evidence of how evaluating QBs based on W-L record is overstated

[albertyoungisgood]

excellent work from Bill Barnwell of grantland.com
I'm continually frustrated by how many supposedly knowledgeable people point to wins and losses when discussing QB skills. Good info here.

The numbers never lie; the Ravens are fueled by their defense - Grantland

 

[PJHawk]

your link = TL, DR

 

[theboat]

Up until this year I would agree about Flacco and the Ravens, but this year that defense is no better than average.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Hard to rate a QB on wins and losses IMO and W's and L's are a team stat, not an individual stat.

 

[albertyoungisgood]

Hard to rate a QB on wins and losses IMO and W's and L's are a team stat, not an individual stat.

for sure, and seems so obvious. but many many people either don't appreciate that difference, or greatly minimize it.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

Is he the only factor for our 2-2 record certainly not, however his play isn't helping us out either in my book.

 

[oregonhawkeye]

The W/L thing never made sense. And the Matt Ryan example doesn't really pass the sniff test. Would folks really put him in the upmost echelon of quarterbacks (at least prior to this year)?
I contend that red zone and third down conversion % is the best way to measure a quarterback. All measures are conflated by the performance of other players and the system, but a QB who gets big completion percentages but fails on third down isn't helping you.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Is he the only factor for our 2-2 record certainly not, however his play isn't helping us out either in my book.

Exactly. Would Ricky Stanzi have had an 11-2 record in 2009 without the stout defense? On the flip side, would the 2002 team run the table in the Big Ten without Brad Banks? Or if the 2002 team hadn't had such a great offensive line or alot of big plays on special teams, would they still go 8-0? Debatable, but doubtful.

IMO QB's get both too much credit ANd criticism for a team's record.