QB Wins ¿Do they really mean anything?

[jmvillelabeitia]

Tom Brady last Sunday passed Peyton Manning as the winningest QB with 201 wins. I have always been a not beleiver of this QB stats, QB as pitchers in baseball cannot win any game alone, they need help, and many of them plenty of help. Otto Graham played in a game in 1950 where he did not even attempt a pass, Paul Brown wanted to proof we could also win just running the football and not passing. After his first game against the Eagles their Head Coach said Browns just passed too much.

The last Super Bowls Tom Brady and Peyton Manning won were won with too many help of his pals, without Malcolm Butler intercepcion the Player known as the GOAT is no longer the GOAT and is closer to John Elway, who won 2 rings but also lost 3. Peyton Manning won his last ring when he could hardly throw the football 5 yards down field. Some people seem to forget Tom Brady won his first rings Thanks to Vinatieri kicks, something Jim Kelly can not say because Scott Norwood threw it "Wide left". Teddy Bridgewater has no playoffs wins cause his kicker missed a chip shot FG. I don't need to mention Trent Dilfer or Bob Griese, they could have not thrown the football and their teams still win the Super Bowl, not to mention Ben Roethlisberger in his first Ring.

In the end all of this QB get the Win even it they just make handoffs, just as Paul Brown once said "QB get too much credit in the wins and too much blame in the losses". I would like to know with Help the most absurd QB wins you can remember, games were the QB did Nothing to win the game, or to make it worse, did as much as he could to lose the game. I also believe this could be a pretty nice article for the Coffin Corner, a special article were you describe the most absurd QB wins.

This no way means Tom Brady is not one of the greatest QB to ever play, It's more about the absurbdity of the QB Wins stat.

[bachslunch]

Given how collaborative a football win is, it's just silly to assign a "win" to the QB.

The folly of assigning a "win" to pitchers in baseball has been recognized for some time. Agreed with that one too.

[JWL]

The most absurd example is possibly the Jets season finale in 2010. In that game Mark Sanchez started, threw no passes and was removed from the game after one series. He was not injured. The Jets won 38-7. On a side note, the late Joe McKnight ran for 158 yards.

[conace21]

For a whole game, Jim Kelly against the Broncos in 1990. The Broncos were up 14-0 when Kelly led a FG drive. That was it for him. Bruce Smith forced an Elway fumble on the Broncos 10, and the Bills lost 2 yards on 2 plays. On third down, Kelly audibled from a pass to a run. Don Smith took the direct snap and leaped the final 4 yards for a TD. Denver was up 21-9 in the 4th when the following happened in 77 seconds.
Nate Odomes blocks a FG. Cornelius Bennett returns it 80 yards for a score. 21-16.
Leon Seals tips Elway's second down pass, and Leonard Smith intercepts it and weaves 39 yards for a touchdown. 22-21 Buffalo.
Elway fumbles the very next snap on his own 5 yard line. Bennett falls on it. Jim Kelly handed off to Kenneth Davis who knifed over the left side for a touchdown. 29-21. (The final was 29-28.)
I love Jimbo, but he really didn't do much to earn the win. (He did plenty in 11 other wins that year.) Buffalo had 15 first downs and 197 yards of offense, with three turnovers and four sacks.

An even more shining example is David Carr against the Steelers in his rookie year. 3 of 10 for 33 yards. Houston had 47 yards of offense. 3 first downs. 20 minutes of possession time. And they won 24-6 on three defensive scores. The FG drive was set up by a muffed punt. Carr handed off three times, lost 5 yards, and they kicked a FG.

[L.C. Greenwood]

For a whole game, Jim Kelly against the Broncos in 1990. The Broncos were up 14-0 when Kelly led a FG drive. That was it for him. Bruce Smith forced an Elway fumble on the Broncos 10, and the Bills lost 2 yards on 2 plays. On third down, Kelly audibled from a pass to a run. Don Smith took the direct snap and leaped the final 4 yards for a TD. Denver was up 21-9 in the 4th when the following happened in 77 seconds.
Nate Odomes blocks a FG. Cornelius Bennett returns it 80 yards for a score. 21-16.
Leon Seals tips Elway's second down pass, and Leonard Smith intercepts it and weaves 39 yards for a touchdown. 22-21 Buffalo.
Elway fumbles the very next snap on his own 5 yard line. Bennett falls on it. Jim Kelly handed off to Kenneth Davis who knifed over the left side for a touchdown. 29-21. (The final was 29-28.)
I love Jimbo, but he really didn't do much to earn the win. (He did plenty in 11 other wins that year.) Buffalo had 15 first downs and 197 yards of offense, with three turnovers and four sacks.

An even more shining example is David Carr against the Steelers in his rookie year. 3 of 10 for 33 yards. Houston had 47 yards of offense. 3 first downs. 20 minutes of possession time. And they won 24-6 on three defensive scores. The FG drive was set up by a muffed punt. Carr handed off three times, lost 5 yards, and they kicked a FG.

There will always be extreme examples of QBs playing poorly and their teams using other methods to win. But as the position which touches the ball on every offensive play, the QB has a major influence on the the outcome of most games. Wins should always matter more to the QB position than others, I don't think it's a coincidence the elite QBs usually played on quality teams, it's a real connection. The Dallas Cowboys were loaded with talented during the mid 60s to late 60s, but it took Roger Staubach to lift them to the next level. The supporting cast theory is overblown in my opinion, that's why we very rarely see the Trent Dilfers of the world winning Super Bowls.

Archie Manning is one of the rare examples of a QB who might have been elite with a better organization, perhaps he should have demanded a trade earlier in his career.

[JeffreyMiller]

While the idea of the QB "win" might be overrated, I will take a QB who racks up wins over one who racks up stats any day. Your QB is your field general, and you expect your general to win battles. What good is a general who doesn't win? Ask the confederacy ...

[BD Sullivan]

In 1973, Mike Phipps got credit for wins after the following three performances:

9/30 vs. NY Giants: 9 of 20 for 134 yards, 0 TD and 2 INT. Browns win on four field goals, 12-10.
11/18 @ Oakland: 9 of 17 for 96 yards, 1 TD and 0 INT. Browns win 7-3.
11/25 vs. Pittsburgh: 5 of 17 for 146 yards, 1 TD, 3 INT, Browns win 21-16.

[7DnBrnc53]

There will always be extreme examples of QBs playing poorly and their teams using other methods to win. But as the position which touches the ball on every offensive play, the QB has a major influence on the the outcome of most games. Wins should always matter more to the QB position than others, I don't think it's a coincidence the elite QBs usually played on quality teams, it's a real connection. The Dallas Cowboys were loaded with talented during the mid 60s to late 60s, but it took Roger Staubach to lift them to the next level. The supporting cast theory is overblown in my opinion, that's why we very rarely see the Trent Dilfers of the world winning Super Bowls.

Archie Manning is one of the rare examples of a QB who might have been elite with a better organization, perhaps he should have demanded a trade earlier in his career.

So, would you call Terry Bradshaw elite just because the Steelers won 4 SB's? I wouldn't. Also, guys like Brady and Montana were blessed with going to the right coach and the right system.

Also, if the supporting cast theory is so overblown, then why did Doug Williams beat John Elway in a SB? Or, why did Elway struggle to win the big game until his supporting cast was way better?

[bachslunch]

While the idea of the QB "win" might be overrated, I will take a QB who racks up wins over one who racks up stats any day. Your QB is your field general, and you expect your general to win battles. What good is a general who doesn't win? Ask the confederacy ...

If memory serves, the South actually won a lot of major Civil War battles (Bull Run 1 and 2, Wilderness, Chancellorsville, Cold Harbor, Chickamauga, Wilson's Creek, Cedar Mountain, Petersburg 1 and 2, Fredericksburg, Front Royal, Kennesaw Mountain) and had a couple major battles end up as draws (Antietam, Spotsylvania Courthouse). Didn't do them a lot of good in the long run, of course.

Heh -- maybe wins are indeed overrated...

[JeffreyMiller]

While the idea of the QB "win" might be overrated, I will take a QB who racks up wins over one who racks up stats any day. Your QB is your field general, and you expect your general to win battles. What good is a general who doesn't win? Ask the confederacy ...

If memory serves, the South actually won a lot of major Civil War battles (Bull Run 1 and 2, Wilderness, Chancellorsville, Cold Harbor, Chickamauga, Wilson's Creek, Cedar Mountain, Petersburg 1 and 2, Fredericksburg, Front Royal, Kennesaw Mountain) and had a couple major battles end up as draws (Antietam, Spotsylvania Courthouse). Didn't do them a lot of good in the long run, of course.

Heh -- maybe wins are indeed overrated...

Did they win the war?

Dan Marino and Dan Fouts won lots of games too ... and had lots of nice stats. Big deal! Is an owner really looking for a stat guy, or championships?

I am a Bills fan, but in a heartbeat I would trade all four Super Bowl losses for one of Tom Brady's rings.