Thinking Dynasty? It Goes Further than Quarterback
by Joshua Kasparek on Nov 4, 2011 9:00 AM PDT
in Building a Champion
Email
PrintI'm not usually a heavy sigh kinda guy. I like to let conversations and thoughts play out for other people and then generate my own ideas to bring to the table. I don't know what it is, but ever since the word dynasty has been used and "franchise 15 year quarterback" about Andrew Luck, I started grinding my teeth down.
Dynasties in this modern era from 1980-2011 have a tough defense every single one of them. Be it the Cowboys or 49ers, Redskins and even the Patriots, all have featured defenses that made plays and offenses that were disciplined and less than flashy.
Of course the most recent example is the Patriots, but does anyone remember when Tom Brady was considered an overrated system quarterback by nearly everyone, even the experts? Peyton Manning might of had a few more shots at Championships had he not been intercepted every which way by Ty Law in the playoffs. The Patriots, before the bombs and blasts in the passing game with Randy Moss and Wes Welker, were a patient, short passing offense that relied on its defense to make the biggest plays. Two of New England's three Super Bowl titles came on last second field goals from their kicker Adam Vinatieri, who also notched another couple of clutch kicks in the playoffs, one being in the infamous tuck rule game in the worst snow storm I've ever witnessed.
It was defense that shined for the Dallas cowboys in all three of their Championship games, delivering two blow outs to the Buffalo Bills, and featured Larry Brown grabbing two interceptions on "How the hell is he starting a superbowl" Neil O'Donnell for the third.
The Redskins featured a pretty tough defense as well, with a disciplined patient offense. Joe Gibbs never gets enough credit for his three titles and should really have a place in the conversation of 'greatest of all time.'
Gibbs won three separate Super Bowl titles with three different quarterbacks.
The offense was tweaked a little to fit each change, but the defense played the same style throughout his tenure.
The 49ers had trouble winning the tough defensive-battle type games. Their biggest nemesis during their time was the New York Giants team with a tougher, hard hitting defense coached by Bill Parcells. This all changed somewhat for the 49ers with the arrival of Charles Haley. Charles provided the violent streak, and some contend, dirty style of play and the 49ers would collect two Championships in his first four seasons. Bill Romonowski would be added in 1988 and the nasty streak for this team would only grow. A 55-10 whooping of Elway's Broncos was the most complete performance by the 49ers team capping off a dominating 1989.
There is also a very eerie stat that is attached to all of these teams in their Championship years. The average points allowed for each team in each championship season is around 250-270.
Or about 15 to 17 points per game.
Look that up on pro football reference, it took me a bit to notice, but it's almost to a T, that number pops up again and again across all these teams.
Some names to note.
New England's dynasties featured:
Cornerback Ty Law
Cornerback Asante Samuel
Safety Rodney Harrison
Safety Lawyer Milloy,
Defensive Tackle Vince Wilfork
Defensive End Richard Seymour
San Fransisco's dynasties featured:
Defensive Back Ronnie Lott,
Defensive end Dwayne Board
Defensive End Charles Haley
Middle Linebacker Bill Romanowski
Dallas Cowboys' dynasty featured:
Middle Linebacker Ken Norton Jr.
Defensive End / OLB Charles Haley (Who already had two titles with the 49ers)
Safety Darren Woodson
Cornerback Deon Sanders
The Washington Redskins dynasties included:
Defensive End Charles Mann,
Cornerback Darrell Green
DefensiveEnd Dexter Manley (cool name for a defensive player)
Each one of these players made multiple Pro Bowls and played more than three seasons with their respective teams. It takes more than an offense to win multiple Championships and more than one special player. I wanted to write this mostly - not as an attack against the new/old immortal quarterback convention spouted by everyone since Johnny Unitas played -, but as a reminder that the teams you look at to find a model had much more than one great player at one position, and all of them featured a defense that didn't just play with a lead, they could carry you in lean offensive times. I bet Peyton Manning would give up his 49 TD season for another ring in a heartbeat.
Key Numbers:
49ers championship defensive ranks
1981: 2nd in points and 2nd in yards
1984: 1st in points allowed and 1st in yards
1988: 8th in points 3rd in yards
1989: 3rd in points and 4th in yards
Redskins Championship defensive ranks
1982: 1st in points and 4th in yards. (In the case of this team. It was a strike shortened year with only a nine game season. Their kicker won six of their eight games on last second field goals that season and won MVP of the league.)
1987: 6th in points and 18th in yards
1991: 2nd in points 3rd in yards
Dallas Championship defensive ranks
1992: 5th in points 1st in yards
1993: 2nd in points 10th in yards
1995: 3rd in points 9th in yards
New England championship defensive ranks
2001: 6th in points 24th in yards
2003: 1st in points and 7th in yards
2004: 2nd in points and 9th in yards
I think the most interesting facts about these numbers are that defense is matched by the offense, something I will note with a follow up article on the offenses of these teams. It is rare, even in the Patriots' modern dynasty, to find a team that is drastically worse in one area than the other. The idea that offenses alone can carry the day to multiple titles is not bared out even in this offense-friendly league.
Anyway, with all that said, I can't just dismiss the QB position entirely and I'm not trying to. Next up, we'll take a look at the offenses that brought these teams success. Conventional wisdom says running the ball is out if you want to win in this league but what I found was not only interesting, it might give us hope that Pete understands football on a better level than fan perception.
Stats were provided from ProFootballReference. I realize that traditional stats don't have many fans, especially here, but these stats do help somewhat provide a snapshot of these teams and their success.
103 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Really nice write-up
"The past is the past. The only time I look into the rear view is for the cops and I don't speed." -Shawn Andrews
The contention you will hear of late is this:
Now that the rules favor passing so much more than before, many of the old notions about how to build teams are out of date.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Nov 4, 2011 9:34 AM PDT reply actions
That might stress the importance of a top-flight CB more than anything
it’s amazing how well the top CB’s in the league cover without drawing PI penalties, and how that changes the defense. I think the new rules penalize bad CB’s more than they used to, while not hurting the truly good defenses.
by Stay Off the Flowers on Nov 4, 2011 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Go back and watch the Pats when they used to own the Colts
and you will see bump and run coverage and hits downfield that would get flagged on every play nowadays. Belichick had a real simple formula – Manning was a timing thrower, so bumping the receiver off of his route made him far less effective. Then the rules changed and limited the kind of press coverage that the Patsies were so good at, and their defenses were much less effective.
And you forgot Willie McGinest, who was arguably the reason the New England 3-4 scheme worked so well, and Tedy Bruschi who was a much better coverage lb than anyone gave him credit for.
And don't forget the Steelers. Speaking of clenched teeth, it ain't easy to concede
but they are a dynasty from this past decade and second only to New England in success.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Nov 4, 2011 9:35 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
If I've learned anything from my few months at FG;
It’s that QB’s ‘make’ Super Bowl teams 100% of the time, and good teams NEVER make Super Bowl QB’s. Nor does scheme or coaching have anything to do with a QB’s success. EVER.
If Tom Brady was drafted by Seattle, we’d have won a bazillion Super Bowls because Tom Brady would have turned out exactly the same in Seattle under fourty different coaches and offensive schemes as he did in New England under one.
And this is all 100% accurate because of advanced stats.
by Tokyo Slim on Nov 4, 2011 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Really, Field Gulls taught you that?
How odd. I didn’t know our community was on monolithic whole that pushes those viewpoints on people.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Nov 4, 2011 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Quarterback is ONE position; Defense is ELEVEN positions.
To say that team defense is on par (or even slightly more important) that the QB isn’t that controversial, even at this site. If anything, that comparison just goes to show how important the QB actually is.
So thank you for reminding us of this.
It needs to be said because we can lose sight of it even when we know it.
It doesn’t take QB off the very top of our needs list. And it doesn’t change much about what we should be willing to pay to get one.
But Luck is a three 1st round pick trade, and he could be most of everything people think he will be, and we could be the Texans for 6 years.
Head of catering.
But let's be the Chargers for 6 years!
That would be better than the Texans. They’ve had an elite-QB driven offense with plenty of talent on both sides of the ball. But they had the incredible luck to be 1st overall in two of the most desirable tops-of-drafts in this decade. They got a ransom for Vick. They got a ransom for Manning. That paid big dividends, and they were talented enough to be champions for a while but it never worked out.
The Colts, it worked for them. They didn’t trade up, though, they earned Manning fair & square, again it was luck, and they had been building another Polian Bills great offense with Tarik Glenn, Marshall Faulk and Edgerin James. Got Mike Peterson out of Faulk who turned in a great career (mostly in Jacksonville). They were an elite QB-driven offense that did get 2 SB appearances and one ring. Still had to be bad enough to get Freeney 11th overall to build that team.
Head of catering.
I think
we basically agree. Though you actually took the time to write all that out, and I was just a smartass about it.
I loved your smartass comments. I figured you were being facetious, but couldn't come up
with a clever response. But I’ve been anticipating the kind of responses you’re going to get. Good times!
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Nov 4, 2011 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
If I come under fire
I’m going to use you as a human shield. That will teach you to have reasonable, informed opinons, and to articulate them!
Interesting that after 7 games,
we’ve allowed 162 points. And, mapping the defensive effort as it continues to gel, I would assert this D can reach that sweet spot of 250-270 points allowed per 16 game season, this year. Especially important in the post-modern offensive-stat-inflated era, is it not? Great D is now more important than ever because of the stat inflation.
Dilfer, Brady against the Rams, Eli and, through clenched teeth, rapistburger in XL were all merely decent game managers who just stayed upright long enough to get the ball in the hands of the talent. That accounts for 4 out of 10 rings in the first decade. And all of them had monstrous Ds to back them up and keep the ball in their hands long enough to get it to their playmakers by sheer statistical law of averages – throw enough monkey shit on their wall and some will stick, keep the opposing monkey from throwing theirs on yours, and you have a better than decent opportunity to win.
And most of those former game manger QBs are now regarded as franchise players, once they’ve stayed on those systems for awhile, too.
Brad Johnson, Brady against the Panthers & Eagles, Roethlisberger again, Brees and Rodgers
also enjoyed very good defensive support if we’re evaluating just the SB game itself. If not, well, New Orleans’ defensive performance in the 2009 season was the big difference for them that year while the offense has been very good for a stretch of years. All the others had very good defenses with them.
The 2006 Colts had some strange kind of playoff surge of their defense, but otherwise that year was atrocious for them. Also Grossman gifted them a bit. As Roethlisberger did to GB last year.
I know you’re pointing to unspectacular QB performances that might well have lost without the defense. I’d still add the first three I mentioned, and only Peyton and Rodgers really would probably have still won if their defense didn’t hold its own during the game.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Nov 4, 2011 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
The bottom line, really
is that defense doesn’t win games, and offense doesn’t win games; outscoring the other team wins games, and to win enough games to be a championship team, you have to outscore them by enough that practically speaking, you have to be good in every facet of the game.
by The Ancient Mariner on Nov 4, 2011 10:07 AM PDT reply actions
It's like I learned from Dave Cameron at USSM
Preventing the other team from scoring runs/points is just as valuable as scoring runs/points. (On the margin, of course.)
Yes, but what I think the implications of the rise of the pass
hold is that even despite the securing of an elite QB being a rare thing no matter the source (top of the 1st) the ability to field a prolific offense is more attainable than the ability to field a shut-down defense.
Most years elite defenses give up somewhere around 15 pts/game, right now. Not super rare to drop down to 12, but in this pass-crazy time the past half-decade, if you’re focused on building a great defense, 15/game is mission accomplished.
The median offense right now generates around 22/game. Most elite offenses even in this pass-crazy half-decade approach the low-to-mid-30s.
So the standard deviation of elite offenses exceeds most year’s standard deviation of elite defenses. This is all just browsing through ppg to get a general sense, not specific/accurate. But that’s because I don’t believe the resulting stats of seasons are pin-point accurate reflections of the truth of capability anyway, and in team-building philosophy discussions like these, the value of stats lies in a general implication anyway. Proving that the 2007 Patriots were this or that has no forbearance on what a Seattle offense of the future might look like with one QB or another.
So with that disclaimer, looks like if you want to deviate away from 22ppg and make an impact, fielding an elite offense can commonly generate 12 more points than that per game, while an elite defense in this era deviates by about 7 points. Historical defenses hit impressive bells like 11 points per game, or if you can take a look at the unheralded 1977 Atlanta Falcons, who in the heart of the legal pass interference and legal head slap era allowed a whopping 9.2 pts per game.
I don’t know how well baseball or other sports translate to football. In futbol the most impactful players are undoubtedly those who can score, but scoring is less frequent in games so the impact is greater. In basketball scoring is almost non-stop, and defensive teams can prosper, but it seems the evidence is more stark in basketball that you clearly can’t keep up if you can’t score. With the increase in scoring in football, it seems scoring is less impactful and thus stopping scoring less impactful, while routinely being unstoppable on offense is what can really set you apart.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Nov 4, 2011 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
If I can summarize
I think what you’re trying to say is this: Offensive success is more sustainable in the NFL than defensive success. I think that’s true,
I think a big reason it’s true has to do with average career length. Quarterbacks and offensive linemen have some of the longest careers in football. While running backs tend to have short careers, they’re also largely fungible. Meanwhile, the whole defense goes through a replacement once every five years. You can keep an offensive line entirely intact for five years with a little luck, and an elite quarterback can last ten (or more!)
Plus, the offense controls the tempo of the game, and can scheme to exploit the defense’s weakness more easily. If the other team’s right side of the line is weak, you run at them all game long. If they’ve got a hole-in-zone corner, you light him up. (Anquan Boldin says, “Hi!”)
