Modern quartrback comparisons & mashups ... Who ya got?

[kdnist]

Really? Why would you say this? I'm curious. The guy was an MVP candidate last year, is the youngest QB to ever throw for 5k yards and carries a sorry Lions franchise ... I always liked Romo and felt he was severely under-rated but I like Stafford as well.

However, I will say that if you'll notice, while I said Stafford is a mash-up of two very good to all-time great passers, I mashed him up with two guys who never won a ring as I don't think Stafford will ever win a ring ... unless he leaves the Lions.

The reason for my critique is that Stafford will lead the Lions nowhere. So he has 5000 passing yards. So what if he gets 8-10 wins a year. He is not good enough to lead them to a playoff win (which a lot of quarterbacks have to do no matter how good of a team he has around him). Regular season prowess does not mean he is in an upper tier. He will be a top 15-18 quarterback in the league. That's it. That to me is not good enough.

Not to mention he plays in a pass happy offense in a pass happy division in a pass happy league. QBs these days are just getting by with 4,000 yards. Its just the way the game is played now, and it certainly doesn't equate to winning.

[Jameis1of1]

The reason for my critique is that Stafford will lead the Lions nowhere. So he has 5000 passing yards. So what if he gets 8-10 wins a year. He is not good enough to lead them to a playoff win (which a lot of quarterbacks have to do no matter how good of a team he has around him). Regular season prowess does not mean he is in an upper tier. He will be a top 15-18 quarterback in the league. That's it. That to me is not good enough.

Um, he was an MVP candidate last year. Outside of Brady/Rodgers/Brees there is not a single QB who is "obviously better" than Stafford, not one. There are guys who some may prefer such as Luck, Roethlisberger, Jameis, Cam, etc., but none of those guys at this very time are "obviously better" than Matt imho.

Also ... TEAMS win games, not QB's. Dan Marino, Dan Fouts and Jim Kelly combined to win ZERO rings while guys like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and Jeff Hostetler all won one ... rings are team accomplishments, not individual accomplishments.

The above said, there is no way that Matt Ryan is as good a QB as Stafford is imho ... but he has all-world offensive weapons. Matt doesn't have that and probably never will as Detroit is an inept franchise.

Not to mention he plays in a pass happy offense in a pass happy division in a pass happy league. QBs these days are just getting by with 4,000 yards. Its just the way the game is played now, and it certainly doesn't equate to winning.

I agree but that sort of confirms what I said ... TEAMS not players win games and rings are team accomplishments not QB accomplishments.

[kdnist]

Um, he was an MVP candidate last year. Outside of Brady/Rodgers/Brees there is not a single QB who is "obviously better" than Stafford, not one. There are guys who some may prefer such as Luck, Roethlisberger, Jameis, Cam, etc., but none of those guys at this very time are "obviously better" than Matt imho.

Also ... TEAMS win games, not QB's. Dan Marino, Dan Fouts and Jim Kelly combined to win ZERO rings while guys like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and Jeff Hostetler all won one ... rings are team accomplishments, not individual accomplishments.

The above said, there is no way that Matt Ryan is as good a QB as Stafford is imho ... but he has all-world offensive weapons. Matt doesn't have that and probably never will as Detroit is an inept franchise.



I agree but that sort of confirms what I said ... TEAMS not players win games and rings are team accomplishments not QB accomplishments.

I don't think we are watching football the same way. With that logic we would put guys like Tony Romo ahead of some all time greats. A team will only go as far as its QB. Look what happens when guys like Peyton Manning go down and a 15 win team goes to a 2 win team. Look at teams like Houston that no matter who their QB is, they get to the wild card and cant get any further despite having a rock solid team on both sides of the ball. Great QBs change a team into a contender. Its a 53 man roster and a team win at the end of the day, but if you don't have a QB, you wont be getting too many team wins either.

[Jameis1of1]

I don't think we are watching football the same way.

We may not be as I'm not a fan of media-created narratives, basing an argument on emotions and the like. Teams, not individual players win titles, period.

It's simple math ... there are 22 starting offensive and defensive players on an NFL team ... the QB only plays offense and is just one of 11 guys on offense, so he's only about 4.5% responsible for his team's success or failure and that's without assigning any percent at all to coaching or special teams.

Now, I get that the QB handles the ball more than any other player but he doesn't block for himself or catch his own passes ... teams, not players win titles.

With that logic we would put guys like Tony Romo ahead of some all time greats.

Yes, Romo is definitely a better QB than many guys who won rings ... there is no debate about that.

A team will only go as far as its QB.

Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler and many others prove that is not true at all. As do all-time greats who never won a ring like Marino, Kelly, Moon, Tarkenton and others. You seem to be buying an absurd media narrative that is just pure insanity.

Look what happens when guys like Peyton Manning go down and a 15 win team goes to a 2 win team.

That Colts team tanked on purpose so they could draft Luck ... by the way Manning actually proves my point as when he was all-world he won just one ring ... yet when he was old, washed up and one of the worst QBs in the entire league according to QB rating he won his 2nd ring as his team and more specifically his defense carried him to the ring. If what you were saying was true Manning would have far more than 2 rings and certainly would not have won his last one in his 18th and final season as he was a shell of himself and a below average QB at that time.

Look at teams like Houston that no matter who their QB is, they get to the wild card and cant get any further despite having a rock solid team on both sides of the ball.

That helps my point as there were tons of teams that did NOT make the playoffs last year that had better QBs than the Texans had ... TEAMS not individual players win games.

Great QBs change a team into a contender.

No they don't ... great QBs change good teams into contenders and great teams into champions ... sometimes. This isn't even debatable man ... don't buy into the media's lazy narratives ... it's all fluff reporting.

