West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: Sccit on January 28, 2014, 07:39:40 PM
-
was listenin to 710am today and max kellerman was arguing peyton manning... who u got as the GOAT qb? john elway? joe montana? tom brady? dan marino? whos ur greatest qb and whats ur case for them bein the goat??
-
peyton manning
he'll end up with every major record ever and probably 2 rings, maybe 3
-
Montana.
-
Montana.
whats ur case for montana?
-
My case for Montana is that he changed the game. Montana was the first true Westcoast Offensive QB, and since then people have tried to replicate him over and over. Though it was an offence based off short passes, it created a new strategy in which the running game was not needed because now the swing pass was the new running game. Montana then added that with the fact he was cold ass ice in clutch time. Once the clock started ticking down, that's when Montana was at his best. I was a little kid and it was just seen as inevitable that the 49ers would comeback in the 4th quarter and win. The Packers in the 90's and the Colts/Patriots in the 2000's both had that feel too. So because watching all these great QB's I saw very little space between them, then I go by who changed the game. It's unfair to judge a QB in the 60's with the QB's now, because now they pass way more. And Montana was the type of game managers that Brady, Manning and Favre were. So the tie breaker to me is Super Bowls and then who changed the game. And in that, Montana has the edge.
-
Argument for manning is that had he played in that era, he'd also have the upper hand and more of an ability to "change the game"
-
Argument for manning is that had he played in that era, he'd also have the upper hand and more of an ability to "change the game"
If Manning has a strong performance passing in the SB and they win, it becomes Manning. Until then it's Joe. Like MDogg I remember listening to games as a kid and you never got nervous when the team was down in the 4th quarter. Joe made it happen.
-
I hate the argument of "if this player was in this era" because it's purely speculative. Montana played in an era where a Defender didn't have to worry about hitting too high, too low, etc. That changes the game when a Defensive player becomes hesitant.
Basing purely off accomplishments:
Manning
Right he is only behind Favre in Passing Yards and TD's thrown. He's a 4 Time MVP (most ever in the NFL) and on his way to a 5th. Has a Ring and Superbowl MVP
If he can play 2 more seasons, he'll pass Favre in Yards. If he only plays 1 more season, he'll pass Favre in TD's. At this point, Manning has only played 15 seasons. Not sure if he has more in him, but he'll own even more records if he can keep going.
The only true knock on the man is that he doesn't have more rings. But Rings are a team thing. Big Ben has 2 rings. That doesn't make him a better QB than Manning, Marino or Favre. Nor does it equate him to Elway. Just means that he had the better team.
Manning was rarely blessed with a stellar Defense like Montana had. I'd say Montana always had the more complete team around him. Think about that 89 team. A top defense, which included one of the best defenders ever in Ronnie Lott. And a featured Montana throwing to the best Receiver of all time, Jerry Rice. That is one of the best teams in History.
I don't think any of Manning's team are considered all that great.
-
Yea the difference between basketball and football is that football is more team dependent. An individual is much less likely to carry an entire team to the promise land.
Ghost, u don't fux wit basketball?
-
Yea the difference between basketball and football is that football is more team dependent. An individual is much less likely to carry an entire team to the promise land.
Ghost, u don't fux wit basketball?
I'm not that big of a basketball fan. Baseball is my favorite. Kobe is my favorite player though followed by Steph Curry:)
-
Good picks
-
Montana is the greatest of all time for now...Brady can become the greatest if he can win another superbowl and continue putting up great numbers which have already surpassed montanas numbers. the argument for montana really lies in the fact that he was Joe "Cool" for a reason he has the best playoff performances of any other QB in the history of the game and has never lost or threw an INT in the biggest stage at the Super Bowl.
Top 5:
1) Montana
2) Brady
3)Elway
4)Manning
5) Favre
again i don't know enough about the old school players like Unitas, Staubach, Bradshaw and those guys this is based purely off the QB's i've watched play live.
-
Argument for manning is that had he played in that era, he'd also have the upper hand and more of an ability to "change the game"
Except he wasn't. But as I said, that's just a tie breaker, along with SB rings. But comparing Manning to Montana, having seen both, it's very, very close. It's just different eras.
I hate the argument of "if this player was in this era" because it's purely speculative. Montana played in an era where a Defender didn't have to worry about hitting too high, too low, etc. That changes the game when a Defensive player becomes hesitant.
Basing purely off accomplishments:
Manning
Right he is only behind Favre in Passing Yards and TD's thrown. He's a 4 Time MVP (most ever in the NFL) and on his way to a 5th. Has a Ring and Superbowl MVP
If he can play 2 more seasons, he'll pass Favre in Yards. If he only plays 1 more season, he'll pass Favre in TD's. At this point, Manning has only played 15 seasons. Not sure if he has more in him, but he'll own even more records if he can keep going.
The only true knock on the man is that he doesn't have more rings. But Rings are a team thing. Big Ben has 2 rings. That doesn't make him a better QB than Manning, Marino or Favre. Nor does it equate him to Elway. Just means that he had the better team.
Manning was rarely blessed with a stellar Defense like Montana had. I'd say Montana always had the more complete team around him. Think about that 89 team. A top defense, which included one of the best defenders ever in Ronnie Lott. And a featured Montana throwing to the best Receiver of all time, Jerry Rice. That is one of the best teams in History.
I don't think any of Manning's team are considered all that great.
You are right on that aspect. The Niners defense in the 80's was STACKED! But from all accounts, Montana was a leader of men, and that offense would follow him off a cliff. When Montana got hurt, Steve Young was not able to lead the team pass the Giants, and I think Young had better tools than Montana. But Montana proved he was not a system QB, he was the perfect QB for that system.
That's another thing that gets lost is the myth of a system QB. That's why more people don't say Brady, because they think of Brady as a system QB. Especially after the 2008 season when with Matt Cassel as QB, the Patriots went 11-5. But what people forget was the year before the Pats were 16-0. Yeah the Patriots were great, but the QB was the difference of 5 wins and a trip to the Super Bowl. Since football is a team game, it shows great QB's play for great teams, but the truly great QB's win. With that, Manning's Colts were 10-6 in 2010, but when Manning was hurt then the Colts went 2-14. So I give Brady credit, he's the difference of 5 games and getting deeper in the playoffs. Manning was the difference of 8 games.
Now here is the interesting. The difference of Brady and Cassel (decent QB), 5 games. The difference of Manning and Kerry Collins (decent QB), 8 games. The difference between Joe Montana and Steve Young (hall of famer), 4 games. That maybe the smallest margin, but of Montana was truly the product of a system, then Young have led the Niners to more wins, especially because he was a hall of fame QB himself.
So I never get caught up in the system QB argument. That's BS to me. Any system works with the right QB, and any QB can look good in the system made for them. Montana was a perfect Westcoast QB, Manning's game was more of a spread offense. If Manning played in a Westcoast offense then he would have been wasted, and if Montana would have played in a spread offense then you take away a part of his game. Even within eras it's hard to compare QB's. Someone like John Elway doesn't really compare with Dan Marino, as Elway was one of the first mobile QB gunslingers, well Marino was a pure pocket QB. Yet Elway compares well with Brett Favre, but when the 90's came and they both were in the league together, Elway was more of a pure pocket QB due to age.
But if a QB doesn't fit the system they are drafted in, then we don't even mention them. One name not mentioned is Drew Brees. Brees is AMAZING! But we all remember Brees on the Chargers, and how can an all time be let go like the Chargers did. As a fan Raider fan at the time, I was happy. Brees was gone! But he fit better with New Orleans than San Diego.
-
Montana got the bling.
-
Johnny Unitas and it's not even close.
Johnny on the 80s Niners would have been in the Superbowl every year and won at least 5. Montana on the late 50s/early 60s Colts would have been injured for the season by the 3rd game of each year and have been cut, plus he simply would not have been very effective against legal illegal contact by DBs where he'd be forced to throw outside the hash marks.
Had Paul Brown simply allowed Walsh to get the HC job in Cinci then we may be talking about Ken Anderson like we are Montana, and we may not have ever really known Montana.
Someone please get their hands on some Unitas games and then watch some games by other QBs in that era, and see how far ahead of them he was. It was a much harder environment to play QB in and he looks like a modern QB in it.
-
Johnny Unitas and it's not even close.
Johnny on the 80s Niners would have been in the Superbowl every year and won at least 5. Montana on the late 50s/early 60s Colts would have been injured for the season by the 3rd game of each year and have been cut, plus he simply would not have been very effective against legal illegal contact by DBs where he'd be forced to throw outside the hash marks.
Had Paul Brown simply allowed Walsh to get the HC job in Cinci then we may be talking about Ken Anderson like we are Montana, and we may not have ever really known Montana.
Someone please get their hands on some Unitas games and then watch some games by other QBs in that era, and see how far ahead of them he was. It was a much harder environment to play QB in and he looks like a modern QB in it.
You might be right except Joe Montana had a career 63% completion rating, and had a season with 70%. Montana was build for the short passes of the west coast offense. Plus the only season Montana had more INT's than TD's was the strike shorten year. As for Unitas, he NEVER completed more than 59% of his passes and had 8 out of 18 seasons with more INT's than TD's. To be far most those seasons he was passed his prime. But it is hard to compare different eras. What if Johnny U. played in a offense like Peyton Manning which could highlight his strong arm and he had receivers who were faster than he could imagine. I don't think Johnny U. would do well in a westcoast offense though. It would not allow him to use all his arm strength.
