Who else thinks Fran Tarkenton is underrated?

Yeah definitely. Not unlike Jim Kelly. It's what happens when you lose 4 Super Bowls.

Seems like that whole Vikings team was a bit underrated, even their coach Bud Grant. Although, considering the lack of free agency and salary cap (not to mention fewer teams) I suppose it was considerably easier in that era to get to the Super Bowl. Weren't there fewer rounds even in the playoffs?

I think his post NFL career kinda hurt him:

http://moonluna.jeeran.com/Thats_Incredible.jpg

Defense does win championships , ask Tom Brady and P. Manning . Any reason why you did not mention the defensive stats for Elway's Broncos ? The Broncos defense ranked from 83 - 98 , 21st, 20th ,13th , 9th,9th ,22nd ,3rd,20th, 5th , 22nd ,19th , 28th , 15th , 4th,5th and 11th . You did say he had very good defense's . A great running game also make the qb's job much easier ask the Miami's " killer bees " .

#1- Wrong thread. Stick the subject, or start your own thread, no need to bring the same damn arguement up here.
#2- I did post it, look again. I posted the D rank average of around 11ish for his career, and how many times he had a top ten D.
#3- Learn to look at more than just 1 page...in fact, if I recall, you said something on that thread and I told you I posted it already, yet you chose not to even look and then bring the argument here. That's not a very good poster there sir. You need to pay more attention.

Waste of a post.

Have any thoughts on TARKENTON?

#1- Wrong thread. Stick the subject, or start your own thread, no need to bring the same damn arguement up here.
#2- I did post it, look again. I posted the D rank average of around 11ish for his career, and how many times he had a top ten D.
#3- Learn to look at more than just 1 page...in fact, if I recall, you said something on that thread and I told you I posted it already, yet you chose not to even look and then bring the argument here. That's not a very good poster there sir. You need to pay more attention.

Waste of a post.

Have any thoughts on TARKENTON?
I already stated that I believed had Tarkenton played on Pittsburgh or Dallas during the 70's , he would have a SB ring or two . I only watched him play a handful of times . If I have 80 yards to go , two minutes left on the clock , Montana, Elway , Staubach or Marino for my money . " damn arguement " ? I did reply to you on the other thread and answered your questions , you and I just see the value of some stats differently . Stats only tell a part of the story , in 5 years , Art Monk will be outside the top 50 in tds , I doubt 50 wr's are better than him . E. Campbell is 26th on the all time rushing list ,I can't think of 3 rb's any better .Bruce Smith has 100 more sacks than C.Mann , I would take Mann over BS any day of the week . As far as a waste , if you did not act like the grammar police , and act like you are always right you might enjoy the site more . Maybe you should drink a cold beer , or get outside a little more .

Yeah definitely. Not unlike Jim Kelly. It's what happens when you lose 4 Super Bowls.

Seems like that whole Vikings team was a bit underrated, even their coach Bud Grant. Although, considering the lack of free agency and salary cap (not to mention fewer teams) I suppose it was considerably easier in that era to get to the Super Bowl. Weren't there fewer rounds even in the playoffs?

Actually for all the years the Vikings made the Super Bowl, they played two playoff games as either the 1 or 2 seed, which would be the same today. There were other years he missed out because it was tougher to make the playoffs then.

He started his career with an expansion club (pre-free agency, so no quick fixes) and then went to the Giants and they went from 1-12-1 to 7-7 in his first season, so that would dispel the notion that “he didn’t make his teams better”. He went back to Minnesota and they were without question best team in the NFC from 1973-1976. Only a missed called against Dallas in 1975 kept them from four straight Super Bowls.

I do believe he deserves a better place in history, but the stigma of the SB losses was just as damaging (if not worse, they were the first) as the Denver and Buffalo runs.

Actually for all the years the Vikings made the Super Bowl, they played two playoff games as either the 1 or 2 seed, which would be the same today. There were other years he missed out because it was tougher to make the playoffs then.

He started his career with an expansion club (pre-free agency, so no quick fixes) and then went to the Giants and they went from 1-12-1 to 7-7 in his first season, so that would dispel the notion that “he didn’t make his teams better”. He went back to Minnesota and they were without question best team in the NFC from 1973-1976. Only a missed called against Dallas in 1975 kept them from four straight Super Bowls.

I do believe he deserves a better place in history, but the stigma of the SB losses was just as damaging (if not worse, they were the first) as the Denver and Buffalo runs.

Thanks for the history lesson. I appreciate it.