and what did those teams do w/o them? even teams fall into the trap of tantalizing #s but the #s themselves are only important when they are being accumulated. I agree about Geno, the #1 priority should be to upgrade the talent around him. I have not given up on him.
What did they do without them? They spent the rest of their careers as backups. So you think it's fair to stick with a backup level QB as the starter? It really isn't about numbers. Numbers are a result of everything round the team working well. Numbers are the result of good play. The Ravens wanted to upgrade their QB position because they knew Dilfer wasn't the answer. They just happened to have won a SB.
Billick thought he was smarter than everyone and that's why he can't get a HC job again. They would have had chances to win more had they kept Dilfer. certain QBs are better fits for certain teams, he was perfect for Baltimore. Didn't make many mistakes, made a few big plays a game, didn't try to do too much. Brad Johnson was in his late 30s when he left TB. I am not saying these guys should be in canton, they were average QBs but they didn't kill their teams in January like so many supposed better QBs. I will take a Dilfer/Johnson/Sanchez type over a Rivers/Romo/Schaub type any day.
They wanted a QB that could do more than what Dilfer was capable of doing. Are they wrong for attempting to upgrade? And no one knows how things would've turned out had they kept Dilfer.
it was proven they were wrong. we don't know what would have happened had Dilfer stayed, we do know what happened when he left.
yeah and by not getting to one. Bal won 1 playoff game from 2001-2007, TB hasn't won a playoff game since Johnson.
No to mention he has a house in the area, went to college in the area, and would be able to play in front family away form the NY spotlight. No way he even steps foot in NY.
I think they win more than 1 playoff game over the next few years w/ Trent. we'll never know tho0uhg but what we do know is they went from SB champs to 1 playoff win for the next 7 seasons.
do you want to win? you'll trust me, if you want to lose games and win fantasy points we'll trust your average fan opinions.
With you as GM, we probably have 3 or 4 Super Bowl wins by now and Sanchez would be known as the greatest QB ever. :rofl:
FWIW... Final Quarterback Rankings for 2010 and Some Football Thoughts January 11, 2011 A few days ago I was watching a panel discussion on quarterbacks on the NFL Network. Or maybe it was at ESPN. Actually I am not sure. In fact, I am not sure who was on the panel. I do remember, though, the discussion. The discussion focused on the value of Jay Cutler and Aaron Rodgers. And one person on the panel – who said he was a “numbers guy” – argued that Rodgers was clearly the better quarterback. Another member of the panel, though, argued that Cutler didn’t have the same quality of teammates. Therefore, it was not surprising that Cutler didn’t have the same numbers. Consequently, maybe Cutler was the better quarterback. My response to this debate: I agree. In other words, I sort of agree with both sides. People have argued that the numbers in basketball are misleading because of the interactions between teammates. I have looked into this claim (repeatedly) and find that the size of these interactions appear quite small (see the FAQ page for some of this discussion – and see Stumbling on Wins for even more). So when it comes to basketball, we really can use the box score numbers to accurately evaluate individual players. In football, though, these interactions appear to be much greater. At least, when we look at the numbers we see a great deal of inconsistency. A quarterback’s past performance is a relatively poor predictor (at least, relative to what we see in basketball) of a quarterback’s future performance. Part of this inconsistency is due to injuries (very common in football) and the small number of games football players actually play. But one suspects, part of this is also due to the fact a quarterback’s numbers depend upon the quality of his receivers, offensive line, and running backs. So if you are looking at the numbers of two quarterbacks, you have to consider who the quarterback is playing with (and let’s not forget, who the quaterback gets to play). And all that means the conclusions we can reach with the numbers from football are going to be somewhat weak. That being said, since we have some numbers, let’s leap to some weak conclusions. Before we get to the conclusions, let’s look at the numbers. The following table reports – for all quarterbacks who participated in at least 100 plays this past season – each quarterback’s QB rating (the NFL’s metric), total yards (including yards from passing, rushing, and sacks), total plays (pass attempts, rushing attempts, and sacks), all turnovers (interceptions and fumbles lost), Wins Produced (a metric detailed in The Wages of Wins, Stumbling on Wins, and other places), and Wins Produced per 100 plays (WP100). And what do these numbers indicate? Whether we look at QB Rating or WP100, the top three quarterbacks in 2010 were Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, and Aaron Rodgers. Although the two metrics agree on the top three quarterbacks, there are some disagreements after this point. Specifically, QB Rating appears to overrate the play of Matthew Stafford, David Garrard, Rex Grossman, Jay Cutler, and Joe Flacco (each of these players is ranked at least 10 spots higher by QB Rating relative to WP100). And QB Rating underrates the play of Troy Smith, Tim Tebow, Mark Sanchez, and Donovan McNabb (each of these players is ranked at least 10 spots higher by WP100 relative to QB Rating). As one might suspect, I prefer the WP100 rankings (for reasons detailed in The Wages of Wins, Stumbling on Wins, and other places). So what are some of the stories this specific ranking tells? Of the 48 quarterbacks who saw at least 100 plays of action, Tim Tebow was a top 10 quarterback in 2010. Yes, Tebow was “good”. Does this mean Tebow will be good in the future? Again, quarterbacks are inconsistent. But his numbers this year were “good”. Of the two Smiths employed in San Francisco, Troy was a top 10 quarterback and Alex… well, he wasn’t. So maybe the Niners should have stayed with Troy. NFL quarterbacks participated in 19,784 plays in 2010 and produced 90.56 wins. Given these numbers, per 100 plays an NFL quarterback produced 0.458 wins. And that means, Alex Smith – with a WP100 of 0.445 — produced at a rate that was only slightly below what we saw from a typical NFL quarterback. So maybe Alex Smith can help someone in the future (i.e. a team that employes a substantially below average quarterback like the Carolina Panthers). Fourteen teams have more than one quarterback listed. For some teams – like the Arizona Cardinals (Derek Anderson and John Skelton), Carolina Panthers (Jimmy Clausen and Matt Moore), Denver Broncos (Tim Tebow and Kyle Orton), Detroit Lions (Shaun Hill and Drew Stanton), and Minnesota Vikings (Joe Webb and Brett Favre) the overall rankings of each quarterback on the same team are virtually the same (within three spots in the rankings). That suggests (but only suggests) that each quarterback’s success or failure was about the players around the quarterback and not the person actually taking the snaps from center. For other teams – like the Buffalo Bills (Ryan Fitzpatrick and Trent Edwards), Philadelphia Eagles (Michael Vick and Kevin Kolb), and Washington Redskins (Donovan McNabb and Rex Grossman), the rankings of each quarterback on the same team differ by 20 spots or more. That suggests that the quality of quarterbacks employed by these teams was quite different. The best rookie quarterbacks – according to WP100 – were as follows: Tim Tebow (drafted 25th overall), Colt McCoy (drafted 85th overall), Sam Bradford (drafted 1st overall), Joe Webb (drafted 199th overall), John Skelton (drafted 155th overall), and Jimmy Clausen (drafted 48th overall). Obviously Sam Bradford played the most. And as we have seen in the past, those drafted higher got to play more in 2010. But on a per-play basis, those drafted higher did not seem to perform better. Of course, those drafted higher did get paid a great deal more. By the way, if we look back on the 2009 draft, the top quarterbacks in 2010 (of those who got to play) were as follows: Josh Freeman (drafted 17th overall), Mark Sanchez (drafted 5th overall), and Matthew Stafford (drafted 1st overall). So would the Lions have been better off drafting Josh Freeman or Mark Sanchez? Certainly each choice would have been cheaper if the Lions managed to trade down to make the selection. Of course, one could argue that a healthy Stafford is still the better choice. Then again, one could also argue that Stafford has yet to be healthy. Once again, one has to remember that whether you are “numbers guy” or not, the numbers we see in football don’t allow us to reach strong conclusions about the play of individual quarterbacks. One suspects that given a change in teammates, quality of competition, coaching, etc., the numbers we see from any quarterback could go up or down considerably. And that means, we should be hesitant to conclude that any of these quarterbacks are substantially “better” or “worse” than any other quarterback (and therefore, paying one quarterback much more than you pay another – in many cases (although perhaps not all) – is not wise).
...but when it comes to Sanchez, we would be 9-4 right now. And don't forget, Sanchez improves our defense too.
That is an older picture, I finally quit smoking. I just chew tobacco now. thanks for posting more stats!
