- 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
If Archie ever had an offensive line to speak of,
Posted on 8/5/14 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 8/5/14 at 2:59 pm
Would he be in Canton today?
hell yeah
hell yeah
14
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:06 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
Imagine if he was on the Steelers or the Cowboys in the 1970's.
They might have won even more Super Bowl trophies.
They might have won even more Super Bowl trophies.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:08 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
Yes.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:11 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
I bet he's still faster than Peyton or Eli 
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:17 pm to SportsGuyNOLA
I don't think Tom Landry was looking for scrambler - he ran off Roger Staubach, for christsakes...
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:33 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
If Archie ever had an offensive line to speak of
...he would of had less rushing yards.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:35 pm to kclsufan
quote:
I bet he's still faster than Peyton or Eli
But not faster than Payton... dodgin' them tennis balls like a boss...
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:36 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
archie sucked
why can't people get over this? Great qbs are great qbs no matter where they go.
I get he played in a defensive era, and a lot of qbs with equally porous numbers from that era are celebrated, but he sucked
accept it.
why can't people get over this? Great qbs are great qbs no matter where they go.
I get he played in a defensive era, and a lot of qbs with equally porous numbers from that era are celebrated, but he sucked
accept it.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:37 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
He might have thrown more touchdowns than interceptions.
125 TDs to 173 Ints
125 TDs to 173 Ints
This post was edited on 8/5/14 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:39 pm to DelU249
quote:
archie sucked
why can't people get over this?
You see stats and didn't see him play so please...
Also he played with a oblique his entire career.
Just another thing you don't know.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:46 pm to goatmilker
quote:
You see stats and didn't see him play so please
great qbs stand out...archie doesn't stand out. His only contribution to NFL history is his sperm.
I don't need to have seen him play. Just look at where everyone ranks year to year or over a span of time, he wasn't special...if he was special, his numbers would've been better.
That wife of his really doesn't get credit for providing the missing genetic components that are needed to make a quarterback that people so desperately wish archie was (and delude themselves into thinking he was the genuine article)
he was a Heisman finalist, he was well liked, is well liked, one kid is one of the greatest ever, the other is pretty good, and all of this has precisely dick to do with him being a mediocre qb.
Since we can just make shite up...jp losman would've been a HOFer if not for a horrible bills team.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:46 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Also he played with a oblique his entire career.
It would have been pretty tough to have not played with one
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:48 pm to tigerbaiter1033
for some people archie can just whip out his cock and they'd go down in a second.
Must be a reeeeally nice guy.
Must be a reeeeally nice guy.
This post was edited on 8/5/14 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 8/5/14 at 3:51 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
Archie was mediocre regardless of his oline.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:04 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
No. The fallacy of Archies greatness comes from the Saints lack thereof.
He is by far one of the most over-hyped players to ever play at the pro level.
He is by far one of the most over-hyped players to ever play at the pro level.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:05 pm to DelU249
archie sucked
why can't people get over this? Great qbs are great qbs no matter where they go.
Thank God you said it before I did. That guy is so much beloved because of his aw shucks, gawrsh! personality. He was nothing special at qb as a pro. All you dreamers that think Manning would have somehow been a HOF player on another team (or even worse think he should still be in the HOF because he was so good on such a bad team) either never watched him play or have simply let your emotional attachment to the guy get the better of you.
Was he terrible? Yes, sometimes he was. Did he have some good moments? Yes, but he was FAR from great.
why can't people get over this? Great qbs are great qbs no matter where they go.
Thank God you said it before I did. That guy is so much beloved because of his aw shucks, gawrsh! personality. He was nothing special at qb as a pro. All you dreamers that think Manning would have somehow been a HOF player on another team (or even worse think he should still be in the HOF because he was so good on such a bad team) either never watched him play or have simply let your emotional attachment to the guy get the better of you.
Was he terrible? Yes, sometimes he was. Did he have some good moments? Yes, but he was FAR from great.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:07 pm to DelU249
quote:
I don't need to have seen him play.
Thats obvious.
His stats in the NFL were bland.
Most who saw him play would agree. Also most who saw him play thought he was a better player than those around him.
And careful fox of worshipping at the all pure alter of stats.
There are players who were not as good as their stats would have you believe.
Crazy to a stat acolyte I know.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:18 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
I saw him play at the end of his career when I was a really little kid. My father and grandfather told me that he would have been great if he had had a decent team and that the 78 and 79 offenses were incredible. I always believed them.
However . . .
As time goes by, I tend to agree with the idea that he was overhyped by a Saints fanbase who had nothing else to cling to. I think he was pretty good. He played in the 1978 or 79 Pro Bowl and everyone said he was incredible. But, I think that the truth is that he was radically inconsistent with flashes of brilliance and a lot of athleticism. Overall, he probably would not have been great on any team.
But, that brings up another question: How many great QBs were there in the 1970's? You have Bradshaw, Stabler, Plunkett, Staubach, Ken Anderson, Dan Fouts, and ??? We don't really see great QB play being to emerge until the 80s and we can thank Bill Walsh for that. Dan Marino as well. Perhaps the USFL. QB stats in the 1970s were not that great overall.
However . . .
As time goes by, I tend to agree with the idea that he was overhyped by a Saints fanbase who had nothing else to cling to. I think he was pretty good. He played in the 1978 or 79 Pro Bowl and everyone said he was incredible. But, I think that the truth is that he was radically inconsistent with flashes of brilliance and a lot of athleticism. Overall, he probably would not have been great on any team.
But, that brings up another question: How many great QBs were there in the 1970's? You have Bradshaw, Stabler, Plunkett, Staubach, Ken Anderson, Dan Fouts, and ??? We don't really see great QB play being to emerge until the 80s and we can thank Bill Walsh for that. Dan Marino as well. Perhaps the USFL. QB stats in the 1970s were not that great overall.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:19 pm to goatmilker
quote:
And careful fox of worshipping at the all pure alter of stats.
I don't; however, there should be SOMETHING there when you compare him with his colleagues at the position that would indicate greatness...but there isn't because he wasn't.
quote:
Also most who saw him play thought he was a better player than those around him
and there it is...he was the best player on a shitty fricking team. He was the smartest kid on the short bus, so why do we always have this discussion?
quote:
There are players who were not as good as their stats would have you believe
there are players who were not as good as your eyes would have you believe.
Now I do think what you see on the field is important...sure, but I don't believe greatness can be stifled. The cream always rises to the top. Great players elevate the play of their team regardless of the sport. So archie's line may have sucked complete balls, but if he was truly great, they wouldn't have looked as bad as they were.
shite, brees made bushrod look 20x better than he was for the entire 2009 season. I think bushrod turned out to be a solid LT, but his first year starting guys were beating him...just not quick enough.
This post was edited on 8/5/14 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:48 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
Is Archie a bigger star than Graham? That's the most important question.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News