Actually, that's not what you said. Let me run it back for you.
Uh, winning 11 games
IS NOT winning more frequently than winning 24 games.
Actually, it's not
MUCH better. You could argue that Dak has won
MORE FREQUENTLY, but you're not going to do that because it contradicts your aforementioned argument. Even so, Dak has played more games than Wentz. Of course, he would have either a better win or worse loss record than Wentz? Duh!
Any more useless stats?
See, this is the problem with numbers and stats. You can make them prove
ANYTHING YOU WANT THEM TO!!!
First, we're talking about Dak and Wentz first three years. Then we start comparing McNabb's and Brady's first three years (two in Brady's case).
And I make the argument that McNabb was considered the better quarterback due to the disparity of when their careers started.
Then you come back with a 2001 comparison.
You're moving all over the place.
Hmm. So you don't need to watch the tape to determine why Wentz may not be connecting on his passes? We're just supposed to take your word for it?
Oh, great. Some guy name
Joseph Santoliquito says Wentz is not a clutch quarterback. And we're supposed to take his word as Gospel?
Here's where analysis is your friend.
In 2017, in the 12 games Wentz played leading the team to a 10-2 record, 7 of the 10 wins were by
DOUBLE DIGITS. One (the game Wentz was injured in) was by eight, one by 3, another by 2.
So here's the $20,000 question: why do you need late game heroics when you're blowing teams out?
See, this is why statistics and numbers are so misleading. They need to be interpreted within a context.
I'll ask you this simple question: which quarterback would you want on your team:
A. A quarterback who is efficient throughout the game leading your team to a double digit victory or
B. A quarterback who stinks it up for much of the game (Tim Tebow) but delivers your team to victory in the closing minutes?
7-2 with double digits!!!!

Me likely manipulating stats.