If Tom Brady wants to be the best Quarterback of all time, he needs to (2 Viewers)

[Hooper31]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

z-scores really aren't that great in this situation because the talent pool is so different. Someone like Ruth, in the modern game, would be a HOFer no doubt because it was pretty obvious that he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Would he be a better hitter than Bonds? Or Pujols? That isn't nearly as certain - but any sort of z-scores say it isn't really up for debate.

Stephen Jay Gould gives a good explanation here.

I hate to break it to you, but Gould doesn't make the argument you think he's making in that video. He addresses a shrinking standard deviation (variation), but never mentions standadized scores (z). In fact, he makes the case for why z-scores is a more valid comparison when talking about extreme values. In this case a .400 hitter.

 

[sn0mm1s]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

z-scores really aren't that great in this situation because the talent pool is so different. Someone like Ruth, in the modern game, would be a HOFer no doubt because it was pretty obvious that he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Would he be a better hitter than Bonds? Or Pujols? That isn't nearly as certain - but any sort of z-scores say it isn't really up for debate.

Stephen Jay Gould gives a good explanation here.

z-scores hold up well for batting averages - but not for homeruns or HRs/AB (which is what makes Ruth special).

Babe Ruth's best HR z-score is 8.45. The percentage under the tail end of the curve of a z-score of 8.45 is 2.2x10^-14. If I did my math right means that is about 1 in 4.5 quadrillion- which is pretty ridiculous. The even more ridiculous thing is that season of Ruth's isn't even the best ever. The best ever was by Buck Freeman - in 1899 with 8.50. The best season since the steroid era, Mark McGwire, had a z-score of 5.38 (1 in 244900) - but we know he was dirty. However, there is a huge difference being 1 in 4.5 quadrillion ballplayer and 1 in 244900. Mike Schmidt seems like the only player who was likely clean and had a z-score above 5 since 1960.

Here are the top z-score leaders in HRs from 1871-2011. If you can give a reasonable explanation as to why 78% of the top z-scores occur from 1871-1950 (first 80 years) vs. only 22% from 1951-2011 I am all ears. An explanation of why no one has had a z-score better than 6 since 1933 would be great as well. If z-score was anything close to era agnostic in respect to homeruns (what we worship Ruth for) there is no way this would be the case.

http://archive.alexreisner.com/baseball/stats/leaders?s=HR

Here are the leaders in HR%

http://archive.alexreisner.com/baseball/stats/leaders?s=HRP

Pattern is exactly the same and in this case Ruth's 8.84 puts him even further into that stratosphere.

 

[Franknbeans]

use properly inflated balls?

:layup:

 

[Hooper31]

z-scores hold up well for batting averages - but not for homeruns or HRs/AB (which is what makes Ruth special).

Babe Ruth's best HR z-score is 8.45. The percentage under the tail end of the curve of a z-score of 8.45 is 2.2x10^-14. If I did my math right means that is about 1 in 4.5 quadrillion- which is pretty ridiculous. The even more ridiculous thing is that season of Ruth's isn't even the best ever. The best ever was by Buck Freeman - in 1899 with 8.50. The best season since the steroid era, Mark McGwire, had a z-score of 5.38 (1 in 244900) - but we know he was dirty. However, there is a huge difference being 1 in 4.5 quadrillion ballplayer and 1 in 244900. Mike Schmidt seems like the only player who was likely clean and had a z-score above 5 since 1960.

Here are the top z-score leaders in HRs from 1871-2011. If you can give a reasonable explanation as to why 78% of the top z-scores occur from 1871-1950 (first 80 years) vs. only 22% from 1951-2011 I am all ears. An explanation of why no one has had a z-score better than 6 since 1933 would be great as well. If z-score was anything close to era agnostic in respect to homeruns (what we worship Ruth for) there is no way this would be the case.

http://archive.alexreisner.com/baseball/stats/leaders?s=HR

Here are the leaders in HR%

http://archive.alexreisner.com/baseball/stats/leaders?s=HRP

Pattern is exactly the same and in this case Ruth's 8.84 puts him even further into that stratosphere.

Thanks for sharing the links. Interesting data there. It differs quite a bit from the data that I've had access to. I searched for quite a while before I found this from his website:

To compute the league stats (mean, maximum, standard deviation, skewness, etc) I have used data from all players with at least 0.5 plate appearances per team game. For appearing on a z-leaderboard or having a season page the minimum is 2.9 plate appearances per team game. I am aware that this is not the conventional minimum to use when calculating leaders, and while I do not think it is the best answer I do believe it is more fair than the conventional cutoffs which reflect the reasonings of their eras. And since this site does not feature conventional leaderboards I hope nobody will be too offended.

Not sure if I agree with him on this. Like I said, I have some different data and will share later this today if I have time.

To get back to football, I don't know if using standardized scores works well for TD passes or passing yards or interceptions. I haven't looked or taken the time to search for it. If I had access to the data in the correct format I have fairly powerful analytical tools (Fathom). I might be able to grab the data from Drinen's site. Ugh. On second thought, this is something Doug might be able to throw together in a matter of minutes.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pats fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pays fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

ok, I'm gonna hop in my hottub time machine and give montana a couple soft balls.

then to even it up I'll go back 10 yrs and give the pats an extra 70m every year in payroll and we'll see if they don't go 190-0

 

[ShamrockPride]

use properly inflated balls?

:layup:

:AND ONE:

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pays fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

ok, I'm gonna hop in my hottub time machine and give montana a couple soft balls.

then to even it up I'll go back 10 yrs and give the pats an extra 70m every year in payroll and we'll see if they don't go 190-0

I don't even know what this means.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pays fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

ok, I'm gonna hop in my hottub time machine and give montana a couple soft balls.

then to even it up I'll go back 10 yrs and give the pats an extra 70m every year in payroll and we'll see if they don't go 190-0

I don't even know what this means.

Ditto.

 

[Deamon]

use properly inflated balls?

:layup:

:AND ONE:

0% chance the balls aren't 'perfect' for superbowl.

So I agree, he needs to win using properly inflated balls. If he wins this superbowl there is no doubt he's #1.

 

[CR69]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pays fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

ok, I'm gonna hop in my hottub time machine and give montana a couple soft balls.

then to even it up I'll go back 10 yrs and give the pats an extra 70m every year in payroll and we'll see if they don't go 190-0

I don't even know what this means.

Nobody does. That's what you get when you put Everclear in the Kool-Aid...

 

[12punch]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pays fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

ok, I'm gonna hop in my hottub time machine and give montana a couple soft balls.

then to even it up I'll go back 10 yrs and give the pats an extra 70m every year in payroll and we'll see if they don't go 190-0

I don't even know what this means.

Ditto.

hottub time machine was a movie

 

[Hooper31]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pays fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

ok, I'm gonna hop in my hottub time machine and give montana a couple soft balls.

then to even it up I'll go back 10 yrs and give the pats an extra 70m every year in payroll and we'll see if they don't go 190-0

I don't even know what this means.

I believe he's attempting to disqualify Montana's statistics based on the 49ers spending much more than the mean team salary each year. A spurious argument at best. I might give it some credence if he was to show his work. A link. Some verifiable data. Ya know. Maths.

EDIT: Or he's just bored and looking to poke someone with a figurative stick. That might be it.

 

[wodahSShadow]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pays fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

ok, I'm gonna hop in my hottub time machine and give montana a couple soft balls.

then to even it up I'll go back 10 yrs and give the pats an extra 70m every year in payroll and we'll see if they don't go 190-0

I don't even know what this means.

I believe he's attempting to disqualify Montana's statistics based on the 49ers spending much more than the mean team salary each year. A spurious argument at best. I might give it some credence if he was to show his work. A link. Some verifiable data. Ya know. Maths.

EDIT: Or he's just bored and looking to poke someone with a figurative stick. That might be it.

Pretty simple folks, Kool-Aid was simply stating that the supposed advantage deflated balls gives is nothing close to having an un-capped team salary. Niners were loaded and didn't have to make yearly personnel decisions solely based on being at/below a mandated level of spending - you know, the kind of thing that leads to dynasties.

 

[Freelove]

Just to take a snapshot from the middle of the Walsh era, in 1985, the 49ers had the 3rd highest payroll in the NFL. A whopping 13.9 million dollars. About 1m less than the Jets, about 1m more than the Pats. That team had just finished up an 18-1 SB season.

As usual, Lawrence is clueless and making things up.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Just to take a snapshot from the middle of the Walsh era, in 1985, the 49ers had the 3rd highest payroll in the NFL. A whopping 13.9 million dollars. About 1m less than the Jets, about 1m more than the Pats. That team had just finished up an 18-1 SB season.

As usual, Lawrence is clueless and making things up.

That Kool-Aid Boy and his imagination...

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Just to take a snapshot from the middle of the Walsh era, in 1985, the 49ers had the 3rd highest payroll in the NFL. A whopping 13.9 million dollars. About 1m less than the Jets, about 1m more than the Pats. That team had just finished up an 18-1 SB season.

As usual, Lawrence is clueless and making things up.

Yup

 

[Leroy Hoard]

use properly inflated balls?

:layup:

:AND ONE:

0% chance the balls aren't 'perfect' for superbowl.

So I agree, he needs to win using properly inflated balls. If he wins this superbowl there is no doubt he's #1.

No, he got there winning in cold weather where the underinflation helped his cause many times in the past.

 

[Koya]

I think this ADDITIONAL accusation of cheating has him ineligible for the greatest ever conversation.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Just to take a snapshot from the middle of the Walsh era, in 1985, the 49ers had the 3rd highest payroll in the NFL. A whopping 13.9 million dollars. About 1m less than the Jets, about 1m more than the Pats. That team had just finished up an 18-1 SB season.

As usual, Lawrence is clueless and making things up.

Thats so great.

 

[12punch]

Just to take a snapshot from the middle of the Walsh era, in 1985, the 49ers had the 3rd highest payroll in the NFL. A whopping 13.9 million dollars. About 1m less than the Jets, about 1m more than the Pats. That team had just finished up an 18-1 SB season.

As usual, Lawrence is clueless and making things up.

he posted this same info in another one of these threads around here and mentioned taking it from some old post he made sometime ago, so I searched it up pretty easily.

I have to assume this is it:

everybody has fond memories of yesteryear, when they were growing up and watching all these iconic teams and players, but football is about competition --- that's what makes for a great sport and a great team, competition, and the nfl is more about competition today than ever, which is why you don't see a handful of teams dominate, anymore, which basically prevents any single team from becoming iconic.

that's great that you might still be able to talk about the rosters of those great niners teams decades later, but I looked up some stuff for a post in another thread, recently, and found out that in one particular year in the early nineties (the random one I looked up), shortly before the advent of the salary cap, the final four teams that year were all in the top 7 in team payroll.

I think the best record that year belonged to the niners, with 14 wins, iirc, and not only were they among the top teams in payroll, their payroll actually exceeded those other 3 final 4 teams by 25%, by 50% over the nfl median, and actually 100% of another team in their own division.

that's greatness?

I don't think anyone would dispute the greatness and iconic identity of the original dream team, but is that what you'd really prefer the nfl to return to ---- a handful of haves rolling chumps all season?

people love some of those old dominant teams because people love winners, which is why there were so many people adopting the yankees all over the country, so many celtics and lakers fans, raiders, cowboys, etc --- because if you wanted to root for a winner you might have to adopt a team that plays home games 2000 miles away from you.

btw, that 14-2 niner team with the bloated payroll didn't make the superbowl that year.

this was right around the time montana was wrapping up his 13 year run, and handing off the legacy to steve young, who played 13 years of his own for the club.

we all recognize some of the fixtures from those rosters, years later --- roger craig - 8 year run, rice - 16 years, clark - 9 years, rathman - 8 yrs, lott - 10 yrs, haley - 6 yrs, taylor - 9 yrs, etc

maybe the closest thing we've had in the current nfl would be the patriots, with the tenured brady being the most recognizable name, of course.

but how many others on this 'dynasty' even last long enough to see a contract extension in a salary capped nfl -- mankins, wilfork, and......?

nobody, outside pats fans, is talking about a couple linemen, and the rest of the team is pretty much regularly turned over with lesser luminaries, and rookie contracts, because that's what you have to do when free agency exists, and you can't spend 100% more than a division 'rival', to use the term loosely.

welker might be one of the more easily identified with this current bunch, and he could be out the door after a spectacular 6 year run.

yeah, when you see the same faces over and over, year after year, on one of the 3 networks you have access to, it's a little easier to identify the players and build memories, but that's not competition, and it's not true greatness --- that's just comfortable familiarity.

lol kind of funny mankins was in there -- that was from feb '13

also saw this while I was looking

from '81 - '94 the niners won 4 sb and appeared in 9 conference games.

I believe fa started in '93 with the cap being introduced shortly thereafter in '94.

coincidentally, '94 also happens to be the last sb the niners bought --- they appeared in (and lost) a single conference game after that, until harbaugh got them back in nearly 20 yrs later.

the dyna$ty was over.

everything looks bigger when you're 10, and those fuzzy memories are hard to top.

there's also a lot to be said for being in the right place at the right time

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think this ADDITIONAL accusation of cheating has him ineligible for the greatest ever conversation.

I disagree, but it's certainly something that can be used in the argument. That "yeah but" will always hang over his head now. He's still in the GOAT convo though, regardless, IMO.

 

[Buffaloes]

kool aid larry get banned and fired up the 12punch alias?

 

[12punch]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pays fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

ok, I'm gonna hop in my hottub time machine and give montana a couple soft balls.

then to even it up I'll go back 10 yrs and give the pats an extra 70m every year in payroll and we'll see if they don't go 190-0

I don't even know what this means.

