Did anybody hear what the Rams' GM said?

[RemoveSnyder]

Probably not.

And who really listens to losers with insight anyway? Not us. 

 

Billy Beane has a book and a movie dedicated to his genius, with a grand total of zero World Series championships to show for it. Yet everyone has stolen, or imitated, or pretends to understand sabermetrics. 

 

What's to follow is not sabermetrics.

 

Thankfully you have me to fill you in. Because what he said is really worthwhile. In fact, it's something you already know, something so simple, it's profound. 

 

So, if the Rams' consistently mediocre record is a source of joviality for you, if you laugh at all those picks we gave to them which in turn have produced steady 7 and 9 seasons, then you'll really love this next gasser. 

 

The prevailing thought held among the modern-day mainstream football fan is that it's all about the QB.

And why not, when wealthy television sports networks spend countless dollars and countless hours creating their own echo chamber trying to convince you of that truth. Here on ES, we have prominent posters that create threads year after year to tell us how nothing else matters but the QB ... "stupid."

 

In fact, you don't even have to follow football to know that it's all about the QB. All you need is a TV, because somebody will eventually tell you. All you need is the ability to read, or have someone to read for you, because eventually someone will write about it ... again. Even if you can't understand the first thing about football, the message has been clearly disseminated to all reaches of your consciousness.

 

 

The Rams' GM is named Les Snead and here's what he has to say: (transcript)

We’re in the NFL, so it seems like whenever you talk about QBs, that’s the piece.

 

If I've got a little bit of a long answer, I can tell you this: We’ve done a lot of studies, as many as any team, on QBs and what makes a QB successful, all that, over the past couple years. The idea, the goal of this whole thing is to win games, so let’s just look at QBs this way. We’ve done a lot of studies since 2012 -- and that’s when Jeff and I got to the Rams -- on how do teams win. 

 

There’s been 21 QBs since 2012 that have started 45 or more games. So if their team gives up 25 or more points, there’s only one of those QBs who has actually got a winning record, and it’s just over .500.

 

I’ll let you guys do the research to figure that out.

 

If your team gives up 17 or less than 17 points, all 21 of those guys have winning records.

 

Now you get into a couple categories, 21 to 24 points, that you give up, 11 of those quarterbacks have winning records and 10 have losing records. If you give up 17 to 20 points, all but three (18) of the QBs have winning records.

 

So to win in this league, it’s a direct correlation to how many points you’re giving up.

 

Somebody quick, get the Captain Picard video of him saying "the chicken or the egg."

Well, easier said than done, right Les?

 

Snead said this during the Combine press conferences prior to the four days of tests and drills. In an otherwise cliche rich milieu that is the eight days of Combine madness, Snead's words cut right through the bull****. 

 

I also want you to be able to see his press conference, hear his intonation. Here's the video:

http://www.therams.com/videos/videos/Les-Snead-Combine-Press-Conference---225/26dd4534-f843-4ba3-a205-5b8e91f63941

 

The NFL is nazi about restricting the embedding of their video content. So you have to click over to a Rams' website in order to watch the video. Sorry. 

 

 

But we deserve some credit, we can see what's going on, even if we can't understand it. Organizations prioritize and overspend on the QB during drafts. We can relate. They give the largest contracts to those QBs, or the largest single season contracts. We can relate. Even if you can't understand football, you can understand money. 

 

The refs protect the QBs more than ever. The league penalizes defensive players at an inordinate rate. Pass interference calls have become the best offensive play in league history. And players, fans and coaches alike, all have become a mockery to the game when they each plead and gesticulate for pass interference calls from the refs. Like Pavlovian dogs, we beg for the flag whenever a passing attempt is not completed. And the ball is in the air a lot because of that created environment. 

 

But something funny always seems to happen. Despite the slanted table, a great defense can nullify the great QBs. Or at least level the table. Long before I ever heard: "it's all about the QB ... stupid," I heard: "Defense wins championships." 

 

Everything matters. 

