Originally Posted by RealSNR:
Elway also just wasn't as good as people thought he was.
A great QB? Yes. HOF worthy? Yes. A name we should be considering for top 10 and someone who would totally absolutely torch today's NFL? **** no.
I agree with this in part. His first 10 years must count. Can't just dismiss them. He is not Top 5, but I'd definitely have him in my Top 10. Again, just my opinion. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
I think you're in the minority there, but that's cool... everyone has their opinions. It totally makes logical sense to retire top 3 in those categories and not be as good as people thought. #legit
I'm talking about the notion that because he was great for his era he would be just as good as Mahomes in this era.
That's horseshit and you know it.
"Johnny Unitas would clean house in this era of football!" No he wouldn't. It was a different time, and I'm not talking about the rules of football. I'm talking about the knowledge of sports training. Knowledge of the game. The lifelong preparation for this career. God, fucking Len Dawson was a smoker. Pretty sure Johnny did the same.
Elway wasn't the trained athlete that today's QBs are. He was fast and had an arm, but he wouldn't be better in this era just because he did it back then. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
Agreed. His first 10 years must count. Can't just dismiss them because of Dan Reeves.
I don't think anyone was saying the first 10 years don't count.
Elway won 89 of 142 games in those first 10 years, went to the playoffs 6 times and lost 3 SBs. So, yeah - those playoff losses hurt. Focus on pretty passing stats and TDs all you like... he won 83% of the games he started and the team had six trips to the playoffs and 3 AFC Titles.
Advance to post Reeves... 6 seasons, he won 59 of 89 games with 4 trips to the playoffs, two more AFC Titles and 2 SB Titles.
Break it down however you like, Elway was an all-time great QB. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
I'm talking about the notion that because he was great for his era he would be just as good as Mahomes in this era.
That's horseshit and you know it.
"Johnny Unitas would clean house in this era of football!" No he wouldn't. It was a different time, and I'm not talking about the rules of football. I'm talking about the knowledge of sports training. Knowledge of the game. The lifelong preparation for this career. God, ****ing Len Dawson was a smoker. Pretty sure Johnny did the same.
Elway wasn't the trained athlete that today's QBs are. He was fast and had an arm, but he wouldn't be better in this era just because he did it back then.
I believe all that I said was "Any of those top caliber QBs from 30+ years ago would do very well in this era of the NFL and how the rules have changed to enhance offensive production."
Help me understand where I compared him to Mahomes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
I'm talking about the knowledge of sports training. Knowledge of the game. The lifelong preparation for this career.
On this point, yes... athletes today are incredibly more well trained. Bigger, faster, the coaching, mechanics, year round training... it's all different. No doubt.
But, these guys aren't having these stats crazy careers now just because of that... it's the rules of the game and the focus on offense and points.
You're talking about two different things really [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
This image tells the tale for me when you view QBs by eras... at the time of his retirement, Elway was #2 in total passing yards - #3 in total passing TDs and #1 in QB wins all-time.
Look at all those names now that are in the top 10-12.. and there is a slew of QBs coming up the ranks. The game changed.
Today I learned that Matt Ryan is statistically a top 10 all time QB. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
I don't think anyone was saying the first 10 years don't count.
Elway won 89 of 142 games in those first 10 years, went to the playoffs 6 times and lost 3 SBs. So, yeah - those playoff losses hurt. Focus on pretty passing stats and TDs all you like... he won 83% of the games he started and the team had six trips to the playoffs and 3 AFC Titles.
Advance to post Reeves... 6 seasons, he won 59 of 89 games with 4 trips to the playoffs, two more AFC Titles and 2 SB Titles.
Break it down however you like, Elway was an all-time great QB.
Never said he wasn't. In fact I believe I used almost those exact words to describe him a few posts back. What I said was he was not in MY Top 5 list. Definitely Top 10 though. I count the whole body of work - success and failures. It ALL matters. Of course you'll discount the passing stats and TD's during the first 10 years because Elway's numbers aren't all that great. Dude had 158 TD passes and 157 INT's his first 10 years. Not exactly stellar in anyone's book. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
Never said he wasn't. In fact I believe I used almost those exact words to describe him a few posts back. What I said was he was not in MY Top 5 list. Definitely Top 10 though. I count the whole body of work - success and failures. It ALL matters. Of course you'll discount the passing stats and TD's during the first 10 years because Elway's numbers aren't all that great. Dude had 158 TD passes and 157 INT's his first 10 years. Not exactly stellar in anyone's book. :-)
Yeah, sorry only part of my post was directed to you... the rest was just in general.
And, I'm not discounting the numbers because they're not great - by design of the Reeves offense, it is what it is. There were some good players around him, but not great - compare the surrounding talent with Elway and their 3 trips in 4 years to the SB to that of Kelly and his 4 straight trips... the Bills had far more talent. Not too many could have taken those Broncos teams to 3 SBs. Hell, you even said it - Elway was a hell of an athlete and a QB that could move around and run. Speaking to the quality of players around him (the OL)... he's still the 4th most sacked QB of all time for the most yards lost by sack all time.
So, yeah - the TD/INT ration wasn't stellar by any means... but they guy won games and put his team in a position to go to the playoffs consistently.
And, in those first 10 seasons - 158 TDs and 157 INTs
And, in those final 6 seasons - 142 TDs and 69 INTs
It's not like he just figured it out after 10 years, the coaching and players changed.
PS - that's why I find it interesting that Elway's final game was a SB win and by far a great performance... against Reeves. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
I believe all that I said was "Any of those top caliber QBs from 30+ years ago would do very well in this era of the NFL and how the rules have changed to enhance offensive production."
Help me understand where I compared him to Mahomes.
It's not you, necessarily. It's this thing I hear from old farts all the time about the athletes of yore.
The fact is that John Elway is a fossil. The league was different back then and so were players. And not in an improved or equal way to what they are now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
It's not you, necessarily. It's this thing I hear from old farts all the time about the athletes of yore.
The fact is that John Elway is a fossil. The league was different back then and so were players. And not in an improved or equal way to what they are now.
I get that and totally believe in it when you get to the 60s and before... but, I think most of those 80s QBs would still do well.
Do you dispute that today's QBs would have a hard time surviving life in the 70s/80s? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
I get that and totally believe in it when you get to the 60s and before... but, I think most of those 80s QBs would still do well.
Do you dispute that today's QBs would have a hard time surviving life in the 70s/80s?
Some would. I don't think we'd be seeing 5000 yard seasons out of these guys, and the scoring would be down, but they're overall simply better QBs than those guys who played back then. As a whole, that is.
Andy Reid talked about it when he first got the KC job, of whether it's a problem that it's getting really hard to find so-called blue chip pro style pocket passers in college, and that so many of them are running spread systems. Andy Reid said no, not at all, because as a result, these QBs coming out are so much better throwers of the football than guys in the past. Many QB prospects back then, even the highly drafted/regarded ones, needed time to just further develop and get in the 10,000 reps or whatever it is of mechanically throwing the football the right way, and by colleges going to spread systems, these QBs were seeing a lot more in-game chances to hone that craft, even going back to high school play.
You see this trend in the stats of old guys that it isn't until their 6th or 7th years when they can go a whole season without throwing 15+ INTs. I think current top young QBs would cut down on the early-career INTs for sure, and I think they'd be better throwers and put up much better stats. And I think if Mahomes or Burrow or even Herbert were guys back then, they would have been a lot more impressive than guys like Unitas.
I still have respect for the old guys and what they've done, and I think of QBs always as what they did when they played, not how they would fare against each other in their respective primes. But in terms of better players? No, they just simply aren't. And the same goes for Elway. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
Some would. I don't think we'd be seeing 5000 yard seasons out of these guys, and the scoring would be down, but they're overall simply better QBs than those guys who played back then. As a whole, that is.
Andy Reid talked about it when he first got the KC job, of whether it's a problem that it's getting really hard to find so-called blue chip pro style pocket passers in college, and that so many of them are running spread systems. Andy Reid said no, not at all, because as a result, these QBs coming out are so much better throwers of the football than guys in the past. Many QB prospects back then, even the highly drafted/regarded ones, needed time to just further develop and get in the 10,000 reps or whatever it is of mechanically throwing the football the right way, and by colleges going to spread systems, these QBs were seeing a lot more in-game chances to hone that craft, even going back to high school play.
You see this trend in the stats of old guys that it isn't until their 6th or 7th years when they can go a whole season without throwing 15+ INTs. I think current top young QBs would cut down on the early-career INTs for sure, and I think they'd be better throwers and put up much better stats. And I think if Mahomes or Burrow or even Herbert were guys back then, they would have been a lot more impressive than guys like Unitas.
I still have respect for the old guys and what they've done, and I think of QBs always as what they did when they played, not how they would fare against each other in their respective primes. But in terms of better players? No, they just simply aren't. And the same goes for Elway.
So there is the other element. Let's agree that QBs now are bigger, stronger, better trained... all that than late 70s/80s.
The rules of the game and what defenses could do to a QB are much different. QBs today going against the 70s Steelers would get crushed. Defense ruled that era for the most part. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
So there is the other element. Let's agree that QBs now are bigger, stronger, better trained... all that than late 70s/80s.
The rules of the game and what defenses could do to a QB are much different. QBs today going against the 70s Steelers would get crushed. Defense ruled that era for the most part.
You’re going down a “chicken or the egg” loophole here. Defenses ruled the era because the QB and offensive talent wasn’t as developed as it is today. Sure, the rules were different, but the athletic abilities were completely different as well. That 70’s Steelers defense was also playing against offensive linemen that are the size of most NFL QB’s nowadays. You put today’s Chiefs offense against that 70’s Steelers defense and it wouldn’t even be close. I don’t care if you’re playing prison rules. [Reply]
