Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by KeyFin, Aug 7, 2017.
I don't think you watched that game.
You claiming a playoff win as a benchmark if a QB is good or not, means you believe W/L is a QB stat without you having to specifically state it.
As has been pointed out to you, Marino did not win a SB and Differ did, so following your logic Dilfer is a better QB than Marino.
This goes both ways.
Let me reiterate, does a "solid" QB generally have zero playoff wins? Which you originally declared, as an objective altruism.
Following your logic: any QB that you designate as a better QB than a crappy one, even with zero playoff victories, is the better investment.
Yes, a solid QB can absolutely have zero playoff wins and a crappy QB can even have a SB win. Football is a team sport. Wins and losses are not individual player benchmarks in football.
And yet, quarterbacks are judged (fairly or unfairly) by wins/losses and how many rings they have collected.
Dan Marino is my favorite QB of all time, and it's a damn shame that he never got a ring. He was one of the most talented that I've seen to ever lace up the cleats. That said, for comparison sake, I know that many people would rank Montana over him because of the rings.
Is that fair? Nope. That's simply the reality and culture we live in, and goes with the scrutiny of the position.
It's not fair but you do it? That makes no sense.
Why isn't Dilfer a better QB than Marino?
Would you so kindly quote me, verbatim, wherein I've compared them (either fairly or unfairly)?
I will be the first to admit, I loved Doughty in college ... I don't know what happened to him, perhaps it's because he doesn't get the coaching/attention he needs to develop, but the guy was as talented as anyone making throws in college... now he's just trying to play catch and not screw up... i dont know if tebow could have been worse out there today.
You're not making sense. Let's start over.
- You think a QB should be judged by wins and losses.
- I disagree with that, because football is an extreme team sport.
- You disagree with that and the reason you gave is that people judge players by results.
- I say if it's fair to judge QBs by wins and losses, then why isn't Dilfer (SB winner) a better QB than Marino (SB loser)?
- You haven't answered that question.
So that is where we are.
I'll give him all the credit he deserves, he's a gamer, no doubt about it, and a leader, but winning one playoff game doesn't make you a better QB, he was pathetic in his other playoff appearance btw, completing only 34% of his passes.
We also have to remember that teams were willing to put up with the protesting, hate mail and huge negative media feeding frenzy that surrounded signing the Dog Killer, teams were willing to put up with that because they thought that the Dog Killer could help them win.
So if teams were willing to put up with that mess, the worst the NFL has ever seen regarding the signing of a player, then the TT distraction can't be the reason he's not on a team, by simple process of elimination.
That's simply not true. You stated some objective facts, and then in turn, I did the same thing.
I'd be more than happy to start anew.
No, I've never said that. It's simply one measurement in the perception and legacy of their success.
Would you agree or disagree with the above?
If course it's a team sport, but that doesn't negate the fact that quarterbacks are pinpointed as the lightning rods that lead said teams.
And now, you're making things up again. Please refrain from the chicanery of creating a narrative that never happened.
Firstly, I have never disagreed with you that football is a team sport. You conjured that up out of thin air, and are assuming something that was never said. Once again, if you would be so kind, please quote me verbatim wherein such language and statement was made.
You simply can't.
Because wins and losses are not the sole and only criterion in which a quarterback is measured over their career.
There's a multitude of factors and statistical analysis. You already know all of this, so this rhetorical question at this stage of conversation seems redundant.
There's your answer.
Seems I've answered every one of your answers succinctly and out of common courtesy. Why have you been so reluctant and not done the same?
If Ryan Tannehill is such a "solid" quarterback, then why does he not have a playoff victory? Meanwhile, the "terrible" QB named Tebow has accomplished that feat.
There's been many quarterbacks over the years that have experienced success (such as a playoff victory) despite the deck and odds stacked against them - poor coaching, awful offensive lines, bad teams, injuries, lame coaches and coordinators, offensive and defensive philosophy, et cetera. Ryan Tannehill has gone through some of these obstacles over his career, and so has Tim Tebow.
Some quarterbacks overcome those pratfalls despite it, and others do not. Up to this point in his career, Ryan Tannehill most certainly has not.
I know that. No where in this thread, or elsewhere for that matter, have I said that Tebow is the better quarterback.
I simply pointed out an objective fact, in that he has won a playoff game and Ryan Tannehill has not. The original comparison between the two quarterbacks was also not my brainstorm.
Like I said prior, I don't have a horse in this race - nor am I particularly fond of either one of them. As far as the circus that followed Tebow, I agree with you.
