@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
That is BEFORE we talk about QB winning percentage in regular season, and of course the Super Bowl rings...now with two different teams. Steve Young took over for Montana and they did not miss a beat. Young was garbage in Tampa Bay...and young was already a seasoned professional before he got to Tampa Bay.
And this is why I won't even bother debating who the GOAT is. Team stats/accomplishments are not even the correct things to begin a debate with when comparing individuals and I'm familiar with Mark Twain.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
That is BEFORE we talk about QB winning percentage in regular season, and of course the Super Bowl rings...now with two different teams. Steve Young took over for Montana and they did not miss a beat. Young was garbage in Tampa Bay...and young was already a seasoned professional before he got to Tampa Bay.
And this is why I won't even bother debating who the GOAT is. Team stats/accomplishments are not even the correct things to begin a debate with when comparing individuals and I'm familiar with Mark Twain.
Don't need to. Brady is taller, stronger, had a much stronger arm. There is no comparison. Brady has Montana beat. He will simply see more and be able to make more throws. Brady is better.
That alone is not going to make a QB unless you know that QB could also read a defense, make quick decisions, have accuracy, and do it against defenses that are non garbage time stat padders.
However, Football is not the same as baseball when it comes to stats. Most certainly a QB is going to have a huge impact on wins and losses. Brady has done it with multiple sets of teammates, in different eras, and it is not a coincidence that he has the BEST regular season winning percentage, and of course his playoffs and rings which needs no further explanation.
If you watched that game last night and could not see Brady's leadership qualities, then you weren't watching. If you could not see the difference in that between him and someone like Mitch Trubisky...then you weren't watchiing.
It is true you cannot completely measure that stuff....but you CAN measure his height, weight, and much stronger throwing arm Game over.
A QB, no matter how great, is worth no more than 20% of a team's accomplishments. If you don't start with that as a basis, have fun talking to yourself.
@LarkinCollector said:
A QB, no matter how great, is worth no more than 20% of a team's accomplishments. If you don't start with that as a basis, have fun talking to yourself.
I don't see anywhere where I added any type of percentage that was given to Brady for a team accomplishment, and certainly did not give him more in comparison to Montana...
Don't need to. Brady is taller, stronger, had a much stronger arm. There is no comparison. Brady has Montana beat. He will simply see more and be able to make more throws. Brady is better.
That alone is not going to make a QB unless you know that QB could also read a defense, make quick decisions, have accuracy, and do it against defenses that are non garbage time stat padders.
However, Football is not the same as baseball when it comes to stats. Most certainly a QB is going to have a huge impact on wins and losses. Brady has done it with multiple sets of teammates, in different eras, and it is not a coincidence that he has the BEST regular season winning percentage, and of course his playoffs and rings which needs no further explanation.
If you watched that game last night and could not see Brady's leadership qualities, then you weren't watching. If you could not see the difference in that between him and someone like Mitch Trubisky...then you weren't watchiing.
It is true you cannot completely measure that stuff....but you CAN measure his height, weight, and much stronger throwing arm Game over.
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
Brady in 20 years played in the Championship game 10 times. His record 7-3.
Graham in 10 years played in the Championship game 10 times. His record 7-3.
Sorry Montana fans. These are the two best ever. Put them in whatever order you want. Those of you who never saw Graham play can't believe he is the GOAT. Those of us who did see him play can't believe he is not.
Teams don’t throw the ball 50 times a game now because the players are better, faster, stronger, taller, smarter and better looking.
They do it because the risk of turnovers became greatly lessened around the year 2000. You could no longer make any contact with wide receivers, you could no longer deliver crushing blows to quarterbacks and drawing pass interference calls became significantly easier to do as officials were encouraged by the league to throw more flags. The NFL has legislated rule changes to make the game safer for quarterbacks and wide receivers quite specifically (YET there are no such rules for running backs, who coincidentally no longer matter since you can throw every down and are more likely to fumble since they are afforded no protection) and also made the game much more conducive to scoring.
These are also facts.
This is similar to how the NBA changed its rules to favor Michael Jordan; it doesn’t mean I think Michael Jordan somehow stinks at basketball but I also can’t ignore when sports change the rules to favor their preferred stars.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Tougher - not that these guys are wimps now and they were all cowboys back then.
It was tougher to throw the ball back then. That’s why most teams ran the ball. Shotgun was for third and long, not 1st and 10 or 1st and goal. Maybe one or two teams - Moon’s Oilers. Kelly’s Bills. On occasion - and both of those teams still pounded the run plenty. (Thurman Thomas = BEAST)
Not all of them like today. It’s almost rare to even see a QB under center go any long stretch of a game.
Hey - not everyone will see it my way, I get it.
And I’m not asking you to, either. 😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Brick said:
Brady in 20 years played in the Championship game 10 times. His record 7-3.
Graham in 10 years played in the Championship game 10 times. His record 7-3.
Sorry Montana fans. These are the two best ever. Put them in whatever order you want. Those of you who never saw Graham play can't believe he is the GOAT. Those of us who did see him play can't believe he is not.
Did not see Graham so can’t speak with authority. Happy to take you at your word; just discussing the two I did see, Ralph!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
I was a big Montana guy (after all, us Joe's have to stick together) and there's a lot going for both him and Tom.
After the last 2-3 years, I have accepted the fact that Brady is the GOAT. Not because he has a stronger arm, is taller, or has won more SBs.
Brady wins (for me) because he has been able to perform at an extremely high level for 19 years, almost twice as many as Montana.
I do wonder what Joe would have done if the 49ers would have kept him around for a few more years. Steve Young was NOT VERY GOOD when he first took over in 1991 Sonny Bono actually played better, and he was pretty short. LOL
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
If Tom Brady played football when Joe Montana did, he’s probably not playing football at 43.
That point seems to be lost on many people. This game is not nearly as brutal as it used to be. Rules were put in place to literally keep Quarterbacks from taking any real hits. Ever. ‘Taking out the quarterback’ was an actual strategy: just keep hitting him - hard, late, blindside, throw him, slam him, fall on top of him.
Every. Single. Play.
How do people not remember any of this?
I keep that in mind.
But keep in mind that the defensive guys now weigh 50 pounds more, can run faster, and are stronger. It is a different beast chasing Brady than what was chasing Montana. Qb's still get smashed today. Getting smashed by someone that is bigger, faster, and stronger takes its toll faster, and is harder to get away from or out of their grasp. Mahomes got beat up pretty good yesterday, and only Mahomes elite skills kept it from looking worse.
It is not like Montana played in the 1940's. The 1980's still protected the QB and the passing game was opened up per rules before Montana started.
And like I said, Brady's superior physical tools is enough needed to make him better than Montana. Brady could have retired five years ago, and the fact was that he was bigger, stronger, and had a better arm.
You are entitled to your opinions and you certainly make a good case.
The rules changes made in the early 2000s, often called the Manning-Brady rules, were game changers. Affected how you could attack QBs and how you could defend receivers.
With no hose changes, the teeth were taken out of the beasts.
Brady was a two time SB champion when those rules went into effect. They were in many ways put in place so as to allow Manning to shine. He was the number one pick and the NFL wanted him as the face of the league, But he wasn't winning. We all know how the story played out.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Even at your GUESS of a percentage, 7% of 230 wins.....still adds up more than anyone else in NFL history, making him the best player ever. It's probably a good thing Tampa didn't use your 7% when determining which QB to sign...they may have gone after Cam Newton instead, or kept Winston.
Geez, out of the 22 starters on the field, if the QB is at 5%, then go ahead and finish the percentage for the rest of the 21 guys to get to 100% for the team. Don't forget to add the punter and kicker too. Plus the extra guys on special teams. I will wait to see what your breakdown looks like.
I don't even need to look at that for him to best Montana:
Brady is taller, stronger, had a much stronger arm. There is no comparison. Brady has Montana beat. He will simply see more and be able to make more throws. Brady is better.
That alone is not going to make a QB unless you know that QB could also read a defense, make quick decisions, have accuracy, and do it against defenses that are non garbage time stat padders.
However, Football is not the same as baseball when it comes to stats. Most certainly a QB is going to have a huge impact on wins and losses. Brady has done it with multiple sets of teammates, in different eras, and it is not a coincidence that he has the BEST regular season winning percentage, and of course his playoffs and rings which needs no further explanation.
If you watched that game last night and could not see Brady's leadership qualities, then you weren't watching. If you could not see the difference in that between him and someone like Mitch Trubisky...then you weren't watchiing.
It is true you cannot completely measure that stuff....but you CAN measure his height, weight, and much stronger throwing arm Game over.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Tougher - not that these guys are wimps now and they were all cowboys back then.
It was tougher to throw the ball back then. That’s why most teams ran the ball. Shotgun was for third and long, not 1st and 10 or 1st and goal. Maybe one or two teams - Moon’s Oilers. Kelly’s Bills. On occasion - and both of those teams still pounded the run plenty. (Thurman Thomas = BEAST)
Not all of them like today. It’s almost rare to even see a QB under center go any long stretch of a game.
Hey - not everyone will see it my way, I get it.
And I’m not asking you to, either. 😉
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Tougher - not that these guys are wimps now and they were all cowboys back then.
It was tougher to throw the ball back then. That’s why most teams ran the ball. Shotgun was for third and long, not 1st and 10 or 1st and goal. Maybe one or two teams - Moon’s Oilers. Kelly’s Bills. On occasion - and both of those teams still pounded the run plenty. (Thurman Thomas = BEAST)
Not all of them like today. It’s almost rare to even see a QB under center go any long stretch of a game.
Hey - not everyone will see it my way, I get it.
And I’m not asking you to, either. 😉
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Tougher - not that these guys are wimps now and they were all cowboys back then.
It was tougher to throw the ball back then. That’s why most teams ran the ball. Shotgun was for third and long, not 1st and 10 or 1st and goal. Maybe one or two teams - Moon’s Oilers. Kelly’s Bills. On occasion - and both of those teams still pounded the run plenty. (Thurman Thomas = BEAST)
Not all of them like today. It’s almost rare to even see a QB under center go any long stretch of a game.
Hey - not everyone will see it my way, I get it.
And I’m not asking you to, either. 😉
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Tougher - not that these guys are wimps now and they were all cowboys back then.
It was tougher to throw the ball back then. That’s why most teams ran the ball. Shotgun was for third and long, not 1st and 10 or 1st and goal. Maybe one or two teams - Moon’s Oilers. Kelly’s Bills. On occasion - and both of those teams still pounded the run plenty. (Thurman Thomas = BEAST)
Not all of them like today. It’s almost rare to even see a QB under center go any long stretch of a game.
Tougher - not that these guys are wimps now and they were all cowboys back then.
It was tougher to throw the ball back then. That’s why most teams ran the ball. Shotgun was for third and long, not 1st and 10 or 1st and goal. Maybe one or two teams - Moon’s Oilers. Kelly’s Bills. On occasion - and both of those teams still pounded the run plenty. (Thurman Thomas = BEAST)
Not all of them like today. It’s almost rare to even see a QB under center go any long stretch of a game.
Hey - not everyone will see it my way, I get it.
And I’m not asking you to, either. 😉
Oh, I 100% get your point, and when looking deeper at things, I take all that stuff you said into account. The gap is so big with Brady at this point, so there simply is no more need to go deeper in regard to him.
BTW, I almost pulled the trigger on a 1951 Mantle Wheaties premium the other day....I had my hand on the button....but I'm looking for something else and hoping it comes along.
Oh, I 100% get your point, and when looking deeper at things, I take all that stuff you said into account. The gap is so big with Brady at this point, so there simply is no more need to go deeper in regard to him.
BTW, I almost pulled the trigger on a 1951 Mantle Wheaties premium the other day....I had my hand on the button....but I'm looking for something else and hoping it comes along.
Nice!
When I signed up for CU, I was hoping to find the last few cards from the set, two of which weren’t officially checklisted anywhere. So my name was a way of attracting constant attention to that fact.
This place was instrumental in that happening. I am forever grateful for that. Forever being a pretty long time but it’s why I fight for civility in discourse on the boards.
Gratitude.
And my Mickey is still my favorite card in my collection.
A wonderful and mysterious set.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Oh, I 100% get your point, and when looking deeper at things, I take all that stuff you said into account. The gap is so big with Brady at this point, so there simply is no more need to go deeper in regard to him.
BTW, I almost pulled the trigger on a 1951 Mantle Wheaties premium the other day....I had my hand on the button....but I'm looking for something else and hoping it comes along.
Nice!
When I signed up for CU, I was hoping to find the last few cards from the set, two of which weren’t officially checklisted anywhere. So my name was a way of attracting constant attention to that fact.
This place was instrumental in that happening. I am forever grateful for that. Forever being a pretty long time but it’s why I fight for civility in discourse on the boards.
Gratitude.
And my Mickey is still my favorite card in my collection.
A wonderful and mysterious set.
Oh, wow! That is a beautiful Mantle. The set is stunning and I had not even seen the Campanella before you just posted it. I don't know why, but the Mantle and Campanella kind of remind me of Hartland statues...even though the statues came later. They have a very classic look to them!
If Tom Brady played football when Joe Montana did, he’s probably not playing football at 43.
That point seems to be lost on many people. This game is not nearly as brutal as it used to be. Rules were put in place to literally keep Quarterbacks from taking any real hits. Ever. ‘Taking out the quarterback’ was an actual strategy: just keep hitting him - hard, late, blindside, throw him, slam him, fall on top of him.
Every. Single. Play.
How do people not remember any of this?
I keep that in mind.
But keep in mind that the defensive guys now weigh 50 pounds more, can run faster, and are stronger. It is a different beast chasing Brady than what was chasing Montana. Qb's still get smashed today. Getting smashed by someone that is bigger, faster, and stronger takes its toll faster, and is harder to get away from or out of their grasp. Mahomes got beat up pretty good yesterday, and only Mahomes elite skills kept it from looking worse.
It is not like Montana played in the 1940's. The 1980's still protected the QB and the passing game was opened up per rules before Montana started.
And like I said, Brady's superior physical tools is enough needed to make him better than Montana. Brady could have retired five years ago, and the fact was that he was bigger, stronger, and had a better arm.
You are entitled to your opinions and you certainly make a good case.
The rules changes made in the early 2000s, often called the Manning-Brady rules, were game changers. Affected how you could attack QBs and how you could defend receivers.
With no hose changes, the teeth were taken out of the beasts.
Brady was a two time SB champion when those rules went into effect. They were in many ways put in place so as to allow Manning to shine. He was the number one pick and the NFL wanted him as the face of the league, But he wasn't winning. We all know how the story played out.
True.
If I said he went from a game manager quarterback to a focal point of the offense quarterback and that his importance and “value” grew as he matured physically, mentally and gained more experience, would that be considered a knock on him?
That the guy who beat the Rams was not really as good and didn’t do as much as the guy who beat the Falcons? Yes, even though they were in fact the same person?
See, one thing that I admire most about Tom Brady that gets diminished is how much better he got over the course of his career. That’s certainly a credit to just him and his efforts and is worthy of praise.
Even if I believe Montana is better - which I do - I fully recognize the greatness of Tom Brady and his entire story. It is a spectacular one, assuredly.
Rags to riches, American dream type stuff.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Oh, I 100% get your point, and when looking deeper at things, I take all that stuff you said into account. The gap is so big with Brady at this point, so there simply is no more need to go deeper in regard to him.
BTW, I almost pulled the trigger on a 1951 Mantle Wheaties premium the other day....I had my hand on the button....but I'm looking for something else and hoping it comes along.
Nice!
When I signed up for CU, I was hoping to find the last few cards from the set, two of which weren’t officially checklisted anywhere. So my name was a way of attracting constant attention to that fact.
This place was instrumental in that happening. I am forever grateful for that. Forever being a pretty long time but it’s why I fight for civility in discourse on the boards.
Gratitude.
And my Mickey is still my favorite card in my collection.
A wonderful and mysterious set.
Oh, wow! That is a beautiful Mantle. The set is stunning and I had not even seen the Campanella before you just posted it. I don't know why, but the Mantle and Campanella kind of remind me of Hartland statues...even though the statues came later. They have a very classic look to them!
The Campy is on his Bowman card from ‘51 or ‘52, if it looks familiar.
The Mantle pose is on a million things.
I’m the only person who collects them, as far as I know. Type collectors and Master set collectors go for the singles - that’s about it.
Hogan and Kramer were the ‘unknowns’ - two major stars at the time.
For each, their contributions to the sport at large are pretty other worldly in addition to their respective spectacular play.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
If Tom Brady played football when Joe Montana did, he’s probably not playing football at 43.
That point seems to be lost on many people. This game is not nearly as brutal as it used to be. Rules were put in place to literally keep Quarterbacks from taking any real hits. Ever. ‘Taking out the quarterback’ was an actual strategy: just keep hitting him - hard, late, blindside, throw him, slam him, fall on top of him.
Every. Single. Play.
How do people not remember any of this?
I keep that in mind.
But keep in mind that the defensive guys now weigh 50 pounds more, can run faster, and are stronger. It is a different beast chasing Brady than what was chasing Montana. Qb's still get smashed today. Getting smashed by someone that is bigger, faster, and stronger takes its toll faster, and is harder to get away from or out of their grasp. Mahomes got beat up pretty good yesterday, and only Mahomes elite skills kept it from looking worse.
It is not like Montana played in the 1940's. The 1980's still protected the QB and the passing game was opened up per rules before Montana started.
And like I said, Brady's superior physical tools is enough needed to make him better than Montana. Brady could have retired five years ago, and the fact was that he was bigger, stronger, and had a better arm.
You are entitled to your opinions and you certainly make a good case.
The rules changes made in the early 2000s, often called the Manning-Brady rules, were game changers. Affected how you could attack QBs and how you could defend receivers.
With no hose changes, the teeth were taken out of the beasts.
Brady was a two time SB champion when those rules went into effect. They were in many ways put in place so as to allow Manning to shine. He was the number one pick and the NFL wanted him as the face of the league, But he wasn't winning. We all know how the story played out.
True.
If I said he went from a game manager quarterback to a focal point of the offense quarterback and that his importance and “value” grew as he matured physically, mentally and gained more experience, would that be considered a knock on him?
That the guy who beat the Rams was not really as good and didn’t do as much as the guy who beat the Falcons? Yes, even though they were in fact the same person?
See, one thing that I admire most about Tom Brady that gets diminished is how much better he got over the course of his career. That’s certainly a credit to just him and his efforts and is worthy of praise.
Even if I believe Montana is better - which I do - I fully recognize the greatness of Tom Brady and his entire story.
A lot of good stuff here.
I'd like to add that if we look back at the first SB and the game winning drive, we can see Brady having the confidence, and the team having the confidence in him, to not play for overtime - which John Madden said was the thing to do.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Spot on. There is less time than ever for QB's to make those decisions too. Whatever the percentage truly is, its certainly much more than 5%. Why would any team even bother paying the QB anything more than a league average salary if it truly is only 5% impact on a team?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Regardless of who is the GOAT, I will always think of the OL who make it all possible for a QB. They deserve their due in any conversation. The foot soldiers in battle/trenches.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
The QB handles the ball and distributes it on 99% of the offenses plays. He runs the offense.
I don't hazard to guess the percentage value but it's high. Higher for great QB's. There are not a lot of great ones out there. That's why the market for them is so high.
I think that rather then the percentage of plays one has to look at the direct impact a particular player has in those plays. A great QB can carry as team with a suspect D or a lousy punter or erratic kicker. He has the highest single percentage of plays in a game by a long shot. Yes a great D can also carry an average QB. That's why no % is one size fits all.
It's hard to put a percentage on this:
Arians said that he thought the 2019 Buccaneers were “a very, very talented football team last year, but we really didn’t know how to win.” He called Brady a “winner” who ran the ship for the team and that his leadership “permeated through our whole locker room.”
The Bucs don't win the SB without Brady.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The QB handles the ball and distributes it on 99% of the offenses plays. He runs the offense.
A great quarterback can't do anything without the "foot soldiers" to protect him, the rushers for the ground game and the receivers for the air game. Having said that, a team with a lousy quarterback is dead. He runs the offence, and it fails, the team is finished.
It's not only a matter of putting points on the board. A good offense is necessary to keep the defense going. Those guys can't be on the field for over 60% of the time. If they are on the field, they are going to get tired and get beat.
A prime example of this was the Philadelphia Eagles under Chip Kelly. He had the theory that he could pay the hurry up offence 90% of the time and win. It worked for a while, but the rest of the NFL coaches are not stupid. They figured out how to defend Mr. Kelly's offence, and then the Eagles lead the league in the most rapid three and outs in foot ball history. The defense played heroically, but they got worn down. The result was a lousy won - loss record and the departure of Mr. "One Trick Pony" Kelly.
If you don't think that the quarterback is important, look at where the Indianapolis Colts ended up when Andrew Luck retired unexpectedly. They went from contenders to the cellar in short order.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
The QB handles the ball and distributes it on 99% of the offenses plays. He runs the offense.
I don't hazard to guess the percentage value but it's high. Higher for great QB's. There are not a lot of great ones out there. That's why the market for them is so high.
I think that rather then the percentage of plays one has to look at the direct impact a particular player has in those plays. A great QB can carry as team with a suspect D or a lousy punter or erratic kicker. He has the highest single percentage of plays in a game by a long shot. Yes a great D can also carry an average QB. That's why no % is one size fits all.
It's hard to put a percentage on this:
Arians said that he thought the 2019 Buccaneers were “a very, very talented football team last year, but we really didn’t know how to win.” He called Brady a “winner” who ran the ship for the team and that his leadership “permeated through our whole locker room.”
The Bucs don't win the SB without Brady.
m
That last quotation from Arians is a good one.
Brady went to Tampa Bay almost like a newly hired CEO, one with past success and bringing in the right elements to get everything over the hump.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
The QB handles the ball and distributes it on 99% of the offenses plays. He runs the offense.
I don't hazard to guess the percentage value but it's high. Higher for great QB's. There are not a lot of great ones out there. That's why the market for them is so high.
I think that rather then the percentage of plays one has to look at the direct impact a particular player has in those plays. A great QB can carry as team with a suspect D or a lousy punter or erratic kicker. He has the highest single percentage of plays in a game by a long shot. Yes a great D can also carry an average QB. That's why no % is one size fits all.
It's hard to put a percentage on this:
Arians said that he thought the 2019 Buccaneers were “a very, very talented football team last year, but we really didn’t know how to win.” He called Brady a “winner” who ran the ship for the team and that his leadership “permeated through our whole locker room.”
The Bucs don't win the SB without Brady.
m
That last quotation from Arians is a good one.
Brady went to Tampa Bay almost like a newly hired CEO, one with past success and bringing in the right elements to get everything over the hump.
Without question he had an impact that goes beyond anything talked about here. Gronk said the same thing.
5% is ridiculously low. When you have a great QB, then the RB gets easier yards. If you can show me where they had a Barry Sanders doing it purely on moves, then show me. Brady didn't have that.
When you have a great QB, then the offensive line has the luxury to hold for less time. If you can show me where Brady was never hurried because his offensive line was so great, then show me. He never had that.
If you can show me a receiver consistently turning 8 yard slants into 40 yds like Jerry Rice, or consistently making one handed or Lynn Swann circus grabs, then show me because Brady never had that.
The reality is that Tom Brady enhances all those facets of the game, not the other way around.
It is true that a punt returner like Hester could influence a QB a great deal, but that was never the case with Brady. It may have helped Rex Grossman a lot....but not Brady.
Also, when the offense controls the ball, the defense has an easier job and is rested. So yes, a QB can certainly influence a defensive player.
When you are saying he can't complete a pass without a receiver, now that is true, but football isn't played with a missing human. There will always be a human on the receiving end. It is a matter of which commodity is easier to find.
The person being able to make a pre snap read, then a passing decision in 2 seconds ,AND being able to execute and deliver the ball where it needs to be, while giant fast men are breathing down their neck, is a far greater commodity in the human race than the human who has the ability to run past a defender and catch the ball. There is no comparison and your percentages are way off before we even get to the leadership intangibles.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
5% is ridiculously low. When you have a great QB, then the RB gets easier yards. If you can show me where they had a Barry Sanders doing it purely on moves, then show me. Brady didn't have that.
When you have a great QB, then the offensive line has the luxury to hold for less time. If you can show me where Brady was never hurried because his offensive line was so great, then show me. He never had that.
If you can show me a receiver consistently turning 8 yard slants into 40 yds like Jerry Rice, or consistently making one handed or Lynn Swann circus grabs, then show me because Brady never had that.
The reality is that Tom Brady enhances all those facets of the game, not the other way around.
It is true that a punt returner like Hester could influence a QB a great deal, but that was never the case with Brady. It may have helped Rex Grossman a lot....but not Brady.
Also, when the offense controls the ball, the defense has an easier job and is rested. So yes, a QB can certainly influence a defensive player.
When you are saying he can't complete a pass without a receiver, now that is true, but football isn't played with a missing human. There will always be a human on the receiving end. It is a matter of which commodity is easier to find.
The person being able to make a pre snap read, then a passing decision in 2 seconds ,AND being able to execute and deliver the ball where it needs to be, while giant fast men are breathing down their neck, is a far greater commodity in the human race than the human who has the ability to run past a defender and catch the ball. There is no comparison and your percentages are way off before we even get to the leadership intangibles.
When you are saying he can't complete a pass without a receiver, now that is true, but football isn't played with a missing human. There will always be a human on the receiving end. It is a matter of which commodity is easier to find.
The person being able to make a pre snap read, then a passing decision in 2 seconds ,AND being able to execute and deliver the ball where it needs to be, while giant fast men are breathing down their neck, is a far greater commodity in the human race than the human who has the ability to run past a defender and catch the ball. There is no comparison and your percentages are way off before we even get to the leadership intangibles.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Exactly. Last year the quarterback was Jamis Winston. He didn't have Gronk and Michael Brown, but the rest of the receivers were pretty much the same. The defense stepped up in the play-offs big time, but during the season they were similar to last year.
Winston was the kind of quarterback who could lead a good drive for eight or nine plays. Then he'd turn the ball over, and none of the good stuff he had done met anything. If he had still been the quarterback, the Bucks would have had another losing season. Brady made all of the difference with his play and his work ethic.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Come up with your won allocation and present an argument then, so far I've seen that Brady is taller and weighs more, so he's better than Montana
Exactly. Last year the quarterback was Jamis Winston. He didn't have Gronk and Michael Brown, but the rest of the receivers were pretty much the same. The defense stepped up in the play-offs big time, but during the season they were similar to last year.
Winston was the kind of quarterback who could lead a good drive for eight or nine plays. Then he'd turn the ball over, and none of the good stuff he had done met anything. If he had still been the quarterback, the Bucks would have had another losing season. Brady made all of the difference with his play and his work ethic.
And the interesting thing is Antonio Brown or Gronk don't come to Tampa Bay without Brady seeking them out. He had to talk the brass into signing Brown. Same for Fournette. How can you put a value on that. It's priceless when it works out.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
That Leonard Marshall hit wouldn't get flagged today either. Nasty hit but still completely legal.
Just remember this - the odds of a Tom Brady season ending in him playing in the Super Bowl are higher than the odds of a Steph Curry 3 going in the basket.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Sure but Tom Brady by himself on the Giants (my team) would not have had a good year at all. There’s just no way.
Evans, Brown, Gronk and Fournette would have to come too and I’m still not sure it would be enough to overcome the awfulness that is the Giants line.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Come up with your won allocation and present an argument then, so far I've seen that Brady is taller and weighs more, so he's better than Montana
Kyle - I’d just like point out - for the sake of posterity - that no one has ever seen Chuck Norris and Tom Brady in the same room at the same time.
Coincidence?
After all, Chuck Norris’ tears are the cure for COVID. However, sadly for us all, Chuck Norris never cries.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said
Sure but Tom Brady by himself on the Giants (my team) would not have had a good year at all. There’s just no way.
Yes his momma didn't raise no fool.
But then again the Giants almost won their division with Daniel Jones under center ; )
Touchdown Jesus, Waterboy or The Night King from Game of Thrones would not have had an over .500 record with the Giants this year.
Better days ahead
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Come up with your won allocation and present an argument then, so far I've seen that Brady is taller and weighs more, so he's better than Montana
LOL surely you jest. I don’t need to invent some hypothetical percentages that I conjure up In my head, all you need to do is look at all the stats and accomplishments between Cool Joe and The GOAT online and you will see that it’s not a photo finish lol
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Come up with your won allocation and present an argument then, so far I've seen that Brady is taller and weighs more, so he's better than Montana
LOL surely you jest. I don’t need to invent some hypothetical percentages that I conjure up In my head, all you need to do is look at all the stats and accomplishments between Cool Joe and The GOAT online and you will see that it’s not a photo finish lol
And all I've said is that a QB is worth 5-7% of a team's accomplishment (without giving any credit to GMs for putting the pieces in place or coaching yet). Any QB, any team, and without a well oiled OL, any QB looks much worse (see Luck, Andrew his entire Indy career or Mahomes, Patrick last night at least). This is why evaluating QBs by winning % and rings is so idiotic I will no longer engage with people who think this is important.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Come up with your won allocation and present an argument then, so far I've seen that Brady is taller and weighs more, so he's better than Montana
LOL surely you jest. I don’t need to invent some hypothetical percentages that I conjure up In my head, all you need to do is look at all the stats and accomplishments between Cool Joe and The GOAT online and you will see that it’s not a photo finish lol
And all I've said is that a QB is worth 5-7% of a team's accomplishment (without giving any credit to GMs for putting the pieces in place or coaching yet). Any QB, any team, and without a well oiled OL, any QB looks much worse (see Luck, Andrew his entire Indy career or Mahomes, Patrick last night at least). This is why evaluating QBs by winning % and rings is so idiotic I will no longer engage with people who think this is important.
I’ve stated it has a lot more to do with winning %’s and rings. But no matter what your argument is a QB’s value to a team is way more than your grudgingly appointed 7%. There are reasons QB’s are always the centerpiece of draft discussions year after year and a QB needy team puts so much emphasis on a top tier College or free agent QB. Unless you think everyone else is wrong lol
@Justacommeman said: @1951WheatiesPremium said
Sure but Tom Brady by himself on the Giants (my team) would not have had a good year at all. There’s just no way.
Yes his momma didn't raise no fool.
But then again the Giants almost won their division with Daniel Jones under center ; )
Touchdown Jesus, Waterboy or The Night King from Game of Thrones would not have had an over .500 record with the Giants this year.
Better days ahead
m
I’ll know whether you’re right after this draft. If we don’t take offensive linemen in the first two rounds, nothing will change.
On some level, the definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviors over and over again and expecting different outcomes.
And I’m feeling very Randle Patrick McMurphy these days. 😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Come up with your won allocation and present an argument then, so far I've seen that Brady is taller and weighs more, so he's better than Montana
LOL surely you jest. I don’t need to invent some hypothetical percentages that I conjure up In my head, all you need to do is look at all the stats and accomplishments between Cool Joe and The GOAT online and you will see that it’s not a photo finish lol
And all I've said is that a QB is worth 5-7% of a team's accomplishment (without giving any credit to GMs for putting the pieces in place or coaching yet). Any QB, any team, and without a well oiled OL, any QB looks much worse (see Luck, Andrew his entire Indy career or Mahomes, Patrick last night at least). This is why evaluating QBs by winning % and rings is so idiotic I will no longer engage with people who think this is important.
I’ve stated it has a lot more to do with winning %’s and rings. But no matter what your argument is a QB’s value to a team is way more than your grudgingly appointed 7%. There are reasons QB’s are always the centerpiece of draft discussions year after year and a QB needy team puts so much emphasis on a top tier College or free agent QB. Unless you think everyone else is wrong lol
I'd say many would be better off fixing their OL first before wasting a dime on a top tier QB, if they actually care about winning and not just putting butts in seats. How many of those top QBs get washed out before they have an OL worth a TART?
ETA: OL men aren't worth anything, until you realize you don't have one.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Come up with your won allocation and present an argument then, so far I've seen that Brady is taller and weighs more, so he's better than Montana
LOL surely you jest. I don’t need to invent some hypothetical percentages that I conjure up In my head, all you need to do is look at all the stats and accomplishments between Cool Joe and The GOAT online and you will see that it’s not a photo finish lol
And all I've said is that a QB is worth 5-7% of a team's accomplishment (without giving any credit to GMs for putting the pieces in place or coaching yet). Any QB, any team, and without a well oiled OL, any QB looks much worse (see Luck, Andrew his entire Indy career or Mahomes, Patrick last night at least). This is why evaluating QBs by winning % and rings is so idiotic I will no longer engage with people who think this is important.
I’ve stated it has a lot more to do with winning %’s and rings. But no matter what your argument is a QB’s value to a team is way more than your grudgingly appointed 7%. There are reasons QB’s are always the centerpiece of draft discussions year after year and a QB needy team puts so much emphasis on a top tier College or free agent QB. Unless you think everyone else is wrong lol
I'd say many would be better off fixing their OL first before wasting a dime on a top tier QB, if they actually care about winning and not just putting butts in seats. How many of those top QBs get washed out before they have an OL worth a TART?
ETA: OL men aren't worth anything, until you realize you don't have one.
Ok you and I are having two different conversations here. I have always said OL, DB and QB are the 3 most important positions in football but looking at the career of LT or even this years playoffs with Devin White being a PROBLEM I think I might be better off saying that any player can make a big difference if he is really “Great”. So that being said I’m open to having that discussion with you but the QB bring 7% of value really needs to be cleared up first. I will not remotely take you serious when your saying you could maybe be pushed to that 7% but really you stand at around 5%? Seriously????
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Come up with your won allocation and present an argument then, so far I've seen that Brady is taller and weighs more, so he's better than Montana
LOL surely you jest. I don’t need to invent some hypothetical percentages that I conjure up In my head, all you need to do is look at all the stats and accomplishments between Cool Joe and The GOAT online and you will see that it’s not a photo finish lol
And all I've said is that a QB is worth 5-7% of a team's accomplishment (without giving any credit to GMs for putting the pieces in place or coaching yet). Any QB, any team, and without a well oiled OL, any QB looks much worse (see Luck, Andrew his entire Indy career or Mahomes, Patrick last night at least). This is why evaluating QBs by winning % and rings is so idiotic I will no longer engage with people who think this is important.
I’ve stated it has a lot more to do with winning %’s and rings. But no matter what your argument is a QB’s value to a team is way more than your grudgingly appointed 7%. There are reasons QB’s are always the centerpiece of draft discussions year after year and a QB needy team puts so much emphasis on a top tier College or free agent QB. Unless you think everyone else is wrong lol
I'd say many would be better off fixing their OL first before wasting a dime on a top tier QB, if they actually care about winning and not just putting butts in seats. How many of those top QBs get washed out before they have an OL worth a TART?
ETA: OL men aren't worth anything, until you realize you don't have one.
OL, imo, is a top priority. It is the 1b, as a position group, to QB. The successful teams take multi faceted approaches. Invest draft capital (and not just once, but ongoing). Stress position flex. Try to hit the lottery once in a while after doing your due diligence with some reclamation projects. If you have your backups and position flex working, hopefully you avoid what happened to the Chiefs. But it is easier said than done.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Come up with your won allocation and present an argument then, so far I've seen that Brady is taller and weighs more, so he's better than Montana
LOL surely you jest. I don’t need to invent some hypothetical percentages that I conjure up In my head, all you need to do is look at all the stats and accomplishments between Cool Joe and The GOAT online and you will see that it’s not a photo finish lol
And all I've said is that a QB is worth 5-7% of a team's accomplishment (without giving any credit to GMs for putting the pieces in place or coaching yet). Any QB, any team, and without a well oiled OL, any QB looks much worse (see Luck, Andrew his entire Indy career or Mahomes, Patrick last night at least). This is why evaluating QBs by winning % and rings is so idiotic I will no longer engage with people who think this is important.
I’ve stated it has a lot more to do with winning %’s and rings. But no matter what your argument is a QB’s value to a team is way more than your grudgingly appointed 7%. There are reasons QB’s are always the centerpiece of draft discussions year after year and a QB needy team puts so much emphasis on a top tier College or free agent QB. Unless you think everyone else is wrong lol
I'd say many would be better off fixing their OL first before wasting a dime on a top tier QB, if they actually care about winning and not just putting butts in seats. How many of those top QBs get washed out before they have an OL worth a TART?
ETA: OL men aren't worth anything, until you realize you don't have one.
Ok you and I are having two different conversations here. I have always said OL, DB and QB are the 3 most important positions in football but looking at the career of LT or even this years playoffs with Devin White being a PROBLEM I think I might be better off saying that any player can make a big difference if he is really “Great”. So that being said I’m open to having that discussion with you but the QB bring 7% of value really needs to be cleared up first. I will not remotely take you serious when your saying you could maybe be pushed to that 7% but really you stand at around 5%? Seriously????
Out of the 45% total I give for offense and 31.5% given to passing plays? Yes, 7% overall is nearly 25% of the allocation for passing plays and that's quite significant. Higher than that and you diminish every other offensive player to a negligible contribution. We saw how Brady did last year without anyone to throw to.
What is the QBs value on a handoff and how often to you run instead of pass?
Comments
And this is why I won't even bother debating who the GOAT is. Team stats/accomplishments are not even the correct things to begin a debate with when comparing individuals and I'm familiar with Mark Twain.
Don't need to. Brady is taller, stronger, had a much stronger arm. There is no comparison. Brady has Montana beat. He will simply see more and be able to make more throws. Brady is better.
That alone is not going to make a QB unless you know that QB could also read a defense, make quick decisions, have accuracy, and do it against defenses that are non garbage time stat padders.
However, Football is not the same as baseball when it comes to stats. Most certainly a QB is going to have a huge impact on wins and losses. Brady has done it with multiple sets of teammates, in different eras, and it is not a coincidence that he has the BEST regular season winning percentage, and of course his playoffs and rings which needs no further explanation.
If you watched that game last night and could not see Brady's leadership qualities, then you weren't watching. If you could not see the difference in that between him and someone like Mitch Trubisky...then you weren't watchiing.
It is true you cannot completely measure that stuff....but you CAN measure his height, weight, and much stronger throwing arm
Game over.
A QB, no matter how great, is worth no more than 20% of a team's accomplishments. If you don't start with that as a basis, have fun talking to yourself.
I don't see anywhere where I added any type of percentage that was given to Brady for a team accomplishment, and certainly did not give him more in comparison to Montana...
Don't need to. Brady is taller, stronger, had a much stronger arm. There is no comparison. Brady has Montana beat. He will simply see more and be able to make more throws. Brady is better.
That alone is not going to make a QB unless you know that QB could also read a defense, make quick decisions, have accuracy, and do it against defenses that are non garbage time stat padders.
However, Football is not the same as baseball when it comes to stats. Most certainly a QB is going to have a huge impact on wins and losses. Brady has done it with multiple sets of teammates, in different eras, and it is not a coincidence that he has the BEST regular season winning percentage, and of course his playoffs and rings which needs no further explanation.
If you watched that game last night and could not see Brady's leadership qualities, then you weren't watching. If you could not see the difference in that between him and someone like Mitch Trubisky...then you weren't watchiing.
It is true you cannot completely measure that stuff....but you CAN measure his height, weight, and much stronger throwing arm
Game over.
BTW, I offered no percentage, I did say HUGE impact. You agree with me. Giving a single player 20% of the impact on a football team IS a huge impact.
Brady in 20 years played in the Championship game 10 times. His record 7-3.
Graham in 10 years played in the Championship game 10 times. His record 7-3.
Sorry Montana fans. These are the two best ever. Put them in whatever order you want. Those of you who never saw Graham play can't believe he is the GOAT. Those of us who did see him play can't believe he is not.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
@1948_Swell_Robinson
Teams don’t throw the ball 50 times a game now because the players are better, faster, stronger, taller, smarter and better looking.
They do it because the risk of turnovers became greatly lessened around the year 2000. You could no longer make any contact with wide receivers, you could no longer deliver crushing blows to quarterbacks and drawing pass interference calls became significantly easier to do as officials were encouraged by the league to throw more flags. The NFL has legislated rule changes to make the game safer for quarterbacks and wide receivers quite specifically (YET there are no such rules for running backs, who coincidentally no longer matter since you can throw every down and are more likely to fumble since they are afforded no protection) and also made the game much more conducive to scoring.
These are also facts.
This is similar to how the NBA changed its rules to favor Michael Jordan; it doesn’t mean I think Michael Jordan somehow stinks at basketball but I also can’t ignore when sports change the rules to favor their preferred stars.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Tougher - not that these guys are wimps now and they were all cowboys back then.
It was tougher to throw the ball back then. That’s why most teams ran the ball. Shotgun was for third and long, not 1st and 10 or 1st and goal. Maybe one or two teams - Moon’s Oilers. Kelly’s Bills. On occasion - and both of those teams still pounded the run plenty. (Thurman Thomas = BEAST)
Not all of them like today. It’s almost rare to even see a QB under center go any long stretch of a game.
Hey - not everyone will see it my way, I get it.
And I’m not asking you to, either. 😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Did not see Graham so can’t speak with authority. Happy to take you at your word; just discussing the two I did see, Ralph!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
20% is still way too high, just saying anyone who thinks the QB is worth more than that is so unreasonable it's not even worth having a discussion with them. Much like those who think team winning % or # of SB rings matters in ranking QBs. I'm more in the 5% camp though you could possibly talk me up to 7.
I was a big Montana guy (after all, us Joe's have to stick together) and there's a lot going for both him and Tom.
After the last 2-3 years, I have accepted the fact that Brady is the GOAT. Not because he has a stronger arm, is taller, or has won more SBs.
Brady wins (for me) because he has been able to perform at an extremely high level for 19 years, almost twice as many as Montana.
I do wonder what Joe would have done if the 49ers would have kept him around for a few more years. Steve Young was NOT VERY GOOD when he first took over in 1991 Sonny Bono actually played better, and he was pretty short. LOL
Brady was a two time SB champion when those rules went into effect. They were in many ways put in place so as to allow Manning to shine. He was the number one pick and the NFL wanted him as the face of the league, But he wasn't winning. We all know how the story played out.
Even at your GUESS of a percentage, 7% of 230 wins.....still adds up more than anyone else in NFL history, making him the best player ever. It's probably a good thing Tampa didn't use your 7% when determining which QB to sign...they may have gone after Cam Newton instead, or kept Winston.
Geez, out of the 22 starters on the field, if the QB is at 5%, then go ahead and finish the percentage for the rest of the 21 guys to get to 100% for the team. Don't forget to add the punter and kicker too. Plus the extra guys on special teams. I will wait to see what your breakdown looks like.
I don't even need to look at that for him to best Montana:
Brady is taller, stronger, had a much stronger arm. There is no comparison. Brady has Montana beat. He will simply see more and be able to make more throws. Brady is better.
That alone is not going to make a QB unless you know that QB could also read a defense, make quick decisions, have accuracy, and do it against defenses that are non garbage time stat padders.
However, Football is not the same as baseball when it comes to stats. Most certainly a QB is going to have a huge impact on wins and losses. Brady has done it with multiple sets of teammates, in different eras, and it is not a coincidence that he has the BEST regular season winning percentage, and of course his playoffs and rings which needs no further explanation.
If you watched that game last night and could not see Brady's leadership qualities, then you weren't watching. If you could not see the difference in that between him and someone like Mitch Trubisky...then you weren't watchiing.
It is true you cannot completely measure that stuff....but you CAN measure his height, weight, and much stronger throwing arm
Game over.
1951Wheatie> @1951WheatiesPremium said:
Oh, I 100% get your point, and when looking deeper at things, I take all that stuff you said into account. The gap is so big with Brady at this point, so there simply is no more need to go deeper in regard to him.
BTW, I almost pulled the trigger on a 1951 Mantle Wheaties premium the other day....I had my hand on the button....but I'm looking for something else and hoping it comes along.
Nice!
When I signed up for CU, I was hoping to find the last few cards from the set, two of which weren’t officially checklisted anywhere. So my name was a way of attracting constant attention to that fact.
This place was instrumental in that happening. I am forever grateful for that. Forever being a pretty long time but it’s why I fight for civility in discourse on the boards.
Gratitude.
And my Mickey is still my favorite card in my collection.
A wonderful and mysterious set.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Oh, wow! That is a beautiful Mantle. The set is stunning and I had not even seen the Campanella before you just posted it. I don't know why, but the Mantle and Campanella kind of remind me of Hartland statues...even though the statues came later. They have a very classic look to them!
True.
If I said he went from a game manager quarterback to a focal point of the offense quarterback and that his importance and “value” grew as he matured physically, mentally and gained more experience, would that be considered a knock on him?
That the guy who beat the Rams was not really as good and didn’t do as much as the guy who beat the Falcons? Yes, even though they were in fact the same person?
See, one thing that I admire most about Tom Brady that gets diminished is how much better he got over the course of his career. That’s certainly a credit to just him and his efforts and is worthy of praise.
Even if I believe Montana is better - which I do - I fully recognize the greatness of Tom Brady and his entire story. It is a spectacular one, assuredly.
Rags to riches, American dream type stuff.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The Campy is on his Bowman card from ‘51 or ‘52, if it looks familiar.
The Mantle pose is on a million things.
I’m the only person who collects them, as far as I know. Type collectors and Master set collectors go for the singles - that’s about it.
Hogan and Kramer were the ‘unknowns’ - two major stars at the time.
For each, their contributions to the sport at large are pretty other worldly in addition to their respective spectacular play.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And thank you for the kind words; my favorite set of all time.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
A lot of good stuff here.
I'd like to add that if we look back at the first SB and the game winning drive, we can see Brady having the confidence, and the team having the confidence in him, to not play for overtime - which John Madden said was the thing to do.
Color me unreasonable. I think the same of your post
The QB has to check in and out of calls at the line or scrimmage based on reading the formation. Pass to run. Run to pass. He has to call out where the rush may be coming from. He moves his receivers. He moved his tight ends. He moves his running backs. Then once the snap happens he has to re read the coverage to see who has dropped of and who might be blitzing. Oh, and then he has 2.5 seconds to make the right read and actually deliver the ball when he passes. There's more but you get the gist.
I have no idea of % but its more then you are giving credit to.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Spot on. There is less time than ever for QB's to make those decisions too. Whatever the percentage truly is, its certainly much more than 5%. Why would any team even bother paying the QB anything more than a league average salary if it truly is only 5% impact on a team?
Let's say overall/on average game credit should be distributed something like: 45% offense, 45% defense, 10% special teams. QB is immediately out of 55% of the credit since they're not on the field for defense or special teams, in the modern era at least. How much credit does a QB deserve for running plays where they are not the runner? That's say, 30% of the offensive plays, where I allocate 0% to the QB. Maybe others differ, but you can't allocate much to the QB for that as anyone at that level should be expected to hand the ball off successfully.
That only leaves 31.5% of the overall game credit available for the entire offense on passing plays and the offensive line deserves a decent chunk of that, IMHO, to give the QB 2.5 seconds. It's hard to complete a pass without someone catching it, not to mention the other skill players either blocking or giving the QB options of where to go. If you can divvy that up and get the QB to 20% of game credit, that's nearly twice as much as the other 10 guys combined on offensive passing plays, completely diminishing their contributions that make a QB successful.
Regardless of who is the GOAT, I will always think of the OL who make it all possible for a QB. They deserve their due in any conversation. The foot soldiers in battle/trenches.
The QB handles the ball and distributes it on 99% of the offenses plays. He runs the offense.
I don't hazard to guess the percentage value but it's high. Higher for great QB's. There are not a lot of great ones out there. That's why the market for them is so high.
I think that rather then the percentage of plays one has to look at the direct impact a particular player has in those plays. A great QB can carry as team with a suspect D or a lousy punter or erratic kicker. He has the highest single percentage of plays in a game by a long shot. Yes a great D can also carry an average QB. That's why no % is one size fits all.
It's hard to put a percentage on this:
Arians said that he thought the 2019 Buccaneers were “a very, very talented football team last year, but we really didn’t know how to win.” He called Brady a “winner” who ran the ship for the team and that his leadership “permeated through our whole locker room.”
The Bucs don't win the SB without Brady.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
A great quarterback can't do anything without the "foot soldiers" to protect him, the rushers for the ground game and the receivers for the air game. Having said that, a team with a lousy quarterback is dead. He runs the offence, and it fails, the team is finished.
It's not only a matter of putting points on the board. A good offense is necessary to keep the defense going. Those guys can't be on the field for over 60% of the time. If they are on the field, they are going to get tired and get beat.
A prime example of this was the Philadelphia Eagles under Chip Kelly. He had the theory that he could pay the hurry up offence 90% of the time and win. It worked for a while, but the rest of the NFL coaches are not stupid. They figured out how to defend Mr. Kelly's offence, and then the Eagles lead the league in the most rapid three and outs in foot ball history. The defense played heroically, but they got worn down. The result was a lousy won - loss record and the departure of Mr. "One Trick Pony" Kelly.
If you don't think that the quarterback is important, look at where the Indianapolis Colts ended up when Andrew Luck retired unexpectedly. They went from contenders to the cellar in short order.
Continue. Show the breakdown of each position and their value.
Then whichever value you come up with...multiply it by 230 wins and Brady is still going to have the highest value of any football player to have ever stepped onto the field. He will also have the highest value of any baseball player respective to their sport. So basically, it comes down to Brady or Jordan(or Lebron) as the best athlete ever. So that is where the argument moves. Your method has cemented Brady as the best football player ever. Now it is on to Jordan vs Brady.
That last quotation from Arians is a good one.
Brady went to Tampa Bay almost like a newly hired CEO, one with past success and bringing in the right elements to get everything over the hump.
Without question he had an impact that goes beyond anything talked about here. Gronk said the same thing.
5% is ridiculously low. When you have a great QB, then the RB gets easier yards. If you can show me where they had a Barry Sanders doing it purely on moves, then show me. Brady didn't have that.
When you have a great QB, then the offensive line has the luxury to hold for less time. If you can show me where Brady was never hurried because his offensive line was so great, then show me. He never had that.
If you can show me a receiver consistently turning 8 yard slants into 40 yds like Jerry Rice, or consistently making one handed or Lynn Swann circus grabs, then show me because Brady never had that.
The reality is that Tom Brady enhances all those facets of the game, not the other way around.
It is true that a punt returner like Hester could influence a QB a great deal, but that was never the case with Brady. It may have helped Rex Grossman a lot....but not Brady.
Also, when the offense controls the ball, the defense has an easier job and is rested. So yes, a QB can certainly influence a defensive player.
When you are saying he can't complete a pass without a receiver, now that is true, but football isn't played with a missing human. There will always be a human on the receiving end. It is a matter of which commodity is easier to find.
The person being able to make a pre snap read, then a passing decision in 2 seconds ,AND being able to execute and deliver the ball where it needs to be, while giant fast men are breathing down their neck, is a far greater commodity in the human race than the human who has the ability to run past a defender and catch the ball. There is no comparison and your percentages are way off before we even get to the leadership intangibles.
I've already stated my number, QB is about 5% of the value of a team, so Brady is worth about 11.5 wins by your method (not an endorsement of just multiplying value by wins method, mind you). If you can get me to concede to 7%, he's up to 16.1.
But, Brady is so GOATy, I'm sure he's the reason the Chiefs punter gifted TB field position with his massive punts of 27 & 29 yards and made him so nervous he dropped a snap. So we should probably throw him an extra 10% just for his special teams work yesterday.
5% is ridiculously low. When you have a great QB, then the RB gets easier yards. If you can show me where they had a Barry Sanders doing it purely on moves, then show me. Brady didn't have that.
When you have a great QB, then the offensive line has the luxury to hold for less time. If you can show me where Brady was never hurried because his offensive line was so great, then show me. He never had that.
If you can show me a receiver consistently turning 8 yard slants into 40 yds like Jerry Rice, or consistently making one handed or Lynn Swann circus grabs, then show me because Brady never had that.
The reality is that Tom Brady enhances all those facets of the game, not the other way around.
It is true that a punt returner like Hester could influence a QB a great deal, but that was never the case with Brady. It may have helped Rex Grossman a lot....but not Brady.
Also, when the offense controls the ball, the defense has an easier job and is rested. So yes, a QB can certainly influence a defensive player.
When you are saying he can't complete a pass without a receiver, now that is true, but football isn't played with a missing human. There will always be a human on the receiving end. It is a matter of which commodity is easier to find.
The person being able to make a pre snap read, then a passing decision in 2 seconds ,AND being able to execute and deliver the ball where it needs to be, while giant fast men are breathing down their neck, is a far greater commodity in the human race than the human who has the ability to run past a defender and catch the ball. There is no comparison and your percentages are way off before we even get to the leadership intangibles.
When you are saying he can't complete a pass without a receiver, now that is true, but football isn't played with a missing human. There will always be a human on the receiving end. It is a matter of which commodity is easier to find.
The person being able to make a pre snap read, then a passing decision in 2 seconds ,AND being able to execute and deliver the ball where it needs to be, while giant fast men are breathing down their neck, is a far greater commodity in the human race than the human who has the ability to run past a defender and catch the ball. There is no comparison and your percentages are way off before we even get to the leadership intangibles.
That is why they get paid way more money.
there have been at least 3 mitch t references in this goat thread
why
he's not even worthy of a dichotomous example
man i'm grouchy when i lose a big bet
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I’m really not trying to be combative here but I have to say that this might be one of the most ridiculously moronic posts I’ve ever seen here. Certainly right up there with anything questioning Brady and his GOAT status.
Exactly. Last year the quarterback was Jamis Winston. He didn't have Gronk and Michael Brown, but the rest of the receivers were pretty much the same. The defense stepped up in the play-offs big time, but during the season they were similar to last year.
Winston was the kind of quarterback who could lead a good drive for eight or nine plays. Then he'd turn the ball over, and none of the good stuff he had done met anything. If he had still been the quarterback, the Bucks would have had another losing season. Brady made all of the difference with his play and his work ethic.
Come up with your won allocation and present an argument then, so far I've seen that Brady is taller and weighs more, so he's better than Montana
And the interesting thing is Antonio Brown or Gronk don't come to Tampa Bay without Brady seeking them out. He had to talk the brass into signing Brown. Same for Fournette. How can you put a value on that. It's priceless when it works out.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
That Leonard Marshall hit wouldn't get flagged today either. Nasty hit but still completely legal.
Just remember this - the odds of a Tom Brady season ending in him playing in the Super Bowl are higher than the odds of a Steph Curry 3 going in the basket.
Sure but Tom Brady by himself on the Giants (my team) would not have had a good year at all. There’s just no way.
Evans, Brown, Gronk and Fournette would have to come too and I’m still not sure it would be enough to overcome the awfulness that is the Giants line.
Kyle - I’d just like point out - for the sake of posterity - that no one has ever seen Chuck Norris and Tom Brady in the same room at the same time.
Coincidence?
After all, Chuck Norris’ tears are the cure for COVID. However, sadly for us all, Chuck Norris never cries.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Now, THAT'S funny!
@1951WheatiesPremium said
Sure but Tom Brady by himself on the Giants (my team) would not have had a good year at all. There’s just no way.
Yes his momma didn't raise no fool.
But then again the Giants almost won their division with Daniel Jones under center ; )
Touchdown Jesus, Waterboy or The Night King from Game of Thrones would not have had an over .500 record with the Giants this year.
Better days ahead
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
LOL surely you jest. I don’t need to invent some hypothetical percentages that I conjure up In my head, all you need to do is look at all the stats and accomplishments between Cool Joe and The GOAT online and you will see that it’s not a photo finish lol
And all I've said is that a QB is worth 5-7% of a team's accomplishment (without giving any credit to GMs for putting the pieces in place or coaching yet). Any QB, any team, and without a well oiled OL, any QB looks much worse (see Luck, Andrew his entire Indy career or Mahomes, Patrick last night at least). This is why evaluating QBs by winning % and rings is so idiotic I will no longer engage with people who think this is important.
I’ve stated it has a lot more to do with winning %’s and rings. But no matter what your argument is a QB’s value to a team is way more than your grudgingly appointed 7%. There are reasons QB’s are always the centerpiece of draft discussions year after year and a QB needy team puts so much emphasis on a top tier College or free agent QB. Unless you think everyone else is wrong lol
I’ll know whether you’re right after this draft. If we don’t take offensive linemen in the first two rounds, nothing will change.
On some level, the definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviors over and over again and expecting different outcomes.
And I’m feeling very Randle Patrick McMurphy these days. 😉
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'd say many would be better off fixing their OL first before wasting a dime on a top tier QB, if they actually care about winning and not just putting butts in seats. How many of those top QBs get washed out before they have an OL worth a TART?
ETA: OL men aren't worth anything, until you realize you don't have one.
I'd take Doug Flutie over all of 'em.....
Ok you and I are having two different conversations here. I have always said OL, DB and QB are the 3 most important positions in football but looking at the career of LT or even this years playoffs with Devin White being a PROBLEM I think I might be better off saying that any player can make a big difference if he is really “Great”. So that being said I’m open to having that discussion with you but the QB bring 7% of value really needs to be cleared up first. I will not remotely take you serious when your saying you could maybe be pushed to that 7% but really you stand at around 5%? Seriously????
OL, imo, is a top priority. It is the 1b, as a position group, to QB. The successful teams take multi faceted approaches. Invest draft capital (and not just once, but ongoing). Stress position flex. Try to hit the lottery once in a while after doing your due diligence with some reclamation projects. If you have your backups and position flex working, hopefully you avoid what happened to the Chiefs. But it is easier said than done.
Love Flutie. When all was said and done, between his various NFL stops and Canada, what a career!
Out of the 45% total I give for offense and 31.5% given to passing plays? Yes, 7% overall is nearly 25% of the allocation for passing plays and that's quite significant. Higher than that and you diminish every other offensive player to a negligible contribution. We saw how Brady did last year without anyone to throw to.
What is the QBs value on a handoff and how often to you run instead of pass?