Greatest single season for a QB ever (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

As far as I'm concerned, if one of your qualifications for determining the greatest QB season of all time involves eliminating Marino's '84, Brady's '07, Manning '04, etc. in favor of Brad Johnson's '02 and Trent Dilfer's '00 among others, you're doing it wrong.

Poor strawman. No one has made that argument.

 

[Tau837]

As far as I'm concerned, if one of your qualifications for determining the greatest QB season of all time involves eliminating Marino's '84, Brady's '07, Manning '04, etc. in favor of Brad Johnson's '02 and Trent Dilfer's '00 among others, you're doing it wrong.

Johnson's and Dilfer's don't get included because they weren't statistically dominant. Why can't you grasp that *both* are required.

 

[moleculo]

As far as I'm concerned, if one of your qualifications for determining the greatest QB season of all time involves eliminating Marino's '84, Brady's '07, Manning '04, etc. in favor of Brad Johnson's '02 and Trent Dilfer's '00 among others, you're doing it wrong.

Johnson's and Dilfer's don't get included because they weren't statistically dominant. Why can't you grasp that *both* are required.

So you feel comfortable with Trent Dilfer's '00 season meeting the same amount of criteria as Marino's '84 in your system?

It isn't meeting the same amount of criteria. It isn't weighted 50/50. Statistical dominance is significantly more important - but when there are a group of statistically dominant seasons *and* several have won rings then seasons without rings can't compete when you are talking about the greatest season for a QB ever.

Fair enough, we just disagree on the importance of QBs on winning games. Agree to disagree

here's the thing though - the Super Bowl is not some arbitrary game. it's not one out of 16. It's the be-all, end-all game. The superbowl annually has the highest TV ratings and is broadcast all around the world. If you win the superbowl, your name will be etched in the record books forever.Winning championships is the ultimate goal of every team in the league. Lombardi trophies give a franchise pride, and it's a lasting pride. Ask any Packer fan how they feel about those 60s teams...or the Steelers in the 70's, 49ers in the 80's, Cowboys in the '90's. It's why they play the game.

Failure to win a superbowl will forever tarnish an otherwise great QB's legacy, just ask Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, Warren Moon, Donovan McNabb...or on the other side of the same coin, think about Steve Young, Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning, or John Elway and their place in the game if they had not won the big one.

Like it or not, winning a SB is important to a stud QB's legacy. it's not simply "winning games", it's winning The Game.

 

[Ghost Rider]

As far as I'm concerned, if one of your qualifications for determining the greatest QB season of all time involves eliminating Marino's '84, Brady's '07, Manning '04, etc. in favor of Brad Johnson's '02 and Trent Dilfer's '00 among others, you're doing it wrong.

Poor strawman. No one has made that argument.

Yep. Time Kibitzer is deliberately being obtuse.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

As far as I'm concerned, if one of your qualifications for determining the greatest QB season of all time involves eliminating Marino's '84, Brady's '07, Manning '04, etc. in favor of Brad Johnson's '02 and Trent Dilfer's '00 among others, you're doing it wrong.

Johnson's and Dilfer's don't get included because they weren't statistically dominant. Why can't you grasp that *both* are required.

So you feel comfortable with Trent Dilfer's '00 season meeting the same amount of criteria as Marino's '84 in your system?

It isn't meeting the same amount of criteria. It isn't weighted 50/50. Statistical dominance is significantly more important - but when there are a group of statistically dominant seasons *and* several have won rings then seasons without rings can't compete when you are talking about the greatest season for a QB ever.

Fair enough, we just disagree on the importance of QBs on winning games. Agree to disagree

here's the thing though - the Super Bowl is not some arbitrary game. it's not one out of 16. It's the be-all, end-all game. The superbowl annually has the highest TV ratings and is broadcast all around the world. If you win the superbowl, your name will be etched in the record books forever.Winning championships is the ultimate goal of every team in the league. Lombardi trophies give a franchise pride, and it's a lasting pride. Ask any Packer fan how they feel about those 60s teams...or the Steelers in the 70's, 49ers in the 80's, Cowboys in the '90's. It's why they play the game.

Failure to win a superbowl will forever tarnish an otherwise great QB's legacy, just ask Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, Warren Moon, Donovan McNabb...or on the other side of the same coin, think about Steve Young, Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning, or John Elway and their place in the game if they had not won the big one.

Like it or not, winning a SB is important to a stud QB's legacy. it's not simply "winning games", it's winning The Game.

Of course, winning Superbowls is the ultimate and most important goal of all teams, I've never suggested otherwise. Personally I'd put a far greater weight on Superbowl wins for judging the greatest QB of all time (although I assume still far less than most people in here), than I do for juding the greatest QB season of all time, but when judging the greatest QB season of all time, the role of luck and the quality of your team's defense/special teams is huge for winning any single playoff game, it's so large that to give full credit or discredit to a QB for winning/losing one of those games is foolish. Just look at Steve Young's '94 season. In his NFC Championship game he threw 13/29, 45% CMP%, 155 Yards for a YPA of 5.34.

If you look only at the QB performance of that game, you would have to assume the 49ers would lose. But the 49ers defense had 3 INT's and took one back for a TD allowing the 49ers to win the game despite Steve Young struggling. The only difference between Young's '94 season and Marino's '84 season is the 49ers defense bailed Young out for his bad performance, whereas the Dolphins D didn't bail out Marino for his relatively bad performance. So essentially the only reason that Young is on your guys' eligible list and Marino isn't has nothing to do with their actual performance, but everything to do with luck and the defensive quality of the team they are on (which are obviously things out of their control).

 

[Ghost Rider]

Way to leave out the fact that Young had 3 touchdowns (2 passing, 1 rushing) and 0 turnovers in that NFC title game. Yeah, touchdowns don't matter.

And are you talking about the same 49er defense that, while forcing 5 turnovers, also gave up 451 total yards and 28 points?

