This ridiculously long thread has revealed what posers (yes, literally) a lot of you long time posters are. For the few of you that have a job, do you wish failure for your new coworkers if you don't like them from the start?

Flame on

LOL.

If you don't like them...

I can 'like' somebody and still see they are [BLEEP] at their job...or didn't deserve it in the first place.  I see it every day.

Preach it, Rico

Question for prime - if your coworkers start to question the boss's decision to hire the new person, do you interpret that as wishing failure on that new person?

If your boss hires a 67 year old former employee who he managed years ago to do a job he's never done that takes roughly two years to master, are you not going to be skeptical of the decision, or wonder if there was anybody else out there with better qualifications that was ignored? That 67 year old may be a quick learner, and be able to hold his own weight within the first year. But, you still have the problem of knowing that in the next year or three you'll be looking to replace the person you just spent all the time and effort to develop.

That's not wishing failure. That's having doubt in your team's leadership with respect to the future of your team.

---

No. I’m a Bucs season ticket holder and a Cowboys fan.  But if he doesn’t get cut I will trade Bucs tix for Jags tix straight up.

Mr Pendragon.. How do you feel about cat sweaters?

audible guffaw.

This made the 100+ pages of tripe worth it.

---

Terry Bradshaw 51.9%
Johnny Unitas 54.6%
Joe Namath 50.1%

Bradshaw's career was played from 1970-1983.
Joe Namath played from 1965-1977.
Johnny Unitas played from 1956-1973.

Prior to the NFL rules changes in 1978, CBs could maul WRs all the way down field, as opposed to the one chuck rule we see today.

Prior to those 1978 rules changes, offensive linemen could not extend their arms while pass blocking.

http://www.footballperspective.com/tag/1...s-changes/



The game was VASTLY different before those rules changes, and that's not even factoring in the concussion mitigation and QB protection measures implemented in the Goodell era.

The Hall of Famers you list above played their entire careers (Bradshaw the bulk of his)  under rules that made it far more difficult to pass the ball than what you see now.  The pro game was a primarily a running game back then.

Even with the vast differences in the rules, most of which have the effect of neutering defenses, every guy you listed STILL had higher completion percentages than Tebow.  Even with those differences, all three of the QBs you named won at least one NFL Championship/Super Bowl.  Tebow?  Not so much.

It's spectacularly disingenuous to make such a comparison without offering the context, to say nothing of insulting, considering Tebow was nowhere near the passer these guys were.  Watch NFL films clips of those guys.  Unitas invented the two minute drill.  Namath and Bradshaw were two great deep ball throwers. 

Next time, make that argument to someone who doesn't remember those rules changes or understand the impact those rules changes have had.

you could have saved a lot of keystrokes and just not responded to what amounts to obvious trolling or blatant ignorance.

I do appreciate the research and attempt to inform, though, Bullseye.

---

Especially for a first round QB bust with a 47% completion rate. Not much of a Bucs fan at all to switch allegiances for that.

Terry Bradshaw 51.9%
Johnny Unitas 54.6%
Joe Namath 50.1%

---

Tim Tebow lined up against Chris Manhertz, and the two players went at it one-on-one in a special teams blocking drill at the Jacksonville Jaguars' practice on Wednesday.

Manhertz won the matchup, and immediately "Winner, Manhertz" was broadcast over the loudspeaker. The two went at it three more times, and the final tally was 2-2 -- and each time the winner's name was announced.

Urbs going to determine who gets cut and who stays based on this Winners/Losers drill that he has been using since Florida.

The fix is in.

Namath is a terrible QB. He’s in the Hall because he won 1 game.

He’s got more interceptions than TDs lol but sure. Use him as an example.

---

Terry Bradshaw 51.9%
Johnny Unitas 54.6%
Joe Namath 50.1%

---

Urbs going to determine who gets cut and who stays based on this Winners/Losers drill that he has been using since Florida.

The fix is in.

Namath is a terrible QB. He’s in the Hall because he won 1 game.

He’s got more interceptions than TDs lol but sure. Use him as an example.

