Tom Brady: If NE win the Super Bowl, is he the best ever? [Archive]

Snarky_Kong

01-13-2008, 07:20 PM

Terry Bradshaw won 4 rings and 6 years and he's not even close to the best ever. I think people toss around best ever really easily. Like everybody says the Patriots have to be the best ever team if they win the superbowl. I don't think that's true. Just because you have the best season ever doesn't make it the most talented team ever. Like now hardly anybody considers the '72 Dolphins the best team ever, that's usually the '85 Bears or '89 '49ers.

Now that doesn't mean that Brady or the Patriots aren't the best ever, but most of the reasons I've heard given aren't the best. Personally I think Favre is the best QB of all time and Brady has a way to go to pass him. Take a look at the time in the pocket Brady had against the Jags, Favre would annihilate any team that gave him that much time.

Marley23

01-13-2008, 07:20 PM

No, sorry, it's too soon. He deserves to be in the conversation, for sure, but the best ever? I wouldn't call anybody that after seven years.

jackelope

01-13-2008, 07:24 PM

Depends on what you mean by "best." If it's "best quarterback for whatever the duration of his career was," then yeah, I'd have a hard time arguing with that.

If "best" is defined in terms of career totals, though, it gets cloudier because there are all kinds of ways to define that. Favre seems likely to hold the records for most yards, TDs, consecutive starts by a QB, wins by a QB, etc., for quite a while. Hell, if Favre comes back next year, he'll likely get the record for consecutive starts by a player at any position.

On preview: What Snarky_Kong and Marley23 said.

Marley23

01-13-2008, 07:40 PM

If "best" is defined in terms of career totals, though, it gets cloudier because there are all kinds of ways to define that. Favre seems likely to hold the records for most yards, TDs, consecutive starts by a QB, wins by a QB, etc., for quite a while.
I think he's only keeping those records warm for Peyton Manning.

Leaper

01-13-2008, 08:01 PM

He's the best QB ever who's ever appeared pants-less on Saturday Night Live.

How's that? :D

FoieGrasIsEvil

01-13-2008, 08:09 PM

I dislike the Tom Brady knob-schlobbing as much as any non-Pats fan, but IMHO, the ultimate measure of a team leader at the Qb position is championships and wins, not yards, TD's, etc.
In that respect, Brady at least deserves to be considered in the top three, if not the best. Especially if they run the table this season, that would pretty much seal it for me.
I'm still holding out hope for Carson Palmer, but....he plays for the Bengals....

Marley23

01-13-2008, 08:17 PM

I dislike the Tom Brady knob-schlobbing as much as any non-Pats fan, but IMHO, the ultimate measure of a team leader at the Qb position is championships and wins, not yards, TD's, etc.
Championships are everybody's ultimate goal, but nobody wins a title on his own. Brady plays for a team with a much better defense than Palmer does. And there's no sane way to argue that a QB like Trent Dilfer or Mark Rypien is better than Dan Marino, for example. Sometimes I think people overrate championships as a measure of greatness.

zamboniracer

01-13-2008, 08:28 PM

If QBs are measured by championships, then Bart Starr's 5 titles in 7 years has to be in the conversation, as well as Otto Graham's 7 in 10 years (with WW2 service thrown in).

FoieGrasIsEvil

01-13-2008, 08:33 PM

Championships are everybody's ultimate goal, but nobody wins a title on his own. Brady plays for a team with a much better defense than Palmer does. And there's no sane way to argue that a QB like Trent Dilfer or Mark Rypien is better than Dan Marino, for example. Sometimes I think people overrate championships as a measure of greatness.
Maybe if it was just one SB win, but Brady's about to have what, four? In seven years?
That's pretty ridiculous, and while I agree that the Pats are a pretty complete TEAM, Brady is very Montana-ish as a QB. Not too flashy (although he put up some gaudy numbers this year), but all the intangibles and leadership qualities you look for.
Bradshaw would rank higher than Marino in my book due to championships, although Marino was clearly the better pure passer and his stats demolish Bradshaw's.

DSYoungEsq

01-13-2008, 08:40 PM

Teams win championships. Individuals do not.

Brady is a good quarterback; his statistics show that. Of course, it helps that he plays for a very good team, as denoted by the number of championships they have won. But just as Bart Starr was not the sole reason the Packers were champions 5 times in 7 years (Lombardi, anyone?), Tom Brady is not the sole reason that the Patriots may manage 4 championships in 7 years.

Most people consider Johnny Unitas a better quarterback than Bart Starr, despite the fact that the team he played for never managed as much greatness. By contrast, few people consider Terry Bradshaw to have been a "great" quarterback, just a pretty good one who played for an awesomely talented team.

Personally, if you want a quarterback who should be considered the "greatest" on the basis of all the evidence, I hate to say it, but I'd put Joe Montana in that category. That was one dude you did NOT want to see behind center if you were on defense.

Frostillicus

01-13-2008, 08:40 PM

I really cracked up when the DB for Jacksonville commented after the game that he wasn't very impressed with Brady's performance (26-28 with 3 TDs) because he was mainly throwing short passes and "anyone" could go 26-28 if all they threw were short passes.

Really dude, anyone?

blondebear

01-13-2008, 08:50 PM

Marley23

01-13-2008, 08:50 PM

Maybe if it was just one SB win, but Brady's about to have what, four? In seven years?
I'm not throwing them out entirely. I'm saying they aren't the be-all and end-all of measuring a player's greatness. In an individual sport, it's different. In a sport where everybody plays both sides of the floor, like basketball? Maybe. But not in a specialized sport like football, where the most important players (QBs) will never play a down on defense or special teams. There are too many other factors that go into winning.

zamboniracer

01-13-2008, 08:52 PM

Ají de Gallina

01-13-2008, 08:59 PM

jackelope

01-13-2008, 09:03 PM

I think he's only keeping those records warm for Peyton Manning.Possible. But Favre's already done it. It only takes one play for a QB to get Theismanned.

If QBs are measured by championships, then Bart Starr's 5 titles in 7 years has to be in the conversation, as well as Otto Graham's 7 in 10 years (with WW2 service thrown in).Not to mention that while Otto Graham played football, he went to the championship game every single year. He won 7 in 10 years, and lost the championship the other 3 years. I doubt we'll ever see another 10-year career like that.

Marley23

01-13-2008, 09:03 PM

Should he win, what ELSE would he need to do to be the best?
Keep playing well and winning titles. Even then, it's hard to compare different eras. He could be the consensus Best, but it's not like he can do anything to close the debate forever.

Possible. But Favre's already done it. It only takes one play for a QB to take a Theismann.
Yeah, that's always true. But if he stays healthy I think Manning breaks all of Favre's records.

Snarky_Kong

01-13-2008, 09:07 PM

I know that the whole "best" thing is always debatable, but Brady, should NE win the SB, is getting pretty close.
Of course a single player doesn't win championships, but (good) QBs are always the leaders. I agree with blondebear in that he is in control.

Maybe one SB can be a fluke, 3 (maybe 4) ain't.

Should he win, what ELSE would he need to do to be the best?

I was just thinking about this. While being on a great team makes winning easier, it also makes it harder to show greatness. There are at least 2 other quaterbacks in the league right now that I think would have done better than Brady on the Pats this season, but you can't really fault his play. They've won ever game, it's not his fault the rest of the team makes it so he doesn't have to be amazing. He should move to the Bears, that'd show his greatness if he lead them to a superbowl.

Yookeroo

01-13-2008, 09:34 PM

Airman Doors, USAF

01-13-2008, 09:38 PM

zamboniracer

01-13-2008, 09:47 PM

It would, in my opinion, be reasonable to say that if New England wins the Super Bowl this year, he could retire and still be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Not bad for a guy that couldn't even win the starting job outright at Michigan.

Brady's HOF credentials have been in place since his second SB win, I think. He could throw 10 interceptions against the Chargers this week and then retire to stay with whatever supermodel he's dating this week and still get elected to Canton on the first ballot.

Diogenes the Cynic

01-13-2008, 10:00 PM

I think if Brady wins two more, he'll become the general consenus for "Best Ever."

Calling Favre the best ever is laughable. Top 10 , maybe, but he's thrown too many interceptions and has choked in too many big games to be called best ever. His starting streak is impressive, but his records are as a much a mark of longevity and a desire to keep trying to hang onto a career long past his peak than anything else. Greatness has to be measure by big game performances and an ability to lead a team when the chips are down. Brady and Montana could do that. Favre throws inteceptions and screws his team.

FoieGrasIsEvil

01-13-2008, 10:29 PM

Enginerd

01-13-2008, 10:36 PM

I was just thinking about this. While being on a great team makes winning easier, it also makes it harder to show greatness. There are at least 2 other quaterbacks in the league right now that I think would have done better than Brady on the Pats this season, but you can't really fault his play. They've won ever game, it's not his fault the rest of the team makes it so he doesn't have to be amazing. He should move to the Bears, that'd show his greatness if he lead them to a superbowl.

[bolding mine - Eng.]
Who do you think would have done better than Brady? In my opinion, the only player in the league who's anywhere near Brady is Peyton Manning, and he's had phenomenal offensive teammates for (almost) his whole career. Put them in the same situation, and I'd take Brady every time.

I'm curious who else you're thinking of.

Diogenes the Cynic

01-13-2008, 10:38 PM

While I generally agree regarding Favre's records being the result of longevity, he's still an impressive NFL QB and ranks with the highest order of Qb's past and present, and is a sure first-balloter.
Agreed. 1st ballot HOFer for sure. One of the top ten, even top 5 QB's ever. He just can't be called THE best with only one ring, a record for career interceptions and a number of blown big games.

Oslo Ostragoth

01-14-2008, 12:05 AM

If QBs are measured by championships, then Bart Starr's 5 titles in 7 years has to be in the conversation, as well as Otto Graham's 7 in 10 years (with WW2 service thrown in).Stole my post.

Omniscient

01-14-2008, 12:19 AM

The thing with Brady is that I can;t once remember watching a game and thinking "Wow, he really took that game over" or "I've never seen anyone do that before."

He's undeniably great and he executes about as flawlessly as anyone I have ever seen, but so far he just lacks a certain gravitas that many of the all-time greats have. I think part of the reason for this is that he's had great talent around him and Belichick's gameplans have been so flawless that he's never been in a real meat grinder before. Elway, the best I have ever seen, had that rocket arm and had so many dramatic, big game comebacks where he simply carried his team that he just looked great. Brady has won a ton of big games, has a irrefutable record and has impressive statistics this season, but he doesn't have any signature moments.

Diogenes the Cynic

01-14-2008, 12:36 AM

The thing with Brady is that I can;t once remember watching a game and thinking "Wow, he really took that game over" or "I've never seen anyone do that before."
Really? I can think of a dozen, easy, including multiple Superbowls.
He's undeniably great and he executes about as flawlessly as anyone I have ever seen, but so far he just lacks a certain gravitas that many of the all-time greats have. I think part of the reason for this is that he's had great talent around him and Belichick's gameplans have been so flawless that he's never been in a real meat grinder before. Elway, the best I have ever seen, had that rocket arm and had so many dramatic, big game comebacks where he simply carried his team that he just looked great. Brady has won a ton of big games, has a irrefutable record and has impressive statistics this season, but he doesn't have any signature moments.
When has Brady ever had great talent around him before ths year? he's won three rings with mediocre talent. He's never had a great receiving squad before this season.

Also, he's been in a bunch of meatgrinders and had some 4th quarter come from behind wins just this year.

As to signature moments, how about driving his team to that game winning field goal with less than 30 seconds to go his first Superbowl against the heavily favored Rams?

Snarky_Kong

01-14-2008, 12:38 AM

Who do you think would have done better than Brady? In my opinion, the only player in the league who's anywhere near Brady is Peyton Manning, and he's had phenomenal offensive teammates for (almost) his whole career. Put them in the same situation, and I'd take Brady every time.

I'm curious who else you're thinking of.

I was thinking of Favre. It's funny that Garrard was having just as good of a game as Brady until there was a ton of pressure on them to score at the end. I dunno, maybe I underrate Brady since he doesn't do anything that stands out. He is immensely poised, I guess that stands out.

gonzomax

01-14-2008, 12:59 AM

I like Marino for a great arm and playing for less than stellar teams. Elway was another. Favre played with ok teams.
Pete Rose set the hit mark. He did it by longevity and playing hard but can you say he was the best hitter of all time.
Farve is kinda like that.

jackelope

01-14-2008, 01:06 AM

[Brady is] undeniably great and he executes about as flawlessly as anyone I have ever seen, but so far he just lacks a certain gravitas that many of the all-time greats have.I think he lacks something more than that: He's no fun to watch. It's like watching a surgeon. I think, "Wow, that looks really technical and difficult, and he's really good at it," but I don't get all wrapped up in it.

For a counterexample, take Favre (of whom I admit I'm a big fan). Favre has had some great seasons, but when I think of him, the first thing that comes to mind isn't the Super Bowl or his records. I think of:

the Monday night game against the Vikings in 2000, when he threw a 20-yard TD underhand as he was going down;
the time in 1997 or so when I saw him get brutally sacked, and then when he jumped up he was laughing; and
now, I'll think of Saturday's snow game when he made that off-the-cuff, underhand pass to Donald Lee.

In other words, I think of how much fun it is to watch him play. He loves playing football, and you can see that in everything he does on the field. His style is distinctive and instantly recognizable, as easy to spot as a Hitchcock movie or a Gershwin song.

Brady's play is sterile, antiseptic. Sure, he's got a higher win percentage than Favre, but in the end, football's not really about wins; sports is entertainment. Favre is entertaining, and Brady is not. (The fake direct-snap on Saturday was interesting, but Brady managed to make it look inevitable.) I won't say Favre is a better quarterback, but he's definitely my favorite to watch.

I'll grant that Brady was pretty damn funny on Saturday Night Live, though.

Diogenes the Cynic

01-14-2008, 01:18 AM

Yeah, right. Favre is the only QB who loves playing football. He's just like a kid out there. Brady, Elway, Marino, Montana, Young, Aikman, Bradshaw, Manning didn't/don't love the game. Only Favre does.

Even if there was any truth or merit to the overcooked contention that Favre loves the game any more than anyone else who plays it, it still wouldn't make him a better QB. Favre is undisciplined and makes wild decisions, some of which work out for him and end in fluke big plays or touchdowns. Other times his carelessness and overconfidence lose him the game. I'll take displine and accuracy over gambling and recklessness any day of the week. I don't think a QB should be penalized for making smart decisions and putting the ball on the money rather than flinging it for grabs like a spaz every time they face a little pressure.

Omniscient

01-14-2008, 01:28 AM

Really? I can think of a dozen, easy, including multiple Superbowls.

I just don't see it. The Pats defense more often than not was the deciding factor in years past. In the close games this season he did step up in the fourth quarter to put away teams, but it those examples it always felt like the opposition was just hanging on by a thread. It just didn't have that backbreaking quality that those Elway 4th and 14 scrambles did.

When has Brady ever had great talent around him before ths year? he's won three rings with mediocre talent. He's never had a great receiving squad before this season.
Until this year he never had great receivers, but he always had great teams with him. The Pats defense has always been elite, made even more dangerous because of the effectiveness of their coaching. The offensive line's level of play is simply awesome, Brady averages fewer sacks than just about anyone not named Peyton and those numbers have been consistent year after year. They always won without him having great numbers which goes a long way to pointing out the quality of his teams.

As to signature moments, how about driving his team to that game winning field goal with less than 30 seconds to go his first Superbowl against the heavily favored Rams?

That was fine, but he was 16 of 27 for 145 yards and one touchdown in that game. It was a very good series of plays for him, but everyone remembers Viniatieri 48-yarder from that game. Not Brady. Brady was more impressive overall in the Panthers Super Bowl but the fact that he got the ball on the 40 yard line on the final drive and had over a minute to gain 30 yards removes some of the "wow". I don't think the average fan has a signature image from either of those performances by Brady.

I think he's great, but he tends to avoid do-or-die situations. Credit him and Belichick for that, and maybe that's a better indication of his greatness than anything. But in the emotional question of GOAT, it probably hurts him.

In the irony of ironies the fact that his 3 Super Bowls were all close games is probably a fair argument against him too.

Omniscient

01-14-2008, 01:34 AM

Yeah, right. Favre is the only QB who loves playing football. He's just like a kid out there. Brady, Elway, Marino, Montana, Young, Aikman, Bradshaw, Manning didn't/don't love the game. Only Favre does.
Come down off the ledge. No one says that Favre's "love for the game" is unique or even uncommon. However the way he wears it on his sleeve and manages to suck the fans into it is pretty unique. That's the argument being made, Favre is more fun to watch. To some people, that might fit their definition of "best".

jackelope

01-14-2008, 01:47 AM

Yeah, right. Favre is the only QB who loves playing football. He's just like a kid out there. Brady, Elway, Marino, Montana, Young, Aikman, Bradshaw, Manning didn't/don't love the game. Only Favre does.Apparently I touched a nerve. Please take off the filters and read what I actually wrote, OK? Perhaps I need to boil it down to a sound-bite? Oh, wait, I already did, several times:I think [Brady] lacks something more than that: He's no fun to watch.

[Favre] loves playing football, and you can see that in everything he does on the field.

Favre is entertaining, and Brady is not.

I won't say Favre is a better quarterback, but he's definitely my favorite to watch.I didn't suggest for a moment that Favre is the only player who loves playing football; that would be stupid, which I am not. What I said is that Favre makes his love of the game obvious to the observer.

Enginerd

01-14-2008, 02:27 AM

I was thinking of Favre. It's funny that Garrard was having just as good of a game as Brady until there was a ton of pressure on them to score at the end. I dunno, maybe I underrate Brady since he doesn't do anything that stands out. He is immensely poised, I guess that stands out.
Favre makes a lot of bad decisions and tries to force balls that he shouldn't. He's a great QB, but there's no way that style would fly with the Patriots. Brady threw 8 interceptions this season. The last time Favre finished the year with fewer than 13 picks was his rookie season, when he had just 4 atempts (and 2 picks). Put him on the Pats this year and they'd have twice as many turnovers and probably 3 losses... put him on any of the Pats other Super Bowl teams and I don't think they'd make it past the AFC championship.

Marino and Elway are funny. They both played most of their careers for mediocre teams - Marino never made it back to the Super Bowl after his second year, and Elway couldn't win the game until he could ride Terrel Davis and a top-10 defense all the way. Brady's been surrounded by the same kind of offensive talent that Marino and Elway had, and he won 3 super bowls with it. His defense has been good, but not elite. In their 3 Super Bowl victories (2001, '03, '04), the Pats defense was ranked 24th, 7th, and 9th, respectively (the Broncos defenses were 5th and 11th in their two wins). The Pats defenses (aside from 2001) have been good, but they haven't been the kind of squad that can carry a mediocre QB all the way. With somebody who was less composed under center, the Pats would probably still be a perennial playoff team, but nobody would be talking dynasty.

To me, watching Brady calmly pick apart a defense is far more impressive than watching Manning flapping his arms around or seeing Favre throw the ball up for grabs off his back foot. He doesn't throw snowballs at his teammates or run down the field jumping up in the air... all he does is win game after game after game. He's the best quarterback - and on a short list of the best players - I've ever seen.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-14-2008, 07:10 AM

I know that the whole "best" thing is always debatable, but Brady, should NE win the SB, is getting pretty close.
Of course a single player doesn't win championships, but (good) QBs are always the leaders. I agree with blondebear in that he is in control.

Maybe one SB can be a fluke, 3 (maybe 4) ain't.

Should he win, what ELSE would he need to do to be the best?

On the flip side, if he doesn't win this year, what else would he need to do to be the best?

I dunno. I'm not sure of my list, but I do know that Montana is at the top. Is he better than Montana was? I'd say they're roughly comparable, but Brady has t keep on going a little more.

An Arky

01-14-2008, 08:50 AM

I won't be convinced unless he puts up HOF-type numbers on a non-Belichick, non-playoff team.

zamboniracer

01-14-2008, 09:14 AM

Favre makes a lot of bad decisions and tries to force balls that he shouldn't. He's a great QB, but there's no way that style would fly with the Patriots. Brady threw 8 interceptions this season. The last time Favre finished the year with fewer than 13 picks was his rookie season, when he had just 4 atempts (and 2 picks). Put him on the Pats this year and they'd have twice as many turnovers and probably 3 losses... put him on any of the Pats other Super Bowl teams and I don't think they'd make it past the AFC championship.

Marino and Elway are funny. They both played most of their careers for mediocre teams - Marino never made it back to the Super Bowl after his second year, and Elway couldn't win the game until he could ride Terrel Davis and a top-10 defense all the way. Brady's been surrounded by the same kind of offensive talent that Marino and Elway had, and he won 3 super bowls with it. His defense has been good, but not elite. In their 3 Super Bowl victories (2001, '03, '04), the Pats defense was ranked 24th, 7th, and 9th, respectively (the Broncos defenses were 5th and 11th in their two wins). The Pats defenses (aside from 2001) have been good, but they haven't been the kind of squad that can carry a mediocre QB all the way. With somebody who was less composed under center, the Pats would probably still be a perennial playoff team, but nobody would be talking dynasty.

To me, watching Brady calmly pick apart a defense is far more impressive than watching Manning flapping his arms around or seeing Favre throw the ball up for grabs off his back foot. He doesn't throw snowballs at his teammates or run down the field jumping up in the air... all he does is win game after game after game. He's the best quarterback - and on a short list of the best players - I've ever seen.

Of course, that begs the question of whether the defensive stats hold water, which IMHO they do not. The overall D stats are based only on gross yards allowed, which is nice but is only a piece of the puzzle. Rushing defense ought to be measured by yards per play, and passing defense ought to be the measured by the QB rating system, but that's just IMHO.

Sal Ammoniac

01-14-2008, 09:28 AM

Here's something else that I think is underappreciated about Brady -- his rapport with his teammates, and especially African-American teammates. It's not much talked about, but whenever they show the sidelines in the NFL, white players seem to be be sitting and talking with white players, and black players seem to be sitting and talking with black players. In a world where quarterbacks are more likely to be white, and receivers are more likely to be black, the ability to build rapport across the color line seems to be crucial. Brady seems to me to be better at that than most.

Now, mind you, I'm just judging by what I see on the sidelines, looking at the interactions between Brady and his teammates. But I've seen it often enough to be struck by it. Just don't ask me for a cite.

Great Dave

01-14-2008, 09:45 AM

Well, with only 13 teams in the 50s, it was easier for Graham to get to the championship game. But 10 times in a row, winning 7, is pretty impressive. And the three MVPs. But, as a kid growing up in the bay area in the 80s, I have to go with Montana, closely followed by Young. If Joe had retired in 85 with the bad back, he'd still be a HOFer, or close to it, but Young would've had four more full seasons, and likely would be the consensus GOAT.

Quercus

01-14-2008, 09:48 AM

One thing I've noticed about Brady (and, in turn, the team in general), is that he rarely appears to be desperate. You seldom see him running around in the pocket, trying to make some kind of Doug Flutie "Hail Mary" miracle play. Along with other great QBs, I get the sense that Tom has the whole thing under control.
I actually think there's some truth in that. Not in any kind of indefinable 'leadership' way, but just in his technical ability to avoid the rush while also staying focused downfield. In my not very expert opinion, there is nobody better at simultaneously seeing receivers and coverage, and knowing where the pass rushers are and exactly the minimum amount he has to move to avoid them. He certainly doesn't have the improvisational ability of Elway, Farve or Montana, is only average NFL-level for throwing ability, and is probably the inferior of Peyton and others for reading defenses. But I think he has the ability to make his O-line look much better, and he doesn't make many mental errors under pressure.

This may seem boring, but it does help a lot for winning games. And is a perfect match for Belichek's style. Could Brady have won Superbowl's with Elway's teams? Maybe not. But I'm not sure Elway would have had as much success with Brady's teams either. And I bet Brady could have won with Montana's teams.

storyteller0910

01-14-2008, 10:09 AM

I won't be convinced unless he puts up HOF-type numbers on a non-Belichick, non-playoff team.

With all due respect, this makes absolutely no sense. So in order to be a top flight quarterback, he has to play on a bad team? Hypothetically, if he's the best quarterback ever, he'll keep his teams in playoff contention on his own merits. Frankly, all this stuff about how Brady has good players around him and a good coach, and therefore can't be considered really great, is ridiculous.

Joe Montana threw to the best wide receiver who has ever played. His second WR was first Dwight Clark and then John Taylor, both of whom were at least as good as Willie Welker, and his tight end (mostly Brent Jones) was a much more dangerous downfield receiver than Ben Watson. Montana's halfback was one of the great under-rated multipurpose backs who ever played, and certainly a better player than any running back Brady has had so far. His fullback was (with Moose Johnston) one of the guys who changed public perception of the fullback position; he was a dangerous receiver and as good a run blocker as most offensive lineman. And Montana played for most of his career behind an offensive line that was good, athletic, and mean - guys like Bubba Paris, Guy McIntyre, and Randy Cross. And where Brady's coach is of course brilliant but is primarily known for defensive acumen, Montana's coach for the bulk of his career was the guy who invented modern offensive football.

Terry Bradshaw played with three Hall of Fame offensive skill position players (Swann, Stallworth, Harris), behind an excellent offensive line, and with a defensive routinely mentioned among the best there ever was. His coach was Chuck Noll.

Johnny Unitas was throwing for most of his career to Ray Berry and John Mackey. His offensive line included Jim Parker, who a couple of people will tell you was the greatest offensive lineman ever. His coaches were Weeb Ewbank and Don Shula.

Those three guys are most commonly mentioned as "the greatest ever." All three had coaches just as good as Belichek (and certainly Walsh was more of an asset to a quarterback than Belichek is). And all three actually had far more offensive talent at their disposal than Brady has now (this was certainly the case before this year, but I'd say it's pretty clearly the case even now. Matt Light is a good football player, but he's not Jim Parker. Ben Watson is a good football player, but he's not John Mackey. And Randy Moss is a tremendous weapon, but he's not Jerry Fucking Rice).

Thing is - Brady's really, really good. It's not the weapons; it's him. In the Jags game this week, there was a play where the Jaguars coverage was just brilliant. Every receiver was covered, and well. Ben Watson ran a pattern into the endzone; feinted toward the sideline, then turned back toward midfield. The defensive back barely bought the feint at all; he turned with Watson. Because Watson knew he'd be cutting back and his defender did not, Watson had an head start of maybe one half of one second. But that's all that was needed, because Brady had anticipated the break and put the ball on a rope. Watson turned around and the ball was in his hands. There aren't ten quarterbacks in football who could have made that throw, just physically; there aren't five who would have, given the circumstances involved. And there aren't any who can and do make three or four similarly perfect throws, without mistakes, in every game.

--------

By the way - if your idea of entertaining football viewing does not include a pass like the one I described above, I don't understand you one bit.

Gangster Octopus

01-14-2008, 10:32 AM

What if Favre wins the Super Bowl?

Ají de Gallina

01-14-2008, 10:37 AM

I'd say that Brady is a bit like Larry Bird...he makes it look so simple.
and if he doesn´t have that many super-comebacks, maybe it's because he's already winning.
Let's remember that his first SB was after taking over for Bledsoe with a less-than-impressive team. He never had Aikamn's Cowboys (Irvin, Smith, Johnson, Novacek and a kickass defense)

Ellis Dee

01-14-2008, 12:30 PM

Of course, that begs the question of whether the defensive stats hold water, which IMHO they do not. The overall D stats are based only on gross yards allowed, which is nice but is only a piece of the puzzle. Rushing defense ought to be measured by yards per play, and passing defense ought to be the measured by the QB rating system, but that's just IMHO.I don't have the "passer rating against" stats, but in 2001 the Pats were 21st in the league in "average yards per rush allowed."

I agree wholeheartedly with everything Diogenes and storyteller said. Some of you are crazy with the justifications. "No signature 4th and 14 plays"? Really? You have to stink up the joint on the first three downs in order to qualify for greatest ever?

And as for memorable signature plays, how about his first down completion he threw while actually sitting on his ass on the ground?

You can't point to his sack numbers and claim that means his OL is great. Sacks are at very least equally the QBs responsibility. Look at the 2004 Giants, where Kurt Warner let up 6 sacks a game for three games in a row, leading to his benching. Eli the rookie comes in and starts against the best defenses in the league and lets up 2 sacks a game from the get-go. What happened to make the OL all-of-a-sudden so much better? Obviously nothing; the dramatic reduction in sacks was attributable to the QB, not the OL.

Note that most (if not all) of Elway's and Favre's signature moments came in seasons where they came up short in the playoffs. At least Montana's signature moments contributed to winning Lombardi trophies.

As for Favre, nobody who holds the NFL record for most career interceptions belongs anywhere near the GOAT conversation.

Personally, I think at this point that Brady is clearly the GOAT. Any justification employed to diminish his numbers can also be directed at Peyton Manning. (Has great weapons around him and a great OL.) And when he didn't have the offensive weapons, great OL or shutdown defense? He just won Superbowls. And this in the age of parity and 31 opponents.

When it comes to "fun to watch", I find Brady more fun to watch than any QB I have ever seen. You talk about how much time he has in the pocket, but this is a relatively new development. Duing his Superbowl years there was tons of pressure on him, but his pocket presence is preternatural. The way he glides in the pocket and senses pressure is on a whole other level than any other QB I've seen. And unlike somebody like Peyton's choppy and frenetic pocket motion, Brady is smooth as butter when he does it.

I can't fathom a legitimate argument against.

Enginerd

01-14-2008, 12:35 PM

What if Favre wins the Super Bowl?
If Favre wins the Super Bowl this year, he'll have almost as many NFL championships in sixteen seasons (as a starter) as Brady has in seven.

He's a great QB, sure. Hall of Famer, absolutely. First ballot, even. And he looks like a big kid out on the field, throwing snowballs and joking with everybody from the officials to Michael Strahan. He's the big brother that everybody's always wanted. But he doesn't belong in the "best QB of all time" discussion.

Gangster Octopus

01-14-2008, 12:45 PM

If Favre wins the Super Bowl this year, he'll have almost as many NFL championships in sixteen seasons (as a starter) as Brady has in seven.

He's a great QB, sure. Hall of Famer, absolutely. First ballot, even. And he looks like a big kid out on the field, throwing snowballs and joking with everybody from the officials to Michael Strahan. He's the big brother that everybody's always wanted. But he doesn't belong in the "best QB of all time" discussion.

So if he wins the SB, the guy who has two Super Bowl victories, another SB appearance, three MVP awards, every passing record in the book and a durability record unequaled for QBs does not belong in the "best QB of all time" discussion. Not saying he is, but c'mon, he is in the discussion.

Trunk

01-14-2008, 02:31 PM

All this "he's on a good team" stuff is stupid. QBs are known as good, because they make their teams good. There aren't great QBs who played on bad teams, almost as a tautology.

Anyway, "best ever" is somewhat nebulous. Stats, wins, playoffs, pressure?

You give me the option of having any QB who ever played the game as my Superbowl QB, and I pick Tom Brady. Maybe Montana.

You give me the option of any QB ever on my fantasy team, Marino or Manning.

You give me the option of any QB ever when I need to convert a 4th & 20 to get into field goal range. . .maybe Favre.

Any QB to just have on my team for a regular football season. . ..to put together wins and give me a chance of going deep into the playoffs. . .Brady.

zamboniracer

01-14-2008, 03:35 PM

All this "he's on a good team" stuff is stupid. QBs are known as good, because they make their teams good. There aren't great QBs who played on bad teams, almost as a tautology.

Wrong. Great QBs with no blocking have no chance to succeed. Consider Jim Plunkett who was a bum for the Patriots but a two time SB champ/HOF hero for the Raiders. The difference: good blockers and good receivers played for the Raiders but not for the Pats.

ShadowFacts

01-14-2008, 04:41 PM

I think he's great, but he tends to avoid do-or-die situations. Credit him and Belichick for that, and maybe that's a better indication of his greatness than anything. But in the emotional question of GOAT, it probably hurts him.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brady) , he is 7-0 in overtime games, 30-5 in games decided by 3 points or less, and has 28 game-winning drives after a Patriots' fourth-quarter tie or deficit. To me, those numbers say that he's absolutely clutch in do-or-die situations. Maybe he makes it look too easy for you? How does he avoid do-or-die anyway, by playing too perfectly early in the games?

In the irony of ironies the fact that his 3 Super Bowls were all close games is probably a fair argument against him too.

Maybe this is what you meant by "irony," but doesn't this statement contradict your statement above? You should probably pick one and go with it.

Omniscient

01-14-2008, 06:43 PM

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brady) , he is 7-0 in overtime games, 30-5 in games decided by 3 points or less, and has 28 game-winning drives after a Patriots' fourth-quarter tie or deficit. To me, those numbers say that he's absolutely clutch in do-or-die situations. Maybe he makes it look too easy for you? How does he avoid do-or-die anyway, by playing too perfectly early in the games?

Maybe this is what you meant by "irony," but doesn't this statement contradict your statement above? You should probably pick one and go with it.

Yup, I am admitting to a contradiction. I'm actually playing Devil's advocate.

You could make a decent case that Aikman's Super Bowl blowouts are a more impressive feat than Brady's 3 close Super Bowl wins. You could also make the case that Elway's "The Drive" and "The Drive II" were singular moments that place him a step ahead Brady's similar performances. It's not for me to say that either criteria is more valid than the other.

I still say that if I were starting an expansion team and had to draft a QB from history to anchor my franchise, I'm taking Elway. Not all statistics would back this up, but it's just my subjective opinion from watching just about every great game from a QB from about 1983 onward.

Ellis Dee

01-14-2008, 09:32 PM

I still say that if I were starting an expansion team and had to draft a QB from history to anchor my franchise, I'm taking Elway. Not all statistics would back this up, but it's just my subjective opinion from watching just about every great game from a QB from about 1983 onward.And 13 short years later you'll get your first Lombardi trophy.

I'll take Brady and win it in one (http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=566). Brady enters 2007 with a record of 82-26 (.759) in regular-season and playoff games. It is the best record of any NFL quarterback in the Super Bowl Era (since 1966) with at least 40 starts.
Brady enters 2007 with a 12-2 (.857) playoff record, the second best in NFL history behind Bart Starr (9-1, .900).
Brady is the only quarterback in NFL history to start and win three Super Bowls before his 28th birthday, having quarterbacked the Patriots to victories in Super Bowl XXXVI when he was 24 years old, Super Bowl XXXVIII (26) and Super Bowl XXXIX (27).
Brady enters 2007 with a 26-5 record in games where the final margin was less than a touchdown, including a 6-1 playoff record and a 3-0 Super Bowl record in such games.
Brady enters the 2007 season having started 108 consecutive regular-season and playoff games for the Patriots, good for the third-longest streak among active NFL quarterbacks (trailing only Brett Favre and Peyton Manning).
Brady enters 2007 as the NFL's all-time leader in overtime wins without a defeat, recording a perfect 7-0 mark in overtime in his career.
Brady has orchestrated 24 game-winning drives to break a tie or take the lead in the fourth quarter or overtime. Six of his game-winning efforts have come in the postseason, where he has played in 14 games.
Brady has led a game-winning drive to break a tie or take the lead in the fourth quarter of each of the Patriots' three Super Bowl victories, becoming the only quarterback in NFL history to lead three such gamewinning drives in the Super Bowl.
Brady tied an NFL record in 2005 by distributing his 26 touchdown passes to 12 different players.
Brady won his first 10 playoff games, setting an NFL record for the most consecutive playoff wins.
Brady (24 years, 184 days old) was voted MVP of Super Bowl XXXVI and was the third-youngest player to earn the honor (Marcus Allen, 23 years and 301 days at Super Bowl XVIII and Lynn Swann, 23 years, 316 days at Super Bowl X).
Brady threw for 53 yards on the Patriots' game-winning drive in Super Bowl XXXVI, completing five of his eight passes. Two of his pass attempts were spiked to kill the game clock. With just 1:21 remaining, he moved the Patriots into field goal position without the benefit of timeouts.
Brady completed over 70 percent of his passes in four consecutive games during the 2001 season and joined an exclusive club of quarterbacks who accomplished the feat. He joined Joe Montana (8 games, 1989), Troy Aikman (4, 1995), Steve Young (4, 1993) and Sammy Baugh (4, 1945).
Brady completed the first 162 passes of his career without an interception. It was the longest streak to start a career in NFL history.

Snarky_Kong

01-14-2008, 10:26 PM

And 13 short years later you'll get your first Lombardi trophy.

Because if you were having an all-time draft you'd end up with the same teams that Brady and Elway played on and playing against the same competition?

Great Dave

01-14-2008, 11:01 PM

Well, Ellis Dee has done a good job at overwhelming me with facts, but I still like Montana. I guess, being about the same age as Tom, I'm more jealous and less reverent.

Enginerd

01-14-2008, 11:16 PM

You could make a decent case that Aikman's Super Bowl blowouts are a more impressive feat than Brady's 3 close Super Bowl wins. You could also make the case that Elway's "The Drive" and "The Drive II" were singular moments that place him a step ahead Brady's similar performances. It's not for me to say that either criteria is more valid than the other.
Could you make the case that Elway's 3 Super Bowl losses in his first five years are more impressive than Brady's three Super Bowl wins?

Elway's stats aren't even close to the same league as Brady's, Mannings, or even Favre's. Elway's career completion percentage was less than 57%. He threw 300 TDs and 226 picks. His career passer rating is below 80... he had 6.1 yards/attempt... Each of those stats individually might not mean a whole lot. But when you look at them all together and they're all below par for the "best QB" question, it might mean something.

You remember Elway throwing rockets, but it's more important for a QB to throw completions than bullets - Elway's completion percentage isn't that good. You remember The Drive as a defining moment for Elway, but he went on to lose the Super Bowl that year (he went 14/38 with 1 TD and 3 INTs). I watched Elway play for years too, but we must have been seeing two different things. He was exciting to watch, fun to watch, and often nerve-racking... but there are a number of guys I'd take ahead of him for an all-time team.

Trunk

01-15-2008, 09:15 AM

Wrong. Great QBs with no blocking have no chance to succeed. Consider Jim Plunkett who was a bum for the Patriots but a two time SB champ/HOF hero for the Raiders. The difference: good blockers and good receivers played for the Raiders but not for the Pats.
Oh, you mean the difference is that Plunkett played on good teams, and that's why he's considered a good QB?

I guess I'm wrong.

If Plunkett had played his entire career on that Patriots team, no one would ever think today that Plunkett was a good quarterback.

I'm saying that people try to take down Brady because "he plays on a good team". There's no QB you wouldn't say that about.

If Brady went to the Dolphins next year, he wouldn't throw 50 touchdowns, but neither would Marino, Manning, Montana or anyone in the history of football. They've all done it on good teams. It goes hand-in-hand.

If you want to use the "good team" line to take Brady down a notch, then you need to similarly take every other "good QB" in history down the same notch (like your Plunkett example) and it all comes out in the wash.

Ellis Dee

01-15-2008, 09:45 AM

As to signature moments, how about driving his team to that game winning field goal with less than 30 seconds to go his first Superbowl against the heavily favored Rams?That was fine, but he was 16 of 27 for 145 yards and one touchdown in that game.Are you seriously arguing that signature moments don't count if your stats aren't good in the game? I don't think that's a road you want to go down, especially if you want to mount a case for Elway.

An Arky

01-15-2008, 10:09 AM

With all due respect, this makes absolutely no sense. So in order to be a top flight quarterback, he has to play on a bad team? Hypothetically, if he's the best quarterback ever, he'll keep his teams in playoff contention on his own merits. Frankly, all this stuff about how Brady has good players around him and a good coach, and therefore can't be considered really great, is ridiculous.

Joe Montana threw to the best wide receiver who has ever played. His second WR was first Dwight Clark and then John Taylor, both of whom were at least as good as Willie Welker, and his tight end (mostly Brent Jones) was a much more dangerous downfield receiver than Ben Watson. Montana's halfback was one of the great under-rated multipurpose backs who ever played, and certainly a better player than any running back Brady has had so far. His fullback was (with Moose Johnston) one of the guys who changed public perception of the fullback position; he was a dangerous receiver and as good a run blocker as most offensive lineman. And Montana played for most of his career behind an offensive line that was good, athletic, and mean - guys like Bubba Paris, Guy McIntyre, and Randy Cross. And where Brady's coach is of course brilliant but is primarily known for defensive acumen, Montana's coach for the bulk of his career was the guy who invented modern offensive football.

Terry Bradshaw played with three Hall of Fame offensive skill position players (Swann, Stallworth, Harris), behind an excellent offensive line, and with a defensive routinely mentioned among the best there ever was. His coach was Chuck Noll.

Johnny Unitas was throwing for most of his career to Ray Berry and John Mackey. His offensive line included Jim Parker, who a couple of people will tell you was the greatest offensive lineman ever. His coaches were Weeb Ewbank and Don Shula.

Those three guys are most commonly mentioned as "the greatest ever." All three had coaches just as good as Belichek (and certainly Walsh was more of an asset to a quarterback than Belichek is). And all three actually had far more offensive talent at their disposal than Brady has now (this was certainly the case before this year, but I'd say it's pretty clearly the case even now. Matt Light is a good football player, but he's not Jim Parker. Ben Watson is a good football player, but he's not John Mackey. And Randy Moss is a tremendous weapon, but he's not Jerry Fucking Rice).

Thing is - Brady's really, really good. It's not the weapons; it's him. In the Jags game this week, there was a play where the Jaguars coverage was just brilliant. Every receiver was covered, and well. Ben Watson ran a pattern into the endzone; feinted toward the sideline, then turned back toward midfield. The defensive back barely bought the feint at all; he turned with Watson. Because Watson knew he'd be cutting back and his defender did not, Watson had an head start of maybe one half of one second. But that's all that was needed, because Brady had anticipated the break and put the ball on a rope. Watson turned around and the ball was in his hands. There aren't ten quarterbacks in football who could have made that throw, just physically; there aren't five who would have, given the circumstances involved. And there aren't any who can and do make three or four similarly perfect throws, without mistakes, in every game.

--------

By the way - if your idea of entertaining football viewing does not include a pass like the one I described above, I don't understand you one bit.

Geez, nice speech; overreact much? You could've saved a few paragraphs had you avoided the strawman you built regarding the false dilemma/inaccurate characterization of a QB having to be on a shitty team to pass my HOF muster.

All I'm saying that it's more difficult to ascertain the extent of Brady's greatness when he's locked in a precision system like NE's. I feel the same way about Montana (and I was a big 49ers fan up until that York fucker). Let's see Brady do it without a net.

gonzomax

01-15-2008, 10:22 AM

Quarterbacks get too much credit and too much blame for their teams record. They also get too much money. A QB is important but an offense requires blocking ,pass protection and ends that do not drop your passes. Brady was 26 completions in 28 attempts. That is hard even to do in practice. He was very accurate.
It can be argued that his wide receiver corps was not top drawer the last few years. Yet they were still successful. Now they improved the ends and blew out a bunch of teams this year.
Management should get some credit. It is difficult to hold a team together nowadays. Yet they did not provide a deep threat til this year.
I do not know why I am conflicted on Brady. He has done nothing but produce game after game.

Omniscient

01-15-2008, 05:49 PM

Are you seriously arguing that signature moments don't count if your stats aren't good in the game? I don't think that's a road you want to go down, especially if you want to mount a case for Elway.
I thought it was pretty clear that that's not my contention. If you read the paragraph in it's entirety you'll see that I was merely stating that that performance was not a especially memorable one. The kick tends to be the more talked about aspect, and while Brady was very good on that drive he wasn't other worldly and back then few people gave him a ton of credit for it, fairly or not.

Gangster Octopus

01-15-2008, 06:13 PM

I thought it was pretty clear that that's not my contention. If you read the paragraph in it's entirety you'll see that I was merely stating that that performance was not a especially memorable one. The kick tends to be the more talked about aspect, and while Brady was very good on that drive he wasn't other worldly and back then few people gave him a ton of credit for it, fairly or not.

Interesting, considering he won the MVP award for that Super Bowl.

ShadowFacts

01-15-2008, 07:26 PM

Interesting, considering he won the MVP award for that Super Bowl.

>snerk<

Omniscient

01-15-2008, 07:30 PM

Interesting, considering he won the MVP award for that Super Bowl.
So did Richard Dent in XX. Brady won that award by default, there was no one player who stood out above the rest so they gave it to the winning QB by default. Not that he didn't deserve it, just that few people people will be telling their Grandkids about that great Brady Drive.

Ellis Dee

01-15-2008, 07:48 PM

So did Richard Dent in XX. Brady won that award by default, there was no one player who stood out above the rest so they gave it to the winning QB by default. Not that he didn't deserve it, just that few people people will be telling their Grandkids about that great Brady Drive.I'm starting to get what you're saying.

In a nutshell, Tom Brady is too good to be included in the GOAT conversation, because IYO it's a purely emotional designation, and in order to qualify you have to put yourself in far more bad situations (that you subsequently claw your way out of through pure grit) than someone as good as Tom Brady will ever find himself in. Am I close? Brady's too good to be considered for GOAT? I can even almost agree with you based on that logic.

Based on that logic, someone like Elway or Favre or Bernie Kosar is the GOAT. Guys like Marino, Peyton and Brady don't even get in the discussion. They're in the best of all time discussion, not the greatest.

Brady is without a doubt the BOAT.

Diogenes the Cynic

01-15-2008, 08:35 PM

I remember the drive, not the kick. I remember one play in particular. It wasn't even a very big play. It was early in the drive -- the first or second play -- when Brady got pressured, sstepped up in the pocket, scrambled a bit and got off a pass for a short gain. What was significant about it wasn't the gain (which was only like 7 yards), but the way he scrambled and kept the play alive and made something out of nothing. He let it be known at that momenet that he wasn't just going to run out the clock and hope to get the ball in OT. You could see his team respond to him and you still can.

Brady is not as outwardly emotional as Favre is (he's not robotic, though), but I think his will to win is palpable. He doesn't mail anything in and his unflappability pretty obviously (to me) inspires a lot of confidence in his teammates. You can just tell they think they're invincible when he's in the game, no matter waht the score is.

Omniscient

01-15-2008, 08:45 PM

In a nutshell, Tom Brady is too good to be included in the GOAT conversation, because IYO it's a purely emotional designation, and in order to qualify you have to put yourself in far more bad situations (that you subsequently claw your way out of through pure grit) than someone as good as Tom Brady will ever find himself in. Am I close? Brady's too good to be considered for GOAT? I can even almost agree with you based on that logic.

I'll overlook the patronizing tone and try and sum it up for you. Brady is great, he's in the conversation for GOAT without question, but I'm not ready to give it to him yet. He's had 1 elite, historic season, this one. The rest of his season's numbers are very good, but he's usually in the top 6-10 in any given year. Manning is in the top 3 is basically every season. When compared against his peers Elway was essentially in the same 6-10 every season if you exclude his first few, which were as bad as you'd expect a #1 overall draft pick's team's to be. Comparing numbers across the generations is a dicey proposition since 16 or the top 20 career passer ratings (and 10 of the top 20 yards per attempt) are players currently active including stalwarts like Pennington and Rivers. Let's not get over involved in statistics is all I'm saying. That's where the "emotional" aspect comes in, you've just got to trust your eyes on some of this stuff.

Brady has been in one exceptionally good system his entire career with one coach. To date we really haven't seen him face adversity. A big part of that is because he's good enough to avoid adversity, but let's not pretend he's the only factor there. It will be interesting to see how he performs over the balance of his career once he's playing with his equivalent of George Seifert or Barry Switzer.

The GOAT is going to have it all. Longevity, great overall statistics, great individual seasons, MVPs and other accolades, reverence from his peers, a great winning percentage, Super Bowl wins, memorable signature moments and success under a variety of circumstances. Brady already has several of those covered, but not all. I'm not saying that "The Drive" makes Elway better than Brady, but I'm saying it's something he has that Brady doesn't yet.

I feel like this is the same conversation we were having about Kobe Bryant in 2003. His numbers in the short term were as impressive or more impressive than Jordan. Lots of people were ready to give him the title of GOAT. Everyone highlighted those early years where Jordan couldn't do it on his own, but they tended overlook or forget just how incredible it was to watch Jordan dominate. Things the stats didn't always bear out. Now look where we are, that conversation is pretty much dead and buried....for now.

I feel like Belichick is Brady's Shaq. We all want to know what will happen when that incredibly successful tandem is broken, and it's probably unreasonable to come to conclusions on either person until it happens.

ETA:

Brady is not as outwardly emotional as Favre is (he's not robotic, though), but I think his will to win is palpable. He doesn't mail anything in and his unflappability pretty obviously (to me) inspires a lot of confidence in his teammates. You can just tell they think they're invincible when he's in the game, no matter waht the score is.

I 100% agree with this statement. FTR.

Ellis Dee

01-15-2008, 09:35 PM

I'm not saying that "The Drive" makes Elway better than Brady, but I'm saying it's something he has that Brady doesn't yet.The problem I have with guys like Elway, Marino, and Peyton is that they laid some huge, stinkin' turds in the playoffs. Even worse in Elway's case is it seemed like he saved them up for the Superbowls. It wasn't until he was well past his prime and a mediocre QB that he managed to squeeze out a couple trophies on the back of a strong running game. (And his stats sucked pretty badly in the win over the Packers.)

Guys like Brady and Montana have no blemishes. Brady's offensive system requires much more impressive performances than Montana's (think Chad Pennington) ever did, so while their successes are similar, Brady is clearly more impressive doing it.

Here's how I would rate the GOAT candidates: Winners
/ \
/ \
Chuckers \
PassersIn the winners bracket, I'd put Brady 1 and Montana 2. In the Chuckers bracket, Elway 1 and Favre 2. In the passers bracket, Peyton 1 and Marino 2.

I'd rate every winner ahead of every chucker, and in turn every chucker ahead of every passer. This year Brady has shown that not only is he a winner, but he has the skills of the passers. You talk about how Brady doesn't have the chucker resume, which I'll concede. But Elway doesn't have a single season of elite passing numbers, plus all the playoff stinkers to boot.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the greatest passer of all time put up the following numbers in a Superbowl:

10 of 26 (38.5%) for 108 yards, 0 TDs 2 Ints; Passer Rating: 19.4

That pretty much erases at least two or three signature moments, doesn't it?

Trunk

01-16-2008, 09:43 AM

I remember the drive, not the kick.
Same here.

I distinctly remember Jon Madden saying that the Pats should sit on it, and take their chances in overtime. It's one of the most memorable drives in Superbowl history. . .the kid, known only at the time as a sixth round draft pick who was filling in at mid-season for Bledsoe, led a 14 point underdog down the field to win the Superbowl.

