I want to know why folks are so closed minded about history and about acknowledging the past.
Read a little, expand your minds. The past was filled with many great players who dominated their peers and without question should be mentioned and considered here.
Otto Graham and Johnny Unitas are superior to any of the QB's from the last 20 years. This includes Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Terry Bradshaw and John Elway.
Otto Graham in particular led his team to 10 Championships in a row!
He won 6 out of 10 of these!!!!!
That means that he has won twice as many Championships as any other QB in history.
Please do not discredit Otto Graham or the Cleveland Browns because they did not play in the NFL; the AAFC was every bit as competitive as the NFL. The Browns were every bit as good as any of the rest of the teams in the NFL, and they proved this by making it to the Championship game in the first year that they entered the league. Following that up with 3 more trips to the Championship game and winning two in a row [years 3 and 4 of their entry into the NFL].
Otto Graham is the Greatest QB of All-Time!
I'm not closeminded about history at all. I understand that Otto Graham was great. Awesome. It seems that there's something that YOU don't understand, though...First of all, 6 of those championship wins were in the AAFL. Sure, people will say, but look at what they did in the NFL! I mean, the Browns success in the NFL completely legitimizes the AAFL. WRONG. The Browns success in the NFL completely legitimizes the BROWNS. The rest of the AAFL did pretty much nothing in the NFL. So basically, the Browns went 4-2 in championship games against a pretty lousy (except for them) league. So I'm not going to include his AAFL career when discussing his merits as one of the best QBs of all-time.
Now that we've narrowed it down to his NFL tenure, he went to 4 straight championships in his first 4 years in the league, going 2-2. That's an awesome accomplishment... BUT it can't all be put on Graham's shoulders. You lecture us and tell us that we should know our history, but perhaps you need to brush up on your history, too. Yes, Otto Graham put up ridiculous numbers, especially compared to other QBs in his era... but Otto Graham was playing a completely different game. The Clevaland Browns pretty much invented the modern passing game. They didn't revolutionize it, like the WCO did, they more or less created what is the modern passing game. A very large portion of the credit for Graham's success goes to the talent that was around him. A very large portion of his ridiculous numbers stem entirely from another invention of the Cleveland Browns- the Pocket. Prior to the Browns, all teams pass-blocked exactly like they run-blocked; each man lined up across from his guy and was responsible for that one guy. If that guy wound up dropping into coverage, oh well, wasted blocker. The Browns pioneered the idea of having the linemen drop back and form a "pocket" of protection, blocking whoever came at the QB. As a result, Graham had a lot more protection than anyone else in that era, and as a result had a lot more time to throw. Which does a lot to explain his ridiculous accuracy and yards per attempt, now doesn't it?
I'm not saying that Graham is a nobody. Graham was an incredibly accurate passer who revolutionized the way that quarterback was played. He was an incredible player on an incredible team and deserves recognition. If I had to come up with a top-10 list, he'd certainly be on it. I just don't think that he can crack the top-5, with all the advantages he had over all of his peers.
Do you have doubts about how a dominating Defense creates opportunities for an offense?
So if the D was ranked .... lets say 20th in the league ... do you think the offence would have been just as productive?
Blah blah blah, that's all a double-edged sword. I mean, on the one hand, if a team has the #1 defense in the NFL, they'll get more turnovers, which will lead to shorter fields, which will lead to more points. On the other hand, if a team has the #32 defense in the NFL, they'll get in more shootouts, which means more throwing and less sitting on a lead, which will lead to more points. And if a team keeps getting turnovers, then they'll have more short fields and their average drive will be shorter, which lowers their yardage offense ranks. But at the same time, if the team doesn't get turnovers, then they'll have fewer total drives, which will lower their yardage offense ranks.At the same time, let's say they have a dominant running game. That'll sure open things up for the passing game, which will boost the QB's numbers (think Drew Brees i
n SD). But at the same time, they'll call more runs, which will result in fewer passing attempts, which will drop the QB's numbers (think Jake Plummer in Denver). And if they have a horrible running game, then opposing defenses can key in on the pass and that'll hurt the QB's numbers (think Kerry Collins in Oakland). But on the other hand, if they have a horrible running game, then the QB will have to throw a TON, which will help the QB's numbers (think Josh McCown in Arizona).
Now, don't even get me STARTED on the effects of special teams on QB numbers.
I always think it's absolutely ridiculous when people try offering qualifiers for players, like "Hey, Marino's numbers were good, but imagine what they'd be if he had a running game!" I'd imagine they wouldn't be much better at all, because a good running game means fewer pass attempts but more yards per attempt. In the end, it all equals out, and good players will play well regardless of what's going on around them.
Now, there are two things that I think *do* have a HUGE impact on a QB's numbers. The receiving corps, and the O-line. Better receiving corps means better numbers. Better O-line means better numbers. Both of those are pretty much inarguable. Defense, running game, special teams... I don't think these have much impact on long-run QB numbers at all. Except, of course, wins.
Usually, when evaluating great QBs, I look at two things- who did they throw to, and who protected them.
