How big of a part is the QB to the whole team?

[RashanGary]

This is my take:


Total Team
Defense - 40%
Offense - 40%
ST's - 20%


Offense
Running Game - 40%
Passing Game - 60%


Passing Game
OL - 25%
WR's/TE's - 20%
RB's - 5%
QB - 50%


Let's do the math:


100% * 0.40 (for the offenses portion of the team) * 0.6 (for the passing games portion of the offense) * 0.50 (for the QB's portion of the passing game) = 12%

I estimate the QB is responsible for 12% of the total wins. Football is the ultimate team sport. 53 guys come together to make the whole team. The QB is more important than any one other player but it's not one other player. It's 52 other players and they, the rest of the team, are what make a football team tick. A bad QB can prevent them from getting over the top or maybe a great QB can put a really good team over the top but it's 1/8 of the equations, not the majority of the reason. The whole offense isn't even the majority of the reason. The defense and ST's would make up the majority of the reason a team wins or loses and then you toss in whole offense. Um, yeah, people were crazy to cry about losing Favre and are crazy now if they're whining about Aaron Rodgers.

[Joemailman]

I don't see how you can put a specific number on it. It varies by team. A team with a strong defense and running game (Bears a couple of years ago) is less reliant on the QB than a team like Arizona last year that doesn't have these things.

[RashanGary]

If Joe Montana is a 10 of 10
and
Aaron Rodgers is a 6 of 10


Montana brings a team 12% closer to winning a SB
Rodgers brings a team 7.2%

There is a 5% difference. Clearly the defense, ST's and offense are going to make up the hugest chunk and I'd argue that perceived great QB's are largely made by great teams. If Palmer was a Patriot and Brady a Bengal, I think we'd have very different views of the two QB's.

If Archie Manning played for the 49ers during Montanas era and Montana played for teh Saints during Mannings era, I'll bet we have different views of who is great.


The whole QB measuring stick is broken.

[RashanGary]

I don't see how you can put a specific number on it. It varies by team. A team with a strong defense and running game (Bears a couple of years ago) is less reliant on the QB than a team like Arizona last year that doesn't have these things.

The number is closer than you want to believe.

[sheepshead]

Really depends on how good the rest of the team is. (i.e. Trent Dilfer/Jim McMahon)

[RashanGary]

Really depends on how good the rest of the team is. (i.e. Trent Dilfer/Jim McMahon)


I don't think you understand what my number meant. I wasn't saying Dilfer was 12% responsible for his teams championship and Joe Montana was 12% responsible for his championship. I don't know how you could possibly derive that conclusion but then again I should probably expect it.

I'm saying a QB is about 12% of the total equation and much less important than the rest of the team.

If you wanted to take what I said and deriving statements that must also be true, I could give you some help:


1. Tom Brady is not nearly as important to his teams wins as the defense he plays with

2. Tom Brady would not be able to win championships with the Bengals

3. Brett Favre was unable to win more than one championship more because he didn't have a better surrounding cast than him not being a good enoguh QB

4. Brett Favre did win a championship, but it had more to do with the other 52 than it did with Favre.


Those are the types of things a competent person might derive from the number I showed. A person who has no clue how to comprehend complex thought might respond similarly to the way you and joe responded.

[RashanGary]

Haha. Sorry guys. I see how you got that. I asked how much credit does a QB deserve for wins:) :)


Bad title. How big of a part is the QB to the whole team might be a better title and from there, you'd conclude that crediting a QB instead of a team with wins is craziness :) :)

Sorry for the tude

[sheepshead]

Really depends on how good the rest of the team is. (i.e. Trent Dilfer/Jim McMahon)


I don't think you understand what my number meant. I wasn't saying Dilfer was 12% responsible for his teams championship and Joe Montana was 12% responsible for his championship. I don't know how you could possibly derive that conclusion but then again I should probably expect it.

I'm saying a QB is about 12% of the total equation and much less important than the rest of the team.

If you wanted to take what I said and deriving statements that must also be true, I could give you some help:


1. Tom Brady is not nearly as important to his teams wins as the defense he plays with

2. Tom Brady would not be able to win championships with the Bengals

3. Brett Favre was unable to win more than one championship more because he didn't have a better surrounding cast than him not being a good enoguh QB

4. Brett Favre did win a championship, but it had more to do with the other 52 than it did with Favre.


Those are the types of things a competent person might derive from the number I showed. A person who has no clue how to comprehend complex thought might respond similarly to the way you and joe responded.

Huh? fuck you too

[Partial]

You're not an actuary so stop trying to act like one. These numbers are basically meaningless. QB touches the ball more than any other player on the field. DE touches QB(who's touching ball) more than any other player on the field. Tackles block DE from touching quarterback(who's touching ball).

You don't need to have any statistical knowledge to see that teams with HOF type QBs make far more super bowls than teams without that sort of player. I recently did an analysis on the past 18 years(i believe). Something like 15 of those QBs are HOF bound.

[Packnut]

I don't see how you can put a specific number on it. It varies by team. A team with a strong defense and running game (Bears a couple of years ago) is less reliant on the QB than a team like Arizona last year that doesn't have these things.


Great avatar!

GO HAWKS!

[RashanGary]

And every one of those QBs were on great teams the year they won it.

And several of those QB's are HOF bound because they were a part of big games that everyone remembers.

Chicken or the egg.



I believe the great team comes FAR before the great QB.

You believe the great QB comes before the team.

I believe QB's that are often times remembered as great, have that success because they are on teams that can sustain a top tier roster for long periods and the QB's numbers are benefited because of it

You believe the numbers speak for themselves.


Over time our beliefs will effect our predictions of what will come. Since we are so drastically different and clearly opposed to each others opinions, we should start keeping score to see who ends up correct more often than the other in the long haul.

[Partial]

Good QB drives an offense. You can look at these teams long term and note a high degree of successs typically. Take the Packers. One losing season in 15 or so years. That is unreal. They wouldn't do that with Kerry Collins at QB. Not a chance.

[RashanGary]

Probably not, Partial. I can agree to that. Collins would be injured and there would be losing seasons. During those injury times, the other guy would get a chance and maybe Collins would have been let go sooner than Favre.


Favre deserves all the credit in the world for his longevity and durability and because of that the QB stability for the Packers.

He was a part every year, but the Packers are a well run organization. Sherman eventually tore down Wolfs roster, but for most of the last 15 years the Packers have had one of the better teams in teh NFC (and definitly in the NFC north).


I believe the GM is the key to a winning team. If ownership hires the right guy and gives him control, no matter who he starts with at QB, he'll end up building a winner. I believe we have that GM and that winning attitude and I believe the 10 years after Favre will be as good as the last 12 years with him (lots of wins, lots of playoffs and I think we have a damn good chance at a championship).

[Partial]

It has nothing to do with longevity, it has to do with talent. Having a QB like Favre or Elway allows the team to focus on building their defense as having a QB like that makes the entire offense that much better.

It's like having a Mario Williams at DE. Makes the entire defense better and they can then focus efforts on offense.

Look at the colts early season. They sucked when Manning was hurt. They were the most dominant team in the NFL once Manning got healthy.

GM is key to a team, of course. They need to find the great players and build around them. You've got to like Thompson's approach to building a team. Approach and execution are two entirely separate entities, though, and should never, ever be confused and combined. His approach is great. I don't think he's done as well drafting as many here do, but he's done good enough to field a good team.

I don't agree he's going to be able to build a consistent winner without a QB. He may build a team with such a great defense that they can win one without a QB (Tampa, Baltimore), but how long does their success last? It's expensive to keep all of those pieces, and without having a core piece like a stud DE or QB it's tough to maintain.

Any good, competent GM is going to keep looking for a quarterback. Take a look at Baltimore. I'm a huge Ozzie Newsome fan, believe he is the best GM in the NFL. He signed Girbach. He liked Boller so he traded a #1 to go up and get him. He liked Troy Smith and took him on the first day. He liked Flocco so he traded up to get him. He's smart enough to recognize that regardless of how good the D is, unless they get a ton of luck, they need a QB to win. In my opinion, they are one of the class orgs of the NFL with the Pack, Colts and Pats.

Having a stud QB makes it infinitely easier to build a very good team. Try doing it when you're spending a first round pick every 4-5 years on a QB that doesn't turn out. That ties up a lot of money and resources that could be used to fortify the rest of the team.

[sheepshead]

So, Einstein/smart ass/dickhead/ are you talking one game, one regular season, playoff wins, super bowl wins, career? What sort of window do we back your untouchable analysis into?

[Bossman641]

I don't see how you can put a specific number on it. It varies by team. A team with a strong defense and running game (Bears a couple of years ago) is less reliant on the QB than a team like Arizona last year that doesn't have these things.


Great avatar!

GO HAWKS!

Agreed

Not a huge hockey fan but the Hawks are fun to watch. As much as I hate other Chicago teams the Hawks aren't bad at all and it's good to see hockey being relevant again in Chicago.

[sharpe1027]

Parital that's a lot of words to say something very obvious. When you have a good player at a position you can focus on other positions.

Here's a thought. Take a look at QBs that have moved from one team to another. How well does their past performance predict their future performance. That would give you a good indication of whether the team makes the QB or the QB makes the team.

[RashanGary]

So, Einstein/smart ass/dickhead/ are you talking one game, one regular season, playoff wins, super bowl wins, career? What sort of window do we back your untouchable analysis into?

Haha. Sorry about the whole dick head attitude. I hate when people do that and 90% of the time they're full of shit when they do (I was this time too, because the title of my thread really mislead the point of my thread and you were right to assume I meant something because it was implied).




Anyway, the whole point of my thread is this.

We can't attribute wins and losses to the QB because the offense is only a part of the team. Passing is only a part of the offense and the QB is only a part of the passing game.

After you break it all down, people remember the QB most because he touches the ball so damn much, but his actual impact on game isn't so great that we can start attributing wins to the guy. As important as the QB is to the offense a win is a team stat. Offense is team. Passing is team. I just don't know how that leap ever happened.

It was more of a perspective thing. As a whole, I think QB's get way too much credit and sometimes way too much blame.

[vince]

While the specific numbers are obviously debatable and there are undoubtedly more variables than you recognized JH, I think your logic is valid and the analysis is fundamentally good.

Not sure how this would be incorporated into a mathematical equation, but I believe that many fans wrongly overemphasize the importance to winning of having great players relative to the importance of not having weak players.

Weaknesses on either side of the ball get isolated, attacked, and exposed. Coaching and schemes cause individual players to lose games more individuals cause teams to win them. That's very unique among sports, but weak players drag down the rest of the team, no matter how talented in football more than any other sport. You can hide weak defenders in baseball and/or deal with a 200 hitting catcher, and have a weak basketball player do nothing but set picks and foul the center, but you can't hide a weakness on the football field.

That's why its better to have good players everywhere than a few great ones and a bunch of weaker ones. And that's why the teams who overspend in free agency rarely have it pay off.

[RashanGary]

While the specific numbers are obviously debatable and there are undoubtedly more variables than you recognized JH, I think your logic is valid and the analysis is fundamentally good.



Thanks. This is exactly what i was hoping peole would see. I"m not trying to show a mathematical answer, just some perspective using somewhat realistic numbers and a good, common sense thought process.

[RashanGary]

And I think 80% of the pepole here probably agree that the win is about the team much more than it is about the QB but there are a minority group that have attributed the offensive success of the Packers the last 15 years to Brett Favre and give him credit for the Packer success.

That disrespects the really damn good players and really damn good coaches that were a part of this organization. It's always all about one guy to this minority though. I just thought I'd rehash the old arguement, see if any of the worshipers would step off their opinions.

[prsnfoto]

I have no doubt the Packers would have won 10-11 games average every year over the last 16 seasons with Randy Wright at the helm. :roll:

You don't see too many QB's that don't have a single skill player with over a 1000 yards win SB's. I realize 12% is a lot when you are talking one player but I think you discount the importance in the way you debate it.

The Packers do not win or go to two SB's without Favre or Reggie for that matter those are special players, generational players without Reggie they probably still make the playoffs almost every year but don't win a SB. Without Brett they win 6-8 games a year average over 16 seasons.

[Packnut]

I don't see how you can put a specific number on it. It varies by team. A team with a strong defense and running game (Bears a couple of years ago) is less reliant on the QB than a team like Arizona last year that doesn't have these things.


Great avatar!

GO HAWKS!

Agreed

Not a huge hockey fan but the Hawks are fun to watch. As much as I hate other Chicago teams the Hawks aren't bad at all and it's good to see hockey being relevant again in Chicago.

It is a great story. The great thing about it is it's a young team full of guys who play it as a game and not a business.

[Partial]

.That's why its better to have good players everywhere than a few great ones and a bunch of weaker ones.

I disagree with this because the great players are double or triple teamed, leaving it significantly easier for the average player to do their job.

Great players make bad players average. That's the old saying, and time has proven it to be true imo.



And that's why the teams who overspend in free agency rarely have it pay off.

What does this have anything to do with it? I think this goes against your argument, as great players are rarely available, but good players are annually. Spending big money on good players id dumb. Spending big money on great players is a good decision. I don't think you'd find many people that think Drew Brees or Peyton Manning is overpaid at their positions.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I have no doubt the Packers would have won 10-11 games average every year over the last 16 seasons with Randy Wright at the helm.

I agree with what you are saying here.


You don't see too many QB's that don't have a single skill player with over a 1000 yards win SB's.

A bit misleading. They did RB by committe, and had two good RBs. Just because one of them didn't go over 1000 yards doesn't mean that had a poor running game. Plus, their wideouts had some injuries. Brooks and Freeman both missed chunks of time and Rison was only on the team for about 1/2 the year. I wouldn't insinuate they he had nothing to work with. Bennett was solid. Levens was a good RB who didn't get the full load yet. Chmura and Jackson was amongst the best pair of TEs on an NFL team in NFL history. Both Pro Bowlers. Brooks (before he got hurt), Freeman, and Rison weren't a bad group. He had plenty to work with--not to mention the best defense and the best returner in the NFL that season.

[Joemailman]

While the specific numbers are obviously debatable and there are undoubtedly more variables than you recognized JH, I think your logic is valid and the analysis is fundamentally good.



Thanks. This is exactly what i was hoping peole would see. I"m not trying to show a mathematical answer, just some perspective using somewhat realistic numbers and a good, common sense thought process.

The numbers may have some validity if you are talking about an individual season. However, over the long haul, the numbers for a great quarterback would be higher because great quarterbacks tend to have longer shelf lives than great defenses or great running games.

To the guys discussing the Blackhawks in this thread: I started a hockey thread in the Romper Room which no one has responded to. :D

[RashanGary]

That 96 team with the #1 defense and #1 ST's and very good OL, plus weapons. . .

I think Brees, McNabb, Rivers, Rodgers, Brady, Cassel (maybe) Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Big Ben, Manning, Manning, Palmer, Collins, Romo, old Favre, Cutler and possibly others could have been plugged into that great situation and won.




Favre was a hell of a player for a long time. Take nothing away but the one championship we won while he was here was more about that team than it ever was about Brett Favre.

[RashanGary]

I hate to even make this about tearing the guy down because he had a great career.

This isn't about Brett Favre. This is about all QB's getting way too much credit for a team accomplishment and here it's about way too many good players that came through GB getting disrespected because everythign was always about one guy. That's probably the main reason I"m glad he's gone. It's about the team again.

[Partial]

It has nothing to do with longevity, it has to do with talent. Having a QB like Favre or Elway allows the team to focus on building their defense as having a QB like that makes the entire offense that much better.

It's like having a Mario Williams at DE. Makes the entire defense better and they can then focus efforts on offense.

Look at the colts early season. They sucked when Manning was hurt. They were the most dominant team in the NFL once Manning got healthy.

GM is key to a team, of course. They need to find the great players and build around them. You've got to like Thompson's approach to building a team. Approach and execution are two entirely separate entities, though, and should never, ever be confused and combined. His approach is great. I don't think he's done as well drafting as many here do, but he's done good enough to field a good team.

I don't agree he's going to be able to build a consistent winner without a QB. He may build a team with such a great defense that they can win one without a QB (Tampa, Baltimore), but how long does their success last? It's expensive to keep all of those pieces, and without having a core piece like a stud DE or QB it's tough to maintain.

Any good, competent GM is going to keep looking for a quarterback. Take a look at Baltimore. I'm a huge Ozzie Newsome fan, believe he is the best GM in the NFL. He signed Girbach. He liked Boller so he traded a #1 to go up and get him. He liked Troy Smith and took him on the first day. He liked Flocco so he traded up to get him. He's smart enough to recognize that regardless of how good the D is, unless they get a ton of luck, they need a QB to win. In my opinion, they are one of the class orgs of the NFL with the Pack, Colts and Pats.

Having a stud QB makes it infinitely easier to build a very good team. Try doing it when you're spending a first round pick every 4-5 years on a QB that doesn't turn out. That ties up a lot of money and resources that could be used to fortify the rest of the team.

I'm going to go ahead and quote myself because why would you continue debating yourself when the answer lies right here.

[vince]

.That's why its better to have good players everywhere than a few great ones and a bunch of weaker ones.

I disagree with this because the great players are double or triple teamed, leaving it significantly easier for the average player to do their job.

Great players make bad players average. That's the old saying, and time has proven it to be true imo.



And that's why the teams who overspend in free agency rarely have it pay off.

What does this have anything to do with it? I think this goes against your argument, as great players are rarely available, but good players are annually. Spending big money on good players id dumb. Spending big money on great players is a good decision. I don't think you'd find many people that think Drew Brees or Peyton Manning is overpaid at their positions.
Some people, and you're obviously one of them Partial, are star struck about "talent." Nothing will change your mind. Great players can make others better, but weak players make others "weaker" and more importantly the team as a whole - even more.

Look at the great "success" Carson Palmer has had. Great skills, and he had some great receivers, but he hasn't been able to make certain members of his o-line much better. But they sure can take him down.

And to your other point, overpaying for ANY player, no matter how great, good or average, is the recipe for failure. The team then can't afford to get the same depth of talent throughout the roster. That lack of talent and/or depth is likely to get exposed. In a salary capped environment, having players outplay their pay is the key to success.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're not an actuary so stop trying to act like one. These numbers are basically meaningless. QB touches the ball more than any other player on the field.

Factually incorrect. But, what else is new?

[Partial]

You're not an actuary so stop trying to act like one. These numbers are basically meaningless. QB touches the ball more than any other player on the field.

Factually incorrect. But, what else is new?

Are you really going to be "that guy" and nitpick over a center touching the ball more :P I think everyone knew what I meant.

[green_bowl_packer]

This theory will all play out in Chicago with Cutler. Pro-Bowl Quarterback in his prime going to an average, below-average team. Funny you mention Archie Manning, because that's what I think Cutler will pan out to be.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're not an actuary so stop trying to act like one. These numbers are basically meaningless. QB touches the ball more than any other player on the field.

Factually incorrect. But, what else is new?

Are you really going to be "that guy" and nitpick over a center touching the ball more :P I think everyone knew what I meant.

You made the statement. Just another of your long list of mistakes.

And, "touches" the ball the most...please put that into context. What does that mean? Touching the ball is important?

Is a QB who hands off the ball 30 times and passes 15 the same as another who passes 30 and hands off 15? No.

Like most of your arguments....meaningless.

[channtheman]

I agree with this thread whole heartedly. A good example is the Cowboys vs. the Bill on MNF a few years ago (yes those bastards on the NFL network dedicated a whole fucking day to amazing Cowboys MNF comebacks). Tony Homo threw 5 interceptions and lost a fumble in that game. Sure the Bills aren't exactly amazing but obviously the Dallas defense stopped the Bills offense and then Dallas' ST came up huge at the end and recovered an onside kick. Even with total shit play at QB for that game, the TEAM was better than the other team.

[SnakeLH2006]

Interesting read, but there's WAY too many variables in a TEAM game such as the NFL to try to tabulate a QB's % to winning a game over the whole team.

A few years ago in college, Snake had a Stats Analysis class and did a powerpoint speech about QB rating vs. winning %. This is a much better indicator of winning for both the team and QB overall, as it's tried and true. While there are abberrations, I went back into the 1970's to current (2003 at the time) to show that QB rating OVERALL is the best indicator of success on not only a career, yearly, but on a weekly basis.

Yes, some guy might throw 4 Td's for a 140 rating and lose, but it's doubtful. My PP went into depth about ratings from Bradshaw, Montana, and Favre to Joey Harrington, Testaverde, and even the Majik Man himself.

There's just too many variables with no control group to base a factual arugment based on subjectivity, JH. You may be right to a degree, but you have no factual evidence to support.

I could try and post my findings if I can find my old ass floppy disk with that PP on, but suffice it say, without taking into account anything about the coaching, Defense, or ST, the QB is the ultimate deciding factor overall in wins for NFL teams by far. I had bar graphs, stats galore, etc. in depth and was surprised after tons of research that overall whether it be game by game or season-wise, most likely good stat games with the QB rating means major wins. Some think it's an overrated formula, but it is not.

BTW, Snake got an A for the project, and now am hyped to find the PP on my floppy if I can find it. Will be sure to post the PowerPoint up if I can find it. Will look for sure.

[RashanGary]

Snake, that wasn't my point. My point was this:


The offense is only one part of the defense, offense, ST's
The passing game is only one part of the total run/pass offense
The QB is only one part of the passing offense



Because the QB is only a part of a part of a part, how can we attribute wins to to him. I think that scale for measuring a QB is just wrong.

[RashanGary]

I'd measure a QB by him making plays when they count and my not making mistakes that cost the team. Ultimately, I could care less to have a spectacular QB as long as I had a team guy (Aikman, Brady in his younger years when he wasn't asked to win the game) that would be a steadying force on my already great team.

And for the record, I think Favre was more than good enough to win 5 championships had he had top defenses and ST's his whole career. The Packers asked too much of Favre and the offense. He certainly doesn't deserve blame for any of that. He just doesn't deserve credit for bringing the Packers to relevancy and single handedly carrying the Packers below average squad for 15 years. That sells short a lot of great players not to mention the good ones and sets a standard that Favre himself never even came close to meeting. That's where we get all of this crazy debate. The Favre realists, for the most part, appreciate the guy. They just don't overglorify him like he was a hero. He wasn't. He was a very good, sometimes great, sometiems average part of a part of a part of the team.

I'm here, buying the "he's a legend for his durability and larger than lifer persona". I'm not here buying the "he carried the team for 15 years" garbage. I think time will prove that this well lead team will not skip a beat after losing him.

[cheesner]

Snake, that wasn't my point. My point was this:


The offense is only one part of the defense, offense, ST's
The passing game is only one part of the total run/pass offense
The QB is only one part of the passing offense



Because the QB is only a part of a part of a part, how can we attribute wins to to him. I think that scale for measuring a QB is just wrong.I don't mind the overall intent of your analysis, but it is really difficult to say that. There is a synergy that other aspects of the game feed off from the QB position. Having a QB who can make perfectly accurate and catchable balls at 40 yards makes the WR job easier. It also makes the RB job easier by forcing the defense to drop more players into coverage, which makes the running game better by opening up the defense. Having a QB who can make quick reads, for example if he know when a blitz is coming, he can audible to a quick slant so the OL doesn't have to cover the blitzers as long, etc.

[RashanGary]

I thought about that too, Cheesner. However, here is why I disagree.


A great OL can make the passing game sooo much more effective
A great WR corp can make the passing game more effective
A great RB can make the passing game more effective
A great TE can make the passing game more effective
A great OL can make the running game more effective
A great WR can make the running game more effective (Randy Moss for example)
A great RB can make the running game more effective
A great TE can make the running game better

And then I can go through and say every single position on offense can make the ST's better

I can go through and say every single position on offense can make the defense better

I can go through and say every single position on defense effects every other part.

We could make lists a mile long, including backups that rest important players and backups that play due to injury and the list would be very very very long
asdf
asdf
asdf
asdf
asdf
adf
adf
asdf
adf
asdf

adf

Pretend this thing goes on for pages.

Then start over with weak links
A great QB cannot overcome a horrible OL
A great QB cannot overcome a horrible D
keep this one going forever too
asdf
asdf
asdf
asdf
asdf
asdf
adfd
asdf
d
asdf
da


50 pages later. . .



It's a TEAM sport. Every player contributes to the whole in what seems like one of the toughest to explain dynamics in sports.


The QB is obviously an important piece. The number (although clearly not a full explanation of the dynamic of every football team) does represent a very important cog. It does NOT, however, represent a majority of the impact on the game. People who over glorify QB's IMO are jsut wrong. IT's a part of a part of a part and all parts play off of each other.


The QB is the most important player but when you're talking about 53 players, the QB is far overshadowed by the sum of the whole. That concept seems so very obvious to me. It's either tough for me to communicate as I sense it or it's tough for people to grasp or maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it. Most important is a relative term and in this case is diluted because of how much goes into a football team.

[RashanGary]

Now if you want to talk "most important" being a huge part of a team (approaching majority), look at basketball. One star player who is dominate both ways effects almost every second of every game. Of the total minutes played, he directly effects 1/6 of every play both offense and defense. He indirectly but obviously effects every single aspect of every single game. When you change yoru regular players from 45 to 9, most important becomes a very different term. If you want to worship a sports hero that carries his team, go follow Lebron or Kobe. Go follow ron ron or CP. That is a very different dynamic where the hero can and should sometimes overshadow the team.

[Bossman641]

Now if you want to talk "most important" being a huge part of a team (approaching majority), look at basketball. One star player who is dominate both ways effects almost every second of every game. Of the total minutes played, he directly effects 1/6 of every play both offense and defense. He indirectly but obviously effects every single aspect of every single game. When you change yoru regular players from 45 to 9, most important becomes a very different term. If you want to worship a sports hero that carries his team, go follow Lebron or Kobe. Go follow ron ron or CP. That is a very different dynamic where the hero can and should sometimes overshadow the team.

Who's ron ron?

Bron bron?

[Scott Campbell]

I'm here, buying the "he's a legend for his durability and larger than lifer persona". I'm not here buying the "he carried the team for 15 years" garbage.


I think you're right, though it won't be a popular position to take within some circles. We like our heros to leap tall buildings with a single bound. Favre legend is beginning to resemble the legend of Paul Bunyan. I guess what he did wasn't enough for some people, and they feel like they have to embellish it.

[Partial]

Dude, are you that dense? Are we really still having this conversation? I've posted the obvious, 100% correct answer multiple times now. It's a hell of a lot easier to build a team when you have a star to build around. It's a hell of a lot easier yet when that player is a DE or a QB.

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.

[SkinBasket]

I'm here, buying the "he's a legend for his durability and larger than lifer persona". I'm not here buying the "he carried the team for 15 years" garbage.


I think you're right, though it won't be a popular position to take within some circles. We like our heros to leap tall buildings with a single bound. Favre legend is beginning to resemble the legend of Paul Bunyan. I guess what he did wasn't enough for some people, and they feel like they have to embellish it.

What this homo said.

[RashanGary]

I think you're right, though it won't be a popular position to take within some circles. We like our heros to leap tall buildings with a single bound. Favre legend is beginning to resemble the legend of Paul Bunyan. I guess what he did wasn't enough for some people, and they feel like they have to embellish it.

That's exactly it. Favre was a great player for a long time that contributed to a lot of really good teams. He was fun to watch, tough as nails and easy to root for. He'll always be remembered (or should have been always remembered) as a regular guy with a cannon arm that did it his way and did it the right way.

Instead, people have to prop him up to be a savior and watch as their savior is so easily replaced and discarded (pretty much proving he was no savior). They attribute things to him that no QB has ever done and will ever do and fill in circumstancial evidence to prove it to themselves and very ineffectively to others.

We can and should all appreciate what Brett Favre did. We don't have to overglorify him to appreciate him but at the same time, it's exciting to move on from him because a well run organization will not miss a beat. I think that is what we're looking at right now - a well run organization taht won't skip a beat.

[Scott Campbell]

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.


If you care about QB rating, you by default care about yardage. It's in the calculation.

So when you asked "who cares about yardage", my answer would be - Partial cares about yardage. Just like everybody else who watches football.

[RashanGary]

And clearly we're not in a conversation where we can even begin to discuss correlation and causation :lol:

[Bossman641]

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.

Partial, sometimes you confuse the hell out of me. I am 99.9% positive that you have said before you don't care about QB rating at all in shooting down the stats of Rodgers. So if he had a good QB rating this year (6th) doesn't that mean, by your own definition, he is well above average and should have been quarterbacking a winning team?

I decided to take a look at the top 10 QB's by QB rating for the past 3 years and see who made the playoffs.

2006
1. P. Manning - Yes
2. Huard - Yes
3. Brees - Yes
4. McNabb - Yes
5. Romo - Yes
6. Palmer - No
7. Bulger - No
8. Rivers - Yes
9. Brady - Yes
10. Brunell - No

2007
1. Brady - Yes
2. Roethlisberger - Yes
3. Garrard - Yes
4. P. Manning - Yes
5. Romo - Yes
6. Favre - Yes
7. Garcia - Yes
8. Hasselbeck - Yes
9. McNabb - No
10. Warner - No

2008
1. Rivers - Yes
2. Pennington - Yes
3. Wanrer - Yes
4. Brees - No
5. P. Manning - Yes
6. Rodgers - No
7. Schaub - Yes
8. Romo - No
9. Garcia - No
10. Cassell - No

2006 - 7/10 made it
2007 - 8/10 made it
2008 - 5/10 made it

Decided to look at 2005 too out of curiosity

1. P. Manning - Yes
2. Palmer - Yes
3. Roethlisberger - Yes
4. Hasselbeck - Yes
5. Bulger - No
6. Brady - Yes
7. Plummer - Yes
8. Green - No
9. Leftwich - Yes
10. Brees - No

7/10 made it

Overall, 27/40 (67.5%) made the playoffs with the outlier being this year when only 5/10 made it. I think it's more than fair to say that Rodgers was not the problem on this team and if he can consistently put up numbers like this for the rest of his career we should see a lot of playoff football assuming the defense comes together.

[Scott Campbell]

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.

Partial, sometimes you confuse the hell out of me. I am 99.9% positive that you have said before you don't care about QB rating at all in shooting down the stats of Rodgers. So if he had a good QB rating this year (6th) doesn't that mean, by your own definition, he is well above average and should have been quarterbacking a winning team?

I decided to take a look at the top 10 QB's by QB rating for the past 3 years and see who made the playoffs.

2006
1. P. Manning - Yes
2. Huard - Yes
3. Brees - Yes
4. McNabb - Yes
5. Romo - Yes
6. Palmer - No
7. Bulger - No
8. Rivers - Yes
9. Brady - Yes
10. Brunell - No

2007
1. Brady - Yes
2. Roethlisberger - Yes
3. Garrard - Yes
4. P. Manning - Yes
5. Romo - Yes
6. Favre - Yes
7. Garcia - Yes
8. Hasselbeck - Yes
9. McNabb - No
10. Warner - No

2008
1. Rivers - Yes
2. Pennington - Yes
3. Wanrer - Yes
4. Brees - No
5. P. Manning - Yes
6. Rodgers - No
7. Schaub - Yes
8. Romo - No
9. Garcia - No
10. Cassell - No

2006 - 7/10 made it
2007 - 8/10 made it
2008 - 5/10 made it

Decided to look at 2005 too out of curiosity

1. P. Manning - Yes
2. Palmer - Yes
3. Roethlisberger - Yes
4. Hasselbeck - Yes
5. Bulger - No
6. Brady - Yes
7. Plummer - Yes
8. Green - No
9. Leftwich - Yes
10. Brees - No

7/10 made it

Overall, 27/40 (67.5%) made the playoffs with the outlier being this year when only 5/10 made it. I think it's more than fair to say that Rodgers was not the problem on this team and if he can consistently put up numbers like this for the rest of his career we should see a lot of playoff football assuming the defense comes together.


Very interesting. I wonder what that list would look like if you replaced QB rating with passing yards.

[Bossman641]

One more year

2004

1. P. Manning - Yes
2. Culpepper - Yes
3. Brees - Yes
4. McNabb - Yes
5. Roethlisberger - Yes
6. Griese - No
7. Green - No
8. Bulger - Yes
9. Brady - Yes
10. Favre - Yes

8/10 in 2004

Grand total 35/50 or 70%.

[Bossman641]

I'm adding 2 more years to bring it to 7 total

2002
1. Pennington - Yes
2. Gannon - Yes
3. Brad Johnson - Yes
4. Green - No
5. P. Manning - Yes
6. Hasselbeck - No
7. McNabb - Yes
8. Bledsoe - No
9. Brady - No
10. Brunell - No

5/10

2003
1. McNair - Yes
2. P. Manning - Yes
3. Culpepper - No
4. Green - Yes
5. Plummer - Yes
6. Favre - Yes
7. Brooks - No
8. Hasselbeck - Yes
9. Kitna - No
10. Brady - Yes

7/10

47/70 (67%) made the playoffs.

[Partial]

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.


If you care about QB rating, you by default care about yardage. It's in the calculation.

So when you asked "who cares about yardage", my answer would be - Partial cares about yardage. Just like everybody else who watches football.

Pass yardage is an incredible misleading statistic. I think QB rating tends to be as well. You can have a very good rating and not score many points. Somebody can go 9/11 with 1 td off of a bunch of dump off passes and have somebody break a tackle or two and take one long and have an excellent rating. That doesn't mean they did an excellent job. That means they did an efficient job.

Good quarterback play(which I was alluding to by notioning the rating) typically (over a long period of time) results in success because it is easier to build a team when you're not spending high picks constantly trying to find that quarterback. It's quite obvious to me.

Bossman, he did play above average. How many times does a guy have to say that?!? You're an engineering student, right, so you're clearly a smart enough dude to understand that you're not either great or awful. In my opinion, however, when running an NFL team, if you aren't great at the QB position, you keep trying to improve it as much if not more than any other position due to its importance.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Any good, competent GM is going to keep looking for a quarterback. Take a look at Baltimore. I'm a huge Ozzie Newsome fan, believe he is the best GM in the NFL. He signed Girbach. He liked Boller so he traded a #1 to go up and get him. He liked Troy Smith and took him on the first day. He liked Flocco so he traded up to get him.
Well, he had to replace Anthony Wright at QB because he stunk, so he picked Boller. Boller turned out to be a bust as well and had to be replaced, so he took Troy Smith. Smith was a magnificent bust so he wasn't the answer at QB so that meant he had to go find another guy and got Flocco. Flocco is moreso a game manager right now. You and I agreed on that assessment this past season.

I don't see this as Ozzie believing that the QB position always has to be upgraded, he needed it to be upgraded as the picks he made were poor. Now that Flocco appears to be a somewhat decent QB, Ozzie selected no QBs in this last draft. So Ozzie believes that Flacco is good enough that he didn't need to select a new QB this past draft.

So my question is that given that Rodgers is clearly better than Flocco and "the best GM" Ozzie feels that he doesn't need an upgrade over Flocco, why is it that the Packers need to get an upgrade on Rodgers?

[Zool]

Flacco

Dont forget about Steve McNair. They keeps taking QB's high out of necessity not choice.

[Bossman641]

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.


If you care about QB rating, you by default care about yardage. It's in the calculation.

So when you asked "who cares about yardage", my answer would be - Partial cares about yardage. Just like everybody else who watches football.

Pass yardage is an incredible misleading statistic. I think QB rating tends to be as well. You can have a very good rating and not score many points. Somebody can go 9/11 with 1 td off of a bunch of dump off passes and have somebody break a tackle or two and take one long and have an excellent rating. That doesn't mean they did an excellent job. That means they did an efficient job.

