63 replies to this topic

[Pedro Cerrano]

Now Montana is an average QB?  I need to get off message boards for a while.

[Mike in STL]

I really don't get how people discredit players in all sports based on their location, or coach, or teammates. Stuff that is basically 100% out of the players control. I mean, there is a decent case for Todd Helton to be a HOFer, but stat heads are automatically going to say that Coors Field helped his numbers so screw him. Even if a Rockies player hits 900 homers one day, sorry pal.

Montana had Rice. Ok. So if we discredit Montana for that, then do you equally credit Marino more for having zero weapons?

Credit guys for the numbers they put up. Don't diss guys for things out of their control.

Furthermore, I don't think a QB has played as well while taking a beating as Montana. Had he not missed 40 something games in his career, he probably retires with all the records.

[papasmurfbell]

Now Montana is an average QB?  I need to get off message boards for a while.

I never said that.  He is top 10 easy.

 

 

 

I really don't get how people discredit players in all sports based on their location, or coach, or teammates. Stuff that is basically 100% out of the players control. I mean, there is a decent case for Todd Helton to be a HOFer, but stat heads are automatically going to say that Coors Field helped his numbers so screw him. Even if a Rockies player hits 900 homers one day, sorry pal.

Montana had Rice. Ok. So if we discredit Montana for that, then do you equally credit Marino more for having zero weapons?

Credit guys for the numbers they put up. Don't diss guys for things out of their control.

Furthermore, I don't think a QB has played as well while taking a beating as Montana. Had he not missed 40 something games in his career, he probably retires with all the records.

So when scouts have to evaluate players don't they have to take coaches locations and teammates into consideration to make correct assessments of a specific player?

 

 

 

Not sure anybody is being discredited.  They are discussing the best of the best of the best.  Gotta find some way to split the hairs.  Papasmurf certainly seems to be going over the line towards actively, so it's absolutely fine to attack his posts, but I don't think anyone else is really doing anything beyond stating a preference for one of the all time greats over another based on some slight differences.

Very true.  

 

Also BTW I think the best QB to ever play in the NFL is Marino.  

[Mike in STL]

So when scouts have to evaluate players don't they have to take coaches locations and teammates into consideration to make correct assessments of a specific player? 

That's different than what we're discussing. And no. They dont have to. They evaluate the player,and the players abilities. If they took things like location, teammates, coaches, let's even throw competition into the mix, then a QB from Delaware would never deserve to be drafted in the first round.

[mweb08]

I really don't get how people discredit players in all sports based on their location, or coach, or teammates. Stuff that is basically 100% out of the players control. I mean, there is a decent case for Todd Helton to be a HOFer, but stat heads are automatically going to say that Coors Field helped his numbers so screw him. Even if a Rockies player hits 900 homers one day, sorry pal.

Montana had Rice. Ok. So if we discredit Montana for that, then do you equally credit Marino more for having zero weapons?

Credit guys for the numbers they put up. Don't diss guys for things out of their control.

Furthermore, I don't think a QB has played as well while taking a beating as Montana. Had he not missed 40 something games in his career, he probably retires with all the records.

 

I think you have to consider situation when judging a player. Now that can help or hurt a player in the evaluation.

 

So playing in Coors Field absolutely has to be accounted for when judging Todd Helton's career, but you also have to give the pitchers that play for the Rockies a boost. That's just being fair and logical.

 

I think you have to consider that Montana played in a revolutionary offensive system and had arguably the best WR ever to throw the ball to. Plus, they literally didn't miss a beat with Steve Young. So yeah, if you think Marino's supporting cast was poor, then you should give him some credit for overcoming that to a large extent.

 

Or if two running backs have similar production but one had the much better supporting cast, especially in terms of run blocking, then I'm going to rate the other higher all else equal. 

 

Of course the same logic applies to rings in the NBA. You have to consider supporting casts and overall situation.

[DJ MC]

Walsh made average and below average QBs look good.  A great QB makes average or below average skill players look good.  

 

 

 

And he has done more with less talent than Montana did.

 

 

 

The Blind side page 106 second para, page 108 2nd para, page and 110-111 3rd-5th paragraphs.

http://www.barnesand..._clickid=3x3644
It isn't even 9 bucks.

 

Yeah, I own The Blind Side, but thanks. Let's take a peek...

 

*checks citations*

 

Nothing showing how Bill Walsh changed the output of his QBs. Even skimming the rest of the chapter just in case my edition is different from yours. It talks about Bill Walsh and his effect on the sport in relation to offensive line play and the WCO, but not much about QBs.

 

So again, you need to show how he changed things in a way that it becomes a negative on Montana's record. Not just that Walsh was an early adapter to the idea that left tackles aren't only another block of meat to stand in a DE's way.

[RShack]

Walsh made average and below average QBs look good.  A great QB makes average or below average skill players look good.  

 

You couldn't find a better example a quarterback nobody took seriously than Brady was before Belichick got his mitts on him... and even NE's decision to draft him as the 199th (!!) pick was a close call... they had a hard time choosing between Brady and Tim Rattay... 

 

Now, of course he turned out great... but to say he was some great talent while simultaneously claiming Montana got by because of the magic of others, well, that seems to be a faith-based statement without anything to support it...

 

It's fine if you like Brady better... but dissing Montana as being a reflection of others while saying Brady had innate greatness, that's just not right...

[papasmurfbell]

That's different than what we're discussing. And no. They dont have to. They evaluate the player,and the players abilities. If they took things like location, teammates, coaches, let's even throw competition into the mix, then a QB from Delaware would never deserve to be drafted in the first round.

So a college running back runs for 1400 yds.  He is playing at Vandy with an OK line against SEC Ds.  Then you look at a RB from UCS with a line with 4 draft picks on it.  He runs for 2200 yd agsint Pac14 Ds.  If yo are scouting you have to look at what each guy can do and try to take their respective lines and the Ds they play out of the equation to find out who the better RB would be.  So yes you do look at those things.

 

 

 

I think you have to consider situation when judging a player. Now that can help or hurt a player in the evaluation.

 

So playing in Coors Field absolutely has to be accounted for when judging Todd Helton's career, but you also have to give the pitchers that play for the Rockies a boost. That's just being fair and logical.

 

I think you have to consider that Montana played in a revolutionary offensive system and had arguably the best WR ever to throw the ball to. Plus, they literally didn't miss a beat with Steve Young. So yeah, if you think Marino's supporting cast was poor, then you should give him some credit for overcoming that to a large extent.

 

Or if two running backs have similar production but one had the much better supporting cast, especially in terms of run blocking, then I'm going to rate the other higher all else equal. 

 

Of course the same logic applies to rings in the NBA. You have to consider supporting casts and overall situation.

Ding ding ding.

[papasmurfbell]

 

Yeah, I own The Blind Side, but thanks. Let's take a peek...

 

*checks citations*

 

Nothing showing how Bill Walsh changed the output of his QBs. Even skimming the rest of the chapter just in case my edition is different from yours. It talks about Bill Walsh and his effect on the sport in relation to offensive line play and the WCO, but not much about QBs.

 

So again, you need to show how he changed things in a way that it becomes a negative on Montana's record. Not just that Walsh was an early adapter to the idea that left tackles aren't only another block of meat to stand in a DE's way.

Virgil Carter for the Bengals had never completed 50% of his passes and couldn't throw more than 20 yds.  In 71 under Walsh he got to 62.2% and too his ypa from 5.9 to 7.3.

When Walsh got to SD Dan Fouts was struggling.  Then he took Fouts to the highest completion percentage.

At Stanford he got Guy Benjamin and Steve Dils the Sammy Baugh award.

Steve DeBerg went from 45% to 60.  He threw more passes than anyone in history ypa 5.2 to 6.32.

Montana when drafted was considered to small and weak to play i the NFL but his is arguably te best in history.  

So it seems the system makes QBs great.

 

 

 

You couldn't find a better example a quarterback nobody took seriously than Brady was before Belichick got his mitts on him... and even NE's decision to draft him as the 199th (!!) pick was a close call... they had a hard time choosing between Brady and Tim Rattay... 

 

Now, of course he turned out great... but to say he was some great talent while simultaneously claiming Montana got by because of the magic of others, well, that seems to be a faith-based statement without anything to support it...

 

It's fine if you like Brady better... but dissing Montana as being a reflection of others while saying Brady had innate greatness, that's just not right...

I am saying taking crap on the NFL level and making them good.  

[Mike in STL]

I think you have to consider situation when judging a player. Now that can help or hurt a player in the evaluation.

 

So playing in Coors Field absolutely has to be accounted for when judging Todd Helton's career, but you also have to give the pitchers that play for the Rockies a boost. That's just being fair and logical.

 

I think you have to consider that Montana played in a revolutionary offensive system and had arguably the best WR ever to throw the ball to. Plus, they literally didn't miss a beat with Steve Young. So yeah, if you think Marino's supporting cast was poor, then you should give him some credit for overcoming that to a large extent.

 

Or if two running backs have similar production but one had the much better supporting cast, especially in terms of run blocking, then I'm going to rate the other higher all else equal. 

 

Of course the same logic applies to rings in the NBA. You have to consider supporting casts and overall situation.

I get that there is a reason to take things into account, to a point though.

 

Yes. I agree that say, a .500 slugging % in Oakland carries more weight than it does in Colorado. A 3.00 ERA in Colorado carries more weight than it does in Oakland.

 

Not to derail too much from the NFL QBs in discussion here, but in Helton's prime he had four seasons where he slugged over .600! In 2000 he was two points shy of slugging .700, but people will just be like, eh, Coors Field, as if everyone there slugs .600. Even though on the road that year he still slugged .633 with an OPS of 1.074. His only being a five time AS doesn't help his HOF case, though he was an over 4.0 WAR player (AS by FG definition) seven times. The two times he was over 4.0 and not an AS, 2005 and 2007, are right about when advanced metrics started really gathering steam, people started analyzing a players situations more, and say, eh, Coors Field. Not impressed. 

 

I mean, it'd be like if Arrieta pitched for Oakland last year with his 1.77 ERA, people would just be like, eh, it's Oakland.

 

 

 

IMO guys, I think when people take situation into account too much, some is fine, but too much, they end up making good players look better by bringing other greats down. I mean, if greatness is defined by doing more with less, then Joe Flacco is a first ballot Hall of Famer today, and Buck Showalter is the greatest manager in the history of baseball.

 

It's the way people discount Emmitt Smith's accomplishments because he had a great O-line. As if Emmitt Smith had anything to do with it. He still had to hit the holes. Break tackles. Just like Helton still has to put the bat on the ball, or take walks, which I think he did very well, since his OBP is .98 points higher than his BA.

 

Joe Montana still has to put the ball on Jerry Rice's numbers. Rice still has to catch the pass to help both his and Montana's stats. 

 

So I think it's fair to judge situation, to a point. Like if Drew Brees threw 40 TDs in Sean Peyton's system where he attempts 650 passes, and Russ Wilson throws for 40 in Seattle's run heavy offense where Wilson only attempts 450-500 passes, then yeah, Wilson's number is more impressive.

 

I think when you start getting into all time greats, and big numbers, some of the numbers are outrageous to a point where situation isn't the reason for it. I think Tom Brady's season of throwing 50 TDs was flat out amazing, though others will say "it's a passing league, he had Randy Moss, they were running up the score on teams" etc... He still put up numbers that rarely get touched. He still did it. Manning hit 55 six years later. 

 

It's almost like some of these guys get penalized for their situations which are out of their control.

 

So who's the better college basketball coach? Brad Stevens or Coach K? Coach K was blessed with a ton of top recruits. Brad Stevens had to get to back to back title games with recruits that have to "settle" for going to friggin Butler. So is Coach K a lesser coach because of the talent he had at his disposal, or does the fact he won 1,000 games hold as much water as throwing 50 TDs in a season, or slugging .600, no matter what conditions you do it in? Coach K, Jim Boeheim, Roy Williams, Bill Self, cheating ass Calipari, are these guys not that great of coaches because they have the top players performing for them each year? 

 

Now I'm going to throw up since I just endorsed Coach K. 

 

I guess to make this rant relevant to the thread, I'll answer the question. Montana edges Brady out. Bradshaw is not even close. Montana won his second Super Bowl by setting a record for passing yards in a SB and out dueling Marino after his record setting season. Then he delivered a game winning drive in a Super Bowl, one of the most memorable and story book drives ever. Then only threw a SB record five touchdowns in his next Super Bowl.

 

Brady led a drive ending in a FG to win two SBs. Doesn't have the luster that a game winning pass has.  Was good but not memorable against Philly where Deion Branch was the games MVP. Then lost two SBs, which Montana has the distinction of not ever losing one. Malcolm Butler and Pete Carroll's idiotic play call are the only reason he didn't lose three SBs in a row. Plus Brady at his absolute best, and with the absolute best team he's ever had, didn't win. 18-1. 

[papasmurfbell]

Emmitt was great but Sanders, Brown, and I think Sayers were better.

[papasmurfbell]

Look at Marray.  He goes to Philthy and he isn't the same player.  The problem is the OL is still in Dallas.

[Mike in STL]

So a college running back runs for 1400 yds.  He is playing at Vandy with an OK line against SEC Ds.  Then you look at a RB from UCS with a line with 4 draft picks on it.  He runs for 2200 yd agsint Pac14 Ds.  If yo are scouting you have to look at what each guy can do and try to take their respective lines and the Ds they play out of the equation to find out who the better RB would be.  So yes you do look at those things.

 

Well, if you think NFL scouts are looking at a college players stats, than you're pretty far off base. Why did Joe Flacco even get drafted? He played against schools like Towson. He's not NFL ready because he didn't put up 400 yards against Alabama's and LSU's of the world? Certainly not a first round pick. Un-drafted flier at best, right? If you take situations into account this much and ignore the players ability. 

[Mike in STL]

Look at Marray.  He goes to Philthy and he isn't the same player.  The problem is the OL is still in Dallas.

He also toted the rock 400+ times in Dallas, and there is pretty hard evidence that production drops off more often than not the next year when a player reaches 300 touches, let alone 400. 

[papasmurfbell]

I am not saying that.  I am saying they look at production.  They look at the vid and try to discern the RBs skill as opposed to what the OL has done for them.

[Mike in STL]

So a college running back runs for 1400 yds.  He is playing at Vandy with an OK line against SEC Ds.  Then you look at a RB from UCS with a line with 4 draft picks on it.  He runs for 2200 yd agsint Pac14 Ds.  If yo are scouting you have to look at what each guy can do and try to take their respective lines and the Ds they play out of the equation to find out who the better RB would be.  So yes you do look at those things.

 

I am not saying that.  I am saying they look at production.  They look at the vid and try to discern the RBs skill as opposed to what the OL has done for them.

Ok. But Joe Flacco's "production" came against the like of Towson's and James Madison's, etc...  Erik Ainge, Andre Woodson and Matt Flynn's "production" came against the SEC. 

 

So why was Flacco even considered? He didn't throw for 1,000 yards in a game against Towson like an NFL caliber QB should do, or something outrageous.

 

You're right about the second part. They look at the skill set, standing alone from the help around him. But thats different from your other stance. Unless I'm interpreting it wrong. 

[papasmurfbell]

Well I don't think Joe is that good.  Not the best example to make on this.

[mweb08]

I don't want to quote all that Mike, but here's a brief response:

 

I don't think these guys are being penalized for things outside of their control. If anything, many of these players have been rewarded much more than penalized for things outside of their control. Emmitt for instance is considered one of the very best RB's ever, was paid a ton of money, and had immense team success all in part due to that supporting cast that was outside of his control. If he's drafted by Tampa, do you think he's rated equally, higher, or lower? Could Montana possibly be rated much higher? But if he was in a mediocre situation, he's probably not ranked nearly as high.

 

I feel the guys that are often unfairly rated are the ones that didn't have good situations, so their numbers were hurt, they didn't get rings, didn't get as much media coverage, etc. 

 

I think it's pretty clear that the guys in the good situations don't get hurt that much in rankings because there aren't nearly as many contrarians like myself as there are people who mostly take the results at face value, and even people like myself probably rank guys higher than if they had been in a crappy situation. 

[papasmurfbell]

So well said.  Notice Young was not good in Tampa but goes to SF and kills it. 

[Mike in STL]

So well said.  Notice Young was not good in Tampa but goes to SF and kills it. 

Yeah. Young was drafted after a stint in the USFL by quite literally the worst football team/organization ever assembled. Then he went to SF and killed it....five years after getting there. 

 

Young is a great QB. He was in college. He was in the USFL. He was in SF. He's not some bum that Bill Walsh turned into gold. I don't think any QB could have had success on those old Bucs teams.