Removing Defense As a Factor in QB Wins

[StumpHunter]

I believe I said it was my fault you misunderstood, which means I was blaming myself.

However, since you continue to go down the same line of thinking that has absolutely nothing to do with the article in the OP, despite it being explained to you twice, this is on you now.



When you have 8 seasons worth of starts 2 seasons is not going to impact these types of numbers significantly. Your post also implies the past 2 seasons hurt Cousins in these numbers, and I wonder if that is actually true?


You don't think having a QB that can overcome a tough situation twice as often as another QB is beneficial? 25 points isn't a lot of points, and there are QBs who actually win half or more of their games when their team gives up to 30, while our QB wins 1-4. That is a HUGE difference and explains why no team even asked about trading for Cousins this off season.

Fine. It's on me. Here's what I have to say, if it's not already clear.

IT'S A DUMB TOPIC!

You're making it out to be this incredibly important stat when it's not.

I get it. Not everyone has the same analytical mind that I do so numbers like these that PROVE that if you replaced Cousins with just about any starting QB the team would be more likely to win more games don't mean the same thing to them. I just better not hear about how "no QB could win with this defense" during the upcoming season, since the numbers above prove that most could.

And for God's sake, it doesn't explain why "no team even asked about trading for Cousins" — that's a statement for which you have absolutely no proof, either that no team asked about trading for him or that that's the reason. It's just you once again showing us how bad you think Cousins is.

The proof is multiple reports stating that Cleveland and Carolina were not interested and if those two teams didn't want Kirk, I am not sure which team would.

News flash. Kirk Cousins is the Vikings' quarterback for the next two years. So throw out all the stats you want. That's not gonna change. Maybe what you ought to be doing is hoping that Kevin O'Connell actually CAN get more out of him than Mike Zimmer, Klint Kubiak, Gary Kubiak, Kevin Stefanski and John DeFilippo could. I wonder ... if O'Connell actually DOES get better play out of Cousins, will you show us a bunch of stats that prove THAT? I'm not holding my breath.

Funny thing is, I have showed stats that show Zimmer, not McVay, not O'Connell the last time he coached Kirk, has gotten the most out of Kirk, so breath easy. I will provide links to examples if you want them. It is just that the most out of Kirk isn't all that good.

[allday1991]

Fine. It's on me. Here's what I have to say, if it's not already clear.

IT'S A DUMB TOPIC!

You're making it out to be this incredibly important stat when it's not.

I get it. Not everyone has the same analytical mind that I do so numbers like these that PROVE that if you replaced Cousins with just about any starting QB the team would be more likely to win more games don't mean the same thing to them. I just better not hear about how "no QB could win with this defense" during the upcoming season, since the numbers above prove that most could.

Numbers help to justify a 'theory' multiple "controlled" test then verify the accuracy of said numbers. By multiple controlled test I mean thousands, until you get a very high success rate, even then there is a possibility for uncontrolled or unexpected results to take place due to variance. Yet we are going to cherry pick stats from an uncontrolled game and consider them proof? This wouldn't stand up in any type of scientific debate. Sure crunching some stats can give an indication however to say that indication is solid proof is just not realistic. If this were true football teams would be full of statistic experts that don't need to know anything about the game because it can be summed up by numbers, trends etc.