Nfl Qb Position: Absolute Or Relative?

[Ray R]

"Luck" is an interesting concept...

If you believe all of reality/life is a confluence of tendencies and probabilities
it's rather predictable that one will periodically experience a "random event
which brings forth a positive outcome." I think Dolphinsland could use one
of those -- and statistically speaking we may be overdue!

My personal experience has shown that "luck" can be a rather fickle partner
and what seems "lucky" at first may turn rather unfortunate with time. Yet
none of this nonsense is important unless and until we bag a trophy QB!

The good news is (based on the general consensus of our illustrious draft gurus
and assorted mavens) there will be more than one of those rascals in yonder
2020 draft! If that projection is accurate -- then there's certainly the possibility
we can improve our "luck" by staying focused on the long term and therefore
forgoing the immediate gratification so many of us crave...

Again. More nonsense. I want to win championships in full retrospective color
at this point! I mean at this point 01-13-1974 seems like several lifetimes ago!
And ever since 01-20-1985 we've been completely shutout of the championship
party.

Well at least we didn't lose 4 SBs in a row like those poor Buffalo Bills.

Talk about bad luck!

:)

I'm delighted that you seem to be moving to the bright side, that is the right side (rational evaluations on some complex questions).

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you becoming a "Homer"?

 

[AdamD13]

This guy!?

We only care about rookie contract, first four years. We do not care about their careers and HoF. We only care about whether they can take us to the championship game and help us win, on a rookie contract.

6-3 and over quarterbacks have appeared significantly more times in a championship game than 6-2 and smaller quarterbacks. More importantly, there have been significantly more 6-3 and over quarterbacks who appeared in a championship game on a rookie contract, which is the only thing we care about since they are only getting a rookie contract. They are not getting a HoF contract or a 15 year contract.

CHAMPIONSHIP HISTORY

In the last 15 years, there have been 60 championship game quarterbacks (AFC and NFC).
Of those 60 appearances:

7/60 have been under 6-2: (5 different QBs)
2004 Michael Vick
2006 Drew Brees
2006 Rex Grossman
2009 Drew Brees
2013 Russ Wilson
2014 Russ Wilson
2017 Case Keenum


13/60 were 6-2: (8 different QBs)
2004 Donovan McNabb
2005 Jake Delhomme
2005 Jake Plummer
2007 Brett Favre
2008 Donovan McNabb
2008 Kurt Warner
2009 Brett Favre
2009 Mark Sanchez
2010 Mark Sanchez
2010 Aaron Rodgers
2014 Aaron Rodgers
2016 Aaron Rodgers
2018 Patrick Mahomes


The rest, 40/60 appearances were with QBs 6-3 and over. (17 diiferent quarterbacks)
Payton Manning
Tom Brady
Ben Roethlisberger
Matt Hasselbeck
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Joe Flacco
Jay Cutler
Alex Smith
Matt Ryan
Colin Kapernick
Andrew Luck
Cam Newton
Carson Palmer
Blake Bortles
Nick Foles
Jared Goff


Seventeen is more than thirteen and forty is significantly more than twenty appearances.


ROOKIE CONTRACTS (First four seasons)

Of the 30 quarterbacks who appeared in a championship game in last 15 years, 5/13 who were 6-2 and smaller did that on a rookie contract: Mike Vick, Rex Grossman, Russell Wilson, Mark Sanchez, Pat Mahomes.

2/5 (2/13, 2/30) went to the SB in first four years: Rex Grossman, Russell Wilson
1/5 (1/13, 1/30) won the SB in first four years: Russell Wilson.

Of the 30 quarterbacks who appeared in a championship game in last 15 years, 8/17 who were 6-3 and taller did that on a rookie contract, and they are all bolded above.

5/8 (5/17, 5/30) went to the SB in first four years: Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, Colin Kapernick, Jared Goff.

2/8 (2/17, 2/30) won the SB in first four years: Ben and Eli.


SUMMARY

Quarterbacks who are 6-3 and taller appeared in championship game 40 times in 60 opportunities. There were 17 of those quarterbacks, and of those 17 quarterbacks 8 did it on a rookie contract. Five of those eight quarterbacks went on to play in a superbowl on a rookie contract, and two of those won the superbowl.

Quarterbacks who are 6-3 and taller have 100% better success rate (twice as good) in last 15 years of playing in and winning championship games on a rookie contract.

Interesting analysis filtered to offer only support for your view.

For example, not including the # of QBs given starting jobs 6-3 and over compared to those 6-2 under. The NFL has had a bias like the one in your post that QBs have to be a minimum height to be effective. The NFL is just now coming around to the understanding that smaller QBs can be just as effective as taller QBs. For example, in 2016 there were only 9 starting QBs 6-2 and under, only 3 under 6-2 as compared to 21 starting QBs 6-3 and over.

As for last year using your criteria that QBs had to be on their rookie contracts 5 were given starts who are 6-2 and under...

Starting QBs 6-2 and under on rookie contracts

Deshaun Watson 11-5 (won division)
Dak Prescott 10-6 (won division)
Lamar Jackson 6-1 (won division)
Baker Mayfield 6-7 (on a team that was 1-31 combined the previous two seasons)

4 QB; 3 won division and made playoffs; 33-19 W-L; 63.5% winning

Starting QBs 6-3 and over on rookie contracts

Goff 13-3 (won division)
Mahomes 12-4 (won division)
Trubinsky 11-5 (won division)
Marriota 7-6
Wentz 5-6
Allen 5-6
Darnold 4-9
Winston 3-6
Rosen 3-10

9 QB; 3 won division and made playoffs; 63-55 W-L; 53.4% winning

* Didn't include Mullen, Beathard, Allen (CAR) only starting due to injury

The reason the numbers in your post are so skewed toward QBs 6-3 and over is because they are given more opportunities. QBs that are 6-2 and under have fared just as well as QBs 6-3 and above.

And who in their right mind would argue that the Rams, Chiefs and Bears don't have the most complete teams of all the teams listed above.

I'm not trying to knock 6-3 QB and above as not being worthy, just pointing out the numbers posted were skewed and do not prove that "undersized" QBs can't be franchise/elite QBs that win Super Bowls.

 

[mwestberry]

And Luck was the name of my cub scouts leader.

View attachment 20320

And I remember this little fox that used to prey on me sexually but only when her guy was gone camping or something outdoorsy for a week or weekend....
said her name was Lady...

HMMMM never did get that last name :guard::lie:

 

[MrChadRico]

Seems to me there are quite a few folks around these parts that believe it's 100% essential to have a top-shelf "franchise QB" on your team to have a any chance of winning consistently and challenging for playoffs and titles.

I think we all realize the QB position in the NFL is right at the top of positional importance -- but I'm not sold on the fact you cannot play winning team football with anything less than a top 5 QB talent.

For me, I remember the Marino days when we had the greatest talent EVER at the position (IMO) and yet -- no Championships. Last year I think Mahomes was the BEST QB in the league and yet -- didn't make the SB.

Beyond that, Aaron Rogers has been the dominant QB talent in the league (IMO) over the past 7-10 years -- but only 1 championship.

So the question is -- can we build an excellent TEAM that's capable of playing consistent winning football with QB play that's highly efficient and productive -- but not to the point where every outcome is hinged on his "greatness?"

My take = it's still very much a TEAM game and of course the QB position is important. However, I still believe a QBs game is directly linked to the type/quality of organization he plays in -- and more specifically the (a) coaching, (b) system/scheme and (c) supporting cast he's surrounded by.

Bottom line IMO -- there has to be more than one "golden boy" we can win with -- yes?

We tried winning without a QB for the last 7 years. Did you already forget how that went?

