Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
5 Pages<1234>»

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
earthquake  
#21 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 8:07:32 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
Again in this thread, there is a whole lot of IDIOCY being posted against Favre by some DISGRACES to be called Packer fans.

The guy may not have been the sharpest knife in the drawer. He may have shown some stupidity and/or disloyalty and/or whatever at the end of his career, but WHILE HE WAS A PACKER he had a career unparalleled in NFL history. We - including the shitheads trashing him if they are old enough, had fifteen wonderful years of winning football, thanks in large part to Brett Favre. That far outweighs whatever petty shit at the end, and his records for yardage and touchdowns along with the consecutive game streak say that NOBODY in NFL history ever had a better career.

I'll be the first to say Aaron Rodgers is a better player right now than Favre was at his best, and that Rodgers likely will surpass Favre as the greatest in history, but for these sick trolls and shitheads to deny the undeniable is just plain disgraceful.


Bart Starr
Joe Montana
Tom Brady

If you're an honest, objective fan, these three players were better quarterbacks than Brett Favre. You don't have to look far to figure out why; postseason success.

Favre isn't the greatest packer quarterback, or packer player, let along player ever in the league. Star was 9-1 in the playoffs, 2 superbowl wins, 3 straight championships and 5 total championships. Hutson dominated the league like no player has ever done or likely ever will again, he was Jerry Rice before Jerry Rice, but he was even better comparatively than Rice.

Montana won 4 Superbowls with an overall playoff record of 23-16.

Brady is 3-5 in Superbowls (I realize he hasn't been great recently in the playoffs, but getting to 5 in itself is HUGE) for a playoff record of 24-17.

The greatest QBs do not turn the ball over when the game is on the line, this is why Favre will never be considered the greatest. He did many great things, his longevity and durability was certainly the greatest of any player to ever play the game. But greatest QB? No, not even close. He may have been the most exciting, entertaining player to watch. Unfortunately that excitement lead to disappointment and heartache at the end of the season more often than not.
OlHoss1884  
#22 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 10:19:21 AM(UTC)
On the subject of Favre, it's hard to compare eras. Unitas threw for 40K yards in an era before the 5 yard chuck rule, before QB protection rules, before tackles could start a step back, and when QB were expected to call the plays. While I would certainly list Favre in the top 10, I would not say he was the best. The most entertaining I admit, and his style fit a team that needed to take risks to win for much of his career. Most importantly it was nice ot to have to worry about the position for so long while my Bears fan friends were lamenting the Cade McNowns, Kordell Stewarts, Rick Mirers and Dave Kriegs of the world. Hell the most effective QB they've had in 30 years made a great kicking tee recovery boy for the Favre-led champs.

For overrated/underrated I define these as whether a guy was recognized for being as good s he was or believed to be great despite that he really wasn't. A prospect who comes with hype but doesn't pan out doesn't make that list, nor does someone who comes from nowhere to succeed, as they get "rated" once they are noticed/recognized.

Underrated I have to agree on Lynn Dickey. Never got his due because of all the 41-38 losses the team seemed to have during his time, but to go back even farther I might say Leroy Caffey, who was a terrific LB but overshadowed by his two HOF linemates in Nitschke and Robinson.

overrated I might say Hornung. As good as he was he had a lot of HOFers like Starr, Taylor, Ringo, Gregg, and Kramer making him look good. Surrounded by that cast I would have expected his numbers to be a lot more eye-popping than they are, not that I don't think he's a clear HOFer in any case.

One of the things about having a team in a market the size of GB is that you almost never see overrated players. Bigger markets tend to get a lot more hype for their stars, so guys like Phil Simms, Mark Gastineau, Brian Urlacher, Eric Dickerson and Michael Irvin go from being great players to being legends. Players in smaller, less prominent markets tend to go under the radar a lot more often like Sean Alexander, Ronde Barber, Sam Mills, John Randle or Bert Jones. I bet most of us could a lot more easily come up with a list of 10 underrated Packers than overrated ones.
nerdmann  
#23 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 11:04:40 AM(UTC)
OlHoss1884 said: Go to Quoted Post
On the subject of Favre, it's hard to compare eras. Unitas threw for 40K yards in an era before the 5 yard chuck rule, before QB protection rules, before tackles could start a step back, and when QB were expected to call the plays. While I would certainly list Favre in the top 10, I would not say he was the best. The most entertaining I admit, and his style fit a team that needed to take risks to win for much of his career. Most importantly it was nice ot to have to worry about the position for so long while my Bears fan friends were lamenting the Cade McNowns, Kordell Stewarts, Rick Mirers and Dave Kriegs of the world. Hell the most effective QB they've had in 30 years made a great kicking tee recovery boy for the Favre-led champs.

For overrated/underrated I define these as whether a guy was recognized for being as good s he was or believed to be great despite that he really wasn't. A prospect who comes with hype but doesn't pan out doesn't make that list, nor does someone who comes from nowhere to succeed, as they get "rated" once they are noticed/recognized.

Underrated I have to agree on Lynn Dickey. Never got his due because of all the 41-38 losses the team seemed to have during his time, but to go back even farther I might say Leroy Caffey, who was a terrific LB but overshadowed by his two HOF linemates in Nitschke and Robinson.

overrated I might say Hornung. As good as he was he had a lot of HOFers like Starr, Taylor, Ringo, Gregg, and Kramer making him look good. Surrounded by that cast I would have expected his numbers to be a lot more eye-popping than they are, not that I don't think he's a clear HOFer in any case.

One of the things about having a team in a market the size of GB is that you almost never see overrated players. Bigger markets tend to get a lot more hype for their stars, so guys like Phil Simms, Mark Gastineau, Brian Urlacher, Eric Dickerson and Michael Irvin go from being great players to being legends. Players in smaller, less prominent markets tend to go under the radar a lot more often like Sean Alexander, Ronde Barber, Sam Mills, John Randle or Bert Jones. I bet most of us could a lot more easily come up with a list of 10 underrated Packers than overrated ones.



As for Dickey, they had a GREAT offense. Problem there was, the defense couldn't stop anybody. So yeah, he's gonna be underrated.

As for Paul Hornung, Vince Lombardi himself said, "When the game is on the line, Paul Hornung is the greatest player I've ever seen." That's good enough for me.
porky88  
#24 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 12:18:51 PM(UTC)
earthquake said: Go to Quoted Post
Bart Starr
Joe Montana
Tom Brady

If you're an honest, objective fan, these three players were better quarterbacks than Brett Favre. You don't have to look far to figure out why; postseason success.

Favre isn't the greatest packer quarterback, or packer player, let along player ever in the league. Star was 9-1 in the playoffs, 2 superbowl wins, 3 straight championships and 5 total championships. Hutson dominated the league like no player has ever done or likely ever will again, he was Jerry Rice before Jerry Rice, but he was even better comparatively than Rice.

Montana won 4 Superbowls with an overall playoff record of 23-16.

Brady is 3-5 in Superbowls (I realize he hasn't been great recently in the playoffs, but getting to 5 in itself is HUGE) for a playoff record of 24-17.

The greatest QBs do not turn the ball over when the game is on the line, this is why Favre will never be considered the greatest. He did many great things, his longevity and durability was certainly the greatest of any player to ever play the game. But greatest QB? No, not even close. He may have been the most exciting, entertaining player to watch. Unfortunately that excitement lead to disappointment and heartache at the end of the season more often than not.

I don't think most consider Favre the greatest quarterback in history. I don't see that too much. Brady certainly surpassed him, and I don’t think any football historian ever placed him above Joe Montana. I think people have forgotten how good he was, actually. It's a shame because his best was better than most. There was a span (94-98) when he played the position unbelievably well. You never hear about those years in regards to Favre anymore.

It’s also become a common theme to blame him for every playoff defeat in his era. I’ve watched these games multiple times and that’s simply a false analysis. Yes, bash away at the ‘07 and ‘09 championship games, as those were awful throws, but there were other things go on in most of his playoff losses.

Favre fans are quick to defend him. I know first hand. I criticized quite a bit in ‘06 and took some heat on the old site from some people that would go on to hate the man in ‘09. Still, as quick as Favre fans are emotional in defending him, his critics are also emotional in their critique. Labeling him the most overrated Packer in history, as the NFL Network segment did, is among those examples.
OlHoss1884  
#25 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 12:25:56 PM(UTC)
I will add this to why Favre was not overrated: because for 15 years or so his being in the huddle meant almost no game was out of reach. He had an amazing ability to make some crazy plays (like that cross field TD pass in Detroit in that playoff game), an impact few individual players can have. Did he lose a lot of games with his antics? Of course he did, but he more than made up for it with the number of victories he pulled out of his a$$ over the years as well.

Zero2Cool  
#26 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 12:31:42 PM(UTC)
OlHoss1884 said: Go to Quoted Post
I will add this to why Favre was not overrated: because for 15 years or so his being in the huddle meant almost no game was out of reach.


And that's how the opponents felt too. I recall several times where opponents would say that they "have to keep their hands on the ball because Brett tosses a few INT's a game". Meaning that Brett would throw it into their hands, but if they weren't alert, they'd miss the opportunity.
Dexter_Sinister  
#27 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 12:43:04 PM(UTC)
OlHoss1884 said: Go to Quoted Post
I will add this to why Favre was not overrated: because for 15 years or so his being in the huddle meant almost no game was out of reach. He had an amazing ability to make some crazy plays (like that cross field TD pass in Detroit in that playoff game), an impact few individual players can have. Did he lose a lot of games with his antics? Of course he did, but he more than made up for it with the number of victories he pulled out of his a$$ over the years as well.



This is a complete myth.

Favre's success rating in comeback opportunities was well below average.

Average would be between 40 and 50%. Favre was actually in the low 30s.

He more than made up for his comebacks with his record number of chokes.
Dexter_Sinister  
#28 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 1:00:12 PM(UTC)
porky88 said: Go to Quoted Post
It's hard to knock Favre for interceptions and then praise Arnie Herber, who threw 106 interceptions and only 81 touchdowns. He also attempted 1,175 career passes. Favre attempted 10,169 passes. Based on the pattern, Herber would have over 900 interceptions by his 10,169th pass attempt. That's nearly 600 more than Favre's 336.

Comparing the eras (and players) is impossible considering the game was far less complex. Some high school sophomores probably can run a faster 40 than many of the players during that era. Rob Gronkowski also would probably play nose tackle and guard. There are a few exceptions (namely Don Hutson), but that’s why they’re exceptions and not the rule.

Another obstacle is the lack of weight training by the players, and the fact many probably were smokers. Regardless, the biggest omission people make in comparing distant eras to today's age is race relations. Herber won championships in the 30s. Jackie Robinson hadn't even broken through the barrier yet. To recap, the players didn’t train, they weren’t as healthy, and prejudices prevented the league from fielding the best players.


Did you miss the part when I said "for his day he was farther above average than Favre was for his"?

Comparing players from different eras is impossible. So I wouldn't do it.

No helmets, no rules against hitting WRs because the were not WRs, they were offensive ends. They had all the protection of a blocker.

QBs had no protection either. Brady would leave the game in a body bag his first snap.

The players of that era had the same handicaps as the ones they were playing against.

You can't even accurately compare Players from the '60 to today. Even Marino played in an era when the average passer rating was 12.5 points lower than it was for Favre. Comparing them head to head gives Favre a huge advantage for when he played.

To sum up, I am saying that Herber was farther above the standard for his day than Favre was for the '1992-2101 seasons. Relative to when he played, Herber was better.

Otherwise, if you compare Favre head to head with any great QB that played in the past, Staubach, Unitas, Montana, Graham, Luckman, Baugh etc, he looks like he was better. But all those other QBs were so much farther above the standard than Favre, he just doesn't compare. Because the rules protected Favre and his WRs, the medical care kept him playing, the equipment protected him, the game itself is different.
Dexter_Sinister  
#29 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 1:03:19 PM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Do you think he laid down for Strahan to get the sack record?


Sandbagged '05, sandbagged '06 and tanked the '07 NFCCG.
Dexter_Sinister  
#30 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 1:08:53 PM(UTC)
porky88 said: Go to Quoted Post
I don't think most consider Favre the greatest quarterback in history. I don't see that too much. Brady certainly surpassed him, and I don’t think any football historian ever placed him above Joe Montana. I think people have forgotten how good he was, actually. It's a shame because his best was better than most. There was a span (94-98) when he played the position unbelievably well. You never hear about those years in regards to Favre anymore.

It’s also become a common theme to blame him for every playoff defeat in his era. I’ve watched these games multiple times and that’s simply a false analysis. Yes, bash away at the ‘07 and ‘09 championship games, as those were awful throws, but there were other things go on in most of his playoff losses.

Favre fans are quick to defend him. I know first hand. I criticized quite a bit in ‘06 and took some heat on the old site from some people that would go on to hate the man in ‘09. Still, as quick as Favre fans are emotional in defending him, his critics are also emotional in their critique. Labeling him the most overrated Packer in history, as the NFL Network segment did, is among those examples.


To paraphrase the greatest coach in history, Teams win and QBs play.

I wouldn't blame Favre for any of his losses, but I would hold him accountable for his play.

9 of 10 playoff runs were ended by Favre playing poorly, throwing last second picks or failing to step up and even get a first down with time on the clock, 4 downs and within 1 score.

The only super bowl we won was when the D and ST made sure Favre wasn't needed in the 4th quarter. All he had to do was not choke.
OlHoss1884  
#31 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 2:58:10 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
This is a complete myth.

Favre's success rating in comeback opportunities was well below average.

Average would be between 40 and 50%. Favre was actually in the low 30s.

He more than made up for his comebacks with his record number of chokes.


The myth is that you find statistical significance in that. How far behind? What kind of comebacks? What kind of defensive effort? The factis that for most of his career he had a mediocre supporting cast at best, and when it was good, they were a Super Bowl team. My statement stands...as a single player he had as much or more impact on his team's ability to win a game than anyone during his era and I include Elway and Marino in that statement.

I am by no means in the Favre camp with the piss poor childish way he handled his exit from GB, but neither am I a basher of his skills because I dislike his maturity. Te question becomes how many more games were won or lost BECAUSE he was the QB instead of someone of average ability? No doubt some embarrassing losses, but many more amazing wins. And I guarantee you Mike Holmgren would tell you the same thing.

User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#32 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 3:28:12 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I don't think anyone is minimizing how good of a player Brett Favre was. Rather, more so just saying he was good, but he also played more games than most and threw more than most, which is an efficient way to get "all time total" records.

Being extremely durable doesn't mean you were the greatest quarterback in the NFL. It means you were extremely durable and for that, the Packers were immensely lucky.

One gripe against Brett Favre is the post season play. Gun slinging is exciting, but it's not how you should play "win or go home" games and we fans know exactly why.


I thought you basically read EVERY post in every thread, Z2C. There's a WHOLE LOT of minimizin' goin' on hahahaha. All it takes is the words "Brett Favre", and every damn troll and shithead that ever posted piles on with the idiocy.

Duh, he played more games in order to set his records for yardage and touchdowns. That is a large part of what makes him the GREATEST QB/THE GREATEST PLAYER in NFL history.

To the guy who said Bart Starr, Tom Brady, and Joe Montana were "better QBs", did I not say, Favre probably wasn't the "best" player - Aaron Rodgers is better right now than Favre was at his best. However, NOBODY ever had a career like Favre - NOBODY. To illustrate the point, Walter Payton and Emmett Smith were undoubtedly the Greatest RBs of all time, but Gayle Sayers and O.J. Simpson were Better RBs. Durability and Longevity have A LOT to do with it.

DoddPower  
#33 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 3:32:50 PM(UTC)
OlHoss1884 said: Go to Quoted Post
The myth is that you find statistical significance in that. How far behind? What kind of comebacks? What kind of defensive effort? The factis that for most of his career he had a mediocre supporting cast at best, and when it was good, they were a Super Bowl team. My statement stands...as a single player he had as much or more impact on his team's ability to win a game than anyone during his era and I include Elway and Marino in that statement.

I am by no means in the Favre camp with the piss poor childish way he handled his exit from GB, but neither am I a basher of his skills because I dislike his maturity. Te question becomes how many more games were won or lost BECAUSE he was the QB instead of someone of average ability? No doubt some embarrassing losses, but many more amazing wins. And I guarantee you Mike Holmgren would tell you the same thing.



To be fair though, that's the way the "4th quarter comeback" stats are, and they are the same for all the players. They don't account for other things. They can't. It would be impossible to consider all the factors of each game and every situation. Statistics in sports and in life are way over rated, and there are many cliche's about that. Such as "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." We used to joke when I was in academia that you could ask three different statisticians the same questions and get at least 5 different answers based on the data. However, some type of metric is evaluated and applied to all QB's. I personally think 4th quarter comebacks is one of the most over rated and useless metrics that exists in the NFL, but it is what it is.

Dexter_Sinister  
#34 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 4:32:18 PM(UTC)
OlHoss1884 said: Go to Quoted Post
The myth is that you find statistical significance in that. How far behind? What kind of comebacks? What kind of defensive effort? The factis that for most of his career he had a mediocre supporting cast at best, and when it was good, they were a Super Bowl team. My statement stands...as a single player he had as much or more impact on his team's ability to win a game than anyone during his era and I include Elway and Marino in that statement.

I am by no means in the Favre camp with the piss poor childish way he handled his exit from GB, but neither am I a basher of his skills because I dislike his maturity. Te question becomes how many more games were won or lost BECAUSE he was the QB instead of someone of average ability? No doubt some embarrassing losses, but many more amazing wins. And I guarantee you Mike Holmgren would tell you the same thing.



You started with at the end of the game with the ball in his hands, Favre won the game WAY more often than he lost it.

Prove it.

No hype, no opinion, no anecdotal evidence. Just proof.

Stats don't agree with you and it is the stats that are wrong is a not a defense.

Marino was a great QB. Elway is as hyped as and just as over rated. Maybe even more than Favre.

Dexter_Sinister  
#35 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 4:45:29 PM(UTC)
doddpower said: Go to Quoted Post
To be fair though, that's the way the "4th quarter comeback" stats are, and they are the same for all the players. They don't account for other things. They can't. It would be impossible to consider all the factors of each game and every situation. Statistics in sports and in life are way over rated, and there are many cliche's about that. Such as "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." We used to joke when I was in academia that you could ask three different statisticians the same questions and get at least 5 different answers based on the data. However, some type of metric is evaluated and applied to all QB's. I personally think 4th quarter comebacks is one of the most over rated and useless metrics that exists in the NFL, but it is what it is.



It isn't what the stats say. It is what they mean.

That is why good actuaries make $250K a year and statisticians are academics.

I agree that 4th quarter comebacks is worse than useless as a stat. Specially without a ratio.

The best example is the over rated mediocre Eli Manning.

He had an amazing 6 comeback wins in 2011. Unfortunately, that is a bad thing.

They had a 9-7 record that year. They were playing from behind 13 times and lost 6. So they won less than 50% of the time. Which is about average. They were just so bad, they kept losing the lead in the 4th quarter so many times that being average at comebacks gave them 6 in one year.
Dexter_Sinister  
#36 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 4:52:47 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
I thought you basically read EVERY post in every thread, Z2C. There's a WHOLE LOT of minimizin' goin' on hahahaha. All it takes is the words "Brett Favre", and every damn troll and shithead that ever posted piles on with the idiocy.

Duh, he played more games in order to set his records for yardage and touchdowns. That is a large part of what makes him the GREATEST QB/THE GREATEST PLAYER in NFL history.

To the guy who said Bart Starr, Tom Brady, and Joe Montana were "better QBs", did I not say, Favre probably wasn't the "best" player - Aaron Rodgers is better right now than Favre was at his best. However, NOBODY ever had a career like Favre - NOBODY. To illustrate the point, Walter Payton and Emmett Smith were undoubtedly the Greatest RBs of all time, but Gayle Sayers and O.J. Simpson were Better RBs. Durability and Longevity have A LOT to do with it.



Emmitt was the 250th best back all time.

He played much longer than he should have just to get a record.

He had the best O-line in football. He ran into the line and fell down for a 4.2 YPC average. Exactly like Ryan Grant.

Being average longer than anyone else doesn't make them great.

Barry Sanders and Jim Brown were the greatest. Bo Jackson and Terrell Davis would have been if they had more than a couple years.
DoddPower  
#37 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 6:34:35 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
It isn't what the stats say. It is what they mean.

That is why good actuaries make $250K a year and statisticians are academics.


That's a matter of semantics. Whether you want to state what statistics "say" or "mean," it's the same difference to me. The point is that statistics almost never tell the entire picture. They are a tool for those that are educated with background knowledge of the situation and have empirical experience to make inferences based on observed probability. Most of the time, pointing to raw numbers as absolute proof of anything is reaching unless the same numbers have been found in controlled randomly assigned situations many times by many independent entities. Even then, the "facts" may not hold up if a single minor component is changed among endless random variability and biases. Beyond that, it's just taking numbers and trying to fit them into a narrative or an opinion. Sure, the inferences made MAY be right sometimes, but they're very likely to be incredibly wrong many times, as well.

As I said, statistics and numbers are just an inference tool, but in the case of the NFL, very rarely, if ever, do they "prove" anything at all, imo.
porky88  
#38 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 7:30:06 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
Did you miss the part when I said "for his day he was farther above average than Favre was for his"?

Comparing players from different eras is impossible. So I wouldn't do it.

No helmets, no rules against hitting WRs because the were not WRs, they were offensive ends. They had all the protection of a blocker.

QBs had no protection either. Brady would leave the game in a body bag his first snap.

The players of that era had the same handicaps as the ones they were playing against.

You can't even accurately compare Players from the '60 to today. Even Marino played in an era when the average passer rating was 12.5 points lower than it was for Favre. Comparing them head to head gives Favre a huge advantage for when he played.

To sum up, I am saying that Herber was farther above the standard for his day than Favre was for the '1992-2101 seasons. Relative to when he played, Herber was better.

Otherwise, if you compare Favre head to head with any great QB that played in the past, Staubach, Unitas, Montana, Graham, Luckman, Baugh etc, he looks like he was better. But all those other QBs were so much farther above the standard than Favre, he just doesn't compare. Because the rules protected Favre and his WRs, the medical care kept him playing, the equipment protected him, the game itself is different.

I understand your premise. Herber was a better quarterback for his era than Favre was in his era. That’s a comparison, though. You may not mean to compare the two, but that’s doing it. It’s a flawed way of judging players, too. You’re clearly referencing some form of higher knowledge of stats. Regardless, your stats cannot account for every single variable. For example, it‘s easier to dominate in an average league than to dominate in a greater league. In addition, you seem to have views of your own. We all have our opinions, but stats should always be objective. I’m not sure that’s the case here.

Quote:
The only super bowl we won was when the D and ST made sure Favre wasn't needed in the 4th quarter. All he had to do was not choke.

I’ve actually heard this argument a lot since ‘09. It’s a nitpick if there ever was one. So the ’96 team was so dominating that they didn’t need Favre in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl. Never mind the fact that Favre was a big reason why they were winning in the 4th quarter.

All he did was account for three touchdowns, including two perfect throws to Andre Rison and Antonio Freeman. Other than that, you know, he didn’t do much of anything.

I do believe many people, including myself, share your frustration with the Favre apologists. However, there’s also the other side of the spectrum. The NFL Network segment and Herber > Favre represent that side, in my opinion.
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#39 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 7:52:21 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
Emmitt was the 250th best back all time.

He played much longer than he should have just to get a record.

He had the best O-line in football. He ran into the line and fell down for a 4.2 YPC average. Exactly like Ryan Grant.

Being average longer than anyone else doesn't make them great.

Barry Sanders and Jim Brown were the greatest. Bo Jackson and Terrell Davis would have been if they had more than a couple years.


Do you have a clue about the difference between "best" and "greatest"? Do you have a clue about ANYTHING?

Dexter_Sinister  
#40 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 9:02:40 PM(UTC)
doddpower said: Go to Quoted Post
That's a matter of semantics. Whether you want to state what statistics "say" or "mean," it's the same difference to me. The point is that statistics almost never tell the entire picture. They are a tool for those that are educated with background knowledge of the situation and have empirical experience to make inferences based on observed probability. Most of the time, pointing to raw numbers as absolute proof of anything is reaching unless the same numbers have been found in controlled randomly assigned situations many times by many independent entities. Even then, the "facts" may not hold up if a single minor component is changed among endless random variability and biases. Beyond that, it's just taking numbers and trying to fit them into a narrative or an opinion. Sure, the inferences made MAY be right sometimes, but they're very likely to be incredibly wrong many times, as well.

As I said, statistics and numbers are just an inference tool, but in the case of the NFL, very rarely, if ever, do they "prove" anything at all, imo.


If you don't know what stats mean, you wouldn't know the difference.

There is a huge difference to me.

For example, a QB throws for 400 passing yards in a game. That says lots of passing yards. You would think that means the team that put up those yards was great.

What does that really mean?

It means they were either in a shoot out and have a 50% chance to win or were getting blown out and had no chance to win. Teams putting up 400+ yards a game actually lose about 75% of the time.

If you run a correlation of passing yards to wins, on a scale of 0-100, with 100 being a direct 1 to 1 correlation, passing yards would be a negative 1.4, or essentially no correlation.

That is the difference between knowing what they say and what the mean.

So would you say a QB throwing for 5000 yards in a season was great? I wouldn't.

I would look for a stat that correlated to wins. Like Passer rating. Which was about a 90 correlation.

A stat that when you are leading, you are winning.

Now the stat itself isn't important. But doing the things that increase your passer rating have a direct impact on wins. Throw lots of TDs, don't turn the ball over, get few incompletions and get a lot of yards per attempt. So that means an efficient QB is going to win more games than one who throws for a lot of yards.

Which is why ratios mean so much. Comebacks don't mean anything without a per attempt.

6 comebacks says a lot but means little until you find out that it was out of 13 tries.

34 career comebacks sounds like a lot until you find out that it was out of 100 attempts. More than twice as many attempts as the next guy with 38 comebacks.

Was he really good at comebacks? Or did he make up for sucking by sheer volume?
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<1234>»
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
buckeyepackfan (10h) : Cavs!!!!!
Cheesey (13h) : POLAR BEARS!!!!???lol!
Zero2Cool (26-May) : PENGUINS!!!!
Zero2Cool (24-May) : Sad about Cortez Kennedy. I remember playing him in Tecmo (beast!)
Cheesey (23-May) : RIP Cortez Kennedy
Smokey (23-May) : R.I.P.Sir Rodger (007) Moore .
Smokey (23-May) : Try Fish
Porforis (22-May) : Chicken 4 dayz!
gbguy20 (22-May) : Agreed
Smokey (21-May) : Yes, I like Chick-fil-a .
Smokey (21-May) : Rabid Chicken ? LOL
rabidgopher04 (21-May) : Chick fil a
Zero2Cool (20-May) : Penguins & Bad Guys Tied 2 apiece! LETS GO PENS!
Smokey (20-May) : Who sells the best Chicken Sandwich ? Wendy, the King, McD, etc. ?
Smokey (20-May) : Just Visiting ? Join and post today !
Zero2Cool (18-May) : Screw you. (signed Pens fan)
TheKanataThrilla (18-May) : Go Sens!!! Will be in the crowd for the Friday game.
Smokey (18-May) : E.Lacy makes weight in Seattle by 2 lbs. (253 lbs.)
buckeyepackfan (17-May) : Blount signs 1 year deal with Eagles.
DarkaneRules (14-May) : and still! Miocic & Jedrzejczyk
Zero2Cool (13-May) : RP ... you mean Go Pens ... I fix for you.
RaiderPride (13-May) : Gotta Love P.K. T.K.T. I agree.. Go Preds.
Smokey (12-May) : CB Kevin King signs 4 yr deal, no 5th year option .
TheKanataThrilla (12-May) : Go Nashville in the West
TheKanataThrilla (12-May) : My son is wearing his Mario Lemieux Pens shirt and my daughter is wearing he Sens shirt. We win no matter what.
Zero2Cool (11-May) : Aaron Nagler:Packers announce first training camp practice to be held Thursday, July 27
Zero2Cool (11-May) : Capitals are dirty weak trash.
Zero2Cool (11-May) : NHL is great! PENGUINS!!!!
yooperfan (10-May) : Screw the NBA and the NHL, neither are worth watching!
wpr (10-May) : hahaha. Poor Bettman. Worth the price to see it.
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Bettman would blow a gasket if it was an all-Canadian finals. I want Nashville as I am a huge Mike Fisher fan.
Smokey (10-May) : Cheap Shot ? I think not .
wpr (10-May) : Thrilla how about an all Canada Finals?
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Pens tomorrow. Screw you Caps for the cheap shot on Crosby.
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Go Sens. Want to see the Sens pull it out tomorrow.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Saturday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

25-May / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

25-May / Around The NFL / Cheesey

25-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

21-May / Packers Draft Threads / Smokey

20-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / hardrocker950

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

Headlines