Jump to content

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


JiFapono
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

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. 

I look at the salary cap era and expanded playoffs as a different era.  Post salary cap the league was top heavy.  Everyone looks at those Steeler teams and you go wow.  The thing is there were a few other loaded teams the had to go through.  The Dolphins in 1974 were loaded, so were the Raiders.  The Raiders back in that era were fantastic.  The Steelers had to go through them to get to the SB.  Dallas had Staubach.  Staubach might have been the greatest QB ever.  The guy was mobile, had a great arm, he was a dynamic leader who willed his team down the field in big spots.  The guy was fantastic.  Bradshaw would be having a mediocre game and in crunch time unleash these bombs down the field that were epic game changing plays.  The guy was money against the best.  He just had a knack for coming up with huge plays in the big  spot.  Highly under rated historically.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Maybe this will help you understand....

It's confusing when you go back and bring up a former point instead of responding directly to the point I made to you, but I digress and will answer now that I understand what you are saying. 

 

22 minutes ago, 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.  

 

 

Similar to wins and losses, stats dont tell the whole story.  Brady just attempted the most passes in league history, so naturally he compiled more stats than the next guy, but efficiency wise he wasnt even top 5.   For example, Matt Stafford attempted 119 less passes, only threw 2 less TD's.  Herbert was the only other 5k passer this season, guess who was #2 in attempts?

Again, I dont know how anyone can sit here straight faced and say that Brady is better than Mahomes.  That is absolutely insane to me.  You're welcome to your own opinion, but Mahomes is so much more talented it's not really close and I dont need 25 years of compiling stats and wins to tell me that story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JiFapono said:

It's confusing when you go back and bring up a former point instead of responding directly to the point I made to you, but I digress and will answer now that I understand what you are saying. 

 

Similar to wins and losses, stats dont tell the whole story.  Brady just attempted the most passes in league history, so naturally he compiled more stats than the next guy, but efficiency wise he wasnt even top 5.   For example, Matt Stafford attempted 119 less passes, only threw 2 less TD's.  Herbert was the only other 5k passer this season, guess who was #2 in attempts?

Again, I dont know how anyone can sit here straight faced and say that Brady is better than Mahomes.  That is absolutely insane to me.  You're welcome to your own opinion, but Mahomes is so much more talented it's not really close and I dont need 25 years of compiling stats and wins to tell me that story.

What Mahomes is doing is unprecedented.  I said it his first year starting.  This is the Michael Jordan of the NFL.  I've never seen anything like him.  I thought what he did in his second year, first starting was HOF worthy if he never threw another pass.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

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.

 

We judge LT's on how many big games they played in in the postseason, and how they played in those games, but I agree, we don't assign wins/losses to LT's.

But I'll repeat, Wins/Losses are a metric for the most important players in their sports.  Pitchers and Quarterbacks.  No one has more of an effect on winning/losing then these, that is why people assign those stats to them, despite both being "team games".  After all, ask a Max Scherzer of a Jake DeGrom how easy it is to win a baseball game when his offense scores 1 run in 9 inning, lol.

But no one uses only W/L to evaluate pitchers, same way even fewer folks use W/L as the primary evaluation statistical metric for Quarterbacks. But when you get into debates like "greatest ever", then it becomes a factor.  Anything less and it tends to be an A/B thing, either you win enough or you don't.  The specifics matter less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Warfish said:

We judge LT's on how many big games they played in in the postseason, and how they played in those games, but I agree, we don't assign wins/losses to LT's.

But I'll repeat, Wins/Losses are a metric for the most important players in their sports.  Pitchers and Quarterbacks.  No one has more of an effect on winning/losing then these, that is why people assign those stats to them, despite both being "team games".  After all, ask a Max Scherzer of a Jake DeGrom how easy it is to win a baseball game when his offense scores 1 run in 9 inning, lol.

But no one uses only W/L to evaluate pitchers, same way even fewer folks use W/L as the primary evaluation statistical metric for Quarterbacks. But when you get into debates like "greatest ever", then it becomes a factor.  Anything less and it tends to be an A/B thing, either you win enough or you don't.  The specifics matter less.

Fair enough, I guess I'm able to delineate between the 2 but I get what you're saying.  It's a qualifying factor into the conversation.  I just dont weigh it nearly as much as others, I guess. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

Fair enough, I guess I'm able to delineate between the 2 but I get what you're saying.  It's a qualifying factor into the conversation.  I just dont weigh it nearly as much as others, I guess. 

 

And that's 100% fair.  We all value specific things we place greater value on. 

For example, I very much value TD:INT ratio and Completion %.  I think they're possibly the two most important stats for evaluating a QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shawn306 said:

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

GB had a potent offense all season (Top 10 in points, 13 wins etc). The loss at the weekend is being put down to bad special teams play. But what was their offense and MVP QB doing up to that point? They seem to escape judgement for some reason, which was largely my point - we judge the plays that end the game but not the plays that made those "make or break" moments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 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

 

Nobody is better than the pretty boy Brady. Not even Mahomes. Not even close. And Manning and Brady are at the same level. Brees is a tad below them. Allen Mahomes Herb and Burrow have ways to go before we can compare them to those 3 first ballot HOFers. 

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jet2020 said:

Nobody is better than the pretty boy Brady. Not even Mahomes. Not even close. And Manning and Brady are at the same level. Brees is a tad below them. Allen Mahomes Herb and Burrow have ways to go before we can compare them to those 3 first ballot HOFers. 

Mahomes is first ballot, today. He could never do anything ever again, first ballot. 

Those dudes are all 10x more talented than Tom Brady and if they play for 25 years, compile stats and victories, what will remain other than cheating scandals? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

Mahomes is first ballot, today. He could never do anything ever again, first ballot. 

Those dudes are all 10x more talented than Tom Brady and if they play for 25 years, compile stats and victories, what will remain other than cheating scandals? 

 

Oh please. As much as I hate Brady, he’s the best QB in the league and still is while collecting social security. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, slimjasi said:

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. 

He was. The QBs job is to win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

The team's job is to win. The QB is the most important player on the team, hence there is a correlation. But nothing more. 

I understand what you are saying, but winners win. They just find a way to do it. Brady is not the most talented guy ever to play QB, but he is a winner. I'll take a winner over the most talented player every day of the week in any sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

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.

1811319795_ScreenShot2022-01-24at12_30_33PM.thumb.png.1a0f21d5e699613146b4ef7b2c2dab33.png

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. 

Do you think the Packers have sub-par weapons?

I'm not going do defend that record with first round picks (ew) but I feel like top to bottom the Packers have a lot of talent. They do not strike me as a poor team that Rodgers carries on his back.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Peace Frog said:

Marino was the best QB I’ve ever seen and never won a SB. And he gets dinged for it. 

And that's why judging QBs on wins and losses is totally appropriate and you all need to shut up about it

Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell

200.gif

 

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jet2020 said:

Oh please. As much as I hate Brady, he’s the best QB in the league and still is while collecting social security. 

No.  Like, he's really not and compared to Mahomes, specifically.  It's like comparing Michael Jordan to Bob Cousy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

I understand what you are saying, but winners win. They just find a way to do it. Brady is not the most talented guy ever to play QB, but he is a winner. I'll take a winner over the most talented player every day of the week in any sport.

Who is more clutch, Tom Brady or Adam Vinatieri? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Do you think the Packers have sub-par weapons?

I'm not going do defend that record with first round picks (ew) but I feel like top to bottom the Packers have a lot of talent. They do not strike me as a poor team that Rodgers carries on his back.

I think they have superstars @ quarterback, receiver and left tackle. That's a great start. 

Aaron Jones is a good player too.

But their receiving options behind Davante are suspect AF - including TE. 

The other teams that make it deep in the playoffs have more surrounding talent. The Bills might be the exception here - but maybe not if Gabriel Davis is really that good? And Josh Allen's ability to run certainly gives that team another dimension. 

I just wonder how much better this team would be with any of the #2 receiving options of any of the other playoff teams. Nearly every passing play seems Davante or bust - and that seemingly works against 85% of the NFL, but not the elite teams. 

Who knows what could've happened if this team had Tee Higgins instead of Jordan Love? What if they traded for Odell like the Rams? 

They're a team that had a SB worthy QB and drafted defense early for a decade, and made no notable FA signings or trades to help the offense in that time (that I can recollect). 

  • If you take either Hill or Kelce away from Mahomes, the Chiefs likely do not win that game
  • If Gabriel Davis did not step up, Diggs is likely doubled the entire game without any cost to the defense
  • The Bengals are loaded with weapons
  • The trio of Kupp, OBJ and Van Jeff are great - not to mention Higbee is solid AF (was so even with Goff)
  • The 49ers have Deebo & Kittle, even Aiyuk is far and away better than anyone other than Davante on GB roster
  • Hell, even an aging Julio Jones I think would've been dangerous with A Rodge

So, yea, I think the Packers are too reliant on Rodgers & Davante. I think they're poorly constructed. I think he's a prick but an excellent quarterback and I don't put that loss on him. He outplayed Jimmy - he did his job. The weather, a blocked punt and a fundamental design flaw of the roster cost him that game. 

And dude I hate defending this guy - but I'm trying to be objective here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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.

He needs to have played in whatever era I personally consider the 'right' one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JiFapono said:

No.  Like, he's really not and compared to Mahomes, specifically.  It's like comparing Michael Jordan to Bob Cousy.

 

More like comparing Michael Jordan to Magic Johnson.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jet2020 said:

This thread is dumb. How many times do we see great QB play and their team loses? Or vice versa? 

Joe Namath doesn't sniff the HOF without the SB win.  Eli Manning wouldn't get considered without his two rings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2022 at 8:56 AM, 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.

It's close but I think it's kind of silly to say that at this point.

Brady > Mahomes

Manning > Burrow

Herbert and Allen could end up being better than Brees and Ben but we'll see.  Brees is the one who doesn't fit the mold as the other 3 of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when Josh Allen was drafted we all laughed, especially after landing Sam Darnold.

Don't  know who the Bills' GM was who saw something in Allen, but I wish we had that here. I recall at the time the Bills saying the liked Josh due to his big arm that can throw the ball thru the snow and winds at their stadium. Hats off to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

It's close but I think it's kind of silly to say that at this point.

Brady > Mahomes

Manning > Burrow

Herbert and Allen could end up being better than Brees and Ben but we'll see.  Brees is the one who doesn't fit the mold as the other 3 of course.

Only because they have longevity and a proven resume, watching them do their thing for years.  I dont need 20 years of hindsight to make this claim. I see it now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

Only because they have longevity and a proven resume, watching them do their thing for years.  I dont need 20 years of hindsight to make this claim. I see it now. 

Longevity and a proven resume are taken for granted these days.  Let's see if Josh Allen can take the punishment like Ben did for all those years.  He might be able to do it and he might end up being a better QB.  But nothing is a given.  Who would've ever thought Dan Marino wouldn't have gone back to the Superbowl?!

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TuscanyTile2 said:

Longevity and a proven resume are taken for granted these days.  Let's see if Josh Allen can take the punishment like Ben did for all those years.  He might be able to do it and he might end up being a better QB.  But nothing is a given.  Who would've ever thought Dan Marino wouldn't have gone back to the Superbowl?!

 

Agree except in Mahomes case.  He's done enough already to be in the HOF.   Gale Sayers is in the HOF with very little resume.  Mahomes has done enough to date to be a first ballot HOF QB and is certainly in the conversation as one of the best ever.  

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...