BSPN has been dreadfully awful since Disney took over. Not that people don't discuss QB's by wins and losses but that's not a great litmus test you've got there. Just because QB's are discussed in terms of wins and losses doesn't mean they're solely responsible for them. It's a team stat. That's why the standings are listed with W's and L's by team and not by the starting QB.
The argument was never they were solely responsible for them. If that is your criteria, completions, TDs and passing yards are a team stat and not QB stats because the QB isn't solely responsible for them. And this is just an example. Do you truly believe it is the first and only discussion of a QB's record as a starting QB? If win-loss records are kept for the QB's then it's a QB stat. The fact that win-loss records aren't kept for any other position in football proves this. That's like arguing win-losses aren't a coaching stat, it's a team stat. Are you going to take that asinine position in the face of the fact that win-loss statistics are kept and discussed for coaches just like QB's? Coaches aren't solely responsible for wins and losses but it's a clearly a coaching statistic. You don't have to look any farther than baseball. Wins-losses are a pitching stat; are pitchers SOLELY responsible for them? Of course not. The "solely responsible" argument has zero merit in every football statistic. Not one single play is a solely individual performance of a player in football.
Really because that's what it sounds like when you say this: I like the analogy of coaching w/l stats to qb w/l stats but that was never the direction this was going, or at least I never understood it that way. That sounds like a different discussion.
Equating a QB's impact on wins and losses in no way equates them to being solely responsible for wins and losses. The solely responsible argument is a incorrect understanding of any football statistic and not applicable to any stat, including wins and losses, so any reading into the discussion on that criteria was simply a flawed interpretation on your part and not an element of the argument I was making.
You claimed Geno, who is a bad QB, would amount to the same amount of wins as Fitz, who is an average QB, and based it on prior w/l records on different teams. So what are you doing when you say that?
they are both bad QBs at this moment but hopefully Geno can turn into a decent QB starting this year.
I'm saying their impacts on wins and losses based on their career records as starters is nearly identical. Again, nothing about that equates to them being solely responsible for those wins and losses even if it reflects their contribution to wins and losses.
How are you measuring their impacts on wins and losses in completely different situations? That's what you need to explain if you think all things being equal they provide the same impact on a w/l.
Hey Blue, I know far more about football and everything else except how to be a perseverating moron on a sports message board. You have that down I will give you. Your argument is ridiculous. Is football a team sport or not? You get the wrong answer there, so obviously you don't know shit about the game. You can't even get taht right. It is pointless discussing this further with you. You probably belong on Ignore.
Hey dumbass, similar results in a team context DOES NOT mean that the the effects, here your word impacts, is the same. Why? Because other players on a team in a team sport have an impact, too. Watch the game for a change.
No, that simply isn't necessary. Their individual performances don't have to be compared and/or equal to assert that their impacts on wins/losses are equal. what you seem to want to argue is that if we can identify differences in their performances we can project that to differences in their future outcomes. problem is that is speculation that runs contrary to their existing impact on wins and losses, especially when we have a large enough sample size in Fitzpatrick's case that shows despite his individual performances being potentially different than Geno's it still equated to identical wins and losses.
this isn't a watch the game scenario. you simply don't understand what statistics are. I've already proven your dumbfuck argument false.
You haven't proven shit. Your post before this one is the most stupid, meandering, unconvincing post I've seen here in a long time. You again equate results of a team sport with the individual contributions of two players, ignoring stats that better focus on those individual contributons by instead arguing that we should look at the team's results instead. How stupid is that? Answer - very. Have a nice day, loser.
If given no other choice and given what's on the roster and the roster itself I would far prefer a qb with a small gap between ceiling and floor. Stability at the position performance wise is important to me short term. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hah. You aren't speculating when you declare there impact on wins and losses is equal? You have done nothing to support your case other than to declare it is the truth. Thanks for that.
Normally yes, I would agree with BB/LTJF regarding win/loss record and it being unfair to judge a QB by.. I totally get that it's a team sport, but Fitzpatrick is a unique breed, I think it is relevant in his case. He's a guy who gets by with his smarts and his efforts... If we looked at just talent, he really doesn't belong in the league. He doesn't have an NFL arm and it limits him dramatically. Relying on smarts and effort can only get you so far. I watched him very closely in Buffalo and other place because I like him, but that rang true. When the 4th quarter rolled around or his team needed that tough 3rd down pickup, the majority of the time he couldn't get it because he just doesn't have it.. The great Bill Walsh once said about Steve Deberg (a journeyman very similar to Fitzpatrick).. "the way he plays, he keeps both teams in the game" That's how Fitzpatrick is- He isn't going to meltdown out there like we've seen a lot of Jets QBs recently do but he also isn't going to win you games. He's not a game manager because in order to be considered a game manager, you have to have the ability to manage the game. He doesn't do that- he doesn't have the ability manage anything on the field himself.. He's a great guy to have in the locker room and a great guy to have as a backup QB in any situation, but he holds teams back when he's on the field. That's why he's bounced around this league. I'm glad he's here because it was a cheap, value pickup and maybe Geno Smith or another young QB can learn from his smarts and efforts but it's also important to have the right expectations here. In essence what I am saying is- Fitzpatrick's win / loss record is more relevant than most QBs when incorporated with other statistics because it is a good representation of how he plays... He is fine in short runs but when the game is on the line to WIN games and a play is needed- - he simply can't make that play.. hence the win/loss record. I think it's telling that Fitzpatrick has started exactly 60 more games than Geno Smith (89-29), yet only has 2 more game winning drives (9-7). One guy has all the talent in the world but no brain, the other the extreme opposite, yet when the game is on the line and it's about reaction, not thinking, talent usually makes a difference. That's why W/L record is relevant for a guy like Fitzpatrick.. read this article if you like, I think it's good: http://www.sportsonearth.com/articl...night-nfl-indianapolis-colts-ryan-fitzpatrick
First of all to clarify I never said or thought that how a Qb fits into a team is irrelevant to how the team ends up doing in terms of wins and losses. As the most important player on the field the Qb will have more impact on the outcome than any other player. But at the same time too many other factors affect the outcome to make it a reliable or more than minimally useful Qb stat to look too much at won lost record. Not the least of other factors ironically is how well the opposing Qb does against your team's D. But I do want to clarify the bit about game managers and winning games. I am not sure how you get support for saying Fitz is not a game manager by referring to his asserted lack of game winning drives. Seems like not the usual definition of a game manager. I must be missing something. As for the stat of game winning drives, I don't know how much use that has here. Take two Qb's of equal talent, and one plays on a team with a great D that does not give up alot of points. the other on a team with a bad D that does give up a lot of points. It seems obvious to cut this short that the first Qb will have nore OPPORTUNITIES to attempt a game winning drive than the second. And also see what could have been game winning drives become not game winning drives if after having taken the lead the other team retakes the lead thanks for the most part to that bad defense. And regarding your observation that Fitz does not make game winning plays, focusing on single playes, you cant win a game on a single play if your team is down by more than one score, either. No matter how great a play it is. Back to SMith and Fitz, I of course know with everyone else here how bad the Jets' pass D was last year, how they gave up 31 Td's. But on the whole when one is talking about career numbers to date, I am thinking Smith has played with a better defensive team than Fitz has over the course of his career. In short I think even under your argument one should not try and make too much of team won lost percentage as disproportionately on Fitz.
