CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on July 12, 2023, 09:10:07 AM
-
This is taken from the 'Top 10" thread, and a statement about returning QBs:
quote: PSU/tOSU will have new QBs might even flip flop them
.
The general consensus seems to be that in this QB-reliant era, you need an experienced one in order to have a great season.
Does the data show this?
Recent anecdotal example: UNC has new starting QB in 2019.
Sam Howell tears it up with 38 TDs and 3600 yds. He's great.
UNC goes 7-6. But Howell is coming back! UNC is the preseason mag darling, with everyone ignoring the fact that all his toys left. They ignored it because the good QB was returning! Howell goes on to have another great season and UNC goes..8-4. Not the season expected of them (unfairly imo).
So Howell goes on to have a pretty good season after that, but with (correctly) tempered expectations.
He leaves, UNC has no expectations the following preseason. They'd just gone 6-7, their QB was gone, nothing to see here.
New starter Drake Maye shows up, throws 38 TDs and 4300 yds and UNC goes 9-5.
9-5 isn't special, but it far exceeded the expectation.
The only real difference between 2020 UNC and 2022 UNC was expectations based on returning QB.
.
omg OAM, you typed so much for a sample size of one!
.
Well, let's look at the elite teams from the past few years. Is there a returning QB fallacy?
First, the national champions....what did they have?
2022 - UGA, returning QB
2021 - UGA, ehhh returning QBs...
2020 - ALA, new QB (experienced backup, though)
2019 - LSU, returning QB
2018 - Clemson, new QB
2017 - ALA, returning QB (but probably don't win it w/o Tua)
2016 - Clemson, returning QB
2015 - ALA, new QB
2014 - OSU, new QB
2013 - FSU, new QB
.
So in the past 10 years, the national champs have only had a returning QB half the time. Doesn't seem that essential.
A great returning QB can probably elevate a low-talent team, but not necessarily.
But the better your recruiting/talent level, the less important an experienced QB is....not simply because the talent around him is exceptional, but if he's on your roster at all, that new QB is exceptionally talented as well.
.
This would require a much deeper dive of course, but from just the 50% of NCs peek at it, the obsession over returning QBs doesn't seem warranted.
-
This is taken from the 'Top 10" thread, and a statement about returning QBs:
quote: PSU/tOSU will have new QBs might even flip flop them
.
The general consensus seems to be that in this QB-reliant era, you need an experienced one in order to have a great season.
Does the data show this?
Recent anecdotal example: UNC has new starting QB in 2019.
Sam Howell tears it up with 38 TDs and 3600 yds. He's great.
UNC goes 7-6. But Howell is coming back! UNC is the preseason mag darling, with everyone ignoring the fact that all his toys left. They ignored it because the good QB was returning! Howell goes on to have another great season and UNC goes..8-4. Not the season expected of them (unfairly imo).
So Howell goes on to have a pretty good season after that, but with (correctly) tempered expectations.
He leaves, UNC has no expectations the following preseason. They'd just gone 6-7, their QB was gone, nothing to see here.
New starter Drake Maye shows up, throws 38 TDs and 4300 yds and UNC goes 9-5.
9-5 isn't special, but it far exceeded the expectation.
The only real difference between 2020 UNC and 2022 UNC was expectations based on returning QB.
.
omg OAM, you typed so much for a sample size of one!
.
Well, let's look at the elite teams from the past few years. Is there a returning QB fallacy?
First, the national champions....what did they have?
2022 - UGA, returning QB
2021 - UGA, ehhh returning QBs...
2020 - ALA, new QB (experienced backup, though)
2019 - LSU, returning QB
2018 - Clemson, new QB
2017 - ALA, returning QB (but probably don't win it w/o Tua)
2016 - Clemson, returning QB
2015 - ALA, new QB
2014 - OSU, new QB
2013 - FSU, new QB
.
So in the past 10 years, the national champs have only had a returning QB half the time. Doesn't seem that essential.
A great returning QB can probably elevate a low-talent team, but not necessarily.
But the better your recruiting/talent level, the less important an experienced QB is....not simply because the talent around him is exceptional, but if he's on your roster at all, that new QB is exceptionally talented as well.
.
This would require a much deeper dive of course, but from just the 50% of NCs peek at it, the obsession over returning QBs doesn't seem warranted.
Actually I have seen other data and analysis that fully supports what you are saying here.
The returning QB being important is not supported by the data.
one might be able to make a case that it helps during the season, but for winning championships- not so much.
My gut about McCarthy at UM and Williams at USC being potentially the difference when Bama, Georgia, OSU- Are all starting new QBs-is just that. Gut feeling. And it will likely be proven wrong if the data trends hold up.
-
We all understand this is a multivariable equation, but having a good QB returning is part of that. One thing about elite level teams is they get frequent blowouts, and the backup often gets decent PT, which even against inferior defenses is very useful to him. And he's a 4-5 star talent to boot.
Now if you take a more typical team that was 7-5 last season and their QB looks pretty decent, if the rest of the team didn't lose much either, they could be set up for a 9-4 kind of season. That isn't a huge leap of course, and at times they may jump to 10-3 or better of course, or be a "TCU".
It's still a factor, one of many.
-
It's still a factor, one of many.
It' an overvalued factor. That's the point. No one has ever or will ever suggest it's not one of many factors.
-
Maybe SOME over value it, that's a judgment. I don't think I do. I view it as important. A few anecdotes which are equivocal don't change that.
-
Yes, yes, you're the exception.
We get it.
And you nitpick my every breath.
Thanks for that.
-
You post crap, and when called on it, you resort to ad hominem attacks, every time.
-
championship level teams are a different animal
they have great line play in the trenches
they have great skill position players
usually a solid defense
they have great coaches
they have had great recruiting previous seasons
they have the ability to slide in a DAMN good QB the following season, possibly with some game experience in mop up wins the previous season
-
Actually I have seen other data and analysis that fully supports what you are saying here.
The returning QB being important is not supported by the data.
one might be able to make a case that it helps during the season, but for winning championships- not so much.
My gut about McCarthy at UM and Williams at USC being potentially the difference when Bama, Georgia, OSU- Are all starting new QBs-is just that. Gut feeling. And it will likely be proven wrong if the data trends hold up.
This is a good point that I hadn't thought of until you posted it.
By the time we get to rivalries on Thanksgiving weekend, CCG's after that, and CFP games after those, everyone will have an "experienced" QB.
This is an area where the format and structure make a big difference. Let's say, for example, that Ohio State's new QB commits multiple "freshman errors" in the Notre Dame game and the Buckeyes lose but after that the team comes together better than expected and runs the table. That plays out a lot different in the CFP era than it would have in the BCS or pre-BCS eras. Today a 12-1 B1G Champion Ohio State is a solid bet to make the CFP.
-
You post crap, and when called on it, you resort to ad hominem attacks, every time.
I'm one of the VERY few that actually bother to explore and research things and share them here (football things, not all the other divisive crap).
What crap is posted here about returning QBs?
-
It' an overvalued factor. That's the point. No one has ever or will ever suggest it's not one of many factors.
Overvalued by who exactly? By how much? This is crap. You simply failed to show who is over valuing this parameter, or indeed that anyone has.
-
This bit above would be more persuasive if you didn't mess up the UNC timeline, or have the cutoff problem.
UNC surprised by going 6-7 with a freshman in 2019. Then was a decent preseason team in 2020, going 8-4 with a prodigious offense and middling defense. The next year they were preseason top-10, lost a bunch of weapons and slipped a bit. But their fall came with a defense that got notably worse. And then last year, with a QB everyone and their mother knew would be good ... well, the schedule opened up a bit more and they had some close wins. Pitfalls of CFB.
The cutoff issue is that you just say the last seven years, and wow, it's 71 percent of national champs have returning QBs.
Now, the larger topic is interesting and probably true. We are too afraid of the unknown when it comes to QBs and put too much stock in the returning ones. In some ways, it makes sense, because many QBs are crappy, but we also consistently overstate how much they will improve.
-
The UNC example is Exhibit A on this subject.
2020: Oh the RBs and WRs are gone and the defense isn't good, but let's ignore all that because Howell's back!
2022: Oh the top 3 WRs are back, but they have a new QB, so they'll stink.
-
So, who exactly is over valuing UNC because of Howell's return?
-
Overvalued by who exactly? By how much? This is crap. You simply failed to show who is over valuing this parameter, or indeed that anyone has.
Overvalued by the preseason prognosticators, obviously.
I'm not sure why you're being a dick right now, but I can't request that you stop, because then I'm just whining.
-
Which preseason prognosticators? Are you saying you can't back up your claim with some specifics?
Are you saying Howell's return isn't worth considering as a factor? Of course not. You seem to be claiming it's an over weighted factor, by someone, somewhere.
-
Overvalued by who exactly? By how much? This is crap. You simply failed to show who is over valuing this parameter, or indeed that anyone has.
Overvalued by the people who provide preseason rankings. Possibly overvalued by "most" fans as well.
We've had discussions ad nauseum for decades on this board (JFC we're old), and I will say definitively that I've heard people talk about how a team will be good because they're returning QB X who did well last year or how they were concerned about how their team would do because they were starting QB Y who despite having been in the program for 2 years (or whatever) have never been a starter.
As I'm sure you know, there are many common myths that end up being proven to be wrong when you look at the data, but are still believed by a large number of people.
"Conventional wisdom" is that QB is one of the most critical pieces of a football team, and returning an experienced starter should give that team a bump the next year. What OAM is saying is that a lot of people give too much weight to that factor, and when they either rank a team in preseason or they're just thinking about their team's prospects as a fan, it is too highly considered.
You've said you don't do that. I believe you. That may make you an outlier, though.
I also don't particularly do that. I don't even worry as much about the skill players. I believe that football is won and lost in the trenches, so I'd rather have an experienced OL and a first-year starter at QB than an experienced QB who is running for his life on every passing down because he's gotten hit on every 3rd snap.
But I recognize I'm an outlier, and tend to agree with OAM that it's an overvalued factor "by most".
-
Which preseason prognosticators? Are you saying you can't back up your claim with some specifics?
Are you saying Howell's return isn't worth considering as a factor? Of course not. You seem to be claiming it's an over weighted factor, by someone, somewhere.
I think you're bored and being a dickhead.
.
Again, as was the case in another thread, I SPECIFIED THE SHORTCOMING OF THE 5 MINUTE EXAMPLE I SHARED AND SAID IT NEEDS A DEEPER DIVE.
.
Why do you insist on completely ignoring my admitted deficiency? I'm obviously proposing something to the forum, hoping to spur discussion. Hell, maybe even inspiring someone else to take the baton with it.
But nah. Just asking a bunch of questions that bring no value. Question with obvious answers. You need to be fed like a baby? Airplane noises with the spoon flying around your face?
Grow up, old man.
-
I've seen it discussed a lot here, that doesn't mean anyone here over values it. Maybe the preseason mags do, they also discuss it. As noted, I don't think a look at NC winners means much for reasons stated.
I'd rather have a proven, solid QB returning than not, I think everyone understands that simple point.
-
Overvalued by the preseason prognosticators, obviously.
I'm not sure why you're being a dick right now, but I can't request that you stop, because then I'm just whining.
Once again, when challenged on something, you revert to ad hominem, because you can't back up your "point".
-
I'd rather have a proven, solid QB returning than not, I think everyone understands that simple point.
Of course. But compared to what?
If that proven, solid QB loses two receivers that he had good rapport with, and the offense is replacing three multi-year starters on the OL, how much weight do you give to "returning QB" vs "other losses"?
OAM at least provided empirical data of recent MNC winners that only ~50% had returning starters at QB.
