I agree with your sentiment here @perkdog . Of course there are examples of a team having success despite the shortcomings of the QB. Just as there are examples of a very talented QB not making things work behind a bad line in a bad system. But there is another part to it, the QB who takes the team way past where they would have gone without him.....such as our friend Tom.
@AFLfan said:
Debate like this is part of what makes sports so great. Disagree and discuss all you want. Let's just leave the name-calling out of it from here forward. Thanks!
Yes, this kind of debate is great. If there was already name calling I missed it, but I agree about going forward.
Although seeing Griese’s glasses on Mt. Rush would be kind of cool to see, I really wanted to add: Payton, Lambert, Lott, Page, Lamonica, Alworth, Tarkenton, Bradshaw, Blanda, Bednarik, Montana, Stabler, Blount, Taylor, Dawson, Brady, Rodgers, Lane and Layne; The list is endless.
We could be here for days typing on this one.
Welcome to the forum. I like your style!!
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
I'm not sure who to respond to, so I'll just correct the most egregious misinterpretations of what I've been saying. I agree, and I have said so, that the QB is the most important position on most football teams. Given 22 positions, plus kickers and other special teams players, and given the blindingly obvious fact that, on average, offense and defense are of equal importance to a team, we can say with certainty that, within some tiny margin of error, an average starter - at any position - deserves something close to 4% of the credit for his team's successes and failures. Consider the talent gap between the best and worst starting players, and you've got 95% of the starters in a range of 2% to 6% of the credit. Now, QB is the most important position so, on average, I think a QB probably deserves not 4%, but, say, 8% of the credit, and the very best QBs probably get in to the 10% - 12% range. I think the average fan gives the best QBs closer to 50% (note: more credit than the entire offense should get) of the credit for his team's successes, and it's a rare fan indeed who gives him less than 25% of the credit (no QB ever has, or ever could, deserve that much credit). Earl Morrall steps in for Bob Griese and the Dolphins literally never lose; Mike Kruczek steps in for Terry Bradshaw and the Steelers literally never lose (until Bradshaw came back). The examples of this, including the ones already mentioned in this thread, are legion - it happens all the time. Who plays QB on a great team may matter more, but it matters very little more, than who plays safety, who plays LB, or who plays RG.
Now compare the QB to the OL. The QB is, as we all agree, the most important player but there's just one of him and there are five on the OL. On average, a QB may be 8% responsible for his team's success, and each OL may be 4%, but that means the entire OL, as a group, is 2.5 times more important to winning than the QB. Even the best QB is going to be less important than the OL, and a mediocre QB like Troy Aikman playing behind a GOAT quality OL is going to fare a LOT worse than that. I think the best player on the Cowboys SB teams in the 90's was Larry Allen; that Allen, all by himself, was more important to the Cowboys success than Aikman. You can disagree with that if you want, but it takes a special kind of ignorance to not recognize that the entire Cowboys OL was, at a minimum, 3 to 4 times more important than Aikman to the Cowboys success.
John Hannah, Jim Otto, and Bruce Matthews were, all by themselves and not grouped with their teammates on the OL, better (more valuable) players than all but a very small group of the very best QBs. Yes, the best QBs bubble their way to the top of the GOAT football player list, because the QB position is the most important. That is NOT the same thing as saying that all, most, or even very many QBs end up above the best players at all the other positions.
I stand 100% behind my statement that it matters hardly at all who plays QB if the OL in front of him is great enough, as it would have been in the example I constructed, and as was the case on the Dolphins, Steelers, and Cowboys. My "agenda" here is simply to lift the fog that prevents people from seeing what is really quite obvious.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@thisistheshow said:
I agree with your sentiment here @perkdog . Of course there are examples of a team having success despite the shortcomings of the QB. Just as there are examples of a very talented QB not making things work behind a bad line in a bad system. But there is another part to it, the QB who takes the team way past where they would have gone without him.....such as our friend Tom.
There has been plenty of times where Tom Brady did not play football for the Patriots and even they barely missed a beat. I think the win percentage was near identical with or without Tom
And the 2008 Matt Cassell season produced MORE wins that the Tom Brady led Patriots In 2009.
I’m not implying the Pats would have been ‘just as good’ without Brady. At all. But if Brady is that responsible for all the Patriot success, shouldn’t the team have completely collapsed without him in the prime of his and their run?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I commented on this thread way back in June but I wanted to add a few thoughts.
Tom Brady: The GOAT QB.
Jim Brown: GOAT RB
Lawrence Taylor: Changed the game. When a player changes the way the game is played he must be on the MT. Just as Bob Gibson after his MVP season MLB lowered the mound height.
Jerry Rice: Not only the GOAT as a WR but the GOAT football player. There is and always will be only one Jerry Rice.
But to have a real conversation about the greatest players it has to be done by era. It’s unfair to match stats from the 40’s to 90’s to today. So many football historians here can tell us about the greatest old timers I won’t even try.
W.C.Fields "I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
@2dueces Jerry Rice benefited from Montana then Young, he played a very long time too. Putting him with Tim Rattay or Jim Drunkenmiller for his career and he is not a HOF WR. Put Jim Brown or Barry Sanders with any team and they are still HOF’ers. I think the WR position is obviously the number 1 position that needs a QB to be what they can be. Just a quick little point as all. I absolutely agree about it being impossible to fairly judge all players in the history of the game since it has changed so much and keeps changing every decade.
@thisistheshow said:
I agree with your sentiment here @perkdog . Of course there are examples of a team having success despite the shortcomings of the QB. Just as there are examples of a very talented QB not making things work behind a bad line in a bad system. But there is another part to it, the QB who takes the team way past where they would have gone without him.....such as our friend Tom.
There has been plenty of times where Tom Brady did not play football for the Patriots and even they barely missed a beat. I think the win percentage was near identical with or without Tom
And the 2008 Matt Cassell season produced MORE wins that the Tom Brady led Patriots In 2009.
I’m not implying the Pats would have been ‘just as good’ without Brady. At all. But if Brady is that responsible for all the Patriot success, shouldn’t the team have completely collapsed without him in the prime of his and their run?
Keep in mind that Cassell inherited a team that had gone 18-1 the previous season and was one score from 19-0. They had one of the most prolific offences ever seen that year. Cassell produced 11-5 and the offense was not magical. The Brady that we saw in 09 was getting over the rust from not playing professional football for a year so the offense struggled.
@thisistheshow said:
I agree with your sentiment here @perkdog . Of course there are examples of a team having success despite the shortcomings of the QB. Just as there are examples of a very talented QB not making things work behind a bad line in a bad system. But there is another part to it, the QB who takes the team way past where they would have gone without him.....such as our friend Tom.
There has been plenty of times where Tom Brady did not play football for the Patriots and even they barely missed a beat. I think the win percentage was near identical with or without Tom
And the 2008 Matt Cassell season produced MORE wins that the Tom Brady led Patriots In 2009.
I’m not implying the Pats would have been ‘just as good’ without Brady. At all. But if Brady is that responsible for all the Patriot success, shouldn’t the team have completely collapsed without him in the prime of his and their run?
