Sharky's NFL play of the week

[Aslan]

IMHO, Exoter is such a valuable asset to this forum that I would rue the day that something I have said would cause him to leave the website. He speaks with clarity, insight, knowledge and convincing argument about a number of topics. I personally look forward to hearing his opinions and experience on a number of things other than the NFL.

Too often, some of the brightest members of the board, members everyone can learn from, get frustrated with the necessary rules of the forum, or even the unnecessary ones-- that's always a matter of opinion. In a sense, forum members live at close quarters, sharing private AP knowledge born out of real life experience, and it takes more patience than most of us have at any given moment to tolerate what contradicts our own cherished beliefs and knowledge learned in the school of hard knocks. I hate to see it when some members force themselves into exile by not allowing the board to be run differently than they would have it if they were in charge. Not one of us could please everyone if we were running the board, but each of us should appreciate those who do run the board and realize that they are not doing it out of egotistical reasons, but because its the way they believe it should be run-- same as we would. I believe in calling a spade a spade, but not an idiot an idiot-- not even in veiled language. That for me is where it crosses the line. Friends do not embarrass each other-- save a man's pride and you will win a friend. Anyone who does not want a friendly forum where each of us can learn from the other does not belong here IMO. Our enemy is the casino, not each other.

[Exoter175]

I am not a fan of either team either. I do like the Seahawks team with the balance of O and great D and the unique threat of their offensive style. I like the Patriots too but it drives me crazy that people that don't understand football give Brady the credit for being lucky enough to be on a good team his entire career. Then it really drives me crazy when people try to compare stat for stat players in one era from another. If Brady played in Montana's day he would have been a mediocre QB. Back then it was about throwing further downfield when your receivers get mugged, you get slammed and the offense line had a tougher time dealing with the defenses. Brady's dink and dunk career would not have been enough to hold a starting job as QB in that era. Today the defense can't look at the QB funny or hit receivers or mug receivers. If any contact occurs Brady has a hissy fit and goes crying to the refs. The teams also played fewer playoff games and in 1978 the NFL went from a 14 game season to a 16 game season. So in the same number of years Brady will play 16.7% more games than players of an earlier era. Montana started his career right after the NFL went to the 16 game season. The real difference is that Montana would have been the best in either era and Brady only great in this era.

You have the debate about great QBs and stats talk about air yards because YAC is on the receiver more than the QB. Then someone always points out that Montana always hit his receivers in stride so they had a much better YAC due to this one of a kind QB super accurate passing. Brady's receivers have huge YAC stats but nobody says it is Brady's accuracy that helps with that like they do with Montana. Joe was just that good even in the twilight of is career. If there wasn't such a good QB as Young backing him up Joe probably would have finished his career in SF. There is no doubt in this era of p*ssy football designed to create huge offensive stats where they would not have been Brady is among the best. But in the era of manly football that was centered more on running and longer passing when Montana played I don't think Brady would have even stood out among the leagues QBs. It isn't a knock on Brady as much as an stating of fact. Brady can only play in this era and Montana will never get the chance to play in the current ridiculous offensive era. It is obvious to me Montana would be the best ever in this era and Brady would be average in Montana's era.

What an absolute load of shit T3, from top to bottom, quite honestly the worst and most ignorant post I think you've made on this forum.

For the last time, and I hope this sinks in at some point. If Bill Walsh, the father of the West Coast Offense (DINK AND DUNK) is your coach (Montana), you aren't in the "era" where the "dink and dunk wouldn't work", you began it and thrived on it. To say Brady wouldn't thrive under Bill Walsh is the biggest sack of dog excrement I've ever heard. That combination of QB and coach might have been the most dynamic there has EVER been.

Also, why are we talking about "Era" when both QB's played in the same era? Both played 16 game seasons in the "WCO" era, though Montana and Walsh were the originators of the offense, it quickly spread. So, in fact, Brady didn't play 16.7% more games than his ONLY competitor for GOAT.

The fact that you call Brady a "dink and dunk" QB, then go to say that only Joe, from the "dink and dunk" offense is the only QB who could thrive in "either" era, of which they are in the same era, and that the "dink and dunk" QB (Brady" wouldn't survive in the other (same) era, under the creator of the "dink and dunk" is absolute HORSE excrement. Furthermore, nobody said a SINGLE thing about YAC in argument between Brady and Montana, and to attempt to knock Brady on accuracy is silly, Brady is statistically PROVEN to be the more accurate passer.

What you are stating is indeed, NOT FACT, so please do not try to write it off as such T3, because you're making it really easy for a "Smart" football guy like myself to shoot holes through your "Facts" and "Arguments", to the point where I don't know why I even bother anymore because you're so "full of it" your eyes are brown and your are CLEARLY biased and closed-minded on this one that nothing "factual" will change your mind, even if EVERY fact rests on the side of Brady being the GOAT, not Joe.

Is Ex still posting trash about me. So juvenile. I haven't seen an Ex post in quite a while. I haven't referred to EX in the same amount of time.

Okay. Thats what I thought.

No offense here. I agree completely. That is why my ignore list is no longer empty. Norm doesn't like that kind of stuff here. I always try to keep Norm's forum the way he wants it. I feel bad when I fall short of that goal. Fortunately forums have the ignore feature so you don't have to deal with those that have no impulse control or tact. They work like a charm. I am sure both Ex and I made peoples' ignore list after the juvenile crap that went down. Sharky abandoning his annual thread of so many years really hurts when I think I had something to do with it. I suspect Norm will get around to dealing with the situation if it doesn't fix itself. Norm has the patience of a saint but eventually he will act if someone forces him to by their own actions and lack of self control when many members plead the offenders for it. Sorry guys. I have been out for a while and am embarrassed I didn't stop earlier. I guess some people have no shame.

Calls me juvenile, and then quotes someone chastising me to make an underhanded comment at it. Lets be honest here, T3. You've made more underhanded insults on this forum than anyone, including ZK. You "skirt" around the rules to avoid "trouble" then assume the mantle of "Judge and Jury" to speak on Norm's behalf, of which I am sure he does not appreciate one bit. Then you tell EVERYONE how you ignore me, only to make posts in DIRECT reference to my posts that you've been viewing while "ignoring" me, including a thread I created.

So seriously, quick with this passive aggressive, juvenile bullshit already. Sack up, be a man and get over it. Its okay to be wrong T3, as I've proven you to be here about 50+ times in this thread alone, the difference between "grown ups" is accepting that loss and moving on. Not acting like a 15 year old girl who just got dumped and finds every excuse to "name drop" her ex boyfriend and tell the whole world about how SHE broke up with him.

I mean, really.

