1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

On whether it's worthwhile to tank for a QB

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by DolphinGreg, Sep 10, 2019.

  1. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The issue is your claim that "If not for Manning, that team wouldn't have been very good at all under Dungy." I think you should say that "If not for Manning, the offense wouldn't have been very good under Dungy". THAT is a defensible statement. But the team in terms of win%?

    Dungy had Trent Dilfer of all people at QB for most of his tenure in Tampa and went to the playoffs 4 out of 6 years. That's pretty impressive if you ask me. IMO Dungy is in the top 20 among NFL coaches. He's not elite like Lombardi, Belichick or Shula or Walsh, but I think a lot of people would list him in the next 10 or so.

    So I think it's fair to say Dungy could put together a good defense but he needed Manning to make the offense great to win the SB.
     
  2. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,304
    6,370
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    Then you’ll lose every time. If I had to pick either Aaron Rodgers or a coach like Andy Reid, I’m picking Reid 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

    Football is a TEAM sport...11 guys who have to do their job precisely on each and every play in order to obtain the desired result, offensively or defensively.

    A quarterback can only play HIS position elite or otherwise. A head coach teaches, coaches, mentors and motivates his ENTIRE team to play at an elite level, if we’re referring to an elite coach.

    As to your previous remark about quarterbacks outlasting head coaches...let me quote Mr Myagi;

    No such thing bad student, only bad teacher. Teacher say, student do”
     
  3. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    3,742
    4,029
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    But in your very example where you cited Shula, Landry, Knoll and others you were hopping from one era to the next.

    The fact that most of your examples didn't come from the modern era of free-agency shows that the modern game is different. It has decreased the chance of a HC staying on for years and years. Guys like Shula don't exist anymore except in one case (NE).

    Who are today's long-tenured HCs?

    Marvin Lewis? Was he great? Certainly not!

    Sean Payton? He's long-tenured but then again, maybe he's just the Mike McCarthy of the south, IDK? Who's to say?

    Mike Tomlin? Again...is he even a great coach or is he just someone who the franchise hasn't yet fired?

    Yet in this same era, you have multiple elite QBs: Brady, Brees, Rivers, Manning, Roethlisberger, Rodgers as well as a slew of others who have played close to that or who are heading in that direction.

    In the modern era these elite QB's are proven to outlast their HCs. I just laid that out above. You're citing guys who were great before the modern game. Totally different.
     
  4. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You don't get it. There are no "different eras" when it comes to elite coaches because they're not firing you if you are an elite coach. I have no idea how that's changed for average coaches but you don't either so you shouldn't presume to know. But for elite coaches vs. elite QB's it IS true that elite HC's outlast elite QB's.

    Also.. the fact we don't know with some HC's today is evidence for what I'm saying. You can't say that Brees is going to end up starting 400 games (he's at 265 right now) because we know he'll age. Do you know how many seasons 400 games is? It's 25 seasons!! The only way I can provide evidence for what I'm saying is if I go back far enough to show you how long some of these elite HC's coached! As you point out, for QB's you don't even have to go back that far because they have inherent physical limitations.
     
  5. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    3,742
    4,029
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    I would wager that the average life-span of NFL coaches in the 70's was longer than it is today because of various factors and that there were fewer "quickies" who were fired within 2 years of being hired like we so-often see today. You seem to doubt that though.

    And if you're saying you would take an elite HC from the 70's to come and lead your modern team versus a modern elite QB like Rodgers I think you're also making a huge assumption that the qualities that made/make these guys great are always rewarded to the same degree across decades (or "eras").

    It sounds like you're saying that because Shula was an elite coach in the 70's, he'd automatically be a great candidate today. Is that what you truly believe?

    Lastly if you're defining "elite HC" merely as a guy that doesn't get fired then you have the problem of a guy like Marvin Lewis. I don't think he was particularly good at being a HC. Elite has to mean something different than "long-tenured."
     
  6. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Not saying I doubt it. Just saying I don't know. And since it's not "obvious" to me I'm not going to presume to know. I will however say that "average" is not a good statistic to use because the distribution is so skewed: "median" is better.

