That's why individual stats lie sometimes. Sanchez posted his best #s but he was MUCH better in 2010 than he was in 2011. I would say for what he was asked to do he was better in 2009 than 2011. He threw a lot of INts but the bulk of them came in about 4 games, he played pretty well the rest of the season.
your argument still has no merit because you keep trying to isolate win/loss as a qb metric rather than using it honestly -- in conjunction with other stats. it is part of how a qb is judged. if you want to argue how much weight it should have that is fine but you are trying to argue it has no weight. that is nonsensical. and your argument above proves it. based on the previous assertion that you were addressing that a qb. accounts for 1/3 of the impact on the game, that would mean that the qb position accounts for 33.3% of the game. I stated that leaves 21 other positions to account for the other 66.6% of the game, or 3%. each position. that means the qb position has 10 times more impact on the game than any other position. of course you have conveniently ignored the rest of my argument explaining why it is a value metric because it points out specifically the flaw in your argument. if your dispute of that 1/3 qb to 2/3 rest of the team is to point out that the remaining 2/3 shouldn't br divided just by the other 21 positions but amongst the rest of the players on the team and coaches then you further reduce, on average, their individual impact and simply increase the disparity of the qb's impact versus the rest of the players and coaches and have validated my argument not disputed it. you have yet to define the level of impact the qb position has on the game compared to any other position or coaching and without that you have no basis to claim it isn't a value metric.
I said this in another thread yesterday but it should probably have been here. There are plays in a game where the QB on his own makes decisions and/or plays that decide points, which decides games. Third and goal inside the 10, back to pass, play or route breaks down. The QB can run, throw it away, find someone, take a sack, throw a pick, etc. The result is either 7 points, 3 points, a turnover, all of those things change the rest of the game. The left guard or the linebacker has no such impact on a game.
If the left guard allows his man to blow past him and the QB has a second less to react and do one of the above then the left guard may well have had the biggest impact on the game. Chad Pennington wasn't why the Jets dropped from 10-6 to 4-12 in 2007. Adrien Clarke's terrible play had much more impact on the games in that season than Chad's and lead to the Jets having a really bad season. Chad kept taking the best option available to him, as was his wont, and Captain Checkdown was born. His middle names were Adrien Clarke.
beyond that, anyone claiming that wins/losses can't be used as a value stat to evaluate a qb's ability would first have to define which stats do reflect qb's ability and then define the threshold that separates a good qb from a bad qb with those stats. if wins/losses are not a reflection of a bad qb from a good qb then you would see no significant difference in wins/losses from qb's above the threshold and below the threshold. considering nobody has done so means nobody has a valid argument based on any other statistic to dispute wins/losses.
There is the potential for any position to impact any play if they mess it up. The difference with the QB is he does impact every play for better or worse, there is no hypothetical needed.
The problem with stats is that every game and situation is different. I've seen teams up 14-0 or down 14-0 before the offense ever takes the field. One play can skew stats too, like a 99 yard TD pass on a screen, there's just so many variables. The object is to win the game, however you do it, so the guy with the ball in his hands has to in some way be accountable to that with the understanding that it is a team result but he holds a lot of the keys.
The way I'd put it is that on every play, in every type of offense, the left guard has a key role in the play. There are very few plays that you can call where if the left guard gets blown up the play does not suffer. In passing offenses that pass the ball a lot the QB has more impact, unless the left guard is terrible in which case the left guard has more impact. In running offenses that run the ball a lot the left guard probably has similar impact to the QB. The worse your QB the more impact the left guard has because he is going to be relied on more often in the running game and his mistakes are going to magnify the mistakes of the QB behind him. To put it more simply the left guard is a key point of failure. In fact just about any offensive lineman is a key point of failure. If they don't do their job then the quality of the players around them is less important because those players opportunities to perform well are going to be significantly impacted by the failures of the offensive lineman. When you have a great QB then maybe a key point of failure on the line can be mitigated against by superior QB play. When you don't have a great QB it probably can't be mitigated against by average or subpar QB play. The key point of failure on the Jets at this point is not Sanchez. It's Hunter. The next key point of failure may well not be Sanchez either, although we haven't seen a Jets offensive line without Hunter in more than a season now so it's unclear where the next point of failure would lie if he miraculously vanished.
obviously there will always be individual exceptions to the rule, that is what a single game from a large body of work is. that doesn't invalidate the statistics. if a QB throws for an average of 300 yards a game in his career, but has a single game where he only throws for 180, does that negate the meaningfulness of his 300 average? of course not. the usefulness of statistics is to look at groups of situations, so you can't look at one season or one game or one drive and draw a useful conclusion that you apply to the large body. you look at the larger body of work to draw the conclusion. over a large body of work you will find meaningful statistical patterns, such as a QB's average yards per game, TD's per season, INT per season, or even a larger analysis such as QB's with poor individual statistics likely also have less wins and more losses than players with good individual statistics, thus there is a correlation between a QB's play and wins and losses.
and this is the point right here. if a great QB can generate effectiveness despite deficiencies elsewhere than clearly a QB does have a more meaningful impact on a game than other positions. and this is how you differentiate great QB's from good ones, and then good ones from poor ones. Sanchez isn't a great QB and likely can't overcome those deficiencies, and thus that will be reflected in the win/losses. but a great QB likely can overcome those deficiencies, which will be reflected in more wins/losses. hence wins/losses does reveal to some extent the ability of the QB.
