Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How important are rings?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Billingsley26 View Post
    Marino is one of the best of all time..but he can't be considered for THE greatest of all time. Sure his stats mean something, but thats it...just SOMETHING. You need the ring to be the best.
    That would make sense if Marino played every position on the field. He had no control over what the defense did or didn't do. For my money Marino is the second best quarterback of all-time behind Johnny U who changed the position to what it is today.

    Comment


    • #32
      One again I'm sorry but, there is no way Unitas is the greatest ever. He may have revolutionized the position and should be rewarded for doing so but, he was no where near the talent of Marino, Montana, Elway, Manning, or Favre. There is such a bias when it comes to these older players... i dont get it. If he didnt change the position... someone else would have. He may have changed it but, he's not the best to play it.

      Thanks BoneKrusher^

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_j52DziMy4 (the man)
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=2g6S3Anto7c
      KO KNOWS

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by M.O.T.H. View Post
        One again I'm sorry but, there is no way Unitas is the greatest ever. He may have revolutionized the position and should be rewarded for doing so but, he was no where near the talent of Marino, Montana, Elway, Manning, or Favre. There is such a bias when it comes to these older players... i dont get it. If he didnt change the position... someone else would have. He may have changed it but, he's not the best to play it.
        He had a touchdown pass in 47 straight games. He was the first quarterback ever to throw for more than 40,000 yards despite playing in twelve and fourteen game seasons. He has the record for most Pro Bowl appearances by a quarterback with ten. Yeah, you're right he's not even close to those guys.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Ewing View Post
          He had a touchdown pass in 47 straight games. He was the first quarterback ever to throw for more than 40,000 yards despite playing in twelve and fourteen game seasons. He has the record for most Pro Bowl appearances by a quarterback with ten. Yeah, you're right he's not even close to those guys.
          1. The type of game they played is not even comparable
          2. TD/INT ratio was awful and had 5-6 full seasons with more ints than tds
          3. 55% comp rate... nice for the time but, honestly not comparable to the that of the players playing in much, much tougher eras.

          Thanks BoneKrusher^

          http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_j52DziMy4 (the man)
          http://youtube.com/watch?v=2g6S3Anto7c
          KO KNOWS

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by M.O.T.H. View Post
            One again I'm sorry but, there is no way Unitas is the greatest ever. He may have revolutionized the position and should be rewarded for doing so but, he was no where near the talent of Marino, Montana, Elway, Manning, or Favre. There is such a bias when it comes to these older players... i dont get it. If he didnt change the position... someone else would have. He may have changed it but, he's not the best to play it.
            Johnny Unitas is the only player in NFL history (aside from Rice) worthy enough to have his number retired. He played like a QB from the 80's when he was in the 50s/60s. He opened doors for the quarterbacks you see today, and he put up your precious stats when the game was based around the run.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by M.O.T.H. View Post
              1. The type of game they played is not even comparable
              2. TD/INT ratio was awful and had 5-6 full seasons with more ints than tds
              3. 55% comp rate... nice for the time but, honestly not comparable to the that of the players playing in much, much tougher eras.
              So you're saying it was easier back then so players like Unitas and Brown shouldn't be considered as the greatest of all-time? Have fun telling people who actually know football pre-ESPN that.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 255979119 View Post
                Johnny Unitas is the only player in NFL history (aside from Rice) worthy enough to have his number retired. He played like a QB from the 80's when he was in the 50s/60s. He opened doors for the quarterbacks you see today, and he put up your precious stats when the game was based around the run.
                Hey... I agree he deserved to be rewarded for "opening the door." I just cant label him as the best ever. I have unlimited amounts of respect for the man but, after seeing the likes of Marino, Favre, Montana, Manning, and Elway i cannot say he is better than any of these guys.

                Thanks BoneKrusher^

                http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_j52DziMy4 (the man)
                http://youtube.com/watch?v=2g6S3Anto7c
                KO KNOWS

                Comment


                • #38
                  And the coaches and players philosophy was alot different back then, it was common for qb's to throw a lot of picks because they took chances rather than sacks.

                  And let us not forget about the toughness factor.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Ewing View Post
                    So you're saying it was easier back then so players like Unitas and Brown shouldn't be considered as the greatest of all-time? Have fun telling people who actually know football pre-ESPN that.
                    The game is not comparable... you have to take in account the advancements in scouting, the combine, and just overall ability. The players as a whole of the 50's, 60's and 70's (when Unitas played) just do not measure up to those that are playing today. He was great, I'm not going to lie to you but, I cannot, cannot say he's the greatest.

                    Thanks BoneKrusher^

                    http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_j52DziMy4 (the man)
                    http://youtube.com/watch?v=2g6S3Anto7c
                    KO KNOWS

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by M.O.T.H. View Post
                      The game is not comparable... you have to take in account the advancements in scouting, the combine, and just overall ability. The players as a whole of the 50's, 60's and 70's (when Unitas played) just do not measure up to those that are playing today. He was great, I'm not going to lie to you but, I cannot, cannot say he's the greatest.
                      Cy Young is not the best pitcher of all time either because he played in the early 1900's then, right?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 255979119 View Post
                        Cy Young is not the best pitcher of all time either because he played in the early 1900's then, right?
                        What? Those are two different sports and situations completely.

                        Just for the record... CY young started, what? 40 times a year and had an era under 3.00. Statistically speaking the greatest... yes but, most would say Walter Johnson or Christy Mathewson would probably be the best.

                        Anyway, that is totally irrelevant... baseball and football are completely different.

                        Thanks BoneKrusher^

                        http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_j52DziMy4 (the man)
                        http://youtube.com/watch?v=2g6S3Anto7c
                        KO KNOWS

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by M.O.T.H. View Post
                          What? Those are two different sports and situations completely.

                          Just for the record... CY young started, what? 40 times a year and had an era under 3.00. Statistically speaking the greatest... yes but, most would say Walter Johnson or Christy Mathewson would probably be the best.

                          Anyway, that is totally irrelevant... baseball and football are completely different.
                          And..... you just contradicted yourself.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 255979119 View Post
                            And..... you just contradicted yourself.
                            Wow. We were talking about the sport of football. I honestly cannot believe a person could be so illogical... I'm not trying to be mean but, bringing up an entirely different sport and an irrelevant topic in Cy Young when we're talking about football doesnt make any damn sense to me.

                            Thanks BoneKrusher^

                            http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_j52DziMy4 (the man)
                            http://youtube.com/watch?v=2g6S3Anto7c
                            KO KNOWS

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by M.O.T.H. View Post
                              The game is not comparable... you have to take in account the advancements in scouting, the combine, and just overall ability. The players as a whole of the 50's, 60's and 70's (when Unitas played) just do not measure up to those that are playing today. He was great, I'm not going to lie to you but, I cannot, cannot say he's the greatest.
                              Thats right, theres nothing to compare to Peyton Manning playing the likes of Houton twice a year, playing Jacksonville twice a year when they were ****, smae with the Titans for the past few years. how about when they were in the AFC East? They had the lowly Bills for all those years twice a year, same with the Jets. Yet Manning put up these great numbers against much weaker competition. Its the same idea. Sure Manning is geat for all he has done, but you can't talk about playing weaker competition than Unitas did. Also not to menton how he did everything in 12 and 14 game seasons.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by M.O.T.H. View Post
                                No, no, no. I'm sorry but, teams... teams win championships. Marino is better than Aikman in every aspect but, Aikman won three rings... that doesnt make Aikman better, he was on a extemely stacked team with an owner that would spend insane amounts of money to win. When it comes to comparing players... QBs especially, rings are grossly overrated.
                                I didn't say that good QBs audomatically win championships. I said that they usually do. I'm no idiot, I'm just saying QB is a very large piece of the puzzle, and when teams have that down, a lot of the time, they can win much easier.

                                BoneKrusher

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information