Jump to content

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


Wins and Losses Should Be A QB Stat  

112 members have voted

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

    • Agree
      29
    • Disagree
      83


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Tk3 said:

 

If wins aren't a stat for QBs, then I need someone to explain Terry Bradshaw's inclusion in the HoF

It's the Hall of Fame. Not the Hall of Statistical Output. You can't tell the story of the NFL in the 70's without talking about Terry Bradshaw. This also isn't baseball.

I find it funny how much people try and pretend that wins doesn't matter for QB's when pretty much all of the top QB's of all time, no matter who is making the list, closely resembles the winningest QB's of all time. I'm not saying anything new in this thread, I know. Just throwing my two cents in. The correlation isn't perfect. That's the best you could argue. But to claim that QB play isn't one of the most significant factors in a teams success is asinine. And that becomes even more true as the league continues to create rules that favor the passing game.

No stat, or even group of stats is an individual stat in a sport where there are 22 guys on the field at once and like a dozen or more coaches on each sidelines. But there's always this persistently whiny group of fans who want to discount wins for QB's. There are just as many outside factors at play in a QB winning the MVP as there are in him winning a Super Bowl.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I think it can be a stat, but it's a stat we should all be mostly ignoring. 

Does anybody really care about Tom Brady's rushing yards? There's all sorts of stupid stats we ignore. 

That's the thing though; it's not being ignored and is literally used on a daily basis. I wouldn't have a problem if people changed the wording like "Team X has a W/L record w/ Player Y as their QB" as I feel that's a very accurate statement but when you say "Player Y is W/L" then you take away every aspect of the game. I just find that corny ergo asking for people's opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tk3 said:

If wins aren't a stat for QBs, then I need someone to explain Terry Bradshaw's inclusion in the HoF

He QBd a lot of teams that won a lot of games and SBs. He was the most important player on offense for those teams. Was he the reason the team won all those games? Not gonna pretend I watched them all b/c I wasn't even alive but my guess, "no". I'd bet they could've plugged you in on those teams and won a lot of games. This also is a separate thread for the most overrated people to be in the HoF and he would be the tops of my list, more than likely. That's a different thread though.

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

He QBd a lot of teams that won a lot of games and SBs. He was the most important player on offense for those teams. Was he the reason the team won all those games? Not gonna pretend I watched them all b/c I wasn't even alive but my guess, "no". I'd bet they could've plugged you in on those teams and won a lot of games. This also is a separate thread for the most overrated people to be in the HoF and he would be the tops of my list, more than likely. That's a different thread though.

I actually don't think my comments were for a different thread though - the broader point I was trying to make is that in practice, we ARE using team success as a metric of a QB's quality. It's a sort of "proof" that wins/team success ARE broadly used as a QB stat

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i get the logic with some comparison to 'premier' positions in other sports but ultimately, no, I don't think it should be a stat. There are times where a QB plays out of his mind and the defense is so bad they just can't stop anyone from scoring. You're dealing with a lot more players, a lot more complexity to the game, etc.. While perhaps sometimes you can say , this player cost said team the game and maybe it's a QB, no I don't think you can attribute that to a QB 100% of the time, good or bad.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good players usually end up winning more games.

Saying the top QBs list closely resembles the list of winningest QBs is sort of common sense.

Go do that for every position and I'd wager the only outliers will be guys who played with other all time greats.

I'm sure Jerry Rice is near the top of WR wins, Jim Brown and Emmit Smith near the top of RB wins, Deacon Jones, Bruce Smith and Reggie White near the top of EDGE wins.

 

And the when you provide some context to other guys - like JJ Watt for example. Not going to be near the top, but he represents the best period of Texans football (albeit in just 20 years).

Deion Sanders, Rod Woodson, and on down each position.

Great players are usually the first requirement to have sustained success. QBs might have more influence, but everyone plays a role - if we make W/L a stat for everyone, that'd make more sense than just QB

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...