Why can't you count wins and losses to the QB

[Flea]

In the game of Baseball they count wins and losses to the pitcher. In reality that doesn't make much sense. I mean come on the picture still needs his team to score runs and he also needs the players behind him to make plays, so why do they count wins and losses to the pitchers.

Also you can certainly say that Peyton Manning meant wins to the Colts. Without him they couldn't win more then 2 games.

I would hope that all teams in the league believe that there 1st string QB means more wins then the 2nd string QB's. I mean why pay a 1st string QB 10, 15 or 20 million a year if you think you can win as many games with your 2nd string as you can your 1st. That certainly doesn't make sense.

I believe the only reason we accept wins and losses for Baseball pitchers is because that is what we have always known, we have never known it any other way.

I also believe that the only reason we don't accept that premise in Football is once again because we have always known it the way it is. The NFL does not keep that specific stat. Other sites do, but officially the NFL does not.

Maybe they should, I think we can all at least agree that having a good QB means more wins in the season then having a bad one. Which I think means that you can back into keeping wins and losses for QB's.

[ByrdztheWord31]

I stopped reading when you compared football to baseball.

[Flea]

I stopped reading when you compared football to baseball.

Does this make you feel like a funny man or a big man.

Why post, move on if you don't like the subject.

[billsfan123]

It's amazing people don't like what you have to say but they post on your threads anyhow.

Does this make you feel like a funny man or a big man.

Why post, move on if you don't like the subject.

[Speedy_Beebe]

I stopped reading when you compared football to baseball.

Maybe you should have kept on reading the post, IMO it makes sense.

[FlaFitz]

In the game of Baseball they count wins and losses to the pitcher. In reality that doesn't make much sense. I mean come on the picture still needs his team to score runs and he also needs the players behind him to make plays, so why do they count wins and losses to the pitchers.

Also you can certainly say that Peyton Manning meant wins to the Colts. Without him they couldn't win more then 2 games.

I would hope that all teams in the league believe that there 1st string QB means more wins then the 2nd string QB's. I mean why pay a 1st string QB 10, 15 or 20 million a year if you think you can win as many games with your 2nd string as you can your 1st. That certainly doesn't make sense.

I believe the only reason we accept wins and losses for Baseball pitchers is because that is what we have always known, we have never known it any other way.

I also believe that the only reason we don't accept that premise in Football is once again because we have always known it the way it is. The NFL does not keep that specific stat. Other sites do, but officially the NFL does not.

Maybe they should, I think we can all at least agree that having a good QB means more wins in the season then having a bad one. Which I think means that you can back into keeping wins and losses for QB's.

I know exactly what you are saying

Zambrano is 1-2 in 7 starts. He has a 1.88 era and 6 of his 7 starts are quality starts.

So why only 1-2? Nop run support from his TEAM!!


The pitcher, like the QB, is the most important player on the field. However he can doa great job and not get the win if the TEAM doesn't play well just as someone like Buchholz who has an era of 8.31 can be 4-1 as a starter because he got support from his team.



A Qb may have a great win-loss record or a lousy one as a starter. It doesn't mean the team won because of him or in spite of him. It's a team record.

[bail]

I know exactly what you are saying

Zambrano is 1-2 in 7 starts. He has a 1.88 era and 6 of his 7 starts are quality starts.

So why only 1-2? Nop run support from his TEAM!!


The pitcher, like the QB, is the most important player on the field. However he can doa great job and not get the win if the TEAM doesn't play well just as someone like Buchholz who has an era of 8.31 can be 4-1 as a starter because he got support from his team.



A Qb may have a great win-loss record or a lousy one as a starter. It doesn't mean the team won because of him or in spite of him. It's a team record.

A lot of people on this board have a tough time seeing that. It's a team sport.

[DaBills4Life]

Wins and losses is a QB stat more so then a team stat IMO, but its more likely for a team to carry a QB in the NFL then a team carry a pitcher in MLB.

[wiskibreth]

Crediting one player for wins and losses in a team sport is stupid IMO. I know everyone does it, still illogical. There's simply too many other very relevant factors which that person simply cannot control that lead to a win or a loss.

[DaBills4Life]

Crediting one player for wins and losses in a team sport is stupid IMO. I know everyone does it, still illogical. There's simply too many other very relevant factors which that person simply cannot control that lead to a win or a loss.

It does matter if you have an ELITE QB, probably 6-7 of them in the NFL. After those guys its more of a team sport.

[wiskibreth]

It does matter if you have an ELITE QB, probably 6-7 of them in the NFL. After those guys its more of a team sport.

It certainly matters, and some contribute to the outcome, both positively and negatively more than others -I agree, but to say "that person" won or lost the game is ridiculous.

[DaBills4Life]

It certainly matters, and some contribute to the outcome, both positively and negatively more than others -I agree, but to say "that person" won or lost the game is ridiculous.

No, you cant say a certain QB won or lost a game, but you can say a team is better with a better QB. Its the only position in the NFL you can upgrade or downgrade and actually change your entire team.

[billsfan123]

QB's decide 90% of the game look at the Colts with Peyton Manning and look at the colts without him. It's just a fact you aren't going very far with a sorry QB

[Buff's Da Stuff]

QB's decide 90% of the game look at the Colts with Peyton Manning and look at the colts without him. It's just a fact you aren't going very far with a sorry QB

The QB does NOT decide 90% of the game because 50% of the game is Dfense. Not to mention how much special teams effect the outcome of a game. You cant put wins and losses on a QB because football is the ultimate team sport. No matter how good a QB is, if the guy on the other end of the ball doesn't catch it, you loose. Now, of coure the better QB you have the better chance you have to win. but if QB was 90% of a game Dan Marino would have 5 Championships, Peyton would have 3 and Trent Dilfer would have 0

[Jdecker73]

The QB does NOT decide 90% of the game because 50% of the game is Dfense. Not to mention how much special teams effect the outcome of a game. You cant put wins and losses on a QB because football is the ultimate team sport. No matter how good a QB is, if the guy on the other end of the ball doesn't catch it, you loose. Now, of coure the better QB you have the better chance you have to win. but if QB was 90% of a game Dan Marino would have 5 Championships, Peyton would have 3 and Trent Dilfer would have 0

Trent Dilfer...LOL and he won a championship!!! I can remember a sports show, can't remember the guy, but he always cut down Dilfer.

[DaBills4Life]

Trent Dilfer...LOL and he won a championship!!! I can remember a sports show, can't remember the guy, but he always cut down Dilfer.

You cant make a case on Dilfer because he is an exception to the rule.

[billsfan123]

Peyton Manning should have no rings considering he played on pathetic defenses every year in Indy

The QB does NOT decide 90% of the game because 50% of the game is Dfense. Not to mention how much special teams effect the outcome of a game. You cant put wins and losses on a QB because football is the ultimate team sport. No matter how good a QB is, if the guy on the other end of the ball doesn't catch it, you loose. Now, of coure the better QB you have the better chance you have to win. but if QB was 90% of a game Dan Marino would have 5 Championships, Peyton would have 3 and Trent Dilfer would have 0

[Buffalo90]

Peyton Manning should have no rings considering he played on pathetic defenses every year in Indy

The year he did win the SB, that D was top 10.

[Luka_GoBills]

The year he did win the SB, that D was top 10.

21st actually...

[NYCBillsFan]

Peyton Manning should have no rings considering he played on pathetic defenses every year in Indy

The one he has is only due to the fact that Indy's D decided to show up for the playoffs that year. Look it up.....