The Dodger

[kartr]

From today's cnnsi slideshow

Great picture. He's what started me believing in mobile qbs. Quite a contrast from Drew the statue.

 

[Hostile]

Great picture. He's what started me believing in mobile qbs. Quite a contrast from Drew the statue.

Now if you could just get past believing in erratic passers.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

He is,IMO, the finest QB I've ever seen play.

Many may disagree. There is room for that. However, I have only witnessed two QBs, personally, who made me believe that the game was never over so long as they were on the field. This man and Montana. IMO, Staubach was superior to Montana in every way, if only by a bit. Montana had the benifit of playing in an era of open offense. In Staubach's day, it was much different. I sometimes wonder what he could have done if he played 10 years later.

 

[kartr]

Now if you could just get past believing in erratic passers.

Being in just your third year in the NFL and having just 15 starts before the season began is perfectly consistent with erratic passing. It's about par for the course for most qb's, a rite of passage if you will. But being in your 13th year in the NFL and still holding the ball too long because you struggle with your reads is not par for the course, unless you're a journeyman,despite lots of yardage and td's. The bottom line in qbing is wins vs losses and if you're winning only around 50%, you still qualify as a journeyman, if you've been in the league 13 years. If your won-loss percentage is around 50% and you only have 30 or so starts, you're a developing qb, not a journeyman. Big difference.

 

[kartr]

He is,IMO, the finest QB I've ever seen play.

Many may disagree. There is room for that. However, I have only witnessed two QBs, personally, who made me believe that the game was never over so long as they were on the field. This man and Montana. IMO, Staubach was superior to Montana in every way, if only by a bit. Montana had the benifit of playing in an era of open offense. In Staubach's day, it was much different. I sometimes wonder what he could have done if he played 10 years later.

I agree, I always felt he gave us a chance to win, no matter the situation.

 

[burmafrd]

I have to give the edge to Montana for his time due to the era he played in- post 78 after the big changes in rules. Pre 78 its clearly Roger. That is how I would rank QB's of all time- post and pre 78. The rule changes just opened everything up tremendously. Either one would get you there in the last minute if it was at all possible.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have to give the edge to Montana for his time due to the era he played in- post 78 after the big changes in rules. Pre 78 its clearly Roger. That is how I would rank QB's of all time- post and pre 78. The rule changes just opened everything up tremendously. Either one would get you there in the last minute if it was at all possible.

It's an interesting discussion. You don't hear it very often but you look at the two and they were very simular. Montana was about 6-2, 200lbs, Roger was about 6-3, 200 lbs. Both were mobile, both had decent arms but not overpowering. Both were very accurate. Both were exceptional leaders. Both had exceptional game knowledge. They just saw things. However, I would say that Staubach was a bit faster and a bit more ellusive. I would say that he was better down field and a bit more accurate. Of course, I am a cowboy fan. If you took Joe out of the WC, I don't know if he could have been near as succesful. Roger could play in any offense. That is why I would give the nod to Staubach. However, both were great and I would glady take either.

 

[Hostile]

Being in just your third year in the NFL and having just 15 starts before the season began is perfectly consistent with erratic passing. It's about par for the course for most qb's, a rite of passage if you will. But being in your 13th year in the NFL and still holding the ball too long because you struggle with your reads is not par for the course, unless you're a journeyman,despite lots of yardage and td's. The bottom line in qbing is wins vs losses and if you're winning only around 50%, you still qualify as a journeyman, if you've been in the league 13 years. If your won-loss percentage is around 50% and you only have 30 or so starts, you're a developing qb, not a journeyman. Big difference.

So, what you are saying is that somewhere around 30 starts both guys are still "developing." That's your point, so don't start crying when I use your point and wipe the floor with you.

Bledsoe in 28 starts his first 2 years has 712 more passing yards and 8 more TD passes than Q in his 38 career games, 34 as a starter.

Which "developing" guy would you rather have? The guy with better stats or the other guy?


More use of your own logic to destroy your theories.

Which would you rather have?

A guy who is capable of 13 years (and counting) in the NFL?

Or a guy capable of 4 years (not "and counting" at the moment) in the NFL?


If you can look objectively (doubtful) at those 2 scenarios and not see how full of holes your logic on this is then I'd recommend shock therapy.



Let me give you one more bone to chew on krankcase. Q and Bledsoe have one thing in common besides the position they play. Both were coached by Bill Parcells, a Hall of Fame caliber coach.

He 86ed Krankcase and brought in Bledsoe to do the job he couldn't.


You can hate the idea all you want it will never change the fact that no one in the game of football is agreeing with your analysis of the two. Not one single, solitary person krankcase.

You wanna know why? You got nothing.

 

[Seven]

From today's cnnsi slideshow

I dunno fellas. Looks like his throwing motion stinks.

 

[bbgun]

Some other cnn pics I've archived: