Jump to content

Is Randall Cunningham's 1990 season one of the most underrated QB seasons of all time?


Recommended Posts

On 2/12/2021 at 3:04 AM, VanS said:

Agreed.  He should have been in the Hall of Fame a long time ago.  Arguably the most talented QB in NFL history.

He had 4 or 5 good years that's really not enough for a QB to get in. At his peak he was elite but he didn't do it long enough. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SBLIII said:

He had 4 or 5 good years that's really not enough for a QB to get in. At his peak he was elite but he didn't do it long enough. 

Honestly would rather more guys like him in than dudes like Philip Rivers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 7:52 AM, CP3MVP said:

Why should he be in the HOF?

Cause when he played he was dominant.  His numbers were elite for his era.  And he should have had a couple of MVPs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 8:14 AM, SBLIII said:

He had 4 or 5 good years that's really not enough for a QB to get in. At his peak he was elite but he didn't do it long enough. 

Kurt Warner was also only good for a short period of time.  He was just fortunate enough to havea better supporting cast which won him a Super Bowl and a couple of MVPs.

I'd take Cunningham over Warner any day of the week. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warner won a Super Bowl and MVP because he stepped up in the playoffs whereas Cunningham did not. Warner is one of the few players whose postseason stats are better than his regular season.

And the supporting cast argument is dumb. Warner took Arizona, one of the most unsuccessful franchises in the league, to a Super Bowl with practically no run game and Ken freaking Whisenhunt as his coach whereas Cunningham didn't even reach a SB with Carter/Moss/Smith.

Edited by biggie.
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VanS said:

Kurt Warner was also only good for a short period of time.  He was just fortunate enough to havea better supporting cast which won him a Super Bowl and a couple of MVPs.

I'd take Cunningham over Warner any day of the week. 

Randall had the 98 Vikings offense and couldn’t get to the Super Bowl 

 

The offensive rosters are absolutely comparable 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CP3MVP said:

Randall had the 98 Vikings offense and couldn’t get to the Super Bowl 

The offensive rosters are absolutely comparable 

True.  But is it his fault his kicker missed a chip shot FG that would have iced the game?

That season proved that if you surrounded Randall with talent he can lead them to historical greatness.  Football is a team sport.  And I think its unfortunate that we neglect incredible talents like Randall Cunningham simply because he was not as fortunate in things he didn't have control over like other players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, VanS said:

True.  But is it his fault his kicker missed a chip shot FG that would have iced the game?

That season proved that if you surrounded Randall with talent he can lead them to historical greatness.  Football is a team sport.  And I think its unfortunate that we neglect incredible talents like Randall Cunningham simply because he was not as fortunate in things he didn't have control over like other players. 

It is partially his fault it had to come down to that. This was the highest scoring offense in NFL history at the time and he went against a pretty average Atlanta secondary, yet he had a hom hum at best performance: 29/48, 266 yards, 2 touchdowns, 2 lost fumbles. It's definitely a team sport, but Cunningham had a big part in the choke. Warner had a rough time in the following year's NFCC, but at least you can argue he was going against a top five defense that matched up perfectly with St. Louis. Plus, if it's a team sport, why are we knocking on Warner for having Bruce/Holt/Faulk?

I'm not going to deny Cunningham's talent and he was solid from 88-90. However, he missed too many games due to injuries and didn't have any "Hall of Fame moments" like Warner does. Taking Cunningham over Warner is dumb.

Edited by biggie.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2021 at 4:26 PM, BayRaider said:

1998 was his best year imo. Moss gets a ton of credit, but Cunningham was brilliant, and one of the few QBs who could take advantage of Moss’s skillset. ‘98 was Moss’s 2nd best season for a reason.

If anything, 1990 Warren Moon, is one of the most underrated seasons of all time, not 1990 Randall Cunningham. 

ad a Bronco fan...thank you to the Falcons that we didn't have to face that Cunningham led team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 10:09 AM, biggie. said:

It is partially his fault it had to come down to that. This was the highest scoring offense in NFL history at the time and he went against a pretty average Atlanta secondary, yet he had a hom hum at best performance: 29/48, 266 yards, 2 touchdowns, 2 lost fumbles. It's definitely a team sport, but Cunningham had a big part in the choke. Warner had a rough time in the following year's NFCC, but at least you can argue he was going against a top five defense that matched up perfectly with St. Louis. Plus, if it's a team sport, why are we knocking on Warner for having Bruce/Holt/Faulk?

I'm not going to deny Cunningham's talent and he was solid from 88-90. However, he missed too many games due to injuries and didn't have any "Hall of Fame moments" like Warner does. Taking Cunningham over Warner is dumb.

No player is perfect in every game.  Randall may not have been at his best in that game against Atlanta but he still put his team in position to win if not for the kicker choking.

I take Randall over Warner because I believe he's more talented.  I think if you put Prime Randall on the '99-'01 Rams he has more success than Warner.  Conversely I think if Prime Warner was on the 88-90 Eagles they have less success than they did with Randall.  Obviously there is no way to prove this thought experiment.  Its simply my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 4:29 PM, VanS said:

No player is perfect in every game.  Randall may not have been at his best in that game against Atlanta but he still put his team in position to win if not for the kicker choking.

I take Randall over Warner because I believe he's more talented.  I think if you put Prime Randall on the '99-'01 Rams he has more success than Warner.  Conversely I think if Prime Warner was on the 88-90 Eagles they have less success than they did with Randall.  Obviously there is no way to prove this thought experiment.  Its simply my opinion.

Then what you typed what was thoroughly pointless.

I used facts and statistics to back my argument that Warner was a straight up better quarterback, especially in games that matter which was an area Cunningham failed at numerous times even when armed with Cris Carter, Robert Smith and a motivated Randy Moss.

Edited by biggie.
Link to post
Share on other sites

1998 really was lightening in a bottle for Cunningham. The very next year he was eventually benched for Jeff George, because his play had dipped so low, and the offense wasn't popping. Yeah was 36, but the dropoff was so significant even with those weapons. 

Randall was good enough to get a team to the playoffs in some years, but he wasn't a one man army that could drag teams to the Super Bowl like John Elway could. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 8:14 AM, SBLIII said:

He had 4 or 5 good years that's really not enough for a QB to get in. At his peak he was elite but he didn't do it long enough. 

He was not GOOD for 4 or 5 years.

He was 2nd in MVP voting 3 times. The word you are looking for is FANTASTIC.

  • He was MVP in 1990 and Joe won a popularity contest.
  • He was a fair 2nd in 1988
  • He was the best QB in 1998 by a long way. TD 2K won the MVP and deserved it.
    • He missed the Super Bowl that year because his kicker shanked a gimme.

 

He was a better player than Jim Kelly, but Kelly was on a much better team in a much weaker conference.

From 1987-1990 he had more passing yards and TDs than Jim Kelly, and he also had 2692 yards and 18 rushing TDs at 6.9 per carry.

If Kelly is in the Hall then Cunningham belongs.

 

The man was a human highlight reel passing, running, and even punting. He was the Gayle Sayers of QBs.

He missed 31 games in his prime due to a pair of leg injuries and a strike. Accumulation stats should be viewed in that context.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another reference point.

Offensive Player of the Month awards started in 1986:

  • Tom Brady 11
  • Aaron Rodgers 8 (probably 9 when I see December 2020)
  • Peyton Manning - 8
  • Barry Sanders - 6
  • Steve Young - 6
  • Randall Cunningham - 5 
  • Emmitt Smith - 5
  • Marshall Faulk - 4
  • Donovan McNabb 4
  • Terrell Davis - 4
  • Philip Rivers - 4

I'm not saying Cunningham belongs with Montana, Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, or Unitas.

He definitely belongs with Kelly, Moon, Namath, Rivers, and Stabler.

He's a solid 2 feet (body parts, not measurement) over the line from HoVG to HoF

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
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...