Bill Swerski Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I agree with that because of the huge difference in talent but I wouldnt take fouts career over a qb that may not have been a stat machine but was a great qb that has rings like Aikman. 652756[/snapback] Aikman also played for the New York Yankees of pro football. No offense to the Chowderheads, but being "the best QB in the history of the Dallas Cowboys" carries a lot more weight than being "the best QB in the history of the New England Patriots." The Pats don't come close to the storied history or fan base of the Cowboys. I'll say this: I'd take Marino's career over Phil Simms' mediocre stats and two rings. Similarly, I'd take Manning's career over Brady's mediocre stats and two rings. And that's not a knock on Brady or Simms. I just think that you have to do more than "be a part of a winning team" to be considered a "great" QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Good points except I think Brady needs to get some new hats during the press meetings. You ain't black Brady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jo Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Personally, I'd rather be Brady than Manning right now. I'll take being the starting QB on 2 Super Bowl teams over the stats and no Super Bowl rings. Forget the supporting cast, talent level, etc...Brady can say he lead his team to 2 Super Bowls and Manning can not at this point, and that's the bottom line to me. Once Manning gets a ring, my position would obiviously change - I'd rather have the stats and the ring. If you're asking who I'd rather start a team with, however, the answer has to be Manning. I'd bet if you asked every GM in the league to pick 1 player to start a team with, every single one would answer Manning. I really don't think there's even a close 2nd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Miscreant Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Has anyone else here considered the possibility that some of us, admitted FF junkies, may at times over value the stats of a player, particularly QBs, because of our perspective? After all, we don't just play but engross ourselves in a game/hobby/sub-culture that puts it's emphasis squarely on statistics. I keep reading all these posts that suggest the legacies of the likes of Marino and Manning are somehow grander than those of QBs who have 1, 2 or even 3 Super Bowls rings yet we seem to, quite easily, recall their names and what they have accomplished. No one here is pulling names out of a hat that are in any way mysterious. We all know who they are. Sounds to me like the legacies of those players are pretty strong. Each and every one of the guys mentioned in this thread so far set out to do one thing each year...win. For most of them, if they don't win the last game of the year then the season wasn't a complete success. From our outsider/fan perspective some of us may choose the big stat, big name career but I would bet any amount of money that there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that Brady would trade either of his rings for better stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 From our outsider/fan perspective some of us may choose the big stat, big name career but I would bet any amount of money that there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that Brady would trade either of his rings for better stats. 653871[/snapback] At the end of the day, I'd rather be the guy who did everything that he possibly could to try to win and did it BETTER than not only all of his peers, but better than anybody EVER. I'd be more proud of that than being the guy who was lucky enough to be on the right team with the right coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Miscreant Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 From our outsider/fan perspective some of us may choose the big stat, big name career but I would bet any amount of money that there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that Brady would trade either of his rings for better stats. 653871[/snapback] At the end of the day, I'd rather be the guy who did everything that he possibly could to try to win and did it BETTER than not only all of his peers, but better than anybody EVER. I'd be more proud of that than being the guy who was lucky enough to be on the right team with the right coach. 653887[/snapback] So if Satan comes to Brady in the off-season and offers him Marino's career in exchange for his Super Bowl wins you're saying he should take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 So if Satan comes to Brady in the off-season and offers him Marino's career in exchange for his Super Bowl wins you're saying he should take it. 653905[/snapback] Brady would need some sort of divine intervention for that to happen, as he doesn't have Marino's talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 You actually want UT to respond? 653692[/snapback] OMG :bigshock: What was I thinking?!?! You're rigth Bill. When you're right, you're right! Duely earned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Winning is everything!!! Stats mean nothing. Montana is often described as the best QB ever to play. Why, because he has 4 rings. He has no stats and was a good but not great qb IMO. Brady is exactly the same way. Brady just finds ways to win. Does he have a good supporting cast? Absolutely, but so what. He is a winner and just makes things happen. Elway was exactly the same way. He just won!!! Manning has won nothing. Until he gets a ring, I think I'll stick with Brady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I think it's funny you chose to include Elway. He had the same knock as Manning for the majority of his career. Those last two years made everybody forget that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herdmaster Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Winning is everything!!! Stats mean nothing. Montana is often described as the best QB ever to play. Why, because he has 4 rings. He has no stats and was a good but not great qb IMO. Brady is exactly the same way. Brady just finds ways to win. Does he have a good supporting cast? Absolutely, but so what. He is a winner and just makes things happen. Elway was exactly the same way. He just won!!! Manning has won nothing. Until he gets a ring, I think I'll stick with Brady. 654407[/snapback] Elway didn't win a thing until he got a running game to take some pressure off. Before the SuperBowl wins, he and Mannings career's were almost a perfect reflection of one anothers. Marino was perhaps the greatest talent at QB the league has ever seen, but the supporting cast just never measured up, but am I naive enough to think that Trent Dilfer is better because he has a ring? When it's all said and done, Manning will be the greatest QB who ever played...bar none! And he'll have the numbers...and hardware to prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 I think it's funny you chose to include Elway. He had the same knock as Manning for the majority of his career. Those last two years made everybody forget that. 654439[/snapback] Very True......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 When it's all said and done, Manning will be the greatest QB who ever played...bar none! And he'll have the numbers...and hardware to prove it. 655479[/snapback] Maybe by the time they throw in the 5th rule to help NFL offenses, he will have the hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted January 15, 2005 Author Share Posted January 15, 2005 I think no one will deny that They would rather have Testeverde at the helm instead of Manning or Brady..Admit it pats and colts Homers..You want Vinny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herdmaster Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Maybe by the time they throw in the 5th rule to help NFL offenses, he will have the hardware. 655713[/snapback] I love the conspiracy theorists Rules have nothing to do with the way he prepares, the accuracy of his throws, and his commitment to the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 I love the conspiracy theorists Rules have nothing to do with the way he prepares, the accuracy of his throws, and his commitment to the game. 656063[/snapback] Yeah but it sure did help the NFL set records in 100 yard rushing games, 300+ passing, and TDs scored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 OOOOPs! Forgot to include the "dipwad" category! At this point in time, if you are looking at who's career will be remembered... Manning! The career that you can point at and say you accomplished what others in YOUR position in a TEAM sport have not. Manning! The respect of everyone of import in the game for preparation, team leadership, knowledge of the game and his opponents? Manning! Carrying a fagbag and calling yourself a metrosexual whatever? Brady! QUICK! Name some WINNING Super Bowl QBs that are NOT in the NFL Hall of Fame! Ummmmmmmmm... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doug Williams, Earl Morrel (QB for the majority of the Dolphins undefeated season and replaced an injured Unitas in Baltimore Colts SB V win over Dallas ), Jim McMahon, Ken Stabler, Jim Plunkett- 2 rings, Joe Theismann. These are all guys who QBed in and won Super Bowl Games. None are in the NFL Hall of Fame. Now, you tell me. If you want to leave a legacy of CAREER accomplishment, would you rather be these guys, or Dan Fouts who IS in the HOF and was recently named as one of the two all 80's QBs? I would argue, that as a QB, Fouts had a better carrer than any of these guys, as indicated by all the experts, but was never able to reach that ultimate TEAM accomplishment, the ring. You can only play with the guys that are on your team, and as a player, that is not your fault. They all talk about "the ring", but 10 to 15 years after you hang up the cleats, you want to be Fouts, or one of those "other guys" that "know" one (no one) remembers? (Well, people will remember Theisman for "SNAP" before anyone will associate his name with a Super Bowl, but I would believe that is a BAD thing! ) The question posed in this thread is premature, their carrers are not done. However, I would argue that if both were never able to play again as of today, Brady will be remembered about as much as Plunkett, and Manning will be remembered with the likes of Fouts. I also think when it is all said and done, Brady dissolves into the pool of players on great Super Bowl teams that nobody remembers, and Manning will wear the jacket his father never achieved! :slammicrophoneonthegroundgreamlin: McB g 653112[/snapback] BUMP 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.