2020 NFL Thread v. Tom Brady aging better than Mila Kunis

[TAC]

Catches are overrated?

Yes. I am not saying catches do not matter, but when looking at WR stats, I believe yards per catch, total receiving yards and touchdowns tell more of the tale of one's greatness over time.

Wut?

Is blocking now overrated for Offensive Linemen??

Again, yds per reception and total receiving yards can be inflated by guys who run long. Edelman made most of his catches in the middle of the field.

With the exception of Calvin Johnson and Mike Evans, Edelman is within 1-4 yds per rec of everyone you listed. And even then the difference is 5 yds for Johnson and 4.5 for Evans.

Must be nice to just outrun a corner. What about routes? What about elusiveness? You’re penalizing Edelman for not being a deep runner.

[bosk1]

Yeah, I can't downgrade Edelman for the area of the field he excelled in being different than that of a lot of the other guys mentioned.  HOF or not, if I'm building a team, I take Edelman over a lot of those guys, and definitely as a perfect compliment to any of them.  I mean, I probably would take a team with Calvin Johnson and Edelman or Larry Fitzgerald and Edelman over a team with Calvin Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald and no Edelman.

[KevShmev]

If you look at his stats, he's not HOF material.  I think what hurts him is that he had a QB that threw to 8 to 10 receivers a game always spreading the ball.  The old running joke was that Brady's favorite receiver is the open receiver.  Though if you watched every game you knew that he was the go to when you needed a must catch, a third down.  He always seems to get open when needed.  Add the #'s he put up in the playoffs and that makes for an interesting discussion.

Okay, but why was he always so open?  Is it because he was so great, or was it that Tom Brady was excellent at pre-read snaps and could usually audible the offense into a play call that got guys open more often than not?

[KevShmev]

Wut?

Is blocking now overrated for Offensive Linemen??

Again, yds per reception and total receiving yards can be inflated by guys who run long. Edelman made most of his catches in the middle of the field.

With the exception of Calvin Johnson and Mike Evans, Edelman is within 1-4 yds per rec of everyone you listed. And even then the difference is 5 yds for Johnson and 4.5 for Evans.

Must be nice to just outrun a corner. What about routes? What about elusiveness? You’re penalizing Edelman for not being a deep runner.

You say within 1-4 yards per reception like this is a tiny amount, but if player A averages 12 yards per catch and player B averages 15 yards per catch, that is a big difference. That means player b gets 25% more yards per catch than player a.  And we all know how significant every yard can be in football.  Just ask Kevin Dyson or the 2014 Seahawks.

[El Barto]

If you look at his stats, he's not HOF material.  I think what hurts him is that he had a QB that threw to 8 to 10 receivers a game always spreading the ball.  The old running joke was that Brady's favorite receiver is the open receiver.  Though if you watched every game you knew that he was the go to when you needed a must catch, a third down.  He always seems to get open when needed.  Add the #'s he put up in the playoffs and that makes for an interesting discussion.

Okay, but why was he always so open?  Is it because he was so great, or was it that Tom Brady was excellent at pre-read snaps and could usually audible the offense into a play call that got guys open more often than not?

Patriots receivers are also required to read defenses and adjust their routes accordingly. Brady could certainly tell him what he was seeing, but it's up to the receiver exploit the coverage and wind up where TB expects him to be. JE was a QB turned receiver, and he always knew what Brady was seeing and how to best take advantage of it. JE, like Gronk, developed Brady's complete trust because they were always on the exact same page. Moss had that too, being smart and all. When I said that he was reliable that's what I was talking about. JE never stopped a route short. He never ran a hook rather than a comeback. You watch him and Tampa and several of TB's picks were because his receivers blew their route assignment and Tom threw a bullseye right into to a LB. 

[King Postwhore]

If you look at his stats, he's not HOF material.  I think what hurts him is that he had a QB that threw to 8 to 10 receivers a game always spreading the ball.  The old running joke was that Brady's favorite receiver is the open receiver.  Though if you watched every game you knew that he was the go to when you needed a must catch, a third down.  He always seems to get open when needed.  Add the #'s he put up in the playoffs and that makes for an interesting discussion.

Okay, but why was he always so open?  Is it because he was so great, or was it that Tom Brady was excellent at pre-read snaps and could usually audible the offense into a play call that got guys open more often than not?

Because of him. He could cut full speed on a dime. Brady just could see who was open. Both great attributes. 

This knee injury is in direct results of those high speed cuts for do many years. 

[TAC]

Wut?

