[Bryan Lutes]

Clark Heins, on Apr 21 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

Bryan---As usual, you continue to be negative and critical and nit-picking about everything. No one ever said it was a perfect world. If you have some better idea, then tell us about it. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and squawk.

fgoodwin, on Apr 21 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

So far, all I've seen is nitpicking complaints about how the term is defined and used, with no one offering a better alternative.

If you are trying to see which QBs lead 'late and dramatic rallies' more frequently than others, then perhaps it would make more sense to analyze the QB's actual performance, and have some type of sliding scale where if the QB has 15 minutes to work with he must be trailing by more than 14 points, and if he has 5 minutes to work with he must be trailing by 7 or more points, etc. Then you would have to eliminate the "Joe Thiesmann Super Bowl XVII Effect" where a QB essentially does nothing but hand the ball off and then go to the sidelines to watch his defense dominate the opponent. Even baseball forces the starting pitcher to "pitch effectively" based on set statistical criteria before blindly awarding them a win.

[rhickok1109]

fgoodwin, on Apr 21 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

I agree the gross number of comeback wins is no more meaningful than total wins, as both measure longevity. But if we're going to discuss comeback wins, isn't it incumbent on the proponent to offer a definition? And if others find fault with it, isn't it incumbent on them to offer a better alternative?

So far, all I've seen is nitpicking complaints about how the term is defined and used, with no one offering a better alternative.

I think the problem lies in assigning a comeback win to the quarterback without knowing whether he, in fact, had anything to do with it.

If a team comes from behind to win on a kickoff return, a punt return, an interception return, or a fumble recovery, why on earth should the QB be credited?

Back when John Elway retired, nfl.com listed all of "his" comeback wins. I don't recall how many there were, but in at least a half-dozen of them, Elway had little or nothing to do with the victory. In one of them, for example, the Broncos, trailing by a point or two, recovered a fumble inside the opponents' 20-yard line. Elway handed the ball off to Sammy Winder three times for little gain, then Rich Karlis kicked the game-winning field goal.

So, if someone is going to tabulate comeback wins, it seems to me there have to be some criteria for the quarterback's involvement in the comeback. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 1. He has to throw a winning touchdown pass; or 2. On the drive leading to a winning score, he has to pass or scramble for more than half of the yards needed to score the TD or get into field goal range to win the game.

But, in line with what Bob Carroll said much earlier in this thread, I think there should also be distinct criteria for what constitutes a comeback. If a team trails 21-20 entering the fourth quarter, for example, a 23-21 win hardly qualifies as a comeback. But if they're trailing 21-20 when they take over at their own 20 with three minutes to play, maybe it should.

This is simply off the top of my head. I haven't given it much thought because, frankly, it doesn't particularly interest me.

[Clark Heins]

Bryan Lutes, on Apr 21 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

If you are trying to see which QBs lead 'late and dramatic rallies' more frequently than others, then perhaps it would make more sense to analyze the QB's actual performance, and have some type of sliding scale where if the QB has 15 minutes to work with he must be trailing by more than 14 points, and if he has 5 minutes to work with he must be trailing by 7 or more points, etc. Then you would have to eliminate the "Joe Thiesmann Super Bowl XVII Effect" where a QB essentially does nothing but hand the ball off and then go to the sidelines to watch his defense dominate the opponent. Even baseball forces the starting pitcher to "pitch effectively" based on set statistical criteria before blindly awarding them a win.

Bryan---I have no complaint with constructive criticism or criticism that points out some blatent error or criticism which triies---like your current post--- to be meaningful and done with some thought behind it.
I can sit here and come up with many inequities in this "comebak wins" situation. Not every QB has a Jerry Rice to throw to or a Steel Curtain defense to rely upon or a Bill Belichick as a coach or a Mile High Stadium to play in. Obviously some "comeback wins" are keyed by 100 yard kickoff returns or INTs run back into the endzone or a fumble on the goal line or a missed extra point. But all of these things tend to even out given enough years.
I think the NFL has sort of tried a "sliding scale" approach in some ways---giving us situational stats for the current crop of QBs. It seems very odd to me that the NFL (Elias) can break down statistics in minute detail by down and distance, but still can't provide us with something that should be simple---comebacks!

This type of research may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I find it utterly fascinating and try to take some meaning out of it all. For example, I found a very strong correlation between road w-l differentials and those QBs we consider the best of all-time. Along the way, I discovered a big surprise. Among all these great QBs, of all people, Charlie Conerly---one of my favorites---had the 3rd highest road w-l differential in NFL history---trailing only Montana and Brady!
Just recently, in trying to document QB comeback wins, several huge and unexpected surprises emerged: 1. As far as I can tell, Drew Bledsoe appears to be the "Two-Minute Comeback King" of all-time---by a fairly large margin. 2. Vinny Testaverde, the QB who has nore losses than any other QB, also has 18 road comeback wins---the second best total in NFL history---only behind Montana. 3. I just completed the figures on John Kitna who has only 46 wins to his credit in the NFL, but 19 of those wins are comeback wins. His Comeback Wins/Expected Comeback Wins ratio is a gaudy 1.45 which is higher than Joe Montana's 1.43! It is these surprises which make this type of research rewarding.

[Bryan Lutes]

Sorry to nitpick once again, but...

Clark Heins, on Apr 21 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

Obviously some "comeback wins" are keyed by 100 yard kickoff returns or INTs run back into the endzone or a fumble on the goal line or a missed extra point. But all of these things tend to even out given enough years.

Jon Kitna has 19 comeback wins (based on whatever comeback definition you are using). He's been in the league for 11 year (7 as a full-time starter), thats about 2 or 3 comeback wins a year. Is it really that unmanageable to see which games Kitna truly led his team to a comeback win? If the answer is yes, then perhaps the criteria needs to be tightened so fewer bogus comebacks slip through the cracks.

Clark Heins, on Apr 21 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

I think the NFL has sort of tried a "sliding scale" approach in some ways---giving us situational stats for the current crop of QBs. It seems very odd to me that the NFL (Elias) can break down statistics in minute detail by down and distance, but still can't provide us with something that should be simple---comebacks!

Even in this thread, there is disagreement as to what constitutes a comeback. That would be my guess as to why Elias doesn't give out situational stats for 'comebacks'.

Clark Heins, on Apr 21 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

Just recently, in trying to document QB comeback wins, several huge and unexpected surprises emerged: 1. As far as I can tell, Drew Bledsoe appears to be the "Two-Minute Comeback King" of all-time---by a fairly large margin.

What is a "Two-minute Comeback King"? Is that different than your original definition of 'comeback', where a QB had 15 minutes to rally from a 1-point deficit?

Clark Heins, on Apr 21 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

2. Vinny Testaverde, the QB who has nore losses than any other QB, also has 18 road comeback wins---the second best total in NFL history---only behind Montana.

Thats like saying Brett Favre has thrown the most INTs in history, and surprisingly he has also thrown the most TDs.

Clark Heins, on Apr 21 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

I just completed the figures on John Kitna who has only 46 wins to his credit in the NFL, but 19 of those wins are comeback wins. His Comeback Wins/Expected Comeback Wins ratio is a gaudy 1.45 which is higher than Joe Montana's 1.43! It is these surprises which make this type of research rewarding.

As I said in my first posting in this thread...if you aren't going to look at the QB's performance when awarding 'comeback wins', then you shouldn't be surprised when guys like Vinny Testaverde, Jay Fiedler, Kerry Collins, and Jon Kitna comprise the top 10 list.

[JohnH19]

This topic, much like the endless QB wins debate, is like a car wreck. You don't want to stare but you can't help it.

This thread is meaningless, yet compelling. Boring, yet fascinating. There is no rhyme or reason (except to Clark) for any of this and I don't think any of the rest of us, excepting possibly one or two, give a rat's ass about QB comeback wins, no matter how sane and logical a definition someone manages to come up with.

Clark, I wish you would find a meaningful stat like yards per pass attempt, for instance, to analyze and beat to death.

John

[Bob Carroll]

JohnH19, on Apr 21 2008, 07:07 PM, said:

This topic, much like the endless QB wins debate, is like a car wreck. You don't want to stare but you can't help it.

This thread is meaningless, yet compelling. Boring, yet fascinating. There is no rhyme or reason (except to Clark) for any of this and I don't think any of the rest of us, excepting possibly one or two, give a rat's ass about QB comeback wins, no matter how sane and logical a definition someone manages to come up with.

Clark, I wish you would find a meaningful stat like yards per pass attempt, for instance, to analyze and beat to death.

John

I agree with you, John, about the meaningless of this. I'd hate to have "He Opposed Comeback Wins" carved on my tombstone.

