Using Foles place amongst starting QB's to Project Rams Win Total--Wagoner

[RamBill]

Using Nick Foles' place amongst starting quarterbacks to project Rams' win totals
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...rting-quarterbacks-to-project-rams-win-totals

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- Earlier this summer, ESPN NFL Insider Mike Sando posted his now annual quarterback tiers story. In it, he revealed how personnel types around the league view the starting quarterbacks for all 32 teams.

It's a popular and good read in and of itself. But Sando took things a step further Tuesday by diving into the numbers to see how each team's quarterback's spot on the tiers list correlates to projecting win totals for 2015. He used last year's performance by the quarterbacks in their respective tiers to see how they fared against teams starting quarterbacks in other tiers. That study showed the biggest drop off from the second tier to the third.

According to Sando's work, St. Louis Rams quarterback Nick Foles gives the Rams a projected .428 winning percentage or 6.9 wins, which is 16th best in the NFL and falls right in line with Foles' spot in the third tier. He also notes that if Foles bumped into the second tier, the Rams would project to a total of 9.7 wins.

Clearly, it's a fine line between the tiers and opinions on quarterbacks including Foles will vary. But it's notable to use in the context of the Rams because there has been a lot of discussion about how having a healthy starting quarterback could improve the team's chances in 2015.

I.C.Y.M.I.

A roundup of Tuesday's Rams stories appearing on ESPN.com. ... In the Ram-blings, we started the day with a look at the Rams' fantasy options. ... Receiver Brian Quick moved closer to a return when Jeff Fisher announced he will be going full contact in practice this week. ... The Rams preseason offensive struggles aren't cause for panic but the outside concerns are understandable. ... FOX broadcaster Joe Buck ripped the recent actions of Rams owner Stan Kroenke on Twitter. ... The Rams hired sixth-round pick Bud Sasser to work with alumni and other community initiatives. ... Running back Todd Gurley participated in his first full practice as a Ram. ... Updating Quick, Fisher said after practice that he will play Saturday night against the Colts.

Elsewhere:

At Grantland, Bill Barnwell rounds up the injuries plaguing various NFL training camps.

ESPN fantasy expert Eric Karabell examines possible breakout running backs.

Seahawks defensive lineman Michael Bennett had some interesting things to say about quarterbacks and contracts.

At 101sports.com, Randy Karraker wonders whether Jeff Fisher can lead the Rams to a winning season.

At stltoday.com, Jim Thomas participated in his weekly chat.

 

[Stranger]

While it's far from rigid, our NFL front office and coach voters typically categorized the tiers as follows:

• Tier 1 quarterbacks can carry their teams week after week and contend for championships without as much help.
• Tier 2 QBs are less consistent and need more help, but good enough to figure prominently into a championship equation.
• Tier 3 are quarterbacks who are good enough to start but need lots of support, making it tougher to contend at the highest level.
• Tier 4 is typically reserved for unproven starters or those who might not be expected to last in the lineup all season. Voters used the fifth tier sparingly.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/insider/stor...iders-rank-32-starting-quarterbacks-tiers-nfl

 

[RamBill]

Foles on ESPN NFL Live: Rams are Going to Get the Best Me

St. Louis Rams QB Nick Foles joins ESPN’s NFL Live to talk about his assimilation into the Rams’ offense, the type of player he’s going to be in St. Louis, and the expectations of RB Todd Gurley and the team for the season.

Watch Foles on NFL Live

 

[Hey Man]

As I have said, we are a QB away from the Playoffs and Foles is a upgrade of our starting QBs over the past 3 years.

 

[PFaulk]

If there was some sort of accurate tool in which the sole input was QB value and your output was team win shares, I'm sorry, but the Bengals would not have been a playoff team the past four years in a row.

 

[Hey Man]

I don't know how Bradford became a better QB because he is with the Eagles now. He seems to be getting more attention with the media than Foles when last year Foles was the better QB even when they were both hurt. I don't get it? Is it because the Eagles are what they call a premier team ?

 

[FRO]

I don't know how Bradford became a better QB because he is with the Eagles now. He seems to be getting more attention with the media than Foles when last year Foles was the better QB even when they were both hurt. I don't get it? Is it because the Eagles are what they call a premier team ?

I would take a healthy Bradford over Foles myself, but it is funny that if the trade never happened that Bradford would be rated lower than Foles.

 

[PARAM]

I don't know the parameters for the rating system but I do know this:

Nick Foles ranks 10th in winning percentage among active QB's (15-9 .625)

Tom Brady 160-47-0 .773
Russell Wilson 36-12-0 .750
Peyton Manning 179-77-0 .699
Andrew Luck 33-15-0 .688
Aaron Rodgers 70-33-0 .680
Ben Roethlisberger 106-52-0 .671
Joe Flacco 72-40-0 .643
Colin Kaepernick 25-14-0 .641
Andy Dalton 40-23-1 .633
Nick Foles 15- 9-0 .625

Of course he also has the smallest sample size and that has to count for a lot.

A glance at the second ten would also suggest we've got to see more:

Philip Rivers 88-56-0 .611
Tony Romo 75-48-0 .610
Matt Ryan 66-44-0 .600
Brian Hoyer 10- 7-0 .588
Drew Stanton 7- 5-0 .583
Drew Brees 117-84-0 .582
Alex Smith 57-47-1 .548
Eli Manning 91-76-0 .545
Michael Vick 59-50-1 .541
Mark Sanchez 37-33-0 .529

 

[FRO]

I don't know the parameters for the rating system but I do know this:

Nick Foles ranks 10th in winning percentage among active QB's (15-9 .625)

Tom Brady 160-47-0 .773
Russell Wilson 36-12-0 .750
Peyton Manning 179-77-0 .699
Andrew Luck 33-15-0 .688
Aaron Rodgers 70-33-0 .680
Ben Roethlisberger 106-52-0 .671
Joe Flacco 72-40-0 .643
Colin Kaepernick 25-14-0 .641
Andy Dalton 40-23-1 .633
Nick Foles 15- 9-0 .625

Of course he also has the smallest sample size and that has to count for a lot.

A glance at the second ten would also suggest we've got to see more:

Philip Rivers 88-56-0 .611
Tony Romo 75-48-0 .610
Matt Ryan 66-44-0 .600
Brian Hoyer 10- 7-0 .588
Drew Stanton 7- 5-0 .583
Drew Brees 117-84-0 .582
Alex Smith 57-47-1 .548
Eli Manning 91-76-0 .545
Michael Vick 59-50-1 .541
Mark Sanchez 37-33-0 .529

Your post makes the argument against assigning team accomplishments like winning and losing to one player. There are zero teams that would take Kaepernick, Dalton, or Foles over Brees. Brees doesn't have the winning percentage those guys do, but he is the superior QB.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Tier 3 are quarterbacks who are good enough to start but need lots of support, making it tougher to contend at the highest level

Interesting rating....I believe ALL QB's need help, some more than others...but truly great teams typically have an excellent supporting cast that help/assist/ and are KEY to winning in the post season.

I don't know the parameters for the rating system but I do know this:

Nick Foles ranks 10th in winning percentage among active QB's (15-9 .625)

Tom Brady 160-47-0 .773
Russell Wilson 36-12-0 .750
Peyton Manning 179-77-0 .699
Andrew Luck 33-15-0 .688
Aaron Rodgers 70-33-0 .680
Ben Roethlisberger 106-52-0 .671
Joe Flacco 72-40-0 .643
Colin Kaepernick 25-14-0 .641
Andy Dalton 40-23-1 .633
Nick Foles 15- 9-0 .625

Of course he also has the smallest sample size and that has to count for a lot.

A glance at the second ten would also suggest we've got to see more:

Philip Rivers 88-56-0 .611
Tony Romo 75-48-0 .610
Matt Ryan 66-44-0 .600
Brian Hoyer 10- 7-0 .588
Drew Stanton 7- 5-0 .583
Drew Brees 117-84-0 .582
Alex Smith 57-47-1 .548
Eli Manning 91-76-0 .545
Michael Vick 59-50-1 .541
Mark Sanchez 37-33-0 .529

As my wise colleague @FRO astutely points out, there seems to be an underlying reason that the second 10 contains SEVERAL QB's that many would take above the first 10...Wonder what that could be...?

 

[FRO]

All QBs absolutely need help. Check out Brady's numbers recently with and without Gronk. Manning and Warner were two of the best QBs I've ever seen, both guys were constantly surrounded with top flight talent. I understand the need for great QB play. It gets on my nerves how people focus only on the QB though.

 

[RaminExile]

All QBs absolutely need help. Check out Brady's numbers recently with and without Gronk. Manning and Warner were two of the best QBs I've ever seen, both guys were constantly surrounded with top flight talent. I understand the need for great QB play. It gets on my nerves how people focus only on the QB though.

Absolutely. Otherwise they might as well just give out Superbowl rings only to the QB and not the rest of the winning team.

You can't win unless your quarterback is good (you can compete with competent - but to win consistently he has to be good - not great - just good). You are more likely to win the better he is and the better the rest of your team is. The better the rest of your team is, the less good your quarterback has to be (but there is a base-line of competence he must have). But you also can't win with an incredible all-world QB if his team is bad. See Eli Manning and Trent Dilfer, or, on the other hand as you say FRO - a Gronkless Brady.

We're supposed to have put enough positions into play now that we can win with a good, or very competent for this league QB. Nick Foles should be that guy. Austin Davis, Shaun Hill and Kellen Clemens weren't good enough - they were competent to varying degrees, but the rest of the team wasn't good enough around them for them to allow us to win consistently. Nick Foles is (or should be) better than them. That means if the rest of our team is as good as they were (and of course all our opponents are the same and we play the same schedule again this year - which of course we don't in the real world), we should get more wins than we did last year.

 

[PARAM]

You can't win unless your quarterback is good (you can compete with competent - but to win consistently he has to be good - not great - just good). You are more likely to win the better he is and the better the rest of your team is. The better the rest of your team is, the less good your quarterback has to be (but there is a base-line of competence he must have). But you also can't win with an incredible all-world QB if his team is bad. See Eli Manning and Trent Dilfer, or, on the other hand as you say FRO - a Gronkless Brady.

We're supposed to have put enough positions into play now that we can win with a good, or very competent for this league QB. Nick Foles should be that guy. Austin Davis, Shaun Hill and Kellen Clemens weren't good enough - they were competent to varying degrees, but the rest of the team wasn't good enough around them for them to allow us to win consistently. Nick Foles is (or should be) better than them. That means if the rest of our team is as good as they were (and of course all our opponents are the same and we play the same schedule again this year - which of course we don't in the real world), we should get more wins than we did last year.

Sounds about right. The better the team is, the easier for the QB. The better the QB is, the better the record will be for a good team. I guess this year the experiment may have a conclusion. Is Foles as good as he looked on a 10-6 Eagles team. Is Bradford as bad as he looked on a (pick any record of the last 5 years) Rams team? Or is it somewhere in between?

 

[FRO]

Absolutely. Otherwise they might as well just give out Superbowl rings only to the QB and not the rest of the winning team.

You can't win unless your quarterback is good (you can compete with competent - but to win consistently he has to be good - not great - just good). You are more likely to win the better he is and the better the rest of your team is. The better the rest of your team is, the less good your quarterback has to be (but there is a base-line of competence he must have). But you also can't win with an incredible all-world QB if his team is bad. See Eli Manning and Trent Dilfer, or, on the other hand as you say FRO - a Gronkless Brady.

We're supposed to have put enough positions into play now that we can win with a good, or very competent for this league QB. Nick Foles should be that guy. Austin Davis, Shaun Hill and Kellen Clemens weren't good enough - they were competent to varying degrees, but the rest of the team wasn't good enough around them for them to allow us to win consistently. Nick Foles is (or should be) better than them. That means if the rest of our team is as good as they were (and of course all our opponents are the same and we play the same schedule again this year - which of course we don't in the real world), we should get more wins than we did last year.

I think the question to be answered is the rest of our offense good enough to make up for not having a top flight QB? We have a bunch of solid players, but nobody who appears even close to being a probowl type player.

 

[HometownBoy]

All QBs absolutely need help. Check out Brady's numbers recently with and without Gronk. Manning and Warner were two of the best QBs I've ever seen, both guys were constantly surrounded with top flight talent. I understand the need for great QB play. It gets on my nerves how people focus only on the QB though.

Yeah, even Warner fell off when his talent did.

That O-line falling apart around him and letting him get destroyed was one of the catalysts of what drove him out of STL.

 

[ramsince62]

While it's far from rigid, our NFL front office and coach voters typically categorized the tiers as follows:

• Tier 1 quarterbacks can carry their teams week after week and contend for championships without as much help.
• Tier 2 QBs are less consistent and need more help, but good enough to figure prominently into a championship equation.
• Tier 3 are quarterbacks who are good enough to start but need lots of support, making it tougher to contend at the highest level.
• Tier 4 is typically reserved for unproven starters or those who might not be expected to last in the lineup all season. Voters used the fifth tier sparingly.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/insider/stor...iders-rank-32-starting-quarterbacks-tiers-nfl

Seems like a lot of effort for questionable results. Here try this, divide 32 by 3. The top 10 or 11 are tier 1, the next group of 10 or 11 are tier 2, the final bunch are tier 3. There problem solved.

That may appear overly simplified, but considering how it actually works out, it's reasonably close.

In case there's any confusion the Rams, their QB, their offense, mascot and water boy have all been at the top of tier 3 going on 3 years....wonder what a numerologist would say to that?

 

[Ballhawk]

Like many statistics these are totally worthless. The only way to actually compare QBs would be for them all to play with the same team. And that wouldn't be totally accurate as many Qbs are only good in certain schemes.

You can get closer by comparing QBs that have played for multiple teams and still did well. Like Warner and Manning.