Otto Graham, best QB ever? (1 Viewer)

[Blue Barbarian]

Seems to me all these threads about "greatest ever" rarely have a player discussed that played before 1960. It's a shame because ther have always been athletes who stood out from their peers.

I give you Otto Graham, QB, Cleveland Browns, who won 4 All American Football Conference championships in 4 years, 1946-1949. This league folded after 1949 with the Browns, Colts, and 49ers joining the NFL. Graham won NFL championships in 1950, 1954, and 1955, whereupon he retired at age 34. 7 championships in a 10 year career I believe will most likely never be bettered.

 

[Sea Bass]

Second to Unitas isn't bad.

 

[IZ4]

How many super models did he sleep with?

 

[Jous]

Graham was not the best... just because he was the QB on a great team that won a lot doens't mean he was the best QB. You don't see anyone calling the LT on that team the best LT ever.

 

[*****]

Graham was not the best... just because he was the QB on a great team that won a lot doens't mean he was the best QB. You don't see anyone calling the LT on that team the best LT ever.

Jealous much?

 

[phthalatemagic]

Did he ever play for the Patriots? Therein lies your answer.

 

[SSOG]

Looks like 3 NFL championships in 6 years, to me- a feat that's been bettered by Bradshaw and Starr, and matched by Aikman, Brady, and Montana.

 

[chris1969]

Graham was not the best... just because he was the QB on a great team that won a lot doens't mean he was the best QB. You don't see anyone calling the LT on that team the best LT ever.

Actually the LT was hall of famer Lou Groza, so you might want to pick another position.

 

[SR388]

Graham was not the best... just because he was the QB on a great team that won a lot doens't mean he was the best QB. You don't see anyone calling the LT on that team the best LT ever.

Actually the LT was hall of famer Lou Groza, so you might want to pick another position.

 

[bostonfred]

Seems to me all these threads about "greatest ever" rarely have a player discussed that played before 1960. It's a shame because ther have always been athletes who stood out from their peers.I give you Otto Graham, QB, Cleveland Browns, who won 4 All American Football Conference championships in 4 years, 1946-1949. This league folded after 1949 with the Browns, Colts, and 49ers joining the NFL. Graham won NFL championships in 1950, 1954, and 1955, whereupon he retired at age 34. 7 championships in a 10 year career I believe will most likely never be bettered.

Actually, his name has been discussed in those threads. And while his accomplishments were certainly impressive, the general consensus is that winning multiple championships in a 32 team league is much more difficult than winning multiple championships in a league with 8 teams, and that the increased popularity of football has substantially increased the talent level in the league since Graham played. That's not to downplay what he did - relative to his peers, Graham was a man among men. But in today's league, it's hard to say what he'd be able to do.

 

[Tau837]

Seems to me all these threads about "greatest ever" rarely have a player discussed that played before 1960. It's a shame because ther have always been athletes who stood out from their peers.I give you Otto Graham, QB, Cleveland Browns, who won 4 All American Football Conference championships in 4 years, 1946-1949. This league folded after 1949 with the Browns, Colts, and 49ers joining the NFL. Graham won NFL championships in 1950, 1954, and 1955, whereupon he retired at age 34. 7 championships in a 10 year career I believe will most likely never be bettered.

I have seen Graham mentioned in numerous threads in the Shark Pool about the best QBs of all time. I have mentioned him numerous times myself as being one of those who currently deserves consideration for third best ever, behind Montana and Unitas. However, while I think Graham deserves consideration, I do not think he is the best ever. Here is a recent post on this:

While I think Graham deserves to be in the conversation, here are some things to note about his case.1. He won 4 straight AAFC championships, but there were only between 7 and 9 teams in that league in those 4 seasons. He then went to 6 straight NFL championship games, with 13 teams in one season and 12 teams in the other 5 seasons.2. His team not only had one of the top passing games, but also consistently had one of the few best running games and defenses in the respective leagues over the 10 year period. It could be that his defense was the best overall throughout the 10 year period, but I didn't try to examine that to be sure.3. He played his entire career for HOF coach Paul Brown. From his Wiki page:- Brown is considered the "father of the modern offense," with many claiming that he ranks as one of if not the greatest of football coaches in history.- Brown put together the most extensive player recruitment network that had ever been seen in pro football at the time.- Brown ignored the gentlemen's agreement that barred African-American players from the league, adding future Pro Football Hall of Famers Marion Motley and Bill Willis.- He was the first to use intelligence tests to judge players, establish a game film library, instruct players in a classroom setting, use a radio transmitter to communicate with players on the field, and install face masks on helmets.- Brown's offense was the predecessor of the West Coast offense made famous by Bill Walsh, a protégé of Brown.4. He played with HOF C Frank Gatski, HOF T/K Lou Groza, and HOF E Dante Lavelli for his entire career. He had HOF G Bill Willis and HOF FB Marion Motley for his first 8 (of 10) seasons. He played his last 2 seasons (of 10) with HOF T Mike McCormack. He also had Mac Speedie for his first 7 seasons; Mac was All Pro in 6 of those 7 years, though he is not a HOFer.5. I have seen it posted in this forum that the best athletes in that era played offense. I have also seen it posted that defenses did not understand pursuit angles and did not run elaborate schemes as they came to do in later eras. I'm not sure how to verify these things.6. In Graham's last 10 seasons, Cleveland played in the title game 8 times without having to play any other playoff games. The other 2 times, Cleveland played one semifinal game. So Graham played in 10 title games but only 12 total playoff games.Now, I personally feel that Montana and Unitas are the top 2 QBs of all time, and I think that the next tier includes Elway, Baugh, Graham, Marino, and Favre as of today, in no particular order. I think Brady and Manning will end up belonging somewhere in that group, but I'm not sure how high yet.Anyway, I agree Graham is one of the best ever. However, there was no draft or salary cap and virtually no integration; he was surrounded by HOF talent; he faced lesser competition, both in terms of talent and number of teams; and he had a much easier road to title games. I think he has been overrated by some in this thread, and I think ultimately it will be justifiable to rank Brady higher than Graham.

I agree that no other QB will likely ever win 7 championships in 10 years, but that is due to the reasons cited at the end of that post, not due to Graham being head and shoulders above all others.

 

[SSOG]

I agree that no other QB will likely ever win 7 championships in 10 years, but that is due to the reasons cited at the end of that post, not due to Graham being head and shoulders above all others.

I believe you mean 3 championships in 6 years, and I don't see what's so special about it. A QB has managed to equal or better the feat so far in the 2000s (Brady), in the 1990s (Aikman), in the 1980s (Montana), the 1970s (Bradshaw), the 1960s (Starr), the 1950s (Graham *AND* Bobby Lane), the 1940s (Luckman), and Arnie Herber came into the league just one year too late to give us one in the 1930s. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see another QB pull off the feat in the 2010s, and yet another do it in the 2020s.

 

[Tau837]

I agree that no other QB will likely ever win 7 championships in 10 years, but that is due to the reasons cited at the end of that post, not due to Graham being head and shoulders above all others.

I believe you mean 3 championships in 6 years, and I don't see what's so special about it. A QB has managed to equal or better the feat so far in the 2000s (Brady), in the 1990s (Aikman), in the 1980s (Montana), the 1970s (Bradshaw), the 1960s (Starr), the 1950s (Graham *AND* Bobby Lane), the 1940s (Luckman), and Arnie Herber came into the league just one year too late to give us one in the 1930s. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see another QB pull off the feat in the 2010s, and yet another do it in the 2020s.

Obviously, I was including the 4 AAFC championships that preceded the 3/6 NFL championships. I agree with your point that others have had comparable or better success, all factors considered.

 

[SSOG]

I agree that no other QB will likely ever win 7 championships in 10 years, but that is due to the reasons cited at the end of that post, not due to Graham being head and shoulders above all others.

I believe you mean 3 championships in 6 years, and I don't see what's so special about it. A QB has managed to equal or better the feat so far in the 2000s (Brady), in the 1990s (Aikman), in the 1980s (Montana), the 1970s (Bradshaw), the 1960s (Starr), the 1950s (Graham *AND* Bobby Lane), the 1940s (Luckman), and Arnie Herber came into the league just one year too late to give us one in the 1930s. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see another QB pull off the feat in the 2010s, and yet another do it in the 2020s.

Obviously, I was including the 4 AAFC championships that preceded the 3/6 NFL championships. I agree with your point that others have had comparable or better success, all factors considered.

I understood that you were including Graham's AAFC championships. My question is why? Do we include Warren Moon's CFL championship when discussing him as a player? Ken Dorsey's college football championships? What about Rohan Davey's NFLE championships? Some people say that the Cleveland Browns proved that the AAFC was legit... but they didn't, they simply proved that the Cleveland Browns were legit. As far as I'm concerned, his AAFC championships should have as much bearing on his legacy as an NFL player as Flutie's CFL championships have on his legacy as an NFL player. I just don't get why we give Graham the benefit of everything he did in a lesser league (and yes, the AAFC was a lesser league than the NFL) without extending the same courtesy to any other player in NFL history.

 

[bostonfred]

I consider Moon's and Flutie's non-NFL accomplishments when considering them as pro players, but not Dorsey's. I guess I draw the line at professional football. I don't give Flutie or Moon as much credit as I would if they had won as many championships or achieved the same statistics in the NFL, but I think they were both incredible players. Same should go for Graham - you have to discount the fact that he played at a time where it was easier to win the championship, while giving him credit for the fact that it clearly wasn't THAT easy, since he did it and nobody else did.

 

[chris1969]

Actually it's impossible to compare players from eras that have different rules and circumstances. You can say well there were only 8 or 9 teams in that era and somebody else can say well that means each team should be well stocked and their should be more parity and not less. You can argue about more passing yardage in the new era and someone else will point out the the new rules favor the offense. Even if you take a type of Football Outsiders approach and try to objectively rate players against their peers with statistics it doesn't work. While I think that is probably the closest you'll ever come, you still can't factor whether the player was that good or his peers were that bad. Granted if a player had a long career, the talent level of his peers should balance out, you still can't say for certainty if that was the case. Also these same players benefit from eureka moments in coaching. For instance Paul Brown basically invented organization in football and that benefited Graham. And while Belechick didn't invent cheating, he perfected it and that benefited Brady. Montana, West Coast Offense ect...

BTW relax Pats fans. The cheating thing was more a joke than anything. Bill brings a whole heck of a lot to the table to improve a QB.

 

[SSOG]

I consider Moon's and Flutie's non-NFL accomplishments when considering them as pro players, but not Dorsey's. I guess I draw the line at professional football. I don't give Flutie or Moon as much credit as I would if they had won as many championships or achieved the same statistics in the NFL, but I think they were both incredible players. Same should go for Graham - you have to discount the fact that he played at a time where it was easier to win the championship, while giving him credit for the fact that it clearly wasn't THAT easy, since he did it and nobody else did.

It *WAS* that easy, though. The 1950s are the only decade where two different QBs got 3 rings each- Graham and Lane. And it was that easy to win championships in the AAFC, the only reason no one else did it is because Graham was doing it.As for Moon and Flutie... both were incredible players because both were incredible players, not because they dominated the CFL. Graham Harrell dominates the AFL, that doesn't make him a great player. Lots of other players have also looked dominant in the CFL- that doesn't make them great players.

 

[SSOG]

Actually it's impossible to compare players from eras that have different rules and circumstances. You can say well there were only 8 or 9 teams in that era and somebody else can say well that means each team should be well stocked and their should be more parity and not less.

In a 9-team league, the average chance of every team in the league to win the championship is 1-in-9, which is DRASTICALLY better than today's 1-in-32. The average chance for a starting QB to lead the league in passing was 1-in-9. The average chance for a defense to lead the league in points allowed is 1-in-9. You most certainly *CAN* discount for the size of the league.

 

[Tau837]

I agree that no other QB will likely ever win 7 championships in 10 years, but that is due to the reasons cited at the end of that post, not due to Graham being head and shoulders above all others.

I believe you mean 3 championships in 6 years, and I don't see what's so special about it. A QB has managed to equal or better the feat so far in the 2000s (Brady), in the 1990s (Aikman), in the 1980s (Montana), the 1970s (Bradshaw), the 1960s (Starr), the 1950s (Graham *AND* Bobby Lane), the 1940s (Luckman), and Arnie Herber came into the league just one year too late to give us one in the 1930s. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see another QB pull off the feat in the 2010s, and yet another do it in the 2020s.

Obviously, I was including the 4 AAFC championships that preceded the 3/6 NFL championships. I agree with your point that others have had comparable or better success, all factors considered.

I understood that you were including Graham's AAFC championships. My question is why? Do we include Warren Moon's CFL championship when discussing him as a player? Ken Dorsey's college football championships? What about Rohan Davey's NFLE championships? Some people say that the Cleveland Browns proved that the AAFC was legit... but they didn't, they simply proved that the Cleveland Browns were legit. As far as I'm concerned, his AAFC championships should have as much bearing on his legacy as an NFL player as Flutie's CFL championships have on his legacy as an NFL player. I just don't get why we give Graham the benefit of everything he did in a lesser league (and yes, the AAFC was a lesser league than the NFL) without extending the same courtesy to any other player in NFL history.

