For reasons already expressed by Dallas and others, NFL QB is probably the toughest GOAT position to analyze in major team sports.
I still have Montana as the NFL QB GOAT, but Brady is right up there and closing in.
However if there could be a definitive pick, which may basically be impossible, there are a number, perhaps five or ten who could realistically be considered for the award.
Sustained excellence is what separates Brady from all the other great qb’s. He’s 42, and not showing any appreciable decline in his skill Ievel. While Brees and Manning may be close in regular season passing records, they can’t touch his postseason stats, and there most likely won’t be any player who will top his four Super Bowl MVP awards. By any objective measure, Brady is the GOAT. I’ll say that with the disclosure that I’m not a Patriots fan, nor a Brady fan, but just someone who can observe the obvious.
i love this place so much. been playing catch-up and i swear i've had to scroll to the top about 5 times just to make sure i was in the NBA GOAT thread. here i thought peeps would be breaking down MJ, Wilt, LeBron et al., but instead it's Brady GOAT talk and pre-UFC 300,000 trash talk between hammer & dime (undercard) and dallas & 45 (main).
not once have i ever plopped down a single dime to watch a PPV event, but i'd slice off my left nut to gape at that spectacle
@JoeBanzai said:
By the way, Ken Anderson is rated just below Montana and Fouts, so he was pretty good.
Ken Anderson was GREAT, otherwise I agree with all of your post.
The problem, as I think you know but most everyone else refuses to acknowledge, is that there is no way to assign a "value" to a QB that isolates his contribution from the rest of his teammates. I think they try, and maybe they have even succeeded to some degree, to allocate value among the skill players, solely by reference to the stats of those skill players. But they haven't tried, or at least they quickly learned that there was no way to do it, to isolate those offensive contributions (yards gained, TDs, etc.) from the contributions of the linemen, the blocks made by the skill players who didn't have the ball, the fear the defense had for a WR that left fewer people at the line to stop the run, and on and on and on.
I think Ken Anderson was the greatest QB I have seen play, and I am 100% positive that there is no way to demonstrate, using facts, that I am wrong. Others feel the same way about Tom Brady, and they aren't wrong because subjective beliefs can't be wrong. Where the Brady people are wrong is in the belief that Brady being the best can be demonstrated with facts. It can't. It just can't. I will never mock the belief that Brady is the GOAT, just the belief that his SB wins are proof.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary I will concede that there is absolutely no way of factually making a claim that any player is the best ever, you can say Ken Anderson was the best QB ever until your blue in the face and even though nobody will ever agree with you they cannot put up factual evidence that your wrong. Heck I could say Trent Dilfer is the best ever and I would sound like an idiot but there no factual evidence to dispute my claim. Aside from that I just love the fact that the majority of Football minds always talked about Montana being the best and his “Drive” against Cincy in the Super Bowl, well Tom Brady has destroyed that “Drive” as far as performance under pressure with his comeback against Atlanta yet these same guys still tout Montana as the best, it annoys and confuses me really.
@JoeBanzai said:
By the way, Ken Anderson is rated just below Montana and Fouts, so he was pretty good.
Ken Anderson was GREAT, otherwise I agree with all of your post.
The problem, as I think you know but most everyone else refuses to acknowledge, is that there is no way to assign a "value" to a QB that isolates his contribution from the rest of his teammates. I think they try, and maybe they have even succeeded to some degree, to allocate value among the skill players, solely by reference to the stats of those skill players. But they haven't tried, or at least they quickly learned that there was no way to do it, to isolate those offensive contributions (yards gained, TDs, etc.) from the contributions of the linemen, the blocks made by the skill players who didn't have the ball, the fear the defense had for a WR that left fewer people at the line to stop the run, and on and on and on.
I think Ken Anderson was the greatest QB I have seen play, and I am 100% positive that there is no way to demonstrate, using facts, that I am wrong. Others feel the same way about Tom Brady, and they aren't wrong because subjective beliefs can't be wrong. Where the Brady people are wrong is in the belief that Brady being the best can be demonstrated with facts. It can't. It just can't. I will never mock the belief that Brady is the GOAT, just the belief that his SB wins are proof.
Yes, Ken Anderson was a GREAT QB! I was being sarcastic.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
After a night of IMO's pizza, DA came > @perkdog said:
Aside from that I just love the fact that the majority of Football minds always talked about Montana being the best and his “Drive” against Cincy in the Super Bowl, well Tom Brady has destroyed that “Drive” as far as performance under pressure with his comeback against Atlanta yet these same guys still tout Montana as the best, it annoys and confuses me really.
Don't let it annoy you, Perk. Most everyone here is or has been a die hard fan of one or many sports. For me it was MLB and NFL.
I have watched very little pro football for 5 years so my opinion of Brady as GOAT is incomplete. I watched a bunch of Elway, Montana and Marino so those guys are stuck in my memory as the bulwarks of greatness.
DA is the best here at setting passion aside and laying out the stats. His argument that an NFL greatest of all time is impossible to prove is convincing...unless one player stands so far above the rest that the individual is beyond debate. That is a tough bar to get over and Brady probably will not get there.
But aside from the 7 rings, you have the company of the Ruth, Mays and Mantle fans. The Wilt, James and Jordan fans, and the Gretzky, Howe and Orr fans.
Heck I could say Trent Dilfer is the best ever and I would sound like an idiot but there no factual evidence to dispute my claim.
Plenty of factual evidence there.
Tom Brady has destroyed that “Drive” as far as performance under pressure with his comeback against Atlanta
How does one drive "destroy" the other?
Well since Brady had to deliver multiple drives while down by 25 points I don’t feel the need to explain it to you. . If you cant see which situation was more difficult then that’s your problem for not getting it.
Aside from that I just love the fact that the majority of Football minds always talked about Montana being the best and his “Drive” against Cincy in the Super Bowl, well Tom Brady has destroyed that “Drive” as far as performance under pressure with his comeback against Atlanta yet these same guys still tout Montana as the best, it annoys and confuses me really.
Don't let it annoy you, Perk. Most everyone here is or has been a die hard fan of one or many sports. For me it was MLB and NFL.
I have watched very little pro football for 5 years so my opinion of Brady as GOAT is incomplete. I watched a bunch of Elway, Montana and Marino so those guys are stuck in my memory as the bulwarks of greatness.
DA is the best here at setting passion aside and laying out the stats. His argument that an NFL greatest of all time is impossible to prove is convincing...unless one player stands so far above the rest that the individual is beyond debate. That is a tough bar to get over and Brady probably will not get there.
But aside from the 7 rings, you have the company of the Ruth, Mays and Mantle fans. The Wilt, James and Jordan fans, and the Gretzky, Howe and Orr fans.
It will ok.
Oh I’m OK regardless of what any of you guys think, this is just recreation posting here, I don’t really care one way or another who likes Brady or not it’s just something to pass the time. It’s humorous reading some of the twisted way some of you guys here think
Putting Anderson in the same universe as Brady in terms of greatness is utter nonsense. There are probably 20 or more QB's better than Anderson. COME ON PEOPLE!!
@DIMEMAN said:
Putting Anderson in the same universe as Brady in terms of greatness is utter nonsense. There are probably 20 or more QB's better than Anderson. COME ON PEOPLE!!
Pay no mind to that nonsense Jon, it’s intellectually challenged people like us and the decades of people who cast votes for HOF consideration who are wrong in Dallas and his underlink Joe Banzai eyes 🙄
Paul - I certainly believe that in a team sport, championships are part of a career resume that should be considered, just like you. I do not make it the be all and end all - one of many layers in the overall determination. I fully grasp the notion that you can’t isolate one player completely outside of the team around him but at the same time there is absolutely no doubt that the quarterback plays a wildly influential role in the success of the team.
Now, I am not usually statistically driven in these evaluations and I wouldn’t cite many statistics to back up my case for an all time great but one that I would certainly highlight as it is as important both to the team as it is to individual success and that is turnovers and more specifically interceptions. Yes, they’re not always the QBs fault (tipped balls) but a great enough percentage do ultimately fall onto a quarterbacks plate. The correlation between turnover +/- and win percentage is typically strong. Win the turnover battle, win the game. These mistakes are often the turning point in a game.
And if there’s one thing that has always stood out to me about Tom Brady, he doesn’t turn the ball over. I mean to play as long as he has and never throw more than 14 interceptions in a season (avg is around 10 per year) is pretty remarkable. I’d also think that in most seasons, of those 10 INTs, 2-3 of them occur in one bad game, meaning 7-8 turnovers disbursed through 15 games.
As for the Drive v the Comeback, it’s close but give me the drive. I can explain my logic, Paul, though I don’t know it will matter.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Heck I could say Trent Dilfer is the best ever and I would sound like an idiot but there no factual evidence to dispute my claim.
Plenty of factual evidence there.
Tom Brady has destroyed that “Drive” as far as performance under pressure with his comeback against Atlanta
How does one drive "destroy" the other?
Well since Brady had to deliver multiple drives while down by 25 points I don’t feel the need to explain it to you. . If you cant see which situation was more difficult then that’s your problem for not getting it.
Generally speaking, this is the problem with discussing things with people on these forums.
"If you can't see it for yourself, I'm not going to explain it to you" so I'll reply that, if you don't know why the Atlanta comeback is actually LESS about Brady "destroying" Montana's drive, I won't explain it to you.
You bring up Dilfer and rip us for bringing up Ken Anderson? By the way, I NEVER said Anderson was as good as Brady, in fact, you were the one who asked for an argument that Anderson was better than Brady, all I did was make a few points in Ken's favor. Anderson did some things better than Brady.
I said Brady was as good a choice for QB GOAT as anyone. Several others deserve consideration too. Manning and Brees would be two that are in the mix. Others have said Montana, Marino and Graham, I think Tarkenton was right up there as well. Sorry overlink dallas, I don't think Ken Anderson should be in the QB GOAT discussion, but he was DAMN good!
Much rather be and "underlink" to dallas than dimeman ;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Heck I could say Trent Dilfer is the best ever and I would sound like an idiot but there no factual evidence to dispute my claim.
Plenty of factual evidence there.
Tom Brady has destroyed that “Drive” as far as performance under pressure with his comeback against Atlanta
How does one drive "destroy" the other?
Well since Brady had to deliver multiple drives while down by 25 points I don’t feel the need to explain it to you. . If you cant see which situation was more difficult then that’s your problem for not getting it.
Generally speaking, this is the problem with discussing things with people on these forums.
"If you can't see it for yourself, I'm not going to explain it to you" so I'll reply that, if you don't know why the Atlanta comeback is actually LESS about Brady "destroying" Montana's drive, I won't explain it to you.
You bring up Dilfer and rip us for bringing up Ken Anderson? By the way, I NEVER said Anderson was as good as Brady, in fact, you were the one who asked for an argument that Anderson was better than Brady, all I did was make a few points in Ken's favor. Anderson did some things better than Brady.
I said Brady was as good a choice for QB GOAT as anyone. Several others deserve consideration too. Manning and Brees would be two that are in the mix. Others have said Montana, Marino and Graham, I think Tarkenton was right up there as well. Sorry overlink dallas, I don't think Ken Anderson should be in the QB GOAT discussion, but he was DAMN good!
Much rather be and "underlink" to dallas than dimeman ;-)
Oh my god, I was joking about Dilfer to make a point. Please tell me you understand that!
Paul - I certainly believe that in a team sport, championships are part of a career resume that should be considered, just like you. I do not make it the be all and end all - one of many layers in the overall determination. I fully grasp the notion that you can’t isolate one player completely outside of the team around him but at the same time there is absolutely no doubt that the quarterback plays a wildly influential role in the success of the team.
Now, I am not usually statistically driven in these evaluations and I wouldn’t cite many statistics to back up my case for an all time great but one that I would certainly highlight as it is as important both to the team as it is to individual success and that is turnovers and more specifically interceptions. Yes, they’re not always the QBs fault (tipped balls) but a great enough percentage do ultimately fall onto a quarterbacks plate. The correlation between turnover +/- and win percentage is typically strong. Win the turnover battle, win the game. These mistakes are often the turning point in a game.
And if there’s one thing that has always stood out to me about Tom Brady, he doesn’t turn the ball over. I mean to play as long as he has and never throw more than 14 interceptions in a season (avg is around 10 per year) is pretty remarkable. I’d also think that in most seasons, of those 10 INTs, 2-3 of them occur in one bad game, meaning 7-8 turnovers disbursed through 15 games.
As for the Drive v the Comeback, it’s close but give me the drive. I can explain my logic, Paul, though I don’t know it will matter.
Tim, I BBC would be happy to hear your viewpoint. I won’t respond today as I’m really busy but will get back to you, and to JoeBanzai. 🍻
Paul - I certainly believe that in a team sport, championships are part of a career resume that should be considered, just like you. I do not make it the be all and end all - one of many layers in the overall determination. I fully grasp the notion that you can’t isolate one player completely outside of the team around him but at the same time there is absolutely no doubt that the quarterback plays a wildly influential role in the success of the team.
Now, I am not usually statistically driven in these evaluations and I wouldn’t cite many statistics to back up my case for an all time great but one that I would certainly highlight as it is as important both to the team as it is to individual success and that is turnovers and more specifically interceptions. Yes, they’re not always the QBs fault (tipped balls) but a great enough percentage do ultimately fall onto a quarterbacks plate. The correlation between turnover +/- and win percentage is typically strong. Win the turnover battle, win the game. These mistakes are often the turning point in a game.
And if there’s one thing that has always stood out to me about Tom Brady, he doesn’t turn the ball over. I mean to play as long as he has and never throw more than 14 interceptions in a season (avg is around 10 per year) is pretty remarkable. I’d also think that in most seasons, of those 10 INTs, 2-3 of them occur in one bad game, meaning 7-8 turnovers disbursed through 15 games.
As for the Drive v the Comeback, it’s close but give me the drive. I can explain my logic, Paul, though I don’t know it will matter.
Tim, I BBC would be happy to hear your viewpoint. I won’t respond today as I’m really busy but will get back to you, and to JoeBanzai. 🍻
Well, first, I just think we’re talking about two spectacular accomplishments. What Brady did was awesome - I watched it live - and it was something to see. However, if I’m being honest there’s also an element of Atlanta just completely falling apart on every level in the 2nd half that was every bit as important to the win. Also, we’re living in the era where even mediocre quarterbacks lead big comebacks to overcome big deficits all the time. Every team flies up and down the field through the air every Sunday because the game has been legislated that way. See the fact that the fullback doesn’t really exist anymore and the running back is a platoon position. Or Dan Marino’s amazing 5,000 yards passing record that’s stood leaps and bounds above everyone before or after for nearly 20 years seemingly being duplicated every other year now.
In the case of Montana, it was much tougher conditions under which to throw the ball. The teams played the first half to a 3-3 tie! The Bengals only TD was a kick return and it was the only TD of the game until the 4th quarter. When the 49ers got the ball back with three and change left and 90+ yards to go, it just didn’t seem likely that this defense would give it up. Now, in today’s day and age, 90 yards in 3 minutes is rather common place since you can’t hit QBs and you can’t touch receivers. But in the 1980s, with DBs draped all over WR, lineman trying to straight injure QBs and when the opposing team knows you are throwing, it just seemed like there was no chance it could happen. Yet there was Joe, on a day where through three quarters, the Niners has 6 points with 90 yards to go and three and change left. Under those conditions, an aging Joe, who two years prior had undergone a back surgery caused by football and after which doctors told him to stop playing as he had a serious increased risked of paralysis and two years later would be cut by the team he helped put on the map for Steve Young, doing the impossible by going nine for ten and securing yet another SuperBowl victory.
Again, both remarkable comebacks but the plausibility of Montana’s - to me - was significantly lower to to the way the game was played.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Heck I could say Trent Dilfer is the best ever and I would sound like an idiot but there no factual evidence to dispute my claim.
Plenty of factual evidence there.
Tom Brady has destroyed that “Drive” as far as performance under pressure with his comeback against Atlanta
How does one drive "destroy" the other?
Well since Brady had to deliver multiple drives while down by 25 points I don’t feel the need to explain it to you. . If you cant see which situation was more difficult then that’s your problem for not getting it.
Generally speaking, this is the problem with discussing things with people on these forums.
"If you can't see it for yourself, I'm not going to explain it to you" so I'll reply that, if you don't know why the Atlanta comeback is actually LESS about Brady "destroying" Montana's drive, I won't explain it to you.
You bring up Dilfer and rip us for bringing up Ken Anderson? By the way, I NEVER said Anderson was as good as Brady, in fact, you were the one who asked for an argument that Anderson was better than Brady, all I did was make a few points in Ken's favor. Anderson did some things better than Brady.
I said Brady was as good a choice for QB GOAT as anyone. Several others deserve consideration too. Manning and Brees would be two that are in the mix. Others have said Montana, Marino and Graham, I think Tarkenton was right up there as well. Sorry overlink dallas, I don't think Ken Anderson should be in the QB GOAT discussion, but he was DAMN good!
Much rather be and "underlink" to dallas than dimeman ;-)
Oh my god, I was joking about Dilfer to make a point. Please tell me you understand that!
;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@perkdog said:
Pay no mind to that nonsense Jon, it’s intellectually challenged people like us and the decades of people who cast votes for HOF consideration who are wrong in Dallas and his underlink Joe Banzai eyes 🙄
I'll accept some of the blame for this, since I can't expect anyone to read all 10,000 words of my average post. But, the very first thing I said on this topic was, and I quote, "Brady is as good a choice as any for NFL GOAT".
I think Anderson was better, you (and millions of others) think Brady was better. None of us are wrong, because these are nothing but opinions.
Now, setting the GOAT question to the side, anyone who has ever cast a vote for the HOF, and anyone who hasn't but agrees with them, and hasn't voted for Ken Anderson is an idiot. Period. There are all kinds of arguments that Anderson wasn't the best QB ever that non-idiots can make; there are no such arguments that can be made that Anderson doesn't belong in the HOF.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Paul - I certainly believe that in a team sport, championships are part of a career resume that should be considered, just like you. I do not make it the be all and end all - one of many layers in the overall determination. I fully grasp the notion that you can’t isolate one player completely outside of the team around him but at the same time there is absolutely no doubt that the quarterback plays a wildly influential role in the success of the team.
Now, I am not usually statistically driven in these evaluations and I wouldn’t cite many statistics to back up my case for an all time great but one that I would certainly highlight as it is as important both to the team as it is to individual success and that is turnovers and more specifically interceptions. Yes, they’re not always the QBs fault (tipped balls) but a great enough percentage do ultimately fall onto a quarterbacks plate. The correlation between turnover +/- and win percentage is typically strong. Win the turnover battle, win the game. These mistakes are often the turning point in a game.
And if there’s one thing that has always stood out to me about Tom Brady, he doesn’t turn the ball over. I mean to play as long as he has and never throw more than 14 interceptions in a season (avg is around 10 per year) is pretty remarkable. I’d also think that in most seasons, of those 10 INTs, 2-3 of them occur in one bad game, meaning 7-8 turnovers disbursed through 15 games.
As for the Drive v the Comeback, it’s close but give me the drive. I can explain my logic, Paul, though I don’t know it will matter.
Tim, I BBC would be happy to hear your viewpoint. I won’t respond today as I’m really busy but will get back to you, and to JoeBanzai. 🍻
Well, first, I just think we’re talking about two spectacular accomplishments. What Brady did was awesome - I watched it live - and it was something to see. However, if I’m being honest there’s also an element of Atlanta just completely falling apart on every level in the 2nd half that was every bit as important to the win. Also, we’re living in the era where even mediocre quarterbacks lead big comebacks to overcome big deficits all the time. Every team flies up and down the field through the air every Sunday because the game has been legislated that way. See the fact that the fullback doesn’t really exist anymore and the running back is a platoon position. Or Dan Marino’s amazing 5,000 yards passing record that’s stood leaps and bounds above everyone before or after for nearly 20 years seemingly being duplicated every other year now.
In the case of Montana, it was much tougher conditions under which to throw the ball. The teams played the first half to a 3-3 tie! The Bengals only TD was a kick return and it was the only TD of the game until the 4th quarter. When the 49ers got the ball back with three and change left and 90+ yards to go, it just didn’t seem likely that this defense would give it up. Now, in today’s day and age, 90 yards in 3 minutes is rather common place since you can’t hit QBs and you can’t touch receivers. But in the 1980s, with DBs draped all over WR, lineman trying to straight injure QBs and when the opposing team knows you are throwing, it just seemed like there was no chance it could happen. Yet there was Joe, on a day where through three quarters, the Niners has 6 points with 90 yards to go and three and change left. Under those conditions, an aging Joe, who two years prior had undergone a back surgery caused by football and after which doctors told him to stop playing as he had a serious increased risked of paralysis and two years later would be cut by the team he helped put on the map for Steve Young, doing the impossible by going nine for ten and securing yet another SuperBowl victory.
Again, both remarkable comebacks but the plausibility of Montana’s - to me - was significantly lower to to the way the game was played.
Good points, I watched Montana and those guys in the 80’s and 90’s and yes I will admit it was different, I’m not discounting Montana’s drive as anything less than Epic, please believe that. I grasp at what your saying and respect that however I do as you expected disagree only because Atlanta was up 28-3 in the 3RD quarter, and yes Atlanta fell apart in a biblical way but damn I cannot think that Brady leading drive after drive and needing 2 point conversions ect.. was less stellar than Montana’s ONE drive. Hey if it was Eli Manning ( who I absolutely cannot stand as you also know ) did it I would say the same thing. Yes I’m a homer but I truly believe I’m right. So in short I respectfully disagree.
@perkdog said:
Pay no mind to that nonsense Jon, it’s intellectually challenged people like us and the decades of people who cast votes for HOF consideration who are wrong in Dallas and his underlink Joe Banzai eyes 🙄
I'll accept some of the blame for this, since I can't expect anyone to read all 10,000 words of my average post. But, the very first thing I said on this topic was, and I quote, "Brady is as good a choice as any for NFL GOAT".
I think Anderson was better, you (and millions of others) think Brady was better. None of us are wrong, because these are nothing but opinions.
Now, setting the GOAT question to the side, anyone who has ever cast a vote for the HOF, and anyone who hasn't but agrees with them, and hasn't voted for Ken Anderson is an idiot. Period. There are all kinds of arguments that Anderson wasn't the best QB ever that non-idiots can make; there are no such arguments that can be made that Anderson doesn't belong in the HOF.
We will leave it at this. We can go back and forth till we both cannot type anymore and point counter point relentlessly, I certainly respect Anderson as a great QB, I’m fine with you saying Brady is as good a choice as any as the GOAT, I don’t expect everyone to agree and it’s all good.
@perkdog said:
Well that’s fine and sounds very true but you could say that about Joe Montana, or any other GOAT Candidate so the way I see it the playing field amongst NFL great QB’s is pretty fair, the ones that were not running for theIt lives and getting the crap beat out of them due to a joke of a line ect.. are all out of the debate so we are working with what we got and Nobody is going to give me any reasonable argument that Brady is not the best ever, Elway, Montana ect had strong if not stronger supporting casts around them.
Well that's fine, but your argument presupposes that the GOAT must necessarily be a QB, and then further assumes that the QB on the best team (the one with the most rings) is the GOAT. So, you started with the assumption that the QB on the best team is the GOAT, and that led you to the conclusion that the QB on the best team is the GOAT. That's called "begging the question", and that's all you're doing.
I don't know if you agree with the similar logical fallacy that skin makes in the MLB GOAT arguments, but assuming you don't, then you agree with my position that it is possible for the MLB GOAT to have played at any time. It could be Cap Anson, Willie Keeler, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt, Barry Bonds, Mike Trout, or anyone else. From that basic, and to my mind obvious, premise, the question just becomes how to identify which one it was. Their counting stats, their ratio stats, their strength of schedule, their postseason stats, their rings, etc., are all evidence that can be considered, and depending how you weight them will determine your answer. In baseball, if you count "rings" and postseason for much more than nothing, then Ted Williams will fall out of the conversation really fast. I think that's absurd, because the Red Sox not winning any titles was 0% Ted Williams fault, and 100% the fault of the Yankees being a much better team than the Red Sox. But you appear to disagree; at least, your argument for Brady - to the degree you've stated an actual argument - leads to the conclusion that Ted Williams wasn't as great as many people think he was.
The same argument applies to football. The GOAT could have played at any time, and for any team. Based on what I've seen in my lifetime - relegating Bart Starr and Jim Brown, etc. to the sidelines - the best QB I've seen play was Ken Anderson. Anderson was on a godawful team his entire career, with a couple of SB losses as the highlights of his career. But the Bengals won the games they did win, or so it seemed to me, mostly because Anderson was so good. I have no reason to doubt that had Ken Anderson been the Steelers QB when he played that he would have at least as many SB wins as Bradshaw, and very likely more, since Anderson was a better QB than Bradshaw.
Your argument - that Anderson can't possibly be the GOAT because he had bad teammates, and that Williams can't possibly have been the MLB GOAT for the same reason - isn't really an argument, it's just a statement. And it's a statement that doesn't convince me because it doesn't make any sense to me. The corollary of your argument is that Brady is the GOAT because he played on the Patriots, but had Brady played for the Browns then he wouldn't have been the GOAT. Phrased that way, it makes even less sense, doesn't it?
Dallas, First, you compared a basketball player from the 1950's and said it was a vastly different game(with inferior talent), and proceeded to say that that basketball player cannot compare to modern players as a result. That is the exact same with Babe Ruth and the modern players. 90% of those deadball style hitters in 1921 would not even be drafted in 1998, let alone be all stars. VASTLY DIFFERENT GAME. You finally see the light. It took a while, but you see it now.
Second, if Perkdog was saying that Tom Brady was the best ever, and then proceeded to say that Deion Branch, Antowain Smith, and Wes Welker were the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th best ever, then MAYBE you could have an analogy that could discredit Perk and my unbeatable arguments and facts I put forth in the debunking Ruth being the greatest ever. Dallas, YOUR stance not only makes Babe Ruth light years better than anyone after 1970, it also makes Horsnby, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner, Cy Young and Walter Johnson better than anyone past 1970 as well. That shows the folly of the methods you use to make Ruth the best ever.
Is it possible a QB from 1950 was better than Brady, but we can't see it due to the surroundings? Anything is 'possible', but the moment you have three other QB's from the 1950's ALSO better than Brady(like you do with the baseball players), then your argument is completely gone. It is checkmate. Sorry Dallas. You make a lot of good posts...but aren't seeing reality here.