Its a 53 man roster and a team win at the end of the day, but if you don't have a QB, you wont be getting too many team wins either.

Dilfer and many others would beg to differ ... teams not individual players win games, period.

[kdnist]

We may not be as I'm not a fan of media-created narratives, basing an argument on emotions and the like.


You seem to be buying an absurd media narrative that is just pure insanity.


... don't buy into the media's lazy narratives ... it's all fluff reporting.

You seem to imply that I am allowing the media to persuade my football judgment. Way off, and not really cool to make assumptions about people. I watch football with my own two eyes on Sunday.

You can tier your QBs however you like based off of what criteria you value but at the end of the day its all just an opinion. I buy what you are saying with great QBs who don't have rings, but those are guys named Marino, Moon, and Kelly. Romo and Stafford have been spinning their tires in the mud for a decade and have nothing but stats to show for it. Their playoff losses had alot to do with their individual decisions or inability to hold onto footballs in key moments. So I'm just gonna agree to disagree.

[Jameis1of1]

You seem to imply that I am allowing the media to persuade my football judgment.

Yes, I was implying that.

Way off, and not really cool to make assumptions about people. I watch football with my own two eyes on Sunday.

Nonsense ... no one, not even commentators who watch football for a living watch every QBs every game ... don't be silly.

You can tier your QBs however you like based off of what criteria you value but at the end of the day its all just an opinion.

True ... but ... like religions, not all opinions are equal.

I buy what you are saying with great QBs who don't have rings, but those are guys named Marino, Moon, and Kelly. Romo and Stafford have been spinning their tires in the mud for a decade and have nothing but stats to show for it. Their playoff losses had alot to do with their individual decisions or inability to hold onto footballs in key moments. So I'm just gonna agree to disagree.

Are you really trying to say that Romo and Stafford had SB worthy TEAMS during their careers? Come on man, be serious ...

[kdnist]

Yes, I was implying that.

True ... but ... like religions, not all opinions are equal.

Hey man thats all I have to read. Another self righteous soap box post of yours. You should keep some of your opinions to yourself.

[Jameis1of1]

Hey man thats all I have to read. Another self righteous soap box post of yours. You should keep some of your opinions to yourself.

You'd rather have me lie to you and pretend that wasn't what I was insinuating? You're mad because I told the truth? Really?

By the way "righteousness" has next to nothing to do with sports, so me considering my "opinion" to be more important than your opinion as I believe mine is based on facts and data rather than emotions or media narratives can't be "self-righteous" in any way, shape or form. It can be haughty, arrogant and wrong ... but not "self-righteous" as I willingly admit I could always be wrong on sports issues which is why I like to debate ... I'm just not pc and don't like to beat around the bush and pamper anyone I'm debating with.

So ... why not try to refute my statements instead of play the perecuted puppy and run away? Come on man ... debate is fun and of course opinions are involved ... don't be so touchy.

[kdnist]

You'd rather have me lie to you and pretend that wasn't what I was insinuating? You're mad because I told the truth? Really?

Why not try to refute my statements instead of play the perecuted puppy and run away? Come on man ... debate is fun and of course opinions are involved ... don't be so touchy.

Your version of the truth is anything that you say. Your replies often spiral so far out of control that it isn't worth responding anymore. Debate is fun until you leave the path and start talking about the person you are debating with instead of the topic at hand. I said agree to disagree 2 responses ago. Nobody is running, you are just mad at how stupid you look.

[Jameis1of1]

Your version of the truth is anything that you say.

The same could be said about everyone on earth when it comes to sports opinions ...

Your replies often spiral so far out of control that it isn't worth responding anymore.

Example?

Debate is fun until you leave the path and start talking about the person you are debating with instead of the topic at hand.

Don't be so touchy. What you were saying sounded exactly like the typical media narrative that equates team success with individual excellence and a lack of team success with a lack of individual excellence. If you simply happen to agree with the media narrative without having ever been influenced by said narrative, fine, but me basically saying you were parroting the media narrative was true and I wasn't insulting you in any way, just making a sincere observation and asking you to think outside the box as media narratives are often times lazy and nonsensical.

I said agree to disagree 2 responses ago.

What fun is that? I've never liked that expression.

Nobody is running,

Good, then don't be so touchy and answer my question about Stafford and Romo ... are you saying that both players had championship quality rosters at least once in the past and SHOULD already have a ring? If the answer is "no" on either guy, than your stance on the two of them seems to be biased, no?

you are just mad at how stupid you look.

Don't be silly. I stand by every sentence I've typed to date and while I may come off as arrogant at times, I never come off as "stupid" (as my arguments are never based on mere opinion but on common sense, logic, history and hard data) to anyone with even an iota of sense.

I'll ask you one more question and if you're not "running", answer it: If you recognize that counting rings is a lazy media narrative when comparing the individual excellence of individual players, why would you take a dig at a guy like Stafford who obviously has never had a championship quality roster to work with?

I am of the opinion that Michael Jordan and Tom Brady would still be Michael Jordan and Tom Brady even if they had zero rings combined because they were drafted by the Sacramento Kings and Cleveland Browns. I think it is idiotic to downgrade individual players simply because they had worse teammates than other players or to overrate other players simply because they had better teammates ... that is absurd to me and is lazy evaluating.

Was Joe Montana as an individual QB 4 rings better than Dan Marino? Of course not ... but he had the teammates and franchise to win 4 more rings.

Was Michael Jordan 5 rings worse as an individual player than Bill Russell? Absolutely not but he didn't have the same all-world and utterly dominant franchise that Russell had as a player.

I just detest lazy media narratives ...

Regardless, I apologize if you took my statement about media narratives as a personal insult as I didn't mean it that way ... I do think you were parroting such a narrative and still think you buy into such a narrative but that's not an insult ...