Cool stat on Theismann......he returned a bunch of punts one year. They must not have thought highly of him early on. Good player and leader; but not a HOF.
since the initial comparison was between Joe Theisman and Bob Griese, I will suggest an answer. if we're being honest with ourselves, we probably think this:
--- the first thought that comes to you about Bob Griese, undefeated season and SB winner.
--- the first thought that comes to you about Joe Theisman, broken leg on MNF.
that's why one is in and the other will never be forgotten.
Morral was horrible for the Colts in the Super Bowl against the Jets. Throwing key interceptions inside the red zone and when he had guys wide open for TDS.
He was horrible and Namath outplayed him.
Namath was a drunk who either very good or very bad.
Joe won a Super Bowl against all odds and Morral didn’t.
Great players step up during great moments, like Brady and Bradshaw.
Unitas had a sore arm against the Jets in the Super Bowl. Morral was horrible. That’s why Morral was a back up. Unitas beat the Cowboys in the next Super Bowl. If it was Morral, the Colts would have lost again. Thank God Griese was healthy for the Dolphins in the Super Bowl, or Morral would have blown that one too.
@perkdog said:
Because Griese has two Super Bowls and had the undefeated Season.
He does have the two Super Bowls - as do, of course, all of his teammates - but whatever credit we're giving the QB for the undefeated season mostly goes to Earl Morrall. Earl won 9 regular season games (Griese won 5), and both playoff games, and led the league in passer rating that year. That team was built on defense and the running game; who they slotted in at QB was of relatively minor importance.
In the other SB year, the Dolphins ran for 2,500 yards (3rd in the league) and threw for 1,700 (21st); the QB was even less important than in the undefeated season.
Griese was a fine QB but the only thing that separated him from a dozen other similar QBs was that Griese's team had better defense. That won him a couple of Super Bowls, but it's a very silly reason to put him in the HOF.
Do you know why Earl Morrall led the league in passer rating, and why Brett Favre and Terry Bradshaw threw so many interceptions ?
You stats guys who didn’t watch the games wouldn’t know, and thus your perception is misguided.
Let me explain. Don Shula knew how Morrall was terrible in big games. Shula watched Morrall blow the Super Bowl against the Jets. So in the 72 season, if you remember watching, Morrall was only throwing five to seven yard pass plays when Griese was out injured. Shula put the reigns on him, unlike Bradshaw and Favre who threw into double and sometimes triple coverage.
Morrall had a weak arm and was a back up because Shula knew he couldn’t hit the deep pass like Griese could. Watch a couple of the deep completions Griese hit against the Redskins in the Super Bowl. Ask yourself if Morrall would even been given the opportunity to make those throws from coach Shula. The answer is no.
Morrall had a wonderful season in 1972. The best of his career. But ask yourself this. If his passer rating was better than Griese that year, which it was, than why did the greatest coach of all time, with the greatest NFL mind, replace such a terrific stat guy in Morrall over a less stat guy Griese in the most important game of his life ?
Please explain to us using your stat analysis why the great Don Shula would do this. I know why he would. But I want you to explain it.
@perkdog said:
Because Griese has two Super Bowls and had the undefeated Season.
He does have the two Super Bowls - as do, of course, all of his teammates - but whatever credit we're giving the QB for the undefeated season mostly goes to Earl Morrall. Earl won 9 regular season games (Griese won 5), and both playoff games, and led the league in passer rating that year. That team was built on defense and the running game; who they slotted in at QB was of relatively minor importance.
In the other SB year, the Dolphins ran for 2,500 yards (3rd in the league) and threw for 1,700 (21st); the QB was even less important than in the undefeated season.
Griese was a fine QB but the only thing that separated him from a dozen other similar QBs was that Griese's team had better defense. That won him a couple of Super Bowls, but it's a very silly reason to put him in the HOF.
Do you know why Earl Morrall led the league in passer rating, and why Brett Favre and Terry Bradshaw threw so many interceptions ?
You stats guys who didn’t watch the games wouldn’t know, and thus your perception is misguided.
Let me explain. Don Shula knew how Morrall was terrible in big games. Shula watched Morrall blow the Super Bowl against the Jets. So in the 72 season, if you remember watching, Morrall was only throwing five to seven yard pass plays when Griese was out injured. Shula put the reigns on him, unlike Bradshaw and Favre who threw into double and sometimes triple coverage.
Morrall had a weak arm and was a back up because Shula knew he couldn’t hit the deep pass like Griese could. Watch a couple of the deep completions Griese hit against the Redskins in the Super Bowl. Ask yourself if Morrall would even been given the opportunity to make those throws from coach Shula. The answer is no.
Morrall had a wonderful season in 1972. The best of his career. But ask yourself this. If his passer rating was better than Griese that year, which it was, than why did the greatest coach of all time, with the greatest NFL mind, replace such a terrific stat guy in Morrall over a less stat guy Griese in the most important game of his life ?
Please explain to us using your stat analysis why the great Don Shula would do this. I know why he would. But I want you to explain it.
I'm not sure how you managed to do it, but you completely missed my entire point. Let me help you by quoting what I said (the part you ignored): "That team was built on defense and the running game; who they slotted in at QB was of relatively minor importance." When they had Griese, they played one way on offense, when they had Morrall they played another way, and if they'd had Bobby Douglas they'd have played yet another. The common denominator is that they would have won no matter who they had play QB because handing off to Larry Csonka doesn't require any skill, and it will get you all the points you need when your defense holds your opponents to fewer points. So I have no idea what point you think you are making when you point out that the Dolphins can win 100% of the games they play with a QB with "a weak arm", but you are certainly proving my point. Thanks for the assist, but the point is so obvious I don't think I needed it.
As for why Shula chose Griese over Morrall when Griese came off the DL, I assume it was because Griese was the #1 QB on the roster and would be the QB for years to come. Since it made no difference who was playing QB why would Shula alienate his young and future QB by playing the old and almost retired QB instead? Again, my point was not that Morall was better than Griese, my point was that it didn't matter who played QB.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'm not saying that Bradshaw would not be a good QB today. I'm saying that we would never know how good Bradshaw might have become, because he would have been benched in the modern NFL after the horrible start to his career.
No, Bradshaw was definitely not better than Aikman.
@jnhutchi said:
I'm not saying that Bradshaw would not be a good QB today. I'm saying that we would never know how good Bradshaw might have become, because he would have been benched in the modern NFL after the horrible start to his career.
No, Bradshaw was definitely not better than Aikman.
Disagree. Bradshaw is 30 spots higher than Aikman.
@jnhutchi said:
I'm not saying that Bradshaw would not be a good QB today. I'm saying that we would never know how good Bradshaw might have become, because he would have been benched in the modern NFL after the horrible start to his career.
No, Bradshaw was definitely not better than Aikman.
Disagree. Bradshaw is 30 spots higher than Aikman.
Nope. Bradshaw threw almost as many INTs as TDs during his career. You can look it up. The Steelers had an outstanding defense during the 1970s, which made Bradshaw look better than he was. There were lots of QBs better than Bradshaw, including Aikman.
Comments
Wasn't it Bradshaw who said about the rules protecting QBs today "They should wear a dress."?
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Cool stat on Theismann......he returned a bunch of punts one year. They must not have thought highly of him early on. Good player and leader; but not a HOF.
Why isn't Joe Theismann in the Hall Of Fame?
since the initial comparison was between Joe Theisman and Bob Griese, I will suggest an answer. if we're being honest with ourselves, we probably think this:
--- the first thought that comes to you about Bob Griese, undefeated season and SB winner.
--- the first thought that comes to you about Joe Theisman, broken leg on MNF.
that's why one is in and the other will never be forgotten.
Morral was horrible for the Colts in the Super Bowl against the Jets. Throwing key interceptions inside the red zone and when he had guys wide open for TDS.
He was horrible and Namath outplayed him.
Namath was a drunk who either very good or very bad.
Joe won a Super Bowl against all odds and Morral didn’t.
Great players step up during great moments, like Brady and Bradshaw.
Unitas had a sore arm against the Jets in the Super Bowl. Morral was horrible. That’s why Morral was a back up. Unitas beat the Cowboys in the next Super Bowl. If it was Morral, the Colts would have lost again. Thank God Griese was healthy for the Dolphins in the Super Bowl, or Morral would have blown that one too.
Do you know why Earl Morrall led the league in passer rating, and why Brett Favre and Terry Bradshaw threw so many interceptions ?
You stats guys who didn’t watch the games wouldn’t know, and thus your perception is misguided.
Let me explain. Don Shula knew how Morrall was terrible in big games. Shula watched Morrall blow the Super Bowl against the Jets. So in the 72 season, if you remember watching, Morrall was only throwing five to seven yard pass plays when Griese was out injured. Shula put the reigns on him, unlike Bradshaw and Favre who threw into double and sometimes triple coverage.
Morrall had a weak arm and was a back up because Shula knew he couldn’t hit the deep pass like Griese could. Watch a couple of the deep completions Griese hit against the Redskins in the Super Bowl. Ask yourself if Morrall would even been given the opportunity to make those throws from coach Shula. The answer is no.
Morrall had a wonderful season in 1972. The best of his career. But ask yourself this. If his passer rating was better than Griese that year, which it was, than why did the greatest coach of all time, with the greatest NFL mind, replace such a terrific stat guy in Morrall over a less stat guy Griese in the most important game of his life ?
Please explain to us using your stat analysis why the great Don Shula would do this. I know why he would. But I want you to explain it.
I'm not sure how you managed to do it, but you completely missed my entire point. Let me help you by quoting what I said (the part you ignored): "That team was built on defense and the running game; who they slotted in at QB was of relatively minor importance." When they had Griese, they played one way on offense, when they had Morrall they played another way, and if they'd had Bobby Douglas they'd have played yet another. The common denominator is that they would have won no matter who they had play QB because handing off to Larry Csonka doesn't require any skill, and it will get you all the points you need when your defense holds your opponents to fewer points. So I have no idea what point you think you are making when you point out that the Dolphins can win 100% of the games they play with a QB with "a weak arm", but you are certainly proving my point. Thanks for the assist, but the point is so obvious I don't think I needed it.
As for why Shula chose Griese over Morrall when Griese came off the DL, I assume it was because Griese was the #1 QB on the roster and would be the QB for years to come. Since it made no difference who was playing QB why would Shula alienate his young and future QB by playing the old and almost retired QB instead? Again, my point was not that Morall was better than Griese, my point was that it didn't matter who played QB.
Take a look at SBVIII. I remember it well. A nightmare for Vikings fans!
Csonka is unstoppable, rushing for 145 yards. The Vikings on the other hand, rushed for 55 yards, plus another 17 from Tarkenton.
Griese didn't even need to show up, throwing only 7 passes, completing 6.
I'm not saying that Bradshaw would not be a good QB today. I'm saying that we would never know how good Bradshaw might have become, because he would have been benched in the modern NFL after the horrible start to his career.
No, Bradshaw was definitely not better than Aikman.
Disagree. Bradshaw is 30 spots higher than Aikman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Top_100:_NFL's_Greatest_Players
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Nope. Bradshaw threw almost as many INTs as TDs during his career. You can look it up. The Steelers had an outstanding defense during the 1970s, which made Bradshaw look better than he was. There were lots of QBs better than Bradshaw, including Aikman.