Conspiracy - Are Some Theories Accurate?

[Jerry Shugart]

Paranoia born of partisan nonsense is dangerous.

So you approve of the way that James Rosen was treated by Obama's Justice Department?

You prove that the saying attributed to P.T. Barnum is absolutely true, "That there's a sucker born every minute."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'd think anyone who wasn't a stary eyed Cowboy fan and thought Staubach was a better qb than Montana was...less than empirical in approach and less than objective in analysis.

Let's look at the facts about the ability of both players. Staubach had the stronger arm and as I said earlier, when he retired he retired with the highest quarterback rating in NFL history. Montana couldn't hold a candle to Staubach when it came to leadership. Staubach was great when it came to scrambling while Montana looked like he had cement in his shoes!

In fact, Montana was not even the best quarterback to play for the 49'ers because Steve Young was better than Montana.

Montana, who I never rooted for and whose team was never my team, was demonstrably the best at what he did. Four SBs with over 100 rating, no ints. That sort of thing.

If Montana had to play the Iron Curtain version of the Steelers in two Super Bowls, like Staubach did, then I seriously doubt that he would have ever won four Super Bowls.

All you prove is that you are a stary eyed observer of the game who thinks stats tell the whole story!

 

[Town Heretic]

Let's look at the facts about the ability of both players.

If being great at the position was about physical ability, beyond that necessary to deliver the ball, then Jeff George would be in the Hall of Fame.

Staubach had the stronger arm and as I said earlier, when he retired he retired with the highest quarterback rating in NFL history.

Solid arm and a great qb. And before Jordan there were a few great shooting guards too. After him as well.

Montana couldn't hold a candle to Staubach when it came to leadership.

No idea why you believe that outside of being a Cowboy homer. I know Montana led them to four SBs and won all of them with a rating/contribution over 100 and no ints. I recall his legendary cool in the midst of a drive in one (the John Candy drive, to people interested). How was he in the lives of his players? When his right tackle, Harris Barton, was lost with a torn tricep he remembered, "When I was in the hospital getting my arm operated on, he was the first guy who called me. He and [Montana's wife] Jennifer sent flowers to my dad when he was in the hospital."

Staubach was great when it came to scrambling while Montana looked like he had cement in his shoes!

Actually, Montana was really, really effective when driven from the pocket. But if that was the measure of greatness Tarkenton would be in the discussion. He isn't.

In fact, Montana was not even the best quarterback to play for the 49'ers because Steve Young was better than Montana.

Steve was another great qb, but he sat on the bench behind Montana until Joe was on his last leg. That wasn't because the Niners were emotionally attached (see: Joe trade). And, again, Joe took a decent Chiefs team and beat Steve with that eventual SB winning team he once helmed.

What did Steve say about it? "Right up to the end I thought we could come back and win it. I learned from Joe, from the master. Today the master had a little more to teach the student."

If Montana had to play the Iron Curtain version of the Steelers in two Super Bowls, like Staubach did, then I seriously doubt that he would have ever won four Super Bowls.

Montana's rating in the post season against top 5 defenses? 95.6. For perspective, Brady's rating is 79.1 against top 5 playoff defenses. I'll have to look at Roger's.

All you prove is that you are a stary eyed observer of the game who thinks stats tell the whole story!

Stats reflect the truth that homers hate. And if you're willing to look at them and accept it over preference you can, as I do, acknowledge that truth even when it puts your guy behind the guy who deserves it. And that's how a life-long AFC fan gives Montana the nod deserved. And it's why I beat the pants off homers calling games against the line.

So you approve of the way that James Rosen was treated by Obama's Justice Department?

You prove that the saying attributed to P.T. Barnum is absolutely true, "That there's a sucker born every minute."

When you don't wait for an answer, for evidence before you judge and conclude a thing it mostly proves my case. You're bias blind. Same with Roger. It's just your method, I suppose. And it makes for a great fan and partisan, but you're working math with a bad calculator.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No idea why you believe that outside of being a Cowboy homer. I know Montana led them to four SBs and won all of them with a rating/contribution over 100 and no ints.

Otto Graham knew something about being a quarterback in the NFL as he was regarded by many people as one of the most dominant players of his time. He took the Browns to league championship games every year between 1946 and 1955, winning seven of them. He said:

"I coached the College All-Star game for 10 years and of all the quarterbacks in that game, Roger was the best I ever had. He was a great leader - that's the most important thing for a quarterback."​

According to Graham, who should know about these things, the most important thing for a quarterback is leadership and Staubach had it in spades! If you were watching the Cowboys during the 70's you would have seen the tremendous change which came upon that team when Craig Morton was replaced by Staubach. They won a Super Bowl in his first year as starter. His fellow players would have followed him to hell!

Of course you can look at your stats all day long and it will not tell you about a quarterback's leadership ability. Besides having that quality when he retired he had the highest quarterback rating in the history of the NFL so he was not lacking in any sense the ability to pass effectively in the NFL. He was also one of the best, if not the best, scrambling quarterbacks in the game and his scrambling saved many games for the Boys. During his tenure at quarterback his fellow players believed that they never lost but instead they just ran out of time. Staubach was the original " Captain Comeback" and the one and only "Captain America."

When you don't wait for an answer, for evidence before you judge and conclude a thing it mostly proves my case

I don't need an answer because you went out of your way to defend the way that Obama's Justice Department went after Rosen!

 

[Town Heretic]

Otto Graham knew something about being a quarterback in the NFL

He sure did. A winner. But as with the Celtic great, Russell, he wasn't the greatest at what he did either.

as he was regarded by many people as one of the most dominant players of his time.

A fair assessment given the number of championships he accumulated. A Russell for another sport. A Brady for another era.

He said: "I coached the College All-Star game for 10 years and of all the quarterbacks in that game, Roger was the best I ever had. He was a great leader - that's the most important thing for a quarterback."

I believe him. But he never coached Joe, but I accept the ringing endorsement within the context. I'm sure he was. The last time there was a poll of HOFers on the whole GOAT business Joe won the vote of confidence handily. And all of that's interesting, but it's subjective. What isn't subjective is Joe's career numbers, wins, and SB performances. No one in the history of the game has played at his level in the biggest game for the sport.

According to Graham, who should know about these things, the most important thing for a quarterback is leadership and Staubach had it in spades!

I've never said a word against Staubach's leadership skills, so I'm not sure why you feel you need to support the idea. What I rebutted was your unfortunate attempt to denigrate Joe. It was wrong headed and uncalled for at literally every turn.

Of course you can look at your stats all day long and it will not tell you about a quarterback's leadership ability.

Sure it will. Leaders take their team somewhere. But again, no one should dispute the ability of either quarterback to inspire and lead, be he Roger the Dodger or Joe Cool.

Besides having that quality when he retired he had the highest quarterback rating in the history of the NFL

He's what, 42nd now? And no one is close to Joe's multiple SB rating of 127. Two SB MVPs. Four rings, no ints., etc.

so he was not lacking in any sense the ability to pass effectively in the NFL. He was also one of the best, if not the best, scrambling quarterbacks in the game

Tarkenton was better at scrambling, but Roger was probably the next best thing in that particular.

And on the other thing...

I don't need an answer because you went out of your way to defend the way that Obama's Justice Department went after Rosen!

Well, no, no I didn't.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Well, no, no I didn't.

Well, it sure seems that you were trying your best to downplay the editoral comments found in the Washington Post. Since this thread is about conspiracies I wondered what you think of the following article which certainly indicates that the fake Trump dossier paid for by Hillary was and is in the middle of a conspiracy against Trump:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...er-source-fisa-warrant-against-trump-campaign

Do you think that it is just a coincidence that one of the top justice department officals was meeting with the head of the firm who was paid to put out this dossier? And do you think that it was just a coincidence that this same top offical's wife was working for that same firm and was doing work for the firm in regard to Russia?

But again, no one should dispute the ability of either quarterback to inspire and lead, be he Roger the Dodger or Joe Cool.

I didn't dispute anything about Joe Cool. Instead, I provided very good evidence about what a great quarterback said about Staubach's leadership ability but I don't think that I ever heard that leadership was a strong suit in regard to Joe.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just never heard that about Joe. But I know that it is true in regard to Stauback, and as Otto Graham said, leadership is the most important thing for a quarterback.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, it sure seems that you were trying your best to downplay the editoral comments found in the Washington Post.

