The 10 worst starting qbs to win a super bowl

Originally posted by elguapo:

And it seems that website has a lot more knowledge than some of the fans around here

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is known as unintentional irony!

Originally posted by BobS:

Obviously written by someone who doesn't understand how the game has changed and is just looking at stats like all those QBs competed today. Mentioning Bradshaw's TD-INT ratio was the dead give away. Nammath had a 4,000 yard season and two 3,000 yard ones when they played 14 games and most QBs didn't even break 2,000 yards. His YPA would have held up 40 years later. His glory years were shortened by bad knees he had coming out of college.

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.

There is my mention of it and my explanation of how poor it was regardless of the time period, accurate is accurate. Sorry but it is what it is. Stop making excuses. I have also mentioned bradshaws overrated play in the Seattle thread comparing qbs that are overrated due to their defense and or running game doing all the work.

Throne of lies......better do a little more reading

Unitas: 290/253
Staubach: 153/109
Namath: 173/220
Tarkenton: 342/266
Dawson: 239/183
Bradshaw: 212/210
Greise: 192/172
Fouts: 254/242

All these qbs did just as good or better than Bradshaw without even close the degree hof help that Bradshaw had. Fact or strongly held opinion? I left Namath on there to show how average he was for much of his career just to prove a point that he was not even a top 20 qb either. Not even close. Era or not you have to be accurate and throw it to the right team. Dam. Other qbs did it in that era like you listed and contradicted yourself and your support for Bradshaw while questioning Rogers and went so far as to question Montana to make a useless and pathetic attempt to prove your point which was so easily refuted.

Obviously canfan you need to put down the pipe. You mentioned Bradshaw was in line performance wise to many other qbs that DIDNT HAVE 2 hof wrs 1 hof rb 1 hof center and the BEST defense of all time. You are wrong. He was not that good of a qb at all. Maybe top 20 at best.

Now should I capitalize that for you bc you don't understand the difference between FACTS AND STRONGLY HELD OPINIONS. are you sure you were around or even watched a Pitt game in the 1970s bc if you did like you claim, you are very wrong to say Bradshaw was great or even very good.

Is this true:
He had 2 hof wrs?
A hof rb?
A hof center (maybe best ever) and a great ol?
The best defense of all time?

Again I hope you can understand this lesson bc its very elementary and simple. I really think you have trouble grasping facts and you obviously don't understand what makes a player good or bad or even average. You can't differentiate how much or how little a player contributed to a team within reason. Sorry. But trying to explain this to you requires you being able to understand simple concepts which I fear you cannot and probably will never be able to do. Sorry.

Somehow Eli Manning won 2 Superbowls,that dude is retarded.

I agree. But his defensive line deserves 90% of the credit not Eli. Eli did well in the playoffs but that defense made Brady look bad not once but twice.

New England had one of the best offenses in history 16-0 and the Giants defense held them to what???? 14 points. Nothing. That's all defense right? Amazing accomplishment with moss and welker and company with that great ol and one of the top 3 qbs all time. All credit goes to the d

Originally posted by elguapo:
Unitas: 290/253
Staubach: 153/109
Namath: 173/220
Tarkenton: 342/266
Dawson: 239/183
Bradshaw: 212/210
Greise: 192/172
Fouts: 254/242

All these qbs did just as good or better than Bradshaw without even close the degree hof help that Bradshaw had. Fact or strongly held opinion? I left Namath on there to show how average he was for much of his career just to prove a point that he was not even a top 20 qb either. Not even close. Era or not you have to be accurate and throw it to the right team. Dam. Other qbs did it in that era like you listed and contradicted yourself and your support for Bradshaw while questioning Rogers and went so far as to question Montana to make a useless and pathetic attempt to prove your point which was so easily refuted.

Obviously canfan you need to put down the pipe. You mentioned Bradshaw was in line performance wise to many other qbs that DIDNT HAVE 2 hof wrs 1 hof rb 1 hof center and the BEST defense of all time. You are wrong. He was not that good of a qb at all. Maybe top 20 at best.

Now should I capitalize that for you bc you don't understand the difference between FACTS AND STRONGLY HELD OPINIONS. are you sure you were around or even watched a Pitt game in the 1970s bc if you did like you claim, you are very wrong to say Bradshaw was great or even very good.

Is this true:
He had 2 hof wrs?
A hof rb?
A hof center (maybe best ever) and a great ol?
The best defense of all time?

Again I hope you can understand this lesson bc its very elementary and simple. I really think you have trouble grasping facts and you obviously don't understand what makes a player good or bad or even average. You can't differentiate how much or how little a player contributed to a team within reason. Sorry. But trying to explain this to you requires you being able to understand simple concepts which I fear you cannot and probably will never be able to do. Sorry.

My goodness, you certainly like to deflect and change the subject don't you? Let me aid your faltering attention span. This conversation started when I noticed you said Bradshaw had a TD/Int ratio that was "so poor for back then". That made me wonder what the TD/Int ratio really was in the 70's, so I looked it up (try it some time - the truth will set you free they say). I found that what you stated as fact was very far from what the statistics bore out and that Bradshaw's numbers were well within the norm for the times he played in. Any normal person would have either ignored my post our of embarrassment over being so factually incorrect or came back with something along the lines of "well maybe his TD/Int ratio was consistent with his era, but I think he benefited from a great defense." Now you are switching into OPINION, and I would have no argument with you over that because everybody is entitled to their opinion. I don't agree with that opinion, but it is yours. Opinions are formed by people's background, biases and experiences, so it can't be shifted by argument and I generally don't bother trying.

Instead you doubled down with another dump truck load of verbal diarrhea and tried to dress it up as "fact" again. At this point, I keep thinking about something I heard Chuck Knox say one time "Stubbornness is only a virtue if you are correct. If you are stubborn but consistently wrong, it's just another character flaw" You keep trying to deflect the conversation back to whether or not Bradshaw is less than average, average or whatever other meaningless label you are trying to attach to him. This conversation is not about Bradshaw, Montana, Staubach, or whatever other dust cloud you are trying to put up to change the argument. This is about you and your inability to stop making up your own facts to fit your preconceived ideas about how the rest of the world should view football. You say I support Bradshaw and question Staubach and Montana. Anybody who has read our exchanges and has a grasp of the English language knows that is another one of your "fun facts". What I was doing was pointing out that if I applied your ludicrous criteria about what constitutes an "elite" QB, neither one of these obviously talented QB's would make your cut. If you truly missed that was the point I was making, I can only repeat my plea from the last post to seek help from somebody with reading comprehension skills. I think all of these Qb's were amazing talents who helped shape the league we enjoy today and that is why they are all in the Hall of Fame today. As for you, well lets just say I don't think you will be up for the "Hall of Fame for Accurate Facts" anytime soon. But hey, I could be wrong. After all, that's only my opinion

PS: and you cut and pasted the list I made earlier and then acted like it was your own. Really? You think nobody reading this has the ability to use that "previous page" button?

why are people still talking about his made up article lol

Canfan did not read lol. I know the smoke is good up there so I will leave it at that.

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

why are people still talking about his made up article lol

Yeah I made that article just like the Niners are going to the Super Bowl this year ha ha Ha

Don't be so involved in your thread. And you did forget plunkett.

It's obvious Guapo got pwned silly in this thread. Lolz.

Originally posted by elguapo:
Canfan did not read lol. I know the smoke is good up there so I will leave it at that.

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:
why are people still talking about his made up article lol

Yeah I made that article just like the Niners are going to the Super Bowl this year ha ha Ha

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

It's obvious Guapo got pwned silly in this thread. Lolz.

Sure I did just like those people in those insane asylums did say they are right or they are sane. Ha ha. Just some people can't except the fact that some quarterbacks do little to nothing and their historically elite defenses do all or most all of the work in the Playoffs. Man I guess jimmy Mac and Brad Johnson and Trent dilfer and hell Alex smith won a s**t load of games. Rightttttttttttt.

Originally posted by Canfan:

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.

Great post.

This is why it's excruciatingly painful to see things like "Russell Wilson has a top 5 all-time QB rating" (I think he's at #2 or #1). That's true, but he started his career in an era when passing was at an all-time high.

That's like the equivalent of saying, "John Doe has the highest starting salary of a graduate coming out of college in the history of accounting." Well no kidding, there's this thing called "inflation" -- you compare someone's salary today to someone's from the past and of course it's going to look better. That's basically the equivalent of passing stats in the NFL -- they are inflated because the league coddles QBs more than ever.

When Kaepernick was still relevant, there were infographics popping up comparing his numbers to the beginning of Steve Young's career. Again, a ridiculous argument, becuase what Young was doing was comparatively way better than the rest of the league. Not the case with Kaepernick.