Home Sports Talk
Options

How many yards would Dan Marino throw for in today's NFL?

doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 22,976 ✭✭✭✭✭

Very interesting article I bumped into today, back in 2020 Marino said he would throw for 6,000 yards and 60 TDs, no problems.

How many yards does Dan Marino think he'd throw for in today's NFL?

Former Miami Dolphins quarterback and Hall of Famer Dan Marino rewrote the NFL passing records throughout the course of his run with the Miami Dolphins. By the time Marino retired at the turn of the millennium, he owned every major record for a career and a single season.

What made his accomplishments all the more impressive was the NFL’s rules at the time, which allowed defenders to play much more physical than what you see in modern football. And with the evolution in the NFL’s rules and standards for pass defense, Marino serves as one of the few players from a past era that would actually thrive in the newer setting.

Any NFL alumni from the 1980s and 1990s will be quick to mention Marino’s name when asked who would be the best prior era player to play in the modern era — but what does Marino himself think about his chances? Marino made an appearance on Fox Sports 1’s “First Things First” earlier this week and was asked how many passing yards he thought he could threw for with today’s rules.

The answer, as you’d expect, was equally ambitious and awesome.

"Since I don't have to prove it, I could stand here and tell you I could throw for 6,000 yards, 60 TDs. No problem he says."

Agreed. No questions asked. Honestly — are you going to argue with Dan freaking Marino on this?

Given that Marino threw for 5,000 yards and 48 touchdowns back in 1984, the odds are he’d have at least pulled one season to challenge those numbers. Those who don’t follow the Dolphins might scoff or poke fun at Marino’s lack of a championship. That’s fine, let them. At the end of the day, Dolphins fans had the pleasure of watching Marino help revolutionize the league over nearly two decades — that’s a win in itself.

Comments

  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 22,976 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You see, this is what happens when I get bored, I started reading these weird articles. Earlier today, I read an article on the appreciation of Don Mattingly's mustache!

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,498 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 21, 2023 2:53PM

    He would do just as good as the elite QB's of today do.

    My 2 cents is I don't think he would automatically be better but definitely just as good

  • Options
    thisistheshowthisistheshow Posts: 9,386 ✭✭✭✭✭

    DD, I pulled up the actual interview from which the quotation is taken. Marino was not making a serious statement, nor did he say it in a way that is braggadocios. FYI

  • Options
    thisistheshowthisistheshow Posts: 9,386 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I closed the video. I just went back to link it, and when I tried to reopen it I couldn't get it for some reason. It was in an Arabic Facebook link. 🤷 But it's out there. Lol.

  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 22,976 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've been trying to post a Twitter video of his legendary throw at the 1991 quarterback challenge, when he hit the bullseye but can't get the video to work, this is frustrating, I've been trying for 30 minutes, I can't give up now!

  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 22,976 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Stupid Elon Musk, he's ruined Twitter, everything was fine before he took over!

  • Options
    GroceryRackPackGroceryRackPack Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    How many yards would Dan Marino throw for in today's NFL?

    um...A Lot... :)

  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 22,976 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ok, I finally got it to work. For those of you who don't know this, at the 1991 quarterback challenge, Steve DeBerg was leading the competition and was all set to win $55,000, it was in the bag. Except there was one last competitor left, Dan Marino, and he had one throw, one chance to defeat DeBerg and win the $55,000, but he would have to throw it to the deepest target on the field, the most difficult target to hit, a moving target, and the ball would have to hit the bullseye. This throw was insane and it shows how good he truly was, he was damn good. Here's the video.

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,527 ✭✭✭✭✭

    he was putting up video game numbers when 3k yards and 25 TDs in a season were considered the benchmarks. i dont see why he couldnt have achived those marks playing today with an extra game to boot.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    Steven59Steven59 Posts: 8,293 ✭✭✭✭✭

    {How many yards would Dan Marino throw for in today's NFL}

    None - cause he's 61 years old - :D

    "When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"

  • Options
    MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭✭✭

    All the old time stars would have greater success in today's NFL because that's the way the NFL has changed, to increase offensive production.

