@DIMEMAN said:
Did you look at that list all the way down! Jim Brown was way down towards the bottom! The top 3 are correct for QB's, but from there on down it's not even in the same universe. Heck even Montana was way down towards the bottom. It's a wack list not worth reading.
This list is an attempt to do what I've been describing throughout this thread (and others). Defense gets half the value (if it isn't obvious to you why that is, do you really understand what football is?), offense gets half the value, and there are a series of formulas to allocate offensive and defensive value among the various positions and players. The results are necessarily flawed because football is a team sport and this method can only truly work in an individual sport like baseball.
BUT, the results appear to be directionally accurate with only a few head-scratchers. When you say that Montana is "towards the bottom", that's simply not true. He's tied for the 32nd most valuable player ever. And he's also miles and miles ahead of so-so QBs like Bradshaw and Aikman. With regards to Jim Brown, a career list like this is going to punish RBs in the same way baseball lists punish catchers - RBs don't play as long. Brown's AV is a little over 1 per game, putting him ahead of Tom Brady who's listed in first. In 1960, Brown scores at 21 - in a 12 game season! Nobody else in history approaches that. In other words, AV is recognizing Brown as the GOAT, and you're criticizing it because it has him ranked too low.
My point is not to defend the AV list as gospel, because it's not. It is an attempt to allocate value among every member of every team, and it's done a better job of it than anyone here, myself included, could come close to doing off the top of their heads. Spend time looking at it and thinking about it and you'll learn something, guaranteed.
Anybody that calls Bradshaw and Aikman so-so needs to stop posting and showing their ignorance.
@DIMEMAN said:
Anybody that calls Bradshaw and Aikman so-so needs to stop posting and showing their ignorance.
If showing ignorance is reason enough to stop posting, why are you here? In any event, the guy who made that list knows more about football than you do, and by a margin of galactic scale. There is no excuse for you, of all people, to dismiss it because it doesn't conform to your hallucinations. Read the list, learn from the list. Refusing to do that? Now that's ignorance.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@DIMEMAN said:
Anybody that calls Bradshaw and Aikman so-so needs to stop posting and showing their ignorance.
If showing ignorance is reason enough to stop posting, why are you here? In any event, the guy who made that list knows more about football than you do, and by a margin of galactic scale. There is no excuse for you, of all people, to dismiss it because it doesn't conform to your hallucinations. Read the list, learn from the list. Refusing to do that? Now that's ignorance.
I don't dismiss the list because it doesn't conform to my thinking.....it's a STUPID list!!!!
That list is wacko. They have Marino above Elway, Rodgers and Young!!!!! Give me a freaking break!
You have to be on something pretty strong to put any value on that list. LOL
You have to be able to objectively judge talent. That's a very good list.
Shows you how good Tarkenton was for one thing!
Did you look at that list all the way down! Jim Brown was way down towards the bottom! The top 3 are correct for QB's, but from there on down it's not even in the same universe. Heck even Montana was way down towards the bottom. It's a wack list not worth reading.
You just don't get it Jon. It's a pretty good list. Players get rewarded for longer careers though, so guys that were great for a shorter period will end up with less value than a "lesser" player who played for a longer time.
@DIMEMAN said:
Did you look at that list all the way down! Jim Brown was way down towards the bottom! The top 3 are correct for QB's, but from there on down it's not even in the same universe. Heck even Montana was way down towards the bottom. It's a wack list not worth reading.
This list is an attempt to do what I've been describing throughout this thread (and others). Defense gets half the value (if it isn't obvious to you why that is, do you really understand what football is?), offense gets half the value, and there are a series of formulas to allocate offensive and defensive value among the various positions and players. The results are necessarily flawed because football is a team sport and this method can only truly work in an individual sport like baseball.
BUT, the results appear to be directionally accurate with only a few head-scratchers. When you say that Montana is "towards the bottom", that's simply not true. He's tied for the 32nd most valuable player ever. And he's also miles and miles ahead of so-so QBs like Bradshaw and Aikman. With regards to Jim Brown, a career list like this is going to punish RBs in the same way baseball lists punish catchers - RBs don't play as long. Brown's AV is a little over 1 per game, putting him ahead of Tom Brady who's listed in first. In 1960, Brown scores at 21 - in a 12 game season! Nobody else in history approaches that. In other words, AV is recognizing Brown as the GOAT, and you're criticizing it because it has him ranked too low.
My point is not to defend the AV list as gospel, because it's not. It is an attempt to allocate value among every member of every team, and it's done a better job of it than anyone here, myself included, could come close to doing off the top of their heads. Spend time looking at it and thinking about it and you'll learn something, guaranteed.
Absolutely! You have to be objective though, some people simply cannot do that.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary@JoeBanzai - One last opinion. I don't believe you can rate and list all NFL players together. They all do different things so I think they should all be rated against each other. This is why I can't go with this list. QB's should be rated against QB's.....etc etc.
I agree that it takes both offense and defense to win games. One depends on the other. If you have a defense that only allows 10 PPG and an offense that scores 40 PPG you will win most of your games if not all. If you have an defense that gives up 30 PPG you need to have a offense that scores 40 PPG such as Kansas City. This also works the other way around.
As far as defense they all have to work together. None are really more important than the other. But the better the pass rush the better the chances that the DB's can cover the receivers.
As far as the offense goes the QB is more important than any other.....by how much is debatable. This is why the QB is paid more that any other player. The QB has more responsibility than the rest. He has to read the defense then change play if needed and then he has to make the throw and if needed he has to extend the play until someone is open. Of course the O-line can impact how much time the QB has to do all the things he has to do. And of course the O-line and RB can effect all of this to some extent.
This is my general take on the players in the NFL.
@DIMEMAN said: @dallasactuary@JoeBanzai - One last opinion. I don't believe you can rate and list all NFL players together. They all do different things so I think they should all be rated against each other. This is why I can't go with this list. QB's should be rated against QB's.....etc etc.
...
As far as the offense goes the QB is more important than any other.....by how much is debatable. This is why the QB is paid more that any other player. The QB has more responsibility than the rest. He has to read the defense then change play if needed and then he has to make the throw and if needed he has to extend the play until someone is open. Of course the O-line can impact how much time the QB has to do all the things he has to do. And of course the O-line and RB can effect all of this to some extent.
OK, fair enough. I've already said, many times, that I don't think this concept can ever really work in a team sport, so I'm in no position to argue with you on these points.
But to address your first point, why not just pretend that this one list is really several position lists mashed together? Ignore everyone who isn't a QB and what's left is a QB list; ditto for every other position.
And I absolutely agree that, in general, the QB is going to be the most important player on the field. The only QB you complained about was Montana, so look closer at him on that list. First, he's ranked 15 among QBs, which ain't bad, and he played fewer games than most of the QB ranked higher than him. Dig deeper and Montana may not be ranked where you want him to be, but he's ranked very high. Second, ranked higher than Montana on that list is his teammate Jerry Rice. This gets at exactly the point I've been trying to make - who gets credit for all those amazing completions from Montana to Rice? I think the typical fan's answer to that question is "both of them", but they don't mean 50/50, they mean give full credit to both of them. This list is doing something along the 50/50 line, and giving Rice a big chunk of the credit that most fans automatically give to Montana. Did they do it right? I have no idea, and that's not really the point. They tried, and in their effort to allocate value fairly, they took away a piece of what is typically credited to Montana and gave that value to Rice. Study that list closely and you'll find lots of other similar relationships, and you'll learn something. Right or wrong, the list is not "stupid"; there's lots of interesting information in there.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Anybody that calls Bradshaw and Aikman so-so needs to stop posting and showing their ignorance.
If showing ignorance is reason enough to stop posting, why are you here? In any event, the guy who made that list knows more about football than you do, and by a margin of galactic scale. There is no excuse for you, of all people, to dismiss it because it doesn't conform to your hallucinations. Read the list, learn from the list. Refusing to do that? Now that's ignorance.
I don't dismiss the list because it doesn't conform to my thinking.....it's a STUPID list!!!!
I dare you to explain why.
You just don't get it Jon. It's a pretty good list. Players get rewarded for longer careers though, so guys that were great for a shorter period will end up with less value than a "lesser" player who played for a longer time.
Absolutely! You have to be objective though, some people simply cannot do that.
@dallasactuary @JoeBanzai - One last opinion. I don't believe you can rate and list all NFL players together. They all do different things so I think they should all be rated against each other. This is why I can't go with this list. QB's should be rated against QB's.....etc etc.
I agree that it takes both offense and defense to win games. One depends on the other. If you have a defense that only allows 10 PPG and an offense that scores 40 PPG you will win most of your games if not all. If you have an defense that gives up 30 PPG you need to have a offense that scores 40 PPG such as Kansas City. This also works the other way around.
As far as defense they all have to work together. None are really more important than the other. But the better the pass rush the better the chances that the DB's can cover the receivers.
As far as the offense goes the QB is more important than any other.....by how much is debatable. This is why the QB is paid more that any other player. The QB has more responsibility than the rest. He has to read the defense then change play if needed and then he has to make the throw and if needed he has to extend the play until someone is open. Of course the O-line can impact how much time the QB has to do all the things he has to do. And of course the O-line and RB can effect all of this to some extent.
This is my general take on the players in the NFL.
...
OK, fair enough. I've already said, many times, that I don't think this concept can ever really work in a team sport, so I'm in no position to argue with you on these points.
But to address your first point, why not just pretend that this one list is really several position lists mashed together? Ignore everyone who isn't a QB and what's left is a QB list; ditto for every other position.
And I absolutely agree that, in general, the QB is going to be the most important player on the field. The only QB you complained about was Montana, so look closer at him on that list. First, he's ranked 15 among QBs, which ain't bad, and he played fewer games than most of the QB ranked higher than him. Dig deeper and Montana may not be ranked where you want him to be, but he's ranked very high. Second, ranked higher than Montana on that list is his teammate Jerry Rice. This gets at exactly the point I've been trying to make - who gets credit for all those amazing completions from Montana to Rice? I think the typical fan's answer to that question is "both of them", but they don't mean 50/50, they mean give full credit to both of them. This list is doing something along the 50/50 line, and giving Rice a big chunk of the credit that most fans automatically give to Montana. Did they do it right? I have no idea, and that's not really the point. They tried, and in their effort to allocate value fairly, they took away a piece of what is typically credited to Montana and gave that value to Rice. Study that list closely and you'll find lots of other similar relationships, and you'll learn something. Right or wrong, the list is not "stupid"; there's lots of interesting information in there.