-
As of today it's still Joe Montana. Joe Montana is the Michael Jordan of football. Everyone used to know that when I was a kid. I think it's reverse-racism that got Jerry Rice the #1 spot on NFL networks top player countdown. They thought they would be accused of being racist if they had the All-American white boy quarterback Joe Montana as the #1 of all time, so they gave it to Jerry Rice.
That's impossible. A receiver may only touch the ball 5-10 times a game, sometimes less. How can a reciever be the #1 player of all time?
So, as for now Joe is still the greatest. But if Peyton can win the Superbowl this weekend, and then maybe another 1 or 2 before he retires then he can eclipse Joe cool.
...not to mention the last time the Chiefs won a playoff game was when Joe cool took the Chiefs all the way to the AFC Championship game. Would of made it to the championship if our tight end didn't let a ball bounce off his hands in the endzone and into the arms of the Bills defense. Then next play after the half Montana got knocked out by Bruce Smith. That's the closest the Chiefs have ever been to the Superbowl in my lifetime 8)
-
Montana for now. Everyone has stated why.
Peyton Manning is great, but he needs to win the Superbowl this weekend to be considered. For me personally, if Brady had lead the Patriots ahead of the Giants when Eli Manning got his first ring, I might rank him ahead, since they'd have had an undefeated year... something not accomplished in decades.
-
Montana for now. Everyone has stated why.
Peyton Manning is great, but he needs to win the Superbowl this weekend to be considered. For me personally, if Brady had lead the Patriots ahead of the Giants when Eli Manning got his first ring, I might rank him ahead, since they'd have had an undefeated year... something not accomplished in decades.
Had Brady done that, Tom Brady is the best QB hands down and that Patriot team would be the best ever. That's why that Super Bowl was the best Super Bowl I'd ever seen. Because the Patriots were going after history that would have established them and their players in history. It's funny, one game changed that, Montana never had a team that good, but we remember who wins at the end.
-
Montana for now. Everyone has stated why.
Peyton Manning is great, but he needs to win the Superbowl this weekend to be considered. For me personally, if Brady had lead the Patriots ahead of the Giants when Eli Manning got his first ring, I might rank him ahead, since they'd have had an undefeated year... something not accomplished in decades.
Had Brady done that, Tom Brady is the best QB hands down and that Patriot team would be the best ever. That's why that Super Bowl was the best Super Bowl I'd ever seen. Because the Patriots were going after history that would have established them and their players in history. It's funny, one game changed that, Montana never had a team that good, but we remember who wins at the end.
Yup. If only the guy defending that one receiver had done his job haha... that guy catching that long bomb against his helmet changed the whole momentum and got them the W.
-
My argument to the Brady losing guy. Think about it...
Brady walked off the field of both those Super Bowls with the lead and his defense blew it. Not to mention Welker additionally super fucked them in the second one. I get what you're saying about the undefeated season and stuff, but dude did his job to technically win five rings and his team blew two of them for that. Gotta count for something.
Also made the AFC Championship game like 8 of 14 years.
Absurd shit.
-
My argument to the Brady losing guy. Think about it...
Brady walked off the field of both those Super Bowls with the lead and his defense blew it. Not to mention Welker additionally super fucked them in the second one. I get what you're saying about the undefeated season and stuff, but dude did his job to technically win five rings and his team blew two of them for that. Gotta count for something.
Also made the AFC Championship game like 8 of 14 years.
Absurd shit.
Problem is that Matt fuckin' Cassel went 11-5 with that same Patriot team. The team was STACKED. But Brady was the right man to lead that team, and Brady was like Joe Montana in that he doesn't choke, he leads wins. So I can see it both ways. I haven't made my own opinion on who is better between Brady or Manning. I will say I like watching Manning play football, were as I'm so-so watching Brady. That's were my judgment comes from. BUT, you have to respect Brady and leading a team to go undefeated. That was almost history that would have no one even debating this.
-
My argument to the Brady losing guy. Think about it...
Brady walked off the field of both those Super Bowls with the lead and his defense blew it. Not to mention Welker additionally super fucked them in the second one. I get what you're saying about the undefeated season and stuff, but dude did his job to technically win five rings and his team blew two of them for that. Gotta count for something.
Also made the AFC Championship game like 8 of 14 years.
Absurd shit.
It does count. I'm just saying, that having gone that season completely undefeated and ending it with a ring would've been a huge statement that would've made it much less of a debate. Yeah, it's the defense's fault for that last drive by the Giants (and I even commented on the defender who blew it), but when the end score was 17-14, it's not like the Patriots' offense was killing it either, with just two touchdowns the whole game.
-
Yea the difference between basketball and football is that football is more team dependent. An individual is much less likely to carry an entire team to the promise land.
Ghost, u don't fux wit basketball?
I'm not that big of a basketball fan. Baseball is my favorite. Kobe is my favorite player though followed by Steph Curry:)
What's with all the Steph Curry love these days? He seems to be everyone's favorite player now.
And I've been watching less and less basketball each year. It used to be my favorite sport, but now nearly all of the 90's generation players have retired. You only have a few still doing it big, guys like KG and Paul Pierce that I can remember watching back in the day. Pierce even played at Kansas so I remember him from back then.
Harder for me to get into the new generation of players. The way they change teams and change loyalties is a joke. Like Jordan said, he never would of tried to get together with Magic and Bird on a team the way the Heat did it.
Also, there is no NBA team in Kansas City, there hasn't been for a long time. Growing up we had WGN and TBS here. I got to see a lot of Bulls and Atlanta Hawks team. Even though the Bulls were in Chicago they were everyone's team in Kansas City during the Jordan era. So it was like we had a hometown team even though we didn't.
On the other hand, the NFL has grown in popularity to become America's new pastime. And even though baseball fell off after the strike in 96', baseball has gotten way better with smart phones and social media. It's great keeping up with the Royals daily through local sportstalk, blogs, twitter, advanced statistics, sabermetrics, pitchtracker, etc.
-
you should follow the kings, they used to be from kansas city and now rep Cali....win-win situation 8)
naah, but basketball is easily the most entertaining sport to me..duno how u can follow baseball and not enjoy watching a basketball game, but i guess it does kinda make sense not havin a team in your hometown would make you less in tune wit the sport and all...i'm like that wit football.
-
blamng Welker for not catching that awful pass in 2011's superbowl is a joke. that shit was a bad pass son.
tom brady hasn't won a superbowl since I was a high schooler...damn i feel old.
-
The Manning assassins here are ridiculous. He's going to own every passing record in the book (games won, touchdowns, passing yards, completions, . He never had the best defense in the league (in 2007 the Colts had the #3 ranked defense and in 2002 they were ranked 8th...that's the best he got) yet he always put his team in the playoffs.
The Colts were a top four offense in the league 8 years with Peyton and the Broncos have been twice in two years. Anyone with a brain knows that Dan Marino was a better QB than Terry Bradshaw so using superbowls as an end-all is meaningless.
-
The Manning assassins here are ridiculous. He's going to own every passing record in the book (games won, touchdowns, passing yards, completions, . He never had the best defense in the league (in 2007 the Colts had the #3 ranked defense and in 2002 they were ranked 8th...that's the best he got) yet he always put his team in the playoffs.
The Colts were a top four offense in the league 8 years with Peyton and the Broncos have been twice in two years. Anyone with a brain knows that Dan Marino was a better QB than Terry Bradshaw so using superbowls as an end-all is meaningless.
I was actually a Manning fan. But I hate to judge a book before I read the last chapter.
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/pT6XziIQ5RI
LOL. Only a biased ass Giants fan, who watched the two luckiest Super Bowl wins of all-time has the nuts to blame that on anyone else but Welker. Son reverted to the fetal position thinking he could hide from the billions watching him.
-
Johnny Unitas and it's not even close.
Johnny on the 80s Niners would have been in the Superbowl every year and won at least 5. Montana on the late 50s/early 60s Colts would have been injured for the season by the 3rd game of each year and have been cut, plus he simply would not have been very effective against legal illegal contact by DBs where he'd be forced to throw outside the hash marks.
Had Paul Brown simply allowed Walsh to get the HC job in Cinci then we may be talking about Ken Anderson like we are Montana, and we may not have ever really known Montana.
Someone please get their hands on some Unitas games and then watch some games by other QBs in that era, and see how far ahead of them he was. It was a much harder environment to play QB in and he looks like a modern QB in it.
You might be right except Joe Montana had a career 63% completion rating, and had a season with 70%. Montana was build for the short passes of the west coast offense. Plus the only season Montana had more INT's than TD's was the strike shorten year. As for Unitas, he NEVER completed more than 59% of his passes and had 8 out of 18 seasons with more INT's than TD's. To be far most those seasons he was passed his prime. But it is hard to compare different eras. What if Johnny U. played in a offense like Peyton Manning which could highlight his strong arm and he had receivers who were faster than he could imagine. I don't think Johnny U. would do well in a westcoast offense though. It would not allow him to use all his arm strength.
The reason for the pass completion is very simple, the west coast system was famous for short passes to the RBs after fake hand-offs and in general short high percentage throws. A better comparison would be to see what Joe's, or any modern QB's, completion percentage was if you only count balls that pass the line of the scrimmage before being caught, and even better pass 5 yards after the line scrimmage. Johnny didn't play against the defensive studs of the 80s, but the guys in the 50s and 60s could get away with a lot more. You simply couldn't run a west coast system under those defensive rules because DBs were allowed too much contact on the WRs before the ball was thrown. 25% to 35% of Montana's passes should have just been run plays, and would have been run plays in the 50s and 60s. The fact that he only has 63% completion shows just how bad he was at down the field throws, because his short passes are the majority of his work and they really beef up the average.
To say that Johnny couldn't play west coast is like saying MJ couldn't hit a lay up. Just because the guy prefers to dunk it doesn't mean he can't easily bank it in.
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/pT6XziIQ5RI
LOL. Only a biased ass Giants fan, who watched the two luckiest Super Bowl wins of all-time has the nuts to blame that on anyone else but Welker. Son reverted to the fetal position thinking he could hide from the billions watching him.
this video focuses soley on the drop and not on the ball in the air. oh and way to throw to a guy with 3 defenders right near by lmao. look at how the Pats offense did without welker this last year.
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/pT6XziIQ5RI
LOL. Only a biased ass Giants fan, who watched the two luckiest Super Bowl wins of all-time has the nuts to blame that on anyone else but Welker. Son reverted to the fetal position thinking he could hide from the billions watching him.
this video focuses soley on the drop and not on the ball in the air. oh and way to throw to a guy with 3 defenders right near by lmao. look at how the Pats offense did without welker this last year.
lol who cares who was near him? It's not like he was going over the middle and had a safety charging at him or something. He put it right in the window for him and dude just dropped it. His reaction is quite telling.
-
it was a bad throw and ya'll sound like tom brady's wife did
-
It's not even debatable.
-
hack trolls football topics too?
-
hack trolls football topics too?
I guess his Hard-On for Kobe has translated to a Hard-On for Brady LOL
-
hack trolls football topics too?
Hack trolls anything and everything he hates.
-
it was a bad throw and ya'll sound like tom brady's wife did
I'm not a fan of Brady and was glad they lost that game. Your bias is just quite blatant so I felt I should step in.
-
it was a bad throw and ya'll sound like tom brady's wife did
I'm not a fan of Brady and was glad they lost that game. Your bias is just quite blatant so I felt I should step in.
It wasn't a horrible throw but it wasn't a horrible drop either. It was close enough to be caught, but it's not the kind of drop that warrants that much blame. Also, it was 2nd down, there was a chance to convert on the next play. And, it wasn't as bad as Brady's INT or Brady's safety, yet it gets more blame for the loss than either of those plays. My bias is only in response to the blatant bias by the media to keep this guy on a higher plateau than he deserves to be. He's 8-8 with zero rings in his last 16 playoff games and has an 80 passer rating and people want me to admit he's currently the best QB in the game because he won 3 rings 15 years ago?
-
So yeah... any arguments for Peyton being the GOAT really took a huge hit.
-
Arguments of greatest of his era, nah. Now greatest of all time, he wasn't in my top 5 yet, so for me the Super Bowl was a mute point. As I've said, I had to judge a book before I reach the end. And both Brady and Manning's careers I think will go down as great, but neither will be the GOAT. Brady was the closest if he could have completed that undefeated season, and Manning would be over Brady had he won those two Super Bowls and got 3 rings. Instead, Brady has to deal with the fact his teams haven't won since Spygate and Manning seems to never be able to finish the deal. Without putting them in my final rating, I have...
1. Joe Montana
2. Otto Graham
3. Johnny Unitas
4. John Elway (That pains me)
5. Bart Starr
It's hard to compare eras. But I took leadership into consideration and Graham, Unitas and Starr just won and they had really good stats. To me, it'd been very hard to Manning or Brady to crack that top 5.
-
it's hard to say honestly
if i say manning, a little bit tugs for me to say Marino, if I say Marino, another part of me tugs to say Montanna, then Favre.... and so on. In football i don't think you can say clear cut because the rules and style of play and PLAYERS have changed so much from decade to decade.
-
Troy Aikman
-
Arguments of greatest of his era, nah. Now greatest of all time, he wasn't in my top 5 yet, so for me the Super Bowl was a mute point. As I've said, I had to judge a book before I reach the end. And both Brady and Manning's careers I think will go down as great, but neither will be the GOAT. Brady was the closest if he could have completed that undefeated season, and Manning would be over Brady had he won those two Super Bowls and got 3 rings. Instead, Brady has to deal with the fact his teams haven't won since Spygate and Manning seems to never be able to finish the deal. Without putting them in my final rating, I have...
1. Joe Montana
2. Otto Graham
3. Johnny Unitas
4. John Elway (That pains me)
5. Bart Starr
It's hard to compare eras. But I took leadership into consideration and Graham, Unitas and Starr just won and they had really good stats. To me, it'd been very hard to Manning or Brady to crack that top 5.
My issue is still with Montana. Yes he played well in all 4 SBs, but his team never played below him, and he never played above his team. Peyton in all his bluder last night still played slightly better than the rest of his offense and special teams, but I think slightly below his defense. The same can be said for the 09 year.
I simply can't imagine Peyton or Marino losing 3 of the 4 Montana SBs or even coming close. The 2nd one against the Bengals was a coin flip, even for Joe. He threw a horrible pass in the end zone to the Cinci defense late in the game while trailing and the DB dropped it. With Manning and Marino's luck that ball by them would have been intercepted.
And I can't see Joe taking any of Dan's Dolphins teams to the Superbowl. Jow would have won wit hthe 06 Colts, but not 09, and no way does Joe win last night's game. No pocket passer could have beaten the Seahawks last night.
-
After yesterday, I really do not think I can continue to consider Peyton the GOAT. Rings aren't everything. Especially in a team sport. But, a performance like that definitely hurts his case.
-
Arguments of greatest of his era, nah. Now greatest of all time, he wasn't in my top 5 yet, so for me the Super Bowl was a mute point. As I've said, I had to judge a book before I reach the end. And both Brady and Manning's careers I think will go down as great, but neither will be the GOAT. Brady was the closest if he could have completed that undefeated season, and Manning would be over Brady had he won those two Super Bowls and got 3 rings. Instead, Brady has to deal with the fact his teams haven't won since Spygate and Manning seems to never be able to finish the deal. Without putting them in my final rating, I have...
1. Joe Montana
2. Otto Graham
3. Johnny Unitas
4. John Elway (That pains me)
5. Bart Starr
It's hard to compare eras. But I took leadership into consideration and Graham, Unitas and Starr just won and they had really good stats. To me, it'd been very hard to Manning or Brady to crack that top 5.
My issue is still with Montana. Yes he played well in all 4 SBs, but his team never played below him, and he never played above his team. Peyton in all his bluder last night still played slightly better than the rest of his offense and special teams, but I think slightly below his defense. The same can be said for the 09 year.
I simply can't imagine Peyton or Marino losing 3 of the 4 Montana SBs or even coming close. The 2nd one against the Bengals was a coin flip, even for Joe. He threw a horrible pass in the end zone to the Cinci defense late in the game while trailing and the DB dropped it. With Manning and Marino's luck that ball by them would have been intercepted.
And I can't see Joe taking any of Dan's Dolphins teams to the Superbowl. Jow would have won wit hthe 06 Colts, but not 09, and no way does Joe win last night's game. No pocket passer could have beaten the Seahawks last night.
It might be because I LOVED watching Montana play, but I just put Montana there. He changed the position. Before him, the league was run first. After him, the league became a passing league. The rest of those guys were gunslingers in a running era. But Montana was a thrower in a running era, but during his time offenses started to copy his offense. In the late 70's when Montana was drafted, you could win without a passing QB, see the Steelers. After Montana in the early 90's, you need a true QB to win. Or a historically great defense. But the winning QB is way more than likely to be a franchise QB. Montana started that. That's why I put him #1. It's hard to compare eras as I said. But it's not hard to see Montana, Walsh and the Niners changed the game.
-
Arguments of greatest of his era, nah. Now greatest of all time, he wasn't in my top 5 yet, so for me the Super Bowl was a mute point. As I've said, I had to judge a book before I reach the end. And both Brady and Manning's careers I think will go down as great, but neither will be the GOAT. Brady was the closest if he could have completed that undefeated season, and Manning would be over Brady had he won those two Super Bowls and got 3 rings. Instead, Brady has to deal with the fact his teams haven't won since Spygate and Manning seems to never be able to finish the deal. Without putting them in my final rating, I have...
1. Joe Montana
2. Otto Graham
3. Johnny Unitas
4. John Elway (That pains me)
5. Bart Starr
It's hard to compare eras. But I took leadership into consideration and Graham, Unitas and Starr just won and they had really good stats. To me, it'd been very hard to Manning or Brady to crack that top 5.
My issue is still with Montana. Yes he played well in all 4 SBs, but his team never played below him, and he never played above his team. Peyton in all his bluder last night still played slightly better than the rest of his offense and special teams, but I think slightly below his defense. The same can be said for the 09 year.
I simply can't imagine Peyton or Marino losing 3 of the 4 Montana SBs or even coming close. The 2nd one against the Bengals was a coin flip, even for Joe. He threw a horrible pass in the end zone to the Cinci defense late in the game while trailing and the DB dropped it. With Manning and Marino's luck that ball by them would have been intercepted.
And I can't see Joe taking any of Dan's Dolphins teams to the Superbowl. Jow would have won wit hthe 06 Colts, but not 09, and no way does Joe win last night's game. No pocket passer could have beaten the Seahawks last night.
It might be because I LOVED watching Montana play, but I just put Montana there. He changed the position. Before him, the league was run first. After him, the league became a passing league. The rest of those guys were gunslingers in a running era. But Montana was a thrower in a running era, but during his time offenses started to copy his offense. In the late 70's when Montana was drafted, you could win without a passing QB, see the Steelers. After Montana in the early 90's, you need a true QB to win. Or a historically great defense. But the winning QB is way more than likely to be a franchise QB. Montana started that. That's why I put him #1. It's hard to compare eras as I said. But it's not hard to see Montana, Walsh and the Niners changed the game.
