33 replies to this topic

[greenpassion]

i just been thinking about this today. whats the %

lets say we had matt ryan here this past season, do we make the playoffs/superbowl

tom brady on the broncos do they make the supe?

i know that getting to/winning the superbowl is an organizational accomplishment but at what point can you say that a certain qb is keeping a team from getting over the hump. i would say the ravens over the last 10 years have been a qb away from getting to the supe before they got flacco

i always believed that if we had belichick here instead of reid we would have 2-3 rings with mcnabb. i always thought reid reached his coaching peak the year we lost to tampa and everything we won after was inspite of him

san fran has a great foundation and i think there are lots of qbs that can win there but i dont think keapernick would be nearly as effective in a place like philly these past years as i dont know what we'll have going forward but under reid i think he wouldnt be anything special

could foles have taken the redskins or seahawks to the playoffs?

[iluvdaeagles]

all depends

i do think ppl often underestimate how many factors affect a QBs play....i am guilty of doing so myself

its a team sport at the end of the day

[blindside]

No.. no playoffs with any qb.. did you see our o line and defense. Too much to overcome.

[eagledrew13]

There's no way to truly put a percentage figure on this. It differs game to game team to team.

[Foles for HOF]

Anybody could have taken the Seahawks to the play offs, their season was mainly because of their defense.  Foles is still a rookie, so do I think he could take the Redskins to the play offs?  Depends on the scheme they use, obviously not using the same scheme as RG3 but there's a chance given that the NFC east was so weak that he could have done so.  Brady on the Broncos would be the same as Manning on the Broncos, yes they make the play offs.  Eagles with Matt Ryan, perhaps we win the NFC east because of the week division this season (Dallas/NYG).

[storminnorman]

I haven't given it much thought, but do remember an ESPN radio host discuss it last offseason. Might have been Cowherd. He basically was trying to make the point it was a QB driven league. As best as I recall, he essentially said to look at the difference between the top teams and the bottom. He might have split it in half, meaning 16 in each.

These are the QB's from the top 10 teams in standings (draft order): Smith/Kap, Flacco, Ryan, Brady, Peyton, Schuab, Rogers, Russell Wilson, Luck, and Ponder. Next few in line: RG3, Dalton, Cutler. Pretty convincing, although Ponder is questionable.

The bottom 10 likely makes the Stronger argument more convincing than the top: Quinn/Cassell, Gabbert/Henne, Carson Palmer, Vick/Foles, Stafford,, Weeden, Kolb/Skelton, Fitzgerald, Sanchez, and Locker/Hasselbeck.

Not 100% accurate obviously. Dalton and Ponder aren't elite. Stafford could be in either list. So, maybe the middle guys could be disputed, but the teams with the worse QB's are bad. You can likely find examples either way, but just last season look what the change at QB for the Redskins had. The Broncos were a much tougher team to beat with Manning, etc. Of course, the rest of your talent does make a big difference.

Not to diss The Pats, but I always thought they had an advantage a lot of years during the regular season . They had Brady, but look at the QB's in the Pats division the lanst 6-8 years. Which team had a really good QB? Bills? Dolphins? Jets? Maybe Sanchez for a year. This could happen in many divisio, but the rest of the AFC East just didn't have QB's below Brady's level, but way below. Almost an automatic 5 wins within the division each year.

Food for thought. Can be argued 10 ways.

[phillygrump]

iluvdaeagles, on 03 February 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

all depends

i do think ppl often underestimate how many factors affect a QBs play....i am guilty of doing so myself

its a team sport at the end of the day

I agree with this, however, there are templates that win and most of them involve either an elite QB that can run an offense with speed, intelligence, accuracy, and a sound balanced attack combined with an oppertunistic defense that creates turnovers to give that fluid offense opportunities in the red zone more often. There are other templates that involve a power running game, ball control, and solid sound defense.

QB makes a huge difference though. You need a guy that can handle the pressure and can make big 3rd down completions with the game on the line. This is the guy I'm looking for for the Eagles. We don't need Tom Brady we just need a guy to convert 3rd downs especially in the red zone.

[L.E.]

Having a quality QB is huge, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[greenpassion]

yeah but then there are guys like alex smith and drew brees who for most of the early part of thier careers were thought of as bust until things around them got better than all of a sudden they got betterinfact if you look at most the top 10 qbs they are on pretty darn good teams with good coaching. i remember the pats winning 11 games with matt cassel and we see how hes done with the chiefs

this thing about it being a qb driven league is way overblown imo its just media guys repeating something they have heard. the broncos got just as far last year with tebow as this year with manning

i think if you put together a good defense, oline and can run the ball all of a sudden your qb will be a top 10 guy

[eephraim]

No. A pocket passer would have had this team 16-0 and then easily walk through the playoffs and blow out the Ravens.

All the pieces are there, they just need a QB.

[PoconoDon]

I think that a great quarterback gets his team between 4-6 wins per season, primarily on his play alone nowadays....but a bad one can cost them twice as many. It's by far, the most important position on the team, and having a great young QB to build around, is every team's dream come true. That's my take on it.

[we_gotta_believe]

iluvdaeagles, on 03 February 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

all depends

i do think ppl often underestimate how many factors affect a QBs play....i am guilty of doing so myself

its a team sport at the end of the day

In reference to?

[iluvdaeagles]

we_gotta_believe, on 04 February 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

In reference to?

quarterbacks around the NFL...

[James40]

L.E., on 03 February 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

Having a quality QB is huge, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

If you don't believe him, ask the Colts. Playoff team with Manning, 2 win team without him, back to a playoff team with Luck. Nuff said.

[eagledrew13]

James40, on 04 February 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

If you don't believe him, ask the Colts. Playoff team with Manning, 2 win team without him, back to a playoff team with Luck. Nuff said.

Luck led the league in interceptions and had a very poor completion percentage. There were a lot more changes involved on that team than luck. They got into the playoffs more based on the lack of competition in the AFC beyond the top 4 teams, injuries to Pitt and a very weak schedule. Ultimately, Luck makes them better than they were with painter but he does not make them good...anyone watching them durIng their run would realize that ballard wad more instrumental in their winning

[voodoochile75]

I don't think you could come up with a true mathematical percentage, but they shoulder much of the blame.

Outside of the refs calling the game they way they did, Kaepernick made two very costly mistakes and almost a few others some could argue.


One, the timeout. That horrible throw to Reed. Those are two very big ones that easily could either be attributed to costing the game.

[eagledrew13]

voodoochile75, on 04 February 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

I don't think you could come up with a true mathematical percentage, but they shoulder much of the blame.

Outside of the refs calling the game they way they did, Kaepernick made two very costly mistakes and almost a few others some could argue.


One, the timeout. That horrible throw to Reed. Those are two very big ones that easily could either be attributed to costing the game.

Actually, as bad as that throw was, the INT didn't cost the 49ers anything. If anything cost the 49ers the game it was their horrid defense, that let Flacco do absolutely anything he wanted. Flacco threw some balls up for grabs and his receivers made plays while the 49ers secondary while in position to do so didn't. Kaep on the other hand led the 49ers offense to 101 more yards than the Ravens. Kaep himself was responsible 3 yards less than the entire ravens team.

[we_gotta_believe]

iluvdaeagles, on 04 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

quarterbacks around the NFL...

and not necessarily any former QBs of the Eagles, eh?

[we_gotta_believe]

voodoochile75, on 04 February 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

I don't think you could come up with a true mathematical percentage, but they shoulder much of the blame.

Outside of the refs calling the game they way they did, Kaepernick made two very costly mistakes and almost a few others some could argue.


One, the timeout. That horrible throw to Reed. Those are two very big ones that easily could either be attributed to costing the game.

Ravens didn't get any points off that INT. Their drive ended shortly after when they went for the fake FG. All it cost the Niners was about 15 yds in field position and just over 3 minutes off the the clock in the in 2nd qtr. If you want to pin the end result of the game on two single plays, you really should be talking about both of the Jacoby Jones TDs.

[SamEaglesFan]

Depends.  If your QB is a turnover machine, he can really have a negative impact on the W's.  I am not thinking of anyone in particular - say for instance, Mike Pick.

[iluvdaeagles]

we_gotta_believe, on 05 February 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

and not necessarily any former QBs of the Eagles, eh?

the eagles are in the NFL....

[we_gotta_believe]

iluvdaeagles, on 05 February 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

the eagles are in the NFL....

I'll take that as a yes.

[Ipspots]

It is a team sport. But look at the number of times a QB, touches the ball and or makes a decision (snap judgements) that will directly affect the outcome of the play in each game, and you start to realize how important it is to have a very smart fast thinking QB.

IN other words if your offense had 60 snaps in a  game, most likely the QB made upwards of 150 quick decisions, from presnap reads, to protections and audibles to post snap progression reads etc.... then add in any 2 minute drills and timeouts, clock stoppages etc...


But since it is a team game it takes all phases to do their job.

Special teams must not give up easy points. and Should get us decent field position, we should not be starting every drive from the 20.


Jim Johnson believed that his defense was successfull if they held the opponent under 17 points in a game.... meaning the offense was expected to score 18 points or more.

Qb has the singular most important position on a team, as they say, most teams will go as the QB goes.

[DEagle7]

A lot

[birdman#12]

The influence on a team breaks down like this in my opinion:

40% Coaching....discipline, execution, ability to take advantage of players ability, game planning, adjustments.....
30% Quarterback.....Good ones can make everyone around him better, leadership, being unflappable, intelligence....
20% Defense.....especially turnovers, 3 and outs, performance after turnover, red zone efficiency
10% Special teams......field position, kicking game, momentum turns.

Just an opinion.....

[we_gotta_believe]

birdman#12, on 05 February 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

The influence on a team breaks down like this in my opinion:

40% Coaching....discipline, execution, ability to take advantage of players ability, game planning, adjustments.....
30% Quarterback.....Good ones can make everyone around him better, leadership, being unflappable, intelligence....
20% Defense.....especially turnovers, 3 and outs, performance after turnover, red zone efficiency
10% Special teams......field position, kicking game, momentum turns.

Just an opinion.....

I agree for the most part, but what about RB, WR, TE, OL?

[birdman#12]

we_gotta_believe, on 05 February 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

I agree for the most part, but what about RB, WR, TE, OL?

I think a good QB,with certain talents can make up for a lack of talent in other positions to a certain degree. Intelligent QB's who can read a defense, make audibles, has a quick release and good anticipation and can move in the pocket can make the whole offense seem better. A talented offensive unit cans seem piss-poor without a good QB.

[we_gotta_believe]

birdman#12, on 05 February 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

I think a good QB,with certain talents can make up for a lack of talent in other positions to a certain degree. Intelligent QB's who can read a defense, make audibles, has a quick release and good anticipation and can move in the pocket can make the whole offense seem better. A talented offensive unit cans seem piss-poor without a good QB.

No i meant that you completely excluded them from your valuation. Are you trying to say that they are not accountable at all towards the 100% or that the 30% Quarterback portion also includes the rest of the offense by default?

[cmart102]

Depends on the construct of the team obviously. You can't make a blanket statement since the philosophical approaches teams take are different.

[voodoochile75]

we_gotta_believe, on 05 February 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Ravens didn't get any points off that INT. Their drive ended shortly after when they went for the fake FG. All it cost the Niners was about 15 yds in field position and just over 3 minutes off the the clock in the in 2nd qtr. If you want to pin the end result of the game on two single plays, you really should be talking about both of the Jacoby Jones TDs.

All confidence was lost in Kaepernick after that and more so after he almost threw a second. The play calling got very vanilla after that. It indeed had a significant impact.