Started By
Message

re: If Archie ever had an offensive line to speak of,

Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:30 pm to
Posted by TigerBait1127
Houston
Member since Jun 2005
47336 posts
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:30 pm to
quote:

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



He did well in comparison to his contemporaries. Archie didn't stack up as well.

His status off the field had a lot to do with it too.
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 1:31 pm
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:31 pm to
Namath is certainly overrated, but he was a HOFer for sure.

his statistics were consistent. Unfortunately INTs were part of that consistency.

He has some seasons with off the fricking charts YPA, yards, etc. and he had two bum knees.

Joe's guarantee is something akin to the old western legends. People love a good story.

Posted by Dats Who
Down the road
Member since Nov 2012
482 posts
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:23 pm to
Let's look at this from a different angle.

Instead of the Archie arguement, how about this for a twist.

What if Peyton Manning were to have played for the Saints of the 70's, would we have been a better team? Would he have put up similar TD/INT numbers as Archie? Would he still be considered for the Hall of Fame? Same for Brees during the 70's. i tend to think that greatness inspires those around them and Peyton and/or Brees would have equalled better results with the same supporting cast.
Posted by Meateye
Alvin Kamara 2017 ROY!!!
Member since Mar 2007
10248 posts
Posted on 8/7/14 at 4:34 pm to
quote:

What if Peyton Manning were to have played for the Saints of the 70's, would we have been a better team? Would he have put up similar TD/INT numbers as Archie? Would he still be considered for the Hall of Fame? Same for Brees during the 70's. i tend to think that greatness inspires those around them and Peyton and/or Brees would have equalled better results with the same supporting cast.



I agree because both of them are great QBs, Archie was not in any way shape or form a great or even a good QB.
Posted by Dats Who
Down the road
Member since Nov 2012
482 posts
Posted on 8/7/14 at 4:59 pm to
quote:

I agree because both of them are great QBs, Archie was not in any way shape or form a great or even a good QB.


Agreed, was trying to give fox his apples to apples comparison.

Archie will always have a place in our hearts, but he was not great. So many people try to make the same argument as the OP.

Posted by Meateye
Alvin Kamara 2017 ROY!!!
Member since Mar 2007
10248 posts
Posted on 8/7/14 at 5:53 pm to
quote:

Agreed, was trying to give fox his apples to apples comparison.

Archie will always have a place in our hearts, but he was not great. So many people try to make the same argument as the OP.


Even Tim Tebow had a higher QB rating in his playing time than Archie did in his for Gods sake.

Archies QB rating was 67.1 by the way
Posted by goatmilker
Castle Anthrax
Member since Feb 2009
64391 posts
Posted on 8/7/14 at 6:51 pm to
quote:

Tim Tebow had a higher QB rating in his playing time than Archie did in his for Gods sake








>

























Posted by Meateye
Alvin Kamara 2017 ROY!!!
Member since Mar 2007
10248 posts
Posted on 8/7/14 at 8:04 pm to
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48422 posts
Posted on 8/7/14 at 9:47 pm to
quote:

speaking of contradictory


If your point is that Archie Manning was not a good professional QB then:

Your opinion happens to be the opposite of every professional football coach and NFL player who ever bothered to opine about Archie Manning.

Yours is the minority opinion by a very large degree.
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 9:54 pm
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 6Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram