Mr. WEO Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 If I had to take any QB now it would be Matt Ryan in a New York second...even over Brady due to age/injury factor. Ha! You can have Ryan. I'll take Rivers---he's light years ahead of Ryan.
Albany,n.y. Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Why don't the Giants do the fiscally sound thing-sign JP Losman to replace Manning. A couple of years ago many people on this board were insisting than Losman was better than Manning-they couldn't all have been wrong.
H2o Posted July 4, 2009 Author Posted July 4, 2009 Ha! You can have Ryan. I'll take Rivers---he's light years ahead of Ryan. I like Rivers competitive fire. He showed what type of player he was a couple of seasons ago in the playoff game against the Colts when he played with a torn ACL. At the same time though, he seems like a spoiled little brat on occasion. There is no questioning his ability and toughness though.
Bill from NYC Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I did not say Namath was better than Bart Starr. I said Namath was the BEST QB of his generation. Tarkington was in the same generation as Starr, that is why Tarkington had to wait. Starr > Tarkington Even though both of his knees were SEVERELY injured while playing at Alabama, Namath was made the HIGHEST PAID player to come out of college for a reason, & it wasn't his boyish good looks. When I say highest paid, I mean by a LOT. The Namath signing by the Jets didn't make the front sports page, it made the FRONT page of the Newspaper due to the amount of money he was paid. The AFL & NFL were at war at the time. If he had not been injured in college Namath would have very likely been the BEST QB EVER. I was gonna let the remark about Namath go, but you are right. He could flat out play and remember, he was a gifted athlete before wiping out his knees. He played a little defensive back in college, and got professional offers to play shortstop. Btw, speaking of guys who "could have been the best ever," did you ever see Bert Jones play football? He had WAY more talent than any qb in the league today and yes.....that includes Brady. Think JP had talent?
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I was gonna let the remark about Namath go, but you are right. He could flat out play and remember, he was a gifted athlete before wiping out his knees. He played a little defensive back in college, and got professional offers to play shortstop. Btw, speaking of guys who "could have been the best ever," did you ever see Bert Jones play football? He had WAY more talent than any qb in the league today and yes.....that includes Brady. Think JP had talent? Yeah I remember watching Jones, he could have been great. The 68 Jets will be featured on "Americas Game" Sat Morning @ 8 AM. That Super Bowl legitimized the AFL. Young guys interested in the History of the NFL should check this show out.
billsfan89 Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I did not say Namath was better than Bart Starr. I said Namath was the BEST QB of his generation. Tarkington was in the same generation as Starr, that is why Tarkington had to wait. Starr > Tarkington Even though both of his knees were SEVERELY injured while playing at Alabama, Namath was made the HIGHEST PAID player to come out of college for a reason, & it wasn't his boyish good looks. When I say highest paid, I mean by a LOT. The Namath signing by the Jets didn't make the front sports page, it made the FRONT page of the Newspaper due to the amount of money he was paid. The AFL & NFL were at war at the time. If he had not been injured in college Namath would have very likely been the BEST QB EVER. But Namath played in the same era as Bart Starr and Tarkington who are both better than Namath. I don't know what Namath could have been but what he was wasn't better than Starr or Tarkington. You can't say because he had talent negated by injury that he is better than Starr or Tarkington. Could Namath have been better than those guys I don't know but from what you say it sounds like he could have been. Buts its only speculation based off of speculation to wither he could have better than Starr or Tarkington.
Thurman#1 Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I think you're just about spot on with that assessment. Above average QB's with a SB ring aren't a dime a dozen. If they let him walk they'll be in the same situation so many other teams are. Looking for a legitimate starting QB and finding one isn't easy. I agree totally. And we shouldn't be surprised that salaries keep rising faster and faster. Look at how the salary cap keeps rising each year. It went up, in this economy, almost 10% ($12 mil out of $128 mil). Salaries are going up, and will keep doing so under these conditions. That's why Jason Peters's demands weren't as outrageous as many thought. In two years, his salary will probably be in the middle of the pack. If Eli's salary becomes #1, expect someone else to beat it out, and for it to look average in 3 - 4 years. This is just what happens when you have a salary cap that keeps going up and up and up. And while Manning isn't terrific, he has proved that he can stay cool and handle the tensest situations in the game, and that if you put a good team around him, he can win championships. Few QBs have proved that and if you have one, you have to keep him happy.