Keep in mind that Cassell inherited a team that had gone 18-1 the previous season and was one score from 19-0. They had one of the most prolific offences ever seen that year. Cassell produced 11-5 and the offense was not magical. The Brady that we saw in 09 was getting over the rust from not playing professional football for a year so the offense struggled.
Just some food for thought.
Again, I’m not hating on Tom Brady - at all. Just pointing out that guys like Nate Solder, Shaq Mason and Matt Light - among others - have been a big part of their success, too.
You are 100% correct that 11-5 is not 18-1. Not even close, frankly. Still, it’s not a total collapse and the ‘extra games’ were missed on a technicality, if I remember. Tie breaker or something.
And sorry again about that “1”.
(Go Giants! 😂😂😂 )
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I agree with Dallas that way too much credit goes to the QB for SB victories.
Here's a few pretty average QB's who have rings;
1987 Redskins with Doug Williams, he was 0-2 as a starter that year. The defense was what won most of the games. Doug did have a very good performance in the SB.
2000 Ravens with Trent Dilfer. #1 defense was the reason.
2001 Buccaneers with Brad Johnson #1 defense again.
2017 Eagles with Nick Foles is also beginning to look like Nick is just not a very good QB.
If you bother to actually take a look, you will see that most SB winning teams had great defenses and a good/great RB and pass catcher (sometimes two). Yes, most had good/great QBs.
Bradshaw wins because of one of the best defenses ever, Franco Harris, Swann and Stallworth AND a very very good O Line. Fran Tarkenton "loses" because he has no great offensive help to go with a great defense and a great O Line.
I'll bet that a vast majority of posters think Bradshaw was a better QB than Fran. Believe me Francis was a vastly superior player.
Although I do like Bob Griese, more than most, it was Larry Csonka who destroyed my Vikings in SB 8.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Take the time to look at New England's defense since Tom became the starter, pretty amazing how good they were almost every single year. Tom also had some very very good offensive weapons along the way.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@2dueces said:
I commented on this thread way back in June but I wanted to add a few thoughts.
Tom Brady: The GOAT QB.
Jim Brown: GOAT RB
Lawrence Taylor: Changed the game. When a player changes the way the game is played he must be on the MT. Just as Bob Gibson after his MVP season MLB lowered the mound height.
Jerry Rice: Not only the GOAT as a WR but the GOAT football player. There is and always will be only one Jerry Rice.
But to have a real conversation about the greatest players it has to be done by era. It’s unfair to match stats from the 40’s to 90’s to today. So many football historians here can tell us about the greatest old timers I won’t even try.
Good post. My only argument is Alan Page was the original LT. First Defensive player and only lineman to win the league MVP.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I agree with Dallas that way too much credit goes to the QB for SB victories.
Here's a few pretty average QB's who have rings;
1987 Redskins with Doug Williams, he was 0-2 as a starter that year. The defense was what won most of the games. Doug did have a very good performance in the SB.
2000 Ravens with Trent Dilfer. #1 defense was the reason.
2001 Buccaneers with Brad Johnson #1 defense again.
2017 Eagles with Nick Foles is also beginning to look like Nick is just not a very good QB.
If you bother to actually take a look, you will see that most SB winning teams had great defenses and a good/great RB and pass catcher (sometimes two). Yes, most had good/great QBs.
Bradshaw wins because of one of the best defenses ever, Franco Harris, Swann and Stallworth AND a very very good O Line. Fran Tarkenton "loses" because he has no great offensive help to go with a great defense and a great O Line.
I'll bet that a vast majority of posters think Bradshaw was a better QB than Fran. Believe me Francis was a vastly superior player.
Although I do like Bob Griese, more than most, it was Larry Csonka who destroyed my Vikings in SB 8.
Joe you and Dallas are both missing the point I’m trying to make. It’s Consistent winning play over a number of years not winning a super bowl then going back to mediocre play the next season or whatever. That’s the difference an elite QB will make in most cases.
@thisistheshow said:
I agree with your sentiment here @perkdog . Of course there are examples of a team having success despite the shortcomings of the QB. Just as there are examples of a very talented QB not making things work behind a bad line in a bad system. But there is another part to it, the QB who takes the team way past where they would have gone without him.....such as our friend Tom.
There has been plenty of times where Tom Brady did not play football for the Patriots and even they barely missed a beat. I think the win percentage was near identical with or without Tom
And the 2008 Matt Cassell season produced MORE wins that the Tom Brady led Patriots In 2009.
I’m not implying the Pats would have been ‘just as good’ without Brady. At all. But if Brady is that responsible for all the Patriot success, shouldn’t the team have completely collapsed without him in the prime of his and their run?
Keep in mind that Cassell inherited a team that had gone 18-1 the previous season and was one score from 19-0. They had one of the most prolific offences ever seen that year. Cassell produced 11-5 and the offense was not magical. The Brady that we saw in 09 was getting over the rust from not playing professional football for a year so the offense struggled.
Just some food for thought.
Again, I’m not hating on Tom Brady - at all. Just pointing out that guys like Nate Solder, Shaq Mason and Matt Light - among others - have been a big part of their success, too.
You are 100% correct that 11-5 is not 18-1. Not even close, frankly. Still, it’s not a total collapse and the ‘extra games’ were missed on a technicality, if I remember. Tie breaker or something.
And sorry again about that “1”.
(Go Giants! 😂😂😂 )
It's so funny about that "1". even with all the other rings, that one still really bothers me. It's been 13 years and I'm still not over it.
@JoeBanzai said:
To all the guys who worship Mr Brady;
Take the time to look at New England's defense since Tom became the starter, pretty amazing how good they were almost every single year. Tom also had some very very good offensive weapons along the way.
One thing about having a good offense is that they control time of possession. That keeps the defense fresh throughout the game.
@perkdog said:
Can’t believe that “1” was back in 2008. Still bothers me but the 3 Super Bowl wins since then eased the pain 😊
As I was watching the last game of that season, against the Giants, I remember thinking that we needed to lose in order to win the SB. I felt it in my gut.
@perkdog said:
Can’t believe that “1” was back in 2008. Still bothers me but the 3 Super Bowl wins since then eased the pain 😊
As I was watching the last game of that season, against the Giants, I remember thinking that we needed to lose in order to win the SB. I felt it in my gut.
I remember thinking that against the Ravens too. That was a close one as well
@JoeBanzai said:
I agree with Dallas that way too much credit goes to the QB for SB victories.
Here's a few pretty average QB's who have rings;
1987 Redskins with Doug Williams, he was 0-2 as a starter that year. The defense was what won most of the games. Doug did have a very good performance in the SB.
2000 Ravens with Trent Dilfer. #1 defense was the reason.
2001 Buccaneers with Brad Johnson #1 defense again.
2017 Eagles with Nick Foles is also beginning to look like Nick is just not a very good QB.
If you bother to actually take a look, you will see that most SB winning teams had great defenses and a good/great RB and pass catcher (sometimes two). Yes, most had good/great QBs.
Bradshaw wins because of one of the best defenses ever, Franco Harris, Swann and Stallworth AND a very very good O Line. Fran Tarkenton "loses" because he has no great offensive help to go with a great defense and a great O Line.
I'll bet that a vast majority of posters think Bradshaw was a better QB than Fran. Believe me Francis was a vastly superior player.
Although I do like Bob Griese, more than most, it was Larry Csonka who destroyed my Vikings in SB 8.
Joe you and Dallas are both missing the point I’m trying to make. It’s Consistent winning play over a number of years not winning a super bowl then going back to mediocre play the next season or whatever. That’s the difference an elite QB will make in most cases.
Not missing your point, and agree that if the rest of the team is good a QB can certainly bring a team to a championship.
Look at the ranking of BOTH the offense and defense while Brady has been there.
I have shown that you don't "need" a elite QB to win it all, but you do need a top 5 (or so) defense to make it to the championship. QB generally needs other offensive help as well.
An elite QB will not turn a bad team into a SB winner.
@JoeBanzai said:
To all the guys who worship Mr Brady;
Take the time to look at New England's defense since Tom became the starter, pretty amazing how good they were almost every single year. Tom also had some very very good offensive weapons along the way.
One thing about having a good offense is that they control time of possession. That keeps the defense fresh throughout the game.
Absolutely and a good defense gets the ball back for that offense and keeps you in the game so the offense has the opportunity to win at the end! Of course, when you have an outstanding QB he takes advantage of that.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@perkdog said:
Joe you and Dallas are both missing the point I’m trying to make. It’s Consistent winning play over a number of years not winning a super bowl then going back to mediocre play the next season or whatever. That’s the difference an elite QB will make in most cases.
But the point you're missing (or maybe not acknowledging) is that "consistent winning play" simply isn't possible on a team with a bad defense and, other than an elite QB, a bad offense. Ken Anderson wasn't a little bit better than Troy Aikman, he was in a higher talent universe than Troy Aikman. How many Super Bowls did they each win? It doesn't matter, and to ask the question at all is to admit a fundamental misunderstanding of how football works.
If a great QB is on a great team then, sure, you'll see consistent winning play over a number of years. If a great QB is on a bad team, then you won't. If a mediocre QB is on a great team, you'll also see consistent winning play over a number of years. It isn't the Tom Bradys that bother me, it's the Troy Aikmans. By using "consistent winning play" as your benchmark, you vault the Aikmans over the Andersons, which is simply wrong.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Except the Chiefs, they don't need a good defense for consistent winning play.
Two years ago they should have made it to the Super Bowl except for a stupid offsides penalty
when the player lined up offsides. Their defense was terrible.
Last year I guess they were somewhat improved when they won the Super Bowl, but surely not
top 5 defense like Joe said you need to make it to the championship.
This year they are 11-1 with a very inconsistent defense. Sometimes its painful to watch them
knowing they probably aren't going to stop the other team from scoring in a crucial situation.
@Darin said:
Last year I guess they were somewhat improved when they won the Super Bowl, but surely not
top 5 defense like Joe said you need to make it to the championship.
This year they are 11-1 with a very inconsistent defense. Sometimes its painful to watch them
knowing they probably aren't going to stop the other team from scoring in a crucial situation.
I think we should cut Joe a little slack here; last year the Chiefs were 7th in points allowed and this year they're 6th. For 2019 and 2020 combined? They're 5th.
Nobody is saying that only defense matters, just as nobody ought to be saying that only offense matters. Anyone who says "{Fill in name of a QB here} won the Super Bowl" is saying that only offense matters, and it's an incredibly foolish thing to say. The Chiefs got to the Super Bowl, and won the Super Bowl, because they had the best team. While Mahomes was only 4% of the starting lineup, he's so good he may have been as much as 10% responsible for that season and that Super Bowl. If you are hallucinating that he deserves much more credit than that, you should stop. And if you're a fan of the Chiefs, you should stop insulting all of their other players by giving Mahomes the credit for their great play.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Dallas- Actually those defensive numbers are better than I thought for the Chiefs.
But they were horrible two years ago and should have made it to the Super Bowl but for an offsides call.
So I would say Mahomes probably deserves at least 50% of the team credit for that 2018 season.
A player that has his hands on the ball for 100% of the offensive plays can certainly be responsible for
10% or more of the offensive success the team has.
@Darin said:
A player that has his hands on the ball for 100% of the offensive plays can certainly be responsible for
10% or more of the offensive success the team has.
This might seem picky, but it's an important point. When I say Mahomes may have been 10% responsible, I'm giving him credit for 20% of the offense (he obviously gets 0% credit for defense, the other 50% of the game), which I think (just "think", no way to prove) is about the maximum credit any one player (out of 11) can get. If you try to give the QB any more credit than that, and then allocate the remainder to the other 10 positions, you end up forced to the conclusion that every player who plays with a great QB isn't very good. That is, BECAUSE a player plays with a great QB, he can't be very good. I not only think that's wrong, I think it's completely wrong. The better a QB appears to be, the more likely it is that the players around him are also good.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I don't claim to be an expert on the value of individual players but years of viewing football and a bit of common sense tells me there are many of the Chiefs players that could be replaced by their backups and they still are Champs. Take Mahomes off the team and they would have about the same chance as the Browns of being Super Bowl winners. I would put his value at 50% +. Now if you surround him with the absolute worst linemen, receivers, and a horrible defense he couldn't carry the team but he is the ONE player that if he is gone the team goes downhill quickly.
@Brick said:
I don't claim to be an expert on the value of individual players but years of viewing football and a bit of common sense tells me there are many of the Chiefs players that could be replaced by their backups and they still are Champs. Take Mahomes off the team and they would have about the same chance as the Browns of being Super Bowl winners. I would put his value at 50% +. Now if you surround him with the absolute worst linemen, receivers, and a horrible defense he couldn't carry the team but he is the ONE player that if he is gone the team goes downhill quickly.
I’m with you on this Ralph. Crunching geek numbers doesn’t really tell the true story. It really doesn’t in my opinion
@Brick said:
I don't claim to be an expert on the value of individual players but years of viewing football and a bit of common sense tells me there are many of the Chiefs players that could be replaced by their backups and they still are Champs. Take Mahomes off the team and they would have about the same chance as the Browns of being Super Bowl winners. I would put his value at 50% +. Now if you surround him with the absolute worst linemen, receivers, and a horrible defense he couldn't carry the team but he is the ONE player that if he is gone the team goes downhill quickly.
I’m with you on this Ralph. Crunching geek numbers doesn’t really tell the true story. It really doesn’t in my opinion
To me, the fact that Alex Smith went 12-4 and 10-6 followed by two seasons of 12-4 by Patrick Mahomes and four consecutive division titles in that span speaks volumes here, once again.
Patrick Mahomes didn’t turn around a losing franchise. He’s awesome, talented and spectacular and got them two games further in the playoffs. Alex Smith took the 49ers to Championship games, also, so he’s no slouch and has his best success in KC.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Brick said:
I don't claim to be an expert on the value of individual players but years of viewing football and a bit of common sense tells me there are many of the Chiefs players that could be replaced by their backups and they still are Champs. Take Mahomes off the team and they would have about the same chance as the Browns of being Super Bowl winners. I would put his value at 50% +. Now if you surround him with the absolute worst linemen, receivers, and a horrible defense he couldn't carry the team but he is the ONE player that if he is gone the team goes downhill quickly.
I’m with you on this Ralph. Crunching geek numbers doesn’t really tell the true story. It really doesn’t in my opinion
To me, the fact that Alex Smith went 12-4 and 10-6 followed by two seasons of 12-4 by Patrick Mahomes and four consecutive division titles in that span speaks volumes here, once again.
Patrick Mahomes didn’t turn around a losing franchise. He’s awesome, talented and spectacular and got them two games further in the playoffs. Alex Smith took the 49ers to Championship games, also, so he’s no slouch and has his best success in KC.
That was what really got my attention. The Chiefs traded Alex Smith after he led the NFL in passer rating.
That told me all I needed to know about what they thought of Mahomes. Plus all the rumors of how he
was making the defense look terrible in practice.
Smith was a very good for KC, but they needed Mahomes to get them to the next level.
Alex Smith is why I'm hoping Washington can win that NFC east division.
Super good guy, and deserves to enjoy some more success after coming back
from that terrible leg injury that they almost had to amputate.
@Brick said:
I don't claim to be an expert on the value of individual players but years of viewing football and a bit of common sense tells me there are many of the Chiefs players that could be replaced by their backups and they still are Champs. Take Mahomes off the team and they would have about the same chance as the Browns of being Super Bowl winners. I would put his value at 50% +. Now if you surround him with the absolute worst linemen, receivers, and a horrible defense he couldn't carry the team but he is the ONE player that if he is gone the team goes downhill quickly.
But that's the wrong way to define "value". Take Ted Williams off the Red Sox and they win exactly the same number of World Series, therefore Ted Williams had no value. That's what you just said. Getting a team to the point where they are just an upgrade at a single position away from winning a Super Bowl has tremendous value, and your formulation says the players on the losing Super Bowl team have the same value as the Jets' players. You're also saying that if you take Mahomes and drop him in at QB on the Jets, then Mahomes himself has no value. Same player, same skills, different teammates and Mahomes value drops from half a Super Bowl to nothing at all. If you think about it, and you really only have to think about it for a microsecond, that makes no sense. The value of Patrick Mahomes is what it is, no matter where he plays. That he can win a Super Bowl with one team and not with another means - and this is really, really obvious - that his teammates on the one team have much greater value than his teammates on the other team.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary Dallas not that you care but when I say “Geek” numbers I am referring mainly to you but it’s not an insult at all, I realize your a very intelligent person and know numbers, percentages ect.. ect.. I’ve never been good at math and I am a HR/RBI type guy so I can never fully relate to your numbers that you throw at our sports talk banter. I realize it does have merit but you and I are on two different mind sets. Just throwing it out there
No worries, perk; I wear the "Geek" tag proudly and my skin is as thick as it comes. Mostly, I like arguing about how to measure how good a player is and here I'm arguing a perspective that I think needs to be considered but isn't. I'll readily admit that "Approximate Value" for NFL players, and Win Shares for baseball players aren't perfect and don't settle every question. But "so and so won a Super Bowl" is even further from perfect, and I'm positive that QBs are getting WAY too much credit from nearly everyone. I know I'm not going to convert everyone to seeing things exactly the same way I do, and that's not even my goal since I'm also confident that I don't have all the answers. But the right answers are out there somewhere, and, especially in a team sport like football, ignoring 21 of the 22 starters on a team is never going to lead to those right answers, and any nudge I can provide away from that way of thinking is a nudge in the right direction.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I did not say Ted Williams had no value. I don't believe I brought him up at all. BTW Williams was my favorite player when I was a kid. I did not say the losing Super Bowl team had no more value than the Jets. They were obviously a better team than the Jets. I did not say Mahomes would have no value if he was a Jet. He would be a tremendous upgrade. What I said was with Mahomes Chiefs win, without Mahomes Chiefs don't win. To my way of thinking that makes him more valuable than just a bit more than his teammates. Compare the paychecks of the other 21 starters to Mahomes. Chiefs management is well aware of his value.
@Brick said:
What I said was with Mahomes Chiefs win, without Mahomes Chiefs don't win.
But that's what I said you said. If Mahomes has value only because of this, then he has no value if this is not true, and Williams had no value to the Red Sox since they didn't "win".
I believe that this is not what you meant, but I can't respond to what you mean, only to what you say. If you have an argument that ascribes value to something other than winning the Super Bowl - and you should - then if you make that argument I can reply to that. But if winning the Super Bowl is the only thing with value - and it's the only thing you've mentioned - then I have summed up your argument correctly.
And note that "without Mahomes, the Chiefs don't win the Super Bowl" is only half an argument anyway. The other half is who would they have instead. If he's replaced by his backup then the Chiefs probably lose, but all that implies is that Mahomes is a lot more valuable than his backup, something he shares in common with all the other starting QBs (other than Carson Wentz). It's also something he shares in common with Mitchell Schwartz and Travis Kelse, among others.
Patrick Mahomes is a great QB, and he would be a great QB if he were trapped on the Jets. If your argument, should you choose to make a complete one, doesn't acknowledge that how great a player is does not depend in any whatsoever on which team he plays for, then you have a faulty argument.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I think we are speaking different languages. We may need an interpreter. I have never said any player at any position has no value if they don't win the Championship. Any player with no value to their team would not be on the team. What I disagree with is the notion that Mahomes is barely worth more than his teammates. I also disagree that a great QB only helps the offense, not the defense because he is sitting on the bench. A QB who can engineer 8 minute drives finishing with a score is one- keeping his defense well rested and 2- Keeping an opposing good offense sitting on the bench where they are not likely to score.
@Brick said:
I think we are speaking different languages. ... A QB who can engineer 8 minute drives finishing with a score is one- keeping his defense well rested and 2- Keeping an opposing good offense sitting on the bench where they are not likely to score.
We are, and you provided a perfect example. A TEAM that can hold the ball for 8 minute drives on a regular basis would require mostly a good running game where the QB is nowhere close to the most valuable player on those plays, and when passing plays are used they would necessarily be short ones (else the drive wouldn't last very long), and any QB can complete short passes the vast majority of the time. In other words, it is the 8 minute drives where a great quarterback is least needed, and whoever the QB is has the least importance. But you are giving him credit for "engineering" it because you are starting from the assumption that the QB gets credit for everything the offense does. Assuming what you are trying to demonstrate is called "begging the question", it's a logical fallacy, and it's all you're doing.
Contrary to what you said, it is the shortest drives where the QB will have the greatest impact, both good and bad. But 100% of those drives, as also every other drive, will fail if any one of the OL screws up on any play. Troy Aikman, my go-to example, spent his rookie season on his ass and lost every game he played. Then the Cowboys got Emmitt Smith and they improved from putrid to bad. Then they assembled a championship quality OL and they won championships. Troy Aikman was a spectator to the team's improvement, and I don't think he deserves even the average 4% credit a starter gets. He was the QB, so he's in the HOF, but he wasn't among the 10 most valuable players on those teams. Unless you start with the assumption that he must have been, I don't even see an argument that he could have been.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
You have a good point. Congratulations. However a mediocre QB would have a much more difficult time with the running game than one whom the defense knows can run play action pass and burn them. Also a defense that knows their QB will put a good number of points on the scoreboard has more latitude in decision making. My point to this discussion is that Patrick Mahomes is worth much more 5% or so to his team. There is a reason teams lock up QBs with long term contracts. Perhaps you are a bit low and I am a bit high. Assuming a great QB does nothing for the defense (which I don't believe) and his replacement is a good quality QB I would be willing to put Mahomes value to the offense at 30% or perhaps a bit more and the other 10 starters at 7% or a bit less. Losing Mahomes would be much more devastating than losing any of the other 10 and it is not a close call. BTW I was going to say "not debatable" but that line has been over used.
@Brick said:
You have a good point. Congratulations. However a mediocre QB would have a much more difficult time with the running game than one whom the defense knows can run play action pass and burn them. Also a defense that knows their QB will put a good number of points on the scoreboard has more latitude in decision making. My point to this discussion is that Patrick Mahomes is worth much more 5% or so to his team. There is a reason teams lock up QBs with long term contracts. Perhaps you are a bit low and I am a bit high. Assuming a great QB does nothing for the defense (which I don't believe) and his replacement is a good quality QB I would be willing to put Mahomes value to the offense at 30% or perhaps a bit more and the other 10 starters at 7% or a bit less. Losing Mahomes would be much more devastating than losing any of the other 10 and it is not a close call. BTW I was going to say "not debatable" but that line has been over used.
I’m curious what value you place on Alex Smith, the actual QB who led the franchises turnaround along with Andy Reid from 4-12 to 12-4 In his first season there. What value does he get?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Brick said:
You have a good point. Congratulations. However a mediocre QB would have a much more difficult time with the running game than one whom the defense knows can run play action pass and burn them. Also a defense that knows their QB will put a good number of points on the scoreboard has more latitude in decision making. My point to this discussion is that Patrick Mahomes is worth much more 5% or so to his team. There is a reason teams lock up QBs with long term contracts. Perhaps you are a bit low and I am a bit high. Assuming a great QB does nothing for the defense (which I don't believe) and his replacement is a good quality QB I would be willing to put Mahomes value to the offense at 30% or perhaps a bit more and the other 10 starters at 7% or a bit less. Losing Mahomes would be much more devastating than losing any of the other 10 and it is not a close call. BTW I was going to say "not debatable" but that line has been over used.
I’m curious what value you place on Alex Smith, the actual QB who led the franchises turnaround along with Andy Reid from 4-12 to 12-4 In his first season there. What value does he get?
Alex Smith is a guy I love to hate for some reason. He went a full season without throwing a TD pass to a WR, believe it or not. That is a pretty crazy stat.
@Brick said:
You have a good point. Congratulations. However a mediocre QB would have a much more difficult time with the running game than one whom the defense knows can run play action pass and burn them. Also a defense that knows their QB will put a good number of points on the scoreboard has more latitude in decision making. My point to this discussion is that Patrick Mahomes is worth much more 5% or so to his team. There is a reason teams lock up QBs with long term contracts. Perhaps you are a bit low and I am a bit high. Assuming a great QB does nothing for the defense (which I don't believe) and his replacement is a good quality QB I would be willing to put Mahomes value to the offense at 30% or perhaps a bit more and the other 10 starters at 7% or a bit less. Losing Mahomes would be much more devastating than losing any of the other 10 and it is not a close call. BTW I was going to say "not debatable" but that line has been over used.
I’m curious what value you place on Alex Smith, the actual QB who led the franchises turnaround along with Andy Reid from 4-12 to 12-4 In his first season there. What value does he get?
Alex Smith is a guy I love to hate for some reason. He went a full season without throwing a TD pass to a WR, believe it or not. That is a pretty crazy stat.
Smith has had an interesting career. He will go down as a guy who didn't live up to being the number one pick, but at the same time he is the opposite of a bust and has done more than many other highly picked QBs let alone first picks. I remember thinking that it was definitely the wrong move to replace him with Kaepernick. And then we saw what happened when he was replaced by Mahomes after himself playing really well. And then the injury, the surgeries, the comeback. Like I said, I think it's an interesting career.
@Brick said:
You have a good point. Congratulations. However a mediocre QB would have a much more difficult time with the running game than one whom the defense knows can run play action pass and burn them. Also a defense that knows their QB will put a good number of points on the scoreboard has more latitude in decision making. My point to this discussion is that Patrick Mahomes is worth much more 5% or so to his team. There is a reason teams lock up QBs with long term contracts. Perhaps you are a bit low and I am a bit high. Assuming a great QB does nothing for the defense (which I don't believe) and his replacement is a good quality QB I would be willing to put Mahomes value to the offense at 30% or perhaps a bit more and the other 10 starters at 7% or a bit less. Losing Mahomes would be much more devastating than losing any of the other 10 and it is not a close call. BTW I was going to say "not debatable" but that line has been over used.
I’m curious what value you place on Alex Smith, the actual QB who led the franchises turnaround along with Andy Reid from 4-12 to 12-4 In his first season there. What value does he get?
Alex Smith is a guy I love to hate for some reason. He went a full season without throwing a TD pass to a WR, believe it or not. That is a pretty crazy stat.
Smith has had an interesting career. He will go down as a guy who didn't live up to being the number one pick, but at the same time he is the opposite of a bust and has done more than many other highly picked QBs let alone first picks. I remember thinking that it was definitely the wrong move to replace him with Kaepernick. And then we saw what happened when he was replaced by Mahomes after himself playing really well. And then the injury, the surgeries, the comeback. Like I said, I think it's an interesting career.
Yea I don’t think he is horrible at all, I just don’t like the guy and I’m not talking about anything more than just him as a QB. I don’t care for Mathew Stafford either. I just look at these guys as players that will never be elite or get a team to win consistently.
Alex Smith is more than a pretty good journeyman QB. Under appreciated. Underrated. He was quite valuable to the Chiefs. Just not as valuable as Mahomes.
@Brick said:
You have a good point. Congratulations. However a mediocre QB would have a much more difficult time with the running game than one whom the defense knows can run play action pass and burn them. Also a defense that knows their QB will put a good number of points on the scoreboard has more latitude in decision making. My point to this discussion is that Patrick Mahomes is worth much more 5% or so to his team. There is a reason teams lock up QBs with long term contracts. Perhaps you are a bit low and I am a bit high. Assuming a great QB does nothing for the defense (which I don't believe) and his replacement is a good quality QB I would be willing to put Mahomes value to the offense at 30% or perhaps a bit more and the other 10 starters at 7% or a bit less. Losing Mahomes would be much more devastating than losing any of the other 10 and it is not a close call. BTW I was going to say "not debatable" but that line has been over used.
I’m curious what value you place on Alex Smith, the actual QB who led the franchises turnaround along with Andy Reid from 4-12 to 12-4 In his first season there. What value does he get?
Alex Smith is a guy I love to hate for some reason. He went a full season without throwing a TD pass to a WR, believe it or not. That is a pretty crazy stat.
Smith has had an interesting career. He will go down as a guy who didn't live up to being the number one pick, but at the same time he is the opposite of a bust and has done more than many other highly picked QBs let alone first picks. I remember thinking that it was definitely the wrong move to replace him with Kaepernick. And then we saw what happened when he was replaced by Mahomes after himself playing really well. And then the injury, the surgeries, the comeback. Like I said, I think it's an interesting career.
Yea I don’t think he is horrible at all, I just don’t like the guy and I’m not talking about anything more than just him as a QB. I don’t care for Mathew Stafford either. I just look at these guys as players that will never be elite or get a team to win consistently.
I know what you're saying. Though, as I've mentioned previously, I have a sneaking suspicion that Stafford could have been the real deal. I know he has put up huge numbers and is considered very tough. And we know all about the Lions. But I've definitely run across a few people over the years making the case that he could have really been something. I'm referring to random scouts or previous front office guys talking on radio. They kind of had me buying it. Either way, like I said, I know what you mean. I definitely wouldn't mind Matty Ice coming to NE, now that you got me thinking about it. 😂
@Brick said:
I would be willing to put Mahomes value to the offense at 30% or perhaps a bit more and the other 10 starters at 7% or a bit less. Losing Mahomes would be much more devastating than losing any of the other 10 and it is not a close call. BTW I was going to say "not debatable" but that line has been over used.
Well, we're getting somewhere, and we've actually come a lot further than I thought we would. You are now giving Mahomes 15% of the credit for the Chiefs success. I think that's still a bit too high, but it's probably in the right ballpark. Now as long as you promise not to say some fool thing like "Mahomes won a Super Bowl", I'll confine my jabs to those fools who do.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
I agree with your sentiment here @perkdog . Of course there are examples of a team having success despite the shortcomings of the QB. Just as there are examples of a very talented QB not making things work behind a bad line in a bad system. But there is another part to it, the QB who takes the team way past where they would have gone without him.....such as our friend Tom.
Yes, this kind of debate is great. If there was already name calling I missed it, but I agree about going forward.
Just a touch. But I wanted to head it off before it continued.
Welcome to the forum. I like your style!!
I might have been a little Curt with Dallas. Noted and understood 🗓✅
I'm not sure who to respond to, so I'll just correct the most egregious misinterpretations of what I've been saying. I agree, and I have said so, that the QB is the most important position on most football teams. Given 22 positions, plus kickers and other special teams players, and given the blindingly obvious fact that, on average, offense and defense are of equal importance to a team, we can say with certainty that, within some tiny margin of error, an average starter - at any position - deserves something close to 4% of the credit for his team's successes and failures. Consider the talent gap between the best and worst starting players, and you've got 95% of the starters in a range of 2% to 6% of the credit. Now, QB is the most important position so, on average, I think a QB probably deserves not 4%, but, say, 8% of the credit, and the very best QBs probably get in to the 10% - 12% range. I think the average fan gives the best QBs closer to 50% (note: more credit than the entire offense should get) of the credit for his team's successes, and it's a rare fan indeed who gives him less than 25% of the credit (no QB ever has, or ever could, deserve that much credit). Earl Morrall steps in for Bob Griese and the Dolphins literally never lose; Mike Kruczek steps in for Terry Bradshaw and the Steelers literally never lose (until Bradshaw came back). The examples of this, including the ones already mentioned in this thread, are legion - it happens all the time. Who plays QB on a great team may matter more, but it matters very little more, than who plays safety, who plays LB, or who plays RG.
Now compare the QB to the OL. The QB is, as we all agree, the most important player but there's just one of him and there are five on the OL. On average, a QB may be 8% responsible for his team's success, and each OL may be 4%, but that means the entire OL, as a group, is 2.5 times more important to winning than the QB. Even the best QB is going to be less important than the OL, and a mediocre QB like Troy Aikman playing behind a GOAT quality OL is going to fare a LOT worse than that. I think the best player on the Cowboys SB teams in the 90's was Larry Allen; that Allen, all by himself, was more important to the Cowboys success than Aikman. You can disagree with that if you want, but it takes a special kind of ignorance to not recognize that the entire Cowboys OL was, at a minimum, 3 to 4 times more important than Aikman to the Cowboys success.
John Hannah, Jim Otto, and Bruce Matthews were, all by themselves and not grouped with their teammates on the OL, better (more valuable) players than all but a very small group of the very best QBs. Yes, the best QBs bubble their way to the top of the GOAT football player list, because the QB position is the most important. That is NOT the same thing as saying that all, most, or even very many QBs end up above the best players at all the other positions.
I stand 100% behind my statement that it matters hardly at all who plays QB if the OL in front of him is great enough, as it would have been in the example I constructed, and as was the case on the Dolphins, Steelers, and Cowboys. My "agenda" here is simply to lift the fog that prevents people from seeing what is really quite obvious.
There has been plenty of times where Tom Brady did not play football for the Patriots and even they barely missed a beat. I think the win percentage was near identical with or without Tom
And the 2008 Matt Cassell season produced MORE wins that the Tom Brady led Patriots In 2009.
I’m not implying the Pats would have been ‘just as good’ without Brady. At all. But if Brady is that responsible for all the Patriot success, shouldn’t the team have completely collapsed without him in the prime of his and their run?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I commented on this thread way back in June but I wanted to add a few thoughts.
Tom Brady: The GOAT QB.
Jim Brown: GOAT RB
Lawrence Taylor: Changed the game. When a player changes the way the game is played he must be on the MT. Just as Bob Gibson after his MVP season MLB lowered the mound height.
Jerry Rice: Not only the GOAT as a WR but the GOAT football player. There is and always will be only one Jerry Rice.
But to have a real conversation about the greatest players it has to be done by era. It’s unfair to match stats from the 40’s to 90’s to today. So many football historians here can tell us about the greatest old timers I won’t even try.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
@2dueces Jerry Rice benefited from Montana then Young, he played a very long time too. Putting him with Tim Rattay or Jim Drunkenmiller for his career and he is not a HOF WR. Put Jim Brown or Barry Sanders with any team and they are still HOF’ers. I think the WR position is obviously the number 1 position that needs a QB to be what they can be. Just a quick little point as all. I absolutely agree about it being impossible to fairly judge all players in the history of the game since it has changed so much and keeps changing every decade.
Keep in mind that Cassell inherited a team that had gone 18-1 the previous season and was one score from 19-0. They had one of the most prolific offences ever seen that year. Cassell produced 11-5 and the offense was not magical. The Brady that we saw in 09 was getting over the rust from not playing professional football for a year so the offense struggled.
Just some food for thought.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Again, I’m not hating on Tom Brady - at all. Just pointing out that guys like Nate Solder, Shaq Mason and Matt Light - among others - have been a big part of their success, too.
You are 100% correct that 11-5 is not 18-1. Not even close, frankly. Still, it’s not a total collapse and the ‘extra games’ were missed on a technicality, if I remember. Tie breaker or something.
And sorry again about that “1”.
(Go Giants! 😂😂😂 )
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Can’t believe that “1” was back in 2008. Still bothers me but the 3 Super Bowl wins since then eased the pain 😊
Yeah I guess that just might. 😂😂
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
I agree with Dallas that way too much credit goes to the QB for SB victories.
Here's a few pretty average QB's who have rings;
1987 Redskins with Doug Williams, he was 0-2 as a starter that year. The defense was what won most of the games. Doug did have a very good performance in the SB.
2000 Ravens with Trent Dilfer. #1 defense was the reason.
2001 Buccaneers with Brad Johnson #1 defense again.
2017 Eagles with Nick Foles is also beginning to look like Nick is just not a very good QB.
If you bother to actually take a look, you will see that most SB winning teams had great defenses and a good/great RB and pass catcher (sometimes two). Yes, most had good/great QBs.
Bradshaw wins because of one of the best defenses ever, Franco Harris, Swann and Stallworth AND a very very good O Line. Fran Tarkenton "loses" because he has no great offensive help to go with a great defense and a great O Line.
I'll bet that a vast majority of posters think Bradshaw was a better QB than Fran. Believe me Francis was a vastly superior player.
Although I do like Bob Griese, more than most, it was Larry Csonka who destroyed my Vikings in SB 8.
To all the guys who worship Mr Brady;
Take the time to look at New England's defense since Tom became the starter, pretty amazing how good they were almost every single year. Tom also had some very very good offensive weapons along the way.
Good post. My only argument is Alan Page was the original LT. First Defensive player and only lineman to win the league MVP.
Joe you and Dallas are both missing the point I’m trying to make. It’s Consistent winning play over a number of years not winning a super bowl then going back to mediocre play the next season or whatever. That’s the difference an elite QB will make in most cases.
It's so funny about that "1". even with all the other rings, that one still really bothers me. It's been 13 years and I'm still not over it.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
One thing about having a good offense is that they control time of possession. That keeps the defense fresh throughout the game.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
As I was watching the last game of that season, against the Giants, I remember thinking that we needed to lose in order to win the SB. I felt it in my gut.
I remember thinking that against the Ravens too. That was a close one as well
Not missing your point, and agree that if the rest of the team is good a QB can certainly bring a team to a championship.
Look at the ranking of BOTH the offense and defense while Brady has been there.
I have shown that you don't "need" a elite QB to win it all, but you do need a top 5 (or so) defense to make it to the championship. QB generally needs other offensive help as well.
An elite QB will not turn a bad team into a SB winner.
Absolutely and a good defense gets the ball back for that offense and keeps you in the game so the offense has the opportunity to win at the end! Of course, when you have an outstanding QB he takes advantage of that.
But the point you're missing (or maybe not acknowledging) is that "consistent winning play" simply isn't possible on a team with a bad defense and, other than an elite QB, a bad offense. Ken Anderson wasn't a little bit better than Troy Aikman, he was in a higher talent universe than Troy Aikman. How many Super Bowls did they each win? It doesn't matter, and to ask the question at all is to admit a fundamental misunderstanding of how football works.
If a great QB is on a great team then, sure, you'll see consistent winning play over a number of years. If a great QB is on a bad team, then you won't. If a mediocre QB is on a great team, you'll also see consistent winning play over a number of years. It isn't the Tom Bradys that bother me, it's the Troy Aikmans. By using "consistent winning play" as your benchmark, you vault the Aikmans over the Andersons, which is simply wrong.
Except the Chiefs, they don't need a good defense for consistent winning play.
Two years ago they should have made it to the Super Bowl except for a stupid offsides penalty
when the player lined up offsides. Their defense was terrible.
Last year I guess they were somewhat improved when they won the Super Bowl, but surely not
top 5 defense like Joe said you need to make it to the championship.
This year they are 11-1 with a very inconsistent defense. Sometimes its painful to watch them
knowing they probably aren't going to stop the other team from scoring in a crucial situation.
I think we should cut Joe a little slack here; last year the Chiefs were 7th in points allowed and this year they're 6th. For 2019 and 2020 combined? They're 5th.
Nobody is saying that only defense matters, just as nobody ought to be saying that only offense matters. Anyone who says "{Fill in name of a QB here} won the Super Bowl" is saying that only offense matters, and it's an incredibly foolish thing to say. The Chiefs got to the Super Bowl, and won the Super Bowl, because they had the best team. While Mahomes was only 4% of the starting lineup, he's so good he may have been as much as 10% responsible for that season and that Super Bowl. If you are hallucinating that he deserves much more credit than that, you should stop. And if you're a fan of the Chiefs, you should stop insulting all of their other players by giving Mahomes the credit for their great play.
Dallas- Actually those defensive numbers are better than I thought for the Chiefs.
But they were horrible two years ago and should have made it to the Super Bowl but for an offsides call.
So I would say Mahomes probably deserves at least 50% of the team credit for that 2018 season.
A player that has his hands on the ball for 100% of the offensive plays can certainly be responsible for
10% or more of the offensive success the team has.
This is a perfect example of my point.
This might seem picky, but it's an important point. When I say Mahomes may have been 10% responsible, I'm giving him credit for 20% of the offense (he obviously gets 0% credit for defense, the other 50% of the game), which I think (just "think", no way to prove) is about the maximum credit any one player (out of 11) can get. If you try to give the QB any more credit than that, and then allocate the remainder to the other 10 positions, you end up forced to the conclusion that every player who plays with a great QB isn't very good. That is, BECAUSE a player plays with a great QB, he can't be very good. I not only think that's wrong, I think it's completely wrong. The better a QB appears to be, the more likely it is that the players around him are also good.
I don't claim to be an expert on the value of individual players but years of viewing football and a bit of common sense tells me there are many of the Chiefs players that could be replaced by their backups and they still are Champs. Take Mahomes off the team and they would have about the same chance as the Browns of being Super Bowl winners. I would put his value at 50% +. Now if you surround him with the absolute worst linemen, receivers, and a horrible defense he couldn't carry the team but he is the ONE player that if he is gone the team goes downhill quickly.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I’m with you on this Ralph. Crunching geek numbers doesn’t really tell the true story. It really doesn’t in my opinion
To me, the fact that Alex Smith went 12-4 and 10-6 followed by two seasons of 12-4 by Patrick Mahomes and four consecutive division titles in that span speaks volumes here, once again.
Patrick Mahomes didn’t turn around a losing franchise. He’s awesome, talented and spectacular and got them two games further in the playoffs. Alex Smith took the 49ers to Championship games, also, so he’s no slouch and has his best success in KC.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
That was what really got my attention. The Chiefs traded Alex Smith after he led the NFL in passer rating.
That told me all I needed to know about what they thought of Mahomes. Plus all the rumors of how he
was making the defense look terrible in practice.
Smith was a very good for KC, but they needed Mahomes to get them to the next level.
Alex Smith is why I'm hoping Washington can win that NFC east division.
Super good guy, and deserves to enjoy some more success after coming back
from that terrible leg injury that they almost had to amputate.
But that's the wrong way to define "value". Take Ted Williams off the Red Sox and they win exactly the same number of World Series, therefore Ted Williams had no value. That's what you just said. Getting a team to the point where they are just an upgrade at a single position away from winning a Super Bowl has tremendous value, and your formulation says the players on the losing Super Bowl team have the same value as the Jets' players. You're also saying that if you take Mahomes and drop him in at QB on the Jets, then Mahomes himself has no value. Same player, same skills, different teammates and Mahomes value drops from half a Super Bowl to nothing at all. If you think about it, and you really only have to think about it for a microsecond, that makes no sense. The value of Patrick Mahomes is what it is, no matter where he plays. That he can win a Super Bowl with one team and not with another means - and this is really, really obvious - that his teammates on the one team have much greater value than his teammates on the other team.
@dallasactuary Dallas not that you care but when I say “Geek” numbers I am referring mainly to you but it’s not an insult at all, I realize your a very intelligent person and know numbers, percentages ect.. ect.. I’ve never been good at math and I am a HR/RBI type guy so I can never fully relate to your numbers that you throw at our sports talk banter. I realize it does have merit but you and I are on two different mind sets. Just throwing it out there
No worries, perk; I wear the "Geek" tag proudly and my skin is as thick as it comes. Mostly, I like arguing about how to measure how good a player is and here I'm arguing a perspective that I think needs to be considered but isn't. I'll readily admit that "Approximate Value" for NFL players, and Win Shares for baseball players aren't perfect and don't settle every question. But "so and so won a Super Bowl" is even further from perfect, and I'm positive that QBs are getting WAY too much credit from nearly everyone. I know I'm not going to convert everyone to seeing things exactly the same way I do, and that's not even my goal since I'm also confident that I don't have all the answers. But the right answers are out there somewhere, and, especially in a team sport like football, ignoring 21 of the 22 starters on a team is never going to lead to those right answers, and any nudge I can provide away from that way of thinking is a nudge in the right direction.
I did not say Ted Williams had no value. I don't believe I brought him up at all. BTW Williams was my favorite player when I was a kid. I did not say the losing Super Bowl team had no more value than the Jets. They were obviously a better team than the Jets. I did not say Mahomes would have no value if he was a Jet. He would be a tremendous upgrade. What I said was with Mahomes Chiefs win, without Mahomes Chiefs don't win. To my way of thinking that makes him more valuable than just a bit more than his teammates. Compare the paychecks of the other 21 starters to Mahomes. Chiefs management is well aware of his value.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Some quarterbacks can only do so much.....
Some quarterbacks do so much.
But that's what I said you said. If Mahomes has value only because of this, then he has no value if this is not true, and Williams had no value to the Red Sox since they didn't "win".
I believe that this is not what you meant, but I can't respond to what you mean, only to what you say. If you have an argument that ascribes value to something other than winning the Super Bowl - and you should - then if you make that argument I can reply to that. But if winning the Super Bowl is the only thing with value - and it's the only thing you've mentioned - then I have summed up your argument correctly.
And note that "without Mahomes, the Chiefs don't win the Super Bowl" is only half an argument anyway. The other half is who would they have instead. If he's replaced by his backup then the Chiefs probably lose, but all that implies is that Mahomes is a lot more valuable than his backup, something he shares in common with all the other starting QBs (other than Carson Wentz). It's also something he shares in common with Mitchell Schwartz and Travis Kelse, among others.
Patrick Mahomes is a great QB, and he would be a great QB if he were trapped on the Jets. If your argument, should you choose to make a complete one, doesn't acknowledge that how great a player is does not depend in any whatsoever on which team he plays for, then you have a faulty argument.
I think we are speaking different languages. We may need an interpreter. I have never said any player at any position has no value if they don't win the Championship. Any player with no value to their team would not be on the team. What I disagree with is the notion that Mahomes is barely worth more than his teammates. I also disagree that a great QB only helps the offense, not the defense because he is sitting on the bench. A QB who can engineer 8 minute drives finishing with a score is one- keeping his defense well rested and 2- Keeping an opposing good offense sitting on the bench where they are not likely to score.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
And some quarterbacks try to do TOO much.
We are, and you provided a perfect example. A TEAM that can hold the ball for 8 minute drives on a regular basis would require mostly a good running game where the QB is nowhere close to the most valuable player on those plays, and when passing plays are used they would necessarily be short ones (else the drive wouldn't last very long), and any QB can complete short passes the vast majority of the time. In other words, it is the 8 minute drives where a great quarterback is least needed, and whoever the QB is has the least importance. But you are giving him credit for "engineering" it because you are starting from the assumption that the QB gets credit for everything the offense does. Assuming what you are trying to demonstrate is called "begging the question", it's a logical fallacy, and it's all you're doing.
Contrary to what you said, it is the shortest drives where the QB will have the greatest impact, both good and bad. But 100% of those drives, as also every other drive, will fail if any one of the OL screws up on any play. Troy Aikman, my go-to example, spent his rookie season on his ass and lost every game he played. Then the Cowboys got Emmitt Smith and they improved from putrid to bad. Then they assembled a championship quality OL and they won championships. Troy Aikman was a spectator to the team's improvement, and I don't think he deserves even the average 4% credit a starter gets. He was the QB, so he's in the HOF, but he wasn't among the 10 most valuable players on those teams. Unless you start with the assumption that he must have been, I don't even see an argument that he could have been.
You have a good point. Congratulations. However a mediocre QB would have a much more difficult time with the running game than one whom the defense knows can run play action pass and burn them. Also a defense that knows their QB will put a good number of points on the scoreboard has more latitude in decision making. My point to this discussion is that Patrick Mahomes is worth much more 5% or so to his team. There is a reason teams lock up QBs with long term contracts. Perhaps you are a bit low and I am a bit high. Assuming a great QB does nothing for the defense (which I don't believe) and his replacement is a good quality QB I would be willing to put Mahomes value to the offense at 30% or perhaps a bit more and the other 10 starters at 7% or a bit less. Losing Mahomes would be much more devastating than losing any of the other 10 and it is not a close call. BTW I was going to say "not debatable" but that line has been over used.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I’m curious what value you place on Alex Smith, the actual QB who led the franchises turnaround along with Andy Reid from 4-12 to 12-4 In his first season there. What value does he get?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Alex Smith is a guy I love to hate for some reason. He went a full season without throwing a TD pass to a WR, believe it or not. That is a pretty crazy stat.
Smith has had an interesting career. He will go down as a guy who didn't live up to being the number one pick, but at the same time he is the opposite of a bust and has done more than many other highly picked QBs let alone first picks. I remember thinking that it was definitely the wrong move to replace him with Kaepernick. And then we saw what happened when he was replaced by Mahomes after himself playing really well. And then the injury, the surgeries, the comeback. Like I said, I think it's an interesting career.
Yea I don’t think he is horrible at all, I just don’t like the guy and I’m not talking about anything more than just him as a QB. I don’t care for Mathew Stafford either. I just look at these guys as players that will never be elite or get a team to win consistently.
Alex Smith is more than a pretty good journeyman QB. Under appreciated. Underrated. He was quite valuable to the Chiefs. Just not as valuable as Mahomes.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I know what you're saying. Though, as I've mentioned previously, I have a sneaking suspicion that Stafford could have been the real deal. I know he has put up huge numbers and is considered very tough. And we know all about the Lions. But I've definitely run across a few people over the years making the case that he could have really been something. I'm referring to random scouts or previous front office guys talking on radio. They kind of had me buying it. Either way, like I said, I know what you mean. I definitely wouldn't mind Matty Ice coming to NE, now that you got me thinking about it. 😂
Well, we're getting somewhere, and we've actually come a lot further than I thought we would. You are now giving Mahomes 15% of the credit for the Chiefs success. I think that's still a bit too high, but it's probably in the right ballpark. Now as long as you promise not to say some fool thing like "Mahomes won a Super Bowl", I'll confine my jabs to those fools who do.