[JohnH19]

Bob Carroll, on May 2 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

No one can offer an alternative to judging quarterbacks by comeback wins because comeback wins do not provide a way to judge quarterbacks. Providing an alternative? Is a lemon merengue pie an alternative to a rocket ship? Is aa anteater an alternative to a tea kettle?

Since comeback wins do not prove anything, the only thing that can be done with them is settle on some sort of definition and then count up the number of games in which a quarterback meets that definition. Unfortunately, since there doesn't seem to be a majority in agreement on a particular definition, we can't even do that.

If we did have an agreed to definition, and if we took the time to add up all the examples that fit, we'd have -- wow -- the number of games in which a team met the definition!. We would NOT, however, have a method by which any sane person would rank quarterbacks.

Youdaman, Bob!

John

[fgoodwin]

Bob Carroll, on May 2 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

Since comeback wins do not prove anything, the only thing that can be done with them is settle on some sort of definition and then count up the number of games in which a quarterback meets that definition. Unfortunately, since there doesn't seem to be a majority in agreement on a particular definition, we can't even do that.

Yet that doesn't stop anyone and everyone, from beat reporters to the HOF, from touting the comeback qualities of QBs like John Elway and Joe Montana. If such a concept is going to applied to QBs in an effort to demonstrate how worthy they are of HOF consideration (for example), it seems to me not a bad idea to try to define what the concept is, then measure / apply it objectively to different QBs to see what results.

If you don't care for the idea, you don't have to play.

[Clark Heins]

Aricg, on May 2 2008, 01:26 AM, said:

To me, a game winning drive that happens in the last 5 minutes of the game is far more important than a comeback win calculated during the entire 4th quarter. If the game is tied or your team is trailing in the final 5 minutes, how do quarterbacks perform? This is crunch time and holds a lot more weight to me than a regular comeback.

Think about the great drives that are remembered or great comebacks. These happened in the final minutes of a game. John Elway and The Drive (98 yards) in Cleveland against all odds. Joe Montana in the Super Bowl against the Bengals - 92 yards for a touchdown. There have been many others. So what I guess I am saying is how does a player perform with the game on the line is of great importance in the value of a quarterback, much more than if his team came back early in the 4th quarter.

To make it even more interesting, how many times when a quarterback trailed or was in a tie game with less than two minutes to play did they lead their team to go ahead points.

Just my two cents.

Your two cents are worth a million bucks. Your comments make a lot of sense. Certainly a heroic comeback in the last two minutes of a game should probably count more than---oh, let's say---Phil Simms first comeback win which was achieved when Harry Carson intercepted a pass and ran it back into the endzone for the winning points. But, with the data we have at hand, Simms' comeback win in a meaningless game, and through no effort of his own, counts just as much as one of Elway's magical comebacks. In time, hopefully we'll have more statistical data available so that our analysis becomes more efficient and we can create situational stats. I seem to remember that some of Brett Favre's comebacks were achieved through no effort of his own---by INTs, by kickoff returns, by long-range FGs, etc. The same holds true for every QB. Didn't Brett Favre receive credit for a comeback win recently when his pass, thrown directly into the arms of a defender, bounce off the defender's hands and into the hands of a receiver for the winning score. Eli Manning's comeback win in the Super Bowl was keyed by Asante Samuel's drop of an easy INT which would have effectively ended the game. These things tend to even out over a long period of time. Some of the greatest comeback efforts of all-time are not even recognized because they didn't result in a victory---just made the final score close.

[Bob Carroll]

fgoodwin, on May 2 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

Yet that doesn't stop anyone and everyone, from beat reporters to the HOF, from touting the comeback qualities of QBs like John Elway and Joe Montana. If such a concept is going to applied to QBs in an effort to demonstrate how worthy they are of HOF consideration (for example), it seems to me not a bad idea to try to define what the concept is, then measure / apply it objectively to different QBs to see what results.

If you don't care for the idea, you don't have to play.

If I thought there was a scintilla of use for this bogus stat, I'd be cheering it on. As it is, I have no objection to anyone who wants to spend endless hours toting up these things, however defined. It's the claim that the comeback games prove anything in ranking one quarterback over another. That's not a hard concept to understand. To suggest one quarterback is superior to another on this stat is terribly misleading and sometimes is counter to established ways of estimating QB ability.

So yes, we have to play.

[Gabe]

Bob Carroll, on May 2 2008, 09:06 PM, said:

If I thought there was a scintilla of use for this bogus stat, I'd be cheering it on. As it is, I have no objection to anyone who wants to spend endless hours toting up these things, however defined. It's the claim that the comeback games prove anything in ranking one quarterback over another. That's not a hard concept to understand. To suggest one quarterback is superior to another on this stat is terribly misleading and sometimes is counter to established ways of estimating QB ability.

