Sal Paolantonio opinion - agree or not?

[godef]

Paolantonio is just trying to make money off a worthless book. Don't fall for this ****.


Here is where Favre is at compared to four recent first-ballot Hall of Famers:

Name        G    Comp    %    YD    Y/A    TD    INT    [B]%[/B]    Rush YD
Steve Young    169    2667    64.3    33124    8.0    232    107    [B]2.17[/B]    4239
Dan Marino    242    4967    59.4    61361    7.3    420    252    [B]1.67[/B]    87
Brett Favre    252    5312    61.4    60856    7.0    436    281    [B]1.55[/B]    1768
John Elway    234    4123    56.9    51475    7.1    300    226    [B]1.33[/B]    3407
Warren Moon    208    3988    58.4    49325    7.2    291    233    [B]1.25[/B]    1736

I don't feel your argument is very strong.

OK, those statistics are pretty straight forward. His INTs are high, but perhaps I don't give enough credence to my own point about how only good quarterbacks can accumulate a lot of INTs because only they would play enough games for this to happen. Consider me illuminated.

 

[TruthSeeker]

My point was that completion percentages, etc. are meaningless when one QB won 4 championships in that period and the other one probably never made the second round of the playoffs.

If statistics were all that important, Lynn Swann wouldn't be considered great. He had just over 300 catches in his career, but you say he is deserving of HoF. You want it both ways.

What I'm saying is that statistics are definately not "meaningless". They are an important piece of the puzzle. They certainly don't tell the whole story, but they shouldn't be ignored.

Likewise, the statistic of number of championships won shouldn't be ignored because it's meaningless - it should be given some weight.

The question becomes how much weight? I give SB Championships in and of themselves a very modest weight - like 10%. SB Championships are often a huge team accomplishment that may or may not reveal great individual accomplishments. You have to look deeper than "3 rings" or "4 rings".

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm just saying that everything needs to be put in proper balance. When I saw Lynn Swann over the years, he made great catches and plays on a consistent basis.

Terry Bradshaw, on the other hand, didn't consistently play at a HoF level. He was an above average QB in a great situation. Above average isn't bad at all - it's good. But almost everyone overrates the QB - when he wins he gets too much credit and when he loses he gets too much blame. (Never heard that before, right? ) Terry Bradshaw is Exhibit A; average numbers, played QB on a great team, had some highlights and some lowlights and rides the wave into the HoF.

 

[Ring 6]

1979: Steelers allowed 14 and then 13 points in the AFC playoffs
1978: Steelers allowed 10 and then 5 points in the AFC playoffs

yeah, I think Hart could have led the Steelers to wins in those game

in Harts 2 playoff games his team gave up 30 and 35 points. but he is not a "winner". lol

Keep going to those SBs. You belittle your argument by selectively leaving out the facts that hurt it.

 

[makewayhomer]

Keep going to those SBs. You belittle your argument by selectively leaving out the facts that hurt it.

sure, they needed points to win SB's. but Hart couldn't even get to a SB largely b/c his defense was so bad. this is what you keep ignoring. give Bradshaw an average defense and it's doubtful they win any SB's.

 

[OtisCampbell]

What I'm saying is that statistics are definately not "meaningless". They are an important piece of the puzzle. They certainly don't tell the whole story, but they shouldn't be ignored.

Likewise, the statistic of number of championships won shouldn't be ignored because it's meaningless - it should be given some weight.

The question becomes how much weight? I give SB Championships in and of themselves a very modest weight - like 10%. SB Championships are often a huge team accomplishment that may or may not reveal great individual accomplishments. You have to look deeper than "3 rings" or "4 rings".

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm just saying that everything needs to be put in proper balance. When I saw Lynn Swann over the years, he made great catches and plays on a consistent basis.

Terry Bradshaw, on the other hand, didn't consistently play at a HoF level. He was an above average QB in a great situation. Above average isn't bad at all - it's good. But almost everyone overrates the QB - when he wins he gets too much credit and when he loses he gets too much blame. (Never heard that before, right? ) Terry Bradshaw is Exhibit A; average numbers, played QB on a great team, had some highlights and some lowlights and rides the wave into the HoF.

I remember watching Bradshaw and my recollection now is that he had a few off the chart years. Great touch, great long ball, great game management. As someone pointed out, it was a long time ago, and maybe it is selective memory clouded by too much whiskey and other intoxicants. But I'm sticking by it

 

[Ring 6]

sure, they needed points to win SB's. but Hart couldn't even get to a SB largely b/c his defense was so bad. this is what you keep ignoring. give Bradshaw an average defense and it's doubtful they win any SB's.

Why? Show me where he failed. See, if you have a good defense and win it doesnt mean you couldnt win without a good defense.
I would argue that he overcame very average defensive performances in both of those last 2 SBs and won.
Did you look up how Hart played in those 2 playoff games? How would your argument be affected if you found out he played poorly, threw Ints, couldn't move the ball, and a lot of those points were because of turnovers, or their inability to do anything on offense?

 

[makewayhomer]

Why? Show me where he failed. See, if you have a good defense and win it doesnt mean you couldnt win without a good defense.
I would argue that he overcame very average defensive performances in both of those last 2 SBs and won.
Did you look up how Hart played in those 2 playoff games? How would your argument be affected if you found out he played poorly, threw Ints, couldn't move the ball, and a lot of those points were because of turnovers, or their inability to do anything on offense?

here are Harts 2 playoff games vs Bradshaws first 2 playoff games (in 1972, his 3rd full year as a starter)

Bradshaw: 16/35, 155 yards (4.42 Y/A), 2 td's, 3 int's (team scored 30, allowed 28, ream record 1-1)
Hart: 40/81, 491, (6 Y/A), 2 td's, 4 int's (team scored 37, allowed 65, team record 0-2)

Hart obviously threw a lot more, but those games are pretty close. he threw 1 more INT, but still led his team to more points than Bradshaw was able to, which is the principle job of a QB.

the QB can't play defense - the one additional INT Hart threw doesn't account for the discrepancy between 65 and 28 points. Hart could have played great and it probably wouldn't have mattered.

you could cherry pick 2 games that Bradshaw played better, I'm sure, but that is intellectual dishonesty. the point is that in the only chance Hart got in the playoffs, he played as well/better than Bradshaw did in his first chances, but despite that, his team lost

and despite playing basically as well as Bradshaw his whole career, those were the only chances he got

 

[Ring 6]

sure, they needed points to win SB's. but Hart couldn't even get to a SB largely b/c his defense was so bad. this is what you keep ignoring. give Bradshaw an average defense and it's doubtful they win any SB's.

Harts #s in those 2 playoff games
22-41-291 1 Td 3 Ints
18-40-200 1 Td 1 Int
In one game, he threw 3 picks, in the other he completed 45% of his passes for 5 ypa

By the way Hart was sacked 6 and 8 times in 1974 and 1975, so my early comment about having the best OL seems on point.

Bradshaw in his last 2 SB wins.
14/21/309 and 17/30/318

By the way, please explain to me how the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER OF THE SUPER BOWL had nothing to do with the success and could be replaced by a guy who (I think) never even won a playoff game.

 

[makewayhomer]

I remember watching Bradshaw and my recollection now is that he had a few off the chart years. Great touch, great long ball, great game management. As someone pointed out, it was a long time ago, and maybe it is selective memory clouded by too much whiskey and other intoxicants. But I'm sticking by it

Otis I'm a whisky fan myself so I'll give you a pass.

for the record, I agree that Bradshaw was a good QB, and he did in fact have a few great years.

but that doesn't make him a top QB, he probably doesn't belong in the all time top 10

 

[Ring 6]

here are Harts 2 playoff games vs Bradshaws first 2 playoff games (in 1972, his 3rd full year as a starter)

Bradshaw: 16/35, 155 yards (4.42 Y/A), 2 td's, 3 int's (team scored 30, allowed 28, ream record 1-1)
Hart: 40/81, 491, (6 Y/A), 2 td's, 4 int's (team scored 37, allowed 65, team record 0-2)

Hart obviously threw a lot more, but those games are pretty close. he threw 1 more INT, but still led his team to more points than Bradshaw was able to, which is the principle job of a QB.

the QB can't play defense - the one additional INT Hart threw doesn't account for the discrepancy between 65 and 28 points. Hart could have played great and it probably wouldn't have mattered.

you could cherry pick 2 games that Bradshaw played better, I'm sure, but that is intellectual dishonesty. the point is that in the only chance Hart got in the playoffs, he played as well/better than Bradshaw did in his first chances, but despite that, his team lost

This argument is fatally flawed.
Terry Bradshaw isnt an all-time great because of his first 2 playoff games, he is because of 4 SB wins. If Bradshaw continued to play like he did in 1970-1972, he would have not acheived anything.

Your argument is that Jim Hart would have won 4 SBs with the Steelers, so you should be comparing to those 4 SBs.

I wouldn't argue Bradshaw was better than the average QB prior to 1974-75, so I could care less about those stats.
ONCE AGAIN I AM VALUING ACHEIVEMENTS. YOUR COUNTER ARGUMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE AGAINST THOSE ACHEIVEMENTS.

I'll put it another way.
If there were a QB who played 14 years, and in 9 of them was average or worse, but in 5 of them was clearly the best QB and led his team to 5 SB Championships, he would be the best ever.
Contrast this to a guy who played 14 years, piled up a whole lot of stats, and never won. That guy doesnt even belong in the argument.

 

[Ring 6]

Otis I'm a whisky fan myself so I'll give you a pass.

for the record, I agree that Bradshaw was a good QB, and he did in fact have a few great years.

but that doesn't make him a top QB, he probably doesn't belong in the all time top 10

For the record, who are your Top 10.

 

[Ring 6]

For the record, who are your Top 10.

Clearly it must include Jim Hart

 

[makewayhomer]

Contrast this to a guy who played 14 years, piled up a whole lot of stats, and never won. That guy doesnt even belong in the argument.

he certainly belongs in the argument if he played for a terrible defense the whole time.

and Andy, to back up - it's not the QB's job to win games. that's the TEAM's job, a QB can't win games by himself.

it's his job to score points. sometimes it's his job to lead clock killing drives, but hey anybody can hand the ball off

the entire fallacy in your argument is that somehow, magically, a QB can play defense

 

[Ring 6]

he certainly belongs in the argument if he played for a terrible defense the whole time.

and Andy, to back up - it's not the QB's job to win games. that's the TEAM's job, a QB can't win games by himself.

it's his job to score points. sometimes it's his job to lead clock killing drives, but hey anybody can hand the ball off

the entire fallacy in your argument is that somehow, magically, a QB can play defense

I don't think you have been paying attention.

The QB is (and has been for 40 years) the single most important player on a team in determining winning or losing.
The idea that a QB is saddled with bad talent or blessed with great talent and that determines his success is phony.
As I illustrated at the beginning of this, almost every all-time great winning QB started on a team that was horrible.
When we are talking about GREAT QBs, they are difference makers. They win because they make the plays that determine the outcome of the game.
I find it basically impossible to say that while almost everyone of the all-time great winners started on a team that was basically the worst in the NFL, and those teams became champions, that there are QBs who go an entire career with no opportunity to elevate their team to a championship.

Are you really telling me that when Tom Brady led this team to the SB in his first year, replacing Drew Bledsoe, with Antowain Smith at RB, a far below avg group of receivers and a 21st ranked defense, that anyone who could put up similar stats would have won that SB?
Are you really saying you are ignorant to the intangibles that having Brady in charge instead of Bledsoe brought to the team, and made all the others players to some degree better? That Brady making plays in the clutch is much more important than what his stats added up to? That one key play Brady made, during the season if not made by a guy who was less of a 'winner' wouldn't have cost them a game, and potential kept them out of or in worse shape in the playoffs? That any player of similar stats would have led that SB drive?
Put chad Pennington on the Pats in 2001. The stats are similar. Is there ANY WAY IN THE WORLD they win the SB? If you say yes, we should stop the discussion because I would lose respect for any opinion you could offer after that.

Bradshaw's SBs were in an era where there were equally dominant teams in the NFL. There were defenses as good, and in the last 2 SBs, better than his. There were better running games.
Who was better, Ken Stabler or Terry Bradshaw? They had all in all equal teams surrounding them in the 70s. Bradshaw has 4 SB rings, Stabler 1. There was not a 4:1 difference in the talent of those teams. There was howver, a 4:1 difference in Bradshaw EXECUTING IN THE CLUTCH and winning.

There is simply no way you can use excuses or explanations to compare not winning to winning. You either win or you don't, and the QB is the most important factor. The statistic of the QB make up about 2% of determining whether his team is winning SBs or not. To you, its 100%, because apparently you feel a QB is a robotic stat generator.

If you have ever played football at any level, you would understand that the QB is almost always the leader on the team, and that leadership, the tone of the lockerrom, the confidence of the QB, etc, affects everyone in the lockerroom.

 

[Ring 6]

he certainly belongs in the argument if he played for a terrible defense the whole time.

and Andy, to back up - it's not the QB's job to win games. that's the TEAM's job, a QB can't win games by himself.

it's his job to score points. sometimes it's his job to lead clock killing drives, but hey anybody can hand the ball off

the entire fallacy in your argument is that somehow, magically, a QB can play defense

A QB certainly affects his own defense.
Are you really going to give me this ignorant approach that assumes every QB who put up big passing numbers (Marino, Fouts, etc) just happened to always have a bad defense? Or do you recognize that those defenses were affected by the style of offense their team played, turnovers, etc?
You do realize that teams with the best running games are almost always near the top in defensive rankings, right? Do you know why? You run, you control the clock, you keep your defense off the field, you keep the stats down.

There is absolutely no question that a QB has an impact on his own defense.

 

[makewayhomer]

You do realize that teams with the best running games are almost always near the top in defensive rankings, right? Do you know why? You run, you control the clock, you keep your defense off the field, you keep the stats down.

1. what about the Pats this year,
2. lets say you're right, and a team can help it's defense by running the ball more - are you saying that Bradshaw was better at handing off than Hart?

exactly how did Bradshaw help his defense more than Hart helped his?

 

[Ring 6]

1. what about the Pats this year,
2. lets say you're right, and a team can help it's defense by running the ball more - are you saying that Bradshaw was better at handing off than Hart?

exactly how did Bradshaw help his defense more than Hart helped his?

You are mixing arguments. Running teams having better defensive stats than passing teams had nothing to do with Bradshaw/Hart.

The better you play at QB, the more you help your defense. If ou convert 3rd down and keep your offense on the field, if you do not turn the ball over. Again, the many, many things that make the difference between winning and losing that you cannot judge from looking at season stats.

By the way, a QB can absolutely have an impact on the running game by handing off. If you don't believe that look back to Drew Bledsoe. He limited the running game by being so slow getting the ball to the back. Granted, its a pretty rare case, but there is definitely a difference in 'how you hand off'. It has nothing to do with this argument, but its something few people notice in a QB.

 

[Ring 6]

There are many other things a QB does that affect his defense.
2 QBs can put up similar stats, but have a much different impact.
One can get his team out ahead, the other can play poorly early and built stats trying to come back. An int on the opening drive is a lot different than an int when you are down 14 with 1 minute left.

Again, that is what you miss by just looking at stats. All stats are not attained equally.

You again are working backwards.

No one needs to prove that Terry Bradshaw can contribute to Championships. It doesnt need to be proven that he did more than Jim Hart. He did, he won. You would need to prove that Hart could have won 4 SBs. To do that you would need to prove he was a winner, on Bradshaws level, He wasnt.

 

[makewayhomer]

2 QBs can put up similar stats, but have a much different impact.
One can get his team out ahead, the other can play poorly early and built stats trying to come back. An int on the opening drive is a lot different than an int when you are down 14 with 1 minute left.

Again, that is what you miss by just looking at stats. All stats are not attained equally.

this is actually a very good point, I concede you are on to something. traditional stats are limited in that they view all yards as equal. we all know that a 6 yard pass on 3rd and 5 is much better than a 6 yard pass on 3rd and 8, but traditional stats dont capture this.

this is why stats like DPAR and DVOA, from Football Outsiders, are much better - they capture then When and the Situation, not just the What. they also adjust for strength of schedule in the end, it gives you a better objective perfomance measurement.

unfortunately, compiling these stats is manually intensive, and they currently only have data back as far as the mid 90's.

still, in the absence of advanced metrics, "traditional" stats do a better job of capturing performance than subjective memories of 30 years ago.

 

[shakadave]

Here is where Favre is at compared to four recent first-ballot Hall of Famers:

Name        G    Comp    %    YD    Y/A    TD    INT    [B]%[/B]    Rush YD
Steve Young    169    2667    64.3    33124    8.0    232    107    [B]2.17[/B]    4239
Dan Marino    242    4967    59.4    61361    7.3    420    252    [B]1.67[/B]    87
Brett Favre    252    5312    61.4    60856    7.0    436    281    [B]1.55[/B]    1768
John Elway    234    4123    56.9    51475    7.1    300    226    [B]1.33[/B]    3407
Warren Moon    208    3988    58.4    49325    7.2    291    233    [B]1.25[/B]    1736

I don't feel your argument is very strong.

I think it's possible to believe a player belongs in the Hall of Fame, as I believe about Favre, while still believing he's overrated. But for a Hall of Famer to be overrated, the media would REALLY, REALLY have to fawn over him a lot to rate him so highly.

Yes, as I was saying....