The Official NFL Thread

Printable View

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-25-2007, 03:46 PM
Spank_Me_Hard

Quote:

I don't know about best ever. (Montana, Unitas,etc) But too bad he never had a running game. 420 touchdowns is very impressive, but only one superbowl appearance shows it was not a balanced team.

His career statistics are undeniable. ONE of the best ever. He never really had a good running game, and until late in his career... didn't have a decent defence as well.

Just the other year, Peyton Manning beat his single season record for TD's thrown by ONE. And nobody has matched his single season passing yards.

The only blemish on his resume is that he didn't win a SuperBowl... and as football is maybe the ultimate TEAM game, I'd hardly blame him for that. There are planty of great players who never won a championship... I'd hardly judge their career on that alone.[/QUOTE]

Other than his 420 TDs... look at his career passing yards. Marino could MOVE the ball. Moving the ball into position to score (be it someone else getting the TD, or just a field goal) counts for something as well.

Saying that Marino wasn't one of the best ever was like saying that Barry Sanders wasn't one of the best ever. It's ridiculous.

Quote:

He was ONE of the best ever. I would say top 5. Where in the top 5 is really up to debate.

Agreed 100%.

My personal choice for best ever was Montana. That guy just knew how to win when the chips were down.
06-25-2007, 04:25 PM
thprofessional

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamjedi

Its funny, but I think you might be right about Young. Not what I think of as an agile QB but you're right he did get out of a lot of jams.

and always hit the open man.... most important!
06-25-2007, 05:56 PM
OpStar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindwarper

Same goes for Moon.

Moon's passing stats can be attributed to the offense in Houston back then, the Run and Shoot.

Evidence: University of Hawaii and Colt Brennan.
06-25-2007, 06:10 PM
Spank_Me_Hard

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpStar

Moon's passing stats can be attributed to the offense in Houston back then, the Run and Shoot.

Evidence: University of Hawaii and Colt Brennan.

Moon did pretty well in the years before the Run n Shoot though. I think that he would have still been a good QB in most systems.

And of course he played many years in the Canadian Football league... which is still considered "Pro".

(i.e. if you consider those years, it pads his stats considerably)

LOVED it when he played with my Edmonton Eskimos!
06-26-2007, 02:09 PM
Mindwarper

I still think the lack of a superbowl win knocks him out of the top 5, in fact I'm not sure he is my top ten list. He was able to move the ball in the air, no doubt about that. I don't think there was a pad he didn't like. He had pads everywhere. He took a beating. But that doesn't make him one of the top 5. Montana is my number one even if I'm a Raider fan. Young was also a great player, but there is something weird about him and I didn't enjoy rooting for him. Football players are judged by the wins. Marino's Fins were an unbalanced pass happy team. In a team sport, you need more then just a good passer. I don't think he was one of the best ever. He was a good passer. A great QB is more then that. My two cents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

His career statistics are undeniable. ONE of the best ever. He never really had a good running game, and until late in his career... didn't have a decent defence as well.

Just the other year, Peyton Manning beat his single season record for TD's thrown by ONE. And nobody has matched his single season passing yards.

The only blemish on his resume is that he didn't win a SuperBowl... and as football is maybe the ultimate TEAM game, I'd hardly blame him for that. There are planty of great players who never won a championship... I'd hardly judge their career on that alone.

Other than his 420 TDs... look at his career passing yards. Marino could MOVE the ball. Moving the ball into position to score (be it someone else getting the TD, or just a field goal) counts for something as well.

Saying that Marino wasn't one of the best ever was like saying that Barry Sanders wasn't one of the best ever. It's ridiculous.

Agreed 100%.

My personal choice for best ever was Montana. That guy just knew how to win when the chips were down.[/QUOTE]
06-26-2007, 02:25 PM
Spank_Me_Hard

Quote:

I still think the lack of a superbowl win knocks him out of the top 5, in fact I'm not sure he is my top ten list. He was able to move the ball in the air, no doubt about that. I don't think there was a pad he didn't like. He had pads everywhere. He took a beating. But that doesn't make him one of the top 5. Montana is my number one even if I'm a Raider fan. Young was also a great player, but there is something weird about him and I didn't enjoy rooting for him. Football players are judged by the wins. Marino's Fins were an unbalanced pass happy team. In a team sport, you need more then just a good passer. I don't think he was one of the best ever. He was a good passer. A great QB is more then that. My two cents.

Yea... your two cents I guess.

Most people would have him in their top 5... and some would have him as the best.

And yea, his team was pretty pass happy. I heard Don Shula say recently that it was too easy falling into the trap of being a one dimensional team when you had Marino at the helm. And how could you blame him? In fact, that's pretty much exactly how the Colts won the championship this year... on ONLY Manning's arm. The Colts had a joke of a defence (they just played good at the right time... playoffs) and little running game to speak of (after having got rid of Edgerrin James).

It got the Colts a Superbowl. It didn't get Miami one.

And Young was great in his day... but even he only won one SB. And look at the team that he had around him! SF manipulated the cap in such a way that SF was doomed to futility for years afterwards. That team may have been the most dominant teams that I've ever seen... they literally had Pro Bowlers at EVERY position! Thus, even though Young won a SB that year... he hardly did it on his own. His supporting cast was phenomonal. In fact, even some of the substitutes were old Pro Bowlers (i.e. Ricky Jackson, Charles Mann). Marino never had a team anywhere close to what Young had that year.

And if we judge based on SuperBowls, then Barry Sanders isn't one of the greatest running backs of all time... which is obviously crazy to say.

My two cents.

:)
06-26-2007, 04:24 PM
monroeski

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpStar

Moon's passing stats can be attributed to the offense in Houston back then, the Run and Shoot.

Evidence: University of Hawaii and Colt Brennan.

Chicken or the egg. Were Moon's stats that good because of the offense, or was the offense put in place because of Moon's skills? How different would Indianapolis' offense look if Manning wasn't there?

Also, passing stats aren't taken at face value as much as many people think they are, and I'll use Brennan as an example - How much hype did Timmy Chang get when he was crushing passing records at Hawaii before Brennan? How much hype do any of the Texas Tech QBs get while they're putting up ridiculous numbers each year?

The numbers play a lot into it, sure, but there is something different about Brennan that is catching people's eye.
06-27-2007, 12:30 PM
vairox

Marino is top 5, not having a ring doesn't change a person's talents and skills.

people say Michael Jordan would be no one without all the championships Chicago won, IMO his talent and skills make him the greatest of all time regardless...a round shiny piece of metal doesn't change what a man has inside. Peyton Manning is the best QB in the game right now, yeah Tom Brady has 2 more rings, so what, like I said a championship is a TEAM accomplishment that happens when EVERYONE on that team works together and gets it done... is Kobe Bryant a worse basketball player cause he hasn';t won a ring without Shaq? no, thats all I'm saying.

Jerry Rice would still be the best WR of all time regardless of whether or not he had rings, look what he did on the field, nothing else needs to be said.
06-27-2007, 01:20 PM
monroeski

Quote:

Originally Posted by vairox

Marino is top 5, not having a ring doesn't change a person's talents and skills.

people say Michael Jordan would be no one without all the championships Chicago won, IMO his talent and skills make him the greatest of all time regardless...a round shiny piece of metal doesn't change what a man has inside. Peyton Manning is the best QB in the game right now, yeah Tom Brady has 2 more rings, so what, like I said a championship is a TEAM accomplishment that happens when EVERYONE on that team works together and gets it done... is Kobe Bryant a worse basketball player cause he hasn';t won a ring without Shaq? no, thats all I'm saying.

Jerry Rice would still be the best WR of all time regardless of whether or not he had rings, look what he did on the field, nothing else needs to be said.

