Patrick Mahomes Prices

[tjforce]

To put it to something that can be compared apples to apples:

Mahomes has had the best 20's of any QB. And in my opinion, it's been enough to place him above guys like Rodgers, who accomplished less in almost 3x as long of a career. Similar story with Brees.

[49erRCCollector]

Originally Posted by KardsC1

Mahomes is clearly #2 for me.
2 MVPs, 3 SB MVPs = 5 total
Brady has 8 total
Montana has same as Mahomes

Difference is Mahomes did it in 7 yrs vs 16 Montana
The rest of mahomes career is “additional”..I would gladly bet that he will add to this MVP list

Mahomes also has records (fastest to x yards, x TDs etc)..so he’s not average all year then plays well only in playoffs …though the last two years took a dip

Mahomes already has more playoff Ws than Montana at 7 yrs Vs 16
People forget Montana had bad playoff games too…sure he was excellent in the biggest game, but let’s not downplay playoff games..playoff games are extremely difficult to win (even though Mahomes has made it look easy (17-4 record))

Disagree. You’re super cherry picking to suit the outcome you want.

Montana had zero interceptions in 4 Super Bowls wins.

Mahomes has had 7 in 5 (3 wins).

[slyguy]

Originally Posted by Brazenways

What’s your napkin math estimate on how many silvers produced? Has to be well over 10k of them out there.

1 silver prizm per fat pack or hanger, lower rate in mega or blast or retail. Some in hobby.

400 card set for prizm NFL 2024 (all of which have silver prizm version).

There would have to be over 4mil fat/hanger/blast/mega packs to have 10k Mahomes silver (10k x 400 card set).
So no, there are just not that many (although Panini printed a whole lot).

Maybe half that, sure.
But I fully expect Mahomes to get to the point where even base cards aren't found for under a buck or two (like MJ, Brady, other greats). Silver prizms will be fairly valued long term.

[KardsC1]

Originally Posted by 49erRCCollector

Disagree. You’re super cherry picking to suit the outcome you want.

Montana had zero interceptions in 4 Super Bowls wins.

Mahomes has had 7 in 5 (3 wins).

So your GOAT meter is SB performance..ok I get it..the rest of a players career means nothing …it’s SB stats or bust…
To me, like most people, a persons Career is based on regular seasons, playoffs, SBs..I get the your view only if you just watch SB only ..but most true nfl fans watch more than that

[codered]

Originally Posted by KardsC1

Mahomes is clearly #2 for me.
2 MVPs, 3 SB MVPs = 5 total
Brady has 8 total
Montana has same as Mahomes

Difference is Mahomes did it in 7 yrs vs 16 Montana
The rest of mahomes career is “additional”..I would gladly bet that he will add to this MVP list

Mahomes also has records (fastest to x yards, x TDs etc)..so he’s not average all year then plays well only in playoffs …though the last two years took a dip

Mahomes already has more playoff Ws than Montana at 7 yrs Vs 16
People forget Montana had bad playoff games too…sure he was excellent in the biggest game, but let’s not downplay playoff games..playoff games are extremely difficult to win (even though Mahomes has made it look easy (17-4 record))

Can’t take you serious with your cherry picking

Mahomes has played 8 seasons, not 7. Oh he didn’t start his first season? Neither did Montana. He didn’t become the full time starter until the later half of his second season. He also didn’t play the 91 season because he was injured and played a single half game in 92 coming back from the same injury.

So to say and compare 7 season for Mahomes and to 16 for Montana is extremely disingenuous

[KardsC1]

Originally Posted by codered

Can’t take you serious with your cherry picking

Mahomes has played 8 seasons, not 7. Oh he didn’t start his first season? Neither did Montana. He didn’t become the full time starter until the later half of his second season. He also didn’t play the 91 season because he was injured and played a single half game in 92 coming back from the same injury.

So to say and compare 7 season for Mahomes and to 16 for Montana is extremely disingenuous

So 7 yrs vs 13yrs? I’d still take 7 yrs
Let’s not forget, Montana played in a league of no salary caps..his teams were loaded on both sides…mahomes for the last 3 years have been playing with subpar offensive weapons and never had a good RB…JuJu and Hardman can’t even make it on most rosters ..

[Fenway55]

Originally Posted by KardsC1

Mahomes is clearly #2 for me.
2 MVPs, 3 SB MVPs = 5 total
Brady has 8 total
Montana has same as Mahomes

Difference is Mahomes did it in 7 yrs vs 16 Montana
The rest of mahomes career is “additional”..I would gladly bet that he will add to this MVP list

There's 2 problems with the above logic:

1) No one really gives a crap about League MVP's. Otherwise we'd all be spending our money on Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre the way we do Brady and Mahomes. (Don't get me wrong.... those guys are popular, but they just aren't in the Brady/Mahomes league)

2) By only counting Super Bowl MVP's, you're ignoring the Super Bowls a guy won where he wasn't the MVP. That's convenient for a Mahomes supporter where he didn't win any Super Bowls where he wasn't the MVP, but Montana is still remembered as having 4 titles (not 3) and Brady 7 (not 5).

[KardsC1]

Originally Posted by Fenway55

There's 2 problems with the above logic:

1) No one really gives a crap about MVP's. Otherwise we'd all be spending our money on Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre the way we do Brady and Mahomes. (Don't get me wrong.... those guys are popular, but they just aren't in the Brady/Mahomes league)

2) By only counting Super Bowl MVP's, you're ignoring the Super Bowls a guy won where he wasn't the MVP. That's convenient for a Mahomes supporter where he didn't win any Super Bowls where he wasn't the MVP, but Montana is still remembered as having 4 titles (not 3) and Brady 7 (not 5).

It’s a combo of SBs, Sb mvps, MVPs, stats, regular season , winning % etc…it’s definitely just not one thing ..now if mahomes had 1 or even 2 rings, it’s a different story..by having 3, he’s already joined only 5 QBs to ever do that..

[codered]

Originally Posted by KardsC1

So 7 yrs vs 13yrs? I’d still take 7 yrs
Let’s not forget, Montana played in a league of no salary caps..his teams were loaded on both sides…mahomes for the last 3 years have been playing with subpar offensive weapons and never had a good RB…JuJu and Hardman can’t even make it on most rosters ..

What!!??? Montana played in an era without true free agency. Salary caps were pretty irrelevant when the team that drafted you essentially controlled your destiny. Coincidentally Montana’s last two season with the chiefs were the first two seasons the nfl had true free agency like we know it today.

Subpar weapons!? I thought kelce was the greatest tight end of all time (according to a bunch of people in the kelce vs. Gronk thread). Pacheco is a good RB. He might not quite be a top 10 guy but he’s not a bum either

[Fenway55]

Originally Posted by codered

Subpar weapons!? I thought kelce was the greatest tight end of all time (according to a bunch of people in the kelce vs. Gronk thread).

Travis Kelce is Schrodinger's Tight End. He is simultaneously the greatest TE of all time and a sub-par weapon.

[KardsC1]

Originally Posted by Fenway55

Travis Kelce is Schrodinger's Tight End. He is simultaneously the greatest TE of all time and a sub-par weapon.

Kelce was good two years ago, last year he was ok..this year he was subpar
Father Time is undefeated

[49erRCCollector]

Let's also not forget Montana took over a team that was 2-14 the year he was drafted.

His offense in 1981 the SB:

Joe Montana QB
Ricky Patton RB
Earl Cooper FB
Freddie Solomon WR
Dwight Clark WR
Charle Young TE
Dan Audick LT
John Ayers LG
Fred Quillan C
Randy Cross RG
Keith Fahnhorst RT

Mahomes took over a 10-6 divisional 1st place team that was 12-4 the year prior.

If we're just going to select stats that support out desired outcome in an argument rather than being truthful.

Mahomes is going to be an all time great. But why can't we be honest?

Again - the market for cards is separate from logic, especially post-covid.

[Fenway55]

Originally Posted by KardsC1

Kelce was good two years ago, last year he was ok..this year he was subpar

By an amazing coincidence, Mahomes was good two years ago and last year he was ok and this year he was subpar.

That aside, they don't win the Super Bowl 2 years ago without Kelce.

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by tjforce

To put it to something that can be compared apples to apples:

Mahomes has had the best 20's of any QB. And in my opinion, it's been enough to place him above guys like Rodgers, who accomplished less in almost 3x as long of a career. Similar story with Brees.

Very much agree with this.

[blackandgold]

To me this year if Mahomes wins Superbowl 3 times in a row you could pencil him in possibly being right behind Brady or close to it BUT after that drubbing in the Superbowl and his subpar season stats wise thats a big NO. I said this earlier in the season about his card values falling if he didnt win the Superbowl To me you playing a very dangerous game investing in him considering his team doesnt look to be getting any better losing Kelce and really not having any other playmakers on the team

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

I hate GOAT discussions because no matter how hard people try, you can't compare different eras. Terry Bradshaw had a great point the other day. He won four Super Bowls in six years and he did it with no radio in his helmet and calling all of his own plays. Maybe some of today's QBs would be good at calling their own plays, maybe not. We'll never know.

Two points on this:

1) Bradshaw is probably the 2nd most overrated QB of all-time; just past Aikman. It's pretty easy to call the offense without a radio in your helmet when a) most of the plays are running plays, and b) the call sheet has 20% of the plays of a modern offense. The guy won his first two SB's attempting ~18 passes per game and completing just 10. C'mon.

2) He is right about determining which QB's could orchestrate stuff on their own. It's one of my only complaints about the modern NFL. Essentially, every QB is a "system QB" now who needs to execute what the coaches want. The days of Manning and Rodgers essentially calling their own offense is over. Coaches have took an artistic element of the game away, IMO. And maybe it all comes back to metrics/efficiency/analytics, but either way, I morn the inefficient (but more artistic) professional sports. Yeah, I want to see the QB have to be the main orchestrator of the offense; no, I'm not a big fan of seeing 7 guys on the right side of the field for a left-handed hitter in baseball; no, I'm not interested in watching two guys sprint to the corner 3 spots in the NBA and just stand there awaiting a kickout three.

Which brings me back to the actual thread topic. I'm well known to have Mahomes very high on the all-time list (somewhere between 2-4 depending on the day), but I absolutely hate how he's being made to play right now. Whether folks want to admit it or not, fans don't watch the NFL to see Mahomes and the Chiefs slog their way to another SB win every year. The average NFL fan tunes in to see greatness on display and Reid and the Chiefs have figuratively neutered Mahomes these past two years. I'm a fan of his style, but that's long gone now. Give me Josh Allen bruising his way down the field or Burrow slinging it 50 times, regardless of outcome. Mahomes is just boring to watch, and as you saw in the SB, quite confused when things aren't on-script anymore. I kind of get it. Their offense isn't stacked like it used to be, well, figure it out then, Veach. Next year could be a trainwreck if they don't make multiple, multiple moves. Free Mahomes!!

As you can see, I'm pretty over the "efficiency at all costs" movement in professional sports at the moment.

[daveyc1]

I am reading people talk about how having a bad game in the SB doesnt tarnish Pats legacy and everyone has bad games etc...

there are degrees of ¨importance¨ of losses for legacy. for example. a preseason loss is obviously not as important as a regular season loss. likewise, a regular season loss is not as important as a loss in the wild card round of playoffs.

you get the progression: WC loss < divisional series loss< Conference Championship loss<Super Bowl loss.

I would posit that the progression of importance of losses to ¨legacy¨ would be akin to the Richter scale. each level is not just another loss, but a loss a full magnitude worse than the previous round because each round further into the playoffs is SO much more important than the previous round. it is where the good teams are exposed by the great teams.

EX. an 8.0 earthquake is 32 times more powerful than a 7.0.

similarly, super bowl loss is significantly worse than a loss in the AFCCG. And losing badly in the SB is worse than a close loss, legacy wise.

[Delta5]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

I am reading people talk about how having a bad game in the SB doesnt tarnish Pats legacy and everyone has bad games etc...

there are degrees of ¨importance¨ of losses for legacy. for example. a preseason loss is obviously not as important as a regular season loss. likewise, a regular season loss is not as important as a loss in the wild card round of playoffs.

you get the progression: WC loss < divisional series loss< Conference Championship loss<Super Bowl loss.

I would posit that the progression of importance of losses to ¨legacy¨ would be akin to the Richter scale. each level is not just another loss, but a loss a full magnitude worse than the previous round because each round further into the playoffs is SO much more important than the previous round. it is where the good teams are exposed by the great teams.

