Better Career: Brett Favre, Drew Brees, Dan Marino, Steve Young,

[Jlowe22]

2 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Nobody claimed Saints fans said it was the primary thing QB's should be judged on. However, Volume passing statistics are one of if not the least important statistic that exists to evaluate QB's. Saints fans seem to have more trouble acknowledging that. 

Fans in general put more emphasis on volume stats than they should.  This isn't a Saints fan thing.

 

 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

2 hours ago, Jlowe22 said:

Fans in general put more emphasis on volume stats than they should.  This isn't a Saints fan thing.

I've never seen anyone other than a Saints fan say things like "Oh, he's good/the best because he has X number of 5,000 yard seasons or Y number of 300 yard games."

[Soko]

 

Quote

This is a question of which of THOSE quarterbacks are the best amongst Favre, Young, Marino and Brees. 

 

On 2/27/2019 at 10:37 PM, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

These are all team accomplishments and give little merit to the quarterback themselves. 

 

On 3/5/2019 at 12:25 AM, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

This doesn't even mildly support the notion that wins should be used more to evaluate QB's. 

Thread pretty clearly says “Better Career”.

Things like numbers, stats, wins, and accomplishments - while not necessarily directly indicative of any given player’s individual skill - are certainly important in terms of looking at a player’s career. Especially a quarterback. 

[Jlowe22]

6 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

I've never seen anyone other than a Saints fan say things like "Oh, he's good/the best because he has X number of 5,000 yard seasons or Y number of 300 yard games."

Then you must have miss d the Pats fan that wanted to change how we measure stats so Brady could be the passing yards leader.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

14 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Thread pretty clearly says “Better Career”.

Things like numbers, stats, wins, and accomplishments - while not necessarily directly indicative of any given player’s individual skill - are certainly important in terms of looking at a player’s career. Especially a quarterback. 

And team accomplishments do not give an individual player's career merit. Or at least, it isn't nor should it be the main emphasis or treated like an actual individual statistic, because it's all team based. Especially when Defense has been proven time and time again to be the more important element of a team, and obviously QB's aren't on defense. We see that "Defense wins championships" yet we give all the credit for these championships to a quarterback. It's insane. 

[Soko]

7 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

And team accomplishments do not give an individual player's career merit. Or at least, it isn't nor should it be the main emphasis or treated like an actual individual statistic, because it's all team based. Especially when Defense has been proven time and time again to be the more important element of a team, and obviously QB's aren't on defense. We see that "Defense wins championships" yet we give all the credit for these championships to a quarterback. It's insane. 

As long as it’s clear that: A) you are in the minority if you believe that Super Bowl champions provide “little merit” for a player’s career, and B) you mistakenly compared these players instead of their careers - then proceed.  

If you want to play the semantics game, then receiving yards shouldn’t be an individual stat because receivers require a QB. Rushing yards require an offensive line to block. Coaching records require a competent roster/serviceable talent. Nothing in this game is truly individualistic (closest thing is probably field goal percentage, but even that requires blockers, a good hold, and field position).

No, wins aren’t a pure-QB statistic, but they certainly weigh heavily when looking at a player’s career - as do championships, MVPs, etc.

[Shanedorf]

19 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Especially when Defense has been proven time and time again to be the more important element of a team, and obviously QB's aren't on defense. We see that "Defense wins championships" yet we give all the credit for these championships to a quarterback. It's insane. 

Favre was a blast to watch, played forever and was clearly a fan favorite.
But the only Title he won was with the Number 1 defense,  including Reggie White -  who closed out that Super Bowl with 3 sacks on the Pats final drive

[Leoric]

Lord Favre and it’s not even close. He has it all, Cash, Chicks, Championships and top shelf sponsors. No one else in this list ever had half the too quality promotions that Favre did. Not to mention we even call throwing a pick to seal the game a Favre. No one on this list has the same lasting impact on the game that Favre does. 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

On 3/7/2019 at 12:38 PM, Shanedorf said:

Favre was a blast to watch, played forever and was clearly a fan favorite.
But the only Title he won was with the Number 1 defense,  including Reggie White -  who closed out that Super Bowl with 3 sacks on the Pats final drive

Well, exactly. Defense wins Championships, not quarterbacks. There's a reason that the cliche is "defense wins championships" and not "QB's win championships." QB is by far the most important element of an offense, and of course, can only directly affect the offense. However, exactly 0 of the top 15 highest scoring offenses of all time won the Super Bowl in the SB era. Having a fantastic QB and the resulting high-flying offense, doesn't win you championships. That's just a fact. Therefore, it is ******* stupid to give all of the credit for a Super Bowl or team accomplishments in general, to a QB. 

Dan Marino is by far the best of this group, despite having never won a ring. 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

On 3/7/2019 at 1:19 AM, Yin-Yang said:

A) you are in the minority if you believe that Super Bowl champions provide “little merit” for a player’s career,

I don't care in the slightest. The majority of people are morons. 

On 3/7/2019 at 1:19 AM, Yin-Yang said:

B) you mistakenly compared these players instead of their careers - then proceed.  

