Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Bart Starr Passes Away....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 834851"><p>It's not that somebody might come along along and surpass Brady in rings and stats. It's that the idea of identifying a GOAT is, I dare say, frivolous. It's not done in other realms of human endeavor.</p><p></p><p>You're not going see any serious discussion of whether Archemedes, Newton, Einstein, or another esoteric choice is the GOAT physicist. Who's the greatest novelist? Is it ****ens or Melville or Joyce or fill in the blank? Who's the greatest painter? DaVinci or Van Gogh or Picasso or whoever is currently drawing the biggest money at auction?</p><p></p><p>While these other human endeavors are matters of considerable academic analysis and where one giant builds on or reacts to the accomplishments of predecessors, sports (and particularly football) are not so thoroughly considered. Further, there is not a lot of visual evidence of football performance prior to video tape. Such matters are left to institutional memory. You're not going to find many 80 year old former players/coaches/media with blogs arguing the merits of Graham or Unitas. Who? <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Here's a thought. Transport Tom Brady back to the 1940's. That funny sidearm-ish throwing motion common in the day, as we see in the little film available from the era, was a byproduct of the fatter football with still some remant of the rugby ball. See "Slingin'" Sammy Baugh. The game was brutal. A QB had to be one tough ****. How would Brady do? Could he play two ways at defensive back, as Baugh did, and how might that affect his offensive performance? Could he punt as Baugh did?</p><p></p><p>You probably are not going to find many current commentators on the hunt for clicks comparing Brady to Otto Graham. First, they never saw Graham play. Second, the youth market has no interest in hearing about some guy from 70 years ago who's stats would laugh him out of any fantasy league.</p><p></p><p>Getting back to Starr, I believe there is a fair comparison to Brady. They were winners. Neither was regularly a statistical leader in any one season. Neither was a great athlete. Both played for among the great coaches of all time (another false GOAT topic), both subject to questions of being "system QBs". Starr was the beneficiary of the Power Sweep (which had many variations run off of it). Brady was the beneficiary of Belichick's innovation in the use of the slot receiver. We could make a similar comparison to Montana/Walsh in a transitional era of the way the game was played as illustrated in my previous post.</p><p></p><p>At the time of Starr's retirement, Graham as the so-called GOAT was already fading in comparison to Unitas, a Starr contemporary, throwing more often with bigger numbers but fewer rings than either Graham or Starr. Statistical distortions are nothing new. And we cannot underestimate the bias of recent memory.</p><p></p><p>I see no reason not to put Starr on par with Brady. It's almost like the answer to an SAT question. Starr is to Unitas what Brady is to Manning. Now, one might say that Brady throws the ball twice as often as Starr. That makes winning and losing more dependent on the QB than in Starr's era. Hmm. But Starr called his own plays. There are no field generals anymore in the true sense. QBs are passers, and increasingly valued as runners when things break down. Calling audibles is a vastly more restrictive control of the game than calling the play in the huddle with the full play book at the QBs disposal.</p><p></p><p>When you start thinking about differences in context in one era versus another, picking among potential GOATs is comparing apples to oranges. Going by stats is like asking, "If Newton was so damn smart, how come he didn't come up with General Relativity? Gravitational theory, calculus, meh. There are no women in "Moby ****"; that makes it just half a story."</p><p></p><p>There are no GOATs. There are the greats, and then there are the other guys. And the greats are great in different ways in different contexts in different times.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 834851"] It's not that somebody might come along along and surpass Brady in rings and stats. It's that the idea of identifying a GOAT is, I dare say, frivolous. It's not done in other realms of human endeavor. You're not going see any serious discussion of whether Archemedes, Newton, Einstein, or another esoteric choice is the GOAT physicist. Who's the greatest novelist? Is it ****ens or Melville or Joyce or fill in the blank? Who's the greatest painter? DaVinci or Van Gogh or Picasso or whoever is currently drawing the biggest money at auction? While these other human endeavors are matters of considerable academic analysis and where one giant builds on or reacts to the accomplishments of predecessors, sports (and particularly football) are not so thoroughly considered. Further, there is not a lot of visual evidence of football performance prior to video tape. Such matters are left to institutional memory. You're not going to find many 80 year old former players/coaches/media with blogs arguing the merits of Graham or Unitas. Who? ;) Here's a thought. Transport Tom Brady back to the 1940's. That funny sidearm-ish throwing motion common in the day, as we see in the little film available from the era, was a byproduct of the fatter football with still some remant of the rugby ball. See "Slingin'" Sammy Baugh. The game was brutal. A QB had to be one tough ****. How would Brady do? Could he play two ways at defensive back, as Baugh did, and how might that affect his offensive performance? Could he punt as Baugh did? You probably are not going to find many current commentators on the hunt for clicks comparing Brady to Otto Graham. First, they never saw Graham play. Second, the youth market has no interest in hearing about some guy from 70 years ago who's stats would laugh him out of any fantasy league. Getting back to Starr, I believe there is a fair comparison to Brady. They were winners. Neither was regularly a statistical leader in any one season. Neither was a great athlete. Both played for among the great coaches of all time (another false GOAT topic), both subject to questions of being "system QBs". Starr was the beneficiary of the Power Sweep (which had many variations run off of it). Brady was the beneficiary of Belichick's innovation in the use of the slot receiver. We could make a similar comparison to Montana/Walsh in a transitional era of the way the game was played as illustrated in my previous post. At the time of Starr's retirement, Graham as the so-called GOAT was already fading in comparison to Unitas, a Starr contemporary, throwing more often with bigger numbers but fewer rings than either Graham or Starr. Statistical distortions are nothing new. And we cannot underestimate the bias of recent memory. I see no reason not to put Starr on par with Brady. It's almost like the answer to an SAT question. Starr is to Unitas what Brady is to Manning. Now, one might say that Brady throws the ball twice as often as Starr. That makes winning and losing more dependent on the QB than in Starr's era. Hmm. But Starr called his own plays. There are no field generals anymore in the true sense. QBs are passers, and increasingly valued as runners when things break down. Calling audibles is a vastly more restrictive control of the game than calling the play in the huddle with the full play book at the QBs disposal. When you start thinking about differences in context in one era versus another, picking among potential GOATs is comparing apples to oranges. Going by stats is like asking, "If Newton was so damn smart, how come he didn't come up with General Relativity? Gravitational theory, calculus, meh. There are no women in "Moby ****"; that makes it just half a story." There are no GOATs. There are the greats, and then there are the other guys. And the greats are great in different ways in different contexts in different times. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Post Draft/UDFA/Off-Season Signings - Each Position Trade Block
Latest: Pkrjones
Today at 12:02 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Pick 124 Barryn Sorrell Edge Texas
Latest: tynimiller
Yesterday at 7:33 PM
Draft Talk
Pick 87 Savion Williams WR TCU
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 4:54 PM
Draft Talk
First Round Prospect Discussions Specifically
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 1:12 PM
Draft Talk
Isaiah Simmons is COMING
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 1:07 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Bart Starr Passes Away....
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
