- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If Archie ever had an offensive line to speak of,
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:26 pm to DelU249
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:26 pm to DelU249
True, but what you are discounting is the team around him. I don't think you understand how bad they were then. Your argument about cream rising to the top and all is really invalid when we are talking about the ineptitude of those teams. I would love to have seen him play for a Dallas or Pittsburg of that era. I don't think anyone is saying he would be a hall of famer just that he would certainly have won more. By the way those Pittsburg team had a pretty good defense. The Saints 78-79 were probably worse than the 2012 version. 
2
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:31 pm to TigerFanNKaty
quote:
argument about cream rising to the top and all is really invalid when we are talking about the ineptitude of those teams
how so? more often than not, great players go to shitty teams. More often than not great players turn crappy teams into good ones...The Bills in the 70s were completely awful and it didn't stop the juice from running hog wild on motherfrickers
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:33 pm to DelU249
We are not comparing Archie to f@cking OJ Simpson
But you are to make your argument seem cogent.
But you are to make your argument seem cogent.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:38 pm to DelU249
Yea and they put some pretty good players around him and made the playoffs at least once I believe. But your reaching to compare the running back position to QB. Just like comparing MJ. Comparing BB to FB is not a good analogy. One BB player has much more impact than one in football. Most football organization continue to build around the stars they draft. The Saints then didn't know how I think. I mean who drafts a kicker with their first pick.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:42 pm to goatmilker
it is cogent, he is saying that "cream rising to the top" is invalid when dealing with a particularly awful team. I submit to you that the bills were awful in the 70s...terrible, and O.J. Simpson ran for 2,000 yards
Barry Sanders on the lions
See we know those teams were awful because runningbacks don't have the same impact as quarterbacks do, even in the 70s. You'd be hard pressed to find a great quarterback on an AWFUL team because it simply doesn't happen and didn't in the 70s. You remove Peyton Manning from the colts and they're a 1-2 win team (as proven by fact) and I get that quarterbacks are MORE important now, but they were still the most important player on the team when archie played.
I don't even have to make an argument that he wasn't a HOF talent, archie has already done that.
the 1966 NY Giants were 1-12-1
in 1967 they got fran tarkenton and went 7-7, then 7-7, then 6-8, then 9-5
his last year the giants won 4 games and their first year without him they won 9, but great player goes to a shite team and BAM...immediate difference.
Barry Sanders on the lions
See we know those teams were awful because runningbacks don't have the same impact as quarterbacks do, even in the 70s. You'd be hard pressed to find a great quarterback on an AWFUL team because it simply doesn't happen and didn't in the 70s. You remove Peyton Manning from the colts and they're a 1-2 win team (as proven by fact) and I get that quarterbacks are MORE important now, but they were still the most important player on the team when archie played.
I don't even have to make an argument that he wasn't a HOF talent, archie has already done that. the 1966 NY Giants were 1-12-1
in 1967 they got fran tarkenton and went 7-7, then 7-7, then 6-8, then 9-5
his last year the giants won 4 games and their first year without him they won 9, but great player goes to a shite team and BAM...immediate difference.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:43 pm to TigerFanNKaty
quote:
. I mean who drafts a kicker with their first pick
Damn it was a awesome org to be with
If only Archie could of had a use for a 1st round kicker.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:45 pm to TigerFanNKaty
quote:
True, but what you are discounting is the team around him. I don't think you understand how bad they were then
I just found it interesting that when his sacks went down in 1979, his numbers didn't improve.
We had a pro bowl running back, 2 Pro bowl WR, and TE on that team.
quote:
I mean who drafts a kicker with their first pick
A kicker has won MVP before
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:45 pm to TigerFanNKaty
Yes, Archie (the most important player on the field) had zero involvement with the poor performance of his team. He'd have been in the HOF on any other team
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:46 pm to DelU249
Why was the Saints record as bad as it was in 2012.
Did our HF players forget football.
Do coaches play a role or should the cream still rise to the top?
Did our HF players forget football.
Do coaches play a role or should the cream still rise to the top?
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:47 pm to TigerBait1127
If Archie we hadn't procreated we wouldn't be having this conversation
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:47 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Why was the Saints record as bad as it was in 2012.
We had an all-time terrible defense. Brees still threw for 5,177 yards and had 43 touchdowns to 19 interceptions.
quote:
Did our HF players forget football.
We have Hall of Fame players on defense?
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:50 pm to TigerBait1127
Without Drew they wouldn't have won a game
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:51 pm to goatmilker
I haven't said they don't factor in at all
In some instances a great team can negatively impact your numbers
In 2012 drew was still great. Josh Gordon was great last year. Great is great.
In some instances a great team can negatively impact your numbers
In 2012 drew was still great. Josh Gordon was great last year. Great is great.
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:57 pm to DelU249
quote:
If Archie we hadn't procreated we wouldn't be having this conversation
Yes cause none of his sons would not have gone to LSU
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:01 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Yes cause none of his sons would not have gone to LSU
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a point, but I
'd This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:02 pm to DelU249
This is an off-season thread in preseason.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:04 pm to DelU249
If he sucked then virtually all the 70s qbs sucked because none of the qbs from that era have very good numbers.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:05 pm to Hoodoo Man
It's a great distraction
lacks the cock tease of the preseason and the dull conversations about cap space and contract negotiations.
I think Paddy has me ready to pick up a PS4 with madden. I made it this long without thinking about the saints, but I fell off the wagon a month short
lacks the cock tease of the preseason and the dull conversations about cap space and contract negotiations.
I think Paddy has me ready to pick up a PS4 with madden. I made it this long without thinking about the saints, but I fell off the wagon a month short
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:08 pm to BRL79
They did...they didn't compared to now
Again, you can judge his performance against his contemporaries and he is decidedly not great...his 78 season, like many have said, was impressive...YPA, %, yards, etc. He spearheaded a top 5 passing attack; however, great qbs aren't great for one season, or two...occasionally they may be, but there is usually other things to consider...people shite on joe Namath's numbers, but the guy threw for 4,000 yards (the first to do so) in what? a 12/14 game season...in a less pass friendly NFL...damn.
Again, you can judge his performance against his contemporaries and he is decidedly not great...his 78 season, like many have said, was impressive...YPA, %, yards, etc. He spearheaded a top 5 passing attack; however, great qbs aren't great for one season, or two...occasionally they may be, but there is usually other things to consider...people shite on joe Namath's numbers, but the guy threw for 4,000 yards (the first to do so) in what? a 12/14 game season...in a less pass friendly NFL...damn.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:23 pm to DelU249
But like you said, one or two good seasons doesn't justify being a great QB. If Namath is in the hof then Archie was at least a good qb
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News