namelesstavern.net

by **Tadpole** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:59 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1950067

Watching SportsCenter, they believe he is going to miss the Super Bowl, if the Eagles reach it. This made me laugh.

The only bad thing that comes out of this is not seeing Andy Reid is tights.

by **Malluas** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:10 pm

lol well now everyone will see McNabb is nothing without TO. Will be funny to watch they lose AGAIN... they might even lose to atlanta now heh

by **mofish** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:13 pm

McNabb is a great quarterback. I dont care what your hero Rush says about him. He has zero weapons without TO, and hasnt had any, ever. Todd Pinkston? Laugh.

by **Malluas** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:09 am

um just cause he doesn't have weapons doesn't excuse his horrible throws and fumbles that last few years. His choking in big games has nothing to do with what he has around. when you throw a pass straight to the defense 3 times in a big game... that isn't cause he doesn't have TO. He had enough to get him to the NFC championship game 3 years in a row.

Montana had jack shit for his first 2 superbowls.

McNabb is just another Randel Cunningham. Good but not good enough.

i hated him before Rush said that ass. If he is so great how come he can't win a NFC championship game?

Montana could will teams to win, Favre also, Steve Young, TB.......... have yet to see peyton or mcnabb do that PERIOD

when he wins something come back with your great QB thing

by **Lyion** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:21 am

mofish wrote:McNabb is a great quarterback. I dont care what your hero Rush says about him. He has zero weapons without TO, and hasnt had any, ever. Todd Pinkston? Laugh.

Concur. Not only is he a great QB, he's a class guy. However, Mcnabb also has a stellar D, and a kickass DC, which is a big reason for the Eagles success.

by **vonkaar** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:29 am

Malluas wrote:Montana could will teams to win, Favre also, Steve Young, TB.......... have yet to see peyton or mcnabb do that PERIOD

when he wins something come back with your great QB thing

[smiley poster=cool]word[/smiley]

by **Tacks** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:09 am

He has been a great QB this year...this year. Right up there with Peyton.

We'll see how he finishes.

by **Xaiveir** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:23 am

Malluas wrote:um just cause he doesn't have weapons doesn't excuse his horrible throws and fumbles that last few years. His choking in big games has nothing to do with what he has around. when you throw a pass straight to the defense 3 times in a big game... that isn't cause he doesn't have TO. He had enough to get him to the NFC championship game 3 years in a row.

Montana had jack shit for his first 2 superbowls.

McNabb is just another Randel Cunningham. Good but not good enough.

i hated him before Rush said that ass. If he is so great how come he can't win a NFC championship game?

Montana could will teams to win, Favre also, Steve Young, TB.......... have yet to see peyton or mcnabb do that PERIOD

when he wins something come back with your great QB thing

Actually Montana's first 2 superbowl victories are widely considered the most talented all around teams, he had alot more than "Jack Shit".

As for Donovan Mcnabb, he is good, really good. He has lacked wide reicevers though. Every quarterback that has been great from Joe Montana, Steve young, Dan Marino, John Elway, Brett Favre, Troy Aikman, they have all had weapons around him to allow him to compete or win in a super bowl.

Mcnabb has had enough to get to the championship game, but when your wide recievers arnt open to throw the ball too, you cant win. With TO in the game, Philly wins the NFC this year, without him, they still win. There is not another team out there that is as good as the Eagles this year.

However without TO (and this is hard for me to say because i really dont like TO) they lose to whoever they play from the AFC in the superbowl. Without a TO to stretch the defenses, and give the team a deep ball threat, it allows defenses to place more people in the box to stop the run, and single cover their other receivers.

Every Quarterback that has won the superbowl in the last 25 years has had a "TO" type reciever to go to. No matter how great a quarterback is, they cant win without a talented reciever or go to guy on passing plays.