I contextualized them and offered a slice of his shtick on Trump, to add perspective.

Since this thread is about conspiracies I wondered what you think of the following article which certainly indicates that the fake Trump dossier paid for by Hillary was and is in the middle of a conspiracy against Trump:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...er-source-fisa-warrant-against-trump-campaign

A lot on my plate but I'll try to get around to it if time allows. I have an EdTPA 50 page book become familiar with by Friday and a few things to do relating to my internship that begins next Monday, so I can't say when.

I didn't dispute anything about Joe Cool.

I think the term I used was disparaged. You didn't just advance your guy, you made comments about the other guy. Cement in his shoes? His ability to score from outside the pocket was part of what made him great. Couldn't hold a candle in terms of leadership? By what objective metric? Better to advance your guy's virtues, if you felt the need. I never said he lacked any quality of greatness at the position. An all time great. Just not the GOAT.

Instead, I provided very good evidence about what a great quarterback said about Staubach's leadership ability but I don't think that I ever heard that leadership was a strong suit in regard to Joe.

I gave you two examples I recalled without being a particular fan of his, one on the field and one off. Even the guy who couldn't wait to replace him called him the master. That's respect for a man who led the Niners to four SB wins and two SB MVPs. Only very special players make it to that mountain top. Rare ones return to it. Joe is the king of those.

Here's another, from one of the best offensive minds the game has seen and a pretty good coach with first hand information:

“Joe Montana’s leadership was grounded in this key characteristic: Despite the fact that he was the starting quarterback, with all of the trappings that come with that position, he never played favorites or believed that a person’s reputation, status, or credentials entitled him to special treatment. When you worked with Joe, you were treated as an equal. There were no stars in the Montana system, including Joe Montana. That corny old cliché, ‘One for all and all for one,’ could have been written with him in mind.”
~Bill Walsh
That sounds like leadership to me too.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just never heard that about Joe. But I know that it is true in regard to Stauback, and as Otto Graham said, leadership is the most important thing for a quarterback.

Then Joe, getting to and winning four would be by inference the possessor of that quality, since it's the most important thing.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Even the guy who couldn't wait to replace him called him the master.

Yes, Steve Young called Montana the master but who did Young idolize:

"Young idolized Staubach, and after Staubach won the MVP, Young put a poster of the Dallas quarterback on his bedroom wall. From that poster, Young taught himself how to properly grip a football."​

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2002777723_mvp02.html​

Here's another, from one of the best offensive minds the game has seen and a pretty good coach with first hand information:

“Joe Montana’s leadership was grounded in this key characteristic: Despite the fact that he was the starting quarterback, with all of the trappings that come with that position, he never played favorites or believed that a person’s reputation, status, or credentials entitled him to special treatment. When you worked with Joe, you were treated as an equal. There were no stars in the Montana system, including Joe Montana. That corny old cliché, ‘One for all and all for one,’ could have been written with him in mind.”
~Bill Walsh
That sounds like leadership to me too.

Montana's leadership skills seem to me a bare minimum--that he treated all his fellow players as equals!

If that is the best Walsh could do in describing the leadership abilities of Montana he might as well have said nothing because the little he said says it all.

In retrospect, I think that I have provided enough info on Roger Staubach that no one besides you thinks that I am crazy for saying that in my opinion Staubach was a better quarterback than Montana.

Now I hope that you can find the time to read the article which I provided because I look forward to your response.

 

[patrick jane]

I get it now, this is a NFL conspiracy for the GQOAT.

 

[Town Heretic]

PJ, Jerry is trying to launch a conspiracy to promote Staubach.

Yes, Steve Young called Montana the master but who did Young idolize:

The guy whose style his style of play most resembled? Though to be fair that remark was about Young as a kid who put the poster on his wall after Staubach won the league MVP. Joe wasn't playing then and couldn't compete.

​

Montana's leadership skills seem to me a bare minimum--that he treated all his fellow players as equals!

All you're demonstrating at this point is a willful bias. Sad to see it. You have to push the other guy down to feel better about your guy? Okay, but it's irrational. I've given you multiple reasons to believe otherwise.

If that is the best Walsh could do in describing the leadership abilities of Montana he might as well have said nothing because the little he said says it all.

Walsh disagreed. So do I. Joe led by not buying into the star mentality, by only being upset that Young had been handed what he was willing to compete for. He evidenced that leadership by calming his players in the midst of a meaningful Super Bowl drive. He led by being the first guy to make sure his guys were taken care of when they were injured.

Said kicking great, Nick Lowery, "There was something about Joe. What he brought to the team could not be equaled in terms of track record and swagger. It wasn’t cowboy swagger, but it was the confident, quiet Joe Montana swagger … a guy who was so comfortable within himself. He brought the glue to the whole team."

That's what leaders do.

In retrospect, I think that I have provided enough info on Roger Staubach that no one besides you thinks that I am crazy for saying that in my opinion Staubach was a better quarterback than Montana.

Which is why no one outside of Dallas makes the argument. Seriously, I doubt you'll find him cracking the top five (though he absolutely belongs in the top ten) of all time qb lists.

John Clayton has him at 14 (I have him higher).
Bleacher has him at 9 (fairer)
Brandt's has him 8
Athlon ranks him 12th
SI ranked the top 10 and he wasn't in it.
He's at 9 on the fan generated Ranker.
The Big Lead has him at 9.
247 Sports puts him 8th.
CBS Sports has him 14th.
NESN puts him 9th.
Washington Times, 14th.
USA Today, 10th.
The Sports Drop, 10th.
NFL.com has him the highest, at 7th.

The thing is, I literally can't find a major player that puts your guy in the top 5, let alone GOAT conversation. I don't think it makes you crazy, honestly, but I do think it contextualizes your comments. Great qb, but no one outside of Homerville is or has put him into the GOAT conversation. Top 10? Absolutely, for now.

My list? It evolves as I look at some great ones still playing.

1. Montana - king of the SBs. Best qb in the biggest game.

2. Manning/Brady - it depends on what you want. Manning is Unitas plus, was capable of taking multiple teams to a SB, rallying when his body was done to beat out his rival and advance to his last hurrah. Brady, greatest system qb of all time. He's even said so. And he's not being modest, he's right. But what a system. And only one or two players have had this sustained a level of play. Both remarkable. I think they belong paired.

4. Young - Roger part II. As with Manning, he surpassed the original. QBs are really just catching up to his evolution at the position.

5. Marino - best pure passer I've ever seen. Had the first 5k season. Three decades later, with qb and wr rules in place to favor offenses, a few others managed it. Give Marino those benefits and he'd have that record too. Only Marino and Peyton have a 5k and 48+ season under their belts. And again, when Dan did it that was a much harder thing to manage.

6. Elway - most natural ability I've ever seen. Carried teams that didn't belong into SBs. Could beat you with leg or arm. And when he lost that he found discipline to show us a glimpse of the unfulfilled potential. Could have been the GOAT. Still makes the top 10.

7. Favre - joyful gunslinger who had his best year when most qbs, even great ones, are in their rocking chairs talking about it.

8. Unitas - started the 4th quarter rallies of moment. Amazing field general who played into his 40s. Revolutionary.

9. Staubach - lost some quality time to service and still belongs in the conversation of best to play the position. Mobility, moxy, and arm. One of the most feared in his generation.

10.Can't do it. Starr, Graham...though I think Brees and Rodgers will both make this a superfluous worry.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

My list? It evolves as I look at some great ones still playing.

1. Montana - king of the SBs. Best qb in the biggest game.

You irrationally base too much on Montana's Super Bowl stats. But if he had to play the Iron Curtain version of the Steelers in two of his Super Bowls then I seriously doubt that those stats would be so great. In fact, he might have only had a 2-2 Super Bowl record. And his other stats in those two games would have been less than stellar.

If that would have happened would you still rate him as your number one receiver? Of course you wouldn't and no one else would. So in your mind Montana is the best ever, even though he won by the luck of the draw. If Staubach had played a lesser opponent instead of those Steelers two times in the Super Bowl he could have been the one with a 4-0 record and sterling stats in the Super Bowls!

If that had happened you would probably be arguing that Staubach is the greatest of all time!

 

[Town Heretic]

You irrationally base too much on Montana's Super Bowl stats.

Actually no, though there's nothing irrational about suggesting four nearly perfect performances in the biggest game of the sport is a pretty good argument. I also place Marino in a fairly lofty position though he never won one. Joe had one of the best careers and one of the highest averages you could want, but he also had more, another gear that most of even the great qbs lack. He got better when it mattered most.

But if he had to play the Iron Curtain version of the Steelers

I don't know that it's true. I've seen how he fared against top tier defenses. It was remarkable too. Left the current golden boy in the dust.

in two of his Super Bowls then I seriously doubt that those stats would be so great. In fact, he might have only had a 2-2 Super Bowl record. And his other stats in those two games would have been less than stellar.

That's just you indulging in a self-serving fantasy. The facts suggest you're mistaken. And if you have to invoke fantasy to make your case you really aren't making your case.

If that would have happened would you still rate him as your number one receiver? Of course you wouldn't and no one else would.

You mean qb, but all you just said is, "If this thing that didn't happen happened and he performed in a way that he didn't when he actually played you'd have a different opinion." lain: And if the sun set in the east I'd look a different direction to watch it.

So in your mind Montana is the best ever, even though he won by the luck of the draw.

A lot of teams beat those Steelers. A lot of teams beat the Niners. Both only won the big game four times. Impressive, but it's not as though either the Steel Curtain or Joe's offense stopped any serious competition all the time.

Anyway, to my mind he's the best ever because he performed better than all but a few on average and better than any across four SB appearances. No one is close to his average. That's what separates a number of great players. And Roger didn't play the Steelers every Sunday. His league wasn't stacked with appreciably better teams than Montana faced. But against his peers he doesn't approach the level of play Joe produced.

Staubach had three really good to excellent years. Just looking at the years where he started most of the games, here is his playing rating:

Regular season avg - play off avg

71: 104.8 - 98.6
73: 94.6 - 51.4
74: 68.4 - NA
75: 78.5 - 96.5
76: 79.9 - 19.0
77: 87.0 - 88.3
78: 84.9 - 77.3
79: 92.3 - 53.3

Five great regular seasons. Two great post seasons and one strong post season. One horrible, two really bad, and one meh post season.

Here's Joe using the same metrics:

81: 88.4 - 94.3
83: 94.6 - 84.8
84: 102.9 - 89.8
85: 91.3 - 65.6
87: 102.1 - 42.0
88: 87.9 - 117.0
89: 112.4 - 146.4
90: 89.0 - 104.7

Five great regular seasons. Three exceptional regular seasons. Four great post seasons. One exceptional and one strong. One bad and one really bad post season.

If Staubach had played a lesser opponent instead of those Steelers two times in the Super Bowl he could have been the one with a 4-0 record and sterling stats in the Super Bowls!

You're free to believe whatever you want to believe. I'd rather another qb be in the GOAT position, but that's just not how it was or is.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I don't know that it's true. I've seen how he fared against top tier defenses. It was remarkable too. Left the current golden boy in the dust.

Of which defense are you speaking of and how many Hall of Famers and All-Decade Team selections were on that defense? And how many of the same were on the offensive side of that same defense?

I don't think that you realize just how great was the Steel Curtain version of the Steelers.

Here's Joe using the same metrics:

Do you realize that using the regular season average that there are TWELVE quarterbacks with a better QB rating that Joe?

 

[patrick jane]

[h=1]2029 : Singularity Year - Neil deGrasse Tyson & Ray Kurzweil[/h]
Remember, these guys don't believe in God.

https://youtu.be/EyFYFjESkWU

 

[Town Heretic]

Of which defense are you speaking of and how many Hall of Famers and All-Decade Team selections were on that defense? And how many of the same were on the offensive side of that same defense?

Those defenses. The Steelers were a great one. And there have always been great defenses in the league. You don't tend to find them holding the line as long as the Steelers due to free agency, so it's a bit misleading to try to measure the greatness of a defense in the modern era of free agent movement by looking for Hall players. And most teams are great as a sum. The 85 Bears are not infrequently ranked as the greatest single season defense, by way of example. I think four HOFers were on it. Sometimes it's about overall strength and coaching, with enough great ones at key positions, as with the Baltimore Ravens of Lewis. Another all time team.

I don't think that you realize just how great was the Iron Curtain version of the Steelers.

And again, he didn't play the Steelers all year long. And I've noted that his regular season rating/performance wasn't much removed from the average of Roger's post season. Every great qb has challenges during his run.

Free agency has made a run like either team saw less likely these days. Great offenses or defenses are relatively quickly picked clean of the tiers that make them great, even if they retain a core. A three SB run during the life of that core is outstanding and rare. Two is the mark of a really finely tuned organization. That's one thing that makes New England remarkable.

Another thing lost in the shuffle, offense and balance. The Steelers weren't just a great defense. Take the beginning of the run and what is often argued as their best defensive year. They allowed a league low 138 pts. They also scored 342 pts. Only five teams did better on that side of the ball. That meant their defense wasn't on the field all day and their stars were in a perfect position to shine and rest, unlike a, say, Baltimore team of renown.

The Niners best year was arguably 89, when they destroyed the Denver Broncos in the SB. That beating tends to make people misunderstand the Broncos as some weakling team that didn't belong. But the fact of the matter is that Denver had only allowed 4 more points on average than the Steel Curtain did in its best year. They were the number one defense in points allowed that year. Joe hung 55 on them while the defense held Denver to less than half its average for the year offensively.

Do you realize that using the regular season average that there are TWELVE quarterbacks with a better QB rating that Joe?

Sure, and if I only counted regular season average as the prime indicator that would be a blow. It's easier now, which is why Nick Foles has one of the highest single season outings by a qb and the first seven are all fairly recent. And it's why there are twelve qbs with 90+ ratings and one with a 100+ ahead of Joe, all but one of which are players whose careers were made after the game changes that favored the position. The lone guy ahead of him from his era is Young. And Young couldn't match Joe in the post season. Not even close.

Staughback enters the contest at around 37. I have him 9th, not 37th for the same reason. It's about more than one thing, though the heaviest weight has always been placed on post season play and the distinguishing factor among the greatest has always been performance in the big game, the Super Bowl. Not necessarily winning or losing, but how you do either. It's one reason Peyton really can't be considered for the GOAT, even by those of us who suspect his weakness was in trying to compensate for teams he made better than they were.

 

[tetelestai]

But if he had to play the Iron Curtain version of the Steelers

STEEL CURTAIN !!!

It was Joe Greene, not Joe Stalin.

 

[tetelestai]

I don't think that you realize just how great was the Steel Curtain version of the Steelers.

Roger Staubach did.

The Steelers sacked him SEVEN times in Super Bowl X, and he threw THREE interceptions.

Roger Staubach couldn't carry Joe Montana's lunch.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Roger Staubach did.

The Steelers sacked him SEVEN times in Super Bowl X, and he threw THREE interceptions.

Yes, and despite that Staubach rallied his team from the brink and had a chance to win at the end but unfortunately the pass in the end zone to win fell incomplete and the Boys lost by four points!

Roger Staubach couldn't carry Joe Montana's lunch.

Many people believe that Jerry Rice was the best NFL player of all time. You give Staubach Rice and let Montana play the 70's Steelers twice without Rice and let the Boys play a couple of the 49ers Super Bowl opponents twice and Staubach's stats will blow Joe's away!

No doubt about it!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

STEEL CURTAIN !!!

It was Joe Greene, not Joe Stalin.

I had corrected that before your post!

 

[Town Heretic]

Many people believe that Jerry Rice was the best NFL player of all time.

I'd agree he was the best wr. And Joe won half of his rings without Rice.

You give Staubach Rice and let Montana play the 70's Steelers twice without Rice and let the Boys play a couple of the 49ers Super Bowl opponents twice and Staubach's stats will blow Joe's away!

There's no reason to believe that unless you just want to. It's not empirically based.

See, that's one important difference in this conversation. You're a major homer. I never rooted for Joe. Not once. So we're being moved by very different forces in coming to our respective conclusions about the comparison.

No doubt about it!