Where does Mahomes rank right now?
craig44
Posts: 11,521 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I don't mean all time, I mean currently in the NFL.
I have Lamar, Allen and Burrow ranked higher. I think both Goff and believe it or not Baker had better seasons than Patty.
Mahomes has had a couple of down seasons back to back now, and next season, he will be on the wrong side of 30.
where do you rank Patrick currently? I cant have him any higher than 4th. and really, Goff was better this season. It does not feel right to rank Baker above him. is he 5th best?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
I have him at 1 still
The kid has proved his worth enough times for me to keep him at 1
Burrow, Lamar and Allen I'm fine with being in the conversation but right now I still say Mahomes
you have him at number 1 even if we are just looking at this past season? looking at the stats, I just dont see it. In fact, he has had 2 down years in a row.
check out the other guys seasons. Lamar was 41-4 TD/INT this season
Patty was actually very similar to Aaron Rodgers season this year.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
lamar is a regular season guy , a peyton manning fraud
I know stat wise he isn't up. there with Allen or Lamar but I don't look at stats as the 100% factor.
With the game on the line and you have one drive to get a FG or TD I would trust Mahomes 1000000% more than Lamar or Allen
Not even a question in my mind
Not as high as he was ranked yesterday morning
I'm still taking Patrick Mahomes over any other active NFL QB. That's not a knock on any of the other great QBs in today's game, it's just that Pat has a clear history of making winning plays in the most critical moments. He's very Brady-esque in that regard and coming from a NE fan, that's high praise. If last night's game revealed anything, it was how wide a gap there was in overall talent between these two teams. Mahomes play this season masked a lot of KC's issues while Philly's roster was absolutely stacked across the board.
I doubt that this is the end for Mahomes or the Chiefs. Pat is just 29 and the Chiefs are probably going to start turning over some of their roster around him and get a bit younger. They're still going to be able to beat 99% of other teams on a regular basis and still would be the favorite in the AFC.
Eric
Erikthredd’s MJ Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/publishedset/395035
Erikthredd’s Nike Air Jordan Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/basketball/key-card-sets/nike-poster-cards-michael-jordan-1985-1992/alltimeset/408486
Firstly, I think the Monday Morning Quarterbacking of Mahomes is just a little over the top. Not doubting the fact that he had a pretty bad game from a statistical point, but I think some of that needs to be blamed on the Philadelphia Eagles defense and defensive game plan. Add to that a pitiful response from the KC coaches in countering a game-long all out rush on Mahomes and we get what we got. I doubt he's ever been that steadily pressured at any other time in his career, the guy spent a lot of time running for his life and an unaccustomed amount of the game on the seat of his pants.
With that said, I'd offer an opinion on the QB's mentioned by the OP:
Lamar Jackson seems like he's at the peak of his career but my feeling is that he's hampered by his Head Coach.
Josh Allen is in that same boat, paddling with Lamar.
--- the two above probably have 3-4 years to get to the Super Bowl, keeping the rest of the team together for them and getting Harbaugh and McDermott out of the way might be their biggest problem.
Everybody loves Joe Burrow but his clock is ticking, also, and he's proven to be a little injury prone. He rallied his team at the end of the season but was erratic early on and lost to a few crappy teams.
Jared Goff has rebounded his career and played light out for most of the season, but he had disappeared for a few years just like everyone thinks PM has been down for two years.
Baker Mayfield is perhaps the least skilled of all the guys, he shouldn't even be in the conversation.
Patrick Mahomes, of all these fine players, seems to have that quality which makes his teams win. I would expect he'll hear all these voices saying he's slipped and work hard to improve himself and get past the failure.
Strangely, Jalen Hurts was left off by the OP. He just won the Super Bowl MVP award and has been to more Super Bowls than anyone on the list except Mahomes who is 3-2. Hurts is 1-1, Burrow is 0-1 and the others haven't been. The thing about Hurts that may tip the scales in his favor: Jalen Hurts is only 26 years old, the others range in age from 28-30.
