WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > If Pats Win, Pure Speculation...Best 4-Time QB Champ

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
If Pats Win, Pure Speculation...Best 4-Time QB Champ  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 05:13 am
  PM Quote Reply
46th Post
sek69



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 5509
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote: silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.


Considering he wears #7 because Elway was his hero as a kid, Ben would probably be the first to argue that.

I should know better than this, but it really should be pointed out that both "X has more rings than Y" and "X has lost less Super Bowls than Y" are pretty dumb units of measure. If for no other reason you get to the logical conclusion that Trent Dilfer is the greatest QB of all time because he has a 1.000 winning percentage in Super Bowls.




____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 05:38 am
  PM Quote Reply
47th Post
stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
sek69 wrote:
stingmark wrote: silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.


Considering he wears #7 because Elway was his hero as a kid, Ben would probably be the first to argue that.

I should know better than this, but it really should be pointed out that both "X has more rings than Y" and "X has lost less Super Bowls than Y" are pretty dumb units of measure. If for no other reason you get to the logical conclusion that Trent Dilfer is the greatest QB of all time because he has a 1.000 winning percentage in Super Bowls.



In the same token, claiming that the reason why somones w/l record in the post season is solely based on having a "shitty defense", isnt a very valid excuse, imo either. Elway played in 5 SBs, winning 2, the same numbet of SBs Brady has played in, and Brady has 1 more win. Again, how that makes someone whos won less, "better" than a guy whos won more, doesnt make sense. just my opinion. Elway/Ben/Eli all on the same level, then theres another level, & then another level after that for guys like Montana/Bradshaw.



____________________
"I went to the #6th ranked liberal Arts College in California, I'm smarter than anyone else"(Also found out to be a formerly racist institution-Jeff Forsyth)




Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 10:05 am
  PM Quote Reply
48th Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
Yeah, my opinion of the Top 3 QBs that I have actually watched would probably be Brady, Marino and Montana. 

My next tier of QBs would be guys like Bradshaw, Fouts, etc. 

Elway has always been an enigma for me and where he ranks. 

I am currently in debates with people on the Steelers boards over the debate between Big Ben and Bradshaw.  Two different eras.......going by what I actually have seen......I still go with Bradshaw being the better QB. 




____________________
“Anybody notice that Papa Voo can make all these posts, despite the fact he hasn't been logged in all night? #S&W (Scumbag Liars & Worthless Trash)“

-(Comedian/Troll Wanna Be) Heenan Fan-
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 10:58 am
  PM Quote Reply
49th Post
silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1239
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.


Stats prove what? Elway has more touchdowns, completions, passing yards, running yards, just about every stat imaginable over those 3 and he dominated for a longer time than Aikman and Bradshaw. Just saying count the rings completely ignores everything else and is stupid. I guess again Jim Plunkett is better than Marino, Brady etc. and so is Trent Dilfer according to that stupid logic. Saying someone is better than another just by Super Bowl rings makes no sense at all.



____________________
http://www.hoopshabit.com
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 11:06 am
  PM Quote Reply
50th Post
HBF



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 17866
Status: 
Offline
Elway is still the first QB I'd take if you gave me the opportunity to take any QB in NFL history. You can have whoever you want 2nd.



____________________
"That's what a pre-med degree will get you kids, nearly correct spelling and pissing in a bowl on Skype"-SRossi on Sunny
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 11:33 am
  PM Quote Reply
51st Post
tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote: tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.

I'm talking about Super Bowl QBs.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 01:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
52nd Post


 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Keep in mind all of the rule changes over the years too. That is why it's hard to draw comparisons. What if they didn't call ilegal contact anymore like it was in the 70s and 80s, when CBs could manhandle WRs? What if you are allowed to hit the QBs like you were in the 70s and 80s?

I think Brady is great, but I have a lot of respect for the guys that played in the 70s and 80s, and a guy like Montana or Fouts, or even Marino would benefit so much more from playing in a league geared towards offense.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 04:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
53rd Post
stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.


