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

[Scott7975]

There was a 5 game drop off in wins the very next year with Cassell...that's alot.

2 games the next year with brady and 3 the next.

Different years, different teams, different schedules. Obviously Brady is a HoF QB and will win you some games but a nobody still went 11-5. That is with pretty much no chemistry on the team. Brady had years of chemistry.

[Big B]

Every position makes a difference. Having a better kicker could lead to more wins. Having a better nickel corner can lead to more wins. Having a better QB can lead to more wins. Yes, QB is the most important position. But I would definitely say that QB makes up less than half of the total influence on the team. Offense and defense are 50/50. So let's say the QB determines 80% of the outcome of the offense. That still means 60% of the entire game is influenced by non-QB players. And I'm ignoring special teams. Therefore, the team is more important than the QB.

[eddie1970]

it takes a team effort to win look at last years superbowl brady threw perfect passes to his recievers and they dropped them and they lost enough said

[sirniles2004]

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 personally think that counting a win or loss for any one player in a team sport is stupid. But I do have a theory as to why it makes slightly more sense in baseball as opposed to football.

The reason you can count wins for a baseball pitcher and not for a qb is because baseball pitchers have the ability to single handidly effect their win loss record, whereas a qb does not.

In baseball, a pitcher in both leagues has the ability to make sure all on his own that he never loses a game. If he throws great pitches and strikes out every single batter, he can never lose(not likely, but it is possible).

And in the National league, a pitcher has the ability to win every single game even if the rest of his team does absolutely nothing. If he strikes out every single batter, and hits a home run every game, he would win every game 1-0 even if the rest of his team never hit the ball all season. He could theoretically have a perfect record without anyone else contributing whatsoever(again, it's almost a sure bet that this never happens, but it is possible).

The qb in the NFL doesn't even have this possibility. No matter how many great passes he throws, if his teammates don't catch it, he can't score. And even if he is the best running qb of all time, he can't score if no one else blocks. And he has no control over the defense or special teams.

No matter what an NFL qb does, he has to depend on teammates to have any possibility of success. The same isn't true for a MLB pitcher. The possibility is there for a pitcher to do it on his own, even if that possibility is impossibly slim.

[steve2006]

You can if you want. The most important stat is team wins and losses and if a QB plays on a team that has a good record in that department, he should get lots of credit for it, given that QB is the most important position IMO.

[Flea]

Wow, this discussion went off way better than I thought it would. Some excellent points on both sides of the issue.

Personally I don't think it makes sense for a QB to have a win/loss record and I also believe the same about a baseball pitcher. Both are team sports and the wins and losses should count to the team and not any one single player.

With that said, I think if you looked at all the good to great QB's and Pitchers you would find that they all have good win/loss records if you were to look them up.

Terry Bradshaw 107-51
Tom Brady 124-35
Drew Brees 92-61
John Elway 148-82-1
Jim Kelly - 101-59
Peyton Manning - 141-67
Joe Montana - 117-47

Now this is to just name a few QB's. I think you will also find that QB's that we all think are just average will more then likely have an average win/loss record

I've heard Trent Dilfer mentioned his win/loss is 58-55
How about Drew Bledsoe, big arm, average QB his win/loss is 98-95

So all in all I think the good ones will win, the average ones will be 50/50 and the bad ones will have losing records.

[Joe Fan]

Wow, this discussion went off way better than I thought it would. Some excellent points on both sides of the issue.

Personally I don't think it makes sense for a QB to have a win/loss record and I also believe the same about a baseball pitcher. Both are team sports and the wins and losses should count to the team and not any one single player.

With that said, I think if you looked at all the good to great QB's and Pitchers you would find that they all have good win/loss records if you were to look them up.

Terry Bradshaw 107-51
Tom Brady 124-35
Drew Brees 92-61
John Elway 148-82-1
Jim Kelly - 101-59
Peyton Manning - 141-67
Joe Montana - 117-47

Now this is to just name a few QB's. I think you will also find that QB's that we all think are just average will more then likely have an average win/loss record

I've heard Trent Dilfer mentioned his win/loss is 58-55
How about Drew Bledsoe, big arm, average QB his win/loss is 98-95

So all in all I think the good ones will win, the average ones will be 50/50 and the bad ones will have losing records.

There really shouldn't be any QB stats. Someone has to catch the ball. And before that the oline needs to block to allow the passer time for at least a 3 step drop, and before that someone needs to center the ball without fumbling it, and before that an RB needs to establish some credibility so the defense has to account for him. And before that the defense or special teams has to get the ball.

