Sal Paolantonio opinion - agree or not?

[makewayhomer]

Typical lasted ditch effort of a losing argument.
"You have made such a compelling case that all that is left for me to do is pretend your argument is ridiculous and give up"

You might as well quit, because your argument now amounts to:

-I am not able to have an opinion of my own because I didn't see the players play football
-I will overvalue statistics because the only way I can argue is add up all the plays of a players career and not take in to account whether they contributed to winning or not.
-I will base my opinion of what I didn't see my estimating the opinion of people at the time who I didnt hear give those opinions
-and, finally, winning means nothing, you play the game so a future generation can be impressed by your statistics.

it's useless to argue with you. you haven't been able to get it through your thick skull that football is a team game, and 45 men contribute in a large way to a W on any given Sunday. until you recognize this fact, goodbye.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Follow the color code....

this is fine to say...but just to clarify:

I was not just using stats to make my decision. any good analysis should be a mix of objective (stats) and subjective (what are the #'s not capturing?). of course, I don't have any subjective evidence, so I used the subjective evidence of others. NFL Players and Coaches used to be the sole decision makers with regard to who made the Pro Bowl. they simply voted on who they thought were the best QB's of the year. and NINE times they thought Tark was one of the best, vs THREE for Bradshaw. overwhelmingly, NFL players and coaches of the day said that Tarkentons sustained excellence was higher than Bradshaws.

as I said above, Pro Bowl voting isn't perfect, and sometimes mistakes are made. but when it's 9 to 3, it's highly, highly unlikely that the Pro Bowl voters were that incorrect, consistently. and sorry,but I trust this piece of evidence MUCH stronger than the casual fans

combine that with the overwhelming objective advantage has (better per year stats, longer career, etc) and I don't think it's close between those 2.

but then I saw that Andy was taking even further, and saying that Bradshaw was better than Marino and Favre. now, objective evidence, other peoples subjective evidence, and my own eyes say this is just dumb. most everyone agrees with me, so I didn't even go there.

but just a final note, and I mentioned this above: football is a really complicated game. we don't see all of it on TV. we don't always know what routes a WR is supposed to run where. in short, we can't always trust our eyes. what somebody else really smart said:

For a typical (even rabid) fan, however, there are excellent reasons that we focus on stats more than scouting.

We're biased. Not just in favor of teams and/or players we like, but also in favor of our previously held beliefs (as someone on this message board once said, confirmation bias is wicked strong). Even if you could neutralize bias, you have small sample size and, for most players, woefully incomplete information. How many games do you really see from the players about whom you have strong opinions? Maybe you saw a few Bradshaw games in which he leads his team to a 4th quarter comeback, but you miss the games in which he throws three first half interceptions and his team loses by 20. in addition, whatever memories you have are 30 years old by now.

And even for players on your local team, which you presumably see every single week, the way the game is displayed on TV means that you miss the large majority of what's happening on every single play. With the camera on the side of the field, scouting the O-lines' run blocking abilities is simply impossible, so you can never be sure how much credit to give the RB for success or failure. You only see about 5-10 yards past the line of scrimmage so you have no idea what the receivers and the secondary are doing. For example, were the Atlanta WRs horrible all these years, or was Michael Vick failing to find the open man? You can't tell; Vick throws an incomplete pass to a WR who was well covered and you say that no one was open and it was the receivers' fault, but maybe the intended receiver did get open and Vick was late with the ball, or maybe the receiver on the other side of the field had a few steps on the safety deep (not that Vick would be able to hit him, anyway).

And even among the stuff that is on the screen during the games we are actually watching, most of it is a total mystery to us. Unless you rewind the play and go through it in slo-mo a dozen times to figure out what everyone's assignment is, you can very rarely properly assign credit and blame. It might look like the RB followed a nice block from the FB to pick up 12 yards, but maybe the WLB covered the wrong gap which allowed the G to kick out to the next level and block the MLB who would otherwise make the tackle, in which case the offense just got lucky. Or maybe everyone on the offense was in perfect position relative to the defensive scheme, in which case the coaching staff should get the credit (for calling the right play), not any particular player.

In short, we trust the numbers because we can't trust our eyes. We don't see enough games, and the games we do see are broadcast with the purpose of giving us something fun to watch, not inundating us with a lot of good information. A good stat-head is a stat-head because he's humble -- he doesn't presume to be able to watch a handful of Falcons games and know for a fact that the exciting running Quarterback with accuracy problems is actually one of the best QBs in the league. or that Bradshaw is better than Marino b/c of 2 great games in his career than Bradshaw played.

???

We know that. That's why teams send scouts to other games, and why they have staffs to break down the coaches tapes. Statistical analysis is important for trend analysis, 'tis true. You can gauge probabilities, to a large extent, with these numbers. But I wouldn't trust my life to wonders of statistics, and I'm sure coaches don't view statistics as the be-all and the end-all of game planning and execution, either.

You lost your argument with that one, son. Sorry. Thanks for playing!

Oh, yeah, you're coming across as real humble on this thread!

Ooooh, do tell!

 

[makewayhomer]

We know that. That's why teams send scouts to other games, and why they have staffs to break down the coaches tapes. Statistical analysis is important for trend analysis, 'tis true.

you missed the point - YOU are not a professional scout. YOU do not have access to coaches tapes.

you (and here I'm assuming) are a casual fan who watches games a couple times a week. this is far, far different than a pro scout breaking down coaching tapes.

ever listen to BB's press conferences when he is asked about how Player X did? he almost always answers with "I dunno, some good, some bad, I I really need to watch the tapes to see"

if he can't do it in real time, then you can't.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

it's useless to argue with you. you haven't been able to get it through your thick skull that football is a team game, and 45 men contribute in a large way to a W on any given Sunday. until you recognize this fact, goodbye.

You're losing your argument because you're putting up strawmen that have nothing to do with the premise of this thread; i.e., Sal Paolantonio's view of the most over-rated quarterbacks!

We all know it's a 45-man game, but Andy's argument (with which I concur) is that the QB is the single most important player on the team. Who gets the ball the WR? Or the TE? Who hands off to the RB? Who executes the coaches desires as expressed in the game plan? Who audiblizes when he sees that a defensive alignment that was not originally anticipated is employed, thus forcing abandonment of the play originally called? Who is it that is the object of an offensive lineman's fierce efforts to block incoming defensive players? Who is it that most all of a game plan is centered around?

Who actually calls the game and leads the team out there?

There's only one answer in our book, and it's the QUARTERBACK!

It's just like in a corporation. Various layers of management, the accounting function, the systems people, the statisticians (!), etc., etc., are all important to the health and well-being of the company, but all exist solely for one function, and one function only - to support the sale!

And so it is with a football team, at least on the offensive side of the ball. Everyone's out there trying to do their job in an effort to support the quarterback's effort to give the team the best chance to win. And while the stats generated are usually interesting, that's not the focus of the team's effort. What they want to do is win (there is really no substitute!), and they're placing their hopes (i.e., efforts) on the back of the QB.

It's called Management By Objectives.

 

[makewayhomer]

You're losing your argument because you're putting up strawmen that have nothing to do with the premise of this thread; i.e., Sal Paolantonio's view of the most over-rated quarterbacks!

We all know it's a 45-man game, but Andy's argument (with which I concur) is that the QB is the single most important player on the team. Who gets the ball the WR? Or the TE? Who hands off to the RB? Who executes the coaches desires as expressed in the game plan? Who audiblizes when he sees that a defensive alignment that was not originally anticipated is employed, thus forcing abandonment of the play originally called? Who is it that is the object of an offensive lineman's fierce efforts to block incoming defensive players? Who is it that most all of a game plan is centered around?

Who actually calls the game and leads the team out there?

There's only one answer in our book, and it's the QUARTERBACK!

It's just like in a corporation. Various layers of management, the accounting function, the systems people, the statisticians (!), etc., etc., are all important to the health and well-being of the company, but all exist solely for one function, and one function only - to support the sale!

And so it is with a football team, at least on the offensive side of the ball. Everyone's out there trying to do their job in an effort to support the quarterback's effort to give the team the best chance to win. And while the stats generated are usually interesting, that's not the focus of the team's effort. What they want to do is win (there is really no substitute!), and they're placing their hopes (i.e., efforts) on the back of the QB.

It's called Management By Objectives.

the quarterback is certainly the most important, I agree, but you are vastly overrating it.

I'll go through the same exercise as before. what % of the "W" should go to each party/unit? I'm talking about an average game here: please give a % to each item below:

coaching:
the entire defense:
all special teams units:
the quarterback:
the entire offensive line (5 guys):
the WR's:
the RB's:
the TE:

note that your %'s need to add up to 100%

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

the quarterback is certainly the most important, I agree, but you are vastly overrating it.

I'll go through the same exercise as before. what % of the "W" should go to each party/unit? I'm talking about an average game here: please give a % to each item below:

the entire defense:
all special teams units:
the quarterback:
the entire offensive line (5 guys):
the WR's:
the RB's:
the TE:

note that your %'s need to add up to 100%

That's all we wanted to hear you say.

That should pretty much close this thread.

 

[makewayhomer]

That's all we wanted to hear you say.

That should pretty much close this thread.

no, it doesn't. I'd like to see your %'s

not that I forgot to include "coaching", my mistake

 

[TruthSeeker]

Did you post it before? I missed it.

I thought I read all the posts and merely reported what i observed.

I'm sure a lot of people think Tarkenton's better than Bradshaw, some think he's in the top two or three.

I noticed other posters had strong opinions about him and I had first mentioned i didn't think he lived up to his stats.

Personal opinion, neither one is in my very top list.

No, i hadn't. I didn't realize that you were trying to summarize what you had seen in the thread, just thought you were making a general claim.

 

[Ring 6]

it's useless to argue with you. you haven't been able to get it through your thick skull that football is a team game, and 45 men contribute in a large way to a W on any given Sunday. until you recognize this fact, goodbye.

So now we move on to the 'if I cant win an argument, I can always throw insults" portion of this episode.

Please show me in anything I have said where I do not recognize football is a team game?
In fact, I am valuing that fact much more than you are, because I give value to winning where you give value to statistics.
What do statistics and awards have to do with it being a team game? How can you judge a player in a team game by looking at things that ignore whether he won or lost?

It appears that you are saying winning and losing has absolutely nothing to do with who is a better player.

Just answer this question:

Do you believe that part of the talent level of a QB is what he does in the clutch? In other words is it possible that one guy can have better statistics but not be as good in the clutch? Wouldn't his performance in the clutch, especially in big games against good teams mean more to his team that what he does in all other situations?

I think the point that you are missing here is this:

You can probably use statistics to rate many QB abilities and skills.
But the most important skill in a QB is whether or not his team wins.
While there are other factors besides the QB in whether the team wins or not, the QB is a large part of the equation.
The skills that are needed to compile stats, and the skills that are needed to be the QB that wins the games that are won or lost by the QB are different.
At some point in winning Championships there are points where whether you win or lose depends on your QB. (Way moreso than any other player)
That doesnt mean you only win because of the QB, but it means that THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN WINNING CHAMPIONSHIPS is what your most important player does at the most important times.

If Dan Marino is better than Terry Bradshaw why did he never make the plays in the situations where if he did his team would have been Champions?

I'll put it another way.
If Dan Marino was better than Terry Bradshaw 97% of the time, but the 3% of the time Bradshaw was better were the times when the QB needed to make plays for his team to win a Championship, Bradshaw is a better QB in my book. Why? Because for all of Marinos good play at other times, he has NOTHING to show for it. Having records, awards, statistics, and no Championships is NOTHING to show for it in my opinion.
That is why Bradshaw was better than Marino in book, because:
1) He won Championships
2) Marino was THE PRIMARY REASON for many playoff losses for his team
3) Bradshaw made the plays that won his team Championships, whether it was 5% of the equation, or 95% of the equation is was PART OF THE EQUATION OF WINNING THAT BRADSHAW ADDED AND MARINO FAILED TO, and the resulting difference is Bradshaw has 4 rings and Marino none.

Do you think Marino would trade his records for Bradshaws rings? Of course he would. You are saying the records are more valuable. But in the end Dan Marino has no rings because of Dan Marino, and Terry Bradshaw has 4, at least to a decent degree were because of Terry Bradshaw.

 

[makewayhomer]

Andy,

I'll ask you to go through the same exercise. please rate what % of a "W" is normally due to each of the factors:

coaching:
defense:
special teams:
offense:

(need to add to 100%)

and from the total for offense, please specify for

QB's:
RB's:
WRs:
TE:
the entire OL:

 

[TruthSeeker]

Learn to read.
I said all good QBs had the opportunties to win Championships if they made the plays in the clutch to earn Championships.

See the 'all good' part means that we can discount QBs who werent good from this discussion because they probably didn't make enough plays to get into the position to be able to make those clutch plays to win titles.

Once you narrow it to good QBs you SEPARATE THEM by whether or not they could get that job done.
Its very simple.
Good QBs will ultimately make their teams good. (name any good Qbs whose teams never became good) GREAT QBs take it to the next level by making the plays that add up to Championships.
The greatness of the QB and his making plays is what separates good teams from consistent Champions, much moreso than the play of the surrounding cast.

You cannot define that in statistics.
Very succinctly: Championships are won by good teams beating good teams. If you have a good QB, you will often have a good team. If you have a QB that makes the plays that beat other good teams, you will have a Championship.

Fran Tarkenton couldn't make those plays. Dan Marino couldn't make those plays. Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, Joe Montana, Tom Brady could/can. (And you can change could to and couldnt to did and didnt if that makes you feel better, because it is EXACTLY the same thing.)

Neither could John Elway. At least until he got a running game.

We can agree to disagree. I much prefer the QB individual performance breakdown in big games (thanks to whatever poster that was; it was much appreciated!) to the generalizations that I hear from you that a QB must be a great (i.e. HoF) QB in order to win 3 or 4 championships.

There's plenty I agree with you on; it's a difference of weight. You believe that a QB has a huge say in whether or not the team wins. I (and many others) believe that it's one important factor. The defense, the special teams, the other QB, the offensive weapons on both sides, etc. all have a much greater impact on whether the game is won or lost that any individual player. That's why ascribing wins to a QB (but not to other positions such as WR, LB or RB) leads to significant distortions of responsibility.

I also agree with you that statistics can be misleading. However, I'd suggest that career statistics are not very misleading at all, that they mean a lot particularly when a few other factors are considered (such as the talent surrounding the QB on offense). Tom Brady led a game winning drive at the end of SB XXXVI, but it doesn't happen if the backup running back (can't remember his name) doesn't get out of bounds on the little dump pass over the middle. So many (little) things have to happen; close games are typically decided by a couple of big plays which may or may not involve the one QB you're looking at (there's another one on the other side of the field, remember).

At any rate, it was a good discussion.

 

[Ring 6]

I wanted to look up these stats and repost. At one point in this thread an argument AGAINST Bradshaw was his stats in the most clutch games, defined as his last playoff game. (This thread is too big to find it) Note that 4 of those games were winning SBs.
So, lets look at Marinos stats under the same criteria.

stats are att/comp/yds/td/int
1983 15/25/193/2/2
1984 29/50/318/1/2
1985 20/48/248/2/2
1990 23/49/323/3/2
1992 22/45/268/1/2
1994 24/38/262/3/0
1995 33/64/422/2/3
1997 17/43/141/0/2
1998 26/37/243/0/2
1999 11/25/95/1/2

HIS TEAM SCORED AN AVERAGE OF 15 POINTS IN THESE 10 GAMES

TOTAL STATS: 220/424 51.9% COMPLETE 2513 5.93 YPA 15 TD 19 INT
qb rating 63.1
By the way his career playoff rating, including the games won, was not much better at 77.3.


So, ealry I was called stupid for saying Terry Bradshaw by virute of winning 4 SBs was better than Dan Marino, and basing it on my criteria that how a QB plays at the most important time (i.e. the games that can win you a title) is far more important that compiling statistics.

In the 10 BIGGEST GAMES OF MARINO'S CAREER, in the passing era, by the way his perfomance was:

Less than 52% of his passes completed. Lower that the WORST starting QB for a full season in many of those years.
5.93 YPA (possibly the most telling stat of a QB) Lower that the WORST starting QB for a full season in many of those years.
15 TD to 19 INTs. 19Ints in 10 games. To project as a full season that is over 30 Ints.
His team scored an average of FIFTEEN POINTS A GAME. Only 1 time in those 10 games did they score more than 22, 40% of them were 10 or less.

I think it is very fair to say that IN HIS 10 BIGGEST GAMES OF HIS CAREER, statistically Dan Marino is maybe the WORST QB in NFL history.

In fainess, since he played other playoff games, even won a couple (8-10 record)
His #s were 385/685 only a 56% completion 4510 yards only 6.58 ypa, 32 TDs, 24 Ints. A QB rating of just 77.3, and still only an average of 20.5 ppg, far less than what you would expect of an ALLTIME GREAT.

I will revise my comments:

When there is no pressure, Dan Marino is the greatest QB ever.
When winning or losing big games is at stake, he doesn't belong in the same sentence with Bradshaw.

I cant wait for the responses to this.

 

[makewayhomer]

Andy,

I'll answer you when you respond to this

Andy,

I'll ask you to go through the same exercise. please rate what % of a "W" is normally due to each of the factors:

coaching:
defense:
special teams:
offense:

(need to add to 100%)

and from the total for offense, please specify for

QB's:
RB's:
WRs:
TE:
the entire OL:

 

[Ring 6]

I wanted to look up these stats and repost. At one point in this thread an argument AGAINST Bradshaw was his stats in the most clutch games, defined as his last playoff game. (This thread is too big to find it) Note that 4 of those games were winning SBs.
So, lets look at Marinos stats under the same criteria.

stats are att/comp/yds/td/int
1983 15/25/193/2/2
1984 29/50/318/1/2
1985 20/48/248/2/2
1990 23/49/323/3/2
1992 22/45/268/1/2
1994 24/38/262/3/0
1995 33/64/422/2/3
1997 17/43/141/0/2
1998 26/37/243/0/2
1999 11/25/95/1/2

HIS TEAM SCORED AN AVERAGE OF 15 POINTS IN THESE 10 GAMES

TOTAL STATS: 220/424 51.9% COMPLETE 2513 5.93 YPA 15 TD 19 INT
qb rating 63.1
By the way his career playoff rating, including the games won, was not much better at 77.3.


So, ealry I was called stupid for saying Terry Bradshaw by virute of winning 4 SBs was better than Dan Marino, and basing it on my criteria that how a QB plays at the most important time (i.e. the games that can win you a title) is far more important that compiling statistics.

In the 10 BIGGEST GAMES OF MARINO'S CAREER, in the passing era, by the way his perfomance was:

Less than 52% of his passes completed. Lower that the WORST starting QB for a full season in many of those years.
5.93 YPA (possibly the most telling stat of a QB) Lower that the WORST starting QB for a full season in many of those years.
15 TD to 19 INTs. 19Ints in 10 games. To project as a full season that is over 30 Ints.
His team scored an average of FIFTEEN POINTS A GAME. Only 1 time in those 10 games did they score more than 22, 40% of them were 10 or less.

I think it is very fair to say that IN HIS 10 BIGGEST GAMES OF HIS CAREER, statistically Dan Marino is maybe the WORST QB in NFL history.

In fainess, since he played other playoff games, even won a couple (8-10 record)
His #s were 385/685 only a 56% completion 4510 yards only 6.58 ypa, 32 TDs, 24 Ints. A QB rating of just 77.3, and still only an average of 20.5 ppg, far less than what you would expect of an ALLTIME GREAT.

I will revise my comments:

When there is no pressure, Dan Marino is the greatest QB ever.
When winning or losing big games is at stake, he doesn't belong in the same sentence with Bradshaw.

I cant wait for the responses to this.

Now Bradshaw last game of the season. 9 times

Ill just list the totals
127/220 57.7% comlete (Marino was under 52)
1857 yards an EXACELLENT 8.44 ypa (Marino was under 6)
15 TD (same as Marino in 1 less game) 15 Int (4 less than Marino)
QB Rating 79.7 (Marino was under 62)

Point per game for Bradshaw 21.1 (Marino was 15)

Lets recognize that QB rating of 75 in Bradshaw era were good, and QB rating of 90 in Marinos era were good (Because of rule changes)

 

[Ring 6]

This is getting fun, lets do the great Fran Tarkenton

5 games

76/152 A 50% passer in his biggest games
843 yards 4.79 ypa (That would probably an alltime record low if over a full reg season)
2 TD/9 Ints. Ouch, thats nasty

QB Rating 46.6

His team averaged 10.2 points per game

 

[Ring 6]

Andy,

I'll answer you when you respond to this

It is unrespondable.

We are talking about human beings playing football. It is not a statistical formula.
The contributions of different positions and units are different on every team, every year.

Would the perecentages be the same for the 2000 Ravens as the 1999 Rams?
Would they be the same for the Patirots in 01,03,04, 07?

They differ every single time, because teams go out to do whatever they have to do to win. They are not only intermingled, but they are different from opponent to opponent, game ot game and even play to play.

The entire team contributes to winning.
My point is that the QB is the most important player, and that OVER A CAREER a great QB will make the plays that mean the difference between winning Championships and not.
You can make every excuse in the book for Marino, but he was on a team that had 10 opportunities to win Championships. Whether he was asked to be 90% of the equation or 5% of the equation, when it came down to those games HE DIDNT DO HIS JOB (or better put he sucked at it). How can you possibly excuse him for not winning when he was the main reason they lost.

 

[FrontSeven]

1. Joe Namath: His legend has much more to do with his Super Bowl III performance and his prolific off-field antics than his career stats.

On second though it's pretty funny that "winning the big one" is so highly valued over stats until somebody actually does it, and then fades into the night with knee problems.

Of course his legend has to do with SBIII. Whose wouldn't? The guy came up big when he had to. With those knees he was lucky to even play at that level.

 

[makewayhomer]

It is unrespondable.

not only is it not unrespondable, it is the job of NFL GM's to answer the question. Scott Pioli has answered this question.

now answer the question. go ahead and answer it for the 77 Steelers or the 74 Steelers. or a modern team

 

[Ring 6]

Tom Brady

5 games
112/178 62.9%, 1308 7.34 ypa, 8Td, 4 Int

Rating 90.8

Team scored 24.6 ppg

 

[Ring 6]

not only is it not unrespondable, it is the job of NFL GM's to answer the question. Scott Pioli has answered this question.

now answer the question. go ahead and answer it for the 77 Steelers or the 74 Steelers. or a modern team

Scott Pioli has not answered the question of what % of winning is attributed to each position. Its a stupid question.
It cannot be answered. It is fantasy.

I would answer it if there were any possible way to answer it.