Archie Manning (1 Viewer)

[dgreen]

I've heard a lot that Archie Manning was a really good QB that had the misfortune of being on really bad teams.

| Passing | Rushing |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1971 nor | 12 | 86 177 48.6 1164 6.6 6 9 | 33 172 4 || 1972 nor | 14 | 230 448 51.3 2781 6.2 18 21 | 63 351 2 || 1973 nor | 13 | 140 267 52.4 1642 6.1 10 12 | 63 293 2 || 1974 nor | 11 | 134 261 51.3 1429 5.5 6 16 | 28 204 1 || 1975 nor | 14 | 159 338 47.0 1683 5.0 7 20 | 33 186 1 || 1977 nor | 10 | 113 205 55.1 1284 6.3 8 9 | 39 270 5 || 1978 nor | 16 | 291 471 61.8 3416 7.3 17 16 | 38 202 1 || 1979 nor | 16 | 252 420 60.0 3169 7.5 15 20 | 35 186 2 || 1980 nor | 16 | 309 509 60.7 3716 7.3 23 20 | 23 166 0 || 1981 nor | 12 | 134 232 57.8 1447 6.2 5 11 | 2 28 0 || 1982 nor | 1 | 1 7 14.3 3 0.4 0 2 | 0 0 0 || 1982 hou | 6 | 66 125 52.8 877 7.0 6 6 | 13 85 0 || 1983 min | 2 | 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 | 1 -1 0 || 1983 hou | 3 | 44 88 50.0 755 8.6 2 8 | 2 13 0 || 1984 min | 6 | 52 94 55.3 545 5.8 2 3 | 11 42 0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| TOTAL | 152 | 2011 3642 55.2 23911 6.6 125 173 | 384 2197 18 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ :X

Year        Value        Pos. Rank    Overall Rank--------------------------------------------------1971           0            19            1281972          85             2              81973           3            11             661974           0            21            1561975           0            18            1531977           0            14             871978          68             5             151979           0            12             781980          25             6             431981           0            30            3831982           0            28            3271983           0            40            4011984           0            46            407--------------------------------------------------

His position ranks paint a slightly rosier picture than just glancing at his stats, but I still get the feeling he was just an average QB on a really bad team. Are some of his position ranks so high only because he played on a bad team and had to throw a lot? It seems his best VBD years came when he was simply throwing more passes than other QBs. (Okay, that probably goes for many QBs and could just be a "duh" observation.) In other words, if one says he was good but on a bad team, another could say his perceived goodness was because he was on a bad team.Why do people say he was good? Because of the unimpressive passing stats across the entire league in the '70s?

I'm open to the idea that he was good, but need some supporting evidence. I realize he was a good runner.

 

[Portis 26]

Looks like his best years were that 78-79-80 stretch when he passed for 3000 yards plus per season. That was obviously a bigger deal in the era before the passing laws were further liberalised in the early 80s.

 

[TheLaw]

Looks like his best years were that 78-79-80 stretch when he passed for 3000 yards plus per season. That was obviously a bigger deal in the era before the passing laws were further liberalised in the early 80s.

Still had a horrid TD:INT ratio (exactly two seasons with more TDs than INTs - a whopping 4 total TDs more than INTs in those two seasons combined) and never a single winning record in his entire career. I dont care who you are or who you played for . . . over 14 years and NEVER a winning record??

 

[dgreen]

Looks like his best years were that 78-79-80 stretch when he passed for 3000 yards plus per season. That was obviously a bigger deal in the era before the passing laws were further liberalised in the early 80s.

I believe '78 was the first year with new rules, allowing receivers a little more space to run routes.

 

[Portis 26]

Still had a horrid TD:INT ratio and never a single winning record in his entire career.

Most great QBs pre the 1980s had very average TD-INT ratios, including a bunch of HoFers. It was considered good just to have more TDs than INTs (for example Bart Starr had a 152-138 lifetime ratio). But I'll grant you Manning's are poor. How much that came down to playing on bad teams, I don' t know.

 

[TheLaw]

Still had a horrid TD:INT ratio and never a single winning record in his entire career.

Most great QBs pre the 1980s had very average TD-INT ratios, including a bunch of HoFers. It was considered good just to have more TDs than INTs (for example Bart Starr had a 152-138 lifetime ratio). But I'll grant you Manning's are poor. How much that came down to playing on bad teams, I don' t know.

Archie has 50 more INTs than TDs and one .500 season for his career highlight.

 

[David Yudkin]

If we arbitrarily say that each NFL team in that era had 3 viable WR, 2 RB, a QB, and a TE for fantasy purposes, that adds up to 7 players per team. There were 26 teams in 71-75 and 28 teams thereafter (76-84). That means early on there would have been 182 viable players and 196 over the second stage of his career.Looking at his overall rankings each season, Manning had 6 years as a Top 100 skill position player and 3 others as a player even on the road map. That isn't that great in my opinion either, but a lack of talent is generally accredited for being the problem, not Manning himself.

 

[dgreen]

What other QBs played a long time on bad teams?

 

[TheLaw]

If we arbitrarily say that each NFL team in that era had 3 viable WR, 2 RB, a QB, and a TE for fantasy purposes, that adds up to 7 players per team. There were 26 teams in 71-75 and 28 teams thereafter (76-84). That means early on there would have been 182 viable players and 196 over the second stage of his career.

Looking at his overall rankings each season, Manning had 6 years as a Top 100 skill position player and 3 others as a player even on the road map. That isn't that great in my opinion either, but a lack of talent is generally accredited for being the problem, not Manning himself.

But to not EVER even luck into a winning season after all those years of high draft picks and him being such a "great QB?" I dont buy it. No QB gets off scott free for an overall record like that.

 

[TheLaw]

What other QBs played a long time on bad teams?

50 more INTs than TDs may have contributed to those teams being bad.

 

[David Yudkin]

If we arbitrarily say that each NFL team in that era had 3 viable WR, 2 RB, a QB, and a TE for fantasy purposes, that adds up to 7 players per team.  There were 26 teams in 71-75 and 28 teams thereafter (76-84).  That means early on there would have been 182 viable players and 196 over the second stage of his career.

Looking at his overall rankings each season, Manning had 6 years as a Top 100 skill position player and 3 others as a player even on the road map.  That isn't that great in my opinion either, but a lack of talent is generally accredited for being the problem, not Manning himself.

But to not EVER even luck into a winning season after all those years of high draft picks and him being such a "great QB?" I dont buy it. No QB gets off scott free for an overall record like that.

Hey, I'm on your side. The numbers don't normally lie, and I see Manning as being an omni-present force and leading the charge to mediocrity. However, Manning does seem to get a get-out-of-jail free card with the press and historians, and I don't see why either.I do remember seeing the Saints play in that era and they were just plain poor in all facets of the game. I never thought Manning was anything more than any generic QB that suited up and took a pounding each week, and I certainly don't even remember him being a great talent.

 

[Nihilist Pig]

What other QBs played a long time on bad teams?

Somewhere around that era? Jim Hart? Lynn Dickey?

 

[TheLaw]

If we arbitrarily say that each NFL team in that era had 3 viable WR, 2 RB, a QB, and a TE for fantasy purposes, that adds up to 7 players per team.  There were 26 teams in 71-75 and 28 teams thereafter (76-84).  That means early on there would have been 182 viable players and 196 over the second stage of his career.

Looking at his overall rankings each season, Manning had 6 years as a Top 100 skill position player and 3 others as a player even on the road map.  That isn't that great in my opinion either, but a lack of talent is generally accredited for being the problem, not Manning himself.

But to not EVER even luck into a winning season after all those years of high draft picks and him being such a "great QB?" I dont buy it. No QB gets off scott free for an overall record like that.

Hey, I'm on your side. The numbers don't normally lie, and I see Manning as being an omni-present force and leading the charge to mediocrity. However, Manning does seem to get a get-out-of-jail free card with the press and historians, and I don't see why either.I do remember seeing the Saints play in that era and they were just plain poor in all facets of the game. I never thought Manning was anything more than any generic QB that suited up and took a pounding each week, and I certainly don't even remember him being a great talent.

I wasnt really directing my post at you, rather just repeating my astonishment at his "get out of jail free" card that you referred to.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Averaging a little over 13 TD's a season his first ten years playing for that Saints team is exceptional.

 

[TheLaw]

Averaging a little over 13 TD's a season his first ten years playing for that Saints team is exceptional.

So what is averaging 15 INTs in the same 10 years?

 

[PatsFanCT]

Averaging a little over 13 TD's a season his first ten years playing for that Saints team is exceptional.

So what is averaging 15 INTs in the same 10 years?

For that Saint's team? Exceptional.

 

[valhallan]

If we arbitrarily say that each NFL team in that era had 3 viable WR, 2 RB, a QB, and a TE for fantasy purposes, that adds up to 7 players per team. There were 26 teams in 71-75 and 28 teams thereafter (76-84). That means early on there would have been 182 viable players and 196 over the second stage of his career.

Looking at his overall rankings each season, Manning had 6 years as a Top 100 skill position player and 3 others as a player even on the road map. That isn't that great in my opinion either, but a lack of talent is generally accredited for being the problem, not Manning himself.

But to not EVER even luck into a winning season after all those years of high draft picks and him being such a "great QB?" I dont buy it. No QB gets off scott free for an overall record like that.

I wouldn't say he was "great", but he was not as bad as his stats.It was the Saints, AKA the sorriest franchise in NFL history.

 

[Sagan]

Neil Lomax's numbers, just for comparison. I don't know if it's a valid comparison, but I've always thought of the Saints and Cardinals as being the same sad-sack types. +---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1981 stl | 14 | 119 236 50.4 1575 6.7 4 10 | 19 104 2 || 1982 stl | 9 | 109 205 53.2 1367 6.7 5 6 | 28 119 1 || 1983 stl | 13 | 209 354 59.0 2636 7.4 24 11 | 27 127 2 || 1984 stl | 16 | 345 560 61.6 4614 8.2 28 16 | 35 184 3 || 1985 stl | 16 | 265 471 56.3 3214 6.8 18 12 | 32 125 0 || 1986 stl | 14 | 240 421 57.0 2583 6.1 13 12 | 35 148 1 || 1987 stl | 12 | 275 463 59.4 3387 7.3 24 12 | 29 107 0 || 1988 pho | 14 | 255 443 57.6 3395 7.7 20 11 | 17 55 1 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| TOTAL | 108 | 1817 3153 57.6 22771 7.2 136 90 | 222 969 10 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

 

[WhoDat]

Averaging a little over 13 TD's a season his first ten years playing for that Saints team is exceptional.

I agree. Manning's statistics do not tell the story, opinion. Manning was a great athlete on perhaps the worst teams of all time. Those Saints teams were bad....BAD. Bad as in the worst product an NFL franchise ever put the field over the history of the league. A few of the initial Bucs teams were equally poor but not even close to the futility the Saints franchise represented during Manning's playing days. Williams got the Bucs into the playoffs. Here is a current comparison. The Houston Texans; their problems with the OL; the lack of coaching and the constant sacking of D. Carr are somewhat similiar to Manning's situation with New Orleans. Similiar but not even close to being as bad as what the Saints situation was during the 1970's. My memory has failed me a couple times today but I am fairly certain Manning left the game as the most sacked player in history. This is the same franchise that drafted a placekicker with the #11 overall pick. I will admit Manning's legacy has been romanticized by current writers/media types due to the success of his sons. His playing legacy was not as great as it has been suggested. Conversely, he was far better than his numbers indicate. Most weeks it was Manning versus 11 defenders.

 

[TheLaw]

Neil Lomax's numbers, just for comparison. I don't know if it's a valid comparison, but I've always thought of the Saints and Cardinals as being the same sad-sack types.

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| Passing | Rushing |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| 1981 stl | 14 | 119 236 50.4 1575 6.7 4 10 | 19 104 2 |

| 1982 stl | 9 | 109 205 53.2 1367 6.7 5 6 | 28 119 1 |

| 1983 stl | 13 | 209 354 59.0 2636 7.4 24 11 | 27 127 2 |

| 1984 stl | 16 | 345 560 61.6 4614 8.2 28 16 | 35 184 3 |

| 1985 stl | 16 | 265 471 56.3 3214 6.8 18 12 | 32 125 0 |

| 1986 stl | 14 | 240 421 57.0 2583 6.1 13 12 | 35 148 1 |

| 1987 stl | 12 | 275 463 59.4 3387 7.3 24 12 | 29 107 0 |

| 1988 pho | 14 | 255 443 57.6 3395 7.7 20 11 | 17 55 1 |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| TOTAL | 108 | 1817 3153 57.6 22771 7.2 136 90 | 222 969 10 |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

what was his W-L record? His TD totals are greater than Archie's and INT's less in fewer seasons.

 

[Sagan]

Better than I thought they'd be.1981 (7-9)Head Coach Jim HanifanSept. 6 Miami L 7-20 50,351Sept. 13 At Dallas L 17-30 63,602Sept. 20 Washington W 40-30 50,182Sept. 27 At Tampa Bay L 10-30 65,850Oct. 4 Dallas W 20-17 49,777Oct. 11 At N.Y. Giants L 14-34 67,128Oct. 18 At Atlanta L 20-41 51,428Oct. 25 Minnesota W 30-17 48,039Nov. 1 At Washington L 21-42 50,643Nov. 8 Philadelphia L 10-52 48,421Nov. 15 Buffalo W 24-0 46,214Nov. 22 At Baltimore W 35-24 24,784Nov. 29 At New England W 27-20 39,946Dec. 6 New Orleans W 30-3 46,923Dec. 13 N.Y. Giants L 10-20 47,358Dec. 20 Philadelphia L 0-38 56,656Home: 5-3 (384,675). Away: 2-6 (420,037). 315-4081982 (5-4)Head Coach Jim HanifanSept. 12 At New Orleans W 27-7 58,673Sept. 19 Dallas L 7-24 50,705Nov. 21 San Francisco L 20-31 38,064Nov. 28 At Atlanta W 23-20 33,411Dec. 5 At Philadelphia W 23-20 63,622Dec. 12 Washington L 7-12 35,308Dec. 19 At Chicago W 10-7 43,270Dec. 26 N.Y. Giants W 24-21 39,824Jan. 2 At Washington L 0-28 52,554Home: 1-3 (163,901). Away: 4-1 (251,530). 135-170First Round Super Bowl TournamentJan. 8 At Green Bay L 16-41 54,2821983 (8-7-1)Head Coach Jim HanifanSept. 4 At New Orleans L 17-28 65,225Sept. 11 Dallas L 17-34 48,532Sept. 18 San Francisco L 27-42 38,130Sept. 25 At Philadelphia W 14-11 64,465Oct. 2 At Kansas City L 14-38 58,975Oct. 9 Washington L 14-38 42,698Oct. 16 At Tampa Bay W 34-27 48,224Oct. 24 N.Y. Giants (OT) T 20-20 45,630Oct. 30 Minnesota W 41-31 38,796Nov. 6 At Washington L 7-45 51,380Nov. 13 Seattle W 33-28 33,280Nov. 20 San Diego W 44-14 40,644Nov. 24 At Dallas L 17-35 60,764Dec. 4 At N.Y. Giants W 10-6 25,156Dec. 11 At L.A. Raiders W 34-24 32,111Dec. 18 Philadelphia W 31-7 21,902Home: 4-3-1 (309,612). Away: 4-4 (406,300). 374-4281984 (9-7)Head Coach Jim HanifanSept. 2 At Green Bay L 23-24 53,738Sept. 9 Buffalo W 37-7 35,785Sept. 16 At Indianapolis W 34-33 60,274Sept. 23 At New Orleans L 24-34 58,723Sept. 30 Miami L 28-36 46,991Oct. 7 At Dallas W 31-20 61,438Oct. 14 Chicago W 38-21 49,554Oct. 21 Washington W 26-24 50,262Oct. 28 At Philadelphia W 34-14 54,310Nov. 4 L.A. Rams L 13-16 51,010Nov. 11 Dallas L 17-24 48,721Nov. 18 At N.Y. Giants L 10-16 73,428Nov. 25 Philadelphia W 17-16 39,858Dec. 2 At New England W 33-10 53,558Dec. 9 N.Y. Giants W 31-21 49,973Dec. 16 At Washington L 27-29 54,299Home: 5-3 (327,154). Away: (469,768). 423-3451985 (5-11)Head Coach Jim HanifanSept. 8 At Cleveland (OT) W 27-24 62,107Sept. 15 Cincinnati W 41-27 46,321Sept. 22 At N.Y. Giants L 17-27 74,987Sept. 29 Green Bay W 43-28 48,598Oct. 7 At Washington L 10-27 53,134Oct. 13 At Philadelphia L 7-30 48,186Oct. 20 At Pittsburgh L 10-23 56,478Oct. 27 Houston L 10-20 43,190Nov. 4 Dallas W 21-10 49,337Nov. 10 At Tampa Bay L 0-16 34,736Nov. 17 Philadelphia L 14-24 39,032Nov. 24 N.Y. Giants L 3-34 41,248Nov. 28 At Dallas L 17-35 54,125Dec. 8 New Orleans W 28-16 29,527Dec. 15 At L.A.Rams L 14-46 52,052Dec. 21 Washington L 16-27 28,090Home: 4-4 (325,343). Away: 1-7 (435,805). 278-4141986 (4-11-1)Head Coach Gene StallingsSept. 7 L.A. Rams L 10-16 40,347Sept. 14 At Atlanta L 13-33 46,463Sept. 21 At Buffalo L 10-17 65,762Sept. 29 Dallas L 7-31 49,077Oct. 5 N.Y. Giants L 6-13 40,562Oct. 12 At Tampa Bay W 30-19 33,307Oct. 19 At Washington L 21-28 53,494Oct. 26 At Dallas L 6-37 60,756Nov. 2 Philadelphia W 13-10 33,051Nov. 9 At San Francisco L 17-43 50,172Nov. 16 New Orleans L 7-16 32,069Nov. 23 Kansas City W 23-14 29,680Nov. 30 Washington L 17-20 35,637Dec. 7 At Philadelphia (OT) T 10-10 50,148Dec. 14 At N.Y. Giants L 7-27 75,261Dec. 21 Tampa Bay W 21-17 23,957Home: 3-5 (284,380). Away: 1-6-1 (435,363). 218-3511987 (7-8)Head Coach Gene Stallings(Final season in St. Louis)Sept. 13 Dallas W 24-13 47,241Sept. 20 At San Diego L 24-28 47,998Sept. 27 Indianapolis (not played)Oct. 4 At Washington L 21-28 27,728Oct. 11 New Orleans W 24-19 11,795Oct. 18 At San Francisco L 28-34 38,094Oct. 25 At N.Y. Giants L 7-30 74,391Nov. 1 Philadelphia L 23-28 24,586Nov. 8 Tampa Bay W 31-28 22,449Nov. 15 L.A. Rams L 24-27 27,730Nov. 22 At Philadelphia W 31-19 55,592Nov. 29 At Atlanta W 34-21 15,909Dec. 6 Washington L 17-34 31,324Dec. 13 N.Y. Giants W 27-24 29,623Dec. 20 At Tampa Bay W 31-14 32,046Dec. 27 At Dallas L 16-21 36,788Home: 4-3 (194,748). Away: 3-5 (328,536). 362-3681988 (7-9)Head Coach Gene Stallings(First season in Arizona)Sept. 4 At Cincinnati L 14-21 50,404Sept. 12 Dallas L 14-17 67,139Sept. 18 At Tampa Bay W 30-24 35,034Sept. 25 Washington W 30-21 61,973Oct. 2 At L.A. Rams W 41-27 49,830Oct. 9 Pittsburgh W 31-14 53,278Oct. 16 At Washington L 17-33 54,402Oct. 23 Cleveland L 21-29 61,261Oct. 30 At Dallas W 16-10 42,196Nov. 6 San Francisco W 24-23 64,544Nov. 13 N.Y. Giants W 24-17 65,324Nov. 20 At Houston L 20-38 43,843Nov. 27 At Philadelphia L 21-31 57,918Dec. 4 At N.Y. Giants L 7-44 73,438Dec. 10 Philadelphia L 17-23 54,832Dec. 18 Green Bay L 17-26 44,586Home: 4-4 (472,937). Away: 3-5 (407,065). 344-398

 

[Synthesizer]

His line had protection problems.

 

[Mr. Vegas]

His line had protection problems.

Best post of year.

