If you've been watching the game as long as you say you have, then you know the changes in the sport which favor the offense.
You would also consider the system Phil played in, his supporting cast, as well as the conditions at Giants Stadium.
Guys that started in the mid 80s:
All of the above are over 58 percent completions for their careers. Phil was at 55.4, which is also higher than a lot of good players. I just think stats are an Importent tool that I will always look at when analyzing players, like I said, they do not tell the whole story but to discount them completely seems like cutting of your nose to spit your face, but to each their own
[QUOTE=Roosevelt;593545]If you've been watching the game as long as you say you have, then you know the changes in the sport which favor the offense.
I do take those things into consideration, but do not think that means you can not use stats from that time period for arguments sake. There have been things that both players have dealt with, Eli has worked with a good amount of different players on the offense, has had the playing style of the offense change, and if you really want to get serious, the difference in the athletic abilities of players from the 80s to the 2000s, as well as the quality of the defenses from each time period. The argument to discount stats is just something I disagree with, would you buy a stock without looking at a companies history?
No one in Packer land was ever questioning whether or not Rodgers was great.
The QBR rating is a joke! Plz don't anyone else bring that up!
We made it, 100 pages on why Eli is a better QB then Simms!
There really is no way to accurately relay a qb performance on paper, too many intangibles go into each play to accurately map out with stats, but they do play in important roll in the analysis of players. Some of the things that are hard to map out are; pass protection, if there was any miscommunication setting the play, if everyone heard, understood, and reacted correctly to audibles being called at the line, protection changes at the line, if routes are ran correctly, if a throwing lane is there, and then all of the things the defense are doing. The one thing that I dislike the most abut it is that it gives no credit to certain plays even if there were multiple offensive formations used in previous plays to set the d up for a simple screen, or a quick throw, something that takes advantage of the formations the d is using, and the rating system certainly has a problem with the way the analysis works, because it could be subjective to the person who is looking at each game.