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

[Bossman641]

Re: 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!

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.

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]

Re: 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!

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.

[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.