 

[Boston]

Unless you actually watched those Saints teams plays you can't understand how bad they were. From top to bottom they were a mess. In todays NFL it's not unusual for teams to get better pretty quickly. It happens to a few teams every year. In Manning's era it generally took teams quite a few years to become good since your only avenue to get better was the draft. As good as the Steelers were they were horrible until the fruits of some excellent drafts came to light. In New Orleans case they were probably the most mismanaged franchise in NFL history. They had no clue what they were doing and traveled the downward path for a very long time and literally had no chance every single year.As for Manning he was a college legend who was considered an icon in the deep south. There was no question he had big time talent but he was in the absolute worst situation a young QB could be in. Much worse than Carr in Houston or Plunkett in New England as hard as that is to believe. Whether Manning would have been a big time QB in another situation will never be known and is open for debate. Yet, one thing was for sure...his career was DOA in New Orleans and the fact he was there for so long made it impossible for him to ever revive that career on another team.

 

[cstu]

What other QBs played a long time on bad teams?

My favorite bad QB is Jim Hart:

|              Passing                  |     Rushing     |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year  TM |   G |  Comp   Att   PCT    YD   Y/A  TD INT |  Att  Yards  TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1966 stl |   1 |     4    11  36.4    29   2.6   0   0 |     0     0   0 || 1967 stl |  14 |   192   397  48.4  3008   7.6  19  30 |    13    36   3 || 1968 stl |  13 |   140   316  44.3  2059   6.5  15  18 |    19    20   6 || 1969 stl |   9 |    84   169  49.7  1086   6.4   6  12 |     7    16   2 || 1970 stl |  14 |   171   373  45.8  2575   6.9  14  18 |    18    18   0 || 1971 stl |  11 |   110   243  45.3  1626   6.7   8  14 |    13     9   0 || 1972 stl |   6 |    60   119  50.4   857   7.2   5   5 |     9    17   0 || 1973 stl |  12 |   178   320  55.6  2223   6.9  15  10 |     3    -3   0 || 1974 stl |  14 |   200   388  51.5  2411   6.2  20   8 |    10    21   2 || 1975 stl |  14 |   182   345  52.8  2507   7.3  19  19 |    11     7   1 || 1976 stl |  14 |   218   388  56.2  2946   7.6  18  13 |     8     7   0 || 1977 stl |  14 |   186   355  52.4  2542   7.2  13  20 |    11    18   0 || 1978 stl |  15 |   240   477  50.3  3121   6.5  16  18 |    11    11   2 || 1979 stl |  14 |   194   378  51.3  2218   5.9   9  20 |     6    11   0 || 1980 stl |  15 |   228   425  53.6  2946   6.9  16  20 |     9    11   0 || 1981 stl |  10 |   134   241  55.6  1694   7.0  11  14 |     3     2   0 || 1982 stl |   4 |    19    33  57.6   199   6.0   1   0 |     0     0   0 || 1983 stl |   5 |    50    91  54.9   592   6.5   4   8 |     5    12   0 || 1984 was |   2 |     3     7  42.9    26   3.7   0   0 |     3    -6   0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+|  TOTAL   | 201 |  2593  5076  51.1 34665   6.8 209 247 |   159   207  16 |

 

[Spartans Rule]

To put a little perspective on Archie's stats, look at the numbers for Terry Bradshaw, who played pretty much the same time span, had a great team around him, and was considered among the very best:

Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1970 pit | 13 | 83 218 38.1 1410 6.5 6 24 | 32 233 1 || 1971 pit | 14 | 203 373 54.4 2259 6.1 13 22 | 53 247 5 || 1972 pit | 14 | 147 308 47.7 1887 6.1 12 12 | 58 346 7 || 1973 pit | 10 | 89 180 49.4 1183 6.6 10 15 | 34 145 3 || 1974 pit | 8 | 67 148 45.3 785 5.3 7 8 | 34 224 2 || 1975 pit | 14 | 165 286 57.7 2055 7.2 18 9 | 35 210 3 || 1976 pit | 10 | 92 192 47.9 1177 6.1 10 9 | 31 219 3 || 1977 pit | 14 | 162 314 51.6 2523 8.0 17 19 | 31 171 3 || 1978 pit | 16 | 207 368 56.2 2915 7.9 28 20 | 32 93 1 || 1979 pit | 16 | 259 472 54.9 3724 7.9 26 25 | 21 83 0 || 1980 pit | 15 | 218 424 51.4 3339 7.9 24 22 | 36 111 2 || 1981 pit | 14 | 201 370 54.3 2887 7.8 22 14 | 38 162 2 || 1982 pit | 9 | 127 240 52.9 1768 7.4 17 11 | 8 10 0 || 1983 pit | 1 | 5 8 62.5 77 9.6 2 0 | 1 3 0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| TOTAL | 168 | 2025 3901 51.9 27989 7.2 212 210 | 444 2257 32 |

Barely more TDs than INTs for his career. Passing stats in that era looked like this.

 

[MarshallRob]

Unless you actually watched those Saints teams plays you can't understand how bad they were. From top to bottom they were a mess. In todays NFL it's not unusual for teams to get better pretty quickly. It happens to a few teams every year. In Manning's era it generally took teams quite a few years to become good since your only avenue to get better was the draft. As good as the Steelers were they were horrible until the fruits of some excellent drafts came to light. In New Orleans case they were probably the most mismanaged franchise in NFL history. They had no clue what they were doing and traveled the downward path for a very long time and literally had no chance every single year.

As for Manning he was a college legend who was considered an icon in the deep south. There was no question he had big time talent but he was in the absolute worst situation a young QB could be in. Much worse than Carr in Houston or Plunkett in New England as hard as that is to believe. Whether Manning would have been a big time QB in another situation will never be known and is open for debate. Yet, one thing was for sure...his career was DOA in New Orleans and the fact he was there for so long made it impossible for him to ever revive that career on another team.

Good posting. Manning's New Orleans Saints weren't just bad, they well have been the worst team that ever was. The owner, John Mecom, was a complete idiot. A year after drafting Manning, Mecom hired an astronaut, **** Gordon, a man with no football experience, to be the team's GM just because Gordon had arranged for Mecom to be invited to a White House reception. Check out the team's subsequent drafts. You'll have a hard time finding anybody in them who ever did anything in the NFL. The Saints only started having some success when they made Jim Finks GM in 1985. Here's how long it's taken some NFL expansion teams to make the playoffs:Colts: 6 years

Cowboys: 7 years

Vikings: 9 years

Falcons: 13 years

Saints: 20 years

Dolphins: 5 years

Cincinnati: 6 years

Buccaneers: 4 years

Seahawks: 8 years

We'll never know how good Manning in his prime might have been on a different team. Maybe he would have been Steve Young. Maybe not. In recent years we have seen some highly drafted QB's who played poorly on bad organizations have some good seasons later in their career after going to a quality team (Testeverde, Plummer). Before free agency, Manning had no shot at starting over somewhere else until it was too late.

I don't see any basis for comparing Manning to Neil Lomax. Besides playing in totally different eras, Lomax had good offensive talent to work with like Roy Green, Pat Tilley, J.T. Smith, and Ottis Anderson.

 

[paydrt]

To put a little perspective on Archie's stats, look at the numbers for Terry Bradshaw, who played pretty much the same time span, had a great team around him, and was considered among the very best:

Year  TM |  G |  Comp  Att  PCT    YD  Y/A  TD INT |  Att  Yards  TD |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| 1970 pit |  13 |    83  218  38.1  1410  6.5  6  24 |    32  233  1 |

| 1971 pit |  14 |  203  373  54.4  2259  6.1  13  22 |    53  247  5 |

| 1972 pit |  14 |  147  308  47.7  1887  6.1  12  12 |    58  346  7 |

| 1973 pit |  10 |    89  180  49.4  1183  6.6  10  15 |    34  145  3 |

| 1974 pit |  8 |    67  148  45.3  785  5.3  7  8 |    34  224  2 |

| 1975 pit |  14 |  165  286  57.7  2055  7.2  18  9 |    35  210  3 |

| 1976 pit |  10 |    92  192  47.9  1177  6.1  10  9 |    31  219  3 |

| 1977 pit |  14 |  162  314  51.6  2523  8.0  17  19 |    31  171  3 |

| 1978 pit |  16 |  207  368  56.2  2915  7.9  28  20 |    32    93  1 |

| 1979 pit |  16 |  259  472  54.9  3724  7.9  26  25 |    21    83  0 |

| 1980 pit |  15 |  218  424  51.4  3339  7.9  24  22 |    36  111  2 |

| 1981 pit |  14 |  201  370  54.3  2887  7.8  22  14 |    38  162  2 |

| 1982 pit |  9 |  127  240  52.9  1768  7.4  17  11 |    8    10  0 |

| 1983 pit |  1 |    5    8  62.5    77  9.6  2  0 |    1    3  0 |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

|  TOTAL  | 168 |  2025  3901  51.9 27989  7.2 212 210 |  444  2257  32 |

Barely more TDs than INTs for his career. Passing stats in that era looked like this.

This was the first player I thought of when I started reading this topic. In todays NFL, numbers like this would have Bradshaw looking at a gig as a career backup, who maybe gets a shot later in his career, ala Trent Dilfer. As for Bradshaws TV career maybe his legacy would have been as a pitch-man for a muffler shop in the Pittsburgh area.

 

[Osaurus]

Archie is more of a player now!!!

 

[Godsbrother]

To put a little perspective on Archie's stats, look at the numbers for Terry Bradshaw, who played pretty much the same time span, had a great team around him, and was considered among the very best:

Year  TM |   G |  Comp   Att   PCT    YD   Y/A  TD INT |  Att  Yards  TD |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| 1970 pit |  13 |    83   218  38.1  1410   6.5   6  24 |    32   233   1 |

| 1971 pit |  14 |   203   373  54.4  2259   6.1  13  22 |    53   247   5 |

| 1972 pit |  14 |   147   308  47.7  1887   6.1  12  12 |    58   346   7 |

| 1973 pit |  10 |    89   180  49.4  1183   6.6  10  15 |    34   145   3 |

| 1974 pit |   8 |    67   148  45.3   785   5.3   7   8 |    34   224   2 |

| 1975 pit |  14 |   165   286  57.7  2055   7.2  18   9 |    35   210   3 |

| 1976 pit |  10 |    92   192  47.9  1177   6.1  10   9 |    31   219   3 |

| 1977 pit |  14 |   162   314  51.6  2523   8.0  17  19 |    31   171   3 |

| 1978 pit |  16 |   207   368  56.2  2915   7.9  28  20 |    32    93   1 |

| 1979 pit |  16 |   259   472  54.9  3724   7.9  26  25 |    21    83   0 |

| 1980 pit |  15 |   218   424  51.4  3339   7.9  24  22 |    36   111   2 |

| 1981 pit |  14 |   201   370  54.3  2887   7.8  22  14 |    38   162   2 |

| 1982 pit |   9 |   127   240  52.9  1768   7.4  17  11 |     8    10   0 |

| 1983 pit |   1 |     5     8  62.5    77   9.6   2   0 |     1     3   0 |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

|  TOTAL   | 168 |  2025  3901  51.9 27989   7.2 212 210 |   444  2257  32 |

Barely more TDs than INTs for his career. Passing stats in that era looked like this.

