Originally Posted by Anubis
Agreed. His overall record as a Qb proves that 73-77.
Just as many have pointed out that playing for the Broncos helped Jake's record, it would be hard to argue that playing in AZ didn't hurt his record.
For the six years prior to Plummer, AZ winning percentage was: .354
The six years with Plummer, AZ winning percentage was: .354
The five years after Plummer, AZ winning percentage was: .350
The four years before Plummer, the Broncos winning percentage was: .531
The four years with Plummer (less 5 games Cutler took over), the Broncos winning percentage was: .678
The 21 games since Cutler took over, the winning percentage was: .429
So, what does the above mean? Who knows. But, my point is that it isn't as simple as saying that the Broncos won in spite of Plummer, because the Broncos were a great organization, or that Jake's overall record 'proves' he was average and the great winning percentage/record while with the Broncos had nothing to do with Jake, when the Broncos winning percentage took a major leap when Jake took over, and took a major noise dive (below Griese levels) when Cutler took over.
My only real point is that people need to be careful with relying as stats as 'proof', because it works both ways. If you simply look at winning percentages, you would conclude two things:
First, that AZ was and is simply a horrendous team that is beyond the point where a single player (QB or otherwise) can make an impact on.
Second, that Plummer was the only QB since Elway that was able to routinely lead the Broncos to wins.
Those of us that have followed the Broncos for many years knows that it isn't quite that simple, but in the same way, the Plummer evaluation isn't as simple as saying that his losing career record (most of which with the horrible AZ Cardinals) 'proves' anything.