The 10 worst starting qbs to win a super bowl

Originally posted by elguapo:
That's what i do. I aim to please

Maybe I should argue how great Alex smith was bc of his win loss record the last few years even though it was all the defense and gore. Ignorance is bliss.

I actually think Smith is better now as a Chief than ever was as a Niner despite never clinching a division in the AFC West.

And based on pure QB mechanics, short and intermediate anticipation throws, reading defenses, etc. I give Smith the edge over Wilson. Wilson has an edge with his jump ball, ability to buy time and make a few more big plays, and is as good or better runner, but that's it. It translates better with an amazing defense, but as a mover of the football, I don't think Wilson is all that.

If KC's defense was as dominant as Seattle's, I'd be very tempted to put money on a KC Lombardi this year.

But because they're not, I won't.

BTW, I thought elguapo was maybe talking up the "Bevell scheming receivers open" a bit, but watching the Cards game, every single receiver was wide open early on. Holy s****.

Hiring Bevell as Head Coach wouldn't necessarily solve the 49er problems, but it would certainly tank the Hawks if they couldn't find as good an OC.

They whine about him up there, and feel Wilson is succeeding in spite of him, and I find it the other way around.

And that run block OL is maybe 2012 49ers good.

Originally posted by Janitor:

Originally posted by elguapo:

True but it's still undeniable that Namath had so so many lackluster years. And I was mentioning bradshaws int to td ratio bc it was so poor for back then. Having such easy passes off play action and a great ol and two hall of fame wrs and a hall of famer at rb? Any qb could succeed and do well on that team.

LOL you just admitted to making the list.....

So you wrote an article then used it as a means to prove yourself right....yikes dude....

I think you need to go back to school for reading comprehension. I would never write an article. So you are wrong. Nice try though

Originally posted by cortez96:

Originally posted by Janitor:

Originally posted by elguapo:

True but it's still undeniable that Namath had so so many lackluster years. And I was mentioning bradshaws int to td ratio bc it was so poor for back then. Having such easy passes off play action and a great ol and two hall of fame wrs and a hall of famer at rb? Any qb could succeed and do well on that team.

LOL you just admitted to making the list.....

So you wrote an article then used it as a means to prove yourself right....yikes dude....

Unreal.

It's unreal how you try to prove a point when you're the biggest troll. Janitor was wrong, I wouldn't even have the time to write an article let alone want to go through the process on a web site. So you are gullible which is hilarious I would say it's unreal but I know who you are and how you post and you're a troll so it's very real

What a troll. Haha. Do you believe everything other people post. Janitor was wrong so waiting for him to own up on that ridiculously funny comment and you to admit you are so sick of being a hater troll on this site you will agree with anything to try to make a moronic point.

Originally posted by elguapo:
What a troll. Haha. Do you believe everything other people post. Janitor was wrong so waiting for him to own up on that ridiculously funny comment and you to admit you are so sick of being a hater troll on this site you will agree with anything to try to make a moronic point.

Dude, when someone disagreed with the article you responded this...

"And I was mentioning bradshaws int to td ratio bc it was so poor for back then"

Face it, you got busted on this one.

Originally posted by Janitor:
Dude, when someone disagreed with the article you responded this...

"And I was mentioning bradshaws int to td ratio bc it was so poor for back then"

Face it, you got busted on this one.

For anybody who might be interested in what sort of TD/Int ratios were being posted "back then" I have looked up a few HOF QB's. Some of these QB's don't match up exactly on the same era, but they all played the game under what were basically the same set of rules as it applied to QBs and receivers.
Unitas: 290/253
Blanda: 236/277
Staubach: 153/109
Namath: 173/220
Tarkenton: 342/266
Dawson: 239/183
Bradshaw: 212/210
Greise: 192/172
Fouts: 254/242

So you can see, that by today's standards Bradshaw might not look impressive, but to say his TD/int ratio were out of line with what the best in the game were doing at the time shows either a limited understanding of the game as it was played "back then" or a blind faith that people don't have access to google or the knowledge of how to use it.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Answers.com.

This

Originally posted by elguapo:
What a troll. Haha. Do you believe everything other people post. Janitor was wrong so waiting for him to own up on that ridiculously funny comment and you to admit you are so sick of being a hater troll on this site you will agree with anything to try to make a moronic point.

Your a funny guy Earnest.
I don't hate anyone......even you.
I respect other peoples opinions whether I agree or not.
You post like its fact and shoot down or try to belittle anyone who disagrees with you.
Who's the troll.

Originally posted by Janitor:

Dude, when someone disagreed with the article you responded this...

"And I was mentioning bradshaws int to td ratio bc it was so poor for back then"

Face it, you got busted on this one.

Hope you're not serious. Just in denial I guess. I was mentioning that I mentioned bradshaws td to int ratio in my post. Dam. Seriously, can't believe you assumed that. Just man up and admit you're wrong.

Originally posted by cortez96:

Your a funny guy Earnest.
I don't hate anyone......even you.
I respect other peoples opinions whether I agree or not.
You post like its fact and shoot down or try to belittle anyone who disagrees with you.
Who's the troll.

You are the biggest troll on the site. So keep on trolling buddy. You will get banned soon.

Originally posted by Canfan:

For anybody who might be interested in what sort of TD/Int ratios were being posted "back then" I have looked up a few HOF QB's. Some of these QB's don't match up exactly on the same era, but they all played the game under what were basically the same set of rules as it applied to QBs and receivers.
Unitas: 290/253
Blanda: 236/277
Staubach: 153/109
Namath: 173/220
Tarkenton: 342/266
Dawson: 239/183
Bradshaw: 212/210
Greise: 192/172
Fouts: 254/242

So you can see, that by today's standards Bradshaw might not look impressive, but to say his TD/int ratio were out of line with what the best in the game were doing at the time shows either a limited understanding of the game as it was played "back then" or a blind faith that people don't have access to google or the knowledge of how to use it.

Look at all those other qbs that had WAY LESS HELP THAN BRADSHAW having WAY BETTER NUMBERS. thanks for proving my point. Haha. Boy did that backfire.

You do realize Bradshaw had a HOF RB 2 WRS A CENTER and so on and NO OTHER QB had that much help not to mention the BEST D of all time to help him immensely. Wow. Thanks for posting that. Sweet.

Originally posted by boast:
i heard Baalke is using Answers.com to find out next HC. Jed is writing the article.

That would actually help seeing his last hire. And it seems that website has a lot more knowledge than some of the fans around here and also our owner

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by Janitor:
Dude, when someone disagreed with the article you responded this...

"And I was mentioning bradshaws int to td ratio bc it was so poor for back then"

Face it, you got busted on this one.

Hope you're not serious. Just in denial I guess. I was mentioning that I mentioned bradshaws td to int ratio in my post. Dam. Seriously, can't believe you assumed that. Just man up and admit you're wrong.

I went back and checked all of your posts in this thread...you never mentioned Bradshaws int to td ratio.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Look at all those other qbs that had WAY LESS HELP THAN BRADSHAW having WAY BETTER NUMBERS. thanks for proving my point. Haha. Boy did that backfire.

You do realize Bradshaw had a HOF RB 2 WRS A CENTER and so on and NO OTHER QB had that much help not to mention the BEST D of all time to help him immensely. Wow. Thanks for posting that. Sweet.

No problem. I'm a great believer in facts. See the numbers? That indicates data and therefore verifiable facts that other can independently find and confirm. See your response. That includes things like WAY WORSE and WAY BETTER. Those are opinions. Simply putting them in all caps only tells us they are strongly held opinions. It does not make them facts. Now take this message to somebody with reading comprehension and have him or her explain the difference to you. I'd like to say I'll wait, but I somehow doubt I have enough time left on this earth for you to understand the difference.