RockyRaccoon Posted November 5, 2011 Report Posted November 5, 2011 Bradshaw is a perfect example of this, overrated mediocre quarterback who had hall of fame talent surrounding him. It was their defense that won 4 super bowls. Absolutely. Bradshaw was just competent enough to not be terrible. Archie Manning was a much better QB than Bradshaw. But no one cares about Manning.
miamisammy29 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 From Wikipedia: Archie Manning TD's - 125 Interceptions - 173 "His record as a starter was 35–101–3 (26.3%), the worst in NFL history among QB's with at least 100 starts". In my book, that sucks! Horribly! Without his kids, he'd be just another has-been.
MindCrime Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 Archie didn't have any good receivers to throw to or a decent line to protect him. You have to remember he was on a terrible Saints team.
miamisammy29 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 He was on at least three different teams...and they were all terrible. And he was a big reason they were all terrible.
RockyRaccoon Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 I'm not saying Archie was Joe Montana or anything. But I believe if he had been on the Steelers team that Bradshaw was on, he would've done just as well as Bradshaw. But Bradshaw's the one everyone gets all giddy over.
RockyRaccoon Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 I'm not saying Archie was Joe Montana or anything. But I believe if he had been on the Steelers team that Bradshaw was on, he would've done just as well as Bradshaw. But Bradshaw's the one everyone gets all giddy over.
miamisammy29 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 Yeah, I'll agree with you there. If he was with the Steelers, he may have won a Super Bowl, too. But I doubt he would have won four.
Uncle Joe Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 He was on at least three different teams...and they were all terrible. And he was a big reason they were all terrible. That's how I remember it.
Uncle Joe Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 Pujols signs with The Angels. Didn't see THAT coming. I can't believe the Cards allowed the greatest player in their proud history to get away. I mean, they'd never have let Stan Musial walk.
Lucky Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 It's a sad day for St Louis. I'm not exaggerating, The Cardinals/Albert Pujols are each in their own way such a huge deal in that town. I honestly almost cried over this. I can't hold it against Albert, but his decision makes me sad. The Cardinals' organization's decision just ticks me off. They could have matched that deal. They just chose not to. Business or not, you don't let go of an icon.
RonJonSurfer Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 In a lesser way, The Mets losing Jose Reyes is a sad day for Mets fans. In both cases the teams are at fault...but just once I'd like to see a player take less out of loyalty, tradition, or team pride...anything...it never happens. I've seen guys take less to go to the team of their choice, but never less to stay with the team that helped make them what they are.
miamisammy29 Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 Pujols signs with The Angels. Didn't see THAT coming. I did! I said just yesterday that if he doesn't sign with St. Louis, there were only two other teams he could sign with....The Angels or the Rangers. I'm not surprised at all. ....but "it's not about the money".... (At least he didn't sign with the Yankees.)
Lucky Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 That's the thing, loyalty. On both sides.
RockyRaccoon Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 For the amount of money they're paying him, Pujols better come with Christopher Lloyd as his angel
bluesboy Posted December 9, 2011 Report Posted December 9, 2011 Alright!! I think we get the Angel games on the sports channels.
phil Posted December 9, 2011 Report Posted December 9, 2011 Big deal!! The Padres signed Marc Kotsay. That's what I'm talking about.
Lucky Posted December 9, 2011 Report Posted December 9, 2011 Alright!! I think we get the Angel games on the sports channels. That does not cheer me up at all. I have this little Albert Pujols action figure that I keep on my desk at work. I made a little paper bag for him to wear over his head for the foreseeable future.
RockyRaccoon Posted December 9, 2011 Report Posted December 9, 2011 Big deal!! The Padres signed Marc Kotsay. That's what I'm talking about. That would've been awesome like 8 years ago
RonJonSurfer Posted December 12, 2011 Report Posted December 12, 2011 The Angels signed who? Right, Who's on first.
bluesboy Posted December 12, 2011 Report Posted December 12, 2011 Albert should have signed for a little less money per year and stayed in St. Louis and had a statue in 15 years right behind Stan the Man. Whether you make $132,000 a game or $115,000 a game for the next 10 years seems moot to stay a God in St. Louis.
RockyRaccoon Posted December 14, 2011 Report Posted December 14, 2011 Albert should have signed for a little less money per year and stayed in St. Louis and had a statue in 15 years right behind Stan the Man. Whether you make $132,000 a game or $115,000 a game for the next 10 years seems moot to stay a God in St. Louis. Not many players stay with their team forever. Perhaps you don't remember the days of Frank Robinson in a Dodgers jersey? Johnny Unitas on the Chargers? Joe Namath with the Rams? Hank Aaron with the Brewers? I mean, not every great player stays with their team their whole career. Whereas I think Pujols probably should have stayed in St. Louis, it's not necessarily the norm for players to do that.
bluesboy Posted December 14, 2011 Report Posted December 14, 2011 In the old days there's many players who flourished their whole careers with one team. Each player as he reaches the time to sign a new contract or extension has to deal with the business part of his sport. Each sport has a different take on what form of slavery the owners impose of the players. In the old days, when an owner decided that a player was dispensable, sometimes that player needed the juice of playing elsewhere or for the money for another season or two. Perhaps you don't remember the days of Frank Robinson in a Dodgers jersey? Johnny Unitas on the Chargers? Joe Namath with the Rams? Hank Aaron with the Brewers? I do remember.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now