AV top 200 redux
Posted by Doug on Tuesday, May 13, 2008
I shouldn't post this one either, but...
In response to some convincing opinions offered in the comments to the previous post, I have made lots of (mostly very small) tweaks to the system. Offensive linemen have had their values slightly increased, the importance of the running game (relative to the passing game) has been increased just a smidge. The value of making a pro bowl or an all-pro team has been increased for cornerbacks (relative to safeties) and decreased for linebackers (relative to defensive linemen).
Here is take two:
1 Reggie White 159 2 Jerry Rice 154 3 Dan Marino 148 4 Bruce Smith 143 5 Brett Favre 141 6 Rod Woodson 140 7 John Elway 136 8 Anthony Munoz 135 9 Peyton Manning 132 Lawrence Taylor 132
NOTE: the author of the algorithm that generated this list does not agree with the entirety of the list. He, in fact, acknowledges that it's obviously wrong in spots. He does think it's pretty respectable, given the difficulty of comparing players across positions and eras using only objective data. He also thinks it'll give us something to talk about here in May. Also, please read the previous post.
We now return to the list.
11 Steve Young 131 12 Derrick Brooks 130 13 Marshall Faulk 129 14 Emmitt Smith 126 15 Junior Seau 124 16 Walter Payton 123 17 Ray Lewis 122 18 Randy White 121 19 Joe Montana 120 Jack Youngblood 120 Dan Fouts 120 22 Mike Singletary 119 Ken Anderson 119 Barry Sanders 119 25 Mel Blount 118 Warren Moon 118 Bruce Matthews 118 28 Marvin Harrison 117 Jack Ham 117 30 Michael Strahan 116 31 Chris Doleman 115 32 Warren Sapp 114 33 Ronnie Lott 112 34 Jack Lambert 111 35 Rickey Jackson 109 Thurman Thomas 109 Zach Thomas 109 Boomer Esiason 109 39 Terrell Owens 108 40 Mike Haynes 106 Jason Taylor 106 Tony Dorsett 106 Randy Moss 106 Edgerrin James 106 Deion Sanders 106 46 Isiah Robertson 105 Michael Irvin 105 Randall Cunningham 105 49 Tim Brown 104 50 Terry Bradshaw 103 John Randle 103 LaDainian Tomlinson 103 Derrick Thomas 103 Drew Bledsoe 103 55 Curtis Martin 102 Mike Webster 102 Jim Kelly 102 Steve McNair 102 59 Willie Roaf 101 Dan Hampton 101 61 Marcus Allen 100 Steve Largent 100 James Lofton 100 Franco Harris 100 65 Rich Gannon 99 Darrell Green 99 Rod Smith 99 Tiki Barber 99 Ricky Watters 99 Eric Allen 99 Gary Zimmerman 99 72 Ronde Barber 98 Shannon Sharpe 98 Mark Brunell 98 Aeneas Williams 98 76 Vinny Testaverde 97 Sam Mills 97 Louis Wright 97 Dave Krieg 97 Randall McDaniel 97 Cris Carter 97 82 Howie Long 96 Orlando Pace 96 Troy Aikman 96 Too Tall Jones 96 Steve McMichael 96 Richmond Webb 96 Jimmy Smith 96 Henry Ellard 96 Cortez Kennedy 96 John Hannah 96 Kevin Greene 96 Andre Reed 96 Lomas Brown 96 95 Hardy Nickerson 95 Art Monk 95 Eric Dickerson 95 Mike Kenn 95 99 Pat Swilling 94 Richard Dent 94 John Lynch 94 Will Shields 94 Isaac Bruce 94 104 Karl Mecklenburg 93 Steve Grogan 93 Ken Stabler 93 Neil Smith 93 Lemar Parrish 93 109 Tony Gonzalez 92 Trent Green 92 Wilber Marshall 92 Clay Matthews 92 113 Greg Lloyd 91 Jim Everett 91 Torry Holt 91 Donnie Shell 91 Brian Urlacher 91 118 Tom Brady 90 Randy Gradishar 90 Joe Theismann 90 Roger Craig 90 Andre Tippett 90 123 John Riggins 89 Phil Simms 89 Ted Washington 89 Lydell Mitchell 89 Harry Carson 89 128 Champ Bailey 88 Clyde Simmons 88 Warrick Dunn 88 Ray Childress 88 Lyle Alzado 88 133 Sam Madison 87 Bryant Young 87 Mo Lewis 87 136 Cliff Branch 86 Leslie O'Neal 86 Tom Jackson 86 La'Roi Glover 86 Gary Clark 86 Kevin Carter 86 Dave Butz 86 Fred Taylor 86 Jake Scott 86 Walter Jones 86 146 Bob Baumhower 85 Simeon Rice 85 Jackie Slater 85 Charles Haley 85 Willie Anderson 85 Cornelius Bennett 85 LeRoy Butler 85 153 Tarik Glenn 84 Donovan McNabb 84 Eugene Robinson 84 Carnell Lake 84 Jonathan Ogden 84 Doug Wilkerson 84 Tom Nalen 84 James Brooks 84 Steve Wisniewski 84 162 Stanley Morgan 83 Henry Thomas 83 Daunte Culpepper 83 Jim Langer 83 Joe Ferguson 83 Troy Vincent 83 Nat Moore 83 Cliff Harris 83 170 Michael Dean Perry 82 Jim Plunkett 82 Chad Brown 82 Keenan McCardell 82 Ottis Anderson 82 175 Bill Romanowski 81 Charles Mann 81 Jacob Green 81 Brian Dawkins 81 Levon Kirkland 81 Priest Holmes 81 Mike Munchak 81 Joe Jacoby 81 Robert Brazile 81 Bert Jones 81 Earnest Byner 81 Fred Smerlas 81 Jerome Bettis 81 Jeff Garcia 81 Steve DeBerg 81 190 Larry Allen 80 Ken Norton 80 Jack Reynolds 80 Irving Fryar 80 Lee Roy Selmon 80 Gary Fencik 80 Rob Burnett 80 197 Everson Walls 79 Harvey Martin 79 Dan Dierdorf 79 Bob Kuechenberg 79 Dave Elmendorf 79 Ty Law 79 Seth Joyner 79 John L. Williams 79 Steve Atwater 79 Wes Chandler 79
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 13th, 2008 at 8:21 AM and filed under General. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Apologies. Comments and trackbacks are both currently closed.
