Mr Bad Example

I got into the NFL at the very tail end of Lofton's GB career, so I can't speak to him, but in 35+ yrs, spanning Sharpe, Driver, Nelson, Adams, Robert Brooks (underrated, btw), and Jennings, Sharpe is the finest WR I've ever seen play for GB. Adams, however, is right behind him with Jordy.

...but as posted a few times above, no one really puts Bradshaw on the "great QB" list. Even with the 4 titles - he and Griese usually get left off those lists; would that Aikman could be avoided on those, as well. All 3 certainly had the ability to be great, but never had to carry a team to a title....or even to the playoffs.

I feel like Montgomery gets a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

Dynasty rookie draft....scoring is 4 pt passing td, 1 pt 20 pass yd, 6 pt td, 1 pt for every 10 yds (TEs 1.5 pt for 10 yd), 1 pt rec Who do we think is the consensus #1 pick? Currently leaning towards David Montgomery in CHI, because the other option is Josh Jacobs in Oak and I don't feel Jacobs has enough of a track record to trust his production/durability. N'Keal Harry and Kyler Murray are also on the short list (I'm not worried about BPA because I "earned" the top pick, so my team can use help any/everywhere....except maybe QB, where I've got Brady, Wilson, and Lamar Jackson).

The ONLY argument for Namath being in the HoF is that it's the Hall of FAME, and while he was probably about average for his time (maybe 2 seasons where you go "WOW, is Namath good!" which aren't enough), he is one of the more famous figures. Of course, then William Perry has an argument to be inducted as well. But among his contemporaries, I'd put Starr, Dawson, Lamonica, Staubach, and Tarkenton as being clearly above Namath; 6th best in the AFL/NFL really doesn't merit inclusion if we're looking strictly at performance.

Because no one rates them at all.

I think the argument that "Davis and the defense carried him to SB wins" is fair; however it overlooks that Elway carried that entire franchise to the 3 SB losses. I mean, c'mon, there was decent defensive talent there, sure, but he had NOTHING around him on offense in 86, 87, and 89 - Sammy Winder? Vance Johnson? Ugh. Those were 8-8 teams.

Nice cameo by time-traveling Ed Norton Jr in this picture.

Froome out of the TdF with a fractured elbow, femur, and ribs after crashing at the Criterium du Dauphine. So Geraint Thomas becomes the lead dog at Sky/Ineos, and has as good a shot as anyone at winning. Plus he has Bernal in support, so Ineos continues with "we have the favourite, and we also have another potential winner as our #2 guy" as a strategy.

Sure, they may have played above their heads, but when you look at the metrics and not the pedigree, that '91 Washington team was one of the most dominant of the SB era.

I feel like Grossman was an example of "if Brett Favre's development had stalled in '93" - a QB who was inconsistent, turnover prone, and would more often throw you out of a game as much as throw you back into one. Of course, the flip side of that is you have a player with a great arm and fearlessness; but if it isn't harnessed, the guy won't be a long-term answer.

Rypien was AMAZING in '91. Of course, if you want to credit that to Gibbs and the high-caliber supporting cast, I wouldn't dispute it. Rypien was a legit NFL starter for several years, so he wasn't an absolute turd or anything. Parcells gets similar consideration - he won with a HOVG QB in Simms, with a Rypien-like guy in Hostetler, and turned around the fortunes of 3 separate franchises. That's some damn good coaching.

Apropos of nothing, Viviani's Italian nat'l champion kit is snazzy AF

Really, I think that the roster doesn't have any major holes in it, especially post FA and draft. I'm not saying that it's All-Pros at every position, but you can certainly look up and down and go think that the preferred starters are either solid, or at worst unproven with upside.

From what I gather, GB's front office structure is a bit unusual. Will it work? Dunno. But given the climate in the NFL, someone trying something different is to be applauded. Often it seems teams would rather fail in the usual manner than take a chance on something new which may or may not be successful. I'm going to assume the LaFleur was either told, or requested, to keep Pettine. And I think that's fine; my version of how that conversation goes is Gutekunst (and possibly Murphy) saying during the interview "we really like the job Mike Pettine is doing, and are curious as to your feelings on keeping him." LaFleur: "I know Mike a bit, and he's got a great reputation. Obviously I would have to sit and have a conversation with him, but I'm certainly not opposed to keeping him on, and can't see any reason that I wouldn't barring some sort of personality conflict. It would be nice to have continuity on defense." I don't think keeping on an ***'t manager or equivalent would be an issue in ANY business, but apparently it is in the NFL?