I'm not going to apologise for being right. Did you or did you not say that Thiggy would come in and be the starter? And it's "THEN STOP"...
be nice? You just called me a "fool" and "aggravating".... lol... No worries though. I'm not a crybaby. If it were up to me I'd be alright with flat out flamming people.
Yep. That's right. I've loved football since I can remember. You honestly, really believe that Tarkington belongs on the list? I don't. Staubach was a fine QB, but to say he was anything particularly special is silly, IMO. Can you tell the story of the game without them? Not without Tarkington, which is sort os my I don't object to him being in the HOF.... and as I said; Staubach, while a great leader and nice passer doesn't surpas even Montan AFAIC. I think a case can be made for Brady being better than Marino. I personally would take Marino better since I believe that all the qualities that make Brady great made Marino better, but a case could be made. People like to bring up Spygate, but never, ever underestimate the undue influence Schula had over the competition comittie
I definitley believe that a strong case can be made for both of those guys being on a top 10 QB list. You never gave your top 10. Out of curiousity let's see it. You can pick from the guys I listed or choose your own, of course.
Your kidding me right?You said I am going to keep montana on the list because he is better athlete and he has better stats than brady,I showed you thru the first 10 years as starters brady had better stats than montana.Then like you always you try to justify yourself but changing everything around.I am not going thru your 9000 posts on this subject I am going by what you quoted me personally.Thats a fact not a fairytale.I think you post so much BS on here you forget what the hell you posted in the first place.
No, when you compare QB's you must take into count the generation they played in. I've done that. I am correct in stating that Montana's stats are better than Brady's. You don't know how to copy and paste a URL. Like I'll take your opinion on anything.
It's hard to actually go in any "order of merit" but I'd go.... 1. Manning 2. Elway 3. Marino 4. Montana 5. Brady 6. The rest sort of blur for me. Lots can be said for the old school guys, but it's sort of hard to compare them. It's sort of how I feel about Jordan as compared to Kobe...What would Jordan have done in today's NBA where he wasnt' gettign the dogsnot beaten out of him by the Pistons and the Knicks most of his career, not to mention there not being hand checking.
This is what I'm talking about. You really have ALL of your top 5 guys playing from the last 30 years? You left of Unitas? Graham? Starr? Those 3 have to be in a top 5. You should take some time and look up some of the old QB's. There's not much video on Graham, but there is plenty of written word. Graham was maybe the greatest ATHLETE in the U.S. to ever play pro sports. He was probably the most dominate football player there has ever been. He was just so much better than anyone else who played. Did you know that he also won pro basketball championships?
Today's athletes are bigger, faster and stronger than athletes of the past. The game has evolved to a degree that makes the modern era less than more comprable to the old era. Most of the older era guys that you mention have really long throwing motions, and, IMO would not stand a chance against modern era athletes. About the only factor to me that is even comparable is accuracy.
Of course they are. However, when a 300lb NT lines up against a 320 Center it's the same as when 50 years ago a 220lb NT lined up against a 250lb Center. It's not that today's athlete's aren't more, well, athletic, but how do they stack up against their OWN competition? Graham totally dominated the competition more so than any other player has at ANY position in the history of the NFL.
Modern athletes have better supplements,better workout programs.not to mention better understanding of steroid use.I am 43 and have never seen starr,unitas,graham play so I cannot make a fair comparision between them and the qbs I grew up and the ones playing today.Watching old video you can see the speed,and the size of the players is not even close to the players today. Then again the game was more physical for a wide receiver as you could chuck the receiver all the way down the field until the ball was in the air making it harder to find an open receiver. I understand both arguments.
I take the QBs that have to play the game at a higher level of human performance than less every time. I just do. They have to play the game at the higher level. I don't think Otto Grahm ever had to face a guy like Deion Sanders. To me, the level of the game today simply surpasses that of the past.
Sure. All of that is valid. I just think that the comparison of old and, new pro football is a little silly. I mean, black players weren't even allowed in in signifigant numbers until the late 40s. The physicality of the passing game is different, without question....But I think that's less of a difference than most seem to.
Sure he did. The problem with your argument here though, is that Graham was a more dominating player in his era than even Sanders was in his. Another factor to consider when debating "greats" is how did they change the game? Graham changed football. Marino changed football. Unitas changed football. Brady? He hasn't changed the game of football one bit.
When your "era" is full of players that can't compete on the level of players that others competed against, I lessen my awe of thier accomplisments. Like it or not, you won't be able to tell the story of football without Brady. All 6'1 and 196 of Grahm, I simply don't think could play the position at a competetive level today. Are we talking about simply judgeing players in their era? Sure, fine, I'll grant you Grahm, Tittle, etc. I judge things in terms of the highest level and incarnation of the respective games. While I think Quarterbacks are teh most comprable position as to how they relate to today's game, I just don't think they'd last too long. BTW..How on earth did Marino change football? One of the best pure passers of all time, sure, but what fundamental changes is he credeted for implimenting?
First, Marino changed the game in many ways. The biggest was probably his way of attacking the defense and relying solely on the passing game to do it. Next, you're missing the point. If EVERYONE in the NFL was 6'1" and 195 lbs and you DOMINATE them, you're great. Are you telling me that a 125lb boxer is no good because he can't fight against a 225lb heavyweight? Come on! It was what it was back then. The men who played pro football back then were the best in the world. As they are today. This is really eye-opening to me. I just assumed that eveyrone realized that when you compare greats you need to factor in their era. Just because there were no 350lb linemen in 1930 doesn't mean that there weren't all-pro, all-world, elite lineman. A lot of people say you can't tell the story of football without Namath. Is he an all time great?
Namath is a perfect example of not being a top QB, but belonging in the HOF because you can't tell the history of the sport without mentioning him. All time great? Yes. But you don't have to be "good" to be "great" in relation to history. I wouldn't say Marino changed the game in any way. He was a great passer...Maybe the best one ever...But just because he was the best at what he did doesnot mean he changed that game. He didn't. Not even in his era. You could say Kelly and Buffalo's K Gun offense was more ground breaking than Marino. I don't know why this is so eye opening to you. I don't think guys that played against inferior athletes should gain undue credit. It's like baseball's history....Lots of the greats of the game never even faced black players. Just because you are the best cook at a crappy resturant doesn't make you a chef. I don't mean to denegrate the accomplishments of some of the all time greats. They are greats for a reason, but I simply don't feel they can be quantified agasint the athlete of today.
Brady would easily push off Staubach, Fouts, Favre, Young, Tarkenton, Elway, Unitas, Graham (only started 71 games)...Puts him with Marino and Montana. Manning will be included on the short list when he retires. Brady could be argued to go to the top of the list. As well as Manning when all is said and done. Brady...All-time regular season winning percentage is 2nd only to Graham: 110-32 (77.5%)...Graham 57-13-1...Montana 117-47. By comparison Marino was... 147-93 (61.3%) In playoffs Brady is 2nd all-time in wins... 14-4 (77.8%) with "3" Super Bowl wins to his credit...better than Montana's 16-7 (69.6%) When I consider the talent around Brady vs. Montana (Rice, Taylor, Clark, Craig) I would say Brady did it with much less talent.
If Tom Brady is the 'Greatest QB in NFL History' the rest of the Hall Of Fame QB's fart fairy dust. I can think of at least five (off the top of my head) that were better. !? WHAT WOULD BRADY'S RECORD BE WITHOUT SPYGATE ?!
What would MArino's record be without Shula getting rules changed to suit his game? Answer is; Nobody knows.
Using TEAM accomplishments (wins) will lead you down the wrong path every time when trying to determine INDIVIDUAL greatness. I could go out and pass for 500 yards, 7 TD's, 0 INT's. However, my defense could give up 50 points. Am I no longer great because I didn't get the win? BTW, Brady is 5-4 out of his last 9 playoff games. I guess he has "sucked" during the last half of his career, huh?
I disagree. Winning is part of the criteria for deciding all-time greats, particularly the QB position. QBs considered to be all-time greats have one thing in common...WINS! How many QBs with a losing record are considered all-time greats...NONE! For Marino to be considered top 10 without a Super Bowl victory and only one appearance is pretty amazing. He is the exception and not the norm. Even so, Marino is #3 on all-time regular season wins behind Favre and 1 behind Elway. I have heard old-timers say that Archie Manning was one of the greatest QBs to play the game, but he got stuck on the Saints or the "Aints" and will never be part of the discussion for all-time greats. A winning record in the playoffs is never bad. Marino was 8-10 in his career in playoffs, does that mean he "sucked" his whole career?
Check that. Shula was on the competition committee, the same thing Jeff Fisher has been for the last few years. Shula always played within the rules. Bellicheat and Brady broke the rules. there is a major difference. Shula never got fined for being on the competition committee my friend, but the Patsies sure got fined didn't they? You are comparing apples to oranges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Fisher#Competition_committee
"Old-Timers"? lol...Archie was a great QB. And he most certainly should be mentioned along side the top 20-25 greatest to have ever played the game. The only difference between him and Steve Young is that Young was lucky enough to be traded to the 49ers so he could get those "wins". Manning played for some of the worst teams in NFL history. His 35-101 record as a starting QB shouldn't diminish his greatness. Has it though? Yes. Only because a lot of people mistakenly put TEAM accomplishments squarely on all QB's shoulders. Whether it be win or lose the QB gets the blame 90% of the time. Like in my 500yard, 7 TD, 0 INT game. That would go down as a loss for the QB and his team. I disagree with your wins opinion. Ken Anderson is a top 20, maybe even a top 10 all time great and he has 10 more wins than losses. Bringing up Super Bowls as a major factor in greatness will cause someone to believe that Trent Dilfer and Doug Williams were better QB's than Dan Marino. When mediocre QB's play on great teams they win games. I think I may have posted this before, but I will again for those who may have missed it. At pro-football-reference.com they have taken the liberty to compile all records and stats from all QB's since about 1950. I would have liked them to go back further, but hey, beggars can't be choosy. Anyhow, their method factors in EVERYTHING from individual stats to career longevity to championships to wins. They do weigh more heavily the individual stats, as they should, but they do include wins and such. Also, they do take into account each QB's era. They then compare all QB's to each other and determine which QB's were similar over their entire career. For example, in Brady's 2007 year he had ONE season like the greats have had. However, in his entire career, and as of now, he compares to the following QB's: Drew Brees, Roger Staubach*, Trent Green, Kurt Warner, Randall Cunningham, Donovan McNabb, Jeff Garcia, Rich Gannon, Mark Brunell, Bert Jones Now, other than Staubach, Brees and Warner (the latter two may also make the HoF), Brady has a career similar to some pedestrian QB's with only one being a HoF'er. Game managing QB's who played on some pretty good teams. Wouldn't you agree? Now, who does Marino compare to: John Elway*, Fran Tarkenton*, Johnny Unitas*, Brett Favre, Joe Montana*, Ken Anderson, Warren Moon*, Dan Fouts*, Peyton Manning, Terry Bradshaw* Other than Ken Anderson (who, in my opinion, should be in the HoF), Marino is compared to ONLY HoF QB's. Also from this site they have a simpler method of determining who was the best. I won't go into their formula because it'd take me too long, but you can go there and read it if you like. They've labeled their method "AV" or Approximate Value. And it means exactly what it says, what is the apporximate value of this player when compared to his peers, not just his positional peers, but all players. 1 is the best. Since 1950 they have Brady ranked 100th. Now 100 is a very good number considering all the players who have played in the NFL since 1950. However, Marino is ranked 7th. P. Manning is ranked 5th. Jerry Rice is ranked 1st.
A pissed off Brady fan just posted this This dude in the Dolphins board is so ridiculously stupid that I'm a little enraged right now, so I thought I'd destroy his argument just for fun. Let's take the ten QBs he put ahead of Brady on the "all time greats" list, (sans Otto Graham, because he played in the 40's and 50's and football was simply a different sport back then) and also include Peyton Manning. Now, I'll rank this QBs by TD%+, INT%+ and QB Rating+. Theses stats measure a QBs efficiency taking into account the league average in the timespan in which they put up certain statistics. So let's say the league average in QB Rating in a given year was 80 and a certain quarterback had an 88 QBR in said year. Now, his QBR+ would be 110, because he was 10% better than the average in that season. That's how this works. I chose these stats because they provide come context and I also believe they are the best indicators of a QBs efficiency. Everyone else is free to chime in with their own research. So, without further ado, here's the rankings: Joe Montana - TD%+: 111 RANK: 7th; INT%+: 118 RANK: 1st; QBR+: 123 RANK: 2nd Johnny U. - TD%+: 105 RANK: 9th(t); INT%+: 108 RANK: 7th; QBR+: 112 RANK: 8th(t) Dan Marino - TD%+: 112 RANK: 5th(t); INT%+: 109 RANK: 6th; QBR+: 113 RANK: 7th John Elway - TD%+: 102 RANK: 11th; INT%+: 107 RANK: 8th; QBR+: 105 RANK: 11th Fran Tarkenton - TD%+: 106 RANK: 8th; INT%+: 112 RANK: 5th; QBR+: 114 RANK: 6th Steve Young - TD%+: 120 RANK: 1st; INT%+: 113 RANK: 4th; QBR+: 126 RANK: 1st Brett Favre - TD%+: 113 RANK: 4th; INT%+: 98 RANK: 11th; QBR+: 109 RANK: 10th Dan Fouts - TD%+: 105 RANK: 9th(t); INT%+: 103 RANK: 10th; QBR+: 112 RANK: 8th(t) Roger Staubach - TD%+: 112 RANK: 5th(t); INT%+: 117 RANK: 2nd; QBR+: 122 RANK: 3rd Peyton Manning - TD%+: 118 RANK: 2nd(t); INT%+: 106 RANK: 9th; QBR+: 118 RANK: 4th(t) Tom Brady - TD%+: 118 RANK: 2nd(t); INT%+: 114 RANK: 3rd; QBR+: 118 RANK: 4th(t) So, taking a simple approach and adding each players position in each ranking, we come up with: Joe Montana: 7+1+2=10 Unitas: 9+7+8=24 Dan Marino: 5+6+7=18 Elway: 11+8+11=30 Tarkenton: 8+5+6=19 Steve Young: 1+4+1=6 Brett Favre: 4+11+10=25 Dan Fouts: 9+10+8=27 Staubach: 5+2+3=10 Manning: 2+9+4=15 Brady:2+3+4=9 It's a pretty simple formula in which whoever has the smaller sum at the end is the QB who fared the best in these categories. As we can see, Brady is number two on that list, which proves that he can hang with hall of famers in the statistical department any day of the week. This comparison doesn't even take into consideration wins and playoff success. In pure numbers he is better than every single QB this guy listed, except for Steve Young (who, surprisingly to me, was simply a stat JUGGERNAUT). You can do further research and come up with different results, but I dare ANYONE on planet earth to compile some sort of evidence that puts Brady behind all those guys, aside from a simple matter of (stupidly misguided) opinion.
Does this mean I'm famous now? lol Anyhow, he cherry picked stats. To further prove his absurdity he has Unitas ranked as 7th on his top 11 list and Staubach ranked 3rd. His "research" is nothing more than cherry picking certain stats in order to come up with his preconceived notion that Brady is an all time great. You can tell it's crap just by pointing out the place of those two QB's. There, I win. Took me all of 5 minutes to out think him. I hope he reads this too.
Those are efficiency stats. Bulk numbers can be misleading. Ranking them QBs in that order as all time greats isn't shocking. Now saying Brady doesn't belong with them on the other hand is.
Again, cherry picking. When you fail to include things in a comparison that comparison becomes muddled. If I have a $5 and a $20 in my wallet I don't say I have $20 total dollars in my wallet just because the $5 is worth less. I add it ALL together and get $25. That's a 25% increase. When you leave out stats or numbers the same thing happens. Besides, a Ford Escort is "efficient"....A 'Vette on the other hand is the better car.
A QBs job is sore touchdowns and not turn the ball over. To be efficient... Can you name any other meaningful statistics?
A QB's main job is to throw the ball and hand off the ball. Of course he has other duties, but to include "score TD's" as one of them, well, that's the ENTIRE offense's job. Yes, ALL of them.
lol...Nice try. I never said he doesn't "compare". An Escort has 4 wheels just like the 'Vette. So, they compare in that way. I've stated many times that Brady is a HoF'er. However, when you look at ALL of the stats he just doesn't make that top 10-20 All Time great QB's.
looks about right to me by any standard: Joe Montana: 7+1+2=10 Unitas: 9+7+8=24 Dan Marino: 5+6+7=18 Elway: 11+8+11=30 Tarkenton: 8+5+6=19 Steve Young: 1+4+1=6 Brett Favre: 4+11+10=25 Dan Fouts: 9+10+8=27 Staubach: 5+2+3=10 Manning: 2+9+4=15 Brady:2+3+4=9
Also, I was checking some of this guys "research". How is it that Manning has more attempts and completions with fewer INT's than Brady yet ranks below him in INT%?
