Run It Up
Footballguy
Who is the first, and who is the second? Just curious.Brady isn't even the 2nd most valuable QB in 2014, much less the most valuable QB or player.
Last edited by a moderator:
Who is the first, and who is the second? Just curious.Brady isn't even the 2nd most valuable QB in 2014, much less the most valuable QB or player.
No reason for Rodgers to be ashamed. Over the last 2 weeks, the Bills have held Manning and Rodgers to less than 400 yards passing combined, 0 TDs and 4 INTs.Still the best. Had and off day.
It's funny to think about teams like Buffalo, St. Louis and Houston, all of which have great defenses, but are held back by average or mediocre QB play. You could even throw Cleveland into that mix, although their D didn't play well today. If you are fans of those teams, it must be maddening to see such great D go to waste.Buffalo's horrific offense is keeping people from realizing just how unbelievably dominant Buffalo's defense is right now. There's no question in my mind that they are the #1 defense in the league right now.
Vikings defense playing really well too. Offense very uneven.It's funny to think about teams like Buffalo, St. Louis and Houston, all of which have great defenses, but are held back by average or mediocre QB play. You could even throw Cleveland into that mix, although their D didn't play well today. If you are fans of those teams, it must be maddening to see such great D go to waste.Buffalo's horrific offense is keeping people from realizing just how unbelievably dominant Buffalo's defense is right now. There's no question in my mind that they are the #1 defense in the league right now.
Demarco Murray... Hes easily in the top 5 imo.msudaisy26 said:The MVP race right now is Rodgers, Luck, Brady, Manning then Watt.
If it wasn't a qb league Watt would be second.
Here are the ways Rodgers could be caught and it is based on the guy listed winning out and being very impressive doing it.
Luck could catch Rodgers if he has another bad game against Detroit and the Packers lose.
Brady could leap them both if the Pats win out and he out plays Luck in the stats department the last 2 weeks.
Manning could jump them all if the win out and he goes back to passing 45 times a game and putting up crazy numbers.
Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Staubach's career was to short but he was an amazing QB but not best ever. Bradshaw was not even the best on his own team at times. He had the benefit of a great defense. His situation is similar to Russell Wilson's but with better wide outs than Seattle.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
They don't?To me, Montana is the measuring stick. The stats don't look impressive but teams would go into the second half with a two score lead and Montana playing a lousy first half only to watch him come out and rip off 15 consecutive passes while ripping your heart out. Put Montana in Rodgers shoes yesterday and Montana wins that game 8 out of 10 times. That is the difference the numbers just don't show.
No, Montana's stats don't look impressive when compared to todays game. This is where the eyeball test and the championship wins and the type of wins you saw make these debates fun.They don't?To me, Montana is the measuring stick. The stats don't look impressive but teams would go into the second half with a two score lead and Montana playing a lousy first half only to watch him come out and rip off 15 consecutive passes while ripping your heart out. Put Montana in Rodgers shoes yesterday and Montana wins that game 8 out of 10 times. That is the difference the numbers just don't show.
I would have Unitas at the top. He basically doubled the stats of other fall of famers from his era. I would have Starr in there for his five championships and his incredible play in playoffs, and his incredible care of the ball in an era where interceptions where statistically far more likely than what he produced. I would grudgingly include Bradshaw, because the titles cannot be denied. I loved Rodger the Dodger, but would not have him so high. I recognized the excellence of Tarkington and Fouts. I loved the game of Kenny Anderson. I would have Montana in any pantheon but would not hold Marino in as high esteem as some. yes he could throw like a god when he had perfect protection, but his team had to spend so much protecting him they always seemed deficient elsewhere, and the lack of Championships proved this.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
If Marino ever had a running game he would have had championships. Hard to believe that Shula changed so dramatically in philosophy but he could never find a middle ground with Marino. They just could not go into New England, New York and Buffalo late in the season and be successful without a running game.I would have Unitas at the top. He basically doubled the stats of other fall of famers from his era. I would have Starr in there for his five championships and his incredible play in playoffs, and his incredible care of the ball in an era where interceptions where statistically far more likely than what he produced. I would grudgingly include Bradshaw, because the titles cannot be denied. I loved Rodger the Dodger, but would not have him so high. I recognized the excellence of Tarkington and Fouts. I loved the game of Kenny Anderson. I would have Montana in any pantheon but would not hold Marino in as high esteem as some. yes he could throw like a god when he had perfect protection, but his team had to spend so much protecting him they always seemed deficient elsewhere, and the lack of Championships proved this.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
I still have my doubts you could find all that many to buy that premise (not that it's testable, so whatever), but even that's a REALLY long ways from the assertion that Bradshaw and Staubach make up a two-man tier two at #4 and #5 on any kind of thinking-man's GOAT list.I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
Nope, he isn't a Top Ten guy. The defense was the story of his teams, not his arm.I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
Joe Gilliam and Terry Hanratty were never better QBs than Bradshaw and I sure as hell hope you aren't referring to Mike Kruczek or Cliff Stoudt.Staubach's career was to short but he was an amazing QB but not best ever. Bradshaw was not even the best on his own team at times. He had the benefit of a great defense. His situation is similar to Russell Wilson's but with better wide outs than Seattle.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
If Bradshaw doesn't have that defense he doesn't get the opportunity to make the mistakes, learn and grow as a QB. Not much was ever asked of him. The QB that most resembled Bradshaw was Jim McMahon. The length of careers and quality of supporting cast long term were the differences between the two in my opinion.Joe Gilliam and Terry Hanratty were never better QBs than Bradshaw and I sure as hell hope you aren't referring to Mike Kruczek or Cliff Stoudt.Staubach's career was to short but he was an amazing QB but not best ever. Bradshaw was not even the best on his own team at times. He had the benefit of a great defense. His situation is similar to Russell Wilson's but with better wide outs than Seattle.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Bradshaw had a bumpy start but the early 1970 Steelers teams weren't very good. The 1978 and 1979 Super Bowl teams were better offensively than they were defensively and Bradshaw was the main reason. And unlike Staubach Bradshaw called all of his own plays. Bradshaw was also once the league MVP which is something that Staubach can't say. Given the choice between Bradshaw and Staubach and I'll take Brad every time.
I would never put Bradshaw up as the one of the greatest QBs of all time but you are doing him a disservice by suggesting he coasted on the coattails of his defense.
The Steelers defense was not very good when Bradshaw began his career and the offense around him was putrid.If Bradshaw doesn't have that defense he doesn't get the opportunity to make the mistakes, learn and grow as a QB. Not much was ever asked of him. The QB that most resembled Bradshaw was Jim McMahon. The length of careers and quality of supporting cast long term were the differences between the two in my opinion.Joe Gilliam and Terry Hanratty were never better QBs than Bradshaw and I sure as hell hope you aren't referring to Mike Kruczek or Cliff Stoudt.Staubach's career was to short but he was an amazing QB but not best ever. Bradshaw was not even the best on his own team at times. He had the benefit of a great defense. His situation is similar to Russell Wilson's but with better wide outs than Seattle.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Bradshaw had a bumpy start but the early 1970 Steelers teams weren't very good. The 1978 and 1979 Super Bowl teams were better offensively than they were defensively and Bradshaw was the main reason. And unlike Staubach Bradshaw called all of his own plays. Bradshaw was also once the league MVP which is something that Staubach can't say. Given the choice between Bradshaw and Staubach and I'll take Brad every time.
I would never put Bradshaw up as the one of the greatest QBs of all time but you are doing him a disservice by suggesting he coasted on the coattails of his defense.
Bradshaw was a great fit but not a great QB.
Wait... who exactly made that assertion?I still have my doubts you could find all that many to buy that premise (not that it's testable, so whatever), but even that's a REALLY long ways from the assertion that Bradshaw and Staubach make up a two-man tier two at #4 and #5 on any kind of thinking-man's GOAT list.I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.Unitas maybe.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
See bold.Wait... who exactly made that assertion?I still have my doubts you could find all that many to buy that premise (not that it's testable, so whatever), but even that's a REALLY long ways from the assertion that Bradshaw and Staubach make up a two-man tier two at #4 and #5 on any kind of thinking-man's GOAT list.I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.Unitas maybe.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
Montana led the league in completion percentage five times. He was top-10 in yards/attempt 10 times. Top 10 in passing yardage 9 times, top-5 in passing TDs seven times. Top-5 in passer rating nine times; top-10 13 times. Relative to his peers his numbers look great.No, Montana's stats don't look impressive when compared to todays game. This is where the eyeball test and the championship wins and the type of wins you saw make these debates fun.They don't?To me, Montana is the measuring stick. The stats don't look impressive but teams would go into the second half with a two score lead and Montana playing a lousy first half only to watch him come out and rip off 15 consecutive passes while ripping your heart out. Put Montana in Rodgers shoes yesterday and Montana wins that game 8 out of 10 times. That is the difference the numbers just don't show.
Comparing stats across eras is mostly pointless. Completion percentage is jacked through the roof due to smoke an bubble screens. Everyone is playing a more mature version of the offense that Montana benefitted from during his career so that is similar but not much else is that similar.
I don't disagree with any if that. You are arguing a point I wasn't making. I said "compared to today's game". Montana's numbers are great, but the era he played needs to be accounted for to truly appreciate his numbers. Relatively speaking, Montana was as efficient as Rodgers is but at a glance the numbers don't demonstrate that without adjusting for the difference in eras.Montana led the league in completion percentage five times. He was top-10 in yards/attempt 10 times. Top 10 in passing yardage 9 times, top-5 in passing TDs seven times. Top-5 in passer rating nine times; top-10 13 times. Relative to his peers his numbers look great.No, Montana's stats don't look impressive when compared to todays game. This is where the eyeball test and the championship wins and the type of wins you saw make these debates fun.Comparing stats across eras is mostly pointless. Completion percentage is jacked through the roof due to smoke an bubble screens. Everyone is playing a more mature version of the offense that Montana benefitted from during his career so that is similar but not much else is that similar.They don't?To me, Montana is the measuring stick. The stats don't look impressive but teams would go into the second half with a two score lead and Montana playing a lousy first half only to watch him come out and rip off 15 consecutive passes while ripping your heart out. Put Montana in Rodgers shoes yesterday and Montana wins that game 8 out of 10 times. That is the difference the numbers just don't show.
So, Bradshaw wasn't very good until the team vastly improved around him? How does this disprove anything I said?The Steelers defense was not very good when Bradshaw began his career and the offense around him was putrid.If Bradshaw doesn't have that defense he doesn't get the opportunity to make the mistakes, learn and grow as a QB. Not much was ever asked of him. The QB that most resembled Bradshaw was Jim McMahon. The length of careers and quality of supporting cast long term were the differences between the two in my opinion. Bradshaw was a great fit but not a great QB.Joe Gilliam and Terry Hanratty were never better QBs than Bradshaw and I sure as hell hope you aren't referring to Mike Kruczek or Cliff Stoudt.Staubach's career was to short but he was an amazing QB but not best ever. Bradshaw was not even the best on his own team at times. He had the benefit of a great defense. His situation is similar to Russell Wilson's but with better wide outs than Seattle.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Bradshaw had a bumpy start but the early 1970 Steelers teams weren't very good. The 1978 and 1979 Super Bowl teams were better offensively than they were defensively and Bradshaw was the main reason. And unlike Staubach Bradshaw called all of his own plays. Bradshaw was also once the league MVP which is something that Staubach can't say. Given the choice between Bradshaw and Staubach and I'll take Brad every time.
I would never put Bradshaw up as the one of the greatest QBs of all time but you are doing him a disservice by suggesting he coasted on the coattails of his defense.
Just wondering how old you are cause you sound like you weren't watching the NFL in the 70s
Aaron Rodgers - QB - Packers
Aaron Rodgers was carted to the locker room in the second quarter of Green Bay's Week 17 game against the Lions with a left-calf injury.
He's officially questionable to return. In the midst of throwing a four-yard touchdown to Randall Cobb, Rodgers went down untouched. He was helped to the sideline before briefly attempting to walk the injury off. He was then carted to the locker room with two minutes remaining in the first half. It's the same leg that Rodgers tweaked in Week 16. It's possible Rodgers simply headed in for early treatment, but it had the looks of a potentially game-ending injury. That would make a victory for the Pack absolutely imperative, as it would give their franchise player a first-round bye, and week to rest. Matt Flynn will check in if Rodgers is done for the day.
Dec 28 - 5:36 PM
Speaking after Thursday's practice, Packers coach Mike McCarthy said Aaron Rodgers (calf) did "everything we asked him to do today."
"It’s always a better practice when he’s out there," McCarthy said. Rodgers was limited to team drills, but his status is not in doubt for Sunday's Divisional Round game against the Cowboys. His mobility will be the issue, but it hampered him very little in Week 17 against the Lions.
Source: packers.com
Jan 8 - 4:08 PM
I fall in that group and no, Bradshaw wouldn't make top 10... Wouldn't be close... When people think of the 70s Steelers, they think Steel Curtain... a defensive team with a great running game..I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
Considering that Rodgers is #1 in career QB rating, it's clear that there aren't many QBs who have played at the same high level. Also #1 in yards/attempt in the Super Bowl era by a couple of notches, #1 in TD percentage in the Super Bowl era by a long way, #1 in career interception percentage by a long way.I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
The lack of Bradshaw appreciation is disturbing. He only won two of his Super Bowls in the 70s when the defense was historically great.I fall in that group and no, Bradshaw wouldn't make top 10... Wouldn't be close... When people think of the 70s Steelers, they think Steel Curtain... a defensive team with a great running game..I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
He also once threw a ball over a mountain.The lack of Bradshaw appreciation is disturbing. He only won two of his Super Bowls in the 70s when the defense was historically great.I fall in that group and no, Bradshaw wouldn't make top 10... Wouldn't be close... When people think of the 70s Steelers, they think Steel Curtain... a defensive team with a great running game..I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
Three years after his second Super Bowl win the Steelers were middle of the pack in total defense for that season. In order to win SB 13, Bradshaw had to throw for 300 yards and 4 TDs, an unheard of number 30 years ago. Even then, they only won by four points. Both the third and the 4th Super Bowl wins came after the 1978 Mel Blount rule change, which was the beginning of the modern passing game, and when defenses were hampered with what they could do to WRs. Bradshaw is the only player to win multiple Super Bowls in both eras, as well as winning championships with and without a great defense. He did everything and should be considered in the top 5 greatest QBs ever without hesitation.
It's just ridiculously laughable that people think Bradshaw was a game manager on a team with a great defense.
Bradshaw is one of the best deep ball throwers ever and had one of the strongest arms ever. One of the great stories is that Bradshaw threw a pass so hard at a rookie receiver that when the guy caught it, the ball split the webbing on his hands halfway up his palm. Game manager? LOL.
Bret Favre is the opposite of stat compiler. He played crazy, not padding stats. He did not play on very strong teams after the superbowl years.He had a great 4-5 year run but was a compiler for the rest of his career.9. Brett Favre
A body of work counts, and besides one Super Bowl win, he holds all significant career passing records — at least until Peyton starts breaking them in the next year or two.
Another one - somewhat obscure but interesting nonetheless - Rodgers is #1 all time in 70yd+ touchdown passes with 16. Favre and Manning each have 15.CalBear said:Considering that Rodgers is #1 in career QB rating, it's clear that there aren't many QBs who have played at the same high level. Also #1 in yards/attempt in the Super Bowl era by a couple of notches, #1 in TD percentage in the Super Bowl era by a long way, #1 in career interception percentage by a long way.DropKick said:I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
Uh, what?Phenomena said:The lack of Bradshaw appreciation is disturbing. He only won two of his Super Bowls in the 70s when the defense was historically great.DropKick said:I fall in that group and no, Bradshaw wouldn't make top 10... Wouldn't be close... When people think of the 70s Steelers, they think Steel Curtain... a defensive team with a great running game..I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
Three years after his second Super Bowl win the Steelers were middle of the pack in total defense for that season. In order to win SB 13, Bradshaw had to throw for 300 yards and 4 TDs, an unheard of number 30 years ago. Even then, they only won by four points. Both the third and the 4th Super Bowl wins came after the 1978 Mel Blount rule change, which was the beginning of the modern passing game, and when defenses were hampered with what they could do to WRs. Bradshaw is the only player to win multiple Super Bowls in both eras, as well as winning championships with and without a great defense. He did everything and should be considered in the top 5 greatest QBs ever without hesitation.
It's just ridiculously laughable that people think Bradshaw was a game manager on a team with a great defense.
Bradshaw is one of the best deep ball throwers ever and had one of the strongest arms ever. One of the great stories is that Bradshaw threw a pass so hard at a rookie receiver that when the guy caught it, the ball split the webbing on his hands halfway up his palm. Game manager? LOL.
Just havin a little fun here.Phenomena said:The lack of Bradshaw appreciation is disturbing. He only won two of his Super Bowls in the 70s when the defense was historically great.DropKick said:I fall in that group and no, Bradshaw wouldn't make top 10... Wouldn't be close... When people think of the 70s Steelers, they think Steel Curtain... a defensive team with a great running game..I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
Three years after his second Super Bowl win the Steelers were middle of the pack in total defense for that season. In order to win SB 13, Bradshaw had to throw for 300 yards and 4 TDs, an unheard of number 30 years ago. Even then, they only won by four points. Both the third and the 4th Super Bowl wins came after the 1978 Mel Blount rule change, which was the beginning of the modern passing game, and when defenses were hampered with what they could do to WRs. Bradshaw is the only player to win multiple Super Bowls in both eras, as well as winning championships with and without a great defense. He did everything and should be considered in the top 5 greatest QBs ever without hesitation.
It's just ridiculously laughable that people think Bradshaw was a game manager on a team with a great defense.
Bradshaw is one of the best deep ball throwers ever and had one of the strongest arms ever. One of the great stories is that Bradshaw threw a pass so hard at a rookie receiver that when the guy caught it, the ball split the webbing on his hands halfway up his palm. Game manager? LOL.
Different rules, different eras. It isn't as clear as you think.CalBear said:Considering that Rodgers is #1 in career QB rating, it's clear that there aren't many QBs who have played at the same high level. Also #1 in yards/attempt in the Super Bowl era by a couple of notches, #1 in TD percentage in the Super Bowl era by a long way, #1 in career interception percentage by a long way.DropKick said:I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
It's not lack of appreciation. 4 SBs are 4 SBs. I think there have been many great QBs over the past 50+ years. It's no insult to be outside the top 10.Phenomena said:The lack of Bradshaw appreciation is disturbing. He only won two of his Super Bowls in the 70s when the defense was historically great.DropKick said:I fall in that group and no, Bradshaw wouldn't make top 10... Wouldn't be close... When people think of the 70s Steelers, they think Steel Curtain... a defensive team with a great running game..I'd love to be able to make a wager on this. People equate winning with great play, and if you think Bradshaw would not be listed in at least the top 10 of all-time by almost all fans over 50, then I would make a stiff wager with you.Being an old timer myself, being a football fan who has had frequent discussions with other old timers about just such subject matter, and being a guy who has read infinite columns over his life written by other old timers who like to do stuff like rank the QB's, I can say that this is the first time I've seen one of us tout Bradshaw as one of the small handful of best ever. I think I've heard the pro-Staubach argument maybe twice in fifty years.I'm a bit surprised someone who claims to be old enough to have seen Staubach and Bradshaw play would say this about Rodgers. Most of us that old (50+) would put Montana, Young and Brady at the top of the list, then have two guys in the next tier (Bradshaw, Staubach), then a group of more recent QBs who are all tremendously talented but are also playing with favorable rules changes (Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Elway, ...). Rodgers is immensely talented and may end up in the second or even first tier. But he is not there yet. And, as noted, it's not for lack of weapons.
By the way, expect to see a lot of footage of vintage Steve Young leading up to the NFL Draft, as Marcus Mariota is trying to go down Young's path.
Unitas maybe.
So no, "most of us" would not have those guys anywhere near the top.
I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
Three years after his second Super Bowl win the Steelers were middle of the pack in total defense for that season. In order to win SB 13, Bradshaw had to throw for 300 yards and 4 TDs, an unheard of number 30 years ago. Even then, they only won by four points. Both the third and the 4th Super Bowl wins came after the 1978 Mel Blount rule change, which was the beginning of the modern passing game, and when defenses were hampered with what they could do to WRs. Bradshaw is the only player to win multiple Super Bowls in both eras, as well as winning championships with and without a great defense. He did everything and should be considered in the top 5 greatest QBs ever without hesitation.
It's just ridiculously laughable that people think Bradshaw was a game manager on a team with a great defense.
Bradshaw is one of the best deep ball throwers ever and had one of the strongest arms ever. One of the great stories is that Bradshaw threw a pass so hard at a rookie receiver that when the guy caught it, the ball split the webbing on his hands halfway up his palm. Game manager? LOL.
What special skill is involved in 70+ yd TDs? A plus arm? Shouldn't we give as much (if not more) credit to the receiver here?Another one - somewhat obscure but interesting nonetheless - Rodgers is #1 all time in 70yd+ touchdown passes with 16. Favre and Manning each have 15.CalBear said:Considering that Rodgers is #1 in career QB rating, it's clear that there aren't many QBs who have played at the same high level. Also #1 in yards/attempt in the Super Bowl era by a couple of notches, #1 in TD percentage in the Super Bowl era by a long way, #1 in career interception percentage by a long way.DropKick said:I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
When recently interviewed regarding this, Rodgers was able to recite details from memory of every touchdown.
Wat? You're either fishing or not very good at this.What special skill is involved in 70+ yd TDs? A plus arm? Shouldn't we give as much (if not more) credit to the receiver here?Another one - somewhat obscure but interesting nonetheless - Rodgers is #1 all time in 70yd+ touchdown passes with 16. Favre and Manning each have 15.CalBear said:Considering that Rodgers is #1 in career QB rating, it's clear that there aren't many QBs who have played at the same high level. Also #1 in yards/attempt in the Super Bowl era by a couple of notches, #1 in TD percentage in the Super Bowl era by a long way, #1 in career interception percentage by a long way.DropKick said:I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
When recently interviewed regarding this, Rodgers was able to recite details from memory of every touchdown.
Rodgers is playing head and shoulders above everyone else, statistically, right now, so his claim for top billing is, at the very least, as good as anyone playing right now (including Manning and Brady). You might be able to make an argument that there are other QBs from the past who "have played at the same high level and done it longer," but that's a pretty extraordinary claim and you would have to come up with some evidence. For example, can you name anyone else in the Super Bowl era who was in the top 5 in the league in QB rating, yards per attempt, and TD% six years in a row? Montana and Elway never came close to that, and even Marino didn't manage it. That's relative to peers, so adjusts for era.Different rules, different eras. It isn't as clear as you think.CalBear said:Considering that Rodgers is #1 in career QB rating, it's clear that there aren't many QBs who have played at the same high level. Also #1 in yards/attempt in the Super Bowl era by a couple of notches, #1 in TD percentage in the Super Bowl era by a long way, #1 in career interception percentage by a long way.DropKick said:I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
Sup Steve.cjv123 said:I'm very surprised at the lack of support for Steve Young in here. At his prime, he was the greatest quarterback ever IMnHO.
I believe Young only had 4 straight years in the top 5 of TD % but had 8 straight years in the others. IMO Young was more dominant relative to peers than Rodgers.Rodgers is playing head and shoulders above everyone else, statistically, right now, so his claim for top billing is, at the very least, as good as anyone playing right now (including Manning and Brady). You might be able to make an argument that there are other QBs from the past who "have played at the same high level and done it longer," but that's a pretty extraordinary claim and you would have to come up with some evidence. For example, can you name anyone else in the Super Bowl era who was in the top 5 in the league in QB rating, yards per attempt, and TD% six years in a row? Montana and Elway never came close to that, and even Marino didn't manage it. That's relative to peers, so adjusts for era.Different rules, different eras. It isn't as clear as you think.CalBear said:Considering that Rodgers is #1 in career QB rating, it's clear that there aren't many QBs who have played at the same high level. Also #1 in yards/attempt in the Super Bowl era by a couple of notches, #1 in TD percentage in the Super Bowl era by a long way, #1 in career interception percentage by a long way.DropKick said:I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
To be fully accurate, Young's 1995 he only finished #10 in yards per attempt, which broke his streak, but obviously Young is a good candidate. (Somehow, I doubt that's who DropKick was thinking of).I believe Young only had 4 straight years in the top 5 of TD % but had 8 straight years in the others. IMO Young was more dominant relative to peers than Rodgers.Rodgers is playing head and shoulders above everyone else, statistically, right now, so his claim for top billing is, at the very least, as good as anyone playing right now (including Manning and Brady). You might be able to make an argument that there are other QBs from the past who "have played at the same high level and done it longer," but that's a pretty extraordinary claim and you would have to come up with some evidence. For example, can you name anyone else in the Super Bowl era who was in the top 5 in the league in QB rating, yards per attempt, and TD% six years in a row? Montana and Elway never came close to that, and even Marino didn't manage it. That's relative to peers, so adjusts for era.Different rules, different eras. It isn't as clear as you think.CalBear said:Considering that Rodgers is #1 in career QB rating, it's clear that there aren't many QBs who have played at the same high level. Also #1 in yards/attempt in the Super Bowl era by a couple of notches, #1 in TD percentage in the Super Bowl era by a long way, #1 in career interception percentage by a long way.DropKick said:I think a Rodgers claim for top billing is laughable as well... He is very good but there are many QBs who have played at the same high level and done it longer.
What games in the past has he acted hurt? You must have several examples since you claim it happens on a regular basis.Dallas will fall for the Rodgers drama. He does this on a regular basis. Acts more hurt than he is. Torches team when they buy into it