They are close though and this could definitely change a year from now.
They are close though and this could definitely change a year from now.
I absolutely can exclude categories based on the logical reasons that they are excluded. You are free to disagree, but in a situation where you are adding counting stats wrt a player that has had 6 extra years of play you make yourself look foolish.That's the claim you made, that's the claim I'm arguing. If you're talking about stats you can't exclude categories, that's just an obvious.
No, it's really not. As I've stated repeatedly, all I said was that if you look at non-counting stats Romo is better. Again (for the third time) this may have something to do with a decline in production based on age vs. a young QB in his prime. I'm having a difficult time figuring out how you can argue against that statement when it is backed up by irrefutable numbers.It's the exact same thing as saying Tony Romo has had better career stats than Brett Favre and Jeff Garcia,
you're right, they aren't. The same difference between how good a player's career is, and how good a player's career stats are right nowCareer stats and career efficiency isn't the same thing.
Because that was the question posed at the start of the thread?Then why in the world would you make the comparison?
Except I'm not? I'm only basing my own conclusions on things that have actually happened, and additionally I've stated several times that Romo's numbers may decline as his career progresses, or they may go through the roof. Is it that hard to grasp that?What you're basically doing is a non sequitor! By only suggesting percentages and averages, you're assuming Tony Romo's career finishes around that!
That's true, and that's the exact reason that I stated that a true comparison can only be made once BOTH careers are done. Did you miss that? Also, are you honestly asking people to ascertain a player's worth based on what may or may not happen to them in the future injury-wise?Who knows if Tony Romo suffers a sports hernia next year a la Donovan did after his best year of the season, and after that Romo's career becomes a steady slide down to mediocricy because of injuries? Anything can happen.
If you're going to compare career stats between two players at vastly different positions in their career, you can only fairly look at percentages and averages. To look at career totals that aren't averaged out is a practice in ignorancy, and most likely homerism.If you're going to compare career stats you have to include and address everything, or else you're just practicing ignorancy.
Last edited by Zep; 01-16-2010 at 11:54 PM.
We're talking about career stats dude, that's the exact definition of cumulative collecting! Are the cumulative yards, touchdowns, and victories not stats? Did they not occur over the respective players' careers? So why should they be excluded?
I mean, going by your same reasoning, you could say Aaron Rodgers has better career stats than John Elway! Higher YPG, better completion percentage, better rating, better TD/INT ratio, etc. Who can blame Aaron Rodgers for the fact that he's only played two years?
You're only excluding the counting stats because you think it's only fair to level the playing field, when in fact there's no rule that you have to do that in statistics. Statistics are facts, and if you're going to depict them you have to include every stat.
Career (if all players were to retire today):
Eli is ahead of Romo because he won the Super Bowl, and if Romo were to retire today he still would have been remembered for chocking in the playoffs (although after this year's playoff's, Romo might be able to move himself up a spot).
No, I excluded them because they aren't leveled and to include them would make assumptions as to how an individual player's career may, or may not end. If you have some problem with me calling that comparison career stats that's your prerogative, but at that point it's a sematic debate, not a debate on the numbers.The "logical reasons" you suggested weren't logical at all. You're basically excluding them because they favored Donovan.
LOL, no I don't think it's "Donovan's fault" but I also don't think it's "Romo's fault" that he happened to be born a few years after McNabb.I mean, you really think the fact that Tony Romo hasn't played as long is Donovan's fault in any ways?
Wow, I didn't think you'd be able to come up with a statement farther from what I actually said than the one where you ask me if Romo deserves to be in the HOF over McNabb, but you did it, congrats!That's like saying a Sheldon Brown should have made the pro bowl over DRC because Sheldon had to play hurt in the second half of the season.
Yes we are! And when both players' careers are over, it will make sense to include those stats! LOL, it's really not that hard to grasp "dude". I'll repeat this just one more time and hope that something finally sticks: I said that IF you looked at career stats AND removed counting stats from the equation (for the reasons that I've laboriously attempted to explain to you), THEN Romo would have better career stats at this point. I did NOT say that Romo has a better career than McNabb...I really hope you will be able to seperate those concepts, but at this point I'm not holding my breath.We're talking about career stats dude, that's the exact definition of cumulative collecting!
