Bengal Mania Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 So let me get this straight. Starting and winning two Super Bowls is so commonplace for a QB that it isn't a major category? 1247408[/snapback] Don't know who this was directed to, but as far as I'm concerned, it IS a major category, but not the only one. If it was, then I guess Doug Williams, Brad Johnson, and Trent Dilfer would be in the 2nd 10 (since they each only won once). And Marino would be in the 20s or 30s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 So let me get this straight. Starting and winning two Super Bowls is so commonplace for a QB that it isn't a major category? 1247408[/snapback] as far as passing stats go (yards, completions, attempts, TDs), staubach isn't in the top 50 all-time in ANY of them. 50 is a big number, and roger can't crack it even once. yeah, the fact that he won a couple super bowls catapults him over a LOT of those 50+ dudes with better career numbers than him. but it doesn't catapult him over enough of them to get into the top 10 all-time. top 20? maybe. top 10? not even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) by what measure do you figure staubach IS top 10 all-time? edit to add: Roger Staubach is not in the all-time top 50 in any major category. 1246483[/snapback] Yes, but according to that methodology Drew Bledsoe must receive consideration... Edited January 4, 2006 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 as far as passing stats go (yards, completions, attempts, TDs), staubach isn't in the top 50 all-time in ANY of them. 50 is a big number, and roger can't crack it even once. yeah, the fact that he won a couple super bowls catapults him over a LOT of those 50+ dudes with better career numbers than him. but it doesn't catapult him over enough of them to get into the top 10 all-time. top 20? maybe. top 10? not even close. 1247429[/snapback] So in determining the best ever career stats are more significant than championships? Tarkenton played 11 more season than Staubach, Marino played 6 more, Fouts 4 more. So in those 21 extra years you only get 6 more Pro Bowl appearances. I'm trying to figure out what seperates Tarkenton, Marino and Fouts from Staubach other than longevity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 So in determining the best ever career stats are more significant than championships? Tarkenton played 11 more season than Staubach, Marino played 6 more, Fouts 4 more. So in those 21 extra years you only get 6 more Pro Bowl appearances. I'm trying to figure out what seperates Tarkenton, Marino and Fouts from Staubach other than longevity? 1247454[/snapback] Well...that's an interesting point. Longevity is very important, though. Not having enough seasons of excellence has kept many athletes out of their respective sports HOFs. Really, by your statement here Tom Brady should already be a top 10 all time QB, no? Or are you being selective about who you want to give championship, probowl, and percentage of seasons in the top 10 in passing categories props to? I think Az's statement that guys still playing like Brady and Manning shouldn;t be mentioned in these talks yet, but it's just a way to make a point. And I'm not exactly saying Staubach doesn;t belong, just that it's not an absolute given that he should be included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Yes, but according to that methodology Drew Bledsoe must receive consideration... 1247448[/snapback] i'm not saying (by any stretch) that accumulation-type stats are the sole (or even really the primary) measure as far as all-time rankings. but someone who's not even top FIFTY in any of those areas? i don't see how they can even get serious consideration as being among the cream of the all-time crop. the top 10-type guys should, IMO, almost all have great success as far as wins and big games, AND a great career's worth of accumulated stats. unless it's someone like marino who owns every passing record in the book, and has to get serious consideration just based on that. i don't think terrell davis is one of the top 10 RBs ever either. and he IS in the top 50 all-time in rushes (48th), yards (39th) and TDs (35th). he also has just as many super bowl rings as staubach, with no losses. but i don't think it's legit to put someone in the top 10 all-time SOLELY on that basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sores Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Brett Favre was a great QB (isn't anymore) 1247391[/snapback] Brett Favre would have put up better numbers than Carson Palmer if handed the keys to that offense. He has never had the bevy of receivers or multiple RB's that the Bengals fielded this year and his OL was decimated by defection and injury. Driver < C. Johnson Ferguson << Houshmenzadeh Chatman <<< C. Henry or K. Washington Green, Najeh, Fisher, Gado, Williams, Herron < R. Johnson, C. Perry GB OL <<< Cincy OL D. Lee < R. Kelly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 So in determining the best ever career stats are more significant than championships? Tarkenton played 11 more season than Staubach, Marino played 6 more, Fouts 4 more. So in those 21 extra years you only get 6 more Pro Bowl appearances. fuzzy math. staubach made 6 pro bowls, as did fouts. tarkenton and marino each made in 9. I'm trying to figure out what seperates Tarkenton, Marino and Fouts from Staubach other than longevity? 1247454[/snapback] with tarkenton you have a decent argument, but i have to say, longevity DOES count for something without a doubt. and tarkenton was a sort of unique and iconic kind of player who played in a different era, that counts for something as well. maybe you have an ok argument with fouts, since a lot of his statistical prowess was obviously system-based. though if you compare fouts best season with staubach's, they're not even close. but, what separates marino and staubach?? you're talking about the man who broke every passing record on the books. and not just longevity records. come on now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Well...that's an interesting point. Longevity is very important, though. Not having enough seasons of excellence has kept many athletes out of their respective sports HOFs. Really, by your statement here Tom Brady should already be a top 10 all time QB, no? Or are you being selective about who you want to give championship, probowl, and percentage of seasons in the top 10 in passing categories props to? I think Az's statement that guys still playing like Brady and Manning shouldn;t be mentioned in these talks yet, but it's just a way to make a point. And I'm not exactly saying Staubach doesn;t belong, just that it's not an absolute given that he should be included. 1247457[/snapback] I think it is a body of work. He only played 11 seasons because he's no David Robinson. In those 11 season he made 6 Pro Bowls, lead the league in passing 5 times and won two Super Bowls. I don't see what seperated Tarkenton and Fouts from Staubach other than the length of their careers compared to Satubach's. I certainly do think as far as Top 10 all-time goes; however, that winning a pair of Super Bowls makes up more for not being in the top 50 some random major category list of profootballreference.com's than being in the top 50 of those categories and not even having won one Super Bowl, much less two. I'd also put Brady Top 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I'll agree with Az that Marino is Top 10 All-Time. He already changed my mind on one guy (Kelly). So now my top 10: Montana Marino Kelly Aikman Staubach Starr Elway Bradshaw Young Brady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 AikmanStaubach Elway 1247513[/snapback] uh huh. i see how you are. of course there's no possible f*ckin way you can justify this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) ................ aikman edit: if every qb had that o-line and emmitt....... Edited January 4, 2006 by Bier Meister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 uh huh. i see how you are. of course there's no possible f*ckin way you can justify this. 1247579[/snapback] The only questionable one of the three is Elway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Favre wouldn't be as highly ranked had he not been able to play on Vicadin for years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I'll agree with Az that Marino is Top 10 All-Time. He already changed my mind on one guy (Kelly). So now my top 10: Montana Marino Kelly Aikman Staubach Starr Elway Bradshaw Young Brady 1247513[/snapback] No Unitas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 So let me get this straight. Starting and winning two Super Bowls is so commonplace for a QB that it isn't a major category? 1247408[/snapback] Winning SBs is a TEAM accomplishment; it can be done with a QB who is merely competent. Here's a question - how much higher to people rate Phil Simms if he'd stayed healthy and started against Buf in '90? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 as far as passing stats go (yards, completions, attempts, TDs), staubach isn't in the top 50 all-time in ANY of them. 50 is a big number, and roger can't crack it even once. yeah, the fact that he won a couple super bowls catapults him over a LOT of those 50+ dudes with better career numbers than him. but it doesn't catapult him over enough of them to get into the top 10 all-time. top 20? maybe. top 10? not even close. 1247429[/snapback] He probably retired among the top 20 in most of those categories; his last season was what, 79? There's been a massive shift in both game planning and rules towards the passing game since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest THEbigred Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 lmao @ this thread. I'm amazed anyone even bothered to consider QBs before 1980. Maybe the question should be rephrased to "of the QBs you saw play, where does Favre rank" I think he'd be top 10 but not top 5. In fact, his last few years have not exactly helped, most notably how he's pissed away several playoff games with lame INTs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.