If Tom Brady wants to be the best Quarterback of all time, he needs to (1 Viewer)

[T with T]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

lmao yea I know me to.... Montana stans crack me up... he had best team ever and was slinging an impressive 2900 yards and 24 tds wippiee doo... Brady is playing in the most elite era for football ever, guy is amazing and Im not even a fan.... He is top 2 right now and could be 1 by time its over in my book.... Montana is holding on by his pinky toes haha.

 

[T with T]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

.........wake up in the morning

 

[Fariq]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

 

[ShamrockPride]

.........wake up in the morning

Feeling like P Diddy?

 

[Slapdash]

There's nothing he can do to be the best QB of all time

This

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

over a 3 year stretch in the prime of my career I was 0-3 in the playoffs, 46/88 52% for 503 total yds with 0 td and 4 picks

WHO AM I?

sry if I'm peeing on anybody's childhood icons

 

[Boston]

Always a painful argument as everyone changes the criteria to fit their agenda...at the end-of-the-day Brady is right there in any debate as to who is the best ever as is a few others...the thing that impresses me most is the longevity of his excellence...he is 37 and is still at the top of his game and wants to win now as much as he did at any point in his career...

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Always a painful argument as everyone changes the criteria to fit their agenda...at the end-of-the-day Brady is right there in any debate as to who is the best ever as is a few others...the thing that impresses me most is the longevity of his excellence...he is 37 and is still at the top of his game and wants to win now as much as he did at any point in his career...

Yeah, it's really a silly argument. There's no award for "Best QB Ever". Brady will be a Hall of Famer and beloved by his fans. Some will think he's the best ever, some will say "top 5" some will say otherwise. None of it really matters.

 

[ShamrockPride]

I think top 3 (all for different reasons) in whatever order are Montana, Brady, Peyton. And then you can argue 4 and 5 with a handful of different guys.

 

[T with T]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

sammy baugh, otto graham and unitas is laughable over the likes of Montana,Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers,Elway, Favre, Marino, Young. I mean I will give you this you can lump Unitas in that group of 8 I mentioned but the other two are down past these best of the best qbs.

 

[Fariq]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

sammy baugh, otto graham and unitas is laughable over the likes of Montana,Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers,Elway, Favre, Marino, Young. I mean I will give you this you can lump Unitas in that group of 8 I mentioned but the other two are down past these best of the best qbs.

What exactly is laughable about it? Baugh, Graham and Unitas are three of the best quarterbacks of all time. All were selected to the league's official 75th anniversary team along with Montana.

Are you just looking at stats or something?

 

[T with T]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

sammy baugh, otto graham and unitas is laughable over the likes of Montana,Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers,Elway, Favre, Marino, Young. I mean I will give you this you can lump Unitas in that group of 8 I mentioned but the other two are down past these best of the best qbs.

What exactly is laughable about it? Baugh, Graham and Unitas are three of the best quarterbacks of all time. All were selected to the league's official 75th anniversary team along with Montana.

Are you just looking at stats or something?

I would not put Baugh or Graham in the top 5

1. Montana

2. Brady

3.Pmanning

4.Rodgers

5.Brees

6.Elway

7.Favre

8. Young

9.Baugh

10. Graham.... they crack top 10 but not BEST of the BEST top 3

 

[Devine Intervention]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

no offense but this post is stupid. Saying he would be 5/5 if..... he could EASILY be 0/5 or not even made if to 5 if not for some stupid crap happening. Silly

 

[Anarchy99]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

sammy baugh, otto graham and unitas is laughable over the likes of Montana,Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers,Elway, Favre, Marino, Young. I mean I will give you this you can lump Unitas in that group of 8 I mentioned but the other two are down past these best of the best qbs.

What exactly is laughable about it? Baugh, Graham and Unitas are three of the best quarterbacks of all time. All were selected to the league's official 75th anniversary team along with Montana.

Are you just looking at stats or something?

I would not put Baugh or Graham in the top 5

1. Montana

2. Brady

3.Pmanning

4.Rodgers

5.Brees

6.Elway

7.Favre

8. Young

9.Baugh

10. Graham.... they crack top 10 but not BEST of the BEST top 3

There were quarterbacks before 1990. Just because the game has evolved into a pass happy league doesn't mean the old timers don't merit consideration. In fact, I would rather some of the old guys got added into the conversation more, just so the youngsters could familiarize themselves with other players from a different age of football.

You can't really compare players from different eras. Clearly a 330 lineman now would crush a guy that was 220 back in the day. IMO, the best way to come players is to compare how they did in their time against their peers, and then compare that relative difference across generations. Or else guys like Vinny Testaverde will be viewed as a dominate player compared to anyone that played QB pre 1980 just on raw statistics.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Always a painful argument as everyone changes the criteria to fit their agenda...at the end-of-the-day Brady is right there in any debate as to who is the best ever as is a few others...the thing that impresses me most is the longevity of his excellence...he is 37 and is still at the top of his game and wants to win now as much as he did at any point in his career...

His longevity? You aren't allowed to hit a QB in todays NFL. Not only that be he has a top5 offensive line year in and year out. Oh lets add to it... he has had the same coach each year that may or may not have cheated his way into success.

Lets see Brady without BB. Cause I saw BB without Brady and they went 11-5 so it looks like one needs the other slightly more.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

sammy baugh, otto graham and unitas is laughable over the likes of Montana,Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers,Elway, Favre, Marino, Young. I mean I will give you this you can lump Unitas in that group of 8 I mentioned but the other two are down past these best of the best qbs.

What exactly is laughable about it? Baugh, Graham and Unitas are three of the best quarterbacks of all time. All were selected to the league's official 75th anniversary team along with Montana.

Are you just looking at stats or something?

I won't waste my time with the others, but looking at johnny u, for example --- the guy played in a 10 team league rostering probably 6 black players between them.

if some kid dominates playing for the university of phoenix do we anoint him best college player ever?

let's not be ridiculous defending these icons.

iconic /= best player

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

There were quarterbacks before 1990. Just because the game has evolved into a pass happy league doesn't mean the old timers don't merit consideration. In fact, I would rather some of the old guys got added into the conversation more, just so the youngsters could familiarize themselves with other players from a different age of football.

You can't really compare players from different eras. Clearly a 330 lineman now would crush a guy that was 220 back in the day. IMO, the best way to come players is to compare how they did in their time against their peers, and then compare that relative difference across generations. Or else guys like Vinny Testaverde will be viewed as a dominate player compared to anyone that played QB pre 1980 just on raw statistics.

i think you are 100% right and I agree 100%, but the reality is that dominating lesser competition is just an indicator of greatness -- not proof.

stats aside, there will be always be the question of how these players would cope with increased competition.

the flip side of it is they got in on the ground floor of something, so they get talked about and romanticized through that historical lens

a lot of the guys we're talking about were playing in the equivalent of single a ball, to be generous.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Always a painful argument as everyone changes the criteria to fit their agenda...at the end-of-the-day Brady is right there in any debate as to who is the best ever as is a few others...the thing that impresses me most is the longevity of his excellence...he is 37 and is still at the top of his game and wants to win now as much as he did at any point in his career...

His longevity? You aren't allowed to hit a QB in todays NFL. Not only that be he has a top5 offensive line year in and year out. Oh lets add to it... he has had the same coach each year that may or may not have cheated his way into success.

Lets see Brady without BB. Cause I saw BB without Brady and they went 11-5 so it looks like one needs the other slightly more.

He went 11-5 with a team that went 16-0 the previous season, scoring 170 less points, against an extremely weak schedule, with a QB that was good enough to make a pro bowl as a starter for another team, and missed the playoffs. How did BB look while he was on the Browns?

 

[FF Ninja]

Wait, is this still up for debate? I thought it was accepted that Rodgers is actually the best. Of course his aggregate stats haven't had time to accumulate, but his stats that include the word "per" are all head and shoulders above the rest.

 

[Anarchy99]

There were quarterbacks before 1990. Just because the game has evolved into a pass happy league doesn't mean the old timers don't merit consideration. In fact, I would rather some of the old guys got added into the conversation more, just so the youngsters could familiarize themselves with other players from a different age of football.

You can't really compare players from different eras. Clearly a 330 lineman now would crush a guy that was 220 back in the day. IMO, the best way to come players is to compare how they did in their time against their peers, and then compare that relative difference across generations. Or else guys like Vinny Testaverde will be viewed as a dominate player compared to anyone that played QB pre 1980 just on raw statistics.

i think you are 100% right and I agree 100%, but the reality is that dominating lesser competition is just an indicator of greatness -- not proof.

stats aside, there will be always be the question of how these players would cope with increased competition.

the flip side of it is they got in on the ground floor of something, so they get talked about and romanticized through that historical lens

a lot of the guys we're talking about were playing in the equivalent of single a ball, to be generous.

But guys played in the environment that guys played in . . . they couldn't change that. There was not the multi-cultural player base that there is now. Could the QBs themselves go out and hire a bunch of players? Players are much better conditioned now, but what could guys from the 50s or 60s have done to get their teammates bigger, stronger, faster (hello steroids)? Also, most old school NFL players had to have "real jobs" because they made only a few thousand dollars to play football. It's an entirely different landscape today. Send Tim Tebow back in time with a current playbook and his team would be winning each game by 50 points. Bottom line, it's just really hard to compare players that played 50 or 60 years apart.

 

[Al O'Pecia]

Always a painful argument as everyone changes the criteria to fit their agenda...at the end-of-the-day Brady is right there in any debate as to who is the best ever as is a few others...the thing that impresses me most is the longevity of his excellence...he is 37 and is still at the top of his game and wants to win now as much as he did at any point in his career...

His longevity? You aren't allowed to hit a QB in todays NFL. Not only that be he has a top5 offensive line year in and year out. Oh lets add to it... he has had the same coach each year that may or may not have cheated his way into success. Lets see Brady without BB. Cause I saw BB without Brady and they went 11-5 so it looks like one needs the other slightly more.

He went 11-5 with a team that went 16-0 the previous season, scoring 170 less points, against an extremely weak schedule, with a QB that was good enough to make a pro bowl as a starter for another team, and missed the playoffs. How did BB look while he was on the Browns?

You don't even need to go back to the Browns. Belichick was only a 5-13 coach with the Patriots before Brady took over for Bledsoe as the starter. Between the complete reversal of fortune once Brady took the reins and the sizeable drop off when Brady was out a season, it's obvious that Brady's impact is immense and is not just a Belichick by-product.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

There were quarterbacks before 1990. Just because the game has evolved into a pass happy league doesn't mean the old timers don't merit consideration. In fact, I would rather some of the old guys got added into the conversation more, just so the youngsters could familiarize themselves with other players from a different age of football.

You can't really compare players from different eras. Clearly a 330 lineman now would crush a guy that was 220 back in the day. IMO, the best way to come players is to compare how they did in their time against their peers, and then compare that relative difference across generations. Or else guys like Vinny Testaverde will be viewed as a dominate player compared to anyone that played QB pre 1980 just on raw statistics.

i think you are 100% right and I agree 100%, but the reality is that dominating lesser competition is just an indicator of greatness -- not proof.

stats aside, there will be always be the question of how these players would cope with increased competition.

the flip side of it is they got in on the ground floor of something, so they get talked about and romanticized through that historical lens

a lot of the guys we're talking about were playing in the equivalent of single a ball, to be generous.

But guys played in the environment that guys played in . . . they couldn't change that. There was not the multi-cultural player base that there is now. Could the QBs themselves go out and hire a bunch of players? Players are much better conditioned now, but what could guys from the 50s or 60s have done to get their teammates bigger, stronger, faster (hello steroids)? Also, most old school NFL players had to have "real jobs" because they made only a few thousand dollars to play football. It's an entirely different landscape today. Send Tim Tebow back in time with a current playbook and his team would be winning each game by 50 points. Bottom line, it's just really hard to compare players that played 50 or 60 years apart.

again, i agree with everything here, which is why I think it's pointless to try to elevate ye olde tyme qb over the modern qb.

I don't hold any of that stuff you listed against those guys, they simply existed in the environment they were born into, but all you're doing there is excusing inadequacy --- not making guys more adequate.

so, these guys held down fulltime jobs and football was basically their hobby, but I'm supposed to believe they were somehow 'better' than the guys that make it their whole life today just because they were born earlier?

the entire comparison between eras is really just pointless, as you mention, but there will always be people listing guys who played before these fans were even born based on nothing more than a famous name.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

sammy baugh, otto graham and unitas is laughable over the likes of Montana,Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers,Elway, Favre, Marino, Young. I mean I will give you this you can lump Unitas in that group of 8 I mentioned but the other two are down past these best of the best qbs.

What exactly is laughable about it? Baugh, Graham and Unitas are three of the best quarterbacks of all time. All were selected to the league's official 75th anniversary team along with Montana.Are you just looking at stats or something?

I would not put Baugh or Graham in the top 51. Montana

2. Brady

3.Pmanning

4.Rodgers

5.Brees

6.Elway

7.Favre

8. Young

9.Baugh

10. Graham.... they crack top 10 but not BEST of the BEST top 3

How old are you?

 

[Gawain]

As long as we all agree that Hutson is better than Rice, I'm fine with whomever at QB#1.

1. Montana
2. Brady
3.Pmanning
4.Rodgers
5.Brees
6.Elway
7.Favre
8. Young
9.Baugh
10. Graham.... they crack top 10 but not BEST of the BEST top 3

Marino?

 

[sn0mm1s]

For Brady to pass Montana he needs 2 more rings - and he needs to look good doing it in at least one of the games. Montana is responsible for 13 TDs in 4 SBs with no turnovers while Brady is sitting at 9 TDs in 5 SBs with 4 turnovers.

I already have him as my #2 - but if he wins I don't see how he could be worse than anyone else's #2.

 

[Fariq]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

sammy baugh, otto graham and unitas is laughable over the likes of Montana,Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers,Elway, Favre, Marino, Young. I mean I will give you this you can lump Unitas in that group of 8 I mentioned but the other two are down past these best of the best qbs.

What exactly is laughable about it? Baugh, Graham and Unitas are three of the best quarterbacks of all time. All were selected to the league's official 75th anniversary team along with Montana.Are you just looking at stats or something?

I won't waste my time with the others, but looking at johnny u, for example --- the guy played in a 10 team league rostering probably 6 black players between them.

if some kid dominates playing for the university of phoenix do we anoint him best college player ever?

let's not be ridiculous defending these icons.

iconic /= best player

Your guesstimate is wrong about the black players. Watch film of the old players and you will see how good they were.

 

[sn0mm1s]

There were quarterbacks before 1990. Just because the game has evolved into a pass happy league doesn't mean the old timers don't merit consideration. In fact, I would rather some of the old guys got added into the conversation more, just so the youngsters could familiarize themselves with other players from a different age of football.

You can't really compare players from different eras. Clearly a 330 lineman now would crush a guy that was 220 back in the day. IMO, the best way to come players is to compare how they did in their time against their peers, and then compare that relative difference across generations. Or else guys like Vinny Testaverde will be viewed as a dominate player compared to anyone that played QB pre 1980 just on raw statistics.

i think you are 100% right and I agree 100%, but the reality is that dominating lesser competition is just an indicator of greatness -- not proof.

stats aside, there will be always be the question of how these players would cope with increased competition.

the flip side of it is they got in on the ground floor of something, so they get talked about and romanticized through that historical lens

a lot of the guys we're talking about were playing in the equivalent of single a ball, to be generous.