Meh, I won't disagree that he wasn't the best quarterback.  I'm guessing you never saw him play.  I loved the AFL and he was a star.  It was a different era, so you can't just go by stats.  

Aside from that, that one game gets a lot of credit for the merger.  It showed that the AFL could compete with the big boys.  It was a very important game in the history of the league and he was right in the middle of it.

---

Namath is a terrible QB. He’s in the Hall because he won 1 game.

He’s got more interceptions than TDs lol but sure. Use him as an example.

Meh, I won't disagree that he wasn't the best quarterback.  I'm guessing you never saw him play.  I loved the AFL and he was a star.  It was a different era, so you can't just go by stats.  

Aside from that, that one game gets a lot of credit for the merger.  It showed that the AFL could compete with the big boys.  It was a very important game in the history of the league and he was right in the middle of it.

I didn’t see him play and I agree that game is a huge turning point in football.

However, 50 more interceptions than TDs shouldn’t put you in the Hall and one meaningful game shouldn’t either.

But it is what it is. He’s a legend but I don’t necessarily think for his play but more so his swagger.

---

Especially for a first round QB bust with a 47% completion rate. Not much of a Bucs fan at all to switch allegiances for that.

Terry Bradshaw 51.9%
Johnny Unitas 54.6%
Joe Namath 50.1%

---

Tim Tebow lined up against Chris Manhertz, and the two players went at it one-on-one in a special teams blocking drill at the Jacksonville Jaguars' practice on Wednesday.

Manhertz won the matchup, and immediately "Winner, Manhertz" was broadcast over the loudspeaker. The two went at it three more times, and the final tally was 2-2 -- and each time the winner's name was announced.

Urbs going to determine who gets cut and who stays based on this Winners/Losers drill that he has been using since Florida.

The fix is in.

Citing QB stats from an era where the defensive backs were allowed to mug receivers from beginning to end of every pass route, and where defensive lineman were allowed to kill the quarterback, reeks of desperation and ignorance.

---

Meh, I won't disagree that he wasn't the best quarterback.  I'm guessing you never saw him play.  I loved the AFL and he was a star.  It was a different era, so you can't just go by stats.  

Aside from that, that one game gets a lot of credit for the merger.  It showed that the AFL could compete with the big boys.  It was a very important game in the history of the league and he was right in the middle of it.

I didn’t see him play and I agree that game is a huge turning point in football.

However, 50 more interceptions than TDs shouldn’t put you in the Hall and one meaningful game shouldn’t either.

But it is what it is. He’s a legend but I don’t necessarily think for his play but more so his swagger.

You really can't tell the story of the NFL without him.

---

I didn’t see him play and I agree that game is a huge turning point in football.

However, 50 more interceptions than TDs shouldn’t put you in the Hall and one meaningful game shouldn’t either.

But it is what it is. He’s a legend but I don’t necessarily think for his play but more so his swagger.

You really can't tell the story of the NFL without him.

While I don’t disagree, is that how you make the HOF? I thought it was about being the best of the best?

---

You really can't tell the story of the NFL without him.

While I don’t disagree, is that how you make the HOF? I thought it was about being the best of the best?

I mean the name itself is Hall of FAME.

He's arguable the most famous QB of that era... honestly it's not even arguable. He was the most famous. From mink coats to guaranteeing the win... he was in the spot light in the biggest city in America.

Whether or not he was the best... meh... but he was certainly famous.

---

You really can't tell the story of the NFL without him.

While I don’t disagree, is that how you make the HOF? I thought it was about being the best of the best?

You forget, it is the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of the Best of the Best. Unfortunately Fame and Noteriety are a factor.

---

You really can't tell the story of the NFL without him.

While I don’t disagree, is that how you make the HOF? I thought it was about being the best of the best?

Dude achieved a greatness, even if for a brief time, that few have ever achieved in the league.  I believe he adds a bit of soul to the HOF that nobody else can.  Wouldn't it be boring if the only thing that mattered was the numbers?

---

Tim Tebow lined up against Chris Manhertz, and the two players went at it one-on-one in a special teams blocking drill at the Jacksonville Jaguars' practice on Wednesday.

Manhertz won the matchup, and immediately "Winner, Manhertz" was broadcast over the loudspeaker. The two went at it three more times, and the final tally was 2-2 -- and each time the winner's name was announced.

I'm not sure having TEs line up against each other gives us a good idea of their blocking skills.  What if one of them is a better blocker, but not as good at trying to get past someone?  Shouldn't they each go against the same DE/OLB multiple times to see who is actually better at blocking the people that know how to rush the QB/Kicker etc?

---

While I don’t disagree, is that how you make the HOF? I thought it was about being the best of the best?

You forget, it is the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of the Best of the Best. Unfortunately Fame and Noteriety are a factor.

So then David Tyree should be in the HOF too? He has, arguably, the biggest catch in SB history. Or Santonio Holmes.

There have been plenty of super famous and cool players who aren’t in the HOF because their skill level isn’t high enough.

This isn’t necessarily a gripe with Namath but the HOF in general for most sports. There’s never a real criteria and how your perceived is sometimes more important. TO wasn’t a first ballot HOFer which is absolutely insane. All because he wasn’t very liked at the moment.

---

You forget, it is the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of the Best of the Best. Unfortunately Fame and Noteriety are a factor.

So then David Tyree should be in the HOF too? He has, arguably, the biggest catch in SB history. Or Santonio Holmes.

There have been plenty of super famous and cool players who aren’t in the HOF because their skill level isn’t high enough.

This isn’t necessarily a gripe with Namath but the HOF in general for most sports. There’s never a real criteria and how your perceived is sometimes more important. TO wasn’t a first ballot HOFer which is absolutely insane. All because he wasn’t very liked at the moment.

No one's gonna remember Tyree's name.. or Holmes. That's just reality. I was born in 1985. I know lots about Joe Namath. I barely remember either of those other guys and they played while I was watching.

---

Bradshaw's career was played from 1970-1983.
Joe Namath played from 1965-1977.
Johnny Unitas played from 1956-1973.

Prior to the NFL rules changes in 1978, CBs could maul WRs all the way down field, as opposed to the one chuck rule we see today.

Prior to those 1978 rules changes, offensive linemen could not extend their arms while pass blocking.

http://www.footballperspective.com/tag/1...s-changes/



The game was VASTLY different before those rules changes, and that's not even factoring in the concussion mitigation and QB protection measures implemented in the Goodell era.

The Hall of Famers you list above played their entire careers (Bradshaw the bulk of his)  under rules that made it far more difficult to pass the ball than what you see now.  The pro game was a primarily a running game back then.

Even with the vast differences in the rules, most of which have the effect of neutering defenses, every guy you listed STILL had higher completion percentages than Tebow.  Even with those differences, all three of the QBs you named won at least one NFL Championship/Super Bowl.  Tebow?  Not so much.

It's spectacularly disingenuous to make such a comparison without offering the context, to say nothing of insulting, considering Tebow was nowhere near the passer these guys were.  Watch NFL films clips of those guys.  Unitas invented the two minute drill.  Namath and Bradshaw were two great deep ball throwers. 

Next time, make that argument to someone who doesn't remember those rules changes or understand the impact those rules changes have had.

you could have saved a lot of keystrokes and just not responded to what amounts to obvious trolling or blatant ignorance.

I do appreciate the research and attempt to inform, though, Bullseye.

What's that saying?  "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness?"

That thing.

Thanks, BTW.

---

Terry Bradshaw 51.9%
Johnny Unitas 54.6%
Joe Namath 50.1%

---

Urbs going to determine who gets cut and who stays based on this Winners/Losers drill that he has been using since Florida.

The fix is in.

Namath is a terrible QB. He’s in the Hall because he won 1 game.

He’s got more interceptions than TDs lol but sure. Use him as an example.

I have made a similar argument about Namath.

That said, even if you  accept that evaluation of Namath at face value, the fact that Tebow's completion percentage is still some 2-3 points below Namath's despite the different eras and associated rules changes, etc., speaks volumes.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Namath is a terrible QB. He’s in the Hall because he won 1 game.

He’s got more interceptions than TDs lol but sure. Use him as an example.

Meh, I won't disagree that he wasn't the best quarterback.  I'm guessing you never saw him play.  I loved the AFL and he was a star.  It was a different era, so you can't just go by stats.  

Aside from that, that one game gets a lot of credit for the merger.  It showed that the AFL could compete with the big boys.  It was a very important game in the history of the league and he was right in the middle of it.

If you get the chance, re-watch the NFL 75th anniversary special. https://youtu.be/FYYsQVBGin0

Former Raiders owner Al Davis talked about scouting Namath when he (Namath) was in college and raved about his passing ability.

Don't dismiss his input because the Raiders fell on hard times towards the end of his life. The Raiders were one of the dominant franchises in football for three decades, and have had some of the greatest players in NFL history under his watch.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

So then David Tyree should be in the HOF too? He has, arguably, the biggest catch in SB history. Or Santonio Holmes.

There have been plenty of super famous and cool players who aren’t in the HOF because their skill level isn’t high enough.

This isn’t necessarily a gripe with Namath but the HOF in general for most sports. There’s never a real criteria and how your perceived is sometimes more important. TO wasn’t a first ballot HOFer which is absolutely insane. All because he wasn’t very liked at the moment.

No one's gonna remember Tyree's name.. or Holmes. That's just reality. I was born in 1985. I know lots about Joe Namath. I barely remember either of those other guys and they played while I was watching.

I remember both of those guys very well actually…. And it mainly has to do with their big plays to win a SB. Maybe we should get Foles in the HOF? Where’s Ronster?!

If Namath doesn’t win that 1 game, he likely isn’t in the Hall and I think that speaks pretty loudly. 1 game shouldn’t determine if a player makes the HOF and yet, here we are.

---

Terry Bradshaw 51.9%
Johnny Unitas 54.6%
Joe Namath 50.1%

---

Urbs going to determine who gets cut and who stays based on this Winners/Losers drill that he has been using since Florida.

The fix is in.

Citing QB stats from an era where the defensive backs were allowed to mug receivers from beginning to end of every pass route, and where defensive lineman were allowed to kill the quarterback, reeks of desperation and ignorance.

This x 1000.

I won't even get into the whole defenseless receiver thing we see today.

There is no modern equivalent of guys like Jack Tatum or Ronnie Lott.  They have effectively been legislated out of the league.  To me, Kam Chancellor is the closest to those guys.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Meh, I won't disagree that he wasn't the best quarterback.  I'm guessing you never saw him play.  I loved the AFL and he was a star.  It was a different era, so you can't just go by stats.  

Aside from that, that one game gets a lot of credit for the merger.  It showed that the AFL could compete with the big boys.  It was a very important game in the history of the league and he was right in the middle of it.

If you get the chance, re-watch the NFL 75th anniversary special.

Former Raiders owner Al Davis talked about scouting Namath when he (Namath) was in college and raved about his passing ability.

Oh, I loved the AFL.  And I've seen that piece.

I loved Lance Alworth, Kenny Stabler, Cliff Branch, Don Maynard, George Sauer, Joe Namath, John Hadl.  I could rattle off 100 names that most people on this board have never heard of.  My favorite teams were the Jets, Chargers, and Raiders.  They always seemed to be on the national games on NBC.  It's ironic that the 'weaker league' now has some of the more dominant teams now.  Although, it's all different.

---

No one's gonna remember Tyree's name.. or Holmes. That's just reality. I was born in 1985. I know lots about Joe Namath. I barely remember either of those other guys and they played while I was watching.

I remember both of those guys very well actually…. And it mainly has to do with their big plays to win a SB. Maybe we should get Foles in the HOF? Where’s Ronster?!

If Namath doesn’t win that 1 game, he likely isn’t in the Hall and I think that speaks pretty loudly. 1 game shouldn’t determine if a player makes the HOF and yet, here we are.

You're really doing your best to downplay the significance of that 'one win'.  I guess that's you prerogative.  

How many of those players that you mentioned were largely responsible for the landscape of the entire league?  Hell, two leagues.

---

You really can't tell the story of the NFL without him.

While I don’t disagree, is that how you make the HOF? I thought it was about being the best of the best?

It's about what the media talking heads want it to be about.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!