Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Top 10 QBs of all time: Could change with resu

    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    green hornet wrote:
    Tarkenton was a loser and a choker. He had a lot more talent than marino had around him, and still couldnt win the big one.
    He cant even be compared to marino, because there really is none. You have a pure pocket passer vs a scab, that relied on his defense to keep the team in games, kind of like trent dilfer except, he won a ring. LOL
    Zeus wrote:
    DiehardVikesFan wrote:
    Usually you only play good teams in the playoffs.

    Do you consider Tarkenton a choker too?
    Hate to say so, but he did fail on the biggest stage three times. For me to consider a QB to be one of the best of all-time I need him to be a big-game winner. That's just one of my personal criteria in compiling a list like this.

    I will say this - Tarkenton was more of a winner than Marino, that's for sure.
    like trent dilfer... ha!

    #1 all time passer when he retired. But your right, he's a trent dilfer
    Did I write that or indicate that in any way at all?

    No.

    What I did write is that I consider winning the important games to be a big part of how I rank QBs on an all-time list. Tarkenton won plenty of big games (3 NFC Championships, for example) but did fail on the biggest stage of all, 3 separate times.

    I would rank him below QBs with similar numbers but who did not fail to win the Super Bowl.

    Dilfer, since you bring him up, would not be ranked in my top-50 of all-time QBs, probably not in my top-100. However, I point you to this article:

    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_3097_Note_to_Sanchez%3A_It%27s_OK_to_be_Dilfer. html

    Third, Dilfer's effort in the 2000 postseason is completely underappreciated by the pigskin "punditry." The truth is that he played rock-solid championship-caliber football, despite the belief to the contrary. Here’s a look at Dilfer’s stat line in Baltimore’s four-game Super Bowl-winning playoff run.

    *
    35 of 73, 47.9, 590 yards, 8.1 YPA, 3 TD, 1 INT, 83.7 passer rating

    The average pigskin “pundit” would look at those numbers and see few pass attempts (18.3 per game), a poor completions percentage and just three touchdown passes.

    We see championship football.

    Here’s why:

    One, Dilfer struck downfield effectively, punctuating Baltimore’s conservative run-first strategy with long-ball strikes in a game plan right out of the 1960s. His completion percentage was very poor. That’s for sure. But the fact that he still averaged a champion-caliber 8.1 YPA despite that low completion percentage tells us that he was getting the ball down field very effectively.

    In fact, the more telling indicator is his spectacular 16.9 yards per completion. It’s a phenomenal number. Baltimore’s offensive game plan in the 2000 postseason might have been conservative. But there was nothing conservative about that passing strategy: challenge defenses and make big plays.
    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  2. #12
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Top 10 QBs of all time: Could change with resu

    Zeus wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    green hornet wrote:
    Tarkenton was a loser and a choker. He had a lot more talent than marino had around him, and still couldnt win the big one.
    He cant even be compared to marino, because there really is none. You have a pure pocket passer vs a scab, that relied on his defense to keep the team in games, kind of like trent dilfer except, he won a ring. LOL
    Zeus wrote:
    DiehardVikesFan wrote:
    Usually you only play good teams in the playoffs.

    Do you consider Tarkenton a choker too?
    Hate to say so, but he did fail on the biggest stage three times. For me to consider a QB to be one of the best of all-time I need him to be a big-game winner. That's just one of my personal criteria in compiling a list like this.

    I will say this - Tarkenton was more of a winner than Marino, that's for sure.
    like trent dilfer... ha!

    #1 all time passer when he retired. But your right, he's a trent dilfer
    Did I write that or indicate that in any way at all?

    No.

    What I did write is that I consider winning the important games to be a big part of how I rank QBs on an all-time list. Tarkenton won plenty of big games (3 NFC Championships, for example) but did fail on the biggest stage of all, 3 separate times.

    I would rank him below QBs with similar numbers but who did not fail to win the Super Bowl.

    Dilfer, since you bring him up, would not be ranked in my top-50 of all-time QBs, probably not in my top-100. However, I point you to this article:

    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_3097_Note_to_Sanchez%3A_It%27s_OK_to_be_Dilfer. html

    Third, Dilfer's effort in the 2000 postseason is completely underappreciated by the pigskin "punditry." The truth is that he played rock-solid championship-caliber football, despite the belief to the contrary. Here’s a look at Dilfer’s stat line in Baltimore’s four-game Super Bowl-winning playoff run.

    *
    35 of 73, 47.9, 590 yards, 8.1 YPA, 3 TD, 1 INT, 83.7 passer rating

    The average pigskin “pundit” would look at those numbers and see few pass attempts (18.3 per game), a poor completions percentage and just three touchdown passes.

    We see championship football.

    Here’s why:

    One, Dilfer struck downfield effectively, punctuating Baltimore’s conservative run-first strategy with long-ball strikes in a game plan right out of the 1960s. His completion percentage was very poor. That’s for sure. But the fact that he still averaged a champion-caliber 8.1 YPA despite that low completion percentage tells us that he was getting the ball down field very effectively.

    In fact, the more telling indicator is his spectacular 16.9 yards per completion. It’s a phenomenal number. Baltimore’s offensive game plan in the 2000 postseason might have been conservative. But there was nothing conservative about that passing strategy: challenge defenses and make big plays.
    =Z=
    Yet, if you say that a QB is Dilferesque the majority of fans know that means he is questionable in his abilities and managed the game well....at least well enough to get canned during the offseason after he won the SB.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,061

    Re: Top 10 QBs of all time: Could change with resu

    He was replying to Green Hornet, Zeus, who writes above the quotes, for some reason.

    Personally, I find Bart Starr to be a little low on the list. Both as a 'winner' (which says little to me about how good a QB is) and statistically (Over a 100 QB rating in two seasons, 80.5 in his career) he was off the hook in his era. Add 5 NFL championships (2 Super Bowls) and 2 SB MVPs to that and you have yourself quite a resumé.

    And it's not like he didn't show up in big games, either. I don't think that there's any play that showed as much guts and clutch ability as that self called sneak in the Ice Bowl.

    I guess that his supporting cast is holding Starr back and Unitas' long career, in which he threw for an amazing amount of yardage, is propelling him upwards.

    I don't like Elway that high up, either. Marino was better than him. Montana might go over Unitas. Manning could be as high as the nr. 4 if he didn't fail in the play-offs so often. If you see the SB as getting that monkey of his back, I'd put him in front of everyone on that list, besides Montana and Graham.
    "You can look pretty smart if you have a knack for planning ahead. That's Ted. The Packers are in good hands." - Ron Wolf


  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: Top 10 QBs of all time: Could change with resu

    Rockmolder wrote:
    Personally, I find Bart Starr to be a little low on the list. Both as a 'winner' (which says little to me about how good a QB is) and statistically (Over a 100 QB rating in two seasons, 80.5 in his career) he was off the hook in his era. Add 5 NFL championships (2 Super Bowls) and 2 SB MVPs to that and you have yourself quite a resumé.

    And it's not like he didn't show up in big games, either. I don't think that there's any play that showed as much guts and clutch ability as that self called sneak in the Ice Bowl.
    I think Bart Starr is fine at ten or anywhere around there. There is a great wash of QBs from several eras that can be argued around that spot. Is Bart Starr really that far ahead of a guy like Len Dawson of the Chiefs? The stats say no, and he has some championships as well. There are a number of guys that could come up like that: Staubach, Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Ken Anderson, Fouts, Aikman, etc. You could probably make a case for a bunch of guys like that depending on exactly what you think is most important.

    I guess that his supporting cast is holding Starr back and Unitas' long career, in which he threw for an amazing amount of yardage, is propelling him upwards.
    I do think you're onto something with Unitas here. I would put him right back in that wash with the 5-15 guys. His numbers were good, but not amazing except in their quantity. He threw about 5100 passes in his career, about 30-50% more than most of these other top guys from that era. Part of that was a full 17 year career, and part is that they threw it around significantly more than other teams.

    I don't like Elway that high up, either. Marino was better than him.
    Marino and Elway were something of opposites, though I think Marino was significantly better except for the lack of championships. Marino started ridiculously hot. In 9 starts as a rookie he threw 20 TDs. He followed that up with seasons of 48, 30, and 44 TDs. He made a Super Bowl appearance as a second year player. But his later career, while solid and consistent, was not as spectacular as his early years.

    Elway, though making plays and winning games for sure, wasn't a consistent QB early in his career. In 1993, Elway's performance improved dramatically. It's like night and day looking at his stats before and after that year. People tend to think that Elway was winding down when he won his two Super Bowls, but those seasons were actually among his best.

    Montana might go over Unitas.
    Definitely. I don't know how this could be an argument except that people get stuck on the 'different eras' bit. I don't buy it, because even against his own era he doesn't stand out the way Joe Montana does against any era.

    Manning could be as high as the nr. 4 if he didn't fail in the play-offs so often. If you see the SB as getting that monkey of his back, I'd put him in front of everyone on that list, besides Montana and Graham.
    I don't see why he can't be number one, and I'd put him there. There are a few that could be argued, but personally I'll go with Peyton. Eighth is ridiculous, in my opinion.

    What doesn't he do better than anyone else? He reads defenses better than anyone. He makes good decisions with the ball. He throws accurately and with proper zip or touch at any distance.

    There's never been anyone better. The only thing working against him is that he hasn't won a big number of championships. But other than Otto Graham, nobody wins every year. How did Joe Montana do against the Vikes in 1987? How about against the Giants in 1990? Manning he still has plenty of time to pick up a few more big wins, and he does have a championship ring.

    Two other things I have to say about Clayton's list:

    First, why is Terry Bradshaw on this list? A lot of guys you look at and say, "well, he wouldn't have put up those numbers if he didn't have great players around him." Troy Aikman comes to mind. But Bradshaw didn't even put up the numbers with all those Hall of Famers around him. He was mediocre. He got dragged along to a bunch of championship wins in my opinion, although he was a better QB in the later half of his career I suppose.

    Second, where is Steve Young? I think Young is one of the few that can be argued for that top spot even. Amazing efficiency when he got his chance to get in there.
    When the age of the Vikings came to a close, they must have sensed it. Probably, they gathered together one evening, slapped each other on the back and said, "Hey, good job." - Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. It's time for a change
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-28-2009, 11:08 AM
  2. Time Change
    By tb04512 in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-03-2007, 09:37 PM
  3. Its time for a change...
    By VikingsTw in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 07:14 AM
  4. Time for a change II - Offensive line
    By Purple Floyd in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-13-2006, 12:22 PM
  5. IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE
    By purplegang in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 05:30 AM

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
  •