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]

Kane

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?