Unfortunately, the situation is like the old adage "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent." Comeback Wins and Quarterback Wins are not evil, just meaningless in comparing players. If we let the wacky ideas remain unopposed, it looks like we accept the idea. I'm sure I have a few whacky ideas myself. If the smart guys here don't stand up against me, it will convince me I'm right and others who haven't made up their minds assume my idea has legs. I think it's the duty of those who care to stand up for what they believe in.

[fgoodwin]

Bryan Lutes, on Apr 21 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

As I said in my first posting in this thread...if you aren't going to look at the QB's performance when awarding 'comeback wins', then you shouldn't be surprised when guys like Vinny Testaverde, Jay Fiedler, Kerry Collins, and Jon Kitna comprise the top 10 list.

And how would you propose to do that?

[Clark Heins]

JohnH19, on Apr 21 2008, 07:07 PM, said:

This topic, much like the endless QB wins debate, is like a car wreck. You don't want to stare but you can't help it.

This thread is meaningless, yet compelling. Boring, yet fascinating. There is no rhyme or reason (except to Clark) for any of this and I don't think any of the rest of us, excepting possibly one or two, give a rat's ass about QB comeback wins, no matter how sane and logical a definition someone manages to come up with.

Clark, I wish you would find a meaningful stat like yards per pass attempt, for instance, to analyze and beat to death.

John

If comeback wins have no importance, then why does the HOF devote a section on Elway's alleged 47 "come-from-behind-comebacks" on its web site? Why do so many web sites, media guides, football articles, time after time, mention comebacks? Why do your TV stations covering football flash comeback figures on the screen. Why do all the Tom Brady and John Elway and Brett Favre fans and devotees spend so much time discussing the subject? Why is the subject brought up in every conversation you hear about the great QBs?
Yards per pass attempt are part of a QB's passer rating formula. That formula is based upon the "aveages" obtained over a ten year period in the NFL---from 1960-69. Each QB is rated against a "standard". That "standard" remains the same forever, irregardless of the circumstances. Likewise, my own Comeback Wins/Expected Comeback Wins formula is based upon a ten year aveage---from 1996-2005 obtained from Mr. McKinley's research. By using a "standard" by which to judge comeback wins performances, it serves the same purpose as the QB passer rating formula. Every QB, from any era, can be judged against a "standard".

Comeback wins are about the easiest thing in the world to understand. To achieve a comeback win, the winning team must be behind in the game either at the start of or during the fourth quarter.

[Bob Carroll]

Clark Heins, on Apr 22 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

If comeback wins have no importance, then why does the HOF devote a section on Elway's alleged 47 "come-from-behind-comebacks" on its web site? Why do so many web sites, media guides, football articles, time after time, mention comebacks? Why do your TV stations covering football flash comeback figures on the screen. Why do all the Tom Brady and John Elway and Brett Favre fans and devotees spend so much time discussing the subject? Why is the subject brought up in every conversation you hear about the great QBs?
Yards per pass attempt are part of a QB's passer rating formula. That formula is based upon the "aveages" obtained over a ten year period in the NFL---from 1960-69. Each QB is rated against a "standard". That "standard" remains the same forever, irregardless of the circumstances. Likewise, my own Comeback Wins/Expected Comeback Wins formula is based upon a ten year aveage---from 1996-2005 obtained from Mr. McKinley's research. By using a "standard" by which to judge comeback wins performances, it serves the same purpose as the QB passer rating formula. Every QB, from any era, can be judged against a "standard".

Comeback wins are about the easiest thing in the world to understand. To achieve a comeback win, the winning team must be behind in the game either at the start of or during the fourth quarter.

Why do books about presidents always mention that Millard Fillmore was the first to install a bathtub in the white house and William Howard Taft was too big for the tub? Because people are always interested in little factoids. The bathtub didn't make Fillmore a better president than some we can name; it's just an interesting piece of trivia. We've never suggested that many people enjoy trivia. Our point has always been that yoou can't use this piece of trivia to rank quarterbacks. Would you rank presidents on how well they scrubbed their butts?

[Gabe]

Bob Carroll, on Apr 22 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

Why do books about presidents always mention that Millard Fillmore was the first to install a bathtub in the white house and William Howard Taft was too big for the tub? Because people are always interested in little factoids. The bathtub didn't make Fillmore a better president than some we can name; it's just an interesting piece of trivia. We've never suggested that many people enjoy trivia. Our point has always been that yoou can't use this piece of trivia to rank quarterbacks. Would you rank presidents on how well they scrubbed their butts?

Does anyone remember major league baseball's Game Winning RBI? Just because it is a statistic does not make it significant. Perhaps a better measure would be a QB's 4th quarter performance - sometimes the manner by which a QB protected a lead is as or is more important than the QB's ability to handoff to a running back while engineering a comeback from 1 point behind with 14:59 left in the game.

[JohnH19]

Clark Heins, on Apr 22 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

Comeback wins are about the easiest thing in the world to understand. To achieve a comeback win, the winning team must be behind in the game either at the start of or during the fourth quarter.

It is an easy statistic to understand but the definition only accentuates the silliness of it. Now, if the definition was "a win achieved after being behind by more than 10 points in the fourth period", I might have some mild interest. But, even then, a good team rarely trails by more than 10 points going into the fourth period so a QB on those teams won't have many opportunities to achieve a precious comeback win.

I think it's great that you're fascinated by QB win stats, Clark, but they really don't tell us much about the quality of the player himself and that's why many of us take issue with you on them.

John

[Clark Heins]

Gabe, on Apr 22 2008, 07:21 PM, said:

Does anyone remember major league baseball's Game Winning RBI? Just because it is a statistic does not make it significant. Perhaps a better measure would be a QB's 4th quarter performance - sometimes the manner by which a QB protected a lead is as or is more important than the QB's ability to handoff to a running back while engineering a comeback from 1 point behind with 14:59 left in the game.

You've hit the nail right on the head. That is exactly what Joe Montana was talking about, back iin 1995, when he worked as a color analyst for one of the TV stations. What Montana was saying is that it is much more difficult to maintain a fourth quarter lead than to overcome one. Why? Because it takes wits and guile and intelligence---playing a game of chess---as he was taught by Bill Walsh---to maintain a lead. To overcome a lead, caution is thrown to the wind and the team behind takes chances that it ordinarily wouldn't take. Sometimes these chances hit pay dirt. Most of the time they end in disaster.
The point Montana ws trying to make is that it is better for a QB to be dominant---not needing a comeback--- rather than to get lucky in some frantic fourth quarter rally. The great irony, for Montana, was that he was one of the greatest QBs of all-time at staging frantic rallies while the greater trait---dominance---belonged to the QB he snubbed his nose at---Steve Young!

One of the last, and greatest, areas of QB research is there---waiting for someone to tackle it---making a quantitative analysis of dominance on the part of QBs. The way to do it is staring us in the face. It is just the opposite of comeback wins research. Instead of determining which QB led his team to a comeback win, one must determine which QB was able to maintain the lead in the fourth quarter! Once again, Mr. McKinley's research becomes invaluable---for, if 23.2% of the games end in comeback wins, then 76.8% of those games end with leads (either at the start of the fourth quarter or during the fourth quarter) maintained! So, again, we have a standard to work with---an aveage NFL QB will mainain fourth quarter leads in 38.4% of the games he starts. Since the chances of maintaining a lead is much greater than staging a comeback, we will have a greater number of games to enter into our formula (Fourth Quarter Leads Maintained/Expected Fourth Quarter Leads Maintained) and, thus, we can obtain a much better gage of "QB dominance" than we can of "QB comeback ability".

The problem, of course, is that "comebacks", despite all the howls and protests from our fellow Forum members, are sexy and exciting and appeal to the public's imagination. Every media guide enjoys trying to document comebacks (mostly unsuccessfully), but nary a one have I ever seen which cares to document leads maintained. Yet, along with all of football's many ironies, NFL football (Elias) (and even Mr. McKinley) does document the records of coaches who maintain leads in the fourth quarter. If NFL football can do so for the coaches, why can't they do it for the QBs?

Just as Joe Montana has a blind spot concerning Steve Young, so too do I have a blind spot in being excited by "Comeback Wins" rather than "Leads Maintained". That such research can be accomplished, and can be accomplished in a relatively short time, is proven by the fact that I, old and with eyes so bad I can hardly read line scores anymore, here are a few more comeback wins totals for several more QBs I've completed in the last week: Eli Manning 10 (5A, 4H, 1N). Kerry Collins 18 (9A, 9H). Mark Brunell 16 (9A, 7H). Phil Simms 15 (8A, 7H). Jake Delhomme 10 (6A, 4H). Ben Roethisberger 11 (7A, 4H). Jim Harbaugh 14 (5A, 9H). Jake Plummer 20 (8A, 12H). Danny White 15 (8A, 7H). Terry Bradshaw 20 (5A, 13H, 2N). Jon Kitna 19 (6A, 13H). Steve McNair 16 (8A, 8H). Warren Moon 20 (9A, 11H). Randall Cunningham 22 (13A, 9H).

And what use is all of this you might ask! Well, the next time you're at a party and hear someone start raving about how great Brett Favre was and how many games he pulled out, you might want to point out that the losingest QB in NFL history---Vinny Testaverde---had the same number of comeback wins as the winningest QB---Brett Favre---29!

[Bob Gill]

>That is exactly what Joe Montana was talking about ... What Montana was saying is that it is much more difficult to maintain a fourth quarter lead than to overcome one....
>One of the last, and greatest, areas of QB research is there---waiting for someone to tackle it---making a quantitative analysis of dominance on the part of QBs. The way to do it is staring us in the face. It is just the opposite of comeback wins research. Instead of determining which QB led his team to a comeback win, one must determine which QB was able to maintain the lead in the fourth quarter! Once again, Mr. McKinley's research becomes invaluable---for, if 23.2% of the games end in comeback wins, then 76.8% of those games end with leads (either at the start of the fourth quarter or during the fourth quarter) maintained! So, again, we have a standard to work with---an aveage NFL QB will maintain fourth quarter leads in 38.4% of the games he starts. Since the chances of maintaining a lead is much greater than staging a comeback...


Though I'm sure at this point, as we swirl ever further down the drain, that there's absolutely no chance of getting through, I couldn't resist a couple of the most ridiculous points here.

* The supposed fact that 76.8 percent of all games end with a fourth-quarter lead maintained demonstrates rather conclusively that it's NOT harder to do that than it is to come back.

* If 76.8 percent of all games end that way, then why will an average quarterback manage to maintain a lead 38.4 percent of the time -- exactly half the number that's already described as AVERAGE?

* I can't help laughing out loud as I read that this is one of the greatest areas of research for "a quantitative analysis of dominance on the part of QBs." I used to think I could tell from Dan Marino's 1984 stats, for instance, that he was dominant that season, but that was just based on all those record-setting numbers and the fact that his team (NOT MARINO HIMSELF!) went 14-2.

[rhickok1109]

Clark Heins, on Apr 24 2008, 12:19 AM, said:

You've hit the nail right on the head. That is exactly what Joe Montana was talking about, back in 1995, when he worked as a color analyst for one of the TV stations. What Montana was saying is that it is much more difficult to maintain a fourth quarter lead than to overcome one. Why? Because it takes wits and guile and intelligence---playing a game of chess---as he was taught by Bill Walsh---to maintain a lead. To overcome a lead, caution is thrown to the wind and the team behind takes chances that it ordinarily wouldn't take. Sometimes these chances hit pay dirt. Most of the time they end in disaster.
The point Montana ws trying to make is that it is better for a QB to be dominant---not needing a comeback--- rather than to get lucky in some frantic fourth quarter rally.

This is self-contradictory. How can it be said that "is is much more difficult to maintain a fourth quarter lead than to overcome one" and that most attempts to overcome a lead "end in disaster"?

[JohnH19]

Admit it, Clark. You're really just toying with us, aren't you?

I don't think I'm even going to be able to read, let alone understand, your last sermon.

John

[Bob Carroll]

JohnH19, on Apr 24 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

Admit it, Clark. You're really just toying with us, aren't you?

I don't think I'm even going to be able to read, let alone understand, your last sermon.

John

This is like watching a cobra rise out of a basket; we keep toodling a flute when we should get the hell out. But every time we turn around . . . .

Okay, Cunningham had 22 comebacks, Bradshaw had 20, Plummer also had 20, and Mcnair had 16, proving the first three were better than McNair, Cunningham was better than Bradshaw, and since he sdidn,t start as many games as Cunningham and Bradshaw, Plummer is the best of the four. All those who believe that, raise your right hand -- and punch yourself in the mouth.

[conace21]

Bob Carroll, on Apr 24 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

This is like watching a cobra rise out of a basket; we keep toodling a flute when we should get the hell out. But every time we turn around . . . .

Okay, Cunningham had 22 comebacks, Bradshaw had 20, Plummer also had 20, and Mcnair had 16, proving the first three were better than McNair, Cunningham was better than Bradshaw, and since he sdidn,t start as many games as Cunningham and Bradshaw, Plummer is the best of the four. All those who believe that, raise your right hand -- and punch yourself in the mouth.

