If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, is Brady the greatest QB of all ti (1 Viewer)

[nxmehta]

The only way Brady haters would admit he is the GOAT is if you put him on the field with 10 cardboard cutouts and he won the superbowl 10 times in a row. Also, he'd have to replace Belichick as the coach.

EVEN THEN you'd have people quoting spygate, Matt Cassel's season, the tuck rule, Vinatieri, the defense, etc. Hater's hate. That's their job.

For everyone else this is easy. I personally don't like to compare across eras, so I'd say Brady is easily the GOAT of the modern era. But yeah, if you want to compare across eras, sure you could call Brady the GOAT.

For people throwing out guys like Eli, Big Ben, Favre, etc., you are out of your freaking minds. Get that #### out of here, it's embarrassing. There's maybe 6-7 guys that should be allowed to be mentioned in this thread.

 

[Mario Kart]

The only way Brady haters would admit he is the GOAT is if you put him on the field with 10 cardboard cutouts and he won the superbowl 10 times in a row. Also, he'd have to replace Belichick as the coach.EVEN THEN you'd have people quoting spygate, Matt Cassel's season, the tuck rule, Vinatieri, the defense, etc. Hater's hate. That's their job.For everyone else this is easy. I personally don't like to compare across eras, so I'd say Brady is easily the GOAT of the modern era. But yeah, if you want to compare across eras, sure you could call Brady the GOAT.For people throwing out guys like Eli, Big Ben, Favre, etc., you are out of your freaking minds. Get that #### out of here, it's embarrassing. There's maybe 6-7 guys that should be allowed to be mentioned in this thread.

Favre >> Brady

 

[AmosMoses]

The only way Brady haters would admit he is the GOAT is if you put him on the field with 10 cardboard cutouts and he won the superbowl 10 times in a row. Also, he'd have to replace Belichick as the coach.EVEN THEN you'd have people quoting spygate, Matt Cassel's season, the tuck rule, Vinatieri, the defense, etc. Hater's hate. That's their job.For everyone else this is easy. I personally don't like to compare across eras, so I'd say Brady is easily the GOAT of the modern era. But yeah, if you want to compare across eras, sure you could call Brady the GOAT.For people throwing out guys like Eli, Big Ben, Favre, etc., you are out of your freaking minds. Get that #### out of here, it's embarrassing. There's maybe 6-7 guys that should be allowed to be mentioned in this thread.

Favre >> Brady

WRONG, and Favre really isn't even close to how good Brady is.

 

[Mario Kart]

The only way Brady haters would admit he is the GOAT is if you put him on the field with 10 cardboard cutouts and he won the superbowl 10 times in a row. Also, he'd have to replace Belichick as the coach.EVEN THEN you'd have people quoting spygate, Matt Cassel's season, the tuck rule, Vinatieri, the defense, etc. Hater's hate. That's their job.For everyone else this is easy. I personally don't like to compare across eras, so I'd say Brady is easily the GOAT of the modern era. But yeah, if you want to compare across eras, sure you could call Brady the GOAT.For people throwing out guys like Eli, Big Ben, Favre, etc., you are out of your freaking minds. Get that #### out of here, it's embarrassing. There's maybe 6-7 guys that should be allowed to be mentioned in this thread.

Favre >> Brady

WRONG, and Favre really isn't even close to how good Brady is.

Correct, Favre is much better. Favre >> Brady[/thread]

 

[AmosMoses]

The only way Brady haters would admit he is the GOAT is if you put him on the field with 10 cardboard cutouts and he won the superbowl 10 times in a row. Also, he'd have to replace Belichick as the coach.EVEN THEN you'd have people quoting spygate, Matt Cassel's season, the tuck rule, Vinatieri, the defense, etc. Hater's hate. That's their job.For everyone else this is easy. I personally don't like to compare across eras, so I'd say Brady is easily the GOAT of the modern era. But yeah, if you want to compare across eras, sure you could call Brady the GOAT.For people throwing out guys like Eli, Big Ben, Favre, etc., you are out of your freaking minds. Get that #### out of here, it's embarrassing. There's maybe 6-7 guys that should be allowed to be mentioned in this thread.

Favre >> Brady

WRONG, and Favre really isn't even close to how good Brady is.

Correct, Favre is much better. Favre >> Brady[/thread]

Look dude, I know there are a million sausage and cheese eating 350# men and women up in Wisconsin with nothing else to attach their lives to but how awesome Brett Favre was, but that dude overrated. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. Brady is worlds better than Favre.

 

[daveR]

Mario's right, Favre >> Brady.

 

[daveR]

Truth be told, this kind of discussion should be re-written as "One of the Greatest of All Time". Without identical conditions in which to make the comparison, the players cannot realistically be compared to the degree they would need to be.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:

1. Montana

2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing

3. Manning

4. Marino

5. Favre

6. Brady

7. Elway

8. Staubach

9. Steve Young

10. Warren Moon

Knocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

 

[Phlash]

I like how Brady can QB 3 SB winning teams, put up monstrous numbers year after year, and be the complete focal point of the offense as of late and people will still try to minimize his accomplishments.

He's the GOAT. What other QBs resume even comes close to his combination of winning + stats?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I like how Brady can QB 3 SB winning teams, put up monstrous numbers year after year, and be the complete focal point of the offense as of late and people will still try to minimize his accomplishments.He's the GOAT. What other QBs resume even comes close to his combination of winning + stats?

He's only put up monstrous numbers for four years, champ. And only in one of those four years did he put up league-leading numbers, which makes you question whether they actually are monstrous or just a product of being a good QB in a pass-first offense during a pass-friendly era, like say Drew Brees.Like I said earlier, he's been Terry Bradshaw for six years and (maybe, arguably) Dan Marino for four. That's pretty awesome IMO, certainly enough to rank him among the great QBs of all time. The problem comes when Pats homers pretend he's been Terry Bradshaw + Dan Marino for ten years. That's simply not true. It's as dumb as the people saying that Favre was obviously much better than Brady, except that those people are probably kidding and Pats homers appear to be serious.

 

[bostonfred]

I like how Brady can QB 3 SB winning teams, put up monstrous numbers year after year, and be the complete focal point of the offense as of late and people will still try to minimize his accomplishments.He's the GOAT. What other QBs resume even comes close to his combination of winning + stats?

He's only put up monstrous numbers for four years, champ. And only in one of those four years did he put up league-leading numbers, which makes you question whether they actually are monstrous or just a product of being a good QB in a pass-first offense during a pass-friendly era, like say Drew Brees.Like I said earlier, he's been Terry Bradshaw for six years and (maybe, arguably) Dan Marino for four. That's pretty awesome IMO, certainly enough to rank him among the great QBs of all time. The problem comes when Pats homers pretend he's been Terry Bradshaw + Dan Marino for ten years. That's simply not true. It's as dumb as the people saying that Favre was obviously much better than Brady, except that those people are probably kidding and Pats homers appear to be serious.

We don't know if terry bradshaw could have put up marino numbers. We do know that brady can. We don't know if marino could have won a superbowl on a better team. We do know that brady can. seeing as how brady had the reche caldwell patriots just minutes away from the 2006-7 superbowl, in a year when his defense was hardly first rate and his running game was nonexistant, then followed that season by breaking all time individual and team offensive records with, again, no running game, it sure seems like brady is good enough to carry weaker teams deep in the postseasson and take good receivers deep in the record books. There's a short list of guys who can do both, and even shorter list of guys who can do both with any consistency. as for your contention that brady only put up league leading numbers in one year, he led the league in passing tds in 2002 (when he was supposedly "bradshaw") and 2007, then broke the td, int and yardage records in three separate seasons. So that argument is kind of poor. But don't ask me, look at the mvp award, which brady apparently won without putting up league leading numbers.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I like how Brady can QB 3 SB winning teams, put up monstrous numbers year after year, and be the complete focal point of the offense as of late and people will still try to minimize his accomplishments.

He's the GOAT. What other QBs resume even comes close to his combination of winning + stats?