.........................36. Deshaun Watson.
I think any player can have a really bad day. Clearly, Mahomes was not the Mahomes we expected to see perform last night, and he really had a bad day. I don't think his one game performance should reduce his standing in whatever poll or viewpoint people may have of him. No doubt he was dying inside...give the guy his due, I had the Eagles in the game, but actually felt bad for the KC team, especially when it became obvious the game was out of reach early.
not just pat , KC coaching sucked . Philly had a gameplan that worked but KC should have made adjustments at halftime. But they did nothing , they were possessed by the spirit of jerod mayo apparently
I think the NFL world is forgetting that the Chiefs just went 15-2 in the regular season. They didn't score over 30pts in a single one of those games, they just beat you with great situational football and defense (allowed just 19ppg.) They only really have two free agents of note to possibly replace and they're at guard and linebacker, easily replaceable in the draft. I honestly wouldn't be surprised at all to see these two teams back again a year from now for Round 3.
Eric
Erikthredd’s MJ Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/publishedset/395035
Erikthredd’s Nike Air Jordan Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/basketball/key-card-sets/nike-poster-cards-michael-jordan-1985-1992/alltimeset/408486
keep in mind guys, we are ONLY looking at the players most recent season. this would be like the old baseball pre season player ranking magazines.
of the players I listed (there obviously could be others, i just listed a few) Patty has the fewest TDś, one of the highest INT totals, low on the yardage rankings, mid pack on compl. % and lowest in QB rating.
I think that perhaps some are looking back beyond this past season in your rankings?
I really dont think Mahomes is statistically in the top 5 right now.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Mahomes has a big reputation, and well earned, but as for THIS season, he did not play all that well.
I think that ranking mahomes #1 for this season would be akin to ranking 2006 Pedro Martinez as the #1 pitcher in baseball for that season. Pedro had an amazing career previous, but in 2006, he was not the man.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't know how anyone could come to the conclusion that he didn't play well this season. Any dips in his stat totals could probably be easily explained by looking at who he had on offense for the 2024 season.
Their starting RB Pacheco going down for 10 games then replacing him with Kareem Hunt. (Yeah that Kareem Hunt who KC dumped many years ago.) Their entire offense, for the most part, evolved around a 35yr old Travis Kelce and a rookie WR in Xavier Worthy. That's it. They still won 15 games and made it into the SB. Again, a very Brady-esque season from Mahomes.
This entire topic is being severely overblown today, especially here in NE where our fanbase were all butthurt that someone came close to challenging our saviour Tommy's GOAT status. 😂
Eric
Erikthredd’s MJ Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/publishedset/395035
Erikthredd’s Nike Air Jordan Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/basketball/key-card-sets/nike-poster-cards-michael-jordan-1985-1992/alltimeset/408486
I just read a crazy stat that Philly didn't blitz a single time in the Super Bowl, they just rushed the 4 lineman and that was it.
I don't care enough to deep dive into it but Mahomes took a back alley beating, his line let him down but they were not that great to begin with and KC running game was just gross
This morning I saw an article that bemoaned the Chiefs chances of rebuilding the team to make another Super Bowl run!!
Stuff like that is so stupid, so stupid I didn't even read the article. The Chiefs just beat the Bills who had beaten the Ravens, I'm not too bright but I think that means the Chiefs are still the defending AFC Champion. The road to the Super Bowl in the AFC still runs through Kansas City.
I don't believe the Chiefs have lost anything, they will be fine. The core players will rebound and Andy Reid will do what he does to carry them to the top of the heap. About the only thing "hurt" by the loss is the mystique surrounding Patrick Mahomes. The World just discovered he's human and makes mistakes. For Christ's-sake, the guy had a bad work day!!!
That is correct. until the Chiefs lose the AFCCG, it will run through them. 100%
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Right now hes still at 1. Im fine with him being 1A and Allen 1B and Burrow 1C or something like that though.
The Chiefs keep taking things away from him and adding back less than they lose relying on him to just make everyone better which he has. Kelce is old and outside of Worthy that WR core is not good at all and he still found a way to score enough points to get them back to the SB
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Brady 11 Super Bowl appearances won 7 and Mahomes 4 appearances won 3 you cannot win them all when you go there that often.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
My Brady vs Mahomes comparison is tough because I'm 100% biased and a homer
Neither the Patriots or Mahomes led Super Bowl appearances would have happened without them, meaning the Defense or any other part of the team led them to that game regardless of great QB play, basically they were not Trent Dilfer type Super Bowl teams.
Mahomes scrambling and throwing on the run is nothing Brady could ever match but I'd be comfortable saying that's all Mahomes has over him.
Brady's numbers got better as he got older and Mahomes numbers seem to have gotten worse over the past 2 seasons but he still got them to the Super Bowl
Bottom line it's too early to tell so let's compare these guys after Mahomes retires
I know everyone likes to jump to the Brady Mahomes comparisons, but Mahomes still has like another 10 years to play as long as he doesnt get hurt. Its just to early in his career for the comparisons when hes not even 30 yet
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
he just passed Ryan Leaf on my list
One awful game won't detract a lot from the greatness of Pat Mahomes. But it has to hurt at least some. How he responds to it next season will be interesting to see. Whether he is still a great QB or has developed happy feet?
As far as him and Brady comparisons, it's way too early for that. Frankly, my guess is five or ten years from now, Brady will still be considered the GOAT, and it won't be close.
The dust from the loss will settle. Things will sort out. Time to judge his place is still some years off. His future success will be dictated in part by who he will have around him on offense and how effective his defense will be.
Since he became a starter he’s played in 71.4% of all Super Bowl games.
I think he will be fine.
didn't philly just copy tampa bay's method of beating him?
why won't everyone just do that from now on?
@stevek said: Frankly, my guess is five or ten years from now, Brady will still be considered the GOAT, and it won't be close.
To some people Tom Brady isn't the GOAT right now and Patrick Mahomes isn't close to challenging the man who is, a player who retired 70 years ago and still holds NFL records. Think about that for a moment: in the 70 years since he played his last game, during the era of the Quarterback, given all the great QB's named in this thread, a guy who hasn't played in 70 years still hold NFL passing records!!
Lemme guess
Otto Graham?
I love Otto Graham from the old school but it's impossible to remotely compare Graham to modern players, Graham played in an era when football. was more like Rugby, but I'll take him in the conversation for top tier all time great without question.
I've said this before that NFL records and rankings should be more categorized, by a decade or two.
The game has evolved so much that the 1950's Browns would get murdered by this years Titans team let alone competing against Brady or Mahomes led teams
Given a neutral team, I would only put Josh Allen ahead of Mahomes if picking a QB for next year.
The game has evolved so much that the 1950's Browns would get murdered by this years Titans team let alone competing against Brady or Mahomes led teams
And I have said this before, if the players today had to play under the rules of the 1950's their play would be adversely affected. Holding, all the "hand play" with receivers/db's and the protection afforded QB's would make it much more physical game. My point was simple in that all the rule changes have been to the advantage of the offense and the QB position and yet some records established 70 years ago have not been surpassed.
I have been arguing for many years that the players of yesteryear were just as good as today.
the ONLY reasons players today are physically larger, faster, stronger is better nutrition/medical care/training techniques.
you bring the average 260 pound lineman from the 50s that were born in the 30s to be born in the late 90s/early 00s and those same guys would be the 330 pounders that are playing for the eagles today.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
you bring the average 260 pound lineman from the 50s that were born in the 30s to be born in the late 90s/early 00s and those same guys would be the 330 pounders that are playing for the eagles today.
Unfortunately, this is just wrong. Otto was 6-1 which is tiny in the modern NFL for a QB. The lineman in the 50s didn’t just weigh less, they were shorter as well. The average height was 6-2 of an NFL lineman in the 50s vs 6-6 now.
Given that average height of men in the US hasn’t really changed since the 50s, it isn’t nutrition/medical care that has caused the shift. It is silly to think that those 6-2 lineman from yesteryear would grow 4 additional inches if they were born in 2000 instead of 1930.
The simple reality is that the vast majority of lineman (offense & defense) from the 50s would not even sniff a backup position in the modern NFL.
Robb
I venture to say that some of these recent Alabama and Georgia teams would smash the 1950's Browns
It wouldn't even be close to be honest, in my opinion
Some of the stars would be fine like Otto, Brown ect but the depth of the rest of the team would get utterly run over in an ugly way
https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-offensive-lineman-are-big-2011-10
Rules wouldn't help
Its not really a fair comparison from differences in training and generations of sports becoming more global, nut yea those 1950s teams wouldnt even make a bowl game if they were playing in the SEC today
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Agreed it's not "Fair" but I'm just stating facts
It has most to do with access and specialization. Nutrition helps greatly to increase the selection pool. If you look at the players from those early decades you might see what I observe regarding the lack of disparity among body types across all positions.
So the top 10 athletes in New York in the year 1750(if born in the year 2000) would be as good/big/strong as the top 10 athletes in New York in 2025 due to nutrition? No they wouldn't... and neither would the top 10 athletes from 1950.
Nutrition is a factor but only a small one to that question.
Nutrition is a small factor at the individual level but it does play an inflated role in the aggregate by increasing the number of healthy men who might consider playing football. In 1920 there was no need to add so much bulk so why would someone do that to play a silly game that would destroy their body and leave them destitute?
Agreed. Football and basketball dont translate well over the decades. You cant teach or train height. Wemby would score like 150 points a game if he played in the 50s. Florida has a DT thats over 400 pounds, Tennessee has a punter that can and does kick with both legs, Jalen Carter is almost 300 pounds and ran a 4.38 40.
The linemen would get absolutely dominated on both sides of the ball when guys that are like 6'2 230 are lining up against 6'5+ 300 pounders. Even for the QBs they just didnt pass that much back then and who knows how good of passers they really were. You could argue you could teach that but they were just flat out bad all across the board
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Well, they did exercise then and they did play football....and a lot of people watched them do it.
What do you think produces a 300 pound male that is agile and athletic? It isn't nutrition. Those are natural athletic freaks born from nature. You can feed someone as much as you want until they are 300 pounds, but that will just guarantee they will be slob...and not athletic.
It really has to do more with natural strength/size/ability arising from a higher population of human candidates in addition to the mating of male adults seeking female adults with physical qualities that when merged, produce better equipped offspring. That is how you get more humans being 330 pounds AND agile.
How many 300 pound agile athletes were on the Mayflower? Per your theory, do you really think that if you pumped the entire population of Mayflower men with modern nutrition/traiing that you would get the same amount of 300 pound agile athletes that are in Boston right now? No, you wouldn't.
Again, nutrition plays a role, but just a role....kinda of a role like Steve Kerr did on the Bulls.
Training plays a role too of course. When it is said above that those were the "ONLY" factors, it just wasn't accurate.
It is quite complex especially when you add societal/world factors too(which are even bigger than nutrtion)
so why is it that people in general and athletes in particular are larger now? It is not evolution (if you believe in it) that would take hundreds of thousands of years.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don’t think you understood what I said.
Yeah, I did. It just wasn't accurate.
You tell me. Why do I know people that have kids now who had grandparents that were taller than them? Why don't you just find an infant you care about and then give them the same nutrition workout routine as Jalen Carter? Why won't he become Jalen Carter?
I ask again, would the top five athletes on the Mayflower, if born in 2002, be as good as the top five athletes in Boston today? Yes or no?
Why did Lou Gehrig have thighs like this? Either his nutrition was as good as people with smaller thighs are now, or he was simply born with a baseline so high that just enough activity would produce those monsters. The more people in the world the more people you get like this. Further, how much modern nutrition/training would even make a material difference on those thighs? He already has them. He already did exercise then. He still ate protein and complex carbs. That is 99% of the battle. Ruth exercised then and he had chicken legs. Nothing would have changed that either.
Eat healthy & nutrition...
Sorry...No Flannel with the 1950's Bread for Health 🍞💪🏋️
Those Are Pretty Cool Looking...👍
And More Nutrition Value...
🤣😂🙃
🥣🥣🥣...
I don’t think you did. This is what I said.
I can’t disagree that nutrition plays a factor because I agree with the data and it’s accepted by the scientific community.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4892290/
You can do so much better if you just accept that you don’t know everything. I have. It’s nice. If you don’t know something just look it up.
The biased selection process you’re using to support your premise is hardly scientific. If one person eats the same thing another person did would they turn out the same anthropometrics? Do you need this answer?
Read your initial statement again and you see where you had inaccuracies. I bet if you looked again you can see them. Look from within.
No biased selection. I answered in this thread because it was stated that nutrition and science were the "ONLY" reasons and that is not accurate at all.
I ask again, would the top five athletes on the Mayflower, if born in 2002, be as good as the top five athletes in Boston today? Yes or no? What does your 'science' say to that question?
Since you can't or won't answer...or you realize that the answer really shows your 'science' doesn't have all the answers that you are pretending to have by saying 'science' and using words like 'aggregate' to make it look like those stances have to be correct...and they aren't.
So you see there are other major factors at play. I know that. I also know that there are more questions than answers...again, hence why I joined the topic when it was stated as "ONLY".
If there are 1 million teenage boys in 1910 and 2 million teenage boys in 2021, why would the top million boys from 1910 be as big/strong/good as the top million boys from 2021 just because they had the same nutrtion like you are saying? What about the next million boys from 2021? Where would they rank? Where do they fit? Those extra million all rank below the million from 1910??
I listed the primary factors which science has agreed upon based on the data that we have.
Access
And
Specialization
However. Nutrition is not a minor factor and there are others. I have provided research that supports the claim that nutrition plays a major role in human height. Further, they determine that you can estimate standard of living based on average height of a population.
With regard to sports though it’s mostly access and specialization.
What a silly place. Science and aggregate. Embarrassing
@bgr when the Mayflower landed with 78 men they started the Thanksgiving tradition of Football and formed a league with tough hardened iron man football players. These were tough men, living through elements and working through every hardship....stuff modern people would shutter to think of having to endure.
QB John Clarke led his team to the first six championships...greatly helped by his 155 pound two way center/defensive tackle John Parker. Clarke netted 10 MVP's in his 'career'.
Young Andrew Williamson was able to get seven MVP's at QB after Clarke was killed on a hunting excursion.
Nobody ever matched those 10 MVP's by the QB. Ever. Nobody ever matched the 7 MVPs either. They each led their league in the top QB stats ten and seven times respectively. Nobody in history ever matched that.
"Nobody can EVER match those feats again, in both championships and leading the league in their respective stats...therefore they are better than all the players who came after who could never match those championships and league leading stats."
Some say that given the same nutrition and training that both Clarke and Williamson would be as good as the best today, and the 155 lineman would be as big and fast as Jalen Carter today because of better nutrition. We hear the common phrase...."the best of previous eras would still be among the best of the current eras."
No. It is not anywhere near a given that the best of previous eras would be among the best of the current era...and the further back you go the less likely for it to be possible.
It is also not remotely true that given the same nutrtion and training that the best of previous eras would all of a sudden be three inches taller and 50% stronger/faster. There are other genetic factors at play in that, even accounting for the number of people existing(or not existing in Mayflower years).
According to you BGR, the two Mayflower QB's and the skinny lineman are as good as Mahomes, Allen, and Jalen Carter respectively.
They aren't. It has nothing to do with science. Simple common sports sense.
I’m not saying anything about the Mayflower or their lust for American football. Because it’s insane. You have lost your mind dude.