    Nope, never said nor implied that. A great coach in the past might not be a great coach today, just as with QB's. All I'm saying is that it's perfectly valid to "hop around eras" if the question specifically is which has greater longevity, an elite QB or an elite HC. For that specific question you can compare games started as if era doesn't matter because both will stay on as long as they want basically.

    Look at the coaches I listed as elite. All HoF coaches or soon to be. I'm defining "elite" based on perceived ability, not longevity. Why else would I list Walsh as elite when he only coached 152 games? Yet I'm including him.
     
  7. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    3,742
    4,029
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Okay, well there's our problem. Why are you not asking the question as it pertains to the current era of football?

    I mean, unless entropy reverses course, we're not interested in developing our notions of football to better fit the way the sport existed in the 70's and 80's.

    I figured it was a given that it's a question pertaining to the modern era. Would you rather have a Aaron Rodgers or Andy Reid was my original question. Heck, I'd take Rodgers best decade over Belichick in his prime unless I'm guaranteed a great QB like Brady along with him.

    I still think the QB directly solves one need while the HC at best indirectly helps the other. I'll take direct over indirect all day long.
     
  8. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,304
    6,370
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    Ok, calculate this...

    Don Shula offensive/defense scoring circa 1970’s vs the 1980’s. You’re going to find a wide disparity there.

    Great head coaches know how to adapt with the players they have. Shula’s forte in the 70’s was a STOUT defense and a yard wear them down running game that resulted in the Miami Dolphins being the first team to appear in 4 consecutive AFC Championships, 3 consecutive Super Bowls and to this date, the ONLY undefeated team in NFL history.

    Fast forward to 1983 and to everyone’s surprise, the Dolphins drafted a party animal from Pittsburgh named Dan Marino with what, the 23rd? 24? pick on the draft. When Shula pulled David Woodley midway through the 4th quarter with the Dolphins trailing 21-0 and Marino lit the field up, Shula knew he had to adapt his philosophy to what he had.

    Tony Dungy did the exact same thing when the Colts drafted Peyton Manning. He adapted to the players he had.

    To say some of the things you have said is pure nonsensical. By your mindset, teams don’t need a head coach. Just get an “elite” quarterback and there’s no need for a head coach.

    And as for your loose throwing around of the term “elite quarterbacks”, I calculate only 2 quarterbacks in the NFL that currently fall into that category. Others may play at an elite level at times, but there’s only 2.
     
  9. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah I think I've already tried explaining this enough times. For the specific question you asked, games started for elite coaches and elite QB's can be compared without adjustment across eras so it directly pertains to the modern era. If you don't understand why that's fine.

    And separately, the reason you want the elite HC over the elite QB IF you had to choose is because the HC influences all aspects of the team while the QB primarily influences the offense. Anyway.. time to move on as we're going in circles.
     
  10. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    9,562
    3,085
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin TX
    No way we tank two years in a row. We likely won't be barging into the playoffs, but we will make a number of draft picks and spend FA cash. It will be a big part of our foundation. We WILL get a QB unless the coaching staff decides to go all-in on Rosen or something crazy happens, like Rivers decides he hates LA or something weird. This is definitely a complete tear-down, and overall it's a multi-year plan, but the actual "trying to be bad" tanking by the FO is this year only. Has to be.
     
  11. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    9,562
    3,085
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin TX
    I think in a vacuum you would be right saying an elite coach would be better to have, but who fits that bill today? Take BB off the board and how many coaches would you take over, say, Mahomes right now?
     
  12. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    3,742
    4,029
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    So Dungy adjusted his philosophy when the Colts brought in Peyton Manning?

    Are you aware that Peyton Manning was drafted in 1998 and that Tony Dungy didn't become HC of the Colts until 2002?

    By the time Dungy showed up as HC of the Colts Peyton Manning had thrown for 16,418 yards and 111 TDs. Manning had already been to 2 Pro Bowls and was consistently generating a passer rating roughly 10 points above the league average.

    Manning was a commodity at that point. Dungy was hired so the team could build a defense and win a Championship (which he ultimately did given enough attempts at it).

    Sounds to me like you're putting the narrative in front of the facts...
     
  13. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,304
    6,370
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    I may have misspoke but my point remains...Dungy adapted with the players he had.

    Great coaches know this and know how to do it.
     
  14. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's a good question and that depends on by how much you think the influence of the HC is greater than the QB, but if we're looking at longer tenured coaches I'd take Andy Reid over Mahomes for sure. I mean as great as Mahomes is he didn't change win% that much from pre-Mahomes era. Reid went 11-5 and 12-4 and 10-6 from 2015-2017 (only one of those 10 wins was with Mahomes in 2017) while Mahomes went 12-4 in 2018. That's not a huge increase in win%.

    So Reid for sure. I'd theoretically take Pete Carroll too but he's really old now (68) so in practice no. Maybe only those two among longer tenured coaches since Payton has had Brees the whole time.

    But among younger coaches that I'd compare in value to Mahomes based on limited data I'd say Sean McVay and Doug Pederson. I think those guys are so early in their careers I'd go 50/50 with them vs. Mahomes but I think that's where I'd stand right now.
     
  15. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    3,742
    4,029
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    I totally agree. And as I said to cbrad, you need good coaching and good QB play.

    But to me (in the modern game) having an elite QB can open up a window that lasts for a decade or more. I'll take that all day over a great HC (which I can't even define TBH).

    What's a great HC other than a guy that wins a lot and of those who didn't have an elite QB, LOL? At least with QB we have passer rating.
     
  16. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,304
    6,370
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    I’m going to respond to this by asking this one simple question...

    Who is more valuable to the New England Patriots, Tom Brady or Bill Belichick?

    Think VERY carefully before you answer
     
  17. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    3,742
    4,029
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Here's another potential flaw. What about all the Pete Carolls that got fired because they didn't have those infamously great Seahawk drafts!?

    Are you saying that a great HC automatically guarantees that level of drafting!?

    Of course you can't be saying that because it's not true. Lots of potentially-great HC's were undermined by bad drafts. That's the problem with picking a HC. By taking the HC, you're assuming all these other critical things on the periphery all fall into place.

    Just take the freakin' QB and you know right there...BOOM...one box is checked. Building a defense takes a great coach along with great drafting along with an inventive scheme.

    But if I promise you a QB like Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning how is the offense not going to work? What coach's offense doesn't work with those guys at the helm? I would have to assume everyone's offense is going to look great with that kind of game-management.
     
  18. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    3,742
    4,029
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Tough question.

    I would wager that without Brady, Belichick would keep his teams around the 9- to 11-win mark most years. They wouldn't dominate the division but they're contend for a Play-off spot with solid defense.

    Brady is hard to figure as an "elite" QB because we've never really seen him on a "bad" team like we have with Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, etc. I have more faith that those guys can carry a team because I've seen it.

    Brady has had the advantage of being able to sit in the same offense his entire career, too. I'm not so sure what he'd be on another team. I suspect he's matured into something well beyond what the average guy could hope to be. He's certainly gotten the most out of his talent. His work ethic and competitive spirit is legendary, but how much of that is fueled by the the fact he tasted glory so early? What if he were drafted by a bottom-feeder and he struggled for the first 3-4 years of his career getting beaten around?

    So it's tough to say Brady if we're talking about him as a prospect. But if we're talking about Brady and his playbook circa 2007 and onward it'd be hard not to go that route.

    If you're asking me about present day, I don't know that it's relevant. Both are on the verge of retirement and probably can't win without the other.
     
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    629
    537
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    Tom Brady is making $15 million this year, and Bill Belichick is making $10 million. The New England Patriots are paying both of them, so apparently the New England Patriots think Tom Brady is more valuable.
     
  20. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,991
    7,715
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Ernie Adams! As long as he's collecting playbooks, spying with mini satellites and lip-reading from the broadcast booth, both the QB and the head coach will appear to be geniuses. I don't think you can name an MVP while he's inside the building.
     
  21. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think you have to look at HC and GM separately. You're right that some HC's that also had GM roles did one well but not the other. But if you just look at a person's ability as one or the other, then yes I do think their ability translates well to another team.

    And as with QB's it depends on who you're talking about. Rodgers, Marino and Peyton are probably the top 3 IMO that would be slam dunks no matter the team they are on, while guys like Brady and Montana not so much. I think that's true with coaches and GM's too.
     
  22. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    3,742
    4,029
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Good answer! :)
     
    The Guy likes this.
  23. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Belichick for sure, though I wish we had the opportunity to truly test this by seeing Brady retire. Both are great, but I think Brady without Belichick might win 1 SB while Belichick without Brady probably wins several.
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Salary isn't a good measure here because they're not in direct competition with each other salary-wise. You basically pay market prices and if you don't need to pay as much to retain the best coach in football right now then you don't.
     
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    629
    537
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    But don’t you think relative value is determined in part by the supply and demand dynamics you’re implying?
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    They're different dynamics because they're different pools of money due to the salary cap. Try a degenerate case to see why: suppose we have a salary cap (and for our purposes salary floor!) of $100 million to pay all starters on a team, and suppose in this game there is precisely 1 starter on each team. Then that one player gets a salary of $100 million while the coach gets whatever salary he gets.

    OK.. now increase the number of players to 2 on each team. Maybe you divvy it up $60 million to player 1 and $40 million to player 2, but the coach still gets the same that he got when there was only 1 player.

    You can see where this is going.. there are two different cost/benefit analysis going on: supply and demand governing the coach's salary vs. supply and demand and salary cap governing the players' salaries. So it's not really relative value because of the salary cap. That is.. if it was relative value, that relative value shouldn't change due to the number of players or salary cap.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and The Guy like this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    629
    537
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    But isn’t that an argument that the elite coach should be making more than the elite quarterback? The elite quarterback is getting squeezed to some degree by the salary cap, whereas the elite coach is not.
     
  28. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    As you can see in the previous example, either the salary cap could "squeeze" the QB's salary, or it could artificially inflate it. It all depends on how large the salary cap (and floor) is. A coach's salary would have to be included in the salary cap to make the case you were trying to make (assuming we ignore stuff like rookie salary issues).

    Your argument would work however for QB vs. DE vs. G for example, assuming you compared salaries post-FA and adjusted for salary cap inflation. In fact that's one way to show the QB is the most important position player.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    629
    537
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    What if we compared the z-score of the salary of the highest-paid quarterback in the league to the z-score of the salary of the highest-paid head coach in the league?
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,160
    8,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That would tell you how much more valuable the best coach is relative to the average coach, and also how much more valuable the best QB is relative to the average QB. Those will be two separate results though. The "z-score" doesn't a priori know what kind of phenomenon you're looking at or how different phenomena are related. You could also calculate the z-scores of mascot salaries and compare that to the z-scores for coaches and QB's but I think you can see it won't tell you how important the mascot is relative to either of them.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    629
    537
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    I’m thinking the mascot is pretty damned important.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and cbrad like this.
  32. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,304
    6,370
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    For me it’s not a tough question. It’s Belichick all the way. Most have discussed Belichick and Brady in the here and now. Hindsight has the wonderful gift of being 20/20, but predicting the future is anything but.

    Those who advocate quarterbacks over coach pound the anvil of tanking to get get the top spot in the draft, to get Tua or Luck or whom ever the latest star stud is. And while there have been some very talented players out there, history...especially modern history has shown these upper tiered first round picks haven’t panned out as teams had hoped.

    Tom Brady was not this upper level first round star studded sought after quarterback. If he was, he wouldn’t have been drafted in the 6th round at 199. I mean, think about the 2000 NFL Draft class of quarterbacks;

    Chad Pennington was the 1st drafted followed by
    Giovanni Carmazzi
    Chris Redmond
    Tee Martin
    Marc Bulger
    Spergon Wynn
    THEN Tom Brady

    Now granted, that wasn’t a QB class that stands out with the exception of Pennington but do you mean to tell me that Tom Brady was THAT great and every team in the NFL was that stupid that they passed up on this treasure?

    While taking nothing away from Brady’s talent...then not now it was coaching that created Brady and without Belichick, Tom Brady would not be
     
    freeperjim likes this.

Share This Page