They certainly did, and (as I've stated I think FOUR times now) they will be completely relevant once their careers are done. Until then they are superfluous. I'll again give you the benefit of the doubt that you just have a semantic difference of opinion with regards to the term "career stats" (and also that you are somehow unable to grasp the concept of comparing two players who are at vastly different points in their career). I understand that it's not an easy thing to do, and that's the only reason that I removed counting stats from my original point, not because I think anything is "Donovan's fault".Are the cumulative yards, touchdowns, and victories not stats? Did they not occur over the respective players' careers?
Asked and answered. You are more than welcome to include them, I choose not to include them until both careers are done. I'm amazed that you take such issue with this.So why should they be excluded?
Good lord, it's like talking to a brick wall, I honestly think you need to go back and read what I said, only this time, try and comprehend all the words, not just the ones that you want to see.I mean, going by your same reasoning, you could say Aaron Rodgers has better career stats than John Elway! Higher YPG, better completion percentage, better rating, better TD/INT ratio, etc. Who can blame Aaron Rodgers for the fact that he's only played two years?
Hey look, a reasonable statement.He does have better non-counting stats. There's argument around that as to why Romo has better non-counting stats, but as far as the binary question goes he does.
ftfyThat being said, non-counting stats is not the same thing as a career.
Wow, I think maybe you just realized what I've been saying the whole time, let's hope it sticks!Okay...
Because I wanted to clarify that if I had to place them right now career-wise, I wouldn't put Manning over McNabb, it's really that simple.The question posed at the start of the thread was "Donovan Mcnabb, Eli Manning, or Tony Romo. All 3 are pro bowl quality players, but how would you rank em 1 to 3?" You were the one who brought up career stats out of the blue.
How does not including counting stats contradict the use of averaged stats? Did you even read ring's post that responded to you asking this the first time? The whole reason for averaged stats is to remove counting stats from the equation...you're not even making sense at this point. Longevity is certainly a part of a player's career, but you looked at a post where I explicitly stated that I was making a list of career stats that don't include counting stats....and then said "but counting stats!"...do you see why I might roll my eyes at that?That really contradicts your use of the averages then... Longevity is an extremely important and valuable attribute in the NFL,
No, I'm not including them for the reasons that I stated. Yeesh.and your completely ignoring it because it goes against your argument.
ftfyAgain...then why would you bring up career stats? McNabb has a better career now, that's simply an immobile fact.
Oh I think we all get what you think, you've repeated it for about 5 posts now.I'm saying you should base it off of every stat that's already occurred, including the counting ones.
Which is exactly why I stated that some could argue using averaged stats puts McNabb at an "unfair" disadvantage because of his decline due to age. Did you even read my posts?I'm not the one ignoring stats. I see the percentages and averages, and I know they're very good so far. However, he's only done it for four years.
That's a lovely opinion to have. If someone argues against it let me know.The fact that Donovan's done what he has for as long as he has should definitely be a higher value of priority than premature averages.
What on Earth are you talking about? "Rules" of statistics? Are you just pulling stuff out of thin air now? Sweet Jesus I'm done trying to explain this to you, it's like talking to a rock. I gave reasons for why I excluded certain stats, you are free to dislike those reasons all you want. Have a good day.You're only excluding the counting stats because you think it's only fair to level the playing field, when in fact there's no rule that you have to do that in statistics. Statistics are facts, and if you're going to depict them you have to include every stat.
Last edited by Zep; 01-17-2010 at 11:27 AM.
Primetime, cHi8DaL5LA420 I miss you guys.
Not the same without you.
Does Tony Romo have better career stats than Donovan McNabb up to this very minute?
Please no further explanations around it.
That's the reasoning I'm getting behind your excuses.
How many threads is this guy going to start so he can talk about his bromance with Eli?
romo, mcnabb, and eli. towards the end of the year, it looked like romo turned a big corner. but for their entire careers, mcnabb would be ahead of romo because of his 5 nfc title appearances as well as a super bowl appearance.
I rhink Romos put this discussion to rest.