PS, "speaking" for Norm, then brown nosing him, all the while trying to place blame on ME for your inability to accept a loss in and argument and MOVE ON is EXACTLY the reason why the both of us MIGHT be on people's ignore lists, or MIGHT (though I doubt) have a reason Sharky abandoned the thread. Truth be told, he's posted in it, he's posted on the forum, so I believe you're making it into a much bigger deal than it needs to be, or even could have been. On top of that, telling people you "suspect" Norm will "get around to fixing" things is again, out of line for you. What forum rules am I breaking T3? I've read nowhere on this forum that you are NOT allowed to make a rebuttal to someone who is insulting you (what you've been doing to me). You seem to forget that you were the one that started this in the first place, not I. Unlike you, however, I have absolutely ZERO care for the rules of the forum if I'm put into a position where I need to defend myself against an obvious aggressor, such as yourself. If Norm needs to "handle" that, by all means. Its pretty clear that the "issue" is you, and if forum members are indeed "leaving the forum" (which dates long before me), then perhaps you might be part of the issue, T3. I often find myself taking breaks from this forum because I can neither handle the frequency of your ignorance, nor the length of your windbag posts telling the world how you're ignoring me, while simultaneously refreshing the thread so you can click "view post" anytime I make a reply to your "subtle insults" disguised your rants, like this one.

IMHO, Exoter is such a valuable asset to this forum that I would rue the day that something I have said would cause him to leave the website. He speaks with clarity, insight, knowledge and convincing argument about a number of topics. I personally look forward to hearing his opinions and experience on a number of things other than the NFL.

Too often, some of the brightest members of the board, members everyone can learn from, get frustrated with the necessary rules of the forum, or even the unnecessary ones-- that's always a matter of opinion. In a sense, forum members live at close quarters, sharing private AP knowledge born out of real life experience, and it takes more patience than most of us have at any given moment to tolerate what contradicts our own cherished beliefs and knowledge learned in the school of hard knocks. I hate to see it when some members force themselves into exile by not allowing the board to be run differently than they would have it if they were in charge. Not one of us could please everyone if we were running the board, but each of us should appreciate those who do run the board and realize that they are not doing it out of egotistical reasons, but because its the way they believe it should be run-- same as we would. I believe in calling a spade a spade, but not an idiot an idiot-- not even in veiled language. That for me is where it crosses the line. Friends do not embarrass each other-- save a man's pride and you will win a friend. Anyone who does not want a friendly forum where each of us can learn from the other does not belong here IMO. Our enemy is the casino, not each other.

I appreciate the post, and our discussions Aslan. We do differ to a degree, however. While I too call a spade a spade, in life and on the forums, I won't hesitate to call an Idiot an Idiot if he or she is repeatedly insulting others, or myself in this case, from a wrong, incorrect, or biased approach at which they are trying to disguise bias as "fact" and then attempting to skew everything they can to prove themselves right, when its absolutely OBVIOUS that isn't the case.

I'm a very patient, very deliberate person. I help out where I can, when I can, and expect nothing in return. However, if you constantly, incessantly bug me with your bullshit (especially the kind that breaks 50,000 characters) I will absolutely make it clear on how I "view" you or your opinion you are trying to force feed others from your soapbox.

Apologies to Norm if he feels that I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself against T3. They say the most honest people tend to use more cuss words more frequently; I think its pretty clear where I fall on the honesty spectrum. If he doesn't like that I can't promise him I won't cuss or name call T3 when he's insulting or attacking me, then I respect his "rules" to ban me if he so desires. I don't "expect" that to happen or ever come to pass as Norm exercises more patience than a Mother of five, but if it should happen, I'm fully aware of my "guilt" in that.

[Math Demon]

Why do some NFL franchises perform horribly year after year? Is it because of poor draft, GM and coaching choices? Poor ownership philosophy and direction? Small media market? Non-supportive fan base? Poor geographical location? Highly-competitive or non-competitive division? What are the common threads for these seven (7) teams?
__

Here are the teams winning less than 42% of all their games since 2002 (32 NFL teams -- Divisional realignment).

1. Cleveland Browns: 1 playoff appearance since 2002 -- loss. Last appearance in playoffs = 2002 season. Last playoff win = 1994 season (21 seasons). 34.4% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: Sipe; leading rusher: Jim Brown; leading receiver: Ozzie Newsome
Current issues: Gordon, Manziel, Gilbert

2. Buffalo Bills: NO playoff appearances since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 1999 season. Last playoff win = 1995 season (20 seasons). 41.3% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: J Kelly; leading rusher: T Thomas; leading receiver: A Reed
Current issues: EJ Manuel, Vick

3. Detriot Lions: 2 playoff appearances since 2002 -- both losses. Last playoff win = 1991 season (24 seasons). 32.9% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: M Stafford; leading rusher: B Sanders; leading receiver: C Johnson

4. Washington Redskins: 4 playoff games in 3 seasons since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2012 season. Last playoff win = 2005 season (10 seasons). 39.2% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: J Theismann; leading rusher: J Riggins; leading receiver: A Monk

5. Oakland Raiders: 3 playoff games in 1 season since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2002 season. Last playoff win = 2002 season (13 seasons). 32.7% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: K Stabler; leading rusher: M Allen; leading receiver: Tim Brown

6. St. Louis Rams: 3 playoff games in 2 seasons since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2004 season. Last playoff win = 2004 season (11 seasons). 36.7% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: J Everett; leading rusher: S Jackson; leading receiver: I Bruce

7. Jacksonville Jaguars: 3 playoff games in 2 seasons since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2007 season. Last playoff win = 2007 season (8 seasons). 40.8% win percentage since 2002.


http://www.pro-football-reference.co...e/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...f/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...t/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...i/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...m/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...x/playoffs.htm

[Math Demon]

Thanks Tthree.

Does winning hinge on continuity in front-office and coaching staff? Seems to me that the most successful teams have long-tenured GM, scouts & personnel people, head coach and coaching staff, and oftentimes, owners.

Or maybe getting lucky in drafting (and trading) like Brady, Manning, Luck, Favre, Rodgers, Flacco, etc? On the opposite end, CLE & BUF seem to be wasting draft picks left-and-right.

The top 10 teams with regards to win percentage since 2002 are:
NE (75.6%), IND (67.5%), PIT (63.8%), GB (61.6%), BAL (58.7%), PHI (58.6%), DEN (58.4%), SD (57.3%), SEA (56.4%) & NO (55.5%).

[Exoter175]

]The younger crowd that doesn't understand the evolution of football[/SIZE] may have trouble understanding why this is so. Football has evolved over the years and the passing game has evolved as rule changes affect the passing games effectiveness. I can't blame younger people for being ignorant to the fact that you can't compare the stats from one era to the next on an equal basis. In Monatana's day a 60% completion rate was exceptional but today you won't hold a starting job if you don't have that. Today exceptional is a 70%+ completion rate. Montana came in right when a favorable rule change hit. The receivers used to be able to be hit downfield when running a pattern. In 1979 the league made it illegal to make contact beyond 5 yards. That set up Montana and many others to destroy the record book from the previous era. You just can't compare stat for stat. In 2003 a bunch of favorable rule changes starting to come into effect. These protected the QB and the receivers from more effective defensive play. The result is was another era set up for the players playing in it to destroy all the previous records. It is obvious a QB that did great in an era it was harder on QBs would excel with more favorable rules. But QBs that excel with the more favorable rules are not guaranteed to excel when the rules make it tougher. Those that saw play in the previous era or know enough about football historically have a pretty good sense for what it took.

Well anyway I can't blame the youngsters for their ignorance about football since they only know what they have seen in the last decade or so. But I did find an article that touches on why you can't compare stat for stat from one era to another. Comparing stat for stat is like going to a carny game based on BJ and thinking it is the same as BJ. Guess what. they took out the tens. All your stats the BJ strategies are based on BJ can't be used as stats in a game without tens. The same is true about the rule changes as football became a different game at various times in football history. Here is an article that will help the youngsters understand football better and how and when football became a different game as time passed. The author divdes football into 5 eras. Those that really know football may argue for more or fewer eras but this should help those that don't understand football very well from a historic standpoint become more educated if they understand football well enough to understand how, when and why the game changed as time passed. You rarely hear people throw out names of the greatest QBs of all time that played in eras before Montana's. I think Johnny Unitas, Y A Tittle and Sammy Baugh are among the best QBs from each era but you never hear these youngsters that think they know everything mention them. I guess they just don't understand the differences in each era of football and what exceptional stats were then. Some of the slow learners will read this link that explains a bit about the differences and still try to compare stat for stat from on era to another.

www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/brief-fact-filled-history-the-nfl-passing-game/6778/

Only prima donna glory hogs worry about their own stats. The best players do what makes the team have the best shot at winning. The best players do this and as things changed in the NFL, QBs passing went from not even having a designated passing position to only the best passing or rare situational passing to passing being a minor but significant part of the game to passing being the most frequent play. It wasn't a matter of QB abilities changing just what percentage of pass plays gave the team the best chance of winning and how much harder rule changes have made it for the defense to defend the pass. Even what is considered holding by a lineman has evolved over the years.

Yet another of your posts not directly quoting me, but attempting underhanded insults left and right.

Understand this, T3. I know more about the game, the history of the game, and how to play the game than you EVER will.

So while you might be older than I, you certainly ARE NOT more knowledgeable than I am about it. The irony here, is that I've LONG stated in this thread that you simply CANNOT compare arbitrary statistics from one guy to the next, and here you are supporting that statement, despite your COUNTLESS attempts to do just THAT. Very contradictory T3, I suppose you'll do what you will with statistics as long as you can find a way to bend them to "paint a pretty picture" of an absolutely ignorant argumentative standpoint.

PS, for the last god forsaken time, Montana did NOT play in a "different era" than Brady. They might be ~20 years apart from one another, but most of the same rules applied, same number of games applied, same defensive schemes applied, and considering he got to be the "front man" for Walsh's WCO, he basically pioneered the "dink and dunk" offense, to which you claim Brady is a "dink and dunk" guy, and couldn't have done the same in Joe's shoes, which is again, contradictory to your theory.

PS, there's plenty of guys from Joe's era in the top 35 (60% or better) "all time career passing percentage leaders". Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Rich Gannon, Brett Favre, and Troy Aikman ring a bell there. Then as you dig into the mid 90's-99, you've got Warner, Manning, Griese, Culpepper, Brad Johnson, Trent Green, Jeff Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Jon Kitna, and Steve McNair.

The reason I bring that up, however, is that you can look down that list of all of those names from Joe to Matt, and pick out a LARGE chunk of them that were products of WCO's, pioneered by Walsh and perfected under Montana. Of the top 15, 6 of those guys played in the NFL before the turn of the century.

While we're on it, though, lets go ahead and list the current starters/former starters in the NFL these few seasons below 60%, since you stated that 60% won't hold a starting job.

Matt Stafford, Cam Newton, Chad Henne, Eli Manning, Matt Cassel, Sam Bradford, Andrew Luck (The most surprising considering he's wildly regarded as the next "big" thing in the future of the QB position) Josh Freeman, Michael Vick, Mark Sanchez.

Why do some NFL franchises perform horribly year after year? Is it because of poor draft, GM and coaching choices? Poor ownership philosophy and direction? Small media market? Non-supportive fan base? Poor geographical location? Highly-competitive or non-competitive division? What are the common threads for these seven (7) teams?
__

Here are the teams winning less than 42% of all their games since 2002 (32 NFL teams -- Divisional realignment).

1. Cleveland Browns: 1 playoff appearance since 2002 -- loss. Last appearance in playoffs = 2002 season. Last playoff win = 1994 season (21 seasons). 34.4% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: Sipe; leading rusher: Jim Brown; leading receiver: Ozzie Newsome
Current issues: Gordon, Manziel, Gilbert

2. Buffalo Bills: NO playoff appearances since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 1999 season. Last playoff win = 1995 season (20 seasons). 41.3% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: J Kelly; leading rusher: T Thomas; leading receiver: A Reed
Current issues: EJ Manuel, Vick

3. Detriot Lions: 2 playoff appearances since 2002 -- both losses. Last playoff win = 1991 season (24 seasons). 32.9% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: M Stafford; leading rusher: B Sanders; leading receiver: C Johnson

4. Washington Redskins: 4 playoff games in 3 seasons since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2012 season. Last playoff win = 2005 season (10 seasons). 39.2% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: J Theismann; leading rusher: J Riggins; leading receiver: A Monk

5. Oakland Raiders: 3 playoff games in 1 season since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2002 season. Last playoff win = 2002 season (13 seasons). 32.7% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: K Stabler; leading rusher: M Allen; leading receiver: Tim Brown

6. St. Louis Rams: 3 playoff games in 2 seasons since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2004 season. Last playoff win = 2004 season (11 seasons). 36.7% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: J Everett; leading rusher: S Jackson; leading receiver: I Bruce

7. Jacksonville Jaguars: 3 playoff games in 2 seasons since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2007 season. Last playoff win = 2007 season (8 seasons). 40.8% win percentage since 2002.


http://www.pro-football-reference.co...e/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...f/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...t/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...i/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...m/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...x/playoffs.htm

All of the above. If you don't have a dedicated owner who is wiling to put the "best" out there, you won't be competitive. Conversely, if you don't have big enough support from your local market and fan base, it'll be nearly impossible for a team to remain competitive enough to draw in "big ticket" free agents. And almost certainly here, you have to consider competitive/non competitive divisions.

The Browns had to wade through the Ravens/Steelers "dominant" years with QB's like Roethlisberger and Flacco in the division.