Is blocking now overrated for Offensive Linemen??

Again, yds per reception and total receiving yards can be inflated by guys who run long. Edelman made most of his catches in the middle of the field.

With the exception of Calvin Johnson and Mike Evans, Edelman is within 1-4 yds per rec of everyone you listed. And even then the difference is 5 yds for Johnson and 4.5 for Evans.

Must be nice to just outrun a corner. What about routes? What about elusiveness? You’re penalizing Edelman for not being a deep runner.

You say within 1-4 yards per reception like this is a tiny amount, but if player A averages 12 yards per catch and player B averages 15 yards per catch, that is a big difference. That means player b gets 25% more yards per catch than player a.  And we all know how significant every yard can be in football.  Just ask Kevin Dyson or the 2014 Seahawks.

But that's not Edelman's fault. Or Edelman's shortcoming. And again, he's within ONE reception per game than pretty much everyone on your list.

Okay, but why was he always so open?  Is it because he was so great, or was it that Tom Brady was excellent at pre-read snaps and could usually audible the offense into a play call that got guys open more often than not?

Why? Because he was fucking smart and agile. He got open in traffic rather than simply outrunning a CB downfield.

Yes. I am not saying catches do not matter, but when looking at WR stats, I believe yards per catch, total receiving yards and touchdowns tell more of the tale of one's greatness over time.

They do? How about when Edelman would keep drives alive with three great 3rd down catches to extend drives only for the TD to go to Gronk or LeGarrette Blount. You mean to tell me that doesn't mean anything?




Kev, are you a football fan or a fantasy geek? I thought you were more astute than falling for the sexiness. Sure I sound like a homer, but I've watched Edelman up close and he was incredible. To call him Darren McCarty is a disgrace. Or Kris Draper.

Maybe he's not Jarri Kurri, but he's definitely Glen Anderson. Maybe he's not Mike Bossy, but he's definitely John Tonelli.

[King Postwhore]

So your saying Tim he's not Brett Hull but Adam Oates?

[TAC]

So your saying Tim he's not Brett Hull but Adam Oates?

He's not Neal Peart, but he's Alex Lifeson.

[King Postwhore]

HOW DARE YOU!

[KevShmev]

Too much to catch up on to quote it all this late in the evening , but a few points:

-It is not insulting or a disgrace to compare Edelman to Draper or McCarty. Those guys were great role players, which I think Edelman was as well.  It is not an insult to call someone a great role player.  His role was to be the possession WR, make tough catches and get 1st downs, and he did a damn good job at it more often than not.  Mad props to him.

-Regarding the fantasy geek thing, I have said it before and I will say it again: stats do not mean everything, but they mean something.  And his numbers in the regular season simply do not stack up.   He is 75th all-time in catches (despite playing in an era where receptions are higher than ever), 156th in receiving yards, and not in the top 250 in touchdown catches (the list I see ends at 250 and he was not in it).  Again, stats do not count for everything, but when they are that subpar, relative to other WR's from his era who are considered HOFers or borderline HOFers, it hurts his cause.

-If you want to sum up his career and put him in the Hall of Fame on the strength of a small sample size like 19 playoff games (where he was great, no doubt), have at it, but I don't believe his playoff success is enough to overcome his pedestrian regular numbers and lack of accolades (no All-Pros, no Pro Bowls).  If he had numbers in the regular season similar to fringe "they aren't quite" Hall of Famer WR's like Hines Ward, Roddy White or Jimmy Smith AND had that postseason resume, I would say he is a shoe-in.  But he does not.

[KevShmev]

Also, to add, I get your guys' passion on this.  You are Patriots fans and he helped win Super Bowls for your team. I get it.  If he had been a Bronco and done the same thing, I'd be defending him like you guys are.  We all have a little homer in us. 

[TAC]

Also, to add, I get your guys' passion on this.  You are Patriots fans and he helped win Super Bowls for your team. I get it.  If he had been a Bronco and done the same thing, I'd be defending him like you guys are.  We all have a little homer in us. 

I'm only a homer in that I witnessed what he did. I'm not a honk, and football is a very distant sport for me behind hockey and baseball.


To call Edelman a role player is a bit insulting. He was CRITICAL to the Pats' success. I think that's the point you're missing. You are way underestimating just how important he was to those three Championship runs. You outsiders think Oh it must be Brady. Sure, but I mentioned Edelman saved Brady's ass countless times.


And you say that receptions are higher than ever.. I've posted the Receptions per game below. Look at the guys you listed. Only Jones and Brown are averaging more than 6 (6.3 actually)per game.
Everyone else is under 6 catches per game, and Edelman is within ONE reception of all of the rest.





Here are the numbers I crunched last night..

Rec
Fitzgerald-1432 (5.4/gm)
Jones-848 (6.3/gm)
Brown-886 (6.3/gm)
Hopkins- 747 (5.9/gm)
Green-649 (5.1/gm)
Evans- 532 (5.1/gm)
A. Johnson-1062 (5.5/gm)
Hill- 368 (5.0/gm)
Thomas-724 (5.0/gm)
C. Johnson-731 (5.4/gm)
Edelman-630 (4.6/gm)

In 17 playoff games, Edelman averaged 6.18 rec/gm

Yds
Fitzgerald- 17,492 (66/gm)
Jones- 12,892  (95/gm)
Brown-11,746 (84/gm)
Hopkins-10,009 (79/gm)
Green-9,430 (75/gm)
Evans-8,266 (78/gm)
A. Johnson- 14,185 (73/gm)
Hill-5,391 (73/gm)
Thomas-9,763 (68/gm)
C. Johnson- 11,619 (86/gm)
Edelman- 8,622 (50/gm)

In 17 playoff games Edelman averaged 75 yds/gm

Yds per Rec
Fitzgerald- 12
Jones- 15
Brown-13.3
Hopkins-13.4
Green-14.5
Evans-15.5
A. Johnson-13.4
Hill-14.7
Thomas-13.5
C. Johnson-16
Edelman-11

TDs
Fitzgerald-121
Jones-60
Brown-79
Hopkins-60
Green-65
Evans-61
A. Johnson-70
Hill-47
Thomas-63
C. Johnson-83
Edelman-36


Rings
Fitzgerald-0
Jones-0
Brown-1
Hopkins-0
Green-0
Evans-1
A. Johnson-0
Hill-1
Thomas-1
C. Johnson-0
Edelman-3

[KevShmev]

So basically, he is at the bottom of every category, except rings, and rings has never really been a make or break thing for a WR making the HOF (unless you're Lynn Swann), so there is that.

I agree that he was critical to the Pats success. Role players often ARE critical to the success of championship teams/dynasties.

[Dream Team]

I can see an argument for Edelman, but he is kind of a link in the Small White Guy in Boston chain of Welker-Edelman-Hogan etc. They always had that guy, though JE was the best of them.

[TAC]

Well Hogan was more of a deep guy. I'd say the Edelman's spot had its roots with Troy Brown.

[King Postwhore]

If he was to get in, and I think that's not likely, it will be because of his playoff performances. 

I do think it's funny that not many from this dynasty had made the HOF.  So many other dynasties have multiple players to make the HOF.  I wonder if it's because of free agency these days.  You don't see a player with a team for a long time, Endelman excluded, that has hurt the likes of someone like Richard Seymour.

[KevShmev]

Troy Brown...see, now THAT is a Hall of Fame player.

[hunnus2000]

So basically, he is at the bottom of every category, except rings, and rings has never really been a make or break thing for a WR making the HOF (unless you're Lynn Swann), so there is that.

I agree that he was critical to the Pats success. Role players often ARE critical to the success of championship teams/dynasties.

Am I the only one here wondering how Lynn Swan is a HoFer?

[KevShmev]

Am I the only one here wondering how Lynn Swan is a HoFer?

It took him forever to make it, and I am sure working in the media and always being a presence helped.  His numbers look paltry now, but we have to remember that passing and receiving numbers were much lower back then.  He did, after all, make it to three All-Pro teams (once on the 1st team) and was on the all-decade team, so I sorta get it.

[El Barto]

Am I the only one here wondering how Lynn Swan is a HoFer?

It took him forever to make it, and I am sure working in the media and always being a presence helped.  His numbers look paltry now, but we have to remember that passing and receiving numbers were much lower back then.  He did, after all, make it to three All-Pro teams (once on the 1st team) and was on the all-decade team, so I sorta get it.

Bradshaw's the one that confounds me. I could understand Swann making the Hall of Fame at the time, simply because the bar had been set much lower. Allstar receivers were always one-upping the predecessors. In 2001 that was not the case.

[KevShmev]

Bradshaw's the one that confounds me. I could understand Swann making the Hall of Fame at the time, simply because the bar had been set much lower. Allstar receivers were always one-upping the predecessors. In 2001 that was not the case.

To make sure I am interpreting this correctly, you don't think Bradshaw should be in the HOF? 

[King Postwhore]

I would say 100% he is saying that.

[TAC]

If he was to get in, and I think that's not likely, it will be because of his playoff performances. 

I do think it's funny that not many from this dynasty had made the HOF.  So many other dynasties have multiple players to make the HOF.  I wonder if it's because of free agency these days.  You don't see a player with a team for a long time, Endelman excluded, that has hurt the likes of someone like Richard Seymour.

It's because the voters are like Kev.* If their stats don't help their fantasy team, then forget them. These were team players on a team that ran the fucking league for 20 years, yet they get no respect. Voters only see quantity, they don't see quality. Kev listed a bunch of receivers that won jack shit but could run really fast in a straight line. BFD.



* Not attacking YOU Kev. Well, not really..

[KevShmev]

I would say 100% he is saying that.

It's an interesting take.  I never saw Bradshaw play, and he didn't stand out in his era from the looks of things, but if you win four Super Bowls as the starting QB, you are getting in the HOF. 

It's because the voters are like Kev.* If their stats don't help their fantasy team, then forget them. These were team players on a team that ran the fucking league for 20 years, yet they get no respect. Voters only see quantity, they don't see quality. Kev listed a bunch of receivers that won jack shit but could run really fast in a straight line. BFD.

* Not attacking YOU Kev. Well, not really..

If that is your takeaway, then you really need to go back and read what I said instead of being a homer.  Yeah, yeah, you aren't a football homer, but you are sure coming off like one here.

Not attacking you, really, just saying.

[King Postwhore]

I saw him play but as a boy I was blinded by how amazing that team was.

As a grown up Terry was a game manager.   

[TAC]

I don't have a problem with Bradshaw. He QB'd a dynasty. I'm on record as saying Troy Aikman is underrated. He threw the best ball I ever saw.

[KevShmev]

Also, not that ESPN is the ultimate decider on anything, but I checked out their edition of Around the Horn the other day where the four panelists all discussed Edelman's HOF worthiness and they all pretty much had the exact same take: "he had a great career considering where he came from, and mad props to him for that, but HOF worthy? Let's get serious."  I suspect that is the stance most in the media, who vote on these things, will have on this, so I suspect I will eventually be right about this and he won't sniff the Hall.  No matter, he still had a heckuva career.

[TAC]

I saw that episode, and in the next segment, they drafted their fantasy teams.

[El Barto]

Bradshaw's the one that confounds me. I could understand Swann making the Hall of Fame at the time, simply because the bar had been set much lower. Allstar receivers were always one-upping the predecessors. In 2001 that was not the case.

To make sure I am interpreting this correctly, you don't think Bradshaw should be in the HOF?

As a product of the era I suppose it made sense, but I wouldn't consider him deserving. Particularly nowadays. He was a tough bastard playing in a tough era, and when the games got bigger he played better. Both of those points count for an awful lot in my book. Not every game is the Super Bowl, though. A passer rating of 68.5*? A completion percentage of 51.9? A TD to INT ratio of 1? Among his peers, Staubach, Kenny Anderson, Dan Fouts, Theismann, he's hanging kind of far behind. He had the good fortune to play for one of the three best defenses ever, and he had two HOF receivers and a two-headed monster backfield (everybody forgets about Rocky Bleir). I think on another team he'd be Brian Sipe.


*Officially his career average PR is 70.1, but that includes his final year where he only played two [very good] possessions adding a 133 season to his average.

[KevShmev]

As a product of the era I suppose it made sense, but I wouldn't consider him deserving. Particularly nowadays. He was a tough bastard playing in a tough era, and when the games got bigger he played better. Both of those points count for an awful lot in my book. Not every game is the Super Bowl, though. A passer rating of 68.5*? A completion percentage of 51.9? A TD to INT ratio of 1? Among his peers, Staubach, Kenny Anderson, Dan Fouts, Theismann, he's hanging kind of far behind. He had the good fortune to play for one of the three best defenses ever, and he had two HOF receivers and a two-headed monster backfield (everybody forgets about Rocky Bleir). I think on another team he'd be Brian Sipe.


*Officially his career average PR is 70.1, but that includes his final year where he only played two [very good] possessions adding a 133 season to his average.

All fair points.  I never saw him play in real time, so it's really hard for me to say.  By most accounts, he wasn't as good as the other HOF QB's of his era like Staubach and Tarkenton, but won four Super Bowls.  It's similar to how Aikman wasn't as good as Young or Favre in the 90's, but won three to their one (each).  Some guys are just fortunate to be on stacked teams.  Not taking anything away from Aikman, who was very good, but I don't think he was one of those guys who was gonna win no matter where he went.

[Stadler]

As a product of the era I suppose it made sense, but I wouldn't consider him deserving. Particularly nowadays. He was a tough bastard playing in a tough era, and when the games got bigger he played better. Both of those points count for an awful lot in my book. Not every game is the Super Bowl, though. A passer rating of 68.5*? A completion percentage of 51.9? A TD to INT ratio of 1? Among his peers, Staubach, Kenny Anderson, Dan Fouts, Theismann, he's hanging kind of far behind. He had the good fortune to play for one of the three best defenses ever, and he had two HOF receivers and a two-headed monster backfield (everybody forgets about Rocky Bleir). I think on another team he'd be Brian Sipe.


*Officially his career average PR is 70.1, but that includes his final year where he only played two [very good] possessions adding a 133 season to his average.

All fair points.  I never saw him play in real time, so it's really hard for me to say.  By most accounts, he wasn't as good as the other HOF QB's of his era like Staubach and Tarkenton, but won four Super Bowls.  It's similar to how Aikman wasn't as good as Young or Favre in the 90's, but won three to their one (each).  Some guys are just fortunate to be on stacked teams.  Not taking anything away from Aikman, who was very good, but I don't think he was one of those guys who was gonna win no matter where he went.

But that's the circle; that's the chicken and the egg.  I saw Bradshaw, Staubach and Tarkenton in real life, and was always more impressed with Bradshaw (then Staubach, then Tarkenton).   It's not necessarily true, but my enduring impressions of the three are:

- Bradshaw:  he was the guy that won; no teeth, no hair, dirty uniform, and something in the highlight reel that swung the game in his direction.
- Staubach:  the more stately QB, didn't dirty his uniform as much, but field-marshalled his way to victories like a machine
- Tarkenton:  ran around like a jack-ass most of the game, scrambling for his life, and always coming up a half-step short. 

I think it's what you value, what you're looking for in the performance of your quarterback.   And it's not like the Cowboys and the Vikes (who made - and lost - four Super Bowls) weren't also "stacked":  The Purple People Eaters, Chuck Foreman, Paul Warfield and Ahmad Rashad.  The Cowboys defense...  I wouldn't overstate the teams aspect here.  It's real, but it's not determinative.

[pg1067]

As a product of the era I suppose it made sense, but I wouldn't consider him deserving. Particularly nowadays. He was a tough bastard playing in a tough era, and when the games got bigger he played better. Both of those points count for an awful lot in my book. Not every game is the Super Bowl, though. A passer rating of 68.5*? A completion percentage of 51.9? A TD to INT ratio of 1? Among his peers, Staubach, Kenny Anderson, Dan Fouts, Theismann, he's hanging kind of far behind. He had the good fortune to play for one of the three best defenses ever, and he had two HOF receivers and a two-headed monster backfield (everybody forgets about Rocky Bleir). I think on another team he'd be Brian Sipe.


*Officially his career average PR is 70.1, but that includes his final year where he only played two [very good] possessions adding a 133 season to his average.

All fair points.  I never saw him play in real time, so it's really hard for me to say.  By most accounts, he wasn't as good as the other HOF QB's of his era like Staubach and Tarkenton, but won four Super Bowls.

As someone who started watching about halfway through Bradshaw's career, I think all of this is right.  Bradshaw was good, but there were several guys more highly regarded:  Bob Griese, Bert Jones, Archie Manning, Dan Fouts, Brian Sipe, and the aforementioned Staubach and Tarkenton were all as or more highly regarded as individual players than Bradshaw.  The impact of the team around Bradshaw can't be understated.  The Steelers' starting lineup in SB13 featured TEN HOFers (including Bradshaw).  Five of those ten players (Bradshaw, Harris, Greene, Lambert and Blount) were around for all four of the Steelers' SB wins, and Ham, Swann and Stallworth were around for three each.  In addition, the starting right guard and left tackle (Gerry Mullins and Jon Kolb), along with Rocky Bleier were around for all four wins.  The most surprising thing about the late '70s Steeler teams isn't that they won 4 SBs in 6 years; rather, it's that they didn't win 6 in a row.

All that said, there's this:

if you win four Super Bowls [in six years] as the starting QB [and are the MVP in two of them], you are getting in the HOF.

[El Barto]

As a product of the era I suppose it made sense, but I wouldn't consider him deserving. Particularly nowadays. He was a tough bastard playing in a tough era, and when the games got bigger he played better. Both of those points count for an awful lot in my book. Not every game is the Super Bowl, though. A passer rating of 68.5*? A completion percentage of 51.9? A TD to INT ratio of 1? Among his peers, Staubach, Kenny Anderson, Dan Fouts, Theismann, he's hanging kind of far behind. He had the good fortune to play for one of the three best defenses ever, and he had two HOF receivers and a two-headed monster backfield (everybody forgets about Rocky Bleir). I think on another team he'd be Brian Sipe.


*Officially his career average PR is 70.1, but that includes his final year where he only played two [very good] possessions adding a 133 season to his average.

All fair points.  I never saw him play in real time, so it's really hard for me to say.  By most accounts, he wasn't as good as the other HOF QB's of his era like Staubach and Tarkenton, but won four Super Bowls.  It's similar to how Aikman wasn't as good as Young or Favre in the 90's, but won three to their one (each).  Some guys are just fortunate to be on stacked teams.  Not taking anything away from Aikman, who was very good, but I don't think he was one of those guys who was gonna win no matter where he went.

Sometime when you want to watch one of those condensed, NFL Films football games, watch Super Bowl XIII (Dallas/Pitt 1978). It was a great game and Bradshaw almost certainly was the MVP. The great ones really pick it up when the pressure's on (Hey, isn't that John Candy?) and Terry certainly did. Like I said, though, not every game is the Super Bowl. It also says something that Terry's motivation for his entire career was the incessant bitching about how much he sucked. He gets credit for using that to his advantage, and he's said all along that it was really, really awful, but the cries were there for a reason.

[El Barto]

As a product of the era I suppose it made sense, but I wouldn't consider him deserving. Particularly nowadays. He was a tough bastard playing in a tough era, and when the games got bigger he played better. Both of those points count for an awful lot in my book. Not every game is the Super Bowl, though. A passer rating of 68.5*? A completion percentage of 51.9? A TD to INT ratio of 1? Among his peers, Staubach, Kenny Anderson, Dan Fouts, Theismann, he's hanging kind of far behind. He had the good fortune to play for one of the three best defenses ever, and he had two HOF receivers and a two-headed monster backfield (everybody forgets about Rocky Bleir). I think on another team he'd be Brian Sipe.


*Officially his career average PR is 70.1, but that includes his final year where he only played two [very good] possessions adding a 133 season to his average.

All fair points.  I never saw him play in real time, so it's really hard for me to say.  By most accounts, he wasn't as good as the other HOF QB's of his era like Staubach and Tarkenton, but won four Super Bowls.  It's similar to how Aikman wasn't as good as Young or Favre in the 90's, but won three to their one (each).  Some guys are just fortunate to be on stacked teams.  Not taking anything away from Aikman, who was very good, but I don't think he was one of those guys who was gonna win no matter where he went.

But that's the circle; that's the chicken and the egg.  I saw Bradshaw, Staubach and Tarkenton in real life, and was always more impressed with Bradshaw (then Staubach, then Tarkenton).   It's not necessarily true, but my enduring impressions of the three are:

- Bradshaw:  he was the guy that won; no teeth, no hair, dirty uniform, and something in the highlight reel that swung the game in his direction.
- Staubach:  the more stately QB, didn't dirty his uniform as much, but field-marshalled his way to victories like a machine
- Tarkenton:  ran around like a jack-ass most of the game, scrambling for his life, and always coming up a half-step short. 

I think it's what you value, what you're looking for in the performance of your quarterback.   And it's not like the Cowboys and the Vikes (who made - and lost - four Super Bowls) weren't also "stacked":  The Purple People Eaters, Chuck Foreman, Paul Warfield and Ahmad Rashad.  The Cowboys defense...  I wouldn't overstate the teams aspect here.  It's real, but it's not determinative.

Roger certainly did his fair share of running for his life. He was actually pretty spry for his size, and he had no qualms about dropping a shoulder and plowing through somebody. Roger's thing, though, was that he was the most competitive man alive, and that's what led to the Captain Comeback moniker. He just refused to lose. While Bradshaw was the MVP of SBXIII, Roger came pretty close to getting it himself, and it was for one of those comebacks.

My old man worked with Staubach a few times. I never met him but I sat in his suite during a Stars game. He also walked right in front of me while I was stopped at a sign. I was going to yell something out the window at him, but the second thing my old man told me about Roger, aside from the competitiveness, is that the man was just completely humorless.  I figured it'd probably just piss him off.