this is 2 full draft classes combined and the output end of day is just 2 positive impact QBs so far.
Seems notable to me that of the 2 positive value QBs, 1 was mr irrelevant who ended up in a great offensive system and the other was a 2nd overall pick in...that same offensive system. Also the same offensive system that hit Miami last year.
Carolina gave up a king's ransom for Bryce (who I personally think is very much a victim of circumstances and will prove to be worth it) but the jury is seemingly already out on whether or not right reich is the right coach/playcaller even within his own mind. and reich was one of few head coaches available in the last half decade that was hired with a winning record as a head coach.
honestly not sure which is harder at this point, finding quality coaches or quality qbs. i think the former is more important though. even if you get the right qb like herbert, isnt he an example of how that doesnt get you anywhere without the right coach too?
My thoughts as well.
that's what mr reich will say at his exit interview in a few months.
the charts tell exactly what they tell - over the last 2 full draft classes, only 2 teams generated positive value QB play.
anyone can theorize why that is but the point is pretty simple, it's hard to find QBs.
is bill belichek considered one of the greatest offensive coaches of all time? or more and more is his legacy getting questioned in terms of how fortunate he was to have Brady all those years? theres been more talk of belichek on a hotseat this year than the last 2 decades combined.
you are missing the point if you think im contending that andrew luck makes reich an offensive genius any more than cj stroud makes demeco ryans an offensive genius even though he's a defensive coach or justin herbert makes staley a genius (also a defensive coach). obviously there are always going to be exceptionally talented players who will produce regardless of circumstance. those players are very few and far between and we can see that by observing that in that last 2 full draft classes there are only 2 qbs generating positive value (i didnt make this chart but if we went back and edited to be 3 draft classes i think we maybe add lawrence/fields above the line and the total goes to 4 in 3 years).
I don't follow
Is it possible that the supporting cast is significant in the development of a QB ?
If that is the point of the chart thenI agree
I don't follow
Is it possible that the supporting cast is significant in the development of a QB ?
If that is the point of the chart thenI agree
the key point is how few positive value qbs come out of drafts. just 2 in 2 full classes, 1 of them an outlier having been mr irrelevant. the chart itself isn't saying much about coaching, just how hard it is to find quality QBs.
my observation re coaches is 1 step removed from that since the commonality between the 2 positive impact qbs happens to be that they are coached in the same system. 1 of them is in a great supporting environment, which i agree with you clearly helps, but the other is in a rebuilding environment.
Quote:
How does this chart detail how a coach is more important than the QB?
I don't follow
Is it possible that the supporting cast is significant in the development of a QB ?
If that is the point of the chart thenI agree
the key point is how few positive value qbs come out of drafts. just 2 in 2 full classes, 1 of them an outlier having been mr irrelevant. the chart itself isn't saying much about coaching, just how hard it is to find quality QBs.
my observation re coaches is 1 step removed from that since the commonality between the 2 positive impact qbs happens to be that they are coached in the same system. 1 of them is in a great supporting environment, which i agree with you clearly helps, but the other is in a rebuilding environment.
Eric-I am a back of the napkin kinda guy....but I feel chasing a QB at the top of the draft is wrong,and I think your data shows this
1. I think it's hard to read cause and effect. Maybe Stroud is just great? Maybe Purdy is actually really good?
I'm actually a fan of Tua too, but do think there is something there with that SF system. I can see either side of the argument here.
2. Doesn't the Pittsburgh data point conflict with this a little bit? Maybe the OC there sucks but they have a great HC.
3. This isn't a Giants-only related thread, but wouldn't a takeaway be (using only this analysis) that the Giants have the wrong head coach?
4. Outlier results, such as winning Super Bowls, require both IMO. I look at LAC and think they're a good head coach away from being a serious contender (second tier, not elite). I look at Pittsburgh and think they're also a QB away from contention and that it's a shame they're wasting that team with Pickett.
Quote:
In comment 16291617 Archer said:
Quote:
How does this chart detail how a coach is more important than the QB?
I don't follow
Is it possible that the supporting cast is significant in the development of a QB ?
If that is the point of the chart thenI agree
the key point is how few positive value qbs come out of drafts. just 2 in 2 full classes, 1 of them an outlier having been mr irrelevant. the chart itself isn't saying much about coaching, just how hard it is to find quality QBs.
my observation re coaches is 1 step removed from that since the commonality between the 2 positive impact qbs happens to be that they are coached in the same system. 1 of them is in a great supporting environment, which i agree with you clearly helps, but the other is in a rebuilding environment.
Eric-I am a back of the napkin kinda guy....but I feel chasing a QB at the top of the draft is wrong,and I think your data shows this
i wouldnt go that far - i think if you see a guy you think can be a franchise qb you get them.
what i think it shows is how finding the right guy is so low probably, its a hard thing to be confident about if you arent also confident in the coach/system since that's key to the pick succeeding.
Quote:
In comment 16291623 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16291617 Archer said:
Quote:
How does this chart detail how a coach is more important than the QB?
I don't follow
Is it possible that the supporting cast is significant in the development of a QB ?
If that is the point of the chart thenI agree
the key point is how few positive value qbs come out of drafts. just 2 in 2 full classes, 1 of them an outlier having been mr irrelevant. the chart itself isn't saying much about coaching, just how hard it is to find quality QBs.
my observation re coaches is 1 step removed from that since the commonality between the 2 positive impact qbs happens to be that they are coached in the same system. 1 of them is in a great supporting environment, which i agree with you clearly helps, but the other is in a rebuilding environment.
Eric-I am a back of the napkin kinda guy....but I feel chasing a QB at the top of the draft is wrong,and I think your data shows this
i wouldnt go that far - i think if you see a guy you think can be a franchise qb you get them.
what i think it shows is how finding the right guy is so low probably, its a hard thing to be confident about if you arent also confident in the coach/system since that's key to the pick succeeding.
so you want to risk using a high draft pick on a low probablity item???
Makes no sense to me.
WR1 is so pressing for us,and Harrison is the BP in the draft-
1. I think it's hard to read cause and effect. Maybe Stroud is just great? Maybe Purdy is actually really good?
I'm actually a fan of Tua too, but do think there is something there with that SF system. I can see either side of the argument here.
2. Doesn't the Pittsburgh data point conflict with this a little bit? Maybe the OC there sucks but they have a great HC.
3. This isn't a Giants-only related thread, but wouldn't a takeaway be (using only this analysis) that the Giants have the wrong head coach?
4. Outlier results, such as winning Super Bowls, require both IMO. I look at LAC and think they're a good head coach away from being a serious contender (second tier, not elite). I look at Pittsburgh and think they're also a QB away from contention and that it's a shame they're wasting that team with Pickett.
good post brett. re #1 both valid questions. I guess time will tell. stroud has thrown very few INTs but he almost choked away an easy win last week vs cincy with a terrible near-pick 6 with only a few minutes left up by 10 i think. I still think Bryce Young is going to be very good, his situation reminds me of Lawrence's rookie year until meyer got swapped out and some more talented players came in (kirk, engram, etienne). not saying reich needs to get canned but clearly something is going on since they have now twice switched playcallers. young did beat stroud a few weeks ago, and he did it with thielen as basically his only offensive weapon.
re: #2 matt canada definitely sucks. i was never a pickett fan because he was in college forever and only took off in like year 6/7 with addison destroying a bad acc, so i guess in that rorschach test i see a team way overachieving a qb and OC who will both probably be replaced in the near future - probably thanks to having a quality head coach, but if tomlin wants to get his team back up to the real contender level he'll have to find new ones.
re: #3, I dont know the answer to that and frankly it's where this year has given me the most whiplash. last year daboll (and kafka) did no wrong. this year even beyond the giants results we see Ken Dorsey getting fired because Buffalo cant seem to stop regressing even though they have Josh Allen (who also regressed in some meaningful ways last year). so net-net i dont think we have the answer to that yet. as much as some want the rest of the season to get the highest draft pick possible, the best outcome of the season imo would be daboll getting 1 or 2 wins and some competitive performances out of devito so we can be confident that he is the right guy with the right system to choose the next qb. if i was a viking fan id feel pretty good about oconnell having been able to keep that ship afloat despite losing jefferson and then cousins.
totally agree on 4.
Quote:
In comment 16291639 AROCK1000 said:
Quote:
In comment 16291623 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16291617 Archer said:
Quote:
How does this chart detail how a coach is more important than the QB?
I don't follow
Is it possible that the supporting cast is significant in the development of a QB ?
If that is the point of the chart thenI agree
the key point is how few positive value qbs come out of drafts. just 2 in 2 full classes, 1 of them an outlier having been mr irrelevant. the chart itself isn't saying much about coaching, just how hard it is to find quality QBs.
my observation re coaches is 1 step removed from that since the commonality between the 2 positive impact qbs happens to be that they are coached in the same system. 1 of them is in a great supporting environment, which i agree with you clearly helps, but the other is in a rebuilding environment.
Eric-I am a back of the napkin kinda guy....but I feel chasing a QB at the top of the draft is wrong,and I think your data shows this
i wouldnt go that far - i think if you see a guy you think can be a franchise qb you get them.
what i think it shows is how finding the right guy is so low probably, its a hard thing to be confident about if you arent also confident in the coach/system since that's key to the pick succeeding.
so you want to risk using a high draft pick on a low probablity item???
Makes no sense to me.
WR1 is so pressing for us,and Harrison is the BP in the draft-
low probability is worth it if the upside is high enough. you cant go anywhere without a QB and right now the nyg QB is hurt, and as a running qb you cant just expect that he'll be good as new coming off a major injury.
they need to add a rookie pay scale QB this offseason one way or another. there's really no alternative.
Quote:
In comment 16291643 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16291639 AROCK1000 said:
Quote:
In comment 16291623 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16291617 Archer said:
Quote:
How does this chart detail how a coach is more important than the QB?
I don't follow
Is it possible that the supporting cast is significant in the development of a QB ?
If that is the point of the chart thenI agree
the key point is how few positive value qbs come out of drafts. just 2 in 2 full classes, 1 of them an outlier having been mr irrelevant. the chart itself isn't saying much about coaching, just how hard it is to find quality QBs.
my observation re coaches is 1 step removed from that since the commonality between the 2 positive impact qbs happens to be that they are coached in the same system. 1 of them is in a great supporting environment, which i agree with you clearly helps, but the other is in a rebuilding environment.
Eric-I am a back of the napkin kinda guy....but I feel chasing a QB at the top of the draft is wrong,and I think your data shows this
i wouldnt go that far - i think if you see a guy you think can be a franchise qb you get them.
what i think it shows is how finding the right guy is so low probably, its a hard thing to be confident about if you arent also confident in the coach/system since that's key to the pick succeeding.
so you want to risk using a high draft pick on a low probablity item???
Makes no sense to me.
WR1 is so pressing for us,and Harrison is the BP in the draft-
low probability is worth it if the upside is high enough. you cant go anywhere without a QB and right now the nyg QB is hurt, and as a running qb you cant just expect that he'll be good as new coming off a major injury.
they need to add a rookie pay scale QB this offseason one way or another. there's really no alternative.
How can one predict the upside-especially at QB?
Your charts prove this...history proves it.
This is why you take BPA-especially when it is a position of need like WR1.
QB prediction is a losing proposition.
Brock Purdy shows that
This is an interesting view, but I'd at least take it across 4 seasons, to at least determine the percentage of QBs who have a positive EPA over a rookie contract period.
I'd wager the NFL is about 20% QB 40% Roster 40% coaching if you want to break it down by importance. Obviously QB is hugely important, but theres a lot more that goes into it than that. And hoenstly its arguably easier to get the QB when its time, like the Rams did, or the Bucs did, then the other way around.
This is an interesting view, but I'd at least take it across 4 seasons, to at least determine the percentage of QBs who have a positive EPA over a rookie contract period.
2021 brings in lawrence (and probably fields but not positive)
2020 would bring in herbert, tua, burrow, and hurts
so the last 2 years would seem particularly bad relative to the 2 prior years, but you dont get to pick your QB classes. I think Bryce/Stroud will end up a decent class (obviously it's early) and everyone knew last year the pickett class was an all time bad one.
none of this should be surprising, it's been well supported that QBs have if not the highest 1 of the highest bust rates of any position. this is just another way of visualizing that.
How can one predict the upside-especially at QB?
Your charts prove this...history proves it.
This is why you take BPA-especially when it is a position of need like WR1.
QB prediction is a losing proposition.
Brock Purdy shows that
how did reid know to trade up for mahomes?
or daboll for josh allen?
purdy/trey lance do show that there's a big element of luck involved, but the bottomline is when you need a qb, you pick the best guy for the job like anything else. there are no guarantees it will work out. odds are it wont (the chart).
my belief is that having the right system/coach in place prior to the QB pick is the key factor in making your odds of success better or a lot worse.
This is an interesting view, but I'd at least take it across 4 seasons, to at least determine the percentage of QBs who have a positive EPA over a rookie contract period.
2021 brings in lawrence (and probably fields but not positive)
2020 would bring in herbert, tua, burrow, and hurts
so the last 2 years would seem particularly bad relative to the 2 prior years, but you dont get to pick your QB classes. I think Bryce/Stroud will end up a decent class (obviously it's early) and everyone knew last year the pickett class was an all time bad one.
none of this should be surprising, it's been well supported that QBs have if not the highest 1 of the highest bust rates of any position. this is just another way of visualizing that.
Seven of the guys on that chart have fewer than a full season of starts, so I wouldn't drop the pin and call it the threshold for a bust.
When I say four seasons, I don't mean four drafts. I mean look at a large enough sample of QBs in their first four years and figure out the right number of games to declare someone a bust.
I suspect some quarterbacks improve their EPA in years two and three.
I bet if you looked at Tua's after 17 games he was negative.
Quote:
That set of data might also just show quarterbacks with fewer than 25 starts struggle to produce a positive EPA.
This is an interesting view, but I'd at least take it across 4 seasons, to at least determine the percentage of QBs who have a positive EPA over a rookie contract period.
2021 brings in lawrence (and probably fields but not positive)
2020 would bring in herbert, tua, burrow, and hurts
so the last 2 years would seem particularly bad relative to the 2 prior years, but you dont get to pick your QB classes. I think Bryce/Stroud will end up a decent class (obviously it's early) and everyone knew last year the pickett class was an all time bad one.
none of this should be surprising, it's been well supported that QBs have if not the highest 1 of the highest bust rates of any position. this is just another way of visualizing that.
Seven of the guys on that chart have fewer than a full season of starts, so I wouldn't drop the pin and call it the threshold for a bust.
When I say four seasons, I don't mean four drafts. I mean look at a large enough sample of QBs in their first four years and figure out the right number of games to declare someone a bust.
I suspect some quarterbacks improve their EPA in years two and three.
I bet if you looked at Tua's after 17 games he was negative.
and what changed when he flipped definitively positive last year?
Quote:
In comment 16291779 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
That set of data might also just show quarterbacks with fewer than 25 starts struggle to produce a positive EPA.
This is an interesting view, but I'd at least take it across 4 seasons, to at least determine the percentage of QBs who have a positive EPA over a rookie contract period.
2021 brings in lawrence (and probably fields but not positive)
2020 would bring in herbert, tua, burrow, and hurts
so the last 2 years would seem particularly bad relative to the 2 prior years, but you dont get to pick your QB classes. I think Bryce/Stroud will end up a decent class (obviously it's early) and everyone knew last year the pickett class was an all time bad one.
none of this should be surprising, it's been well supported that QBs have if not the highest 1 of the highest bust rates of any position. this is just another way of visualizing that.
Seven of the guys on that chart have fewer than a full season of starts, so I wouldn't drop the pin and call it the threshold for a bust.
When I say four seasons, I don't mean four drafts. I mean look at a large enough sample of QBs in their first four years and figure out the right number of games to declare someone a bust.
I suspect some quarterbacks improve their EPA in years two and three.
I bet if you looked at Tua's after 17 games he was negative.
and what changed when he flipped definitively positive last year?
So does the coach make the draft pick or the draft pick make the coach? Not enough coaches get a couple of cracks at QBs to prove the latter.
Right now Brady is Exhibit A proving the QB makes the coach.
Quote:
In comment 16291823 christian said:
Quote:
In comment 16291779 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
That set of data might also just show quarterbacks with fewer than 25 starts struggle to produce a positive EPA.
This is an interesting view, but I'd at least take it across 4 seasons, to at least determine the percentage of QBs who have a positive EPA over a rookie contract period.
2021 brings in lawrence (and probably fields but not positive)
2020 would bring in herbert, tua, burrow, and hurts
so the last 2 years would seem particularly bad relative to the 2 prior years, but you dont get to pick your QB classes. I think Bryce/Stroud will end up a decent class (obviously it's early) and everyone knew last year the pickett class was an all time bad one.
none of this should be surprising, it's been well supported that QBs have if not the highest 1 of the highest bust rates of any position. this is just another way of visualizing that.
Seven of the guys on that chart have fewer than a full season of starts, so I wouldn't drop the pin and call it the threshold for a bust.
When I say four seasons, I don't mean four drafts. I mean look at a large enough sample of QBs in their first four years and figure out the right number of games to declare someone a bust.
I suspect some quarterbacks improve their EPA in years two and three.
I bet if you looked at Tua's after 17 games he was negative.
and what changed when he flipped definitively positive last year?
So does the coach make the draft pick or the draft pick make the coach? Not enough coaches get a couple of cracks at QBs to prove the latter.
Right now Brady is Exhibit A proving the QB makes the coach.
if you are talking about a player on the level of 'best ever' they are going to make a lot of things happen. i dont see that as a reasonable expectation or comparison for any player. 'find a qb as good as tom brady' isn't an actionable strategy, it's a wish.
the nfl has changed so much in a short period of time, but i think clearly there are more gifted offensive minds with experience in systems that seem to work than tom brady's. 2 of those systems are in the positive side of the chart, tua is a 3rd, mcvay and mcconnell both also from that line.
That's why the challenge with a graph like this is it's really hard to get data outside of n=1 because coaches or players don't really get much of a second chance.
I truly believe that it's probably a combo of player and coach; coaches should seek out players who fit their system they want to run.
I would argue it's a symbiotic relationship, a good coach can't survive without a talented QB and vice a versa.
Jones -.24 (43rd in NFL)
DeVito -.39 (45th in NFL)
I bet if you looked at Tua's after 17 games he was negative.
and what changed when he flipped definitively positive last year?
I don't disagree with the premise. If you search the archives it's a position (system over player) I've argued constantly, at times obnoxiously.
What I'm saying is this set of data is probably too short of time to call a QB a bust.
RE: Tua, I can't find his EPA for his rookie year, but he was an advanced metrics darling in 2021, so I suspect he rated well by his second year.
And that's not to say he and the Dolphins haven't exploded offensively under McDaniel.
That's why the challenge with a graph like this is it's really hard to get data outside of n=1 because coaches or players don't really get much of a second chance.
I truly believe that it's probably a combo of player and coach; coaches should seek out players who fit their system they want to run.
I would argue it's a symbiotic relationship, a good coach can't survive without a talented QB and vice a versa.
it is definitely a symbiotic relationship and maybe you are right that they can only ever go hand in hand - except where does the choice of who to pick as QB start in the first place? it starts with the organization choosing the right guy who fits whatever offensive philosophy they are running, which is why i think your odds of success from day 0 before anyone even hits the chart are dramatically lower if you have the wrong guy/wrong philosophy.
there are outliers both ways (good qb/bad coach, bad qb/good coach) but we have seen many more examples of bad qbs improve with good coaches than qbs who are good enough to prop up bad coaches (that's rare because qbs on that level are rare, like rodgers, luck, peyton).
if we survey the league right now i would contend there is 1 QB who is elevating a probably bad coach who will soon get fired (staley/herbert).
on the flip side even leaving out these last 2 classes since the sample is small i see several situations where good coaching is elevating what have been less effective QBs in recent seasons elsewhere or in different systems (dobbs/minny, russ/denver, mayfield/bucs, goff/lions, tua/dolphins, geno/seattle).
Quote:
I suspect some quarterbacks improve their EPA in years two and three.
I bet if you looked at Tua's after 17 games he was negative.
and what changed when he flipped definitively positive last year?
I don't disagree with the premise. If you search the archives it's a position (system over player) I've argued constantly, at times obnoxiously.
What I'm saying is this set of data is probably too short of time to call a QB a bust.
RE: Tua, I can't find his EPA for his rookie year, but he was an advanced metrics darling in 2021, so I suspect he rated well by his second year.
And that's not to say he and the Dolphins haven't exploded offensively under McDaniel.
i didnt call anyone a bust (specifcally think the opposite and said so re bryce) so you are misunderstanding the point.
the point is that in the last 2 full draft class however many teams tried to solve their QB problems (10+?) only 2 did so far. the long term doesnt matter for coaches who are already getting fired like mcdaniels or on hot seats/making staff/scheme changes like reich (in his case after horse already left barn with a big move up for bryce).
if you are going to invest a 2-4 year cycle into a player i think you need to have an enormous amount of confidence in the person choosing that player/the scheme they will be in.
Jones -.24 (43rd in NFL)
DeVito -.39 (45th in NFL)
sure why not turn another thread into a daniel jones thread.
since you decided to do so with the small sample of data from this partial year, here's his 4 year epa/db, which was + the last 2 seasons:
last year he was actually 1 of just 14 QBs with an overall + EPA/db and ahead of Brady, Herbert, Rodgers (plus his rushing epa on top of that).
seems like the #s you posted from this year are a pretty significant outlier relative to his prior career, no?
Jones -.24 (43rd in NFL)
DeVito -.39 (45th in NFL)
I have to admit that it really upset me watching Taylor perform this year in his starts after Jones. Under virtually the same conditions too. It was as stark an example of just how limited Jones is as I have ever witnessed.
Quote:
Taylor -.02 (29th in NFL)
Jones -.24 (43rd in NFL)
DeVito -.39 (45th in NFL)
I have to admit that it really upset me watching Taylor perform this year in his starts after Jones. Under virtually the same conditions too. It was as stark an example of just how limited Jones is as I have ever witnessed.
tyrod played better but the conditions were also different. barkley went out after the AZ game and came back in the BUF game which was tyrod's first start. in that first game back i think barkley outgained everyone who replaced him over the games he missed combined. the defense didnt have any turnovers through the first month and half and then got 2 vs buffalo and 1 vs washington (plus all the sacks). pretty sure buffalo was also pughs first or second game and like taylor he also played noticeably better than what was there before.
in tyrod's 2 full games against buf/wsh they scored a total of 23 points, without barkley and with fewer turnovers from the defense they would have been lower than that. and that was with pretty good qb play, which speaks to how bad this offensive environment has been and circles us kind of back on track to the point of the thread (coaching/scheme really matter a lot).
one of the interesting things id never heard before this year was that the shanahan system makes pass protection a lot easier for his OL.