Twitter: Wins Are All That Matters

[ghst187]

Pretty sure we could sign Tebow away from his minor league baseball team right now for much less than Dak is asking for....

 

[Jarv]

Oh come on Jarv, compare teams and eras.

Lol...not comparing game stats, just the "horse" like game they played against each other after practice. It's been shown here numerous times.

 

[OmerV]

Here let me help you by making the remedial point hopefully more obvious. If you looked at the OP and rightfully concluded that hey Tebow wasn't/isn't as good as Phillip Rivers then you should consider that maybe team winning percentage is not a good way of judging a qb. Instead you looked at the OP and said....well my gosh Dak is worth 1.5 wins more per year and he should maybe ask for more money!

That is of course exactly the opposite lesson you should have learned.

You're behind on the thread. This has already been discussed. I admitted I took the meaning of the OP incorrectly, and we went on.

 

[OmerV]

If you pick and choose the stats. Testaverde had a 56.5 completion rate, almost as many interceptions as TDs (275 to 267) and a career 75.0 QB rating. Compare that to a contemporary like Steve Young and Testaverde comes up well short. You've still got to put the picture together when you are using stats, but won-loss is a picture that relies on team more than the individual.

You are just making my point. Again, there is no one guideline - no one statistic or one point or criteria that tells all. Every possible measuring stick has flaws as a stand alone way to judge QB's, and again, the only way to minimize those flaws is to look at number of factors to get the best overall picture.

 

[OmerV]

You are just making my point. Again, there is no one guideline - no one statistic or one point or criteria that tells all. Every possible measuring stick has flaws as a stand alone way to judge QB's, and again, the only way to minimize those flaws is to look at number of factors to get the best overall picture.

Adding to my comment above (quoted here), look at the Archie Manning example you gave. You have discounted winning percentage because the team was so bad, and I completely understand that. Like you, I always felt Archie got screwed out of a great career by being with a bad team. But what do you have left to look at? Stats, right? That's the only remaining measurable criteria to judge from, and on stats Manning doesn't have a great career either. He threw for 125 TDs and 173 INTs, and his career QR rating was only 67.1. So, what have you gained by throwing out winning % - really nothing. All that is left is assumption that he would have been great on another team, and while you and I feel he probably would have been, that doesn't qualify as evidence.

 

[JoeKing]

When you have to point to wins alone to defend a QB you know you have a fraud player because wins is a team stat and there should be aspects to that QB's play that lead to those wins. Otherwise he's just along for the ride.

Prescott is a fraud and the moment he signs that contract he will be the most overpaid player in the history of the NFL. He positively impacts nothing. He makes nobody around him better. He must be carried.

The dark side is strong with you. The hate flows through you freely when it comes to Dak. Good, good!, let it consume you and make you one with the Force. Darth Risen Star, Rise!

 

[gimmesix]

Adding to my comment above (quoted here), look at the Archie Manning example you gave. You have discounted winning percentage because the team was so bad, and I completely understand that. Like you, I always felt Archie got screwed out of a great career by being with a bad team. But what do you have left to look at? Stats, right? That's the only remaining measurable criteria to judge from, and on stats Manning doesn't have a great career either. He threw for 125 TDs and 173 INTs, and his career QR rating was only 67.1. So, what have you gained by throwing out winning % - really nothing. All that is left is assumption that he would have been great on another team, and while you and I feel he probably would have been, that doesn't qualify as evidence.

I just discussed winning percentage, because that's the point of this thread ... that it isn't a good statistic to use to judge a quarterback.

If you get into the information that matters, you'll notice that he was sacked 396 times in his career (151 games). Despite being on bad teams, he also still was NFL MVP once and made the Pro Bowl twice. He was recognized by the league and his peers for his play even though his teams sucked.

You balance that against his touchdown and interception numbers and QB rating, and you compare that to his contemporaries, such as Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw, who finished with a 70.9 QB rating. Bradshaw's TD to ints. (212-210) was better, but he also played on clearly better teams. He was sacked 307 times in 168 games.

Bradshaw's teams went 107-51. Manning's 35-101-3. That's clearly because it's a team game.

If you can't count on the reliability of won-loss records in this case (which you cannot), you cannot count on them in any case. The quality of the quarterback simply cannot be measured in any way by team achievement. If it was an important statistical measure for individuals, then it should be used to judge every individual on the team.

Why are quarterbacks the only players handicapped by it? Do they protect themselves? Do they run the ball? Do they catch it? Do they play defense? If a kicker misses a last-second field goal where the QB led the offense down the field in a shootout, does the QB gets the loss? That's not a fair assessment.

I understand some of your argument. Too many people just pull this stat or that stat as proof of how good or bad a quarterback is. Truly assessing one takes a great deal more effort than that. It can be interesting to look at a specific stat and what it tells you, but it cannot be taken as painting a complete picture. I don't think, though, that won-loss record paints any kind of picture of the individual player other than whether he was on a good team or a bad one.

 

[OmerV]

I just discussed winning percentage, because that's the point of this thread ... that it isn't a good statistic to use to judge a quarterback.

If you get into the information that matters, you'll notice that he was sacked 396 times in his career (151 games). Despite being on bad teams, he also still was NFL MVP once and made the Pro Bowl twice. He was recognized by the league and his peers for his play even though his teams sucked.

You balance that against his touchdown and interception numbers and QB rating, and you compare that to his contemporaries, such as Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw, who finished with a 70.9 QB rating. Bradshaw's TD to ints. (212-210) was better, but he also played on clearly better teams. He was sacked 307 times in 168 games.

Bradshaw's teams went 107-51. Manning's 35-101-3. That's clearly because it's a team game.

If you can't count on the reliability of won-loss records in this case (which you cannot), you cannot count on them in any case. The quality of the quarterback simply cannot be measured in any way by team achievement. If it was an important statistical measure for individuals, then it should be used to judge every individual on the team.

Why are quarterbacks the only players handicapped by it? Do they protect themselves? Do they run the ball? Do they catch it? Do they play defense? If a kicker misses a last-second field goal where the QB led the offense down the field in a shootout, does the QB gets the loss? That's not a fair assessment.

I understand some of your argument. Too many people just pull this stat or that stat as proof of how good or bad a quarterback is. Truly assessing one takes a great deal more effort than that. It can be interesting to look at a specific stat and what it tells you, but it cannot be taken as painting a complete picture. I don't think, though, that won-loss record paints any kind of picture of the individual player other than whether he was on a good team or a bad one.

I understand you discussed winning % because that was the point of the thread, but if that discussion takes you into other ways of measuring a QB, as it has (and it is appropriate that it would) you have to understand others in this site are likely to provide their thoughts on those other ways.

Look at your comment that Bradshaw had more wins than Archie Manning because it is a team game. There is no question in my mind that is true, but that kind of blatant disparity in team situations is not always the case. There are other situations where 2 QBs may be in very similar situations, but one wins more than the other. And there are some situations where one QB is in a worse situation than another but still wins more. And really, how can you even prove Archie Manning was capable of playing at Bradshaw's level had he been on the Steelers? You can believe it (I do), but there is no actual evidence to prove it. That's a completely personal opinion.

And there are other situations where QBs may have similar win/loss records and similar talents and similar talent around them, but one plays on a team that runs the ball 50% of the time and another plays on a team that only runs 35% of the time and therefore he has an opportunity to run up more stats. Does that make him a better QB, or are both QBs simply performing well within their roles on their teams?

What about Aikman? He did not have HOF stats, but got there anyway. Winning mattered to HOF voters, as I think it does with owners and GMs looking for a QB.

In the end, I think you are trying too hard to find a one size fits all measuring stick, but that's just not realistic. Everything points to there not being one measuring stick to go by because no single measuring stick can overcome its flaws or cover all factors, contingencies and circumstances. To make it even tougher, even if looking at a number of factors to try and get the best overall picture possible, the truth of the matter is all such factors, whether wins, yardage, QB rating or whatever, cannot carry the same weight with every QB because not every QB has the same situation.

 

[gimmesix]

I understand you discussed winning % because that was the point of the thread, but if that discussion takes you into other ways of measuring a QB, as it has (and it is appropriate that it would) you have to understand others in this site are likely to provide their thoughts on those other ways.

Look at your comment that Bradshaw had more wins than Archie Manning because it is a team game. There is no question in my mind that is true, but that kind of blatant disparity in team situations is not always the case. There are other situations where 2 QBs may be in very similar situations, but one wins more than the other. And there are some situations where one QB is in a worse situation than another but still wins more. And really, how can you even prove Archie Manning was capable of playing at Bradshaw's level had he been on the Steelers? You can believe it (I do), but there is no actual evidence to prove it. That's a completely personal opinion.

