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

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 hour ago, otg said:

How many of you would consider Andy Dalton and Carson Palmer remotely close to the same level of NFL quarterback? Dalton has a better winning percentage. Does that tell us anything meaningful about their skill levels?

Even if we try and normalize that statistics and compare their records playing for the same organization Dalton still edges him out (if I did the math in my head correctly).

Palmer was a superior quarterback in every possible way aside from scrambling and taking the free play on a defensive offsides. Team wins in a comparison of those two players would tell a story that is a fiction. They played for the same organization in consecutive periods. That's a closer baseline than you'll have comparing two quarterbacks unless they played for the same team in the same season. There are so many variables that go into team success.

Or should Andy Dalton be mentioned in the same breath as Carson Palmer?

This post is an excellent counter point. I didn't realize the Bengal's winning percentage w/ Dalton as a starter was so good.

In terms of physical ability, Palmer is better than Dalton in every aspect of the game. Even in kinda being a dbag!

Solid points here.

[Ray Reed]

1 hour ago, otg said:

How many of you would consider Andy Dalton and Carson Palmer remotely close to the same level of NFL quarterback? Dalton has a better winning percentage. Does that tell us anything meaningful about their skill levels?

Even if we try and normalize that statistics and compare their records playing for the same organization Dalton still edges him out (if I did the math in my head correctly).

Palmer was a superior quarterback in every possible way aside from scrambling and taking the free play on a defensive offsides. Team wins in a comparison of those two players would tell a story that is a fiction. They played for the same organization in consecutive periods. That's a closer baseline than you'll have comparing two quarterbacks unless they played for the same team in the same season. There are so many variables that go into team success.

Or should Andy Dalton be mentioned in the same breath as Carson Palmer?

I mean, as someone whose team played them both twice a year for many years, Andy Dalton played games much more conducive to winning than Palmer did.

Dalton never made that huge mistake that Palmer often would against the Ravens, and that’s why Dalton had more success in the W/L column.

Yeah, Palmer was “physically” more gifted. He’d also make a handful of “prayer” throws every game against a team with Ed Reed. I’d argue Dalton’s play style (calculated, mixed in some timely runs) gave his team a better shot at winning every game.

Tbh I think this is a point for the opposite side.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Ray Reed

[BobbyPhil1781]

9 minutes ago, Ray Reed said:

I mean, as someone whose team played them both twice a year for many years, Andy Dalton played games much more conducive to winning than Palmer did.

Dalton never made that huge mistake that Palmer often would against the Ravens, and that’s why Dalton had more success in the W/L column.

Yeah, Palmer was “physically” more gifted. He’d also make a handful of “prayer” throws every game against a team with Ed Reed. I’d argue Dalton’s play style (calculated, mixed in some timely runs) gave his team a better shot at winning every game.

Tbh I think this is a point for the opposite side.

In looking at their game logs it looks as if, overall, Carson fared better against the Ravens in almost all aspects and I'd argue he was playing against far better defenses as well. Dalton turned the ball over far more often as well.

[Ray Reed]

11 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

In looking at their game logs it looks as if, overall, Carson fared better against the Ravens in almost all aspects and I'd argue he was playing against far better defenses as well. Dalton turned the ball over far more often as well.

Id have to look back at the game logs, but it feels like we could never get Dalton off the field with all the short passes, designed runs, etc. that he executed very well to stay ahead of the chains. Palmer always felt like more of a “go for the big one” type player, and it always felt like that did him in against us. It’s been a while though for Palmer so like I said I’d have to go back to their splits and W/Ls against the Ravens

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 hour ago, Ray Reed said:

Id have to look back at the game logs, but it feels like we could never get Dalton off the field with all the short passes, designed runs, etc. that he executed very well to stay ahead of the chains. Palmer always felt like more of a “go for the big one” type player, and it always felt like that did him in against us. It’s been a while though for Palmer so like I said I’d have to go back to their splits and W/Ls against the Ravens

I think you're misremembering what happened based off their tendencies and I can understand your way of thinking. Carson made a ton of bonehead plays and took chances while Dalton was more careful.

You can look at the stats but Carson definitely fared better against, and again in my opinion, better defenses.

[e16bball]

3 hours ago, otg said:

How many of you would consider Andy Dalton and Carson Palmer remotely close to the same level of NFL quarterback? Dalton has a better winning percentage. Does that tell us anything meaningful about their skill levels?

Even if we try and normalize that statistics and compare their records playing for the same organization Dalton still edges him out (if I did the math in my head correctly).

Palmer was a superior quarterback in every possible way aside from scrambling and taking the free play on a defensive offsides. Team wins in a comparison of those two players would tell a story that is a fiction. They played for the same organization in consecutive periods. That's a closer baseline than you'll have comparing two quarterbacks unless they played for the same team in the same season. There are so many variables that go into team success.

Or should Andy Dalton be mentioned in the same breath as Carson Palmer?

That’s fine to conclude that the QB win stat doesn’t tell an accurate story, if you think they were on two different planes as players. Sometimes any stat can be misleading if taken out of context. But...

Carson Palmer (Cincinnati): 62.9%, 1.54 TD/INT, 7.1 Y/A, 86.9 rating, 5.97 ANY/A

Andy Dalton (Cincinnati): 62.0%, 1.73 TD/INT, 7.1 Y/A, 87.5 rating, 6.06 ANY/A

If your point is that Palmer was in an entirely different class, and that Dalton doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath, you’ll have to take that argument up with basically all the relevant QB stats — because they just don’t agree. Even adjusting their basically identical stats for the years in which they played, it’s clear that Palmer was really only a marginally more productive QB than Dalton was while they were each in Cincinnati. 

No one is saying you can just sort QBs by W/L record and get a definitive ranking of QBs by quality. But you can’t do that with any stat. All anyone is saying is that there can be something of value to be gleaned from consulting the QB’s W/L record — as they deeply impact the outcome of games, often in ways that aren’t fully captured by common (or even advanced) stats. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

43 minutes ago, e16bball said:

. All anyone is saying is that there can be something of value to be gleaned from consulting the QB’s W/L record — as they deeply impact the outcome of games, often in ways that aren’t fully captured by common (or even advanced) stats. 

Every single person on the staff and roster directly effects the outcome of games. All of them. Is the QB the most important on offense? Absolutely. Defense? Not even close. Special teams? Nope. It is simply on one side of the ball and majority of the time, they're not even calling the plays so factor in coaching decisions as well. 

To continue on the line of importance; we agree the QB is the most important on offense but what is he w/o an offensive line? As a result, why aren't the guys who keep him upright more important as a result? We saw what happened in the Super Bowl and not just leaning on that, there are countless other examples to suggest the same being true.

[otg]

2 hours ago, e16bball said:

If your point is that Palmer was in an entirely different class, and that Dalton doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath, you’ll have to take that argument up with basically all the relevant QB stats...

But the open market hypothetically supports my position.

There was always a market for Carson Palmer. Even after severe injuries. He was 31 when he left Cincinnati and the Cardinals were happy to throw buckets of money at him a few times.

I speculate that if 32 +/- year old Carson Palmer had been available last year or this year he wouldn't have trouble finding work. Perhaps the Saints or Colts this year. Maybe even the Steelers at a discount just to be petty.

But the world isn't beating a path to Andy Dalton's door. Last year the market had settled before he was available. But this year he could field all offers. You could site a decline in play but he didn't hold back the 2019 Bengals. Idk the ins and outs of his time in Dallas.

But if he is comparable to Palmer in the eyes of NFL staffs then he would have been in demand. 

I admit I can't prove any of what I just said, aside from the existence of Palmer's market.

I'll concede you brought solid numbers. And I'm going largely off the eye test. But I'm not throwing in my two cents about players in the NFC, rather two of my local gun fighters. And I'm even an Andy Dalton defender. I'm shocked that other people are showing up and making this argument for Dalton. I broke football fandom. I'm sorry.

Edited July 20, 2021 by otg
User error

[otg]

43 minutes ago, otg said:

But the open market hypothetically supports my position.

There was always a market for Carson Palmer. Even after severe injuries. He was 31 when he left Cincinnati and the Cardinals were happy to throw buckets of money at him a few times.

I speculate that if 32 +/- year old Carson Palmer had been available last year or this year he wouldn't have trouble finding work. Perhaps the Saints or Colts this year. Maybe even the Steelers at a discount just to be petty.

But the world isn't beating a path to Andy Dalton's door. Last year the market had settled before he was available. But this year he could field all offers. You could site a decline in play but he didn't hold back the 2019 Bengals. Idk the ins and outs of his time in Dallas.

But if he is comparable to Palmer in the eyes of NFL staffs then he would have been in demand. 

I admit I can't prove any of what I just said, aside from the existence of Palmer's market.

I'll concede you brought solid numbers. And I'm going largely off the eye test. But I'm not throwing in my two cents about players in the NFC, rather two of my local gun fighters. And I'm even an Andy Dalton defender. I'm shocked that other people are showing up and making this argument for Dalton. I broke football fandom. I'm sorry.