He's only put up monstrous numbers for four years, champ. And only in one of those four years did he put up league-leading numbers, which makes you question whether they actually are monstrous or just a product of being a good QB in a pass-first offense during a pass-friendly era, like say Drew Brees.Like I said earlier, he's been Terry Bradshaw for six years and (maybe, arguably) Dan Marino for four. That's pretty awesome IMO, certainly enough to rank him among the great QBs of all time.

The problem comes when Pats homers pretend he's been Terry Bradshaw + Dan Marino for ten years. That's simply not true. It's as dumb as the people saying that Favre was obviously much better than Brady, except that those people are probably kidding and Pats homers appear to be serious.

We don't know if terry bradshaw could have put up marino numbers. We do know that brady can. We don't know if marino could have won a superbowl on a better team. We do know that brady can. seeing as how brady had the reche caldwell patriots just minutes away from the 2006-7 superbowl, in a year when his defense was hardly first rate and his running game was nonexistant, then followed that season by breaking all time individual and team offensive records with, again, no running game, it sure seems like brady is good enough to carry weaker teams deep in the postseasson and take good receivers deep in the record books. There's a short list of guys who can do both, and even shorter list of guys who can do both with any consistency. as for your contention that brady only put up league leading numbers in one year, he led the league in passing tds in 2002 (when he was supposedly "bradshaw") and 2007, then broke the td, int and yardage records in three separate seasons. So that argument is kind of poor. But don't ask me, look at the mvp award, which brady apparently won without putting up league leading numbers.

Of course Marino could have won a Super Bowl. Any semi-decent QB can win a Super Bowl. Just a matter of how good the team was and how the ball bounces.I think this gets to the heart of the problem. Brady/Patriot fans- and many other fans- seem to think that winning a Super Bowl requires a QB that has some special intangible magical quality, and that therefore it's an important criteria in determining greatness. It doesn't. To be a Super Bowl winning QB you need to either: (1) play on a dominant team, one of the greatest of the last century; or (2) play on a very good team and get a little lucky. That's it. The quality of QB play plays a role in that, but it's not the whole of it, half of it or even the most important part of it IMO. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Joe Montana can do it. Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, and Doug Williams can do it. It's a totally argument for individual excellence.

Also, the second bolded part of your post confuses me. When did he break the NFL yardage record?

 

[David Yudkin]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:1. Montana2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing3. Manning4. Marino5. Favre6. Brady7. Elway8. Staubach9. Steve Young10. Warren MoonKnocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

Using only the guys you mentioned, I did some quick math, allocating 1 pt for a yearly ranking in the Top 5 in the categories listed and another 1 pt for winning 10 games in a 12 or 14 game season or 12 games in a 16 game season. Here's what the results show (ignoring rushing totals, Pro Bowls, All Pros, Super Bowls, etc.) . . .

%	Yds	TD	Rate	10/12	TotalManning	        10	10	13	8	8	49Tarkenton	11	12	11	9	3	46Unitas	        9	11	9	11	3	43Favre	        6	11	11	6	6	40Montana	        10	5	7	9	3	34Marino	        5	11	8	6	3	33Young	        8	4	4	8	3	27Brady	        4	4	6	3	6	23Brees	        5	5	6	5	2	23Staubach	3	6	4	5	4	22Kelly	        5	3	5	2	4	19Moon	        3	7	5	4	0	19Elway	        2	5	3	4	4	18Warner	        4	3	3	4	2	16Rodgers	        2	3	4	3	1	13

 

[TobiasFunke]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:1. Montana2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing3. Manning4. Marino5. Favre6. Brady7. Elway8. Staubach9. Steve Young10. Warren MoonKnocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

Using only the guys you mentioned, I did some quick math, allocating 1 pt for a yearly ranking in the Top 5 in the categories listed and another 1 pt for winning 10 games in a 12 or 14 game season or 12 games in a 16 game season. Here's what the results show (ignoring rushing totals, Pro Bowls, All Pros, Super Bowls, etc.) . . .

%	Yds	TD	Rate	10/12	TotalManning	        10	10	13	8	8	49Tarkenton	11	12	11	9	3	46Unitas	        9	11	9	11	3	43Favre	        6	11	11	6	6	40Montana	        10	5	7	9	3	34Marino	        5	11	8	6	3	33Young	        8	4	4	8	3	27Brady	        4	4	6	3	6	23Brees	        5	5	6	5	2	23Staubach	3	6	4	5	4	22Kelly	        5	3	5	2	4	19Moon	        3	7	5	4	0	19Elway	        2	5	3	4	4	18Warner	        4	3	3	4	2	16Rodgers	        2	3	4	3	1	13

Great stuff here. Really puts into perspective how different the current era is. Gaudy passing numbers are increasingly easy to come by; ranking vs. your peers is the best way to compare athletes across eras.

 

[Dentist]

I don't know if Brady's the GOAT, but I know that he's better than Favre... by a LOT.

In fact there are a minimum of 5-7 QB's better than Favre.

Montana, Marino, Brady, Peyton, even Brees, Fouts, Elway

 

[Ghost Rider]

We don't know if terry bradshaw could have put up marino numbers. We do know that brady can. We don't know if marino could have won a superbowl on a better team. We do know that brady can. seeing as how brady had the reche caldwell patriots just minutes away from the 2006-7 superbowl, in a year when his defense was hardly first rate and his running game was nonexistant, then followed that season by breaking all time individual and team offensive records with, again, no running game, it sure seems like brady is good enough to carry weaker teams deep in the postseasson and take good receivers deep in the record books. There's a short list of guys who can do both, and even shorter list of guys who can do both with any consistency.

The Patriots were 12th in the NFL in 2006 in rushing. I guess you would call that non-existent, right? Dillon and Maroney combined for nearly 1,600 rushing yards and 19 rushing touchdowns. And that defense you called not first rate was 2nd in points allowed and 6th in yards allowed in 2006.

Brady had no running game in 2007? Yeah, okay. 13th in the NFL (that is above average, if you are incapable of figuring that out).

This is why your homer "I love Tom Brady more than anyone ever" posts should never be taken seriously. You constantly distort and lie about the facts to make Brady look even better than he already is (which, again, IS one of the best ever).

 

[Smack Tripper]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:1. Montana2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing3. Manning4. Marino5. Favre6. Brady7. Elway8. Staubach9. Steve Young10. Warren MoonKnocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

Using only the guys you mentioned, I did some quick math, allocating 1 pt for a yearly ranking in the Top 5 in the categories listed and another 1 pt for winning 10 games in a 12 or 14 game season or 12 games in a 16 game season. Here's what the results show (ignoring rushing totals, Pro Bowls, All Pros, Super Bowls, etc.) . . .

%	Yds	TD	Rate	10/12	TotalManning	        10	10	13	8	8	49Tarkenton	11	12	11	9	3	46Unitas	        9	11	9	11	3	43Favre	        6	11	11	6	6	40Montana	        10	5	7	9	3	34Marino	        5	11	8	6	3	33Young	        8	4	4	8	3	27Brady	        4	4	6	3	6	23Brees	        5	5	6	5	2	23Staubach	3	6	4	5	4	22Kelly	        5	3	5	2	4	19Moon	        3	7	5	4	0	19Elway	        2	5	3	4	4	18Warner	        4	3	3	4	2	16Rodgers	        2	3	4	3	1	13

Interesting, thank you!I'm surprised Tark and Young were that high and Moon and Elway were that low. I'm passing on an eyeball test in most cases, but thats interesting.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:1. Montana2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing3. Manning4. Marino5. Favre6. Brady7. Elway8. Staubach9. Steve Young10. Warren MoonKnocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

Using only the guys you mentioned, I did some quick math, allocating 1 pt for a yearly ranking in the Top 5 in the categories listed and another 1 pt for winning 10 games in a 12 or 14 game season or 12 games in a 16 game season. Here's what the results show (ignoring rushing totals, Pro Bowls, All Pros, Super Bowls, etc.) . . .

%	Yds	TD	Rate	10/12	TotalManning	        10	10	13	8	8	49Tarkenton	11	12	11	9	3	46Unitas	        9	11	9	11	3	43Favre	        6	11	11	6	6	40Montana	        10	5	7	9	3	34Marino	        5	11	8	6	3	33Young	        8	4	4	8	3	27Brady	        4	4	6	3	6	23Brees	        5	5	6	5	2	23Staubach	3	6	4	5	4	22Kelly	        5	3	5	2	4	19Moon	        3	7	5	4	0	19Elway	        2	5	3	4	4	18Warner	        4	3	3	4	2	16Rodgers	        2	3	4	3	1	13

Could I bother you for the same info on lets say:Otto GrahamSid Luckman- I've never even seen signifcant film of these two but old timers often tell you about themBradshawLen DawsonBart StarrKen Stabler-who I don't expect to place well at all, but for curiosity sake

 

[bostonfred]

I like how Brady can QB 3 SB winning teams, put up monstrous numbers year after year, and be the complete focal point of the offense as of late and people will still try to minimize his accomplishments.

He's the GOAT. What other QBs resume even comes close to his combination of winning + stats?

He's only put up monstrous numbers for four years, champ. And only in one of those four years did he put up league-leading numbers, which makes you question whether they actually are monstrous or just a product of being a good QB in a pass-first offense during a pass-friendly era, like say Drew Brees.Like I said earlier, he's been Terry Bradshaw for six years and (maybe, arguably) Dan Marino for four. That's pretty awesome IMO, certainly enough to rank him among the great QBs of all time.

The problem comes when Pats homers pretend he's been Terry Bradshaw + Dan Marino for ten years. That's simply not true. It's as dumb as the people saying that Favre was obviously much better than Brady, except that those people are probably kidding and Pats homers appear to be serious.

We don't know if terry bradshaw could have put up marino numbers. We do know that brady can. We don't know if marino could have won a superbowl on a better team. We do know that brady can. seeing as how brady had the reche caldwell patriots just minutes away from the 2006-7 superbowl, in a year when his defense was hardly first rate and his running game was nonexistant, then followed that season by breaking all time individual and team offensive records with, again, no running game, it sure seems like brady is good enough to carry weaker teams deep in the postseasson and take good receivers deep in the record books. There's a short list of guys who can do both, and even shorter list of guys who can do both with any consistency. as for your contention that brady only put up league leading numbers in one year, he led the league in passing tds in 2002 (when he was supposedly "bradshaw") and 2007, then broke the td, int and yardage records in three separate seasons. So that argument is kind of poor. But don't ask me, look at the mvp award, which brady apparently won without putting up league leading numbers.

Of course Marino could have won a Super Bowl. Any semi-decent QB can win a Super Bowl. Just a matter of how good the team was and how the ball bounces.I think this gets to the heart of the problem. Brady/Patriot fans- and many other fans- seem to think that winning a Super Bowl requires a QB that has some special intangible magical quality, and that therefore it's an important criteria in determining greatness. It doesn't. To be a Super Bowl winning QB you need to either: (1) play on a dominant team, one of the greatest of the last century; or (2) play on a very good team and get a little lucky. That's it. The quality of QB play plays a role in that, but it's not the whole of it, half of it or even the most important part of it IMO. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Joe Montana can do it. Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, and Doug Williams can do it. It's a totally argument for individual excellence.

Also, the second bolded part of your post confuses me. When did he break the NFL yardage record?

I've posted enough in this thread and other threads that you should know my response. There is no magical qb power to win a superbowl. There is, however, a skillset required to be able to adjust to three or four playoff caliber teams, all of which are often totally different, and be able to play strongly enough at the most important position in the unique conditions of that game that your team can win the game. Brady had to win a shootout in a dome against the panthers in the 2003 superbowl. He had to play drive killing, mistake free football in the snow against the colts earlier in that same season. Totaly different kinds of games.This years superbowl against the giants will be a similar test. The giants are built for playoff football against passing juggernauts. Their pass rush is good enough to beat rodgers and brady, but they were barely able to squeak into the playoffs. This is a brutal matchup for a one sided team like the 2011 pats. But so was the defense and running game of the broncos, or the balanced attack of the ravens. It takes a unique skillset to adapt to those situations.

The colts were built around getting a lead with manning, then using the tampa two to avoid big plays and maybe get a freeney sack or two. If manning didn't get them out to that lead, he had to press, and that was usually where things went wrong. Manning struggled in the elements at times, and while he was outstannding at reading defenses, he was capable of imploding against a defense he couldn't read.

Whether you like it or not, there is a skillset to winning superbowls that isn't some magical superpower. Brady has it. Marino had a lot of seasons to prove whether he had it or not, and he never did. Maybe there's a reason.

(As for your feigned confusion about brady breaking marinos yardage record the same year brees did, say what you will, its still impressive for brady to break the td record, the int record, and break marinos yardage record since 2007)

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've posted enough in this thread and other threads that you should know my response. There is no magical qb power to win a superbowl. There is, however, a skillset required to be able to adjust to three or four playoff caliber teams, all of which are often totally different, and be able to play strongly enough at the most important position in the unique conditions of that game that your team can win the game. Brady had to win a shootout in a dome against the panthers in the 2003 superbowl. He had to play drive killing, mistake free football in the snow against the colts earlier in that same season. Totaly different kinds of games.

This years superbowl against the giants will be a similar test. The giants are built for playoff football against passing juggernauts. Their pass rush is good enough to beat rodgers and brady, but they were barely able to squeak into the playoffs. This is a brutal matchup for a one sided team like the 2011 pats. But so was the defense and running game of the broncos, or the balanced attack of the ravens. It takes a unique skillset to adapt to those situations.

The colts were built around getting a lead with manning, then using the tampa two to avoid big plays and maybe get a freeney sack or two. If manning didn't get them out to that lead, he had to press, and that was usually where things went wrong. Manning struggled in the elements at times, and while he was outstannding at reading defenses, he was capable of imploding against a defense he couldn't read.

Whether you like it or not, there is a skillset to winning superbowls that isn't some magical superpower. Brady has it. Marino had a lot of seasons to prove whether he had it or not, and he never did. Maybe there's a reason.

(As for your feigned confusion about brady breaking marinos yardage record the same year brees did, say what you will, its still impressive for brady to break the td record, the int record, and break marinos yardage record since 2007)

No, there isn't. This is total nonsense. Any team/quarterback that can make the playoffs (as Marino did many times in his career) and can win three consecutive games against quality opponents (as Marino did many times in his career) can win a Super Bowl. All they need to do is have things break their way- a fortunate call, an injury to the other team, a defensive/special teams TD, a mediocre team advancing on the other side of the playoff bracket, etc. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a bunch of mystical fairytale nonsense that idiots in the media like to spout about "intangibles" and "winners" and other crap that they spew to fill when they don't have enough actually meaningful and interesting material to fill time slots and column inches. If you think like this, your opinion is already pretty much worthless by admission. Sorry, but I don't believe in Skip Bayless and fairy tales.And what you miss about Brady not breaking the yardage record is that the NFL game changes quickly and drastically, far more so than any other sport. You can only measure players by their peers. It's impressive that Brady threw for 5,200 yards this year, but that was still only good enough for second place in the pass-happy and pass-friendly 2011 NFL season- and barely even that, with 2 other guys within 300 yards of him and two others within 600 yards of him. If anything, the fact that it took this long to break Marino's record might be evidence that Marino was better than all of the 21st century QBs, since he was so much better than his peers.

 

[Modog814]

I've posted enough in this thread and other threads that you should know my response. There is no magical qb power to win a superbowl. There is, however, a skillset required to be able to adjust to three or four playoff caliber teams, all of which are often totally different, and be able to play strongly enough at the most important position in the unique conditions of that game that your team can win the game. Brady had to win a shootout in a dome against the panthers in the 2003 superbowl. He had to play drive killing, mistake free football in the snow against the colts earlier in that same season. Totaly different kinds of games.

This years superbowl against the giants will be a similar test. The giants are built for playoff football against passing juggernauts. Their pass rush is good enough to beat rodgers and brady, but they were barely able to squeak into the playoffs. This is a brutal matchup for a one sided team like the 2011 pats. But so was the defense and running game of the broncos, or the balanced attack of the ravens. It takes a unique skillset to adapt to those situations.

The colts were built around getting a lead with manning, then using the tampa two to avoid big plays and maybe get a freeney sack or two. If manning didn't get them out to that lead, he had to press, and that was usually where things went wrong. Manning struggled in the elements at times, and while he was outstannding at reading defenses, he was capable of imploding against a defense he couldn't read.

Whether you like it or not, there is a skillset to winning superbowls that isn't some magical superpower. Brady has it. Marino had a lot of seasons to prove whether he had it or not, and he never did. Maybe there's a reason.

(As for your feigned confusion about brady breaking marinos yardage record the same year brees did, say what you will, its still impressive for brady to break the td record, the int record, and break marinos yardage record since 2007)

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you really trying to give Brady the credit for that win against the Ravens?

Also, that whole thing about the Colts philosophy is spot-on. However, I don't think it's only the colts that do it. Most of these high-powered unstoppable regular season teams (Packers, Pats, Colts, Saints) are that way.

 

[David Yudkin]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:1. Montana2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing3. Manning4. Marino5. Favre6. Brady7. Elway8. Staubach9. Steve Young10. Warren MoonKnocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

Using only the guys you mentioned, I did some quick math, allocating 1 pt for a yearly ranking in the Top 5 in the categories listed and another 1 pt for winning 10 games in a 12 or 14 game season or 12 games in a 16 game season. Here's what the results show (ignoring rushing totals, Pro Bowls, All Pros, Super Bowls, etc.) . . .

%	Yds	TD	Rate	10/12	TotalManning	        10	10	13	8	8	49Tarkenton	11	12	11	9	3	46Unitas	        9	11	9	11	3	43Favre	        6	11	11	6	6	40Montana	        10	5	7	9	3	34Marino	        5	11	8	6	3	33Young	        8	4	4	8	3	27Brady	        4	4	6	3	6	23Brees	        5	5	6	5	2	23Staubach	3	6	4	5	4	22Kelly	        5	3	5	2	4	19Moon	        3	7	5	4	0	19Elway	        2	5	3	4	4	18Warner	        4	3	3	4	2	16Rodgers	        2	3	4	3	1	13

Could I bother you for the same info on lets say:Otto GrahamSid Luckman- I've never even seen signifcant film of these two but old timers often tell you about themBradshawLen DawsonBart StarrKen Stabler-who I don't expect to place well at all, but for curiosity sake

%	Yds	TD	Rate	10/12	TotalManning	        10	10	13	8	8	49Tarkenton	11	12	11	9	3	46Unitas	        9	11	9	11	3	43Favre	        6	11	11	6	6	40Dawson	        10	8	7	8	3	36Montana	        10	5	7	9	3	34Graham	        9	7	7	8	3	34Marino	        5	11	8	6	3	33Young	        8	4	4	8	3	27Brady	        4	4	6	3	6	23Brees	        5	5	6	5	2	23Stabler	        9	2	4	4	4	23Staubach	3	6	4	5	4	22Luckman	        4	5	5	5	3	22Starr	        9	1	0	7	4	21Kelly	        5	3	5	2	4	19Moon	        3	7	5	4	0	19Elway	        2	5	3	4	4	18Warner	        4	3	3	4	2	16Rodgers	        2	3	4	3	1	13Bradshaw	1	2	4	2	4	13

For Graham and Luckman, I used Top 3 instead of Top 5 since there were so many fewer teams.

 

[bostonfred]

Tobias, I posted a legitimate argument for there being a skillset that you call magic. Your response didn't address any of it. You oversimplified the topic, referred to it again as magic, attacked my intelligence, and threw the whole thing out. I don't think you're so limited in your ability to debate that you can't address it, which leads me to believe that you're aware that your argument is shaky at best. And since I never expect you to give an inch in this or any debate, I will take that for what it is - the most I can expect to accomplish in a debate with you on this topic. I will happily take that small victory, unless you want to address the points I made.

I will address your marino argument, though. I do agree that marino was special in that he was able to put up huge numbers compared to his contemporaries. In a copycat league, the fact that nobody successfully copied marinos success right away is impressive. But marino was also the first to really take advantage of the new passing rules that opened up the game. He got to play new rules offense against teams that played old rules defense. And that worked well in the regular season, when teams didn't have time to completely reengineer themselves to beat his style. But in the playoffs, that's all teams do, and it worked. To me, that is a clear sign that he was exploiting the exploitable defenses and rules, but that he was not able to adapt to teams that closed those holes. The same can be said for montana, who led the first west coast offense. But montana was able to adapt to the great teams of his era.

Brady and manning were two of the first to really own the modern check with me offense. They ran different offensive styles, but both of them were asked to make constant adjustments. Harrison was particularly adept at changing his route based on the coverage in moores system, and manning and harrison had a great thing going. Contrast that with the mike martz style of making the defense adjust to your playcalling, which was beatable with physical corner play, pass rush, and chucking the running back. brady, manning and warner all put up big numbers for their respective teams with innovations, just like marino and montana did.

The fascinating thing about how brady did it is that he evolved based on his teammates. When he had a bunch of below average smurfs, he ran a lot of screens, double screens, quick slants, and short plays. When he got deep threats, particularly moss, he changed his game to a deep passing, making time in the pocket game. When he added these tight ends, he changed his game again and is now more of an intermediate pocket passer. The ability to adapt to different coaches and different styles of offense sets him apart from manning/moore, brees/payton, marino/shula, montana/walsh, and warner/martz. Brady/belichick isn't based on a single, evolving system of play with relative stability in the offensive coaching staff.

I think you're the one who sees these things as "magic". You seem to ignore the details of how these guys played, oversimplify the arguments of your opposition and just say marino good, brady not as good. There is no single rating of a quarterback that says good or bad. You need to be good at a lot of different things to achieve sustained excellence, and whether you understand them or not, there are other things you need to do differently to win in the playoffs. The fact that you dont seem to understand that playoff football is, in fact, different, suggests that maybe you just don't understand the game well enough for me to spend further time on this.

If you are interested in discussing the playoff skillset, let me ask this: when manning threw four picks in a loss to the patriots in 2003/4, then followed with just three points in 2004/5 after setting the nfl td record, was it just bad luck? Or did something change from game to game? I contend that the 2003 patriots exploited his defense reading, and baited him into bad throws, leading manning to play more conservative, gunshy football in 2004. I contend that, while he had beaten the crap out of denver and kc, he tried and failed to adapt to a different playoff defense he faced. And I contend that that made him exploitable from year to year, which was a substantial flaw in his game. If you just lump all that under skip bayless fairy dust, then we aren't going to get very far

 

[David Yudkin]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you really trying to give Brady the credit for that win against the Ravens?

Here's the inherent problem. Teams either win or they don't. So Brady gets credit for a win and Flacco gets credit for a loss. Them's the breaks. Does Roethlisberger have to give back one of his SB rings because he had the lowest Passer Rating of a winning QB in history? Of course not.

 

[bostonfred]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you really trying to give Brady the credit for that win against the Ravens?

No, but I don't think it was as bad as its been made out to be. The ravens entire gameplen was to disrupt brady, as it should have been. He responded fairly well, and his play not only led the pats to twenty odd points and a lead, but opened up the run game for his mediocre backs against one of the top run stuffing teams in the league. His end zone pick was bad, but it was an aggressive, step on the throat play and I can't blame him for trying to put the game put of reach. I very much agree with the plan, just not the execution. He also had that play where he missed gronk for an easy six early in the game. There's no question the pressure got to him.The thing is, brady will play some teams like that in the playoffs, and he has to play differently against them. He played conservatively for the most part, took a couple shots, dealt with the pressure, adjusted the offense and checked down to draws fairly often to neutralize the blitz. He didn't win this one singlehandedly, and I dont think many qbs in history would have. But he played well enough to give his team a chance to win it. Sometimes that's what you have to do. I don't think this was bradys best game by a long shot, but it was enough to win.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Tobias, I posted a legitimate argument for there being a skillset that you call magic. Your response didn't address any of it. You oversimplified the topic, referred to it again as magic, attacked my intelligence, and threw the whole thing out. I don't think you're so limited in your ability to debate that you can't address it, which leads me to believe that you're aware that your argument is shaky at best. And since I never expect you to give an inch in this or any debate, I will take that for what it is - the most I can expect to accomplish in a debate with you on this topic. I will happily take that small victory, unless you want to address the points I made.I will address your marino argument, though. I do agree that marino was special in that he was able to put up huge numbers compared to his contemporaries. In a copycat league, the fact that nobody successfully copied marinos success right away is impressive. But marino was also the first to really take advantage of the new passing rules that opened up the game. He got to play new rules offense against teams that played old rules defense. And that worked well in the regular season, when teams didn't have time to completely reengineer themselves to beat his style. But in the playoffs, that's all teams do, and it worked. To me, that is a clear sign that he was exploiting the exploitable defenses and rules, but that he was not able to adapt to teams that closed those holes. The same can be said for montana, who led the first west coast offense. But montana was able to adapt to the great teams of his era. Brady and manning were two of the first to really own the modern check with me offense. They ran different offensive styles, but both of them were asked to make constant adjustments. Harrison was particularly adept at changing his route based on the coverage in moores system, and manning and harrison had a great thing going. Contrast that with the mike martz style of making the defense adjust to your playcalling, which was beatable with physical corner play, pass rush, and chucking the running back. brady, manning and warner all put up big numbers for their respective teams with innovations, just like marino and montana did.The fascinating thing about how brady did it is that he evolved based on his teammates. When he had a bunch of below average smurfs, he ran a lot of screens, double screens, quick slants, and short plays. When he got deep threats, particularly moss, he changed his game to a deep passing, making time in the pocket game. When he added these tight ends, he changed his game again and is now more of an intermediate pocket passer. The ability to adapt to different coaches and different styles of offense sets him apart from manning/moore, brees/payton, marino/shula, montana/walsh, and warner/martz. Brady/belichick isn't based on a single, evolving system of play with relative stability in the offensive coaching staff. I think you're the one who sees these things as "magic". You seem to ignore the details of how these guys played, oversimplify the arguments of your opposition and just say marino good, brady not as good. There is no single rating of a quarterback that says good or bad. You need to be good at a lot of different things to achieve sustained excellence, and whether you understand them or not, there are other things you need to do differently to win in the playoffs. The fact that you dont seem to understand that playoff football is, in fact, different, suggests that maybe you just don't understand the game well enough for me to spend further time on this.If you are interested in discussing the playoff skillset, let me ask this: when manning threw four picks in a loss to the patriots in 2003/4, then followed with just three points in 2004/5 after setting the nfl td record, was it just bad luck? Or did something change from game to game? I contend that the 2003 patriots exploited his defense reading, and baited him into bad throws, leading manning to play more conservative, gunshy football in 2004. I contend that, while he had beaten the crap out of denver and kc, he tried and failed to adapt to a different playoff defense he faced. And I contend that that made him exploitable from year to year, which was a substantial flaw in his game. If you just lump all that under skip bayless fairy dust, then we aren't going to get very far

I threw it out because I disagree with the fundamental premise that there is a playoff skillset that is different than the normal skillset for playing well at the QB position (or any position for that matter). It's a ridiculous concept. The logic you apply to Manning vs. the Patriots from 2003-2005 could just as easily be applied to Brady vs. the Ravens from 2010-2012. They absolutely ate him for lunch twice in three years in the playoffs. Does that mean he's exploitable and thus flawed in the same ridiculous way that you propose that Manning is "flawed" (even though he's won a Super Bowl)? Or do we just throw out that evidence, because Harbaugh's terrible conservative decisionmaking and Cundiff's inability to make a 32 yard field goal somehow makes Brady a better QB than Manning? The whole idea is garbage.The rest of what you say in this post is somewhat reasonable, but the problem is that if you start with an idea that I consider to be completely wrong- the idea that there is some magical positive QB quality that guys like Doug Williams and Brad Johnson have and guys like Marino and Fran Tarkenton might not have- I'm not gonna spend any team reading the rest of what you write.

 

[Modog814]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you really trying to give Brady the credit for that win against the Ravens?

Here's the inherent problem. Teams either win or they don't. So Brady gets credit for a win and Flacco gets credit for a loss. Them's the breaks. Does Roethlisberger have to give back one of his SB rings because he had the lowest Passer Rating of a winning QB in history? Of course not.

Yeah, but theres a difference between saying Brady gets the win because he happened to be the QB in the game, and they won because of Brady. He seems to be saying that some QB's have this innate skill to adapt and win a game for their teams (which I'll agree with that's fine) but to use the Raven game as an example of such is just wrong. I have no problem with him counting it as a win toward Brady's post-season record, bc as you say, thems the breaks. I do have a problem with him using it as an argument of Brady's ability. Same with Roethlisberger, his team won the ring, he gets the credit of said ring, but to use that game as an example of how he's better than average isn't right, is it?

 

[imagroid]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:

1. Montana

2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing

3. Manning

4. Marino

5. Favre

6. Brady

7. Elway

8. Staubach

9. Steve Young

10. Warren Moon

Knocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

Using only the guys you mentioned, I did some quick math, allocating 1 pt for a yearly ranking in the Top 5 in the categories listed and another 1 pt for winning 10 games in a 12 or 14 game season or 12 games in a 16 game season. Here's what the results show (ignoring rushing totals, Pro Bowls, All Pros, Super Bowls, etc.) . . .
% Yds TD Rate 10/12 TotalManning 10 10 13 8 8 49Tarkenton 11 12 11 9 3 46Unitas 9 11 9 11 3 43Favre 6 11 11 6 6 40Montana 10 5 7 9 3 34Marino 5 11 8 6 3 33Young 8 4 4 8 3 27Brady 4 4 6 3 6 23Brees 5 5 6 5 2 23Staubach 3 6 4 5 4 22Kelly 5 3 5 2 4 19Moon 3 7 5 4 0 19Elway 2 5 3 4 4 18Warner 4 3 3 4 2 16Rodgers 2 3 4 3 1 13

Great stuff here. Really puts into perspective how different the current era is. Gaudy passing numbers are increasingly easy to come by; ranking vs. your peers is the best way to compare athletes across eras.

LOL. I'm all for assigning arbitrary values to things and extrapolating neat little tables, but when the data leads to a conclusion that Favre>Montana in anyway, that data can be easily dismissed as worthless.

 

[Modog814]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you really trying to give Brady the credit for that win against the Ravens?

No, but I don't think it was as bad as its been made out to be. The ravens entire gameplen was to disrupt brady, as it should have been. He responded fairly well, and his play not only led the pats to twenty odd points and a lead, but opened up the run game for his mediocre backs against one of the top run stuffing teams in the league. His end zone pick was bad, but it was an aggressive, step on the throat play and I can't blame him for trying to put the game put of reach. I very much agree with the plan, just not the execution. He also had that play where he missed gronk for an easy six early in the game. There's no question the pressure got to him.The thing is, brady will play some teams like that in the playoffs, and he has to play differently against them. He played conservatively for the most part, took a couple shots, dealt with the pressure, adjusted the offense and checked down to draws fairly often to neutralize the blitz. He didn't win this one singlehandedly, and I dont think many qbs in history would have. But he played well enough to give his team a chance to win it. Sometimes that's what you have to do. I don't think this was bradys best game by a long shot, but it was enough to win.

I agree that this game wasn't really set up for any QB to win singlehandedly. But I fail to see how that makes it a notch in Brady's belt. Of all the QBs brought up in this thread (some deserveredly, some not imo) most, if not all, exhibit this ability your describing. Favre is the only one I can think of that would really force something unnecessarily. Honestly, I don't think Brady played very well at all (personally I think Flacco outplayed him). He missed open receivers, and although he wasn't sacked/hit alot, you could tell he was a little jumpy back there. Sure, he put together a couple drives when he needed to, and I'll give him credit for that. I don't want to say the Pats won despite of Brady b/c it's obviously not true, but I most certainly wouldn't say they won because of him either. Does he deserve some credit....yes. Most of it....no. Was it a game you can point to and say, that's what makes him the GOAT? No.

 

[daveR]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you really trying to give Brady the credit for that win against the Ravens?

No, but I don't think it was as bad as its been made out to be. The ravens entire gameplen was to disrupt brady, as it should have been. He responded fairly well, and his play not only led the pats to twenty odd points and a lead, but opened up the run game for his mediocre backs against one of the top run stuffing teams in the league. His end zone pick was bad, but it was an aggressive, step on the throat play and I can't blame him for trying to put the game put of reach. I very much agree with the plan, just not the execution. He also had that play where he missed gronk for an easy six early in the game. There's no question the pressure got to him.The thing is, brady will play some teams like that in the playoffs, and he has to play differently against them. He played conservatively for the most part, took a couple shots, dealt with the pressure, adjusted the offense and checked down to draws fairly often to neutralize the blitz. He didn't win this one singlehandedly, and I dont think many qbs in history would have. But he played well enough to give his team a chance to win it. Sometimes that's what you have to do. I don't think this was bradys best game by a long shot, but it was enough to win.

The stats say he was outplayed by Flacco.

 

[Modog814]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:

1. Montana

2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing

3. Manning

4. Marino

5. Favre

6. Brady

7. Elway

8. Staubach

9. Steve Young

10. Warren Moon

Knocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

Using only the guys you mentioned, I did some quick math, allocating 1 pt for a yearly ranking in the Top 5 in the categories listed and another 1 pt for winning 10 games in a 12 or 14 game season or 12 games in a 16 game season. Here's what the results show (ignoring rushing totals, Pro Bowls, All Pros, Super Bowls, etc.) . . .
% Yds TD Rate 10/12 TotalManning 10 10 13 8 8 49Tarkenton 11 12 11 9 3 46Unitas 9 11 9 11 3 43Favre 6 11 11 6 6 40Montana 10 5 7 9 3 34Marino 5 11 8 6 3 33Young 8 4 4 8 3 27Brady 4 4 6 3 6 23Brees 5 5 6 5 2 23Staubach 3 6 4 5 4 22Kelly 5 3 5 2 4 19Moon 3 7 5 4 0 19Elway 2 5 3 4 4 18Warner 4 3 3 4 2 16Rodgers 2 3 4 3 1 13

Great stuff here. Really puts into perspective how different the current era is. Gaudy passing numbers are increasingly easy to come by; ranking vs. your peers is the best way to compare athletes across eras.

LOL. I'm all for assigning arbitrary values to things and extrapolating neat little tables, but when the data leads to a conclusion that Favre>Montana in anyway, that data can be easily dismissed as worthless.

Well, it doesn't take into account # of years played (the more years you play the more points you'd logically get). David perhaps you should divide by years played (or years played as a starting QB) to get a more accurate portrayal.

 

[imagroid]

ETA: The notion that Marino "never proved" he could win a Super Bowl gets to the heart of the absurdity of this argument. If Miami stops John Riggins on 4th and 1 in the fourth quarter instead of letting him spring loose for a 43 yard TD, the Dolphins likely win and Marino gets a Super Bowl title and probably one of those magic MVP trophies you seem to think so highly of as well. You are essentially saying that the Dolphins' failure and Riggins success on that play with Marino on the sidelines makes Marino a lesser QB. Total nonsense.

What game was that? Miami got dismantled in the only SB Marino went to.

 

[GoFishTN]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:

1. Montana

2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing

3. Manning

4. Marino

5. Favre

6. Brady

7. Elway

8. Staubach

9. Steve Young

10. Warren Moon

Knocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

Using only the guys you mentioned, I did some quick math, allocating 1 pt for a yearly ranking in the Top 5 in the categories listed and another 1 pt for winning 10 games in a 12 or 14 game season or 12 games in a 16 game season. Here's what the results show (ignoring rushing totals, Pro Bowls, All Pros, Super Bowls, etc.) . . .
% Yds TD Rate 10/12 TotalManning 10 10 13 8 8 49Tarkenton 11 12 11 9 3 46Unitas 9 11 9 11 3 43Favre 6 11 11 6 6 40Montana 10 5 7 9 3 34Marino 5 11 8 6 3 33Young 8 4 4 8 3 27Brady 4 4 6 3 6 23Brees 5 5 6 5 2 23Staubach 3 6 4 5 4 22Kelly 5 3 5 2 4 19Moon 3 7 5 4 0 19Elway 2 5 3 4 4 18Warner 4 3 3 4 2 16Rodgers 2 3 4 3 1 13

Great stuff here. Really puts into perspective how different the current era is. Gaudy passing numbers are increasingly easy to come by; ranking vs. your peers is the best way to compare athletes across eras.

LOL. I'm all for assigning arbitrary values to things and extrapolating neat little tables, but when the data leads to a conclusion that Favre>Montana in anyway, that data can be easily dismissed as worthless.

He's ignoring Super Bowls. Since, you know, the kicker can win them and the QB can be given all the credit by his never wavering fans.

 

[TobiasFunke]

ETA: The notion that Marino "never proved" he could win a Super Bowl gets to the heart of the absurdity of this argument. If Miami stops John Riggins on 4th and 1 in the fourth quarter instead of letting him spring loose for a 43 yard TD, the Dolphins likely win and Marino gets a Super Bowl title and probably one of those magic MVP trophies you seem to think so highly of as well. You are essentially saying that the Dolphins' failure and Riggins success on that play with Marino on the sidelines makes Marino a lesser QB. Total nonsense.

What game was that? Miami got dismantled in the only SB Marino went to.

My bad. I thought he was on board for XVII. Will delete.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:

1. Montana

2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing

3. Manning

4. Marino

5. Favre

6. Brady

7. Elway

8. Staubach

9. Steve Young

10. Warren Moon

Knocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

Using only the guys you mentioned, I did some quick math, allocating 1 pt for a yearly ranking in the Top 5 in the categories listed and another 1 pt for winning 10 games in a 12 or 14 game season or 12 games in a 16 game season. Here's what the results show (ignoring rushing totals, Pro Bowls, All Pros, Super Bowls, etc.) . . .
% Yds TD Rate 10/12 TotalManning 10 10 13 8 8 49Tarkenton 11 12 11 9 3 46Unitas 9 11 9 11 3 43Favre 6 11 11 6 6 40Montana 10 5 7 9 3 34Marino 5 11 8 6 3 33Young 8 4 4 8 3 27Brady 4 4 6 3 6 23Brees 5 5 6 5 2 23Staubach 3 6 4 5 4 22Kelly 5 3 5 2 4 19Moon 3 7 5 4 0 19Elway 2 5 3 4 4 18Warner 4 3 3 4 2 16Rodgers 2 3 4 3 1 13

Great stuff here. Really puts into perspective how different the current era is. Gaudy passing numbers are increasingly easy to come by; ranking vs. your peers is the best way to compare athletes across eras.

LOL. I'm all for assigning arbitrary values to things and extrapolating neat little tables, but when the data leads to a conclusion that Favre>Montana in anyway, that data can be easily dismissed as worthless.

No single set of data should ever lead to a conclusion about one player being better than another player, since it's impossible to prove that with something so subjective. It's all just part of the picture, and this stuff from Yudkin was a great contribution.

 

[bostonfred]

ETA: The notion that Marino "never proved" he could win a Super Bowl gets to the heart of the absurdity of this argument. If Miami stops John Riggins on 4th and 1 in the fourth quarter instead of letting him spring loose for a 43 yard TD, the Dolphins likely win and Marino gets a Super Bowl title and probably one of those magic MVP trophies you seem to think so highly of as well. You are essentially saying that the Dolphins' failure and Riggins success on that play with Marino on the sidelines makes Marino a lesser QB. Total nonsense.

