Who says you must have an elite qb?

[Vol Catdaddy]

Agree to a point..... but look at the talent he had around him. If AJ played for us last year....would he have been more productive than Worley or Dobbs?
You are talking about Nattys? AJ handing the ball off to 1 of 5 Herschel Walkers...then sometimes throwing a safe pass to a top rated receiver..........doesn't make AJ an elite QB. Elite QB's make a team better. Bama players made AJ better and NFL teams knew this....hence the draft results. Elite...no[/QUOTE) it pains me to say this, but AJ was hurt in the Draft, because the talent around him was so good. If he was on a less talented team AJ goes late 1st round. AJ wasn't like the last bama QB's he do more than manage the game.

 

[ManningBerry#1]

Good pitching beats good hitting.

'Football forum'







Jk lol

 

[daj2576]

I'll bite.

You clearly have to have an "elite" qb to win a title these days. Looking at the list of BCS era National Champions from 2000-2013, I can only find one* that I'd consider a middle of the pack player. What you base your judgment on determining "elite" is up to you. Be it them coming out of HS with a bunch of stars, or what they do when they get to college. That's all subject to personal judgment.

Josh Heupel
Ken Dorsey
Craig Krenzel*
Matt Mauck
Matt Leinart
VY
Chris Leak
Matt Flynn
Tebow
Greg McElroy
Cam
AJ - twice
Jameis Winston

That's your list of the last winners.

There's a pretty long list of "elite" college players that either played for it all and lost, or played in a BCS game too.

You don't get to a Championship game without an elite qb. That's just how it is.

The problem with that evaluation is that it is too narrow. What I have found, going back to 2005, is that the team that wins the national championship (except for VY in 2005) is the team who has recruited better overall talent the preceding 4 years.

Compared like that, it is impossible to isolate the QB alone as the "reason" for the win. In fact, most teams actually had a sizable talent gap.

Here is how it looked going back to 2005, or as far as my data takes me (the numbers in parenthesis are a four year trailing average of rivals recruiting numbers).

2005: Texas(13.5) vs. USC (4.5). Texas won (only exception).

2006: Florida(7.25) vs. Ohio State (20.25). Florida won.

2007: LSU (8.75) vs. Ohio State (13.75). LSU won.

2008: Florida(5.25) vs. Oklahoma (8). Florida won.

2009: Alabama(5.75) vs. Texas (7.25). Bama won.

2010: Auburn (12.25) vs. Oregon (18.75). Auburn won.

2011: Alabama(2) vs. LSU (6.25). Bama won.

2012: Alabama(2) vs. Notre Dame (16.25). Bama won.

2013: Florida State (6.75) vs. Auburn (7.25). Florida State won.

So, did the team make the QB look good, or did the QB make the team look good as is your assertion?

Similarly, there have been some numbers crunched by Dave Bartoo that tend to suggest that a QB only has about a 0.2 game seasonal effect on any team. I will forward you to his site if you want a further explanation of that (CFB Matrix - Setting College Football's Expectations).

 

[Volosaurus rex]

The problem with that evaluation is that it is too narrow. What I have found, going back to 2005, is that the team that wins the national championship (except for VY in 2005) is the team who has recruited better overall talent the preceding 4 years.

Compared like that, it is impossible to isolate the QB alone as the "reason" for the win. In fact, most teams actually had a sizable talent gap.

Here is how it looked going back to 2005, or as far as my data takes me (the numbers in parenthesis are a four year trailing average of rivals recruiting numbers).

2005: Texas(13.5) vs. USC (4.5). Texas won (only exception).

2006: Florida(7.25) vs. Ohio State (20.25). Florida won.

2007: LSU (8.75) vs. Ohio State (13.75). LSU won.

2008: Florida(5.25) vs. Oklahoma (8). Florida won.

2009: Alabama(5.75) vs. Texas (7.25). Bama won.

2010: Auburn (12.25) vs. Oregon (18.75). Auburn won.

2011: Alabama(2) vs. LSU (6.25). Bama won.

2012: Alabama(2) vs. Notre Dame (16.25). Bama won.

2013: Florida State (6.75) vs. Auburn (7.25). Florida State won.

So, did the team make the QB look good, or did the QB make the team look good as is your assertion?

Similarly, there have been some numbers crunched by Dave Bartoo that tend to suggest that a QB only has about a 0.2 game seasonal effect on any team. I will forward you to his cite if you want a further explanation of that (CFB Matrix - Setting College Football's Expectations).

Similar data were published in an article ("Recruiting Matters") authored by Joel Hollingsworth which appeared in this year's edition of Rocky Top Tennessee Magazine, which hit the newsstands today. Hollingsworth analyzes data on this topic in a manner similar to the methodology you have employed consistently. He also relies on sliding four-year recruiting rankings but does not specify whether his figures are derived exclusively from Rivals.com, for example, or whether they represent a composite of rankings provided by the major recruiting services. In any event, four intriguing findings emerge from his piece:

(1) With the exceptions of Texas in 2005 and Auburn in 2010, no national champion in the last nine years has had an average recruiting ranking for the four years prior to their championship which was lower than 6th. If you want a comparative frame of reference from Tennessee’s not-so-distant past, our recruiting classes from 1994-97 were ranked, according to Rivals.com, 2nd, 12th, 3rd and 5th, respectively, for an average of 5.5, which, as the foundation for the ’98 Vols, conforms nicely with data presented above. This provides an excellent statistical target to shoot for as Butch continues to restock the talent pool.

(2) Hollingsworth ultimately concludes that “If you want a national championship, finish in the top four of the four-year recruiting rankings. You can have a little leeway if you have a contender for the Heisman trophy at quarterback.”

(3) Based on this methodology, Alabama, Ohio State, Florida State and Florida should, in that order, be the leading contenders for the national championship entering the 2014 season. Interestingly, despite our recent onfield woes, Tennessee’s four-year recruiting average is 13th, which places us in the bottom of the “Long Shots” tier, immediately behind Oklahoma and just ahead of Michigan, Texas A & M, Oregon and South Carolina. As we all know, heavy attrition during this period, enormous turnover and incompetence within the coaching staff, and uneven distribution of surviving talent have contributed mightily to the worst four-year period in Tennessee football during the last 35 years.

(4) Hollingsworth also provides an excellent composite and season-by-season recruiting rankings chart for the “Top 25 Recruiting Teams of the Past 13 Years (2002-2014).” Over the course of that period, USC leads the pack, followed by Florida, LSU, Florida State and Alabama. Georgia comes in sixth and Tennessee, despite its declining fortunes during this period, still finishes 10th, immediately behind Ohio State and just ahead of Auburn.

 

[KoachKletus]

So, in essence, CBJ really needs to nuke the recruiting trail for the next three years for a payoff. Or, on the other hand, hit it hard this year and get lucky with little to zero attrition for the big payoff 3 years from now. I can dig it.

 

[TXA&M07]

Those were great posts with some interesting info fellas. Thank y'all for sharing. I like seeing data like that.

 

[CRUCIALVOL08]

we need a qb that can get the ball to our play makers and who can get us a couple first downs with his feet.

 

[perico]

I remember my brother was riding on a plane coming from Oregon where he ran into Fulmer. My brother ask Phil what he was doing in Oregon. Phil said, "finding the next Peyton Manning". He was referring to Ainge. lol:

Which was one of Phil's downfalls that bugged me to no end.There was only one Peyton Manning and there likely will never be another. You're not going to find another so go out and find the right guy to lead your team.

 

[1972 Grad]

Which was one of Phil's downfalls that bugged me to no end.There was only one Peyton Manning and there likely will never be another. You're not going to find another so go out and find the right guy to lead your team.

I would think that was just a figure of speech. He was looking for the next great qb.

 

[daj2576]

Similar data were published in an article ("Recruiting Matters") authored by Joel Hollingsworth which appeared in this year's edition of Rocky Top Tennessee Magazine, which hit the newsstands today. Hollingsworth analyzes data on this topic in a manner similar to the methodology you have employed consistently. He also relies on sliding four-year recruiting rankings but does not specify whether his figures are derived exclusively from Rivals.com, for example, or whether they represent a composite of rankings provided by the major recruiting services. In any event, four intriguing findings emerge from his piece:

(1) With the exceptions of Texas in 2005 and Auburn in 2010, no national champion in the last nine years has had an average recruiting ranking for the four years prior to their championship which was lower than 6th. If you want a comparative frame of reference from Tennessee’s not-so-distant past, our recruiting classes from 1994-97 were ranked, according to Rivals.com, 2nd, 12th, 3rd and 5th, respectively, for an average of 5.5, which, as the foundation for the ’98 Vols, conforms nicely with data presented above. This provides an excellent statistical target to shoot for as Butch continues to restock the talent pool.

(2) Hollingsworth ultimately concludes that “If you want a national championship, finish in the top four of the four-year recruiting rankings. You can have a little leeway if you have a contender for the Heisman trophy at quarterback.”

(3) Based on this methodology, Alabama, Ohio State, Florida State and Florida should, in that order, be the leading contenders for the national championship entering the 2014 season. Interestingly, despite our recent onfield woes, Tennessee’s four-year recruiting average is 13th, which places us in the bottom of the “Long Shots” tier, immediately behind Oklahoma and just ahead of Michigan, Texas A & M, Oregon and South Carolina. As we all know, heavy attrition during this period, enormous turnover and incompetence within the coaching staff, and uneven distribution of surviving talent have contributed mightily to the worst four-year period in Tennessee football during the last 35 years.

(4) Hollingsworth also provides an excellent composite and season-by-season recruiting rankings chart for the “Top 25 Recruiting Teams of the Past 13 Years (2002-2014).” Over the course of that period, USC leads the pack, followed by Florida, LSU, Florida State and Alabama. Georgia comes in sixth and Tennessee, despite its declining fortunes during this period, still finishes 10th, immediately behind Ohio State and just ahead of Auburn.

Good stuff. I bought the magazine a week or so ago, but didn't pay much attention to that section because I have spent so much time crunching those numbers myself. Seems like the author and I agree.

I have concluded that we (fans) have long been mislead (not intentionally or in bad faith) about what actually drives wins. Too often, the media and all of us who watch, tend to accept common held beliefs about the importance of single positions, and shrug off any data that might challenge that perception.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

If you haven't already read it, there is another article ("Advanced Stats: Metrics to measure in 2014") in Rocky Top Tennessee Magazine, one authored by Chris Pendley, which should really appeal to you. He presents a number of metrics, some of which are new to me, which can be used to assess progress on a position-by-position basis, even if the overall win-loss record for 2014 is not significantly improved over 2013.

For example, "highlight yards per carry" can be used to assess the relative explosiveness of any RB, given the opportunity. It is calculated as follows:

"Carries below 5 yards are a function of line blocking and credited entirely to the offensive line. Between 5 and 10 yards, credit is divided evenly between the running back and offensive line. Above 10 yards? That's all the running back."

Frankly, I don't know how this formula is supposed to tease out the difference between one back who is running almost exclusively behind the first-team offensive line and one who usually plays with backup linemen, but it is helpful, nevertheless, in gauging who is most successful in getting to the second level and beyond.

Conversely, "Opportunity Rate" is a stat used to assess the effectiveness of the offensive line in run blocking. It is calculated as the percentage of running plays that result in gains of more than five yards.

 

[JohnMarxism]

Excellent data, gentlemen.

daj, I finished "Scorecasting" while I was on vacation last week. Do you have any similar books you would like to suggest?