On whether it's worthwhile to tank for a QB

"KeyFin wrote:

I think you have that backwards- you're looking at what all GM's have done in the past decade; I'm looking at what our GM did in the past few years. The right QB is only half the equation here...we also have to consider the person making that pick. And the fact is that our owner told him to draft Jackson would have completely eliminated the need to tank this season.

So far Jackson is a 99.0 QB. He doesn't have 200 passing attempts yet; if he did, he'd be 3rd on your list. He's a "franchise QB" in his first 17 games anyway.

That doesn't invalidate all your work though; I was just showing that there's more factors to consider than taking the best QB available. First you need to figure out who "the best" actually is, and then have faith that Grier will come to that same conclusion. He was wrong on Harris and many would argue that he was wrong picking Minkah over Jackson. That's all I'm saying- there's no guarantee that he makes the correct pick in 2019.

Lamar Jackson's passer rating last year was 84.5. As cbrad point out, the league average last year was pushing 93.

When you say he's at 99 you need to factor in the data size. He's being inflated from 84 up to 99 on the basis of what we saw him do against Miami.

It's literally the effect of 1 game (against a team that's tanking).

I'm more sympathetic to the argument that Paxton Lynch is what his rating says. I mean, at least Lamar Jackson is starting. Lynch looks like he might be an entirely wasted pick. Still, both Lynch (128 attempts) and Jackson (190) fall into that too early to tell case for me.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

I don’t know about your assessment of Dungy. He did take Tampa to the playoffs 3 of the 5 years he was there and set them up for the Super Bowl under Gruden

My exact point was what you're saying.

If he was such a great coach then why didn't he replicate his Tampa success up in Indy?

If not for Manning, that team wouldn't have been very good at all under Dungy.

And the fact that Tampa kept marching right along after Dungy left makes me think that it had something to do with those players!

"cbrad wrote:

On that one I disagree though I can't given you a statistical argument because the way data in football databases are formatted makes it REALLY tough to track coach + QB combinations (it's like no one creating the database ever thought this would be an interesting question!!)

My intuition however is that the HC is the most influential individual on a team (once players are picked) with the QB well behind in 2nd place, though no other single player comes remotely close to the QB. The reason I'd say this is because the HC influences all parts of the team while the QB is mostly for the offense, and primarily the passing game. So it's really hard for me to imagine QB > HC in terms of influence.

I don't think it's an either-or situation. It's not like having a good HC will produce a good QB or vice versa.

I'm just saying that if I get to pick between Aaron Rodgers and Andy Reid, I'm probably picking Aaron Rodgers.

Andy Reid with an average QB like McNabb or Alex Smith is good. But it's not until he has an elite QB that it becomes scary.

Yet with Aaron Rodgers on your side, you can end up with a Super Bowl title despite Mike McCarthy being somewhat of a footnote.

You said it yourself, unless you can get the QB position to produce in a special way, you're not winning the Super Bowl. So I'm taking the guy who I know will be special year-in, year-out. I may not get a Super Bowl every year, but over a decade I'll probably get one and I'll make a ton of Play-off appearances.

I like that more than having a "great" HC who at the end of the day is still at the mercy of his QB.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

Lamar Jackson's passer rating last year was 84.5. As cbrad point out, the league average last year was pushing 93.

When you say he's at 99 you need to factor in the data size. He's being inflated from 84 up to 99 on the basis of what we saw him do against Miami.

It's literally the effect of 1 game (against a team that's tanking).

I'm more sympathetic to the argument that Paxton Lynch is what his rating says. I mean, at least Lamar Jackson is starting. Lynch looks like he might be an entirely wasted pick. Still, both Lynch (128 attempts) and Jackson (190) fall into that too early to tell case for me.

As I said, my point was that IF Jackson develops (big if), none of the tanking is necessary. This isn't a case of could of/should of in my opinion since Ross was adamant that Jackson was the guy. A good portion of GM's would listen to the owner and make that pick, so this directly reflects on Grier's motives and evaluation skills.

Again, Jackson may be a bust....I haven't passed judgement yet either. But if we did take Jackson last season and he put up that 84 QBR, would we still be on the same path? I don't think we would be.

"KeyFin wrote:

As I said, my point was that IF Jackson develops (big if), none of the tanking is necessary. This isn't a case of could of/should of in my opinion since Ross was adamant that Jackson was the guy. A good portion of GM's would listen to the owner and make that pick, so this directly reflects on Grier's motives and evaluation skills.

Again, Jackson may be a bust....I haven't passed judgement yet either. But if we did take Jackson last season and he put up that 84 QBR, would we still be on the same path? I don't think we would be.

We can judge Grier's decision right now.

waiting years will only bias our judgement as to whether Grier made the right move with information that came after-the-fact and wasn't available at the time.

Each one of us would've drafted a given guy. It's a risk. If I'm picking from a deck of cards looking for an Ace I don't get to cheat and put my card back in once I look at it.

From my perspective we took Minkah becuase he was "safe." I think that shows a lot about how Grier thinks in terms of R1 picks. We also took a guy (in Minkah) who played inside as opposed to outside. It doesn't make a ton of sense to sink your R1 pick into a slot corner no matter how good he is. As it turns out there was a good perimeter CB on the board too, who we passed on. That might've been less "safe" than Minkah who was coming out of Bama, but it would've added similar talent to a position of more significance.

With Jackson, I agree. If the owner is giving you the shot and saying, "I'll back you on this" then it's compelling to go ahead and do it. I wouldn't have hated it. I think it would've been a daring move that might've paid off in the long run.

I have no idea if Jackson will be good and Sunday's debacle doesn't really tell me anything. He faced ZERO pressure all game long and posted a perfect passer rating as a result. All that does is tell me we're a joke.

But I agree that right now the Ravens are a year ahead because they took a shot and apparently built an offense around a very non-traditional type of prospect. Good for them. I would have loved to have watched us do that.

But my worry isn't passing on Lamar Jackson who wasn't a terribly awesome prospect. I worry more about taking "safe" players like Minkah and Wilkins who in the end may only be solid pro's sort of like Jared Odrick was. We're not going to get beyond 8-8 doing that stuff.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

I don't think it's an either-or situation. It's not like having a good HC will produce a good QB or vice versa.

I'm just saying that if I get to pick between Aaron Rodgers and Andy Reid, I'm probably picking Aaron Rodgers.

Andy Reid with an average QB like McNabb or Alex Smith is good. But it's not until he has an elite QB that it becomes scary.

Yet with Aaron Rodgers on your side, you can end up with a Super Bowl title despite Mike McCarthy being somewhat of a footnote.

You said it yourself, unless you can get the QB position to produce in a special way, you're not winning the Super Bowl. So I'm taking the guy who I know will be special year-in, year-out. I may not get a Super Bowl every year, but over a decade I'll probably get one and I'll make a ton of Play-off appearances.

I like that more than having a "great" HC who at the end of the day is still at the mercy of his QB.

If QB vs. HC abilities are equal (hypothetically) then you pick the HC if for no other reason than longevity: HC's can last longer than QB's. Besides, if the HC is also the GM then picking the right HC means you also have a higher probability of picking the right QB.

And Aaron Rodgers won the SB when Green Bay's defense was ranked #2. Only in one other year was it ranked top 10. Otherwise he's had to play with an average or below average defense which is probably why one of the greatest QB's ever has only one SB win:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/index.htm

Statistically speaking the average z-score on offense for a SB winner is 0.9389 which corresponds to top 18th percentile while the average z-score on defense for a SB winner is 0.4072 which corresponds to top 35th percentile. So while offense is on average (not every year of course) more important than defense, the real takeaway is that you need to be good on both sides of the ball and you can't do that without a good HC. The QB isn't giving you a top 1/3 defense.

So HC > QB, but you need both to be above average if you want to realistically build a team that can win the SB.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

We can judge Grier's decision right now.

waiting years will only bias our judgement as to whether Grier made the right move with information that came after-the-fact and wasn't available at the time.

Each one of us would've drafted a given guy. It's a risk. If I'm picking from a deck of cards looking for an Ace I don't get to cheat and put my card back in once I look at it.

From my perspective we took Minkah becuase he was "safe." I think that shows a lot about how Grier thinks in terms of R1 picks. We also took a guy (in Minkah) who played inside as opposed to outside. It doesn't make a ton of sense to sink your R1 pick into a slot corner no matter how good he is. As it turns out there was a good perimeter CB on the board too, who we passed on. That might've been less "safe" than Minkah who was coming out of Bama, but it would've added similar talent to a position of more significance.

With Jackson, I agree. If the owner is giving you the shot and saying, "I'll back you on this" then it's compelling to go ahead and do it. I wouldn't have hated it. I think it would've been a daring move that might've paid off in the long run.

I have no idea if Jackson will be good and Sunday's debacle doesn't really tell me anything. He faced ZERO pressure all game long and posted a perfect passer rating as a result. All that does is tell me we're a joke.

But I agree that right now the Ravens are a year ahead because they took a shot and apparently built an offense around a very non-traditional type of prospect. Good for them. I would have loved to have watched us do that.

But my worry isn't passing on Lamar Jackson who wasn't a terribly awesome prospect. I worry more about taking "safe" players like Minkah and Wilkins who in the end may only be solid pro's sort of like Jared Odrick was. We're not going to get beyond 8-8 doing that stuff.

That's my worry as well, especially if Tua isn't on the boards at all. What if we spend the #1 overall pick on another Minkah? Or trade back for more picks in 2021? That's awesome on paper and it still may be a great draft, but we're still not a playoff team in 2020 (unless it's under Rosen....which is the best case scenario regardless).

But if you don't get your QB in 2020 then what's the game-plan? Do we tank yet another season? That's why I absolutely hate this.

"cbrad wrote:

If QB vs. HC abilities are equal (hypothetically) then you pick the HC if for no other reason than longevity: HC's can last longer than QB's. Besides, if the HC is also the GM then picking the right HC means you also have a higher probability of picking the right QB.

Wait, what!?

We can get to the statistical stuff in a minute but HC's die every day in today's NFL. An elite QB will almost certainly outlast his HC unless he gets injured. Maybe you're saying that hypothetically a HC could remain in place for 20 years but that's not realistic AT ALL. Where has that happened in modern football besides the one place that has the "greatest QB of all time."

Aaron Rodgers - 1 team, multiple HCs
Roethlisberger - 1 team, multiple HCs
Peyton Manning - 2 teams, more than 2 HCs
Rivers - 1 team, a slew of HCs

The HC almost always gets fired first due to lack of performance. The QB is usually kept on. Gosh, how many people did Tannehill get fired?

There are a couple examples where the franchise has remained constant (i.e. Brady & Brees with Belichick & Payton) but even there we've heard rumblings that Payton might be on the hot seat. So it certainly looks to me that most HC's get fired before the team moves on from the (proven) QB.

We could cite John Harbaugh as a "good" HC who outlasted his QB (Flacco). But even relatively successful HCs like Pete Carroll, Ron Rivera and Andy Reid will likely get fired before those teams move on from their QBs unless those QBs end up becoming too injured to keep.

The only thing getting in the way might be the tendency for these mobile QBs to slow down (physically) and regress to the mean once they are forced to be more pocket-based game-managers.

"cbrad wrote:

Statistically speaking the average z-score on offense for a SB winner is 0.9389 which corresponds to top 18th percentile while the average z-score on defense for a SB winner is 0.4072 which corresponds to top 35th percentile. So while offense is on average (not every year of course) more important than defense, the real takeaway is that you need to be good on both sides of the ball and you can't do that without a good HC. The QB isn't giving you a top 1/3 defense.

So HC > QB, but you need both to be above average if you want to realistically build a team that can win the SB.

But dude, that's my point.

If you have Aaron Rodgers performing at an elite level for a decade you WILL AT SOME POINT put together a defense capable of winning a Super Bowl.

People talk about Marino not winning a Super Bowl because it's rare to find an elite QB who never at some point had the benefit of a great defense helping him to a title. You pretty much have to be doing work if you go 10-15 years and never at some point get it across the finish line. Marino's is a cautionary tale, but (thankfully) it's not something that happens to many guys. I guess Rivers would be that guy in this era.

The Packers did it with Rodgers.
The Colts did it with Manning.
The Saints did it with Brees.

We could go back and find others...the Broncos with Elway at the end for example. Those guys could all have 4-5 Super Bowls if they had dominant defenses. When you look at the guy who did have a great defense most of his career...he does have a fistful of rings, LOL!

I mean, do you honestly not pick Aaron Rodgers on this, bro? To me, this is obvious.

If on the one hand you're guaranteeing me elite QB play I can check that box. However, having a great HC does not automatically give me a great team (or defense). So at best, it's an indirect way to help check that other box.

I agree you need both, but if I can automatically check on box with a single player I'm doing that.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

My exact point was what you're saying.

If he was such a great coach then why didn't he replicate his Tampa success up in Indy?

If not for Manning, that team wouldn't have been very good at all under Dungy.

And the fact that Tampa kept marching right along after Dungy left makes me think that it had something to do with those players!

You’re kidding, right?

"DolphinGreg wrote:

Wait, what!?

We can get to the statistical stuff in a minute but HC's die every day in today's NFL. An elite QB will almost certainly outlast his HC unless he gets injured. Maybe you're saying that hypothetically a HC could remain in place for 20 years but that's not realistic AT ALL. Where has that happened in modern football besides the one place that has the "greatest QB of all time."

For elite coaches vs. elite QB's no question the coach outlasts the QB. Most games ever played by any QB is Brett Favre with 302 (298 started). Number of games coached by "elite" coaches: Shula (490), Belichick (385), Landry (418), Noll (342), Parcells (303), etc..

No question an elite coach can outlast an elite QB. So if abilities are equal you pick the HC.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

But dude, that's my point.

If you have Aaron Rodgers performing at an elite level for a decade you WILL AT SOME POINT put together a defense capable of winning a Super Bowl.

If you have an elite coach you will at some point very likely have a well above average offense AND a well above average defense. Given that the coach influences both directly that's far more likely than having the franchise QB and hoping that you'll get the rest right.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

I mean, do you honestly not pick Aaron Rodgers on this, bro? To me, this is obvious.

Honestly, if I could pick EITHER Aaron Rodgers or Bill Belichick I choose Belichick. Same with Shula and with Walsh. Yeah it's obvious.

The big divide in our fan base seems to be around the overall strategy of cleaning house and to what degree. On one hand, we had a lot of players who were way too expensive and it was wise to part ways. Tannehill hasn’t been the answer and I was happy to see us move on from him.

I think where most draw the line is why cut some of the marginal, less expensive players like Taylor? Why trade an up and coming LT who could be elite? Why trade Wake, when we need pass rushers, he’s been loyal, he’s a fan favorite and we have the cap room until he retires in 2-3 years? While in a complete vacuum, all of these moves made sense. What buy in do fans and players have? They’ve forgotten the emotional side of things in favor of bottom line business.

I think the issue for most is this has happened so quick. Very few would have expected a winning record. But even less would have expected 59-10.

"cbrad wrote:

For elite coaches vs. elite QB's no question the coach outlasts the QB. Most games ever played by any QB is Brett Favre with 302 (298 started). Number of games coached by "elite" coaches: Shula (490), Belichick (385), Landry (418), Noll (342), Parcells (303), etc..

No question an elite coach can outlast an elite QB. So if abilities are equal you pick the HC.

If you have an elite coach you will at some point very likely have a well above average offense AND a well above average defense. Given that the coach influences both directly that's far more likely than having the franchise QB and hoping that you'll get the rest right.

Honestly, if I could pick EITHER Aaron Rodgers or Bill Belichick I choose Belichick. Same with Shula and with Walsh. Yeah it's obvious.

Oh, boy. I flat out disagree.

You're literally having to go back to ancient history to cite those coaches and good Lord, I imagine the drop-off in incredible once you're not citing historically long-tenured guys. The only relevant guy to us now is the one that coached in the modern era (Belichick) and he's colored by the fact he had one of the best all-time QBs.

If you're asking me for a guy to take back to 1970 to build a dynasty I'm all about Shula or Knoll. Who wouldn't be!? But if you're suggesting that football hasn't changed since then, OMG.

I'll give you Walsh in the 80's. I'd give you Belichick now (if he weren't on the verge of retirement). Sure, there can be 1 or 2 in each generation who are the Tiger Woods' of their day.

But overall? You have to be joking. Coaches are successes if they last 5 years these days. It's a train-wreck out there. You basically get 1 run at it and then you're out. If you win you maybe get a second run (i.e. Carroll, Tomlin, etc.). But people will turn on you in a couple short years.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

You’re kidding, right?

I calculate that the Colts averaged the #11 scoring defense during the Dungy-Manning era ('02 - '08).

"DolphinGreg wrote:

Oh, boy. I flat out disagree.

You're literally having to go back to ancient history to cite those coaches and good Lord, I imagine the drop-off in incredible once you're not citing historically long-tenured guys. The only relevant guy to us now is the one that coached in the modern era (Belichick) and he's colored by the fact he had one of the best all-time QBs.

If you're asking me for a guy to take back to 1970 to build a dynasty I'm all about Shula or Knoll. Who wouldn't be. But if you're suggesting that football hasn't changed since then, OMG.

I'll give you Walsh in the 80's. I'd give you Belichick now (if he weren't on the verge of retirement). Sure, there can be 1 or 2 in each generation who are the Tiger Woods' of their day.

But overall? You have to be joking? Coaches are successes if they last 5 years these days. You basically get 1 run at it and then you're out. If you win you maybe get a second run (i.e. Carroll, Tomlin, etc.). But people will turn on you in a couple short years.

Dude.. if you are an "elite" coach they are NOT going to run you out of town. And unlike QB's whose longevity is limited due to physical decline, a coach can continue coaching into his 60's or more in some cases. So no there's no such thing as the nature of the game changing with respect to this question. Remember this is a question of elite vs. elite, not average vs. average.

Also, even for averages it's not what you think. The average tenure for a NFL QB (4.44 years) is about the same as for a NFL coach (4.3 years) and that's despite QB's becoming backups extending their tenure while no such possibility exists for a HC in the NFL (that is.. going back to OC or DC means you're not a HC while being a backup QB means you're still a QB).

"DolphinGreg wrote:

I calculate that the Colts averaged the #11 scoring defense during the Dungy-Manning era ('02 - '08).

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.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

But dude, that's my point.

If you have Aaron Rodgers performing at an elite level for a decade you WILL AT SOME POINT put together a defense capable of winning a Super Bowl.

People talk about Marino not winning a Super Bowl because it's rare to find an elite QB who never at some point had the benefit of a great defense helping him to a title. You pretty much have to be doing work if you go 10-15 years and never at some point get it across the finish line. Marino's is a cautionary tale, but (thankfully) it's not something that happens to many guys. I guess Rivers would be that guy in this era.

The Packers did it with Rodgers.
The Colts did it with Manning.
The Saints did it with Brees.

We could go back and find others...the Broncos with Elway at the end for example. Those guys could all have 4-5 Super Bowls if they had dominant defenses. When you look at the guy who did have a great defense most of his career...he does have a fistful of rings, LOL!

I mean, do you honestly not pick Aaron Rodgers on this, bro? To me, this is obvious.

If on the one hand you're guaranteeing me elite QB play I can check that box. However, having a great HC does not automatically give me a great team (or defense). So at best, it's an indirect way to help check that other box.

I agree you need both, but if I can automatically check on box with a single player I'm doing that.

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”

"cbrad wrote:

Dude.. if you have an "elite" coach they are NOT going to run you out of town. And unlike QB's whose longevity is limited due to physical decline, a coach can continue coaching into his 60's or more in some cases. So no there's no such thing as the nature of the game changing with respect to this question. Remember this is a question of elite vs. elite, not average vs. average.

Also, even for averages it's not what you think. The average tenure for a NFL QB (4.44 years) is about the same as for a NFL coach (4.3 years) and that's despite QB's becoming backups extending their tenure while no such possibility exists for a HC in the NFL (that is.. going back to OC or DC means you're not a HC while being a backup QB means you're still a QB).

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.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

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.

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.

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."

"DolphinGreg wrote:

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.

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.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

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?

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.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

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."

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.

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.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

I calculate that the Colts averaged the #11 scoring defense during the Dungy-Manning era ('02 - '08).

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.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

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.

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.

"KeyFin wrote:

That's my worry as well, especially if Tua isn't on the boards at all. What if we spend the #1 overall pick on another Minkah? Or trade back for more picks in 2021? That's awesome on paper and it still may be a great draft, but we're still not a playoff team in 2020 (unless it's under Rosen....which is the best case scenario regardless).

But if you don't get your QB in 2020 then what's the game-plan? Do we tank yet another season? That's why I absolutely hate this.

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.