Sal Paolantonio opinion - agree or not?

[makewayhomer]

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.

baseball and football voting is done differently.

again, football isnt perfect, but it is a data point. over a career, if Seymour is much better than Warren, he will have more PB appearances. these things even out

it's not perfect, but it's a good indicator of what the experts think at that point in time

 

[bradmahn]

baseball and football voting is done differently.

again, football isnt perfect, but it is a data point. over a career, if Seymour is much better than Warren, he will have more PB appearances. these things even out

it's not perfect, but it's a good indicator of what the experts think at that point in time

I respected your stance and opinion from the beginning, but you are a fool if you feel that everything can be quantified with statistics or that Pro Bowl voting is a justifiable even when blatantly wrong - because the voters "know more" or "it has a way of working itself out."

Again, I respect your opinion (I respect the opinions of someone who actually witnessed the playing careers of these quarterbacks more), but you are fighting a losing battle if you only base your judgments on statistics and Pro Bowls (which appears to be the crux of your argument).

 

[Ring 6]

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

This is where you lose the argument.
You are using statistic to determine the value Bradshaw had to those teams.
You have to have seen those teams play to know the value within and behind those statistics.
Here is an example.
You judged Terry Bradshaw by cumulative stats for 10 years, plus your impression that the Steelers had a great defense.
If you had seen them played and followed football in that era. You would have a better grasp. Bradshaw was the #1 pick in the draft, by clearly the worst team in the NFL, and he struggled a lot early in his career. By the time the Steelers starting winning (a year or 2 in) Bradshaw was playing better but was erratic. In 1974 when they won their first SB, they were a running team with a great defense. In 1974 he was the beneficiary of QBing a great team. In 1975 he had a very good year. He became the leader of the team, and made many plays to be the difference in them winning. At the least he was an above avg QB who had an above avg impact on winning. In 1976 Bradshaw was injured, came back and the Steelers went to the AFCC, but Bradshaw as well as both RBs missed the game, and they got destroyed. By 1978 the Steeler defense and running game were not NEARLY as good as you believe them to be. They were still good, but Bradshaw was the guy who made the difference, and the Steelers were among the best passing teams in the league. Bradshaw was ABSOLUTELY regarded as one of the best, unquestionably the strongest arm, and the toughest QB. They repeated in 1979 when the running game and D slipped further. For the rest of of his injury abreviated career he kept them in the hunt, and as soon as he was gone, they didn't sniff success for a long time.
During the first 2 SBs the Steelers were more of what you think they were, but during the last 2 Bradshaw was more important than anyone on the team.

Now, your other criteria is careeer stats.
Lets consider a few things:
1) Bradshaw was thrown in as a rookie to a terrible team and spent his first couple of years getting beaten alive. That is a factor in stats.
2) Bradshaws ability to amass numbers was affected by his career being cut short, somewhere in the vicinity of his prime, by a career ending injury.
3) If Bradshaw had not had that injury he would have plauyed many more years. (He was injured in 1982 at 34 years old. You are comparing him to QBs who played until their very late 30s)

You say Tarkenton was better because of all the numbers he amassed. Tarkenton played early in his career on some bad teams (as did Bradshaw) but he was on Viking teams that were every bit as good defensively over a 4-5 year period as the Steelers, and had a very comparable running game.
If you had watched, you would have known that Tarkentons teams were well known for choking in big games, when they were the better team. Tarkenton ABSOLUTELY had the table set for him to win 4 SBs equally as well as Bradshaw did.
The difference is while Bradshaw played parts of 14 years and 170 games, Tarkenton played 18 full years and 246 games.

Since you are devaluing Championships (the reason they play the game) by saying someone else could have won them that never won one, I suppose I can devalue stats (the reason people who don't form opinions from watching people play use to replace their own analysis) by saying that if Bradshaw was throwing for somewhere around 225 yards a game when he was injured, if he stayed around long enough to play as many games as Tarkenton, he would have an additional 17,100 passing yards, and be within 2000 yards for his career of what Tarkenton had, and had 4 rings to none.

I'm going to tell you with 100% certainty that anyone who watched and followed football in that era would never come close to saying a team had a better chance of winning a SB with Fran Tarkenton at QB than Terry Bradshaw.

Does your opinion change when you recognize this?
Does your opinion change when you realize all your ranking is based on is that Tarkenton played longer. (Or does longer equal better?)
Does your opinion change when someone who was there tells you the Vikings were every bit as good as the Steelers, but Tarkenton couldn't play in the big game?

By the way, aren't you also discounting Troy Aikman because he didn't play as long as the other guys? What is better about Tarkenton, Marino, Elway than Aikman other than number of years?

 

[makewayhomer]

I respected your stance and opinion from the beginning, but you are a fool if you feel that everything can be quantified with statistics or that Pro Bowl voting is a justifiable even when blatantly wrong - because the voters "know more" or "it has a way of working itself out."

Again, I respect your opinion (I respect the opinions of someone who actually witnessed the playing careers of these quarterbacks more), but you are fighting a losing battle if you only base your judgments on statistics and Pro Bowls (which appears to be the crux of your argument).

look, I didn't see these guys play. my opinion on these guys is based on their stats, their teams accomplishments (I did mention I considered this, not not nearly as high as other people), and what their contemporaries thought of them.

in a perfect world, I would also have my own subjective assesment to go along with all of this, but I can't in this case. does this mean I'm not entitled to my opinion? or, does it mean that my opinion is wrong?

in lots of cases, "what our eyes" tell us is wrong anyways. Tom Brady fell to the 6th round, despite the fact that trained professionals were using their eyes to watch him. scores of very succesffull NFL players have come out of the late rounds of the draft...the "eyes" that were watching these guys - from people who know more about football than you or I - were all wrong.

in addition, what we can see on TV pales in comparison to the game film and what is actually happening on the field. we see maybe 25% of what is actually going on.

I would rather use my eyes, yes, but people overrate the ability to do player scouting and measuresment from their Lazyboy on a few Sundays every year

 

[makewayhomer]

By the time the Steelers starting winning (a year or 2 in) Bradshaw was playing better but was erratic. In 1974 when they won their first SB, they were a running team with a great defense. In 1974 he was the beneficiary of QBing a great team. In 1975 he had a very good year. He became the leader of the team, and made many plays to be the difference in them winning. At the least he was an above avg QB who had an above avg impact on winning. In 1976 Bradshaw was injured, came back and the Steelers went to the AFCC, but Bradshaw as well as both RBs missed the game, and they got destroyed. By 1978 the Steeler defense and running game were not NEARLY as good as you believe them to be. They were still good, but Bradshaw was the guy who made the difference, and the Steelers were among the best passing teams in the league. Bradshaw was ABSOLUTELY regarded as one of the best, unquestionably the strongest arm, and the toughest QB. They repeated in 1979 when the running game and D slipped further. For the rest of of his injury abreviated career he kept them in the hunt, and as soon as he was gone, they didn't sniff success for a long time.
During the first 2 SBs the Steelers were more of what you think they were, but during the last 2 Bradshaw was more important than anyone on the team.

so by your own assement, you have

early career: erratic
1974: decent qb, great team
1975: above average qb
1976: injured, cant really say
1977: unclear
1978: difference making qb on an otherwise "just good" team
1979: also great qb, one of the best
1980: injured, cant really say

and that makes him an all time great? I count 3 really good seasons in there. and btw, your memory serves you wrong. in 1978 the Steelers led the league in Points Against. Bradshaw still benefited from the #1 defense in the league

you also mention that Bradshaw was cut short by injnury. but, longevity and the ability to stay healthy matters. he doesn't just get a free pass b/c he got hurt.

You say Tarkenton was better because of all the numbers he amassed...

this, plus the fact that Pro Bowl voters (players and coaches from back then?) said he was a lot better. you dont get 9 Pro Bowl seasons instead of 3 b/c of a popularity contest or b/c of luck, it's b/c you are a lot better. if it was 3 to 4 or something, it's close. but 9 to 3 is a gigantic difference in the opinions of their contemporaries

also, Tarkenton does get credit for playing longer. as I said above, staying healthy made him more valuable. you cant help your team in street clothes.

I'm going to tell you with 100% certainty that anyone who watched and followed football in that era would never come close to saying a team had a better chance of winning a SB with Fran Tarkenton at QB than Terry Bradshaw.

its nice that you think this, but it's just your opinion. you saying it doesn't make it so. in fact, the evidence points the other way. if a team back then was starting a franchise, I think it's highly likely they would have started with Tarkenton, not Bradshaw. they would have been dumb not to

By the way, aren't you also discounting Troy Aikman because he didn't play as long as the other guys? What is better about Tarkenton, Marino, Elway than Aikman other than number of years?

Aikman was great. he also played on stacked offensive teams who also had great defenses. that team would have been good without him. he didn't make that team great. so, he's the next level down from those guys, he somewhere around the Bradshaw level, mb a bit better

 

[bradmahn]

look, I didn't see these guys play. my opinion on these guys is based on their stats, their teams accomplishments (I did mention I considered this, not not nearly as high as other people), and what their contemporaries thought of them.

in a perfect world, I would also have my own subjective assesment to go along with all of this, but I can't in this case. does this mean I'm not entitled to my opinion? or, does it mean that my opinion is wrong?

in lots of cases, "what our eyes" tell us is wrong anyways. Tom Brady fell to the 6th round, despite the fact that trained professionals were using their eyes to watch him. scores of very succesffull NFL players have come out of the late rounds of the draft...the "eyes" that were watching these guys - from people who know more about football than you or I - were all wrong.

in addition, what we can see on TV pales in comparison to the game film and what is actually happening on the field. we see maybe 25% of what is actually going on.

I would rather use my eyes, yes, but people overrate the ability to do player scouting and measuresment from their Lazyboy on a few Sundays every year

It's not your fault you are too young to have seen them play, but where your argument loses credibility is that you adamantly defend your position to people who saw them play, look at the stats, and base their opinions from those two factors, as opposed to just the one.

 

[makewayhomer]

It's not your fault you are too young to have seen them play, but where your argument loses credibility is that you adamantly defend your position to people who saw them play, look at the stats, and base their opinions from those two factors, as opposed to just the one.

people defending Bradshaw are the ones being irrational here, ignoring stats and evidence from expert contemporaries.

the Bradshaw argument basically comes down to "he had a few great seasons, you just had to see him, I can tell from watching Steelers games from my couch a few time a year" and my argument comes down to all sorts of unbiased, objective evidence. and yes, I grant that he had a few very good years.

 

[Ring 6]

so by your own assement, you have

early career: erratic
1974: decent qb, great team
1975: above average qb
1976: injured, cant really say
1977: unclear
1978: difference making qb on an otherwise "just good" team
1979: also great qb, one of the best
1980: injured, cant really say

and that makes him an all time great? I count 3 really good seasons in there. and btw, your memory serves you wrong. in 1978 the Steelers led the league in Points Against. Bradshaw still benefited from the #1 defense in the league

you also mention that Bradshaw was cut short by injnury. but, longevity and the ability to stay healthy matters. he doesn't just get a free pass b/c he got hurt.



this, plus the fact that Pro Bowl voters (players and coaches from back then?) said he was a lot better. you dont get 9 Pro Bowl seasons instead of 3 b/c of a popularity contest or b/c of luck, it's b/c you are a lot better.

also, Tarkenton does get credit for playing longer. as I said above, staying healthy made him more valuable. you cant help your team in street clothes.



its nice that you think this, but it's just your opinion. you saying it doesn't make it so. in fact, the evidence points the other way. if a team back then was starting a franchise, I think it's highly likely they would have started with Tarkenton, not Bradshaw. they would have been dumb not to

Bradshaw had very good years in 1980, 1981 and half of 1982, so you dont even know the facts. The fact that he was the main reason for 2 Sb wins, an key piece of a 3rd, and didnt screw up a 4th, puts him miles ahead of 99% of the QBs who ever played. On top of that, outside of his early years on a poor team, he did put up numbers that were comparable to anyone in the league.
So while you say you are basing this on statistics, you apparently havent looked at Bradshaws????

So greatness in your eyes revolves around being around long enough to build stats that get your team nowhere, but look nice when totalled?

I would guess my opinion FROM SEEING THEM PLAY means more than your opinion of what you think teams would have done.
You do realize Tarkenton was jettisoned by 2 teams, right? So THEY both thought they should build their team around him.

I think we have finally reached a conclusion.

I am valuing the QBs contriubtion to winning, and really don't care what kind of numbers they built up while losing. I penalize a QB for being on the best team in the league and not being able to win a Championship. I value a QB based on seeing them play, putting emphasis on what they do to win or lose big games.

You are valuing what you read on a statsheet (if you read it) and judging QBs by the total numbers they accumulate, regardless of whether they have anything to do with winning or losing. You let the stat sheet decide for you, and conclude that the biggest numbers mean greatness, that winning isn't important, and most importantly that if player A has better cumulative numbers than player B, but player B won championships and player A didnt, it must be that player A was on a bad team, and player B on a good team.

Everything you have said in this thread is regurgitating statistics in order to not have an opinion.

Now, lets deal with your Tom Brady comment.
Tom Brady DESERVED to be a 6th round pick.
He was frail (BB actually said he was almost afraid to put him in a game his rookie year because he was so small).
He was not ready for the NFL.
If Tom Brady progressed like every other guy who entered the league in the category he was in, he would have never started a game.
Tom Brady became what he is because he outworked everyone. At the draft he was an afterthought, and rightfully so. He did not possess the physical tools to be a top QB.
Tom Brady became the QB he is AFTER THE DRAFT.
You could find 100 QBs that were at the point Brady was when drafted, and 99 would fail because they would not work and improve.
If Bradys improvement were average, you wouldn't remember who he was. It was EXTRAORDINARY.

 

[makewayhomer]

Bradshaw had very good years in 1980, 1981 and half of 1982, so you dont even know the facts. The fact that he was the main reason for 2 Sb wins, an key piece of a 3rd, and didnt screw up a 4th, puts him miles ahead of 99% of the QBs who ever played. On top of that, outside of his early years on a poor team, he did put up numbers that were comparable to anyone in the league.
So while you say you are basing this on statistics, you apparently havent looked at Bradshaws????

no dude, YOU are not looking at the facts. don't accuse me of something you are guilty of.

here are the facts:

1980: 19th in completions, 17th in attempts, 10th in yards, 27th in Completion % (27th !!!!), 7th in TD's, 7th in INT's, 14th in QB rating

is that what you call a very good year?? really??

how about 1981, this is a "very good" year??

1981: 17th in completion, 17th in attempts, 17th in Completion %, 15th in Yards, 8th in td's, 15th in INT's, 6th in QB rating.

1982: his numbers were very similar, then he got hurt (again). awesome!

he was a decent QB in those years. if you think those are "very good" years, you're crazy


look, you are amazingly consistent in missing the point. Bradshaw was a good QB on balance, top 20 all time. but this thread is about BEING OVERRATED.

if you think he is top 10 all time you are nuts. thank god the guys running our team know enough to recognize great talents who happen to be on mediocre teams, and don't just go overpay on the open market for "winners" like Damien Woody, Deion Branch, Daniel Graham, etc etc. they recognize that it's the TEAM that matters

 

[ClevTrev]

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???????????/

Earth to SportsAnalyzer, I'm not arguing that Jaworski was a great QB, I'm saying he wasn't overrated. In fact, I take it a step further, as Jaworski was not aggrandized as a great QB. He was a free thrower who had a propensity for interceptions. No one speaks of Jaworski along with Unitas, Bradshaw, Montana, Marino, Elway, and others as one of the greats. Therefore, he wasn't overrated, he was considered an average QB with an above average arm and a poor turnover ratio.

Now saying all that, I know that you're also too smart to think that one QB could be the difference in a team making the playoffs. You know that it's a team game, and one player can't will a team to win. So, Jaworski wasn't overrated and wasn't expected to take a below average team to successes it didn't deserve. The point is that Jaworski can't be considered a below average QB either, as it takes 22 to tango. Ergo, my statement that he had good years from '78-'81 stands. Just out of curiosity, did you ever see him play? He was exciting and brought fans out of their seats in positive and negative ways.

 

[Ring 6]

no dude, YOU are not looking at the facts. don't accuse me of something you are guilty of.

here are the facts:

1980: 19th in completions, 17th in attempts, 10th in yards, 27th in Completion % (27th !!!!), 7th in TD's, 7th in INT's, 14th in QB rating

is that what you call a very good year?? really??

how about 1981, this is a "very good" year??

1981: 17th in completion, 17th in attempts, 17th in Completion %, 15th in Yards, 8th in td's, 15th in INT's, 6th in QB rating.

1982: his numbers were very similar, then he got hurt (again). awesome!

he was a decent QB in those years. if you think those are "very good" years, you're crazy


look, you are amazingly consistent in missing the point. Bradshaw was a good QB on balance, top 20 all time. but this thread is about BEING OVERRATED.

if you think he is top 10 all time you are nuts. thank god the guys running our team know enough to recognize great talents who happen to be on mediocre teams, and don't just go overpay on the open market for "winners" like Damien Woody, Deion Branch, Daniel Graham, etc etc. they recognize that it's the TEAM that matters

For a guy who bases everything on stats, you dont seem to understand them very well.
You criticize Bradshaw in part because of his ranking in ATTEMPTS. WTF?
You criticize his completion %, but ignore his ypa????
I would think a 'stat guy' judging performance he never saw, would recognize that Qbs who throw the ball down the field have lower completion %, but higher yards per COMPLETION. If you saw the late 70s early 80s era, you would also realize that it was the beginning of the short pass craze. So teams that still threw the ball down the field were playing a different game that those dumping it off.
YARDS PER ATTEMPT is the equalizer. I didn't look it up but Bradshaws 7.9 was probabyl pretty close to #1.
I'm sure you hero Tarkenton was completing over 60% of his passes, and probably getting 6-7 ypa.
You see if I complete 50 of 100 for 800 yards and you complete 60 of 100 for 700 yards, thinking comp % by itself means anything is stupid.

It is becoming pointless to debate this because all you are doing is selectively choosing stats to fit your argument.
If you are truly trying to judge by stats why wouldn't you include all of them?

To ignore the fact that Fran Tarkenton never won a Championship with just as good talent around him in order to belittle Bradshaw FOUR is becoming childish. If you really believe the point of being a good QB is to play a long time and pile up numbers that have NO SUCCESS attached to them, and that this is more important than being the most important player on a Champion.

Why do you discount Championships because the rest of the players were good, but not discount for NOT winning Championships because of the rest of the talent?
You are almost holding it against Bradshaw that he has 4 SB rings, and giving extra credit to Tarkenton for having none.

You said yourself you downgrade Aikman because he played on good offenses. HUH????? Isnt it the QBs job to have a good offense?

You must put an awful lot of value in stats that added up to no success if you would put the guy who WAS THE QB WHO WON THE MOST SBs outside of the 10 best, and maybe in the top 20.
Those other 9-19 guys must have been very special in losing to be so much better than the guy who won.

As far as your Patriot comments, you are following the exact pattern of someone horribly losing an argument.

You can't win the argument so you try to make yourself sound intelligent by acting like the Patriots were built based on your thinking.

