Yet Another QB Ranking - But This One Shocked Me Twice

[WPBCowboysFan]

I provided a link that supports my position now the burden is on you or anyone else to provide a link that disputes it. Still waiting!


http://i465.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr16/KJJ100/stock-photo-16568058-businessman-impatience_zps2lrzgycp.jpg

So, only a link will suffice?

And if a link is provided its automatic proof so the burden is back on you, the master debater?

 

[5Stars]

I don't know why most of you, myself included, are bothering to respond to KJJ. I mean, he has almost the whole FAN board on "ignore", so, maybe only 7 or 8 people actually correspond with him. Maybe it's those 7 or 8 that he has convinced. lol

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

I don't know why most of you, myself included, are bothering to respond to KJJ. I mean, he has almost the whole FAN board on "ignore", so, maybe only 7 or 8 people actually correspond with him. Maybe it's those 7 or 8 that he has convinced. lol

You sure its not 7 or 8 MILLION?

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

I don't know why most of you, myself included, are bothering to respond to KJJ. I mean, he has almost the whole FAN board on "ignore", so, maybe only 7 or 8 people actually correspond with him. Maybe it's those 7 or 8 that he has convinced. lol

Didnt he post in the past that he NEVER puts anybody on ignore?

 

[5Stars]

Didnt he post in the past that he NEVER puts anybody on ignore?

I don't know. What I do know is, once he gets cornered from a poster, they "they get kicked to his curb"! lol

 

[5Stars]

You sure its not 7 or 8 MILLION?

Damn it....! I forgot about all those! lol But, if he keeps it up, those numbers are starting to dwindle.

 

[landroverking]

Damn it....! I forgot about all those! lol But, if he keeps it up, those numbers are starting to dwindle.

If he's not a toll, he missed his calling.

 

[DallasEast]

I don't know why most of you, myself included, are bothering to respond to KJJ. I mean, he has almost the whole FAN board on "ignore", so, maybe only 7 or 8 people actually correspond with him. Maybe it's those 7 or 8 that he has convinced. lol

Forget all y'all!

I'm a glutton for punishment!

I wanna be the best ignored poster I can possibly be!

It's <sniff> my dream man. Don't take away my dream.

 

[Redball Express]

From Fox Sports - this was as different as I've ever seen and highest I've ever seen Tony in a national article which really surprised me.

10. Ryan
9. Rivers
8. Roethlisberger
7. Eli
6 Peyton
5. Romo
4. Wilson
3. Brady
2. Luck
1. Rodgers

But this was the shocker - I read a lot of the comments ( 322 as of today) and that's where haters usually light Romo up but I only read 2 idiots who said he didn't belong in the top ten and they immediately got shut down by others. Some sample comments such as:

"I hate the Cowboys, but that dude can play..."
"Eh, it wouldn't bother me if he won a ring, guys' been a whipping boy for ten years and took it like a man."
"People hate on him but he seems like a pretty cool dude."

There's no question that he really changed public perception last year. His performance also led him to come into the public eye more and on social media so that people get to know what we already know and was mentioned recently here -- who wouldn't want to have a couple of beers with Tony Romo.

No time to rest and enjoy it though - time to work and grind and push and get it to the next level.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/photos...ck-peyton-manning-russell-wilson-070715#img_9

To me..

Ranking Romo that high is really ranking the team that high.

Romo has pretty much been the same QB over the last 5 years minus the injuries.

If he gets respect..it's really the team that has improved overall that allows Romo to be seen as better.

So I'll take it..but I know it's not just Tony.

It's the whole organization that is better.

And should be recognized.

Nationally? Yep.

Will we?

Hard to say.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I see Eli is still living off his Super Bowl rings.

From Fox Sports - this was as different as I've ever seen and highest I've ever seen Tony in a national article which really surprised me.

10. Ryan
9. Rivers
8. Roethlisberger
7. Eli
6 Peyton
5. Romo
4. Wilson
3. Brady
2. Luck
1. Rodgers

But this was the shocker - I read a lot of the comments ( 322 as of today) and that's where haters usually light Romo up but I only read 2 idiots who said he didn't belong in the top ten and they immediately got shut down by others. Some sample comments such as:

"I hate the Cowboys, but that dude can play..."
"Eh, it wouldn't bother me if he won a ring, guys' been a whipping boy for ten years and took it like a man."
"People hate on him but he seems like a pretty cool dude."

There's no question that he really changed public perception last year. His performance also led him to come into the public eye more and on social media so that people get to know what we already know and was mentioned recently here -- who wouldn't want to have a couple of beers with Tony Romo.

No time to rest and enjoy it though - time to work and grind and push and get it to the next level.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/photos...ck-peyton-manning-russell-wilson-070715#img_9

i kin see rothlessberger ahead off Romo and Romo half certainly pased peyton who deterorated quickly in the long season.