Good quarterback play(which I was alluding to by notioning the rating) typically (over a long period of time) results in success because it is easier to build a team when you're not spending high picks constantly trying to find that quarterback. It's quite obvious to me.

Bossman, he did play above average. How many times does a guy have to say that?!? You're an engineering student, right, so you're clearly a smart enough dude to understand that you're not either great or awful. In my opinion, however, when running an NFL team, if you aren't great at the QB position, you keep trying to improve it as much if not more than any other position due to its importance.

Ex-engineer. Accounting is what I ended up doing.

My issue is more with how you have consistently lumped the blame for the losses on Rodgers. I'm not talking a loss here, or a loss there. There were certainly 2-3 where Rodgers and the offense played like shit. It just seems like, in general, whenever you discuss the losses you put them on him.

I disagree with your if not great dump him statement. I certainly wouldn't say Roethlisberger is a great QB. He's really good but he only has to be really good from time to time. The rest of the time he can count on the defense or run game to bail him out. I'd say the difference between the Packer run game/defense and the Steeler run game/defense is a hell of a lot bigger than the difference between Big Ben and Rodgers.

[Scott Campbell]

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.



Pass yardage is an incredible misleading statistic. I think QB rating tends to be as well.



Crystal clear.

[Partial]

Well, he had to replace Anthony Wright at QB because he stunk, so he picked Boller. Boller turned out to be a bust as well and had to be replaced, so he took Troy Smith. Smith was a magnificent bust so he wasn't the answer at QB so that meant he had to go find another guy and got Flocco. Flocco is moreso a game manager right now. You and I agreed on that assessment this past season.

I don't see this as Ozzie believing that the QB position always has to be upgraded, he needed it to be upgraded as the picks he made were poor. Now that Flocco appears to be a somewhat decent QB, Ozzie selected no QBs in this last draft. So Ozzie believes that Flacco is good enough that he didn't need to select a new QB this past draft.

So my question is that given that Rodgers is clearly better than Flocco and "the best GM" Ozzie feels that he doesn't need an upgrade over Flocco, why is it that the Packers need to get an upgrade on Rodgers?

Good post. I agree with it. I think that need and upgrading are basically the same thing. They "upgraded" because the "needed" a respectable player there who could get the job done.

We all saw A-Rod as a rookie. I don't think there is any chance he could do what Flacco did as a rookie. I think Flacco has a higher ceiling as he still has a ton of room to grow mentally. The difference in how Rodgers played the game from year 1 to year 4 was night and day. I don't know if we'll see that from Flacco because I haven't seen him nearly enough to have an opinion, but the difference from going through one off-season and camp and four off-seasons and camp is night and day in my opinion.

Zool, thats what I'm getting at. Teams that have a JAG at QB have to keep trying to find a competent starter (upgrade to one was what I was saying -- same meaning different verbage)

[Partial]

I disagree with your if not great dump him statement. I certainly wouldn't say Roethlisberger is a great QB. He's really good but he only has to be really good from time to time. The rest of the time he can count on the defense or run game to bail him out. I'd say the difference between the Packer run game/defense and the Steeler run game/defense is a hell of a lot bigger than the difference between Big Ben and Rodgers.

You put the Pitt defense with the Rodgers lead offense and it's a team that goes deep in the playoffs, no doubt. I personally believe that Roethilisberger is a better QB, but right now Rodgers has infinitely more weapons (way better line, way better receiver -- santonio is the most overrated player in the NFL after the big catch --, though Heath Miller is a great TE) and with a defense like that, this team would have competed for a super bowl, no doubt.

Problem with that is its very, very, very unlikely to put that sort of skill position talent on offense and defense together. The Steelers don't have anywhere near the talent the Packers do at the skill position on offense. Thats one of the big things that makes our offense go.

I don't know that with the Steelers offense and Rodgers under center if they're a super bowl team. They might still be a playoff team. It's impossible to tell obviously, but since they have Cleveland and Cinci in their division they'd probably sitll win enough games to get into the playoffs.

[Bossman641]

Zool, thats what I'm getting at. Teams that have a JAG at QB have to keep trying to find a competent starter (upgrade to one was what I was saying -- same meaning different verbage)

Million dollar question then - Is Rodgers JAG?

[Zool]

Zool, thats what I'm getting at. Teams that have a JAG at QB have to keep trying to find a competent starter (upgrade to one was what I was saying -- same meaning different verbage)

Million dollar question then - Is Rodgers JAG?

Negative. JAG's would be in the 30th percentile.

[Partial]

Well, it depends on your definition of average.

In school, average is typically normalized to a 75%, which is significantly higher than the half way point.

On a high school basketball team (as an example), are 4 players good, 4 players average, and 4 players bad? Rarely is that the case from my experience. More often than not there are more than 4 players who are very similiar and are lumped as average.

Average is a big range in my opinion, because most people aren't horrible and most people aren't great.

It ultimately comes down to how you define average. He's definitely not a bottom of the barrell QB, or just a guy, but I don't think he's in that elite group either.

[Bossman641]

Well, it defines how you average? In school, average is typically normalized to a 75%, which is significantly higher than the half way point. On a high school basketball team (as an example), are 4 players good, 4 players average, and 4 players bad? Rarely is that the case from my experience. More often than not there are more than 4 players who are very similiar and are lumped as average.

Average is a big range in my opinion, because most people aren't horrible and most people aren't great.

It ultimately comes down to how you define average. He's definitely not a bottom of the barrell QB, or just a guy, but I don't think he's in that elite group either.

I don't mean average mathematically.

I'm asking, IN YOUR OPINION, is he JAG? I'll even clarify it further, is he someone you can win a super bowl with? And legitimately, not the Ravens or Bears carrying shitty QB's to the super bowl.

It's either yes, no, or too soon to tell. Maybe I'm reading your posts wrong, but you seem to be leaning towards "No" rather than "Too soon to tell." That's where we disagree. To me, it seems like you've already decided he's not that player and could never get it done.

[Partial]

Well, it defines how you average? In school, average is typically normalized to a 75%, which is significantly higher than the half way point. On a high school basketball team (as an example), are 4 players good, 4 players average, and 4 players bad? Rarely is that the case from my experience. More often than not there are more than 4 players who are very similiar and are lumped as average.

Average is a big range in my opinion, because most people aren't horrible and most people aren't great.

It ultimately comes down to how you define average. He's definitely not a bottom of the barrell QB, or just a guy, but I don't think he's in that elite group either.

I don't mean average mathematically.

I'm asking, IN YOUR OPINION, is he JAG? I'll even clarify it further, is he someone you can win a super bowl with? And legitimately, not the Ravens or Bears carrying shitty QB's to the super bowl.

It's either yes, no, or too soon to tell. Maybe I'm reading your posts wrong, but you seem to be leaning towards "No" rather than "Too soon to tell." That's where we disagree. To me, it seems like you've already decided he's not that player and could never get it done.

I would say too soon to tell for sure, but so far I haven't seen anything to give any indication that its a sure thing.

[Bossman641]

Well, it defines how you average? In school, average is typically normalized to a 75%, which is significantly higher than the half way point. On a high school basketball team (as an example), are 4 players good, 4 players average, and 4 players bad? Rarely is that the case from my experience. More often than not there are more than 4 players who are very similiar and are lumped as average.

Average is a big range in my opinion, because most people aren't horrible and most people aren't great.

It ultimately comes down to how you define average. He's definitely not a bottom of the barrell QB, or just a guy, but I don't think he's in that elite group either.

I don't mean average mathematically.

I'm asking, IN YOUR OPINION, is he JAG? I'll even clarify it further, is he someone you can win a super bowl with? And legitimately, not the Ravens or Bears carrying shitty QB's to the super bowl.

It's either yes, no, or too soon to tell. Maybe I'm reading your posts wrong, but you seem to be leaning towards "No" rather than "Too soon to tell." That's where we disagree. To me, it seems like you've already decided he's not that player and could never get it done.

I would say too soon to tell for sure, but so far I haven't seen anything to give any indication that its a sure thing.

Progress!!!

I'll take too soon to tell and am fine with agreeing there's no way you can say it's a sure thing Rodgers will take them to a SB. I think he will, but I'm not 100% positive.

Your perspective before seemed to be that it was a sure thing he wouldn't take them to a SB.

[Guiness]

Passing yardage correlation to wins....

I remember a talking head on tv (Maden? Gifford? I don't know. Old white guy, anyways) saying they're often inversely related. He looked at 300yd passing games, and the %age of wins, vs 100yd running games, and the %age of wins. 100yd running games was higher...not to say rushing is more important.

His reasoning was that teams winning in the 4th run the ball, teams losing in the 4th throw the ball. If you're up by 2TD's, you run 3 for 3yds each time, and hope one of the rushes goes for 4 and you get a 1st down. If you're down by 2TD, you throw 3 times for 30 yds, and hope you can keep it up.

[Fritz]

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.



Pass yardage is an incredible misleading statistic. I think QB rating tends to be as well.



