Jump to content

Judging QB's on wins and losses is the dumbest thing we do as Football fans


JiFapono
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JiFapono said:

And the divisional round of the playoffs is the perfect example of why.

Josh Allen played one of the greatest games I've ever seen in my life last night and lost.  Will time hold that against him?

Aaron Rodgers out played Jimmy G., easily and lost a game because of his Special Teams.  He's arguably the best to every do it and his entire career has been sh*t on for 2 days straight.  

Matt Stafford was stuck in Detroit for his entire career, first season away from them, he's 2-0 in the playoffs and just beat that whiny POS Brady, hopefully knocking his punk ass into retirement.

Does Joe Burrow win if Tannehill doesnt turn it over 3 times?  

I watched the best QB duel I've ever seen in my life last night.  Mahomes and Allen put on a performance for the ages.  Things they were doing, I've never seen QB's do at this level.   This new wave of QB's, is better than the dinosaurs who are all done that owned the league the last 20 years.  Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Herbert - they're better than Brady, Manning, Brees., Big Ben era.

Fight me

 

Since when is Aaron Rodgers and Matt Stafford this new wave of QB's?  Joe Borrow has more in common with Tom Brady and Manning than Josh Allen.   Herbert is almost a clone of Big Ben 10 years ago only the rule book changed.

  • Upvote 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The QB has the greatest influence over whether a team wins or loses. I'd say judging them on their wins and losses is pretty darn fair. Heck, from 2010 through 2012 the Colts were a playoff team with Manning and 2-14 without. Look at most NFL games and the QB is most often the reason for the Win and/or the Loss. There are aberrations, like Josh Allen against the Chiefs. Allen did NOT lose that game for his team, but the guy on the other sideline certainly did Win the game for his team.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This new generation of young talented Qbs are amazing but they're playing against bad, bad defenses with QB friendly rules protecting them.

It comes down to the draft more than free agency. You have to hit big time in the draft like Kansas City did and Buffalo did.

If a team is willing to draft talented miscreants like Tyreek Hill that helps win football games at a cost...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

The Packers scored 10 points.

I think the "special teams lost them the game" narrative is silly. Rodgers came up small and his offense didn't score points. 3 points on nine drives after the opening TD. The game never should have been in position for a blocked punt to decide it.

Similar to the Cowboys game ... so much focus on the last drive, where was the high octane offense for the other 58 minutes?

SF are showing that you can still win with defense and ST, but I think their luck will run out this weekend.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JiFapono said:

Judging QB's on wins and losses is the dumbest thing we do as Football fans

Ok, I can understand that. 

It's a team game, even if the QB is unquestionably the most vital single player on the team.

So what do you judge a QB on?

If your answer only includes "teh eye test", then you're as off as any win/loss based fan.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JiFapono said:

And the divisional round of the playoffs is the perfect example of why.

Josh Allen played one of the greatest games I've ever seen in my life last night and lost.  Will time hold that against him?

Aaron Rodgers out played Jimmy G., easily and lost a game because of his Special Teams.  He's arguably the best to every do it and his entire career has been sh*t on for 2 days straight.  

Matt Stafford was stuck in Detroit for his entire career, first season away from them, he's 2-0 in the playoffs and just beat that whiny POS Brady, hopefully knocking his punk ass into retirement.

Does Joe Burrow win if Tannehill doesnt turn it over 3 times?  

I watched the best QB duel I've ever seen in my life last night.  Mahomes and Allen put on a performance for the ages.  Things they were doing, I've never seen QB's do at this level.   This new wave of QB's, is better than the dinosaurs who are all done that owned the league the last 20 years.  Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Herbert - they're better than Brady, Manning, Brees., Big Ben era.

Fight me

 

I agree so damn much with this.
 

Never thought I’d say that on a JiF post but we definitely see eye to eye here. Aaron Rodgers is the best to ever do it. This generation of QB’s is a different breed of playmaker/commander & team success is far too circumstantial to blame on one player alone.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Darnold's Forehead said:

Clearly Josh Allen’s legacy is tarnished.  He’s 0-2 against the Chiefs in the playoffs, quickly catching up to Rodgers’ 0-4 against the niners in a much shorter amount of time.

According to a lot of people, Allen is WAY overrated and a fraud because he can’t win in the playoffs, even with such a STACKED roster.

A players’ legacy is built up by their play, and reinforced by what they accomplish.  Not the other way around.  To think it can be diminished by losses is ridiculous.  Tom Brady is not a standard.  He is an outlier.  Everyone great QB is expected to win at least 4 SBs nowadays.  It’s stupid.

Anyone trashing the legacy of QBs like Marino, Manning, Rodgers, etc…. You are on the same level as Colin Cowherd.  Congrats.

If you're arguing that Rodgers deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as Dan Fouts I'm with you.  If you think he deserves to be in the same sentence as Brady, Montana or Starr no.  

Most of the people on this board wouldn't put Staubach or Otto Graham in their top 25.   They were both better than Rodgers.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biggs said:

you're arguing that Rodgers deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as Dan Fouts I'm with you.  If you think he deserves to be in the same sentence as Brady, Montana or Starr no.  

Yes he does. Rodgers have only thrown 93 picks in the course of an 18 year career & hasn’t thrown double digit picks in over a decades worth of time. Rodgers has a ring? I’m not understanding he needs more to be mentioned in this category? His arm talent is quite literally the greatest we’ve ever seen, the amount of magical hail Mary’s, game winning drives (reg season and post), the man is the greatest QB talent of all time and his stats are squeak clean.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sonny Werblin said:

The QB has the greatest influence over whether a team wins or loses. I'd say judging them on their wins and losses is pretty darn fair. Heck, from 2010 through 2012 the Colts were a playoff team with Manning and 2-14 without. Look at most NFL games and the QB is most often the reason for the Win and/or the Loss. There are aberrations, like Josh Allen against the Chiefs. Allen did NOT lose that game for his team, but the guy on the other sideline certainly did Win the game for his team.

You said it yourself - OFTEN the reason for wins and losses. But when it comes to the playoffs, there is so much more at play when the teams and coaches are better. It's more that a TEAM wins or losses unless the QB plays poorly. QBs can't control the defense and special teams, inability of coaching staffs to make in game adjustments, etc. There are some things that are completely out of the QBs control, so it's not fair at all to me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patriot Killa said:

Yes he does. Rodgers have only thrown 93 picks in the course of an 18 year career & hasn’t thrown double digit picks in over a decades worth of time. Rodgers has a ring? I’m not understanding he needs more to be mentioned in this category? His arm talent is quite literally the greatest we’ve ever seen, the amount of magical hail Mary’s, game winning drives (reg season and post), the man is the greatest QB talent of all time and his stats are squeak clean.

There was a game yesterday with two guys with as much or more arm talent.  The QB is about leadership.  He's second rate in that category.  It's a big part of the position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JiFapono said:

And the divisional round of the playoffs is the perfect example of why.

Josh Allen played one of the greatest games I've ever seen in my life last night and lost.  Will time hold that against him?

Aaron Rodgers out played Jimmy G., easily and lost a game because of his Special Teams.  He's arguably the best to every do it and his entire career has been sh*t on for 2 days straight.  

Matt Stafford was stuck in Detroit for his entire career, first season away from them, he's 2-0 in the playoffs and just beat that whiny POS Brady, hopefully knocking his punk ass into retirement.

Does Joe Burrow win if Tannehill doesnt turn it over 3 times?  

I watched the best QB duel I've ever seen in my life last night.  Mahomes and Allen put on a performance for the ages.  Things they were doing, I've never seen QB's do at this level.   This new wave of QB's, is better than the dinosaurs who are all done that owned the league the last 20 years.  Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Herbert - they're better than Brady, Manning, Brees., Big Ben era.

Fight me

 

It's the evolution of all sports.

Take just about any random top tier mlb hitter and they are far and away more talented than some fat baby ruth who picked on crappy talent 100 years ago. 

Lebron would score 100 a game vs the dudes from the 60s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Darnold's Forehead said:

Clearly Josh Allen’s legacy is tarnished.  He’s 0-2 against the Chiefs in the playoffs, quickly catching up to Rodgers’ 0-4 against the niners in a much shorter amount of time.

According to a lot of people, Allen is WAY overrated and a fraud because he can’t win in the playoffs, even with such a STACKED roster.

A players’ legacy is built up by their play, and reinforced by what they accomplish.  Not the other way around.  To think it can be diminished by losses is ridiculous.  Tom Brady is not a standard.  He is an outlier.  Everyone great QB is expected to win at least 4 SBs nowadays.  It’s stupid.

Anyone trashing the legacy of QBs like Marino, Manning, Rodgers, etc…. You are on the same level as Colin Cowherd.  Congrats.

Compare Josh Allen's performance with Aaron Rodgers.  Not sure what your point is.  Rodgers was pedestrian in a home loss and completely disapeared down the stretch.  Allen was an outright beast who carried his team on his back to OT on the road.

Yes there is a difference and it's not wins and losses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Biggs said:

There was a game yesterday with two guys with as much or more arm talent.  The QB is about leadership.  He's second rate in that category.  It's a big part of the position. 

Arm strength maybe , but no, Rodgers can put the ball places it shouldn’t be able to go. I’m talking outside the hashes, in the most critical moments, off one foot, falling backwards. There is no one that can do it like Rodgers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sonny Werblin said:

The QB has the greatest influence over whether a team wins or loses. I'd say judging them on their wins and losses is pretty darn fair. Heck, from 2010 through 2012 the Colts were a playoff team with Manning and 2-14 without. Look at most NFL games and the QB is most often the reason for the Win and/or the Loss. There are aberrations, like Josh Allen against the Chiefs. Allen did NOT lose that game for his team, but the guy on the other sideline certainly did Win the game for his team.

Nobody is arguing the importance, I'm arguing how stupid it is to judge them on wins and losses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UntouchableCrew said:

The Packers scored 10 points.

I think the "special teams lost them the game" narrative is silly. Rodgers came up small and his offense didn't score points. 3 points on nine drives after the opening TD. The game never should have been in position for a blocked punt to decide it.

Sure, but on the other side of the coin, the 49'ers offense didnt put up a single TD.  Rodgers is the villain but I dont hear anyone saying anything about how Jimmy G. came up short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

Nobody is arguing the importance, I'm arguing how stupid it is to judge them on wins and losses. 

It's like starting pitchers in baseball--the emphasis on wins has been scaled back over the past decade.

Too much depends on everything else going on around them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is also the case when guys are being projected from college. Lots of winners and good counting stats go high as long as they’ve got what’s deemed to be adequate arm strength.

There are absolutely guys who meaningfully elevate their programs. Watson’s run as the Clemson QB stands out. But the guys on the best teams in college tend to have supporting talent that can mask their flaws when needed.

It gets really hard to distinguish the impact of supporting cast versus the quarterback on winning at that level. Then mixing in how the skill sets of guys who elevate their teams translate on top of that. Very tricky.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, derp said:

I think this is also the case when guys are being projected from college. Lots of winners and good counting stats go high as long as they’ve got what’s deemed to be adequate arm strength.

There are absolutely guys who meaningfully elevate their programs. Watson’s run as the Clemson QB stands out. But the guys on the best teams in college tend to have supporting talent that can mask their flaws when needed.

It gets really hard to distinguish the impact of supporting cast versus the quarterback on winning at that level. Then mixing in how the skill sets of guys who elevate their teams translate on top of that. Very tricky.

Just look at Jalen Hurts.  Won a ton in college but I don't think he's very good.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many people willing to die on the altar of Aaron Rodgers who scored 3 points after the first drive of the game, at home, after a bye week

 

Yes, he's great but he's not infallible. Give him some sh*t when he deserves it

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Ok, I can understand that. 

It's a team game, even if the QB is unquestionably the most vital single player on the team.

So what do you judge a QB on?

If your answer only includes "teh eye test", then you're as off as any win/loss based fan.

There is a lot that goes into, clearly but just focusing on W/L and playoff records, etc., seems very stupid to me.

Why dont we do this for any other players?   

Do you know what David Bakhtiari's playoff record is?  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Greensleeves said:

You said it yourself - OFTEN the reason for wins and losses. But when it comes to the playoffs, there is so much more at play when the teams and coaches are better. It's more that a TEAM wins or losses unless the QB plays poorly. QBs can't control the defense and special teams, inability of coaching staffs to make in game adjustments, etc. There are some things that are completely out of the QBs control, so it's not fair at all to me.

Bottom line is that a great QB finds a way to win. You want to be considered great, you've got to win. A QB who wins 4 SB with pedestrian stats would be a shoe in for the HOF. Why? Because winning matters. It is literally the reason you play the game.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Biggs said:

If you're arguing that Rodgers deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as Dan Fouts I'm with you.  If you think he deserves to be in the same sentence as Brady, Montana or Starr no.  

Most of the people on this board wouldn't put Staubach or Otto Graham in their top 25.   They were both better than Rodgers.  

lol - Aaron Rodgers is the most efficient QB in the history of the NFL but these guys are better, why? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sonny Werblin said:

Bottom line is that a great QB finds a way to win. You want to be considered great, you've got to win. A QB who wins 4 SB with pedestrian stats would be a shoe in for the HOF. Why? Because winning matters. It is literally the reason you play the game.

Winning is the ultimate goal, but it’s also a TEAM stat, not an individual one.
 

QBs don’t play against each other. Elway wasn’t necessarily a better QB than Marino because he rode a historically dominant running game to 2 SB titles in his last two seasons in the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Compare Josh Allen's performance with Aaron Rodgers.  Not sure what your point is.  Rodgers was pedestrian in a home loss and completely disapeared down the stretch.  Allen was an outright beast who carried his team on his back to OT on the road.

Yes there is a difference and it's not wins and losses.  

Rodgers has the 3rd highest winning % in the history of the league. 

lmfao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...