Rivers is overrated

[valade16]

I didn't ignore your point. You just completely missed my point. There's no other qbs in the top 10 without a ring because there's no qbs of that stature without one. If you think favre, young or Manning wouldn't be considered among the greatest without winning a ring, your fooling yourself.

Fouts wasn't even that much better then elway, if at all. Fouts also had better recivers. Plus I don't have elway in my top 10 anyway.

With accounting for eras, elway wasn't all that much better then Bradshaw. Yet Bradshaw has two more rings and yet have never seen him on a top 10 list. Elway must have been a media darling to get the status he does.

Why do you think that is?

This is why you stat whores just don't know the game of football. You just flat don't know it. There's really no other way to put it if you think Elway wans't a great Quarterback...

http://www.20yardline.com/denver-bro...ohn-elway.html

You really think Elway wasn't that good eh? He was the 1987 AP NFL MVP, and that was with throwing 19 TDs, 12 Ints, and having an 83.4 QB Rating. Why do you suppose they voted him MVP if he wasn't that good? Maybe they know something you don't... something pure stats won't tell you.

"Elway's the best I've ever seen in the two-minute drill," Reggie White said.

From 1983 to 1992, quarterback John Elway led Denver to three Super Bowl appearances. He was able to accomplish this with average to below-average offensive lines, Sammy Winder, a good running back, but nothing special, Bobby Humphrey, Gerald Willhite, Reggie Rivers, and Gene Lang, who? During those years, he did not even have a pro bowl player to throw the ball to. Steve Watson, Vance Johnson, and Mark Jackson were all good receivers, but none of them was a true number one threat.

John Elway was sacked more than any quarterback in NFL history, despite escaping hundreds of sacks due to his mobility.

Despite lacking a great offensive line until late in his career, Elway started a record five Super Bowls, three of them with average teams.

“When the game was on the line, he was like Michael Jordan", says Dan Reeves, who coached Elway for his first 10 seasons. “I think he thrived on pressure. In those clutch situations, I don't know of anyone who did a better job of handling that like John did.”

Says Marty Schottenheimer, who coached Montana late in his career and lost 15 games to Elway: “All things being equal, John may have been the best because of the ability to improvise and the ability to do all those different things.”

“He was a great athlete, and his arm strength was second to none,” Broncos coach Mike Shanahan said. “He could make all the throws. He would make plays when plays broke down, and he was very intelligent.”

That's what your pure stats don't tell you. John Elway was one of the greatest Quarterbacks to ever play. The fact that your now trying to minimize that based solely on stats shows that, when it really comes down to it, you don't know Quarterbacks and you certainly don't know anything outside of numbers.

According to the stats Tony Romo > John Elway. Do you believe that is a true statement. Yes or no?

[bosox3431]

Why do you think that is?

This is why you stat whores just don't know the game of football. You just flat don't know it. There's really no other way to put it if you think Elway wans't a great Quarterback...

http://www.20yardline.com/denver-bro...ohn-elway.html

You really think Elway wasn't that good eh? He was the 1987 AP NFL MVP, and that was with throwing 19 TDs, 12 Ints, and having an 83.4 QB Rating. Why do you suppose they voted him MVP if he wasn't that good? Maybe they know something you don't... something pure stats won't tell you.

"Elway's the best I've ever seen in the two-minute drill," Reggie White said.

From 1983 to 1992, quarterback John Elway led Denver to three Super Bowl appearances. He was able to accomplish this with average to below-average offensive lines, Sammy Winder, a good running back, but nothing special, Bobby Humphrey, Gerald Willhite, Reggie Rivers, and Gene Lang, who? During those years, he did not even have a pro bowl player to throw the ball to. Steve Watson, Vance Johnson, and Mark Jackson were all good receivers, but none of them was a true number one threat.

John Elway was sacked more than any quarterback in NFL history, despite escaping hundreds of sacks due to his mobility.

Despite lacking a great offensive line until late in his career, Elway started a record five Super Bowls, three of them with average teams.

“When the game was on the line, he was like Michael Jordan", says Dan Reeves, who coached Elway for his first 10 seasons. “I think he thrived on pressure. In those clutch situations, I don't know of anyone who did a better job of handling that like John did.”

Says Marty Schottenheimer, who coached Montana late in his career and lost 15 games to Elway: “All things being equal, John may have been the best because of the ability to improvise and the ability to do all those different things.”

“He was a great athlete, and his arm strength was second to none,” Broncos coach Mike Shanahan said. “He could make all the throws. He would make plays when plays broke down, and he was very intelligent.”

That's what your pure stats don't tell you. John Elway was one of the greatest Quarterbacks to ever play. The fact that your now trying to minimize that based solely on stats shows that, when it really comes down to it, you don't know Quarterbacks and you certainly don't know anything outside of numbers.

According to the stats Tony Romo > John Elway. Do you believe that is a true statement. Yes or no?

That means most great qbs win championships. But that doesn't mean winning makes you great. You know something else about qbs who won sbs? They played on great TEAMS.

Elway did go to 5 super bowls as you said. Two of them he was a big reason they lost. One was won in spite of his ****** play(luckily he had terrel davis to bail his *** out).

And pointing out he won a MVP proves what? Many players over the years in every sport have won MVPs they didn't deserve.

One of the reasons he's highly regarded is counting stats. Neing 4th all time in yards and 5th in tds will do that. I also see his sack numbers pointed out. While was sacked a lot comared to other players, he also played for a long time. in 16 seasons he was in the top 10 for most sacked 5 times. His sack% is way down at 85. And not every sack is a result of the line. We seen it with Arron Rodgers his first year. He was sacked 50+ i believe, but a lot of the blame was on him.

Breatt Favre didn't exacty have greats playing with him most of his career either. During his 3 MVPs in a row, his best WRs were Antonio Freeman and Robert Brooks. Dont give me some excuses.

Stat whores? Real original. Why don't you enlighten us with your vast knowledge of the game of football. Since you seem to think your some expert. I guess pointing out that a player played on a team that was great makes you "knowledgeable".

Since you want to make stupid comparisons. Bradshaw>=Montana right? Aikman>=Brady? Bradshaw>Brady, Marino, Manning, Favre, Staubach?

Why didn't you answer my questions about Manning and Favre? They would be viewed as some of the greatest. While guys like Aikman and Bradshaw prove you can win more SBs then all but one guy, and still be viewed as just another qb.

[valade16]

And pointing out he won a MVP proves what? Many players over the years in every sport have won MVPs they didn't deserve.

Stat whores? Real original. Why don't you enlighten us with your vast knowledge of the game of football. Since you seem to think your some expert. I guess pointing out that a player played on a team that was great makes you "knowledgeable".

Since you want to make stupid comparisons. Bradshaw>=Montana right? Aikman>=Brady? Bradshaw>Brady, Marino, Manning, Favre, Staubach?

Why didn't you answer my questions about Manning and Favre? They would be viewed as some of the greatest. While guys like Aikman and Bradshaw prove you can win more SBs then all but one guy, and still be viewed as just another qb.

I'm not going to enlighten you with my vast football knowledge, firstly, any actual football knowledge that doesn't involve numbers would be lost on you, and second, I like to bolster my perception of the game by listening to people who know the game of football a lot better than me; and they seem to mostly believe that Elway was one of the greatest Quarterbacks ever.

Do you disagree with them? Are you so pompous to believe that you know more than people like Schotteinheimer, Shanahan, Dan Reeves, or Reggie White?

Also, once again showing you really don't know much about context or the history of the game, try telling anyone who had to actually watch those Broncos teams from the 80's that they were "great". Better yet, find me one link where someone credible says those Broncos teams were great teams. I'll wait...

I'll answer your question about Manning/Favre if you answer my question about Romo, because frankly you have more to lose by answering than I do. Would Peyton Manning and Brett Favre still be considered great Quarterbacks had they never won a Superbowl? Probably, would they be considered as good as they are now? Absolutely not?

What was the only thing you heard about Peyton Manning before he won his SB? that he couldn't win the big one. You don't think that would've affected his legacy? Here's another prime example, most believe Dan Marino would be hands-down the best QB ever had he won a Superbowl.

That is what a Superbowl brings you.

Cool, you've proven that winning a Superbowl doesn't guarantee you greatness. I never said it did. But in order to achieve greatness (with the exception of Dan Marino) you need to win a Superbowl. Can you comprehend the difference in those two sentences or do I need to write it in equation form so you'll consider it?

And once again, since I answered your question, answer mine:

Is Tony Romo better than John Elway? The Stats say he is. Do you think so?

If not, then why not? Does that mean that stats aren't the end-all-be-all you make them out to be?

[bosox3431]

I'm not going to enlighten you with my vast football knowledge, firstly, any actual football knowledge that doesn't involve numbers would be lost on you, and second, I like to bolster my perception of the game by listening to people who know the game of football a lot better than me; and they seem to mostly believe that Elway was one of the greatest Quarterbacks ever.

Do you disagree with them? Are you so pompous to believe that you know more than people like Schotteinheimer, Shanahan, Dan Reeves, or Reggie White?

Also, once again showing you really don't know much about context or the history of the game, try telling anyone who had to actually watch those Broncos teams from the 80's that they were "great". Better yet, find me one link where someone credible says those Broncos teams were great teams. I'll wait...

I'll answer your question about Manning/Favre if you answer my question about Romo, because frankly you have more to lose by answering than I do. Would Peyton Manning and Brett Favre still be considered great Quarterbacks had they never won a Superbowl? Probably, would they be considered as good as they are now? Absolutely not?

What was the only thing you heard about Peyton Manning before he won his SB? that he couldn't win the big one. You don't think that would've affected his legacy? Here's another prime example, most believe Dan Marino would be hands-down the best QB ever had he won a Superbowl.

That is what a Superbowl brings you.

Cool, you've proven that winning a Superbowl doesn't guarantee you greatness. I never said it did. But in order to achieve greatness (with the exception of Dan Marino) you need to win a Superbowl. Can you comprehend the difference in those two sentences or do I need to write it in equation form so you'll consider it?

And once again, since I answered your question, answer mine:

Is Tony Romo better than John Elway? The Stats say he is. Do you think so?

If not, then why not? Does that mean that stats aren't the end-all-be-all you make them out to be?

Like I said, Its a stupid comparison. Tony Romo has started all of 77 games in his career.

How about you show me two things. Where I said the Broncos teams were great teams and where I said stats are the only thing I use. Like I said when you mentioned Fouts. Yes Fouts was better statistically, But I also stated he had better, and prolly much better recievers. And one of your quotes said something about him being sacked the most. I was just showing just looking at counting numbers doesn't show much. He wasn't sacked at some historical rate. And how many of them were his fault? Like the quote said he escaped many sacks. But how many of those sacks came from him trying to escape them then simply throwing it away? We see the same thing with Big Ben.

Have you ever watched a pre-game, half time or post-game show featuring former players/coaches? Most of them say the stupidest ****. People think just because someone played the sport they can automatically judge talent. Why do you think very very few of them ever become a GM? Instead they sit in broadcast boothes to help boost ratings for networks.

Since were just quoting people to try and win a discussion, Ill just claim Favre as the best ever. Heres my proof.

Terry Bradshaw - 4 Time Superbowl Winner, Hall of Fame QB, & NFL Analyst:
"Brett Favre is the best quarterback I've ever seen play. I will say it again. I have documented it. I put it on the cover of a book. He's the best there ever was and that covers everybody."

Brian Urlacher - Bears Pro Bowl Linebacker, 2005 NFL Defensive Player Of The Year:
"He's No. 1. He has only one ring, but that doesn't matter. Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl, and some people consider him the best. I consider Brett Favre the best."

Cris Carter - NFL Wide Receiver:
"He's the best, bar none. Whenever God was making them, He put a little extra in him."

Corey Fuller - Browns Defensive Back:
"Brett Favre is the best, he can laser that ball in there at the drop of a dime. Running away from pressure, throwing the ball off his back foot - he's the best."

Lovie Smith - Bears Coach:
"I think this announcement comes about 17 years too late and I don't know if I will completely believe it until Green Bay opens the season without No. 4 lining up under center. In all seriousness, no one has given more to our game than Brett Favre. There is no player I respect more."

Thats two former rival players and a former rival coach. Two of which hate green bay. Also, don't forget one of the greatest coaches of all time had man love for him. Hes got the ring, the records, the MVPs and most importantly, the quotes.

