The Gipper Posted March 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Try this exercise. Here is a list in alphabetical order of what I have discerned to be the QBs who played most of their careers in the 1970s. Rank who you think is the Top 5 of that era: Ken Anderson Bob Avellini Bob Berry Terry Bradshaw Steve DeBerg Lynn Dickey Joe Ferguson Steve Fuller Roman Gabriel Bob Griese Steve Grogan James Harris Jim Hart Ron Jaworski Bert Jones Bill Kilmer Greg Landry Archie Manning Craig Morton Bill Munson Joe Namath Dan Pastorini Mike Phipps Jim Plunkett Brian Sipe Ken Stabler Roger Staubach Fran Tarkenton Jim Zorn Let me know if you think I missed someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 All I am saying is that in the 1970s if you took a poll of NFL players and coaches and GMs and sports commentators etc. they nearly unanimously would have had Archie Manning among the Top 5 QBs in the game. Are you of the opinion that you cannot have a top flight QB on a crappy team? Maybe today the QB gets more credit or has more responsibility for the outcome of his team, but back then it was not thought so. The best QBs barely had over a 50% completion rate. Staubach has the highest career passer rating of any QB of that era, and he only ranks 31st all time. Bradshaw and Manning's passer ratings were very close....and terrible by today's standards. Bradshaw was 70.9 and Archie 67.1. First of all, you have to remember, that Bradshaw was Horrible his first five years. That plays into the stats, but not the Hall criteria. He is in the Hall for 75 - 80. Secondly ... top five QBs in the game? Who are you polling? Stop me when I get to Manning: Tarkenton, Staubach, Griese, Stabler, Bradshaw, Dawson, Brody, Fouts, Hart, Anderson, Kilmer, Gabriel, Jones, Sipe ... I will give you #15, only by recognizing that guys like Unitas, Jurgenson, and Jaworski only had a couple better years in the 70's, wheras as the rest of these guys all had at least three very good years in the 70's ... which is more than Manning. Zombo --He was better than Mike Phipps and Bobby Douglas though ... without a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Try this exercise. Here is a list in alphabetical order of what I have discerned to be the QBs who played most of their careers in the 1970s. Rank who you think is the Top 5 of that era: Ken Anderson Bob Avellini Bob Berry Terry Bradshaw Steve DeBerg Lynn Dickey Joe Ferguson Steve Fuller Roman Gabriel Bob Griese Steve Grogan James Harris Jim Hart Ron Jaworski Bert Jones Bill Kilmer Greg Landry Archie Manning Craig Morton Bill Munson Joe Namath Dan Pastorini Mike Phipps Jim Plunkett Brian Sipe Ken Stabler Roger Staubach Fran Tarkenton Jim Zorn Let me know if you think I missed someone. 1. Tarkenton 2. Staubach 3. Griese 4. Bradshaw 5. Stabler 6. Anderson 7. Hart 8. Jones 9. Kilmer 10. Sipe Forgot about Morton, he goes ahead of Manning too. Plunkett, Deberg, Dickey had their best success in the 80s where they were better than Manning ever was in the 70s Namath had his greatest success in 60s Manning fits in somewhere between Gabriel (whose best years were in the 60s) and Pastorini He just wasn't that good. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 As the head Bungle basher- I'll disagree on one point- if you're going to call Braylon Edwards a bust- put Peter Warrick in the same category. I expect more than three semi-decent seasons from a #4 overall pick wr. I suppose in his defense for a few years he had Akilli Smith tossing him uncatchable worm-burners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 To play Devil's Advocate here if McCoy were to orchestrate a 91 yard last minute drive to beat the Steelers I think we'd be crowning him. no we wouldn't. quinn beat the steelers.... actually, david bowens beat the steelers. we ran him out on a rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 First of all, you have to remember, that Bradshaw was Horrible his first five years. That plays into the stats, but not the Hall criteria. He is in the Hall for 75 - 80. Secondly ... top five QBs in the game? Who are you polling? Stop me when I get to Manning: Tarkenton, Staubach, Griese, Stabler, Bradshaw, Dawson, Brody, Fouts, Hart, Anderson, Kilmer, Gabriel, Jones, Sipe ... I will give you #15, only by recognizing that guys like Unitas, Jurgenson, and Jaworski only had a couple better years in the 70's, wheras as the rest of these guys all had at least three very good years in the 70's ... which is more than Manning. Zombo --He was better than Mike Phipps and Bobby Douglas though ... without a doubt. Dawson and Brodie played mostly in the 60s. Fouts in the 80s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Try this exercise. Here is a list in alphabetical order of what I have discerned to be the QBs who played most of their careers in the 1970s. Rank who you think is the Top 5 of that era: Ken Anderson Bob Avellini Bob Berry Terry Bradshaw Steve DeBerg Lynn Dickey Joe Ferguson Steve Fuller Roman Gabriel Bob Griese Steve Grogan James Harris Jim Hart Ron Jaworski Bert Jones Bill Kilmer Greg Landry Archie Manning Craig Morton Bill Munson Joe Namath Dan Pastorini Mike Phipps Jim Plunkett Brian Sipe Ken Stabler Roger Staubach Fran Tarkenton Jim Zorn Let me know if you think I missed someone. If you think about it, only the 5 guys I have highlighted have made the HOF. So in another thread I will explore the fact that only about 5 QBs per decade become HOFers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Dawson and Brodie played mostly in the 60s. Fouts in the 80s I know. But they still had more better years in the 70's than Manning. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 I didn't put down Ints. for either You should have... INT's are kinda important... Well, I don't know if you were around watching football in that era, but I was, and everyone, announcers, pundits, other coaches and players sang the praises of Archie Manning but bemoaned the fact that he was literally a one man show for the Saints. I am simply suggesting that if the opposite had happened, if Manning had gone to the Steelers and Bradshaw to the Saints then Manning, not Bradshaw would have gotten the rings and the yellow jacket. TB would have been considered very good QB, like Archie is, but not a HOFer.. Well, I turn 60 this year if that helps you any... I remember Manning being more likeable than great. I think many pundits of the day simply felt sorry for him. Many bemoaned the fact that we'd never know how great he could have been and that as hard as he played without complaining he deserved the chance. Want me to make you defend Flacco? LOL... Try this exercise. Here is a list in alphabetical order of what I have discerned to be the QBs who played most of their careers in the 1970s. Rank who you think is the Top 5 of that era: I eliminated some and then grouped the remainder into tiers... 1. Terry Bradshaw - Bob Griese - Joe Namath - Jim Plunkett - Ken Stabler - Roger Staubach - Fran Tarkenton 2. Ken Anderson - Bill Kilmer - Brian Sipe 3. Joe Ferguson - Ron Jaworski - Archie Manning - Craig Morton - Dan Pastorini - Jim Zorn Let me know if you think I missed someone. Not really a miss, but there's one who could have been atop the list, but for a 1969 injury... Greg Cook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 I know. But they still had more better years in the 70's than Manning. Zombo Did they, or did their teams? Brodie played 17 years, only 4 of those in the 70s. Here are his 70s numbers: 1970*+ 35 SFO QB 12 14 14 10-3-1 223 378 59.0 2941 24 1971 36 SFO QB 12 14 14 9-5-0 208 387 53.7 2642 18 1972 37 SFO qb 12 6 5 2-3-0 70 110 63.6 905 9 8.2 8 1973 38 SFO QB 12 14 6 2-4-0 98 194 50.5 1126 3 Dawson played 19 seasons. Here are his 70s numbers: 1970 35 KAN QB 16 14 12 5-5-2 141 262 53.8 1876 13 1971* 36 KAN QB 16 14 13 9-3-1 167 301 55.5 2504 15 1972 37 KAN QB 16 14 12 7-5-0 175 305 57.4 1835 13 1973 38 KAN qb 16 8 6 3-2-1 66 101 65.3 725 2 1974 39 KAN QB 16 14 8 3-5-0 138 235 58.7 1573 7 1975 40 KAN qb 16 12 5 1-4-0 93 140 66.4 1095 5 Brodie and Dawson were drafted in 1957. Archie Manning not until 1971. Here are Manning numbers in the 70s: 1971 22 NOR QB 8 12 10 3-5-2 86 177 48.6 1164 6 3.4 9 5.1 63 6.6 5.0 13.5 97.0 60.1 40 332 3.8 2.5 18.4 2 1 7 1972 23 NOR QB 8 14 14 2-11-1 230 448 51.3 2781 18 4.0 21 4.7 66 6.2 4.9 12.1 198.6 64.6 43 347 5.0 3.8 8.8 1 1 11 1973 24 NOR QB 8 13 13 5-8-0 140 267 52.4 1642 10 3.7 12 4.5 65 6.1 4.9 11.7 126.3 65.2 28 177 5.0 3.8 9.5 1 1 7 1974 25 NOR QB 8 11 11 3-8-0 134 261 51.3 1429 6 2.3 16 6.1 79 5.5 3.2 10.7 129.9 49.8 26 172 4.4 2.3 9.1 2 2 4 1975 26 NOR QB 8 13 13 2-11-0 159 338 47.0 1683 7 2.1 20 5.9 71 5.0 2.7 10.6 129.5 44.3 49 390 3.3 1.4 12.7 1 1 3 1977 28 NOR QB 8 10 9 1-8-0 113 205 55.1 1284 8 3.9 9 4.4 59 6.3 5.1 11.4 128.4 68.8 36 288 4.1 3.1 14.9 1 1 9 1978* 29 NOR QB 8 16 16 7-9-0 291 471 61.8 3416 17 3.6 16 3.4 71 7.3 6.4 11.7 213.5 81.7 37 301 6.1 5.4 7.3 2 4 14 1979* 30 NOR QB 8 16 16 8-8-0 252 420 60.0 3169 15 3.6 20 4.8 85 7.5 6.1 12.6 198.1 75.6 17 140 6.9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Here is what I think is a valid point elicited from the comparisons of the players take in these various rounds: The "Draft Value Chart" that was posted on here says that the #1 overall pick is assessed a point value of 3000 points, the #2 a point value of 2600 points while the #4 overall pick is assessed a point value of 1800 points, so that moving up from #4 to #2 should cost you draft picks that total about 800 points....or, in essence, point wise the #4 and the #22 overall. Except, based on the list...you are almost as likely to draft a Hall of Fame player at #4 as you are at #1, and more likely than you are at #2....and, it seems to me based on history, you are far less likely to draft a bust player at #4 than at either #1, #2 or #3. So, it could be argued that having the #4 is as good or better historically as having #1,2 or 3. Fair to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 As the head Bungle basher- I'll disagree on one point- if you're going to call Braylon Edwards a bust- put Peter Warrick in the same category. I expect more than three semi-decent seasons from a #4 overall pick wr. I suppose in his defense for a few years he had Akilli Smith tossing him uncatchable worm-burners. OK, consider it done. Warrick was a bust. You know his career better than I so I will take your word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Did they, or did their teams? Brodie played 17 years, only 4 of those in the 70s. Here are his 70s numbers: 1970*+ 35 SFO QB 12 14 14 10-3-1 223 378 59.0 2941 24 1971 36 SFO QB 12 14 14 9-5-0 208 387 53.7 2642 18 1972 37 SFO qb 12 6 5 2-3-0 70 110 63.6 905 9 8.2 8 1973 38 SFO QB 12 14 6 2-4-0 98 194 50.5 1126 3 Dawson played 19 seasons. Here are his 70s numbers: 1970 35 KAN QB 16 14 12 5-5-2 141 262 53.8 1876 13 1971* 36 KAN QB 16 14 13 9-3-1 167 301 55.5 2504 15 1972 37 KAN QB 16 14 12 7-5-0 175 305 57.4 1835 13 1973 38 KAN qb 16 8 6 3-2-1 66 101 65.3 725 2 1974 39 KAN QB 16 14 8 3-5-0 138 235 58.7 1573 7 1975 40 KAN qb 16 12 5 1-4-0 93 140 66.4 1095 5 Brodie and Dawson were drafted in 1957. Archie Manning not until 1971. Here are Manning numbers in the 70s: 1971 22 NOR QB 8 12 10 3-5-2 86 177 48.6 1164 6 3.4 9 5.1 63 6.6 5.0 13.5 97.0 60.1 40 332 3.8 2.5 18.4 2 1 7 1972 23 NOR QB 8 14 14 2-11-1 230 448 51.3 2781 18 4.0 21 4.7 66 6.2 4.9 12.1 198.6 64.6 43 347 5.0 3.8 8.8 1 1 11 1973 24 NOR QB 8 13 13 5-8-0 140 267 52.4 1642 10 3.7 12 4.5 65 6.1 4.9 11.7 126.3 65.2 28 177 5.0 3.8 9.5 1 1 7 1974 25 NOR QB 8 11 11 3-8-0 134 261 51.3 1429 6 2.3 16 6.1 79 5.5 3.2 10.7 129.9 49.8 26 172 4.4 2.3 9.1 2 2 4 1975 26 NOR QB 8 13 13 2-11-0 159 338 47.0 1683 7 2.1 20 5.9 71 5.0 2.7 10.6 129.5 44.3 49 390 3.3 1.4 12.7 1 1 3 1977 28 NOR QB 8 10 9 1-8-0 113 205 55.1 1284 8 3.9 9 4.4 59 6.3 5.1 11.4 128.4 68.8 36 288 4.1 3.1 14.9 1 1 9 1978* 29 NOR QB 8 16 16 7-9-0 291 471 61.8 3416 17 3.6 16 3.4 71 7.3 6.4 11.7 213.5 81.7 37 301 6.1 5.4 7.3 2 4 14 1979* 30 NOR QB 8 16 16 8-8-0 252 420 60.0 3169 15 3.6 20 4.8 85 7.5 6.1 12.6 198.1 75.6 17 140 6.9 OK, when he was in his "prime" he was better than Dawson and Brody when they were 38. Still doesn't put him in the top 10 of the decade, let alone top 5. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 OK, when he was in his "prime" he was better than Dawson and Brody when they were 38. Still doesn't put him in the top 10 of the decade, let alone top 5. Zombo I guess you have to put him after the Hall of Famers. Lets put this concept this way: What if the Steelers had taken Mike Phipps #1 overall in 1970 (there was speculation that would happen) and the Browns had taken Bradshaw instead at the #3 spot. Do you think the fortunes of the 2 teams would have been reversed over the next 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 I guess you have to put him after the Hall of Famers. And Ken Stabler, Jim Hart, Kenny Anderson, Billy Kilmer, Bert Jones ... we're out of the top 10 already. What if the Steelers had taken Mike Phipps #1 overall in 1970 (there was speculation that would happen) and the Browns had taken Bradshaw instead at the #3 spot. Do you think the fortunes of the 2 teams would have been reversed over the next 10 years? The Browns probably would have stuck to the same path thru 75 as they stuck with Phipps all that time and Bradshaw wasn't doing much better in Pittsburgh. But if Bradshaw stayed healthy we would have never found out about Brian Sipe, that would sucked. Bradshaw leading the Kardiak Kids doesn't sound right. Pittsburgh wouldnt have won any Super Bowls because Phipps really blew. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Small sample size + every other surrounding circumstance = no real info gained Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 So, what did Manning have that McCoy didn't have? Two Hall of Fame receivers, a Hall of Fame running back, a Hall of Fame center, a Hall of Fame defense. A Hall of Fame Coach. Had McCoy been with the Giants and Manning with the Browns I think that the Giants would have been better. The Killer for McCoy was his teams record, which was quite poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 And Ken Stabler, Jim Hart, Kenny Anderson, Billy Kilmer, Bert Jones ... we're out of the top 10 already. The Browns probably would have stuck to the same path thru 75 as they stuck with Phipps all that time and Bradshaw wasn't doing much better in Pittsburgh. But if Bradshaw stayed healthy we would have never found out about Brian Sipe, that would sucked. Bradshaw leading the Kardiak Kids doesn't sound right. Pittsburgh wouldnt have won any Super Bowls because Phipps really blew. Zombo Yes, Phipps did really blow. But now you want to compare Bradshaw and Sipe? And ask the same question? Would the Steelers still have won 4 SBs with Sipe at their control? And how would the Browns have fared if they got Bradshaw and not Phipps? Maybe enlist Harry Turtledove to write an alternative history novel about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.