1. I included them in my response because the OP included them in his post. 2. No, we don't include any college accomplishments... obviously.3. No, we don't include NFLE accomplishments, since NFLE amounts to a minor league.4. No, we don't include CFL, XFL, USFL, Arena Football, etc., since they are not part of the NFL. One might argue that including AAFC and/or AFL accomplishments is different, since the AAFC and AFL at least partly merged with the NFL, which means some consider AAFC and AFL history to be part of NFL history.5. I think the reason some people are inclined to give Graham credit for the AAFC titles is because he accomplished all of them with the Cleveland Browns. Had Graham won 4 AAFC titles with a different franchise that folded after 1949, and then he had moved to the Browns and won 3 of 6 championships, I think that would be looked upon a bit differently. Similarly, if a current NFL franchise somehow started out in the CFL and later merged into the NFL, and it was for that franchise that Flutie won 5 Grey Cups, there would be a greater inclination to consider Flutie's CFL accomplishments when evaluating him as an NFL player. Not that I would agree with it, but there would be more people thinking that way.6. And, finally, I already agreed with you, anyway.

 

[cstu]

3. He played his entire career for HOF coach Paul Brown. From his Wiki page:- Brown is considered the "father of the modern offense," with many claiming that he ranks as one of if not the greatest of football coaches in history.

Graham was a product of the system.

 

[chris1969]

Actually it's impossible to compare players from eras that have different rules and circumstances. You can say well there were only 8 or 9 teams in that era and somebody else can say well that means each team should be well stocked and their should be more parity and not less.

In a 9-team league, the average chance of every team in the league to win the championship is 1-in-9, which is DRASTICALLY better than today's 1-in-32. The average chance for a starting QB to lead the league in passing was 1-in-9. The average chance for a defense to lead the league in points allowed is 1-in-9. You most certainly *CAN* discount for the size of the league.

Well statistically yes, but lets just say the NFL decided tomorrow to become a 250 team League. Does everybody still have a 1 in 250 chance of winning or does the team that drafted better suddenly have a tremendous advantage? Do you think if the 49's still drafted Rice and Montana they might have more of an edge? It's all a matter of perspective and I'm not sure I can agree with one perspective over another.

 

[chris1969]

3. He played his entire career for HOF coach Paul Brown. From his Wiki page:- Brown is considered the "father of the modern offense," with many claiming that he ranks as one of if not the greatest of football coaches in history.

Graham was a product of the system.

agreed, but can't the same thing be said about most successful QB's?

 

[SSOG]

6. And, finally, I already agreed with you, anyway.

I know, I wasn't so much directing that towards you as I was using your post as a stepping-off point to say what I wanted to say.

Actually it's impossible to compare players from eras that have different rules and circumstances. You can say well there were only 8 or 9 teams in that era and somebody else can say well that means each team should be well stocked and their should be more parity and not less.

In a 9-team league, the average chance of every team in the league to win the championship is 1-in-9, which is DRASTICALLY better than today's 1-in-32. The average chance for a starting QB to lead the league in passing was 1-in-9. The average chance for a defense to lead the league in points allowed is 1-in-9. You most certainly *CAN* discount for the size of the league.

Well statistically yes, but lets just say the NFL decided tomorrow to become a 250 team League. Does everybody still have a 1 in 250 chance of winning or does the team that drafted better suddenly have a tremendous advantage? Do you think if the 49's still drafted Rice and Montana they might have more of an edge? It's all a matter of perspective and I'm not sure I can agree with one perspective over another.

The average of every player's chances of winning would be 1-in-250, yes.Look at it this way. Let's say there's a two-team league. Call them Team Awesome and Team Suck. Team Awesome has a 90% chance of winning the championship, Team Suck has a 10% chance. 50% of the players play for Team Awesome, and 50% play for Team Suck. Therefore, if you pulled a player's name out of a hat, his chances of winning the championship that year would be (Chance of playing for Team Awesome * Chance of Team Awesome winning) + (Chance of playing for Team Suck * Chance of Team Suck winning). That breaks down to (.5 * .9) + (.5 * .1), which is .45 + .5... or 50%. In a two team league, the average chance of winning the championship is 50%. Do the math for a 3-team league and you see that the average player has a 1-in-3 chance of winning. Do it for a 35,982,858,683 team league and each player has a 1-in-35,982,858,683 chance of winning.The smaller the league is, the easier it is to win a championship. It's twice as easy to win in a 16-team league as it is in a 32-team league.

3. He played his entire career for HOF coach Paul Brown. From his Wiki page:- Brown is considered the "father of the modern offense," with many claiming that he ranks as one of if not the greatest of football coaches in history.

Graham was a product of the system.

agreed, but can't the same thing be said about most successful QB's?

Successful QBs, maybe... but this thread isn't titled "Otto Graham, successful QB?", is it?

 

[chris1969]

6. And, finally, I already agreed with you, anyway.

I know, I wasn't so much directing that towards you as I was using your post as a stepping-off point to say what I wanted to say.

Actually it's impossible to compare players from eras that have different rules and circumstances. You can say well there were only 8 or 9 teams in that era and somebody else can say well that means each team should be well stocked and their should be more parity and not less.

In a 9-team league, the average chance of every team in the league to win the championship is 1-in-9, which is DRASTICALLY better than today's 1-in-32. The average chance for a starting QB to lead the league in passing was 1-in-9. The average chance for a defense to lead the league in points allowed is 1-in-9. You most certainly *CAN* discount for the size of the league.

Well statistically yes, but lets just say the NFL decided tomorrow to become a 250 team League. Does everybody still have a 1 in 250 chance of winning or does the team that drafted better suddenly have a tremendous advantage? Do you think if the 49's still drafted Rice and Montana they might have more of an edge? It's all a matter of perspective and I'm not sure I can agree with one perspective over another.

The average of every player's chances of winning would be 1-in-250, yes.Look at it this way. Let's say there's a two-team league. Call them Team Awesome and Team Suck. Team Awesome has a 90% chance of winning the championship, Team Suck has a 10% chance. 50% of the players play for Team Awesome, and 50% play for Team Suck. Therefore, if you pulled a player's name out of a hat, his chances of winning the championship that year would be (Chance of playing for Team Awesome * Chance of Team Awesome winning) + (Chance of playing for Team Suck * Chance of Team Suck winning). That breaks down to (.5 * .9) + (.5 * .1), which is .45 + .5... or 50%. In a two team league, the average chance of winning the championship is 50%. Do the math for a 3-team league and you see that the average player has a 1-in-3 chance of winning. Do it for a 35,982,858,683 team league and each player has a 1-in-35,982,858,683 chance of winning.The smaller the league is, the easier it is to win a championship. It's twice as easy to win in a 16-team league as it is in a 32-team league.Actually your confusing odds with reality. I'll give you an example. I've played in a 4 team fantasy football league for about 11 years now. I play about 7 or 8 leagues every year, but this one is always harder to win. We play with deep rosters and my 3 opponents are all really good players. We always make new rules to make it tougher to win and I'd say that everybody's winning percentage is pretty close to 25% right now. It's actually a pretty boring league because we usually know the winner around week 10 of the season (total points league), but everybody gets a lot out of it because we all play a lot of leagues and we bounce a lot of ideas off of each other. On the other hand, I also put some money into fantasy football contests. I might be competing against thousands, but I know I'm really competing against the upper third of those guys. I know that 2/3rds of those guys will defeat themselves before I play them.

3. He played his entire career for HOF coach Paul Brown. From his Wiki page:- Brown is considered the "father of the modern offense," with many claiming that he ranks as one of if not the greatest of football coaches in history.

Graham was a product of the system.

agreed, but can't the same thing be said about most successful QB's?

Successful QBs, maybe... but this thread isn't titled "Otto Graham, successful QB?", is it?

That's a nice answer, but you can name any "Best QB ever" and I'm pretty sure I can tell you how he was a product of the system. Montana, Marino, Brady ect...

 

[Tau837]

That's a nice answer, but you can name any "Best QB ever" and I'm pretty sure I can tell you how he was a product of the system. Montana, Marino, Brady ect...

I'd be interested in your answer for Marino, Brady, Elway, Unitas, Favre, and Baugh. I get the answer for Montana and Young (and Graham).

 

[chris1969]

That's a nice answer, but you can name any "Best QB ever" and I'm pretty sure I can tell you how he was a product of the system. Montana, Marino, Brady ect...

I'd be interested in your answer for Marino, Brady, Elway, Unitas, Favre, and Baugh. I get the answer for Montana and Young (and Graham).

