Sal Paolantonio opinion - agree or not?

[VT_NY_Patsfan]

That's the point. Archie Manning was a decent QB, but he doesn't get HOF looks. Nor does Eason... in fact, very few people would know who Eason was if they aren't Patriots fans. Herschel Walker was overrated at the time, but not by posterity. Brian Bosworth can't be overrated, he played all of 5 games or so in the NFL; he's more like a joke.

Maybe you meant "overhyped." That's not overrated. An "all-time overrated" list is guys who were good, but their legacies have been propped up to something greater than they actually were.

My contention is that considering how they produced and what was spent to aquire them makes them overrated. Saying some one who has helped his team win a Superbowl is overrated becouse somebody else thinks they are great is a bogus argument. Your comparing oppions which are like ***holes everybody has one and they all are full of ____ at times. I'm saying that my choices were overrated by being paid what they were paid combined with where they were drafted (not counting total busts), or what was traded for them.

I will admit your probably right about Bosworth not having enough starts to qualify, but the overhype surround him exceeded anything I ever seen befor or since about any draft pick. He was single handledly going to fix the Seahawks defense. Plus I felt the need to include at least one OK Sooner on the list. Personal anomisity.

 

[Ring 6]

put Jim Hart on the Steelers, and Bradshaw on the Cardinals, and there is a good chance that Hart ends up with 4 rings and Bradshaw barely sniffs the playoffs.

that's why using SB rings as criteria is wrong

re: Swann, you do need to make era adjustments; back then guys didnt catch as many balls. however, yeah, he is overrated. his seasons among the top 10

Receptions: 1977-7t, 1978-7t
Receiving yards: 1975-8, 1977-4, 1978-7
Receiving TDs: 1975-1t, 1977-6t, 1978-2
Rush/Receive TDs: 1975-7t, 1978-5t
he made 3 Pro Bowls

compare this with another guy most here have never heard of, Harold Carmichael

Receptions: 1973-1, 1974-5
Receiving yards: 1973-1, 1978-3
Receiving TDs: 1973-4t, 1974-3, 1975-9t, 1977-6t, 1978-8t, 1979-2, 1980-4t, 1982-10t
Rush/Receive TDs: 1973-10t

he made 4 Pro Bowls

you could easily make the argument that Carmichael had a better career, but largely b/c Swann played on a team with a great defense, he got 4 cracks at the SB (and won all 4) instead of Carmichael who had 1

This is the most ignorant comment I have seen in a long time.
Jim Hart did nothing to win a SB. Terry Bradshaw made the plays needed to win 4 of them.
This is where these arguments get stupid.
The point is to WIN. Not to build statistics. You win by players making plays in the clutch. You do not win by having stats. It is ridiculous to argue that the guy who WON could have been replaced by a guy who NEVER WON because he had similar stats.

You also never reposted Bradshaws SB stats with the 3rd and 4th game. They show how important he was to those 2 champions. Even if you take the 74 and 75 SBs and call Bradshaw the guy who was in the right place at the right time, you cannot ignore 78 and 79, where Bradshaw was the KEY to those Championships.

 

[Ring 6]

Somehow the general tone of this thread is ignoring a huge fact.

PLAYERS THAT WIN are not interchangable with players THAT SOMEONE THINKS COULD HAVE WON.

Winning is ACHIEVEMENT. It is the only achievement that you play the game for.
You cannot take one guy off one team and replace him with another, then show stats to argue they are equivalent. There are millions of other factors, especially at the QB position.
See this is where it irks me when people make these ridiculous arguments. I cant help but think that they have never been part of a team, or a highly successful one.
First a team is a group of PEOPLE. They need leadership. They need to develop a team mentality. You do not replace the leader of a team and think the only change is statistical.
All of that aside, championships are won with clutch play. There is nothing in a 10 year list of stats that indicates clutch play.

Lets do this. Take away Brady and replace him with Manning.
Now you replace the ultimate team leader and player with a guy who whines at his teammates when anything goes wrong, who is a media attention whore. Lets have him co-exist with BB. Then lets expect him to not play his worst games in the playoffs, like he has done, and we still win 3 SBs, even though Brady outplays him by a mile in the post season.
But, wait, the stats..........

 

[Ring 6]

ok, I did.

here are the 1970-1979 #'s for Terry Bradshaw and Jim Hart

you tell me who was who, and if you think one of these guys is deserving of being called an all time great, while the other is somebody that nobody under the age of 40 has heard of.

Games...Comp...Att...%...........Yards......Y/A...TD's...INT's...
128...1,739...3,386...51.4%..... 23,026....6.80...137...145....
129...1,474...2,859...51.6%......19,918.... 6.97...147...163...

