Twitter: Wins Are All That Matters

[percyhoward]

Another great example how we can spin facts to support a narrative . Well done !!

Thanks, but this is nowhere near the big picture. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Jones's like the wins, the ticket sales, and the merchandise sales more than they like their chances of finding a QB who can get similar results as Dak for less money.

 

[OmerV]

Could be but I saw it more as “ click bait”.

But to your point comparing Dak to Brady last 3 years is similar to comparing Rivers and Tebow. No comparison in talent level or passing ability.

Who was comparing Dak to Brady?

 

[Diehardblues]

Thanks, but this is nowhere near the big picture. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Jones's like the wins, the ticket sales, and the merchandise sales more than they like their chances of finding a QB who can get similar results as Dak for less money.

Could be. I also think Jerry is intent on proving he was right about going with Dak over Romo. Dak is his big find in the 4th round. It makes him look like a Football Guy.

 

[percyhoward]

Could be. I also think Jerry is intent on proving he was right about going with Dak over Romo. Dak is his big find in the 4th round. It makes him look like a Football Guy.

Jerry publicly lamented not offering enough for Paxton Lynch, so that cat's already out of the bag.

 

[Diehardblues]

Who was comparing Dak to Brady?

That’s been a common theme with Brady only QB to win more games last 3 years than Dak. Surely I’m not the only one who read between the lines on OP’s apparent intent here? Lol

 

[Diehardblues]

Jerry publicly lamented not offering enough for Paxton Lynch, so that cat's already out of the bag.

Personally I’d liked to have seen what Lynch could have done in this offense.

 

[percyhoward]

Personally I’d liked to have seen what Lynch could have done in this offense.

You chose an apt name.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Personally I’d liked to have seen what Lynch could have done in this offense.

Hard to say... I see no evidence that his lot in QB life was not dictated by his surroundings, like most QBs who aren’t once in a lifetime talents.
If Dak was drafted by the Cleveland Browns, who went 1-31 during his first two years, Dak would be in the XFL right now... regardless of how he played/practiced.

 

[OmerV]

That’s been a common theme with Brady only QB to win more games last 3 years than Dak. Surely I’m not the only one who read between the lines on OP’s apparent intent here? Lol

I guess it's true that comment has been made, but I don't think anyone is really suggesting Dak is at or near Brady's level as a QB. I think they are only saying that being a QB with a team that has that kind of team success has to be factored in when discussing Dak.

 

[Diehardblues]

I guess it's true that comment has been made, but I don't think anyone is really suggesting Dak is at or near Brady's level as a QB. I think they are only saying that being a QB with a team that has that kind of team success has to be factored in when discussing Dak.

If your going to use that team stat to prop up your guy in an attempt to spin a brighter light then need to be prepared for the fallout. This type of comparison click bait is just that.

 

[gimmesix]

Hmmm - I took the OP as showing that Tebow and Rivers both had good winning percentages like Dak, but after reading your post and going back and looking at the OP I think you are right that the intent was just to compare Tebow's winning %, as a lesser QB, to Rivers winning %, as a better QB.

But the flaw with using Tebow is sample size. He has an 8-6 record - 14 games over 3 years. Stats are meaningless without at least some reasonable sample size to judge from, and Tebow never even QB'd a team for a full season.

In the end, while I don't think winning % is a stand alone view of a QB, I still think it is a relevant factor in judging QBs because the QB is the leader and the decision maker and he is in the position most able to influence the outcome of games because he has reads and choices to make that no other player does. It transcends mere stats.

Your last sentence is very true. Not all situations are the same, and that is really the flaw in using winning % as a stand alone factor. It needs to be used only as A factor, not THE factor.

Using it as a factor, though, leaves you with cases like Archie Manning, where the team was so bad despite him that he had a career 35-101-3 record. Put in the right situation, it's probable that Manning would be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. For that matter, I believe Tony Romo should be put into the Hall of Fame, but I don't believe that he will be because of his team's lack of playoff success.

We do not judge running backs like Barry Sanders on the basis of how many games Detroit won, even though obviously he was a big factor in any success the Lions had during his time there. We don't do it with any other player but quarterback, when they also only play a role in any success or failure.

I think won-loss records are given too much emphasis with QBs, and that's a shame, because some really great ones just ended up in some really bad situations. The only way I believe you can use it as a factor is by judging the whole team and whether the contributions of that QB made the team better than it was, even if it has a poor record. That takes far more effort than just looking at numbers, and most people are not going to go that in-depth. Other statistical measures also have flaws, but won-loss records are just a bad way of viewing QBs.

 

[Diehardblues]

Hard to say... I see no evidence that his lot in QB life was not dictated by his surroundings, like most QBs who aren’t once in a lifetime talents.
If Dak was drafted by the Cleveland Browns, who went 1-31 during his first two years, Dak would be in the XFL right now... regardless of how he played/practiced.

You know it’s a real shonda we became so taken by Dak in his Rookie season. Human nature I guess or a franchise so desperate to grab onto the first glimmer of greatness.

It’s a shame we didn’t attempt to draft a more prolific passer counting our blessings we’d finally found a backup we could win with. We could have still drafted a heir apparent while letting Romo play until he couldn’t get up again knowing we had a backup who could carry thru until we found it.

The circumstance was compounded by an owner and GM wearing the same hat making decisions which often conflict what’s best for revenue vs what’s best for Cowboys Football. Now we’re stuck trying to prove he’s a Football Guy not an Idiot.

 

[OmerV]

If your going to use that team stat to prop up your guy in an attempt to spin a brighter light then need to be prepared for the fallout. This type of comparison click bait is just that.

Again, I'm not using winning % as a stand alone factor, I'm merely saying it is a factor. I just don't see that it's unfair for a guy who directs the offense, makes the reads and the decisions on the field, and handles the ball every play and distributes the ball in accordance with his reads and decisions to not at least be partially judged on team success. He is the guy with the most responsibility and expected to be the most knowledgeable and aware person on the field, and the most under the spotlight and most in the position to influence games/team success or failure on every play, so I don't think using winning as one of the factors in judging him is inappropriate.

There is a reason there are regular QB controversies in football and far fewer at any other position, and that is because QBs are seen as the leaders that initiate and dictate the action, and if they make bad decisions they can ruin an otherwise talented team, and if they make good decisions a team with talent can win games.

 

[gimmesix]

Using it as a factor, though, leaves you with cases like Archie Manning, where the team was so bad despite him that he had a career 35-101-3 record. Put in the right situation, it's probable that Manning would be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. For that matter, I believe Tony Romo should be put into the Hall of Fame, but I don't believe that he will be because of his team's lack of playoff success.

We do not judge running backs like Barry Sanders on the basis of how many games Detroit won, even though obviously he was a big factor in any success the Lions had during his time there. We don't do it with any other player but quarterback, when they also only play a role in any success or failure.

I think won-loss records are given too much emphasis with QBs, and that's a shame, because some really great ones just ended up in some really bad situations. The only way I believe you can use it as a factor is by judging the whole team and whether the contributions of that QB made the team better than it was, even if it has a poor record. That takes far more effort than just looking at numbers, and most people are not going to go that in-depth. Other statistical measures also have flaws, but won-loss records are just a bad way of viewing QBs.

It's kind of sad to me thinking about Eli Manning having a better shot at getting into the Hall of Fame than Archie simply because Eli happened to be on a couple of really good New York Giants teams. I'm not trying to take anything away from how Eli played during those Super Bowl seasons, but there are many much more deserving QBs who never had the benefit of playing on a team able to put together that kind of run.

 

[Diehardblues]

Again, I'm not using winning % as a stand alone factor, I'm merely saying it is a factor. I just don't see that it's unfair for a guy who directs the offense, makes the reads and the decisions on the field, and handles the ball every play and distributes the ball in accordance with his reads and decisions to not at least be partially judged on team success. He is the guy with the most responsibility and expected to be the most knowledgeable and aware person on the field, and the most under the spotlight and most in the position to influence games/team success or failure on every play, so I don't think using winning as one of the factors in judging him is inappropriate.

There is a reason there are regular QB controversies in football and far fewer at any other position, and that is because QBs are seen as the leaders that initiate and dictate the action, and if they make bad decisions they can ruin an otherwise talented team, and if they make good decisions a team with talent can win games.

I’m not disputing it’s not a contributing factor but I’ve seen it used much too often as a stand alone prop. Not by you who’s much more practical.

 

[OmerV]

Using it as a factor, though, leaves you with cases like Archie Manning, where the team was so bad despite him that he had a career 35-101-3 record. Put in the right situation, it's probable that Manning would be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. For that matter, I believe Tony Romo should be put into the Hall of Fame, but I don't believe that he will be because of his team's lack of playoff success.

We do not judge running backs like Barry Sanders on the basis of how many games Detroit won, even though obviously he was a big factor in any success the Lions had during his time there. We don't do it with any other player but quarterback, when they also only play a role in any success or failure.

I think won-loss records are given too much emphasis with QBs, and that's a shame, because some really great ones just ended up in some really bad situations. The only way I believe you can use it as a factor is by judging the whole team and whether the contributions of that QB made the team better than it was, even if it has a poor record. That takes far more effort than just looking at numbers, and most people are not going to go that in-depth. Other statistical measures also have flaws, but won-loss records are just a bad way of viewing QBs.

And using stats as a factor can leave you with cases like Vinny Testeverde who accumulated a lot of stats (12 in career yards and 16th in career TDs) but who never accomplished anything.

Fans have to accept that there is no perfect or stand alone factor, or even a perfect set of criteria to judge from. The reason for looking at multiple factors is that any individual factor is flawed and therefore cannot be counted on as a stand alone way to judge. The best we can do is look at multiple factors to provide a better overall picture so the flaws of each individual factor can be offset to some degree.

 

[OmerV]

I’m not disputing it’s not a contributing factor but I’ve seen it used much too often as a stand alone prop. Not by you who’s much more practical.

Then we have no issue. I don't consider it a stand alone way to judge, to the exclusion of all other factors.

 

[Jarv]

Jason Calvin Garrett 6-3 in his 9 starts...but if you saw him throw, you're still wondering how. Defense.

Yet he still beats Dak in throwing games.

 

[Roadtrip635]

There’s been a few like him. Jay Cutler, Ryan Leaf, Matt Sanchez, Jamarcus Russell, Carson Palmer, Jake Delhomme.

That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there’s others.

Guys like Leaf and Jamarcus were overrated and/or overdrafted and didn't really last long enough to say they were continually overpaid. Guys like Sanchez and Cutler at least provided some measure of worth to their team compared to Bradford. Lifetime earnings vs lifetime production, make guys like Sanchez and Cutler look like bargains

$ per passing yard
$3,478 Cutler
$4,833 Sanchez
$6,685 Bradford

$ per completion
$40,090 Cutler
$56,486 Sanchez
$70,093 Bradford

$ per TD pass
$538,308 Cutler
$863,067 Sanchez
$1,262,357 Bradford

$ per Win
$1.6 million Cutler
$2.0 million Sanchez
$3.8 million Bradford

It can be argued if a player plays up to their worth or their contract, but I don't think there is another player that has continually been overpaid during their career quite like Sam Bradford. He still made $15 million last year for playing 3 games. He is the undisputed champ of the NFL overpaid.

 

[BigCatMonaco]

Who was comparing Dak to Brady?

There was an infographic on Twitter.

Dak vs Brady after the cooper trade.


Dak beat him in every category.