I believe he's attempting to disqualify Montana's statistics based on the 49ers spending much more than the mean team salary each year. A spurious argument at best. I might give it some credence if he was to show his work. A link. Some verifiable data. Ya know. Maths.

EDIT: Or he's just bored and looking to poke someone with a figurative stick. That might be it.

yeah, that got me curious, so rather than wait around for larry to address this, if he ever does, I just went ahead and checked it out on this site --- it's pretty good for finding info on stuff like this

from the hints he dropped I can't tell if he referenced 1990 or '92, but since this is montana talk I'll go with the former.

they finished 14-2 that year to lead a division made up of the saints (8-8), rams (5-11), and falcons (5-11)

the final four teams that year were niners, giants, bills, and raiders, with the giants beating montana's team 15-13 (ouch) to advance to the superbowl.

eerily reminiscent of another game played decades later, now that I think about it........

here's an article I found

Twenty-four years ago, the Steelers had the lowest team salary in the NFL at $13.1 million, according to the Baltimore Sun. Pittsburgh was one of five teams with a team payroll under $16 million that year. The other teams were the Saints ($14.1 million), Chargers ($15.0 million), Cardinals ($15.4 million) and Cowboys ($15.8 million).

Although there were several players who made over a million dollars that year, neither the Saints or the Cowboys had a player who made over $900,000, according to the Seattle Times. Troy Aikman was the Cowboys highest paid player ($865,000) while Steve Walsh earned the most in New Orleans ($800,000).

The player with the highest average salary in 1990 was 49ers quarterback Joe Montana, who was pulling in an average of $3.25 million per year. Thanks to Montana's pay, the 49ers had the highest team salary in 1990, paying out a total of $26.8 million

so, with a 27m payroll, the niners effectively doubled up the 14m payroll of the next best team in their division.

what would the jets look like if they only had 70m to spend next year?

oh, yeah.........right...........

anyway, here are the top 5 payrolls and players from the article for 1990

Here are the five highest team salaries from 1990 (The salary cap wasn't instituted until 1994 when the league had a $34.6 million cap. The 2014 salary cap is $133 million)

1. 49ers: $26.8 million

2. Jets: $22.5 million

3. Raiders: $21.5 million

4. Redskins: $21.5 million

5. Browns: $20.8 million

Here are the five highest paid players in the NFL in 1990 by average salary

1. 49ers QB Joe Montana: $3.25 million

2. Bills QB Jim Kelly: $2.6 million

3. Eagles QB Randall Cunningham: $2.56 million

4. Colts RB Eric Dickerson: $2.51 million

5. Browns QB Bernie Kosar: $2.33 million

if the lowest payroll is 13m and highest is 27m, then the median payroll for the league would've been around 20m, including the niners' outlier figure, but only ~18m if we look at the rest of the league, with the niners piling on an extra ~35% - 50%

that's about like giving the pats an extra 50-70m to spend next year.

you can't expect a team with a 14m payroll to actually compete, so the league redacts to a country club of 8-10 (or however many) [edit: ok, maybe half the league] serious teams, and a bunch of teams who are essentially the generals.

even amongst the final 4 'haves' the niners were outspending their actual competition for titles ~27m to ~20m, which is an insane advantage, if we're talking about unfair competitive advantages and leveling playing fields, etc

here's a list of all the team payrolls from a link in the article

49ers $26,815,500

Jets $22,458,350

Raiders $21,507,000

Redskins $21,463,000

Browns $20,845,750

Giants $20,523,000

Bills $20,459,500

Vikings $20,285,000

Packers $19,885,500

Bears $19,965,000

Eagles $19,862,026

Patriots $19,459,500

Colts $19,210,250

Oilers $19,125,000

Dolphins $19,032,500

Seahawks $17,706,500

Broncos $17,607,900

Bengals $17,530,000

Lions $16,738,250

Rams $16,659,500

Chiefs $16,400,733

Buccaneers $16,360,417

Falcons $16,282,000

Cowboys $15,818,275

Cardinals $15,407,000

Chargers $14,981,000

Saints $14,091,417

Steelers $13,124,300

 

[Koya]

I think this ADDITIONAL accusation of cheating has him ineligible for the greatest ever conversation.

I disagree, but it's certainly something that can be used in the argument. That "yeah but" will always hang over his head now. He's still in the GOAT convo though, regardless, IMO.

I should have been more clear. For me, he's ineligible. Like off the draft board, if that makes sense.

NO way he goes ahead of Montana or Unitas at this point.

 

[Run It Up]

I think this ADDITIONAL accusation of cheating has him ineligible for the greatest ever conversation.

