Sal Paolantonio opinion - agree or not?

makewayhomer said:

ok, so change my example to juding a debate, or judging a court case. should law students not debate who presented a historical case the best, despite the fact they weren't there to witness the actual case?

Click to expand...

I think reading about and rating players before your time is great. My brothers a great sports list maker. The question of being overrated has to go to your experience compared to those who "rate" players.

Injuries, crappy teams, ownership situations or favorable situations (on a staff with Koufax, Drysdale and Osteen at times, Sutton often faced the third or fourth best pitcher on the other team, for instance) often means ratings by writers will be real subjective, statistics misleading.

My point? you can rate them, but saying someone's overrated is a personal judgment, largely.

I saw Unitas a few times, but wouldn't attempt to rate him because he was past his prime. I saw Namath many times. He was the best QB in football for a time, in my opinion.

His knees were always horrible. He used to have to get fluid drained at half time sometimes.

I remember When Namath and Unitas matched up once, because I made sure to catch it. It's been called the greatest passing performance ever and i watched every second.

Namath ended up with 496 yards and six tds Unitas 376 and 3 tds(looked it up). That's two great QBs, I don't really care if they're over or underrated.

I have personally felt some players are overrated, but the columnists list is silly IMO. He's got some great QBs on there. There aren't a lot.

makewayhomer said:

ok, so change my example to juding a debate, or judging a court case. should law students not debate who presented a historical case the best, despite the fact they weren't there to witness the actual case?

Click to expand...

You can debate the words on paper, but if you've ever seen a great trial attorney, I think you do miss a lot.

Was Clarence Darrow overrated?

I know when I saw F. Lee Bailey in the O.J. trial, I was devastated by how effective he was and I'd been hearing about him for years.

RayClay said:

You can debate the words on paper, but if you've ever seen a great trial attorney, I think you do miss a lot.

Was Clarence Darrow overrated?

I know when I saw F. Lee Bailey in the O.J. trial, I was devastated by how effective he was and I'd been hearing about him for years.

Click to expand...

I agree that actually witnessing something would be better, if you are trying to make a judgement.

however, not witnessing the act does not preclude you from having an opinion.

I can learn enough from the statistics, NFL situation at the time, overall talent on a team, team success, views of contemporaries, etc to make a judgement with regards to how "great" a player was.

maybe not EXACTLY, but I can learn enough to know that Bradshaw was a good QB who has gone down in history as an alltime great. that is what this thread is about

makewayhomer said:

I agree that actually witnessing something would be better, if you are trying to make a judgement.

however, not witnessing the act does not preclude you having an opinion.

Click to expand...

True that! The weakest pseudo-argument you can make is, "Well, you can't have an opinion on "X" because your weren't there/it hasn't happened to you."

If someone comes at you with that, consider yourself the winner of the argument.

oldskool138 said:

True that! The weakest pseudo-argument you can make is, "Well, you can't have an opinion on "X" because your weren't there/it hasn't happened to you."

If someone comes at you with that, consider yourself the winner of the argument.

Click to expand...

We're not talking opinions. If you say someone is overrated and you never saw them play, (or were around when they played) how could you say they were overrated?

It would have to be based only on statistics.

RayClay said:

We're not talking opinions. If you say someone is overrated and you never saw them play, (or were around when they played) how could you say they were overrated?

It would have to be based only on statistics.

Click to expand...

Ray, it's really simple, I'll explain it again:

Terry Bradshaw is considered an all-time great by many people

neither his stats, nor his CONTEMPORARIES agreed with this assessment

Terry Bradshaw made 3 Pro Bowls

Fran Tarkenton made 9
Griese made 8
Staubach made 6
Fouts made 6
John Hadl made 6
Ken Anderson made 4
Stabler made 4
Jim Hart made 4
Roman Gabriel made 4

this is how great of QB fellow players/contemporaries at the time thought of Bradshaw. he made THREE Pro Bowls. how in the world has he magically become an all-time great, when so many of his fellow QB's from his time were considered better or as good back then?

RayClay said:

We're not talking opinions. If you say someone is overrated and you never saw them play, (or were around when they played) how could you say they were overrated?

It would have to be based only on statistics.

Click to expand...

I was just talking in general.

But in sports the only thing you have to do is look at statistics. IMO, most people should look at players based on how they fit in their era. Take Bradshaw's almost 1:1 TD to INT ratio. If you had a time machine and put him on a salary cap/free agency era team and he might not have won SB's but you can't take away what he accomplished in his era.

Namath is the most overrated player in NFL history. I agree 100%.

I can't agree about Favre, though. He's the all-time NFL leader in TD passes, and has won a Super Bowl. He's the dinner guest that will never leave, but the guy is the goods.

Romo shouldn't be on that list either since he's just come onto the scene. He's a victim of the Dallas hype machine, but Im not ready to deem him overrated yet.

makewayhomer said:

I agree that actually witnessing something would be better, if you are trying to make a judgement.

however, not witnessing the act does not preclude you from having an opinion.

I can learn enough from the statistics, NFL situation at the time, overall talent on a team, team success, views of contemporaries, etc to make a judgement with regards to how "great" a player was.

maybe not EXACTLY, but I can learn enough to know that Bradshaw was a good QB who has gone down in history as an alltime great. that is what this thread is about

Click to expand...

As someone from that era, I can tell you he wasn't rated an all time great back then.

Nevertheless, he stepped up when it counted which is something you can't tell unless given the opportunity.

Plus he was very physical and hard to bring down. In a big game, staying alive and not getting sacked is huge. Not pretty, but effective. And winning it all is what it's about, those passes didn't throw themselves.

(Namath threw the best passes ever, laser beams, to soft drops right on the hands).

I never considered Tarkenton a great quarterback. He ran around a lot and bought time.

He's got all the numbers in the world, but again, I don't recall Tarkenton being mentioned a lot as an all time great then.

ClevTrev said:

OK. Enjoy the excitement of the sport. Not sure Jaworski was overrated. He had one great season, 1980. However, in other seasons his interception numbers were close to his TD numbers. While he was nominated for admission to the HOF, he really didn't have the career that would have ensured his admission. Which is why his bust is not in Canton. He was an exciting player, and was fun to watch on those Eagle teams from '78-'81. I can remember his interceptions against Oakland in the Super Bowl. Not a shining moment. Ah, but I was rooting for Jim Plunkett at the time and enjoying a former New England QB who never had a decent offensive line built around him during his tenure with the Pats.

Click to expand...

But after the 1981 season his team missed the playoffs 5 years in row

1982-no playoffs
1983-no playoffs
1984-no playoffs
1985-no playoffs
1986-no playoffs


which is why he was benched and later cut by buddy ryan in 1986 for randall cunningham. what good QB you know was on a team that missed the postseason 5 years in a row???????????/

makewayhomer said:

Ray, it's really simple, I'll explain it again:

Terry Bradshaw is considered an all-time great by many people

neither his stats, nor his CONTEMPORARIES agreed with this assessment

Terry Bradshaw made 3 Pro Bowls

Fran Tarkenton made 9
Griese made 8
Staubach made 6
Fouts made 6
John Hadl made 6
Ken Anderson made 4
Stabler made 4
Jim Hart made 4
Roman Gabriel made 4

this is how great of QB fellow players/contemporaries at the time thought of Bradshaw. he made THREE Pro Bowls. how in the world has he magically become an all-time great, when so many of his fellow QB's from his time were considered better or as good back then?

Click to expand...

So players that make pro bowls are how you judge?

That's often a popularity contest, or you could be in a weak division.

Didn't Phillip Rivers win over Brady last year? Or am I mistaken?

Jacky Roberts said:

Namath is the most overrated player in NFL history. I agree 100%.

I can't agree about Favre, though. He's the all-time NFL leader in TD passes, and has won a Super Bowl. He's the dinner guest that will never leave, but the guy is the goods.

Romo shouldn't be on that list either since he's just come onto the scene. He's a victim of the Dallas hype machine, but Im not ready to deem him overrated yet.

Click to expand...

You didn't think he was a great quarterback when you watched him?

I'm surprised he's in the hall because he played, and didn't play, on two bad knees his entire career.

makewayhomer said:

look, winning SB's is part of the equation. but to use it as the Holy Grail of measuring sticks is dumb.

in rating QB's, I dunno, it's maybe 10-15% of what I consider. thats just a rough idea of a QB's importance to a team

call offense 45%
defense 45%
special teams 10%

of the 45% for offense, I would maybe break it down as

all oline-20%
rb's-2%
wrs-3%
QB- 15%
TE-5%

but those are just rough guesses

Click to expand...

The offensive line means more than the QB? Special teams are 67% as important as the QB?
How many teams have won SBs with good OLs, good sts and awful QBs?

RayClay said:

So players that make pro bowls are how you judge?

That's often a popularity contest, or you could be in a weak division.

Didn't Phillip Rivers win over Brady last year? Or am I mistaken?

Click to expand...

over a long career, these things tend to balance out. Brady didnt make it bc he had terrible WR's, but that will change over the next few years.

and btw, Philip Rivers WAS very good last year. he's bad this year and wont make it

PB voting obviously isnt the only thing you should use, but it's yet another piece of evidence that says "Bradshaw was good but not historically great"

AndyJohnson said:

The offensive line means more than the QB? Special teams are 67% as important as the QB?
How many teams have won SBs with good OLs, good sts and awful QBs?

Click to expand...

that was just a guess at the numbers...what would you put them at?

and re: the line, remeber we are talking about FIVE players.

I dont think it's so outrageous to say these 5 are more important than 1 QB.

makewayhomer said:

over a long career, these things tend to balance out. Brady didnt make it bc he had terrible WR's, but that will change over the next few years.

and btw, Philip Rivers WAS very good last year. he's bad this year and wont make it

PB voting obviously isnt the only thing you should use, but it's yet another piece of evidence that says "Bradshaw was good but not historically great"

Click to expand...

I trusts my own eyes.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/alltimeoverrated.html

Even this ESPN guy said Namath was a great QB

Most overrated

1. Joe Namath
I'm a Joe Namath fan from way back, so it pains me to say this, but Namath was a great quarterback for only a few seasons.



The guy was getting his knees drained at half time. Still, there's a difference between great for a few seasons and good for a long time and it's often not quantifiable in retrospect.

RayClay said:

I trusts my own eyes.

Click to expand...

your eyes aren't as good as PB voters.

and btw, you already said that Bradshaw wasnt considered an all-time great when he was playing. exactly what are you arguing here?

RayClay said:

Still, there's a difference between great for a few seasons and good for a long time and it's often not quantifiable in retrospect.

Click to expand...

sure it is. how is this not quantifiable? you just need to be able to think about peak years vs. career, and any intelligent fan/writer/whatever can do this

makewayhomer said:

your eyes aren't as good as PB voters

Click to expand...

You really think the world of Pro Bowl voters, huh? Seymour had a terrible season last year with injuries. everybody on the Pats knowWarren should have made it.

They vote for a name they know, that's all.

Baseball needed a huge campaign to get out enough votes to defeat Aparicio at shortstop.

He hadn't deserved it for a couple of years, but especially that year, since he had retired in April.