All Time Panther Team

[KillerKat]

Now I'm an idiot. Is that better or worse than being dumb?

You derailed this thread by deriding folks for not using stats to pick their "Best of the Best". You were upset nobody wanted to play by your rules. Now I ain't no super brain. But, that sounds a little self-serving to me. But then again, I'm just an idiot, what do I know.

I didn't deride anyone. I've stated several times people make 2 different kinds of lists and I've stated which one I make. I'm talking to Scott who wants to understand why I go by stats. Why can't you comprehend that?

But anyway

But then again, I'm just an idiot, what do I know.

nice we agree on something.

[iamhubby1]

Nowhere am I saying all WCO QBs are bad, or that Beuerlein is bad. My point is that the system inflates stats, whether good or bad. That's why you can't go by stats alone when you're comparing guys from other systems.

As to your answer, if you can't say for certain that the guys with the best stats win the most big games, then why defend a 'stats only' approach to choosing who's best?

At one time, Jake had the best Post Season winning percentage of all time. NFC Championships, (Plural) a Super Bowl appearance, but I guess that does not compare to Steve having a higher completion %.

Folks were making, and commenting on, their Best of players. Not one mention of stats. Then all of a sudden the rules changed. Oh well, I guess I just haven't figured out this interwebz thingy yet.

[iamhubby1]

I didn't deride anyone. I've stated several times people make 2 different kinds of lists and I've stated which one I make. I'm talking to Scott who wants to understand why I go by stats. Why can't you comprehend that?

But anyway

nice we agree on something.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that if you want to debate a Best of list by your rules, that maybe you should have started your own thread. Why is it we have to bend to your whim?

Dude, you are something. I ain't sure what it is, but it's something.

I bet you took your ball and went home when things didn't go your way during games. Or by some of your posts, I bet you were a watcher, not a participant.

But by all means, throw another insult my way. It seems you do that well. It may not be an award winning skill. But, you do it well.

[KillerKat]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that if you want to debate a Best of list by your rules, that maybe you should have started your own thread. Why is it we have to bend to your whim?

Dude, you are something. I ain't sure what it is, but it's something.

I bet you took your ball and went home when things didn't go your way during games. Or by some of your posts, I bet you were a watcher, not a participant.

But by all means, throw another insult my way. It seems you do that well. It may not be an award winning skill. But, you do it well.

Hey look Mr.Scott we can't continue our conversation anymore. Iamhubby doesn't like what I'm saying. I think I hurt his feelings.

[Machete]

Delhomme and Beurelein's passing stats are so similar that you really have no choice but to base your judgement upon the more prolific winner.  I really can't even understand how it's debatable if you take into account the most important quantifier of a NFL QB's proficiency, wins. Steve Beurelein could not have made Mushin Muhammed the best receiver in the NFL (stat-wise) in 2005, let alone finish a season better than 8-8...Delhomme had 10, 11, and 12 win seasons. Make sense?

[Mr. Scot]

Cause that's all we have that doesn't include outside debatable factors. We don't know if either QB is a system QB only and never will. We don't know how each would do on each others team. Our debate will keep going on and on when we include those factors or others similar. Which is what I like to avoid in All Time lists. I just stick to what has been done on the field period.

 

Using a 'stats only' approach, Nick Foles was the best quarterback in the league last year.

 

Do you buy that?  I don't.

 

Anomalies like that happen a lot.  That's a big reason why I can't stand by that model.