billsfan89 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Imo Peyton Manning had his best year in 09. Harrison got old, his line was all banged up, and his defense lost their best players for a considerable amount of games. I used to think that Brady was better than Peyton. Not any more. Again....jmo. It was weird Brady use to be underrated while Peyton was the guy who was putting up great stats. Now that Brady put up that 50 TD year he is the flashy stat guy and Peyton is kind of the underrated guy who is doing very good but not putting up the great stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Fair enough. Like Steely Dan said having a slightly above average QB is more valuable than most think. I do think anyone who insists Romo is a choke-artist should watch the Giants playoff game on NFL Network next time it's on. The guy was running for his life the whole 4th Qtr, his only int was a 4th down desperation heave at the end of the game, and Patrick Crayton dropped two gimmes that probably would've won the game. Both Eli and his brother have multipe far-worse playoff performances on their resume. But I guess that's the price you play for being a Dallas QB. Its not that Romo preforms badly in the playoffs its just that the whole can't win in the playoffs/December is in his head. And until he dispels that he will always be labeled a choker and it might turn out to be a self fulfilling prophecy. So until he turns in a good playoff run I can't put him over Eli who has a ring and solid numbers (Not as good as Romo's but its not a huge gap). I hate to label someone a choker because its a team game BUT I just don't think that asking someone to win a playoff game is all that much and the QB has the biggest impact over the game. Eli is an above average QB who is cool as a cucumber in clutch situations while Romo is a good QB who plays average in clutch situations. I would take Eli because the clutch is more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoverbills Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfceast/0-12-9/...to-pay-Eli.html With a career QB rating of 77.8 and a career completion percentage of 55.9 I DO NOT see how this should even be remotely possible. Whats his win and lost record? Isn't that tell you if he is a good QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Whats his win and lost record? Isn't that tell you if he is a good QB? Not really. Manning is very average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoverbills Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Not really. Manning is very average. I was joking about win and lost record. The reason was some people didn't want Cutler even no he put up good stats at Denver ,because he had a loosing record as a starter. He even made the pro bowl, but wasn't good enough because of loosing record as a starter. By the way the last four years with Manning starting for the Giants ,they had a 41 wins and 23 lost record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I was joking about win and lost record. The reason was some people didn't want Cutler even no he put up good stats at Denver ,because he had a loosing record as a starter. He even made the pro bowl, but wasn't good enough because of loosing record as a starter. By the way the last four years with Manning starting for the Giants ,they had a 41 wins and 23 lost record. Wins/losses is only one out of a multitude of things you look at. Manning, while a good QB, is not an elite QB. He is an oft-erratic game manager, who relies on his running game and defense to win. The problem with Cutler is that he is a turnover machine, with 20 last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 I think you are mixed up with your generations. Namath and Tarkenton were of the same generation. And starr overlapped their generations. You are right about Namath & Tarkenton I thought he was much older. I don't get what you mean be Starr "overlapped" their generations, Starr was born in the previous generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 You are right about Namath & Tarkenton I thought he was much older. I don't get what you mean be Starr "overlapped" their generations, Starr was born in the previous generation. Starr played from 56-71 Namath played from 65-77 Tark played from 61-78 Therefore Starrs career 'overlapped' the career of Namath and Tark(it overlapped Namaths career by 6-7 yrs and Tarks by 10 yrs)altho his general era was slightly earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Starr played from 56-71Namath played from 65-77 Tark played from 61-78 Therefore Starrs career 'overlapped' the career of Namath and Tark(it overlapped Namaths career by 6-7 yrs and Tarks by 10 yrs)altho his general era was slightly earlier. Bob Griese was also in Namath's era. (much better career, as well) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless Ike Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 You must be young & never saw Namath play. He was the Greatest QB of his generation & played on TWO bad legs from his 1st day in the NFL. Had he not been injured in college he may have been the best QB EVER. and if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle the stats speak for themselves http://www.nfl.com/players/joenamath/caree...ts?id=NAM415291 Namath had more TDs than interceptions exactly....ONCE, and had a career completion percentage of about 50%, and a career QB rating of 65. the fact that people are arguing about how great he was just reinforces my point...he's a serially overrated player that gets fawned over by the media because he won a championship in media-heavy NYC.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 But Namath played in the same era as Bart Starr and Tarkington who are both better than Namath. I don't know what Namath could have been but what he was wasn't better than Starr or Tarkington. You can't say because he had talent negated by injury that he is better than Starr or Tarkington. Could Namath have been better than those guys I don't know but from what you say it sounds like he could have been. Buts its only speculation based off of speculation to wither he could have better than Starr or Tarkington. All three are HOF players and you can debate the merits of each. Namath however had a GREATER impact on the NFL than ANY other player PERIOD. When the NY Jets signed Namath the AFL & NFL were at WAR. The AFL was in danger of folding at that time. Namath's signing by the Jets gave legitamacy to the upstart league, & the NFL eventually realized it needed to make peace with the AFL. The AFL was still looked down on as an inferior minor league by the NFL & much of America until Namath & the Jets beat the Colts in Super Bowl III. If you are a Buffalo Bills fan today, you can thank Joe Willie Namath. Without him the AFL & Buffalo Bills could well have folded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless Ike Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 All three are HOF players and you can debate the merits of each. Namath however had a GREATER impact on the NFL than ANY other player PERIOD. When the NY Jets signed Namath the AFL & NFL were at WAR. The AFL was in danger of folding at that time. Namath's signing by the Jets gave legitamacy to the upstart league, & the NFL eventually realized it needed to make peace with the AFL. The AFL was still looked down on as an inferior minor league by the NFL & much of America until Namath & the Jets beat the Colts in Super Bowl III. If you are a Buffalo Bills fan today, you can thank Joe Willie Namath. Without him the AFL & Buffalo Bills could well have folded. I don't think anyone's saying he wasn't historically important, but he was not a great on-field NFL QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 I don't think anyone's saying he wasn't historically important, but he was not a great on-field NFL QB. You yourself said he is overrated & that is just WRONG. He got the attention he got NOT because he played in NY, but rather because he played for the NY Jets NOT the Giants. he also set some big records, he was the 1st NFL QB to pass for over 4000 yards. He did that in 1967 in a 14 game season. No other QB did it until Dan Fouts in 1979 in a 16 game season. You guys need to watch film of the old games & READ rather than quote stats, they don't mean sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 You yourself said he is overrated & that is just WRONG. He got the attention he got NOT because he played in NY, but rather because he played for the NY Jets NOT the Giants. he also set some big records, he was the 1st NFL QB to pass for over 4000 yards. He did that in 1967 in a 14 game season. No other QB did it until Dan Fouts in 1979 in a 16 game season. You guys need to watch film of the old games & READ rather than quote stats, they don't mean sh--. How hypocritical can you get? You quote a stat to make your argument then tell us they don't mean sh--. http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/alltimeoverrated.html #1 overrated player of all time according to Page 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 How hypocritical can you get? You quote a stat to make your argument then tell us they don't mean sh--. http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/alltimeoverrated.html #1 overrated player of all time according to Page 2. Stats don't mean CRAP. The proof of that is stats that have been posted on this board that would make Trent Edwards APPEAR to be a GOOD QB when thus far he has been Nothing more than MEDIOCRE. I did not quote a stat, I quoted a RECORD. That list was no doubt put together by a 20 something kid that never saw ANY of the people on that list play & therefore has NO VALUE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Stats don't mean CRAP. The proof of that is stats that have been posted on this board that would make Trent Edwards APPEAR to be a GOOD QB when thus far he has been Nothing more than MEDIOCRE. I did not quote a stat, I quoted a RECORD. That list was no doubt put together by a 20 something kid that never saw ANY of the people on that list play & therefore has NO VALUE. A record based on a stat. 4,000 yards is a stat. Just like TD to INT ratio is a stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NyQuil Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 No he does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless Ike Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Stats don't mean CRAP. The proof of that is stats that have been posted on this board that would make Trent Edwards APPEAR to be a GOOD QB when thus far he has been Nothing more than MEDIOCRE. I did not quote a stat, I quoted a RECORD. That list was no doubt put together by a 20 something kid that never saw ANY of the people on that list play & therefore has NO VALUE. trent edwards stats show him to be nothing more than mediocre...numbers don't lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 I don't think anyone's saying he wasn't historically important, but he was not a great on-field NFL QB. i guarantee you are under....uhmm ...50--because that is a ludicrous statement.You didnt see the guy play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 i guarantee you are under....uhmm ...50--because that is a ludicrous statement.You didnt see the guy play. Are you denying that Namath had many very crappy seasons? Namath is considered very overrated by A LOT of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts