THe difference between Brady having three rings and Staubach only one pretty much boils down to the fact that Staubach had to play one of the best teams in the history of the NFL in two of his Super Bowls, which of course they lost.
>>
CORRECTION. Roger Has two SB Rings. Even though Roger fell short in Super Bowl 13 against the Juggernuaght Steelers the Cowboys were given little chance to EVEN compete in the game. It was one of the single greatest performances I ever seen Roger have and it was in a losing cause. After the heart breaking Jackie Smith Drop. Roger was down 35-17 late in the fourth of that game. Staubach's determination and pure heart and soul guts orchestrated two scoring drives with Roger throwing two TD's. NOBODY but Roger hangs 31 points on that Steeler Defense. If not for the Jackie Smith Drop, Roger would have won that game and broke that Steeler Dynasty. But it was not to be. I was still never more proud of Roger Staubach than that game. He was the Greatest QB I have ever seen Play.
<<< Staubach WAS the system >>>
<<<That is totally incorrect - Tom Landry was the system.>>>
Landry was a Defensive Expert. His Flex Defense and other Inovations were Defensive. Roger Staubach Ran the show on the offensive side. He called the Plays and the Game. No modern day QB, Not Montana,Elway,Marino, Brady, Manning etc... NONE of them called the game and the shots on the field. Please take the time to learn your NFL history before making silly comments.
<<<That is totally incorrect - Tom Landry was the system.>>>
Landry was a Defensive Expert. His Flex Defense and other Inovations were Defensive. Roger Staubach Ran the show on the offensive side. He called the Plays and the Game. No modern day QB, Not Montana,Elway,Marino, Brady, Manning etc... NONE of them called the game and the shots on the field. Please take the time to learn your NFL history before making silly comments. >>>>>>>>>>
Tom Landry was a great football coach - that isn't debatable and Roger Staubach is a Hall of Fame quarterback - that isn't debatable.
That being said...one sign of a great football coach is designing a system and making his players buy into the system, even allowing the players to believe that they are the system and they run the system. Landry was superb at that but don't let Landry's greatness fool you into believing that Staubach was the system because he was not, and frankly that's not even debatable.
Tom Landry ran his team, Tom Landry was the system, cut and dried, case closed.
<<<That is totally incorrect - Tom Landry was the system.>>>
Landry was a Defensive Expert. His Flex Defense and other Inovations were Defensive. Roger Staubach Ran the show on the offensive side. He called the Plays and the Game. No modern day QB, Not Montana,Elway,Marino, Brady, Manning etc... NONE of them called the game and the shots on the field. Please take the time to learn your NFL history before making silly comments. >>>>>>>>>>
Tom Landry was a great football coach - that isn't debatable and Roger Staubach is a Hall of Fame quarterback - that isn't debatable.
That being said...one sign of a great football coach is designing a system and making his players buy into the system, even allowing the players to believe that they are the system and they run the system. Landry was superb at that but don't let Landry's greatness fool you into believing that Staubach was the system because he was not, and frankly that's not even debatable.
Tom Landry ran his team, Tom Landry was the system, cut and dried, case closed. >>
It took me about ten seconds to find this quote on the net:
"Wile others appreciated Staubach's neat footwork, Tom Landry was not so impressed. "Coach Landry wasn't happy with my scrambling," the quarterback revealed. "It caused a running feud between us. "But I put up with his play calling and he put up with my scrambling." Staubach tried to have more of a say in the Dallas offense. After winning Super Bowl VI against the Miami Dolphins Staubach said, "I'm going to study films more than ever, but it will be hard to convince coach Landry to let me call my own plays after we won 10 games in a row with him calling them." The friction between two tough and intelligent leaders helped spark a dynamic game."
It's clear that Tom Landry was the system and that Staubach worked within that system to achieve success. Your apology is accepted.
Your quote about Roger turning the plays over to Landry is well documented, and even humorous, Landry may have suggested plays and even demanded certain plays, But once Staubach took to the field he made the call as he seen fit, despite Landry The Landry/Staubach battles are legendary. You can call it Landry's "System" if you want, But that system was Roger Staubach. The Greatest QB Ive Ever seen Play the Game. No Apology here.
1963 Heisman Trophy winner Four-year Navy service preceded pro play Noted for last-minute heroics Guided Dallas to four NFC titles, Super Bowl VI, XII wins MVP in Super Bowl VI All-NFC five years 22,700 yards, 153 TDs passing 2,264 yards, 20 TDs rushing 83.4 NFL passer rating best ever at time of retirement Four-time NFL passing leader
While, he didn't come close to the stats of a Marino, Elway, etc.
But one must wonder just what kind of "career stat mix" he might have put up if he had the chance to play those four years he spent as a naval officer & served a tour of duty in Vietnam, and the 2+ years he lost while "sitting on the bench" as a Cowboy (as he joined the Cowboys as a 27 year old rookie, and didn't get the starting job until his third season, in 1971, when he was around 30 years old!).
One can only admire this guy. Even if you didn't like or root for the Cowboys, ANYONE WHO LOVED FOOTBALL, LOVED TO WATCH ROGER SCRAMBLE AND TOSS THOSE TD PASSES!
No sir, not too many better than Roger as a HOF NFL QB, and as a person!
Those aren't his only top ten seasons either. In all, he finished in the top ten 7 out of hs 8 full time years.
That doesn't include running ability either. In that group only Elway and Tarkenton are matches for the running.
Some like w/l record...he shines there too. Some like number of playoff wins and Super Bowl trips...he shines there too.
I like to wonder how many other seasons he could have added as the best if he didn't have his service commitment.
He has all the intangibles needed for a QB, and dare I say he is second to none in that category.
So we have a guy who was the best passer the most often...despite missing time to military service. IN addition to being the best passer he was also one of the best runners. On top of that, it translated into wins and multiple playoffs/Super Bowl appearances. And the guy was the definition of a leader.
There isn't a QB on any list that can match this. Either they fall short in being the best passer and runner, fall short in intangibles, or fall short in playoff/wins(thought I don't buy too much into that criteria for individual measurement)
<< <i>Your quote about Roger turning the plays over to Landry is well documented, and even humorous, Landry may have suggested plays and even demanded certain plays, But once Staubach took to the field he made the call as he seen fit, despite Landry The Landry/Staubach battles are legendary. You can call it Landry's "System" if you want, But that system was Roger Staubach. The Greatest QB Ive Ever seen Play the Game. No Apology here. >>
Come on now...In my opinion you may be overemphasizing the "calling his own plays" thing. Virtually every good quarterback has some influence on the coach, and the coach designs plays around the talent and capabilities of the quarterback, and allows the quarterback the ability to audible and improvise when necessary. Also, it was not uncommon "back then" for NFL quarterbacks to call their own plays, although that aspect was beginning to get phased out.
I played football in high school and our quarterback often called his own plays but nobody thought our quarterback "was the system" - You're making too big of a deal about a quarterback calling his own plays. For example in the famous "ice bowl" between the Packers and your Cowboys, Lombardi in the final play of the game called a run with a handoff to a back, but Bart Starr decided to sneak it in - improvisation by Starr, but he did it within the system created by Lombardi. Frankly, and I don't think this was your intention, but overemphasizing what Staubach did, you seem to be deemphasizing what Landry did, and underestimating the overall coaching talent of Tom Landry. Let me tell you - in my view Tom Landry was a much greater coach in the coaching aspect, than Roger Staubach was in the quarterback aspect.
Roger was great, but Tom Landry through his system made Roger look better, than Roger made Tom, in my opinion. Although Tom Landry being the great gentleman that he was...would enjoy giving Roger the credit. Yes, Roger was great, but your view about Staubach seems biased to me which is okay because you are obviously a big Staubach fan, but it's quite clear to me that Joe Montana was a better quarterback than Roger Staubach, and most if not virtually all knowledgeable football fans would totally agree with that assessment.
I am not sure at all how you can say that Staubach was a system guy. If anything, Joe Montana is more of a system guy. One can argue that Montana was a product of Walsh's system. They didnt' miss a beat with Steve Young. Steve Young was garbage in Tampa.
Of course, a lot of great QB's had other QB's step in and do fine. They are just one part of the team, hence the desire for people to credit them for rings, and seemingly ignore everyone else, to be an exercise of foolishness.
I am not sure at all how you can say that Staubach was a system guy. If anything, Joe Montana is more of a system guy. One can argue that Montana was a product of Walsh's system. They didnt' miss a beat with Steve Young. Steve Young was garbage in Tampa.
Of course, a lot of great QB's had other QB's step in and do fine. They are just one part of the team, hence the desire for people to credit them for rings, and seemingly ignore everyone else, to be an exercise of foolishness. >>
A few of you guys are making a big deal about the system - I didn't make the initial comment, somebody else did, and I just responded about how wrong that comment was. Basically all quarterbacks are fit within a system, which is why that "comment" to me, frankly, was ridiculous. Of course Landry was a great defensive coach, but to be a great defensive coach, you have to be quite knowledgeable about offense, and in my view the poster implied, probably inadvertently, that Tom Landry basically knew so little about offense that his quarterback "was the system" and called his own plays and controlled the offense - Ridiculous.
Yes, you're right about Montana and Walsh, but the "debate" here is who is the greatest quarterback, and I saw Staubach and Montana play, and my vote clearly goes to Montana, and I have no bias at all towards either player.
Lets not get too carried away here- Staubach threw for over 3000 yards 2 times in his career and had more than 20 TD passes 3 times- clearly the Cowboys had some phenominal teams backing him up- HOF'ers all over the place if you will.
Tom Brady had zero on his side of the ball during his 3 Super Bowl wins- thats alot less than Staubach and Montana.
And if you want to mention that those Super Bowl wins were close or by the skin of the teeth type wins then go ahead! Those type of wins are a mark of a great field general!
Oh and Steve Young was just as good- if not a BETTER runner than Staubach.
Obviously Tom Landry was one of the Greatest Football minds of all time. The advantage and Edge Roger had through Landry was unmistakable. While Landry's system did it's best to contain Staubach, Roger's unique style of play often dictated he go outside that system. Dispite his shortend career and playing it in the "Dead Ball" era, Roger won on a pace like no other QB and had remarkable numbers. But numbers are not always the measure of greatness and while Roger had the "Numbers" It was his never say die swagger and the leadship ablities that he had that enabled him to make those around him believe they could win no matter the situation as long as Roger was on the field. No System can do that. That was pure Roger Staubach. Charlie Waters and other Cowboys echoed this about Roger Staubach's on field presence. Captain Comeback had an impact on Cowboy Fandom like no other as well. His exciting and explosive style of play captured the fans and Cowboy community and helped raise the Cowboy Franchise the the status of "America's Team"
So beyond the numbers, The intangibles that Roger Staubach brang to the table make him. The Greatest Quarterback and Field General I have Ever seen Play
Montana, Brady etc... are the greatest of the Modern day QB's, But they are NO Roger Staubach. Once again these guys Greatly benefitted from the rule changes that tied the hands of the defenses to promote more scoring and passing in the NFL.
Staubach would have desroyed those defenses as well, and posted Great "Modern Day" numbers as well. It's scarey the carnage and destuction Roger would have caused on a football field with rules that gave him that kind of advantage on a defense.
I hold Montana at the top of the Modern day QB's with Brady next and stil counting. But I highly doubt either would have been durable enough to have had those kind of career's had they played pre 1980 in the "Dead Ball" era of Roger Staubach.
Im also glad to see Roger get some due credit from others here. Any serious top 10 list will have Roger Staubach on it.
If I was a GM and had to start a team.....Otto Graham and Roger Staubach would be on my short list at QB. Both had the intangible qualities that are often lacked..which tend to seperate good QB's from great QB's. Leadership and character. None finer.
Obviously Tom Landry was one of the Greatest Football minds of all time. The advantage and Edge Roger had through Landry was unmistakable. While Landry's system did it's best to contain Staubach, Roger's unique style of play often dictated he go outside that system. Dispite his shortend career and playing it in the "Dead Ball" era, Roger won on a pace like no other QB and had remarkable numbers. But numbers are not always the measure of greatness and while Roger had the "Numbers" It was his never say die swagger and the leadship ablities that he had that enabled him to make those around him believe they could win no matter the situation as long as Roger was on the field. No System can do that. That was pure Roger Staubach. Charlie Waters and other Cowboys echoed this about Roger Staubach's on field presence. Captain Comeback had an impact on Cowboy Fandom like no other as well. His exciting and explosive style of play captured the fans and Cowboy community and helped raise the Cowboy Franchise the the status of "America's Team"
So beyond the numbers, The intangibles that Roger Staubach brang to the table make him. The Greatest Quarterback and Field General I have Ever seen Play
Montana, Brady etc... are the greatest of the Modern day QB's, But they are NO Roger Staubach. Once again these guys Greatly benefitted from the rule changes that tied the hands of the defenses to promote more scoring and passing in the NFL.
Staubach would have desroyed those defenses as well, and posted Great "Modern Day" numbers as well. It's scarey the carnage and destuction Roger would have caused on a football field with rules that gave him that kind of advantage on a defense.
I hold Montana at the top of the Modern day QB's with Brady next and stil counting. But I highly doubt either would have been durable enough to have had those kind of career's had they played pre 1980 in the "Dead Ball" era of Roger Staubach.
Im also glad to see Roger get some due credit from others here. Any serious top 10 list will have Roger Staubach on it.
The Greatest QB Ive ever seen play
>>
It's all opinion and conjecture of course, but would Montana have done better as the Cowboys quarterback during that time than Staubach? I believe Montana would have done better, and some some other quarterbacks as well...taking nothing away from Staubach whose success speaks for itself. But I still believe that "success" was more due to Tom Landry, than Roger Staubach.
Landry just plain outworked and outsmarted the other coaches in that time, and Staubach benefited from that. We both agree that Staubach was a great quarterback - I just don't feel he's as great as you believe he is. But from your last comment about Landry, you acknowledge "Tom Landry was one of the Greatest Football minds of all time" so our overall difference of opinion isn't really off by much.
I have to rate Bill Belichick as the greatest coach I've ever seen, with Landry a close second, which shows you my high regard for Landry as he was first before Belichick came along.
<< <i>I have to rate Bill Belichick as the greatest coach I've ever seen, with Landry a close second, which shows you my high regard for Landry as he was first before Belichick came along. >>
_________________________________________
The conversation for the Greatest coach of all time should start and stop with this man...
Belicheck shouldn't have the honor of holding his clipboard!
Sorry, but some of you folks have either short memories, have not lived long enough or just have no appreciation for what the game was and where it is now.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I think it's a silly discussion because we can never really know. They all played indifferent eras with different teammates and different coaches. Maybe a list of the greatest QB's of all time would make more sense. John
<< <i>I have to rate Bill Belichick as the greatest coach I've ever seen, with Landry a close second, which shows you my high regard for Landry as he was first before Belichick came along. >>
_________________________________________
The conversation for the Greatest coach of all time should start and stop with this man...
Belicheck shouldn't have the honor of holding his clipboard! >>
I hope you noticed that I stated, "I've ever seen" - coaches like Paul Brown were before I was born and I was too young to really remember Lombardi. Of course guys like Bill Walsh are high up there as well, probably 3rd on my list...a close third.
As for your basic seemingly denigration of Belichick - I don't think you've been paying attention to the last decade of football, and how remarkable it is to keep winning like that in this age of so-called parity, which is exactly why since I've been following football since the 70's, he's the best I've seen. He's not the most innovative such as Landry or Walsh, and not as tough as Shula or Parcells, and maybe not as smart as Levy, but "overall" including everything, all facets of coaching, I rate Belichick the best in the past around 40 years.
<< <i>I have to rate Bill Belichick as the greatest coach I've ever seen, with Landry a close second, which shows you my high regard for Landry as he was first before Belichick came along. >>
_________________________________________
The conversation for the Greatest coach of all time should start and stop with this man...
Belicheck shouldn't have the honor of holding his clipboard! >>
I hope you noticed that I stated, "I've ever seen" - coaches like Paul Brown were before I was born and I was too young to really remember Lombardi. Of course guys like Bill Walsh are high up there as well, probably 3rd on my list...a close third.
As for your basic seemingly denigration of Belichick - I don't think you've been paying attention to the last decade of football, and how remarkable it is to keep winning like that in this age of so-called parity, which is exactly why since I've been following football since the 70's, he's the best I've seen. He's not the most innovative such as Landry or Walsh, and not as tough as Shula or Parcells, and maybe not as smart as Levy, but "overall" including everything, all facets of coaching, I rate Belichick the best in the past around 40 years. >>
Yes and as I slept through the last few decades, I had a terrible nightmare. It was REALLY scary. Some coach.. a guy who could barely formulate a coherant sentence in a press conference was the Browns coach. His product on the field was simply awful. Then some years later, one of his disciples, took over as coach, performed just as well as his mentor. Being a Clevelander, I lived the nightmare first hand. He was simply terrible...no other way to describe his coaching in Cleveland. Believe it or not, I have been awake during the last decade, and yes he has become a better coach, BUT he should never be addressed in the same sentence as Paul Brown. Brown had too much character, changed the game completely, and had a long list of disciples who also became great coaches. To borrow your word, Brown should not be denigraded by being compared to the cheater Belicheck. Belicheck's only innovation was filming other teams games and practices.....lets compare that to Brown's legacy . Yes Belicheck has Super Bowl trophies, but will he have 7 with10 straight appearances like Brown? Will he win them ethically? I doubt it.
Ryan- I love ya like a brother but I got a BIG TIME problem with the "Cheater" thing. You know as well as I do and everyone else here that todays game is as high tech as ever and every single coach looks for an advantage and will get away with whatever they can- that is across the board! To single Belichek out as a cheater and to say that his only inovation is filming other teams practices & games is not right, his drafting skills and seeing players value outside of the basic combines and jelling these players into champions is what makes him legendary.
Like I said before in this thread the only true way to rank QB's is with a top 10 list- maybe a top 5.. Its not like your losing much if you go with Graham over Unitas or Staubach over Montana or Brady.
The reason I did not vote is because I think there is no single greatest QB considering how the game has changed. Otto Graham got my vote for greatest QB as would Paul Brown for greatest coach (even though George Halas is my real favorite) because they set the standard of greatness.
The better approach is to create a list of 15 great QBs for the pre Superbowl era and 15 in the post Superbowl era... this issue has come up before on this forum and it really is impossible to make fair comparisons. Otto Graham really can not be compared to Favre. I have this sense that Favre would be happy to be mentioned in same the company of Otto Graham
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Ryan- I love ya like a brother but I got a BIG TIME problem with the "Cheater" thing. You know as well as I do and everyone else here that todays game is as high tech as ever and every single coach looks for an advantage and will get away with whatever they can- that is across the board! To single Belichek out as a cheater and to say that his only inovation is filming other teams practices & games is not right, his drafting skills and seeing players value outside of the basic combines and jelling these players into champions is what makes him legendary.
