1 Vs. 2 Vs. 3 Vs. 4

[Tour2ma]

List thoughts later...

@the-gipper said:

Uh Oh, sounds like a challenge. Lets do some comparison:

Archie Manning, drafted with #2 pick in 1971. Played 14 seasons:

139 games started

2014 of 3642 for a 55.2 career completion pct.

23,911 yards

125 TD passes

3.4% TD pass %

Terry Bradshaw, drafted with #1 pick of 1970. Played 14 seasons:

158 games started

2025 of 3901 for a 51.9% career completion pct.

212 TD passes

5.4% TD pass %

So, what did Bradshaw have that Archie didn't have? Two Hall of Fame receivers, a Hall of Fame running back, a Hall of Fame center, a Hall of Fame defense. A Hall of Fame Coach.

Had Archie been with the Steelers and Bradshaw with the Saints I think that the Steelers would have even been better.

The Killer for Archie was his teams record, which was quite poor.

Accidentally missed a few key stats?

Bradshaw 27,989 yds INT 210

Manning INT 173

May be a chicken/ egg thing depending upon your inclination toward Archie, but...

Easy to argue Archie's 0.72 TD:INT ratio contributed a great deal to "his team's record". Archie had to throw to be sure, but that explains his amassed yardage.

While Bradshaw's 1.01 ratio ain't much to brag about, his first four years were a dismal 0.56. Sometimes totals don't tell the entire story.

Gotta go with Z on this one...

[The Gipper]

@tour2ma said:

List thoughts later...

Accidentally missed a few key stats?

Bradshaw 27,989 yds INT 210 Actually I wrote these down but forgot to post them

Manning INT 173 I didn't put down Ints. for either

May be a chicken/ egg thing depending upon your inclination toward Archie, but...

Well, I don't know if you were around watching football in that era, but I was, and everyone, announcers, pundits, other coaches and players sang the praises of Archie Manning but bemoaned the fact that he was literally a one man show for the Saints. I am simply suggesting that if the opposite had happened, if Manning had gone to the Steelers and Bradshaw to the Saints then Manning, not Bradshaw would have gotten the rings and the yellow jacket. TB would have been considered very good QB, like Archie is, but not a HOFer..

Easy to argue Archie's 0.72 TD:INT ratio contributed a great deal to "his team's record". Archie had to throw to be sure, but that explains his amassed yardage.

While Bradshaw's 1.01 ratio ain't much to brag about, his first four years were a dismal 0.56. Sometimes totals don't tell the entire story.

Gotta go with Z on this one...

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

The killer for Archie Mannng was that he did nothing that was Hall of Fame worthy. Nothing. 125 TDs to 173 Ints and never helped raise his team to one single winning season.

It's not the Hall Of Average Guys Who Play A Long Time For Bad Teams.

Zombo

And all I am saying is that if Archie were drafted by the Steelers and Bradshaw by the Saints you may have simply been able to replace Manning's name for Bradshaw in your above statement.

[Kerrigan91]

Zombo said:

--I hate Bradshaw, so quit making me defend him with this ridiculous assumption about Manning.

Want me to make you defend Flacco?

[Kerrigan91]

Zombo said:

I am incapable of defending Flacco. I hope the Ravens sign him to a long term deal.

Z

You and me both. Flacco to the Ratbirds is like Romo to the Cowboys. Good enough to give them a decent regular season, yet crumbles in the postseason (well, for Romo it's December and January).

[BadNewsBrowns]

To play Devil's Advocate here if McCoy were to orchestrate a 91 yard last minute drive to beat the Steelers I think we'd be crowning him.

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

You are making a QUANTUM leap to say that Manning would have just effectively won all of those games with the Steelers. The thing with Bradshaw is the post-season. The four seasons they won the Super Bowl, he was 12-0 in the post-season and won two Super bowl MVPs. That's what gets you in the Hall of Fame. Manning had like 3 decent years, that's not enough to say that had he been drafted by Pittsburgh they would have still won 4 Super bowls and he would be in the Hall of Fame.

People like to tear down Bradshaw because of his overall stats, but the name of the game is winning. And if you have 4 rings and two SB MVPs you can't just say that's interchangeable and that any average Joe would have done the same thing. It's a ridiculous argument. You are pretty much saying that any halfway decent QB that would have gotten drafted by the Steelers would be a HOFer. Every single game would have been played differently and you have no idea how it would have ended up. Winning is greatness. Quarterbacking four teams to SBs is greatness. Bradshaw wasn't just along for the ride, he was the catalyst on the second set of SBs.

Zombo

--I hate Bradshaw, so quit making me defend him with this ridiculous assumption about Manning.

All I am saying is that in the 1970s if you took a poll of NFL players and coaches and GMs and sports commentators etc. they nearly unanimously would have had Archie Manning among the Top 5 QBs in the game.

Are you of the opinion that you cannot have a top flight QB on a crappy team?

Maybe today the QB gets more credit or has more responsibility for the outcome of his team, but back then it was not thought so. The best QBs barely had over a 50% completion rate. Staubach has the highest career passer rating of any QB of that era, and he only ranks 31st all time. Bradshaw and Manning's passer ratings were very close....and terrible by today's standards. Bradshaw was 70.9 and Archie 67.1.

[Kerrigan91]

Zombo said:

I have more respect for Romo than Flacco. At least Romo is a playmaker. You get the feeling we've already seen the best Unibrow has to offer.

Z

Fair enough. Romo may be a playmaker, but his record come December and January is abysmal. It's like clockwork. As long as Skeletor (Jerruh Jones) continues to be the owner/GM, I'm a happy camper. Because there's no way he's going to do anything for the Pukes. He's riding the coattails of Jimmy Johnson's rings.

[The Gipper]

Try this exercise. Here is a list in alphabetical order of what I have discerned to be the QBs who played most of their careers in the 1970s. Rank who you think is the Top 5 of that era:

Ken Anderson

Bob Avellini

Bob Berry

Terry Bradshaw

Steve DeBerg

Lynn Dickey

Joe Ferguson

Steve Fuller

Roman Gabriel

Bob Griese

Steve Grogan

James Harris

Jim Hart

Ron Jaworski

Bert Jones

Bill Kilmer

Greg Landry

Archie Manning

Craig Morton

Bill Munson

Joe Namath

Dan Pastorini

Mike Phipps

Jim Plunkett

Brian Sipe

Ken Stabler

Roger Staubach

Fran Tarkenton

Jim Zorn

Let me know if you think I missed someone.

[hoorta]

As the head Bungle basher- I'll disagree on one point- if you're going to call Braylon Edwards a bust- put Peter Warrick in the same category. I expect more than three semi-decent seasons from a #4 overall pick wr. I suppose in his defense for a few years he had Akilli Smith tossing him uncatchable worm-burners.

[choco]

@badnewsbrowns said:

To play Devil's Advocate here if McCoy were to orchestrate a 91 yard last minute drive to beat the Steelers I think we'd be crowning him.

no we wouldn't. quinn beat the steelers....

actually, david bowens beat the steelers. we ran him out on a rail.

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

First of all, you have to remember, that Bradshaw was Horrible his first five years. That plays into the stats, but not the Hall criteria. He is in the Hall for 75 - 80.

Secondly ... top five QBs in the game? Who are you polling? Stop me when I get to Manning: Tarkenton, Staubach, Griese, Stabler, Bradshaw, Dawson, Brody, Fouts, Hart, Anderson, Kilmer, Gabriel, Jones, Sipe ... I will give you #15, only by recognizing that guys like Unitas, Jurgenson, and Jaworski only had a couple better years in the 70's, wheras as the rest of these guys all had at least three very good years in the 70's ... which is more than Manning.

Zombo

--He was better than Mike Phipps and Bobby Douglas though ... without a doubt.

Dawson and Brodie played mostly in the 60s. Fouts in the 80s

[The Gipper]

@the-gipper said:

Try this exercise. Here is a list in alphabetical order of what I have discerned to be the QBs who played most of their careers in the 1970s. Rank who you think is the Top 5 of that era:

Ken Anderson

Bob Avellini

Bob Berry

Terry Bradshaw

Steve DeBerg

Lynn Dickey

Joe Ferguson

Steve Fuller

Roman Gabriel

Bob Griese

Steve Grogan

James Harris

Jim Hart

Ron Jaworski

Bert Jones

Bill Kilmer

Greg Landry

Archie Manning

Craig Morton

Bill Munson

Joe Namath

Dan Pastorini

Mike Phipps

Jim Plunkett

Brian Sipe

Ken Stabler

Roger Staubach

Fran Tarkenton

Jim Zorn

Let me know if you think I missed someone.

If you think about it, only the 5 guys I have highlighted have made the HOF. So in another thread I will explore the fact that only about 5 QBs per decade become HOFers.

[Tour2ma]

@the-gipper said:

I didn't put down Ints. for either

You should have... INT's are kinda important...

Well, I don't know if you were around watching football in that era, but I was, and everyone, announcers, pundits, other coaches and players sang the praises of Archie Manning but bemoaned the fact that he was literally a one man show for the Saints. I am simply suggesting that if the opposite had happened, if Manning had gone to the Steelers and Bradshaw to the Saints then Manning, not Bradshaw would have gotten the rings and the yellow jacket. TB would have been considered very good QB, like Archie is, but not a HOFer..

Well, I turn 60 this year if that helps you any...

I remember Manning being more likeable than great. I think many pundits of the day simply felt sorry for him. Many bemoaned the fact that we'd never know how great he could have been and that as hard as he played without complaining he deserved the chance.

@kerrigan91 said:

Want me to make you defend Flacco?

LOL...

@the-gipper said:

Try this exercise. Here is a list in alphabetical order of what I have discerned to be the QBs who played most of their careers in the 1970s. Rank who you think is the Top 5 of that era:

I eliminated some and then grouped the remainder into tiers...

1. Terry Bradshaw - Bob Griese - Joe Namath - Jim Plunkett - Ken Stabler - Roger Staubach - Fran Tarkenton

2. Ken Anderson - Bill Kilmer - Brian Sipe

3. Joe Ferguson - Ron Jaworski - Archie Manning - Craig Morton - Dan Pastorini - Jim Zorn

Let me know if you think I missed someone.

Not really a miss, but there's one who could have been atop the list, but for a 1969 injury... Greg Cook.

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

I know. But they still had more better years in the 70's than Manning.

Zombo

Did they, or did their teams?

Brodie played 17 years, only 4 of those in the 70s. Here are his 70s numbers:

1970*+ 35 SFO QB 12 14 14 10-3-1 223 378 59.0 2941 24

1971 36 SFO QB 12 14 14 9-5-0 208 387 53.7 2642 18

1972 37 SFO qb 12 6 5 2-3-0 70 110 63.6 905 9 8.2 8

1973 38 SFO QB 12 14 6 2-4-0 98 194 50.5 1126 3

Dawson played 19 seasons. Here are his 70s numbers:

1970 35 KAN QB 16 14 12 5-5-2 141 262 53.8 1876 13

1971* 36 KAN QB 16 14 13 9-3-1 167 301 55.5 2504 15

1972 37 KAN QB 16 14 12 7-5-0 175 305 57.4 1835 13

1973 38 KAN qb 16 8 6 3-2-1 66 101 65.3 725 2

1974 39 KAN QB 16 14 8 3-5-0 138 235 58.7 1573 7

1975 40 KAN qb 16 12 5 1-4-0 93 140 66.4 1095 5

Brodie and Dawson were drafted in 1957. Archie Manning not until 1971.

Here are Manning numbers in the 70s:

1971 22 NOR QB 8 12 10 3-5-2 86 177 48.6 1164 6 3.4 9 5.1 63 6.6 5.0 13.5 97.0 60.1 40 332 3.8 2.5 18.4 2 1 7

1972 23 NOR QB 8 14 14 2-11-1 230 448 51.3 2781 18 4.0 21 4.7 66 6.2 4.9 12.1 198.6 64.6 43 347 5.0 3.8 8.8 1 1 11

1973 24 NOR QB 8 13 13 5-8-0 140 267 52.4 1642 10 3.7 12 4.5 65 6.1 4.9 11.7 126.3 65.2 28 177 5.0 3.8 9.5 1 1 7

1974 25 NOR QB 8 11 11 3-8-0 134 261 51.3 1429 6 2.3 16 6.1 79 5.5 3.2 10.7 129.9 49.8 26 172 4.4 2.3 9.1 2 2 4

1975 26 NOR QB 8 13 13 2-11-0 159 338 47.0 1683 7 2.1 20 5.9 71 5.0 2.7 10.6 129.5 44.3 49 390 3.3 1.4 12.7 1 1 3

1977 28 NOR QB 8 10 9 1-8-0 113 205 55.1 1284 8 3.9 9 4.4 59 6.3 5.1 11.4 128.4 68.8 36 288 4.1 3.1 14.9 1 1 9

1978* 29 NOR QB 8 16 16 7-9-0 291 471 61.8 3416 17 3.6 16 3.4 71 7.3 6.4 11.7 213.5 81.7 37 301 6.1 5.4 7.3 2 4 14

1979* 30 NOR QB 8 16 16 8-8-0 252 420 60.0 3169 15 3.6 20 4.8 85 7.5 6.1 12.6 198.1 75.6 17 140 6.9

[The Gipper]

Here is what I think is a valid point elicited from the comparisons of the players take in these various rounds:

The "Draft Value Chart" that was posted on here says that the #1 overall pick is assessed a point value of 3000 points, the #2 a point value of 2600 points while the #4 overall pick is assessed a point value of 1800 points, so that moving up from #4 to #2 should cost you draft picks that total about 800 points....or, in essence, point wise the #4 and the #22 overall.

Except, based on the list...you are almost as likely to draft a Hall of Fame player at #4 as you are at #1, and more likely than you are at #2....and, it seems to me based on history, you are far less likely to draft a bust player at #4 than at either #1, #2 or #3.

So, it could be argued that having the #4 is as good or better historically as having #1,2 or 3.

Fair to say?

[The Gipper]

@hoorta said:

As the head Bungle basher- I'll disagree on one point- if you're going to call Braylon Edwards a bust- put Peter Warrick in the same category. I expect more than three semi-decent seasons from a #4 overall pick wr. I suppose in his defense for a few years he had Akilli Smith tossing him uncatchable worm-burners.

OK, consider it done. Warrick was a bust. You know his career better than I so I will take your word.

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

OK, when he was in his "prime" he was better than Dawson and Brody when they were 38. Still doesn't put him in the top 10 of the decade, let alone top 5.

Zombo

I guess you have to put him after the Hall of Famers. Lets put this concept this way:

What if the Steelers had taken Mike Phipps #1 overall in 1970 (there was speculation that would happen) and the Browns had taken Bradshaw instead at the #3 spot. Do you think the fortunes of the 2 teams would have been reversed over the next 10 years?

[MLD Woody]

Small sample size + every other surrounding circumstance = no real info gained

[miktoxic]

@the-gipper said:

So, what did Manning have that McCoy didn't have? Two Hall of Fame receivers, a Hall of Fame running back, a Hall of Fame center, a Hall of Fame defense. A Hall of Fame Coach.

Had McCoy been with the Giants and Manning with the Browns I think that the Giants would have been better.

The Killer for McCoy was his teams record, which was quite poor.