Since I've already been up too late and you picked 6 QB's, your gonna have to wait till tomorrow.

 

[GregR_2]

During some discussions both on the web and on TV about greatest teams of all time, I came to the conclusion I need to do a lot more reading up on some of the older teams, and the same would go for best player at a position.

Like for greatest team, the Chicago team in the 40s that just obliterated their opponents, but had one loss that they then avenged by obliterating the same team in the playoffs, seems like they should be mentioned in such discussions but they never are around here.

 

[Bri]

One of the best winners ever.

 

[H.K.]

Graham Harrell dominates the AFL, that doesn't make him a great player.

Graham Harrell plays for Texas Tech.....maybe you meant Damian Harrell?

 

[chris1969]

That's a nice answer, but you can name any "Best QB ever" and I'm pretty sure I can tell you how he was a product of the system. Montana, Marino, Brady ect...

I'd be interested in your answer for Marino, Brady, Elway, Unitas, Favre, and Baugh. I get the answer for Montana and Young (and Graham).

For Marino it was the Marx brothers and Don ShulaFor Brady it was Bill Belichick and Scott PioliFor Elway it was Mark Jackson, Vance Johnson, and Sterling SharpeFor Unitas it was Weeb Eubank, Lenny Moore, and Raymond BerryFor Baugh it's a little before my time, but somebody may say it was the switch to the T formation. (I'm not to familiar with other Redskins players or Coaches in that era)For Favre it was Antonio Freeman, Sterling Sharpe and Donald Driver and a coach that could put up with some interceptions.I'm not saying these are all valid arguments, but with every great player there is usually a great team and great coaching

 

[pollardsvision]

you can compare them to player of their own eras, but never to other eras.

i wouldn't be able to consider any of the old-timers in greatest of all time discussions b/c it's silly. they'd get crushed in today's game.

(sort of like how it's silly that baseball fans think the greatest baseball player of all-time was a fat-drunk that wouldn't be able to get the bat around fast enough to even make contact with today's juiced and rested pitchers. if this were baseball, someone like otto graham would probably be considered the greatest ever.)

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Seems to me all these threads about "greatest ever" rarely have a player discussed that played before 1960. It's a shame because ther have always been athletes who stood out from their peers.I give you Otto Graham, QB, Cleveland Browns, who won 4 All American Football Conference championships in 4 years, 1946-1949. This league folded after 1949 with the Browns, Colts, and 49ers joining the NFL. Graham won NFL championships in 1950, 1954, and 1955, whereupon he retired at age 34. 7 championships in a 10 year career I believe will most likely never be bettered.

Ask me this question again in 7 years from now. X7

 

[moleculo]

Here's the thing about Graham and those early Browns - they did not acquire players fairly. The AAFC of the 40's needed to compete with the NFL, and to do so they needed to acquire talent, and lots of it. Instead of having a draft, the owners were free to sign whomever they could for as much as they could. It wasn't viewed in terms of maintaining competitive balance, it was viewed as pulling talent from the NFL.

Paul Brown had a huge recruiting network in place thanks to his coaching at tOSU and Navy. He leveraged this network (and the pocketbook of Arthur B "Mickey" McBride) to put together the best collection of talent ever seen. This is why the Browns were so dominant against other AAFC teams - they were composed of much more talented players, Graham included.

When the Browns joined the NFL, they were still a much more talented team than had been seen before - it's no wonder that they won NFL championships. The modern day equivalent would be a single XFL team signing the top 2 draft picks from the past 5 years and then joining the NFL. Of course, we can't neglect that Paul Brown was an excellent football coach in his own right, one could even say the was an ancestor of the West Coast Offense as Bill Walsh coached under Brown.

None of this is to diminish Graham as a player as he probably was the best qb of his era. Lets not crown him GOAT purely on the basis of the titles he won, however.

 

[Tau837]

That's a nice answer, but you can name any "Best QB ever" and I'm pretty sure I can tell you how he was a product of the system. Montana, Marino, Brady ect...

I'd be interested in your answer for Marino, Brady, Elway, Unitas, Favre, and Baugh. I get the answer for Montana and Young (and Graham).

