Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Yeah…hard to rank players like Graham, especially when none of us have seen more than a few highlights. And like you said, fewer teams, a lot of white players, etc. But that also means a lot less parity, and he dominated his era like no other.
I’m not sure about Marino’s situation, but the Montana comparison isn’t fair. He reached the playoffs every time he played a majority of the season, even when he was past his prime. Elway missed four games in one of his non-playoff years, but also missed several games in some of his playoff years.
It's interesting to think about the impact of a league that has fewer or more teams. In Otto Graham's era, there were roughly half the number of teams if you combine the NFL and AAFC. The number actually got smaller when NFC absorbed the AAFC, and the NFL had 12 teams through much of the 1950s. Through much of the 1930s there were 10 or fewer, and I think the lowest was 8.
So a guy like Otto Graham was playing in a league where the talent pool was roughly twice as deep on any given team. That would argue that it was harder to dominate as a player or a team. But at the same time there were fewer opportunities for a talent to get discovered because roster spots were hard to come by. You didn't have to compete with a big pool where some unestablished player had a freak season, a la Kareem Hunt leading the league in rushing or Scott Mitchell throwing for a million yards. So was it easier or harder to be named to an all-star team?
I think if you were a top player, it would be easier for the reason cited above. It was harder to establish yourself due to smaller rosters, but it was easier to perpetuate your reputation if you did get established. At least, that's my theory. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
And what is this "loaded" team nonsense. Oy veh. It all starts with the QB, you can have a "loaded" team and still not win because the of the QB because the QB touches the ball 99.99 percent of all offensive football plays. If a QB is weak, the defense can press up. If they know the QB is good, they have to play back. Who the QB is matters as much as anything. That's why 20 percent of the salary cap for each team on average goes to the QBs. 20 percent tied up in one position for 2-3 guys.
You must have forgot Bubby Brister went 4-0 with that Donk sb team [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
It's interesting to think about the impact of a league that has fewer or more teams. In Otto Graham's era, there were roughly half the number of teams if you combine the NFL and AAFC. The number actually got smaller when NFC absorbed the AAFC, and the NFL had 12 teams through much of the 1950s. Through much of the 1930s there were 10 or fewer, and I think the lowest was 8.
So a guy like Otto Graham was playing in a league where the talent pool was roughly twice as deep on any given team. That would argue that it was harder to dominate as a player or a team. But at the same time there were fewer opportunities for a talent to get discovered because roster spots were hard to come by. You didn't have to compete with a big pool where some unestablished player had a freak season, a la Kareem Hunt leading the league in rushing or Scott Mitchell throwing for a million yards. So was it easier or harder to be named to an all-star team?
I think if you were a top player, it would be easier for the reason cited above. It was harder to establish yourself due to smaller rosters, but it was easier to perpetuate your reputation if you did get established. At least, that's my theory.
Makes sense. But imagine the quality of each roster if the AFC were cut to 8 teams today. Mahomes, Burrow, Allen, Herbert, Lawrence (and Rodgers?) would still be battling it out in the playoffs, only they’d have twice the talent around them. [Reply]
I would like to see Elfraud's comeback stats at home vs on the road. I would venture to say that a lot of his comebacks came from team defenses being totally gassed in the 4th quarter due to the thin air. I saw Marty's defenses suffer from that every time. Elway wasn't playing any better in the 4th quarter. The defenses just couldn't play to the same level in the 4th quarter due to the unfair advantage. Put Elfraud in any other team and I bet that he doesn't have half the comeback wins. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
And what is this "loaded" team nonsense. Oy veh. It all starts with the QB, you can have a "loaded" team and still not win because the of the QB because the QB touches the ball 99.99 percent of all offensive football plays. If a QB is weak, the defense can press up. If they know the QB is good, they have to play back. Who the QB is matters as much as anything. That's why 20 percent of the salary cap for each team on average goes to the QBs. 20 percent tied up in one position for 2-3 guys.
What does any of that have to do with Elway? You're talking about how important the position is, but you keep harping on how the NFL was "back then" when QBs had to have special written permission from the commissioner every time they wanted to attempt a goddamn forward pass.
Tell us more about how Reeves made Elway hand the ball off all the time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jjchieffan:
I would like to see Elfraud's comeback stats at home vs on the road. I would venture to say that a lot of his comebacks came from team defenses being totally gassed in the 4th quarter due to the thin air. I saw Marty's defenses suffer from that every time. Elway wasn't playing any better in the 4th quarter. The defenses just couldn't play to the same level in the 4th quarter due to the unfair advantage. Put Elfraud in any other team and I bet that he doesn't have half the comeback wins.
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
It's interesting to think about the impact of a league that has fewer or more teams. In Otto Graham's era, there were roughly half the number of teams if you combine the NFL and AAFC. The number actually got smaller when NFC absorbed the AAFC, and the NFL had 12 teams through much of the 1950s. Through much of the 1930s there were 10 or fewer, and I think the lowest was 8.
So a guy like Otto Graham was playing in a league where the talent pool was roughly twice as deep on any given team. That would argue that it was harder to dominate as a player or a team. But at the same time there were fewer opportunities for a talent to get discovered because roster spots were hard to come by. You didn't have to compete with a big pool where some unestablished player had a freak season, a la Kareem Hunt leading the league in rushing or Scott Mitchell throwing for a million yards. So was it easier or harder to be named to an all-star team?
I think if you were a top player, it would be easier for the reason cited above. It was harder to establish yourself due to smaller rosters, but it was easier to perpetuate your reputation if you did get established. At least, that's my theory.
That's one way to spin it... another could say that in the fledgling years when players were paid peanuts and often had 2nd jobs, like professional wrestling to make ends meet, the talent was a fraction as deep as it is now or 30 years ago. Guys were smoking and drinking in the locker rooms and sidelines. Graham played for 10 seasons, retiring in 1955. In 1950, most teams were comprised of white players only and in 1954, there were an average of 3 non-white players per team. Just saying... much different game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pasta Little Brother:
Apparently another embarrassing Broncos social media video has been released similar to let's ride....uh oh
McAfee was absolutely DESTROYING the Broncos over it. How embarrassing is it being a Broncos fan right now?
Interesting, haven't seen it... saw a YT clip with McAfee from six days ago talking about a video, but I haven't seen an official video, just the speculation of one. Can it really be worse than let's ride? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
True, believe he beat PHI (3 wins), WAS (6 wins), KAN (7 wins) and SDC (5 wins)... I don't know how Brister was able to clear those hurdles.
Not sure about the others, but that Chiefs team was talented. They were picked to go to the SB in preseason. They just imploded for multiple reasons.
Regardless, they’re NFL teams. An aging Bubby Brister isn’t going 4-0 without a pretty dominant roster. Supposed HOFer Russ went 0-7 last year vs the Rams, Panthers, IND, Tennessee, LV, and Jets. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Old Dog:
Brady, Montana, Graham, Marino, Brees, Unitas, Manning are all above Elway...top 10 probably, but no way is he top 5. One could argue Favre and Rogers above him as well.
Graham Marino Brees Unitas Rogers and Favre were not better than Elway. For goodness sake Brett favre lost to Elway in the Super Bowl.
I get it. you guys don't like Elway cuz he spent the better part of 16 years ripping your heart out and knocked you out of the playoffs in your home stadium. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
What does any of that have to do with Elway? You're talking about how important the position is, but you keep harping on how the NFL was "back then" when QBs had to have special written permission from the commissioner every time they wanted to attempt a goddamn forward pass.
Tell us more about how Reeves made Elway hand the ball off all the time.
You guys sound like a bunch of Scottie Pippen's. No way Mike wins the championship adult Scotty Pippen.
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
Graham Marino Brees Unitas Rogers and Favre were not better than Elway. For goodness sake Brett favre lost to Elway in the Super Bowl.
I get it. you guys don't like Elway cuz he spent the better part of 16 years ripping your heart out and knocked you out of the playoffs in your home stadium.
We get it, you're a Cheating Donx fan. You think Elway was much better than he really was. Top 10 - yes. Top 5? No way. Dont take our word for it, just google, "All time best NFL QB's and see how they rank. You'll be hard pressed to find Mr. Ed in the top 5. Way more put him somewhere 6 - 10, just like most people here. [Reply]