Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Well, first of all (and most importantly), no one is making Elway/Campbell quarterback comparisons besides you. So there's that.
There are numbers that will tell you plenty about John Elway's career if you're interested in learning more about it. Stats tell us that Elway doesn't compare great to Joe Montana, Dan Marino, or Steve Young. He had kind of a fascinating statistical career for a guy who is regarded as an all time great. There's plenty to be learned about Elway with stats. The most important takeaway for you is that there was nothing wrong with a 56% completion percentage in 1987.
Comparing his completion numbers to Campbell's is an awful misapplication, unless the argument is something like "look, even a mid-tier QB from the modern game was more productive than John Elway 25 years ago!" It's an interesting concept, but one that obviously sells Elway short. You want to avoid grading retroactively if possible. That's not what rate stats were intended for.
|
What my point is - you can't take stats out of context and use it in place of playing ability. Every qb's situation is different. And in the case of Elway's (and also, Campbell's case), you have to throw the completion% stat out of window. So when someone is supporting an opinion and uses a stat like that - to me - it's the lazy way to determine a qb's potential and ability -- in place of analyzing through watching and it's just plain B.S.
But it's just my opinion and I have the stats to (dis)prove it. haha.