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

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by goatmilker

Castle Anthrax

Member since Feb 2009

64690 posts

Posted on 8/5/14 at 5:06 pm to DelU249

quote:
shite, brees made bushrod look 20x better than he was for the entire 2009 season.

So stats can not be the end all?

quote:
, so why do we always have this discussion?

You said "he sucked" lol

Also to the poster who said perhaps due to the fact we had no one else who stood out...very true. You take your hero's as you find them. He was our first big name player. I think he was good and perhaps a great on another team. We will never know. But to say he "sucked" from a kid who never saw him play is just an opinion I can never agree with. I can also never not respond to these post

This post was edited on 8/5/14 at 5:18 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by N.O. via West-Cal

New Orleans

Member since Aug 2004

7184 posts

Posted on 8/5/14 at 6:13 pm to DelU249

"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."

Well, he was named the NFC Player of the Year in 1978 even though the team only went 7–9, and was named all NFC that year, too, and he played in a couple of Pro Bowls. At least in those years, he was considered to be pretty darn good.

I personally think Archie was a wonderful, first rate talent and uncommonly athletic for a QB. You can't make a case for him being a HOF'er. these are my opinions. But he was definitely not a mediocre player, either, as for at least a couple of years, he was viewed at th e to be a top 5 or 6 QB in the league (see NFC POY and Pro Bowls). That qualifies as some evidence of greatness, at least for a time.

What some may not fully appreciate is just how much easier it was to stay good or stay bad before free agency. Archie was on a dreadful team for almost his entire career and there wasn't anything he could do about it.

2 ...

Report Post

Saints Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board