So yes, we have to play.

Bob, I agree. And furthermore, it's not as if we haven't had a number of interesting and insightful discussions of various QBs' effectiveness without having to know the exact number of comebacks or protected leads, or any other statistical minutia. The"come up with something better" argument pre-supposes that the "something better" has not already been raised and discussed by a number of people in previous threads and articles. I disagree with that presumption and would echo once more everything that Bob and Bryan have said previously.

[fgoodwin]

Gabe, on May 2 2008, 09:43 PM, said:

The"come up with something better" argument pre-supposes that the "something better" has not already been raised and discussed by a number of people in previous threads and articles. I disagree with that presumption and would echo once more everything that Bob and Bryan have said previously.

I don't "pre-suppose" anything.

If "something better" has indeed been brought up before, why don't those who object to the OP point to such "something better"? So far, none have done so, instead choosing to criticize and argue why they don't care for the comeback stat.

If you believe "something better" has indeed been offered up before, then by all means please point it out.

[Bob Carroll]

fgoodwin, on May 2 2008, 10:54 PM, said:

I don't "pre-suppose" anything.

If "something better" has indeed been brought up before, why don't those who object to the OP point to such "something better"? So far, none have done so, instead choosing to criticize and argue why they don't care for the comeback stat.

If you believe "something better" has indeed been offered up before, then by all means please point it out.

In estimating the quality of a passer, you can start with his season and career totals in attempts, completions, yards, interceptions, and touchdowns. When available, you might throw in sacks. Once you have the totals, you go to the averages per pass, per game, per season, and per career -- attempts, completions, yards, interceptions, touchdowns, and when available sacks. Then you look at some of the systems that exist. One is to arrange whet you believe to be the most important averages in inverse order and then use that to come up with a grade. You could look into the current Passer Rating System. Or you might use the improved Passer Rating System we described in The Hidden Game of Football. If i'm remembering correctly Alan Barra has a slightly different system.

A good idea would be to examine how much of a team's offense is generated by its quarterback's passing. This might give you a sense of whether a team has a strong rushing attack which can definitely affect how often and how effectively the quarterback passes. You should also gve some consideration to the ability of a quarterback's receivers. Surely Joe Montana benefitted from having Jerry Rice instead of "Ironhands" Kadiddle. Another factor would be the quality of the quarterback's line. If he seems to have too many sacks, is that because of poor offensive line play or a tendecy for the QB to hold the ball to long?

Naturally, you'll want to check the quality of the quarterback's team on defense. That dictates how much time the offense gets to spend with the ball. It also may suggest whether he must spend a lot of time playing catch-up with possibly high-risk passes or how much time protecting a lead which may reduce his pass attempts.

At this point, you may want to give some thought to how effective your passer is as a quarterback. Of course the quarterback doesn't call the play in the huddle anymore, but maybe you can find out how often he audibles at the line of scrimmage. Of course you shouldn't blame your quarterback when receivers drop passes or running backs fumbe. Unfortunately, without film of a play, you can't tell when a quarterback got the benefit of an unbelievable catch or a sensational run.

Although the results are subjective, you should give some consideration to all-pro teams. If you've studied them for a few years, you should begin to get an idea which teams seem most reliable (we discussed this earlier). The Pro Bowl teams are best if you can get the original choices instead of the players who replaced the original starters.

I'm sure I missed a few ideas and methods. No doubt this does take a lot of effort. Too bad the comeback wins are nonsense for rating quarterbacks. They're so much easier than thinking.

[Bob Gill]

>I don't "pre-suppose" anything.

>If "something better" has indeed been brought up before, why don't those who object to the OP point to such "something better"? So far, none have done so, instead choosing to criticize and argue why they don't care for the comeback stat.

>If you believe "something better" has indeed been offered up before, then by all means please point it out.


The copious passing stats we have for all quarterbacks, combined with their teams' performances in the regular season and the playoffs, provide all the information anybody should need to evaluate quarterbacks. NO SINGLE NUMBER will do the trick -- not total yardage, not total TDs, certainly not the NFL's passer rating (unless you believe Neil O'Donnell is actually better than Sammy Baugh), not the team's won-lost record. But taking all of these facts into account, along with other things that we know about that can affect them (such as the caliber of Sonny Jurgensen's teams or the caliber of John Elway's receivers in the 1980s, among many others), can give us a pretty good idea of who the best QBs are.

A quarterback doesn't win or lose a game, so a won-lost record based on QB starts doesn't add anything to the mix. And breaking up this already unnecessary "stat" into comebacks and non-comebacks simply makes a trivial number more trivial. If we know that the Colts went 12-4 with Peyton Manning as their quarterback in a given season, are they any better off if four of those 12 wins came on "comebacks" or just two? Of course not; they're 12-4 in either case. It's nice to know that your quarterback has the ability to bring the team back in the final minutes, but I think we can pick out the guys we'd want in those situations simply by looking at the raw stats. Manning, Brady, Favre, Montana, you pick yours -- the guys you'd want in the final minutes are the guys with the best numbers overall. No one would ever want to swap Testaverde for Manning even if it turns out that Vinny has more "comebacks"; it's an absolute non-issue.

The fact that the networks or the people pushing somebody for the Hall of Fame cite these trumped-up comeback figures doesn't mean somebody needs to make them better; it means we need to ignore them until they stop doing it. And that can happen, too. Remember about 25 or 30 years ago when you couldn't watch a Dallas game without the announcers proclaiming that the Cowboys were something like 107-2 when Tony Dorsett ran for 100 yards? That's as meaningless as these figures for fourth-quarter comebacks, but it was all the rage for a while. Eventually, though, rationality won out and this kind of thing disappeared. It wasn't because anybody proposed a BETTER way to calculate this stupid thing; I assume it's just that people eventually realized that it didn't mean anything. I hope the same will happen with won-lost records and "comeback wins" by quarterbacks. It's annoying to keep hearing "Sure, you criticize it, but you're not improving it," when the point is that it can't be improved because it's useless.

Is that specific enough?

[fgoodwin]

Bob Gill, on May 2 2008, 10:58 PM, said:

The copious passing stats we have for all quarterbacks, combined with their teams' performances in the regular season and the playoffs, provide all the information anybody should need to evaluate quarterbacks.

All well and good, but for one minor point: this thread isn't about evaluating quarterbacks -- its about defining and assessing comeback wins. If you want to come up with a better passer rating, knock yourself out -- but that's not the subject of this thread.

Quote

The fact that the networks or the people pushing somebody for the Hall of Fame cite these trumped-up comeback figures doesn't mean somebody needs to make them better; it means we need to ignore them until they stop doing it.

Tell it to the HOF; I believe someone cited them as touting Elway's comeback numbers.

Quote

It's annoying to keep hearing "Sure, you criticize it, but you're not improving it," when the point is that it can't be improved because it's useless.

Well, that's certainly one opinion. Its just as annoying hearing you guys claim its pointless.

But you're certainly entitled to believe that -- just as I am entitled to wonder why is it that if the concept of comeback wins is so pointless, that you guys don't simply take your own advice and ignore it?

Instead, y'all expend so much energy denigrating it I get the feeling someone's about to pop a vein . . .

[Clark Heins]

Aricg, on May 2 2008, 02:05 AM, said:

I quickly looked at Elway's 47 comebacks according to the Hall of Fame and the Broncos. What is more impressive to me than the 47 comebacks is this.

In final 5 minutes of a game - 36 game winning drives
In final 2 minutes of a game - 25 game winning drives

I pulled these numbers very quickly, so I could have made an error by 1 or 2. I am sure if you look at Montana, Marino and some of the other greats - you would see that they would have similar stats. Where Jon Kitna or some of the other average quarterbacks with 4th quarter comebacks probably do not have most of these in the final minutes of the game. This is just a guess on my part, but it makes sense.

Bobby Layne didn't become famous because his team trailed at the beginning of the 4th quarter and then they scored at the beginning of the quarter to give them a lead. He became famous for his last minute heroics.

Once again, I thinking being Great in the Clutch is far more important than just a number. That is why people remember Montana, Layne, Staubach, Elway, Marino, and others and do not remember Testaverde.

Elway is better documented than most QBs, but he actually had only 13 comeback wins in the last two minutes. That, none-the-less, is a very impressive figure and I wouldn't doubt that it is probably tops among the QBs. I had thought that Drew Bledsoe was the leader, but I went back and his totals didn't add up to 13.

Most QBs, like Bobby Layne, we just don't have two minute totals. Layne is remembered for pulling out that last second TD pass against the Browns to win the championship. In 1959, Layne pulled off two impressive late comeback wins via the pass, on consecutive weekends on the road, against the Giants and the Browns. As far as I can make out, Layne had 14 comeback wins in his career---1 with the Bulldogs, 8 with Detroit, and 5 with Pittsburgh. Nine of those occurred on the road. He also was the losing QB of record during 10 comeback wins by opponants---1 with the Bulldogs, 7 with Detroit, and 2 with Pittsburgh. Additionally, he had a 35-36-1 road record and a 47-25-4 home record.

As you might imagine, Johnny Unitas was the "King of the Comeback Wins" during those years. The Colts Media Guide credits Unitas with 31 comeback wins, but I'm having trouble documenting that total. Actually, I keep coming up with a slightly higher total---34 to be exact. It is difficult to tell with Unitas because Earl Morrall replaced him in a number of games. There have been so many books written about Unitas, does anyone know if any of them have documented his comeback wins?
In comparison to other QBs from that era, Charlie Conerly had 14 comeback wins (8A, 6H); Eddie LeBaron 11 (6A, 5H); Tobin Rote 10 (5A, 5H); Y.A. Tittle 20 (8A, 12H); Norm Van Brocklin 17 (8A, 9H). Van Brocklin is tied with Peyton Manning for most comeback wins in a single season---6 which he achieved in 1960 including the championship game against Green Bay.

As an added tidbit, there have been 8 comeback wins in the Super Bowl---2 by Terry Bradshaw and one apiece by Earl Morrall, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Joe Theisman and Jeff Hostetler.

[fgoodwin]

Bob Gill, on May 2 2008, 10:58 PM, said:

It's nice to know that your quarterback has the ability to bring the team back in the final minutes, but I think we can pick out the guys we'd want in those situations simply by looking at the raw stats.

Sorry for the follow-up, but I meant to comment on this statement and forgot to.

Is it fair to say that some quarterbacks are better at the two-minute drill than others? Is it fair to say some QBs are better at clock or game management than others? I know we've all heard such statements while watching, listening or attending football games. We've read such statements in the paper and on various websites and blogs.

Do you take as much issue with those generalizations as you do with this one (i.e., comeback wins)? To me, efficiency in the two minute drill, clock management, passer rating, all of those things factor into a QB's ability to lead his team to a comeback win. Yet the concepts of two-minute efficiency or quality of clock management are no more well defined than that of comeback wins.

You say you know just from their raw stats which QBs you'd like to have leading your team during a comeback. Yes, I think I'd pick Joe Montana over Terry Hanratty -- but if you had to choose between Elway vs. Montana, how would you do it?

It seems to me an objective measure of how well each does in a comeback situation would be a fair test to separate the two. Is it really "pointless" to ask how you would choose between them? And isn't it just a short step from choosing between two QBs to ranking several in their ability to lead comeback wins?

[Gabe]

fgoodwin, on May 2 2008, 11:42 PM, said:

but if you had to choose between Elway vs. Montana, how would you do it?

In large part, from watching each of the two play, particularly head to head (the KC-Denver 1994 MNF game comes to mind), as in the case above. Did Elway have more comebacks than Montana? Doesn't matter, with all respect to Elway, I would pick Montana over Elway to start and finish the game. Another person may come to the opposite conclusion and choose Elway, which doesn't bother me at all. Having seen the two play, as well as having looked at the stats, and having read a number of comments from contemporaries, I have tremendous respect for both, yet based on the same information, Montana gets the call every time.

[Bob Carroll]

fgoodwin, on May 3 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

It seems to me an objective measure of how well each does in a comeback situation would be a fair test to separate the two. Is it really "pointless" to ask how you would choose between them? And isn't it just a short step from choosing between two QBs to ranking several in their ability to lead comeback wins?

Yes, it would be a fair test if they were both quarterbacking the same team against the same opponent on the same field in the same weather. All of which in a nutshell explains why comeback wins can't be used to compare quarterbacks with any degree of accuracy.

Incidentally, your statement that this skein was only about defining comeback wins is just not true. From the beginning, this has been about rating quarterbacks. Don't flip-flop now.

On another point, you seem impressed that Elway's supposed comeback wins are mentioned on the Pro Football Hall of Fame website. The historians there are all friends of mine. I'd bet your life that no one there counted up any number; they just accepted what the Denver PR people sent them. What is impressive is that I can't find any mention of quarterback comeback wins in the annual Fact & Record Book. If it's such a wonderful stat, shouldn't Elias be aware of it. They do list the QB's career win-loss records. In the 2007 issue, Rex Grossman ranks third.

[Bob Gill]

>All well and good, but for one minor point: this thread isn't about evaluating quarterbacks -- its about defining and assessing comeback wins. If you want to come up with a better passer rating, knock yourself out -- but that's not the subject of this thread.

Oh, come on. Why are a handful of people obsessed with this unless it's to evaluate quarterbacks? Of course that's what you're interested in.


>Well, that's certainly one opinion. Its just as annoying hearing you guys claim its pointless.

>But you're certainly entitled to believe that -- just as I am entitled to wonder why is it that if the concept of comeback wins is so pointless, that you guys don't simply take your own advice and ignore it?

There's a simple reason for that: I'm interested in accuracy and clarity, and adding a bunch of meaningless numbers to the pool that's already circulating just makes an issue more murky than it needs to be. From now on, though, I will take your advice and ignore this subject. At least I'll try to.

[Ken Crippen]

I think we have exhausted this topic a while ago.