No, I didn't. A player's career is a function of what they did as players, and the only portion of their career I didn't consider as much as other people was the Super Bowl wins, which is a team accomplishment. 

On 3/7/2019 at 1:19 AM, Yin-Yang said:

If you want to play the semantics game, then receiving yards shouldn’t be an individual stat because receivers require a QB. Rushing yards require an offensive line to block. Coaching records require a competent roster/serviceable talent. Nothing in this game is truly individualistic (closest thing is probably field goal percentage, but even that requires blockers, a good hold, and field position).

Obviously. But those aren't analogous. Receving yards are still ultimately an individual statistic, even if not 100% dependent on their own play given that there are other players involved. But the "win" statistic being a QB stat makes no sense because the rest of the team plays a much larger role in the win than that individual player does. 

And it's definitely not semantics. You either don't understand what the word "semantics" means, or don't understand that it is an important distinction to make. 

[Soko]

On 3/7/2019 at 1:19 AM, Yin-Yang said:

B) you mistakenly compared these players instead of their careers 

 

3 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

No, I didn't.

 

On 2/26/2019 at 3:05 PM, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

This is a question of which of THOSE quarterbacks are the best amongst Favre, Young, Marino and Brees. 

Now since most people are “morons”, let me run my reading comprehension past a swift fella like yourself; does the thread title say “better career” or “better player”? Because those are two very different questions. An inferior player can quite easily have a more illustrious career. Saying “the question is which QB is the best” is pretty much, word-for-word, wrong.

If you don’t want to use career accomplishments when judging careers - which is insane, but your prerogative - then fine, do you. But at least be a little humble about it instead of calling people who disagree with you morons or stupid. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

 

 

Now since most people are “morons”, let me run my reading comprehension past a swift fella like yourself; does the thread title say “better career” or “better player”? Because those are two very different questions. An inferior player can quite easily have a more illustrious career. Saying “the question is which QB is the best” is pretty much, word-for-word, wrong.

If you don’t want to use career accomplishments when judging careers - which is insane, but your prerogative - then fine, do you. But at least be a little humble about it instead of calling people who disagree with you morons or stupid. 

Yes. Anyone whose strategy in a debate is to attack someone's character to try to strengthen their own argument, instead of going after the person's actual argument doesn't make their point any more valid. People like that aren't worth engaging. 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

16 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Now since most people are “morons”, let me run my reading comprehension past a swift fella like yourself; does the thread title say “better career” or “better player”? Because those are two very different questions. An inferior player can quite easily have a more illustrious career. Saying “the question is which QB is the best” is pretty much, word-for-word, wrong.

Now you're just playing the semantics game. The way I phrased my answer was perfectly fine for the topic. I'm so sorry I didn't phrase it: "This is a question of which one of those quarterbacks had the best career." You know what I meant, this is a petty distinction. It's not actually a reading comprehension in the slightest.

And again, back to the original argument, the only reason that you treat the terms so differently is that you associate a player's career quality wiith how many team accomplishments they had, when that gives their individual career very little more actual merit. It just means that the franchise they were associated with at the time, won. That doesn't actually give them a dramatically better career, because ultimately their career is an evaluation of their performance as a player over that time period, not the team's. 

15 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

Yes. Anyone whose strategy in a debate is to attack someone's character to try to strengthen their own argument, instead of going after the person's actual argument doesn't make their point any more valid. People like that aren't worth engaging. 

Well, then it sure is a good thing that nobody is doing that. I would try to apply your "knowledge" of an ad hominem better next time. Or try to recognize next time that the opposition was utilizing an "ad populum fallacy" in response. 

[Soko]

18 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Now you're just playing the semantics game. The way I phrased my answer was perfectly fine for the topic. I'm so sorry I didn't phrase it: "This is a question of which one of those quarterbacks had the best career." You know what I meant, this is a petty distinction. It's not actually a reading comprehension in the slightest.

Really? Because when I pointed it out the first time, you flat out denied it. So again, allow me to run my herp-derp thoughts by the genius; wouldn’t misphrasing something be considered “wrong”? Or at least, wrongly stating it? Maybe something you view as colloquially understood, others won’t. 

Replay the whole “be humble, stop assuming you’re the smartest guy on earth” type comment.

18 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

And again, back to the original argument, the only reason that you treat the terms so differently is that you associate a player's career quality wiith how many team accomplishments they had, when that gives their individual career very little more actual merit. It just means that the franchise they were associated with at the time, won. That doesn't actually give them a dramatically better career, because ultimately their career is an evaluation of their performance as a player over that time period, not the team's. 

I should just copy & paste my comment. Your opinion =/= fact. 

18 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Well, then it sure is a good thing that nobody is doing that. I would try to apply your "knowledge" of an ad hominem better next time. Or try to recognize next time that the opposition was utilizing an "ad populum fallacy" in response. 

You called most of us morons and said treating championships/wins as decent merit to a player’s career is stupid/idiotic. 

Why am I not surprised the undergrad terms are coming out?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

13 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

You called most of us morons and said treating championships/wins as decent merit to a player’s career is stupid/idiotic. 

Why am I not surprised the undergrad terms are coming out?

Exactly. Like I said, not even worth engaging.