Most obvious to me is in basketball. Cavaliers are Eastern Conference Champions four consecutive years. They defeat the heavy favorite Warriors to win it all in 2016. LeBron leaves. The team without him probably couldn't defeat Duke this year.
@GRANDAM said:
Yes but is hard to argue with all of Tom Brady’s Super Bowl Rings,
That is a team accomplishment, not an individual achievement. Super Bowl rings are about as good a metric to compare Quarterbacks as Wins are to comparing pitchers.
Team accomplishment,,,,,, all sports are Team accomplishments.
When you talk about the best CHAMPIONSHIPS are a HUGE factor.
A quarterback who has (5) Super Bowl rings and is at or near the top in the statiscs has to be rated higher than a quarterback with the same stats and no or less than (5) rings.
Being the GOAT is about being the best,,,,,,, you can't be the best without Championships.
For this reason I rate Brady higher than Manning even though I am a COLTS Fan.
I am a Brady Fan also,,,,,,, unless he is playing INDY.
wrong. all sports are not team accomplishments. take baseball for instance. BA, OBA, Slg, OPS, OPS+,OPS-,almost all counting stats minus runs and rbi. These are all individual acomplishments.
@Brick said:
Most obvious to me is in basketball. Cavaliers are Eastern Conference Champions four consecutive years. They defeat the heavy favorite Warriors to win it all in 2016. LeBron leaves. The team without him probably couldn't defeat Duke this year.
I was thinking football. HUGE difference since there's a seperate group of players on defense.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Grandam, did Montana or Brady have any effect on how their respective defenses played? how about special teams? their offensive lines? how about how effectively receivers ran routes? How about the run blocking of the offensive lines? there are TONS of variables that go into being a SB team that the QB has no control over. At all.
Your argument is not a logical one. by your logic, Joe Flacco, Trent Dilfer and Mark Rypien are all superior to Fran Tarkenton, Warren Moon and Dan Marino. All because, as you say, "you cant be the best without championships" that is nonsense.
Take Elway as an example. do you think he was a more skilled QB during the first 15 years of his career or the final 2 years. I think it is safe to say he was Physically better/more skilled in his younger years. Had he not won 2 championships at the tail end of his career, when he was a shell of himself, he would be viewed by many as a much lesser player. think Jim Kelly, Moon, Esiason etc. that is inconsistent and illogical. He was actually much better before the SB championships, but peoples perceptions changed after. Keep in mind that perception is not necessarily accurate. well, what changed? More skill players. Terrell Davis. are these things that Elway controlled? If your answer is no, then you really cant consider the SB victories when evaluating him as a QB. or any QB for that matter.
JoeBanzai, that is the reason we just cant evaluate players based off from SB's. It seems so simple. If not for TD, Elway would be a three time SB looser and people's perceptions would be that he was a pretty good QB but definitely not top 10.
Look at Payton Mannings last SB. He was no longer a great player, not even a good one anymore. he was little more than a game manager for that one. yet, he ranks higher on some peoples lists because he hung on and was a 2 time Champ.
@craig44 said:
JoeBanzai, that is the reason we just cant evaluate players based off from SB's. It seems so simple. If not for TD, Elway would be a three time SB looser and people's perceptions would be that he was a pretty good QB but definitely not top 10.
Look at Payton Mannings last SB. He was no longer a great player, not even a good one anymore. he was little more than a game manager for that one. yet, he ranks higher on some peoples lists because he hung on and was a 2 time Champ.
Wrong , its actually the reason player stats in team sports are nonsense.
If you want to focus on player stats then be a fan of single person competition . But even in single person competitions like boxing or golf choosing a GOAT is stupid and pointless. There will always be problems comparing players of different eras because everything changes competition , money , rules , corruption etc.
GOAT is another way of saying this person is my hero. Are we little boys and girls playing with dolls ? There are no heros in sports or anywhere else.
@Brick said:
Championships may not be the only thing that makes one the GOAT, but I think it is quite important in the discussion. A player who leads his team to a championship that his team couldn't even sniff without him is showing his greatness.
Agreed, do you have a specific example of a QB leading a bad team to a championship?
There are certainly examples of average QBs who won because of great teams. Dilfer and Johnson come to mind.
Without going year by year, I’d say the Brett Favre team that won in ‘96 would be close. I’m not sure they fully qualify but the only other HOF I remember on that team was Reggie White and I feel they’d have been a below average team without Favre.
Again, it may be hard to call them bad; I know (they’d go again and lose to the Broncos) but that was Favre in his prime years and he seemed to will the Packers to victory most weeks.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@craig44 said:
JoeBanzai, that is the reason we just cant evaluate players based off from SB's. It seems so simple. If not for TD, Elway would be a three time SB looser and people's perceptions would be that he was a pretty good QB but definitely not top 10.
Look at Payton Mannings last SB. He was no longer a great player, not even a good one anymore. he was little more than a game manager for that one. yet, he ranks higher on some peoples lists because he hung on and was a 2 time Champ.
Wrong , its actually the reason player stats in team sports are nonsense.
If you want to focus on player stats then be a fan of single person competition . But even in single person competitions like boxing or golf choosing a GOAT is stupid and pointless. There will always be problems comparing players of different eras because everything changes competition , money , rules , corruption etc.
GOAT is another way of saying this person is my hero. Are we little boys and girls playing with dolls ? There are no heros in sports or anywhere else.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Too many half ideas.
I think you are trying to say that individual statistics for athletes playing team sports have no value? If that is your view, 1. you are incorrect 2. your paradigm is so drastically and worlds different than mine that I do not believe we will ever be able to come to any consensus on this topic.
Actually I'm saying no stats other than wins have value and even those don't mean much. Every team that played Cleveland last year got a 1 added to the W column but that doesn't mean beating Cleveland is the same as beating a good team.
Player stats in a team sport are affected by too many things outside the players talent level therefore they are meaningless.
Look at the Patriots and the stinker game they just lost . Pats offense was garbage , is it Brady? He drills the ball into edelmans ear and its incomplete , why? One guy has to throw the other guy has to catch to have a completion recorded. How do we know who's fault that was? Was Edelman not expecting it? Did Brady throw badly? Did the Defender make a great play? Was it a bit of all three? Was it Gronk's fault for being out , he would have caught that pass possibly ? Was it Hogan's fault because Brady now hates him for some reason and won't target him when he is way more open than Edelman was ?
Everyone that sees the play could view it differently even though we all agree it was incomplete. Multiply that one event by the number of plays and guys and possible outcomes and its not possible to say this QB with a 60% completion rating is the same as some guy 30 years ago with the same percentage. Equivalent stat different outcome. Only stats that take every variable into account can be used to decide and there is no such thing and never will be.
Even winning a superbowl is not enough. The bears beating the Patriots don't get the same credit as the Eagles do for doing the same thing. One superbowl was terrible and the other was incredible both count as a loss but watching the game was a whole different thing.
Its a team game , its meant to be enjoyed in the moment and then you are supposed to move on to the next thing.
60,000 people don't show up on sundays to blather about passer ratings
bronco, I see your point. There are fans as you describe, and there are many of us who get great enjoyment out of analyzing statistics and trying to answer the unanswerable. neither is a right or wrong way to enjoy sports. I would say that if a fan finds him/herself in the first camp, a statistical discussion about player comparisons may not be a very enjoyable discussion to be in.
@Brick said:
Championships may not be the only thing that makes one the GOAT, but I think it is quite important in the discussion. A player who leads his team to a championship that his team couldn't even sniff without him is showing his greatness.
Agreed, do you have a specific example of a QB leading a bad team to a championship?
There are certainly examples of average QBs who won because of great teams. Dilfer and Johnson come to mind.
Without going year by year, I’d say the Brett Favre team that won in ‘96 would be close. I’m not sure they fully qualify but the only other HOF I remember on that team was Reggie White and I feel they’d have been a below average team without Favre.
Again, it may be hard to call them bad; I know (they’d go again and lose to the Broncos) but that was Favre in his prime years and he seemed to will the Packers to victory most weeks.
Their defense was #1 in the league allowing 13 points a game during the regular season.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
i remember this game vividly, so i know how much it must still sting almost 10 years later.
the Vikes had the better team, and that was irrefutable. but there was this one smallish, yet vitally important aspect of the game called turnovers. IIRC, Minny had 5 of them. and that's why they watched the Saints play in the SB.......and win.
i remember this game vividly, so i know how much it must still sting almost 10 years later.
the Vikes had the better team, and that was irrefutable. but there was this one smallish, yet vitally important aspect of the game called turnovers. IIRC, Minny had 5 of them. and that's why they watched the Saints play in the SB.......and win.
True about the turnovers, however I believe the Saints won because they were allowed to practically kill Favre and were actually offered cash to do so.
How many more unnecessar roughness calles should have been made? Several, I think. I remember one of the announcers saying "Another late hit on Favre" the other announcer replied, "they just threw a flag for that, if they throw another the crowd will riot". Great officiating there guys.
But we're not going to bring it up!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Brick said:
Championships may not be the only thing that makes one the GOAT, but I think it is quite important in the discussion. A player who leads his team to a championship that his team couldn't even sniff without him is showing his greatness.
Agreed, do you have a specific example of a QB leading a bad team to a championship?
There are certainly examples of average QBs who won because of great teams. Dilfer and Johnson come to mind.
Without going year by year, I’d say the Brett Favre team that won in ‘96 would be close. I’m not sure they fully qualify but the only other HOF I remember on that team was Reggie White and I feel they’d have been a below average team without Favre.
Again, it may be hard to call them bad; I know (they’d go again and lose to the Broncos) but that was Favre in his prime years and he seemed to will the Packers to victory most weeks.
Their defense was #1 in the league allowing 13 points a game during the regular season.
True but boy did they have a soft schedule. Their differential (also a league best) jives more with my memory of them blowing teams out and making their opponents one dimensional/easy to stop and allowing them to play a more aggressive, take chances kind of style defense. Particularly against the multitude of very bad teams they played during that season.
Again, I’m not sure they fully qualify as a ‘bad team’ and I’m relying on memory. LeRoy Butler may get to the Hall of Fame someday but again not dripping with talent around him.
The coaching staff? A complete other story...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Regardless of what any of you say there will always be an argument on who was the best, period. This conversation has been going on since Babe Ruth started playing professional baseball. The argument which I will agree with is that everyone has their own opinions on what they value and think counts most in the discussion. I’m happy to believe Brady is the best QB ever and outside of having fun banging heads with some of you here I don’t lose sleep over anyone thinking Montana was better or others saying it’s impossible to tell who was the best. It’s the same thing as Jim Brown vs Barry Sanders or someone else being the best RB, it’s sports talk nothing more.
The one thing thats valuable about these discussions is sometimes people bring up someone I don't know of or forgot about and I say oh ya that guy was great .
I mean this thread brought back all my fond memories of Fran Tarkenton co hosting thats incredible . How about that cathy lee crosby ? Am I right? way hotter than that skank whatsherface on real people
Comments
Daryle Lamonica had the highest regular season winning % without a SB victory.
My pick is still Joe Montana.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
NFL Approximate Value Career Leaders
1 Peyton Manning 271
2 Tom Brady 255
2 Brett Favre 255
5 Drew Brees 239
6 Fran Tarkenton 236
10 Dan Marino 216
12 John Elway 203
29 Joe Montana 164
Most obvious to me is in basketball. Cavaliers are Eastern Conference Champions four consecutive years. They defeat the heavy favorite Warriors to win it all in 2016. LeBron leaves. The team without him probably couldn't defeat Duke this year.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
wrong. all sports are not team accomplishments. take baseball for instance. BA, OBA, Slg, OPS, OPS+,OPS-,almost all counting stats minus runs and rbi. These are all individual acomplishments.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I was thinking football. HUGE difference since there's a seperate group of players on defense.
Grandam, did Montana or Brady have any effect on how their respective defenses played? how about special teams? their offensive lines? how about how effectively receivers ran routes? How about the run blocking of the offensive lines? there are TONS of variables that go into being a SB team that the QB has no control over. At all.
Your argument is not a logical one. by your logic, Joe Flacco, Trent Dilfer and Mark Rypien are all superior to Fran Tarkenton, Warren Moon and Dan Marino. All because, as you say, "you cant be the best without championships" that is nonsense.
Take Elway as an example. do you think he was a more skilled QB during the first 15 years of his career or the final 2 years. I think it is safe to say he was Physically better/more skilled in his younger years. Had he not won 2 championships at the tail end of his career, when he was a shell of himself, he would be viewed by many as a much lesser player. think Jim Kelly, Moon, Esiason etc. that is inconsistent and illogical. He was actually much better before the SB championships, but peoples perceptions changed after. Keep in mind that perception is not necessarily accurate. well, what changed? More skill players. Terrell Davis. are these things that Elway controlled? If your answer is no, then you really cant consider the SB victories when evaluating him as a QB. or any QB for that matter.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Elway should wake up every day thinking "Thank God for Terrell Davis"!
Vikings get to at least one more SB if kicker makes a short FG against Atlanta.
Let's not bring up 2010 in New Orleans.
JoeBanzai, that is the reason we just cant evaluate players based off from SB's. It seems so simple. If not for TD, Elway would be a three time SB looser and people's perceptions would be that he was a pretty good QB but definitely not top 10.
Look at Payton Mannings last SB. He was no longer a great player, not even a good one anymore. he was little more than a game manager for that one. yet, he ranks higher on some peoples lists because he hung on and was a 2 time Champ.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Wrong , its actually the reason player stats in team sports are nonsense.
If you want to focus on player stats then be a fan of single person competition . But even in single person competitions like boxing or golf choosing a GOAT is stupid and pointless. There will always be problems comparing players of different eras because everything changes competition , money , rules , corruption etc.
