Quartebacks are over/under rated

In My Humble Opinion
21

As I see it, there are a couple of factors that play into the effectiveness of a QB. Those same factors can deceive people into thinking that a particular QB’s skill level is higher than it really is. Those factors would be Offensive Line, wide receiver skill level, and effectiveness of the running game.

I am beginning to think that the Rams have a situation in which the talent on offense makes the QB look better than he really is. The Rams OL, anchored by Orlando Pace, is excellent. Add that to Marshall Faulk (who also benefits from that OL) and two very fast wide receivers, and the QB position becomes much easier. Trent Green never really had a chance to play in that offense, but it’s very possible that he would have looked just as good, if not better than Kurt Warner. Marc Bulger’s performances of late would seem to suggest that the talent of those around him can elevate the QB position on that team. I’d be surprised if Bulger went to another team with less talent and looked as good as he has been.
I’m also thinking that perhaps Rich Gannon is benefiting from a good OL, WR corps, and running game, but it’s hard to say.

On the other side of that coin, Brett Favre elevates the game of those around him. His OL is okay, he’s had various running backs with varying talent levels, and many of his WR’s have been pretty mediocre. But his playmaking ability makes them all better. I can’t stand the Packers, but I must say that Favre is pretty freaking special. Donovan McNabb does the same thing, but to a lesser degree. And a little further down that scale would be Bledsoe…

Contrary to the point of someone else who posted here, I think Brad Johnson of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers also elevates the play of his team. To say otherwise shows a lack of knowledge about the man and that team. They have a poor OL, no running game to speak of, yet he and his WR’s have absorbed a new, difficult offense and are 8-2. In addition, every team he’s been on has been better with him in the pocket. He also is fourth in all-time QB accuracy.

, is the QB position over/under rated? Well, I think it depends on the other components of your team. However, since the QB touches the ball more than anyone else on the team by far (not including the center), underestimating the importance of having a good QB is folly.

22

Moderator’s Note: Moving to IMHO.

What’s with all these old threads popping up, anyhow?

23

Hey, I’m just a stupid girl and I don’t understand much about football, so humor me. How were Elway and Bradshaw overrated?

I think this is what has been happening in Denver for as long as I’ve watched footballs. Elway could get them as far as the Superbowl…but he couldn’t get them the win because he needed the entire team. (And a fucking coach, don’t even get me started…but I digress) That didn’t happen until the end of his career (sweetest day of my life, that Superbowl, but I digress again.)
But now I think the Broncos have a fairly decent team. The defense hasn’t looked tihs good in a long time, Smith, McCaffery, and Sharpe are all healthy, they have a fantastic running game (Portis and Anderson) but Griese runs hot and cold. You neve rknow what the hell he’s going to do on a game to game basis. So now we ahve the team, but the QB is not helping.
You can have the greatest running back currently playing and have a record of 3-7. Alternately, you cna have one of the greatest QBs in the league, and still have a record below .500. Without a good defense you got nothing. without a decent coach you lose Superbowl after superbowl (ooops, there’s my bitterness again.)
I guess that’s why they call it a team…

24

While nobody is denying the importance of a complete team, there are plenty of counter-examples:

For instance, even in his old crippled years, Joe Montana did amazing things with the rather pitiful KC Chiefs. Likewise, Elway dragged some less-than-quality teams kicking and screaming through the post season. Moreover, the West Coast offence require extremely precise timing on the part of the QB, especially in footwork.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that most of the QBs regarded as “great” started for one team for many years. There’s a reason for this: even as linemen, running backs, and receivers came and went they maintained a level of play good enough to keep the starting position, and win. It also makes it hard to compare how well other QBs fared in the same system; by the time another QB got a chance, the team was completely different.

On the other hand, Vinny Testaverde is quite possibly the most overrated QB ever, and that’s pretty tough considering he’s only gotten off and on praise. I hadn’t even heard of him when they moved the detestable Ravens to Baltimore. I went to a few games and watched him float so many cornerback-career-boosts that I wanted a chance to play safety for the opposing team.

25

You err in calling the Chiefs “rather pitiful”. See their records here

From 1990-1992 - prior to Montana’s arrival - the Chiefs were 31-17. In 1993-1994 (the two years Montana played for them, they were 20-12. No improvement there. OTOH, they did win two playoff games in 93 (none in 94) vs 1 in the prior three years, so there might have been some slight improvement. Also, Montana was along in years by then. I would consider this case neutral in terms of my thesis.

I don’t know about that either. The mainstay of Denver for most of Elway’s years there was an outstanding defense. Elway’s numbers were frequently not all that outstanding, but he won a lot of games, particularly on fourth quarter comebacks. This is a product of his being on a strong defensive team - if you’ve not done a whole lot all game but are still trailing by only 10-7 in the fourth quarter, you score one touchdown, the defence holds and you are a hero. I’d be interested in a comparison with how his backups performed during those years, if you can dig one up.

Disagree here too. As previously noted, for many many years, anyone the Niners stuck in there at quarterback performed outstandingly.

26

N.B. There is virtually no statistical correllation between passing yardage and winning percentage in the NFL. There is a very strong correllation between running yardage and winning percentage. (Likewise with run defense)

This is not to say that the quarterback makes no difference–obviously, anyone would take Joe Montana over Spergon Wynn…but it’s far more important to have a strong running game and to shut down your opponent’s running game. If you look at the stats at the end of the day and see your team has 45 or 50 passing attempts, they probably lost.

27

Just a couple randaom thoughts on some of the names floated out above:

Vick is an incredible talent and he is amazing to watch. He will be great someday, assuming he lives long enough. A couple more seasons of taking hits like a running back and he’ll soon be a pocket passer with less mobility than Lynn Dickey.

I was stunned – stunned – to find out that Vinny is in 9th place on the all time career passing yardage list and 12th place on the carrer TD passes list. It just goes to show that 16 years of mediocrity can pay off eventually.

28

This is a classic misuse of statistics. The reason for the corrolation is not because passing yardage fails to win and rushing yardage wins - for the most part yardage is yardage. The reason is because teams that are trailing in the game tend to pass (takes less time off the clock) and teams that in front tend to run (same reason).

29

Not a misuse of statistics, but rather, a plain fact. Granted, one of the reasons for the non-correllation between passing yardage and winning is because teams pass more when they fall behind. Also, passing plays will yield a higher rate of turnovers than running plays–so unless a particular qb has an exceptionally low INT rate (or the running back is a klutzy butterfingers), an emphasis on the run will tend to yield a better turnover ratio, which in turn, yields more wins.

Of course, if you’ve got a good running back, it can help improve the passing game by making it easier to sell the play action pass.

30

Trent Green absolutely did. Check out his 2000 numbers.

Banks didn’t do anything special with the Rams, but he also didn’t have Marshall Faulk or Torry Holt at the time, like Warner did.

31

No contradiction here - a misuse of statistics does not preclude the possibility of a plain fact - to the contrary, generally.

What is a plain fact here is that there exists a correlation between rushing yards and winning. What is a misuse of statistics is to say that this correlation implies that rushing yards cause the winning - it does not, as noted.

This is not to say that there is not some advantage to rushing. In addition to the turnover issue you’ve noted, it is also true that rushing plays have a higher likelihood of gaining positive yardage. OTOH, passing plays have a significantly higher average of yards per play. So there’s a lot of factors at play, and a full discussion would perhaps be beyond the scope of this thread. But again, the correlation you note is meaningless in this context.

32

This can be argued for years with no conclusion. A few points:

  1. The quarterback made a bigger difference in the old days, when quarterbacks called all the plays. Obviously, play calling has an effect on the team’s success.

  2. A quarterback is more dependent on personnel than a running back. Sure, a bad offensive line means a running back has trouble getting free, but it can be fatal to a QB, who won’t be able to set up to throw. Similarly, the QB is dependent on the quality of his receivers.

  3. Though Testaverde is a good candidate for most overrated QB, a better choice is Joe Namath (and I say this as a lifelong Jets fan). He was injury prone, of course, but also a poor play caller at a time when play calling was essential (or rather, the closer he got to the goal line, the worse he got. The Namath Jets would always run the ball when it was goal to go.). Namath also had 220 interceptions in 140 games; Testaverde had 230 in 190 games (not counting this season). Further, Testaverde has more TDs than interceptions; Namath had 50 more interceptions. Ultimately, if it hadn’t been for one game (which was pretty much won due to defense and the ground game), Namath would not be in the FB HOF.

33

NONSENSE!

Sorry, but I go berserk whenever a sportscaster reads of factoids like (I’m making these up, don’t take them literally):

“The Dallas Cowboys are 32-1 when Emmitt Smith carries the ball 35 times or more.”

“The Washington Redskins were 24-0 when John Riggins ran foir 100+ yards.”

“Last year, NFL teams went a combined 4 - 32 when the quarterback threw 50 or more passes.”

Commentators and uninformed sportswriters invariably seize on this as “proof” that passing is for sissies and losers, and that great teams win mainly by running the ball. In reality, those commentators have things ass backwards!

The Cowboys didn’t win those 32 games because Emmitt Smith had 35 carries! Just the opposite! They gave Emmitt Smith the ball 35 times (mostly in the 2nd half) because Aikman and Irvin had given them a big lead! And the Redskins didn’t win those 24 games because Riggins ran for 100 yards. Just the opposite! The Redskins were usually able to give Riggins the ball repeatedly in the 2nd half because they’d already built up big leads- by PASSING. And teams don’t lose BECAUSE they pass 50 times. Just the opposite! They HAVE to pass a lot in the second half because they’re trailing!

When you look at the stats, you’ll find something interesting: the Super Bowl champs usually average about the same number of yards per rushing attempt as the worst team in the NFL. On the other hand, the best teams in the NFL usually have the highest yards-per-pass averages.

That’s one reason I regard Bart Starr as the most underrated football player in history, just ahead of Bob Griese.- yes, UNDERRATED, even though they’re both in the Hall of Fame. Underrated, because the conventional wisdom is that the Packer and Dolphin dynasties were built exclusively on the power running game, and that Bart Starr and Bob Griese were nickel-and-dime passers.

In reality, Starr and Griese always excelled in the two most important ways a quarterback can excel:

  1. Both always had very high yards-per-pass averages.
  2. Neither threw many interceptions.
34

He may have elevated the play of the Bucs, but I’d say he wasn’t able to do the same in Washington.

Brad QB’d the Redskins in 1999 and 2000. He got the team off to a good start in 1999, but lost steam later in the season; down the stretch the Redskins did well in the games Norv remembered to keep running Stephen Davis, and poorly in the games where Norv would get caught up in the pass.

In 2000, one of the Redskins’ big problems was their playing down to the level of weaker opponents, and Brad was very much a part of that, IMHO. (Brad had 11 TDs and 15 INTs in 2000, a worse ratio than Jeff George.)

35

Maybe you were watching a different Redskins team than I was during those years. While Theismann’s passing game was certainly as much a part of the offense as Riggo’s running, Riggins’ running was the foundation of the Redskins’ offense in those years, from the first quarter on. Gibbs (and Pardee before him) ran Riggins early and often, and didn’t give up on him easily. Theismann was a hell of a lot more successful QB in 1979-81-82 with Riggins in the backfield, than he was without Riggins in 1980. (And I say this as a big Theismann fan.)

Maybe it’s because my team is in the NFC East, where the games are outdoors, and the weather’s crappy late in the year. But I haven’t seen many teams over that time win by the pass, then have the RBs get most of their carries running out the clock.

It may happen that way for dome teams and warm-weather teams; there are horses for courses. (Air Coryell worked best in San Diego; Mike Martz’ offense works great in a dome.) But there are reasons why you’d expect a successful running attack to help the team as a whole more than a successful passing attack.

Most fundamentally, running the ball burns more time off the clock, which means your defense spends less time on the field. This means (a) the other offense will have fewer opportunities to score, and (b) your defense will be fresher for all of them. All other things being equal, a defense that spends only 25 minutes of clock time on the field will be playing better at game’s end than one that spends 35 minutes out there.

36

Your first point makes no sense at all. Both teams get roughly the same number of possesions (give or take one) - it makes no difference if both get a lot or both get a few.

Your second may be true, but needs further explanation. For some reason there seems to be a widely held belief that defences tire more than offences - your arguments rests on this assumption. I’m not sure why this would be true.

37

Count me among those who think QBs are overrated. If he has no line to protect him, he ain’t gonna do nothing. Case in point: Peyton Manning.

38

IzzyR -

Playing defense is more difficult than playing offense for one simple reason: you don’t know where the play is going. An offensive player knows which direction a run is going to go, if the qb is going to roll to one side, if it’s a draw, a sweep, a screen pass, or a 5 step drop. A defensive player has to see what the offense is doing and then react to it - and because he’s reacting, he’s half a step behind the play.

The unit that tires the most on a defense is the defensive line. The o-line has it easy - on most plays, five 300 pound+ guys have to prevent 4 guys from getting to one particular person who’s going to be in one particular place. The defensive line, on the other hand, has to get through or around those five guys… then line up and do it again. There’s an enormous difference between doing this for 25 minutes and doing it for 35 minutes.

A good running game is one way to create this difference. An incredibly efficient short passing game does the same thing - look at the offense the Raiders have been running this year. There’s very little running involved, but the passes that Gannon is completing at such a high efficiency are often going to receivers near the line of scrimmage, then relying on RAC yards to move the ball. The receiver is tackled in bounds, and the clock keeps on rolling - 45-50 seconds per play rather than 5 for an incomplete pass. A no huddle offense wears down a d-line even faster because it doesn’t give them the opportunity to sub guys in and out for different situations. I agree whole-heartedly with Firefly on the importance of the running game.

39

Damn… forgot one more point I wanted to make. If you’ve used a running game to wear down your opponent’s defense, his tired d-line can’t put pressure on your quarterback. The defense then has to either rush tired linemen (which doesn’t work any too well), or blitz with a linebacker or defensive back, which usually leaves an open receiver somewhere on the field. Not a choice you want to have to make in the fourth quarter with a 3 point lead.

40

Well, I think that QB’s can make a big difference.

For example, Elway was the Broncos for many years. (** pepperlandgirl**, wanna go out some time? I like your style) Elway brought iffy teams to the playoffs and to the Superbowl on his shoulders. The Broncos lost because the rest of the team wasn’t very good. When Elway got a good team behind him he won two Superbowls. In the first one Davis starred but in the second Elway earned it.

As far as the running game goes, it just makes the QB’s job easier. If the defense has to worry about the running game they cannot pressure the QB as much. Take the Broncos with Elway for example. Before Elway had a running game the defense had a pretty straight forward job, get Elway, which wasn’t very easy. When the Broncos got a running game the defense had to stop the run and stop Elway. If the defense played the run Elway would burn them, if they went after Elway Davis would burn them. A running game forces the defense to play more conservative which allows the QB more time.

Marino and Elway played with some questionable teams during their careers yet they did amazing things.

Also, ** PatrickM**, why do you think Jim Kelly is a great QB? He suck diddily ucks.

Slee