That would be a passer rating of at least 96, which in 2018 values would've been the top 13 QBs in the league, rounding up on the 13th QB's 95.5 passer rating.
So really, I'll meet closer to the middle with your top 6 and say minimum, I want a top 10 guy. That should give us the ability to at least some years be in serious contention while fighting for playoff spots almost every season. Again I'm speaking minimum here, I want the next Peyton but hey.
OK, so keep in mind that in the playoffs over the last five years, the correlation between margin and victory and passer rating differential is 0.73, so one of the main things that makes teams win in the regular season (passer rating differential) is one of the same things that makes them win in the playoffs. So the worse your quarterback is, the better your pass defense will need to be, and vice-versa. If you don't have one of the elite QBs in the league, you'd better focus on pass defense and on being able to stop the elite QBs you'll likely be facing in the playoffs, the guys your non-elite QB likely won't be able to outduel with his own ability. You need to be able to either beat the opposing QB with your own, or stop the opposing QB with your pass defense while having your own QB not lose the game.
Right, I agree with building the best possible pass defense regardless of who is at QB moving forward. Also I'm talking about a guy who can put up top 10 numbers with a very average cast, so hopefully we would also have a true dominant WR or TE to help that QB out in time. That would (hopefully) allow said top ten QB to have years where he is in that elite group.
Again...passer rating is NOT causing teams to win. Successful plays, RESULTING IN a good passer rating, causes teams to win. Again, passer rating AND wins are both results. Agree with your points about defense.
This is again like saying "the temperature of my house isn't causing me to be hot -- it's the heat inside of my house causing me to be hot." Temperature measures heat. Passer rating measures plays. Again this is a distinction without a difference. Also, passer rating doesn't just measure successful plays -- it measures unsuccessful plays as well. This is a big part of why it does such a great job of being correlated with winning (and losing).
I 100% get where you are both coming from. I do believe passer rating is a team metric, yet at the same time he is right that a lot of it comes down to individual play as well. That is actually why I like TheGuy because he seems to at least acknowledge there is some crossover between passer rating, team play and individual play. I just believe hes in the camp that it's mainly individual play with some surrounding sprinkled on top but not swaying the overall analysis. He can correct me if I'm wrong on that. Anyway I see both sides. I love his analysis but I always try and add in my own take of what is happening on the field as well.
