What is your #1 QB performance metric?

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

3rd down conversion percentage in the 3rd quarter when trailing by 7 or less points. Have to have a conversion percentage of at least 43%.

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Sammy Watkins' Rib

[BuffaloHokie13]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

Howd that work for Tyrod.

Playoff berth by year 3 as a starter?

[TtownBillsFan]

Accuracy, all day, every day.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Playoff berth by year 3 as a starter?

 

Lol, get out.

 

[GoBills808]

19 minutes ago, Mojo44 said:

 There is most definitely a correlation. People always with. Two  Tyrod  taylor’s “great stats“ but the truth is, he was a crappy quarterback because he could not win games when it was up to him to do so. What was it, during the last five games of that awesome push for the playoffs he couldn’t leave the team to one single touchdown in the fourth quarter. We made the playoffs because of our defense in those games. 

I'm definitely meh on the concept of QB wins as a reliable indicator of individual performance. There are too many variables that contribute to a game's outcome that are non-quarterback related.

 

If you look at win% all time of quarterbacks, the list isn't a convincing argument as opposed to a stat like all time ANY/A leaders which is as pure a QB metric as there is imo...to OP's point, gross yardage (which isn't all that great either) is still a better indicator of QB performance over a given period of time than wins. BuffaloHokie13's rating system is probably the best metric in my mind followed closely by ANY/A. Wins and passing yards kind of fall by the wayside when you've got more sophisticated methods of evaluating the position in isolation.

[NickelCity]

It's all about the quick first step. You just can't teach that. 

[MDH]

Y/PA

 

Wins is a team metric, not a QB one.

 

For those saying, "Accuracy" what does that mean in terms of a metric? Pick one.

[Augie]

Points? I’m a big fan of points! 

[xxxxxxxx]

1 hour ago, Chemical said:

 

I agree. I guess by overrated I was referring to the national media overrating Tyrod for not throwing ints. Also, the situation I mentioned where the int doesn't actually hurt the team at all. If a QB throws a pick on 3rd and 15 from the 50 yard line trying for the end zone and the other team gets the ball at the 10 it shows up the same as a pick on 1st and 10 from your own 20 on the stat sheet. I'm guessing some QBs have a tendency to throw "better" interceptions but i haven't looked into it. 

 

Teams that turn the ball over are  likely to  lose  though. And few would dispute that if you look at the history of the NFL. QB's who turn the ball over are alot are frequently benched, as well, so they don't get the chance to rack up numbers that a QB with lots of years and passing attempts will have. The stat may not mattet much over a career, or season, but over the course of a game its hard(if not impossible) to insist that it doesn't.

[ddaryl]

56 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Wins. What else matters?

 

 

Doesn't correlate in the pros  for QB's at all.

 

 

Almost any QB drafted in the 1st round had career winning records....... Only a small percentage make good pros. Its a good metric but not the #1 metric IMO

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by ddaryl

[Sky Diver]

10 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

 

 

Doesn't correlate in the pros  for QB's at all.

 

 

Almost any QB drafted in the 1st round had career winning records....... Only a small percentage make good pros. Its a good metric but not the #1 metric IMO

 

 

I didn’t think the question was what metrics were important in selecting a QB. 

 

It’s a team sport, individual metrics are irrelevant. Wins are what matters.

 

Flutie was 21 - 9. Hence I was a Flutie fan. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Sky Diver

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

7 minutes ago, MURPHD6 said:

 

Teams that turn the ball over are  likely to  lose  though. And few would dispute that if you look at the history of the NFL. QB's who turn the ball over are alot are frequently benched, as well, so they don't get the chance to rack up numbers that a QB with lots of years and passing attempts will have. The stat may not mattet much over a career, or season, but over the course of a game its hard(if not impossible) to insist that it doesn't.

Not arguing any of that. I agree, I just laid out a very specific scenario i noticed the Bills in last season where Tyrod and/or the coaching staff were afraid to turn the ball over even when doing so wouldn't have hurt the team's chances any more than punting. 

 

another example would be an end of half or game hail mary that's intercepted. If I was looking at a players stats and saw he threw 15 ints but then dug deeper and learned that more than half were end of half hail marys I would be less concerned. 

[Mojo44]

21 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I'm definitely meh on the concept of QB wins as a reliable indicator of individual performance. There are too many variables that contribute to a game's outcome that are non-quarterback related.

 

If you look at win% all time of quarterbacks, the list isn't a convincing argument as opposed to a stat like all time ANY/A leaders which is as pure a QB metric as there is imo...to OP's point, gross yardage (which isn't all that great either) is still a better indicator of QB performance over a given period of time than wins. BuffaloHokie13's rating system is probably the best metric in my mind followed closely by ANY/A. Wins and passing yards kind of fall by the wayside when you've got more sophisticated methods of evaluating the position in isolation.

 I agree to a point. Wins is not the only “metric” that is significant in quarterback. However, in my opinion, it’s way ahead of whatever is in second place. To me, Taylor is the perfect example of this. He had nice metrics but he could not win games in situations when it was on his back to do so.  You don’t get to the Super Bowl by leading the league in completion percentage, Touchdown passes or arm strength. You get there by winning games. If the bills had even a decent quarterback last season, particularly during those last five games, they end up with ten or more wins. I really think it bears repeating here, for the last five games of the 2017 season Taylor was in capable of leading the team to even one touchdown! Despite his “metrics” he was crap. 

 

By far, in team sports, the quarterback  position is the most important in terms of winning games. In the past are used to think a distant second was a starting pitcher in baseball never finishes games and a distant third was a point guard in basketball. However, I’ve come to the conclusion that the closest second, which is still distant, is the goalie in hockey. 

[billspro]

There are a lot of quality stats. I usually pay attention to the following:

 

YPA above 9.0: Mayfield, Rudolph

Yards above 4000: Darnold, Mayfield, Jackson, Rudolph, White

completion percentage above 63: Darnold, Mayfield, Rudolph, White

TDs above 30: Mayfield, Jackson, Rudolph, White

INTs below 9: Mayfield, Rudolph, White

 

Its actually a little scary Rosen meets none of those criteria.

[Fadingpain]

Standing long jump, by FAR.

 

The second most important factor is a mile behind.

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

20 minutes ago, Mojo44 said:

 I agree to a point. Wins is not the only “metric” that is significant in quarterback. However, in my opinion, it’s way ahead of whatever is in second place. To me, Taylor is the perfect example of this. He had nice metrics but he could not win games in situations when it was on his back to do so.  You don’t get to the Super Bowl by leading the league in completion percentage, Touchdown passes or arm strength. You get there by winning games. If the bills had even a decent quarterback last season, particularly during those last five games, they end up with ten or more wins. I really think it bears repeating here, for the last five games of the 2017 season Taylor was in capable of leading the team to even one touchdown! Despite his “metrics” he was crap. 

 

By far, in team sports, the quarterback  position is the most important in terms of winning games. In the past are used to think a distant second was a starting pitcher in baseball never finishes games and a distant third was a point guard in basketball. However, I’ve come to the conclusion that the closest second, which is still distant, is the goalie in hockey. 

You're going to have to help me out here. He obviously didn't score a TD in the Colts game that he missed with an injury, but in his last 5 starts we went 3-2 losing to the Pats twice. Tyrod had at least a TD in 3 of those games, he had 2 in one of them, and our O scored 2 more TDs that aren't accounted for in Tyrod's stats. How is that incapable of leading the team to even 1?

 

Can we please stop with the gross exaggeration to the point of being false?

