A very good QB or a very good Defense?

I'd take a great D with an average qb as long as I had a great running game to go with it
That seems to make average QBs better and still tough to score on teamwise
That just only lasts so long no matter who you are because running backs only last so long and an average QB that looks good via association gets poaches as soon as the rookie contract's up

hawxfreak":3s9so05b said:

I'd take a great D with an average qb as long as I had a great running game to go with it
That seems to make average QBs better and still tough to score on teamwise
That just only lasts so long no matter who you are because running backs only last so long and an average QB that looks good via association gets poaches as soon as the rookie contract's up

Click to expand...

Tavaris Jackson. There is all the facts one needs to counter a 'great D, average QB, plus great running game' argument. You all saw it with your own eyeballs in 2010 and 2011. The D was better in 2011, Beastmode was here for both of those years, and we had an average (at best) QB with bad results. In a stinker of a division. We got RW and it all turned 180 degrees.

Popeyejones":2j01z10g said:

Milehighhawk":2j01z10g said:

5_Golden_Rings":2j01z10g said:

90 is WAY too low. A 90 passer rating is what an 80 passer rating was in the 80s/90s. Your data is biased because of this choice. Raise that number to 95 minimum, and it probably should be closer to 100. Kaepernick had a 90.7 passer in 2016 and was awful.

Due to rule changes, a 90 passer rating is easily achievable by AVERAGE qbs. Using this number GREATLY skews your data away from great defense.

Your own data showed that 61% of qbs hit that mark, so why are you surprised that the pool with 61% hitting the mark wins more championships than the pool with 15.6% hitting the mark.


As hard as you worked, with 90 as your passer rating threshold, this analysis is worthless. All it is saying is that having a below average qb makes it hard to win championships. It says NOTHING about elite, Franchise qbs, since 90 is not even close to Franchise qb play.

Click to expand...

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, however I am not sure your response makes a whole lot of sense. Remember the question is, is it easier to be successful as a team with very good QB play or very good defensive play. Using a lower rating threshold actually puts more emphasis on the answer that a team should pursue better QB play over attempting to form a "very good" defense because it should be even easier to reach that lower threshold.

I would ask that you take the time to understand the information a bit more before formulating assumptions. I said nothing of:

• Evaluating QBs league wide (61% is not league wide but only of the data set defined, only just under 40% of QBs were 90 or better in 2017 I believe, a very similar number to total teams that make the playoffs (12 vs. 13))
  Defining Elite or Franchise in any way as being relevant to the data set.
  Having a "Great" defense.

Try to think about it a bit more as it seems you have jumped to some conclusions not addressed here.

Click to expand...

Most importantly, it's a cool thing to think about and a lot of work clearly went into this, so a serious and sincere :2thumbs:

When doing this type of statistical examination, however, you have to be open to criticism of it, as small choices can have big effects on the outcome you come to (which holds a lot of power as it can be written in a sentence that obscures all those small choices.

5_Golden_Rings is (correctly) noting an error in one of those choices. I'll try to explain it clearly, and then explain my thinking on another choice you made that is worth considering.

CHOICE 1: By using a ranking cut-off to measure defense (Top 5) and a threshold cut-off to measure quarterbacks (>90 quarterback rating) you're not measuring apples to apples.

This is a particularly big problem if you're asking a "which matters more" question, which you are.

As you correctly note that QB rating increases over time, the simplest and easiest way to compare applies to applies is to use a ranking cut-off for BOTH QBs and Defenses (e.g. top 10 starting QB Rating and Top 10 defense; top 5 starting QB rating and Top 10 defense).

That's an apples to apples comparison to measure which apple is better

CHOICE 2:

Your outcome variable is making it to the championship game. Why? Once you get to the divisional game that's a dichotomous event, which by definition will come with a whole bunch of noise (i.e. things that aren't overall quality QB play or overall quality defense -- think things like randomly bad fumble luck in the divisional game, or getting matched up against a juggernaut opponent, or your top WR randomly being injured that week).

To decrease noise, a MUCH more straightforward measure is simply winning percentage.

If you are measuring QB play and team defense on the same scale (top x for both for that year) you essentially have a 2x2 table as based on overall winning %:

Winning % for top QB but not top defense
Winning % for top defense but not top QB
Winning % for top QB and top defense
Winning % for not top QB and not top defense

Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughtful response. In hindsight taking the top 5 QBs or maybe instead a top 10 defense would have been more fair. I also understand the sample size argument but I was personally more curious about looking at the top 4 finishers each year.

I would be curious to see the results purely based on winning percentages as well, but don’t necessarily have the time to put in that work right now.

Thanks again.

Milehighhawk":3aqms730 said:

5_Golden_Rings":3aqms730 said:

90 is WAY too low. A 90 passer rating is what an 80 passer rating was in the 80s/90s. Your data is biased because of this choice. Raise that number to 95 minimum, and it probably should be closer to 100. Kaepernick had a 90.7 passer in 2016 and was awful.

Due to rule changes, a 90 passer rating is easily achievable by AVERAGE qbs. Using this number GREATLY skews your data away from great defense.

Your own data showed that 61% of qbs hit that mark, so why are you surprised that the pool with 61% hitting the mark wins more championships than the pool with 15.6% hitting the mark.


As hard as you worked, with 90 as your passer rating threshold, this analysis is worthless. All it is saying is that having a below average qb makes it hard to win championships. It says NOTHING about elite, Franchise qbs, since 90 is not even close to Franchise qb play.

Click to expand...

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, however I am not sure your response makes a whole lot of sense. Remember the question is, is it easier to be successful as a team with very good QB play or very good defensive play. Using a lower rating threshold actually puts more emphasis on the answer that a team should pursue better QB play over attempting to form a "very good" defense because it should be even easier to reach that lower threshold.

I would ask that you take the time to understand the information a bit more before formulating assumptions. I said nothing of:

• Evaluating QBs league wide (61% is not league wide but only of the data set defined, only just under 40% of QBs were 90 or better in 2017 I believe, a very similar number to total teams that make the playoffs (12 vs. 13))
  Defining Elite or Franchise in any way as being relevant to the data set.
  Having a "Great" defense.

Try to think about it a bit more as it seems you have jumped to some conclusions not addressed here.

Click to expand...

First, see my second post.

Second, having a lower threshold in your metric DOES NOT make teams who reach the threshold better. Reaching the lower threshold simply means your team will be mediocre.

Third, the single best way to have sustained success in the NFL is by having an ELITE qb. NOT a middling QB with a 90 passer rating, which will give you an average of 8 wins per year, or an ELITE defense , which will give you three or four seasons of contention. An elite QB will give you 12 years of contention.


That is the reason your analysis is useless. You are comparing elite defenses to mediocre qbs and above. Compare ELITE QBs to ELITE defenses and then you will be comparing apples to apples, and when you do that, the winner is clear: elite QBs.



one more HUGE thing

The significance of a 90 passer rating has changed over time, while the significance of a top five defense has not. Top five defenses have and always will be ELITE defenses. 90 passer ratings were once elite qb play, and now are mediocre or below average. If you want to do a REAL statistical analysis comparing passer rating to defensive ranking, then NORMALIZE passer rating based on the standard deviation of each of the given seasons.

Milehighhawk":2mbs016e said:

Popeyejones":2mbs016e said:

Milehighhawk":2mbs016e said:

5_Golden_Rings":2mbs016e said:

90 is WAY too low. A 90 passer rating is what an 80 passer rating was in the 80s/90s. Your data is biased because of this choice. Raise that number to 95 minimum, and it probably should be closer to 100. Kaepernick had a 90.7 passer in 2016 and was awful.

Due to rule changes, a 90 passer rating is easily achievable by AVERAGE qbs. Using this number GREATLY skews your data away from great defense.

Your own data showed that 61% of qbs hit that mark, so why are you surprised that the pool with 61% hitting the mark wins more championships than the pool with 15.6% hitting the mark.


As hard as you worked, with 90 as your passer rating threshold, this analysis is worthless. All it is saying is that having a below average qb makes it hard to win championships. It says NOTHING about elite, Franchise qbs, since 90 is not even close to Franchise qb play.

Click to expand...

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, however I am not sure your response makes a whole lot of sense. Remember the question is, is it easier to be successful as a team with very good QB play or very good defensive play. Using a lower rating threshold actually puts more emphasis on the answer that a team should pursue better QB play over attempting to form a "very good" defense because it should be even easier to reach that lower threshold.

I would ask that you take the time to understand the information a bit more before formulating assumptions. I said nothing of:

• Evaluating QBs league wide (61% is not league wide but only of the data set defined, only just under 40% of QBs were 90 or better in 2017 I believe, a very similar number to total teams that make the playoffs (12 vs. 13))
  Defining Elite or Franchise in any way as being relevant to the data set.
  Having a "Great" defense.

Try to think about it a bit more as it seems you have jumped to some conclusions not addressed here.

Click to expand...