You started this by implying Tannehill is not objectively a better QB than Tebow because Tebow "won" a playoff game. You said that here:
All I've been trying to get across to you, is that w/l, playoffs, SBs, etc. are terrible benchmarks for how good a QB is.
You argue that by saying "well, other people do it". You also admitted it is not fair.
I'm not sure what you're goal is here, but you're all over the place. Tebow being on a team that won a playoff game does not, in anyway, make him a good QB. So since it has no bearing on how good a QB he is or is not, bringing it up in a comparison to Tannehill, is as I said before, ridiculous.
Spin all you want. Move the goalposts. Flail. Do backbends. Whatever. Your point that Tannheill isn't a better QB than Tebow because the Broncos won playoff game is meaningless.
That's not the least bit true. I simply laid out some objective facts about both quarterbacks. You made the initial comparison between them, and then I added another facet to it.
You made it out to be cut and dry, and that's simply not the case.
"Terrible" is not the syntax that I would ascribe in those benchmarks. It's just another tool that will be measured over their career, franchise, and fan base.
No matter what you think of it, that "terrible benchmark" will still be applied and linked with their overall success.
You started the Tannehill comparison, and I simply brought up another objective fact in your comparison.
I don't have an underlying goal or agenda here, other than I disagree with some of your thoughts. That's going to happen in this world, and I'm certain it's not the first time that you've experienced some discord.
It's alright if you want to keep dodging direct questions, I kind of expected that.
It is true. You pointed it out as if it matters to the comparison, when it doesn't. That's the point you're not getting.
I know it's not the syntax you would describe. You've made that clear. It is also understood that the benchmark will be used. I never argued that it wouldn't be used, that doesn't make it valid, however. You repeating it over and over, doesn't change that fact either.
Actually, i didn't start the Thill comparison. I know what you brought up and yes, it is objective fact. It also, has no bearing on the comparison. Tebow could like hard boiled eggs and Thill could not. You could bring up Tebow's love of hard boiled eggs as an objective fact and it would as much to do with his abilities as a QB as the playoff win.
If it didn't matter, then why continue to argue with such dogged determination?
Don't fool yourself, it matters.
It happened and is stenciled into the books, hence it's completely valid and a part of history when examining the overall picture.
Discard or disregard information all you like, but I'm not a proponent of that camp. At the end of the day, it will still be there and documented.
You brought up these "objective" facts between the two quarterbacks. KeyFin wasn't comparing them.
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that it does have bearing on the conversation and comparison, and your dismissal of such means a rigid or narrow viewpoint of the entire picture.
This part of your post doesn't;t actually make sense.
Again, your argument is all over the place. You are going from a playoff win matters in evaluating a QB to a playoff win happened.
Keyfin brought up Thill. He compared them.
There's nothing narrow about my viewpoint.
I'll ask you again to provide a detailed analysis of how much a QB and all other positions and coaches and FO members affect a win. If you do that and it makes sense then your claims will validity, until then they do not. All you're doing in this discussion is saying playoffs wins matter when talking about how good a QB is, but you've provided literally nothing from facts to stats to evidence to back that claim. And in avoiding all that, you've claimed I'm being narrow about this.
If it didn't matter, common sense dicates the person would move on satisfied in their position.
Well, that's out the window.
I've been steady eddie throughout, and haven't changed my stance one iota.
You've continually ducked pointed questions, purposefully. That has been a common thematic throughout.
He mentioned Tannehill's name, he did not compare the two quarterbacks. You started the quarterback comparison between the two of them.
Please stop lying, that's just poor form and academically perfidious at best. It might behoove you to actually re-read the context and origin of this disagreement.
Giving no credit to Tebow for helping lead his team to playoff win flies in the face of that.
I'm not interested or inclined to provide you with anything, especially since you have continually dodged answering rudimentary questions posed to you.
What have I repeatedly dodged?
That one's easy- Marino literally re-wrote the record books and many records have stood for 20+ years in a new, pass-happy league where QB's are treated like ballerinas. Dilfer had one decent season where he won a Super Bowl- clearly they aren't on the same level.
Here's where it gets interesting though-
Marino was 147-93 as a starter, which is a 61.2% win percentage.
Dilfer was 58-55 as a starter, which is a 51.3% win percentage.
So in this case, W/L record does show who the better QB was.
For comparison, Elway was 148-83, or a 63.9% win rate.
P. Manning is at 70.1%
Brady is at 77.8%
For some less elite QB's-
Tebow is at 57.1%
RG3 is at 37.5%
Tannehill is at 48.0%
Cutler is at 48.9%
Moore is at 53.5%
So if we use win rates at the ONLY CRITERIA on how good/bad a QB was, Marino was better than Dilfer, about on the same level as Elway and a decent bit behind Brady and Manning. HOWEVER, Brady has multiple years with cheating scandals involved, which is why he doesn't belong in this conversation to begin with. And if you pull him from this equation, things look pretty fair to me-
Manning was the best all-time.
Elway and Marino were super-elite.
Moore, Cutler, Tannehill and Dilfer are all in the same league talent-wise- good but not elite
We don't have enough QB1 data on Tebow to pass judgement.
RG3 is a step below everyone else we named.
I think if we looked up QB ratings (which I don't have time to do this second), the list would not shift around that much. If we polled football fans, they'd put them in a very similar order. That means wins could be used as a QB stat after all since it's a heck of a lot more accurate than SB rings.
The only thing total W percentage can't show is a QB having one awesome year towards the end of his career- which is why Tebow technically surpasses Dilfer. So small data sets don't work here to paint an accurate picture, but it does seem accurate across a career on how we remember these guys.
That's a really enlightening and interesting post, KeyFin. Especially nice seeing the hard numbers involved.
Dilfer has a ring. Marino doesn't. Which is an even grander example of Tebow has a playoff win and Thill doesn't.
77,000,000 million reasons, but a playoff win ain't no thang but a chicken wing.
It's your logic, not mine.
I mean a single playoff win means a QB is not objectively terrible, according to you.
You might as well cue the Benny Hill theme song at this point.
It'd be far more entertaining and apropos. Keep your nose to the grindstone with those unanswered questions, heh.
Oh yeah, $77,000,000 excuses.
Once again, what unanswered questions are you referring to?
They're in this thread. Seems like selective amnesia can only go so far.
I haven't dodged any questions but you keep saying I have, so I ask you to tell me what they were and I'll answer them and you still deflect. I have tried to have a reasonable debate with you but all you do is throw out insults, refuse to back up your argument with anything and accuse me of things that didn't happen.
What you are doing is absurd.
And as far as insults go, I have no idea where you're getting that from. I have never personally attacked you, as I don't know you, but I have disagreed with some of your opinions.
I have no idea why you would lie, nor am I interested in finding out the reasoning why you resort to it. If you can't handle a civil debate, then maybe you're better served taking some time out for reflection.
The point is that win percentage shows Marino was a better QB without any other stats involved. It also shows that Dilfer was a hair better than Tannehill on an average day but nowhere near the skill of ultra-elite QB's.
I wasn't trying to compare Tebow to Tannehill though because you can't- Tannehill has 5x the field time and that makes his stats normalized. We have no idea how Tebow would have done with a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th year of starts so it's foolish to even try comparing them.
Both win% and total wins are good measures of QB ability over an entire career, though not so much over shorter time periods. In other words you need to restrict both measures to some minimum number of games started, otherwise you'll get backups who went 1 for 1 with perfect win% measures, and for total wins you'll put good QB's in the early part of their careers at the lower end of the list.
So let's say you restrict the comparison to QB's that started at least 5 seasons = 80 games. You get the following (includes playoffs games):
Career win% leaders (top 10):
Brady = 77.3%
Montana = 71.1%
Wilson = 70.1%
Peyton = 68.5%
McMahon = 68%
Roethlisberger = 67%
Danny White = 65.7%
Rodgers = 65.6%
Young = 65%
Elway = 64.5%
Career total wins leaders (top 10):
Brady = 208
Peyton = 200
Favre = 199
Elway = 162
Marino = 155
Brees = 137
Roethlisberger = 136
Montana = 133
Eli = 116
Kelly = 110
As you can see you tend to get the best/better QB's at the top of both lists. In other words if people rated QB's on a scale from 1-5 and we looked at the correlation between those ratings and career win% or total wins with a minimum of 80 starts, the correlation is going to be very high. So there's nothing wrong with using wins as one source of information about how good a QB is. It's not the only information that's useful, but it is clearly useful information.
don't what this obsession with Kaepernick is all about. nobody wants him on their club for all the right reasons. his game is not all that... the day of the running QB has gone. he is an imbecile & publicity hound seeking attention at the cost of the NFL & patriotism. **** him. I hope he never plays again...