There are 79 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Better Rivals: Do QB Wins matter?

Judging a QB by just wins is just stupid. It's like saying DIlfer> Marino.
Originally posted by Mike8016:
Judging a QB by just wins is just stupid. It's like saying DIlfer> Marino.

Except Marino won more games than Dilfer......whats your point?
Originally posted by Oscar:
Originally posted by SofaKing:
Stats matter, but the most important stat will always be winning. Joe Montana will always win the argument for best QB of all time because he won... a lot.

Nope. Winning is irrelevant when judging a QB. A QB is 1 of a starting 22. He can help or hurt, but judging a QB by wins is folly at best. By that stat Tim Tebow is on his way to being a HOFer.

Saying winning is irrelevant doesn't make any sense. Saying stats don't matter doesn't make any sense either. They work hand in hand. QB's who win generally have good stats, and vice versa.

Tim Tebow is not a good example. His stats are awful and its obvious to anyone with a functioning pair of eyes that he has huge holes in his game. Not to mention he has only actually won a handful of games. Not a big enough sample size from him.

A QB is NOT just 1 of 22. That's Singletary speak. The QB has, and always will be, more important than anyone else on the football field. Good or bad, they ultimately dictate whether you win or lose.
Originally posted by SofaKing:
Except Marino won more games than Dilfer......whats your point?

I meant superbowl wins.
Originally posted by Mike8016:
Originally posted by SofaKing:
Except Marino won more games than Dilfer......whats your point?

I meant superbowl wins.

Thats the thing. Nobody will ever try and say Dilfer > Marino because of his Super Bowl win.

My point is this. When evaluating QB's, winning is important, as are stats. But if I had to choose the better criteria, its winning. Tony Romo will finish his career with more TD's, Passing Yards, and a higher QB rating than Montana. Is he better than Joe? Of course not. Stats fluctuate based on era, but winning will always be the measuring stick in evaluating QB's.
[ Edited by SofaKing on Jun 2, 2012 at 11:16 PM ]
  • Oscar
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 10,234
Originally posted by SofaKing:
Originally posted by Oscar:
Originally posted by SofaKing:
Stats matter, but the most important stat will always be winning. Joe Montana will always win the argument for best QB of all time because he won... a lot.

Nope. Winning is irrelevant when judging a QB. A QB is 1 of a starting 22. He can help or hurt, but judging a QB by wins is folly at best. By that stat Tim Tebow is on his way to being a HOFer.

Saying winning is irrelevant doesn't make any sense. Saying stats don't matter doesn't make any sense either. They work hand in hand. QB's who win generally have good stats, and vice versa.

Tim Tebow is not a good example. His stats are awful and its obvious to anyone with a functioning pair of eyes that he has huge holes in his game. Not to mention he has only actually won a handful of games. Not a big enough sample size from him.

A QB is NOT just 1 of 22. That's Singletary speak. The QB has, and always will be, more important than anyone else on the football field. Good or bad, they ultimately dictate whether you win or lose.

I can completely agree that the QB is more important than say, a safety. But a QB is still one of 22 starting players. The reason Marino didn't win his ring isn't because he wasn't one of the best to ever sling the football, it was because he always had a team with glaring deficiencies. Perhaps a little closer to home: Is it Drew Brees' fault that our coach spotted a tendency in the NO defense that Alex Smith exploited perfectly? How can we hold that against Brees? We simply can't, despite the fact that he lost that game.

Your knock on Tebow is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Anyone who watches him play knows he's not a good QB. But if you look at his win percentage. He was 8-5 this year, including the playoffs. Andy Dalton was 9-8 last season, including the playoffs. Based on one season a piece, both with limiteds sample size, are we prepared to say that Dalton and Tebow are comparable QBs? Hell, Tebow even has one up up on Dalton in that Tebow won a playoff game.

I think making the argument that Tebow is a better QB than Dalton is folly. You have to remove wins from the equation and evaluate QBs based on criteria that actually impacts QB play. Things like:

Accuracy (Across all spectrums)
Timing
Decoding Covreages
Pocket Presence
Pocket Mobility

When judged on these criteria it's easy to place Dalton ahead of Tebow.
Originally posted by Oscar:
Nope. Winning is irrelevant when judging a QB. A QB is 1 of a starting 22. He can help or hurt, but judging a QB by wins is folly at best. By that stat Tim Tebow is on his way to being a HOFer.

QB is the leader so he'll get credit for wins and blame for losses. Tebows career will play itself out, and if he keeps winning, then by all means, let him into the HOF. The other stats didn't matter last year because he found a way to get it done.
Should have read the entire thread before posting, but whatever. Sue me. Like Sofaking pointed out, I'd love to call Romo a better QB than Montana, but that would be foolish, especially for me in this lions den...When Romo wins his forth Superbowl in 2020, I'll make the argument.
  • Oscar
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 10,234
Originally posted by dRtyrottencowboysfan:
Originally posted by Oscar:
Nope. Winning is irrelevant when judging a QB. A QB is 1 of a starting 22. He can help or hurt, but judging a QB by wins is folly at best. By that stat Tim Tebow is on his way to being a HOFer.

QB is the leader so he'll get credit for wins and blame for losses. Tebows career will play itself out, and if he keeps winning, then by all means, let him into the HOF. The other stats didn't matter last year because he found a way to get it done.

Trent Dilfer for the HOF.
When evaluating QBs, the conversations tend to revolve around production vs wins. However, both production & wins are statistics...and stats don't always tell an accurate story about a player.

IMO, the most important factors when evaluating a QB are the things can't be put into statistical categories. These 2 factors are:

1. Intangibles (clutch, physical/mental toughness, leadership, etc)
2. Ability (accuracy, field vision, mobility, etc)

I understand that its a player's job to produce and the ultimate goal is to win, but stats & wins can be misleading when judging an individual performance. Production and winning involves outside factors such as scheme, play-calling, teammates, and coaching. On the other hand, intangibles & ability are based solely on the individual and don't include outside factors.
[ Edited by candlestick49er on Jun 3, 2012 at 9:26 PM ]
Originally posted by candlestick49er:
When evaluating QBs, the conversations tend to revolve around production vs wins. However, both production & wins are statistics...and stats don't always tell an accurate story about a player.

IMO, the most important factors when evaluating a QB are the things can't be put into statistical categories. These 2 factors are:

1. Intangibles (clutch, physical/mental toughness, leadership, etc)
2. Ability (accuracy, field vision, mobility, etc)

I understand that its a player's job to produce and the ultimate goal is to win, but stats & wins can be misleading when judging an individual performance. Production and winning involves outside factors such as scheme, play-calling, teammates, and coaching. On the other hand, intangibles & ability are based solely on the individual and don't include outside factors.

this
[ Edited by juycho on Jun 3, 2012 at 11:20 PM ]
Originally posted by juycho:
Originally posted by candlestick49er:
When evaluating QBs, the conversations tend to revolve around production vs wins. However, both production & wins are statistics...and stats don't always tell an accurate story about a player.

IMO, the most important factors when evaluating a QB are the things can't be put into statistical categories. These 2 factors are:

1. Intangibles (clutch, physical/mental toughness, leadership, etc)
2. Ability (accuracy, field vision, mobility, etc)

I understand that its a player's job to produce and the ultimate goal is to win, but stats & wins can be misleading when judging an individual performance. Production and winning involves outside factors such as scheme, play-calling, teammates, and coaching. On the other hand, intangibles & ability are based solely on the individual and don't include outside factors.

this
+1 end of discussion...
QB wins only matter if the QB is the main reason the team is winning (Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning in Indy, etc). In Alex's case, he wasn't the main reason the team won, the defense was. He obviously did his part, but does he really deserve to take credit for all those wins like Brady does? No way.

I've said it before: throwing for 400 yards doesn't matter UNLESS it's what needs to be done to win. Without that defense of 2011, we'd NEED big passing numbers to keep up with the other teams.
Wins are the BL...but, it depends on the team, their makeup, coaching staff, etc. It's unrealistic to expect Alex to throw for 300-400 yds per game...especially if they're ahead in most games. That said, if he, Moss, Manningham, and Jenkins hit for some long ones, Alex's passing ydg will jump. But, if he "only" goes for @ 250, but they still win, who cares? That's his point...big passing ydg doesn't necessarily equate to wins. It typically does for the Pats, Pack and to the Saints to a lesser degree. NE and GB virtually have no running game, at least nothing consistent. Saints are a little more balanced, but Brees still throws for the vast majority of their ydg. Again, it depends on teams' makeups, offensive philosophy, etc. whether more passing yds equates to wins. Harbaugh wants balance...and his teams will always feature the run, to wit, despite Luck's passing abilities, his Stanford teams ran the ball with great efficiency. Same thing last year...but Alex showed when he needs to make plays, he's fully capable of getting the job done.
  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 13,187
Originally posted by Oscar:
Trent Dilfer for the HOF.

58-55 record and didn't start for a full season for the last 8 years of his career (including only 12 starts from 01-04), so that doesn't really work to make your argument.
[ Edited by Jcool on Jun 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM ]