Who else thinks Fran Tarkenton is underrated?

[SeanTaylor21]

Is there a reason why this guy isnt ever mentioned among the great nfl qbs because i simply cannot understand why a guy with 47000 yds, and 340 tds, that invented scrambling goes so unnoticed

[GTripp0012]

Top 20 maybe. He played for a really long time and he's a hall of famer.

[djnemo65]

I think he's rated pretty fairly, solidly in the second tier. Top 20 as Tripp said.

[Skinsfan1967]

No championships probably keeps him out of the elite. A great QB none the less. His teammate, Chuck Foreman, deserves more attention than he has gotten. Another reason for both of them is that when you speak of that early 70's Vikings team the "Purple People Eaters" defense overshadows the offense.

[dmek25]

i kind of think Tarkenton was alittle bit over rated. played on some bad giant teams, and did nothing to make the players around him better

[budw38]

Had Tarkenton played for Oakland , dallass or Pittsburgh , he would have a ring or two . The Vikings OL and Famed D-Line were mauled by Miami and Pittsburgh in two of the SB losses . I doubt that any qb could have beat Miami or Pittsburgh on that Vikings team , ditto with the Broncos teams of the 80's . If Tarkenton had put some pts on Oakland he might have been on some more top ten lists . Too bad the zebra's didn't call D. Pearson for interference in the NFC Championship game .

[Defensewins]

I really enjoyed watching Tarkenton play and when he played against the Redskins I hated him.
Tough guy to stop. He is definitely underrated.
Several of the QB's from that era are underrated.

As I mentioned on another thread todays QB's really benefit and have inflated stats due to the rule changes in the 80's, 90's and 00's to create more offense and protect the QB. Plus add in how Free Agency and expansion diluted the quality of team play especially on Defense.
Team defense was overall much better before free agency. The majority of the teams had good to respectable level of play on defense. Even today's perennial losers like the Cardinals, Browns, Lions were ok. They did not suck like they do now.
The large amount of media and fan adulation for today's great Qb's are getting needs to be tempered with the fact that the recording breaking stats Brady, Manning and Farve are reaching has in some part to do with how the game has dramatically changed to favor throwing the ball over running or being balanced.

[jsarno]

To answer the question, yes, he was absolutely underrated. I mentioned him in my top 10...I think I had him 9th if I remember correctly.

Well from 61-66, there were only 14 teams in the NFL (actually went to 15 teams in 66), in those years, his defense ranked 14th 3 times (that's dead last), 12th once, 8th once, and 6th once. So only 1 time was the defense better than average, and that was slightly.

From 72-78, only 4 seasons, 73-76 did the D rank well. 2nd twice and 3rd twice. (11th, 13th and 20th in the other seasons)

When he played with the Giants, 67-71, he had no defense either (overall). 67- 13th out of 16, 68- 10th out of 16, 69- 8th out of 16, 70- 15th out of 26, 71- 25th out of 26.

So in short, out of his 18 seasons played, only 4 times did he have a defense worth a damn. A lot of people seem to forget that football is the ULTIMATE team sport, and 1 person can not do it all. For all those that watched Tark, most would put him in their top ten without a doubt.

Why do I point out the defense? Well, defense wins championships folks.

[AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace]

I dated one of his distant cousins once...she was vastly overrated as a QB

[budw38]

Originally Posted by jsarno

To answer the question, yes, he was absolutely underrated. I mentioned him in my top 10...I think I had him 9th if I remember correctly.

Well from 61-66, there were only 14 teams in the NFL (actually went to 15 teams in 66), in those years, his defense ranked 14th 3 times (that's dead last), 12th once, 8th once, and 6th once. So only 1 time was the defense better than average, and that was slightly.

From 72-78, only 4 seasons, 73-76 did the D rank well. 2nd twice and 3rd twice. (11th, 13th and 20th in the other seasons)

When he played with the Giants, 67-71, he had no defense either (overall). 67- 13th out of 16, 68- 10th out of 16, 69- 8th out of 16, 70- 15th out of 26, 71- 25th out of 26.

So in short, out of his 18 seasons played, only 4 times did he have a defense worth a damn. A lot of people seem to forget that football is the ULTIMATE team sport, and 1 person can not do it all. For all those that watched Tark, most would put him in their top ten without a doubt.

Why do I point out the defense? Well, defense wins championships folks.

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 " .

[SmootSmack]

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?

[JWsleep]

I think his post NFL career kinda hurt him:

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by budw38

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?

[budw38]

Originally Posted by jsarno

#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 .

[lwiedy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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.