This was the first player I thought of when I started reading this topic. In todays NFL, numbers like this would have Bradshaw looking at a gig as a career backup, who maybe gets a shot later in his career, ala Trent Dilfer. As for Bradshaws TV career maybe his legacy would have been as a pitch-man for a muffler shop in the Pittsburgh area.

I hear you except that Bradshaw was the #1 pick overall in the draft in 1970. He was expected to be a franchise QB from day one. It took him a while to come into his own and he actually lost his starting job in 1974 to Joe Gilliam. Late in the season Gilliam started throwing INTs and Noll went back to Bradshaw. After winning Super Bowl IX Bradshaw finally became the franchise QB he was thought to be when he was drafted.

As far as comparing TD-INT ratios of the 70s you have to remember that the rules regarding how you can cover WRs changed dramatically. The better CBs would literally get in the face of a receiver and harass him to the point where he was thrown completely off his pattern, assuming he could even get off the line. It made interceptions more common.

 

[dgreen]

The owner, John Mecom, was a complete idiot. A year after drafting Manning, Mecom hired an astronaut, **** Gordon, a man with no football experience, to be the team's GM just because Gordon had arranged for Mecom to be invited to a White House reception.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

The stat that strikes me most about Archie Manning is his career rushing yardage, over 2,000 career yards and a 5.7 average. As athletic as Archie was those genes were not passed onto Peyton and Eli.

 

[Boston]

The stat that strikes me most about Archie Manning is his career rushing yardage, over 2,000 career yards and a 5.7 average. As athletic as Archie was those genes were not passed onto Peyton and Eli.

That's a very good point. Archie was very athletic and had good scrambling ability...although maybe it was more a case of running for your life than it was actual ability.

 

[WhoDat]

That's a very good point. Archie was very athletic and had good scrambling ability...although maybe it was more a case of running for your life than it was actual ability.

He was a great all around athlete running for his life. Manning was that good.

 

[TheLaw]

The stat that strikes me most about Archie Manning is his career rushing yardage, over 2,000 career yards and a 5.7 average. As athletic as Archie was those genes were not passed onto Peyton and Eli.

Look at Bradshaw's: 2250+ yds, 5 ypc and 32TD.

 

[Boston]

That's a very good point. Archie was very athletic and had good scrambling ability...although maybe it was more a case of running for your life than it was actual ability.

He was a great all around athlete running for his life. Manning was the good.

I remember him quite well. It seemed like every play he was the only Saint out there being chased by 11 defenders.

 

[Spartans Rule]

The owner, John Mecom, was a complete idiot.  A year after drafting Manning, Mecom hired an astronaut, **** Gordon, a man with no football experience, to be the team's GM just because Gordon had arranged for Mecom to be invited to a White House reception.

Man, and I thought the Lions screwed up with Matt Millen. I think I've accused him of being a "space cadet" before, but this gives new meaning to the term.

 

[Sand]

Pretty simple.If Manning had been on a decent team he would have been a HOFer. He was that good (on a terrible, terrible team).Which is why he is so beloved in NO. He stuck with the team and sacrificed a bunch to do so.Heck, if I won a contest and was given a choice of a signed jersey from my choice of Mannings, I'd ask for Archie's. Hands down.

 

[MarshallRob]

I wish I'd remembered last night that Jim Plunkett (Patriots), Manning (Saints), and Dan Pastorini (Oilers) were drafted 1st, 2nd, and 3rd overall in 1971. All three were drafted by terrible teams, though the Saints had to be the worst of them. I went ahead and did a comparison. Now Plunkett was the most successful of the three since he ended up quarterbacking two Super Bowl winning teams with the Raiders. Pastorini took the Oilers to the AFC title game in 1978 and 1979 but lost both times, though there's no shame in losing to the Steelers of that era. I think both Pastorini, and more so Plunkett, are considered to have been pretty good QB's but not in the Staubach/Bradshaw/Tarkenton/Griese class. Manning never once led a team to a winning record. So was he the worst of the 1971 first-rounders? Pastorini's last year as a full-time starter was 1979, Manning's was 1981, and Plunkett's was 1984. Here are the stats for the three through 1979:

Manning

COMP ATT PCT YD Y/A TD INT

1405 2587 54.3 16568 6.40 87 123

Plunkett

COMP ATT PCT YD Y/A TD INT

990 2009 49.3 13306 6.62 85 118

Pastorini

COMP ATT PCT YD Y/A TD INT

2768 1426 51.5 16864 6.09 96 139

Manning appears to have the best stats of the three in their prime, especially once you add in the rushing numbers:

Manning--355/2030/18

Plunkett--209/1001/10

Pastorini--204/656/8

Their career QB ratings are:

Plunkett 67.5

Manning 67.1

Pastorini 59.1

Plunkett's best years were in the 1980's with the Raiders which allowed him to edge out Manning but for the 1971-1979 period Manning's rating was better. None of the three ever made an All-Pro team but Manning was All-NFC in 1978. Manning made the Pro Bowl in 1979 and 1980. Pastorini went in 1976. Plunkett was never selected. So in their prime the evidence indicates Manning played the best of the three.

How much credit should Plunkett and Pastorini get for the success of their teams? I'm not sure. The Patriots got rid of Plunkett after five years, trading him to the Niners. The Niners waived him after two seasons and Plunkett was actually out of football in 1978. He was what you would call a complete bust. A QB taken #1 overall that was discarded by two different two teams. The Raiders signed him in 1979 but Plunkett didn't start until 1980 when Pastorini, who the team traded for at the start of the season, went down with an injury. The Raiders hadn't had a losing season since 1964 and the 1980 squad was loaded with talent like Hendricks, Upshaw, Shell, Branch, Guy, Lester Hayes, Rod Martin, and the Tooz. They might still have won it all if Pastorini hadn't gone down. Plunkett had his best year ever up to that time but his QB rating was still only 72.9. The Raiders' passing offense was below average for the season. In 1983 Plunkett had his best year ever with a 82.7 rating. Of course the 1983 team was truly a great team. They didn't have Shell and Upshaw anymore, but they added three other Hall of Famers in Marcus Allen, Howie Long, and Mike Haynes, along with Alzado, Millen, and Christiansen.

Similarly, Pastorini benefitted from a mid-career talent influx. The defense added Curley Culp and Robert Brazille, and drafting Earl Campbell in 1978 made the team a Super Bowl contender. Pastorini's numbers for those two playoff seasons aren't much different than what he'd done the previous 2 seasons once you adjust for the added games. It was Campbell and the defense that made the difference. Given how Manning played compared to Plunkett and Pastorini for the first 9 years of their careers, it seems likely he could at least have done as well as they did if he'd been surrounded by comparable talent. Manning just never got the incredible break that Plunkett did. Manning might not have been a Hall of Famer, but I do think he was better than Plunkett and Pastorini.

Of course the best QB taken in 1971 was the Bengals' 3rd-round pick, Ken Anderson.

 

[dgreen]

Good stuff, MarshallRob.Manning clearly wasn't better than Staubach, Bradshaw, Tarkenton, and Griese. Ken Anderson was better and I assume Ken Stabler was, too. What about guys like Billy Kilmer, Jim Hart, Bert Jones, Steve Grogan, and Craig Morton?

 

[nygiants56]

just like chris mortensen was saying on his online chat yesterday: alot of NFL insiders think joe montana would have been an average qb, had he NOT been drafted by bill walsh's 49ers..they are wondering if the same isn't true about big ben ..he landed in a good spot in pitt, with a good D to bail him out if he makes mistakes and throws ints..same can be said about archie I suppose..what if he was drafted by a team like the don coryell chargers that dan fouts rode to the HOF? or if he played for the cowboys that Aikman ran in the early 90's? what if marino played for ditka in chicago, would he still own ALL those NFL passing records? if bart starr played for mike martz in st louis, we might be calling him the next ryan leaf..archie did well,considering where he was..they were the 'aints afterall!

 

[MarshallRob]

Good stuff, MarshallRob.

Manning clearly wasn't better than Staubach, Bradshaw, Tarkenton, and Griese. Ken Anderson was better and I assume Ken Stabler was, too. What about guys like Billy Kilmer, Jim Hart, Bert Jones, Steve Grogan, and Craig Morton?

I don't really have any actual memories of Archie Manning playing. The Saints were hardly ever on TV and pre-ESPN you didn't get a whole lot of highlights. Most of what I know is what I've read about him. I did watch a lot of Dolphins games as a kid so I do know that Bert Jones was a fantastic QB for 3 years, right up there with anybody and it's a real shame injuries derailed his career. Grogan had his moments but he never really improved as his career went on. I never thought Morton was any good. He may be the worst Super Bowl performer of all-time. Hart kind of hung around forever and I admire the durability but he wasn't an elite performer ever. Kilmer was like Jim Harbaugh to me.

 

[Green Apple Splatter]

I do know that Bert Jones was a fantastic QB for 3 years, right up there with anybody and it's a real shame injuries derailed his career.

Jones to Carr is the best by far.

 

[jetmonkey]

No Ken Anderson love?

 

[Nihilist Pig]

No Ken Anderson love?

It's a thread about mediocre, overrated QB's on terrible teams. Kenny was an above-average performer on some very solid teams. He is getting love by his very absence.

 

[Fear The Turtle]

No list of very good QBs on bad teams can be complete without the hero of my youth, Sonny Jurgenson. For most of his prime, the Skins had no D and no running game. Just Sonny winging it.I can remember watching Manning play and I remember feeling sorry for him. He was constantly under pressure back there. Tough situation for any QB.

 

[Sidewinder16]

It's a thread about mediocre, overrated QB's on terrible teams.

No list of very good QBs on bad teams can be complete without the hero of my youth, Sonny Jurgenson.

If Pig is on target then bringing Jurgensen's name into this thread is a crime against humanity.He's in my personal top 5 (#4 actually) of all time great QBs. Even remotely comparing him to Manning (or any other mediocre to good QB) is