Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-22-2017, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Northern Wisconsin
4,455 posts, read 3,358,158 times
Reputation: 1684

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoGuy View Post
Simms was a great quarterback. His career was on the short side and he was prone to fumbling due to average sized hands. Plus Hostetler won that second SB.

We are not talking about great quarterbacks. We are speculating on the best.

In fairness to quarterbacks of bygone eras, we could further define the list to be qb's active within the past 25-30 years.
Fine, but if you want a spectacular quarterback, how about Brett Favre? He's won a lot of games in his career with the Packers. He took them to a couple Super Bowls, won against the Patriots in 1997 and lost to Denver in 1998. Plus, he even took the Vikings in his rookie season with them and nearly took them to the Super Bowl only if it wasn't for that interception against Tracy Porter of New Orleans. Aaron Rodgers, he's definitely a spectacular quarterback. Every year, since 2009, the Packers have made the playoffs. Rodgers has even won Super Bowl 45. You can't have a list and NOT have Favre or Rodgers on it, in my opinion. You can even add Bart Starr because, he's a Hall of Fame quarterback. He won Super Bowls I and II and he is in the NFL and Packers Hall of Fame for those very reasons.

Last edited by Jonathan Ashbeck; 01-22-2017 at 12:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2017, 03:50 PM
 
Location: SFBA CA USA — Go Giants!
2,291 posts, read 1,677,190 times
Reputation: 1889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Ashbeck View Post
He (Bart Starr) won Super Bowls I and II and he is in the NFL and Packers Hall of Fame for those very reasons.
Let's be fair to Bart Starr because it's not just Super Bowls for him. He spanned the age before and after Super Bowls. Before those Super Bowl championships for the 1966 (SB I) and 1967 (SB II) seasons, he also helped lead the Packers to NFL championships in the 1961, 1962, and 1965 seasons. The Packers 3-peated as champions in 1965, 1966, and 1967. In 7 seasons the Packers were champs for 5 of them.

The Big Game was called the AFL–NFL World Championship Game, until Super Bowl III when Namath (really it was the Jets' running game) made the game Super.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,730,209 times
Reputation: 40160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babe_Ruth View Post
Unsett, hi..
How can you prove that modern players are more talented (?) A guy like Baugh played on both sides of the ball. It's hard to prove that modern players have that talent now because they are forced to be more specialized. I don't think we can really prove which era has more natural talent.. we're not really seeing modern players play to their full potential. Your assessment (stated as matter-of-fact) is completely speculative.
Players in Baugh's era played both side of the ball because there was no other option. When Baugh's career began in 1937, NFL roster sizes were fixed at 25 players. When it ended in 1952 they were still at just 33 players. Baugh wasn't playing both sides of the ball because he was a special case - almost everyone did back then.

Anyway, players today are bigger and faster. Hitting a faster wide receiver being covered by faster DBs is simply harder than hitting slower ones being covered by slower opposing players. And as for talent, at the QB position it mostly isn't natural - it's an acquired skill. And today's faster game requires greater skill. It's as simple as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babe_Ruth View Post
Having fewer teams doesn't necessarily mean less competitive play, just means fewer players in a league. I could argue more players & franchises actually dilutes the high level of competition & limited spots previously reserved for a more elite standard.
And I'd argue that today's colleges, not to mention modern scouting which leaves no stone unturned, and modern conditioning techniques which produce players of much greater physique and skill - to say nothing of wealth, which allows for offseasons dedicated to training and the hiring of trainers and dieticians, and whatnot (compared to the players of Baugh's era, who mostly had to spend their offseasons working in order to supplement their decent but hardly lucrative NFL salaries) - combine to produce a far greater amount of per-franchise talent that in Baugh's era (and again, he played for several years in a league decimated by World War II - to the point where the Cleveland Rams suspended play for the 1943 season, and the Steelers merged with the Cardinals for one season and the Eagles for another).

But it's simply math. It's a lot easier to be the best team or quarterback out of 8 or 10 or 12 than it is to be the best team/quarterback out of 28 or 30 or 32. Think about it. If your fantasy football league has 6 teams, you'll win more titles over a couple decades than if it has 16 teams. If you're playing poker with 2 other guys, you'll win more hands than if you're playing with 6 other guys.

[quote=Babe_Ruth;46912969]If titles are supposedly harder to win in the Super Bowl era, how do u explain Pittsburgh's dominance of the 70s, Niners dominating the 80s, Cowboys dominating the 90s, and Pats dominating the 21st century.. Where is proof that it was easier for Baugh to win a title than Brady.. Brady has won more.

It's not 'supposedly', it's math. When the Steelers won their titles, there were 26 and 28 teams in the league. The dominance is because they, and the 49ers and the Cowboys and the Patriots, were far, far better teams than the Bears and Redskins and Packers of the 1930s and 1940s. Their accomplishments of winning multiple titles in a league of 26 to 32 teams vastly exceeded those than won titles in a league with between 8 and 12 teams. Like I said, it's just math.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babe_Ruth View Post
My opinion, Baugh & Graham should be recognized for excellence vs. their peers, not diminished because of their era. peace
I agree that Baugh was great for his era.

And I'll also guess that if the NFL is around in 2050, there will be players that for similar reasons will vastly out-pace players like Brady and Manning. That's just the nature of the ever-increasing competition. Conversely, teams of Baugh's era were vastly superior to teams like the 1922/1923 Cleveland Bulldogs, which won back-to-back titles with a combined two-season record of 21-0-3 and allowed just 34 points combined in those 24 games. The Canton Bulldogs were great for their era, but they still very likely would have been destroyed by Baugh's teams, who could not have competed against Lombardi's teams, who would have been soundly smacked down by Montana's 49ers squad, who would have had circles run around them buy Belichick's dynasty. And 20 years from now there will be a team that will be vastly superior to the Patriots of the early 21st century.

That's the evolution of sports.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,627,831 times
Reputation: 5660
Wont argue with you much Unsettomati but i will say that having an NFL Arm... the zip required is a natural god given gift.. not a skill you can acquire just by working on it. Its like a major league fast ball, nobody but GOD can give you the ability to throw a baseball 95 - 100mph.. JMO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 07:24 PM
 
3,631 posts, read 2,464,364 times
Reputation: 6622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
Think about it. If your fantasy football league has 6 teams, you'll win more titles over a couple decades than if it has 16 teams. If you're playing poker with 2 other guys, you'll win more hands than if you're playing with 6 other guys..
Unsett, hi again.. ^ This is a flawed assumption. It would be easier to dominate a fantasy league (or poker table) of 16 chumps, than dominate a fantasy league of 6 skilled players. So it's not just 'simple math', that adding more teams makes a league harder to dominate.
Your case is built on assumption, which is fair enough.. we're all just speculating when comparing players from different eras. But u patronizingly pass your assumptions off as fact.

Faster & stronger doesn't necessarily equal more talented, which was your initial assertion. Talent is innate. Guys are often faster & stronger now due to nutrition & juicing. That doesn't mean they have better hand-eye coordination, or skill sets than old-timers like Baugh & Graham..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 09:40 PM
 
Location: SFBA CA USA — Go Giants!
2,291 posts, read 1,677,190 times
Reputation: 1889
Don't look now, but Brady is starting in his seventh, seventh, Super Bowl. Incredible. Elway has the next most, 5, and then there are five QBs who have started 4 SBs: Staubach, Bradshaw, Montana, Kelly, and P. Manning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 10:42 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
2,033 posts, read 1,968,380 times
Reputation: 1437
Montana is the GOAT period!!


He played in a conference with other powerhouse teams (Bears, Giants and Redskins) and had to go through those teams just to get to a Super bowl. Played in a era that didn't gift offenses with flags like "Hitting Defenseless Receivers", "Questionable Late Hits", "Illegal Contact" calls. Those calls continue drives that back in his day would not have been called and depending on down may have had to punt.


Throwing the ball out of bounds to avoid a sack was not around when he played. Yes you could throw the ball out of bounds but a receiver had to be in the area. Now just get outside the tackle box and you can throw it in the stands. What A Joke!!


With the rules changing so much you can't accurately say who is the GOAT. This is not the same game anymore. Anybody over the age of 35 can see that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 10:52 PM
 
5,644 posts, read 13,175,045 times
Reputation: 14170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastphilly View Post
Montana is the GOAT period!!


He played in a conference with other powerhouse teams (Bears, Giants and Redskins) and had to go through those teams just to get to a Super bowl. Played in a era that didn't gift offenses with flags like "Hitting Defenseless Receivers", "Questionable Late Hits", "Illegal Contact" calls. Those calls continue drives that back in his day would not have been called and depending on down may have had to punt.


Throwing the ball out of bounds to avoid a sack was not around when he played. Yes you could throw the ball out of bounds but a receiver had to be in the area. Now just get outside the tackle box and you can throw it in the stands. What A Joke!!


With the rules changing so much you can't accurately say who is the GOAT. This is not the same game anymore. Anybody over the age of 35 can see that.
I'm well over 35 and Brady is the GOAT period!!!!!

Montana played in an era before the salary cap and free agency when you could build and keep a team together FOREVER....

Brady has taken 7 different teams to the SB....there are only 20 guys on the current roster that played for the Pats just 2 years ago in the Super Bowl...

What Brady and Belichick have done is unprecedented and is unlikely to every be repeated...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Northern Wisconsin
4,455 posts, read 3,358,158 times
Reputation: 1684
^^ Brady AND Montana are one of the GOATs. It's that simple. You can list a bunch of other QBs that are one of the GOATs, like Unitas, Elway, Starr, Marino, Aikman, Bradshaw, Staubach, Peyton Manning, names like that. IMO, you can have more than one quarterback, present or retired that can be considered ONE of the greatest QBs ever.

Last edited by Jonathan Ashbeck; 01-23-2017 at 12:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2017, 11:02 PM
 
6,520 posts, read 6,662,910 times
Reputation: 8641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Ashbeck View Post
^^ Brady AND Montana are one of the GOATs. It's that simple. You can list a bunch of other QBs that are one of the GOATs, like Unitas, Elway, Starr, Marino, Aikman, Bradshaw, Staubach, Peyton Manning, names like that.
I Agree. It's between Montana & Brady, period ! The way Brady is playing at 39 is surreal....so he gets my vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top