 

[Gonzo]

Pretty sure I’ve heard this argument every single year since Marino retired. You don’t contend on a regular basis without a top QB. I know there’s the feel good stories like Dilfer, but they are the exceptions to the rule and hardly a basis on which to build a team.

 

[fin415]

What does it mean then? Lucky means gambling, rolling the dice.

So you don't believe drafting Marino or Rodgers so late in the first, or Brady in the 6th were a good decisions? After all, everything thought each of them had some kind of a very serious flaw to be ignored that long, and boy or boy did we get lucky with Marino, and I'll bet GB and the Pats feel the same way.

I find it hard to believe as an adult you don't know what that expression actually means, which of course, means you are as usual, just trolling.

 

[BlueFin]

Seems to me there are quite a few folks around these parts that believe it's 100% essential to have a top-shelf "franchise QB" on your team to have a any chance of winning consistently and challenging for playoffs and titles.

I think we all realize the QB position in the NFL is right at the top of positional importance -- but I'm not sold on the fact you cannot play winning team football with anything less than a top 5 QB talent.

For me, I remember the Marino days when we had the greatest talent EVER at the position (IMO) and yet -- no Championships. Last year I think Mahomes was the BEST QB in the league and yet -- didn't make the SB.

Beyond that, Aaron Rogers has been the dominant QB talent in the league (IMO) over the past 7-10 years -- but only 1 championship.

So the question is -- can we build an excellent TEAM that's capable of playing consistent winning football with QB play that's highly efficient and productive -- but not to the point where every outcome is hinged on his "greatness?"

My take = it's still very much a TEAM game and of course the QB position is important. However, I still believe a QBs game is directly linked to the type/quality of organization he plays in -- and more specifically the (a) coaching, (b) system/scheme and (c) supporting cast he's surrounded by.

Bottom line IMO -- there has to be more than one "golden boy" we can win with -- yes?

QB is priority one, most important position in team sports.

You need an elite talent at QB... Otherwise you need an all-time great defense... that’s what history says.

What you left out of your post was Brady, Manning, Rothlisberger....

 

[BlueFin]

Also..... the leagues rule have been changed so much since 2007 that the QB is even more important than before...this is a passing league... so having an elite thrower is crucial.

 

[BigNastyFish]

QB is priority one, most important position in team sports.

You need an elite talent at QB... Otherwise you need an all-time great defense... that’s what history says.

What you left out of your post was Brady, Manning, Rothlisberger....

Here's where we differ -- I do not see Rothlisberger as an "elite talent," and certainly NO WAY I see Brady that way.

That's my opinion of course -- but in no way do I see those dudes with the talent of Mahomes or Rogers.

That said, I am in no way implying you don't need a high performance QB to win in the NFL. That's obvious.

My point is you don't need a generational talent or a super hero. You need a player that's efficient and effective

with a high degree of consistency -- in a system that complements his core skill set/capabilities, with a

complimentary cast -- and it never hurts to get a few good (or cheating) bounces.

Relating this back to the Dolphins -- we're suffered from inferior coaching and suspect FO decisions for

a long time. My bigger point is -- IF ???? we've solved that illness with the new staff etc., then I'm confident they will find a

QB capable of winning -- though he may not be the "best ever" dude -- he'll have to perform in the top 10 or better

to be a consistent factor. And I think theres more than 1 target to go after...

 

[BlueFin]

Here's where we differ -- I do not see Rothlisberger as an "elite talent," and certainly NO WAY I see Brady that way.

That's my opinion of course -- but in no way do I see those dudes with the talent of Mahomes or Rogers.

That said, I am in no way implying you don't need a high performance QB to win in the NFL. That's obvious.

My point is you don't need a generational talent or a super hero. You need a player that's efficient and effective

with a high degree of consistency -- in a system that complements his core skill set/capabilities, with a

complimentary cast -- and it never hurts to get a few good (or cheating) bounces.

