I think you have Testaverde way, way too high and Cunningham way, way too low. I've never really considered Testaverde to be a good QB. 2 good years out of like 30 doesn't make him good.
I think you have Testaverde way, way too high and Cunningham way, way too low. I've never really considered Testaverde to be a good QB. 2 good years out of like 30 doesn't make him good.
Randell probably had a better prime than Vinny, but he has like half the stats...
it would be different if he was just close, but he isn't
longevity should be rewarded, you don't play as long as he did if you're Jamarcus Russell
Randell probably had a better prime than Vinny, but he has like half the stats...
it would be different if he was just close, but he isn't
Vinny's stats aren't really close to being twice as good as his, not to mention that Cunningham has a better QB rating, and has more pro bowls in far less starts. Also, you put Cunningham ahead of Bledsoe while Bledsoe's stats are similar to Testaverde's. Shit just doesn't make sense. And, well, Cunningham wasn't quite the same after his injury, but he was a better QB.
Quote:
longevity should be rewarded, you don't play as long as he did if you're Jamarcus Russell
Testaverde was just mediocre enough to be a starting QB for years and years. Longevity is all good and all, but you put too much stock into it. Actually, I'm going to take this further because I like trying to decipher some people's logic. You say Vinny has the better stats, so the only areas this is true are as follows:
Testaverde: 3787-6701, 46223 yards and 275 TDs
Cunningham: 2429-4289, 29979 yards and 207 TDs
Difference of: 1358-2412, 16244 yards and 68 TDs
(the yards and TD numbers are closer if you take into account their rushing numbers)
With that, there's no way you could put Montana ahead of Favre:
Favre: 6300-10169, 71838 yards and 508 TDs
Montana: 3409-5391, 40551 yards and 273 TDs
Difference of: 2891-4778, 31287 yards and 235 TDs
There's a far, far bigger gap between Favre and Montana than Testaverde and Cunningham. Montana's 'stats' are fairly close to being only half of Favre's.
You have a thing for compilers. Sometimes people compile because they managed to stay healthy more than anything else, or because their team was just mediocre enough not to warrant a change (or they were too overpaid to change QB's). Let's say either the Giants or Cowboys suck and get non title winning level QB play. It will still be Eli and Romo compiling numbers on numbers.
Although a lot of your list i like any list that has Kerry Collins in the 15 best anything hurts my head.
well this is the same debate as in my RB list thread...longevity vs. prime years
I am old enough to actually remember Testaverde drafted by Tampa, even winning the Heisman...Jackass is correct in that the majority of his career he was very "average"...however the fact that he outlasted Randell is without question something that goes in his favor. But Randall's prime was better than Vinny's for sure, there are probably those that would put Randall over McNabb even.
and fact is, I don't rank Favre that high...
I think it is hard for someone in the NFL to aquire top all time stats without being a great player...and it is, Vinny overall had an above average football career for a QB.
and yeah the fact that Collins made this list shows that after 15 there isn't much...that is when Vick and Romo start to enter the picture, both Vick and Romo have had prime years better than most of this list, just not the career numbers yet.
I think on this list I am very confident about 1-4...then after that it gets a bit subjective
-removed Drew Bledsoe because he does have a ring, and even though he didn't play in the actual Super Bowl, he did play a good deal that year...so he is off
my top 15 QBs that have no ring