I've got news for you. The Patriots were built by judging who are WINNERS not reading a stat sheet. (Oh, yeah, and we won a lot of SBs with those guys you trashed. How many have we won without them? See, once again your attempt at hyperbole to strengthen your weak argument has backfired)

 

[makewayhomer]

you know what Andy, I guess you're right. lets throw out the stats.

the experts who simply watched and played in the game that year were so impressed with Bradshaw that they thought he was one of the best QB's that year, and voted him into the Pro Bowl.

and he was so good in 1981 that they did the same. and 1982 they did again.

oh no wait - they didn't! they realized he was a JAG QB at that point and didn't deserve it. but you believe that since AndyJohnson thinks Bradshaw very good that year, he was. well, I'll take the experts from 1980 and 1981 and 1982 over you, and they agree with me.

regarding my top 10, minus the old timers, here are Pro Bowls played:

Unitas: 10
Marino: 9
Elway: 9
Tarkenton: 9
Montana: 8
Favre: 8
Manning: 8-10 projected
Brady: 6 or 7 projected

Bradshaw: 3

does something stick out here like a sore thumb? it should. Bradshaw - according to the voters back then - simply didnt play at a high level for nearly as long as the true all time greats. but I guess AndyJohnson knows better, Bradshaw was actually very good for a whole bunch of years that his fellow players didn't notice.

Andy you say Bradshaw was still very good in 1980, 1981, and 1982. isn't it weird that the team was just a good/average team those years? are you wondering why? it's b/c the DEFENSE got much worse.


and regarding Tarkenton, it's LAUGHABLE that you think the Vikings had "just as much talent" as the Steel Curtain Steelers. go find some non AndyJohnson person who agrees with that.

some data on what happened to the Vikings in those Super Bowls

Rushing Yards:

SB Opp Minn
VIII 196 72
IX 249 17
XI 266 71

his lines (both offensive and defensive) got clobbered by superior Dolphin, Steeler, and Raider teams. unable to run at all, they were able to tee off on the pass game.

meanwhile opponents - including Bradshaw - just ran it up on the Vikings.

but Tarkenton had equivalent talent. LOL.

 

[ClevTrev]

but Tarkenton had equivalent talent. LOL.

I recall a memorable game in which Tarkenton, after being run down and out-of-bounds by a certain Patriot DB, turned and fired the ball at the surprised defender. Yeah, Fran was a piece of work. He just couldn't get it together at the times it mattered most.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

you know what Andy, I guess you're right. lets throw out the stats.

the experts who simply watched and played in the game that year were so impressed with Bradshaw that they thought he was one of the best QB's that year, and voted him into the Pro Bowl.

and he was so good in 1981 that they did the same. and 1982 they did again.

oh no wait - they didn't! they realized he was a JAG QB at that point and didn't deserve it. but you believe that since AndyJohnson thinks Bradshaw very good that year, he was. well, I'll take the experts from 1980 and 1981 and 1982 over you, and they agree with me.

regarding my top 10, minus the old timers, here are Pro Bowls played:

Unitas: 10
Marino: 9
Elway: 9
Tarkenton: 9
Montana: 8
Favre: 8
Manning: 8-10 projected
Brady: 6 or 7 projected

Bradshaw: 3

does something stick out here like a sore thumb? it should. Bradshaw - according to the voters back then - simply didnt play at a high level for nearly as long as the true all time greats. but I guess AndyJohnson knows better, Bradshaw was actually very good for a whole bunch of years that his fellow players didn't notice.

Andy you say Bradshaw was still very good in 1980, 1981, and 1982. isn't it weird that the team was just a good/average team those years? are you wondering why? it's b/c the DEFENSE got much worse.


and regarding Tarkenton, it's LAUGHABLE that you think the Vikings had "just as much talent" as the Steel Curtain Steelers. go find some non AndyJohnson person who agrees with that.

some data on what happened to the Vikings in those Super Bowls

Rushing Yards:

SB Opp Minn
VIII 196 72
IX 249 17
XI 266 71

his lines (both offensive and defensive) got clobbered by superior Dolphin, Steeler, and Raider teams. unable to run at all, they were able to tee off on the pass game.

meanwhile opponents - including Bradshaw - just ran it up on the Vikings.

but Tarkenton had equivalent talent. LOL.

