Rings.

Trent Dilfer isn't in the same stratosphere as Dan Marino, so that logic becomes faulty immediately.

 

Ha, sorry @futurecoach , didn't see your post -- but funny that we had the exact same example. Now I'm worried about myself. :bunny:

Trent Dilfer isn't in the same stratosphere as Dan Marino, so that logic becomes faulty immediately.

 

Ha, sorry @futurecoach , didn't see your post -- but funny that we had the exact same example. Now I'm worried about myself. :bunny:

 

Welcome to the dark side!

TDs and INTs for me. I like QBR but I also don't understand the analytics behind QBR so I'll go with something that is tangible and easier to grasp. Win and losses are extremely imprortant as well, but you could have a crappy defense and not win anything the reverse is also true. But if you are putting your team into the best position to win which is scoring TDs and not turning the ball over the wins should come.

Championships, then wins and losses. How many championships do you get your team to and how many do you win.

 

I know if I was an owner, I'd pay the guy that did that. My friend in the next city who is an owner can have the guy with the most yards, most TDs, best QBR, etc., if those all belong to different QB.

 

As for wins and losses. DeShaun Watson was only 3 and 3 as a starter, with 2 of those wins coming against the horrible Bengals and Browns. While scoring over 30 points in losses to the Patriots, Chiefs, and Seahawks three of the best teams in the NFL. He played amazing games and gave his team a shot to win those games. Which as we are seeing now without him, they wouldn't have even been close without him. While at the same time Blake Bortles is 6 and 3 and has won mostly because of a great defense and a top running game.

 

So since Blake Bortles was 6 and 3 and Watson was only 3 and 3 as a starter this year. Does that mean Blake Bortles is the better QB? That Blake Bortles as a QB did more to help his team? That's why even though wins and losses are important, wins and losses shouldn't be the first or second stat in determining how good a qb is. The new QBR system takes all that into account and is why it had Watson as rated much higher as a QB in terms of performance than Bortles, even though Bortles had the better record.

 

Which is why I asked the question. What is the best stat to look at in determining the true performance of a QB. What stat would give the clearest picture if a team has a QB that they probably should be good with. I think its the new QBR, but I'm interested in what others think. You think Championships, and wins and losses. I respect your opinion, I am just stating why I don't have the same opinion.

wins

TDs and INTs for me. I like QBR but I also don't understand the analytics behind QBR so I'll go with something that is tangible and easier to grasp. Win and losses are extremely imprortant as well, but you could have a crappy defense and not win anything the reverse is also true. But if you are putting your team into the best position to win which is scoring TDs and not turning the ball over the wins should come.

 

wins

 

So if wins is the most important factor. Do we think Blake Bortles was a better QB than Deshaun Watson was this year before his injury? Watson was 3 and 3 as a starter, while Bortles is now 6 and 3. Watson single handily gave his team chances to win each game and his three losses were to the Patriots, Chiefs and Seahawks. Games where his offense scored 30 plus and had a shot to win. While we have seen how bad they have been without him starting. Bortles on the other hand has won a lot of game this year by having a great defense, and a great running game and only needing to manage the game.

 

Yes wins are important, but just shows we give to much credit to QB's for when a team wins. Just like we put to much blame on them win they lose. Their are a lot of other variables. The new QBR puts that all into perspective and calculates how the QB played, and the true impact the QB had in helping their team.

 

I feel like this is good discussion because we all seem to have different opinions on QB's. Good discussion.

So if wins is the most important factor. Do we think Blake Bortles was a better QB than Deshaun Watson was this year before his injury? Watson was 3 and 3 as a starter, while Bortles is now 6 and 3. Watson single handily gave his team chances to win each game and his three losses were to the Patriots, Chiefs and Seahawks. Games where his offense scored 30 plus and had a shot to win. While we have seen how bad they have been without him starting. Bortles on the other hand has won a lot of game this year by having a great defense, and a great running game and only needing to manage the game.

 

Yes wins are important, but just shows we give to much credit to QB's for when a team wins. Just like we put to much blame on them win they lose. Their are a lot of other variables. The new QBR puts that all into perspective and calculates how the QB played, and the true impact the QB had in helping their team.

 

I feel like this is good discussion because we all seem to have different opinions on QB's. Good discussion.

I said TDs and INTs.

Out of those listed, it has to be wins.

 

The QBs job description is vastly different from team to team, based on the construct of the roster. The one item that is on every QB job description is to win.

 

In some cases (Drew Brees in recent years as an example) that means you need to put up gaudy numbers because the defense sucks.

 

In other cases (we'll use Blake Bortles this season) that means don't turn the ball over and make the occasional throw, basically just manage the game and let the defense and running game do their thing.

I said TDs and INTs.

 

I know sorry didn't mean to quote you on that.

 

As for tds, it. I think tds, yards, are all important. Which is something the traditional qb rating factored in. I'm honestly trying to bring more attention to the new qbr. That factors in all those things though but also much more. It factors in the time of a game when a throw was made, the situation.

 

Example I gave earlier was if you complete a 5 yard pass on 3rd and 5 for a first down, it gives you more points. As for when a qb completes a 5 yard pass on 3rd and 10. That 5 yard pass added to the yardage total, completion percentage. However did it do much to truly help, was it something the defense probably allowed you to catch yes. The traditional rating system wouldn't look at that. While the new qbr wouldn't award that as high as the 5 yard throw that got the first down.

 

Or say if a leads a td drive in the second quarter it gets a lot more points. Than a qb who leads a td drive while down 21 with the game out of reach with 3 minutes left. It truly calculates a more accurate rating of the impact a qb had in the game for its team. It adds more of a clutch type rating. Hence how Tom Brady always is in the top with 5 for 8 out of the last 10 years.

 

There is a good article on espn that explains how it works. After reading it I really like it. Then when I look at the qbr rankings it makes sense because those qbs usually do make that huge difference for their team.

So if wins is the most important factor. Do we think Blake Bortles was a better QB than Deshaun Watson was this year before his injury? Watson was 3 and 3 as a starter, while Bortles is now 6 and 3. Watson single handily gave his team chances to win each game and his three losses were to the Patriots, Chiefs and Seahawks. Games where his offense scored 30 plus and had a shot to win. While we have seen how bad they have been without him starting. Bortles on the other hand has won a lot of game this year by having a great defense, and a great running game and only needing to manage the game.

 

Yes wins are important, but just shows we give to much credit to QB's for when a team wins. Just like we put to much blame on them win they lose. Their are a lot of other variables. The new QBR puts that all into perspective and calculates how the QB played, and the true impact the QB had in helping their team.

 

I feel like this is good discussion because we all seem to have different opinions on QB's. Good discussion.

 

Honestly I watch very little football anymore. If it wasn't for fantasy football and the pick em contest I wouldn't know jack about it.

Out of those listed, it has to be wins.

 

The QBs job description is vastly different from team to team, based on the construct of the roster. The one item that is on every QB job description is to win.

 

In some cases (Drew Brees in recent years as an example) that means you need to put up gaudy numbers because the defense sucks.

 

In other cases (we'll use Blake Bortles this season) that means don't turn the ball over and make the occasional throw, basically just manage the game and let the defense and running game do their thing.

 

Agreed. Which qbr does factor in those things. Hence why Brees also always has been high in those rankings. If it's just wins though then we can say Bortles was the better qb than Watson this year.

 

Imo in Bortles case a lot of qbs could have that team as 6 and 3 for what they ask him to do. Which is why I think wins and losses are a hard thing to base it on.

Wins is also calculated in the QBR. You rarely find qb's who are ranked high in the QBR who doesn't have good records. Now in Blake Bortles case though it's nice because it truly takes into account how the QB played in contributing in that win, such as making a third down throw for a first down, etc. Blake Bortles currently is 17th in QBR. If it was based only one wins, then we would be saying Bortles is a top 10 qb...

So Trent Dilfer should be known as a better qb than people like Dan Marino? There is also many qbs in the NFL right now who haven't won a championship. So how would you rank them or determine which ones are good qbs who are doing all they can to help their team but don't have much around them? How do you know which ones are doing good enough and just need help to win a championship. And which ones should the team maybe move on from because that qb isn't going to get you over the top no matter what's around them?

 

So yes championships are great. However how do you determine the rest?

 

Of course, you make some excellent points that I will have to ponder.

 

However, in my scenario, I'm the owner of a team whose QB does win games and wins championships. I'll let the rest of the league figure out how to rank the remaining QBs who aren't winning championships. Rank #s 2-32 by whatever criteria you like. :lol2:

 

I'm being a little facetious but that is how Paul Brown did it when he first started out in professional football. Of course, when Otto Graham retired, he didn't find a replacement.

 

Statistics can only do so much. Making game-winning and championship-winning decisions, athletic plays, passes, and runs trumps them all. "The will to win" is hard to quantify, unless you look at W's, esp. in the big games. So if you have a QB that wins championships but doesn't lead in some other categories, like I said, I'll pay the winner others can have the stats leader.

 

And yes, it really only works for those at the top and who consistently produce. I am thinking of how you judge the GOAT, not how you evaluate someone over the short-term. That's harder. Perhaps a different question than the one you asked.

 

As for wins and losses. DeShaun Watson was only 3 and 3 as a starter, with 2 of those wins coming against the horrible Bengals and Browns. While scoring over 30 points in losses to the Patriots, Chiefs, and Seahawks three of the best teams in the NFL. He played amazing games and gave his team a shot to win those games. Which as we are seeing now without him, they wouldn't have even been close without him. While at the same time Blake Bortles is 6 and 3 and has won mostly because of a great defense and a top running game.

 

So since Blake Bortles was 6 and 3 and Watson was only 3 and 3 as a starter this year. Does that mean Blake Bortles is the better QB? That Blake Bortles as a QB did more to help his team? That's why even though wins and losses are important, wins and losses shouldn't be the first or second stat in determining how good a qb is. The new QBR system takes all that into account and is why it had Watson as rated much higher as a QB in terms of performance than Bortles, even though Bortles had the better record.

 

Which is why I asked the question. What is the best stat to look at in determining the true performance of a QB. What stat would give the clearest picture if a team has a QB that they probably should be good with. I think its the new QBR, but I'm interested in what others think. You think Championships, and wins and losses. I respect your opinion, I am just stating why I don't have the same opinion.

 

My method does not work over the short term. It is still way too early to judge DeShawn Watson or Bortles for that matter. Half a season doesn't tell me much of anything about a QB. I realize you and I are talking two different things. You want to know how to judge someone over the short-term. I am talking about how to judge a person over the course of his career.

 

I think MustangFan is correct in saying that different team situations call on QBs to do different things to win. But winning is the chief criteria. I don't think other statistics are always able to predict who the winner will be. The QBR may be the closest we've come so far.

 

It is an interesting question you raise and people in the NFL get paid big bucks to try to figure this out. They also, for the most part, have short-lived tenures trying to do so.

Of course, you make some excellent points that I will have to ponder.

 

However, in my scenario, I'm the owner of a team whose QB does win games and wins championships. I'll let the rest of the league figure out how to rank the remaining QBs who aren't winning championships. Rank #s 2-32 by whatever criteria you like. :lol2:

 

I'm being a little facetious but that is how Paul Brown did it when he first started out in professional football. Of course, when Otto Graham retired, he didn't find a replacement.

 

Statistics can only do so much. Making game-winning and championship-winning decisions, athletic plays, passes, and runs trumps them all. "The will to win" is hard to quantify, unless you look at W's, esp. in the big games. So if you have a QB that wins championships but doesn't lead in some other categories, like I said, I'll pay the winner others can have the stats leader.

 

And yes, it really only works for those at the top and who consistently produce. I am thinking of how you judge the GOAT, not how you evaluate someone over the short-term. That's harder. Perhaps a different question than the one you asked.

 

 

 

My method does not work over the short term. It is still way too early to judge DeShawn Watson or Bortles for that matter. Half a season doesn't tell me much of anything about a QB. I realize you and I are talking two different things. You want to know how to judge someone over the short-term. I am talking about how to judge a person over the course of his career.

 

I think MustangFan is correct in saying that different team situations call on QBs to do different things to win. But winning is the chief criteria. I don't think other statistics are always able to predict who the winner will be. The QBR may be the closest we've come so far.

 

It is an interesting question you raise and people in the NFL get paid big bucks to try to figure this out. They also, for the most part, have short-lived tenures trying to do so.

 

Thank you, you made some great points in your post here. You mentioned making game winning plays, passes, runs, trumps them all. Well that is something the QBR also does calculate too. While it's not perfect it really does give us a better understanding of what QB's are doing the most for the teams. Just like how Bortles is 6 and 3 but they are 6 and 3 mostly because of great defense and run game. He ranks 17th in QBR. That sounds pretty resoundable. Now are they going to win a Super Bowl with a QB like that, probably not. Even Colin Kaepernick ended up making huge plays for his team come playoff time. So Bortles is going to have to do more than just manage a game if they want to do anything come playoff time.

 

I do think you make a good point its hard to judge a QB on stats based off the short term. Would you think it would be fair to look at a QB maybe over a 5 or 10 year span by looking at the QBR during those years? This way it's not just a short term, but a much bigger sample size? QBR seems to be the best indicator we have with all that and does calculate wins, tds, interceptions, game winning decisions, etc. So looking at QB's QBR over a 5 or 10 year period would be a good criteria in determine how good they are don't you think?

I'm surprised you didn't include leadership. Does QBR take into account the "it" factor?