Winning pct for each team over last 10 seasons, including playoffs

[John813]

Those Brady-less Pats teams really cratered their win % I guess. Expected them to be higher up till I realized they had ~3 poor seasons till this last one

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Just me, but unlike Werder, I think this has more to do with solid coaching than QB play.

that's diluting it....

what's the playoff record..

for the past 30 years for that matter

 

[gimmesix]

I think people are missing the point here:

This conflates Dak's record with the Cowboys record over that time period (he's missed significant time), and adds playoffs to regular season which I think hides the real problem.

Dak's regular season winning percentage is 60.1% since 2016, which would be 6th overall. He is 28.6% in the playoffs which is 24th in the league over that time.

But this is not a Dak Stat because it's basically identical to Romo's 61% win percentage in the regular season but 33% win percentage in the playoffs.

The real issue is the roster building philosophy that's prioritized regular season flash over substance creating holes that two franchise QBs have not been able to mask when the competition gets tougher.

Quarterbacks turn into scapegoats for poor roster-building. In the playoffs is when the roster issues really show up because all the teams (well, most of them) are good, so any weak links gets exposed. I don't have a problem saying our quarterbacks have contributed to our playoff failures at times, but put them on a better-built team and the result might be quite different. I still believe if Eli Manning could get two Super Bowl titles, then both Romo and Dak could have done the same in their careers on better teams. Losing or winning isn't a QB stat. It's a team one.

 

[Cowboys5217]

The drought is so long nobody will take this franchise seriously unless they win in the playoffs.

They shouldn't take the Cowboys seriously as long as Jerry remains the GM. We aren't a serious franchise until that changes.

 

[Cowboys5217]

Quarterbacks turn into scapegoats for poor roster-building. In the playoffs is when the roster issues really show up because all the teams (well, most of them) are good, so any weak links gets exposed. I don't have a problem saying our quarterbacks have contributed to our playoff failures at times, but put them on a better-built team and the result might be quite different. I still believe if Eli Manning could get two Super Bowl titles, then both Romo and Dak could have done the same in their careers on better teams. Losing or winning isn't a QB stat. It's a team one.

The QBs are not scapegoats, they are a huge part of the problem.

 

[gimmesix]

The QBs are not scapegoats, they are a huge part of the problem.

Those QBs have been top 10 at their position most years, and top five at times. Top-10 QBs get Super Bowl rings if their team is good enough. QBs outside the top 10 even get Super Bowl rings if the team around them is great.

Some fans want a player to blame and the QB is generally an easy target because of the importance of the position.

 

[Aven8]

Always hanging around that rim aren’t we?……

 

[DallasEast]

They shouldn't take the Cowboys seriously as long as Jerry remains the GM. We aren't a serious franchise until that changes.

Any actual future playoff run to the NFC Championship game or beyond can really be classified as a fluke for that reason. The Jerry Jones/GM era has been a quagmire. I guess its only saving grace is that it has not been quite as bad as the Steelers' pre-Chuck Noll era.

...although is worth noting the late 90s/2000s/2010s and 2020s should have been more advantageous in terms of postseason success than the late 40s/50s/60s and the beginning of the 70s. The Rooneys built themselves into a relative championship-standard franchise, as opposed to the Joneses having put the franchise in reverse gear since Jimmy Johnson's influence died.

 

[DallasInDC]

Why did Werder twist this into a QB stat when it is clearly not?

I'm not sure what his point was, but 57% is barely above average. Just saying....

If he wanted to make it a Dak stat he would have pointed out that when Dak is the starting QB the W-L % is 62.4...good for 3rd most winningest vs. 11th as it's shown in the table.

 

[75boyz]

I think people are missing the point here:

This conflates Dak's record with the Cowboys record over that time period (he's missed significant time), and adds playoffs to regular season which I think hides the real problem.

Dak's regular season winning percentage is 60.1% since 2016, which would be 6th overall. He is 28.6% in the playoffs which is 24th in the league over that time.

But this is not a Dak Stat because it's basically identical to Romo's 61% win percentage in the regular season but 33% win percentage in the playoffs.

The real issue is the roster building philosophy that's prioritized regular season flash over substance creating holes that two franchise QBs have not been able to mask when the competition gets tougher.

Great post.

 

[TwentyOne]

Why did Werder twist this into a QB stat when it is clearly not?

I'm not sure what his point was, but 57% is barely above average. Just saying....

It is not. Look at the list. 57% places us at 11. Of 32 team thats not barely above average.

In your judgement the first place had to have 100% and all teams places would have to correlate linear in the same way to their procentage value. That (of course) not the case.

Dont be confused by the number 57. Its the actual place that counts for your judgement.

 

[TheRunningMan]

Quarterbacks turn into scapegoats for poor roster-building. In the playoffs is when the roster issues really show up because all the teams (well, most of them) are good, so any weak links gets exposed. I don't have a problem saying our quarterbacks have contributed to our playoff failures at times, but put them on a better-built team and the result might be quite different. I still believe if Eli Manning could get two Super Bowl titles, then both Romo and Dak could have done the same in their careers on better teams. Losing or winning isn't a QB stat. It's a team one.

Dak nor Romo was on Peyton Mannings level as a qb. Don't kid yourself.

 

[gtb1943]

Those Brady-less Pats teams really cratered their win % I guess. Expected them to be higher up till I realized they had ~3 poor seasons till this last one

Look how fast they recovered to reach the SB. The Brady bots are so stupid

 

[gtb1943]

Dak nor Romo was on Peyton Mannings level as a qb. Don't kid yourself.

Peyton manning might have been the GOAT of the regular season, but his playoff stats were mediocre.

 

[StarOfGlory]

Just me, but unlike Werder, I think this has more to do with solid coaching than QB play.

Look at how many of those top teams have competent to exceptional GM’s.

 

[gimmesix]

Dak nor Romo was on Peyton Mannings level as a qb. Don't kid yourself.

I don't believe I said Peyton Manning. But they are both better than Eli was, and he has two rings. In fact, they are both better than multiple quarterbacks whose teams won Super Bowls.

 

[TheRunningMan]

I don't believe I said Peyton Manning. But they are both better than Eli was, and he has two rings. In fact, they are both better than multiple quarterbacks whose teams won Super Bowls.

This sounds like a coping mechanism. There's a lot of players at every position that are better than players that win the Super Bowl every year. Nobody outside of fans of their respective teams. Or history buffs remember them. Bc diamonds are forever.

Would you rather be the best player to never win a ring? Or the best qb on the field in a championshop game. Or not even that, just a mediocre qb on a team that wins multiple times?

Answer truthfully.

I mean ask Dan Marino if he would sacrifice some of his "best of..." stats for a chanpionship.

As someone who played competitve sports all my life. Never have i ever said in a loss or unsuccessful season. "Well at least i/we were better than this team/players at these positions." lol what?

 

[gimmesix]

This sounds like a coping mechanism. There's a lot of players at every position that are better than players that win the Super Bowl every year. Nobody outside of fans of their respective teams. Or history buffs remember them. Bc diamonds are forever.

Would you rather be the best player to never win a ring? Or the best qb on the field in a championshop game. Or not even that, just a mediocre qb on a team that wins multiple times?

Answer truthfully.

I mean ask Dan Marino if he would sacrifice some of his "best of..." stats for a chanpionship.

As someone who played competitve sports all my life. Never have i ever said in a loss or unsuccessful season. "Well at least i/we were better than this team/players at these positions." lol what?

I'm not sure it's a coping mechanism to point out that QBs who are not as good as the last couple we've had have gotten Super Bowl rings. It just shows that it is a team game while fans often make the QB the scapegoat. As you mentioned there are better players at every position than those that win Super Bowls every year, but they win because they are part of the better team.

Now, if you're asking me whether I'd take Romo or Prescott over Peyton Manning, I would hope that the answer is obvious. I always want the best player we can have at every position because it improves our chances of winning. But that and blaming our lack of success on the QB are two different things.

You brought up Dan Marino, and he's a good example because he's a great QB who never got a ring. Is that Dan Marino's fault or the fault of the team that was built around him?

I think you are picking a different fight with me than what I was trying to say. Maybe I didn't say it well, but I certainly wasn't saying we should be satisfied because our QBs were better than some who got Super Bowl rings. I'm only saying that blaming that all on the QB or mostly on the QB, attributing won-lost records to the QBs, is a poor way to go.

The Joneses have failed to build a championship team. Could they have with the past two QBs we've had? I think so based on their performances compared to their peers. They didn't, though, so those QBs are always going to be looked at by some as the problem. There are times when maybe they've been part of the problem but also times when the team failed them while they played well enough to win. (Thinking particularly about the Green Bay game where Dez officially doesn't complete the catch, where Murray fumbles and where the defense can't hold a lead.)

 

[erod]

Dallas is probably top 3 in games before October 30th.

When the games start to matter, the Cowboys Wilt like a daisy.