His data on UNC and the "preseason mags" is on more shaky ground because it's ONE team, but he admittedly called himself out for that being anecdotal data with a sample size of one, which is why he offered the MNC winner data.
Maybe OAM is full of ish with this. Maybe a detailed statistical study would prove that preseason rankings UNDERWEIGHT the value of a returning QB starter. But I think we can all agree that returning QB is given a lot of weight, and it's a valid question of whether it's overweighted by conventional wisdom.
-
Maybe this, maybe that, sure. I would stipulate that SOME "progosticator" out there over weights it, however one determines that. I'd agree it gets mentioned pretty often. Then the likely Number One ranked team by most this season has a new QB.
I just don't see much here. Somebody somewhere over weights it, OK fine. I'm sure that is true.
I'd guess we all over weight something. For me, it's a pretty important factor in assessing a team's potential, particularly for teams in the middle of the pack. Teams that were really good to elite last year, not so much.
-
Of course. But compared to what?
If that proven, solid QB loses two receivers that he had good rapport with, and the offense is replacing three multi-year starters on the OL, how much weight do you give to "returning QB" vs "other losses"?
OAM at least provided empirical data of recent MNC winners that only ~50% had returning starters at QB.
His data on UNC and the "preseason mags" is on more shaky ground because it's ONE team, but he admittedly called himself out for that being anecdotal data with a sample size of one, which is why he offered the MNC winner data.
Maybe OAM is full of ish with this. Maybe a detailed statistical study would prove that preseason rankings UNDERWEIGHT the value of a returning QB starter. But I think we can all agree that returning QB is given a lot of weight, and it's a valid question of whether it's overweighted by conventional wisdom.
You're a saint for humoring him.
I'm a patient person, but I have no patience for a bored old man "just asking questions" as a dishonest interlocutor.
I guess I'm an asshole.
-
championship level teams are a different animal
they have great line play in the trenches
they have great skill position players
usually a solid defense
they have great coaches
they have had great recruiting previous seasons
they have the ability to slide in a DAMN good QB the following season, possibly with some game experience in mop up wins the previous season
+1
I don't believe you can use consistent CFP/championship level teams as a representative data set here.
-
I recall last year noting UCLA as a team on the rise, in part because of returning QB. They finished 9-4, I think I predicted 10-3 with a shot at 11-2. They started pretty well before dropping three one score games late. Were they great? Nope. Decent? Yes. Maybe I over valued Dorian T-R a bit, though he had a fine year, and they faced a pretty easy slate. It could well be that returning QB is often over valued, I don't know, one would need to look at some specifics, particulalry with middlin' teams. I also think everyone agrees it's a factor. A middlin' team may have a new 3 star QB coming in who struggles, early, while an elite team will have 4-5 stars coming in, often with useful PT.
-
UNC will be interesting this season, with their OC not in Madison.
-
The UNC example is Exhibit A on this subject.
2020: Oh the RBs and WRs are gone and the defense isn't good, but let's ignore all that because Howell's back!
2022: Oh the top 3 WRs are back, but they have a new QB, so they'll stink.
In 2020, they returned a mess of RBs and WRs. And they finished as well as they started, delivering the best season of the Mack Brown era.
In 2022 they lost their No. 1, No. 3 and No. 4 receivers. And their starting running back. And four starting offensive linemen. But they did have a five-star QB everyone knew would be good.
I don't understand WHY YOU NEED TO MAKE UP A BUNCH OF NONSENSE THAT'S NOT TRUE. Shoot, people didn't even think they'd stink. People thought they'd be a an OK ACC team unless the defense was less shitty. And they were a better than OK ACC team despite the defense, in part because the ACC was quiet, quite shitty.
-
His data on UNC and the "preseason mags" is on more shaky ground because it's ONE team, but he admittedly called himself out for that being anecdotal data with a sample size of one, which is why he offered the MNC winner data.
Also because big chunks of it are wrong or nonsense.