Thing is - Brady's really, really good. It's not the weapons; it's him. In the Jags game this week, there was a play where the Jaguars coverage was just brilliant. Every receiver was covered, and well. Ben Watson ran a pattern into the endzone; feinted toward the sideline, then turned back toward midfield. The defensive back barely bought the feint at all; he turned with Watson. Because Watson knew he'd be cutting back and his defender did not, Watson had an head start of maybe one half of one second. But that's all that was needed, because Brady had anticipated the break and put the ball on a rope. Watson turned around and the ball was in his hands. There aren't ten quarterbacks in football who could have made that throw, just physically; there aren't five who would have, given the circumstances involved. And there aren't any who can and do make three or four similarly perfect throws, without mistakes, in every game.
Clearly, no one can ever aay again that "Brady is underrated" which used to be true.

However, while he gets tons of credit for his poise, his brains, his accuracy. . .it's possible that his arm strength is underrated.

That ball was a fucking laser beam. As opposed to Elway, he knows that he doesn't have to gun it every single time.

bouv

01-16-2008, 01:54 PM

You know, I've always said that Tom Brady's not too bad for a back-up QB. :p

Qwertyasdfg

01-16-2008, 05:16 PM

I think if we're looking at the off-the-field "emotional" aspects, Tom Brady still has to be in the running. The fact that he was a no-name backup that came out of nowhere to achieve greatness is one of the best stories in NFL history I'd say. Kids 30 years from now will be getting pep talks based on that. Add to that the way he's conducted himself with class, and showed real loyalty to the Patriots (ie he's not a TO or a Kobe), and restructured his contract to help the team.

Omniscient

01-16-2008, 06:28 PM

storyteller0910

01-16-2008, 07:06 PM

That and the banging Supermodels.

Which only makes him all the more awesome.

Omniscient

01-16-2008, 07:15 PM

Which only makes him all the more awesome.
Full agreement. He probably has Bundchen sister orgies.

HoboStew

01-16-2008, 07:47 PM

Brady never looks desperate because most of the time he's got all day to throw. The Pats' offensive line is great.This is the crux of it. Brady is an above average QB with a phenomenal offensive line. Just watch the games, he has all day to throw and when he releases, there isn't anyone within 5 yards of him. There are a dozen quarterbacks in the league who would do as well as Brady if they were manning the pats offense.

Telemark

01-16-2008, 11:01 PM

There are a dozen quarterbacks in the league who would do as well as Brady if they were manning the pats offense.
Certainly the Pat's O-line and offensive weapons are excellent, but you severely underestimate how important Brady is to the whole package.

SenorBeef

01-17-2008, 07:28 AM

I don't know how to say this without sounding condescending, but I don't mean to.

Totally casual, ignorant football fans tend to ignore line play completely. It's all about the stars to them.

So when people start becoming more knowledgable football fans, they reach a stage where they realize the importance of line play. But in an effort to seperate themselves from the casual idiots, they overdo it. (I went through this stage myself to some degree). They play up the extreme importance of line play, and talk down the play of "skill" players (a term I hate, by the way). And since they feel that line play dwarfs everything else in comparison, the other players are relatively interchangable. Put another QB in on a team with a great line, and he'll do just as well. Or the other side of the coin - it's fine if a certain QB is terrible if he's playing behind a bad line, because it's the line's fault.

It works both ways, of course. Bad line play will drag down an offense. But bad QB/RB play will make a line look worse than it is.

Part of the reason Brady enjoys so much time is that teams are generally unwilling to blitz them - on account of Brady's ability to make quick, correct decisions and burn them for it. In turn, that makes the line play easier, and so they become even more productive. In turn, that production makes Brady even better. It's a synergystic effect that can be credited to both the line and the quarterback. Put, say, Charlie Frye behind the Pats O-line and suddenly that offense comes to a screeching halt with a sack every 8 or 9 plays despite the skilled O-line.

Sal Ammoniac

01-17-2008, 09:17 AM

...and talk down the play of "skill" players (a term I hate, by the way).
Total hijack, but I agree with you 100% on this. (Oh, and I agree with the rest of your post, too.)

ShadowFacts

01-17-2008, 09:36 AM

brickbacon

01-17-2008, 10:59 PM

I agree with everything you say here. The Pats offensive line is getting a LOT of credit this year, including several pro bowl berths, but this is really the first year that that is the case since Brady took over. They've been toiling in relative anonymity for years (except maybe LT Matt Light).

Which is a shame because they have done a great job almost every year. Bottom line, Tom Brady is great, but not the best ever (or even close at this point). When all is said and done, I think Peyton will be considered a better overall QB.

Ellis Dee

01-17-2008, 11:13 PM

Which is a shame because they have done a great job almost every year. Bottom line, Tom Brady is great, but not the best ever (or even close at this point). When all is said and done, I think Peyton will be considered a better overall QB.Peyton's OL has been at least as good as Brady's, if not better. And Peyton consistently perfoms significantly worse in the playoffs. Most (if not all) of his signature moments involve him walking off the field after an interception.

Brady doesn't play better in the playoffs, but he does play close to his regular season level on the big stage.

aliquot

01-18-2008, 01:18 AM

I wish there were a stat along the lines of "Yards the ball traveled in the air before landing in a receiver's hands." Not "Yards Passing," because how much of that is a function of broken coverages, broken tackles, etc. I'd imagine Brady's numbers for my made up stat would be in Penningtonland, clearly not a pinnacle of greatness. Brady dinks and dunks, and it works for him. I guess Moss has expanded his game vertically somewhat, but still, the bulk of his success over the years is because he's really excellent at taking what's given. I'd say maybe you could award him Most Competent Ever, or perhaps Most Level-Headed Ever, but Greatest of All Time? Eh.

I don't think every quarterback could have gone 26-28 against the Jags. I bet Palmer could probably have done it, Manning would be 24-28 with a pick, from forcing a rocket inadvisedly. I'd also bet that any quarterback currently playing this side of Cleo Lemon could have gone at least 20-28 with the kind of protection Brady had and the kind of short, short shit he threw every time.

Plus, doesn't Brady just radiate "I'M A DOUCHE" with the brightness of a million suns? Or is that just my Michigan hatred shining through?

Ellis Dee

01-18-2008, 02:20 AM

I wish there were a stat along the lines of "Yards the ball traveled in the air before landing in a receiver's hands." Not "Yards Passing," because how much of that is a function of broken coverages, broken tackles, etc. I'd imagine Brady's numbers for my made up stat would be in Penningtonland, clearly not a pinnacle of greatness. Brady dinks and dunks, and it works for him. I guess Moss has expanded his game vertically somewhat, but still, the bulk of his success over the years is because he's really excellent at taking what's given. I'd say maybe you could award him Most Competent Ever, or perhaps Most Level-Headed Ever, but Greatest of All Time? Eh.The stat you're looking for is YAC. Sadly, it's not an official stat, so you're at the mercy of unofficial statisticians like FootballOutsiders or NFL Stats. The latter posted an analysis of this effect, but instead of yards after the catch they focused on yards travelled through the air, called Air Yards (http://www.bbnflstats.com/2007/08/introducing-air-yards.html).

In their 2006 Air Yards (http://www.bbnflstats.com/search?q=2006+air+yards) study, (scroll down to see the table,) Brady clocked in with a below-average 3.5 air yards per attempt. Tony Romo led the league with 5.5 air yards per attempt.

This year (http://www.bbnflstats.com/search?q=yac), Tom Brady is in a three-way tie for third overall with Peyton Manning and Tono Romo at 4.9 air yards per attempt, behind Roethlisberger (5.2) and Schaub (5.0).

I'd be interested in seeing his numbers for more than just this season and last.

aliquot

01-18-2008, 03:03 AM

I'd be interested in seeing his numbers for more than just this season and last.
Thanks for that. "Air yards." Nice.

I'd also like to see some historical air yards. I can't imagine how much this number has plummeted, as the game has gone from Warren Moon to David Carr.

SenorBeef

01-18-2008, 03:10 AM

storyteller0910

01-18-2008, 09:38 AM

There are a dozen quarterbacks in the league who would do as well as Brady if they were manning the pats offense.

Well, if this is your opinion, than can you explain why no one ever has?

I mean, certainly, Moss-Welker-Maroney-Watson-Light-Koppen is a pretty good set of tools with which to work.

But they are no better, and actually almost certainly not as good as, Rice-Taylor-Jones-Craig-Rathman-McIntyre-Paris.

They definitely fall short of Irvin-Novacek-Smith-Johnston-Allen-Stepnoski.

And Swann-Stallworth-Harris-Webster-Kolb.

Or Thomas-Reed-Lofton-Beebe-McKellar-Hull-Woolford-Ritcher-Ballard (note that four of five players on the Buffalo Bills' offensive line in the early-1990's were multiple-year All-Pros).

Or, for that matter, Harrison-Wayne-Clark-James-Glenn-Saturday.

And yet of Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, Jim Kelly, and Peyton Manning, not a single blessed one has ever put up a season like the one Brady is having right now. So if there are a dozen QBs in the league right now who could do what Brady's done, then why is there not a single QB who has done what Brady's done, including those who have worked with demonstrably superior talent at the other skill positions and along the line?

Ellis Dee

01-18-2008, 10:11 AM

YAC shouldn't necesarily be counted against the QB. Hitting the right receiver, and hitting him in stride, are critical skills. A lot of QBs hit the wrong guy, resulting in an instant tackle after a short pass, or make their guy slow up or dive for the ball, negating YAC. If Brady picks the right guy as a recipient of a short pass and it's made for a long gain, the receiver should get some credit but so should Brady.Check out the links I posted. Several of them discuss this very question, with a fair amount of statistical analysis backing up their assertions. Their conclusions disagree with yours.

I'm not saying I agree with them; historically I have held the same opinion as you. I have also historically resisted the conclusions drawn from statisical analysis, but the article does make you stop and think, at least.

ETA: I can't resist pointing out that NFL Stats specifically disagree with some FootballOutsiders conclusions, throwing the whole home-grown NFL analysis effort into question.

JohnnieEnigma

01-21-2008, 04:31 PM

Check out the links I posted. Several of them discuss this very question, with a fair amount of statistical analysis backing up their assertions. Their conclusions disagree with yours.

I'm not saying I agree with them; historically I have held the same opinion as you. I have also historically resisted the conclusions drawn from statisical analysis, but the article does make you stop and think, at least.

ETA: I can't resist pointing out that NFL Stats specifically disagree with some FootballOutsiders conclusions, throwing the whole home-grown NFL analysis effort into question.

maybe everyone should just read this guy's posts and leave it at that. There's just no rationalizing that Brady is not the best of all time. He clearly is, nothing more to discuss.

Ellis Dee

01-21-2008, 09:08 PM

Well he certainly didn't look like the best ever yesterday, and with any luck he'll look equally bad in two weeks.

Airman Doors, USAF

01-21-2008, 09:15 PM

And yet of Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, Jim Kelly, and Peyton Manning, not a single blessed one has ever put up a season like the one Brady is having right now. So if there are a dozen QBs in the league right now who could do what Brady's done, then why is there not a single QB who has done what Brady's done, including those who have worked with demonstrably superior talent at the other skill positions and along the line?

It's a perfect storm-type thing. Brady is the right quarterback on the right team at the right time. Right now, the Patriots are the best team. Next year, with essentially the same personnel, they may not be. Last year, with much the same personnel, they were not. So, what does that tell you?

Brady is very good, working toward great. He's likely a first-ballot Hall of Famer even if he never plays again. But it's a team game. The defense is just as responsible for the success as the offense.

JohnnieEnigma

01-21-2008, 09:33 PM

It's a perfect storm-type thing. Brady is the right quarterback on the right team at the right time. Right now, the Patriots are the best team. Next year, with essentially the same personnel, they may not be. Last year, with much the same personnel, they were not. So, what does that tell you?

Brady is very good, working toward great. He's likely a first-ballot Hall of Famer even if he never plays again. But it's a team game. The defense is just as responsible for the success as the offense.

Well so far they've been the team of my wildest dreams with all the right moves that have resulted in 18 - 0. I'm not worried about next year, I'd just like to see a perfect season this year. We're so close!

Diogenes the Cynic

01-21-2008, 10:17 PM

It's a perfect storm-type thing. Brady is the right quarterback on the right team at the right time. Right now, the Patriots are the best team. Next year, with essentially the same personnel, they may not be. Last year, with much the same personnel, they were not. So, what does that tell you?
Last year, they were a game away from the Superbowl and the personel was significantly weaker on offense. Welker and Moss are not just little role players, they boosted the Pats receiving corp from average to great. Brady has already won three rings with mediocre to poor receiving corps. "Perfect storm" my ass. It isn't like he just caught lightning in a bottle for a year. He's aready done it over and over again.

You're acting like he's Trent Dilfer or something. Methinks someone is still smarting from the ass-kicking the Pats delivered to the Steelers this year.

Airman Doors, USAF

01-21-2008, 10:28 PM

You're acting like he's Trent Dilfer or something. Methinks someone is still smarting from the ass-kicking the Pats delivered to the Steelers this year.

Not at all. The best team won, absolutely. But there are 22 starters for the Patriots, and they have all contributed. Brady couldn't throw without his line, and the Patriots couldn't win without their defense.

Bradshaw was nobody without his teammates.Without them he was just a dumb hick from Louisiana Tech. Same same with Brady. He couldn't even position himself as the regular starter for Michigan. But he fit in exceptionally well with Bellichick's system, and he has made himself into an outstanding player.

Is he the best ever? Not yet. Maybe someday. But he doesn't jump out at me the way, say, Barry Sanders did at running back. It's one thing to be so great that everybody knows it even as you're playing. It's another thing to accumulate recognition over your career. Brady is the latter.

Trunk

01-22-2008, 06:52 AM

Not at all. The best team won, absolutely. But there are 22 starters for the Patriots, and they have all contributed. Brady couldn't throw without his line, and the Patriots couldn't win without their defense.
ha ha ha ha ha.

Yeah, whatever would they do without their 8th ranked defense?

They could have given up about 20 more points in every game and still gone 14-2 during the regular season.

Couldn't win without their defense? What the fuck?

Bradshaw was nobody without his teammates.Without them he was just a dumb hick from Louisiana Tech. Same same with Brady. He couldn't even position himself as the regular starter for Michigan. But he fit in exceptionally well with Bellichick's system, and he has made himself into an outstanding player.
Bradshsaw was nobody WITH his teammates. A 1-1 career INT/TD ratio, and a what, 80.0 rating? Come on.

Yes, you've successfully identified a player from history who was able to win championships because of defense, and a good running game. Bully for you. What's that have to do with Brady?

Your post is what gets at the heart of all this Pats-hate from the Steelers fans. That 70's Steelers worship is now watered down. "Oh, you mean another team can do that? They weren't the end-all of football teams?"

It rips Steeler's fans apart. The Pats are doing it just as frequently, and they're doing it with more panache, and they're doing it with a season mixed in that was the greatest season ever put together by a professional football team. . .and the ONLY team that has a conceivable argument with that is the Bears.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-22-2008, 10:08 AM

I'm starting to get what you're saying.

In a nutshell, Tom Brady is too good to be included in the GOAT conversation, because IYO it's a purely emotional designation, and in order to qualify you have to put yourself in far more bad situations (that you subsequently claw your way out of through pure grit) than someone as good as Tom Brady will ever find himself in. Am I close? Brady's too good to be considered for GOAT? I can even almost agree with you based on that logic.

Based on that logic, someone like Elway or Favre or Bernie Kosar is the GOAT. Guys like Marino, Peyton and Brady don't even get in the discussion. They're in the best of all time discussion, not the greatest.

Brady is without a doubt the BOAT.

I'm willing to settle for you saying that Brady is in the top 5. I'd like to see a little more, but not much more.

Still, we run into the problem with comparing eras. Sammy Baugh or Johnny Unitas were great quarterbacks, but they're not even in the conversation.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-22-2008, 10:27 AM

Also, it pains me to see from many people that Brady has somehow transcended the contributions (or lack thereof) of his teammates.

His offensive line has been playing very well and together for multiple years, he's got speedy, smart receivers, a servicable running game, and a good defense when he's not on the field. Not only that, but he's been under the same coach the entire time and is familiar with the system and he's also a smart guy himself, which helps.

OneCentStamp

01-22-2008, 10:30 AM

Still, we run into the problem with comparing eras. Sammy Baugh or Johnny Unitas were great quarterbacks, but they're not even in the conversation. OTOH, Baugh is still arguably the greatest punter of any era. Pretty amazing.

storyteller0910

01-22-2008, 10:36 AM

Still, we run into the problem with comparing eras. Sammy Baugh or Johnny Unitas were great quarterbacks, but they're not even in the conversation.

Well, this is certainly true. There is an argument to be made that naming one player "the Greatest of All Time" is impossible to do with any kind of certainty, no matter what kind of numbers Brady (or a successor) might put up. I don't know how you make any kind of comparison between Brady and Sammy Baugh. Or Unitas. Or especially Otto Graham, who gets to be in the conversation . If you want to say that distinguishing among the greatest is impossible and ultimately pointless - I can get behind that.

EddyTeddyFreddy

01-22-2008, 10:53 AM

Perhaps the solution is to say the greatest of his era. Then you're comparing on a level playing field.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-22-2008, 11:03 AM

OTOH, Baugh is still arguably the greatest punter of any era. Pretty amazing.

Don't be talking bad about Ray Guy. John Madden will sit on you.

OneCentStamp

01-22-2008, 11:30 AM

Don't be talking bad about Ray Guy. John Madden will sit on you.Actually, it'll be Frank Caliendo. "BOOM!"

Ellis Dee

01-22-2008, 11:34 AM

Brady couldn't throw without his line, and the Patriots couldn't win without their defense. He won the Superbowl WITHOUT great receivers OR a great defense, and his OL wasn't particularly distinguished that year either considering they let Bledsoe get broken when he was running for his life against the Jets. (The 2001 Patriots had the 24th ranked defense. Remember them? That was when Brady led a game-winning Superbowl drive against the heavily-favored Rams.)His offensive line has been playing very well and together for multiple years, he's got speedy, smart receivers, a servicable running game, and a good defense when he's not on the field. Not only that, but he's been under the same coach the entire time and is familiar with the systemAgain, he had none of these things when he won his first Superbowl. If we are being generous, I suppose we could call the 2001 Patriots running game "servicable", but when you have the 13th ranked rushing offense despite having the 8th most number of attempts, I'd call it sub-par.I don't know how you make any kind of comparison between Brady and Sammy Baugh. Or Unitas. Or especially Otto Graham, who gets to be in the conversation . If you want to say that distinguishing among the greatest is impossible and ultimately pointless - I can get behind that.I can't, really. The passing game back in those days was quite primitive, so even though the disadvantage those guys have in this conversation is unfair, it's still a handicap. Today's passing game is far more sophisticated, and therefore today's passers are better out of necessity. As a quick example, previous era standards of quality were 55% completion and interceptions didn't really matter. In today's game those standards would get you benched.

The older guys did call their own plays, so they get a (major) bump for that, plus they didn't wear skirts hiding behind the ref's apron, but even with that they were still great passers in a primitive passing game.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-22-2008, 11:37 AM

He won the Superbowl WITHOUT great receivers OR a great defense, and his OL wasn't particularly distinguished that year either considering they let Bledsoe get broken when he was running for his life against the Jets. (The 2001 Patriots had the 24th ranked defense. Remember them? That was when Brady led a game-winning Superbowl drive against the heavily-favored Rams.)Again, he had none of these things when he won his first Superbowl. If we are being generous, I suppose we could call the 2001 Patriots running game "servicable", but when you have the 13th ranked rushing offense despite having the 8th most number of attempts, I'd call it sub-par.I can't, really. The passing game back in those days was quite primitive, so even though the disadvantage those guys have in this conversation is unfair, it's still a handicap. Today's passing game is far more sophisticated, and therefore today's passers are better out of necessity. As a quick example, previous era standards of quality were 55% completion and interceptions didn't really matter. In today's game those standards would get you benched.

The older guys did call their own plays, so they get a (major) bump for that, plus they didn't wear skirts hiding behind the ref's apron, but even with that they were still great passers in a primitive passing game.

Brady's first year doesn't count because he was running under the Ewing Theory. That's a statistical aberration that should be thrown out in any and all discourse on the topic.

Ellis Dee

01-22-2008, 12:52 PM

Brady's first year doesn't count because he was running under the Ewing Theory. That's a statistical aberration that should be thrown out in any and all discourse on the topic.That's only "true" if they were a one-year wonder. They backed it up twice in the next three years, and while they had a better defense, running game and more experienced OL, they still didn't have any real weapons for Brady to throw to.

It was during these same years that the Eagles also had a good defense, running game and OL, and they also had no receivers. Ask any Eagles fan why they didn't win any Superbowls and they'll immediately point to the lack of quality receivers. Didn't seem to stop Brady, though.

Again I would point out that Brady didn't look particularly good last week and I truly hope he makes me eat my words by stinking up the joint 11 days from now.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-22-2008, 01:07 PM

That's only "true" if they were a one-year wonder. They backed it up twice in the next three years, and while they had a better defense, running game and more experienced OL, they still didn't have any real weapons for Brady to throw to.

It was during these same years that the Eagles also had a good defense, running game and OL, and they also had no receivers. Ask any Eagles fan why they didn't win any Superbowls and they'll immediately point to the lack of quality receivers. Didn't seem to stop Brady, though.

Again I would point out that Brady didn't look particularly good last week and I truly hope he makes me eat my words by stinking up the joint 11 days from now.

Nah. That first year is under the iron-fisted dominion of the Ewing Theory. After that, it's all skill.

I hope the Patriots lose, and not because I dislike them. They're playing such good football right now that if someone were to beat them, it could very well be one of the best games I've ever seen. So I want to see that.

EddyTeddyFreddy

01-22-2008, 01:12 PM

I hope the Patriots lose, and not because I dislike them. They're playing such good football right now that if someone were to beat them, it could very well be one of the best games I've ever seen. So I want to see that.
Heh. Me, I'd rather see them almost lose in a hard-fought game but pull it out in a fourth-quarter thriller as they have in previous games this year. Now, that would be a great game.

storyteller0910

01-22-2008, 01:39 PM

I can't, really. The passing game back in those days was quite primitive, so even though the disadvantage those guys have in this conversation is unfair, it's still a handicap. Today's passing game is far more sophisticated, and therefore today's passers are better out of necessity. As a quick example, previous era standards of quality were 55% completion and interceptions didn't really matter. In today's game those standards would get you benched.

Well, OK - I'm playing Devil's Advocate here more than arguing my own position, because if you put a gun to my head and asked me, I'd say Brady's the greatest QB of all time. But still...

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that what constitutes a "great" quarterback is fixed and immutable. There's absolutely no question that Brady is a better passer than Otto Graham was. If you dropped Otto Graham, exactly as he was then, into Brady's spot on the Patriots, there's no way Graham would be as successful.

But the definition of a quarterback's role was so entirely different then. Calling your own plays. Far less elaborate passing games, and de-emphasized passing games. Getting hit way more often, and having to run more as a regular part of the offense. Drop Brady, exactly as he is now, onto the Cleveland Browns in 1951 and he'd be just as lost as Graham would be on the Patriots in 2007.

I think the greatness of a player is measured by judging how well that player performs in his role as it's defined in his era. Is Tom Brady as good at doing what's expected of a QB in 2007 as Otto Graham was at doing what was expected of a QB in 1951? I'm not sure there's a particularly definitive way to tell.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-22-2008, 01:59 PM

Heh. Me, I'd rather see them almost lose in a hard-fought game but pull it out in a fourth-quarter thriller as they have in previous games this year. Now, that would be a great game.

Well, it could be a great game. It'd now have to surpass that Ravens game, which was a pretty sweet-ass game if you ask me.

Ellis Dee

01-22-2008, 02:36 PM

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that what constitutes a "great" quarterback is fixed and immutable. There's absolutely no question that Brady is a better passer than Otto Graham was. If you dropped Otto Graham, exactly as he was then, into Brady's spot on the Patriots, there's no way Graham would be as successful. [...] Drop Brady, exactly as he is now, onto the Cleveland Browns in 1951 and he'd be just as lost as Graham would be on the Patriots in 2007.

I think the greatness of a player is measured by judging how well that player performs in his role as it's defined in his era. Is Tom Brady as good at doing what's expected of a QB in 2007 as Otto Graham was at doing what was expected of a QB in 1951? I'm not sure there's a particularly definitive way to tell.I disagree with the second paragraph, because that leaves the door open for a game-manager to be better than Dan Marino, which would be pretty silly. (If he was the bestest game manager ever! hehheh.)

As for the first part, I don't give "he would have..." arguments much weight. If I did, I'd have to put Ricky Williams into the greatest RB of all time conversation.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-22-2008, 04:12 PM

I disagree with the second paragraph, because that leaves the door open for a game-manager to be better than Dan Marino, which would be pretty silly. (If he was the bestest game manager ever! hehheh.)

As for the first part, I don't give "he would have..." arguments much weight. If I did, I'd have to put Ricky Williams into the greatest RB of all time conversation.

You misspelled "Bo Jackson".

OneCentStamp

01-22-2008, 04:23 PM

You misspelled "Bo Jackson".You mean the name that's pronounced "Gale Sayers?" :)

zamboniracer

01-22-2008, 04:49 PM

Of course, even the ball Otto Graham threw wasn't the same as the one Tom Brady throws: According to this 2001 Popular Mechanics article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/sports/1283226.html?page=2) :

In 1955, Wilson (Sporting Goods Co.) developed the TD football, which featured a new Tanned-in-Tack material, also known as Grip-Tite. This material has a tacky feel that makes the ball easier to grip, especially when wet.

Could beautiful Tom play without a face mask, as Graham did for most of his career? (An injury to Graham caused Paul Brown to invent the first crude facemask, in fact.) Could he throw the slicker ball they used back then as well as Graham could? I don't know, and nobody else does either.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-22-2008, 06:38 PM

You mean the name that's pronounced "Gale Sayers?" :)

No, that's "Christian Okoye".

Moriarty

01-22-2008, 08:37 PM

Brady's first year doesn't count because he was running under the Ewing Theory. That's a statistical aberration that should be thrown out in any and all discourse on the topic.

Please elaborate. What the fuck is the Ewing theory?

Omniscient

01-22-2008, 08:41 PM

Please elaborate. What the fuck is the Ewing theory?
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1193711
Simmons.

JohnT

01-22-2008, 08:48 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1193711

The theory was created in the mid-'90s by Dave Cirilli, a friend of mine who was convinced that Patrick Ewing's teams (both at Georgetown and with New York) inexplicably played better when Ewing was either injured or missing extended stretches because of foul trouble.

Curious to see if this phenomenon applied to other stars/teams, Dave noticed people were pencilling in the '94-'95 UConn Huskies for a .500 season because "superstar" Donyell Marshall had departed for the NBA. Dave knew better; a lifelong UConn fan, he thought the Huskies relied too much on Marshall the previous season and could survive without him. Like Ali predicting the first Liston knockout, Dave told friends the Huskies would thrive in Marshall's absence -- and that's exactly what happened. By midseason, UConn was ranked No. 1 in the country for the first time in school history; the Ewing Theory had been hatched.

Dave introduced me to the Ewing Theory three years ago, and we've been tinkering with it like Voltaire and Thoreau ever since. Eventually, we decided that two crucial elements needed to be in place for any situation to qualify for "Ewing" status:

A star athlete receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his teams never win anything substantial with him (other than maybe some early-round playoff series).

That same athlete leaves his team (either by injury, trade, graduation, free agency or retirement) -- and both the media and fans immediately write off the team for the following season.

When those elements collide, you have the Ewing Theory.

Darth Sensitive

01-22-2008, 08:59 PM

No, that's "Christian Okoye".

B-a-r-r-y

S-a-n-d-e-r-s

Evil Captor

01-22-2008, 09:00 PM

No, that's "Christian Okoye".

No, it's pronounced "Herschel Walker."

storyteller0910

01-22-2008, 09:02 PM

No, it's pronounced "Herschel Walker."

D - O - C

G - O - O - D - E - N

Least Original User Name Ever

01-22-2008, 09:19 PM

B-a-r-r-y

S-a-n-d-e-r-s

You take that back. It's not even true anyways. Last playoff game we got to was when Barry (Blessed Be His Hooves) was here.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-22-2008, 09:20 PM

D - O - C

G - O - O - D - E - N
I'm sorry...what'd you say about Roberto Clemente?

Ellis Dee

01-22-2008, 09:23 PM

B-a-r-r-y

S-a-n-d-e-r-sNo, Barry Sanders needs no "would have" in his argument for the greatest of all time. He's in the conversation purely based on the merits of his actual career.

Ellis Dee

01-22-2008, 09:24 PM

Please elaborate. What the fuck is the Ewing theory?It's a meaningless joke that has no validity whatsoever, but I thought I'd humor him.

Governor Quinn

01-22-2008, 09:33 PM

D - O - C

G - O - O - D - E - N

Now, now, even with his career developing the way it did, Vida Blue was a better pitcher than a teammate in the HOF.

Then again, when said teammate is Catfish Hunter, that's not saying much...

Darth Sensitive

01-22-2008, 10:10 PM

No, Barry Sanders needs no "would have" in his argument for the greatest of all time. He's in the conversation purely based on the merits of his actual career.

Right - but if he would have had a line, there would be no discussion. As it was, without one, he's in it!

Oslo Ostragoth

01-22-2008, 11:29 PM

No, it's pronounced "Herschel Walker."You misspelled "Walter Payton".

Ellis Dee

01-23-2008, 12:07 AM

You misspelled "Walter Payton".Are you guys even reading the thread? The "tossing out RB names" bit is for RBs that would have been in the GOAT conversation if only they hadn't flamed out for one reason or another. (Ricky Williams, Bo Jackson, etc...)

In other words, Sweetness is the very last name that should be included in that list, since he is, in fact, the GOAT.

Omniscient

01-23-2008, 01:08 AM

Are you guys even reading the thread? The "tossing out RB names" bit is for RBs that would have been in the GOAT conversation if only they hadn't flamed out for one reason or another. (Ricky Williams, Bo Jackson, etc...)

In other words, Sweetness is the very last name that should be included in that list, since he is, in fact, the GOAT.
Does Tecmo Bo count?

Least Original User Name Ever

01-23-2008, 08:00 AM

SenorBeef

01-23-2008, 08:43 AM

You misspelled "Barry Sanders".

That's a weird way of spelling "Jim Brown"

(I thought this one was pretty clear)

Least Original User Name Ever

01-23-2008, 09:13 AM

That's a weird way of spelling "Jim Brown"

(I thought this one was pretty clear)

Jim Brown is the only other person I'll accept for the best running back of all time. It pretty much boils down to what kind of running style you like more.

I've got nothing but love for Jim Brown.

Darth Sensitive

01-23-2008, 11:03 AM

Jim Brown is good and everything, but Barry went to Oklahoma State.

Therefore, the man from my school is the GOAT.

What do you mean that's not how it works? UT thinks VY is the second coming of Christ!

Omniscient

01-23-2008, 12:01 PM

You misspelled "Barry Sanders".
It's completely different thread, but Barry is horribly, horribly overrated as an NFL running back. No back that has that many negative plays can be considered the best ever, regardless of how many highlights he has. No back has created more 3rd and 13 situations, especially crippling when the running games primary purpose is to avoid that, especially in the Run and Shoot system he spent the bulk of his career playing.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-23-2008, 12:53 PM

It's completely different thread, but Barry is horribly, horribly overrated as an NFL running back. No back that has that many negative plays can be considered the best ever, regardless of how many highlights he has. No back has created more 3rd and 13 situations, especially crippling when the running games primary purpose is to avoid that, especially in the Run and Shoot system he spent the bulk of his career playing.

Horribly horribly overrated? What, did you steal Sal Palontonio's opinion or something? It was even retarded when he stated it. It's not about highlights or lowlights. It's production and numbers. I'm pretty sure that if you asked his peers who the best is, they'd form a consensus.

Barry and Jim Brown are the two best. We can quibble about who is better between the two, but that's it.

OneCentStamp

01-23-2008, 01:02 PM

No back that has that many negative plays can be considered the best ever, regardless of how many highlights he has.Sure he can, if he made up for them, and considering he averaged 5 yards a carry for his career (compare that to Smith, Payton, Dickerson or Martin!), he apparently did.

Omniscient

01-23-2008, 01:19 PM

The Lions were a losing team his entire career. That's not due to lack of talent, it's because for every 80-yard Barry TD run he'd stall a 4 drives in their own territory. The guy was elusive and exciting to watch. He had some amazing skills, but in highlighting those skills he hurt his team too often to be considered GOAT. Don't get me wrong, I'd take him over just about anyone, but not over any of those guys in the top 6 or 7.

Go down the list of all the GOAT candidates and almost every single one led his team to consistent success. Payton, Emmit, Brown, Faulk, Dorsett. It's that consistency from the running back position that created the meme defense and running games win championships.

Barry is the NFL equivalent of Jim Rice, homerun hitter who strikes out too much. Payton, Emmit and Brown were Mantle, Ted Williams and Wille Mays.

Trunk

01-23-2008, 01:36 PM

Horribly horribly overrated? What, did you steal Sal Palontonio's opinion or something? It was even retarded when he stated it. It's not about highlights or lowlights. It's production and numbers. I'm pretty sure that if you asked his peers who the best is, they'd form a consensus.

Barry and Jim Brown are the two best. We can quibble about who is better between the two, but that's it.
What you cal "Sal Palontonios opinion" is widely held.

Maybe not in Detroit, but among the remaining 99% of the population.

As a matter of fact, you seem to have missed out not only on the backlash against Barry in his post-career days, but the backlash concerning the possibility that the original backlash was too severe.

If I was putting together a football team designed to win games, and go far in the playoffs for one season, Barry Sanders wouldn't be in my top 10. He wouldn't sniff Emmitt.

Hal Briston

01-23-2008, 01:40 PM

YAC shouldn't necesarily be counted against the QB. Hitting the right receiver, and hitting him in stride, are critical skills. A lot of QBs hit the wrong guy, resulting in an instant tackle after a short pass, or make their guy slow up or dive for the ball, negating YAC. If Brady picks the right guy as a recipient of a short pass and it's made for a long gain, the receiver should get some credit but so should Brady.I always credit the QB with all yardage gained until someone touches the receiver. If the QB finds someone wide open behind coverage and gets him the ball, it's all on him. If he gets the ball to a receiver who has a Safety bearing down on him, but the receiver breaks the tackle and goes the distance, then everything after the touch is all on the receiver.
Well, it could be a great game. It'd now have to surpass that Ravens game, which was a pretty sweet-ass game if you ask me.It's lines like this that this xkcd (http://www.xkcd.com/37/) was written for.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-23-2008, 01:49 PM

What you cal "Sal Palontonios opinion" is widely held.

Maybe not in Detroit, but among the remaining 99% of the population.

As a matter of fact, you seem to have missed out not only on the backlash against Barry in his post-career days, but the backlash concerning the possibility that the original backlash was too severe.

If I was putting together a football team designed to win games, and go far in the playoffs for one season, Barry Sanders wouldn't be in my top 10. He wouldn't sniff Emmitt.

That may be why you aren't in charge of an NFL team.

There were many comments on Palontonio's excerpt from ESPN.com that were denouncing him as an idiot that knows nothing.

Damn you, ass-games!

Trunk

01-23-2008, 02:11 PM

Omniscient

01-23-2008, 02:26 PM

Least Original User Name Ever

01-23-2008, 02:59 PM

You're blinded by homerism and highlight reels, dude.

I'd be willing to bet that Barry Sanders had more rushes for negative yards than any back in history. I know he led the league in that category in some seasons. If that's the kind of back you want to build a team around, have fun losing.

I'd rather take a guy who can get me a first down on 3rd and 2 with some degree of regularity.

No. I'm really not. I'm not appealing to the exciting plays. I'm saying that the man put up numbers. I'm also saying that if you're going to argue who the best was, it's between Jim Brown and Barry Sanders. That's based on your preference for your style of the run game.

Of note: Barry never got injured and rarely fumbled the ball.

I don't care that he has the most negative yards in history. Defensive coordinators and defensive players were frightened to play against him. People didn't have to figure a way to stop Emmitt Smith when he got the ball, but they sure as hell did when Barry or Jim Brown did.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-23-2008, 03:14 PM

Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=paolantonio_sal&id=3055421) to excerpt.

Omniscient

01-23-2008, 06:36 PM

I don't care that he has the most negative yards in history.
Then you don't know anything about football.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-23-2008, 08:25 PM

Then you don't know anything about football.

Right, because that invalidates everything because you say so.

HoboStew

01-23-2008, 08:35 PM

Least Original User Name Ever

01-23-2008, 08:37 PM

Omniscient

01-23-2008, 09:24 PM

I'm glad people brought up Emmitt Smith, because he really is the Tom Brady of running backs. An above averge running back who benefitted from a wonderful system. If Barry Sanders had spent his career running for the Cowboys, he would have gained 20k yards and would be easily considered the best running back of all time. If Emmitt Smith had spent his career running for the Lions, he would have had a Curtis Martin-esque career.
I'm not so sure. The first caveat is that I don't think Emmitt is in the top 3 of running backs all time. I agree that he greatly benefited from being in a perfect and consistent system. I also think that there are a lot of other runners who would have been equally successful in that situation.

But......

I'm not sure that Barry is one of them. Barry was in drastically different system with a drastically different philosophy. We've only ever seen him run behind a zone blocking system, which essentially allowed him to sit back and pick a hole and improvise. Emmitt's Cowboys ran exclusively a man-to-man drive blocking system which suited his downhill style.

Barry's terrible short yardage statistics were a result of his inability to run downhill off-tackle. I'm not sure it's a foregone conclusion that he'd have adapted to the Cowboys system as well as Emmitt who was a natural in it.

Back to Barry, I came across this article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_32_223/ai_55450244#) from The Sporting News written right after Barry retired. These numbers are pretty telling.

Sanders lost yardage on 65 of his rushing attempts last year, and failed to gain at least three yards on 103 other rushes. Those 168 runs-48 percent of his attempts-put the Lions offense in bad positions.

"I don't mean this with any disrespect, but we might be running with a little higher level of consistency," Ross says. "That is not criticizing Barry Sanders in any way, shape or form. I was very satisfied with Barry's style."

The good obviously outweighed the bad with Sanders, but eliminating the bad is going to help the Lions. That higher level of consistency Ross refers to should manifest itself especially on third-and-short, when the Lions converted only 41.7 percent of their run attempts last year-worst in the NFL. And it should manifest itself in the red zone, where the Lions actually went backward on 21 percent of their rushes in 1998.

That's just atrocious. 48% of his carries were for 2 yards or less! Last in the NFL in converting third and short! They lost yards on 21% of their rushing attempts. You simply cannot win football games that way, and Barry's career proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm sorry, I don't care how thrilling the guy was and how transcendent his athletic gifts were, you're not the GOAT, you aren't even in the discussion, if you are that horribly one-dimensional.

Ellis Dee

01-23-2008, 10:56 PM

That's a weird way of spelling "Jim Brown"

(I thought this one was pretty clear)It is. I concede that Jim Brown is the GOAT, but I'll never offer his name up before Sweetness.

RickJay

01-23-2008, 11:17 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1193711
Simmons.
In the second half of his career, Mark Messier was the ultimate example of this. He was anointed The Great Leader as a result of the Rangers winning the Stanley Cup - with a team, I might add, that was obviously the best in the NHL - and for the rest of his career was The Greatest Leader Ever. And yet, for all those years, every team he was on underachieved, got worse as long as they had him, and improved after he left.

Sometimes it gets applied even to players who aren't great. People actually called Paul Lo Duca "Mr. Heart and Soul" when he was with the Dodgers, although the Dodgers didn't win a heck of a lot. When he was traded midseason to the Marlins, there was a hue and cry that Mr. Heart and Soul had been traded away. Immediately after his departure from the Dodgers, the Dodgers improved, and won their division; the Marlins, defending champions who had been in contention to that point, collapsed. Yet, nobody went back and asked "Hey, what with with all this Mr. Heart and Soul bullshit?" Indeed, they were still saying it about him last year, as he led his team to one of the most comical pennat race collapses in history.

Once the media has tagged someone as a Leader, that's that. It doesn't have to be true, if in fact it ever is.

That's not to say that some athletes don't obviously work harder than others; Vince Carter is a waste of talent, while Magic Johnson was an example of a maximization of talent. But professional athletes are what they are in large part because of an ability to play reasonably close to the limit of their ability and work ethic, whatever combination that might be, on a consistent basis. It's hard for me to imagine that any quarterback, center, shooting guard or catcher can arrive in a locker room of veteran pro athletes and somehow unlock talent and drive in them was was not in evidence in their previous 5, 10, 15 or 20 years of high level organized sports. That shit happens in movies, but not in real life.

Oslo Ostragoth

01-24-2008, 12:27 AM

[Apologies for the continuing hijack re rb's] Don't we need to distinguish between pure runners (Sayers, Sanders, Brown et al.) and Running Backs who might be called upon to block, catch passes, and whatever? Walter could do it all.

Oslo Ostragoth

01-24-2008, 12:36 AM

Vince Carter is a waste of talent, while Magic Johnson was an example of a maximization of talent.Minor quibble: Larry Bird was an example of maximization of talent: not particularly fast or big, and with nasty misaligned broken fingers, he almost dominated the league. Magic was big, fast, quick, and all the other things that come with freakish athleticism: sort of meeting expectations.

HoboStew

01-24-2008, 12:41 AM

I'm not sure that Barry is one of them. Barry was in drastically different system with a drastically different philosophy. We've only ever seen him run behind a zone blocking system, which essentially allowed him to sit back and pick a hole and improvise. Emmitt's Cowboys ran exclusively a man-to-man drive blocking system which suited his downhill style. I'll concede that my knowledge on this subject is purely anecdotal - I watched them both play in the primes of their careers but haven't crunched a single # on the subject, but I remember Barry having just atrocious lines, to the point that he was getting tackled as he was handed the ball, while Emmitt would run 4 yards downfield before a defender even touched him. Maybe the years have tinted the 20-20 hindsight, but the fact remains that when you look at the cast of characters, Emmitt had a distinct advantage.

Emmitt:
Troy Aikman, Michael Irving, Mark Tuinei, Nate Newton, Larry Allen, Jay Novacek

Barry:
Scott Mitchell, Herman Moore, Kevin Glover, Lomas Brown

Omniscient

01-24-2008, 01:43 AM

I'll concede that my knowledge on this subject is purely anecdotal - I watched them both play in the primes of their careers but haven't crunched a single # on the subject, but I remember Barry having just atrocious lines, to the point that he was getting tackled as he was handed the ball, while Emmitt would run 4 yards downfield before a defender even touched him. Maybe the years have tinted the 20-20 hindsight, but the fact remains that when you look at the cast of characters, Emmitt had a distinct advantage.

Emmitt:
Troy Aikman, Michael Irving, Mark Tuinei, Nate Newton, Larry Allen, Jay Novacek

Barry:
Scott Mitchell, Herman Moore, Kevin Glover, Lomas Brown
Emmitt's personnel were better, but not to the degree that you imply. There's a lot more nuance to the comparison than that. The two team's systems (largely tailored to each player's style) had more to do with that appearance than anything else.

Emmitt lined up 7 yards behind the QB and had a fullback in front of him on every snap. On running plays his first move was upfield and the fullback almost always absorbed first contact allowing Emmitt to reach the hole before contact.

Barry lined up 9 yards behind the QB in a single back set on every single play. His first move was almost always a chop step or a counter look in order to get the defense reacting one way or another so that he can read it.

Emmit's line was a man-blocking group who, at the snap, would fire off the ball to their assigned defender. As a result the first line of defense was typically engaged when Emmitt got to it.

Barry's line was a zone-blocking group who would step forward and block whomever presented themselves in their zone, and as a result of that reactive style didn't initiate first contact with the defense.

Both systems can be effective but Barry's system was more susceptible to overloads and blitzes outnumbering the blockers in a given zone. As a result a good defensive play call would have players in the backfield before Barry was able to get up to speed. On the flipside, a bad defensive play call or a missed first tackle would create a big gain. Emmitt's system was more predictable since the first action was most often where the run ended up, but a good defensive play call could be thwarted by a good lead block from the fullback, though typically a good play call still kept the gain short. In Barry's case a good play call was a loss.

The impression that laypersons have regarding "Barry's awful line" is not entirely true, it's simply the way that the system was built around him. He was put in a position to be a homerun hitter, and he excelled at it, but homerun hitters by their nature strike out alot. Those jailbreak plays you recall seeing were the whiffs, but a lot of potential jailbreaks ended up being 60 yard runs because the came in the wrong side of the defense.

HoboStew

01-24-2008, 02:04 AM

lmao, I know this doesn't prove anything, but just for a larf I checked youtube. The first two sites I looked at were this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3879897042021289693&q=barry+sanders&total=529&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) for barry and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUYuwg5rLGc) for emmitt. The former link is Barry pulling all sorts of amazing moves on defenders, while the latter is emmit smith running straight ahead with no one near him. It epitomizes exactly what I remember about the 2 runners.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-24-2008, 06:52 AM

Yeah, Barry was amazing to watch and could do things running the ball that nobody before him or after him (yet) could do with it, but if you were to talk to the opposing teams in those years and you were to ask them who they had to key their defense on to win the game, they would all say "Barry Sanders". How can a man have the respect of every single defensive coordinator and every single defensive player as the best they had ever seen not register with what you've seen? Yes, he had a lot of yardage losses, but any time he touched the ball, he could go the distance with it and everyone knew it even when the defense stacked 8 in the box against him. They couldn't do that to Emmitt Smith. He had Aikman, Novacek, and Irvin working the passing game. Walter Payton is number 3 on the list. That's not such a bad place to be.

aliquot

01-24-2008, 06:38 PM

Emmitt lined up 7 yards behind the QB... Barry lined up 9 yards behind the QB in a single back set on every single play.
Are you sure yards is the unit you want here?

Omniscient

01-24-2008, 09:51 PM

Are you sure yards is the unit you want here?
Yes, I'm quite sure. Thanks for checking.

Xema

01-25-2008, 12:49 AM

Not to distract this threat with irrelevance, but CHFF has recently posted a well-presented list of their Top 10 NFL Quarterbacks (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2103_The_definitive_list%3A_Top_10_NFL_quarterbacks.html). Brady ranks well, but isn't first; same for Montana.

SenorBeef

01-25-2008, 05:20 AM

I'm liking this cold hard football facts site. I'd never been there before.

[Homer Alert]

Otto Graham is underrated and rarely involved in GOAT discussions. He, along with Paul Brown, invented a lot of what we'd consider to be modern football. Some people don't know that Bill Walsh was Brown's star pupil and a lot of the elements that he's credited with bringing to the game are just refinements of what Brown taught him.

Graham has a career winning percentage of 86.1%, and went to championships in all 10 years of his career, winning 6. His career yards per attempt (IMO, the single most important stat in evaluating quarterbacks/passing games) was 10.6 (!), which blows the next guy out of the water by like 2 and a half yards. It's like if there was a runner who averaged 6.3 yards/carry or so.

Four of those years were in the AAFC (where the records don't count, although pre-merger AFL stats do), but even in the tougher NFL his career YPA was 8.6, still the highest of all time. His career 86.6 passer rating sounds pretty good (Tom Brady is at 92.9 career) in modern terms, but it's staggering for the era he played in, where the league averaged around 50-55. (The site has an interesting article where they try to adjust passer ratings by their era here (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=951) which concludes that Graham's 1953 season was the best ever in terms of era-adjusted QB rating.)

He played long ago and that tends to bias people against him, but like Jim Brown's career 5.2 YPC, Otto Graham's (10.6 or 8.6, take your pick) YPA hasn't been surpassed in 50+ years (40+ for Jim Brown) and may never be.

Jim Brown and Otto Graham, by the way, missed playing together by a season (1956). Imagine them in the same backfield together. It would've been ridiculous.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-25-2008, 05:53 AM

I have also never heard of that website. I thought that it'd just have been a little website created by the folks at Coors Light.

Glad it isn't.

SenorBeef

01-25-2008, 06:42 AM

Corrections: He won 7 of 10 titles, and my 10.6 career number was wrong, I got it mixed up with his best season. The actual 9 YPC (can't find precise numbers on his AAFC days, but 9 is what that site lists for his total career) numbers are still a step above everyone else.

zamboniracer

01-25-2008, 09:26 AM

Otto Graham is underrated and rarely involved in GOAT discussions. He, along with Paul Brown, invented a lot of what we'd consider to be modern football. Some people don't know that Bill Walsh was Brown's star pupil and a lot of the elements that he's credited with bringing to the game are just refinements of what Brown taught him.

I recall an NFL films show that made that point. It showed how the 49ers' famous Montana to Clark pass play that beat Dallas was the same one that the Browns had used back in the 50s, except it was Graham to Lavelli (or maybe to Mac Speedie).

Least Original User Name Ever

01-25-2008, 10:14 AM

SenorBeef

01-30-2008, 01:51 AM

Otto Graham is underrated and rarely involved in GOAT discussions.

Apparently Peter King was on the Colin Cowherd show this afternoon and Colin brought up this very discussion, about whether Tom Brady was the best of all time. Apparently without hesitating Peter King declared Otto Graham as the GOAT. So I guess he does receive some consideration.

gonzomax

01-31-2008, 10:57 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHnTtYhCbX4&feature=related Barry was the best pure runner ever. No one could do what he did. He played 10 years and practically missed no games, He did not fumble. He played for teams too bad to even figure out how to use him. When he scored ,he handed the ball to the ref.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-31-2008, 11:31 AM

Trunk

01-31-2008, 11:48 AM

Also, I'd like to point out that there weren't necessarily "highlight" reels. There were highlight games and a highlight career. Saying that ranking Barry as number one because you're only looking at the highlights is a misnomer, because his entire damned career was. In that video, they don't even have the run he had against the Buccaneers (if I remember right) where the line completely broke down and he had to run about 50 yards to get 3 or even the Rod Woodson incident (back when he played for the Steelers) where he blew his knee out from trying to tackle him. Michael Strahan swears to this very day that he saw Barry split in two once when he was trying to tackle him.

More (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfb0X8TJzJE) "highlights".

I still get chills watching these.
In those videos, how many plays do they show where the Lions had third and 3, and the line opened up a hole that a high school kid could have gone through, but Barry darted left, saw a defender 4 yards down field, spun around with his back to the line, came back right, and got tackled for a 4 yard loss the the outside linebacker who kept contain?

Because, that's what I think of when I think of Barry Sanders.

wolfman

01-31-2008, 12:02 PM

In those videos, how many plays do they show where the Lions had third and 3, and the line opened up a hole that a high school kid could have gone through,

In order for there to be a video like that there would have to have been a time when the Lions O-line opened up a hole at all.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-31-2008, 12:10 PM

In those videos, how many plays do they show where the Lions had third and 3, and the line opened up a hole that a high school kid could have gone through, but Barry darted left, saw a defender 4 yards down field, spun around with his back to the line, came back right, and got tackled for a 4 yard loss the the outside linebacker who kept contain?

Because, that's what I think of when I think of Barry Sanders.

You conveniently neglect each and every tackle that is blown by those same linebackers in the video. Some of the videos he gets some blocking, but he ends up shooting through the smallest crack and accelerating in virtually no time flat and leaving everyone behind to catch up (because he never really did have exceptional top-end speed).

Omniscient

01-31-2008, 12:42 PM

Every "Barry is the best" argument can be reduced to two words......"Ooooh, Shiny!"

OneCentStamp

01-31-2008, 01:00 PM

In order for there to be a video like that there would have to have been a time when the Lions O-line opened up a hole at all.
Yeah, but the Lions' fullback...oh, never mind. :p

For all the complaints and criticism about Barry's many runs for negative yardage, he managed to hit positive yardage often enough to average 5 yards per carry for his career. That destroys Walter Payton, Curtis Martin and even Emmitt Smith, the member of the 10,000 yard club who best typifies "go North/South, don't get fancy and don't get stopped for a loss."

Least Original User Name Ever

01-31-2008, 01:02 PM

...Says the man on his high horse.

It's not just a shiny argument, though. The man put up numbers, he was explosive and exciting, he was unstoppable at most times, and he's one of the most feared offensive weapons in NFL history. Really, if I follow you correctly, you're saying that (insert other running back not named Jim Brown) put up better numbers, was more dominant, and was a greater offensive weapon. That's just not true.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-31-2008, 01:08 PM

Sorry, I missed the edit window. The high horse comment was made in jest.

Omniscient

01-31-2008, 01:09 PM

I'm saying that Barry is not the GOAT. Very simple point.

He's great, electric and certainly one of the best. I got no problems with Barry's ability. The point is that his negative plays are a huge Achilles heel and there are far too many other running backs who were more complete, productive and successful to think he deserves to be in that conversation. He was a big part of the reason why the Lions were a losing franchise for his entire career.

Trunk

01-31-2008, 02:13 PM

You conveniently neglect each and every tackle that is blown by those same linebackers in the video. Some of the videos he gets some blocking, but he ends up shooting through the smallest crack and accelerating in virtually no time flat and leaving everyone behind to catch up (because he never really did have exceptional top-end speed).
You are clearly oblivious to what it takes to produce a consistent, feared, offensive attack.

No one on earth is disputing what Barry Sanders could do with the ball when he wasn't destroying drives.

Barry can break off 3 20 yard runs in a row, and then gain ZERO YARDS on 3 straight plays.

He has a 10 yard average.

END OF DRIVE.

Do you understand how different that is than a guy who can pick up 3.5 yards per carry every single carry?

Do you now understand why no one gives a shit that he averaged 5 yards per carry?

DO you understand why a highlight reel of his best carries is probably the best highlight reel there is, but is a complete mischaracterization of his effect on a football game?

wolfman

01-31-2008, 02:28 PM

Do you understand how different that is than a guy who can pick up 3.5 yards per carry every single carry?

Do you now understand why no one gives a shit that he averaged 5 yards per carry?

DO you understand why a highlight reel of his best carries is probably the best highlight reel there is, but is a complete mischaracterization of his effect on a football game?

Do you understand he had a crappy offensive line? Do you understand that for much of his time playing that crappy line was in a scheme with very poor blocking pickup?

Do you understand that no-one else(excluding Jom Brown) in the history of football would have gotten close to 3.5 yards on everyplay on that team?

Emmit Smith, or anyone else(excluding James Brown) would have pounded the line for one yard, pounded the line for one yard, pounded the line for half a yard, then had to punt on 3 and 7?

Least Original User Name Ever

01-31-2008, 02:48 PM

You are clearly oblivious to what it takes to produce a consistent, feared, offensive attack.

No one on earth is disputing what Barry Sanders could do with the ball when he wasn't destroying drives.

Barry can break off 3 20 yard runs in a row, and then gain ZERO YARDS on 3 straight plays.

He has a 10 yard average.

END OF DRIVE.

Do you understand how different that is than a guy who can pick up 3.5 yards per carry every single carry?

Do you now understand why no one gives a shit that he averaged 5 yards per carry?

DO you understand why a highlight reel of his best carries is probably the best highlight reel there is, but is a complete mischaracterization of his effect on a football game?

I think you overweight your argument by saying that "no one gives a shit that he averaged 5 yards a carry". Again, when he was playing, he was the number one most feared offensive weapon in the league.

You've obviously got no idea about his effect on a football game. The year he ran for 2053, it was a lot like Barry Bonds the year he hit 73 or the year Mcgwire and Sosa trampled 60 home runs together. You knew the touchdown was coming. The defense knew it was coming. There's virtually nothing they could do to stop it. The only other threat that I've seen like him was Randy Moss in his rookie year.

Really, we're arguing apples an oranges. You're saying he killed some drives. Well yeah. Who hasn't? He's killed more than the average NFL back. He also has the most negative yards. He's also got more positive yards than almost anybody else and was completely unstoppable. Obviously, you place a premium on getting 3 or 3 and a half yards every carry. That's great, but a lot of running backs...hell..any NFL running back can do that with a decent line. Barry averaged 5 and change with a worse than average line.

Omniscient

01-31-2008, 03:07 PM

Again, when he was playing, he was the number one most feared offensive weapon in the league.
You keep saying this like it's a fact of some sort. Like it has any quantifiable value. Not to mention that Jerry Rice and a litany of other guys might disagree, strongly.

Name one other elite running back who's team was as consistently mediocre as the Lions. Funny how this is never acknowledged, and when it is it's written off. Also, did Barry ever catch a pass? I can't seem to recall.

Contrive as many definitions as you want, "pure runner" or "most feared", he was a talented and athletic and ultimately one-dimensional running back who never won anything. Jim Brown was the last one dimensional back to actually win consistently, nowadays a guy like that is a handicap as often as he's an asset. The GOAT simply can't take things off the table.

And you keep calling him unstoppable.....um, half his carries were for 2 yards or less! That's eminently stoppable.

wolfman

01-31-2008, 03:17 PM

Also, did Barry ever catch a pass? I can't seem to recall.

Are you serious? Barry caught a lot of passes. Probably as many as most running backs, except for ones in a west coast offense specifically designed for it like Faulk and Roger Craig

OneCentStamp

01-31-2008, 03:20 PM

Name one other elite running back who's team was as consistently mediocre as the Lions.O.J. Simpson and Eric Dickerson are at least in the same ballpark.

Funny how this is never acknowledged, and when it is it's written off.It's acknowledged, but it isn't blamed on Barry. Barry didn't call the plays, couldn't block for himself, and didn't play defense.

Also, did Barry ever catch a pass? I can't seem to recall.
35 catches a year, on average, for ten years. What elite running back, other than Roger Craig or Thurman Thomas, was substantially more productive as a receiver?

ETA: How could I forget about Craig? :smack:

Least Original User Name Ever

01-31-2008, 03:44 PM

Are you serious? Barry caught a lot of passes. Probably as many as most running backs, except for ones in a west coast offense specifically designed for it like Faulk and Roger Craig

Craig was the last running back to lead the league in receptions, for what it's worth.

SenorBeef

01-31-2008, 04:10 PM

Jim Brown was the last one dimensional back to actually win consistently, nowadays a guy like that is a handicap as often as he's an asset.

I wouldn't call him totally one dimensional - he has 2500 career receiving yards with a 9.5 yard per reception (great for an RB) average. Not Marshall Faulk, but I'm guessing good numbers for a pre-west coast RB.

storyteller0910

01-31-2008, 04:17 PM

Name one other elite running back who's team was as consistently mediocre as the Lions. Funny how this is never acknowledged, and when it is it's written off.

You (and others) have said this a bunch of times, without really going into detail, and I got really curious. Is this a fair criticism of Barry Sanders? So I looked into it.

Barry Sanders was the leading rusher for the Lions for 10 years (1989-1998).

So, for that 10 year period:
Total Record / Winning PCT: 78-82 (.488)
Seasons Above .500: 5
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 3
Playoff Seasons: 5

For the 10 years before he arrived:
Total Record / Winning PCT: 56-95-1 (.371)
Seasons Above .500: 2
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 0
Playoff Seasons: 2

For the 9 years after he retired:
Total Record / Winning PCT: 48-96 (.333)
Seasons Above .500: 1
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 0
Playoff Seasons: 1

So the first thing we can say for certain is that Barry Sanders certainly helped his team win. The fact that Detroit was relatively mediocre during his time there masks the fact that without him, they aspired to mediocrity. And they did pull off a few 10+ win seasons during that period, which by Lions standards was huge. I submit that the enormous difference in winning percentage between the Lions with Sanders and the Lions without Sanders stands as evidence against your central point on its own. Nonetheless:

Orenthal James Simpson, nine years with the Buffalo Bills
Total Record / Winning PCT: 43-81 (.347)
Seasons Above .500: 2
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 0
Playoff Seasons: 1

Eric Dickerson, counting 10 years with the Rams, Colts, and Raiders
Total Record / Winning PCT: 81-78-1 (.509)
Seasons Above .500: 6
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 4
Playoff Seasons: 5

Earl Campbell, eight years with the Oilers and Saints
Total Record / Winning PCT: 54-67 (.446)
Seasons Above .500: 3
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 3
Playoff Seasons: 3

Gayle Sayers, 5 (meaningful) years with the Chicago Bears
Total Record / Winning PCT: 29-38-3 (.433)
Seasons Above .500: 2
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 0
Playoff Seasons: 0

So the answer to the challenge: "Name one other elite running back who's team was as consistently mediocre as the Lions," is Gayle Sayers, Earl Campbell, O.J. Simpson, and Eric Dickerson. Though of course, that's hardly fair: Sayers, Campbell, and Simpson generally played on much more mediocre teams that Sanders.

Ellis Dee

01-31-2008, 05:57 PM

Didn't they pull Barry Sanders off the field in goal line situations?

Least Original User Name Ever

01-31-2008, 06:15 PM

In some situations. That's not completely unorthodox.

HoboStew

01-31-2008, 06:28 PM

Many RBs get pulled off the field in goalline situations. And negative yards are really more of a reflection of the line not the RB. It's not like he was running backwards on purpose. He was running backwards because people were in the backfield trying to tackle him as soon as he got the ball! I guarantee you if there was "a hole that a high school kid could have gone through" he would have hit it.

Oh and storyteller0910 nice job doing that legwork.

Jimmy Chitwood

01-31-2008, 07:05 PM

I don't think Barry's getting enough credit here. It's funny how perception works; I always thought that one of his greatest gifts was getting through a hole, and it was a talent that was largely wasted.

Here's what I think: pull up a Barry Sanders highlight reel. Pause it before the first run; notice the 9 men within 3 yards of the line of scrimmage. Then play the tape. The long runs will be divided into two kinds of runs -- the ones where he takes the handoff and comes to a full two-footed stop almost immediately, freezes a defender or two in the backfield, and then finds daylight, and then the ones where he gets a seam and just fucking runs into the end zone without anybody near him. They'll be divided about 80/20 in favor of the former.

Now, given the number of runs he had where he's flatfooting defensive linemen in the backfield, what do you figure is the more likely explanation for all the negative yards and short runs: that he was missing holes and dancing for no reason, or that sometimes he didn't make those unblocked defensive ends miss (or made them miss and got tackled by the linebacker or the safety)?

I know that sounds really simplistic and rudimentary, but seriously -- how can you take a career of plays where there were clearly defenders in the backfield immediately, and not come to the conclusion that, you know, he may have danced a lot, and almost certainly sometimes he did it too much, but jesus christ did he have to work hard for his yards? How could you not think that he would have had even better numbers than Emmitt Smith if he was in Emmitt Smith's position? Obviously we're just not going to know, but how can you hold the negative yards against Barry Sanders when he so obviously knew HOW to hit a hole? Just how stupid was he, if he was very often not getting a hole to run through (and he wasn't), and yet when he did get a hole, he ignored it? It's just an impossible comparison, but I don't think it's really fair to say that he definitely wasn't as good as X, Y, or Z (except Jim Brown).

And, to bring it back to the topic, that's kind of what I think about Brady. He certainly can't be excluded from the greatest ever conversation, because what has he done to eliminate himself? But seriously, who the fuck knows how good the rest of the Patriots are, or how good his receivers are without him, or how good he'd be on another team, or how good another quarterback would be on his team? You can't subject them to double-blind studies. It's not anything like baseball, where you can isolate, to at least some reasonable extent, a player's performance from his surroundings. When you're comparing football players, the quarterback is the offensive line is the defense is the coaching. What would Joe Montana's 2000-era Patriots have looked like? What would Tom Brady's 90s-era Packers have achieved? Who the F knows, right? But there's certainly nothing in Brady's career that disqualifies his claim to the greatest. I think that's the fairest thing you can say.

Which isn't to say you can never compare anybody to anybody else, obviously, and arguing about it is sort of what we do, but I feel like there's a lot of attempts in this thread to boil down a comparison between players to a factor, or a set of factors, and say that this fact or that number or this theme categorically excludes somebody from the conversation, when in reality we're all just deciding who looks better to us and finding evidence to back it up. At a certain level of fine-toothedness, you're just making shit up.

That was a really boring post.

aliquot

01-31-2008, 07:09 PM

He was a big part of the reason why the Lions were a losing franchise for his entire career.
So what you're saying is that, were you the Lions GM in the Barry Sanders era, you would have benched him and put in another -- any other -- RB, because Barry was a liability? Don't factor in ticket sales or fan outrage or anything like that. Just give it to me straight. With winning the sole concern, you would have benched Barry and put in the #2 back, whoever that was?

Ellis Dee

01-31-2008, 08:28 PM

In 1993 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/1993.htm) I might've put in Derrick Moore, who averaged the same 4.6 YPA as Barry. How did that happen if the OL was so shitty? Was Derrick Moore as much of an ankle-breaker as Barry?

Ron Rivers seems to have put up a respectable 4.5 average in 1996 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/1996.htm), followed by an impressive 5.7 in 1997 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/1997.htm) and 5.4 in 1998 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/1998.htm).

Rivers' career average in Detroit was 4.3. So unless he's a great back, the assertion that the Lions OL was total crap is greatly exagerated.

storyteller0910

01-31-2008, 09:14 PM

Omniscient

01-31-2008, 09:14 PM

I'm going to be really annoying and make multiple replies because I want to replay to each response separately, apologies in advance.

Are you serious? Barry caught a lot of passes. Probably as many as most running backs, except for ones in a west coast offense specifically designed for it like Faulk and Roger Craig

O.J. Simpson and Eric Dickerson are at least in the same ballpark.

It's acknowledged, but it isn't blamed on Barry. Barry didn't call the plays, couldn't block for himself, and didn't play defense.

35 catches a year, on average, for ten years. What elite running back, other than Roger Craig or Thurman Thomas, was substantially more productive as a receiver?

ETA: How could I forget about Craig? :smack:

I see Sanders caught a few more balls than I thought upon looking at the stats, but I still stand by the one-dimensional comment. He did play in a Run and Shoot system which meant a fair number of balls thrown his way, but Barry wasn't a particularly reliable receiver (or pass blocker). This perception is reinforced by the fact that he was often pulled from the field on 3rd down and goal line situations. The combination of his tendency to get stopped in the backfield and inability to move the pile, coupled with average hands and blitz pick-ups made him a liability in those situations. An GOAT candidate is the guy you HAVE to have on the field in those critical moments. It's what made LDT, Faulk, Emmitt and Payton so dangerous and their teams so efficient.

Omniscient

01-31-2008, 09:19 PM

You (and others) have said this a bunch of times, without really going into detail, and I got really curious. Is this a fair criticism of Barry Sanders? So I looked into it.

Barry Sanders was the leading rusher for the Lions for 10 years (1989-1998).

So, for that 10 year period:
Total Record / Winning PCT: 78-82 (.488)
Seasons Above .500: 5
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 3
Playoff Seasons: 5

For the 10 years before he arrived:
Total Record / Winning PCT: 56-95-1 (.371)
Seasons Above .500: 2
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 0
Playoff Seasons: 2

For the 9 years after he retired:
Total Record / Winning PCT: 48-96 (.333)
Seasons Above .500: 1
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 0
Playoff Seasons: 1

So the first thing we can say for certain is that Barry Sanders certainly helped his team win. The fact that Detroit was relatively mediocre during his time there masks the fact that without him, they aspired to mediocrity. And they did pull off a few 10+ win seasons during that period, which by Lions standards was huge. I submit that the enormous difference in winning percentage between the Lions with Sanders and the Lions without Sanders stands as evidence against your central point on its own. Nonetheless:

Orenthal James Simpson, nine years with the Buffalo Bills
Total Record / Winning PCT: 43-81 (.347)
Seasons Above .500: 2
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 0
Playoff Seasons: 1

Eric Dickerson, counting 10 years with the Rams, Colts, and Raiders
Total Record / Winning PCT: 81-78-1 (.509)
Seasons Above .500: 6
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 4
Playoff Seasons: 5

Earl Campbell, eight years with the Oilers and Saints
Total Record / Winning PCT: 54-67 (.446)
Seasons Above .500: 3
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 3
Playoff Seasons: 3

Gayle Sayers, 5 (meaningful) years with the Chicago Bears
Total Record / Winning PCT: 29-38-3 (.433)
Seasons Above .500: 2
Seasons Above 10 Wins: 0
Playoff Seasons: 0

So the answer to the challenge: "Name one other elite running back who's team was as consistently mediocre as the Lions," is Gayle Sayers, Earl Campbell, O.J. Simpson, and Eric Dickerson. Though of course, that's hardly fair: Sayers, Campbell, and Simpson generally played on much more mediocre teams that Sanders.

I think this is a very telling post. I would group Sanders right in this group of running backs. They are part of a very select group of backs who are just one short tier down from the very best of all time. These guys are all terrific comparisons in the way they played and the success they had, and the two are probably connected. Electrifying to watch and slightly overrated because of it. I'm not sure too many people (non-homers at least) are going to make a case for any of those guys as the GOAT, do you?

Omniscient

01-31-2008, 09:22 PM

In some situations. That's not completely unorthodox.
It's common and prudent, it happened to Tiki all the time as any fantasy guy remembers, and there's nothing wrong with it. However, for me, the GOAT has to be able to break a guys ankles in the backfield *and* move the pile or catch a swing pass for a TD.

Back to that Barry as a receiver thing, the Lions were really good at running the screen play. It played right into Barry's strength by putting him in space to improvise and it utilized their zone blocking scheme. I'd wager a huge proportion of those receptions were screens. It's a very go talent to have, but its a different skill than what Payton, LDT, Craig and Faulk did with their ability to split wide and to run precise routes and catch the ball downfield.

Omniscient

01-31-2008, 09:34 PM

Here's what I think: pull up a Barry Sanders highlight reel. Pause it before the first run; notice the 9 men within 3 yards of the line of scrimmage. Then play the tape. The long runs will be divided into two kinds of runs -- the ones where he takes the handoff and comes to a full two-footed stop almost immediately, freezes a defender or two in the backfield, and then finds daylight, and then the ones where he gets a seam and just fucking runs into the end zone without anybody near him. They'll be divided about 80/20 in favor of the former.

I'm seeing the same thing as you are, and I see it as a flaw. A running back should *never* come to a complete, two footed stop on a running play. Barry did it all the time, and that's why he got dropped for so many losses. It's at least as much to blame as the blocking. More efficient backs take plays with defenders in the backfield and turn them into 0 to 1 yard gains instead of 4 yard losses, thereby preserving drives.

It's also not necessarily indicative of the line play when defenders are in the backfield. This was the scouting report on Barry, if you penetrate you can stop him so defenses sold out to run blitz and abandoned gap discipline to do so. A more balanced back would kill teams who did this by making decisive moves upfield or running effective play action.

Omniscient

01-31-2008, 09:38 PM

You're... kidding, right? I mean, Ron Rivers had nineteen carries in 1996. You're not actually... I mean... you're kidding, right?

The point is that the other backs on the team ran successfully when they had the chance. If the argument is that "Barry had no blocking, to gain yards with that line is an incomparable feat!" then it goes a long way towards pointing out that Barry might not have been that much of a one-man show if his backups were equally successful when he was off the field.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-31-2008, 10:19 PM

Least Original User Name Ever

01-31-2008, 10:29 PM

It's common and prudent, it happened to Tiki all the time as any fantasy guy remembers, and there's nothing wrong with it. However, for me, the GOAT has to be able to break a guys ankles in the backfield *and* move the pile or catch a swing pass for a TD.

Back to that Barry as a receiver thing, the Lions were really good at running the screen play. It played right into Barry's strength by putting him in space to improvise and it utilized their zone blocking scheme. I'd wager a huge proportion of those receptions were screens. It's a very go talent to have, but its a different skill than what Payton, LDT, Craig and Faulk did with their ability to split wide and to run precise routes and catch the ball downfield.

Barry was probably under utilized as a receiver, which is fine because he was such a good runner.

storyteller0910

02-01-2008, 05:22 AM

The point is that the other backs on the team ran successfully when they had the chance. If the argument is that "Barry had no blocking, to gain yards with that line is an incomparable feat!" then it goes a long way towards pointing out that Barry might not have been that much of a one-man show if his backups were equally successful when he was off the field.

Both of you are intelligent posters, and so I refuse to believe that either you or Ellis Dee fail to understand the concept of "small sample size," or the relevance of the concept in this context. Accordingly, I'm going to assume that you're being disingenuous, which is my cue to drop out of the discussion altogether. I had been enjoying the conversation until now, but if you're really going to argue that 19 carries spread over 16 games is evidence of anything, then the debate has become dishonest.

borschevsky

02-01-2008, 08:15 AM

Going back to the Brady talk, ESPN claims he's not even the best NFL quarterback to have worn #12 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/news/story?id=3218941&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos2).

Sal Ammoniac

02-01-2008, 12:00 PM

It's sort of an article of faith with me that NFL players (as well as MLB players, NHL players, etc.) are, on average, decidedly better than the players of yore. Players are better conditioned, better trained, better coached, and they're drawn from a larger talent pool than ever before. So if Brady is the best quarterback of the moment -- and I don't know what NFL team would prefer another to him -- doesn't that make him the best of all time? After all, he's competing against, and dominating, players who are better now than they ever have been before.

Least Original User Name Ever

02-01-2008, 12:10 PM

Omniscient

02-01-2008, 05:02 PM

Both of you are intelligent posters, and so I refuse to believe that either you or Ellis Dee fail to understand the concept of "small sample size," or the relevance of the concept in this context. Accordingly, I'm going to assume that you're being disingenuous, which is my cue to drop out of the discussion altogether. I had been enjoying the conversation until now, but if you're really going to argue that 19 carries spread over 16 games is evidence of anything, then the debate has become dishonest.

Don't be so dramatic.

No one is calling it definitive evidence, but it raises questions. It's more than 19 carries, you can see if you look at the numbers across Barry's career the other running backs were successful when they had the ball. That was rare because Barry was very healthy, but none the less it's true.

Barry fans make a big deal that there were defenders on him before he even had the ball in his hands on most plays, they like to imply that Walter, Emmitt, Marshall, LDT and Terrell Davis would have been much worse than Barry if they'd had his line.

It's certainly not definitive evidence of anything, but the fact that these no-name guys who never found consistent success did indeed run for a decent average (in multiple seasons) calls into question that presumption about Barry's "awful" line.

Moriarty

02-01-2008, 08:12 PM

Ellis Dee

02-01-2008, 09:19 PM

Omniscient

02-01-2008, 10:37 PM

I realize that this isn't going to help much, but my opinion is that Barry Sanders was the greatest "pure runner" I ever saw, but not the greatest running back I ever saw. He was amazing to watch, and certainly among the best ever, but running back requires receiving and blocking skills in addition to running prowess. For my money (and I'm just opening up a whole 'nother can of worms here). the best running back (that I saw) was probably Thurman Thomas (who was Marshall Faulk before there was a Marshall Faulk; then again, I'm a long suffering Dolphin fan, so I realize my memory is tainted by the games of my youth.)
I agree about Thurman Thomas. He is hugely under rated in my book. He's since been surpassed by Faulk, and I'd have a tough time deciding between him and Roger Craig, but he was a great RB in a era where there were several.

I don't like the term "pure runner", I'm not sure just what it means. I would not argue against anyone calling Barry the "most elusive" back ever and I think a strong case can be made for "most exciting", he was dynamic and accelerated like few ever. He was death in the open field for certain. However "pure runner" seems to me that it would include all tasks for a running back aside from pass catching and blocking, and as I've already argued, his shortcomings on short yardage/goal line situations seems to fall under the category of "runner".

storyteller0910

02-01-2008, 11:16 PM

Getting lectured about small sample sizes by you is pretty funny.

Is there a particular reason that you get so nasty when someone disagrees with you?

There's a simple way to discredit the Ron Rivers example. Show me another "relief" runner who averaged well over 4 yards a carry for three seasons behind a terrible OL.

As I said, I'm not particularly interested in continuing this discussion with you. I don't think you're interested in an honest debate or in considering anyone's ideas; I think you'd much rather play gotcha. That's fine and you're welcome to it, but I'd rather not. All the same, since you asked:

It's obviously difficult to find a single "relief" runner who even played for the same team for three seasons - relief runners tend to be disposable. But in the spirit of the question:

The New Orleans Saints of the early 1980s were historically awful. In 1980 Mike Strachan managed 4.6 ypc; Chuck Muncie rushed to a 4.2 ypc; in 1981 Toussiant Tyler averaged 5.1 ypc. All three were backup runners (albeit with more carries than Rivers).

The Tampa Bay Bucs won 15 games between 1988 and 1990, and had no one's idea of a Hall-of-Fame offensive line, but backup running backs averaged 4.2 or above in each year (Jeff Smith, Sylvester Stamps, Ron Harvey).

From 1985 through 1988 the Atlanta Falcons had at least one backup RB average 4.3 ypc or better (Cliff Austin - 5.5; Austin - 4.5; Kenny Flowers - 4.5; Gerald Riggs - 4.3). In the interest of full disclosure, Bill Fralic played for that Atlanta team.

One more, this one illustrative. In 1976 Roland Hooks carried the ball 25 times in relief of OJ Simpson for the Bills; he gained 4.6 ypc. In 1977 he carried a real load, as Simpson played only 7 games and started none; Hooks' ypc dropped to 3.9. The following year, with a small sample size and back in a backup role, Hooks returned to 4.7 ypc.

This is actually pretty tedious to research, and you aren't even listening anyway, so I'll stop there.

I also find it interesting that you seem to be pretending I never even posted the Derrick Moore (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/1993.htm) example.

Wow! A backup running back managed 4.6 yards per carry, once in his career, spread out over 80 whole carries. Clearly that proves your point. I apologize for not seeing it. Oy.

Ellis Dee

02-02-2008, 08:51 PM

Is there a particular reason that you get so nasty when someone disagrees with you?Obviously it has nothing to do with your incredibly respectful hugs-and-rainbows response of:You're... kidding, right? I mean, Ron Rivers had nineteen carries in 1996. You're not actually... I mean... you're kidding, right?Isn't there a famous saying about motes and eyes? Do us all a favor and climb down off the cross.

1980 Saints: While they were a truly pathetic team, their yards-per-rush average was in the top half of the league. That's light-years better than the Barry supporters would have you believe the Lions OL was.

1988 Bucs: The relief guy had the same basic YPA (4.0 vs 3.9) as the starter, which would support the (my) position that the relief runner is a non-trivial indicator of the OL's run-blocking ability.

1989 Bucs: Team as a whole had a low rushing average, the starters were in the mid-3 range, and the relief runner had a staggering 4.9. This one alone isn't enough to disprove the idea that a relief runner is reflective of OL ability, but damn, toss in a couple more like this and the hypothesis is torpedoed. Of note, however, is that Stamps is listed as a RB-WR hybrid, so I'm wondering if his high YPA is due to running reverses.

1990 Bucs: Team YPA was #14, so an average rush OL. Again, this isn't my original question: "If the Lions OL was so shitty, how did the relief runner have such a high average?" But I will concede that the relief runner's 4.2 average is noticeably higher than the starter's 3.9. Also of interest is that -- as pathetic as this sounds -- the team's #14 YPA ranking was significantly boosted by Testeverde's 38 7.5-yard scrambles. Without those, they drop to #27 at an embarassing 3.6 YPA. And that still includes Chris Chandler's scrambles, which went for 5.5 a clip. Yeah, this OL is pretty fucking dreadful, and yet the relief runner did quite well at 4.2 a clip.

Combined with the 89 Bucs, this is enough to convince me that the relief runner isn't particularly indicative of the OL's run-blocking ability. I might later be persuaded back by a more rigorous analysis, but as you rightly noted this type of research is pretty tedious. (And I'm not even having to find them, so I sympathize.) And again, your martyr act is unbecoming.

VarlosZ

02-02-2008, 09:13 PM

Ellis Dee

02-02-2008, 09:14 PM

It's obviously difficult to find a single "relief" runner who even played for the same team for three seasons - relief runners tend to be disposable.Just to clarify, who the relief runner is is irrelevant. It certainly doesn't have to be the same guy for more than one season. The original assertion was that the relief runner's YPA was an indicator of the OL's run-blocking ability.

Think back over the last few years. Didn't you think the Giants OL was severely underrated based on the fact that the runners around Tiki also tended to have high YPA? I sure did.

I am in fact interested by this specific question apart from the Barry Sanders debate. I have all the player stats from pro-football-reference and yahoo.com in a database, and soon I plan on adding the team stats as well, so maybe I'll be able to do a more thorough analysis at a later date.When you're dealing with a starting RB who gets almost all of his team's carries, you just can't get any useful information from the YPC of his backups. Not only is the sample size way too small, but the backups are probably being used in unusual ways. In general, either they're short-yardage backs (running against 9-man fronts) or scat-backs (running draws against dime defenses). Either way, their role plays a larger role in their YPC than their effectiveness.Probably true. Still, I'm interested in seeing what the actual numbers bear out, though there's a fairly decent chance I'll never get around to it.

Omniscient

02-03-2008, 06:23 AM

When you're dealing with a starting RB who gets almost all of his team's carries, you just can't get any useful information from the YPC of his backups. Not only is the sample size way too small, but the backups are probably being used in unusual ways. In general, either they're short-yardage backs (running against 9-man fronts) or scat-backs (running draws against dime defenses). Either way, their role plays a larger role in their YPC than their effectiveness.
It's probably not authoritative information, but when there are anecdotes flying around about Barry's superhuman ability to survive plays with multiple D-lineman deep in the backfield and every play, it's worth noting that the other guys on the roster managed to get back to the line of scrimmage and beyond on occasion (something Barry often failed to do).

A backups YPC might be dubious when used as a measure of OL talent, but the assertions in this thread go farther than that by making it sound as if Barry had a uniquely inept line for 13 years. Were it true you'd assume lesser backs on the same team would be utterly helpless regardless of the circumstance. Perhaps it simply points out that Barry's line was on par with everyone else's on average.

Jimmy Chitwood

02-03-2008, 11:51 AM

It's probably not authoritative information, but when there are anecdotes flying around about Barry's superhuman ability to survive plays with multiple D-lineman deep in the backfield and every play, it's worth noting that the other guys on the roster managed to get back to the line of scrimmage and beyond on occasion (something Barry often failed to do).

A backups YPC might be dubious when used as a measure of OL talent, but the assertions in this thread go farther than that by making it sound as if Barry had a uniquely inept line for 13 years. Were it true you'd assume lesser backs on the same team would be utterly helpless regardless of the circumstance. Perhaps it simply points out that Barry's line was on par with everyone else's on average.

That's just not what's been going on in this thread. Every reference to the offensive line in this thread has been in response to you pointing out how many negative plays he was involved in. If you start with the numbers, they indicate that he was really, really good. The burden shifts over to the "overrated" camp to explain why he doesn't belong in the discussion. You and Trunk used his number of failed rushes and anecdotal references to him ignoring holes to do so.

And in response to that, you've gotten a few -- a few -- indications that he wasn't running behind a great line, and was looking at a lot more difficult 1 yard gains than some other running backs might have been. And that's the point the "anecdotes flying around about Barry's superhuman ability to survive plays with multiple D-lineman deep in the backfield and every play" (a fair and evenhanded characterization, by the way) were attempting to make.

And in response to that, now we have Ron Rivers and Cedric Moore. And Varlos pointed out that those numbers are probably completely meaningless, even within the context of the discussion that's taken shape here, because there's not much to go on when you pick out two individual seasons by individual players in limited roles.

But anyway, even beside the philosophical point about sample size and different roles, let's assume that those two examples mean something. What about 1988, when the Lions ran for a killer 3.2 yards per carry? What about '89, when Sanders' backups ran for a full yard and a yard and a half-yard less per carry? Or '90 -- a full half a yard? '91? '92? '94 (when Derrick Moore himself averaged a third of the yards Sanders did, '93 being the year already cited above)?

I mean, if you guys want to talk about how the other Lions running backs ran during the time Sanders was there, and rely on those results as indicative of whether his line was creating his high yards per carry based on how they compare to those other backs, I'm pretty comfortable with that, since, in fact, the other guys on the roster WERE pretty generally helpless, all things considered. Picking out one guy who cracked off a single 48 yard carry that raised his average more than half a yard, and another back who had one decent year that wasn't even as good as Sanders' average seems like pretty scant support for your position, even if there's a position to be staked out in the first place. If there's a trend there, it's a trend toward the running game sucking without Sanders.

So now we're back to square one. He had great numbers, and I submit again that there's documentary evidence that he had to face a lot more pressure in the backfield than most great running backs did, which explains why he lost so many yards.