Each passing play is an entire team effort. Its complete nonsense to evaluate QBs on passing pct. , passer rating, ypc, ypa or total yards. We will never really know if Tom Brady is a good QB or just played on great teams with great receivers and linemen. Same for Peyton Manning or Joe Montana. Looking at stats or win loss records for QBs would is a foolish way to decide which QBs are good.

[Buffalo90]

21st actually...

Wow, I was off. I didn't realize they were that bad against the run.

[Luka_GoBills]

Wow, I was off. I didn't realize they were that bad against the run.

Well, they pulled a Giants and the defense came alive in the playoffs. That was the year Sanders was hurt almost all year but got healthy just in time for the playoffs.

[Flea]

There really shouldn't be any QB stats. Someone has to catch the ball. And before that the oline needs to block to allow the passer time for at least a 3 step drop, and before that someone needs to center the ball without fumbling it, and before that an RB needs to establish some credibility so the defense has to account for him. And before that the defense or special teams has to get the ball.

Each passing play is an entire team effort. Its complete nonsense to evaluate QBs on passing pct. , passer rating, ypc, ypa or total yards. We will never really know if Tom Brady is a good QB or just played on great teams with great receivers and linemen. Same for Peyton Manning or Joe Montana. Looking at stats or win loss records for QBs would is a foolish way to decide which QBs are good.

I'm on the fence on this opinion. Only because we can now see how good Peyton is, he is on a new team with new players and new coordinators. We should certainly be able to evaluate that.

Plus for Joe Montana, the last 2 years of his career were in Kansas City and he played 25 games in those 2 years and went 17-8 with new players and new coaches and what not. So I can certainly say that Joe Montana was a great QB.

However if we don't look at all the stats that you mentioned above, how do we evaluate QB's. There has to be something to distinquish the great ones from the average ones to the poor ones.

[Wright84]

stopped commenting on here last year, but this topic seems interesting so in regards to our bills i feel the need to ask and present this question

How many times in the past 2 -3 years has our team LOST a game due to these factors

Bad Coaching decision - I can think of the KC game everyone blames Fitz for losing 2 seasons ago where in reality, Gailey should have played a better field so Lindell can hit the winner.

Baltimore game where Fitz puts up ENORMOUS numbers - our defense couldnt stop a thing that game - we lose by a fumble in OT

I love the guy and hate to bring this up - a HUGE Pittsburgh Steelers game i remember our QB hitting our Number 1 right in stride for the game winning TD.

Numerous times i see Fitz taking the flack for lost games that indeed was all defense losing those games for us. COuld we have put up 28-35 points a game and won? Sure - but in every game you have situations where you are going to have a "Pitchers duel" its going to be 1-0, or whatever the case may be 7-3, 7-0, 10-7 - those type of games happen...its upto you defense as well as offense to execute - not just the QB.

Has fitz lost games and missed opportunities? I can recall even the best in the game doing that - Kelly, Marino, Elway, all the way on down to the golden boy Tom Brady (superbowls even, go figure) and Peyton Manning...

[Joe Fan]

I'm on the fence on this opinion. Only because we can now see how good Peyton is, he is on a new team with new players and new coordinators. We should certainly be able to evaluate that.

Plus for Joe Montana, the last 2 years of his career were in Kansas City and he played 25 games in those 2 years and went 17-8 with new players and new coaches and what not. So I can certainly say that Joe Montana was a great QB.

However if we don't look at all the stats that you mentioned above, how do we evaluate QB's. There has to be something to distinquish the great ones from the average ones to the poor ones.

I was being sarcastic. I think you look at all the stats, including wins and losses. I was just pointing out that the "its a team" argument is true for every single stat and isn't exclusive to wins and losses. That is not a reason to exclude considering wins and losses. P. Manning, Tom Brady and Joe Montana all put up huge numbers and many wins. That is why they are among the greatest ever.

[Luka_GoBills]

Wow, this discussion went off way better than I thought it would. Some excellent points on both sides of the issue.

Personally I don't think it makes sense for a QB to have a win/loss record and I also believe the same about a baseball pitcher. Both are team sports and the wins and losses should count to the team and not any one single player.

With that said, I think if you looked at all the good to great QB's and Pitchers you would find that they all have good win/loss records if you were to look them up.

Terry Bradshaw 107-51
Tom Brady 124-35
Drew Brees 92-61
John Elway 148-82-1
Jim Kelly - 101-59
Peyton Manning - 141-67
Joe Montana - 117-47

Now this is to just name a few QB's. I think you will also find that QB's that we all think are just average will more then likely have an average win/loss record

I've heard Trent Dilfer mentioned his win/loss is 58-55
How about Drew Bledsoe, big arm, average QB his win/loss is 98-95

So all in all I think the good ones will win, the average ones will be 50/50 and the bad ones will have losing records.

The ones on the best TEAMS have the most Super Bowl wins. Bradshaw and Montana. Brady with a defense, 3 wins. Brady with no defense, 2 losses. This is pretty easy to understand. Great individual performances can win games, they can't win championships.

[Flea]

I was being sarcastic. I think you look at all the stats, including wins and losses. I was just pointing out that the "its a team" argument is true for every single stat and isn't exclusive to wins and losses. That is not a reason to exclude considering wins and losses. P. Manning, Tom Brady and Joe Montana all put up huge numbers and many wins. That is why they are among the greatest ever.

HaHa, jrb you'll have to excuse me. I'm getting older and i don't recognize sarcasm as quickly as I used to.

[Chuck Norris EDIT actually nevermind]

Simple as this, depends on who the QB is and what the situation is where he plays. Will we credit the NYJ wins to Mark Sanchez or the defense/run game in comparison to us crediting Peyton Manning with wins vs his "stellar" (sarcasm) defense/run game.

[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.....

[billsfan123]

Unbelievable what are you smoking those Indy teams could not stop the run if not for the defense Peyton would have at least 4 rings. The Indianapolis colts never had and will never have a defense. Please don't ever talk defense and the colts in the same sentence

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.....

[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.

[Tates]

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...Vi00/gamelog//

look at 2007 - Tenn wins 9 games with VY at the helm - in 5 of those games he doesn't throw a TD pass, his QB rating is below 60 in those 5 games and the defense holds the other team to 13 points or less - in 3 games the other team doesn't get 10 points.

We had six wins last season and Fitz was never below a 78 passer rating in those wins. If he has a game like VY did in any of these five wins - we most likely lose those games - perhaps we beat Washington or Denver but the other 4 games are sure losses.

VY was very often carried by his team. Ditto Tebow last year.

So to the OPs question - why can't you count wins and losses to the QB? - you can, if he is the reason they win or lose. Citing Kelly and Montana and co, you have to consider the team they were on - compare Fitz's numbers in his first year as a named starter in camp, and he comes out pretty well against a lot of folks.

With all stats, you have to look at them in context - in nearly 1/3 (10) of VYs wins, his rating was below 70 - with Fitz, only one time did he have a rating below 70.

In VYs wins, he averaged barely over 1 TD per game - in Fitz' wins, it is nearly 2 a game.

[Flea]

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...Vi00/gamelog//

look at 2007 - Tenn wins 9 games with VY at the helm - in 5 of those games he doesn't throw a TD pass, his QB rating is below 60 in those 5 games and the defense holds the other team to 13 points or less - in 3 games the other team doesn't get 10 points.

We had six wins last season and Fitz was never below a 78 passer rating in those wins. If he has a game like VY did in any of these five wins - we most likely lose those games - perhaps we beat Washington or Denver but the other 4 games are sure losses.

VY was very often carried by his team. Ditto Tebow last year.

So to the OPs question - why can't you count wins and losses to the QB? - you can, if he is the reason they win or lose. Citing Kelly and Montana and co, you have to consider the team they were on - compare Fitz's numbers in his first year as a named starter in camp, and he comes out pretty well against a lot of folks.

With all stats, you have to look at them in context - in nearly 1/3 (10) of VYs wins, his rating was below 70 - with Fitz, only one time did he have a rating below 70.

In VYs wins, he averaged barely over 1 TD per game - in Fitz' wins, it is nearly 2 a game.

Certainly I think if we specifically look at stats I think Fitz is slightly ahead. If we look at wins and losses then VY is ahead. I agree this is quite the anomily(sp?).

I'm thinking that this is more the exception then it is the rule. I think that all the QB's that we think are the best either in history or playing the game today I think you will find that they have winning records.

Of course it could be one of those chicken and egg thing. Which came first, the QB or the team?

I think in the case of Peyton Manning he came first and then they built around him. In the case of say Aaron Rogers, the team was already in place and he was the missing piece. What say all of you?