lancerman Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 2 hours ago, megatechpc said: Does the era really account for the difference between throwing 20 INT's and 7 INT's? I mean, really??? Look, passing yards, completion percentage, YPA, passer rating; those are stats I can easily see being highly subject to the era in which you played, but INT's are far less dependent upon era. There were plenty of great QB's in the 80's and 90's who did not throw INT's at the kind of rate that Favre historically did. He got away with it because he was a "gunslinger" who was clutch and would make up for the INT's at the end of games and down the stretch of seasons. My whole point here is that halving his career average in INT's in addition to throwing for over 4200 yards, a 67% completion percentage, 33 TD's, and a passer rating far above his historical average all combine to make 2009 the highlight season of his career, marred only by coming up just short of the SB that year (caused at least in part by the absolute beating he took in the NFCCG, which was clearly an outside of the rules onslaught by the Saints for which the HC was suspended for a season and Williams indefinitely at the time). Its interesting to me that the Porter INT is pointed to as the actual reason the Vikings did NOT go to the SB that year, without any consideration for the abuse Favre took in that game, yet the biggest reason I am calling 2009 his greatest ever season was precisely because he did so well that year in NOT throwing picks, which was a huge outlier for him historically. Yes it does lol. A lot of throws Rodgers makes now would be dangerous as hell in an era where CB's could mug you. Nobody thread a needle on a crossing route knowing their WR would get killed before he could secure the ball. There's far less risk in the passing game now. QB's make throws they wouldn't make. Favre was bad at INT's, but the difference is he was always a gunslinger. Earlier in his career, CB's and safeties could take advantage of the risky throws because they could disrupt WR routes far more. 2009 was one of Favre's best seasons, but it's not his best season. It's like how if you watched Manning's career his best season for stats was 2013, but almost everyone who watched both knows 2004 was the far better season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megatechpc Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 I like how you just discount stats for, reasons? To me its just factual that 2013 was Manning's finest season, whether you watched every game or just looked up Pro Football Reference. Think about it this way, it is impossible to have a "great" season while having terrible stats. Stats are the objective measuring stick for a player's performance and they are the reason that we bother to keep records and revere them so much. I understand why people like you say these things, because you want to emphasize that there is more to evaluating a player than simply his stats alone. But the fact of the matter is that when you put up the kind of numbers that Manning did in 2013 it just doesn't matter whatever other intangible things he may have done in other seasons. Any other evaluation is based on opinion and subjectivity, which is up to interpretation and bias. The stats are the stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 11 hours ago, megatechpc said: I like how you just discount stats for, reasons? To me its just factual that 2013 was Manning's finest season, whether you watched every game or just looked up Pro Football Reference. Think about it this way, it is impossible to have a "great" season while having terrible stats. Stats are the objective measuring stick for a player's performance and they are the reason that we bother to keep records and revere them so much. I understand why people like you say these things, because you want to emphasize that there is more to evaluating a player than simply his stats alone. But the fact of the matter is that when you put up the kind of numbers that Manning did in 2013 it just doesn't matter whatever other intangible things he may have done in other seasons. Any other evaluation is based on opinion and subjectivity, which is up to interpretation and bias. The stats are the stats. It was. It sounds to me like you think era doesn’t matter. Manning was a far better and deadlier QB in 2004 compared to 2013. Both physically and in decision making. Stats aren’t objective and they are highly dependent. If you gave rookie Peyton Manning a team with a stacked offensive line and Moss, Wayne, Harrison, Fitzgerald. Then take 2013 Manning and give him a crap line and mediocre WR’s and take away rule advantages, it doesn’t really matter. Stats are contextual and most people realize this. You’ll never have a complete picture if you view stats as an end all be all in a vacuum. This isn’t baseball where every stat is an individual effort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 23 hours ago, megatechpc said: I like how you just discount stats for, reasons? To me its just factual that 2013 was Manning's finest season, whether you watched every game or just looked up Pro Football Reference. Think about it this way, it is impossible to have a "great" season while having terrible stats. Stats are the objective measuring stick for a player's performance and they are the reason that we bother to keep records and revere them so much. I understand why people like you say these things, because you want to emphasize that there is more to evaluating a player than simply his stats alone. But the fact of the matter is that when you put up the kind of numbers that Manning did in 2013 it just doesn't matter whatever other intangible things he may have done in other seasons. Any other evaluation is based on opinion and subjectivity, which is up to interpretation and bias. The stats are the stats. Statistically speaking: Manning 2004 DVOA: 60.9% Manning 2013 DVOA: 43.2% Just something to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 Back on the old forum I ranked the Top 50 QB seasons of all time, ‘04 Manning was #2 and ‘13 Manning was #4. ‘04 Manning was the better season imo. Rocket throws, 9.2 YPA compared to 8.3, and was just a much more deadly and cerebral QB if you watch both seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megatechpc Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 1 hour ago, PapaShogun said: Statistically speaking: Manning 2004 DVOA: 60.9% Manning 2013 DVOA: 43.2% Just something to consider. I know everyone loves DVOA so much but when you set a record for passing yards AND touchdowns both in a single season (with all other stats also being insanely good) I just personally rank that as more impressive than higher DVOA. Its also worth noting that the Broncos made the SB in 2013 and the Colts did not in 2004. To be honest, I personally consider Manning's 2013 season as the best ever QB season performance, not even just Manning's. But I do like records myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkronsWitness Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 On 10/31/2018 at 9:17 PM, Jlowe22 said: So that second ring puts him above someone he would not otherwise be above? Manning historically never played with great defenses in Indy at any sort of consistency and when he did he made SB's and won one. When he played in Denver he won a SB because of defense. Brady has never won a ring without a top 10 defense in the NFL behind him, especially in his early years when everyone of those Pats defenses ranked top 5 in the NFL. Brady has a ring against the Seahawks because of what? Defense and Malcolm Butler saving the Pats. Sounds stupid right? Football is a team sport. The ring argument in ANY sport is completely outdated and something your dad argues about with his friends at a bar your still allowed to smoke in. Ive watched Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers in this new era and its clear from talent and play singled out its Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers in that order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 3 hours ago, AkronsWitness said: Brady has a ring against the Seahawks because of what? Defense and Malcolm Butler saving the Pats. Sounds stupid right? Yeah, it does. Only because it's the defense putting them in that position after Brady led them down the field for the late lead in the first place. It's never as cut and dry as the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlowe22 Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said: Yeah, it does. Only because it's the defense putting them in that position after Brady led them down the field for the late lead in the first place. It's never as cut and dry as the above. You're right, but if the defense failed to get that pick, and Seattle wins the game, everyone's perspective changes, even though Brady hasn't. Yet another Super Bowl Brady "couldn't win". It would be dumb to blame Brady for it, but it would certainly be held against him in GOAT arguments how he lost as many superbowls as he won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Jlowe22 said: You're right, but if the defense failed to get that pick, and Seattle wins the game, everyone's perspective changes, even though Brady hasn't. Yet another Super Bowl Brady "couldn't win". It would be dumb to blame Brady for it, but it would certainly be held against him in GOAT arguments how he lost as many superbowls as he won. It's all BS. Just watch and enjoy. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 There are always reasons why players have outstanding seasons. In 2004 Manning feasted on the NFC North - 19 TDs 1 pick with 140+ rating in 3 of the 4 games. In 2016 Matt Ryan feasted on his own division - 18 TDs 1 pick Cam did the same against he NFC South in 2015 - 14 TDs 1 pick with 5 rushing TDs Jamal Lewis in 2003 ran for 2k yards because he got 500 in 2 games vs Cleveland. In 2008 CJ2K averaged 164 yards a game vs Houston and Jacksonville, so 112 a game in the other 12 got him the 2K. Great players still have to take advantage of those situations. Otherwise we can just pretend Archie Manning was the greatest QB but his team sucked. Its a complete waste of time to cry about teams and lines and schedules when discussing greatness. We could spend all day talking about what if Roy Green or Carl Pickens played for the 49ers. It does not make either of them great wideouts. Instead we have to constantly hear the same boring crap about Brady getting 3 new WRs in 2007 which NOBODY ELSE WANTED and then pretend he just stood there while Moss, Welker, Stallworth, and 2nd year Patriot Gaffney did all the work for him. Like Cassel throwing 58% (29) less TDs to the same guys in 2008 diminishes Brady somehow. Moss and Gordon come to New England and Brady befriends, mentors, and leads them. When Moss did eventually leave, it was because BB was not going to pay him TO goes to Philly and McNabb, the 0 leadership clown, goes to war with him over hurt feelings. There is no stat for that, but it is greatness vs being a loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.