105 replies to this topic

[K-9]

atlbillsfan1975, on 26 June 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

He is in the HOF because of his charisma. He helped put the NFL on the map. He was the first real 'superstar' in the NFL, maybe all of sports. His personality is why he is in the HOF. He was as beloved a sports figure as you will ever find. The guy was as big as the Beatles for a minute, while the Beatles were the Beatles.
It was a culmination of a lot of things. But to even mention Namath as a great QB is playing revisionist history. He was very good for a couple seasons and Great for one game. Just so happened the one game was the SB and he called the victory.

Again, the statistical argument fails every time. For a lot of reasons. While his popularity didn't hurt him, he made the HOF on the merits of his ability to play the position. People who understand the difference between being a passer and being a QB understand what he brought to the game although he was without peer in terms of arm strength and quick release. Nobody ever called a better game. QBs in that era were measured quite differently than today's.

Nobody is suggesting he didn't have flaws. He didn't make it to the HOF on the first ballot after all. He's merely highly deserving of being there. For as many people who you recollect saying he wasn't that good, there a 10 who can verify that he was.

As to him being the first real superstar, that's a stretch for sports in general and the NFL in particular. There were many pop icons before him. He was the most visible signing of the AFL vs. the NFL at the time though. And that was because of his outstanding ability as a QB. He was a blue chip out of high school and a blue chip coming out of college. The only thing that prevented him from being even better were the too numerous injuries.

Anyway, I'll leave the debate up to those that still have the energy. His place is secure. He's in the HOF forever.

GO BILLS!!!

Edited by K-9, 27 June 2012 - 02:28 PM.

[BuffOrange]

Quote

it's beside the point whether his good TD/INT ratio for the 2002 season was the result of skill or luck.

And this would be where we differ.  It's beside what point - the point that your most important position, if he's not an elite player, needs to either compile unusually good stats by his own standards in the reg. season, or mount important drives in the 4th Qtr of the postseason to win a championship?  Umm yah I would concur that's going to hold true most of the time.  That's not saying much more than you need to score more points than the other team.

[reddogblitz]

I think Dilfer always get the short shrift on discussions like this.  Maybe he didn't have as good a stats as Dan Fouts, Drew Bledsoe, Matt Hasselbeck, Air McNair etc.  But HOF multi SB winner Roger Staubach says a QBs greatest asset is leadership.  Trent had that in spades.  Next time the NFL Story of the 2000 Baltimore Ravens is on, watch it.  That team was going no where with Tony Banks at QB.

Trent came in and said no more spreading the football around to everybody etc.  He told them he was going to the guy that was open that had the best chance to catch it and run if not score.  Some of the guys didn't like it.  But once he came in and took over, they started winning. They liked that!  He was the leader and helped lead them all the way and played his position pretty well BTW.

That counts for more than all stats combined.

So I don't put Trent on this list.

[Hplarrm]

reddogblitz, on 27 June 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

I think Dilfer always get the short shrift on discussions like this.  Maybe he didn't have as good a stats as Dan Fouts, Drew Bledsoe, Matt Hasselbeck, Air McNair etc.  But HOF multi SB winner Roger Staubach says a QBs greatest asset is leadership.  Trent had that in spades.  Next time the NFL Story of the 2000 Baltimore Ravens is on, watch it.  That team was going no where with Tony Banks at QB.

Trent came in and said no more spreading the football around to everybody etc.  He told them he was going to the guy that was open that had the best chance to catch it and run if not score.  Some of the guys didn't like it.  But once he came in and took over, they started winning. They liked that!  He was the leader and helped lead them all the way and played his position pretty well BTW.

That counts for more than all stats combined.

So I don't put Trent on this list.

I would put Trent on this list not because he was a bad player (he was just the QB who managed O play at the time for what the Ravens needed) but because of the relative difference between what made this team special between the offense and the defense.  Like the 1985 Bears, the 2000 Ravens was one of the few teams a seasoned viewer felt they had a better chance to score when the D was on the field than when the O was out there.

This is not how the game is sposed to work.  It was simply the case because the D prospered by being so aggressive while the O did what needed to be done while being opportunistic in short yardage fields delivered to it by the turnover generating D and Dilfer doing a good job managing the fame and bit taking a lot of chances which  may well produce more or at least dramatic scores but also ran the risk prodcing more turnovers.

Was Dilfer QB of a team which had had pretty limited offensive repertoire under his management?

Yep!

Was this exactly what was needed in order for this Ravens squad to be one of the best teams ever?

Yep to that as well!

The irony to this football watcher is that both the 2000 Ravens and the 1985 Bears would likely have been poorer performing or worse TEAMs if they had a QB who was more of a consistent go to player at QB.

[Edwards' Arm]

BuffOrange, on 27 June 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

And this would be where we differ.  It's beside what point - the point that your most important position, if he's not an elite player, needs to either compile unusually good stats by his own standards in the reg. season, or mount important drives in the 4th Qtr of the postseason to win a championship?  Umm yah I would concur that's going to hold true most of the time.  That's not saying much more than you need to score more points than the other team.

It's saying significantly more than "you need to score more points than the other team."  

The Bucs got very high quality play from the QB position in 2002. Call it a statistical outlier if you like. Say that Brad Johnson got lucky, and put up better numbers that year than in previous or subsequent years. Fine. But the bottom line is that their Super Bowl win was the result of Pro Bowl QB play + the best defense in 2002.

The Bucs are frequently held up as an example of a team which won despite having an average QB. As an example for other teams (such as the Bills) to potentially follow. There are basically two options here. Option 1: obtain an average or slightly above-average QB. Hope that he gives you a much better year than usual. Hope that the QB's one good year happens to overlap with a very good year from your defense. This is the path the Bucs chose, and it worked for them. Option 2: obtain a QB who will give you very good play every year. Then, you build a good supporting cast around him. That way you give yourself many years' worth of chances for everything to all come together into a Super Bowl win.

Edited by Edwards' Arm, 29 June 2012 - 11:18 PM.

[Cub Reporter]

I'm not that old, so I could only say Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer.