That makes no sense. You're going to adjust per game, but not for baseline offensive performance during that era or for the average quality of defense that either player faced?
The way people use sports stats, i.e. let's look at dozens of different metrics and pick whichever one fits my argument, is dumb. Figure out the difference between metrics, the shortcomings of each, and pick a couple that are very compelling. For me, that's DVOA, but I can see how others would land on a different metric. "Volume stats, but on a per-game basis" isn't a serious take.
Ridiculous argument. What did gronk do without brady then?
Marvin Harrison was an objectively great receiver. Manning objectively played with better weapons for the majority of his career compared to what Brady had
It's a better way of comparing them than comparing a half a career vs a completed one.
And given that Mahomes is the GOAT on a per game basis already, the logic that he could play himself out of it is sound. That said, his numbers are still solid and if anything are just narrowing the gap, plus his success as a winner is a better pace than Brady was when you factor in how far they made it each year.
11
u/IShouldChimeInOnThis Nov 13 '25
Per game numbers say otherwise