First one was so fun, let's do Elway

[JohnTurney]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... waJo00.htm

1984-92 per 16 games 271/491 55% 3434 18 TD 17 INT 75.0 rate
1993-98 per 16 games 315/525 60% 3836 26 TD 13 INT 88.9 rate

So, do the changes in the game of that era explain the difference?

Is there a difference?

If there is a difference what was it, what happened in 1993?

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Let me just ask this: do the "Three Amigos" not win the prize for Worst Players With A Cool Nickname? How is that they get a nickname, putting them in the same conversation with the Marks Brothers and the Posse?

I remember that Elway had a surgery of some sort on his throwing shoulder, a graft of some sort or another. I don't remember when it was, just that it was later on in his career, and he (and his coaches) said at the time that it made his throwing arm stronger, where one might have expected him to lose arm strength. Google tells me that he had shoulder surgery of some sort in 1993, which might have made the difference. But he also had shoulder surgery in 1992. And 1997 and 1998....

[Reaser]

He got his college coach first, then he got Shanahan's WCO (equip with a better running game) and of course, rule changes in 1994. Though for Elway specifically it was more about change in coaches, he got two that were very friendly for him, and better talent around him obviously helped.

Side note: Elway played his freshman season of HS football in the Great State of Washington.

[JohnTurney]

Let me just ask this: do the "Three Amigos" not win the prize for Worst Players With A Cool Nickname? How is that they get a nickname, putting them in the same conversation with the Marks Brothers and the Posse?

I remember that Elway had a surgery of some sort on his throwing shoulder, a graft of some sort or another. I don't remember when it was, just that it was later on in his career, and he (and his coaches) said at the time that it made his throwing arm stronger, where one might have expected him to lose arm strength. Google tells me that he had shoulder surgery of some sort in 1993, which might have made the difference. But he also had shoulder surgery in 1992. And 1997 and 1998....

Part A----yes. The Three Amigos movie was better than the players

I think health had a part in it. But, the main thing was the WCO. In 1993 it was installed by Fassel and Shanny came in. A running game also contributed, but that is part of the zone blocking/WCO stuff. In 1998 in San Diego I asked Elway about it and he gave that answer. That is where I got the quote "All thing things that should be up are up and the things that need to be down are down." He brought up the quarterback rating and the statistics himself, I asked had there been any changes in his game post-Reeves. My understanding is that the Reeves offense was not "Qb friendly" I have the playbook, but have not studied it. It;s terminology is similar to WCO, "formations are colors, i.e. 'red' and 'brown' and so on, the routes were names not numbers. But Elway felt the protection and quick passing elements to the WCO helped him be more efficient and have more guys open.

So, in this case, and not with Brady, the change was scheme and he had a sustained scheme from 1993-1998, even though the coach changed.

[JWL]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... waJo00.htm

1984-92 per 16 games 271/491 55% 3434 18 TD 17 INT 75.0 rate
1993-98 per 16 games 315/525 60% 3836 26 TD 13 INT 88.9 rate

So, do the changes in the game of that era explain the difference?

Is there a difference?

If there is a difference what was it, what happened in 1993?

Things became stale in 1992. Elway got new coaches in 1993 and a scheme that was better suited for him. He also got some better teammates. Sammy Winder had a long stay there and he was really a crappy runner compared to his peers. Gaston Green was decent for that one year (1991) and Steve Sewell and Gerald Willhite were good role players. It wasn't really until the mid 1990s when Elway had good players at RB, TE and WR.

[JohnTurney]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... waJo00.htm

1984-92 per 16 games 271/491 55% 3434 18 TD 17 INT 75.0 rate
1993-98 per 16 games 315/525 60% 3836 26 TD 13 INT 88.9 rate

So, do the changes in the game of that era explain the difference?

Is there a difference?

If there is a difference what was it, what happened in 1993?

Things became stale in 1992. Elway got new coaches in 1993 and a scheme that was better suited for him. He also got some better teammates. Sammy Winder had a long stay there and he was really a crappy runner compared to his peers. Gaston Green was decent for that one year (1991) and Steve Sewell and Gerald Willhite were good role players. It wasn't really until the mid 1990s when Elway had good players at RB, TE and WR.

yeah, all those things helped, the scheme and the RBs and Sharpe, etc ...

[7DnBrnc53]

Someone mentioned Fassel. Elway had him as his OC at Stanford, and he put up good numbers with him.

Dan Reeves' scheme was too antiquated. In the book Armed and Dangerous about Elway, ex-Bronco WR Steve Watson called it the Edsel System, and he basically went on to say that it was a Neanderthal scheme that focused more on protection than attacking a defense.

Also, check this out: http://www.si.com/vault/1984/09/03/620223/extra-points

Eason Ramson, an ex-49er TE who was just traded to Denver, apparently told his former teammates that Dan's offense was confusing, and another Bronco player basically agreed with him.

[Bryan]

Elway's "Reeves Era" accomplishments are more impressive to me than his "Shanahan Era" accomplishments. Anyone who can get Sammy Winder onto the cover of Sports Illustrated and have a nickname bestowed on 3 incredibly average WRs is a 1st ballot HOFer in my book.

On a side note, its too bad that the short prime of Steve Watson occurred before the Broncos started making SB appearances. He was a top deep-threat for a few years, and could have given the Broncos offense a nice playmaker to use in those first two SBs.