1 guy had 4 Pro Bowl appearances in this span, the other had 3

the other explanation is that one of these guys happened to play for a team that had an amazing defense, and therefore went to the playoffs a bunch of times, won a bunch of SB's largely b/c of it, and became a legend. I wonder.

First, Jim Hart was a very good QB in the mid 70s. Whether or not people who werent born then remember him is irrelevant.
Secondly, you are including Bradshaw stats beginning in his rookie year to Hart as a vet.
Third, you can put up the stats of almost any NFL QB in the 70s and they wouldn't vary much from what is above, not a lot over 50% complete (that was the game then) and about a 1:1 TD/Int ration. Curious that you stop showing Bradshaws stats at 1979.
How about we look at them in the years that matter for this discussion?
You are saying they won almost despite him, I am saying they won to some degree because of him. Lets look at 1973-1980. That is 7 years that include 4 SBs, and the year before and year after the run.

By the way, there are a few other facets you left out of the Hart/Bradshaw equation. First it was well known Hart had the best OL in the NFL. He was the least sacked QB in the NFL for most of the Coryell years. Secondly, Bradshaw contributed a lot running the ball, which was a big part of offense in the 70s. (Because of the rules, scrambling was necessary)

 

[Spirit of '76]

* I agree for the most part.
The media has overinflated a lot of these guys. Favre, for example, has been given a free ride on a lot of bad decisions in his career. I would even consider putting Manning at 6.


Sal had it right.

Favre is getting his records thru longevity. He really only had one monster year.

Manning 6th??

Are you high? Manning will break ALL of Marinos and Favres records in a lot less games. For the past 6 seasons, he had been the best QB every year. This is Brady's year, but that doesn't diminish what Peyton has accomplished so far. He may be forced into our living rooms every Sunday via commercials, but that doesn't make him overrated.

 

[Ring 6]

* I agree for the most part.
The media has overinflated a lot of these guys. Favre, for example, has been given a free ride on a lot of bad decisions in his career. I would even consider putting Manning at 6.


Sal had it right.

Favre is getting his records thru longevity. He really only had one monster year.

Manning 6th??

Are you high? Manning will break ALL of Marinos and Favres records in a lot less games. For the past 6 seasons, he had been the best QB every year. This is Brady's year, but that doesn't diminish what Peyton has accomplished so far. He may be forced into our living rooms every Sunday via commercials, but that doesn't make him overrated.

Here is my opinion on Favre.
PLUSSES
-Has been the leader of that team, and its most important player from day 1
-The team has won pretty consistently
-He has won more game than any QB ever (longevity no doubt a factor)
-Statistically he has been among the best of his era (longevity or not)
-He won 1 SB
MINUSSES
-He should have won more than he did. The last few years I think he has led a decent team to being decent. From winning the SB in 1996 until about 2004, he had a good enough team around him that he should have won more than 1 SB if he were among the best ever. There were definitely times where his team lost because of him. If you build your team around your QB, and put it in his hands to win or lose, a good QB will have the knock on his resume of being the reason you lost (see Marino, Manning) but a great one will rarely ever have that happen.

I would put Favre in the upper tier of QBs, but not in the discussion with Montana, Brady, Aikman, Elway who are the best 4 IMO.
Favre gets lumped in with guys who were good QBs, but either couldnt win the big one, or had that one miracle season, such as Marino, Manning so far, Tarkenton, etc.

I think if you want to call Favre one of the 4 or 5 best ever, he is overrated. If you want to call him top 10, he is not.

 

[Deus Irae]

Here is my opinion on Favre.
PLUSSES
-Has been the leader of that team, and its most important player from day 1
-The team has won pretty consistently
-He has won more game than any QB ever (longevity no doubt a factor)
-Statistically he has been among the best of his era (longevity or not)
-He won 1 SB
MINUSSES
-He should have won more than he did. The last few years I think he has led a decent team to being decent. From winning the SB in 1996 until about 2004, he had a good enough team around him that he should have won more than 1 SB if he were among the best ever. There were definitely times where his team lost because of him. If you build your team around your QB, and put it in his hands to win or lose, a good QB will have the knock on his resume of being the reason you lost (see Marino, Manning) but a great one will rarely ever have that happen.

I would put Favre in the upper tier of QBs, but not in the discussion with Montana, Brady, Aikman, Elway who are the best 4 IMO.
Favre gets lumped in with guys who were good QBs, but either couldnt win the big one, or had that one miracle season, such as Marino, Manning so far, Tarkenton, etc.

I think if you want to call Favre one of the 4 or 5 best ever, he is overrated. If you want to call him top 10, he is not.

Can we assume from your top 4 that "best ever" is really "best since the mid-70's"? There's no Unitas in your top 4, after all....

