Colts vs Saints (MNF)

[League_Champion]

46 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-no-dome-no-worries-drew-brees-is-more-than-just-a-product-of-the-mercedes-benz-superdome

 

That article is useless. How many games has he played in NE, Buffalo or NY in November or December? His division games are all in warm weather cities. The wear and tear outdoors is ten fold, nobody can deny that. So those numbers are useless. 

[rajncajn]

52 minutes ago, League_Champion said:

 

That article is useless. How many games has he played in NE, Buffalo or NY in November or December? His division games are all in warm weather cities. The wear and tear outdoors is ten fold, nobody can deny that. So those numbers are useless. 

How many bad weather games does Brady actually play in during a season? You say that like it happens every week during the months of November and December. And Brees, as evidenced by the PFF article I just gave you, is very nearly just as good outdoors as he is indoors. In fact, he's actually been statistically better outdoors in some very important factors than the players he's compared with. Did you read this part?

Quote

Comparatively, his 79.0% adjusted completion percentage in a dome is slightly better than his 77.4% adjusted completion percentage on throws in a stadium, but the latter ranks first among quarterbacks in the PFF era, while the former is good for second place behind Kirk Cousins. In stadium, just 12.0% of Brees' throws have been negatively graded, while just 10.0% of his throws in a dome have been negatively graded - both of which are good for first place among quarterbacks.

Useless... Ok

Edited December 17, 2019 by rajncajn

[stevegrab]

48 minutes ago, Montana is da Man said:

 

 

It is completely subjective.  What is the main determination?  Super bowl rings?  Playoff wins?  Touch downs?  Least interceptions?  

 

People call Eli an all time great, but outside of those 2 playoff that ended in super bowl MVP's for him, he never won a playoff game.  Did he just have two good playoff runs or is he an all time great?

 

It should be lots of things, Super Bowl rings should be the least considered thing, if used at all. Any metric relating to wins is very unfair to assign to any single player in football. Yes the QB is important and touches the ball a lot, but they rely on 10 other guys on the field at the same time, 11 on defense, a bunch on special teams and subs. But that ship sailed long ago when they created a stated called QBRec. (I know PFR uses it, not sure if NFL has it, but hear many people in the industry talk about the W/L record of a QB, but not any other player (head coaches also have W/L record).

 

I know that Brees and the Saints offense thrive on a lot of short quick throws, and that allows for an insanely high completion percentage. They play in a dome / good weather, but so do plenty of other guys. (Peyton Manning comes to mind, but haven't heard many use that to take away from his accomplishments.)

 

 

[stevegrab]

17 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

How many bad weather games does Brady actually play in during a season? You say that like it happens every week during the months of November and December. And Brees, as evidenced by the PFF article I just gave you, is very nearly just as good outdoors as he is indoors. In fact, he's actually been statistically better outdoors in some very important factors than the players he's compared with. Did you read this part?

 

 

Useless... Ok

 

Don't bother, in 5 posts he'll change his mind and agree with you. He just says a lot of stuff thinking he'e witty and cool. 

[1fastdoc]

1 hour ago, rajncajn said:

Guys like Brady, Manning, eRodgers and Brees would be all-time greats in any era of football. I don't think you could say the same about many players from the past.

 

I tend to agree with your assessment, everyone as a whole is much better because players have become much more athletic and the sport is more competitive/exclusive.  Today's athletes in general are more physically adept than prior generations.

 

But to play devil's advocate, the current QB's are well protected while the QB's in the past had to contend with linebackers who were trying to kill them.

 

There's really no way to compare stats reliably over the years, there are too many dynamic variables.  

[rajncajn]

1 minute ago, 1fastdoc said:

 

I tend to agree with your assessment, everyone as a whole is much better because players have become much more athletic and the sport is more competitive/exclusive.  Today's athletes in general are more physically adept than prior generations.

 

But to play devil's advocate, the current QB's are well protected while the QB's in the past had to contend with linebackers who were trying to kill them.

 

There's really no way to compare stats reliably over the years, there are too many dynamic variables.  

Overall numbers, I completely agree. If you're talking anywhere from the early 80s prior, there's no way these guys put up the numbers that they do now. I'd even wager at least one of them would have their career shortened from injury. Those other players, for the most part, just didn't have the level of skill and athleticism that players do now. How many receivers do you think could have run a sub 5.0 in the 40? Now they can hardly make a team if they can't. But that doesn't mean that Brady et al still wouldn't dominate in those time frames. 

[League_Champion]

17 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Don't bother, in 5 posts he'll change his mind and agree with you. He just says a lot of stuff thinking he'e witty and cool. 

 

And here we go again Steve. 

[purplemonster]

3 hours ago, rajncajn said:

Guys like Brady, Manning, Rodgers and Brees would be all-time greats in any era of football. I don't think you could say the same about many players from the past.

Yes I agree with that.  Brees is definitely top 10.  I don't know where to rank him in there.  You could make a good argument for top 5.  But then you have the above guys, Marino, Montana, etc.