Griese "game managed" himself to three Super Bowls, two championships, two first team all-pro seasons, 8 pro bowls and the Hall of Fame.
No love for Pennington, eh? Was only one year but he was really good in that year. I love the "revisionist history" angle about John Elway. So true.
I don't agree with putting the Chargers ahead of the Dolphins here, I have to say. Considering both Ryan Tannehill and John Hadl are tag-alongs to a more talented pair...which pair do you take? Dan Marino and Bob Griese? Or Dan Fouts and Philip Rivers? I think that's a pretty easy answer. Has the Redskins trio too high as well, IMO. I think the top four are what they are but the Dolphins could be as high as top five once Tannehill gets going a little more.
Was about to say the same thing. That was my only major gripe besides maybe the Cowboys over the 49ers.
I thought the top 4 were locks as well. After that it was pretty debatable. He had Minny and the Eagles lower than I would have.
If Tannehill manages to get into the playoffs on a semi-consistent basis and win a few games (dare I say, Super Bowl?) Dolphins make top 5 on that list easily... not that far-fetched.
Serious question, because I really don't know (too young at the time), but was Griese a standout QB amongst his peers or was he just a solid/good guy on a great team? My memory is they had a sickening running game and that was the pillar of the offense, but I haven't went back and watched games or anything.
The pass game under Griese was efficient (I believe #1 in the league in 72), but really low in terms of volume. edit: brain fart. I was thinking of the team passer ratings where Miami was #1 in 72, but Griese was injured much of that year. My recollection though is that Griese was generally in the top 10 in terms of passer rating through the Shula years.
It was used when needed but we feasted on the running game. I think in 72, we had like 2850 rushing yards with Csonka, Morris, and Kiick.
In 72 Morrall had the top passer rating in the league (91) and our YPA was 9.1. Our passing during those years was incredibly efficient. We ran far more than we passed, but we probably don't succeed without that passing game (and pass D). The fact of the matter is that almost every champion since 1940 (dawn of the T-formation) has been dominant in their offensive pass rating, defensive pass rating or their pass rating differential. IIRC the only exception (outside of the top 10 in one of those three categories) was the 2007 Giants and their defensive pass rating was dominant during their playoff run. There are champions that couldn't run or stop the run, but they all could either pass or stop the pass efficiently. IMO Tannehill is already a very efficient passer. My hope is that we can use a ground it out run game and defense similar to what we did in 72 to replicate some of that success.
Not only was Griese an accurate passer and he could throw the deep ball there are a couple of other qualities that escapes most pundits attention.He was a good scrambler in broken plays and he was the best QB I have seen at the off cadence count .He got so many cheap first downs that way .It helped. Morrall was a great backup but he would not have taken the team to a SB IMO .They needed a young cerebral Griese for that.
Griese was at the end of his career when I was a toddler, so I never saw him play. I also know that the 70s were a totally different league on offense and what teams could do and tried to do. That being said, compared to his peers, was Griese truely a hall of famer on his own merit, without the benefit of the running game and defense? Meaning, could he take a team on his back and win games via the passing game when it called for it? I don't know, I'm asking. Rarely something thats been talked about, as much as I've read about the Fins. I'm perpetually disgusted by how much weight team success is given to QBs. One guy can only do so much when surrounded by crap, and we all know that an above average QB can win big when surrounded by big talent.
Griese should have been the Heisman winner the year before he was drafted.Steve Spurrier won it that year He was a very complete QB .Not many measurables but he was cerebral in understanding what Shula wanted to do.He was accurate ,tough under pressure ,could scramble and throw the deep ball and he was good at reading defenses. What else does a QB need to do.
Falcons - Chris Miller was a MUCH better QB than dog killer ever was. Not even close. Chiefs - Montana only played 25 games in a KC uniform. Putting him on the list is nonsense. I'd say DeBerg belongs in that spot. Beyond that, not a lot that you can say are clear oversights. I would personally argue the Fins belong ahead of the Steelers. Marino clearly outclasses Rothlisberger, Griese and Bradshaw are very similar, and Tannehill is absolutely better than Neil O'Donnel. I was a teen in the Pittsburgh market in the 90s and saw almost every game he played. He was NOT the reason the team won as many games as they did. The Redskins and Rams have players on their lists that play so long ago that its hard to even compare them to current guys.
Would you say that Griese was similar in his approach to Pennington? That's always been my impression. Smart guy who maximizes what gifts he has, but not a top end physical talent?
Griese had a stronger arm than Pennington and the impression I recall, and it is only slightly hazed by the aura of those long gone days, is that he was just overall more crisp and sharp than Pennington. Bob was not the gunslinger that Dan was, but it was probably around 94 or 95 before the scales in my mind tipped towards Dan being the better quarterback of the two. Bob was just sooo damned smart on the field. He called all the offensive snaps.
Same basic question but about Woodley. He took them to a SB (and by all accounts told by my elders) he was a solid QB but Marino was just a supreme talent that took over.
I wouldn't say Woodley took anybody to the SB. We were a QB by committee team with Woodley and Strock. Woodley would start, but if we fell behind or needed to pass we would put Strock in.
Yeah, Woodley was streaky. He could scramble a bit and there were more than a few designed rollouts for him to throw on the run which he was not too shabby at doing. Had a good arm, generally, but was prone to Fiedleresque bouts of inaccuracy. As already stated, Shula, at first hesitantly, and over time, freely, substituted Strock. It seems he'd start Strock a few times as well and pull the same switch. Between the two of them, one of them would be able to move the team - not uncommonly, with a hot hand.
IMO, Fiedler's biggest problem (much more my time frame of expertise), well aside from his lack of talent, was that he seemingly always thought that he was much better than he really was. Leaving first downs on the field to go for the bigger play, and failing more often than not. We had so many drives end around mid field in those days because of his bone headed decesions. Had he just taken the shorter pass that was open or made a shorter run for a first down when the middle of the field was open, it was all good, but he kept tossing the ball deep down the field and ending the drive. I am so, so much happier with RT17's style of play compared to what we had in those days.
