namepeace said:

duccichucka said:

Is this the case, though?

I ask this question because Tom Brady wins despite not having a great running game nor a
legendary defense. For example, in the years that Tom Brady has either ventured to the Super
Bowl or won it, where did his team rank in terms of rushing and defense? I don't think he ever
had a team that had a rushing attack in the top ten while having a defense in the top ten
simultaneously.

This year, the Patriots' defense was ranked 8th. Their running game was ranked 18th. This
information makes me wonder if that historical argument (Marino needed a running game and a
defense) actually holds.


EDIT:

In '84, the season the Dolphins went to the Super Bowl, their running game was ranked 16th
while their defense was ranked 7th, so there goes that argument about what Marino needed
to win in order to grab a ring.

[Edited 2/21/15 12:37pm]

[Edited 2/21/15 13:31pm]

You know good and well you can't take one year to defuse the argument.

The Fish Defense was ranked 1st and 7th his first 2 years. After that? 12, 26, 16, 24, 22, 4, 24, 11, 24, 17, 10, 17, 16, 19.

By comparison, the Niners defensive rankings during Joe's SB runs from 81-90? 2, 23, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 2.

But you're missing my point, NP.

I'm looking at what Tom Brady and the Patriots did this year and then assessing the argument
that all Marino needed was a running attack and a defense. This is because the Pats had a
defense ranked 8th in total team defense and a running game ranked 18th and managed to win
the Super Bowl.

This means that Marino's 1984 team, with a 7th ranked defense, 16th ranked rushing attack, and
1st ranked team offense cannot use that particular excuse to forgive them for losing the Super
Bowl! Why? Because the Pats won this year with a top ten defense (1984 Miami? Check); a
mediocre running game (1984 Miami? Check); and a top ranked team offense (1984 Miami?
Check). It is not a stretch to suggest that Marino's 1984 Dolphins team is slightly better or on
par with Brady's 2014 Patriots team.

That argument that Marino could've won the Super Bowl with a great defense and running game
is flawed because HE HAD ALL OF THOSE THINGS IN 1984 AND STILL LOST! In other words, you
need more than a great defense, a solid running game, and a great offense to win the Super
Bowl; or, you can win the Super Bowl with a really good defense, and a mediocre running game
while having a potent passing attack - the Patriots did it this year, so your suggestion that he
could have used a great defense and running game doesn't hold!

Hahahah! I love talking about this shit!

duccichucka said:

namepeace said:

You know good and well you can't take one year to defuse the argument.

The Fish Defense was ranked 1st and 7th his first 2 years. After that? 12, 26, 16, 24, 22, 4, 24, 11, 24, 17, 10, 17, 16, 19.

By comparison, the Niners defensive rankings during Joe's SB runs from 81-90? 2, 23, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 2.

But you're missing my point, NP.

I know what you were saying, and I didn't have the time to respond to all of it.

I'm looking at what Tom Brady and the Patriots did this year and then assessing the argument that all Marino needed was a running attack and a defense. This is because the Pats had a defense ranked 8th in total team defense and a running game ranked 18th and managed to win the Super Bowl.

True, but we're talking different eras. The QB and PI rules are much different in 2015. This has opened up the game for the Bradys and Mannings to contend for Super Bowls late in their careers, and for teams like the 2006 Colts, 2009 Saints and 2015 Pats to win the whole thing without a great running game or defense.

This means that Marino's 1984 team, with a 7th ranked defense, 16th ranked rushing attack, and 1st ranked team offense cannot use that particular excuse to forgive them for losing the SuperBowl! Why? Because the Pats won this year with a top ten defense (1984 Miami? Check); a mediocre running game (1984 Miami? Check); and a top ranked team offense (1984 Miami? Check). It is not a stretch to suggest that Marino's 1984 Dolphins team is slightly better or on
par with Brady's 2014 Patriots team.

That argument can be made, but I my point was, unlike the winning SB QBs of his actual era, Marino lacked the essential tools to win a title during his actual career. He suffered from the same problem Elway had until the end of Elway's career.

That argument that Marino could've won the Super Bowl with a great defense and running game is flawed because HE HAD ALL OF THOSE THINGS IN 1984 AND STILL LOST! In other words, you
need more than a great defense, a solid running game, and a great offense to win the Super Bowl; or, you can win the Super Bowl with a really good defense, and a mediocre running game while having a potent passing attack - the Patriots did it this year, so your suggestion that he could have used a great defense and running game doesn't hold!

But I'm talking over the course of a career, not one season in isolation. Marino only had the necessary elements of a solid running game and elite defense in 1984. (He got run out of the Rose Bowl by the No. 2 ranked offense and No. 1 ranked defense.) For the balance of his career, his teams suffered chronic issues running the ball and getting people off the field. In his era, that's what you needed to contend for and win a Lombardi. Unlike Elway, he never got back, much less with the elements needed to win. Unlike the 2015 Pats, or other recent champs, he couldn't get over the hump.

Hahahah! I love talking about this shit!

Me too!

namepeace said:

duccichucka said:

But you're missing my point, NP.

I know what you were saying, and I didn't have the time to respond to all of it.

I'm looking at what Tom Brady and the Patriots did this year and then assessing the argument that all Marino needed was a running attack and a defense. This is because the Pats had a defense ranked 8th in total team defense and a running game ranked 18th and managed to win the Super Bowl.

True, but we're talking different eras. The QB and PI rules are much different in 2015. This has opened up the game for the Bradys and Mannings to contend for Super Bowls late in their careers, and for teams like the 2006 Colts, 2009 Saints and 2015 Pats to win the whole thing without a great running game or defense.

This means that Marino's 1984 team, with a 7th ranked defense, 16th ranked rushing attack, and 1st ranked team offense cannot use that particular excuse to forgive them for losing the SuperBowl! Why? Because the Pats won this year with a top ten defense (1984 Miami? Check); a mediocre running game (1984 Miami? Check); and a top ranked team offense (1984 Miami? Check). It is not a stretch to suggest that Marino's 1984 Dolphins team is slightly better or on
par with Brady's 2014 Patriots team.

That argument can be made, but I my point was, unlike the winning SB QBs of his actual era, Marino lacked the essential tools to win a title during his actual career. He suffered from the same problem Elway had until the end of Elway's career.

That argument that Marino could've won the Super Bowl with a great defense and running game is flawed because HE HAD ALL OF THOSE THINGS IN 1984 AND STILL LOST! In other words, you
need more than a great defense, a solid running game, and a great offense to win the Super Bowl; or, you can win the Super Bowl with a really good defense, and a mediocre running game while having a potent passing attack - the Patriots did it this year, so your suggestion that he could have used a great defense and running game doesn't hold!

But I'm talking over the course of a career, not one season in isolation. Marino only had the necessary elements of a solid running game and elite defense in 1984. (He got run out of the Rose Bowl by the No. 2 ranked offense and No. 1 ranked defense.) For the balance of his career, his teams suffered chronic issues running the ball and getting people off the field. In his era, that's what you needed to contend for and win a Lombardi. Unlike Elway, he never got back, much less with the elements needed to win. Unlike the 2015 Pats, or other recent champs, he couldn't get over the hump.

Hahahah! I love talking about this shit!

Me too!

Good points; and the argument can be made that Marino had the necessary things needed to
win a Super Bowl (top ten defense, top ten offense, average running game) in 1984 while still
losing; this is astonishing as I always thought Marino never had anything outside a potent air
attack. But the argument needs to be clarified to include that he needed these things consist-
ently, which you guys probably made.

I think most Super Bowl winning teams in the 80s and 90s had either above average running
games or great running games in addition to possessing a top ten defense, which is not the
case today with the emphasis being on passing. Or, how else do you explain Pete Carroll's
brain fart on the one yard line with Earl Campbell 2.0 in his backfield? If this was 1985, you
better believe that Lynch is getting the ball.

Anyways, what is your take on my new found opinion that John Elway is overrated, and maybe
even vastly overrated? The numbers don't lie.

I think Namepeace just made a good point about Brady who is very good but let's just

call a spade a spade. The rules are different in this Brady Manning era where defenses

aren't allowed to touch the golden boy qb's. You know you can't even fart in Brady's vicinity

or a penalty is gonna be called. No one knows this better than Terrell Suggs. He even recently

stated as much after the playoffs how some qb's are protected better than others. He noted

how they beat up on Big Ben and the refs let them play ball but if they punished Brady that way

it's gonna be consequences. DB's also can't chuck receivers beyond 5 yds from the line of scrimmage which wasn't the case in most Marino's era or all of Bradshaw's era. Teams have

won Super Bowls with a weakness. Nothing new under the sun. The Ravens won a Super Bowl in 2000 despite Trent Dilfer with a strong running game and defense. It worked for the Giants in

1991 with Jeff Hostetler at qb. The Steelers won the 2009 Super Bowl with a mediocre running game and the worst offensive line in the league but had a great qb, wr's, and a stout defense.

It wasn't just Brady who won this year's Super Bowl for New England. He had help from Julian Edelmen who probably should have been Super Bowl MVP and a defense that played well.

phunkdaddy said:

I think Namepeace just made a good point about Brady who is very good but let's just

call a spade a spade. The rules are different in this Brady Manning era where defenses

aren't allowed to touch the golden boy qb's. You know you can't even fart in Brady's vicinity

or a penalty is gonna be called. No one knows this better than Terrell Suggs. He even recently

stated as much after the playoffs how some qb's are protected better than others. He noted

how they beat up on Big Ben and the refs let them play ball but if they punished Brady that way

it's gonna be consequences. DB's also can't chuck receivers beyond 5 yds from the line of scrimmage which wasn't the case in most Marino's era or all of Bradshaw's era. Teams have

won Super Bowls with a weakness. Nothing new under the sun. The Ravens won a Super Bowl in 2000 despite Trent Dilfer with a strong running game and defense. It worked for the Giants in

1991 with Jeff Hostetler at qb. The Steelers won the 2009 Super Bowl with a mediocre running game and the worst offensive line in the league but had a great qb, wr's, and a stout defense.

It wasn't just Brady who won this year's Super Bowl for New England. He had help from Julian Edelmen who probably should have been Super Bowl MVP and a defense that played well.

Brady is doing exactly what somebody with his quarterback talent ought to be doing in an era
where the rules are in place for quarterbacks to shine, and that's put up gaudy numbers.

You said: "Teams have wone Super Bowls with a weakness." Well, why couldn't have the Dol-
phins won, then? Like I've pointed out, in 1984, the one year the 'Fins went to the Super Bowl,
they had everything you needed historically to win the game.

I'm just saying that that old argument about what Marino needed to win games isn't all the way
sound; again, like you just said, we can pick past Super Bowl winners and analyze their strengths
but also glaring weaknesses. So, you should apply the same logic to the historical case that Dan
Marino presents and stop blaming his lack of Super Bowl victories on never having a running
game or top ranked defense to include Dan Marino's performances as well. In crunch time, may-
be Dan Marino didn't show up as his playoff performances appears to be mediocre:

56% completion rate
32 TDs to 24 INTs
77 QB passer rating

Montana in the playoffs?:

63% completion rate
45 TDs to 21 INTs (the golden 2:1 ratio)
96 QB passer rating

So, what role does Dan Marino play in not winning the big game? Let's not blame his ringless-
ness solely on having porous defenses and mediocre running games his entire career as he
did manage to make it to the playoffs where his own play wasn't always championship caliber.

And I see that you and NP have both avoided the claim that John Elway is overrated. If you
canvass this thread, it appears that he and Joe Montana are the two QBs most consider as
being the greatest in NFL history. But John Elway shouldn't even be mentioned in the same
breath with Joe Montana:

Joe Montana averaged about 20 TDs per season (he had fifteen but sat out one) and 10 INTs
as well (a 2:1 TD to INT ratio higher than Elway's 19:14 ratio). He completed 63% of his passes
compared to Elway's 57%. Elway had more passing yards (about 51,000yds to Montana's
40,000) but threw almost two thousand more times than Montana did and played in two more
seasons than Montana did as well. Elway played in 234 games with a 148-82-1 record (I think
this means that Elway's winning percentage is about 62%). Montana played in 192 games with a
117-47-0 record (a winning percentage of about 61%, so each of them won 6 games out of 10).


Montana never lead the league in passing yards (Elway did once), but lead the league in TDs
thrown twice while Elway never did. Elway never lead the league in passer rating and only once
had a passer rating over 90%. Montana lead the league in passer rating twice and five times
had a passer rating above 90%. Elway won one MVP award. Montana won two.

Here's the most important information. In four Super Bowl games, Montana threw 11 TDs to
Elway's 3 TDs in five Super Bowls. Montana had 0 INTs in four games to Elway's 8 in five. Montana
completed 68% of his passes to Elway's 50%. Montana's passer rating for four Super Bowl games
is 125%! Elway's at 59% . Elway has one Super Bowl MVP out of five games. Montana has three
SB MVPS out of four games.

I think I can say definitively that John Elway is overrated. He does not belong in a conversation
that includes Joe Montana and Tom Brady. Steve Young's career is even more impressive than
John Elway's; Aaron Rodgers too!

As I've said before, Johnny Unitas and Joe Cool are my best ever in that order. But Elway is top five, no doubts about it.

duccichucka said:

uPtoWnNY said:

As I've said before, Johnny Unitas and Joe Cool are my best ever in that order. But Elway is top five, no doubts about it.

Would you mind explaining why John Elway isn't overrated? I wanna believe that he isn't; but
in trying to be objective here, his stats don't look so hot compared to Joe Montana's.

And your boy Johnny U. may be just a tad overrated as well:

He only won 55% of his games (out of 211 contests, he went 118-64-4). This means basically
for every game he won, he lost the next game in an eighteen year career. But I may be being
a bit too harsh with a 55% winning percentage even though it's 6 percentage points less than
Montana's winning clip.

He lead the league in TDs thrown four times, which ain't too shabby, even throwing 32 TDs in
'57 which was pretty damn amazing back then! However, he totaled 290 TDs with 253 INTs,
which means that he was bordering on for every TD thrown, he matched it with a pick.

In four seasons out of eighteen, he scored a 90+ for a passer rating, which isn't too shabby
either. However, his average quarterback passer rating is a ho-hum 78. And looking at his
career stats, it appears that he only really had three or four herculean seasons in his belt out
of eighteen with a win/loss record to show for it: 1958, 1959, 1964, and 1965.

He went to two Super Bowls and put up godawful numbers: 14 for 33 in passing for a total of
198 yards with one TD tossed and three INTs with a quarterback passer rating of 35. But,
Unitas played before the inception of the Super Bowl and won three NFL titles. In eight playoff
games, Unitas went 6-2; he threw 7 TDs but 10 INTs; he completed 53% of his passes with
an average quarterback passer rating of 69. Nothing stellar to report here, either.

Despite these mediocre numbers, he was a 10x Pro Bowler; 4x NFL MVP. And from what my dad
has told me about watching him play, Johnny Unitas was the prototype for all the modern era
"Golden Boys" like Montana, Marino, Elway, Favre, Manning, and Brady.

So, he doesn't make my top five of all time but I recognize what he meant for the NFL historically.

phunkdaddy said:

My point was that there are rare cases that teams win a Super Bowl with glaring weaknesses. John Elway never had the receivers Cool Joe had unless you wanna call the 3 Amigos great. Montana was better mostly due to the talent around him but he wasn't leaps and bounds better. Put Elway in San Francisco during that time you would have got the same results including more splash plays. The bottom line is Elway cemented his legacy by winning back to back Super Bowls.

This is so not true!

In 1981, Montana's first Super Bowl victory, he was throwing to:

Freddie Solomon

Dwight Clark

Earl Cooper
Mike Wilson

Charle Young
Ricky Patton

Bill Ring

This is essentially "Three Amigos" talent.

In 1984, Montana's second Super Bowl victory, he was throwing to:

Roger Craig
Dwight Clark

Freddie Solomon
Wendell Tyler
Russ Francis

Carl Monroe

Apart from Roger Craig, he had another buncha bums he was slingin' it to for this win.
People always forget that Montana had two rings BEFORE he started winning games with
Jerry Rice and John Taylor and Brent Jones and Tom Rathman!

So, that argument does not hold; Joe Montana was able to lead an offense that featured
a group of no-names to victory twice; and it's not like Dwight Clark and Freddie Solmon were
leaps and bounds better than the "Three Amigos!" You can't say "Put Elway in San Francisco
and he wins rings." Why? Because Elway had the same amount of talent Montana had for
his first two rings! If you put Elway in San Francisco for Montana's last two rings, then maybe
he has a shot. But the fact remains that Joe Montana won with a bunch of bums in '81 and
'85; he did not have Jerry Rice in his arsenal until after he won two rings already. Don't forget
that!

Elway is soooooooooooooo overrated! But again, if you, NP, or Uptown can give me a reason
to think otherwise, I'm game - I loved John Elway! He never gave up and I liked his athleticism;
he may be one of the best athletes to play QB. Wasn't he a pro baseball draft pick too?

Chuck Freddie Soloman was hardly a bum and Wendell Tyler was hardly

a bum. Wendell Tyler was an all pro in 1984 and set a then 49ers rushing

record with 1262 yards and was an all pro and he was also a money back for the Rams prior

to joining the 49ers. Also Dwight Clark and Russ Francis were pro bowl players

at one time or another. Yes none of those guys were Jerry Rice or John Taylor

but they weren't slouches either. Elway was a pro baseball draftee.

duccichucka said:

uPtoWnNY said:

As I've said before, Johnny Unitas and Joe Cool are my best ever in that order. But Elway is top five, no doubts about it.

Would you mind explaining why John Elway isn't overrated? I wanna believe that he isn't; but
in trying to be objective here, his stats don't look so hot compared to Joe Montana's.

And your boy Johnny U. may be just a tad overrated as well:

He only won 55% of his games (out of 211 contests, he went 118-64-4). This means basically
for every game he won, he lost the next game in an eighteen year career. But I may be being
a bit too harsh with a 55% winning percentage even though it's 6 percentage points less than
Montana's winning clip.

He lead the league in TDs thrown four times, which ain't too shabby, even throwing 32 TDs in
'57 which was pretty damn amazing back then! However, he totaled 290 TDs with 253 INTs,
which means that he was bordering on for every TD thrown, he matched it with a pick.

In four seasons out of eighteen, he scored a 90+ for a passer rating, which isn't too shabby
either. However, his average quarterback passer rating is a ho-hum 78. And looking at his
career stats, it appears that he only really had three or four herculean seasons in his belt out
of eighteen with a win/loss record to show for it: 1958, 1959, 1964, and 1965.

He went to two Super Bowls and put up godawful numbers: 14 for 33 in passing for a total of
198 yards with one TD tossed and three INTs with a quarterback passer rating of 35. But,
Unitas played before the inception of the Super Bowl and won three NFL titles. In eight playoff
games, Unitas went 6-2; he threw 7 TDs but 10 INTs; he completed 53% of his passes with
an average quarterback passer rating of 69. Nothing stellar to report here, either.

Despite these mediocre numbers, he was a 10x Pro Bowler; 4x NFL MVP. And from what my dad
has told me about watching him play, Johnny Unitas was the prototype for all the modern era
"Golden Boys" like Montana, Marino, Elway, Favre, Manning, and Brady.

So, he doesn't make my top five of all time but I recognize what he meant for the NFL historically.

You do realise the NFL was a different league back then. There weren't all these pussified rules changes to help QBs & WRs. Back then 53% was considered top-notch. Numbers don't tell the whole story - look at the era Unitas played in. Lot easier to complete passes in today's NFL.

phunkdaddy said:

Chuck Freddie Soloman was hardly a bum and Wendell Tyler was hardly

a bum. Wendell Tyler was an all pro in 1984 and set a then 49ers rushing

record with 1262 yards and was an all pro and he was also a money back for the Rams prior

to joining the 49ers. Also Dwight Clark and Russ Francis were pro bowl players

at one time or another. Yes none of those guys were Jerry Rice or John Taylor

but they weren't slouches either. Elway was a pro baseball draftee.

Denver - Vance Johnson:

128 games in 10 seasons
415 receptions (40 receptions a season)
5700 yards (about 550+ yards a season)
37 TDs (about 4 TDs a season)


Denver - Mark Jackson:

130 games in 10 seasons
342 receptions (about 34 receptions a season)
5500 yards (about 550 yards a season)
29 TDs (about 3 TDs a season)



S.F. - Dwight Clark:

134 games in 9 seasons
506 receptions (about 56 receptions a season)
6750 yards (about 750 yards a season)
48 TDs (about 5 TDs a season)


S.F. - Freddie Solomon:

151 games in 11 seasons
371 receptions (about 33+ receptions a season)
5850 yards (about 550+ yards a season)
48 TDs (about 4 TDs a season)


So, it appears that Elway's top receivers in the 80s are comparable to Montana's top receivers
for his first two Super Bowl victories. Your argument that Elway needed Montana's firepower
doesn't hold, my dude!

uPtoWnNY said:

duccichucka said:

Would you mind explaining why John Elway isn't overrated? I wanna believe that he isn't; but
in trying to be objective here, his stats don't look so hot compared to Joe Montana's.

And your boy Johnny U. may be just a tad overrated as well:

He only won 55% of his games (out of 211 contests, he went 118-64-4). This means basically
for every game he won, he lost the next game in an eighteen year career. But I may be being
a bit too harsh with a 55% winning percentage even though it's 6 percentage points less than
Montana's winning clip.

He lead the league in TDs thrown four times, which ain't too shabby, even throwing 32 TDs in
'57 which was pretty damn amazing back then! However, he totaled 290 TDs with 253 INTs,
which means that he was bordering on for every TD thrown, he matched it with a pick.

In four seasons out of eighteen, he scored a 90+ for a passer rating, which isn't too shabby
either. However, his average quarterback passer rating is a ho-hum 78. And looking at his
career stats, it appears that he only really had three or four herculean seasons in his belt out
of eighteen with a win/loss record to show for it: 1958, 1959, 1964, and 1965.

He went to two Super Bowls and put up godawful numbers: 14 for 33 in passing for a total of
198 yards with one TD tossed and three INTs with a quarterback passer rating of 35. But,
Unitas played before the inception of the Super Bowl and won three NFL titles. In eight playoff
games, Unitas went 6-2; he threw 7 TDs but 10 INTs; he completed 53% of his passes with
an average quarterback passer rating of 69. Nothing stellar to report here, either.

Despite these mediocre numbers, he was a 10x Pro Bowler; 4x NFL MVP. And from what my dad
has told me about watching him play, Johnny Unitas was the prototype for all the modern era
"Golden Boys" like Montana, Marino, Elway, Favre, Manning, and Brady.

So, he doesn't make my top five of all time but I recognize what he meant for the NFL historically.

You do realise the NFL was a different league back then. There weren't all these pussified rules changes to help QBs & WRs. Back then 53% was considered top-notch. Numbers don't tell the whole story - look at the era Unitas played in. Lot easier to complete passes in today's NFL.

I agree; numbers don't tell the whole story. And you're right: different eras asked for different
types of success.

But so far, you haven't given us the other side of it! Why should we consider John Elway to
be one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time if his numbers don't tell the whole story?
Statistically, he's not impressive, so what are you using to form your opinion?

duccichucka said:

namepeace said:

Good points; and the argument can be made that Marino had the necessary things needed to win a Super Bowl (top ten defense, top ten offense, average running game) in 1984 while still losing; this is astonishing as I always thought Marino never had anything outside a potent air attack. But the argument needs to be clarified to include that he needed these things consistently, which you guys probably made.

Yes; to clarify, I think we were talking in terms of the quality of Marino's supporting cast throughout his career, not just one season. To be sure, he had a few seasons where there were some tools in place and got to the conference championship a couple of times.

I think most Super Bowl winning teams in the 80s and 90s had either above average running games or great running games in addition to possessing a top ten defense, which is not the case today with the emphasis being on passing. Or, how else do you explain Pete Carroll's
brain fart on the one yard line with Earl Campbell 2.0 in his backfield? If this was 1985, you better believe that Lynch is getting the ball.

Actually, it was Marino's loss in the Super Bowl that began the AFC's looong skid in the Big Game. Outside the Bears and the Packers, the NFC East and the Niners dominated the league with the same ingredients you listed. Of course, as I said in Reply 10, the rules changes (and advances in medical treatments, but that's another story) have been a boon for QBs and extended careers.

Anyways, what is your take on my new found opinion that John Elway is overrated, and maybe even vastly overrated? The numbers don't lie.

I buy some of what you're saying, but not all of it.

You're right -- Montana's receiving corps weren't necessarily worldbeaters during the early part of his run, before Rice and Taylor came along.

But during that time, Montana had what Elway didn't -- one of the better running games of the era powered by the do-it-all Roger Craig, and a stout defense led by the Deans and Lotts of the world. (IIRC, the second SB the Niners won in 1985, their entire secondary was named to the Pro Bowl.)

Montana's cast from start to finish was more complete. Hell, bad back and all, I think he could have won a 5th with the cast Steve Young eventually won with.

Elway never really had a reliable rusher until TD came along, and the defenses he had featured a few good players, like Mecklenburg, but were invariably exposed.

[Edited 3/3/15 14:00pm]

duccichucka said:

uPtoWnNY said:

You do realise the NFL was a different league back then. There weren't all these pussified rules changes to help QBs & WRs. Back then 53% was considered top-notch. Numbers don't tell the whole story - look at the era Unitas played in. Lot easier to complete passes in today's NFL.

I agree; numbers don't tell the whole story. And you're right: different eras asked for different
types of success.

But so far, you haven't given us the other side of it! Why should we consider John Elway to
be one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time if his numbers don't tell the whole story?
Statistically, he's not impressive, so what are you using to form your opinion?

Stats rarely tell the story. Some guys just know how 2 win games.

Jim Mcmahon is one of my all time favorites. His stats were not good at all...........but at the time he left the Bears, he had the highest winning % of all time.

As it relates 2 Elway, the guy just knew what 2 do, and when 2 di it. I've seen this guy elude 99% sacks like he had eyes in the back of his head. I'll take Elway over any QB except maybe a 100% healthy Jim McMahon.

namepeace said:

duccichucka said:

Good points; and the argument can be made that Marino had the necessary things needed to win a Super Bowl (top ten defense, top ten offense, average running game) in 1984 while still losing; this is astonishing as I always thought Marino never had anything outside a potent air attack. But the argument needs to be clarified to include that he needed these things consistently, which you guys probably made.

Yes; to clarify, I think we were talking in terms of the quality of Marino's supporting cast throughout his career, not just one season. To be sure, he had a few seasons where there were some tools in place and got to the conference championship a couple of times.

I think most Super Bowl winning teams in the 80s and 90s had either above average running games or great running games in addition to possessing a top ten defense, which is not the case today with the emphasis being on passing. Or, how else do you explain Pete Carroll's
brain fart on the one yard line with Earl Campbell 2.0 in his backfield? If this was 1985, you better believe that Lynch is getting the ball.

Actually, it was Marino's loss in the Super Bowl that began the AFC's looong skid in the Big Game. Outside the Bears and the Packers, the NFC East and the Niners dominated the league with the same ingredients you listed. Of course, as I said in Reply 10, the rules changes (and advances in medical treatments, but that's another story) have been a boon for QBs and extended careers.

Anyways, what is your take on my new found opinion that John Elway is overrated, and maybe even vastly overrated? The numbers don't lie.

I buy some of what you're saying, but not all of it.

You're right -- Montana's receiving corps weren't necessarily worldbeaters during the early part of his run, before Rice and Taylor came along.

But during that time, Montana had what Elway didn't -- one of the better running games of the era powered by the do-it-all Roger Craig, and a stout defense led by the Deans and Lotts of the world. (IIRC, the second SB the Niners won in 1985, their entire secondary was named to the Pro Bowl.)

Montana's cast from start to finish was more complete. Hell, bad back and all, I think he could have won a 5th with the cast Steve Young eventually won with.

Elway never really had a reliable rusher until TD came along, and the defenses he had featured a few good players, like Mecklenburg, but were invariably exposed.

[Edited 3/3/15 14:00pm]

Roger Craig was my favorite football player as a kid, next to Neal Anderson. But Craig was
not going to win any game rushing the football. He was the Marshall Faulk proto-type but
a better receiver from the backfield. I don't think the 49ers had one of the better rushing
attacks in the 80s with Roger Craig at runningback. I'm just tickled that if I get into another
Dan Marino argument, I'll have to remember that for one season, he did have everything you
needed in order to win a Super Bowl in the 80s!

I just think that Joe Montana was an average athlete but a gifted quarterback. And John Elway
was a gifted athlete but an average quarterback whose legacy benefitted greatly from his sexy
comebacks, high draft selection, athletic talent (big arm, scrambling ability), and the drama
associated with being a one-man team often.

Finally, I think you aren't buying all of the Elway-is-overrated-argument due to sentimentality!

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

I agree; numbers don't tell the whole story. And you're right: different eras asked for different
types of success.

But so far, you haven't given us the other side of it! Why should we consider John Elway to
be one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time if his numbers don't tell the whole story?
Statistically, he's not impressive, so what are you using to form your opinion?

Stats rarely tell the story. Some guys just know how 2 win games.

Jim Mcmahon is one of my all time favorites. His stats were not good at all...........but at the time he left the Bears, he had the highest winning % of all time.

As it relates 2 Elway, the guy just knew what 2 do, and when 2 di it. I've seen this guy elude 99% sacks like he had eyes in the back of his head. I'll take Elway over any QB except maybe a 100% healthy Jim McMahon.