Most importantly, it's a cool thing to think about and a lot of work clearly went into this, so a serious and sincere :2thumbs:

When doing this type of statistical examination, however, you have to be open to criticism of it, as small choices can have big effects on the outcome you come to (which holds a lot of power as it can be written in a sentence that obscures all those small choices.

5_Golden_Rings is (correctly) noting an error in one of those choices. I'll try to explain it clearly, and then explain my thinking on another choice you made that is worth considering.

CHOICE 1: By using a ranking cut-off to measure defense (Top 5) and a threshold cut-off to measure quarterbacks (>90 quarterback rating) you're not measuring apples to apples.

This is a particularly big problem if you're asking a "which matters more" question, which you are.

As you correctly note that QB rating increases over time, the simplest and easiest way to compare applies to applies is to use a ranking cut-off for BOTH QBs and Defenses (e.g. top 10 starting QB Rating and Top 10 defense; top 5 starting QB rating and Top 10 defense).

That's an apples to apples comparison to measure which apple is better

CHOICE 2:

Your outcome variable is making it to the championship game. Why? Once you get to the divisional game that's a dichotomous event, which by definition will come with a whole bunch of noise (i.e. things that aren't overall quality QB play or overall quality defense -- think things like randomly bad fumble luck in the divisional game, or getting matched up against a juggernaut opponent, or your top WR randomly being injured that week).

To decrease noise, a MUCH more straightforward measure is simply winning percentage.

If you are measuring QB play and team defense on the same scale (top x for both for that year) you essentially have a 2x2 table as based on overall winning %:

Winning % for top QB but not top defense
Winning % for top defense but not top QB
Winning % for top QB and top defense
Winning % for not top QB and not top defense

Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughtful response. In hindsight taking the top 5 QBs or maybe instead a top 10 defense would have been more fair. I also understand the sample size argument but I was personally more curious about looking at the top 4 finishers each year.

I would be curious to see the results purely based on winning percentages as well, but don’t necessarily have the time to put in that work right now.

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reasoned response man, which (from experience) is pretty hard, as it always sucks to have people pop up with and throw their "good ideas" at the wall without even considering the work that has already gone into something, and that their "good idea" is EVEN MORE WORK.

All to say I'm nitpicking on stuff, but really think this is a cool idea and am grateful for the time you put into doing it and writing it up. :2thumbs:

I’d normally say I’d rather have a good defense, but I still have nightmares on the ‘92 Tez led team who’s defense flat out dominated but the offense couldn’t score to save their lives.

Passer rating is a dangerous statistic to use because the meaning of a particular value has changed over time. Let me give you an example (which incidentally shows that Montana is the GOAT, not Brady).

In 1989, the average passer rating was 73.3. Montana’s was 112.4. That’s 53.3% better than average. In 2007, Brady’s 117.2 rating was was just 44.9% better than average. Great, but less than Montana.

Montana’s career passer rating was 27.7% better than average. Brady’s up till now is 19.5%.


And in the playoffs? Montana’s passer rating was an unreal 32.3% better than average, while Brady’s has been a significantly less impressive 11.3% better than average.




The Point?


Passer rating is only useful as a statistic relative to ERA, because rules and scheme have vastly inflated quarterback statistical output. But when you compare qbs to their peers (that is, when you normalize your data), a clearer picture comes out.




Incidentally, it also shows once again that Montana is still the GOAT. Brady has benefited from rules that made EVERY qb look better. His longevity is a big argument for his status as GOAT, but once again, rule changes have prolonged the careers of qbs.

Bottom line: put Montana on the 2000-2017 Patriots, and based on his superior RELATIVE performance to Brady, and the Patriots have eight championships instead of five. Passer rating only tells time-dependent relative truths.

Passer ratings are skewed for a lot of reasons, Montana used his receivers on shorter routes, picks quick slants etc with a lot of YAC, Brady throws to layered routes and seams with Gronk and other tight ends he has used. More chances of misses and picks.

chris98251":28umf6m3 said:

Passer ratings are skewed for a lot of reasons, Montana used his receivers on shorter routes, picks quick slants etc with a lot of YAC, Brady throws to layered routes and seams with Gronk and other tight ends he has used. More chances of misses and picks.

Click to expand...

Let's make this easy,in today's game with the pampering of QB's with many rule changes
that Montana never had.Do you take Brady or Montana?
To me the Patriots win every SB with Joe.The guy's will to win and vision under pressure
was unreal hence the nickname "Joe cool".

chris98251":2x1l7c3u said:

Passer ratings are skewed for a lot of reasons, Montana used his receivers on shorter routes, picks quick slants etc with a lot of YAC, Brady throws to layered routes and seams with Gronk and other tight ends he has used. More chances of misses and picks.

Click to expand...

Not to mention Jared Goff. I was very happy with his development, but a passer rating of 100 is misleading for where he is at right now. He's not to "that level" yet.

Even after 49, I would vehemently argue that Montana was the GOAT and Brady wasn't. After 51 and now 52, it isn't much of a debate IMO. Brady is the greatest to ever play the QB position.

chris98251":1ec0w7ua said:

Passer ratings are skewed for a lot of reasons, Montana used his receivers on shorter routes, picks quick slants etc with a lot of YAC, Brady throws to layered routes and seams with Gronk and other tight ends he has used. More chances of misses and picks.

Click to expand...

Either you didn't watch a lot of Montana or you don't watch lot of Patriots. Both of them throw short more than anything else, and both of them took well timed shots down field. Brady also throws a ton of curl-flat concepts and passes to his running backs. They also run a bunch of zig zag short in and out routes.

In fact, I can prove that the two threw roughly the same percentage of deep passes versus short passes of their careers with a simple look at two stats: Completion percentage and yards per attempt.


You can see this in yards per attempt and yards per completion: they are both nearly identical (both at 7.5. y/a and 11.9 y/r for Montana and 11.8 y/r for Brady). If your theory was correct, then Montana would have a much better completion percentage than Brady, since they have similar yards per attempt and yards per completion. (If you think about it for a moment you'll understand why that's true)


Montana: 63,3%
Brady: 63.9%

Again, nearly identical.

Let me explain why what I said in bold is true:

There are TWO ways to average 7.5 yards per attempt. Either you complete a high percentage of short passes, or you have a lower completion percentage, but hit on deeper passes (the yards gained on the deep passes makes up for the lower completion percentage, resulting in a similar yards per attempt). Since their career completion percentage, yards per attempt, and yards per catch are all about the same, they MUST have thrown a similar ratio of deep to short passes.

A concrete example: both QBs throw two passes. One throws two short passes, each of which are 7.5 yards. Thus, he averages 7.5 yards per attempt. The other QB throws two deeper passes, but only completes one, but that one is for 15 yards. Thus, he, too, averages 7.5 yards per attempt. But with Montana and Brady, their completion percentages are nearly identical, as are their yards per attempt. The only reasonable conclusion is then that over their careers, both threw roughly the same ratio of short to deep passes.








It's only recently that Brady has taken to throwing a lot of deep passes (and in 2007).

See here: https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/q ... -passing-2

Even in the Super Bowl against Seattle, he killed that secondary with short passes.




As for Montana, he had a lot of short passes. He also had a lot of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ68KAHv1Iw

whichever you choose you also need a playcaller that seems to know how to use what you've got
We may have had beastmode when we had tarvaris J but I don't remember ever having a great running game to go along with him , an ok running game maybe but he was running backwards and hesitating so much I couldn't tell if we had a viable running game at the time , bcuz he just stunk so freakin bad , especially under pressure
Our OC may have known how to run but definitely not how to get the ball out of Tjacks hands before he got sacked cuz tjack sure as hell didn't know how to run out of the pocket and chuck the ball out of bounds
Too bad nobody's around anymore to stick up for tjack or bevell anymore :sarcasm_on: :2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs: :stirthepot:

I hate to say it and sound like I'm parroting a national narrative, but I'd say QB.

I only look at the Harbaugh 49ers to see why. The team had everything and couldn't get it done.

Two QBs, same overall result.

Smith and Kap could have won an SB, but it didn't happen and when it doesn't happen and you have a tremendous roster then you pin it on them.

Now the Seahawks I hold to the similar fire despite more success - the RB was a bit more effective and the defense was a bit stronger.

Wilson has improved yet the Seahawks haven't been close to the dance since 49. Wilson was on a rookie contract back then, no different than Kap and Smith was only playing for $8MM a year.

For a 2-3 year window you can make legit arguments that a great defense, running game, OL and everyone but QB will work well if the QB is good enough to get it done.

But long term it never works.

You can get lucky of course, but it's not the formula.

Dynasties are built off of very good QB play with head coach with a pretty good defense.

adeltaY":ua7u8mru said:

Even after 49, I would vehemently argue that Montana was the GOAT and Brady wasn't. After 51 and now 52, it isn't much of a debate IMO. Brady is the greatest to ever play the QB position.

Click to expand...

Judging by how well he played with KC, I have no doubt whatsoever that if he could have remained healthy he would have had at least 1 more if not possibly 2 more rings. I'm ok with how things transpired with Young, but the expectation with Montana was higher.

To me, the comparison is simple, because it has two winners:

Thomas Edward Brady had the best career of any NFL QB, hands down. His longevity and stat accumulation along with clutch play cannot be denied. Maybe others could have done the same, but they haven't. And his QB playing level from ages 36-40 are also without peer, just like Jerry Rice's was for a WR. It seems to reason that it can only get better if he somehow manages to win another one, but playing in 8 SBs is incredible.

As for Joseph Clifford Montana, I have always felt he was the best QB to rely on for the playoffs/single game/game winning drive. His peak play I've always felt was better than Brady's.

Not by a landslide, but enough:

Montana didn't lose to Eli/Giants twice....he beat them instead (Boomer/Bengals).
Montana won 4 SBs quicker than Brady - it took Brady another 4 seasons to match Montana's 4th.

[That part is conveniently left off in these debates. Montana's starting career for the 49ers practically ended less than 365 days from his last SB victory due to injury. Going to KC, it wouldn't matter if he was Montana from 1989, he wasn't going to win another SB (but he did play damn well).]

Montana was infinitely more mobile, which has to count for something
Montana played his entire career under center - you won't find one shotgun snap in his career (or Young's).

If Brady retired after 2011, nobody is parroting him as being better than Montana.....or at least this undeniable GOAT stuff is a lot lot quieter.

Meanwhile he continues to play at more or less the same level for several more years and accumulate more stats that a retired Montana could not match. Does that make him a better QB or just one who had a better career?

Ultimately, there's a lot of inconsistency with arguments because people will use Lombardis as a means to compare Montana & Brady, but they never would equate a 1/3 of all SB winning QBs as being better than Dan Marino.

Why is 5>4 but 1 or 2 not better than 0? LOL.

It's selective bias.

I like the eye test and even to my biased eyes I still like Montana better. When you look at his best game highlights, the difference is there to see.

Longevity does not mean better, the 49ers ran into the bounty of success and also the Debartolo fiasco. Brady has had the fortune of Belichick as his GM and Coach and a Teflon coating that has made them immune to all the rule bending they have done.

Like a person with great genes that looks younger and healthier then other people their age, some things are just fortune and good luck.

A great QB is better in the modern day NFL. Look no further than Tom Brady. What is he now like 5 - 3 in Super Bowls? With the exception of a few years maybe he has never really had great defenses. This lead to 5 Super Bowl wins and 3 Super Bowl losses. But 8 appearances in the Super Bowl.

All of the rule changes the last 15 years or so are made to benefit the offense at the expense of the defense. That benefits you more to have a great QB than a great defense.

But yes as others said you want both. It's better to have both if you can.

If you look at great defenses you have teams like the Baltimore Ravens who won 2. Or the Tampa Bay Bucaneers who won 1. But rarely if ever are they ongoing dynasties like the Patriots have been with Tom Brady. Or Montana and the 49ers. Also Bradshaw and the Steelers. Troy Aikman with the Cowboys also confirms this. Roethlisburger with the Steelers is another example. You need a QB period. If you have a game manager QB you can only get so far. Look at the Chiefs in recent years. They had some good defenses and a running game and Alex Smith at QB. That would usually lead to a good regular season record and a very quick loss and exit in the playoffs. Just watch which teams are dynasties and appear in multiple Super Bowls and win multiple Super Bowls. You need a QB period. You can't win multiple times without that. You can win 1 with a great defense but that is probably about it for most teams built like that.

Not that it is bad to build a powerhouse defense. In fact it is good. Elite Franchise QB's don't grow on trees. They are super hard to find. Sometimes you go 5, 10, 15 years or more without one. Most teams don't win much in that time period either.

A QB is just one man out of 11 on the offense. He may be the most important piece but he can’t function well without adequate support. A great defense means all 12 men working together doing their parts. Our early game against Denver looks to be a good illustration. Unless our new ol coach is a miracle worker Russell will be under enormous pressure.

brimsalabim":1qf4he9u said:

A QB is just one man out of 11 on the offense. He may be the most important piece but he can’t function well without adequate support. A great defense means all 12 men working together doing their parts. Our early game against Denver Luke be a good illustration. Unless our new ol coach is a miracle worker Russell will be under enormous pressure.

Click to expand...

A QB needs a supporting cast. But without it you will LOSE period in the NFL. It's the most important piece. You can fill in other parts around it. But without it you have no chance.