EX. an 8.0 earthquake is 32 times more powerful than a 7.0.

similarly, super bowl loss is significantly worse than a loss in the AFCCG. And losing badly in the SB is worse than a close loss, legacy wise.

yup, with QBR of 1 in thr first half. Yikes

[boxbuster7]

damn nobody liked my 7th year jersey number orange prizm

[tjforce]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

I am reading people talk about how having a bad game in the SB doesnt tarnish Pats legacy and everyone has bad games etc...

there are degrees of ¨importance¨ of losses for legacy. for example. a preseason loss is obviously not as important as a regular season loss. likewise, a regular season loss is not as important as a loss in the wild card round of playoffs.

you get the progression: WC loss < divisional series loss< Conference Championship loss<Super Bowl loss.

I would posit that the progression of importance of losses to ¨legacy¨ would be akin to the Richter scale. each level is not just another loss, but a loss a full magnitude worse than the previous round because each round further into the playoffs is SO much more important than the previous round. it is where the good teams are exposed by the great teams.

EX. an 8.0 earthquake is 32 times more powerful than a 7.0.

similarly, super bowl loss is significantly worse than a loss in the AFCCG. And losing badly in the SB is worse than a close loss, legacy wise.

If Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, CJ Stroud, Justin Herbert, Trevor Lawrence, and a few other AFC QBs ever get to the Super Bowl and have the game Mahomes just had, it'll be the greatest accomplishments of their career to this point.

Other than that, the best accomplishment among that group was losing to the QB who got blown out in the playoffs during your MVP year in the AFC Championship game (Allen and Lamar the last 2 seasons).

I'll cut Burrow some credit here, because his biggest achievement is beating Mahomes once in the AFC championship game before blowing a 7 point lead in the Super Bowl by going scoreless his last 5 drives and losing by 3

[sethc1020]

Originally Posted by tjforce

If Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, CJ Stroud, Justin Herbert, Trevor Lawrence, and a few other AFC QBs ever get to the Super Bowl and have the game Mahomes just had, it'll be the greatest accomplishments of their career to this point.

Other than that, the best accomplishment among that group was losing to the QB who got blown out in the playoffs during your MVP year in the AFC Championship game (Allen and Lamar the last 2 seasons).

Man that hits hard!

[kipgen]

Isn't that why the conversation is Mahomes vs people like Brady and Montana and not Mahomes vs people like Lamar, Josh, Stroud, Herbert, etc?

[tjforce]

Originally Posted by kipgen

Isn't that why the conversation is Mahomes vs people like Brady and Montana and not Mahomes vs people like Lamar, Josh, Stroud, Herbert, etc?

Yes. And I think the Brady (and to a lessor degree) Montana are pointless at this juncture.

Brady had the greatest career and it spanned 23 seasons. Mahomes has had the best 8 year start to a career.

Compare relative spans (first 8 seasons, first 7 as starter, performance in their 20s) and you can have a reasonable discussion. But comparing Mahomes' 8 to Brady's 23 is a fools errand. Your never going to see anyone top 23 years worth of Brady in 8 years. Just won't happen. So why try?

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by tjforce

Yes. And I think the Brady (and to a lessor degree) Montana are pointless at this juncture.



Brady had the greatest career and it spanned 23 seasons. Mahomes has had the best 8 year start to a career.



Compare relative spans (first 8 seasons, first 7 as starter, performance in their 20s) and you can have a reasonable discussion. But comparing Mahomes' 8 to Brady's 23 is a fools errand. Your never going to see anyone top 23 years worth of Brady in 8 years. Just won't happen. So why try?

Because Mahomes is the latest, greatest. It always happens when young players come up and make waves. It happened with tom too. The difference is that he had to get to 5 before he was "annointed" people seem to want to crown Patty after 3. I remember when people wanted to say A. Rodger's would be goat after his SB. That ended up never happening. And he had at least as much physical ability as Patrick. Arm talent, speed, agility. And rodgers was more efficient.

10 years from now, it is likely everyone will be touting another young QB as goat. It is cyclical.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[tjforce]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

Because Mahomes is the latest, greatest. It always happens when young players come up and make waves. It happened with tom too. The difference is that he had to get to 5 before he was "annointed" people seem to want to crown Patty after 3. I remember when people wanted to say A. Rodger's would be goat after his SB. That ended up never happening. And he had at least as much physical ability as Patrick. Arm talent, speed, agility. And rodgers was more efficient.

10 years from now, it is likely everyone will be touting another young QB as goat. It is cyclical.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Can you tell me who specifically wants to crown Mahomes the GOAT after 3?