Instant Karma Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Outstanding 6th post. Look's like you will be a huge contributor on this site. Stock answer #147 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyzmul Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Brad Smith!! Thank you very much! Remember that name! I told you so! Brad Smith will never be the starter at QB for the Jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 You bring up one friggn' game 4 years ago? . You bring up friggn' games from 5, 3 & 2 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanTX Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 You bring up friggn' games from 5, 3 & 2 years ago? OK then, how did the Pats and Jets do in week 2 of this year? Or how did the Pats and Jets do last week? More current for you 124? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 I'll give you Namath, but the Jets weren't exactly a bunch of stiffs. Jaws? He made that team great? Give me a break. They had Carmichael and Wilbert Montgomery. Their big improvement came with Montgomery, not Jaws. The Cowboys, like the Steelers were a team of hall of famers. Staubach just orchestrated the super stars-stick him on the Saints and his career would have been half as long and he'd never have sniffed the playoffs. Jeter makes the guys around him better, but put him on the D-Rays, how many playoff games you think he'd have won? The Saints were an awful team with awful coaching. Archie never had a chance. So you are saying no player carried a team or even made a bad team better in that era? I tend to disagree. Archie was a fan favorite in the south because he was from there and a college hero down there. But as an NFL QB he sucked. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 So you are saying no player carried a team or even made a bad team better in that era? I tend to disagree. Archie was a fan favorite in the south because he was from there and a college hero down there. But as an NFL QB he sucked. Plain and simple. No, you're right. Some players carried teams and made bad teams better. In fact, looking at your examples I was surprised Jaworski was so good, because I remembered him as a statue with a cannon. Manning may well have sucked as a pro qb, the numbers say you're right. I believe he was a good player in a bad situation, but he never proved anything. What I was saying is that back then there were teams that had no chance. No matter what single player you put on that era Saints, they would suck. Put Staubach on the Saints and they still would have sucked. Before free agency, you were stuck with what you drafted and what you could drag off the waiver wire (Allen's 'skins). If you couldn't draft well, basically you were doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 No, you're right. Some players carried teams and made bad teams better. In fact, looking at your examples I was surprised Jaworski was so good, because I remembered him as a statue with a cannon. Manning may well have sucked as a pro qb, the numbers say you're right. I believe he was a good player in a bad situation, but he never proved anything. What I was saying is that back then there were teams that had no chance. No matter what single player you put on that era Saints, they would suck. Put Staubach on the Saints and they still would have sucked. Before free agency, you were stuck with what you drafted and what you could drag off the waiver wire (Allen's 'skins). If you couldn't draft well, basically you were doomed. I only know what I read about that era because I did not start watching football until 1981. That being said it is not fair to Staubach to say he would suck if he was on the Saints. Maybe the team record would still suck but idk about his stats or even vice versa. There were several ways to build a winning team back then too though. You brought up George Allen and that is a good one. He would always trade away his draft picks for a solid veteran and did pretty well with that philosophy. I look at it this way. Steve Deberg was horrible on the Bucs and when he went to the Chiefs he put up better stats but was still not a very good QB. Same can be said for Vinny T and many others. Were as the Broncos would have gone 4-12 without Elway. Those teams Elway lead to the Super Bowl were not very good at all and neither was the coaching. You can say that Archie was an average QB on a horrible team and prolly be right. I just wouldn't say he was a good one. Because even just a good one would have put up decent stats atleast one year. jmho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Never said Staubach would suck. I said the SAINTS would still suck. I would argue that Manning did have some good years, three straight years over 60% completion %, over 7 per attempt and over 3,000 yards. Top three in the league in passing yardage three times. That's just me, you can argue he sucked-threw a lot of picks. I remember watching football in the early-mid 70s, but I was very little, so sometimes my ideas of who was good or bad is twisted by a memory here or there or my dad bitching about somebody. My favorite non-Jets were Harold Jackson and Ken Burroughs #00. Nobody mentions them anymore, but they were awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetfan4hire Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Now? No. 2007? Maybe. Beyond that? Definitely. Branch was a good player. Is he worth 39 million and the first round pick Seattle is on the hook for? No. If him and Givens and Vinatieri and/or McGoo were resigned, who of the soon to be free agents would be gone due to cap reasons? I would prefer to have Graham over Branch anyday of the week. It would be nice to stockpile talent like the Steelers of the 70s, but that is not reality anymore. I prefer the Patriots method of not over paying good talent and staying coimpetitive year in and year out. It's not that they won't shell out big money for talent, it's that they only do it for the talent they know they have to hold on to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.