I remember at least two and suspect there were more
Straight from the horses mouth: Montana say Steelers chose O'Donnell over me
- Thread starter antdrewjosh
- Start date
I remember at least two and suspect there were more
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
- Messages
- 13,543
- Reaction score
- 11,470
- Points
- 113
Weird. A few post above if you read them it tells you how those 2 were not his fault. Weird isn't it.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 34,954
- Reaction score
- 39,375
- Points
- 113
- Location
- between $2 short & ten buck two
Neil wasn't that bad a QB, he did have very few interceptions. TWO of them on the biggest stage in the world, unfortunately. One could tell Cohwer and Neil were OK, on a personal note. They got along, did their respective jobs. I think it was a growing experience for BOTH of them. Cohwer, little new at the helm, wanting success from the QB possition. Cohwer knew that Neil had it, up top (brain wise), but realized the physical was a little less than. Now take Kordell Stewart's realm, Cohwer seen the gifted skills. Proven again and again, in the slash role exspecially. Kordell had all the physical tools needed, but just not enough up top (brains). Yet, Cohwer coddled Kordell, closer than most players, in hopes that the light might turn on. This is not a debate between Neil or Kordel, just a showing that Cohwer picked Neil as hefelt he was best short and long term, VS Joe Montana. I don't think it came down to a choice of Joe's, it came down to a choice of the STEELERS.
Salute the nation
Salute the nation
Town wasn't happy with him but he wasn't run out of town, it was more like he was a FA and the Jets simply offered him silly money that the Steelers were right not to match. Which his performance after leaving the Steelers proved was the right decision. He was a good, not great, QB but he wasn't worth Dan Marino money.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 10,880
- Reaction score
- 14,978
- Points
- 113
I've seen those commercial 784 times. I am fairly certain that Mr. Ed says something near the end, but I don't recall her ever saying anything.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
- Messages
- 13,543
- Reaction score
- 11,470
- Points
- 113
Name me one starting QB that hasn't thrown a INT.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 10,880
- Reaction score
- 14,978
- Points
- 113
My response was directed at this little gem right here
. I never claimed that any QB never threw interceptions you did. I looked at O'Donnel's stats and he did not look to be that good, he was an ok quarterback. If you look he was good enough to manage games and generally do a decent job but he was never going to be a franchise QB. He had if my memory is accurate a generally good running back the time he was here and Pitt was mostly a running team.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
- Messages
- 13,543
- Reaction score
- 11,470
- Points
- 113
LOL....Neil had one of the lowest int % in the history of the NFL. That is why I posted that "gem". Of course you already knew that. As far as looking at his stats and saying he wasn't that good....well as you already pointed out he played on a run heavy team. He played the game exactly how Billy Bob wanted him to play it. He was good enough for us to win a SB. Unfortunately when he had his chance we came up a little short.
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,289
- Reaction score
- 640
- Points
- 113
I don't buy that Kordell was all that gifted. Sure, he could run, and his arm was strong, but he threw the ball erratically, which had nothing to do with his brain, but indicates a lack of skill in a very important department. As for Montana, it all depends on what it was going to take to get him. In hindsight, of course we would have been better off with Joe. Cowher was committed to Neil though. He proved that during the 1992 playoffs, when he basically threw away an entire season, by sticking with Neil against Buffalo, when he was having one of the worst games you could ever imagine (coming off of an injury that had sidelined him for over a month), yet Cowher refused to replace him with Brister, because he knew that if Brister was the hero, he wouldn't be able to get rid of him.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 34,954
- Reaction score
- 39,375
- Points
- 113
- Location
- between $2 short & ten buck two
I fully well know Kordell had issues, but he still was a very prime athlete. Believe me I am NOT defending Stewert. It is what is was. My point was Neil had a LOT more brains than Kordel. Kordel's athleticism is what kept him on the field. That and the rumored "pictures of cohwer in a questionable pose" may have helped. LOL
Salute the nation
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,289
- Reaction score
- 640
- Points
- 113
Neil's low int% is very much an indicator of how he played the game. He compensated for a lack of natural ability by limiting his mistakes. He was a very "by the book" player. The best example of this is the infamous int vs Dallas. Dallas blitzed on the play, and Neil went by the book, looking for his safety valve. Unfortunately, neither his receiver, or Larry Brown was where they should have been. To make things worse, the Steelers picked up the blitz, and because of Brown's mistake, Corey Holliday was breaking wide open for what would have been a long touchdown. Contrast that with SB X, where when Bradshaw, faced with the same situation, eschewed the dump off, and went for the kill, 64 yards to Lynn Swann. The difference was that Brad had vast talents, and because of that, he was arrogantly confident that he could make big plays. That's why he threw a lot of picks, but also why he has 4 rings.
This was always my beef with Neil. He was very conservative. Rarely threw into tight windows. The two 4th and three don't count he had no choice.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I think it's very difficult to think back to Neil O'Donnell and make a realistic analysis of his play.
The quality of quarterback play (because of talent, rules or whatever) has just skyrocketed since 1995. I don't think people realize what the difference between an average quarterback rating of 76.0 (which is what is was back in 1993-1995) vs. what it is now (87.0) looks like on a play-to-play basis.
You can say "O'Donnell was too conservative" and you're right as compared to today. Sacks are down, interceptions are WAY down, yards per attempt are way up. Even fumbles lost by quarterbacks is way down from the mid-90's. But O'Donnell was pretty good as compared to his era. For his 61 games started for the Steelers his quarterback rating as 6% better than league average. Today that same rating would be 6% worse.
It's just a lot harder to think back to average to above average quarterback play in the mid-90's and not get somewhat spoiled by what we are accustomed to now as "average" play.
The quality of quarterback play (because of talent, rules or whatever) has just skyrocketed since 1995. I don't think people realize what the difference between an average quarterback rating of 76.0 (which is what is was back in 1993-1995) vs. what it is now (87.0) looks like on a play-to-play basis.
You can say "O'Donnell was too conservative" and you're right as compared to today. Sacks are down, interceptions are WAY down, yards per attempt are way up. Even fumbles lost by quarterbacks is way down from the mid-90's. But O'Donnell was pretty good as compared to his era. For his 61 games started for the Steelers his quarterback rating as 6% better than league average. Today that same rating would be 6% worse.
It's just a lot harder to think back to average to above average quarterback play in the mid-90's and not get somewhat spoiled by what we are accustomed to now as "average" play.