@JoeBanzai said:
I remember Mr. Anderson well. Kind of like Dan Marino before Dan Marino. Also like Kurt Warner was when he was great.
But Warner won a SB. I t does mean something.
Yes Warner did. I was referring to their combination of accuracy and arm strength. I remember seeing a special about Anderson and he was incredible.
Speaking of accuracy and arm strength......that new gun slinging kid in K.C. isn't bad either. He can even switch hands running left and throw a TD pass!
@garnettstyle said:
The QB gets the most credit when his team wins. If Ken Anderson won a super bowl, he would be in the HOF.
Both of these are unarguably true statements. My point, which I am having a heck of a time getting anyone to address here or in any other thread, is that they are both true for no particularly good reason.
In baseball discussions everyone (everyone whose opinion matters) understands that an argument for how great a player is/was must be based on facts that don't depend on how great his teammates were. Frankie Crosetti won 8 World Series, but you don't hear people arguing that he's the GOAT shortstop.
What I'd like to hear is an argument in support of a GOAT QB that doesn't depend on how how great his whole team was (Super Bowl wins), how great his offensive line was (completion %) or how great his receivers (and O line) were (QB rating). I'd like to hear that argument, but it's not possible to make it because football is a team game, not an individual game like baseball.
Rather than arguing for a GOAT, I'll say that Ken Anderson (0 Super Bowls) impressed me more than any other QB I watched, and Earl Campbell (0 Super Bowls) impressed me more than any other running back. That they were on otherwise poor teams that they could not carry on their backs all the way to a SB win is no more a mark against them than it is a mark against Ted Williams. I'm not saying SB wins aren't quite as important as some of you are saying they are, I'm saying that they are not important at all.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@garnettstyle said:
The QB gets the most credit when his team wins. If Ken Anderson won a super bowl, he would be in the HOF.
Both of these are unarguably true statements. My point, which I am having a heck of a time getting anyone to address here or in any other thread, is that they are both true for no particularly good reason.
In baseball discussions everyone (everyone whose opinion matters) understands that an argument for how great a player is/was must be based on facts that don't depend on how great his teammates were. Frankie Crosetti won 8 World Series, but you don't hear people arguing that he's the GOAT shortstop.
What I'd like to hear is an argument in support of a GOAT QB that doesn't depend on how how great his whole team was (Super Bowl wins), how great his offensive line was (completion %) or how great his receivers (and O line) were (QB rating). I'd like to hear that argument, but it's not possible to make it because football is a team game, not an individual game like baseball.
Rather than arguing for a GOAT, I'll say that Ken Anderson (0 Super Bowls) impressed me more than any other QB I watched, and Earl Campbell (0 Super Bowls) impressed me more than any other running back. That they were on otherwise poor teams that they could not carry on their backs all the way to a SB win is no more a mark against them than it is a mark against Ted Williams. I'm not saying SB wins aren't quite as important as some of you are saying they are, I'm saying that they are not important at all.
My point exactly when bringing up Fran Tarkenton. Didn't have a great arm, but he was amazing.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@garnettstyle said:
The QB gets the most credit when his team wins. If Ken Anderson won a super bowl, he would be in the HOF.
Both of these are unarguably true statements. My point, which I am having a heck of a time getting anyone to address here or in any other thread, is that they are both true for no particularly good reason.
In baseball discussions everyone (everyone whose opinion matters) understands that an argument for how great a player is/was must be based on facts that don't depend on how great his teammates were. Frankie Crosetti won 8 World Series, but you don't hear people arguing that he's the GOAT shortstop.
What I'd like to hear is an argument in support of a GOAT QB that doesn't depend on how how great his whole team was (Super Bowl wins), how great his offensive line was (completion %) or how great his receivers (and O line) were (QB rating). I'd like to hear that argument, but it's not possible to make it because football is a team game, not an individual game like baseball.
Rather than arguing for a GOAT, I'll say that Ken Anderson (0 Super Bowls) impressed me more than any other QB I watched, and Earl Campbell (0 Super Bowls) impressed me more than any other running back. That they were on otherwise poor teams that they could not carry on their backs all the way to a SB win is no more a mark against them than it is a mark against Ted Williams. I'm not saying SB wins aren't quite as important as some of you are saying they are, I'm saying that they are not important at all.
its a team game , whats not important is any player , they are just cogs in the machine . If you want to talk GOATs talk tennis or golf or some other single athlete sport .
If you like team sports you should not be trying to isolate and elevate one person above the team
Obviously its a sports talk forum and no one is here to do anything in any way useful to anyone anywhere .... literally ever.
@stevek said:
It's time to realize as well that a HOF caliber quarterback certainly is capable of making the players around him look better than they are.
No one is arguing that point. At least I don't see it. Great teams can make average QBs winners too.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@stevek said:
It's time to realize as well that a HOF caliber quarterback certainly is capable of making the players around him look better than they are.
No one is arguing that point. At least I don't see it. Great teams can make average QBs winners too.
Well that's where the expertise comes in as to GOAT analysis. Was it the greatness of the QB that naturally made himself into a HOF player, or the greatness of the team around him that made the QB into a HOF player?
It's not even debatable that Roger Staubach made the players around him better. Same as Joe Montana who in my opinion is the GOAT.
@stevek said:
It's time to realize as well that a HOF caliber quarterback certainly is capable of making the players around him look better than they are.
No one is arguing that point. At least I don't see it. Great teams can make average QBs winners too.
I think Baltimore made Trent Dilfer......well, still Trent Dilfer.
@stevek said:
It's time to realize as well that a HOF caliber quarterback certainly is capable of making the players around him look better than they are.
No one is arguing that point. At least I don't see it. Great teams can make average QBs winners too.
I think Baltimore made Trent Dilfer......well, still Trent Dilfer.
Jim McMahon, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Eli Manning and Brad Johnson were not all time greats either.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@stevek said:
It's time to realize as well that a HOF caliber quarterback certainly is capable of making the players around him look better than they are.
Absolutely. But no QB ever has, or ever will, win a SB with a team that isn't at least very good no matter who they have at QB. Each and every QB is precisely as good as he is, whether he is on a great team or a lousy team. I would say that the logic behind thinking that only QBs who are on great teams can possibly be the GOAT escapes me, except that there is no logic at all behind the thought.
If Staubach was the GOAT QB playing for Dallas, or Montana playing for SF, then so be it. But then they would remain the GOAT QB of all time playing for the Saints, even though they would have won half as many games and no Super Bowls. Either that is correct, or the title of GOAT means nothing.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
I would say that the logic behind thinking that only QBs who are on great teams can possibly be the GOAT escapes me, except that there is no logic at all behind the thought.
>
I think its quite simple actually. No matter what the sport, its what you do in post-season that counts. Nobody remembers the player/team that was great during the regular season. Only the winners/champions.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@stevek said:
It's time to realize as well that a HOF caliber quarterback certainly is capable of making the players around him look better than they are.
Absolutely. But no QB ever has, or ever will, win a SB with a team that isn't at least very good no matter who they have at QB. Each and every QB is precisely as good as he is, whether he is on a great team or a lousy team. I would say that the logic behind thinking that only QBs who are on great teams can possibly be the GOAT escapes me, except that there is no logic at all behind the thought.
If Staubach was the GOAT QB playing for Dallas, or Montana playing for SF, then so be it. But then they would remain the GOAT QB of all time playing for the Saints, even though they would have won half as many games and no Super Bowls. Either that is correct, or the title of GOAT means nothing.
Absolutely correct!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
I would say that the logic behind thinking that only QBs who are on great teams can possibly be the GOAT escapes me, except that there is no logic at all behind the thought.
>
I think its quite simple actually. No matter what the sport, its what you do in post-season that counts. Nobody remembers the player/team that was great during the regular season. Only the winners/champions.
Very true, but what people remember doesn't mean one player is better. The only way any QB gets to be "remembered" is if his team is good/great during the regular season. Yet another factor that has changed from the 1960's when half the teams didn't make the playoffs.
In the example of Tarkenton vs. Staubach, you could bring in post season play as they were both on great teams at the same time and made the playoffs every year. However Rogers supporting cast on offense should be a greater factor than the SB records of the QBs.
When evaluating individual players in a team sport championships won should be the last and least valuable statistic.
Football even less than other team sports as there are so many other players involved.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Where do you guys rate Troy Aikman. He was on a great team....arguably the best team ever. But he still had to be a very good QB. I'm not saying GOAT by any means. But he did take his team to the SB 3 out of 4 years 92-95 and won! He did his job very well even though he had a great cast also.
@dallasactuary said:
I would say that the logic behind thinking that only QBs who are on great teams can possibly be the GOAT escapes me, except that there is no logic at all behind the thought.
>
I think its quite simple actually. No matter what the sport, its what you do in post-season that counts. Nobody remembers the player/team that was great during the regular season. Only the winners/champions.
Very true, but what people remember doesn't mean one player is better. The only way any QB gets to be "remembered" is if his team is good/great during the regular season. Yet another factor that has changed from the 1960's when half the teams didn't make the playoffs.
In the example of Tarkenton vs. Staubach, you could bring in post season play as they were both on great teams at the same time and made the playoffs every year. However Rogers supporting cast on offense should be a greater factor than the SB records of the QBs.
When evaluating individual players in a team sport championships won should be the last and least valuable statistic.
Football even less than other team sports as there are so many other players involved.
I never said it was fair. Its just the way it is. I'm sure there are a lot of great NFL players that played on bad teams, that are not in the hall. Archie Manning might be one of them. Or Ken Anderson.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@dallasactuary said:
I would say that the logic behind thinking that only QBs who are on great teams can possibly be the GOAT escapes me, except that there is no logic at all behind the thought.
>
I think its quite simple actually. No matter what the sport, its what you do in post-season that counts. Nobody remembers the player/team that was great during the regular season. Only the winners/champions.
Very true, but what people remember doesn't mean one player is better. The only way any QB gets to be "remembered" is if his team is good/great during the regular season. Yet another factor that has changed from the 1960's when half the teams didn't make the playoffs.
In the example of Tarkenton vs. Staubach, you could bring in post season play as they were both on great teams at the same time and made the playoffs every year. However Rogers supporting cast on offense should be a greater factor than the SB records of the QBs.
When evaluating individual players in a team sport championships won should be the last and least valuable statistic.
Football even less than other team sports as there are so many other players involved.
I never said it was fair. Its just the way it is. I'm sure there are a lot of great NFL players that played on bad teams, that are not in the hall. Archie Manning might be one of them. Or Ken Anderson.
It's not fair and it's also not correct. The entire GOAT discussion (while impossible to prove imo) is about not who everyone perceives is a great QB, but who actually was.
You are correct about Archie Manning and Ken Anderson.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@DIMEMAN said:
Where do you guys rate Troy Aikman. He was on a great team....arguably the best team ever. But he still had to be a very good QB. I'm not saying GOAT by any means. But he did take his team to the SB 3 out of 4 years 92-95 and won! He did his job very well even though he had a great cast also.
4 of his 12 years were pretty bad, 3 were good, 2 were very good and 3 were great. He was great in both regular season and playoffs in 1992,93 and 95.
Somewhat short career, threw too many interceptions in relation to TDs. If you take out the three best years he has more interceptions than TDs.
With Emmitt gaining 1000+ yards every year Troy only surpassed 3,000 yards passing 5 times and never made it to 3,500.
Good to very good QB. Good announcer.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@DIMEMAN said:
Where do you guys rate Troy Aikman. He was on a great team....arguably the best team ever. But he still had to be a very good QB. I'm not saying GOAT by any means. But he did take his team to the SB 3 out of 4 years 92-95 and won! He did his job very well even though he had a great cast also.
4 of his 12 years were pretty bad, 3 were good, 2 were very good and 3 were great. He was great in both regular season and playoffs in 1992,93 and 95.
Somewhat short career, threw too many interceptions in relation to TDs. If you take out the three best years he has more interceptions than TDs.
With Emmitt gaining 1000+ yards every year Troy only surpassed 3,000 yards passing 5 times and never made it to 3,500.
Good to very good QB. Good announcer.
I always figured his passing yards would have been a lot better if they were a passing team rather than a run first team.
Prescott's numbers will probably suffer also because of Zeke.
Another thing I always heard about Tarkenton is that he would throw a 5 yard pass to Foreman and Foreman would run for 40-50 yards. I never did see that much of Tarkenton……..did he not throw the long ball.
@DIMEMAN said:
Where do you guys rate Troy Aikman. I'm not saying GOAT by any means. But he did take his team to the SB 3 out of 4 years 92-95 and won!
This is what's known as begging the question. The argument being made is that it makes no sense to say that a QB "took his team to the Super Bowl". Troy Aikman did nothing but take his uniform to the cleaners his first season to get the grass stains off of his rear end. Then the Cowboys got Emmitt Smith and a half dozen other great players (through draft picks, mostly) from the Vikings, and the Cowboys then took Troy Aikman to the Super Bowl several times. I'm not convinced that Aikman was even better than average; I'm certain he wasn't great.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@DIMEMAN said:
Where do you guys rate Troy Aikman. I'm not saying GOAT by any means. But he did take his team to the SB 3 out of 4 years 92-95 and won!
This is what's known as begging the question. The argument being made is that it makes no sense to say that a QB "took his team to the Super Bowl". Troy Aikman did nothing but take his uniform to the cleaners his first season to get the grass stains off of his rear end. Then the Cowboys got Emmitt Smith and a half dozen other great players (through draft picks, mostly) from the Vikings, and the Cowboys then took Troy Aikman to the Super Bowl several times. I'm not convinced that Aikman was even better than average; I'm certain he wasn't great.
I couldn't disagree with you more on this whole statement. Every QB needs good protection and people to throw to. Once Aikman got that he was great. If Brady didn't get protection he would be on the ground a lot too.
@DIMEMAN said:
Another thing I always heard about Tarkenton is that he would throw a 5 yard pass to Foreman and Foreman would run for 40-50 yards. I never did see that much of Tarkenton……..did he not throw the long ball.
This is simply an idiotic statement. Foreman came into the league in 1973 only 12 years after Tarkenton. Foreman averaged 10 yards per catch.
In NY WR Homer Jones averaged 20 yards per catch when Fran was there and in Minnesota when Fran was there WR John Gilliam did as well, so Fran could get it down the field.
I would NOT say Fran had a cannon for an arm, but then neither did Montana, Staubach, or a lot of guys. Meaningless to the conversation. Bradshaw had a great arm, he was nowhere near the best QB of his era, in fact he struggled to beat out Terry Hanratty for the starting spot on his own team.
Instead of reporting what you heard (that happens to be incorrect) try finding some facts.
You are much better than that!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@DIMEMAN said:
Every QB needs good protection and people to throw to. Once Aikman got that he was great. If Brady didn't get protection he would be on the ground a lot too.
And what about the QBs who don't get good protection? That's my question. Your position is that it was other people who made Aikman great - that's pretty much word for word what you just said. Conversely, you're saying that without those other people, Aikman was not great.
My position is that if it was other people that made Aikman great, then it's those other people who ought to get the lion's share of the credit for the Cowboys' success. That it was those other people who took the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.
Ken Anderson didn't have the protection that Aikman had, and therefore he himself can't be considered great? No matter how many times I hear that argument, it will never make an iota of sense to me.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
It's true that you cannot accurately determine the sole importance of one player on a team, as all plays consist of several moving parts that need to succeed for a QB to be successful. But, you should be able to draw some distinction between a player like Aikman, who I obviously liked, and a guy like Brady or Elway among others. Aikman played most of his career with a HOF receiver, one of the greatest RBs, arguably one of the best OL in history and a top 2 defense for their entire Super Bowl run. Brady has never had a steady RB, nor HOF receiver (healthy) for any length of time, nor the best of lines and had only a few early great defenses. Same can be said about Elway. Although they arent/weren't 1 man teams, it is easy to see that they succeeded with much more weight placed upon their shoulders(arms).
@Darin said:
Joe Banzai- Speaking of too many interceptions in relation to TD passes, Fran Tarkenton comes to mind.
Tarkenton's % was .77 Aikman's was .85 Staubach's was .83 Bob Griese was .90 Unitas was .87 Bart Starr .90 Jurgenson was .74
Guess you're wrong.
I guess so. Didn't realize the old timers threw that many picks. You do have Staubachs' ratio incorrect,
I come up with .71 for him. Len Dawson's was .76, so he had practically all of his contemporaries beat.
@Darin said:
Joe Banzai- Speaking of too many interceptions in relation to TD passes, Fran Tarkenton comes to mind.
Tarkenton's % was .77 Aikman's was .85 Staubach's was .83 Bob Griese was .90 Unitas was .87 Bart Starr .90 Jurgenson was .74
Guess you're wrong.
I guess so. Didn't realize the old timers threw that many picks. You do have Staubachs' ratio incorrect,
I come up with .71 for him. Len Dawson's was .76, so he had practically all of his contemporaries beat.
Sorry, I was in a hurry. You are correct for Staubach. My point here is for some reason Tarkenton gets NO love, when he retired he was considered a GOAT, or at least in the conversation.
It really doesn't matter I will still be the only person here putting him in the top 5.
The old timers were a very different player the new stats certainly favor the new players and style of play.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
You can't compare QBs from different eras. It's been said numerous times, but people still try. The new QBs put up bigger numbers and play in a better environment for passing stats. The older QBs played in a tougher, rougher era to put up passing stats. At the end of the day, I don't think it is really a question which QBs are actually better QBs. The QBs of today's NFL are most likely much better passers and much better overall athletes than QBs of past eras. This does not mean that they would dominate in previous eras like they are now. But when it comes to football knowledge, passing ability, etc. they are probably better. QBs of years past were most likely tougher and excelled in a rougher game style. I do not believe that players like Otto Graham though would play well in today's NFL, but I think there is a chance that Tom Brady for example would still be a darn good QB in the 40s and 50s.
What I Collect:
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
Otto Graham may do even better in todays' game. Wasn't the football a lot bigger and
harder to throw back in his day? I've seen pictures from back then and the football sure looks bigger.
@orioles93 said:
You can't compare QBs from different eras. It's been said numerous times, but people still try. The new QBs put up bigger numbers and play in a better environment for passing stats. The older QBs played in a tougher, rougher era to put up passing stats. At the end of the day, I don't think it is really a question which QBs are actually better QBs. The QBs of today's NFL are most likely much better passers and much better overall athletes than QBs of past eras. This does not mean that they would dominate in previous eras like they are now. But when it comes to football knowledge, passing ability, etc. they are probably better. QBs of years past were most likely tougher and excelled in a rougher game style. I do not believe that players like Otto Graham though would play well in today's NFL, but I think there is a chance that Tom Brady for example would still be a darn good QB in the 40s and 50s.
Agree completely with the first half of your post. QBs now can't be compared with those from an earlier era and have the game tailored for their success. The running game has devolved into a run on 1st down option, for the most part.
In the mid 1970's QBs passed about 25 times a game and completed just over 50% of the passes for under 200 YPG. In the last 10 years they are throwing about 35 times a game, completing over 60% for over 225 YPG, those 10 extra passes are often short, high percentage plays that take the place of a run.
I think the way the numbers are compiled now overstate the quality of QB play. If you look at YPC it has gone down from 14-15 in the early 1960's to about 11.5 in today's game. Shorter passes are easier to complete, so the completion % SHOULD be higher.
What I don't understand is how often this ridiculous notion of athletes being better now than in the past is. Yes, there have been advances in training and especially sports medicine, but IF the athletes of the past played now they would have the same benefits.
I think all the QBs mentioned would be great in any era.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Yes Warner did. I was referring to their combination of accuracy and arm strength. I remember seeing a special about Anderson and he was incredible.
Speaking of accuracy and arm strength......that new gun slinging kid in K.C. isn't bad either. He can even switch hands running left and throw a TD pass!
Strike that from the record its hearsay, or seesay I guess if thats an actual word.
Both of these are unarguably true statements. My point, which I am having a heck of a time getting anyone to address here or in any other thread, is that they are both true for no particularly good reason.
In baseball discussions everyone (everyone whose opinion matters) understands that an argument for how great a player is/was must be based on facts that don't depend on how great his teammates were. Frankie Crosetti won 8 World Series, but you don't hear people arguing that he's the GOAT shortstop.
What I'd like to hear is an argument in support of a GOAT QB that doesn't depend on how how great his whole team was (Super Bowl wins), how great his offensive line was (completion %) or how great his receivers (and O line) were (QB rating). I'd like to hear that argument, but it's not possible to make it because football is a team game, not an individual game like baseball.
Rather than arguing for a GOAT, I'll say that Ken Anderson (0 Super Bowls) impressed me more than any other QB I watched, and Earl Campbell (0 Super Bowls) impressed me more than any other running back. That they were on otherwise poor teams that they could not carry on their backs all the way to a SB win is no more a mark against them than it is a mark against Ted Williams. I'm not saying SB wins aren't quite as important as some of you are saying they are, I'm saying that they are not important at all.
My point exactly when bringing up Fran Tarkenton. Didn't have a great arm, but he was amazing.
its a team game , whats not important is any player , they are just cogs in the machine . If you want to talk GOATs talk tennis or golf or some other single athlete sport .
If you like team sports you should not be trying to isolate and elevate one person above the team
Obviously its a sports talk forum and no one is here to do anything in any way useful to anyone anywhere .... literally ever.
@dallasactuary - I would disagree with your last statement. Postseason ability including SB's does matter and is important.
It's time to realize as well that a HOF caliber quarterback certainly is capable of making the players around him look better than they are.
No one is arguing that point. At least I don't see it. Great teams can make average QBs winners too.
Well that's where the expertise comes in as to GOAT analysis. Was it the greatness of the QB that naturally made himself into a HOF player, or the greatness of the team around him that made the QB into a HOF player?
It's not even debatable that Roger Staubach made the players around him better. Same as Joe Montana who in my opinion is the GOAT.
NFL Approximate Value Career Leaders (according to Pro Football Reference)
1 Peyton Manning 271
2 Tom Brady 255
Brett Favre 255
4 Jerry Rice 250
5 Drew Brees 239
6 Fran Tarkenton 236
29 Joe Montana 164
Big surprise to me that Montana is 29th! Happy to see my guy at #6 ;-)
I think Baltimore made Trent Dilfer......well, still Trent Dilfer.
Jim McMahon, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Eli Manning and Brad Johnson were not all time greats either.
Absolutely. But no QB ever has, or ever will, win a SB with a team that isn't at least very good no matter who they have at QB. Each and every QB is precisely as good as he is, whether he is on a great team or a lousy team. I would say that the logic behind thinking that only QBs who are on great teams can possibly be the GOAT escapes me, except that there is no logic at all behind the thought.
If Staubach was the GOAT QB playing for Dallas, or Montana playing for SF, then so be it. But then they would remain the GOAT QB of all time playing for the Saints, even though they would have won half as many games and no Super Bowls. Either that is correct, or the title of GOAT means nothing.
>
I think its quite simple actually. No matter what the sport, its what you do in post-season that counts. Nobody remembers the player/team that was great during the regular season. Only the winners/champions.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Absolutely correct!
Very true, but what people remember doesn't mean one player is better. The only way any QB gets to be "remembered" is if his team is good/great during the regular season. Yet another factor that has changed from the 1960's when half the teams didn't make the playoffs.
In the example of Tarkenton vs. Staubach, you could bring in post season play as they were both on great teams at the same time and made the playoffs every year. However Rogers supporting cast on offense should be a greater factor than the SB records of the QBs.
When evaluating individual players in a team sport championships won should be the last and least valuable statistic.
Football even less than other team sports as there are so many other players involved.
Where do you guys rate Troy Aikman. He was on a great team....arguably the best team ever. But he still had to be a very good QB. I'm not saying GOAT by any means. But he did take his team to the SB 3 out of 4 years 92-95 and won! He did his job very well even though he had a great cast also.
I never said it was fair. Its just the way it is. I'm sure there are a lot of great NFL players that played on bad teams, that are not in the hall. Archie Manning might be one of them. Or Ken Anderson.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
It's not fair and it's also not correct. The entire GOAT discussion (while impossible to prove imo) is about not who everyone perceives is a great QB, but who actually was.
You are correct about Archie Manning and Ken Anderson.
4 of his 12 years were pretty bad, 3 were good, 2 were very good and 3 were great. He was great in both regular season and playoffs in 1992,93 and 95.
Somewhat short career, threw too many interceptions in relation to TDs. If you take out the three best years he has more interceptions than TDs.
With Emmitt gaining 1000+ yards every year Troy only surpassed 3,000 yards passing 5 times and never made it to 3,500.
Good to very good QB. Good announcer.
Warren Moon was one guy that always made my list, he spent some quality time in Canada too. I would put him in my top 10
I always figured his passing yards would have been a lot better if they were a passing team rather than a run first team.
Prescott's numbers will probably suffer also because of Zeke.
Joe Banzai- Speaking of too many interceptions in relation to TD passes, Fran Tarkenton comes to mind.
Another thing I always heard about Tarkenton is that he would throw a 5 yard pass to Foreman and Foreman would run for 40-50 yards. I never did see that much of Tarkenton……..did he not throw the long ball.
This is what's known as begging the question. The argument being made is that it makes no sense to say that a QB "took his team to the Super Bowl". Troy Aikman did nothing but take his uniform to the cleaners his first season to get the grass stains off of his rear end. Then the Cowboys got Emmitt Smith and a half dozen other great players (through draft picks, mostly) from the Vikings, and the Cowboys then took Troy Aikman to the Super Bowl several times. I'm not convinced that Aikman was even better than average; I'm certain he wasn't great.
Tarkenton's % was .77 Aikman's was .85 Staubach's was .83 Bob Griese was .90 Unitas was .87 Bart Starr .90 Jurgenson was .74
Guess you're wrong.
I couldn't disagree with you more on this whole statement. Every QB needs good protection and people to throw to. Once Aikman got that he was great. If Brady didn't get protection he would be on the ground a lot too.
This is simply an idiotic statement. Foreman came into the league in 1973 only 12 years after Tarkenton. Foreman averaged 10 yards per catch.
In NY WR Homer Jones averaged 20 yards per catch when Fran was there and in Minnesota when Fran was there WR John Gilliam did as well, so Fran could get it down the field.
I would NOT say Fran had a cannon for an arm, but then neither did Montana, Staubach, or a lot of guys. Meaningless to the conversation. Bradshaw had a great arm, he was nowhere near the best QB of his era, in fact he struggled to beat out Terry Hanratty for the starting spot on his own team.
Instead of reporting what you heard (that happens to be incorrect) try finding some facts.
You are much better than that!
And what about the QBs who don't get good protection? That's my question. Your position is that it was other people who made Aikman great - that's pretty much word for word what you just said. Conversely, you're saying that without those other people, Aikman was not great.
My position is that if it was other people that made Aikman great, then it's those other people who ought to get the lion's share of the credit for the Cowboys' success. That it was those other people who took the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.
Ken Anderson didn't have the protection that Aikman had, and therefore he himself can't be considered great? No matter how many times I hear that argument, it will never make an iota of sense to me.
It's true that you cannot accurately determine the sole importance of one player on a team, as all plays consist of several moving parts that need to succeed for a QB to be successful. But, you should be able to draw some distinction between a player like Aikman, who I obviously liked, and a guy like Brady or Elway among others. Aikman played most of his career with a HOF receiver, one of the greatest RBs, arguably one of the best OL in history and a top 2 defense for their entire Super Bowl run. Brady has never had a steady RB, nor HOF receiver (healthy) for any length of time, nor the best of lines and had only a few early great defenses. Same can be said about Elway. Although they arent/weren't 1 man teams, it is easy to see that they succeeded with much more weight placed upon their shoulders(arms).
I guess so. Didn't realize the old timers threw that many picks. You do have Staubachs' ratio incorrect,
I come up with .71 for him. Len Dawson's was .76, so he had practically all of his contemporaries beat.
Sorry, I was in a hurry. You are correct for Staubach. My point here is for some reason Tarkenton gets NO love, when he retired he was considered a GOAT, or at least in the conversation.
It really doesn't matter I will still be the only person here putting him in the top 5.
The old timers were a very different player the new stats certainly favor the new players and style of play.
You can't compare QBs from different eras. It's been said numerous times, but people still try. The new QBs put up bigger numbers and play in a better environment for passing stats. The older QBs played in a tougher, rougher era to put up passing stats. At the end of the day, I don't think it is really a question which QBs are actually better QBs. The QBs of today's NFL are most likely much better passers and much better overall athletes than QBs of past eras. This does not mean that they would dominate in previous eras like they are now. But when it comes to football knowledge, passing ability, etc. they are probably better. QBs of years past were most likely tougher and excelled in a rougher game style. I do not believe that players like Otto Graham though would play well in today's NFL, but I think there is a chance that Tom Brady for example would still be a darn good QB in the 40s and 50s.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
Otto Graham may do even better in todays' game. Wasn't the football a lot bigger and
harder to throw back in his day? I've seen pictures from back then and the football sure looks bigger.
Agree completely with the first half of your post. QBs now can't be compared with those from an earlier era and have the game tailored for their success. The running game has devolved into a run on 1st down option, for the most part.
In the mid 1970's QBs passed about 25 times a game and completed just over 50% of the passes for under 200 YPG. In the last 10 years they are throwing about 35 times a game, completing over 60% for over 225 YPG, those 10 extra passes are often short, high percentage plays that take the place of a run.
I think the way the numbers are compiled now overstate the quality of QB play. If you look at YPC it has gone down from 14-15 in the early 1960's to about 11.5 in today's game. Shorter passes are easier to complete, so the completion % SHOULD be higher.
What I don't understand is how often this ridiculous notion of athletes being better now than in the past is. Yes, there have been advances in training and especially sports medicine, but IF the athletes of the past played now they would have the same benefits.
I think all the QBs mentioned would be great in any era.