This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I can see where you're coming from, I suppose. It isn't fair to say he was playing with a bunch of scrubs, but...That vaunted defense you speak of gave up 39, 42, and 55 points respectively in Elway's first 3 Super Bowls.
It probably would be more telling to point out that Elway's offenses only scored 20, 10, and 10 points in those 3 Super Bowls. Wouldn't you agree?
Perhaps if my point were to point out Elway's deficiencies, which it wasn't. Instead, I wanted to point out some of the deficiencies with Elway's supporting cast.Look, I do agree that 40 combined points in 3 Super Bowls is awful. And Elway certainly deserves blame for that. But the bottom line is Denver didn't have a chance against any of those 3 teams, no matter how well Elway played.
Even if Elway's supporting casts had been equal to those of his opponents', Elway's teams probably would have lost anyway, given Elway's poor performances.
I lived in Denver for almost 8 years. Denver fans *definitely* believe that Elway was a top 3 QB all time. Most think he's the best ever. The man is a god in that town, I'm talking total devotion to the guy.And that's why I think his legend has grown since he retired. You have to give credit to Broncos fans - they sing Elway's praises from the rooftops. I was able to see many of this games. He was a very good player. No where near a top 3 QB tho. Broncos fans love the "he carried the team on his back!" argument but they always ignore some very, very good defenses that Elway played with. He also often had solid players around him at the skill positions and a bunch of Pro Bowlers and Pro Bowl caliber offensive linemen, too.I'm not really trying to take anything away from him, he was a very good player. But saying he was a top 3 guy is crazy. He's definitely swung into the "over rated" category to me.BusterTBronco said:
13-16 against the Raiders lifetime.
He's not top 3, but I do think he's comfortably in the top 10, so I'd have a really hard time calling him "over-rated." He was a stellar, carry-the-franchise type QB. Whether a person has him at #5 or #8 or whatever is kind of irrelevant.Chairshot said:
carrying those teams to the super bowl early in his career is pretty significant.
Except it never happened.
I don't know if Clayton/Duper would have made pro bowl appearances in Denver. I would bet that they would. If they had played with Elway and a decent offensive coach (say, Mike Shanahan or Don Shula), then I remain absolutely, positively convinced they both would have been multiple pro bowlers. Regardless of that, I'm also absolutely convinced that they were a huge upgrade over the garbage Elway had at receivers, and I also remain absolutely convinced that good WRs make their QBs look better (See: McNabb, Brady, Cunningham, Warner, etc, etc, etc, etc).
Namath absolutely belongs in the Hall of Fame based on the strength of his statistics.
Personally, I agree that Elway likely wouldn't have won 6 SBs. I question if he would have won even 4. Of course, if you had Joe Montana play that decade all over again, I doubt *HE* would have won 4 SBs again, too. Winning the SB is a very difficult feat that requires an extraordinary amount of luck. I do think that the 49ers would have been as good with Elway under center as they were with Montana. Possibly even better, although that's a huge pile of speculation.
Top-notch defense? "I hate the fact that I have to continually bring out the facts in order to set you guys straight".In 1989, Elway's defense ranked 1st in points allowed and 3rd in yards allowed (avg = 2 out of 28). That was a top-notch defense. In 1987, the defense ranked 7th in PA and 9th in YA (avg = 8 out of 28). That was a good defense. In 1986, the defense ranked 15th in points and 9th in yards (avg = 12 out of 28). That's an average defense. And, again, Dan Marino was the king of the "if he only had a defense" argument, but Elway's defenses during his first 12 years were almost as bad as Marino's. And Elway's running game was arguably worse, and his offensive line and WRs were pretty clearly worse by a significant margin.How about the point that, despite featuring a HoF QB who most agree was one of the 10 best of all time, ESPN ranked those Broncos SB teams among the worst in SB history?
Not to mention a record 5 super bowl appearances, no other QB has done that. He was dealt a bad hand for most of his career as far as offensive system that did not exploit his incredible talent, and a lack of great weapons, yet still led his team to 3 super bowls. I can't speak pre-1980 because I didn't see Unitas and others play, but Joe Montana is the only QB I'd take over John Elway, and it'd be a hard choice.moleculo said:
OK, I looked it up. I first made a list of teams that went to multiple SB's within a few years - at least two in three years. Then I found all of the HOF players on those teams.moleculo said:
Or © The AFC was dreadful during that stretch.I grew up in the 80s and watched Elway throughout his career. Elway was a great QB, but IMO is somewhat overrated. As pointed out above, it really is splitting hairs when you start breaking down the top 10 which he definitely belongs in. I say he's overrated though b/c many will argue that he is top 3 and I don't think you can put him there. Though he is top 3 in terms of QB you want leading your team down the field to win a ballgame. I do have some personal bias here as I was a Marino guy and was never a fan of Elway's but I agree with the premise of the OP. And FWIW I've heard from multiple sources that the guy is a major league #####. Not that it matters, but figured I'd mention it.moleculo said:
That's easy. Just because they don't necessarily stack up against the greatest teams of all time doesn't mean they didn't stack up well with the other teams in the league that season. Of course, the large steamy piles that Elway dropped during those particular SBs probably didn't do much to aid the perception of those teams.
There is a 3rd option - They were a team with a lot of talent at many positions with only one guy who stood out as an all-time great. Playing in an inferior conference helped a lot also.The Broncos are under-represented in the HOF though, especially when you consider the numbers of SBs they went to and their overall winning percentage.
He was the most overhyped player I've seen. I agree he's a HOF QB, but he has no business being mentioned with Unitas, Montana, or Graham. He's on par with Warren Moons and Steve Youngs.I'm sure some Denver fans will talk about his ability to come up big in the 4th quarter....but if he didn't suck for the first 3 quarters, his "comebacks" wouldn't be necessary, right?
I used to have a wrestling coach that said, "the way you beat an opponent who is better than you is to just keep it close in the first two periods and then open it up in the third." That's basically how Dan Reeves coached in Denver. He was a ball-control, play great D kind of guy. I honestly believe his basic strategy was to make sure that Denver was down by less than 10 going into the 4th quarter, and then let Elway do his thing.
I don't agree with this crutch.The Denver Orange Crush D was awesome during the 80s, Bobby Humphrey was a stud 1st rd pick out of Alabama, and he had 3-4 top notch WRs (the Three Amigos!) as well. Elway led talented teams.
The AFC was dreadful during that stretch. however, it was no less dreadful when Buffalo put up 4 SB trips (with 6 HoF players). I don't know how interconference battled out overall back then, but between 1968 and 1980, the AFC won 11 SB's and the NFC won two. The Vikings (6) Cowboys (10), Cowboys (7) played in this era of AFC domination, but still were known for having many great players.
Thank you. so you will be campaigning for Reeves, Atwater, Dennis Smith, and Karl Mecklenburg to make it to the HoF?
If Gayle Sayers is in the Hall, then Terrell Davis should be there too.Heck, if Riggins, Namath, and Swann are in, they might as well make it open to darn-near anyone.
Did ya ever think that those receivers could only be as good as the guy trying to get them the ball?
No, because I watched them with my own eyes. Vance Johnson was a good receiver, Mark Jackson was above average, Nattiel was below average. None of them were excellent receivers, none of them were even close to HOF material. Elway made them what they were. There was no 3 Amigos without Elway.
Exactly.Its not like Elway was throwing the ball to some scrubs. *Ricky Nattiel was a 1st round pick.*Vance Johnson was a 2nd round pick.*Mark Jackson was a 6th round pick. OK.*Bobby Humphrey was a 1st round pickYou have players like Montana, Manning, or Warner who elevated the play of their teammates. Then you have a guy like Mike Vick who runs fast, throws hard, and looks good on posters but restricts his WRs capabilities. IMO, this is the type of player John Elway was. FWIW---> TDavis should be in the HOF. Always liked Randy Gradishar, too.
There biggest problem for Reeves is that there are other coaches who seem likely to get in ahead of him, including Parcells, Belichick, Dungy, Holmgren, and Shanahan, and it's difficult to make room for coaches given the restriction on the number of people in HOF classes. I don't think Reeves will ever make it, and, frankly, I don't really think he should.I think Mecklenburg is deserving. I think Atwater is on the bubble, but I think there are other DBs who are more deserving. I'd have to look at Smith's resume more to be sure, but my impression is he is not deserving.
Gradishar should be in for sure.
IMO, the case for Reeves is that he contributed in so many SB's. 4 as a head coach (including multiple teams), and I believe 4 or 5 as a player/assistant coach with Dallas. The knock on Reeves is that I don't believe he innovated anything. He really didn't change the way the game is played, which is why he is behind the guys you listed.I loved Meck, but IMO Atwater is more deserving. He had the hype (Okoye hit) , he had the recognition(8x pro-bowler, 2x all-pro) , he had the big time performance in big-time games (could have been SBXXXII MVP).
Shanahan cheated to get his SB wins, try not to forget that. And Dungy is perhaps the most overrated coach in history. Yeah I understand that he is a swell guy but I think he's barely on par with Marty Schottenheimer as a coach.
Please not with this again. Harold Henderson of the NFL released the following statement on the NFL's findings of the Broncos' cap violations: "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."As for Dungy being overrated... yeah, I can see why someone might think that. I mean, he only took the worst franchise in the history of the NFL and immediately turned it into a perennial contender that eventually won the superbowl the year after he left. And his second stint was really no more memorable, consisting of only 7 10-win seasons in 7 years, a league-record 6 straight 12-win seasons, a SB championship, and a w/l% essentially identical to Madden's modern NFL-record career mark.I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would think Dungy was even close to HoF-worthy.
Spin.Dungy is Marty Schottenheimer Part II
The most serious exclusion is Randy Ghadishar. That man deserves to be in the HOF before any other Bronco sans maybe Sharpe.
Therefore, we will penalize the Broncos the largest single fine ever assessed against a club and demand forfeiture of draft picks for two years.Something doesn't add up.
Since you've clearly reviewed Pat Bowlen's financial records from the time and aren't just some random guy with no credentials who is posting baseless speculation on an internet message board, I'll defer to your obvious expertise on the subject.
Yes, because outside investment wasnt a possibility. So instead... lets cheat. And we can excuse it away based on our finances even though we are building a freakin' Stadium.It was cheating, plain and simple.
I don't know why we're still arguing. I've already conceded the fact that you are likely Pat Bowlen's CFO and are therefore privy to his detailed financial history. Clearly it's impossible for an NFL owner with no outside business concerns or external revenue streams to possibly suffer cashflow issues while trying to put up $100 million to fund a major stadium construction project. Obviously offering deferred compensation on contracts already on the books was a move designed to gain a competitive advantage (despite creating no new salary cap space), and I'm sure your extensive contacts in the league offices tipped you off to the fact that the league knew all about it but they knowingly issued a blatantly false statement to protect the integrity of the league. Obviously you are a man privy to all sorts of sensitive and confidential information, and we should trust your word implicitly over the word of all involved parties and the lead investigator, because you are an unbiased third party who is only coming forward because your own integrity prevents you from withholding the details of this corporate conspiracy from the public any longer.Thank you for setting the record straight, anonymous internet whistle-blower. I'm sure we'll all sleep better now that we finally know the truth.
So you jumped to extreme saracasm. Nice form you display.
Two things that Broncos fans hate: (1). Being reminded that their team cheated its way to their two Super Bowl victories, and (2). Being told that those 80's Super Bowl teams actually deserved to be there.
Five Super Bowl trips, two wins. A whole lot more than Marino, Young, Farve.If you want to talk numbers, then maybe you have a case.But what matters in the NFL is winning, and plain and simple he was a winner, and made those around him better.You gotta start this conversation with the come back wins. You want to know why there were so many? Simply because Reeves controlled the game for the first 3 quarters, and they were often behind. Only when Elway took control in the 4th quarter, and was able to play his way because Reeves had no choice, were they able to win games. Look what happened when he finally had a coach who let him play his game. Look at those numbers and look at those wins, and then span it out over his career.People here are talking about Reeves as HOF choice; that is a joke. He restrained that team and restrained Elway; he had a great talent and did not know what to do with it. He let his ego get in the way. If Elway would have had a coach like Shanny, or Walsh from the get go, we wouldn't be talking about him being a top 3 QB; simply the best ever.
I remember hoping for a holding penalty against Brroncos on 2nd and 4, only because I know it would force Reeves to let him Throw, instead of pound Sammy into the line again for a gain of one.
Glad you could put that "but he had no talent on the team" argument to bed.
Maybe Nattiel, Jackson, and Johnson can get to the HOF via the oldtimers route. I'm surprised none of them are in yet since they were so great. :( 