Crystal clear.

You must be in the media, Scott. Taking quotes out of context, making it look like Partial is talking out of his rear orifice.

I'm sure he didn't mean those quotes the way they look here. I'm sure there's an explanation. There has been for every other contradiction.

You're one of those mean and evil left wing media guys, Campbell. We see what you're up to.

[cpk1994]

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.



Pass yardage is an incredible misleading statistic. I think QB rating tends to be as well.



Crystal clear.

You must be in the media, Scott. Taking quotes out of context, making it look like Partial is talking out of his rear orifice.

I'm sure he didn't mean those quotes the way they look here. I'm sure there's an explanation. There has been for every other contradiction.

You're one of those mean and evil left wing media guys, Campbell. We see what you're up to.Scot would have to bve right wing as Partial is doing a great Nancy Pelosi immitation.

[SnakeLH2006]

Take the shit in context. Snake was right with his 2004 analysis of QB rating/vs. wins...maybe it's changed since then. It's possible, but was crystal clear in saying my PP (PowerPoint) at thet time said QB rating was a success. Between 1978 till 2004, it's far and few to see if it has changed overall. There are aberrartions now in the last 5 years as Arod had a good QB rating last year, and love that kid, but overalll....it's still QB rating overall to equal success. I for one like Arod but that goes against the grain of winning in 2008. If I could do it again, I'm sure it would show similar gains (stats). It's done it since 1978. Jeez.

[woodbuck27]

This is my take:


Total Team
Defense - 40%
Offense - 40%
ST's - 20%


Offense
Running Game - 40%
Passing Game - 60%


Passing Game
OL - 25%
WR's/TE's - 20%
RB's - 5%
QB - 50%


Let's do the math:


100% * 0.40 (for the offenses portion of the team) * 0.6 (for the passing games portion of the offense) * 0.50 (for the QB's portion of the passing game) = 12%

I estimate the QB is responsible for 12% of the total wins. Football is the ultimate team sport. 53 guys come together to make the whole team. The QB is more important than any one other player but it's not one other player. It's 52 other players and they, the rest of the team, are what make a football team tick. A bad QB can prevent them from getting over the top or maybe a great QB can put a really good team over the top but it's 1/8 of the equations, not the majority of the reason. The whole offense isn't even the majority of the reason. The defense and ST's would make up the majority of the reason a team wins or loses and then you toss in whole offense. Um, yeah, people were crazy to cry about losing Favre and are crazy now if they're whining about Aaron Rodgers.

WOW! You've got some head into this thread JH. :D

The QB doesn't have to be a star or big playmaker as much as a solid field manager and he should be durable as well to allow for a certain consistency of play. Getting into the percentages is a bit dicey JH as different teams have different strength philosophies based in offense or defense.

Most important player a QB? It's definitely a team sport and highly technical. Generally speaking I think we'll agree an NFL team looks for a franchise QB and a solid LT to protect his blindside if that QB is right handed.

[pbmax]

Passing yardage correlation to wins....

I remember a talking head on tv (Maden? Gifford? I don't know. Old white guy, anyways) saying they're often inversely related. He looked at 300yd passing games, and the %age of wins, vs 100yd running games, and the %age of wins. 100yd running games was higher...not to say rushing is more important.

His reasoning was that teams winning in the 4th run the ball, teams losing in the 4th throw the ball. If you're up by 2TD's, you run 3 for 3yds each time, and hope one of the rushes goes for 4 and you get a 1st down. If you're down by 2TD, you throw 3 times for 30 yds, and hope you can keep it up.
That same logic applies to the best rushers in the league. For a long time, the league's leading rushers failed to even get to the Super Bowl, much less win it. I think that string was broken by someone, but it has been a rare occurrence. And you are right, championship teams tend to have a lead in the latter stages of most games and are running it. But they also have tended to get that lead by passing. So there is balance, but it is dictated by score, not just by skill set.

[Partial]

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.



Pass yardage is an incredible misleading statistic. I think QB rating tends to be as well.



Crystal clear.

You must be in the media, Scott. Taking quotes out of context, making it look like Partial is talking out of his rear orifice.

I'm sure he didn't mean those quotes the way they look here. I'm sure there's an explanation. There has been for every other contradiction.

You're one of those mean and evil left wing media guys, Campbell. We see what you're up to.Scot would have to bve right wing as Partial is doing a great Nancy Pelosi immitation.

I think you're all being awfully presumptuous.

QB rating does have a strong correlation to wins. Does that mean to win you need a high QB rating? No. Does that mean if you have a high QB rating you'll win? No.

QB rating representing a QB's success and quality is misleading.

For example, I could easily dump the ball off in the flat and easily go 9/11 for 54 yards. That's a 91 QB rating. Now imagine if one of the backs breaks a tackle and goes 40 yards instead of 6 for a TD, so I'd go 9/11, 88 yds, 1td and I have a rating of 144. Did I really do anything differently as a QB? Nope, I surely did not. This is a proof by example that this stat can be very misleading.

I don't think having the best rating necessarily means you're the best QB. It means you're playing an efficient game.

[RashanGary]

I agree with you 100%


There is a strong correlation of QB rating to wins but I agree that QB rating is a team rating more than it is a QB rating.


When you have great surrounding talent, odds are you are going to have a much better QB rating. When you have great surrounding talent odds are you are going to win more. When you don't ask too much from you QB because the rest of the team is great, odds are he's not going to take as many risks and is giong to have a better QB rating.

Great teams do not ask the QB to force anything. They are balanced. The QB ends up being a leader and an efficient player. See the Titans last year or Ravens or Falcons. Good teams Good QB ratings.

The Packers were the opposite. Bad team. Great offensive passing talent. Very good QB (although he still had some first year jitters to work out before he's elite). Good QB rating. Same general rating, Very different teams.

correlation is not causation however, odds are if we get a top 5 defense/ST any time soon, the Packers will be one of the dominate teams in the NFL and a front runner for the SB. That's how I read it.

A solid QB on a great team will perform better than a Great QB on a bad team.

[ThunderDan]

Snake is absolutely right that QB rating has a strong correlation to wins.



Pass yardage is an incredible misleading statistic. I think QB rating tends to be as well.



Crystal clear.

You must be in the media, Scott. Taking quotes out of context, making it look like Partial is talking out of his rear orifice.

I'm sure he didn't mean those quotes the way they look here. I'm sure there's an explanation. There has been for every other contradiction.

You're one of those mean and evil left wing media guys, Campbell. We see what you're up to.Scot would have to bve right wing as Partial is doing a great Nancy Pelosi immitation.

I think you're all being awfully presumptuous.

QB rating does have a strong correlation to wins. Does that mean to win you need a high QB rating? No. Does that mean if you have a high QB rating you'll win? No.

QB rating representing a QB's success and quality is misleading.

For example, I could easily dump the ball off in the flat and easily go 9/11 for 54 yards. That's a 91 QB rating. Now imagine if one of the backs breaks a tackle and goes 40 yards instead of 6 for a TD, so I'd go 9/11, 88 yds, 1td and I have a rating of 144. Did I really do anything differently as a QB? Nope, I surely did not. This is a proof by example that this stat can be very misleading.

I don't think having the best rating necessarily means you're the best QB. It means you're playing an efficient game.

For one game or a small subset that might be true. Over a 16 game season it all levels out. That same running back is likely at some point in the season to tip the ball in the air and have it intercepted causing the QBs ranking to dip into the 50s.

The other issue is that on one throw the ball is perfectly in stride with the RB and he is going full speed and is able to break the tackle because his head is up. The second throw is six inched behind the first throw and the RB has to spend that extra fraction of a second concentrating on the catch and he gets tackled.

Personally, I think the QB ranking is flawed but it's the best system to try to objectively evaluate QBs. One can always pull-up specific examples where the system fails.

[retailguy]

I'm not sure that this statistic does average out over 16 games. There are too many things that the number is dependent on to know for sure.

For example, play selection and personnel determine this number. Injuries could be a factor. Whether you are consistently ahead or behind can factor in to the types of plays that a team would run. This could skew the stat one way or the other depending on the percentage of run vs. pass. If your star running back gets injured in game 1, and he was a great pass catcher out of the backfield, and his replacement went to the Troy Williamson finishing school, then your season just changed dramatically.

If you hire Mike Martz as your offensive coordinator, replacing say, Forrest Gregg, then that would also have an impact on your passer rating too, based on the different focus of the offense.

It probably statistically evens out over 2 -5 years and might typically even out over a year, but many things could also keep it from evening out over 1 season.

[ThunderDan]

I'm not sure that this statistic does average out over 16 games. There are too many things that the number is dependent on to know for sure.

For example, play selection and personnel determine this number. Injuries could be a factor. Whether you are consistently ahead or behind can factor in to the types of plays that a team would run. This could skew the stat one way or the other depending on the percentage of run vs. pass. If your star running back gets injured in game 1, and he was a great pass catcher out of the backfield, and his replacement went to the Troy Williamson finishing school, then your season just changed dramatically.

If you hire Mike Martz as your offensive coordinator, replacing say, Forrest Gregg, then that would also have an impact on your passer rating too, based on the different focus of the offense.

It probably statistically evens out over 2 -5 years and might typically even out over a year, but many things could also keep it from evening out over 1 season.

I was specifically talking about Partial's example. Assuming it was the same RB, QB, etc and getting two different outcomes that change the QB's rating.

But you bring up a good point so I did some research.

Here are some statistics:
5,069 yds 317 ypg 34 td 17 int 96.2 rating
3,653 yds 228 ypg 19 td 7 int 97.4 rating
3,043 yds 277 ypg 15 td 10 int 92.7 rating
3,238 yds 202 ypg 21 td 10 int 86.4 rating

There is a huge difference in ypg thrown because of different offensive schemes yet QB rating numbers are close especially the first two.

[Partial]

The fact that Chad Pennington is one of the NFL's all-time highest rated passers says everything you need to know about that stat. It doesn't always balance out and it is an efficiency stat, not a quality of QB stat.

[mraynrand]

93.4% of coaches agree that statistics are a crude and inadequate way to evaluate a QBs' contribution to the team.

[retailguy]

93.4% of coaches agree that statistics are a crude and inadequate way to evaluate a QBs' contribution to the team.

Well. That kind of settles it, doesn't it. :P

[ThunderDan]

The fact that Chad Pennington is one of the NFL's all-time highest rated passers says everything you need to know about that stat. It doesn't always balance out and it is an efficiency stat, not a quality of QB stat.

The fact that Chad Pennington took a 1-15 team and went 11-5 the next year should damn well tell you how well Pennington played as a QB in 2008.

[ThunderDan]

The fact that Chad Pennington is one of the NFL's all-time highest rated passers says everything you need to know about that stat. It doesn't always balance out and it is an efficiency stat, not a quality of QB stat.

Well then let's look at career stats:
Pennington - 85 games 1,580/2,395 17,391 yrds 7.3 ypa 101 td 62 int 90.6 rating
E. Manning - 73 games 1,276/2,284 14,623 yrds 6.4 ypa 98 td 74 int 76.1 rating

[Partial]

The fact that Chad Pennington is one of the NFL's all-time highest rated passers says everything you need to know about that stat. It doesn't always balance out and it is an efficiency stat, not a quality of QB stat.

Well then let's look at career stats:
Pennington - 85 games 1,580/2,395 17,391 yrds 7.3 ypa 101 td 62 int 90.6 rating
E. Manning - 73 games 1,276/2,284 14,623 yrds 6.4 ypa 98 td 74 int 76.1 rating

What's your point?

[ThunderDan]

The fact that Chad Pennington is one of the NFL's all-time highest rated passers says everything you need to know about that stat. It doesn't always balance out and it is an efficiency stat, not a quality of QB stat.

Well then let's look at career stats:
Pennington - 85 games 1,580/2,395 17,391 yrds 7.3 ypa 101 td 62 int 90.6 rating
E. Manning - 73 games 1,276/2,284 14,623 yrds 6.4 ypa 98 td 74 int 76.1 rating

What's your point?

I know how you think Eli is a stud and am using him as a measuring stick against someone that you dismissed at the beginning of this back-and-forth.

Chad took the NY Jets in 2006 to the playoffs with a 10-6 record. That sounds pretty familiar to what Brett did in 2008.

[Merlin]

Probably not, Partial. I can agree to that. Collins would be injured and there would be losing seasons. During those injury times, the other guy would get a chance and maybe Collins would have been let go sooner than Favre.


Favre deserves all the credit in the world for his longevity and durability and because of that the QB stability for the Packers.

He was a part every year, but the Packers are a well run organization. Sherman eventually tore down Wolfs roster, but for most of the last 15 years the Packers have had one of the better teams in teh NFC (and definitly in the NFC north).


I believe the GM is the key to a winning team. If ownership hires the right guy and gives him control, no matter who he starts with at QB, he'll end up building a winner. I believe we have that GM and that winning attitude and I believe the 10 years after Favre will be as good as the last 12 years with him (lots of wins, lots of playoffs and I think we have a damn good chance at a championship).

I have a hard time saying that we "have the right GM" after the past 4 seasons. The question again comes up; "When exactly is the future?" I would argue that it was last year because the team had 2 years to work under the same coaching philosophies, and they fell on their asses. Rodgers played well enough for us to win, and the Favre "it" factor may have given us 1-2 more wins but that's it. Rodgers will hopefully have "it" this season, he should because 2008 was a good season for him as basically a "rookie". Other then that, Thompson gets a pass?? I don't think so.

This year, new philosophies, how long before it pays off? I see them as new excuses for Thompson to keep his job, you have used MANY of those as reasons he hasn't been successful yet in defending your admiration for him. I think you are giving too much credit to a GM who as of yet isn't a winning GM. Maybe the next 10 years will be great, then again maybe they won't. As a fan, a human being, with a limited life span, I would like to enjoy a winning team every season, not 1 every 4 years as has been the case under Thompson. The NFL is all about winning and Thompson has to date not done that - yet you follow him blindly. It doesn't make any sense. He deserves even the smallest of skepticism from his most ardent supporters - unless you like losing, which I find hard to believe.

Bottom Line: It's about winning football games, not how many changes he can make, how many years that takes, until he gets it right. I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else is "happy" about the past 4 years under Thompson, if you say you are, then apparently you aren't a fan of the game. I can go watch the Lions play, probably for free @ Ford Field, if I want to watch a team lose football games...

[ThunderDan]

Probably not, Partial. I can agree to that. Collins would be injured and there would be losing seasons. During those injury times, the other guy would get a chance and maybe Collins would have been let go sooner than Favre.


Favre deserves all the credit in the world for his longevity and durability and because of that the QB stability for the Packers.

He was a part every year, but the Packers are a well run organization. Sherman eventually tore down Wolfs roster, but for most of the last 15 years the Packers have had one of the better teams in teh NFC (and definitly in the NFC north).


I believe the GM is the key to a winning team. If ownership hires the right guy and gives him control, no matter who he starts with at QB, he'll end up building a winner. I believe we have that GM and that winning attitude and I believe the 10 years after Favre will be as good as the last 12 years with him (lots of wins, lots of playoffs and I think we have a damn good chance at a championship).

I have a hard time saying that we "have the right GM" after the past 4 seasons. The question again comes up; "When exactly is the future?" I would argue that it was last year because the team had 2 years to work under the same coaching philosophies, and they fell on their asses. Rodgers played well enough for us to win, and the Favre "it" factor may have given us 1-2 more wins but that's it. Rodgers will hopefully have "it" this season, he should because 2008 was a good season for him as basically a "rookie". Other then that, Thompson gets a pass?? I don't think so.

This year, new philosophies, how long before it pays off? I see them as new excuses for Thompson to keep his job, you have used MANY of those as reasons he hasn't been successful yet in defending your admiration for him. I think you are giving too much credit to a GM who as of yet isn't a winning GM. Maybe the next 10 years will be great, then again maybe they won't. As a fan, a human being, with a limited life span, I would like to enjoy a winning team every season, not 1 every 4 years as has been the case under Thompson. The NFL is all about winning and Thompson has to date not done that - yet you follow him blindly. It doesn't make any sense. He deserves even the smallest of skepticism from his most ardent supporters - unless you like losing, which I find hard to believe.

Bottom Line: It's about winning football games, not how many changes he can make, how many years that takes, until he gets it right. I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else is "happy" about the past 4 years under Thompson, if you say you are, then apparently you aren't a fan of the game. I can go watch the Lions play, probably for free @ Ford Field, if I want to watch a team lose football games...

Yeah that loss in the NFC Championship game sucked; that some how you make absolutely no mention of. The first one since 1998 when we lost to Denver in the Super Bowl.

Once again 2005 is not TT's fault. The Packers couldn't sign the players needed because of cap hell. It's hard to turn a whole roster over in 1 year.

[ThunderDan]

Probably not, Partial. I can agree to that. Collins would be injured and there would be losing seasons. During those injury times, the other guy would get a chance and maybe Collins would have been let go sooner than Favre.


Favre deserves all the credit in the world for his longevity and durability and because of that the QB stability for the Packers.

He was a part every year, but the Packers are a well run organization. Sherman eventually tore down Wolfs roster, but for most of the last 15 years the Packers have had one of the better teams in teh NFC (and definitly in the NFC north).


I believe the GM is the key to a winning team. If ownership hires the right guy and gives him control, no matter who he starts with at QB, he'll end up building a winner. I believe we have that GM and that winning attitude and I believe the 10 years after Favre will be as good as the last 12 years with him (lots of wins, lots of playoffs and I think we have a damn good chance at a championship).

I have a hard time saying that we "have the right GM" after the past 4 seasons. The question again comes up; "When exactly is the future?" I would argue that it was last year because the team had 2 years to work under the same coaching philosophies, and they fell on their asses. Rodgers played well enough for us to win, and the Favre "it" factor may have given us 1-2 more wins but that's it. Rodgers will hopefully have "it" this season, he should because 2008 was a good season for him as basically a "rookie". Other then that, Thompson gets a pass?? I don't think so.

This year, new philosophies, how long before it pays off? I see them as new excuses for Thompson to keep his job, you have used MANY of those as reasons he hasn't been successful yet in defending your admiration for him. I think you are giving too much credit to a GM who as of yet isn't a winning GM. Maybe the next 10 years will be great, then again maybe they won't. As a fan, a human being, with a limited life span, I would like to enjoy a winning team every season, not 1 every 4 years as has been the case under Thompson. The NFL is all about winning and Thompson has to date not done that - yet you follow him blindly. It doesn't make any sense. He deserves even the smallest of skepticism from his most ardent supporters - unless you like losing, which I find hard to believe.

Bottom Line: It's about winning football games, not how many changes he can make, how many years that takes, until he gets it right. I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else is "happy" about the past 4 years under Thompson, if you say you are, then apparently you aren't a fan of the game. I can go watch the Lions play, probably for free @ Ford Field, if I want to watch a team lose football games...

How many years did it take Ron Wolf to get us to the NFC Championship game? Five years. Wolf started 9-7, 9-7, 9-7. Should the Packers have canned him after showing no improvement after 3 years?

[retailguy]

How many years did it take Ron Wolf to get us to the NFC Championship game? Five years. Wolf started 9-7, 9-7, 9-7. Should the Packers have canned him after showing no improvement after 3 years?

I love these debates!

Isn't 3 years of 9-7, followed by 13-3 better than 4-12, 8-8, 13-3, 6-10?

Heck, even leave the 6-10 and the 13-3 out.

9-7 x 3 = 27-21
9-7 X 3 + 13-3 = 40-24

4-12 + 8-8 + 13-3 = 25 - 23
4-12 + 8-8 + 13-3 + 6-10 = 31 - 33

Dan, I understand the point you were trying to make, but really, if you're going to judge based on wins & losses, and the "continuity" of wins and losses, Thompson is no Ron Wolf. Ron Wolf in tandem with Mike Holmgren was much more consistent. Granted they didn't have the "Brett drama" to deal with, but still....

There's more to it than that. Stick with that.... This isn't working.. :wink:

[Fritz]

We're going to find out in the next two years if Thompson has done the job.

[ThunderDan]

How many years did it take Ron Wolf to get us to the NFC Championship game? Five years. Wolf started 9-7, 9-7, 9-7. Should the Packers have canned him after showing no improvement after 3 years?

I love these debates!

Isn't 3 years of 9-7, followed by 13-3 better than 4-12, 8-8, 13-3, 6-10?

Heck, even leave the 6-10 and the 13-3 out.

9-7 x 3 = 27-21
9-7 X 3 + 13-3 = 40-24

4-12 + 8-8 + 13-3 = 25 - 23
4-12 + 8-8 + 13-3 + 6-10 = 31 - 33

Dan, I understand the point you were trying to make, but really, if you're going to judge based on wins & losses, and the "continuity" of wins and losses, Thompson is no Ron Wolf. Ron Wolf in tandem with Mike Holmgren was much more consistent. Granted they didn't have the "Brett drama" to deal with, but still....

There's more to it than that. Stick with that.... This isn't working.. :wink:

After 3 years would you have kept the GM that goes 9-7, 9-7, 9-7 or the one that goes 4-12, 8-8, 13-3 and gets us to the NFC Championship game?

That's what I am trying to point out. :idea: Quick knee-jerk reactions keep a franchise average at best. Right around 50% of the NFL teams have losing records should all of those GM's be canned?

Looking solely at the final record is not the correct way to evaluate your GM. Stuff happens during the NFL season that you try to prepare for but you can't. Remember having Taco Wallace and Samkon Gato on our team.

[retailguy]

After 3 years would you have kept the GM that goes 9-7, 9-7, 9-7 or the one that goes 4-12, 8-8, 13-3 and gets us to the NFC Championship game?

That's what I am trying to point out. :idea:

Yeah, I understand Dan. But then, when you look at 6-10 the following year after the Championship game, it weakens your argument.

That's my point. There is a better argument than the one you used. You can defeat this perspective after this year, or, it will defeat you using this argument. But, not many can look at the quality of the football players on the roster and not see improvement from the 2005 team. That's why Thompson gets another year. Potential. That's why Ron Wolf stayed around. That's why Ray Rhodes got canned. Potential. Much better argument.

Jury is still out.

[Partial]

GMs get longer because they can typically blame a coach and have an opportunity for a second one.

There is a huge degree of turnover in the NFL, so failure is not accepted. The GM often makes the coach the scapegoat.

Look at the coaches turned over this year alone:
Raiders-fired Lane Kiffin
Broncos-fired Mike Shanahan
Browns-fired Romeo Crennel
Jets-fired Eric Mangini
Rams-fired Scott Linehan
49ers-fired Mike Nolan
Lions-fired Rod Marinelli
Bucs - fired Jon Gruden
Chiefs - Herm Edwards


Then, a few others off the top of my head from recent years were:
Tice, Sherman, Marty Schottenheimer, Whoever was in Az before the Steelers OC took over, etc.

That's basically half the league in 3-4 years.

[woodbuck27]

We're going to find out in the next two years if Thompson has done the job.

Yes. So he still gets a break for the teams results to date and the pressure of the Favre saga.

Can we possibly agree that he has done the job to date? It's only about wins and playoff performances as we go ahead and discuss Ted Thompson and his success as out GM. Also it's about getting it all together.

Now we can hopefully agree that our 'D' was poor last season and especially where it has to succeed or against the run. We have made a significant adjustment for our 'D'. We have to be happy with our QB as he has alot of upside. We have excellent WR's and a maturing OL with depth and we need more fr. our vet's there. Hopefully our running game will stand up.

I'm optimistic. I want Ted Thompson to look great.

GO PACKERS!

[ThunderDan]

After 3 years would you have kept the GM that goes 9-7, 9-7, 9-7 or the one that goes 4-12, 8-8, 13-3 and gets us to the NFC Championship game?

That's what I am trying to point out. :idea:

Yeah, I understand Dan. But then, when you look at 6-10 the following year after the Championship game, it weakens your argument.

That's my point. There is a better argument than the one you used. You can defeat this perspective after this year, or, it will defeat you using this argument. But, not many can look at the quality of the football players on the roster and not see improvement from the 2005 team. That's why Thompson gets another year. Potential. That's why Ron Wolf stayed around. That's why Ray Rhodes got canned. Potential. Much better argument.

Jury is still out.

It strengthens my argument. :oops:

You can't look at a 13-3 year and say you have the best GM in the league even if you win the Super Bowl. There are too many factors to look stictly at record.

You need to look at the 6-10 also when evaluating TT. But more importantly you need to look at the depth of the team from top to bottom. Packer players that are cut or put on the practice squad are now being frequently picked up by other teams.

You need to look at the coaches and ask yourself do they put our players in the best position to win. Do we have innovators for coaches like Dom Capers or guys that line up the same in the same down and distance every time like Bob Sanders.

[SnakeLH2006]

It's funny how this turned into a TT debate, but again, Partial, the key to correlating QB rating to success is what this thread was about.

I made the point early on about QB rating (conventional formula) equates success overall in my college stat course PowerPoint from 1978-2004. Bossman went and did a throwdown of the of the top 10 QB rated guys from 2002-present and it was at 70% exactly for those QB's making the playoffs. Thanks BTW. :?

Anyway, you can argue all you want that it isn't the end-all as there are abberations to ANYTHING, yet 70% is a pretty good barometer of good QB play over a season.

2008 Rodgers was an aberration then, good ass QB rating over a full season, 6-10 record (obviously no playoffs) but that was on the D if anything. If he does this over a career, chances are the D will get better, much better for some seasons, and he'll be a SB QB potentially. Passing yards mean nothing. How many SuperBowls did Dan Fouts win? :P You can argue it, but ARod is the right man for the job, based on last season. And again, BTW, didn't he throw for over 4000 yards last year with a killer QB rating? :shock: Awesome season. Arod FTW. 8-)

[th87]

Do you want a pretty good cake that takes 30 minutes in the oven?

Or do you want an amazing cake that takes an hour in the oven?

I'll take the amazing cake.

[SnakeLH2006]

Do you want a pretty good cake that takes 30 minutes in the oven?

Or do you want an amazing cake that takes an hour in the oven?

I'll take the amazing cake.

Agreed, th87. Snake loves amazing cakes. Some will take a subpar cake even if the entree is excellent, but great cakes are hard to find. Why not have a great cake and a great entree instead of settling for a piss-poor meal cuz your cake sucks and you won't return? So why settle for a shitty cake for one time (year/career) instead of getting a great cake everytime (franchise QB). Good post. Snake loves analogies.

This whole logic turned into settling for a so-so QB instead of a game-changer??? Why not get a stud (Arod looks that part so far) over a game-manager? What logic is there in that?

This might turn into a sig. Ok just did.

Snake likes your post, sir. Thanks for the new sig. You summed it up well.