What objective metrics make Brady the best at Football, I can see the metrics that make him the best QB or even the best offensive player, but he isn't the best defensive player or the best linebacker. Is there an objective individual metric that makes him better than Ray Lewis or Lawrence Taylor?
Of course not.
I believe they are talking GOAT as in the best QB. For Brady's case it would be a combination of rings and stats. He's #1 or 2 in most of the major passing categories like yards, TDs etc, and #7 on QB rating. So when you combine the rings and stats, there's little room to argue anyone is even close to him.
Rings plus stats. Eli has a terrible rating so the answer would be no.
Moon wasted a lot of time in the CFL. If he played in the NFL from the start, he would've had an epic career.
the defense did a great job
This would have worked for a couple of plays. But that's about it.
Exactly, Tampa plays a lot of 2-4 personnel. You have a numerical disadvantage in the passing game and you are unlikely to find open receivers on fast developing routes. The way to beat that fron effectively is to run on them and get first downs, then they will have to change their personnel and bring an other run defender which puts the Chiefs in an advantageous position. Now the issue is that the Chiefs O line is average at run blocking with its starters and below average with the backups. And that's why they mistakenly only attempted 11 runs between their RBs and even then Edwards-Elaire recorded 64 yards in 9 attempts.
When I read Shapiro's list I had a thought that I know has been mentioned by specialists. Phelps is the best in pool swimming, not in open water, it would have been intereseting to see him compete against someone like Stoychev.
No clue when it comes to some of the Olympic sports but what I do know is Shapiro doesn't have a clue either. He's just throwing up namesakes and Americans. I've heard some argue Phelps is the greatest Olympian because of his medal count but how does one compare across other arenas in one particular sport, like swimming as you mentioned, let alone against all other fields of competition. It's stupid conjecture IMO.
True. I was fortunate enough to watch all of those CFL years, though.
Last night doesn’t really say much for me on who a GOAT QB is or isn’t. If you swap Brady and Mahomes, Buccs still walk that one in my opinion. People like to oversimplify or use illogical metrics for these things because it’s easier and people like making declarative statements.
By any metric that 's the worst post ever.
They were basically daring Andy to run it. CEH averaging over 7 yards tells you that. But they kept whiffing at critical junctions on both dropped passes and penalties and got themselves in a hole.
They could have left in an extra TE but I think they felt that they wouldn't be able to block TB either way and that the best possible option therefore was to have as many players as possible running routes.
And what stats do you propose specifically?
The usual suspects - passing yards, TDs, completions, ratings etc. If you combine these with how many Super Bowls a player has won, it can be a pretty informative guide as to where they stand in the pantheon of greatness.
Neither of their TEs are blockers and Kelce is their main target on passing downs, so you can't really use him that much in the run. They could have enginereed something but you are still talking about replacement level linemen against the best run defense and second best defense in terms of pressure. Andy Reid is good at making things happen but not that good, you still need players that are able to execute it.
Ah now
To completely ignore the rings is also daft though , for these two I can say that there's not much difference between 1 & 2 rings so the rest of the stats make Rogers clearly better . For Rodgers & Brady you can't really argue that 1 & 7 can be compared
That's how I see it too. I assume that he called the game with a bit of fear, having seen the Vikings run at them with no fear I know that it's possible and the Chiefs are a better team overall.
Useless to compare across eras. If you were to combine all of the QBs who threw a pass this season, you'd get a 93.5 QB Rating - that's higher than the career marks of Joe Montana, Andrew Luck, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Troy Aikman, ... It's just not right to compare Elway or Marino to Brees and Brady with how pass happy the league is right now.
I agree its hard to compare eras.
Then how does a GOAT debate make any sense in that context? Surely, the only debate which would hold any water would be a debate about the greatest of a generation?
First I like to disagree with Shapiro, even when it's not worth it. And I do like the idea of a conversation around who is the best player, now I'm not convinced by the QB importance argument that doesn't make a player better, take Baseball as an example, there is nothing more important than your top pitcher and his catcher, yet no one thinks that the best MLB player is someone else than Mike Trout, a mere center fielder.
He deserves to be mentioned but it's an arguable mention like with every other names because there is no objective answer. Despite the fact that I love his game, I will never unequivocally name him the best of all time outside of maybe his own position.
The eras can be a problem, but ultimately these debates are still going to happen in most sports, especially in the online social media worlds where people like to argue. Just look at the endless debates on the footy forums or even here in the Tennis threads. The best way to settle them is to come up with a rational set of metrics that allow people to merge quantitate and qualitative information to come up with a 90% solution.
That's why even as a QB it's arguable. Brees, has more passing yards, more completions, a better QBR and a better completion rate. Now because they are close it's fair to use rings but then you realize that Brees got let down by very poor defenses and special teams while Brady mainly played with above average and often top 10 defenses and top 10 special teams.
The thing here though is that pitchers rotate whereas Mike Trout plays every game if healthy. So whereas on an individual gameday, any given LA Angels pitcher is more important than Mike Trout, we have that over the course of the season that Mike Trout is more important than each member of the pitching rotation. Aaron Donald may play every game but so too do Jared Goff and Matthew Stafford so the same argument cannot be applied in the NFL in quite the same way as in MLB.
That’s a different conversation, as a five tool outfielder plays every game unlike a pitcher and is no ‘mere’ outfielder (and I don’t know why you mentioned catcher). The best MLB players ever list will include plenty of pitchers regardless.
But then how do you come up with a rational set of metrics? It's possible in baseball as baseball can be reduced down to a battle between pitcher and batter with infielders and outfielders paling in significance. On the other hand, football is a sport of many moving parts. The statistical output of a QB is a function of their own performance but it is also a function of their OL's performance, their supporting cast's performance, the opposing DL's performance, the opposing LB's performance, the opposing secondary's performance, the play-calling and emphasis of the offense, the play-calling and emphasis of the defense, the weather, situational circumstances etc. Taking that altogether, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to disentangle QB output from QB performance, something which makes constructing a rational metric nigh-impossible.