In other words, both Young and the 49ers defense could have played better, but both made tons of great plays to help them get the win. It's not like Young played poorly and the 49ers defense bailed him out, like you suggested.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Way to leave out the fact that Young had 3 touchdowns (2 passing, 1 rushing) and 0 turnovers in that NFC title game. Yeah, touchdowns don't matter. And are you talking about the same 49er defense that, while forcing 5 turnovers, also gave up 451 total yards and 28 points? In other words, both Young and the 49ers defense could have played better, but both made tons of great plays to help them get the win. It's not like Young played poorly and the 49ers defense bailed him out, like you suggested.

So Steve Young deserved to win that game because he didn't turn the ball over? I think it should take more than that to have the best QB season of all time. Yes he had 3 TDs, but looking at his stats it's pretty obvious those TDs aren't the result of him driving the team down the field. The 49ers D forced 5 turnovers, sacked Aikman 4 times, and the Cowboys had 68 more loss of yards due to penalties than the 49ers did. Those TDs were aided immensely by him having good field position, which he got due to the successes of his teammates, and the failures of his opponents, not from anything that he did himself.

 

[moleculo]

Way to leave out the fact that Young had 3 touchdowns (2 passing, 1 rushing) and 0 turnovers in that NFC title game. Yeah, touchdowns don't matter. And are you talking about the same 49er defense that, while forcing 5 turnovers, also gave up 451 total yards and 28 points? In other words, both Young and the 49ers defense could have played better, but both made tons of great plays to help them get the win. It's not like Young played poorly and the 49ers defense bailed him out, like you suggested.

So Steve Young deserved to win that game because he didn't turn the ball over? I think it should take more than that to have the best QB season of all time. Yes he had 3 TDs, but looking at his stats it's pretty obvious those TDs aren't the result of him driving the team down the field. The 49ers D forced 5 turnovers, sacked Aikman 4 times, and the Cowboys had 68 more loss of yards due to penalties than the 49ers did. Those TDs were aided immensely by him having good field position, which he got due to the successes of his teammates, and the failures of his opponents, not from anything that he did himself.

The 49ers offense scored 31 points against the #3 scoring D. Are you claiming they did that in spite of their HoF QB, who had 3 TD's himself?

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Way to leave out the fact that Young had 3 touchdowns (2 passing, 1 rushing) and 0 turnovers in that NFC title game. Yeah, touchdowns don't matter. And are you talking about the same 49er defense that, while forcing 5 turnovers, also gave up 451 total yards and 28 points? In other words, both Young and the 49ers defense could have played better, but both made tons of great plays to help them get the win. It's not like Young played poorly and the 49ers defense bailed him out, like you suggested.

So Steve Young deserved to win that game because he didn't turn the ball over? I think it should take more than that to have the best QB season of all time. Yes he had 3 TDs, but looking at his stats it's pretty obvious those TDs aren't the result of him driving the team down the field. The 49ers D forced 5 turnovers, sacked Aikman 4 times, and the Cowboys had 68 more loss of yards due to penalties than the 49ers did. Those TDs were aided immensely by him having good field position, which he got due to the successes of his teammates, and the failures of his opponents, not from anything that he did himself.

The 49ers offense scored 31 points against the #3 scoring D. Are you claiming they did that in spite of their HoF QB, who had 3 TD's himself?

I'll try and answer this in a way that'll cause the least amount of outrage among you guys; the scoring of 31 points by the 49ers offense of that game does not represent how poorly Steve Young played. The reason the 49ers were able to score that many points was, in very large part, due to the ability of the 49ers defense to turn the ball over giving the offense good field position; that is obvious given that the 49ers offense produced less than 300 yards of offense.

 

[Tau837]

Way to leave out the fact that Young had 3 touchdowns (2 passing, 1 rushing) and 0 turnovers in that NFC title game. Yeah, touchdowns don't matter. And are you talking about the same 49er defense that, while forcing 5 turnovers, also gave up 451 total yards and 28 points? In other words, both Young and the 49ers defense could have played better, but both made tons of great plays to help them get the win. It's not like Young played poorly and the 49ers defense bailed him out, like you suggested.

So Steve Young deserved to win that game because he didn't turn the ball over? I think it should take more than that to have the best QB season of all time. Yes he had 3 TDs, but looking at his stats it's pretty obvious those TDs aren't the result of him driving the team down the field. The 49ers D forced 5 turnovers, sacked Aikman 4 times, and the Cowboys had 68 more loss of yards due to penalties than the 49ers did. Those TDs were aided immensely by him having good field position, which he got due to the successes of his teammates, and the failures of his opponents, not from anything that he did himself.

The 49ers offense scored 31 points against the #3 scoring D. Are you claiming they did that in spite of their HoF QB, who had 3 TD's himself?

 

[moleculo]

Way to leave out the fact that Young had 3 touchdowns (2 passing, 1 rushing) and 0 turnovers in that NFC title game. Yeah, touchdowns don't matter. And are you talking about the same 49er defense that, while forcing 5 turnovers, also gave up 451 total yards and 28 points? In other words, both Young and the 49ers defense could have played better, but both made tons of great plays to help them get the win. It's not like Young played poorly and the 49ers defense bailed him out, like you suggested.

So Steve Young deserved to win that game because he didn't turn the ball over? I think it should take more than that to have the best QB season of all time. Yes he had 3 TDs, but looking at his stats it's pretty obvious those TDs aren't the result of him driving the team down the field. The 49ers D forced 5 turnovers, sacked Aikman 4 times, and the Cowboys had 68 more loss of yards due to penalties than the 49ers did. Those TDs were aided immensely by him having good field position, which he got due to the successes of his teammates, and the failures of his opponents, not from anything that he did himself.

The 49ers offense scored 31 points against the #3 scoring D. Are you claiming they did that in spite of their HoF QB, who had 3 TD's himself?

I'll try and answer this in a way that'll cause the least amount of outrage among you guys; the scoring of 31 points by the 49ers offense of that game does not represent how poorly Steve Young played. The reason the 49ers were able to score that many points was, in very large part, due to the ability of the 49ers defense to turn the ball over giving the offense good field position; that is obvious given that the 49ers offense produced less than 300 yards of offense.

What should they have done? Get an int and run backwards- just so the offense has to earn it?I'm sorry, I just don't see evidence of a poor game here, statistically. I see the statline of a QB who capitalized on what his D gave him.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Way to leave out the fact that Young had 3 touchdowns (2 passing, 1 rushing) and 0 turnovers in that NFC title game. Yeah, touchdowns don't matter. And are you talking about the same 49er defense that, while forcing 5 turnovers, also gave up 451 total yards and 28 points? In other words, both Young and the 49ers defense could have played better, but both made tons of great plays to help them get the win. It's not like Young played poorly and the 49ers defense bailed him out, like you suggested.

So Steve Young deserved to win that game because he didn't turn the ball over? I think it should take more than that to have the best QB season of all time. Yes he had 3 TDs, but looking at his stats it's pretty obvious those TDs aren't the result of him driving the team down the field. The 49ers D forced 5 turnovers, sacked Aikman 4 times, and the Cowboys had 68 more loss of yards due to penalties than the 49ers did. Those TDs were aided immensely by him having good field position, which he got due to the successes of his teammates, and the failures of his opponents, not from anything that he did himself.

The 49ers defense also gave up 28 points and 450 yards of offense. But you will ignore that, just like you ignored Young's TDs initially. Do you think Drew Brees played poorly in the '09 NFC title game because he had low yardage, 3 TDs and 0 INTs, but the Saints defense got shredded but forced a bunch of turnovers?

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Way to leave out the fact that Young had 3 touchdowns (2 passing, 1 rushing) and 0 turnovers in that NFC title game. Yeah, touchdowns don't matter.

And are you talking about the same 49er defense that, while forcing 5 turnovers, also gave up 451 total yards and 28 points?

In other words, both Young and the 49ers defense could have played better, but both made tons of great plays to help them get the win. It's not like Young played poorly and the 49ers defense bailed him out, like you suggested.

So Steve Young deserved to win that game because he didn't turn the ball over? I think it should take more than that to have the best QB season of all time. Yes he had 3 TDs, but looking at his stats it's pretty obvious those TDs aren't the result of him driving the team down the field. The 49ers D forced 5 turnovers, sacked Aikman 4 times, and the Cowboys had 68 more loss of yards due to penalties than the 49ers did. Those TDs were aided immensely by him having good field position, which he got due to the successes of his teammates, and the failures of his opponents, not from anything that he did himself.

The 49ers offense scored 31 points against the #3 scoring D. Are you claiming they did that in spite of their HoF QB, who had 3 TD's himself?

I'll try and answer this in a way that'll cause the least amount of outrage among you guys; the scoring of 31 points by the 49ers offense of that game does not represent how poorly Steve Young played. The reason the 49ers were able to score that many points was, in very large part, due to the ability of the 49ers defense to turn the ball over giving the offense good field position; that is obvious given that the 49ers offense produced less than 300 yards of offense.

What should they have done? Get an int and run backwards- just so the offense has to earn it?I'm sorry, I just don't see evidence of a poor game here, statistically. I see the statline of a QB who capitalized on what his D gave him.

Exactly, he capitalized on the excellent position that others put him in, so he's at an advantage due to things that are out of his control. I am of the belief that a QB shouldn't be given extra credit simply because he was put in a better position than another. Again, I think this comes down to a difference in football philosophy, which is why I agreed to disagree. I'll try and state things form a completely different perspective: if I were to guess, you guys would be of the thought that it's worthwhile to overdraft a QB in the NFL draft because QB's are so important, so you guys will have no problem with some team reaching for Tannehill in this year's draft at the top of the first round. I am of the thought that a team should take the best player available, and not reach for a relatively sub-par to his peers QB even though QB's are the more important position. It basically comes down to, you guys think QBs are the overwhelmingly deciding factor in whether a team wins or loses, whereas I think that although QBs are the most important individual factor, the combined importance of the other individual factors overrides the importance of the QB position.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

As far as I'm concerned, if one of your qualifications for determining the greatest QB season of all time involves eliminating Marino's '84, Brady's '07, Manning '04, etc. in favor of Brad Johnson's '02 and Trent Dilfer's '00 among others, you're doing it wrong.

Johnson's and Dilfer's don't get included because they weren't statistically dominant. Why can't you grasp that *both* are required.

Because Kibitzer correctly understands that Johnson and Dilfer disproved the idea that QB play is overwhelmingly important to winning a Super Bowl. And therefore that using 'who won the Super Bowl' is a really lousy way to determine who had the best season OAT.

 

[Protocols of Stringer Bell]

Way to leave out the fact that Young had 3 touchdowns (2 passing, 1 rushing) and 0 turnovers in that NFC title game. Yeah, touchdowns don't matter.

And are you talking about the same 49er defense that, while forcing 5 turnovers, also gave up 451 total yards and 28 points?

In other words, both Young and the 49ers defense could have played better, but both made tons of great plays to help them get the win. It's not like Young played poorly and the 49ers defense bailed him out, like you suggested.

So Steve Young deserved to win that game because he didn't turn the ball over? I think it should take more than that to have the best QB season of all time. Yes he had 3 TDs, but looking at his stats it's pretty obvious those TDs aren't the result of him driving the team down the field. The 49ers D forced 5 turnovers, sacked Aikman 4 times, and the Cowboys had 68 more loss of yards due to penalties than the 49ers did. Those TDs were aided immensely by him having good field position, which he got due to the successes of his teammates, and the failures of his opponents, not from anything that he did himself.

The 49ers offense scored 31 points against the #3 scoring D. Are you claiming they did that in spite of their HoF QB, who had 3 TD's himself?

I'll try and answer this in a way that'll cause the least amount of outrage among you guys; the scoring of 31 points by the 49ers offense of that game does not represent how poorly Steve Young played. The reason the 49ers were able to score that many points was, in very large part, due to the ability of the 49ers defense to turn the ball over giving the offense good field position; that is obvious given that the 49ers offense produced less than 300 yards of offense.

What should they have done? Get an int and run backwards- just so the offense has to earn it?I'm sorry, I just don't see evidence of a poor game here, statistically. I see the statline of a QB who capitalized on what his D gave him.

Exactly, he capitalized on the excellent position that others put him in, so he's at an advantage due to things that are out of his control. I am of the belief that a QB shouldn't be given extra credit simply because he was put in a better position than another. Again, I think this comes down to a difference in football philosophy, which is why I agreed to disagree. I'll try and state things form a completely different perspective: if I were to guess, you guys would be of the thought that it's worthwhile to overdraft a QB in the NFL draft because QB's are so important, so you guys will have no problem with some team reaching for Tannehill in this year's draft at the top of the first round. I am of the thought that a team should take the best player available, and not reach for a relatively sub-par to his peers QB even though QB's are the more important position. It basically comes down to, you guys think QBs are the overwhelmingly deciding factor in whether a team wins or loses, whereas I think that although QBs are the most important individual factor, the combined importance of the other individual factors overrides the importance of the QB position.

Have we considered the fact that one of the reasons the 49ers forced all those turnovers in that game is that Young (and the offense's) performance put them up enough that it changed the complexion of the game? Looking back at the numbers, Aikman threw the ball 53 times. I would guess that's close to a career high in a playoff game for him. 49ers were up 21-0 to start, changing Dallas' gameplan from Emmitt off tackle every other carry to Aikman and the offense having to play catchup. Teams with opportunistic, attacking defenses (I'm thinking of that 09 Saints team too) sometimes get to play that way because the offense gives them the opportunity to pin their ears back.

Remembering that rivalry, Dallas always got a lead and then ground it out with Emmitt, limiting turnovers. In that game, SF blew the doors off to start and Dallas couldn't catch up.

 

[grateful zed]

tebow, 2011

 

[moleculo]

As far as I'm concerned, if one of your qualifications for determining the greatest QB season of all time involves eliminating Marino's '84, Brady's '07, Manning '04, etc. in favor of Brad Johnson's '02 and Trent Dilfer's '00 among others, you're doing it wrong.

Johnson's and Dilfer's don't get included because they weren't statistically dominant. Why can't you grasp that *both* are required.

Because Kibitzer correctly understands that Johnson and Dilfer disproved the idea that QB play is overwhelmingly important to winning a Super Bowl. And therefore that using 'who won the Super Bowl' is a really lousy way to determine who had the best season OAT.

not sure I but that. there have been 46 superbowls, but only 29 SB winning QB's. Out of those 29 QB's, 18 are either in the HOF or likely to be. in the whole history of the SB, 12 out of 46 games (26%) have been won by a team without a HoF level play. Here's your list of SB winning QB's who IMO are not hof Material:Brad johnsondoug williamsEarl morralljeff HostettlerJim McMahonJim Plunkett (x2)Joe TheismanKen StablerMark RypenPhil simmstrent dilferThat's it. not all of these guys were scrubs either - there are all-pro QB's here who just aren't quite hoF mat'l...it's not all Trent Dilfers. This shows that while it is possible to win without an all-time great QB, your odds go down. like anything else, there are no absolutes. But there are odds and your odds of winning it all are not very good without a stud QB.74% of all superbowls have been won by teams with HoF (or likely to be HoF) QB's. I don't have the time to do further research, but I'd wager that this correlation is much higher than any other position.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

74% of all superbowls have been won by teams with HoF (or likely to be HoF) QB's. I don't have the time to do further research, but I'd wager that this correlation is much higher than any other position.

But how many of those are in the HoF because they have the Super Bowls? Not that I've looked at it closely, but this is kind of a chicken and the egg scenario. Many QBs are voted into the HoF because of the Super Bowls. If you win a couple of Super Bowls then you've probably got a hall of fame QB because any QB with two super bowls is going to be headed to the hall regardless of whether or not they actually provided "HoF" level of play.If Ben Roethlisberger had played his career on the Rams and put up the exact same stats on a losing franchise even his own mother wouldn't say he's a future HoFer. Are guys like him who aren't world-beaters statistically HoF QBs that won super bowls or quarterbacks that were on Super Bowl teams and became hall of famers?

 

[moleculo]

74% of all superbowls have been won by teams with HoF (or likely to be HoF) QB's. I don't have the time to do further research, but I'd wager that this correlation is much higher than any other position.

But how many of those are in the HoF because they have the Super Bowls? Not that I've looked at it closely, but this is kind of a chicken and the egg scenario. Many QBs are voted into the HoF because of the Super Bowls. If you win a couple of Super Bowls then you've probably got a hall of fame QB because any QB with two super bowls is going to be headed to the hall regardless of whether or not they actually provided "HoF" level of play.If Ben Roethlisberger had played his career on the Rams and put up the exact same stats on a losing franchise even his own mother wouldn't say he's a future HoFer. Are guys like him who aren't world-beaters statistically HoF QBs that won super bowls or quarterbacks that were on Super Bowl teams and became hall of famers?

yeah, I know there's some circular logic at play. I suppose the fact that there have been QB's to win SB's (even Plunkett, who won two) that are not in the HoF goes to show that simply winning in the SB is not an automatic qualifier; it takes something more.

 

[bostonfred]

I think the poll result and responses so far are pretty reasonable, just wanted to add that tom brady in 2007 was playing with an entirely new group of receivers, all of whom had their best year by far with brady, including randy moss, who was traded for a fourth rounder because everyone said he was done, then broke the td record in his first season with brady. who knows what kind of year they'd have had in 2008 if brady hadnt gotten hurt. And the fact that brady later set the te record with a second year tight end who had been selected in the second round the year before suggests that it wasnt just the huge talent surrounding brady, as a couple people have mentioned when discussing marino vs. Brady, rice, etc.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I think the poll result and responses so far are pretty reasonable, just wanted to add that tom brady in 2007 was playing with an entirely new group of receivers, all of whom had their best year by far with brady, including randy moss, who was traded for a fourth rounder because everyone said he was done, then broke the td record in his first season with brady. who knows what kind of year they'd have had in 2008 if brady hadnt gotten hurt. And the fact that brady later set the te record with a second year tight end who had been selected in the second round the year before suggests that it wasnt just the huge talent surrounding brady, as a couple people have mentioned when discussing marino vs. Brady, rice, etc.

Why is that? Gronkowski comes across as a huge talent to me, regardless of when and where he was drafted.

 

[Tau837]

I think the poll result and responses so far are pretty reasonable, just wanted to add that tom brady in 2007 was playing with an entirely new group of receivers, all of whom had their best year by far with brady, including randy moss, who was traded for a fourth rounder because everyone said he was done, then broke the td record in his first season with brady. who knows what kind of year they'd have had in 2008 if brady hadnt gotten hurt. And the fact that brady later set the te record with a second year tight end who had been selected in the second round the year before suggests that it wasnt just the huge talent surrounding brady, as a couple people have mentioned when discussing marino vs. Brady, rice, etc.

Why is that? Gronkowski comes across as a huge talent to me, regardless of when and where he was drafted.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with bostonfred's body of work as relates to Brady...

 

[bostonfred]

I think the poll result and responses so far are pretty reasonable, just wanted to add that tom brady in 2007 was playing with an entirely new group of receivers, all of whom had their best year by far with brady, including randy moss, who was traded for a fourth rounder because everyone said he was done, then broke the td record in his first season with brady. who knows what kind of year they'd have had in 2008 if brady hadnt gotten hurt. And the fact that brady later set the te record with a second year tight end who had been selected in the second round the year before suggests that it wasnt just the huge talent surrounding brady, as a couple people have mentioned when discussing marino vs. Brady, rice, etc.

Why is that? Gronkowski comes across as a huge talent to me, regardless of when and where he was drafted.

He's definitely talented. Im just saying that neither moss nor gronk were considered can't miss studs when they arrived in new england, and they both set all time records, in their first and second seasons with brady, respectively. The fact that gronk was a second rounder isn't a knock on his talent, its just a good barometer of what people expected from him going into his rookie season, as opposed to what they expected after his 10 td rookie season and historic sophomore season. same with welker, branch, troy brown, reche caldwell, and more, all of whom had their runaway best seasons with brady and blew up immediately when they started playing with him. And to me, the fact that brady not only had arguably the best season ever as a qb with a brand new slate of receivers, while helping them to the best seasons of their career including multiple all time receiving records, coupled with the fact that he's had similar effects on other receivers in their first year together, is an impressive notch in his column that's worth discussing.

 

[Tau837]

I think the poll result and responses so far are pretty reasonable, just wanted to add that tom brady in 2007 was playing with an entirely new group of receivers, all of whom had their best year by far with brady, including randy moss, who was traded for a fourth rounder because everyone said he was done, then broke the td record in his first season with brady. who knows what kind of year they'd have had in 2008 if brady hadnt gotten hurt. And the fact that brady later set the te record with a second year tight end who had been selected in the second round the year before suggests that it wasnt just the huge talent surrounding brady, as a couple people have mentioned when discussing marino vs. Brady, rice, etc.

Why is that? Gronkowski comes across as a huge talent to me, regardless of when and where he was drafted.

He's definitely talented. Im just saying that neither moss nor gronk were considered can't miss studs when they arrived in new england, and they both set all time records, in their first and second seasons with brady, respectively. The fact that gronk was a second rounder isn't a knock on his talent, its just a good barometer of what people expected from him going into his rookie season, as opposed to what they expected after his 10 td rookie season and historic sophomore season. same with welker, branch, troy brown, reche caldwell, and more, all of whom had their runaway best seasons with brady and blew up immediately when they started playing with him. And to me, the fact that brady not only had arguably the best season ever as a qb with a brand new slate of receivers, while helping them to the best seasons of their career including multiple all time receiving records, coupled with the fact that he's had similar effects on other receivers in their first year together, is an impressive notch in his column that's worth discussing.

It's not relevant to the thread topic. At least Gronkowski isn't.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think the poll result and responses so far are pretty reasonable, just wanted to add that tom brady in 2007 was playing with an entirely new group of receivers, all of whom had their best year by far with brady, including randy moss, who was traded for a fourth rounder because everyone said he was done, then broke the td record in his first season with brady. who knows what kind of year they'd have had in 2008 if brady hadnt gotten hurt. And the fact that brady later set the te record with a second year tight end who had been selected in the second round the year before suggests that it wasnt just the huge talent surrounding brady, as a couple people have mentioned when discussing marino vs. Brady, rice, etc.

Why is that? Gronkowski comes across as a huge talent to me, regardless of when and where he was drafted.

He's definitely talented. Im just saying that neither moss nor gronk were considered can't miss studs when they arrived in new england, and they both set all time records, in their first and second seasons with brady, respectively. The fact that gronk was a second rounder isn't a knock on his talent, its just a good barometer of what people expected from him going into his rookie season, as opposed to what they expected after his 10 td rookie season and historic sophomore season. same with welker, branch, troy brown, reche caldwell, and more, all of whom had their runaway best seasons with brady and blew up immediately when they started playing with him. And to me, the fact that brady not only had arguably the best season ever as a qb with a brand new slate of receivers, while helping them to the best seasons of their career including multiple all time receiving records, coupled with the fact that he's had similar effects on other receivers in their first year together, is an impressive notch in his column that's worth discussing.

Honestly, I'm more impressed with Moss and Gronkowski. The fact that they were able to set all-time TD records while playing with a sixth-rounder at quarterback speaks to how talented they were.

 

[bostonfred]

I think the poll result and responses so far are pretty reasonable, just wanted to add that tom brady in 2007 was playing with an entirely new group of receivers, all of whom had their best year by far with brady, including randy moss, who was traded for a fourth rounder because everyone said he was done, then broke the td record in his first season with brady. who knows what kind of year they'd have had in 2008 if brady hadnt gotten hurt. And the fact that brady later set the te record with a second year tight end who had been selected in the second round the year before suggests that it wasnt just the huge talent surrounding brady, as a couple people have mentioned when discussing marino vs. Brady, rice, etc.

Why is that? Gronkowski comes across as a huge talent to me, regardless of when and where he was drafted.

He's definitely talented. Im just saying that neither moss nor gronk were considered can't miss studs when they arrived in new england, and they both set all time records, in their first and second seasons with brady, respectively. The fact that gronk was a second rounder isn't a knock on his talent, its just a good barometer of what people expected from him going into his rookie season, as opposed to what they expected after his 10 td rookie season and historic sophomore season. same with welker, branch, troy brown, reche caldwell, and more, all of whom had their runaway best seasons with brady and blew up immediately when they started playing with him. And to me, the fact that brady not only had arguably the best season ever as a qb with a brand new slate of receivers, while helping them to the best seasons of their career including multiple all time receiving records, coupled with the fact that he's had similar effects on other receivers in their first year together, is an impressive notch in his column that's worth discussing.

It's not relevant to the thread topic. At least Gronkowski isn't.

Sure it is. Im responding to the two obvious counter arguments id expect. Brady blew up in his first year with moss, welker and stallworth. The obvious counterargument is that moss is a hall of fame receiver (similar to the arguments used about montana, young and warner in this thread). My obvious response is that moss was considered washed up headed into that year, and none of the guys he had around him were considered great until they hooked up with brady. The obvious counterargument is that they made brady, not the other way around. And my response to that is that brady has done the same with other receivers, including gronk, which is an important data point supporting my case that it was brady who made the 2007 pats arguably the best offense in history, not the other way around. I understand that you feel the need to go on the attack every time I mention tom brady in the shark pool, as you have twice already in this thread despite the fact I haven't even said who I thought had the best single season, nor have I addressed you directly until this post. If you have a problem with me personally, just don't reply to my posts. It will be easier for both of us.

 

[bostonfred]

Honestly, I'm more impressed with Moss and Gronkowski. The fact that they were able to set all-time TD records while playing with a sixth-rounder at quarterback speaks to how talented they were.

I appreciate the subtle jab, but again, im not claiming that gronkowski is untalented, any more than im claiming jerry rice is untalented based on his draft position. My point is simple: going in to 2007, people thought moss was done, and he was traded for next to nothing because he had been an unmitigated disaster in oakland. Going into 2007, nobody thought welker was any great shakes. He looked decent, certainly had some potential, but he was hardly seen as the star he is right now. Its a bit misleading to say that brady worked with awesome talent in 2007 when he was working with guys who werent yet perceived as being that great, and it was their first year together. Most of the qbs on this list were working with top receiving options, and most had had years to develop with them. If brady hadn't been hurt in 2008, there's certainly some reason to believe his numbers would have gone down, since his numbers had trended downward in the second half of 07. But there's also reason to believe they'd have gone up, since they'd have had a second year together, those second half numbers came in bad weather during an undefeated regular season when absolutely everyone was preparing for them like it was their superbowl, and we saw a decent but unspectacular qb put up very good numbers with them in their second year in the system. The injury, coupled with them being in their first year together, and the sick numbers brady has put up since, suggest something about bradys 2007 season that you really can't say about the other guys' top seasons: maybe he was just getting warmed up. And that, imo, makes the 2007 season even more intriguing.

 

[jurb26]

My obvious response is that moss was considered washed up headed into that year, and none of the guys he had around him were considered great until they hooked up with brady.

I'm not sure how this is a logical argument. Just because people assumed Moss was washed up didn't make it so. Clearly they were wrong and Moss was not only all there, he was perhaps still in his prime and playing at maybe the highest level an NFL WRs had in the history of the league. I'm not singling you out here. It just seems some are only arguing that either Brady made Moss (or whoever else)or that Moss made Brady. It's neither. They made each other. They were great players in the prime of their careers and they flourished because of what each of them brought to the table.

 

[Tau837]

I think the poll result and responses so far are pretty reasonable, just wanted to add that tom brady in 2007 was playing with an entirely new group of receivers, all of whom had their best year by far with brady, including randy moss, who was traded for a fourth rounder because everyone said he was done, then broke the td record in his first season with brady. who knows what kind of year they'd have had in 2008 if brady hadnt gotten hurt. And the fact that brady later set the te record with a second year tight end who had been selected in the second round the year before suggests that it wasnt just the huge talent surrounding brady, as a couple people have mentioned when discussing marino vs. Brady, rice, etc.

Why is that? Gronkowski comes across as a huge talent to me, regardless of when and where he was drafted.

He's definitely talented. Im just saying that neither moss nor gronk were considered can't miss studs when they arrived in new england, and they both set all time records, in their first and second seasons with brady, respectively. The fact that gronk was a second rounder isn't a knock on his talent, its just a good barometer of what people expected from him going into his rookie season, as opposed to what they expected after his 10 td rookie season and historic sophomore season. same with welker, branch, troy brown, reche caldwell, and more, all of whom had their runaway best seasons with brady and blew up immediately when they started playing with him. And to me, the fact that brady not only had arguably the best season ever as a qb with a brand new slate of receivers, while helping them to the best seasons of their career including multiple all time receiving records, coupled with the fact that he's had similar effects on other receivers in their first year together, is an impressive notch in his column that's worth discussing.

It's not relevant to the thread topic. At least Gronkowski isn't.

Sure it is. Im responding to the two obvious counter arguments id expect. Brady blew up in his first year with moss, welker and stallworth. The obvious counterargument is that moss is a hall of fame receiver (similar to the arguments used about montana, young and warner in this thread). My obvious response is that moss was considered washed up headed into that year, and none of the guys he had around him were considered great until they hooked up with brady. The obvious counterargument is that they made brady, not the other way around. And my response to that is that brady has done the same with other receivers, including gronk, which is an important data point supporting my case that it was brady who made the 2007 pats arguably the best offense in history, not the other way around.

I suppose these are fair points, although you basically admit you are responding to arguments no one is making in this thread. I think Brady's 2007 season was amazing. I'm not sure where I'd rank it among non championship QB seasons of all time... probably 2nd behind Marino 1984, taking both regular season and postseason into account.

I understand that you feel the need to go on the attack every time I mention tom brady in the shark pool, as you have twice already in this thread despite the fact I haven't even said who I thought had the best single season, nor have I addressed you directly until this post. If you have a problem with me personally, just don't reply to my posts. It will be easier for both of us.

If you think either of my posts were an "attack" I have to seriously question your definition of that word. I invite anyone else in this thread to comment on it and let me know if they agree that I attacked you. The first post was a poke at you in jest. The second one was a direct response to your post that was not inflammatory or confrontational.In fact, out of curiosity, I just used the search function to search for posts in which I responded to you in the Shark Pool, and, unsurprisingly, I didn't find a single post attacking you. I found plenty of civil and interesting debate, most of it relating to Brady vs. Manning.

I don't have a problem with you, so I will continue to respond to your posts when I want to comment on them. If you have a problem with me, as you say, ignore my posts.

 

[Tau837]

My obvious response is that moss was considered washed up headed into that year, and none of the guys he had around him were considered great until they hooked up with brady.

I'm not sure how this is a logical argument. Just because people assumed Moss was washed up didn't make it so. Clearly they were wrong and Moss was not only all there, he was perhaps still in his prime and playing at maybe the highest level an NFL WRs had in the history of the league. I'm not singling you out here. It just seems some are only arguing that either Brady made Moss (or whoever else)or that Moss made Brady. It's neither. They made each other. They were great players in the prime of their careers and they flourished because of what each of them brought to the table.

 

[bostonfred]

My obvious response is that moss was considered washed up headed into that year, and none of the guys he had around him were considered great until they hooked up with brady.

I'm not sure how this is a logical argument. Just because people assumed Moss was washed up didn't make it so. Clearly they were wrong and Moss was not only all there, he was perhaps still in his prime and playing at maybe the highest level an NFL WRs had in the history of the league. I'm not singling you out here. It just seems some are only arguing that either Brady made Moss (or whoever else)or that Moss made Brady. It's neither. They made each other. They were great players in the prime of their careers and they flourished because of what each of them brought to the table.

When we talk about all time great seasons, it seems reasonable to point out that montana got to throw to jerry rice, while marino didn't. That's part of the reason that marino is considered one of the best of all time, because it was him, not his receivers, setting those records. Montana still deserves accolades for his individual accomplishments, but the rice thing definitely holds some sway in those debates. The same is true with brady and moss, and it should be. Moss is arguably the second best receiver in nfl history, at least in terms of talent. My point isn't that moss was untalented, or that he played poorly. Its that brady elevated moss's game in a huge way in 2007, taking him from a total bust to the nfl single season td record in just one year. That is part of the case for bradys season being the best of all times - he elevated the games of other players way above their expectations - much like marinos. Marino gets credit for doing it with lesser players, brady gets credit for doing it with players in their first year together, and a couple of others get credit for finishing their all time great seasons with championships. All of those are relevant.

 

[jurb26]

My obvious response is that moss was considered washed up headed into that year, and none of the guys he had around him were considered great until they hooked up with brady.

I'm not sure how this is a logical argument. Just because people assumed Moss was washed up didn't make it so. Clearly they were wrong and Moss was not only all there, he was perhaps still in his prime and playing at maybe the highest level an NFL WRs had in the history of the league. I'm not singling you out here. It just seems some are only arguing that either Brady made Moss (or whoever else)or that Moss made Brady. It's neither. They made each other. They were great players in the prime of their careers and they flourished because of what each of them brought to the table.

When we talk about all time great seasons, it seems reasonable to point out that montana got to throw to jerry rice, while marino didn't. That's part of the reason that marino is considered one of the best of all time, because it was him, not his receivers, setting those records. Montana still deserves accolades for his individual accomplishments, but the rice thing definitely holds some sway in those debates. The same is true with brady and moss, and it should be. Moss is arguably the second best receiver in nfl history, at least in terms of talent. My point isn't that moss was untalented, or that he played poorly. Its that brady elevated moss's game in a huge way in 2007, taking him from a total bust to the nfl single season td record in just one year. That is part of the case for bradys season being the best of all times - he elevated the games of other players way above their expectations - much like marinos. Marino gets credit for doing it with lesser players, brady gets credit for doing it with players in their first year together, and a couple of others get credit for finishing their all time great seasons with championships. All of those are relevant.

Moss was not a total bust in Oak. He was disappointing, for sure. His demise was greatly exaggerated back then and I think in order to be concise we also need to be realistic as to what kind of a player he was when he went to NE. He was still the most talented WR in football, perhaps ever, when he arrived in NE. He wasn't motivated when he left Oak, but he still had all of the ability. I agree that Brady gets some credit for Moss' success and turn around. Does the NE coaching staff not get any though? Why are you acting as though it was all Brady? Just to give you you full disclosure I would also say the coaching staffs should get credit for Montana/Rice success as well. The fact of the matter is that historic seasons like Brady/Moss or Montana/Rice or whoever else you want to list are group efforts. Some may be smaller groups of critical impactors and some may be larger. In the end, no player single handedly puts up records in football alone.

 

[Ballstein]

Kurt Warner

A superbowl win should be A prerequisite

 

[bostonfred]

My obvious response is that moss was considered washed up headed into that year, and none of the guys he had around him were considered great until they hooked up with brady.

I'm not sure how this is a logical argument. Just because people assumed Moss was washed up didn't make it so. Clearly they were wrong and Moss was not only all there, he was perhaps still in his prime and playing at maybe the highest level an NFL WRs had in the history of the league. I'm not singling you out here. It just seems some are only arguing that either Brady made Moss (or whoever else)or that Moss made Brady. It's neither. They made each other. They were great players in the prime of their careers and they flourished because of what each of them brought to the table.

When we talk about all time great seasons, it seems reasonable to point out that montana got to throw to jerry rice, while marino didn't. That's part of the reason that marino is considered one of the best of all time, because it was him, not his receivers, setting those records. Montana still deserves accolades for his individual accomplishments, but the rice thing definitely holds some sway in those debates. The same is true with brady and moss, and it should be. Moss is arguably the second best receiver in nfl history, at least in terms of talent. My point isn't that moss was untalented, or that he played poorly. Its that brady elevated moss's game in a huge way in 2007, taking him from a total bust to the nfl single season td record in just one year. That is part of the case for bradys season being the best of all times - he elevated the games of other players way above their expectations - much like marinos. Marino gets credit for doing it with lesser players, brady gets credit for doing it with players in their first year together, and a couple of others get credit for finishing their all time great seasons with championships. All of those are relevant.

Moss was not a total bust in Oak. He was disappointing, for sure. His demise was greatly exaggerated back then and I think in order to be concise we also need to be realistic as to what kind of a player he was when he went to NE. He was still the most talented WR in football, perhaps ever, when he arrived in NE. He wasn't motivated when he left Oak, but he still had all of the ability. I agree that Brady gets some credit for Moss' success and turn around. Does the NE coaching staff not get any though? Why are you acting as though it was all Brady? Just to give you you full disclosure I would also say the coaching staffs should get credit for Montana/Rice success as well. The fact of the matter is that historic seasons like Brady/Moss or Montana/Rice or whoever else you want to list are group efforts. Some may be smaller groups of critical impactors and some may be larger. In the end, no player single handedly puts up records in football alone.

The only point we seem to disagree on is that you think im saying its all brady. I can't help you with that. but while we are on the topic of coaching staffs, id say martz and walsh are considered far more important to their teams offensive success in those top years than mcdaniels. In that repect, I think 2007 was more brady and the surrounding talent than the system. Id say that system and surrounding talent have more to do with warners top season, too, although im a big fan of warner and think he deserves a ton of credit for what he did right out of the gate in the nfl.

 

[Gawain]

My obvious response is that moss was considered washed up headed into that year, and none of the guys he had around him were considered great until they hooked up with brady.

I'm not sure how this is a logical argument. Just because people assumed Moss was washed up didn't make it so. Clearly they were wrong and Moss was not only all there, he was perhaps still in his prime and playing at maybe the highest level an NFL WRs had in the history of the league. I'm not singling you out here. It just seems some are only arguing that either Brady made Moss (or whoever else)or that Moss made Brady. It's neither. They made each other. They were great players in the prime of their careers and they flourished because of what each of them brought to the table.

When we talk about all time great seasons, it seems reasonable to point out that montana got to throw to jerry rice, while marino didn't. That's part of the reason that marino is considered one of the best of all time, because it was him, not his receivers, setting those records. Montana still deserves accolades for his individual accomplishments, but the rice thing definitely holds some sway in those debates. The same is true with brady and moss, and it should be. Moss is arguably the second best receiver in nfl history, at least in terms of talent. My point isn't that moss was untalented, or that he played poorly. Its that brady elevated moss's game in a huge way in 2007, taking him from a total bust to the nfl single season td record in just one year. That is part of the case for bradys season being the best of all times - he elevated the games of other players way above their expectations - much like marinos. Marino gets credit for doing it with lesser players, brady gets credit for doing it with players in their first year together, and a couple of others get credit for finishing their all time great seasons with championships. All of those are relevant.

Moss was not a total bust in Oak. He was disappointing, for sure. His demise was greatly exaggerated back then and I think in order to be concise we also need to be realistic as to what kind of a player he was when he went to NE. He was still the most talented WR in football, perhaps ever, when he arrived in NE. He wasn't motivated when he left Oak, but he still had all of the ability. I agree that Brady gets some credit for Moss' success and turn around. Does the NE coaching staff not get any though? Why are you acting as though it was all Brady? Just to give you you full disclosure I would also say the coaching staffs should get credit for Montana/Rice success as well. The fact of the matter is that historic seasons like Brady/Moss or Montana/Rice or whoever else you want to list are group efforts. Some may be smaller groups of critical impactors and some may be larger. In the end, no player single handedly puts up records in football alone.

The only point we seem to disagree on is that you think im saying its all brady. I can't help you with that. but while we are on the topic of coaching staffs, id say martz and walsh are considered far more important to their teams offensive success in those top years than mcdaniels. In that repect, I think 2007 was more brady and the surrounding talent than the system. Id say that system and surrounding talent have more to do with warners top season, too, although im a big fan of warner and think he deserves a ton of credit for what he did right out of the gate in the nfl.

I bet you can't name me one player that Benny Friedman played me without using the googling. How's that for weak supporting talent? Moss/Bruce/Rice...these guys are household names. There's something to be said about having more than double the # of TD's than the next closest guy, while playing with guys no one remembers.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

There's something to be said about having more than double the # of TD's than the next closest guy, while playing with guys no one remembers.