The Gipper Posted July 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2015 we all have our opinions, but the measurables all point to Young being the best of those mentioned...how can you deflect the highest passer rating ever??? His measurables are barely different from Esiason...so they prove little Its not everything, but the difference between a 96.8 passer rating and a 75 or 81 is huge....and it accounts for all those numbers and stats you keep posting.... Except, of course that big difference in passer rating affected no other statistic for Young over Stabler. They won the same number of games...same number of title....had about the same winning pct.... Close on every other stat: yards/ypc/ypa/ypg etc. BUT passer rating. The big difference that affected passer rating was the interceptions....yet, even with Stablers worse int. record.....it made not one goddamn bit of difference in winning game. Stabler won as much or more than Young And Id also point out that Young is a first ballot hall of fame selection and the other 2(Esiason and Stabler) have been waiting decades....so their contemporaries and those that select the players for the HOF seem to agree... And yet......their accomplishments were barely less than Young's if at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2015 It's not even close. Killed him in accuracy, TD%, Int%, higher ypa and higher rating .... and same "system". But Esiason had more yards, more TDs, better ypc, better ypg....I can cherry pick as well. Plus the running... Plus the winning ... The ONLY real advantage Young has...OK plus the Championship ... but for the miraculous Joe Montana drive, this could have been the same. Just stop. You're not a Steve Young fan. Got it. But no need to make a fool out of yourself If the respective stats were listed anonymously for each to someone that didn't know better, they would see imperceptible differences. And its not that I am not a Steve Young fan.....I am just not one to cream my jeans over him and declare him the best of his era..... he wasn't....by no means. And anyone that says he is: Just stop....and stop making a fool of yourselves. Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2015 Long? Took me a few milliseconds... Here's the thing, Gip... you think that stats like completion percentages of 64 and 57% are "close" when they are very far apart. The scale is linear, but the difficulty is exponential. Each incremental percentage point in that 7-point differential is harder than the one that preceded it. Again, I point out that a 57% completion pct. in the offense run by the Raiders in my view is actually more impressive than the 64.3 pct. that Young put up in the WCO. The Raiders ran about the most vertical offense in history....the 49ers about the most horizontal. As for your system notes, take a look at this YPC comparison. Young with SF: 12.5 Garcia w/ SF : 11.3 Stabler w/OAK: 12.8 OK, I concede: YOung was a better QB than Jeff Garcia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted July 11, 2015 Report Share Posted July 11, 2015 It's not even close. Killed him in accuracy, TD%, Int%, higher ypa and higher rating .... and same "system". But Esiason had more yards, more TDs, better ypc, better ypg....I can cherry pick as well. Plus the running... Plus the winning ... The ONLY real advantage Young has...OK plus the Championship ... but for the miraculous Joe Montana drive, this could have been the same. Just stop. You're not a Steve Young fan. Got it. But no need to make a fool out of yourself If the respective stats were listed anonymously for each to someone that didn't know better, they would see imperceptible differences. And its not that I am not a Steve Young fan.....I am just not one to cream my jeans over him and declare him the best of his era..... he wasn't....by no means. And anyone that says he is: Just stop....and stop making a fool of yourselves. Z It's not cherry picking those are the stats that separate QBs ... Comp%, ypa, td%,int% winning % ... and most of them are not even close. What you consider "close" is laughable. And the stats you choose to make your argument don't hold up. He had more yards, and TDs? well he threw over 1,000 more passes, I hope so. Young is easily outscores him in TD% and YPA More yards per game? How about yards per start? (Or better yet, yards per attempt). Young was a backup for several years and appeared in 26 games he did not start, that will skew "yards per game", I think you should look at their starting careers, I'm sure that is what the HOF did. And finally yards per completion. This one is interesting, yes, Esiason is 12.8 to 12.4. so Bomer's average pass play was only 4/10 of a yard longer than Young's yet Young completed 64.3% of his 12.4 yard throwws, while Boomer only completed just 57.0% of his 12.8 yard throws. So, if they both throw the ball 100 times, Steve Young gets you 800 yards for 6 TDS and 3 Ints, while Esiason 730 yards 5 TDs and 4 Ints. You choose which stat line you would rather have. Never mind that the guy will the better stats won two thirds of his starts while the other won less than half. Please digest the above because I am about to mention Young's running prowess again and I want you to make your choice on passing alone. OK. So ... Oh, by the way .. Steve Young ran for 4,239 yards and 43 TD He would be 6th all-time on the Browns in rushing, ahead of Ernest Byner and 6th in TDs ahead of Byner and Motley. Boomer Esiason ran for 7 TDs. That is 36 more TDs that Young brings to the table ... but let's stick to the passing. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted July 12, 2015 Report Share Posted July 12, 2015 Boomer was pretty good.....prolly better than Stabler too......though I always hated him......Bernie, Boomer and Bubby......those were the days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 It's not cherry picking those are the stats that separate QBs ... Comp%, ypa, td%,int% winning % ... and most of them are not even close. Of course it is cherry picking. Out of 10 statistics you take the 5 that Young leads in and say that these are more important than the 5 that Boomer leads in. That is cherry picking What you consider "close" is laughable. And the stats you choose to make your argument don't hold up. He had more yards, and TDs? well he threw over 1,000 more passes, I hope so. Young is easily outscores him in TD% and YPA Longevity counts a little for something. Many of the stats that we use to compare QBs are simply longevity stats. More yards per game? How about yards per start? (Or better yet, yards per attempt). Young was a backup for several years and appeared in 26 games he did not start, that will skew "yards per game", I think you should look at their starting careers, I'm sure that is what the HOF did. Well, I might look at those if those stats were published. You are welcome to publish those stats if you find them. And finally yards per completion. This one is interesting, yes, Esiason is 12.8 to 12.4. so Bomer's average pass play was only 4/10 of a yard longer than Young's yet Young completed 64.3% of his 12.4 yard throwws, while Boomer only completed just 57.0% of his 12.8 yard throws. So, if they both throw the ball 100 times, Steve Young gets you 800 yards for 6 TDS and 3 Ints, while Esiason 730 yards 5 TDs and 4 Ints. You choose which stat line you would rather have. Never mind that the guy will the better stats won two thirds of his starts while the other won less than half. Please digest the above because I am about to mention Young's running prowess again and I want you to make your choice on passing alone. OK. So ... Oh, by the way .. Steve Young ran for 4,239 yards and 43 TD He would be 6th all-time on the Browns in rushing, ahead of Ernest Byner and 6th in TDs ahead of Byner and Motley. Boomer Esiason ran for 7 TDs. That is 36 more TDs that Young brings to the table ... but let's stick to the passing. Zombo OK, let me be clear.....I am not arguing that Esiason was the better QB than Young....I only took Boomer because he was an exact contemporary of Young....they both came out in 1984. In a lot of areas, as contemporaries, Esiason had the better overall stats.... on a statistical basis. I do not argue on behalf of Boomer, but I do on behalf of Stabler. But then....if you want to include running as a prime area of comparison....then perhaps I should compare the statistics of another contemporary of Youngs: Randall Cunningham. Young would have no edge in that department (but he would have that SB win) So, maybe for shits and giggles I will compare Young and Cunningham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Here are Randall Cunningham drafted 1985 vs. Steve Young drafted 1984 Cunny............Young 82-52-1..........94-49 winning record as starter 2429/4289.....2667/4149 atts/comps 56.5%...........64.3% compl % 29979..........33,124 yards 207..............232 TD passes 4.8%..........5.6% TD% 134............107 Ints. 3.1%.........2.6% 7.0............8.0 ypa 12.3..........12.4 ypc 186.2.......196.0 ypg 81.5..........96.8 rating 21 ...........14 4th Qtr. comebacks 26...........17 Game winning drives 775........722 carries 4928......4239 yards 6.4........5.9 ypc 30.6......25.1 ypg 35.......43 TDs rushing So, these comparison stats are very very close. Young's shorter passing game as with others gives him the completion pct. But again, when it come down to it....they got almost the exact same production out of their passing game. For each pass caught it was 12.3 to12.4. There is no advantage at all in the rushing game. Cunningham comes out better in fact. The one major difference? Young won a SB. I conjecture that if Randall Cunningham had won a SB, he would be in the HOF right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Here are Randall Cunningham drafted 1985 vs. Steve Young drafted 1984 Cunny............Young 82-52-1..........94-49 winning record as starter 2429/4289.....2667/4149 atts/comps 56.5%...........64.3% compl % 29979..........33,124 yards 207..............232 TD passes 4.8%..........5.6% TD% 134............107 Ints. 3.1%.........2.6% 7.0............8.0 ypa 12.3..........12.4 ypc 186.2.......196.0 ypg 81.5..........96.8 rating 21 ...........14 4th Qtr. comebacks 26...........17 Game winning drives 775........722 carries 4928......4239 yards 6.4........5.9 ypc 30.6......25.1 ypg 35.......43 TDs rushing So, these comparison stats are very very close. Young's shorter passing game as with others gives him the completion pct. But again, when it come down to it....they got almost the exact same production out of their passing game. For each pass caught it was 12.3 to12.4. There is no advantage at all in the rushing game. Cunningham comes out better in fact. The one major difference? Young won a SB. I conjecture that if Randall Cunningham had won a SB, he would be in the HOF right now. So, these comparison stats are very very close No ... They ... Are ... Not. Again look at the percentages... more TDS, less Ints, completes far more passes, higher yard per attempt, higher rating ... these are "the stats" that are used to compare passers. No one is cherry picking. Esiason and Cunningham were very good quarterbacks who had nice careers. I think everyone understands that. You keep comparing them to one of the greatest passers of All-Time and you're just going to keep coming up short. Yes, longevity is definitely something to take into consideration, but Young's eight seasons as a starter were so phenomenal that he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Everyone sees it but you. So those are his stats after he became the starter in SF. He averaged a 102.4 QB rating over the course of his entire career as a starter. Boomer never had a 100 rating as a full-time starter and Cunningham did it just once. Being good for a long period of time is not > than being great for a not quite as long period of time. Based on their entire career productivity, if you give all three guys 1000 attempts and you have: Young 643 completions,8,000 yards, 56 Tds, 26 Ints Cunningham 566 completions, 7,000 yards 48 TDs 31 Ints Esiason 570 completions, 7,300 yards 47 TDs 35 Ints One of these passers is Clearly more effective. I mean do you want more yards and TDs with less ints or not? Same era. Two very good QBs and one Great One. Seven consecutive Pro Bowls, Led the entire league in passing 6 times in seven years. record as a starter in SF 91-33 ... that is greatness. Would Randall Cunningham be in the Hall of Fame if they had won the SB in 98? Absolutely not. Because he was Randall Cunningham, he wasn't Steve Young. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 No ... They ... Are ... Not. Who are you talking about now? Esiason, Cunningham? Again look at the percentages... more TDS, Esiason had more TDs less Ints, completes far more passes, Esiason completed far more passes higher yard per attempt, Yards per catch just as important. higher rating Then I assume you feel that Chad Pennington, Trent Green, Jeff Garcia, Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard are all better....since they all have a better passer rating. ... these are "the stats" that are used to compare passers. No one is cherry picking. Yards, yards per completion, YPC the same for Young, Cunningham and Esiason Esiason and Cunningham were very good quarterbacks who had nice careers. I think everyone understands that. You keep comparing them to one of the greatest passers of All-Time and you're just going to keep coming up short. I am not comparing them to one of the greatest of all time....I am comparing them to Steve Young. A lot of these guys don't come up short. In many it is "the other guy" that has the better stat. Yes, longevity is definitely something to take into consideration, but Young's eight seasons as a starter were so phenomenal that he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Everyone sees it but you. His eight years were no better than Stabler's 8 years....at winning. He had some better stats...primarily due to his lower int. rate...but that is about IT So those are his stats after he became the starter in SF. He averaged a 102.4 QB rating over the course of his entire career as a starter. Boomer never had a 100 rating as a full-time starter and Cunningham did it just once. Being good for a long period of time is not > than being great for a not quite as long period of time. Based on their entire career productivity, if you give all three guys 1000 attempts and you have: Young 643 completions,8,000 yards, 56 Tds, 26 Ints Cunningham 566 completions, 7,000 yards 48 TDs 31 Ints Esiason 570 completions, 7,300 yards 47 TDs 35 Ints One of these passers is Clearly more effective. I mean do you want more yards and TDs with less ints or not? Same era. Two very good QBs and one Great One. Seven consecutive Pro Bowls, Led the entire league in passing 6 times in seven years. record as a starter in SF 91-33 ... that is greatness. Would Randall Cunningham be in the Hall of Fame if they had won the SB in 98? Absolutely not. Because he was Randall Cunningham, he wasn't Steve Young. Warren Moon.....really a lesser QB than Steve Young is in the HOF. Zombo Similar career stats. As I said, I was giving some