Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How important is a win-loss record to a QB?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How important is a win-loss record to a QB?

    Finally decided to start posting after years of reading. Im wondering what everyones opinion is on the importance of wins to a quarterback. I realize the goal of every quarterback or player of any kind is to win and win a lot. However, why is total wins a relevant stat when comparing quarterbacks? Yes, John Elway is the career leader in wins. Yes, Brett Favre will pass him this year. But does it matter? Both were great quarterbacks, but they played for two different teams, played a different number of games, had varying levels of talent, etc etc.

    Theres so many factors that goes into a win. Its not like baseball where a pitcher can dominate and single handedly win (almost anyway, the team still has to score for him). Football is entirely different. Theres 10 other guys on the offense, and they all rely on each other every play. Then theres also the defense and special teams. A quarterback just cannot singlehandedly win in football. Theres too many other factors.

    Vince Young got lots of praise last year for winning and even won the rookie of the year. But statistically he was one of the worst quarterbacks in the league. His defense bailed him out a few times and Travis Henry had a good year. He also had a few good highlight reel runs. But does that really make him a good quarterback just because he won? He couldn't complete a pass to save his life. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl because of a strong defense and workhorse running back. Does that really make him better than all the quarterbacks that didn't win any?

    I'm looking for opinions here. Am i really just missing the point or am i right in thinking wins is pointless stat for anybody but teams and maybe head coaches?
    Do you see the way that tree bends? Does it inspire
    Leaning out to catch the sun's rays. A lesson to be applied.
    Are you getting something out of this all encompassing trip?
    -
    Pearl Jam

  • #2
    The main reason QBs get so much credit (or blame) for their win-loss record is because they have the most influence on the offense. Yes 10 other guys are there on offense with them, but on all but a few trick plays, the QB gets his hands on the ball.

    He is in charge of pre-snap reads and adjusting the play.

    He is in charge of making the right reads during the play and throwing it to the right player.

    He is in charge of managing the offense. Everyone else has to know their route and their role... he has to oversee everything.

    I personally feel they are given too much credit or blame, but there is no denying they are the most influential position.
    RIP Darrent Williams

    Comment


    • #3
      i dont think its very improtant at all, nowhere close to base balls pitcher stats at least

      when people bring up elway what do they remember . . . .SB wins and apperences, very rarely do i hear the Elway is the career leader in wins, unless its a very heated discussion and getting down to how many third down conversions they had and the percentage of dropped passes

      other than keeping confidence up i would say its one of the least imprtant things a QB should worry about - except they always want to win the game as you said, but its not so they have a great record . . . but so the team can have a great record
      sigpic
      -------

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm not doubting that quarterback is the most important player and is the brains behind the operation. But the quarterback wont do anything if his line doesn't protect him. Or if the wide recievers drop passes. Or if the running back can't keep the defense from focusing on the pass. Is that loss the quarterbacks fault? Certainly no more than anyone else on the team. Is it the quarterbacks loss if he puts up 50 points but the defense lets up 60? Not really, but its on his record.

        On the win side, was it the quarterbacks win a few years ago when Corey Dillon ran for 7 million yards against us? No, it was Corey Dillons win. Was it Jake Plummer winning last year? Or was it a defense that didnt let up a touchdown until a few games of the season.

        It seems like its too much of a collaborative effort to give the quarterback so much credit.
        Do you see the way that tree bends? Does it inspire
        Leaning out to catch the sun's rays. A lesson to be applied.
        Are you getting something out of this all encompassing trip?
        -
        Pearl Jam

        Comment


        • #5
          I think its very important. There is only one thing that matters to people, and thats their wins.

          Its not baseball... individual stats aren't the basis. But look at the recent past QBs we've had. They weren't the best QBs. ... not even in the division, yet the one thing people would ALWAYS point out, was his record.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ravage!!! View Post
            I think its very important. There is only one thing that matters to people, and thats their wins.

            Its not baseball... individual stats aren't the basis. But look at the recent past QBs we've had. They weren't the best QBs. ... not even in the division, yet the one thing people would ALWAYS point out, was his record.
            yes but that was when everyboy was complaining about the QB,

            i also think you can be a great QB but not win a lot of games

            but if you look at sucessful QBs (not jake), lets take peyton before his SB nobody would say something like sure he hasnt won that Sb but he sure does have a lot of wins,

            so like i said they are considered but they are not as important as wins vs loses in baseball. so i dont think they are as important as other stats that can compare 2 QBs to one another
            sigpic
            -------

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bahshay View Post
              Finally decided to start posting after years of reading. Im wondering what everyones opinion is on the importance of wins to a quarterback. I realize the goal of every quarterback or player of any kind is to win and win a lot. However, why is total wins a relevant stat when comparing quarterbacks? Yes, John Elway is the career leader in wins. Yes, Brett Favre will pass him this year. But does it matter? Both were great quarterbacks, but they played for two different teams, played a different number of games, had varying levels of talent, etc etc.

              Theres so many factors that goes into a win. Its not like baseball where a pitcher can dominate and single handedly win (almost anyway, the team still has to score for him). Football is entirely different. Theres 10 other guys on the offense, and they all rely on each other every play. Then theres also the defense and special teams. A quarterback just cannot singlehandedly win in football. Theres too many other factors.

              Vince Young got lots of praise last year for winning and even won the rookie of the year. But statistically he was one of the worst quarterbacks in the league. His defense bailed him out a few times and Travis Henry had a good year. He also had a few good highlight reel runs. But does that really make him a good quarterback just because he won? He couldn't complete a pass to save his life. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl because of a strong defense and workhorse running back. Does that really make him better than all the quarterbacks that didn't win any?

              I'm looking for opinions here. Am i really just missing the point or am i right in thinking wins is pointless stat for anybody but teams and maybe head coaches?

              I agree absolutely and completely that people are warped when evaluating QBs. What makes wins more important for a QB than a RB? As far as one can tell its someone in the media liking one QB more than another who, otherwise might be better albeit with fewer wins. For example, Dale Long held the record for most consecutive games with a HR. Almost no one knew this until someone approached it. Yet everyone is made aware of Joe Dimaggios hitting streak record. Why? Is it because the hitting streak is more impressive? Perhaps it is more impressive but its more likely due to the fact that one is Joe DiMaggio and the other is Dale Long...and thats what gives significant to one record over another. And its the same with the QB position where evaluation in the media is no less arbitrary. A QBs primary function is to pass the ball. Besides, more often than not, the winning team of Super Bowls is the team that has the better defense and running game moreso than having the best QB. Its an advantage to have an elite QB...theres no doubt about that but historically its more important to be able to run the ball. So yeah, the wins argument is really bogus.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lex View Post
                I agree absolutely and completely that people are warped when evaluating QBs. What makes wins more important for a QB than a RB? As far as one can tell its someone in the media liking one QB more than another who, otherwise might be better albeit with fewer wins. For example, Dale Long held the record for most consecutive games with a HR. Almost no one knew this until someone approached it. Yet everyone is made aware of Joe Dimaggios hitting streak record. Why? Is it because the hitting streak is more impressive? Perhaps it is more impressive but its more likely due to the fact that one is Joe DiMaggio and the other is Dale Long...and thats what gives significant to one record over another. And its the same with the QB position where evaluation in the media is no less arbitrary. A QBs primary function is to pass the ball. Besides, more often than not, the winning team of Super Bowls is the team that has the better defense and running game moreso than having the best QB. Its an advantage to have an elite QB...theres no doubt about that but historically its more important to be able to run the ball. So yeah, the wins argument is really bogus.
                you being from chicago probably know the best example of this is Grossman . . . terrible QB great record, i know theres more just too tired to think now
                sigpic
                -------

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SBboundBRONCOS View Post
                  yes but that was when everyboy was complaining about the QB,

                  i also think you can be a great QB but not win a lot of games

                  but if you look at sucessful QBs (not jake), lets take peyton before his SB nobody would say something like sure he hasnt won that Sb but he sure does have a lot of wins,

                  so like i said they are considered but they are not as important as wins vs loses in baseball. so i dont think they are as important as other stats that can compare 2 QBs to one another
                  So the only stat you think can be used to compare 2 QBs is SBs then? I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying.. or trying to say.

                  I would also very much disagree with you and state that you can NOT be a 'great' QB and not win a lot of games. You will never be a great QB and not win.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Winning is a big part of being a QB, but we should also be able to look at the bigger picture in some situations.

                    For example, I believe Archie Manning was a very good QB, despite his win/loss record.

                    And if I were to draft a QB from the 70's, I'd take Bert Jones over any other QB including Bradshaw, Stabauck, Stabler, etc.

                    For those that don't know, Bert Jones was Elway before Elway...He just didn't play with tons of Hall of Famers like Bradshaw and Stabauch did. Mel Kiper always says the two strongest arms he's seen were Elway and Jone's.

                    I believe if either Manning or Jones played with the 70's Steelers, the Steelers still would have won 4 Super Bowls (if not more).

                    I also think if Marino had played with the 49ers instead of Montana, the 9ers still would have won all those Super Bowls.

                    Above are exceptions, but winning does matter. Cutler has to prove that he can win (about) 72% of his games and go deep in the playoffs, otherwise we should have stayed with Jake.

                    A QB's winning percentage has more to do with making plays when needed, as well as avoiding mistakes when the game is on the line more than it has to do with "passer rating".

                    Elway was actually a pretty medocre QB...Until the game was on the line late in the 4th quarter. This is when he won games and why he was so great.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ravage!!! View Post
                      So the only stat you think can be used to compare 2 QBs is SBs then? I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying.. or trying to say.

                      I would also very much disagree with you and state that you can NOT be a 'great' QB and not win a lot of games. You will never be a great QB and not win.
                      ok maybe you cant be "great" but you get my drift

                      SBs are a huge factor in QB sucess but they have to go along with the stats (not like dilfers win) but id take comp. %, Td to Int ratio, and yards into consideration before i looked at wins and loses for quarterbacks.

                      just my opinion though, i really dont feel like getting into an arguement right now though, so goodnight everybody
                      sigpic
                      -------

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think when evaluating a quarterback, you pretty much have to look at the whole package.

                        As another poster pointed out, Archie Manning and Bert Jones were great QBs, but had average to terrible win/loss records. Conversely, Trent Green, Matt Hasselback, Rex Grossman, Bernie Kosar, Phil Simms, and Joe Theisman were/are mostly average to below average quarterbacks with pretty good win/loss records. So, while it's important, it's not the deciding factor on whether or not a quarterback is good or even great.

                        That said, Cutler will expected to deliver double-digit wins almost immediately - if not this season, then for sure next season, and for every season thereafter. And he'll be expected to take Denver deep into the playoffs, and deliver a couple of Super Bowl berths in the process, before his career is over with. Otherwise, his tenure as a Bronco will be seen as a bust. That's the expectations of the fans, the media, and the Broncos organization as a whole. Perhaps it's unfair and somewhat unrealistic, but that's the situation Cutler finds himself in after the Griese and Plummer debacles. He must deliver wins, and they must be in the post-season.

                        Now, WITH THAT SAID, I'm wildly optimistic of what Cutler can do as a quarterback for our team, and I think that, although he'll never be John Elway, he can and will be our next franchise quarterback in the tradition of John Elway.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mojo0730 View Post
                          I think when evaluating a quarterback, you pretty much have to look at the whole package.

                          As another poster pointed out, Archie Manning and Bert Jones were great QBs, but had average to terrible win/loss records. Conversely, Trent Green, Matt Hasselback, Rex Grossman, Bernie Kosar, Phil Simms, and Joe Theisman were/are mostly average to below average quarterbacks with pretty good win/loss records. So, while it's important, it's not the deciding factor on whether or not a quarterback is good or even great.

                          That said, Cutler will expected to deliver double-digit wins almost immediately - if not this season, then for sure next season, and for every season thereafter. And he'll be expected to take Denver deep into the playoffs, and deliver a couple of Super Bowl berths in the process, before his career is over with. Otherwise, his tenure as a Bronco will be seen as a bust. That's the expectations of the fans, the media, and the Broncos organization as a whole. Perhaps it's unfair and somewhat unrealistic, but that's the situation Cutler finds himself in after the Griese and Plummer debacles. He must deliver wins, and they must be in the post-season.

                          Now, WITH THAT SAID, I'm wildly optimistic of what Cutler can do as a quarterback for our team, and I think that, although he'll never be John Elway, he can and will be our next franchise quarterback in the tradition of John Elway.
                          I think he will make his own name, someone after him wil have to be the next Jay Cutler

                          but seriously how many Qbs are viewed as the next (insert QB name here) like Steve Young he is thought of as steve young, not The next Joe Montana

                          and thank you for finding QB examples for me ok now im realy going to bed, i have chem in the morning
                          sigpic
                          -------

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X