Was Alex Smith great last year? Cuz his team went 13-3, the same as Tom Brady's team. Unless you think that Alex Smith and Tom Brady are equally as good, then just look at this example for the answer of the OP. If you think Brady and Smith played equally as well last year, then don't embarrass yourself by speaking. Furthermore, the Patriots got LUCKY to make it to the Super Bowl, while the 49ers had incredibly BAD luck to NOT make it to the Super Bowl. Anyone that watched the Championship games knows this. If a win/loss record is a reflection of how good a QB is, the Archie Manning sucked. The problem with this theory is that Archie Manning DIDN'T suck, his team did. Football is the ultimate team sport. Hell, the quarterback isn't even on the field for HALF the game or thereabouts...think about that for a second. Then, when he IS on the field, on MOST plays (or the overwhelming majority of plays), he either hands the ball off to a running back or throws a high percentage pass. I mean, Drew Brees broke the single-season passing record for yardage this year, right? Well, 124 of his passes were thrown BEHIND the line of scrimmage. 313 of his passes were thrown 1-10 yards. About one-third of his passes were thrown over 10 yards. I'm not exactly sure why I brought that up... The point is that there are 10 other guys on the field even when the QB is out there. There are only a handful of QBs that are elite and elevate the play of those around them to a huge degree. Brady won with a lot of no-name receivers. We saw what happened in Indy without Peyton Manning last year. I happen to think that the Texans had a good shot of going to the Super Bowl if Matt Schaub didn't go down...not that he's elite, but the fact (or opinion) remains. LOTS of different factors play in, including coaching. When you say the QB won the game, that's not entirely accurate. Somebody else had to block, catch the ball, run the ball, play defense, kick a fieldgoal, punt for field position, etc. You have to access each game on an individual basis to see which player deserves credit or why a team won or lost, cuz the stat sheet can be misleading.
I agree that won-lost records reflect the quality of the entire team. Sometimes the QB is the reason a team wins, or loses, certain games but over time it's a team effort. Teams win in lots of different ways, with great running games or defenses for instance. When a QB is truly great and has a very good team around him, that team will win a lot of games but too many players and factors go into the wins and losses a team has.
So you're saying that John Elway suddenly developed character when he finally won back-to-back at the end of his career? I think he got to play with an all-world halfback for the first time and that's why the Broncos won but maybe it did have something to do with him finally developing character that he did not have for the rest of his long career. And BTW, if character was what won Super Bowls Kurt Warner and the Cardinals would have buried Big Ben and the Steelers. Think about it.
Good points. Over a long period of time, W-L should show you a QB who performed consistently well. Playoff records and Super Bowls won't. Those are even less of a indicator as W-L at the skill of a QB
except winning the Super Bowl has nothing to do with a discussion about a QB's overall win/loss record. no, embarrassing is your piss poor strawman argument. saying that win/loss record reflects a QB's ability in no way equates to saying QB's are equal just because they have similar records in only one single season. taking only one season from a larger body of work is the equivalent of taking only one series of a game in which a QB went 4-4 with a TD and saying he is good and ignoring the rest of the game where he may have gone only 3-14 with 2 INT's. what is Alex Smith's career record compared to Brady's? that is where the argument starts and stops, not by isolating one example that you think makes your point. there are exceptions to every rule. does that really have to be noted to you? that's a rhetorical question because clearly it does. if your argument is so strong, you'd have more examples than just Archie Manning. you don't. this nonsense has already been shown to be a pile of shit in this thread already. nobody has said a QB is solely responsible for wins and losses, just that wins and losses are a reflection of a QB's ability. good QB's have good win/loss records. by your logic that is just a coincidence and good QB's simply happen to be lucky enough to be on winning teams, and bad QB's simply happen to have the misfortune of being on losing teams. sadly, that happens far too consistently in the NFL to be a fluke or coincidence as your argument would indicate, and is more likely that good QB's more often than not win more than they lose because of their abilities and the level of impact the QB position has on the game.
John Elway is the perfect example of why there is a difference between looking at a QB's win/loss record to identify his individual ability and how that is different than the larger team accomplishment of winning a Super Bowl. John Elway did not win a Super Bowl before he had a great team around him. conversely, it had been stated to death his entire career that he took those 4 losing Super Bowl teams to the Super Bowl predominantly on his own play and ability. it takes more than just a great QB to win a Super Bowl, but god QB's almost across the board have winning career win/loss records. the pattern of frequency of that fact reveals it isn't a coincidence, and is thus a direct reflection of a QB's ability. even Dan Marin has a 147-93 career win/loss record. clearly despite not being on a great team he was still a winning QB, and that record is a reflection of how good he was despite his team's deficiencies.
It was 3 Super Bowls the Broncos lost, 86/87/89. Jim Kelly is the guy with no character who lost 4 Super Bowls.
The bold is what I find important. career win/loss records. Thus using records like these to say "QB X went 11-5 last year so X is good" is not how to use W-L which is how it is used most of the time. Career win loss can be used as a guideline to find the QBs that were good over their careers. It shouldn't be attributed as a QB stat though just like Super Bowls and Playoff Records shouldn't be but are used by the media.
LOL. The irony here is that YOU are accusing ME of a strawman argument. I merely spoke to the question posed by the thread, which did not clarify whether he was talking about a complete career body of work or one single season...or whatever the fuck. I made a point, son, and I was not wrong. I wasn't planning on writing a book here. If you want to get specific about each QB, then have at it. Maybe you have time to sift through 10 pages or so of crap, but I don't. My logic is sound, big guy. I've been watching football for 35 years and know exactly what I think, and don't really feel the need to explain it to somebody that feels the need to act like a douchebag. I said, which was my major point, that you'd have to evaluate each case on an individual basis...does that sink in? You totally do not understand what I said, apparently. Have a good time.
whether the OP specified it or not is irrelevant to what YOU believe was a logical argument. nothing about my pointing that out, and then pointing out how piss poor your argument was, is a strawman. name 5 QB's -- 10 words. you were clearly willing to write far more than that in your original big block of nonsensical shit, so you can't reasonably attempt to claim 5 names is some vast undertaking that you aren't willing to commit to. of course, you clearly lack the ability to post anything reasonable, so I am clearly expecting too much from you. and that is why your post has no merit. no, your logic has no merit whatsoever, and 35 years of watching football isn't a valid argument from authority, which is just another example of your piss poor logic. the fact that you don't recognize that just further exemplifies why you don't identify how poor the rest of your arguments are.
