Bill from NYC Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I get the point of Namath being the most important QB of his generation. In regards to the whole importance of the AFL and his importance to the merger of the the AFL and NFL I get it. But you can't tell me that he was the best QB of his generation when there are guys like Starr and Tarkinton who blow Namath and his ON FIELD accomplishments out of the water. Namath scoring lots of hot chicks and partying didn't make him a better QB than Tarkinton or Starr (Who you never know maybe they were the Hugh Hefner of Minnesota and Green Bay but no one cared to follow their off field exploits). I get the aurora of Namath and the whole you had to be there thing. But once you separate yourself from who he was and look at what he did he wasn't that good (like I said a really good 4 year run and thats it). Most important QB of his generation yeah but don't pretend he was the best QB of his generation because it just isn't true. PS- I didn't see Rodger the Dodger play either hate to make you feel old. For one thing, I don't recall saying that he was the best of his generation. I am saying the before injuries, he was great. As for Starr and Tarkenton, it is interseting that you chose them. Starr was very good, but he played on a powerhouse team. He was not a guy who could carry a club. Reminds me of Bob Griese, although I suspect Griese was better. I saw little of Starr though, to be honest. Tarkenton? He too was very good, but his strength was durability. Imo, he was in a way a compiler of stats when compared to true greats such as Elway, Montana, etc. I liken him to Flutie. Remember, Flutie was blackballed from the NFL or so it seemed. If he was in the league for all of his prime, he might have compiled similar stats. It is possible. I agree that Namath didn't have a career like an all time great. But for that short window, he was a superstar.
billsfan89 Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 For one thing, I don't recall saying that he was the best of his generation. I am saying the before injuries, he was great. As for Starr and Tarkenton, it is interseting that you chose them. Starr was very good, but he played on a powerhouse team. He was not a guy who could carry a club. Reminds me of Bob Griese, although I suspect Griese was better. I saw little of Starr though, to be honest. Tarkenton? He too was very good, but his strength was durability. Imo, he was in a way a compiler of stats when compared to true greats such as Elway, Montana, etc. I liken him to Flutie. Remember, Flutie was blackballed from the NFL or so it seemed. If he was in the league for all of his prime, he might have compiled similar stats. It is possible. I agree that Namath didn't have a career like an all time great. But for that short window, he was a superstar. I think we are on the same page. Namath had that 4 year stretch where he was a great I agree with that. It was another poster that made the claim that Namath was the best of his generation.
tdbrett Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 How Eli's Earning His $ I mean, it's all about endorsements, right?? I don't really think he's deserving to be the highest paid QB. But what do I know about doing payroll for the Giants? Manning aside, those videos are really great -- 'lighter side of training camp.' I've gotten a cool opportunity to work with reebok on this, and it's very easy to text RBK to 22095 to get a chance to win a jersey of your favorite player. Try it -- fun stuff. Atleast we know those Manning boys aren't gonna go hungry... right? Bring on the football, brett
CodeMonkey Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 It's my opinion that the majority of NFL players are grossly overpaid in general.
Recommended Posts