Best QB trio during an era (1 Viewer)

[Despyzer]

Marino had his chance and threw 21 incompletions and 2 Int's in his one Super Bowl. No wonder his team got killed.

Conveniently absent from this list of statistics is the 29 completions, 1 TD, and 318 yards while being saddled with a defense that gave up 38 points. Marino definitely was NOT the reason his team got killed.

So being saddled with a defense that gave up 38 points is a good excuse for Marino not winning a SB, yet you will hold the Giants 39, the Redskins 42, and the 49'ers 55 points against Elway?

The difference is that Elway was a major contributor to most of those losses, whereas Marino otherwise played well enough to win. Other than that, you'd have a pretty good argument.

 

[moleculo]

Marino had his chance and threw 21 incompletions and 2 Int's in his one Super Bowl. No wonder his team got killed.

Conveniently absent from this list of statistics is the 29 completions, 1 TD, and 318 yards while being saddled with a defense that gave up 38 points. Marino definitely was NOT the reason his team got killed.

So being saddled with a defense that gave up 38 points is a good excuse for Marino not winning a SB, yet you will hold the Giants 39, the Redskins 42, and the 49'ers 55 points against Elway?

The difference is that Elway was a major contributor to most of those losses, whereas Marino otherwise played well enough to win. Other than that, you'd have a pretty good argument.

SB XIX: Marino 29/50 318 yards1 TD 2 INT; 1 carry, 0 yardsSB XXI: Elway. 22/37 304 yards 1 TD 1 INT; 6 carries, 27 yards, 1 TD

 

[switz]

Marino threw for a bunch of yards, but was, literally, a below average QB when the 'real' season began.

Factually incorrect. His per-game playoff stats:250 yards, 1.8 TDs, 1.3 INTs, 8-10 record.

Maybe not elite, but still above average.

What do you consider average if you think that's above average?

 

[Chaka]

How often do we have to do this? Despyzer and CalBear (and BGP too, for that matter) rag on Elway every chance they get. They always make their arguments as to why Elway isn't a top QB, while failing to acknowledge any argument that doesn't suit their perception. Can't thi wait until next off-season?

CalBear's hate I understand being that he's, y'know, a Cal Bear and all, and he usually comes with some good arguments.He's wrong on Elway, who is among the most physically gifted QBs to ever suit up, certainly more so then any other QB in this debate, but he makes decent arguments.

Jeff George and Kordell Stewart are both more physically gifted than Elway. So?

Individually? Not even close. Combine their physical attributes and you may have a super QB with a 5 cent brain.Nice try.

 

[Chaka]

Jeebus CalBear the way you talk Elway might as well have been Kordell Stewart or Jeff George.

No point in arguing with someone who has such ingrained notions about a player.

 

[bostonfred]

Brady has 3 SB rings, not because of his play (really only 1 was due to him having a good game) but because of the other components of the team. And because of a GREAT coach.

Really only one was due to him having a good game? His game in 2003 wasn't a good game, it was great. 32/48 for 354 and 3 TDs against one INT in a 32-29 shootout that was decided on the final drive. His game in 2001 might not have been a "good game" in your books, but I bet every single person on this board remembers the final drive. I can understand how winning the Superbowl MVP isn't good enough for you to call it a "good game" since he didn't have the big stats, but I'm pretty sure most people thought he played pretty well in that one. Also, in 2004 he completed 70% of his passes for 236 yards and 2 TDs against no INTs in a 24-21 game. That's not a "good game"?

 

[Sulla]

Flawed:

No Tittle/Graham/Baugh option?

I'll put those three up against these whippersnappers anyday of the week.

Figured someone had to do it

Those 3 QBs' careers span 37 years... that's a heck of a long era...

However, they were all drafted within 11 years of each other, which is only two moe than the Favre-Brady span. Baugh played until 1952, so he was around for the first five years that Tittle played. Also, these are the only three QB's I know that were drafted from before 1960. Drafted:

Baugh-37

Graham-44

Tittle-48

In this, it's apples and apples. How do you decide?

Manning=Marino

Favre=Elway

Brady=Montana

It is close.

Gotcha. Fascinating topic, no?Personally, I gotta go with Luckman. He was better in his day than all them other young fellers....

 

[Swampy]

Montana better than Manning. Thanks for brighting my day... If there ever was a qb that was a product within in the system Montana is it. Walsh turned an average qb into a hall of famer. If Montana went anywhere else nobody would have heard of him. Typical Montana Sunday day, 5yd slant to Jerry Rice for 90yds TD, 5yd slant to Dwight Clark 5 yds TD, 5yd slant to Roger Craig 35yds TD, 5yd slant to John Taylor 80yds TD.

Totally idiotic. Montana won two Super Bowls without Rice, Craig, and Taylor. Dwight Clark was nothing special; he had one 1000-yard season in his career (13.0 ypr). Montana made that team. And then he went to KC and led them to the AFC championship game at age 37.

I said typical day, In the system that Bill Walsh ran. He won two Sb thats great, but that doesnt dismiss the fact that he played in one great offensive philosophy that is still ran in todays system. Any qb with marginal skills could do what Montana did in that system.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Marino threw for a bunch of yards, but was, literally, a below average QB when the 'real' season began.

Factually incorrect. His per-game playoff stats:250 yards, 1.8 TDs, 1.3 INTs, 8-10 record.

Maybe not elite, but still above average.

What do you consider average if you think that's above average?

Average starting QB throws for about 225 yards and 1.5 TDs per game. It's even less for the playoffs. (2006 playoff averages: 200 yards, 1 TD, 1.1 INTs)Marino's passer rating in the playoffs is 77.1, which is in the 54th percentile.

I don't think you can argue that any one of Marino's playoff stats are "below average".

BTW, Elway's career playoff averages:

225 yards, 1.23 TDs, 1 INT

 

[Despyzer]

SB XIX: Marino 29/50 318 yards1 TD 2 INT; 1 carry, 0 yardsSB XXI: Elway. 22/37 304 yards 1 TD 1 INT; 6 carries, 27 yards, 1 TD

I think you conveniently left out a couple games. Want to post those numbers too?

 

[JimboJim]

It's really tough to compare Manning and Brady with the other four, since one can expect another 5+ years of play from both players.

However, based on each players stats, win/loss record and playoff performances to date, here's how I'd rank the six

1. Montana - Highly effecient, 4 Super Bowls wins; didn't have gaudy career stats, but his added a rushing element to a high comp %, excellent TD/Int ratio and the ability to win.

2. Favre - Gaudy numbers, 1 Super Bowl win, super-durable and long lasting; Another fairly effecient passer who can/could run, and got himself that ring.

3. Elway - Good career numbers, 2 Super Bowl wins; Not overly effecient passer, but longetivity, 2 Super Bowl wins and his ground game but him above the other three.

4. Manning - Great numbers, 1 Super Bowl win, super durable and highly effecient. He'll probably be #1 on the list by the time he is done... just hasn't put up the numbers or wins (yet).

5. Brady - Fair numbers, 3 Super Bowl wins; his numbers don't compare with any of the other five, but his three Super Bowl rings put him above Marino. With more time (and seasons like this), he could easily climb to the top one or two spots in the list.

6. Marino - Gaudy numbers, long lating, 0 rings. Marino played a long time and put up huge numbers. However, his problems are three-fold. 1, he never won a ring; 2, he was not overly effecient (under 60 comp % and lots of ints.); 3, he added absolutely no ground game (87 yards on 301 career carries).

... just my opnion.

 

[JimboJim]

It's really tough to compare Manning and Brady with the other four, since one can expect another 5+ years of play from both players.However, based on each players stats, win/loss record and playoff performances to date, here's how I'd rank the six1. Montana - Highly effecient, 4 Super Bowls wins; didn't have gaudy career stats, but his added a rushing element to a high comp %, excellent TD/Int ratio and the ability to win.2. Favre - Gaudy numbers, 1 Super Bowl win, super-durable and long lasting; Another fairly effecient passer who can/could run, and got himself that ring.3. Elway - Good career numbers, 2 Super Bowl wins; Not overly effecient passer, but longetivity, 2 Super Bowl wins and his ground game but him above the other three.4. Manning - Great numbers, 1 Super Bowl win, super durable and highly effecient. He'll probably be #1 on the list by the time he is done... just hasn't put up the numbers or wins (yet).5. Brady - Fair numbers, 3 Super Bowl wins; his numbers don't compare with any of the other five, but his three Super Bowl rings put him above Marino. With more time (and seasons like this), he could easily climb to the top one or two spots in the list.6. Marino - Gaudy numbers, long lating, 0 rings. Marino played a long time and put up huge numbers. However, his problems are three-fold. 1, he never won a ring; 2, he was not overly effecient (under 60 comp % and lots of ints.); 3, he added absolutely no ground game (87 yards on 301 career carries).... just my opnion.

Just as a side note; project Manning and Brady's current avergaes out to a 225-250 game career (Super Bowls aside), and both players jump into the top 2. The list would end up like this then.1. Brady (edge over Manning based on current SB wins)2. Manning3. Montana4. Favre5. Elway6. MarinoI think it's a three tier system if current trends run thier course...Tier One - Brady, Manning: Effecient, winning QBs that project out to gaudy stats.Tier Two - Montana: See above without the gaudy stats.Tier Three - All three of these guys have gaudy stats (maybe not quite as much with Elway). However, each one has a major problem area compared to the top three; Favre and Elway were neither as effecient, or won the big game like the above three did. Marino not only had those same two issues, he added no ground game, putting him last IMO.

 

[CalBear]

I said typical day, In the system that Bill Walsh ran. He won two Sb thats great, but that doesnt dismiss the fact that he played in one great offensive philosophy that is still ran in todays system. Any qb with marginal skills could do what Montana did in that system.

Yeah, that's why lots of QBs with marginal skills won 4 Super Bowls. Oh wait...

 

[Chaka]

I said typical day, In the system that Bill Walsh ran. He won two Sb thats great, but that doesnt dismiss the fact that he played in one great offensive philosophy that is still ran in todays system. Any qb with marginal skills could do what Montana did in that system.

Yeah, that's why lots of QBs with marginal skills won 4 Super Bowls. Oh wait...

There is a pretty long list of marginal QBs who won Super Bowls including Terry Bradshaw (blasphemy I know) a career 52% passer with a 212-210 TD to INT ratio.ETA: I don't think Montana was a marginal QB talent.

 

[moleculo]

SB XIX: Marino 29/50 318 yards1 TD 2 INT; 1 carry, 0 yardsSB XXI: Elway. 22/37 304 yards 1 TD 1 INT; 6 carries, 27 yards, 1 TD

I think you conveniently left out a couple games. Want to post those numbers too?

why should I? I posted those stat lines to argue this statement:

The difference is that Elway was a major contributor to most of those losses, whereas Marino otherwise played well enough to win. Other than that, you'd have a pretty good argument.

please tell me why Elway was a major contributor to the XXI loss, while Marino played well enough to win XIX, despite nearly identical stat lines.ETA: I understand you said most of those loses - I'll grant you that the stats from the SF and WAS games weren't pretty. Neither was the 7+ TD's that the "all-pro" defenses gave up. I don't think many QB's would have a pretty statline when faced with a 24+ halftime deficit against a SB caliber defense.

 

[TommyGilmore]

SB XIX: Marino 29/50 318 yards1 TD 2 INT; 1 carry, 0 yards

SB XXI: Elway. 22/37 304 yards 1 TD 1 INT; 6 carries, 27 yards, 1 TD

I think you conveniently left out a couple games. Want to post those numbers too?

why should I? I posted those stat lines to argue this statement:

The difference is that Elway was a major contributor to most of those losses, whereas Marino otherwise played well enough to win. Other than that, you'd have a pretty good argument.

please tell me why Elway was a major contributor to the XXI loss, while Marino played well enough to win XIX, despite nearly identical stat lines.

I wouldn't say those stat lines are "nearly identical" when the QB ratings are off by 20 points.

 

[moleculo]

SB XIX: Marino 29/50 318 yards1 TD 2 INT; 1 carry, 0 yards

SB XXI: Elway. 22/37 304 yards 1 TD 1 INT; 6 carries, 27 yards, 1 TD

I think you conveniently left out a couple games. Want to post those numbers too?

why should I? I posted those stat lines to argue this statement:

The difference is that Elway was a major contributor to most of those losses, whereas Marino otherwise played well enough to win. Other than that, you'd have a pretty good argument.

please tell me why Elway was a major contributor to the XXI loss, while Marino played well enough to win XIX, despite nearly identical stat lines.

I wouldn't say those stat lines are "nearly identical" when the QB ratings are off by 20 points.

QB ratings fail to account for rushing.

 

[Chaka]

SB XIX: Marino 29/50 318 yards1 TD 2 INT; 1 carry, 0 yards

SB XXI: Elway. 22/37 304 yards 1 TD 1 INT; 6 carries, 27 yards, 1 TD

I think you conveniently left out a couple games. Want to post those numbers too?

why should I? I posted those stat lines to argue this statement:

The difference is that Elway was a major contributor to most of those losses, whereas Marino otherwise played well enough to win. Other than that, you'd have a pretty good argument.

please tell me why Elway was a major contributor to the XXI loss, while Marino played well enough to win XIX, despite nearly identical stat lines.

I wouldn't say those stat lines are "nearly identical" when the QB ratings are off by 20 points.

QB ratings fail to account for rushing.

I am confused, what is your point? Elway was one of the best scramblers of his era. Marino had less mobility then Drew Bledsoe.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Just for kicks, trying to think of some trios from other eras.

1970s

Terry Bradshaw

Roger Staubach

Ken Stabler

A case could be made for Tarketon over Stabler, but Tarkenton started his career a lot earlier.

1960s

Johnny Unitas

Bart Starr

Sonny Jurgensen

At this point, you ask yourself: is it OK to bring in the AFL guys? Daryl Lamonica? Len Dawson?

Unitas, Starr, Namath?

I'd take that '60s trio (Unitas, Starr, Jurgensen) over either of the ones from the OP.

 

[Tough As Nails]

Marino threw for a bunch of yards, but was, literally, a below average QB when the 'real' season began.

Factually incorrect. His per-game playoff stats:250 yards, 1.8 TDs, 1.3 INTs, 8-10 record.

Maybe not elite, but still above average.

8-10, below average. 44.4% winning percentage. 250 yards, 1.8 TDs vs. 1.3 INTs. Slightly above average.

Put them together? Average.

Maybe you convinced me. Maybe he is right in the middle instead of below average. But if I have to slot him...the tie-breaker would certainly be wins. Result: below average.

Marino went from a top 10 QB of all-time to: "Well...I'm going to argue that he's barely above the average QB and it won't be easy for me to convince somebody," when the playoffs rolled around.

The fact that one can even begin to make that argument is a huge black mark on an otherwise great career.

 

[moleculo]

SB XIX: Marino 29/50 318 yards1 TD 2 INT; 1 carry, 0 yards

SB XXI: Elway. 22/37 304 yards 1 TD 1 INT; 6 carries, 27 yards, 1 TD

I think you conveniently left out a couple games. Want to post those numbers too?

why should I? I posted those stat lines to argue this statement:

The difference is that Elway was a major contributor to most of those losses, whereas Marino otherwise played well enough to win. Other than that, you'd have a pretty good argument.

please tell me why Elway was a major contributor to the XXI loss, while Marino played well enough to win XIX, despite nearly identical stat lines.

I wouldn't say those stat lines are "nearly identical" when the QB ratings are off by 20 points.

QB ratings fail to account for rushing.

I am confused, what is your point? Elway was one of the best scramblers of his era. Marino had less mobility then Drew Bledsoe.

I'm an idiot. I automatically assumed Marino's rating would be higher. That's two mistakes for me in this thread so far.

 

[Despyzer]

But if I have to slot him...the tie-breaker would certainly be wins. Result: below average.

If that's the tie-breaker, you may want to re-calculate. As I mentioned in this thread and/or the Marino one, the Dolphins had the highest winning percentage in the entire league during the years that Marino was playing.

 

[bostonfred]

But if I have to slot him...the tie-breaker would certainly be wins. Result: below average.

If that's the tie-breaker, you may want to re-calculate. As I mentioned in this thread and/or the Marino one, the Dolphins had the highest winning percentage in the entire league during the years that Marino was playing.

The quote you're repling to is talking about his playoff statistics, including his playoff winning percentage. I'm assuming that's what they're talking about, although the way you cut out those words from the chain does make it look like he's interested in regular season wins, too.

 

[Despyzer]

But if I have to slot him...the tie-breaker would certainly be wins. Result: below average.

If that's the tie-breaker, you may want to re-calculate. As I mentioned in this thread and/or the Marino one, the Dolphins had the highest winning percentage in the entire league during the years that Marino was playing.

The quote you're repling to is talking about his playoff statistics, including his playoff winning percentage. I'm assuming that's what they're talking about, although the way you cut out those words from the chain does make it look like he's interested in regular season wins, too.

Fair enough. My bad. I'm not sure you can fairly evaluate a career by ignoring everything done in the regular season though.Edit to add: Can we just go back to talking about how overrated Elway was?

 

[TommyGilmore]

8-10, below average. 44.4% winning percentage.

I'd be interested to see where Marino's 44% ranks among all QBs who have started a playoff game.

 

[TommyGilmore]

SB XIX: Marino 29/50 318 yards1 TD 2 INT; 1 carry, 0 yards

SB XXI: Elway. 22/37 304 yards 1 TD 1 INT; 6 carries, 27 yards, 1 TD

I think you conveniently left out a couple games. Want to post those numbers too?

why should I? I posted those stat lines to argue this statement:

The difference is that Elway was a major contributor to most of those losses, whereas Marino otherwise played well enough to win. Other than that, you'd have a pretty good argument.

please tell me why Elway was a major contributor to the XXI loss, while Marino played well enough to win XIX, despite nearly identical stat lines.

I wouldn't say those stat lines are "nearly identical" when the QB ratings are off by 20 points.

QB ratings fail to account for rushing.

I am confused, what is your point? Elway was one of the best scramblers of his era. Marino had less mobility then Drew Bledsoe.

Just for the record, here are the passer ratings for those games:Marino: 66.9 (67.3 if you count rushing stats)

Elway: 83.6 (94.2 if you count rushing stats)

 

[moleculo]

for the record, some really good all-time QB debate here. Keep in mind that this was a couple of years ago, and now that Peyton has that monkey off his back and Brady is showing what he can do with talented WR's, I'd expect some rankings to change.