Can a Case be made for Keenum...?

[vike daddy]

woof woof.

[Guest]

Just now, vike daddy said:

woof woof.

Arf Arf and bow wow to you!!

[JDBrocks]

What is the basic premise that you disagree with? That it doesn't matter how you win or that W/L record is a valuable statistic with which to evaluate QB performance?

[CriminalMind]

QB is the most important position on a team in American sports. Its not an equal to the other 21 starters.

If you come through for your team bring give them a super bowl appearance, I think its fine for a QB to rep that accomplishment even more then other starters, even if other QBs could have done the same.

[Snake Plissken]

3 hours ago, JDBrocks said:

A couple of things here:

1. - It does matter how it gets done. If team A scores points off of splash plays and special teams while team B is playing balanced, well executed, and sustainable football, I think you would rather have team B's formula. Saying that we shouldn't care as fans how the team wins as long as they win is a rather basic view of the game. I think we should want our team to win in a way that breeds a winning culture.

2 - The conversation about W/L statistics is actually a terrible way to evaluate Quarterback play, which is where this "lazy analysis" discussion started. I do think that lazy was the right term. Do you want Joe Flacco or Drew Brees as your starting QB? Flacco has a better career Win%, and the same number of Super Bowl rings. On field performance and supporting cast matters. A lot.

I am glad we went with plan B.

[SemperFeist]

48 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

QB is the most important position on a team in American sports. Its not an equal to the other 21 starters.

If you come through for your team bring give them a super bowl appearance, I think its fine for a QB to rep that accomplishment even more then other starters, even if other QBs could have done the same.

There’s a difference between representing that accomplishment, and using that accomplishment as a high mark of evaluation. 

Ponder won more games in 2012 than Roethlisberger, Rivers, Romo, Brees, Stamford, etc. but we all know he certainly wasn’t a better quarterback, even in just that year. 

[Klomp]

Only judging QBs by wins (and even Super Bowl wins) also doesn't take context into consideration. Context like who the other teams are. You could argue that one of the most underrated QBs of the last three decades was Jim Kelly. His and his team's play was sustainable enough to go to four consecutive Super Bowls, but people gloss over it because they didn't end any of those seasons with wins.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, JDBrocks said:

What is the basic premise that you disagree with? That it doesn't matter how you win or that W/L record is a valuable statistic with which to evaluate QB performance?

Yep.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Klomp said:

Only judging QBs by wins (and even Super Bowl wins) also doesn't take context into consideration. Context like who the other teams are. You could argue that one of the most underrated QBs of the last three decades was Jim Kelly. His and his team's play was sustainable enough to go to four consecutive Super Bowls, but people gloss over it because they didn't end any of those seasons with wins.

Hard for me to think that Kelly and the Bills were underrated in anyway.  It's just that for 4 consecutive super bowls the Bills were not the better team.  I would go so far as to say that Kelly, overall, was a much better quarterback in his career than Aikman, Hostetler or Rypian.  Yet, the Giants, Redskins and the Cowboys were much better teams.

[NorthCountryEvo]

I think the main thing is sustainability. Everyone always goes to Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco, and Trent Dilfer as examples of middle of the pack QB's who led super bowl winning teams. They are great examples of why this is a team sport, and that despite QB playing a bigger role than other positions, you need to have a good surrounding cast if you don't have an above average QB. I don't think anyone cares how we do it if we win a super bowl, but the general basis of evaluating Keenum is to try and decide whether the situation is more of the team being good around him, or if Keenum is playing at a high level because his skill has increased. While the wins and losses absolutely matter, I think what we are trying to figure out is if Keenum is good enough to allow this team to have a consistent post season presence beyond this year. We don't want to be a one season post season team and then fall back into mediocrity. This is why teams like the patriots are consistently in the post season. They have a master at QB and they are able to put together a competent team. Because Brady is so good, he elevates the rest of the team to greatness year in and year out, and they have a very good W/L record yearly. When trying to evaluate Keenum, we just want to see if he has any of that in him ("That" being the skill above average to consistently lead a team to the post season).

[JDBrocks]

1 hour ago, Virginia Viking said:

Yep.

cute.

[SemperFeist]

1 hour ago, Virginia Viking said:

Hard for me to think that Kelly and the Bills were underrated in anyway.  It's just that for 4 consecutive super bowls the Bills were not the better team.  I would go so far as to say that Kelly, overall, was a much better quarterback in his career than Aikman, Hostetler or Rypian.  Yet, the Giants, Redskins and the Cowboys were much better teams.

So, then wins aren’t that important when evaluating a quarterback?

[swede700]

1 hour ago, Virginia Viking said:

Hard for me to think that Kelly and the Bills were underrated in anyway.  It's just that for 4 consecutive super bowls the Bills were not the better team.  I would go so far as to say that Kelly, overall, was a much better quarterback in his career than Aikman, Hostetler or Rypian.  Yet, the Giants, Redskins and the Cowboys were much better teams.

Like the Vikings' first SB appearance, the Bills were also considered the better team in their first SB appearance...but they too, like the Vikings, lost that day.  Also like the Vikings subsequent 3 SB losses, they weren't favored in any of them either.  

The Bills were an extremely talented team in their run, it's just that they weren't nearly as talented as the Cowboys and weren't as full of savvy veterans as Washington.  They should have beaten the Giants, but it came down to a kicker, who missed it by inches.  The Giants were not a much better team, they were the luckier team that day.  

[Klomp]

3 hours ago, Virginia Viking said:

Hard for me to think that Kelly and the Bills were underrated in anyway.  It's just that for 4 consecutive super bowls the Bills were not the better team.  I would go so far as to say that Kelly, overall, was a much better quarterback in his career than Aikman, Hostetler or Rypian.  Yet, the Giants, Redskins and the Cowboys were much better teams.

When people talk about the best teams of the 90s, how often do the Bills get brought up? All lists start with Cowboys and 49ers, and I'm guessing people would then go to Broncos and Packers before bringing up the Bills. What do those teams have in common? They all won Super Bowls. And none of them went to as many Super Bowls as the Bills.

Same with the 1970s, as disaacs alluded to. Dallas, Miami and Pittsburgh all get mentioned as that era's best teams before Minnesota is brought up. Pittsburgh is the only team with as many SB appearances as Minnesota in the decade. 

Of course wins matter. But it's also important to look at the context of those wins (or losses). That's all I'm saying.

[Cearbhall]

Wins and losses are a very important statistic. To me, it is the most important. I agree that the rest of the context matters too. Someone suggested I look back at Keenum's previous stats so I did. Keeping it within the same context, Keenum's win/loss record was so much better than Jared Goff. They both had the same team. It is a fallacy to say that Keenum was terrible before coming to the Vikings. He consistently elevated his teams. At least after his rough start which was a baptism by fire. Plenty QBs failed in their first year. Putting much into that is a mistake.

Putting this all in mind, that context matters, and I knew that it did which is why I pointed out that he was 9-7 on terrible teams that were generally well below .500 with their alternative starting QBs, the stats still tell me that Case Keenum is a QB that elevates the rest of the team. Blowing that off by saying winning percentage isn't a good way of gauging a player is overcomplicating things. If a team is better in terms of win percentage with a player than they would be with the alternative player, that player is doing a good job and is worth trying to keep around.

It cannot ever be proven, but I am comfortable saying that the Vikings would have less wins right now this year if Sam Bradford was the QB all year even if he was 100% healthy. Less comfortable making that statement when comparing to Teddy but given his rust it is probably true with him too.