I disagree, but it's certainly something that can be used in the argument. That "yeah but" will always hang over his head now. He's still in the GOAT convo though, regardless, IMO.

I should have been more clear. For me, he's ineligible. Like off the draft board, if that makes sense.

Smoking

NO way he goes ahead of Montana or Unitas at this point.

Yeah cause those guys are choir boys... lmfao

 

[cstu]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pays fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

ok, I'm gonna hop in my hottub time machine and give montana a couple soft balls.

then to even it up I'll go back 10 yrs and give the pats an extra 70m every year in payroll and we'll see if they don't go 190-0

I don't even know what this means.

I believe he's attempting to disqualify Montana's statistics based on the 49ers spending much more than the mean team salary each year. A spurious argument at best. I might give it some credence if he was to show his work. A link. Some verifiable data. Ya know. Maths.

EDIT: Or he's just bored and looking to poke someone with a figurative stick. That might be it.

yeah, that got me curious, so rather than wait around for larry to address this, if he ever does, I just went ahead and checked it out on this site --- it's pretty good for finding info on stuff like this

from the hints he dropped I can't tell if he referenced 1990 or '92, but since this is montana talk I'll go with the former.

they finished 14-2 that year to lead a division made up of the saints (8-8), rams (5-11), and falcons (5-11)

the final four teams that year were niners, giants, bills, and raiders, with the giants beating montana's team 15-13 (ouch) to advance to the superbowl.

eerily reminiscent of another game played decades later, now that I think about it........

here's an article I found

Twenty-four years ago, the Steelers had the lowest team salary in the NFL at $13.1 million, according to the Baltimore Sun. Pittsburgh was one of five teams with a team payroll under $16 million that year. The other teams were the Saints ($14.1 million), Chargers ($15.0 million), Cardinals ($15.4 million) and Cowboys ($15.8 million).

Although there were several players who made over a million dollars that year, neither the Saints or the Cowboys had a player who made over $900,000, according to the Seattle Times. Troy Aikman was the Cowboys highest paid player ($865,000) while Steve Walsh earned the most in New Orleans ($800,000).

The player with the highest average salary in 1990 was 49ers quarterback Joe Montana, who was pulling in an average of $3.25 million per year. Thanks to Montana's pay, the 49ers had the highest team salary in 1990, paying out a total of $26.8 million

so, with a 27m payroll, the niners effectively doubled up the 14m payroll of the next best team in their division.

what would the jets look like if they only had 70m to spend next year?

oh, yeah.........right...........

anyway, here are the top 5 payrolls and players from the article for 1990

Here are the five highest team salaries from 1990 (The salary cap wasn't instituted until 1994 when the league had a $34.6 million cap. The 2014 salary cap is $133 million)

1. 49ers: $26.8 million

2. Jets: $22.5 million

3. Raiders: $21.5 million

4. Redskins: $21.5 million

5. Browns: $20.8 million

Here are the five highest paid players in the NFL in 1990 by average salary

1. 49ers QB Joe Montana: $3.25 million

2. Bills QB Jim Kelly: $2.6 million

3. Eagles QB Randall Cunningham: $2.56 million

4. Colts RB Eric Dickerson: $2.51 million

5. Browns QB Bernie Kosar: $2.33 million

if the lowest payroll is 13m and highest is 27m, then the median payroll for the league would've been around 20m, including the niners' outlier figure, but only ~18m if we look at the rest of the league, with the niners piling on an extra ~35% - 50%

that's about like giving the pats an extra 50-70m to spend next year.

you can't expect a team with a 14m payroll to actually compete, so the league redacts to a country club of 8-10 (or however many) [edit: ok, maybe half the league] serious teams, and a bunch of teams who are essentially the generals.

even amongst the final 4 'haves' the niners were outspending their actual competition for titles ~27m to ~20m, which is an insane advantage, if we're talking about unfair competitive advantages and leveling playing fields, etc

here's a list of all the team payrolls from a link in the article

49ers $26,815,500*

Jets $22,458,350

Raiders $21,507,000*

Redskins $21,463,000

Browns $20,845,750

Giants $20,523,000*

Bills $20,459,500*

Vikings $20,285,000

Packers $19,885,500

Bears $19,965,000

Eagles $19,862,026

Patriots $19,459,500

Colts $19,210,250

Oilers $19,125,000

Dolphins $19,032,500

Seahawks $17,706,500

Broncos $17,607,900

Bengals $17,530,000

Lions $16,738,250

Rams $16,659,500

Chiefs $16,400,733

Buccaneers $16,360,417

Falcons $16,282,000

Cowboys $15,818,275

Cardinals $15,407,000

Chargers $14,981,000

Saints $14,091,417

Steelers $13,124,300

Bolded are the 1990 playoff teams (only three teams under $19M) and the * are the division playoff game winners (four of the top seven salary teams).

 

[Tanner9919]

he'll never be the best ever and never be included in the conversation after todays lie fest presser. he is a fraud cheater.

 

[12punch]

well, if he's not in the convo you better get the thread title changed

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Just to take a snapshot from the middle of the Walsh era, in 1985, the 49ers had the 3rd highest payroll in the NFL. A whopping 13.9 million dollars. About 1m less than the Jets, about 1m more than the Pats. That team had just finished up an 18-1 SB season.

As usual, Lawrence is clueless and making things up.

he posted this same info in another one of these threads around here and mentioned taking it from some old post he made sometime ago, so I searched it up pretty easily.

I have to assume this is it:

everybody has fond memories of yesteryear, when they were growing up and watching all these iconic teams and players, but football is about competition --- that's what makes for a great sport and a great team, competition, and the nfl is more about competition today than ever, which is why you don't see a handful of teams dominate, anymore, which basically prevents any single team from becoming iconic.

that's great that you might still be able to talk about the rosters of those great niners teams decades later, but I looked up some stuff for a post in another thread, recently, and found out that in one particular year in the early nineties (the random one I looked up), shortly before the advent of the salary cap, the final four teams that year were all in the top 7 in team payroll.

I think the best record that year belonged to the niners, with 14 wins, iirc, and not only were they among the top teams in payroll, their payroll actually exceeded those other 3 final 4 teams by 25%, by 50% over the nfl median, and actually 100% of another team in their own division.

that's greatness?

I don't think anyone would dispute the greatness and iconic identity of the original dream team, but is that what you'd really prefer the nfl to return to ---- a handful of haves rolling chumps all season?

people love some of those old dominant teams because people love winners, which is why there were so many people adopting the yankees all over the country, so many celtics and lakers fans, raiders, cowboys, etc --- because if you wanted to root for a winner you might have to adopt a team that plays home games 2000 miles away from you.

btw, that 14-2 niner team with the bloated payroll didn't make the superbowl that year.

this was right around the time montana was wrapping up his 13 year run, and handing off the legacy to steve young, who played 13 years of his own for the club.

we all recognize some of the fixtures from those rosters, years later --- roger craig - 8 year run, rice - 16 years, clark - 9 years, rathman - 8 yrs, lott - 10 yrs, haley - 6 yrs, taylor - 9 yrs, etc

maybe the closest thing we've had in the current nfl would be the patriots, with the tenured brady being the most recognizable name, of course.

but how many others on this 'dynasty' even last long enough to see a contract extension in a salary capped nfl -- mankins, wilfork, and......?

nobody, outside pats fans, is talking about a couple linemen, and the rest of the team is pretty much regularly turned over with lesser luminaries, and rookie contracts, because that's what you have to do when free agency exists, and you can't spend 100% more than a division 'rival', to use the term loosely.

welker might be one of the more easily identified with this current bunch, and he could be out the door after a spectacular 6 year run.

yeah, when you see the same faces over and over, year after year, on one of the 3 networks you have access to, it's a little easier to identify the players and build memories, but that's not competition, and it's not true greatness --- that's just comfortable familiarity.

lol kind of funny mankins was in there -- that was from feb '13

also saw this while I was looking

from '81 - '94 the niners won 4 sb and appeared in 9 conference games.

I believe fa started in '93 with the cap being introduced shortly thereafter in '94.

coincidentally, '94 also happens to be the last sb the niners bought --- they appeared in (and lost) a single conference game after that, until harbaugh got them back in nearly 20 yrs later.

the dyna$ty was over.

everything looks bigger when you're 10, and those fuzzy memories are hard to top.

there's also a lot to be said for being in the right place at the right time

Love this schtick, KAL going on his alias to support his own stuff and pretending he's someone else.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If he wants my vote he had better send his wife and several of her friends over to my place to lobby me. Otherwise the list goes Unitas, Starr, Bradshaw, Montana and then probably Brady.

 

[Anarchy99]

By the time we get to the stage where we are now with the other greats (so 20-50 years in the future), people will remember all the good things about Brady and all the bad stuff will fall by the wayside. That's generally what happens over time.

 

[dutch]

By the time we get to the stage where we are now with the other greats (so 20-50 years in the future), people will remember all the good things about Brady and all the bad stuff will fall by the wayside. That's generally what happens over time.

Please name for me the "bad stuff" associated with Unitas, Starr, Montana, Marino that was swept away by the hands of time. I'll bet none of it has a tie to rules violations or game integrity.

 

[12punch]

bump this in 30 yrs

 

[Run It Up]

By the time we get to the stage where we are now with the other greats (so 20-50 years in the future), people will remember all the good things about Brady and all the bad stuff will fall by the wayside. That's generally what happens over time.

Please name for me the "bad stuff" associated with Unitas, Starr, Montana, Marino that was swept away by the hands of time. I'll bet none of it has a tie to rules violations or game integrity.

Being widely regarded as the best QB ever until recently, while simultaneously QBing multiple teams that gamed the salary cap - egregiously.

 

[12punch]

By the time we get to the stage where we are now with the other greats (so 20-50 years in the future), people will remember all the good things about Brady and all the bad stuff will fall by the wayside. That's generally what happens over time.

Please name for me the "bad stuff" associated with Unitas, Starr, Montana, Marino that was swept away by the hands of time. I'll bet none of it has a tie to rules violations or game integrity.

Being widely regarded as the best QB ever until recently, while simultaneously QBing multiple teams that gamed the salary cap - egregiously.

to be fair about it, the niners just outright bought titles

I think he probably moved on by the time the salary cap rolled around

it was elway's teams that cheated the cap

 

[Dr. Octopus]

By the time we get to the stage where we are now with the other greats (so 20-50 years in the future), people will remember all the good things about Brady and all the bad stuff will fall by the wayside. That's generally what happens over time.

Please name for me the "bad stuff" associated with Unitas, Starr, Montana, Marino that was swept away by the hands of time. I'll bet none of it has a tie to rules violations or game integrity.

Being widely regarded as the best QB ever until recently, while simultaneously QBing multiple teams that gamed the salary cap - egregiously.

There was no salary cap until the very last season Joe Montana played (with Kansas City).

 

[Run It Up]

My apologies.

 

[Buffaloes]

By the time we get to the stage where we are now with the other greats (so 20-50 years in the future), people will remember all the good things about Brady and all the bad stuff will fall by the wayside. That's generally what happens over time.

Please name for me the "bad stuff" associated with Unitas, Starr, Montana, Marino that was swept away by the hands of time. I'll bet none of it has a tie to rules violations or game integrity.

Being widely regarded as the best QB ever until recently, while simultaneously QBing multiple teams that gamed the salary cap - egregiously.

There was no salary cap until the very last season Joe Montana played (with Kansas City).

but, egregiously, dude. egregiously.

 

[Niles Standish]

By the time we get to the stage where we are now with the other greats (so 20-50 years in the future), people will remember all the good things about Brady and all the bad stuff will fall by the wayside. That's generally what happens over time.

Please name for me the "bad stuff" associated with Unitas, Starr, Montana, Marino that was swept away by the hands of time. I'll bet none of it has a tie to rules violations or game integrity.

Being widely regarded as the best QB ever until recently, while simultaneously QBing multiple teams that gamed the salary cap - egregiously.

There was no salary cap until the very last season Joe Montana played (with Kansas City).

but, egregiously, dude. egregiously.

The Niners cheated with Young not Montana. The Broncos cheated for their titles and it's largely unmentioned with Elway.

 

[12punch]

Now there is nothing he can do to pass Montana.

Real, imagined, whatever... Reality is perception , and the perception of every non Pays fan is NE cheats on even the smallest stuff.

ok, I'm gonna hop in my hottub time machine and give montana a couple soft balls.

then to even it up I'll go back 10 yrs and give the pats an extra 70m every year in payroll and we'll see if they don't go 190-0

I don't even know what this means.

I believe he's attempting to disqualify Montana's statistics based on the 49ers spending much more than the mean team salary each year. A spurious argument at best. I might give it some credence if he was to show his work. A link. Some verifiable data. Ya know. Maths.

EDIT: Or he's just bored and looking to poke someone with a figurative stick. That might be it.

glad I went to the trouble to dig up those links and ya know maths

larry was smart not wasting his time on that

 

[Hooper31]

glad I went to the trouble to dig up those links and ya know maths

larry was smart not wasting his time on that

I think your argument is lacking, but there's potential if you can find the proof. Find the team salaries from 1981 when SF won their first title. Why would anyone be surprised that they were one of the highest paid rosters at the end of their run?

I have no idea what the team salaries were in 1981, but my guess is the process works a bit like this...

1. Acquire talent

2. Win games

3. Pay talent

Again, prove me wrong. Find the team salaries for all the teams in 1981. GL.

 

[12punch]

glad I went to the trouble to dig up those links and ya know maths

larry was smart not wasting his time on that

I think your argument is lacking, but there's potential if you can find the proof. Find the team salaries from 1981 when SF won their first title. Why would anyone be surprised that they were one of the highest paid rosters at the end of their run?

I have no idea what the team salaries were in 1981, but my guess is the process works a bit like this...

1. Acquire talent

2. Win games

3. Pay talent

Again, prove me wrong. Find the team salaries for all the teams in 1981. GL.

nobody claimed to be surprised, they claimed it was an advantage

in 2014 your process breaks down at step 3

 

[Hooper31]

they claimed it was an advantage

I disagree. I claim its a logical consequence of winning in the pre-cap era.

 

[rockaction]

12 punch really needs to go.

 

[12punch]

they claimed it was an advantage

I disagree. I claim its a logical consequence of winning in the pre-cap era.

I don't know what your native tongue is, but these things are not mutually exclusive.

you can disagree all you want about a higher payroll being an advantage, but I'm pretty sure that's the entire point of paying the players --- I doubt anybody's spending millions just to be jolly and good natured

it would be a logical consequence in 2014, too, if there was no cap, and that is exactly why there is a cap --- so teams can't buy titles

 

[Hooper31]

you can disagree all you want about a higher payroll being an advantage

I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean they were "buying" a title. If you feel the need to degrade the 49ers legacy you're free to have an opinion. I disagree with your stance and feel you're backing it up with a contrived argument. To each their own. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[Freelove]

By the time we get to the stage where we are now with the other greats (so 20-50 years in the future), people will remember all the good things about Brady and all the bad stuff will fall by the wayside. That's generally what happens over time.

Please name for me the "bad stuff" associated with Unitas, Starr, Montana, Marino that was swept away by the hands of time. I'll bet none of it has a tie to rules violations or game integrity.

Being widely regarded as the best QB ever until recently, while simultaneously QBing multiple teams that gamed the salary cap - egregiously.

There was no salary cap until the very last season Joe Montana played (with Kansas City).

but, egregiously, dude. egregiously.

Yeah, Carmen Policy was way ahead of the curve on gaming the cap. And if you want to say that in some way diminishes Steve Young's case, I'd buy in to a small degree. I don't think it diminishes the Niners' case as a franchise at all though. If anything, that's more like Belichick's manipulation of the player substitutions: within the rules, but ahead of the way everyone else is seeing the game.

The Niners had a huge advantage at GM almost every season for a while.

 

[12punch]

By the time we get to the stage where we are now with the other greats (so 20-50 years in the future), people will remember all the good things about Brady and all the bad stuff will fall by the wayside. That's generally what happens over time.

Please name for me the "bad stuff" associated with Unitas, Starr, Montana, Marino that was swept away by the hands of time. I'll bet none of it has a tie to rules violations or game integrity.

Being widely regarded as the best QB ever until recently, while simultaneously QBing multiple teams that gamed the salary cap - egregiously.

There was no salary cap until the very last season Joe Montana played (with Kansas City).

but, egregiously, dude. egregiously.

Yeah, Carmen Policy was way ahead of the curve on gaming the cap. And if you want to say that in some way diminishes Steve Young's case, I'd buy in to a small degree. I don't think it diminishes the Niners' case as a franchise at all though. If anything, that's more like Belichick's manipulation of the player substitutions: within the rules, but ahead of the way everyone else is seeing the game.

The Niners had a huge advantage at GM almost every season for a while.

yeah, that organization was pretty excellent from top to bottom.

great management, an owner willing to spend the $$ needed to keep them competitive, supposedly genius coach, top defense, and top shelf players all over the roster.

and montana managed to get to 4 superbowls in 14 years --- that's also pretty excellent, but not best ever.

suggesting belichick running a couple unusual formations in a game is the equivalent of paying your team 27m while the competition is at 20 --- this is exactly the kind of trolling that ruins this board, and why you generally have to go to the idp forum for actual football discussion.

if goodell were to come the day after the sb with a press conference saying that the pats are so awesome they'll be given a special dispensation by the league going fwd to spend and extra 50m/yr if they choose, while the rest of the league remains cap locked, I guarantee you there wouldn't be a peep said about it on this board --- and that's simply because every salty troll on here would literally stroke out before they could type one word.

5 yrs from now, after their 6th consecutive sb win, I wonder if we'd credit brady, or his bulging payroll package.

 

[cstu]

This game is the most important of his career IMO.

If the Patriots win:

- he did it against the best defense in the league

- no cheating questions, balls will be filled to proper PSI, being watched like a hawk for anything improper.

- playing against another good offense with a clutch QB

Barring a terrible performance in which he's bailed out by his defense to win it, winning this Super Bowl cements as a top 5 QB all-time, erases any questions about his first 3 SB wins, makes a solid argument as the GOAT.