Rate the QBs | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Rate the QBs

It seems obvious

Favre
Manning
McNabb
Gannon
Bledsoe

What am I missing? These guys are all strong armed, consistent field generals, with the ability to make all of the throws, and with intangibles.

Who the hell else could even BE on the list?
 
D. Carr ahead of Bledsoe. Talk about someone with a different agenda....lol:)
 
1. Favre-GB
2. McNabb-Phl
3. Manning-Ind
4. Vick-Atl
5. Brooks-NO
 
Originally posted by Muck


You need to go back and read my original post. In it, I said, "I chose who I'd like to have at the helm and not necessarily who's best." That answers your question right there.

You did imply that I was basing it on one game. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question. I'm not trying to sound like a prick.....I just don't feel like we should have to spell everything single thing out for each other. I think that game last November speaks for itself. I don't think the things we saw that day can be denied.

I never alluded to the notion that he isn't or wouldn't be much of a passer. He already makes throws that very few QBs can make. The thing with Vick is that he's having to learn how to harness his unrivaled talent and use it correctly.

As for the Randall Cunningham comparison......your kinda veering off to the right. Your taking an entire season of Cunningham (in his 6th year) and comparing it to one half of football rookie football for Vick. But since you brought up Cunningham, notice that he's a career 56.6% passer. Notice he didn't reach the 60% plateau until his 8th season. Notice that Vick is already far ahead of Cunningham at this point in their careers. He's a more dangerous runner than Cunningham ever was. And he's already ahead of Cunningham as a thinker and a passer.

The sky is the limit for this kid. I think he'll have a breakout season in 2003. And if it were on the Phins, it might be "Super".

Again, I did not imply that you based your opinion on one game, I stated it flat out as did you in your earlier post

"Did you see the game where we faced Vick at Pro Player in 2001?? That's why."

You gave no other reason.

"Unrivaled Talent" at what? running? That is not my definition of a QB.

"Your taking an entire season of Cunningham (in his 6th year) and comparing it to one half of football rookie football for Vick."

Actually, what I was doing in my post was refuting the notion that we had never seen talent like this before. And Vick was not a rookie last year he was in his second year.

"He's a more dangerous runner than Cunningham ever was."

Simply not true, Cunningham in 1990 averaged 8.2 yards per carry and totalled 942 yards, last year Vick averaged 7.6 yards per carry and totalled 776 yards. Define "Dangerous"

"I don't think the things we saw that day can be denied."

I never denied it, in fact I said that he had tremendous skills, exciting potential, and was fun to watch and led the league in highlight plays.

But the fact remains that as a QB in 2002 he performed very inconsistently, inaccurately, and his performance worsened over time.
 
1-McNabb
2-McNair
3-Favre
4-Vick
5-Manning
6-Gannon
7-Garcia
8-Bledsoe
9-Brooks
10-Culpepper
11-Collins
12-Warner
13-Brady
14-Pennington
15-Brunnell
16-Green
17-Fiedler
18-Hasselbeck
19-Plummer
20-Carr
21-Johnson
22-Couch
23-Brees
24-Stewart
…
 
Going against the grain here, but I don't think Vick is going to take that MONUMENTAL step toward greatness this year. It's like in baseball where a new talented pitcher is thrown into the rotation and he wins his first 8 games, but only because hitters haven't figured him out. Eventually he comes back down to earth, and then he has to prove again all that talk in the beginning.
Not to say that Vick won't be a superstar, but I'm just saying that defenses have had a year to prepare for him.
He shot out of rocket last year and caught every off-guard. This year the bullseye is on him, not the other way around.
 
1. Vick. Absolute gamebreaker.
2. Favre. Still going.
3. McNabb. Probably could flip with Favre.
4. Gannon. Can't argue with productivity and success.
5. Bledsoe. Productivity...without the success.
 
1. Vick
2. Favre
3. Mcnabb
4. Bledsoe
5. Gannon

it can go soooo many different ways so u cna make an arugement for just about all of the replies on this list
 
Originally posted by mf52dolphin
I am really surprised to see Brady being ranked high. I totally feel that the Super Bowl win was a fluke. Also I would have kept Bledsole. Another thing, even though I did not list Griese in my rankings, I would have to rank him higher than Brady, with a major reason that Brady could not beat out Griese at Michigan.

Whenever I get into Marino vs Montana debates all anyone wants to talk about is Montana's four Super Bowl rings and Marino's 0. Therefore I have no choice but to rank a guy who won a super bowl in his first year as a starter first :rolleyes:. Brady has had way more NFL success than Griese at this point in his career and plays with 3 times the heart I have ever seen from Griese. Its ludicrous to rank Griese over Brady at this point regardless of what they did in College. Maybe Brady was a backup in High School would you rank the starter over him now?

Also Charles Haley is the best defensive end of all time becuase he has five super bowl rings :rolleyes:.
 
I disagree with that assessment because you are comparing team success in an individual acheivement ranking.
 
Originally posted by Z28&dolfan


Whenever I get into Marino vs Montana debates all anyone wants to talk about is Montana's four Super Bowl rings and Marino's 0. Therefore I have no choice but to rank a guy who won a super bowl in his first year as a starter first :rolleyes:. Brady has had way more NFL success than Griese at this point in his career and plays with 3 times the heart I have ever seen from Griese. Its ludicrous to rank Griese over Brady at this point regardless of what they did in College. Maybe Brady was a backup in High School would you rank the starter over him now?

Also Charles Haley is the best defensive end of all time becuase he has five super bowl rings :rolleyes:.

Winning the Super Bowl is an overated indicator of a quarterback. In fact I have Dan Fouts(who never even made it to a Super Bowl) ranked higher than Joe Montana(I also have Steve Young rated much higher than Montana as the best 49'er quarterback). Also Super Bowls have been won Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler,, and Mark Ripyen. Even Terry Bradshaw was a lousy quarterback the first year he had won the Super Bowl and had even lost the job during the regular seson that year.

I still believe Brady is a fluke, but then again he is playing for a demented coach who prefers to use the inferior quarterback in the lineup(when he ran out Bernie Kosar in favor of Vinnie Testaverde, which was a truly unpardonable decision). :goof:
 
Originally posted by zachseau13


Again, I did not imply that you based your opinion on one game, I stated it flat out as did you in your earlier post

"Did you see the game where we faced Vick at Pro Player in 2001?? That's why."

You gave no other reason.

"Unrivaled Talent" at what? running? That is not my definition of a QB.

"Your taking an entire season of Cunningham (in his 6th year) and comparing it to one half of football rookie football for Vick."

Actually, what I was doing in my post was refuting the notion that we had never seen talent like this before. And Vick was not a rookie last year he was in his second year.

"He's a more dangerous runner than Cunningham ever was."

Simply not true, Cunningham in 1990 averaged 8.2 yards per carry and totalled 942 yards, last year Vick averaged 7.6 yards per carry and totalled 776 yards. Define "Dangerous"

"I don't think the things we saw that day can be denied."

I never denied it, in fact I said that he had tremendous skills, exciting potential, and was fun to watch and led the league in highlight plays.

But the fact remains that as a QB in 2002 he performed very inconsistently, inaccurately, and his performance worsened over time.

Like I said before, I don't feel that we should have to spell every last detail out to each other. Sometimes more is less. I gave a one line reponse because I felt that it was sufficient. That everyone could deduce what I was talking about. Everyone else seemed to. You're the only person who seemed to interperet it so matter-of-factly.

Also, Vick was a rookie when we played him in 2001. We did not face him last year as you seem to think. But my point remains, Vick is further along than Cunningham was at this point in their respective careers. Cunningham mustered a healthy 39.57 QB rating in 15 appearences his sophomore season, sharing time with world-beater Ron Jaworski. Vick put up 81.6. And I feel that Vick would be great in Miami this year.

I still can't see how you can sit there and tell me, having watched both Cunningham and Vick, that Cunningham is a better runner than Vick. I don't care what the numbers say. Cunningham was not the athlete that Vick is. Did Randall run a 4.25?? Could Randall ever pull off that same throw that Vick did in Miami (as a ROOKIE no less)?? I say no. Cunningham was not that accurate of a passer. And he didn't possess the bazooka arm that Vick does.

No one is refuting that Vick was up and down last year....that he has a long way to go. He is not Randall Cunningham yet. But we've seen the flashes. I'm talking about raw talent. You keep talking about numbers. They are two different things.

You are too caught up in the numbers game. Johnny Unitas threw more TDs than INTs in only 8 of his 18 seasons. He was a career 54.6% passer. Was he a great QB?? Absolutely. One of the best ever. Was he better than Cunningham. Absolutely. The numbers are deceptive in many ways.

You keep pointing to that 1990 season. Well, I think Vick will surpass it by time he hits his sixth season. And when all is said and done, I believe that Vick will have more yards rushing AND passing than Cunningham.
 
"I still can't see how you can sit there and tell me, having watched both Cunningham and Vick, that Cunningham is a better runner than Vick. I don't care what the numbers say. "

It is obvious that you do not care what the numbers say.
I see also that you were a child when Cunningham came into the league, so perhaps you should defer to people who actually saw both play. In Cunningham's prime he was as dangerous a runner as any QB ever. Ask anyone that actually saw him hurdle defenders and make entire teams miss.


"No one is refuting that Vick was up and down last year....that he has a long way to go. He is not Randall Cunningham yet. But we've seen the flashes. I'm talking about raw talent. "

Here we agree perfectly, I also believe ( and keep saying) that Vick has tremendous skills. And, he may one day be a great QB.
My original post merely posed the question as to why he is regarded by so many as a top QB when he had such an "up and down" year, as you said.

I think that you have now explained your position fully and I appreciate your reply
 
Back
Top Bottom