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

[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.