One reason Marino threw so many TD passes was that they threw in a lot of short goal line situations where most teams would run it in.
Bledsoe was already recovered but Brady had taken the job by then. Win or lose that Raider game Bledsoe was on the way out, they even traded him in the division, that's how little they cared by that point.
Obviously there are significant aspects of the game that determine wins and losses that are beyond the QB's control, but the QB position is the one position in which every single play (minus very few exceptions) runs through him on his side of the ball. the QB makes the reads and passes on pass plays, and makes the defensive reads on run plays (with the ability to audible out). as such the QB has more individual influence on the game than any other position and player, and so as a position the team's wins and losses are weighed more heavily on it than any other position. not solely, just more than any other position individually, which does not negate the importance and impact of those other positions. I have never read an argument that stated a QB is solely responsible for wins and losses so that isn't the argument, just that it is the individual position with the most direct influence over the game, and thus wins and losses. that is true and fair. But it is also generally only used as a starting point to evaluate a QB, with the QB's individual stats then used to supplement his overall ability and evaluation. No QB in history has ever been said to be great with awful individual statistics just because he won (Bradshaw and Namath still had good individual statistics, even though not great), and no QB has been said to be awful just because he did not win but had great individual statistics. and so a QB is fairly judged on his ability to generate more wins than losses. Mark Sanchez, for example, has gone 9-7, 11-5 and 8-8 in the regular season. 28-20. That's a good record, and the eye test with verify that Sanchez is at best a good QB. seems pretty accurate to me. but if the argument is that because a QB is not solely responsible for wins and losses and thus you can't judge him on wins and losses, then you can't judge any player or even a coach on wins and losses, because at the end of the day wins and losses are the result of every player's and coaches abilities, and to a great extent beyond any one of their individual control. a brilliant coach can't make a player make a play once he is on the field no matter how well he has coached him. thus the only reasonable conclusion would be wins and losses are meaningless in evaluating any individual in football. you can make that argument, but that is an extremely flawed position because clearly each player and coach has some impact on wins and losses, and thus can be judged for the team's wins and losses proportionally to the positions impact and importance to the team's ability to win and lose. through the history of football it has been widely accepted that QB is the most important position for that, not that it is the only position. to dispute that is showing a lack of understanding of football not the other way around.
A lot of stats used to measure a QB are flawed. Win and loss is one of the biggest ones. QBs do have an abnormally higher impact on the game but they are 1/3 of the team at most. QBs don't intercept other QBs or kick field goals. They help the other units but the other units help them. Win loss is a good indicator over lots of seasons because it means the QB played well over that amount time. Win loss for playoffs only or a season are very small and need to be broken down further to see how the QB impacted the record.
1/3 of the impact by 1 player out of 22 can't be minimized as "at most." that means the other 2/3 is split among 21 players. that is such a huge disparity from the QB position to any other position that it validates the win/loss record as a valid QB stat.
to be fair he was only the goat in most of Indy's playoff losses but he did have a few really good games. Mostly in the WC rd at home but still.
Excellent post. The point of playing the game, is to win the game, otherwise it is pointless YMCA shit. Qb's that rack up a bunch of stats but don't come through in the clutch are akin to expensive whores~they look good, but don't leave ya feeling to good when its all said and done.
His D allowed less pts in postseason than Brady's supposed great Ds. They had multiple chanes to win SBs and failed to do so b/c of the QB choking.
You do realize there was a driving snow storm in the first playoff game against the Raiders. Brady threw the ball 52 times in that game dominated Gannon who was arguably the best QB in the AFC that year. He also far outplayed Stewart in the AFC finals that year and arguably outplayed Warner who was the league MVP in the SB. The guy had one turnover in 3 games, ran a very controlled solid O in bad conditions and drove down the field to win the SB. Your comment was simply stupid. Did Brady carry the team, no but Brady turned the Pats into a desciplined team that could win and did. The guy threw for almost a 64% completion rate and had a nice turnover to INT ratio. He was clearly a difference maker for the Pats from the day he stepped on the field.
Great post. The other reality of the NFL is GM and HC are clearly the key to winning but great organizations that win also generally have a very good to great franchise QB. Having that piece to build around creates stability on the field along with control. Without that piece it's very difficult to build a winning team.
"Your comment was simply stupid. Did Brady carry the team, no but Brady turned the Pats into a desciplined team that could win and did." You literally made my entire argument yourself, right there. All I said was he wasn't the sole reason his team won the SB, a fact that even the Pats fans on this board agreed with. It takes more than one person to win a football game, so to attribute Wins and Losses to one individual player is simply flawed. Everything else you wrote is true, but wasn't what I argued. I don't get what a nice comp % and turnover ratio have to do with equating wins and losses to one specific player. Should I start equating wins and losses to running backs considering the Pats were a heavy run team in their first SB run? Doesn't Antowain Smith deserve some love here? My comment was spot on, and to say it was the dumbest thing you've read on this board is nothing short of moronic, considering you simply agreed with me in the quote above stating that he did not carry that team at that point in his career.
no person has ever stated, and the the argument has never been, that a QB is the sole reason why a team wins and anyone claiming that is the argument doesn't understand what is being discussed when a QB's ability is being judged by the team's win/loss record. there is absolutely no reason to bring that up. of course it takes more than one person to win a game, but that doesn't mean that the team's win/loss record isn't a reflection on the QB and his ability.
Team wins and losses are obviously a team stat, but the QB has more influence on that stat than any other individual on the roster. So it goes both ways.
Had that been what you actually said it would have been a reasonable point. However this is what you said. Brady took over a team that had gone 9 and 7, 8 and 8 and 5 and 11 and lost it's first 2 games of 2001 before Brady took over the team. That 2001 team went 11 and 3 with Brady as the starter and that same team with him as the starter posted a 9 win season followed by 2 14 win seasons a 10, 12, 16, 10, 14 and 13 win season with him running the show. The guy has stabilized the organization, put it in a position to contend ever year despite bad defense, bad running games and coaching staff replaced on practically a yearly basis while other teams look for the formula that made NE successful, failing miserably for the most part. Nobody has argued the QB is the only piece to a team but a top franchise QB like Brady don't barely do anything, they are the key to building a winning organization.
This is a nonsensical argument. The Qb is one of only 22 starters. And it's not only the players as the coaches also have an impact. Won lost record is a very poor metric for judging a Qb. Let's take it back to the Jets, and specifically Sanchez. Many here argue that Sanchez improved in some categories last year, yet the Jets had a worse won lost record. Was Sanchez a better Qb in his rookie year than in his third? WOn lost stat says yes. But we all know that is not true.
