This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Deserves it or gets voted in? I think he deserves to be there but doubt if he would just yet. He has started 5 years. Not yet.I like these Hall of Fame threads.
I think Brady's resume speaks for itself. I say he would absolutely deserve to make it.
Please note that this is obviously hypothetical, since Brady isn't retiring today, but let's pretend.
I tried and got shot down.
Um, this section is for NFL talk. See the title of this section: The Shark Pool (NFL Talk)
I am not sure that analogy always works, though. After all, the Kurt Warner story is one of the biggest of the past ten years, and you cannot talk about the late 90's/early 00's without talking about the Rams offense. And who led the Rams 'O' to their greatest success? Kurt Warner.
That is the really interesting question David. Kurt Warner is exactly right. If he'd retired after the Super Bowl win, we'd probably have a very different opinion of him. Same as if Brady were to play several more years and struggle.
Hey chochee, I'm not calling you out. I'm making a suggestion. We should have an NFL Discussion forum and a NFL fantasy news forum. This would qualify for the former. That's all.
Why was there only one true tale?I said it was a criteria, not the only one.Besides, while I think Kurt Warner made for a great heartwarming story, Marshall Faulk was the true tale of those teams.
The Kurt Warner story isn't quite over yet... plus, it was an unusual one to begin with, givined the age at which he finally got an opportunity to show what he could do.As for Tom Brady, if he was forced to leave the game tomorrow, he's a HoFer. If he loses his job at some training camp three years from now, he joins the greatest flameouts list, but probably not the HoF. Much as I enjoy these threads about players who are close to retirement or who ahve retired, I hate the threads that deaql with players ni their prime.
I think the major difference is that Warner had an amazing arsenal of weapons to work with. In hindsight, I think it's fair to say that Warner's teammates probably made him look a lot better than he really was. Brady is sort of the opposite - he makes his teammates look better.If we look at skill position players, the argument could be made that Warner had three weapons (Marhsall Faulk, Tory Holt, Isaac Bruce) that were each more dangerous than any player Brady has had the opportunity to play with (with the possible exception of Corey Dillon in 2004).
I just feel like he was the story of those teams. I mean, if you'd talk about the early 90's bills, sure, Jim Kelly was important, but in my opinion, Thurman Thomas was the key cog, the guy who made it all go. If I had to name one guy who was synonymous with the late 90's Rams, it's Faulk, not Warner.Why was there only one true tale?I said it was a criteria, not the only one.
That's true, but it's not as if Warner and Brady put up the same numbers either.Warner from 99-01 had 12,612 yards and 98 TDs while missing five games; Brady in the three SB years had 10,155 yards and 69 INTs while missing two games. Warner also had the highest YPA average in the last 40 years in the one year (2000) his team didn't make the SB.
I agree. The keys to stopping the early 90s Bills and the late 90s Rams were containing the RBs, not the QBs.I just feel like he was the story of those teams. I mean, if you'd talk about the early 90's bills, sure, Jim Kelly was important, but in my opinion, Thurman Thomas was the key cog, the guy who made it all go. If I had to name one guy who was synonymous with the late 90's Rams, it's Faulk, not Warner.Why was there only one true tale?I said it was a criteria, not the only one.
Agree to disagree I guess. There's no reason why you'd "have to name one guy" and I don't think the Bills would have gone very far with an average QB instead of Kelly. TT and JK worked well together and made the Bills a dominant team; the same with KW and MF.I just feel like he was the story of those teams. I mean, if you'd talk about the early 90's bills, sure, Jim Kelly was important, but in my opinion, Thurman Thomas was the key cog, the guy who made it all go. If I had to name one guy who was synonymous with the late 90's Rams, it's Faulk, not Warner.Why was there only one true tale?I said it was a criteria, not the only one.
Perhaps.I said it was a criteria, not the only one.
However, I think it is important to remember that Faulk was shut down in virtually every playoff game in '99, and Warner and the passing game pretty much led them to victory in each game. Back then, you were much more likely to beat the Rams if you found a way to shut the Rams passing game down, as opposed to holding Faulk in check in the running game.What success? Green has never won a playoff game, and the Rams, after winning five games and a Super Bowl with Warner, have won a whopping one playoff game under Bulger in three plus seasons. Yes, Green and Bulger have both been above average QB's and have done some good things in the NFL, but neither has approached the level of success that Warner did in St. Louis.
It is to be expected that the QB who has Marshall Faulk, Tory Holt, and Ike Bruce would put up better numbers than the QB who has Antowain Smith, Troy Brown, and David Patten. That was the point I was trying to get across in my first post.Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't those Rams teams have very highly rated defenses as well? Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find defensive rankings that go back that far, but I seem to remember them having defenses that were rated about the same (if not better) as recent Patriots defenses.
I would not say Bulger has ever been dominant. His career TD-INT ratio is 71-51, and his best +/- ratio for a season was +7 in '04 (21 TD's and 14 INT's). Plus, his most notable postseason effort is still his flame-out in the '03 playoffs when they lost at home to Carolina. Green is another story. I will give you this one, especially given the weak receivers he has had in KC. Eddie freaking Kennison is the best WR he has had, as opposed to Bulger, who despite having Holt and Bruce for years, has never managed to excel on a consistent basis.
I don't think that's a very good arguement. There's also never been a 3-time SB winning QB with fewer than 27,989 passing yards or 165 TDs. There's also only one 3-time winner with a lower ypa than Brady, but that guy has double the Pro Bowls for good measure. And they've all been to more Pro Bowls than Brady, except for Bradshaw... but then again, Bradshaw also has a fourth ring.The problem with the whole "has there ever been a _____________ who didn't make the HoF" arguement is that it's an overly simplistic way of looking at things. I'm pretty sure there are no HoF QBs with fewer than 70 INTs or 1,000 Incompletions... so could I say that Brady wouldn't get in because he doesn't have enough INTs or Incs?
J
I'm not so sure. Bradshaw does have the 4 rings, but he also threw 210 INTs (he had 212 TD passes) and completed only 51.9% of his passes. By comparison, Brady has nearly twice as many TDs as INTs (123/66) and has hit on 61.9% of his passes. Bradshaw made only 3 Pro Bowls over his 13 year career (Brady has made 4 already), and actually temporarily lost his starting job in 1974.
Yea, but Warner would have to pick up the tab if they went to dinner, since that THIRD ring is weighting down Toms hand
Chase, I know you're huge on the adjusted yards per attempt stat, but I think it can be deceptive. It's not always about making the big play; in fact, it's usually just about moving the chains, 10 yards at a time.Also, Trent Green has had the benefit of the best TE in the league (at least until Gates arrived), the best offensive line in the league, and the best running game in the league. No, he hasn't had the best WRs, but he's had just about everything else a QB could ask for.
Green has been a significantly better QB than Brady the past five seasons? Green has only finished in the top 5 once in TD passes in a season (when he tied for 5th in 2002). Brady has finished in the top 3 twice, including 2002, when he led the league in TD passes.
Not everyone sticking up for Brady in this thread is a Pats fan. I, for example, am a Broncos fan, and dislike the Patriots quite a bit, actually. If comments like that are going to be your only contribution to this thread, I think you are better off just keeping them to yourself, and letting the adults continue to discuss this. Thanks.
That's not apples to apples, GR. I read very little into completion percentage. Sometimes I'll use it when it's extreme (+/- 8 from 60%) but it's just not that important. The way you presented those stats make it 1-1. Here's a better way:Completion percentage: Brady 61.9, Green 60.7Yards per completion: Green 12.67, Brady 11.44Brady's slightly more accurate, but Green's the better big play threat. That's why Y/A helps to really compare the two better. And as you noted, Green's 7.7 is a not insignificant amount higher than Brady's 7.1But that doesn't include TDs and INTs. I think TDs for a QB aren't terribly important, but INTs are. Using AdjY/A, Green checks in at 6.90 and Brady at 6.40. Closer than before, but still the edge goes to Green.Then you can start to look at the subjective factors. Green's had a better offense around him most of his career. I'm not sure which way you want to go with comparing the two defenses (I'd probably advise against weighing them at all). Something usually overlooked is that Brady's always had a pretty difficult schedule to boot. That certainly bumps him up.
I won't disagree with that, but I don't see how we could measure which QB is best at moving the chains 10 yards at a time. To me, adjY/A would be a darn good way of doing it. But I'm always open to new ideas.
I posted in the other thread, but it's from PFR and from The Hidden Game of Football. People a lot smarter than me came up with it. Maybe the numbers have changed a bit now, but I think the high weight on INTs is pretty important. You know how turnovers are correlated with winning percentage in the NFL.Anyway, here's the top 10 QBs in the NFL last year.
Point #1- Completion Percentage is a flawed stat, and is a result of the system as much as the QB. It's a statistical fact that the closer to the LoS a QB is throwing, the more likely the pass is to be completed, so QBs with shorter throws put up a better % than QBs with longer throws. Besides, you should never compare YPA *AND* Comp%- since YPA naturally accounts for Comp%. You just wind up double-counting YPA.As I said, YPA already counts Comp%- because unless you complete passes, you don't get yards. YPA also takes into account scheme- while longer passes are less likely to be completed, they also result in more yards, and as a result are weighted equally in YPA as the higher-percentage but shorter passes. Don't believe me? IIRC, Steve Young has the highest career YPA in the last 30 years. What system did Young play in? That's right- the short-passing WCO. YPA is not a stat that favors one type of QB over another- it actually gives a very nice tool for comparison independent of system or scheme.Green has been a significantly better QB than Brady the past five seasons? Green has only finished in the top 5 once in TD passes in a season (when he tied for 5th in 2002). Brady has finished in the top 3 twice, including 2002, when he led the league in TD passes.
Passing yards is kind of an overrated stat, as QB's on average to bad teams often finish near the top, since they are always losing, so they are throwing the ball over the field. The Chiefs horrible defenses over the years always had Green in situations where he had to throw the ball to come from behind or to try and keep up, while Brady did not have to do that nearly as much, so I think that is kind of a meaningless stat.
Green has a lifetime YPA of 7.7 vs. Brady's 7.1. However, Brady has a higher career completion percentage, 61.9 to 60.7.
Over the past five seasons, Green's TD-INT ratio is 111-76. Brady's is 123-66. Hmmm, figure that. Brady has 12 more TD's over that span and 10 LESS INT's, yet you say Green has been a significantly better regular season QB? Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhtttttttttt.
Throw in the postseason, and Brady blows Green away. In fact, it really isn't even close. I am not saying the postseason is all that matters, but when a player is dominant over the course of multiple postseasons, and that dominance results in multiple Super Bowl wins, only a fool would insist that the postseason doesn't matter a great deal.
Actually, if I replaced Brady's name with Testaverde's, I would most certainly make the same arguement.
Interesting SSOG. I know you've shown DPAR data before, but I'm still not familiar enough with it to trust it.
