Quarterbacks are Over-rated

[YardRat]

Quarterback is the most insignificant position in team sports because no other position in any other sport requires the same reliance on teammates as a QB. All other individual sports, and all other positions in football, require a talent level that places the individual's ability to perform or succeed entirely on that individual's shoulders, and theirs alone.

QB's can't achieve any level of success without the assistance of others. They need help from the offensive line, the WR's, the RB, even the defense and the coaching staff. Without this help they are worthless. All other positions on a football team place the individual player in situations where their success depends solely on their skills and their ability to 'beat' the person opposite them. WR's succeed when they beat the d-back trying to cover them. Once the ball is in the air, if it's tight coverage or a poorly thrown ball, the responsibility becomes solely that receiver's to use his skills to make the play work. Even if he's wide open, once the ball is thrown it's completely his talents that determine whether the play is a success or not.

An offensive lineman can succeed by dominating his opponent. A running back can succeed by out-running, out-maneuvering, or out-muscling the defender...one-on-one. Individual defensive players can succeed by shutting down the player opposite them.

Hell, even in baseball and hockey the success of the team depends on the combined successes of the individuals. Fielders are all alone when the ball is hit to them, and it's on their own shoulders whether or not they field the ball cleanly and make the play. While in the batting box, it's one-on-one...the hitter's skills versus the pitcher's. In hockey, it's one man's slap shot against another man's ability to stop the puck.

Quarterbacks can't complete a pass without relying on the talent level of the offensive linemen blocking for him or the receiver he's throwing the ball to being able to catch it. They're completely at the mercy of those around them and rely on their support to get by. If the players on a football team were redefined by socio-economic standards, the other ten players would be classified as part of the working class....QB's would be third-generation welfare recipients.

Too much is made of a QB's skill level, physical abilities, or contributions to the success of a football team...all that really means very little...it's actually the players surrounding the QB that determine the team's success. The QB is just along for the ride. All they have to do is not screw up or consistently make mistakes and let the rest of the player's talents carry him along to wins.

Leadership is the only quality that a QB must have in order to have any significant impact on the success of the team...and that has little to do with any of that individual's physical skills. Even the outcome of the QB's leadership ability still depends on the talents of those around him. A QB can 'rally the troops' all he likes, but if the other players don't succeed, neither does he.

No position in any sport is more over-valued, over-rated, and over-paid than a football QB.

[X-Era]

Quarterback is the most insignificant position in team sports because no other position in any other sport requires the same reliance on teammates as a QB. All other individual sports, and all other positions in football, require a talent level that places the individual's ability to perform or succeed entirely on that individual's shoulders, and theirs alone.

QB's can't achieve any level of success without the assistance of others. They need help from the offensive line, the WR's, the RB, even the defense and the coaching staff. Without this help they are worthless. All other positions on a football team place the individual player in situations where their success depends solely on their skills and their ability to 'beat' the person opposite them. WR's succeed when they beat the d-back trying to cover them. Once the ball is in the air, if it's tight coverage or a poorly thrown ball, the responsibility becomes solely that receiver's to use his skills to make the play work. Even if he's wide open, once the ball is thrown it's completely his talents that determine whether the play is a success or not.

An offensive lineman can succeed by dominating his opponent. A running back can succeed by out-running, out-maneuvering, or out-muscling the defender...one-on-one. Individual defensive players can succeed by shutting down the player opposite them.

Hell, even in baseball and hockey the success of the team depends on the combined successes of the individuals. Fielders are all alone when the ball is hit to them, and it's on their own shoulders whether or not they field the ball cleanly and make the play. While in the batting box, it's one-on-one...the hitter's skills versus the pitcher's. In hockey, it's one man's slap shot against another man's ability to stop the puck.

Quarterbacks can't complete a pass without relying on the talent level of the offensive linemen blocking for him or the receiver he's throwing the ball to being able to catch it. They're completely at the mercy of those around them and rely on their support to get by. If the players on a football team were redefined by socio-economic standards, the other ten players would be classified as part of the working class....QB's would be third-generation welfare recipients.

Too much is made of a QB's skill level, physical abilities, or contributions to the success of a football team...all that really means very little...it's actually the players surrounding the QB that determine the team's success. The QB is just along for the ride. All they have to do is not screw up or consistently make mistakes and let the rest of the player's talents carry him along to wins.