Like I said before in this thread the only true way to rank QB's is with a top 10 list- maybe a top 5.. Its not like your losing much if you go with Graham over Unitas or Staubach over Montana or Brady. >>
Paul, My issue with the "cheater" thing is that he got caught. The argument sounds like the teenager who gets busted for drinking..."but Dad..everyone is doing it!" "No son, NOT everyone!" If everyone is doing it, wouldn't more teams get busted for doing it? The NFL hammered them with a #1 draft pick loss, and a big fine. Unfortunately, the Super Bowl wins will be forever tainted...how much, I am not sure of, but they will because of spygate. Was it OK for the 1990's Roiders in baseball to cheat? History is saying NO. Was it OK for Belicheck to cheat? The NFL immediately said NO, and history will speak on it later. Could videotaping signals make a difference in a play working and not working? Could stealing signals decide the outcome of a close game? These questions loom when one is caught doing the illegal act. I am not saying that Belicheck has not become a very good coach, but I just think that he does not belong on the Mount Rushmore of great NFL coaches.
<<< but I just think that he does not belong on the Mount Rushmore of great NFL coaches. >>>
I don't even like Belichick personally but I have to look at the facts, and to denigrate his accomplishments over the "cheating incident" frankly is just plain silly. And it's also silly to be making "Mount Rushmore" statements when the guy is only 56 years old and still has a lot of coaching to do yet if he wants to, and I believe he will continue coaching for a number of years yet.
No they're never gonna rename the Lombardi Trophy the Belichick Trophy because of tradition, but Belichick has a chance, a decent chance to be known as the greatest coach of all time when he retires...He's not there yet, but someday he could be known as the greatest...I'm saying "could be" not "definitely will be" - and in my view he already is the greatest in the past 40 years.
<< <i><<< but I just think that he does not belong on the Mount Rushmore of great NFL coaches. >>>
I don't even like Belichick personally but I have to look at the facts, and to denigrate his accomplishments over the "cheating incident" frankly is just plain silly. And it's also silly to be making "Mount Rushmore" statements when the guy is only 56 years old and still has a lot of coaching to do yet if he wants to, and I believe he will continue coaching for a number of years yet.
No they're never gonna rename the Lombardi Trophy the Belichick Trophy because of tradition, but Belichick has a chance, a decent chance to be known as the greatest coach of all time when he retires...He's not there yet, but someday he could be known as the greatest...I'm saying "could be" not "definitely will be" - and in my view he already is the greatest in the past 40 years. >>
------------------------------------ You make the statement that Belicheck is the greatest coach you have ever seen...yet my statement that he doesn't belong on the Mt. Rushmore of coaching is called silly by you. If you truly believe that he is the greatest coach of the last 40 years, then he would be a candidate on the MT. Rushmore of coaching.
Secondly, the spygate scandal was the intance that he was caught...how my times was it actually done? There are an awful lot of people in the NFL that feel robbed or shall we say cheated by the Patriots for this.
<< <i><<< but I just think that he does not belong on the Mount Rushmore of great NFL coaches. >>>
I don't even like Belichick personally but I have to look at the facts, and to denigrate his accomplishments over the "cheating incident" frankly is just plain silly. And it's also silly to be making "Mount Rushmore" statements when the guy is only 56 years old and still has a lot of coaching to do yet if he wants to, and I believe he will continue coaching for a number of years yet.
No they're never gonna rename the Lombardi Trophy the Belichick Trophy because of tradition, but Belichick has a chance, a decent chance to be known as the greatest coach of all time when he retires...He's not there yet, but someday he could be known as the greatest...I'm saying "could be" not "definitely will be" - and in my view he already is the greatest in the past 40 years. >>
------------------------------------ You make the statement that Belicheck is the greatest coach you have ever seen...yet my statement that he doesn't belong on the Mt. Rushmore of coaching is called silly by you. If you truly believe that he is the greatest coach of the last 40 years, then he would be a candidate on the MT. Rushmore of coaching.
Secondly, the spygate scandal was the intance that he was caught...how my times was it actually done? There are an awful lot of people in the NFL that feel robbed or shall we say cheated by the Patriots for this. >>
Well to me a "Mount Rushmore" thing with 4 coaches would also have to include longevity, and Belichick needs more of that before getting the Mount Rushmore treatment. An all time record like Shula's is tough to ignore when thinking of a "Mount Rushmore" for coaches. Again...Belichick is still coaching so I'll discuss "Mount Rushmore" further when his career ends. Even though I think Belichick is a better coach than Shula was, if I'm doing a Mount Rushmore right now I gotta do Brown, Halas, Lombardi, Shula (or Landry) - that 4th is tough - if Belichick keeps up his success, at some point I gotta chisel off Shula and place Belichick up there.
Thought this ESPN.com All-time QB picks to be interesting (compiled circa 2004). Not too much action, picking Brady in 2004 (but he did get one point then! LOL!)...
rd
(P.S. wow! My man Marino had 97 yards rushing in 301 rushing attempts! LOL! Also: Interesting all of us forgot to mention Fran Tarkenton, at least once! LOL!)
Note: Others receiving votes (points): Peyton Manning (7), Joe Namath (7), Steve Young (6), Jim Kelly (6), Sid Luckman (3), Bart Starr (2), Dan Fouts (2), Warren Moon (2), Troy Aikman (2), Tom Brady (1).
(Manning has a slightly higher passing %, fumbles less often than Farve. But, let's see what Manning looks like at career end. AS OF TODAY, I'D GIVE MY VOTE TO FARVE OVER MANNING! - JUST MY 2 CENTS! LOL!
7 seasons can make alot of difference. I am just saying if the game was on the line I would take Peyton over Farve anyday. Atleast Manning does not throw many TDs to the other team! Farve is just out there trying to rack up all them stats. He should just stay retired!
Favre staying on just to rack up stats? He should just retire?
Why on earth should a QB who is in the top half of starting QB's need to retire?
How long do you think it would take the Minnesota Vikings to pull the trigger if Favre were to become available? Come on now.
Yeah, Favre has been racking up the stats, but for two reasons, 1) He is darn good. 2)He is still darn good and better than half the QB's in the league, thus being allowed to play and do the so called racking up stats. Although it isn't racking up stats in the sense you are saying.
There is one guy who is CLEARLY overrated in that story, and that is Terry Bradshaw. How on earth he is ahead of Staubach is mind boggling.
Well, There is one thing that IS for sure. Neither of them are No Roger Staubach. You know what....... for that matter Neither of them are no Troy Aikman
Roger Staubach The Greatest Field General I ever saw play
I can gaurantee both Farve and Manning will both be HOFers! But when Peyton gets to be as old as Farve I bet he will have better stats then him 2! I am a huge Colts fan this may be why I am believing this. I believe Peyton Manning could hang with any Qb ever to play the game!
I really don't know who the greatest QB of all time is, but I do know, to the people who want to base it on number of Super Bowl rings a QB has, that you absolutely can not base the decision on that. Otherwise, you would be saying that Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien and Doug Williams, are all better than guys like Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon and Jim Kelly.
<< <i>I really don't know who the greatest QB of all time is, but I do know, to the people who want to base it on number of Super Bowl rings a QB has, that you absolutely can not base the decision on that. Otherwise, you would be saying that Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien and Doug Williams, are all better than guys like Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon and Jim Kelly.
Steve >>
Thats a bad example and weak excuse. You picked a few one hit wonders who obviously were in the right place at the right time. other than Jim Kelly (The Best from your list) The rest were all fine QB's with big numbers, but for what ever reason they simply were unable to "LEAD" their teams to Chamionships. And that IS what the Great ones do. So while it is obvious that the "One hit wonder QB's" you chose to plea your case will never be held in as high esteem as the guys on your list.
But their Failure to lead and win the Big games is what its all about. Graham, Unitas, Starr, Staubach, Montana, etc..
You can't be considered for the title of the greatest ever, If you NEVER laid claimed to the greatest NFL prize ever. Sheer volume of stats and numbers are fine and look good on paper, But can ya led us to the PROMISE LAND?
I really feel bad for Jim Kelly the most. He was a Great leader and QB and will more than likely never get his due.
Tarkenton and Marino are two of the most overrated in IMHO. Pure number guys. Neither had enough of the intangible leadship and on field persona to lift their teams to higher ground,
To even it out I will give you my two most OVERRATED QB's that have won the big one,
John Elway another big numbers guy who choked his whole career Just like Marino. He was and old man past his prime when Terrell Davis gave him those rings.
Brett Favre. I love him to death One big win, one big lose. The guy has made some of the Most bonehead and horrific plays Ever in the biggest games ever. All the Records are fine and dandy. But it just seems to me he cost his teams more big loses than he did big wins.
Let the Yelling begin!!
Did I mention that none of them are No Roger Staubach
The Greatest Field General I have Ever seen play the Game
<< <i>I really don't know who the greatest QB of all time is, but I do know, to the people who want to base it on number of Super Bowl rings a QB has, that you absolutely can not base the decision on that. Otherwise, you would be saying that Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien and Doug Williams, are all better than guys like Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon and Jim Kelly.
Steve >>
Thats a bad example and weak excuse. You picked a few one hit wonders who obviously were in the right place at the right time. other than Jim Kelly (The Best from your list) The rest were all fine QB's with big numbers, but for what ever reason they simply were unable to "LEAD" their teams to Chamionships. And that IS what the Great ones do. So while it is obvious that the "One hit wonder QB's" you chose to plea your case will never be held in as high esteem as the guys on your list.
But their Failure to lead and win the Big games is what its all about. Graham, Unitas, Starr, Staubach, Montana, etc..
You can't be considered for the title of the greatest ever, If you NEVER laid claimed to the greatest NFL prize ever. Sheer volume of stats and numbers are fine and look good on paper, But can ya led us to the PROMISE LAND?
I really feel bad for Jim Kelly the most. He was a Great leader and QB and will more than likely never get his due.
Tarkenton and Marino are two of the most overrated in IMHO. Pure number guys. Neither had enough of the intangible leadship and on field persona to lift their teams to higher ground,
To even it out I will give you my two most OVERRATED QB's that have won the big one,
John Elway another big numbers guy who choked his whole career Just like Marino. He was and old man past his prime when Terrell Davis gave him those rings.
Brett Favre. I love him to death One big win, one big lose. The guy has made some of the Most bonehead and horrific plays Ever in the biggest games ever. All the Records are fine and dandy. But it just seems to me he cost his teams more big loses than he did big wins.
Let the Yelling begin!!
Did I mention that none of them are No Roger Staubach
The Greatest Field General I have Ever seen play the Game >>
Dallas had some of the better offensive players in the league during Stauback's tenure. Well let's pick a year, like 1971 and see some:
Rushing & Receiving: Walt Garrison (FB) Duayne Thomas/Calvin Hill (RB) Bob Hayes/Lance Alworth (WR) Mike Ditka/Billy Traux (TE)
Let's face it! With talent like that, many of the "all-time great QBs" mentioned by the guys on this thread, would most likley have produced simular (W-L) results, if they QB'd for Dallas, instead of Stauback.
I'm not taking anything away from Stauback, just his "Dallas offensive supporting cast" during the 1970s was A+.
Top 8 Dallas single season passing records:
1. Danny White (1983) (12-4) 2. Tony Romo (2007) (13-3) 3. Troy Aikman (1992) (6-10) 4. Quincy Carter (2003) (10-6) 5. Drew Bledsoe (2005) (9-7) 6. Vinny Testaverde (2004) (5-10) 7. Troy Aikman (1992) (13-3) 8. Troy Aikman (1998) (10-5)
09. Roger Stauback (1979) (11-5) 15. Roger Stauback (1978) (11-4) 20. Roger Stauback (1976) (11-3) 25. Roger Stauback (1977) (12-2) 26. Roger Stauback (1974) (8-6) 27. Roger Stauback (1975) (9-4) 39. Roger Stauback (1973) (10-4) 50. Roger Stauback (1971) (10-0)
As far as Stauback single season passing goes: Not too shabby (W-L)!
Your posts were pretty good, but when you put too much credit on the QB for the rings, then your posts lose a little luster, and you completely contradict your stance on Staubach, because then Bradshaw would have to be considered better due to more rings.
Super Bowl wins measure teams, not QB's.
Like I said before, no QB has ever won a Super Bowl without a top ten defense in points allowed.
Aikman is not better than Favre or Manning. He was good, but without his weapons he was not good at all. He had one of the best supporting casts for a QB in the history of the NFL. He should have won three Super Bowls...heck, he should have won more!
Favre had one big win and one big loss? You mean the PACKERS had one big win and one big loss. If you want to assign blame for their big loss, I am not sure how you can put any of that on Favre. You can blame the defense for not being able to stop Denver's running game from picking up first down after first down.
Mantlefan, only time will tell how Manning will do in the future. I agree that it is going to be a fun race for the ALL-Time TD leader when Manning is chasing Favre.
<< <i>Mantlefan, only time will tell how Manning will do in the future. I agree that it is going to be a fun race for the ALL-Time TD leader when Manning is chasing Favre. >>
Im going to be more interested in seeing how well he does after Harrison retires.
As for Staubach having some of the better talent around him through out his career? Thats Laughable and don't even warrant a serious reply. He had a few, but most were utility role players that Roger inspired to play beyond their potential. He benefitted more from that Cowboy Defense that anybody he had Offensively.
<< <i>Bigreddog,
Your posts were pretty good, but when you put too much credit on the QB for the rings, then your posts lose a little luster, and you completely contradict your stance on Staubach, because then Bradshaw would have to be considered better due to more rings. >>
I never said the greatest QB would neccesarrily have the MOST Rings or Championships. Bradshaw had more rings than Roger because as you said, he played on a superior TEAM. Bradshaw couldn't carry Roger Staubach's jock strap. While it will always be pure opinion as to the "Greatest All-Time". But one thing is for sure, If you never captured the GREATEST TITLE of the Game. I can't see how you could be considered for the title of Greatest Ever. Only a handful will ever be lucky enough to be called Champions, and odds are they are usually the cream of the crop best ones.
<< <i>Super Bowl wins measure teams, not QB's. >>
Yup. And not many "TEAMS" do it without the leadership of a Great QB. He is the Field General, and in command of the most focal point position on that "TEAM" His play through out the year and into the playoffs is MANDATORY if that "TEAM" is to have a realistic chance. There are a few instances where a "Team" has done it without a top flight field general. Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams etc.. But that is the exeption and not the rule. Great QB's have the intangable ablitiy to lift those around them to a higher standard of play and thus making the "TEAM" better. This argument usually comes up when people are trying to make a case for "Big numbers" guys Like Marino, Tarkenton etc... That lacked that ability to raise their "TEAM" to a higher standard of play.
<< <i> Like I said before, no QB has ever won a Super Bowl without a top ten defense in points allowed. >>
This is meaningless? Naturally the best "TEAMS" with the Best Offenses and Defense's are going to be the teams that rise to the top. At that point it comes down to which Field General(QB) leds his troops the best. Once again, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that the Quarterback Position is not the single most important position on any "TEAM"
<< <i>Aikman is not better than Favre or Manning. He was good, but without his weapons he was not good at all. He had one of the best supporting casts for a QB in the history of the NFL. He should have won three Super Bowls...heck, he should have won more! >>
Total Nonsense, Favre is the most overrated QB in history. I put Aikman on his Packers teams and they instantly have a better chance at winning more than one championship. Why? because Aikman was a more accurate passer and just a smarter football player than Favre. Manning doesn't have any weapons? I might be mistaken here, but aren't Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark about the best any QB could hope to have? So while its true that it helps to have "players" around you. It gurantees NOTHING without a Great field general who can run the show. Great talent is good. But you don't create a DYNASTY without a Great Franchise Quarterback. Aikman was ALL of that. It is yet to be seen if Manning can take advantage of the great offensive weapons he has as well as Aikman did.
<< <i>Favre had one big win and one big loss? You mean the PACKERS had one big win and one big loss. If you want to assign blame for their big loss, I am not sure how you can put any of that on Favre. You can blame the defense for not being able to stop Denver's running game from picking up first down after first down. >>
My point here is that after a couple good seasons, Favre was never able to consitantly get the Packers deep into the playoffs. Staubach didn't always win, but he had the Cowboys in the Hunt EVERY year. As for Denver running on the Packer D. Well.. All I can say is Favre should have done a better job keeping that Denver Offense of the field. 9 times out of 10 the game is decided by the QB play. How he handles the pressure and the decissions he make through out the game. Elway(one of my other all-time most over rated's) simply outplayed Favre by having better command of his troops and by finding a way to keep Terrell Davis and his TEAM on the field, which obviously gave them the best chance to win.
Did I mention yet, That Roger Staubach was the Greatest QB...... Wait ... No The Greatest Football Player I have Ever seen play then game.
<< <i> Why on earth should a QB who is in the top half of starting QB's need to retire?
Yeah, Favre has been racking up the stats, but for two reasons, 1) He is darn good. 2)He is still darn good and better than half the QB's in the league >>
Ahem, I've watched Favre since the mid 90s religiously and he is NOT better than half the starting QB's in the NFL and he is NOT darn good. He is leading the league in INT's (big surprise), and the Jets are lucky to be above .500 right now. I'm guess if they sneak into the playoffs, that Favre will throw a big pick6 to end their season. If you take away the game he blew up against Arizona, Favre has 15 TD's and 16 INT's.
The QB may be the single most important position on the team, but the lines are the determining factor of winning/losing. Aikman had the best line in the league.
YOu assume he would have had more titles with Green Bay(which had less talent than dallas)? That is a guess. But we do know how many titles Troy Aikman had when his teams had lesser talent.....ZERO! That is NOT a guess.
You are putting way too much credit on titles for the QB in determining who was best. I say it again, if the QB was such a determining factor than how come all those guys with multiple titles never won a title when their defense was out of hte top ten in points allowed? They had their chances. They are the field general after all. They are the guys directing after all.
The reality is, especially in the case of Aikman, the teams with the superior line play, great running game, great receivers, are the teams that win it. Some of those teams also had great QB's like Montana, while some had very good ones like Aikman. Some better QB's than Aikman like Favre, or Marino...just weren't fortunate enough to have everything fall into place.
By the way, Favre played excellent in that Super Bowl loss. What more do you want him to do? Never punt? The fact is, they lost because their defense went to sleep, and Terrel Davis carried them. John Elway was riding the coattails that game. Yet he is getting the majority of hte credit? Come on now.
With the absurd inordinate amount of credit given to QB's who won Super Bowl rings, I often wonder why we even bother electing the likes of Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, or Emmitt Smith into the Hall of Fame.
I also wonder why we even bother considering offensive lineman for the hall of fame.
Like i said before, NO QB has won a Super Bowl without a top ten defense.
How about without offensive line protection? I think Tom Brady learned in last year's Super Bowl how fortunate he was to have a good line in the previous ones. Tom Brady was no worse a player last year than he was in any of his Super Bowl winning years. The difference was that in the big game, his line got dominated. He gets no ring. Lucky for him he was in three other(or more) good situations to be a QB in, or he would have no rings either and people would speak of him like Marino(who really only had one set of teammates with a legit shot at a SUper Bowl and they lost to the better team...one of the best ever).
Comments
That is totally incorrect - Tom Landry was the system.
<< <i>
THe difference between Brady having three rings and Staubach only one pretty much boils down to the fact that Staubach had to play one of the best teams in the history of the NFL in two of his Super Bowls, which of course they lost.
>>
CORRECTION.
Roger Has two SB Rings. Even though Roger fell short in Super Bowl 13 against the Juggernuaght Steelers the Cowboys
were given little chance to EVEN compete in the game. It was one of the single greatest performances I ever seen Roger have and it was in a losing cause. After the heart breaking Jackie Smith Drop. Roger was down 35-17 late in the fourth of that game.
Staubach's determination and pure heart and soul guts orchestrated two scoring drives with Roger throwing two TD's. NOBODY but Roger hangs 31 points on that Steeler Defense. If not for the Jackie Smith Drop, Roger would have won that game and broke that Steeler Dynasty.
But it was not to be. I was still never more proud of Roger Staubach than that game. He was the Greatest QB I have ever seen Play.
<<< Staubach WAS the system >>>
<<<That is totally incorrect - Tom Landry was the system.>>>
Landry was a Defensive Expert. His Flex Defense and other Inovations were Defensive.
Roger Staubach Ran the show on the offensive side. He called the Plays and the Game.
No modern day QB, Not Montana,Elway,Marino, Brady, Manning etc... NONE of them called the game and the shots on the field.
Please take the time to learn your NFL history before making silly comments.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<<<That is totally incorrect - Tom Landry was the system.>>>
Landry was a Defensive Expert. His Flex Defense and other Inovations were Defensive.
Roger Staubach Ran the show on the offensive side. He called the Plays and the Game.
No modern day QB, Not Montana,Elway,Marino, Brady, Manning etc... NONE of them called the game and the shots on the field.
Please take the time to learn your NFL history before making silly comments. >>>>>>>>>>
Tom Landry was a great football coach - that isn't debatable and Roger Staubach is a Hall of Fame quarterback - that isn't debatable.
That being said...one sign of a great football coach is designing a system and making his players buy into the system, even allowing the players to believe that they are the system and they run the system. Landry was superb at that but don't let Landry's greatness fool you into believing that Staubach was the system because he was not, and frankly that's not even debatable.
Tom Landry ran his team, Tom Landry was the system, cut and dried, case closed.
<< <i><<< Staubach WAS the system >>>
<<<That is totally incorrect - Tom Landry was the system.>>>
Landry was a Defensive Expert. His Flex Defense and other Inovations were Defensive.
Roger Staubach Ran the show on the offensive side. He called the Plays and the Game.
No modern day QB, Not Montana,Elway,Marino, Brady, Manning etc... NONE of them called the game and the shots on the field.
Please take the time to learn your NFL history before making silly comments. >>>>>>>>>>
Tom Landry was a great football coach - that isn't debatable and Roger Staubach is a Hall of Fame quarterback - that isn't debatable.
That being said...one sign of a great football coach is designing a system and making his players buy into the system, even allowing the players to believe that they are the system and they run the system. Landry was superb at that but don't let Landry's greatness fool you into believing that Staubach was the system because he was not, and frankly that's not even debatable.
Tom Landry ran his team, Tom Landry was the system, cut and dried, case closed. >>
It took me about ten seconds to find this quote on the net:
"Wile others appreciated Staubach's neat footwork, Tom Landry was not so impressed. "Coach Landry wasn't happy with my scrambling," the quarterback revealed. "It caused a running feud between us. "But I put up with his play calling and he put up with my scrambling." Staubach tried to have more of a say in the Dallas offense. After winning Super Bowl VI against the Miami Dolphins Staubach said, "I'm going to study films more than ever, but it will be hard to convince coach Landry to let me call my own plays after we won 10 games in a row with him calling them." The friction between two tough and intelligent leaders helped spark a dynamic game."
It's clear that Tom Landry was the system and that Staubach worked within that system to achieve success. Your apology is accepted.
Your quote about Roger turning the plays over to Landry is well documented, and even humorous, Landry may have suggested plays and
even demanded certain plays, But once Staubach took to the field he made the call as he seen fit, despite Landry
The Landry/Staubach battles are legendary. You can call it Landry's "System" if you want, But that system was Roger Staubach.
The Greatest QB Ive Ever seen Play the Game.
No Apology here.
<< <i>Props for Roger Staubach. >>
1963 Heisman Trophy winner
Four-year Navy service preceded pro play
Noted for last-minute heroics
Guided Dallas to four NFC titles, Super Bowl VI, XII wins
MVP in Super Bowl VI
All-NFC five years
22,700 yards, 153 TDs passing
2,264 yards, 20 TDs rushing
83.4 NFL passer rating best ever at time of retirement
Four-time NFL passing leader
While, he didn't come close to the stats of a Marino, Elway, etc.
But one must wonder just what kind of "career stat mix" he might have put up if he had the chance to play those four years he spent as a naval officer & served a tour of duty in Vietnam, and the 2+ years he lost while "sitting on the bench" as a Cowboy (as he joined the Cowboys as a 27 year old rookie, and didn't get the starting job until his third season, in 1971, when he was around 30 years old!).
One can only admire this guy. Even if you didn't like or root for the Cowboys, ANYONE WHO LOVED FOOTBALL, LOVED TO WATCH ROGER SCRAMBLE AND TOSS THOSE TD PASSES!
No sir, not too many better than Roger as a HOF NFL QB, and as a person!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
I just don't think a lot of people realize that he missed all that time due to his service.
Many football fans of today also don't realize the reason why his career stat totals are not as glitzy as the guys of now.
Times leading the league in passer rating...
Staubach 4
Unitas 3
Manning 3
Graham 3
Montana 2
Marino 1
Brady 1
Tarkenton 1
Elway 0
Favre 0
Bradshaw 0
Those aren't his only top ten seasons either. In all, he finished in the top ten 7 out of hs 8 full time years.
That doesn't include running ability either. In that group only Elway and Tarkenton are matches for the running.
Some like w/l record...he shines there too. Some like number of playoff wins and Super Bowl trips...he shines there too.
I like to wonder how many other seasons he could have added as the best if he didn't have his service commitment.
He has all the intangibles needed for a QB, and dare I say he is second to none in that category.
So we have a guy who was the best passer the most often...despite missing time to military service. IN addition to being the best passer he was also one of the best runners. On top of that, it translated into wins and multiple playoffs/Super Bowl appearances. And the guy was the definition of a leader.
There isn't a QB on any list that can match this. Either they fall short in being the best passer and runner, fall short in intangibles, or fall short in playoff/wins(thought I don't buy too much into that criteria for individual measurement)
I'm sorry, but what more do you want?
<< <i>Your quote about Roger turning the plays over to Landry is well documented, and even humorous, Landry may have suggested plays and
even demanded certain plays, But once Staubach took to the field he made the call as he seen fit, despite Landry
The Landry/Staubach battles are legendary. You can call it Landry's "System" if you want, But that system was Roger Staubach.
The Greatest QB Ive Ever seen Play the Game.
No Apology here.
Come on now...In my opinion you may be overemphasizing the "calling his own plays" thing. Virtually every good quarterback has some influence on the coach, and the coach designs plays around the talent and capabilities of the quarterback, and allows the quarterback the ability to audible and improvise when necessary. Also, it was not uncommon "back then" for NFL quarterbacks to call their own plays, although that aspect was beginning to get phased out.
I played football in high school and our quarterback often called his own plays but nobody thought our quarterback "was the system" - You're making too big of a deal about a quarterback calling his own plays. For example in the famous "ice bowl" between the Packers and your Cowboys, Lombardi in the final play of the game called a run with a handoff to a back, but Bart Starr decided to sneak it in - improvisation by Starr, but he did it within the system created by Lombardi. Frankly, and I don't think this was your intention, but overemphasizing what Staubach did, you seem to be deemphasizing what Landry did, and underestimating the overall coaching talent of Tom Landry. Let me tell you - in my view Tom Landry was a much greater coach in the coaching aspect, than Roger Staubach was in the quarterback aspect.
Roger was great, but Tom Landry through his system made Roger look better, than Roger made Tom, in my opinion. Although Tom Landry being the great gentleman that he was...would enjoy giving Roger the credit. Yes, Roger was great, but your view about Staubach seems biased to me which is okay because you are obviously a big Staubach fan, but it's quite clear to me that Joe Montana was a better quarterback than Roger Staubach, and most if not virtually all knowledgeable football fans would totally agree with that assessment.
I am not sure at all how you can say that Staubach was a system guy. If anything, Joe Montana is more of a system guy. One can argue that Montana was a product of Walsh's system. They didnt' miss a beat with Steve Young. Steve Young was garbage in Tampa.
Of course, a lot of great QB's had other QB's step in and do fine. They are just one part of the team, hence the desire for people to credit them for rings, and seemingly ignore everyone else, to be an exercise of foolishness.
<< <i>SteveK,
I am not sure at all how you can say that Staubach was a system guy. If anything, Joe Montana is more of a system guy. One can argue that Montana was a product of Walsh's system. They didnt' miss a beat with Steve Young. Steve Young was garbage in Tampa.
Of course, a lot of great QB's had other QB's step in and do fine. They are just one part of the team, hence the desire for people to credit them for rings, and seemingly ignore everyone else, to be an exercise of foolishness. >>
A few of you guys are making a big deal about the system - I didn't make the initial comment, somebody else did, and I just responded about how wrong that comment was. Basically all quarterbacks are fit within a system, which is why that "comment" to me, frankly, was ridiculous. Of course Landry was a great defensive coach, but to be a great defensive coach, you have to be quite knowledgeable about offense, and in my view the poster implied, probably inadvertently, that Tom Landry basically knew so little about offense that his quarterback "was the system" and called his own plays and controlled the offense - Ridiculous.
Yes, you're right about Montana and Walsh, but the "debate" here is who is the greatest quarterback, and I saw Staubach and Montana play, and my vote clearly goes to Montana, and I have no bias at all towards either player.
Tom Brady had zero on his side of the ball during his 3 Super Bowl wins- thats alot less than Staubach and Montana.
And if you want to mention that those Super Bowl wins were close or by the skin of the teeth type wins then go ahead! Those type of wins are a mark of a great field general!
Oh and Steve Young was just as good- if not a BETTER runner than Staubach.
Point well taken
Obviously Tom Landry was one of the Greatest Football minds of all time. The advantage and Edge Roger had through
Landry was unmistakable. While Landry's system did it's best to contain Staubach, Roger's unique style of play often dictated
he go outside that system.
Dispite his shortend career and playing it in the "Dead Ball" era, Roger won on a pace like no other QB and had remarkable numbers.
But numbers are not always the measure of greatness and while Roger had the "Numbers" It was his never say die swagger and the
leadship ablities that he had that enabled him to make those around him believe they could win no matter the situation as long as Roger was on the field. No System can do that. That was pure Roger Staubach. Charlie Waters and other Cowboys echoed this about Roger Staubach's on field presence. Captain Comeback had an impact on Cowboy Fandom like no other as well. His exciting and explosive style
of play captured the fans and Cowboy community and helped raise the Cowboy Franchise the the status of "America's Team"
So beyond the numbers, The intangibles that Roger Staubach brang to the table make him.
The Greatest Quarterback and Field General I have Ever seen Play
Montana, Brady etc... are the greatest of the Modern day QB's, But they are NO Roger Staubach. Once again these guys Greatly benefitted
from the rule changes that tied the hands of the defenses to promote more scoring and passing in the NFL.
Staubach would have desroyed those defenses as well, and posted Great "Modern Day" numbers as well. It's scarey the carnage and destuction Roger would have caused on a football field with rules that gave him that kind of advantage on a defense.
I hold Montana at the top of the Modern day QB's with Brady next and stil counting. But I highly doubt either would have been durable enough to have had those kind of career's had they played pre 1980 in the "Dead Ball" era of Roger Staubach.
Im also glad to see Roger get some due credit from others here. Any serious top 10 list will have Roger Staubach on it.
The Greatest QB Ive ever seen play
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>SteveK
Point well taken
Obviously Tom Landry was one of the Greatest Football minds of all time. The advantage and Edge Roger had through
Landry was unmistakable. While Landry's system did it's best to contain Staubach, Roger's unique style of play often dictated
he go outside that system.
Dispite his shortend career and playing it in the "Dead Ball" era, Roger won on a pace like no other QB and had remarkable numbers.
But numbers are not always the measure of greatness and while Roger had the "Numbers" It was his never say die swagger and the
leadship ablities that he had that enabled him to make those around him believe they could win no matter the situation as long as Roger was on the field. No System can do that. That was pure Roger Staubach. Charlie Waters and other Cowboys echoed this about Roger Staubach's on field presence. Captain Comeback had an impact on Cowboy Fandom like no other as well. His exciting and explosive style
of play captured the fans and Cowboy community and helped raise the Cowboy Franchise the the status of "America's Team"
So beyond the numbers, The intangibles that Roger Staubach brang to the table make him.
The Greatest Quarterback and Field General I have Ever seen Play
Montana, Brady etc... are the greatest of the Modern day QB's, But they are NO Roger Staubach. Once again these guys Greatly benefitted
from the rule changes that tied the hands of the defenses to promote more scoring and passing in the NFL.
Staubach would have desroyed those defenses as well, and posted Great "Modern Day" numbers as well. It's scarey the carnage and destuction Roger would have caused on a football field with rules that gave him that kind of advantage on a defense.
I hold Montana at the top of the Modern day QB's with Brady next and stil counting. But I highly doubt either would have been durable enough to have had those kind of career's had they played pre 1980 in the "Dead Ball" era of Roger Staubach.
Im also glad to see Roger get some due credit from others here. Any serious top 10 list will have Roger Staubach on it.
The Greatest QB Ive ever seen play
It's all opinion and conjecture of course, but would Montana have done better as the Cowboys quarterback during that time than Staubach? I believe Montana would have done better, and some some other quarterbacks as well...taking nothing away from Staubach whose success speaks for itself. But I still believe that "success" was more due to Tom Landry, than Roger Staubach.
Landry just plain outworked and outsmarted the other coaches in that time, and Staubach benefited from that. We both agree that Staubach was a great quarterback - I just don't feel he's as great as you believe he is. But from your last comment about Landry, you acknowledge "Tom Landry was one of the Greatest Football minds of all time" so our overall difference of opinion isn't really off by much.
I have to rate Bill Belichick as the greatest coach I've ever seen, with Landry a close second, which shows you my high regard for Landry as he was first before Belichick came along.
<< <i>I have to rate Bill Belichick as the greatest coach I've ever seen, with Landry a close second, which shows you my high regard for Landry as he was first before Belichick came along. >>
_________________________________________
The conversation for the Greatest coach of all time should start and stop with this man...
Belicheck shouldn't have the honor of holding his clipboard!
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Greatest Coach is Tony Dungy he was the one that turned Tampa back into a winning team!
<< <i>Greatest Coach is Tony Dungy he was the one that turned Tampa back into a winning team! >>
The only part that is correct is that Dungy turned Tampa into a winning team- ( it definately wasnt Chucky )
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
<< <i>
<< <i>I have to rate Bill Belichick as the greatest coach I've ever seen, with Landry a close second, which shows you my high regard for Landry as he was first before Belichick came along. >>
_________________________________________
The conversation for the Greatest coach of all time should start and stop with this man...
Belicheck shouldn't have the honor of holding his clipboard! >>
I hope you noticed that I stated, "I've ever seen" - coaches like Paul Brown were before I was born and I was too young to really remember Lombardi. Of course guys like Bill Walsh are high up there as well, probably 3rd on my list...a close third.
As for your basic seemingly denigration of Belichick - I don't think you've been paying attention to the last decade of football, and how remarkable it is to keep winning like that in this age of so-called parity, which is exactly why since I've been following football since the 70's, he's the best I've seen. He's not the most innovative such as Landry or Walsh, and not as tough as Shula or Parcells, and maybe not as smart as Levy, but "overall" including everything, all facets of coaching, I rate Belichick the best in the past around 40 years.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have to rate Bill Belichick as the greatest coach I've ever seen, with Landry a close second, which shows you my high regard for Landry as he was first before Belichick came along. >>
_________________________________________
The conversation for the Greatest coach of all time should start and stop with this man...
Belicheck shouldn't have the honor of holding his clipboard! >>
I hope you noticed that I stated, "I've ever seen" - coaches like Paul Brown were before I was born and I was too young to really remember Lombardi. Of course guys like Bill Walsh are high up there as well, probably 3rd on my list...a close third.
As for your basic seemingly denigration of Belichick - I don't think you've been paying attention to the last decade of football, and how remarkable it is to keep winning like that in this age of so-called parity, which is exactly why since I've been following football since the 70's, he's the best I've seen. He's not the most innovative such as Landry or Walsh, and not as tough as Shula or Parcells, and maybe not as smart as Levy, but "overall" including everything, all facets of coaching, I rate Belichick the best in the past around 40 years. >>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and as I slept through the last few decades, I had a terrible nightmare. It was REALLY scary. Some coach.. a guy who could barely formulate a coherant sentence in a press conference was the Browns coach. His product on the field was simply awful. Then some years later, one of his disciples, took over as coach, performed just as well as his mentor.
Being a Clevelander, I lived the nightmare first hand. He was simply terrible...no other way to describe his coaching in Cleveland. Believe it or not, I have been awake during the last decade, and yes he has become a better coach, BUT he should never be addressed in the same sentence as Paul Brown. Brown had too much character, changed the game completely, and had a long list of disciples who also became great coaches. To borrow your word, Brown should not be denigraded by being compared to the cheater Belicheck. Belicheck's only innovation was filming other teams games and practices.....lets compare that to Brown's legacy . Yes Belicheck has Super Bowl trophies, but will he have 7 with10 straight appearances like Brown? Will he win them ethically? I doubt it.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
Like I said before in this thread the only true way to rank QB's is with a top 10 list- maybe a top 5.. Its not like your losing much if you go with Graham over Unitas or Staubach over Montana or Brady.
The better approach is to create a list of 15 great QBs for the pre Superbowl era and 15 in the post Superbowl era... this issue has come up before on this forum and it really is impossible to make fair comparisons. Otto Graham really can not be compared to Favre. I have this sense that Favre would be happy to be mentioned in same the company of Otto Graham
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Ryan- I love ya like a brother but I got a BIG TIME problem with the "Cheater" thing. You know as well as I do and everyone else here that todays game is as high tech as ever and every single coach looks for an advantage and will get away with whatever they can- that is across the board! To single Belichek out as a cheater and to say that his only inovation is filming other teams practices & games is not right, his drafting skills and seeing players value outside of the basic combines and jelling these players into champions is what makes him legendary.
Like I said before in this thread the only true way to rank QB's is with a top 10 list- maybe a top 5.. Its not like your losing much if you go with Graham over Unitas or Staubach over Montana or Brady. >>
Paul,
My issue with the "cheater" thing is that he got caught. The argument sounds like the teenager who gets busted for drinking..."but Dad..everyone is doing it!" "No son, NOT everyone!" If everyone is doing it, wouldn't more teams get busted for doing it? The NFL hammered them with a #1 draft pick loss, and a big fine. Unfortunately, the Super Bowl wins will be forever tainted...how much, I am not sure of, but they will because of spygate. Was it OK for the 1990's Roiders in baseball to cheat? History is saying NO. Was it OK for Belicheck to cheat? The NFL immediately said NO, and history will speak on it later. Could videotaping signals make a difference in a play working and not working? Could stealing signals decide the outcome of a close game? These questions loom when one is caught doing the illegal act. I am not saying that Belicheck has not become a very good coach, but I just think that he does not belong on the Mount Rushmore of great NFL coaches.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
I don't even like Belichick personally but I have to look at the facts, and to denigrate his accomplishments over the "cheating incident" frankly is just plain silly. And it's also silly to be making "Mount Rushmore" statements when the guy is only 56 years old and still has a lot of coaching to do yet if he wants to, and I believe he will continue coaching for a number of years yet.
No they're never gonna rename the Lombardi Trophy the Belichick Trophy because of tradition, but Belichick has a chance, a decent chance to be known as the greatest coach of all time when he retires...He's not there yet, but someday he could be known as the greatest...I'm saying "could be" not "definitely will be" - and in my view he already is the greatest in the past 40 years.
<< <i><<< but I just think that he does not belong on the Mount Rushmore of great NFL coaches. >>>
I don't even like Belichick personally but I have to look at the facts, and to denigrate his accomplishments over the "cheating incident" frankly is just plain silly. And it's also silly to be making "Mount Rushmore" statements when the guy is only 56 years old and still has a lot of coaching to do yet if he wants to, and I believe he will continue coaching for a number of years yet.
No they're never gonna rename the Lombardi Trophy the Belichick Trophy because of tradition, but Belichick has a chance, a decent chance to be known as the greatest coach of all time when he retires...He's not there yet, but someday he could be known as the greatest...I'm saying "could be" not "definitely will be" - and in my view he already is the greatest in the past 40 years. >>
------------------------------------
You make the statement that Belicheck is the greatest coach you have ever seen...yet my statement that he doesn't belong on the Mt. Rushmore of coaching is called silly by you. If you truly believe that he is the greatest coach of the last 40 years, then he would be a candidate on the MT. Rushmore of coaching.
Secondly, the spygate scandal was the intance that he was caught...how my times was it actually done? There are an awful lot of people in the NFL that feel robbed or shall we say cheated by the Patriots for this.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>
<< <i><<< but I just think that he does not belong on the Mount Rushmore of great NFL coaches. >>>
I don't even like Belichick personally but I have to look at the facts, and to denigrate his accomplishments over the "cheating incident" frankly is just plain silly. And it's also silly to be making "Mount Rushmore" statements when the guy is only 56 years old and still has a lot of coaching to do yet if he wants to, and I believe he will continue coaching for a number of years yet.
No they're never gonna rename the Lombardi Trophy the Belichick Trophy because of tradition, but Belichick has a chance, a decent chance to be known as the greatest coach of all time when he retires...He's not there yet, but someday he could be known as the greatest...I'm saying "could be" not "definitely will be" - and in my view he already is the greatest in the past 40 years. >>
------------------------------------
You make the statement that Belicheck is the greatest coach you have ever seen...yet my statement that he doesn't belong on the Mt. Rushmore of coaching is called silly by you. If you truly believe that he is the greatest coach of the last 40 years, then he would be a candidate on the MT. Rushmore of coaching.
Secondly, the spygate scandal was the intance that he was caught...how my times was it actually done? There are an awful lot of people in the NFL that feel robbed or shall we say cheated by the Patriots for this. >>
Well to me a "Mount Rushmore" thing with 4 coaches would also have to include longevity, and Belichick needs more of that before getting the Mount Rushmore treatment. An all time record like Shula's is tough to ignore when thinking of a "Mount Rushmore" for coaches. Again...Belichick is still coaching so I'll discuss "Mount Rushmore" further when his career ends. Even though I think Belichick is a better coach than Shula was, if I'm doing a Mount Rushmore right now I gotta do Brown, Halas, Lombardi, Shula (or Landry) - that 4th is tough - if Belichick keeps up his success, at some point I gotta chisel off Shula and place Belichick up there.
Thought this ESPN.com All-time QB picks to be interesting (compiled circa 2004). Not too much action, picking Brady in 2004 (but he did get one point then! LOL!)...
rd
(P.S. wow! My man Marino had 97 yards rushing in 301 rushing attempts! LOL! Also: Interesting all of us forgot to mention Fran Tarkenton, at least once! LOL!)
Note: Others receiving votes (points): Peyton Manning (7), Joe Namath (7), Steve Young (6), Jim Kelly (6), Sid Luckman (3), Bart Starr (2), Dan Fouts (2), Warren Moon (2), Troy Aikman (2), Tom Brady (1).
Credits: LINK TO ESPN TOP 10 QBs
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
<< <i>Brett Farve is over rated in that story. Peyton Manning sude be ahead of him! IMO >>
Well is Farve still overrated four years later (2008, instead of 2004)?
Farve - 18 seasons (could say 17 season, as he only made 4 attempts in his first year! LOL!)
Manning - 11 seasons
Farve - 64,500 yds
Manning - 44,800 yds.
Farve - 462 TDs
Manning - 328 TDs
Farve - 5,665 comp. 9,179 att.
Manning - 3,775 compl. 5,882 att.
Farve - 1,802 rushing
Manning - 713 rushing
(Manning has a slightly higher passing %, fumbles less often than Farve. But, let's see what Manning looks like at career end. AS OF TODAY, I'D GIVE MY VOTE TO FARVE OVER MANNING! - JUST MY 2 CENTS! LOL!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
Why on earth should a QB who is in the top half of starting QB's need to retire?
How long do you think it would take the Minnesota Vikings to pull the trigger if Favre were to become available? Come on now.
Yeah, Favre has been racking up the stats, but for two reasons, 1) He is darn good. 2)He is still darn good and better than half the QB's in the league, thus being allowed to play and do the so called racking up stats. Although it isn't racking up stats in the sense you are saying.
There is one guy who is CLEARLY overrated in that story, and that is Terry Bradshaw. How on earth he is ahead of Staubach is mind boggling.
You know what....... for that matter Neither of them are no Troy Aikman
Roger Staubach The Greatest Field General I ever saw play
Steve
<< <i>I really don't know who the greatest QB of all time is, but I do know, to the people who want to base it on number of Super Bowl rings a QB has, that you absolutely can not base the decision on that. Otherwise, you would be saying that Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien and Doug Williams, are all better than guys like Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon and Jim Kelly.
Steve >>
Thats a bad example and weak excuse. You picked a few one hit wonders who obviously were in the right place at the right time.
other than Jim Kelly (The Best from your list) The rest were all fine QB's with big numbers, but for what ever reason they simply were
unable to "LEAD" their teams to Chamionships. And that IS what the Great ones do.
So while it is obvious that the "One hit wonder QB's" you chose to plea your case will never be held in as high esteem as the guys on your list.
But their Failure to lead and win the Big games is what its all about. Graham, Unitas, Starr, Staubach, Montana, etc..
You can't be considered for the title of the greatest ever, If you NEVER laid claimed to the greatest NFL prize ever. Sheer volume of stats and numbers are fine and look good on paper, But can ya led us to the PROMISE LAND?
I really feel bad for Jim Kelly the most. He was a Great leader and QB and will more than likely never get his due.
Tarkenton and Marino are two of the most overrated in IMHO. Pure number guys. Neither had enough of the intangible leadship and on field persona to lift their teams to higher ground,
To even it out I will give you my two most OVERRATED QB's that have won the big one,
John Elway another big numbers guy who choked his whole career Just like Marino. He was and old man past his prime when Terrell Davis gave him those rings.
Brett Favre. I love him to death One big win, one big lose. The guy has made some of the Most bonehead and horrific plays Ever in the biggest games ever. All the Records are fine and dandy. But it just seems to me he cost his teams more big loses than he did big wins.
Let the Yelling begin!!
Did I mention that none of them are No Roger Staubach
The Greatest Field General I have Ever seen play the Game
<< <i>
<< <i>I really don't know who the greatest QB of all time is, but I do know, to the people who want to base it on number of Super Bowl rings a QB has, that you absolutely can not base the decision on that. Otherwise, you would be saying that Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien and Doug Williams, are all better than guys like Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon and Jim Kelly.
Steve >>
Thats a bad example and weak excuse. You picked a few one hit wonders who obviously were in the right place at the right time.
other than Jim Kelly (The Best from your list) The rest were all fine QB's with big numbers, but for what ever reason they simply were
unable to "LEAD" their teams to Chamionships. And that IS what the Great ones do.
So while it is obvious that the "One hit wonder QB's" you chose to plea your case will never be held in as high esteem as the guys on your list.
But their Failure to lead and win the Big games is what its all about. Graham, Unitas, Starr, Staubach, Montana, etc..
You can't be considered for the title of the greatest ever, If you NEVER laid claimed to the greatest NFL prize ever. Sheer volume of stats and numbers are fine and look good on paper, But can ya led us to the PROMISE LAND?
I really feel bad for Jim Kelly the most. He was a Great leader and QB and will more than likely never get his due.
