Originally Posted by thunderkyss
But not being "nearly as impressive" & not being "impressive" are two totally different things.
OK, let's go with less impressive every year, approaching not impressive. This is where the eyeball test comes into play. Example - Dan Marino is widely regarded as one of the best passers of all time, even though his team didn't have much success. He passed for 4000 yards six times, back when it really was impressive. Dan Fouts passed for 4000 yards back in the late '70s and early '80s three straight times. Joe Montana never passed for 4000 yards.
I just don't put stock in milestone numbers like that, so I'm not impressed by them as a standalone stat. When the yards are directly contributing to wins, then I take notice. Schaub threw for 4770 yards in '09, and a lot of them were garbage yards. Hey, he still threw them, so good on him. But there aren't many people in the world that regard that season as great. With 4000 yards fast becoming the new standard, it's even less impressive than I felt before. Factor in the fact that a team's system and unique circumstances may artificially inflate or deflate that number (see: Montana), and I just don't find much value in the 4000 yard mark by itself, which is how it always seems to be used in debates like this.