GOAT - QBs - My god, not this again?

[TheArtofManning]

This conversation is indicative of just how hard it is to rank QBs, and the rationale behind it.
I really don't know how I would rank them, and more to the point, I don't know how I would eliminate personal bias.
For modern QBS (1978 on...), I suppose Brady is the best, although it pains me deeply to say that. (I really don't think he is the best.....)
But it always come down to the team, does it not? Any good decent QB can win a Championship under the right conditions. Even marginal QBs can win a Championship, as we have seen. Great QBs having great seasons have not even sniffed a SB etc.
There is always the "eye" test, but that become totally subjective. (and filled with personal bias).

I suppose the guy that wins more often is better? The guys that have the most "hardware" are Graham, Starr, Bradshaw, Montana and Brady. If they are the best 5, then I have nothing but subjective arguments to counter it.

It's apples and oranges, but consider the old argument regarding Wilt vs. Bill Russell. Wilt was the amazing talent, and Russell had so much more hardware. Who was better? I say Chamberlain.

I guess if I stick to my Brady vs. Manning argument, I will proffer this opinion.
I really feel that Peyton would probably be better than Brady at making a marginal team a good team, but I will concede that Brady is better at "closing the deal" on a great team. So, I guess Brady is better. I said it, and the sky didn't fall...............

[grmc]

This conversation is indicative of just how hard it is to rank QBs, and the rationale behind it.
I really don't know how I would rank them, and more to the point, I don't know how I would eliminate personal bias.
For modern QBS (1978 on...), I suppose Brady is the best, although it pains me deeply to say that. (I really don't think he is the best.....)
But it always come down to the team, does it not? Any good decent QB can win a Championship under the right conditions. Even marginal QBs can win a Championship, as we have seen. Great QBs having great seasons have not even sniffed a SB etc.
There is always the "eye" test, but that become totally subjective. (and filled with personal bias).

I suppose the guy that wins more often is better? The guys that have the most "hardware" are Graham, Starr, Bradshaw, Montana and Brady. If they are the best 5, then I have nothing but subjective arguments to counter it.

It's apples and oranges, but consider the old argument regarding Wilt vs. Bill Russell. Wilt was the amazing talent, and Russell had so much more hardware. Who was better? I say Chamberlain.

I guess if I stick to my Brady vs. Manning argument, I will proffer this opinion.
I really feel that Peyton would probably be better than Brady at making a marginal team a good team, but I will concede that Brady is better at "closing the deal" on a great team. So, I guess Brady is better. I said it, and the sky didn't fall...............

You are absolutely right with these things. with respect to Brady being the best though, there's a couple of things that give me pause. One is that football, and the NFL in particular, is less dependent on having a great player in one position, to win it all, than almost every other sport...regularly teams with mediocre QB's win. This indirectly tells me that the hardware is more a function of other things than the greatness of the QB. So I wouldn't put it as the deciding factor, or anywhere near. It's a consideration, yes, just not the first for me. Also, being a game of inches, the most minor of factors in your favor at this level. can separate teams at the end of the season. Think of a moneyball, systematic, statistical knowledge of teams defensive patterns of play, and the Pats seem to have this more than others...again the Adams factor.

Lastly I put a lot of weight into the opinions of players in the game. QB's do 3 things...audible, hand off, and pass (ignoring running around for now). I can audible, and hand the ball to my RB. M. Bennett said Rogers is better this year. I can't ignore that especially given that Brady helped him to a ring.

Having said all of that, I still wouldn't complain if you put the guy first.

[Dennis.1960]

I was a Joe Kapp fan.

Cool!

'69 is the year I became aware of football and a Vikings fan (probably because I thought "The Purple People Eaters" was such a cool nickname). That SB is the first game I remember watching. Mostly I remember Joe getting the tar knocked out of him while Hank Stram spent the day laughing. Little did I know that my favorite team (Vikings '69-'83, Broncos '84+) had many more miserable SB Sunday's in store for me until we finally took down those arrogant Packers

[HUMCALC]

To me the GOAT has to do more with less. He can't have a GREAT supporting cast

[samparnell]

Cool!

'69 is the year I became aware of football and a Vikings fan (probably because I thought "The Purple People Eaters" was such a cool nickname). That SB is the first game I remember watching. Mostly I remember Joe getting the tar knocked out of him while Hank Stram spent the day laughing. Little did I know that my favorite team (Vikings '69-'83, Broncos '84+) had many more miserable SB Sunday's in store for me until we finally took down those arrogant Packers

Yeah, the Broncos didn't have any winning seasons in the Sixties. There was the one .500/7-7 season in 1962 which was the last year of Frank Tripucka to Lionel Taylor, but that was before my family moved to the Denver area in '64. Denver didn't have its first winning season until 1973 and Charley Johnson. I think that was the first year the Broncos beat the Chiefs.

So, in addition to the Broncos, I started watching an NFL team, the Minnesota Vikings who were originally supposed to be in the AFL. They were on a different TV Network than the AFL games, and there usually wasn't a scheduling conflict with the Broncos. '67 was Bud Grant's first year with the Vikings and he brought Joe Kapp with him from the CFL.

Son of a gun if the Vikes didn't go from a losing record in '67 to the Super Bowl in '69. That was back when they played outside in December and January in that stadium that had the stands the wind could blow through. When the Chiefs beat them in Super Bowl IV, I thought "Yeah, I've been seeing the Chiefs do this for years."

One wonders how many Super Bowls the AFL would have won if they had played the NFL since 1960. I imagine the "61, '62 and '65 Packers would have defeated the '61 Houston Oilers, '62 Dallas Texans (or would they?) and the '65 Buffalo Bills. But, would the '60 Eagles have defeated the '60 Houston Oilers, or would the '63 Bears have defeated the '63 San Diego Chargers, or would the '64 Cleveland Browns have defeated the '64 Buffalo Bills?

I saw the first game where an AFL team defeated an NFL team. It was an exhibition game at the old DU Hilltop Stadium (long gone) near Colorado Boulevard and the Valley Highway. The Broncos defeated the Detroit Lions. Alex Karras said he'd walk back to Detroit if they lost to the Broncos. I hope he had a nice walk. It was Floyd Little's rookie season.

[Dennis.1960]

That was back when they played outside in December and January in that stadium that had the stands the wind could blow through.

"Welcome to Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington Minnesota"...the phrase still gives me the chills. I can't count the number of times I heard a TV announcer say those words only to see a full on blizzard, mud covered field, or the ground crew rolling portable flame throwers to thaw out the frozen tundra. Great old Viking memories! Once they moved to that awful dome they lost their biggest home field advantage, the weather. Probably no coincidence they've never returned to the SB since

[samparnell]

"Welcome to Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington Minnesota"...the phrase still gives me the chills. I can't count the number of times I heard a TV announcer say those words only to see a full on blizzard, mud covered field, or the ground crew rolling portable flame throwers to thaw out the frozen tundra. Great old Viking memories! Once they moved to that awful dome they lost their biggest home field advantage, the weather. Probably no coincidence they've never returned to the SB since

I think I got frostbite just watching one of those games.

[hardwork]

Until this last SB I think you could have argued honestly against Brady being in the No. 1 spot. Now, IMO, it's his, and his alone. You can come up with all the if this, and if thats, you can think of, but they're meaningless. You can say this guy was more athletic, and this guy had a better arm, and this guy had a weaker team, but those aren't the point. Brady does the two things QBs are paid to do, lead, and win, and he has done those two things better than anyone else for 17 years. .

[broncos SB2010]

Thanks Sam...I appreciate that

As a fan I always knew Tarkenton was something special (he was my 2nd fave Viking after Alan Page), but until I compiled these stats I didn't realize just how incredible a career he had and how many records he set. I guess as the host of, "That's Incredible" Fran should have done a show about his own NFL career

I was a Joe Kapp fan.

]

My fav Viking is/was Carl Eller. I met him a couple of times a long time ago and he seemed to be a great guy giving back to the inner city kids of Minneapolis.

[Rastic]

Until this last SB I think you could have argued honestly against Brady being in the No. 1 spot. Now, IMO, it's his, and his alone. You can come up with all if this, and if thats, you can think of, but they're meaningless. You can say this guy was more athletic, and this guy had a better arm, and this guy had a weaker team, but those aren't the point. Brady does the two things QBs are paid to do, lead, and win, and he has done those two things for 17 years. .

No doubt his longevity at the position, leadership, and, issues aside, championships are both impressive and not easy to overlook. To say there is no discussion based on one game, as big as they come no doubt, but a game where it is also unarguable that the Falcons tanked, and say it ends discussion severely diminishes the body of work of so many QBs before Brady and mocks the position so many gifted athletes have played.

If one game makes or breaks it, why not talk about the '58 championship between the Colts and Giants. What about Baugh who played offense and defense and punted? He, without question, changed the QB position to what it is, making the forward pass a common play like it is today. Against Detroit in '43 he threw 4 TD passes and also had 4 INTs.

Considering how the rules have changed to favor a passing game in the mid-nighties, it's honestly hard to compare how Brady would fare a few decades ago or how Baugh, Unitas, et al, might fare today. Maybe I am wrong, but I would hazard a guess you are not that familiar with the body of work of many if not most of the QBs from earlier eras that made the position what it is today. If you were, you might not easily dismiss everybody but Brady. It's intellectually dishonest.

[broncos SB2010]

Bert Jones is another QB worth mentioning. I wouldn't put him in the GOAT category but a very under appreciated talent.

[samparnell]

Until this last SB I think you could have argued honestly against Brady being in the No. 1 spot. Now, IMO, it's his, and his alone. You can come up with all the if this, and if thats, you can think of, but they're meaningless. You can say this guy was more athletic, and this guy had a better arm, and this guy had a weaker team, but those aren't the point. Brady does the two things QBs are paid to do, lead, and win, and he has done those two things better than anyone else for 17 years. .

He has more asterisks, too.

[Dennis.1960]

]

My fav Viking is/was Carl Eller. I met him a couple of times a long time ago and he seemed to be a great guy giving back to the inner city kids of Minneapolis.

Cool. Was just looking at the '71 Vikings and Eller (DE) & Page (DT) were both pro bowl starters. Gary Larsen (DT) was competent but throw in Jim Marshall (DE) and you had a truly awesome defensive line

[TheArtofManning]

Until this last SB I think you could have argued honestly against Brady being in the No. 1 spot. Now, IMO, it's his, and his alone. You can come up with all the if this, and if thats, you can think of, but they're meaningless. You can say this guy was more athletic, and this guy had a better arm, and this guy had a weaker team, but those aren't the point. Brady does the two things QBs are paid to do, lead, and win, and he has done those two things better than anyone else for 17 years. .

You are making the argument that I referred to, and I have no rebuttal.
Would you consider though, that the best QBs of all time are (titles in parentheses): In that rough order?
Graham (7 total, 3 NFL)
Starr (5)
Brady (5)
Montana (4)
Bradshaw (4)

These QBs won more than any other. And there is no wrong answer. Maybe this list ARE the top 5 all time?

[samparnell]

No doubt his longevity at the position, leadership, and, issues aside, championships are both impressive and not easy to overlook. To say there is no discussion based on one game, as big as they come no doubt, but a game where it is also unarguable that the Falcons tanked, and say it ends discussion severely diminishes the body of work of so many QBs before Brady and mocks the position so many gifted athletes have played.

If one game makes or breaks it, why not talk about the '58 championship between the Colts and Giants. What about Baugh who played offense and defense and punted? He, without question, changed the QB position to what it is, making the forward pass a common play like it is today. Against Detroit in '43 he threw 4 TD passes and also had 4 INTs.

Considering how the rules have changed to favor a passing game in the mid-nighties, it's honestly hard to compare how Brady would fare a few decades ago or how Baugh, Unitas, et al, might fare today. Maybe I am wrong, but I would hazard a guess you are not that familiar with the body of work of many if not most of the QBs from earlier eras that made the position what it is today. If you were, you might not easily dismiss everybody but Brady. It's intellectually dishonest.

Sammy Baugh threw 6 TD passes in two games in the Forties. Since he played in a Single Wing offense, his position wasn't even called Quarterback, he was a Halfback (sometimes called Tailback, but that is a misnomer). The Single Wing wasn't the most effective passing formation and was eclipsed by the T, Split T and the Split T with motion which morphed into the Split Backs formation.

It would have been interesting if Sammy had played in the NFL in his college offense. In the 1930s, TCU coach Dutch Meyer spread the eligible receivers of the Single Wing and incorporated a short passing game that sounds a lot like Bill Walsh's WCO. When he retired in 1952, he wrote a book about it entitled Spread Formation Football. Meyer's offense was often called the Southwestern Spread. If Baugh had played in that offensive system in the NFL, his passing stats would have been greater.

In his book, My Kind of Football, NYG HOF coach Steve Owen contemplated using the Southwestern Spread as part of his offense, but was having success with his A Formation offense, so he didn't use it much. IDK if or how much the Southwestern Spread was used in the NFL before Split Back/under center formations took over and dominated for several decades. Today's spread/gun offenses look like the Southwestern Spread and play a lot like it, too. One of these days when I feel like spending c.$100 on a book, I'll obtain a copy of Spread Formation Football.