There is a non-hypothetical market as well.

Palmer hadn't come close to playing out his rookie contract and the Bengals made him the highest paid player in the history of football.

Dalton was re-signed in his last year to a contract that paid him less than any quarterback who wasn't on their rookie contract or wasn't named Tom.

That's a vastly different valuation. The Bengals didn't feel he was in Palmer's class. Neither did Dalton or his agent. 

[Jakuvious]

So, I still don't feel like I've seen anyone really even try to counter me or e16's primary argument here. Everyone keeps listing more examples of W/L record not being indicative of QB play, but no one has ever argued that it is a perfect or fair or indicative stat. The main issue I still have is that every argument levied against W/L record also applies to all the other stats everyone is fine with.

 

It's a travesty that W/L record makes Dalton look better than Palmer, but its okay that passer rating does too? W/L record doesn't give credit to the OL, but no one cares that rushing yards don't? I mean hell, why even put W/L for head coaches, doesn't that devalue GMs? That's what I need someone to answer. I don't need more arguments for why it isn't a great stat, obviously it isn't, I need to see a good reason why it needs to be removed that doesn't just apply to every stat in the game. It's a team game. No statistic represents individual play accurately, no statistic is fairly divided amongst all the contributors, so is the argument remove them all? Or do we just need to be intelligent enough to be able to look at a stat while understanding context exists? I'd go for the latter, personally.

[mse326]

19 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

So, I still don't feel like I've seen anyone really even try to counter me or e16's primary argument here. Everyone keeps listing more examples of W/L record not being indicative of QB play, but no one has ever argued that it is a perfect or fair or indicative stat. The main issue I still have is that every argument levied against W/L record also applies to all the other stats everyone is fine with.

 

It's a travesty that W/L record makes Dalton look better than Palmer, but its okay that passer rating does too? W/L record doesn't give credit to the OL, but no one cares that rushing yards don't? I mean hell, why even put W/L for head coaches, doesn't that devalue GMs? That's what I need someone to answer. I don't need more arguments for why it isn't a great stat, obviously it isn't, I need to see a good reason why it needs to be removed that doesn't just apply to every stat in the game. It's a team game. No statistic represents individual play accurately, no statistic is fairly divided amongst all the contributors, so is the argument remove them all? Or do we just need to be intelligent enough to be able to look at a stat while understanding context exists? I'd go for the latter, personally.

The point is that every other stat, though imperfect, at least represents something the QB did. The win stat doesn't. It represents something the team did.

[Jakuvious]

41 minutes ago, mse326 said:

The point is that every other stat, though imperfect, at least represents something the QB did. The win stat doesn't. It represents something the team did.

The QB did win. That is fact. People just take it as statement that they won because the QB, and that's not what it says. The QB, by definition, won or lost. So did the LT and FS and P and if we want to list it for every player I'd be down with that. Would actually be mildly interesting to see, to me. But people are upset about a meaning that they interpret from the stat, when it's just a statement of fact that they won or lost a football game.

[mse326]

1 minute ago, Jakuvious said:

The QB did win. That is fact. People just take it as statement that they won because the QB, and that's not what it says. The QB, by definition, won or lost. So did the LT and FS and P and if we want to list it for every player I'd be down with that. Would actually be mildly interesting to see, to me. But people are upset about a meaning that they interpret from the stat, when it's just a statement of fact that they won or lost a football game.

If the 53rd player on the roster can claim the same thing then you didn't do it. It has no meaning as a player stat. Players don't win, teams do. That is a fact. A QB has never won. He has only been part of a winning team.

And it does imply the QB is the reason, that is why they give it to the QB and no one else. They were the most important so they get the stat. There is nothing that can be gleaned from a win loss record as to how good a player is. It's just as useful as list for the QBs stats the number of interceptions his teams defense had.

[Jakuvious]

24 minutes ago, mse326 said:

If the 53rd player on the roster can claim the same thing then you didn't do it. It has no meaning as a player stat. Players don't win, teams do. That is a fact. A QB has never won. He has only been part of a winning team.

And it does imply the QB is the reason, that is why they give it to the QB and no one else. They were the most important so they get the stat. There is nothing that can be gleaned from a win loss record as to how good a player is. It's just as useful as list for the QBs stats the number of interceptions his teams defense had.

This is 100% semantics.

[BobbyPhil1781]

2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

This is 100% semantics.

So you're saying you don't agree every player and coach on the team contributed to the win?