- 01/31/2011, 08:48AM ET
G. Opack said 01/31, 08:48 AM
I am stating that evaluation of quarterbacks by their numbers is misleading.
More than any other position, QB's are a function of the team organization, the quality of the offensive line and receivers. The quality of a team's defense also affects the QB by determining field position, and score.
Also, QB's are expected to create winners out of losers.
I would argue that good and great quarterbacking is more a function of the team than the individual.
Joe Montana...great organization, great surrounding players, third round draft choice
Tom Brady...great organization, great teammates, sixth round draft choice.
Carson Palmer...???organization, first round choice
The list of QBs who fail as high round draft choices is almost endless. The same weak organizations, draft highly regarded college QB's than wonder why they fail.
So I am stating that since QB's are a function of their teams quality, there is no "fair" way to judge their accomplishments.
They are easily blamed for a team's failure.
YankeesFan said 01/31, 11:29 PM
I will give you one thing. QBs are the easy scapegoat for a team's failure. But that doesn't mean there is no fair way to evaluate them, it just means that W-L may not be the best or fairest way.
You say that the QB is more a function of the team and his surrounding pieces. If that is true, then what does that make other positions?
Where do we draw the line, then? Clearly all positions benefit from the team.
Running back is the function of their O-line, opposing defense, and passing game (if they have a good passing game, the defense will have to play more cautious pass D).
Wide receiver is the function of the opposing D's secondary, and his QB.
Defense is the function of the opposing team's offense.
The QB is the most important (or at least one of the most important, since I don't want to be called out here) position on the field, because they can make plays single-handedly.
Therefore, it makes sense if they are judged on how their team does, but not fully judged. Obviously the team surrounding them plays a role, so if you can find the right balance of stats, and W-L, there is in fact a "fair" way to judge a QB's accomplishments.
G. Opack said 02/01, 07:39 AM
I think that we both agree that the performance of ANY player on a football team is is affected by the play of his teammates. DBacks by the pass rush, no pass rush and sooner or later the Dback gets beat.
The position least affected is probably the punter and most affected the QB. Every time I see a QB rating I cringe. A mediocre QB becomes a good QB if he has a great O-line, same with a running back. In reverse, a weak line forces a QB to throw sooner, or get sacked. So I think when evaluating a QB, we have to look at more than wins and losses,or QB ratings.
I am reacting to comments I read dealing with the upcoming draft. Some teams "need" a QB often means they really need a O-line.
Matt Casselle (sp?) plays great at New England and turns mediocre at Kansas City.
As far as "Big Wins", ask Dan Marino, one of the most prolific passers in the game without a Superbowl ring.
YankeesFan said 02/01, 08:50 PM
I won't spend much time on it, as this wasn't the focus of your argument, but... if Cassel was "great" at NE, he was NOT mediocre at KC.
He had 27 TDs and 7 INTs this year, while having 21 and 11 in NE.
You also said in the comments that SD didn't make the playoffs, but that doesn't mean Rivers is bad. I completely agree. But no one is saying Rivers is bad. Many people acknowledge that he had a great year, and they missed the playoffs in spite of Rivers.
Case and point, he is not being solely measured by team performance.
So, if as you suggest, QBs completely benefit from the team surrounding them, would the Saints have still made the playoffs this year if they had Jimmy Clausen starting for them? And would the Panthers still have the worst record in the league if Brees was their starter?
Again, I am not saying we should judge QBs completely off of wins. But they are important. And there is definitely someway to accurately evaluate a QB by mixing certain stats, wins, playoff wins, and the eye test (what you think of them while watching the game).
So yes, there is a fair way.
G. Opack said 02/02, 09:40 AM
What I have been trying to argue and maybe not using the best examples, is that QBs get too much blame and too much credit for the success or failure of their teams. I am not arguing that there is no way to hold them accountable or too measure their performance but I think of all the positions in sports, the QB is most dependent on his teammates, coaches and organization.
Maybe goalies in hockey but not to the extent that QBs are evaluated.
I think playing for a poorly managed franchise, and there are several, can affect a QB in very intangable ways.
What I find particularily unfair is when a poorly performing team drafts a QB and they expect him to "turn the team around" or they are goung to "build a team around" him. To me that is just PR hype with very little upside.
My concluding argument is that all the stats compiled about QBs are dubious as a measure of skill . A good O-line makes a good QB very good. A weak O-line makes a good QB mediocre.
If it wasn't for the money and women, I would rather be a punter.
My mom is really mad, she says I am spending too much time writing sports opinions. I didn't tell her I spend more time looking at naked women.
YankeesFan said 02/02, 08:59 PM
"I am not arguing that there is no way to hold them accountable or too measure their performance..."
If you are saying it is unfair to judge solely off of team performance, I agree. I interpreted it differently, though, with the title being "is there a "fair" way to evaluate quarterbacks?"
In that case, I don't really think there is a counter argument. Of course QBs shouldn't be held entirely accountable for team success and failure.
However, as for a QB turning a team around, it definitely can happen. Look at the Rams this past year. They don't have a great supporting cast, and they didn't have a great season, but with a good rookie QB they improved 6 games and were in the playoff race until the last night of the season.
So QBs can come in a turn a team around, but that's not really the main argument. If your argument is that QBs shouldn't be judged by team success, I agree to a degree. I was arguing the statement in your title though, in that yes, there is a fair way.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia