Have you ever heard about mercy rule and sportsmanlike conduct?
-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
The Everything NFL Thread - 2013-2014 Edition
- Thread starter Killah
- Start date
- Status
Play to win. There is no mercy rule in football.
If a team is hopelessly outclassed, then they are going to be embarrassed whether the score is 41-7 or 63-3. Football is a spectator sport, and people don't come to games to watch backups because their home team wants to avoid hurting the visitors' feelings.
(unless, obviously, there are other benefits to using backups, like giving starters rest and avoiding injury)
If a team is hopelessly outclassed, then they are going to be embarrassed whether the score is 41-7 or 63-3. Football is a spectator sport, and people don't come to games to watch backups because their home team wants to avoid hurting the visitors' feelings.
(unless, obviously, there are other benefits to using backups, like giving starters rest and avoiding injury)
Mmm, don't take it the wrong way, but these are grown men, not little pee wee and pop warner kiddies (and arguably they could use a life lesson in that not everybody is a winner). There is no mercy rule, either the losing team does something about the score or doesn't.
As for sportsmanlike conduct, football games can turn on a dime. That's why you score when you can and as much as you can, there's a reason "play till the whistle blows" exists. You show "mercy" to an opponent by letting up at this level and it could backfire pretty damn badly on you.
Arguably that's why coaches like Fox who "play not to lose" over "play to win" end up losing, take last year's Broncos exit. Rather inglorious since they were trying to nurse a lead huh?
Shinryu I think it's completely unnecessary to run up the score with the game under control. And we all know the starters would come back if the game was in jeopardy. About John Fox's style, I've been the fiercest Foxball critic in BroncosBrasil.com, since I hate his excessive conservadorism. I consider him a coward sometimes. Last year it happened twice in the ravens game. And to make things worse, we watch Matt Ryan do the necessary yards for a field goal the following day with one timeout and 21 seconds, if I'm not mistaken.
This season in the Patriots game, I was really worried about the game plan even with 24-0.
I like big scores, I just don't think you have to score an extra TD instead of kneeling on the ball when situation permits.
It'd be stupid to let the starters in the game with a 34-0 lead in the last game of the season, against a rival that only wanted to check their draft position.
This season in the Patriots game, I was really worried about the game plan even with 24-0.
I like big scores, I just don't think you have to score an extra TD instead of kneeling on the ball when situation permits.
It'd be stupid to let the starters in the game with a 34-0 lead in the last game of the season, against a rival that only wanted to check their draft position.
I wasn't referring to games that were still in reach, I was referring to games that are quite clearly over. I am aware that games can "turn on a dime" in football and furious comebacks can happen, but at a certain point it just goes beyond the realm of possibility. Further, the fact that they are grown men does not diminish the importance of respect and sportsmanship, in my opinion. I think those two elements are still very important to the game, even at the adult/professional level. It isn't just about football, it's about solidifying character for the rest of your life. Remember, these guys may be adults but they are still young. Fresh out of college, they are still developing. Their careers are largely over by the time they reach 35, which for most of us in the professional world puts you less than 10 years into your chosen career. I don't care how old you are, you never stop learning life lessons.
Please bear in mind this is purely an opinion piece by me. I acknowledge that character development is not as important to most people as it is to me, but I believe it should be an important part of professional sports, just like it is at any other level. Character is what helps you become a successful adult after your relatively brief career has ended and you join the rest of us.
Please bear in mind this is purely an opinion piece by me. I acknowledge that character development is not as important to most people as it is to me, but I believe it should be an important part of professional sports, just like it is at any other level. Character is what helps you become a successful adult after your relatively brief career has ended and you join the rest of us.
Well Bears didn't waste any time re-signing Cutler back for 7 years. I dunno, I think if the O-line keeps improving so he isn't sacked every other play like last year, good things can happen. On the other hand, he's still too prone to interceptions and overly reliant on 1-2 receivers. I think overall it can work out, but the Bears would be wise to draft a QB to develop in case mid-rounds this year considering a normal lameo like McCown (in terms of a career) was beating Cutler statistically as a backup.
Edit: He did make out like a bandit, $126mil over 7 years, $54mil guaranteed. Definitely will be paid a top QB salary since that's an average of $18mil/year.
Edit: He did make out like a bandit, $126mil over 7 years, $54mil guaranteed. Definitely will be paid a top QB salary since that's an average of $18mil/year.
Last edited:
I couldn't care less about sportsmanship nonsense but really, once a game is irrevocably on the path toward victory for one team (e.g. up four scores in the 4th quarter) there's no reason to rub it in further. You're no longer playing to win at that point, as you've already won. The rest of the game is a formality. Anything before the 4th quarter is fair game, backups running up the score is fair game, but you're just being a douchebag pulling a 2007 Patriots playing full starters and throwing on 4th-and-short when you're up 40 with five minutes to go.
Edit: although point differential and stuff as a playoff tiebreaker does support an argument that, at least in the NFL, maybe you should just run up the score whenever possible just in case
I like Cutler but lol jesus what the hell bears
Edit: although point differential and stuff as a playoff tiebreaker does support an argument that, at least in the NFL, maybe you should just run up the score whenever possible just in case
I like Cutler but lol jesus what the hell bears
Last edited:
I believe point differential is so far down the tiebreaker steps, I'm pretty sure that it has never come into play since the modern tiebreaker procedure was implemented when the NFL switched to 4 divisions per conference. Sure it's possible, for example, if two teams in a division went 15-1, each having their one loss to the other, then it would go to
In other news, Green Bay has wind chill forecasts of -50 to -40 for the game. So try and count the number of dumbass players who go sleeveless, or even better, the fans who show up shirtless (this stuff happens in Green Bay, lol) Hopefully the temperature will screw over the 49ers.
Seriously. I hope this is an indication of what's to come
Well, that was a pretty huge comeback, Chiefs blew it big time, and considering they were up by so much at halftime, can't really blame losing Charles for it. Though I guess you might be able to argue against having to hit the road vs a team with an inferior record. Still say the magic will run out VS Patriots or Broncos though, they've been too hot/cold all season.
What's more surprising atm is a scoreless Saints/Eagles game.
What's more surprising atm is a scoreless Saints/Eagles game.
anyone else think that in the situation the eagles were in instead of trying to stop them for a FG instead just intentionally let them score a quick TD and leave 2-3 mins on the clock betting that foles + the offense can get a TD back? at least in that scenario you have a chance to come back, but if the saints are already in easy FG range and your D isn't good enough to get stops then they can just milk the clock down and win as time expires. iirc the pats did something like that a few years back
It depends on whether the Saints would actually go through and score the TD. If the Saints were alert, they would take the free first down, run to the 1 yard line and slide down. Then kneel for however many downs it takes to get to 3-8 seconds left, and kick the field goal/
If the Saints take the bait, it would obviously be the better option in retrospect since the Eagles didn't stop them, but that doesn't mean I would make that decision at that point in the game.
The Elway / Brees debate
So I've basically spent 14 hours on telephone/in person arguing with my brother (33 years old) about the careers of Drew Brees vs John Elway. I know a lot of people here consider Brees the greatest of all time (or in the top 5) or maybe they just feel John Elway was an overrated Quarterback. I'm just going to throw every thing about Elway I can because context matters a lot. This is mostly the consensus me and my brother came to, take it for what it's worth, but I hope it says something to you.
So first - statistics:
I love statistics. They usually make or break an argument but statistics can easily be flawed. To be clear, DVOA helps measure which teams can beat which other teams. But using it as proof of something is flawed (see this ranking of defensive DVOA (yeah there are some...misplacements to say the least):
or this ranking of 2013 WRs (the guys throwing the ball don't matter apparently):
)
Turn to PFF - a site that prides itself on studying every play and you'll find they feel Keuchly is far from being DPoY this season or that they feel Stafford was the 4th best QB of this season or Ryan Tannehill, who was shut held to 9 points in 2 must win games vs the Bills/Jets was ranked 6th. The numbers and plays might say so - but you need to use the eye test.
PFF's Quarterback Ratings (Top 15)
1. Peyton Manning +44.3
2. Philip Rivers +25.5
3. Drew Brees +27.8
4. Matthew Stafford +16.7
5. Tom Brady +16.1
6. Ryan Tannehill +15.2
7. Josh McCown +14.3
8. Russell Wilson +14.1
9. Tony Romo +13.2
10. Aaron Rodgers +11.9
11. Ben Roethlisberger +11.6
12. Jay Cutler +10.0
13. Matt Ryan +8.2
14. Nick Foles +5.1
15. Andy Dalton +2.5
At the end of the day, then, we turn to the tangible statistics, the case against a guy like John Elway and the case for players like Drew Brees.
The flaw with these stats is we ignore context and what they mean. 30 years from now, people will begin ranking Karl Malone as the greatest basketball player of all time based on statistics without the context of who he was and why he has the stats he does.
I'm going to begin breaking down not just the stats, but the players themselves and why that context I keep talking about matters.
First, understand NFL passing changed in 2004 - The Ty Law rule completely changed how the refs called games and how defensive players played it. So most stats from the 80s and 90s are not going to impress anyone and this is particularly true in Elway's case. I'll start by showing Elway's season stats:
What surely sticks out are the 25% of seasons where Elway had more interceptions than touchdowns, along with 2 more seasons where he finished with 15 touchdowns or less. From this, even I would say Elway was a mediocre Quarterback who was carried by a team.
But let's stop and think about this. Elway's Broncos went to Super Bowls in 1986 (19/13), 87 (19/12), 89 (18/18) with him throwing 55% in those seasons. His team to 4 other playoff appearances before winning those final 2 Super Bowls, but focusing on all those playoff seasons, (let's also acknowledge in passing Elway's Broncos were a consistent threat - even the year's they didn't go were his rookie season of 4-6, a season of 11-5, a season of 8-7, a season of 5-11, a season of 8-4, a season of 7-7, and a season of 8-8. So Denver was a relevant team for 14/16 seasons basically) He had to have been carried by his team right?
Those are Elway's receivers from his first 5 playoff runs - does it begin to make sense why Elway's stats seemed mediocre?
Denver had a great defense but it begins to paint a picture when you realize Elway never played with a Pro Bowl offensive player (outside of running backs who made the Pro Bowl because players backed off of Elway and to prove it, name one of those halfbacks who "carried Elway") until Sharpe gets the nod in 1992. Ignore the stats - Elway was winning MVP in 1987. How is this possible? It's because of the story the stats don't tell - Elway was working with a coach who hated him and believed in a conservative offense that put Elway in situations where he would never put up the numbers of Joe Montana. Dan Reeves hates Elway? How could that be possible? - Maybe it has to do with the fact that Elway and OC Shanahan would script plays to start the games because Reeves style just didn't produce results. Maybe it has to do with the fact that Elway had an attitude problem. But it was clear and it's not like it's a hidden subject:
http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/coach_killers/john_elway_dan_reeves.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/1998/playoffs/news/1999/01/24/superbowl_feud/
http://juneauempire.com/stories/012499/Spo_past.shtml
Excerpt taken from above article:
---
I highly suggest reading those articles - with Shanahan - a coach everyone loves to say is garbage, Elway was thriving: what does that say about Reeves? So Elway was not in a west coast offense like Montana or like many of the Quarterbacks of today. He wasn't running a playbook that consisted of using short passes as runs. The Reeves playbook was Run, Run, Pass on 3rd and long. That's just how it was. And Elway carried teams where literally Vance Johnson was the best receiver on the team to multiple AFC titles.
It's almost amazing to me that Elway is hated on so much - statistics punish him for having bad teammates. Regrettably I've done this and have ignored just how excellent guys like Elway and Roethlisberger have played in their careers. They are consistently punished for having solid defenses without great talent around them offensively. As a Ravens fan, how many times have I seen Big Ben escape 3 sacks and extend a play for a 1st down on a third down? Probably 100 times too many. Now imagine Elway doing this, except when he fires that missile down the field, Vance Johnson or god forbid Ricky Nattiel is under it and they drop it. Give Elway Jerry Rice or Roger Craig, give him Andre Reed, give him Michael Irvin, etc along with a coach like Walsh and then put him in a west coast offense and tell me that Elway drags those guys down. He went to 3 super bowls with these guys! Fun Fact about Dan Marino, people don't like to mention he played with what was considered the best WR duo in Clayton/Duper for his best years. Let's give Elway them and see how he does.
Elway took the best of a bad situation - a conservative coach who wanted to sit on his defense and just run run run and he won them multiple AFC titles. Elway was doing this in AFC championship games:
So we laugh at his completion percentage but is it not easier to build your percentage up in the west coast offenses of today where you use the short pass as a run? Is there an idea that Elway couldn't do this? He pleaded with Reeves to run it and Reeves decided not to! Yes, I imagine throwing on 3rd and long is much harder to do than on 2nd and 3. That's just how it is. There was definitely no one tougher than Elway and I feel that he isn't credited enough for that.
This is how physical the game was - ignoring that he played in an offense where he wasn't in a favorable situation, trying to attribute cold statistics to a game where passing and how players played were so radically different to today (do you think people were fined for hits like that throughout the NFL's history?). I realize I'm using an old clip to prove my point (and there was a flag), but that is just how the players were and it required a different type of stamina. It's not something measured in completion percentage or YPA but it's a factor we ignore because history doesn't look at it.
But it doesn't excuse Elway compared to the other greats of his era right? Well let's look more carefully. Establishing Reeves as an Elway hater (need more proof?
) who hated his own QB enough that he wouldn't let him run the offense and forced him into a conservative approach, he was fired after 92 so let's look at 93 onwards, when Denver finally looked to support Elway with talent and let Denver run an offense:
1993 Denver Passing
(3rd in completion%, 3rd in TDs)
1994 Denver Passing
(6th in completion%, 18th in TDs)
1995 Denver Passing
(11th in completion%, 8th in TDs)
1996 Denver Passing
(4th in completion%, 5th in Passing TDs)
(18th in completion%, 4th in Passing TDs)
(5th in completion%, 5th in Passing TDs)
---
If you're not clear on why 96-98 lists team offense, it's because Denver was quite frankly the best offensive team those 3 years thanks to finally acquiring talent to surround Elway with. They were top 5 in passing TDs all 3 of those years despite the fact that TD had 13, 15, and then 21 RUSHING touchdowns. So can the myth end now about Elway being a middle of the road Quarterback compared to his peers? Out of his prime, 35+ years old and the guy was leading the best offense in the NFL with an insane amount of points and Passing TDs. I ask again, can we give this guy Jerry Rice and see what he does?
Instead of looking at just the numbers, ask yourself these questions:
Why was Elway chosen as the 1st Team QB of the 1990s Hall of Fame All Decade Team?
Why was Elway consistently ranked as the toughest and the best by his peers, why did he go to 9 Pro Bowls?
Why was he the 1987 MVP despite not having the best numbers?
We ignore context of who he played with instead of looking at how every single person who watched this era and was a part of this era talks about how unbelievable Elway was. If Elway was carried by his teammates, why are they not making Pro Bowls? Why do we believe his coaches to be jokes? Why can't we even name 1 teammate he had until Sharpe?
I'm not sure what more to add, he played for a coach who hated him, tried to trade him, even drafted Tommy Maddox in the 1st round rather than give Elway some type of offensive talent to work with. Is this even a question? Elway was undeniably one of the top 5 quarterbacks of all time who was hindered only by the players surrounding him. What Quarterback did more with less? Why is Elway not just top 5 but number 1 on so many top 10 lists if his numbers say otherwise (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/lists/top-10-qbs-all-time#photo-title=John+Elway&photo=10893561) doesn't that say something?
Here's the problem with Drew Brees - He has only made the playoffs 6/13 seasons where he has mostly worked with an offensive genius as his coach in Sean Payton (acknowledged by pretty much everyone to be a top 5 coach in the NFL, Brees led the league in interceptions last year with Payton suspended). He was working with talent like Joe Horn and Colston and Bush, and now talent like Jimmy Graham and Pierre "Lead all RBs in receptions" Thomas. He got to work with constant MVP LT and one of the all time great Tight Ends in Antonio Gates in San Diego. He has had a who's who of good-great offensive players to work with. So why do we credit him for touchdowns thrown and for his completion percentage? We've seen him without Payton - 1 playoff appearance out of 5 "I'm the starter" seasons.
But more importantly, we see the Saints style of offense - they prefer to use the passing game as a running game, not only inflating his completion percentage, but actively using the red zone as a way for Brees to pass it in. Elway's Broncos RAN the ball in all the time, why is he punished for not putting up the ridiculous passing touchdown stats of Brees simply because the Saints offense allows him to score more from close range rather than settling into a running game.
As far as Brees in the playoffs, when he gets there he is good, but is there really an excuse for his performances? We criticize Elway based on super bowls and ignore his divisional stats and conference title stats. Apparently they meant nothing and I think it's harsh we criticize Manning for constantly making the playoffs and losing, wake me up when Brees starts constantly making the playoffs (this is why I have Manning above Elway on my QB list, the consistency of Manning is unheard of and he's been in a pretty shitty situation, look at Colts the following year of Manning's injury, or the games with Rahim Moore...seems like he was working with one of the worst casts as well) - Brees has been to 1 Super Bowl in 13 seasons, and furthermore he's lost against the mighty 7-9 Seahawks, blown out by the Grossman Bears 39-14, the Alex Smith led 49ers, and lost to the Jets at home. If the Vikings aren't screwed out of a game they completely should've won, do we look at Brees differently? Is he not just another QB who couldn't win when it mattered? It seems that way with how he's looked. It took him 13 seasons to get his first road playoff win - next week @ Seattle will be very telling of his legacy. I personally root for him because I think he's an excellent Quarterback, without a doubt in the top 10 Quarterbacks of all time ... but to place him above Elway is ludicrous, a guy who did more with less when you put it in the context of the era. The fact that the Chargers decided to let Brees go and have Rivers says a lot, and Rivers ended up putting comparable stats to Brees to 2008 - Brees offense got more ludicrous while Rivers suffered, but I just don't know how we can say Brees is the best of all time.
So yes, please tell me how the Ty Law Rules, enforced following the 2003 season, didn't directly impact Bree's legacy as a Quarterback. I made a big mistake saying he was the 3rd best of all time because I don't think I really believed it and after having this discussion with my brother, my dad, and reading any article I could find about Elway, Reeves, Brees, etc. I just don't see how anyone can consider Brees better - Elway has done so much more than Brees. Voters can get it wrong, but I don't think they are when they say Elway is the 1st team QB of the 90s ... they looked past the statistics and for once, I think you have to.
So I've basically spent 14 hours on telephone/in person arguing with my brother (33 years old) about the careers of Drew Brees vs John Elway. I know a lot of people here consider Brees the greatest of all time (or in the top 5) or maybe they just feel John Elway was an overrated Quarterback. I'm just going to throw every thing about Elway I can because context matters a lot. This is mostly the consensus me and my brother came to, take it for what it's worth, but I hope it says something to you.
So first - statistics:
I love statistics. They usually make or break an argument but statistics can easily be flawed. To be clear, DVOA helps measure which teams can beat which other teams. But using it as proof of something is flawed (see this ranking of defensive DVOA (yeah there are some...misplacements to say the least):
or this ranking of 2013 WRs (the guys throwing the ball don't matter apparently):
Turn to PFF - a site that prides itself on studying every play and you'll find they feel Keuchly is far from being DPoY this season or that they feel Stafford was the 4th best QB of this season or Ryan Tannehill, who was shut held to 9 points in 2 must win games vs the Bills/Jets was ranked 6th. The numbers and plays might say so - but you need to use the eye test.
PFF's Quarterback Ratings (Top 15)
1. Peyton Manning +44.3
2. Philip Rivers +25.5
3. Drew Brees +27.8
4. Matthew Stafford +16.7
5. Tom Brady +16.1
6. Ryan Tannehill +15.2
7. Josh McCown +14.3
8. Russell Wilson +14.1
9. Tony Romo +13.2
10. Aaron Rodgers +11.9
11. Ben Roethlisberger +11.6
12. Jay Cutler +10.0
13. Matt Ryan +8.2
14. Nick Foles +5.1
15. Andy Dalton +2.5
At the end of the day, then, we turn to the tangible statistics, the case against a guy like John Elway and the case for players like Drew Brees.
The flaw with these stats is we ignore context and what they mean. 30 years from now, people will begin ranking Karl Malone as the greatest basketball player of all time based on statistics without the context of who he was and why he has the stats he does.
I'm going to begin breaking down not just the stats, but the players themselves and why that context I keep talking about matters.
First, understand NFL passing changed in 2004 - The Ty Law rule completely changed how the refs called games and how defensive players played it. So most stats from the 80s and 90s are not going to impress anyone and this is particularly true in Elway's case. I'll start by showing Elway's season stats:
What surely sticks out are the 25% of seasons where Elway had more interceptions than touchdowns, along with 2 more seasons where he finished with 15 touchdowns or less. From this, even I would say Elway was a mediocre Quarterback who was carried by a team.
But let's stop and think about this. Elway's Broncos went to Super Bowls in 1986 (19/13), 87 (19/12), 89 (18/18) with him throwing 55% in those seasons. His team to 4 other playoff appearances before winning those final 2 Super Bowls, but focusing on all those playoff seasons, (let's also acknowledge in passing Elway's Broncos were a consistent threat - even the year's they didn't go were his rookie season of 4-6, a season of 11-5, a season of 8-7, a season of 5-11, a season of 8-4, a season of 7-7, and a season of 8-8. So Denver was a relevant team for 14/16 seasons basically) He had to have been carried by his team right?
Those are Elway's receivers from his first 5 playoff runs - does it begin to make sense why Elway's stats seemed mediocre?
Denver had a great defense but it begins to paint a picture when you realize Elway never played with a Pro Bowl offensive player (outside of running backs who made the Pro Bowl because players backed off of Elway and to prove it, name one of those halfbacks who "carried Elway") until Sharpe gets the nod in 1992. Ignore the stats - Elway was winning MVP in 1987. How is this possible? It's because of the story the stats don't tell - Elway was working with a coach who hated him and believed in a conservative offense that put Elway in situations where he would never put up the numbers of Joe Montana. Dan Reeves hates Elway? How could that be possible? - Maybe it has to do with the fact that Elway and OC Shanahan would script plays to start the games because Reeves style just didn't produce results. Maybe it has to do with the fact that Elway had an attitude problem. But it was clear and it's not like it's a hidden subject:
http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/coach_killers/john_elway_dan_reeves.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/1998/playoffs/news/1999/01/24/superbowl_feud/
http://juneauempire.com/stories/012499/Spo_past.shtml
Excerpt taken from above article:
---
I highly suggest reading those articles - with Shanahan - a coach everyone loves to say is garbage, Elway was thriving: what does that say about Reeves? So Elway was not in a west coast offense like Montana or like many of the Quarterbacks of today. He wasn't running a playbook that consisted of using short passes as runs. The Reeves playbook was Run, Run, Pass on 3rd and long. That's just how it was. And Elway carried teams where literally Vance Johnson was the best receiver on the team to multiple AFC titles.
It's almost amazing to me that Elway is hated on so much - statistics punish him for having bad teammates. Regrettably I've done this and have ignored just how excellent guys like Elway and Roethlisberger have played in their careers. They are consistently punished for having solid defenses without great talent around them offensively. As a Ravens fan, how many times have I seen Big Ben escape 3 sacks and extend a play for a 1st down on a third down? Probably 100 times too many. Now imagine Elway doing this, except when he fires that missile down the field, Vance Johnson or god forbid Ricky Nattiel is under it and they drop it. Give Elway Jerry Rice or Roger Craig, give him Andre Reed, give him Michael Irvin, etc along with a coach like Walsh and then put him in a west coast offense and tell me that Elway drags those guys down. He went to 3 super bowls with these guys! Fun Fact about Dan Marino, people don't like to mention he played with what was considered the best WR duo in Clayton/Duper for his best years. Let's give Elway them and see how he does.
Elway took the best of a bad situation - a conservative coach who wanted to sit on his defense and just run run run and he won them multiple AFC titles. Elway was doing this in AFC championship games:
So we laugh at his completion percentage but is it not easier to build your percentage up in the west coast offenses of today where you use the short pass as a run? Is there an idea that Elway couldn't do this? He pleaded with Reeves to run it and Reeves decided not to! Yes, I imagine throwing on 3rd and long is much harder to do than on 2nd and 3. That's just how it is. There was definitely no one tougher than Elway and I feel that he isn't credited enough for that.
This is how physical the game was - ignoring that he played in an offense where he wasn't in a favorable situation, trying to attribute cold statistics to a game where passing and how players played were so radically different to today (do you think people were fined for hits like that throughout the NFL's history?). I realize I'm using an old clip to prove my point (and there was a flag), but that is just how the players were and it required a different type of stamina. It's not something measured in completion percentage or YPA but it's a factor we ignore because history doesn't look at it.
But it doesn't excuse Elway compared to the other greats of his era right? Well let's look more carefully. Establishing Reeves as an Elway hater (need more proof?
1993 Denver Passing
(3rd in completion%, 3rd in TDs)
1994 Denver Passing
(6th in completion%, 18th in TDs)
1995 Denver Passing
(11th in completion%, 8th in TDs)
1996 Denver Passing
(4th in completion%, 5th in Passing TDs)
(18th in completion%, 4th in Passing TDs)
(5th in completion%, 5th in Passing TDs)
---
If you're not clear on why 96-98 lists team offense, it's because Denver was quite frankly the best offensive team those 3 years thanks to finally acquiring talent to surround Elway with. They were top 5 in passing TDs all 3 of those years despite the fact that TD had 13, 15, and then 21 RUSHING touchdowns. So can the myth end now about Elway being a middle of the road Quarterback compared to his peers? Out of his prime, 35+ years old and the guy was leading the best offense in the NFL with an insane amount of points and Passing TDs. I ask again, can we give this guy Jerry Rice and see what he does?
Instead of looking at just the numbers, ask yourself these questions:
Why was Elway chosen as the 1st Team QB of the 1990s Hall of Fame All Decade Team?
Why was Elway consistently ranked as the toughest and the best by his peers, why did he go to 9 Pro Bowls?
Why was he the 1987 MVP despite not having the best numbers?
We ignore context of who he played with instead of looking at how every single person who watched this era and was a part of this era talks about how unbelievable Elway was. If Elway was carried by his teammates, why are they not making Pro Bowls? Why do we believe his coaches to be jokes? Why can't we even name 1 teammate he had until Sharpe?
I'm not sure what more to add, he played for a coach who hated him, tried to trade him, even drafted Tommy Maddox in the 1st round rather than give Elway some type of offensive talent to work with. Is this even a question? Elway was undeniably one of the top 5 quarterbacks of all time who was hindered only by the players surrounding him. What Quarterback did more with less? Why is Elway not just top 5 but number 1 on so many top 10 lists if his numbers say otherwise (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/lists/top-10-qbs-all-time#photo-title=John+Elway&photo=10893561) doesn't that say something?
Here's the problem with Drew Brees - He has only made the playoffs 6/13 seasons where he has mostly worked with an offensive genius as his coach in Sean Payton (acknowledged by pretty much everyone to be a top 5 coach in the NFL, Brees led the league in interceptions last year with Payton suspended). He was working with talent like Joe Horn and Colston and Bush, and now talent like Jimmy Graham and Pierre "Lead all RBs in receptions" Thomas. He got to work with constant MVP LT and one of the all time great Tight Ends in Antonio Gates in San Diego. He has had a who's who of good-great offensive players to work with. So why do we credit him for touchdowns thrown and for his completion percentage? We've seen him without Payton - 1 playoff appearance out of 5 "I'm the starter" seasons.
But more importantly, we see the Saints style of offense - they prefer to use the passing game as a running game, not only inflating his completion percentage, but actively using the red zone as a way for Brees to pass it in. Elway's Broncos RAN the ball in all the time, why is he punished for not putting up the ridiculous passing touchdown stats of Brees simply because the Saints offense allows him to score more from close range rather than settling into a running game.
As far as Brees in the playoffs, when he gets there he is good, but is there really an excuse for his performances? We criticize Elway based on super bowls and ignore his divisional stats and conference title stats. Apparently they meant nothing and I think it's harsh we criticize Manning for constantly making the playoffs and losing, wake me up when Brees starts constantly making the playoffs (this is why I have Manning above Elway on my QB list, the consistency of Manning is unheard of and he's been in a pretty shitty situation, look at Colts the following year of Manning's injury, or the games with Rahim Moore...seems like he was working with one of the worst casts as well) - Brees has been to 1 Super Bowl in 13 seasons, and furthermore he's lost against the mighty 7-9 Seahawks, blown out by the Grossman Bears 39-14, the Alex Smith led 49ers, and lost to the Jets at home. If the Vikings aren't screwed out of a game they completely should've won, do we look at Brees differently? Is he not just another QB who couldn't win when it mattered? It seems that way with how he's looked. It took him 13 seasons to get his first road playoff win - next week @ Seattle will be very telling of his legacy. I personally root for him because I think he's an excellent Quarterback, without a doubt in the top 10 Quarterbacks of all time ... but to place him above Elway is ludicrous, a guy who did more with less when you put it in the context of the era. The fact that the Chargers decided to let Brees go and have Rivers says a lot, and Rivers ended up putting comparable stats to Brees to 2008 - Brees offense got more ludicrous while Rivers suffered, but I just don't know how we can say Brees is the best of all time.
So yes, please tell me how the Ty Law Rules, enforced following the 2003 season, didn't directly impact Bree's legacy as a Quarterback. I made a big mistake saying he was the 3rd best of all time because I don't think I really believed it and after having this discussion with my brother, my dad, and reading any article I could find about Elway, Reeves, Brees, etc. I just don't see how anyone can consider Brees better - Elway has done so much more than Brees. Voters can get it wrong, but I don't think they are when they say Elway is the 1st team QB of the 90s ... they looked past the statistics and for once, I think you have to.
Having read all of that post I have only a few things to say
The Ty Law Rule wasn't a new rule... it was just a stricter enforcement of the Mel Blount rule... implemented in 1978. Guess what went from being a fresh, new, smart, and interesting approach to being mind-crushingly great after 1978 and into the 80s? Walsh's West Coast Offense. Weeeeeeeeeeee.
And about the stats in the 80s... I'm 90% sure that Joe Montana has almost the exact same average stats as Drew Brees over his career, and that was way back in the mythic 80s where defenses were tough and their biceps wore manly moustaches. So, either defenses today are just as good as they were back then (relative to the offenses) despite rule "changes" OR Montana is a transcendent god.
Frankly, I'm inclined to believe that it's the former more than the latter. Montana is still fantastically amazing in so many regards, but I don't think he was so good that he was capable of casually putting up numbers equivalent to those of today if we're assuming today has significantly more hindered defenses. Really the offensive number creep in the recent years is, I think, more due to coaches effectively "solving" the game, and progressively finding more and more efficient ways to run offenses. Yes, stricter enforcement of a handful of rules isn't helping but it's not nearly as crippling as people make it out to be. And barring significant rule changes/additions that would somehow create a win condition for out defensing the other team with 0 production from both offenses, Football will always by necessity have offensive number power creep so this trend isn't at all surprising.
THAT ALL SAID: We can't blame all the other people not named Montana in the 80s for not using efficient passing plays, because that's the coaches fault and not the player's, however that does muddy up the "context" of a ton of shenanigans.
Now I don't actually know enough about Elway's performances or the Broncos teams to try and seriously argue one way or another for Brees or Elway, but I think it's a ton closer than you seem to be making it.
The Ty Law Rule wasn't a new rule... it was just a stricter enforcement of the Mel Blount rule... implemented in 1978. Guess what went from being a fresh, new, smart, and interesting approach to being mind-crushingly great after 1978 and into the 80s? Walsh's West Coast Offense. Weeeeeeeeeeee.
And about the stats in the 80s... I'm 90% sure that Joe Montana has almost the exact same average stats as Drew Brees over his career, and that was way back in the mythic 80s where defenses were tough and their biceps wore manly moustaches. So, either defenses today are just as good as they were back then (relative to the offenses) despite rule "changes" OR Montana is a transcendent god.
Frankly, I'm inclined to believe that it's the former more than the latter. Montana is still fantastically amazing in so many regards, but I don't think he was so good that he was capable of casually putting up numbers equivalent to those of today if we're assuming today has significantly more hindered defenses. Really the offensive number creep in the recent years is, I think, more due to coaches effectively "solving" the game, and progressively finding more and more efficient ways to run offenses. Yes, stricter enforcement of a handful of rules isn't helping but it's not nearly as crippling as people make it out to be. And barring significant rule changes/additions that would somehow create a win condition for out defensing the other team with 0 production from both offenses, Football will always by necessity have offensive number power creep so this trend isn't at all surprising.
THAT ALL SAID: We can't blame all the other people not named Montana in the 80s for not using efficient passing plays, because that's the coaches fault and not the player's, however that does muddy up the "context" of a ton of shenanigans.
Now I don't actually know enough about Elway's performances or the Broncos teams to try and seriously argue one way or another for Brees or Elway, but I think it's a ton closer than you seem to be making it.
let's be real, the ty law rule may have been around as illegal contact, but it wasn't being enforced strictly until after that 2003 season...i don't think it's comparable to how the rule was previously enforced, even if it was introduced.
some problems with your theory include montana breaking 20 tds only 6 times in his career, brees has done it 10 times (brees has thrown for more than 30 tds 6 times actually compared to montana's 1) as well as montana never eclipsing 4000 yards passing in a season once! brees has not only done it 7 times, but now has thrown for 5000 yards 4 seasons
now, if you want to say nfl has simply gotten more illegitimate as we've moved on through the years that's fine, however there is obviously an issue if i point to a random year like 2007 and mention that montana's career high in passing yards would have ranked 9th that season - his career high in tds (31) would only have been good for 6th that same season. my question to you is this - is montana really overrated if he was playing comparable defenses for what offenses play today and only putting in "top 5 stats"? by your own logic, he's playing with hofers and an offensive minded coach and only putting up these stats under similar rules vs defenses comparable to today.
i think maybe you're remembering montana's stats as godlike but imo only eclipsing 30 tds once (with jerry rice catching 22 of them that season) isn't anywhere near as impressive as the numbers qb put out today. one of the things that set montana apart is 4 super bowl rings and how consistently good he is so he's kind of a different beast here anyway BUT in his era, his numbers were solid.
maybe im just not understanding your argument but ill put a disclaimer that elway vs brees isn't as far apart as you may think i'm saying, i have both in the top 10, but elway is a tier higher
some problems with your theory include montana breaking 20 tds only 6 times in his career, brees has done it 10 times (brees has thrown for more than 30 tds 6 times actually compared to montana's 1) as well as montana never eclipsing 4000 yards passing in a season once! brees has not only done it 7 times, but now has thrown for 5000 yards 4 seasons
now, if you want to say nfl has simply gotten more illegitimate as we've moved on through the years that's fine, however there is obviously an issue if i point to a random year like 2007 and mention that montana's career high in passing yards would have ranked 9th that season - his career high in tds (31) would only have been good for 6th that same season. my question to you is this - is montana really overrated if he was playing comparable defenses for what offenses play today and only putting in "top 5 stats"? by your own logic, he's playing with hofers and an offensive minded coach and only putting up these stats under similar rules vs defenses comparable to today.
i think maybe you're remembering montana's stats as godlike but imo only eclipsing 30 tds once (with jerry rice catching 22 of them that season) isn't anywhere near as impressive as the numbers qb put out today. one of the things that set montana apart is 4 super bowl rings and how consistently good he is so he's kind of a different beast here anyway BUT in his era, his numbers were solid.
maybe im just not understanding your argument but ill put a disclaimer that elway vs brees isn't as far apart as you may think i'm saying, i have both in the top 10, but elway is a tier higher
For me, Elway is top five, Brees is top ten.
- Status