contemporaries to him who had similar stats....and yes, they are "similar". Nevertheless....my point remains: Young.....not as good as Elway, Marino, Kelly, Favre Stabler just as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Nevertheless....my point remains: Young.....not as good as Elway, Marino, Kelly, Favre Stabler just as good. Stabler is basically like a top 30 quarterback......yet every single list I can find....every single one.....has Young as a top 10 all time qb.... So, while you are certainly allowed your opinion, I do believe you stand alone....here are a bunch of top 10 all time qb lists....most are pretty much the same.....every single one has young.....and zero have Stabler, Cunningham or Esiason......I challenge you to find a top 10 list with any of those 3 and no Steve Young.... 8th here... http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1185910-the-top-10-all-time-nfl-quarterbacks/page/4 8th here... http://www.thetoptens.com/nfl-quarterbacks/ 5th here... http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/lists/top-10-qbs-all-time#photo-title=Steve+Young&photo=10893521 7th here... http://athlonsports.com/nfl/nfls-greatest-25-quarterbacks-all-time#19 7th here... http://bleacherreport.com/articles/342286-nfls-10-greatest-quarterbacks-of-all-time/page/5 6th here... http://www.fanatix.com/news/top-10-nfl-quarterbacks-of-all-time/168194/5/ 5th here... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hobratsch/greatest-qbs-of-all-time_b_4509396.html 7th here... http://fansided.com/2014/08/30/nfl-rankings-top-10-quarterbacks-time/6/ 8th here... http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/the-definitive-list-top-10-nfl-quarterbacks/6376 8th here... http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/bob-mcginn-ranks-the-top-25-nfl-quarterbacks-he-has-seen-b99195610z1-243155121.html so...literally the first ten "top 10" lists I read had Young....every single one.....zero had any of those other guys....zero.... so....my point remains that Young is a slam dunk "consensus" top ten goat candidate and a first ballot slam dunk HOF member....and those others guys can not say the same..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Stabler is basically like a top 30 quarterback......yet every single list I can find....every single one.....has Young as a top 10 all time qb.... So, while you are certainly allowed your opinion, I do believe you stand alone....here are a bunch of top 10 all time qb lists....most are pretty much the same.....every single one has young.....and zero have Stabler, Cunningham or Esiason......I challenge you to find a top 10 list with any of those 3 and no Steve Young.... 8th here... http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1185910-the-top-10-all-time-nfl-quarterbacks/page/4 8th here... http://www.thetoptens.com/nfl-quarterbacks/ 5th here... http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/lists/top-10-qbs-all-time#photo-title=Steve+Young&photo=10893521 7th here... http://athlonsports.com/nfl/nfls-greatest-25-quarterbacks-all-time#19 7th here... http://bleacherreport.com/articles/342286-nfls-10-greatest-quarterbacks-of-all-time/page/5 6th here... http://www.fanatix.com/news/top-10-nfl-quarterbacks-of-all-time/168194/5/ 5th here... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hobratsch/greatest-qbs-of-all-time_b_4509396.html 7th here... http://fansided.com/2014/08/30/nfl-rankings-top-10-quarterbacks-time/6/ 8th here... http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/the-definitive-list-top-10-nfl-quarterbacks/6376 8th here... http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/bob-mcginn-ranks-the-top-25-nfl-quarterbacks-he-has-seen-b99195610z1-243155121.html so...literally the first ten "top 10" lists I read had Young....every single one.....zero had any of those other guys....zero.... so....my point remains that Young is a slam dunk "consensus" top ten goat candidate and a first ballot slam dunk HOF member....and those others guys can not say the same..... I can list 10 other better QBs with the snap of my finger......as I said, he barely made top 5 of his own era. He fit his system well, yes. That is what I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Again look at the percentages... more TDS, Esiason had more TDs less Ints, completes far more passes, Esiason completed far more passes higher yard per attempt, Yards per catch just as important. Sigh. I said look at the percentages ... more Tds and you response is that Esiasion has more TDS. You even quoted the word "percentages", how did you miss that one? Young completed 64% of his passes to Esiason's 57%. AGAIN ... I said percentages. AGAIN ... it's not close. Being good for 12 years is not better than being great for 8. Yards per completion is not just as important. I am 10-10 for 120 yards and you are 1-10 for 12 yards, we each have the same yards per completion, but I have moved my team tens times as far as you have moved yours. That is why experts rely on yards/ attempt. In fact, if the yards per completions are close, which they are in the they case of Boomer, Ranbo and Young, then that plays in to the hands of the more accurate passer, because they are both completing equally long pass plays, but the more accurate passer is completing far more, resulting in far more yards and offensive production. Boomer's average per completion is 12.8 and he completes 57% of his throws, so if he throws 100 time he has gotten my team 730 yards. Young's aver per completion is 12.4 and he completes 64% of his throws, so if he throws 100 times he has gotten my team 800 yards. Which number is bigger, 800 or 730? Do you know who led the NFL in yards per completion last year? Brian Hoyer. Problem was, he was 32nd in completion percentage. So you have Brian Hoyer throwing the ball 438 times and Tony Romo throwing the ball 435 times. Brian Hoyer had 13.7 ypc and Romo had 12.2. Sounds like Hoyer is the better QB, right? Except that Romo completed 69.9% of his passes which resulted 3,705 yards to Hoyer's 3,326. Now if you apply this to Young and Esiason, Esiason is completing a slightly longer play, but Young is converting 64% of them to Esiason's 55% which means more yards for your offense. Plus, accuracy can keep you on the field. There is no fucking doubt that Steve Young was better than Boomer Esiason. They played at the same time, in similar systems, and Young has a higher comp%, higher y/a, higher Td%, lower int%, More Pro Bowls, More All Pros, More passing championships and a Super Bowl. There is Young's years as a starter in SF. Bold is "Led the League". 5 Times in accuracy, 4 times in TDs, twice in int%, 5 times in yards per attempt. 6 times in rating ... in seven years! If you are the best in the league at your job almost every year, you go to the Hall. It is excellence. Then I assume you feel that Chad Pennington, Trent Green, Jeff Garcia, Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard are all better....since they all have a better passer rating. No, I don't. You know why? Because I am not mentally Retarded. I am able to put this all into context like an adult. I understand that some guys have pretty numbers but they weren't the best. They weren't leading the league in passing every year and they weren't champions. Young played alongside some damn good QBs of his era and he matches up well against all of them. He was deadly accurate, highly intelligent, extremely athletic and he produced win after win after win and had his team at or near the top of the offensive charts every single year. None of these guys are anything like that. You may not think Steve Young was the best QB of the 90's but his greatness cannot be denied. Every week of every year he was considered one of the very best, if not THE best of his profession. I remember, I was there. I was there for Kenny Stabler too, and he was very good and n argument could be made for the Hall. In my opinion he was not the best of the bunch of the 70's but he was probably 5th best and that is a damn good career. I've got no problem with Stabler ... but when you start arguing Boomer and Cunningham versus Young ... get that weak shit out of here. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 I can list 10 other better QBs with the snap of my finger......as I said, he barely made top 5 of his own era. . We know thats your opinion. And you know our opinion. My point is that I presented an argument showing a consensus supporting Young as a top 10 all timer... So, Ill ask again....can you produce the same to support your views?.....got any lists that show anyone else supports your argument(or do you just assume you know more than everyone else, including the HOF committee).(10 lists would be nice, since I easily did it).....or some top 10 lists w/o young?(cause I could get 20 more with him)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 I can list 10 other better QBs with the snap of my finger......as I said, he barely made top 5 of his own era. He fit his system well, yes. That is what I see. Same system that Joe Montana and Bret Favre played almost their entire careers in, so do we throw them out too? Your beloved Ranbo had his only great year in Denny Green's WCO, should we throw out his Vikings years because he fit the system? So all these writers that voted Young All-Pro and HOF were wrong and you are right? Ok. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Same system that Joe Montana and Bret Favre played almost their entire careers in, so do we throw them out too? No, but those guys were better IMo than Young Your beloved Ranbo had his only great year in Denny Green's WCO, should we throw out his Vikings years because he fit the system? Who is Ranbo? So all these writers that voted Young All-Pro and HOF were wrong and you are right? No....again, I was only comparing similarities of the Esiason's and Cunninghams, not necessarily arguing that they were better. But yes, I am right when I say that the following contemporaries of Young were better than Young: Favre Montana (if you consider him a contemporary) Elway Marino Kelly Aikman I also do not believe that Young accomplished one iota more than Stabler...except throw fewer ints. (but I do think that Young was better than contemporary Warren Moon...also HOF) Ok. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 We know thats your opinion. And you know our opinion. My point is that I presented an argument showing a consensus supporting Young as a top 10 all timer... So, Ill ask again....can you produce the same to support your views?.....got any lists that show anyone else supports your argument(or do you just assume you know more than everyone else, including the HOF committee).(10 lists would be nice, since I easily did it).....or some top 10 lists w/o young?(cause I could get 20 more with him)... Yea, here is a list: He is at best 6th among his own contemporaries: Favre Kelly Elway Marino Aikman All better. That means I only need to find 5 more from the rest of football history. Let's see: How about Peyton, Brady, Brees How about Graham, Unitas, Starr, Staubach, Bradshaw, Tarkenton, Baugh, Luckman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Same system that Joe Montana and Bret Favre played almost their entire careers in, so do we throw them out too? No, but those guys were better IMo than Young Your beloved Ranbo had his only great year in Denny Green's WCO, should we throw out his Vikings years because he fit the system? Who is Ranbo? So all these writers that voted Young All-Pro and HOF were wrong and you are right? No....again, I was only comparing similarities of the Esiason's and Cunninghams, not necessarily arguing that they were better. But yes, I am right when I say that the following contemporaries of Young were better than Young: Favre Montana (if you consider him a contemporary) Elway Marino Kelly Aikman I also do not believe that Young accomplished one iota more than Stabler...except throw fewer ints. (but I do think that Young was better than contemporary Warren Moon...also HOF) Ok. Zombo Ranbo Cunningham. Eagles fans used to call him that when he first came along. It didn't stick. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 We know thats your opinion. And you know our opinion. My point is that I presented an argument showing a consensus supporting Young as a top 10 all timer... So, Ill ask again....can you produce the same to support your views?.....got any lists that show anyone else supports your argument(or do you just assume you know more than everyone else, including the HOF committee).(10 lists would be nice, since I easily did it).....or some top 10 lists w/o young?(cause I could get 20 more with him)... Yea, here is a list: He is at best 6th among his own contemporaries: Favre Kelly Elway Marino Aikman All better. That means I only need to find 5 more from the rest of football history. Let's see: How about Peyton, Brady, Brees How about Graham, Unitas, Starr, Staubach, Bradshaw, Tarkenton, Baugh, Luckman He said "anyone else." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted July 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 He said "anyone else." I am all the authority one needs. at least in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 You're boy Kenny might get in after all. Got nominated as one of the Senior finalists for the Hall. I'd post the link but can't do it on this computer. Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted August 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 You're boy Kenny might get in after all. Got nominated as one of the Senior finalists for the Hall. I'd post the link but can't do it on this computer. Z He'll get in. Along with Dick Stanfel.....and these other players: Brett Favre Kurt Warner Orlando Pace Marvin Harrison Alan Faneca plus a coach or contributor T.O will have to wait a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted August 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Here are the semi-finalists from last year who did not make it.....I say that half of the new group (non Senior, non contributor) comes from this group...even if my choices aren't there: Morten Anderson Steve Atwater Isaac Bruce Don Coryell Roger Craig Terrell Davis Tony Dungy Kevin Greene Tory Holt Joe Jacoby Edgerrin James Jimmy Johnson Mike Kenn Ty Law John Lynch Kevin Mawae Karl Mecklenberg Kurt Warner Darren Woodson Orlando Pace Marvin Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted August 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2015 You need to go back to your own free speech zone and not intrude on mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 21, 2015 Report Share Posted August 21, 2015 I meant it as a compliment, Gip... No one beats a dead horse like you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted August 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2015 I meant it as a compliment, Gip... No one beats a dead horse like you do. I'm pretty good at riding a live one: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted August 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2015 But, there are those who do it better: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.