Dak Prescott 2 in Total QBR

[cowboyblue22]

Dak Prescott is a really really good qb and that's pretty much the end of the discussion he is getting really close to as good as there is in the league

 

[Cowboy4ever]

What's interesting is the best 3 QB in the league, with this stat, are all young, 2nd and 1st year players. We are going to have fun over the next several years assuming that Wentz and Dak both stay healthy. I think both teams are set up for a good run over the next several years.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What's interesting is the best 3 QB in the league, with this stat, are all young, 2nd and 1st year players. We are going to have fun over the next several years assuming that Wentz and Dak both stay healthy. I think both teams are set up for a good run over the next several years.

I think you may be right.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

I think you may be right.

Could very well be like it was in the 90's when everyone knew the two best teams were in the NFC and the superbowl was really just an after thought after Dallas Vs SF. The fact that both teams play in the East, there will be some epic games during the season to see who is top dog heading into the playoffs each year.

 

[jterrell]

Dak played well yesterday. Some erratic throws, but some brilliant play, too.

We will get a really good picture of where he is in two weeks against Philly.

We don't need to see anything as these are unbiased stats suggesting he is playing at the most efficient level in the league.
He's pretty much an ideal QB. He doesn't turn the ball over, he takes what defenses give him.
He is enough threat with the run to get key yardage and open up the playbook but he doesn't run it very much so spying him wastes a player..

 

[EST_1986]

Dak is #2 with 78.5

Wentz is #3 with 71.7

In other words, QBR predicts that, with the same team facing the same competition, Dak's QB play would result in 13 wins in a 16 game season (78.5% win rate) while Carson's QB play would result in 11 wins in a 16 game season (71.7% win rate).

But if you don't want to accept that QBR has any predictive force, just take a look at the gaps between (a) #1 and #2, and (b) #3 and #4. They aren't nearly as wide.

There's a significant drop-off between #2 and #3 on the list.

 

[jterrell]

I think you may be right.

A sign of nfl offenses learning to adjust to more athletic QBs and defenses being slow to adjust.
Offenses have larger playbooks with these mobile QBs and it presents real challenges for defenses.
Alex Smith is another example that's not young but who has always been very athletic and now the offense has caught up to him using his tools in various ways.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Could very well be like it was in the 90's when everyone knew the two best teams were in the NFC and the superbowl was really just an after thought after Dallas Vs SF. The fact that both teams play in the East, there will be some epic games during the season to see who is top dog heading into the playoffs each year.

You could be right but it's really hard to stay good for very long anymore. Back in the day, before the cap was such a big part of things and you could still keep teams together, you would see a run of several seasons between two dominant teams. Now, it's a lot harder but one thing is for sure, you gotta have a good QB to even start thinking about being in a situation, such as that. You are certainly right about that.

 

[RomoFor6]

Yeah, so? My statement was not about winning Super Bowls. My statement was about winning in the NFL. Lasting is about years in the league. Super Bowls are important for sure but, they don't mean that you will be a winning QB. They mean that for a season or what have you, you won. That's not longevity in the league.

I think you are trying to change the argument because you clearly didn't pay attention to what I said, is what's going on here. You can say "Pay Attention" but clearly it is you who did not read what I said. You changed it to suit your purpose after you realized you didn't pay attention to what I said.

I said, the most important stat in the NFL, for a QB, is win loss. Do you agree with this or do you disagree? If you want to have a discussion, at least be honest about what you said. If you don't, cool but don't play people off like you know what's up. You didn't read what I said.

so winning games doesn't equate to winning Super Bowls? I very clearly read what you said, actually just re-read it, and it makes even less sense. There are tons of examples of Quarterbacks with less wins but far superior stats to QB's with more wins but garbage stats.

I just want you to answer my original question, which you haven't.

QB A has the best Defense in the league and average numbers and his team is 13-3. QB B has a below average defense with record breaking stats and his team is 9-7. is QB A better because he has more wins? Simply answer this question.

There are 52 other players on a team that can decide the outcome of a football game FYI.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

A sign of nfl offenses learning to adjust to more athletic QBs and defenses being slow to adjust.
Offenses have larger playbooks with these mobile QBs and it presents real challenges for defenses.
Alex Smith is another example that's not young but who has always been very athletic and now the offense has caught up to him using his tools in various ways.

Again, I agree JT. I was a big fan of Smith, coming out. I honestly thought he would be the evolution of what we saw from guys like Steve Young in the WCO. Didn't work out for him the way I thought in the beginning but yes. I think you are dead on there JT.

 

[VACowboy]

Winning is the goal and the ultimate measure of team success, but I do not buy the idea that wins and losses are the end all indicator of individual QB ability. Eli Manning has two rings because NFL football is the ultimate team game. History is littered with examples of average quarterbacks carried to world championships by great teams. Then there’s guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning who have dragged average teams to the promised land. Sometimes you just have to watch the guys play and trust your eyes. Just because a quarterback is employed and making a ton of money it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s great.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

so winning games doesn't equate to winning Super Bowls? I very clearly read what you said, actually just re-read it, and it makes even less sense. There are tons of examples of Quarterbacks with less wins but far superior stats to QB's with more wins but garbage stats.

I just want you to answer my original question, which you haven't.

QB A has the best Defense in the league and average numbers and his team is 13-3. QB B has a below average defense with record breaking stats and his team is 9-7. is QB A better because he has more wins? Simply answer this question.

There are 52 other players on a team that can decide the outcome of a football game FYI.

Only one team wins the Super Bowl every year right? Are you saying there there is only one winning team every year?

Maybe it's you and not the answers. Jesus, this not hard. How bout you answer the question asked. What is the most important stat for a QB? Is it winning or is it something else? A QB effects both sides of the ball. If QB A is consistently 13-3 and QB B is consistently 9-7, then it's QB A.

I take Troy Aikman over Dan Marino every time. Why, because Marino wanted to throw the ball every time and he never bought into the run game. That's why he never won a championship. Troy, on the other hand, understood that he had a team. He had a running game that would him games and he had a defense that could get it done if they weren't left on the field too long. Marino understood neither of those two things but, he put up huge stats every single year. But Aikman was better because he understood.

There is your answer. Don't bring up .500 level guys and compare them to HOFers. That's insulting.

Now, it's your turn answer the question posed to you. What is the most important stat for a QB?

 

[Idgit]

We don't need to see anything as these are unbiased stats suggesting he is playing at the most efficient level in the league.
He's pretty much an ideal QB. He doesn't turn the ball over, he takes what defenses give him.
He is enough threat with the run to get key yardage and open up the playbook but he doesn't run it very much so spying him wastes a player..

Dak plays the percentages, makes the right decisions a huge percentage of the time, and does everything well, but nothing spectacularly (except take care of the football). It keeps the offense in advantageous situations, and makes it look easy, but it's really not easy. He'll do the same thing, and it'll look the same way if Elliott is suspended.

Man, if we had more impact players on defense, we could be in a really good situation for the next 5-6 years here in Dallas.

 

[Supercowboy1986]

For all of you stat/analytics people, please remember one thing.

Players win games, stats do not.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Winning is the goal and the ultimate measure of team success, but I do not buy the idea that wins and losses are the end all indicator of individual QB ability. Eli Manning has two rings because NFL football is the ultimate team game. History is littered with examples of average quarterbacks carried to world championships by great teams. Then there’s guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning who have dragged average teams to the promised land. Sometimes you just have to watch the guys play and trust your eyes. Just because a quarterback is employed and making a ton of money it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s great.

Eli, to me, is the perfect example of winning being the most important stat. If you watch him play, he is not really a guy that wows you. He plays in the most hostile, most intense market in the country and yet, even though he is not really a great QB (IMO), he has been the starter for 14 seasons. To me, he is the perfect example.

Guys like Brady and Manning, they are different because they are winning QBs and they have played on talented teams. With them, you have the best of both worlds and that's probably why they are talked about in GOAT discussion all the time. JMO

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

I know, right? And to think there are guys arguing that Wentz is head and shoulders above Dak. (Same guys, I'm sure, who think random gifs somehow refute statistical analysis.)

 

[EST_1986]

I know, right? And to think there are guys arguing that Wentz is head and shoulders above Dak. (Same guys, I'm sure, who think random gifs somehow refute statistical analysis.)

Dude you won, that Moneyball take on the two QBs changed my mind forever.

Watson must be galaxies better than Thomas Edward Patrick Brady Jr.

 

[VACowboy]

Eli, to me, is the perfect example of winning being the most important stat. If you watch him play, he is not really a guy that wows you. He plays in the most hostile, most intense market in the country and yet, even though he is not really a great QB (IMO), he has been the starter for 14 seasons. To me, he is the perfect example.

Guys like Brady and Manning, they are different because they are winning QBs and they have played on talented teams. With them, you have the best of both worlds and that's probably why they are talked about in GOAT discussion all the time. JMO

So, winning is or isn’t the measure of great quarterbacks?

 

[RomoFor6]

Only one team wins the Super Bowl every year right? Are you saying there there is only one winning team every year?

Maybe it's you and not the answers. Jesus, this not hard. How bout you answer the question asked. What is the most important stat for a QB? Is it winning or is it something else? A QB effects both sides of the ball. If QB A is consistently 13-3 and QB B is consistently 9-7, then it's QB A.

I take Troy Aikman over Dan Marino every time. Why, because Marino wanted to throw the ball every time and he never bought into the run game. That's why he never won a championship. Troy, on the other hand, understood that he had a team. He had a running game that would him games and he had a defense that could get it done if they weren't left on the field too long. Marino understood neither of those two things but, he put up huge stats every single year. But Aikman was better because he understood.

There is your answer. Don't bring up .500 level guys and compare them to HOFers. That's insulting.

Now, it's your turn answer the question posed to you. What is the most important stat for a QB?

That is exactly what I'm saying. If you're not first, you're last.

QB A has 18 TDS and 12 INTs and 3000 passing yards with a top running game in the league but has a 13-3 record. QB B is 9-7 with 30 TDS and 10 INT with 4500 yards with a sub par run game and trash defense. Prorated over 5 years. Youre telling me with a straight face QB A is better because he has more wins? LOL. LIke I said, 52 players that can effect the outcome of a ballgame. QBR, passing yards, TD/INT ratio are all MUCH MORE indictive of how good a quarterback.

Nice way to contradict yourself by the way. Marino is top 5 in all time wins. More than 50 wins in comparison to Aikman. Better win %. But you'd rather have Aikman. But Marino has more wins!!!! he must be better!!! Stick to your argument.

Or is it because Aikman has won more super bowls? AH, it can't be, because, and I quote "your statement was not about winning Super Bowls, it was about winning in the NFL". What gives?? I think you are a little confused. It happens to the best of us.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Dude you won

I know. But it's still nice to hear you admit it. Good on ya.