I think you are giving Joe way too much credit for that offense. Walsh invented it and ran it well in Cinci. Ken Anderson ran it fantastically in Cinci to huge success, numbers and MVP. He lost to Walsh and Montana in the SB but I can't imagine Cinci losing that game if Walsh was given the Cinci job, and I also can't imagine Joe being in that game at all. Montana probably gets drafted by Cinci and doesn't become a starter until 85 or 86. Then he probably wins two rings, maybe a third if he stays healthy. But around that same time Erhart-Perkins was coming out, and Coryell.
The real reason isn't genius innovations, but rather rulre changes, and in my opinion this all stemmd from the racist NFL's desire to promote the white athlete. In the old days of football the running back was the star and most of the running backs were white. And the rules were set up where DBs could get away with anything. By the time the 70s hit almost every great RB playing was black and the NFL changed it so the pass game could be opened up. They started to limit what DBs could do to WRs and you saw instantly what it did to QB numbers. Once the new rules were established OCs started to develop new ways of creating pass routes. Timing routes were useless in the 50s because you could jam up a WR during the whore play, anywhere in the field, but once the 5 yard rule came in everything changed.
-
I don't think I've ever seen an argument come from him that didn't involve completely changing history. By people changing teams and teammates and the opponents abilities and switching coaches.
You like create an alternate universe, play the games out in your mind and then formulate an opinion lol.
-
Arguments of greatest of his era, nah. Now greatest of all time, he wasn't in my top 5 yet, so for me the Super Bowl was a mute point. As I've said, I had to judge a book before I reach the end. And both Brady and Manning's careers I think will go down as great, but neither will be the GOAT. Brady was the closest if he could have completed that undefeated season, and Manning would be over Brady had he won those two Super Bowls and got 3 rings. Instead, Brady has to deal with the fact his teams haven't won since Spygate and Manning seems to never be able to finish the deal. Without putting them in my final rating, I have...
1. Joe Montana
2. Otto Graham
3. Johnny Unitas
4. John Elway (That pains me)
5. Bart Starr
It's hard to compare eras. But I took leadership into consideration and Graham, Unitas and Starr just won and they had really good stats. To me, it'd been very hard to Manning or Brady to crack that top 5.
My issue is still with Montana. Yes he played well in all 4 SBs, but his team never played below him, and he never played above his team. Peyton in all his bluder last night still played slightly better than the rest of his offense and special teams, but I think slightly below his defense. The same can be said for the 09 year.
I simply can't imagine Peyton or Marino losing 3 of the 4 Montana SBs or even coming close. The 2nd one against the Bengals was a coin flip, even for Joe. He threw a horrible pass in the end zone to the Cinci defense late in the game while trailing and the DB dropped it. With Manning and Marino's luck that ball by them would have been intercepted.
And I can't see Joe taking any of Dan's Dolphins teams to the Superbowl. Jow would have won wit hthe 06 Colts, but not 09, and no way does Joe win last night's game. No pocket passer could have beaten the Seahawks last night.
It might be because I LOVED watching Montana play, but I just put Montana there. He changed the position. Before him, the league was run first. After him, the league became a passing league. The rest of those guys were gunslingers in a running era. But Montana was a thrower in a running era, but during his time offenses started to copy his offense. In the late 70's when Montana was drafted, you could win without a passing QB, see the Steelers. After Montana in the early 90's, you need a true QB to win. Or a historically great defense. But the winning QB is way more than likely to be a franchise QB. Montana started that. That's why I put him #1. It's hard to compare eras as I said. But it's not hard to see Montana, Walsh and the Niners changed the game.
I think you are giving Joe way too much credit for that offense. Walsh invented it and ran it well in Cinci. Ken Anderson ran it fantastically in Cinci to huge success, numbers and MVP. He lost to Walsh and Montana in the SB but I can't imagine Cinci losing that game if Walsh was given the Cinci job, and I also can't imagine Joe being in that game at all. Montana probably gets drafted by Cinci and doesn't become a starter until 85 or 86. Then he probably wins two rings, maybe a third if he stays healthy. But around that same time Erhart-Perkins was coming out, and Coryell.
The real reason isn't genius innovations, but rather rulre changes, and in my opinion this all stemmd from the racist NFL's desire to promote the white athlete. In the old days of football the running back was the star and most of the running backs were white. And the rules were set up where DBs could get away with anything. By the time the 70s hit almost every great RB playing was black and the NFL changed it so the pass game could be opened up. They started to limit what DBs could do to WRs and you saw instantly what it did to QB numbers. Once the new rules were established OCs started to develop new ways of creating pass routes. Timing routes were useless in the 50s because you could jam up a WR during the whore play, anywhere in the field, but once the 5 yard rule came in everything changed.
I don't think I've ever seen an argument come from him that didn't involve completely changing history. By people changing teams and teammates and the opponents abilities and switching coaches.
You like create an alternate universe, play the games out in your mind and then formulate an opinion lol.
I agree with Cham. In fact, before I read your response I was about to say, the bottom line is Montana was the QB in that offense and won 4 Super Bowls and it was his face that changed the game. Also, the rule changes happened later in his career. But what's the difference of rule changes in eras when it the game changes more rapidly than any other game in professional sports. If Brady played in the 60's, he'd be the GOAT, if Graham played today, he'd be Matt McGloin. You can't change history and say, if this guy was here, then he'd win... blah, blah, blah. If Joe Louis fought Wladimir Klitschko, he'd get KILLED. All this fantasy shit is bullshit. Greatest means, was this person great, in his time did this person stand to the best competition of his time and win. Otto Graham won, Johnny Unitas won, Joe Montana won, John Elway became the greatest scrambling QB, and Bart Starr won. When it comes to greatness, can you win? So after that, did you change the game? When you enter the game, did it change because you were there. And that's Joe Montana. You can argue Bill Walsh all you want, but Walsh NEVER won outside of San Francisco. He never lead an offense to the Super Bowl as an OC, or a college team to the National title, or an undefeated season. Walsh only won with Joe Montana. It was a great offense, but it took the right QB at the right place to win, and Montana was that QB.
-
I agree with Cham. In fact, before I read your response I was about to say, the bottom line is Montana was the QB in that offense and won 4 Super Bowls and it was his face that changed the game. Also, the rule changes happened later in his career. But what's the difference of rule changes in eras when it the game changes more rapidly than any other game in professional sports. If Brady played in the 60's, he'd be the GOAT, if Graham played today, he'd be Matt McGloin. You can't change history and say, if this guy was here, then he'd win... blah, blah, blah. If Joe Louis fought Wladimir Klitschko, he'd get KILLED. All this fantasy shit is bullshit. Greatest means, was this person great, in his time did this person stand to the best competition of his time and win. Otto Graham won, Johnny Unitas won, Joe Montana won, John Elway became the greatest scrambling QB, and Bart Starr won. When it comes to greatness, can you win? So after that, did you change the game? When you enter the game, did it change because you were there. And that's Joe Montana. You can argue Bill Walsh all you want, but Walsh NEVER won outside of San Francisco. He never lead an offense to the Super Bowl as an OC, or a college team to the National title, or an undefeated season. Walsh only won with Joe Montana. It was a great offense, but it took the right QB at the right place to win, and Montana was that QB.
You're ignoring key facts and lumping them in with my theories of what ifs. Ken Anderson learned the system before Montana and won and MVP with it. The first set of rule changes were in the late 70s. You can look at Terry Bradshaw's Superbowl numbers from the first two and compare them to the second two to see how they improved QBs. All this was before Montana ever won a ring.
Walsh took Stanford to two Bowl games and won both, and you're fucking retarded if you think Stanford could ever be in the running for a National Title game. And he only ever coached in the NFL with Joe Montana. It's not like he has a track record of losing in the NFL without Joe.
-
I agree with Cham. In fact, before I read your response I was about to say, the bottom line is Montana was the QB in that offense and won 4 Super Bowls and it was his face that changed the game. Also, the rule changes happened later in his career. But what's the difference of rule changes in eras when it the game changes more rapidly than any other game in professional sports. If Brady played in the 60's, he'd be the GOAT, if Graham played today, he'd be Matt McGloin. You can't change history and say, if this guy was here, then he'd win... blah, blah, blah. If Joe Louis fought Wladimir Klitschko, he'd get KILLED. All this fantasy shit is bullshit. Greatest means, was this person great, in his time did this person stand to the best competition of his time and win. Otto Graham won, Johnny Unitas won, Joe Montana won, John Elway became the greatest scrambling QB, and Bart Starr won. When it comes to greatness, can you win? So after that, did you change the game? When you enter the game, did it change because you were there. And that's Joe Montana. You can argue Bill Walsh all you want, but Walsh NEVER won outside of San Francisco. He never lead an offense to the Super Bowl as an OC, or a college team to the National title, or an undefeated season. Walsh only won with Joe Montana. It was a great offense, but it took the right QB at the right place to win, and Montana was that QB.
You're ignoring key facts and lumping them in with my theories of what ifs. Ken Anderson learned the system before Montana and won and MVP with it. The first set of rule changes were in the late 70s. You can look at Terry Bradshaw's Superbowl numbers from the first two and compare them to the second two to see how they improved QBs. All this was before Montana ever won a ring.
Walsh took Stanford to two Bowl games and won both, and you're fucking retarded if you think Stanford could ever be in the running for a National Title game. And he only ever coached in the NFL with Joe Montana. It's not like he has a track record of losing in the NFL without Joe.
You are ignoring some key facts. Ken Anderson never won a Super Bowl in that system. Bradshaw was a product of the Steel Curtain and he's number are laughable compare to Joe Montana.
And Stanford was 9-3 and 8-4. In college football, Walsh looked good in the Pac-8, but he was not ready to coach against the bigger coaches nationally. If Walsh's system was so great, he's teams go 12-0 and we are looking at Stanford in the top 10 in the polls. Now, did Joe Montana help Notre Dame win a National Title? The defense rest!
-
I agree with Cham. In fact, before I read your response I was about to say, the bottom line is Montana was the QB in that offense and won 4 Super Bowls and it was his face that changed the game. Also, the rule changes happened later in his career. But what's the difference of rule changes in eras when it the game changes more rapidly than any other game in professional sports. If Brady played in the 60's, he'd be the GOAT, if Graham played today, he'd be Matt McGloin. You can't change history and say, if this guy was here, then he'd win... blah, blah, blah. If Joe Louis fought Wladimir Klitschko, he'd get KILLED. All this fantasy shit is bullshit. Greatest means, was this person great, in his time did this person stand to the best competition of his time and win. Otto Graham won, Johnny Unitas won, Joe Montana won, John Elway became the greatest scrambling QB, and Bart Starr won. When it comes to greatness, can you win? So after that, did you change the game? When you enter the game, did it change because you were there. And that's Joe Montana. You can argue Bill Walsh all you want, but Walsh NEVER won outside of San Francisco. He never lead an offense to the Super Bowl as an OC, or a college team to the National title, or an undefeated season. Walsh only won with Joe Montana. It was a great offense, but it took the right QB at the right place to win, and Montana was that QB.
You're ignoring key facts and lumping them in with my theories of what ifs. Ken Anderson learned the system before Montana and won and MVP with it. The first set of rule changes were in the late 70s. You can look at Terry Bradshaw's Superbowl numbers from the first two and compare them to the second two to see how they improved QBs. All this was before Montana ever won a ring.
Walsh took Stanford to two Bowl games and won both, and you're fucking retarded if you think Stanford could ever be in the running for a National Title game. And he only ever coached in the NFL with Joe Montana. It's not like he has a track record of losing in the NFL without Joe.
You are ignoring some key facts. Ken Anderson never won a Super Bowl in that system. Bradshaw was a product of the Steel Curtain and he's number are laughable compare to Joe Montana.
And Stanford was 9-3 and 8-4. In college football, Walsh looked good in the Pac-8, but he was not ready to coach against the bigger coaches nationally. If Walsh's system was so great, he's teams go 12-0 and we are looking at Stanford in the top 10 in the polls. Now, did Joe Montana help Notre Dame win a National Title? The defense rest!
Part of me wants to this this be because I think you're just trolling me and I don't think you're as fucking retarded as Cham.
All I said was that Ken Anderson didn't do nothing; big numbers with West Coast, and MVP and a Superbowl appearance in the same year, but in truth to think the the big game QB didn't exist until Montana is just outright false. Johnny Unitas in the late 50s was a pass first offense and a two minute drill that won the championship in OT.
And if you understand why a team like Stanford never stood a chance against the major teams in college, especially in the 70s then you simply have no grasp of what college ball. But I'll explain it to you. In the NFL the same set of the very elite compete for jobs on the same 24 to 32 teams. In college the best high school kids in the country go to the major schools first and then trickle down to the secondary sports schools. It's ridiculous to think a team like Stanford even today can compete against Alabama. It's a different calibre of players across the board.
And as for who has laughable numbers compared to who. I'll simply post the stats of both Montana's first Superbowl and Bradshaw's first Superbowl after the rule changes. I'll let you do the laughing, and you can tell me whose numbers were what by looking at the stats;
One guy was 17 for 30 for 318 yards 4 TDS and a 119.2 passer rating. The other guy was 14 for 22 for 157 yards, 1 TD, and a 100 passer rating. I'm not sure where the laughing starts but feel free.
-
First off, I said first big time franchise QB, not big game QB. But Montana was no stiff in the big games either. Let's just compare somethings between Montana and Elway, since everyone has Elway on their list and he actually played next to Joe Montana. It's a more far comparison.
If you take these players and make their careers even, since Elway did play longer than Montana. Montana did start his career in the rougher years of the NFL, and suffered a few injuries that cut his career short. Elway has more career years and more career TD's than Montana. BUT, if you take their stats and divide by the seasons they played and get a 16 game average stat, here is what you get.
Montana: 501 attempts, 317 completions, 63% completion, 3,772 yards, 25 touchdowns, 13 interceptions, a 92.3 quarterback rating and 11.4 wins.
Elway: 502 attempts, 286 completions, 57% completion, 3,565 yards, 21 touchdowns, 16 interceptions, a 79.9 quarterback rating and 10.3 wins.
Now lets do playoffs.
Montana: 23 games, 734 attempts, 460 completions, 62.7% completion, 5,772 yards, 45 touchdowns, 21 interceptions, a 95.6 quarterback rating and a 16-7 record.
Elway: 22 games, 651 attempts, 355 completions, 54.5% completion, 4,964 yards, 27 touchdowns, 21 interceptions, a 79.7 quarterback rating and a 14-8 record.
So in his own era, Montana was not only better than the next closest person, he was head and shoulders better.
Bottomline, Montana led the first ever pass first offense, Montana had the best stats of his generation not named Dan Marino, but Marino is not in the conversation because he could never lead his teams to win the Super Bowl. Montana led 31 4th quarter comebacks, for the highest average per season. Montana had a season in which he completed 70% of his passes! Before Montana in 1978, you won by running the ball and defense. After Montana in the late-80's, you had to get a QB who can throw, make decisions and build around them. He changed the game. That's why I put him #1.
-
Lol @ being retarded because I base my opinions off fact and what takes place in real life and don't say "Wow, you're right...if Brady played the Super Bowl on Mars vs. the Space Jam Martians he wouldn't have ever won because the lack of oxygen would prevent him from breathing."
-
First off, I said first big time franchise QB, not big game QB. But Montana was no stiff in the big games either. Let's just compare somethings between Montana and Elway, since everyone has Elway on their list and he actually played next to Joe Montana. It's a more far comparison.
If you take these players and make their careers even, since Elway did play longer than Montana. Montana did start his career in the rougher years of the NFL, and suffered a few injuries that cut his career short. Elway has more career years and more career TD's than Montana. BUT, if you take their stats and divide by the seasons they played and get a 16 game average stat, here is what you get.
Montana: 501 attempts, 317 completions, 63% completion, 3,772 yards, 25 touchdowns, 13 interceptions, a 92.3 quarterback rating and 11.4 wins.
Elway: 502 attempts, 286 completions, 57% completion, 3,565 yards, 21 touchdowns, 16 interceptions, a 79.9 quarterback rating and 10.3 wins.
Now lets do playoffs.
Montana: 23 games, 734 attempts, 460 completions, 62.7% completion, 5,772 yards, 45 touchdowns, 21 interceptions, a 95.6 quarterback rating and a 16-7 record.
Elway: 22 games, 651 attempts, 355 completions, 54.5% completion, 4,964 yards, 27 touchdowns, 21 interceptions, a 79.7 quarterback rating and a 14-8 record.
So in his own era, Montana was not only better than the next closest person, he was head and shoulders better.
Bottomline, Montana led the first ever pass first offense, Montana had the best stats of his generation not named Dan Marino, but Marino is not in the conversation because he could never lead his teams to win the Super Bowl. Montana led 31 4th quarter comebacks, for the highest average per season. Montana had a season in which he completed 70% of his passes! Before Montana in 1978, you won by running the ball and defense. After Montana in the late-80's, you had to get a QB who can throw, make decisions and build around them. He changed the game. That's why I put him #1.
You completely ignored my stats about Bradshaw. And glossed them over. If you look at Bradshaw after the rule changes you see huge jumps in his numbers and they are right neck adn neck with Montana's in the years they played at the same time. And if you see Fouts's numbers they blow Montana's out of the water. And who brought up Elway and why are you comparing him all of a sudden. Teams spent #1 draft picks on QBs looking for big time passers way before Montana. That first year Montana won a ring, Dan Fouts had 1400 more yards and 14 more TDs than Montana. The pass first offense goes back many years my friend. The start of the AFL in particular was what made the big time passing QB a famous entity. Joe Namath was a mega star when drafted, and he put of 4000 yards in 14 games in the 60s.
You're plain and simple dead wrong on this. I mean Roger Staubach was a gunslinging superman. They called him Captain America for crying out loud. The 8 years before Montana was on the Niners there were 3 QBs selected #1 in the draft. The 8 years during Montana in SF there were 3 QBs selected #1 and the 8 years after Montana left SF there were 3 QBs selected #1.
But feel free to ignore the plain and simple truth and skew whatever you want however you want.
I'll leave us with a quote by Bill Walsh:
“Joe Montana was a product of the system. Dan Marino was a system.”
But hey, and I'm sure Cham agrees, current NFL players and Skip Bayless no more about QBs than Bill Walsh does.
-
I'll leave us with a quote by Bill Walsh:
“Joe Montana was a product of the system. Dan Marino was a system.”
That's a cute quote...but I'll take the rings, the achievements, the leadership & the success.
Hence Montana > Marino.
Brady > Manning.
-
I'll leave us with a quote by Bill Walsh:
“Joe Montana was a product of the system. Dan Marino was a system.”
That's a cute quote...but I'll take the rings, the achievements, the leadership & the success.
Hence Montana > Marino.
Brady > Manning.
The rings, the achievements, the leadership & the success? Bill Walsh has all those things too, and his opinion is the same as mine. Go figure. Don't you wonder why the guys own coach says that Marino was better? Is it something personal, or does he really think it, and if he does, doesn't it say something about how important the QB is to the team compared to how important the team is to the QB.
My opinion's been the same for years. A great team can win a ring with out a great QB. A great QB cannot win a a ring with out a great team. Many think its the great QB that makes the team great. I seem to think that more often than not it's the great team that makes the QB great. And I've seen too many "great" QBs look horrible on bad teams and incredible on great teams to ever change my mind.
-
He didn't say Marino was better in that quote. He said Marino was "Peyton Manning" & Montana was "Tom Brady".
& Brady is better than Peyton...so my opinion (and everyone else's) remains the same.
-
He didn't say Marino was better in that quote. He said Marino was "Peyton Manning" & Montana was "Tom Brady".
& Brady is better than Peyton...so my opinion (and everyone else's) remains the same.
You really need to go back to high school, and like, graduate. I mean you have no concept of the english language. Which isn't a shocker, because you have no concept of Football either. You called the 07 Pats D terrible and now you think that quote means anything other than Marino was better. The product of a system implies he wouldn't be great without it. Juxtaposing that by calling the other player a system all to himself implies no matter where he played or with what team he would still be great. He's saying Joe could never have done these things without me (me as in him Bill Walsh), and Dan could have been great anywhere.
And even before seeing this quote I used to say if Montana was on the Bucs he'd look worse than Steve Young looked on the Bucs.
-
But he played great in the system...and actually won. Like more than anyone else. That actually happened. Those events actually took place in the world we...or at least I...live in. He was more productive in the system than Marino was trying to put the team on his back...more successful....BETTER. What in God's green Earth don't you understand about that?
AND DONT YOU DARE RESPOND WITH IMAGINARY, FANTASY ROSTERS THAT DIDNT EXIST IN THIS SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM.
I do find it funny that you get way more personal than you used too. Manning finally having everything you've cried for years he lacked and STILL get his ass annihilated in the biggest game of his career has destroyed your equilibrium in life.
-
But he played great in the system...and actually won. Like more than anyone else. That actually happened. Those events actually took place in the world we...or at least I...live in. He was more productive in the system than Marino was trying to put the team on his back...more successful....BETTER. What in God's green Earth don't you understand about that?
AND DONT YOU DARE RESPOND WITH IMAGINARY, FANTASY ROSTERS THAT DIDNT EXIST IN THIS SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM.
I do find it funny that you get way more personal than you used too. Manning finally having everything you've cried for years he lacked and STILL get his ass annihilated in the biggest game of his career has destroyed your equilibrium in life.
I'm not taking anything personal, but you've gotten so much stupider I have to make a point of it.
And don't you dare say Manning got what I have been crying for. I called Denver a mistake the second he agreed to visit with them. You can look up my posts if you want but I'm pretty sure I called Denver the worst of all the teams he visited. It's a slightly upgraded Colts. It's a safe team with no killers and no heart to fight.
I wanted him on a smashmouth team that goes for the kill and doesn't need big play by a QB to get it done.
The fact remains, no QB has ever won a fucking ring with out the team around him playing better than he played. That's not an if, or a hypothetical, or imaginary. That's a fact. Idiots like you like to buy into the bullshit the racist NFL sells that this lone white knight around all those stupid niggers is the reason the teams are lifted up and come to fight, but people like me know better. Pussies like Brady and Montana sit back and coast while the hard working mostly black men around them do all the heavy lifting and the white knights get all the credit. This isn't hollywood, or Braveheart, or Fucking Mel Gibson.
WATCH THE FUCKING GAMES. SEE THE FUCKING TIME IN THE POCKET. IF YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A FUCKING A GAP IS; SEE HOW MUCH SPACE IS IN IT!
It's not an if. It's not a would have happened. It's and actually happened. The fact remains Joe was never hurried in the pocket in the big games, his WRs weren't losing the battles, his defenses weren't letting up big drive after big drive, and his special teams weren't fucking up all over the field. When every other aspect of the game is dominated by your team, the QB better win. Because when the rest of his team did lose those battles, guess what fucking happened; Joe Cool fucking lost. Not would have lost. actually fucking lost. Between his 2nd and 3rd Superbowls were 3 Montana one and dones, and his numbers and performance were fucking shit in all three. Why? Did he all of a sudden become worse as a QB? Did not know how to handle the big moment? No. His fucking team got beat by the other team all over the field and his performance was a direct result of that.
The Broncos didn't beat the Pats this year in the playoffs because Peyton lifted them and beat Brady. The Broncos beat the Pats in every aspect of the game and thus won the game. Brady was hurried, hit, and sacked, and naturally his throws were affected by it. In the Chargers game I think Rivers actually played better than Manning, but the Chargers lost because they lost against the Broncos everywhere else.
TEAMS WIN GAMES!
-
Well, that escalated quickly.
-
Troy Aikman
-
lmaoooo @ a top ten defense not being enough. Needed the #1 defense or bust. ::)
I just don't understand your point. You're just sitting here pouring out your tears over gunslingers not getting enough credit because they can't win because that style of offense doesn't win. So clearly if that hasn't won in 48 years...to continue to try to do that is fucking autistic. So why in the holy fuck are you giving someone credit for losing & bashing championship QBs for being smart enough to play as a team??
YOU. JUST. CRIED. that teams win games...so "Shame on the QB who plays his role on the team"?? Because as far as I'm concerned if you're playing your role as QB on the team & winning 3 Super Bowls (and of course an amazing QB in general) that's MORE IMPRESSIVE than throwing 4,500 yards & losing.
But I know you're not talking about Brady this year...lmfao. Don't even start. Those Colt teams back in the day were more talented.
Your entire stance is just so flawed. Especially because you don't understand Manning has been winning at least 10 games for over a decade "dominating defenses", but then runs into a real defense in the playoffs (which makes sense because good teams make the playoffs) & he's proven time...and time...and time...and time...and time again, he can't win. Because maybe he's just not as great as the NFL has brainwashed you into thinking. Just playing down to his competition & you're blaming WR's for routes run & his defense giving up 21 points & his running game not being the greatest. When you should just realize Peyton just can't do what Peyton does against real defenses because they're not stupid enough to let this "white knight surrounded by a bunch of niggers" beat them.
EVEN MORE FLAWED BECAUSE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT AGAINST BRADY IS PUTTING BRADY ON ANOTHER TEAM AND SPECULATING ON HOW HE WOULD PLAY.
WHICH.
IS.
FUCKING.
RETARDED.
BECAUSE.
THAT.
ISN'T.
REALITY.
I can't stress how many times I've seen you write "If Peyton was on 'this team' he'd have six rings by now". Like nigga....how the fuck you going to give him credit for something that "could" of happened if the universe was completely different?
-
lmaoooo @ a top ten defense not being enough. Needed the #1 defense or bust. ::)
I just don't understand your point. You're just sitting here pouring out your tears over gunslingers not getting enough credit because they can't win because that style of offense doesn't win. So clearly if that hasn't won in 48 years...to continue to try to do that is fucking autistic. So why in the holy fuck are you giving someone credit for losing & bashing championship QBs for being smart enough to play as a team??
YOU. JUST. CRIED. that teams win games...so "Shame on the QB who plays his role on the team"?? Because as far as I'm concerned if you're playing your role as QB on the team & winning 3 Super Bowls (and of course an amazing QB in general) that's MORE IMPRESSIVE than throwing 4,500 yards & losing.
But I know you're not talking about Brady this year...lmfao. Don't even start. Those Colt teams back in the day were more talented.
Your entire stance is just so flawed. Especially because you don't understand Manning has been winning at least 10 games for over a decade "dominating defenses", but then runs into a real defense in the playoffs (which makes sense because good teams make the playoffs) & he's proven time...and time...and time...and time...and time again, he can't win. Because maybe he's just not as great as the NFL has brainwashed you into thinking. Just playing down to his competition & you're blaming WR's for routes run & his defense giving up 21 points & his running game not being the greatest. When you should just realize Peyton just can't do what Peyton does against real defenses because they're not stupid enough to let this "white knight surrounded by a bunch of niggers" beat them.
EVEN MORE FLAWED BECAUSE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT AGAINST BRADY IS PUTTING BRADY ON ANOTHER TEAM AND SPECULATING ON HOW HE WOULD PLAY.
WHICH.
IS.
FUCKING.
RETARDED.
BECAUSE.
THAT.
ISN'T.
REALITY.
I can't stress how many times I've seen you write "If Peyton was on 'this team' he'd have six rings by now". Like nigga....how the fuck you going to give him credit for something that "could" of happened if the universe was completely different?
I'll concede one thing right off the bat. You are right; there is no point in bringing up the IF arguments. I should just stick to the WHEN arguments, because they are what lead to my IF arguments. It's useless to argue hypothetical.
As for your other points; I don't get what you mean by a QB playing part of the system. It's not like Manning is choosing to ignore the rest of the team. My argument is when the team plays like the shit, more often than not, the QB plays like shit because of that. When the o-line doesn't allow time in the pocket or an open A-gap to step up to the QB rushes passes and makes worse throws. When the WRs don't gain separation from DBs the QB completes less passes. When the running back can't find holes and gain yards and the QB is forced into throwing situations the opposing defenses have an easier time defending with more DBs. It's a big part of the reason Brady had no TDs in the first 3 quarters of the AFC Championship game, and those factors changing in the 4th quarter is a big part of the reason he had two TDs in that quarter. It's also a big part of the reason Brady was held scoreless in the second half of last year's AFC Title Game against Baltimore. Watch the games and see for yourself. See the difference in Brady when there is time and space to throw compared to when there isn't. My argument isn't just for all QBs, but that when Brady goes through that he usualy looks a lot worse than Peyton does in those same situations.
You really need to watch the Niners playoff games against the Giants in 85 and 86 to see how Joe Montana looked when the physical pressure was on, guys weren't getting open, and the run game couldn't make it happen. And this was with the same great teams he had when he won the rings, but the teams didn't play great those nights and Joe was a victim of it. That 49-3 Loss was a disaster but it wasn't because Joe wasn't good enough to make it a game. It was because the Giants simply out played the 9ers everywhere that night.
As for Peyton in the playoffs vs the Season, I simply don't see how people get it so twisted. He usually loses games in the playoffs to the same teams or same styles that beat him in the regular season. In 03 he lost to the Pats D at home in the regular season and then on the road in the playoffs, in 04 he lost to the Pats D in the season and then again in the playoffs. In 05 he lost his perfect season bid in the 14th game against San Diego's defense, and then in the playoffs the Steelers played that exact same style to beat him in the playoffs. He did beat the Steelers in the season that year but his numbers and play wasn't anything special. They won that game based a lot on the run game and James gaining 150 yards, and lost in the playoffs in large part due to the run game and James not being able to get even 50 yards. In 07 and 08 it was the Chargers again that usually beat him in the season.
People want to make it seem like the same defenses that he destroys in the season show up in the playoffs and his nerves get the better of him. That line you made about autistic; it's something I had wondered about the Colts for years. They saw what beat them every year and decided not to change anything all those years. Why did they never try and mimmick the teams that beat them in the season, then in the playoffs, and then went on to win the ring? Why did they never draft or trade for smashmouth guys? Or big time playmaking WRs? The only major acquisition the Colts ever made while Manning was there was a kicker.
And when he chose Denver I cringed. It was an improvement from what Peyton left but it wasn't that much better. It was the same style of coach that set up the same style of team. I don't know why Manning even visited, or why he was going out of his way to visit dumps like Miami and Arizona, but wouldn't even sit down with Seattle or KC. I had said then that KC had all the pieces of a juggernaut, but just needed the right offensive guidance to break through. We saw how fast they turned around with Andy Ried. I though that Romeo Crenel's defense with Peyton running the offense would have been a much deadlier team than the Broncos. They threw their name in the hat and Peyton declined before meeting anyone. Maybe he wants it to be harder on him. Maybe he wants to prove something to himself. I don't know. But I'd rather he had just gone to a team where he wouldn't have to do so much and games and rings could be won with or without great QB play. The opportunity was there for him in SF and SEA. He chose Denver.
I said Denver, just like the Colts, were not a tough team that could win a fist fight and what I worried about when he went there was what happened Sunday night. It was like Floyd Mayweather vs Mike Tyson; no matter how smart Floyd is and how well he can anticipate what's coming, he just doesn't stand a chance against the power of Tyson. That's primarily what the Broncos looked like on Sunday. Peyton wasn't outsmarted. There was nothing complicated about Seattle's D. They simply hit and hit and hit and rushed the passer, and destroyed the line. There were no plays to call to change that and nothing Peyton could do but go down with the ship, despite what Sherman said on TV afterwards.
It was a lot like Lombardi's teams of the 60s. He made it very clear that his prerogative was to run the simplest offenses and defenses in the league but attain and prepare the best talent available and make them beat you. Landry was the coach that tried to do the outsmarting; with complicated offenses and defenses. Lombardi simply drafted fighters and coached them to fight. That's the type of team I wanted Peyton on. Sadly, it'll never happen.
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/sRW2pS7M3jo
Here's a nice sum up of Joe Cool under pressure when the team breaks down around him. This play took him out of the game. The score at the time was 21-3. This made it 28-3. His numbers up to this point 8 of 14 for 98 yards zero TDs and 1 INT. This was his 2nd INT and more or less sealed the game. The final score was 49-3. They were a big time team that simply got their asses handed to them and Joe Montana's performance was the bi-product of that beating, not the reason for it. Joe put up the same number of points in two consecutive playoff games against the Giants. 3 points in each game.
Just watch the 1:34 mark.
-
A great point. Though one thing I will say is that Unitas also didn't win every year. Also, Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer of all time, and he didn't win every fight. But what defines greatness is how each player and team comes back from these defeats. Now it's worth noting that the Giants designed their defense to adjust to the changing NFL, the first defense to do this. Their D was up there with Seattle's, Baltimore and other D's of today, maybe better. A player like LT was never seen before. Now the first playoff game they meet, the Niners won and Montana made this very costly comment. “I expected more of Lawrence Taylor coming. I got enough of him, but I expected a lot more.” Well the next two years, Montana got a whole lot of LT and the Giants in the playoffs and regular season. But all great players face adversity. The Giants found out how to stop Montana and the westcoast offense. And if that was the final chapter, the Niners go down as a young team with a great new offense who eventually feel victim of adjusting defenses. But that's not the end....
The very next year, after that very bad lost, the Niners played the Giants again. Now that was sort of a throw away game, Montana was still injured and the Giants sucked that year. The Niners won. But in 1988, Giants played the Niners, Montana against that great Giant's D led a 4th quarter comeback. 1989, Niners played the Giants, Niners won and Montana almost got 300 yards passing. 1990, Niners played the Giants in a heavy hitting game, a game I still remember. Niners barely won. This led to the playoff game in which I still remember. 1991, Giants won, knocked Montana out the game and ended his 49er career. After two great wins on MNF the last two years, the Giants finally beat the Niners. But since that butt kicking you mention, Montana and the Niners adjust and they get the upper hand in that rivalry. Yes it was the Giants that finally ended the Montana/Niners era, but at the same time Montana did show that he wouldn't just feel the pressure and cower. Yeah, you can look at all QB's and if you put pressure on them then they'd shine in the moment. Brady, Manning, Marino, Unitas. But at the same time, it's about how the QB adjust, and Montana did adjust and showed he can compete with the pressure. That's like Ali coming back at Joe Fraizer and beating him in the rematch, or when he beat Ken Norton. Norton broke Ali's jaw, and Ali cameback and won. Montana did just that to the Giants. And the Giants teams that Montana played in 88-91 were god damn great teams with some of the best defenses ever seen in the NFL.
-
A great point. Though one thing I will say is that Unitas also didn't win every year. Also, Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer of all time, and he didn't win every fight. But what defines greatness is how each player and team comes back from these defeats. Now it's worth noting that the Giants designed their defense to adjust to the changing NFL, the first defense to do this. Their D was up there with Seattle's, Baltimore and other D's of today, maybe better. A player like LT was never seen before. Now the first playoff game they meet, the Niners won and Montana made this very costly comment. “I expected more of Lawrence Taylor coming. I got enough of him, but I expected a lot more.” Well the next two years, Montana got a whole lot of LT and the Giants in the playoffs and regular season. But all great players face adversity. The Giants found out how to stop Montana and the westcoast offense. And if that was the final chapter, the Niners go down as a young team with a great new offense who eventually feel victim of adjusting defenses. But that's not the end....
The very next year, after that very bad lost, the Niners played the Giants again. Now that was sort of a throw away game, Montana was still injured and the Giants sucked that year. The Niners won. But in 1988, Giants played the Niners, Montana against that great Giant's D led a 4th quarter comeback. 1989, Niners played the Giants, Niners won and Montana almost got 300 yards passing. 1990, Niners played the Giants in a heavy hitting game, a game I still remember. Niners barely won. This led to the playoff game in which I still remember. 1991, Giants won, knocked Montana out the game and ended his 49er career. After two great wins on MNF the last two years, the Giants finally beat the Niners. But since that butt kicking you mention, Montana and the Niners adjust and they get the upper hand in that rivalry. Yes it was the Giants that finally ended the Montana/Niners era, but at the same time Montana did show that he wouldn't just feel the pressure and cower. Yeah, you can look at all QB's and if you put pressure on them then they'd shine in the moment. Brady, Manning, Marino, Unitas. But at the same time, it's about how the QB adjust, and Montana did adjust and showed he can compete with the pressure. That's like Ali coming back at Joe Fraizer and beating him in the rematch, or when he beat Ken Norton. Norton broke Ali's jaw, and Ali cameback and won. Montana did just that to the Giants. And the Giants teams that Montana played in 88-91 were god damn great teams with some of the best defenses ever seen in the NFL.
We simply have a difference of theology. You put more on the back of the QB figuring out ways to defeat the other team than I do. My argument is that when the rest of the Giants,offense and defense, outplayed the Niners, the Niners lost, and when they severely outplayed the Niners the Niners lost bad and the QB looked like shit.
It's not a chicken and the egg scenario for me. When the o-line and RBs, and WRs get dominated the QB by default looks like shit. As opposed to the QB is playing like shit therefore the o-line, RBs, and WRs can't block, run, or get open. The latter theory simply makes no sense to me and therefore I don't now or have ever adhered to it.
My argument for Manning was never all those phases play like shit and therefore he rises above it. My argument is that historically those phases were mediocre and he rises them to great, and obviously not in the last game, but when those phases get shut down he still makes a game of it. The closest I had seen to this beat down on a team Manning was on was the 05 Colts against the Steelers in the playoffs where under similar pressure and situation Manning stepped his game way up and kept it close. He didn't do that in the Superbowl, and I think if he had it would have made for a little excitement near the end but I can't see this game being anything less than a two core win by Seattle no matter how good he played.
As for your Giants/Niners 80s fued. I'd argue that Parcells and Bellicheck (and Crennel) had the Niners offense figured out by 1984. The major difference in the 84 loss compared to the 85 and 87 beatdowns was NYGs run game and offense. They controlled a big part of the clock, but in 84 they moved around Joe a lot, and pick 6ed him. Had they run better in the game like they did in the other two, who knows what happens. Joe threw for a lot and had 3 TDs, but also had 3 INTs in that 84 game. And after that 84 win, Joe Montana and the Niners never defeated the Giants in the playoffs again, and that west coast offense looked like shit every time. Montana never bounced back against the Giants in the playoffs after that 17-3 beat down. And the '90 loss was a game of field goals and one sideline pass where the anxious NYG DB jumped the route to get a pick and John Taylor ran 40 of the 60 yards with no one behind him. It was a bad defensive play. Something Seattle didn't do any of in the Superbowl last week.
Of course I think the Giants were less about scheming and more about just building a defense that could physically impose their will. They didn't fool Montana and Walsh, they simply didn't give them anywhere to go with the ball. The same thing happened to Manning.
-
And my argument is how a team adjust. Yeah, no team has won 10 years in the row like the Celtics did in basketball. Football is a game of adjustments and countering. Montana was pressured by the Giants, and you have to remember the Giants had the best pass rush in football in those days. LT changed the game, they were better suited to beat the 49ers and the westcoast offense. In fact, many teams that year seemed to adjust to the Westcoast offense that year. In the years following the first 2 Super Bowls the Niners saw a huge drop in offensive production and Montana saw a drop in production. This can be attributed to many things, and one of them is defenses adjusting to the Niners. But the key is can a player and team adjust after defeat. I do put some of this on the QB. A QB an react different ways after getting mauled, like Montana was by the Giants or Manning was by the Seahawks. They can either quiver the next time they see that team, or they can step up and sit in the pocket and start to fire rockets. Montana went back against the Giants, looked LT in the eyes and began to slice the Giants up the next THREE time he saw him. You take any QB, and I mean ANY QB and take away their weapons and pressure them, that QB will look bad. There is a reason no team in the NFL wins all 16 games in the Super Bowl, because eventually defenses figure them out. And there is a reason that defense wins Super Bowls, because with 2 weeks to prepare the defense has that much more time to figure out the offense. What Montana did better than anyone was he knew this. He knew this and he was one of the greatest decision makers in the history of the game. He can read a defense and even if he knew he was going to get crushed, he stood there and he delivered. Yeah the Giants had his number, but after that he had their number.
Maybe because I played football, but I do put a lot on the QB. A great QB has command of the huddle and they are able to talk to their players and get their heads on right. In the NFL, these players on the field are the best in the world. There are only 32 (28 in the 80's) starting #1 WR's, 32 starting #2 WR's, 32 starting RB's and 32 starting QB's in all the world. Those players are expected to perform. A great QB is part leader, they are not just some mindless person who takes orders from the coach. Montana will always be remembered for his John Candy comment in the huddle which some players said calmed them down. (though Jerry Rice himself said he didn't hear it... LOL.) I played with a QB who was heavily recruited to Notre Dame, Westpoint and Michigan back in the 90's. He eventually settled with that great football power, Pitzer College... hahaha... but when you played with him he had complete command of the huddle. When he died last year, many teammates who he hadn't talked to in 10 years showed up. He was our leader and we rallied around him. It's why the old saying goes, when you have 2 QB's, you really have none. It's why when Joe Montana went out, the Niners saw a 4 game drop even though Montana was replaced by Steve Young. It's why when Manning left Indy, the Colts went 2-14 and saw an 8 game drop. A QB is that important. And if the rest of the offense is under performing, it's the QB's job to pick them up. Leadership is huge. A defense can impose it's will, a QB has to look on how to adjust their decision making and prepare the next time they play that team.
And one last thing, I think you confuse greatest with the best. In this current era, I'd say Manning is the best QB in the game. Best numbers, best set of skill, best decision making. I might even call him the greatest of this era, since Brady hasn't won a Super Bowl since Spygate. But best does not equate greatness. In the 80's/90's, Marino was the best QB of his era. But even with Jimmy Johnson as coach the Dolphins just didn't win. The Niners on the other hand did win, and a large part of that came from having a QB who was great.
-
And my argument is how a team adjust. Yeah, no team has won 10 years in the row like the Celtics did in basketball. Football is a game of adjustments and countering. Montana was pressured by the Giants, and you have to remember the Giants had the best pass rush in football in those days. LT changed the game, they were better suited to beat the 49ers and the westcoast offense. In fact, many teams that year seemed to adjust to the Westcoast offense that year. In the years following the first 2 Super Bowls the Niners saw a huge drop in offensive production and Montana saw a drop in production. This can be attributed to many things, and one of them is defenses adjusting to the Niners. But the key is can a player and team adjust after defeat. I do put some of this on the QB. A QB an react different ways after getting mauled, like Montana was by the Giants or Manning was by the Seahawks. They can either quiver the next time they see that team, or they can step up and sit in the pocket and start to fire rockets. Montana went back against the Giants, looked LT in the eyes and began to slice the Giants up the next THREE time he saw him. You take any QB, and I mean ANY QB and take away their weapons and pressure them, that QB will look bad. There is a reason no team in the NFL wins all 16 games in the Super Bowl, because eventually defenses figure them out. And there is a reason that defense wins Super Bowls, because with 2 weeks to prepare the defense has that much more time to figure out the offense. What Montana did better than anyone was he knew this. He knew this and he was one of the greatest decision makers in the history of the game. He can read a defense and even if he knew he was going to get crushed, he stood there and he delivered. Yeah the Giants had his number, but after that he had their number.
But Manning's big problem to most people is that he can bounce back in the season and can't in the playoffs. Manning had Baltimore knock him out last year in OT and came back and tied the single game record for TD passes in the first game this season against them. My argument is not that Manning stepped up any different. The difference to e in the two games is that the first game this year the defense stepped up and in the playoff game they didn't. Manning didn't play any better in the second game.
Joe didn't exactly "slice up" the Giants all three of the next three games after the 49-3 game. He played half a game against them right after the loss the next year, but he did get the game winning drive to win 20-17. The 2nd game after was a definite slicing the year after. But the third game the Niners won 7-3. No matter how you slice it, it's not an offensive slicing.
But more importantly, in the playoffs, they lost again. Which is funny in a way because with 2 minutes left and the lead Steve Young had SF in Giant territory, and Craig fumbled the ball. The Giants drove it down and won with an FG. A Niners/Bills SB would have been interesting with most likely Young playing for an injured Montana.
Maybe because I played football, but I do put a lot on the QB. A great QB has command of the huddle and they are able to talk to their players and get their heads on right. In the NFL, these players on the field are the best in the world. There are only 32 (28 in the 80's) starting #1 WR's, 32 starting #2 WR's, 32 starting RB's and 32 starting QB's in all the world. Those players are expected to perform. A great QB is part leader, they are not just some mindless person who takes orders from the coach. Montana will always be remembered for his John Candy comment in the huddle which some players said calmed them down. (though Jerry Rice himself said he didn't hear it... LOL.) I played with a QB who was heavily recruited to Notre Dame, Westpoint and Michigan back in the 90's. He eventually settled with that great football power, Pitzer College... hahaha... but when you played with him he had complete command of the huddle. When he died last year, many teammates who he hadn't talked to in 10 years showed up. He was our leader and we rallied around him. It's why the old saying goes, when you have 2 QB's, you really have none. It's why when Joe Montana went out, the Niners saw a 4 game drop even though Montana was replaced by Steve Young. It's why when Manning left Indy, the Colts went 2-14 and saw an 8 game drop. A QB is that important. And if the rest of the offense is under performing, it's the QB's job to pick them up. Leadership is huge. A defense can impose it's will, a QB has to look on how to adjust their decision making and prepare the next time they play that team.
I guess being an oldest brother with no one ever being my leader in life anywhere I went I can't comprehend the idea of needing someone else to raise me up. No matter what position I played on the field growing up, there was no way another play could get more out of me and I resented it when they tried. It's just something I can't understand. No coach could either. There was never anyone in my life I looked to for guidance or esteem.
And one last thing, I think you confuse greatest with the best. In this current era, I'd say Manning is the best QB in the game. Best numbers, best set of skill, best decision making. I might even call him the greatest of this era, since Brady hasn't won a Super Bowl since Spygate. But best does not equate greatness. In the 80's/90's, Marino was the best QB of his era. But even with Jimmy Johnson as coach the Dolphins just didn't win. The Niners on the other hand did win, and a large part of that came from having a QB who was great.
Well Jimmy was never a fit for Miami and I can hardly call those Dolphins a great opportunity for Dan.
-
in light of the recent superbowl I change my mind
the best quarterback is Otto Graham
(http://www.profootballhof.com/assets/photo_galleries/630x536/Graham_Otto_NW_321_12_17.jpg)
Best QB ever.
-
in light of the recent superbowl I change my mind
the best quarterback is Otto Graham
(http://www.profootballhof.com/assets/photo_galleries/630x536/Graham_Otto_NW_321_12_17.jpg)
Best QB ever.
My number 2. :D