It is not true that "stats rarely tell the story." For example, the score of a game is a "stat" and
final scores tell the WHOLE story. I find that when people say "stats don't tell the whole story,"
they are usually trying to apologize for shitty stats and shitty results, i.e. "losses." Montana
threw 2 TDs for every interception he threw. This stat tells a story of how successful he was
in the NFL. Montana had a 90+ quarterback rating for his career, which also tells a part of his
story as a leading NFL quarterback. So, I gotta disagree with you on that one, bro.

McMahon, colorful character he was, was a great game-manager. And the reason why he won
in Chicago is due to that defense. His numbers reveal he was a serviceable quarterback, des-
pite being one of your favorites; you guys are letting your sentiments get the best of logic!

The only reason why you're taking Elway is because he delighted you in your youth. You cannot
point out to anything quantifiable in his career that indicates he was "great." If you want to win
a championship, you better grab Montana or Brady. If you want to be delighted, sure, take Elway
all day!

duccichucka said:

duccichucka said:

namepeace said:

[Edited 3/3/15 14:00pm]

Roger Craig was my favorite football player as a kid, next to Neal Anderson. But Craig was
not going to win any game rushing the football. He was the Marshall Faulk proto-type but
a better receiver from the backfield. I don't think the 49ers had one of the better rushing
attacks in the 80s with Roger Craig at runningback. I'm just tickled that if I get into another
Dan Marino argument, I'll have to remember that for one season, he did have everything you
needed in order to win a Super Bowl in the 80s!

that's basically what I said about Craig, and he wasn't the prototype back for *his* era, but a prototype back for the eras to come. Marino did have what he needed for one season . . . except he drew the exact wrong opponent that same year . . .

I just think that Joe Montana was an average athlete but a gifted quarterback. And John Elway
was a gifted athlete but an average quarterback whose legacy benefitted greatly from his sexy
comebacks, high draft selection, athletic talent (big arm, scrambling ability), and the drama
associated with being a one-man team often.

I think you've got Joe nailed. Elway's legend helped him, and his accuracy was below 60%, the de facto "Mendoza Line" for purposes of this conversation. But given how much he had to do, that bumps him up some in my estimation.


Finally, I think you aren't buying all of the Elway-is-overrated-argument due to sentimentality!

If what you're saying is, "sentimentality for Elway," as a Washington fan, I never thought I'd see the day I'd get accused of that. But if you're saying "sentimentality for the era," maybe a little. That being said, my focus has been on !) what Elway accomplished with little to no help for about a decade and a half; and 2) what Elway could have done with a better supporting cast.

duccichucka said:

phunkdaddy said:

Sorry Charlie. You just happened to pick Marino's 2nd year in the league and one Super Bowl

appearance to make a point about Miami's defense. That's the same defense that gave up 28 points to a Steelers team in the AFC title game quarterbacked by fucking Mark Malone. No wonder the 49ers lit them up in the Super Bowl for 38 points. The only reason the Steelers made it that far was because of defense and a running game(despite Tom Selleck) so those ingredients with a good qb usually is a good recipe for success. Miami's defense was mediocre for most of Marino's

tenure. They became good again around 1990-1992 when they lost the 1992 AFC title at home to Buffalo. Defensive numbers can be skewed but anyone that knows football knows the Dolphins defense was mediocre at best throughout much of Marino's career. I have a homie that's a Dolphins fan. He would even tell you. He used to always talk about how weak the Blackwood brothers were in the defensive backfield. They would hit the shit out of you but couldn't cover their

own teammate Jim Jensen's shadow. Look at the Dolphins playoff history during that time that

included a 38-3 loss to Denver, 29-10 to Buffalo and who the hell can ever forget the Jimmy Johnson coached 62-7 loss to Jacksonville.

As for Brady his offense never revolved around having a great rb for success. He did have

productive backs before Corey Dillon(no slouch), Antowain Smith, Laurence Maroney, and

the probably the best all purpose back in team history with Kevin Faulk.

Namath may have been overrated but I can't even dignify with an appropriate response that

Bradshaw and Troy Aikman were overrated. Their numbers in the big games prove otherwise.

Elway was definitely one of the best ever too.

I certainly didn't choose one of Marino's best years, arguably the year he went to the Super
Bowl as indicative of the average standing of his team defense for every year he played. If you
read my post carefully, you'll see that the point I was making was that Tom Brady won the Super
Bowl this year with a top ten defense (which Marino had in 1984) and a mediocre running game
(which Marino also had in 1984). Just comparing these two years, it seems that the entire argu-
ment that Marino never had a defense to win a championship game is false and that he NEEDED
a running game to win a championship game is unsound because the Patriots won this year with
a sucky-kinda rushing attack. The Miami Dolphins 1984 team defense was ranked 7th! This
means that he had a supporting cast around him defensively that was superior. The sole year
that Marino went to the Super Bowl, his team offense was ranked numero uno. Top ten defense
and top ten offense and he still lost? This means that "All Marino needed was a great defense
and a running game to go along with his offensive attack to win the Super Bowl" is unsound. He
had ALL of those things in 1984 and still didn't win! So, I don't need to assess every single year
that Marino went to the playoffs. I only need to assess the one year he had a top one ranked
offense and a top ten ranked defense with a decent running game while still losing the Super
Bowl to show that the argument that all he needed was a great defense and a running game
to win is false. The 1984 Miami Dolphins prove this.

I agree with your point about the Patriots not being founded upon a rushing offense, but your
point is superflous because I never claimed the Patriots was such an offense. My point in
bringing up the Pats' rushing offense was to make a point against the argument that Marino
needed a rushing game to win Super Bowls: "Well, if the Patriots don't need a running game to
win the Super Bowl, why did Marino/the Dolphins?" So your list of effective Pats' running backs is
kinda unnecessary, including your other references, even though it shows us you know your
stuff! And if you think about it, this part of your post strengthens my argument: you say that
Brady's offense never revolved around him having a great RB. This means that the offense did
revolve arounding a great QB. If Brady can win multiple Super Bowls with never having a great
rushing attack while being a great QB, why couldn't Marino do the same? And the answer is not
because of defense as it is a fact that Marino's 1984 team defense was ranked 7th; Brady's 2014
team defense was ranked 8th!