Thurman#1 Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I did not say Namath was better than Bart Starr. I said Namath was the BEST QB of his generation. Tarkington was in the same generation as Starr, that is why Tarkington had to wait. Starr > Tarkington Even though both of his knees were SEVERELY injured while playing at Alabama, Namath was made the HIGHEST PAID player to come out of college for a reason, & it wasn't his boyish good looks. When I say highest paid, I mean by a LOT. The Namath signing by the Jets didn't make the front sports page, it made the FRONT page of the Newspaper due to the amount of money he was paid. The AFL & NFL were at war at the time. If he had not been injured in college Namath would have very likely been the BEST QB EVER. Not Tarkington. Tarkenton. Tarkenton. Tarkenton, for Pete's sakes. I know it's not just you, but ...
BuffOrange Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Well I consider Eli Manning to be a top 10 QB. Not in the top 5 but still somewhere in the top ten. His status may be more of a result of there just not being too many elite QB's in the NFL. Top 5 (In no order But number 5 is at the bottom) 1- Tom Brady 2- Peyton Manning 3- Drew Brees 4- Kurt Warner 5- Ben Rothlisberger Numbers 6-9 (In no order) 6- Eli Manning 7- Philip Rivers 8- Carson Palmer 9- Donavon McNabb Than knocking on the door of being a top ten QB are (Once again in no order) 10- Arron Rodgers (Despite huge numbers has only played one season a losing one) 11- Matt Ryan (Probably the best of the bunch likely to be in the top 10 next season and top 5 down the line) 12- Matt Hasselbeck (Very good QB but health concerns and age issues) 13- Jay Cutler (Looks great decent numbers but needs to prove he can win) 14- Matt Cassel (Is he just a one year wounder?) 15- Tony Romo (Good QB but not good in the clutch) So when you compare Eli to the rest of the league (Keep in mind these rankings are based off of who wins not fantasy numbers) his stock suddenly rises a lot. When you look at Eli's numbers and skill set you say solid but not elite yet you look at all the other guys in the league and there aren't too many guys you would take ahead of him. Fantasy numbers, while a dumb measuring stick by themselves, are still a better tool than "who wins". I'd take all those guys over Eli except Cassel, and maybe Hasselbeck/McNabb due to their age.
Fingon Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 You must be young & never saw Namath play. He was the Greatest QB of his generation & played on TWO bad legs from his 1st day in the NFL. Had he not been injured in college he may have been the best QB EVER. Joe Namath had an awful career. He simply wasn't very good. Namath's career: 173 TD passes, 220 INTs, completion percentage of 50.1. He should have retired in 1970. Fran Tarkenton was a FAR better player than Namath ever was.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Joe Namath had an awful career. He simply wasn't very good. Namath's career: 173 TD passes, 220 INTs, completion percentage of 50.1. He should have retired in 1970. Fran Tarkenton was a FAR better player than Namath ever was. Well, I quess you are the expert, can't argue with you.
billsfan89 Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Fantasy numbers, while a dumb measuring stick by themselves, are still a better tool than "who wins". I'd take all those guys over Eli except Cassel, and maybe Hasselbeck/McNabb due to their age. Not saying that numbers don't play a factor but I balance them with who is better at winning games. In a sense I am saying its not just the best numbers but its who plays the best when you factor in what they are asked to do. For example Rothlisberger doesn't put up Tony Romo like numbers because he isn't asked to. Basically who is a more effective QB in terms of wins and losses and numbers. I don't think you can put guys like Romo, Rodgers, Cassel, Hasselbeck and Cutler over Eli Manning. Romo shrinks in clutch moments. Rodgers is good but it remains to be seen if his numbers were more conducive to the fact that Green Bay was down a lot last year. Cassel could be a one hit wounder. Hasselbeck getting older and recent injuries. Cutler good numbers but remains to be seen if he will be a winner with less weapons plus his numbers aren't astronomical either. So even if you put Matt Ryan, Rivers, Mcnabb, and Palmer over Manning he would still be number 10. You can argue it but either he is a top 10 QB or right around number 10 (If you feel Rodgers or someone else is better than Eli he is still number 11). I don't think Eli is worth 100 million dollars but he is worth a lot to a team. Like I said in a previous post they will likely give him a 7 to 8 year deal worth 70-80 million with 35 to 40 million guaranteed.
Tcali Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I should have pointed out that my list was based off of winning in the short term. Basically if you had to win right now this season and next season who would you take. If you had to take age into account yeah Matt Ryan is most likely the best guy out there for the long term. brady..for short term no doubt
Fingon Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Well, I quess you are the expert, can't argue with you. Tarkenton: 342 TDs 266 INTs 57% completion All of those are far better than Namath's. There are quite a few QBs that didn't excrete the type of turds that Namath was prone to.
Bill from NYC Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 brady..for short term no doubt Imo Peyton Manning had his best year in 09. Harrison got old, his line was all banged up, and his defense lost their best players for a considerable amount of games. I used to think that Brady was better than Peyton. Not any more. Again....jmo.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Tarkenton: 342 TDs 266 INTs 57% completion All of those are far better than Namath's. There are quite a few QBs that didn't excrete the type of turds that Namath was prone to. You can read stats.......................that makes you an expert. The REAL EXPERTS watch GAME Film. THEY do not look at STATS.
Mr. WEO Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I was gonna let the remark about Namath go, but you are right. He could flat out play and remember, he was a gifted athlete before wiping out his knees. He played a little defensive back in college, and got professional offers to play shortstop. Btw, speaking of guys who "could have been the best ever," did you ever see Bert Jones play football? He had WAY more talent than any qb in the league today and yes.....that includes Brady. Think JP had talent? Wow. "Three near upsets"---that's just like 3 SBs. Bert Jones. Big arm. Glass jaw.
Fingon Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 You can read stats.......................that makes you an expert. The REAL EXPERTS watch GAME Film. THEY do not look at STATS. You would have a point if the stats were even remotely close. But the gigantic gap between other QB's during Namath's era does not lie. There are plenty of people who believe Namath was the most overrated NFL player... ever. But yeah, according to you... turnover differentials do not matter... right? You MIGHT have a point about Namath transcending his stats, but Namath never won another playoff game after that Superbowl.
BuffOrange Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Not saying that numbers don't play a factor but I balance them with who is better at winning games. In a sense I am saying its not just the best numbers but its who plays the best when you factor in what they are asked to do. For example Rothlisberger doesn't put up Tony Romo like numbers because he isn't asked to. Basically who is a more effective QB in terms of wins and losses and numbers. I don't think you can put guys like Romo, Rodgers, Cassel, Hasselbeck and Cutler over Eli Manning. Romo shrinks in clutch moments. Rodgers is good but it remains to be seen if his numbers were more conducive to the fact that Green Bay was down a lot last year. Cassel could be a one hit wounder. Hasselbeck getting older and recent injuries. Cutler good numbers but remains to be seen if he will be a winner with less weapons plus his numbers aren't astronomical either. So even if you put Matt Ryan, Rivers, Mcnabb, and Palmer over Manning he would still be number 10. You can argue it but either he is a top 10 QB or right around number 10 (If you feel Rodgers or someone else is better than Eli he is still number 11). I don't think Eli is worth 100 million dollars but he is worth a lot to a team. Like I said in a previous post they will likely give him a 7 to 8 year deal worth 70-80 million with 35 to 40 million guaranteed. Fair enough. Like Steely Dan said having a slightly above average QB is more valuable than most think. I do think anyone who insists Romo is a choke-artist should watch the Giants playoff game on NFL Network next time it's on. The guy was running for his life the whole 4th Qtr, his only int was a 4th down desperation heave at the end of the game, and Patrick Crayton dropped two gimmes that probably would've won the game. Both Eli and his brother have multipe far-worse playoff performances on their resume. But I guess that's the price you play for being a Dallas QB.
Tcali Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I did not say Namath was better than Bart Starr. I said Namath was the BEST QB of his generation. Tarkington was in the same generation as Starr, that is why Tarkington had to wait. Starr > Tarkington Even though both of his knees were SEVERELY injured while playing at Alabama, Namath was made the HIGHEST PAID player to come out of college for a reason, & it wasn't his boyish good looks. When I say highest paid, I mean by a LOT. The Namath signing by the Jets didn't make the front sports page, it made the FRONT page of the Newspaper due to the amount of money he was paid. The AFL & NFL were at war at the time. If he had not been injured in college Namath would have very likely been the BEST QB EVER. I think you are mixed up with your generations. Namath and Tarkenton were of the same generation. And starr overlapped their generations.
Recommended Posts