What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

'Wins' as a QB Stat (1 Viewer)

mr roboto

mr roboto

Footballguy
Several long-winded debates regarding QBs get rehashed time and again because the two sides disagree on one major point - whether wins are a essential statistic when evaluating a QB.

I would think everyone agrees that the QB contributes more to a teams win/loss record than any other single position. But is it a 'tier 1' stat when defining how good a QB is?

To me wins are a team and organizational metric not a QB metric.

 
wins are a team and organizational metric not a QB metric.
Click to expand...
This is the correct answer.

It's basically the same conversation for SPs in baseball. Wins are important to track to get the overall picture of a player's effectiveness, as the starters typically are the player most responsible for how often a team wins, but there are still many instances where a good performance by 'the most important guy on the field' can be undermined by either the offense or the defense of his team as a whole.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless a QB is extremely fortunate to have great teams around him for a long time, I think it would be fair to apply wins to evaluating a QB over a long time (as in a 10+ year career); however, I don't think it is a fair indicator over a short-to-medium time period because of many team/organizational factors outside of a QB's control. Same goes for Superbowl wins. No one thinks Dilfer is better than Marino, but one factor against Marino as GOAT (amongst others) is the lack of Superbowl wins. I think the reason it is a debate is because, as you mentioned, a QB has more impact on wins/losses than other positions, so -- in the long run -- a good QB should lead to more wins. However, in the short run, other factors can influence wins. Brady wouldn't be going to the Superbowl this year if he played on the Browns, but, the Browns likely would've won more games this year. Similarly, if Brady played for the Bucs, there's a very good chance the Bucs would've made it to the playoffs and, after that, who knows? Maybe NFCCG. Instead, due in large part to lack of quality/stability at the QB position, the Bucs are picking 1st overall.

 
Wins are definitely a team stat, but I think comparing QBs using just production statistics is incredibly disingenuous to the position.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overrated in baseball, underrated in football. I think accumulated stats are overrated in football.

 
mr roboto said:
All a team 'needs' from the QB position is above average play to be in contention for the SB.
Click to expand...
Not making mistakes is a skill. Playing smart is a skill.

The ability to know how to control a game is more important than a players ability to throw for 600 yards and 6 TDs.

Brady and Roethlisberger are two of the best in this regard, the other side of the coin being Rodgers and Brees.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Underrated in football.

Peyton brought the Colts to the playoffs every year, gets hurt and they are the worst team in the league. Draft Luck, now the Colts are in the playoffs every year. That simple, that important, it is an essential stat in my eyes

 
several years ago, there was a debate about greatest QBs of all time, or at least top 10. I tried to make the case that the important metric was offensive scoring relative to league average. I say a QB is basically captain of the offense, and it's the offenses job to score points. So, you measure effectiveness of the offense by how much they score, and you compare to league average to compare across eras. My answer, by the way, was Roger Staubach. He really never played on a bad offense, like, ever. The worst offense Staubach ever played in was 10th (of 28) in scoring, in 1976.

Lately, I've been into points per drive as the most important metric. I have not gone back and re-checked for all-time QB's.

 
^^^ See this is what I like to read. A metric that may actually isolate the QBs production relative to other QBs. I guess my point is wins don't do that.

 
mr roboto said:
^^^ See this is what I like to read. A metric that may actually isolate the QBs production relative to other QBs. I guess my point is wins don't do that.
Click to expand...
It would be an advanced stat obviously, and its something I feel like the ones we currently have don't do.

QBR and passer rating, specifically.

 
Completely useless when comparing one QB to another. A win in some circumstances, on a team utterly devoid of surrounding talent, where a QB veritably wills his team to victory by continually making the right plays, perfectly, in the face of nonsensical odds, is nothing short of miraculous.

Other times, a win can come on a team full of superstars, and the QB can do his very best to try to give it away, but still stumble backwards into the W.

And, of course, wins can "matter" to every degree on every point in between.

Every W is a team effort where the QB deserves some measure of credit that is unique to that game. And how relevant that credit is to evaluating the QB is unique to that game as well. To know how much credit that ought to be in each case, one really needs a profound understanding of the game. No "consensus opinion" will ever have that, and no stat will capture it. :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mr roboto said:
^^^ See this is what I like to read. A metric that may actually isolate the QBs production relative to other QBs. I guess my point is wins don't do that.
Click to expand...
I think points/drive is pretty interesting but how does it isolate the qb compared to wins being a team stat?

aren't there 11 guys on offense?

even raw passing stats involve more than just the qb, and I think you're kidding yourself if you think all a qb does is pass the ball.

it would, however, probably be a good idea to try and remove the defense from the equation, as moleculo's doing

 
It isn't essential - but it definitely isn't meaningless or just a "team stat". Great QBs seem to win - and they win consistently, over a long period of time, with a sizable turnover on the roster.

I have seen several different methodologies that show that winning is ~60% offense and ~40% defense. Even if you think the QB is "only" responsible for 50% of the offenses success/failure (which I think is conservative) that means the performance of the QB is about as important as the performance of the entire D.

I asked these questions once on a board a long time ago.

If you were the GM with the top QB in the league (however you personally defined the best QB - to avoid Manning vs. Brady vs. Rodgers etc .etc.) would you trade that QB for the starters of the top D in the league if your backup QB was a mediocre backup or worst starter. If you were the Packers GM would you trade Rodgers for the Seattle D if your replacement QB was Blake Bortles? The overwhelming response was to keep the QB.

I posed another one - would you rather have the best QB paired with the worst D or the Best D paired with the worst QB.

Basically, do you think you have a better chance of winning with Rodgers + Raiders D or Bortles + Seattle D - again most people took the QB.

If the general consensus is that QBs are this important (as important as entire defenses) then I don't think it is incorrect to judge QBs by how often their team wins.

 
I am comfortable saying that the quarterback is the most impactful player on offense. The reason why points per drive or points above replacement level may be a good metric for quarterbacks is that quarterbacks don't simply pass the ball but many of them are responsible for calling audibles, checking down to a run or checking off of a run into a pass etc.

They truly are the captain of the offense and I'm willing to give them credit for points scored as a meaningful metric of their overall performance. To me, passing stats like yards per attempt for total yards or even touchdown to interception ratios isolate their passing prowess too much and also speak to issues like whether or not the receivers can create yards after the catch or how often do you play design calls for big passes down field versus short to intermediate routes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Run It Up said:
mr roboto said:
All a team 'needs' from the QB position is above average play to be in contention for the SB.
Click to expand...
Not making mistakes is a skill. Playing smart is a skill.

The ability to know how to control a game is more important than a players ability to throw for 600 yards and 6 TDs.

Brady and Roethlisberger are two of the best in this regard, the other side of the coin being Rodgers and Brees.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you bring up Roethlisberger, because his winning ways have pretty well gone down the toilet since he stopped playing with the #1 defense in the league.

The last three years he's played with the #6, #18, and #14 defenses. So we're not even talking about BAD defenses here, just average ones and not the best defense in the league like he spent most of his career with.

In those three years he's 27-24, with one playoff appearance and zero playoff wins.

I'm OK with wins as a stat for quarterbacks, so long as we're looking at wins as skeptically for a QB playing with a great defense as we look at stats skeptically for a QB playing in a great system. No one thinks Kliff Kingsbury was a great college QB because he put up gaudy stats in that Texas Tech system, so why does every QB that plays with an elite defense automatically get tons of credit for "winning"?

Over the last 20 years, the team with the #1 scoring defense has made the playoffs EVERY YEAR. They've had a first round bye about 75% of the time, and won the Super Bowl almost half the time.

Which is more likely, that all 20 of those teams had quarterbacks that "knew how to win", or that winning is pretty easy when you're playing with a great defense?

It's odd to me that you listed Roethlisberger and Brady in the same category, because it's Brady's ability to win without a great defense that separates him from guys like Roethlisberger. They both started hot in their careers when playing with great defenses. When Brady's defense disappeared New England was still typically a 12+ win team, in the playoffs virtually every year, and has been back to the Super Bowl three times. When Roethlisberger's disappeared the Steelers have been pretty much a non-factor with only one season over .500 in three tries. As best I can recall, Brady has never failed to eclipse .500 in his entire career despite playing with his fair share of mediocre to below average teams.

The problem is not that wins are counted too much for QBs, it's that defenses are counted too little. It's not a big accomplishment to win a lot of games with a great defense. I'm sorry, it's just not.

 
In line with the thrist of the OP, I've often wondered how many "win shares" a good or great QB can generate for the team around him compared to a replacement-level signalcaller. Of course, "win shares" in football is an as-yet undefined term. but I think the house can follow the concept.

For instance, had the Raiders drafted Tom Brady instead of the Patriots, would Brady just have taken over from Rich Gannon and kept Oakland as a legit AFC contender over his career? What would Russell Wilson look like had he been drafted by Jacksonville or Tennessee? Troy Aikman on those pre-Dungy Buccaneers teams?

 
Doug B said:
In line with the thrist of the OP, I've often wondered how many "win shares" a good or great QB can generate for the team around him compared to a replacement-level signalcaller. Of course, "win shares" in football is an as-yet undefined term. but I think the house can follow the concept.

For instance, had the Raiders drafted Tom Brady instead of the Patriots, would Brady just have taken over from Rich Gannon and kept Oakland as a legit AFC contender over his career? What would Russell Wilson look like had he been drafted by Jacksonville or Tennessee? Troy Aikman on those pre-Dungy Buccaneers teams?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they all would have done far worse, even though they would be the same QBs.

 
sn0mm1s said:
It isn't essential - but it definitely isn't meaningless or just a "team stat". Great QBs seem to win - and they win consistently, over a long period of time, with a sizable turnover on the roster.

I have seen several different methodologies that show that winning is ~60% offense and ~40% defense. Even if you think the QB is "only" responsible for 50% of the offenses success/failure (which I think is conservative) that means the performance of the QB is about as important as the performance of the entire D.

I asked these questions once on a board a long time ago.

If you were the GM with the top QB in the league (however you personally defined the best QB - to avoid Manning vs. Brady vs. Rodgers etc .etc.) would you trade that QB for the starters of the top D in the league if your backup QB was a mediocre backup or worst starter. If you were the Packers GM would you trade Rodgers for the Seattle D if your replacement QB was Blake Bortles? The overwhelming response was to keep the QB.

I posed another one - would you rather have the best QB paired with the worst D or the Best D paired with the worst QB.

Basically, do you think you have a better chance of winning with Rodgers + Raiders D or Bortles + Seattle D - again most people took the QB.

If the general consensus is that QBs are this important (as important as entire defenses) then I don't think it is incorrect to judge QBs by how often their team wins.
Click to expand...
I think I'd take Seattle with Bortles. Baltimore won a SB with Trent freaking Dilfer, for crying out loud.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
Pretty sure they all would have done far worse, even though they would be the same QBs.
Click to expand...
Brady on the early-2000s Raiders should've had a fighting chance, at least. That was a good team on a multi-year run as a conference contender (three AFC title games in four years, with one AFC championship).

 
I would take the best D with an average QB over an average D with the best QB.

Basically Sea over Denver last year.

But long term defenses change because there are more parts moving, retiring, getting hurt etc. So I'd build long-term around the best QB bs the best D.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
Doug B said:
Leroy Hoard said:
Pretty sure they all would have done far worse, even though they would be the same QBs.
Click to expand...
Brady on the early-2000s Raiders should've had a fighting chance, at least. That was a good team on a multi-year run as a conference contender (three AFC title games in four years, with one AFC championship).
Click to expand...
For all we know he would be on the bench like most 6th rounders are. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I hear you, but I'm talking about taking what we now know about these guys and applying that to different situations.

 
Flacco, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Eli all were slightly above average QBs who have won SB in the last decade. Flacco's defense was good not great and he had an epic run personally. Roethlisberger had great defenses, Wilson too. Eli played well both years and iirc one year at least their d-line was freakishly good.

 
mr roboto said:
Flacco, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Eli all were slightly above average QBs who have won SB in the last decade. Flacco's defense was good not great and he had an epic run personally. Roethlisberger had great defenses, Wilson too. Eli played well both years and iirc one year at least their d-line was freakishly good.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call anyone but Eli and maybe Flacco, slightly above average in that group. Can you really think of ~10 QBs you would rather have over Wilson and Ben?

 
mr roboto said:
I would take the best D with an average QB over an average D with the best QB.

Basically Sea over Denver last year.

But long term defenses change because there are more parts moving, retiring, getting hurt etc. So I'd build long-term around the best QB bs the best D.
Click to expand...
That is a little different though - Seattle was historically good last year and Wilson was much more than an average QB. Manning was historically good last year but the Denver D wasn't even above average for the season. A more appropriate comparison would be Seattle + RG3 or Fitzpatrick vs. Manning + Denver D

 
sn0mm1s said:
mr roboto said:
Flacco, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Eli all were slightly above average QBs who have won SB in the last decade. Flacco's defense was good not great and he had an epic run personally. Roethlisberger had great defenses, Wilson too. Eli played well both years and iirc one year at least their d-line was freakishly good.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call anyone but Eli and maybe Flacco, slightly above average in that group. Can you really think of ~10 QBs you would rather have over Wilson and Ben?
Click to expand...
At the time that Ben won yes he wasn't even average the first time around. And Wilson was in year 2 and not a prolific passer. I think you are suffering from analyzing their status NOW not their status when they won.
 
To me there's 4 elite QBs, 3 very good QBs, and probably 6 above average QBs.

Manning Brady Brees Rodgers

Rivers Romo Luck

Ben Wilson Stafford Ryan Flacco Eli

Just a first pass. Maybe Ben is up a notch now (but not when he won the SBs). Wilson could win another SB and still not go up a level. These tiers are about skill and production, not winning, which is kind of the point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wins aren't an individual statistic. Neither are yards or touchdowns. no good quarterback should ever start a drive thinking, i hope we don't win. But a good quarterback could certainly start a drive planning not to throw for any yards or touchdowns.

Demolishing weak teams doesn't impress me, and neither does getting crushed and having to throw the ball late to catch up. But that's how a lot of big stats are accumulated. Beating playoff caliber teams in the regular and post season is more impressive, and almost always requires high level qb play, but will rarely result in gaudy numbers.

if you gave Andrew luck one wish, and he could either have Montanas career or Marino's, he'd take Montanas, guaranteed. Take one of those rings away and he'd still take Montanas career. Probably even two.

If you gave hoyer the choice between being trent dilfer or jeff George, he'd pick dilfer all day.

wins are the goal. Stats are a record of how you achieved that goal.

 
mr roboto said:
sn0mm1s said:
mr roboto said:
Flacco, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Eli all were slightly above average QBs who have won SB in the last decade. Flacco's defense was good not great and he had an epic run personally. Roethlisberger had great defenses, Wilson too. Eli played well both years and iirc one year at least their d-line was freakishly good.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call anyone but Eli and maybe Flacco, slightly above average in that group. Can you really think of ~10 QBs you would rather have over Wilson and Ben?
Click to expand...
At the time that Ben won yes he wasn't even average the first time around. And Wilson was in year 2 and not a prolific passer. I think you are suffering from analyzing their status NOW not their status when they won.
Click to expand...
Ben's 1st SB win was with a rating of 98 - 3rd in the league. He led the NFL in TD%, Y/C, Y/A, and AY/A. That isn't average. He was 5th in rating his rookie (prior) year. Their status then is that they hadn't been playing long enough to prove the consistency needed to be ranked as a top QB with any sort of certainty. However, they weren't playing anything like an average QB.

 
Ben's first 2 years he averaged under 200 yds/game passing. He was efficient and a good decision maker but nowhere near an elite QB nor did his team need him to be to win. Same thing with Russell. It's easier to be efficient when you are more selective with how often you pass. Which is possible when your defense is great and you can keep running the ball.

 
mr roboto said:
Ben's first 2 years he averaged under 200 yds/game passing. He was efficient and a good decision maker but nowhere near an elite QB nor did his team need him to be to win. Same thing with Russell. It's easier to be efficient when you are more selective with how often you pass. Which is possible when your defense is great and you can keep running the ball.
Click to expand...
which is why I think points per drive is the important metric. If a QB has a good running game and a stout defense, his teams overall points scored will be low, but his points/drive will be high.

I think a good QB has a role in the running game, so I don't like stats that eliminate that part of the game. A QB can impact the run game by making proper audibles and keeping the defense honest and backed off of the line with timely deep shots, plus some QB's actually run the ball, so we need to account for that as well. IMO, a scramble to convert a 3rd down is just as clutch as a quick toss, so certainly that's part of it. That's a big part of what makes Wilson and Luck great right now, IMO.

 
moleculo said:
which is why I think points per drive is the important metric. If a QB has a good running game and a stout defense, his teams overall points scored will be low, but his points/drive will be high.

I think a good QB has a role in the running game, so I don't like stats that eliminate that part of the game. A QB can impact the run game by making proper audibles and keeping the defense honest and backed off of the line with timely deep shots, plus some QB's actually run the ball, so we need to account for that as well. IMO, a scramble to convert a 3rd down is just as clutch as a quick toss, so certainly that's part of it. That's a big part of what makes Wilson and Luck great right now, IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mr roboto said:
Ben's first 2 years he averaged under 200 yds/game passing. He was efficient and a good decision maker but nowhere near an elite QB nor did his team need him to be to win. Same thing with Russell. It's easier to be efficient when you are more selective with how often you pass. Which is possible when your defense is great and you can keep running the ball.
Click to expand...
The numbers of the past 5 years don't seem to support this at all. In fact, this is likely true only if you are a good QB. If you look at the average rating of QBs as their pass attempts on the season drop - the rating drops as well.

There are two factors that I think are obvious here:

1) Poor QBs aren't asked to pass as much (which lowers the ratings when attempts on teh season drop) or they are benched

2) QBs asked to throw a limited number of times often only throw when it is required - which gives the defense an advantage

However, I don't think you can claim that passing less makes it easier to be more efficient (and hence a higher rating). If a good QB was only allowed to pass on 3rd and long I doubt the stats would reflect a higher rating than if he got to pass all the time under nearly any circumstances.

 
Here's a good post from the Rivers Eli Ben thread in the SP.

FreeBaGeL said:
It's not like Roethlisberger is really different. He's 2-5 when the D gives up 20 net points*, and he wasn't even particularly good in those two wins (430yds, 2 TDs combined).

*Net points used because there was another game where the D gave up 23 points, but also scored a defensive touchdown = 16 net points.

Roethlisberger has essentially played a full season of playoff games (15 games) and put up 3400 yards with 21 TD and 19 INT. Not exactly the playoff messiah he's cracked up to be. His playoff QB rating is worse than Rodgers, Brees, Kaepernick, Wilson, Sanchez, Romo, Eli, Flacco, Peyton, Brady, Rivers, Ryan, and Hasselbeck among active QBs.

And as was pointed out, his team has been pretty much a non-factor any season where they didn't have the best defense in the league.
Click to expand...
 
sn0mm1s said:
mr roboto said:
Ben's first 2 years he averaged under 200 yds/game passing. He was efficient and a good decision maker but nowhere near an elite QB nor did his team need him to be to win. Same thing with Russell. It's easier to be efficient when you are more selective with how often you pass. Which is possible when your defense is great and you can keep running the ball.
Click to expand...
The numbers of the past 5 years don't seem to support this at all. In fact, this is likely true only if you are a good QB. If you look at the average rating of QBs as their pass attempts on the season drop - the rating drops as well.

There are two factors that I think are obvious here:

1) Poor QBs aren't asked to pass as much (which lowers the ratings when attempts on teh season drop) or they are benched

2) QBs asked to throw a limited number of times often only throw when it is required - which gives the defense an advantage

However, I don't think you can claim that passing less makes it easier to be more efficient (and hence a higher rating). If a good QB was only allowed to pass on 3rd and long I doubt the stats would reflect a higher rating than if he got to pass all the time under nearly any circumstances.
Click to expand...
As a blanket rule probably not. But when you have one of the best running backs in the game, you should be more efficient because the defense is more focused on the run game. It's not a perfect rule, few things are, but in general.

 
mr roboto said:
Here's a good post from the Rivers Eli Ben thread in the SP.