Yeah, but you're talking like Dan Marino great here. Not Tom Brady great, because when his line lets him down he gets blown up pretty regularly, which is one of the reasons the Jets have been able to beat him recently. I don't think there are many QB's in the game right now that can survive a weak link on the line and still prosper. Eli Manning survived a weak link last year in the playoffs but he was damn lucky to get there at 9-7. Ben Roethlisberger has lived with a weak link for seasons at a time. That might be the entire list of QB's at this point that can play with a player in their face a lot of the time.
actually, Brady is the perfect example. despite deficiencies of his O-line he has an impeccable win/loss record. sure, sometime he loses games because his competition is better than his O-line, but again you can't take just one or two games per season and negate other 14 to 16, or expect him to go undefeated every year to claim he is great. you have to look at the overall body of work.
I was not the poster who said that one third thing. And I never said won lost record has no use in assessing the Qb. I was arguing against those who think it is a relatively effective measure, in isolation, of the Qb's play. Which it isn't. I have no idea what you are trying to say in your last paragraph.
He's not a good example for our situation though because if you put him behind the Jets line with the Jets receivers he's not Tom Brady any more. He's better than Mark Sanchez in that situation but believe me he is going to be a very average QB with people in his face all the time. He can't make Jeremy Kerley into Wes Welker. That's just not going to happen. On the overall W-L thing, the Patriots line and WR's have been very competent to extremely good over the years. Some years the line hasn't been great across the board but Belichik will not let a stiff play on the line the way the Jets do now and then. Brady has always had at least decent targets to throw too and a gameplan designed to use them to maximum effectiveness. It seems like Welker runs the same damn route on every play and it's just a question of where he goes with it. He's almost always in the slot. That's called using a talented player in the way that gets the most out of him. The reason the Jets have beaten Brady several times, including in the playoffs, is because they attacked the Patriot's pass protection schemes in ways that created major problems for Brady. They dropped defenders in places he wasn't expecting them. They made him look pretty normal. The same approach worked for the Ravens against them in the playoffs the year before. Take away Brady's perfect setup and he's just another QB. The magic that Belichik has managed over the years is to always maintain a perfect setup for Brady. This helped Matt Cassel go 11-5 the year Brady went down. Is Tom Brady a great player? Yes. is that greatness transferable or is it because he's with the Pats? I'm pretty sure it is the latter reason.
Jeremy kerley would be wes welker w/ Tom Brady. Do you remember the '09 game when Welker was out and Edelman did everything welker always does? Brady's "perfect setup" where outside of the TEs last year and Moss for a year or 2 he's never had big time weapons on O yet always thrives.
you did not say it but because you responded to my post which itself was a specific response to that claim you were inherently still discussing that claim. you can't separate the meaning of my post from what it was addressing because it was about that specific dynamic. obviously you can change the course of that discussion but you did not state you were disputing the 1/3 to 2/3 ratio and then make argument about what you believe to be a different ratio of impact, so your response was simply a continuation of that existing conversation and its subject. no individual statistic, in isolation, is an effective measure of a QB's play. is 300 yards per game effective if it leads to very few TD's? are a lot of TD's an effective measure if he has a lot of INT's? it is all in combination. which is what I was saying in the last paragraph: to dispute the effectiveness of wins/losses as a stat for the QB you have to define how much greater impact those other stats reflect on the QB's play than wins/losses. that would require you to show that QB's with excellent statistics in those categories can have poor win/loss records and thus you cannot claim that wins/losses negate those statistics. you would also have to show that QB's with poor performances in those statistical categories can have very good win/loss records, thus a poor QB can have a significantly better win/loss record than good QB's, which would mean win/loss has minimal meaning. But I am willing to be you will see a correlation by statistical performance and overall win/loss record, thus win/loss is reflective of play. I am certain neither of us have done any research into this matter, so let's just do an "eye test" on the situation. can you name, just off the top of your head, a QB with great individual statistics that you believe are meaningful that had a below .500 record as a starter (which I will use as a conservative basis for how the benchmark in which we will define a good win/loss record to define a QB's play). conversely, can you name a QB with poor statistical performance in the categories you believe are important but who had an above .500 record. if those exist than certainly you are correct and wins/loss are not an effective measure. but I can't think of a QB considered great or even very good who didn't have a good win/loss record. conversely, I can't think of a poor QB who had a good win/loss record. so likely there is a correlation and thus win/loss is meaningful.
No, he wouldn't. Welker caught 67 balls for a putrid Dolphins offense in 2006. That's how he got noticed by Belichik in the first place and Belichik traded two draft picks including a 2nd round pick to get him from the Dolphins. That's what I mean about a perfect setup for Brady. Belichik saw a great slot receiver out there and went and got him at a significant cost. Then he turned that slot receiver into a starting slot receiver by installing the spread as the main offense and Welker took off. There's no way Jeremy Kerley turns into Wes Welker if he has Brady throwing to him. What Welker has done over the last few seasons with the opportunity that he was given is pretty near unique in NFL history.
unfortunately, that is too speculative. that same thing can be said about every QB who had great success on one team. did Joe Montana make the 49ers successful or Bill Walsh and all the great talent he had around him? at the end of the day you can only judge someone one their accomplishments, not hypotheticals.
