Jump to content

What NFL hill are you willing to die on?


Bolts223

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Steelersfan43 said:

I agree for Ken Anderson...I am not sure for Cunningham.

Cunningham is more deserving than Warren Moon and a couple of others who are already in, at a minimum. He was the league's first true dual-threat QB (talk about Tarkenton all you want, but he and guys before him were more scramblers than runners) and his 1990 season was the benchmark against which all other QBs like him are judged to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Starless said:

Cunningham is more deserving than Warren Moon and a couple of others who are already in, at a minimum. He was the league's first true dual-threat QB (talk about Tarkenton all you want, but he and guys before him were more scramblers than runners) and his 1990 season was the benchmark against which all other QBs like him are judged to this day.

He definitely was everything people hoped Vick would have been. Better all around passing despite predating him by 15 years.Even compares favorably to Newton's MVP season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Malik said:

He definitely was everything people hoped Vick would have been. Better all around passing despite predating him by 15 years.Even compares favorably to Newton's MVP season

I was just looking at the team the Eagles had around him 1990. It's pretty amazing what he was able to accomplish that year, all things considered.

His top two WRs were both rookies. The team's top rusher behind Randall himself was some guy named Heath Sherman. Keith Byars led the team in receiving yards. His OL was nothing special at all. 

The defense was great against the run but only above average overall.

He got robbed of the MVP award that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Daimonas said:

I think they are both fun for different reasons. One being good doesn't mean the other has to be bad.

i agree. 

if its a close game, i am entertained.

but around wisconsin, a lot of people were calling this a boring game, and i disagree.

it was super intense 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Malfatron said:

Defensive games are fun to watch.

A 10-3 games is often better than a 42-35 game

only if they're actually moving the ball in that 10-3 game. Watching a bunch of drives that are between 3-6 plays is not fun and the vast majority of the time is more indicative of bad offense than great defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the defensive game when every yards is hard to win and things like that as it was the case in the Steelers vs. Ravens rivalry but games like the Packers vs Bears, it was mostly bad offense and they were too much rusty because they did not play in the preseason.

But I do not like games that defenses have no solution and it's too easy for the opposing offense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...