Your Unpopular Football Opinions

[James]

Why Graham over Unitas in your opinion?

And any 21st century quarterbacks you’d take over Tom Brady?

To me, Otto Graham is the greatest ever! From 1946-1955 he led the Browns to 10 straight title games and went 7-3. The 1948 Browns went undefeated. I would also take Montana barely over Unitas.

I wouldn't take any 21st century quarterback over Brady.

Who would the best quarterback whose prime was primarily in the 70’s be for you? And how about the 90’s?

The 1970's is a tough one as that was when I grew up with and fell in love with football. Probably my favorite QB as a kid in the 1970's was Bob Griese. He was dead accurate. I also liked Staubach, Tarkenton, Bradshaw, Pastorini. It's hard to pick the best QB in the 70's, but if I had to I would probably go with Bob Griese.

The 90's is really tough. probably a toss up between Montana/Young, & Troy Aikman.

[conace21]

Wow, uh, I don't think this opinion is shared by a lot of people.

I think a lot more knowledgeable people would share that opinion than the opinion that the 1996 Packers are one of the two worst Super Bowl winners of all time. I think the majority of people on here (lurkers and posters alike) would rate them closer to one of the two best Super Bowl champions.

Favre was at the top of his game. He was the best QB in the NFL, and it wasn't close. He may have been overrated later in his career, but he sure wasn't overrated here. He was brilliant, had mastered Holmgren's offense, and he reigned in most of his heroball tendencies. Even his INT % was tied for the third lowest in the NFL that season.

They weren't a great rushing team for most of the 1996 season, but they stepped up in December and January, rushing for over 200 yards in the regular season finale, and the NFCCG.

They didn't have any stars at CB or LB, but considering that the Packers allowed both the fewest yards and fewest points, I certainly wouldn't consider them weak at those positions. They had solid players: Doug Evans, George Koonce, and Brian Williams all had 8+ year careers. (Craig Newsome's career ended prematurely because of injuries. Wayne Simmons had disciplinary and off-field issues that ended his 7 year career.)

[SeahawkFever]

I don’t know if this is the right forum (i.e. How unpopular this opinion is)

But one thing I’ve been thinking lately is that Dan Reeves in the 80’s could’ve coached the Rams better than he did the Broncos.

I’ve heard people say he emphasized the run game offensively, and if so, then I think a team with arguably the best running back in the league and a good offensive line from the looks of it would’ve probably been a better fit.

I’ve also heard some say that he held John Elway back in his first nine seasons or so.

[7DnBrnc53]

I do NOT think Brady is the greatest of all-time. That would be Otto Graham. Joe Montana & Johnny Unitas are second. I've thought that for a few years now.

Otto Graham is an example of how the QB position has been blown out of all proportion. So are Montana and Brady.

Football is about matchups and schematics, not stats and rings.

Guys like Graham, Montana, and Brady were in strong organizations with great coaches that set them up for success. I don't know why they get the credit they do.

What Elway did in the 80's was more impressive. He took those teams to the SB kicking and screaming despite playing in an antiquated system.

[SeahawkFever]

I do NOT think Brady is the greatest of all-time. That would be Otto Graham. Joe Montana & Johnny Unitas are second. I've thought that for a few years now.

Otto Graham is an example of how the QB position has been blown out of all proportion. So are Montana and Brady.

Football is about matchups and schematics, not stats and rings.

Guys like Graham, Montana, and Brady were in strong organizations with great coaches that set them up for success. I don't know why they get the credit they do.

What Elway did in the 80's was more impressive. He took those teams to the SB kicking and screaming despite playing in an antiquated system.

Could that antiquated system that Dan Reeves ran have been better suited for the years he played in as opposed to those he coached in?

And could the Rams in the 80’s have been a better fit for the way he coached?

[Brian wolf]

Reeves learned his system from Landry, he didnt have Landry's overrall talent on the Broncos. Watching Staubach for years, he probably wanted Elway to be more instinctive himself, with the game on the line, something Landry had to accept from Roger, who didnt always want to run his play calls anyway.

I dont agree with Reeves with the Rams. John Robinson loved the I formation for Dickerson with a run-blocking line. Once Dickerson wanted more money and left, Robinson gave in to a Sid Gillman-Don Coryell styled offense. He had the receiver for it in Ellard.

[SeahawkFever]

Reeves learned his system from Landry, he didnt have Landry's overrall talent on the Broncos. Watching Staubach for years, he probably wanted Elway to be more instinctive himself, with the game on the line, something Landry had to accept from Roger, who didnt always want to run his play calls anyway.

I dont agree with Reeves with the Rams. John Robinson loved the I formation for Dickerson with a run-blocking line. Once Dickerson wanted more money and left, Robinson gave in to a Sid Gillman-Don Coryell styled offense. He had the receiver for it in Ellard.

To clarify I’m not saying the Rams would have made the Super Bowl or anything in that NFC (probably a similar result), but given that it seems that people imply that Dan Reeves liked to run the ball too much, I think giving him a team with the best running back in the league could’ve done more for him than one of the few best quarterbacks in the league (at least on paper that sounds better).

Ellard from what I can tell was definitely a better receiver than anyone on those 80’s Bronco teams correct me if I’m wrong?

[Ten Minute Ticker]

I'm not sure why you're so determined to dump on a team that your heroes beat in the Super Bowl. The 1996 Packers were really, really good. The more energy you spend disputing that, the sillier you look.

First off, nobody in the NFL should be anyone's hero (unless they actually save their life somehow).

Second, maybe I shouldn't have went that far with Levens and Ahman Green, but I get a little fired up when I think about that game. The Broncos got no respect that week. On a documentary that was done recently about the 97 Broncos (local Denver station), DE Alfred Williams said that one of the Packers invited him to their victory party before the game. That's how much the Pack disrespected them. Williams went back, told the team, and he said that the resolve to win increased.

It's not only that. I get upset at how the NFC was perceived at the time (even those teams were overrated). Someone I talk football with said that the NFC champions got worse as the streak went on (even though they were considered to be God's gift to football).

So in your perceived lack of respect for the Broncos, you feel it’s the right play, on a website full of football historians that are going to call you out for it, to pay lack of respect back because you are butt hurt … almost 30 years later?

Okay.

I think enjoyment and analysis of all sports would be so much better if we’d stop worrying about perceived “lack of respect”. Most of it is asinine and players invent plenty of “lack of respect” as a motivating factor out of absolutely nothing much of the time.

[7DnBrnc53]

So in your perceived lack of respect for the Broncos, you feel it’s the right play, on a website full of football historians that are going to call you out for it, to pay lack of respect back because you are butt hurt … almost 30 years later?

Okay.

I think enjoyment and analysis of all sports would be so much better if we’d stop worrying about perceived “lack of respect”. Most of it is asinine and players invent plenty of “lack of respect” as a motivating factor out of absolutely nothing much of the time.

Huh? I don't think about this much. However, it is a fact that the Broncos really got spit on before that game because of the sins of the AFC's past (they were 14-point underdogs right after the Packers beat the 49ers). It wasn't just a perceived lack of respect (not that that doesn't happen from time to time. I agree on that).

[SeahawkFever]

So in your perceived lack of respect for the Broncos, you feel it’s the right play, on a website full of football historians that are going to call you out for it, to pay lack of respect back because you are butt hurt … almost 30 years later?

Okay.

I think enjoyment and analysis of all sports would be so much better if we’d stop worrying about perceived “lack of respect”. Most of it is asinine and players invent plenty of “lack of respect” as a motivating factor out of absolutely nothing much of the time.

Huh? I don't think about this much. However, it is a fact that the Broncos really got spit on before that game because of the sins of the AFC's past (they were 14-point underdogs right after the Packers beat the 49ers). It wasn't just a perceived lack of respect (not that that doesn't happen from time to time. I agree on that).

Looking at the matchup before knowing what happens I’m sort of surprised it would be 14 points. I would probably have favored Green Bay, but maybe by somewhere between 3 and 7.

They seem like a similar quality team on paper to what they were the previous year, but the 97 Broncos are much better than the 96 Patriots.

Given that, I could see why people would have been holding the streak against Denver. (Not sure how misrated either way those 80’s and 90’s NFC champions are in my book, but credit them for putting together a streak that we may never see the likes of again)