The Village Idiots

13 comments:

1. Reid, 23. August 2004, 16:59
   

   No comments from the football fans, huh? Oh well, here are some of my thoughts:

   I usually don’t think of Elway as the one or two QB of all time mainly because of interceptions and his performance in the Superbowl games. In the first three Superbowls Elway played in, he really did not perform well. Now, if the defense was just great then I wouldn’t hold it against him, but I distinctly remember the inaccurate passes he made–passes that would fly way over receiver’s heads–or really bad interceptions. These are the kinds of things that he wouldn’t do in the regular season or the playoff games prior to the Superbowl. It really looked like his nerves got to him.

   To me, a great QB has to play great in big games. Now, Elway has played big in playoff games, and he has also brought won many games in the closing moments. But his Superbowl performances were really bad.

   I also think he threw too many interceptions in general for me to consider him great. (I haven’t actually looked at the stats, so I could be wrong.) For example, I consider Marino a better QB because he didn’t throw that many interceptions, especially given the amount of times he threw the ball. Then again, I don’t think Marino played very well in his superbowl appearance. Also, he didn’t take his team to the superbowl five times.

   That’s the thing that gives me pause about my assessment of Elway. The guy went to the Superbowl five times, and three of those five times, he carried his teams like no other player did (at least in my lifetime). He didn’t have great receivers, a great line or running back, but the Bronco’s went to three superbowls! He was truly a one-man wrecking crew.
   (On the other hand, perhaps a case could be made that the AFC was really weak during those years. It’s tough to say.) I think if Elway had played solid in these performances, and kept the games close—even if his teams lost—I would consider him as one or two in terms of all-time greats.

   While Elway is an incredible player, I guess what it comes down to for me is if you asked me who I’d want on my team as a QB, Elway wouldn’t be in the top 2. Montana would probably be number 1 for me. I would also probably want someone like Aikman, although I wouldn’t consider him in the top 2 QB’s of all-time either.

   Here’s another thing about a QB with the ability to take over games with their strong arms. I think coaches and the QB’s have a hard time resisting the temptation to throw the ball a lot, and that leads to over-reliance on the passing game and prevent coaches from committing to the running game. Do you think an Elway or Marino would be happy if they only threw 20-25 passes a game? Heck, a lot of head coaches wouldn’t be happy with that. In a way, their talent makes creating a good running game very difficult. Therein lies the problem. (Can you think of many teams with QBs like an Elway that developed a great running game? Maybe the Steelers of 70’s.)

   I would guess that more passing attempts lead to more interceptions or at least increase the chances of throwing an interception. In addition, being committed to the run must be difficult—the tempation to rely on the pass must be so great—when you have a QB like this. Even Parcells let Drew Bledsoe throw the ball a lot early on (although I believe Parcells really wasn’t happy with this). The temptation must be even greater when that QB can hurt the other team with their feet, as Elway could. (It’s going to be interesting if the Falcons will develop a good-to-great running game as long as Vick is there.)

   The problem is not just the increased number of passes, but the type of passes this type of QB would attempt. They have a lot of confidence in their arm, and so these QB’s often throw riskier passes. I think controlling this urge is hard for both the QB and the coach.

   On the other hand, a QB that doesn’t have a great arm won’t force the ball as much. The coach should have an easier time building and committing to a good run game. To me, that’s why some of these hard throwing QB get better when they’re older. It makes establishing a great running game more because the coach and QB will be less likely to over-rely on the QB.

    
2. Marc, 23. August 2004, 17:26
   

   John Frieze was the greatest quarterback of all time. I think Reid agrees.

   Sorry about the inside joke, but some of you know what I’m talking about.

   Don’t have much to add to Reid’s extensive commentary. But I’ll say this, the two quarterbacks that I enjoyed watching the most were Elway and Brett Favre. Strong arms, great imagination, fun to watch, and clutch. They would also routinely make plays that no other quarterback could make. You might say that was forcing things, but I sure enjoyed watching them. I’d rate Elway above Favre by a touch. Professional sport are spectator driven, so I place some emphasis on how much I enjoyed watching them perform. And I would definitely want Elway or Favre on my team. Admittedly subjective, but in combination with his stats and record, I’d put Elway as the greatest quarterback I’ve ever seen.

   Plus, he know how and when to get out. I’ll try to make the same true of me and this message.

    
3. Reid, 23. August 2004, 17:37
   

   Friesz! John Friesz!

   Favre can win games for his team, but he also has lost games for them, too. As great an impact as he can have on his team, I thought he really slipped once Holmgren left GB.

   If we’re just talking entertaining, these guys are hard to beat.

   So where does Marino and Montana fit on your list?

    
4. Marc, 24. August 2004, 11:08
   

   Well… like I said earlier, being fun to watch was only a part of my evaluation, although admittedly a big part. I thought Favre had a great year last year, the exception being the playoff game where they lost.

   As far as Montana and Marino, I’d say that I thought Elway was the best, Montana and Favre just below them, and Marino and Warren Moon another small step lower. I just feel like 49er teams as a whole were a lot better than most of the Bronco teams, and if you put Montana on the Bronco teams there’s no way any Denver team makes the Super Bowl. Having watched Elway adapt when Terrell Davis came aboard, I feel like Elway could have quarterbacked the Niner teams to the Super Bowl. I enjoyed Marino with the lightening release, and I truly did think that Moon was just as good, regardless of what you think about the run and shoot.

   Plus again, Elway scores a few points for leaving as the Super Bowl MVP and staying with Denver his whole career. Montana loses a few for his exit with the Chiefs. Favre and Marino score some points here too, although not enough in my book to overtake Montana. Should this factor into a discussion of the great quarterbacks? Probably not. But too bad. My opinion. My criteria.

   I would guess that Joe Namath would rank high on my list if I had seen him. Probably Unitas too. The first great QBs that I remember are Fran Tarkenton, Roger Staubach, Ken Stabler, and Terry Bradshaw. I think they were probably a step below, but they were past their prime when I saw them and can’t make the best judgment.

   I’d still take Elway.

    
5. Marc, 24. August 2004, 11:10
   

   Well… like I said earlier, being fun to watch was only a part of my evaluation, although admittedly a big part. I thought Favre had a great year last year, the exception being the playoff game where they lost.

   As far as Montana and Marino, I’d say that I thought Elway was the best, Montana and Favre just below them, and Marino and Warren Moon another small step lower. I just feel like 49er teams as a whole were a lot better than most of the Bronco teams, and if you put Montana on the Bronco teams there’s no way any Denver team makes the Super Bowl. Having watched Elway adapt when Terrell Davis came aboard, I feel like Elway could have quarterbacked the Niner teams to the Super Bowl. I enjoyed Marino with the lightening release, and I truly did think that Moon was just as good, regardless of what you think about the run and shoot.

   Plus again, Elway scores a few points for leaving as the Super Bowl MVP and staying with Denver his whole career. Montana loses a few for his exit with the Chiefs. Favre and Marino score some points here too, although not enough in my book to overtake Montana. Should this factor into a discussion of the great quarterbacks? Probably not. But too bad. My opinion. My criteria.

   I would guess that Joe Namath would rank high on my list if I had seen him. Probably Unitas too. The first great QBs that I remember are Fran Tarkenton, Roger Staubach, Ken Stabler, and Terry Bradshaw. I think they were probably a step below, but they were past their prime when I saw them and can’t make the best judgment.

   I’d still take Elway.

    
6. Reid, 24. August 2004, 13:14
   

   I totally agree that if you put Montana on those Denver teams, they would not go to the Superbowl. But would Elway succeed in SF? If you just look at talent–and factor in other things like style of play or other “non-tangible” factors (which I’ll get into a minute)–Elway would succeed, while Montana would not. (I’m more sure that Montana wouldn’t succeed, but I’m not as sure that Elway would.)

   I alluded to the “non-tangible” factor in the post above, namely the over-reliance on the pass and the difficulty of establishing a run game. This is a psychological dimension that enters into play when you have a QB with the talents of an Elway. (Again, I’m curious to see if the Falcons will ever develop a great running game in Atlanta.)