But guys played in the environment that guys played in . . . they couldn't change that. There was not the multi-cultural player base that there is now. Could the QBs themselves go out and hire a bunch of players? Players are much better conditioned now, but what could guys from the 50s or 60s have done to get their teammates bigger, stronger, faster (hello steroids)? Also, most old school NFL players had to have "real jobs" because they made only a few thousand dollars to play football. It's an entirely different landscape today. Send Tim Tebow back in time with a current playbook and his team would be winning each game by 50 points. Bottom line, it's just really hard to compare players that played 50 or 60 years apart.

Sure - but regardless of training, conditioning etc. etc. the talent in the NFL was weak. I don't consider anyone who played the majority of their career before 1975 in the GOAT discussion. They might break top 5 or top 10 lists - but never #1.

 

[Anarchy99]

So who should be considered more of a genius? The people that defined and built the first cars and plans or the ones today that make vehicles 10,000 times more sophisticated?

There is not righ answer for some of his stuff. Babe Ruth may have hit 700 home runs, but he didn't face guys throwing 100 mph cheese with splits and all types of slop to go with it. In his condition, he might not even make it to the majors in his era.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

sammy baugh, otto graham and unitas is laughable over the likes of Montana,Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers,Elway, Favre, Marino, Young. I mean I will give you this you can lump Unitas in that group of 8 I mentioned but the other two are down past these best of the best qbs.

What exactly is laughable about it? Baugh, Graham and Unitas are three of the best quarterbacks of all time. All were selected to the league's official 75th anniversary team along with Montana.Are you just looking at stats or something?

I won't waste my time with the others, but looking at johnny u, for example --- the guy played in a 10 team league rostering probably 6 black players between them.

if some kid dominates playing for the university of phoenix do we anoint him best college player ever?

let's not be ridiculous defending these icons.

iconic /= best player

Your guesstimate is wrong about the black players.Watch film of the old players and you will see how good they were.

Well, his guesstimate is closer to how is actually was than how it is now.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

There's nothing he can do to be the best QB of all time as long as Montana has a "0" in his Super Bowl loss column.

That's the silliest argument. So Geno Smith had a better legacy year this year than whoever lost the Super Bowl. Since missing the playoffs is better than a Super Bowl loss. Jim Kelly is the worst QB of all time.

Their kicker and defense won 3 super bowls, not tom brady. He was a passenger on that train. Now TB did lose twice to the Giants.

Really Johnny, you know that is garbage.

However, I can see you being a bit sensitive about it since the one time P. Manning got to and "won" the SB it was in spite of Mannings pathetic 7 Ints vs only 3 TDs, right?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

So who should be considered more of a genius? The people that defined and built the first cars and plans or the ones today that make vehicles 10,000 times more sophisticated?

There is not righ answer for some of his stuff. Babe Ruth may have hit 700 home runs, but he didn't face guys throwing 100 mph cheese with splits and all types of slop to go with it. In his condition, he might not even make it to the majors in his era.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

the problem is that people are just arguing about a metric that has no definition -- what is 'best' or 'greatest'?

I just think a lot of people are too quick to buy into namebrands for no reason other than name.

you can't exclude a huge chunk of the population from competing against a guy then tell me he's the best ever.

 

[Freelove]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

sammy baugh, otto graham and unitas is laughable over the likes of Montana,Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers,Elway, Favre, Marino, Young. I mean I will give you this you can lump Unitas in that group of 8 I mentioned but the other two are down past these best of the best qbs.

What exactly is laughable about it? Baugh, Graham and Unitas are three of the best quarterbacks of all time. All were selected to the league's official 75th anniversary team along with Montana.Are you just looking at stats or something?

I won't waste my time with the others, but looking at johnny u, for example --- the guy played in a 10 team league rostering probably 6 black players between them.

if some kid dominates playing for the university of phoenix do we anoint him best college player ever?

let's not be ridiculous defending these icons.

iconic /= best player

Your guesstimate is wrong about the black players.Watch film of the old players and you will see how good they were.

Well, his guesstimate is closer to how is actually was than how it is now.

His guesstimate is also stupid and irrelevant.

A QB uses the weapons he has at his disposal, and competes against the weapons the defense has at theirs. If the argument is that the league wasn't yet using the best athletes available because 1/4 of the population wasn't yet fully integrated into the league, then guess what? That was true for Unitas's targets just as much as it was for the defenses he put his numbers up against.

If the argument is that his numbers mean less because the league was smaller, that's also idiotic. A larger league dilutes talent, not amplifies it. Unitas was playing against Pro-Bowl level defensive backfields and LB's every game -- just as his competition was. And he was running laps around them.

The only thing that makes any sense to devalue in a smaller league is titles. Which you can devalue by the appropriate mathematical amount and he still got way more than his fair share.

There's a reason Kook-Aid guy is universally recognized as one of the least intelligent posters on the board. This kind of thing is that reason.

 

[sn0mm1s]

So who should be considered more of a genius? The people that defined and built the first cars and plans or the ones today that make vehicles 10,000 times more sophisticated?

There is not righ answer for some of his stuff. Babe Ruth may have hit 700 home runs, but he didn't face guys throwing 100 mph cheese with splits and all types of slop to go with it. In his condition, he might not even make it to the majors in his era.

It isn't knowledge - we aren't talking about genius. I don't think anyone believes Naismith should be considered amongst the greatest basketball players of all time and he invented the game. Maybe at one point he was the best in the world because he was the only one playing it - but that doesn't mean he should be mentioned in the same breath as Jordan, Chamberlain, Jabbar etc. etc. He is obviously integral to the story of basketball - but just because you are an early adopter or dominate a league of lesser talent doesn't automatically put you in the GOAT conversation.

Ruth is an interesting case:

1) Baseball was the #1 sport and had been around quite a while before Ruth came on the scene

2) He was dominant as a pitcher and hitter

3) He wasn't the fat Ruth that many people envision until later in his career (though it isn't like current major leaguers are svelte athletes either).

4) He is one of the few people that truly changed the way a game is played (that gets tossed around too much - there are very few players that can make this claim)

5) He is probably the single most dominant athlete as far as stats, rings, and mastery of his sport that we know of.

Ruth is pretty much the only old time player that I don't argue against when he is placed #1.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Don't forget Brady could be 5/5 if not for a miracle catch in a facemask and a dropped welker catch that was right in his hands..... He may still be running if he catches that ball in the 11 SB my god that was awful....... Brady def was not the reason for any of the 2 losses and he is usually a super competitive guy with a mad scientist coaching. Very tough team to beat but Sea is a hybrid d like I stated earlier and one of the top 3 defenses ALL TIME. Even this will be almost impossible for Brady.

I generally dislike playing the "what if?" game, but since you went there...If the tuck rule never existed or if the refs did not call it the way they did, then the Patriots do not reach the Super Bowl in the 2001 season. So can we say that that particular good luck cancels out the bad luck in Super Bowl 42?

Also, Brady could not handle the NY pass rush in Super Bowl 42 (similar to Montana in some playoff games at the Giants).

As for the Welker "drop" in Super Bowl 46, I put more blame on Brady for throwing a bad pass.

That all said, Brady is probably in my Mt. Rushmore of quarterbacks now. I think he's bumped Otto Graham off it. My other three spots go to Sammy Baugh, Montana and Johnny Unitas.

sammy baugh, otto graham and unitas is laughable over the likes of Montana,Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers,Elway, Favre, Marino, Young. I mean I will give you this you can lump Unitas in that group of 8 I mentioned but the other two are down past these best of the best qbs.

What exactly is laughable about it? Baugh, Graham and Unitas are three of the best quarterbacks of all time. All were selected to the league's official 75th anniversary team along with Montana.Are you just looking at stats or something?