-
I agree with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) and @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) that the "Conventional Wisdom" tends to overvalue the importance of having a returning QB.
That said, I think an interesting point has been made here about differences between NC Contenders and average teams.
One way to look at it, I think, is to consider close games. Years ago we did a deep dive on HFA. We compared home and road conference winning percentage and found that while nearly every team did better at home, the difference (or HFA) was biggest for teams that tend to finish near the middle of the standings.
I didn't expect that, but once the data took us there I thought it through and it makes perfect sense.
In terms of winning vs losing, HFA only matters for the games against teams that are relatively even.
Consider this year's B1G, Phil Steele has Ohio State at #1 (https://www.on3.com/news/phil-steele-reveals-preseason-2023-big-ten-power-ratings-ohio-state-michigan-nebraska/). For the Buckeyes, HFA is only remotely likely to be a factor in games against:
- #2 Michigan, away
- #3 Penn State, home
- #4 Wisconsin, away.
The Buckeyes don't play #5/6 (Iowa/Illinois) and host #7/8 (Minnesota/Maryland) so that is it, maybe three games.
It is similar for #14 Northwestern, HFA is only remotely likely to be a factor in games against:
- #11 Purdue, home
- #10 Nebraska, away.
The Wildcats don't play #13/12 (Rutgers/Indiana) nor #9 Michigan State so that is it, two games.
Teams in the middle face a much different situation. They might play five or six games against comparably middling teams where HFA could be decisive.
The same may apply to having a returning QB. It may not matter much for elite NC Contenders where they only play a few comparable teams each year and most of those are at the end of the year when every team has an experienced QB, but it might matter a lot for a team projected to go around .500 that is likely going to play a lot more competitive games and play them earlier in the season.
-
In my view, to claim X is over valued, one needs to make a more specific case for where it happened and by whom.
I admit to having been trained in a contentious environment where asking hard specific questions to attack someone's hypothesis was not only expected but valued.
One might also review currently ranked teams in the preseason and note which might be over ranked because they have X (returning QB) in hand. Is USC being over ranked? Some of us think so, but we're talking "Heisman" level, if that means anything.
-
having a returning QB and having a hypesman level QB are different, but the same
-
The same may apply to having a returning QB. It may not matter much for elite NC Contenders where they only play a few comparable teams each year and most of those are at the end of the year when every team has an experienced QB, but it might matter a lot for a team projected to go around .500 that is likely going to play a lot more competitive games and play them earlier in the season.
However, those teams also may have struggles elsewhere.
Look at Purdue during both the Hazell and Brohm eras. They had some pretty damn talented QBs. Often a few with a lot of experience. Some transferred out and won starting jobs at SEC schools. Others got NFL looks.
However, an Achilles heel of both coaching staffs* was terrible OL play. A returning QB can't do squat if the OL can't block. A rookie QB can do a lot if the OL can.
Yet I seem to remember hearing a lot of Purdue fans predicting a QB leap and better results as those QBs got experience, and it never really materialized because it wasn't the QB that limited the results.
I think it points to overvaluing the experienced QB, and not appreciating the supporting pieces around them. But then, I'm a little biased, as I'm built more like an OL than a QB ;-)
(*another Achilles heel of both coaching staffs was playing QB ping pong and not committing to one... But I digress.)
-
We all know the recent success at Bama and UGA started with line play. Clemson also had some great DLs. A great OL can make a half decent QB look pretty good, we all know that, and vice versa. I bet examples are legion of a really good returning QB having a down year because the OL lost 4 of 5 starters. A great mobile QB can mask that deficiency to an extent. When I look at preseason teams, I try and think about the OL first and foremost, then maybe the skill players and then defense. Give me a great OL and decent rest of the team and I might expect to grind out a lot of 75 yard drives that keeps scoring down and defense fresh.
How was LSU's OL when they won it? Burreaux was so fantastic I didn't notice much except that several times UGA got good pressure and Joe did something crazy.