Tarkenton and Marino are two of the most overrated in IMHO. Pure number guys. Neither had enough of the intangible leadship and on field persona to lift their teams to higher ground,
To even it out I will give you my two most OVERRATED QB's that have won the big one,
John Elway another big numbers guy who choked his whole career Just like Marino. He was and old man past his prime when Terrell Davis gave him those rings.
Brett Favre. I love him to death One big win, one big lose. The guy has made some of the Most bonehead and horrific plays Ever in the biggest games ever. All the Records are fine and dandy. But it just seems to me he cost his teams more big loses than he did big wins.
Let the Yelling begin!!
Did I mention that none of them are No Roger Staubach
The Greatest Field General I have Ever seen play the Game >>
Dallas had some of the better offensive players in the league during Stauback's tenure. Well let's pick a year, like 1971 and see some:
Rushing & Receiving: Walt Garrison (FB) Duayne Thomas/Calvin Hill (RB) Bob Hayes/Lance Alworth (WR) Mike Ditka/Billy Traux (TE)
Let's face it! With talent like that, many of the "all-time great QBs" mentioned by the guys on this thread, would most likley have produced simular (W-L) results, if they QB'd for Dallas, instead of Stauback.
I'm not taking anything away from Stauback, just his "Dallas offensive supporting cast" during the 1970s was A+.
Top 8 Dallas single season passing records:
1. Danny White (1983) (12-4)
2. Tony Romo (2007) (13-3)
3. Troy Aikman (1992) (6-10)
4. Quincy Carter (2003) (10-6)
5. Drew Bledsoe (2005) (9-7)
6. Vinny Testaverde (2004) (5-10)
7. Troy Aikman (1992) (13-3)
8. Troy Aikman (1998) (10-5)
09. Roger Stauback (1979) (11-5)
15. Roger Stauback (1978) (11-4)
20. Roger Stauback (1976) (11-3)
25. Roger Stauback (1977) (12-2)
26. Roger Stauback (1974) (8-6)
27. Roger Stauback (1975) (9-4)
39. Roger Stauback (1973) (10-4)
50. Roger Stauback (1971) (10-0)
As far as Stauback single season passing goes: Not too shabby (W-L)!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
Your posts were pretty good, but when you put too much credit on the QB for the rings, then your posts lose a little luster, and you completely contradict your stance on Staubach, because then Bradshaw would have to be considered better due to more rings.
Super Bowl wins measure teams, not QB's.
Like I said before, no QB has ever won a Super Bowl without a top ten defense in points allowed.
Aikman is not better than Favre or Manning. He was good, but without his weapons he was not good at all. He had one of the best supporting casts for a QB in the history of the NFL. He should have won three Super Bowls...heck, he should have won more!
Favre had one big win and one big loss? You mean the PACKERS had one big win and one big loss. If you want to assign blame for their big loss, I am not sure how you can put any of that on Favre. You can blame the defense for not being able to stop Denver's running game from picking up first down after first down.
Mantlefan, only time will tell how Manning will do in the future. I agree that it is going to be a fun race for the ALL-Time TD leader when Manning is chasing Favre.
<< <i>Mantlefan, only time will tell how Manning will do in the future. I agree that it is going to be a fun race for the ALL-Time TD leader when Manning is chasing Favre. >>
Im going to be more interested in seeing how well he does after Harrison retires.
<< <i>Bigreddog,
Your posts were pretty good, but when you put too much credit on the QB for the rings, then your posts lose a little luster, and you completely contradict your stance on Staubach, because then Bradshaw would have to be considered better due to more rings. >>
I never said the greatest QB would neccesarrily have the MOST Rings or Championships. Bradshaw had more rings than Roger because as you said, he played on a superior TEAM. Bradshaw couldn't carry Roger Staubach's jock strap. While it will always be pure opinion as to the
"Greatest All-Time". But one thing is for sure, If you never captured the GREATEST TITLE of the Game. I can't see how you could be considered for the title of Greatest Ever. Only a handful will ever be lucky enough to be called Champions, and odds are they are usually the cream of the crop best ones.
<< <i>Super Bowl wins measure teams, not QB's. >>
Yup. And not many "TEAMS" do it without the leadership of a Great QB. He is the Field General, and in command of the most focal point
position on that "TEAM" His play through out the year and into the playoffs is MANDATORY if that "TEAM" is to have a realistic chance.
There are a few instances where a "Team" has done it without a top flight field general. Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams etc.. But that is the exeption and not the rule. Great QB's have the intangable ablitiy to lift those around them to a higher standard of play and thus making the "TEAM" better. This argument usually comes up when people are trying to make a case for "Big numbers" guys Like Marino, Tarkenton etc... That lacked that ability to raise their "TEAM" to a higher standard of play.
<< <i> Like I said before, no QB has ever won a Super Bowl without a top ten defense in points allowed. >>
This is meaningless? Naturally the best "TEAMS" with the Best Offenses and Defense's are going to be the teams that
rise to the top. At that point it comes down to which Field General(QB) leds his troops the best. Once again, it is absolutely ridiculous
to think that the Quarterback Position is not the single most important position on any "TEAM"
<< <i>Aikman is not better than Favre or Manning. He was good, but without his weapons he was not good at all. He had one of the best supporting casts for a QB in the history of the NFL. He should have won three Super Bowls...heck, he should have won more! >>
Total Nonsense, Favre is the most overrated QB in history. I put Aikman on his Packers teams and they instantly have a better chance at winning more than one championship. Why? because Aikman was a more accurate passer and just a smarter football player than Favre.
Manning doesn't have any weapons? I might be mistaken here, but aren't Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark about the best any QB could hope to have? So while its true that it helps to have "players" around you. It gurantees NOTHING without a Great field general who can run the show. Great talent is good. But you don't create a DYNASTY without a Great Franchise Quarterback.
Aikman was ALL of that. It is yet to be seen if Manning can take advantage of the great offensive weapons he has as well as Aikman did.
<< <i>Favre had one big win and one big loss? You mean the PACKERS had one big win and one big loss. If you want to assign blame for their big loss, I am not sure how you can put any of that on Favre. You can blame the defense for not being able to stop Denver's running game from picking up first down after first down. >>
My point here is that after a couple good seasons, Favre was never able to consitantly get the Packers deep into the playoffs.
Staubach didn't always win, but he had the Cowboys in the Hunt EVERY year.
As for Denver running on the Packer D. Well.. All I can say is Favre should have done a better job keeping that Denver Offense of the field.
9 times out of 10 the game is decided by the QB play. How he handles the pressure and the decissions he make through out the game.
Elway(one of my other all-time most over rated's) simply outplayed Favre by having better command of his troops and by finding a way to keep Terrell Davis and his TEAM on the field, which obviously gave them the best chance to win.
Did I mention yet, That Roger Staubach was the Greatest QB...... Wait ... No The Greatest Football Player I have Ever seen play then game.
<< <i>
Why on earth should a QB who is in the top half of starting QB's need to retire?
Yeah, Favre has been racking up the stats, but for two reasons, 1) He is darn good. 2)He is still darn good and better than half the QB's in the league >>
Ahem, I've watched Favre since the mid 90s religiously and he is NOT better than half the starting QB's in the NFL and he is NOT darn good. He is leading the league in INT's (big surprise), and the Jets are lucky to be above .500 right now. I'm guess if they sneak into the playoffs, that Favre will throw a big pick6 to end their season. If you take away the game he blew up against Arizona, Favre has 15 TD's and 16 INT's.
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
The QB may be the single most important position on the team, but the lines are the determining factor of winning/losing. Aikman had the best line in the league.
YOu assume he would have had more titles with Green Bay(which had less talent than dallas)? That is a guess. But we do know how many titles Troy Aikman had when his teams had lesser talent.....ZERO! That is NOT a guess.
You are putting way too much credit on titles for the QB in determining who was best. I say it again, if the QB was such a determining factor than how come all those guys with multiple titles never won a title when their defense was out of hte top ten in points allowed? They had their chances. They are the field general after all. They are the guys directing after all.
The reality is, especially in the case of Aikman, the teams with the superior line play, great running game, great receivers, are the teams that win it. Some of those teams also had great QB's like Montana, while some had very good ones like Aikman. Some better QB's than Aikman like Favre, or Marino...just weren't fortunate enough to have everything fall into place.
By the way, Favre played excellent in that Super Bowl loss. What more do you want him to do? Never punt? The fact is, they lost because their defense went to sleep, and Terrel Davis carried them. John Elway was riding the coattails that game. Yet he is getting the majority of hte credit? Come on now.
If we could only bottle: The 17-0 1972 Miami Dolphins' Bob Griese & Earl Morrall QB combo for about 10 more seasons!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
Who else won four Super Bowls?
<< <i>Bradshaw
Who else won four Super Bowls? >>
Joe Montana...
<< <i>Bradshaw
Who else won four Super Bowls? >>
Charles Haley won five.
With the absurd inordinate amount of credit given to QB's who won Super Bowl rings, I often wonder why we even bother electing the likes of Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, or Emmitt Smith into the Hall of Fame.
I also wonder why we even bother considering offensive lineman for the hall of fame.
Like i said before, NO QB has won a Super Bowl without a top ten defense.
How about without offensive line protection? I think Tom Brady learned in last year's Super Bowl how fortunate he was to have a good line in the previous ones. Tom Brady was no worse a player last year than he was in any of his Super Bowl winning years. The difference was that in the big game, his line got dominated. He gets no ring. Lucky for him he was in three other(or more) good situations to be a QB in, or he would have no rings either and people would speak of him like Marino(who really only had one set of teammates with a legit shot at a SUper Bowl and they lost to the better team...one of the best ever).