 

[makewayhomer]

First, Jim Hart was a very good QB in the mid 70s. Whether or not people who werent born then remember him is irrelevant.

No, that is EXACTLY the point. this thread is about being overrated. I'm defining overrated here as "the general public has an inflated view of the player". since the majority of <40 YO fans have not even heard of Jim Hart, and since Bradshaw is considered in all-time great - despite the fact that these 2 guys were likely very similar players - Bradshaw is very overrated.

Secondly, you are including Bradshaw stats beginning in his rookie year to Hart as a vet.
Third, you can put up the stats of almost any NFL QB in the 70s and they wouldn't vary much from what is above, not a lot over 50% complete (that was the game then) and about a 1:1 TD/Int ration. Curious that you stop showing Bradshaws stats at 1979.
How about we look at them in the years that matter for this discussion?
You are saying they won almost despite him, I am saying they won to some degree because of him. Lets look at 1973-1980. That is 7 years that include 4 SBs, and the year before and year after the run.

pulling 73-79 isn't exactly right either, b/c are you comparing just Bradshaws prime years to lots of Harts older years (Hart is 4 years older)

the point is that these guys contributed to their teams success every closely. just look at how they contributed OFFENSIVELY. go look at the Points Allowed for the Cardinals vs the Steelers, thats where the GIGANTIC difference is. my recollection is that neither of these guys played defense.

First it was well known Hart had the best OL in the NFL. He was the least sacked QB in the NFL for most of the Coryell years.

if you have any sources for this, I would be interested in hearing it. also sacks weren't a stat back then, so nobody knows who was sacked more. I would bet the guy who scrambled more got sacked more

 

[makewayhomer]

This is the most ignorant comment I have seen in a long time.
Jim Hart did nothing to win a SB. Terry Bradshaw made the plays needed to win 4 of them.
This is where these arguments get stupid.
The point is to WIN. Not to build statistics. You win by players making plays in the clutch. You do not win by having stats. It is ridiculous to argue that the guy who WON could have been replaced by a guy who NEVER WON because he had similar stats.

You also never reposted Bradshaws SB stats with the 3rd and 4th game. They show how important he was to those 2 champions. Even if you take the 74 and 75 SBs and call Bradshaw the guy who was in the right place at the right time, you cannot ignore 78 and 79, where Bradshaw was the KEY to those Championships.

simple question, I would like it answered with a #.

how many SB wins would Bradshaw have had if he was the QB of the Cardinals? we obviously don't KNOW, but I want to know what you THINK

 

[Ring 6]

No, that is EXACTLY the point. this thread is about being overrated. I'm defining overrated here as "the general public has an inflated view of the player". since the majority of <40 YO fans have not even heard of Jim Hart, and since Bradshaw is considered in all-time great - despite the fact that these 2 guys were likely very similar players - Bradshaw is very overrated.




pulling 73-79 isn't exactly right either, b/c are you comparing just Bradshaws prime years to lots of Harts older years (Hart is 4 years older)

the point is that these guys contributed to their teams success every closely. just look at how they contributed OFFENSIVELY. go look at the Points Allowed for the Cardinals vs the Steelers, thats where the GIGANTIC difference is. my recollection is that neither of these guys played defense.





if you have any sources for this, I would be interested in hearing it. also sacks weren't a stat back then, so nobody knows who was sacked more. I would bet the guy who scrambled more got sacked more

I agree they contributed equally to the success of their teams. The differnece is Bradshaw contributed to SB WINNING success, and Hart contributed to mediocrity.

I could care less how anyone overrates or underrates players they were to young to see.
Bradshaw is known because he ACCOMPLISHED 4 SB CHAMPIONSHIPS. Hart is unknown to people who didnt see him play, because he accomplished mediocrity.
I saw both of them play their entire careers. You could not have, because anyone who saw those teams in the 70s would know there is no comparison between Terry Bradshaw and Jim Hart. Of course someone who puts no value on achiveing the only objective of the game, winning, can look up stats and make a comparison.
The fact is that Bradshaw won.

 

[Ring 6]

simple question, I would like it answered with a #.

how many SB wins would Bradshaw have had if he was the QB of the Cardinals? we obviously don't KNOW, but I want to know what you THINK

There is no way to answer that question. That question has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. What if I said 6? I can back that up just as well as you could back up zero.

 

[bradmahn]

simple question, I would like it answered with a #.

how many SB wins would Bradshaw have had if he was the QB of the Cardinals? we obviously don't KNOW, but I want to know what you THINK

The correct question is how many Super Bowls do you think Hart would have won if he was on the Steelers?

 

[makewayhomer]

There is no way to answer that question. That question has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. What if I said 6? I can back that up just as well as you could back up zero.

what do you THINK?

I would like to hear your argument for 6, including factual reasons

 

[makewayhomer]

I agree they contributed equally to the success of their teams. The differnece is Bradshaw contributed to SB WINNING success, and Hart contributed to mediocrity.

I could care less how anyone overrates or underrates players they were to young to see.
Bradshaw is known because he ACCOMPLISHED 4 SB CHAMPIONSHIPS. Hart is unknown to people who didnt see him play, because he accomplished mediocrity.
I saw both of them play their entire careers. You could not have, because anyone who saw those teams in the 70s would know there is no comparison between Terry Bradshaw and Jim Hart. Of course someone who puts no value on achiveing the only objective of the game, winning, can look up stats and make a comparison.
The fact is that Bradshaw won.

apparently you don't care about a thing called "defense"

 

[makewayhomer]

The correct question is how many Super Bowls do you think Hart would have won if he was on the Steelers?

thats a very good question.

given how QB play was less important back then (a much higher % of yards were through the running game) and how Hart and Bradshaw were pretty similar QB's, I'll go with 4

 

[Ring 6]

what do you THINK?

I would like to hear your argument for 6, including factual reasons

There are no factual reasons for any answer to that question.
It is a fantasy world topic.
And realistically, you would have to review every game in those years, look at the plays Hart did or didn't make, and then make a judgment on what Bradshaw would have done. It still wouldnt matter, because you cannot factor in the leadership impact, and the 1,000,000 aspect of a championship team that have nothing to do with stats. It is entirely possible and likely that if you 'swap' QBs on teams that what you see the other 10 players do on the field would be different because of a difference in preparation, practicing, the Qbs relationship with receivers (i.e. seeing the same thing in coverage) the work ethic of the QB rubbing off on the other players, the differences in scheme that would absolutely occur if you had a different QB, etc, etc.

See, what you are trying to do is play Madden, trade the players and see how the results change. This is real life and there are thousands of variables that are ignored in that kind of an obtuse 'analysis'.

Bottom line is you can put up any stats you want. The QBs job isn't stats, its winning. Bradshaw won 4, Hart won zero. While you are searching for an answer to why that is in statistics, that is not where the answer lies.

 

[Ring 6]

thats a very good question.

given how QB play was less important back then (a much higher % of yards were through the running game) and how Hart and Bradshaw were pretty similar QB's, I'll go with 4

Again, you are way off the mark.
QB was NOT less important then that it is now.
Just because the rules lead to more passing today does not mean the QB is more important. In fact, it may be the exact oppposite. The rules today make a QBs job easier. When QBs threw 20-25 times a game, those passes were critical. They came in critical situations, against defenses that had much more advantage than they do today.

Go look up Bradshaws #s in his last 2 SB win. While you are at it check out how the defense you think carried them did. (Did you see those games?) and tell me Jim Hart would have won those games like Bradshaw did.
If you conclude that he would you are either lying, Jim Harts grandson, or delusional.

 

[Ring 6]

apparently you don't care about a thing called "defense"

Defense is part of winning and losing, about half I'd say.
Teams do not win championships without QBs making plays.
For your Hart argument take a look at them and the Cowboys in Harts peak years. The teams were very, very close. The difference? Staubach LED them to wins in big games, Jim Hart did not. But, hey the stats were similar, so you could have switched Hart and Staubach and the results would have been the same, right?

 

[makewayhomer]

See, what you are trying to do is play Madden, trade the players and see how the results change. This is real life and there are thousands of variables that are ignored in that kind of an obtuse 'analysis'.

just note that these are the exact questions that GM's face every day. this isn't fantasy I'm talking about, it's real world value, and it's what separates good GM's from bad (and sorry, knowledgeable fans from others).

the Dolphins are a downtrodden franchise b/c of a variety of personal evaluation misteps, the latest being undervaluing Wes Welker. The Pats correctly recognized how valuable he was, despite playing on a horrible team. now there is a good chance Welker gets a SB ring, where if he had stayed on the Dolphins he would have been on a terrible team.

so let me ask you - if Welker gets a SB ring, how much does that increase his greatness as an individual player? isn't he the same guy as last year, just on a different/better T-E-A-M?

 

[makewayhomer]

Go look up Bradshaws #s in his last 2 SB win. While you are at it check out how the defense you think carried them did. (Did you see those games?) and tell me Jim Hart would have won those games like Bradshaw did.
If you conclude that he would you are either lying, Jim Harts grandson, or delusional.

1979: Steelers allowed 14 and then 13 points in the AFC playoffs
1978: Steelers allowed 10 and then 5 points in the AFC playoffs

yeah, I think Hart could have led the Steelers to wins in those game

in Harts 2 playoff games his team gave up 30 and 35 points. but he is not a "winner". lol