John Elway, Super Bowl Choker (1 Viewer)

[oddball]

I posted this early in this thread, and I think it bears repeating:

Show me his QB rating for each game in superbowl seasons, and compare them to playoff and superbowl numbers.

The original statement here is: John Elway, super bowl choker. There is only one way to prove it. Show the numbers.

btw, what the heck happened in 1993? Here are his QB ratings per year:

1983 54.9

1984 76.8

1985 70.2

1986 79

1987 83.4

1988 71.4

1989 73.7

1990 78.5

1991 75.4

1992 65.7

1993 92.8

1994 85.7

1995 86.4

1996 89.2

1997 87.5

1998 93

It seems '93-'98 his numbers dramatically improved.

 

[moleculo]

I posted this early in this thread, and I think it bears repeating: Show me his QB rating for each game in superbowl seasons, and compare them to playoff and superbowl numbers. The original statement here is: John Elway, super bowl choker. There is only one way to prove it. Show the numbers.btw, what the heck happened in 1993? Here are his QB ratings per year:...It seems '93-'98 his numbers dramatically improved.

Dan Reeves was fired after 1992. It's not a coincidence.

 

[Despyzer]

well, that goes to the point of the thread - the OP is trying to lay blame on those 3 SB losses on Elway - IMO, that is a gross misrepresentation of what happened.

It's a team game. Rarely is one player solely responsible for the success or failure of any particular game. The biggest exception to that rule that I can think of isn't Elway - it was Neil O'Donnell, who repeatedly threw to a DB who wasn't even covering anyone.

I agree that those teams had good defenses, which collapsed, and therefore you can't blame Elway for that. That's the logical train I'm trying to make here.

I can get behind that.

Also, IMO, Elway's reputation wasn't in sustaining drives. You and I both know that he threw way too many int's for that reputation to be valid. Elway was a gunslinger, not a care-taker. Elway's reputation was based on making the impossible possible, and winning games late in the 4th quarter.

Fair enough, but I think if you played a game of word association with any football fan, "The Drive" would be the most common response to "Elway" (followed closely by "Mr. Ed").

 

[Despyzer]

The original statement here is: John Elway, super bowl choker. There is only one way to prove it. Show the numbers.

I don't have the stats (so this could backfire on me), but it would still be interesting.Could you post his career passing efficiency rating, the combined regular season rating for the five years he went to the SB, and his combined rating in those SBs? If there is a drastic decline in that last stat, I think you could have an argument that he choked in Super Bowls.

 

[oddball]

Ahem

 

[moleculo]

The original statement here is: John Elway, super bowl choker. There is only one way to prove it. Show the numbers.

I don't have the stats (so this could backfire on me), but it would still be interesting.Could you post his career passing efficiency rating, the combined regular season rating for the five years he went to the SB, and his combined rating in those SBs? If there is a drastic decline in that last stat, I think you could have an argument that he choked in Super Bowls.

if you are going to do that though, you really need to compare passing ratings in the SB's to passing ratings to ratings in the regular seasons vs teams with playoff caliber defenses. Or, compare an "average SB QB's" regular season passer rating to a SB rating. I think it would be interesting also, but not necessarily conclusive.

 

[oddball]

The original statement here is: John Elway, super bowl choker. There is only one way to prove it. Show the numbers.

I don't have the stats (so this could backfire on me), but it would still be interesting.Could you post his career passing efficiency rating, the combined regular season rating for the five years he went to the SB, and his combined rating in those SBs? If there is a drastic decline in that last stat, I think you could have an argument that he choked in Super Bowls.

I can do it, but not until tomorrow at work. I'm tired and cannot seem to find the combination of words that google needs to give me elways individual game QB ratings. Tomorrow at work I have a couple of sports almanacs. Will repost then.

 

[moleculo]

The salary cap crap has been discussed before - it's a load of bunk and you know it.

keep looking...

It's hardly a load of bunk. The NFL wouldn't have assessed the largest fine in its history AND the loss of two first-day draft picks if they felt it was anything other than an unfair competitive advantage. Keep grasping...

meh...you and SSOG got into it in this thread earlier this year. I don't want to get into it again, but it might be good to re-read for old times sake.

 

[Liquid Tension]

John Elway, Super Bowl Choker

One clip that all Packer fans hate is that clip of John Elway getting drilled as he barely scores a touchdown by "helicoptering" into the end zone in the Super Bowl. The reason we hate that clip is that it is the only memorable clip Elway has from that day, as he played an absolutely terrible game. If not for that stupid one-yard run that should have been given to Terrell Davis anyway, no one would even think that Elway contributed anything to that game, because he didn't.

But what makes Packer fans, and me even crazier, is that John Elway's two Super Bowls have put him ahead of Brett Favre on the "all-time greatest QBs list" in the minds of many people. (The worst offender is probably ESPN radio host Colin Cowherd, but that's OK because disagreeing with Colin is one of the ways to know that you're right.)

It's stupid to use Super Bowl wins as a criteria for judging individual players anyway.You need a great team to win the Super Bowl. But if you are going to use Super Bowl performance as a factor, shouldn't you actually examine the contributions of those players in the Super Bowl? Of course you should. I went into the NFL archives and ranked every starting Super Bowl QB since 1982 by QB rating. I took out the RBs, WRs, and backups QBs that the NFL has on the list. It's pretty interesting:

1. Phil Simms, 1986, 150.9

2. Joe Montana, 1989, 147.6

3. Troy Aikman, 1992, 140.7

4. Steve Young, 1994, 134.8

5. Doug Williams, 1987, 127.9

6. Joe Montana, 1984, 127.2

7. Joe Montana, 1988, 115.2

8. Jake Delhomme, 1983, 113.6

9. Tom Brady, 2004, 110.2

10. Troy Aikman, 1995, 108.8

11. Brett Favre, 1996, 107.9

12. Jim McMahon, 1985, 104.2

13. Tom Brady, 2003, 100.5

14. Kurt Warner, 1999, 99.7

15. John Elway, 1998, 99.2

16. Jim Plunkett, 1983, 97.4

17. Jeff Hostetler, 1990, 93.5

18. Mark Rypien, 1991, 92.0

19. Brett Favre, 1997, 91.0

20. Tom Brady, 2001, 86.2

21. John Elway, 1986, 83.6

22. Peyton Manning, 2006, 81.6

23. Jim Kelly, 1990, 81.5

24. Trent Dilfer, 2000, 80.9

25. Brad Johnson, 2002, 79.9

26. Steve McNair, 1999, 77.8

27. Troy Aikman, 1993, 77.2

28. Donovan McNabb, 75.4

29. Joe Theismann, 1982, 75.1

30. Rex Grossman, 2006, 68.3

31. Matt Hasselbeck, 2005, 67.8

32. Jim Kelly, 1993, 67.1

33. Dan Marino, 1984, 66.9

34. Frank Reich, 1992, 60.4

35. Steve Grogam, 1985, 57.2

36. Stan Humphries, 1994. 56.1

37. John Elway, 1997, 51.9

38. Neil O'Donnell, 1995, 51.3

39. Rich Gannon, 2002, 48.9

40. Chris Chandler, 1998, 47.2

41. Drew Bledsoe, 1996, 46.6

42. Boomer Esiason, 1988, 461.

43. Joe Theismann, 1983, 45,3

44. Jim Kelly, 1991, 44.8

45. John Elway, 1987, 36.8

46. Ben Roethlisberger, 2005, 22.6

47. John Elway, 1989, 19.4

48. Kerry Collins, 2000, 7.1

Basically, John Elway should thank his lucky stars that Kerry Collins managed to play in a Super Bowl, but Elway still has 2 of the worst 4 Super Bowl performances since 1982, and 3 of the worst 12, including the Broncos' victory over the Packers. His best performance ranks only 15th on this list.

But what this list really tells you is how stupid it is to use one game to define a career. Ben Roethlisberger quarterbacked the 3rd worst game of the last 24 years, and his team managed to win. Phil Simms tops the list and no one thinks of him as an all-time great. Jake Delhomme is in the top ten and he's probably not even an average QB.

The fact is that John Elway is an all-time great, but you can't tell anything about his career from his Super Bowl play, just like you can't tell anything about Dan Marino, or Jake Delhomme, or Doug Williams from their Super Bowl play.

But, when you're watching the game tonight and they invariably show that highlight of Elway's touchdown against the Packers in the Super Bowl, you will now be able to turn to the person next to you and say:

You know, that guy had the 3 worst Super Bowl performances of the last quarter century. And he somehow managed to win one of those games.

The above highlighted area is all that matters. People who use the titles really don't get it. If all things are equal (which they never are) and you want to use how they performed in big games as a tie breaker only that is OK, but even QB rating by itself is the wrong measure as it does not account for the play of the team around them, the score that may dictate bad forced throws, dump passes short of the 1st down that pad the QB rating and the scrambling ability of the player.

 

[Liquid Tension]

All this blather about QBs choking in Superbowls, and Jim Kelly's name isn't even mentioned?Tis a pity, really.

I'd be hard pressed to show he choked in the SuperBowl, outside of SB XXVI where he threw 4 picks, but that was also in FIFTY EIGHT attempts and he also threw 2 TDs.Selected Super Bowl RecordsPassing Attempts, Career: 1st with 145Passing Attempts, Game: 1st with 58 (SB XXVII vs. Washington)Pass Completions, Career: 2nd with 81Pass Completions, Game: 1st with 31 (SB XXVIII vs Dallas)Most Yards Gained, Career: 3rd with 829

and this has what to do with how he played? This just means that the team around him (which was fully loaded) was great. From the original post here are Kelly's QB ratings (not always the best method as discussed); not very strong 23. Jim Kelly, 1990, 81.5 (no TD's)32. Jim Kelly, 1993, 67.1 (no Td's on 50 attempts and only 260 yds))44. Jim Kelly, 1991, 44.8 (4 picks on 58 attempts but only 275 yds)In 1992 he only had 7 attempts but was picked off twice (I assume he was injured)He was not good in the SB's. Kelly will get more abuse than he deserves for not winning a SB, but he got to the SB because of his excellent supporting cast. Jim was a good QB and that is it. If Marino had the supporting cast of Kelly he would have won at least one SB.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

meh...you and SSOG got into it in this thread earlier this year.

That thread gave me a headache and after reading it, I don't think I'll ever argue this stuff here again. I grew up hating Elway because he always killed Seattle but I can't think of a better QB as far as physical tools. I only argue for him because I honestly think he was a great QB. Also SSOG is a ####### beast with Broncos information, good God.

 

[Despyzer]

I can't think of a better QB as far as physical tools.

I agree that he was an extremely talented and athletically-gifted QB. He could do a lot of things on the field, both physically and emotionally, that a lot of other QBs could not do. Saying that, I still think he is given WAY too much credit for the Broncos' success while he was there. Oddly, QBs generally receive way too much of the blame than they should when their teams lose, but somehow that isn't the case with Elway. Even if he played poorly while his team lost, he still gets propped up.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I can't think of a better QB as far as physical tools.

I agree that he was an extremely talented and athletically-gifted QB. He could do a lot of things on the field, both physically and emotionally, that a lot of other QBs could not do. Saying that, I still think he is given WAY too much credit for the Broncos' success while he was there. Oddly, QBs generally receive way too much of the blame than they should when their teams lose, but somehow that isn't the case with Elway. Even if he played poorly while his team lost, he still gets propped up.

That is utter crap, and anyone who was watching football in the 80's knows it. Elway took the brunt of the blame for pretty much all of those Super Bowl losses. And for years, he was branded as a guy who couldn't win a Super Bowl, until he did win one in January 1998.

 

[switz]

and this has what to do with how he played? This just means that the team around him (which was fully loaded) was great. From the original post here are Kelly's QB ratings (not always the best method as discussed); not very strong 23. Jim Kelly, 1990, 81.5 (no TD's)32. Jim Kelly, 1993, 67.1 (no Td's on 50 attempts and only 260 yds))44. Jim Kelly, 1991, 44.8 (4 picks on 58 attempts but only 275 yds)In 1992 he only had 7 attempts but was picked off twice (I assume he was injured)He was not good in the SB's. Kelly will get more abuse than he deserves for not winning a SB, but he got to the SB because of his excellent supporting cast. Jim was a good QB and that is it. If Marino had the supporting cast of Kelly he would have won at least one SB.

Kelly was the driving force behind those teams. Watch those games again, he played well, and no it's not reflected in the stats. Do you know how many times he hit the receiver in the hands, on the numbers and they were dropped? Or the tipped balls that were picks? It's ridiculous. I felt bad for Kelly in the SB, because it's like the team forgot how to play. In fact, during the one SuperBowl the commentators even said that. Remember Thurman, forgetting his helmet?Nevermind that in the first SB, Kelly led the team to the winning FG, but Norwood missed. Had Norwood not missed, no one would be saying Kelly choked, ever. If anything those 4 losses sit on Marv Levy's head, he never had the players prepared for the big game.As for Marino - sometimes a player makes his own bed. Who knows how the Bills would have drafted had they had pass-happy Marino.

 

[Despyzer]

That is utter crap, and anyone who was watching football in the 80's knows it. Elway took the brunt of the blame for pretty much all of those Super Bowl losses. And for years, he was branded as a guy who couldn't win a Super Bowl, until he did win one in January 1998.

I guess it's all in a person's perspective then. I DID watch a lot of football in the 80's, especially AFC West tilts. Except for a naysayer here and there (who immediately get labeled as "Elway-haters"), all I heard and still hear is how Elway guided all those crappy teams to championship games and the teams lost because Elway didn't have any talent around him. This thread (and many others on this board) supply some pretty good evidence that this is the prevailing concept.

 

[moleculo]

That is utter crap, and anyone who was watching football in the 80's knows it. Elway took the brunt of the blame for pretty much all of those Super Bowl losses. And for years, he was branded as a guy who couldn't win a Super Bowl, until he did win one in January 1998.

I guess it's all in a person's perspective then. I DID watch a lot of football in the 80's, especially AFC West tilts. Except for a naysayer here and there (who immediately get labeled as "Elway-haters"), all I heard and still hear is how Elway guided all those crappy teams to championship games and the teams lost because Elway didn't have any talent around him. This thread (and many others on this board) supply some pretty good evidence that this is the prevailing concept.

Actually, my experience is that the first post of this thread, "John Elway, Super Bowl Choker," is the prevailing opinion of most non-Bronco fans. I've been arguing with people about this crap since 1989.

 

[Ghost Rider]

That is utter crap, and anyone who was watching football in the 80's knows it. Elway took the brunt of the blame for pretty much all of those Super Bowl losses. And for years, he was branded as a guy who couldn't win a Super Bowl, until he did win one in January 1998.

I guess it's all in a person's perspective then. I DID watch a lot of football in the 80's, especially AFC West tilts. Except for a naysayer here and there (who immediately get labeled as "Elway-haters"), all I heard and still hear is how Elway guided all those crappy teams to championship games and the teams lost because Elway didn't have any talent around him. This thread (and many others on this board) supply some pretty good evidence that this is the prevailing concept.

Actually, my experience is that the first post of this thread, "John Elway, Super Bowl Choker," is the prevailing opinion of most non-Bronco fans. I've been arguing with people about this crap since 1989.

Same here. That is all I heard for years, until Elway won his first Super Bowl. Then it was, "Yeah, but Terrell Davis won him that Super Bowl." I think the problem is some people just look at his stats and say that he was overrated, overlooking the fact that he was stuck in an ultra-conservative offense for the majority of his career. Once he was in an offense that opened things up, we saw what kind of numbers he could put up.

 

[spurs44]

John Elway, Super Bowl Choker

One clip that all Packer fans hate is that clip of John Elway getting drilled as he barely scores a touchdown by "helicoptering" into the end zone in the Super Bowl. The reason we hate that clip is that it is the only memorable clip Elway has from that day, as he played an absolutely terrible game. If not for that stupid one-yard run that should have been given to Terrell Davis anyway, no one would even think that Elway contributed anything to that game, because he didn't.

But what makes Packer fans, and me even crazier, is that John Elway's two Super Bowls have put him ahead of Brett Favre on the "all-time greatest QBs list" in the minds of many people. (The worst offender is probably ESPN radio host Colin Cowherd, but that's OK because disagreeing with Colin is one of the ways to know that you're right.)

It's stupid to use Super Bowl wins as a criteria for judging individual players anyway. You need a great team to win the Super Bowl. But if you are going to use Super Bowl performance as a factor, shouldn't you actually examine the contributions of those players in the Super Bowl? Of course you should. I went into the NFL archives and ranked every starting Super Bowl QB since 1982 by QB rating. I took out the RBs, WRs, and backups QBs that the NFL has on the list. It's pretty interesting:

1. Phil Simms, 1986, 150.9

2. Joe Montana, 1989, 147.6

3. Troy Aikman, 1992, 140.7

4. Steve Young, 1994, 134.8

5. Doug Williams, 1987, 127.9

6. Joe Montana, 1984, 127.2

7. Joe Montana, 1988, 115.2

8. Jake Delhomme, 1983, 113.6

9. Tom Brady, 2004, 110.2

10. Troy Aikman, 1995, 108.8

11. Brett Favre, 1996, 107.9

12. Jim McMahon, 1985, 104.2

13. Tom Brady, 2003, 100.5

14. Kurt Warner, 1999, 99.7

15. John Elway, 1998, 99.2

16. Jim Plunkett, 1983, 97.4

17. Jeff Hostetler, 1990, 93.5

18. Mark Rypien, 1991, 92.0

19. Brett Favre, 1997, 91.0

20. Tom Brady, 2001, 86.2

21. John Elway, 1986, 83.6

22. Peyton Manning, 2006, 81.6

23. Jim Kelly, 1990, 81.5

24. Trent Dilfer, 2000, 80.9

25. Brad Johnson, 2002, 79.9

26. Steve McNair, 1999, 77.8

27. Troy Aikman, 1993, 77.2

28. Donovan McNabb, 75.4

29. Joe Theismann, 1982, 75.1

30. Rex Grossman, 2006, 68.3

31. Matt Hasselbeck, 2005, 67.8

32. Jim Kelly, 1993, 67.1

33. Dan Marino, 1984, 66.9

34. Frank Reich, 1992, 60.4

35. Steve Grogam, 1985, 57.2

36. Stan Humphries, 1994. 56.1

37. John Elway, 1997, 51.9

38. Neil O'Donnell, 1995, 51.3

39. Rich Gannon, 2002, 48.9

40. Chris Chandler, 1998, 47.2

41. Drew Bledsoe, 1996, 46.6

42. Boomer Esiason, 1988, 461.

43. Joe Theismann, 1983, 45,3

44. Jim Kelly, 1991, 44.8

45. John Elway, 1987, 36.8

46. Ben Roethlisberger, 2005, 22.6

47. John Elway, 1989, 19.4

48. Kerry Collins, 2000, 7.1

Basically, John Elway should thank his lucky stars that Kerry Collins managed to play in a Super Bowl, but Elway still has 2 of the worst 4 Super Bowl performances since 1982, and 3 of the worst 12, including the Broncos' victory over the Packers. His best performance ranks only 15th on this list.

But what this list really tells you is how stupid it is to use one game to define a career. Ben Roethlisberger quarterbacked the 3rd worst game of the last 24 years, and his team managed to win. Phil Simms tops the list and no one thinks of him as an all-time great. Jake Delhomme is in the top ten and he's probably not even an average QB.

The fact is that John Elway is an all-time great, but you can't tell anything about his career from his Super Bowl play, just like you can't tell anything about Dan Marino, or Jake Delhomme, or Doug Williams from their Super Bowl play.

But, when you're watching the game tonight and they invariably show that highlight of Elway's touchdown against the Packers in the Super Bowl, you will now be able to turn to the person next to you and say:

You know, that guy had the 3 worst Super Bowl performances of the last quarter century. And he somehow managed to win one of those games.

No I wont. Quit your crying and get a life! The end result is all that matters. By the way how many years did Elway play without having a real defense and him carrying the load. Failed to mention that did we? I enjoyed watching Elway play because he played similar in some ways to Farve. You never left your man as a db when Elway would scramble because he would throw that 50 or 60 yd bomb on the run that was a thing to behold. Why do you guys have to put down all these great qb's? Find something else more tangible to talk about!

 

[Despyzer]

I think the problem is some people just look at his stats and say that he was overrated, overlooking the fact that he was stuck in an ultra-conservative offense for the majority of his career.

Ouch! He was in an ultra-conservative offense and still managed to throw all those INTs? Are you sure you're arguing in support of him?

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think the problem is some people just look at his stats and say that he was overrated, overlooking the fact that he was stuck in an ultra-conservative offense for the majority of his career.

Ouch! He was in an ultra-conservative offense and still managed to throw all those INTs? Are you sure you're arguing in support of him?

All of those INTs? You say that, like he threw a ton. He threw 16 or more INTs four times in his career. Three of those times were in the 80's, and the other was in '92, which was obviously his worst season as a pro, besides his rookie year. Besides, if you know football, you know that an ultra-conservative offense leads to more 3rd and longs, especially since they never had a high-caliber RB until the 90's. Put any QB in 3rd and longs, and INTs are gonna happen sometimes, especially when often playing from behind. Perhaps you should focus on how he did the last six seasons of his career. Ya know, when he was finally playing in an offense that didn't stifle him. His TD-INT ratio those years was 142-69. Imagine if he had been fortunate to play in an offense like that for his entire career. He likely would have ended up throwing around 350-375 TD passes. But, that is all coulda, woulda, shoulda, I know, so let's focus on the fact that with Elway there, the Broncos:-went to 5 Super Bowls in 16 seasons. They have went to 1 in the rest of their history without him. -won 2 Super Bowls. They have not won a Super Bowl w/o Elway. But that is all a fluke, right?

 

[Despyzer]

By the way how many years did Elway play without having a real defense and him carrying the load.

The answer is about half. Eight of his sixteen seasons Elway played alongside a top ten defense.

 

[Despyzer]

Besides, if you know football, you know that an ultra-conservative offense leads to more 3rd and longs, especially since they never had a high-caliber RB until the 90's. Put any QB in 3rd and longs, and INTs are gonna happen sometimes, especially when often playing from behind.

The most ultra-conservative offense in the 80's probably belonged to the Giants, and they didn't have a high-caliber RB either. Simms managed to keep throwing INTs at the rate that Elway did... and no one gives him half the credit they give Elway.And how in the world were the Broncos behind when they had the greatest QB who has ever stepped down from heaven on their team?

 

[Ghost Rider]

By the way how many years did Elway play without having a real defense and him carrying the load.

The answer is about half. Eight of his sixteen seasons Elway played alongside a top ten defense.

That is factually inaccurate. In Elway's 16 seasons, here is how Denver ranked in total defense:222513219203227232227124412So, he only played with a top 10 defense five times in 16 seasons. And he had a bottom 10 defense seven times. Wanna try again? Also, interestingly, since Elway's retirement, the Broncos have been a top 10 defense five times in 8 seasons, yet have zero Super Bowl wins. Hmmmmmm.

 

[Despyzer]

-won 2 Super Bowls. They have not won a Super Bowl w/o Elway. But that is all a fluke, right?

They also haven't won a Super Bowl w/o violating the salary cap. But they didn't gain a competitive advantage from that, right?

 

[Despyzer]

Wanna try again?

Absolutely!1983 - #91984 - #21987 - #71989 - #11991 - #31993 - #101996 - #71997 - #71998 - #8Yep. Looks like I mis-counted. That actually makes 9 out of 16. My mistake.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Besides, if you know football, you know that an ultra-conservative offense leads to more 3rd and longs, especially since they never had a high-caliber RB until the 90's. Put any QB in 3rd and longs, and INTs are gonna happen sometimes, especially when often playing from behind.

The most ultra-conservative offense in the 80's probably belonged to the Giants, and they didn't have a high-caliber RB either. Simms managed to keep throwing INTs at the rate that Elway did... and no one gives him half the credit they give Elway.

You are trying too hard, and failing miserably. From '84-'86, Simms threw 60 INTs. The most INTs Elway ever threw over a three-year span was 52 (the first of which was his rookie year). And Simms had a much better running game in the 80's than Elway did.

-won 2 Super Bowls. They have not won a Super Bowl w/o Elway. But that is all a fluke, right?

They also haven't won a Super Bowl w/o violating the salary cap. But they didn't gain a competitive advantage from that, right?

Way to change the subject, man. Kudos.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Wanna try again?

Absolutely!1983 - #91984 - #21987 - #71989 - #11991 - #31993 - #101996 - #71997 - #71998 - #8Yep. Looks like I mis-counted. That actually makes 9 out of 16. My mistake.

You are basing that off of points scored, not total defense. Yards allowed is a better measuring stick of how good a defense is.But you are determined to dismiss Elway regardless of what argument I or anyone else makes, so I am done debating this with you.

 

[Despyzer]

From '84-'86, Simms threw 60 INTs. The most INTs Elway ever threw over a three-year span was 52 (the first of which was his rookie year). And Simms had a much better running game in the 80's than Elway did.

Over the course of their careers, Elwasy threw more than 3 more INTs per season than Simms did, despite the fact that Elway emerged from this "ultra-conservative offense" toward the end of his career and Simms did not. If you have to cherry-pick stats to prove your point, you should begin to realize that your argument isn't that valid.

 

[Despyzer]

But you are determined to dismiss Elway regardless of what argument I or anyone else makes, so I am done debating this with you.

And you are determined to argue that one man can consistently take an overwhelmingly crappy team and win in the ultimate team sport. I'm not sorry to see you go.

 

[switz]

You are basing that off of points scored, not total defense. Yards allowed is a better measuring stick of how good a defense is.

Really? Yards allowed is the best measure? Are you sure? Last time I checked it didn't matter how many yards a team acquired if they couldn't score, they couldn't win. Did you know there are actually defensive schemes designed to prevent scoring, but allow yards to be acquired? Imagine that! What a stupid scheme since yards are so much more important than scoring, and the "true" measure of a defense.

 

[KoolKat]

You are basing that off of points scored, not total defense. Yards allowed is a better measuring stick of how good a defense is.

Really? Yards allowed is the best measure? Are you sure? Last time I checked it didn't matter how many yards a team acquired if they couldn't score, they couldn't win. Did you know there are actually defensive schemes designed to prevent scoring, but allow yards to be acquired? Imagine that! What a stupid scheme since yards are so much more important than scoring, and the "true" measure of a defense.

You're kidding right?? Ya, defenses never score touchdowns.

 

[KoolKat]

That is utter crap, and anyone who was watching football in the 80's knows it. Elway took the brunt of the blame for pretty much all of those Super Bowl losses. And for years, he was branded as a guy who couldn't win a Super Bowl, until he did win one in January 1998.

I guess it's all in a person's perspective then. I DID watch a lot of football in the 80's, especially AFC West tilts. Except for a naysayer here and there (who immediately get labeled as "Elway-haters"), all I heard and still hear is how Elway guided all those crappy teams to championship games and the teams lost because Elway didn't have any talent around him. This thread (and many others on this board) supply some pretty good evidence that this is the prevailing concept.

Reading this makes me wonder if you really did watch football in the 80s, because you are so unbelievably off base on this. Elway got so much crap for all those super bowls. When the Broncos won, Elway got the credit, if the Broncos lost Elway got the blame. I remember in the early 90s when even the city of Denver was on his case. Can you say Tommy Maddox. In pick-up games I can recall people referring to a bad pass as an "Elway" pass. The fact is he did get crap when it was going on, but in retrospect, intelligent football fans have realized he didn't have much to work with and changed their perspective.

 

[switz]

You are basing that off of points scored, not total defense. Yards allowed is a better measuring stick of how good a defense is.

Really? Yards allowed is the best measure? Are you sure? Last time I checked it didn't matter how many yards a team acquired if they couldn't score, they couldn't win. Did you know there are actually defensive schemes designed to prevent scoring, but allow yards to be acquired? Imagine that! What a stupid scheme since yards are so much more important than scoring, and the "true" measure of a defense.

You're kidding right?? Ya, defenses never score touchdowns.

I don't think your reply makes any sense. Sure a defense can score a TD, but that's not included in defensive statistics for points allowed. Again, points allowed is a much better way to gauge a defense than Yards allowed.

 

[KoolKat]

You are basing that off of points scored, not total defense. Yards allowed is a better measuring stick of how good a defense is.

Really? Yards allowed is the best measure? Are you sure? Last time I checked it didn't matter how many yards a team acquired if they couldn't score, they couldn't win. Did you know there are actually defensive schemes designed to prevent scoring, but allow yards to be acquired? Imagine that! What a stupid scheme since yards are so much more important than scoring, and the "true" measure of a defense.

You're kidding right?? Ya, defenses never score touchdowns.

I don't think your reply makes any sense. Sure a defense can score a TD, but that's not included in defensive statistics for points allowed. Again, points allowed is a much better way to gauge a defense than Yards allowed.

I was not aware of this, I thought points allowed included all points scored against a team. Regardless, if there is a turnover at say the 20 yard line, a defense could actually hold a team to a 4 play -15 yard drive and they would still get 3 points scored on them. If a TO is taken to the one yard line, and a team punches it in, that reflects the same on a D that allows a 99 yard drive?? I would say yards allowed is a much batter way of evaluating a D.

 

[switz]

You are basing that off of points scored, not total defense. Yards allowed is a better measuring stick of how good a defense is.

Really? Yards allowed is the best measure? Are you sure? Last time I checked it didn't matter how many yards a team acquired if they couldn't score, they couldn't win. Did you know there are actually defensive schemes designed to prevent scoring, but allow yards to be acquired? Imagine that! What a stupid scheme since yards are so much more important than scoring, and the "true" measure of a defense.

You're kidding right?? Ya, defenses never score touchdowns.

I don't think your reply makes any sense. Sure a defense can score a TD, but that's not included in defensive statistics for points allowed. Again, points allowed is a much better way to gauge a defense than Yards allowed.

I was not aware of this, I thought points allowed included all points scored against a team. Regardless, if there is a turnover at say the 20 yard line, a defense could actually hold a team to a 4 play -15 yard drive and they would still get 3 points scored on them. If a TO is taken to the one yard line, and a team punches it in, that reflects the same on a D that allows a 99 yard drive?? I would say yards allowed is a much batter way of evaluating a D.

Your example actually shows that neither YA or PA are a fully accurate measure of a defense. However, at the same time, if you were to pick one stat, PA gives you a better picture of how the defense performed, because that's their goal. As long as they prevent the other team from scoring, no matter how many yards they allow, they've done their job. If they limit the other team to a FG, instead of a TD, they've done a decent job. Even in the situation where a team gets the ball on the 1, if the defense lets them score it looks really good from the YA angle, only 1 yard allowed, but it's still 6 points for the opposition.There really should be a formula that factors all these things in, and then we'd have a better measure of a defense.

 

[SSOG]

What still pisses me off is the fact that the Broncos cheated the salary cap that year, and got caught! Basically Elway and a few others got suitcases full of $50s to stay with the team rather than test FA.Their punishment? They were stripped of a 3rd round pick a few years later, only to be rewarded with another 3rd rounder that same year as a comp pick.

Wow, you obviously have a great handle on the details, except that those suitcases were stuffed with $100s. Bowlen also gave them all some fat chronic, and after they were done smoking it, they all gathered on the sidelines to film the other team's signals.

If it was more than just a 3rd rounder, would that change your mind about whether they cheated or not?

Yup.

That is utter crap, and anyone who was watching football in the 80's knows it. Elway took the brunt of the blame for pretty much all of those Super Bowl losses. And for years, he was branded as a guy who couldn't win a Super Bowl, until he did win one in January 1998.

I guess it's all in a person's perspective then. I DID watch a lot of football in the 80's, especially AFC West tilts. Except for a naysayer here and there (who immediately get labeled as "Elway-haters"), all I heard and still hear is how Elway guided all those crappy teams to championship games and the teams lost because Elway didn't have any talent around him. This thread (and many others on this board) supply some pretty good evidence that this is the prevailing concept.

That's all revisionist history. 10 years from now, people will pretend they never doubted that Cowher or Manning could win the big one, too- just like people have forgotten all about how Brett Favre couldn't beat the Dallas Cowboys.

I think the problem is some people just look at his stats and say that he was overrated, overlooking the fact that he was stuck in an ultra-conservative offense for the majority of his career.

Ouch! He was in an ultra-conservative offense and still managed to throw all those INTs? Are you sure you're arguing in support of him?

Elway was stuck in 3rd-and-long situations, and unlike Phil Simms, he didn't have faith in his defense to win him games. The result was that he forced a lot of bad passes trying to make something happen. If you want an accurate measurement of Elway's skills as a QB, try checking out his stats after Reeves left town.

I don't think your reply makes any sense. Sure a defense can score a TD, but that's not included in defensive statistics for points allowed. Again, points allowed is a much better way to gauge a defense than Yards allowed.

Actually, it *IS* included in the defensive statistic for points allowed. So are punt return and kickoff return TDs, as well as TDs scored on drives that started at the 1-yard line. Generally, if I want a quick-and-easy way to measure defenses, I just average points and yards allowed. Not the best statistic ever, but better than either of the two alone.