People are way to judgemental on Mcnabb, just because he hasnt won the big game yet. Well he is still not that old, how long did it take John Elway to win that big game? Sure he could get to the superbowl, but couldnt win it for a long time. What about Dan Marino, got the Dolphins to the superbowl only once, couldnt win that game, or get back to the superbowl after his second season in the league. Was he a choke artist? Was he not that good? No he got beat by the better TEAM. Just like the eagles have the last few years, they got beat by the better TEAM.

by **Malluas** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:55 am

xav... i want to kno who says the first 2 superbowl teams were the most talented 9er teams. Seeing as my dad and countless uncles and aunts can't name one hall of famer on those teams... or even all pros, not sure your thinking of the same 2 years. And all of these people had season tickets and followed the team hardcore.

yes the 9ers were a great TEAM but they didn't have anything like in 88 and 89. Especially in 81 they had jack crap compared to what Brady or Mcnabb have. The closest thing that the 81 team has would be the Patriots first superbowl team a few years ago. No names that won a superbowl. 84 i would say more well known but still not the BEST players in the league. you don't get that till 88 and 89. Seeing as Jerry and Taylor weren't around till 86 and after... Joe didn't have any good compared to them. or Craig

by **vonkaar** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:22 am

The 1990 and 1995 Niners are generally considered to be the peak years for both eras. If you are talking team chemistry, then maybe... yeah... the first two might work. I always hear people talk about the 'magic' of those.

But, for raw talent... sheer 'hitting' power... holy fuck, this team is going to mow you over... 1995 gets my vote.

by **mofish** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:29 pm

The niners in 81, that was a special, magic year. I attribute that to Joe Montana for one. Just because I think McNabb is very good, doesnt mean I think hes Joe Montana

And also, that was an era when the West Coast was just emerging. Bill Walsh was a genius, people couldnt do shit against his schemes. 81 was really magic for the 49ers, hats off to them. And if there is a team I love to hate, its the 49ers.

by **Xaiveir** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:34 pm

As far as best "teams" go yeah the early 80 niners were amazing. Personally i would pick the 1994/1995 superbowl team personally. Person for person i think its the best team on paper ever.

But John Madden, and Steve Sable along with many other football specialists still picked the early teams, because of the "magic" they had.

But they certainly had their weapons, Dwight Clark, Ronnie Lott, Montana, Randy Cross, Walt Downing anchored one of the best O lines ever, Fred Dean on the D line, Keena Turner at LB, Freddie Solomon at WR and kick returner. These guys are just from the 81 team.

Not a knock on you Malluas, but my guess is you havnt heard of most of these guys because of your age, or if you have heard of them you cant understand how good these guys were. They were the meaning of the word blue collar workers. Most of these guys never will make it to the Hall, let alone many pro bowls, but for the early 80s these guys were dominant.

by **vonkaar** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:45 pm

mofish wrote:Just because I think McNabb is very good, doesnt mean I think hes Joe Montana

I can live with that.

And also... I think that the 95 Niner's superbowl team could beat any football team in the history of the planet. Even Jesus' football team. Young had a perfect QB rating through 3 of the 4 playoff games, including the superbowl... how the fuck do you stop that?

by **Malluas** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:19 pm

xav.. only downing i have never heard of. I used to be neighbors with Joe Montana (mowed his lawn hehe) and Ronnie lott (probably best safety to ever play the game) I met fred dean Dwight and keena. My dad was keena's, joe's, and Ronnie's dentist for a while.

like i said they are probably the best TEAMs.. but individually they didn't have the talent of other teams. I think madden would pick them cause they were lunch bucket guys. Hard workers that weren't the best but the smartest and hustled. Madden likes those guys over all others. But i would still take the 89 or 95 team over any other team in NFL history. the undefeated dolphins i don't think could have beat them

i dont kno. the 89 offense was killer. But the 95 defense was better. Well vonk how do you stop a team when going in the best WR holds all recieving records in the Superbowl.. then a minute in scores like a 60 yard TD hehe.

That was the one completely bought championship imo.. but i got over it when you see like 12 hall of famers on one team running around the field. But all those guys were hard workers also.

Rod Woodson and Dion on the corners.. jesus

Timmy Mac and Hanks at the safties (better than most safties now adays)

B young, stubby, doleman, and i can't remember lol but i think he was a future hall of famer.

Norton jackson plummer as the LBs.

thats just on Defense

young, Jerry, Ricky watters (when he wasn't a wuss) big ass althetic offensive line.

ah the glory days... hehe

I think that mcnabb is good... top 2 no. After the top 2 there is a major drop off. Right now i put my top 2 as brady then Manning. I say that on who i would want on my team to lead through the playoffs. Regular season i would pick manning. and the NFC is so shitty that the eagles will still get to the superbowl.. but get crushed by the Steelers.

by **Arlos** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:22 pm

I still think the 89 49ers were better all-around than the 95 team. The Broncos had lost that game before they ever even got off the team bus, and they were not an awful team. Not dissing the 95 team, just from watching them locally, I think they were better. That and I think Montana was a better QB than Young. Not that Young isn't a easy 1st ballot hall of famer, but Montana was the best QB ever in football, period.

-Arlos

by **Lyion** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:26 pm

Montana had the benefit of an obscenely good 49er defense. While he is an awesome QB, much of his success can be attributed to the personnel around him.

Steve Young won the title with a lesser defense, and tougher competition in the Cowboys and Packers.

Montana could not take a mediocre KC team to the game. Young indeed took a mediocre San Fran team there.

by **vonkaar** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:29 pm

Alright, but... since I'm a huge Steve Young fan... I'll ask this...

Given a 'different' situation, would Steve Young have been the undisputed #1? Meaning... take away the minors, the 2nd string years... Let's say that he was drafted into a young Cowboys team with Irvin, Harper, Johnston, Smith and company coming close behind.

alright, that's getting sort of stupid.

my point is... he's usually listed in the top FIVE QBs of all time, yet he really only had a few 'great' years... due to his playing time. Half of his career was wasted sitting behind Montana or playing in the minors. All of the other 'greats' were starters from day one. What could Young have been if he had the 'correct' chance?

by **Malluas** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:33 pm

lyion.. montana took over games himself. he was the MJ of football. when he gets in the huddle in the superbowl.. losing the game atm.. 1:58 left. And instead of relaying the play right away says "hey guys there is John Candy" then calmly throws down the field to win the superbowl, only 1 other player i have seen do that in a superbowl and thats Tom brady. there are a couple others i kno but...

and the 9ers defense in 88 and 89 was crappy. Look at yards and points given up. 84 i think had a great defense and 95 was pretty good. Steve won with like 8 hall of famers on Defense. so that defense was worse than before when those other Ds were giving up like almost 20 a game?

And joe didn't have to beat the skins and the giants... remember those teams having at least 4 superbowls between them? not including the bears with that D.

by **Malluas** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:43 pm

who knows he might have been great for more years. But no one will know. I would still take Joe over young in pressure situations. Thats what puts joe #1. i think young is in the farve category.

top Tier

Montana, Bradshaw

2nd Tier
unitas, elway, Young, farve

3rd tier
Aikman (could be in the 2nd tier but i hate how pansy he was... not a tough guy), Marino (would be 1st tier if he won a superbowl), Manning (as of now), Tom Brady (2 superbowl wins 2 MVPs in thosegames) tarkantin (no clue how to spell his name)

by **vonkaar** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:44 pm

Well, Young was a 'tough' guy to a fault... playing with like.. 900 concussions and shit. SIT DOWN SON.

Moone belongs in the 3rd tier, at least. I put TB below Joe though.

by **Malluas** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:52 pm

yea i would also but he was better than the other guys so hehe (4 superbowls also helps him heh)

forgot about my man Warren.. hard to try to remember all the good QBs i have watched over the years heh.

yea young was a dumbie when it came to his concussions. But again you have brett farve who i thnk broke that same finger when he was 5 and it hasn't healed since. McNair who plays hurt every season. I just remember Aikman sittin out a game cause of a bruised leg. WTF was that. Even Griese played with a seperated shoulder. Leftwich was carried up and down the field in that bowl game.

still wondering why John taylor isn't the Hall yet. Did he not play enough years? any guy with 2 90+ rec TDs in a game (against the hated Rams

) that was a PR and KR also. shuold be there. He was feared in all 3 positions. Thats why the 9er offense couldn't be stopped. you had John Taylor who would be the best in the league right now, and then you had jerry who was best ever and will never be surpased. John needs to be voted in. if not for a great #1 for the best #2 ever.

by **Xaiveir** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:06 pm

Ill agree with you there Mall. But getting back to the original point of Montana not having any weapons, he did have weapons, lots of em, more so than the Eagles have had the last 3 years wouldnt you say (until TO)?

And Rod Woodson was on the team after they won the superbowl. The other corner alongside Dion was Eric Davis who got the shaft from the probowl that year. He was the only one that was not on the Pro bowl team from the secondary (3 of the 4 starters were from the niners that year). Eric led that team in INTs i believe, had a great year. FYI Rod Woodson played safty for the niners when he was picked up.

Montana is the best quarterback of all time, he is truly the MJ of football. Young is right up there with him, hard to pick between the two. They both had much differnt styles, but both could will their teams to win. Young would be considered higher if he wasnt behind montana. The reason why Montana didnt take the chiefs to the super bowl was that he was aging, and not as effective anymore. And any of those 49ers teams were not mediocre, they were always good if not the best.

Bradshaw is a tier 2 quarterback. Tier 1 would be Montana, young, Elway, Favre.

Tier 2 is Brady (you cant argue, he has 2 superbowl MVPs) Unitas, Tarkenton, Bradshaw, Aikman, Marino (sorry cant keep him off just because he didnt win a superbowl).

Tier 3 Mcnabb, Manning (for now could be tier 1 soon). Both of these QBs have great skills. Moon is tier 3 also.

And last but not least Mall you say Montana didnt have to deal with beating skins and Giants? (maybe i read it wrong). But that is who he dealt with every year in the playoffs, no telling how many times they would have gone to the superbowl if they werent there. I remember them losing to the giants because Craig fumbled with the lead, Giants go down and kick a field goal to win in the closing seconds of the NFC Championship.

by **Xaiveir** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:12 pm

Taylor isnt in the HoF because he played in the shadow of Jerry. The football HoF is very hard to get into, and he just didnt have the stats. He was a great Reicever, would have been number 1 for probably any other team in the league those years.

I really hope he gets voted in eventually, truly does deserve it. The niners wouldnt have been as good without him thats for sure.

by **Malluas** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:14 pm

no i was talkin about what lyion said about steve having it harder with the cowboys and packers and having to beat them. Joe had to go through the bears, skins and Giants thats what i was saying.

hrmm must have had a brain fart. completely forgot about davis lol. Woodson was with that team that almost broke the record for points allowed per game the next year like at 13 or something (i THINK).

If craig didn't fumble they might have won 4 superbowls in a row. MAYBE 5 who knows.

by **Xaiveir** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:21 pm

Malluas wrote:no i was talkin about what lyion said about steve having it harder with the cowboys and packers and having to beat them. Joe had to go through the bears, skins and Giants thats what i was saying.

hrmm must have had a brain fart. completely forgot about davis lol. Woodson was with that team that almost broke the record for points allowed per game the next year like at 13 or something (i THINK).

If craig didn't fumble they might have won 4 superbowls in a row. MAYBE 5 who knows.

Ok so i did read it wrong. You had put that Joe didnt have to go through the skins and Giants (or maybe i read it as didnt hehe). Gotcha now though, was going to have to call you crazy! :wink:

And yes, if Craig wouldnt have fumbled in the open field they would have played Buffalo and spanked em. Wich i have to add Jim Kelly to my tier 2 list. He was a great quarterback as well.

namelesstavern.net

TO out for season, possibly play-offs, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHH

TO out for season, possibly play-offs, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHH

Who is online