Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Nooooooooooooo!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
305 replies to this topic

#301 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 22,485 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 04:02 PM

If you get a second compare Brady's numbers to Montana's...they're more or less the same or Brady's are better...and he's played 30 or so less games.
So I guess Montana isn't even close to the greatest ever either...In your mind who is the greatest?

But compare quarterbacks in Montana's era, basically the 80s and a little of the 90s, with those of today and you'll see a significant difference. Then you can come back with Montana had Rice, Taylor, Craig et al.

#302 ivanvamp


  • one campus at a time..


  • 4,618 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 04:29 PM

But compare quarterbacks in Montana's era, basically the 80s and a little of the 90s, with those of today and you'll see a significant difference. Then you can come back with Montana had Rice, Taylor, Craig et al.


I've been saying this for a while, but somehow the NFL needs to have a stat like ops+ that takes into account the field (b/c it's VERY different playing in a dome vs. playing in the cold winds of NY or NE) and the era guys play in. That way we could do a little better job of comparing players cross-era.

#303 Hendu for Kutch

  • 3,758 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:01 PM

I've been saying this for a while, but somehow the NFL needs to have a stat like ops+ that takes into account the field (b/c it's VERY different playing in a dome vs. playing in the cold winds of NY or NE) and the era guys play in. That way we could do a little better job of comparing players cross-era.


I don't think it would ever work like it does in baseball, because you can't account for teammate contributions in a stat like that. Give a guy the same league and same conditions and a totally different offense around him and you're back to comparing apples to oranges. It only works in baseball because it's at its root a 1-on-1 game...batter vs. pitcher.

#304 jmcc5400

  • 1,860 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:06 PM

There is a QB Rating + stat on Pro Football Reference, although I do not know how it is calculated (i.e. whether it takes into consideration "park effects"). It has Montana at 123 and Brady and Manning at 118 or 119 each. That sounds about right.

#305 ivanvamp


  • one campus at a time..


  • 4,618 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 07:28 AM

I don't think it would ever work like it does in baseball, because you can't account for teammate contributions in a stat like that. Give a guy the same league and same conditions and a totally different offense around him and you're back to comparing apples to oranges. It only works in baseball because it's at its root a 1-on-1 game...batter vs. pitcher.


I hear you but I don't think that's the problem. Yes, pitcher v. hitter. But if the hitter pulls a ground ball pastadivingjeter that goes as a base hit, which impacts the pitcher's stats. That same ball pulled towards Vizquel is an out, which also impacts the pitcher's stats (but in a different direction). It's still very much a team game.

Plus, all you're doing with QB+ is simply saying, look, there's a difference between playing in a dome and playing in the Meadowlands in December. We're taking that into effect. We're also recognizing the difference between the days when CBs could mug the WRs all the way down the field and today's game where they can't touch them....the QB stats are necessarily going to look different.

Maybe jmcc5400 has found essentially what I'm looking for. It doesn't have to be a perfect stat....just something that is workable that takes that stuff into consideration is all.

EDIT: That stat is helpful, because it takes into consideration their stats relative to the league. So it's better than QB rating. However, it doesn't take into account park effects, which is a HUGE thing. If Brady played half his games in a dome, his stats would be insane. I mean, more insane than they already are.

Edited by ivanvamp, 08 February 2012 - 07:32 AM.


#306 lars10

  • 2,028 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 12:22 PM

But compare quarterbacks in Montana's era, basically the 80s and a little of the 90s, with those of today and you'll see a significant difference. Then you can come back with Montana had Rice, Taylor, Craig et al.


I hear what you're saying.
I know the whole argument is apples vs oranges.

My main problem is those that are saying that due to the last two superbowls that Brady is "not even close" to one of the best ever.
For instance, even with the difference in eras between Brady and Montana I do think it's meaningful that there numbers are comparable...especially when you consider that he's played almost 2 full seasons less. If Brady has two more years like he had this year he'll eclipse Joe by about 10,000 yards which even with stat correction would surely mean something. His teams have won more games which should mean something also (of course QBs get too much blame and credit)

I don't think you could go wrong with either as your QB, even though the case may not yet be made that Brady is GOAT...it is certainly possible to show that he is very much within the discussion and those saying 'not even close' are just ignoring what they've been watching for a decade.