Thomas5737 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 On 6/16/2019 at 9:28 AM, Mr Bad Example said: The ONLY argument for Namath being in the HoF is that it's the Hall of FAME, and while he was probably about average for his time (maybe 2 seasons where you go "WOW, is Namath good!" which aren't enough), he is one of the more famous figures. Of course, then William Perry has an argument to be inducted as well. That certainly plays a part in it. That is the biggest reason why championships are so valuable, and sure being a champion is great and a great accomplishment but the notoriety gained from being a champion is probably much more important for a HOF vote. Pretty sure if you asked people who was better the Fridge or his brother 90%+ would say William Perry over Michael Dean if they didn't look it up. Now if they looked up and saw MDP was a 6 time pro bowler (Fridge 0) and had 2 first team all pro selections (Fridge 0) and had more than twice as many sacks than his brother it may sway them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 4 hours ago, Thomas5737 said: That certainly plays a part in it. That is the biggest reason why championships are so valuable And it wasn't just any Championship that Namath won. It was the first time the upstart AFL took down the dominant NFL... in a game where the Colts were heavily favored by an astounding 18 points http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/superbowl/history/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 4 hours ago, Shanedorf said: And it wasn't just any Championship that Namath won. It was the first time the upstart AFL took down the dominant NFL... in a game where the Colts were heavily favored by an astounding 18 points http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/superbowl/history/ Took them a few years to become champions unlike that AAFC team that joined the league and won it in year 1. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 On 6/8/2019 at 11:04 AM, SBLIII said: I can't find 3 better ones. I have Manning slightly ahead of Montana but the 4th best is far away from Montana imo. You must not have looked very hard, then. Brady Elway Marino Manning Rodgers Brees Favre ...And I'm done with this discussion. Refuse to give it any more thought. If Montana is so great, with incredibly superior talent around him, because he won four Super Bowls, where is Bradshaw, who won the same amount in a shorter span of time with lesser talent? My guess is you never saw most of these guys play, and are going off of the continuing media narrative we're fed today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedTheClock Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 Tua Tagovailoa. I voted for Terry Bradshaw, but I missed Joe Namath's name on the list initially. He would be my #1. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfournier103 Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 Terry Bradshaw was a number one overall pick. He was rated high coming out of college, and won four Super Bowls. How is that being overrated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 1 minute ago, rfournier103 said: Terry Bradshaw was a number one overall pick. He was rated high coming out of college, and won four Super Bowls. How is that being overrated? Because he was a good QB but because of his and his team's success he gets overrated as a great QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 11 hours ago, Thomas5737 said: Because he was a good QB but because of his and his team's success he gets overrated as a great QB. ...but as posted a few times above, no one really puts Bradshaw on the "great QB" list. Even with the 4 titles - he and Griese usually get left off those lists; would that Aikman could be avoided on those, as well. All 3 certainly had the ability to be great, but never had to carry a team to a title....or even to the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Mr Bad Example said: ...but as posted a few times above, no one really puts Bradshaw on the "great QB" list. Even with the 4 titles - he and Griese usually get left off those lists; would that Aikman could be avoided on those, as well. All 3 certainly had the ability to be great, but never had to carry a team to a title....or even to the playoffs. Well he isn't overrated to those that don't overrate him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elky Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 18 hours ago, Heinz D. said: You must not have looked very hard, then. Brady Elway Marino Manning Rodgers Brees Favre ...And I'm done with this discussion. Refuse to give it any more thought. If Montana is so great, with incredibly superior talent around him, because he won four Super Bowls, where is Bradshaw, who won the same amount in a shorter span of time with lesser talent? My guess is you never saw most of these guys play, and are going off of the continuing media narrative we're fed today. Because no one thinks of Bradshaw for those Super Bowls. When people think of the 80s 49ers they think of Montana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfournier103 Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 (edited) 17 hours ago, Thomas5737 said: Because he was a good QB but because of his and his team's success he gets overrated as a great QB. Who was better in the 1970s? I don’t have the stats in front of me, but I bet he’s among the best statistically. Are you also saying that if his team lost but his numbers were a little better, you’d rank him higher? Job # 1 is to win. Period. 1 hour ago, Elky said: Because no one thinks of Bradshaw for those Super Bowls. When people think of the 80s 49ers they think of Montana. Seriously? Both have 4 wins, and Bradshaw CERTAINLY comes to mind pretty quickly when that team is thought of. Edited June 23, 2019 by rfournier103 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 1 hour ago, rfournier103 said: Who was better in the 1970s? I don’t have the stats in front of me, but I bet he’s among the best statistically. Are you also saying that if his team lost but his numbers were a little better, you’d rank him higher? Job # 1 is to win. Period. Everyone's job is to win. RB was probably more important to that era than QB. Tarkenton was the best QB in the 70s and it isn't close imo. If he was better but he didn't win championships then yes, he would have been better. Maybe not more successful but he would have been a better player. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LieutenantGains Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 Staubach was the best QB of the 70's and the most underrated of all time. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 3 hours ago, Elky said: Because no one thinks of Bradshaw for those Super Bowls. When people think of the 80s 49ers they think of Montana. Because of the media narrative, not Montana's play, on its own. 30 minutes ago, LieutenantGains said: Staubach was the best QB of the 70's and the most underrated of all time. You might be right about that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedTheClock Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 5 hours ago, rfournier103 said: Job # 1 is to win. Trent Dilfer won. Guess he's a stud too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts