Are wins a QB stat?

[old school]

where is the stat that shows when a QB makes a go ahead TD throw
late in the 4th qtr to take the lead only to see the defense allow the
other team to drive down the field in under 2min for the win????

a QB can only do so much...

[BruceNolan]

I'm going to go ahead and throw my hat into the ring.

I say no, wins are not a QB stat.

Wins are a coaches stat and a team stat. There's WAY too much that goes into winning a game over which a QB has no control for wins to be a QB stat.

If you think about it, QBs have control over less than 1/3 of the total game. They control a majority of the offense. They don't control the special teams, the defense, and a portion of the running game. That's too much.

[Joe Fan]

I'm going to go ahead and throw my hat into the ring.

I say no, wins are not a QB stat.

Wins are a coaches stat and a team stat. There's WAY too much that goes into winning a game over which a QB has no control for wins to be a QB stat.

If you think about it, QBs have control over less than 1/3 of the total game. They control a majority of the offense. They don't control the special teams, the defense, and a portion of the running game. That's too much.

Wins are a team stat. And a coaches Stat. And a GM's stat. And an owners Stat. I understand your logic. The question isn't "Are all wins and losses the sole responsibility of the QB". The answer to that question is obviously no.

But the QB manages the offense on the field. Anyone who has ever watched Peyton Manning or Jim Kelly or John Elway manage a two minute drill knows full well, that all QB's are not created equal in terms of managing teams to a win. Little things that don't show up in stats, selling the play action, audibles, hard counts etc, all help the consistent winners win.

[moltenlava26]

The two most important positions in team sports are the NFL QB and the NHL goaltender. No other positions, in any other sport, have as much say as these two on the outcome during any given game.
On the flip side, no other 2 positions in sports need as much help as these 2 positions to succeed. You can have a great QB or goalie and still have a losing record if the team around you does not play to a "winning" level.
While I don't believe wins are a QB stat, the average fan, following any loss can point to a specific situation, where the QB made a mistake, and blame him for that particular loss. The above average football fan can look at the larger picture and find mistakes from all aspects which lead to the loss.
No matter how you rationalize it, Fitz can't pick up an extra blitzer, he can't catch a well thrown ball into the end zone, and he can't stop the opposing offense from racking up 175+ yards on the ground per game, BUT he can get better at throwing a more accurate ball, he can get better at feeling more confident in his offense in year 2, and he can get better at making accurate protection adjustments presnap.

[jayryp80]

In part, yes. However, it's a team sport so putting ALL the pressure on the QB for wins is unfair.

That being said, your offense begins and ends with the QB position so WINS can be a way of measuring quarterback success. I think it's a "stat" but not truly a measurable one.

It's almost like pitchers in baseball and goalies in hockey.

[Glorydays]

No single player in the NFL has a greater influence on the outcome of a game then the QB.

A good QB can keep your defense off the field.
A good QB puts enough points on the board, to keep the other team struggling.
A good QB makes everyone around him look better.

Name me a GOOD QB on a BAD TEAM? It's not that easy...cuz good QB's make their team better.

So I say YES. Wins ARE a QB stat.

[GodZnKingZ]

No, great QBs can't compensate for all that. Archie Manning was a great QB and his teams never had a winning season. Anybody who thinks he's a lousy QB because of that, or that the Saints win-loss record at that time shows anything bad about Manning ... just ... doesn't ... get it.

Brady is on a team that is coached by one of the great defensive geniuses of all time.

And yeah, the Cardinals declined when Warner left. Did they go 0 - 16? They would have if Warner had been responsible for all their wins. Can a QB make a huge difference? Of course. Can a QB make ALL the difference? The question itself is idiotic, of course a QB isn't totally responsible.

Great QBs find ways to win ... when put in position to do so by the performance of the rest of the team. Even great QBs can't will a team to victory from their back on the grass, or if their recievers can't get open or if the defense simply allows TDs every time.

The question is are wins a QB stat. Regardless of individal records, in all of sports, who do you NOT judge by wins? Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, etc....as good as they all were, they're judged by loosing when it counted most.

The QB positions is arguably the most significant decision in pro sports & they impact the game of football more than any other player on the field. The kicker? Is he kicking a field goal from his own 20? No. His QB has to make the correct decisions/plays to get him there...& furthermore, the kicker only gets his opportunity if his QB can't get the offense into the end zone.

As far as Kurt Warner & the Cards...with him there, they participated in a Superbowl & also made it to the playoffs. Without him, they're drafting in the top 10.

Pre snap adjustments/hot routes, going through his progressions, making the right decision of where to go with the football or to tuck it & run, avoiding a sack & fumble or thrown interception, throwing the ball away in an attempt to give his defense a chance to provide his offense with better field position...these are things that GOOD QB's do more often than not. They might not win every single game, but they do it consistently enough to provide their team with the best opportunity to succeed.

As Bills fans....we should know. We had a QB who played in 4 straight SB's. But he's not known for the fact that he won 4 straight AFC championships, he's known as the QB who couldn't win 1 out of 4 SuperBowl appearances. They very rarely speak of his individual numbers.

[Big B]

No single player in the NFL has a greater influence on the outcome of a game then the QB.

A good QB can keep your defense off the field.
A good QB puts enough points on the board, to keep the other team struggling.
A good QB makes everyone around him look better.

Name me a GOOD QB on a BAD TEAM? It's not that easy...cuz good QB's make their team better.

So I say YES. Wins ARE a QB stat.

It goes both ways though.
A good defense can keep your QB on the field and maximize the number of scoring opportunities.
A good defense keeps opponents off the board and takes pressure off of the offense.
A good team makes a QB look better.

[eregitano]

Peyton Manning lost more games with 4th quarter game ending turnovers than Ryan Fitpatrick this past season. Wins and loses are a team stat. A good QB simply gives you a better chance to overcome poor plays the team makes.

[Joe Fan]

Peyton Manning lost more games with 4th quarter game ending turnovers than Ryan Fitpatrick this past season. Wins and loses are a team stat. A good QB simply gives you a better chance to overcome poor plays the team makes.

All good fans no Peyton Manning is a bust. 13 out 14 times the team he QB'd failed to win the super bowl.

Manning = Bust

[UBBALLER8]

Based on the logic in this thread, the following are also NOT QB stats:

Completion % - it takes a receiver to catch a ball. Drops disqualify this as a useful stat.
Interceptions - Not everyone has to play Darrelle Revis twice. Every QB plays different defenses than the others, its just not fair to compare.
TD's - Not every QB has Greg Jennings, Donald Driver and Jordy Nelson to throw too. Its not fair to compare
Passing Yards - Until those NFL yahoo's stop counting yards after catch, you can't compare QB yardage. Not everyone has a Lesean McCoy to dump to.

Etc. Etc. saying something is a "stat" doesn't mean you are saying its the be all and end all of evaluating a QB. Does anyone really believe that if Peyton Manning or Tom Brady had been on the Bills the last 10 years, we would have won the same number of games? Personally I think the Bills would have won more with just that one change. So yep its a QB stat.

Great post.

If you like the player you'll make all the excuses in the world for them. We see that all too much on this board for all sorts of players.

Fitz is just the next guy people are trying to make into something he's not (yet) and maybe will never be.

[Savior77]

When talking about two QBs who play in the same year on the same team (like Edwards/Fitz or Edwards/Losman) then it works as a comparison statistic.

Two QBs who play on the same team but not in the same year does not really work, but it's not as bad as...

Two QBs who play on different teams. That's just foolish, in no way shape or form should wins and losses be used as a statistic of comparison.

[Thurman#1]

Based on the logic in this thread, the following are also NOT QB stats:

Completion % - it takes a receiver to catch a ball. Drops disqualify this as a useful stat.
Interceptions - Not everyone has to play Darrelle Revis twice. Every QB plays different defenses than the others, its just not fair to compare.
TD's - Not every QB has Greg Jennings, Donald Driver and Jordy Nelson to throw too. Its not fair to compare
Passing Yards - Until those NFL yahoo's stop counting yards after catch, you can't compare QB yardage. Not everyone has a Lesean McCoy to dump to.

Etc. Etc. saying something is a "stat" doesn't mean you are saying its the be all and end all of evaluating a QB. Does anyone really believe that if Peyton Manning or Tom Brady had been on the Bills the last 10 years, we would have won the same number of games? Personally I think the Bills would have won more with just that one change. So yep its a QB stat.

Absolute nonsense.

You're right that those stats don't perfectly show a QB's performance. There is no stat that perfectly shows anything in football with one exception ... a win-loss record really does show how good or bad a team is.

But those stats you mentioned are stats which rely primarily on QBs, so yeah, they are good for evaluating QBs, some more than others. TDs isn't all that great, because field position and how many speed merchant WRs you have makes a huge impact there. But QB percentage? Yeah, it's mostly on the QB, so it's a good QB stat. Passing yards? Yeah, it's pretty good, but not great. The QB who throws 700 passes is going to do much much better than the QB who throws 350 passes. That's why YPA is an almost infinitely better measure of QB effectiveness (something the Fitz fans on here choose to ignore because Fitz comes out poorly on that stat). QBs who take more risks and throw downfield more often are going to have higher YPAs, it's that simple, and if you can do that and still keep your completion percentage up and your INT percentage down, you're a very good QB.

Stats, however, which depend on one player for less than a third of what they measure (and wins and losses is exactly such a stat) should not be used to evaluate one player. It's just exactly that simple.

If you want to evaluate QBs, you look at how the QB performed. This ain't rocket science. Any stat which includes, say, blocked kicks, kickoff returns for touchdowns, fumbles by RBs, defensive INTs and defensive turnovers forced in what it looks at should clearly and obviously not be used to judge a QB who has absolutely zero impact on any of those things.

[Thurman#1]

The two most important positions in team sports are the NFL QB and the NHL goaltender. No other positions, in any other sport, have as much say as these two on the outcome during any given game.

The two most important positions in team sports are NHL goaltender and MLB pitcher.

QB comes in well behind those two.

[Billzfan51]

Depends if the QB in question is favored by the local fans or not. Also depends on the status of the QB in question. If he's heading into a FA year, I can guarantee it's talked about.

[Thurman#1]

No single player in the NFL has a greater influence on the outcome of a game then the QB.

A good QB can keep your defense off the field.
A good QB puts enough points on the board, to keep the other team struggling.
A good QB makes everyone around him look better.

Name me a GOOD QB on a BAD TEAM? It's not that easy...cuz good QB's make their team better.

So I say YES. Wins ARE a QB stat.

Archie Manning is the archetype of a good QB on a bad team.

These days, though? Tony Romo, Donovan McNabb, Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford, I'd argue Carson Palmer.

And a good QB doesn't keep your defense off the field. A good offense does. A QB is a big part of that, but he's not the whole thing. A good QB doesn't put enough points on the board to keep the other team struggling. A good offense does.

Look at the difference between Brady and Cassel in New England. Cassel wasn't great, but the Pats* made him look good. Good teams make QBs look better just as much as good QBs make teams look better.

[Billzfan51]

Sam Bradford is the only one on your list of good QB's on a bad team. Romo sucks, he's the most overhyped starting QB. Stafford has injury concerns, Palmer hasn't been the same since getting injured, and McNabb is way overrated as well.

[Thurman#1]

The question is are wins a QB stat. Regardless of individal records, in all of sports, who do you NOT judge by wins? Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, etc....as good as they all were, they're judged by loosing when it counted most.

Individuals are judged by wins in team sports only by people who don't get it. Otherwise, how come Ernie Banks is in the hall of fame, and Barkley and Malone, and Kelly and Marino. Every one a hall of famer. Good examples, but they prove my point, not yours.

Do you consider Bucky Dent an all-time great? You ought to if you go by wins. Barry Sanders a real loser? You ought to if you follow your system.

Wins are everything in team sports, but you judge teams by them, and you judge individuals by how well they did their jobs to try to get championships.

As far as Kurt Warner & the Cards...with him there, they participated in a Superbowl & also made it to the playoffs. Without him, they're drafting in the top 10.

First, the Cards went from a 10 win team to a 5 win team. Five games difference when going from one of the top three QBs in the league to one of the bottom five QBs in the league. That alone tells you that the QB doesn't mean everything, far from it.

Second, the Cards didn't stay the same except for Warner. They also lost Boldin, a major part of that offense. They had four different starters on the defense and four different starters on offense.

Pre snap adjustments/hot routes, going through his progressions, making the right decision of where to go with the football or to tuck it & run, avoiding a sack & fumble or thrown interception, throwing the ball away in an attempt to give his defense a chance to provide his offense with better field position...these are things that GOOD QB's do more often than not. They might not win every single game, but they do it consistently enough to provide their team with the best opportunity to succeed.

True. But it has nothing to do with the argument. Everyone agrees that QB is a hard job, that it's the most important one on the team, and that good QBs make everyone better. But good LTs make everyone better also, by doing their job of helping the running and passing games. Good pass rushers, it just goes on and on. Every position has an effect on every other position, and that's a fact.

But anyone judging an individual by a team stat is only showing that he either loves scapegoats/heroes enough that he's willing to forget logic, or that he follows his emotions rather than his head.

Kurt Warner didn't rush the opponent's QB. Kurt Warner didn't ... won't bother to finish the though, it's so obvious and true.

As Bills fans....we should know. We had a QB who played in 4 straight SB's. But he's not known for the fact that he won 4 straight AFC championships, he's known as the QB who couldn't win 1 out of 4 SuperBowl appearances. They very rarely speak of his individual numbers.

If he's known that way, it's only by fans who don't quite get it. Kelly was more than good enough to win. Our run defense wasn't.

[GodZnKingZ]

Individuals are judged by wins in team sports only by people who don't get it. Otherwise, how come Ernie Banks is in the hall of fame, and Barkley and Malone, and Kelly and Marino. Every one a hall of famer. Good examples, but they prove my point, not yours.

