Well, then... I guess Dave Krieg is a Hall of Famer, too, then, eh? http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/KrieDa00.htm Other than yards, his stats are every bit as good (and in most cases better) than Vinnie's... Obviously Krieg is a lock.
I would agree that Kreig is a HOFer....starting for 18 years is an amazing accomplishment in itself....
I cant believe that someone who is 6th in atts, 6th in completions, 6th in yards and 8th in TD passes is getting dissed so hard by some of you....the guy has been quality for a long time....if he doesnt have his achilies burst in 1997, he likely throws for 3500 more yards, 25-40 TDs and takes the Jets to the playoffs and maybe the Super Bowl....consider that the season before he was 2nd in yards and TDs pass, the year after he was 9th in yards and 4th in TD pass....in between was the best team he was ever on and its a shame he didnt get to prove his worth....the only number that i think he needs to be a hall of fame is the yards, take a look at the numebr and the other players that have exceeded his total: 44475....freaking 44475....McNabb will have to keep up his current pace for 12 more years to reach that total....Vick would need 22 more years....Culpepper would need 9 more years....McNair for 9 more years....even Manning is 4 years away....Brady would need 11 more years....just think about how far out that number is..... marino, elway, moon, favre, tarkenton....those are the 5 players with more career yards....Not Montana, not Unitas, not Bradshaw, not Young, not Simms, not Fouts, Esiason, Deberg, not Griese, not Hadl, not Jeurgenson, not Kelly, or Krieg.....none of those guys got to where he did....NONE of them....in fact, only Unitas and Montana were are even close....
After he got the screwing by the Patriots after he almost died from Mo Lewis' crushing hit, (when they replaced him with Brady) I think Drew should've retired then. Now he is just like all the rest of the "usetabees" like Vinny, Flutie, Warner, and yes, even Farve---still craving the limelight, but each year they continue on they (and we) all watch their numbers drop, their skills diminish, and even their respect from teams/fans deflate, and they're left wondering HOW they could ever get traded or released. It is a sad thing, but unfortunately it is also part of the game and teams are simply looking for those with quicker legs, sharper brains and eyes, and stronger arms, for less money than they have to pay the veterans. I think these guys should all go 'out' when they are at the top instead of riding it all the way to the bottom. Farve is about the only one of the bunch who can still make things exciting, IMHO. The rest are, well, umm, "very predictable". I personally do not see Vinny or Bledsoe geting into the HOF, but hey, stranger things have happened.
If they dont get in IMO it shows what a travesty the HOF has become. When someone as productive as vinny doesnt get in, and someone as unproductive as Lynn Swan does, it would truly be a shame.
I will repeat myself, HOF is not just about stats. It's about your contribution to the game. Only 5 guys get in ever year, I do not think that Vinny will EVER be good enough to be one of the 5 guys, especially with the stats being inflated as thei are today, he will not be No.6. that much longer. He has never even been to the Super Bowl, I mean come on. You cant just let everyone in. Lynn Swann won 4 (thats FOUR BF1) Super Bowls, and was instrumental in all of the,. Yes, his stats were not great, but he made great plays when he needed to.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eagles4Life)</div><div class='quotemain'>I will repeat myself, HOF is not just about stats. It's about your contribution to the game. Only 5 guys get in ever year, I do not think that Vinny will EVER be good enough to be one of the 5 guys, especially with the stats being inflated as thei are today, he will not be No.6. that much longer. He has never even been to the Super Bowl, I mean come on. You cant just let everyone in. Lynn Swann won 4 (thats FOUR BF1) Super Bowls, and was instrumental in all of the,. Yes, his stats were not great, but he made great plays when he needed to.</div> Your stats are a numerical representation of your contribution to the game. Lynn swan did play on 4 super bowl winning teams. I think if you put bradshaw on the teams vinny was on he is unknown. And vinny wins 4 super bowls in bradshaws place.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>E4L, do you have John Kerry on speed dial? I am 100% sure we had a discussion comparing manning to Mcnabb in which you said the single reason Mcnabb had produced less his entire career was the O-Talent around him? How come when we look a vinny's accomplishments we dont look at the talent around him?</div> Lets's see, in 5 years as a starter McNabb has been to 5 Probowls, 5 playoff appearances, 4 NFC Championships and 1 Super Bowl. McNabb in 5 years is 7-5 in teh playoffs, Vinny in 16 years is 2-3. That is why. Good QB's lift their teams to wins. The year before McNabb was drafted the Eagles were 3-13 and were widely considered the WORST team in the NFL. His rookie year the team was 5-11 and if not for 2 pointless wins in the last 2 weeks, they would have been 3-13 again. So please, dont give me the Bucs and how much they sucks. when McNabb came to the Eagles, they were just as bad and he made them better. Until TO last season, he has not had a Reciever with even close to 1000 yards, the most ever was Thrash with just over 800. And replacing Bradshaw is Vinny, you can say the same what if Bledsoe stayed healthy would the Pats had won the 3 in 4 years. Vinny had plenty of chances to make a name for himself, he never did it though. He will go in history is a decent QB, with a lot of passing yards who never won ANYTHING.
McNabb did all that and he will still need 14 years at his currect pace to equal Vinny's yardage....that should put into prespective for you exactly how many yards Vinny Testeverde has chewed up....Further, no qb ever willed a bad team to win....thats a bunch of bullshit if ever I heard any....a great QB will make a bad team respectible, he will make an average team good, he will make a good team great, and he can make a great team into a champion....he can also make a horrible team into a below average team, and Vinny was doing that in Tampa....they might never have won any games without him....the nature of the league is such that only 3% of the league will win a Super Bowl every year, and only 1% of QBs will start and win a Super bowl every year....because that i such a small number, you cant judge QBs on solely on this one accomplishment....
If Dave Krieg had found a team to embrace him for the long haul, rather than travel the journeyman road he did, he would be remembered as one of the best. His propensity for fumbling hurt his stock a little. I think he will eventually get in the Hall though. edited to say I held out much more hope during Krieg's stint in Kansas city than I did during the Grbac/Bono span. Now those were sad years to be a Chiefs fan.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef)</div><div class='quotemain'>McNabb did all that and he will still need 14 years at his currect pace to equal Vinny's yardage....that should put into prespective for you exactly how many yards Vinny Testeverde has chewed up....Further, no qb ever willed a bad team to win....thats a bunch of bullshit if ever I heard any....a great QB will make a bad team respectible, he will make an average team good, he will make a good team great, and he can make a great team into a champion....he can also make a horrible team into a below average team, and Vinny was doing that in Tampa....they might never have won any games without him....the nature of the league is such that only 3% of the league will win a Super Bowl every year, and only 1% of QBs will start and win a Super bowl every year....because that i such a small number, you cant judge QBs on solely on this one accomplishment....</div> Lets' compare Vinny (first 6 years) 1987 6 4 165 71 43.0 1081 6.55 40 5 6 18/140 21 1 60.2 1988 15 15 466 222 47.6 3240 6.95 59 13 35 33/292 57 4 48.8 1989 14 14 480 258 53.8 3133 6.53 78 20 22 38/294 41 5 68.9 1990 14 13 365 203 55.6 2818 7.72 89 17 18 38/330 36 7 75.6 1991 13 12 326 166 50.9 1994 6.12 87 8 15 35/234 21 2 59.0 1992 14 14 358 206 57.5 2554 7.13 81 14 16 35/259 37 5 74.2 McNabb (first 6 years) Year G GS Att Comp Pct Yards YPA Lg TD Int Tkld 20+ 40+ Rate 1999 12 6 216 106 49.1 948 4.39 63 8 7 28/204 7 1 60.1 2000 16 16 569 330 58.0 3365 5.91 70 21 13 45/262 45 5 77.8 2001 16 16 493 285 57.8 3233 6.56 64 25 12 39/273 44 9 84.3 2002 10 10 361 211 58.4 2289 6.34 59 17 6 28/166 27 3 86.0 2003 16 16 478 275 57.5 3216 6.73 59 16 11 43/253 44 9 79.6 2004 15 15 469 300 64.0 3875 8.26 80 31 8 32/192 50 20 104.7 So, in his first 6 years Vinny had 14,820 yards and McNabb has 16,926 yards. Thats over 2000 more. I dont exactly see what the hell you are talking about. Also, McNabb is playing better now then he ever has. Infact his 3875 yards in 2004 was only surpassed by Testies once in his whole career (1996). And McNabb didnt play in the last 2 weeks. Had he played the whole 16 weeks, he would have had over 4300 yards. Also, at this point in their Careers Vinny had 77 TD's to 112 INT's and McNabb has 118 TD's and 57 INT's. I am acctually kind of surprised by this differential myself, man did Testaverde really suck, I cant believe that teams kept giving him chances.
It is really a shame that this is how you are going to defend your position. That testeverde had 2000 less yards 6 years into his career. Testeverde according to your numbers was averaging 205.8 yards per start Mcnabb was averaging 214.3 yards per start. A difference of 8.5 yards a game. Now you are not a real scholar of football so you probably dont know much about the tampa teams of the 80's and early 90's. They were horrible. Some of the worst in the history of the league. So with one of the most inept teams in the history of the league, Testeverde was able to keep step for step with Mcnabb yardage wise, despite the fact, mcnabb is on the best team of the past 5 years(other than NE, though i am sure you would argue this.) Testeverde had to do it all himself for the bucs to have any chance, so he had a lot of turnovers. Mcnabb is easily replaced by the 2nd and 3rd string QB and the team keeps rolling as well or better. It is almost as if he is only succesful becuase of the people around him. You know, the case you made for manning being so sucessful. I realize you are going to say: 1) Mcnabb is the reason the eagles win, but all the players on team are great. 2) Manning is only successful becuase of players around him, and is a choker(like Mcnabb isnt) 3) Testeverde has a really low winning percentage(like Mcnabb would have taken tampa to 4 nfc title games.) 4) No you are not flip flopping on issues as is convienant. Like Mcnabb would have done way better if he had a quality reciever, that is why his numbers picked up with the arrival of TO, but testeverde never had a reciever as good as freddie mitchell or James thrash, but it didnt affect his numbers. Well John Waffle Kerry, errr E4L?