However, you're the typical sport fan for when you get evidence and stats that go against your
preconceived notions, you'll cling to your preconceived notions. You maintain that John Elway
was still one of the best QBs but you make no mention of how the information I provided about
his overratedness doesn't apply. How do you reconcile your notion that Elway is one of the best
with his career statistics? I see this all the time with my sport fan friends - they get it stuck in
their head about how legendary a certain player was because he was hyped in the media but
when you actually look at his numbers, he was mediocre or above average at best. If Elway's
passer rating is lower than Matt Cassel, that suggests he's more hype than anything else. If
anything, Elway is legendary because of his great fourth quarter comebacks. I remember
watching "The Drive" as a kid and being wowed the entire time. But if John Elway doesn't get his
hands on Terrell Davis, he NEVER wins a Super Bowl! Look at his Super Bowl numbers - they
suck! The fact that Elway does play with Davis, who peaked at the right moment, we include him
in the pantheon of great quarterbacks. But again, this inclusion is debatable as his 79% passer
rating suggests.

As for claiming that Aikman and Bradshaw are overrated passers, look at their numbers and stats
compared to Joe Montana and Tom Brady; comparatively, they just don't stack up. When I de-
bate sports, I use facts; that's why include sources in my posts. It looks like nobody here
in this thread have any facts to back up their opinion other than anecdotal evidence and fond
memories of nostalgia. So, show me why Aikman, Bradshaw, and Elway aren't overrated; let's
see the numbers, which never lie.

A quick look at Bradshaw's stats reveal that the overrated argument can be made:

52% completion rate (this is mediocre as a great completion rate is in the 60 percentile)

212 TDs to 210 INTs (this means that for every TD he threw, he threw a pick. This is an awful
TD to INT ratio, where we see the greats go 2:1)

He never lead the league in total passing (TDs thrown, most yards, etc.)

His passer rating is 71, which really, really sucks.

He did win one MVP.

He won two Super Bowl MVPs.

His Super Bowl stats are pretty good.

He threw for about 28, 000 yards. This isn't a knock against him because Bradshaw was the
typical "game manager" which meant he handed the ball off to Harris and the Steel Curtain would
shut it down defensively. In fourteen seasons, my source has Bradshaw's numbers ranked with
Donovan McNabb, Bob Griese, Jim Kelly, Drew Bledsoe, Boomer Esiason, Steve McNair, Mark
Brunell, Eli Manning, and Ben Roethlisberger. The only QB in that list who I would want starting
for my championship team would be "Big" Ben.

Finally, I glanced at Aikman's numbers too, and while I'm too lazy to compile them here to support
my argument that he's overrated, rest assured, the case can be made!

I'll admit my choice was based on nostalgia. I was a child when Elway played. I should have said that Elway was my favorite and Joe Montana was the best I've ever seen. I don't fall too in love with stats though. The most important stat is team wins and you multiply that by 100 in the playoffs. Game situations often dictate how you play. Teams with solid running games and defenses don't rely on the quarterback position as much-- and they're typically better teams. So, if you're comparing quarterbacks you have to look at the systems they run. Then there are also intangibles that aren't easy to quantify.

whodknee said:

duccichucka said:

I certainly didn't choose one of Marino's best years, arguably the year he went to the Super
Bowl as indicative of the average standing of his team defense for every year he played. If you
read my post carefully, you'll see that the point I was making was that Tom Brady won the Super
Bowl this year with a top ten defense (which Marino had in 1984) and a mediocre running game
(which Marino also had in 1984). Just comparing these two years, it seems that the entire argu-
ment that Marino never had a defense to win a championship game is false and that he NEEDED
a running game to win a championship game is unsound because the Patriots won this year with
a sucky-kinda rushing attack. The Miami Dolphins 1984 team defense was ranked 7th! This
means that he had a supporting cast around him defensively that was superior. The sole year
that Marino went to the Super Bowl, his team offense was ranked numero uno. Top ten defense
and top ten offense and he still lost? This means that "All Marino needed was a great defense
and a running game to go along with his offensive attack to win the Super Bowl" is unsound. He
had ALL of those things in 1984 and still didn't win! So, I don't need to assess every single year
that Marino went to the playoffs. I only need to assess the one year he had a top one ranked
offense and a top ten ranked defense with a decent running game while still losing the Super
Bowl to show that the argument that all he needed was a great defense and a running game
to win is false. The 1984 Miami Dolphins prove this.

I agree with your point about the Patriots not being founded upon a rushing offense, but your
point is superflous because I never claimed the Patriots was such an offense. My point in
bringing up the Pats' rushing offense was to make a point against the argument that Marino
needed a rushing game to win Super Bowls: "Well, if the Patriots don't need a running game to
win the Super Bowl, why did Marino/the Dolphins?" So your list of effective Pats' running backs is
kinda unnecessary, including your other references, even though it shows us you know your
stuff! And if you think about it, this part of your post strengthens my argument: you say that
Brady's offense never revolved around him having a great RB. This means that the offense did
revolve arounding a great QB. If Brady can win multiple Super Bowls with never having a great
rushing attack while being a great QB, why couldn't Marino do the same? And the answer is not
because of defense as it is a fact that Marino's 1984 team defense was ranked 7th; Brady's 2014
team defense was ranked 8th!

However, you're the typical sport fan for when you get evidence and stats that go against your
preconceived notions, you'll cling to your preconceived notions. You maintain that John Elway
was still one of the best QBs but you make no mention of how the information I provided about
his overratedness doesn't apply. How do you reconcile your notion that Elway is one of the best
with his career statistics? I see this all the time with my sport fan friends - they get it stuck in
their head about how legendary a certain player was because he was hyped in the media but
when you actually look at his numbers, he was mediocre or above average at best. If Elway's
passer rating is lower than Matt Cassel, that suggests he's more hype than anything else. If
anything, Elway is legendary because of his great fourth quarter comebacks. I remember
watching "The Drive" as a kid and being wowed the entire time. But if John Elway doesn't get his
hands on Terrell Davis, he NEVER wins a Super Bowl! Look at his Super Bowl numbers - they
suck! The fact that Elway does play with Davis, who peaked at the right moment, we include him
in the pantheon of great quarterbacks. But again, this inclusion is debatable as his 79% passer
rating suggests.

As for claiming that Aikman and Bradshaw are overrated passers, look at their numbers and stats
compared to Joe Montana and Tom Brady; comparatively, they just don't stack up. When I de-
bate sports, I use facts; that's why include sources in my posts. It looks like nobody here
in this thread have any facts to back up their opinion other than anecdotal evidence and fond
memories of nostalgia. So, show me why Aikman, Bradshaw, and Elway aren't overrated; let's
see the numbers, which never lie.

A quick look at Bradshaw's stats reveal that the overrated argument can be made:

52% completion rate (this is mediocre as a great completion rate is in the 60 percentile)

212 TDs to 210 INTs (this means that for every TD he threw, he threw a pick. This is an awful
TD to INT ratio, where we see the greats go 2:1)

He never lead the league in total passing (TDs thrown, most yards, etc.)

His passer rating is 71, which really, really sucks.

He did win one MVP.

He won two Super Bowl MVPs.

His Super Bowl stats are pretty good.

He threw for about 28, 000 yards. This isn't a knock against him because Bradshaw was the
typical "game manager" which meant he handed the ball off to Harris and the Steel Curtain would
shut it down defensively. In fourteen seasons, my source has Bradshaw's numbers ranked with
Donovan McNabb, Bob Griese, Jim Kelly, Drew Bledsoe, Boomer Esiason, Steve McNair, Mark
Brunell, Eli Manning, and Ben Roethlisberger. The only QB in that list who I would want starting
for my championship team would be "Big" Ben.

Finally, I glanced at Aikman's numbers too, and while I'm too lazy to compile them here to support
my argument that he's overrated, rest assured, the case can be made!

I'll admit my choice was based on nostalgia. I was a child when Elway played. I should have said that Elway was my favorite and Joe Montana was the best I've ever seen. I don't fall too in love with stats though. The most important stat is team wins and you multiply that by 100 in the playoffs. Game situations often dictate how you play. Teams with solid running games and defenses don't rely on the quarterback position as much-- and they're typically better teams. So, if you're comparing quarterbacks you have to look at the systems they run. Then there are also intangibles that aren't easy to quantify.

Elway was average in the playoffs too. In 21 games, he went 14-7; a 66% winning percentage
is not too shabby. However, he had a 55% completion rate (it is becoming clear that Elway was
not a great passer in this regard); he threw 27 TDs with 21 INTs which means that for every
game he played, he threw at least one TD and a pick to go along with it - yikes! And his passer
rating is about 80.

So, yeah. That's the nail in the coffin for me: John Elway was overrated. So while I agree with
you on intangibles not being easy to quantify and that offensive schemes/systems have some-
thing to do with how well a QB competes, it looks like to me that John Elway used his superb
athletic skills to play a position that he was average at. In other words, Elway was not a gifted
QB, but a gifted athlete who could play QB effectively. But by no means was he "great."

duccichucka said:

whodknee said:

I'll admit my choice was based on nostalgia. I was a child when Elway played. I should have said that Elway was my favorite and Joe Montana was the best I've ever seen. I don't fall too in love with stats though. The most important stat is team wins and you multiply that by 100 in the playoffs. Game situations often dictate how you play. Teams with solid running games and defenses don't rely on the quarterback position as much-- and they're typically better teams. So, if you're comparing quarterbacks you have to look at the systems they run. Then there are also intangibles that aren't easy to quantify.

Elway was average in the playoffs too. In 21 games, he went 14-7; a 66% winning percentage
is not too shabby. However, he had a 55% completion rate (it is becoming clear that Elway was
not a great passer in this regard); he threw 27 TDs with 21 INTs which means that for every
game he played, he threw at least one TD and a pick to go along with it - yikes! And his passer
rating is about 80.

So, yeah. That's the nail in the coffin for me: John Elway was overrated. So while I agree with
you on intangibles not being easy to quantify and that offensive schemes/systems have some-
thing to do with how well a QB competes, it looks like to me that John Elway used his superb
athletic skills to play a position that he was average at. In other words, Elway was not a gifted
QB, but a gifted athlete who could play QB effectively. But by no means was he "great."

.........and having said all of that, I'd still take him as my QB.

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

Elway was average in the playoffs too. In 21 games, he went 14-7; a 66% winning percentage
is not too shabby. However, he had a 55% completion rate (it is becoming clear that Elway was
not a great passer in this regard); he threw 27 TDs with 21 INTs which means that for every
game he played, he threw at least one TD and a pick to go along with it - yikes! And his passer
rating is about 80.

So, yeah. That's the nail in the coffin for me: John Elway was overrated. So while I agree with
you on intangibles not being easy to quantify and that offensive schemes/systems have some-
thing to do with how well a QB competes, it looks like to me that John Elway used his superb
athletic skills to play a position that he was average at. In other words, Elway was not a gifted
QB, but a gifted athlete who could play QB effectively. But by no means was he "great."

.........and having said all of that, I'd still take him as my QB.

I mean, sure, if you have one game to play and you needed a quarterback, I wouldn't get upset
if you selected John Elway.

But if you had one season to play, you could certainly do better. But, I understand how nostalgia
can override rationality.

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

.........and having said all of that, I'd still take him as my QB.

I mean, sure, if you have one game to play and you needed a quarterback, I wouldn't get upset
if you selected John Elway.

But if you had one season to play, you could certainly do better. But, I understand how nostalgia
can override rationality.

I hear u.............I just don't agree.

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

I mean, sure, if you have one game to play and you needed a quarterback, I wouldn't get upset
if you selected John Elway.

But if you had one season to play, you could certainly do better. But, I understand how nostalgia
can override rationality.

I hear u.............I just don't agree.