Random observations about the 2009 NFL season.

[thejuggernaut]

It isn't from the 90's on, it's from 1978 on. That is the year when all of the major rule changes took place that opened up the passing game and made football into the game that we know it as to this day. If you want to have two separate lists (one for pre '78 and another for '78 on) I would not have a problem with that. But that doesn't change the fact that no other QB in the history of the game was as good as Favre for as long. All of the other great ones were washed up by the time they reached 40, but Favre still has it.

Bitch if you don't think today's pussyfied QB rules don't expand a players life span you're fucking stupid.

Even Namath said on this weeks Buck Show that QB's should be able to play into their late 40's. Christ Elway said in his time he was getting teased about wearing a skirt but in today's game QB's might as well be wearing ballerina outfits.

Your blind obsession over your favorite players dick is amazing. You can't see shit with a set of balls on your face.

Their is no one immaculate conception when it comes to rule changes, they get worse each year, some more then others but one things for sure they still played and hit hard in the 80's. The 70's was a War zone.

I recently found a VHS of a Monday night game in 1992, after watching the first half it was amazing that every other play I kept saying "that would be a flag today"

Fuck you and fuck your stats, you're clearly nothing more then a fan boy with no real understanding of the game. Might as well call you P13 junior, funny how both you fag's ended up on Bret's lap.

Because we all know the In The Grasp, and the Tuck rules used today are the ones created in the 70s.

LOL

[bane]

The guys that you named were all great QBs, don't get me wrong. But can you honestly look at their entire body of work and say that they were absolutely without question better than Favre? I don't think you can say that objectively, although I respect that a case can be made for some of those guys being just maybe ever so slightly better.

Tarkenton, Bradshaw, Staubach, Stabler, Starr, and Unitas are so hard to judge because they played before the major NFL rule changes of 1978. They're certainly among the best of their era, but how would they have played in the modern era? Maybe better, maybe worse, maybe the same. There's no way to really come up with an absolute answer to that question.

As for his modern era contemporaries... I put Marino, Elway, Manning, and Young into the top 5 with Favre. Rank those five in any order and I won't argue too much. I put Favre at #1, but honestly a strong case can be made for any of those five being put at the top of that list. I think that guys like Montana, Kelly, Fouts, and Moon belong in the 2nd tier. Not that they weren't great, but their entire body of work doesn't quite measure up to that of the guys in my top five.

I can absolutely make a case for it. Is it subjective? Sure it is. That's why I take issue with your "without question" statement. There are huge questions. One could argue that Marino doesn't belong because he never won a ring, or that Montana was a system QB etc. There are lots of questions with any "who's best" statement. There are too many variables to take into account.

[Punk]

Ask anyone in football, including the QBs themselves, and they'll tell you a QB's worth is derived from wins, nothing else. Kevin Kolb just did something no other QB in history has done, should he be considered one of the best because he threw a lot of yards? No.

That being said, Favre is slightly overrated because despite all the hoopla, he's got 1 ring, and his reckless play is probably the reason he doesn't have more.

If we're talking the modern era (post 1978, let's say), the 2 best quarterbacks are clearly Tom Brady...I hate the dude, but I wouldn't want anyone else leading my team with 1 minute left down by 4...and Joe Montana. Ben Roethlisberger, and John Elway are probably in the next tier. Steve Young and Peyton Manning are obviously in the discussion as well, despite only leading one team to the championship. Favre's in there somewhere, but the dude's got as many rings as Trent Dilfer and Doug Williams. He's overrated.

[bane]

Ask anyone in football, including the QBs themselves, and they'll tell you a QB's worth is derived from wins, nothing else. Kevin Kolb just did something no other QB in history has done, should he be considered one of the best because he threw a lot of yards? No.

That being said, Favre is slightly overrated because despite all the hoopla, he's got 1 ring, and his reckless play is probably the reason he doesn't have more.

If we're talking the modern era (post 1978, let's say), the 2 best quarterbacks are clearly Tom Brady...I hate the dude, but I wouldn't want anyone else leading my team with 1 minute left down by 4...and Joe Montana. Ben Roethlisberger, and John Elway are probably in the next tier. Steve Young and Peyton Manning are obviously in the discussion as well, despite only leading one team to the championship. Favre's in there somewhere, but the dude's got as many rings as Trent Dilfer and Doug Williams. He's overrated.

Your point is well taken but.......Marino?

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Ask anyone in football, including the QBs themselves, and they'll tell you a QB's worth is derived from wins, nothing else. Kevin Kolb just did something no other QB in history has done, should he be considered one of the best because he threw a lot of yards? No.

That being said, Favre is slightly overrated because despite all the hoopla, he's got 1 ring, and his reckless play is probably the reason he doesn't have more.

If we're talking the modern era (post 1978, let's say), the 2 best quarterbacks are clearly Tom Brady...I hate the dude, but I wouldn't want anyone else leading my team with 1 minute left down by 4...and Joe Montana. Ben Roethlisberger, and John Elway are probably in the next tier. Steve Young and Peyton Manning are obviously in the discussion as well, despite only leading one team to the championship. Favre's in there somewhere, but the dude's got as many rings as Trent Dilfer and Doug Williams. He's overrated.

If your criteria is merely wins, and based on that you come up with Brady and Montana...

TheN the question is not who are the best QBs but who are the QBs who played for the best teams. This just in, a win is a TEAM accomplishment and not all QBs are given equal caliber teams to work with.

QBs don't win games, teams do. A QB is merely one guy on the team, so let's not get carried away giving him too much credit when his team is good or too much blame when his team is bad.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

I never said it's a fact that he's the best, I said that without question he has to be considered among the best ever and that arguably a case can be made for him at the very top of that list.

So you never said he was the best huh?

Greatest QB of all-time.

Now your saying he has to be considered among the best?

Neither one of them holds a candle to Favre, Elway, Marino, or Manning. The proof is in the career statistics.

The PROOF is in the career statistics sure sounds like a FUCKING FACT TO ME.

Yeah, I said he's the best in my opinion and I gave reasons as to what criteria I used to come to that conclusion. But I didn't say it is absolutely a fact, and I also said you can rank those five guys in pretty much any order and I won't complain much. The only thing I'll complain about is trying to elevate lesser QBs who were just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. We're talking best QBs here, not the QBs who played for the best teams.

Furthermore... I would like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have a problem with somebody not agreeing with me that Favre is the best of all-time, but I do have a problem with somebody saying that no way in hell can a case even be made for ranking him as the best of all-time. There are many QBs that could arguably be considered the greatest ever, and any objective person would have to admit that he is one of them.

[bane]

Ask anyone in football, including the QBs themselves, and they'll tell you a QB's worth is derived from wins, nothing else. Kevin Kolb just did something no other QB in history has done, should he be considered one of the best because he threw a lot of yards? No.

That being said, Favre is slightly overrated because despite all the hoopla, he's got 1 ring, and his reckless play is probably the reason he doesn't have more.

If we're talking the modern era (post 1978, let's say), the 2 best quarterbacks are clearly Tom Brady...I hate the dude, but I wouldn't want anyone else leading my team with 1 minute left down by 4...and Joe Montana. Ben Roethlisberger, and John Elway are probably in the next tier. Steve Young and Peyton Manning are obviously in the discussion as well, despite only leading one team to the championship. Favre's in there somewhere, but the dude's got as many rings as Trent Dilfer and Doug Williams. He's overrated.

If your criteria is merely wins, and based on that you come up with Brady and Montana...

TheN the question is not who are the best QBs but who are the QBs who played for the best teams. This just in, a win is a TEAM accomplishment and not all QBs are given equal caliber teams to work with.

QBs don't win games, teams do. A QB is merely one guy on the team, so let's not get carried away giving him too much credit when his team is good or too much blame when his team is bad.

That's a true statement, but there are QB's who have a habit of winning games during the last 2 minutes, when the pressure is really on. Guys like Elway, Rothlisberger etc. The guys who took it upon themselves to march down the field and win. Elway was notorious for it. He'd do it with his arm, with his legs, whatever. The guy seemed to will his way to wins sometimes. To me that was one of Farve's weaknesses. He'd be just as likely to throw a pick in that scenario.

[Punk]

There's obviously some exceptions, like Jim Kelly and Dan Marino. But dude, Brady didn't have shit around him during his Super Bowl runs...they had 3rd tier wide receivers and a serviceable running game at best.

Wins are the most important factor, stats are second.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Ask anyone in football, including the QBs themselves, and they'll tell you a QB's worth is derived from wins, nothing else. Kevin Kolb just did something no other QB in history has done, should he be considered one of the best because he threw a lot of yards? No.

That being said, Favre is slightly overrated because despite all the hoopla, he's got 1 ring, and his reckless play is probably the reason he doesn't have more.

If we're talking the modern era (post 1978, let's say), the 2 best quarterbacks are clearly Tom Brady...I hate the dude, but I wouldn't want anyone else leading my team with 1 minute left down by 4...and Joe Montana. Ben Roethlisberger, and John Elway are probably in the next tier. Steve Young and Peyton Manning are obviously in the discussion as well, despite only leading one team to the championship. Favre's in there somewhere, but the dude's got as many rings as Trent Dilfer and Doug Williams. He's overrated.

If your criteria is merely wins, and based on that you come up with Brady and Montana...

TheN the question is not who are the best QBs but who are the QBs who played for the best teams. This just in, a win is a TEAM accomplishment and not all QBs are given equal caliber teams to work with.

QBs don't win games, teams do. A QB is merely one guy on the team, so let's not get carried away giving him too much credit when his team is good or too much blame when his team is bad.

That's a true statement, but there are QB's who have a habit of winning games during the last 2 minutes, when the pressure is really on. Guys like Elway, Rothlisberger etc. The guys who took it upon themselves to march down the field and win. Elway was notorious for it. He'd do it with his arm, with his legs, whatever. The guy seemed to will his way to wins sometimes. To me that was one of Farve's weaknesses. He'd be just as likely to throw a pick in that scenario.

I think that's somewhat of a myth. Favre has how many 4th quarter comebacks to his credit? They put up a graphic during the Vikings game this past week, and I forget the number but it was a lot. The interceptions that you're thinking of usually occured when his team was down by more than a couple of scores and they went into desperation mode. If they're within a score he's more than likely not going to get picked off in that particular scenario, and I would guess (without looking it up) that he has about as many 4th quarter comebacks as Elway. Favre has willed his team to victories on numerous occassions, including this past Sunday.

[bane]

I'd lay pretty good odds that Farve doesn't touch Elway in 2 minute wins. 4th quarter comebacks, maybe, but when the pressure was really on and time was critical, Farve has coughed the ball up an awful lot. I haven't looked it up either though.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

There's obviously some exceptions, like Jim Kelly and Dan Marino. But dude, Brady didn't have shit around him during his Super Bowl runs...they had 3rd tier wide receivers and a serviceable running game at best.

Wins are the most important factor, stats are second.

If that were true, Walter Payton would be considered inferior to Franco Harris and (to stick with QBs) Dan Marino would be considered inferior to Brad Johnson.

Again, a win is a TEAM accomplishment. You can't judge individuals based on the accomplishments of the teams that they played for, judge them based on how well they played their position.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

I'd lay pretty good odds that Farve doesn't touch Elway in 2 minute wins. 4th quarter comebacks, maybe, but when the pressure was really on and time was critical, Farve has coughed the ball up an awful lot. I haven't looked it up either though.

Not if he was within one score. That is very much urban legend. In situations in which he was down by two or more scores, okay I'll give you that one. But if he's down by less than 7 points and has the ball with two minutes to go... he's going to win that game 9 times out of 10.

[Punk]

There's obviously some exceptions, like Jim Kelly and Dan Marino. But dude, Brady didn't have shit around him during his Super Bowl runs...they had 3rd tier wide receivers and a serviceable running game at best.

Wins are the most important factor, stats are second.

If that were true, Walter Payton would be considered inferior to Franco Harris and (to stick with QBs) Dan Marino would be considered inferior to Brad Johnson.

