Bleeds Purple wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:31 am
Simpson Get Lifted wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:03 am
Bleeds Purple wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:53 pm
No, I do not believe that Ponder, Jump Pass and Bridgewater are the only reasons the Vikings reached the playoffs those particular seasons. AP had something (a lot) to say about the overall success of the team.
I will admit, I am not a fan of Kirk D. Cousins. I believe that he has been, is and will be nothing but a mediocre starting QB, for both the Redskins and the Vikings. The starting QB is the field general of the offense and the defacto leader of the team, like is or not. A highly paid starting QB is expected to produce wins and lead the team to the playoffs via Wild Card spot, if not the outright winner of their respective division. Anything less is considered, by a majority of the fanbase as a failure. Since the starting QB is the face and leader of the the team, he will be looked upon as having a failure of a season.
The only way a team reaches the playoffs is by having a good/great W - L record. Since the goal of each team at the start of each season is to reach the playoffs (or it should be), the only stat that matters at the end of the season is the final W - L record. If you listened to the post-game radio broadcast on KFAN after the Vikings lost to the Bears (final game), to a man, they stated that they failed in their goal for the season - to make the post-season/playoffs. No one was saying, "Well, we lost and didn't make the playoffs, but my season stats were the bomb! So, overall, I'm happy with how the season turned out!"
IMO, Froobs (and others) that only look at Cousins' overall stats are missing the point of the 2018 season, it was a failure. Roethlisberger had over 5,000 yards passing, but fans of the Steelers are not proverbially dancing in the streets of Pittsburgh, crowing about the season being a success because their QB had the most passing yards (he was either #1 or #2). They are pissed! Those fans want WINS and could care less about the fact that BR cracked the 5K barrier.
Until Cousins proves that he is a QB that can put a team on his back and win games, he is, as others have stated, a garbage time stats machine. I look forward to being proven wrong and will happily eat crow, when Cousins hoists a Lombardi Trophy, wearing a Vikings uniform.
So you're doubling down on this eh? Answer the question. Is Ponder (et al) a better QB than Cousins because he made the playoffs? You skirted around that one.
Regarding the Steelers, how many of those fans blame Roethlisberger as the primary reason they didn't make the playoffs, as you've consistently said about Cousins? Don't go into past history here, I'm talking about this season.
To answer your questions, first, if you are only going to look at individual stats an only those, then Cousins, in this case, had the better season. But, that is not what, IMO, this discussion is about. This discussion is about overall success of a QB for a season. Overall Success would be a QB leading their team to a winning record and making the playoffs.
I have maintained that the starting QB for any team is looked upon as the defacto leader of the team. The question to ask, "Did the leader of any given team, in a given year, have a successful season?" If the team had a winning record and said team made the playoffs, then the answer is, 'YES!' 2012 Ponder was a more successful starting QB than 2018 Cousins.When you go to websites such as pro-football-reference.com, and look up a QB's career stats, 2 of the columns that are in the stats are their W - L record for any given year (3 if you include ties, not many of those though). Ponder, for good or bad, got the Vikings into the playoffs in 2012. Cousins, for good or bad, did not get the 2018 Vikings into the playoffs.
Say what you will, but for that one season, Ponder was a more successful QB that Cousins. Only time will tell and be able to answer the question if Cousins will be a successful QB for the Vikings.
I can not answer fully answer your question about the Steelers, because 1) I don't live in Pittsburgh and 2) I only know a few of Steelers fans. But, Yes, those fans blame BR, the HC (Tomlin) and the Steelers organization for falling flat on their collective faces at the end of the season. Those fans do not give a rip that he had 5,000+ yards passing. They only care about the fact that they lost a number of games at the end of the season and missed the playoffs. Once again, the Steelers (and BR) did not have a successful season.
Let me ask you - how do you define the success of an organization on a yearly basis. Do you look at the individual stats and say, "Well, the Vikings went 8 - 7 - 1, but the QB had X number of passing yards and Y number of TDs, so over all it was a success." or do you look at the W - L record and say, "8 - 7 - 1 sucked and the season as a whole was no where near the successful season they should have had?"
One final question: Which QB(s) had the more successful season 1 or 2?
1 - 1,998 passing yards and 15 TDs
2 - 4,298 passing yards and 30 TDs
No, I am not suggesting strictly looking at stats in order to determine a successful season. But that's not the assertion you've made. You've gone the entire opposite direction with it.
In fact, you mention the overall success of a QB for a season, and then in the next sentence, mention a QB leading their TEAM to the playoffs. The QB is no doubt looked upon as the leader of the team in most circumstances.
However, your assertion is to completely ignore the team around the QB, allowing no context whatsoever, by strictly looking at win/loss record (which is also a stat). That win/loss record is shared by the coaches and teammates around the QB, and coaches in particular list their win/loss records and are judged by it.
In your world though, all of that is irrelevant. You go on to ask about the success of an organization, which is irrelevant to this discussion because you've made it so. You've taken all of that context out of the equation.
It is correct, the Steelers organization did not have a successful season, which again, is irrelevant. The only contention that fits this discussion is the one in which you say that Roethlisberger did not.
Now yes, one would not categorize it as successful because the goal, as a team, is to get into the playoffs. You've said yourself that you judge Cousins as a QB by win/loss record, and have pegged him as, if not the sole reason, but the main reason for the lack of team success.
So it would also be your understanding that Roethlisberger would also be the sole or main reason because there is no other context. It's win/loss record, and it's on the QB.
Given that, since you've pegged Roethlisberger in that respect, then what would you say he should have done differently or better? I'm not asking for adjustments here or there because those will always be there.
I'm asking for what you think he should have done differently that you would think is so major that it would be the MAIN reason he failed to lead his team to the playoffs. Nothing about coaching, nothing about defense, nothing about kicking issues, only what he failed to do, and it's the sole or main reason.
Because we can do this all day. Rodgers didn't lead his team to the playoffs, is he the weak link you can point to on that team? We can point out problems, and Rodgers can certainly be criticized, but he's been dragging that team with him for years. He wouldn't remotely be the main problem.
But the fact that you can't even bring yourself to say that Cousins is a better QB than Ponder just takes the cake. You can't even recognize the main reasons that team made the playoffs, reasons that every other reasonable person would admit.
And so, give me what you think Ponder did differently and better than Cousins that was the main reason he was a success for getting his team into the playoffs while Cousins did not.
The bottom line is that no one here ever said that stats alone are the only thing to look at when judging a QB. However, they are an indicator of production, and they do indicate the level of contribution to the team. The idea that this fact escapes you is pretty mind boggling.
It's the most simpleton take anyone has ever had on here. You have an inability to consider all of the information available to you and to delve deeper than good record = good QB, mediocre record = poor QB. That's really embarrassing for you.
