Passizle Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 "All day long [he] talks...each word more useless then the one before it!" :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Ummmm I believe I was the one who showed you how many good qb's there were that made it deep, and that the large majority of the time a good qb equals a good team. That is why I believe a good way to judge a qb is on there W/L record. I showed you countless quarterbacks to prove my point, you would then say well hey what about Dilfer and then say Ha told you so. You really have this one twisted up. Ummm... I beleive you have not been paying attention... and it has become clear to me that you have not been watching football seriously for very long. Why dont you go and google these names and then reflect on your theory on how the QB is the most important part in making a superbowl team. Important yes, but the way you post, one would be led to believe that it is physically impossible to get to the big game without an all-star QB. If Rex Grosman was a fluke, then flukes must happen quite often in this world. I wonder how these guys got there? Trent Dilfer Kerry Collins Stan Humphries Tony Eason David Woodley Craig Morton Joe Kapp Neil O'Donnell Mark Rypien I could go on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I bet you could, you could also go back in this thread and realize that I am talking about more recent football and have already admitted that defense used to win championships. However since the rules have changed to protect the qb, the position has become much more dominant and important on the field. The argument is as follows, I said that W-L is a good way to judge qb, I feel this way because (as I have shown) the elite (top 12, by pr) are usually the guys that make it to the playoffs, actually about 75% of the time, hence they have a better record and you could see the correlation between a good qb, and the teams record. I don't know your opinion but I do know Riggo has stated that defenses hold more of an impact, but as you can see the elite (top 12 by pa), do not have as much of an impact because they only make it about half of the time. So please rather than call me out for not paying attention, why don't you yourself pay more attention and realize that I know defenses used to win, I said it on about the second page of this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I bet you could, you could also go back in this thread and realize that I am talking about more recent football and have already admitted that defense used to win championships. However since the rules have changed to protect the qb, the position has become much more dominant and important on the field. The argument is as follows, I said that W-L is a good way to judge qb, I feel this way because (as I have shown) the elite (top 12, by pr) are usually the guys that make it to the playoffs, actually about 75% of the time, hence they have a better record and you could see the correlation between a good qb, and the teams record. I don't know your opinion but I do know Riggo has stated that defenses hold more of an impact, but as you can see the elite (top 12 by pa), do not have as much of an impact because they only make it about half of the time. So please rather than call me out for not paying attention, why don't you yourself pay more attention and realize that I know defenses used to win, I said it on about the second page of this post. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...you know, I didn't know it was possible, but when I read BM's posts here, I can actually HEAR the teacher from Charlie Brown! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doncherry Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 both of you guys are right. The QB position is the single most important position, there is no debating it, but a great QB can't singlehandedly get a team to the show, whereas an average QB, or "bus driver" can make it there if he has a great D and simply manages the game effectively. Football has 3 equally important facets, offense, defence and special teams, and for this reason a marginal QB leading an average offense can get to the show as long as the defensive and special teams are clicking. Dilfer is the poster boy for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 We are all so happy for you Riggo that you can hear Charlie Brown, thanks for the profound insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsaddict2621 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 What about Vince Young? He had a good W-L record, but he had a terrible year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 VY was 8-8 not that great of W-L, only even. He also didn't have a terrible year he was a rookie scored countless touchdowns and was clutch at many points throughout the year but that is a different argument for a different time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I bet you could, you could also go back in this thread and realize that I am talking about more recent football and have already admitted that defense used to win championships. However since the rules have changed to protect the qb, the position has become much more dominant and important on the field. The argument is as follows, I said that W-L is a good way to judge qb, I feel this way because (as I have shown) the elite (top 12, by pr) are usually the guys that make it to the playoffs, actually about 75% of the time, hence they have a better record and you could see the correlation between a good qb, and the teams record. I don't know your opinion but I do know Riggo has stated that defenses hold more of an impact, but as you can see the elite (top 12 by pa), do not have as much of an impact because they only make it about half of the time. So please rather than call me out for not paying attention, why don't you yourself pay more attention and realize that I know defenses used to win, I said it on about the second page of this post. I agree with you only partially because your numbers are flawed. You did not take certain things into account and IMO only, stacked the percentages in your opinions favors. Plus, you have thrown quite a few percentages that are completeley made up with out any mathematical thought. Example: During our discussion with the VY vs. JC, you debated that VY is the better QB, because he gets games won. It does not mater how his numbers are. He is a winner and thats it. He carried that team almost to the playoffs and only missed it by one game. Thats fair enough. But when I debated that JC actually had the better stats for a QB, yousaid that stats dont mean much and his record for a starter was 2-5. That was what mattered. His numbers did not because he couldnot win games. Then... when discussing the... "you claim MacNabb didn't start out with a bang? Only the best 8 game start in NFL history WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?" I pointed out to you that McNabb went 5-5 and that was hardly starting out with a bang. You then proceeded to spit out his stats (Which were good. I agree) but you showed everyone here that you will use one methodology to support a point across when it is in your favor, then use a completley different methodology (One you actually would not accept in another argument) to make your point in a different argument about pretty much the same idea. Call it spinning, flip flopping, back peddaling or whatever. Point is, it is impossible to have a serious and intlelligent discussion with a person who uses whatever he/she can to support their argument. Your point is about winning, no matter the cost. It is just a means to an end to you. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Like with VY, I feel that W-L is a great way to judge a qb. As far as McNabb I don't know why you won't read my post and explanation, as I have said before McNabb's W-L was not a good judge for how well he played during the first 8 starts, because sometimes a few games just don't go your way and there is nothing you can really do about it. However a qb is the field commander and the elite qb's (the large majority of the time) are able to deal with other shortcomigns and still get the games won. For McNabb last season this was not the case, even though he was himself was phenomenal. So what have you done is shown me that there is qb's everynow and then where W-L is not a good judge, this is true but at the sametime I myself have proven through statistics that teams with the better qb's in the league are the teams with the best records there is a clear correlation between these two. Pretty much I have shown an average or what frequently occurs (good qb = good record), you have given me an instance(McNabb) where it is wrong compared to countless other qb's that I have offered, and because of your one case you feel you have proved me wrong. However I believe that clearly qbs are the most imp., more so then defense and I would assume rushing attack but do not have the numbers. You however continue to believe that W-L is not correlated with a qb and that you cannot judge a qb by there record. Bottom Line: My point a good judge of a qb is there record, though this may not be true in all cases can you find me an NFL stat that is true for every single scenario. McNabb was an unusual case and thinking about it now, I don't really know your point. Since you are arguing against me I am assuming that your point is that W-L record is not a good judgement of a qb, because of cases when there are elite defenses and running games. Which do happen in the NFL but have become more and more scarce since the changing of rules to protect the quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I dont know how else to explain it to you. You cant use W/L record to support your argument when it suits you, and then dismiss it when it goes against what you are trying to prove. There is no one stat that can prove or disprove an opinion in every single circumstance. Thats what makes the game so friggin great! but IMO, from what I have seen in my 35 years (About 25 of them watching, playing and loving football) I have witnessed that all around team play is the most determining factor in winning football games. It has been proven time and time again in this league... If you have a good offense, but terrible defense, you will never win the big game. But... If you have good defense, but a terrible offense, you can win the big game. It only takes a field goal. I guess the clincher to my point is that a majority of the teams you have posted as having elite QB,s and offenses also had pretty good defenses (Top 16 or half of the pack) to get to the eschelon of football. Those teams with Elite QB's and terrible defense did not make it. You have used the Colts as the example and I say ( as you did for the bears) it was a fluke that they finally won the big game and the sole reason for that win (and everyone here knmows it) is that the Colts defense finally showed up for the playoffs. Without them, they would not have won the big one. Hence Mannings not so grewat numbers during the playoffs and superbowl. Peyton Manning finished 9th out of 13 QB's in post season Stats. So you see... he was not ELITE in the playoffs. but his defense was. http://www.nfl.com/stats/playersort/NFL/QB-PASSING/2006/post http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-TOTAL/2006/post?sort_col_1=4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Manning played a different style of football in the playoffs, this is a perfect example of why W-L is a good judge of a qb. Manning realized his D was stepping up and playing tough, as well his rushing was on point. So he as the field general, (he does call his plays) decided to change up there style of play to help his teammates out more. Rather than bomb the ball down the field for a TD, after his D gets a stop, he would use more play clock to award his D and give them some rest. This could account for the 35 rushing attempts per game as compared to 26 during the season. I would assume now your counter argument to Manning will be, he was playing bad (which is true for KC game) that is why he changed the game plan. This however is not true because, as you know Manning got it done when it was necessary. The KC game, Colts were never really that scared about losing, Baltimore slightly but they had control of the game still, finally you get to NE. This is the game that it was required of Manning to actually complete passes and go back to his slinging mentality, probably the reason his stats for that game were 27/47 349 1 1. You see here how Manning had to change his style of play because they were not getting it done in the first half, so he took it upon himself to beat the Pats and started calling alot more passing plays. Manning had complete control of his team during the playoffs and his style of play and game management once again showed his knowledge of football. So the most telling stat for Peyton Manning in the playoffs would be his W-L record not his passing stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Manning played a different style of football in the playoffs, this is a perfect example of why W-L is a good judge of a qb. Manning realized his D was stepping up and playing tough, as well his rushing was on point. So he as the field general, (he does call his plays) decided to change up there style of play to help his teammates out more. Rather than bomb the ball down the field for a TD, after his D gets a stop, he would use more play clock to award his D and give them some rest. This could account for the 35 rushing attempts per game as compared to 26 during the season. I would assume now your counter argument to Manning will be, he was playing bad (which is true for KC game) that is why he changed the game plan. This however is not true because, as you know Manning got it done when it was necessary. The KC game, Colts were never really that scared about losing, Baltimore slightly but they had control of the game still, finally you get to NE. This is the game that it was required of Manning to actually complete passes and go back to his slinging mentality, probably the reason his stats for that game were 27/47 349 1 1. You see here how Manning had to change his style of play because they were not getting it done in the first half, so he took it upon himself to beat the Pats and started calling alot more passing plays. Manning had complete control of his team during the playoffs and his style of play and game management once again showed his knowledge of football. So the most telling stat for Peyton Manning in the playoffs would be his W-L record not his passing stats. W-L record only applies when it supports your arguments. Stats only apply when it supports your argument. Got it. You still won't bother to address why passer rating seems to be the only way to determine a QBs "eliteness". If passer rating is the only way, then your boy Young is pretty far off from elite. Also, you keep claiming that "elite QBs" can win it all, and they don't need a good defense to help them. You claim that elite Ds don't send their teams ver far half the time. What you ignore is the fact that a lot of the teams with "elite" Ds that didn't make it had either a terrible QB, terrible offense, had an easy schedule that year, etc. Also, the ranking you are going by to determine "eliteness" for D is total yards allowed, and for the QB you are going solely by passer rating. Both measurements don't fully account for the position, and the only reason you are considering them and only them is because it appears to support your lame argument. The Bears lost the number one D title to the Buccs in '05 because they played Green Bay the last game, rested all their starters for the playoffs, and Green Bay put up enough yards to knock Chicago down to spot 2. Does this mean the Tampa D was better than Chicago? No it doesn't. Chicago had the best defense in the NFC the past two seasons. Tampa had a great D in '05, but it wasn't better than the Bears' D. However, your skewed stats and way of thinking would assert Tampa was better, and that Damon Huard is an elite QB. But again, you still can't explain Dilfer, Collins, Tom Brady in 2001, Brad Johnson, etc. Nor do you explain how guys like Roethlisberger and Hasslebeck are "elite" when they follow their Superbowl seasons up with a season of 70-something passer rating. Then, when I tell you teams like the '05 Seahawks and Steelers, the '06 Bears, etc got there because of solid D and solid run games, all you do is pull out overall rankings, instead of looking at the number of yards the prime RB put up, or the amount of TDs the RB got. Again, you only accept stats when they support your argument, and you only accept w-l when it supports your argument. You've been absolutely broken down in this thread, and yet you stick to your ignorance and continue to change your arguments when they no longer suit you, rather than save face and admit your argument (which again has nothing to do with this thread) is naive. Of course I've seen your responses and posts in other threads, so your clownish tactics aren't a big surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitStickTaylor21 Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 KC Joyner's metrics are 0.0 credibility per article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsaddict2621 Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Except in all of VY's wins, the defense stepped up, allowing fewer points and creating more turnovers, and Travis Henry ran for 20 more ypg. I can only think of one game in which VY ACTUALLY WON the game, against Houston in OT. Hell, even the Giants game wasn't won by Vince Young, it was lost by the Giants, and it all started when Kiwanuka let go of VY. So, in reality, W-L is a bad way to judge a QB. Wins are a team stat and should not be considered a QB stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.