Is the QB the only thing that matters? No, everything matters. From the trainer, to the secondary, to the QB, to the ball boys ... (obviously), it all matters. 

 

The Denver defense matters. Specifically, that pass rush. At least for this last year.

Who's the next iteration?

 

We said it when the Giants beat the Patriots twice for the Super Bowl. Wow, that pass rush, we said. We said it when seattle beat down Peyton two seasons ago. We said it again this year when Peyton produced perhaps the worst statistics of any QB to play in the Super Bowl, only to watch the Denver D shutdown and embarrassed the league's MVP. We even talked extensively about the Carolina defense this year, en route to their Super Bowl berth. 

 

Folks like to give McC a lot of credit for his involvement with seattle. Let's be clear, going back for the past 3 / 4 seasons, that's been an historic defense. The 85 Bears only got one ring, but a resounding ring. 

 

I'd be willing to bet that I could could find a quote from Pop Warner himself as to the importance of the QB. I'd be willing to bet I could find a Mike Ditka quote somewhere about the importance of the QB. I bet I could find a quote from each decade of football ever played about the importance of the QB. People know about the importance of the QB. It's nothing new.

 

But defense matters too. Knowing it is one thing, being able to build it is another. My only suggestion is take advantage of this year's draft, because there's a lot of defensive talent available to help the D-Line, specifically. And the Secondary. My only suggestion for pass rush, overstock the group, because you'll likely not regret it. That likely means both FA and draft. The Edge class isn't anywhere near the downlineman class. 

 

 

It's so good when ancyent artifacts are re-unearthed to remind us what we already knew but convinced ourselves otherwise.

 

 

[Warhead36]

The fewer points your team gives up, the more likely you are to win.

 

Oh my goodness, the Rams GM is a genius.

 

Too bad all those extra draft picks and he still can't build a team worth squat.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Well I'd say there are two paths to the top. One is to have an elite QB, the other is to have an elite roster. Both are pretty hard to come by. One is sustainable for three years. The other can put you in contention every season for a decade or more.

[bowhunter]

And when you can get an elite QB who is willing to take a paycut in order to build an elite roster, then you will have a consistent winner.

[ncr2h]

My first impression is that it's a pretty dumb analysis.  It [usually] goes without saying that, all else equal, teams will win more games when they give up fewer points.  Since we're not in a black and white world where all resources either go to finding a QB or to building a defense, it's not very helpful to your team to boil QB play down to luck-of-the-defense.  

 

There may be some valuable analysis to be had, but it would need to be a lot more detailed than looking at winning percentage (rather than just whether a winning record was obtained) and potentially adding more groupings.  For example, it could be argued that the 25+ bucket contains games that are winnable (i.e. 25-30 range) and games that are likely to just be complete blowouts (31+).  Kirk, for example, in 2015 had a 2-1 record in games where our defense gave up 25-30 points.  He was 0-3 in games where we gave up 31+.  In contrast, Russell Wilson over his career is just 1-9 in games where his team gives up 25-30 points.  Cam Newton is 3-8 in that same range over his career.

 

Here is how Kirk and Robert stack up (for simplicity, I attributed all points given up as given up by the defense, rather than considering return TDs):

 

Kirk:

 

Defense gives up 17 or fewer: 4-1

17-20: 1-3

21-24: 4-1

25+: 2-11

 

Robert:

 

Defense gives up 17 or fewer: 3-2

17-20: 2-2

21-24: 3-5

25+: 4-15

[RemoveSnyder]

Well I'd say there are two paths to the top. One is to have an elite QB, the other is to have an elite roster. Both are pretty hard to come by. One is sustainable for three years. The other can put you in contention every season for a decade or more.

I think that's the fake paradigm. Not implying anything to your reasoning.

 

But, I'm certain there are pundits that want to frame the debate as such. Before you even get to the conversation one is looking at it as one person versus the 52 others. You've already given the QB too much credit for the team's overall contention quotient. The conversation is already inherently biased. 

 

I don't think GMs go into roster building believing it's either / or. I'm certain each GM wants to get the most talented player at every position and keep them at their highest ability for as long as possible.

