gmabel830
It's football season!!
Even if I agreed that we were winning in spite of Skelton (which I don't), it's a heck of a lot better than losing with Kolb. The records speak for themselves.
I really view the W-L records of our QBs this year like I view the W-L records of starting pitchers in MLB. Ian Kennedy went 21-4 this past season and Tim Lincecum went 13-14. However, Lincecum had a slightly lower ERA, allowed a slightly lower batting average, and had more strikeouts than Kennedy. If everything else were totally equal, it wouldn't be a tough argument to say that Lincecum would be a better option to pitch you one must win game over Kennedy, even though Lincecum couldn't even win 50% of his decisions and Kennedy won 84% of his decisions.
Similarly, Kolb has thrown for more yards, more yards per attempt, thrown at a higher completion percentage, thrown more TDs, thrown less INTs, and has a higher QB rating than Skelton. I've been growing more and more impressed with Skelton over the past two weeks (especially in the SF game), but I don't think it's an illogical argument that all other things being equal, Kolb gives us a better chance to win in a must win game over the Bengals next week. I'm not saying either guy is the long term answer (because jury is still out on both) or that Kolb has not met high expectations and Skelton has probably exceeded minimal expectations (both are true), but only looking at W-L records without considering the entire context of how those W-L records were accumulated just doesn't prove the point to me.