Otto Graham, greatest player in pro football history

ITT evaluating poker players on the total amount won is the appropriate standard for evaluation.

Jamie Gold is mega elite.

Major LOL at comparing Flacco and Ben with Brady.

Robert Horry > Jordan

Flacco 9-4 in playoffs, so definitely lol, they're obviously equals discounting longetivity LDO.

Which is kinda the paradox when debating Manning and Brady. Manning outperforms Brady statistically with better weapons (generally), Brady wins in playoffs with help from better defense, one in part built by sacrificing his weapons. Manning is perhaps cost some win equity due to his teams building around offense and not defense, but then his better numbers came with the help of the added weapons.

What do you do for a living? Can you not be trusted with your opinion on what your top priority is at your own profession? Certainly the top 1% elite of their profession can be trusted to know what is their top goals...regardless on whatever random you want to try to think like.

ITT are a lot of virgin neckbeards grading people on criteria the actual people dont hold very high.

This thread is about TB and PM so whats your point? Make a thread comparing Eli to someone and see how that turns out.

I can quote a lot of stupid things that really smart, top 1% of players in certain leagues have said. MJ has a ton of them if we want to work on this exercise. Hell the President of the US was George Bush and he has a laundry list of top goals.

I'm a management consultant right now. I know what the top people in my industry are going to say, it's going to be a bunch of cliches that literally mean nothing b/c I work in a very salesy business.

What the **** are QBs supposed to say Doran? They are the defacto leader of the team. Should QBS say, **** that, trying to break records instead of a team lead thing which is win games. Again, it's a TEAM game with TEAM records not individual ones but do we evaluate WRs and lineman on how well they win? No but we evaluate QBs on that. It's so silly, it's hilarious. QB could throw 100 TDs in a game and lose and it's a binary thing where he lost even though, let's say he played flawlessly, while another QB could never pass it the entire game and win, and b/c it's binary, one guy is infinitely better than another guy in the stat.

i certainly trust nfl head coaches who are at the TOP 1% ELITE OF THEIR PROFESSION yet still give reasonings like "youve got to take the points", "we had to trust our defense", or the tomlin non-reasoning "we just dont do that"

i'm the best quarterback ever

how many QBs have won a super bowl, 35ish? we are all in a tie after them

All Im saying is that if people want to be graded in their profession on one specific area then thats how we should tend to grade them.

Ive run an insurance office before, not every area was within my control, but I was in charge of its success regardless. It might not be fair, but thats just how business is run. I knew that it was my job to run the office successfully regardless of the areas I couldnt control. PM and TB realize this as well.

Pats fans, man

Also I dont agree that QBs have 0% influence on defense or special teams, especially elite QBs.

Never sure if you are playing a trolling character or just one of the dumbest people on the internet.

not sure how many times it needs to be said, but just LOL at engaging with idiot Pats fans on this subject.

When they say winning is all that matters it doesn't make it a binary counting fest it means we evaluate the guys on their ability to win games. So, which guy had a higher positive effect on his team winning games? How much is their negatives in losses a factor? Playoffs? Etc.

A lot of people with no real response just trolling me, but why would I expect better?

So when they say something like, "Winning is what matters most." You feel like either A) They are lying; B) You are more qualified to answer this question for them; or C) These people are not qualified to give a correct answer to this question. Which one is it?

lolol

you don't actually believe this do you

D) they took basic media answers 101.

also- winning mattering the most (it does) and not deciding who the best is by sorting by wins are not mutually exclusive. your inability to understand that means you are either an idiot or a troll and should thus be ignored.

yeah i mean this is the beginning middle and end of the discussion really

When we are talking about people who suck at their jobs? No we probably shouldnt take their word for it. However when we talk about the top 1%, I think we should be doing more listening than critiquing.