Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Elway being called a bust eight years into his career with a league MVP award and three Super Bowl appearances is a new one for me.

Did I ever call Starr mediocre? I said I don't mind him at all on the nominees list, and he's certainly a worthy HOFer, but nowhere near top 10. In fact, given what I said previously about game-managers, I'd say Starr was the closest example we've seen so far to a great one. If he had kept up his level of play in his 4 or 5 most efficient seasons on a regular basis, I'd probably consider him top 10, because averaging something like 60% comp and 15/5 TD/INT per year in the 60s is legitimately impressive. But he wasn't always that guy, and being at an inherent disadvantage as a game-manager with low attempts, he needed to be that guy over a long time span to be an all-time great on the level of the top 10.

With regard to Elway, and Starr too to a lesser degree, there's an extremely significant point everyone is missing when citing contemporary perceptions of Elway vs. Marino, etc.: all of these guys played before the popularization of fantasy football, which brought about a stark improvement in player analysis and a general paradigm shift toward objectivity in perceptions of players. Casual fans as recently as the mid 90s barely paid attention to stats, but nowadays almost everyone does, and the award voters' trends have followed the same pattern. Particularly for quarterbacks, this has caused a radical improvement in the analytical abilities of the average football watcher, and they know when a quarterback stinks even when they're winning. Case in point, average to terrible "franchise" QBs were relatively beloved before about 2000; Jack Kemp was showered with awards for winning games in spite of himself, and even Dan Pastorini, who mind you was a bona-fide scrub, isn't remembered particularly unfondly in Houston. 80s John Elway is not exempt from this group. Today, however, similar analogues like Joe Flacco, Jay Cutler, and Andy Dalton are recognized as the walking mediocrity they are, as have bad SB winners like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, and 2015 dead-arm Peyton, who in particular probably would have been hailed as a hero in 1985. Troy Aikman's career is that of Eli Manning, but shorter; he was seen as a first-ballot HOFer in the pre-fantasy era, but today? He wouldn't have a chance in hell, and that's great for the NFL. Aikman was the last of his kind and I'm glad they're gone; future versions of him will be cast off as ordinary. Players like this in the modern era have come under the criticism they deserve, and most well-informed analysts today do not think Eli has a good HOF case, although the traditionalists will probably force him in at some point. But QB evaluation has certainly changed for the better.

My point? We're currently operating under a different, much better standard of judging performance than we were in the 1980s. And because it is better, we should retroactively impose this standard on the quarterbacks who played back then too. I don't see anyone here doing it, and the standard that places Elway > Marino barely notices a difference between 5000 yards and 40 TDs versus 3000 and 20 as long as the latter "looks good" and wins games. The reason Elway pre-1993 wasn't considered a mild bust is because no one cared if he was average as long as the Broncos were good. This outlook is antiquated and empirically inferior, and it's hard to take anything being said about Elway here seriously because it's all philosophically stuck in the 1980s. Put it this way: Marino would be a first-ballot HOFer in any era; his 1984 adjusts to about 6000 and 60 in 2019 stats, and about 4000 and 40 in 1966 stats. But if Elway played today and with his numbers also adjusted accordingly, I could imagine him struggling to make it, with a resume looking a lot like Ben Roethlisberger. If typical football fans had been as analytically conscious during Elway's and Marino's careers as they are now, there'd be absolutely zero doubt which was greater. To anyone who's tempted to lament this development, go get a fantasy team.

Oh, and as regards playoff performance, Elway's career playoff passer rating was exactly the same as his career regular season rating. Marino's was slightly lower, but he balled out in a couple playoffs in a way Elway never quite did. 1984, predictably, was one of them. The man was transcendent, and if people didn't really care that much back then, we still have every right to care retroactively now. Try putting Elway and transcendent in the same sentence and we can talk.

You didn't call Starr mediocre. You called him erratic.

"But it was too erratic for my taste. There were plenty of years where his efficiency was below league average."
Not sure how you're defining efficiency. Passer rating? In the 14 years he played at least half the season Starr was above league average in passer rating in 11 of them (1958, 1967, and 1970.)
Yards per attempt? He was above the league average for 11 straight seasons.
Completion percentage? Above league average in 12 of the 14 seasons. And 1967's numbers were swayed by the first two games when he was picked off 9 times. He only had 8 more interceptions the rest of the year.

