Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 Just aggravations sake! I can live with that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Talker Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Useless information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 Useless information. Damn right! We need more stuff like this important material: http://www.santasez.sig-ad.com/ Type in kick tree, do the chicken dance, do push ups, drink beer, etc., etc. Then come up with some of your own! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Talker Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 (edited) Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. I just don't understand the value of comparing stats between QBs that played last year vs 40+ years ago when the game was completely different. And yes the santasez site was indeed more important (or at least funnier) when it was still active. Edited June 11, 2008 by Big Talker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. I just don't understand the value of comparing stats between QBs that played last year vs 40+ years ago when the game was completely different. And yes the santasez site was indeed more important (or at least funnier) when it was still active. Well played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 In the effort to compare players across eras, I'd think that (for example), comparing the career stats for "QB #1" vs. the average NFL QB for the exact same years to come up with a "how good was he vs. his peers" sort of percentage rank, and then compare that "% better than / worse than" rank to see who is better, regardless of era may be interesting. I don't have time to do that, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Put Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Tom Moore's offense on the '80s and early '90s Broncos teams and I'll bet you that Elway's passing numbers more closely resemble Montana's. Just look at the difference in Elway's numbers post-Reeves: avg year (discounting his rookie year) under Reeves - 17 tds, 17 ints, 1 yr above 56.5 comp %, 1 yr above 19 tds, 1 yr above a 79 QB rating at 83.4. avg year under not-Reeves - 24 tds, 11 ints, 1 yr below 58% comp, 1 yr below 22 tds, WORST rating in 6 years was 85.7, twice finished above 90. Of course, it also bears mention that '92 was the 2nd great tightening of pass interference rules (after '78), and there was a similar (if not quite as massive) jump in QB production across the board. So that makes two points - one regarding offensive system as regards a QB's numbers, and one regarding comparing QBs across eras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) It would be interesting to see how much better or worse these QBs averaged in their Super Bowl appearances vs. their career stats. When I say it would be interesting to compare, I mean if someone besides me did the #s. Edited June 12, 2008 by Clubfoothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 It would be interesting to see how much better or worse these QBs averaged in their Super Bowl appearances vs. their career stats. I think when looking at QB's of the 70's, we should weight those results that you suggest very heavily. However, when looking at QB's, of say, the last 3 Super Bowls , those numbers should not even be looked at, and if someone does look at them, they should just be thrown out and assumed to be irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Jesus, you'd think the implication here is that this list is the end all, be all official ranking of all Super Bowl QBs. What it is, is an attempt to quantify their efficacy and provide some insight. Those who dismiss it as useless are doing so on what basis? Their own subjective opinion. How useful is that? I think it can be damned illustrative to bring data like this into a discussion. It's not the only thing you should be looking at, but you're a fool to ignore it entirely. Especially when the data doesn't automatically favor guys who are just flinging the ball around the yard all game. Sure, it doesn't suck to be in a great offense with skilled players and an inventive OC, so you need to give those without that luxury the benefit of the doubt. Ironic, of course, that so many are rushing to Elway's defense here considering that his stat lines in two of the SBs were just downright bad. Not saying his entire body of work doesn't earn him inclusion into the elite QBs, but those two horrid games did come to mind very quickly when I thought "Elway, SB". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 12, 2008 Author Share Posted June 12, 2008 Jesus, you'd think the implication here is that this list is the end all, be all official ranking of all Super Bowl QBs. What it is, is an attempt to quantify their efficacy and provide some insight. Those who dismiss it as useless are doing so on what basis? Their own subjective opinion. How useful is that? Some people just lose track of the fact that it's the offseason. I like using it for the opportunity for provoking some discussion in some more esoteric directions. That tends to frustrate some. No big deal. Hell, there are some people here who would piss & moan if they won $10M in a lottery because it wasn't $12M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I think it can be damned illustrative to bring data like this into a discussion. It's not the only thing you should be looking at, but you're a fool to ignore it entirely. Especially when the data doesn't automatically favor guys who are just flinging the ball around the yard all game. Sounds like you want Vick recoginized too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Sounds like you want Vick recoginized too. Yummy, stinky bait. Well first off, I meant to respond to your "Where does Vick fit in on the list" querry. The answer to that is, the same place where every other QB never to have won a SB does. Not on it. However, yes, I want Vick recognized, as the gawd awful passer that he is. The notion of not skewing the data to help guys who throw the ball around the yard all day is to level the playing field for great QBs who simply managed a more conservative offense. A guy like Aikman for instance. There is very little you can do to make the numbers favor somebody who was simply not that great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) He makes the list without anyone fixing the numbers. Edited June 12, 2008 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) He makes the list without anyone fixing the numbers. Vick? Do you even know what the list is about? Vick never won a SB, much less played in one. And if you want Vick in the discussion "just because," how about Dan Marino? How about Fran Tarkenton? How about Jim Kelly? They never won Super Bowls - and they at least played in the big game. Don't be a tool...stick to the topic and post something valid...for a change. Edited June 12, 2008 by The Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Vick? Do you even know what the list is about? Vick never won a SB, much less played in one. And if you want Vick in the discussion "just because," how about Dan Marino? How about Fran Tarkenton? How about Jim Kelly? They never won Super Bowls - and they at least played in the big game. Don't be a tool...stick to the topic and post something valid...for a change. That's the funny thing, I almost felt guilty about saying he belongs in the same place on that list as every other QB who didn't win a SB because I instantly thought of QBs that were actually good who didn't win the SB. Marino and Kelly first came to mind. So Waterman, you can say you're just fishing, but you're really just being an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 So Waterman, you can say you're just fishing, but you're really just being an idiot. In other startling news, water is wet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I'm going to apologize in advance but I've been away for a few months. Why Vick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I'm going to apologize in advance but I've been away for a few months. Why Vick? I was just pointing out that in the NFL stat books that Vick is not the worst passer in the league. In that list, he wasn't even on the bottom. Which is funny considering that his rushing yards don't account in this chart. But he didn't win a Super Bowl yet, so those other teams getting beat by Atlanta didn't really count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I was just pointing out that in the NFL stat books that Vick is not the worst passer in the league. In that list, he wasn't even on the bottom. Which is funny considering that his rushing yards don't account in this chart. But he didn't win a Super Bowl yet, so those other teams getting beat by Atlanta didn't really count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I was just pointing out that in the NFL stat books that Vick is not the worst passer in the league. In that list, he wasn't even on the bottom. Which is funny considering that his rushing yards don't account in this chart. But he didn't win a Super Bowl yet, so those other teams getting beat by Atlanta didn't really count. Well then, the bar is being set pretty low I guess. So am I to understand that if you're a #1 overall pick who's being billed as a guy who's going to change the game that you merely need to not be the worst passer in the league and lead your team on one nice play-off run where you were unable to finish anyway before eventually flaming out amid dog-fighting charges and everything is cool? Gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 Excuse me, but until Vick actually wins a SB, he isn't even in the discussion at hand. Appropriately so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Excuse me, but until Vick actually wins a SB, he isn't even in the discussion at hand. Appropriately so. Heck, Vick hasn't even LOST a Super Bowl yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.