Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="intlzncster, post: 2873546, member: 56"] Interesting, why doesn't he stay inside the pocket more then? That's categorically more effective QBing. Why would you want to break the play? They basically had to teach Russell Wilson how to do this, and to his credit, he's picked it up. That's a great stat, no sarc. You could pick and choose a number of stats either way. There's a ton that goes into that other than pure defense though. Rhetorically, Who sustains longer more deliberate drives that keep the other teams offense off the field? To get 33 pts, you need a higher number of possessions. Should give them that many. Never understood this one. It's not remotely the same as wins and losses for pitchers, for a number of reasons (pitchers not scoring, time limitation of the game, etc etc). But most importantly because of the nature of the game: baseball makes sense to ignore wins and losses because it's basically an individual sport played together as a group. I get what concept you are trying to impart, but it's apples to oranges. Let me ask you, how many great QBs don't have Superbowls? Really only 4. Marino, Kelly, Tarkenton, Fouts. And all of those but Fouts made Superbowls (Marino 1; Kelly 4; Tark 3). Why do you think that is? Why is it that the vast majority of great QBs have all won (or even played in) Superbowls? Or why do most of the elite guys have multiple Superbowls? Because great QBing correlates/causates to winning and winning big. Lists of the best QBs, even when looking at pure numbers, are all littered with QBs who've won multiple. Of course it's a team game. So's basketball. But guys get judged on championships, because that's where the great ones separate themselves. Do some get unlucky? Absolutely. Is it a perfect metric? No. But no metric is perfect though, including all the usual stats. You can have the better thrower, I'll take the better QB. Different things. imho [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach