Tortured Soul Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 No one on the list had their rookie season after 1985. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Bruce should be #5. Steve Young was better than Montana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Interesting re: Polian -- how anyone could think that Babe Ruth wasn't the best ever is beyond me. One can bring up Bonds, but Bonds didn't have a career record of 94-46 as a starting pitcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Interesting re: Polian -- how anyone could think that Babe Ruth wasn't the best ever is beyond me. One can bring up Bonds, but Bonds didn't have a career record of 94-46 as a starting pitcher. Level of competition, for one. Ruth played when blacks played in the Negro league. Arguably he never faced some the best baseball players of his age. Also, I believe ground rule doubles counted as home runs when Ruth played. Ruth didn't bat against an assortment of fresh relief pitchers. Need any more reasons why SOME people might thing he wasn't the best player ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Bruce should be #5. Steve Young was better than Montana. Steve Young is borderline top 100, Joe is right where he should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Also, while not directly pertinent to the list: Let's not forget that it was well known that Ruth drank alcohol during Prohibition. Really not different than players today smoking pot, doing cocaine, etc. I wonder if Daryl Strawberry wonders why he didn't feel that same love Ruth felt when he was breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Steve Young is borderline top 100, Joe is right where he should be. At their peak, on any team, in any era, Young would beat out Montana for the starting job, if they started at an equal level. Young had skills, and smarts, Montana could only dream of. And Montana was pretty damn good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Level of competition, for one. Ruth played when blacks played in the Negro league. Arguably he never faced some the best baseball players of his age. Also, I believe ground rule doubles counted as home runs when Ruth played. Ruth didn't bat against an assortment of fresh relief pitchers. Need any more reasons why SOME people might thing he wasn't the best player ever? No. Babe Ruth was amazing. He played against the best players of his era, more or less. Of course, he played in an era minus a substantial number of black players who had major league talent. That said, if you compare him to what he played against, he was far better than everyone else, and he played in a stadium that was 460 foot at center field. To reiterate, he was 94-46 as a starter. More importantly, you can't compare him against today's players -- you have to compare him against the competition of his era. To say that segregation undercuts any claims to his greatness is a dodge -- he would have been as good in the Negro Leagues of that era as well. Comparing him against today's players, is like saying that David Petraeus is a better general than Hannibal because he dealt with more complicated technology and a larger operations theater. I'll take Hannibal (minus the human sacrifice stuff). PS - I'm not getting your point about prohibition (above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 At their peak, on any team, in any era, Young would beat out Montana for the starting job, if they started at an equal level. Young had skills, and smarts, Montana could only dream of. And Montana was pretty damn good. Joe: 4 rings, 16-7 in playoffs Gaylord: 1 ring, 8-6 in playoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 No. Babe Ruth was amazing. He played against the best players of his era, more or less. Of course, he played in an era minus a substantial number of black players who had major league talent. That said, if you compare him to what he played against, he was far better than everyone else, and he played in a stadium that was 460 foot at center field. To reiterate, he was 94-46 as a starter. More importantly, you can't compare him against today's players -- you have to compare him against the competition of his era. To say that segregation undercuts any claims to his greatness is a dodge -- he would have been as good in the Negro Leagues of that era as well. Comparing him against today's players, is like saying that David Petraeus is a better general than Hannibal because he dealt with more complicated technology and a larger operations theater. I'll take Hannibal (minus the human sacrifice stuff). What in hell are you talking about? Ruth played against half the talented players and batted against the same pitcher for 9 innings nearly every game. We have NO idea how he would have fared in the Negro league, as far as I can tell. If you put him in a list of all players you HAVE to compare him to today's players, or why bother making the list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Joe: 4 rings, 16-7 in playoffsGaylord: 1 ring, 8-6 in playoffs Hmm. My recollection is that the Niners' D in the mid-80s was totally dominant. Actually, the stats back up that intuition. Football -- team game. You often seem to forget that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Hmm. My recollection is that the Niners' D in the mid-80s was totally dominant. Actually, the stats back up that intuition. Football -- team game. You often seem to forget that. None-the-less, given a big game, I know who I want as QB in his prime, and Steve Young would be far from my 1st choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 What in hell are you talking about? Ruth played against half the talented players and batted against the same pitcher for 9 innings nearly every game. We have NO idea how he would have fared in the Negro league, as far as I can tell. If you put him in a list of all players you HAVE to compare him to today's players, or why bother making the list? The last sentence is sophistry. You compare him against the players of his day, and the players today against the other players of today. And spare me about the question of whether he would have been good in the Negro leagues. Of course he would have been. He could throw it around 90, hit a ball over 450 feet on a semi-regular basis, and had exceptionally quick wrists. The guy was great. I know you probably don't care about this sort of stuff, but check out his OPS compared to other players of his time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Joe: 4 rings, 16-7 in playoffsGaylord: 1 ring, 8-6 in playoffs Well, as we know QBs do not have W/L records. But if they did, and that were the criteria, then Terry Bradshaw is arguably better than Joe. 4 rings and 14-5 in playoffs! But we both know that's one stupid metric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Well, as we know QBs do not have W/L records. But if they did, and that were the criteria, then Terry Bradshaw is arguably better than Joe. 4 rings and 14-5 in playoffs! But we both know that's one stupid metric. Not better than Joe, no... but I would take Bradshaw over Steve Young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 None-the-less, given a big game, I know who I want as QB in his prime, and Steve Young would be far from my 1st choice. I'd take Montana too. I do think that Young was good, however. He had the misfortune of QB'ing a team that wasn't as good as the Cowboys in 1992-93, although if Guy McIntyre doesn't hold on the first play from scrimmage in the Jan 1993 championship game (negating a 70 yard TD to Rice), the Bills probably would have been been blown out by the Niners instead of the Cowboys in Pasadena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Not better than Joe, no... but I would take Bradshaw over Steve Young. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/152507-...-qb-of-all-time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I'd take Montana too. I do think that Young was good, however. He had the misfortune of QB'ing a team that wasn't as good as the Cowboys in 1992-93, although if Guy McIntyre doesn't hold on the first play from scrimmage in the Jan 1993 championship game (negating a 70 yard TD to Rice), the Bills probably would have been been blown out by the Niners instead of the Cowboys in Pasadena.Don't get me wrong, Young was a lot of fun to watch, and I'm not really begrudging him anything other than a spot near the very top. Tarkenton was a lot of fun to watch too, at least Young did get the monkey off his back & earned a ring. Both are/were brutal as announcers though zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Bruce deserves that spot. Never saw Butkus play but it's hard to imagine that he was better than Ray Lewis. Offensive players were physically afraid of Butkus when they had to play against him. He was great against the run and not that great against the pass but no receiver or RB wanted to get hit by him after a reception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/152507-...-qb-of-all-timeWell, I would definitely take Young over P-Gump in a big game, but not Brady. Young's performance post-season play was a step down from regular season, whereas Montana actually got better in the pressure of the playoffs than in the regular season.This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts