Re-evaluating Sam's Super Bowl

[CPHawk]

Safe prediction to make, given only 8 of the other 40 Super Bowl-winning QB's repeated the following year. There's a high cost to winning in the NFL, as there probably should be.

We won the Super Bowl. It’s safe to stop being so negative all the time now.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

We won the Super Bowl. It’s safe to stop being so negative all the time now.

If my opinions are that damaging to you, you can put me on your Ignore list.

I have not been going out of my way to be negative at all, and my posting history shows that. But I haven't the slightest inclination to edit myself because other people can't handle some dissension.

 

[Welshers2]

Yeah, you wish you got paid five figures for this post.

I don't see why people gotta exaggerate Sam's Super Bowl performance (which is the topic of this thread). It's not as if criticism negates the ring, or undoes the fantastic game he had against a superior opponent in the Rams.

I can absolutely guarantee you that nobody on the coaching staff GAME-PLANNED to have Sam miss those throws. Don't be ridiculous.

Science has a better definition of average than football fandom IMO. Over there, average is just the middle 2/3 of people in a group. They would just say an average starting QB is a QB you'd rank anywhere from about 8th to 24th and all average really means is a guy is neither elite or awful. That definition makes things so much simpler. Take the following questions:

Is Darnold an average QB? (Translation: would you rank him between 8th and 24th?) Absolutely.

Is it a reasonable expectation to be able to win a Superbowl with an average QB? (Translation: do QBs ranked 8th to 24th win SBs?) If we just count Darnold, Hurts, Foles, Flacco, Broncos Peyton, and Eli twice as the the only average QBs to win recent SBs, 1/3 of the last 20 SBs have been won by average QBs. Yeah, it seems very reasonable to think a good team has a chance with or without an elite QB.

Is Darnold better than Mayfield? Maybe. I dunno. They're both average.
Is Darnold better than Hurts? Maybe. I dunno. They're both average.
Is Darnold better than Kyler Murray? Yeah, that dude sucks.

But maybe that's the problem. It's too simple. You can't argue as much with stuff like that.

Serious Sam Darnold just became the first QB to lead his team to a world championship while committing no turnovers.

And you dudes are on here calling him average.

 

[Azvacar]

If my opinions are that damaging to you, you can put me on your Ignore list.

I have not been going out of my way to be negative at all, and my posting history shows that. But I haven't the slightest inclination to edit myself because other people can't handle some dissension.

Agree to disagree... I feel the opposite of your general reactions... Its not that you are "going out of your way" but..... yeah..

 

[glenwo2]

Serious Sam Darnold just became the first QB to lead his team to a world championship while committing no turnovers.

And you dudes are on here calling him average.

Yep.

First QB to do that.

ALSO :

First USC QB to even make the SB, let alone win it.

First (and most likely ONLY) QB to help two separate teams win 14 games in back to back years.


But yeah...he's average to some people.

I mean Average QBs do this all the f'n time, amirite?

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

Serious Sam Darnold just became the first QB to lead his team to a world championship while committing no turnovers.

And you dudes are on here calling him average.

Yep, I'll call Eli Manning average too and that guy also won the Superbowl. Twice. With a worse supporting cast than some. Against Brady. Twice. Like we saw with Darnold, the average QB is pretty freaking good.

I mean Average QBs do this all the f'n time, amirite?

Average QBs won about once every 3 years on average over the last 20 years. Brady and Mahomes won the bulk of the SBs led by elite QBs. Depending on how things go with the Chiefs, the average QB might start winning even more.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Sam Darnold: Super Bowl Champion.

Does it matter how it looks????
I don't care if he threw for 75 yards or 300 plus. He played smart. He didn't turn the ball over. So he missed some throws, big deal. We're not even IN the SB if he doesn't have the best game of his career vs. The Clams

 

[Maelstrom787]

He had a few inaccurate throws and decisions that could've gone real bad.

With that said, he was under more pressure than usual and didn't give the game away, and he made some crucial plays as the game went on.

It was an adequate performance under the brightest lights possible for an NFL quarterback.

He's earned whatever he gets. He's got nothing left to prove. Give him the supporting cast and he'll keep being enough to win the whole damn thing.

QBs are more nurture than nature. Sam's proof. Starting NFL QBs are pretty universally talented, and none of them can do it alone. Sam was always a great talent, and when he got put into places where the rest of the team was sufficiently talented and the coaching was superb, he finally got to show it.

 

[glenwo2]

He had a few inaccurate throws and decisions that could've gone real bad.

With that said, he was under more pressure than usual and didn't give the game away, and he made some crucial plays as the game went on.

It was an adequate performance under the brightest lights possible for an NFL quarterback.

He's earned whatever he gets. He's got nothing left to prove. Give him the supporting cast and he'll keep being enough to win the whole damn thing.

QBs are more nurture than nature. Sam's proof. Starting NFL QBs are pretty universally talented, and none of them can do it alone. Sam was always a great talent, and when he got put into places where the rest of the team was sufficiently talented and the coaching was superb, he finally got to show it.

Agreed.

I counted just TWO throws/decisions myself (which I suppose count as "few" lol ) all game :

The very first throw of the game to Barner which was him threading a needle (from my eyes and those who know ball) or him almost throwing a pick..OMERGERD! (from the Mediots).

The other was a throw that he was a bit late on to JSN in the endzone that Gonzo was able to get to and almost had a diving pick.


Aside from that, I don't recall any other throws and/or decisions that could've gone bad.

He may not have been batting a thousand in throws/decisions but he was batting around 95% in this game.

(oh yeah...he was batting a thousand in taking care of the football, though)

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Gonzalez. Damn that dude was $

 

[Natethegreat]

Science has a better definition of average than football fandom IMO. Over there, average is just the middle 2/3 of people in a group. They would just say an average starting QB is a QB you'd rank anywhere from about 8th to 24th and all average really means is a guy is neither elite or awful. That definition makes things so much simpler. Take the following questions:

Is Darnold an average QB? (Translation: would you rank him between 8th and 24th?) Absolutely.

Is it a reasonable expectation to be able to win a Superbowl with an average QB? (Translation: do QBs ranked 8th to 24th win SBs?) If we just count Darnold, Hurts, Foles, Flacco, Broncos Peyton, and Eli twice as the the only average QBs to win recent SBs, 1/3 of the last 20 SBs have been won by average QBs. Yeah, it seems very reasonable to think a good team has a chance with or without an elite QB.

Is Darnold better than Mayfield? Maybe. I dunno. They're both average.
Is Darnold better than Hurts? Maybe. I dunno. They're both average.
Is Darnold better than Kyler Murray? Yeah, that dude sucks.

But maybe that's the problem. It's too simple. You can't argue as much with stuff like that.

First off the post said below average. Which he is just trying to get a reaction and he succeeded at it. So congrats to whoever it is.
If we are talking average however I wouldn't say a top ten QB is average. If your in the top ten that means your better than more than 2/3rds of the league. That isnt average.
So your post is kinda of an odd take in my opinion.

 

[Ozzy]

Yeah, Hurts is definitely better than average.

LOL come on man. Darnold is top 10 in almost every single category the past two years for quarterbacks you can't be below average and have that in place...... He's not Stroud bad.

 

[bileever]

I asked AI if Darnold was an average NFL quarterback. It said that Darnold is an above average, top-10 QB. End of debate.

 

[chris98251]

Darnold played basically Old school football take him back 25 years and he would have been a sensation, we get too spoiled by watching Mahomes and the like, Darmold plays within the system and stepping up when called to.

 

[Rat]

LOL come on man. Darnold is top 10 in almost every single category the past two years for quarterbacks you can't be below average and have that in place...... He's not Stroud bad.

He's good. I was just trolling that guy who's basically his John63.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I asked AI if Darnold was an average NFL quarterback. It said that Darnold is an above average, top-10 QB. End of debate.

This thread is about his SB performance.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And he played plenty good enough.
Only ONE stat matters: WIN

 

[cymatica]

I thought he was adequate. I thought he got away several times when he didn't lead the receivers enough and then other times led them to much.

Looked like on some of those he led the receivers too much on purpose because NE was jumping routes and he was under pressure. Good decisions that go against hisstats

 

[glenwo2]

I was just trolling that guy who's basically his John63. - Rat

Last I checked, trolling isn't allowed around here or was I mistaken?


And both Sam and Jalen are above-average QBs (though I would argue that Sam is slightly the better of the two because of his recent improvement/development as a QB these past two years)

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

First off the post said below average. Which he is just trying to get a reaction and he succeeded at it. So congrats to whoever it is.
If we are talking average however I wouldn't say a top ten QB is average. If your in the top ten that means your better than more than 2/3rds of the league. That isnt average.
So your post is kinda of an odd take in my opinion.

If he's top 10 but not top 6-7, he'd be in the highest tier of average in a normal distribution. If you got him 9th/10th, that would put him just above the strict average (middle ~38% of people or QBs ranked about ~11-21) but still technically average in that system. Semantics, splitting hairs, and all that, but I like how that works. The definitions and parameters are simple and set. Would just need people to get past the idea that average is synonymous with mediocre which probably won't ever happen lol.