Again, this is a mischaracterization of my point. Marino being close to winning one superbowl isn't all that different from manning being close to never winning one. Both of them had a career worth of opportunities to win, and for the most part, didn't. Based on their skillset, there was some likelihood that they would win a game against an unknown opponent in the playoffs. And in the case of manning, who has a sub :500 playoff record with several losses that fell squarely on his shoulders, the likelihood was not as good as with other qbs. Both of them may have been capable of winning, but it was less likely that manning or marino would win than, say, brady or montana.Case in point: manning winning a superbowl while throwing 3tds and 7 ints in the postseason. It is possible to win a bunch of games in a row while playing like that, but unlikely. Similarly, the patriots winning the ravens games doesn't mean brady is perfect at beating the ravens. The missed cundiff kick didn't decide that game, either. 60 minutes of play decided that game. Some good, some bad. Both teams missed some opportunities due to bad luck, split second mistakes, or whatever. Brady throwing for 6 tds the previous game meant nothing against the ravens. It was a unique game, with a unique skillset required, and he had a good but not great chance of playing well enough for his team to win the game. He did. Over the course of his career, across all kinds of conditions and types of opponents and home or away or neutral stadiums and games where he got out to a quick lead or gave up a bundle of points early, brady tends to be good enough for his team more often than other qbs, which is why he's been to the afccg more often than he hasn't, and why he's going to his fifth superbowl in ten years, and why his record in those superbowls will be better than 500. your point that marino may have been good enough to win one if things had worked differently in one game is exactly what im talking about. Whether he won or lost that game, he was still rather less likely to win than brady.

 

[David Yudkin]

I would rank Favre JUST ahead of Brady. Favre being such a clown at the end, off the field and on, color's his perception. I would rank QBs all time, based on ability, accomplishments and what they achieved relative to their peers:

1. Montana

2. Unitas- I didn't see him play, but he basically created modern passing

3. Manning

4. Marino

5. Favre

6. Brady

7. Elway

8. Staubach

9. Steve Young

10. Warren Moon

Knocking on the door: Drew Brees, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner and yes, already, Aaron Rodgers if he can put up a couple more years like this one.

Using only the guys you mentioned, I did some quick math, allocating 1 pt for a yearly ranking in the Top 5 in the categories listed and another 1 pt for winning 10 games in a 12 or 14 game season or 12 games in a 16 game season. Here's what the results show (ignoring rushing totals, Pro Bowls, All Pros, Super Bowls, etc.) . . .
% Yds TD Rate 10/12 TotalManning 10 10 13 8 8 49Tarkenton 11 12 11 9 3 46Unitas 9 11 9 11 3 43Favre 6 11 11 6 6 40Montana 10 5 7 9 3 34Marino 5 11 8 6 3 33Young 8 4 4 8 3 27Brady 4 4 6 3 6 23Brees 5 5 6 5 2 23Staubach 3 6 4 5 4 22Kelly 5 3 5 2 4 19Moon 3 7 5 4 0 19Elway 2 5 3 4 4 18Warner 4 3 3 4 2 16Rodgers 2 3 4 3 1 13

Great stuff here. Really puts into perspective how different the current era is. Gaudy passing numbers are increasingly easy to come by; ranking vs. your peers is the best way to compare athletes across eras.

LOL. I'm all for assigning arbitrary values to things and extrapolating neat little tables, but when the data leads to a conclusion that Favre>Montana in anyway, that data can be easily dismissed as worthless.

No single set of data should ever lead to a conclusion about one player being better than another player, since it's impossible to prove that with something so subjective. It's all just part of the picture, and this stuff from Yudkin was a great contribution.

The fact of the matter is that there is no way to wrap everything up into a tidy package with a red bow on top and keep everyone happy. We can't take the points and divide it by years played, as some players sat for several years before getting a chance to start and others played past their primes.I am more of an advocate of peak year production (concentrating on each player's top 5 years for comparison so not to give the Favre's of the world an advantage for playing forever and giving players with shorter careers a fairer shot). NBottom line, there is no "right answer" for how best to compare players.

I never said any of these players was better or worse than another, but truth be told Montana's regular season numbers were not as prolific as some of his peers. It doesn't mean he was worse than them . . . only that he did not often put up huge numbers in the regular season. His regular season numbers were impressive and the Niners posted a few great regular season W-L records. But Montana's track record in the post season was not matched by many other QBs.

Put another way, if Montana didn't go on to win 4 SBs, would anyone be suggesting he was the best ever based on his regular season numbers?

 

[bostonfred]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you really trying to give Brady the credit for that win against the Ravens?

No, but I don't think it was as bad as its been made out to be. The ravens entire gameplen was to disrupt brady, as it should have been. He responded fairly well, and his play not only led the pats to twenty odd points and a lead, but opened up the run game for his mediocre backs against one of the top run stuffing teams in the league. His end zone pick was bad, but it was an aggressive, step on the throat play and I can't blame him for trying to put the game put of reach. I very much agree with the plan, just not the execution. He also had that play where he missed gronk for an easy six early in the game. There's no question the pressure got to him.The thing is, brady will play some teams like that in the playoffs, and he has to play differently against them. He played conservatively for the most part, took a couple shots, dealt with the pressure, adjusted the offense and checked down to draws fairly often to neutralize the blitz. He didn't win this one singlehandedly, and I dont think many qbs in history would have. But he played well enough to give his team a chance to win it. Sometimes that's what you have to do. I don't think this was bradys best game by a long shot, but it was enough to win.

I agree that this game wasn't really set up for any QB to win singlehandedly. But I fail to see how that makes it a notch in Brady's belt. Of all the QBs brought up in this thread (some deserveredly, some not imo) most, if not all, exhibit this ability your describing. Favre is the only one I can think of that would really force something unnecessarily. Honestly, I don't think Brady played very well at all (personally I think Flacco outplayed him). He missed open receivers, and although he wasn't sacked/hit alot, you could tell he was a little jumpy back there. Sure, he put together a couple drives when he needed to, and I'll give him credit for that. I don't want to say the Pats won despite of Brady b/c it's obviously not true, but I most certainly wouldn't say they won because of him either. Does he deserve some credit....yes. Most of it....no. Was it a game you can point to and say, that's what makes him the GOAT? No.

I agree with almost all of this, although I don't think flacco outplayed him... I think flacco vs the pats d looked a little better than brady vs the ravens d. Flacco vs a lesser pass rush meant he rushed fewer throws, etc.I think brady outplayed him in the sense that it would have been easy for brady to implode. He rushed some decisions and missed some passes, which is what the defense was deisgned to force him to do. He didn't melt down and throw four picks. He didn't lead his team to a whopping three points. That's the difference between his performance against the ravens (or his performance in the 2007 superbowl) and mannings in 2003 and 2004. And that is what I am pointing to as a sign that brady is adaptable enough to do well (not necessarily win) against a well executed defense designed to neutralize his strengths. That's a substantial difference between him and other great qbs, and it is one of the main reasons why he has done better over the years.

 

[imagroid]

Put another way, if Montana didn't go on to win 4 SBs, would anyone be suggesting he was the best ever based on his regular season numbers?

.....but he did win those SB's. THAT'S what matters. Look at all sports, the best players are champions.

 

[TobiasFunke]

ETA: The notion that Marino "never proved" he could win a Super Bowl gets to the heart of the absurdity of this argument. If Miami stops John Riggins on 4th and 1 in the fourth quarter instead of letting him spring loose for a 43 yard TD, the Dolphins likely win and Marino gets a Super Bowl title and probably one of those magic MVP trophies you seem to think so highly of as well. You are essentially saying that the Dolphins' failure and Riggins success on that play with Marino on the sidelines makes Marino a lesser QB. Total nonsense.

Again, this is a mischaracterization of my point. Marino being close to winning one superbowl isn't all that different from manning being close to never winning one. Both of them had a career worth of opportunities to win, and for the most part, didn't. Based on their skillset, there was some likelihood that they would win a game against an unknown opponent in the playoffs. And in the case of manning, who has a sub :500 playoff record with several losses that fell squarely on his shoulders, the likelihood was not as good as with other qbs. Both of them may have been capable of winning, but it was less likely that manning or marino would win than, say, brady or montana.Case in point: manning winning a superbowl while throwing 3tds and 7 ints in the postseason. It is possible to win a bunch of games in a row while playing like that, but unlikely.

Similarly, the patriots winning the ravens games doesn't mean brady is perfect at beating the ravens. The missed cundiff kick didn't decide that game, either. 60 minutes of play decided that game. Some good, some bad. Both teams missed some opportunities due to bad luck, split second mistakes, or whatever. Brady throwing for 6 tds the previous game meant nothing against the ravens. It was a unique game, with a unique skillset required, and he had a good but not great chance of playing well enough for his team to win the game. He did. Over the course of his career, across all kinds of conditions and types of opponents and home or away or neutral stadiums and games where he got out to a quick lead or gave up a bundle of points early, brady tends to be good enough for his team more often than other qbs, which is why he's been to the afccg more often than he hasn't, and why he's going to his fifth superbowl in ten years, and why his record in those superbowls will be better than 500.

your point that marino may have been good enough to win one if things had worked differently in one game is exactly what im talking about. Whether he won or lost that game, he was still rather less likely to win than brady.

No, no, no, no, no. Those things are true because his team- his ENTIRE team- has more often than not been superior to the opposing team. Part of that is Brady , but not all of it or even close to it. Sometimes it's in spite of Brady, as it was against the Ravens last week. Manning and Brady have virtually identical playoff passing numbers for their careers. They've given their teams the same thing over the long haul. And don't even start with that "game winning drive" nonsense, not right after posting that "60 minutes of play decided the game."This whole concept is ridiculous. Let's just accept that we have different views of football. I believe in a complicated 11 on 11 game with a huge number of factors going into the determination of who wins and who loses on any given day, and that a bad QB can win a Super Bowl if the right circumstances occur while a great QB can never win one if the wrong circumstances occur. You believe in things like intangibles, and Tebowtime, and Tom Brady the football Jeter, and similar fairy tales. We believe what we believe, and there's really no common ground.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Put another way, if Montana didn't go on to win 4 SBs, would anyone be suggesting he was the best ever based on his regular season numbers?

.....but he did win those SB's. THAT'S what matters. Look at all sports, the best players are champions.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.The casual fan and the simple-minded think this way. Everyone else knows that in team sports, it is the team that wins and loses, not the player. Who's the better basketball player, Charles Barkley or Robert Horry? Pistol Pete Maravich or Derek Fisher?

 

[imagroid]

This whole concept is ridiculous. Let's just accept that we have different views of football. I believe in a complicated 11 on 11 game with a huge number of factors going into the determination of who wins and who loses on any given day, and that a bad QB can win a Super Bowl if the right circumstances occur while a great QB can never win one if the wrong circumstances occur.

You are speaking of variance, but we're talking 5 super bowls. Not a outlier like Trent Dilfer. Five of them....and he's 3/4 so far.

 

[David Yudkin]

Put another way, if Montana didn't go on to win 4 SBs, would anyone be suggesting he was the best ever based on his regular season numbers?

.....but he did win those SB's. THAT'S what matters. Look at all sports, the best players are champions.

I haven't been keeping tabs as to who is arguing what . . . but using this logic Brady would have to be in serious consideration for GOAT if he wins this weekend.This is partly what I find problematic . . . 3 games at the end of the year trump a 16 game regular season. I am not sure it makes sense to weigh those games far more than regular season games. Bradshaw would get far too much credit for winning 4 titles and ignoring the strength of the Steelers defense (in addition to only decent regular season numbers but nothing special).

 

[imagroid]

Put another way, if Montana didn't go on to win 4 SBs, would anyone be suggesting he was the best ever based on his regular season numbers?

.....but he did win those SB's. THAT'S what matters. Look at all sports, the best players are champions.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.The casual fan and the simple-minded think this way. Everyone else knows that in team sports, it is the team that wins and loses, not the player. Who's the better basketball player, Charles Barkley or Robert Horry? Pistol Pete Maravich or Derek Fisher?

Nobody would ever suggest any of those players as the GOAT. Yes, non-GOAT players get rings too. My point is the GREATEST players of all time must win championships.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This whole concept is ridiculous. Let's just accept that we have different views of football. I believe in a complicated 11 on 11 game with a huge number of factors going into the determination of who wins and who loses on any given day, and that a bad QB can win a Super Bowl if the right circumstances occur while a great QB can never win one if the wrong circumstances occur.

You are speaking of variance, but we're talking 5 super bowls. Not a outlier like Trent Dilfer. Five of them....and he's 3/4 so far.

Bill Romanowski has four Super Bowl rings. Is he the greatest linebacker in NFL history?If you want to talk QBs, there's the obvious Bradshaw comparison.He's a great player who has had the great fortune to play on great teams for a great coach and a great organization. But if he'd been drafted by the Browns or Lions, he'd likely have zero Super Bowl appearances to his name. Don't get me wrong, he may be one of the best of all time, but his good fortune doesn't make him a better football player.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Put another way, if Montana didn't go on to win 4 SBs, would anyone be suggesting he was the best ever based on his regular season numbers?

.....but he did win those SB's. THAT'S what matters. Look at all sports, the best players are champions.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.The casual fan and the simple-minded think this way. Everyone else knows that in team sports, it is the team that wins and loses, not the player. Who's the better basketball player, Charles Barkley or Robert Horry? Pistol Pete Maravich or Derek Fisher?

Nobody would ever suggest any of those players as the GOAT. Yes, non-GOAT players get rings too. My point is the GREATEST players of all time must win championships.

OK, fine. If you want to say that only Super Bowl winners can be considered GOAT, that's fine. You can apply any criteria you want. I personally just think team postseason performance is a silly criteria for evaluating individuals, but to each their own. As with bostonfred, you and I just disagree.

 

[imagroid]

Put another way, if Montana didn't go on to win 4 SBs, would anyone be suggesting he was the best ever based on his regular season numbers?

.....but he did win those SB's. THAT'S what matters. Look at all sports, the best players are champions.

but using this logic Brady would have to be in serious consideration for GOAT if he wins this weekend.

Absolutely. How could he possibly not be at least in contention?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Put another way, if Montana didn't go on to win 4 SBs, would anyone be suggesting he was the best ever based on his regular season numbers?

.....but he did win those SB's. THAT'S what matters. Look at all sports, the best players are champions.

but using this logic Brady would have to be in serious consideration for GOAT if he wins this weekend.

Absolutely. How could he possibly not be at least in contention?

What if he goes 14-35 for 190 yards and two INTs but the Patriots win 14-13 on a 50 yard run and a special teams TD? Does that still mean we should hold him in higher regard than we did before the game?

 

[imagroid]

Put another way, if Montana didn't go on to win 4 SBs, would anyone be suggesting he was the best ever based on his regular season numbers?

.....but he did win those SB's. THAT'S what matters. Look at all sports, the best players are champions.

but using this logic Brady would have to be in serious consideration for GOAT if he wins this weekend.

Absolutely. How could he possibly not be at least in contention?

What if he goes 14-35 for 190 yards and two INTs but the Patriots win 14-13 on a 50 yard run and a special teams TD? Does that still mean we should hold him in higher regard than we did before the game?

I don't know. Seems like a waste to go through all the what ifs before the game. I would say that a 14-13 game seems highly unlikely though. I mean even if you eliminate this game entirely, he's still at least in the discussion for GOAT QB. He has regular season records, post season records, super bowl records, 3 wins, etc. etc. He's already established himself as one of the greatest. Everything from here on out is gravy imo. If he goes 28-34 350yds 3td 0ints, then what?

 

[bostonfred]

What if he goes 14-35 for 190 yards and two INTs but the Patriots win 14-13 on a 50 yard run and a special teams TD? Does that still mean we should hold him in higher regard than we did before the game?

Out of curiosity, are those mannings superbowl numbers?