+ Reply to Thread
Results 106 to 120 of 422
Thread: Future QB Thread
-
12-22-2011 03:50 PM #106
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
That's how it comes off to you, but I'm not sure that's why it would come off that way to most people. Saying a all time great was past his prime is a lot different than saying he was washed up.
Originally Posted by backwardsk
Got my win totals for 97 and 98 mixed up. I'm not sure why you are bringing Brister up at all. When you say that Elway was past his prime, it comes off as if he was playing at a 2010-2011 McNabb level. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's how it comes off. Elway was still really good in those years, 5th in QB rating in 98 when Atlanta and minny were playing video games.
The moral of the story though is that Elway couldn't win the big one without a great coach
-
12-22-2011 03:55 PM #107
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Lorton, VA
- Posts
- 7,489
It does when it's in the context of "you have to remove Elway out of the list of elite SB qbs because he's past his prime." Originally Posted by mweb
Elway was better in 97 and 98 than Brady was when he won his 3 rings.
-
12-22-2011 04:04 PM #108
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
Except that wasn't quite the context and even if it was, I don't see how you take the leap from not quite franchise QB level to washed up. Huge gap between the two. Originally Posted by backwardsk
-
12-22-2011 04:14 PM #109
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Lorton, VA
- Posts
- 7,489
So, according to you, Elway was not a franchise QB when he won his super bowls? Is that correct? But Brady was when he won? Even though 97-98 Elway had better seasons in relation to his peers than Brady in 01, 03, and 04. Originally Posted by mweb
-
12-22-2011 04:23 PM #110
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
So now you are changing the debate huh. Good choice since I clearly didn't make Elway to be like he was washed up. Originally Posted by backwardsk
And no, that's not correct. I'm fine with leaving Elway on that list as I did when I counted it up myself using different years to make the counter argument look better. I'm just pointing out that he wasn't still in his prime and that QB play wasn't the primary reason for their success that year. His numbers got better in large part because the team around him got better imo and he wasn't relied upon nearly as much.
-
12-22-2011 04:33 PM #111
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Lorton, VA
- Posts
- 7,489
I'm obviously dense and can't keep up, but didn't you say only 16 out of the past 21 QBs, instead of 19 out of 21, were playing at a "franchise level"? Weren't you backing out EManning and Elway (2)?
-
12-22-2011 04:45 PM #112
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
Yes to Eli, no to Elway. Using 21 instead of 19 brings us to Rypien and Sims/Hostetler. He was obviously picking the amount of years to make his stat look the best, which I was demonstrating. Originally Posted by backwardsk
-
12-22-2011 04:53 PM #113
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Lorton, VA
- Posts
- 7,489
Then that makes more sense. My disconnect was that you were backing out Eli, talked about Elway in the same paragraph, and reduced the numerator by 3. Originally Posted by mweb
And how dare you speak ill of Mark Rypien!
-
12-22-2011 05:07 PM #114
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
Well he was great for that one year. Of course he had a lot of help. Originally Posted by backwardsk
Then that makes more sense. My disconnect was that you were backing out Eli, talked about Elway in the same paragraph, and reduced the numerator by 3.
And how dare you speak ill of Mark Rypien!
And I agree that you can mention Brady as a QB who wasn't spectacular during most of his SB years and had a lot of help. He was of course quite clutch though.
-
12-22-2011 05:07 PM #115
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Baltimore
- Posts
- 4,584
Always knew Barkley was going back to USC.
-
12-22-2011 05:09 PM #116
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
As a USC fan I'm pretty happy even though this hurts the Skins chance at getting a top QB in the draft. Originally Posted by Remember The Alomar
-
12-22-2011 05:17 PM #117
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Baltimore
- Posts
- 4,584
I have a friend who goes there. He's pretty happy as well. Originally Posted by mweb
-
12-22-2011 05:19 PM #118
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Lorton, VA
- Posts
- 7,489
I guess with the new CBA, it's easier for USC to compete with the NFL for player compensation.
It sucks, as a fan of a team that needs a qb, but good for him for staying in school. I do wonder what he would have done under the old CBA.
-
12-22-2011 05:20 PM #119
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Lanham, MD
- Posts
- 9,657
Yeah that sucks. Luck or bust it seems. Originally Posted by mweb
-
12-22-2011 05:23 PM #120
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
Well in your mind. Obviously I and pretty much everyone else isn't willing to rule out RG3 based on a concussion. Originally Posted by allstar1579
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks