The term “inexact science” is often used in relation to sports.
The notion could apply to any number of things which include
but are not limited to drafting players at the professional level
and recruiting at the college ranks. The inexact science theory
could also apply to power ranking teams or players based on
position. With the latter, no position seems to draw as much
passion among fans and media alike than quarterback,
particularly in the NFL.
You will hear varying degrees of arguments in terms of what
people value: a) Quarterback A has X number of Super Bowl
rings while Quarterback B only has Y number of Super Bowl
rings, case closed, argument over, b) What is the teams’
winning percentage with that quarterback as the starter and
c) There is the fantasy football-ification theory of sheer
numbers.
I can poke holes at all three arguments. Let’s not kid
ourselves, quarterbacks are judged by championships but
there is not a universe where you will convince me that, for
instance, Trent Dilfer is a better quarterback than Dan Marino.
Dilfer was backed by a legendary defense while Marino led one
of the worst Super Bowl participants to the Big Dance in 1984.
Put Marino on the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, they still smash the
New York Giants in the Super Bowl Bowl. Put Dilfer on the
1984 Miami Dolphins, they reach the Super Bowl with a ticket
but not as a participant. I could think of a zillion other examples
but in the interest of space, I won’t.
Quarterback winning percentage ranks right up there with
baseball pitchers’ win-loss record. If a pitcher throws seven
innings, gives up one run but the team loses 2-0, how is that
the pitchers’ fault? On the other hand, if a starting pitcher throws
five innings, giving up four runs and the team wins 9-7, then
they won despite the pitcher, not because of him.
Numbers are all well and good but you have to look at the
framework. If a quarterback throws for 365 yards and three
touchdowns within the framework of trying to win the game, I
will give ample credence. If they came in garbage time, I can’t
take them seriously.
So what defines ranking one quarterback over the other? I
look at the two-minute drill at the end of the first half or game. I
ask myself, “If my team needs a score (touchdown or field goal)
and is backed up at its own 20 yard-line, do I believe this
quarterback can get it done?
Below is a story on quarterbacks that are the all-time leaders
in NFL history on leading their team to come-from-behind
victories:
Why is this trait so important? Because quarterbacks that can
achieve this feat do not just lead their team to victory, they
engender a belief among their teammates that they will deliver
when the team needs it most.
The difference between having a guy who you know can get
the job done and a guy who you hope can lead the team down
the field for the winning score is incalculable. There's a
calmness and confidence that you simply can't manufacture
no matter how much practice time is devoted to it. Quarterbacks
must earn those stripes.
I’m not suggesting that quarterbacks have to be perfect in that
situation because after all, they are human and there will be
times they will not get the job done. The difference between
having a quarterback you believe will do the job versus one
you hope, is the difference between good and elite.
No comments:
Post a Comment