Jump to content
vike daddy

Who's the Vikings #2 QB all-time?

Recommended Posts

On 7/5/2018 at 8:07 AM, SemperFeist said:

What is the goal of every team at the beginning of ever season? Winning the Super Bowl. Stats are meaningless without that achievement. 

Dan Marino may have been more talented than Bob Griese, but Griese has the rings. And at the end of the day, in the ultimate teams sport, that’s all that matters. 

Who’s the better QB, Troy Aikman, Roger Staubach, or Tony Romo? Because the one with all of the stats is the one with none of the rings.

Stats don’t equal greatness. 

Stats don't necessarily equal greatness, but when they are so overwhelming in the favor of one player over another they can't be ignored.  And you have to evaluate the talent around them...and there's absolutely no question that the talent around Griese was far superior to that surrounding Marino.  Marino is the far superior QB to Griese regardless of the rings.  To say otherwise is purely a ridiculous argument, because that would be like saying Nick Foles is a better QB than Donovan McNabb just because he won a Super Bowl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, disaacs said:

that would be like saying Nick Foles is a better QB than Donovan McNabb just because he won a Super Bowl. 

I bet you’d have a lot of people in Philadelphia saying just that right now. 

Greatness is not a synonym for talent. 

There are dozens of examples of players who were more talented than another, but simply weren’t as great. Greatness comes from achievements accomplished with that talent. Randy Moss may be the most talented wide receiver to ever play the game, but he’s not the greatest. Staubach and Bradshaw weren’t more talented QBs than Tarkenton, but they’re greater QBs. Joe Montana may not have been as talented as Marino, but he’s greater. Brady is greater than Manning, despite being less talented. 

Right, or wrong, the QB position is tied to wins. The QBs who wins will always be viewed as greater than the ones who don’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

I bet you’d have a lot of people in Philadelphia saying just that right now. 

Greatness is not a synonym for talent. 

There are dozens of examples of players who were more talented than another, but simply weren’t as great. Greatness comes from achievements accomplished with that talent. Randy Moss may be the most talented wide receiver to ever play the game, but he’s not the greatest. Staubach and Bradshaw weren’t more talented QBs than Tarkenton, but they’re greater QBs. Joe Montana may not have been as talented as Marino, but he’s greater. Brady is greater than Manning, despite being less talented. 

Right, or wrong, the QB position is tied to wins. The QBs who wins will always be viewed as greater than the ones who don’t. 

All I'm saying is you have to evaluate the entire situation surrounding a QB, not solely QB wins, but also the talent on the team, the talent of the QB, the leadership of the QB, regular season performance, playoff performance, et al. You appear to be arguing that QB wins are the sole justification for determining whether a QB is greater than another in any comparison.  I personally believe that's a ridiculous argument and not one based in any sense of reality.  While the casual fan may view a SB winning QB as a greater QB, I don't believe that the great majority of football fans would do so.  A casual fan may view Eli Manning as a better QB than Jim Kelly because he has 2 SB wins, but a football fan with any knowledge of the game would know that that's one of the worst takes to ever have.  Super Bowl wins may put you over the top in a close comparison, but it can't ever be used as the sole comparison.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

I bet you’d have a lot of people in Philadelphia saying just that right now. 

Greatness is not a synonym for talent. 

There are dozens of examples of players who were more talented than another, but simply weren’t as great. Greatness comes from achievements accomplished with that talent. Randy Moss may be the most talented wide receiver to ever play the game, but he’s not the greatest. Staubach and Bradshaw weren’t more talented QBs than Tarkenton, but they’re greater QBs. Joe Montana may not have been as talented as Marino, but he’s greater. Brady is greater than Manning, despite being less talented. 

Right, or wrong, the QB position is tied to wins. The QBs who wins will always be viewed as greater than the ones who don’t. 

And I will go to the grave saying that Archie Manning was the most talented quarterback in the Manning family...by far.  He just played on some of the worst teams in NFL history!  I also have no problems saying he was the "greater" quarterback even though I don't believe his teams ever had a winning season while he was a starter.  He got more wins out of the dreadful Saints then maybe any other quarterback on the planet could have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

And I will go to the grave saying that Archie Manning was the most talented quarterback in the Manning family...by far.  He just played on some of the worst teams in NFL history!  I also have no problems saying he was the "greater" quarterback even though I don't believe his teams ever had a winning season while he was a starter.  He got more wins out of the dreadful Saints then maybe any other quarterback on the planet could have.

He wasn't. And saying "by far" does nothing for your argument. Peyton Manning is a top 3 QB any way you look at it. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you that Fran will still be the greatest QB in Vikings history, even if Kirk Cousins leads the Vikings to a single superbowl, but at least admit that he'd have to be in the conversation. The fact that he couldn't get the Vikings over the hump with perhaps the greatest DL ever assembled is a knock against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

The fact that he [Fran] couldn't get the Vikings over the hump with perhaps the greatest DL ever assembled is a knock against him.

oh yeah, definitely. as well as Fran played in the regular season, he was very mediocre in our Super Bowls with him. in the one against PITT, the Steeler defense started feeling sorry for him and was helping him up after sacks and such.

but for whatever reasons, our all star D's played poorly in those games too. as much as i hate to say it, i think the biggest cause of those four losses was Bud Grant getting out coached.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vike daddy said:

oh yeah, definitely. as well as Fran played in the regular season, he was very mediocre in our Super Bowls with him. in the one against PITT, the Steeler defense started feeling sorry for him and was helping him up after sacks and such.

but for whatever reasons, our all star D's played poorly in those games too. as much as i hate to say it, i think the biggest cause of those four losses was Bud Grant getting out coached.

 

Yep.  The greatest defensive line ever assembled (you won't get an argument from me, JD Brocks!!) Still were manhandled by three of the greatest offensive lines of all time...Miami, Pittsburg and Oakland.  Just my observation over the years, but the battle between great offensive lines and great defensive lines is usually (not always) won by the offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JDBrocks said:

He wasn't. And saying "by far" does nothing for your argument. Peyton Manning is a top 3 QB any way you look at it. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you that Fran will still be the greatest QB in Vikings history, even if Kirk Cousins leads the Vikings to a single superbowl, but at least admit that he'd have to be in the conversation. The fact that he couldn't get the Vikings over the hump with perhaps the greatest DL ever assembled is a knock against him.

Statistically...Peyton and Eli are far better then Archie... statistically.  However, neither of them have/had all the talent that their old man had.  Archie was superior athletically.  He could, early in his career, run with the best running quarterbacks of all time.  I would put his arm talent above either son.  It's just that he didn't have anybody who could get open to catch the ball.  He didn't have any running attack, except his own legs...which eventually gave out.  He also didn't have anybody who could block.

To your other point, if Cousins is the difference in winning a Super Bowl, he'd definitely be #2 greatest Viking quarterback.  Yet, he has to be a determinative factor in the playoffs and SB to be considered so...in my opinion.  He can't just ride a great defense to victory.  I don't need or care if anyone agrees with me on either of the above points.  When it comes down to it greatness, at the QB position, has three determining factors: 1. Statistics 2. Championships 3. All other subjective qualities such as leadership, courage, creativity, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AP_allday2869 said:

Where's Kelly Holcolmb? Bad list!

Spergon Wynn is the real No. 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brooks Bollinger QBing for AP's 296 has to count for something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Klomp said:

Spergon Wynn is the real No. 2

I thought it was Steve Bono.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we've had some awful ones, haven't we....?

 

Josh Freeman gets a nod too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×