All-Time NFL Best (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

so - how fair is it to compare Elways passing stats when the best WR he had to work with in his prime was Vance Johnson - career high = 76 catches for 1095 yards?

The reverse could also be argued. How fair is it to blame any of those receivers for those three years when the best that the guy throwing to them could manage was 54.5% and only 5 more TDs than INTs. The quarterback has a lot more to do with the success of his receivers than the other way around. Saying he had crappy receivers just makes Elway look worse.

Not at all. Look at Lee Evans. He's a great WR, and he put up numbers despite a crappy QB. Look at Steve Smith. He's an uberstud despite a mediocre guy behind center. Now look at Eddie Kennison. He's a nice, but ultimately mediocre, WR, despite the presence of a stud QB. Pinkston/Thrash- their QB was a superstud, and they were still ultimately viewed as the worst WR tandem in the league.Good WRs put up numbers, no matter who is throwing them the ball. Great WRs are seen as great WRs even if they play with a mediocre QB (remember, Chad Johnson's breakout season came with John Kitna at the helm). Mediocre WRs are mediocre, even with a great QB at the helm. If Elway's WRs looked mediocre and nobody in the league thought they were good, odds are it's because they were mediocre.Pinkston/Thrash is a good comparison. Was McNabb a bad QB when he had Pinkston/Thrash, because he couldn't raise the play of his teammates? Was he suddenly a good QB when he got Owens, because he managed to elevate the game of his teammates, willing Owens to greatness and a pro bowl berth (regardless of any actual talent, or lack thereof, on the part of Owens himself)? Was McNabb suddenly a mediocre QB again as soon as Owens left, because he stopped willing his teammates to the pro bowl?Likewise, look at Elway. When he was surrounded by good WRs, those WRs made the pro bowl. When he wasn't, they didn't. It's not like Elway was a mediocre QB for his first 12 years in the league and then when Rod Smith came to town he suddenly learned the art of willing his teammates to the pro bowl. Elway had been raising the game of his teammates for years (again, The Drive, anyone?), it's just that his teammates were so bad that even their raised game was pretty mediocre. Like McNabb, he put up otherworldly numbers when he had some talent around him, and mediocre numbers when his offensive teammates were a black hole from which no talent could escape. Look at the numbers Elway put up late in his career, when he finally got surrounding talent comparable to Dan Marino, and just imagine what Elway's numbers would have looked like if he'd had that surrounding talent all along.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

Elway would own all of the records today, not Marino.

I think you're really underestimating Marino here. During his prime his passing skills were unmatched. Atleast with Elway you had to worry about him running, with Marino you knew it was all on his arm. He's still got the best release I've ever seen.

1) SSOG: Favre will break the major records Marino has this season, he already holds the completion mark on fewer attempts than Marino, too.2) dparker: To your point, with a mere 89 career rush yards, Marino was a liability to the offense because he posed zero threat to leave the pocket. Part of being a QB is the ability to make things happen with your feet, Marino could not. Evaluation of the position can't simply be limited to passing numbers.

Favre should be on a par with Elway and well ahead of Marino in all time rankings.

Thats just not true. Marino's feet bought him time in the pocket which led to better passing stats. Are you going to say that because he would make a pass for 10 yards with that extra time it was better/worse than Elway running to 10 yards?

Everybody remembers Marino as a statue in his later years, but he was unsackable his first 8 or so years because he had a lightning release, and could buy a little time in the pocket with his feet.

 

[dparker713]

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario. Let's say that the #1 team in the entire NFL resided in the NFC... and the #2-#17 teams all resided in the AFC (meaning the #18-#32 teams were all NFC teams). Lets say things remained this way for 13 straight years. The NFC would win 13 straight Superbowls, but would anyone in their right mind say that they were the better conference?The only way to measure the strength of the conferences against each other is their head-to-head records, which take into account not only how good the top teams are, but also how bad the bottom teams are. In terms of head-to-head performance, the AFC actually posted a winning record against the NFC in the 1980s. The top teams might have been in the NFC, but the AFC was way deeper....Actually, Elway running for 10 yards would be better than Marino buying time and passing for 10 yards. Why? Both plays help the team exactly the same amount RIGHT AWAY, but running for 10 yards would have a bigger long-term impact on the game. On subsequent plays, teams wouldn't defend Marino any differently- they'd call the exact same passrushes and the exact same coverages, and they'd just emphasize to their DLs to wrap up better and not overpursue. On the other hand, after Elway ran for 10 yards, the defense would be forced to start bringing its LBs up closer to the line of scrimmage and telling the DEs to stay at home more instead of crashing the pocket. As a result, Elway would get some more time in the pocket than he was getting previously, and on future snaps he'd be more likely to complete a long pass, since the defense wasn't playing the deep ball, whereas Marino wouldn't be any more likely to complete anything.

Sorry, it was more like teams 1-5 were in the NFC, some combination of AFC and NFC in the next 5. The AFC was deeper but it had not great teams. Its easier to stand above the pack of mediocrity than it is to scale the mountain top. Claiming the AFC was better than the NFC in the 80s because the teams like the Chargers beat teams like the Cardinals more often than not is ridiculous. You realize you're claiming that a defensive coordinator should change their game plan and coverages because around three times a game Elway would break contain and rush for 4.4 yards? No, you had to change your gameplan because he was going to avoid the rush and then pass the ball. The exact same thing Marino could do, but Elway did it better. In no way shape or form was Elway's running a threat. It was his scrambling for time. Elway wasn't Vick or Young or even McNabb when he used to run.

 

[H.K.]

In no way shape or form was Elway's running a threat. It was his scrambling for time.

Might want to ask the Packers about that one...

 

[dparker713]

It's not like Elway was a mediocre QB for his first 12 years in the league and then when Rod Smith came to town he suddenly learned the art of willing his teammates to the pro bowl.

It can be claimed he was a mediocre passer his first 10 years and never all that exceptional. He only cracked 56.0% twice his first 10 years and never sniffed 60%. Only 3 years with a ypa above 7.0. 5 years he cracked 3200 yards, but only once above 3600 and not one 4000 yard season. He never posted a 2:1 TD:int ratio and in fact he had a ratio below one 4 times.He does show a marked improvement in 93, that the year shanahan was hired?From there its up to you to determine how much of the team's success can be attributed to the contribution of his legs as opposed to the mediocrity of the competition and the rest of the team.

 

[dparker713]

In no way shape or form was Elway's running a threat. It was his scrambling for time.

Might want to ask the Packers about that one...

So because Brady juked out Urlacher once, you think that the Bears should start to gameplan around that? Coming up with a run from time to time is not exactly unheard of in the annals of pro football. Elway may have done it more often than some, but dont try to act like he was Steve Young in the open field.

 

[H.K.]

In no way shape or form was Elway's running a threat. It was his scrambling for time.

Might want to ask the Packers about that one...

So because Brady juked out Urlacher once, you think that the Bears should start to gameplan around that? Coming up with a run from time to time is not exactly unheard of in the annals of pro football. Elway may have done it more often than some, but dont try to act like he was Steve Young in the open field.

Nice job trying to get away from the Marino/Elway comparison.Elway ran for over 3400 yards in his career. Marino ran for 89.Elway could beat a defense with his ability to run, and the threat of that ability helped him and his team. The Super Bowl was a prime example of how he could win games with his legs. He did it over and over his whole career. On the flip side, Marino's lacked the ability to run. Just because you don't or can't acknowledge that fact doesn't make it any less true. I'll let you have the last word...it'll just help cement my point even further anyway.

 

[moleculo]

And then if Elway starts completing the deep ball, teams would be forced to start telling their DEs to get upfield, containment-be-damned, at which point Denver could start rolling Elway outside of the pocket in various bootlegs which would likely result in man coverage deep down the field (often a WR vs. a Safety). If the defense starts double-covering, then that leaves a single LB responsible for stopping the underneath pass to the TE (who is sitting in a hole in the zone about 10-12 yards down field) *AS WELL AS* responsible for preventing Elway from taking off with the ball. If the LB drops back to cover the TE, Elway gets 6 yards easy as pie, steps out of bounds, and lines up in the huddle again. If the LB comes up to keep Elway contained, Elway lofts a pass over his head and gets a 12 yard completion to the TE, easy as pie. If the team reacts by starting to bring a Safety down to cover the TE, Elway goes deep (he was the master of the 40-yard across-the-body bootleg throw). When the defense starts disciplining its DEs to keep containment again, Denver starts running all of that 1-cut stuff that drives defensive linemen crazy, and without backside pursuit (because the ends are all staying home), the backs start eating huge chunks of yards from the middle of the field. So the ends are forced to start pursuing again and Elway starts rolling out again. It's that type of double-threat, pick-your-poison scenario that Denver's famous bootleg offense was based around, and when it was working well, it was essentially unstoppable by any defensive scheme in the entire NFL. Meanwhile, Marino's pocket presence was nice, but teams could still just defend him straight up with vanilla defenses and achieve reasonable success. Marino might put up better numbers because he could pass for 10 yards instead of running for 10 yards, but his entire offense suffered as a result.

Just so we are all straight - the offense SSOG describes above only applies to Elway from 1995-1998 - the Shanahan years. The offense Elway played on for a majority of his career went like this: Winder up the middle for three. Screen to Wilhite for 2. Elway throws to Vance for hopefully 5 or more, repeat. When this conservative approach wasn't working, Elway improvised in the 4th quarter, sometimes under Reeves instruction, often times not (this is why Shanahan was fired as OC, btw). Occasional improvisation was sprinkled in here and there, but for the most part, Reeves kept a pretty conservative game plan.

 

[moleculo]

It's not like Elway was a mediocre QB for his first 12 years in the league and then when Rod Smith came to town he suddenly learned the art of willing his teammates to the pro bowl.

It can be claimed he was a mediocre passer his first 10 years and never all that exceptional. He only cracked 56.0% twice his first 10 years and never sniffed 60%. Only 3 years with a ypa above 7.0. 5 years he cracked 3200 yards, but only once above 3600 and not one 4000 yard season. He never posted a 2:1 TD:int ratio and in fact he had a negative ratio below one 4 times.He does show a marked improvement in 93, that the year shanahan was hired?From there its up to you to determine how much of the team's success can be attributed to the contribution of his legs as opposed to the mediocrity of the competition and the rest of the team.

'93 was not the year Shanahan arrived - it was the year Reeves left. That was actually Wade Phillips at the helm. '93 also marked the first big time season for Sharpe.

 

[dparker713]

In no way shape or form was Elway's running a threat. It was his scrambling for time.

:X Might want to ask the Packers about that one...

So because Brady juked out Urlacher once, you think that the Bears should start to gameplan around that? Coming up with a run from time to time is not exactly unheard of in the annals of pro football. Elway may have done it more often than some, but dont try to act like he was Steve Young in the open field.

Nice job trying to get away from the Marino/Elway comparison.Elway ran for over 3400 yards in his career. Marino ran for 89.Elway could beat a defense with his ability to run, and the threat of that ability helped him and his team. The Super Bowl was a prime example of how he could win games with his legs. He did it over and over his whole career. On the flip side, Marino's lacked the ability to run. Just because you don't or can't acknowledge that fact doesn't make it any less true. I'll let you have the last word...it'll just help cement my point even further anyway.

His 3400 yards equate to 14 ypg and a 4.4 ypc average. Thats not gamebreaking. It barely helped his team. What really helped his team was his escapability. He was marginally better than the average QB when it comes to running, I already posted Montana's running ypg, but how about the fact he had 20 rushing TDs to Elways 33. And despite only rushing for 89 yards, and most years rushing for negative yards, Marino did post 9 rushing TDs. None of them were rushing threats. You didn't gameplan around Elway's running for a 20 yard gain. If it happened you accepted it and moved on, it wasn't likely to happen again. What you did gameplan around was his ability to run around behind the line of scrimmage and buy his receivers extra time. Thats what killed you, and thats what Marino could do, just not as well.

 

[Despyzer]

From there its up to you to determine how much of the team's success can be attributed to the contribution of his legs as opposed to the mediocrity of the competition and the rest of the team presence of a 2,000 yard RB and repeated violations of the salary cap.

Fixed.

 

[Despyzer]

So because Brady juked out Urlacher once, you think that the Bears should start to gameplan around that? Coming up with a run from time to time is not exactly unheard of in the annals of pro football. Elway may have done it more often than some, but dont try to act like he was Steve Young in the open field.

I'm not one to defend Elway, but as a fan of a team that had to face him twice a year, I can tell you that he was a serious threat to scramble. A defense HAD to gameplan for it.

 

[dparker713]

So because Brady juked out Urlacher once, you think that the Bears should start to gameplan around that? Coming up with a run from time to time is not exactly unheard of in the annals of pro football. Elway may have done it more often than some, but dont try to act like he was Steve Young in the open field.

I'm not one to defend Elway, but as a fan of a team that had to face him twice a year, I can tell you that he was a serious threat to scramble. A defense HAD to gameplan for it.

Threat to scramble and then throw. The threat wasn't scramble then run. His running would extend drives, but it wouldnt kill you.

 

[Weiner Dog]

How there's absolutely no mention of Bo Jackson is beyond me.

Meh, Bo Jackson was a flash in the pan. If he'd stayed healthy, he might merit the list. As it stands, Terrell Davis was a far brighter flash in the pan, and a far more productive flash in the pan, and he barely gets honorable mention status.Edit: actually, I'll break it down better for you. Here is a link to Bo's PFR page. Allow me to highlight part of that page-

+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Rushing | Receiving |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1987 rai | 7 | 81 554 6.8 4 | 16 136 8.5 2 |

| 1988 rai | 10 | 136 580 4.3 3 | 9 79 8.8 0 |

| 1989 rai | 11 | 173 950 5.5 4 | 9 69 7.7 0 |

| 1990 rai | 10 | 125 698 5.6 5 | 6 68 11.3 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 38 | 515 2782 5.4 16 | 40 352 8.8 2 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Bo Jackson never finished in the top 10 in any major category.

Bo Jackson is not in the all-time top 50 in any major category.

We clear on this now?

Yards per carry??I think only Jim Brown and Barry Sanders have a higher yards per carry for their career. Isn't Bo tied with Gale Sayers for #3 on the list??

Either way, the Bo debate will always be alive and well. He didn't have the longevity to be embedded in the traditional amber of NFL history (most this, most that, HOF, etc). However, his brief presence on the field cannot be merely dismissed either. If you value long-term achievements, Bo is not Top-10. If you value "the guy I'd least like to face as a DC", then Bo would be Top-10.

 

[ruelvis]

Elway had WAY too many meltdowns in big games. You can't excuse his awful play in 3 different super bowls. Not even top 10.

 

[Sidewinder16]

"Hi, I'm one of those people who can't stop living in the past. Check out my list of all-time great quarterbacks that includes a handful of guys that, while good in their era, couldn't carry Manning or Brady's jock."

"Hi, I'm one of those people who believes that, if I didn't see him play, he must not have been any good, and honestly thinks we should simply discard all statistics that are more than 10 years old because... you know... I have the attention span of a goldfish. Ooh, look, pretty colors."

zoonation,As fascinating as the Elway debate is to me ( ) I decided to stick to the request included in the OP:

Who is in your top 10's?

Do you mind sharing any of yours?I'll admit I should probably have Brady in my honorable mentions. I haven't watched Brady play nearly as much as I have Manning. That combined with the respect I have for Belichick as a coach generally has me downplaying Brady's accomplishments, probably undeservedly. But I'll gladly listen with an open mind if you want to give your reasons for why Manning or Brady are the best ever, if you'll listen to why I have Montana as the best ever.

 

[Steel Mike Tomczak]

Me from 1988 to 1998. Best relief QB ever.

 

[SSOG]

You realize you're claiming that a defensive coordinator should change their game plan and coverages because around three times a game Elway would break contain and rush for 4.4 yards? No, you had to change your gameplan because he was going to avoid the rush and then pass the ball. The exact same thing Marino could do, but Elway did it better. In no way shape or form was Elway's running a threat. It was his scrambling for time. Elway wasn't Vick or Young or even McNabb when he used to run.

I'm a Broncos fan. I watch Broncos games. I'm very much aware of the power of the bootleg offense. Go watch the Denver/KC games from 2004 or 2005 sometime to see what the bootleg offense looks like when run to perfection- it is quite literally undefendable. No matter what you do, you're opening yourself up to attack somewhere else. And yes, it's all based on the fact that about three times per game, the QB will break contain and rush for 4.4 yards. Because for every time the QB rushes, there are two other times when the threat of the QB rushing causes other defenders to come up and defend him, leaving open receivers over the top which the QB then hits for big passing gains. Big passing gains, I might add, that were made possible entirely by the POSSIBILITY that the QB would take off and run with it.I posted a very good description about how the threat of rushing at the QB position opens up the bootleg offense. Go re-read that a couple of times. Trust me, Elway's ability to rush for 15 yards per game made him MUCH harder to defend than Dan Marino.

Yes, it made him harder to defend and resulted in more passing yards than rushing yards... but those passing yards wouldn't have materialized if he wasn't a THREAT to take off and run with it. If he wasn't a THREAT to scramble at any time, DEs wouldn't worry about containment, which would slow down the running game, and the LB would drop back and cover the TE every time on the bootleg, which would essentially eliminate all open receivers, and the bootleg would end in a coverage sack as the DE recovered and caught the QB from behind. But that's not what happened. Because Elway was a THREAT to take off (whether he actually did take off or whether he pulled up and threw, instead), the bootleg offense was impossible to defend.