GOAT is another way of saying this person is my hero. Are we little boys and girls playing with dolls ? There are no heros in sports or anywhere else.
Without going year by year, I’d say the Brett Favre team that won in ‘96 would be close. I’m not sure they fully qualify but the only other HOF I remember on that team was Reggie White and I feel they’d have been a below average team without Favre.
Again, it may be hard to call them bad; I know (they’d go again and lose to the Broncos) but that was Favre in his prime years and he seemed to will the Packers to victory most weeks.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Too many half ideas.
I think you are trying to say that individual statistics for athletes playing team sports have no value? If that is your view, 1. you are incorrect 2. your paradigm is so drastically and worlds different than mine that I do not believe we will ever be able to come to any consensus on this topic.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Actually I'm saying no stats other than wins have value and even those don't mean much. Every team that played Cleveland last year got a 1 added to the W column but that doesn't mean beating Cleveland is the same as beating a good team.
Player stats in a team sport are affected by too many things outside the players talent level therefore they are meaningless.
Look at the Patriots and the stinker game they just lost . Pats offense was garbage , is it Brady? He drills the ball into edelmans ear and its incomplete , why? One guy has to throw the other guy has to catch to have a completion recorded. How do we know who's fault that was? Was Edelman not expecting it? Did Brady throw badly? Did the Defender make a great play? Was it a bit of all three? Was it Gronk's fault for being out , he would have caught that pass possibly ? Was it Hogan's fault because Brady now hates him for some reason and won't target him when he is way more open than Edelman was ?
Everyone that sees the play could view it differently even though we all agree it was incomplete. Multiply that one event by the number of plays and guys and possible outcomes and its not possible to say this QB with a 60% completion rating is the same as some guy 30 years ago with the same percentage. Equivalent stat different outcome. Only stats that take every variable into account can be used to decide and there is no such thing and never will be.
Even winning a superbowl is not enough. The bears beating the Patriots don't get the same credit as the Eagles do for doing the same thing. One superbowl was terrible and the other was incredible both count as a loss but watching the game was a whole different thing.
Its a team game , its meant to be enjoyed in the moment and then you are supposed to move on to the next thing.
60,000 people don't show up on sundays to blather about passer ratings
bronco, I see your point. There are fans as you describe, and there are many of us who get great enjoyment out of analyzing statistics and trying to answer the unanswerable. neither is a right or wrong way to enjoy sports. I would say that if a fan finds him/herself in the first camp, a statistical discussion about player comparisons may not be a very enjoyable discussion to be in.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Their defense was #1 in the league allowing 13 points a game during the regular season.
when bronco is serious (which happens like two times each year), he makes some salient points
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
i remember this game vividly, so i know how much it must still sting almost 10 years later.
the Vikes had the better team, and that was irrefutable. but there was this one smallish, yet vitally important aspect of the game called turnovers. IIRC, Minny had 5 of them. and that's why they watched the Saints play in the SB.......and win.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
True about the turnovers, however I believe the Saints won because they were allowed to practically kill Favre and were actually offered cash to do so.
How many more unnecessar roughness calles should have been made? Several, I think. I remember one of the announcers saying "Another late hit on Favre" the other announcer replied, "they just threw a flag for that, if they throw another the crowd will riot". Great officiating there guys.
But we're not going to bring it up!
True but boy did they have a soft schedule. Their differential (also a league best) jives more with my memory of them blowing teams out and making their opponents one dimensional/easy to stop and allowing them to play a more aggressive, take chances kind of style defense. Particularly against the multitude of very bad teams they played during that season.
Again, I’m not sure they fully qualify as a ‘bad team’ and I’m relying on memory. LeRoy Butler may get to the Hall of Fame someday but again not dripping with talent around him.
The coaching staff? A complete other story...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Regardless of what any of you say there will always be an argument on who was the best, period. This conversation has been going on since Babe Ruth started playing professional baseball. The argument which I will agree with is that everyone has their own opinions on what they value and think counts most in the discussion. I’m happy to believe Brady is the best QB ever and outside of having fun banging heads with some of you here I don’t lose sleep over anyone thinking Montana was better or others saying it’s impossible to tell who was the best. It’s the same thing as Jim Brown vs Barry Sanders or someone else being the best RB, it’s sports talk nothing more.
The one thing thats valuable about these discussions is sometimes people bring up someone I don't know of or forgot about and I say oh ya that guy was great .
I mean this thread brought back all my fond memories of Fran Tarkenton co hosting thats incredible . How about that cathy lee crosby ? Am I right? way hotter than that skank whatsherface on real people