Stats prove what? Elway has more touchdowns, completions, passing yards, running yards, just about every stat imaginable over those 3 and he dominated for a longer time than Aikman and Bradshaw. Just saying count the rings completely ignores everything else and is stupid. I guess again Jim Plunkett is better than Marino, Brady etc. and so is Trent Dilfer according to that stupid logic. Saying someone is better than another just by Super Bowl rings makes no sense at all.


Dilfer shouldnt even be in any discussion, he had a fluke year. I still disagree on Elway, though very good, he wasnt "dominant" when it counted, thats why hes a few tiers below alot ot guys. You say stats dont matter, then cite a bunch for Elway. When the games on the line,
I can think of atleast 5-6 other guys Id take before Elway, sorry.

Elways below .500 when it counts, thats why Id take atleast 5-6 guys ahead of him. Below .500 in the big game is by no means "dominant", regular season stats mean nothing, Marino is perfect example of that.

Last edited on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 04:26 pm by stingmark



____________________
"I went to the #6th ranked liberal Arts College in California, I'm smarter than anyone else"(Also found out to be a formerly racist institution-Jeff Forsyth)




Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 04:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
54th Post
BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote: silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.


How so if Both have losses in the sb, and neither has 4 sb rings? Thats your opinion, wrong mind you, but your opinion. Elway is below .500 in the sb, how is he "better"? Explain.

Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.

I don't agree at allwith thinking more wins and losses automatically means one QB is better than another. Good discussion for people who only understand the game on a surface level, but not realistic to say being on a better team means being a better QB.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 05:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
55th Post
Superstar
2018 Poster of the Year


Joined: Thu Jan 31st, 2008
Location: Isle Of, Malta
Posts: 5563
Status: 
Online
stingmark wrote: silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.


Stats prove what? Elway has more touchdowns, completions, passing yards, running yards, just about every stat imaginable over those 3 and he dominated for a longer time than Aikman and Bradshaw. Just saying count the rings completely ignores everything else and is stupid. I guess again Jim Plunkett is better than Marino, Brady etc. and so is Trent Dilfer according to that stupid logic. Saying someone is better than another just by Super Bowl rings makes no sense at all.


Dilfer shouldnt even be in any discussion, he had a fluke year. I still disagree on Elway, though very good, he wasnt "dominant" when it counted, thats why hes a few tiers below alot ot guys. You say stats dont matter, then cite a bunch for Elway. When the games on the line,
I can think of atleast 5-6 other guys Id take before Elway, sorry.

Elways below .500 when it counts, thats why Id take atleast 5-6 guys ahead of him. Below .500 in the big game is by no means "dominant", regular season stats mean nothing, Marino is perfect example of that.


Did you watch Elway on a regular basis, or are you just doing statistical analysis?  Elway's Broncos teams were not that good more often than not, and he was able to get the most out of everything he had around him to rise above and win.  As a diehard Raiders fan who has physically watched no less than 50 Elway games on tape and live over the years, I can say without question that John Elway is one of the top-5 QBs that has ever played, and is better than Tom Brady (and I'd estimate I've seen Brady close to 50 times too, being that his games are always on in my market).  Elway never had great WRs, he MADE them great by getting them the ball.  He never had a running game, and his OL was sometimes good, sometimes not so good.  His teams always had a couple of playmakers on defense, and three or four that played like swiss cheese.  Give Elway a real team from that era, like the Bears or Redskins, and he absolutely would have dominated the entire NFL.  Tom Brady is great, no doubt about it, and I consider him in the top-10 QBs of all time and I'm not knocking him at all - especially due to him bringing what a lot of people viewed as one of the weaker Pats teams to 13-3 this year and almost winning the Super Bowl.  But you cannot honestly take 5 or 6 QBs before Elway if you watched him unbiasedly over a long stretch of time.  And, you cannot take QBs into consideration that you haven't seen play regularly either.  I saw Bradshaw and Staubach towards the end of their career, but they changed the rules in 1978 so it's really not a fair comparison at this point on those guys or those that came before them.  But to get an idea of how huge the rules change was statistically speaking, Roger Staubach in his last year in the NFL at age 37 had his career best numbers in completions, yards, and TDs.  Bradshaw from 79-81 had three of his top four years ever in the same categories...only in 78 did he throw for more yards than in 81, and it was mainly due to the Raiders breaking his throwing hand and causing him to miss two games.  

Guys I'd take over Elway?  Montana.  I wish I could say Marino because I was always a huge fan, but he came across as such a dick to his teammates at times that I think it's why the Dolphins never got further than they did. 



____________________
"Jack Brisco grabbed my testicles once but I told him "Brisco, you have exactly 15 minutes to get your hands off my balls"." -WongLee 7/22/2017
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 06:10 pm
  PM Quote Reply
56th Post
silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1239
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who

Stats prove what? Elway has more touchdowns, completions, passing yards, running yards, just about every stat imaginable over those 3 and he dominated for a longer count the rings completely ignores everything else and is stupid.
You say stats dont matter, then cite a bunch for Elway. When the games on the line,
I can think of atleast 5-6 other guys Id take before ahead of him. Below .500 in the big game is by no means "dominant", regular season stats mean nothing, Marino is perfect example of that.


When did I ever said stats don't matter? You're the guy guy who claimed that those guys has better stats than Elway when that it's easily false. And to say Dan Marino and John Elway weren't dominant means 1 of 2 things either that you know nothing about football or you never watched their play in the 80's and 90's. Both guys are top 10 ever with a strong case for top 5.



____________________
http://www.hoopshabit.com
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2012 09:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
57th Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
I think Elway was probably the best example of a total package for a QB with all of his skills, but I think he is somewhat overrated.  He is definitely around the Top 10, but I just never viewed him as being a dominant quarterback. 

I found this on the bleacherreport.  

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/778095-john-elway-why-hes-the-most-overrated-athlete-of-all-time


I don't weigh too heavily on the stats stuff, so I am trying to have somebody persuade me otherwise than viewing him as somewhat overrated. 

There have been several, or even alot of QBs, who made the wide receivers and vice-versa.  Look at what Brady has done with some of the talent that has come his way. 




Last edited on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 10:11 pm by Papa Voo



____________________
“Anybody notice that Papa Voo can make all these posts, despite the fact he hasn't been logged in all night? #S&W (Scumbag Liars & Worthless Trash)“

-(Comedian/Troll Wanna Be) Heenan Fan-
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Feb 7th, 2012 10:10 pm
  PM Quote Reply
58th Post
The Ultimate Sin
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 9831
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.



Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.


That's quite a foolish way of judging QBs since quarterbacks don't win titles, it's teams that win. Elway was better at every aspect of quarterbacking than both Aikman and Bradshaw and if he had great coaching and defense similar to those 2 he'd have a lot more titles.


Elway did have great coaching, he went to 4 straight sbs, and lost all 4.


What years were Elway's 4 straight Super Bowls?



____________________
May I offer you some salt and vinegar chips?
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Feb 7th, 2012 10:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
59th Post
yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3810
Status: 
Offline
The Ultimate Sin wrote: stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.



Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.


That's quite a foolish way of judging QBs since quarterbacks don't win titles, it's teams that win. Elway was better at every aspect of quarterbacking than both Aikman and Bradshaw and if he had great coaching and defense similar to those 2 he'd have a lot more titles.


Elway did have great coaching, he went to 4 straight sbs, and lost all 4.


What years were Elway's 4 straight Super Bowls?

Jim Kelly



____________________
"It's a Dog Eat Dog World"
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Feb 7th, 2012 10:46 pm
  PM Quote Reply
60th Post
tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
The Ultimate Sin wrote: stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.



Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.


That's quite a foolish way of judging QBs since quarterbacks don't win titles, it's teams that win. Elway was better at every aspect of quarterbacking than both Aikman and Bradshaw and if he had great coaching and defense similar to those 2 he'd have a lot more titles.


Elway did have great coaching, he went to 4 straight sbs, and lost all 4.


What years were Elway's 4 straight Super Bowls?

You must have forgotten his disguising himself and changing his name to Boomer Esiason, before getting tired of that and going back to being John Elway.  Garth Brooks ripped off this idea for the Chris Gaines experiment.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 05:36 pm Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page    
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > If Pats Win, Pure Speculation...Best 4-Time QB Champ Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems