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 :wink2:
I was bored.
-
Guest
SeanP, FinFan_Est.1984, siciliansith and 6 others like this. -
likes this.
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.
siciliansith, texanphinatic,
and 1 other person like this.
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
siciliansith and Ophinerated like this.
Guest
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.
2socks likes this.
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.:pity:
Since when is Brett Favre a better player than Dan Marino?
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.