Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Rate the QBs

  1. -41
    DolfanISS's Avatar
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2002
    Posts:
    7,731
    vCash:
    6602
    Loc:
    Bellingham, MA
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Originally posted by mf52dolphin
    I am really surprised to see Brady being ranked high. I totally feel that the Super Bowl win was a fluke. Also I would have kept Bledsole. Another thing, even though I did not list Griese in my rankings, I would have to rank him higher than Brady, with a major reason that Brady could not beat out Griese at Michigan.
    Whenever I get into Marino vs Montana debates all anyone wants to talk about is Montana's four Super Bowl rings and Marino's 0. Therefore I have no choice but to rank a guy who won a super bowl in his first year as a starter first . Brady has had way more NFL success than Griese at this point in his career and plays with 3 times the heart I have ever seen from Griese. Its ludicrous to rank Griese over Brady at this point regardless of what they did in College. Maybe Brady was a backup in High School would you rank the starter over him now?

    Also Charles Haley is the best defensive end of all time becuase he has five super bowl rings .
    The way Jeff Ireland took a GM's dream worth of cap space and draft picks and made the team worse in borderline miraculous.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -42
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    191
    vCash:
    1000
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I disagree with that assessment because you are comparing team success in an individual acheivement ranking.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -43
    mf52dolphin's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2002
    Posts:
    955
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Santa Maria, CA
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Originally posted by Z28&dolfan


    Whenever I get into Marino vs Montana debates all anyone wants to talk about is Montana's four Super Bowl rings and Marino's 0. Therefore I have no choice but to rank a guy who won a super bowl in his first year as a starter first . Brady has had way more NFL success than Griese at this point in his career and plays with 3 times the heart I have ever seen from Griese. Its ludicrous to rank Griese over Brady at this point regardless of what they did in College. Maybe Brady was a backup in High School would you rank the starter over him now?

    Also Charles Haley is the best defensive end of all time becuase he has five super bowl rings .
    Winning the Super Bowl is an overated indicator of a quarterback. In fact I have Dan Fouts(who never even made it to a Super Bowl) ranked higher than Joe Montana(I also have Steve Young rated much higher than Montana as the best 49'er quarterback). Also Super Bowls have been won Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler,, and Mark Ripyen. Even Terry Bradshaw was a lousy quarterback the first year he had won the Super Bowl and had even lost the job during the regular seson that year.

    I still believe Brady is a fluke, but then again he is playing for a demented coach who prefers to use the inferior quarterback in the lineup(when he ran out Bernie Kosar in favor of Vinnie Testaverde, which was a truly unpardonable decision). :goof:
    Quote Quote  

  4. -44
    Muck's Avatar
    Now completely imaginary

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2002
    Posts:
    30,528
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Elsewhere
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Originally posted by zachseau13


    Again, I did not imply that you based your opinion on one game, I stated it flat out as did you in your earlier post

    "Did you see the game where we faced Vick at Pro Player in 2001?? That's why."

    You gave no other reason.

    "Unrivaled Talent" at what? running? That is not my definition of a QB.

    "Your taking an entire season of Cunningham (in his 6th year) and comparing it to one half of football rookie football for Vick."

    Actually, what I was doing in my post was refuting the notion that we had never seen talent like this before. And Vick was not a rookie last year he was in his second year.

    "He's a more dangerous runner than Cunningham ever was."

    Simply not true, Cunningham in 1990 averaged 8.2 yards per carry and totalled 942 yards, last year Vick averaged 7.6 yards per carry and totalled 776 yards. Define "Dangerous"

    "I don't think the things we saw that day can be denied."

    I never denied it, in fact I said that he had tremendous skills, exciting potential, and was fun to watch and led the league in highlight plays.

    But the fact remains that as a QB in 2002 he performed very inconsistently, inaccurately, and his performance worsened over time.
    Like I said before, I don't feel that we should have to spell every last detail out to each other. Sometimes more is less. I gave a one line reponse because I felt that it was sufficient. That everyone could deduce what I was talking about. Everyone else seemed to. You're the only person who seemed to interperet it so matter-of-factly.

    Also, Vick was a rookie when we played him in 2001. We did not face him last year as you seem to think. But my point remains, Vick is further along than Cunningham was at this point in their respective careers. Cunningham mustered a healthy 39.57 QB rating in 15 appearences his sophomore season, sharing time with world-beater Ron Jaworski. Vick put up 81.6. And I feel that Vick would be great in Miami this year.

    I still can't see how you can sit there and tell me, having watched both Cunningham and Vick, that Cunningham is a better runner than Vick. I don't care what the numbers say. Cunningham was not the athlete that Vick is. Did Randall run a 4.25?? Could Randall ever pull off that same throw that Vick did in Miami (as a ROOKIE no less)?? I say no. Cunningham was not that accurate of a passer. And he didn't possess the bazooka arm that Vick does.

    No one is refuting that Vick was up and down last year....that he has a long way to go. He is not Randall Cunningham yet. But we've seen the flashes. I'm talking about raw talent. You keep talking about numbers. They are two different things.

    You are too caught up in the numbers game. Johnny Unitas threw more TDs than INTs in only 8 of his 18 seasons. He was a career 54.6% passer. Was he a great QB?? Absolutely. One of the best ever. Was he better than Cunningham. Absolutely. The numbers are deceptive in many ways.