[bosox3431]

This right here, is why we should listen to former players/coaches.

http://thehonolulublue.wordpress.com...s-of-all-time/

[valade16]

So is 77 games not a large enough sample size to determine Tony Romo's ability? It's a simple question: do you or do you not think Tony Romo is a better QB than John Elway. The stats say he is, so do you?..

Because most NFL players can judge greatness. They know what it takes to be a great player in the league. They recognize great players. Now, when one guy talks about someone it might be an anomaly, but when the majority of former football players/talent evaluators/coaches/ and GMs all are in agreement that a particular player is an all-time great, you should listen.

And all those quotes about Brett Favre don't really help your point as he is widely considered one of the greatest QBs of all-time...

John Elway is widely considered one of the best QBs ever, yet you seem to not think so based solely on stats. Obviously, stats can be misleading. But as you claim, you don't use stats as the sole reason to judge players, so why outside of stats do you think Elway was overrated?

Remember, there is a correlation between good stats and good QBs, but correlation doesn't equal causation. I mean, Rivers has a higher QB Rating than Peyton and Romo has a better QB Rating than Brady; heck Jason Campbell has a higher QB Rating than Eli, doesn't make any of them better.

[bosox3431]

So is 77 games not a large enough sample size to determine Tony Romo's ability? It's a simple question: do you or do you not think Tony Romo is a better QB than John Elway. The stats say he is, so do you?..

Because most NFL players can judge greatness. They know what it takes to be a great player in the league. They recognize great players. Now, when one guy talks about someone it might be an anomaly, but when the majority of former football players/talent evaluators/coaches/ and GMs all are in agreement that a particular player is an all-time great, you should listen.

And all those quotes about Brett Favre don't really help your point as he is widely considered one of the greatest QBs of all-time...

John Elway is widely considered one of the best QBs ever, yet you seem to not think so based solely on stats. Obviously, stats can be misleading. But as you claim, you don't use stats as the sole reason to judge players, so why outside of stats do you think Elway was overrated?

Remember, there is a correlation between good stats and good QBs, but correlation doesn't equal causation. I mean, Rivers has a higher QB Rating than Peyton and Romo has a better QB Rating than Brady; heck Jason Campbell has a higher QB Rating than Eli, doesn't make any of them better.

No, 77 games is not enought to gauge his ability compared to a QB who played nearly 3 times as games as that. Romo also hasn't hit his decline. Theres no way of knowing how his career will pan out.

Jason Campbell's QB rating is .6 better then Eli. They basically have the same rate. Your problem is you think I just go look at someones QB rate and rank them that way. Well your wrong. Lets look at Eli vs Campbell. Let's take into account Eli only once(and not in a full season) has thrown less then 400 attempts. Campbell has done it 3 times and never more then 507 times, which Eli has done 6 times. Eli has also improved quite a bit from 2007. 2007 and before really drag down his numbers. Especially his comp% and rate. Then we can also see Eli has 4 seasons that are equal to or better then any season Campbell has ever had, with two of them being a lot better. Eli has the better y/c by nearly a yard, their y/a are identical with Eli having a slight edge and Eli's td% trumps Jason Campbells. Campbells int% is quite a bit lower, but he also fumbles at a higher rate. Eli has nearly twice as many attemtpts and ~50 more games, yet Campbell only has 22 less fumbles. Pretty much even those out. Then we get to playoff stats. Now remember I never said I dont factor them in, I just dont give them as much weight as some. But obviously Eli trumps him here too.

With everything taken into account, Campbell could have a qb rate even 2-3 points higher and I would still believe Eli has had the better career, is better now and will certainly be better going forward.

[bosox3431]

Oh, and its the same thing with Rivers vs Manning. Rivers hasnt hit his decline. His rate stats haven't had the chance to decline yet. Not to mention Rivers prime is coming in a even easier era then what Mannings came in.

[Wrigheyes4MVP]

No, 77 games is not enought to gauge his ability compared to a QB who played nearly 3 times as games as that. Romo also hasn't hit his decline. Theres no way of knowing how his career will pan out.

Jason Campbell's QB rating is .6 better then Eli. They basically have the same rate. Your problem is you think I just go look at someones QB rate and rank them that way. Well your wrong. Lets look at Eli vs Campbell. Let's take into account Eli only once(and not in a full season) has thrown less then 400 attempts. Campbell has done it 3 times and never more then 507 times, which Eli has done 6 times. Eli has also improved quite a bit from 2007. 2007 and before really drag down his numbers. Especially his comp% and rate. Then we can also see Eli has 4 seasons that are equal to or better then any season Campbell has ever had, with two of them being a lot better. Eli has the better y/c by nearly a yard, their y/a are identical with Eli having a slight edge and Eli's td% trumps Jason Campbells. Campbells int% is quite a bit lower, but he also fumbles at a higher rate. Eli has nearly twice as many attemtpts and ~50 more games, yet Campbell only has 22 less fumbles. Pretty much even those out. Then we get to playoff stats. Now remember I never said I dont factor them in, I just dont give them as much weight as some. But obviously Eli trumps him here too.

With everything taken into account, Campbell could have a qb rate even 2-3 points higher and I would still believe Eli has had the better career, is better now and will certainly be better going forward.

Why would you waste an entire post saying that Eli Manning is better than Jason Campbell? LMAO!

You don't need statistics to tell you that lol.

[bosox3431]

Why would you waste an entire post saying that Eli Manning is better than Jason Campbell? LMAO!

You don't need statistics to tell you that lol.

He asked. And I wanted to make a point that I don't just go to a site, sort players by qb rating and that my ranking. The fact he pointed out their rate, just shows that's his thought process regarding me. And that's far from the truth.

[valade16]

No, 77 games is not enought to gauge his ability compared to a QB who played nearly 3 times as games as that. Romo also hasn't hit his decline. Theres no way of knowing how his career will pan out.

Is Tony Romo a better Quarterback than John Elway, yes or no.

He asked. And I wanted to make a point that I don't just go to a site, sort players by qb rating and that my ranking. The fact he pointed out their rate, just shows that's his thought process regarding me. And that's far from the truth.

It is so far from the truth that to combat my assertion that you only used stats you laughed off me using only Quarterback rating and then gave me an entire paragraph filled entirely with stats...

And I'm also still waiting about what besides stats makes you think John Elway was overrated?

[bosox3431]

Is Tony Romo a better Quarterback than John Elway, yes or no.



It is so far from the truth that to combat my assertion that you only used stats you laughed off me using only Quarterback rating and then gave me an entire paragraph filled entirely with stats...

And I'm also still waiting about what besides stats makes you think John Elway was overrated?

This is the last time I'll answer you about your stupid comparrison. Its ****ing stupid. Do you get it now? I done told you why it's stupid.

And no, I didn't laugh you off for using QB rate, you obviously have a very hard time reading. I said that ius your assertion me, that that's all I use. Which is why you pointed it out. And like i said, thats far from the truth. Do me a favor if you respond to this. Read it 4-5 times, let it all soak in, then respond.

All you guys talk about context, but you never ise it. All you ramble on about is "OMGZ Eli won the super bowl, he's the best". Just like I said in the other thread. Without two Kyle Williams fumbles(did Eli force those? Just checking incase I missed him playing special teams), the Giants don't win ****. Kyle Williams handed the Ginats the game, yet Eli "won it". We were one missed chip shot field goal and two Kyle Willaims fumble away from seeing the grand daddy of all matchups, Joe Flacco vs Alex Smith. About the furthest you guys go with context is "all thos int weren't Eli's fault, they were on his WRs". Then thats about where it ends.

[valade16]

^ quote me one time where I said all his INTs (or even any) were his WRs fault or that Eli won the SF game?

Also, if the question is so dumb why can't you answer it? Does it pain you that much to answer such a simple question?

You say it's stupid because Romo has played 1/3 of the games than Elway. Thay's dumb logic because you don't have to see somebody play the same number of games as somebody else to determine they're not as good. Example: I don't need to see Jason Campbell play as many games as Brett Favre to know Favre was better.

All you need is a sufficient sample size to determine a players ability. 77 games is more than enough of a sample size to determine how good a QB Tony Romo is, especially given his consistent stat-line.

But I'll even simplify the question further so that you can answer, do you think Tony Romo right now is better than John Elway was as a QB? I think your dodging because you don't want to answer.

Just answer the question: yes or no.

[hugepatsfan]

Rodgers
Brady
Brees
Peyton
Rivers
Ben
Romo

I have him 5th, but I think you could argue those last 3 in any order you want.

[bosox3431]

^what a hater