The Bills had to square up against the Patriots twice a year, which is just rough, and then the Jets who were competitive until the last couple years in that division. Couple that with the resurgence of the Dolphins at least TRYING to go 8-8 or better and improve from the ground up, and that's just a tight division, likely THE tighest.

The Lions have been a conundrum until the last few years. They've managed to draft well and hit free agency well in the last 4 or 5 years, and with an aging Bears team in the division, they've certainly improved despite having to face Rodgers twice a year which are certainly their most anxious games year after year.

The Redskins get it pretty badly with Dallas, New York, and Philly trading off every couple years on who the "real" team is, which should have had them enter that race for the first time in a long time with RG3 and/or Cousins at the helm, but they just can't seem to stay healthy both physically and in comparison to the salary cap, and BUILD upon each roster.

The Raiders? Shoot. You've got Three VERY strong AFC teams in that division already with Denver, Kansas City, and San Diego. With two GREAT QB's at the helm, and likely the most remarkable Running Back in the league on the "other" team. Oakland also suffered from poor ownership, poor drafting, and a poor fanbase.

The Rams didn't always have it bad, they've just made poor free agent/drafting decisions and keep taking 2 steps backward for one step forward. When they were the "Greatest Game on Turf" they pretty much had everything going for them, with the world in their palms. Fast forward a decade and you no longer have your star QB, your two star wide outs, your star Running Back, and the fan base just disappeared, and now you're competiting with Oakland for moving to LA.

As for the Jaguars, that one's a little interesting, you could pretty much count on the Colts to "be there" year in and year out, and for a couple years the Texans weren't half bad either, but with the Titans being virtually nonexistent most years in the division, you figure they'd have a shot at "something". When you don't draft well, however, and let all of your "star" guys walk in free agency, you're going to run into this problem.

Lets look at a few of those wonderful Jaguar Drafts.

Byron Leftwitch 2003 1st round draft pick, played witht hem for 4 seasons (lol)
Reggie Williams 2004 1st round draft pick , played with them for 5 seasons (lol)
Matt Jones 2005 1st round pick, played with them for 4 seasons (lol)
Marcades Lewis 2006 1st round draft pick, 9 seasons and counting with them (good job)
Reggie Nelson 2007 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seasons (ouch), the guy they traded him for, David Jones, spent 2 seasons with Jacksonville before moving on
Derrick Harvey 2008 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seaons (ouch)
Eugene Monroe 2009 1st round draft pick, played with them for 5 seasons, traded for Baltimore's 2014 4th and 5th round draft picks which turned into two "bubble" guys on their roster, big mistake
Tyson Alualu 2010 1st round draft pick, 5 seasons and counting with them (good job)
Blaine Gabbert 2011 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seaons and got traded to the 49ers for a 6th round pick in 2014, which turned into Luke Bowanko, who started 14 games for them at Center last year.
Justin Blackmon 2012 1st round draft pick, played with them for 2 seasons, injured/banned for the 3rd, likely won't return to football/the team. (ouch)
Luke Joeckel 2013 1st round draft pick, 2 seasons and counting with them (jury is out on the pick)
Blake Bortles 2014 1st round draft pick, 1 season and counting with them, (Jury is still out on this pick)

I mean, just look at that. From 2003 to 2014 and onward, they've managed to keep 4 of their 12 1st round draft picks, trading three of those guys for 1 starter, 2 practice squad guys, and a guy who left the team. Hell, only 3 of their last 5 are with the team still, with an average lifespan of only 3-5 years with the team.

Now compare that to a "middle" team like Kansas City, who has 7 of their last 12 1st rounders still on the roster, including their 05, 06, and 07 picks (though that is expected to change this next season). WIth 4 of their last 5 1st round picks still on the roster. The guy not on the roster, they traded to the 49ers for a fellow 1st rounder, and he is still on the roster and will be for some time. So really, that's 8/12 and 5/5 if you're looking at raw value, and on top of that, 2 of the 12 1st rounders, which left the team this season in free agency, will be adding compensaotry draft selections for the Chiefs this coming draft, likely in the 3rd or 4th round variety.

Now keep in mind, both are "small market" teams. The difference comes from ownership and fanbase. Chiefs fans are some of the most devoted fans in the league, and their ownership runs deeeeeep into the roots of the NFL itself (the AFC Championship trophy is named after their founding father, and father of the current owner).

Obviously drafts are a lot "bigger" than the depth of your 1st round selections, but its important to keep in mind how "well" a team is "hitting" on those picks, whether they become starters, and whether they remain on the team as starters. When your average 1st rounder is spending only 3-4 years with your team, or in the NFL as a whole, that speaks VOLUMES to the "health" of your organization. It likely means you've got bad ownership and a bad front office, and that combination can be deadly to an NFL organization.

Thanks Tthree.

Does winning hinge on continuity in front-office and coaching staff? Seems to me that the most successful teams have long-tenured GM, scouts & personnel people, head coach and coaching staff, and oftentimes, owners.

Or maybe getting lucky in drafting (and trading) like Brady, Manning, Luck, Favre, Rodgers, Flacco, etc? On the opposite end, CLE & BUF seem to be wasting draft picks left-and-right.

The top 10 teams with regards to win percentage since 2002 are:
NE (75.6%), IND (67.5%), PIT (63.8%), GB (61.6%), BAL (58.7%), PHI (58.6%), DEN (58.4%), SD (57.3%), SEA (56.4%) & NO (55.5%).

Winning absolutely hinges on the front office, coaching staff, and their ability to draft and/or get lucky.

Look at New England, at the top of your list. They picked a "diamond in the rough" QB in Brady and have absolutely CRUSHED the NFL since. Looking back now, they have won 4 super bowls in 14 years, that's absolutely impressive, and they've gone SIX times.

Then you look at "the rest" in that picture and you have a recurring theme there. Each team has a solid QB at the helm. Luck, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Flacco, McNabb/Vick/Foles, Manning/Cutler, Rivers, Wilson/Hasselbeck, and Brees.

It goes without saying that you "need" a "good enough" QB in this league to win. Obviously if you can have a GREAT one like Brady, Manning, Rivers, Rodgers, or Roethlisberger, you're pretty much set, and that starters with the personnel department doing their homework on each QB both in free agency and in drafting, and then ends with the Front Office either signing/drafting them, or not.

[muffdiver]

Has anyone besides me noticed that Johnny Unitas hasn't received any mention here at all in conversations about the "best" QBs to ever play the game. (Bart Starr, also) Why?

[muffdiver]

I was going to but I figured 80s went back far enough. I dunno tho, I think Pack would've been better served with Zeke Bartkowski...just kidding my friend. And what about Jack Concannon?

Zeke wasn't terrible, was he? Think his last name was spelled Bratkowski. Yeah, I know that that definitely was a different era (late fifties, early sixties) but those two guys (Unitas and Starr) were both highly regarded at the time.

[Math Demon]

All of the above. If you don't have a dedicated owner who is wiling to put the "best" out there, you won't be competitive. Conversely, if you don't have big enough support from your local market and fan base, it'll be nearly impossible for a team to remain competitive enough to draw in "big ticket" free agents. And almost certainly here, you have to consider competitive/non competitive divisions.

The Browns had to wade through the Ravens/Steelers "dominant" years with QB's like Roethlisberger and Flacco in the division.

The Bills had to square up against the Patriots twice a year, which is just rough, and then the Jets who were competitive until the last couple years in that division. Couple that with the resurgence of the Dolphins at least TRYING to go 8-8 or better and improve from the ground up, and that's just a tight division, likely THE tighest.

The Lions have been a conundrum until the last few years. They've managed to draft well and hit free agency well in the last 4 or 5 years, and with an aging Bears team in the division, they've certainly improved despite having to face Rodgers twice a year which are certainly their most anxious games year after year.

The Redskins get it pretty badly with Dallas, New York, and Philly trading off every couple years on who the "real" team is, which should have had them enter that race for the first time in a long time with RG3 and/or Cousins at the helm, but they just can't seem to stay healthy both physically and in comparison to the salary cap, and BUILD upon each roster.

The Raiders? Shoot. You've got Three VERY strong AFC teams in that division already with Denver, Kansas City, and San Diego. With two GREAT QB's at the helm, and likely the most remarkable Running Back in the league on the "other" team. Oakland also suffered from poor ownership, poor drafting, and a poor fanbase.

The Rams didn't always have it bad, they've just made poor free agent/drafting decisions and keep taking 2 steps backward for one step forward. When they were the "Greatest Game on Turf" they pretty much had everything going for them, with the world in their palms. Fast forward a decade and you no longer have your star QB, your two star wide outs, your star Running Back, and the fan base just disappeared, and now you're competiting with Oakland for moving to LA.

As for the Jaguars, that one's a little interesting, you could pretty much count on the Colts to "be there" year in and year out, and for a couple years the Texans weren't half bad either, but with the Titans being virtually nonexistent most years in the division, you figure they'd have a shot at "something". When you don't draft well, however, and let all of your "star" guys walk in free agency, you're going to run into this problem.

Lets look at a few of those wonderful Jaguar Drafts.

Byron Leftwitch 2003 1st round draft pick, played witht hem for 4 seasons (lol)
Reggie Williams 2004 1st round draft pick , played with them for 5 seasons (lol)
Matt Jones 2005 1st round pick, played with them for 4 seasons (lol)
Marcades Lewis 2006 1st round draft pick, 9 seasons and counting with them (good job)
Reggie Nelson 2007 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seasons (ouch), the guy they traded him for, David Jones, spent 2 seasons with Jacksonville before moving on
Derrick Harvey 2008 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seaons (ouch)
Eugene Monroe 2009 1st round draft pick, played with them for 5 seasons, traded for Baltimore's 2014 4th and 5th round draft picks which turned into two "bubble" guys on their roster, big mistake
Tyson Alualu 2010 1st round draft pick, 5 seasons and counting with them (good job)
Blaine Gabbert 2011 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seaons and got traded to the 49ers for a 6th round pick in 2014, which turned into Luke Bowanko, who started 14 games for them at Center last year.
Justin Blackmon 2012 1st round draft pick, played with them for 2 seasons, injured/banned for the 3rd, likely won't return to football/the team. (ouch)
Luke Joeckel 2013 1st round draft pick, 2 seasons and counting with them (jury is out on the pick)
Blake Bortles 2014 1st round draft pick, 1 season and counting with them, (Jury is still out on this pick)

I mean, just look at that. From 2003 to 2014 and onward, they've managed to keep 4 of their 12 1st round draft picks, trading three of those guys for 1 starter, 2 practice squad guys, and a guy who left the team. Hell, only 3 of their last 5 are with the team still, with an average lifespan of only 3-5 years with the team.

Now compare that to a "middle" team like Kansas City, who has 7 of their last 12 1st rounders still on the roster, including their 05, 06, and 07 picks (though that is expected to change this next season). WIth 4 of their last 5 1st round picks still on the roster. The guy not on the roster, they traded to the 49ers for a fellow 1st rounder, and he is still on the roster and will be for some time. So really, that's 8/12 and 5/5 if you're looking at raw value, and on top of that, 2 of the 12 1st rounders, which left the team this season in free agency, will be adding compensaotry draft selections for the Chiefs this coming draft, likely in the 3rd or 4th round variety.

Now keep in mind, both are "small market" teams. The difference comes from ownership and fanbase. Chiefs fans are some of the most devoted fans in the league, and their ownership runs deeeeeep into the roots of the NFL itself (the AFC Championship trophy is named after their founding father, and father of the current owner).

Obviously drafts are a lot "bigger" than the depth of your 1st round selections, but its important to keep in mind how "well" a team is "hitting" on those picks, whether they become starters, and whether they remain on the team as starters. When your average 1st rounder is spending only 3-4 years with your team, or in the NFL as a whole, that speaks VOLUMES to the "health" of your organization. It likely means you've got bad ownership and a bad front office, and that combination can be deadly to an NFL organization.



Winning absolutely hinges on the front office, coaching staff, and their ability to draft and/or get lucky.

Look at New England, at the top of your list. They picked a "diamond in the rough" QB in Brady and have absolutely CRUSHED the NFL since. Looking back now, they have won 4 super bowls in 14 years, that's absolutely impressive, and they've gone SIX times.

Then you look at "the rest" in that picture and you have a recurring theme there. Each team has a solid QB at the helm. Luck, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Flacco, McNabb/Vick/Foles, Manning/Cutler, Rivers, Wilson/Hasselbeck, and Brees.

It goes without saying that you "need" a "good enough" QB in this league to win. Obviously if you can have a GREAT one like Brady, Manning, Rivers, Rodgers, or Roethlisberger, you're pretty much set, and that starters with the personnel department doing their homework on each QB both in free agency and in drafting, and then ends with the Front Office either signing/drafting them, or not.

Thanks Exoter.

[Exoter175]

I read your post in a hope to take you off ignore. I was hoping you got over whatever character flaw has you thinking everything is about you. My post was not insulting to anybody. If you are so intelligent you should know ignorant means uninformed or uneducated. I refer to myself as such as such when I enter threads on subjects I am unfamiliar with. You are really showing ignorance about football history if you think Brady and Montana played in the same era. Even the football wives see the difference in the game today versus back in the 80's. I may check back on one of your posts in another month or so to see if I live in your head to the point that you think every post is about you.

You are entitled to your opinion on anything just as I am but if you can't tell from the posts made about your comments in this thread you haven't impressed others with your knowledge of the game. You have a specific knowledge that is extensive but once you get away from that few if any agree with you. That doesn't make you wrong but it does mean you have only impressed yourself with those posts. I tried really hard to make sure my post was not directed at you but was an answer to your comments. It as directed at all the people that are too young to have realized the affect of rule changes and new innovative schemes that changed the history of football because not having lived through any of them they are ignorant of the way the average stats and exceptional stats have changed throughout history. That determines what stats are comparable. The point of the comments was how to understand what stats are comparable and what stats weren't.


Here is a link that proves the difference between the era Montana played in is far different than the current era considering QB stats. Not that the current era has only been around since 2004-2014, that is 11 seasons and the preious era Montana played in was 1978-2003 which is 26 years. The NFL has added a few teams in the more recent years so a few more QBs put up stats. Of all the years that precede the last 2 eras only 10 QB single season completion percentages make the top 260 (47th, 102t, 121, 175t, 203t, 210t, 221t, 243t and another tied at 243). That is what you need to know about how to view the single season completion rate stats in the link below:

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...gle_season.htm

The 26 year era has Montana played in which represents over 70% of the years since 1978 has (Stats in the link from before 1978 not included in below stats:
3 of the top 10 (30% representation for the era that represents over 70% of the seasons that span the 2 eras)
7 of the top 25 (28% representation for the era that represents over 70% of the seasons that span the 2 eras)
28 of the top 100 (28% representation for the era that represents over 70% of the seasons that span the 2 eras)

By Year in the top 260 single season QB completion percentage:
1920-1939: No QB position as we know it.
1940: QB position is born but not used by all teams
1950: QB position has become the standard in the NFL. Ironman football was no longer required so you could have a separate offense and defense if they wanted. This made for the start of specialization at various positions.
1953: 1 (102t)
1957: 1 (175t)
1963: 1 (221t)
1966: 1 (243t)
1971: 1 (243t)
1973: 2 (203t, 210t)
1974: 1 (98)
1975: 1 (121)
1976: 1 (47)
1978: 1 (185t)
M-----------------------------------------Montana (14 seasons in the NFL)
1979: 1 (210t)
1980: 2 (107t, 128t)
1981: 2 (147t, 210t)
1982: 3 (2t, 141t, 170t)
1983: 5 (47t, 107t, 159t, 170t, 203t)
1984: 5 (37t, 105t, 121t, 151t, 221t)
1986: 3 (185t, 243t, 243t)
1987: 1 (45t)
1989: 2 (5, 194t)
1990: 1 (164t)
1991: 6 (76t, 88t, 107t, 128t, 199t, 249t)
1992: 5 (47t, 76t, 102t, 128t, 146)
1993: 4 (11, 25, 170t, 231t)
1994: 7 (4, 107t, 128t, 151t, 210t, 229t, 249t)
Montana-------------------------------------------M (7/47, 14.9%, ranked in the top 260 all-time during Montana's 14 year career are his)
1995: 7 (43t, 101, 128t, 147t, 170t, 185t, 243t)
1996: 4 (28t, 147t, 159t, 203t)
1997: 1 (28t)
1998: 3 (185t, 185t, 231t)
1999: 2 (94, 249t)
B===========================Brady (15 seasons in the NFL)
2000: 7 (28t, 117t, 164t, 203t, 210t, 221t, 221t) (Brady played in only 1 game)
B----------------------------------------------------Brady as a starting NFL QB
2001: 6 (16, 71, 121t, 141t, 203t, 203t)
2002: 10 (12t, 31t, 47t, 60t, 147t, 231t, 243t, 249t, 249t, 249t)
2003: 11 (42, 85t, 95t, 141t, 151t, 170t, 176t, 210t, 221t, 231t, 249t)
2004: 12 (8, 9t, 31t, 56t, 56t, 63t, 82t, 85t, 128t, 138t, 199t, 249t)
2005: 11 (27, 34t, 35t, 43t, 82t, 105t, 107t, 185t, 203t, 210t, 221t)
2006: 12 (21t, 88t, 95t, 107t, 117t, 117t, 185t, 194t, 221t, 229t, 231t, 231t)
2007: 17 (12t, 14t, 33, 53t, 56t, 85t, 88t, 98t, 115t, 121t, 138t, 141t, 151t, 164t, 210t, 231t, 231t)
2008: 15 (34t, 40t, 45t, 65t, 72t, 82t, 88t, 95t, 98t, 151t, 159t, 199t, 210t, 231t, 231t)
2009: 14 (2t, 14t, 20, 26, 51t, 65t, 72t, 93, 102t, 107t, 176t, 176t, 231t, 249t)
2010: 12 (24, 60t, 68t, 70, 72t, 72t, 107t, 151t, 194t, 210t, 210t, 221t)
2011: 8 (1, 21t, 60t, 76t, 158, 170t, 194t, 199t)
2012: 13 (17t, 17t, 39, 76t, 76t, 117t, 128t, 128t, 164t, 185t, 185t, 231t, 249t)
2013: 14 (7, 17t, 21t, 34t, 51t, 53t, 121t, 138t, 141t, 151t, 164t, 176t, 176t, 194t)
2014: 20 (6, 9t, 40t, 53t, 56t, 65t, 68t, 76t, 88t, 115t, 121t, 121t, 128t, 128t, 159t, 164t, 176t, 176t, 176t, 249t)
Brady============================================= ==B
(9/175, 5.1%, in the Brady's 14 years as a starter (2001-2014) ranked in the top 260 all-time QB season are attributed to Brady)

When you remove both Brady's and Montana's contribution to the top 260 during their careers as a starter (both 14 years at this point), 4.2 times as many QB seasons made the top 260 from the Brady's era (166) than Montana's era (40). The visual of the above season completion percentage stats for the entire history of the NFL should be easy for anybody to see that Brady and Montana played in very different eras and Montana played in a different passing era than his predecessors. You can draw the boundaries wherever you like. Not only is Brady's era way over represented but it is heavily weighted toward the top end of the 260. Only in the bottom half does the more than twice as many years being before the spike right when Brady's career started does it start to make up some ground but it is still way under represented.

The same kind of skewing exists in all the passing stats. Like I said there is no comparison of stats from one era to the next. Not even season completion percentage for QBs which is immune to influence by number of games in a season. If you lived through both it was obvious to anyone paying attention. If you were to young to remember or absorb what happened pre-2000 in the NFL and/or don't know much about football history you may think stats from one era are comparable to stats in another. I think we can all agree after looking at the stats here that they can't be. It is really obvious and the closer you look at the details the more obvious it becomes. I think I have proven my point. Everyone is free to disagree with me but I doubt there will be many that remain in that camp after seeing the evidence. It is overwhelming.

Jesus Christ T3, let me break a couple things down for you that you are still NOT getting.

1. When you mentione 3, 4, or maybe 5 times in one windbagged session of posting "younger" accompanied by underhanded insults about lack of knowledge, and emphasizing "younger" and "youthful" as a detractor, you're making insults. Further, YOU YOURSELF do not know the age of anyone in this thread, aside from the fact that I've mentioned before in this thread and on this forum, that I'm considerably younger than you and everyone else. By matters of deduction its obvious to ANYONE who reads the thread that you are sending out underhanded insults to ME, the only person you've really argued with about Brady v. Manning and masking it as "younger", "youthful" etc. At least I have the balls to quote you and use your name. Quit skirting around Norm's rules, just to break them anyways. Especially when you're going to "threaten" me with his actions, of which you have ZERO deciding factor in.

2. This one is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT for you to understand. Joe Montana played for Bill Walsh, the creator, originator, the father of the West Coast Offense. I cannot stress this enough. Montana played in the ERA of the West Coast Offense at the very beginning. He was "in" on the ground level of what would eventually take the NFL by storm. The Niners with Montana and Clark in the 1979 draft were set to roll with a number of solid picks and free agency acquisitions. When Walsh finally switched to Joe, aside from the switching back and forth between he and deberg, he was allowed to really work his offense under Joe (despite scouts questioning the strength of Joe's arm, which contradicts your statements of him).

The "era' of football, much less the NFL is subject to much dispute, but the wildly "popular" era's for Football/NFL are as follows. The "Forward Pass" era, 1906-1951. The "Eligible Receiver" era, 1951-1966. The "Merger" era from 1966-1979 (though it was only 1966-1970 that the merger initiated and finalized). The "WCO" era from 1979-1999. Finally, now, we have the "Instant Replay" era. For all intents and purposes, however, there hasn't been much "Favorable" change in rules from 1979 until now, that would affect a QB's ability to complete more or less passes, but more so in how some penalties are defined, and the essential taxation of committing such a penalty, IE the change from tiered yardage amounts on penalties like a face mask.

Point is, both Joe and Brady played at or Beyond the West Coast Offense era, and while the numbers of QB's from 1966-1979 are certainly worse than they are now, in large part due to the evolution of the passing game which took guys like Bill Walsh to spearhead a movement, but also in large part to penalty and rules changes altering the "safety" of the players. The all time "Best" passers, were actually the professionals of the "Ohio League" from 1906 onward, as well as some collegiate level 1906 guys like Bradbury Robinson in the FAMOUS E.B. Cochems' passing offense at St. Louis University. Some of those guys would have stats like, 8 for 10, 220 yards and 4 touchdowns. Back then, something that like that was a FEAT because of the fact that they essentially would use rugby balls which were muuuuuuuuch heavier than the ball they used, say, at the NFL merger era.

Point is, you've said Joe had an arm, the critics disagree with you. You said Brady couldn't put up the same stats (with Jerry Rice, Dwight Clark, and Roger Craig LOLS) in "Montana's Era" because he was a "dink and dunk" guy, which is contradicted by the fact that Bill Walsh, father and pioneer of the WCO had Joe AS his QB in the holy grail of "Dink and Dunk" offenses. Now you're saying that because guys from the 60's and 70's didn't pass as often because the game hadn't evolved nearly as much then, that somehow that discredits Brady's stats by comparison to Joe's, 20 years earlier, but ignoring the fact that Joe's stats were in an offense that from 1979 until present day, would be featured almost everywhere to some degree, and PROMINENTLY on many teams.

Allow me to present to you, the "big picture" so that one day, you might "understand" the big picture, and "get" why I'm telling you how silly you sound when you say that Brady couldn't have done that with Walsh, and that BOTH Joe and Tom play in the same "era" as far as passing is concerned, despite the fact that Joe got an "early tasting" of what was to come in the NFL.


Allow me to blow your mind, and keep an eye on how "fast" this thing spreads.

NFL teams that used the West Coast offense

• 1970-1975 Cincinnati Bengals - Coached by Paul Brown, offense coordinated by Bill Walsh
• 1976 San Diego Chargers - Coached by Tommy Prothro, offense coordinated by Bill Walsh
• 1979-1988 San Francisco 49ers - Coached by Bill Walsh
• 1989-1996 San Francisco 49ers - Coached by George Seifert, offense coordinated by Mike Holmgren, Mike Shanahan, and Marc Trestman
• 1992-1998 Green Bay Packers - Coached by Mike Holmgren
• 1992-2001 Minnesota Vikings - Coached by Dennis Green
• 1993–1997 Kansas City Chiefs - Coached by Marty Schottenheimer, offense coordinated by Paul Hackett
• 1995-2008 Denver Broncos - Coached by Mike Shanahan, offense coordinated by Gary Kubiak and Rick Dennison
• 1995-1997 Philadelphia Eagles - Coached by Ray Rhodes, offense coordinated by Jon Gruden
• 1997-2002 San Francisco 49ers - Coached by Steve Mariucci
• 1998-2001 Oakland Raiders - Coached by Jon Gruden, offense coordinated by Bill Callahan
• 1999-2001 Carolina Panthers - Coached by George Seifert
• 1999-2012 Philadelphia Eagles - Coached by Andy Reid
• 1999-2008 Seattle Seahawks - Coached by Mike Holmgren, offense coordinated by Gil Haskell
• 2000-2005 Green Bay Packers - Coached by Mike Sherman
• 2000-2004 New Orleans Saints - Coached by Jim Haslett, offense coordinated by Mike McCarthy
• 2001-2002 Detroit Lions - Coached by Marty Mornhinweg
• 2002-2003 Oakland Raiders - Coached by Bill Callahan
• 2002-2008 Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Coached by Jon Gruden
• 2003-2005 Detroit Lions - Coached by Steve Mariucci
• 2004-2006 Arizona Cardinals - Coached by Dennis Green
• 2006–Present Green Bay Packers - Coached by Mike McCarthy
• 2006–2013 Houston Texans - Coached by Gary Kubiak, offense coordinated by Troy Calhoun, Mike Sherman, Kyle Shanahan, and Rick Dennison
• 2006–2010 Minnesota Vikings - Coached by Brad Childress
• 2009–2010 St. Louis Rams - Coached by Steve Spagnuolo, offense coordinated by Pat Shurmur
• 2010–2013 Washington Redskins - Coached by Mike Shanahan, offense coordinated by Kyle Shanahan
• 2011–Present Cincinnati Bengals - Coached by Marvin Lewis, offense coordinated by Jay Gruden and Hue Jackson
• 2011–Present San Francisco 49ers - Coached by Jim Harbaugh, offense coordinated by Greg Roman
• 2011–2012 Cleveland Browns - Coached by Pat Shurmur, offense coordinated by Pat Shurmur and Brad Childress
• 2012–2013 Miami Dolphins - Coached by Joe Philbin, offense coordinated by Mike Sherman
• 2013–Present Chicago Bears - Coached by Marc Trestman, offense coordinated by Aaron Kromer
• 2013–Present Kansas City Chiefs - Coached by Andy Reid, offense coordinated by Doug Pederson
• 2013–Present New York Jets - Coached by Rex Ryan, offense coordinated by Marty Mornhinweg
• 2013-Present Indianapolis Colts - Coached by Chuck Pagano, offense coordinated by Pep Hamilton
• 2014-Present Washington Redskins- Coached by Jay Gruden, offense coordinated by Sean McVay
• 2014-Present New York Giants - Coached by Tom Coughlin, offense coordinated by Ben McAdoo
• 2014-Present Cleveland Browns - Coached by Mike Pettine, offense coordinated by Kyle Shanahan
• 2014-Present Baltimore Ravens - Coached by John Harbaugh, offense coordinated by Gary Kubiak

Thanks, Moses. Good contributions by you to important game changers for the course of NFL history. There are a lot throughout the history of the NFL but only some affected the passing game. The start of use of instant replay and the birth of the West Coast offense both affected the passing game. Many of the rule changes bot in recent history and around the birth of the West coast offense also had a strong affect. One might suggest that passing attacks have changed to take advantage of rule changes or tat certain rule changes made some passing attacks more successful. That can all be debated but the stats show a distinct evolution of passing in the NFL that makes comparing certain eras stats to others like comparing apples to oranges.

1. You just admitted that the birth of the west coast offense affected the passing game, while simultaneously telling me that Joe and Brady played in such differing Era's, as well as posting a 50,000 character novel of mindless drivel and garbage statistics that had nothing to do with anything, other than you trying to "cover" the fact that from 1979 onward, Joe Montana's statistics were lightyears ahead of most others, as was Steve Young's after that, until the "west coast offense" had caught on a decade and a half after Walsh started implementing it in Cincinatti, and cemented it in San Francisco the year he drafted Montana. This literally contradicts everything you just said about era based statistics, and everything you've said supporting your baseless theory that Montana is Better than Brady because of X or Y reason related to A or B Era.

2. Please give me an example of rule changes that have been made from 1994-present day that have made passing attacks more successful.
3. Please give me an example of a passing attack that changed to take advantage of a rule change

Seriously, do not make another post in this thread without addressing #2 and #3, and do so in a single paragraph without all of the "nonsensical filler" that you have been accustomed to ramble on about when you're trying to "come off" far more enlightened than you truly are.


Now, a wise man who wanted to make a claim against Brady, supporting Montana for being the best QB Era, would realize that the "evolution" of technology itself has affected the game of football FAR AND BEYOND any rule change could ever hope to, and second only to the introduction of the West Coast Offense, which essentially renders all arguments against Brady and For Joe, regarding "era" play, moot.

Has anyone besides me noticed that Johnny Unitas hasn't received any mention here at all in conversations about the "best" QBs to ever play the game. (Bart Starr, also) Why?

He didn't have a long enough career post-merger, but Johnny Unitas is certainly my favorite QB of all time, and most "stoic" when considering what he played through in his "era". When I get the "image" of a QB in my head, Unitas is the absolute first one there. However, I feel there's a a difference there between Unitas and Brady/Montana. Not because of stupid arguments like Era's and rule changes, but more having to do with the popularity of the sport, growth of the two leagues and eventual merger, and the way that "entertainment" and "news" have switched roles in prominence on television.

Not many people alive today could say that they remember watching "The Greatest Game Ever Played", but just about everybody nowadays could say they remember watching "the Catch" and "the Tuck", and I think that's really where it becomes so hard to truly pick a "greatest" QB, unless you take out garbage statistics, and look at the QB's themselves and pick your guy. The funny thing is, when you strip them all of statistics, awards, trophies, and rings, you have three Quarterbacks there that could lead your team and do "well". All three were unique in their ability to "fire up", "keep calm", and "carry on", which a rare few QB's in this day and age ever had, which is what makes guys like Brady and Manning so special in our present day, because they aren't worried about the "bottom line statistics" or what they are about to get paid next year. They only care about one thing, Winning; And that, my friends, is what makes "the greats" great.

[muffdiver]

I thought at least muffdiver would bite. The classic Starr-Unitas matchup might be billed as they Greatest Game "Never" Played. It was the day after Christmas and Grandad has surprised us with a Color TV brought over from his appliance store. Starr left the game early with an injury after completing just 1 pass and throwing an interception. Johhny U has missed the 3 previous games and his backup was injured. So the QBs prior experience was at Ohio State with Woody Hayes' (3 yards and a clould of dust) style. So #41 Tom Matte RB vs Packers Zeke Brathkowski become the matchup at the QB position. A botched field goal call changed history. Back then, the back judge lined up in the back of the end zone at the middle of the goal post. He didn't bother to move to get a proper angle of the ball in flight and signaled the field goal as good in the waning seconds of the game. Even the kicker knew he'd missed it by at least 6 inches. So the 10-10 tie sent the game into overtime and it was Zeke - not Bart - that engineered the drive for the winning FG and the beginning of Packers place in history.

My cousin annoited Tom Matte as his hero that day and still has the jersey and football helmut today his parents went out and bought for him.

Thanks for the history lesson, moses. I have to admit that I didn't know any of that, really. What year was that game? I became an avid Packers fan somewhere around 1960 or 62, I think, but I'm guessing a little on that, too. I believe GB won the first 2 SBs (second one was against the Chiefs whose coach was Hank Stram). From then on, I could answer most questions about Packers coaches after Lombardi like Phil Bengston, Dan Devine, Bart Starr (himself), Forrest Gregg (former offensive lineman for Lombardi's Packers teams), Lindy Infante who coached the last GB game that I went to before going to the 2011 SB. Fans had signs that said "In Fante we trust" (Marty Schottenheimer's KC Chiefs won the game), Mike Holmgren, Ray Rhodes, Mike Sherman and present coach Mike McCarthy.
I could name most all players and position since then, too. Fuzzy Thurston who played left guard for Lombardi just died 2 or 3 weeks ago. After their football careers, Fuzzy and Packers receiver Max McGee opened several bars and restaurants named "the Left Guard" and one or two named "the Left End". Max Mcgee died by falling off the roof of his house in the twin cities a few years ago. In his playing days, he partied HEAVILY with Paul Hornung who not only played RB (HB, as Jim Taylor was the FB) but also was GB's kicker and played a couple of other positions, too. Those two guys were still drunk and/or hungover at the start of many games. Vince was always mad about that but they were so talented that they still played well.

[muffdiver]

Okay. Looks like it was more like the mid to late sixties when I started closely following GB.
Thanks again, for the history lessons.

[muffdiver]

When did Monday night football debut? 67? 68?

[muffdiver]

Not saying you're wrong moses but I could have sworn that I watched Monday night football before 1970. I suppose it's possible that it was one of those promotions you mentioned but I thought it was the real deal.