Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Who is the best quarterback in AFC East history?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,037

    Default

    Buffalo Bills

    FREE iPad Download

    Marino (assuming Manning's short stay means he doesn't count).

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    29,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by forever 7-9 View Post
    So, I posted this same thing upthread and decided to look at the Pro-Football Reference era-adjusted advanced passing (the "+" numbers showing how much better or worse than average the player was in a given year) and, actually, Kelly is helped out even more than I thought in those (Marino, too, obviously). Kelly actually comes REALLY close to Brady in YPA+, Rating+ and a few others and beats him in some prime years. He's certainly not better and I don't think that it's particularly close as an overall assessment, but I was surprised by the gap in the era adjustments...

    http://www.pro-football-reference.co...K/KellJi00.htm
    http://www.pro-football-reference.co...B/BradTo00.htm
    That is certainly very interesting.


    Heres a philosophical question for you: how much adjustment do you think is appopriate? I assume that these guys have established their adjustment analytics through the creation of baselines of "average" QB performance (certainly could be wrong). Now, do you think that type of approach is appropriate? I mean, we have two or three questions here, right?
    1) Is it harder to play defense against the pass today? Clearly this is a yes and has resulted in inflation
    2) Can we assume that great players of old would recreate their relative levels of greatness against these playing conditions? Maybe but I dont know.

    I think its very possible, even probable, that the average NFL QB today is BETTER than the average NFL QB of 30 years ago. I think kids get earlier and more intense exposure to football concepts and strategy. They're being exposed to things so far before QBs of old that I've gotta think their understanding of the game is probably superior.

    So when we adjust for era, do you think its fair to use an "avg qb" baseline to derive adjustments? Or do you think its possible that the QBs today are just better, even given their defensive era?

    Does this make sense?
    Is this your homework Larry?


    Wise man say: "Forgiveness is divine but I'm either getting money, getting some, or just doing something that requires friends, talent, or physical fitness."

    "It just isn't. You are wrong. I am right."

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry View Post
    That is certainly very interesting.


    Heres a philosophical question for you: how much adjustment do you think is appopriate? I assume that these guys have established their adjustment analytics through the creation of baselines of "average" QB performance (certainly could be wrong). Now, do you think that type of approach is appropriate? I mean, we have two or three questions here, right?
    1) Is it harder to play defense against the pass today? Clearly this is a yes and has resulted in inflation
    2) Can we assume that great players of old would recreate their relative levels of greatness against these playing conditions? Maybe but I dont know.

    I think its very possible, even probable, that the average NFL QB today is BETTER than the average NFL QB of 30 years ago. I think kids get earlier and more intense exposure to football concepts and strategy. They're being exposed to things so far before QBs of old that I've gotta think their understanding of the game is probably superior.

    So when we adjust for era, do you think its fair to use an "avg qb" baseline to derive adjustments? Or do you think its possible that the QBs today are just better, even given their defensive era?

    Does this make sense?
    Yes, it makes sense and I think you're asking the core question I was going to add to my initial post, which is: Did Tom Brady and Peyton Manning beget the new passing era or did the new passing era beget them? It's obviously not so simple, but I think a strong argument can be made that baseline/average QB performance (which is the basis of the "+" numbers) exists *because* of the Brady/Manning model, which showed teams that elite QB's could run pass-dominant, spread-style offenses and put up staggering numbers. So, next thing you know, Matt Stafford is hitting 5,000 yards and we think Matt Schaub is "just OK" while he throws for 4,000+ (something Kelly never did).

    It would be silly to suggest that rule changes and philosophy hasn't caused a great deal of the inflated numbers, and it would be similarly silly to think that Kelly and Marino wouldn't be better numbers-wise in the current era (1984 was an outlier passing year and look what Marino did in it), but to ignore the fact that Brady has played multiple roles (game manager, creator without weapons, statistical wonder with weapons) and sort of ushered in the era himself would be off base.

    We can't ignore era when assessing these guys. We also can't ignore rule changes, philosophy changes and treatment changes, but at the same time I don't think working from a statistical baseline is always perfect. To me, the "+" number shows you the VALUE of the performance, because it is measured against league average and replacement level. It's far more useful in comparing raw numbers across eras but certainly not perfect.

    Maybe this is a long-winded way of saying that I think the "+" numbers show that Marino and Kelly were pretty close to as valuable to their teams as Brady (though not quite as much) but that the performance itself isn't perfectly measured by the era-adjustment.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,812

    Default

    I know we are not allowed to say anything positive about Brady on these boards but anyone who tries to make an argument for any other QB in this discussion loses all credibility. It's not even close.

    Second place is open for debate but I think it has to be either Marino or Kelly as Peyton only has 2 winning seasons out of 4 when he was in the AFC east.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Someplace that you'd rather be. Right here, right now.
    Posts
    18,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry View Post
    Not really sure how anyone can argue that Manning's legacy is "much stronger" than Brady's given they're near equal statistical performances...
    OK, you get a shot to go back in time and somehow are in position to acquire one of these two QBs circa 2001. You have your own coach, your own roster, and you can sign Manning or Brady for 10 years. Who do you sign?

    Honestly for me it's the easiest decision in the world. Brady is an efficient QB who makes good decisions and does very well. Manning is the greatest QB of all time. On the Colts, they are one of the best teams in the league. Off the Colts, they are the worst. On the Broncos, they go from being decent to very **** good, despite a liability at HC. I just don't thinik that Brady does that well without a good head coach. Give Mariucci a QB like Brady, they probably go to the playoffs most of the time. Give Mariucci a QB like Manning for several years, and people will think Mooch is an elite coach. Remember Shanahan with Elway? It's like that.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern Maryland
    Posts
    7,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeDee View Post
    Manning is the greatest QB of all time. On the Colts, they are one of the best teams in the league. Off the Colts, they are the worst.
    Insert rookie QB, the Colts go 11-5. Those Colts teams are better than most think.
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - Jorge Santayana

    Pegula's first order of business, clean ******* house!

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeDee View Post
    OK, you get a shot to go back in time and somehow are in position to acquire one of these two QBs circa 2001. You have your own coach, your own roster, and you can sign Manning or Brady for 10 years. Who do you sign?

    Honestly for me it's the easiest decision in the world. Brady is an efficient QB who makes good decisions and does very well. Manning is the greatest QB of all time. On the Colts, they are one of the best teams in the league. Off the Colts, they are the worst. On the Broncos, they go from being decent to very **** good, despite a liability at HC. I just don't thinik that Brady does that well without a good head coach. Give Mariucci a QB like Brady, they probably go to the playoffs most of the time. Give Mariucci a QB like Manning for several years, and people will think Mooch is an elite coach. Remember Shanahan with Elway? It's like that.
    I'm not sure I buy your argument. The Colts "sucked for Luck" last year. Also, Polian had no backup plan when Manning went out with his injury. They were pretty good this year with a rookie QB and a coach that didn't coach due to him battling illness. The Broncos, were a playoff team last year with Tebow as their QB. They also had a lot of talent on both sides of the ball when Manning arrived. I'm not sure how you think Brady does not do that well without a good coach? Everyone says Belichick would be nothing without Brady. I think Manning and Brady are both two great QB's, but Brady's got the better of Manning at this point in their careers.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    17,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonavenger View Post
    who would be rated after the obvious four? of Brady, Marino, Kelly, Namath..

    I can't really think of any names after them... maybe Bledsoe?
    Ferguson.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    6,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mauricejunior2 View Post
    I hate the Patriots, but Tom Brady is the best QB of all time. His stats and accomplishments speaks for its self.
    Maybe the best in NFC East history, but definitely not the best of all time.

    That award belongs to Joe Montana and Peyton Manning!

  10. #50
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jellydonut25 View Post
    Ferguson.
    Don't forget Tony Eason & Ken O'Brien.

    Bob Griese, Jack Kemp, Steve Grogan, Bert Jones & Richard Todd.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •