2014 NFL Season

[The Buscher]

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to compare players from older generations to the players of today because the game has gotten so radically different. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you took a bunch of players =from the '50s and '60s and transported them to today in their prime, a lot of them would get destroyed. Players are a lot bigger, faster, and stronger now. I think a guy like Jim Brown would still be amazing, but he's one of the few exceptions to this scenario.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Bad News Busch

[DMN in the House]

I agree with both of you, but would take it a step farther, particularly with QBs. With the changes to the passing game,it's unfair to compare, for example, Dan Marino's seasons in the early 80s, with the stats put up today. Marino's are, because of the rule changes, that much more amazing.

[Mick]

I never saw Unitas play, while I have seen everyone I listed play,but I find it hard to believe he was a better QB than anyone I listed.

Ok, but surely you've seen Warren Moon play?

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to compare players from older generations to the players of today because the game has gotten so radically different. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you took a bunch of players =from the '50s and '60s and transported them to today in their prime, a lot of them would get destroyed. Players are a lot bigger, faster, and stronger now. I think a guy like Jim Brown would still be amazing, but he's one of the few exceptions to this scenario.

Yeah, but if you adjusted for their size in today's game...it'd be a nightmare.

OJ Simpson and Jim Brown both had 2,000 yard years in 14 game seasons; in fact, considering his average, Simpson would have held the all time record had it been 16 games.

And back to QB's...as far as talent and ability, the guy that really gets the shaft is Vinny Testeverde. Now...just hear me out . He put up numbers in his career that put him in the top 10 in touchdowns, yards and completions. But because of the fact that he had a very shaky start with the Bucs, and not winning a Super Bowl, he gets passed over. I'm not saying Vinny is the greatest; he wouldn't even be part of the arguement. I'm just upset that while someone like Dan Fouts is in the Hall, Testeverde will never be considered for it.

[DMN in the House]

I never saw Unitas play, while I have seen everyone I listed play,but I find it hard to believe he was a better QB than anyone I listed.

Ok, but surely you've seen Warren Moon play?

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to compare players from older generations to the players of today because the game has gotten so radically different. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you took a bunch of players =from the '50s and '60s and transported them to today in their prime, a lot of them would get destroyed. Players are a lot bigger, faster, and stronger now. I think a guy like Jim Brown would still be amazing, but he's one of the few exceptions to this scenario.

Yeah, but if you adjusted for their size in today's game...it'd be a nightmare.

OJ Simpson and Jim Brown both had 2,000 yard years in 14 game seasons; in fact, considering his average, Simpson would have held the all time record had it been 16 games.

And back to QB's...as far as talent and ability, the guy that really gets the shaft is Vinny Testeverde. Now...just hear me out . He put up numbers in his career that put him in the top 10 in touchdowns, yards and completions. But because of the fact that he had a very shaky start with the Bucs, and not winning a Super Bowl, he gets passed over. I'm not saying Vinny is the greatest; he wouldn't even be part of the arguement. I'm just upset that while someone like Dan Fouts is in the Hall, Testeverde will never be considered for it.

I did see Moon play, and he's probably top ten or fifteen, but not top five.

And Ken Stabler and Jim Plunkett belong in the hall before we even start talking about Testaverde.

[SeanDMan]

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to compare players from older generations to the players of today because the game has gotten so radically different. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you took a bunch of players =from the '50s and '60s and transported them to today in their prime, a lot of them would get destroyed.

well time travel technology is still in it's infancy, the fact that any of them would survive the trip at all is impressive.

[thatshortguy]

Bucs pick up Atlanta OC Dirk Koetter as new OC.

They can have fun with that. I'm not saying Matt Ryan is a fantastic QB, but he's a damn sight better than Glennon and that other guy they signed.

[GhostMachine]

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to compare players from older generations to the players of today because the game has gotten so radically different. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you took a bunch of players =from the '50s and '60s and transported them to today in their prime, a lot of them would get destroyed. Players are a lot bigger, faster, and stronger now. I think a guy like Jim Brown would still be amazing, but he's one of the few exceptions to this scenario.

Can say the same thing about getting destroyed if sent back to the `50s and `60s, as well, since defenses were allowed to hit harder and QBs weren't so protected.

Imagine Tom Brady being levelled by Dick Butkus, or Johnny Football having to face the LA Rams' Fearsome Foursome, for instance.

[Mick]

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to compare players from older generations to the players of today because the game has gotten so radically different. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you took a bunch of players =from the '50s and '60s and transported them to today in their prime, a lot of them would get destroyed. Players are a lot bigger, faster, and stronger now. I think a guy like Jim Brown would still be amazing, but he's one of the few exceptions to this scenario.

Can say the same thing about getting destroyed if sent back to the `50s and `60s, as well, since defenses were allowed to hit harder and QBs weren't so protected.

Imagine Tom Brady being levelled by Dick Butkus, or Johnny Football having to face the LA Rams' Fearsome Foursome, for instance.

"Penalty: Roughing the Passer, #51 on the defense. 15 yards from the spot of the foul, automatic first-down."

[Meacon Keaton]

Manning has 2 years left on his deal after this and he's said he plans on playing it out. So he'd play the 2016 season at age 40 and then his contract would be up. You'd presume he'd retire at that point as really not too many non-kickers keep going past 40 but who knows, if he's still really good, has no health setbacks and is still chasing another ring - he may keep going. It'll be a sad day whenever he does hang 'em up.

Not for me. I like watching him (and Brady), but I've never really known the NFL without them (I started really watching football outside of just the Eagles in 99 when I was 9 years old, so I'm actually looking forward to the next batch of guys to take the throne and not have to hear as much about Peyton and Tom all the time.

Rodgers is already better than both of them and Luck will be within a year.

Rodgers is better than them now, but I'd argue he wasn't better than Manning in his prime. Brady is more debatable, but Rodgers has always had better weapons, while Brady had a better defense.

Manning and Brady are top five all time, not sure I'd put Rodgers there.

For debate:

1a. John Elway (Meacon will never let me forget this)

Sigged forever.

[Mick]

And Ken Stabler and Jim Plunkett belong in the hall before we even start talking about Testaverde.

Yeah, no.

[Your Mom]

Jim McMahon!

[Mick]

Jim McMahon!

[DMN in the House]

And Ken Stabler and Jim Plunkett belong in the hall before we even start talking about Testaverde.

Yeah, no.

Plunkett is the only QB to win two Super Bowls who isn't in, and an argument could be made that Stabler was the best QB of the 70s.

Both are far better candidates than Testeverde, who played for a million years and won fuck all.

[Pizza]

Those numbers, in a vacuum, still tell me Testaverde was the worst of the three. He just played longer.

[munky]

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to compare players from older generations to the players of today because the game has gotten so radically different. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you took a bunch of players =from the '50s and '60s and transported them to today in their prime, a lot of them would get destroyed. Players are a lot bigger, faster, and stronger now. I think a guy like Jim Brown would still be amazing, but he's one of the few exceptions to this scenario.

Can say the same thing about getting destroyed if sent back to the `50s and `60s, as well, since defenses were allowed to hit harder and QBs weren't so protected.

Imagine Tom Brady being levelled by Dick Butkus, or Johnny Football having to face the LA Rams' Fearsome Foursome, for instance.

"Penalty: Roughing the Passer, #51 on the defense. 15 yards from the spot of the foul, automatic first-down."

I think you missed the part where it was in Butkus' era.

[Lint]

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to compare players from older generations to the players of today because the game has gotten so radically different. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you took a bunch of players =from the '50s and '60s and transported them to today in their prime, a lot of them would get destroyed. Players are a lot bigger, faster, and stronger now. I think a guy like Jim Brown would still be amazing, but he's one of the few exceptions to this scenario.

Can say the same thing about getting destroyed if sent back to the `50s and `60s, as well, since defenses were allowed to hit harder and QBs weren't so protected.

Imagine Tom Brady being levelled by Dick Butkus, or Johnny Football having to face the LA Rams' Fearsome Foursome, for instance.

"Penalty: Roughing the Passer, #51 on the defense. 15 yards from the spot of the foul, automatic first-down."

I think you missed the part where it was in Butkus' era.

Pfft... Put him back in the Chuck Bednarik era

[The Buscher]

It'd be kinda sad if Jim Plunkett's legacy winds up being the only QB to win 2 Super Bowls as a starter but not get into the Hall of Fame. I imagine Eli and Ben will be locks by the time they retire if they aren't already, so Plunkett could be the only one left out.

[Mick]

Except DMN's criteria was that Super Bowl's didn't matter.

Those numbers, in a vacuum, still tell me Testaverde was the worst of the three. He just played longer.

Career Touchdowns: Testervede is 10th All-Time. (Min: 200 TDs)
Career Passing Yards: Testeverde is 9th All-Time (Min: 30,000 Yds)

Career Completions: Testeverde is 9th All-time (Min: 2,500 Completions)

In those three categories, he's ahead of Montana. Plunkett and Stabler don't even meet it.

And so what if he played longer? Should we discount what Don Shula did as a coach for being a head coach for 32 years? I'm not pushing for Vinny as the greatest; he's far from it. I'm just saying it's a shame he's never going to get into the Hall of Fame when he has the resume to be in it.

[DMN in the House]

Super Bowls weren't the main criteria for my list of top QBs, but they do matter for the Hall.

You can argue that Stabler was the best QB of his era. Plunkett won his way into an elite group. Neither of those things are true for Testeverde.

[Mick]

Super Bowls weren't the main criteria for my list of top QBs, but they do matter for the Hall.

You can argue that Stabler was the best QB of his era. Plunkett won his way into an elite group. Neither of those things are true for Testeverde.

No, you can't for Stabler. Bradshaw, Tarkenton, Griese, Namath, Staubach and Fouts have him beaten by a mile.