Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Rank the QBs

  1. #21
    Del Rio Guest

    Rank the QBs

    So manning didn't beat us?

    Vanderquack did?

    No wonder he feels he needs to talk so much shit LOL
    He's been the leader in winning football games.
    Nice logic. What about extra points? You might not have won some of those close games if you were only getting 6's. :lol:

  2. #22
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    Rank the QBs

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    So manning didn't beat us?

    Vanderquack did?

    No wonder he feels he needs to talk so much pooh LOL
    He's been the leader in winning football games.
    Nice logic. What about extra points? You might not have won some of those close games if you were only getting 6's. :lol:
    That is true about the SB and Brady. He played solid both wins but Vinetiari should have got one SB MVP. If it wasn't for their Defense, Brady may not have won any SBs.

    I do understand where you are coming from though, it is a team sport!!!!

    Teams win games.

  3. #23
    sdvikefan is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,321

    Rank the QBs

    "snowinapril" wrote:
    "Del Rio" wrote:
    So manning didn't beat us?

    Vanderquack did?

    No wonder he feels he needs to talk so much pooh LOL
    He's been the leader in winning <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=24&k=football%20games" onmouseover="window.status='football games'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status='; return true;">football games</a>.
    Nice logic. What about extra points? You might not have won some of those close games if you were only getting 6's. :lol:
    That is true about the SB and Brady. He played solid both wins but Vinetiari should have got one SB MVP. If it wasn't for their Defense, Brady may not have won any SBs.

    I do understand where you are coming from though, it is a team sport!!!!

    Teams win games.
    Yeah Vinatieri's kicks in both games did win it for them, but I just don't think they would ever make a kicker MVP. Unless his game was just downright amazing, like kicking a record number of field goals including a couple from 50+ yards.

    But before Desmond Howard came along nobody thought a kick returner would ever win it either so who knows.

    As for New England's D I totally agree, I had this arguement during the Super Bowl last year with one of my friends who was putting it all on Brady. To me it's all about their defense both the players and coaches. Belichick is probably the smartest coach in the league, possible exception of Shanahan.
    "Meet at the quarterback!" -Purple People Eaters

  4. #24
    scorptile's Avatar
    scorptile is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    213

    Rank the QBs

    yes that is what i thought no way brady should've been mvp teh past two superbowls jsut cause he didnt have game winning touchdown drives...

    yes vandy did win a few games for us i am not denying it. but manning has had alot of comeback victories and when the game was on the line he came through and won it...look at the sandiego game...down by 8 with two minutes left and went down and tied it up then went into overtime and then let vandy win it...but if it wasnt for manning the game woudl've been lost...
    proud fan of the SB XLI champions.

  5. #25
    stjmnsota's Avatar
    stjmnsota is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    333

    Rank the QBs

    Now hear me out before you bash me. But Culpepper. He is missing something that will take his size and athletic ability to the level which makes him the top QB.

    He has really grown into a good QB in my opinion and is very athletic. Sure he statistically is one of the best, but haven't you noticed that the Vikes offense over past decade has made many QBs look great? Cunninham, Johnson, George, Ferotte, Bouman etc, etc. Not that Culpepper isn't better than any of these guys, but ponder my thoughts.

    Culpepper is a slow decision maker. Hike, drop back, count to 3 and pass, run or throw away. Culpepper always takes the extra few seconds. Is that him or the coaches fault. Why when ferotte or Bouman would come in, they could find open receivers that Culpepper can't. Because they throw quicker?

    If the Coaches would establish more timing routes, wouldn't Culpepper be that much more dangerous? He had gotten better at the season's end as far as running if the pass wasn't there. Earlier he would wait to long to take off and the defense would be all over him.

    Make this subtle change to the offense and Culpepper is #1 hands down and the Vikes win at least 3 to 4 more games in 2004.

    Can't argue Peyton. McNabb is solid but not great and Vick is only a matter of time before he gets the "Slash" syndrome. I am not sure there are any great QBs out there anymore. Not like Marino, Young, Montana or Elway. The more athletic QBs that are the norm now seem to actually be holding offenses back, even though they can make a bad offense look good. But will they ever win the Super Bowl? Ask Brady.

  6. #26
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    Rank the QBs

    "stjmnsota" wrote:
    Now hear me out before you bash me. But Culpepper. He is missing something that will take his size and athletic ability to the level which makes him the top QB.

    He has really grown into a good QB in my opinion and is very athletic. Sure he statistically is one of the best, but haven't you noticed that the Vikes offense over past decade has made many QBs look great? Cunninham, Johnson, George, Ferotte, Bouman etc, etc. Not that Culpepper isn't better than any of these guys, but ponder my thoughts.

    Culpepper is a slow decision maker. Hike, drop back, count to 3 and pass, run or throw away. Culpepper always takes the extra few seconds. Is that him or the coaches fault. Why when ferotte or Bouman would come in, they could find open receivers that Culpepper can't. Because they throw quicker?

    If the Coaches would establish more timing routes, wouldn't Culpepper be that much more dangerous? He had gotten better at the season's end as far as running if the pass wasn't there. Earlier he would wait to long to take off and the defense would be all over him.

    Make this subtle change to the offense and Culpepper is #1 hands down and the Vikes win at least 3 to 4 more games in 2004.

    Can't argue Peyton. McNabb is solid but not great and Vick is only a matter of time before he gets the "Slash" syndrome. I am not sure there are any great QBs out there anymore. Not like Marino, Young, Montana or Elway. The more athletic QBs that are the norm now seem to actually be holding offenses back, even though they can make a bad offense look good. But will they ever win the Super Bowl? Ask Brady.
    I have been saying the same thing about DC. He needs some more timing routes. When he made the transition to a passer first runner a very distant second, he was not taught the timing to go with it. He went through the stage of just throwing it away out of bounds and then to buying more time with his legs then throwing it away. Yes, some more timing routes would be nice and would probably benefit him. Coaching is a big part of it. Physically, I think that DC can do anything you ask him to.

  7. #27
    PAvikesfan's Avatar
    PAvikesfan is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,037

    Rank the QBs

    rated by steadiness (just doing there job)

    Brady
    Peyton Manning
    McNabb
    DC
    Rothl....
    Pennington
    Brees
    Bulger

    rated by being the worst QB's this season:

    Eli Manning
    AJ Feely
    Jay Fielder
    Volek
    (insert any Washington Skins QB here)

  8. #28
    ultravikingfan's Avatar
    ultravikingfan is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    24,514

    Rank the QBs

    1. Brady
    2. Manning
    3. Pep
    4. McNabb
    5. Vick
    6. McNabb (yuckkee)
    7. Rothlisberger
    8. Bulger

    Brady only because he has 2 SB's, like many of you pointed out!

  9. #29
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Rank the QBs

    Take away the good defenses and THEN rank them:

    1. Manning
    2. Pep
    3. I don't care
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  10. #30
    vikes09's Avatar
    vikes09 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,260

    Rank the QBs

    give them a mediocre o-line and THEN rank them.

    1.culp-has had a suspect line. can throw the ball 60 yards w/ defender on him.
    2.vick-hey, more time to scramble.
    3.pennington-he has a quick release
    4.brady-plays very smart and is a great clutch guy.
    5.mcnabb-he can scramble even though he hasnt done much of that this year.

    reothlisberger isnt on there bc hes a rookie and he would get confused easily. u might be thinking "hey wheres manning???" but manning gets happy feet. and once he has happy feet he doesnt play well at all and looks like a giddy girl w/ the ball.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Rank or title?
    By Zeus in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-31-2006, 09:18 AM
  2. Where Does Zygi Rank?
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-02-2006, 01:42 AM
  3. Rank 'em
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-28-2006, 07:30 PM
  4. Rank our defense.
    By so-cal vike in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-05-2005, 11:15 PM
  5. Rank the NFL
    By drtybrdy9 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-07-2004, 12:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •