Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by Vinny, Oct 7, 2011.
Sad. That is all I have to add.
Why? Records are made to be broken.
This won't stand once there are 18 games in the season anyway.
I find it exciting. We have the pleasure of watching some of the greatest QBs to ever play the game right now. Peyton and Brady, and to a lesser extent guys like Rodgers have the potential
It'd be interesting to find statistical data providing the differential between fall and winter seasons. It probably won't matter much considering how many yards QBs have already thrown for, but I reckon it'll drop off some within the next couple months
probably for many of the reasons I've talked about in the quoted link underneath. Yeah, those guys are great, but they are in a fully micro-managed bubble of protection today. Who's to say guys like Jim Kelly or Dan Marino wouldn't have 6k years with these rules?
Tell that to MLB fans. I am sure they are cool with who currently holds the homerun record, and how he got it.
It's sad because the record won't be broken because of superior QB play on the whole, but rather because of rules changes. Aaron Rodgers said in an interview last weekend when asked about the rules for QBs now that this is the best time in history for QBs to play the game. He's right, but think about that.
QBs in the '70s were good if they threw in the upper 50% range and passed for 2500 yards. If you really want to marvel for a second, consider that Fran Tarkenton passed for 47K yards and ran for another couple thousand and he retired before the Mel Blount rule was instituted, much less all the BS rules that have been put in place in the last 15 years. Take that sort of talent, add hGH/steroids/whatever crap these people take now, put him in a West Coast offense with some real receivers ..... he'd shatter all kinds of records. And this isn't a post to prop up Fran Tarkenton; it's just an illustration to compare the talent from one era against another within the context of the rules. Terry Bradshaw is another. He's not generally regarded as a great passer, but the year the Mel Blount rule was implemented, his completion percentage jumped, his passing yardage jumped, and he threw almost 30 TDs. He went from 2500 yards passing in 1977 to 3700 yards passing in 1979. Imagine what guys like Johnny Unitas or Otto Graham could do under the same circumstances.
It's just a different game, so the records will fall, but that doesn't mean they're better, IMO. The way defense is going in the NFL, we'll all be watching Arena Football League before we know it.
Brees came soooooo close.
Games evolve. Its just part of our sporting history.
Remember when Dan Marino broke the record in 1984? There were 16 games then.
Whose record did he break? How many games did that player play?
I don't think it's fair to downplay what QB's like Brady, Brees, Manning, and Rodgers are doing in the NFL. Especially Tom Brady who has already won 3 out of 4 SB's and broken the TD record and led the best offense of all time. Brady seems to get better and better every year. I'll admit that this season is what you'd call "the year of the offense" where stats are getting a little inflated around the board, but Brady, Brees, and Rodgers would be doing this either way and have proven that their skill sets are just that great. Brady won 3 SB's with Troy Brown as his best WR then went stat crazy with Moss, and is now back to a bunch of average guys and putting up even great stats with them. Brees has never had a ton of elite talent either. There is definitely some substance to what you're saying and all, but these guys are definitely some of the best passers of all time.
It was Dan Fouts record in 1981 with 4,802 passing yards in 16 games.
I don't mean to downplay it at all. I think great players would be great players in any era. Those guys would be great players in the 1950s. But their numbers would be vastly different and their records would be more in line with those of the era. So when people imply that Brady is the greatest ever because he passed for 50 TDs or 6000 yards, I don't really buy it. And I don't buy that the general assertion that the greatest QBs today are better than the greatest QBs of the past. The numbers are not even comparable, though. And that's basically the reason you can't compare eras, because the circumstances are so vastly different.
And that's why I stand by what I said above - it's sad because the records won't be broken because of superior QB play so much as the rules. If someone came along and just had an out of sight year and broke Marino's record, then you'd applaud and marvel at the feat. But when a quarter of the QBs in the league have a shot at breaking (including MATT HASSELBECK, for ****'s sake), then it just becomes kind of pedestrian.
Another way of looking at it - there was a time when a QB throwing for 4700 yards in one season would have killed any debate about whether he was the top one or two QBs in the league. Matt Schaub did it and people generally agree he isn't even in the top quarter of the league as a QB. That feat has largely been shrugged off and ignored. Why? Because frankly, it didn't mean anything. The yards come to QBs these days. So when someone breaks Marino's record this year, I'm just kind of unimpressed. Marino's record is going to fall many times over. So who does it first will just be a footnote.
I've got no problem comparing players of different eras. It's not like they completely changed the entire sport. They've just modified a few rules here and there. Athletes today have grown up with better training methods, better facilities to use, better doctors to advise them on how to treat their injuries, newer methods of training to "enhance" skill sets of all different kinds. It's only natural that athletes of these more current eras are going to be more athletic and have stronger advantages in the effectiveness of their training. It's like that in every sport.
And yeah, by the time several of these QB's retire I think a small hand of them will be better than some of the all time greats that typically get mentioned who had stats that were way less. I can typically watch a guy on film and see how he moved, see how what kind of arm he had, see what his level of competitiveness was, see how the could see the field, his pocket awareness, and all sorts of things. To say well so and so played in different eras so there is no way to compare them and figure out who was better simply does not fly in my eyes. I hear some of the same people trying to make that same argument for NBA players when they say Wilt was possibly as good as guys like Hakeem or Shaq even though he played against a ton of guys who would be loan officers in this day and age of the NBA while Hakeem and Shaw played against a ton of high flying athletic men who towered over the competition that Wilt played against and guards who had 40 inch verticals which Wilt saw nothing even close to as far as his competitors.
These sports have all evolved and the athletes competing against one another have been forced to evolve with it. The bar has been raised for the standard of the athlete in general There is no doubt in my mind that Brady, Manning, Brees, and Rodgers assuming he continues to play the way he has will end up being all time greats. Manning and Brady have already accomplished enough to be in the top 5 of all time, and that's something that's pretty hard to argue at this point. Especially with Tom Brady, because he not only has stats working in his favor but he's got 3 rings out of 4 SB appearences.
So if Matt Hasselbeck breaks Marino's record, you're OK with calling him an all-time great? OK, I'll make it easier for you: if Hasselbeck breaks Marino's record, are you OK with calling it the greatest season for an individual QB ever?
It won't be. It's one thing when Brady does it, with all of his other accomplishments. Or Rogers, or Brees, or Manning. It's quite another when EIGHT QBs have a chance to break it. At some point, you realize that a little rule tweak here and there changes things big time. Look at the kickoff rule. They only changed that back to what it was in 1994. Look at the Mel Blount rule. They instituted something that is pretty sensible by today's standards and it fundamentally changed the entire game. Today's NFL is not the same NFL I grew up with. You can debate whether that's for the best or not, and that's a different discussion. But you can't argue Tom Brady is better than Johnny Unitas based on stats. There are things you can bring to bear in such a debate, but stats don't really matter anymore. Stats are handed out like carnival prizes these days.
Tom Brady wouldn't have passed for 50 TDs in the 1950s and Randy Moss wouldn't have caught 23 TDs in the 1950s.
This news is music to the ears of the NFL execs whose "increase offense" agenda seems obvious and apparent.
Tex, you actually have a pretty sound argument. But I'm with eriadoc on this one.
Eriadoc, each of your posts took the words right out of my mouth. I wish I could rep each one of them. I think you're spot on.
I think it is sad what is happening to the game. All in the name of money.....err I mean points and passing yards. The great game of football is slowly being transformed into basketball on grass.
And Fouts broke Joe Namath's 4,007 which was done in 14 games.
Welker is also on pace for 2400 receiving yards or something like that. I don't think any of those records will be broken this year.
Lockout helps the offense. Defenses are in shambles right now.
Separate names with a comma.