- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "When Brees passes Marino's mark, it deserves an asterisk"
Posted on 12/21/11 at 5:56 pm to Kafka
Posted on 12/21/11 at 5:56 pm to Kafka
quote:
And defensive schemes are more complex now than in 1984
The biggest evolution in the game over the last 30 years or so has been on offense. Both are more complex, its still a wash.
0
Posted on 12/21/11 at 6:02 pm to Melvin
I think you are projecting a bit much. But yes the idea of asteriks is stupid.
If Marino did it in fewer games that would be 1 thing, but it was 16 games in 84, just like today. Want to put asteriks by an NFL record? Look at rushing. OJ ran for 2003 in 14 games at a time when it was a running league and defenses were more geared to stop the run. Better than an asterik is ypg. The Juice was 143. Dickerson ran for 2105 (also in 84) in 16 games or 131.5/game.
If Marino did it in fewer games that would be 1 thing, but it was 16 games in 84, just like today. Want to put asteriks by an NFL record? Look at rushing. OJ ran for 2003 in 14 games at a time when it was a running league and defenses were more geared to stop the run. Better than an asterik is ypg. The Juice was 143. Dickerson ran for 2105 (also in 84) in 16 games or 131.5/game.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 6:09 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
OJ ran for 2003 in 14 games at a time when it was a running league and defenses were more geared to stop the run. Better than an asterik is ypg. The Juice was 143.
I believe the Saints were 1 of only 2 teams to hold him under 100 yards that year
But I dont feel like looking it up
Posted on 12/21/11 at 6:20 pm to Kafka
quote:
I believe the Saints were 1 of only 2 teams to hold him under 100 yards that year
But I dont feel like looking it up
You're correct...the Saints held him to 79 yards...the Dolphins to 55
Posted on 12/21/11 at 6:22 pm to busbeepbeep
fricking stupid
Posted on 12/21/11 at 6:22 pm to EastBankTiger
quote:
You're correct...the Saints held him to 79 yards...
Archie >>>> OJ
Posted on 12/21/11 at 7:05 pm to busbeepbeep
Decent points, but shouldn't be an asterisk.
This post was edited on 12/21/11 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 12/21/11 at 7:06 pm to busbeepbeep
But Marino doesn't deserve an asterisk either, Super Bowls mean shite to this record, that comment was dumb.
Posted on 12/21/11 at 9:28 pm to josh336
Joe Namath threw for 4007 yards in 14 games. Once he threw for 496 yards on 19 completion.....7 step drops and fly patterns, baby 
Posted on 12/22/11 at 12:48 am to josh336
quote:
Decent points, but shouldn't be an asterisk.
agree:
Did anyone ask, whether or not instant replays should be considered. In 84' instant replays weren't being used by the ref's. So what looked as a reception, or if the catch was made inbounds, was at the scrutiny of the ref. So I would say Brees yardage is actual and verifiable. Not to say Marino isn't deserving of what he accomplished.
No asterisk needed!!!!
Posted on 12/22/11 at 1:21 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:oh people can absolutely decide whether or not the accomplishment is greater or not and that's their opinion but to put an asterisk on a record based on the era that player played in is beyond stupid (unless more games were played)
I think you are projecting a bit much. But yes the idea of asteriks is stupid. If Marino did it in fewer games that would be 1 thing, but it was 16 games in 84, just like today. Want to put asteriks by an NFL record? Look at rushing. OJ ran for 2003 in 14 games at a time when it was a running league and defenses were more geared to stop the run. Better than an asterik is ypg. The Juice was 143. Dickerson ran for 2105 (also in 84) in 16 games or 131.5/game.
Posted on 12/22/11 at 7:46 am to busbeepbeep
Shouldn't Marino have an asterisk too since he set his record after the "Mel Blount Rule" was in place?
Posted on 12/22/11 at 8:05 am to CptRusty
quote:
What a load of crap..After this season, there definitely needs to be an asterisk on the top 5, but it doesn't need to go by Brees' name!
1. Drew Brees
2. Tom Brady
3. Dan Marino *
4. Drew Brees
5. Kurt Warner
* Only person on this list to never win a superbowl
Posted on 12/22/11 at 8:21 am to whodatfan
This article is complete trash.
Freeman forgets that until relatively recently, if you were really fast, you played offense. Period. there was no debate. it was not uncommon at all in the early 80s to have 2-3 WRs per team running 4.4-4.5 40s while you would have the opposing team have 2 DBs clocking 4.6 40s. That's just a fact. Darrell Green was the first true "oh my god he's fast and plays DB"...the defensive back position has completely changed over the last 30 years.
The honest reason that DBs were able to mug WRs at the line of scrimmage in the 80s is because they has ZERO chance of keeping up with WRs in that era. So long as the QB had 4 seconds to throw, he would ALWAYS connect with a wide open WR...unless of course, you allowed the DB to play with more contact.
Now, the athletes on the defensive side are every bit as good as the athletes on the offensive side of the ball. There is no need to allow the DBs to mug WRs.
All of this is evident in the fact that passing attempts have stayed relatively the same or increased a little and total passing yards per team HAS NOT INCREASED since 1984.
Jesus, it makes my head hurt thinking how stupid Freeman's article is...
Freeman forgets that until relatively recently, if you were really fast, you played offense. Period. there was no debate. it was not uncommon at all in the early 80s to have 2-3 WRs per team running 4.4-4.5 40s while you would have the opposing team have 2 DBs clocking 4.6 40s. That's just a fact. Darrell Green was the first true "oh my god he's fast and plays DB"...the defensive back position has completely changed over the last 30 years.
The honest reason that DBs were able to mug WRs at the line of scrimmage in the 80s is because they has ZERO chance of keeping up with WRs in that era. So long as the QB had 4 seconds to throw, he would ALWAYS connect with a wide open WR...unless of course, you allowed the DB to play with more contact.
Now, the athletes on the defensive side are every bit as good as the athletes on the offensive side of the ball. There is no need to allow the DBs to mug WRs.
All of this is evident in the fact that passing attempts have stayed relatively the same or increased a little and total passing yards per team HAS NOT INCREASED since 1984.
Jesus, it makes my head hurt thinking how stupid Freeman's article is...
Posted on 12/22/11 at 8:24 am to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
The idea of the asterik is stupid, but so are some of your comments like this. If defenses were less athletic then so were offenses, so its a wash.
Sorry, this is flat wrong. The era of the defensive back has changed. The athleticism at that position has changed completely. Super fast with good hips meant high school and college coaches played you at WR and RB. That's a fact. It's no longer true.
Posted on 12/22/11 at 9:39 am to busbeepbeep
quote:
the football culture has shifted from an extremely violent one to a just a violent one.
He calls himself a writer, but cannot get basic syntax correct. I, therefore, would give no weight to anything he writes.
Posted on 12/22/11 at 11:33 am to busbeepbeep
quote:
"When Brees passes Marino's mark, it deserves an asterisk"
Actually - the logic of those comments are very short-sighted. There is no mention of how today's athletes on the defensive side of the ball are bigger, faster, and more agile. There is no mention to the fact that Defensive schemes are much harder to read and much more advanced than 30 years ago. Sure, Lott was a bad arse at delivering the hit. But, how many Lotts were there? In today's game, EVERY team (well, except for maybe the Vikings) has at least one hard-hitting, quick lock-down corner. In general, the game is faster and the talent in the secondary is deeper.
It is what it is. Very few records can be compared play-by-play with history. Marino had the advantage of being an exceptional passer in a time when gunslinger QB's were not yet established as a primary weapon. The defensive backs in his day were geared for "making the receiver drop the pass". Bree's has the benefit of working in a well balanced offense that is geared to use swing passes and short routes in place of straight-up running. The defensive backs he is facing are geared to "break up the pass before the receiver touches the ball" Different skills, different times.
To suggest an asterisk is necessary is rediculous, unless you also add an asterisk to Marino's record with all the caveats of his yards during his playing time.
This post was edited on 12/22/11 at 11:34 am
Posted on 12/22/11 at 11:57 am to TxHillsTiger
so we might as well put astericks by all the old timey records cuz ya know it was set by old slow white people
Posted on 12/22/11 at 12:12 pm to busbeepbeep
quote:If it were Brady sports media would demand an exclamation point.
When Brees passes Marino's mark, it deserves an asterisk
He makes valid points, but nothing that should demand an asterisk. Defenses can't hit a QB anymore and can't patrol the middle like he says, but they are faster, smarter, and more technically and fundamentally sound than they were when Marino set his mark.
Plus, Brees is about to do it with five games to spare. So,
that guy.Posted on 12/22/11 at 12:51 pm to CajunBandit
Yeah I don't understand why there is a need to knock it. Hes going to break the record by probably 300 yards or more. Its not like he's barely breaking it.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News