Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
4 Pages«<234

Go to last post Go to first unread
#61 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 7:54:16 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
Show me where I said Aaron Rodgers was a better leader than Bart Starr. You can't, but yet you beat that drum anyway. [-x

I respect that you probably encapsulate passer, leader, field general, etc all into quarterback.

Since you will not give in on 3 points I didn't want to give in on one point. [grin1]
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#62 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:06:45 AM(UTC)
play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
I've got something bad to say about Starr. Long time ago, I was a kid in the stands at County Stadium for a game coached by Dan Devine. Bart Starr was just down the aisle. I walked over to Bart with my program, and asked him for his autograph. He had an usher take me away.

I'll never forget it, that fuckin' guy... [laughing] [laughing] [laughing]

It's got to be Devine's fault hahaha. He put EVERYBODY in a bad mood.

#63 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 11:50:33 AM(UTC)
Those were dark, dark, DARK days...


Scott Hunter was our QB. Way better than both Starr AND Rodgers...
#64 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:55:56 PM(UTC)
I hesitated in posting this, but it’s a different perspective on the debate. It’s a touchy subject, but I believe it’s relevant when comparing two different eras.

Bart Starr was a great quarterback for his time. I understand the nostalgia feeling many fans have with him. He’s a legend. But he played at a different time. He played at a time when the competition was not elite. I have many issues with the early days of football, and why I think several players could not play today. My main one, however, is the level of competition.

Let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room. Some of the NFL was prejudice in the 60s. We’re all products of time and that was a difficult era for race relations, but you can’t discount the effect this had on the game. Because of discrimination, the caliber of the competition was not as great as it could’ve been. In addition, a coach who didn’t have prejudices only increased the value of his team. I totally looked this up, but Vince Lombardi said, “He neither cared if a player was black or white. He viewed them all as Packer green.”

Great quote, right? I hope it’s true. His actions suggest it is. A majority of the 1966 Green Bay Packers starting defense was black. A third of the entire team was black. That was unprecedented at the time. Lombardi simply fielded the best team. Some teams wouldn’t do that. Some teams had rules of six or seven black players and that’s it. They’d cut the next guy, even if he was good enough to make the team.

Like it or not, this is an advantage for the Packers. It made them a better team. By comparisons, the Redskins didn’t have a single black player -- actually, they may have had one -- when the Packers won their first NFL championship under Lombardi. The Packers were 11-3. The Redskins 1-12-1. That’s hardly a coincidence.

Today, the NFL is on an even playing field. Could Starr, Lombardi or the 60s Packers have had success in today’s era? Maybe, if we assume weight training allowed 260-pound guards to play at 310 -- not to mention the complexities of the game today.

Regardless, they wouldn’t have won five championships. So when you elevate Starr because of five championships, just remember that among the biggest reasons Starr has five rings has nothing to do with what happened on the football field. It has to do with how Vince Lombardi approached the game off the field.
#65 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 4:00:56 PM(UTC)
I hear what you are saying Porky and expected that line a while ago.

GB may or may not have won 5 championships today but it was due more to the current free agent situation than to race. If Washington didn't have any Black players or they had one that has little or no bearing on the issue. Other teams would have picked the players up and released their less qualified ones. That made other contending teams stronger not to have good players sitting on weak teams..

There were also fewer teams and fewer players on each team. But then there were less people in the US back then also. Proportionally speaking the numbers would have shown more men played in the NFL and AFL than the percentage is today. Therefore you most likely would have had a higher percent of the better skilled men playing than today.

In an 8 year span between 1960 and 1967 GB had the best regular season record only 3 times. 1961,1962 and 1967. The other 5 times there were at least 2 teams that had records that equaled GB's or was better. Different teams were strong at different times but the Giants, Lions, Browns, Eagles and even the Bears had powerful teams in the 60's.

The players back then were smaller because they did not devote themselves to training year round. The majority of the stars from that day would succeed in they played today. They would utilize today's training techniques just like everyone else does. Today's players are not some scientific invention of spliced genomes and chromosomes. They are above average men who do above average things. It is a skill they developed no reason to assume other men could not learn the same way they do.

I have said it a few times maybe if I say it in a different fashion it will sink in. I have no great nostalgia or affinity to Starr. He is not sacred to me. I simply want an equitable comparison made. Everyone knows they played in different eras and it is impossible to forecast what Bart would have done if he played today or Aaron if he played in the 60's. That said give some cushion to the scrutiny of Bart's passes and don't hold Aaron's up as if they came off Mt Olympus. It has been mentioned there were other QBs in Bart's day who had more passing yards. While this is true they did not have the running backs that Bart had. There was no incentive for him to pass when they could win by running. Same holds true today. Aaron is a better passer than his running backs are at carrying the ball. I don't mind it if he swaps from a run to a pass. If needed Bart would have thrown more and been smart about it. IIRC his interception ratio was outstanding.

Give credit to Bart for playing in a rougher, tougher league when it comes to how the defense played. Guys may have been smaller back then, there may not have been as many players "of Color" back then but the ones who played hit a heck of a lot harder than they do today. How many helmet to helmet hits caused incompletions back then? How many hits beyond 5 yards threw off the timing of a pass?

When comparing the two give credence to the play calling that Bart was able to do that Aaron is not required to do. Can Aaron make those calls? Sure but he doesn't get the opportunity that Bart did. Does that count into Bart's favor? To some degree it should.

Are we going to look solely at who was the better passer? If you wish, but then that is not asking who is the better QB. That is asking an entirely different question.

When you look at passing stats are you going to consider Bart had few games and thus he has to have fewer opportunities?
When you look at Aaron are you adding the same numbers to him for the next 5-7 years? You can't do that. He work is incomplete. he has not accomplished what Bart has accomplished.

All I ask is to look at all the factors on not solely at the golden arm when we discuss this.
#66 Posted : Friday, April 5, 2013 9:10:29 AM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post

they are different eras with different rules can't compare the two.

Passing game today vs running game then.
16 game season vs 12 and 14 game seasons

1 Championship vs 5 championships incl 2 SB.

I confused myself when I started thinking the first Super Bowl was in '61 ... lol

1966 Super Bowl I
1967 Super Bowl II
#67 Posted : Friday, April 5, 2013 9:29:34 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I confused myself when I started thinking the first Super Bowl was in '61 ... lol

1966 Super Bowl I
1967 Super Bowl II

That is why I was using the word "championship" so as not to be confused with the SB.
#68 Posted : Friday, April 5, 2013 10:04:47 AM(UTC)
I knew what you meant, but for whatever reason, I kept thinking the Super Bowl was first in '61, meaning he only had two championships lol just a space moment.
#69 Posted : Friday, April 5, 2013 4:43:36 PM(UTC)
DakotaT said: Go to Quoted Post
Let's put a twist to this dilemma - if you had a choice between Starr, Favre, and Rodgers to begin a franchise with in any era of football you choose - which quarterback would you take. I'll take Rodgers and not even think twice about it.

It depends on the quality of my OL. If I have an OL like the Packers have now, I'd take Rodgers, then Favre, then Starr. Because IMO Starr didn't have either Rodgers ability to escape OR Favre's amazing ability to heal.

If I had a top 10 OL for the era, I'd take Starr every time.

Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
4 Pages«<234
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.



Fan Shout
DarkaneRules (7h) : to*
DarkaneRules (7h) : Whatever happens, we've got to get Josh move near the LOS where he belongs.
TheKanataThrilla (15h) : Would we consider trying Rollins a S?
gbguy20 (15h) : so what's the deal then, are we to expect to see josh Jones in Morgan Burnetts spot this season? i guess I can't say I'm opposed to the idea.
Smokey (21h) : BG is in no hurry to anounce a new Rodgers deal. Smart !
gbguy20 (22h) : When is Rodgers signing that extension that was supposedly only awaiting Kirk? Typing on a phone makes things tough.
Nonstopdrivel (23h) : That's what I was thinking: I wasn't aware that he was quitting.
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : Hopefully not for a long time. We need him.
gbguy20 (17-Mar) : when is 12 resigning
Nonstopdrivel (17-Mar) : I have to say I like it, even if it means I have to put up with occasional ads for Maseratis. 😂
Nonstopdrivel (17-Mar) : Interestingly, since I blocked third-party cookies, ads I see tend to relate to the content of the page instead of my most recent Amazon searches.
TheKanataThrilla (17-Mar) : Mathieu to Texans? I thought he wanted to go to a play that was all about winning football games?
hardrocker950 (17-Mar) : Bears already matched
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Bears will certainly match it though. Maybe restructure after year one?
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : but bears got lots of money, didn't think anyone would make the offer
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : good question
Nonstopdrivel (16-Mar) : Can another team come and big even higher, or is it a one-off thing?
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Bears WILL match the Kyle Fuller offer, but still, good move.
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : @RapSheet Source: The #Raiders are expected to sign #Colts FA CB Rashaan Melvin. More defensive talent adde
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Packers sign Bears CB Kyle Fuller to offer sheet
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Packers have signed TE @TheJimmyGraham. Graham will wear No. 80 for the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Vikings are finalizing a 1-year deal with Sheldon Richardson,
Nonstopdrivel (16-Mar) : Beast, my five-year-old wants to know that you're the best.
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Eagles are releasing DL Vinny Curry
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : CB Bashaud Breeland cut his foot in a non-football injury and it got infected, source said. He is now a few months away from being able to pass a physical.
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : @massey_evan Can confirm that the #Packers have been in touch with Tyrann Mathieu.
hardrocker950 (16-Mar) : Good CBs don't come around every day... It shouldn't be a surprise that they get paid well.
DarkaneRules (16-Mar) : These CB contracts were out of control. Maybe there's value in the later rounds of FA
DarkaneRules (16-Mar) : pack runs a tight ship
Cheesey (16-Mar) : Jennings didn’t act like a jerk when he was here. After he left he did.
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : We should bring S Eric Reid, played some LB and is just 26.
Smokey (16-Mar) : OK--> lol
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : ww = we ? I'm not sure.
Smokey (16-Mar) : Who is ww ?
gbguy20 (16-Mar) : the way greg has acted since he left i can't believe ww ever liked him
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
4m / Random Babble / KRK

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

15h / Around The NFL / gbguy20

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

16-Mar / Random Babble / Smokey

16-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Mar / Random Babble / Smokey

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey