CAA Today: Are QBs the Determining Factor?

[CSN-info]

CAA Today: Are QBs the Determining Factor?
Bruce Dowd, CSN columnist

The importance of the quarterback in today’s game has risen to such a high level, that it is almost impossible to be a top team, especially a championship team, without a great athlete at the quarterback position.
READ MORE... http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86922

[putter]

If you follow Montana this article rings very true..

[Retro]

I think a returning experienced QB is the difference maker for most teams with all other things being equal.. Over the last few years i've noticed that to be the difference at the top level of FCS..
Here in the SLC, last year was really weak and i believe most of that was due to most teams having new QB's starting.. I expect the SLC to be stronger because of that issue this season especially for teams with a lot of returning starters.

[McTailGator]

CAA Today: Are QBs the Determining Factor?
Bruce Dowd, CSN columnist

The importance of the quarterback in today’s game has risen to such a high level, that it is almost impossible to be a top team, especially a championship team, without a great athlete at the quarterback position.
READ MORE... http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86922


I think a QB that doesn't LOSE a game for you is adequate enough as long as you have the defense to stop a good offense.

Offense sales tickets, Defense WINS championships.

[Grizalltheway]

I think a QB that doesn't LOSE a game for you is adequate enough as long as you have the defense to stop a good offense.

Offense sales tickets, Defense WINS championships.

Last season we had one of the best, if not the best defense in the country. Throughout the regular season, and the first two games of the playoffs, it was enough to overcome our inadequacy at the QB position. Against UMass however, it was not. Very similar to what the Chicago Bears faced last season. xnodx

[fuEMO]

I did a little digging into that question Furman. And did a post on my blog. Sorry it's a little long winded.

How important is the quarterback position at Furman

No one could ever accuse me of being a statistician. In my professional field I typically run from numbers for budgets, ROI, customer retention, etc… But every now and then I look into numbers in my ADD way to see if I can find commonalities. Matt Melton does a lot of this on his sportsblog “statistically speaking.” http://leftyloon.blogspot.com/

A couple of his posts got me thinking, in particular the posts on how big of a role does a returning experienced quarterback play in college football. Matt digs deep in this stuff, so I suggest reading his posts to get a deeper understanding of his numbers. Matt considers a returning experienced quarterback as one who has threw at least 100 passes the preceding season. He also concludes that the experienced quarterback has to throw at least 100 passes in the current season.

In 2006, 63 I-A teams returned an experienced quarterback. These teams posted a winning average of (.525) in 2005. When their experienced quarterbacks returned in 2006, their combined records jumped to a (.582) percentage. A 7 percentage point jump in winning percentage.

Teams who lost their quarterbacks after 2005 had a collective record percentage of (.525) in 2005. When they lost their quarterbacks, they regressed to a combined (.451) in 2006. That’s a decrease of 7.4 percentage points.

Matt adds more fuel to the fire that returning your quarterback is very important. Matt says: Random fluctuation is common in sports, so there is not a great deal of difference in a team going 7-5 one season and 6-6 the next, at least in the quality of play. However, for teams that return an experienced quarterback, there is a very good chance they will improve by at least two games. 23 of the 63 teams (36.5%) improved by at least two games in 2006. To be fair, nearly a fourth, 14 of the 63 teams (22.2%) regressed by more than 1 game (at least one and a half games). Since schedule length varies in college football with conference title games, bowl games, and the 'extra' Hawaii games, an example for a one and a half game difference would be going 8-4 one year and 7-6 the next (1 in the win column and 2 in the loss column).

For teams that had to start over at the quarterback position, only 9 of 56 (16%) improved by more than two games in 2006. Plus a whopping 25 of the 56 teams (44.6%), or more than double the percentage for teams that returned an experienced quarterback, declined by more than 1 game.

So what happens when you run the numbers on Furman. I looked at the numbers from 1995 to 2006 Seasons. 12 seasons of football might not be a good indicator of the future but it does show some patterns. First I threw out 2006 to use as a comparison to previous seasons.

Furman is 61-26 (.701) with an experienced quarterback, 36-10 (.782) in the Southern Conference. Without an experienced quarterback Furman was 36-23 (.610) and 23-16 (.589) in conference play. I’ve included conference play because not every year Furman played an IA team.

In 12 seasons of play Furman has made the playoffs every season that a returning experienced quarterback has played that’s 6 out of 11 seasons (I’m counting Ingle Martin’s 2004 season).

What is really interesting is the role of the Furman quarterback system of redshirting, being a backup, and then becoming a starter usually as a junior. Bonaventure, Hill, Napier, and now Gray fall in this category. This system has created a model of consistency of winning that not many teams in IA or IAA can match.

In 2001 Napier was an experienced backup but he does not fit the 100 pass criteria. Napier led Furman into the championship game, but Billy got a lot of help from an experienced offense and defense. The other Paladin seasons without an experienced quarterback led to seasons of 6-5, 7-4, 5-6, 6-5.

So what does this mean? In 2006 Furman without an experienced quarterback finished 8-4 (.666) and 6-1 (.857) by my estimation that’s about 2 games better than past seasons. And that’s without a lot of seniors or returning experience on the lines. For 2007 Furman has the luxury of 2 experienced quarterbacks. Renaldo Gray 95/168 1184 y and Jordan Sorrells 69/117 851y. This experience at quarterback should be worth at least a ½ game in the win column. With an experience defense and more experienced depth on offense 2007 should be an interesting season for the Paladins. I also can’t help but dream of all the possibilities of 2009.

http://purpleaxe.typepad.com/

[patssle]

QBs have proven their importance in the SLC the last 4 of 6 years in the SLC. 2001 with McCown, 2004 with Long, 2005 with Kneely, and 2006 with the inexperienced QBs in the league. 2007 and 2008 will certainly add to the mix with Bomar, George, and Southall.

[terrierbob]

[QUOTE=McTailGator;624446]I think a QB that doesn't LOSE a game for you is adequate enough as long as you have the defense to stop a good offense.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Like Grossman and da Bearz

[terrierbob]

"Matt considers a returning experienced quarterback as one who has threw at least 100 passes the preceding season. He also concludes that the experienced quarterback has to throw at least 100 passes in the current season.'

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I guess the Terriers will never have an experienced QB.
xrolleyesx

[pete4256]

I suppose GSU returns two experienced QBs, then. Add two wins for each of them, and we go 7-4 this year. I'll check back in 3 months.

[PapaBear]

I think a QB that doesn't LOSE a game for you is adequate enough as long as you have the defense to stop a good offense.

Offense sales tickets, Defense WINS championships.

Unless your defense outscores your offense, that statement falls into the "sounds nice but doesn't hold water" category.

Better: Defense prevents losses. Offense wins games AND championships.

Maine fans would cite last year's team as proof.

Best defense in the country, by any measure.

6-5 finish and a nice seat in front of the TV watching the playoffs.

[McNeese_beat]

Unless your defense outscores your offense, that statement falls into the "sounds nice but doesn't hold water" category.

Better: Defense prevents losses. Offense wins games AND championships.

Maine fans would cite last year's team as proof.

Best defense in the country, by any measure.

6-5 finish and a nice seat in front of the TV watching the playoffs.

I think the prevailing cliche, is offense wins games, defense wins championships. I think the saying should be a good offense plus a good defense equals a good team. Ha.

[FCSFAN]

I don't like offensive shootouts

defense needs to be able to stop the opposition every once in a while and the offense has to be able to put up points = championships

[McTailGator]

[QUOTE=McTailGator;624446]I think a QB that doesn't LOSE a game for you is adequate enough as long as you have the defense to stop a good offense.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Like Grossman and da Bearz


I think you would have to agree that Drew Breez was 10 times the QB that Grossman was.

But Drew just could not overcome the Bears Defense.

Grossman did not do anything stupid and certainly did not loose the NFC championship for them.

And had the Colts Defense not showed up in time for the playoffs, Manning would have been sitting at home for the Superbowl.

DEFENSE

[McTailGator]

Unless your defense outscores your offense, that statement falls into the "sounds nice but doesn't hold water" category.

Better: Defense prevents losses. Offense wins games AND championships.

Maine fans would cite last year's team as proof.

Best defense in the country, by any measure.

6-5 finish and a nice seat in front of the TV watching the playoffs.

A defense that prevents the other team from scoring and continues to get the ball back for a "DECENT" offense will no doubt win the game.

As long as the QB does not LOSE the game, the defense can indeed control the outcome.

[PapaBear]

I played a defensive position in college and I now coach both offensive and defensive positions in high school. I'm continually amazed at the number of people laboring under the misconception that a defense can win a game.

I mean, sure, there's the occasional fumble recovery in the end zone or the INT returned for 6. But by and large, a defense's main roles are to prevent the other team from scoring. and to put its own offense in a position to win the game -- much like the kicking game does. (How come no one argues that Punters win games?)

If the offense isn't good -- and I mean good enough to punch one in even when the game is on the line and the other team's defense is pinning its ears back -- then the defense can be superhuman and the team still isn't going to win.

Rarely have I ever heard an actual player or coach adopt the "defense wins game/championships" philsophy. It's usually a fan with minimal playing and/or coaching experience -- or the parent of a defensive player. I mean no disrespect when I say that. Just telling you the sum of my experience.

Again, if defense is so predominant, explain Maine's 2006 record, despite having the best defense in the country.

Go ahead. I got time.

[DaGriz]

[QUOTE=terrierbob;624573]


I think you would have to agree that Drew Breez was 10 times the QB that Grossman was.

But Drew just could not overcome the Bears Defense.

Grossman did not do anything stupid and certainly did not loose the NFC championship for them.

And had the Colts Defense not showed up in time for the playoffs, Manning would have been sitting at home for the Superbowl.

DEFENSE

I don't think we can compare college QB's and pro QB's in this discussion. On a pro team every body is a difference maker. An inedaquate QB in the pro's can get by and still win with other things in place, i.e. a good defense. In college, the QB is what makes the world go around. If Oklahoma had Bomar they would be a national contender this year. USC's title hopes rest on Booty. What would Utah have been without Alex Smith? In college football it starts with the QB in my opinion, then if you can get one more outstanding piece of the puzzle, like a killer defense or stud running back or stud WR, then you can win a championship.

[Old Montana State Grad]

Well, if Jack's bloodlines are true, here's to another Butte/Anaconda kid leading the Cats to a title:

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2007/08/26/sports/000papich.txt

We'll probably find he's related to Paul.

[Kill'em]

I don't like offensive shootouts

defense needs to be able to stop the opposition every once in a while and the offense has to be able to put up points = championships

The Georgia Southern 1998 team will prove you right.