*DAMN R6 Forum

monday night football ruled, yeaaaaaaaa 8) :D 8) :D 8)
if the packers get their shit together they will own the nfc central(to bad tampa bay left, that was a kick ass rivalry with a kick ass name[the battle of the bays],with the pack kicking ass when it was under 35 deg f)[note farve is still something like 32-2 when it is below freezing at kick off]
oh well we still have...DA BEARS! longest rivalry in the nfl. period(and the best by far), the pack and da bears are the oldest 2 teams in pro football, bears being 1 year older than the pack. yea...if they EVER take the bears (or the packers) out of the central devision, wisconsin and illinois will make the la riots look like a bunch of kindergardners who missed their receess, but enough about that...
oh yea and the vilkings will miss out on yet another super bowl ;D

the only question is how will the texans react comming out of the gate

yea football is cool 8) :D 8) :D 8)

It is a shame about the Vikings, the year they should have won it was SBXXXIII, missed the damn field goal and missed out on the chance of abusing the weak Broncos secondary.  As big a Broncos fan as I am (and happy that the Packers got beaten), the Vikings have always been my real team.  Hey, being a Broncos and Vikings fan isn't nearly as bad as being a Rockies and Twins fan these days.  Although the Twins have won just as many championships as any of the teams I just mentioned.

I have been a Steelers fan since I first started associating with football...they have by far the best defense in the entire NFL. Following the breakup of the Ravens, expect to see the Steelers in the superbowl.

Hehe took my advise i see

Assassin, it would not surprise me at all to see them there, and if they make it they will be playing the Niners. Our young defense just keeps getting better and better. As for offense, the Niners have basically been the premier offensive team for the past 20 years, with the exception of just a couple seasons. Everyone better watch out.

I'm a Giants fan but they are garbage..Bondo I have a friends that likes the Vikings..I don't get it...2 wide receivers can give you a good team.

hey bondo, i can respect being a broncos fan, but a vikings fan?!?!?!?!?
the viks lost to detroit AND carolina!
omfg
both teams didnt even have a win!
you should be ashamed(i see though why you would want to have the broncs around. it's nice to root fo a team the wins, unlike the brewers *mumbles under breath* )
any way, i predict another playoff appearence for the pack but it is too soon to tell if they are going to make it to the superbowl again

Well apparently Brain, I unlike you am not a bandwagon jumper.  I was born in Edina and lived in Eden Prarie (where the Vikings headquarters are) for all of 15 months before moving to Colorado, so I still cheer for all of the Minnesota teams (plus the Lakers as they were a Minnesota team but not the Stars because they are direct competitors of the Avs).
In NFL
Denver and Minnesota (both home-towns)
In NBA
Lakers and I guess Nuggets and Timberwolves (all based on home-towns)
In NHL
Avs (home-town)
In MLB
Twins and Rockies (home-towns) Cubs (because they were the team whose games were on TV when I was a kid)
In EPL
Liverpool (because it is the favorite team of my favorite Spice Girl)

Anyway, outside of soccer, all my favorite teams are based on early experiences and not on success so there is the long answer to your very short question.

Well the only 2 teams I really ever totally Loved were the NY Knicks and The NY Jets. Unfortunatley the Knicks days of wining has run out, and they probably won't be in the playoffs again for about another 2-3 years. The Jets on the other hand have a good chance of coming back strong next season. Although I have a gut feeling that they will have another mediocer season....