    You keep pointing to that 1990 season. Well, I think Vick will surpass it by time he hits his sixth season. And when all is said and done, I believe that Vick will have more yards rushing AND passing than Cunningham.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -45
    zach13's Avatar
    Mad Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2003
    Posts:
    8,311
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Miami
    Thanks / No Thanks
    "I still can't see how you can sit there and tell me, having watched both Cunningham and Vick, that Cunningham is a better runner than Vick. I don't care what the numbers say. "

    It is obvious that you do not care what the numbers say.
    I see also that you were a child when Cunningham came into the league, so perhaps you should defer to people who actually saw both play. In Cunningham's prime he was as dangerous a runner as any QB ever. Ask anyone that actually saw him hurdle defenders and make entire teams miss.


    "No one is refuting that Vick was up and down last year....that he has a long way to go. He is not Randall Cunningham yet. But we've seen the flashes. I'm talking about raw talent. "

    Here we agree perfectly, I also believe ( and keep saying) that Vick has tremendous skills. And, he may one day be a great QB.
    My original post merely posed the question as to why he is regarded by so many as a top QB when he had such an "up and down" year, as you said.

    I think that you have now explained your position fully and I appreciate your reply
    Free Tibet

    Quote Quote  

  6. -46
    Muck's Avatar
    Now completely imaginary

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2002
    Posts:
    30,528
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Elsewhere
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Originally posted by zachseau13
    "I still can't see how you can sit there and tell me, having watched both Cunningham and Vick, that Cunningham is a better runner than Vick. I don't care what the numbers say. "

    It is obvious that you do not care what the numbers say.
    I see also that you were a child when Cunningham came into the league, so perhaps you should defer to people who actually saw both play. In Cunningham's prime he was as dangerous a runner as any QB ever. Ask anyone that actually saw him hurdle defenders and make entire teams miss.
    Because I wasn't a grown man during Cunningham's career, I couldn't have seen Cunningham play?? And if I did, I couldn't possibly have been able to properly comprehend what I was seeing?? I remember that badass 1990 season. And I remember when Cunningham tore up his knee in the first game of the '91 season because his coaches told him to stay in the pocket, and the interview thereafter in which he vowed never to change his game again. Football has been a passion from a very early age. And because of it, I was able to see Cunningham in his prime.

    I saw Cunningham more than I've seen Vick (in the pros). He was a phenomenal runner. I saw him hurdle defenders, cutback, escape, and make things happen. He still is one of my favorite players of all time (and one big reason why I searched out an emulated Tecmo Bowl game for my computer last year. ). There probably wasn't a better running QB to ever hit the league, until now. I just feel that Vick is an even more talented runner.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -47
    zach13's Avatar
    Mad Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2003
    Posts:
    8,311
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Miami
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Great, thanks again for the reply.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -48
    DolfanISS's Avatar
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2002
    Posts:
    7,731
    vCash:
    6602
    Loc:
    Bellingham, MA
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Originally posted by mf52dolphin


    Winning the Super Bowl is an overated indicator of a quarterback. In fact I have Dan Fouts(who never even made it to a Super Bowl) ranked higher than Joe Montana(I also have Steve Young rated much higher than Montana as the best 49'er quarterback). Also Super Bowls have been won Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler,, and Mark Ripyen. Even Terry Bradshaw was a lousy quarterback the first year he had won the Super Bowl and had even lost the job during the regular seson that year.

    I still believe Brady is a fluke, but then again he is playing for a demented coach who prefers to use the inferior quarterback in the lineup(when he ran out Bernie Kosar in favor of Vinnie Testaverde, which was a truly unpardonable decision). :goof:
    I totally agree with this. I've been in so many frustrating Marino Montana arguments I was just putting a different spin on things and venting a little. Nobody, who isn't a Dolphins fan, wants to talk about stats and individual acomplishments when it comes to comparing QB's. All they want to talk about is Super Bowl rings and I can't stand it. Its no coincidence that Montana, Young, Bono and Gannon had such great success they played with the best WR of all time BAR NONE. Jerry Rice is still doing it today at 40 or 41 years old I don't think there is any argument that he is the best of all time.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -49
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2002
    Posts:
    6,248
    vCash:
    1080
    Loc:
    Sparks, NV
    Thanks / No Thanks
    If I had to pick one QB for next season only it would be Farve.

    Next season and beyond it would be Vick. The reason is that he is so fast that the DEs and OLBs have to hold a beat b/c they are so scared of his outside run that his presence alone improves the running game before he even throws a pass. He tends to avoid turnovers and his arm strength is among the strongest in the league.

    I wouldn't have Bledsoe in my top five.

    I have Brady above Bledsoe and I believe Pennington is better than Bledsoe too but won't him there yet b/c it was only one season.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Rate It!
    By SwimminInIndy in forum Fantasy Sports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-27-2009, 09:20 PM
  2. Rate my sig
    By gish in forum Graphics Talk and Requests
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-22-2007, 08:08 AM
  3. Rate Me...
    By FINFAN_4_EVER in forum Fantasy Sports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-16-2006, 07:34 PM
  4. Rate the Sig
    By Dirtywater in forum Graphics Talk and Requests
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-22-2006, 03:38 PM
  5. Rate My First FFT
    By dolfan_101 in forum Fantasy Sports
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-12-2005, 06:21 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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