Darkstarr Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Greater baseball minds all agreed that the Cy Young winner was the guy with the best W/L record until statisticians were able to actually measure pitching perfromance. That's why I wrote in the OP:When Felix Hernandez of the Mariners won a Cy Young award for the 2010 season despite his 13-12 W/L record, it was a triumph for the world of baseball statistics. For the first time in the history of the game, the award was actually given for individual performance and not to a pitcher lucky enough to have a great W/L record because he got excellent support from his team. If someone someday creates a statistics-based formula which accurately measures the individual performance of a quarterback, it will expose all the QB pretenders of the past who rode to glory on the coattails of their coaches and teammates. Actually one could argue it is an anomoly as Fernando in 1981 did not have the most wins at 13 also. It is not just W&L's but also saves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Greater baseball minds all agreed that the Cy Young winner was the guy with the best W/L record until statisticians were able to actually measure pitching perfromance. That's why I wrote in the OP:When Felix Hernandez of the Mariners won a Cy Young award for the 2010 season despite his 13-12 W/L record, it was a triumph for the world of baseball statistics. For the first time in the history of the game, the award was actually given for individual performance and not to a pitcher lucky enough to have a great W/L record because he got excellent support from his team. If someone someday creates a statistics-based formula which accurately measures the individual performance of a quarterback, it will expose all the QB pretenders of the past who rode to glory on the coattails of their coaches and teammates. my friend, OF, we've already been down the QB path and I'm satisfied with our differences enough to understand we just see things a bit different, but wouldn't you agree that the two most critical statistics you could accumulate on a QB would be, "did he make the correct decision and did he accurately throw the football?" the decision, depending on the system and responsibility of the QB could also include pre-snap reads, calling protections or audibles, which can make or break a play... my point is that if you agree with me that these are the most important statistics you could gather on a QB, than the only way of assembling them would be via film study and a familiarity with the system and where the ball is supposed to go... and would you not agree that the experts who have put in the time to study QBs under such scrutiny have concluded that brady, manning, brees, rivers, make these decisions and accurate passes better than the palmers, cutlers, and campbells of the NFL? no matter the supporting cast or system, they consistently make better football decisions and throw more accurate passes ... are the latter physically more talented? yes, but I'd take an accurate, cagey sniper with an old 7.62x54R rifle, than an inaccurate, unfocused sniper with a Barrett M82A1, and it just seems to me we are statistically trying to rate QBs without access to the most telling and important statistics... but those with access to those statistics (via film study) have already made these determinations repeatedly about the QB position and because it is not presented in a statistical manner, it's considered opinion... your guy Jaws reviewed the tape on Brady versus the Jets and determined he did not have a good game, he missed open guys, made poor decisions, and left plays on the field, which is what I contend most QBs in the same system and with the same personnel would do a lot more than the brady's and mannings of the league....at least that is how I see it... but it's always a pleasure hearing your point of view... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill1952 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I'm not going to bother reading 9 pages of this thread. I'll just make it simple: the teams that are contender every year: Pittsburg, NE, Indy, SD etc, have great QB play. Virtually every year there is one, if not 2, great QBs playing in the Super Bowl. When you consider the fact that there are, what, 5-6 truly great QBs out of 32 teams in any given year I think it's pretty clear what the pattern is. To say that it's not about the QB, especially now, is way off base IMO.Allow me to overstate the obvious. NE, Indy, SD are not playing this weekend. Not that OldFan needs me or anyone to defend him, but you could have gone with the teams remaining to support your argument, like the great QB Mark Sanchez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsCrushCowboys Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 We have done great without a start QB for at least 10 year.....oh wait, no we haven't. But, we won a Super Bowl with Doug Williams, so who knows. It is team game and you need more than one solid cog in the wheel to be successful and it helps if those cogs stay together to develop some chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstarr Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 4 top defenses, with 4 first rd qb picks is what is left atm. Also funny that 3 of the 4 teams left run 3-4's also hmm food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 Actually one could argue it is an anomoly as Fernando in 1981 did not have the most wins at 13 also. It is not just W&L's but also saves.He only had 13 wins, eight of them were shoutouts, and he only lost seven in just 25 starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstarr Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Yes that is my point old fan he did not have the most wins and won the cy young. So maybe every 20-30 years someone can win it without having close to 20 wins or 40 saves. aka an anomoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 We have done great without a start QB for at least 10 year.....oh wait, no we haven't. But, we won a Super Bowl with Doug Williams, so who knows. It is team game and you need more than one solid cog in the wheel to be successful and it helps if those cogs stay together to develop some chemistry.The QB is important and we need one. Everyone agrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucaro Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Not that I am agreeing with either argument but lets look at the QB's in the last 4 SB's: Brees, P. Manning, Roth, Warner, Brady, E. Manning, P. Manning, Gross. Seems that although this year the only big names left are Rodgers and Roth, the last 4 SB's have at least 1 guaranteed HoF QB in each. This trend is pretty consistent going back, year after year. Supporting casts are vital but HoF QB's always seem to find their way to the SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Not that I am agreeing with either argument but lets look at the QB's in the last 4 SB's: Brees, P. Manning, Roth, Warner, Brady, E. Manning, P. Manning, Gross. Seems that although this year the only big names left are Rodgers and Roth, the last 4 SB's have at least 1 guaranteed HoF QB in each. This trend is pretty consistent going back, year after year But why are these guys HoF QBs, is the question? Is it strictly based on them or could it be that their supporting casts/systems allowed them to do the things that they do? That's not a knock on any of them, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsCrushCowboys Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 The QB is important and we need one. Everyone agrees. sarcasm...we agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 sarcasm... Why would you say that? He's agreed many times that we need a QB. In fact, I'm not sure more than ten people here think we don't. It's just a matter of who and when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsCrushCowboys Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Why would you say that?He's agreed many times that we need a QB. In fact, I'm not sure more than ten people here think we don't. It's just a matter of who and when. While i agree we need a QB, as I stated, this team has more than one position need. Great teams can win with a fair QB and a great QB can make fair teams be much better. Regardless of the position thre is need for chemistry at both the QB position as well as the supporting roles, we have had neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 my friend, OF, we've already been down the QB path and I'm satisfied with our differences enough to understand we just see things a bit different, but wouldn't you agree that the two most critical statistics you could accumulate on a QB would be, "did he make the correct decision and did he accurately throw the football?"Sure, I'll agree with that. If coaches from all the 32 teams published their QB grades, we would have much better stats on QBs. But, we know they're not going to do that. We also know that no one else has the combination of time and expertise to do all 32 teams for 16 games plus the playoffs.We still would have the factor that all QBs put under steady pressure will begin to anticipate pressure and make errors as a result. Even Tom Brady, who is rarely pressured, began throwing off his back foot even when not pressured by Rex Ryan's overload blitzes in the first meeting in 2009. So, even the coaches grades can't fully account for the effects of pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucaro Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Looking at the recent guys: Roth - Does it year after year (recently) much of it on his own while getting hit and sacked and making plays with his feet. Won the most recent SB on his arm not with the D who had a subpar game against Warner. Pitt has a great D but Roth has won several games in the playoffs based on individual effort. Warner - If you don't think he was main reason that team was even competative you're not watching the games. Great receivers but he simply made plays and throws that nobody else could make Manning - Does it every year with a revolving door on D and on his oline (minus Saturday). You do it for 10 years straight with different supporting casts then you are the cog Brady - See above Bottom line is it is never strictly the QB but when you do it consistently over many years withy repeated success, different casts and take over games and win them with your arm in the playoffs and SB one would have to think that the QB's impact is unmatched and that these guys are special. Once you give these QB's enough pieces for their teams to be OK, they elevate the team to championship level with their play. That is why they are HoF QB's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 While i agree we need a QB, as I stated, this team has more than one position need. Great teams can win with a fair QB and a great QB can make fair teams be much better. Regardless of the position thre is need for chemistry at both the QB position as well as the supporting roles, we have had neither. I think that much is obvious. We need the majority of positions on our team upgraded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsCrushCowboys Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I think that much is obvious. We need the majority of positions on our team upgraded. I hope that the front office finds it as obvious. I think they are on the right track, butwill take a little time given our vast need list. We need picks and a lot of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 Not that I am agreeing with either argument but lets look at the QB's in the last 4 SB's: Brees, P. Manning, Roth, Warner, Brady, E. Manning, P. Manning, Gross. Seems that although this year the only big names left are Rodgers and Roth, the last 4 SB's have at least 1 guaranteed HoF QB in each. This trend is pretty consistent going back, year after year. Supporting casts are vital but HoF QB's always seem to find their way to the SB You saw the Steve Young stats in the OP. Steve is a HOF quarterback. Do you think he would have made it had he not been traded to the 49ers. Of course not. These QBs that you list as the elite. Do you think they'd be on your list if they had played for teams that gave them little support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 You need a very good QB to be a consistent playoff contender. You don't have to have a HoF caliber QB, but you need more than just a game manager. Yes, we have many holes to fill outside of QB, but we desperately need a good QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Let me throw out this question Mr. Oldfan. What is easy to obtain, the great team or the great QB? I think it is easier to get the great team than a great QB. They are fewer, but assembling the other players is easier because there is much more talent available. Meaning the QB is the most unique position on the field. Meaning that the LT can play guard or RT. The Center can play guard. Yes, some players can't, but you get my point. A WR can be a kick returner. I CB can play corner and at times LB possibly. However, a franchise QB is a franchise QB and cannot be substituted. So, in a way, it is all about the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPCreativelab Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 You saw the Steve Young stats in the OP. Steve is a HOF quarterback. Do you think he would have made it had he not been traded to the 49ers. Of course not.These QBs that you list as the elite. Do you think they'd be on your list if they had played for teams that gave them little support? not saying i disagree with you, but that is still an assumption, an educated guess, but is no way guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahons21 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 However, a franchise QB is a franchise QB and cannot be substituted. So, in a way, it is all about the QB. In Matt Cassell's first year starting since HS, he was able to replace Brady and play on a Patriots team that went 11-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Let me throw out this question Mr. Oldfan. What is easy to obtain, the great team or the great QB?I think it is easier to get the great team than a great QB. They are fewer, but assembling the other players is easier because there is much more talent available. Meaning the QB is the most unique position on the field. Meaning that the LT can play guard or RT. The Center can play guard. Yes, some players can't, but you get my point. A WR can be a kick returner. I CB can play corner and at times LB possibly. However, a franchise QB is a franchise QB and cannot be substituted. So, in a way, it is all about the QB. Wouldn't having a great team mean having a great QB? In which case, I'd argue obtaining a great QB is much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPCreativelab Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 i think that Oldfan is correct, and i dont think you have to look any further than our Skins to prove it. in my opinion, we have never had a QB that was a true franchise QB, in my opinion, none of our QBs have ever been anything special...serviceable at best for some. the Skins have 3 super bowl wins with these guys... (i am not counting the old school guys...from Joe T forward) looking at someone like Dan Marino, a hall of fame QB...with a suspect system around him...no super bowl wins. i think being a fan of the Redskins you have to be able to see that we won 3 super bowls cause we had a great system, and not the best QBs out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 In Matt Cassell's first year starting since HS, he was able to replace Brady and play on a Patriots team that went 11-5. Means Cassell is an NFL starting QB. Nothing more. He is not a franchise QB. NE didn't make the playoffs that year. Because they didn't it is more difficult to point out that said 11-5 team didn't win because they lacked an NFL franchise QB leading them. To my point, good teams will win games, or course. Balt is the perfect example this year of a good team that lost because their QB was average and not a franchise QB. Good Oline, good receivers, good defense, but he just didn't get it done, and I believe they also went 11-5. If you are looking to go 11-5 every year and lose in the playoffs every year, that is fine. I want to the win the SB so I will take the franchise QB. I will take Rodgers and you can have Casell or Flacco or McNabb or the others. That said, it is still a team game and yes, you still need other quality players to win a SB. ---------- Post added January-21st-2011 at 02:07 PM ---------- i think that Oldfan is correct, and i dont think you have to look any further than our Skins to prove it. in my opinion, we have never had a QB that was a true franchise QB, in my opinion, none of our QBs have ever been anything special...serviceable at best for some. the Skins have 3 super bowl wins with these guys...(i am not counting the old school guys...from Joe T forward) looking at someone like Dan Marino, a hall of fame QB...with a suspect system around him...no super bowl wins. i think being a fan of the Redskins you have to be able to see that we won 3 super bowls cause we had a great system, and not the best QBs out there. All three wins the skins QB at the time had an outstanding year. Just think what could have happened if those QB's were consistent for years. Yes, you can win without a franchise QB, even a SB, say B. Johnson and T. Dilfer, but to be in the SB hunt every year you need a franchise QB. ---------- Post added January-21st-2011 at 02:13 PM ---------- Wouldn't having a great team mean having a great QB? In which case, I'd argue obtaining a great QB is much easier. Baltimore, classic example of no. Pitts without a franchise QB. However, my understanding of the thread is that the QB needs a supporting cast to succeed or it's not all about the QB, dummy. I am not going to debate whether you should assemble the cast first and then draft a QB or draft a QB and then assemble the cast, but there are only so many franchise QB's. So, you get one when they are available. And, said franchise QB will make your team better. I think what bothers me most about this thread and Oldfan is that he dragged me into a discussion that just splits hairs. Teams win games. You have to have enough talent and enough good coaching to win a SB. A franchise QB makes your job easier. Also, assuming you match up with the other team it could be the play of your QB that separates your team. And, since Oldfan never said he would not take a franchise player and not want one on his team, his argument is not as strong as he believes it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.