Why Stats Can't Decide Who is the "GOAT"

[OldManP]

An excerpt:

 

"In 2008, NFL Films debuted a special entitled, "Top 10 Records That Won't Be Broken." The No. 2 choice? Johnny Unitas' streak of 47 consecutive games with a touchdown pass.

The record, which had stood for 48 years, was placed on par with Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak in baseball. The closest anyone had come to Unitas' mark was Brett Favre's run of 36 games, which ended in 2004. In an era of increased injuries and ubiquitous parity, it seemed safe forever.

In 2012, four years after the NFL Films special, Drew Brees blew by Unitas and pushed the record to 54 games.

One year after that, Tom Brady made it to 52.

And earlier this season, Peyton Manning's streak ended at 51."

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/hotread141217/nfl-statistics-quarterbacks-devalued-era-favoring-offenses

 

"Records are meant to be broken, of course. But they should also provide structure for comparing different eras, a task rendered nearly impossible by the NFL's most recent passing explosion. Effectively, we're in the midst of the NFL's "Steroids Era," a time when an above-average performance exceeds the best in history and an elite one obliterates it."

 

 

[crazycolt1]

Just like all the major sports, changes happen. With those changes come new records. One of the rules changed in football was not letting the defenses make the game into a slugfest. Some complain about the so called good old days but the players heath is more important than seeing who is the toughest, not the most talented. Hits to the head, chop blocks, hands to the face and fore arms being used as clubs are gone. It went on way too long as it was. Now the players with the most talent are the stars. Players like Namath who took such beatings and now can't hardly walk because the old rules didn't protect him. Star players who make the big money is why the sport is so popular and there is nothing wrong with rules to protect those stars. With any business the owner has to protect their investment and football is no different. For those who say the old ways were better just are stuck in the past.

[amfootball]

GOAT status to me is the whole body of work - stats, wins, championships, awards, era played in, teammates, coaches, etc.

[BloodyChamp]

An excerpt:

"In 2008, NFL Films debuted a special entitled, "Top 10 Records That Won't Be Broken." The No. 2 choice? Johnny Unitas' streak of 47 consecutive games with a touchdown pass.

The record, which had stood for 48 years, was placed on par with Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak in baseball. The closest anyone had come to Unitas' mark was Brett Favre's run of 36 games, which ended in 2004. In an era of increased injuries and ubiquitous parity, it seemed safe forever.

In 2012, four years after the NFL Films special, Drew Brees blew by Unitas and pushed the record to 54 games.

One year after that, Tom Brady made it to 52.

And earlier this season, Peyton Manning's streak ended at 51."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/hotread141217/nfl-statistics-quarterbacks-devalued-era-favoring-offenses

"Records are meant to be broken, of course. But they should also provide structure for comparing different eras, a task rendered nearly impossible by the NFL's most recent passing explosion. Effectively, we're in the midst of the NFL's "Steroids Era," a time when an above-average performance exceeds the best in history and an elite one obliterates it."

The bolded says it all.

What's record when it will just broken for no other reason than the fact that it's easier to now?

I've been of this belief for years but that last quote really put it well.

[jvan1973]

The only record that really matters is wins and losses.

[crazycolt1]

GOAT status to me is the whole body of work - stats, wins, championships, awards, era played in, teammates, coaches, etc.

I can agree with most on your list but the championships. Those are team orientated. Is Bradshaw better than Brady? No. But yet he has 4 championships. . To take it even farther was Bradshaw better than Bart Starr? Maybe but Starr has 5 championships. Otto Gramm has 10 championships but were any of those QBs any more talented as Dan Marino? Some say no. I didn't even bring Montana in because IMO it's all opinion. Least we not overlook Manning. There are some who think he is the GOAT but it's all in the opinions.

[Track Guy]

There are a few different lenses to view GOAT out of. Some people think more greatest career wise, others think more greatest at their peak. I tend to place more weight on the latter, but I think most think the former. I like to look for a player that was dominant, and especially if they played in an era where it was hard to be dominant. This is why I rate Kurt Warner among the all time greats, where as others would say he's just a borderline hall of famer. His success was relatively short lived, but he lead the most dominant offense in modern football for three years and he proved it wasn't a fluke with his success out in the desert. Warner's playoff numbers are also absolutely off the charts, far better than guys like Manning and Brady. The way I look at things, Warner was a better QB than a guy like Brett Favre because he was a more dominant player (even if more erratic and less durable) but if you wanted to compare them based on their entire careers and the sum of all their achievements you'd obviously come to the conclusion that Favre was better since he had a lot more quantity to his success.

[BloodyChamp]

The way I look at things, Warner was a better QB than a guy like Brett Favre because he was a more dominant player (even if more erratic and less durable) but if you wanted to compare them based on their entire careers and the sum of all their achievements you'd obviously come to the conclusion that Favre was better since he had a lot more quantity to his success.

Wouldn't that logic then make Brett Favre the GOAT? He was the MVP 3 times in a row and in those 3 years the only playoff games he ever lost were al1 SB and and 1 NFC Championship game.

[Track Guy]

Wouldn't that logic then make Brett Favre the GOAT? He was the MVP 3 times in a row and in those 3 years the only playoff games he ever lost were al1 SB and and 1 NFC Championship game.

 

Maybe Favre wasn't the best choice to illustrate that point, he was just a guy who came to mind as more of a career guy than a peak guy but 3 MVPs is hard to call an unimpressive peak. Favre was quite good at his peak too. Even if Warner's numbers at his peak dominated his peers by more (and he probably would've got 3 straight MVPs too if it wasn't for missing 5 weeks injured in 2000). 

[BloodyChamp]

Brett Favre is my choice for the GOAT if we're using that logic.

I've considered that logic before this discussion but it just doesn't quite do it for me. Believe me I wish I could call Favre the GOAT without question based on his insane peak but I grudgingly think the big picture counts more. With that said, Favre is still my pick for GOAT but I realize that it's debateable, and him as my pick is a long story.

[crazycolt1]

Brett Favre is my choice for the GOAT if we're using that logic.

I've considered that logic before this discussion but it just doesn't quite do it for me. Believe me I wish I could call Favre the GOAT without question based on his insane peak but I grudgingly think the big picture counts more. With that said, Favre is still my pick for GOAT but I realize that it's debateable, and him as my pick is a long story.

When people opinions are thrown in, logic is thrown out.

[Colts_Fan12]

I don't see how anyone could not say Peyton but its whatever its not a hard thing to decide really.....

[amfootball]

I can agree with most on your list but the championships. Those are team orientated. Is Bradshaw better than Brady? No. But yet he has 4 championships. . To take it even farther was Bradshaw better than Bart Starr? Maybe but Starr has 5 championships. Otto Gramm has 10 championships but were any of those QBs any more talented as Dan Marino? Some say no. I didn't even bring Montana in because IMO it's all opinion. Least we not overlook Manning. There are some who think he is the GOAT but it's all in the opinions.

Everything in football is a team accomplishment. No QB compiles his stats all by himself either. I don't think the number of rings someone has should automatically vault him over another player with lesser rings or no rings but they are a factor for sure - a QBs ability to lead his team to a championship is a criteria. Some do weigh it more heavily than other criteria for obvious reasons but that is why I said it is the whole body of work as well as era played in and teammates and coaches. Everything factors in IMO.

[amfootball]

On Boston sports radio this week they were talking about the most dominant teams/periods in football history. One of the guys said that his benchmark for greatness has always been the Niners from 1981 - 1995. In this 14 season span the niners won 12 divisional championships, 5 Super Bowls and appeared in 9 NFCCG's. They did this with two different Qbs in Montana and Young and two different HCs in Walsh and Seifert.

 

When looking at the Patriots from 2001 - present, a 14 season span, you have 12 divisional championships, 3 SB champs with another 2 SB appearances and 8 AFCCG appearances and all of this was done under Bill and Brady. BUT the most important part of this comparison is not the similarities in these impressive runs but the era in which they played. The niners did theirs prior to the cap/FA whereas the Patriots have achieved their success which is still going presently in the cap/FA era when teams change over every 3-4 years. IMO this is by far the most impressive run in football history which is why I would put Bill and Brady as the GOATs all time.

[buck_hunter21]

To me, it comes down to the number of rings a player has. The whole point of the game is to be the last team standing. All the numbers, awards, ect come along with the chase of winning a ring. If you were to ask guys like Marino if he would trade all the records he held/holds for one ring and I'd be willing to bet they would.

[crazycolt1]

To me, it comes down to the number of rings a player has. The whole point of the game is to be the last team standing. All the numbers, awards, ect come along with the chase of winning a ring. If you were to ask guys like Marino if he would trade all the records he held/holds for one ring and I'd be willing to bet they would.

If that's the case then Otto Gramm is the GOAT with 10 championships.

[crazycolt1]

On Boston sports radio this week they were talking about the most dominant teams/periods in football history. One of the guys said that his benchmark for greatness has always been the Niners from 1981 - 1995. In this 14 season span the niners won 12 divisional championships, 5 Super Bowls and appeared in 9 NFCCG's. They did this with two different Qbs in Montana and Young and two different HCs in Walsh and Seifert.

 

When looking at the Patriots from 2001 - present, a 14 season span, you have 12 divisional championships, 3 SB champs with another 2 SB appearances and 8 AFCCG appearances and all of this was done under Bill and Brady. BUT the most important part of this comparison is not the similarities in these impressive runs but the era in which they played. The niners did theirs prior to the cap/FA whereas the Patriots have achieved their success which is still going presently in the cap/FA era when teams change over every 3-4 years. IMO this is by far the most impressive run in football history which is why I would put Bill and Brady as the GOATs all time.

One of the guys on a Boston radio show? OK. :hmm:

[Gramz]

. This subject is always a good one for discussion.

You could ask 30 people and get 30 different answers. And does it really matter?

You have your GOAT, I have mine.

[JerodMayo51]

Just as team wins are, stats are a byproduct of the team around you.

At the end of the day it just comes down to opinions and the eye test.

As Belichick says, "stats are for losers"

[JerodMayo51]

I can agree with most on your list but the championships. Those are team orientated.

Stats are team oriented just as much as championships. You think Brady or Manning break the TD record on the Oakland Raiders?

Of course they wouldnt. They needed elite, hall of fame talent around them and a stellar offensive line.

[JerodMayo51]

Brett Favre is my choice for the GOAT if we're using that logic.

I've considered that logic before this discussion but it just doesn't quite do it for me. Believe me I wish I could call Favre the GOAT without question based on his insane peak but I grudgingly think the big picture counts more. With that said, Favre is still my pick for GOAT but I realize that it's debateable, and him as my pick is a long story.

Having the most interceptions in NFL history immediately removes you from the GOAT debate.

Pretty much the single most important stat there is that relates to wins is turnover differential.

This is also why Luck isn't MVP just yet, but as soon as he develops a bit more and gets those int numbers down he'll make a great case for MVP

[crazycolt1]

Stats are team oriented just as much as championships. You think Brady or Manning break the TD record on the Oakland Raiders?

Of course they wouldnt. They needed elite, hall of fame talent around them and a stellar offensive line.

Does my comment really need explaining? It wouldn't matter to you anyway because you would tilt it all to the Patriots anyway.

[crazycolt1]

The GOAT is all in some ones opinion. There is no true GOAT. When it comes down to it there are way too many variables. When you say GOAT is that just for the QBs? I could say that a player like Walter Payton could fall into the GOAT category. With some it is as simple as their favorite team or player. Then some who think the NFL didn't start till 1967. There are some who feel like it shouldn't count either before the salary cap or after. Take a player like Otto Gramm. He threw the ball around and had huge numbers before the ball was streamlined to throw. So he should be disregarded because he played before a salary cap? I just used him as an example because there is a long list of QBs who were fantastic players before 1967. I also could say that Dick Butkus was in the running for the GOAT as some feel he was the greatest player to have ever played. My point is there is no GOAT when people put there own limitations on what they feel for themselves. All it really does is make people argue and that seems to be what everyone want's to do anyway.

[amfootball]

One of the guys on a Boston radio show? OK. :hmm:

Yes. It was Mike Felger who has an afternoon show here from 2-6. Do you disagree with him?

[crazycolt1]

Yes. It was Mike Felger who has an afternoon show here from 2-6. Do you disagree with him?

There is no such a thing as GOAT in my opinion. Please read my other comment. I can't say that I agree with anyone who can put the GOAT on any player or team for that matter.

[amfootball]

There is no such a thing as GOAT in my opinion. Please read my other comment. I can't say that I agree with anyone who can put the GOAT on any player or team for that matter.

Ok but the thread is about GOATs and I made a comparison between one historic franchise runs and another in the Pats.

[MJD42]

The GOAT is all in some ones opinion. There is no true GOAT. When it comes down to it there are way too many variables. When you say GOAT is that just for the QBs? I could say that a player like Walter Payton could fall into the GOAT category. With some it is as simple as their favorite team or player. Then some who think the NFL didn't start till 1967. There are some who feel like it shouldn't count either before the salary cap or after. Take a player like Otto Gramm. He threw the ball around and had huge numbers before the ball was streamlined to throw. So he should be disregarded because he played before a salary cap? I just used him as an example because there is a long list of QBs who were fantastic players before 1967. I also could say that Dick Butkus was in the running for the GOAT as some feel he was the greatest player to have ever played. My point is there is no GOAT when people put there own limitations on what they feel for themselves. All it really does is make people argue and that seems to be what everyone want's to do anyway.

I think to be a GOAT you have to be the best player of your generation regardless of position. I think that can be fairly determined because the variables of the sport and era are the same. After that you are comparing different eras and it becomes more subjective.

[JerodMayo51]

Yes. It was Mike Felger who has an afternoon show here from 2-6. Do you disagree with him?

And Felger is the opposite of a homer, he loves hammering on the Patriots every chance he gets.

He was flabbergasted after the green bay game that people weren't outraged over the loss

[amfootball]

And Felger is the opposite of a homer, he loves hammering on the Patriots every chance he gets.

He was flabbergasted after the green bay game that people weren't outraged over the loss

Yeah, he is pretty hard on them. I liked his comparison. I had never heard it broken down like that as usually you get the Brady/Montana comparisons but really it was the whole niner era of Montana and Young that the Patriots have almost equaled with the same coach and same QB in a much tougher era to sustain success.

[crazycolt1]

I think to be a GOAT you have to be the best player of your generation regardless of position. I think that can be fairly determined because the variables of the sport and era are the same. After that you are comparing different eras and it becomes more subjective.

That is exactly what I said. On the other hand you cant just disregard any player who played in other era. We can all have opinion as who we think is the GOAT but none of us are 100% correct because of the variables. I can say that Dan Marino was the greatest QB I ever seen play. Does that make me right? No. Same goes for a very long list of players. There is no wrong or right answers. It's all in the opinions of those who want to argue about it and think their opinion over rides anyone who don't feel the same way.

[MJD42]

That is exactly what I said. On the other hand you cant just disregard any player who played in other era. We can all have opinion as who we think is the GOAT but none of us are 100% correct because of the variables. I can say that Dan Marino was the greatest QB I ever seen play. Does that make me right? No. Same goes for a very long list of players. There is no wrong or right answers. It's all in the opinions of those who want to argue about it and think their opinion over rides anyone who don't feel the same way.

I think strong cases can be made for certain players to be GOAT but I don't see anyone on this thread saying they are 100 percent right and everyone else is wrong. I think it is a fun debate and most know that it is subjective to an extent.

[Cnr324]

It is all just a matter of opinion at the end of the day regardless of stats , rings, etc.

[Cnr324]

That is exactly what I said. On the other hand you cant just disregard any player who played in other era. We can all have opinion as who we think is the GOAT but none of us are 100% correct because of the variables. I can say that Dan Marino was the greatest QB I ever seen play. Does that make me right? No. Same goes for a very long list of players. There is no wrong or right answers. It's all in the opinions of those who want to argue about it and think their opinion over rides anyone who don't feel the same way.

Well said.

[crazycolt1]

I think strong cases can be made for certain players to be GOAT but I don't see anyone on this thread saying they are 100 percent right and everyone else is wrong. I think it is a fun debate and most know that it is subjective to an extent.

The term GOAT is a oxymoron at it's best!

[MJD42]

The term GOAT is a oxymoron at it's best!

Huh? How is it an oxymoron?

[crazycolt1]

Huh? How is it an oxymoron?

Oxymoron- Definition according to Merriam Webster it is a combination of contradictory or incongruous word or words. What did you think it was?

[MJD42]

Oxymoron- Definition according to Merriam Webster it is a combination of contradictory or incongruous word or words.

Right. How does that make the GOAT an oxymoron? What part contradicts?

[TAPLOOK]

There is not a GOAT anymore. There is a greatest of era that can be debated.

[chad72]

GOAT status to me is the whole body of work - stats, wins, championships, awards, era played in, teammates, coaches, etc.

 

Totally agree. Consistency of stats and wins do matter, and championships at the biggest stage and how they play at the biggest stage will be the #1 tie-breaker between two evenly matched QBs in terms of stats and wins. Wins matter because no matter which era you played in, you played under the same rules as other QBs in your era to lead your team to wins.

[crazycolt1]

Brett Favre is my choice for the GOAT if we're using that logic.

I've considered that logic before this discussion but it just doesn't quite do it for me. Believe me I wish I could call Favre the GOAT without question based on his insane peak but I grudgingly think the big picture counts more. With that said, Favre is still my pick for GOAT but I realize that it's debateable, and him as my pick is a long story.

You said the magic word! Logic. When it comes to peoples opinions there is no logic!