Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's been done... But why is Elways the G.O.A.T.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Tom Brady is roughly the eqivalent of Troy Aikman, nothing more, nothing less.
    Truer words were never spoken.


    My adopted Bronco is Chris Kuper. Huzzah!

    I am the raid leader for this World of Warcraft guild. Yay us!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by MindField View Post
      BS. Brady could not hold Marino's jock.

      Marino's Dolphins were like the 80's Chargers, just remarkably flawed as a team, great Offensively, but they could not run the ball and their Defense was pathetic....just like Elway had bad years in 1990 and 1994 when he had bad players around him, and the Broncos record reflected it.

      When Marino was on in his youth, he was easily in the Top 3 ever, a list that will NEVER include Brady, who is not even considered the best in the NFL right now.

      Brady's critical pick cost the Patriots from beating the Broncos in the '06 Playoffs, and he threw another against the Chargers last season that would have cost the Patriots again had Drayton Florence simply hit the ground and not danced around until a Patriot WR knocked the ball loose. Brady also got credit for a SB MVP he did not deserve in the first win against the Rams; that should have gone to Ty Law and the Patriots 'D'.

      Tom Brady is roughly the eqivalent of Troy Aikman, nothing more, nothing less.
      No, youre not understanding what Im saying. Im saying Brady looks as good as he does only because of a dearth of elite QBs. I wouldnt even say Brady is on par with Aikman as a passer. Also, what you say about Montana is a load of nonsense. Montana benefited from a) walsh, b) other people who fit the scheme and c) a defense. If you put Elway or Marino on those SF teams, SF still wins as many SBs and likely more. If you put Montana on the 84 Dolphins or on the 80s Broncos, the Dolphins and Broncos probably dont get to SBs. You put WAY too much emphasis on team success. QBs are not starting pitchers. In fact, if you look at SBs there have probably been more teams that win who are better at the run than the pass. Therefore, its really flimsy to base quarterbacking on team success when the quarterbacks main function is passing. Having a great passing QB is a tremendous advantage but you also need the other pieces...which Montana had.

      Comment


      • #18
        young

        Originally posted by Ravage!!! View Post
        I don't think people can say Young inherited a team. You can't be that good for that many years simply because you 'inherited' a team. If that were the case, Griese would be a HoFer.

        But everyone is welcome to their opinions. I personally don't know if I would put Brady up that high yet. I know he has 3 rings, I think the guy is a great QB, but I want to see what he does over TIME. There have been many teams that have won 3 or four Super Bowls, but did them within a short time span. Brady was good with a good team with him, and NONE of his teams were dominating..by ANY mean. THey never won a Super Bowl by more than 3 points. A lot of defense to help him.

        I don't have anything against Tom Brady at all. But I wouldn't put him that high YET. *shrugs*...

        And with Young, I can't remember who said it but i was watching a special on the Quaterbacks and one coach was quated as telling his players NOT to hurt Montana becasue he didn't wan't young in the game. I think that alone speaks to his ability and to be on the best ever list...nameth is an icon, but moreso for Broadway Joe than his work at the QB position.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lex View Post
          No, youre not understanding what Im saying. Im saying Brady looks as good as he does only because of a dearth of elite QBs. I wouldnt even say Brady is on par with Aikman as a passer. Also, what you say about Montana is a load of nonsense. Montana benefited from a) walsh, b) other people who fit the scheme and c) a defense. If you put Elway or Marino on those SF teams, SF still wins as many SBs and likely more. If you put Montana on the 84 Dolphins or on the 80s Broncos, the Dolphins and Broncos probably dont get to SBs. You put WAY too much emphasis on team success. QBs are not starting pitchers. In fact, if you look at SBs there have probably been more teams that win who are better at the run than the pass. Therefore, its really flimsy to base quarterbacking on team success when the quarterbacks main function is passing. Having a great passing QB is a tremendous advantage but you also need the other pieces...which Montana had.
          Dude, this whole idea that Montana could not play without Walsh and the 49ers system is just plain bogus.

          Look, in 82, we traded for Steve DeBerg from the 49ers, and he actually played fairly well here in Denver, and bailed Elway out on several occasions as a rookie....I think it's safe to say if DeBerg could play well for Reeves and the Broncos, Montana could too.

          Elway had more physical tools, perhaps more than anyone that has ever played, but he was never the pin-point accurate, surgeon-like performer Montana was....and don't forget, if you are talking about "pieces", they said Elway was junk because he could not win the big one and didn't until he got Davis and Sharpe and Smith and that O-line.

          All great teams have great players in additon to great QB's. That's pretty much true for all great QB's...I mean, name a HoF QB that DID'NT have some complimentary pieces around him....they don't exist.

          But this idea that it was all the "system" and Montana simply benefitted from that and had little to do with the 49ers success and any QB could have done it is a joke. Look at the players he had around him on the early 49er teams that won it. He had castoffs from other teasm such as Wendell Tyler and Freddie Solomon. Dwight Clark was roughly the same as Brandon Stokley. Remember, he did not get Rice and Taylor until later.

          Go back and add up the "great" players from those early 49er squads....alot of those guys were just real good role players, but not great individual players.

          I am a Beronco fan, and I believe I watched all the snaps Elway ever took. I think he was defintiely the second best QB I ever saw, as I give him the edge over Marino for his mobility, and Young for his longevity, but Montana was the best I ever saw.

          Along with Walsh, Montana revolutionized how the NFL is played today. He is the best I ever saw play.