Relating this back to the Dolphins -- we're suffered from inferior coaching and suspect FO decisions for

a long time. My bigger point is -- IF ???? we've solved that illness with the new staff etc., then I'm confident they will find a

QB capable of winning -- though he may not be the "best ever" dude -- he'll have to perform in the top 10 or better

to be a consistent factor. And I think theres more than 1 target to go after...

I would suggest to you that you would be in very small minority that doesn’t see Brady (GOAT) as elite.

QB’s are not judged solely by 40 times and how far they can throw the football.

More importantly... are they accurate?....and do they make the plays at important times?... when it wins championships?

Joe Montana, like Brady....is not elite in arm or mobility... but they are winners with 10 rings!

How many rings do the elite athletes at QB possess?

Your looking for a winner at QB... that is elite!

 

[phintim]

Seems to me there are quite a few folks around these parts that believe it's 100% essential to have a top-shelf "franchise QB" on your team to have a any chance of winning consistently and challenging for playoffs and titles.

I think we all realize the QB position in the NFL is right at the top of positional importance -- but I'm not sold on the fact you cannot play winning team football with anything less than a top 5 QB talent.

For me, I remember the Marino days when we had the greatest talent EVER at the position (IMO) and yet -- no Championships. Last year I think Mahomes was the BEST QB in the league and yet -- didn't make the SB.

Beyond that, Aaron Rogers has been the dominant QB talent in the league (IMO) over the past 7-10 years -- but only 1 championship.

So the question is -- can we build an excellent TEAM that's capable of playing consistent winning football with QB play that's highly efficient and productive -- but not to the point where every outcome is hinged on his "greatness?"

My take = it's still very much a TEAM game and of course the QB position is important. However, I still believe a QBs game is directly linked to the type/quality of organization he plays in -- and more specifically the (a) coaching, (b) system/scheme and (c) supporting cast he's surrounded by.

Bottom line IMO -- there has to be more than one "golden boy" we can win with -- yes?

Great point if you have a great coach and GM then your team will make trips to the playoffs every year and get you to the big game too.

Sure having a QB helps but it's not the cure all that most on this forum believe it is.

So while in this belief that we need to tank to win for a QB it certainly could be a waste of time if we hired the wrong coach.

Like some of the hires that came with Florres but would have felt better if we kept Rizzi too.

 

[hoops]

Pretty sure I’ve heard this argument every single year since Marino retired. You don’t contend on a regular basis without a top QB. I know there’s the feel good stories like Dilfer, but they are the exceptions to the rule and hardly a basis on which to build a team.

Dilfers not an exception. They had an all timer level defense that year. That’s more rare than any franchise qb

 

[Dsteve]

You don't need a top 5 QB in order to win but it sure helps. Having said that, it's hard to win with a bottom half QB. Take Tannehill for example. Too many things had to be right in order for him to play well. The O-line needed to be good and the WR's had to be good and the running game needed to be effective. Any of those things not working normally meant Tannehill would not have a good game. I believe is easier to find one top QB than to find another 21 good starters. It's just simple math.

So basically he needed at least a sub par line and WRs that weren't aids?

 

[fansinceGWilson]

Pretty sure I’ve heard this argument every single year since Marino retired. You don’t contend on a regular basis without a top QB. I know there’s the feel good stories like Dilfer, but they are the exceptions to the rule and hardly a basis on which to build a team.

Agree, but there are some who won't accept "top. " it has to be elite. That's where a lot of the debate lies

 

[Gonzo]

Dilfers not an exception. They had an all timer level defense that year. That’s more rare than any franchise qb

He absolutely is an exception. If they had an actual QB, they would have appeared or even contended for more than one SB with that all-timer level defense. Instead, they won one other playoff game.

A mediocre QB can win a SB in rare instances with an all-time great defense. A good-to-great QB can win multiple SBs with a mediocre defense. But sure, let's try for the all-timer defense.