The NFL is just fabulous at making that difficult. Very difficult. Maybe that's why it's so enchanting. 

 

I don't think Belichek tries any less in building as dominate a defense as possible despite having his unicorn QB. And to be clear, he has a unicorn QB. I imagine each GM wants as complete, diverse and talented a defense as possible, despite how they quantify their QB's ability. 

 

 

I think the message Snead is relating here is somewhat being lost. He's talking about the difference of one score. At 17 points allowed, your QB has a winning record, despite your QB. At 25 points allowed, your QB has a losing record, despite the QB. A generalization, yes, but you get it.

 

The whole scale of what we perceive as quality QBs in the NFL is at the mercy of a one score difference. It just underscores that even the annual contenders can be undermined all too often. And furthermore, how do we define the annual contender QBs?

 

A lot of perception seems to play heavily in what we define as "elite" QB and "contender" QB. 

It seems to always be a moving target. 

 

I keep hearing about that Matt Ryan character. That Matt Stafford too. Those contenders.  

I do love it when I watch Eli bumble around and drop a turd out of his butt, only to ponder his two Super Bowl rings. 

 

 

All I know is that we've got Cousins for another year. So the onus is upon the FO to put as good a team around him as possible. But going back to his Michigan State days, that MSU team was built to have a strong defense. It is one of that program's calling cards. To have a passrush, have long corners to Press, have a thumper and a runner stacked. And, in addition, have a run game. 

 

I watched Cousins steward the ship at MSU. His first 3 years, they eventually lost each bowl game. The last two, he got smooshed by Alabama. Literally, I think he was concussed that game from the hits he took. If I remember correctly, he was sacked at least 5 times. Alabama did something with its defense this last year, can't remember exactly.

 

His final bowl game, his team won it despite his late turnovers, versus Georgia. So, Cuz is good enough to get us to the bowl game, I just wonder if we'll have the team to actualize upon it. 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

I agree with the sentiment of Snead, and I'm one of the more 'it's the defense, stupid' guys on ES.  It's an offense driven league, people are obsessed with QBR, YAC, etc.  I enjoy a great defensive game, mostly because they are going the way of the dinosaur.  Most recently, some of the Steelers/Ravens games (when their defenses were both stout) come to mind.  Every first down was a war.  Now, most low scoring games are low scoring because of bad football.

 

I want us to lock Kirk up, but I still think there is a lot of fluff when it comes to discussing his game.  In my opinion, we still haven't beaten a good, perennial contender type team.  Hell, we haven't even competed with any of the upper tier teams that we've played.  I do not put that all at Kirk's feet, I think it applies more to your point.  Our defense needs to do a better job of holding serve against teams with better offenses.  We gotta get better up front.  We gotta get more production off the edge.  We gotta get more takeaways.  It'll be interesting to see with our draft picks and FA how much Scot can do.  

 

I think Barry is gonna be on the hot seat next year.  If we get healthy, spend some dough on a few FAs, and draft a couple of studs, I think Barry will be under a lot of pressure to improve our defensive results next season.  I believe that Scot will build us a winner, but I'm not so sure that Barry will be calling the shots when we get there.   

[Burgold]

Having watched Haslett defenses for two many years, I feel the need to throw this in.

 

Sometimes, a bad defense prevents the offense from scoring points. How many games did Haslett's inability to force a punt seal the game? Quarterback became irrelevant because he never saw the ball. The opposing defense didn't even have to be very good because our O got desperate knowing they had to score on every possession just to get a tie. This led to mistakes. 

 

The answer really is about balance. It's great if you have a great defense. It's great if you have a great QB, but there's a reason Marino never won a Superbowl or Elway didn't until he got a running game and a defense. The trick is to make sure that you have no Cerratos or Hasletts on your team. You can't have any part that rates an F. Last year with a C defense, Cousins was able to look really good.

 

O line and Defense probably matter a little more than QB. Any QB with time will kill you as the NFL cliche goes. Anyway, that's my early morning (why am I not asleep) rambling.

[Koolblue13]

Nothing helps a defense, like a run game.

That's why I want Kelly and Zeke in the draft.

Half kidding again. You know me, we could draft defense exclusively and I would be happy.

[Aireskoi]

When the teams are held under 17 points is it always great defense, or could it sometimes be because the opposing QB and offense are not as good as the awful defense the winning team has?  

 

Is it always great defense that kept the Jags, Browns, or Bucs under 17 since 2012?  Isn't it more about the offense's inability to score even 17 points?  See, it's all about the QB.

 

Great teams have great players.  Consistent winners have high level QB play, and a solid roster around them.  Throw in a defense that can dominate and you have a contender.  The defense has to be legendary if the QB is not elite, but the opposite isn't as true IMV.

[Burgold]

Nothing helps a defense, like a run game.

That's why I want Kelly and Zeke in the draft.

Half kidding again. You know me, we could draft defense exclusively and I would be happy.

I'm still in the mindset of wanting someone 275 or heavier. We still have years of line (d&o) neglect to address.

[Darrell Green Fan]

I have no idea why the Rams GM is talking seeing as his team is the poster child for how building a team with a strong defense through the draft does not work very often if you don't have a QB. 4 years after the trade we have 2 division titles, won with the QB playing primary roles, while the Rams are still looking for their first winning record mostly because they have failed at the QB position.

Of course you need a good overall team with a strong defense. But take a look at this list of Super Bowl winning QB and count how many were average and then compare it with the number who were good. I said good not elite. Elite is not necessary but average or one year wonders like Mark Rypien are by far the exception to the rule. This isn't an opinion, it's pretty much a fact. See for yourself:

http://www.docsports.com/current/super-bowl-winning-quarterbacks.html

[Koolblue13]

I'm still in the mindset of wanting someone 275 or heavier. We still have years of line (d&o) neglect to address.

this post is either from 90, when guys played as light as 275. Or 10 when we were still neglecting our line.

Last year we had 2 very high first and two 3rds starting. Our BU T was a TE.

I'm not saying our line is set, but its hardly been neglected.

[Burgold]

this post is either from 90, when guys played as light as 275. Or 10 when we were still neglecting our line.

Last year we had 2 very high first and two 3rds starting. Our BU T was a TE.

I'm not saying our line is set, but its hardly been neglected.

I'd say on the o-line we're missing a center. On the D line we may be missing a DE, but we're definitely missing at least a nose guard.

 

You're probably right about the weight, but I was thinking you might find a good DE in the 275 range. That may be more 4-3 thinking than 3-4 though.

[MisterPinstripe]

So how often was a team with a great QB held to less than 21 points? Defense is important, but a great QB that puts up points can cover for an average or poor defense. Just look at Peyton's years in Indy.

[Darth Tater]

An elite offense with a mediocre roster will take you to the WC playoffs or at least to smelling distance. An elite offense surrounded by a decent roster will will take you to the playoffs and maybe give you that WC round and maybe even a division round. An elite defense and nothing else may get you a deep run here and there (remember, the 2000 Browns...Ravens...were not consistently the top team after their run). To go deeper on a consistent basis requires you to at least be above average in all parts of the game. In any case, Sabermetrics may have changed the way things are done but did not solve the problem it was intended to solve for the long term.

[Wildbunny]

So how often was a team with a great QB held to less than 21 points? Defense is important, but a great QB that puts up points can cover for an average or poor defense. Just look at Peyton's years in Indy.

 

Opposing is as true as that. Just ask Jim McMahon, or Denver 2016... Or Flacco, Trent Dilfer...

So many of them.

 

Offense fills stadium,

Defense wins game.

- Bill Parcells

 

But as a whole it depends on your internal philosophy as you answer this question:

What does it mean to win a game?

Answer A: Score more points than the opponent.

Answer B: Allow less points than the opponent.

[Going Commando]

It's a game of blocking and tackling. Teams that do these two things the best tend to consistently win. This is true for every level of the sport. Conceptually simple, but blocking and tackling well at the NFL level is extremely difficult and requires players who are really good.

I think a good formula for the NFL is to build a team that generally controls the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball and then also gets competent leadership and execution from the QB position. Incompetent QB play can waste excellent offensive line and defensive front seven play. Incompetent play from the other parts can waste excellent QB play. The Rams have a great defense that controls the LoS well, but they have incompetent offensive line play and substandard QB play so they don't get over the hump. Similarly the Saints have been in and out of the playoffs during the Drew Brees era even though they've gotten HoF caliber QB play and high quality offensive line play but have generally been incompetent on defense.

QB plays a unique role for a team's build because they are the leadership position that acts as an extension of the coach on the field. But I agree with Monk's sentiment that people tend to overrate the impact of the position on the wages of wins and losses as a result of this leadership responsibility.

[TSO]

Elite defense > Elite QB > good-average-bad defense

Difficulty of building an elite defense > difficulty of finding an elite QB (though it's close, arguably >= )

Difficulty of sustaining elite defense > difficulty of sustained elite QB play

That's my math on this.

Essentially, if you don't have an elite defense, it's all about the QB, stupid. If you do have an elite defense, the QB will look stupid, stupid.

However, at any given time there usually might be one or two truly elite defenses (sometimes none), whereas there are 3-5 truly elite QBs (and at least one or two).

Finally, having an elite QB sustain his play for a long period of time is easier than sustaining an elite defense simply due to the high number of moving parts.

I think that's where the idea of "you need a QB to compete" comes in, and reasonably so.

That's where I'm at now, though admittedly there was a stretch in the NFL where it seemed legitimate to think that all you needed was a QB and nothing else mattered. But the elite defenses that were built recently in San Fran, Seattle, Denver and with the Panthers now have put that to bed, I believe.

[Koolblue13]

It's almost like everything is pretty important.

Sure, a leader (QB) is important. So are points.

Defense usually needs that leader too and when other teams don't score, they don't win.

[Darrell Green Fan]

Since some of you obviously didn't open my link I'll supply the list of Super Bowl winning QBs and ask you once again to count the number of good QBs and then compare it to the number of QBs at the level of a Trent Dilfer. Then ask the question were Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson or Mark Rypien one year wonders or did they have sustained success? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Now I understand "good QB" is subjective but my list contains McMahon, Williams, Hoss, Ryp, Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Eli, Eli, Flacco and Peyton 2016. That's 10 average and 40 good and that's pretty convincing if you ask me. And again every average QB except Eli were flash in the pan situations where teams with good QBs remain in contention for years.

McMahon was damned good, they were referring to the top QBs at the time as Montana Marino and McMahon all in the same breath. He just couldn't stay healthy so for that reason I had to list him. Plunkett is a borderline Hall of Famer.

Super Bowl 1. Bart Starr (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 2. Bart Starr (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 3. Joe Namath (MVP), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 4. Len Dawson (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 5. John Unitas (Chuck Howley), 1 TD

Super Bowl 6. Roger Staubach (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 7. Bob Griese (Jake Scott), 1 TD

Super Bowl 8. Bob Griese (Larry Csonka), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 9. Terry Bradshaw (Franco Harris), 1 TD

Super Bowl 10. Terry Bradshaw (Lynn Swann), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 11. Ken Stabler (Fred Biletnikoff), 1 TD

Super Bowl 12. Roger Staubach (Harvey Martin & Randy White), 1 TDs

Super Bowl 13. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 4 TDs

Super Bowl 14. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 15. Jim Plunkett (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 16. Joe Montana (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 17. Joe Theismann (John Riggins), 2 TDs,

Super Bowl 18. Jim Plunkett (Marcus Allen), 1 TD

Super Bowl 19. Joe Montana (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 20. Jim McMahon (Richard Dent), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 21. Phil Simms (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams (MVP), 4 TDs

Super Bowl 23. Joe Montana (Jerry Rice), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 24. Joe Montana (MVP), 5 TDs

Super Bowl 25. Jeff Hostetler (Ottis Anderson), 1 TD

Super Bowl 26. Mark Rypien (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 27. Troy Aikman (MVP), 4 TDs

Super Bowl 28. Troy Aikman (Emmitt Smith), O TDs

Super Bowl 29. Steve Young (MVP), 6 TDs

Super Bowl 30. Troy Aikman (Larry Brown), 1 TD

Super Bowl 31. Brett Favre (Desmond Howard), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 32. John Elway (Terrell Davis), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 33. John Elway (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 34. Kurt Warner (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TD

Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 38. Tom Brady (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 39. Tom Brady (Deion Branch), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 40. Ben Roethlisberger (Hines Ward), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 41. Peyton Manning (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 42. Eli Manning (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 43: Ben Roethlisberger (Santonio Holmes), 1 TD

Super Bowl 44: Drew Brees (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 45: Aaron Rogers (MVP), 3TDs

Super Bowl 46: Eli Manning (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 47: Joe Flacco (MVP), 3TDs

Super Bowl 48: Russell Wilson (Malcolm Smith), 2TDs

Super Bowl 49: Tom Brady (MVP), 4TDs

Super Bowl 50: Peyton Manning (Von Miller), 0TD

[Bandit Rover Blitzer Spy]

I'm sure you could nitpick that list away though. Peyton couldn't win one until his defense balled out. Brady was more of an afterthought his first few years, same with ben's two rings (he's a better qb now than when he was winning super bowls). Likewise the best qb in the league right now can't even get to conference championships with regularity.

I think it's more a testament to qb development than qb talent. Everyone assumes you have to get an elite qb, and if a qb isn't elite after 2 years then he's broken and it's time to move on. I'd say it's more these organizations creating an environment where a qb can become elite, and that is probably the most difficult thing in the win now nfl. I often wonder how aaron rodgers would be now had he been in the dysfunction of our organization in the 2000s.

[Mania]

The fewer points your team gives up, the more likely you are to win.

 

Oh my goodness, the Rams GM is a genius.

 

Too bad all those extra draft picks and he still can't build a team worth squat.

[Darrell Green Fan]

I'm sure you could nitpick that list away though. Peyton couldn't win one until his defense balled out. Brady was more of an afterthought his first few years, same with ben's two rings (he's a better qb now than when he was winning super bowls). Likewise the best qb in the league right now can't even get to conference championships with regularity.

I think it's more a testament to qb development than qb talent. Everyone assumes you have to get an elite qb, and if a qb isn't elite after 2 years then he's broken and it's time to move on. I'd say it's more these organizations creating an environment where a qb can become elite, and that is probably the most difficult thing in the win now nfl. I often wonder how aaron rodgers would be now had he been in the dysfunction of our organization in the 2000s.

You said it best, that's nit picking. Again Peyton's Colts were contenders for a decade and half for one reason: their QB.

Again show me another average QB who had lasting success other than Eli and maybe Flacco. That's 2 out of a list of thousands of average or worse QB to have played in the league. Off that huge list only 10 have ever won a SB and only 2 have had any form of lasting success. As we all know the list of good QBs that have had lasting success is much much larger. And considering there are only 10 or so good QBs and 20+ that are not at any given time it's even more obvious that the way to success in most instances is with a top QB.

[NoCalMike]

When you have an elite defense you can win without an elite QB, but can you win with an elite QB without having an elite defense?

 

Now, the question is if you feel you have a QB that you can win with, if you have an elite defense, where does the franchise go?  Will you be constantly looking to upgrade the defense to build an elite unit that can carry the team while sticking it out with a good but not great QB or will you end up bailing on that QB every few seasons because they don't quite reach Top 10 status?

 

I have no illusions about Cousins and what he might possibly end up at.  Maybe he will continue to get better, but maybe that run to close 2015 was about as good as he will ever be.  The bottomline though is, that 2015 had virtually no running game and a mediocre defense.  If those two aspects of this team drastically improve in 2016 and 2017, do you think the 2015-caliber offense can go deeper into the playoffs and/or win a championship?  I say yes.