The will to drive a team to win a championship is what is important when counting rings. Since you bring up Kobe, I'll use that as an example - they split up, and it took Shaq what, two years to win a championship, while Kobe is suddenly spending all his time *****ing and doing childish little things like taking no shots in a game right after he is criticized for shooting too much. Look at Dirk Nowitzki now - he has been getting ROASTED for not being able to step up in the playoffs when they needed to to the point that many Mavericks fans actually want to trade him. Then you have other players with ridiculous talent that are actually negative influences on their team; look at somebody like Terrell Owens; the fact that he drove TWO teams into the ground almost single-handedly is going to affect his legacy no matter how talented he is.

You can't just look at rings alone, but they do mean something. When you're talking about the best 5 of all QBs to ever play football, I think not being able to lead your team to a championship is at least a valid argument (though that's not to say I agree or disagree with it). As you say, a ring doesn't change what a guy has inside, but frankly, it is what is inside that gets the rings.
06-27-2007, 02:10 PM
Spank_Me_Hard

Quote:

Originally Posted by monroeski

The will to drive a team to win a championship is what is important when counting rings.

If that's the basis, I don't know if there was anybody that wanted to win a championship more than Marino.

He demanded a lot of his teamates because of it... maybe even to a fault at times.

Anybody who followed him could tell that he was hungry to win.
06-27-2007, 03:03 PM
Mindwarper

I respect your two cents. Do we judge everyone the same way? I think QB's are judged differently then WR or RB. Barry was a great back. And Marino was a great passer. But my argument is that football is a team sport and the fins were not a balanced team. Not that the colts are a balanced team. I just think a qb without a ring cannot be listed in the top 5. I also think we've forgotten some of the older players. Unitas called his own plays. Also, the game has become more pass instead of smashmouth. It used to be if you threw the ball to much, you were pussies. So the run was emphasized. Was Dilfer (who has a ring) better then Marino? In my mind no. But is Marino in my top 5? No. Was he a great. Yes. He didn't have as much talent around him. That is part of what makes a team and a player great. Why didn't Schula draft a good RB?

The 49ers not only manipulated the cap. They are the reason for the cap in the 1st place. Debartlo would pay second stringers more then other teams would pay their starters. It changed the game.

I just love classics on nfl. I wish they would reach back farther. How about every championship game? How about all the big games?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

Yea... your two cents I guess.

Most people would have him in their top 5... and some would have him as the best.

And yea, his team was pretty pass happy. I heard Don Shula say recently that it was too easy falling into the trap of being a one dimensional team when you had Marino at the helm. And how could you blame him? In fact, that's pretty much exactly how the Colts won the championship this year... on ONLY Manning's arm. The Colts had a joke of a defence (they just played good at the right time... playoffs) and little running game to speak of (after having got rid of Edgerrin James).

It got the Colts a Superbowl. It didn't get Miami one.

And Young was great in his day... but even he only won one SB. And look at the team that he had around him! SF manipulated the cap in such a way that SF was doomed to futility for years afterwards. That team may have been the most dominant teams that I've ever seen... they literally had Pro Bowlers at EVERY position! Thus, even though Young won a SB that year... he hardly did it on his own. His supporting cast was phenomonal. In fact, even some of the substitutes were old Pro Bowlers (i.e. Ricky Jackson, Charles Mann). Marino never had a team anywhere close to what Young had that year.

And if we judge based on SuperBowls, then Barry Sanders isn't one of the greatest running backs of all time... which is obviously crazy to say.

My two cents.

:)
06-27-2007, 06:02 PM
vairox

monroeski - yeah it's a variable, I mean if manning and brady ended with virtually the same stats then you would have to say brady was perhaps the better QB simply because he lead his team IN a championship under the most intense pressure 2 times more than manning.
06-27-2007, 08:51 PM
monroeski

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

He demanded a lot of his teamates because of it... maybe even to a fault at times.

Second part of that sentence is the key imo. To go back to the Kobe example, I think one of his weaknesses is that he wants it so bad he tries to do everything himself and that often ends up screwing the team over (though it probably wins more often than not). I got a somewhat similar impression of Marino a lot of the time (though I admittedly didn't watch him TOO much); it seemed like a lot of the time when the going got tough he was taking on too much by himself and not leading the team as a whole.
06-27-2007, 10:06 PM
Spank_Me_Hard

Quote:

Second part of that sentence is the key imo. To go back to the Kobe example, I think one of his weaknesses is that he wants it so bad he tries to do everything himself and that often ends up screwing the team over (though it probably wins more often than not).

I wouldn't even put Marino and Kobe in the same sentence.

In my opinion, Kobe is a whiny little b1tch. He whined when he wasn't the "centerpiece" of the Lakers, and then when it results in Shaq leaving town (and going to to win another championship I would add), then he whines about the team not doing enough to win.

Whines about his coach, whines about his teammates.

I'm not a huge basketball fan, but I'm smart enough to spot a team cancer when I see one.

Quote:

I got a somewhat similar impression of Marino a lot of the time (though I admittedly didn't watch him TOO much); it seemed like a lot of the time when the going got tough he was taking on too much by himself and not leading the team as a whole.

Well I got PLENTY of chance to see Marino.

I saw him get mad when a teamate missed a block, dropped a ball, or ran the wrong pattern.

I saw him when it looked like he was frustrated with himself.

I also saw him when a teamate (Richmond Webb) missed a block (against Pat Swillling) that resulted in a blindside sack and the end of the comeback drive. I then saw him go over to Webb (who was angry with himself) and console him.

You brought up Kobe in comparison to Marino.

Frankly, I couldn't think of a bigger contrast.
06-27-2007, 10:24 PM
Spank_Me_Hard

Quote:

I think QB's are judged differently then WR or RB.

Not sure if that's fair... but sure.

Quote:

But my argument is that football is a team sport and the fins were not a balanced team. Not that the colts are a balanced team.

The Colts this year I think are an anomolly. One dimensional teams that have no defence just haven't won Superbowls historically.

Quote:

Unitas called his own plays.

It's kind of a hard comparison to make. Would a QB like Marino had been more successful had he called his own plays? Or worse? Hard to say.

But coaches are control freaks (especially like Shannahan). They want to control every possible variable that they can. But who's to say that a QB who is IN THE GAME doesn't have a better feel for what's going on?

Clearly you can see almost every game where the QB is pissed off at one playcall or another.

Quote:

Also, the game has become more pass instead of smashmouth. It used to be if you threw the ball to much, you were pussies. So the run was emphasized.

This is true. The guaranteed formula to get you at least to the playoffs was a strong running game combined with a good defence. Sometimes it even resulted in a Superbowl trip. San Diego and Pittsburgh in the 90's comes to mind.

But with teams like the Eagles throwing on 60% of downs, with four wideout formations called on 1st and 10 it looks like the game has changed. Smashmouth football doesn't always look applicable anymore. Which in a way is sad. And every year it seems like they add one more restriction to the DBs. According to the rules now... a DB can't even have a hand touching the back of the reciever anymore when looking back for the ball... only to know where exactly he is. The deck is now loaded in the favour of the offense.

Quote:

But is Marino in my top 5? No. Was he a great. Yes.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Why didn't Schula draft a good RB?

It wasn't for a lack of trying.

Hampton was a 1st round selection in the mid 80's. Sammie Smith was a "blue chip" running back selected in the early 90's. And of course, the Dolphins traded for Humphries of the Broncos the year after he ran for over 1,000 yards and helped them get to a Superbowl.

The 'Phins did try to get a quality RB... it just never seemed to pan out for them. Wasn't for a lack of trying though.

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page