It's not like Elway was a mediocre QB for his first 12 years in the league and then when Rod Smith came to town he suddenly learned the art of willing his teammates to the pro bowl.

It can be claimed he was a mediocre passer his first 10 years and never all that exceptional. He only cracked 56.0% twice his first 10 years and never sniffed 60%. Only 3 years with a ypa above 7.0. 5 years he cracked 3200 yards, but only once above 3600 and not one 4000 yard season. He never posted a 2:1 TD:int ratio and in fact he had a ratio below one 4 times.He does show a marked improvement in 93, that the year shanahan was hired?

From there its up to you to determine how much of the team's success can be attributed to the contribution of his legs as opposed to the mediocrity of the competition and the rest of the team.

Which do you think is more likely- that surrounding talent plays a huge role in a QBs numbers and that's why Elway put up unreal passing numbers in the twilight of his career, or the Elway somehow managed to figure everything out between his 12th and 13th season and suddenly, inexplicably became a great QB... and this change just happened, entirely coincidentally, to happen at the exact moment that Elway finally got his first quality WR target?I mean, heck, if you just look at his numbers, Archie Manning was a BRUTAL QB. Of course, good thing we don't just look at his numbers, because otherwise we'd never know that he was the best QB to ever play for a horrible team and his numbers only suck because his teammates were pathetic. Isn't it funny how that works- when great QBs play with horrible talent, their numbers are horrible. When great QBs play with mediocre talent, their numbers are mediocre. When great QBs play with great talent, their numbers are great.

Of course, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that's all just a coincidence, and those QBs put up great numbers because they happen to miraculously mature as passers and this transformation just miraculously coincides with the arrival of a supporting cast.

From there its up to you to determine how much of the team's success can be attributed to the contribution of his legs as opposed to the mediocrity of the competition and the rest of the team presence of a 2,000 yard RB and repeated violations of the salary cap.

Fixed.

Actually, Denver's SBs had absolutely nothing to do with the cap violations, since neither case was an example of paying above the cap, and both violations were simply a result of how Denver paid out the money that was owed anyway.Seriously, Denver lost a third round pick for those violations. Do you really think that if a team had cheated and by cheating gained an advantage on its quest for the SB, they would have just been fined a 3rd rounder? The NCAA will expunge entire seasons from the record books for smaller violations than that, and yet somehow you cling to this belief that Denver managed to cheat the system and gain a competitive advantage that they parlayed into 2 SBs, and was then essentially unpunished for it.

I've explained the cap violations to you several times, since you obviously just don't seem to comprehend what really happened. The "violations" were that Shanahan told one of his beloved veteran players that he wasn't going to cut him during training camps and that Pat Bowlen couldn't afford to pay a couple of players in a timely fashion due to the construction of the new stadium, so he paid them later, instead. In fact, that second violation occurred *AFTER THE SECOND SUPERBOWL WIN* (so I'm *really* interested in how you think that had any impact, unless you think one of those players has a time machine).

Seriously, let it go- at this point, it's just sad, sour grapes. Denver won those two superbowls because they fielded a dominant team, not because they cheated. There is no asterisk next to those two superbowl titles. They were fairly won, and whining about them a decade later is just sad. As sad is it will be if in 2016 you have some Seattle fans still putting an asterisk by Pittsburgh's SB win because Ben Rooflesburger didn't really cross the goal line.

Do you really want to be that fan, Despyzer? I mean, *REALLY*? I don't think you do. Let it go.

Yards per carry??

I think only Jim Brown and Barry Sanders have a higher yards per carry for their career. Isn't Bo tied with Gale Sayers for #3 on the list??

Michael Turner has a 6.0 career ypc. Perhaps he's one of the ten best RBs in NFL history, too? I mean, it's not like sample size is much of an issue- Turner has about a third as many carries as Jackson, so if sample size doesn't make talking about Jackson's ypc silly, then I fail to see how it could make talking about Turner's ypc silly. Besides, while Turner's had fewer carries, he's been SO MUCH more dominant than Bo Jackson, as clearly evidenced by his remarkably better ypc.

 

[Phlash]

SSOG, its the TIMES that Bo Jackson ran. He ran when his team needed yards, Turner has run as mop up duty or to give LT a breather in a situational where LT isn't needed. Turner is the backup - Jackson was the starter. Its silly to compare the two at this point; Turner in the near future may take a starter job somewhere (probably next season) and we will see how he plays a starter and whether his 6.0ypc holds up (it won't).

 

[dparker713]

I'm a Broncos fan. I watch Broncos games. I'm very much aware of the power of the bootleg offense. Go watch the Denver/KC games from 2004 or 2005 sometime to see what the bootleg offense looks like when run to perfection- it is quite literally undefendable. No matter what you do, you're opening yourself up to attack somewhere else. And yes, it's all based on the fact that about three times per game, the QB will break contain and rush for 4.4 yards. Because for every time the QB rushes, there are two other times when the threat of the QB rushing causes other defenders to come up and defend him, leaving open receivers over the top which the QB then hits for big passing gains. Big passing gains, I might add, that were made possible entirely by the POSSIBILITY that the QB would take off and run with it.

Every D Coordinator knows you cant defend everything. If Elway ran, you took your chances. You'd rather have him do that than complete the pass - the thing you really were worried about. I've never said that Elway's running wasn't an asset, just that it was more of an asset because of the extra time it allowed him to pass. The running yards were merely gravy, and any D Coordinator worth his salt wouldn't alter his game plan because Elway rushed for a few yards here and there. Meanwhile, someone like Steve Young you had to gameplan for his running.

I posted a very good description about how the threat of rushing at the QB position opens up the bootleg offense. Go re-read that a couple of times. Trust me, Elway's ability to rush for 15 yards per game made him MUCH harder to defend than Dan Marino.Yes, it made him harder to defend and resulted in more passing yards than rushing yards... but those passing yards wouldn't have materialized if he wasn't a THREAT to take off and run with it. If he wasn't a THREAT to scramble at any time, DEs wouldn't worry about containment, which would slow down the running game, and the LB would drop back and cover the TE every time on the bootleg, which would essentially eliminate all open receivers, and the bootleg would end in a coverage sack as the DE recovered and caught the QB from behind. But that's not what happened. Because Elway was a THREAT to take off (whether he actually did take off or whether he pulled up and threw, instead), the bootleg offense was impossible to defend.

So, Elway was running an indefensible offense with these rushing skills that had defenses scared in their shoes, yet Marino still posted better passing numbers across the board? Better YPA, TD:int, completion percentage. Marino actually was indefensible in his prime, and it all rested on his right arm. Thats much more impressive.

Which do you think is more likely- that surrounding talent plays a huge role in a QBs numbers and that's why Elway put up unreal passing numbers in the twilight of his career, or the Elway somehow managed to figure everything out between his 12th and 13th season and suddenly, inexplicably became a great QB... and this change just happened, entirely coincidentally, to happen at the exact moment that Elway finally got his first quality WR target?

Sorry, but Elway's best year passing was his 11th and the only season you could really consider great. The rest of his career was average-very good passing, but nothing spectacular. This is largely confirmed by his lack of an MVP (except for the crack pot AP which award Elway the honor in 87 even though every other organization recognized Rice for the most remarkable WR season ever)Just think about that. Elway was never the best player in the league in any single year, yet you contend he's the best of all time. If you really want to see unreal passing numbers, look at Peyton.

 

[SSOG]

Every D Coordinator knows you cant defend everything. If Elway ran, you took your chances. You'd rather have him do that than complete the pass - the thing you really were worried about. I've never said that Elway's running wasn't an asset, just that it was more of an asset because of the extra time it allowed him to pass. The running yards were merely gravy, and any D Coordinator worth his salt wouldn't alter his game plan because Elway rushed for a few yards here and there. Meanwhile, someone like Steve Young you had to gameplan for his running.

Again, you're not understanding this. Teams DID gameplan for Elway's running. They forced their DEs to maintain containment and allowed the RBs to gash them on cutbacks. When Elway got outside of the pocket, they usually had the LB come up to prevent him from taking off. Elway didn't actually take off and run a whole lot, but the threat of him doing it affected pretty much every play- just like how Elway didn't necessarily throw 40 yards downfield on every play, but the threat of him doing it sure as heck kept the safeties back.

So, Elway was running an indefensible offense with these rushing skills that had defenses scared in their shoes, yet Marino still posted better passing numbers across the board? Better YPA, TD:int, completion percentage. Marino actually was indefensible in his prime, and it all rested on his right arm. Thats much more impressive.

Once again, the only number Marino clearly led Elway in was pass attempts. Everything else stems from that- more completions because he attempted more passes, more TDs because he attempted more passes. Compare per-pass numbers for the "twilight of his career" Elway to the "prime of his career" Marino sometime. I suspect you'll find them very comparable.

Sorry, but Elway's best year passing was his 11th and the only season you could really consider great. The rest of his career was average-very good passing, but nothing spectacular. This is largely confirmed by his lack of an MVP (except for the crack pot AP which award Elway the honor in 87 even though every other organization recognized Rice for the most remarkable WR season ever)Just think about that. Elway was never the best player in the league in any single year, yet you contend he's the best of all time. If you really want to see unreal passing numbers, look at Peyton.

First off, Elway's best passing year was 1998. 7.9 yards per attempt, 2.2:1 TD:INT ratio. His second best passing season was 1987, and his third best season was 1993.Second off, I laugh a bit at how quickly you dismiss Elway's MVP in 1987. Remember, this was during the strike-shortened season and Elway only played in 12 games. Pro-rate the numbers and you have 4264 yards passing, 405 yards rushing, and 31 TDs. What's most remarkable about that is that there was only one other player on the entire Denver offense who made a single pro bowl AT ANY POINT IN HIS CAREER (Keith Bishop, a lineman who made the pro bowl twice in his "storied" career). Jerry Rice, for comparison sake, had 9 players on his offense who made a pro bowl at some point in their career (including an 8-time pro bowler at QB and SEVEN offensive linemen who made at least one pro bowl in their career, as well as 4-time pro bowler Roger Craig at RB, two Pro Bowl WRs, and two Pro Bowl TEs- although, in fairness, Francis was at the end of his career and shouldn't really count). Rice's offensive teammates that season combined for 38 pro bowls in their careers. Elway's combined for two. Oh wait, looking back, his teammates combined for three- Steve Watson made the pro bowl in 1981, although 1987 was his final year and he only played 5 games (and got 11 catches). So that's 38 pro bowls by the Niners (not counting Rice) and 3 pro bowls by the Broncos (not counting Elway).I don't know if you truly comprehend the talent disparity Elway was working with, here. Unless you REALLY look at the numbers, it's almost incomprehensible just how bad the talent surrounding Elway really was. We're talking the kind of talent you usually find on the Arizona Cardinals here. And despite that, despite San Francisco possessing a 35 pro-bowl advantage on offense, the John Elway Show ranked 2nd in the league in total offense that season (behind only San Fran). For the record, Marino's Dolphins that year finished 5th and featured 4 guys who combined for 15 pro bowls (not counting Marino himself).No man in the league has EVER been as much of a one-man show as Elway was. It's not about posting the best numbers, it's about single-handedly carrying a team. It's about taking a bad team and making them look like one of the best offenses in the entire NFL.Edit: Oh, also, you mentioned Peyton Manning. Do you REALLY want me to highlight the talent disparity between the 2000s Colts offense and the late '80s/early '90s Broncos offense? Again, you'll just be reinforcing my point- QB production coincides very strongly with surrounding talent... except for Elway, who produced with a bunch of nobodies around him to the tune of 4600 yards and 31 TDs once you pro-rate.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Yards per carry??I think only Jim Brown and Barry Sanders have a higher yards per carry for their career. Isn't Bo tied with Gale Sayers for #3 on the list??

Michael Turner has a 6.0 career ypc. Perhaps he's one of the ten best RBs in NFL history, too? I mean, it's not like sample size is much of an issue- Turner has about a third as many carries as Jackson, so if sample size doesn't make talking about Jackson's ypc silly, then I fail to see how it could make talking about Turner's ypc silly. Besides, while Turner's had fewer carries, he's been SO MUCH more dominant than Bo Jackson, as clearly evidenced by his remarkably better ypc.

If Bo was an RFA this past year, do you think a team would have given the necessary draft-pick compensation for his services?? Me too.

 

[zed2283]

Me from 1988 to 1998. Best relief QB ever.

What's your top 10 all-time Buckeye QB list?

 

[dparker713]

I don't know if you truly comprehend the talent disparity Elway was working with, here. Unless you REALLY look at the numbers, it's almost incomprehensible just how bad the talent surrounding Elway really was. We're talking the kind of talent you usually find on the Arizona Cardinals here.

I was going to respond in full until I read this. Truly absurd and nothing will persuade someone convinced of the absurd.

 

[Despyzer]

Actually, Denver's SBs had absolutely nothing to do with the cap violations

Spin it any way you want to that makes you feel better, I guess. The cap violations occurred during the years that they won the SBs. The Broncos were not the only one dealing with dead cap moneys that year. They were just the only ones who decided to ignore it and sign players to contracts that would not fit under the salary cap otherwise. The league obviously felt they used it to an unfair advantage, other wise they would not have penalized them with the huge fine and the forfeiture of draft picks. The fact that you can't figure this out (or won't admit to figuring this out) is a huge testament to your homerism. Nothing wrong with that, but it's time to fess up.

 

[KoolKat]

How there's absolutely no mention of Bo Jackson is beyond me.

Meh, Bo Jackson was a flash in the pan. If he'd stayed healthy, he might merit the list. As it stands, Terrell Davis was a far brighter flash in the pan, and a far more productive flash in the pan, and he barely gets honorable mention status.Edit: actually, I'll break it down better for you. Here is a link to Bo's PFR page. Allow me to highlight part of that page-

+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Rushing | Receiving |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1987 rai | 7 | 81 554 6.8 4 | 16 136 8.5 2 |

| 1988 rai | 10 | 136 580 4.3 3 | 9 79 8.8 0 |

| 1989 rai | 11 | 173 950 5.5 4 | 9 69 7.7 0 |

| 1990 rai | 10 | 125 698 5.6 5 | 6 68 11.3 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 38 | 515 2782 5.4 16 | 40 352 8.8 2 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Bo Jackson never finished in the top 10 in any major category.

Bo Jackson is not in the all-time top 50 in any major category.

We clear on this now?

Everybody knows this. He should be HM for his ability alone.

Bo was splitting time with Marcus Allen, I'm as big a Bronco fan as there is, but I'd take a healthy Bo over a healthy TD in a heartbeat. The guy is the best athlete in sports history.

 

[moleculo]

I don't know if you truly comprehend the talent disparity Elway was working with, here. Unless you REALLY look at the numbers, it's almost incomprehensible just how bad the talent surrounding Elway really was. We're talking the kind of talent you usually find on the Arizona Cardinals here.

I was going to respond in full until I read this. Truly absurd and nothing will persuade someone convinced of the absurd.

you are right it is a crazy comparison. Boldin, Fitzgerald, Edge vs Vance Johnson, Mark Jackson, and Sammy Winder.

 

[SSOG]

I don't know if you truly comprehend the talent disparity Elway was working with, here. Unless you REALLY look at the numbers, it's almost incomprehensible just how bad the talent surrounding Elway really was. We're talking the kind of talent you usually find on the Arizona Cardinals here.

I was going to respond in full until I read this. Truly absurd and nothing will persuade someone convinced of the absurd.

Translation: "I disagree with one sentence of your post (which was very thoroughly thought out and clearly presented), so obviously that invalidates your post and relieves me of the need to respond (not that I could have responded to such a factual, honest look at the subject, anyway)."We really need a "cop out" smiley.

Actually, Denver's SBs had absolutely nothing to do with the cap violations

Spin it any way you want to that makes you feel better, I guess. The cap violations occurred during the years that they won the SBs. The Broncos were not the only one dealing with dead cap moneys that year. They were just the only ones who decided to ignore it and sign players to contracts that would not fit under the salary cap otherwise. The league obviously felt they used it to an unfair advantage, other wise they would not have penalized them with the huge fine and the forfeiture of draft picks. The fact that you can't figure this out (or won't admit to figuring this out) is a huge testament to your homerism. Nothing wrong with that, but it's time to fess up.

You obviously have no idea what the cap violations were. One cap violation was that Shanahan told a veteran he wouldn't be cut but then didn't convert a roster bonus to a guaranteed bonus. The second one Bowlen couldn't afford to pay several players, so he paid them a year later. In neither case did Denver "sign players to contracts that would not fit under the salary cap otherwise"- no new players were signed to new contracts. Let me repeat that- NO NEW PLAYERS WERE SIGNED TO NEW CONTRACTS. In fact, no existing contracts were changed. The *OFFICIAL NFL STATEMENT* on their findings in the case said that the violations were a direct result of Bowlen being short on cash because he was funding the construction of Invesco Field, and that no competitive advantage was gained. Here is a direct quote from the league's representative on this matter, Harold Henderson. "The investigation resulted in the discovery of undisclosed agreements between the club and Broncos players during the same period [1996-1998] pursuant to which various players agreed to defer certain compensation in exchange for a commitment to pay interest on the deferred amounts. These agreements were plainly designed to help the club cope with seasonal cash flow problems exacerbated by the Broncos' need to fund front-end expenditures associated with development of the new stadium in Denver."

That's a DIRECT QUOTE from the NFL's spokesman on the matter. Read it. Read it again. Read it a third time, since you really seem to be having trouble wrapping your head around this concept. Now, if you want, then by all means continue to talk about something you obviously don't know the first thing about. I'm certainly game.

Seriously, we really need a "sour grapes" smiley, too. Give me a "cop out" smiley and a "sour grapes" smiley and I'm a happy camper.

 

[BassNBrew]

SSOG, gotta disagree with you on the pro-bowl defense. Favre made pro-bowl quality WRs materize out of thin air. He would have done the same with the Donkey WRs. Heck, Plummer even made Boston into a stud on the Cards. Jake freaking Delhomme turn Mushy Muhammy into a one year second coming of Jerry Rice. Now if you want to argue that a conversative offense restricted Elway's numbers, that's fair game.

Also, never point to defeating the Brown's as a feather in anyone's cap. They wouldn't even have a team if it wasn't for Rooney's influence to keep a cupcake in his division. Arguing with BPG about NFL greats is like arguing with a pig about fresh fragrances.

 

[dparker713]

I don't know if you truly comprehend the talent disparity Elway was working with, here. Unless you REALLY look at the numbers, it's almost incomprehensible just how bad the talent surrounding Elway really was. We're talking the kind of talent you usually find on the Arizona Cardinals here.

I was going to respond in full until I read this. Truly absurd and nothing will persuade someone convinced of the absurd.

Translation: "I disagree with one sentence of your post (which was very thoroughly thought out and clearly presented), so obviously that invalidates your post and relieves me of the need to respond (not that I could have responded to such a factual, honest look at the subject, anyway)."We really need a "cop out" smiley.

Not a cop out, just obvious your homerism paints Elway as Superman in the Land of Scrubs, so there really is little point in continuing. You even can't concede that Rice's 22 TDs in 12 games in '87 blows Elways season out of the water.

 

[Despyzer]

You obviously have no idea what the cap violations were. One cap violation was that Shanahan told a veteran he wouldn't be cut but then didn't convert a roster bonus to a guaranteed bonus. The second one Bowlen couldn't afford to pay several players, so he paid them a year later. In neither case did Denver "sign players to contracts that would not fit under the salary cap otherwise"- no new players were signed to new contracts. Let me repeat that- NO NEW PLAYERS WERE SIGNED TO NEW CONTRACTS. In fact, no existing contracts were changed. The *OFFICIAL NFL STATEMENT* on their findings in the case said that the violations were a direct result of Bowlen being short on cash because he was funding the construction of Invesco Field, and that no competitive advantage was gained.

Here is a direct quote from the league's representative on this matter, Harold Henderson. "The investigation resulted in the discovery of undisclosed agreements between the club and Broncos players during the same period [1996-1998] pursuant to which various players agreed to defer certain compensation in exchange for a commitment to pay interest on the deferred amounts. These agreements were plainly designed to help the club cope with seasonal cash flow problems exacerbated by the Broncos' need to fund front-end expenditures associated with development of the new stadium in Denver."

That's a DIRECT QUOTE from the NFL's spokesman on the matter. Read it. Read it again. Read it a third time, since you really seem to be having trouble wrapping your head around this concept. Now, if you want, then by all means continue to talk about something you obviously don't know the first thing about. I'm certainly game.

Seriously, we really need a "sour grapes" smiley, too. Give me a "cop out" smiley and a "sour grapes" smiley and I'm a happy camper.

You, more than any other poster I have seen on these boards, throw out all of these "quotes" with absolutely nothing to back them up. Whether you are quoting some "expert" that posts on a Broncos message board in defense of the dirty play of the offensive line or an ***official*** explanation from the NFL that clears the Broncos of all guilt despite how heavily they were fined and relieved of draft picks. It's all getting a little tiresome, and your credibilty is seriously waning. So either give us a or quit with the !And your "sour-grapes" theory holds no water. Unfortunately, my team wasn't even sniffing the playoffs, much less the championship those years. Maybe you'd like to come up with some sort of "quote" that refutes that too.

 

[SSOG]

You, more than any other poster I have seen on these boards, throw out all of these "quotes" with absolutely nothing to back them up. Whether you are quoting some "expert" that posts on a Broncos message board in defense of the dirty play of the offensive line or an ***official*** explanation from the NFL that clears the Broncos of all guilt despite how heavily they were fined and relieved of draft picks. It's all getting a little tiresome, and your credibilty is seriously waning. So either give us a or quit with the !

And your "sour-grapes" theory holds no water. Unfortunately, my team wasn't even sniffing the playoffs, much less the championship those years. Maybe you'd like to come up with some sort of "quote" that refutes that too.

Here's a good link for you. www.google.com. Learn it, use it, love it.I gave you a direct quote. You want a source for it? Sure thing, why not try copy/pasting a passage from that quote into google and hit "I'm feeling lucky"? Guess what we get- a source. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day...

Also, I never quote "experts" from Broncos Message boards. I don't even FREQUENT Broncos Message Boards. I always identify the experts I quote, which lets anyone who questions their credentials do a quick search on them (if you'd done a search on Harold Henderson rather than attacking my sources, you'd see that he was NFL Executive Vice President of Labor Relations and served as chairman of the NFL Management Council- but feel free to attack my source all you want, anyway). I don't quote anonymous sources or random people off the street, and while I don't post all of my sources' life history, their life history is readily available on the internet- google them if you think they aren't credible, and then you're more than welcome to attack my own credibility as a result. Feel free to get back to me if you feel like anyone I quote seriously lacks credibility. And in the meantime, it's a little silly to say that I'm losing credibility, since as far as I know, my credibility is the amount that the ENTIRE MESSAGE BOARD believes what I say- not the amount that poor little Despyzer believes what I say. If a bunch of people start jumping in and telling me that I'm a joke who doesn't know what he's talking about and that I should shut up, then I'd take it a little more seriously than if a single poster with a grudge starts speaking poorly of me.

Most importantly, I never said that the official explanation cleared the Broncos of guilt. The Broncos broke the salary cap rules, and the Broncos were punished as a result- I have never denied this. What the official NFL statement does is clears them of all charges of MALICIOUS cap violations, or cap violations made for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage. What Denver did was wrong, but it was not done to gain a competitive advantage, and no competitive advantage was gained (or else I guarantee you the NFL would fine Denver a helluvalot more than a pair of 3rd rounders). If you want to say that Denver violated the salary cap, I have no problem with that, because that is an easily proven fact. If you want to say that Denver's cap violations were somehow even SLIGHTLY responsible for their two superbowl wins (which you have asserted many times in many threads, despite all my evidence to the contrary), then I have a problem with that, because that is a lie that has repeatedly been disproven.

Here's a thought- rather than attacking me when I disprove your lies, or questioning MY credibility, how about you offer some support for your claim that Denver gained a competitive advantage. Seriously, perhaps you should be more worried about YOUR credibility than mine, since you're the one throwing out all these unsubstantiated claims.

And in regards to "sour grapes- your team doesn't need to be good for you to have sour grapes. I could badmouth the Oakland Raiders during the early '70s all I wanted, and it would make no difference that the Broncos were horrible- it would be nothing but sour grapes. You dislike the Denver Broncos, and you take every opportunity to badmouth them (even if you don't concern yourself with things like facts or even bother to educate yourself on the allegations you make). From where I sit, that's just "sour grapes". You dislike Denver, you envy them their success. Like I said, sour grapes.

 

[SSOG]

I don't know if you truly comprehend the talent disparity Elway was working with, here. Unless you REALLY look at the numbers, it's almost incomprehensible just how bad the talent surrounding Elway really was. We're talking the kind of talent you usually find on the Arizona Cardinals here.

I was going to respond in full until I read this. Truly absurd and nothing will persuade someone convinced of the absurd.

Translation: "I disagree with one sentence of your post (which was very thoroughly thought out and clearly presented), so obviously that invalidates your post and relieves me of the need to respond (not that I could have responded to such a factual, honest look at the subject, anyway)."We really need a "cop out" smiley.

Not a cop out, just obvious your homerism paints Elway as Superman in the Land of Scrubs, so there really is little point in continuing. You even can't concede that Rice's 22 TDs in 12 games in '87 blows Elways season out of the water.

Obviously Rice's 22 TDs in 12 games doesn't "blow Elway's season out of the water", since a panel of writers who observed the entire season gave Elway the MVP. You might personally think that Rice's season was better, but it's not like no rational human being could conclude otherwise- SINCE A PANEL OF RATIONAL HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE PAID TO FOLLOW FOOTBALL ACTUALLY CONCLUDED OTHERWISE, and they did it after actually watching the 1987 season, with it fresh in their minds.Like I said, all I need is one good "cop out" smiley. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Aside from all of the Elway griping, I think the list is very good.

I disagree with a few here and there, but they are minor disagreements.

 

[Despyzer]

I gave you a direct quote. You want a source for it? Sure thing, why not try copy/pasting a passage from that quote into google and hit "I'm feeling lucky"? Guess what we get- a source.

Where in that link does it say anything about "no competitive advantage" or "had no discernible affect on their success during the years that they cheated and resulted in championships"? Posting a link that doesn't back up your argument is just a waste of everyone's time.

Also, I never quote "experts" from Broncos Message boards.I always identify the experts I quote, which lets anyone who questions their credentials do a quick search on them. I don't quote anonymous sources or random people off the street.

Really? How about "This was reported to me by somebody I met on another football message board." Conveniently, there was not even a name, much less a link. BTW, take note. If you click on the word "Really?" it will send you to a page that has RELEVANT information that supports my argument for this particular situation.

And in the meantime, it's a little silly to say that I'm losing credibility, since as far as I know, my credibility is the amount that the ENTIRE MESSAGE BOARD believes what I say- not the amount that poor little Despyzer believes what I say. If a bunch of people start jumping in and telling me that I'm a joke who doesn't know what he's talking about and that I should shut up, then I'd take it a little more seriously than if a single poster with a grudge starts speaking poorly of me.

LOL... I'm not even the first one ON THIS PAGE to say as much. I guess you only see what you want to see. Don't get pissy at me just because I bothered to call you on your bull ####.

 

[The Jacket]

Terrell Davis isn't in Bo Jackson's league.

That is all.

 

[SSOG]

Where in that link does it say anything about "no competitive advantage" or "had no discernible affect on their success during the years that they cheated and resulted in championships"? Posting a link that doesn't back up your argument is just a waste of everyone's time.

In that link, the NFL says that Denver cheated the cap to help with financial issues. Again, and I quote: "These agreements were plainly designed to help the club cope with seasonal cash flow problems".If something is plainly designed to do something, then it is just as plainly not designed to do something else. The NFL concluded that there was PLAINLY nothing malicious in Denver's cap violations, that they were PLAINLY designed to help cash-flow issues (and therefore, the NFL implicitly stated that Denver did not violate the cap in order to gain a competitive advantage).

Now, I suppose you could argue that while Denver's intention wasn't to gain a competitive advantage, they nevertheless still gained one, but that would be a rather silly arguement. All of Denver's cap violations were on existing contracts. No new players were signed in violation of the salary cap. Denver paid John Elway back later with interest, for instance- does this give Denver a competitive advantage? Do you really mean to suggest that Elway wouldn't have played for Denver that season if they hadn't agreed to pay him late? Do you really think that paying him later with interest resulted in more money for Elway than paying him on time would have (since he could then invest that money and get his own interest)?

The only ways Denver's cap violations could have created a competitive advantage are quite simple. Option #1 was that Denver's cap violation allowed them to sign a player they otherwise couldn't afford. This is quite clearly not the case, since no new players were signed in violation of the cap. Option #2 is that Denver's cap violation allowed them to keep a player they otherwise couldn't have kept. Good luck demonstrating this one to be true.

In fact, that's the key here. You're the one making extraordinary claims here- you're claiming that Denver's superbowl victories were the result of cheating the salary cap. You aren't saying that Denver cheated the salary cap, you are specifically stating that Denver WON THE SUPERBOWL AS THE RESULT OF CHEATING THE SALARY CAP. That is an incredibly extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders to support it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but you have yet to offer so much as a SINGLE GOD-BLESSED SHRED OF EVIDENCE supporting your claims. Instead, you've been busy attacking my credibility and making whine from your sour grapes.

It'd be like if I claimed that San Diego only went 14-2 last season because the entire roster was secretly doing steroids in the locker room. If I were going to make a claim like that, you bet your butt you'd be all over me if I couldn't back it up- and yet here you are making an even *MORE* extraordinary claim (that Denver didn't just go 14-2 one season, but it went 13-3 in another *AND* won two superbowls as a result of cheating the salary cap), and you don't have a single piece of evidence behind you. Oh yeah, I'm the one with credibility issues here.

Also, I never quote "experts" from Broncos Message boards.I always identify the experts I quote, which lets anyone who questions their credentials do a quick search on them. I don't quote anonymous sources or random people off the street.

Really? How about "This was reported to me by somebody I met on another football message board." Conveniently, there was not even a name, much less a link. BTW, take note. If you click on the word "Really?" it will send you to a page that has RELEVANT information that supports my argument for this particular situation.

Oh? That's relevant? Show me where I quoted him. Show me where I misrepresented my knowledge of the situation. Someone whose credentials I trusted told me something, and I repeated it, making it abundantly clear that I couldn't remember where I was told that in the first place.In journalism, it's common practice (in fact, often encouraged) to refer to information given to you by sources you trust, even if you cannot substantiate that information, as long as you are clear about the limitations of the information. Look at the Michael Vick case- remember that report that two anonymous people who knew Michael Vick thought for sure he was guilty? That's no more and no less than what I did there- I relayed information that I had been given from a source that I trusted to have knowledge of that information, and then I made clear the limitations of that information and my source. That's not misrepresenting my information at all. That information also wasn't the crux of my arguement, or even anything more than a passing thought in my arguement- the information was supported from several different angles with other facts, and was only a single brick in my case, rather than the cornerstone of my entire case. You could feel free to disregard that information and I wouldn't even bother arguing, I was simply trying to provide more data for the general public, even if the data was admittedly imperfect.

And in the meantime, it's a little silly to say that I'm losing credibility, since as far as I know, my credibility is the amount that the ENTIRE MESSAGE BOARD believes what I say- not the amount that poor little Despyzer believes what I say. If a bunch of people start jumping in and telling me that I'm a joke who doesn't know what he's talking about and that I should shut up, then I'd take it a little more seriously than if a single poster with a grudge starts speaking poorly of me.

LOL... I'm not even the first one ON THIS PAGE to say as much. I guess you only see what you want to see. Don't get pissy at me just because I bothered to call you on your bull ####.

You're right- another person is also attacking my credibility on this page. Of course, coincidentally enough, both posters attacking my credibility on this page are doing so without addressing any of my arguements, and are doing so while making extraordinary claims (which I have already provided strong data refuting) without providing a single shred of evidence for those claims (Denver won its SB as a result of cheating, and no rational observer could conclude that Elway had a better season than Rice in '87). And my response to both is the same- look to your own credibility, first.

 

[dparker713]

Option #2 is that Denver's cap violation allowed them to keep a player they otherwise couldn't have kept. Good luck demonstrating this one to be true.

Thats actually kind of easy to demonstrate. Without these agreements, Denver would have needed to cut players because they couldn't pay them. The NFLPA wouldn't have let these players continue to play. So they got the benefit of both fielding the team they wanted and building a stadium they couldnt really afford.

 

[KingEl]

Even when Montana was old and on a avg KC team- he outshone Elway- Anyone remember the Monday Night KC/Den game where Elway left Montana with a minute left in the game......

Taking Montana's playoff # against the best teams even further- narrow it down to the Super Bowls. Against the very best AFC teams, he played perfect football.

The talent around Montana dimishes his greatness arguement never makes sense to me. He won two Super Bowls with less than HOF talent- name his Wr's from his first SB win and see where they rank. His later SF teams were great- but he had a hand in that too. + Rice was just hitting his true prime when Montana was there. If anyone benefitted from the talent it was Steve Young after Montana left. Rice has said many times Montana was the best he ever played with-better than Young.

Then with very avg KC Wr's at best, Montana has some great moments- a great Playoff run the 1st year- throwing a 4th down last play of the game TD to take Pitts into overtime- then beating them, next beating a supposedly unstoppable Oilers team in dramatic fashion. Then the next year the Monday night Game against Den, beat San Fran and Steve Young, etc.

Montana #1

 

[Despyzer]

The only ways Denver's cap violations could have created a competitive advantage are quite simple. Option #1 was that Denver's cap violation allowed them to sign a player they otherwise couldn't afford. This is quite clearly not the case, since no new players were signed in violation of the cap.

1997 - Harry Swayne, Dedrick Dodge, Darrien Gordon, Eddie Kennison1998 - Justin Armour, Doug Nussmeier, Marvin Washington

In fact, that's the key here. You're the one making extraordinary claims here- you're claiming that Denver's superbowl victories were the result of cheating the salary cap. You aren't saying that Denver cheated the salary cap, you are specifically stating that Denver WON THE SUPERBOWL AS THE RESULT OF CHEATING THE SALARY CAP. That is an incredibly extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders to support it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but you have yet to offer so much as a SINGLE GOD-BLESSED SHRED OF EVIDENCE supporting your claims. Instead, you've been busy attacking my credibility and making whine from your sour grapes.

It's such an obvious connection, only Bronco fans would need to have it spelled out for them. Denver was caught cheating in order to maintain and bolster their roster in the two years that they won Super Bowls. The Broncos have won NO Super Bowls in years that they were not caught violating the salary cap. Coincidence? Possibly, but the league saw otherwise.

 

[SSOG]

Option #2 is that Denver's cap violation allowed them to keep a player they otherwise couldn't have kept. Good luck demonstrating this one to be true.

Thats actually kind of easy to demonstrate. Without these agreements, Denver would have needed to cut players because they couldn't pay them. The NFLPA wouldn't have let these players continue to play. So they got the benefit of both fielding the team they wanted and building a stadium they couldnt really afford.

Nice speculation. Now provide a single shred of evidence that Denver would have cut these players if they hadn't agreed to the deferred payment and you might have a leg to stand on. There are several other options that Denver could have taken- one of which was not build the stadium- and until you demonstrate that that's the route they WOULD have gone, it's nothing more than idle speculation. Besides, even if you're correct, in that situation Denver isn't operating at a competitive advantage- instead, it's simply not operating at a competitive DISADVANTAGE (which it would have been operating at otherwise).

Even when Montana was old and on a avg KC team- he outshone Elway- Anyone remember the Monday Night KC/Den game where Elway left Montana with a minute left in the game......

First off, that's not an example of Montana outshining Elway. Elway authored a game-winning drive late in the 4th quarter, and then Montana responded with a second game-winning drive in the 4th quarter. Neither really outshone the other, because they both did exactly the same thing. If the order of the game-winning drives had been reversed, would Elway have outshone Montana?Second off, it's kind of silly to point out that KC's team was average, when Denver's team was BELOW average. KC was 9-7 that season, while Denver was 7-9. Sure, Montana's team might have been average, but it was still better than Elway's. *AND*, Elway authored his 4th-quarter drive against the defense ranked #7 in the NFL in terms of scoring and #13 in yards. Meanwhile, Montana made his comeback drive against the defense ranked #25 (out of 28) in scoring and #27 in yards. So Elway came back against an above-average defense and Montana responded by coming back against far and away one of the worst defenses in the league, and yet somehow Montana outshone Elway?Talk about revisionist history.

 

[dparker713]

Option #2 is that Denver's cap violation allowed them to keep a player they otherwise couldn't have kept. Good luck demonstrating this one to be true.

Thats actually kind of easy to demonstrate. Without these agreements, Denver would have needed to cut players because they couldn't pay them. The NFLPA wouldn't have let these players continue to play. So they got the benefit of both fielding the team they wanted and building a stadium they couldnt really afford.

Nice speculation. Now provide a single shred of evidence that Denver would have cut these players if they hadn't agreed to the deferred payment and you might have a leg to stand on. There are several other options that Denver could have taken- one of which was not build the stadium- and until you demonstrate that that's the route they WOULD have gone, it's nothing more than idle speculation. Besides, even if you're correct, in that situation Denver isn't operating at a competitive advantage- instead, it's simply not operating at a competitive DISADVANTAGE (which it would have been operating at otherwise).

There is nothing speculative about this. Denver was having cash flow problems. Many teams have cash flow problems. This effects the salaries/bonuses teams can pay - see Buffalo. Instead of allowing this to effect the team on the field or the construction of the new stadium, Denver chose to violate the rules of the NFL. One effects the short term competitiveness of the team on the field and the other is long term. Of the two, its significantly easier to change player compensation than it is construction - modifying player compensation can essentially be effected unilaterally. Construction involves the team, city, financiers, contractors, and a host of others. Though either way, Denver gained an advantage over other teams.

 

[SSOG]

The only ways Denver's cap violations could have created a competitive advantage are quite simple. Option #1 was that Denver's cap violation allowed them to sign a player they otherwise couldn't afford. This is quite clearly not the case, since no new players were signed in violation of the cap.

1997 - Harry Swayne, Dedrick Dodge, Darrien Gordon, Eddie Kennison1998 - Justin Armour, Doug Nussmeier, Marvin Washington

Wow. I've seen people take quotes out of context before, but I've never seen anyone actually quote the context and just blatantly ignore it before. I didn't say that "no new players were signed", I said that no new players were signed IN VIOLATION OF THE CAP. None of those listed players were part of the NFL's dispute with Denver over the salary cap. Even if Denver hadn't violated the cap, those players could have been signed for the exact same amount that they received.I'll repeat this again. No new players were signed in violation of the cap. There was nobody who Denver was able to bring in because they cheated. Everyone could have and would have been brought in whether the violations occurred or not.

I'll spell this out for you even more clearly. Team *WITHOUT* violations would have looked exactly like team *WITH* violations. How, then, can you claim that the team with violations was operating at an advantage because it cheated?

Really, I can't even begin to say how ludicrous this accusation is. I said a sentence, and then you quoted that sentence in its entirety, but bolded a portion of it and pretended that I only said that portion. You can't discard pieces of my sentence at random, and if you *ARE* going to try that, it'll make you look a lot less silly if you don't actually quote those portions of the sentence you're trying to ignore.

In fact, that's the key here. You're the one making extraordinary claims here- you're claiming that Denver's superbowl victories were the result of cheating the salary cap. You aren't saying that Denver cheated the salary cap, you are specifically stating that Denver WON THE SUPERBOWL AS THE RESULT OF CHEATING THE SALARY CAP. That is an incredibly extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders to support it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but you have yet to offer so much as a SINGLE GOD-BLESSED SHRED OF EVIDENCE supporting your claims. Instead, you've been busy attacking my credibility and making whine from your sour grapes.

It's such an obvious connection, only Bronco fans would need to have it spelled out for them. Denver was caught cheating in order to maintain and bolster their roster in the two years that they won Super Bowls. The Broncos have won NO Super Bowls in years that they were not caught violating the salary cap. Coincidence? Possibly, but the league saw otherwise.

Hey, look! You just said that Denver won Super Bowls in years that they were not caught violating the salary cap! I can bold random portions of your quote and pretend that you didn't say the rest of it, too!As a real response... you're making such ludicrous logical leaps that there's really not much I can do here. Yes, there is a correlation between the seasons that Denver cheated the salary cap and the seasons that Denver won the superbowl. That doesn't mean it's a CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP. Correlation does not imply causation. Let me repeat- correlation does not imply causation. For instance, did you know that people with lots of money score higher on the SATs than people without lots of money. Does this mean that if I win the lottery and retake the SATs tomorrow, I'm going to score higher? NO, because correlation DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. There are lurking variables in that statement (for instance, people with lots of money get better educations, which leads to the increased SAT scores), and sometimes the effect is exactly reversed from the one you're implying (for instance, people with high SAT scores are more likely to make lots of money).

In this case, cheating on the salary cap correlates with winning the superbowl, but the relationship is the exact OPPOSITE of what you imply. It isn't that Denver Cheated -> Denver won -> Denver built a new stadium, it's that Denver won -> Denver built a new stadium -> Denver cheated. The league itself has said that Denver cheated the salary cap *AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE* of the new stadium being built, and the impetus between the state of Colorado agreeing to the new stadium was Denver's first superbowl (I know this because I was actually living in Colorado at the time). In other words, you have the relationship all backwards- Denver didn't win the superbowl because they cheated, Denver cheated because they won the superbowl. Winning was not a direct result of Denver cheating, cheating was an indirect result of Denver winning.

Seriously, your arguements on the matter are specious, poorly supported, and full of all sorts of logical fallacies. You mention a correlation and then talk about how that should make causation so blatantly obvious that anyone could see it- well, I'm sorry, but real life doesn't work that way. If you want to claim a causal relationship, the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO DO SO, and SIMPLY MENTIONING CORRELATION DOES NOT QUALIFY AS PROOF.

Also, the correlation you mention is pretty darn weak, anyway. To wit: You said that "Denver was caught cheating in order to maintain and bolster their roster in the two years that they won Super Bowls". First off, it's simply not true- according to the NFL, Denver was caught cheating IN ORDER TO AFFORD THE STADIUM. That's the official NFL stance on the matter- they didn't cheat in order to bolster their roster, they cheated in order to afford the stadium. That's strike once against your "proof" that Denver's cheating led to the superbowl. Strike two is that Denver did not bolster its roster as a result of cheating. Once again, I challenge you to name a single way in which the team would have differed if it DIDN'T cheat from how it looked when they DID cheat. In order to "bolster their roster" they would have had to add something, and Denver added *NOTHING* as a result of their cheating. Denver's cheating did nothing to bolster their roster. Again, you're making extraordinary claims without any supporting evidence backing them up.

 

[SSOG]

Option #2 is that Denver's cap violation allowed them to keep a player they otherwise couldn't have kept. Good luck demonstrating this one to be true.

Thats actually kind of easy to demonstrate. Without these agreements, Denver would have needed to cut players because they couldn't pay them. The NFLPA wouldn't have let these players continue to play. So they got the benefit of both fielding the team they wanted and building a stadium they couldnt really afford.

Nice speculation. Now provide a single shred of evidence that Denver would have cut these players if they hadn't agreed to the deferred payment and you might have a leg to stand on. There are several other options that Denver could have taken- one of which was not build the stadium- and until you demonstrate that that's the route they WOULD have gone, it's nothing more than idle speculation. Besides, even if you're correct, in that situation Denver isn't operating at a competitive advantage- instead, it's simply not operating at a competitive DISADVANTAGE (which it would have been operating at otherwise).

There is nothing speculative about this. Denver was having cash flow problems. Many teams have cash flow problems. This effects the salaries/bonuses teams can pay - see Buffalo. Instead of allowing this to effect the team on the field or the construction of the new stadium, Denver chose to violate the rules of the NFL. One effects the short term competitiveness of the team on the field and the other is long term. Of the two, its significantly easier to change player compensation than it is construction - modifying player compensation can essentially be effected unilaterally. Construction involves the team, city, financiers, contractors, and a host of others. Though either way, Denver gained an advantage over other teams.

First off, once again, that's not a competitive advantage, that's the lack of a competitive disadvantage. They are different accusations.Second off, once again, there is plenty speculative about this, unless you can provide any evidence to demonstrate that Denver would have cut the players if they hadn't cheated the cap. There are plenty of other options available- asking for loans, delaying or canceling the construction of the stadium, even mortgaging Bowlen's house or selling partial ownership of the team. Unless you can demonstrate that Denver would have taken the single option you suggested and not one of the myriad of options that I suggested, then all this is is a speculative excercise.

 

[KingEl]

[

Even when Montana was old and on a avg KC team- he outshone Elway- Anyone remember the Monday Night KC/Den game where Elway left Montana with a minute left in the game......

First off, that's not an example of Montana outshining Elway. Elway authored a game-winning drive late in the 4th quarter, and then Montana responded with a second game-winning drive in the 4th quarter. Neither really outshone the other, because they both did exactly the same thing. If the order of the game-winning drives had been reversed, would Elway have outshone Montana?

Second off, it's kind of silly to point out that KC's team was average, when Denver's team was BELOW average. KC was 9-7 that season, while Denver was 7-9. Sure, Montana's team might have been average, but it was still better than Elway's. *AND*, Elway authored his 4th-quarter drive against the defense ranked #7 in the NFL in terms of scoring and #13 in yards. Meanwhile, Montana made his comeback drive against the defense ranked #25 (out of 28) in scoring and #27 in yards. So Elway came back against an above-average defense and Montana responded by coming back against far and away one of the worst defenses in the league, and yet somehow Montana outshone Elway?

Talk about revisionist history.

Maybe Elway shouldn't have left a minute on the clock. Should have managed it better, run some time off Part of being a QB.... After all- leaving Montana with a little over a minute to shred the #25 def isn't very smart

okay, I'll go with you and say neither outshone each other that game- Montana just got the last chance. Fine. Of course there was that Super Bowl that Montana also outshone Elway...... Either way, Montana's overall was #1

 

[Despyzer]

I can just see that conversation between Pat Bowlen and the Broncos cap guy...

Bowlen: So let's see, if we make this move the NFL is sure to come down hard against us. It will also sully the reputation of our club and cause people to question any legitimate success we have on the football field. I don't know if this is such a wise move. Will it help us win a championship?

Cap Guy: No, sir. Even though we will be violating the salary cap, surprisingly enough, it will in no way aid us as a football team.

Bowlen: Let's do it then!

 

[dparker713]

Option #2 is that Denver's cap violation allowed them to keep a player they otherwise couldn't have kept. Good luck demonstrating this one to be true.

Thats actually kind of easy to demonstrate. Without these agreements, Denver would have needed to cut players because they couldn't pay them. The NFLPA wouldn't have let these players continue to play. So they got the benefit of both fielding the team they wanted and building a stadium they couldnt really afford.

Nice speculation. Now provide a single shred of evidence that Denver would have cut these players if they hadn't agreed to the deferred payment and you might have a leg to stand on. There are several other options that Denver could have taken- one of which was not build the stadium- and until you demonstrate that that's the route they WOULD have gone, it's nothing more than idle speculation. Besides, even if you're correct, in that situation Denver isn't operating at a competitive advantage- instead, it's simply not operating at a competitive DISADVANTAGE (which it would have been operating at otherwise).

There is nothing speculative about this. Denver was having cash flow problems. Many teams have cash flow problems. This effects the salaries/bonuses teams can pay - see Buffalo. Instead of allowing this to effect the team on the field or the construction of the new stadium, Denver chose to violate the rules of the NFL. One effects the short term competitiveness of the team on the field and the other is long term. Of the two, its significantly easier to change player compensation than it is construction - modifying player compensation can essentially be effected unilaterally. Construction involves the team, city, financiers, contractors, and a host of others. Though either way, Denver gained an advantage over other teams.

First off, once again, that's not a competitive advantage, that's the lack of a competitive disadvantage. They are different accusations.Second off, once again, there is plenty speculative about this, unless you can provide any evidence to demonstrate that Denver would have cut the players if they hadn't cheated the cap. There are plenty of other options available- asking for loans, delaying or canceling the construction of the stadium, even mortgaging Bowlen's house or selling partial ownership of the team. Unless you can demonstrate that Denver would have taken the single option you suggested and not one of the myriad of options that I suggested, then all this is is a speculative excercise.

Loan - already leveraged due to the stadium, must maintain debt:assets ratioDelaying construction - highly complicated including likely penaltiesMortgaging Bowlen's house - absurdselling partial ownership - lengthy process requiring the approval of the league and undesireable to the current ownerThe options you've presented are all long shots. What the team wound up doing is getting a defacto loan from its players, injecting a cash stream into the team that would not otherwise be available. This allowed them to field a better team than they could have. There's a difference between speculation and deduction btw.

 

[JohnnyU]

I like your lists, good job, but Chris Carter shouldn't be that high at #3.

 

[Pat Patriot]

if not already mentioned, Ill do it, but leaving Adam Vinatieri off a top 10 list of all-timers at his position is almost like leaving hotdog and hamburger off a top 10 of all-time most popular american foods. the guy has 4 rings, and had alot to do with each one of them. otherwise, nice lists....always tough to rank all-timers. good job.

I dont want to get in a big discussion about kickers because when it comes right down to it, who cares?The above is laughable.

The Pats never would have won their first SB without Vinatieri. The Snow Bowl kick was the greatest kick in league history. The SB winning kick in a dome doesnt impress me that much but did bring a tear to my eye.

Vinatieri missed 2 chip shots earlier in the SB win over Carolina before kicking the game winner which was a 40 yarder in a dome. I wouldnt say that Vinatieri was a major contributor to that victory. Not even top 10 on the team in that game.

Vinatieri made 1 22 yard FG in the Pats win over the Eagles. Again, not top 10 in contributors for that SB victory.

Vinatieri made 3 of 4 FG's in the Colts victory with a long of 29 yards.

To say that Vinatieri has played a MAJOR role in 4 SB victories is just severely overstating the case.

 

[Reservoir Dog]

I like your lists, good job, but Chris Carter shouldn't be that high at #3.

Thanks. I found it hardest to rank the WR's, they have the least amount of control in their respective situations. As far as Carter being ranked too high....personally I never liked him (#######' Buckeye), but I always had great respect for his game. Numbers wise, I believe he's only behind Rice for most of the major WR records. Cris Carter is only keeping that spot warm though. Eventually, Harrison, Owens, Moss, and Holt will probably all pass him. I think it's interesting that 4 of the all-time great WR's are playing right now. This probably has alot to do with how the NFL game has evolved.I was hoping for a few more lists, but it seems people just want to debate between Elway, Montana, Marino, and Favre. I don't think there's a need to tear another player down, just to make your favorite look better. You see alot of this in debates on these boards (I've always found it amusing though). Bottom line, any player that makes an all-time top 10 had to be very special. I think after that it's basically preference. I loved Elway and I think he's the best ever. However, the other 9 guys were also terrific. I loved Barry Sanders, but I acknowlege that Emmitt was one of the best ever!It's interesting how many all-time greats are currently playing. Manning could end up being the best ever, and I think Tom Brady has a good chance at the top 5 if he wins another Super Bowl. Tomlinson is headed for the top 5, and maybe....dare I say....BEST EVER, if he can stay healthy. Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss, T.O., and Tory Holt are def 4 of the best to ever play the WR position. Could Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzo be two of the greatest TE's?One question I have for the group though is.....how great do you rank Curtis Martin? Jerome Bettis? I think C-Mart is top 10, and Bettis just outside looking in. Any other lists?