YOUR Top 5 QB's of All Time?
-
sleeper
Right, because Manning is blessed with great WRs, great RBs, and great defenses throughout his career. Sorry, put Manning on the Patriots and they never lose a game.BR1986FB;1366451 wrote:Wrong. Unless Manning was transporting Marvin Harrison & Reggie Wayne back with him he wouldn't be nearly as successful. -
Raw Dawgin' it
You're really really dumb sometimes.sleeper;1366473 wrote:Right, because Manning is blessed with great WRs, great RBs, and great defenses throughout his career. Sorry, put Manning on the Patriots and they never lose a game. -
Commander of Awesome
Then I guess 20 yrs from now the current crop of Qbs would be a bunch of bums and Michael Jordan would ride the pine. :rolleyes:sleeper;1366424 wrote:Sorry that we don't latch onto the good ole days when a bunch of nonathletic white people were playing defense. The league is so much bigger, stronger, faster than anything in history. There's no guarantee any of those players would even make an NFL team, much less achieve greatness.
Terrible fail argument. -
Commander of Awesome
Otto Graham, 10 yrs in the league 10 championship games. 7 titles, no other QB comes close.
-
sleeper
Potentially. I think we've reached a point of athletic saturation but technology can still change that. Sorry that I use logic and reason in my arguments rather than hold onto old timers for the sake of nostalgia.Commander of Awesome;1366495 wrote:Then I guess 20 yrs from now the current crop of Qbs would be a bunch of bums and Michael Jordan would ride the pine. :rolleyes:
Terrible fail argument. -
Commander of Awesome
I'm not an old timer, I'm younger than you. I just have an appreciation for history and know that your argument is a fail. Wilt, Kareem, Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, Bo Jackson, Sayers, Reggie White, Barry Bonds, etc... would still be great in today's game. You can't erase or belittle what they did based on their talent level. Talent level is all relative.sleeper;1366501 wrote:Potentially. I think we've reached a point of athletic saturation but technology can still change that. Sorry that I use logic and reason in my arguments rather than hold onto old timers for the sake of nostalgia. -
sleeper
Saying talent level is all relative is hilarious. Sure, they were talented for their time, no doubt about that. You know what else was pretty advanced for it's time? Black and White television. I suppose your argument is saying "Well yeah, black and white televisions were pretty advanced, relatively for it's time; just like the latest LCD TV is relatively great for it's time as well." There's no doubt that's a true statement, but making the argument that the B&W television is good or better than the LCD TV is a fail argument. Nice try though.Commander of Awesome;1366507 wrote:I'm not an old timer, I'm younger than you. I just have an appreciation for history and know that your argument is a fail. Wilt, Kareem, Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, Bo Jackson, Sayers, Reggie White, Barry Bonds, etc... would still be great in today's game. You can't erase or belittle what they did based on their talent level. Talent level is all relative.
-
Pick6
Too subjective of a debate. I do not think anybody give a credible opinion on QBs I did not watch outside of a game or two on the NFL Channel. -
Commander of Awesome
Except one is a device and technology, and the other is talent level. Sure the NFL didn't have the size and speed of today, but the people also weren't as big etc... Your argument is such a joke. You didnt' even address the majority of my point, you just latched on to one little point which you thought you could spin (you couldn't).sleeper;1366513 wrote:Saying talent level is all relative is hilarious. Sure, they were talented for their time, no doubt about that. You know what else was pretty advanced for it's time? Black and White television. I suppose your argument is saying "Well yeah, black and white televisions were pretty advanced, relatively for it's time; just like the latest LCD TV is relatively great for it's time as well." There's no doubt that's a true statement, but making the argument that the B&W television is good or better than the LCD TV is a fail argument. Nice try though. -
sleeper
People can take advantage of technological change/societal change. Today's athletes start out super young and spend their whole life lifting weights, nutritional programs, training camps, etc. It's much harder to become a professional athlete now because you have to put in decades of work to get big enough, fast enough, strong enough, and talented enough to make the league. That's why the players of today are so much better and they would absolutely dominate if you placed any of them in the league's of yester year. Sorry that you latch on to old time players that your parents indoctrinated you into believing that they are somehow special because they played "back in the day". You know what else was great back in the day? Nothing, and that's that. :thumbup:Commander of Awesome;1366527 wrote:Except one is a device and technology, and the other is talent level. Sure the NFL didn't have the size and speed of today, but the people also weren't as big etc... Your argument is such a joke. You didnt' even address the majority of my point, you just latched on to one little point which you thought you could spin (you couldn't). -
Commander of Awesome
Never said they were special, nice putting words in mouth. True sign you have nothing.sleeper;1366531 wrote:People can take advantage of technological change/societal change. Today's athletes start out super young and spend their whole life lifting weights, nutritional programs, training camps, etc. It's much harder to become a professional athlete now because you have to put in decades of work to get big enough, fast enough, strong enough, and talented enough to make the league. That's why the players of today are so much better and they would absolutely dominate if you placed any of them in the league's of yester year. Sorry that you latch on to old time players that your parents indoctrinated you into believing that they are somehow special because they played "back in the day". You know what else was great back in the day? Nothing, and that's that. :thumbup:
To flip your fail argument back in your face, guess the moon landing wasn't special, bc they had the tech of a calculator. Atom bomb? Big deal, we have bigger/badder ones today and more of them. /sleep faillogic -
Raw Dawgin' it
lol technology has changed since OSU won the BSC Championship game, guess they suck now. Those players don't have the same technology as today and wouldn't even beat ND if they played 100 times.sleeper;1366531 wrote:People can take advantage of technological change/societal change. Today's athletes start out super young and spend their whole life lifting weights, nutritional programs, training camps, etc. It's much harder to become a professional athlete now because you have to put in decades of work to get big enough, fast enough, strong enough, and talented enough to make the league. That's why the players of today are so much better and they would absolutely dominate if you placed any of them in the league's of yester year. Sorry that you latch on to old time players that your parents indoctrinated you into believing that they are somehow special because they played "back in the day". You know what else was great back in the day? Nothing, and that's that. :thumbup: -
BR1986FB
Wow. I'll give you that the Patriots had some great defenses but "great WRs, great RBs?" I'd say Harrison, Wayne & Edge James were better than anything Brady had up until Randy Moss and, by then, I think Brady had already won his SB's. IMO, no QB did "more with less" than Tom Brady.sleeper;1366473 wrote:Right, because Manning is blessed with great WRs, great RBs, and great defenses throughout his career. Sorry, put Manning on the Patriots and they never lose a game. -
WebFire
So as good as the old-timers were back then, think how good they would be now with the same tools, training and technology the athletes today have. You assume that the old timers would still be using their old time methods in today's game. That is false.sleeper;1366531 wrote:People can take advantage of technological change/societal change. Today's athletes start out super young and spend their whole life lifting weights, nutritional programs, training camps, etc. It's much harder to become a professional athlete now because you have to put in decades of work to get big enough, fast enough, strong enough, and talented enough to make the league. That's why the players of today are so much better and they would absolutely dominate if you placed any of them in the league's of yester year. Sorry that you latch on to old time players that your parents indoctrinated you into believing that they are somehow special because they played "back in the day". You know what else was great back in the day? Nothing, and that's that. :thumbup: -
sleeper
The moon landing was special for it's time, but wouldn't hold a candle to the stuff we can now do now with advanced technology. That shuttle probably wouldn't even be allowed to fly today because it's a POS but nice try using landmark history that can only be done once(ie. you can only land on the moon the first time once) and then trying to using that to justify an erroneous belief that players back in the day are somehow great when reality says otherwise. If we wanted today, we could land 10 shuttles on the moon, build a football field, and probably have better robots play football than we had back in the 60's.Commander of Awesome;1366532 wrote:Never said they were special, nice putting words in mouth. True sign you have nothing.
To flip your fail argument back in your face, guess the moon landing wasn't special, bc they had the tech of a calculator. Atom bomb? Big deal, we have bigger/badder ones today and more of them. /sleep faillogic -
Commander of Awesome
Your circular logic fail is well document. Foot in mouth, but you continue to try and talk anyways. Hilarious.sleeper;1366553 wrote:The moon landing was special for it's time, but wouldn't hold a candle to the stuff we can now do now with advanced technology. That shuttle probably wouldn't even be allowed to fly today because it's a POS but nice try using landmark history that can only be done once(ie. you can only land on the moon the first time once) and then trying to using that to justify an erroneous belief that players back in the day are somehow great when reality says otherwise. If we wanted today, we could land 10 shuttles on the moon, build a football field, and probably have better robots play football than we had back in the 60's. -
sleeper
Yeah, OSU players in 2001 probably were already past the point of athletic talent saturation. Depending on how technology develops in the future, they could suck by future standards(aka reality) but as of right now I don't see a huge difference.Raw Dawgin' it;1366538 wrote:lol technology has changed since OSU won the BSC Championship game, guess they suck now. Those players don't have the same technology as today and wouldn't even beat ND if they played 100 times.
Also, I think you could take a high school team from the 40's and they could beat ND in any era. Or that high school team could at least hobble to a BCS bowl victory once in a blue moon. -
sleeper
Manning made Harrison and Wayne great. Edge James? Trash replacement level RB. Name a defensive player that's made the probowl for the Colts in the last decade? Crickets. :thumbdown:BR1986FB;1366542 wrote:Wow. I'll give you that the Patriots had some great defenses but "great WRs, great RBs?" I'd say Harrison, Wayne & Edge James were better than anything Brady had up until Randy Moss and, by then, I think Brady had already won his SB's. IMO, no QB did "more with less" than Tom Brady. -
sleeper
Potentially they could benefit. But they didn't; sorry!WebFire;1366551 wrote:So as good as the old-timers were back then, think how good they would be now with the same tools, training and technology the athletes today have. You assume that the old timers would still be using their old time methods in today's game. That is false. -
sleeper
No circles here, only logic and reason.Commander of Awesome;1366556 wrote:Your circular logic fail is well document. Foot in mouth, but you continue to try and talk anyways. Hilarious. -
Commander of Awesome
Dwight Freeny and Bob Sanderssleeper;1366561 wrote:Manning made Harrison and Wayne great. Edge James? Trash replacement level RB. Name a defensive player that's made the probowl for the Colts in the last decade? Crickets. :thumbdown: -
Raw Dawgin' it
lol show me the mathematical formula used to determine this. You're an idiot troll.sleeper;1366559 wrote:Yeah, OSU players in 2001 probably were already past the point of athletic talent saturation. Depending on how technology develops in the future, they could suck by future standards(aka reality) but as of right now I don't see a huge difference.
Also, I think you could take a high school team from the 40's and they could beat ND in any era. Or that high school team could at least hobble to a BCS bowl victory once in a blue moon. -
sleeper
Exactly. 2 players. Tom Brady has had at least 25.Commander of Awesome;1366571 wrote:Dwight Freeny and Bob Sanders -
sleeper
There is no mathematical formula for common sense.Raw Dawgin' it;1366572 wrote:lol show me the mathematical formula used to determine this. You're an idiot troll. -
Commander of Awesome
You said none, with about 3 sec of googling I found 2. lol at not doing your research when trying to debate me.sleeper;1366575 wrote:Exactly. 2 players. Tom Brady has had at least 25.