Doug, this looks pretty awesome. I hesitate to ask for more, but is there any chance of being able to see a breakdown of AV/year, as Staubach12 suggested in the comments of the last post?
Posted on 13-May-08 at 10:16 am | PermalinkThis is in really good shape now. I'm still puzzled by why it doesn't like Joe Montana. I suspect it likes guys who are more prolific and less efficient. Looking through the methodology, it appears that it decides how to apportion the passing/rushing AV points for an offense based on simple yardage. This likely penalizes quarterbacks who repeatedly played on great teams and didn't have to pass as much. Montana could have easily compiled 4500 yard passing seasons if he had wanted to, but there was no reason for the Niners to throw that much in any given season.
This also explains why it likes Drew Bledsoe so much. Bledsoe had a number of seasons where he had to throw the ball about 600 times. This gave his teams a very high pass to rush ratio, so most of their offensive AV points go to the passing game. That gives Bledsoe more points than he deserves.
I think Montana's reputation primarily comes from his rings, which is stupid, and shouldn't be part of this analysis, obviously. But his rate stats are brilliant - 7.5 yards per attempt, 92.3 QB rating, etc. They far outstrip those of Elway, Favre, and even Marino, and that's why we often consider him a better quarterback than all three of those guys.
That's my primary thought for now. Some of the alleged "problems" with the list aren't going to go away. Any statistics-based system will love Steve Young and hate Earl Campbell, and there's nothing you can do about it. (And maybe nothing you should do about it.)
Posted on 13-May-08 at 10:54 am | PermalinkI agree with Yaguar's sentiments on using raw totals to make the run/pass split. It's problematic, but I couldn't come up with a method I liked better. There must be one, though. I'll put it on the to-do list.
Posted on 13-May-08 at 11:57 am | PermalinkWhitedawg,
Here is the list according to AV per "season played", where a season played is defined to be
(games played by player) / (team games scheduled in that year)
Minimum of 6 seasons played:
seasons TotAV AV/S ======================================== LaDainian Tomlinson 6.9 118 17.1 Peyton Manning 10.0 166 16.7 Reggie White 14.6 230 15.9 Steve Young 10.6 166 15.7 Barry Sanders 9.6 148 15.5 Edgerrin James 8.0 123 15.5 Tom Brady 7.0 104 15.0 Lawrence Taylor 12.0 178 14.9 Ray Lewis 10.1 150 14.8 Trent Green 7.3 108 14.8 Anthony Munoz 12.0 177 14.7 Marshall Faulk 11.0 161 14.7 Dan Marino 15.2 219 14.5 Brian Urlacher 7.6 103 13.7 Marvin Harrison 10.9 149 13.7 Donovan McNabb 7.4 100 13.7 John Elway 14.7 200 13.7 Jack Lambert 10.0 135 13.6 Ricky Watters 9.0 121 13.5 Brett Favre 16.1 216 13.5 Jeff Garcia 7.0 93 13.4 Derrick Brooks 13.0 173 13.3 Randy Moss 9.6 128 13.3 Mike Singletary 11.7 154 13.3 Jack Ham 11.4 150 13.2 Lydell Mitchell 7.7 100 13.2 Zach Thomas 10.5 137 13.1 Bert Jones 7.1 92 13.0 Randall Cunningham 10.1 131 13.0 Rod Woodson 14.9 193 13.0 Fred Taylor 7.9 103 13.0 Walter Payton 12.7 165 13.0 Dan Fouts 12.2 158 13.0 Priest Holmes 7.1 91 13.0 Jim Kelly 10.1 130 13.0 Joe Montana 12.5 161 12.9 Michael Irvin 9.9 128 12.9 Warren Moon 13.1 168 12.9 Jerry Rice 19.0 244 12.9 Richard Seymour 6.0 77 12.8 Orlando Pace 9.0 115 12.8 Steve McNair 10.1 128 12.7 Terrell Owens 10.8 137 12.7 Derrick Thomas 10.6 133 12.6 Eric Dickerson 9.2 114 12.5 Bruce Smith 17.5 218 12.5 Mark Brunell 9.8 122 12.5 Jason Taylor 10.8 133 12.4 Rich Gannon 9.8 121 12.4 Curtis Martin 10.5 130 12.4 Torry Holt 8.9 108 12.3 Chad Johnson 6.8 82 12.2 Tiki Barber 9.6 117 12.2 Ronnie Lott 12.5 152 12.2 Champ Bailey 8.8 106 12.1 Steve Grogan 10.0 120 12.1 Dan Hampton 10.3 124 12.1 Reggie Wayne 6.8 82 12.1 Chuck Foreman 7.4 89 12.1 Bob Baumhower 8.7 104 12.0 Emmitt Smith 14.1 169 12.0 Thurman Thomas 11.4 135 12.0 Ronde Barber 10.1 120 11.9 Ken Anderson 13.3 158 11.9 Greg Lloyd 9.2 109 11.9 Boomer Esiason 11.7 139 11.9 Tony Dorsett 11.4 135 11.8 Troy Aikman 10.3 121 11.8 Warren Sapp 12.4 145 11.7 Jake Scott 8.9 103 11.6 Michael Strahan 13.5 156 11.6 Deion Sanders 11.8 136 11.6 Kellen Winslow 7.3 84 11.6 Terry Bradshaw 11.8 136 11.6 Lawrence McCutcheon 7.4 85 11.6 Wilbert Montgomery 7.2 83 11.5 Isiah Robertson 11.8 135 11.5 Lee Roy Selmon 8.2 94 11.5 Jim Everett 9.9 113 11.4 Phil Simms 10.3 117 11.4 Mike Haynes 11.8 133 11.4 Mel Blount 13.9 158 11.4 Drew Bledsoe 12.1 137 11.3 Cortez Kennedy 10.4 118 11.3 Junior Seau 16.1 181 11.3 Jack Youngblood 13.9 157 11.3 Robert Smith 6.1 68 11.2 Neil Lomax 7.2 80 11.2 Kenny Easley 6.0 66 11.1 Gary Zimmerman 11.6 128 11.1 Harris Barton 8.7 96 11.1 Franco Harris 12.0 133 11.1 Randy Gradishar 10.0 111 11.1 Willie Roaf 11.8 131 11.1 Jamal Lewis 6.6 73 11.1 Randy White 13.9 154 11.0 Louis Wright 11.2 122 11.0 Andre Tippett 9.9 108 10.9 Matt Light 6.1 66 10.9 Tarik Glenn 9.6 105 10.9 Rod Smith 11.4 124 10.9 Sam Mills 11.4 123 10.9 Tony Gonzalez 10.9 118 10.9 Jimmy Smith 11.1 120 10.8 Chuck Muncie 7.5 81 10.8 Ray Childress 10.2 110 10.8 Warrick Dunn 10.4 111 10.8 Richmond Webb 11.5 123 10.8 Chris Doleman 14.6 156 10.8 Ahman Green 8.2 88 10.8 Michael Dean Perry 9.2 99 10.8 Shaun Alexander 7.4 79 10.7 Sterling Sharpe 7.0 74 10.7 Marvin Powell 8.8 94 10.7 Jeff Blake 7.5 79 10.6 Roger Craig 10.4 110 10.6 Jeff Saturday 8.6 90 10.6 Walter Jones 10.5 111 10.6 Cris Collinsworth 7.2 75 10.6 Chris McAlister 8.1 84 10.5 Ken O'Brien 8.1 84 10.5 Bobby Hebert 7.5 78 10.5 Dave Elmendorf 9.0 93 10.4 Rickey Jackson 14.7 153 10.4 Michael Carter 7.6 79 10.4 Eddie George 8.8 91 10.4 Curt Warner 6.3 65 10.4 Cliff Harris 9.8 101 10.4 Lemar Parrish 11.7 120 10.4 Steve Largent 13.2 136 10.4 Howie Long 11.7 120 10.4 Eddie Brown 6.4 66 10.3 John Hannah 12.4 127 10.3 Brian Sipe 8.5 87 10.3 Jon Kitna 7.8 79 10.3 Harry Carson 11.5 118 10.3 Jake Plummer 8.9 91 10.3 Gary Clark 10.5 107 10.2 Shannon Sharpe 12.8 130 10.2 Jim Lachey 8.2 84 10.2 Isaac Bruce 12.3 125 10.2 John L. Williams 9.4 95 10.2 Al Wilson 7.8 79 10.2 Garrison Hearst 7.9 79 10.2 Mark Duper 9.3 93 10.1 Karl Mecklenburg 11.3 114 10.1 Dave Krieg 13.5 136 10.1 Jevon Kearse 6.9 69 10.1 Dwight Stephenson 7.6 76 10.1 Sam Madison 10.4 104 10.1 Earl Campbell 7.6 76 10.1 Mike Munchak 10.2 102 10.1 Larry Brooks 9.1 91 10.1 Wilber Marshall 11.2 112 10.0 Herman Moore 9.1 91 10.0 Charlie Johnson 7.9 78 10.0 Mark Gastineau 9.1 90 10.0 Bernie Kosar 7.9 79 10.0 Otis Sistrunk 6.9 68 10.0 Jonathan Ogden 11.1 110 10.0Posted on 13-May-08 at 12:04 pm | PermalinkDoug----In regards to the list and QB's in particular, your post above seems to make more sense than the original list. To have a guy with the highest AV (Marino in the original list) have such a dismal Post-season Resume, then it should have had an impact on that "VALUE". If your team would have traded for Marino in the mid-eighties, and then watched in horror as Dan couldn't win a second playoff game, you would have been cursing this AV relentlessly, and rightly so.
Posted on 13-May-08 at 8:53 pm | PermalinkVery nice list. Thanks for putting the AV per season stats up too. Those probably track better with the usual sentiments about who was a "better player."
However, I think that, in terms of trade value, longevity is important. The list in the main post correctly rewards that.
Posted on 13-May-08 at 10:14 pm | PermalinkSomething doesn't sit right with Tomlinson having a higher average value than Manning. In general, RB's are valued too high by this metric for my taste.
However it's a huge undertaking and I like what you did with limited data!
Posted on 14-May-08 at 3:58 pm | PermalinkDoug, you're awesome.
Posted on 15-May-08 at 7:23 am | PermalinkDenny's right. Dan Marino was physically incapable of winning in the playoffs. It was all his fault.
Posted on 15-May-08 at 10:40 am | PermalinkI think you need a sliding scale of how important the running game is. It was really important in the 70s and has slowly become less important over time. This should boost some of the greats like Payton and Eric Dickerson, and lower some newer backs like Tomlinson.
Posted on 15-May-08 at 12:47 pm | PermalinkRichie----Almost correct; he was incapable of having a winning record in the PO's---mostly because of his inability to lead his team to a win in his 2nd PO game. Let's see: the NFL credits him with having a record of 7-3 in 1st games, and 1-6 in 2nd games. Could it have been his Passer Rating--which went from an avg. of around 100 in his wins, DOWN to an avg. of around 60 in his losses, or the fact that he threw 17 TD's and only 5 INT's in his wins, vs. 14 TD's and 19 INT's in his losses, or maybe that he led his offense to an avg. of 25 p.p.g. in his wins vs. an avg. of only 13 p.p.g. in his losses? Were the losses all Dan's fault---NO, but we CAN say this: the Dolphins lost those PO games because of Marino's mediocre to bad performances, and NOT in-spite of his great play. One other thing to consider: Dan holds the (unofficial NFL Record for Playoff Games with 2 or more INT's. Dan had 10 such games, and the Dolphins were 1-9 in those 10 PO games. The worst part---3 of them were Conf. Champ. and S.B. games. Dan's Post-season Resume suggests that he was definitely BIG GAME PRESSURE CHALLENGED.
Posted on 15-May-08 at 2:59 pm | PermalinkYaguar---I don't understand why you would say: "I think Montana's reputation primarily comes from his rings, which is stupid, and shouldn't be part of this analysis, obviously". If the Niners would have won those 4 rings IN-SPITE of Montana's bad play, then shouldn't that LOWER his VALUE? On the other hand, if he would have played like a great QB--- let's say 13 TD's and 0 INT's, if he would have led his "O" to an avg. of 35 p.p.g., and would have set a S.B. Record with a Passer Rating of say 127.8, then why shouldn't that RAISE his VALUE? How can a QB be any more VALUABLE to his TEAM than to play GREAT when his teammates are counting on him to play GREAT? His VALUE at that point would go from APPROXIMATE to REAL.
Posted on 15-May-08 at 6:09 pm | PermalinkIf a player can handle playing for his job in front of thousands of screaming fans and countless more watching on TV every week without having a nervous breakdown he can handle a playoff game. You're making an even bigger jump, that there's some difference between the first and second round of the playoffs that made Marino crumble. You evaluate based on larger samples not smaller ones. Montana was great and he had his best games on the biggest stage, but if he had the ability to play even better at will just because "the pressure" was ramped up why didn't he play at that level all the time. If he could decide to play better why didn't he make the choice to be amazing all the time. Sounds lazy to me, either that or he just happened to play well in those particular games.
Posted on 15-May-08 at 9:06 pm | Permalinkshake'n'bake---I'm simply telling you the facts and stats right out of Marino's Resume. His Passer Rating goes down around 40 points from his PO wins to his PO losses, and 7 out of 10 losses for Marino came after the 1st PO game. It's not a big leap to conclude that Dan could not handle the pressure. As for Montana, check his Passer Rating and you will find that he was the most consistent QB ever as it pertains to comparing Reg. season and Post-season----92.95 vs. 95.6 Like the truly great ones should do-he "stepped it up" in the playoffs. As his Team was counting on him more and more (as they got closer to a Championship) Joe played better-a MAJORITY of the time. Nobody did it ALL of the time. Unfortunately for Marino, he never did it---his last PO game was NEVER his BEST game in that PO year.
Posted on 16-May-08 at 5:19 am | Permalink"His Passer Rating goes down around 40 points from his PO wins to his PO losses"
Oh really, his stats are worse when his team loses.
"7 out of 10 losses for Marino came after the 1st PO game"
The thing about the playoffs is that most teams end up losing. That's kind of the point. If anything getting to the second round 7 of 10 times should show that he didn't struggle in the playoffs.
"Dan could not handle the pressure."
So if Marino cried like a baby and assumed the fetal position as soon as the second round arrived how did he put up a 135 passer rating in the 1985 conference championship game?
I also like the way it's being split by what number playoff game it was for Marino not which round. When his team has a bye and it doesn't prove anything "because it was just his first playoff game" but if his team won in the wild card round but lost in the divisional round it shows he's a choker.
Teammate-"It's the divisional round. Our opponent is pretty good. You nervous Dan?"
Marino-"No it's only our first playoff game this year. I'm feeling great."
TM-"Um, Dan, we had a wild card game last week. Today is our second game."
DM-
His career regular season passer rating is 86.4, his playoff passer rating is 77.1. That's not a huge difference. He had a total of 6 playoff games with a passer rating under 70. Evaluating a 260 game career by 6 sub-par games is insane. You are looking at random variation and judging careers by it.
Posted on 16-May-08 at 6:59 am | Permalinkguess the site didn't like the notation on the last DM line. It's:
-Turns white, begins crying, assumes fetal position-
Posted on 16-May-08 at 7:01 am | PermalinkDolphins' average points allowed in Marino's playoff wins: 15.75
Dolphins' average points allowed in Marino's playoff losses: 34.5
All Dan's fault.
Posted on 16-May-08 at 9:00 am | PermalinkOkay, I'll bite on this spiraling comment thread.
Denny-I'm simply going to tell you the facts and stats straight out of Joe Montana and Dan Marino's resume. We all know that Joe Montana was one of the best superbowl performers of all time, throwing 11 td's and 0 int's in 4 appearances. In the Conference Playoff Games, Joe Montana threw 21 int's in 610 pass attempts (0.0344 int rate). Dan Marino threw 22 int's in 637 pass attempts (0.0345 int rate). Did you know Montana actually HAD MORE 3 int games in the playoffs than Marino? San Fransisco won both, and Joe went on to have his two of his great Super Bowl appearances after those games.
[rant]
Clearly, Joe Montana was inevitably and genetically constructed to be clutch, while Dan Marino had NO POSSIBILITY of ever performing well in big games (other than the big games that he did perform well in, but then, those AREN'T big games) and he was in fact CONSTITUTIONALLY INCAPABLE of it. Lord knows we dont have any other examples of hall of fame quarterbacks whose interception rates have shot up in the post season to say, about 3.4% of passes, who were then able to MIRACULOUSLY play well in a big game.
Obviously, interception rates have nothing to do with the fact that most playoff teams are better at pass defense, or that quarterbacks that are trailing tend to have higher interception rates than those playing with a lead and a good defense. Clearly, the only interpretation is that Dan Marino couldn't even win a game of Checkers if we called it "A BIG CHECKERS MATCH".
Posted on 16-May-08 at 9:08 am | Permalink[/rant]
Denny,
I am as much of a Marino fan as anybody, but I am fully willing to admit (how can I not?) that he had some bad playoff games, and his teams came up short. The Dolphins lost 10 postseason games. 7 of those losses were on the road. That means that (in theory) the Dolphins were playing against better teams and were expected to lose.
My main complaint was this comment "your team would have traded for Marino in the mid-eighties, and then watched in horror as Dan couldn’t win a second playoff game"
as if it is a proven fact that Dan Marino is absolutely incapable of winning a 2nd playoff game regardless of the team he played on. That's insane. That would be insane to say about any player - let alone an all-time great.
As an extreme example, I bet that if Ryan Leaf had been drafted 10 years earlier by the 49ers and gotten to sit on the bench behind Montana for a few years before getting a chance to play, he would have done just fine if he were their QB instead of Young.
Posted on 16-May-08 at 10:55 am | PermalinkWrt Marino, I think it's important to remember that Miami fans weren't exactly suffering during Marino's career. The Dolphins had 12 winning seasons, 4 8-8 seasons, and only one losing season. And on top of that, they got to the playoffs 10 times, the conference championship game 3 times, and the Super Bowl once. Those are the kind of results to be celebrated and enjoyed, not complained about. Dolphins fans had the luxury of knowing that their team had a high probability of having a winning season, and reaching the playoffs, for the better part of 2 decades. If that's all a player does for his team, he could still easily be the most valuable player in post-merger NFL history.
Considering that their were between 28-31 teams in the NFL during Marino's career, a team that was average at "winning Super Bowls" would only have about a 45% chance of winning a Super Bowl in that time span. So the fact that Marino didn't actually have any Super Bowl wins isn't that surprising, given that the odds were against it happening even without postulating some mysterious "playoff choking" variable.
His Passer Rating goes down around 40 points from his PO wins to his PO losses, and 7 out of 10 losses for Marino came after the 1st PO game. It’s not a big leap to conclude that Dan could not handle the pressure.
Actually, it is a big leap. A huge leap. You're talking about a sample size of 10 games. That's nothing! That's like saying that someone is a bad player because they have less than one bad season's worth of games. And it's not like we haven't seen HOF QBs have a bad season here and there. 10 bad games is not enough to show that a QB isn't any good (or can't handle the pressure), whether they come in the playoffs or the regular season.
And let's keep in mind that similar statements regarding "choking under pressure" were made towards Peyton Manning, who had led his team to a 3-6 record in the playoffs until they won it all in 2006. Ditto for John Elway, who'd led Denver to a 7-8 record in the playoffs (including two horrific Super Bowl losses where Elway had a QB rating below 40 and his team lost by over 30 points) before winning the Super Bowl in 1997. There's no reason to think that Marino couldn't have done the same as either of those two.
Posted on 16-May-08 at 1:16 pm | Permalink"I’m simply telling you the facts and stats right out of Marino’s Resume. His Passer Rating goes down around 40 points from his PO wins to his PO losses."
Duh. Just like every QB has a much lower average QB rating in games his *team* loses. Check Brady.
If you look at the NFL game splits, you'll see that all season long QBs typically have a rating 20 pts or more lower just when their team is behind on the scoreboard *during* a game, than when ahead during a game. The QB then can't use play action, must throw uphill into a pass rush, doesn't have the choice of running to pick his spots to throw, etc. While the QB who is ahead on the scoreboard *at the moment* has all those advantages and does much better rating-wise.
Game situation determines the QB's rating **at least** as much as the reverse, if not more. Yes, the quality of a team's defense has a major impact on its QB's passing rating.
"It’s not a big leap to conclude that Dan could not handle the pressure."
It's a freakin' HUGE leap.
FIRST, It assumes the QB by *himself* determines the quality of play of the whole team, rather than the team determining the outcome and thus whether the QB's rating is higher or lower.
One of the great illusions of football fans is to over-rate the importance of the QB to the team. The QB "carries the team" etc. Brady's numbers got suddenly hugely better last year because Moss and the rest of his new receiving corps arrived -- not because he suddenly decided to play a lot better. A QB's numbers reflect the rest of the team. This is why every great HoF QB was on a great team, no great HoF QB was on a regularly losing team. What a coincidence! Definitely *not* true, for example, of HoF running backs, who can be recognized for their own individual performance. QB performance numbers are team performance numbers.
Even given the fact that the QB is the most important single player on the team, there are about 30 regular players for a team in every game. The idea that a team wins or loses because the QB's performance drawfs that of 29 other players combined is nuts. But that's what you are saying when you say QB X's playoff record is this-that. You are saying football is a one-man punt-pass & kick competition without the punting and kicking.
How important is a QB to the team? On the average NFL team the QB gets about 9% of the payroll going to the top 30 players. So NFL GM's pay the average QB like he is worth three other players, which is *a lot*, but still only 9% of the team. If you look at DPAR data the average QB is worth a bit more, about as much as four other players.
But either way you look at it, a QB's importance to a football team has about the same value for game outcomes as that of the second-best player on a basketball team.
Some people go into shock when I say this, but that's *a lot* of value on a team with 30+ regulars and 22 starters, as opposed to only 12 players and 5. But still, that's all. How many basketball fans go "Wow, our second best player has to carry us to the championsip! And if we lose, it's because our second-best player couldn't handle the pressure."??
SECOND, Near every -- no, I'll say every, because I can't think of an exception -- statistical analysis of the subject concludes there is "no such thing as clutch play" in the pro sports -- either "coming through" or "choking" -- or else it is so slight as to be negligible. Every opinion to the contrary by fans is based on cherry-picking games to support the belief.
For example, as to Marino, why are only second round playoff games "clutch", or "pressure" games? Why not first-round playoff games? Aren't they the same type win-or-out games against playoff-caliber teams? And why aren't the end-of-season "win to make the playoff or go home" games "pressure" games too? They don't count for some reason???
Here's a simpler story: Marino's teams were never really very good. The opposition in the playoffs gets a lot tougher after the first round. When his not really very good teams ran into the much tougher opposition, his *teams* lost. That and small sample size.
You know, just like for years on end John Elway and Peyton Manning "couldn't win the big game", and last year it was Brady who "couldn't win the big game."
And I'm no Marino fan. He annoys me on TV, and I've always rooted for the Jets. But still, reality is reality.
Posted on 16-May-08 at 7:35 pm | PermalinkAlex---Your last sentence really sums it up quite well:"There's no reason to think that Marino couldn't have done the same as either of those two". There's only 1 problem---Dan is RETIRED and he never was able to do the same while he was still playing, even though he inherited a S.B. caliber Team in '83. Let me leave you with this to ponder: the NFL Record and Fact Book picked a bunch of NFL Anniversary All-Star Teams a few years ago. The players selected were voted on by various groups of people, including fans, media, HOF Selection Comm. members, and league personnel. Dan Marino was eligible for 5 different teams. Ten QB's were named on those 5 teams and Marino's name was listed on NONE of them. Dan owned all of the major Passing Records (Reg. season) and still he was not named. That should tell you what all of these people thought of Dan's Post-season Resume.
Posted on 16-May-08 at 9:23 pm | PermalinkThere’s only 1 problem—Dan is RETIRED and he never was able to do the same while he was still playing
This is called "small sample size". Yeah, he didn't actually win one, but that doesn't prove that he was the reason for that, instead of bad luck, for instance.
Say I start a coin flipping league, and someone flips a coin 10 times, and it lands tails every time. Does that mean that he just "can't handle the pressure" of flipping a coin?! Or is it maybe because 10 flips of a coin isn't enough to know whether it's just random chance or some other mysterious "choking" factor?
That should tell you what all of these people thought of Dan’s Post-season Resume.
That proves absolutely nothing. So people thought he wasn't a top-10 all time QB. If they are using the same faulty logic that you (and millions of others) use when evaluating QBs, then it shouldn't be any surprise that they don't like Marino.
I'll leave you with this to ponder: If Elway had retired after 1996, at 36 years old, we would be having this conversation about him. And whenever I would say that Elway could've won a Super Bowl, or even two Super Bowls, if he'd kept playing for a few more years, you'd probably just say the same thing about Elway that you are about Marino: He didn't do it, so he couldn't do it. He's a choker, and that kept his team from winning a Lombardi.
Posted on 17-May-08 at 9:29 am | PermalinkZzzzz. I hate these "choke/clutch" arguments.
On a more interesting note: Trent Green!?!?!
Posted on 17-May-08 at 10:01 am | PermalinkAlex---You are exactly right about Elway---IF-IF-IF-IF HE WOULD HAVE RETIRED. By the way--why wasn't Terrell Davis able to lead the Broncos to a win in that game and who did Elway BLAME for that loss--- What did John say about that '96 loss---"I did not get it done in '96, but I think I made up for it". That quote was made after the '97 S.B. game. Back to reality now---Elway DID NOT RETIRE in '96, so his Resume has 2 more years of facts and stats to consider.
Posted on 17-May-08 at 11:50 am | PermalinkOne last note to that last post. How many times could Marino have made that same statement---I did not get it done in (YOU name the YEAR). Here
Posted on 17-May-08 at 11:59 am | Permalinks the difference---Dan NEVER made up for it !!
So if Elway would have retired before he won a superbowl then it would prove that he was incapable of winning one? Even though he actually did go on to win one. As soon as a QB wins a superbowl you go back to all his previous seasons and retroactively attribute his losses to bad luck or his team not being good enough, but if he never wins one it's because he can't handle the pressure?
Posted on 17-May-08 at 3:29 pm | PermalinkI can tell you and I think alot alike shake. I rank my man Dan Fouts as the All-Time Best QB ever because if he would have played for 10 more years or so, I am convinced he could have won at least 5 Super Bowls. Please don't tell me to go back and re-read his resume (like so many others have done), but I have a feeling you won't. In fact, I get the feeling that even if you tell me that Marino could have won 6 Super Bowls, you will still rank Fouts 2nd based on his 5. (I dis-agree with you on Marino however, I think he could only have won 5, so we have a tie for the Best Ever), at least in our minds.
Posted on 18-May-08 at 7:25 am | PermalinkSandy-----Great post-you really got the mental juices flowing. I am an old Balt. Colts fan, and I am convinced that if Bert Jones would have played another 10 years or so he could have won 5 S.B.'s AND been named MVP in 4 of them. That now puts him ahead of Fouts and Marino,IMO. This may be only based on a hunch, but it is a very strong hunch, so that should override anything in his Resume. I do hope you and shake agree with me.
Posted on 18-May-08 at 9:29 am | PermalinkThe only difference between a great QB that has won a superbowl and one that hasn't is that the one with a ring was on a very good team that got the breaks that it needed to win. Did the Giants win the superbowl because Eli Manning is a more Clutch QB than Tom Brady? (Brady had the ball with 40 seconds to go and only needing a fieldgoal. He lost yardage and turned it over on downs).
Posted on 18-May-08 at 2:19 pm | PermalinkIf any great QB could have maintained his level of play for a longer time on a great team he would have a chance to win more superbowls whether he had already won 4 or hadn't won any. It's not about guessing how many a QB should have one it's about understanding that a championship is about a great team that got favorable circumstances, not a QB having some unquantifiable quality.
Denny, the difference between you and me is that I don't claim to know what would have happened if Marino had played a few more years, or if he'd played his career on a different team, or if he'd had better luck. You're the one claiming to know that in all of these hypothetical situations, Marino still wouldn't have won the Super Bowl.
Btw, what current QBs are, in your estimation, not able to handle the pressure of the playoffs? I'm trying to figure out who's got the best chance at winning the Super Bowl, and I'd like to know who I should avoid.
Posted on 19-May-08 at 7:48 am | PermalinkAlex---Every current, active QB in the NFL COULD win a S.B. or multiple S.B's as long as they are still ACTIVE and not RETIRED. The ONLY QB's that cannot win a S.B. are RETIRED QB's. If Elway would have retired in '96, his Resume (his Performance Record that he produced while he was an active player in the NFL) would have SUGGESTED that he was not capable of winning a S.B. If you disagree with that, then you post some facts or stats that prove me wrong. Remember now, his Resume that we are considering runs from '83 thru '96. When Elway DID RETIRE in '98, his Resume STATED that he was capable of winning multiple S.B.'s. Why did it state that, because John went out and won multiple S.B.'s as an active QB. Why the difference--because Elway DID NOT RETIRE in '96, instead he remained an ACTIVE PLAYER in '97 and '98, and any active QB is capable of winning a S.B. or multiple S.B.'s. Therefore, we have to look at and consider anything he accomplished in those years. His Resume now runs from '83 thru '98, and any facts or stats that he produced as an active player have to be considered as part of his playing record, and that includes 2 S.B.'s won as a starting QB in the NFL, as well as his Record of the only QB to ever start 5 S.B.'s.
Posted on 19-May-08 at 2:17 pm | PermalinkSerenity Now
Posted on 19-May-08 at 4:08 pm | PermalinkAlex---I could post almost the same thing for Marino except for 1 big difference---Marino's Resume never changed for the better. Dan had his chance to make it more positive while he was an active player in the NFL, but he was unable to. It doesn't matter what either one of us think Dan could or couldn't have accomplished, it will never change what his Resume tells us that he was or wasn't able to accomplish.
Posted on 19-May-08 at 5:18 pm | PermalinkIf Elway would have retired in ‘96, his Resume (his Performance Record that he produced while he was an active player in the NFL) would have SUGGESTED that he was not capable of winning a S.B. If you disagree with that, then you post some facts or stats that prove me wrong.
It would have suggested no such thing. If Elway had retired in '96, he would've had 3633 completions in 6392 attempts, for 45034 yards, 251 TDs, and 205 INTs. That would've made him 9th in NFL history in career TD passes. And his Y/A of 7.05 would've been quite good as well.
His 7 Pro Bowls would've been additional confirmation of his elite skill, and would've gone nicely with the 7 wins he had in the playoffs at the time, including 3 wins in Conference Championship Games. Oh, and let's not forget "The Drive". I hear that was pretty impressive.
And that's without even mentioning his 3000+ rushing yards and 31 rushing TDs.
It all would've added up to a great QB, one perfectly capable of winning big games under pressure. And great QBs on great teams frequently win Super Bowls, so there would've been every reason to believe that he could win a Super Bowl. Just because someone hasn't already won a Super Bowl is no reason to think they aren't capable of winning one.
Posted on 19-May-08 at 8:52 pm | PermalinkTiger Woods has never won at Riviera. According to Denny's logic, Woods' resume states that he is incapable of winning there. He's played in 11 tournaments there and has not won a single one of them. Amazingly, his average golf score is significantly higher at Riviera than at the rest of the PGA tournaments. He obviously can't handle the pressure at Riviera.
I'm simply stating the facts right out of Woods' resume. 11 appearances. No wins. He's obviously choking there.
Oh, and Brett Favre was completely incapable of winning at Texas Stadium (0-9). His resume proves that. What a loser.
Denny, do you see how illogical this sounds?
Posted on 20-May-08 at 1:40 am | PermalinkAlex---If Elway would have retired in '96 and you would post that you think he could win 2 S.B.'s, you would have been guessing, and shake and I agree on this one---it's not about guessing. If you post now that you think John could win 2, I would say it doesn't matter what you think, his resume tells us that he was capable of winning 2. Elway CHANGED all of that by going out and playing and winning 2. If you post that you think Fouts could win 2, you would be guessing.
Posted on 20-May-08 at 4:56 am | PermalinkStaubach----Do you know why Favre's resume tells us that he was 0-9 ? Was it because he was 6-3 or because HE WAS 0-9 ? WHAT A LOSER ? Maybe in your mind. Read the rest of his resume. His resume goes on to tell us that he had a reasonable amount of success in the Post-season, as well as having the BEST Reg. season resume ever.
Posted on 20-May-08 at 5:04 am | PermalinkI guess when I saw Denny's very first post in this thread I should have realized that he has no grasp of probability and statistics.
Posted on 20-May-08 at 9:30 am | PermalinkStaubach---You did make an excellent statement in your last post when you said that Favre was incapable of winning at Texas stadium. But it was only an excellent statement because you backed it up with facts and stats. By telling us that he was 0-9 there, which is the same as telling us that he NEVER was able to win there, that he had 0 wins there, you are correct to say that he was NOT CAPABLE of winning there. The only way Favre himself can make that an invalid statement is by coming out of retirement and winning a game at Texas stadium. It seems as though you are starting to catch on to what a Resume can tell you.
Posted on 20-May-08 at 2:07 pm | PermalinkI refuse to believe that this isn't a joke. Denny, you really had me going for a bit there.
Posted on 20-May-08 at 3:24 pm | Permalinkshake---I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at, but I refuse to accept the way you want to take a player's Resume and twist and play with the numbers to suit your needs. Are you doing it to protect a player that has deficiencies in his Resume (like Marino) ? I apologize for making it personal and I realize that there are others on here doing the same thing. Are you now going to tell me that even though Favre's Resume tells us that he failed to win a game at Texas stadium, it's YOUR OPINION that he could have won some at one time or another? If that's the case, then YOUR GUESSING, and I know you don't like guessing. It's ok that his Resume tells us he was 0-9, as long as it's an accurate FACT. And it's not our fault that he was 0-9. Favre is getting along just fine with that FACT on his Resume and so will we. And that goes for every other player we have discussed on here. If this isn't what you were referring to, then I apologize again, but all we can do for a retired player is compare the numbers on their resumes, because they are not going to change.
Posted on 20-May-08 at 4:51 pm | PermalinkDenny, the problem is that your logic is saying that there is no way a player can possibly do something until it's on his resume.
You said that in 1996 there was no way John Elway could win a Super Bowl. But then he did win a Super Bowl, so it was on his resume, so now it became possible for him to do it. It's crazy logic.
Posted on 20-May-08 at 6:13 pm | PermalinkRichie---No, actually I think I said that if Elway would have retired in '96 his Resume would have SUGGESTED that he was not capable of winning a S.B. Are you aware of how John performed in his 1st 3 S.B.'s ? Keep in mind now that we are pretending that Elway would play no more games ever. I also am on record as saying that ANY active QB is CAPABLE of winning a S.B. At the start of the '85 season I would have told you that Marino's Resume SUGGESTS that he will go on to win multiple S.B.'s. Keep in mind NOW that Marino still had plenty of more games to play, and it appeared that the Super Bowl caliber TEAM that Dan was lucky enough to inherit in '83 still had plenty of wins left in them.
Posted on 20-May-08 at 8:33 pm | PermalinkRichie—No, actually I think I said that if Elway would have retired in ‘96 his Resume would have SUGGESTED that he was not capable of winning a S.B....Keep in mind now that we are pretending that Elway would play no more games ever.
Wait, so you're making the bold claim that a QB who will never play any more games, and has not won a Super Bowl previously, will not win the Super Bowl? Ok, true. If a QB doesn't play any more games, they won't win any more Super Bowls. But if you're saying that, because he retired, he was never capable of winning a Super Bowl, then I'll have to disagree.
If I start a coin flipping league, and someone flips a coin 10 times, and lands tails each time, it doesn't mean they weren't capable of flipping a coin and landing heads. They weren't even less likely to land heads than anyone else. Same in this situation. Marino's "playoff coin" landed tails 10 times, but that doesn't suggest that he wasn't capable of winning a Super Bowl, or even that he was less likely to win one during his career. All it tells us is that he didn't actually win one.
Alex—If Elway would have retired in ‘96 and you would post that you think he could win 2 S.B.’s, you would have been guessing, and shake and I agree on this one—it’s not about guessing.
You are right about one thing. It's not about guessing. Which is why I have a problem with your first post:
If your team would have traded for Marino in the mid-eighties, and then watched in horror as Dan couldn’t win a second playoff game
You imply that if a team had traded for Marino, they wouldn't have won a second playoff game throughout his career. That's a guess, not a fact. There's not a single fact on Marino's resume to tell us how he would've done on another team, so your claim that his postseason record would've been terrible is a complete guess.
Posted on 20-May-08 at 10:20 pm | PermalinkMan Marino choked so hard by retiring. If only he had been clutch enough to force the Dolphins to trade him.
Posted on 21-May-08 at 1:21 am | Permalink