Testeverde will never be as good as some of the other quaterbacks in the league, however I believe he learns from experience. And when the going gets though next season, experience can lead the Jets, I have no dought in that. I hope and pray every night for The Jets to win.... Why couldn't Namath still play..... ?;)

WOAH hold up there bondo
1. i was a fan of the packers back when a winning season consisted of beating the bears twice (yea, not quide as ?bad as the lions but this happened over 3 or 4 years
2. i was a bucks fan before they even came close to getting into the playoffs(before george karl showed up the bucks sucked ass)
3. i'm still a brewers fan and you dont see them winning games left and right do you?(i beleve that their record is 14 and 30 right now)
4. these are ALL home town/state teams that i have rooted for since i could understand the rules of the game
so, am i still a bangwagon jumper?(dont make me come over there and beat you with my cheesewedge hat!)
and about bashing the vikings
that is my job as a packer fan, i need to bash devision rivals.
(just be glad you dont root for the bears)

Well, I was going to start slamming Brain around for his treatment of the pussycats, er, Lions, but then Bondo had to go and say he actually has a favorite Spice Girl??  That's probably worse then likeing the glow puck on Fox.... and it explains on why he'd like the Nordiques, er, Av's.  (I liked them alot better when they were in Canada)...

But I like the Avs because I live in Colorado so I don't know why having a favorite Spice Girl (Mel C because she is a major hottie and actually can sing and dance).  And I think you liked them better in Canada because they were in the Eastern Conference.  BTW, I'd say the Avs team of last year was one of the best teams in NHL history.

Bondo, you can't have 46 different "favorite" teams. One per sport, and that's it. Anymore makes you a lousy bandwagon whore.

And the Avs were not one of the best teams ever. Very good, yes, but in that category, hell no. Gimme an Oilers or Islanders squad from the 80's or virtually any old Canadiens team over them any day of the week. Hell, if they were so good, why did NJ take them to 7?

teehee, go raiders!

hey, keep hockey in the hockey thread!

New Jersey was a good team last year as were LA.  And greatness doesn't demand that you blow everyone out, it is about the will and ability to win in the clutch.

Oh and Ace, you are a fucking moron, didn't I say ALL the teams I cheer for are because of home town except for the Cubs which was adopted as one because it was the only baseball I got on the TV in my home town.  And if you call cheering for the Twins, Rockies, and Cubs for my entire life (except in this case the life of the Rockies) bandwagon jumping then you have a skewed perspective of what that means.  There is no law that says you must only cheer for one team especially since I've lived in both Minnesota and Colorado, I should be able to cheer for Minnesota and Colorado teams.

Actually... it wasn't the Eastern Conference when the Nordiques played in it... Remember, they used to be Norris, Con Smythe, etc.  Not Easter or Western.

And I liked them better because I thought they played better hockey back then (if they had Roy back then, they would have won some cups long ago).  They played a nice mix of offense and defense, which is why I liked them (being right next to Canada, I get "Hockey Night in Canada".. so I got (and still get) the chance to see all the teams play.

As for best team in history... you really need to watch some more old time hockey...  The Oilers, Canadians, and Wings have all put forth better teams (Go Production Line!)...  and if you don't know who the Production Line was, you really need help...  just watch for an interview with the Great One... he even worshiped them.  Best team would probably have to go to the Canadians though... they did it over and over.  As for wining in the clutch... how about sweeping the playoffs... no losses...  where do you think the Octipus comes from?

And as far as a Spice Girl fan.... it just points to taste... or the lack there of.

I never said the Avs were THE best team, I said one of the best. ?And if you can take from the fact that they've won their divison every year since the last year they were in Quebec would seem to say something, I just think last year's team was the best of the Avs teams so far as they still had Borque. ?And about Detroit winning 8 games to win the Cup, great swell for them, that doesn't make them any better than a team that can win 16 games despite having injuries to their two best players during that time. ?The Avs swept the Canucks last year, Sakic's injury made them strugle with LA more than they would have last year and then Forsberg went out which didn't take effect until they played a quality team in the Devils in the finals. ?And I still think the Avs have the best mix of offense and defense. ?There is no question they are the best defensive team if you look at the stats from the season and while their scoring was down, just look at the offensive skill they've shown throughout the playoffs.  And I believe the NHL had switched to the Eastern and Western Conference thing when they switched to the 16 team playoff whenever that was so the Nordiques were in fact in the Eastern Conference during the last number of seasons in Quebec.

I'm pretty sure that they had 16 teams in the playoffs back in the old conferences.

The Quebec Nordiques were in the Adams Division of the Whales Conference from when the WHA folded in 1979 until 1995 when they moved to Denver.  The conferences were changed in the '93-'94 seasons, so they would have played only two seasons in the Northeastern Division.  So most of the watching I did was when they were an Adams team.

They have been playing with 16 team playoffs for a while now. I know at one point there were 21 teams and 16 made the playoffs.

Of course Bondo, the Avs were one of the best teams ever. Any team who gets its name inscribed on the Cup can lay claim to that. But in the context you said it in, it was put in the light of comparing the Avs to the all time dominating teams. Yes, dominating the competition is a large part of being one of the greatest teams of all time. When the Oilers were out there, everyone knew they would win just as they knew Gretzky would score.

As for all the "hometown" teams you root for (go Cubbies, yeah), think about this. I have lived a significant part of my life in southern California. By your reasoning, I could declare myself a Dodger, Lakers, Clippers, and Kings fan. You can't have both. When it comes down to it, you have one hometown or favorite team, and that's it. BTW, for the record, we all watched Cubs games on WGN as a kid.

Well, how about this, my AL team is the Twins my NL team is the Rockies and since they don't play through interleague and the chances of them playing in the World Series isn't exactly likely that I don't need to choose between them.  Same goes in the NFL I have an AFC and an NFC team.  If they play each other I'm a Vikings fan.  In Hockey I'm only an Avs fan (and I would call the Avs of the past 8 years going into Quebec one of the greatest decade squads of all time).  In basketball, if I have to choose one it would be the former Minneapolis Lakers followed with a mild interest in the Nuggets and hardly any in the timberwolves.  But honestly, you make it sound like everyone must have one and only one team to cheer for in each sport.  In college sports I cheer for CU naturally but I'll also cheer for Missouri because my dad is from there and also because CU is bad at basketball.  It isn't like I'm living in Colorado and cheering for Duke, Miami, the Yankees, the Red Wings, the Patriots, and every other team that wins, I'm cheering for teams stricktly for personal sentimental reasons, not on success and so it shouldn't matter that I have sentimental attachments to multiple teams.

Bondo, you weren't even alive when the Lakers were in Minneapolis...even grifter was still in diapers. How ould you be a fan of theirs?

Well Ass, I was born in MN during a time when they didn't have an NBA team and so everyone still rooted for the Lakers, thus, they were my home-town team despite no longer playing in my home town.

Then wouldn't you be a Dallas Stars fan??

Seeing as you should have been there for the NorthStars.

And yeah Sin, I don't remember the Lakers being on this side of the Rockies. ?But I do remember the Basketball league that used the Red White and Blue ball... (anyone else remember the ABA? ?Kilzo probably...)

Also, I'd argue that the Wings have been better then the Av's over the last 10 years (including back in Quebec).. The wings won back to back cups... and had a huge 131 points in '96 (62-13-7 oh my!).
Here's a little breakdown for ya...


[/color]

I don't know if you noticed but the Avs and Stars are rivals, therefore I had to make a choice.  Not so with the Lakers as the Nuggets are only rivals with Chicago and others for the worst record.

And I count playoff success more.  The Avs have been in 6 conference finals in the past 7 years and have won the two finals they were in.  Detroit has won two in that time but hasn't been in as many conference finals so thusly the Avs average getting farther in the playoffs and are a better team.

Well... playoff success would be measured in Cup's, woudln't it?  Otherwise it's playoff failure....

You can ignore the numbers if you like... which is just ignoring a whole season of hockey to look at the last 2 months..  which is idiotic.  Because the measure of a team is both... how they do in the palyoffs and how they did in the regular season... otherwise, I guess that the Rockies are just suck ass, right?  Regular season not meaning anything means that your arguments on baseball are null and void.... right?  

Face it Bondo... you would have bet that the Av's had a better record then the Wings... and been wrong.  And by over 100 points... that's HUGE.  Ignoring that fact is somthing for the kiddies, not a real sports fan.

And as few years as the Av's have been in Colorodo, I would have thought that you would have stayed loyal to the Stars...  since following your logic you would have followed them longer...

oh... and DETROIT WON IN OT TONIGHT!!!  YEAH BABY... YEAH!!

ok, so.... getting back to football...

Yes, the Rockies do suck since they were created.  I was looking at a specific part when saying they were playing good, I wasn't saying over a long period of time.  And the regular season means nothing to a teams greatness, if it did than Ottawa has been an incredible the two years before this.  And no, I wouldn't bet that the Avs have more regular season points than the Red Wings, but I'd still say they have been a better team.

Bondo,

Since '92, the Av's have made it to the conference finals twice more then the Wings, but the Wings have gone to the cup finals once more then the Av's.  That sounds like pretty equal standing.... but, in '92 and '94 the Av's didn't even make it to the palyoffs while the Wings have been there every year (going back to '90).

So, given that the Av's didn't even make the playoffs in those years... how can you say they're the better team?  Bah, you'll just ignore the stats and cut them off where it works for you.  But the facts all point to the Wings for the last 10 years.

Because I'm counting the years since they became the Avs, not the years when they were in Quebec.

Okay football - Packers all the way, Favre has a great arm, and when he is at his best, no one is better, Freeman is good, Bill Shroder will be missed a lot, I do wish that they would get another top reciever so that Favre would have more options.

unfortunatly, rumor has it that he will be gone as of the start of the season
fortunatly the packers have amhan green. not only is he a great recever(with excelent yards after contact numbers) but he is also an explosive runner.
the pack still need someone to step up and fill the middle linebacker position however...
and of course when farve is running on all cylinders nobody can stop him(this guy THRIVES on the 2 min drill)
in my opinion farve is the best qb in the legue, and if he gets going early in the season, i see the pack in the superbowl
{please note i am a packer fan and see the world throught heavily tinted green and gold glasses}

Green is good, however, I want to see them get another reciever, Perhaps look into JJ Stokes from Sanfran.

-Typhy

what you say is true, the more good targets for farve the better

 It's favre* and the Rams are going to win it next year

sorry
i knew that too
DAMN MY SHITTY TYPING SKILS, DAMN THEM TO HELL!

GoD would that suck :) NINERS RULE
Joe montana Best quarterback ever 49ers traded to some team.... i think kansas

Jerry Rice Best Wide reciver ever (not resontly) also a 49er trade to Oakland....
49er were The Best.

They will rule this Year So :P

If i got to pick an offensive dream team i would have:
Qb = J. Montana
Rb = W. payton
Fb = The Frige :) or The Bus  (as a FB not sure how good he would be there)
Wr = J. rice - 89
Wr = C. Carter 99
Wr = R. Moss 00
Wr = J.J. Stokes or T. Owens
Te = Frank on 49ers who caught a 1 handed confrec. Finail  To beat dallas and then Win the Super bowl (1989)
Te = S. Sharpe
C= F. Winters
Tony Besoli, Frank Winters, Teddy Bruski all could play any offesive line possion

Some give a Deffesive line... or tell what you think

If I was to make a dream team it would be
John Elway
Terrell Davis pre-knee injury or Emmitt Smith
Shannon Sharpe
Cris Carter
Jerry Rice
Ed McCaffery
Rod Smith
Broncos OL of the Super Bowl winning years, perhaps the best in history in just dominating the line despite being small.  I mean 3 different 1000 rushers in a row.

First off, JJ Stokes blows. Green Bay or whoever wants him can have that underperforming piece of shit. Tai Streets is where it's at.

As for a true dream team, you gentlemen need to check out NFL Films sometimes and get an appreciation for some past players. Here is what springs to mind for me:

QB - Joe Montana
RB - Jim Brown
FB - Bronko Nagurski
WR - Jerry Rice
WR - Raymond Berry
TE - Mark Bavaro
OT - Anthony Munoz
OT - Jackie Slater
OG - Gene Upshaw
OG - John Hannah
C - Mike Webster

LoL Brain

Despite you assessment that we should appreciate past players, I'd still take my squad over said past players.  I'd argue that John Elway is the best QB of all time (most games won by a QB IIRC).  TD in his first three years before the injury was easily on Hall of Fame pace and in conjunction with the OL was not stopable.  Shannon Sharpe is no doubt the best TE ever.  Finally my WR selection, Jerry Rice and Cris Carter are the two best WRs ever (statistically) and I threw the other two in because one is a fast down the field type and the other is a great possession reciever but both are damn good, even if they aren't the best I could have choosen.

I would take Art Monk over Carter.  Rice, No doubt is the best. Montana is easily better than Elway

No, Montana isn't better than Elway, much less easily.

Sharpe better the Bavaro? ?I thought you didn't smoke pot Bondo. ?Not only does Bavaro hold a bunch of records for TE, but he could block downfield too. ?Great all around player.

Are all Bronco's fans effected by the thin air up there?

And yes, there are two or three quarterbacks I'd take before Elway. ?I know you are too young to remember Montana in his prime, but this is a guy that came back from a broken back and still played like a man. ?Montana would be my pick for all time best QB.

But nobody's talking about Defense...

Let's see.. Lyle, Howie, Mean Joe, Dick, Jack, Lawerence, Mark, Ronnie, Night Train, and hate to say it, Dion. ?

If you have to ask for their last names, you don't know Defense (ok, maybe Jack Lambert is a bit obscure for you, but the rest should be obvious).

I couldn't work in anyone from the old "no name defense".. but then again, they were great as a team, not as individuals.  

Montana was better than Elway, but not easily. Montana just knew how to win in the clutch. If there was a big game on the line, you would want Montana out there. Perhaps the best example I ever saw of this was 1994 when Montana was on the Chiefs and they were playing the Niners. The Niners had a far superior squad (they went on to win the Super Bowl) and were led by Steve Young, a Hall of Fame QB who was in the prime of his career. Joe Montana won that game for the Chiefs almost by himself.

Rice is obviously the greatest receiver ever. There is no debating that point. As for a second receiver, it gets tricky. Monk and Carter are both definitely good choices, but I would take Raymond Berry or Don Hutson over either of them.

At running back, yes, Terrell Davis had some great years, but he doesn't hold a candle to the sustained excellence of Jim Brown, Walter Payton, or Barry Sanders. You could put any of those three in for RB, but I like Jim Brown for his toughness and domination of the competition. Bronko Nagurski is probably the most badass fullback ever. Hell, his name just sounds tough on it own.

Shannon Sharpe is an excellent receiving tight end, but Bavaro could do it all. Some people would probably argue for Casper or Winters, but there's just something about Bavaro that always impressed me.

The Broncos offensive line was one of the best I have seen, but any discussion about offensive linemen must start and end with Mike Webster. Any guy who plays with short sleeves in the snow deserves to anchor the line.

just for the sake of argument, i would like to see how the lombardi era packers would do today, after all they gave green bay the nick name title town usa (the packers have one more championships than any other team in football, even the bears and cowboys)
remember the power sweep? teams couldnt stop it, even when the knew it was comming.

and i would have to call favre a cluch player after winning those 3-4 games last season with 1:30 on the clock ball on our 20yd line and no time outs(maybe not one of the best, but i think those qualify as cluch preformance)
the only weakness i see in the team is that if favre goes down, the packers are done(same as it has been for the past few years now...)
oh yea, it's official we have a new mid linebacker!

Well, for TD I did say before his injury and no I wouldn't put him up with those you mentioned although I think he was good enough to match them had he stayed healthy, but what about Emmitt my real choice.

And about Shannon Sharpe, he is a damn fine blocker as well, just like every single member of the Broncos from running back to wide reciever.

And yes for the O-line I might mention Nalen as one of the best but the broncos didn't really have the best individual linemen but they were still potentially the best whole line, even better than the Dallas line of the early 90s because they had more mobility than the fatties of the Cowboys.

Finally about Elway vs. Montana, yes I saw Montana in his prime, kicking the Broncos asses, but the 49ers were a great team the entire time Montana was there, Elway led a crappy team to three unsuccessful Super Bowls and great teams to two successful Super Bowls.  Montana never led a crappy team far into the playoffs.  Elway has better stats than Montana and I think just had more physical skills.  So I think I'll stay by my original choice.

Brain, the Lombardi era Packers were a great team, but I still think the Niners of the 80's would have taken 'em. The Niners had possibly the scariest offense ever, not to mention a great defense anchored by Ronnie Lott.

Bondo, Emmitt Smith was a good back, but he just isn't up there with the three I mentioned based on his running ability. Although I must say he is probably a superior blocker and receiver.

Shannon Sharpe is not a damn fine blocker. If you wish to believe otherwise, I suggest you leave your head up your ass where it's nice and cozy.

Montana/Elway. Yes, the Niners had some outstanding teams, but Montana still won when they didn't. The team in 81 was nothing close to the 3 other Super Bowl teams Montana won with. All their stars were still pretty young for the most part, with the exception of a few veterans. Also, Montana took a horrible Chiefs team to the AFC championship game and almost beat a far superior Bills squad. Finally, you can say "if he had the team blah blah blah" but when it comes down to it, Montana has 4 rings and Elway has 2.

When it comes down to it, John Elway is ahead of Montana in Passing Yards, Touchdowns, Completions, and Wins and probably a few other stats as well that I am not thinking of.

And Shannon Sharpe is a good blocker, not the greatest blocking TE ever, but better than most currently which when added to being the best TE in catches and TDs and as such he is the greatest TE of all time.

Bondo, if you are foolish enough to believe that stats make a QB, I shouldn't even waste my time having this discussion with you. Great quarterbacks are about leading a team, orchestrating the offense, and ultimately winning the big games. Not that John Elway isn't a great quarterback, but Montana is simply better. The only guy who I think could challenge him for the greatest QB ever is Unitas. Montana simply won when it counted. From the Cotton Bowl back in his Notre Dame days to some of his great Super Bowl performances (go ask the Bengals), he has ALWAYS been a clutch QB. You can have your passing yards, completions, whatever, but I'll take championships any day of th week.

As for Sharpe, you wouldn't know a good block if Bavaro or any other real tight end knocked you on your ass.

But John Elway was equivilent to Joe Montana in winning having gotten to more Super Bowls and over half of them with a much worse team than and of the teams JM led there.  So what if he won 2 of 5 rather than 4 of 4, he still proved to be more clutch than Montana (a clutch player can't win the game when the defense allows 40 points, so the Super Bowl losses aren't a reflection on JE).  The fact that JE is ahead in stats is what breaks the tie in how clutch they are to give JE the clear edge.

And I would know a good block as I played Defensive Tackle for all of 2 months for a Park and Rec team and spent the majority of my time on my ass.  I don't think a Tight End needs to be an exceptional blocker to be the greatest, Tight End is a scoring position, not an offensive lineman.  Just because your favorite TE didn't have offensive skills doesn't mean that offensive skills aren't more important than blocking skills.  Sharpe is not a bad blocker and rather is a decent one but he is unequaled offensively so he is the best Tight End.

Favre, Steve Young, I would take them over Elway in a second, you'll notice that whenever Elway did good, he had a good running back like Terrell, and also good recievers, Look at Favre, He has nothing to work with and he does great.

yea, and look what he did to the patriots ?when he had something to work with

yea, normally having the ball for 1/4 the time the other team did is a bad thing, ?but the packer scored so fast that it was incredible( we're talking 2-3 min drives here, max)

and ace, have you ever seen the pack play when favre wasnt in? they cant do shit.

Uhm, the Packers have been a crumby team the past three years and back when the Packers were in the Super Bowls he didn't have a crappy team. ?The Packers had a great defense, running backs who had good years even if they weren't actually good, and a great group of recievers. ?Elway with bad offensive support got the team to three super bowls. ?Yes, he needed the RBs and WRs to actually win it, but he got there three times without. ?Sorry, Elway is better than Favre. ?Steve Young, well he won one super bowl and had a few other decent results but he also had pretty miserable results when the team wasn't set up as well. ?Sorry, Elway is better than Young as well.

I have to admit that I liked watching those championship Packer teams and Desmond Howard would run back kick returns for touchdowns.  That was fun.

yea it was a rare game when he didnt have a 50 yd return(i wish i could remember which year that was, 1998 i think) ?and yea, the pack did kinda fall apart after holmgren left(and after we named a road after him too!)

and i would like to take this moment to congratulate me on my first successful thread ;D

The Packers havn't been a crummy team at all, Personaly, I am mad at their G.M, and coaches, they've got to get some recievers, the offencive line is okay, same with their defence, they've gotta get favre somthing to work with so that he's not just trying to do everything by himself.

-Typhy

exactly, and that is when favre throws turnovers, when he is trying to force the ball to a recever who isnt doing the right route
let's get some good guys in there and give favre some options
favre is more than capable of getting the ball where it needs to be, we just need the recievers to make the play

Bondo, Mark Bavaro was an excellent receiving tight end. What you fail to realize is that half of being a tight end if being a good blocker. Bavaro excelled at both blocking and receiving, as opposed to Sharpe who is mostly a glorified wide receiver.

As for Elway, yes you can't win when your defense gives up 40 points, but you also can't win when your offense only scores 10. Elway's offense put up a total of 40 points in the three losses he suffered in Super Bowls. If you wish to explain to me how that is clutch, I'm all ears.

Brain, I agree that Favre is an excellent QB and I used to hold him in the highest respect as a competitor until he took that dive for Strahan. Still, I wouldn't say that he or Steve Young are better than Elway. They are both excellent Hall of Famers, but they are just a notch below the Montana/Unitas/Elway crowd.

you are going to let that  destroy you image of farve?
if you look at his whole career(like this recovery from the pain killer problem) it is quite impressive
(besides i viewed that play as professional coutesy. treahan worked that hard to get that far, why not let him reach the end of the rainbow, besides then you are on the guys good side, always a good thing when they are trying to plant you in the dirt)

Bah, Montana would stand in there and take the hits to deliver the passes... after he BROKE HIS BACK...  Now that is a recovery to take note of.

BTW, don't forget Farvre's alcohol problems as well.

And I'm surprised nobody mentioned Staubach, Tarkington or Namith (let alone the good ol boy Bradshaw).  Honestly, Staubach was pretty damn good all around QB too.  And Griese!!  He was just freaking amazing.

As for Emmit... he wasn't as good as Sanders, let alone Payton.  But I'm with Ace, I'd still take Jim Brown in the backfield.

But nobody wants to talk D??

you mean Bob Griese, right?

as for D, nothing, and I mean nothing, was better than the Steel Curtain...second place goes to the Monsters of Midway.

As for Bondo...if you want to be a stat whore, Marino has Elway by far.

Brain, that is exactly the wrong attitude to take about that play. Fuck professional courtesy. You should play your ass off each and every play, regardless of any stupid stats that are up for grabs. I may get over it sometime, but for now screw Favre until he proves himself again.

GRIFT, as for those QB's, they are all excellent QB's but still one notch below I think. The ones I think we have neglected are Marino and Sammy Baugh. Marino was probably the best pure passer ever, and Baugh was the first true great QB.

As for defense, you brought up some great players GRIFT with a few exceptions (Deion has no testicles, usually a requirement for being great). On the line, there are just too many choices. I could probably come up with 10 players between tackles and ends who you could make the argument for. However, at linebacker it comes down to three and only three: Dick Butkus, LT, and Ray Nitschke. As for the defensive backfield, as long as you got Trojan and Niner Ronnie Lott, you are in good hands.

Nitshke, how could I forget Nitshke..

But I'd have to add Jack Lambert on you Ace... He was an animal like the rest of them.

On line, Howie and Lyle are still my favorites to watch... they were brutal.  But, there is a very long list of guys that belong there too.  And I'd take Dick "Night Train" Lane over any other besides Ronnie Lott (man Ronnie could hit).

And yes Sin, I did mean Bob... but I was wondering if anyone was going to bite on that one before thinking about it.

Yeah, but Marino hasn't done jack in the playoffs, one SB loss and a bunch of pathetic attempts after it.  I was saying that considering that Elway has accomplished just as much as any other quarterback in being clutch and winning things that the fact that he has the second best stats to Marino in pretty much everything and leads in games won give him the edge as the single greatest QB.

so, grift wants to talk d

one name that needs to be thrown out ther is reggie white(sacked every qb in the league,except favre, i dont thinkwhite got him when he played for the panthers)
a massive defensive presence on the field, too much religion off if you ask me though, and stats to back it up

and gilbert brown was an impressive piece of human being(300+ and able to move)
hell they named a burger after him
his first season with the pack was the best one, they often double and even tripple teamed him, and they still couldnt block him to the ground. he was an excelent run stopper,(and now that he is back he still is)
it's a fact of life in the nfl, you dont run at gilbert

and finally ray nitschke (yes, i know that he doesnt play, he's dead for christ sakes)
what to say about him that hasnt been said by others already?
well i think that it is safe to say that we all agree he was a great player, and would make a killer addition to any defence

also grift i know why nobody talks defencegenerally it is the quiet side of the ball, however if you have a great defence, it makes it that much easier for the offence(you can win a game with a great  d and a mediocre o, it is much harder to do that the other way around)


another thing we havent talked about is special teams, those punt return guys can make or break a game sometimes

also, who would you want for head coach, i'm going with lombardi on this one
why lombardi? well look at it this way, it's called the lmbarddi trophy for a reason.

They named a burger after Giant Gilbert because he would always eat it before games...that is before he got cut and had to get back in shape.

...

*cough* 2000-2001 Ravens *cough*

The reason Marino did jack shit in the playoffs was because he, unlike Elway, was the whole team. His best receiever for years was (get ready to laugh) O.J. McDuffie. Marino had absolutely no running backs worth mentioning helping him out and his O-Line was mediocre at best yet he piled up almost every passing record in the NFL.

Let us compare:

Wideout:
Marino: O.J. McDuffie, Oronde Gadsden
ELway: Rod Smith, Ed McCaffrey, Shannon Sharpe (better reciever than blocker)

Running Back:
Marino: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (not the basketball player)
Elway: Terrell Davis

Anyone see something that I am not? Elway had far superior help around him and that is what got him to the playoffs and had more postseason success than Marino. However, Marino is the superior QB.

Bondo, you can't say "Yes, but..." to Marino's stats and then go and point out that Elway has won more when that's exactly the argument why Montana is better than Elway. Also, you have yet to explain to me how leading his offense to a total of 40 points over three Super Bowl losses was clutch. Hell, he only had one good Super Bowl when you think about it. TD carried them to the other win.

GRIFT, I would definitely put Jack Lambert up there. It's comparable to the Montana/Elway situation. Of course he is one of the all-time greatest players at his spot, but he is just ever so slightly below those other three. That said, I would probably piss my pants if I ever saw him bearing down on me in the open field.

I think I stated clearly that the stats were only being used as a lesser standpoint.  I don't think you can judge everything by the Super Bowl itself, you have to look at how many times they got there, and with what teams.  Considering all this, John Elway was at least really close to Montana.  But the stats more than make up the difference.  With Marino he is way behind both and the stats can't make up that gap.

And Sin, when John Elway led the Broncos to three Super Bowls in the 80s, he didn't have a good RB, didn't have great WRs.  Sure, that is what put him over the edge and actually won the two Super Bowls, but had just as bad of support as Dan Marino and still got to the Super Bowl those three times.