10-21-2015, 02:51 PM
(10-21-2015, 02:31 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: All I did was provide some facts. I did not quote you on my post.
I also stated he is not elite as well so not sure why you felt the need to dismiss a QB comparison based on as close to apples to apples as possible among QB's. I even stated others will weigh different things differently.
I thought the numbers were interesting basing off of experience and the consistencies of the greats was for the most part inconsistent. Only Rodgers and Brady showed consistency and neither started year #1 in the NFL.
My post was not a shot at you, I was just trying to provide some more texture to the conversation.
"Why go to all the trouble of finding stats to defend Andy's first four years when it's not even a discussion."
My facts backed up your OP on how AD was inconsistent so not sure why you are sensitive to the facts I provided. I just added the comparision as some may not realize some elite QB's failed to play at elite levels early in the career either?
I think the entire thing comes to be a pointless discussion when you sit down and understand that you can pick literally ANY QB currently in the NFL, and show some kind of statistical manipulation of why they shouldn't be "written off" as a non-elite QB. I mean, there is evidence out there of players making career resurrections of all types, including having a few rough years followed by some elite performance.
Whenever you can use the same set of stats that you use to "prove" Andy's potential to also "prove" that Tim Tebow or Ryan Fitzpatrick could be the next Peyton Manning or Kurt Warner, the entire thing gets kind of.....meh. It loses it's luster when all you have is "yeah, but, but, but, THESE guys didn't play at an extremely high level immediately either! SEE???" because at that point you can pretty much say that literally any QB in the NFL "could" be elite at some point.
