A very good QB or a very good Defense?

Discussion around whether a team has a better chance being successful with a franchise QB and having to pay that cost, or attempting to run with an adequate QB and instead build an outstanding defense has been discussed as a side conversation in several other topics ranging from the Rams acquiring players, to discussing our departing defensive stars. This post is an attempt at an analytical evaluation and response to this question: Does a team have a better chance reaching a championship game with a very good QB or a very good Defense?

Assumptions

• • While having both a very good QB and a very good defense is preferable, the assumption here is that it is improbable to have both for any significant length of time, and for the purpose of clarity, the two are viewed as mutually exclusive to due long term cap implications and having to pay for one or the other.
  • The data set includes starting** Quarterbacks’ regular season rating for teams that reached the NFCC or AFFCC between 2000 and 2017.
  • Average quarterback rating league-wide rose significantly from ~76.0 in 2000 to ~85.0 in 2017, although the top quarterback rating in a given year had no significant change over that same time period, ranging from 102 to 122. This leads one to believe that the rules changes have made it easier for QBs to perform at a high level, but the best quarterbacks have retained a similar ceiling.
  • Very good quarterback play is defined by having a regular season average of 90 or greater than.
  • Very good defensive play is defined by having a top 5 defense in that given year.
  • Benchmarks (top5/90 rating) were chosen before any data was reviewed in an attempt to remove as much bias as possible.
  • Defensive Ranking is based upon NFL Standard yards given up per game. The reason yards are used instead of scoring defense is scoring defense has a greater tendency to be impacted by offensive performance, turnovers, etc..
  
  **Note that Nick Foles in 2017 and Tom Brady in 2001 were backups that started in the championship game.

The Numbers

Quarterback

• From 2000 to 2017, there have been a total of 72 teams involved in championship games (4 teams a year, times 18 years). In that span, there have been 35 unique starting quarterbacks to play in those games.
  
  Of the total possible 72 instances, 44 (61%) have maintained a regular season rating of 90 or greater.
  
  Of the 28 instances where season average rating was below 90, 7 instances were for a QB whose career average was greater than 90. This indicates that the potential for very QB play was present and proven but the individual didn’t live up to that potential in the regular season. Due to this, one could say that 21 of 72 (29%) instances exist where the team didn’t have very good QB play but made the championship game.

Defense

• Unlike quarterback, it is more difficult to say a team has the same defense year to year due to the amount of player turnover. For this reason, each year is considered unique even if the same team (e.g. 2013/2014 Seattle) advanced to the game.
  
  From 2000 to 2017, of a total 72 instances, 28 (39%) had a team with a top 5 defense, with 44 (61%) not having a top 5 defense. For the curios, 13 of the 44 that were not top 5 were in the top 10.

Putting things together, for the 28 instances that didn’t have a very good quarterback (90 rating or better), 14 (50%) of them had a top 5 defense. Of those, two of them were from quarterbacks who were very good but had a bit of a “down” year. This means that 14 of the 44 instances where a team had very good quarterback play, they also had a top 5 defense. This leaves the odds of a team who made the championship game having a very good quarterback and top 5 defense at 19% (14 of 72).

In Summary

• • Instances where team had very good QB play: 61% (44/72)
  • Instances where team had very good defense: 39% (28/72)
  • Instances where both were true: 19% (14/72)
  • Instances were neither were true: 19% (14/72)

Conclusion

• While this is certainly not a probability evaluation, as a much more extensive data set would have to be used, this small evaluation seems to point to it being easier to make the championship game if you have very good QB play versus very good defensive play.
  
  Further, I would submit it is likely easier to maintain having a good QB once you have one, than attempting to maintain a very good defense which involves many more variables. The data in this sample seem to back that is well since there was rarely a “top 5 defense’ that repeated the championship game, while there are many examples of very good QB repeats.
  
  This is not definitive, and I am sure many holes can be poked in this evaluation, but I enjoyed analyzing the numbers and putting it together.

Really great thread MHH, top work!

Both.

First, we have seen that teams like the Vikings and the Eagles have shown you can be very competitive with a great defense and a decent or even somewhat average QB.

We have also seen that the price of QBs is rising. The % of cap that a team needs to allocate to QB is going to get higher - once we see guys like Rodgers get their contracts.

So to keep a good QB, you have to underpay other areas of the team. Which makes it harder to be competitive.

