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

[Warfish]

10 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

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?  

 

I'll agree again, "focusing on W/L" is dumb.

With that said, great QB's don't generally lose more than they win.  So there is that.

[Biggs]

9 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

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

lmfao

He shat the bed in two NFC finals at home with the best team in football against two QB's who are good not all time greats. 

[chirorob]

2 hours ago, Gangrene said:

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...

The game is very, very different.

Tight Ends have exploded because defensive players can't lie in wait and give them kill shots like they used to, Ronnie Lott or even John Lynch would not be able to affect the game the way they did.   QB's don't take 1/10 of the physical abuse they used to, I believe the 86 Giants knocked 10 QBs out of the game that season, including Joe Cool.

It is almost impossible to compare today's QB vs those of 20 years ago.

[Biggs]

13 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

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

You know who holds the record for efficiency in the playoffs?  It's Bart Starr not Aaron Rodgers.  

Quote

Starr’s postseason stats are, for their era, absolutely amazing. He averaged 8.2 yards per pass and threw 15 touchdowns and only three interceptions. All of his postseason games were played in the 1960s, when the typical TD:INT ratio was about 1:1, and quarterbacks typically averaged a little over six yards per pass.

In the 1966 season, the league average passer rating was 67.4. That postseason, Starr had a 143.5 passer rating in leading the Packers to a win at Dallas in the NFL Championship Game, then had a 116.2 passer rating in leading the Packers to a win over the Chiefs in Super Bowl I.

To Starr, the most important stat of all was that the Packers went 9-1 in the 10 postseason games he played.

 

[JetsFanatic]

4 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 with you. That’s why I rate Dan Marino over QBs that have won multiple Super Bowls.

I laugh when analysts say Brady beat Mahomes in the 2020 Super Bowl. Tampa Bay’s defense won that Super Bowl. Put Mahomes on the Bucs and Brady on the Chiefs and Mahomes is the winner.

[68JET11]

3 hours ago, Biggs said:

Josh Allen is almost a clone of Big Ben 10 years ago only the rule book changed.

Fixed it for ya...

[68JET11]

What boggled my mind yesterday more than anything about JA and Mahommes was the pocket presence. They both had it in spades, and it showed in the way they got themselves out of harms way. I implore ZW to sit down and watch the tape of that game and study it hard.

[FidelioJet]

4 hours ago, JiFapono said:

=.   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

 

Except Brady and Rodgers were still the two best statistical QB's in the league this year at far advanced ages...

Not taking anything away from Mahomes or Allen but this idea that somehow they're superior to the greatest that ever played the game is simply not accurate.  

 

 

[Biggs]

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.

He came up small against the Giants with a 15 and 1 team at home. 

[UntouchableCrew]

55 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

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.

That's because everyone accepts that Jimmy G kinda sucks. He threw three passes that looked like they could have been pick sixes in that game -- he was the worst QB playing this past weekend by a fairly wide margin depending on what you think of Tannehill.

If your point is just that we (or teams in general) can theoretically win like the 9ers won -- sure, we could. But it's a lot harder to win when you have to overcome your QB than it is when he elevates you.

[UntouchableCrew]

24 minutes ago, Biggs said:

He came up small against the Giants with a 15 and 1 team at home. 

He did, although at least in that instance the Giants scored 37 points. 

This is a worse look, IMO.

[JustInFudge]

42 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I'll agree again, "focusing on W/L" is dumb.

With that said, great QB's don't generally lose more than they win.  So there is that.

Well, yeah, that goes unsaid.  My point is more so along the line of Football is the ultimate team sport, yet we only weigh Wins and Losses on QB's.  It's just bizarre to me for some reason.

 

[JustInFudge]

42 minutes ago, Biggs said:

He shat the bed in two NFC finals at home with the best team in football against two QB's who are good not all time greats. 

You said he's not a winner, I said he has the 3rd highest winning % of all time.  

38 minutes ago, Biggs said:

You know who holds the record for efficiency in the playoffs?  It's Bart Starr not Aaron Rodgers.  

 

Where does Terry Bradshaw rank for you? 

fyi - you're proving me point but I'm enjoying it

[Biggs]

8 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

You said he's not a winner, I said he has the 3rd highest winning % of all time.  

Where does Terry Bradshaw rank for you? 

fyi - you're proving me point but I'm enjoying it

Very high.  One of the greatest.  Not because of his regular seasons but because he played for a great team that went up against great teams in the playoffs.  He invaribly made huge throws to win those games and they were huge throws down the field.  He's one of the most under rated QB's in NFL history.  

In a big game against a great team I love Bradshaw over Rodgers.  

[JustInFudge]

38 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Except Brady and Rodgers were still the two best statistical QB's in the league this year at far advanced ages...

Not taking anything away from Mahomes or Allen but this idea that somehow they're superior to the greatest that ever played the game is simply not accurate.  

 

 

The beauty is, there is no right or wrong answer so saying that something isnt accurate is the only thing inaccurate here. 

Personally, I dont know how anyone can sit here and say that Pat Mahomes isnt the greatest to ever do it.  Why do I have to wait 25 years to see if he can compile more stats than Brady to say it?  Seems silly to me.  HE's better then him, bottom line, Brady can't do half of what Mahomes can but he's better because he's played longer and won more SB's?  Sorry.  No. 

This is Charles Barkley and Karl Malone vs. Robert Horry.  2 best power forwards I've ever seen, collectively have 7 less rings than Big Shot Horry, that nobody would ever in a million years, take over Barkley or Malone.

 

[JustInFudge]

14 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

That's because everyone accepts that Jimmy G kinda sucks. He threw three passes that looked like they could have been pick sixes in that game -- he was the worst QB playing this past weekend by a fairly wide margin depending on what you think of Tannehill.

If your point is just that we (or teams in general) can theoretically win like the 9ers won -- sure, we could. But it's a lot harder to win when you have to overcome your QB than it is when he elevates you.

No, my point is, Aaron Rodgers was clearly the better QB in that game and lost but that's not the narrative.  The narrative is, Aaron Rodgers is a choke artist and I think that is stupid. 

[JustInFudge]

7 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Very high.  One of the greatest.  Not because of his regular seasons but because he played for a great team that went up against great teams in the playoffs.  He invaribly made huge throws to win those games and they were huge throws down the field.  He's one of the most under rated QB's in NFL history.  

Helped having that Steel Curtain defense, no? 

[Peace Frog]

Just now, JiFapono said:

No, my point is, Aaron Rodgers was clearly the better QB in that game and lost but that's not the narrative.  The narrative is, Aaron Rodgers is a choke artist and I think that is stupid. 

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything really that he did to "choke".

He just get blamed for the loss because folks think he's a dick or the vax thing or whatever.  

[UntouchableCrew]

Just now, JiFapono said:

No, my point is, Aaron Rodgers was clearly the better QB in that game and lost but that's not the narrative.  The narrative is, Aaron Rodgers is a choke artist and I think that is stupid. 

If Aaron Rodgers lost 31-27 I'd agree with you.

Rodgers choked because he underperformed and lost to a team that scored 13 points.

I'm not sure I'd call Rogers a "choker" in terms of his overall history which many like to do because they're agenda driven or dislike him or the Packers personally. But losing at home as the 1 seed to the 6 seed when you only score 10 points as the league MVP is absolutely a "choke" so to speak.

[Warfish]

21 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

Well, yeah, that goes unsaid.  My point is more so along the line of Football is the ultimate team sport, yet we only weigh Wins and Losses on QB's.  It's just bizarre to me for some reason.

 

I don’t think that’s true.

 It game W/L is mostly a factor in differentiation the all time greats.

Still not 100% fair,  it neither is W/L in Baseball either.

[JustInFudge]

2 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

If Aaron Rodgers lost 31-27 I'd agree with you.

Rodgers choked because he underperformed and lost to a team that scored 13 points.

I'm not sure I'd call Rogers a "choker" in terms of his overall history which many like to do because they're agenda driven or dislike him or the Packers personally. But losing at home as the 1 seed to the 6 seed when you only score 10 points as the league MVP is absolutely a "choke" so to speak.

Right but he out played the QB that won but nobody will remember that part of the story.

That's all I'm saying...

[JustInFudge]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

I don’t think that’s true.

 It game W/L is mostly a factor in differentiation the all time greats.

Still not 100% fair,  it neither is W/L in Baseball either.

What's not true?

[68JET11]

55 minutes ago, JetsFanatic said:

That’s why I rate Dan Marino over QBs that have won multiple Super Bowls.

Couldn't agree more... his talent was undeniable. No one today or before him so far can hold a candle to the way that man threw the football or processed the field. He hardly ever had to run out of trouble, he had the best sidestep of anyone I've even seen, then delivered a frozen rope to his receiver. 

[FidelioJet]

10 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

The beauty is, there is no right or wrong answer so saying that something isnt accurate is the only thing inaccurate here. 

Personally, I dont know how anyone can sit here and say that Pat Mahomes isnt the greatest to ever do it.  Why do I have to wait 25 years to see if he can compile more stats than Brady to say it?  Seems silly to me.  HE's better then him, bottom line, Brady can't do half of what Mahomes can but he's better because he's played longer and won more SB's?  Sorry.  No. 

This is Charles Barkley and Karl Malone vs. Robert Horry.  2 best power forwards I've ever seen, collectively have 7 less rings than Big Shot Horry, that nobody would ever in a million years, take over Barkley or Malone.

 

Maybe you shouldn't end your post with "Fight Me" if you don't actually want that.

Point is you're saying these guys are far better than the dinosaurs...but the dinosaurs (one at 44 years old) just had a statistical better season than their 20 something counterparts.  

We're not talking about two generations that never played together -  the 44 snd 38 year old have been better this year against the same competition, with the same rules, and has statistically better seasons.  

 

 

[shawn306]

3 hours ago, jamesr said:

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.

The packers had 58 yards total in the second half. Not exactly high octane

[Warfish]

3 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

What's not true?

That we only weigh wins and losses on QB’s.

Easy example, we also do it for Coaches.

[Biggs]

8 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

The beauty is, there is no right or wrong answer so saying that something isnt accurate is the only thing inaccurate here. 

Personally, I dont know how anyone can sit here and say that Pat Mahomes isnt the greatest to ever do it.  Why do I have to wait 25 years to see if he can compile more stats than Brady to say it?  Seems silly to me.  HE's better then him, bottom line, Brady can't do half of what Mahomes can but he's better because he's played longer and won more SB's?  Sorry.  No. 

This is Charles Barkley and Karl Malone vs. Robert Horry.  2 best power forwards I've ever seen, collectively have 7 less rings than Big Shot Horry, that nobody would ever in a million years, take over Barkley or Malone.

 

Horry probably deserves to be in the HOF.  Olojuwan, Kobe, Shaq and Duncan were arguably better than Barkley and Malone.

[JustInFudge]

Just now, FidelioJet said:

Maybe you shouldn't end your post with "Fight Me" if you don't actually want that.

Point is you're saying these guys are far better than the dinosaurs...but the dinosaurs (one at 44 years old) just had a statistical better season than their 20 something counterparts.  

We're not talking about two generations that never played together -  the 44 snd 38 year old have been better this year against the same competition, with the same rules, and has statistically better seasons.  

 

 

I have no idea what any of this means.

Fight me

 

[shawn306]

20 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Very high.  One of the greatest.  Not because of his regular seasons but because he played for a great team that went up against great teams in the playoffs.  He invaribly made huge throws to win those games and they were huge throws down the field.  He's one of the most under rated QB's in NFL history.  

In a big game against a great team I love Bradshaw over Rodgers.  

Agree 100%. 

[Biggs]

11 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

Helped having that Steel Curtain defense, no? 

The Steelers teams were great.  It also wasn't the era of salary cap.  There were a few other teams that were also great because of that.  In the playoffs the Steelers generally played teams that had both great offenses and great defenses.  Bradshaw was often the difference in those games.  If you take a look at Bradshaws stats, he's playoff numbers were much better than his regular season numbers.  Now that wasn't in a couple of games that was 19 playoff games against great teams not salary cap era playoff teams. 

In other words he elevated against the best competition when he had to.  Rodgers not so much.  

[FidelioJet]

5 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 ever 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

 

Maybe this will help you understand....

[JustInFudge]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

That we only weigh wins and losses on QB’s.

Easy example, we also do it for Coaches.

Coaching isnt really a fair comparison.  They're not playing the game.  Which is why I used a LT as an example.  We dont judge LT's on their playoff record but we do QB's, who's job is to protect the QB.  Crazy how all this leads into stuff and examples too; look at Mahomes last year without his T's.  He was unreal the AFC Championship game vs. the Bills last year.   325 yards, 3 TD's, 76% comp.  Losses both T's in the game, puts up a dud in the Super Bowl.  His fault?  Hell no.  His OL couldn't protect him for a split second but nobody could even name his starting T's, all we did was talk about Mahomes vs. Brady after that game.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

29 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

Well, yeah, that goes unsaid.  My point is more so along the line of Football is the ultimate team sport, yet we only weigh Wins and Losses on QB's.  It's just bizarre to me for some reason.

 

Drew Brees had a 5-year span with 4 seasons of 7-9 team records. 

An ordinary/average, non-outlier game - over this half-decade span, mind you - was completing almost 70% of his passes, 320 yards, and 2-3 TDs. 

But in those 7-win seasons the Saints' D was ranked 32, 31, 31, and 27 in points against. Therefore Brees was a loser, I guess. 

[JustInFudge]

3 minutes ago, Biggs said:

The Steelers teams were great.  It also wasn't the era of salary cap.  There were a few other teams that were also great because of that.  In the playoffs the Steelers generally played teams that had both great offenses and great defenses.  Bradshaw was often the difference in those games.  If you take a look at Bradshaws stats, he's playoff numbers were much better than his regular season numbers.  Now that wasn't in a couple of games that was 19 playoff games against great teams not salary cap era playoff teams. 

In other words he elevated against the best competition when he had to.  Rodgers not so much.  

Never saw him play, just curious because you're clearly someone who weighs W's and L's and even so much as specifically calling out playoffs. 

[RedBeardedSavage]

6 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

If Aaron Rodgers lost 31-27 I'd agree with you.

Rodgers choked because he underperformed and lost to a team that scored 13 points.

I'm not sure I'd call Rogers a "choker" in terms of his overall history which many like to do because they're agenda driven or dislike him or the Packers personally. But losing at home as the 1 seed to the 6 seed when you only score 10 points as the league MVP is absolutely a "choke" so to speak.

I mean, it's fun to dunk on Rodgers after his weird misrepresentations about off-the-field-stuff earlier this year but I don't necessarily agree with the loss being on him.

That team is constructed poorly. All of the stuff we've being saying about the Jets and their draft history over the past decade can easily be said about the Packers as well.

They've just had a superstar at quarterback that can compensate for poor roster construction. 

Nobody outside of Davante Adams, and one fluky, broken-play pass to Aaron Jones, showed up for Green Bay on Saturday.

I'm a believer in taking d-lineman in the first - I want a team that can rush four, apply pressure and stop the run.

But jesus, the amount of corners and safeties drafted in a league that simply does not allow tight coverage, and ZERO support for your quarterback is simply terrible management.

And to top it off, that game had horrendous weather and the deciding play was a blocked punt touchdown in the 49ers favor.

So while I definitely chuckle at the 'immunized from the Super Bowl' memes, because they're great - I don't really fault Rodgers for that loss, nor for Green Bay's decade of not being able to win the big one.