Pro Football Reference good; ESPN, still crappy
As we all know, ESPN's All-Decade team was a painful exercise in big media stupidity. First, creating an All-Decade team before the 2009 season begins made absolutely not sense as there are two there is one more NFL season left in this decade (2000-2009). Their team was created to do one thing and one thing only: Stir Internet chatter. Why else would they rank Tom Brady as the QB of the decade even though Peyton Manning destroys Brady in stats, team wins, and individual achievements? ESPN's reason for picking Brady was, Brady has more rings than Manning. Well, so does Ben Roethlisberger. If the number of rings are what defines a great QB (and stats, team wins, and individual achievements are all ignored, as ESPN often does), then the debate is not Brady v. Manning for the QB of the decade. It's Brady v. Roethlisberger.
Of course, this is moronic and silly, which is why ESPN's All-Decade team is little more than a joke among bloggers and football fans on the Internet.
We even had a chuckle at Paul Kuharsky's expense, and we like Paul (John Oehser speaks highly of him as well). But it is tough to take ESPN and their writers seriously when they think Tom Brady is the QB of the decade, especially when you read Pro Football Reference's excellent counter to ESPN's All-Decade team.
This is why the Internet is so great! ESPN, with its gazillions of dollars and All-Star-former-journalists-turned-"bloggers" writing countless articles about the best of the decade, churned out a colossal turd known as their All-Decade series. Meanwhile, a nice, well-maintained site like PFR counters with a better written, better researched All-Decade team even though they likely have 1/50th of ESPN's resources.
PFR also took the time to poke a little fun of ESPN a little bit as they introduced their series:
There’s one year left in the decade of the ’00s, but that didn’t stop ESPN from naming its All-decade offensive and defensive teams. It is obvious that we should wait for the 2009 season to unfold before we name the All-Decade team of the ’00s. But that doesn’t mean we can’t take a sneak peak at what the eventual team should look like.
Unlike ESPN's series, this one is well researched, thoughtful, and intelligent. I don't agree with everything listed (Marvin Harrison is far and away a better WR than Terrell Owens, and anyone who knows football will tell you that), but the series offers an impressive point of view on who is the best from 2000-2009.
For PFR, two Colts make the first team All-Decade: Peyton Manning and Jeff Saturday. They also tackle the Manning v. Brady "debate" in an intelligent way (unlike ESPN):
For all the accolades Brady receives (ESPN also named him their player of the decade), I was surprised to see he was only named 1st or 2nd team all pro twice in the decade. Even if you view Manning and Brady as equals, Manning’s played two more seasons than Brady this decade, something that should tip the scale in Manning’s favor for most observers.
Check out their blog for more detailed information on their All-Decade team. I highly recommended it.
0 recs |
16 comments
|
Comments
Allow me to start a dickish and pointless debate
There’s ONE year left in the decade, not two. Look, are you going to argue that the 90’s ended December 31st, 2000? Of course not. Decades are entirely determined by the second-to-last number in the year (Unlike the millennium, whose starting point is basically subjective). So an all-decade team IS premature, but only by one year, not two. Of course, the NFL schedule doesn’t adhere to the calendar, and so we’ll have to wait until February 2010 to make a final read on this decade.
by slash196 on Jul 6, 2009 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Calm down, my friend
I changed the text.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Jul 6, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t believe you.
Yeah, so I sold out, do something about it! Like read my site Colts Chatter.
by KingRichard on Jul 6, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always thought that this decade ran from 2001-2010,
for the same reason that you start counting at 1. You don’t go, “0…1….2…..3……” It’s what makes logical sense to me.
Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.
Man, I need a life...
Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: Joseph Addai, otherwise one as The Great Irrationally Hated One, is the first and only running back to rush for 1,000 yards in a season without starting a game in that season.
by Cassieper on Jul 6, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with Cassieper
How can you not love a team that does this?
by LovinBlue on Jul 6, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does this help?
The 90’s began 1/1/90 and ended 12/31/1999.
The tenth decade of the last century began one year later: 1/1/1991, and ended 12/31/2000.
Just like when I turned 39, the next day was the start of my 40th year. I was not yet in my forties… still 39.5, 39.6. 39.7 etc. But in my 40th year. That year didn’t get counted with candles and stuff until it was complete and I was 365 days into my 40th year.
I STILL adhere to the “you start with one” numbering system as the most justifiable. If you go way back in time, even theoretically and conceptually, there was no year zero. But I guess if you say “the 80s/90s” etc, you can start with the zero year.
ESPN is still wrong, of course, by AT LEAST a year, probably two.
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Jul 6, 2009 3:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
All-Pro
How is it that no one has noticed Tom Brady only making the All-Pro team twice this decade? What a great bit of info from PFR. In media-land, Pro-Bowlers are considered a popularity contest and usually won by the team with the most fans. How else would you explain the disproportionate amount of Jets and Giants players to make the game last year? Brett Favre was terrible the second half of the season, but it didn’t stop the New York homers from logging on in droves to vote for their QB. Oh, and there’s not limit to the number of times one person can fill out a Pro Bowl ballot. End result: the 3 QBs representing the AFC last year were Manning, Cutler and Favre.
I also find it amusing that Matt Cassel takes the same offense last year and manages the team to a 11-5 record. Methinks Tom Brady gets a little too much credit.
by Ironwind on Jul 6, 2009 4:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pats fans
usually excuse that with their “extremely easy” schedule last season. Funny that never comes up when talking about their ’07 streak.
"It's the greatest job in the world until Peyton comes off the field and you think his thumb might be broken and there's three minutes left in the AFC Championship Game and you're down by three to New England and you haven't taken a snap all year. Yeah, it's a great job until that point." - Jim Sorgi
by gizzardfanny on Jul 6, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand the '07 comment
Based on opponent’s 2006 win percentages and playoff appearances, the Patriots had the third toughest 2007 schedule in the league. For 2008, the Patriots were at 32. This would seem to contradict your statement.
Blogger at SBNation's Patriots blog, Pats Pulpit
by MaPatsFan on Jul 6, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
why would you use the previous year records once you have the final records for the season in question
FO says the 07 Pats had a slightly harder than usual schedule (putting the D in DVOA raised their rating 0.7%)
The 08 Pats had the 3rd easiest (D adjustment was -6.0%)
so you’re right but by about half as much as you thought.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 6, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why use DVOA?
Who else, other than FO, uses DVOA? Just trying to understand the reliance on that stat.
Blogger at SBNation's Patriots blog, Pats Pulpit
by MaPatsFan on Jul 6, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Yeah, so I sold out, do something about it! Like read my site Colts Chatter.
by KingRichard on Jul 6, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
more available than opponents record for the year we are judging
my point was that it would make more since to judge the 07 Pats SOS by their opponents 07 records, and the 08 Pats by their opponents 08 records, so the way you did it wasn’t even the best way with that type of data.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 6, 2009 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok
Blogger at SBNation's Patriots blog, Pats Pulpit
by MaPatsFan on Jul 6, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and because I think DVOA is better
but if I knew a place to quickly get the opponent’s record data I would have put both up.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 6, 2009 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's an even better point
I generally love the FO stats, but if you cannot find it already done, assembling a team’s opponent’s WL records is a bit of a hassle. DVOA is a pretty quick one-stop-shop for a point of comparison, whether you like FO or not.
Regarding Pro Bowls, even when it was just the pros voting on it it seemed like a guy’s rep—especially an OL—could carry him to Hawaii. “Jeez, he’s made it the past six seasons and he’s still pretty good—I’ll vote for him.” Grrrr. And the fan voting has only made it worse as a measure of a player’s worth. Adding to this, those numbers are considered meaningful when Canton comes calling (at least they are brought up a lot in discussions). Yeah, he might have made nine Pro Bowls in 11 seasons, but he only deserved FOUR of them! That changes things, no? Further adding to the unsuitability of PB selections as a factor in voting for the HOF is the change in the PB timing—now if your team makes the SB three times in your peak decade (when you are presumably playing well), that’s 3 PBs you are guaranted to miss. I assume you get credit for the votes, however…. If you took multiple PBs off Brady’s stat sheet, it would look even less impressive (while losing one out of nine would hardly diminish Manning’s).
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Jul 7, 2009 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