There is a way to offset this, you have to draft well so that you get starters out of players that are still on rookie contracts. Otherwise, you will end up with a lot of positions having average to below average journeymen shoved in there to fill holes.

This makes it doubly important, however, to leverage the QB if you choose to keep your high priced QB.

It makes no sense to put game plans in place that make Wilson 'look like Flacco in the 1st half and Montana in 2nd' (someone else's quote not mine, but pretty damn accurate).

But there are several teams that have shown, you can win without a great QB. And having a great QB is going to make it harder to win with over time because it is going to starve out portions of the team so you can feed the QB.

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.

On the other hand...



Nick Foles is the exception to the rule. But remember he had a season with 27 tds and 2 ints. He is no slouch. Before him was Brady. Before that was Manning. Yes, he was a shell of his former self, but he still had what it took between the ears. Before him was Brady again, and before that was Wilson. Then we had Flacco, your average qb to break the pattern. Then it was Eli Manning, who while not elite, has hovered near the mark most of his career and is clearly a franchise qb. Before that? Rodgers. Then Brees. Then Raplessberger. Then Eli, then #18 Manning, then Rapelessberger, then Brady, then Brady.



If you guys think Wilson might one day end up in the HoF, with Eli on the cusp of consideration (and he is in many media circles), other than Flacco and Foles you have to go clear back to 2003 to find a Super Bowl winning team that didn’t have either a HoF qb or one who has been discussed in the media as a possible inductee some day.




But a 90 passer rating is not a Franchise qb. You want to compete yearly for a SB, get a HoF worthy qb. Great defenses don’t last long enough.

5_Golden_Rings":842fsajy 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.

MontanaHawk05":1eqy9kes said:

Both.

Click to expand...

This response isn't extremely helpful and seems kind of trite. In an ideal world, of course a team wants both, but that is not the question posed nor answered. This thread is to discuss which potential team strategy is more likely given the very real choices teams have to make with regards to cap investment. Any thoughts around that are very welcome.

TwistedHusky":1d2rzfxj said:

First, we have seen that teams like the Vikings and the Eagles have shown you can be very competitive with a great defense and a decent or even somewhat average QB.

We have also seen that the price of QBs is rising. The % of cap that a team needs to allocate to QB is going to get higher - once we see guys like Rodgers get their contracts.

So to keep a good QB, you have to underpay other areas of the team. Which makes it harder to be competitive.

There is a way to offset this, you have to draft well so that you get starters out of players that are still on rookie contracts. Otherwise, you will end up with a lot of positions having average to below average journeymen shoved in there to fill holes.

This makes it doubly important, however, to leverage the QB if you choose to keep your high priced QB.

It makes no sense to put game plans in place that make Wilson 'look like Flacco in the 1st half and Montana in 2nd' (someone else's quote not mine, but pretty damn accurate).

But there are several teams that have shown, you can win without a great QB. And having a great QB is going to make it harder to win with over time because it is going to starve out portions of the team so you can feed the QB.

Click to expand...

Yes, there will always be exceptions to statistical analysis and anecdotal evidence tends to lead to perception based arguments, not data based arguments. It seems, based upon this data set, that the Vikings are an exception. The Eagles can be argued because Wentz performed to the very good standard defined and earned them the #1 seed. So there is some nuance to be understood when looking at specific examples.

When evaluating this data, we are seeking to see if there is a trend or some statistical inclination that would indicate one choice is more likely to lead to the desired result. In this case, again, from the data analyzed, it seems right now more likely for a team to reach a championship game with a QB who can average greater than 90 rating versus a top 5 defense.

The cost of a QB, as you correctly point out is certainly rising. To what degree we do not know. But, what we might anticipate is that due to the increased cost of that commodity, it becomes even more important where the team decides to employ its limited cap space. At some point the cost/benefit of having a "very good" QB will tilt the scales, but I am not sure we are there yet and my analysis doesn't directly address that conundrum.

In the end, there will always be exceptions and some teams will occasionally rise above, but just because 19% of those teams didn't have either very good QB play nor good defensive play, doesn't necessarily lend itself to pursuing that strategy.

Milehighhawk":rbq4x3f4 said:

MontanaHawk05":rbq4x3f4 said:

Both.

Click to expand...

This response isn't extremely helpful and seems kind of trite. In an ideal world, of course a team wants both, but that is not the question posed nor answered. This thread is to discuss which potential team strategy is more likely given the very real choices teams have to make with regards to cap investment. Any thoughts around that are very welcome.

Click to expand...

You're assuming a team cannot have both. It's a faulty assumption, and therefore it's difficult to provide deeper discussion along the parameters you've set out.

MontanaHawk05":2ig34kl1 said:

Milehighhawk":2ig34kl1 said:

MontanaHawk05":2ig34kl1 said:

Both.

Click to expand...

This response isn't extremely helpful and seems kind of trite. In an ideal world, of course a team wants both, but that is not the question posed nor answered. This thread is to discuss which potential team strategy is more likely given the very real choices teams have to make with regards to cap investment. Any thoughts around that are very welcome.

Click to expand...

You're assuming a team cannot have both. It's a faulty assumption, and therefore it's difficult to provide deeper discussion along the parameters you've set out.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if you are trying to be intentionally obtuse here or not. Yes, teams try to do both, but when there is a pool of limited resources, in this case the spending cap, especially with the rising cost of "good" QBs, teams will have to choose where to invest and where to attempt to draft for talent. The Seahawks are of course in the middle of making their choices now. When that decision arises and it will at some point in roughly 3-4 year cycles based upon rookie contract duration (usually re-up a year before end), which strategy is most likely to yield a result that ends with the team reaching championship games?

How many Super bowl appearances did these QB's appear in without a good or great defense and when that went away how many.

Elway, Marino, Manning Peyton, Fouts, Pastorini, Moon, Elway and Manning won when they had a running game threat and a very good defense, Marino sniffed it once and then the defense declined right away and never again. Fouts and Pastorini and Moon never sniffed the title game. Were on good teams but missed against teams that had better defenses or a run game.

QB.

No question.

While a QB is pricey, you can get ONE and be relevant for a decade or more.

Defenses get more expensive because eventually all the individual pieces will need to get paid AND they have a shorter shelf life.

Just as an example...Richard Sherman was seen as possibly losing a step BEFORE the Achilles...and the dude wasn't even 30 yet.

QBs will get into their mid or even late 30s and now one in particular in his 40's and they are still game changers.

I love to see great defenses play, but the QB is more important now than ever before...and will only get MORE important as rule changes take the helmet out of the game.

chris98251":1pw71zpi said:

How many Super bowl appearances did these QB's appear in without a good or great defense and when that went away how many.

Elway, Marino, Manning Peyton, Fouts, Pastorini, Moon, Elway and Manning won when they had a running game threat and a very good defense, Marino sniffed it once and then the defense declined right away and never again. Fouts and Pastorini and Moon never sniffed the title game. Were on good teams but missed against teams that had better defenses or a run game.

Click to expand...

That's true, but all those guys were on teams that at least had a chance. They were relevant.

Put this another way....how many teams had GREAT defenses and average QBs and won a championship? Bears? Ravens? Bucs? That's only three out of more than 50 and NONE of them were dynasties or won more than once.

EDIT: Upon second thought, you could probably add the Steelers of the 70s and they WERE a dynasty...but that was really a different age, different rules, and still not the way most teams have won it all.

Milehighhawk":1tnc5537 said:

MontanaHawk05":1tnc5537 said:

Milehighhawk":1tnc5537 said:

MontanaHawk05":1tnc5537 said:

Both.

Click to expand...

This response isn't extremely helpful and seems kind of trite. In an ideal world, of course a team wants both, but that is not the question posed nor answered. This thread is to discuss which potential team strategy is more likely given the very real choices teams have to make with regards to cap investment. Any thoughts around that are very welcome.

Click to expand...

You're assuming a team cannot have both. It's a faulty assumption, and therefore it's difficult to provide deeper discussion along the parameters you've set out.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if you are trying to be intentionally obtuse here or not. Yes, teams try to do both, but when there is a pool of limited resources, in this case the spending cap, especially with the rising cost of "good" QBs, teams will have to choose where to invest and where to attempt to draft for talent.

Click to expand...

Not if they're good enough. That's what I'm arguing. They need to find a way to get both, and they can, because teams have done it before.

Marvin49":39u4qghl said:

chris98251":39u4qghl said:

How many Super bowl appearances did these QB's appear in without a good or great defense and when that went away how many.

Elway, Marino, Manning Peyton, Fouts, Pastorini, Moon, Elway and Manning won when they had a running game threat and a very good defense, Marino sniffed it once and then the defense declined right away and never again. Fouts and Pastorini and Moon never sniffed the title game. Were on good teams but missed against teams that had better defenses or a run game.

Click to expand...

That's true, but all those guys were on teams that at least had a chance. They were relevant.

Put this another way....how many teams had GREAT defenses and average QBs and won a championship? Bears? Ravens? Bucs? That's only three out of more than 50 and NONE of them were dynasties or won more than once.

EDIT: Upon second thought, you could probably add the Steelers of the 70s and they WERE a dynasty...but that was really a different age, different rules, and still not the way most teams have won it all.

Click to expand...

Marvin,
To the bold part you could add the Cowboys..
One fact for sure is you are NOT winning anything without a good defense PERIOD!
You don't need a great QB to win Championships that has been proven but does make
it easier if you had one with that good defense.
Another certain thing you need is a solid running game to go with that defense.

MontanaHawk05":1e1uytpz said:

<snip about QB vs. D>Not if they're good enough. That's what I'm arguing. They need to find a way to get both, and they can, because teams have done it before.

Click to expand...

It's "easy" to get both, and we've seen it here. Problem is it seems to cause a cyclic downturn. We had a good D, but were throttled down by Tavaris Jackson. So we paid a bunch of money to the D, the O-line, and Beastmode, and got a great QB for cheap in the draft. Then we went to the Superbowl twice and won once. Then the cyclic downturn started because we needed to pay everyone at once and sacrificed the O-line (along with having an idiot OC). Now we have a well-paid and really good QB, we got rid of some expensive D, and hopefully the O-line will improve. So we're back on the upswing except this time with a relatively cheaper D. About the time the RW is done the D will all be well-paid again due to being really great, and we can start over with a cheap really good QB from the draft. Rinse, repeat.

For you nerds out there, think of it as a sinusoidal function with two out-of-phase components - the O money and the D money. When added together there will be peaks (Superbowl years) and valleys (not making the playoffs). If they're 180 out of phase you get a flat line, which was the 'mediocrity hell' we were in for most of this franchise's existence. No great years, no truly bad years.

:irishdrinkers:

I think a more meaningful comparison would be comparing top 5 QB play to a top 5 defense. How do those numbers stack up? What percentage of the time that a team has a top 5 QB do they win the Super Bowl? What percentage of the time that a team has a top 5 defense win the Super Bowl?

5_Golden_Rings was unnecessarily blunt, but I do agree with his point. You are comparing apples and oranges, the numbers are contrived. I mean, think about it like this: in theory, all 32 starting quarterbacks next year could have a passer rating over 90. The number of defenses that qualify as "top 5" is always capped at 5. You can't compare a counting stat with no cap (passer rating) to a percentage (top 5 is essentially top 15%). That simply is not a meaningful comparison.

You are arguing that 'a passer rating over 90 is easier to achieve, so teams should shoot for that'. I feel the opposite. Value comes from scarcity. The less common something is, the more of a competitive advantage it becomes. I do believe that a good quarterback is necessary to win in this league, but being a necessity and being a competitive advantage are not the same thing.

You also make no attempt to account for era. The Offensive Renaissance -- passer ratings exploding -- has more to do with how much rules favor the offensive side of the ball. You can't tell me that Case Keenum's 2017 (98.3 passer rating) was better than Peyton Manning's 2000 (94.7 passer rating). The point being here that more lax offensive rules means it's easier to find a player that can succeed in those conditions, which means it's also easier for all of your competitors to do so as well.

Like the analysis MHH. Montana, he is clearly trying to parse out which is more likely to lead to success if you have to have one or the other. No one is saying that having both isn't ideal. It's not a perfect analysis, but it's a start and it's cool to see.

Also, as someone has mentioned in this thread, the Foles example is a bit misleading because Wentz was crucial to the Eagles earning that #1 seed and he had a passer rating of 101.9, which is great. I have a hard time believing that Eagles team gets to the SB without HFA. Also, I think Keenum's actually a good example of a sub-par QB not being enough to win. The Minny defense had an awful day in the championship game and Keenum did nothing to help them and arguably harmed them with his play. A HoF, franchise, elite, whatever you want to call it, QB would have stepped up there and at least given his team a chance. Look at the game prior. If not for the Minneapolis Miracle, Drew Brees brought his team back from a 17-0 deficit at halftime to take the lead over the Vikes in Minnesota with barely any time left on the clock. I don't see a Keenum-tier QB doing that if the roles are reversed.

Milehighhawk":30568zm6 said:

5_Golden_Rings":30568zm6 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