Nav22;4908316 said:
If you need help figuring out why a QB's performance over the course of his entire career is a FAR more reliable variable in judging his individual performance than his team's ability to win a couple Super Bowls, I don't know what else to say to you.
But you're the one saying that football is a team sport not an individual sport. If that is the case, why focus on the quarterback's overall career? Why focus on quarterback stats at all?
Remember, it's not my argument that football is a team sport and not an individual sport. I believe football is both.
Therefore my question is very much valid.
It's entirely possible to be a good QB who puts up good numbers but plays on a bad team. Furthermore, it's nearly impossible to consistently perform well individually over the course of an entire career if you're not a good player yourself, regardless of your supporting cast. Especially at the QB position.
Ah,
especially at the quarterback position. You're doing it again. You are highlighting the quarterback position at the expense of other positions.
Second, a quarterback's consistency involves his entire team, no? I often read posters complain about Patrick Crayton not catching Romo's pass during the 2007 playoff game against the Giants. Let's assume Crayton catches the pass and the Cowboys win. Are people saying Romo is a Super Bowl winning quarterback or that his team is contributing to his consistency?
In summary, your position seems to be it doesn't matter whether a quarterback is consistent in the short term or long term, he still accomplishes what he does in the context of team. So why even consider his entire career. That too is a function of his team, not him.
You're arguing against your own position. Don't tell me about long-term consistency when your basic argument is that it's not about the quarterback, it's about the team. That long-term consistency has to be a team accomplishment. Remember, you're the one saying that football is a team sport, not an individual one. Yet you want to refer to individual stats when it suits your purpose.
It is NOT, however, possible to win a Super Bowl with a bad team, no matter how good the QB is. It's never happened and it never will happen
Dan Marino would tell you that. So would John Elway, who would've retired ring-less had Denver not found an incredible run game and defense in Elway's last couple seasons.
So here are my questions. Is
every team that doesn't make the playoffs a
"bad team"?
Is every team that makes the playoff but doesn't make the Super Bowl a
"bad team"?
Conversely, doesn't the reverse work? Is it impossible for a good/great team with a
bad/mediocre quarterback to make the playoffs/Super Bowl? (Some would argue that represents the 2007 Cowboys with Romo at quarterback.)
By the way, the Denver Broncos that lost those Super Bowls with Elway at quarterback were not
bad teams. The same with respect to Dan Marino and his Miami Dolphins, that set a record for scoring that year. They just ran into
better teams.
With all due respect, your distinction is too nebulous to have any meaning because you're calling those teams that make the Super Bowl but lose
bad teams. By that definition, you have only one
good team at the end of the year (the one that wins the Super Bowl) and every other team is a
"bad team."
That's a ridiculous argument.
And of course, it is very possible to win a Super Bowl with a mediocre QB on a great team. It's happened many times before and will certainly happen again.
And it is equally very possible to win a Super Bowl with a great quarterback on an average team. See Joe Namath.
Be that as it may, I think your argument is too idealistic. What I mean by that is you look at the final results to draw sweeping conclusions about "good teams" "bad teams" "great teams" "mediocre quarterbacks" "good quarterbacks," etc.
And what is interesting to me is that you talk so much about mediocre quarterbacks yet you're making an
individual assessment about an individual player's skill set.
But, yet, when someone says that Tony Romo can't win the big one - an individual assessment - it becomes about the team.
Well, which is it? We can't talk about Romo being a great quarterback or even a good one if we cannot make an individual assessment of his skills in connection to the overall team. If we can only speak about the team and winning, then Romo is who he is because of the team not based on what he does individually to help the team win. At least that's what you seem to be arguing with respect to this individual vs. team dichotomy.