Leadership is the only quality that a QB must have in order to have any significant impact on the success of the team...and that has little to do with any of that individual's physical skills. Even the outcome of the QB's leadership ability still depends on the talents of those around him. A QB can 'rally the troops' all he likes, but if the other players don't succeed, neither does he.

No position in any sport is more over-valued, over-rated, and over-paid than a football QB.

Wait you mean its a team game?

Fine, make sure your here reminding everyone that the last loss (whenever that is) was a team loss and wasnt JP's fault.

The TEAM isnt good enough to go anywhere, thats a fact.

Now, can we win with Losman? Yes, I think so. I think we are a stud LT, a [will get yards every game] RB, and another stud WR away from plenty of wins.

[ParanoidAndroid]

The QB handles the ball on every offensive down. I don't think that can be considered insignificant by any stretch of the imagination. A QB needs to know the assignments of every player on the offense. He has to understand the reasoning behind every play and recognize the defense put in front of him.
A QB relies on everyone, but everyone relies on the QB. I don't know, but having 20 eyes looking at you in a huddle seems like a lot of pressure to me.

[YardRat]

We could win without Losman if we had a stud LT, a dominant RB, and another stud WR. With those three additional players, we could have plenty of wins with Nall, Holcomb...whoever.

[patmoran2006]

I'm not going to even comment on this thread, I dont feel like getting in any fights

[YardRat]

Actually, this thread wasn't meant to be about JP. It's about the QB position in general.

Think about it...what does a quarterback do during the course of the game that demonstrates his individual talent is necessary for success?

[ParanoidAndroid]

We could win without Losman if we had a stud LT, a dominant RB, and another stud WR. With those three additional players, we could have plenty of wins with Nall, Holcomb...whoever.

So? What does your original post have to do with Losman, specifically?

I, for one, think we would be 5-1 with Marc Bulger.

Post #2 that introduces JP into the debate does not make any point counter to the original post, either.

[YardRat]

So? What does your original post have to do with Losman, specifically?

I, for one, think we would be 5-1 with Marc Bulger.

Absolutely nothing. jp-era brought JP Losman into the conversation, not me. I'm just referring to QB's in general.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Absolutely nothing. jp-era brought JP Losman into the conversation, not me. I'm just referring to QB's in general.

I realized that too late and edited my post that is quoted above. :oops:

[TacklingDummy]

I, for one, think we would be 5-1 with Marc Bulger.

Post #2 that introduces JP into the debate does not make any point counter to the original post, either.

I, for one, think we would be 5-1 with about 20 of the QBs in the league.

Post #2 didn't need to quote Post #1

[patmoran2006]

So? What does your original post have to do with Losman, specifically?

I, for one, think we would be 5-1 with Marc Bulger.

Post #2 that introduces JP into the debate does not make any point counter to the original post, either.
There a couple of QB's in this league: McNab, Brady, Brees off the very top of my head, where we would DEFINITELY be 5-1 if they were the QB, and I'm not joking.

A good QB would've pounded on NE and the Jets, and found a way to get a win against the Lions.. Only the Bears game didnt' matter if God was quarterbacking..

Yardrat, your a very knowledgable guy and I know that you know your football better or as well as most, but this is one of the worst threads I've ever read in my entire life. There may not be another position in ALL Of sports period more important than the quarterback.

[ParanoidAndroid]

I, for one, think we would be 5-1 with about 20 of the QBs in the league.

Post #2 didn't need to quote Post #1

I think there are maybe 5 or 6 QB's that could have gotten us 5 wins.
P. Manning
Bulger
Hasselbeck
McNabb
Brady
maybe Brees

[ParanoidAndroid]

There a couple of QB's in this league: McNab, Brady, Brees off the very top of my head, where we would DEFINITELY be 5-1 if they were the QB, and I'm not joking.

A good QB would've pounded on NE and the Jets, and found a way to get a win against the Lions.. Only the Bears game didnt' matter if God was quarterbacking..

Yardrat, your a very knowledgable guy and I know that you know your football better or as well as most, but this is one of the worst threads I've ever read in my entire life. There may not be another position in ALL Of sports period more important than the quarterback.

I think the D let us down vs. NYJ, but I agree on NE and Detroit.

[YardRat]

There a couple of QB's in this league: McNab, Brady, Brees off the very top of my head, where we would DEFINITELY be 5-1 if they were the QB, and I'm not joking.

A good QB would've pounded on NE and the Jets, and found a way to get a win against the Lions.. Only the Bears game didnt' matter if God was quarterbacking..

Yardrat, your a very knowledgable guy and I know that you know your football better or as well as most, but this is one of the worst threads I've ever read in my entire life. There may not be another position in ALL Of sports period more important than the quarterback.

History would disagree with you. How many of the Super Bowl winning QB's were simply care-takers for a great team?

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where during the course of a game a play's success or failure is totally reliant on the QB's skills or physical abilities.

There are only two that I can think of...

1. Being able to turn 180 degrees and handing the ball off to another player without dropping it or tripping over their own feet. Big deal.

2. Running downfield and being matched up against an opposing player on a designed scramble or a run off of a broken play. And QB's aren't really supposed to do that with regularity. It's not a requirement of the position.

[ajsdx]

The points about the QB's success relying on his teammates are well taken. The QB absolutely derives the vast majority of his success from his teammates, unless he's a running QB in which case some of his success is kind of like that of an RB.

Obviously, every position requires help from teammates, and anyone who follows football can think of examples for every position, but perhaps the QB's success is MOST linked to his teammates. So what does the QB do that makes him so valuable and overpaid?

Simple: he's the guy who distributes the ball. Take him away, and the team is crippled. You need to be gifted to be QB -- a strong arm, good accuracy, etc, but the real key is he knows what to do with the ball. He has the most responsibility of any player. No other position has to make decisions at the same level as the QB, and the decision of where to put the ball when is the most critical thing that happens on any play. So, despite his relative lack of althletic skills, he is much more valuable than you think.

[ajsdx]

Analogy, even though it's been beaten to death: race car driver -- the car derives no mechanical benefit whatsoever from the driver. The upper limits of its speed, cornering ability, acceleration, traction, whatever are the same no matter who drives the car. So the pilot is useless there. But does the pilot's ability make or break the actual performance of the entire car? Yep.

Because the pilot needs to make the decisions that put all the pieces together, whereas each individual part only needs to do one thing. The pilot is useless without the car (your point) but the car is equally useless without the pilot.

[GFLuNEEDit]

Quarterback is the most insignificant position in team sports because no other position in any other sport requires the same reliance on teammates as a QB. All other individual sports, and all other positions in football, require a talent level that places the individual's ability to perform or succeed entirely on that individual's shoulders, and theirs alone.


Partially true. But take Denver for example thier O line is good enough where they plug any runner back there and they are Ok.

So that deal about a talent of an individual alone doesnt really apply to a back.

But I agree that you can win with a half a** QB if you have a good enough team.

[patmoran2006]

History would disagree with you. How many of the Super Bowl winning QB's were simply care-takers for a great team?

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where during the course of a game a play's success or failure is totally reliant on the QB's skills or physical abilities.

There are only two that I can think of...

1. Being able to turn 180 degrees and handing the ball off to another player without dropping it or tripping over their own feet. Big deal.

2. Running downfield and being matched up against an opposing player on a designed scramble or a run off of a broken play. And QB's aren't really supposed to do that with regularity. It's not a requirement of the position.

1- would take a "care taker" over a QB like Losman any day of the week.. A care-taker will keep you in games by not making mistakes.. When Losman is playing bad, he will straight up blow the entire game.

2- EVERY sport that is a team sport you NEED your teammates to rely on... A guy can for 4-4 with 4 homers and that baseball team can still lose.. GRetzky can score 5 goals and the Oilers can still lose.. Jordan goes for 63 and they still lose. I'm not getting your point.

one thing is for certain, if your Wide Receiver or your Nose tackle has an awful game, you can still win.. If your QB stinks up the field, its game over.

come on, I refuse to believe your serious about this thread.. QB is the most important position in football by FAR and except for a pitcher in baseball, its teh most important position in sports, period.

[Mr. Cynical]

Analogy, even though it's been beaten to death: race car driver -- the car derives no mechanical benefit whatsoever from the driver. The upper limits of its speed, cornering ability, acceleration, traction, whatever are the same no matter who drives the car. So the pilot is useless there. But does the pilot's ability make or break the actual performance of the entire car? Yep.

Because the pilot needs to make the decisions that put all the pieces together, whereas each individual part only needs to do one thing. The pilot is useless without the car (your point) but the car is equally useless without the pilot.

Wow. Very well said. :up:

I would also add that the driver can slam the brakes or drive into the wall all on his own...hence the analogy to the QB's ability to lose the game more than any other position.

[YardRat]

1- would take a "care taker" over a QB like Losman any day of the week.. A care-taker will keep you in games by not making mistakes.. When Losman is playing bad, he will straight up blow the entire game.


I'm not going to address this simply because I don't want to make this thread about JP.



2- EVERY sport that is a team sport you NEED your teammates to rely on... A guy can for 4-4 with 4 homers and that baseball team can still lose.. GRetzky can score 5 goals and the Oilers can still lose.. Jordan goes for 63 and they still lose. I'm not getting your point.



As I said in the original post, team success is reliant on the combined successes of the individual players. Sure, Gretzky and Jordan can play lights out and the team can still lose...but team success is still predicated by individual success and every other position in every sport puts players in a position where their individual talent level can make a difference between that individual contributing to a win or a loss.

When Gretzky has control of the puck or Jordan possession of the ball the ensuing result of what they do with it is entirely dependant on their abilities. No one else's. When Gretzky moves in on the net for a shot, it's his skating and shooting ability that may lead to a score. His skills. When Jordan puts up a shot, he isn't relying on anyone else's skills to help the ball swish through the hoop. There's a specific moment during play when the responsibility for success is entirely on their shoulders. Same in baseball. When Jeter's in the box, it's his ability to hit the ball that determines his contribution to team success and nobody else on the team has any affect on that.

It's not that way with QB's. A QB can't throw the ball downfield without depending on the offensive linemen blocking for him or the receiver catching the ball.

When Gretzky breaks in alone on goal and puts a wrister top shelf, it's all him. When Jordan pulls up before the arc and swishes a three, it's all him. When a QB drops back to launch the ball downfield for a bomb it ISN'T all him...the offensive line has to keep the defenders at bay AND the receiver still has to catch the ball in order for the play to succeed.

[TacklingDummy]

one thing is for certain, if your Wide Receiver or your Nose tackle has an awful game, you can still win.. If your QB stinks up the field, its game over.




I agree with your post.


coughrexgrossmancough :)

[YardRat]

Analogy, even though it's been beaten to death: race car driver -- the car derives no mechanical benefit whatsoever from the driver. The upper limits of its speed, cornering ability, acceleration, traction, whatever are the same no matter who drives the car. So the pilot is useless there. But does the pilot's ability make or break the actual performance of the entire car? Yep.

Because the pilot needs to make the decisions that put all the pieces together, whereas each individual part only needs to do one thing. The pilot is useless without the car (your point) but the car is equally useless without the pilot.

I don't think that's an acceptable analogy because 1. NASCAR isn't a team sport, and B. Even if you were to include the pit crew and include racing as a team sport, even racing (especially racing, actually) validates my point. When a driver is behind the wheel, it's his skills that could mean the difference between success and failure. You don't have one guy working the accelerator, one the brakes, one the shift, etc. Even in the pits...the man in charge of changing the front driver's side tire is on his own and it's his responsibility alone to make sure it gets done properly and quickly...not his AND a teammates.

The racing team can't win without the tire-changers contribution, but his personal success in performing his job isn't predicated on someone else doing theirs also.

[jmb1099]

I see where Yard Rat is going with this and he's made some solid points. Almost everything a qb is graded on, weather it be yardage per pass, game management, even a qb scramble is at some point dependant upon everyone else doing their part. Interesting thread, good stuff.

[the prophet marv]

hi, first post.

I don't think this thread could be any further off base.

Lombardi used to say that the problem with football is that it places to much emphasis on one position...and the game is even more skewed today.

You could definitely make the argument that QB is the MOST valuable position in all of team sports.

You're honestly telling me that a receiver is more valuable than a QB?

Maybe in Oakland where they spend about 10% more of their cap on receivers, but what about NE where they spent a league leading +10% of their cap space on the QB than they do on their entire receiving corps?

