"100 Greatest Players" on NFLN - (List is in original post) (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Montana was a great quarterback on great teams, and he was lucky to be on those teams; that's how he has 4 SB wins. Young and Warner were on fine teams but not as good as Montana's; that's why they each have one ring instead of 4. But both Young and Warner had consistently higher QB ratings than Montana. And when I watched all three, I thought that Young and Warner were better.

As I wrote, I think Montana was a great QB, but I don't get the adulation that makes him generally considered the best ever. Young with the same offense was better in just about every way.

However, Joe Montana is not the most overrated QB in NFL history. That distinction belongs to John Elway.

ETA And Roger Staubach is a strong candidate for runner-up.

This is one of the worst posts I've seen in Shark Pool HOF discussions. Pretty much every point made (Montana, Montana vs. Young and Warner, Elway, Staubach) in this post is completely wrong.

He's He HAS to be.

I don't fish. I'm fully aware that my views on this issue, like so many issues, are extremely unpopular. That doesn't make them wrong, though. Neither does it make them right. I'm not going to use statistics to argue my point because I believe that football, unlike baseball, is not a sport that lends itself welll to statistics. Therefore, my views on these subjects are purely subjective- but so are everyone else's.

But I will state that the key to my arguments is this: football is a team sport, and I think way too much evaluation of individual success, especially at the quarterback position, is due to team accomplishments. Take Roger Staubach for instance. His team was consistently excellent. Put him on the New Orleans Saints and put Archie Manning on the Cowboys and it is Manning whom people would be discussing as one of the greatest QBs ever. In fact, we will never know how great Archie Manning might have been; it is hard to be great when defensive linemen are constantly tackling you. If we look at those who are considered the greatest QBs of all time, we find there is a unifying factor- they almost all had great protection. This of course, is not the only distinguishing factor between a Joe Montana and a Matt Leinart. Montana is obviously a 100 times better than Leinart. But is he clearly better than Young, Aikman, Warner, or a half dozen others? I don't buy it.

 

[timschochet]

Montana was a great quarterback on great teams, and he was lucky to be on those teams; that's how he has 4 SB wins. Young and Warner were on fine teams but not as good as Montana's; that's why they each have one ring instead of 4. But both Young and Warner had consistently higher QB ratings than Montana. And when I watched all three, I thought that Young and Warner were better. As I wrote, I think Montana was a great QB, but I don't get the adulation that makes him generally considered the best ever. Young with the same offense was better in just about every way. However, Joe Montana is not the most overrated QB in NFL history. That distinction belongs to John Elway.ETA And Roger Staubach is a strong candidate for runner-up.

This is one of the worst posts I've seen in Shark Pool HOF discussions. Pretty much every point made (Montana, Montana vs. Young and Warner, Elway, Staubach) in this post is completely wrong.

So you're saying that it's like the Seinfeld ep where George does the opposite and it works?Tim, will you post your ATS picks for today?

I don't have all the lingo down. What does ATS stand for?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Montana was a great quarterback on great teams, and he was lucky to be on those teams; that's how he has 4 SB wins. Young and Warner were on fine teams but not as good as Montana's; that's why they each have one ring instead of 4. But both Young and Warner had consistently higher QB ratings than Montana. And when I watched all three, I thought that Young and Warner were better. As I wrote, I think Montana was a great QB, but I don't get the adulation that makes him generally considered the best ever. Young with the same offense was better in just about every way. However, Joe Montana is not the most overrated QB in NFL history. That distinction belongs to John Elway.ETA And Roger Staubach is a strong candidate for runner-up.

This is one of the worst posts I've seen in Shark Pool HOF discussions. Pretty much every point made (Montana, Montana vs. Young and Warner, Elway, Staubach) in this post is completely wrong.

So you're saying that it's like the Seinfeld ep where George does the opposite and it works?Tim, will you post your ATS picks for today?

I don't have all the lingo down. What does ATS stand for?

Against the spread

 

[timschochet]

Against the spread

OK. See I'm not a gambler, so I have no idea. I can't imagine why people would bet on NFL games anyhow. The spreads seem so small compared to college. It's basically flip a coin, isn't it? Even if you're sure your team is going to win by 9 points, all it takes it one fumble, a special teams play, a broken down pass play, etc, and you're screwed. How can anyone claim to be an expert at this?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Against the spread

OK. See I'm not a gambler, so I have no idea. I can't imagine why people would bet on NFL games anyhow. The spreads seem so small compared to college. It's basically flip a coin, isn't it? Even if you're sure your team is going to win by 9 points, all it takes it one fumble, a special teams play, a broken down pass play, etc, and you're screwed. How can anyone claim to be an expert at this?

I was kidding, Tim. I gave up betting long ago when I figured out I was no good at it.

 

[Tau837]

Montana was a great quarterback on great teams, and he was lucky to be on those teams; that's how he has 4 SB wins. Young and Warner were on fine teams but not as good as Montana's; that's why they each have one ring instead of 4. But both Young and Warner had consistently higher QB ratings than Montana. And when I watched all three, I thought that Young and Warner were better.

As I wrote, I think Montana was a great QB, but I don't get the adulation that makes him generally considered the best ever. Young with the same offense was better in just about every way.

However, Joe Montana is not the most overrated QB in NFL history. That distinction belongs to John Elway.

ETA And Roger Staubach is a strong candidate for runner-up.

This is one of the worst posts I've seen in Shark Pool HOF discussions. Pretty much every point made (Montana, Montana vs. Young and Warner, Elway, Staubach) in this post is completely wrong.

He's He HAS to be.

I don't fish. I'm fully aware that my views on this issue, like so many issues, are extremely unpopular. That doesn't make them wrong, though. Neither does it make them right. I'm not going to use statistics to argue my point because I believe that football, unlike baseball, is not a sport that lends itself welll to statistics. Therefore, my views on these subjects are purely subjective- but so are everyone else's.

But I will state that the key to my arguments is this: football is a team sport, and I think way too much evaluation of individual success, especially at the quarterback position, is due to team accomplishments. Take Roger Staubach for instance. His team was consistently excellent. Put him on the New Orleans Saints and put Archie Manning on the Cowboys and it is Manning whom people would be discussing as one of the greatest QBs ever. In fact, we will never know how great Archie Manning might have been; it is hard to be great when defensive linemen are constantly tackling you. If we look at those who are considered the greatest QBs of all time, we find there is a unifying factor- they almost all had great protection. This of course, is not the only distinguishing factor between a Joe Montana and a Matt Leinart. Montana is obviously a 100 times better than Leinart. But is he clearly better than Young, Aikman, Warner, or a half dozen others? I don't buy it.

Yes, with regard to Montana, your "unpopular" opinion is wrong. Particularly based on the argument you are using. Montana won his first Super Bowl with a team that was worse than any team Young, Aikman, and Warner ever had success with. You really should visit pro-football-reference.com and check out the roster on that team sometime.I also think it's off base to try to make some kind of subjective assessment of what players would have done in different circumstances. That is nothing but speculation. Meanwhile, we have actual results on the field, which show us that Montana had unparalleled success in postseason play, the highest pressure situations possible. I really don't see how any analysis could ignore that.

 

[Simayi]

Some quick thoughts:

- Just saw a commercial advertising the show, where they had a quick montage of presenters saying 'the greatest'. One of them was Parcells - he would have to be the presenter for LT. Probably reading too much into it, but I'd be shocked if he wasn't top 10.

- On WRs, in particular Moss at 65:

When I think 'greatest player', championships matter. I think that's a reason why Moss is so low, and why TO probably won't be on the list. It's also why I think Montana will be higher than Marino and Young. I don't think off-field issues will matter that much, but on-field issues would (Moss dogging it from time to time hurts him).

Also, WRs don't get as much respect as the other positions. 15 targets a game is a pretty good day for a WR, but 15 touches a game for RB is pretty low. Of course a great WR enables the offense to do more via decoy, but I didn't really expect to see a lot of WRs on a greatest 100 player list.

 

[PhilLynott]

Anyone surprised that Troy Aikman was recognized higher than Steve Young? To be honest, I always thought these guys were neck and neck and it's nice to see them finish that way but it was my opinion that others always kind of thought Steve Young was the better QB due to more yards and TD and his other natural abilities.I'm bias, will openly admit it about Troy Aikman but I feel like they did a great job in ranking him and Steve Young together even though both of those guys really brought different elements to their great teams. I'm also obviously glad Aikman got the nod probably due to more SB wins (3 for 3).

If championships rate so highly how come no one ever mentions Bart Starr or Terry Bradshaw. Are they one of the 100 greatest players, probably not. People get jacked up about Steve Young, Aikman, Fouts, etc. Starr, Bradshaw, and Graham could arguably be the greatest QB's of all time. QB is probably the hardest position to rank in football. Is Brady better than Peyton? Was Marino better than Elway? Was Starr better than Unitas? The debate could go on forever.

 

[PhilLynott]

see your point, but the great ones can play in any era. some old the old timers might not have been as great in todays era, but then again, give them todays training methods, etc......... who knows. i'd guess they'd maybe be just as dominant. the old timers didnt have steroids, or performance enhancing substances, at least not to the extent that stuff is available today. they played with injuries. you might say they were tougher.some guys get weighted on being trailblazers at their positions. it's not all about pure athletic ability and stats. im good with that.

Yeah, I understand the trailblazing part - but the whole nutrition/training thing only goes so far to leveling the playing field, overall competition is much more important. I consider the mid 1970's as the true formation of modern football.I have a really hard time placing players that played a majority of their careers prior to the mid 1970s above dominant players who played after 1975. If I disregard era then I would have to put Hutson, Brown, Butkus, Motley, Thorpe, Nagurski etc. etc. high on any GOAT list - but I don't think that Hutson is better than Moss or Rice. I don't think Brown is better than Payton or Sanders. I don't think Butkus is better than Lewis or Taylor etc. etc. Here is my reasoning: 1) The league wasn't fully integrated until the 1970s. For a long time teams carried an even number of black players so that white players didn't have to room with a black teammate when the team traveled. The Redskins didn't even have a black player on their team until Bobby Mitchell was traded to them from the Browns in the early 1960s.2) The league wasn't really professional. The money wasn't there to provide year round training nor draw the best athletes. Even in the early 1970s players held down jobs in the offseason because "pro" football didn't generate enough income for them to live on. The majority of teams prior the to 1950s went out of business.3) PEDs hadn't become widely known until the 1970s. I don't like the use of PEDs but players are much bigger, stronger, and faster - but the field isn't any bigger and clean players are at a disadvantage. This point is invalid if you assume everyone is clean or everyone is using PEDs - but I don't believe either of those cases.For anecdotal evidence here are two prime examples.1) There used to be a game called the Chicago Charities All Star game. It pitted a college all star team against the NFL Championship team in an annual game. The game started in the mid 1930s and ended in the 1970s. From inception until 1963 the college team won about 1/3 of the games. The last team to lose to the college players was the 1962 Packers - with 10 HOFers. You would be hard pressed to find 10 surefire HOFers on a pro bowl team. For decades the evidence suggests that the pro game was 1/2 a step above the college game. How competitive could the pro game be if 10 HOFers are beat by some college players?2) Jim Taylor (who beat Jim Brown for a rushing title) ran for 1474 yards at 5.4 YPC and scored 19 TDs - in only 14 games. Right now, there isn't a single white RB starting in the NFL as the featured back. We haven't seen a white RB break 1000 yards in 25 years (even with 16 game seasons). I don't think we have seen a white RB break 1000 yards and 5.0 YPC since Csonka (but I admit this is just going off of memory - I could very well be wrong). I *think* the last white RB to lead the league in rushing was Taylor. Now, evidence would suggest that Taylor wouldn't even start in today's NFL in anything besides a blocking role. The population of the US is bigger, football is more popular than it ever has been, and it isn't like there isn't an incentive to playing RB in the NFL but not a single white RB can win a starting job.Modern players are competing against higher quality opponents across the board. This isn't to say someone like Jim Brown, or Bobby Mitchell, or Gale Sayers wouldn't be great in today's game - but I feel I need to take a critical look at their stats. Do I think Jim Brown would have a HOF career if he started playing in 1980 or 1990? Yes, definitely. Do I think he would average 5.2 YPC? No. Do I think he would win rushing titles 8 of 9 seasons? No. Do I think he would be the best back in the league? I think he would be in the discussion, but I don't think he would be head and shoulders above Payton, Dickerson, Sanders, Smith, or Faulk like many put him now.

This is, and always will be, the ultimate argument. The debate between era's will never be overcome. Is the Babe better than Barry? Is Don Hutson better that Jerry Rice? For what it is worth, I have always rated players based on their peers. Don Hutson was the Babe Ruth of football. Mel Hein and Chuck Bednarik were both dominant players. The whole Jim Taylor thing seems like a cop out. Taylor was a great running back on a great team. (White or not). Jim Brown got beat by a better RB. To win 8 out of 9 rushing titles is incredible. Jim Taylor winning the 9th title is not a result of the era, it is a result of a great RB.

 

[Saints-Man]

 

[sn0mm1s]

Some quick thoughts:- Just saw a commercial advertising the show, where they had a quick montage of presenters saying 'the greatest'. One of them was Parcells - he would have to be the presenter for LT. Probably reading too much into it, but I'd be shocked if he wasn't top 10.- On WRs, in particular Moss at 65:When I think 'greatest player', championships matter. I think that's a reason why Moss is so low, and why TO probably won't be on the list. It's also why I think Montana will be higher than Marino and Young. I don't think off-field issues will matter that much, but on-field issues would (Moss dogging it from time to time hurts him).Also, WRs don't get as much respect as the other positions. 15 targets a game is a pretty good day for a WR, but 15 touches a game for RB is pretty low. Of course a great WR enables the offense to do more via decoy, but I didn't really expect to see a lot of WRs on a greatest 100 player list.

Championships should really only matter for QBs - no other position plays a big enough role to be judged on SB wins.

 

[timschochet]

Talking football with timschochet is a fools errand.If you read enough of his football centric posts, you'll figure that out rather fast.

I don't know why you think this way. It would be true if I were (a) fishing or (b) rude or © didn't hang around to argue my points or respond to other people. But since I do none of those things, since I'm quite willing to discuss my points and have a reasonable discussion/debate, what difference does it make if you disagree with me 100% of the time?

 

[spider321]

Is Brady better than Peyton? Was Marino better than Elway? Was Starr better than Unitas? The debate could go on forever.

No. Yes. No.

 

[timschochet]

For those who disagree with me about Montana, Elway, and Staubach (and apparently, that is most everyone) I'm curious in your answers to the following questions:

1. Do you believe that the position of football quarterback is one that can be fairly measured objectively based on statistical data? Do you think that a computer who never actually watched football can tell us which QB is better simply based on stats alone?

2. Let's say we have two QBs with long NFL careers. QB "Jack" mostly plays for teams with poor offensive lines and poor defenses. QB "Mike" mostly plays for teams with strong offensive lines and great defenses. Jack rarely gets into playoff games, and when he does, his team mostly loses. Jack is under constant pressure in these games and throws lots of picks. Mike gets into a lot of playoff games, has plenty of time to throw, and makes pretty good decisions, sometimes excellent decisions. Mike has 2 SB rings; Jack ends up with none.

If the above information is all you have, and you know nothing else about the two QBs, is this enough for you to state unequivocally that Mike is a better QB than Jack?

3. If you believe that Joe Montana was a better quarterback than Steve Young, please explain the attributes that Joe Montana had as a QB that made him superior to Young. Please be specific: could he read the field better? Make better throws? Run better? More accurate? Or is there some less definable factor for you?

TIA

 

[sn0mm1s]

This is, and always will be, the ultimate argument. The debate between era's will never be overcome. Is the Babe better than Barry? Is Don Hutson better that Jerry Rice? For what it is worth, I have always rated players based on their peers. Don Hutson was the Babe Ruth of football. Mel Hein and Chuck Bednarik were both dominant players. The whole Jim Taylor thing seems like a cop out. Taylor was a great running back on a great team. (White or not). Jim Brown got beat by a better RB. To win 8 out of 9 rushing titles is incredible. Jim Taylor winning the 9th title is not a result of the era, it is a result of a great RB.

It isn't a cop out. Jim Brown got beat because someone took as many carries as he usually did. You can only judge someone based on how they did against their peers - but you also have to judge the quality of someone's peers. There are plenty of star high school guys that can't cut it on the college level just as there are plenty of college stars that can't cut it on the pro level. Hell, most of us downgrade the talent of QBs, RBs, and WRs in college based in which conference they play in. Most of us dismiss Timmy Chang's or Colt Brennan's ability to play ball on the pro level right? We even dismiss their ability to play against a team in the SEC. It is really no different than doing the same thing between eras - especially when the eras are so different. The primary difference between the SEC and the WAC is their ability to recruit. The training and nutrition is presumably the same. The access to PEDs is presumably the same. I would hope that there isn't any racial discrimination going on between the WAC and SEC so integration isn't an issue. So, the quality of the player is the only difference. Good players want to play for the SEC because of exposure. This is really no different from my point regarding player salary. There wasn't an incentive for many athletes to play in the NFL. The money wasn't there. The NFL is a *much* better recruiter now. I mean, using the logic of only judging a player based on their peers Colt Brennan is a much better QB than Ryan or Flacco. Graham Harrell or Timmy Chang must be the greatest college QBs of all time.There are no longer Jim Taylors, Rigginses, or Csonkas in the league. Peyton Hillis is starting thanks to injuries to Hardesty and Harrison he didn't really win the starting job (although he might have). He had a great game today and if he keeps that level of running up he might break 1000 yards. Danny Woodhead broke all sorts of NCAA II records but didn't do anything with the Jets last year. Either there is a racial bias in the NFL (which might be the case because IIRC Woodhead didn't even get invited to the NFL Combine) or white guys just can't cut it as RBs in the modern NFL.

 

[sn0mm1s]

For those who disagree with me about Montana, Elway, and Staubach (and apparently, that is most everyone) I'm curious in your answers to the following questions:1. Do you believe that the position of football quarterback is one that can be fairly measured objectively based on statistical data? Do you think that a computer who never actually watched football can tell us which QB is better simply based on stats alone? 2. Let's say we have two QBs with long NFL careers. QB "Jack" mostly plays for teams with poor offensive lines and poor defenses. QB "Mike" mostly plays for teams with strong offensive lines and great defenses. Jack rarely gets into playoff games, and when he does, his team mostly loses. Jack is under constant pressure in these games and throws lots of picks. Mike gets into a lot of playoff games, has plenty of time to throw, and makes pretty good decisions, sometimes excellent decisions. Mike has 2 SB rings; Jack ends up with none. If the above information is all you have, and you know nothing else about the two QBs, is this enough for you to state unequivocally that Mike is a better QB than Jack? 3. If you believe that Joe Montana was a better quarterback than Steve Young, please explain the attributes that Joe Montana had as a QB that made him superior to Young. Please be specific: could he read the field better? Make better throws? Run better? More accurate? Or is there some less definable factor for you? TIA

1) No, because different QBs play different roles in different systems with different surrounding talent.2) No, obviously not.3) Montana made the most of his chances and he won 2 Superbowls with less offensive talent than Young. Montana also was better at protecting the ball and scoring in the playoffs. As a rule of thumb, I look at TD:INT ratio in the playoffs. QBs that have a good ratio generally win the the playoffs.A great, HOF caliber QB really only needs 1 thing to go deep into the playoffs - a decent scoring D. For the vast majority of the SB era a top 10 scoring D was practically a requirement. It wasn't until very recently that this trend hasn't held true. Montana had a top 10 scoring D 9 times with the 49ers - and he won 4 SBs. Young had a top 10 scoring D 6 times with only 1 SB to show for it. Marino is the one guy who really had it rough when it came to defensive support. He had a good D early in his career and at the very end. The majority of Marino's prime was with average scoring Ds.

 

[timschochet]

For those who disagree with me about Montana, Elway, and Staubach (and apparently, that is most everyone) I'm curious in your answers to the following questions:1. Do you believe that the position of football quarterback is one that can be fairly measured objectively based on statistical data? Do you think that a computer who never actually watched football can tell us which QB is better simply based on stats alone? 2. Let's say we have two QBs with long NFL careers. QB "Jack" mostly plays for teams with poor offensive lines and poor defenses. QB "Mike" mostly plays for teams with strong offensive lines and great defenses. Jack rarely gets into playoff games, and when he does, his team mostly loses. Jack is under constant pressure in these games and throws lots of picks. Mike gets into a lot of playoff games, has plenty of time to throw, and makes pretty good decisions, sometimes excellent decisions. Mike has 2 SB rings; Jack ends up with none. If the above information is all you have, and you know nothing else about the two QBs, is this enough for you to state unequivocally that Mike is a better QB than Jack? 3. If you believe that Joe Montana was a better quarterback than Steve Young, please explain the attributes that Joe Montana had as a QB that made him superior to Young. Please be specific: could he read the field better? Make better throws? Run better? More accurate? Or is there some less definable factor for you? TIA

1) No, because different QBs play different roles in different systems with different surrounding talent.2) No, obviously not.3) Montana made the most of his chances and he won 2 Superbowls with less offensive talent than Young. Montana also was better at protecting the ball and scoring in the playoffs. As a rule of thumb, I look at TD:INT ratio in the playoffs. QBs that have a good ratio generally win the the playoffs.A great, HOF caliber QB really only needs 1 thing to go deep into the playoffs - a decent scoring D. For the vast majority of the SB era a top 10 scoring D was practically a requirement. It wasn't until very recently that this trend hasn't held true. Montana had a top 10 scoring D 9 times with the 49ers - and he won 4 SBs. Young had a top 10 scoring D 6 times with only 1 SB to show for it. Marino is the one guy who really had it rough when it came to defensive support. He had a good D early in his career and at the very end. The majority of Marino's prime was with average scoring Ds.

Thanks for answering my questions. I believe that if your answers to the first two questions are no, then the answer to question 3 becomes purely subjective, as with all comparisons between QBs. I agree with you on everything you wrote except for the sentence "Montana made the most of his chances." There is no way to quanitify that argument. Who knows how Young would have done with those chances? Who knows how Montana would have done with the "chances" that Young had? It's impossible to make an apples to apples comparison. Therefore, my argument that Young is better than Montana is equal to your argument that Montana is better than Young. These aren't really arguments at all but merely subjective choices. My favorite flavor is chocolate, yours is strawberry. How do we "win" such an argument? It can't be done, and this is no different.

 

[Ghost Rider]

tim, it doesn't matter what players could have done; it matters what they did do*. I am a big Steve Young fan, but he doesn't have the longevity that Montana had. It is interesting that you put so much stock in Roethlisberger's two SB rings for him being better than, say, Philip Rivers, but you are willing to ignore Montana's 4-1 edge over Young. Ugh, now you are making me defend Joe Montana.

*Along those same lines, I could say that had John Elway had Mike Shanahan as his head coach for his whole career, he would be the greatest QB ever by far, which would make sense if you extrapolate his numbers from '95-'98 over his whole career, but it doesn't work that way. Fortunately, Elway is still one of the best QBs ever on the strength of what he did do, not on what he could have done.

 

[timschochet]

tim, it doesn't matter what players could have done; it matters what they did do*. I am a big Steve Young fan, but he doesn't have the longevity that Montana had. It is interesting that you put so much stock in Roethlisberger's two SB rings for him being better than, say, Philip Rivers, but you are willing to ignore Montana's 4-1 edge over Young. Ugh, now you are making me defend Joe Montana. *Along those same lines, I could say that had John Elway had Mike Shanahan as his head coach for his whole career, he would be the greatest QB ever by far, which would make sense if you extrapolate his numbers from '95-'98 over his whole career, but it doesn't work that way. Fortunately, Elway is still one of the best QBs ever on the strength of what he did do, not on what he could have done.

I don't believe that Roethlisberger is a better QB than Rivers because of the two SBs. I believe Ben is better because he has performed better (IMO) in tight situations. Ben's "edge" over Rivers in terms of playoff record is irrelevant. With regard to Shanahan, while he is certainly a good (not great) coach, he would not have won with Elway in the 80s IMO. T. Davis and a much better team around him is the main reason that Elway managed to get two Superbowl rings at the end of his career. I think Elway was a great franchise QB, but not at the level of Aikman, Young, Warner, Marino, P. Manning, Brady, or Montana. I would put him with Favre, just below the others I mentioned.

 

[timschochet]

tim, it doesn't matter what players could have done; it matters what they did do*.

I need to respond to this statement as well, because it demonstrates my entire point- there is no way to PROVE what players "did do" in football. In baseball, it's easy: we can look at batting average or ERA or a hundred other statistics and say, "that is a great player" or "that is a great year" or "in 1927, Babe Ruth was the best player in baseball." But in football, you're trying to say, "Joe Montana won 4 Superbowls, and Steve Young only won 1." But the truth is, Joe Montana didn't win ANY Superbowls. He was the most valuable player on 4 teams that won Superbowls, but that is not the same thing. If you're going to make the argument that Montana is better than Young, you can't use team accomplishments to do so (at least I won't accept them.) I will accept individual accomplishments, except that individual accomplishments do not tell the whole story as to which QB is better. Therefore, it remains a purely subjective opinion, not really an argument at all.

 

[Tau837]

For those who disagree with me about Montana, Elway, and Staubach (and apparently, that is most everyone) I'm curious in your answers to the following questions:1. Do you believe that the position of football quarterback is one that can be fairly measured objectively based on statistical data? Do you think that a computer who never actually watched football can tell us which QB is better simply based on stats alone? 2. Let's say we have two QBs with long NFL careers. QB "Jack" mostly plays for teams with poor offensive lines and poor defenses. QB "Mike" mostly plays for teams with strong offensive lines and great defenses. Jack rarely gets into playoff games, and when he does, his team mostly loses. Jack is under constant pressure in these games and throws lots of picks. Mike gets into a lot of playoff games, has plenty of time to throw, and makes pretty good decisions, sometimes excellent decisions. Mike has 2 SB rings; Jack ends up with none. If the above information is all you have, and you know nothing else about the two QBs, is this enough for you to state unequivocally that Mike is a better QB than Jack? 3. If you believe that Joe Montana was a better quarterback than Steve Young, please explain the attributes that Joe Montana had as a QB that made him superior to Young. Please be specific: could he read the field better? Make better throws? Run better? More accurate? Or is there some less definable factor for you? TIA

First, I assume we are measuring careers, not talent. Measuring careers is really about measuring results, where results consist of production/statistics, honors/awards, and winning. And all of those can be broken down into regular season and postseason, and they have to be judged with context, particularly when comparing across eras (e.g., significant rule changes, number of regular season games, number of teams in the league, quality of player's teammates and coaching, etc.). There are also intangibles, like the "eyeball test" and "it" factor, leadership, toughness/durability, and character/off field issues, to name a few.1. No, and it isn't just QB. It is football players who cannot be measured solely on statistics. See the first part of my answer above.2. No, obviously not. Fortunately, we have a lot more information about the guys being discussed in this thread.3. Many comments here:- Montana kept Young on the bench until he suffered an injury so serious it knocked him out for two seasons. Montana started over Young while Young was age 26-29 and Montana was age 31-34. And it isn't because Young wasn't a great QB; just look what he did once Montana got hurt.- As another poster already pointed out, Montana won with less talent than Young did. Check the first two Super Bowl teams for Montana, especially the first one.- Montana was better at winning regular season games (Montana 117-47; Young 94-49) and playoff games (Montana 16-7; Young 8-6)... sure, there are a lot of factors that go into that, but I certainly think Montana deserves some credit for it.- Montana was Joe Cool; Young wasn't... which to me exemplifies Montana's ability to play well under pressure and also his leadership ability. Consider:-- Montana started just 21 more games than Young (164 to 143), but has roughly double the number of 4th quarter comebacks and game winning drives, per PFR (Montana 31 4th quarter comebacks and 33 game winning drives to Young's 14 and 17, respectively).-- Young's QB rating was 96.8 in the regular season and 85.8 in the postseason... while Montana's was 92.3 in the regular season and 95.6 in the postseason. Young's went down and Montana's went up.

 

[Tau837]

I don't believe that Roethlisberger is a better QB than Rivers because of the two SBs. I believe Ben is better because he has performed better (IMO) in tight situations. Ben's "edge" over Rivers in terms of playoff record is irrelevant.

Well, then, the post I just made should have changed your mind about Montana vs. Young, correct?

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think people discredit Smith too much. Yes, he played with one of the best offenses ever assembled but he was more than just a solid back. Even in this thread Irvin and Aikman are discredited. People forget how great Aikman was in those playoff runs. People also forget how big a part of the passing game Irvin was. If there was ever a go-to guy on a team Irvin was it. In some ways, that 90s Cowboys dynasty has become a victim of its own success. I think Smith is overrated when people say he is the best RB ever - but a lot of people drop him out of their top 10 list which is a travesty. Many people say he isn't even the greatest Cowboy RB (and give those honors to Dorsett). Dorsett never led the league in any significant statistic and is the only RB with any significant number of carries that has fumbled the ball as many times as he scored.

Fine post, most of which I snipped for brevity. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim Emmitt is the best RB ever. Even Cowboy homers know better.

Emmitt was a great back though. That being said, Aikman was overrated because he had All Pro lineman, he had a really good WR in Irvin (Irvin was a better receiver than Aikman a QB), he had a good TE and he had a top 5 all time RB. Nobody tried to stop Aikman, they had to stop Emmitt 1st and Irvin 2nd...to go along with a great DContract that to Marino, who rarely had even an average D and no RB and two receivers that were pretty much the smurfs that Marino made great. Irvin was better than either mark.

This is easy to say and see, but most people still watch a game and say, "so and so" sucks or is so inconsistent without taking into account an OL that has players getting a clean run at the QB all the time.

 

[CrossEyed]

Trying to rank guys who played the same position in different eras is really impossible.

Trying to rank every player from every era from every position is just foolishness.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Anyone surprised that Troy Aikman was recognized higher than Steve Young? To be honest, I always thought these guys were neck and neck and it's nice to see them finish that way but it was my opinion that others always kind of thought Steve Young was the better QB due to more yards and TD and his other natural abilities.I'm bias, will openly admit it about Troy Aikman but I feel like they did a great job in ranking him and Steve Young together even though both of those guys really brought different elements to their great teams. I'm also obviously glad Aikman got the nod probably due to more SB wins (3 for 3).

There is no question in my mind that Young was the better player. Aikman threw for 32k, 165 TD's, 141 INT's, 94-71 reg season 11-4 postseason 165 games 4715 att 259 sacksYoung threw for 33,124, 232 TD's, 107 INT's, 94-49 reg season 8-6 post season, 4149 attemptsAikman rushed for 9 TD's and 1,016 yardsYoung rushed for 43 TD's and 4,239 yards (5.9 YPA)Young threw for more yards, had 40% more TD's, had 25% less picks and rushed for 3,200 more yards than Aikman. In terms of the teams around them, they both had stacked teams, but Young had the better throwing situation so that needs to be taken into account. However, while Young had a much better regular season record, I don't believe that a team record really tells us who the better QB is and clearly the postseason doesn't either. I think anyone who studies stats realizes that being clutch is mostly about opportunity and the more situations you are in, the more you play closer to your norm. See ARod and even Peyton Manning as the post children for guys who choked and now look at them. In the postseason, I think we see the only place where Aikman had a better record than Young, but again, wins and losses are on the team as much as anything. to drive the point home, it is like criticizing Roy Halladay for never winning a World Series, but now that he is on a good team, he has a good chance to do it, but if he weren't traded would you hold it against him?

 

[johnnyboy8102]

#57 Mike Singletary

 

[johnnyboy8102]

#60 Jack Ham-OLB

#59 Mike Ditka- TE

#58 Steve Van Buren- RB

#57 Mike Singletary- MLB

#56 Gene Upshaw- OG

#55 Earl Campbell- RB

#54 Forrest Gregg- OT

#53 Willie Lanier- MLB

#52 Eric Dickerson- RB

#51 Bart Starr- QB

 

[Raider Nation]

#60 Jack Ham-OLB#59 Mike Ditka- TE#58 Steve Van Buren- RB#57 Mike Singletary- MLB#56 Gene Upshaw- OG#55 Earl Campbell- RB#54 Forrest Gregg- OT#53 Willie Lanier- MLB#52 Eric Dickerson- RB#51 Bart Starr- QB

Good lookin' out.I forgot it was on and my DVR didn't catch it for some reason. I'll add this to the OP.

 

[Raider Nation]

#60 Jack Ham-OLB

#59 Mike Ditka- TE

#58 Steve Van Buren- RB

#57 Mike Singletary- MLB

#56 Gene Upshaw- OG

#55 Earl Campbell- RB

#54 Forrest Gregg- OT

#53 Willie Lanier- MLB

#52 Eric Dickerson- RB

#51 Bart Starr- QB

I saw both players' entire careers. I'd want the Tyler Rose over Dickerson if I were starting a team. E.D. was so explosive, but Campbell just punished the other team (and himself, sadly) into submission. But don't be fooled into thinking he was strictly a power back.Skip forward to the 6:00 mark

He outran guys half his size for an 80-yard TD when he was already exhausted. Earl was a man among boys.

 

[Manster]

I think people discredit Smith too much. Yes, he played with one of the best offenses ever assembled but he was more than just a solid back. Even in this thread Irvin and Aikman are discredited. People forget how great Aikman was in those playoff runs. People also forget how big a part of the passing game Irvin was. If there was ever a go-to guy on a team Irvin was it. In some ways, that 90s Cowboys dynasty has become a victim of its own success. I think Smith is overrated when people say he is the best RB ever - but a lot of people drop him out of their top 10 list which is a travesty. Many people say he isn't even the greatest Cowboy RB (and give those honors to Dorsett). Dorsett never led the league in any significant statistic and is the only RB with any significant number of carries that has fumbled the ball as many times as he scored.

Fine post, most of which I snipped for brevity. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim Emmitt is the best RB ever. Even Cowboy homers know better.

Emmitt was a great back though. That being said, Aikman was overrated because he had All Pro lineman, he had a really good WR in Irvin (Irvin was a better receiver than Aikman a QB), he had a good TE and he had a top 5 all time RB. Nobody tried to stop Aikman, they had to stop Emmitt 1st and Irvin 2nd...to go along with a great DContract that to Marino, who rarely had even an average D and no RB and two receivers that were pretty much the smurfs that Marino made great. Irvin was better than either mark.

This is easy to say and see, but most people still watch a game and say, "so and so" sucks or is so inconsistent without taking into account an OL that has players getting a clean run at the QB all the time.

ok, so ask yourself this. do the Cowboys win 3 SB's in the 90's without Aikman? all that needs to be said about Aikman is he was clutch in the biggest moments. thats what makes him one of the all-time greats.

 

[Native]

Bart Starr is a polarizing figure in terms of his place in NFL history. Some people consider him to be nothing more than a caretaker for the great Packers teams; others (like the NFL Network) consider him one of the 50 greatest players of all time. Ive heard both arguments many times but since I never saw him play I cant really comment.

 

[Raider Nation]

Bart Starr is a polarizing figure in terms of his place in NFL history. Some people consider him to be nothing more than a caretaker for the great Packers teams; others (like the NFL Network) consider him one of the 50 greatest players of all time. Ive heard both arguments many times but since I never saw him play I cant really comment.

Like I said, I haven't seen the program yet, but Starr checking in 30 spots higher than Young seems kind of dubious.

 

[Koya]

While I don't necessarily disagree, interesting to see Singletary outside of the top 50.

 

[RebelINS]

I'm interested to see where Ray Lewis will rank. I'd say he should be in the top 25 but I'm sure some would think I'm crazy for such a claim. Over the past 10-15 years I suppose Peyton and Brady will be the highest ranking players. Can't wait for the top of the list, I'm very interested to see where they put Sammy Baugh.

 

[Raider Nation]

Here are the tight ends we've had so far:

73 - Ozzie Newsome

67 - Kellen Winslow, Sr.

59 - Mike Ditka

How many are left? Just Gonzo, John Mackey and Shannon Sharpe?

 

[johnnyboy8102]

Here are the tight ends we've had so far:73 - Ozzie Newsome67 - Kellen Winslow, Sr.59 - Mike DitkaHow many are left? Just Gonzo, John Mackey and Shannon Sharpe?

There really isn't anyone else. I'd say the next on that list would be Gates but he isn't going to be on the list this far down.

 

[johnnyboy8102]

I'm interested to see where Ray Lewis will rank. I'd say he should be in the top 25 but I'm sure some would think I'm crazy for such a claim. Over the past 10-15 years I suppose Peyton and Brady will be the highest ranking players. Can't wait for the top of the list, I'm very interested to see where they put Sammy Baugh.

You're NOT crazy at all man.Ray Lewis's case for best ILB/MLB all time:

*11 pro bowls (MOST ever for ILB/MLB)

*9 All Pro selections (tied for MOST ever for ILB/MLB)

*188 Approximate Value (MOST ever for ILB/MLB)

*143 Career Approximate Value (MOST ever for ILB/MLB)

*2 DPOY awards (one in a 4-3 and one in 3-4)

*led 10 top 6 defenses in the last 11 years

*SB champion and SB MVP

*Playoff performance: 13 games, 130 tackles, 1 sack, 2 int, 5 ff, 1 fr, 13 pd, 1 td

*coaching tree (Check NFL Films Documentary): Del Rio, Singletary, Nolan, Rex Ryan, Marvin Lewis, Mike Smith among others have coached Lewis and gone on to head coaching jobs.

*Influence: Beason, Willis, Merriman, Morrison, Tatupu, Vilma, among others have cited Lewis as a mentor. As well as Offensive players such as Chad OchoCinco and Big Ben.

*Longevity: No other MLB/ILB has ever been a 1st team all pro in his 13 or 14th seasons and Lewis did it in BOTH seasons. Lewis was a 2nd team all pro his 2nd season and a 1st team all pro in his 14th.

*Stats: 1791 tackles, 37.5 sacks, 96.5 tackles for loss, 28 int, 14 ff, 16 fr, 105 pd, 2 td, 1 safety

*Big plays: Lewis still makes huge hits and plays even in his 15th season this year (Keller for example). The hit on Sproles, the hits on Eddie George and Bettis in the past, hit on OchoCinco last season, etc.......

Lewis's body of work is very compelling. He has stats, playoff performance, a championship, accolades, longevity, and lasting influence on the game. Any way people want to judge a player's career Lewis has exceeded the expectations.

 

[Ballstein]

I think people discredit Smith too much. Yes, he played with one of the best offenses ever assembled but he was more than just a solid back. Even in this thread Irvin and Aikman are discredited. People forget how great Aikman was in those playoff runs. People also forget how big a part of the passing game Irvin was. If there was ever a go-to guy on a team Irvin was it. In some ways, that 90s Cowboys dynasty has become a victim of its own success. I think Smith is overrated when people say he is the best RB ever - but a lot of people drop him out of their top 10 list which is a travesty. Many people say he isn't even the greatest Cowboy RB (and give those honors to Dorsett). Dorsett never led the league in any significant statistic and is the only RB with any significant number of carries that has fumbled the ball as many times as he scored.

Fine post, most of which I snipped for brevity. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim Emmitt is the best RB ever. Even Cowboy homers know better.

Emmitt was a great back though. That being said, Aikman was overrated because he had All Pro lineman, he had a really good WR in Irvin (Irvin was a better receiver than Aikman a QB), he had a good TE and he had a top 5 all time RB. Nobody tried to stop Aikman, they had to stop Emmitt 1st and Irvin 2nd...to go along with a great DContract that to Marino, who rarely had even an average D and no RB and two receivers that were pretty much the smurfs that Marino made great. Irvin was better than either mark.

This is easy to say and see, but most people still watch a game and say, "so and so" sucks or is so inconsistent without taking into account an OL that has players getting a clean run at the QB all the time.

ok, so ask yourself this. do the Cowboys win 3 SB's in the 90's without Aikman? all that needs to be said about Aikman is he was clutch in the biggest moments. thats what makes him one of the all-time greats.

I can't recall any "awe inspiring memories" by Aikman, no clutch historical moments or heroics.....ala Montana, Elway, Marino

 

[dgreen]

Here are the tight ends we've had so far:73 - Ozzie Newsome67 - Kellen Winslow, Sr.59 - Mike DitkaHow many are left? Just Gonzo, John Mackey and Shannon Sharpe?

Mackey and Gonzo, but I doubt Sharpe will be.

 

[dgreen]

Bart Starr is a polarizing figure in terms of his place in NFL history. Some people consider him to be nothing more than a caretaker for the great Packers teams; others (like the NFL Network) consider him one of the 50 greatest players of all time. Ive heard both arguments many times but since I never saw him play I cant really comment.

I thought they did a pretty good job justifying his spot. I enjoyed hearing about his relationship and interaction with Lombardi.

 

[John Windle]

I think people discredit Smith too much. Yes, he played with one of the best offenses ever assembled but he was more than just a solid back. Even in this thread Irvin and Aikman are discredited. People forget how great Aikman was in those playoff runs. People also forget how big a part of the passing game Irvin was. If there was ever a go-to guy on a team Irvin was it. In some ways, that 90s Cowboys dynasty has become a victim of its own success. I think Smith is overrated when people say he is the best RB ever - but a lot of people drop him out of their top 10 list which is a travesty. Many people say he isn't even the greatest Cowboy RB (and give those honors to Dorsett). Dorsett never led the league in any significant statistic and is the only RB with any significant number of carries that has fumbled the ball as many times as he scored.

Fine post, most of which I snipped for brevity. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim Emmitt is the best RB ever. Even Cowboy homers know better.

Emmitt was a great back though. That being said, Aikman was overrated because he had All Pro lineman, he had a really good WR in Irvin (Irvin was a better receiver than Aikman a QB), he had a good TE and he had a top 5 all time RB. Nobody tried to stop Aikman, they had to stop Emmitt 1st and Irvin 2nd...to go along with a great DContract that to Marino, who rarely had even an average D and no RB and two receivers that were pretty much the smurfs that Marino made great. Irvin was better than either mark.

This is easy to say and see, but most people still watch a game and say, "so and so" sucks or is so inconsistent without taking into account an OL that has players getting a clean run at the QB all the time.

ok, so ask yourself this. do the Cowboys win 3 SB's in the 90's without Aikman? all that needs to be said about Aikman is he was clutch in the biggest moments. thats what makes him one of the all-time greats.

I can't recall any "awe inspiring memories" by Aikman, no clutch historical moments or heroics.....ala Montana, Elway, Marino

I remember Aikman's awe inspiring moments... they were called the playoffs. Prior to 2000, Aikman had the all time highest playoff QB rating. He was guaranteed money when it counted.And if you didn't watch him play... and I mean actually see the whole games, not just the occasional highlight or looking at a stat line, then you have no idea how good he was. He was unbelievably accurate. He had a cannon for an arm. He was a true leader, his teammates respected and listened to him. And most importantly, all he cared about was winning. Let me repeat... ALL HE CARED ABOUT WAS WINNING.

There is NOTHING you could want in a QB that he didn't have. There are two things that I will argue to the death on... Terrell Davis is a Hall of Famer and Troy Aikman is one of the greatest QBs of all time... and ANY team would have been lucky to have him.

 

[zed2283]

There are no longer Jim Taylors, Rigginses, or Csonkas in the league. Peyton Hillis is starting thanks to injuries to Hardesty and Harrison he didn't really win the starting job (although he might have). He had a great game today and if he keeps that level of running up he might break 1000 yards. Danny Woodhead broke all sorts of NCAA II records but didn't do anything with the Jets last year. Either there is a racial bias in the NFL (which might be the case because IIRC Woodhead didn't even get invited to the NFL Combine) or white guys just can't cut it as RBs in the modern NFL.

I'd say the answer is obviously racial bias, unless you want to start arguing that blacks aren't smart enough to play QB.

 

[T with T]

what about Isaac Bruce?Isnt he second in receiving yards?

yes correct he should be in there but it doesn't look like stats are any indication of how good a player is or how NFL Network used to make these lists... Randy moss at 65 is just dumb imo... a guy who just turned 33 and has 150 tds and counting and he is already 2nd best wr to ever play behind Jerry and he really is the only guy that could break Rices records.... To is 37 and has fallen off and he is only guy in his stratosphere... Fitzgerald has a chance but has to be top 5 for next 10-12 years to even think about being up with Randy Moss... Emmitt has 175 tds and has 2nd most tds ever by a player only behind the Great Rice who has 200 +. Moss has 150 and counting and has 3-4 more years left in his tank.. He will retire with around 180-200 tds. He can't crack top 50????? thats lame imo

 

[T with T]

Moss at #65 is a crime. Second best WR of all time, no question.

thats what I was thinking. Moss is already 2nd best wr of all time and only just turned 33 this guy could have some amazing stats seeing that moss has played 12 seasons 2 at oak that shouldn't count. Rice played 20...... thats somethin to chew on also. Moss was pretty much unstoppable and uncoverable, they asked ndami asumongha who was the toughest wr to cover and he said no question Randy moss cuz he can get u with that lazy deep route where he starts off running real sluggish, slow then puts jets on after he lulls u to sleep. his routes are so deceptive and hard to get a read, bead on. Moss is an incredible athlete and also smart if you can believe. High football IQ and one of the best playmakers I have seen in my era and im 28

 

[spider321]

Moss is already 2nd best wr of all time and only just turned 33 ...

You say that like he just turned 27. Most WR's are pretty much done by age 33. He isn't as good as he once was and he can only hope that his skills continue to diminish slowly.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Bart Starr is a polarizing figure in terms of his place in NFL history. Some people consider him to be nothing more than a caretaker for the great Packers teams; others (like the NFL Network) consider him one of the 50 greatest players of all time. Ive heard both arguments many times but since I never saw him play I cant really comment.

I thought they did a pretty good job justifying his spot. I enjoyed hearing about his relationship and interaction with Lombardi.

Starr should also be remembered as an example of a late quarterback breakout. If a QB today started like Starr, he'd never have received the chance to turn in the sort of career that Bart did.http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=5008

 

[johnnyboy8102]

Red Grange

Tony Gonzalez

Roger Staubach

Ray Nitschke

Are all confirmed on tonight's show.

 

[johnnyboy8102]

Red Grange Tony GonzalezRoger StaubachRay Nitschke Are all confirmed on tonight's show.

Mel Blount Alan Page Red Grange Tony GonzalezRoger StaubachRay Nitschke These 6 will be on the show tonight.

 

[johnnyboy8102]

#50 Terry Bradshaw-QB

#49 Mike Haynes-CB

#48 Red Grange-RB

#47 Ray Nitschke-LB

#46 Roger Staubach-QB

#45 Tony Gonzalez-TE

#44 Mel Blount-CB

#43 Alan Page-DT

#42 John Mackey-TE

#41 Rod Woodson-DB

 

[zed2283]

A few random thoughts:

- I know everyone in the Shark Pool has a hard on for Deion Sanders, but no way should he be ranked higher than M.Haynes and M.Blount.

- I like Rod Woodson as much as the next guy, but the same goes for him. And he is not a Top 50 all-time player, IMO.

- Does this put Shannon Sharpe above both T.Gonzalez and J.Mackey?? Not sure about that.

- For all you "R.Moss is the #2 WR of all-time" guys, it looks like the real experts have at least 4 ahead of him: L.Alworth, R.Berry, D.Hutson, J.Rice.

Carry on.