Quarterback Trading Game (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Here are the rules of the game:

1) There are 32 starting QBs in the NFL, and we're going to play the game for the next 10 years. There are never any injuries, and all QBs are given a grade from 1 to 9, with 1 being the worst starters in the league and 9 being the best starters in the league. The quarterbacks are uniformly distributed, meaning there are an equal number of 1s, 2s, 3s, etc. Additionally, the difference between a grade 9 QB and a grade 7 QB is the exact same as the difference between a grade 7 QB and a grade 5 QB, or a grade 3 QB and a grade 1 QB.

2) Over the next ten years, we have one team's QBs that are perfectly average every year. Ten straight runs of 5s. This is the default.

3) To play the game, I want to hear what you think is the equivalent to ten years of 5s, with the caveat being you can't have any years of 5s in your list. You come up with a string of ten numbers (one for each year) that you would be indifferent to having your team QB play like, relative to a string of 5s. Another way to think about it is after you pick your string of numbers, I'll choose either your string of numbers of the string of 5s to give to your rival team, and you'll have the other set of numbers. Obviously if you picked seven 9s and three 1s, I'd give that to your rival team, and you'd be stuck with ten 5s, and thus worse QB play than your least favorite team for the next decade.

4) It doesn't matter the age of your QB or how many QBs you have. We're just looking at team QB play. It can be one young QB from his rookie year to his tenth season, or a string of ten straight 30 year old FA QBs. Either way, we're only concerned with the grade.

So...what's indifferent to 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5? Multiple answers are encouraged as well.

 

[-OZ-]

I'll bite.

A: 4,4,6,6,4,4,6,6,4,6

B: 3,3,3,4,4,6,6,7,7,7

C: 1,1,1,9,9,1,1,1,9,9

 

[dutch]

this have anything to do with aikman?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'll bite.A: 4,4,6,6,4,4,6,6,4,6B: 3,3,3,4,4,6,6,7,7,7C: 1,1,1,9,9,1,1,1,9,9

FWIW I think the order is irrelevant, but did you mix it up on purpose or were you just doing it random? Is five straight 4s followed by five straight 6s any different in your head than what you wrote for A?And I think you need an extra 9 and one fewer 1 in your C.

 

[Chase Stuart]

this have anything to do with aikman?

No.

 

[dutch]

this have anything to do with aikman?

No.

In that case- 6666644444. In real life terms I'm thinking Dallas of the last few years. Vinnie, henson, Bledsoe, Wright, Romo. Meh describes that lot best.

 

[Chase Stuart]

this have anything to do with aikman?

No.

In that case- 6666644444. In real life terms I'm thinking Dallas of the last few years. Vinnie, henson, Bledsoe, Wright, Romo. Meh describes that lot best.

I'd say 6666644444 is equivalent to 5555555555 as well.What would be an equivalent combination using at least a couple of 9s? Is it as simple as 1111199999?

 

[dutch]

this have anything to do with aikman?

No.

In that case- 6666644444. In real life terms I'm thinking Dallas of the last few years. Vinnie, henson, Bledsoe, Wright, Romo. Meh describes that lot best.

I'd say 6666644444 is equivalent to 5555555555 as well.What would be an equivalent combination using at least a couple of 9s? Is it as simple as 1111199999?

Seeing as it's a hypothetical, sure. Think about GB before Favre. Majik is the last in a looong line of mediocre and then the savior arrives.

 

[Chase Stuart]

What would be an equivalent combination using at least a couple of 9s? Is it as simple as 1111199999?

Seeing as it's a hypothetical, sure. Think about GB before Favre. Majik is the last in a looong line of mediocre and then the savior arrives.

So you'd have no preference over your favorite team having consistently average QB play for the next decade while your most hated team had incredible QB play for five years and horrible QB play for five years, than vice versa?

 

[-OZ-]

I'll bite.A: 4,4,6,6,4,4,6,6,4,6B: 3,3,3,4,4,6,6,7,7,7C: 1,1,1,9,9,1,1,1,9,9

FWIW I think the order is irrelevant, but did you mix it up on purpose or were you just doing it random? Is five straight 4s followed by five straight 6s any different in your head than what you wrote for A?And I think you need an extra 9 and one fewer 1 in your C.

I mixed it up because IMO consistancy matters. 5 years of below average play would be a QB warming up, 5 years of above average play would be what we remember. This is more pronounced with option C. 4 years of "9" would mean dynasty.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'll bite.A: 4,4,6,6,4,4,6,6,4,6B: 3,3,3,4,4,6,6,7,7,7C: 1,1,1,9,9,1,1,1,9,9

FWIW I think the order is irrelevant, but did you mix it up on purpose or were you just doing it random? Is five straight 4s followed by five straight 6s any different in your head than what you wrote for A?And I think you need an extra 9 and one fewer 1 in your C.

I mixed it up because IMO consistancy matters. 5 years of below average play would be a QB warming up, 5 years of above average play would be what we remember. This is more pronounced with option C. 4 years of "9" would mean dynasty.

Interesting.To be clear, did you purposely put down 6 1st and 4 9s?

 

[dutch]

What would be an equivalent combination using at least a couple of 9s? Is it as simple as 1111199999?

Seeing as it's a hypothetical, sure. Think about GB before Favre. Majik is the last in a looong line of mediocre and then the savior arrives.

So you'd have no preference over your favorite team having consistently average QB play for the next decade while your most hated team had incredible QB play for five years and horrible QB play for five years, than vice versa?

If I knew the Dolphins were gonna suck donkey balls for five straight years I would do back flips. Give me the bills at 7-9/9-7 and Miami @ 2-12 for a five years and I would survive with a smile in my heart. A bills superbowl is still atop the list but barring that give me the above. That is providing every five years is alternate It is, isn't it????

 

[Chase Stuart]

What would be an equivalent combination using at least a couple of 9s? Is it as simple as 1111199999?

Seeing as it's a hypothetical, sure. Think about GB before Favre. Majik is the last in a looong line of mediocre and then the savior arrives.

So you'd have no preference over your favorite team having consistently average QB play for the next decade while your most hated team had incredible QB play for five years and horrible QB play for five years, than vice versa?

If I knew the Dolphins were gonna suck donkey balls for five straight years I would do back flips. Give me the bills at 7-9/9-7 and Miami @ 2-12 for a five years and I would survive with a smile in my heart. A bills superbowl is still atop the list but barring that give me the above. That is providing every five years is alternate It is, isn't it????

What about 10 straight years of 9-7/7-9 for the Bills, and five straight years of 2-12 for Miami, and then five straight years of 14-2 for Miami? Equivalent?

 

[dutch]

Does the 14-2 Miami qb continue to produce at a high level in year 10+1?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Does the 14-2 Miami qb continue to produce at a high level in year 10+1?

No. They have an entirely random result in year 11.

 

[-OZ-]

I'll bite.A: 4,4,6,6,4,4,6,6,4,6B: 3,3,3,4,4,6,6,7,7,7C: 1,1,1,9,9,1,1,1,9,9

FWIW I think the order is irrelevant, but did you mix it up on purpose or were you just doing it random? Is five straight 4s followed by five straight 6s any different in your head than what you wrote for A?And I think you need an extra 9 and one fewer 1 in your C.

I mixed it up because IMO consistancy matters. 5 years of below average play would be a QB warming up, 5 years of above average play would be what we remember. This is more pronounced with option C. 4 years of "9" would mean dynasty.

Interesting.To be clear, did you purposely put down 6 1st and 4 9s?

yes, as a Lions fan I'm used to 1's, and 9's would be bliss.

 

[dutch]

Does the 14-2 Miami qb continue to produce at a high level in year 10+1?

No. They have an entirely random result in year 11.

Marino never won a superbowl. Tarkenton never won a superbowl. Kelly never won a superbowl. Fouts never won a superbowl. Starr, Unitas, Aikman, Brady, Bradshaw all won superbowls.I'll take the latter.

 

[radballs]

Are we trying to get at anything resembling discounted cash flow analysis? Or am I over thinking this?

For example, given the salary cap and contract structures maybe you'd want to be targeting something along the lines of front loading those numbers in the early years only to crap out in the last five years. Then, you can pick up a cheap free agent maybe in the later years?

Maybe I'm on the wrong track. But, if what you're getting at that it doesn't make much sense to pick a QB early in the draft because he has to be groomed while you're paying a huge signing bonus and salary, then I agree.

 

[radballs]

So, I guess what I'm further getting at is that the optimum configuration depends on the rest of the surrounding talent level and age of the rest of the team. If it's a young team, you'd rather have a lower score in the early years and have that level increase along with the rest of the team. If it's a vet team, you want to swing for the fences in the first two to three years and then just bite the bullet come the later years.

In any case, a SB win today is worth much more than one ten years from now. Always shoot for victory today, but by just viewing a QB study like this in a vacuum, I think you would try to align your premier QB years with the maturation levels of most of the other players on the team.

Obviously, that might mean also that the RB is the last piece of the puzzle since the learning curve and longevity of the position is probably shorter than others. Just thinking out loud.

 

[The Z Machine]

What the hell is the point of this? I know that the NFL season is over for a while, but other football exists. Can't you people start paying attention to European football? Things in the Premiership, La Liga, Serie A, and Champions League are all hot right now.

 

[SuperJohn96]

1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9

 

[pizzatyme]

I think back over Peyton Manning's career...

1,1,2,3,4,6,7,9,9,8

Tough question to answer without knowing the dynamics of the rest of the team.

 

[Kleck.]

Is this an ONSLAUGHT contest?

 

[switz]

So...what's indifferent to 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5? Multiple answers are encouraged as well.

3,3,3,3,3,7,7,7,7,7 or3,4,4,4,3,6,7,7,6,6basically it's indifferent, because while you aren't perfectly average, you are never so far above or below average to make a difference.In reality, I think most fans would prefer 1,2,3,6,7,9,9,4,4,4 (QB grows, team gets to SB or so, then QB play tails off w/ age, injuries, attrition)

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm a bit surprised here. Judging by other shark pool threads, most fans seem to embrace greatness even at the cost of being terrible. There are many threads on tanking a season, and rebuilding is considered a good thing. People seem to view SB winning seasons as much farther away from average than seasons where you have the first pick.

I would think most fans would prefer 9999911111 over 5555555555 by a good margin, so that an equivalent to ten 5s would be something like 9997611111.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I really don't see the point here, Chase.

I'll take all 5's, or all 4's and 6's, if you tell me that is what is coming for my next 10 seasons.

Then I'll go out and build a dominant defense, get a stud RB, and pump up my special teams and see you in the playoffs every year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I really don't see the point here, Chase.I'll take all 5's, or all 4's and 6's, if you tell me that is what is coming for my next 10 seasons.Then I'll go out and build a dominant defense, get a stud RB, and pump up my special teams and see you in the playoffs every year.

The point is about comparing dominant seasons to terrible seasons. It seems like most people here view one top notch season and one bottom notch season as equivalent to two average seasons. I wasn't expecting that.

 

[Duckboy]

I really don't see the point here, Chase.I'll take all 5's, or all 4's and 6's, if you tell me that is what is coming for my next 10 seasons.Then I'll go out and build a dominant defense, get a stud RB, and pump up my special teams and see you in the playoffs every year.

The point is about comparing dominant seasons to terrible seasons. It seems like most people here view one top notch season and one bottom notch season as equivalent to two average seasons. I wasn't expecting that.

If you could guarantee middle of the road QB play for 10 years (ie the classic "game-manager" role), I can agree with Jeff that you build the rest of the team based around that. NE is an example of that (albeit beefed-up - call Brady a steady 6-7), in that Brady may not ooze the uber-talent, but can make things happen by taking what he is given.I can see Chase's point, and I am in agreement. The classic question is always, "If you could have one guaranteed championship followed by 9 years with no playoffs, or 10 years in the playoffs with a very limited chance at the win, which do you choose?" I pick the championship every time (being a St. Louis Blues hockey fan as well, with basically my entire life making the POs and not even a sniff at the Cup), and I suspect most fans would as well.So, making the assumptions (for now) that the rest of the team is average as well, and that uber talent at QB can boost that up to championship level, I would look more at these as "equivalent":10 5's (total = 50)6 3's vs 4 7's (total = 46)7 1's vs 3 9's (total = 34)Concentration of numbers makes things more preferable as well (1,1,1,1,9,9,9,1,1,1 vs 1,1,9,1,1,1,9,1,1,9 for example).The fallacy in the assumptions vs real world is that the uber talent at QB (see Peyton at 9) isn't enough to guarantee a title. Even the 9's can have bad days, or the team has one as a whole. Was this really the best Indy team over the last few years? I don't think so, but the results played out that way. Given how the playoffs seem to roll, especially given a one-and-done scenario, taking the guaranteed playoff slot and taking your chances in the postseason is the way to go. So 4-6's with a strong surrounding team would tend to have a better shot at success.

 

[bryhamm]

I'm a bit surprised here. Judging by other shark pool threads, most fans seem to embrace greatness even at the cost of being terrible. There are many threads on tanking a season, and rebuilding is considered a good thing. People seem to view SB winning seasons as much farther away from average than seasons where you have the first pick.

I would think most fans would prefer 9999911111 over 5555555555 by a good margin, so that an equivalent to ten 5s would be something like 9997611111.

I know I would. Those 5 years of 9s give my team the best chance of winning a SB. 10 years of 5s are going to yield 0 SBs.

 

[chook]

The Bears made it to the Superbowl with a 1.

I agree with Pasquino; get a stud RB, a def & win it with that, a'la Dilfer.