FreeBaGeL said:
It's not like Roethlisberger is really different. He's 2-5 when the D gives up 20 net points*, and he wasn't even particularly good in those two wins (430yds, 2 TDs combined).

*Net points used because there was another game where the D gave up 23 points, but also scored a defensive touchdown = 16 net points.

Roethlisberger has essentially played a full season of playoff games (15 games) and put up 3400 yards with 21 TD and 19 INT. Not exactly the playoff messiah he's cracked up to be. His playoff QB rating is worse than Rodgers, Brees, Kaepernick, Wilson, Sanchez, Romo, Eli, Flacco, Peyton, Brady, Rivers, Ryan, and Hasselbeck among active QBs.

And as was pointed out, his team has been pretty much a non-factor any season where they didn't have the best defense in the league.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
its kind of a circular argument though. ben is great because he winsben isnt that great because his stats are just ok

but he wins in the playoffs

but his stats aren't great in the playoffs

 
bostonfred said:
mr roboto said:
Here's a good post from the Rivers Eli Ben thread in the SP.

FreeBaGeL said:
It's not like Roethlisberger is really different. He's 2-5 when the D gives up 20 net points*, and he wasn't even particularly good in those two wins (430yds, 2 TDs combined).

*Net points used because there was another game where the D gave up 23 points, but also scored a defensive touchdown = 16 net points.

Roethlisberger has essentially played a full season of playoff games (15 games) and put up 3400 yards with 21 TD and 19 INT. Not exactly the playoff messiah he's cracked up to be. His playoff QB rating is worse than Rodgers, Brees, Kaepernick, Wilson, Sanchez, Romo, Eli, Flacco, Peyton, Brady, Rivers, Ryan, and Hasselbeck among active QBs.

And as was pointed out, his team has been pretty much a non-factor any season where they didn't have the best defense in the league.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
its kind of a circular argument though. ben is great because he winsben isnt that great because his stats are just ok

but he wins in the playoffs

but his stats aren't great in the playoffs
Click to expand...
'He' doesn't win which is the entire point of this thread. Teams and organizations win. When was the last time a team was basically carried to and won a SB on TE back of the passing game? I'm sure there may be a few examples (Saints? Rams?). But usually the teams that are all passing make it to the playoffs then don't win the SB.

 
Can the OP just come out and say they are trying to debunk Russell Wilson so we can clear the air up and put the right context in this thread?

 
a mediocre QBs puts up good stats playing against prevent defenses late in a game against a playoff team. Against the same team, a week later, a good QB might get out to an early lead and is handing off at that point. At the end of the season, it looks like the good qb had an ok day in a big game, while the mediocre qb had a good game against a tough team. In those games wins would be a much more meaningful stat.

The same good qb plays against a bad team, and absolutely obliterates them. The mediocre qb puts up decent stats in another loss.

Together, the mediocre qb had just as many yards and touchdowns in those two games as the good qb, but the good qb won both games.

 
a mediocre QBs puts up good stats playing against prevent defenses late in a game against a playoff team. Against the same team, a week later, a good QB might get out to an early lead and is handing off at that point. At the end of the season, it looks like the good qb had an ok day in a big game, while the mediocre qb had a good game against a tough team. In those games wins would be a much more meaningful stat.

The same good qb plays against a bad team, and absolutely obliterates them. The mediocre qb puts up decent stats in another loss.

Together, the mediocre qb had just as many yards and touchdowns in those two games as the good qb, but the good qb won both games.

 
biju said:
Can the OP just come out and say they are trying to debunk Russell Wilson so we can clear the air up and put the right context in this thread?
Click to expand...
There's nothing to debunk. He's a pretty good very promising impressive player. Love the guy. I'm not sure why you think I don't. Still don't think wins are a stat worth considering primarily when evaluating QBs.

 
mr roboto said:
bostonfred said:
mr roboto said:
Here's a good post from the Rivers Eli Ben thread in the SP.

FreeBaGeL said:
It's not like Roethlisberger is really different. He's 2-5 when the D gives up 20 net points*, and he wasn't even particularly good in those two wins (430yds, 2 TDs combined).

*Net points used because there was another game where the D gave up 23 points, but also scored a defensive touchdown = 16 net points.

Roethlisberger has essentially played a full season of playoff games (15 games) and put up 3400 yards with 21 TD and 19 INT. Not exactly the playoff messiah he's cracked up to be. His playoff QB rating is worse than Rodgers, Brees, Kaepernick, Wilson, Sanchez, Romo, Eli, Flacco, Peyton, Brady, Rivers, Ryan, and Hasselbeck among active QBs.

And as was pointed out, his team has been pretty much a non-factor any season where they didn't have the best defense in the league.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
its kind of a circular argument though. ben is great because he winsben isnt that great because his stats are just ok

but he wins in the playoffs

but his stats aren't great in the playoffs
Click to expand...
'He' doesn't win which is the entire point of this thread. Teams and organizations win. When was the last time a team was basically carried to and won a SB on TE back of the passing game? I'm sure there may be a few examples (Saints? Rams?). But usually the teams that are all passing make it to the playoffs then don't win the SB.
Click to expand...
I think "on the back of the passing game" is an almost impossibly high standard, because you eliminate teams with excellent qb play and excellent defenses. But in the aggregate, you can still credit qb wins to the quarterback. Because usually if your quarterback can't lead the team to a single touchdown in a game, especially if they throw multiple interceptions, the team is going to lose. It's hard for a team to win with bad qb play. Which means that to win a superbowl, you usually need consistently solid qb play against tough defenses several games in a row.

let's say that, all else being equal, your odds of winning a game with "good qb play" are 60%, and with bad qb play its 40%. Your odds of winning the superbowl with three games of good qb play would be 21.6% or 13% over four games. that's really good, considering that 12 teams make it, so each has a baseline of 8.3%.

but with bad qb play, your odds would be 6.2% over three games, or 2.5% over four.

now those are obviously rough numbers, and certainly lots of team makeups can win it all. But consistently decent to good qb play is almost mandatory for championship contention.

Can you win game after game with consistently bad qb play if your defense and kicker play lights out? Sure. But I can only think of one qb who has done that, and his playoff record is predictably bad.

 
bostonfred said:
mr roboto said:
Here's a good post from the Rivers Eli Ben thread in the SP.

FreeBaGeL said:
It's not like Roethlisberger is really different. He's 2-5 when the D gives up 20 net points*, and he wasn't even particularly good in those two wins (430yds, 2 TDs combined).

*Net points used because there was another game where the D gave up 23 points, but also scored a defensive touchdown = 16 net points.

Roethlisberger has essentially played a full season of playoff games (15 games) and put up 3400 yards with 21 TD and 19 INT. Not exactly the playoff messiah he's cracked up to be. His playoff QB rating is worse than Rodgers, Brees, Kaepernick, Wilson, Sanchez, Romo, Eli, Flacco, Peyton, Brady, Rivers, Ryan, and Hasselbeck among active QBs.

And as was pointed out, his team has been pretty much a non-factor any season where they didn't have the best defense in the league.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
its kind of a circular argument though. ben is great because he winsben isnt that great because his stats are just ok

but he wins in the playoffs

but his stats aren't great in the playoffs
Click to expand...
Ben Roethlisberger has zero career playoff wins and a barely .500 regular season record (43-37) when not playing with the #1 defense in the league.

He is the epitome of overrated for "winning" even though he's not the one doing the winning.

I'll give credit to guys like Peyton, Brady, and Rodgers who just keep winning no matter how good or bad the team around them is. Roethlisberger is not in that class. He has failed to win anything when asked to be the focal point. And failed badly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Points per drive would certainly be interesting, especially over a large sample size. However, I'd be interested in how it correlates to wins -- I'd think the correlation would be reasonably high, especially over a large enough sample size.

 
bostonfred said:
mr roboto said:
bostonfred said:
mr roboto said:
Here's a good post from the Rivers Eli Ben thread in the SP.

FreeBaGeL said:
It's not like Roethlisberger is really different. He's 2-5 when the D gives up 20 net points*, and he wasn't even particularly good in those two wins (430yds, 2 TDs combined).

*Net points used because there was another game where the D gave up 23 points, but also scored a defensive touchdown = 16 net points.

Roethlisberger has essentially played a full season of playoff games (15 games) and put up 3400 yards with 21 TD and 19 INT. Not exactly the playoff messiah he's cracked up to be. His playoff QB rating is worse than Rodgers, Brees, Kaepernick, Wilson, Sanchez, Romo, Eli, Flacco, Peyton, Brady, Rivers, Ryan, and Hasselbeck among active QBs.

And as was pointed out, his team has been pretty much a non-factor any season where they didn't have the best defense in the league.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
its kind of a circular argument though. ben is great because he winsben isnt that great because his stats are just ok

but he wins in the playoffs

but his stats aren't great in the playoffs
Click to expand...
'He' doesn't win which is the entire point of this thread. Teams and organizations win. When was the last time a team was basically carried to and won a SB on TE back of the passing game? I'm sure there may be a few examples (Saints? Rams?). But usually the teams that are all passing make it to the playoffs then don't win the SB.
Click to expand...
I think "on the back of the passing game" is an almost impossibly high standard, because you eliminate teams with excellent qb play and excellent defenses. But in the aggregate, you can still credit qb wins to the quarterback. Because usually if your quarterback can't lead the team to a single touchdown in a game, especially if they throw multiple interceptions, the team is going to lose. It's hard for a team to win with bad qb play. Which means that to win a superbowl, you usually need consistently solid qb play against tough defenses several games in a row.

let's say that, all else being equal, your odds of winning a game with "good qb play" are 60%, and with bad qb play its 40%. Your odds of winning the superbowl with three games of good qb play would be 21.6% or 13% over four games. that's really good, considering that 12 teams make it, so each has a baseline of 8.3%.

but with bad qb play, your odds would be 6.2% over three games, or 2.5% over four.

now those are obviously rough numbers, and certainly lots of team makeups can win it all. But consistently decent to good qb play is almost mandatory for championship contention.

Can you win game after game with consistently bad qb play if your defense and kicker play lights out? Sure. But I can only think of one qb who has done that, and his playoff record is predictably bad.
Click to expand...
1-1 isn't terrible.
 
Consistently decent to good - I definately agree there bostonfred. That's my point though.

If wins were a meaningful metric of a QBs individual skill and performance than you'd not expect 'consistently decent to good' to really be enough to win a SB. Yet consistently above average to very good (but not great) QBs can and have won the SB.

Of course #### QBs aren't gonna win a ton of games. And of course truly transcendent QBs are gonna, through sheer skill or mental advantage propel teams to win more than a replacement QB would.

But to call Flacco or Eli or Dalton or Alex Smith or *gasp* Sanchez 'winners' when we all know that they aren't truly great at their job is silly. Yet at times fans and pundits have lauded all those dudes cause they were winners.

Why did Birtles struggle down the stretch and Teddy improved? In some meaningful part it was because Min protected Teddy more. And Norv Turner is a good offensive coach. Both receiving corps are suspect. Neither had a true RB. Neither had great defenses. Yet Teddy grew and Birtles regressed. Now it's 'Is Bortles really ready?' More like are the Jags ready to develop a franchise QB.

System coaching teammates defense blah blah all impact the wins. Truly average QBs get credited as being 'winners.' Some great QBs get labeled as 'chokers.' As if the end result of games is a QBs responsibility.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EBF
Top 26 Rookies 2021
2 3
Replies
108
Views
11K
jdoggydogg
jdoggydogg
socrates
Crazy Early Dynasty Rookie PPR Draft Board (2023 Updated Rankings Page 5)
3 4 5
Replies
213
Views
17K
socrates
socrates
Yogibear
5 Big Free Agent Moves that need to happen before the season starts
Replies
2
Views
272
travdogg
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top