I fear that by the time the Seahawks get their offense together, the defense will have come apart. I hope not. I hope Pete Carroll and co. can continue to find bargains in the draft and plug players into roles. We’ll see.
by robbbbbb on Nov 4, 2011 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This idea is compelling
especially when you consider that many of the “defensive dynasties” in football, like Steelers or early-look Pats, were able to play relatively old contributors on defense.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd contend that the best quarterback in every division is currently in first place or tied for first place.
Brady, Big Ben, Schaub, Rivers, Eli (he’s having the best year in the East), Rodgers (with Stafford in 2nd), Brees, and Alex Smith.
There are new rules to what works. Sure, you need more than a quarterback, but you also need a really good quarterback.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Nov 4, 2011 10:24 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Part of the reason for this
Is that quarterback talent is very highly valued. (As it should be; the QB has the greatest impact on the course of the game.) Therefore, when you find a stud QB, you can concentrate on drafting elsewhere. So good teams with a strong quarterback can turn around and invest draft resources in players at other positions.
The flip side of this argument is the 1990s Seahawks. First, Dan McGwire, who’s a disaster, followed two years later by Rick Mirer, who’s a disaster, and then they still have to find a QB and they’ve blown two first round picks.
Talent accumulation is important.
by robbbbbb on Nov 4, 2011 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Not impossible,
but I’d assume that it’s an order of magnitude harder to accumulate ancillary talent with no first round draft picks after you spend them all on your QBOTF. Which is another good reason to get your team stocked beforehand.
So if QB talent is highly valued, is it possible that it could be over-valued
and that this hypothetical market inefficiency could be exploited by investing in under-valued positions?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Very elegantly stated.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Nov 4, 2011 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks
I’ll revise and extend my remarks: This applies for any position on the field. Get a stud and keep him, and that’s one less position you have to worry about. However, the QB position has more impact on this for two reasons:
(1) The QB has a disparate impact on the game, relative to his peers.
(2) Quarterback careers tend to last longer than other positions (except kickers.)
So, if the Seahawks get a stud DE in the next draft, that’d be great. But he’s likely to only be great for us for 5-7 years. A stud QB can be with your team for ten years or more. That’s a big reason why quarterback drafting can make or break a team.
And that might be why Andrew Luck is worth three #1s. If he’s that good, and you don’t need to pick a QB for the next ten years, then you make it back in the #1 picks you don’t have to give up. The flipside to this is Jay Cutler: He’s not worth the two first round picks the Bears gave up to get him, and now their team is saddled with Jay Cutler and two fewer first rounders. (Did the Bears give up two #1s for Cutler?)
Your post is exactly why the Colts GM should be fired.
And why Green Bay is a powerhouse.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I dunno why Polian has had such a bad stretch of effectiveness picking in the 1st round
but his track record of success transcends lucking into Manning. He built the Bills, and could Manning possibly have taken a bit longer to develop if key cogs for the pass pro & running game had not been put in place? Without Tom Moore bringing back the Field General, would he have been a bit more “just” another Marino, as opposed to another Esiason on another plane?
Polian’s mid & late round success, relative to his 1st round misfortunes, are more stark than Ruskell’s. Now granted a comparison to Ruskell is not exactly a gleaming endorsement for a guy to keep his job, but Polian’s been picking at the back end of every round of every draft for a long time, and it’s not the first success story he’s had.
Head of catering.
Green Bay is a perrenial playoff contender,
meaning they pick in the back end of the draft too. And their roster is stacked top to bottom. The Steelers and the Patriots too, they just keep reloading.
I look at the Colts roster and I don’t really see any player that I’d want to swap out for one of ours so whatever mid round and late round success he’s had isn’t translating onto field with a group of young, talented, up and coming players. They are a busted team across the board.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
GB only recently, really.
The late Favre-era success was mostly vastly different from the Rodgers era, and without Thompson, excepting that swan song 2007. It’s clear they’ve drafted well. They weren’t notably, consistently drafting at the bottom or the top.
Patriots are hit or miss with success, but they’ve been able to stockpile picks so we can’t really say they were consistently drafting late. Mayo was 10th. Castonzo was 17th.
All of them certainly are able to cover up some warts when they get the right QB, though, but I would single out Pittsburgh over anyone who has been able to consistently keep an effective team in place even while drafting late. They became a dynasty under Roethlisberger, who is simply a different kind of QB. He’s brilliant and flawed, dangerous both ways, hot & cold. Whatever you think of him it put them over the top. Great teams with Slash were overachieving as contenders.
But without that QB, with a Tarvaris Jackson in place, that team would remain perennial contenders I think. Maybe they wouldn’t have 3 appearances and 2 rings. But I think they’ve shown their success hasn’t been just by getting the QB right.
The Colts certainly are a very bad team right now. They’ve had more of a rotating flow of key cogs that in aggregate make a lot of contribution, than the Patriots or Packers, who are both known for that but who have really been riding the shoulders of a handful of players.
Definitely the Colts would not be the sam without Manning, and those key cogs would potentially have simply not been good enough.
Polian ignored the offensive line too long, in part because he had a policy of not drafting them early. And for a long time it worked. The team, and especially the defense, was built to supplement Manning and without him it’s worse than if other elite QBs would be absent on their team. There is talent on the Colts roster that would be upgrades for us, though. I wouldn’t take their WRs or safeties because ours are stacked with talent, but they also have talent in both spots, and I really like Drake Nevis’ rookie contributions thus far. They’ve had some good smaller guys over the years that go on in free agency within the division to end their careers early with injuries.
Polian’s got a couple flaws, the team is built on the 1st string alone, and he’s probably not quite as good as his sterling reputation, but he’s still pretty good. I wouldn’t fire him for Manning’s neck nerves not healing right.
Head of catering.
The Patriots draft position is late.
The fact that they are able to swindle poorly run ball clubs out of their picks only goes to show a greater gap between their management and the Colts’.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
This pick stockpiling is theoretically valuable.
The result has become a shit defense with no pass rush.
Head of catering.
Last 5 Super Bowl Winners:
2010: Green Bay (7th ranked QB, 5th ranked DEF)
2009: New Orleans (6th ranked QB, 25th ranked DEF)
2008: Pittsburgh (14th ranked QB, 1st ranked DEF)
2007: New York Giants (12th ranked QB, 7th ranked DEF)
2006: Indianapolis (2nd ranked QB, 21st ranked DEF)
The above ranking are for total passing yards and total yards allowed for that year’s regular season. New Orleans and Indy were able to offset worse than average D’s with superb QB play. It would seem at the least, in this evolving passing league, you need to have at least a top 15 quarterback.
I agree with the premise that it takes more than a QB to win a Super Bowl, but QB play has become the single most important entity, as witnessed by the crazy passing stats being put up this year.
New Orleans & Indy defenses both played above their heads the entire playoffs, though.
So they really followed suit to an extent.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Nov 4, 2011 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
No argument there, both D's metioned played well in the playoffs.
How did those teams get to the playoffs in the first place though? They were carried by phenomenal QB’s. To further the Indy dicussion, from my memory the largest factor of their D’s play in the playoffs was Freeney and Mathis getting to the opposing teams QB.
The NO defense chopped down Favre and won the SB on an interception
NO may have been giving up a lot of regular-season yards but they were certainly an important part of the team’s success.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
But I as stated in the above reply, it took exceptional QB play to get into the playoffs, where the New Orleans D was given the oppurtunity to play above itself.
But this isn't necessarily supported by any evidence:
QB play has become the single most important entity, as witnessed by the crazy passing stats being put up this year.
We don’t have a clue how any team will fare in the playoffs. For example, the Niners are destroying tons of teams despite having mediocre QB play and the Packers are doing well despite a sub-elite defense.
The other issue is that a franchise QB alone is no guarantee of future playoff success. Drew Brees came into Qwest, put up great numbers and still lost the game. Peyton Manning and the Philip Rivers have had limited playoff success despite being elite QBs. It may be important to have good QB play in the playoffs, but it’s also clear that good defense is important and it’s not clear that one is necessarily more important than the other.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Yet the Dolphins went a collective 163-108 during Marino's Career.
You could get lucky with an average QB one year, or you can be consistently very good for (nearly) 17 years with a great QB (and not much elite talent surrounding him).
For the sake of accuracy - Dan Marino's career W/L is 147-93
He was injured a bit.
I think the point here is that a 0.613 winning percentage, one Super Bowl appearance (lost), and only five division titles between 1983 and 1999 does not usually qualify as being “consistently very good” for most people given the assumption that you have what is arguably one of the best passers in the history of pro football on your team. Yeah, they were in the playoffs ten out of seventeen years. But they were also 9-7 or worse in ten of seventeen seasons too.
A .613 winning percentage is very, VERY close to going 10-6 every season.
I don’t know about you, but that’s nothing to sniff at.
Averaged out, yes.
But normally people don’t average out winning seasons with losing ones. The bulk of the seasons he was in Miami were less than 10 win seasons, as I pointed out.
You seem to be going out of your way to dismiss a .613 winning percentage.
It’s good; maybe it should be better, but it’s not like Marino was ever surrounded by HOF-caliber talent, either.Even the greatest player in the universe can’t win games all by himself.
You're agreeing with what I was saying.
Exceptional QB play should get you into the playoffs, not always, but should. Once there though, it’s anybody’s game. Such is the drama of one game playoffs. My point is before you can have playoff success, you have have to qualify for them! And to that end, finishing with a winning record and making the playoffs, is typically born out of strong QB play.
That's not what I'm taking issue with
It’s also a crazy year for kicking stats thus far, but that (a) isn’t the result of rule changes and (b) doesn’t tell us anything about future playoff success.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay.
I didn’t understand your issue when you first pasted the block quote from me. I’m getting close to understanding what you’re saying. I think.
Once again I guess I didn’t make my point clear enough. I’m not throwing out passing stats as the only measure of playoff success. I am throwing them out as a measure of making the playoffs, though. Cam Newton is putting up phenomenal yards but has the turnovers to go with them, so he would be an exception. My original post posited a top 15 QB to have playoff success, but I will back that off for you and posit top 15 QB stats to even make the playoffs.
So let’s say Carolina has top 15 QB stats and doesnt make the playoffs, and on the flip side San Francisco has bottom 15 QB stats and does make the playoffs. Does that make my statement false? There will always be exceptions. 12 teams make the playoffs. Without looking, I would think over the last 5 years that around 75%, 9 out of 12 teams, have QBs in the top 15 statistically.
To get into the playoffs, you probably want a good offense and a good defense
I think that’s about as much as we’re able to take away from those numbers.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Burke uses a model for that includes these variables to determine outcomes of games:
Offensive pass efficiency, including sack yardage
Defensive pass efficency, including sack yardage
Offensive run efficiency
Defensive run efficiency
Offensive interception rate
Defensive interception rate
Offensive fumble rate
Penalty rate (penalty yards per play)
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/09/nfl-win-prediction-methodology.html
He’s got a pretty good, but not perfect track record:
Over the past five seasons, the model predicts winners correctly in 69.8% of games (retrospectively). In 2006, the model was correct in 65% of games, well ahead of consensus favorites as determined by betting lines. Last year was particularly difficult year for prognosticators, as consensus favorites only won 57% of the games.
I’m not sure if he recognizes a distinction between regular season or playoff play.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
You should have used the rhetorical question font!
Seriously, though, football is complicated. Very, very complicated.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I find
people tend to overcomplicate things in order to combat entropy.
From now on, assume all my questions are in fact typed in the rhetorical question font. :)
I find
people like simple answers to complex questions because the sense of understanding (real or contrived) can feel very empowering.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Thats what
statistics are. Simpllified answers to complex questions.
by Tokyo Slim on Nov 4, 2011 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
NO's defense should have had about 8 personal fouls in that game,
and just kept getting dirtier the more the refs ignored it.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Nov 4, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
i was surprised this wasn't talked about at all during the broadcoast, or after the game in the national media
the low hits on Favre were insane, taken from an angle that looked like the NO players were actually trying to blow out his knee.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
It goes to show how important getting to the quarterback is
All 5 of these teams had a great pass rush
by galvinx10 on Nov 4, 2011 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree, to boil it down, the top two things to winning are your own quarterback play and that of your opponent
Pass rush is a big part of that. I would say the second most important part, other then your own QB play and the ability to protect him.
I will add that run defense seems to play a big part in playoff victories, since coaches tend to play more conservatively in the playoffs.
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 4, 2011 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Poor weather can also make the passing game more difficult
and increase the relative utility of the run game, as seen in our last playoff games against GB and CHI.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
That's a good point
Passing certainly takes a dip on those outside bad weather games, where a run game (and defense) becomes more important.
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 4, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I believe NO was number one in turnovers
The year they won the Super Bowl. And their run game was doing well that year.
Pete knows all the components it takes to win in the league. Whether or not he’ll assemble them and develop them fast enough is another matter.
Alex Smith
has 26 passing attempts a game. Only Gabbert has fewer attempts per game. He has a long pass of 44 yards, second worst in the NFL this year. He has less yards per game than Curtis Painter. Just wanted to point that out.
He’s not making mistakes, but he’s also not really being asked to do a whole lot. Crowning him the best qb in the NFC West is kinda iffy. He’s having a nice year though and I’m using him as a spot start in place of Stafford in fantasy this week.
If Seattle had a run offense + offensive line as good as SF's
Tarvaris wouldn’t have to do shit, either.
I’d say our defenses are actually similar in performance, problem is the Seahawks are constantly behind, thus making the job for our defense tougher.
Always up for some Twitter action @nandron. I only talk NW sports, though.
by Nick Andron on Nov 4, 2011 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Funny Thing is
That their line looked WORSE than our last year as compared to the Seahawks current group.
This could be a good harbinger of happiness.
Live work and breathe like an optimist.
I was just making a notation.
Kenneth stated that Alex Smith is the best QB in the NFCW. But I’m just asking…
is he really? Or is he just the QB on the best team in the NFC west?
Or has he been the most productive QB in the NFCW?
Using QBR, he’s definitely played the best this season (and was the best last season) but this doesn’t necessarily mean he is the best QB going forward.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2011 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I think
his qb efficiency is way up, due to his opportunities to screw up being limited, the team not relying on a passing game really at all, and him being halfway decent when asked to dump the ball off.
But this is scheme, not pure QB play. It’s hard to analyze someone in a vaccum.
I guess I’d agree with the below post in that if he is the best, it’s only because nobody else is very good either. Basically I think he’s 2010 Sam Bradford with better WR.
The NFCW has had a really shitty year for QBs.
Smith might be the best but there isn’t a whole lot of separation between best and worst.
I am convinced that Seattle sports teams exist to make me hate Seattle sports teams.
by the other side on Nov 4, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Except for Charlie.
Holy hell.
I am convinced that Seattle sports teams exist to make me hate Seattle sports teams.
by the other side on Nov 4, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Pretty much.
He’s having the best year in the NFC West and it’s not even close. Not spectacular, but hasn’t made mistakes either.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Nov 4, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd say he's playing the best
But I wouldn’t trade him for Tarvaris or Kolb or Bradford
by Billy Showbiz on Nov 4, 2011 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Smith gets it by default
part because the Niners are winning, and part from not making the mistakes.
But, if T-Jack performs like he has recently, and the Hawks can find 4-5 wins in their remaining games, T-Jack might get the nod – at least as most prolific NFCW QB.
Procrastination is the Art of Keeping Up with Yesterday.
by Ryche And Roll on Nov 4, 2011 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but let's not confuse "Best quarterback" with "Best quarterback play" which is what I'm getting at.
The Hawks have gotten bad quarterback play because of Charlie Whitehurst and other reasons. My point is that the 49ers are in first place, and by such a wide margin, because they’ve by far had the best quarterback play.
He’s thrown two interceptions in seven games, a QB rating of 95.7. He’s not awesome, but he’s not bad. You’d rather have other players, but the 49ers are 6-1 in no small part because of the error-free play of Alex Smith.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Nov 4, 2011 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Who says that dynasties are the sole result of a franchise quarterback?
I’m not sure I’ve ever read that.
However, if you have me a penny for every time I heard “defense wins championships”, I’d be rich.
I did give you a penny for ever time you heard that.
I’d hardly say that $4.21 makes anybody rich.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Nov 4, 2011 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
That's a good point.
I think this article’s point is valid and well-made in the context of this year, though, for a number of reasons. The Colts. The exploding pass stats. Our constant need to find a suitable QB.
To say that Manning might make a 10-win difference, crazily, isn’t really a stretch. On a team that has a QB in Painter that is not playing productively or nearly making up for the rest of the team’s defecits, but who is not playing awful. You watch him play and he looks like he could be a competent average QB. Not starter material but on a different team he could be a guy who isn’t ruining an offense and who wouldn’t be winless. I mean to say, the 49ers could be faring almost as well with Painter as they currently are with Smith.
Brady to Cassell amounted to a 5 win difference, not that the truth is accurately reflected in that result. But that’s a big difference, and the difference was pretty noticeable, and Cassell has shown to be pretty bad elsewhere. The team made him good.
So yeah it’s easy to get carried away with the cavalcade of legitimate reasons why a great QB makes an amazing difference, and it’s true, but it’s important to not lose sight of the other factors and the impact of their absence.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Nov 4, 2011 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, I wasn't arguing that defense is unimportant.
But for us in Seattle (or, in, cases like mine, close to Seattle) to complain that QB is being overvalued… that’s reactionary ridiculousness in my opinion. This is a team that’s been mediocre/awful for years, and hey, what a coincidence, we’ve not only had lousy quarterback play but we’ve put almost zero resources into finding a new quarterback.
Pete is a defensively minded coach, and Bevell is a conservatively-minded offensive coordinator. Let’s not stress about ignoring the defense or the run game quite yet.
I definitely agree.
