The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[zCommander]

13 hours ago, mistertim said:

So if we go by your logic and judge Wentz purely based on record, then if he had 25 TDs and 20 INTs and we still win 12 games, we should keep him. If he tosses 36 TDs and 7 INTs and we have a losing record, we should jettison him.

 

Which of course would be stupid.

 

To keep it simple. If Wentz is an upgrade over TH then yes we should win more games with Wentz leading the offense then we did with TH last year. What was the purpose of an upgrade if we are not in it to win more games and be in the playoffs and try to get to the SB? Are we just in to see better stats from a QB like Kirk and keep on looking at that carrot? Every team wants their QB to get them wins no matter how. 

 

So yes indirectly a QB is judged by the wins too and how they are able to lead the team to achieve such a goal.

 

Your logic is also flawed in that you are also judging a QB solely on TDs to INT ratio. But if Wentz does throw 36 TD that mean we are actually winning and not losing. If you score 216 points in a year and come out no better than last year then yes the QB position will be under the microscope again. The whole purpose of a good QB is to win the game despite the INTs. You could have 20 INTs in 4 games but then win it all at the end. That is more important. For argument sake, let say, Wentz does have 20 INTs but we win the SB do you really think people would care about the INTs? Nope. They will say despite all the INTs Wentz was the guy who lead the team to the trophy. What a great QB he is. 

 

3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Matt Stafford didn't win ****, until he was on a good team. Did he suddenly become a great QB or was he swimming in toilet for years? 

 

The QB = wins arguement is dumb, but you do need a QB to win.

 

Stafford wasn't impressive in the SB. But he did squeak out a win at the end of the game and that is all that matters in the W column.

 

[TheShredder]

3 hours ago, Riggo'sRangers said:

 

He's staying under wraps, bubble wrap that is.

When they tell you to shut it down until camp and Samuel asks if he can go run routes with the guys...

[Koolblue13]

14 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

 

 

Stafford wasn't impressive in the SB. But he did squeak out a win at the end of the game and that is all that matters in the W column.

 

Staffords a great QB. One of the league's best.

[TheShredder]

Largest impact on every NFL team's W/L rate is injuries. Seen as the largest mover of the bet spread.

There's some metrics about the impact on outcome by player and position as well.

As you'd imagine, in football, the QB is most important. When you start comparing QB vs QB the stats seem to be less impressive as this comparison would need to be evaluated with them under the same circumstances (same team vs same opponents). 

 

I think the comparison of Wentz vs QBX would be difficult to bet based on Wentz hasn't played on this team. I think that the W/L o/u total might drop if Wentz couldn't play and TH was the starter. #1 because injuries have the highest impact and at the highest impact position.

 

Currently WSH W/L TOTAL o/u 7.5 Wins Over -130 Under +110 {90% of the money is on the Over and the line has moved up from -115}

[mistertim]

34 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

To keep it simple. If Wentz is an upgrade over TH then yes we should win more games with Wentz leading the offense then we did with TH last year. What was the purpose of an upgrade if we are not in it to win more games and be in the playoffs and try to get to the SB? Are we just in to see better stats from a QB like Kirk and keep on looking at that carrot? Every team wants their QB to get them wins no matter how. 

 

So yes indirectly a QB is judged by the wins too and how they are able to lead the team to achieve such a goal.

 

Your logic is also flawed in that you are also judging a QB solely on TDs to INT ratio. But if Wentz does throw 36 TD that mean we are actually winning and not losing. If you score 216 points in a year and come out no better than last year then yes the QB position will be under the microscope again. The whole purpose of a good QB is to win the game despite the INTs. You could have 20 INTs in 4 games but then win it all at the end. That is more important. For argument sake, let say, Wentz does have 20 INTs but we win the SB do you really think people would care about the INTs? Nope. They will say despite all the INTs Wentz was the guy who lead the team to the trophy. What a great QB he is. 

 

 

Do you agree or disagree that a QB is not the only person involved in winning a game? 

 

The QB is definitely the most important position but he isn't the only position. He can't play defense or catch balls or pass protect for himself. That's why the argument focusing almost exclusively on wins is dumb.

 

Yes a top level QB is very likely to lead you to more wins, but it isn't always the case. If the rest of the team plays like dog**** then there's only so much the QB can do by himself. In 2020 Deshaun Watson threw 33 TDs, 7 INTs, ran for 3, had a 70% completion and was regarded by most to easily be a top 5 QB, if not top 3. But that team went 4-12 that season. Was that on Watson for only throwing 33 TDs instead of 40? Or his fault for not going out and playing defense?

 

So your statement of "if Wentz does throw for 36 TD that mean we are actually winning not losing" is factually and historically inaccurate. QBs can absolutely play really well and still be on losing teams. If Wentz plays at a top 5 level and we come out no better than last year then no, QB position absolutely won't be the one under the microscope. The other areas of the team that played poorly would be.

 

I find it interesting that historically you seem to have been somewhat on the "QB needs a team around him to win" argument, yet now with Wentz here you seem to be suddenly bestowing godlike abilities on the QB position and essentially saying it's the only thing that matters and everything should basically be on him when it comes to winning and losing, no matter what. 

 

And sure, if Wentz throws for 25 TDs and 20 INTs but we somehow win a SB anyway there might be some people who say "Wentz was the guy who led the team to the trophy" but they'd probably be very few and far between, and they'd also be morons. The majority of non-morons would be saying that we won the SB despite Wentz, not because of him.

[TheShredder]

24 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Staffords a great QB. One of the league's best.

Agreed.

Also, he had a string of poor play where he threw INTs and Pick 6's that cost them. He was injured vs TEN and looked bad vs SF. But, nobody talks about his struggling as winning in the end is all that matters. From what I saw, the Rams started being incapable of running the ball vs TEN and he was forced to pass almost every down. Similar to SF who regularly has LA's number via defensive scheme and Offense that runs the ball and controls time of possession.
Stafford figured it out, as the Rams started running effectively and Cooper was unstoppable.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

8 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

To keep it simple. If Wentz is an upgrade over TH then yes we should win more games with Wentz leading the offense then we did with TH last year. What was the purpose of an upgrade if we are not in it to win more games and be in the playoffs and try to get to the SB? Are we just in to see better stats from a QB like Kirk and keep on looking at that carrot? Every team wants their QB to get them wins no matter how. 

So, Alex Smith in 2018 was quarterbacking a team to a 6-3 (probably soon to be 6-4 record) but was, by just about all accounts, dreadful.  

 

Yeah, "he's a winner" and all, but he was still not playing all that well.  The team won, at times inspite of his play, and got massively lucky in the Tampa game where they were thoroughly out-played except they got 5 turnovers from Fitzy and won anyway.

 

The problem with that is it's not sustainable.

 

I do expect more wins with Wetnz than with TH.  No question.  Because TH  was like a regulator to the offense.  He just couldn't do so many things, he limited what they could do, and also dictated the style of play they had to adopt.

 

Let's take wins out of it for a second.

 

My expectation is the offense, barring significant injury, is significantly better in all areas with Wentz.  Specifically yards/play, points and 3rd down conversions.  Except for 1 bad year in 2020 when he was throwing to my kid sister, he has never had an interception problem.  My expectation is that trend continues.  

 

So, if we average somewhere north of 25.5 points per game, that's a huge improvement.  That would have ranked 12th last year, mimicking the Eagles. Washington last year was 23rd at 19.7 ppg. That would be a 10 position bump based on last year's rankings.

 

Ppg is not a perfect stat, because you can have defensive TDs and ST TDs, and your defense can put you in bad spots, etc.  But, at the end of the day (it's nigh, but also) the purpose of the offense is to score points.  So score more points.

 

If we get an extra  5-6 ppg from Wentz over 2021, that's a pretty significant upgrade.  

 

Also, if that holds, you should win more games because you're scoring more points.  

 

As an aside, our defense ranked 25th giving up 25.5 points per game.  

 

It is almost always true if your offense scores more points on average throughout a season than the defense gives up (so you have a positive point differential), you win more games than you lose.  That's also not ALWAYS true, because of outlier games.  But it's generally true.  

 

So, let's say we get the bump I'm looking for from Wentz and the rest of the offense, because while Wentz is unquestionably the most important cog in the offense, there are other components as well, and we get to an average of 25.5 ppg, and lets' say the defense doesn't suck toes, and ends up exactly average, which would be ~ 22.2 ppg.  

 

That's a Point differential of 3.3 ppg.  This would still mean a lot of close games.  At the end of the year, you would end up with a point differential of 56.1

 

Here's something else interesting: Every team that had a point differential of 56 or greater made the playoffs.  The one that didn't?  The Colts.  The Colts were a statistical anomaly last year.  They had the 7th best point differential(+86), and won 9 games. The Packers had a point differential of +79 (good for 10th) and won 13 games.  

 

But regardless, I would take a 56.1 point differential, and unless something truly wacky happened, you're in the playoffs.

 

 

8 minutes ago, zCommander said:

So yes indirectly a QB is judged by the wins too and how they are able to lead the team to achieve such a goal.

Yes, you're right.  QBs are, sometimes unfairly, judged by wins and losses. 

 

That said, the Saints with Drew Freaking Brees went 7-9 3 straight years from 2014 - 2016.  Where he threw for 4,900, 4,800 and 5,200 yards, and 33, 32, and 37 TDs.  He made the pro bowl in 2014 and 2016. 

 

Drew Brees might be the #4 QB of his generation, behind Brady, Rodgers and Peyton.  In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he is the #4 QB of his generation behind those two guys.  I don't know who you would put in front of him.

 

And even HE could not overcome the defensive issues they had.  

 

So, in my example above, let's say we get the ppg bump to 25.5 I want to see.  Let's say the defense DOES suck toes and gives up 25.5 ppg again this year.  That would leave them with an even point differential.  There was one team with a point differential of less than 30 which made the playoffs, the Steelers, with a point differential of -55.  They are the statistical anomaly in the opposite direction of the Colts.  

 

So, let's say we get absolutely everything we expect from Wentz and the defense stays the same, basically suck.  We probably win 8-9 games.  Maybe we sneak into the playoffs, maybe we don't.  But if you basically break even on points, you expect to break even on games.

 

The key to winning 10+ games this year is a big jump up on the offense AND an improvement by the defense.  Both things have to happen.

 

One more hypothetical:  Let's assume for a second the defense still sucks and gives up 25.5 ppg.  The offense CAN overcome that to get you to the magical 55 season point differential.  They have to score 29 ppg.  There are 4 teams that did that last year: Dallas (30.4), Tampa (29.9), Buffalo (29.8) and KC (29.4).

 

So, it is possible for the offense to overcome a completely crap defense and the team gets to probably 10+ wins.  But that means they would have to be a top 5 offense in the league. 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, zCommander said:

Your logic is also flawed in that you are also judging a QB solely on TDs to INT ratio. But if Wentz does throw 36 TD that mean we are actually winning and not losing. If you score 216 points in a year and come out no better than last year then yes the QB position will be under the microscope again. The whole purpose of a good QB is to win the game despite the INTs. You could have 20 INTs in 4 games but then win it all at the end. That is more important. For argument sake, let say, Wentz does have 20 INTs but we win the SB do you really think people would care about the INTs? Nope. They will say despite all the INTs Wentz was the guy who lead the team to the trophy. What a great QB he is. 

None of this makes any sense.  I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  

 

TDs good, INTs bad.  If26/40 ( you throw more than 10 INTs in a season, it has to be off-set by 30+ TDs, most likely, or else you're in tough shape.  

 

If you throw 5 INTs a game in 4 games, the chances of you winning any of those games is statistically like 1%, winning all of them is statistically 0.  

 

And if your QB throws 20 INTs in a season, there's a very good likelihood the team is not making the playoffs. Unless it's countered by 50 TDs.  

 

8 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

Stafford wasn't impressive in the SB. But he did squeak out a win at the end of the game and that is all that matters in the W column.

 

Stafford was the 4th highest QBR QB last year, threw for 4,886 yards, 41 TDs to 17 INTs.  He had a great year by any measure.  

 

Overall, he didn't have that bad a SB: 26/40 (65%), 3 TDs, 2 INTs, QBR of 60.8.  That's not terrible. It's not Joe Montana SB level, but not bad at all. And he was clutch in the end.  

 

But it's not like he completely wet the bed and threw 4 INTs and no TDs through the first 50 minutes of the game and then had one drive late to win.  

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Bottom line on Wentz expectations: 

 

Assumption: Normal injuries, no injury wave which completely wipes out the entire offense.

 

I expect them to score in the mid-20's in terms of points per game.  That has always has been my stat which I grade the productivity of an offense.  I understand the limitations of the stat, but I don't really care.  

 

If Wentz and the offense scores ~25 ppg, then we've been successful in the upgrade at QB.  Wins will come if the defense doesn't suck salty nuts.  If it does, I don't expect the offense to go from 19.3 ppg last year with TH to 29ppg with Wentz.  Is Wentz better?  Yeah.  Is he Brady, Josh Allen or  Mahomes?  No.  I think that would be too high an expectation to set.  

[KDawg]

54 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Staffords a great QB. One of the league's best.

 

You're debating with a guy who thinks Heinicke is better than Wentz.

[wit33]

4 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Matt Stafford didn't win ****, until he was on a good team. Did he suddenly become a great QB or was he swimming in toilet for years? 

 

The QB = wins arguement is dumb, but you do need a QB to win.

Vegas would disagree with you. For whatever that counts for. 
 

QB over everything by a wide margin. I do think there are 3 coaches that move the needle similarly to an elite QB (Mccvay, Shanny, and Bill). 

 

11 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Do you agree or disagree that a QB is not the only person involved in winning a game? 

 

The QB is definitely the most important position but he isn't the only position. He can't play defense or catch balls or pass protect for himself. That's why the argument focusing almost exclusively on wins is dumb.

 

Yes a top level QB is very likely to lead you to more wins, but it isn't always the case. If the rest of the team plays like dog**** then there's only so much the QB can do by himself. In 2020 Deshaun Watson threw 33 TDs, 7 INTs, ran for 3, had a 70% completion and was regarded by most to easily be a top 5 QB, if not top 3. But that team went 4-12 that season. Was that on Watson for only throwing 33 TDs instead of 40? Or his fault for not going out and playing defense?

 

22Tds in 12 losses

 

6Tds in 4 games to start the year 0-4
 

15 Tds in the wins 

 

18th in PPG as an offense

 

 

 

Not sure Texan fans would consider this a good or great season by Watson. Maybe I’m wrong?

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

22Tds in 12 losses

 

6Tds in 4 games to start the year 0-4
 

15 Tds in the wins 

 

18th in PPG as an offense

 

 

 

Not sure Texan fans would consider this a good or great season by Watson. Maybe I’m wrong?

 

I haven't been able to find a single article or analysis from after the 2020 season that didn't rank Watson as a top 5 QB. You may disagree, that's fine. Obviously the league still sees him that way since the Browns gave up 3 1sts + for him.

 

From what I remember seeing online at the time (and from two people I know/work with who are Texans guys), Texans fans definitely considered him an elite QB and were furious at the coaching and dog**** play of the rest of the team for basically wasting his talents.

 

Either way, the point is that while an elite QB absolutely helps you be a winning team in general, it's also still possible to have a top QB and a ****ty team with a losing season. Which is why deciding to judge a QB purely based on the team's record as opposed to his actual play is dumb.

[wit33]

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I haven't been able to find a single article or analysis from after the 2020 season that didn't rank Watson as a top 5 QB. You may disagree, that's fine. Obviously the league still sees him that way since the Browns gave up 3 1sts + for him.

 

From what I remember seeing online at the time (and from two people I know/work with who are Texans guys), Texans fans definitely considered him an elite QB and were furious at the coaching and dog**** play of the rest of the team for basically wasting his talents.

 

Either way, the point is that while an elite QB absolutely helps you be a winning team in general, it's also still possible to have a top QB and a ****ty team with a losing season. Which is why deciding to judge a QB purely based on the team's record as opposed to his actual play is dumb.

No doubt in regards to him being considered a rising elite QB and judging a QB purely off wins is not the way to go. With that said, the win metric for QBs over good amount of time has value in most cases. 
 

My point of contention is just because a guy earns status of an elite or fringe elite doesn’t mean he’s absolved from responsibility in a season. It appears from a very surface level look in on my part, he/team was inconsistent throughout the year. This in no way is all or nothing argument, the team and coaches play a significant role in wins and losses— QB by a wide margin for me. 

[zCommander]

23 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

You're debating with a guy who thinks Heinicke is better than Wentz.

 

In certain area yes. Total overall no. But you are missing the point. In a nutshell my comparison is about two QB on the same team with some of the same players. The D is a push right now so one should expect the same result as last year but hopefully not since Del Rio might not have a job after this season if his D is meh like most of last year.

 

Like Shredder said you would need to compare two QB on the same team so if you keep that in mind then the upgrade over TH theoretically should mean more wins this year is all I am really trying to say. Yes things can come up like injuries and we had ton of them last year with half of the team out due to injury and covid. Hopefully this year we wouldn't have to deal with that and if that is the case then Wentz should be able to win more games, I mean lead his team to more wins. 

 

56 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I find it interesting that historically you seem to have been somewhat on the "QB needs a team around him to win" argument, yet now with Wentz here you seem to be suddenly bestowing godlike abilities on the QB position and essentially saying it's the only thing that matters and everything should basically be on him when it comes to winning and losing, no matter what. 

 

Not what I am trying say at all. Sorry if it looks that way. My whole premise is around last year vs. this year on our team with almost the same players moreover we have added some weapons to help Wentz. This has to account for something. So we should win more games then lose. We had a tougher schedule last year too. So this year it should be easy - theoretically of course. 

 

@Voice_of_Reason The only improvement I like to see from our D is the 3rd down conversation rate. They can't let teams convert as much on these down like they did last year. Getting off the field and giving our O more time do their stuff . I do agree with your bottom lines. If we are able to get more than 25PPG and our D holds the other team to 21PPG or less is a win.

 

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

Not what I am trying say at all. Sorry if it looks that way. My whole premise is around last year vs. this year on our team with almost the same players moreover we have added some weapons to help Wentz. This has to account for something. So we should win more games then lose. We had a tougher schedule last year too. So this year it should be easy - theoretically of course. 

 

 

I agree that if all else at the very least stays the same as last year, we should definitely have a better record this season, especially if we have better QB play. My gripe is with putting that out there as a hard line stance to judge the QB play, regardless of the rest of the team.

 

Because it's possible that things won't stay the same. The defense could regress, we could have lots of injuries to key players, the OL could take a step back. Hopefully none of that will happen, and I don't necessarily expect it to. It's also possible that they could improve.

 

I'm just saying that because everything is so dynamic with a whole team, judging a QB based solely on wins and losses isn't a very reliable measurement. It's absolutely possible for a good QB to be on a crappy team.

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 minutes ago, mistertim said:

It's absolutely possible for a good QB to be on a crappy team.

My drew Brees example above being an example of that. 

[Tundra scout]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Staffords a great QB. One of the league's best.

Did you say that when he was in Detroit?

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

You're debating with a guy who thinks Heinicke is better than Wentz.

Well, completion percentage and he did beat brady

28 minutes ago, Tundra scout said:

Did you say that when he was in Detroit?

I didn't think he was as good as some people. Was corrected and admitted I was wrong.

[zCommander]

10 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Well, completion percentage and he did beat brady

 

Brady, Wilson, Carr, Newton and almost Rodgers - if it wasn't for that pre-mature slide before getting into the endzone... but that is not the point of the conversation.

 

[Koolblue13]

31 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

Brady, Wilson, Carr, Newton and almost Rodgers - if it wasn't for that pre-mature slide before getting into the endzone... but that is not the point of the conversation.

 

93'z

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, zCommander said:

 

Brady, Wilson, Carr, Newton and almost Rodgers - if it wasn't for that pre-mature slide before getting into the endzone... but that is not the point of the conversation.

 

 

Taysom Hill beat Brady last season too. Maybe we should have traded for him instead of Wentz?

[zCommander]

21 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Taysom Hill beat Brady last season too. Maybe we should have traded for him instead of Wentz?

 

Well that would have been stupid when you already had someone on the roster who already did that. 😁

[FootballZombie]

Being considered a system QB has a way of disregarding QBs W/L records that really bucks the common trend.

 

Jimmy G has a great win percentage, like top 5 in active NFL great I believe, but he is not viewed in a special light at all.

[mistertim]

14 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

Well that would have been stupid when you already had someone on the roster who already did that. 😁

 

But it must mean Taysom Hill is a really good QB, right?

 

12 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Jimmy G has a great win percentage, like top 5 in active NFL great I believe, but he is not viewed in a special light at all.

 

Probably because he's not a very good QB. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by mistertim

[zCommander]

30 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

But it must mean Taysom Hill is a really good QB, right?

 

The jury is still out on him. I would like to see him start for the whole season first and see where he is at after that.

[CobraCommander]

2 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

The jury is still out on him. I would like to see him start for the whole season first and see where he is at after that.

No. He stinks. He is Tim Tebow reincarnated. He’s a jump passing gadget player. He throws some terrible off the mark passes.

Why are you doing this to us?

[zCommander]

1 minute ago, CobraCommander said:

Why are you doing this to us?

 

Would you rather I talk about Hieny instead? 😂