Who do you start a team with? (1 Viewer)

[obxlegends]

no he's not - Graham won three NFL championships.Brady has won 3 (and is still going), Montana won 4, Bradshaw won 4, and Starr won 5.

Since you want to parse my words then let's go. Graham won 3 NFL (if that's all you want to count) championships in 6 years. That's a 50% clip. Better than Montana, Brady, Bradshaw and Starr. Thanks for playing.

Warren Moon won five championships in six years, so clearly he's better than Graham, right?Today's CFL is more competitive than the NFL of 1950; you can't compared compare the championships of QBs in today's NFL, a 32-team league which has all the best players in a major national sport, to those of QBs in the 1950s, when there were 13 teams (or 9 in the AAFC where Graham started), and college football was far more important than the pro leagues. Championships are a fairly poor measure of an individual's performance, anyway, but championships 50 years removed are not comparable at all.

I don't know how this became a debate on the merits of one Otto Graham. I was just simply pointing out that to easily dismiss his accomplishments is a mistake. So he played in the AAFC and his teams were far more stacked than any other team. So what? He excelled under those circumstances. I'm not willing to discount Graham's accomplishments as a "winner" because they are documented and they stand on their own. Even if you discount his AAFC days his NFL resume is still top notch. I'll present to you Robert Horry. I believe he's has won more (or as many) championships as any player over the last 30 years. However no one would put Horry in their Top 10 or Top 50 or... you get the point. Horry had intangibles that lent himself to being valuable (clutch shooting to name one) and wanted by good teams. Horry also helped those teams win championships. He's a winner. A great player? No. A great winner? Yes.I'd venture to say that Otto Graham is more than a Rich Man's Robert Horry. Graham was a GREAT player who excelled within the circumstances provided. He can't really help that his teams were stacked. He can't help a myriad of circumstances that haunt his reputation today as a great player. The only thing he ever did was win. In the end that's all you ever want in a player right?

 

[moleculo]

no he's not - Graham won three NFL championships.

Brady has won 3 (and is still going), Montana won 4, Bradshaw won 4, and Starr won 5.

Since you want to parse my words then let's go. Graham won 3 NFL (if that's all you want to count) championships in 6 years. That's a 50% clip. Better than Montana, Brady, Bradshaw and Starr. Thanks for playing.

Warren Moon won five championships in six years, so clearly he's better than Graham, right?Today's CFL is more competitive than the NFL of 1950; you can't compared compare the championships of QBs in today's NFL, a 32-team league which has all the best players in a major national sport, to those of QBs in the 1950s, when there were 13 teams (or 9 in the AAFC where Graham started), and college football was far more important than the pro leagues.

Championships are a fairly poor measure of an individual's performance, anyway, but championships 50 years removed are not comparable at all.

I don't know how this became a debate on the merits of one Otto Graham. I was just simply pointing out that to easily dismiss his accomplishments is a mistake. So he played in the AAFC and his teams were far more stacked than any other team. So what? He excelled under those circumstances. I'm not willing to discount Graham's accomplishments as a "winner" because they are documented and they stand on their own. Even if you discount his AAFC days his NFL resume is still top notch. I'll present to you Robert Horry. I believe he's has won more (or as many) championships as any player over the last 30 years. However no one would put Horry in their Top 10 or Top 50 or... you get the point. Horry had intangibles that lent himself to being valuable (clutch shooting to name one) and wanted by good teams. Horry also helped those teams win championships. He's a winner. A great player? No. A great winner? Yes.

I'd venture to say that Otto Graham is more than a Rich Man's Robert Horry. Graham was a GREAT player who excelled within the circumstances provided. He can't really help that his teams were stacked. He can't help a myriad of circumstances that haunt his reputation today as a great player. The only thing he ever did was win. In the end that's all you ever want in a player right?

I made the claim that he may have been the greatest QB of his era, and I'll stick to that. My problem is that people will hold him up above all other QB's simply because he won seven three titles - when you look at the circumstances, seven three titles isn't all that impressive, IMO. He did plenty with what was handed to him, for sure. So did Montana, Bradshaw, Starr, Brady, Aikman, etc. Graham deserves to be in the same tier as these guys, and I have no problem with that. But, I think he should be towards the bottom of that list (which also should include Elway, Marino, Unitas, Favre, and a few others).

IMO, if you wanted to argue the merits of Otto Graham, it has to start with the fact that he is #2 and #3 all time for yards/attempt in a season, both times over 10 yds/att. Then, I'd mention that he twice led the league in passing yards, QB rating, was a 5x pro-bowler, and 5x all pro (in 6 seasons). to me, that's all impressive enough to warrant elite consideration, without bringing up team achievements. My issue isn't so much that I don't like Graham, I simply don't like the title argument.

 

[CalBear]

Walter Payton

Here's something to think about: if the franchise wasn't successful building around the player you suggest, maybe he's not the best player to build a franchise around. In the first 10 years Payton was with the Bears, they had a winning record just twice. They did make the Super Bowl twice in the last three years of his career, winning once, so the franchise wasn't a total failure, but it doesn't look like having Payton to build around made the franchise successful. The same argument applies to Barry Sanders. On the other hand, if the franchise was already successful when the player showed up, I don't think it's reasonable to say he'd be the best player to build around. The Niners won a Super Bowl the year before Rice showed up; Rice certainly had the most amazing career of any WR, and maybe any player in NFL history, but that doesn't mean he would have been the player to build a franchise around. He wouldn't have had the career he did if he started on a 2-14 team with no offense.

I would bias my selections towards players who started on bad teams that became dynasties. Joe Montana gets my vote on the offensive side; the Niners were 2-14 the two years before he took over as starter, and he won three Super Bowls with vastly different personnel, on a team defined by its offense.

By those criteria, on defense I might have to go with Joe Greene. He was drafted onto a team that had won three games in two years, and he went on to win four Super Bowls, as the defensive leader for a team defined by its defense.

 

[az_prof]

Jerry Rice: Consistency, excellence, and longevity. It would be hard to pick anyone better to build around.

Mike Singletary: Defensive field general, and this guy gave 110% and made sure everyone else did too. Toughness defined.

Peyton Manning: I know Brady has won more, but I love the way he is a general on the field, changing the play at the line of scrimmage.

Alan Page: First defensive player to be MVP

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I do not get picking a RB or a WR I do not believe thats how franchises are built. Everything starts up front in football and how well your big boys play will determine the outcome of most games.

So mine would be

A.Munoz (T) or John Hannah (G)

&

Deacon Jones (DE) or Reggie White (DE)

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I don't quite get all of the Lawrence Taylor love. Sure, he was a stud, but do you think he could survive/thrive the same way in today's NFL, with all of the emphasis on character and the drug testing to help ensure it? Ummm....no.

Love the Reggie White pick. I'd pair that with a top notch Qb like Manning, Montana, or Brady.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you weren't old enough to really watch and evaluate football games when he was playing in his prime.He was the only guy I've ever seen who could single handedly dominate on defense. He'd line up all over the place, QB's were terrfied of him. We'll never see another LT and as a Dallas fan, I'm fine with that.

Reggie White could be a dominant force on any part of the defensive line. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about him showing up for a game in handcuffs. Reggie was just as dominant as LT, and yeah I saw LT play. Matter of fact, he's probably who I'd have second. But let's face it, his coke problem would be a downfall today.

Ya, Reggie dominated. He was probably the 2nd best defensive player I've seen. LT stands out to me because of his speed and viscious intensity.I'm not buying into the argument of he'd have a harder time today with his drug problem. Anytime you are into drugs, it's a hard time. I'd evaluate him by exactly what you saw on the field........which is dominance.

He was a force. One year he had 11 interceptions......and offensive coordinators said that even with 11 interceptions, it was a blessing when he didn't come off the edge to knock out your franchise payer. That's how good he was.

11 INT's, amazing.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Walter Payton

Here's something to think about: if the franchise wasn't successful building around the player you suggest, maybe he's not the best player to build a franchise around. In the first 10 years Payton was with the Bears, they had a winning record just twice. They did make the Super Bowl twice in the last three years of his career, winning once, so the franchise wasn't a total failure, but it doesn't look like having Payton to build around made the franchise successful. The same argument applies to Barry Sanders. On the other hand, if the franchise was already successful when the player showed up, I don't think it's reasonable to say he'd be the best player to build around. The Niners won a Super Bowl the year before Rice showed up; Rice certainly had the most amazing career of any WR, and maybe any player in NFL history, but that doesn't mean he would have been the player to build a franchise around. He wouldn't have had the career he did if he started on a 2-14 team with no offense.

I would bias my selections towards players who started on bad teams that became dynasties. Joe Montana gets my vote on the offensive side; the Niners were 2-14 the two years before he took over as starter, and he won three Super Bowls with vastly different personnel, on a team defined by its offense.

By those criteria, on defense I might have to go with Joe Greene. He was drafted onto a team that had won three games in two years, and he went on to win four Super Bowls, as the defensive leader for a team defined by its defense.

I chose Lee Roy Selmon, and his teams were pretty rotten. But the Buccaneers were always a strong defensive team, even when they had no hope of winning. Plus, I wanted character guys so I went with Selmon and Favre. As vicious as he was on the field, Lee Roy Selmon was never called for a personal foul penalty in his entire career.I think if you start with two standout Hall of Fame players like that, they'll attract fans and free agents, and the team will be a success. Plus, with Favre it's nice to know that your player won't miss any games. You'll get your money's worth out of him.

 

[bbuster]

Favre. His longevity and toughness alone would make him a no brainer.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I don't quite get all of the Lawrence Taylor love. Sure, he was a stud, but do you think he could survive/thrive the same way in today's NFL, with all of the emphasis on character and the drug testing to help ensure it? Ummm....no.

Love the Reggie White pick. I'd pair that with a top notch Qb like Manning, Montana, or Brady.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you weren't old enough to really watch and evaluate football games when he was playing in his prime.He was the only guy I've ever seen who could single handedly dominate on defense. He'd line up all over the place, QB's were terrfied of him. We'll never see another LT and as a Dallas fan, I'm fine with that.

Reggie White could be a dominant force on any part of the defensive line. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about him showing up for a game in handcuffs. Reggie was just as dominant as LT, and yeah I saw LT play. Matter of fact, he's probably who I'd have second. But let's face it, his coke problem would be a downfall today.

Ya, Reggie dominated. He was probably the 2nd best defensive player I've seen. LT stands out to me because of his speed and viscious intensity.I'm not buying into the argument of he'd have a harder time today with his drug problem. Anytime you are into drugs, it's a hard time. I'd evaluate him by exactly what you saw on the field........which is dominance.

He was a force. One year he had 11 interceptions......and offensive coordinators said that even with 11 interceptions, it was a blessing when he didn't come off the edge to knock out your franchise payer. That's how good he was.

11 INT's, amazing.

As great as LT was I think we forget that he played with quite possibly two of the most under rated LB's ever to play the game. I am not taking anything way from LT but Harry Carson and Carl Banks were absolutely incredible and allowed LT to do a lot of the free lancing that he did.