Again, a win is a TEAM accomplishment. You can't judge individuals based on the accomplishments of the teams that they played for, judge them based on how well they played their position.

First of all, can you read? I said Marino was an exception. Obvsiously Favre is one as well, but I'll stick by my assessment that he's overrated...for as much talent as he's had around him, he should have 3 rings, not one.

Secondly, we're not talking about running backs. Sure it's a team concept, but the quarterback is the most important player, the LEADER. No one is more responsible for the team winning or losing.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

There's obviously some exceptions, like Jim Kelly and Dan Marino. But dude, Brady didn't have shit around him during his Super Bowl runs...they had 3rd tier wide receivers and a serviceable running game at best.

Wins are the most important factor, stats are second.

If that were true, Walter Payton would be considered inferior to Franco Harris and (to stick with QBs) Dan Marino would be considered inferior to Brad Johnson.

Again, a win is a TEAM accomplishment. You can't judge individuals based on the accomplishments of the teams that they played for, judge them based on how well they played their position.

NFL quarterbacks are judged on wins, they touch the ball half the time.

They and NBA centers have their reputations based on wins more than other team sport players.

So Bob Griese (not Dan Marino) is the greatest QB in Dolphins history? I don't think so. QBs don't win games, teams do.

[Punk]

There's obviously some exceptions, like Jim Kelly and Dan Marino. But dude, Brady didn't have shit around him during his Super Bowl runs...they had 3rd tier wide receivers and a serviceable running game at best.

Wins are the most important factor, stats are second.

If that were true, Walter Payton would be considered inferior to Franco Harris and (to stick with QBs) Dan Marino would be considered inferior to Brad Johnson.

Again, a win is a TEAM accomplishment. You can't judge individuals based on the accomplishments of the teams that they played for, judge them based on how well they played their position.

NFL quarterbacks are judged on wins, they touch the ball half the time.

They and NBA centers have their reputations based on wins more than other team sport players.

Exactly, and that's why Bill Russell is considered superior to Wilt Chamberlain despite stats that aren't even close.

[Punk]

So Bob Griese (not Dan Marino) is the greatest QB in Dolphins history? I don't think so. QBs don't win games, teams do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who said we can't count shit from before 1978?

[bane]

Exactly, and that's why Bill Russell is considered superior to Wilt Chamberlain despite stats that aren't even close.

He is? Not in my book, but again, point well taken.

[Punk]

Exactly, and that's why Bill Russell is considered superior to Wilt Chamberlain despite stats that aren't even close.

He is? Not in my book, but again, point well taken.

Russell won 11 championships in 13 seasons and generally outplayed Chamberlain, not to mention winning the MVP 5 times. I think it's safe to say I'd rather have him on my team.

[bane]

Exactly, and that's why Bill Russell is considered superior to Wilt Chamberlain despite stats that aren't even close.

He is? Not in my book, but again, point well taken.

Russell won 11 championships in 13 seasons and generally outplayed Chamberlain, not to mention winning the MVP 5 times. I think it's safe to say I'd rather have him on my team.

But did he ever score 100? It's one of those intangibles arguments I guess. Russell was a perfect fit for that team to be sure. Basketball is a little different than the NFL in that individual style and how it effects team chemistry plays a more prominent role in winning.

[Punk]

Dominique Wilkins used to regularly outscore Larry Bird, but who would you rather have on your team?

Let's get back to football....

[bane]

Dominique Wilkins used to regularly outscore Larry Bird, but who would you rather have on your team?

Let's get back to football....

Touche'

[Punk]

As a sidenote, I hate Boston sports and here's me talking about the greatness of Russell, Bird, and Brady.

Fuck

[UtahRatt]

If that were true, Walter Payton would be considered inferior to Franco Harris and (to stick with QBs) Dan Marino would be considered inferior to Brad Johnson.

Again, a win is a TEAM accomplishment. You can't judge individuals based on the accomplishments of the teams that they played for, judge them based on how well they played their position.

Obviously you're going to talk yourself to death defending your fanboy favorite AGAINST everyone.

People tend to add up all the factors but they start with winning.

There's a reason no one has mentioned Brad Johnson or Troy Aikman for that matter. Aikman was an excellent QB but no one in their right mind would say he's better then the greats being mentioned.

In the same way no one would say Farve is better then Montana. Farve has made a lot of stupid plays in big games. Montana was known for being a surgeon.


In other more important news!

Raiders assistant coach Randy Hanson tells police head coach Tom Cable broke his fucking jaw.....No bitch slapping charges have been filed yet. GO RAIDERS!

Jim Zorn is still the coach of the Skins...Sounds like loosing to the Lions is enough to put your job in question? Hell they should clean house after that game. I dig Zorn, always have but he sucks as a Coach. Then again Danial Snyder is a clueless tool so it's clear sucking rolls down hill.


Awwwwwwwww shucks Jake....


Julius Peppers > Black Hole Sun

[Rainbow Bright]

Shush. Black Hole Sun is a rad fucking song.

Drew Magary posting something hilarious this morning. His hate of Favor is now seething. Mainly because he plays for the Vikings now.

http://deadspin.com/5369545/overhyped-w ... field-trip

[thejuggernaut]

If that were true, Walter Payton would be considered inferior to Franco Harris and (to stick with QBs) Dan Marino would be considered inferior to Brad Johnson.

Again, a win is a TEAM accomplishment. You can't judge individuals based on the accomplishments of the teams that they played for, judge them based on how well they played their position.

Obviously you're going to talk yourself to death defending your fanboy favorite AGAINST everyone.

People tend to add up all the factors but they start with winning.

There's a reason no one has mentioned Brad Johnson or Troy Aikman for that matter. Aikman was an excellent QB but no one in their right mind would say he's better then the greats being mentioned.

In the same way no one would say Farve is better then Montana. Farve has made a lot of stupid plays in big games. Montana was known for being a surgeon.


In other more important news!

Raiders assistant coach Randy Hanson tells police head coach Tom Cable broke his fucking jaw.....No bitch slapping charges have been filed yet. GO RAIDERS!

Jim Zorn is still the coach of the Skins...Sounds like loosing to the Lions is enough to put your job in question? Hell they should clean house after that game. I dig Zorn, always have but he sucks as a Coach. Then again Danial Snyder is a clueless tool so it's clear sucking rolls down hill.


Awwwwwwwww shucks Jake....


Julius Peppers > Black Hole Sun

If the Rabbit didn't stop to take a shit, the Bear never would have caught him.

Now that we've covered the "if" >

If Dre' Bly doesn't drop that sure interception on Minnesota's penultimate drive, we're talking this week about the Vikings having failed their first test of the season against a quality opponent.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

If that were true, Walter Payton would be considered inferior to Franco Harris and (to stick with QBs) Dan Marino would be considered inferior to Brad Johnson.

Again, a win is a TEAM accomplishment. You can't judge individuals based on the accomplishments of the teams that they played for, judge them based on how well they played their position.

Obviously you're going to talk yourself to death defending your fanboy favorite AGAINST everyone.

People tend to add up all the factors but they start with winning.

There's a reason no one has mentioned Brad Johnson or Troy Aikman for that matter. Aikman was an excellent QB but no one in their right mind would say he's better then the greats being mentioned.

In the same way no one would say Farve is better then Montana. Farve has made a lot of stupid plays in big games. Montana was known for being a surgeon.


In other more important news!

Raiders assistant coach Randy Hanson tells police head coach Tom Cable broke his fucking jaw.....No bitch slapping charges have been filed yet. GO RAIDERS!

Jim Zorn is still the coach of the Skins...Sounds like loosing to the Lions is enough to put your job in question? Hell they should clean house after that game. I dig Zorn, always have but he sucks as a Coach. Then again Danial Snyder is a clueless tool so it's clear sucking rolls down hill.


Awwwwwwwww shucks Jake....


Julius Peppers > Black Hole Sun

The underlined part is where you lose credibility. Yes, Montana was a great QB and his name has to mentioned somewhere in the conversation of all-time greats. But you can't say with any amount of objectivity that a case can't be made for Favre being just as good if not better. That isn't to say that absolutely for a fact he was better because I say, but rather to make the point that a valid argument can be made.

He really didn't make as many boneheaded plays as his detractors would like us to believe. The vast majority of his mistakes occured when his team was down by two or more scores late and in desperation mode. If he was down by 7 points or less with just a few minutes remaining and he had the ball he was going to will his team to victory more often than not. He rarely made mistakes in those type of situations.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

First of all, can you read? I said Marino was an exception. Obvsiously Favre is one as well, but I'll stick by my assessment that he's overrated...for as much talent as he's had around him, he should have 3 rings, not one.

Secondly, we're not talking about running backs. Sure it's a team concept, but the quarterback is the most important player, the LEADER. No one is more responsible for the team winning or losing.

How can you say he should have three rings? I could see maybe two because the Packers were actually favored to beat Denver, although I think that the Broncos were being overlooked due to the previous dozen years of futility by AFC teams. That was a great game between two very good teams that featured two of the best QBs ever to play the game. They both played great, and it was one of those rare games that you could honestly say nobody deserved to lose. Unfortunately for the Packers, and fortunately for the Broncos, John's team came out on the winning side. Maybe he was due, being that it was his fourth attempt. Maybe the Packers as a team weren't as hungry as the Broncos were, being that they had just won it the previous year. For whatever reason, the Broncos came out on top (but it wasn't due to Favre not playing well).

But I digress... of all the years in which the Packers did not reach the Super Bowl with Favre at QB, there was not a single one of them in which they had the talent on paper to be considered the odds-on favorite to win the Super Bowl. That's why I have a problem with your suggestion that he should have three rings. When his Packer teams got beat in the playoffs they got beat by better teams, with the exception of that one year against Atlanta. But hey, Tom Brady's Patriots got beat by Jake Plummer's Broncos one year and so let's call that a wash. And let's not forget Joe Montana... his 49ers got beat by the Vikings one year, and Joe even got benched in favor of Steve Young during that game. Everybody has a bad day once in a while, even the great ones.

[Rainbow Bright]

Disagree. Favre had the Super Bowl won if he wouldn't have made that INT in the endzone

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Disagree. Favre had the Super Bowl won if he wouldn't have made that INT in the endzone

Favre and Elway each threw one INT in that game. The difference maker was Terrell Davis.

[Punk]

First of all, can you read? I said Marino was an exception. Obvsiously Favre is one as well, but I'll stick by my assessment that he's overrated...for as much talent as he's had around him, he should have 3 rings, not one.

Secondly, we're not talking about running backs. Sure it's a team concept, but the quarterback is the most important player, the LEADER. No one is more responsible for the team winning or losing.

How can you say he should have three rings? I could see maybe two because the Packers were actually favored to beat Denver, although I think that the Broncos were being overlooked due to the previous dozen years of futility by AFC teams. That was a great game between two very good teams that featured two of the best QBs ever to play the game. They both played great, and it was one of those rare games that you could honestly say nobody deserved to lose. Unfortunately for the Packers, and fortunately for the Broncos, John's team came out on the winning side. Maybe he was due, being that it was his fourth attempt. Maybe the Packers as a team weren't as hungry as the Broncos were, being that they had just won it the previous year. For whatever reason, the Broncos came out on top (but it wasn't due to Favre not playing well).

But I digress... of all the years in which the Packers did not reach the Super Bowl with Favre at QB, there was not a single one of them in which they had the talent on paper to be considered the odds-on favorite to win the Super Bowl. That's why I have a problem with your suggestion that he should have three rings. When his Packer teams got beat in the playoffs they got beat by better teams, with the exception of that one year against Atlanta. But hey, Tom Brady's Patriots got beat by Jake Plummer's Broncos one year and so let's call that a wash. And let's not forget Joe Montana... his 49ers got beat by the Vikings one year, and Joe even got benched in favor of Steve Young during that game. Everybody has a bad day once in a while, even the great ones.

I find it odd you're comparing a guy with 1 ring to Brady (3) and Montana (4). Makes no sense.