Agree or Disagree: Wins and Losses Should Be A QB Stat

[Trentwannabe]

5 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

No, you completely missed mine. They had 82 wins and 110 losses. If you look at wins and losses as a QB stat, it looks like the Bills had subpar QB play, just like they did. The Bills are not an example at all of that stat not reflecting reality.

You literally just said it’s flawed and context matters. It would have been way lower than 82 wins if the rest of the TEAM wasn’t very good. For slot of those years the Bills had avg. to very good and one great defenses. Without them, the Bills likely average 3 wins a year during that span and not 6.8

[Jakuvious]

21 minutes ago, Trentwannabe said:

You literally just said it’s flawed and context matters. It would have been way lower than 82 wins if the rest of the TEAM wasn’t very good. For slot of those years the Bills had avg. to very good and one great defenses. Without them, the Bills likely average 3 wins a year during that span and not 6.8

Yes, it is flawed, and context matters. I'm just saying your example is horrible. The Bills were bad for that stretch of years, they had bad QBs, and they had a bad W/L. All of that aligns just fine. Would they have less wins with worse teams? Yes, that's how that works. They also would've had more wins if the teams were even better. But it aligns perfectly that a subpar QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick would have a subpar W/L record. It isn't like the W/L record makes him look good, it makes him look subpar, like he was.

If you want a good example, use the Alex Smith Chiefs or Joe Flacco Ravens or Colin Kaepernick 49ers, where you had an okay QB with a great W/L record because the teams were so good. Not a team with a bad QB and bad W/L record.

[Trentwannabe]

1 hour ago, Jakuvious said:

Yes, it is flawed, and context matters. I'm just saying your example is horrible. The Bills were bad for that stretch of years, they had bad QBs, and they had a bad W/L. All of that aligns just fine. Would they have less wins with worse teams? Yes, that's how that works. They also would've had more wins if the teams were even better. But it aligns perfectly that a subpar QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick would have a subpar W/L record. It isn't like the W/L record makes him look good, it makes him look subpar, like he was.

If you want a good example, use the Alex Smith Chiefs or Joe Flacco Ravens or Colin Kaepernick 49ers, where you had an okay QB with a great W/L record because the teams were so good. Not a team with a bad QB and bad W/L record.

“I’m not sure what your argument is here”

For the second time. Wins and losses are not a QB stat. Why you’re arguing the merit of my example is beyond me.

I think the example is fine. JP Lossman, a horrible QB had a better  stretch of win totals then Fitzpatrick, a serviceable or journeyman while in Buffalo. Understand now?

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, Starless said:

But quarterback is probably the single position in sports where the stats tell the least about the actual performance of the player to whom they're attributed.

Eh, I don't think that is really accurate either. A shutdown CB with no passes thrown his way may end up with 2 tackles on the day and no other stats and played lights out. A shortstop plays great defense grounds out to 2nd advancing a runner to 3rd twice and has a sacrifice bunt but he just went 0-2 but did a great job in all aspects of the game.

At least QBs are stat accumulators because of the volume of their work and the more volume, the more likely it is to be a better representation of their effort. Not perfect but it never is.

[biggie.]

Name a great quarterback that didn't have a great win loss record. All I can think is Warren Moon, who was massively overrated.

[stl4life07]

W/L should be a QB stat. The reason why is what people always say about one Matthew Stafford. If W/L didnt mean anything then why do people constantly bring up Stafford record against teams with winning records? They talk about that more than they talk about Stafford having the most 4th W/OT comebacks since he came into the NFL. If 4th quarter/OT comebacks are stats then W/L should be a stat because its still talking about a QB winning the game. 

I think by not talking about W/L being a QB stat is a way to discredit a guy like Goff because not many people think he is all that good yet he does have a great W/L record. At the end of the day it comes down to winning a yes a QB can throw for 400+ yds and 4tds in a game but if the team lose all that means nothing. Not counting the W/L record for the QB keeps guys like Dak and Ryan relevant because people can brag about their stat line and say "if they had a better defense or coach they would be winning" when in reality you do have to put some blame at their feet for doing all of that yet still not coming throw to will their team to a win. So yes I do think W/L should be a stat for a QB so we can stop dancing around who are legit and who are not based on did the QB help the team get the job done or not. I could care less if the stats say. Did the QB help his team get a win? Thats the bottom line. Now I do know not every win will look the same but we normally get a clear picture how a win normally looks like and this is a QB driven league. 

[Mr Bad Example]

3 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Personally, I'm perfectly fine as it being tracked as a statistic. Like any other statistic though, it is inherently flawed, context matters, sample size matters, and it's capable of being incredibly misused in poor arguments. Like, obviously it's a foolish argument to say X QB is better than Y QB because they won more games. Cam Newton isn't better than Deshaun Watson because the Pats won more games last year. But that same thing applies to any statistic we track. The same could be said for any statistic if you just swap some names and teams around.

In the late 80s Jim McMahon (who was pretty good) and Mike Tomczak (just a guy) had the best W/L records of all QBs. Didn't hurt that they QBed those monster Chicago teams from 84-88, that could've gone .500 with me at QB (and I'm short with an absolute noodle arm). 

[Jakuvious]

1 hour ago, Mr Bad Example said:

In the late 80s Jim McMahon (who was pretty good) and Mike Tomczak (just a guy) had the best W/L records of all QBs. Didn't hurt that they QBed those monster Chicago teams from 84-88, that could've gone .500 with me at QB (and I'm short with an absolute noodle arm). 

Matt Ryan has the most passing yards over the past decade. Cam Newton has the most rushing TDs over the past decade. I'm sure I could find worse and weirder examples if PFR's old search tools weren't all paywalled now.

To be clear, is W/L record a good stat to judge QB play by? No. But the same thing is true of dozens of other stats that no one complains about nearly as much. I have no problem with it being tracked, same as I have no issue with passing yards or receptions or defensive interceptions being tracked. People act like the stat shouldn't exist, when the problem is actually with people who use the stat poorly. Poor logic should be fought against, not the tracking of statistics. People using information poorly is not an argument for removing the information.

[Apparition]

3 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Eh, I don't think that is really accurate either. A shutdown CB with no passes thrown his way may end up with 2 tackles on the day and no other stats and played lights out. A shortstop plays great defense grounds out to 2nd advancing a runner to 3rd twice and has a sacrifice bunt but he just went 0-2 but did a great job in all aspects of the game.

At least QBs are stat accumulators because of the volume of their work and the more volume, the more likely it is to be a better representation of their effort. Not perfect but it never is.

Yeah, like I said, law of sample size applies. If a guy consistently puts up great stats over the span of several years, you can pretty reliably say that he's a great QB. 

2 hours ago, biggie. said:

Name a great quarterback that didn't have a great win loss record. All I can think is Warren Moon, who was massively overrated.

off the top of my head?
Dan Fouts, Sonny Jurgensen and Ken Anderson were all right around .500 for their careers. Joe Namath, we can go back and forth about, but he's in the HOF despite a 62-63-4 career record. 

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Starless

[FrantikRam]

Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring and Dan Marino does not.

Makes no sense to judge a QB by wins and losses to me except if you're comparing two similar QBs who had similar supporting casts.

[Mr Bad Example]

1 hour ago, Starless said:

Dan Fouts, Sonny Jurgensen and Ken Anderson were all right around .500 for their careers.

Ken Anderson has a good case for 2nd best QB of the 70s (I think Staubach is almost criminally underrated...he's a top 10 all-time guy IMO). 

[SkippyX]

Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Tom Brady are pretty much all the same guy if you ignore the wins and losses.

Its a very strange way to look at things.

Maybe we can come up with new stats like participation trophy drives?

• When a QB gets some 4th quarter stats but his team still loses a close game why not give him a gold star?

Maybe Vegas will let us start betting on did the QB play well but we can blame someone else for the loss and still collect the money?

We will have to make room for all the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place banners for all the teams that don't win their division.

Manning had 2 SB runs where he had a combined TD to INT of 5 to 8 and ratings in the low 70s.

I respect you admitting he is playoff garbage if you don't want to count the wins thing when he did not really play well.

 

Are we all good with putting 700 extra guys in the Hall of Fame next year now that wins don't really mean anything?

[BobbyPhil1781]

2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

People act like the stat shouldn't exist, when the problem is actually with people who use the stat poorly. 

Exactly.... and by "using it poorly" I'm talking about every time it's been used by fans and talking heads. Crediting one person with the success or fault of a sport with 53 players on a team and many coaches, is ig'nant. This isn't ping pong. 

Wins and losses should absolutely exist and where they should be placed isn't important in this discussion except it shouldn't be on one person. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

4 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Tom Brady are pretty much all the same guy if you ignore the wins and losses.

Ignore?? Who said anything about ignoring anything??

You shouldn't make up things and discuss what's actually being talked about. I went into detail on the thoughts behind this. Maybe you missed that part.

And those QBs are nothing alike in terms of skill set.

Edited July 17, 2021 by BobbyPhil1781

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Jay Schroeder had a 61-38 record as a starter. He wasn't good. 

Wins should not be a stat for a QB even if a QB has the most impact on the direction of a team. 

Remember all those years that Drew Brees went 7-9 under Payton because the defense was garbage? There was a three year stretch where Brees went 21-26 for the W/L column. Should he have been axed as the Saints starter?