-
so, where's a good source for O-line experience at top 20 programs?
I need it for my 5 minute top 10 in the other thread
-
College football rankings: Michigan, Georgia, Texas headline top 10 offensive lines entering 2023 season (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-football-rankings-michigan-georgia-texas-headline-top-10-211345965/#2180866)
Oregon State is the outlier here.
-
so, it wasn't the exit of Mike Riley
it was the O-line that improved the Beavers!
-
the fallacy is in the 'one size fits all' type of convo that is had when regarding returning qbs. take espn's returning production calculations:
"Here's the current weighting for determining the offensive percentages above (returning production):
Percent of returning WR/TE receiving yards: 24% of the overall number
Percent of returning QB passing yards: 23%
Percent of returning OL snaps: 47%
Percent of returning RB rushing yards: 6%
Broken out by position/player, you're looking at roughly 29% for the quarterback, 6% for the running back and each of four wide receivers and/or tight ends and 9% for each offensive lineman. With each year of data, offensive line snaps become a heavier piece of the equation, which I find interesting."
on the face, this looks ridiculously high to me. no stats or whatnot to back up, just a hunch and some limited experience. having been a qb in playing days, i know i don't feel i made that big of a difference in games. i understand it's changed since then, but not that drastically, imo. qb's are most important player on offense, i think everyone agrees with that opinion. but not damn near 1/3 of it's production/success. i don't know, and don't really have a rebutting answer, but just seems high to me.
and to my greater point, takes no concern over the nuance of teams, systems, and other returning players. for some teams, systems, and situations, returning qb can matter a little or a lot. early-mid '10s bama didn't much matter if qb was returning or not. current version bama i suspect would be much better with a returning qb.
this doesn't even consider the specific qb himself, but just the position. bad-mediocre qb returning doesn't mean much. burrows don't happen very often.
-
I wonder if some perusal of older magazine preseason rankings would show the QB fallacy to any degree.
-
I wonder if some perusal of older magazine preseason rankings would show the QB fallacy to any degree.
Im convinced had Vince Young come back we win the NC in 2006
-
He was a difference maker for sure.
-
Im convinced had Vince Young come back we win the NC in 2006
He's actually one of the examples of someone with such a unique talent, physical attributes, and skill set that he sorta breaks the mold.
JFF was oddly another one. "Bad OL? Well I'm just gonna run around and play backyard football!"
Kinda like in college basketball where you talk about a guard who "can create on their own", i.e. doesn't need to be the product of an offensive system to fill it up. Compared to maybe a wing who can get open for threes but relies on ball movement and offensive scheme to get them the ball where they have the opportunity to shoot, or a big who is reliant on the offense being set up to get the ball inside to him because he sure as hell won't dribble it there on his own.
VY and JFF could "create on their own." Most QBs can't.
-
whats really challenging is when a team has a new coach and a new QB
The Horns have been down that road far too many times
-
In 2020, they returned a mess of RBs and WRs. And they finished as well as they started, delivering the best season of the Mack Brown era.
In 2022 they lost their No. 1, No. 3 and No. 4 receivers. And their starting running back. And four starting offensive linemen. But they did have a five-star QB everyone knew would be good.
I don't understand WHY YOU NEED TO MAKE UP A BUNCH OF NONSENSE THAT'S NOT TRUE. Shoot, people didn't even think they'd stink. People thought they'd be a an OK ACC team unless the defense was less shitty. And they were a better than OK ACC team despite the defense, in part because the ACC was quiet, quite shitty.
Okay, so it was 2021 and not 2020. I got the year wrong, but 2021 proves my point even more. UNC was preseason top 15 in 2021, having lost their top 2 WRs and 2 RBs, but because Howell was there, they were supposed to be good....winding up going 6-7.
I'm sorry I was a year off.
-
A good solid OL and backfield can really help a young inexperienced QB. Under those circumstances winning a conference championship is quite possible.
-
One might look at current top 25 predictions on line and note which might be too high due to over valuing the TQB component.