Greatest single season for a QB ever (2 Viewers)

[sn0mm1s]

I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with the idea that QBs are the most important position, but they still aren't near important enough that they are completely deserving of all credit for wins and all discredit for losses, there's way more that goes into a game than QB play.

No one says they are solely responsible for the success of a team. However, they play such a huge role that the success of their teams should be factored into their career rankings.

 

[CalBear]

I don't disagree with anything you said, I'm just suggesting that it's something to consider. That's part of the reason why I think Marino gets the nod here, the overall talent on SF in that era was greater than the talent around Marino. Granted, I was pretty young back then so my memory could easily be faulty.

The year before Marino arrived, the Dolphins went 7-2 (strike year) and went to the Super Bowl, with David Woodley at QB. In 1981 they were 11-4-1 Clayton is a 5-time Pro Bowler and Duper is a 3-timer. Dwight Stephenson is a Hall of Fame center. Not quite at the level of the Super Bowl Niner teams, or of 2007 New England, but they had talent on offense.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with the idea that QBs are the most important position, but they still aren't near important enough that they are completely deserving of all credit for wins and all discredit for losses, there's way more that goes into a game than QB play.

No one says they are solely responsible for the success of a team. However, they play such a huge role that the success of their teams should be factored into their career rankings.

I don't disagree that it plays a factor. But in regard to this thread, throwing out all seasons where the QB's team didn't win the superbowl is absurd imo.

 

[moleculo]

I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with the idea that QBs are the most important position, but they still aren't near important enough that they are completely deserving of all credit for wins and all discredit for losses, there's way more that goes into a game than QB play.

No one says they are solely responsible for the success of a team. However, they play such a huge role that the success of their teams should be factored into their career rankings.

I don't disagree that it plays a factor. But in regard to this thread, throwing out all seasons where the QB's team didn't win the superbowl is absurd imo.

How can the Greatest of anything not include a championship? What good are stats if, ultimately, they don't put hardware in the trophy case?The best possible statistical season a QB could have is ultimately meaningless if it doesn't culminate in a championship.

 

[moleculo]

Here's a question that I'm not sure I know the answer to: Are Montana's and Young's accomplishments any less "great" considering they had probably the greatest WR of all time to throw to?

Are Rice's accomplishments any less "great" considering he had two of the greatest QBs of all time to throw to?Manning and Brady both had HOF-caliber receivers in their huge seasons.

I'm not suggesting that Montana or Young weren't all time greats, but if there's 2 QB's with near identical stats but one of them had the best WR of all time to throw to, are the stats not more impressive from the QB who didn't have the best WR of all time?

It depends. Did the QB who didn't have the best WR of all time have elite teammates at WR (e.g., 2 elite WRs to counter the greatest WR of all time), TE, RB, OL? It can't be answered in a vacuum. For example, as I posted earlier, Montana 1989 and Young 1994 had Rice but no other HOF teammates on offense, whereas Warner had 4 potential HOF teammates on offense (Holt, Bruce, Pace, Faulk). I think that more than offsets.

I don't disagree with anything you said, I'm just suggesting that it's something to consider. That's part of the reason why I think Marino gets the nod here, the overall talent on SF in that era was greater than the talent around Marino. Granted, I was pretty young back then so my memory could easily be faulty.

it's irrelevant. The question isn't "who had the best season, handicapping for talent?"We are not discussing who was a better player. if we were, I think it's appropriate to consider level of talent around the player to try to think about what player X had the same advantages as player Y. No, what we are discussing in this thread is what player X vs player Y actually did.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Curious as to why there are so many voting for Brady over Rodgers. Don't see it:

Year GS QBrec Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD TD% Int Int% Y/A AY/A Y/G Rate Sk Yds NY/A ANY/A Sk%2007*+ 16 16-0-0 398 578 68.9 4806 50 8.7 8 1.4 8.3 9.4 300.4 117.2 21 128 7.8 8.9 3.52011*+ 15 14-1-0 343 502 68.3 4643 45 9.0 6 1.2 9.2 10.5 309.5 122.5 36 219 8.2 9.4 6.7
Rodgers has a healthy edge in Y/A and a small edge in both TD and INT rates. Throw in the rushing advantage, and Rodgers has a pretty clear edge over Brady, IMO.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Curious as to why there are so many voting for Brady over Rodgers. Don't see it:

   Year      GS    QBrec  Cmp  Att Cmp%   Yds  TD TD% Int Int% Y/A AY/A   Y/G  Rate  Sk  Yds NY/A ANY/A Sk%2007*+    16   16-0-0  398  578 68.9  4806  50 8.7   8  1.4 8.3  9.4 300.4 117.2  21  128  7.8   8.9 3.52011*+    15   14-1-0  343  502 68.3  4643  45 9.0   6  1.2 9.2 10.5 309.5 122.5  36  219  8.2   9.4 6.7

Rodgers has a healthy edge in Y/A and a small edge in both TD and INT rates. Throw in the rushing advantage, and Rodgers has a pretty clear edge over Brady, IMO.

Probably because this past year there were so many "historic" seasons. We saw Brady, Brees, Eli, and Stafford put up 4 of the top 6 yardage seasons ever. Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and Stafford all had top 10 all time passing TD years. Rodgers and Brees had top 10 rating years. It doesn't seem like Rodgers' year was all that special while Brady was significantly ahead of his peers in 2007.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with the idea that QBs are the most important position, but they still aren't near important enough that they are completely deserving of all credit for wins and all discredit for losses, there's way more that goes into a game than QB play.

No one says they are solely responsible for the success of a team. However, they play such a huge role that the success of their teams should be factored into their career rankings.

I don't disagree that it plays a factor. But in regard to this thread, throwing out all seasons where the QB's team didn't win the superbowl is absurd imo.

How can the Greatest of anything not include a championship? What good are stats if, ultimately, they don't put hardware in the trophy case?The best possible statistical season a QB could have is ultimately meaningless if it doesn't culminate in a championship.

What I don't understand is why should we expect the Greatest of anything to automatically lead to a championship? There are 52 players on a team, and at least 35 of them will get significant playing time. To think that a great season from any 1 player will lead to a championship and override the 34 other players on his team and the 35 players on the other team is way too fantastical. To give credit to a QB for the successes of his team defense and special teams makes absolutely no sense.

 

[sn0mm1s]

What I don't understand is why should we expect the Greatest of anything to automatically lead to a championship? There are 52 players on a team, and at least 35 of them will get significant playing time. To think that a great season from any 1 player will lead to a championship and override the 34 other players on his team and the 35 players on the other team is way too fantastical. To give credit to a QB for the successes of his team defense and special teams makes absolutely no sense.

Because with QBs it often does. How many of those seasons did the QB make it to the SB or NFL Championship game?

 

[moleculo]

lol, I guess i'm the first to vote for Unitas. Here's why:

#1. His 1959 season meets my criteria for what the Greatest season requires - dominant statistical perofrmance and a championship.

#2. Unitas was the driving force for that team, moreso than any other QB. By this, I looked back at the stats of everyone who fits criteria #1 (i.e. on the OP and won a championship that year), and looked at who the main contributors were. Staubach is the easiest one to toss out - he only accounted for 44% of his teams offense and 25% of his teams scoring. Here's the complete list:

%of team yards %of team pointsLuckman 54% 57%Unitas 68% 55%Starr 55% 29%Staubac 44% 25%Stabler 53% 48%Montana 60% 39%Young 70% 50%Warner 69% 48%
Total yards, by the way, is rushing, receiving, and passing yards all combined. Total points is similar - I did this to make sure Young got credit for his rushing.

In terms of % of team points, I'd day Unitas, Young, and Warner are all about the same. What separates them, IMO, is that Unitas had a higher percentage of team TD's.

Therefore, I say that in 1959, Unitas meant more to his championship team than any other QB in NFL history. This was the greatest QB season ever.

Let's look at some more interesting stats:

in 1959, Unitas led the league with 32 passing TD's. The next closest was Layne with 20. Van Brocklin was 3rd with 16. Unitas had 2x as many TD passes as the guy 3rd on the list. The Colts had the #1 scoring offense, putting up 31 points a game, in a season where the league average was 21.3. The second team, by the way, scored 23.6 ppg. In terms of yards, the Colts put up 374 yards per game, when the league average was 313.5.

 

[moleculo]

I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with the idea that QBs are the most important position, but they still aren't near important enough that they are completely deserving of all credit for wins and all discredit for losses, there's way more that goes into a game than QB play.

No one says they are solely responsible for the success of a team. However, they play such a huge role that the success of their teams should be factored into their career rankings.

I don't disagree that it plays a factor. But in regard to this thread, throwing out all seasons where the QB's team didn't win the superbowl is absurd imo.

How can the Greatest of anything not include a championship? What good are stats if, ultimately, they don't put hardware in the trophy case?The best possible statistical season a QB could have is ultimately meaningless if it doesn't culminate in a championship.

What I don't understand is why should we expect the Greatest of anything to automatically lead to a championship? There are 52 players on a team, and at least 35 of them will get significant playing time. To think that a great season from any 1 player will lead to a championship and override the 34 other players on his team and the 35 players on the other team is way too fantastical. To give credit to a QB for the successes of his team defense and special teams makes absolutely no sense.

maybe we have different definitions of greatest. Mine means "none greater; the best".

 

[Run It Up]

I like this poll because the results mimic what I thought they would be.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with the idea that QBs are the most important position, but they still aren't near important enough that they are completely deserving of all credit for wins and all discredit for losses, there's way more that goes into a game than QB play.

No one says they are solely responsible for the success of a team. However, they play such a huge role that the success of their teams should be factored into their career rankings.

I don't disagree that it plays a factor. But in regard to this thread, throwing out all seasons where the QB's team didn't win the superbowl is absurd imo.

How can the Greatest of anything not include a championship? What good are stats if, ultimately, they don't put hardware in the trophy case?The best possible statistical season a QB could have is ultimately meaningless if it doesn't culminate in a championship.

What I don't understand is why should we expect the Greatest of anything to automatically lead to a championship? There are 52 players on a team, and at least 35 of them will get significant playing time. To think that a great season from any 1 player will lead to a championship and override the 34 other players on his team and the 35 players on the other team is way too fantastical. To give credit to a QB for the successes of his team defense and special teams makes absolutely no sense.

maybe we have different definitions of greatest. Mine means "none greater; the best".

So does mine, I just refuse to let something as small of a sample size as one game, where luck can play a huge role, be the penultimate determining factor for the best QB season ever.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

What I don't understand is why should we expect the Greatest of anything to automatically lead to a championship? There are 52 players on a team, and at least 35 of them will get significant playing time. To think that a great season from any 1 player will lead to a championship and override the 34 other players on his team and the 35 players on the other team is way too fantastical. To give credit to a QB for the successes of his team defense and special teams makes absolutely no sense.

Because with QBs it often does. How many of those seasons did the QB make it to the SB or NFL Championship game?

Again, no doubt there's a positive correlation, but it's far from a perfect correlation. There's way more that goes into wins than QB play; Team defense, special teams, and luck to keep things broad. Frankly, it's not the QBs job to win games, it's the QBs job to score points. So I think total points scored by the offense is a better measure of QB play than wins are.

 

[sn0mm1s]

What I don't understand is why should we expect the Greatest of anything to automatically lead to a championship? There are 52 players on a team, and at least 35 of them will get significant playing time. To think that a great season from any 1 player will lead to a championship and override the 34 other players on his team and the 35 players on the other team is way too fantastical. To give credit to a QB for the successes of his team defense and special teams makes absolutely no sense.

Because with QBs it often does. How many of those seasons did the QB make it to the SB or NFL Championship game?

Again, no doubt there's a positive correlation, but it's far from a perfect correlation. There's way more that goes into wins than QB play; Team defense, special teams, and luck to keep things broad. Frankly, it's not the QBs job to win games, it's the QBs job to score points. So I think total points scored by the offense is a better measure of QB play than wins are.

Yes, but it would appear that there is a rather significant correlation, at first glance anyway. Points are just one part of the QB's role and, while probably a good single indicator, much of what the QB does can't really be measured just in points. Using your logic - why choose Marino over Brady then? Marino's offense put up 513 pts. the #2 scorers put up 475 in 1984. The Pats put up 589 pts while #2 put up 455.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

What I don't understand is why should we expect the Greatest of anything to automatically lead to a championship? There are 52 players on a team, and at least 35 of them will get significant playing time. To think that a great season from any 1 player will lead to a championship and override the 34 other players on his team and the 35 players on the other team is way too fantastical. To give credit to a QB for the successes of his team defense and special teams makes absolutely no sense.

Because with QBs it often does. How many of those seasons did the QB make it to the SB or NFL Championship game?

Again, no doubt there's a positive correlation, but it's far from a perfect correlation. There's way more that goes into wins than QB play; Team defense, special teams, and luck to keep things broad. Frankly, it's not the QBs job to win games, it's the QBs job to score points. So I think total points scored by the offense is a better measure of QB play than wins are.

Yes, but it would appear that there is a rather significant correlation, at first glance anyway. Points are just one part of the QB's role and, while probably a good single indicator, much of what the QB does can't really be measured just in points. Using your logic - why choose Marino over Brady then? Marino's offense put up 513 pts. the #2 scorers put up 475 in 1984. The Pats put up 589 pts while #2 put up 455.

I'm not too sure what you mean by "points are just one part of a QB's role". I suppose you could argue QB's must also try to run the clock and not turn the ball over, but I think scoring points is pretty far and away a QB's main objective.As for scoring team offense not being an ideal measure of QB success, you're exactly correct. I completely agree that Total Points scored by an offense isn't an ideal measure for QB play because it gives the QB a great deal of credit for the team's rushing offense successes. But from that same point of view, wins are even worse of a measure for QB play because it gives the QB credit for the rushing offense success, the pass rush success, the pass coverage success, the run D success, the special team success, etc. Ergo, wins is a worse measure of QB play than offense points scored.

 

[matuski]

1994

 

[Tau837]

Frankly, it's not the QBs job to win games, it's the QBs job to score points.

I think this is the crux of your disagreement with several of the posters in this thread. It is most certainly the QB's job to win games. One primary way they do that is by leading the offense to a lot of points, but it's not the only way.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Frankly, it's not the QBs job to win games, it's the QBs job to score points.

I think this is the crux of your disagreement with several of the posters in this thread. It is most certainly the QB's job to win games. One primary way they do that is by leading the offense to a lot of points, but it's not the only way.

Essentially, it is the only way unless you include the performance of the defense and special teams which are out of the QBs control. If a QB is not scoring a lot of points, he is then required to score only 1 point more than his team's defense allows; which is attuned to the QB depending on a strong performance from the defense given that we assumed he has not lead the offense to a lot of points.And when we are trying to determine the best season by a QB ever, I think it's unfair and nonsensical to let the performance of a QB's teammates, of whom he has no control over, be the determining factor.

 

[KellysHeroes]

I gotta go manning, it just looked so natural where as Brady, Brees and Rodgers numbers looked forced, by that I mean how the coaches just keep calling pass plays, the 2004 colts also had a 1500+ yard ball carrier in James,

 

[ImTheScientist]

Voted other.

Drew Brees

 

[Tau837]

Frankly, it's not the QBs job to win games, it's the QBs job to score points.

I think this is the crux of your disagreement with several of the posters in this thread. It is most certainly the QB's job to win games. One primary way they do that is by leading the offense to a lot of points, but it's not the only way.

Essentially, it is the only way unless you include the performance of the defense and special teams which are out of the QBs control. If a QB is not scoring a lot of points, he is then required to score only 1 point more than his team's defense allows; which is attuned to the QB depending on a strong performance from the defense given that we assumed he has not lead the offense to a lot of points.And when we are trying to determine the best season by a QB ever, I think it's unfair and nonsensical to let the performance of a QB's teammates, of whom he has no control over, be the determining factor.

QBs are expected to manage situations, field position, clock, and turnovers... in more general terms, they are expected to efficiently run their offense. They are expected to be leaders. They are quite often the faces of their franchises. All of that is more than just scoring points.

 

[DropKick]

If Peyton played the additional 6 quarters of the season he sat out, and had a coach who let him continue to throw TD's with a 40 point lead then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Typical lame anti-Brady comment that ignores the two games of horrendous weather that Brady played through...Anyway, put me down for Mr. Marino who did it as virtually a rookie.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Frankly, it's not the QBs job to win games, it's the QBs job to score points.

I think this is the crux of your disagreement with several of the posters in this thread. It is most certainly the QB's job to win games. One primary way they do that is by leading the offense to a lot of points, but it's not the only way.

Essentially, it is the only way unless you include the performance of the defense and special teams which are out of the QBs control. If a QB is not scoring a lot of points, he is then required to score only 1 point more than his team's defense allows; which is attuned to the QB depending on a strong performance from the defense given that we assumed he has not lead the offense to a lot of points.And when we are trying to determine the best season by a QB ever, I think it's unfair and nonsensical to let the performance of a QB's teammates, of whom he has no control over, be the determining factor.

QBs are expected to manage situations, field position, clock, and turnovers... in more general terms, they are expected to efficiently run their offense. They are expected to be leaders. They are quite often the faces of their franchises. All of that is more than just scoring points.

"Expected to efficiently run their offense" agree completely. I think team offense points scored is a better measure of efficiently running an offense than wins is."expected to be leaders" ehh, a little to pseudo existent as far as I'm concerned. And even if such a thing does exist, and assuming it is quantifiable (which would be some feat), as fans we really have no way of measuring such a thing. And to assume that since someone won a Superbowl he therefore must've been a leader is to fall victim to the post hoc fallacy; so I really don't see how any fan could use leadership to argue one player over another.

"the faces of their franchises" I don't see what this has to do with anything. Pretty well every great QB is the face of the franchise, so it's essentially irrelevant since all QBs on this list satisfy that criterion.

 

[Gawain]

Other: Benny Friedman, 1929.

 

[Funkley]

Definitely Marino in 84. Those numbers are still considered ridiculous today but when you compare them to his peers in the 80's...there's no comparison.

Not as drastic, but in some ways like comparing Babe Ruth's home run numbers to others in his day.As hard as it is to compare accross eras, it's fairly easy to compare against one's peers.

 

[Gawain]

Definitely Marino in 84. Those numbers are still considered ridiculous today but when you compare them to his peers in the 80's...there's no comparison.

Not as drastic, but in some ways like comparing Babe Ruth's home run numbers to others in his day.As hard as it is to compare accross eras, it's fairly easy to compare against one's peers.

meh, when Marino threw 48, Krieg was 2nd with 32, or 66% of Marino's total.When Friedman threw 20, the next highest that year was 6. Excepting Friedman's other seasons, the next closest to his mark in a 10 year span either way (1920-39), was 11. Marino didn't lead the league in completion %, most likely Friedman did (his 53.8% mark was about 15% higher than what most other good passers would post.)If you are comparing numbers relative to peers, "that redoubtable descendant of Palestine," reigns supreme.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Definitely Marino in 84. Those numbers are still considered ridiculous today but when you compare them to his peers in the 80's...there's no comparison.

Not as drastic, but in some ways like comparing Babe Ruth's home run numbers to others in his day.As hard as it is to compare accross eras, it's fairly easy to compare against one's peers.

meh, when Marino threw 48, Krieg was 2nd with 32, or 66% of Marino's total.When Friedman threw 20, the next highest that year was 6. Excepting Friedman's other seasons, the next closest to his mark in a 5 year span either way (1924-34), was 11. Marino didn't lead the league in completion %, most likely Friedman did (his 53.8% mark was about 15% higher than what most other good passers would post.)If you are comparing numbers relative to peers, "that redoubtable descendant of Palestine," reigns supreme.

Never heard of him but you convinced me.New order:1: Benny Friedman2: Dan Marino3: everyone else

 

[BigSteelThrill]

When Friedman threw 20, the next highest that year was 6. Excepting Friedman's other seasons, the next closest to his mark in a 5 year span either way (1924-34), was 11. Marino didn't lead the league in completion %, most likely Friedman did (his 53.8% mark was about 15% higher than what most other good passers would post.)If you are comparing numbers relative to peers, "that redoubtable descendant of Palestine," reigns supreme.

 

[smackdaddies]

1. Great Post

2. Illustrates why it is virtually impossible to compare qb's across decades. The NFL has changed, QB's have changed, basic offensive strategies have changed

Personally, I think if your going to compare, you have to look what the player did compared to other players in the same time frame. Did what they did dominate when compared to other players in the same time frame. Basically sn0mm1s point, but stretching it out to it's logical conclusion

 

[Gawain]

Definitely Marino in 84. Those numbers are still considered ridiculous today but when you compare them to his peers in the 80's...there's no comparison.

Not as drastic, but in some ways like comparing Babe Ruth's home run numbers to others in his day.As hard as it is to compare accross eras, it's fairly easy to compare against one's peers.

Benny Friedman is known as "the Babe Ruth of football," for whatever that's worth.

The NFL kept few records in those days. Sports historians have had to rely on newspaper accounts and other sources to compile reasonably accurate statistics for the years Friedman spent in the league (1927�33). These statistics show that in those six years, the second-ranked passers, year by year, threw for aggregate totals of 3,770 yards and 27 touchdowns. Friedman, however, passed for at least 5,653 yards (50 per- cent more than the runners-up) and 55 touchdowns (more than twice as many).As Stephen Fox comments, "His nearest peers were barely visible in the distance. Friedman easily passed for more than 1,500 yards in a season; even under the soon-liberalized passing rules, no other NFL quarterback managed it until 1942. He threw three touchdowns passes in a quarter, five in a game, 20 in a season: all records, probably, that outlived his era."

 

[SWC]

i think we are all forgetting don the majik man majkowski who beat the bears in 1989 on the instant replay game for the first time since the early 1980s and he threw for like 4300 yards and led the nfl and basically the packers were one of the biggest stink piles of rotting poop in the league basically it was like the majik man and 10 blayne gabberts on o and he still got er done do i think he should be in this discussion more than guys with loaded teams like manning and brady

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Benny Friedman is known as "the Babe Ruth of football," for whatever that's worth.

Not mentioned at all. https://www.google.com/search?q=the+Babe+Ruth+of+football&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Bronco Nagurski

Jim Brown

Sammy Baugh

Jim Thorpe

Walter Peyton

Jerry Rice

No Benny Friedman. But you get a for crazy effort.

 

[Gawain]

Benny Friedman is known as "the Babe Ruth of football," for whatever that's worth.

Not mentioned at all. https://www.google.com/search?q=the+Babe+Ruth+of+football&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Bronco Nagurski

Jim Brown

Sammy Baugh

Jim Thorpe

Walter Peyton

Jerry Rice

No Benny Friedman. But you get a for crazy effort.

Add quotes to your search query and this is a first page result.My link

A search of Paul Gallico and Friedman also returns more results than anyone probably wants to ever read.

"He is the greatest forward passer in the history of the game," Gallico

added. "No other passer has his accuracy, his judgment of distance, his

intuitive ability to pick out the best receiver. He is the Dead-shot **** of football."

I suppose Babe Ruth resonates a little more than Dead-shot ****.ETA: Without quotes, the first appearance of Friedman on your list of search queries is on page two. Seeing as how the first page of results is comprised of yahoo answers, "that time Babe Ruth played football" stories, and questions on the value of sports cards, I don't think that result is too shabby.

 

[Wadsworth]

I suppose Babe Ruth resonates a little more than Dead-shot ****.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Mark Wimer]

To me, it's Kurt Warner '99. Simply the biggest leap in performance ever seen at the NFL level. Chase highlighted all the notable stats from that season.

And to imagine he stocked grocery shelves while playing for the Iowa Barnstormers!

 

[Ghost Rider]

To me, it's Kurt Warner '99. Simply the biggest leap in performance ever seen at the NFL level. Chase highlighted all the notable stats from that season.And to imagine he stocked grocery shelves while playing for the Iowa Barnstormers!

Actually, even though his numbers weren't quite as great, and his team lost the Super Bowl, 2001 was probably Warner's best season when you consider that the Rams 2001 schedule was extremely difficult, while their 1999 schedule was a breeze (they defeated ZERO teams with a winning record).

 

[doowain]

I voted Warner in 1999. I don't know why that is overlooked by so many.

The trump card here vs. Brady in 2007 is that Kurt finished it off with a SB ring.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

How can the Greatest of anything not include a championship? What good are stats if, ultimately, they don't put hardware in the trophy case?The best possible statistical season a QB could have is ultimately meaningless if it doesn't culminate in a championship.

So would you not consider 2007 the best season of Brady's career? Would you consider 2001, where he threw for 18 TDs vs 12 INTs and 2800yds at 6.9 YPA a better season than 2007, where he threw for 50 TDs vs 8 INTs and 4800 yds at 8.3 ypa?Same question circa Manning 2004 and Rodgers 2011.

 

[CalBear]

How can the Greatest of anything not include a championship? What good are stats if, ultimately, they don't put hardware in the trophy case?

The best possible statistical season a QB could have is ultimately meaningless if it doesn't culminate in a championship.

So would you not consider 2007 the best season of Brady's career? Would you consider 2001, where he threw for 18 TDs vs 12 INTs and 2800yds at 6.9 YPA a better season than 2007, where he threw for 50 TDs vs 8 INTs and 4800 yds at 8.3 ypa?Same question circa Manning 2004 and Rodgers 2011.

I don't think Brady's other seasons come close to being eligible for being "greatest of all time." His 2007 falls short because there are other "greatest of all time" seasons which did end in a Super Bowl win.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

How can the Greatest of anything not include a championship? What good are stats if, ultimately, they don't put hardware in the trophy case?

The best possible statistical season a QB could have is ultimately meaningless if it doesn't culminate in a championship.

So would you not consider 2007 the best season of Brady's career? Would you consider 2001, where he threw for 18 TDs vs 12 INTs and 2800yds at 6.9 YPA a better season than 2007, where he threw for 50 TDs vs 8 INTs and 4800 yds at 8.3 ypa?Same question circa Manning 2004 and Rodgers 2011.

I don't think Brady's other seasons come close to being eligible for being "greatest of all time." His 2007 falls short because there are other "greatest of all time" seasons which did end in a Super Bowl win.

Right, my point is what if we have the discussion "What is Brady's greatest season of all-time?". Surely, if we go by Moleculo's logic, Brady's best season can't be one where he didn't win the Super Bowl?

 

[Mark Wimer]

To me, it's Kurt Warner '99. Simply the biggest leap in performance ever seen at the NFL level. Chase highlighted all the notable stats from that season.And to imagine he stocked grocery shelves while playing for the Iowa Barnstormers!

Actually, even though his numbers weren't quite as great, and his team lost the Super Bowl, 2001 was probably Warner's best season when you consider that the Rams 2001 schedule was extremely difficult, while their 1999 schedule was a breeze (they defeated ZERO teams with a winning record).

In the NFL, even a sub-500 team is still a huge challenge for the opposition - the difference between a SB champ and a 6-10 team is perhaps 3-4 key players. In any case, I don't think the '99 season for Warner is marred by the schedule - he still had to make all those throws at the phenomenal level that he played that year.I remember watching those games and saying out loud more than once "Where did this guy come from?". To go from 4/11 for 39 yards with zero TDs in 1998 to 325/499 for 4,353 yards, 41 TDs and 13 interceptions and a Super Bowl victory is the definition of phenomenal IMO. Edit to add that's why I think Warner '99 was the "Greatest" single season for a QB ever.

 

[moleculo]

How can the Greatest of anything not include a championship? What good are stats if, ultimately, they don't put hardware in the trophy case?

The best possible statistical season a QB could have is ultimately meaningless if it doesn't culminate in a championship.

So would you not consider 2007 the best season of Brady's career? Would you consider 2001, where he threw for 18 TDs vs 12 INTs and 2800yds at 6.9 YPA a better season than 2007, where he threw for 50 TDs vs 8 INTs and 4800 yds at 8.3 ypa?Same question circa Manning 2004 and Rodgers 2011.

I don't think Brady's other seasons come close to being eligible for being "greatest of all time." His 2007 falls short because there are other "greatest of all time" seasons which did end in a Super Bowl win.

Right, my point is what if we have the discussion "What is Brady's greatest season of all-time?". Surely, if we go by Moleculo's logic, Brady's best season can't be one where he didn't win the Super Bowl?

That's an interesting question. Clearly, statistically his best season was 2007. That's not the question being asked though. The question is "what was his best season?".When the Pats were winning the SB, they did it with defense and solid, if not spectacular, play from Brady. When Brady played spectacularly, the Pats did not win the SB, rather they ended up losing despite pretty good play from Brady.

If you are comparing all of Brady's seasons, I think you would have to say that 2007 was his best one.

However, I find it very hard to reconcile the simple truth that the best season ever includes both a dominant statistical performance and a championship. There really is no way around this, IMO. Brady's best season was in 2007 without a championship, therefore Brady has not had a season that merits conversation of best season ever.

 

[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.

 

[sn0mm1s]

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.

 

[beef]

Gotta go Rodgers. His season is even greater when you consider 4 of his INTs were his receivers fault. Dude was unreal efficient.

 

[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?

 

[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?

in terms of neither seasons being the best ever? Sure.

 

[sn0mm1s]

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.

 

[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