lancerman Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Outpost31 said: You can't call over 10% of something elite. Rodgers, Brees, Brady. That's elite. There is no other elite. Don't think Brady became elite until 2007. He'd never had under 12 interceptions or over 28 touchdowns until then, he had one 4,000 yard season, and he'd never had a QB rating over 92.6 I know Pats fans get angry when I say this, but he was a game manager until 2007. In 2006 he had 24 touchdowns to 12 interceptions. He wasn't all that good. He had 4 interceptions and 0 touchdowns against the Colts in 2006. He was far from elite. Well probably because your wrong. In 2002 Brady led the league in TD's, in 2003 he was getting MVP votes, in 2004 he was viewed as the best behind Manning with one of the top offenses in the league. By 2006 you had people saying going into the AFCCG that if he won that game and goes on to win the Super Bowl he is possibly the best ever. And that's people like Dan Marino, not just run of the mill fans. I mean it's nice that you can read a stat sheet, but I was watching at the time. In 03 he was viewed as one of the best young QBs in the league, by 04 he was viewed as elite. 2007 was just his first year with a high powered offense post the rule changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Just now, lancerman said: Well probably because your wrong. No, I'm really not. He wasn't elite. He was on the best-coached team and the team didn't require him to be elite, and he wasn't. You can cite the rule changes post-2007 all you want. Peyton Manning consistently threw 4000+ yards, more touchdowns, less interceptions. He had 49 touchdowns and 10 interceptions in 2004. Brees had 27 touchdowns and 7 interceptions in 2004. McNabb had 31 touchdowns and 8 interceptions in 2004. Daunte damn Culpepper had 39 touchdowns and 11 interceptions in 2004. Tom Brady was 9th in passer rating. He was 6th in touchdowns in 2004. The Patriots won in 2004 because the Patriots had 5 other pro bowl players, 4 all-pro players and allowed over 24 points three times. They allowed 16.25 points per game. You can call Brady elite in 2004 all you want, but that only means your definition of elite is bad when he clearly wasn't a top 3 QB that season. If you call somebody elite when they're not in the top 10% of their position that year, you really don't understand the meaning of elite. If you call Brady elite by his touchdowns, that means the top 20% of the NFL was elite at QB that year. If you call him elite by his QBR, that would mean that 30% of the NFL was elite at QB that year. To bring this bickering to a quick end, just realize that I never said Brady was bad before 2007. He wasn't elite before then. Seriously. Every major way to judge a QB, he wasn't elite that year. 9th in yards per attempt. 17th in completion percentage. 9th in passer rating. 6th in touchdowns. The best team in the league, and you want to call him elite in 2004? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargers Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: No, I'm really not. He wasn't elite. He was on the best-coached team and the team didn't require him to be elite, and he wasn't. You can cite the rule changes post-2007 all you want. Peyton Manning consistently threw 4000+ yards, more touchdowns, less interceptions. He had 49 touchdowns and 10 interceptions in 2004. Brees had 27 touchdowns and 7 interceptions in 2004. McNabb had 31 touchdowns and 8 interceptions in 2004. Daunte damn Culpepper had 39 touchdowns and 11 interceptions in 2004. Tom Brady was 9th in passer rating. He was 6th in touchdowns in 2004. The Patriots won in 2004 because the Patriots had 5 other pro bowl players, 4 all-pro players and allowed over 24 points three times. They allowed 16.25 points per game. You can call Brady elite in 2004 all you want, but that only means your definition of elite is bad when he clearly wasn't a top 3 QB that season. If you call somebody elite when they're not in the top 10% of their position that year, you really don't understand the meaning of elite. If you call Brady elite by his touchdowns, that means the top 20% of the NFL was elite at QB that year. If you call him elite by his QBR, that would mean that 30% of the NFL was elite at QB that year. To bring this bickering to a quick end, just realize that I never said Brady was bad before 2007. He wasn't elite before then. Seriously. Every major way to judge a QB, he wasn't elite that year. 9th in yards per attempt. 17th in completion percentage. 9th in passer rating. 6th in touchdowns. The best team in the league, and you want to call him elite in 2004? I agree he wasn't elite, but he certainly wasn't game manger scrub. He obviously had a major impact on their wins in the post-season. I can imagine if you switched out Brady for McNabb he probably beats the Patriots in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Just now, Classic said: He obviously had a major impact on their wins in the post-season. Yeah, he wasn't bad. I never said that. Game manager is not synonymous with bad, or scrub. He still wasn't all that responsible for their postseason success either though. He had 144 yards and 5.3 yards per attempt against the Colts. He stepped up when the Steelers put up points on that defense, and he did enough to win the Super Bowl, but he didn't do anything particularly elite in 2004. A LOT of quarterbacks could have won a Super Bowl on that team, so I don't know what in God's name postseason success has to do with calling him elite in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 11 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: If you call somebody elite when they're not in the top 10% of their position that year, you really don't understand the meaning of elite. Nope, that’s you. The word “elite” does not have an arbitrary cut-off at X percentage. Pretending like the “elite” has an automatic percentage connotation is just you acting like your portrayal of the word is the only one. What it means is that said player is the best or in conversation for the best. For a long time, there were the “big 4” of QBs - Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Peyton. There were lots of debate for who could be ranked where, but there was also a general consensus that they were the top - those were elite QBs in an elite tier. In that case, it was 4. In the mid-2010s case of interior DL, it was 1 - JJ Watt. Wilkerson, Campbell, Richardson, or any other interior guy really didn’t have a claim as being a comparable or debatable player as Watt. Its the way the dictionary defines it and is easier that way. If you go by the magic 10% rule, does that number go up to 6 when discussing safeties? Does the #6 safety belong in the same tier as the best in the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Just now, Yin-Yang said: Nope, that’s you. The word “elite” does not have an arbitrary cut-off at X percentage. Pretending like the “elite” has an automatic percentage connotation is just you acting like your portrayal of the word is the only one. Alright, I'll bite. What is elite to you? Top 5? Top 10? Top 20? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2004/passing.htm Tom Brady 2004: 17th in completion percentage 10th in yards 6th in touchdown passes 6th in TD percentage 17th in INT% (That's the bad end) 8th in yards per attempt 9th in passer rating 0 4th quarter comebacks So tell me what constitutes elite because I can show you 30% of the league who did better in every measurable category than Tom Brady in 2004. You know that 10% is a perfectly fair cutoff point for elite. You just want to argue, so you're picking on semantics when nothing about Brady's accomplishments other than wins puts him in the top of the league that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 28 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: No, I'm really not. He wasn't elite. He was on the best-coached team and the team didn't require him to be elite, and he wasn't. You can cite the rule changes post-2007 all you want. Peyton Manning consistently threw 4000+ yards, more touchdowns, less interceptions. He had 49 touchdowns and 10 interceptions in 2004. Brees had 27 touchdowns and 7 interceptions in 2004. McNabb had 31 touchdowns and 8 interceptions in 2004. Daunte damn Culpepper had 39 touchdowns and 11 interceptions in 2004. Tom Brady was 9th in passer rating. He was 6th in touchdowns in 2004. The Patriots won in 2004 because the Patriots had 5 other pro bowl players, 4 all-pro players and allowed over 24 points three times. They allowed 16.25 points per game. You can call Brady elite in 2004 all you want, but that only means your definition of elite is bad when he clearly wasn't a top 3 QB that season. If you call somebody elite when they're not in the top 10% of their position that year, you really don't understand the meaning of elite. If you call Brady elite by his touchdowns, that means the top 20% of the NFL was elite at QB that year. If you call him elite by his QBR, that would mean that 30% of the NFL was elite at QB that year. To bring this bickering to a quick end, just realize that I never said Brady was bad before 2007. He wasn't elite before then. Seriously. Every major way to judge a QB, he wasn't elite that year. 9th in yards per attempt. 17th in completion percentage. 9th in passer rating. 6th in touchdowns. The best team in the league, and you want to call him elite in 2004? Peyton Manning was throwing to a future HOF’er Marvin Harrison in his prime early in career. Then not long later had that complimented by Reggie Wayne. No **** you put up lots of yards with those guys. Brady was throwing to Troy Brown and later got Deion Branch. Come on that’s a terrible argument. Again the majority at the time considered him elite. The Patriots would not have won the 03 and 04 Super Bowls without him. He was clearly viewed as elite. The narrative that it was 07 is revisionist at best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Alright, I'll bite. What is elite to you? Top 5? Top 10? Top 20? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2004/passing.htm Tom Brady 2004: 17th in completion percentage 10th in yards 6th in touchdown passes 6th in TD percentage 17th in INT% (That's the bad end) 8th in yards per attempt 9th in passer rating 0 4th quarter comebacks So tell me what constitutes elite because I can show you 30% of the league who did better in every measurable category than Tom Brady in 2004. You know that 10% is a perfectly fair cutoff point for elite. You just want to argue, so you're picking on semantics when nothing about Brady's accomplishments other than wins puts him in the top of the league that year. Again your citing stats for a guy who had an incredibly week WR Corp in an era that was not as conducive to stats as this one. The narrative back then was that Brady was an incredibly efficient QB who was getting by with a subpar WR group and making guys like Deion Branch look good while being absolutely clutch in the big moments. Everyone always said that if Brady had the WR’s Manning did his overall stats would go up. Again there’s a reason he was getting MVP votes in 03, there’s a reason he was being talked about as a possible GOAT in 06. Your narrative isn’t congruent with the reality of the time. You’re just reading numbers off a stat sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Just now, lancerman said: an era that was not as conducive to stats as this one. That's irrelevant. I'm comparing his numbers to the numbers of players THAT YEAR. It just doesn't hold up. You're trying to act like Brady was crippled by his team when he just wasn't. Corey Dillon had 1,600 rushing yards in 2004 and Brady's defense gave up 16.25 points per game. Now if you want to argue that Brady COULD HAVE been elite with better weapons, I might be okay with that argument. I'm not going to accept that he was elite in 2004 when he clearly wasn't. His production wasn't elite, he didn't take care of the football at an elite level (9 more touchdowns than turnovers), and all he really had to do was take care of the football, and he didn't. Brett Favre had less turnovers than Brady that year. Brady just wasn't elite. It's the same crap that's going on right now. The team had great success and it got attributed to Brady. Even if people considered Brady elite then, he wasn't. He had only two games over 300 yards passing that year. He had 6 games with a QB rating under 80. No matter what way you look at it, that's not elite. 5 times in 2004 did Brady have to score double digit points to win. 3 more times the defense held the opponent to two scores (16 points or less) It's no wonder people thought he was elite in 2004 when all he had to do was not turn over the ball and score 17 points a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 16 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Alright, I'll bite. What is elite to you? Top 5? Top 10? Top 20? You know that 10% is a perfectly fair cutoff point for elite. You just want to argue, so you're picking on semantics when nothing about Brady's accomplishments other than wins puts him in the top of the league that year. I literally just explained that there is no arbitrary cut-off point. It’s flexible. And I never even brought up Brady. That’s why I didn’t quote your whole post. In fact, if you decided to read the very first page of the thread, I even said Brady’s stamp as an elite QB happened in 07. I’m commenting on your “this is what elite means, and if you disagree, you just don’t know the word” point. My point is that your understanding of the word “elite” is not the only way to look at it (as you suggested), but it’s also just wrong, both factually and practically. Factually, because...well, the definition has no arbitrary cut-off. It actually just says a specific position or group that is superior to the rest. And practically because you run into issues as you go by position. The 6th best safety in the NFL is not in the same tier as the the #1 guy. Some positions have more elite players at it than others. Some have less. I don’t believe the 6th best guy at edge rusher, safety, etc. are in the same tier as say Harrison Smith or Von Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 11 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: That's irrelevant. I'm comparing his numbers to the numbers of players THAT YEAR. It just doesn't hold up. You're trying to act like Brady was crippled by his team when he just wasn't. Corey Dillon had 1,600 rushing yards in 2004 and Brady's defense gave up 16.25 points per game. Now if you want to argue that Brady COULD HAVE been elite with better weapons, I might be okay with that argument. I'm not going to accept that he was elite in 2004 when he clearly wasn't. His production wasn't elite, he didn't take care of the football at an elite level (9 more touchdowns than turnovers), and all he really had to do was take care of the football, and he didn't. Brett Favre had less turnovers than Brady that year. Brady just wasn't elite. It's the same crap that's going on right now. The team had great success and it got attributed to Brady. Even if people considered Brady elite then, he wasn't. He had only two games over 300 yards passing that year. He had 6 games with a QB rating under 80. No matter what way you look at it, that's not elite. 5 times in 2004 did Brady have to score double digit points to win. 3 more times the defense held the opponent to two scores (16 points or less) It's no wonder people thought he was elite in 2004 when all he had to do was not turn over the ball and score 17 points a game. 1. It’s not irrelevant 2. Having Corey Dillon and a weak WR Corp hurt Brady’s bulk numbers 3.No he was elite with bad weapons in an era where you just couldn’t put up Star Wars stats without a good WR corp 4. Can you tell me what specifically Brady did better in 07 compared to 03-06 besides better passing targets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Just now, Yin-Yang said: My point is that your understanding of the word “elite” is not the only way to look at it (as you suggested), but it’s also just wrong, both factually and practically. I think 10% is a fair cutoff point for elite, I suggested top 30% was a bad cutoff point for elite, and I showed how Brady was not a top 30% performer in 2004. Don't get what your issue is. I never said 10% was the exact only super duper no other way only definition of elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Just now, lancerman said: 1. It’s not irrelevant 2. Having Corey Dillon and a weak WR Corp hurt Brady’s bulk numbers 3.No he was elite with bad weapons in an era where you just couldn’t put up Star Wars stats without a good WR corp 4. Can you tell me what specifically Brady did better in 07 compared to 03-06 besides better passing targets? 1. Yes it is. 2. Having an elite running game makes passing easier. It certainly makes it easier to not turn the ball over. Would you agree? 3. Ewoks and Gungans have no bearing on football. He didn't have to put up elite numbers, just elite efficiency. By efficiency I mean completion percentage, turnovers, etc. Brady didn't have a great receiving corps. He didn't have the 17th receiving corps, either. 4. Certainly. He stopped turning the ball over. He started taking what the defense gave him (Faulk had 26 receptions in 2004, 47 in 2007). His numbers went from comparable to GOOD territory in 2004 to ELITE territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 19 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: I think 10% is a fair cutoff point for elite, I suggested top 30% was a bad cutoff point for elite, and I showed how Brady was not a top 30% performer in 2004. Don't get what your issue is. I never said 10% was the exact only super duper no other way only definition of elite. Not word for word, but... 1 hour ago, Outpost31 said: If you call somebody elite when they're not in the top 10% of their position that year, you really don't understand the meaning of elite. ...you did say that. 10% across the board is not a smart way of looking at it, nor is it the actual meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Just now, Yin-Yang said: Not word for word, but... ...you did say that. 10% across the board is not a smart way of looking at it, nor is it the actual meaning. Yeah, and I stand by that. If a player isn't in the top 10%, I don't consider them elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.