Why do we praise quarterbacks for terrible games?
There’s a tremendous disconnect between perception and reality on one particular issue in all levels of football. When a running back, receiver, tight end, offensive lineman, defensive player, kicker or punter has a terrific game, media members and fans tend to say so; when they have a poor one, it’s either commented on or ignored, but it certainly isn’t praised.
That standard apparently doesn’t apply to quarterbacks.
Yes, when a quarterback has an impressive game and wins, that becomes pretty much all people talk about, but when a quarterback has a terrible performance in a loss, that becomes a defining storyline as well. However, unlike players at other positions, quarterbacks are often praised for poor games and vilified for impressive ones, based solely on if their team won or lost. It’s a complete double standard, and it’s one that shouldn’t exist.
Sunday’s season-opening NFL action provided one of the more compelling cases in point in some time, thanks to the play of Philadelphia Eagles’ quarterback Michael Vick against the Cleveland Browns. By most standards of quarterback evaluation, Vick was utterly atrocious. He threw four interceptions and fumbled twice (although neither was lost), and while he picked up 29 completions, 317 passing yards and two touchdowns, that was on 56 passing attempts, giving him a disastrous 51.8 completion percentage.
Yet, that’s not reflected at all in much of the coverage of that game, simply because the Eagles pulled out a late 17-16 win. From the Associated Press article at Yahoo! headlined “Vick(tory)” to NFL.com’s “Michael Vick, Eagles sneak past Browns,” it’s easy to find people singing Vick’s praises merely because his team won. It’s not just the headlines, either. A few choice quotes from that AP piece:
— “Michael Vick overcame four interceptions by throwing a 4-yard touchdown pass to Clay Harbor…”
— “When it mattered most, Vick came through”
[php snippet=1]
That’s simply not what happened in this game. Vick didn’t “overcome” those interceptions, as the late touchdown pass didn’t somehow magically and retroactively erase them from history. Although he led an impressive drive, he didn’t come through when it mattered most. The whole game matters, as points scored at any time during the first three quarters count just as much as those notched in the fourth, and Vick’s solid late play doesn’t negate his struggles over the rest of the contest.
In fact, the only reason the Eagles won this was because Browns quarterback Brandon Weeden was even worse than Vick, finishing with four interceptions of his own and completing just 12 of 35 passes for 118 yards, giving him a historically-bad passer rating of 5.1. The Browns’ only touchdown of the day came on an fourth-quarter interception return. It also helped that Cleveland coach Pat Shurmur declined to go for a two-point conversion after that touchdown, meaning that Vick’s late drive put Philadelphia in the lead rather than tying the game.
Granted, the Eagles’ ground game and defense deserve a little credit for this victory, but it’s awfully hard to praise Vick for the other side’s offensive incompetence. To be fair, some organizations (including the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News were more critical and realistic with their coverage. It’s just notable that so many are still willing to praise a quarterback merely because his team scored more points than the opposition.
That’s not something limited to the NFL. Consider the AP coverage of Notre Dame’s 20-17 win over Purdue on Saturday, which ESPN headlined “Tommy Rees comes off bench to engineer Notre Dame’s winning drive.” That piece starts “Tommy Rees spent most of Saturday watching Notre Dame struggle with Purdue. Then he rescued the 22nd-ranked Irish. Returning from a one-game suspension as a second stringer, the former starting quarterback got one chance and produced a last-minute drive that led to a 20-17 victory over the Boilermakers.”
Nice story, but again, it’s not really the case. Yes, Rees was under center for the final drive, and yes, Notre Dame scored the winning field goal on that drive. However, Rees was just three-for-eight for 35 yards on that drive. Sure, he made enough throws to get the job done in the end, but the Irish victory was far more thanks to their defense, which held the Purdue quarterback tandem of Robert Marve and Caleb TerBush under 200 yards passing, picked off TerBush twice and held the Boilermakers to 90 rushing yards on 30 attempts. If it was really necessary to praise a quarterback in this one, the best choice would have been Notre Dame starter Everett Golson, who completed 21 of 31 attempts for 289 yards and a touchdown before getting shaken up following a hit. That went a lot further toward Notre Dame’s win than Rees’ less-than-stellar late-game statistics.
It’s not really in dispute that quarterbacks are generally the most crucial player on a team, and it’s not ridiculous for reporters and fans to focus on a quarterback’s performance. The silly part is when a bad performance is transmogrified into a good one thanks to the team winning the game, or when a good performance is overlooked because of failures from the rest of the team. Keeping win-loss statistics for quarterbacks is a big part of this; few are going to criticize a running back who efficiently runs for 150 yards in losing effort or a defensive back who comes up with multiple interceptions, yet the tracking of quarterbacks’ wins and losses means that many invariably judge them by those statistics.
Of course, quarterback performances do correlate somewhat with wins and losses and, in many cases, this doesn’t produce ridiculous results; if a pivot played well and his team won, that’s a fair story, just as is if a quarterback stunk up the joint and his team lost. The problem comes when people infer that a win equals a good quarterbacking performance or a loss equals a bad one.
Quarterbacks are crucial, but they aren’t the only players on the field who affect the game, and media members and fans need to keep that in mind.
[php snippet=1]