You want to know why Tarkenton went to 9 Pro Bowls? Because he was a razzle-dazzle QB! No other reason, really. This is stuff that doesn't show up in the stats.

If you must know, while Tarkenton was a good QB, I''d never pick him ahead of Bradshaw. Bradshaw absolutely led those Pittsburgh teams. Tark, on the other hand, quarterbacked the teams he was on.

That's the difference, and it doesn't show up in quantitative analysis.

 

[makewayhomer]

Bradshaw absolutely led those Pittsburgh teams. Tark, on the other hand, quarterbacked the teams he was on.

I would love for to give you some evidence of this besides "it's a drivvle cliche thats been repeated by dumb sports reporters for the last 30 years, so it must be true".

were you in each of those locker rooms? have you talked to the those guys about the relative leadership qualities of the 2 guys? how the hell would you know?

 

[RayClay]

I would love for to give you some evidence of this besides "it's a drivvle cliche thats been repeated by dumb sports reporters for the last 30 years, so it must be true".

were you in each of those locker rooms? have you talked to the those guys about the relative leadership qualities of the 2 guys? how the hell would you know?

Everyone that grew up watching those two has the same opinion. Maybe there's a reason?

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

I would love for to give you some evidence of this besides "it's a drivvle cliche thats been repeated by dumb sports reporters for the last 30 years, so it must be true".

were you in each of those locker rooms? have you talked to the those guys about the relative leadership qualities of the 2 guys? how the hell would you know?

Because of the quality of the product that was so apparent when these guys played!

You want to send everything through the strainer of statistical analysis to the exclusion of everything else. You didn't see these guys play, you didn't see their teams in action with them, you didn't evaluate them through the prism of the time they played in!

You're just coming across as some geek blowhard who lets numbers talk for him, rather than present well rounded arguments that can be buttressed with eyewitness anecdotes.

Us old guys watched this stuff. We knew what we were watching. I think I'd much rather trust my "lying eyes" than you!

 

[makewayhomer]

Because of the quality of the product that was so apparent when these guys played!

You want to send everything through the strainer of statistical analysis to the exclusion of everything else. You didn't see these guys play, you didn't see their teams in action with them, you didn't evaluate them through the prism of the time they played in!

You're just coming across as some geek blowhard who lets numbers talk for him, rather than present well rounded arguments that can be buttressed with eyewitness anecdotes.

Us old guys watched this stuff. We knew what we were watching. I think I'd much rather trust my "lying eyes" than you!

what are you talking about? can you explain how through watching games you are magically able to divine who is a better leader? I'm not talking about stats here - I'm talking about ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE YOU HAVE that Bradshaw "led" while Tarkenton "QB'd".

b/c I watch plenty of football now, and I have no idea if Marc Bulger is a better leader than Matt Hasselbeck. without being in those locker rooms and knowing those teams, NONE OF US know.

it's 500% more likely that the Steelers were simply a better team than the Vikings - they had more talent & they were the first team to widely abuse steroids and this led to more success. but this stuff wasn't known or wasn't sexy to write about, so the few sportwriters and TV guys who were in the public eye came up with hollow cliches and excuses to explain the success in some other way, and everyone just grew up assuming it was true.

 

[makewayhomer]

Everyone that grew up watching those two has the same opinion. Maybe there's a reason?

yes, there's a reason. read my post 1 above this

 

[FrontSeven]

4. Ken Stabler: His only accomplishment was winning the 1976 Super Bowl where the Raiders mostly ran and the defense stifled Fran Tarkenton.

Stabler was money.

I'll bet that won't show up in the stats.