This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
He currently has the 5th most rushing yards of all-time. That is undeniable.Whether that makes him the best, the 5th best, the 20th best rusher or somewhere in between is subjective and entirely up for debate.
I'm not saying Graham is a scrub, here. I still consider him top 10. I just think that a lot of the reason why his numbers were so good was because his team was YEARS ahead of the competition. Generally, the QBs who are the very, very first to play in a system that is so drastically superior that the rest of the NFL quickly adopts it tend to have an unnaturally high level of success and production. Otto Graham's totals are definitely inflated by the fact that the Browns were just playing smarter football than the rest of the league.
People say that the fact that the Browns won the NFL Championship proves that the AAFC was legitimate. That's BS- it only proves that the Cleveland Browns were legitimate. If the rest of the AAFC was so good, it should have had some success in the NFL, too. So tell me about what success the AAFC had in the NFL (outside of the Cleveland Browns).Again, it'd be like if the Indy Colts beat the crap out of the Arena League for 3 years, playing virtually unopposed, then came to the NFL and won an Super Bowl. Would the fact that Indy won a SB suddenly legitimize the entire Arena League? Should we then start talking about that season that Peyton Manning threw a hundred TDs as if it came against NFL-caliber opposition?
I agree that Graham definitely deserves to be top 10, I'm just making the case that he's not the #1 QB in NFL history, even though he was the most successful QB in NFL history.
John Elway wasn't a HoFer for what he did in 1996-1998. John Elway was a Hall of Famer for what he did from 1988-1992. Elway could have retired the day Mike Shanahan was hired as head coach and he still would have been a first-ballot HoFer.Also, Elway would have never been cut. John Elway was the best pro prospect in the history of the NFL. If you put every single player in NFL history into one master draft (and made it so that you didn't know how their careers would actually turn out), John Elway would have been picked #1 overall. This isn't just my opinion- pretty much any scout ever will say the same thing. Every QB coming out of college for the last 20+ years has been compared to John Elway. He literally had no negatives. His measureables were off the charts (size, speed, arm strength), his numbers were off the charts (Held a half dozen NCAA records by the time he left college), and his intangibles were off the charts. Even if he became a bust of Ryan Leaf-like proportions, another team would pick him up and try him out. And suffice it to say that he was NOT a bust of Ryan Leaf-like proportions.Now, you can call him inaccurate, but a lot of that was the result of the scheme that Denver ran and the talent they surrounded him with. Denver was very much a deep-passing offense in Elway's years with Reeves (actually, they were a run, run, and then let John Elway bail them out on 3rd down offense). Wade Phillips finally changed the offense and added the short pass back into the playbook, and in Elway's last six seasons his comp% was 63, 62, 58, 62, 56, and 59. Hardly scattershot. Oh, and his TD:INT ratio during that span was better than 2:1 (142:69). Oh yeah, he sure was a scattershot gunslinger who couldn't possibly get a decent TD:INT ratio.John Elway is the most overrated QB ever... Everyone remembers the end of his career, which was nice, but ol' horseteeth couldn't hit the broadside of a barn... And he threw too many interceptions... Probably threw as many picks as touchdownsIn todays age he would have been cut very early on.
Bettis was a compiler who put together a very long string of mediocre seasons (with a few legitimately great seasons sprinkled in between) to produce very solid numbers. Look at his per-play averages, though- 3.9 career ypc, and only 4 seasons of 4.0+ in 13 years. That's practically Eddie Georgian, although at least Bettis had 6 pro bowls (only 1 All-Pro). I suspect that I could find 20 RBs who were better than Bettis
Well obviously, you're right. I always enjoy these all-time ranking discussions (most importantly the reasoning behind the opinion). You may think that Barry Sanders, and John Elway are not in the all-time top 20 of their respective positions. It doesn't make you right, or wrong....it's all a matter of perception (your perception is your own reality).Personally, I think Bettis is a sure-fire bet for the HOF, and I think he deserves mention among the top 20 RB's to ever play the game. Numbers aside, the memory of him holding the Lombardi trophy over his head as he ended his career will get him the votes...He currently has the 5th most rushing yards of all-time. That is undeniable.
Whether that makes him the best, the 5th best, the 20th best rusher or somewhere in between is subjective and entirely up for debate.
That's what makes these threads so fun.
I don't think they're at all comparable. If you look at the numbers in a vacuum, they might look kind of sort of vaguely similar... but you can't look at the numbers in a vacuum. Their rookie seasons look pretty close- 4.8 ypc vs. 4.9 ypc, Campell finished 1st and 4th in rushing and yards from scrimmage, while Bettis finished 2nd and 3rd. After that, though, their careers couldn't have followed a more dramatically different path. Campbell remained absolutely UNSTOPPABLE for two more seasons, leading the league in yards rushing for three consecutive years and eventually culminating in a year where he almost broke 2,000 yards rushing and led the league in rushes, rushing yards, rushing TDs, and yards from scrimmage... despite only playing in 15 games. After that, Campell's career was destroyed by injuries and overuse, and despite a very strong season in 1981 (1300 yards rushing) and a brief comeback in 1983 (1300 yards rushing in 14 games), he was never the same RB again. In his first three seasons, Campbell averaged 4.9 ypc, and in his final 6 he averaged 3.7 ypc. He was a broken back just finishing up his career. Bettis, on the other hand, was consistantly above-average for 12 years after his rookie year, but never again achieved true greatness, though he certainly flirted with it in 1996/1997 and 2001. One of his pro bowls was a farce, too, given to Bettis for lack of a better option and because he'd had a strong year the year before- Bettis had 1025 yards and 3 TDs... AT THREE POINT TWO YARDS PER CARRY. To put that into perspective, J.J. Arrington had a career ypc of 3.1. Just for comparison purposes.Earl Campbell's closest comparisons are Terrell Davis and Gale Sayers, in my mind (in fact, whenever I want to argue Davis's case for the HoF, I begin with the Earl Campbell comparisons). Jerome Bettis's closest HoF comparison, in my mind, is John Riggins. Bettis played 192 games to Riggins 175, Bettis had 13,662 yards to Riggins' 11,352. Bettis had 91 TDs to Riggins' 104. Both backs finished with an identical 3.9 career ypc. Bettis has more pro bowls, but Bettis had 21 top-10 finishes in the major statistical categories compared to 20 for Riggins, and both had 10 top-5 finishes. They both had the cute off-the-field stories helping their cause. I'd say that Jerome Bettis and John Riggins were as close to identical as two RBs can get. You might think that this helps Bettis's case for the HoF, but personally, I believe that Riggins is the most undeserving RB in the entire hall, and I would hate to see the committee compound the mistake by electing him again.Well obviously, you're right. I always enjoy these all-time ranking discussions (most importantly the reasoning behind the opinion). You may think that Barry Sanders, and John Elway are not in the all-time top 20 of their respective positions. It doesn't make you right, or wrong....it's all a matter of perception (your perception is your own reality).Personally, I think Bettis is a sure-fire bet for the HOF, and I think he deserves mention among the top 20 RB's to ever play the game. Numbers aside, the memory of him holding the Lombardi trophy over his head as he ended his career will get him the votes...He currently has the 5th most rushing yards of all-time. That is undeniable.
Whether that makes him the best, the 5th best, the 20th best rusher or somewhere in between is subjective and entirely up for debate.
That's what makes these threads so fun.
Bettis compares very well to a similar styled HOF RB, Earl Campbell.
Jerome Bettis played 13 years, has 13,662 yards (5th all-time), and has 94 TD's (10th all-time). Bettis finished top 3 in rushing three times, and finished top 10 two other times. Bettis was a 6 time Pro Bowler.
Earl Campbell played 9 years, has 9,407 yards (23rd all-time), and has 74 TD's (21st all-time). Campbell finished top 3 in rushing three times, and finished top 10 two other times. Campbell was a 5 time Pro Bowler.
Now, I'm not claiming that Bettis was greater than Campbell....but based on the numbers he's at least in the same zip code, imho.
This is much the same methodology that I begin with when evaluating HoF cases, except I just break it down into top10/top5 finishes (because the difference between #2 and #1 isn't that great- if I rush for 2400 yards, is it my fault that someone else rushes for 2401 the same season?), and I also include the other major statistical categories (rushes and rushing TDs, and then yards from scrimmage and total TDs to doubly reward RBs who were especially dominant even compared to the great WRs and TEs from their day). I feel like it gives me two numbers that can very easily compare players. It rewards dominance *AND* durability (since the more seasons you have, the more chances you get to crack the top 10). I don't like the "Number Per Season" metric, because it is biased against RBs that hang around too long. I mean, would Emmitt Smith have been a more dominant RB if he hadn't gone to Arizona in the twilight of his career? Of course not, and it's silly to suggest as much.If you don't mind a few proposed changes to your metric... first off, I would make the second list an average score of RBs "in their prime", with their prime defined as the years between the first time they crack the top 10 in any category to the last time they crack the top 10 in any category, and you could also consider throwing out any seasons where they missed 4 or more games (since it'd be unreasonable to expect a top 10 finish under those results).
the purpose of any metric here is to act as an "attention directing tool". We can analize the heck out of the numbers, but in the end it comes down to personal preference, and there is no way you can get around that. But - doing this exercise, I learned that Martin/Dorsett have a case for top 10 all time, but only if you consider longetivity/durability an asset. Gale Sayers deserves top 10 consideration even if you stack him up against backs who played a long, full career. Jim Brown failed to lead the league only once in his career
. Tomlinson has to capture a few more rushing titles / top 5 finishes before he can be considered top 5 (neglecting the TD record and his pass catching ability, of course). And, we have all grossly underestimated Jim Taylor.
I have already listed my top ten backs.Next ten in no particular order:Curtis MartinMarcus AllenLeroy KellyMarion MotleyLarry CsonkaThurman ThomasFranco HarrisLenny MooreMarshall FaulkEdgerrin JamesNow another tenShaun AlexanderTerrell DavisPriest HolmesJim TaylorHershel WalkerSteve Van BurenTiki BarberCorey DillonRickey WattersJoe PerryI could probably name another 10 that were better than Bettis but I guess I will stop at 30.
I take it the only reason people have stopped calling SSOG on his
is because they have stopped reading his crap altogether. Maybe I should join those ranks.
Haven't you ever noticed how ever scout calls every elite prospect the "best prospect since John Elway"?Want me to back up my "BS"? Because I have no problem doing so. Why not try a quick Google Search. Casey Clausen, Jamarcus Russell, Tim Couch, Calvin Johnson, Reggie Bush, Kyle Boller, Troy Aikman- all have been called the best pro prospect since John Elway at one time or another. Do you know why that is? It's because John Elway is the consensus best pro prospect in modern NFL history. Run the same search regarding any other #1 overall draft pick and see how many hits you get sometime. Or you can save yourself the trouble, because there won't be many hits (if any).I take it the only reason people have stopped calling SSOG on hisis because they have stopped reading his crap altogether. Maybe I should join those ranks.
Gee, you can find hits on "best prospect since Manning" or "best prospect since Aikman" too. I don't see any hits on "boller 'best prospect since elway'" or "couch 'best prospect since elway'". I notice you don't mention Manning in your list above (who was a better prospect than Elway). You do manage to mention at least three players who weren't chosen #1 overall, including one who wasn't even drafted; how's that for a great prospect?Perhaps you should do a bit more research before making condescending and completely incorrect statements.
Whether the organization regretted drafting him doesn't have any impact on how good of a prospect he was. A guy could come out who was 6'6", held every college record, had never lost a game, could throw 100 yards on his knees, etc, etc, etc, and he could still bust. Wouldn't change the fact that he was the best prospect ever.Also, just because guys like Boller or Johnson or whoever wasn't drafted #1 overall also isn't a reflection on Elway. He still remains the standard against which all NFL prospects are compared.
Well, except for the ones who are compared against Manning, Aikman, Favre, Palmer, or Marino."It's a matter of time before Pittsburgh is renamed Roethlisberg. The young quarterback, whom Bill Parcells deemed the best prospect since Dan Marino, is now 4-0 as a starter. ""The young quarterback you will wish had acquired is mired on a losing team, yet Joey Harrington is one of the most exciting rookies to come into the league for some time. Getting his start early in the season, he has made mistakes, but shown the spark of leadership making him the best prospect since Brett Favre.""If Charles Rogers, Joey Harrington, and the entire 2005 draft show anything, it's this. You have to take the #1 guy! Calvin Johnson is the best prospect since Carson Palmer was drafted #1 in 2003.""Russel. What if right....I think he is a big time prospect. After tonight, he's Big Al's #1. Best Arm since Favre. Best prospect since Marino.""Jon Kitna will be 35 next season... why not go with with best QB prospect since Peyton Manning.""Leinart is the total package.Most experts don't see him as an average QB. Most see him as the best prospect since Peyton Manning."
It doesn't. Some people are just so desperate in their man-love, they will say anything that they think makes him look better.
At what point in your bizarre ramblings will you provide a link to a valid source that backs up your statement that "pretty much any scout ever will say "that John Elway would be picked #1 of all NFL players throughout history?Personally, I distinctly recall Jeff George being hailed as being the best QB prospect since Joe Namath. Seems like there was another QB that was drafted somewhere between those two, but I can't remember his name (although I'm getting this mental image of Mr. Ed for some reason).Haven't you ever noticed how ever scout calls every elite prospect the "best prospect since John Elway"?Want me to back up my "BS"? Because I have no problem doing so. Why not try a quick Google Search. Casey Clausen, Jamarcus Russell, Tim Couch, Calvin Johnson, Reggie Bush, Kyle Boller, Troy Aikman- all have been called the best pro prospect since John Elway at one time or another. Do you know why that is? It's because John Elway is the consensus best pro prospect in modern NFL history. Run the same search regarding any other #1 overall draft pick and see how many hits you get sometime. Or you can save yourself the trouble, because there won't be many hits (if any).I take it the only reason people have stopped calling SSOG on hisis because they have stopped reading his crap altogether. Maybe I should join those ranks.
Perhaps you should do a bit more research before calling something BS.
why?
How about alot more teams.
I don't really get this arguement.
Calling someone the "best prospect since Marino" or the "best prospect since Favre" is revisionist history. If Dan Marino was such a good prospect, he wouldn't have lasted to the 27th pick. If Brett Favre was such a good prospect, he wouldn't have lasted until the second round. And saying someone is the best prospect since Aikman is far less impressive than saying he's the best prospect since Elway, since Aikman himself was considered the best prospect since Elway (meaning Elway was considered a better prospect than Aikman, and the other QB being mentioned is just a notch below Aikman, who was in turn just a notch below Elway). Seriously, use logic much? The phrase "You're the best prospect since _______" means that the guy you're being compared to was a better prospect than you are, otherwise they would have just said that you're the best prospect.In order to even be in the "best prospect" discussion, a player would have had to be drafted #1 overall (or perhaps #2 overall, if there's a Calvin Johnson situation where the #1 team addressed a need rather than going BPA). Any later than that, and calling a player the "best prospect" is silly and nothing more than revisionist history (i.e. Brett Favre became great, so we're retroactively going to pretend that we knew all along how great he'd be).
I already posted the link to a quick google search to demonstrate the sheer volume of links supporting my claim. If I could somehow link to a telecast, I'd link you to the NFL draft, where Kiper called Calvin Johnson the best prospect since Elway. Here's a link to an article where Accorsi calls Elway the best prospect he's ever seen. I'm sure this hasn't swayed you yet, so once again, I urge a quick google search, which should reinforce that Elway is still the gold standard against which all top prospects are compared.Also, yes, prospects are frequently compared to Namath, too. Makes sense, since from what I can tell, he was considered the best prospect of the pre-modern era. In fact, Elway himself, when he came out, was compared to Namath as a prospect.
Let's put it this way. I'm going to put you in a room filled with two people. How impressive is it if I say you're the smartest person in the room? Now, let's put you in a room filled with a million people. NOW how impressive is it if I say you're the smartest person in the room? Which is harder, being the fastest man in a 2-man race, or the fastest man in a 10-man race? Which is harder, winning a 2-person game of Texas Hold-Em, or winning a 10-person game? Obviously, the more players who are competing for a particular honor, the more difficult it is to claim that honor. In 1931, there were 10 teams in the league. You know what that means? Steven Hawkins could have started at QB for a team, and he'd still be a top-10 QB. Yes, I would say that it was FAR less impressive to be top-10 in 1931 than it was to be top-10 in 2007. The more teams there are in the league, the more impressive a top-10, top-5, or top-3 finish becomes.
You'll have to take it up with Bill Parcells, not with me.
It's clearly widely accepted in the greater Denver metropolitan area.
Wow, this is mind bottling! How do you not put the 5th leading rusher in NFL history in the top 30?Pat Patriot said:
I believe you are seriously underestimating Jerome's place among the all-time greats.
So, in other words, "There is no quote. I was talking out of my ### and got caught doing so." Thanks.
except if you finish first, it doesn't really matter how many people are in the room. First place = none better. Second place = one person better, and on down the line.Let me continue with your analagy of the smartest person in the room(s). Lets suppose that there was an open competition based on intelligence to gain entry into said room(s). Suppose that room A contains the two smartest people in the world, and room B contains the top million people. The people from room A would also be granted admission into room B, and therefore the same guy would be the second smartest guy in both rooms - it really doesn't matter how many there are, the top two guys are the top two guys.This is the case with the NFL - there are/were tryouts to make the team. Stephen Hawking can not roll in off the street and play QB, and in 1961 there were plenty of talented people who couldn't make an NFL roster. It would be safe to assume that in 1961, just as in 2006, the best football players in the country make the NFL rosters, so when you say someone is the best RB in the NFL, you really mean he's the best RB in the country, regardless of number of teams. Likewise, the 5th best RB in the NFL is also the 5th best RB in the country.There had to be a surplus of talent, otherwise either there would have been no expansion (or AFL), or the expansion watered down the existing talent. (even if the talent pool was diluted, the top guys would still have finished at the top in the same order, so it doesn't matter either way).Here's another scenario - supponse the NFL contracted to only SD, KC, SF, NYG, STL, Pit, Cin, Phi, Min, and Ten. Would it be fair to conclude that Travis Henry is the worst RB in the league? He finished 10th in rushing last year, so he must he the worst.
One other thing to consider though is that the NFL was not nearly as big of a drawing card for athletes as it is now. Baseball was still America's game. Boxing was HUGE. The Olympics was still a very big deal. Meanwhile, there were guys in the NFL who were barely making a living playing football.There is no way to determine whether #1 now is better or worse than #1 then, but considering all of the outside factors (like training and health regimens, advancements in the game itself, and how early in life athletes begin focusing on football skills), it's not a stretch to say that it is highly likely that today's best players are probably quite a bit better than the best players of almost fifty years ago.
it's a tough thing to compare though - the competition they face is equally better, which negates some of the advantages over the modern athlete. If you gave players from 50 years ago some of the advantages of todays players, would there really be much of a difference? I don't think so. IMO, the biggest thing propping up modern athlete's stats when comparing across eras is the progression of the game itself - things like a pocket to pass from, timing routes, the different reads players must make - the game of football has gotten soo much more complex over the past 50 years, much more so than any other sport. Which ever player is lucky enough to be on a team that comes up with the next greatest thing will reap the rewards of the system - Certianly Joe Montana and Terrell Davis come to mind.
If you gave the Confederacy the B-1 bomber, would they have lost the Civil War? I don't think so.
Except moleculo isn't talking about giving one side (team) a modern advantage. He's talking about giving it to everyone.So who wins if both the North and the South have B-1 bombers?
I haven't lived in the greater Denver metropolitan area in almost a decade. It seems to be pretty widely accepted in Central Florida, too, though.
Who says we assume that they'd continue producing at the same clip? Let's say that Davis never got hurt, but instead fell off of the cliff and only rushed for 800 yards and 4 TDs every single season for 9 years. He would have finished his career with just as many yards as Jerome Bettis, and more TDs. Are you saying that Terrell Davis would have been as good as Jerome Bettis... if only he'd rushed for 800 yards and 4 TDs a season? Oh yeah, rushing for 800 yards and 4 TDs a season would have made Davis great. Too bad he wasn't good enough to just average 800 yards a season so that he could have been as great as Jerome Bettis.Basing your evaluations of a player because they hung around a long time and padded their stats with a lot of mediocre seasons is a little silly. Are you saying that Jerry Rice wouldn't have been as good of a WR as he was if he had retired after 2002 instead? Or that Emmitt Smith wouldn't have been as great if he hadn't hung around at the end to pad his stats? Or that Bruce Smith would somehow be less of a player if he hadn't had a couple of mediocre seasons in Washington to end his career? Or that Joe Montana is sometimes considered the #1 QB in league history in part because of what he did in Kansas City?
No, in other words, "There is no quote... except for the ones I linked you to, and all the other ones I didn't go through the trouble of linking you to but showed you how to find for yourself."You're welcome.
That's the big one, the NFL in the 60s just didn't have the drawing power that the NFL has today.Also, remember that the rushing title doesn't always go to the best RB. Curtis Martin won the rushing title a couple of years ago, but nobody at all thought he was the best RB in the league- there was a lucky combination of circumstances combined with still very good talent, and the result was the rushing title. The more different players you have in the league, the more likely one of them is going to get a lucky set of circumstances and rank high. Even if Jim Brown was the best RB in the history of football, if he played today (with all of today's modern advantages), there's no way he leads the league in rushing as much as he did back then. I mean, Tomlinson is widely considered the best rusher in the league by a noticeable margin, and last season was his first time leading the league in rushing. And another RB *STILL* got more yards from scrimmage, anyway!
No, what he's talking about is changing history. The players from fifty years ago did not have the advantages that players today do. The fact is, today's players DO have that advantage, which makes them better players. Speculating about what might happen if old players had that same advantage is pointless.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Please post again where "pretty much any scout ever will say "that John Elway would be picked #1 of all NFL players throughout history. Just a simple direct link will work. TIA.
That's all well and good, but he's still not talking about changing history for a select side. He's changing it for everyone. Therefore, your analogy of the Confederacy with a B-1 doesn't follow. If you had given the B-1 to everyone, it would follow. Has nothing to do with who's better.
AMEN brother preach it...WHOOOOOOAnd despite playing for a long time in the weakest division of the weakest conference, Favre has struggled to do anything at all in the postseason outside of his two-year run.Elway's brilliance always came from the fact that he did the most with the least. Even if Favre passes Elway's total wins, he's not going to pass Elway's winning percentage, and Elway put up all those wins despite averaging about half as many pro bowl teammates per season as all the other HoF QBs (about a third as many as Jim Kelly, and with a mere fraction of the offensive help that Dan Marino had).Elway made more SBs than any other QB in his draft class. He finished with more wins than any other QB in his draft class. He also played with far less surrounding talent than any other QB in his draft class. He played in the league for a decade before he had his first Pro Bowl WR. If you exclude the final 3 years of his career (which everyone thinks are the reason he was a HoFer, when in reality the stuff that made him so great all happened in the late 80s/early 90s), then he had about a third as many pro-bowl offensive linemen as Dan Marino. If you take out the QB rushing numbers, Elway's Superbowl Denver Broncos rushed for about as much per season as Dan Marino's "What Would He Be If He Only Had an RB" Dolphins. Despite this, he finished with more wins, comparable stats per pass attempt, and *WAY BETTER* rushing numbers. He was, in fact, the best QB in his own draft class.First off, Elway holds the NFL record for most Conference Championship Game wins (5-1 in the AFCCG, which is freaking phenominal)... so what you really mean when you say "meltdowns in big games" is "meltdowns in superbowls"... because I would certainly call the AFC Championship Game a pretty unbelievably big game, and I'd hardly call "The Drive" a meltdown.Second off, Elway didn't play awful in three different Super Bowls. He was 22-37 for 304 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT in his first SB appearance (that's a solid 8.2 yards per attempt, and a QB rating of 83.6- hardly a "meltdown" or "awful"). So, looking at it, Elway played in 5 superbowls and played solid-or-better in three of the five. He also appeared in 6 AFCCGs and played phenominally in 4 of them, mediocre in a fifth, and poorly in a sixth. That's 11 "big games" here, and Elway was good or better in 7 of them (and only really "bad" in 3). Oh yeah, that's a solid history of melting down in big games.Third off, have you ever noticed that Denver never won a game in the playoffs when Elway played poorly? You know why that was? Because the TEAM AROUND HIM WAS MEDIOCRE, and that's being generous. I'd rather have a QB who is so phenominal that he wills a mediocre team to a superbowl and then chokes it away than a QB who can't get an above-average team out of the first round of the playoffs (Brett Favre, I'm looking at you).You're a Browns fan, right BGP? I'm not surprised that you're grasping at any possible excuse (however ludicrous) to exclude Elway from the top 10, but I'm really surprised that you seem to think he plays poorly in big games. In his three games against the Browns in the AFCCG, he went 20/35 for 385 and 3/0, 14/26 for 281 and 3/1, and in the third he engineered "The Drive". In other words, two games with 10+ yards per attempt and 3 TDs, and a third game with the most clutch, fundamentally sound, biggest drive in the history of the NFL. I suppose you've just forgotten all about that (blocked it from your memory is more likely)- or maybe you're like the rest of the league and you don't consider any game against the Cleveland Browns to be a "big game"?
Oh, and before someone comes forward and tries to tell me that Elway stunk in the AFCCG against the Jets and I'm being generous by just calling it mediocre, here's a little comparison for you. Elway's AFCCG against the Jets- 13/34 for 173 and 1/0 (with 13 yards rushing). Tom Brady's "MVP Performance" against the Rams- 16/27 for 145 and 1/0 (with 3 yards rushing). I'm just sayin'.
Elway put the Broncos into at least 2 Suberbowls that they had no business being in.In my opinion Elway is first and Marino is a close second only because he didn't win the big game. If he did then they would be tied. I'm not going to take away from Montana but he benefited from the West Coast system, and he had the greatest offensive coach in the history of the game with Bill Walsh. If Elway had Walsh as a coach his numbers would be UNTOUCHABLE. Also don't forget that he had the GOAT WR in Jerry Rice. Just think what Elway could have done with Jerry Rice. Let's not forget Roger CraigOne thing needs to be said about this QB discussion. The 80's were a totally different time period in football. The west coast system was just being developed. Where as now many teams use the west coast system or some form of hybrid the 80's teams for the most part were not nearly as pass happy as they began to be in the 90's or today. Offenses played different, Defenses played different; the entire game of football just looked, and felt different. It’s really hard to put a finger on it, but if you were watching back then you know what I’m talking about. It's extremely difficult to compare 80's offenses to 90's and 2000+ offenses if you were around to actually see and remember those games. If you take Favre, Manning, and Brady and put them back in the 80's their stats would be much lower. Conversely if you took Elway and Marino and put them on one of today’s teams their numbers would be higher. Elway and Marino changed the game. I hate to even compare the two because they were such diametric opposites (except arm strength). All that talk everybody said about Michael Vick when he first broke out and was lighting up ESPN highlight films…that was the same talk that they said about Elway when he was young (minus his rookie year). That type of play didn’t exist until Elway showed up. And honestly stats can never bear out why Elway was so great. You truly cannot measure the presence that Elway had on the field during crunch time, by looking at a stat sheet. Elway had something that is immeasurable. It’s almost indescribable; you’d had to have watched all those games and been immersed in the football of that era to appreciated his game. Do you know why “The Drive” is called “The Drive”? Because that kind of come from behind bravado was so rare in that era, and especially in the playoffs. The same can be said of Marino. Brady, and Manning are spectacular…but their will never be an Elway/Marino combo in the game again. I would like to add Doak Walker to the list of honorable mention in the RB category.
Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to convince SSOG he's delusional?