Edited April 19, 2018 by BuffaloHokie13

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Mojo44 said:

 I agree to a point. Wins is not the only “metric” that is significant in quarterback. However, in my opinion, it’s way ahead of whatever is in second place. To me, Taylor is the perfect example of this. He had nice metrics but he could not win games in situations when it was on his back to do so.  You don’t get to the Super Bowl by leading the league in completion percentage, Touchdown passes or arm strength. You get there by winning games. If the bills had even a decent quarterback last season, particularly during those last five games, they end up with ten or more wins. I really think it bears repeating here, for the last five games of the 2017 season Taylor was in capable of leading the team to even one touchdown! Despite his “metrics” he was crap. 

 

By far, in team sports, the quarterback  position is the most important in terms of winning games. In the past are used to think a distant second was a starting pitcher in baseball never finishes games and a distant third was a point guard in basketball. However, I’ve come to the conclusion that the closest second, which is still distant, is the goalie in hockey. 

You win a Super Bowl by winning games, true. But the OP wanted a QB specific performance metric, and wins aren't strictly the purview of the quarterback. TD passes sort of are, and arm strength definitely is although I don't think it's very important in isolation and besides it doesn't have a correlating statistic. 

 

Slightly off-topic, but the reason separating position specific performance from overall team quality is so hard is because they're intertwined more often than not, and especially at QB. I think it's important to try to make a distinction, however, because when you're trying to find a QB either through the draft or free agency (or trying to decide whether the guy you've currently got is any good long-term), you're looking for a quarterback whose individual performance is top quality regardless of the talent surrounding him. That's why QB wins can't be your determining factor...you'd always rather have a guy who can perform well in isolation, THEN build around him. It's why Cousins is the highest paid QB per year despite having a negative W/L record.

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

You're going to have to help me out here. He obviously didn't score a TD in the Colts game that he missed with an injury, but in his last 5 starts we went 3-2 losing to the Pats twice. Tyrod had at least a TD in 3 of those games, he had 2 in one of them, and our O scored 2 more TDs that aren't accounted for in Tyrod's stats. How is that incapable of leading the team to even 1?

 

Can we please stop with the gross exaggeration to the point of bring false?

Besides, I think by the end of his 3 years it was pretty evident that Taylor's performance was on the downswing going by the stats I trust. Which, again, goes back to the point that wins and losses aren't always the result of the quarterback's performance...in Taylor's case it was a combination (imo) of McCoy, defenses initially not having tape on him and then adapting, Greg Roman/Lynn, and the eventual crumbling of the WR corp and an offensive line in total flux that were at least as influential as Taylor himself to the 'his'' W/L record. If GMs were swayed at all by the QB win/loss argument he would have been a much hotter commodity in free agency.

[Sky Diver]

22 minutes ago, billspro said:

There are a lot of quality stats. I usually pay attention to the following:

 

YPA above 9.0: Mayfield, Rudolph

Yards above 4000: Darnold, Mayfield, Jackson, Rudolph, White

completion percentage above 63: Darnold, Mayfield, Rudolph, White

TDs above 30: Mayfield, Jackson, Rudolph, White

INTs below 9: Mayfield, Rudolph, White

 

Its actually a little scary Rosen meets none of those criteria.

 

The year prior to Rosen, UCLA was 10 - 3.

 

During the Rosen years UCLA was 8 - 5, 4 - 8 and 6 - 7.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

53 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

 

 

Hence I was a Flutie fan. 

 

that explains EVERYTHING.

 

 

[xxxxxxxx]

44 minutes ago, Chemical said:

Not arguing any of that. I agree, I just laid out a very specific scenario i noticed the Bills in last season where Tyrod and/or the coaching staff were afraid to turn the ball over even when doing so wouldn't have hurt the team's chances any more than punting. 

 

another example would be an end of half or game hail mary that's intercepted. If I was looking at a players stats and saw he threw 15 ints but then dug deeper and learned that more than half were end of half hail marys I would be less concerned. 

Marino and Favre were like that, but both of them arguably lost alot of games as well.An interesting comparison is Dilfer, the only QB I can think of who won a superbowl and lost a job.

Edited April 19, 2018 by MURPHD6