For Marino it was the Marx brothers and Don ShulaFor Brady it was Bill Belichick and Scott PioliFor Elway it was Mark Jackson, Vance Johnson, and Sterling SharpeFor Unitas it was Weeb Eubank, Lenny Moore, and Raymond BerryFor Baugh it's a little before my time, but somebody may say it was the switch to the T formation. (I'm not to familiar with other Redskins players or Coaches in that era)For Favre it was Antonio Freeman, Sterling Sharpe and Donald Driver and a coach that could put up with some interceptions.I'm not saying these are all valid arguments, but with every great player there is usually a great team and great coaching

No offense, but I disagree. I asked about these guys because I didn't think your statement fit for the recent players, wasn't sure about Baugh and Unitas, but was skeptical.First of all, I don't equate "system" to great teammates. I equate it to an offensive system, like the west coast offense. On great coaching, I agree that most, if not all, of the greatest QBs have had great coaches. Have they all had great teams? Well, most of these guys won championships, and that requires a great team. But I think most of them have at times lifted their teams to great performances - just check Montana's first Super Bowl team, or Elway's first few, for example.I can't really comment on Baugh and Unitas, as they were before my time. But the others:Marino - Shula, yes. Mark Duper and Mark Clayton were solid WRs, not elite. Marino elevated the play of his receivers and TEs. I wouldn't call that a system.Brady - Belicheck, yes. See above. And a great defense, absolutely. But I don't really see an offensive system here, as the offenses he has played in have varied along with the surrounding talent. I see a guy who is very good at utilizing the talent around him to its full potential. In past years, that meant a solid to very good passing game. With better talent this year, it led to the best passing game in the league, and one of the best ever.Elway - Did you really just cite Mark Jackson and Vance Johnson? Seriously? Jackson had 276/4746/24 in 100 games for Denver - an average of 44/759/4 per season. Johnson had 415/5695/37 in 128 games for Denver - an average of 52/712/5 per season. Yes, Sharpe is one of the best TEs of all time, but Elway played 7 seasons for Denver before Sharpe joined the Broncos. Elway was very successful in two completely different offensive systems - the offenses of Dan Reeves and Mike Shanahan. I don't see how he can possibly be labeled a system QB.Favre - Sharpe was great, but he only played 3 seasons with Favre - Favre's first 3 in GB. Favre made Antonio Freeman. Donald Driver is solid, but Favre made him too. Favre certainly excelled under Holmgren, but he also played for Rhodes, Sherman, and McCarthy. Like I said about Marino, for the most part, Favre has played with solid WRs and elevated their play. I wouldn't call that a system.

 

[chris1969]

That's a nice answer, but you can name any "Best QB ever" and I'm pretty sure I can tell you how he was a product of the system. Montana, Marino, Brady ect...

I'd be interested in your answer for Marino, Brady, Elway, Unitas, Favre, and Baugh. I get the answer for Montana and Young (and Graham).

For Marino it was the Marx brothers and Don ShulaFor Brady it was Bill Belichick and Scott PioliFor Elway it was Mark Jackson, Vance Johnson, and Sterling SharpeFor Unitas it was Weeb Eubank, Lenny Moore, and Raymond BerryFor Baugh it's a little before my time, but somebody may say it was the switch to the T formation. (I'm not to familiar with other Redskins players or Coaches in that era)For Favre it was Antonio Freeman, Sterling Sharpe and Donald Driver and a coach that could put up with some interceptions.I'm not saying these are all valid arguments, but with every great player there is usually a great team and great coaching

No offense, but I disagree. I asked about these guys because I didn't think your statement fit for the recent players, wasn't sure about Baugh and Unitas, but was skeptical.First of all, I don't equate "system" to great teammates. I equate it to an offensive system, like the west coast offense. On great coaching, I agree that most, if not all, of the greatest QBs have had great coaches. Have they all had great teams? Well, most of these guys won championships, and that requires a great team. But I think most of them have at times lifted their teams to great performances - just check Montana's first Super Bowl team, or Elway's first few, for example.I can't really comment on Baugh and Unitas, as they were before my time. But the others:Marino - Shula, yes. Mark Duper and Mark Clayton were solid WRs, not elite. Marino elevated the play of his receivers and TEs. I wouldn't call that a system.Brady - Belicheck, yes. See above. And a great defense, absolutely. But I don't really see an offensive system here, as the offenses he has played in have varied along with the surrounding talent. I see a guy who is very good at utilizing the talent around him to its full potential. In past years, that meant a solid to very good passing game. With better talent this year, it led to the best passing game in the league, and one of the best ever.Elway - Did you really just cite Mark Jackson and Vance Johnson? Seriously? Jackson had 276/4746/24 in 100 games for Denver - an average of 44/759/4 per season. Johnson had 415/5695/37 in 128 games for Denver - an average of 52/712/5 per season. Yes, Sharpe is one of the best TEs of all time, but Elway played 7 seasons for Denver before Sharpe joined the Broncos. Elway was very successful in two completely different offensive systems - the offenses of Dan Reeves and Mike Shanahan. I don't see how he can possibly be labeled a system QB.Favre - Sharpe was great, but he only played 3 seasons with Favre - Favre's first 3 in GB. Favre made Antonio Freeman. Donald Driver is solid, but Favre made him too. Favre certainly excelled under Holmgren, but he also played for Rhodes, Sherman, and McCarthy. Like I said about Marino, for the most part, Favre has played with solid WRs and elevated their play. I wouldn't call that a system.

Hey I kinda agree with you, but you are missing my point. The point was that no matter who you say is the greatest somebody can come up with an argument.

I'm not saying these are all valid arguments, but with every great player there is usually a great team and great coaching

My point is that you can't be GOAT without great teammates and great coaching and the perfect opportunity, and then 20 years later people will argue that you aren't GOAT because you had great teammates and great coaching and the perfect opportunity.I think I use the word "system" in a more liberal sense than you do.Here's a quote from Bum Phillips about Don Shula from Wikipedia.Bum Phillips: (explaining why Don Shula was a great coach in spite of the lack of a catchy moniker for his "system"):

He can take his'n and beat yours'n and take yours'n and beat his his'n

I also just remembered that both Weeb Eubanks and Don Shula came from the Paul Brown coaching tree. I wonder if that has anything to do with Goat QB's.

 

[moleculo]

Actually it's impossible to compare players from eras that have different rules and circumstances. You can say well there were only 8 or 9 teams in that era and somebody else can say well that means each team should be well stocked and their should be more parity and not less.

In a 9-team league, the average chance of every team in the league to win the championship is 1-in-9, which is DRASTICALLY better than today's 1-in-32. The average chance for a starting QB to lead the league in passing was 1-in-9. The average chance for a defense to lead the league in points allowed is 1-in-9. You most certainly *CAN* discount for the size of the league.

I disagree with this completely. We have had this discussion before, so instead of regurgitating it, here's the link: link

 

[SSOG]

Graham Harrell dominates the AFL, that doesn't make him a great player.

Graham Harrell plays for Texas Tech.....maybe you meant Damian Harrell?

My point is that you can't be GOAT without great teammates and great coaching and the perfect opportunity, and then 20 years later people will argue that you aren't GOAT because you had great teammates and great coaching and the perfect opportunity.

Ignore Elway's tenure under Mike Shanahan. I would call him one of the greatest of all time based entirely on his body of work before Shanahan came to town. Please, explain to me how pre-Shanahan Elway had great teammates, how he had great coaching, and how he had the perfect opportunity. I would argue that even the most imaginative person couldn't seriously argue ANY ONE of those points, let alone all three.

Actually it's impossible to compare players from eras that have different rules and circumstances. You can say well there were only 8 or 9 teams in that era and somebody else can say well that means each team should be well stocked and their should be more parity and not less.

In a 9-team league, the average chance of every team in the league to win the championship is 1-in-9, which is DRASTICALLY better than today's 1-in-32. The average chance for a starting QB to lead the league in passing was 1-in-9. The average chance for a defense to lead the league in points allowed is 1-in-9. You most certainly *CAN* discount for the size of the league.

I disagree with this completely. We have had this discussion before, so instead of regurgitating it, here's the link: link

While that kind of logic might hold water in terms of individual performances (I'd argue the point, but it's not really relevant here), we're talking about TEAM performances, and that logic simply doesn't hold up. It's easier to win a championship when there are fewer teams in the league. That's indisputable fact.

 

[cstu]

Seems to me all these threads about "greatest ever" rarely have a player discussed that played before 1960. It's a shame because ther have always been athletes who stood out from their peers.I give you Otto Graham, QB, Cleveland Browns, who won 4 All American Football Conference championships in 4 years, 1946-1949. This league folded after 1949 with the Browns, Colts, and 49ers joining the NFL. Graham won NFL championships in 1950, 1954, and 1955, whereupon he retired at age 34. 7 championships in a 10 year career I believe will most likely never be bettered.

Ask me this question again in 7 years from now. X7