And there are other situations where QBs may have similar win/loss records and similar talents and similar talent around them, but one plays on a team that runs the ball 50% of the time and another plays on a team that only runs 35% of the time and therefore he has an opportunity to run up more stats. Does that make him a better QB, or are both QBs simply performing well within their roles on their teams?

What about Aikman? He did not have HOF stats, but got there anyway. Winning mattered to HOF voters, as I think it does with owners and GMs looking for a QB.

In the end, I think you are trying too hard to find a one size fits all measuring stick, but that's just not realistic. Everything points to there not being one measuring stick to go by because no single measuring stick can overcome its flaws or cover all factors, contingencies and circumstances. To make it even tougher, even if looking at a number of factors to try and get the best overall picture possible, the truth of the matter is all such factors, whether wins, yardage, QB rating or whatever, cannot carry the same weight with every QB because not every QB has the same situation.

Winning matters too much to Hall of Fame voters. That's part of the problem: The emphasis put on it as far as the QB position goes has skewed the judgment of quarterbacks. There is no "one size fits all measuring stick." I thought I had been clear in pointing that out. Winning percentage is just not one of the measuring sticks that should be used for any position.

Of course, that is simply my opinion. You will never hear me bring up winning percentage, playoff success and other such team-based achievements when trying to judge a quarterback. It is simply wrongheaded.

 

[gimmesix]

Look at your comment that Bradshaw had more wins than Archie Manning because it is a team game. There is no question in my mind that is true, but that kind of blatant disparity in team situations is not always the case. There are other situations where 2 QBs may be in very similar situations, but one wins more than the other. And there are some situations where one QB is in a worse situation than another but still wins more. And really, how can you even prove Archie Manning was capable of playing at Bradshaw's level had he been on the Steelers? You can believe it (I do), but there is no actual evidence to prove it. That's a completely personal opinion.

You would have to take every single game and determine where the blame for the loss goes and the credit for the win.

Again, if a kicker misses a last-second field goal, that shouldn't count as a loss on the QB's record. If a quarterback throws five interceptions and plays poorly, but the defense bails him out, he shouldn't get credit for the win. Unless you are going to do some adjusted-for-play type record by examining each game, you can't even compare two quarterbacks in similar situations by winning percentages.

Eli Manning made it to the Super Bowl in 2007 partly by his team beating Dallas. Did Eli win that game and Romo lose it, or was there much more to it than that?

 

[OmerV]

Winning matters too much to Hall of Fame voters. That's part of the problem: The emphasis put on it as far as the QB position goes has skewed the judgment of quarterbacks. There is no "one size fits all measuring stick." I thought I had been clear in pointing that out. Winning percentage is just not one of the measuring sticks that should be used for any position.

Of course, that is simply my opinion. You will never hear me bring up winning percentage, playoff success and other such team-based achievements when trying to judge a quarterback. It is simply wrongheaded.

You may say there is no one measuring stick, but you keep arguing that winning is not a factor based on it having flaws even though every other factor a person could consider also has flaws.

Let me ask you this. From your comparison of Bradshaw to Archie Manning you eliminated winning as a factor because of the difference in the talent levels of the team. And I certainly do not disagree with that. But that leads to the question of what factors you would judge by. Is it personal statistics? Bradshaw comes out on top there as well, although that may well have a lot to do with the difference in the teams as well. So, what do you judge by?

I think the only thing a person can do is take all possible factors, including winning and personal stats, and also take circumstances into consideration and try to adjust the weight of the winning and personal stats as best as possible to account for the circumstances, and come up with an evaluation from that. In some cases, like the extemely different circumstances of Bradshaw and Archi Manning, winning maybe shouldn't carry much weight at all, but in a comparison of other QBs in more similar situations it should carry more weight. In other words how much weight any individual stat or factor is given has to depend on the circumstances. And even then, circumstances and how to adjust the weight of the factors would still vary depending on the perception of the person doing the weighing.

 

[OmerV]

You would have to take every single game and determine where the blame for the loss goes and the credit for the win.

Again, if a kicker misses a last-second field goal, that shouldn't count as a loss on the QB's record. If a quarterback throws five interceptions and plays poorly, but the defense bails him out, he shouldn't get credit for the win. Unless you are going to do some adjusted-for-play type record by examining each game, you can't even compare two quarterbacks in similar situations by winning percentages.

Eli Manning made it to the Super Bowl in 2007 partly by his team beating Dallas. Did Eli win that game and Romo lose it, or was there much more to it than that?

You are still arguing as if I’m saying wins is a stand alone factor. That’s the only way this argument makes sense. All you are proving is that it’s flawed as a stand alone factor, and again, every factor you could use to judge is flawed as well and therefore not worthy of being a stand alone factor.

The comment about a team losing on a missed FG is nit picking. It’s an individual moment and not an everyday thing for that to happen, which is exactly why you judge stats over time rather than on individual games. And, of course, just because a missed FG at the end is the most noticeable thing that resulted in the loss, there are a lot of other things that did as well. For example, suppose that QB threw 3 INTs in the game - do you say he doesn’t bear some blame for the loss? Had he played better the kick wouldn’t have mattered.

 

[gimmesix]

You may say there is no one measuring stick, but you keep arguing that winning is not a factor based on it having flaws even though every other factor a person could consider also has flaws.

Let me ask you this. From your comparison of Bradshaw to Archie Manning you eliminated winning as a factor because of the difference in the talent levels of the team. And I certainly do not disagree with that. But that leads to the question of what factors you would judge by. Is it personal statistics? Bradshaw comes out on top there as well, although that may well have a lot to do with the difference in the teams as well. So, what do you judge by?

I think the only thing a person can do is take all possible factors, including winning and personal stats, and also take circumstances into consideration and try to adjust the weight of the winning and personal stats as best as possible to account for the circumstances, and come up with an evaluation from that. In some cases, like the extemely different circumstances of Bradshaw and Archi Manning, winning maybe shouldn't carry much weight at all, but in a comparison of other QBs in more similar situations it should carry more weight. In other words how much weight any individual stat or factor is given has to depend on the circumstances. And even then, circumstances and how to adjust the weight of the factors would still vary depending on the perception of the person doing the weighing.

This is the only way winning percentage should ever be a part of the discussion. This isn't how most people use it in talking about a quarterback.

For example, you and I both know that one reason this is a talking point is because some are using Dallas' record as justification for saying Dak Prescott is better than Wentz. Conversely, when the 2017 season is brought up, they say that Wentz's greater success (actually Philly's) was because of the team he had around him, therefore that can't be used to show he's better than Prescott.

Because most people are not going to make the effort to include "all possible factors," winning percentage isn't an argument that should be used. If you want to tell me that Player A is better than Player B based on winning percentage, I can tell you why Player A won more games than Player B. There's never going to be a situation where all things are equal, unless you have Player A and Player B swap teams, so you can't view won-loss records equally.

As far as what I judge by, it definitely starts with the individual statistical evidence. There are some direct conclusions you can draw from those. However, as I've mentioned, they are flawed so if you're going to talk about how good a quarterback is, you've got to consider the personnel around him (see Dak before Cooper and Dak after Cooper), you've got to consider the quality of the defense, the running game, etc. If the information is there, you compare them to the previous quarterback to play for that coach, if the scheme and personnel haven't changed much, and what kind of numbers he put up. You consider injuries and their effect.

It's a long list that really makes most people not qualified for the debate. There are plenty of player debates that I stay out of for that reason. There are others where I can't help but point out the circumstances involved.

 

[OmerV]

You are still arguing as if I’m saying wins is a stand alone factor. That’s the only way this argument makes sense. All you are proving is that it’s flawed as a stand alone factor, and again, every factor you could use to judge is flawed as well and therefore not worthy of
being a stand alone factor.

The comment about a team losing on a missed FG is nit picking. It’s an individual moment and not an everyday thing for that to happen, which is exactly why you judge stats over time rather than on individual games. And, of course, just because a missed FG at the end is the most noticeable thing that resulted in the loss, there are a lot of other things that did as well. For example, suppose that QB threw 3 INTs in the game - do you say he doesn’t bear some blame for the loss? Had he played better the kick wouldn’t have mattered.

This is the only way winning percentage should ever be a part of the discussion. This isn't how most people use it in talking about a quarterback.

For example, you and I both know that one reason this is a talking point is because some are using Dallas' record as justification for saying Dak Prescott is better than Wentz. Conversely, when the 2017 season is brought up, they say that Wentz's greater success (actually Philly's) was because of the team he had around him, therefore that can't be used to show he's better than Prescott.

Because most people are not going to make the effort to include "all possible factors," winning percentage isn't an argument that should be used. If you want to tell me that Player A is better than Player B based on winning percentage, I can tell you why Player A won more games than Player B. There's never going to be a situation where all things are equal, unless you have Player A and Player B swap teams, so you can't view won-loss records equally.

As far as what I judge by, it definitely starts with the individual statistical evidence. There are some direct conclusions you can draw from those. However, as I've mentioned, they are flawed so if you're going to talk about how good a quarterback is, you've got to consider the personnel around him (see Dak before Cooper and Dak after Cooper), you've got to consider the quality of the defense, the running game, etc. If the information is there, you compare them to the previous quarterback to play for that coach, if the scheme and personnel haven't changed much, and what kind of numbers he put up. You consider injuries and their effect.

It's a long list that really makes most people not qualified for the debate. There are plenty of player debates that I stay out of for that reason. There are others where I can't help but point out the circumstances involved.

And, again, if other people use it differently than I do, then what they are saying doesn't apply to what I am saying.

I agree that stats are a factor, and I agree that the talent of the team is a factor. Again, any number of things can be a factor, including even intangibles like leadership and respect of teammates and dedication.

 

[gimmesix]

You are still arguing as if I’m saying wins is a stand alone factor. That’s the only way this argument makes sense. All you are proving is that it’s flawed as a stand alone factor, and again, every factor you could use to judge is flawed as well and therefore not worthy of being a stand alone factor.

The comment about a team losing on a missed FG is nit picking. It’s an individual moment and not an everyday thing for that to happen, which is exactly why you judge stats over time rather than on individual games. And, of course, just because a missed FG at the end is the most noticeable thing that resulted in the loss, there are a lot of other things that did as well. For example, suppose that QB threw 3 INTs in the game - do you say he doesn’t bear some blame for the loss? Had he played better the kick wouldn’t have mattered.

I agree. That's why you have to consider the whole picture. Generally, when the team loses, there's lots of blame to go around. Most of the time, an unfair share of the blame gets placed on the quarterback.

I've seen fans say in the past concerning Romo that a loss was his fault because he threw interceptions, but if you actually analyze the game, those mistakes were clearly the fault of the receivers. The FG miss is just a simple example.

We could go back to Troy Aikman's rookie year as a different example. I remember fans clamoring for playing Steve Walsh over Aikman because during Dallas' 1-15 season in 1989, Walsh was at quarterback for Dallas' only victory. Those who wanted Walsh were not evaluating the games and the play at the position. They weren't evaluating the problems at other positions and how they affected QB play. They were just looking at the fact that Walsh went 1-3 while Aikman went 0-11.

I'm not saying that you are arguing for using winning percentage as a standalone factor. I'm saying that's how it gets used. Remove it from the equation and you only have comparable individual stats to look at, which is flawed but better than winning percentage. If you are going to use wins and losses, then again, you have to examine why those wins and losses happened.

 

[cowboy_ron]

How many of you remember Jerry reiterrating what he said when he first bought the team regarding "winning is the name of the game"?........Yea, me neither..............If we only knew that he was really talking about Forbes and not football games.

 

[gimmesix]

And, again, if other people use it differently than I do, then what they are saying doesn't apply to what I am saying.

I agree that stats are a factor, and I agree that the talent of the team is a factor. Again, any number of things can be a factor, including even intangibles like leadership and respect of teammates and dedication.

Intangibles are another hard thing to gauge. Usually, players get praised for leadership when the team is doing well, and are said not to be a leader when the team struggles. If you want to say this guy is a leader and that guy isn't, I would ask what proof do you have?

As far as how you use winning percentage, I'm not sure I've seen a direct example of that. I'd have to go back and look at posts where you've used winning percentage as a defense or detraction. So far we've been talking more in abstracts about how it should be used if it is. If you adjust it for play when you use it, then you are different than most everyone else who refers to a QB's won-lost record.

Until I see it used correctly in a QB debate, I'll stick with my belief that it should not be used.

 

[eromeopolk]

Winning Percentages Since 2000

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/aqe7j0/nfl_winning_percentages_since_2000/

I was trying to not make this about Dak who has never had a losing season in football as a starting QB (High School to Pro).

Winning was the most important stat to the Dallas Cowboys until Jerry Jones found a way to make Billions not winning Super Bowls by being "Relevant". But even Jerry had to admit the "Win is the name of the game".

 

[eromeopolk]

How many of you remember Jerry reiterrating what he said when he first bought the team regarding "winning is the name of the game"?........Yea, me neither..............If we only knew that he was really talking about Forbes and not football games.

See my post for visual aid proof.

 

[Jake]

From a team standpoint, wins are all that matter. I couldn't care less about which team is worth the most money, how many guys make the Pro Bowl or some sportswriter's top 100 list.