I'm really not sure where you're getting that from.

JameisLoseston wrote: With regard to Elway, and Starr too to a lesser degree, there's an extremely significant point everyone is missing when citing contemporary perceptions of Elway vs. Marino, etc.: all of these guys played before the popularization of fantasy football, which brought about a stark improvement in player analysis and a general paradigm shift toward objectivity in perceptions of players. Casual fans as recently as the mid 90s barely paid attention to stats, but nowadays almost everyone does, and the award voters' trends have followed the same pattern. Particularly for quarterbacks, this has caused a radical improvement in the analytical abilities of the average football watcher, and they know when a quarterback stinks even when they're winning. Case in point, average to terrible "franchise" QBs were relatively beloved before about 2000; Jack Kemp was showered with awards for winning games in spite of himself, and even Dan Pastorini, who mind you was a bona-fide scrub, isn't remembered particularly unfondly in Houston. 80s John Elway is not exempt from this group. Today, however, similar analogues like Joe Flacco, Jay Cutler, and Andy Dalton are recognized as the walking mediocrity they are, as have bad SB winners like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, and 2015 dead-arm Peyton, who in particular probably would have been hailed as a hero in 1985. Troy Aikman's career is that of Eli Manning, but shorter; he was seen as a first-ballot HOFer in the pre-fantasy era, but today? He wouldn't have a chance in hell, and that's great for the NFL. Aikman was the last of his kind and I'm glad they're gone; future versions of him will be cast off as ordinary. Players like this in the modern era have come under the criticism they deserve, and most well-informed analysts today do not think Eli has a good HOF case, although the traditionalists will probably force him in at some point. But QB evaluation has certainly changed for the better.

My point? We're currently operating under a different, much better standard of judging performance than we were in the 1980s. And because it is better, we should retroactively impose this standard on the quarterbacks who played back then too. I don't see anyone here doing it, and the standard that places Elway > Marino barely notices a difference between 5000 yards and 40 TDs versus 3000 and 20 as long as the latter "looks good" and wins games. The reason Elway pre-1993 wasn't considered a mild bust is because no one cared if he was average as long as the Broncos were good. This outlook is antiquated and empirically inferior, and it's hard to take anything being said about Elway here seriously because it's all philosophically stuck in the 1980s. Put it this way: Marino would be a first-ballot HOFer in any era; his 1984 adjusts to about 6000 and 60 in 2019 stats, and about 4000 and 40 in 1966 stats. But if Elway played today and with his numbers also adjusted accordingly, I could imagine him struggling to make it, with a resume looking a lot like Ben Roethlisberger. If typical football fans had been as analytically conscious during Elway's and Marino's careers as they are now, there'd be absolutely zero doubt which was greater. To anyone who's tempted to lament this development, go get a fantasy team.

Oh, and as regards playoff performance, Elway's career playoff passer rating was exactly the same as his career regular season rating. Marino's was slightly lower, but he balled out in a couple playoffs in a way Elway never quite did. 1984, predictably, was one of them. The man was transcendent, and if people didn't really care that much back then, we still have every right to care retroactively now. Try putting Elway and transcendent in the same sentence and we can talk.

Revisionist history at it's best. I'm not buying into the 21st century fantasy stat mindset. Calling John Elway a draft bust as late as 1991 or saying that he was mediocre during the 1980's is completely ridiculous.

JameisLoseston wrote:Starr ain't getting in if they have sense either, dude was terribly inconsistent. I know they're going to pick some overrated piece of mediocrity like this though, because they're terrible, God bless em.

I was referencing your first post about Starr in my reply as well.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but calling Starr erratic and Elway a bust for the first half of his career is just plain wrong. It’s entirely reasonable to prefer Marino over Elway but don’t misrepresent the facts when presenting your argument.

Retro Rider wrote:

JameisLoseston wrote: With regard to Elway, and Starr too to a lesser degree, there's an extremely significant point everyone is missing when citing contemporary perceptions of Elway vs. Marino, etc.: all of these guys played before the popularization of fantasy football, which brought about a stark improvement in player analysis and a general paradigm shift toward objectivity in perceptions of players. Casual fans as recently as the mid 90s barely paid attention to stats, but nowadays almost everyone does, and the award voters' trends have followed the same pattern. Particularly for quarterbacks, this has caused a radical improvement in the analytical abilities of the average football watcher, and they know when a quarterback stinks even when they're winning. Case in point, average to terrible "franchise" QBs were relatively beloved before about 2000; Jack Kemp was showered with awards for winning games in spite of himself, and even Dan Pastorini, who mind you was a bona-fide scrub, isn't remembered particularly unfondly in Houston. 80s John Elway is not exempt from this group. Today, however, similar analogues like Joe Flacco, Jay Cutler, and Andy Dalton are recognized as the walking mediocrity they are, as have bad SB winners like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, and 2015 dead-arm Peyton, who in particular probably would have been hailed as a hero in 1985. Troy Aikman's career is that of Eli Manning, but shorter; he was seen as a first-ballot HOFer in the pre-fantasy era, but today? He wouldn't have a chance in hell, and that's great for the NFL. Aikman was the last of his kind and I'm glad they're gone; future versions of him will be cast off as ordinary. Players like this in the modern era have come under the criticism they deserve, and most well-informed analysts today do not think Eli has a good HOF case, although the traditionalists will probably force him in at some point. But QB evaluation has certainly changed for the better.

My point? We're currently operating under a different, much better standard of judging performance than we were in the 1980s. And because it is better, we should retroactively impose this standard on the quarterbacks who played back then too. I don't see anyone here doing it, and the standard that places Elway > Marino barely notices a difference between 5000 yards and 40 TDs versus 3000 and 20 as long as the latter "looks good" and wins games. The reason Elway pre-1993 wasn't considered a mild bust is because no one cared if he was average as long as the Broncos were good. This outlook is antiquated and empirically inferior, and it's hard to take anything being said about Elway here seriously because it's all philosophically stuck in the 1980s. Put it this way: Marino would be a first-ballot HOFer in any era; his 1984 adjusts to about 6000 and 60 in 2019 stats, and about 4000 and 40 in 1966 stats. But if Elway played today and with his numbers also adjusted accordingly, I could imagine him struggling to make it, with a resume looking a lot like Ben Roethlisberger. If typical football fans had been as analytically conscious during Elway's and Marino's careers as they are now, there'd be absolutely zero doubt which was greater. To anyone who's tempted to lament this development, go get a fantasy team.

Oh, and as regards playoff performance, Elway's career playoff passer rating was exactly the same as his career regular season rating. Marino's was slightly lower, but he balled out in a couple playoffs in a way Elway never quite did. 1984, predictably, was one of them. The man was transcendent, and if people didn't really care that much back then, we still have every right to care retroactively now. Try putting Elway and transcendent in the same sentence and we can talk.

Revisionist history at it's best. I'm not buying into the 21st century fantasy stat mindset. Calling John Elway a draft bust as late as 1991 or saying that he was mediocre during the 1980's is completely ridiculous.

Agreed. The stats QB's put up today aren't that impressive because the owners and the TV networks are going too far out of their way to cater to offense. Joe Namath's 4,000 yard season in the 60's is way more impressive than the numbers that QB's put up now. I don't think that Brady, Brees, or even Peyton should be considered for GOAT with the advantages that they have.

In contrast, Elway spent the first 10 years of his career in the antiquated Dallas offense, an offense that wasn't geared toward big stats.

7DnBrnc53 wrote:

Retro Rider wrote:

JameisLoseston wrote: With regard to Elway, and Starr too to a lesser degree, there's an extremely significant point everyone is missing when citing contemporary perceptions of Elway vs. Marino, etc.: all of these guys played before the popularization of fantasy football, which brought about a stark improvement in player analysis and a general paradigm shift toward objectivity in perceptions of players. Casual fans as recently as the mid 90s barely paid attention to stats, but nowadays almost everyone does, and the award voters' trends have followed the same pattern. Particularly for quarterbacks, this has caused a radical improvement in the analytical abilities of the average football watcher, and they know when a quarterback stinks even when they're winning. Case in point, average to terrible "franchise" QBs were relatively beloved before about 2000; Jack Kemp was showered with awards for winning games in spite of himself, and even Dan Pastorini, who mind you was a bona-fide scrub, isn't remembered particularly unfondly in Houston. 80s John Elway is not exempt from this group. Today, however, similar analogues like Joe Flacco, Jay Cutler, and Andy Dalton are recognized as the walking mediocrity they are, as have bad SB winners like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, and 2015 dead-arm Peyton, who in particular probably would have been hailed as a hero in 1985. Troy Aikman's career is that of Eli Manning, but shorter; he was seen as a first-ballot HOFer in the pre-fantasy era, but today? He wouldn't have a chance in hell, and that's great for the NFL. Aikman was the last of his kind and I'm glad they're gone; future versions of him will be cast off as ordinary. Players like this in the modern era have come under the criticism they deserve, and most well-informed analysts today do not think Eli has a good HOF case, although the traditionalists will probably force him in at some point. But QB evaluation has certainly changed for the better.

My point? We're currently operating under a different, much better standard of judging performance than we were in the 1980s. And because it is better, we should retroactively impose this standard on the quarterbacks who played back then too. I don't see anyone here doing it, and the standard that places Elway > Marino barely notices a difference between 5000 yards and 40 TDs versus 3000 and 20 as long as the latter "looks good" and wins games. The reason Elway pre-1993 wasn't considered a mild bust is because no one cared if he was average as long as the Broncos were good. This outlook is antiquated and empirically inferior, and it's hard to take anything being said about Elway here seriously because it's all philosophically stuck in the 1980s. Put it this way: Marino would be a first-ballot HOFer in any era; his 1984 adjusts to about 6000 and 60 in 2019 stats, and about 4000 and 40 in 1966 stats. But if Elway played today and with his numbers also adjusted accordingly, I could imagine him struggling to make it, with a resume looking a lot like Ben Roethlisberger. If typical football fans had been as analytically conscious during Elway's and Marino's careers as they are now, there'd be absolutely zero doubt which was greater. To anyone who's tempted to lament this development, go get a fantasy team.

Oh, and as regards playoff performance, Elway's career playoff passer rating was exactly the same as his career regular season rating. Marino's was slightly lower, but he balled out in a couple playoffs in a way Elway never quite did. 1984, predictably, was one of them. The man was transcendent, and if people didn't really care that much back then, we still have every right to care retroactively now. Try putting Elway and transcendent in the same sentence and we can talk.

Revisionist history at it's best. I'm not buying into the 21st century fantasy stat mindset. Calling John Elway a draft bust as late as 1991 or saying that he was mediocre during the 1980's is completely ridiculous.

Agreed. The stats QB's put up today aren't that impressive because the owners and the TV networks are going too far out of their way to cater to offense. Joe Namath's 4,000 yard season in the 60's is way more impressive than the numbers that QB's put up now. I don't think that Brady, Brees, or even Peyton should be considered for GOAT with the advantages that they have.

In contrast, Elway spent the first 10 years of his career in the antiquated Dallas offense, an offense that wasn't geared toward big stats.

I apologize if someone else has mentioned it, but a big advantage QBs today have is throwing to receivers with form-fitting gloves made for catching the football. And in all kinds of weather.

SixtiesFan wrote: I apologize if someone else has mentioned it, but a big advantage QBs today have is throwing to receivers with form-fitting gloves made for catching the football. And in all kinds of weather.

Not to mention... Domes.
I don't know how many games Baugh, Graham and Unitas (and Luckman, et al) played indoors...

(Just as I was about to hit submit it occurred to me to ask: For a QB like Brees [or anyone who plays home games in a dome] I wonder what percentage of games they've played in under inclement weather)

rewing84 wrote:is it possible that van brocklin doesnt make the final cut

This post and reading the Elway v. Marino debate reminded me of the debate about Graham v. Van Brocklin several years ago that originated from their wisdom of crowds QB ranking: http://www.footballperspective.com/grea ... wds-recap/. The top 10 were:

Manning, Montana, Brady, Unitas, Marino, Young, Favre, Elway, Graham, and Staubach.