2004 quarterbacks

Moderators: bwgood77, Icness

Who is the best of the three

Eli
1
17%
Rivers
3
50%
Roethlisberger
2
33%
 
Total votes: 6

Celtsfan1980
Analyst
Posts: 3,486
And1: 126
Joined: Mar 25, 2008

2004 quarterbacks 

Post#1 » by Celtsfan1980 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:16 pm

Eli, Rivers, and Roethlisberger:including playoffs and supporting cast I don't think there's a big gap between the three. In what order would you put the quarterbacks in terms of greatness?
User avatar
Otis Driftwood
Analyst
Posts: 3,201
And1: 896
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
       

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#2 » by Otis Driftwood » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:17 pm

Celtsfan1980 wrote:Eli, Rivers, and Roethlisberger:including playoffs and supporting cast I don't think there's a big gap between the three. In what order would you put the quarterbacks in terms of greatness?


I'd probably have to put Ben at #1... and even though Eli has those rings, Rivers hasn't ever had a defense like Eli has had in the past. I'd give him the edge at #2 but not by much. Really though - I don't think any of those three teams nor their fans can complain too much. They got some damn good QB's.
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
RavenMad31
Senior
Posts: 605
And1: 219
Joined: May 05, 2015
     

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#3 » by RavenMad31 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:10 am

Otis Driftwood wrote:
Celtsfan1980 wrote:Eli, Rivers, and Roethlisberger:including playoffs and supporting cast I don't think there's a big gap between the three. In what order would you put the quarterbacks in terms of greatness?


I'd probably have to put Ben at #1... and even though Eli has those rings, Rivers hasn't ever had a defense like Eli has had in the past. I'd give him the edge at #2 but not by much. Really though - I don't think any of those three teams nor their fans can complain too much. They got some damn good QB's.


Yeah, the margin is razor thin between these guys. Ben, as long as his face isn't in a windshield or junk isn't in an unwilling participant, Rivers then Manning.
laika
Starter
Posts: 2,064
And1: 1,095
Joined: Mar 22, 2011

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#4 » by laika » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:42 pm

Manning is far worse than Roethlisberger and Rivers. Subtract the 2 playoff runs(zero playoff wins otherwise) and Manning has barely even been an average QB.

However, thanks to 8 games and some really lucky plays Manning is destined to be dramatically overrated forever.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 20,870
And1: 7,127
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#5 » by therealbig3 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:05 pm

Yeah Eli is a good QB, but he peaked at "above average"...he's gonna go to the HOF based on being not terrible for a long time, and a couple of flukey playoff runs that he needed a lot of luck to pull off anyway.

1. Big Ben
2. Rivers
3. Eli
User avatar
bleu
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 6,158
And1: 1,026
Joined: Apr 24, 2007
       

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#6 » by bleu » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:00 pm

It's really a tough discussion. Because my gut puts Eli in third of the three, but rings don't lie. Overall body of work though, I agree with therealbig3: Big Ben, Rivers, then Eli.
Celtsfan1980
Analyst
Posts: 3,486
And1: 126
Joined: Mar 25, 2008

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#7 » by Celtsfan1980 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:32 pm

laika wrote:Manning is far worse than Roethlisberger and Rivers. Subtract the 2 playoff runs(zero playoff wins otherwise) and Manning has barely even been an average QB.

However, thanks to 8 games and some really lucky plays Manning is destined to be dramatically overrated forever.

Leading his inferior supporting cast to a Super Bowl in 2011 is a far greater achievement than beating the below average Cardinals and a disaster of a Super Bowl against the Seahawks. As a Browns fan I'd love to have Big Ben. As a football fan though he's nothing close to spectacular. Part of why I don't fear the Steelers even though I'm a Browns fan.
bluejerseyjinx
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,438
And1: 596
Joined: Oct 18, 2014
     

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#8 » by bluejerseyjinx » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:32 pm

Even though Rivers didn't have the success or fortunate to have teams like Ben and Eli did, I believe there is a strong case for Rivers being on top of this list.
RavenMad31
Senior
Posts: 605
And1: 219
Joined: May 05, 2015
     

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#9 » by RavenMad31 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:03 pm

Celtsfan1980 wrote:
laika wrote:Manning is far worse than Roethlisberger and Rivers. Subtract the 2 playoff runs(zero playoff wins otherwise) and Manning has barely even been an average QB.

However, thanks to 8 games and some really lucky plays Manning is destined to be dramatically overrated forever.

Leading his inferior supporting cast to a Super Bowl in 2011 is a far greater achievement than beating the below average Cardinals and a disaster of a Super Bowl against the Seahawks. As a Browns fan I'd love to have Big Ben. As a football fan though he's nothing close to spectacular. Part of why I don't fear the Steelers even though I'm a Browns fan.

That Cardinals team was pretty darn good, so I have to give credit there. That Seahawks win was an embarrassment to everything the super bowl is supposed to be. They should have just replayed the postseason that year. It is the single most poorly played super bowl in history and even the officiating was garbage. This is another reason why ring counting when determining greatness is foolish. Big Ben will forever get credit for winning two rings, but on that super bowl Sunday, he was the second best qb on his team to a wr.
User avatar
Otis Driftwood
Analyst
Posts: 3,201
And1: 896
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
       

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#10 » by Otis Driftwood » Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:23 pm

RavenMad31 wrote:That Cardinals team was pretty darn good, so I have to give credit there. That Seahawks win was an embarrassment to everything the super bowl is supposed to be. They should have just replayed the postseason that year. It is the single most poorly played super bowl in history and even the officiating was garbage. This is another reason why ring counting when determining greatness is foolish. Big Ben will forever get credit for winning two rings, but on that super bowl Sunday, he was the second best qb on his team to a wr.


Nope. Super Bowl V was the worst. I can't begin to tell you how bad that game was. Including the officiating.


waits for BJJ rant in 3... 2... and...
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
User avatar
bwgood77
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 35,192
And1: 14,772
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Austin
Contact:
   

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#11 » by bwgood77 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:30 pm

If you have a good OL, Rivers. If you don't Ben. Eli a distant 3rd.
Image
RavenMad31
Senior
Posts: 605
And1: 219
Joined: May 05, 2015
     

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#12 » by RavenMad31 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:31 pm

Otis Driftwood wrote:
RavenMad31 wrote:That Cardinals team was pretty darn good, so I have to give credit there. That Seahawks win was an embarrassment to everything the super bowl is supposed to be. They should have just replayed the postseason that year. It is the single most poorly played super bowl in history and even the officiating was garbage. This is another reason why ring counting when determining greatness is foolish. Big Ben will forever get credit for winning two rings, but on that super bowl Sunday, he was the second best qb on his team to a wr.



Nope. Super Bowl V was the worst. I can't begin to tell you how bad that game was. Including the officiating.


waits for BJJ rant in 3... 2... and...


Oh, it's coming surely as the rising sun. Admittedly, I'm only old enough to comment on super bowls from about the late 70s on, so maybe I should have added that qualifier. Is it possible that football back in those days was just a sloppily, nastier product with the rules less friendly to offenses?
User avatar
Otis Driftwood
Analyst
Posts: 3,201
And1: 896
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
       

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#13 » by Otis Driftwood » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:55 pm

RavenMad31 wrote:
Otis Driftwood wrote:
RavenMad31 wrote:That Cardinals team was pretty darn good, so I have to give credit there. That Seahawks win was an embarrassment to everything the super bowl is supposed to be. They should have just replayed the postseason that year. It is the single most poorly played super bowl in history and even the officiating was garbage. This is another reason why ring counting when determining greatness is foolish. Big Ben will forever get credit for winning two rings, but on that super bowl Sunday, he was the second best qb on his team to a wr.



Nope. Super Bowl V was the worst. I can't begin to tell you how bad that game was. Including the officiating.


waits for BJJ rant in 3... 2... and...


Oh, it's coming surely as the rising sun. Admittedly, I'm only old enough to comment on super bowls from about the late 70s on, so maybe I should have added that qualifier. Is it possible that football back in those days was just a sloppily, nastier product with the rules less friendly to offenses?


Even by the standards of that time with the rules that favored defenses, the games were still entertaining and exciting (both the Dallas / Green Bay NFL Championships are examples of that even though my heroes fell on the wrong side of the scoreboard in both). SB V was not one of those games. It was easily the sloppiest Super Bowl game (13 turnovers if I remember right) and a missed call on a tipped pass from Jimmy Orr to John Mackey (which was illegal back then) @ 0:00:38 of the clip below... and Craig Morton throwing that damn INT that Mike Curtis returned to set up the winning FG...

There is probably a good reason why you cannot find that game in it's entirety anywhere. The league burned it.

"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
bluejerseyjinx
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,438
And1: 596
Joined: Oct 18, 2014
     

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#14 » by bluejerseyjinx » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:03 pm

Otis Driftwood wrote:
RavenMad31 wrote:That Cardinals team was pretty darn good, so I have to give credit there. That Seahawks win was an embarrassment to everything the super bowl is supposed to be. They should have just replayed the postseason that year. It is the single most poorly played super bowl in history and even the officiating was garbage. This is another reason why ring counting when determining greatness is foolish. Big Ben will forever get credit for winning two rings, but on that super bowl Sunday, he was the second best qb on his team to a wr.


Nope. Super Bowl V was the worst. I can't begin to tell you how bad that game was. Including the officiating.


waits for BJJ rant in 3... 2... and...

Gee, thanks Otis. Now I can't eat or sleep. I think I need a shrink again over this game. The only thing I really felt bad for in that game was the awesome and unbelievable job and performance by the Doomsday 1 Defense. They were clearly the best unit on the field the whole day without doubt. Despite the most pathetic performance I've have ever seen from a QB in Super Bowl History in Craig Morton, being on the field for most of the game because of inept offensive play, penalties, mistakes and not taking advantage of give me opportunities by the offense, a FREAK PLAY that lead to the only TD scored by the Colts and a couple horrible calls that went against them, I thought they held up just fine. Thank you very much for ruining my day.
User avatar
Otis Driftwood
Analyst
Posts: 3,201
And1: 896
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
       

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#15 » by Otis Driftwood » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:08 pm

bluejerseyjinx wrote:
Otis Driftwood wrote:Nope. Super Bowl V was the worst. I can't begin to tell you how bad that game was. Including the officiating.


waits for BJJ rant in 3... 2... and...

Gee, thanks Otis. Now I can't eat or sleep. I think I need a shrink again over this game. The only thing I really felt bad for in that game was the awesome and unbelievable job and performance by the Doomsday 1 Defense. They were clearly the best unit on the field the whole day without doubt. Despite the most pathetic performance I've have ever seen from a QB in Super Bowl History in Craig Morton, being on the field for most of the game because of inept offensive play, penalties, mistakes and not taking advantage of give me opportunities by the offense, a FREAK PLAY that lead to the only TD scored by the Colts and a couple horrible calls that went against them, I thought they held up just fine. Thank you very much for ruining my day.



You're welcome. I'm here to help.
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
bluejerseyjinx
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,438
And1: 596
Joined: Oct 18, 2014
     

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#16 » by bluejerseyjinx » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:11 pm

Otis Driftwood wrote:
RavenMad31 wrote:
Otis Driftwood wrote:

Nope. Super Bowl V was the worst. I can't begin to tell you how bad that game was. Including the officiating.


waits for BJJ rant in 3... 2... and...


Oh, it's coming surely as the rising sun. Admittedly, I'm only old enough to comment on super bowls from about the late 70s on, so maybe I should have added that qualifier. Is it possible that football back in those days was just a sloppily, nastier product with the rules less friendly to offenses?


Even by the standards of that time with the rules that favored defenses, the games were still entertaining and exciting (both the Dallas / Green Bay NFL Championships are examples of that even though my heroes fell on the wrong side of the scoreboard in both). SB V was not one of those games. It was easily the sloppiest Super Bowl game (13 turnovers if I remember right) and a missed call on a tipped pass from Jimmy Orr to John Mackey (which was illegal back then) @ 0:00:38 of the clip below... and Craig Morton throwing that damn INT that Mike Curtis returned to set up the winning FG...

There is probably a good reason why you cannot find that game in it's entirety anywhere. The league burned it.


You also left out the Dave Mander's fumble recovery that was over turned and cost us 7 points eventually. Despite the mother...... 3 int's by Morton in the 4th period, the Doomsday defense and the special teams gave the Cowboy offense 4 or 5 opportunities in the game to blow the game wide open, only for Morton and the offense to give it back or only come up with 3 points. Awful, just awful. Thinking about this game will drive me off the deep end some day. Loved those Older Royal blue jerseys though. Give anything to have them back.
RavenMad31
Senior
Posts: 605
And1: 219
Joined: May 05, 2015
     

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#17 » by RavenMad31 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:43 pm

Jesus. How the hell old are you two? I figured being in my mid-40s I'm usually one of the old timers on a message board.
User avatar
Otis Driftwood
Analyst
Posts: 3,201
And1: 896
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
       

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#18 » by Otis Driftwood » Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:58 pm

RavenMad31 wrote:Jesus. How the hell old are you two? I figured being in my mid-40s I'm usually one of the old timers on a message board.


Welp... as I've noted more than once around here... my second grandson will be a freshman at some college somewhere in Texas this coming September. BJJ thought he was the senior citizen around here but I got him beat.
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
bluejerseyjinx
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,438
And1: 596
Joined: Oct 18, 2014
     

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#19 » by bluejerseyjinx » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:56 pm

Otis Driftwood wrote:
RavenMad31 wrote:Jesus. How the hell old are you two? I figured being in my mid-40s I'm usually one of the old timers on a message board.


Welp... as I've noted more than once around here... my second grandson will be a freshman at some college somewhere in Texas this coming September. BJJ thought he was the senior citizen around here but I got him beat.

I guess that's why we connected way back in the ESPN and Sports hoopla days before coming here. Wow, its been quite a few years since we've been posting together now that I think about it. Time sure slips by during the down years with salary cap hell, bad trades, bad years, etc. I always thought Jack was the senior citizen around here. He was one of the reasons I came here. :wink: :lol:
User avatar
Cactus Jack
General Manager
Posts: 9,026
And1: 4,214
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: NBA team was stolen
   

Re: 2004 quarterbacks 

Post#20 » by Cactus Jack » Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:37 am

bluejerseyjinx wrote:
Otis Driftwood wrote:
RavenMad31 wrote:Jesus. How the hell old are you two? I figured being in my mid-40s I'm usually one of the old timers on a message board.


Welp... as I've noted more than once around here... my second grandson will be a freshman at some college somewhere in Texas this coming September. BJJ thought he was the senior citizen around here but I got him beat.

I guess that's why we connected way back in the ESPN and Sports hoopla days before coming here. Wow, its been quite a few years since we've been posting together now that I think about it. Time sure slips by during the down years with salary cap hell, bad trades, bad years, etc. I always thought Jack was the senior citizen around here. He was one of the reasons I came here. :wink: :lol:

Image
Quazza wrote:ALL FUTURE ERECTIONS WILL BE NAMED KEVIN FOR BEING SUCH A STAND UP GUY

Return to The General NFL Board