1) Mcnabb is the reason the eagles win, but all the players on team are great. I never said that genious. I said that McNabb puts his team in the position to win by taking care of the ball. Theonly reason we lost the Super Bowl is that we turned the ball over. Eagles had 10 Pro Bowls for christ sakes, they are a very good team. 2) Manning is only successful becuase of players around him, and is a choker(like Mcnabb isnt) Manning always did and still does have better offensive players around him, and I dont think you can argue that point. I never said Manning was choker, I never blame one player for any single loss. Did I say that Vick choked in the NFC championship game?? (NO) I never blame a loss on one single player. 3) Testeverde has a really low winning percentage(like Mcnabb would have taken tampa to 4 nfc title games.) We'll never know. Like I said, McNabb took an Eagles team that was 5-11 the year before, to the second round of the playoffs (he was the MVP runner up that season). But I think Mark Carrier is little better WR then either Small, Johnson, Pinkston, Thrash. Infact, McNabb did not have a 1000 yard reciever until TO came, Testies always had Carrier and he had over 1000 yards in Testies 2nd year. McNabb had to wait till his 6th year to get TO. 4) No you are not flip flopping on issues as is convienant. Like Mcnabb would have done way better if he had a quality reciever, that is why his numbers picked up with the arrival of TO, but testeverde never had a reciever as good as freddie mitchell or James thrash, but it didnt affect his numbers. Like I said, Vinny had players around him, the fact that he had 35 INT's in one year (Thats insane a lot) is why Bucs lost so many games. Rememember, football is not a tough game, if you dont turn the ball over, you will win more then you lose.
I also dont understand why you try to put politics into conversation. Maybe you and your boy GW should go fight in the frontline of Iraq, while watching whole country fall apart due to your lack of leadership.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eagles4Life)</div><div class='quotemain'>I never said Manning was choker,</div> Really? You didnt? What about the congrats post in the New England forums on january 16? I qoute: "Can you say Choke..Cough...Cough MVP my ASS" That was an implication more than a direct statement. But not to fear cuz i found another. In Pats SB champions thread february 6, you said and I quote "Peyton Manning choked " Well, i think this proves my point. Solid evidence that you say things, then come back to make another point and contradict the things you said just to argue with me. It is ok, i am always victorious so you may continue to try.
I was saying that only because peple were jumping on McNabb for choking. Manning was not the reason they lost, and McNabb was not the reason the Eagles lost, and Culpepper was the not the reason Vikings lost, and Vick was not the reason Falcons lost. Sure, neither of those players helped their respective team win either, however I have repeatedly said that football is a team game, and teams win and teams lose. Sure, people do choke in big games. And Manning playing the Patriots for umpteenth time, should have performed better then 3 points. However, his D couldn't stop Dillon, and James couldn't run for shit, and that was not Mannings fault. Same can be said for all of the other players.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eagles4Life)</div><div class='quotemain'>I was saying that only because peple were jumping on McNabb for choking. Manning was not the reason they lost, and McNabb was not the reason the Eagles lost, and Culpepper was the not the reason Vikings lost, and Vick was not the reason Falcons lost. Sure, neither of those players helped their respective team win either, however I have repeatedly said that football is a team game, and teams win and teams lose. Sure, people do choke in big games. And Manning playing the Patriots for umpteenth time, should have performed better then 3 points. However, his D couldn't stop Dillon, and James couldn't run for shit, and that was not Mannings fault. Same can be said for all of the other players.</div> Nice backtracking. One problem, the first time you called him a choker, Mcnabb had not lost the super bowl yet. So you certainly did not say it becuase of that. It is ok though, keep changing stories, now you have been exposed as a fraud, and the people on this forum can check it for themselves.
HAHAHA, dude you need to relax. I will stand by my words, I dont think that Manning deserved the MVP last year. Did he have a great year, yes...Did he win the offensive player of the year...yes There is a reason why there is the MVP and the Offensive player of the year award, and it seems like people get the two confused. The only reason I said that Manning choked is that at the time I felt he did, I made the posting after the game. And like all other smart and intellegant people, we can change out minds. I went back and looked at the game, and realized it's not that simple to just blame it on him. You know what's funny. This shows perfectly what the difference is between you and me. You can sit there and keep saying same shit like a parrot, and even if you are wrong you will still keep saying it cause you have conviction (i.e. Bush). Me, I realize if I did something wrong and I can go back and admit my mistake and change the stance on a situation (i.e. Kerry). Remeber, conviction is a good thing, however conviction in the face of facts that point to the contrary is stupidity.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eagles4Life)</div><div class='quotemain'>I will stand by my words.</div> Which words? The ones where you said that you NEVER called manning a choker, or the words where you did call him a choker? I am a little confused on how you can stand by your words in both instances. You can stand by your words in one instance, that is, saying manning is a choker. However, you can not stand by the words, I never said manning is a choker. If you stand by those words it makes you a liar. I mean regardless you LIED, but if you dont stand by your words it was a mistake, if you are taking both sides of this, then warm up the waffle iron.
