Well it's not as simple as yards per pass attempt only. remember, I said most important, not ONLY important, Ranking FB players is difficult because they all have very different circumstances. What I'm saying is that any guy who isn't throwing 30-35 times a game but is near the top in yards per attempt in likely under rated.
Think about it. Manning and Brady had teams entirely built around them ( and why not) and sometimes iffy defenses. They threw most of their 1-2 yard TD's as they did most of their plays while a guy with a running game and a defense hands off for many of his. Just one example.
The differences are the reason I have trouble with the GOAT concept. It's fun to talk about but really an unreachable conclusion. For example, how many more throw, yards, years would Montana, Bradshaw and Marino have had under the "flag football" rules that modern QB's enjoy? Remember when a QB was really a running back when he ran? when the defense could hit him high, low or in between and not only land on him but actually body slam him? Or when grounding rules still applied outside the pocket?
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/gross-yards-per-passing-attempt
Some "no kidding " guys in the top ten or 12, but some surprises like Jimmy and Lamar as well. Those top ten have piled up a lot of wins , maybe especially the top 7 without anyone named Brady or Wentz or Breeze and barely a Rodgers or Rivers.
Last edited by donttread; 11-09-2019 at 10:29 AM.
I can't say. IMO,neither can you or the Good Morning FB crew. I would swear the 15 top fives play each year on Thursday Night FB every year though ( thanks to the hype machine)
I've always felt that Rogers and Wilson might mean more to their teams than most. But their are too many factors to really know who's the best 5. But if I had to guess I'd probably add Brady, Breeze and MaHomes to those two.
Garopolo looked pretty rattled tonight when the game was on the line.
Based on what I saw from Garopolo against Seattle's defense, calling him a game manager is being kind.
If SF had a real QB, they'd be awesome.
No doubt he had a bad night. But so did the whole 49ers offense with 5 drops including two killers by Bourne. When I think of all that plus a replacement kicker I'm amazed they even made it into OT, much less should have won. I didn't think Seattle could still play that kind of defense so hats off to them. I keep saying they can't win like this every week , then they do. I mean OT wins 2 weeks in a row? Even wilson can't keep that up.
But yes Jimmy looked horrible in a sloppy game by both offenses. People say it was a good game. No but it was a close one. There is a difference and both defenses were awesome.
Seattle's defense dropper three easy Int's. Two on what could have been game winning drives for SF.
Wilson has been doing that since his rookie year. He's done it in regular season games and NFC
championship games.
It was a great game. Exciting. Not the cleanest game ever played. Plus I thought the officiating was horrible.
I must have seen a different game as I don't recall three easy dropped INT's. Great and entertaining re not the same thing, at least to me. Most of the offense the other night was poor but the result was a dramatic game, not a good one.
This is different, I don't think Wilson has the running game or defense he's had in the past though. So hats off to him , but I think an awakening might be around the corner.
I agree about the refs. The spot that caused the 49ers to kick to try to win instead of getting closer or scoring was terrible. The offical that got it right was over ruled.