Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8725526)

While we're on HOF QBs, can someone explain to me why Joe Namath is in.

His numbers are atrocious.

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 8725546)

i never argued any of those guys shouldnt be there, simply the order with which they were selected.

As far your Roaf comment, it wasn't difficult for me, other Chiefs fans, or anybody that wasn't legally blind to see the dynamic impact he had on the Chiefs offense, just as great or more so than any of the above mentioned.

It's kind and generous of you to make piss poor excuses for the Hall Committee for snubbing Raof first ballot, but I think deep down you know very well that's exactly what they are - piss poor excuses. His lack of First Ballot Nomination will forever speak volumes about how imcompetent the Hall Of Fame committee and their selection process both are. And no excuses or future decisions can be made to undo the embarrassing light they shone themselves in with their first ballot snub in my mind.

Greatest run blocking LT of all time - there's no excuse...

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 8725543)

History tells us your best chance is to draft a first round QB, and I have been banging that drum for years.

However, history also tells us you can succeed with retread QBs, as Steve Young for the 9ers and Kurt Warner for both the Rams and Cardinals illustrate.

Johnny Unitas and Len Dawson were retreads, as was Rich Gannon for the Raiders.




While Namath's numbers really are pretty pedestrian, his impact on the game was huge.

He's in because of that impact, and because of his personality.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 8725575)

I always argued that DT should have been first ballot.

There were other players who were actually better, more rounded at his position, but no defensive other than LT in the previous 20 years had the impact on his team that DT had.

But voters didn't see that, so it took him, what was, 4 years(?) to get in.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 8725465)

There's this perception that Warner didn't play all that well for the Giants.

That's a myth.

He was a bad fit for thier system, and the Giant fans were antsy to see Eli play, but Warner started 9 or 10 games and put up numbers in those games comparable to what he put up for the Cardinals.

He belongs in the HoF because he was a dynamic playmaker that was a difference maker for two franchises that were woeful before his arrival, and since his departure.

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 8725580)

There was an issue of Bob Gretz and his ability to present the case of DT being shrined to the voters as well, iirc.

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 8725580)

There was an issue of Bob Gretz and his ability to present the case of DT being shrined to the voters as well, iirc.

Originally Posted by KC Tattoo (Post 8725587)

I kind of recall this. Should of had Lenny the Cool present it & it would have been a done deal.

Originally Posted by chiefsfootballfan (Post 8725584)

Not really true. Warner was on a bad NYG squad and Eli was just drafted, Coughlin was installing the new offense in his first season as well. Warner thrived in the same system when he was under Wisenhunt as a Cardinal, so it wasn't the system, but the NYG personnel in a new system and the fact he was getting pummeled from bad OL play. At some point Eli took over and he got pummeled.

Warner will be HOF, I agree.

Originally Posted by KC Tattoo (Post 8725648)

I use to love the play action pass play especially when it was Steve Deberg hiding the ball from the cameras and they continue to show the RB plow into the defense instead of him throwing it deep for a TD. Over the years it seams to me that the best QBs with high scoring offense are run out of the shotgun. I've grown to like watching QBs out of the shotgun and doing what they do best with running an offense now even more.

Originally Posted by KC Tattoo (Post 8725672)

That's the kind of lines I'm thinking. I want a QB that is efficient with the football has total comand of the offense and doesn't have to rely on the running game to excel. That all just seems too much to ask for as a Chiefs fan pffft.

Tell me who Marino, Peyton Manning or Tom Brady the best at running an efficient offense out of the shotgun?

I think Stanzi would be great at running an offense out of the shotgun formation & give him field vision for quicker decision making. I think that's what the shotgun can do for him to help him out as of right now starting out & build from there.

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 8725781)

Please tell me you didn't just compare Stanzi to those three.

Originally Posted by PGM (Post 8725358)

There are 4-5 new playoff teams every year. Things never go as "last year" did. Never.

Originally Posted by Toad King (Post 8726273)

Agreed. I see us losing to teams like Oakland, Tampa Bay, Carolina and San Diego, who did not make the playoffs a year ago. Hell, maybe even Buffalo.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 8725465)

There's this perception that Warner didn't play all that well for the Giants.

That's a myth.

He was a bad fit for thier system, and the Giant fans were antsy to see Eli play, but Warner started 9 or 10 games and put up numbers in those games comparable to what he put up for the Cardinals.
.

Originally Posted by Dylan (Post 8726421)

I would like if I may, change one or two perceptions in your story regarding Kurt Warner and the N.Y. Giants.

In 2004, then Giants GM Ernie Accorsi was unable to agree on terms with San Diego's rookie GM before the draft, the Giants had to watch the Chargers take Eli Manning with the first pick in the draft. Everybody knew that the Chargers wanted Phil Rivers and that Accosi coveted Eli. Archie and Eli had already made it clear they wanted the Giants, not the Chargers. Smith the Chargers GM, wanted Osi Umenyiora added to the Giants offer before the draft, a demand the Giants saw as a deal breaker.

Unable to agree on terms of a trade with San Diego during the draft, Accorsi then drafted Phil Rivers with the Giants fourth round pick. But before the night was over, the Giants and Chargers agreed to make the quarterback trade when Smith dropped his demand for Osi. The Giants gave up a third round pick (2004), and first and fifth round picks in 2005.

When Eli became quarterback of the Giants, Kerry Collins, in the final year of his contract knew that his days were numbered. The Giants released Collins who was unhappy with a backup role and signed veteran quarterback Kurt Warner to help groom Eli as their future starter. At the time, Dick Vermeil was head coach of the K.C. Chiefs and had a ring with Super Bowl winner and MVP Kurt Warner in St. Louis. Coach Vermeil expressed his support and said, "Warner was the right quarterback to tutor Eli for the Giants."

Eli took over for Kurt in game 11 of the 2004 season.

The excerpt included here explains why Couch Coughlin made the change:



In April 2004, The New York Times Magazine published an issue featuring a cover story titled "The Eli-Experiment" by Michael Lewis. As a frequent contributor to The New York Times, one of his bestselling books (that I know of), is titled "Moneyball."

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/ma...19MANNING.html


http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/...ticle-1.602745

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 8726434)

Actually, this is why I said that Warner was not a good fit for the play action system that the Giants employed.

He doesn't work well with his back to the defense.

Warner is a HoFer, but he's also a system QB.

Originally Posted by Dylan (Post 8726486)

Thanks, good point.


I highly recommend you read this story - great writing and storytelling. Love the Unitas stories, etc.


"The Eli-Experiment touches on some very interesting topics. A great story - not only about Eli Manning.

Excerpt: On Wonderlic


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/ma...19MANNING.html

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 8726509)

I'll give it a looksee when I have some real time to spend on it.

But how the hell do you remove the ads that block each page?