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

[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]

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

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.

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.