Do you consider Bucky Dent an all-time great? You ought to if you go by wins. Barry Sanders a real loser? You ought to if you follow your system.

Wins are everything in team sports, but you judge teams by them, and you judge individuals by how well they did their jobs to try to get championships.





First, the Cards went from a 10 win team to a 5 win team. Five games difference when going from one of the top three QBs in the league to one of the bottom five QBs in the league. That alone tells you that the QB doesn't mean everything, far from it.

Second, the Cards didn't stay the same except for Warner. They also lost Boldin, a major part of that offense. They had four different starters on the defense and four different starters on offense.




True. But it has nothing to do with the argument. Everyone agrees that QB is a hard job, that it's the most important one on the team, and that good QBs make everyone better. But good LTs make everyone better also, by doing their job of helping the running and passing games. Good pass rushers, it just goes on and on. Every position has an effect on every other position, and that's a fact.

But anyone judging an individual by a team stat is only showing that he either loves scapegoats/heroes enough that he's willing to forget logic, or that he follows his emotions rather than his head.

Kurt Warner didn't rush the opponent's QB. Kurt Warner didn't ... won't bother to finish the though, it's so obvious and true.





If he's known that way, it's only by fans who don't quite get it. Kelly was more than good enough to win. Our run defense wasn't.

That's my point....they ARE hall of famers......but again, they aren't spoken of in the same breath as the guys who have won when it counted most.

No matter how many stars you have on your team, if you have a Franchise QB, he's viewed as the leader by the guys in the locker room. Why? Because he has the most individual impact on the outcome of the game....

In Baseball, I once argued that the pitcer was the most important player on the baseball field, & someone else argued that the catcher was. His arguement made sense. Pitchers are rotated, whereas the catchers have to adjust to the pitchers. Although a no hitter is probably one of the most dominating feats in all of pro sports, the catcher is also pretty instrumental in that feat.

Goalies can dominate the game of Hockey.....but primarily @ one end.

A good QB can dominate the game in so many ways. Smart QB's always seem a step ahead of the defense, taking what the defense gives them until the defense breaks down & the QB capitalizes on the opportunity. When your QB can't manage the game properly, you'll have multiple 3 & outs, which can have a direct effect on your defense as we've seen based on TOP & how much your defenders are out there.

Listen to our guys in the locker room who are pro Fitz...they'll tell you that they're confident with him as the leader. No, he doesn't rush the passer, snap the ball, or kick FG's. But he's the initial focal point of every offensive snap, & his teams fortunes are based on how he uses his weapons & how well he can diagnose the defense he's playing.

I'm not going to say I agree with it completely, but I can't argue it either. It's like going to war, the more battles your general has won, the more confident your troops are in his ability to lead. If your QB is a relevant one, he WILL carry the burden of wins & losses due to the nature of his position.

[Thurman#1]

That's my point....they ARE hall of famers......but again, they aren't spoken of in the same breath as the guys who have won when it counted most.

No matter how many stars you have on your team, if you have a Franchise QB, he's viewed as the leader by the guys in the locker room. Why? Because he has the most individual impact on the outcome of the game....

In Baseball, I once argued that the pitcer was the most important player on the baseball field, & someone else argued that the catcher was. His arguement made sense. Pitchers are rotated, whereas the catchers have to adjust to the pitchers. Although a no hitter is probably one of the most dominating feats in all of pro sports, the catcher is also pretty instrumental in that feat.

Goalies can dominate the game of Hockey.....but primarily @ one end.

A good QB can dominate the game in so many ways. Smart QB's always seem a step ahead of the defense, taking what the defense gives them until the defense breaks down & the QB capitalizes on the opportunity. When your QB can't manage the game properly, you'll have multiple 3 & outs, which can have a direct effect on your defense as we've seen based on TOP & how much your defenders are out there.

Listen to our guys in the locker room who are pro Fitz...they'll tell you that they're confident with him as the leader. No, he doesn't rush the passer, snap the ball, or kick FG's. But he's the initial focal point of every offensive snap, & his teams fortunes are based on how he uses his weapons & how well he can diagnose the defense he's playing.

I'm not going to say I agree with it completely, but I can't argue it either. It's like going to war, the more battles your general has won, the more confident your troops are in his ability to lead. If your QB is a relevant one, he WILL carry the burden of wins & losses due to the nature of his position.

So, you're saying that, right or wrong, QBs will be blamed for wins and losses perhaps even by a majority of fans? If that's what you're saying, I agree. It's just that the people who say that, the people who blame the QB alone, will be dead wrong.

So I guess we agree, if I understand you correctly. QBs shouldn't be blamed by reasonable people for wins and losses. The whole idea makes no sense whatsoever, but yeah, you're right, plenty of people will blame them anyway.