Jump to content

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


Wins and Losses Should Be A QB Stat  

126 members have voted

  1. 1. Wins and Losses Should Be A QB Stat

    • Agree
      33
    • Disagree
      93


Recommended Posts

I think almost no one abuses the W/L thing.

  • If you think Brady is not the guy most responsible for his W/L record then feel free to wallow in ignorance.

 

Almost no one points to McNabb and his 92-49-1 in Philly and demands he goes to the Hall of Fame.

  • The records in both the regular season and more so in the playoffs are part of the story but never all of the story.

 

Jim Kelly is a 22 TD to 28 pick playoff QB. People who jump up and down about him earning 4 Super Bowl berths are just goofy.

  • Context allows you to still appreciate that he got there but that Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, Bruce Smith, Marv Levy, etc really helped a guy who was not that great in those games.
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

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.

Don't set up a binary poll and then cry when people give you a binary comment before they go on to talk about nuance later.

Just a suggestion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

Don't set up a binary poll and then cry when people give you a binary comment before they go on to talk about nuance later.

Just a suggestion.

And my suggestion is reading the post lol. "Ignore" was never suggested, at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

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. 

Listing the stat doesn't mean you're exclusively crediting them, though. It's just adding the stat to the chart. Is saying that Derrick Henry rushed for 2027 yards last season ignoring the contributions of his offensive line? Are we crediting one person for the accomplishments of many there? Saying that Tom Brady has won 230 games is the same concept. It is not saying he was solely responsible, it is not saying that no one else contributed, it is not saying that that number is or is not reflective of his performance in those 230 games, it is purely a statement of fact. I don't think even the most egregious cases of people citing wins to QBs are trying to say that all the credit is on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Listing the stat doesn't mean you're exclusively crediting them, though. It's just adding the stat to the chart. Is saying that Derrick Henry rushed for 2027 yards last season ignoring the contributions of his offensive line? Are we crediting one person for the accomplishments of many there? Saying that Tom Brady has won 230 games is the same concept. It is not saying he was solely responsible, it is not saying that no one else contributed, it is not saying that that number is or is not reflective of his performance in those 230 games, it is purely a statement of fact. I don't think even the most egregious cases of people citing wins to QBs are trying to say that all the credit is on them.

Ummm yeah, you're giving credit to one person for the entirety of the game when they don't even play on one side of the ball. 

Whenever someone says a QB is X-Y, to me, exclusively says the QB is the direct result of that win. If they don't mean it that way, change your verbage. 

It's real easy to do. You're a Chiefs fan. "The Chiefs are X-Y in games Mahomes has started in". - I have no beef with that statement. 

Edited by BobbyPhil1781
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SkippyX said:

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.

screen-shot-2015-06-11-at-4-08-03-pm.png

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?

 

 

It's really not that far fetched to think Brees would have won as much as Brady if we switch their situations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

 

 

It's really not that far fetched to think Brees would have won as much as Brady if we switch their situations.

You're saying your coach and team matter? It's almost like that's the premise behind the thread lol. 

I'm just glad to see this thought is fairly well received around here

 

Edited by BobbyPhil1781
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Listing the stat doesn't mean you're exclusively crediting them, though. It's just adding the stat to the chart. Is saying that Derrick Henry rushed for 2027 yards last season ignoring the contributions of his offensive line? Are we crediting one person for the accomplishments of many there? Saying that Tom Brady has won 230 games is the same concept. It is not saying he was solely responsible, it is not saying that no one else contributed, it is not saying that that number is or is not reflective of his performance in those 230 games, it is purely a statement of fact. I don't think even the most egregious cases of people citing wins to QBs are trying to say that all the credit is on them.

 

The way it usually goes is:

Fan: QB x is really good

Fan who disagrees: QB x is okay, but not as good as (insert list of QBs)

Fan: QB x has a better record than them

 

If used in the way you're suggesting, it wouldn't bother me as much. However, a lot of fans tend to fall back on that as the overarching logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be a big consideration, dumb to suggest it shouldn't be. Are QBs as important as Pitchers (which carry W/L stats), maybe not, but they are by FAR the most impactful individual on the field. Wins and losses are HEAVILY influenced by their performance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the best poll questions I've seen in a while, tbh

imo, it is a stat, and should be a stat, but its also one that we need to view with context

If we judge and value QBs by super bowl wins, then its natural that we need to factor in wins/losses as well

That said. It doesn't make Stafford less of a QB that his teams are under .500 - but I do think its important stat to have that he rarely had team success

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Ummm yeah, you're giving credit to one person for the entirety of the game when they don't even play on one side of the ball. 

Whenever someone says a QB is X-Y, to me, exclusively says the QB is the direct result of that win. If they don't mean it that way, change your verbage. 

It's real easy to do. You're a Chiefs fan. "The Chiefs are X-Y in games Mahomes has started in". - I have no beef with that statement. 

So it’s basically just a semantics thing? You’re fine with tabulating and referencing the team’s record in QB starts — but you take a hard stand against just calling that the QB’s record?

Okay, I guess. Verbiage does matter. But as @Jakuvious (who is nailing it in this thread, in my view) has said, it’s not like other stats we throw around every day are the “direct result” of the player they’re attributed to either. It’s football, the ultimate team sport — almost no statistic is wholly independent or directly attributable to one player alone. Take passing yards. No one has much of a beef with those being listed as a QB stat, but they’re hugely dependent on factors entirely outside the QB’s control. The line’s blocking, the coaches’ calls, the receivers routes and catching ability and run after the catch. And other, more subtle, factors like the quality of his defense and of the opposition. 

Using the Chiefs, let’s say Mahomes throws a bubble screen behind the LOS to Hill, who breaks a tackle, gets great blocks from Kelce and Zeus Jr. on the perimeter, and then blazes past the defense for an 80 yard TD. Mahomes did almost nothing on the play, but he alone gets credit for 80 passing yards. 

Perhaps we should be saying “team passing yards accumulated while the QB was under center” instead of “QB passing yards,” to avoid the erroneous implication that the passing yards were directly attributable to the QB?

Edited by e16bball
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue, as with any statistic being attributed to a player, is how closely is the statistic linked to the player’s actions? I think team wins/losses are closely correlated enough with quality of QB play that it should be tracked and considered as a factor in evaluating QBs, especially when you have a larger (multi-year) sample. 

Maybe that’s easier for me to say, as a Redskins/WFT fan. Washington went directly from a guy who I consider to be one of the biggest “loser” QBs in the league to one of its great “winner” QBs. Kirk Cousins has always been a guy who makes incredible throws and puts up impressive stats. But when you watch him, play after play and quarter after quarter and year after year, you come to understand that the man simply finds ways to increase his team’s chances of losing. Consistently. Too many bad decisions, too many momentary mental lapses, too loose with the football and too willing to accept negative plays. If you just looked at his stats, you’d think he was a top-shelf QB. But there’s a reason why he’s a .500 career QB, and much of that is down to the fact that he giveth and he taketh away with his play style (brilliance interspersed with brain-dead moments). 

On the very other side of the coin, there’s Alex Smith. Statistically, really awful in Washington. By almost every statistical measure, the man was one of the worst QBs in the NFL during his time in a Washington uniform. But the team went 11-5 in his starts. 11-5! They haven’t been 11-5 in a season since the last time they won the Super Bowl, 30 years ago. 

Maybe it had nothing to do with him. Maybe they were winning in spite of him. Maybe it was such a good roster that literally any QB could win a lot of ballgames with them? Wellllll...all the other QBs they trotted out there from 2018 to 2020 went a combined 6-27 in their starts. So with the exact same team, they won 69% of games when Smith started (nice) and 18% of games when anyone else started (not so nice). 

Some of that is probably SSS noise...but not all of it. What Smith has mastered in his older age is the discipline and patience to prioritize “avoiding negative plays” over “chasing big plays.” His play style won’t make you a prolific offense — and it’s painful to watch at times — but damn if it doesn’t put you in a position to win most of the time. He’s the anti-Cousins. And watching the two of them, one replacing the other, so very clearly brought home the point that the QB deeply and meaningfully impacts the W/L bottom line with his play. Enough that, much like SPs and goalies, it’s worth tracking and considering when determining how to view a player. Obviously, it’s always context-dependent — but virtually every football stat is (or should be).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2021 at 3:42 AM, Trentwannabe said:

If my math is right, the Bills had 82 wins from the 2006 season through the 2017 season.

Id say maybe 10 of those were because of good or great QB play. A majority was because of great defense and special teams. Yet, those wins count all the same for the different QBs that played.

If a defense holds a team 7 and scores a defensive td and they win 10 to 7 I dont think the qb should get a w on his sheet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that a QB could get a win because his defense scored 2 TDs and held the opponent scoreless makes sense...for that game. But how often does that happen? The point of tracking the wins stat isn't saying that the QB won a specific game it's saying that his presence, generally has a positive correlation with winning. It's a way of marking trends in large data sets over time.

Simply put, if you look at the top 10 QBs ever in terms of wins:

Brady, Manning, Favre, Brees, Roethlisberger, Elway, Marino, Rivers, Rodgers, Montana

...you get a pretty decent all-time top 10 QBs list (with an obvious recency bias, but that's another point for another time). That alone is an argument for at least marking the stat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ChazStandard said:

The argument that a QB could get a win because his defense scored 2 TDs and held the opponent scoreless makes sense...for that game. But how often does that happen? The point of tracking the wins stat isn't saying that the QB won a specific game it's saying that his presence, generally has a positive correlation with winning. It's a way of marking trends in large data sets over time.

Simply put, if you look at the top 10 QBs ever in terms of wins:

Brady, Manning, Favre, Brees, Roethlisberger, Elway, Marino, Rivers, Rodgers, Montana

...you get a pretty decent all-time top 10 QBs list (with an obvious recency bias, but that's another point for another time). That alone is an argument for at least marking the stat.

Top-10 in terms of wins correlates more strongly with longevity and durability than anything else. If you're being realistic about it, QB wins are a metric for who can remain at least pretty good for the longest time, rather than who's actually the best or greatest. It's part of the picture, but far from the whole. 

I think, as with most stats, larger sample sizes make for more significant indicators. But with wins, the sample size necessary to really get an accurate picture is a lot bigger than for something like passer rating or TD/INT ratio. And with some players, even over a 7 or 8-year career, wins may not really be indicative of anything but the quality of the teams around them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...