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Maywood said:
    All the old time stars would have greater success in today's NFL because that's the way the NFL has changed, to increase offensive production.

    Here is an objective view on this, I would say a LOT of yards gained would have been canceled out in today's game due to the rules

    Back in the day a receiver had to just get his hands on the ball and if the ref wasn't right there to see if it was actually caught it was a catch.

    As much as people want to say the game is more user friendly in today's games in alot of ways its not such as the rules of a catch.

    Also by your statement all the modern records would be broken by players from yesteryear? That is your stance?

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Disclaimer: I am aware that the NFL of today is designed to favor more scoring but the game is so much faster, with that the competition is set at a higher bar.

  • Options
    MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said: Disclaimer: I am aware that the NFL of today is designed to favor more scoring but the game is so much faster, with that the competition is set at a higher bar.
    --- Also by your statement all the modern records would be broken by players from yesteryear? That is your stance?

    First off, I don't believe players like Marino would break all the records, I never said that. But I do believe he would enjoy more success than he had during his playing days because the rule changes are designed to make that happen.

    Secondly, in a way you seem to be saying that players from prior eras couldn't compete in todays game at or above their level of play during their careers. That runs contrary to the point you tend to make that todays players would do just fine in the older eras. To me that doesn't make sense. The older players would be afforded benefits such as improved diet, improved training/equipment and different rules. Todays players would be denied all those advantages, so I don't see how that would favor them in the comparison.

    In short, I don't believe players would be stagnant in their performance. They would be affected for better or worse by the era they were playing in.

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Maywood said:
    @perkdog said: Disclaimer: I am aware that the NFL of today is designed to favor more scoring but the game is so much faster, with that the competition is set at a higher bar.
    --- Also by your statement all the modern records would be broken by players from yesteryear? That is your stance?

    First off, I don't believe players like Marino would break all the records, I never said that. But I do believe he would enjoy more success than he had during his playing days because the rule changes are designed to make that happen.

    Secondly, in a way you seem to be saying that players from prior eras couldn't compete in todays game at or above their level of play during their careers. That runs contrary to the point you tend to make that todays players would do just fine in the older eras. To me that doesn't make sense. The older players would be afforded benefits such as improved diet, improved training/equipment and different rules. Todays players would be denied all those advantages, so I don't see how that would favor them in the comparison.

    In short, I don't believe players would be stagnant in their performance. They would be affected for better or worse by the era they were playing in.

    Fair enough on Marino and Co.

    I'm not implying anything to suggest old timers couldn't play in today's game, with their God given talents along with the current training and dietary regimes they would be as great as they were, but I'm suggesting the opposition would be just as beneficial so it would even itself out in alot of instances.

    Put your boy Otto Graham's birthday at 1980 and I would say he would still be a HOF'er but I don't believe you would agree that Brady would fare well if he was born in 1930, if I'm wrong then so be it.

  • Options
    MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No, I don't.

    This was discussed during the last NFL season in a thread somewhere and it seemed to be the consensus opinion that current players wouldn't be at their same size, strength and ability due to dietary and training improvements. We'll never know but it's a reasonable conclusion. However, the best NFL players such as Tom Brady have their own routines and regimens so they'd probably surprise us. They'd also lose 50 years of improvement in their genes, 1-2 generations, but that's too weird to think about. If TB was born in 1930 he'd probably be closer to 6' than his current listed 6'4".

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,498 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 23, 2023 5:00AM

    @Maywood said:
    No, I don't.

    This was discussed during the last NFL season in a thread somewhere and it seemed to be the consensus opinion that current players wouldn't be at their same size, strength and ability due to dietary and training improvements. We'll never know but it's a reasonable conclusion. However, the best NFL players such as Tom Brady have their own routines and regimens so they'd probably surprise us. They'd also lose 50 years of improvement in their genes, 1-2 generations, but that's too weird to think about. If TB was born in 1930 he'd probably be closer to 6' than his current listed 6'4".

    I think your underestimating these guys and their talent. When I was in my 20's and early 30's I was in just as good or better shape than Tom Brady, I absolutely was stronger and faster than him without question, that being said he was always millions times better at QB than I could ever hope to be.

    Thinking the heightened dietary and training regimes is the only reason why today's players are good is laughable at best.

    There are a million guys out there faster and stronger than a LOT of NFL players of today but they don't have the raw talents that these players have.

    Whatever the "Consensus" opinion is in some thread here doesn't mean it's correct, Ofcourse nothing is to say I'm correct either but I believe my argument makes more sense.

  • Options
    MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We always believe our argument makes more sense, it's human nature.

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Maywood said:
    We always believe our argument makes more sense, it's human nature.

    Sure but some arguments make more sense than others

  • Options
    MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Again, human nature tells me that my logic makes more sense than yours, that why I posted it. Otherwise I would have just posted "You're right" and been done with it. I expect that the same is true for you.

    Also, it is undeniable that the human lifespan has gradually increased. There is data to support these beliefs which is easily found via google.
    --- Human height has steadily increased over the past 2 centuries across the globe. This trend is in line with general improvements in health and nutrition during this period. Historical data on heights tends to come from soldiers(conscripts), convicted criminals, slaves and servants.

    https://ourworldindata.org/human-height#:~:text=Human%20height%20has%20steadily%20increased,convicted%20criminals%2C%20slaves%20and%20servants.

    Within my own family my children are taller than me, I am taller than my father and he was taller than his father. Tom Brady was about four inches taller than his father if I judge by the pictures I've seen. It's part of the reason why players today are bigger overall than 50 years ago.

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Maywood said:
    Again, human nature tells me that my logic makes more sense than yours, that why I posted it. Otherwise I would have just posted "You're right" and been done with it. I expect that the same is true for you.

    Also, it is undeniable that the human lifespan has gradually increased. There is data to support these beliefs which is easily found via google.
    --- Human height has steadily increased over the past 2 centuries across the globe. This trend is in line with general improvements in health and nutrition during this period. Historical data on heights tends to come from soldiers(conscripts), convicted criminals, slaves and servants.

    https://ourworldindata.org/human-height#:~:text=Human%20height%20has%20steadily%20increased,convicted%20criminals%2C%20slaves%20and%20servants.

    Within my own family my children are taller than me, I am taller than my father and he was taller than his father. Tom Brady was about four inches taller than his father if I judge by the pictures I've seen. It's part of the reason why players today are bigger overall than 50 years ago.

    I'm not disagreeing with the genetic progression of people but again you either have physical ability or you dont.

    Otto Graham.was 6'1 and right around 200 pounds, Brady's success isn't because he is 6'4 and 225 or whatever, so again I question the argument that these physical attributes are behind the success of today's players.

    If Graham was 5'11 he would still been a great player as would Brady

  • Options
    MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A 6'4" QB definitely has an advantage over a guy who is 6', that's why the draft tends to favor taller QB's and bigger players overall, they are better because of their size. There are exceptions, of course, but generally the bigger the man the better the player.

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Maywood said:
    A 6'4" QB definitely has an advantage over a guy who is 6', that's why the draft tends to favor taller QB's and bigger players overall, they are better because of their size. There are exceptions, of course, but generally the bigger the man the better the player.

    It's irrelevant because Graham wasn't dealing with 6'5, 6'6 and 6'7 guys coming at him, not so sure why this entire concept is so hard to grasp other than you just don't want to grasp it.

  • Options
    MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's not me, I think it's both of us. Have a nice day, you win.

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Maywood said:
    It's not me, I think it's both of us. Have a nice day, you win.

    We will just agree to disagree, I'd prefer that than you giving me a win and being all upset over it.

    You have a nice day as well

Sign In or Register to comment.