This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
How can Staubach be in the poll when you don't have Bradshaw who won 4 that decade??Bradshaw's 4-0 in SB's, to not have him in a discussion about who you'd want to win 1 game is leaving out a big piece of the puzzle IMO.Too much recency bias in this poll. No Graham? No Staubach? No Starr?
They should both be in the poll, along with Starr and Graham. Or else Unitas should be removed so this can be a poll for the Best QB of the 1978-present era.How can Staubach be in the poll when you don't have Bradshaw who won 4 that decade??Bradshaw's 4-0 in SB's, to not have him in a discussion about who you'd want to win 1 game is leaving out a big piece of the puzzle IMO.Too much recency bias in this poll. No Graham? No Staubach? No Starr?
First of all, I think Joe Montana is probably the best QB of all time.However, there is no doubt that he benefited from Bill Walsh and his system. Montana became a master of that and in that system. He also benefited from terrific surrounding talent on both sides of the ball (the 49ers' defenses in their SB winning years are vastly underrated), and he performed in a much different free agency era. So, I would say if it's down to just One Big Game, I would much rather have either A. a QB who was terrific at managing a game if I feel the other 52 players are better than our opponents or B. a QB who single handedly could win us a game if our talent is inferior to our opponent's. In the first case, I would say that Montana's still a top 3 choice but not in the latter.In either case, I can think of quite a few scenarios where I wouldn't want Montana as my QB for the Big Game despite the fact that I think he's probably the best QB of all time.
What about your boy Bob Griese, the only QB ever to go thru a perfect season, you want to go there?They should both be in the poll, along with Starr and Graham. Or else Unitas should be removed so this can be a poll for the Best QB of the 1978-present era.How can Staubach be in the poll when you don't have Bradshaw who won 4 that decade??Bradshaw's 4-0 in SB's, to not have him in a discussion about who you'd want to win 1 game is leaving out a big piece of the puzzle IMO.
Not going there. I love Bob, but he does not belong on this list.What about your boy Bob Griese, the only QB ever to go thru a perfect season, you want to go there?They should both be in the poll, along with Starr and Graham. Or else Unitas should be removed so this can be a poll for the Best QB of the 1978-present era.How can Staubach be in the poll when you don't have Bradshaw who won 4 that decade??Bradshaw's 4-0 in SB's, to not have him in a discussion about who you'd want to win 1 game is leaving out a big piece of the puzzle IMO.Too much recency bias in this poll. No Graham? No Staubach? No Starr?
The Favre arguments work for Elway as well.Gotta go with Young, he's the total package. The man can run it himself if his average receivers can't pick up the slack. The old timers just don't measure up here as an athlete, it's a whole different ball game today.Elway had the better front line but Montana had the better receivers, so close call for second and third between those two for me.Favre should never be mentioned in this context, he's always high risk high reward, not exactly the poster child for Mr. Clutch.
This.
Aikman played amazingly well in the playoffs in each of the Cowboys Super Bowl runs. He didn't play so well in surrounding playoff years though.Roethlisberger to me is the current John Elway. It might look as ugly as can be for three and a half quarters. But I have more trust in him at the end of the game than maybe any current quarterback playing.MaddHatter said:
To be fair... i only voted for the guys I actually saw play. Hard for me to rank guys with only stats to go on. Maybe some of the old timers can make a case for them though. i'd be very interested in some first hand accounts.
Go here to see his Playoff Game Logs at the bottom of the screen. He raised his QB rating by 10 points in the playoffs and especially in the last two Super Bowl runs, he was a dominate postseason QB. His career is very similar to Troy Aikman who was a slightly above average regular season QB by the numbers but he was elite during the Cowboys Super Bowl runs.
Aikman gets discounted for the same reason Emmitt Smith does... arguably one of the best offensive line ever. Plus he had Michael Irvin, one of the better receivers of his time. I'm not sure how many people outside of the
nation would put Ben over Manning or Brady let alone the likes of Elway and Montana. The question isn't the best QB ever as the post title suggests, it's who would you consider the most clutch QB ever. Point taken about Elway and Favre both being high risk takers, I don't think I would put Elway at the level Favre was but it's definitely arguable.I have Starr edging out Montana for the top spot. I don't believe it's fair to downgrade Starr's accomplishments as having come only with dominant supporting casts while crediting Montana for elevating his 1981 team. Taking over a team that went 2-14 in 1978, Walsh went 2-14 in his first season as head coach. Partway through his second season he made Montana the starter and the team improved to 6-10. The next year, Walsh's third season and Montana's first as an every game starter, they went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl. Now compare that to Lombardi and Starr. Lombardi took over a 1-10-1 team in 1959. He made Starr his starter partway through his first season and they improved to 7-5, the team's first winning season in 12 years! The next year they went 8-4 and lost in the championship game. In Lombardi's third year and Starr's second as the starter, they went 11-3 and won the NFL championship. Starr and Montana each took over terrible teams and took them to the title game in their first full season as a starting QB. A number of Starr's championship teammates started for that 1-10-1 team as well. Starr deserves just as much credit for turning his team around as does Montana. No question Starr played with more Hall of Famers than Montana (though Joe is catching up). But who knows if some of those guys make the Hall if Starr didn't play as well as he did to win those titles (Hornung comes to mind). Montana's 1981 team may not have been that strong offensively as a group but Clark, Solomon and Charle Young look like a pretty solid of group of targets to me. Starr definitely benefitted from an all-time great backfield for his first two titles but his running game was below-average for his final three titles (Hornung and Taylor were washed up or gone by then). Montana played in title games over a nine-year period; Starr for eight. Each guy's team naturally experienced turnover in those time periods and neither played with a dominant team every single one of those years. Starr's last title team (9-4-1) is surely worse than Montana's first. Based on what I've read they squeezed out one last title on pure will and Starr's leadership.Just Win Baby said:IMO the problem with saying Graham, Bradshaw, or Starr is that they excelled when they were surrounded by utterly dominant supporting casts. I'm not aware that any of them ever excelled with even above average supporting casts, much less average supporting casts. That doesn't mean they can't, just that IMO we know less about their ability to do so than we do about some others.I voted like this:1. Montana2. Brady3. YoungMontana's first Super Bowl showed a lot. He hadn't been in the Walsh system too long and was surrounded by a weak supporting cast on offense. That 49ers team had a very good defense, though.Brady won multiple Super Bowls with underwhelming supporting casts on offense, though again they typically had good defenses.I went with Young third because in his prime his talent was so amazing that I think he'd stand as good a chance as any of the rest of lifting an average supporitng cast to a win.Some have said Elway. He'd be a good choice, but I just can't get some of his bad Super Bowl performances out of my mind in the years when his supporting cast wasn't great.I strongly considered Unitas and Staubach.I pretty quickly discarded Peyton Manning, since the OP didn't say that it was a regular season game.
your selling Steve short, he was CRAZY CRAZY Good. his talent or skill level is higher than anyone on this list bar nun(i'm fully aware Elway is on the list). his career numbers are shorter as he got kinda a late start do to USFL/Yucs and sitting mentoring behind the GOAT in Montana/WALSH. if by some chance there was a bizarro scenario where he went straight to the 49ers out of Brigham Young and Montana wasn't there his numbers would be unfathomable. later in Steve's career he was the smoothest/more pure QB i have ever seen(concussions notwithstanding).
Went Elway 1st for this reason. I hate that guy but he did more with average talent than any other QB on that list.
How can you leave out a QB with 4 Super Bowl championships? Sure, the first couple were won with Franco and the D, but Bradshaw took over the last two. Brady, Montana, and Young were a product of the system. Marino never got it done. Elway didn't get it done until they got a dominant running game. Favre can win one for you or lose it for you, the ultimate gunslinger. Manning, well........last Sunday (case in point).So don't tell me that Bradshaw wasn't "great" because he wasn't the focal point of the team. You can point out flaws in every QB.
Jerry knows what's up.
based on the limited votes for "Other" so far, I feel pretty confident that the correct names were chosen here.Bradshaw has the rings but he doesn't normally get talked about as one of the best QBs ever. Great running game and defense certainly played a big role in the Steelers success.How can you leave out a QB with 4 Super Bowl championships? Sure, the first couple were won with Franco and the D, but Bradshaw took over the last two. Brady, Montana, and Young were a product of the system. Marino never got it done. Elway didn't get it done until they got a dominant running game. Favre can win one for you or lose it for you, the ultimate gunslinger. Manning, well........last Sunday (case in point).So don't tell me that Bradshaw wasn't "great" because he wasn't the focal point of the team. You can point out flaws in every QB.
It is hard to evaluate the Bradshaws and Aikmans because they had tremendous supporting casts and were just above average regular season QB's by the numbers. However, they each played near perfect postseasons multiple times in those title years.based on the limited votes for "Other" so far, I feel pretty confident that the correct names were chosen here.Bradshaw has the rings but he doesn't normally get talked about as one of the best QBs ever. Great running game and defense certainly played a big role in the Steelers success.
