QBR and Team Success

[shepwrite]

I do this each year because it's almost always yields some pretty amazing results. Put simply, QBR, the passer rating, is almost a direct overlay with the playoff lineup each year. The teams that pass the ball the best win the most, period.

 

Here are the top 12 passers this year:

 

Brady (top passer, top seed, SB favorite)

Rivers (top O, top D... 9-7 record?)

Rodgers (10-6 in spite of injuries)

Vick (division champs, serious contenders)

Roethlisberger (division champs, probably end up in New England)

Freeman (breakout year, 10-6 record doesn't make the tourney)

Flacco (12-4, serious contenders)

Cassel (11-5, this year's Cinderella)

Schaub (great offense, no defense, no playoffs)

Manning (division champs in spite of injuries)

Ryan (#1 NFC seed at 14-2)

Brees (11-5, first SB team to not flop in a while)

 

Like Holmgren said: You can't compete in this league if you can't pass the ball at a very high level. Note that Brady, Rodgers, Vick, Roethlisberger, Flacco, and Cassel regularly play in shitty weather.

 

Even in an anomaly year when Seattle took a slot at 7-9 (when Freeman and Rivers led better teams), it's still worth revisiting.

[KardDawg]

I do this each year because it's almost always yields some pretty amazing results. Put simply, QBR, the passer rating, is almost a direct overlay with the playoff lineup each year. The teams that pass the ball the best win the most, period.

 

Here are the top 12 passers this year:

 

Brady (top passer, top seed, SB favorite)

Rivers (top O, top D... 9-7 record?)

Rodgers (10-6 in spite of injuries)

Vick (division champs, serious contenders)

Roethlisberger (division champs, probably end up in New England)

Freeman (breakout year, 10-6 record doesn't make the tourney)

Flacco (12-4, serious contenders)

Cassel (11-5, this year's Cinderella)

Schaub (great offense, no defense, no playoffs)

Manning (division champs in spite of injuries)

Ryan (#1 NFC seed at 14-2)

Brees (11-5, first SB team to not flop in a while)

 

Like Holmgren said: You can't compete in this league if you can't pass the ball at a very high level. Note that Brady, Rodgers, Vick, Roethlisberger, Flacco, and Cassel regularly play in shitty weather.

 

It's a two-way sword. Being an effective passer makes the team better, but playing on a better team makes for an effective passer too. One of the reasons these guy have great ratngs is because they play on good teams with lots of weapons, good blocking, good run game, etc. I think passer rating reflects the whole offense, not just the QB.

[marcus]

I do this each year because it's almost always yields some pretty amazing results. Put simply, QBR, the passer rating, is almost a direct overlay with the playoff lineup each year. The teams that pass the ball the best win the most, period.

 

Here are the top 12 passers this year:

 

Brady (top passer, top seed, SB favorite)

Rivers (top O, top D... 9-7 record?)

Rodgers (10-6 in spite of injuries)

Vick (division champs, serious contenders)

Roethlisberger (division champs, probably end up in New England)

Freeman (breakout year, 10-6 record doesn't make the tourney)

Flacco (12-4, serious contenders)

Cassel (11-5, this year's Cinderella)

Schaub (great offense, no defense, no playoffs)

Manning (division champs in spite of injuries)

Ryan (#1 NFC seed at 14-2)

Brees (11-5, first SB team to not flop in a while)

 

Like Holmgren said: You can't compete in this league if you can't pass the ball at a very high level. Note that Brady, Rodgers, Vick, Roethlisberger, Flacco, and Cassel regularly play in shitty weather.

 

One other side note fellas. A lot of us forget that it also takes luck (not Andrew). Some of these teams catch breaks that others do not. Does that take away from their talent...not one bit. But ask any coach or any Hall of Famer they will tell you luck plays a huge factor in it all.

 

[calfoxwc]

Any one of those qb's mentioned by Shep, ... take away their wr's they throw to the most, and their protection, and they will suck.

 

In Ben Rocklicksboogers case, take away his defense and wr's, and he's a bust.

 

Flacco was spoken of as a possible bust, and he had a good oline. But he only had one big time wr. Now he has two or three.

 

Bend Rothlicksbooger has maybe five solid wr's.

 

You get all the other pieces in place, and you need a very good or great qb to make it work.

 

But a great qb can't make gold out of wr's who suck, and an oline that can't block. It's a team game.

[Thaak]

It's a two-way sword. Being an effective passer makes the team better, but playing on a better team makes for an effective passer too. One of the reasons these guy have great ratngs is because they play on good teams with lots of weapons, good blocking, good run game, etc. I think passer rating reflects the whole offense, not just the QB.

 

 

I think that completion percentage and TD to INT ratio, which are directly correlatable (word?), are huge components of the QBR.

 

You'll note that most of the guys with big QBR's also have big Completion percentages and really good TD to INT ratios.

 

What I'm saying here, is you need an accurate passer to make the offense tick. The Vikings have a great offense, but you wouldn't have known it this year because Favre was way less accurate than even the gunslinger tended not to be, and his protection sucked this year.

 

The reason Colt made some bright spots show up this year, is because he's accurate. Put some good weapons and good protection around him, and his accuracy will carry the team and his QBR.

 

I know what Shep's analysis trying to say... but Shep's always been a cart guy, rather than a horse guy.

[shepwrite]

It's a two-way sword. Being an effective passer makes the team better, but playing on a better team makes for an effective passer too. One of the reasons these guy have great ratngs is because they play on good teams with lots of weapons, good blocking, good run game, etc. I think passer rating reflects the whole offense, not just the QB.

 

Sure, you get into a chicken-and-the-egg situation. But I think the chicken is the great quarterback and great scheme, not Tarik Glenn or Reggie Wayne (or Julian Edelman or Marques Colston or Jordy Nelson, etc.).

[shepwrite]

Cart and horse, chicken and egg... the quarterback is the common element of winning teams, as both Holmgren and Gruden have been saying a lot lately.

 

I agree, Thaak: Completion percentage and TD/INT ratio are the keys, not raw yardage... although I made a pretty convincing case for passing yardage leaders last year. That really reflects that teams that run really well don't necessarily win while teams that pass really well almost always do. That's just today's NFL.

 

Cal, you take away Dallas Clark or just about anyone else and the Colts just keep on winning. You take away Manning and they're the Browns, or close. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. Same for Brees, Brady, and the rest. Nobody influences the bottom line half as much as the quarterback, for better or worse.

 

And that's why when a team wins a lot over time, you can expect that they have a great quarterback. Because if they didn't, they wouldn't be winning all the time.

 

Teams win without superstar left tackles or running backs (Benjarvis Who-Hyphen-Who??) or corners or even WRs... but not without a top quarterback.

 

It's an amazing stat, year after year.

[BrownIndian]

Well the point to note in the cart and horse analogy with the QB and good teams is the fact that both the comparables have two entities.

 

We dont have a cart or a horse.

[shepwrite]

BTW... FOUR of the top 10 rushing teams made the playoffs. Oakland, Jax, the Giants, the Texans, the Bucs, and the Vikes were all top 10.

[shepwrite]

Wow are you dumb!

 

He's not dumb... but it's funny that they HAVE taken away their receivers and Manning and Brady keep making stars out of the next ones.

 

I've actually read people trying to say the Packers, Saints, Colts, and Pats are just really, really good at finding WRs. Uh, okay...

 

But I don't want this to be a black or white discussion. A quarterback in a bad situation won't be "all that he can be." You can maximize a quarterback's situation. No quarterback thrives with no time to pass.

[BROWNandORANGE]

I'm a prick.

 

[shepwrite]

Oh he's dumb all right. Anyone who would say that some of the best QB's in the NFL would be a bust without the current receivers is dumb. Kids often misunderstand what their dad's say when they listen to them talk about football.

 

I knew the Steelers had solid receivers but they must really be great if they can make Ben one of the winningest QB's ever to play.

 

As far as the QBR, it's a good indication of how a team goes. To some degree it's because of the format, if a QB managed a "run dominant" offense and only made a couple passes, they would probably be successful and his rating would be pretty good but not necessarily an indication of a powerful passing attack.

 

But that's not really the case. All of the top teams have pretty damn powerful passing attacks. Nobody's really running their way to the Super Bowl anymore. Like I said, 6 of the top 10 running teams aren't even in the playoffs.

 

Holmgren's right: If you can't throw the ball really well in this league, you won't win much for long.

 

But you're right about Ben, too: Take away Plax, they keep throwing well. Take away Holmes, they keep throwing well. It's true of all the top guys. It was true of Favre before it was true of Brady and Manning.

 

But still: Our WRs suck.

[bringbackbrownie2]

But that's not really the case. All of the top teams have pretty damn powerful passing attacks. Nobody's really running their way to the Super Bowl anymore. Like I said, 6 of the top 10 running teams aren't even in the playoffs.

 

Holmgren's right: If you can't throw the ball really well in this league, you won't win much for long.

 

But you're right about Ben, too: Take away Plax, they keep throwing well. Take away Holmes, they keep throwing well. It's true of all the top guys. It was true of Favre before it was true of Brady and Manning.

 

But still: Our WRs suck.

 

6 of the top 10 PASSING teams aren't even in the playoffs... stats individually mean nothing. You have to look at the whole picture including offense and defense. 9 of the teams in the playoffs are top 10 in defense, offense, or both... (most fall under defense)

[CLEVELandMILIDH]

BTW... FOUR of the top 10 rushing teams made the playoffs. Oakland, Jax, the Giants, the Texans, the Bucs, and the Vikes were all top 10.

 

So The Bucs and the Texans were top 10 in rushing and had two of the most efficient quarterbacks and didn't make the playoffs???? Are you telling me defense wins championships?

[shepwrite]

6 of the top 10 PASSING teams aren't even in the playoffs... stats individually mean nothing. You have to look at the whole picture including offense and defense. 9 of the teams in the playoffs are top 10 in defense, offense, or both... (most fall under defense)

 

That's not true. Did you not look at the first post? 9 of the top 12 QBR teams made the playoffs. Two of the other ones had records of 9-7 and 10-6. It's sort of impossible to debate at this point. QBR and team success go hand-in-hand. Not true of being among the best rushing teams.

 

 

[bringbackbrownie2]

Be curious to know where the top 10 balanced run/pass teams ended up.

 

ok so I found only 4 teams to be completely balanced between run/pass (within 15 attempts either way- no one else is close to this): Steelers, Ravens, Jets, Raiders. And I believe, the raiders, jags, chiefs, and jets are the only teams to have run more than passed...

 

not sure if that is kinda what you were wanting to know... I realize bad teams may have to pass more if they are losing by a lot, but it seems that overall the successful teams have a solid running game to go along with the passing. The only successful teams that pass way more than run are the colts and saints (nearly 300 more pass attempts). Even the patriots are more balanced with about 50 more pass attempts than rushing attempts.

 

I don't feel like writing them all down so you can look up any others...

[shepwrite]

So The Bucs and the Texans were top 10 in rushing and had two of the most efficient quarterbacks and didn't make the playoffs???? Are you telling me defense wins championships?

 

Not really. Not when 9 of the top 12 passing teams are in the playoffs and two others had winning records. You can basically say that if you're in the top 12 in QBR, you're going to the playoffs. Missing at 10-6 is really rare.

 

Keep in mind that Elway, Favre, Warner, Brady, Manning, and Roethlisberger have basically won all the championships for a pretty damn long time. They were Pro Bowlers, MVPs, and it's probable they'll all be in the HOF.

 

But... defense is pretty damn huge. Some fairly bad to mediocre defenses have been in Super Bowls lately (Cardinals and Colts), and the Saints of last year weren't all that good... but most champions have great quarterbacks and at least really good defenses.

 

BTW, 7 of the top 12 defenses (total defense) made the playoffs. Not as high as QBR, and the average wins is quite a bit lower. And here's something really interesting: Only TWO Top 12 defenses that weren't also Top 12 in QBR made the playoffs (Bears, Jets).

 

That's not very many.

[Hoss]

6 of the top 10 PASSING teams aren't even in the playoffs... stats individually mean nothing. You have to look at the whole picture including offense and defense. 9 of the teams in the playoffs are top 10 in defense, offense, or both... (most fall under defense)

I have this debate with Shep every season, and it never seems to come to a conclusion. He starts this thread year in and year out, but he never wants to admit that defense is just as important to postseason success as offense.

 

Of the top 15 QBR teams, 6 did not make the playoffs. They are:

 

2. SD

4. TB

8. HOU

12. DAL

14. DEN

15. NYG

 

Now how did these teams do on Defense?

 

1. SD

7. NYG

17. TB

23. DAL

30. HOU

32. DEN

 

Okay, so of the top 15 defenses, 6 did not make the playoffs. They are:

 

1. SD

6. MIA

8. MIN

11. OAK

13. SF

15. CIN

 

How did these teams do in QBR?

 

2. SD

18. CIN

21. SF

23. OAK

28. MIA

30. MIN

 

So what can we conclude with these numbers?

 

There are teams ranked high in QBR and low in defense that are out of the playoffs, and there are teams with high defense and low QBR not in the playoffs.

 

One cannot say that QBR is more important, and you cannot say defense is more important. The rankings don't follow this logic.

 

BUT...............

 

Keep this thread alive throughout the playoffs and watch the top QBR's drop faster than the top D's.

 

 

 

 

To be continued......................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hoss]

That's not true. Did you not look at the first post? 9 of the top 12 QBR teams made the playoffs. Two of the other ones had records of 9-7 and 10-6. It's sort of impossible to debate at this point. QBR and team success go hand-in-hand. Not true of being among the best rushing teams.

Shep come one now, 9 of the top defenses made the playoffs also. Why are you making this about rushing vs passing, when you know the true measurement is QBR vs DEF, which is a more accurate and productive comparison?

 

I will say this though, teams with a good D and good rushing game, and so so QBR can make the playoffs and do every season. Typically they are manned by young QB's learning the ropes.

 

Teams like PIT, BAL, NYJ and NYG are all good examples of how a strong rushing game and top D can take you far. Not over the top to the Super Bowl every season, but nonetheless they can get you far and a Super Bowl ring.

 

Shit man, BAL, TB, NYG, and PIT all WON Super Bowls this way. Ideal? Popular? No. But possible.

 

Anyway QBR vs DEF is a wash.

[Gips]

Almost all of these guys have a team built around them and fairly successful systems and coaching, your team needs to be built around the QB to a certain degree and holmgren knows this to a fault so i look for good things to happen sooner than many think...

[bringbackbrownie2]

Not really. Not when 9 of the top 12 passing teams are in the playoffs and two others had winning records. You can basically say that if you're in the top 12 in QBR, you're going to the playoffs. Missing at 10-6 is really rare.

 

Keep in mind that Elway, Favre, Warner, Brady, Manning, and Roethlisberger have basically won all the championships for a pretty damn long time. They were Pro Bowlers, MVPs, and it's probable they'll all be in the HOF.

 

But... defense is pretty damn huge. Some fairly bad to mediocre defenses have been in Super Bowls lately (Cardinals and Colts), and the Saints of last year weren't all that good... but most champions have great quarterbacks and at least really good defenses.

 

BTW, 7 of the top 12 defenses (total defense) made the playoffs. Not as high as QBR, and the average wins is quite a bit lower. And here's something really interesting: Only TWO Top 12 defenses that weren't also Top 12 in QBR made the playoffs (Bears, Jets).

 

That's not very many.

 

you are kind of right. only 8 of the top 12 passing teams are in the playoffs (if you go off of QBR). but why choose the top 12 passing offenses and total defenses to look at? why not stick with just 10? or better yet 5? I could still say only 3 playoff teams have a top 5 passing offense (again using QBR), while 4 playoff teams have a top 5 defense (total defense). Now defense looks more important..

 

All I'm saying is that people can use stats to fit whatever viewpoint they believe in... Bottom line, to win championships, you need a quarterback that won't turn the ball over, an established running game, and a great defense..

[shepwrite]

Shep come one now, 9 of the top defenses made the playoffs also. Why are you making this about rushing vs passing, when you know the true measurement is QBR vs DEF, which is a more accurate and productive comparison?

 

I will say this though, teams with a good D and good rushing game, and so so QBR can make the playoffs and do every season. Typically they are manned by young QB's learning the ropes.

 

Teams like PIT, BAL, NYJ and NYG are all good examples of how a strong rushing game and top D can take you far. Not over the top to the Super Bowl every season, but nonetheless they can get you far and a Super Bowl ring.

 

Shit man, BAL, TB, NYG, and PIT all WON Super Bowls this way. Ideal? Popular? No. But possible.

 

Anyway QBR vs DEF is a wash.

 

I don't really disagree with that so much. What an offense does and what a defense does on any team is sort of separate paths with different coordinators, etc. There are trends in offense and trends in defense.

 

On offense, it's becoming a passing league. When 11 of the top 12 QBRs had winning records and 9 were in the playoffs (there are only 12), then that's pretty amazing.

 

The same just isn't true of the best running teams.

 

Now, comparing great passing teams to great defensive teams does get murkier because there's so much overlap. But I do know it's 9 of 12 top QBRs and 7 of 12 top overall defenses. And only TWO Top 12 defenses that weren't also Top 12 QBRs are in the playoffs (Bears and Jets).

 

I can think of some great passing teams with pretty poor defenses that have been really competitive lately (Colts, Cardinals, Saints sometimes, Texans in 2009, Chargers in 2009) but not many great defenses with poor passing games. The Jets last year, but they really should have been 7-9 except for a couple gifts. The year Tampa Bay won the Super Bowl, they also had a Pro Bowl passer... so that 2000 Ravens team is the only "modern" example of winning with just defense and an epic running game.

 

All that said... I don't really disagree that passing offense and overall defense are the two vital factors in today's NFL. Plenty of teams win with half-assed running games. Rushing the passer is getting HUGE, given the proclivity of passing offenses and the rules against covering them.

[Hoss]

I can think of some great passing teams with pretty poor defenses that have been really competitive lately (Colts, Cardinals, Saints sometimes, Texans in 2009, Chargers in 2009) but not many great defenses with poor passing games. The Jets last year, but they really should have been 7-9 except for a couple gifts.

Agreed. It is a passing league. But the Colts were in this game last year right up until the Saints did what?

 

INT for a TD

 

Defense and QBR are so neck and neck it is too close to call.

 

As I said, lets keep this great thread alive for the playoffs and see who makes it to the next level(s): QBR vs DEF

 

 

To be continued...........................

[Hoss]

All that said... I don't really disagree that passing offense and overall defense are the two vital factors in today's NFL. .

Honestly, I didn't think you did. You were always too smart for that.

[Guest Caleb]

Not sure how fair it is to use a calculated rating (qbr) compared to a raw figure like total rushing yards. The fair comparison would be two comparable statistics, like qbr to rbr if one so existed. We do know that the top passing yardage team almost never wins the superbowl, if they ever have at all. Its important to be able to run the ball as well.

[The Gipper]

Any one of those qb's mentioned by Shep, ... take away their wr's they throw to the most, and their protection, and they will suck.

 

Except in the case of Brady who actually got better when they got rid of Randy Moss!

 

In Ben Rocklicksboogers case, take away his defense and wr's, and he's a bust.

 

Flacco was spoken of as a possible bust, and he had a good oline. But he only had one big time wr. Now he has two or three.

 

Bend Rothlicksbooger has maybe five solid wr's.

 

You get all the other pieces in place, and you need a very good or great qb to make it work.

 

But a great qb can't make gold out of wr's who suck, and an oline that can't block. It's a team game.

 

[vdogrowz]

Good post Shep, just to add to the stat fest, in the last 10 years post Palmer, the Browns have thrown more TD passes than INT's only twice and you can all guess the years, 2002 and 2007. This team is much closer to being a competitive team in the playoff hunt than most think, we need a QB and the sorry fact is we haven't had one since Bernie. There is more to it than just the QB, but imo the selection of the next QB is as if not more important than the HC, especially since we need to match up with Flacco and Roethlisberger 4 times a year.

[shepwrite]

Agreed. It is a passing league. But the Colts were in this game last year right up until the Saints did what?

 

INT for a TD

 

Defense and QBR are so neck and neck it is too close to call.

 

As I said, lets keep this great thread alive for the playoffs and see who makes it to the next level(s): QBR vs DEF

 

 

To be continued...........................

 

Great insight, Hoss. Stuff like this makes a board fun, digging into stats and shit. Baseball people are nuts for it. Riceloft used to bring in some amazing stuff. And good find on turnovers by Zombo. That's a compelling list.

 

Lovers of defense (hey, my son's a linebacker) will keep an eye on the Jets and Bears, because neither has a juggernaut offense. Cutler had a pretty damn good year and God knows he can light it up... and Sanchez keeps flickering that he'll be among the really good ones soon-ish... they aren't like teams led by Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Vick, etc.

 

Atlanta's very interesting because of how complete they are. None of the above has a running back like Michael Turner and Atlanta's defense is really, really good... and then there's Ryan-White-Gonzales. They can beat you in a lot of ways. They're "team complete."

 

First matchup out of the gate is one to watch for this conversation: Jets (great defense) versus Colts (passing is all they do well).

[shepwrite]

Not sure how fair it is to use a calculated rating (qbr) compared to a raw figure like total rushing yards. The fair comparison would be two comparable statistics, like qbr to rbr if one so existed. We do know that the top passing yardage team almost never wins the superbowl, if they ever have at all. Its important to be able to run the ball as well.

 

New Orleans was right up there last year, for sure. Same with Manning's Colts. This year's favorite (Patriots) are very high on the list.

 

It's amazing how many of the top teams the last few years aren't very good at running the ball. In consecutive years, the team that finished DEAD LAST in rushing made it to the Super Bowl (Cards and Colts). This year's playoff teams feature a lot who don't run the ball very well (Patriots, Colts, Saints, Packers, and so on).

[shepwrite]

Good post Shep, just to add to the stat fest, in the last 10 years post Palmer, the Browns have thrown more TD passes than INT's only twice and you can all guess the years, 2002 and 2007. This team is much closer to being a competitive team in the playoff hunt than most think, we need a QB and the sorry fact is we haven't had one since Bernie. There is more to it than just the QB, but imo the selection of the next QB is as if not more important than the HC, especially since we need to match up with Flacco and Roethlisberger 4 times a year.

 

Talk about reducing it to the cold, hard truth.

 

There was a terrific article that quoted a lot of GMs and Gruden quite a bit, pointing out the simple fact that high-level play and stability at QB is the common thread of the winningest teams of the past decade. Almost all of the sources felt the QB affected the team around him more than vice-versa, citing Manning, Brady, Brees, and Favre/Rodgers being able to win with a revolving door at WR and RB. Not very often do the top teams feature the highest-paid and most decorated OL, either.

 

The best LT of the last 30 years is probably Munoz... and he never won a Super Bowl. Best TE? Gonzales. No rings. CB? Revis. Nothing yet. You really want your best player to be your QB. It's tough to machinate that... but it's the ideal. You want your money on the position with the most influence on the bottom line and nothing else comes close. Generally, you go to left tackle and pass rusher next. Then #1 WR and lockdown corner, although the latter has been hamstrung by rules quite a bit. Oakland's had the second best in the league for five years now... and it hasn't won them anything.