          Here is Mindfield's Top 10 All-Time QB's (That I saw play)

          1.) Montana
          2.) Elway
          3.) Marino
          4.) S. Young
          5.) T. Bradshaw
          6.) P. Manning
          7.) D. Fouts
          8.) R. Staubach
          9.) K. Stabler
          10.) Brady/Aikman/Namath

          I didn't see Unitas, but obviously, he would be in there too.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
            And with Young, I can't remember who said it but i was watching a special on the Quaterbacks and one coach was quated as telling his players NOT to hurt Montana becasue he didn't wan't young in the game. I think that alone speaks to his ability and to be on the best ever list...nameth is an icon, but moreso for Broadway Joe than his work at the QB position.
            What a bunch of garbage.

            Steve Young may be the most under-rated QB of all time. He still has the highest QB rating in NFL history if I am not mistaken, and the only QB to have a rating at 100 or more.

            He had the misfortune of sitting behind Montana for six years before he got to play in an era when there was no Free Agency....but when he finally got to start, he was an incredible player.

            I would stack Steve Young's '94 season up with any that any of the great QB's of NFL history have had. That Charger D was pretty good that year, and Young and the 49ers SHREDDED it like they were High School kids...he set alot of NFL recordsa that day that still remain.

            Young's legacy is also tarnished because he went 1-3 against the Cowboy teams, who were some of the great teams in NFL history. In fact, I would say those 49er and Cowboy teams may have been the two best teams ever to play in the same season, along with the Steelers and Raiders in the 70's and the Steelers and the Cowboys in the 70's....and the Dolphins/Steelers/Raiders in the early 70's....

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by MindField View Post
              Dude, this whole idea that Montana could not play without Walsh and the 49ers system is just plain bogus.

              Look, in 82, we traded for Steve DeBerg from the 49ers, and he actually played fairly well here in Denver, and bailed Elway out on several occasions as a rookie....I think it's safe to say if DeBerg could play well for Reeves and the Broncos, Montana could too.
              He did a decent job for us but when exactly did we go to the SB with DeBerg? This is a red herring. Whether DeBerg played well doesnt have anything to do with your bias toward guys who win SBs.

              Elway had more physical tools, perhaps more than anyone that has ever played, but he was never the pin-point accurate, surgeon-like performer Montana was....and don't forget, if you are talking about "pieces", they said Elway was junk because he could not win the big one and didn't until he got Davis and Sharpe and Smith and that O-line.
              Again, Elway threw hard and more deep routes than Montana. Elway was more accurate on deep routes. Also, its hard to say Elway was less accurate on shorter routes when his biggest problem was throwing too hard. Montana was not more accurate than Marino. Marino could throw deep accurately and short accurately. Montana doesnt even belong in the discussion with Marino as a passer.

              All great teams have great players in additon to great QB's. That's pretty much true for all great QB's...I mean, name a HoF QB that DID'NT have some complimentary pieces around him....they don't exist.
              No, all greats who contend for championships have great players on their teams.

              But this idea that it was all the "system" and Montana simply benefitted from that and had little to do with the 49ers success and any QB could have done it is a joke. Look at the players he had around him on the early 49er teams that won it. He had castoffs from other teasm such as Wendell Tyler and Freddie Solomon. Dwight Clark was roughly the same as Brandon Stokley. Remember, he did not get Rice and Taylor until later.
              Yeah, and something similar could be said about a lot of the Denver players that Denver won with when Shanahan took over. Again, a false issue. What you call cast offs were really players who had system specific skills that allowed them to thrive in WCO where they might not have been as successful elsewhere. Again, the 49ers had an innovator in Bill Walsh. Joe Montana owes a lot to him. Im not saying Montana wasnt good, shouldnt be in the HOF or even that he didnt deliver but when people rank him as the best ever they are drastically thats a drastic overstatement and a distortion stemming from putting too much emphasis on team success. Ironically, Terrell Davis gets slighted because he played in Denvers system. Its true but his stats were also more impressive for a RB than Joe Montanas were as a QB, yet, Joe Montana gets a pass on being a product of the system while Terrell Davis gets slighted yet was more productive.

              Go back and add up the "great" players from those early 49er squads....alot of those guys were just real good role players, but not great individual players.
              You completely ignored what I said about Bill Walsh. I guess its convenient to do so. Actually, the Niners started winning when as soon as they had Ronnie Lott and Dwight Hicks. Fred Dean was actually a good player and so was Hacksaw Reynolds. But, again, the real star was Walsh and the schematic that he introduced to pro football. If you dont agree with me, then look at how many teams have adopted some variation of the WCO.

              I am a Beronco fan, and I believe I watched all the snaps Elway ever took. I think he was defintiely the second best QB I ever saw, as I give him the edge over Marino for his mobility, and Young for his longevity, but Montana was the best I ever saw.
              Obviously you dont know what youre looking at.
              Along with Walsh, Montana revolutionized how the NFL is played today. He is the best I ever saw play.

              Here is Mindfield's Top 10 All-Time QB's (That I saw play)

              1.) Montana
              2.) Elway
              3.) Marino
              4.) S. Young
              5.) T. Bradshaw
              6.) P. Manning
              7.) D. Fouts
              8.) R. Staubach
              9.) K. Stabler
              10.) Brady/Aikman/Namath

              I didn't see Unitas, but obviously, he would be in there too.
              No, it wasnt Montana and Walsh. It was Walsh. A lot of teams have won with this system using other QBs. Joe Montana has nothing to do with play design. He executed and he deserves credit for that but Walsh's acumen is what opened things up.

              Comment

              Working...
              X