NFL.com poll question

[tatmanfish]

Freeman played better. Sanchez looked bad IMO. The only reason he got a TD was because the Giants kept helping him out with penalties....not to mention the great play by LT. Sanchez will be carried once again.

[JavaBuc]

Season hasn't started yet.   None of them have played better or worse.  Pre-season means squat.

[lyronmewis]

That poll is just about draft position and which team has more hype. Each QB had similar seasons last year in terms of stats. I think Freeman will put up more stats and win more games by himself, but Sanchez will obviously have the better team and make the playoffs.

[watson]

First you would have to define what "the best season" is.  Wins/losses would have to lean toward Jets and Sanchez.

The question was not which team would have the best record, it was which QB would have the best season.   I took that to mean which QB will play the best in their second year.   I'd say 1) Sanchez, 2) Stafford 3) Freeman

But you would still have to define "best season"... are they asking for stats?  I guess I'm from the John McKay school of "statistics are for statisticians."  The only thing that counts for me is wins and losses.  If a QB has a fantastic rating and his team loses then its still a loss. 

[lyronmewis]

First you would have to define what "the best season" is.  Wins/losses would have to lean toward Jets and Sanchez.

The question was not which team would have the best record, it was which QB would have the best season.   I took that to mean which QB will play the best in their second year.   I'd say 1) Sanchez, 2) Stafford 3) Freeman

But you would still have to define "best season"... are they asking for stats?  I guess I'm from the John McKay school of "statistics are for statisticians."  The only thing that counts for me is wins and losses.  If a QB has a fantastic rating and his team loses then its still a loss. 

I don't like stats as a main metric of comparison, but wins and losses aren't good either because it's a team sport. Having bad stats and winning because of your team (Sanchez) to me is comparable to putting up big stats but having a mediocre team (Schaub). Taking control of your entire team and being the reason for their wins to me is the mark of a good QB (Manning, Brees).

[JavaBuc]

First you would have to define what "the best season" is.  Wins/losses would have to lean toward Jets and Sanchez.

The question was not which team would have the best record, it was which QB would have the best season.   I took that to mean which QB will play the best in their second year.   I'd say 1) Sanchez, 2) Stafford 3) Freeman

But you would still have to define "best season"... are they asking for stats?  I guess I'm from the John McKay school of "statistics are for statisticians."  The only thing that counts for me is wins and losses.  If a QB has a fantastic rating and his team loses then its still a loss. 

True, but I'm also not naive enough to think that Marino was a worse QB than Dilfer since Dilfer won a superbowl and Dan never did.    It's pretty obvious that Sanchez and Stafford are ahead of Freeman at the moment.   But Tebow will be better than any of them.

[watson]

First you would have to define what "the best season" is. Wins/losses would have to lean toward Jets and Sanchez.

The question was not which team would have the best record, it was which QB would have the best season. I took that to mean which QB will play the best in their second year. I'd say 1) Sanchez, 2) Stafford 3) Freeman

But you would still have to define "best season"... are they asking for stats? I guess I'm from the John McKay school of "statistics are for statisticians." The only thing that counts for me is wins and losses. If a QB has a fantastic rating and his team loses then its still a loss.

Taking control of your entire team and being the reason for their wins to me is the mark of a good QB (Manning, Brees).

Agree.

[watson]

First you would have to define what "the best season" is. Wins/losses would have to lean toward Jets and Sanchez.

The question was not which team would have the best record, it was which QB would have the best season. I took that to mean which QB will play the best in their second year. I'd say 1) Sanchez, 2) Stafford 3) Freeman

But you would still have to define "best season"... are they asking for stats? I guess I'm from the John McKay school of "statistics are for statisticians." The only thing that counts for me is wins and losses. If a QB has a fantastic rating and his team loses then its still a loss.

True, but I'm also not naive enough to think that Marino was a worse QB than Dilfer since Dilfer won a superbowl and Dan never did. It's pretty obvious that Sanchez and Stafford are ahead of Freeman at the moment. But Tebow will be better than any of them.

I'll take a QB that gets his team to the place they need to win the game.  I personally don't care if the score is 3 - 0 or 100 - 0.  To me there are no ugly wins or pretty losses.  Marino had the "ooh" factor and was fun to watch.  But, at the end of the day, Dilfer has the ultimate prize and for me that is all that counts.

[JM2]

Watson, I am not sure I agree with your logic. Let me see if I understand, and if I have it wrong, my apologies. It seems that you are saying, in this particular case, that Dilfer was a better quaterback then Marino because Dilfer has a superbowl victory on his resume. Now, can I assume that this distinction is not purely limited to quarterbacks given that this is a team game? And if so, wouldn't it follow then, that every single player(that actually contributes) that has a superbowl victory on their resume is better then every single player that doesn't?

If that is the case, how can there be players in the Hall of Fame that have no superbowl victory in their stat line?

I would posit that the discussion must go deeper then a simple comparison of superbowl rings. For instance, in your opinion, if Dilfer was replaced with Marino on the 2000 Ravens team would the Ravens team have been less likely to win the superbowl?

[jbear]

Freeman played better. Sanchez looked bad IMO. The only reason he got a TD was because the Giants kept helping him out with penalties....not to mention the great play by LT. Sanchez will be carried once again.

I'd take Freeman over either of those two.  When we drafted him I'd never have said that but what I've seen of Stafford and Sanchez is less exciting than the upside on Freeman.  Stafford or Sanchez on this team would have probably already been booed out of town.

[TBayXXXVII]

Not comparing styles or anything like that... just the results of their careers.

Stafford = Carson Palmer (definite franchise QB)
Freeman = Brad Johnson (solid NFL QB)
Sanchez = Jon Kitna (excellent backup)

[watson]

Watson, I am not sure I agree with your logic. Let me see if I understand, and if I have it wrong, my apologies. It seems that you are saying, in this particular case, that Dilfer was a better quaterback then Marino because Dilfer has a superbowl victory on his resume. Now, can I assume that this distinction is not purely limited to quarterbacks given that this is a team game? And if so, wouldn't it follow then, that every single player(that actually contributes) that has a superbowl victory on their resume is better then every single player that doesn't?

If that is the case, how can there be players in the Hall of Fame that have no superbowl victory in their stat line?

I would posit that the discussion must go deeper then a simple comparison of superbowl rings. For instance, in your opinion, if Dilfer was replaced with Marino on the 2000 Ravens team would the Ravens team have been less likely to win the superbowl?

I don't care about individual player's stats......it is, as you said, a team game and all I care about is wins and losses.  But, that is just me....everyone can want a QB with a 100+ rating and 4,000 yards passing and that is OK with me.  I just don't care what their stats are. 

[Biggs3535]

I don't care about individual player's stats......it is, as you said, a team game and all I care about is wins and losses.  But, that is just me....everyone can want a QB with a 100+ rating and 4,000 yards passing and that is OK with me.  I just don't care what their stats are. 

Yeah, I'll take a QB with 100+rating and 4000+ passing yards.  His team will likely win more than lose.

[Feel Real Good]

We all like to win, but not all players on winning teams are winning players. If you took all the stinky starters from the Bucs' Super Bowl team (Kenyatta, Cosey, Jenkins, Pittman, Dilger, Wyms, and Nece) and added them to a team of the stinky starters from a couple other Super Bowl winners, you're going to have a pretty stinky team. You need talented players with good stats and talented players with good stats don't always win every year.

[TampaBucks05]

Notice how, out of the Bucs, Lions, and Jets, we have the youngest most inexperienced team, yet Josh Freeman was the only QB with a perfect passer rating.



And dont tell me how Josh was only the best of the three QBs because he only made four passes. Thats because he practiced ball security and scrambled when noone was open.

Not to mention Stafford threw a pick on his 3rd pass of the game while Sanchez threw a pick ON HIS FIRST PLAY OF THE GAME.

Im so glad we landed Freeman in the draft last year, I know its only one pre-season game, but he is clearly the best QB of the three, IMO.