 

[burmafrd]

i kin see rothlessberger ahead off Romo and Romo half certainly pased peyton who deterorated quickly in the long season.

the rapist had two huge games that scewed his season numbers. Anyone ranking him ahead of Romo is a football idiot.

 

[KJJ]

Yeah, in 2 games. The other 14 not so much.

Roethlisberger had a number of excellent games last season in which he had a passer rating of over 100.0 in 10 games. To pass for almost 5000 yards and have a completion percentage of 67.1 and a passer rating of 103.3 is very impressive. A QB doesn't have to pass for a ton of yards each week to have a great game we saw that with Romo last season but Roethlisberger had 8 games of over 300 yards. He had 3 straight games in which he completed over 72% of his passes. In 608 attempts he only threw 9 ints compared to 32 TD's.

 

[rpntex]

I provided a link that supports my position now the burden is on you or anyone else to provide a link that disputes it. Still waiting!


http://i465.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr16/KJJ100/stock-photo-16568058-businessman-impatience_zps2lrzgycp.jpg

If it's an officially recognized stat by the NFL, it would be Listed as such by the various sport websites

ESPN...NFL.com...pro-footballreference.com. None f them list W-L records in the "statistics" section.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing No stat for QB w-l records is listed
http://www.pro-footballreference.com/leaders No stat for QB w-l records is listed
http://www.nfl.com/players/search?category=position. No stat for QB w-l records is listed

I gave you THREE links to official and REPUTABLE sites, all affiliated with the NFL, that don't recognize it as a statistic. All you can come up with is Wikipedia - an unverifiable source of information that is not affiliated with the NFL is any official capacity. So feel free to answer my challenge...provide ONE source that shows QB W-L record to be an official, league-sanctioned stat.

Calling Wikipedia an "official" source for anything is laughable.

 

[rpntex]

What's the over/under number of posts KJJ will make before he puts rpntex on ignore without ever answering his question?

He told me that he put me ignore a week ago, after I called him for "tap dancing" around another poster's question.

 

[rpntex]

I do understand that ANYBODY can post ANYTHING on Wikipedia and relying on any source for accurate information is a risk but I know what's been posted in the first sentence is FACTUAL because I've seen it discussed on ESPN with several NFL experts and on NFL Network with Kurt Warner. It's a FACT that QB's in the NFL are credited with a W/L record as are head coaches because both have a great influence on the outcome of games. Trent Dilfer and Steve Young talked about it comparing it to pitchers in baseball being credited with wins and losses.

I'm a slave to what's available on the internet just like everyone else and posted the only source I can find that backs my position. At least I provided something other than an opinion. If you think the source is incorrect then provide a source that disputes it. It's ridiculous to question or attack a source that's been used on this board for years without providing a source that disputes it. I've had a number of sources from USA Today and ESPN scoffed at by those that hate being proven wrong. They're so ridiculous they'll claim the article has it all wrong. Some here will dispute any source even the most credible if it proves them wrong. There's no way around some of the facts that are thrown in the face of the uneducated but the Jr High crowd would rather toss insults than own up to anything. It's almost like they're on a mission to lose credibility and embarrass themselves.

The problem with Young's comparison is that baseball has a subjective rule and verifiable criteria for crediting pitchers with wins and losses. A starter must go at least 5 innings, and be the pitcher of record when his team to the lead to stay, to get a win. Conversely, the pitcher who allows the opposition's lead run to reach base gets the loss.

What's the criteria for football? Which QB starts? That would be idiotic, since there have been many cases where the starter was benched and his backup came in and led the team to a win. I guess, in that case you could credit the win to the backup. But wait...what if the opposition comes back again and retakes the lead? Does the backup get the loss?

You're the only person losing credibility here. You're talking about a media-created stat, that is not recognized by the NFL itself. To top it off, you're attempting to bolster your argument with a link to a non-verifiable source. You want to say it's a talking point for the media, and therefore it does sometimes become a part of the national conversation? Fine...I got no problem with it. Anything more and you look foolish.

 

[KJJ]

He told me that he put me ignore a week ago, after I called him for "tap dancing" around another poster's question.

I decided to give you a break that comment didn't warrant my ignore list but I don't tap dance around posters questions. The poster you're referring to likes to play question and answer with me on passer ratings post after post to keep him entertained and I'm not playing that game.

 

[KJJ]

If it's an officially recognized stat by the NFL, it would be Listed as such by the various sport websites

ESPN...NFL.com...pro-footballreference.com. None f them list W-L records in the "statistics" section.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing No stat for QB w-l records is listed
http://www.pro-footballreference.com/leaders No stat for QB w-l records is listed
http://www.nfl.com/players/search?category=position. No stat for QB w-l records is listed

I gave you THREE links to official and REPUTABLE sites, all affiliated with the NFL, that don't recognize it as a statistic. All you can come up with is Wikipedia - an unverifiable source of information that is not affiliated with the NFL is any official capacity. So feel free to answer my challenge...provide ONE source that shows QB W-L record to be an official, league-sanctioned stat.

Calling Wikipedia an "official" source for anything is laughable.

I never called Wikipedia an "official" source. LOL The NFL clearly "recognizes" a QB's W/L record maybe not officially in the stat book but they certainly look at it because during NFL games QB's W/L records and winning percentages both in the regular season and playoffs have been brought up and analyzed during telecasts and pregame shows. When it comes to ranking QB's their winning percentage is one of the things they look at. I never claimed that a QB's W/L record is an official stat but anyone who's followed the game long enough knows W/L records and winning percentages are applied to NFL QB's which go a long way in establishing their legacy and HOF chances. Romo's been highly criticized for his elimination game record over the years so although a QB's W/L record may not be an official stat it has a great effect on their career especially their playoff record.

Look at what Joe Montana's 4-0 SB record did for his career. They don't say Jerry Rice won 3 SB's and that Ronnie Lott won 4 SB's but they say Joe Montana won 4 SB's because the QB gets the most credit. Brady is being compared to Montana because of his SB W/L record. QB's W/L records are examined and compared all the time especially head to head matchups with other great QB's they faced during their era especially in the playoffs. Troy Aikman is in the HOF due to his 3-0 SB record and his W/L record vs Favre, Young and Kelly in the postseason. I think we can all agree Aikman wasn't a first ballot Hall of Fame player due to his stats it was his W/L record primarily in the SB. A lot of sites don't want to recognize QB's W/L loss records because football is a team sport and a win or a loss should be credited to the team not the QB. Kurt Warner mentioned this when discussing whether it's fair that QB's are credited with wins and losses.

He didn't agree with it but said it comes with being an NFL QB. He mentioned all the glory and all the blame that comes with playing the position. A stat doesn't have to be official to carry a lot of weight because QB's are clearly judged by their production and their W/L record. I've seen interviews with HOF committee members who said a QB's W/L record and winning percentage is a big part in them gaining HOF votes. You won't find a QB in the HOF who was part of a lot of losing teams they have to win games the position they play demands it. Many coaches feel the #1 stat that gages how well a QB played during their career is their W/L record both during the regular season and playoffs.

 

[KJJ]

You're the only person losing credibility here. You're talking about a media-created stat, that is not recognized by the NFL itself. To top it off, you're attempting to bolster your argument with a link to a non-verifiable source. You want to say it's a talking point for the media, and therefore it does sometimes become a part of the national conversation? Fine...I got no problem with it. Anything more and you look foolish.

The stat is created by wins and losses and it's the QB who's the focal point of both. They're the ones who get benched if a team is losing to try and shake things up because they have the most influence of any player on how games play out. I've heard Roger Goodell talk about QB's W/L records and winning percentages when discussing all the rule changes that have benefitted QB's. A QB's W/L record is vital to their success and they'll ultimately be judged by it. Romo is being judged by his playoff record and the lack of a SB win on his record it comes with being an NFL QB.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

If it's an officially recognized stat by the NFL, it would be Listed as such by the various sport websites

ESPN...NFL.com...pro-footballreference.com. None f them list W-L records in the "statistics" section.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing No stat for QB w-l records is listed
http://www.pro-footballreference.com/leaders No stat for QB w-l records is listed
http://www.nfl.com/players/search?category=position. No stat for QB w-l records is listed

I gave you THREE links to official and REPUTABLE sites, all affiliated with the NFL, that don't recognize it as a statistic. All you can come up with is Wikipedia - an unverifiable source of information that is not affiliated with the NFL is any official capacity. So feel free to answer my challenge...provide ONE source that shows QB W-L record to be an official, league-sanctioned stat.

Calling Wikipedia an "official" source for anything is laughable.

To top it off, even if it was a real stat (it obviously is not) it would be an extremely stupid, useless stat. Behold:

Joe Flacco 2009 wild card game: 4-10, 34 yards, 1 INT, QB Rating 10.0. Gets the "win"

On the very same day...

Aaron Rodgers, 2009 wild card game: 28-42, 423 yards, 4 TD 1INT, QB Rating 121.4. Gets the "loss"

Gee, what a useful "stat" for evaluating QBs.

At least baseball media is getting smarter, as pitchers with low win totals are winning Cy Youngs they never would have won 20 years ago. Football media is somehow getting stupider as time goes on.

 

[5Stars]

To top it off, even if it was a real stat (it obviously is not) it would be an extremely stupid, useless stat. Behold:

Joe Flacco 2009 wild card game: 4-10, 34 yards, 1 INT, QB Rating 10.0. Gets the "win"

On the very same day...

Aaron Rodgers, 2009 wild card game: 28-42, 423 yards, 4 TD 1INT, QB Rating 121.4. Gets the "loss"

Gee, what a useful "stat" for evaluating QBs.

At least baseball media is getting smarter, as pitchers with low win totals are winning Cy Youngs they never would have won 20 years ago. Football media is somehow getting stupider as time goes on.

Consider the source...that is all I can say!