We also have to figure out how much we’d be willing to spend. If Luck isn’t straight-up drafted he’ll coup three 1sts. Someone will pay that. It’s a shocking-sounding cost but it’s not as much larger than the top of the draft trades for the likes of Ricky Williams, Vick, Eli, and others, as you might think. I don’t consider “next year’s picks” to be worth one round less, but the league does to account for the wide variability of what the pick could turn out to be. Top of the draft picks against the value chart often turn out to be pretty close to those 3,000 points.
If a team adheres to that chart. Well, yeah the “worst-case scenario” is the cost could amount to a maximum of 9,000 points, but the median outcome is about 3,000, or exactly the charted value of 1st overall. We know the value is greater than that, intrinsically. But my point being that lest anyone think Luck wouldn’t go for three 1sts because the entire league would balk at the cost, well, they won’t.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Nov 4, 2011 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sold on the idea of trading up for Luck.
There’s selling the farm, and selling the farm. Luck may be better than Barkley, Jones, RGIII et al, but is he THAT much better?
My worry is that Jackson plays out the season and does decently, and this FO decides “quarterback? Meh, I’d rather wait. We really could use another guard.”
Best to ask Rob that question; I haven't looked into any prospects yet.
The cost of acquisition relative to the difference in value as a prospect, you’re probably right, he’s not THAT much better. But apparently you just don’t find better prospects than this.
And it’s the supply and demand effect again. Teams and coaches know the talent level between the first tier (usually 1 to about 6 players) and the second tier (about 15 guys) is very slim, but nobody passes on a complete prospect. Elite talent with holes in their game or more-tangible risk get passed on by a few teams. But if you want the complete prospect at the position, you’re picking him very high. Or if you’re trading, you’re beating everyone else who is willing to take him at market cost.
Head of catering.
I think Manning's worth so much to the Colts
Because of the way that team’s built. The defense is very much built to complement Manning. “Okay. We can put up 30 points on you, any time. Whenever you get the ball, you feel like you’ve got to score. Therefore at some point you have to throw the ball. We’re built to take advantage of your mistakes when you throw the ball.”
Peyton Manning is an awesome football player and, probably, the best quarterback in the league when he’s healthy. His abilities make that whole team better because it allows them to play their game.
I think the Packers are like that, too. That defense is built to take advantage of the way their offense can score. If the other team is playing with a lead, they’ve got problems.
This article tells me a couple of things
One is that the Packers will probably be the next dynasty. I don’t know how many points they are giving up but their team is stacked on both sides of the ball and pretty young I think too with the exception of the ageless Woodson.
Second is that the Seahawks are on the right path. Our defense is pretty damn good and very young. Clemons will need to be replaced with a younger pass rusher before long but I’m pretty sure he’s the oldest starter on defense at 30 or so?
That Niners D is legit too and I think that our division is going to be truly competitive next year once the Rams come together. They are not missing much either, they simply are a victim of a brutal schedule, injuries and momentum.
My only beef is,
How can you not include Fred Dean on the Niners dynasty D? They probably don’t get to that 1st super bowl without him, it was Dean who set the tone and established the nasty that would be their identity. He got 2 rings and bust in Canton for it.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Dave Razzano just said on Twitter that Landry Jones is more of a "pure" passer than Andrew Luck.
I think this is just more Dave being different for Dave Being Different’s sake.
But the possession nature of the Stanford attack makes me wonder, how great is Luck’s potential as a passer? He’s undeniably a complete prospect. Brilliant, can make all the throws, etc. No weaknesses or flags, and is not just an average passer. But is he a great passing prospect? I am asking because I don’t know.
Landry Jones being a pure passer, is probably just his skills being amplified by the nature of the Oklahoma attack, as well. You have to expect production out of that offense whether the QB is a pro prospect or not. Does he have any skills that transcend college? All I have seen is good execution of a prolific offense.
Head of catering.
Jones' footwork is terrible
His pocket presence is of a panicked nature and that’s why he will go in the second round.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
He won't go in the second round - he'll just become the next Ponder.
http://17power.blogspot.com
I think it will be Luck, Barkley and GWIII in the first
Jones in the second. Just my opinion
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Luck has weaknesses
They just aren’t highlighted often because he plays in an offense that does not allow pressure on the QB and they run the ball 53 percent of the time. If he is pressured he doesn’t look nearly as good as he has been built up to be. Not that he doesn’t deserve first round and probably first pick assessment, I’m just saying he isn’t perfect.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
My father bought season tics in year 2 and I've followed this team since.
Many seasons, coaches, QBs etc. This team JC/JS are putting together excites me in ways the others have not. Mainly because I feel they are doing a thorough job.Nothing done half-ass is much good in the long run.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
