Several, if not a number of you do this. Player statistics are more dependent teammates in football than basketball, baseball, hockey, or most other sports. Quarterbacks are generally paid a small fraction of the team salary for a reason. If Tom Brady went to the Rams, several of you would say he's no longer great because of his record. Player skill is pretty hard to evaluate in football; this is why the success of draft picks vary so much. Don't try to pretend you're smart by quote some bottom line statistic about career or playoff record. Be a little more smart and a little less lazy about player analysis, please.
-
-
Why does pro football exist? Money. The winning quarterbacks garner more money therefore winning matters more than anything else.Comment -
absolutely
it is foolish to assign a record to a player. records are assigned to teams. qbs cannot control the whole game or even most of itComment -
There is also rating.
Comment -
Jay Cutler is the best example of a solid QB talent that hasn't produced "wins". His career record 24-29
Carson Palmer is another possible example. His career record is 42-41 which includes 0-2 in the playoffs.
Before last season's Super Bowl run, Drew Brees was 56-53 and might have been yet another good example.Comment -
What are you getting at poochie?
I think the QB deserves the W-L stat as much as the starting pitcher in baseball, but is not the only thing, or even the primary thing, you should evaluate a QB by. The QB is supposed to function as the leader of the offense (if not the entire team) and is responsible for reading defenses and modifying plays at the line. Of course someone pitching for the Phillies or Yankees is going to have a better record than someone pitching for the Nationals, just as any NFL level QB would do better on the Saints than Tom Brady on the Rams.
Are you saying that people are giving players like McNabb or Jason Campbell too much credit/blame for the success/failure of their teams? Or are you saying that the whole idea of a "clutch" player who goes out and wins the big game despite being otherwise mediocre (a la Roethlisberger) is an illusion/fallacy?Walter forgot... when you're desperate's when you got no choice.Comment -
In this case I have to agree with Slacker. Take Jimmy Johnson screwing the shit out of Marino's records with his stupid coaching. With we need a run game. This guy made thing absolutely worst for the Fin's. He wrecked the team and left.Comment -
I like the comparison of W-L assignmnet to QBs being similar to SPs, although probably QBs don't even deserve that much credit/blame.
I don't think you can support this point by saying QBs receive a small fraction of team salary. All players receive a fraction of the whole, and it seems that good (ok maybe good should say winning haha) QBs receive a pretty healthy share.Comment -
Where were you going with this? There are no argumentative points here; just alleged statements of QB records. Jay Cutler and especially Matt Cassel are good examples of how important supporting casts are. Seriously, look at Cassel's stats between his last two years: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/player...?playerId=8644 He hilariously fumbled 9 times in KC (somehow resulting in only one turnover). This makes most of my argument for me.Comment -
I'm saying that career record is a poor indicator of a quarterback's skill, and the mean and median pay rates of players reflects my argument. Players who perform well in "clutch" situations get better contracts, so that affect my argument.
Edit: Quarterbacks absolutely do not have as much control over a game as pitchers do when they're on the mound. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe defense will vary greatly between teams, such that pitching alone affects 30-40% of a baseball game's outcome? No pitcher gets paid 30-40% of the team's player salary because they're only pitching sometimes, of course. The Quarterback is paid appreciably less than 30-40% of the team's salary, on average, and the stats of Cutler and especially Cassel reflect how dependent QBs are on teammates, as I've said.Comment -
There are big earners at every position, and quarterbacks are the leaders because they have the most impact of any player on the game (which is still low overall) and have the most star power. I'm a good example of this. I won't watch most NFL games, at least not closely, that don't involve a home team, a game of high magnitude, or one or a couple "star" players I like, most of whom are quarterbacks. Star players = revenue = big contracts. This is why one player can earn 10 times another without being 10 times better.Comment -
Guys you got to think of it like this Quarterbacks are = to a Field General which are expected to lead those who he is responsible for through battles and turbulence into victory making the Quarterback/FeildGeneral the highest compensated
Comment -
I guess my analogy was flawed, though I think pitchers are more dependent on defense, run support, and how well the other team is playing than people think. The tough thing about try to account for defense is lack of stats other than fielding percentage. Maybe a better analogy would be a singer in a rock band. Nobody thinks they're listening to the drummer and bassist, but it's a big part of what's going on.
It seems that people forget about the big impact players that get paid a ton at other positions (like Albert Haynesworth).
I agree with your point overall, and how square a lot of the "thinking" is that gets spewed all over these forums is pretty mind blowing. One of the things I never see brought up about the recent McNabb trade is how A.J. Feeley went 6-1 with the Birds and then sucked out loud when he went to Miami.Walter forgot... when you're desperate's when you got no choice.Comment -
Not all teams are perfect
qbs aren't the only contributing factor to win-lossComment
