Trent Edwards

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

Our OC was a quarterback and our QB coach was a back-up QB known mostly for his ability to help out other QBs. We don't need our back-up QB to help Trent much with what he is seeing on the field. Fitz is the kind of back-up QB you can rely on to play a half a game, not a half a season. Garcia and Leftwich are the half a season kind of back-ups. We don't have one of them. If Trent goes down for any length of time, we are pretty much screwed.

 

Which for the record is why we can't put 2 rookies protecting his blind side...

[Guest dog14787]

I'm not saying a good/great QB doesn't make a HUGE difference to the fortune of his team, not at all. And, yes there are those who judge QBs by wins, or rings, or QB rating, or passing yardage...etc.

 

My point is, it's a team game, QBs are not, and should not be, personally assigned Wins or Losses. Judging a QB based solely on the success (or lack thereof) of his team, is usually foolish...maybe more foolish than relying only on his QB rating (often pretty foolish, too, IMO).

 

It's complicated...sorry. I refuse to try to force a poor categorization on a situation, simply because it is common, or easy.

 

 

I understand what your saying, the game itself is a team sport and doesn't give wins and losses to any specific player but the way the win/loss record of the team reflects on the QB, its basically the same thing in my opinion.

 

Seems to me like a win/loss stat would only help evaluate the QB a little better much like a pitcher in baseball.

[Leonidas]

I understand what your saying, the game itself is a team sport and doesn't give wins and losses to any specific player but the way the win/loss record of the team reflects on the QB, its basically the same thing in my opinion.

 

Seems to me like a win/loss stat would only help evaluate the QB a little better much like a pitcher in baseball.

 

That's the joke - W/L records for a pitcher is terrible in baseball. Hence the John Kruk joke. ERA is where it's at. W/L's depend on the batters' performances; ERA does not.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I understand what your saying, the game itself is a team sport and doesn't give wins and losses to any specific player but the way the win/loss record of the team reflects on the QB, its basically the same thing in my opinion.

 

Seems to me like a win/loss stat would only help evaluate the QB a little better much like a pitcher in baseball.

Actually, baseball people look at the pitcher's ERA, ERA+, APR, and a dozen other stats to evaluate a pitcher's effectiveness. The winning percentage is a nice simplistic stat, but its understood to be a function of the team overall and as such is a very broad brush. Not entirely meaningless, but certainly not the Holy Grail of statistical measurements for direct comparison. Baseball people would laugh off an argument based on a single winning percentage stat, used with 0 other evidence, as the sole basis for claiming one pitcher to be better than another.

[Alphadawg7]

You are suggesting Edwards was the ONLY reason Stanford sucked? Seriously?

 

Not at all Dean...the post I replied to stated that the only reason Edwards was not a first round pick was because he went to Stanford...I replied saying the only reason Trent was not a first round pick was because he didnt win a game his senior year and was injury prone all through college...

[Alphadawg7]

You are one stupid son of a B word. Ever actually watch TE's Stanford team? I didn't think so. But if you had, you would realize he had all of about 2.3 seconds per play to get rid of the ball before he was hit, in the pond water PAC-10. Dan Marino couldn't have won at Stanford. Just keep your ignorant yap quiet already.

 

Your an idiot...I didnt say Stanford sucked because of Trent...why dont you read my post and the post I replied to before you open your mouth and insert foot...

 

The poster blamed Stanford for the reason he wasnt drafted in the first round (which is absurd)...the MAJOR reason he was drafted in the 3rd round was his injury history, his draft slot had NOTHING to do with what school he went to!

 

IN FACT, going to Stanford HELPED his draft slot as he was under the watchful eye of Bill Walsh, and after Walsh's ringing endorsement his draft stock went up from a mid to low round pick to possible first day pick!

 

Learn to read...

[The Dean]

Your an idiot...I didnt say Stanford sucked because of Trent...why dont you read my post and the post I replied to before you open your mouth and insert foot...

 

The poster blamed Stanford for the reason he wasnt drafted in the first round (which is absurd)...the MAJOR reason he was drafted in the 3rd round was his injury history, his draft slot had NOTHING to do with what school he went to!

 

 

Here's where you are missing the boat, IMO. The Stanford team he was a part of SUCKED. He was, by far, the best thing about that team. The offensive line at Stanford was horrendous, and Trent regularly took a merciless beating. He injuries had almost everything to do with that offensive line. (In a way, it might have been a blessing, as he came to the Bills prepared to deal with a bad offensive line. He had to learn to get rid of the ball very quickly.)

 

He was a very highly recruited QB coming out of high school. I don't know what schools he turned down, but I find it hard to believe Stanford had the best football program of the schools at his disposal.

 

I think what others are saying is, if Trent had opted to go to a football factory, instead of a great school, he would have likely been involved with a much better program, and would have had been involved in many more wins, and probably taken fewer hits...hence might not be saddled with the "injury prone" label coming out of college.

 

Nobody knows if that is true, of course, because he choose to go to Stanford. But let's not pretend that the school doesn't matter in the NFL draft, that the quality of the rest of the team isn't important in wins and losses and that a terrible offensive line can be a dangerous thing for a QB's health.

 

EDIT:

 

He was recruited by Michigan, Florida, Notre Dame and Tennessee, but ultimately chose Stanford

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Edwards

[Hanoverbills]

I guess you must have blocked out the Losman era.

Losman only got to play one full year and he started off slow that year, but looked good at the end of year. Than the following year we started off with two losts in a row and than gets hurt and looses his job to Edwards and after that every time he got a chance to start and we loose two games in a row he was benched. He did suck last year and I do understand why he is not here anymore. But so did Holcomb when he was here ,he get benched after two bad games in a row. Look at Edwards last year .Started off good than stank it up the rest of the year, didn't have to worry about loosing his job. And the teams we beat when he started all had lousy records. He should look good againts them.

[Orton's Arm]

A QB's win loss record is a reasonable factor (not the sole determinant) in evaluating his play. If you don't think there is a correlation between the player who touches the ball the most and the ultimate outcome of the game, you are kidding yourself.

I disagree. Teams have win/loss records--individual players do not. I remember a stretch when the Ravens went 15-1 with Trent Dilfer as their starter--and that 15th win was in the Super Bowl. Does that mean that Trent Dilfer produced one of the finest 16 game stretches of QB play in NFL history?

 

If quarterbacks have individual win/loss records, why not defensive ends? Or left offensive tackles? Or wide receivers? Good play from any of those positions is correlated with winning football games.

 

Some might answer this question by arguing that a quarterback has more influence on the outcome of the game than a player at any other position. But is he really that much more influential? They're paying top-tier left tackles over $10 million a season these days. They wouldn't be doing that unless it was felt the left tackles were influencing the outcome of games--by a lot!

 

To what extent do quarterbacks influence the outcomes of games? Probably the best way to figure that out is to total up the amount of money quarterbacks throughout the league are being paid, and divide that by the total NFL payroll. If quarterbacks were making half the total amount earned by NFL players, for example, it would stand to reason that general managers collectively felt they were responsible for about half the variation in win/loss records. But a more realistic percentage of quarterback pay to total pay is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% or 15%. (I don't care enough about this subject to find exact numbers.) But whatever that percentage is, it's got to be a modest fraction of the whole.

 

If quarterbacks, on average, are only getting 10% or 15% or (whatever the percentage may be) of the total NFL payroll, it stands to reason they are only responsible for about 10 - 15% of the variation in teams' win/loss records. This means that when you assign a quarterback a win/loss record, mostly you're crediting or blaming him for the results of random chance. The quarterback of the 2000 Ravens is going to look amazing in any win/loss record keeping system; whereas the quarterback of the '80s Broncos might not.

[The Dean]

I disagree. Teams have win/loss records--individual players do not. I remember a stretch when the Ravens went 15-1 with Trent Dilfer as their starter--and that 15th win was in the Super Bowl. Does that mean that Trent Dilfer produced one of the finest 16 game stretches of QB play in NFL history?

 

If quarterbacks have individual win/loss records, why not defensive ends? Or left offensive tackles? Or wide receivers? Good play from any of those positions is correlated with winning football games.

 

Some might answer this question by arguing that a quarterback has more influence on the outcome of the game than a player at any other position. But is he really that much more influential? They're paying top-tier left tackles over $10 million a season these days. They wouldn't be doing that unless it was felt the left tackles were influencing the outcome of games--by a lot!

 

To what extent do quarterbacks influence the outcomes of games? Probably the best way to figure that out is to total up the amount of money quarterbacks throughout the league are being paid, and divide that by the total NFL payroll. If quarterbacks were making half the total amount earned by NFL players, for example, it would stand to reason that general managers collectively felt they were responsible for about half the variation in win/loss records. But a more realistic percentage of quarterback pay to total pay is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% or 15%. (I don't care enough about this subject to find exact numbers.) But whatever that percentage is, it's got to be a modest fraction of the whole.

If quarterbacks, on average, are only getting 10% or 15% or (whatever the percentage may be) of the total NFL payroll, it stands to reason they are only responsible for about 10 - 15% of the variation in teams' win/loss records. This means that when you assign a quarterback a win/loss record, mostly you're crediting or blaming him for the results of random chance. The quarterback of the 2000 Ravens is going to look amazing in any win/loss record keeping system; whereas the quarterback of the '80s Broncos might not.

 

While I agree with your overall point, calculating the contribution of QBs to the percentage of salary they are paid, involves leaps of logic, and assumptions, that I would hesitate to make. If you are dead set on trying to come up with a formula, I suggest you stick to actual contributions on the field and leave the complicating factor of GMs and salary aside.

 

You might want to start with the % of plays a QB plays an active role in, compared to other players. Touching the ball (handing off) may have some worth, but obviously it isn't the same as when the QB passes the ball. While I think this kind of analysis is for people with too much time on their hands, and a lack of feel for the game, sticking to actual play is a far better way to address this problem, if you are so inclined.

[Guest dog14787]

I disagree. Teams have win/loss records--individual players do not. I remember a stretch when the Ravens went 15-1 with Trent Dilfer as their starter--and that 15th win was in the Super Bowl. Does that mean that Trent Dilfer produced one of the finest 16 game stretches of QB play in NFL history?

 

If quarterbacks have individual win/loss records, why not defensive ends? Or left offensive tackles? Or wide receivers? Good play from any of those positions is correlated with winning football games.

 

Some might answer this question by arguing that a quarterback has more influence on the outcome of the game than a player at any other position. But is he really that much more influential? They're paying top-tier left tackles over $10 million a season these days. They wouldn't be doing that unless it was felt the left tackles were influencing the outcome of games--by a lot!

 

To what extent do quarterbacks influence the outcomes of games? Probably the best way to figure that out is to total up the amount of money quarterbacks throughout the league are being paid, and divide that by the total NFL payroll. If quarterbacks were making half the total amount earned by NFL players, for example, it would stand to reason that general managers collectively felt they were responsible for about half the variation in win/loss records. But a more realistic percentage of quarterback pay to total pay is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% or 15%. (I don't care enough about this subject to find exact numbers.) But whatever that percentage is, it's got to be a modest fraction of the whole.

 

If quarterbacks, on average, are only getting 10% or 15% or (whatever the percentage may be) of the total NFL payroll, it stands to reason they are only responsible for about 10 - 15% of the variation in teams' win/loss records. This means that when you assign a quarterback a win/loss record, mostly you're crediting or blaming him for the results of random chance. The quarterback of the 2000 Ravens is going to look amazing in any win/loss record keeping system; whereas the quarterback of the '80s Broncos might not.

 

 

The defensive end, offensive tackle and WR's you speak of don't get judged for how poor their perspective teams win loss record is when the next contract negotiations come up, the QB does, in fact his job may depend on it.

 

As I previously posted since it is a determining factor in how the QB gets evaluated , why not stick the stat next to his name because the connection is going to be made anyway. Just for debate here on TSW what do we do? we have to count the wins up so we can say, well , he has won more than he's lost, he's a winning QB.

 

There is no argument from me that football is a team sport or that the Ravens had a good defense once upon a time.

[Orton's Arm]

While I agree with your overall point, calculating the contribution of QBs to the percentage of salary they are paid, involves leaps of logic, and assumptions, that I would hesitate to make.

 

How about this: I'll spell out the assumptions I've made, and then you tell me where we agree and where we disagree.

 

Assumptions:

1. General managers are, on average, highly competent judges of football players and their relative contributions to teams.

2. No team has unlimited resources, due to the salary cap and other spending constraints. By witnessing how teams allocate their scare resources, we can determine which positions general managers most value.

3. Suppose that players at a given position are, on average, being underpaid relative to the impact they are having on football games. Presumably, general managers are smart enough to notice this. Once they figure this out, they'll become willing to spend more money on that position, in order to outbid other general managers while getting good value for their money. This will tend to drive up the average salary at that position.

4. Because of 1-3, the percentage of player salary devoted to a specific position represents a rough consensus of general managers about the relative worth of that position. The picture can be a bit grainy; but it nevertheless represents a fairly good approximation of how general managers have prioritized their spending, and hence, which positions they most value.

 

If you are dead set on trying to come up with a formula, I suggest you stick to actual contributions on the field and leave the complicating factor of GMs and salary aside.

The method I've described is just one way of looking at which positions general managers tend to value most highly. It's not intended to take the place of watching individual players' contributions on the field. In fact, watching those contributions is the best way of seeing where there might be flaws with the general managers' consensus. I've seen one or two articles contending that certain positions are underpaid, relative to the contributions players at those positions make on the field.

 

You might want to start with the % of plays a QB plays an active role in, compared to other players. Touching the ball (handing off) may have some worth, but obviously it isn't the same as when the QB passes the ball. While I think this kind of analysis is for people with too much time on their hands, and a lack of feel for the game, sticking to actual play is a far better way to address this problem, if you are so inclined.

Your suggestion would be a place to start. But I think we'd both agree that there's more to the story than that method would imply. For example, let's say that you're comparing two WRs with the exact same stats. But one of those guys put up those numbers while being consistently double covered; while the other guy has spent his career playing across from Jerry Rice. Even though--statistically--the two WRs seem identical, the fact is that the guy who produces despite being double covered should expect to earn more. The (expected) difference in salary represents the fact that general managers have thoroughly evaluated these guys' play, and have concluded that a guy who produces in double coverage has more value to his team than a guy who does not.

 

Of course, this method is far from perfect when used on individual players, because we're all aware of individual players who are wildly overpaid or underpaid based on their on-field performance. But when you take the average of salaries across all the players at a given position, you can get a sense of the extent to which general managers feel that the specific position is contributing to the overall result of football games.

[Sisyphean Bills]

There was a GM on NFL Radio not too long ago that basically put it that LTs are more valuable than QBs in the NFL. My take of what he was saying was that there are so few truly great QBs in the game, that it made more sense to him to pay and keep an elite LT and try to keep your slightly above average QB in one piece. Constantly chasing the next superstar QB is a recipe to a struggling franchise as it tilts at windmills. It has been shown that great teams win Super Bowls and their QBs can be high draft picks, low draft picks, guys from NFL Europe, Arena League, free agents, or whatever that just complete the overall mosaic.

[The Dean]

How about this: I'll spell out the assumptions I've made, and then you tell me where we agree and where we disagree.

 

Assumptions:

1. General managers are, on average, highly competent judges of football players and their relative contributions to teams.

2. No team has unlimited resources, due to the salary cap and other spending constraints. By witnessing how teams allocate their scare resources, we can determine which positions general managers most value.

3. Suppose that players at a given position are, on average, being underpaid relative to the impact they are having on football games. Presumably, general managers are smart enough to notice this. Once they figure this out, they'll become willing to spend more money on that position, in order to outbid other general managers while getting good value for their money. This will tend to drive up the average salary at that position.

4. Because of 1-3, the percentage of player salary devoted to a specific position represents a rough consensus of general managers about the relative worth of that position. The picture can be a bit grainy; but it nevertheless represents a fairly good approximation of how general managers have prioritized their spending, and hence, which positions they most value.

 

 

Pretty bad assumptions to use in this kind of statistical analysis, IMO, but #2 is the real problem. Players aren't paid relative to their contribution to the team. They are paid, to a large degree: due to circumstance, the availability of a replacement on the team or in the draft, the recent contracts signed by other players at their positions on other teams, etc.

 

Few things are ever equally distributed (in a social analysis) and all other things are almost equal.

 

Yes, the analysis using on field stats has issues, too. I would advise not using an analysis like this, at all, in this issue.

[C.Biscuit97]

There was a GM on NFL Radio not too long ago that basically put it that LTs are more valuable than QBs in the NFL. My take of what he was saying was that there are so few truly great QBs in the game, that it made more sense to him to pay and keep an elite LT and try to keep your slightly above average QB in one piece. Constantly chasing the next superstar QB is a recipe to a struggling franchise as it tilts at windmills. It has been shown that great teams win Super Bowls and their QBs can be high draft picks, low draft picks, guys from NFL Europe, Arena League, free agents, or whatever that just complete the overall mosaic.

 

I guess a great point for this could be made by looking at Miami. A 1-15 team made the playoffs by drafting a LT and Chad "Freaking" Pennington.

[Guest dog14787]

I guess a great point for this could be made by looking at Miami. A 1-15 team made the playoffs by drafting a LT and Chad "Freaking" Pennington.

 

 

I hate that point

[Orton's Arm]

Pretty bad assumptions to use in this kind of statistical analysis, IMO, but #2 is the real problem. Players aren't paid relative to their contribution to the team. They are paid, to a large degree: due to circumstance, the availability of a replacement on the team or in the draft, the recent contracts signed by other players at their positions on other teams, etc.

I should have been more specific when I wrote that players are paid relative to their contribution to their team. Some of it's due to their expected contribution in an absolute sense, and some is due to how much a given player is expected to help the team above and beyond however much a relatively low priced free agent might have helped.

 

If a team has a replacement player in mind, they're usually not going to be willing to pay top dollar for a particular player. Which can often result in that player leaving via free agency, and receiving top dollar from some other team.

 

The recently signed contracts you mentioned are a result of other teams' general managers deciding how highly they value specific positions. Teams pay $10 million a year to LTs but not to kickers because LT is the more highly valued of the two positions. And if some oddball team--such as the Raiders--did decide to pay its kicker $10 million a year, it's very unlikely other teams would follow suit. Ultimately, if a team decides a specific player is priced too highly based on his position and his likely contribution to the team, that team will walk away from the bidding war.

Few things are ever equally distributed (in a social analysis) and all other things are almost equal.

 

Yes, the analysis using on field stats has issues, too. I would advise not using an analysis like this, at all, in this issue.

This analysis is probably as good a tool as any at quantifying which positions general managers prioritize, and to what extent. The analysis is, as I mentioned earlier, grainy. If quarterbacks are getting (for example) 10% of the total payroll, it does not mean that general managers, on average, believe quarterbacks are responsible for exactly 10% of the total variation in teams' win/loss records. But it does mean that general managers are not collectively convinced that quarterbacks are responsible for, say, 30 or 40% of their teams' win/loss records. If general managers believed that, they would have bid quarterbacks' salaries up a lot higher, while reducing spending at other positions.

[DC Tom]

Pretty bad assumptions to use in this kind of statistical analysis, IMO, but #2 is the real problem. Players aren't paid relative to their contribution to the team. They are paid, to a large degree: due to circumstance, the availability of a replacement on the team or in the draft, the recent contracts signed by other players at their positions on other teams, etc.

 

Few things are ever equally distributed (in a social analysis) and all other things are almost equal.

 

Yes, the analysis using on field stats has issues, too. I would advise not using an analysis like this, at all, in this issue.

 

Consider the source (i.e. he-who-was Holcomb's Arm). Misusing statistical analysis is his forte.

[The Dean]

I should have been more specific when I wrote that players are paid relative to their contribution to their team. Some of it's due to their expected contribution in an absolute sense, and some is due to how much a given player is expected to help the team above and beyond however much a relatively low priced free agent might have helped.

 

If a team has a replacement player in mind, they're usually not going to be willing to pay top dollar for a particular player. Which can often result in that player leaving via free agency, and receiving top dollar from some other team.

 

The recently signed contracts you mentioned are a result of other teams' general managers deciding how highly they value specific positions. Teams pay $10 million a year to LTs but not to kickers because LT is the more highly valued of the two positions. And if some oddball team--such as the Raiders--did decide to pay its kicker $10 million a year, it's very unlikely other teams would follow suit. Ultimately, if a team decides a specific player is priced too highly based on his position and his likely contribution to the team, that team will walk away from the bidding war.

 

This analysis is probably as good a tool as any at quantifying which positions general managers prioritize, and to what extent. The analysis is, as I mentioned earlier, grainy. If quarterbacks are getting (for example) 10% of the total payroll, it does not mean that general managers, on average, believe quarterbacks are responsible for exactly 10% of the total variation in teams' win/loss records. But it does mean that general managers are not collectively convinced that quarterbacks are responsible for, say, 30 or 40% of their teams' win/loss records. If general managers believed that, they would have bid quarterbacks' salaries up a lot higher, while reducing spending at other positions.

 

 

I think you are confusing what GM's value, with how much a QB contributes to a win. They are VERY different concepts.

 

Your analysis, while flawed, may be a way to look at what the NFL values, by position. It doesn't look at what the position of QB contributes to football and certainly has nothing to do with what a particular QB contributes to his team's wins and losses.

 

But, even if you decide to settle on the mundane "what does the NFL value", make sure you factor in the bench and ST players. A QB making $1 million that plays 10 plays on season was how valuable, exactly? How about punters and place kickers who contribute at a level FAR above their salaries (if you live in the real world), but would have to contribute equally to their salaries, in an analysis such as you propose.

 

What about players who play their positions, and ST? Don't they confound their positional worth?

 

Bottom line is, the reality doesn't lend itself to this sort of analysis. People are quirky and individuals make decisions in a way that can't be captured by this sort of analysis. Trust me...it's what I did for years.

[The Dean]

Consider the source (i.e. he-who-was Holcomb's Arm). Misusing statistical analysis is his forte.

 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess HA/EA had some pretty weak stats professors.