I like the car analogy too...I've always said that the HC is like the driver and the QB is like the engine. You can be a great driver, but without some muscle under the hood you aren't winning anything.

[YardRat]

If your QB stinks up the field, its game over.



the QB's ability to lose the game more than any other position

Good points. A QB's individual talents, with no assistance from any other player's abilities, actually can only have a negative impact on the outcome.

Even if the line is blocking perfectly, the right play is called, and the WR is wide open, the QB can screw it up by throwing a bad pass right into the arms of a defender. The poor pass is all on him.

In order for the QB to have a positive impact, he has to rely on others.

[ajsdx]

I don't think that's an acceptable analogy because 1. NASCAR isn't a team sport, and B. Even if you were to include the pit crew and include racing as a team sport, even racing (especially racing, actually) validates my point. When a driver is behind the wheel, it's his skills that could mean the difference between success and failure. You don't have one guy working the accelerator, one the brakes, one the shift, etc. Even in the pits...the man in charge of changing the front driver's side tire is on his own and it's his responsibility alone to make sure it gets done properly and quickly...not his AND a teammates.

The racing team can't win without the tire-changers contribution, but his personal success in performing his job isn't predicated on someone else doing theirs also.

First of all, I was talking about real racing, not nascar :)

Second of all, I think you're misrepresenting my analogy. Precisely in the way I describe, the pilot functions as the QB of the vehicle, and the QB+vehicle function as a team to go fast.

The individual car parts are the non-QB players on the team. As evidenced by what you can do in F1, or even nascar, you can have superior parts or inferior parts. This represents the skill levels of the players. A piston, as a good piston, relies on other parts to some degree, but it has an inherent skill set that it mostly does on its own, just like players rely on other players to some degree but mostly have their one job that they are supposed to do in isolation. Same with the tires, chassis, nosecone, spoiler, etc. They mostly function in isolation, and each contributes a small part of what it takes for the car to move quickly around a track. Not every part contributes the same way -- some parts improve speed, and some improve traction, and some improve aerodynamics. Same thing for players.

My point is that the QB doesn't add to the skills of these parts per se -- he doesn't make the piston pump more fluidly, or harden his aluminum hubcaps, or lower his car closer to the ground. The pilot relies entirely on the car to do his job. No QB cannot function without his teammates; no pilot can function without his parts. But who decides what parts are active when? The pilot. The pilot turns on the car, uses the different gears, brakes, fuel injection timing, steering control etc to control the different parts of the car. He can change the way the pistons pump, or the tires rotate, or even the aerodynamics of the car in certain cases. It's all up to him to make those decisions. You put me in an F1 car, and I couldn't even turn it on. A good pilot can make it act like the $2 billion piece of machinery it is. The pilot HAS HIS OWN SET OF SKILLS (INCLUDING DECISION-MAKING) THAT PULL ALL THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES TOGETHER. This skill is absolutely essential, inimitable, and irreplaceable.

That's my analogy.

[kernowboy]

I think you can look at the number of QBs who were regarded as supremely talented and never wore a ring. Marino, Kelly Peyton Manning (so far) etc, and those that have including Trent Dilfer etc. The Pats started going places when they drafted Matt Light. Even Ross Verba upgraded the Pack line to the SB in his first year.

Beginning to follow the game around 1990, I noticed that Elway only got to the SuperBowl toward the twilight of his career and from what I can see there were 4 reasons.

1) Thy traded for a ProBowler in Gary Zimmerman. Ironically they could have drafted Todd Steussie and I think they would have done just as well. The lesson is ... get a stud LT in R1 or R2 (Zimm cost two No1s a little too much)
2) They drafted Terrell Davis. OK we already have McGahee but I'm not sure if he can move the chains on a regular basis. I wouldn't be upset if we drafted a footballer at RB in Day2
3) They had a cracking TE in Sharpe. We have Robert Royal. Enough said. With Jeremy Stevens and Daniel Graham available we MUST upgrade this position in FA or early in the draft, hopefully earlier.
4) Despite the change in uniform colour, the orange crush reappeared. Tampa2 is a difficult defence to learn because with one blown assignment the opposition make huge plays. We need to decide whether to stick with this or go our own way, but we are still 3/4 players away from a dominating D. The players who make our defence so good are beginning to enter the twilight of their careers like Fletcher-Baker and Adams if he was still here, while TKO suffered the singular worst type of injury a player can suffer.

So basically you can win with a servicabale QB, but you cannot win without a good team.

[YardRat]

First of all, I was talking about real racing, not nascar :)

Second of all, I think you're misrepresenting my analogy. Precisely in the way I describe, the pilot functions as the QB of the vehicle, and the QB+vehicle function as a team to go fast.

The individual car parts are the non-QB players on the team. As evidenced by what you can do in F1, or even nascar, you can have superior parts or inferior parts. This represents the skill levels of the players. A piston, as a good piston, relies on other parts to some degree, but it has an inherent skill set that it mostly does on its own, just like players rely on other players to some degree but mostly have their one job that they are supposed to do in isolation. Same with the tires, chassis, nosecone, spoiler, etc. They mostly function in isolation, and each contributes a small part of what it takes for the car to move quickly around a track. Not every part contributes the same way -- some parts improve speed, and some improve traction, and some improve aerodynamics. Same thing for players.

My point is that the QB doesn't add to the skills of these parts per se -- he doesn't make the piston pump more fluidly, or harden his aluminum hubcaps, or lower his car closer to the ground. The pilot relies entirely on the car to do his job. No QB cannot function without his teammates; no pilot can function without his parts. But who decides what parts are active when? The pilot. The pilot turns on the car, uses the different gears, brakes, fuel injection timing, steering control etc to control the different parts of the car. He can change the way the pistons pump, or the tires rotate, or even the aerodynamics of the car in certain cases. It's all up to him to make those decisions. You put me in an F1 car, and I couldn't even turn it on. A good pilot can make it act like the $2 billion piece of machinery it is. The pilot HAS HIS OWN SET OF SKILLS (INCLUDING DECISION-MAKING) THAT PULL ALL THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES TOGETHER. This skill is absolutely essential, inimitable, and irreplaceable.

That's my analogy.

I understand the analogy, and I don't mean to misrepresent it, but the validity of the argument is based on the personification of in-animate objects and I'd rather maintain the parameters of the actual human element of competition and their individual contribution to a team's success. An F1 is simply a tool used by the athlete behind the wheel, just as a basketball, baseball, football, or hockey puck in other sports. Jordan wouldn't be jack with a flat ball, and although his success depends on the object functioning properly and maintaining it's mechanical integrity, it's still just an object and the success/failure of the individual athlete depends on his ability to manipulate the object.

Also, coming from your perspective the driver/car relationship only applies to the offensive unit of a football team and disregards the defense and special teams, thus it is incomplete.

A football team can win even without a positive contribution from the offensive side of the ball...for example, the Bears/Cardinals game on Monday night or even the Bills/Dolphins game the second week of the season. Take away the offense from a football team and the team can still succeed...take away the offense from racing (the driver/car combo) and not only can you not succeed, you can't even participate.

To continue with your analogy, though, another reason it doesn't actually apply is the effect the 'machine' can have on the 'driver'. True, in racing, the driver is the athlete that makes everything come together to function at a high level and the succes of the 'team' is completely reliant on his skills, decision-making, etc, but that's simply not the case in a team sport such as football. An offensive lineman can block better, a running back can run harder or faster, or a receiver can make a spectacular catch...and all that increases the quarterback's ability to contribute positively to a team win. A piston can't pump any faster than it's designed to pump, the tranny can't add another gear to help the driver increase his speed, and the steering wheel can't adjust itself to help overcome a poor turn. If the driver fails to perform, a loss is a given because the other parts he relies on can't make up for his lack of skills. If a quarterback fails to perform, the rest of the team can overcome that and still win.

All a 'QB' has to do is not flood the engine, strip the tranny, or drive the car into a wall and the car itself can propel the team to victory. That's true in football...it isn't in racing.

No position in any team sport is more reliant on the skills and contributions of those around him than the quarterback. Period.

[YardRat]

Perfect examples in the first period of the Sabre's game tonight...Walker's and Pomminville's goals.

At the precise moment when both players make the conscience decision to shoot the puck, from that point until the conclusion of the play it's all on them. Either they score because of their skill, or they don't.

Quarterbacks are NEVER put in a situation like that on the football field.