I won't waste my time with the others, but looking at johnny u, for example --- the guy played in a 10 team league rostering probably 6 black players between them.

if some kid dominates playing for the university of phoenix do we anoint him best college player ever?

let's not be ridiculous defending these icons.

iconic /= best player

Your guesstimate is wrong about the black players.Watch film of the old players and you will see how good they were.

Well, his guesstimate is closer to how is actually was than how it is now.

His guesstimate is also stupid and irrelevant. A QB uses the weapons he has at his disposal, and competes against the weapons the defense has at theirs. If the argument is that the league wasn't yet using the best athletes available because 1/4 of the population wasn't yet fully integrated into the league, then guess what? That was true for Unitas's targets just as much as it was for the defenses he put his numbers up against.

If the argument is that his numbers mean less because the league was smaller, that's also idiotic. A larger league dilutes talent, not amplifies it. Unitas was playing against Pro-Bowl level defensive backfields and LB's every game -- just as his competition was. And he was running laps around them.

The only thing that makes any sense to devalue in a smaller league is titles. Which you can devalue by the appropriate mathematical amount and he still got way more than his fair share.

There's a reason Kook-Aid guy is universally recognized as one of the least intelligent posters on the board. This kind of thing is that reason.

 

[Buffaloes]

get to and win championships without cheating allegations

 

[sn0mm1s]

Well, his guesstimate is closer to how is actually was than how it is now.

His guesstimate is also stupid and irrelevant.

A QB uses the weapons he has at his disposal, and competes against the weapons the defense has at theirs. If the argument is that the league wasn't yet using the best athletes available because 1/4 of the population wasn't yet fully integrated into the league, then guess what? That was true for Unitas's targets just as much as it was for the defenses he put his numbers up against.

If the argument is that his numbers mean less because the league was smaller, that's also idiotic. A larger league dilutes talent, not amplifies it. Unitas was playing against Pro-Bowl level defensive backfields and LB's every game -- just as his competition was. And he was running laps around them.

The only thing that makes any sense to devalue in a smaller league is titles. Which you can devalue by the appropriate mathematical amount and he still got way more than his fair share.

There's a reason Kook-Aid guy is universally recognized as one of the least intelligent posters on the board. This kind of thing is that reason.

This is pretty much completely wrong.

We have no problem with NFL scouts saying someone in the SEC performing well is a better player that someone putting up better numbers in DII - that is solely based on competition. Danny Woodhead broke Barry Sanders' rushing record in DII - but there wasn't any Heisman hype about him. He wasn't even invited to the combine. Why? Because he was putting big numbers up against scrubs compared to top college players. Competition matters.

If a larger league dilutes talent then we should see guys hitting for 100+ home runs. Why? Because there should be a guy that is good as Babe Ruth and, since pitching, fielding, etc. etc. is watered down, he should stand out *even more*. Same with Don Hutson - there should be receivers putting up 3K yards (those as good as Hutson) because Hutson individually put up more yards than entire teams while he played. Hell, the AFL was an entirely new league and they seemed to do just fine when they actually played against the NFL.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Yes, Brady and Montana are the most accomplished QBs. But I don't think it is a fair assessment. I think O-line, scheme are way more important. I think team defense is huge as well.

When talking about NFL players we let longevity play too important of a role when deciding who was the best play, not most accomplished player.

Calvin Johnson >> Jerry Rice. If he played on that 49rs team who knows what his stats would be like.

Jim Brown, Barry, both better than Emmit. But Smith had a crazy O-line and lasted longer.

So there is no even playing field to compare any of these players. Having watched Brady and Manning, in my opinion, Brady is more accomplished for sure but that falls more on the scheme and coaching.

If I am basing it on their abilities as a QB, I would take Manning.

My best example of this is comparing Russell Wilson to P. Manning. Manning>>>>>Wilson. BUT, if you put Manning on Sea I don't think he would be as successful in that scheme or style of offense they have.. I don't think Brady would be as good on that team in that scheme either because neither of them are mobile.

 

[Run It Up]

Serious question, who wins in a fight between Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Cutler, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger and Romo?

