Rich Eisen was just (25 seconds ago at the time of writing this) on NFL Network and explained that he was a voter on the so called "Blue Ribbon Panel" of "experts". He went through a breakdown of exactly how players were rated for the list. Basically, they were given a pool of players compiled by NFL Films. It began with 250 players. The scoring system was basically a 1-10 format with no handicaps for era where stats vary. There was no scientific scoring system in which accomplishments were assigned a point value based on difficulty or precedent. There was also no acknowledgement of circumstances under which a player accomplished or fell short during their career. For example, a WR's season in 1965 when compared to Randy Moss's 22 TD season would not have been given a handicap by era nor quality of QB unless the individual themselves had the inclination to do so. To break it down more, Steve Sabol, the president of NFL Films, presented the voters with a list of players and told them to assign them a number from 1-10. Eisen described 10 as being the "Mount Rushmore" of the NFL (which, if you watch Penn & Teller's BS, would not be much of a good thing). 1 would be most likely Great but not transcendental. What happened next was not particularly well explained but it is safe to assume their total is what determined where they would be on the list. As I find it hard to see anyone not giving say a Barry Sanders or Jim Brown a 10, you can see where the process becomes exceptionally problematic. Suppose the panel consisted of 100 voters, two people with 1,000 points would then have to go through some evaluation where certainly personal bias would come into play. It would be up to the people at NFL Films to then determine who is more worthy based on some arbitrary standards not made clear. While writing this, I found this on NFL.com: Assuming some hack writers or cult of personality writers contributed to this (read: Peter King), I have a hard time accepting its legitimacy. Imagine John Clayton or Mel Kiper having been a part of this. Mike Ditka or Emmitt Smith. As many of you know, rather than go with actual game tape or circumstance, the Sports media like story lines. Joe Namath was a sexy story. He was not a great thrower though. INT prone and terrible in the Super Bowl. He had a big mouth though. Consider Bob Griese. He was a great player. More TD's than INT's. Lead two Super Bowl teams and a perfect season (or was Morrall in then?). He won more Rings than Namath but didn't make the list. Both Namath and Griese benefited from an All-Pro backfield duo. The only TD in the Namath-Bowl was by a RB too. Griese was quiet though. I don't think an objective person could put an offensive lineman ahead of Marino. OR a Tom Brady ahead of Marino. The only person who could really do that is one who buys into storylines and the no ring no glory thinking. This poll wasn't scientific, it wasn't objective, and it certainly isn't accurate. Here's to Dan Marino, Best QB in Miami Dolphin history, best passer in NFL History, forever jilted arm of the NFL: That'll do Dan, that'll do I was bored.
I already took everything in the media with a grain of salt. But after watching my SF Giants and their amazing playoff run I am convinced nobody in the media has any clue what they are talking about. They absolutely put story lines ahead of actual statistics or rational thought. Not to mention half of the so called experts have played or coached before and bring their own biases to the table. Give Marino any of those superbowl winning teams and they still win a superbowl if not get even better. Let's see how many rings Brady would have if he had to trot out there with the teams Marino played for.
If Marino played in today's NFL his numbers would be off the chart. He would be an unstoppable force, and would have at least 3 rings on his hand if he were say, Peyton Manning's age. He put up Peyton Manning numbers when DBs were allowed to rape and pillage WRs. Now they can't even look at a WR cross eyed without drawing a flag. I'm drooling just thinking about Marino playing in today's NFL. Hell, with a good enough line Dan Marino today could throw for 4,000 yards in today's NFL. He was/is the best. No doubt about it as far as I'm concerned.
Dude, he threw for 4000 yards 6x and over 3,950 2 more times. He would throw for at least 4500 and 35 TD's routinely in today's NFL. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MariDa00.htm
5,084 yards, 48 TD's. He could average 4,800 yards. He could go for 5,300 55 TD's and that's no hyperbole.
Put him on this team right now with Marshall, Bess a solid pass protecting OL and the R&R boys and he would eat the NFL for breakfast. I felt his ranking was a bit low, but we all know that the people who compile these lists love rings, fair or not. As far as just pure unadulterated talent he should be rated a bit higher.
This makes me want to throw up when i think about all the great years of Marino I have missed live because of being born in 1987.
Just felt like I had to chime in here and although we're all Dolphins fans here, I think we can look at this fairly objectively. When looking at the greatest "players" of all time, Super Bowl wins come up quite often, especially when looking at QB's. There's something to be said for QB's having the biggest impact on the team and also being a "winner" has value in judging a players worth. The sad part about this discussion is that if there is one sport where Championships should matter the least, it's Football. This isn't basketball where there are only 5 guys on the field at all times or even Baseball where you can only have 9 guys on the field. We are talking about 22 different players (give or take unless you have an iron man playing both) that have to come together and produce at a high enough level to push a team over the top. Why is it that Super Bowls are graded so importantly in this sport. It just doesn't make sense to me. That being said, let's downgrade Super Bowls when trying to figure out who the best QB of all time is. Yes they are important, they prove you are a winner, but they shouldn't have as much value as these analysts, former coaches, and former players think when ranking someone in the Top players of all time. The other item I get frustrated with when these individuals grade players is rating the player only based on the era they played in. So when Gates' career is over, should he be ranked higher then Kellen Winslow Sr. b/c he had better numbers? No, he should be ranked higher if he had more talent and produced at the talent level and would have done the same in Winslow's era. Hard to say he would have considering how much more freedom D Backs were given back in Winslow's era. Not saying he wouldn't have, just saying it's harder to say. I think each of us can make our own objective point about this. So in my eyes, you have to compare how a player did in their era vs. how they would really do in any of the era's when comparing a QB to QB. Joe Montana - Let's get this one out of the way first and quickly. Montana was a great QB. Montana played in a system that was very new and fit his style perfectly. Montana played on probably the best team of all time - Great TE, Great RB, arguable the best PLAYER of all time (Rice), and oh by the way, their defense was phenomenal headed up by probably the best defensive back of all time (Ronnie Lott). Do I think Montana would succeed in today's football, yes, but outside of the Super Bowl rings, he does not have the numbers that Marino does and he would not do as well as Marino in at least today's era. Unitas - I happen to think Unitas would excel in today's NFL, but it's hard to compare a QB that played 50 years ago to one that played 15 yrs ago or even today. Regardless, a great QB who belongs in the Top 5, but not #1 b/c the numbers just don't compare to Marino. Brady - Again, Super Bowls are team achievements. Brady was a big part of those Super Bowls, but putting the aside and putting aside the magical 2007 season, and his numbers don't even come close to Marino and nor will they by the end of his career. He does have the greatest season in QB history, but you would think that with that season, he should at least come close to the best in numbers but they won't. Favre - The streak is amazing, yes, but there is no way he can be considered a Top 5 QB of all time. The guy has the most freaking INT in NFL history. Sorry, he's probably Top 10 just b/c of the streak, but I'm not putting a guy that never stops turning the ball over in the Top 5. Elway - This is a tough one. I think Elway would do very good in this era and he was obviously fantastic in his era. He does have that one element that Marino never had and it's being able to tuck the ball and run with it. He was incredibly tough, had a great arm, and was very accurate. In my book, he's 3rd all time. Peyton Manning - Would Peyton fair as well back in Marino and Elway's day, probably. Here is a guy that by the end of his career, it will be impossible for us NOT to say he is the best QB of all time. His numbers will surpass Marino's and most importantly in my book, he's the hardest working QB of all time and has the talent to go along with it (which is why I think he would have faired well even back in the 80's and 90's). There isn't a smarter QB ever and he has amazing accuracy with above average arm strength. At this point in his career, I still have him at #2, but I do believe he will surpass Marino by the end of his career. Marino - No QB in the history of football had the physical tools that Dan Marino was gifted with. He was also a hard worker, but one thing that doesn't get talked about enough with Dan is his smarts and elusiveness in the pocket. I don't know how many times I remember him taking a 6 inch step forward and avoiding a pass rusher without even seeing it coming. His pocket presence in my eyes was Top 5 to go along with the rediculous arm strength, the fantastic accuracy, and in my opinion his best attribute, his QUICK release of the football. He doesn't have a Super Bowl, but the teams this guy played for were not good enough overall. You can only do so much and his stats prove that he did PLENTY. You still need ther other 21 guys to be good enough and outside of a good line for his career and the Mark's brothers, the talent on this team was just not there. He's #1 in my book as I'm sure he is on most people's board here and there really isn't a QB playing today outside of Peyton that I believe will be above him. I apologize for the long post, I've always had a very strong opinion about this and love to talk about it, especially with my fellow fans. Be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Sammy Baugh has a good case for the all-time best. One season he led the league in passing, punting, and interceptions. No, not throwing them, CATCHING them. He was a top-flight QB, punter AND DB. We're not likely to see that again. And while Dan was the best pure passer I ever saw, I give Montana the edge overall. He was simply the best in the clutch and in the big game I ever saw. I have no problem with ranking other positions over QB. DT Merlin Olsen went to 14 straight Pro-bowls starting his rookie year. Munoz was a beast. I think if Dwight Stephenson had been able to play 10-12 years, he would've been the top center. This thing was a poll, not a scientific study, but I do respect opinions of guys who played against each other. I just wonder how many old-timers they questioned.
