NFL Talk - 2010-11 Season
- Thread starter tomalak301
- Start date
- Status
It goes well beyond that off-field behavior, though. If that were the only transgression, you know he'd still be in Arizona. Leinart's biggest problems have been attitude and an inability to produce results. He had a penchant for laying blame elsewhere, instead of taking responsibility for his own mistakes. That's not a leader. Teammates won't follow a QB like that. This is not to say that Zona leadership has done everything else right, but Leinart has to take the lion's share of the blame. He hasn't even seen any time whatsoever in Houston.
Marino, Favre, Elway, Namath, Bradshaw, Young, Montana, Unitas, Peyton Manning, Starr, Staubach, Brady, Tarkenton...
That's a good list, and to be honest... I'd have to rethink my recommendation on Warner. Even if I drop Namath and Tarkenton behind Warner (which I would), that still leaves him at 12th. Even dropping Favre (which I am not sure I'd do) wouldn't be enough. This might be another example of the difference in opinions that come about due to different eras of the game.
The other knock on Warner being one of the best of all time is that he simply didn't do it long enough. He had three pretty good years in Arizona (2007 - 09), one absolutely lights-out season for the ages (1999) and another MVP year in 2001 ... but everything else was either cut short by injury (2000, when he also threw a shit-ton of interceptions in his eleven games) or mediocre at best. Five good to great years out of twelve (ten as a regular starter) doesn't make you one of the best of all time, in my book.
What about 2008 when he led the Cardinals to the Super Bowl? That was three different times, and two different teams, he led to the Super Bowl itself.
He probably is not Top 10, but it's a close call imho. I can't see either Tarkenton or Namath bring rated higher. Namath's place in history is based on one game and a few years of good numbers. Tarkenton did solidify the identity of the scrambling for time QB, but I'd still consider him one of the more overrated QB's given his post season inadequacy.
He probably is not Top 10, but it's a close call imho. I can't see either Tarkenton or Namath bring rated higher. Namath's place in history is based on one game and a few years of good numbers. Tarkenton did solidify the identity of the scrambling for time QB, but I'd still consider him one of the more overrated QB's given his post season inadequacy.
2008 was on his list (he said 2007-2009) 
And I think if you look at it, getting to the Superbowl twice isn't all that special, plenty of middling QBs have accomplished that. Plenty of downright mediocre to borderline bad QBs even have a ring. They start to seperate themselves out when you make the criteria 2-3 rings or more...
And I think if you look at it, getting to the Superbowl twice isn't all that special, plenty of middling QBs have accomplished that. Plenty of downright mediocre to borderline bad QBs even have a ring. They start to seperate themselves out when you make the criteria 2-3 rings or more...
And even rings are a somewhat spurious criterion, with the classic example being Dan Marino.
Other quarterbacks I'd rank ahead of Warner would be Phil Simms and possibly Warren Moon.
It's hard for me to slap the "overrated" label on a guy who not only, as you said, established the idea of the scrambling quarterback, but also threw for 47,000 yards (sixth all-time) and went to nine Pro Bowls. Yeah, it sucks for him that he couldn't win any of his Super Bowl attempts, but keep in mind that for one of them, he was up against a world-class defense in Pittsburgh.
Other quarterbacks I'd rank ahead of Warner would be Phil Simms and possibly Warren Moon.
It's hard for me to slap the "overrated" label on a guy who not only, as you said, established the idea of the scrambling quarterback, but also threw for 47,000 yards (sixth all-time) and went to nine Pro Bowls. Yeah, it sucks for him that he couldn't win any of his Super Bowl attempts, but keep in mind that for one of them, he was up against a world-class defense in Pittsburgh.
I think Warner is better than Namath. Bradshaw, Starr, Unitas, and Tarkenton. Probably as good as Young and Staubach. I'll grant you Marino, Elway, Montana, and Brady.
How about Aikman? Kelly?
Warner has the three top passing games in Super Bowl history. The two losses certainly weren't on him. His passing ability is really beyond that of mere mortals.
Everyone plays in a different system at different times, and so much of it is timing and luck. What if Young stayed in Tampa Bay? What if another team drafted Jerry Rice?
Comparisons are all subjective, with the changes in the game over time as well. Hard to compare, say, Bart Starr to Michael Vick...
True that.2008 was on his list (he said 2007-2009)
Warner went to three Super Bowls.
and Warner's performance in each of those was more than a little special, as digits pointed out.The "overrated" label is applied more to whether he belongs in the Top 10 all-time. As for Pro-Bowl selections are rather hard to evaluate given that they are as much a popularity contest as they are recognition of performance.
Wow. Arizona has completely imploded.
I love it.
Hey ... at least order's been restored, right?
Well, I don't know about that. Whoever wins the NFC West this year will just be the Least Worst team.
We'll see what happens tomorrow. We play terribly on the road, but maybe we turned a little corner in Denver...
I feel bad for Leinart. I don't think we ever really got to see what he could do. After breaking his collarbone, he's just been rusting on the shelf. Anderson, though, is not very good.
I hope Leinart has grown up and fixed what he's needed fixing. It's too soon to tell whether he still has the stuff of an NFL quarterback, but I really do hope he can make it. History is littered with far too many cases of guys who threw away their chances.
Yahoo's playoff scenario generator is back:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/playoffscenario?algorithm=yahooranker
Pick all the games for the rest of the season, and it tells you what the playoff seedings would be.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/playoffscenario?algorithm=yahooranker
Pick all the games for the rest of the season, and it tells you what the playoff seedings would be.
I played around with it and ended up with Pats and Ravens topping the AFC and Saints and Bears topping the NFC.
I also have the Rams making it at 8-8, having a home game against the Falcons. I think, at a minimum, the NFL should consider re-seeding so the division winner doesn't get an automatic home game.
I also have the Rams making it at 8-8, having a home game against the Falcons. I think, at a minimum, the NFL should consider re-seeding so the division winner doesn't get an automatic home game.
I think all sports leagues should look at this. In the NHL, it has happened many times, especially in the weaker Southeast division before Ovechkin came along, that a team could be 10-12 points below and would have really been a six or seven seed, but was third because they won the division.
Sure, you can win your division, but if other teams performed better than you, they should get the place in the standings.
Probably blackout...
Yeah, the Bengals were blacked-out. Cable company said all week we were getting paid programming in the slot. Ended up being the Browns.
- Status