Owww. Does anyone know of a good dentist in Western New York?

[Clark Heins]

Bob Gill, on Apr 24 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

>That is exactly what Joe Montana was talking about ... What Montana was saying is that it is much more difficult to maintain a fourth quarter lead than to overcome one....
>One of the last, and greatest, areas of QB research is there---waiting for someone to tackle it---making a quantitative analysis of dominance on the part of QBs. The way to do it is staring us in the face. It is just the opposite of comeback wins research. Instead of determining which QB led his team to a comeback win, one must determine which QB was able to maintain the lead in the fourth quarter! Once again, Mr. McKinley's research becomes invaluable---for, if 23.2% of the games end in comeback wins, then 76.8% of those games end with leads (either at the start of the fourth quarter or during the fourth quarter) maintained! So, again, we have a standard to work with---an aveage NFL QB will maintain fourth quarter leads in 38.4% of the games he starts. Since the chances of maintaining a lead is much greater than staging a comeback...


Though I'm sure at this point, as we swirl ever further down the drain, that there's absolutely no chance of getting through, I couldn't resist a couple of the most ridiculous points here.

* The supposed fact that 76.8 percent of all games end with a fourth-quarter lead maintained demonstrates rather conclusively that it's NOT harder to do that than it is to come back.

* If 76.8 percent of all games end that way, then why will an average quarterback manage to maintain a lead 38.4 percent of the time -- exactly half the number that's already described as AVERAGE?

* I can't help laughing out loud as I read that this is one of the greatest areas of research for "a quantitative analysis of dominance on the part of QBs." I used to think I could tell from Dan Marino's 1984 stats, for instance, that he was dominant that season, but that was just based on all those record-setting numbers and the fact that his team (NOT MARINO HIMSELF!) went 14-2.

Dear Mr. Gill,
For someone who is suppose to be an experienced, intelligent, and responsible researcher, you have missed several salient points of information: First, and foremost, you mistakingly misidentify me with Joe Montana. I was merely quoting an opinion expressed by Montana. However, I do believe that Montana's opinion is correct.
Secondly, it is obvious that you have not bothered to read Mr. McKinley's article. If you had, you would be aware that his research dealt, not with comeback wins per se, but with comeback win opportunities. According to his research, over a period of 2598 games played between 1996-2005, 1474 of those games involved fourth period deficits of eight or fewer points (a comeback opportunity). Of those 1474 comeback opportunities, 603 ended in comeback wins---40.9%. (Footnote: The 603 comeback wins total includes all comebacks---not just those from eight points or less). Overall, comeback wins represented 23.2% of all games played. As a by-product of Mr. McKinley's research, it gives us a "standard" by which to judge the comeback ability of QBs, irregardless of what era they played in or irregardless of what their circumstances might have been.That "standard" is 11.6 comeback wins per 100 career starts.
As another by-product of Mr. McKinley's research, we are also made aware that 76.8% of all games conclude with one team or the other maining a fourth quarter lead---a "standard" of 38.4% per QB. On the surface, it does appear that Montana's opinion is wrong. But, is it? Well, let us dig further into Mr. McKinley's stats. If 40.9% of all games considered comeback opportunities end in comeback wins, then the aveage NFL QB, given these circumstances, would emerge with a comeback win 20.45% of the time. It is these games that Montana was talking about---not the 1124 games where one team was hopelessly behind. It was Montana's job to keep this figure of 20.45% as low as possible. To do so, he had to play nearly flawless ball, staying away from mental and physical errors which could cost his team the game. On the other hand, the opposing QB, could play as if he had nothing to lose. In my opinion, it would be much more difficult, mentally and physically, to retain a lead under these circumstances, then to overcome a lead. That more leads are maintained than surrendered is a testament to the dominance of the winning team and the winning QB. However, you are correct in pointing out that more leads are maintained than surrendered, but that does not discredit Montana's opinion of the difficulties encountered by each situation. The only way to find out for sure is to ask the opinions of other NFL QBs. I suspect that they will agree with Montana.


On a personal note, every person's research, no matter how minor or uneventful it may be, has some importance---even if it proves to be wrong in its conclusions. I am constantly amazed at how willing some Forum members are at tearing into another person's research, not for the purpose of offering constructive criticism or helpful suggestions, but for the sole purpose of making up a tasteless and stupid joke. Of all people, you should be above this type of behavior.
With regards, Clark

[Bob Carroll]

Clark Heins, on Apr 24 2008, 11:49 PM, said:

Dear Mr. Gill,
For someone who is suppose to be an experienced, intelligent, and responsible researcher, you have missed several salient points of information: First, and foremost, you mistakingly misidentify me with Joe Montana. I was merely quoting an opinion expressed by Montana. However, I do believe that Montana's opinion is correct.
Secondly, it is obvious that you have not bothered to read Mr. McKinley's article. If you had, you would be aware that his research dealt, not with comeback wins per se, but with comeback win opportunities. According to his research, over a period of 2598 games played between 1996-2005, 1474 of those games involved fourth period deficits of eight or fewer points (a comeback opportunity). Of those 1474 comeback opportunities, 603 ended in comeback wins---40.9%. (Footnote: The 603 comeback wins total includes all comebacks---not just those from eight points or less). Overall, comeback wins represented 23.2% of all games played. As a by-product of Mr. McKinley's research, it gives us a "standard" by which to judge the comeback ability of QBs, irregardless of what era they played in or irregardless of what their circumstances might have been.That "standard" is 11.6 comeback wins per 100 career starts.
As another by-product of Mr. McKinley's research, we are also made aware that 76.8% of all games conclude with one team or the other maining a fourth quarter lead---a "standard" of 38.4% per QB. On the surface, it does appear that Montana's opinion is wrong. But, is it? Well, let us dig further into Mr. McKinley's stats. If 40.9% of all games considered comeback opportunities end in comeback wins, then the aveage NFL QB, given these circumstances, would emerge with a comeback win 20.45% of the time. It is these games that Montana was talking about---not the 1124 games where one team was hopelessly behind. It was Montana's job to keep this figure of 20.45% as low as possible. To do so, he had to play nearly flawless ball, staying away from mental and physical errors which could cost his team the game. On the other hand, the opposing QB, could play as if he had nothing to lose. In my opinion, it would be much more difficult, mentally and physically, to retain a lead under these circumstances, then to overcome a lead. That more leads are maintained than surrendered is a testament to the dominance of the winning team and the winning QB. However, you are correct in pointing out that more leads are maintained than surrendered, but that does not discredit Montana's opinion of the difficulties encountered by each situation. The only way to find out for sure is to ask the opinions of other NFL QBs. I suspect that they will agree with Montana.


On a personal note, every person's research, no matter how minor or uneventful it may be, has some importance---even if it proves to be wrong in its conclusions. I am constantly amazed at how willing some Forum members are at tearing into another person's research, not for the purpose of offering constructive criticism or helpful suggestions, but for the sole purpose of making up a tasteless and stupid joke. Of all people, you should be above this type of behavior.
With regards, Clark

But Clark, your research IS a joke. We're not debating the tabulation of so-called "Comeback Wins," although the research can be criticized for lacking a realistic definition. What we find wooly, weird, and reprehensible is your maintaing that these situations in any way indicate that one quarterback is better than another. It's like if you were Newton and when the apple hit you in the head you gave a dissertation on the superiority of apples to oranges. The research might be of some interest to some, but you spoil that by trumpeting a false conclusion.

On another subject, I wasn't going to mention this, but apparently "irregardless" is one of your favorite words -- there is no word "irregardless," there's only "regardless."

[Bob Gill]

>Dear Mr. Gill,
>For someone who is suppose to be an experienced, intelligent, and responsible researcher, you have missed several salient points of information: First, and foremost, you mistakingly misidentify me with Joe Montana. I was merely quoting an opinion expressed by Montana. However, I do believe that Montana's opinion is correct.

No, I didn't do that at all. My quote of your post clearly included the fact that Montana had made the original statement. Still, I wonder why you even try to make that claim, since in the next breath you admit that you agree with Montana's statement.


>I am constantly amazed at how willing some Forum members are at tearing into another person's research, not for the purpose of offering constructive criticism or helpful suggestions, but for the sole purpose of making up a tasteless and stupid joke.

I certainly don't have any constructive criticism to offer because, as I said here years ago, I think won-lost records for quarterbacks are fatally flawed in concept. I don't think it's a question of tweaking something to fix a small problem or make a number more accurate; I think it's not a valid statistic in the first place, like those TV graphics comparing each quarterback's passer rating after the first quarter. That's all.