Former Colt Unitas leads list of top-20 Hall of Famers

[Forkboy]

After being charged with comprising this list, I wanted to consider a lot of things. I thought it should span various positions and various eras, and, well, as it's my list, I might as well allow for certain biases/influences to take hold.
You spoke, La Canfora listened
No Barry Sanders? Why was Joe Montana so low? Lists spark debate, and Jason La Canfora defends the decisions he made on his top 20 Hall of Famers list. More ...

We're all products of our environment, and I'm not claiming it is The Definitive List, or the best list, but I think it has merit. So with that out of the way, here you go:

1. Johnny Unitas (Photos) -- The ultimate leader. Born clutch. You can't beat his back story (Being discovered on the sandlots of Pittsburgh? Are you kidding me?). Could draw up a play in the dirt, call it in the huddle and execute it perfectly. When he passed away, Sports Illustrated dubbed him "The Greatest," and yes that cover is framed in my office. I grew up in Baltimore, was born in '74 -- the year he retired after one season with the Chargers (unfathomable) -- and nobody else was leading this list. Period.

2. Jim Brown (Photos) -- Do I really have to explain this one? Averaged over five yards per carry, tough as nails, dominant for his entire career. Multi-sport star at Syracuse, social leader and a guy who I got the chills being within five yards of at Browns camp Wednesday.

3. Jim Thorpe (Photos) -- Olympic decathlon goal medal winner was first big name to sign with the NFL. Star halfback was also voted top American athlete for the first half of the 20th century. Later became the league's first president. Could pass, catch, kick and throw as well as anyone in the game.

4. Sammy Baugh (Photos) -- "Slingin' Sammy" could do it all. Helped usher in the forward pass. Led the league in passing, interceptions and punting in 1943. That's multi-tasking, folks. My bias for jack-of-all-trades players is now firmly established (more to come).

5. Deacon Jones (Photos) -- About time for a defensive player (another clue that this list is not entirely scientific). If they kept records for sacks in his time he'd be first by far. A game-changing force and as feared a player as there has ever been.

http://www.nfl.com/halloffame/story?id=09000d5d811c3297&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Reggie White above Butkus? Sorry, but no. I can see Deacon Jones being rated higher (though I still disagree), but as good as White was he was never as monstrous and fearsome a player as Dick Butkus. White never had the presence that Butkus did. Teams planned for White, but they flat out feared Butkus.

[TZ]

1. John Elway above Joe Montana?

Umm, no sorry. John Elway is great but not in the same class as Montana, IMO

[Forkboy]

2. I think they're close, though I'd pick Montana first.

But Elway did some things that others couldn't do, or do just barely. He was one of the only QBs who could throw dead across the field with strength enough to avoid the pick (Marino was good at this, but not as good as Elway). And of course, there's the "Elway Cross", the indentation the tip of the ball left in the receivers hands due to how hard Elway threw the ball...in practice. I like Elway far more than Montana, but I'd have to take Montana first. But it would be close. Both were outstanding.

[TZ]

3. True.

I'm biased of course...I watched Elway get totally outclassed by Doug Williams in SB XXII. Something that never happened to Montana in the SB...

[PVnRT]

10. An argument for Elway being one of the most overrated quarterbacks in history

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2285_The_most_overrated_quarterbacks.html

I shall await the flaming. And I agree that Namath is without a doubt the single most overrated player (not just quarterback) in the history of the NFL.

[joeybee12]

12. Elway is up there, certainly not the best...there seems to be some worshipping

of him that is not warranted.

[fishwax]

13. lol -- it's a bit hard to take that argument seriously when they start out by saying

that Elway was so mediocre in his first 10 years that his work didn't even merit him holding a starting job that long :rofl:

"If not for the fact that Elway was a No. 1 draft pick and, thus, entered the league with a boatload of hype that earned him the benefit of the doubt, he never would have lasted very long as a starter in the NFL given the mediocrity of his performances in those first 10 years."

Well, the fact that he took the Broncos to three Super Bowls (without a supporting cast on offense to speak of) probably also helped him hang onto his starting job. Sure, the Broncos got blown out in those Super Bowls, but that had more to do with the team's weakness than with Elway's.

There are those sad, sorry souls – devoid as they are of the Cold, Hard Football Facts – who believe Elway is one of the Top Five quarterbacks in history. Athlon Sports, in its new 2008 pro football annual, named Elway the second best quarterback of the Super Bowl Era, behind only Joe Montana.

Well, that's true if you limit the "Cold, Hard Football Facts" to touchdowns/year and QB rating. But that's pretty flacid reasoning.

As far as those "mediocre" ten years go, the truth is that no quarterback has ever done so much with so little. Since people are comparing him to Montana, it's worth pointing out that in his first 10 years as the starter, Montana had 3 Pro-Bowl receivers (Rice, Clark, and Taylor, with 10 appearances between them), 2 Pro-Bowl running backs (Roger Craig went to 4 in that time), and 5 different Pro-Bowl offensive lineman.

By contrast Elway had one pro-bowler (Keith Bishop, a two-timer) on his offensive line in his first ten years.

At Running Back, Elway actually had three running backs make the pro bowl in that time, but none of them were near the quality of Roger Craig. The leading rusher in Elway's first ten years was Sammy Winder, who averaged less than 3.6 yards per carry during that time (and never topped 4.0 for a season).

No Broncos receiver made the Pro Bowl during that time. (Steve Watson and Rick Upchurch were Pro-Bowlers in previous years, but Upchurch retired after Elway's rookie season and Watson a few years later.)

Elway simply didn't have the supporting cast in those first ten years that Montana, in particular, had. That was particularly evident in the ground game, at which the 49ers excelled. The Broncos running game was below average, often well below average--in fact, if you take out Elway's rushing yards, there were only two years in those first ten where the Broncos averaged more than the league average.

In a lot of statistical categories, Elway isn't spectacular. He didn't throw for a lot of TDs per year. He threw a lot of interceptions, especially in the first half of his career. His QB rating was often pedestrian and his Y/A was rarely remarkable. But his teams won a lot of games--more than any other QB at the time he retired--and his value to the team in those wins was greater than most.

[joeybee12]

11. I recall Joe Montana, old and with KC, mounting a 4th quarter comeback AT Denver...

...Elway was in his prime, Joe was still barely hanging on...Montana is MILES ahead of Elway.

[fishwax]

15. I think that exaggerates the age difference a bit

Montana was only four years older than Elway, and still a damn good QB when playing for Kansas City. And the Broncos were bad that year in general.

That's not to take anything away from Montana's performance in that game, which was great, and even though my team was on the losing end it was one of the best Monday Night Football games I remember. Elway engineered a 4th quarter comeback in that game as well, scoring a go-ahead touchdown inside the two-minute warning. But he left a bit too much time on the clock, and Montana was amazing :).

[Auggie]

4. No way

From Wiki:

"In 1999, editors at The Sporting News ranked Montana third on their list of "Football's 100 Greatest Players." Also in 1999, ESPN named Montana the 25th greatest athlete of the 20th century. In 2006, Sports Illustrated rated him the number one clutch quarterback of all-time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Montana

[trumad]

5. Leaving Marino off?

What--because he didn't win a Super Bowl? Well either did Johnny Unitas.

[Forkboy]

6. It's just not right.

Marino was insanely good.

[El Supremo]

14. Johnny U won the NFL championship in 1958 long before there was a Super Hype Bowl,

And that was The Greatest Game Ever Played.

[trumad]

19. So---

Super Hype Bowl?

It's a championship game isn't?

How many teams did they have in 58? 12?

[fishwax]

16. It seems to me that Elway's two super bowl wins tarnished Marino's legacy a bit

Unfairly, of course. Not to take anything away from a Super Bowl championship, but it's rather silly litmus test.

But I remember several times in early to mid 1990s when commentators during Broncos games (or on other occasions) would discuss the Elway's place among the all-time greats. While Elway was frequently disqualified in these discussions on account of (at the time) never having won the Super Bowl, Marino was--more often than Elway at least--given a pass on that count. I remember one announcer (I think it was Madden, listing Montana, Marino, Aikman, maybe Bradshaw, but then saying Elway really needed to win a Super Bowl to earn his way into that group.

I think in the mid 90s most people considered Marino the best of the '83 class, and none of those QBs had actually won the Super Bowl yet. But once Elway won, it seems I heard Marino's name mentioned less frequently in those discussions of the GOAT. Anyway, that was my impression at the time ...

[joeybee12]

17. Winning the "big one" in any sport seems to be the litmus test...

...World Series, NBA Championship, Olympics...seems like there is one championship in each sport that unless you get it, the fact that you don't get it is an asterik on your career.

[fishwax]

18. In some sports it makes more sense than in others

With the individual sports in the Olympics it makes sense for that title to be the defining characteristic of a career. As far as team sports go, I think the NBA Championship is the one that makes the most sense as a litmus test, since one great player can make a bigger difference there than anywhere else, and since (unlike football) players play both offense and defense. There are a few great players who never won a championship--Malone, Stockton, Ewing, and Elgin Baylor come to mind--but out of curiosity I checked the NBA's 50th Anniversary team, and of the 50 players chosen all but 9 won titles.

It doesn't seem to be as big a deal with baseball and the World Series. It isn't quite held against Ted Williams or Ernie Banks or ... Barry Bonds (:hide:) in the same way it is for QBs (or Running Backs).

But with football there's just too much that goes into winning a Super Bowl, to my mind. I think it does a disservice to the game.

[DaveinMD]

7. Lawrence Taylor

belongs much higher. The best defensive player in the history of the game.

[Auggie]

8. I agree

[trumad]

9. Agree 100 percent.

and no Dick Butkus?