I can't believe how often I see people here include in arguments discussing Qb's the assumption that the team's won lost record is a direct indicator of the Qb's effectiveness or lack thereof. In my view, yes, the Qb is the most critical position effecting the team's overall won lost record. But Qb's do not win and lose games by themselves. I think this should be obvious. Yet time and time again I see people refer here to the team's won loss record as a DIRECT indicator of the Qb's performance. I mean really, wtf? It sure would be nice if we could move past the dopey assumptoin that team won loss recored is a direct indicator about the Qb. Well, I've said my piece here, so have at it.
Are QB stats a team stat or an individual QB stat? Josh Freeman certainly wants to know the answer to this one. A QB's statistics are dependent on who he plays with. Some QB's can raise the level of the guys around them but nobody can turn Patrick Turner into Marvin Harrison. Nobody can turn Shonn Greene into Edgerrin James. That's just what it is. Find me a great QB and I'll show you several great WR's who played with him.
Same as with goalies in hockey. Great goalies on shit teams are going to have a bad win loss record but it doesn't mean they are bad at their position. Look at Cam Newton's W/L record but he had a great rookie season.
Sure w/l is not indication, but what is? Pass completion depends on quality if WRs. Same goes for total yrds. I think there is no single stat that positively measures QB performance, it always comes down to "eye test". TQR that ESPN was trying to push a year ago is basically an attempt to quantify this eye test. Didn't work very well because people can't be completely objective.
The other problem with TQR is that it doesn't handle outliers very well. Wayne Hunter was a significant outlier last year and any QB would have seen his play suffer some with a turnstile of that magnitude at RT.
People in general just use either wins or stats to back up whatever opinion they have of the QB they are talking about instead of being realistic. If a QBs stats suck on a good team you will hear about how many wins he delivered while minimizing the importance of stats. And then if said QB turns the corner and starts blowing up stat sheets those same people will then begin to use stats as the main evaluation for the play of the QB. Fans in general have a problem doing unbiased evaluations
It is a stat for people who really don't know football in any depth and don't want to take the time to learn. It's for the sunday morning NFL pregame guys.... a lot of smart people who ought to know better still choose to talk about how this particular QB won this many games. I is ridiculous. I've decided to stop talking football with those guys.
Brings up an interesting topic... player legacies. Especially at the QB position, there's no formula or metrics to use to measure a guy's career. Each one is unique and I don't think there's a way to apply the same evaluative thought process across the board. Best juxtaposition is Montana-Marino. Montana is as close to a consensus "best-ever" pick there is, but statistically speaking, he was more efficient than productive. He built his legacy on winning championships. Marino's the exact opposite. Other-worldly production, but never had the playoff success that Montana had. Brett Favre is the all-time leader in a lot of important statistical categories, but is he really the best all-time? Or the most productive all-time? Not many people will feel that way. Then there are players like Terry Bradshaw, who won four Super Bowls and was a first-ballot HOFer, but has a very pedestrian career QBR of 70.9. Other guys have done a little of everything. Brady's won three titles, has played in five Super Bowls, and is cutting deeper into the top-10 lists in most career passing categories as each season goes by. Same holds true for Manning (Peyton, I mean), who stands alone as a 4-time MVP of the league and a SB champ, and can be credited at least in part with the NFL turning into an air-show passing league. Wins and losses are part of it, I think. Especially if you're talking about guys who have won consistently despite their teams undergoing a lot of change around them over the years. It doesn't tell the whole story and isn't the end-all, be-all, but it's part of the picture. Has to be, I think... the object of the game isn't to throw for 300 yards in 4 quarters, it's to win.
QB's have a far greater chance of losing a game (critical pick or fumble) than they do winning a game by themself.
Nice post. With the way the league is built now you take Marino 10 times out of 10 over Montana if you're starting from scratch.
No, but his "just know[ing] how to win" must have been channeled through the defense and the ST. :lol:
Colts with Manning: 11-5 at bare minimum Colts without Manning: 2-14. There you go. Have at it. (It all depends on the situation, if you didn't get the message across.)
Yeah, Montana never had the "measurables" that draft-niks look for... not a huge arm, not particularly athletic...
Completely agree and is a stat that I quote ad nauseam on this forum. I can't stand all my Giants fans who think Eli is a sure fire HoF with 2 SB titles, even though his regular season stats were marginal before 2011. Would Eli have been a HoF QB before last season? Not even remotely close. So one great season is supposed to change our minds? The same goes with Tom Brady and his first SB. Show me where Tom Brady added anything of substantial value that season. He didn't. All you have to do is look at the numbers. Likewise the same reasoning applies with Sanchez. He wasn't the main reason we went to back to back AFC champ games, and he's not the main reason we didn't make the playoffs last yr. You win as a team, you lose as a team. Simple as that.
Won lost record=strength of schedule/turnovers+luck*TOP-field position*(QB IQ-arm strength+accuracy)-Wayne Hunter at RT/Shotty as your OC-10 if you replace him with Sparano. Yes the won lost record is on the team and the GM, Coaching staff and QB in that order are the most important aspects of the team and have the greatest impact on W-L record.
In Brady's 17th NFL start in the Super Bowl, 1st and 10 on his own 16 yard-line, 1:13 left in the game with no timeouts in a tie game with the Rams. How many QB's, let alone one with 17 starts, could drive their team down the field to set up the winning FG under those circumstances?
