in schemes where they have a potential 10-12% impact on their teams success. This is a high number relative to the other positions on the team and we can say that they regularly match that percentage; meaning that they add 10-12 "points" out of 100 to their teams chances of winning. Jason Campbell and Byron Leftwich may have a lower impact ceiling (say 8-10 points) so unless their coaches choose to move those points into a different phase of the game via scheme, they are potentially lost to inferior talent.

Looking at OF's perspective in this light gives a clear indication of the potential impact of a top tier quarterback on a teams overall success. While Tom Brady's routinely maxes out his impact in the Patriots offensive scheme, his skill set necessitates that potential impact be lower than a quarterback like RGIII who could potentially have a much higher potential impact.

This is the reason that RGIII seemingly "puts the team on his back" and that there is such a Sharp drop off in offensive production from Griffin to Rex Grossman while Matt Cassel can lead the Patriots to a 11-5 record. The reason Cassel hasn't seen the same success for the Chiefs is that their scheme (and likely his contract) necessitates that he have a higher potential impact than he can meet on a regular basis. Also, this perspective is an indication why Harbaugh is choosing Colin Kaperwhatever over Alex Smith.

In the grand scheme of the NFL, the talent levels of each team are so close that the outcome of every game can be significantly impacted by a quarterback with a couple more potential impact points; and because there is a finite number of impact points on offense (say 45), why a talented quarterback can compensate for inferior talent somewhere else.

[KDawg]

Looking at OF's perspective in this light gives a clear indication of the potential impact of a top tier quarterback on a teams overall success. While Tom Brady's routinely maxes out his impact in the Patriots offensive scheme, his skill set necessitates that potential impact be lower than a quarterback like RGIII who could potentially have a much higher potential impact.

Brilliant.

And I think this emphasizes OF's post on grading quarterbacks that was made last week. It sums it up perfectly. Tom Brady MAXIMIZES his talent (in conjunction with his supporting cast and his scheme/coaching). It's why he's so good. But RG3 has a higher talent grade, so his potential impact is much higher than Brady's. That doesn't mean he's consistently playing at that level (it doesn't mean he isn't, either).

So if we could come up with a way to grade that consistency independent of the other players on the field, you can come up with a universal formula to grade quarterbacks. Much easier said than done, though.

In other words, skill wise, Brady may have the same maximum impact as say... Jason Campbell. (I don't necessarily mean that one way or the other, just using a name).

But his (and his teammates/coaches/scheme) consistency at maximizing that impact is FAR superior to Campbell.

[Oldfan]

Thinking about it further, it occurs to me that you could possibly predict the outcome of games based on assigning values to the percentage impact of each position (or player).

I think that is likely be an overly ambitious project, but it's fun to consider the idea.

For instance, Jay Cutler or Ben Rothlisberger may play in schemes where they have a potential 10-12% impact on their teams success. This is a high number relative to the other positions on the team and we can say that they regularly match that percentage; meaning that they add 10-12 "points" out of 100 to their teams chances of winning. Jason Campbell and Byron Leftwich may have a lower impact ceiling (say 8-10 points) so unless their coaches choose to move those points into a different phase of the game via scheme, they are potentially lost to inferior talent.

Coaches routinely do make scheme changes to compensate for inferior talent. When Brady went down to injury, Belichik's playcalling OC emphasized the run game for the first half of the season. In the second half, with Cassel now up to speed, he returned to the same balance. In effect, Belichik reduced the value of the QB position, then raised it back again.

Looking at OF's perspective in this light gives a clear indication of the potential impact of a top tier quarterback on a teams overall success. While Tom Brady's routinely maxes out his impact in the Patriots offensive scheme, his skill set necessitates that potential impact be lower than a quarterback like RGIII who could potentially have a much higher potential impact

.

That's right.

This is the reason that RGIII seemingly "puts the team on his back" and that there is such a Sharp drop off in offensive production from Griffin to Rex Grossman while Matt Cassel can lead the Patriots to a 11-5 record. The reason Cassel hasn't seen the same success for the Chiefs is that their scheme (and likely his contract) necessitates that he have a higher potential impact than he can meet on a regular basis. Also, this perspective is an indication why Harbaugh is choosing Colin Kaperwhatever over Alex Smith.

Exactly.

In the grand scheme of the NFL, the talent levels of each team are so close that the outcome of every game can be significantly impacted by a quarterback with a couple more potential impact points; and because there is a finite number of impact points on offense (say 45), why a talented quarterback can compensate for inferior talent somewhere else.

That's right. A 10% impact is a big number for one player in a league where parity reigns.

---------- Post added November-29th-2012 at 01:08 PM ----------

...So if we could come up with a way to grade that consistency independent of the other players on the field, you can come up with a universal formula to grade quarterbacks. Much easier said than done, though...

A solution might not be possible; but you are in rare company among football minds in that you understand the problem and can ignore bogus solutions.

[Jethrodsp]

Brilliant.

And I think this emphasizes OF's post on grading quarterbacks that was made last week. It sums it up perfectly. Tom Brady MAXIMIZES his talent (in conjunction with his supporting cast and his scheme/coaching). It's why he's so good. But RG3 has a higher talent grade, so his potential impact is much higher than Brady's. That doesn't mean he's consistently playing at that level (it doesn't mean he isn't, either).

So if we could come up with a way to grade that consistency independent of the other players on the field, you can come up with a universal formula to grade quarterbacks. Much easier said than done, though.

In other words, skill wise, Brady may have the same maximum impact as say... Jason Campbell. (I don't necessarily mean that one way or the other, just using a name).

But his (and his teammates/coaches/scheme) consistency at maximizing that impact is FAR superior to Campbell.

This line of thinking also emphasizes the impact of coaching on the NFL. The best coaches know how to spread their points around the team such that they are getting maximum value out of each position or unit. It also tells us why an "elite" quarterback is not the end-all be-all of contention year in and year out. Certainly Joe Flacco is not in the same class as someone like Ben Rothlisberger in terms of making plays but, the Ravens dogfight the Steelers every year for AFC North supremacy because Harbaugh know how to maximize Ray Rice's impact on his offense's success.

The aforementioned NFL pundits speaking about who is the greatest rookie ever fail to realize this, choosing the simple method of team success in stating their case. The fact is that RGIII, by scheme, skillset, and personnel is required to have a much higher potential impact on the Redskins' offensive success that Flacco, Rothlisberger, or Mark Sanchez.. all oh whom won playoff games as a rookie.

Speaking of Sanchez, I found it very interesting that he wasn't mentioned in the debate despite the fact that his credential from his rookie year are very close to those of the quarterbacks that were mentioned.

[sportjunkie07]

I don't think you can broadly and accurately gauge the value of the QB position in the NFL, there are too many variables.

And while I appreciate your attempt OF, I will disagree just like I have in the past. 9.3% is entirely too low. If anything, that may be a minimum for a team with great support players, a good run game, solid special teams, and defense, and a game manager type of qb.

through this season, id probably put rg3s value at nearly 30%. (rough estimate).