1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Shocking Danny stat

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by dirtylandry, Jul 6, 2017.

  1. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The game is called Connect Four. You must connect four to win. If your opponent concedes, its because your next move will allow you to connect four. The game isn't over after your third move, as your opponent can still make a move, even though they can't win.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  2. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    That's interesting about '78, because they never really enforced the 5 yd rule, or at least not for long, by '83 when Dan was drafted you would never know that rule was in place, so it must have been the blocking rule that changed things.

    The 5 yd rule was never really enforced until 2004.
     
  3. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    With thw td\int ratio I think it would have to be calculatedi in a similar but slightly more complicated manner.
    Because there has been a steady increase of abput 0.75 passer rating points per year, not a step increase, I think the best way is to calculate it according to the year by year averages, not the whole of career numbers.
    I would also sau that percebtages and ratios are more useful than totals.
     
  4. Rickysabeast

    Rickysabeast Royale With Cheese

    941
    556
    93
    Jul 26, 2016
    I argue this all the time. Marino would SHRED the league right now if he was still in his prime. I mean DESTROY it. He'd be throwing for over 5K every year and imagine what he'd do with an actual real receiver as opposed to the mere mortals he made superstars out of. The passing game friendly rules that have been implemented since he retired, it's not the same world.
     
    danmarino, Finster and dolphin25 like this.
  5. Rickysabeast

    Rickysabeast Royale With Cheese

    941
    556
    93
    Jul 26, 2016
    Please tell me you're not actually talking smack about Dan Marino. None of the above constitutes smack but all your posts in thread combined....
     
  6. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    I see that by doing as you suggest Marino would be great now too, but can you go backwards and say that Brady, Mannings, Brees would have been great in his era? if Brady's slot guys are getting smashed as they enter the middle of the field is he quite as good as he is with their free releases today?
     
  7. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    Clayton and Duper were very solid receiver.
     
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    He's making a point. Someone is claiming Marino was a cerebral QB... he was not. Therefore, to make a point, he's saying other things about Marino that everyone knows are not true, as if they are. For instance, everyone knows Marino was not a scrambler, hence, "he could run like the wind."
     
  9. Rickysabeast

    Rickysabeast Royale With Cheese

    941
    556
    93
    Jul 26, 2016
    Yes they were good. But imagine Marino now with a Dez Bryant or Antonio Brown WITH the current rules.
     
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Can't believe you're arguing against what I said. Basically your argument is that reality isn't real. Anyway, you're wrong no qualifiers needed and I'm not going to waste my time arguing this any further.
     
  11. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Dan Marino was magical for 4 years or so. After that he was just pretty good.

    Steve Young led the league in TDs more than Marino. True story.
     
  12. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I understand what you're saying, it's correct in it's theory, but not in practical application.

    To finish a game of connect 4 you have to connect 4 is a more accurate sentence, it's not needed to win however, because the game doesn't need to be finished for you to win.

    If a player retires for any reason at any time of the game, the other player wins, so you don't even need to connect 2 to win, in fact if a player has the 3 in a row advantage, next move and he wins, but he forfeits, the other player wins.

    Also, being caught cheating would be another way to victory without finishing the game.

    So while what you're saying is correct in game connect 4 theory, practical application allows for forfeiture as a means of victory.
     
    resnor likes this.
  13. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah you have to adjust year by year and then combine over a career. TD's per season hasn't changed too much over the years but INT's per season has dropped over time. Anyway, from the 1980's a decent rule of thumb is that TD/INT ratio has increased by about 0.35 per year though the rate was slower before the 2000's and is now more like 0.39 per year (same with passer rating.. it's increased about 0.45 per year from the 1980's but you're right that from the 2000's it's about 0.75 per year).
     
  14. Rickysabeast

    Rickysabeast Royale With Cheese

    941
    556
    93
    Jul 26, 2016
    Total blasphemy. Is nothing sacred?
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah note the last 2 sentences in the 2nd paragraph of the post you quoted. We can't say through this kind of stats adjustment which QB's would be better in a different era. We can only say approximately what the stats should look like for a QB that's similarly impressive, etc...

    However, let's note something that suggests even the great QB's of today would probably be in the upper percentiles had they played in an earlier era: whichever era you look at, the better QB's tend to be better than average throughout their careers even through multiple rule changes. The worst Brady's ever done in a full year is be in the top 34% measured by standard deviations (better than just looking at ranking), and his average across his career is 1.2 standard deviations above the mean which corresponds to top 12th percentile.

    So while we don't know for sure which QB's in today's game would suffer the most if they went back in time, there's a good argument to be made that they'd probably still be in the upper third or so.
     
  16. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Clayton was a very good WR though, I agree that most of the guys had pretty wildly inflated numbers playing with Dan, but Clayton was a baller.

    It's kind of sad that he had pretty much zero commitment to the prep aspect of the game, but in many ways, he was a lot like Dan.

    He was a naturally gifted receiver, he had freakish leaping ability, incredible strength for his size, could catch anything that touched his hands, quick and fast, had natural "perfect pitch" high point abilities, and as competitive as anyone on the field.

    Nearly a perfect storm of a WR, one thing he lacked was height, which he well made up for with his leaping/highpoint abilities, the other thing he lacked was the desire to be the best ever, if he had taken care of his body, who knows what kinds of numbers he might have put up.
     
    dolphin25 and Rickysabeast like this.
  17. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    You're not understanding me. Kosar was good pre and post snap. That means he can recognize things he's probably seen before (pre-snap) and has the ability to quickly identify a change in defense and change his read. Marino was eventually good at seeing things pre snap after he gained experience (most long-time NFL QBs do, even Testaverde, who dumb as a box of rocks, was eventually thought of as a "savvy vet"), but he wasn't nearly as good making adjustments post snap. That is not the same as Kosar. Marino told me to my face that he always felt he needed extra time to read the defense than other QBs. He simply wasn't a quick thinker (he was instinctive, that's different). Since he wasn't a studious and cerebral QB he never excelled at making post-snap adjustments.
     
    cuchulainn, josh, resnor and 2 others like this.
  18. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    It's the best few years anyone has ever seen.

    But he only get 30 touchdowns once after 1986. It is what it is. Dan is my favorite player of all time with Jason Taylor a millimeter behind him. But I am a realist
     
  19. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Dan had the magic to see an open guy and hit him. But ... that's about it. He was very instinctual but was never the brain surgeon back there.

    I think it was Huard or someone who said. Dan once told him, when asking for advice, just find the open guy and let it rip
     
    resnor and rafael like this.
  20. Bpk

    Bpk Premium Member Luxury Box

    Interesting, as Tannehill very well could have become one.

    In Club someone quotes PFF stats on Tanny excelling on throws under 2.5 seconds and performing with a much much lower QBR when he had/took over 2.5 seconds. Now, part of that could be that longer time equals longer lower percentage routes or everyone being covered, but it could also reflect that Tanny is at his best when he doesn't have too much time to think. Too much time = more thinking and we keep hearing that the Phons and Marino want Tanny less i his head and to just 'let 'er rip'.
     
    resnor likes this.
  21. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Maybe it's because I'm older than most here and I've seen the evolution of football in general since I began watching football in 1972, but some of the arguments made are trivial and incomplete.

    -Dan Marino is and will always be the most prolific passing quarterback in NFL history and anyone who uses "numbers" to ever argue against it truly do not understand football. Everyone wanted to be Marino, everyone wanted to be the Marks Brothers but when Sterling Sharpe was decimated by a then LEGAL hit that broke his neck, the NFL began changing rules for player safety, which subsequently opened passing routes for QB's to throw to receivers that were once inconceivable, save Marino, Elway, Tarkenton and Fouts.

    -Marino was phenomenal but he had a great tutor and mentor on the sideline in Don Strock. Strock, who spent his entire career as a back-up receives little to no credit whatsoever for Miami's offensive success, having backed-up and mentored both David Woodley and Dan Marino. Marino himself in an interview gave credit to Strock, stating he learned more from Strock about being an NFL quarterback than another coach he ever had.

    -Marino was blessed to have the greatest blocking tandem to have ever played the game in Richmond Webb and Keith Sims. Perennial Pro Bowl selectees (7 consecutive for Webb), they protected Marino's blind side, allowing him the time in the pocket to find the receivers downfield which made the Dolphins offensively, perennial playoff contenders.

    -Marino was also blessed to have a receiving corps that was second to none but of that receiving corps, the receiver that gets the least recognition and who deserves it wasn't Duper...it wasn't Clayton...it was Nat Moore. Moore was the Jerry Rice, the John Stallworth of the Dolphins receiving corps, having held every team receiving record at the time of his retirement. He was to Duper and Clayton what Strock was to Marino, that tutor, that mentor, that leader on the field. When one looks at Marino's prolific numbers early in his career and see those numbers drop, is it pure coincidence it started after the retirement of Nat Moore?

    Remember, football is the only TRUE team sport and no one player can excel without the support of his teammates, be it performance on the field, team leadership or the mentors on the sideline.
     
    josh and eltos_lightfoot like this.
  22. Hiruma78

    Hiruma78 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    Marino didn't have any kind of running game, by the way.
    How many of the other qbs on the list had the same situation?
    Was that also part of the "not a student of the game" stuff?
    Just look at the players we had at the position (in the age of Thurman Thomas, Barry Sanders, E. Smith, Barry Foster, when ANY decent team had at least an above average guy running the ball, even the teams that run run&shoot system)
    the guy that took the Olivadotti D in the playoff, I mean, to my eyes that's alone is impressive (do you remember when in the last games of 91 season we were on the verge of the play off, last game, vs the Jets already eliminated and we let them run for... 231 yards?!?!?!?! http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199112220mia.htm what a joke, what a joke)

    if he had just competent/decent D&runnung game, this kind of stuff wouldn't even be debated, because he was so amazingly out of the world as a player

    And about being great for only 4 season, I guess they were so good 4 season that even Rod Woodson,[just to mention one that having been a cornerback&a safety and playing for how many years (he says he played against only 15 hof QBs), clearly doesn't know what is greatness means in that role and what a dumb kind of player Marino was] said that he was kinda the best he played against. He doesn't realize the truth: I guess he was so mesmerized by the first 4 or six season of Dan the Man, that he thought he was not-just-good-but-great even in the years after 85-86.



    so good-but not great, the league had him figured out, that he was

    top 3 in td 1994
    nihil 1993, injury
    top 2 in 1992 (Young was the best with 25, by the way)
    top 4 in 1991;
    top 8 in 1990;
    top 6 in 1989;
    top 3 in 1988
    top 2 in 1987

    clearly he wasn't the most efficient guy (if you check his rating, he even was out of the top 10 in the 1989), but with that kind of team, I can't understand how he could have been different.
    When the team was good, like in 1994, his rating bounced in the top 3 (even after the injury, even after they figured him out), when the team was pretty crappy, his efficient numbers went down. The only constant was that he was ALWAYS our offense: we were just able to pass and nothing else (something you can't say for any other qbs on the list: not for Manning who had an HOF cast, starting with edgering james, not Favre who had a very very very good green running the ball in his top years, not mr Brady who was just a cog in the offense when they won the first couple of superbowls, not Young, not Montana; maybe Aaron Rodgers, but it's kind a different sport today)
    for example in 1987 was top 4 in rating
    in 1988 he was just 10
    in 1989 he was 11
    in 1990 he he was 8
    in 1991 he was 7
    in 1992 he was 7 (just to give you a comparison, Moon, in the run&shoot, passed for 30 yard less of him FOR GAME; Miller, also in the Run&shoot, 35 yard less: the guy was the offense, in a way that at the time was very peculiar)
    in 1994 he was 3

    it's not that they figured him out (I mean they couldn figure him out until 1987, they understood him in 1988-89, than they didn't in 1994?) it's that the team around him that was different, sometime better, sometime worse.


    clearly, the guy that finished always at least in the top 8 for tds (while the other qbs entered and went out , lomax, easison, kelly, montana, young, moon, rypien, miller, de berg, ellway, etc) while he was figured out by the other teams with their complex defenses while he couldn't adapt (because he wasn't a student of the game, he was just a gunslinger etc etc.) was just good, nothing more.


    I am not saying he was perfetc, just that readin' like he was just a little above average after 1987 its kind of an exageration for me, as it's wrong, IMO, forgetting the embarassing cast of running backs he had during those years and how he passed more than any other qb in the league, no matter the systema, and how, considering the whole situation, he had to force some passing when we try to evaluate his ints numbers.

    to me, this is underselling one of the best players of all time, top 3-top 5 in his position... reading these pages one would think you are talking about a jim kelly or something like that ("just" an HOF qb, nothing more)

    as usual, sorry for my English
     
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I think he's undersold by some on here, but when I say he wasn't "cerebral" I'm not trying to say anything bad. I think he's the greatest of all time.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  24. Dolphin North

    Dolphin North Well-Known Member

    366
    387
    63
    Apr 30, 2017
    Anyone from the 80's / 90's close to Marino? When I see a comparison of the best ever in the league and all of them are from one era and then you have Marino all by himself from another era, it furthers the argument that he literally is in a class all by himself. Rules have just changed so much, you cannot compare from eras that far apart. I like Rodgers as my all timer now (depending on the next few years), but this makes a strong case for Marino at least in this particular area.
    Stats aside, just watching games, I feel like Marino and Rodgers really elevate the team around them. Kind of like people often say about Michael Jordan in basketball. The others, even Peyton to an extent, needed help IMO.
     
    dolphin25 and resnor like this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Marino isn't all by himself from another era. First of all, most top 10 QB lists used to have Montana as #1 before Brady won all those SB's and Montana is still top 2-3 on most lists. Guys before Marino's time like Unitas and Graham are often mentioned as well, and others during his time like Young, Elway and Favre will pop up on some people's lists.

    If you're going just by stats and you don't want to adjust for era (which can by done btw), then just compare Marino to Montana and Young.

    No one QB in that list is tops on all measures that might be worth looking at. With Marino you get a few years of amazing number of TD's and total passing yards, Young beats everyone out on completion percentage and overall passer rating over a several year period, and Montana had arguably the most amazing consecutive years of playoff performance ever for a QB as well as being maybe the most consistent overall performer.

    So while Marino was a different kind of talent than most other QB's, there are a number of other QB's that overall are worthy of similar praise, including possibly two others (Montana and Young) from Marino's time. Young btw is only hurt by longevity in that he only had ~7 full seasons starting.. otherwise he's one of the best IMO.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  26. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The reason Montana is listed ahead of him by some, is because of the Super Bowls. Again, its another example of people, even pundits, not being able to separate team success from individual greatness.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
    danmarino and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I agree many people overweight SB wins in their evaluation of QB's but I don't agree people can't or don't in general separate team success from individual performance.

    Evidence they can and do separate the two: Bradshaw and Marino. Bradshaw is 4-0 in SB's, just like Montana, and was on a great team just like Montana, yet is never mentioned among the great QB's. Marino never won a SB yet is usually mentioned top 5 or a bit worse. Neither would occur if people didn't separate team success from individual performance.
     
    jdang307 and eltos_lightfoot like this.
  28. Dolphin North

    Dolphin North Well-Known Member

    366
    387
    63
    Apr 30, 2017
    I would never argue against Graham as the best of all time, although he had a pretty decent running back named Jim Brown. He was good before Brown came along though, so he is a guy I always consider one of the all time greats. He has more championships than Brady still and he didn't benefit from...err...questionable interpretation of rules as far as we know, so those are 7 championships we can all recognize. Who does that? Unitas had a nice surrounding cast like Montana. Could any of those guys have carried teams like Marino? I don't know. I would say not Montana although I loved watching those teams play. They worked their asses of in preparation. Elway and Favre were less efficient than Marino IIRC. Efficiency was one knock on Favre but I would say he was also a QB that could elevate the teams around him for the most part, when he wasn't sending pics of Little Brett to Jen Sterger. I would take Marino over Favre, Elway and maybe even Montana, unless I get the right players with him. I think I would take Rodgers over all of them though. Even in a less pass friendly era I think he could succeed. Maybe that's just because his greatness is ongoing so it is fresh in my mind, but the throws he makes, well they kind of remind me of Marino's where you can defend him perfectly and he still gets you so often. They get it done in very different ways, but they both just make you say "Shiiiiiiiit!" so often.
    If we are going back to Graham I like to honorably mention Sammy Baugh. They didn't even throw the ball back then and he was doing that, but I would also bet defenses were trying to learn how to defend a passer in his time. BTW GRaham would tell even in his seventies or eighties that you he himself was the GOAT (I read an interview years ago), which lends us insight into his mentality and how it helped him succeed.
    BTW I may be a bit of a homer on Marino but I really believe he made plays that you could not defend and elevated players around him so much more than even other "great" QB's did. Like all QB's do once in a while, but he did it so often. I believe the same about Rodgers and I am not a GB fan.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
    danmarino likes this.
  29. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Graham played from 1946-1955. Jim Brown played from 1957-1965 so they didn't play together.

    Regarding # of championships.. here's another example of needing to adjust by era, namely by the number of teams in the league. When Graham was in the AAFC there were 8 teams in the entire league. He won 4 championships there. Then when he went to the NFL in 1950 there were first 13 teams in 1950 when Cleveland won, then 12 teams from 1951 all the way through the two other championships they won in 1954 and 1955.

    If you calculate the probability of winning 4 championships in an 8-team league, then 1 in a 13-team league, then 2 in a 12-team league and compare that to the probability of winning 1 championship in a 31-team league (Brady in 2001) then 4 championships in a 32 team league (from 2002 onwards) you find that what Graham did with 7 championships is actually 4.2 times more likely than what Brady did, looking only at number of championships of course.

    So the lower level of competition, once adjusted for, shows Graham's 7 championships aren't as impressive.

    Otherwise, if you look at stats like passer rating, you see that Graham had unbelievably high averages for his time, on the surface supporting the idea he might be the greatest. For example, his 99.7 rating in 1953 when the league average was 50.9 would translate to a 171.6 passer rating in 2016 LOL (which is beyond "perfect"). Problem is you can't just divide by the 1953 average then multiply by the 2016 average as I was describing earlier because the spread of the distributions are different pre-1980.

    One has to note that in 1953 the standard deviation for passer rating was 22.4 while since the 1980's you generally see 10-12 standard deviation. That means that relative to his competition Graham in his best year in the NFL was just over 2 standard deviations above the mean (close to top 2 percentile). However, look at Marino's 108.9 in 1984 or Steve Young's 112.4 in 1994 and you'll see both are about 3 standard deviations above the mean (about top 0.1 percentile). So really.. when you adjust, Marino and Young are statistically more impressive than Graham.

    Note also that Graham had a shorter career by about 5 years compared to more modern QB's so longevity corrections would be biased against him too.

    In any case, I do agree Marino and Rodgers would probably raise the level of the rest of the team more than Brady or Montana. I'm not sure I'd necessarily choose Marino over Brady or Montana though if you had the right team around them.
     
    Dolphin North likes this.
  30. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    but who else back then was getting over 30?
     
  31. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    While I agree with you that Webb was a great player, why isn't he in the HOF? Marino's quick release gets most of the credit for few sacks.
     
  32. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    I'll answer your question with a question...how many offensive linemen are in the HOF? The beer drinking men in the trenches rarely get the credit they deserve, it always goes to the QB's and the RB's
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Conceding doesn't mean that the game was over after your third move. The fact is, if your opponent wanted to, they could take their next move. Why can they take another move?

    Because the game isn't over.

    You're wrong, not me.
     
  34. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Warren Moon. Everett. Cunningham. Jim Kelly. Joe Montana. Steve Young. Brett Favre. Scott Mitchell. Testaverde.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    OMG! I wasn't going to respond anymore, but now you're acting like you didn't even make the argument you made??? Don't go there dude.. it's bad enough what you argued is provably false, but acting like you didn't even make the argument? Almost worse.

    Anyone that can understand English can see in posts #34 and #41 you're arguing that you can't WIN in connect 4 unless you actually connect 4, even if the opponent resigns beforehand. And apparently analogies to other games didn't sway you from that argument. Importantly, we're talking about WINNING here, not "game is over".

    So according to you, Deep Blue didn't beat Kasparov because Kasparov resigned before his king was killed LOLOL.

    I'll give you one last chance to retract your claim before I start bringing up this utterly insane argument of yours in future arguments as evidence you might have trouble understanding very simple and directly observable things.

    Last chance dude..
     
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    What are you talking about? I'm arguing that the game isn't over after three moves.

    Answer my question: after those three moves, can the opponent still make a move? If I connect four pieces, is the opponent allowed anymore moves?

    You're arguing that the opponent can concede, which is true, but they could concede after the first move. Fact is, the game isn't over if the opponent can make another move.

    Maybe I'm too black and white on these things.
     
  37. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    it's practice man, we talking about practice
     
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I wouldn't argue against anything you just wrote, but that is NOT what you were arguing previously.

    You argued a player cannot WIN a game even if the opponent concedes unless you finish the game. That was very explicit on your part starting with a post that a mod apparently later deleted where you said:

    I quoted and responded to that in post #26:
    Then in post #34 you said:
    I responded in post #39:
    to which you said in post #41:
    OK? So the argument you just posted isn't what I was arguing against. The argument was about what it takes to WIN the game, not finish it.

    Can you finally concede that a person can WIN a game if the opponent resigns before the game is finished? If you agree to that, then we have no quarrel.
     
  39. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,975
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    The 49ers were MUCH better teams overall and didn't rely on Young as much as the Dolphins did Marino. I think Young is a top 10 all-time great QB, but not as good or better than Dan. Also a true story.
     
    LI phinfan and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  40. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Still led the league more than Dan :D

    My point being, Dan was MAGICAL for a few years, and then fell back to earth. Sure, Shula the GM didn't do him any favors.

    It is what it is.
     

Share This Page