As for Wilt Chamberlain, the fact is the players WERE smaller. I already laid that out in another thread. There were a few seven footers that increased the average league height, but they played minimal minutes(and were stiffs). The fact is, Chamberlain got all those rebounds with guys averaging three inches shorter in height and 25 pounds lighter. In 1992, Chamberlain is simply an average center in terms of height and weight.
Finally, Chamberlain could not shoot free throws. All you have to do is foul him late in close games and that neutralizes his impact on winning games. That alone throws chamberlain out the window in this debate because he is a liability at the end of a close game.
PS: That 'value over replacement player' stat that makes Lebron so dominant is made from shadows, smoke, and mirrors. It is about as accurate as the defensive portion of baseball WAR, and the positional adjustment portion of WAR. It is Hocus Pocus.
Jordan was the best offensive player and best defensive player...and was the toughest mentally. Can't beat that.
Bird was second to Jordan. I agree with the guys above who said he would start his team with Bird. Bird knew how to play the game better than anyone and that dwarfed the measurable stats people are using in comparing basketball players. Bird was the ultimate team player in addition to being the superstar. He also had statistical results too. Basketball stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. They simply aren't. Also, in basketball, a guy can accumulate stats at the expense of winning.
The fact is, Chamberlain got all those rebounds with guys averaging three inches shorter in height and 25 pounds lighter.
He also got all those rebounds because NBA teams back then:
1) Played at a ridiculously fast pace.
2) Shot very poorly
As an example, in 1961/62, the Boston Celtics averaged 114 shots a game while shooting only 42.1%. That's 66 rebounds per game just off of their bricks. In 2018/19, Boston averaged 90.5 shots, while shooting 46.5%. That's 48.4 rebounds a game. That's 18 extra rebounds just from one team. Double that and you're looking at 35-40 extra rebounds a game. That's how you get the top rebounding guys, who were playing 45 minutes a game, getting 24 rebounds instead of 13. And that's why Dennis Rodman's back-to-back seasons of 18+ rebounds for Detroit, are the greatest rebounding seasons ever.
Dallas, First, you compared a basketball player from the 1950's and said it was a vastly different game(with inferior talent), and proceeded to say that that basketball player cannot compare to modern players as a result. That is the exact same with Babe Ruth and the modern players. 90% of those deadball style hitters in 1921 would not even be drafted in 1998, let alone be all stars. VASTLY DIFFERENT GAME. You finally see the light. It took a while, but you see it now.
By itself, I can't see where you're going with this paragraph. But I can see that you are misstating what I said. Basketball in the 1950's was a vastly different game - by which I mean different rules, both officially (24-second clock, 3-pointers) and unofficially (traveling and similar calls have all but vanished today). You inserted "with inferior talent" after my statement as if to imply that this is what I said, but it's not what I said. I said it was a vastly different game. Period. Not so with baseball, where the game today is 99%+ the same game that was played at least since the 1890's.
@Skin2 said
Second, if Perkdog was saying that Tom Brady was the best ever, and then proceeded to say that Deion Branch, Antowain Smith, and Wes Welker were the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th best ever, then MAYBE you could have an analogy that could discredit Perk and my unbeatable arguments and facts I put forth in the debunking Ruth being the greatest ever. Dallas, YOUR stance not only makes Babe Ruth light years better than anyone after 1970, it also makes Horsnby, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner, Cy Young and Walter Johnson better than anyone past 1970 as well. That shows the folly of the methods you use to make Ruth the best ever.
Again, if just once you would argue against what I actually said instead of rephrasing it, completely changing the meaning, and then arguing against something you have simply hallucinated that I said, then we'd get somewhere. First, you have put forward no facts at all that debunk Ruth being the greatest ever, you have instead put forward facts that demonstrate that his competition was weak. I'm starting to think you don't see the difference between the two, but they are very obviously not the same thing. That Ruth's competition was weaker is one element of many in your as yet invisible argument that Ruth wasn't the GOAT. Any "my" argument that Ruth, and Hornsby and Gehrig and Cobb and Wagner and Young and Johnson were light years better than anyone past 1970 simply doesn't exist. I never said that, I never implied that. Yet you are attributing that argument to me and then shooting it down. In addition to the "begging the question" logical fallacy that you have been employing, you are now employing the "straw man" fallacy.
And I will state, again, that declaring my pick for GOAT, and the metrics I use to evaluate a GOAT, and the order that I rank all the various candidates, as "folly", while not stating your GOAT, the metrics you use, or how you rank the various candidates, isn't a logical fallacy, but it is cowardly. I am, to the best of my knowledge, the single only person on this forum who has constructed an actual argument defending my picks, my metrics and my rankings. Having nothing to compare my rankings to, they stand unrebutted. I welcome the opportunity to compare my argument and resulting rankings to yours, and to make changes to my rankings based on what I'm sure I would learn from the exercise. But I can't do that until you make an argument and a ranking. "Competition was weaker when Ruth played" isn't an argument, it's a fact, and a baby step towards a ranking.
@Skin2 said
Is it possible a QB from 1950 was better than Brady, but we can't see it due to the surroundings? Anything is 'possible', but the moment you have three other QB's from the 1950's ALSO better than Brady(like you do with the baseball players), then your argument is completely gone. It is checkmate. Sorry Dallas. You make a lot of good posts...but aren't seeing reality here.
Here, I have no clue what you're arguing for or against. Somehow your declaration that an argument that I have never made, and as far as I can tell nobody has ever made, results in my being checkmated, and accused of not seeing reality. Who are these three other QBs of whom you speak? Who said one or any of them were better than Brady? It wasn't me, that's all I know for sure. What I said of Brady was that he was as good a GOAT candidate as anyone, that I thought Anderson was a little bit better, that I was excluding from consideration all the old-time QBs because they were playing a vastly different game, and that in any event it was a fool's errand to try to identify the GOAT in a team game. "My" argument stands; the one that you declare "completely gone" never existed in the first place.
@Skin2 said
As for Wilt Chamberlain, the fact is the players WERE smaller. I already laid that out in another thread. There were a few seven footers that increased the average league height, but they played minimal minutes(and were stiffs). The fact is, Chamberlain got all those rebounds with guys averaging three inches shorter in height and 25 pounds lighter. In 1992, Chamberlain is simply an average center in terms of height and weight.
Yes, they were smaller, and that is one element that should be taken into account in the construction of an argument regarding his GOAT status. To declare this one element by itself an argument is simply false.
@Skin2 said
Finally, Chamberlain could not shoot free throws. All you have to do is foul him late in close games and that neutralizes his impact on winning games. That alone throws chamberlain out the window in this debate because he is a liability at the end of a close game.
And this is certainly another element of that same argument. I look forward to you or anyone else putting these pieces together with all of the others into an actual argument.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I am, to the best of my knowledge, the single only person on this forum who has constructed an actual argument defending my picks, my metrics and my rankings. Having nothing to compare my rankings to, they stand unrebutted. I welcome the opportunity to compare my argument and resulting rankings to yours, and to make changes to my rankings based on what I'm sure I would learn from the exercise. But I can't do that until you make an argument and a ranking. "Competition was weaker when Ruth played" isn't an argument, it's a fact, and a baby step towards a ranking.
I think I deserve an "Honorable Mention" here.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
The only reason Jordan was good was because he had a seven foot vertical leap and had helium in his bloodstream so he actually could defy gravity.
Plus he never had to try to dunk on the "Stilt" REJECTED!!!!
;-)
On a one on one drive to the rack MJ would have Wilt turned inside out..... that ended with a reverse double pump cartwheel in your face slam dunk!
@DIMEMAN said:
On a one on one drive to the rack MJ would have Wilt turned inside out..... that ended with a reverse double pump cartwheel in your face slam dunk!
All true, and he'd accomplish all of that without ever dribbling the ball. Time was, there was a rule against that. I think they called it "traveling". Nothing turned me off basketball more than Michael Jordan running five yards out of his way to make contact with an opposing player, draw a "foul", turn and run towards the basket and make his shot, all without the ball ever touching the floor.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Dallas, First, you compared a basketball player from the 1950's and said it was a vastly different game(with inferior talent), and proceeded to say that that basketball player cannot compare to modern players as a result. That is the exact same with Babe Ruth and the modern players. 90% of those deadball style hitters in 1921 would not even be drafted in 1998, let alone be all stars. VASTLY DIFFERENT GAME. You finally see the light. It took a while, but you see it now.
By itself, I can't see where you're going with this paragraph. But I can see that you are misstating what I said. Basketball in the 1950's was a vastly different game - by which I mean different rules, both officially (24-second clock, 3-pointers) and unofficially (traveling and similar calls have all but vanished today). You inserted "with inferior talent" after my statement as if to imply that this is what I said, but it's not what I said. I said it was a vastly different game. Period. Not so with baseball, where the game today is 99%+ the same game that was played at least since the 1890's.
@Skin2 said
Second, if Perkdog was saying that Tom Brady was the best ever, and then proceeded to say that Deion Branch, Antowain Smith, and Wes Welker were the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th best ever, then MAYBE you could have an analogy that could discredit Perk and my unbeatable arguments and facts I put forth in the debunking Ruth being the greatest ever. Dallas, YOUR stance not only makes Babe Ruth light years better than anyone after 1970, it also makes Horsnby, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner, Cy Young and Walter Johnson better than anyone past 1970 as well. That shows the folly of the methods you use to make Ruth the best ever.
Again, if just once you would argue against what I actually said instead of rephrasing it, completely changing the meaning, and then arguing against something you have simply hallucinated that I said, then we'd get somewhere. First, you have put forward no facts at all that debunk Ruth being the greatest ever, you have instead put forward facts that demonstrate that his competition was weak. I'm starting to think you don't see the difference between the two, but they are very obviously not the same thing. That Ruth's competition was weaker is one element of many in your as yet invisible argument that Ruth wasn't the GOAT. Any "my" argument that Ruth, and Hornsby and Gehrig and Cobb and Wagner and Young and Johnson were light years better than anyone past 1970 simply doesn't exist. I never said that, I never implied that. Yet you are attributing that argument to me and then shooting it down. In addition to the "begging the question" logical fallacy that you have been employing, you are now employing the "straw man" fallacy.
And I will state, again, that declaring my pick for GOAT, and the metrics I use to evaluate a GOAT, and the order that I rank all the various candidates, as "folly", while not stating your GOAT, the metrics you use, or how you rank the various candidates, isn't a logical fallacy, but it is cowardly. I am, to the best of my knowledge, the single only person on this forum who has constructed an actual argument defending my picks, my metrics and my rankings. Having nothing to compare my rankings to, they stand unrebutted. I welcome the opportunity to compare my argument and resulting rankings to yours, and to make changes to my rankings based on what I'm sure I would learn from the exercise. But I can't do that until you make an argument and a ranking. "Competition was weaker when Ruth played" isn't an argument, it's a fact, and a baby step towards a ranking.
@Skin2 said
Is it possible a QB from 1950 was better than Brady, but we can't see it due to the surroundings? Anything is 'possible', but the moment you have three other QB's from the 1950's ALSO better than Brady(like you do with the baseball players), then your argument is completely gone. It is checkmate. Sorry Dallas. You make a lot of good posts...but aren't seeing reality here.
Here, I have no clue what you're arguing for or against. Somehow your declaration that an argument that I have never made, and as far as I can tell nobody has ever made, results in my being checkmated, and accused of not seeing reality. Who are these three other QBs of whom you speak? Who said one or any of them were better than Brady? It wasn't me, that's all I know for sure. What I said of Brady was that he was as good a GOAT candidate as anyone, that I thought Anderson was a little bit better, that I was excluding from consideration all the old-time QBs because they were playing a vastly different game, and that in any event it was a fool's errand to try to identify the GOAT in a team game. "My" argument stands; the one that you declare "completely gone" never existed in the first place.
@Skin2 said
As for Wilt Chamberlain, the fact is the players WERE smaller. I already laid that out in another thread. There were a few seven footers that increased the average league height, but they played minimal minutes(and were stiffs). The fact is, Chamberlain got all those rebounds with guys averaging three inches shorter in height and 25 pounds lighter. In 1992, Chamberlain is simply an average center in terms of height and weight.
Yes, they were smaller, and that is one element that should be taken into account in the construction of an argument regarding his GOAT status. To declare this one element by itself an argument is simply false.
@Skin2 said
Finally, Chamberlain could not shoot free throws. All you have to do is foul him late in close games and that neutralizes his impact on winning games. That alone throws chamberlain out the window in this debate because he is a liability at the end of a close game.
And this is certainly another element of that same argument. I look forward to you or anyone else putting these pieces together with all of the others into an actual argument.
Dallas, your metrics all come down to Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Hornsby, Gehrig, Collins, Lajoie, Walter Johnson, and Cy young all being better than anyone past 1980. THAT is like saying "it is possible that the best QB ever was playing in 1950," and then making such a case...and then your case also makes three other QB's from 1950 better than Tom Brady. Once your 'case' makes those three other QB's from 1950 better than Tom Brady, then your original metric declaring the first one being better no longer holds water.
Again, you are wrong about baseball being the same game. 90% of the hitters playing in MLB in 1921 would simply not even be drafted in 1998, mostly due to their deadball style hitting...and because they averaged three inches less in height and 25 lbs less in weight. It was a completely different style and game. Every shortstop today has as strong or stronger arm than the best throwing at SS in 1921.
Pitchers pitched complete games, only the top one percent threw 95 MPH, now almost every guy in the league can do that...and the pitchers were smaller.
As for WIlt, he NEVER had to go against anyone as big or as athletic as him when he was scoring 50 a game. In 1992 he would have to do that almost every night. Even guys like Mark Eaton who are not elite, but are just gigantic and good enough to be an All star and all defensive player, would simply wear Wilt down and eliminate many of his rebounds and easy field goals he had.
It is not a matter of IF, it is a simple explanation as to why a player is so easily able to average 50 points and 30 rebounds...because his competition is smaller than him, and the few big players around being not skilled.
For the people who keep saying that the heights were the same back then are wrong. I clearly laid that out in another thread, showing the players Wilt played against(not the guys on the bench), and there is a marked difference in height/weight....just like there is a marked difference in height/weight from Ruth's time to now.....and yes, size does matter. Please do not bring up Altuve as an argument against that. Plus, Altuve actually weighs 165 pounds. Find me a guy who weights 110 pounds and is an all star in modern times?
Dallas, is it possible the best player ever was born in 1598, but we don't know since his surroundings hid it? That is YOUR premise. Yes, that is possible...but reality? No....especially when your metric also declares five other guys from 1598 being better than anyone past 1980.
This was Chamberlain's competition. These are the players in the league that were taller than six foot nine, and how many minutes they played per game:
Though, the mighty Bevo Nordmann joined the league this season. The six- ten stiff averaged 6 minutes per game
Thats it. Nobody else was taller than six foot nine. In Chamberlain's first three two years he had zero height to contend with. ZERO. The few players who were taller than six nine were part time players. Most were not athletic....except Russell.
It gets slowly better as years went on.
That is the reason why Wilt put up 50 points a game and 27 rebounds.
I can go down to the local YMCA tonight and play in the 5th/6th grade games...and walk out with similar numbers...and it will mean about as much as Wilt's numbers against those stiffs when comparing to other players having to do that against much bigger/better competition
@JoeBanzai said:
The only reason Jordan was good was because he had a seven foot vertical leap and had helium in his bloodstream so he actually could defy gravity.
Plus he never had to try to dunk on the "Stilt" REJECTED!!!!
;-)
On a one on one drive to the rack MJ would have Wilt turned inside out..... that ended with a reverse double pump cartwheel in your face slam dunk!
You OBVIOUSLY don't get that Wilt wasn't just big, he was a great athlete as well.
Mikey would have been crushed and sent to the hospital if he tried that modern day garbage on the big man!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
The only reason Jordan was good was because he had a seven foot vertical leap and had helium in his bloodstream so he actually could defy gravity.
Plus he never had to try to dunk on the "Stilt" REJECTED!!!!
;-)
On a one on one drive to the rack MJ would have Wilt turned inside out..... that ended with a reverse double pump cartwheel in your face slam dunk!
You OBVIOUSLY don't get that Wilt wasn't just big, he was a great athlete as well.
Mikey would have been crushed and sent to the hospital if he tried that modern day garbage on the big man!
Jordan's done that on bigger men than Wilt. Talented athletic men, every night.
And Jordan did it in the league where there were physical thugs with one mission, to put a physical beating on Jordan...so I'm not sure what you are talking about. And they tried their hardest to physically beat him up...but Jordan still won. Those thugs were bigger than the players in Wilt's time. So not sure where you think Jordan couldn't do that in Wilt's time LMAO.
Wilt played against stiffs who were simply not big enough to contend with an athletic big man...hence the points he scored.
This was Chamberlain's competition. These are the players in the league that were taller than six foot nine, and how many minutes they played per game:
Though, the mighty Bevo Nordmann joined the league this season. The six- ten stiff averaged 6 minutes per game
Thats it. Nobody else was taller than six foot nine. In Chamberlain's first three two years he had zero height to contend with. The few players who were taller than six nine were part time players. Most were not athletic....except Russell.
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
@Skin2 said:
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
He was a bad free throw shooter, that is true.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Wilt was the Shaq of his day. A unique physical specimen who was bigger and stronger and faster than any other big man around. Period. This can happen at any time, historically speaking. In both cases, the leagues they played in changed the rules to make it harder on them. I never like the idea of cheapening what a big guy accomplished because of his size. You think Michael Jordan took a beating? Not like a big...
Conversely, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning and 2019 MLB baseball players* benefits significantly from rule changes that helped to benefit them. Significantly.
Please consider this.
*2019 being the year baseballs began to be made by Titliest.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Wilt was the Shaq of his day. A unique physical specimen who was bigger and stronger and faster than any other big man around. Period. This can happen at any time, historically speaking. In both cases, the leagues they played in changed the rules to make it harder on them. I never like the idea of cheapening what a big guy accomplished because of his size. You think Michael Jordan took a beating? Not like a big...
Conversely, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning and 2019 MLB baseball players* benefits significantly from rule changes that helped to benefit them. Significantly.
Please consider this.
*2019 being the year baseballs began to be made by Titliest.
Shaq's limitations also preclude him from this discussion, just like Wilt's limitations.
Wilt only accomplished his things, not because of his size, but the size limitations of his competition. As posted above, the smallness and unathleticness of his competition is the main reason he averaged 50 points a game, instead of the 25 or 30 a big guy from another generation could only average due to the league being filled with players as big or bigger as him(and as athletic).
And again, 1951wheaties, you have in the past put much credence into post season performance. You must also put that onto Wilt's post season failures. Can't pick and choose when you apply that.
He only accomplished his things, not because of his size, but the size limitations of his competition. As posted above, the smallness and unathleticness of his competition is the main reason he averaged 50 points a game, instead of the 25 or 30 a big guy from another generation could only average due to the league being filled with players as big of bigger as him(and as athletic).
Many big men then (and now) aren't great athletes. Wilt was a more coordinated player than many tall guys and better than any playing today. There has always been less 7 foot tall guys who were great athletes. There was a good tall guy as far back as 1948 in George Mikan.
Name one Center playing today that's great.
I started watching sports in the mid to late 1960's and Wilt was more than just taller. Kareem was also very coordinated, but a little less muscular than Wilt, Both would be dominant if they played today, in my opinion.
Jordan was pretty big for the position he played. He's listed as a shooting guard and small forward. He was athletically superior to his competition.
Wilt was better than everybody else, so was Jordan.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
For reasons already expressed by Dallas and others, NFL QB is probably the toughest GOAT position to analyze in major team sports.
I still have Montana as the NFL QB GOAT, but Brady is right up there and closing in.
However if there could be a definitive pick, which may basically be impossible, there are a number, perhaps five or ten who could realistically be considered for the award.
Sustained excellence is what separates Brady from all the other great qb’s. He’s 42, and not showing any appreciable decline in his skill Ievel. While Brees and Manning may be close in regular season passing records, they can’t touch his postseason stats, and there most likely won’t be any player who will top his four Super Bowl MVP awards. By any objective measure, Brady is the GOAT. I’ll say that with the disclosure that I’m not a Patriots fan, nor a Brady fan, but just someone who can observe the obvious.
i love this place so much. been playing catch-up and i swear i've had to scroll to the top about 5 times just to make sure i was in the NBA GOAT thread. here i thought peeps would be breaking down MJ, Wilt, LeBron et al., but instead it's Brady GOAT talk and pre-UFC 300,000 trash talk between hammer & dime (undercard) and dallas & 45 (main).
not once have i ever plopped down a single dime to watch a PPV event, but i'd slice off my left nut to gape at that spectacle
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Ken Anderson was GREAT, otherwise I agree with all of your post.
The problem, as I think you know but most everyone else refuses to acknowledge, is that there is no way to assign a "value" to a QB that isolates his contribution from the rest of his teammates. I think they try, and maybe they have even succeeded to some degree, to allocate value among the skill players, solely by reference to the stats of those skill players. But they haven't tried, or at least they quickly learned that there was no way to do it, to isolate those offensive contributions (yards gained, TDs, etc.) from the contributions of the linemen, the blocks made by the skill players who didn't have the ball, the fear the defense had for a WR that left fewer people at the line to stop the run, and on and on and on.
I think Ken Anderson was the greatest QB I have seen play, and I am 100% positive that there is no way to demonstrate, using facts, that I am wrong. Others feel the same way about Tom Brady, and they aren't wrong because subjective beliefs can't be wrong. Where the Brady people are wrong is in the belief that Brady being the best can be demonstrated with facts. It can't. It just can't. I will never mock the belief that Brady is the GOAT, just the belief that his SB wins are proof.
@dallasactuary I will concede that there is absolutely no way of factually making a claim that any player is the best ever, you can say Ken Anderson was the best QB ever until your blue in the face and even though nobody will ever agree with you they cannot put up factual evidence that your wrong. Heck I could say Trent Dilfer is the best ever and I would sound like an idiot but there no factual evidence to dispute my claim. Aside from that I just love the fact that the majority of Football minds always talked about Montana being the best and his “Drive” against Cincy in the Super Bowl, well Tom Brady has destroyed that “Drive” as far as performance under pressure with his comeback against Atlanta yet these same guys still tout Montana as the best, it annoys and confuses me really.
Yes, Ken Anderson was a GREAT QB! I was being sarcastic.
Heck I could say Trent Dilfer is the best ever and I would sound like an idiot but there no factual evidence to dispute my claim.
Plenty of factual evidence there.
Tom Brady has destroyed that “Drive” as far as performance under pressure with his comeback against Atlanta
How does one drive "destroy" the other?
After a night of IMO's pizza, DA came > @perkdog said:
Don't let it annoy you, Perk. Most everyone here is or has been a die hard fan of one or many sports. For me it was MLB and NFL.
I have watched very little pro football for 5 years so my opinion of Brady as GOAT is incomplete. I watched a bunch of Elway, Montana and Marino so those guys are stuck in my memory as the bulwarks of greatness.
DA is the best here at setting passion aside and laying out the stats. His argument that an NFL greatest of all time is impossible to prove is convincing...unless one player stands so far above the rest that the individual is beyond debate. That is a tough bar to get over and Brady probably will not get there.
But aside from the 7 rings, you have the company of the Ruth, Mays and Mantle fans. The Wilt, James and Jordan fans, and the Gretzky, Howe and Orr fans.
It will ok.
Well since Brady had to deliver multiple drives while down by 25 points I don’t feel the need to explain it to you. . If you cant see which situation was more difficult then that’s your problem for not getting it.
Oh I’m OK regardless of what any of you guys think, this is just recreation posting here, I don’t really care one way or another who likes Brady or not it’s just something to pass the time. It’s humorous reading some of the twisted way some of you guys here think
Putting Anderson in the same universe as Brady in terms of greatness is utter nonsense. There are probably 20 or more QB's better than Anderson. COME ON PEOPLE!!
Pay no mind to that nonsense Jon, it’s intellectually challenged people like us and the decades of people who cast votes for HOF consideration who are wrong in Dallas and his underlink Joe Banzai eyes 🙄
@perkdog
Paul - I certainly believe that in a team sport, championships are part of a career resume that should be considered, just like you. I do not make it the be all and end all - one of many layers in the overall determination. I fully grasp the notion that you can’t isolate one player completely outside of the team around him but at the same time there is absolutely no doubt that the quarterback plays a wildly influential role in the success of the team.
Now, I am not usually statistically driven in these evaluations and I wouldn’t cite many statistics to back up my case for an all time great but one that I would certainly highlight as it is as important both to the team as it is to individual success and that is turnovers and more specifically interceptions. Yes, they’re not always the QBs fault (tipped balls) but a great enough percentage do ultimately fall onto a quarterbacks plate. The correlation between turnover +/- and win percentage is typically strong. Win the turnover battle, win the game. These mistakes are often the turning point in a game.
And if there’s one thing that has always stood out to me about Tom Brady, he doesn’t turn the ball over. I mean to play as long as he has and never throw more than 14 interceptions in a season (avg is around 10 per year) is pretty remarkable. I’d also think that in most seasons, of those 10 INTs, 2-3 of them occur in one bad game, meaning 7-8 turnovers disbursed through 15 games.
As for the Drive v the Comeback, it’s close but give me the drive. I can explain my logic, Paul, though I don’t know it will matter.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Generally speaking, this is the problem with discussing things with people on these forums.
"If you can't see it for yourself, I'm not going to explain it to you" so I'll reply that, if you don't know why the Atlanta comeback is actually LESS about Brady "destroying" Montana's drive, I won't explain it to you.
You bring up Dilfer and rip us for bringing up Ken Anderson? By the way, I NEVER said Anderson was as good as Brady, in fact, you were the one who asked for an argument that Anderson was better than Brady, all I did was make a few points in Ken's favor. Anderson did some things better than Brady.
I said Brady was as good a choice for QB GOAT as anyone. Several others deserve consideration too. Manning and Brees would be two that are in the mix. Others have said Montana, Marino and Graham, I think Tarkenton was right up there as well. Sorry overlink dallas, I don't think Ken Anderson should be in the QB GOAT discussion, but he was DAMN good!
Much rather be and "underlink" to dallas than dimeman ;-)
Oh my god, I was joking about Dilfer to make a point. Please tell me you understand that!
Tim, I BBC would be happy to hear your viewpoint. I won’t respond today as I’m really busy but will get back to you, and to JoeBanzai. 🍻
Well, first, I just think we’re talking about two spectacular accomplishments. What Brady did was awesome - I watched it live - and it was something to see. However, if I’m being honest there’s also an element of Atlanta just completely falling apart on every level in the 2nd half that was every bit as important to the win. Also, we’re living in the era where even mediocre quarterbacks lead big comebacks to overcome big deficits all the time. Every team flies up and down the field through the air every Sunday because the game has been legislated that way. See the fact that the fullback doesn’t really exist anymore and the running back is a platoon position. Or Dan Marino’s amazing 5,000 yards passing record that’s stood leaps and bounds above everyone before or after for nearly 20 years seemingly being duplicated every other year now.
In the case of Montana, it was much tougher conditions under which to throw the ball. The teams played the first half to a 3-3 tie! The Bengals only TD was a kick return and it was the only TD of the game until the 4th quarter. When the 49ers got the ball back with three and change left and 90+ yards to go, it just didn’t seem likely that this defense would give it up. Now, in today’s day and age, 90 yards in 3 minutes is rather common place since you can’t hit QBs and you can’t touch receivers. But in the 1980s, with DBs draped all over WR, lineman trying to straight injure QBs and when the opposing team knows you are throwing, it just seemed like there was no chance it could happen. Yet there was Joe, on a day where through three quarters, the Niners has 6 points with 90 yards to go and three and change left. Under those conditions, an aging Joe, who two years prior had undergone a back surgery caused by football and after which doctors told him to stop playing as he had a serious increased risked of paralysis and two years later would be cut by the team he helped put on the map for Steve Young, doing the impossible by going nine for ten and securing yet another SuperBowl victory.
Again, both remarkable comebacks but the plausibility of Montana’s - to me - was significantly lower to to the way the game was played.
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'll accept some of the blame for this, since I can't expect anyone to read all 10,000 words of my average post. But, the very first thing I said on this topic was, and I quote, "Brady is as good a choice as any for NFL GOAT".
I think Anderson was better, you (and millions of others) think Brady was better. None of us are wrong, because these are nothing but opinions.
Now, setting the GOAT question to the side, anyone who has ever cast a vote for the HOF, and anyone who hasn't but agrees with them, and hasn't voted for Ken Anderson is an idiot. Period. There are all kinds of arguments that Anderson wasn't the best QB ever that non-idiots can make; there are no such arguments that can be made that Anderson doesn't belong in the HOF.
Good points, I watched Montana and those guys in the 80’s and 90’s and yes I will admit it was different, I’m not discounting Montana’s drive as anything less than Epic, please believe that. I grasp at what your saying and respect that however I do as you expected disagree only because Atlanta was up 28-3 in the 3RD quarter, and yes Atlanta fell apart in a biblical way but damn I cannot think that Brady leading drive after drive and needing 2 point conversions ect.. was less stellar than Montana’s ONE drive. Hey if it was Eli Manning ( who I absolutely cannot stand as you also know ) did it I would say the same thing. Yes I’m a homer but I truly believe I’m right. So in short I respectfully disagree.
We will leave it at this. We can go back and forth till we both cannot type anymore and point counter point relentlessly, I certainly respect Anderson as a great QB, I’m fine with you saying Brady is as good a choice as any as the GOAT, I don’t expect everyone to agree and it’s all good.
Back to our regular scheduled program I say Jordan was the NBA Goat
I am thinking Reggie White as GOAT. He was a game changer.
Nobody, except the GOAT, ever drank 10 beers, and played 36 holes, then went out and dropped over 40 points on a team:
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/according-to-jeremy-roenick-michael-jordan-once-dropped-52-after-slamming-10-beers-and-playing-36-holes?fbclid=IwAR1kg0JtkB6-ckC9y0WQ3AZZKTiGKXh_DAWUZjDePNjWCXMAYqck5TFNFxE
While I get the epic nature of this particular Michael Jordan story, I also feel like this would be filed under ‘typical Tuesday’ for Mickey Mantle.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Great thread.
I'm sticking with my Bird as NBA Goat stance. This is a short article arguing the same thing.
https://thegruelingtruth.com/basketball/larry-bird-greatest-all-time/amp/
What the heck.
I will join into this NBA GOAT discussion and state:
Moses Malone is the NBA GOAT (IMO); and
John Elway had a remarkable "Drive" himself in Cleveland, thus he is the NFL GOAT.
Elway merits serious consideration.
Id take Steve Young over Elway, I feel they were similar style QB’s
Dallas, First, you compared a basketball player from the 1950's and said it was a vastly different game(with inferior talent), and proceeded to say that that basketball player cannot compare to modern players as a result. That is the exact same with Babe Ruth and the modern players. 90% of those deadball style hitters in 1921 would not even be drafted in 1998, let alone be all stars. VASTLY DIFFERENT GAME. You finally see the light. It took a while, but you see it now.
Second, if Perkdog was saying that Tom Brady was the best ever, and then proceeded to say that Deion Branch, Antowain Smith, and Wes Welker were the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th best ever, then MAYBE you could have an analogy that could discredit Perk and my unbeatable arguments and facts I put forth in the debunking Ruth being the greatest ever. Dallas, YOUR stance not only makes Babe Ruth light years better than anyone after 1970, it also makes Horsnby, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner, Cy Young and Walter Johnson better than anyone past 1970 as well. That shows the folly of the methods you use to make Ruth the best ever.
Is it possible a QB from 1950 was better than Brady, but we can't see it due to the surroundings? Anything is 'possible', but the moment you have three other QB's from the 1950's ALSO better than Brady(like you do with the baseball players), then your argument is completely gone. It is checkmate. Sorry Dallas. You make a lot of good posts...but aren't seeing reality here.
As for Wilt Chamberlain, the fact is the players WERE smaller. I already laid that out in another thread. There were a few seven footers that increased the average league height, but they played minimal minutes(and were stiffs). The fact is, Chamberlain got all those rebounds with guys averaging three inches shorter in height and 25 pounds lighter. In 1992, Chamberlain is simply an average center in terms of height and weight.
Finally, Chamberlain could not shoot free throws. All you have to do is foul him late in close games and that neutralizes his impact on winning games. That alone throws chamberlain out the window in this debate because he is a liability at the end of a close game.
PS: That 'value over replacement player' stat that makes Lebron so dominant is made from shadows, smoke, and mirrors. It is about as accurate as the defensive portion of baseball WAR, and the positional adjustment portion of WAR. It is Hocus Pocus.
Jordan was the best offensive player and best defensive player...and was the toughest mentally. Can't beat that.
Bird was second to Jordan. I agree with the guys above who said he would start his team with Bird. Bird knew how to play the game better than anyone and that dwarfed the measurable stats people are using in comparing basketball players. Bird was the ultimate team player in addition to being the superstar. He also had statistical results too. Basketball stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. They simply aren't. Also, in basketball, a guy can accumulate stats at the expense of winning.
I didn't know Reggie White played Basketball??
He also got all those rebounds because NBA teams back then:
1) Played at a ridiculously fast pace.
2) Shot very poorly
As an example, in 1961/62, the Boston Celtics averaged 114 shots a game while shooting only 42.1%. That's 66 rebounds per game just off of their bricks. In 2018/19, Boston averaged 90.5 shots, while shooting 46.5%. That's 48.4 rebounds a game. That's 18 extra rebounds just from one team. Double that and you're looking at 35-40 extra rebounds a game. That's how you get the top rebounding guys, who were playing 45 minutes a game, getting 24 rebounds instead of 13. And that's why Dennis Rodman's back-to-back seasons of 18+ rebounds for Detroit, are the greatest rebounding seasons ever.
By itself, I can't see where you're going with this paragraph. But I can see that you are misstating what I said. Basketball in the 1950's was a vastly different game - by which I mean different rules, both officially (24-second clock, 3-pointers) and unofficially (traveling and similar calls have all but vanished today). You inserted "with inferior talent" after my statement as if to imply that this is what I said, but it's not what I said. I said it was a vastly different game. Period. Not so with baseball, where the game today is 99%+ the same game that was played at least since the 1890's.
Again, if just once you would argue against what I actually said instead of rephrasing it, completely changing the meaning, and then arguing against something you have simply hallucinated that I said, then we'd get somewhere. First, you have put forward no facts at all that debunk Ruth being the greatest ever, you have instead put forward facts that demonstrate that his competition was weak. I'm starting to think you don't see the difference between the two, but they are very obviously not the same thing. That Ruth's competition was weaker is one element of many in your as yet invisible argument that Ruth wasn't the GOAT. Any "my" argument that Ruth, and Hornsby and Gehrig and Cobb and Wagner and Young and Johnson were light years better than anyone past 1970 simply doesn't exist. I never said that, I never implied that. Yet you are attributing that argument to me and then shooting it down. In addition to the "begging the question" logical fallacy that you have been employing, you are now employing the "straw man" fallacy.
And I will state, again, that declaring my pick for GOAT, and the metrics I use to evaluate a GOAT, and the order that I rank all the various candidates, as "folly", while not stating your GOAT, the metrics you use, or how you rank the various candidates, isn't a logical fallacy, but it is cowardly. I am, to the best of my knowledge, the single only person on this forum who has constructed an actual argument defending my picks, my metrics and my rankings. Having nothing to compare my rankings to, they stand unrebutted. I welcome the opportunity to compare my argument and resulting rankings to yours, and to make changes to my rankings based on what I'm sure I would learn from the exercise. But I can't do that until you make an argument and a ranking. "Competition was weaker when Ruth played" isn't an argument, it's a fact, and a baby step towards a ranking.
Here, I have no clue what you're arguing for or against. Somehow your declaration that an argument that I have never made, and as far as I can tell nobody has ever made, results in my being checkmated, and accused of not seeing reality. Who are these three other QBs of whom you speak? Who said one or any of them were better than Brady? It wasn't me, that's all I know for sure. What I said of Brady was that he was as good a GOAT candidate as anyone, that I thought Anderson was a little bit better, that I was excluding from consideration all the old-time QBs because they were playing a vastly different game, and that in any event it was a fool's errand to try to identify the GOAT in a team game. "My" argument stands; the one that you declare "completely gone" never existed in the first place.
Yes, they were smaller, and that is one element that should be taken into account in the construction of an argument regarding his GOAT status. To declare this one element by itself an argument is simply false.
And this is certainly another element of that same argument. I look forward to you or anyone else putting these pieces together with all of the others into an actual argument.
The only reason Jordan was good was because he had a seven foot vertical leap and had helium in his bloodstream so he actually could defy gravity.
Plus he never had to try to dunk on the "Stilt" REJECTED!!!!
;-)
I am, to the best of my knowledge, the single only person on this forum who has constructed an actual argument defending my picks, my metrics and my rankings. Having nothing to compare my rankings to, they stand unrebutted. I welcome the opportunity to compare my argument and resulting rankings to yours, and to make changes to my rankings based on what I'm sure I would learn from the exercise. But I can't do that until you make an argument and a ranking. "Competition was weaker when Ruth played" isn't an argument, it's a fact, and a baby step towards a ranking.
I think I deserve an "Honorable Mention" here.
So let it be written. So let it be done.
:-)
On a one on one drive to the rack MJ would have Wilt turned inside out..... that ended with a reverse double pump cartwheel in your face slam dunk!
All true, and he'd accomplish all of that without ever dribbling the ball. Time was, there was a rule against that. I think they called it "traveling". Nothing turned me off basketball more than Michael Jordan running five yards out of his way to make contact with an opposing player, draw a "foul", turn and run towards the basket and make his shot, all without the ball ever touching the floor.
Dallas, your metrics all come down to Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Hornsby, Gehrig, Collins, Lajoie, Walter Johnson, and Cy young all being better than anyone past 1980. THAT is like saying "it is possible that the best QB ever was playing in 1950," and then making such a case...and then your case also makes three other QB's from 1950 better than Tom Brady. Once your 'case' makes those three other QB's from 1950 better than Tom Brady, then your original metric declaring the first one being better no longer holds water.
Again, you are wrong about baseball being the same game. 90% of the hitters playing in MLB in 1921 would simply not even be drafted in 1998, mostly due to their deadball style hitting...and because they averaged three inches less in height and 25 lbs less in weight. It was a completely different style and game. Every shortstop today has as strong or stronger arm than the best throwing at SS in 1921.
Pitchers pitched complete games, only the top one percent threw 95 MPH, now almost every guy in the league can do that...and the pitchers were smaller.
As for WIlt, he NEVER had to go against anyone as big or as athletic as him when he was scoring 50 a game. In 1992 he would have to do that almost every night. Even guys like Mark Eaton who are not elite, but are just gigantic and good enough to be an All star and all defensive player, would simply wear Wilt down and eliminate many of his rebounds and easy field goals he had.
It is not a matter of IF, it is a simple explanation as to why a player is so easily able to average 50 points and 30 rebounds...because his competition is smaller than him, and the few big players around being not skilled.
For the people who keep saying that the heights were the same back then are wrong. I clearly laid that out in another thread, showing the players Wilt played against(not the guys on the bench), and there is a marked difference in height/weight....just like there is a marked difference in height/weight from Ruth's time to now.....and yes, size does matter. Please do not bring up Altuve as an argument against that. Plus, Altuve actually weighs 165 pounds. Find me a guy who weights 110 pounds and is an all star in modern times?
Dallas, is it possible the best player ever was born in 1598, but we don't know since his surroundings hid it? That is YOUR premise. Yes, that is possible...but reality? No....especially when your metric also declares five other guys from 1598 being better than anyone past 1980.
Skin vs Dallas
This was Chamberlain's competition. These are the players in the league that were taller than six foot nine, and how many minutes they played per game:
1959/60
Russell 6 10
Felix 6 foot 11, 11 MPG
Shore 6 foot 11, 15 MPG
Dukes 7 foot, 32 MPG
Jordon 6 foot 10, 27 MPG
1960/61
Russell 6 10
Halbrok Seven foot 3, 14 MPG
Felix 6 foot 11, 26 MPG
Dukes 7 foot, 28 MPG
Jordon 6 foot 10. 27 MPG
1961/62
Same exact story as above.
Though, the mighty Bevo Nordmann joined the league this season. The six- ten stiff averaged 6 minutes per game
Thats it. Nobody else was taller than six foot nine. In Chamberlain's first three two years he had zero height to contend with. ZERO. The few players who were taller than six nine were part time players. Most were not athletic....except Russell.
It gets slowly better as years went on.
That is the reason why Wilt put up 50 points a game and 27 rebounds.
I can go down to the local YMCA tonight and play in the 5th/6th grade games...and walk out with similar numbers...and it will mean about as much as Wilt's numbers against those stiffs when comparing to other players having to do that against much bigger/better competition
You OBVIOUSLY don't get that Wilt wasn't just big, he was a great athlete as well.
Mikey would have been crushed and sent to the hospital if he tried that modern day garbage on the big man!
Jordan's done that on bigger men than Wilt. Talented athletic men, every night.
And Jordan did it in the league where there were physical thugs with one mission, to put a physical beating on Jordan...so I'm not sure what you are talking about. And they tried their hardest to physically beat him up...but Jordan still won. Those thugs were bigger than the players in Wilt's time. So not sure where you think Jordan couldn't do that in Wilt's time LMAO.
Wilt played against stiffs who were simply not big enough to contend with an athletic big man...hence the points he scored.
This was Chamberlain's competition. These are the players in the league that were taller than six foot nine, and how many minutes they played per game:
1959/60
Russell 6 10
Felix 6 foot 11, 11 MPG
Shore 6 foot 11, 15 MPG
Dukes 7 foot, 32 MPG
Jordon 6 foot 10, 27 MPG
1960/61
Russell 6 10
Halbrok Seven foot 3, 14 MPG
Felix 6 foot 11, 26 MPG
Dukes 7 foot, 28 MPG
Jordon 6 foot 10. 27 MPG
1961/62
Same exact story as above.
Though, the mighty Bevo Nordmann joined the league this season. The six- ten stiff averaged 6 minutes per game
Thats it. Nobody else was taller than six foot nine. In Chamberlain's first three two years he had zero height to contend with. The few players who were taller than six nine were part time players. Most were not athletic....except Russell.
It gets slowly better as years went on.
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
He was a bad free throw shooter, that is true.
Wilt was the Shaq of his day. A unique physical specimen who was bigger and stronger and faster than any other big man around. Period. This can happen at any time, historically speaking. In both cases, the leagues they played in changed the rules to make it harder on them. I never like the idea of cheapening what a big guy accomplished because of his size. You think Michael Jordan took a beating? Not like a big...
Conversely, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning and 2019 MLB baseball players* benefits significantly from rule changes that helped to benefit them. Significantly.
Please consider this.
*2019 being the year baseballs began to be made by Titliest.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Shaq's limitations also preclude him from this discussion, just like Wilt's limitations.
Wilt only accomplished his things, not because of his size, but the size limitations of his competition. As posted above, the smallness and unathleticness of his competition is the main reason he averaged 50 points a game, instead of the 25 or 30 a big guy from another generation could only average due to the league being filled with players as big or bigger as him(and as athletic).
And again, 1951wheaties, you have in the past put much credence into post season performance. You must also put that onto Wilt's post season failures. Can't pick and choose when you apply that.
Many big men then (and now) aren't great athletes. Wilt was a more coordinated player than many tall guys and better than any playing today. There has always been less 7 foot tall guys who were great athletes. There was a good tall guy as far back as 1948 in George Mikan.
Name one Center playing today that's great.
I started watching sports in the mid to late 1960's and Wilt was more than just taller. Kareem was also very coordinated, but a little less muscular than Wilt, Both would be dominant if they played today, in my opinion.
Jordan was pretty big for the position he played. He's listed as a shooting guard and small forward. He was athletically superior to his competition.
Wilt was better than everybody else, so was Jordan.