I mean, he had a horrible rating. His td/int ratio isn’t good. It’s not close to Montana’s. When he won the SB he had an elite ground game.

You act like he was putting up massive numbers while going to these sbs. He basically was Trent Dilfer before 94.

Incredibly overrated
[Reply]

reading this post made me curious about all time QB playoff wins and seeing Mahomes at 3 shellshocked me. I feel like they mentioned that at the end of the Suber Bowl but i guess it never sank in. That shit is crazy. 15-3 record at his age is just bonkers. At 29 Brady had 12 wins and 2 losses.
[Reply]

Yeah the effort of embedding PFR stats into posts makes me think that too
[Reply]

By your logic, a mediocre player can become an all-time great just by having a long career (Not saying Elway was mediocre).
[Reply]

No, not my logic at all.
[Reply]

i wouldnt call elway mediocre but he definitely leans towards more of a compiler than a guy like Montana or Bradshaw. i look at his career kinda like a rich mans eli manning or philip rivers.
[Reply]

Not true… you can look at guys like Rivers, Ryan and a few others and say great stats, long careers, but nobody is putting them among the best.
[Reply]

Montana and Bradshaw were great, but they also had much better skill players on offense around them for their careers. That is fact.
[Reply]

You're proving my point. No one ranks Rivers among the best, yet he's right behind Elway in all-time wins. Win % is obviously a much more meaningful stat.

Now look at career TDs. Matt Ryan, Rivers, Eli Manning, and Russell Wilson all have more career TD passes than Elway. Some of them far more. Carson Palmer's just behind him. Cousins, Vinny Testaverde, Dave Krieg, Derek Carr, Joe Flacco are all top 25.

It's not unreasonable to say that those particular numbers don't tell us that much. Lol.
[Reply]

There are many different pieces to the puzzle. The last 20+ years have skewed stats. You have stats and the eye test. Everyone has an opinion
[Reply]

No, the Donks lost because the Jags outplayed the Donks -- especially in the 2nd and 3rd QTR's when they shut out the Donks in both those QTR's.

Rubbish -- Elway's history hasn't been revised, it's just simply that Donktard mythology regarding Elway has been obliterated by facts and evidence about him that have been posted here.

Totally FALSE. Elway did have good skill players around him when he got to his 3 SB's in the '80's. Elway simply didn't do a consistently good job of throwing the football to them. WR Mark Jackson went to the Giants in '93 and with Phil Simms throwing the ball to him and with Dan Reeves as the Giants coach, Jackson had a career-high 53 catches.

Joe Montana's entire 49ers team in 1981 was not star-studded and not leaps & bounds ahead of any of those '80's Donks teams that made it to the SB. Many would argue they were on par with one another or even that those Donks teams were better minus the QB. The most glaring difference was the 49ers had a QB that was big-money on the big stage (Montana), while the Donks had a QB that played like a girl on the big stage (Elway).

What was that you were saying about "history revision"?
[Reply]

Frankly, I'm impressed at how well the broncos D has been playing. The O has been playing mistake free as well. As someone who has been around since before the Elway years, my impression about his career is that he should have a sidebar that says: with special thanks to Marty, whom without I could never have had all those comebacks. Thanks for the cowardly play in the 4th quarter.

That's just a personal observation... since I wasn't a bronco fan, I didn't really follow them when they weren't playing the Chiefs so I didn't care. I've wondered how many of those late game heroics were against the Chiefs.

At this point, I just don't have the energy to spend thinking about who/what/where/why/when some team cheated. The record book doesn't say anything about it and like it or not, cheaters actually do prosper; that's why they cheat. DUH.
[Reply]

Did this for the current guys. Might as well do it for the old farts too.


[Reply]