   This brings us to your point about Elway “adapting” to Terrell Davis. Would Elway have made these adjustments in his prime? Would the Broncos have committed to designing an offense around the run? Shula didn’t do it with Marino (and we know Reeves didn’t do it in Denver). It’s hard to say, but I think a case could be made that it would be very difficult to do. Elway was not in his prime by the time Davis came along, and I think that’s a big reason why they were able to develop a running game. (There’s talk that GB will now be a run oriented team, and I don’t think it’s any concidence that it’s coming at the tail end of Favre’s career.)

   In a weird way, this kind of talent makes building team with a winning formula (at least in my opinion)–namely, a team with a good to great running game–very, very difficult, and so therefore, the talent becomes a liability.

   As for staying with one team that doesn’t factor in to my judgment, but there’s no use arguing that point. (Since when have I thought like that, yeah?)

   Let me just say that I think Elway is an incredible talent. No other player that I’ve seen, except for maybe Earl Campbell, could carry a team as much as he did. But when it comes down to it there are three main criteria I look for in a QB:

   1. Good decision making–making the reads, taking high percentage attempts and avoiding low-percentage ones;
   2. Toughness-both in terms of mental and physical toughness. The QB has to be able to take hits and not let it affect his performance.
   3. Gamer–the really great ones play really great in the big games and big moments
   4. Accuracy–the ability to throw the ball with precision

   I think there were other QBs that were more mentally tough than Elway. Also, while Elway had some tremendous play-off games, he played really poorly in the superbowl games (even his last two superbowls weren’t that great, although he did not make mistakes, and they ran the ball well.)

   I think there are QB better at decision-making–at least as measured by interceptions. Interceptions are very huge to me, and that’s probably a big difference in how we look at QBs. A QB can have a ton of completions, yards, even TD’s, but he won’t be that great, imo, if he throws a lot of INT’s. Hence, I’d coose a lot of QBs over Moon, Marino being one of them because he didn’t throw a lot of INTs.

    
7. Marc, 24. August 2004, 20:13
   

   I still think Moon suffers from a lack of respect but I don’t feel like arguing for him.

   How can you answer the question about Elway being able to adapt when he was younger? He did adapt when Terrell Davis showed up along with Shannon Sharpe and Rod Smith. I don’t see why he wouldn’t have adapted to guys like Taylor, Rice, Clark, and Craig. But who knows?

   In looking at your criteria, I’ll give you Montana and maybe even someone like Steve Young over Elway. But Elway’s in the neighborhood. And who else is clearly better? Marino? I’ll give him credit over Elway for decision making but not for toughness and gameness. It’s a wash to me. I’ll admit that it was fun to watch the lightning release though.

   Let’s remove the one-team issue and the way that Elway went out (which I still hold dear, call me old-fashioned, or maybe just old). I’ll choose to combine your list of criteria with talent and entertainment. My verdict: Elway.

   Of course, three days ago, I didn’t really give a hoot about any of this… shoot… in another situation I could see myself arguing for Montana…

    
8. Marc, 24. August 2004, 20:36
   

   Oh yeah, I meant to address the issue for building a winning team with a running game. I know where you’re coming from because we’ve talked some about this. But in looking solely at the recent Super Bowl winners consisting of New England x2, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, St. Louis, Denver x2, and Green Bay – Did any of them except Denver have a good to great running game? Maybe Green Bay, of all teams, since Dorsey Levens was good back then. Before those teams, in the 90′s (wow, it seems wrong to think of the 90′s as being a while ago) certainly Dallas had a great running game, but I don’t think San Francisco did.

   The en-vogue formula these days to be a dominating defense with a play-it-safe offense (I’ll give Tom Brady his props though)… Boring… I just don’t think I enjoy watching football enough nor do I understand the nuances enough to really appreciate this style of play.

   Maybe if I picked up an X-box and started playing some Madden football…

    
9. Marc, 25. August 2004, 11:13
   

   I’m not going to comment any more on the young Elway being able to adapt. You make sense, we disagree.

   Regarding Marino vs Elway, did you know that Marino actually threw more interceptions, 252 – 226, in about the same number of games? Marino did throw for considerably more touchdowns 420 – 300. Of course, Elway also won more games than any other qb in history. In a way, you could say that Miami relied on Marino even more than Denver relied on Elway. Which stats do you keep, which do you toss? In this particular game of speculation, I’ll happily stick to my choice of Elway.

   I’ll also admit freely that my criteria for picking Elway are different. I love watching the roll to the right, throw across to the field to the left plays that Elway and Favre make. They are also both winners. Maybe they make plays that lose games (although this is a pure speculation as well) but they sure did win a lot.

   If you subscribe to the objective statistical NFL QB ratings, then Kurt Warner is the best QB of all time with Joe Montana and Steve Young in the top five. Marino is higher than Elway, but not in the top twenty.

   Where is John Friesz in all this?

   re: running game
   You mention Parcells and Gibbs. I’d have to throw in Belichek. If Corey Dillon is anything like he used to be, he’s the definition of power runner and Tom Brady seems to be your type of QB.

    
10. Reid, 25. August 2004, 12:31
    

    Where did you get the stats from? I’ve been looking online for them. I’d be interested in seeing the passing attempts as well as completion percentage. Marino would throw the ball a ridiculous number of times from what I remember. From what I remember Marino also had a pretty high completion percentage. In terms of accuracy and decision-making, I’d choose Marino, and that’s why I favor him, although the stats may not bear this out.

    One thing against Marino is that I don’t think he played that great in the superbowl against the Niners. I can’t remember that game, so I don’t know how badly he played–if his errors were mental mistakes.

    I distinctly remember Elway playing really badly in the first three superbowls. (I know Bradshaw had some strong criticism against Elway in those superbowls, but I can’t remember specifically what he said.) If it didn’t seem like the pressure got to him, I rank Elway a lot higher.

    Kurt Warner had a great couple of years, but to me he didn’t play long enough for me to count him.

    Friesz is a notch above Elway.

    Friesz! John Friesz!

    (Btw, if you want to play fantasy football with the HBA guys let me know. Gregg’s participating from the mainland, so you should be able to as well. We’ll be having a draft at my house two weeks from now.)

    I love watching Elway, Favre, and Vick do the things that they do, but I rather have well-played, smart football than entertaining football. Actually, well-played football is entertaining to me.

    I guess, it comes down to what role I see the QB as having. I’m not expecting him to throw a lot of TDs or gain a ton of yards. I’d rather have a running back score TD’s and gain a ton of yards. I especially wouldn’t want that if it increases turnovers.

    It’s sort of like comparing someone like Maurice Cheeks and Isiah Thomas. Isiah could take over games and score a lot of points, but does that make him a better point guard than Cheeks? The point guard has a certain function. If he can score a lot, rebound, etc. and do a great job fulfilling his role, fine. On the other hand, if his scoring a lot hinders him from fulfilling his role as point guard, that’s not good either. It’s not a perfect analogy, but you see my point.

     
11. Marc, 25. August 2004, 19:02
    

    I googled Elway and career stats to get this website http://www.pro-football-reference.com for the stats.

    I’m sort of tiring of this thread and I’ll concede you the last word on this. I realize that Elway had some bad Super Bowls, but he did manage to play in five of them and he played 15 years. One third of the time he played in the championship game. He seems to get a disproportionate amount of blame for the losses (if only he had played better…) and a disproportionate lack of credit for the two wins (he didn’t need to carry his team and they still won…). I also vaguely recall that he didn’t play poorly in his first Super Bowl, but he didn’t play well enough. There seems to be a perception that he didn’t play smart football and I think that’s somewhat subjective and unfair. My impression is that he did everything his coaches asked him to do and that he did it well. I can’t name any of his receivers or running backs from his early-mid career, and he still won more games than any other QB and took mediocre teams to Super Bowls. While this is also subjective, it seems to me that he was just as accurate and smart as anyone in the fourth quarters with the game on the line.

    I like Marino, but I’ll point out that he went to four fewer Super Bowls while playing at the exact same time as Elway. I don’t remember any of the playoff games that he lost. Maybe he played poorly in those games. Maybe he didn’t step it up. Who knows?

    Last time, my magnum opus. Here’s my complete case:

    Using the criteria you first presented of decision-making, toughness, and gamer, I place Elway in the same neighborhood as any quarterback that has ever played the game. While he seems to lose points for decision-making I think he makes up for them in the other two. Then I add on his unbelievable physical talent. Then I add on his durability. Then I add on my enjoyment of watching him play. Then I add on the fact that he won more games than any other qb ever. Then I add on his reputation as a fourth quarter stud (which I think is well-deserved and not just based on “The Drive”). Then I add on five Super Bowls with two wins. I come up with Elway. That’s it. I’m done. You can have Montana, Marino, whoever. I’ll gladly take Elway.

    Throw in John Friesz or maybe Frank Reich as my backup…

    Regarding your Isiah Thomas vs Mo Cheeks question – I’d take Isiah. Same reasoning as for Elway. But maybe a more pertinent football comparison is Emmitt Smith vs Barry Sanders. Who would you take there? Should this be a different thread? Will anyone else besides me participate?

     
12. Reid, 26. August 2004, 14:37
    

    I don’t really have anything to add, really, except to say that it was good talking with you.

    As for the Emmitt Smith vs. Barry Sanders debate, I think it would be only you and me debating that topic. (If the FB fans at this site didn’t participate in this conversation, I don’t think they would participate in that, but who knows.)

    Sanders is a better showman hands-down. But I’d rather Emmitt’s style–more N-S runner and not big fluctuations in his yards per carry. What I mean is that Barry would get 1 yd., lose 2, gain 0 and then get 50. I rather have a guy that got close to 1-6 yds on every carry.

    It’s hard to judge, as they played on different teams. It’s not hard for me to imagine Sanders gaining 1-6 yds consistently per carry on those Cowboys teams.

     
13. Reid, 24. August 2004, 22:05
    

    How can you answer the question about Elway being able to adapt when he was younger?

    I want to try and explain myself one more time because I think this is a valid point. Given Elway’s ability, I think it would be harder for him to throw less; it would be harder for the coach and owner to build a good running game. Remember building a good running game means, among other things, building a certain kind of offensive line and having them play a certain way. It also means being committed to the running game, i.e. not giving up on it prematurely and going to the passing game.

    Think about it. If the first five running plays you call aren’t very successful, it would be tempting for the coach to just go to the pass, especially when you got a guy like Elway. It must be difficult for someone like Elway to be patient back there, too, knowing that he could probably take over the game.

    I contend that the Broncos could develop a running game at the end of the Elway’s career because he could no longer carry the team like he once did. Both Elway and the coches knew this, and this made developing the running game a lot easier. I hope this makes sense because I think it’s a valid point (even though it’s speculative).

    I would take Marino over Elway just because of the interceptions.

    For me, I’d rather have a QB that has modest stats, but doesn’t turnover the ball. I’d rather have a QB like Phil Sims or Troy Aikman on my team (and a good running back) then someone like Elway or Favre–both of whom can win games for you almost single-handedly, but will lose games for you to. I’d want a QB who would never lose games for you. (Then again, I wouldn’t place Aikman or Sims above Elway, but I’d rather have that type of QB on my team.)

    RE: The Running Game

    Didn’t the 90′s Niner teams have Ricky Watters? Prior to 2000 (the year the Rams beat the Titans), the winners had, at the very least, an above average running game.

    But ever since that 2000 season, the NFL is a radically different league. I still believe that building a great running offense (especially a power running game) is the best way to build a team, in principle, but in practice it may not be possible. Or necessary for that matter.

    Since that 2000 season there hasn’t been any team that has had a great-to-good offense AND great-to-good defense. You’re right about the formula of a good-to-great defense with a conservative offense. But that conservative offense is probably better served with a great running game.

    In our lifetime, that has never been true. You had to be balanced to win the super-bowl, or you wouldn’t win.

    The fact that you can win with the formula above is not a good sign for the league–at least not to someone like me. Maybe Parcells and Gibbs will prove me wrong by building a team with a good defense and good offense. I hope they do, but it seems like it’s impossible to do that.

    See more discussion at the V-I site here, Defense and Superbowls