I feel like its a toss up between Rivers and Brady - but could see a compelling case for Roethlisberger.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Serious question, who wins in a fight between Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Cutler, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger and Romo?

I feel like its a toss up between Rivers and Brady - but could see a compelling case for Roethlisberger.

OK Brady is not even close lol he is not athletic or tough. He literally cries a little every time he gets sacked.

Rodgers, Big Ben or Rivers. I take Rivers. That guy is gritty

 

[Run It Up]

Rivers and Brady both only get stronger the angrier they are. It would be like two lanky hulks fighting each other.

 

[Boston]

Serious question, who wins in a fight between Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Cutler, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger and Romo?

I feel like its a toss up between Rivers and Brady - but could see a compelling case for Roethlisberger.

OK Brady is not even close lol he is not athletic

Any other of those guys drafted professionally in two sports?

 

[Buffaloes]

Serious question, who wins in a fight between Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Cutler, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger and Romo?

I feel like its a toss up between Rivers and Brady - but could see a compelling case for Roethlisberger.

Roethlisberger and it's not even close. Flacco is the wild card. Cutler would probably have his dad fight for him. Brees just doesn't have the build and I'm not sure would fight dirty enough. Peyton would respectfully decline. Brady would probably get beat up by a person of his wife's strength and temperament although I can see him as being the guy who would have a buddy lurking in the dark to help him out. the rest just don't strike me as the fighting type. Roeth has an, um, edge physically and probably mentally on the rest when it comes to fighting.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Serious question, who wins in a fight between Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Cutler, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger and Romo?

I feel like its a toss up between Rivers and Brady - but could see a compelling case for Roethlisberger.

OK Brady is not even close lol he is not athletic

Any other of those guys drafted professionally in two sports?

IDK I heard Romo is a great golfer and could possibly make the PGA

 

[Boston]

Serious question, who wins in a fight between Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Cutler, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger and Romo?

I feel like its a toss up between Rivers and Brady - but could see a compelling case for Roethlisberger.

OK Brady is not even close lol he is not athletic

Any other of those guys drafted professionally in two sports?

IDK I heard Romo is a great golfer and could possibly make the PGA

Romo is very good but to my knowledge only one of those guys has been drafted professionally in two sports...

 

[Anarchy99]

Serious question, who wins in a fight between Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Cutler, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger and Romo?

I feel like its a toss up between Rivers and Brady - but could see a compelling case for Roethlisberger.

OK Brady is not even close lol he is not athletic

Any other of those guys drafted professionally in two sports?

IDK I heard Romo is a great golfer and could possibly make the PGA

Romo would need to have been drafted in two other sports, cause he wasn't drafted in football.

 

[Late225]

There's nothing he can do to be the best QB of all time as long as Montana has a "0" in his Super Bowl loss column.

I get your point. But you also have to factor in Montana not being good enough to get to the super bowl more than 4 times. I think it's close and I as an Eagles fan, I really don't care, but I think you're being close-minded here.

Total playoff records

Brady: 19-8

Montana: 16-7

 

[Bills_Fan11]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.

Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

 

[Niles Standish]

Serious question, who wins in a fight between Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Cutler, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger and Romo?

I feel like its a toss up between Rivers and Brady - but could see a compelling case for Roethlisberger.

Roethlisberger and it's not even close. Flacco is the wild card. Cutler would probably have his dad fight for him. Brees just doesn't have the build and I'm not sure would fight dirty enough. Peyton would respectfully decline. Brady would probably get beat up by a person of his wife's strength and temperament although I can see him as being the guy who would have a buddy lurking in the dark to help him out. the rest just don't strike me as the fighting type. Roeth has an, um, edge physically and probably mentally on the rest when it comes to fighting.

Definitely Roethlisberger. He's the biggest. He's the guy who seems to like being hit on the field. And he's a criminal so he'll fight dirty.

 

[Niles Standish]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

Watching those Giant Ds do you think they were 13th and 19th? In 8 playoff games they let up 20 points or less every time. 20 to the packers both years, less to everyone else.