The G.O.A.T.
-
My all time favorite QB would be Joe Montana. He was probably the most clutch quarterback I ever saw. Cool under pressure. I read when he drove the 49ers to to the winning score in the Super Bowl against the Bengals he spotted John Candy in the crowd and mentioned it to the players in the huddle. I don't think most quarterbacks would be in that frame of mind.
As for the best quarterback ever I don't think you can single one out. You could make a good case for a number of them.
-
Baby crying:
-
Stupid steelers, cheating patriots....
Blount plays the fool, then arranges? his chance
to get the hell out of three rivers scumland...
and goes right back to the patriots, one day after
Ridley gets hurt....
As the NFL World Turns....
-
Interesting that Unitas is given credit for 3 titles, but it was Earl Morrall who brought them back for the win in the 1971 Superbowl win over the Cowboys.
-
Unfortunatly, Otto is 3-4 eras ago. An era to me is about 20 years. (40'S and 50's), (60's and 70's), (80's and 90's). (2000 to present)
Lot's of changes in those 20 yearspreads. Look at the rules, let alone the number of teams and the condition of players.
It's why you can't compare....too much has changed.
That is what made baseball pretty cool up until they started looking away at the meathead steroid players. Not much in the rules has changed over the last 100 years and most of the measurables in the players was similar.....meaning as an example that Walter Johnson threw it as hard and Bob Feller, who threw it as had as Sandy Kofax, who threw it as hard as Randy Johnson, who threw it as hard as whoever you want to inset out of todays crop.
Football seems to have 4-5 rules changes per year. Baseball lowered the mound in 69, added a DH in one league in whatever, and now has some limited instant replay. Oh....they outlawed the spitball in maybe the 40's.
The point is it is impossible to compare football players as easily as you can compare baseball players, but since the comparison game between fans originated with baseball, it is what it is.
Unfortunatly, Otto is 3-4 eras ago. An era to me is about 20 years. (40'S and 50's), (60's and 70's), (80's and 90's). (2000 to present)
Lot's of changes in those 20 yearspreads. Look at the rules, let alone the number of teams and the condition of players.
It's why you can't compare....too much has changed.
All the above being true, I think that the offense that OG ran was really pretty much the same as the WCO that the 9ers and Joe Montana ran. Walsh simply adapted his boss's (PB ) offense to that time. Move OG up into the 80s and I think he and Joe are very similar in style and capability. Just a projection on my part.
That is what made baseball pretty cool up until they started looking away at the meathead steroid players. Not much in the rules has changed over the last 100 years and most of the measurables in the players was similar.....meaning as an example that Walter Johnson threw it as hard and Bob Feller, who threw it as had as Sandy Kofax, who threw it as hard as Randy Johnson, who threw it as hard as whoever you want to inset out of todays crop.
Football seems to have 4-5 rules changes per year. Baseball lowered the mound in 69, added a DH in one league in whatever, and now has some limited instant replay. Oh....they outlawed the spitball in maybe the 40's.
The point is it is impossible to compare football players as easily as you can compare baseball players, but since the comparison game between fans originated with baseball, it is what it is.
-
Interesting that Unitas is given credit for 3 titles, but it was Earl Morrall who brought them back for the win in the 1971 Superbowl win over the Cowboys.
Interesting that Unitas is given credit for 3 titles, but it was Earl Morrall who brought them back for the win in the 1971 Superbowl win over the Cowboys.
Fair point.....as a general rule, the QB that starts a game get "credit" for the win....even if another QB comes in later.
Like last year.....Brian Hoyer gets credit for that win against Buffalo.....a game in which he was hurt in the first quarter and where Brandon Weeden actually is the one whose performance led to the win..
-
Unfortunatly, Otto is 3-4 eras ago. An era to me is about 20 years. (40'S and 50's), (60's and 70's), (80's and 90's). (2000 to present)
Lot's of changes in those 20 yearspreads. Look at the rules, let alone the number of teams and the condition of players.
It's why you can't compare....too much has changed.
That is what made baseball pretty cool up until they started looking away at the meathead steroid players. Not much in the rules has changed over the last 100 years and most of the measurables in the players was similar.....meaning as an example that Walter Johnson threw it as hard and Bob Feller, who threw it as had as Sandy Kofax, who threw it as hard as Randy Johnson, who threw it as hard as whoever you want to inset out of todays crop.
Football seems to have 4-5 rules changes per year. Baseball lowered the mound in 69, added a DH in one league in whatever, and now has some limited instant replay. Oh....they outlawed the spitball in maybe the 40's.
The point is it is impossible to compare football players as easily as you can compare baseball players, but since the comparison game between fans originated with baseball, it is what it is.
Unfortunatly, Otto is 3-4 eras ago. An era to me is about 20 years. (40'S and 50's), (60's and 70's), (80's and 90's). (2000 to present)
Lot's of changes in those 20 yearspreads. Look at the rules, let alone the number of teams and the condition of players.
It's why you can't compare....too much has changed.
That is what made baseball pretty cool up until they started looking away at the meathead steroid players. Not much in the rules has changed over the last 100 years and most of the measurables in the players was similar.....meaning as an example that Walter Johnson threw it as hard and Bob Feller, who threw it as had as Sandy Kofax, who threw it as hard as Randy Johnson, who threw it as hard as whoever you want to inset out of todays crop.
Football seems to have 4-5 rules changes per year. Baseball lowered the mound in 69, added a DH in one league in whatever, and now has some limited instant replay. Oh....they outlawed the spitball in maybe the 40's.
The point is it is impossible to compare football players as easily as you can compare baseball players, but since the comparison game between fans originated with baseball, it is what it is.
You're out of your mind. An era is defined by some major change in rules or something that would make comparisons before and after more challenging.
-
Brady/Montana.....everyone else
-
There is no way to really rate it. It depends on who you are, where you live and probably the time of day factors in to the mix.
As an example, I can assure you that not many people outside of Cleveland fans, or serious historians of the game are going to have Otto on the list.
It's simply subjective. In my case, I would rate Manning better than Brady, but Brady has more rings. Going back to the near past, I'd rate Marino right up there, but he doesn't have any.
Shrug
There is no way to really rate it. It depends on who you are, where you live and probably the time of day factors in to the mix.
As an example, I can assure you that not many people outside of Cleveland fans, or serious historians of the game are going to have Otto on the list.
It's simply subjective. In my case, I would rate Manning better than Brady, but Brady has more rings. Going back to the near past, I'd rate Marino right up there, but he doesn't have any.
Shrug
Your right. No one would have otto on that list. Four of his "championships" was in the AAFC, that had eight teams two of which were called the Yankees and the Dodgers! LOL. As far as I'm concerned the Super bowl era is where the Championships should be considered worthwhile, not that ancient history bullshit where lineman weighed 220 lbs. Of course if your a "Homer" those "championships" 70 years ago make you pround, go for it!
-
Brady is the GOAT.. no questions asked..
You need the stats.. AND the rings..
and he has both.
Its really between him and Peyton.. they both put up over 50 TDs in a season, but Brady has the rings
-
Last year, this very week, the talk was that if Manning won he would be cemented as the Greatest of All Time.
Seattle crushed him.
So let's play the game first. If the Patriots win because of Brady and he is MVP then I revisit this.
Peyton Manning is the greatest QB I have ever watched. I never watched Otto Graham. I rate Montana over Brady.
Let's see what happens Sunday. For you ring counters, Wilson moves alongside Eli, Ben, Griese, Plunkett, Staubach, Elway and Starr with a win ... and one behind Brady.
He's 26 and plays with the best defense in the league.
Zombo
-
There is no way to really rate it. It depends on who you are, where you live and probably the time of day factors in to the mix.
As an example, I can assure you that not many people outside of Cleveland fans, or serious historians of the game are going to have Otto on the list.
It's simply subjective. In my case, I would rate Manning better than Brady, but Brady has more rings. Going back to the near past, I'd rate Marino right up there, but he doesn't have any.
Shrug
Your right. No one would have otto on that list. Four of his "championships" was in the AAFC, that had eight teams two of which were called the Yankees and the Dodgers! LOL. As far as I'm concerned the Super bowl era is where the Championships should be considered worthwhile, not that ancient history bullshit where lineman weighed 220 lbs. Of course if your a "Homer" those "championships" 70 years ago make you pround, go for it!
Your right. No one would have otto on that list. Four of his "championships" was in the AAFC, that had eight teams two of which were called the Yankees and the Dodgers! LOL. As far as I'm concerned the Super bowl era is where the Championships should be considered worthwhile, not that ancient history bullshit where lineman weighed 220 lbs. Of course if your a "Homer" those "championships" 70 years ago make you pround, go for it!
You are an idiot.
The game say, in the 70s was a lot more like the game played in the 40s/50s than it is to today's game. Ergo, since the game was so different....we MUST discount any titles won in the 70s....per your theory.
-
Brady is the GOAT.. no questions asked..
You need the stats.. AND the rings..
and he has both.
Its really between him and Peyton.. they both put up over 50 TDs in a season, but Brady has the rings
Brady is the GOAT.. no questions asked..
You need the stats.. AND the rings..
and he has both.
Its really between him and Peyton.. they both put up over 50 TDs in a season, but Brady has the rings
Their stats are enhanced by the current rules of the game. You can't breathe on a receiver hardly, and you can't breathe on a QB.
Their stats would certainly NOT be the same as they are today if they had to play by the rules in place in the 60s/70s. I don't know about the titles....it may have been more difficult, who knows.
That is why those who say you can hardly compare eras are perfectly correct.
The one thing you can look at is "how dominant was that person during his own particular era".
A lot of things are different between eras....
You have to look at each era so, here are the "dominant QBs" in each era in terms of getting their teams to championship games and playoff games. For prior to the mid-60s you had just the NFL title game and AAFC/AFL title game. Since them I am looking at AFC/NFC title games and Super Bowls:
Who dominated the 1930s? Arnie Herber and Ed Danowski
Who dominated the 1940s? Sid Luckman, Sammy Baugh, Bob Waterfield and Otto Graham later
Who dominated the 1950s? Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas, Bobby Layne, YA Tittle
Who dominated the 1960s? Bart Starr, Unitas, Len Dawson (AFL guys like Blanda, Kemp, Namath)
Who dominated the 1970s? Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Bob Griese, Ken Stabler, Fran Tarkenton
Who dominated the 1980? Joe Montana, John Elway, Bernie Kosar, Dan Marino
Who dominated the 1990s? Troy Aikman, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, John Elway, Brett Favre
Who dominated the 2000s? Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Ben Roethlisberger, Kurt Warner
2010s so far? Brady, Joe Flacco, Russel Wilson, Aaron Rodgers
So what you may do is take each era and pick the one guy from there that was the cream of the crop....and try to narrow it down from there. I have done that with my highlighted picks. One problem here is that some guys cross "eras" in terms of decades. Graham, Unitas, Elway...now maybe Brady had careers that spanned two decades. Sometimes a "decade" goes from a middle to a middle decade.
So, to me, it gets boiled down to like these guys:
Luckman
Graham
Unitas
Starr
Bradshaw
Montana
Elway
Brady
(Sorry Peyton/Favre lovers....if they can't dominate their decades then they can't be the GOAT)
-
Last year, this very week, the talk was that if Manning won he would be cemented as the Greatest of All Time.
Seattle crushed him.
So let's play the game first. If the Patriots win because of Brady and he is MVP then I revisit this.
Peyton Manning is the greatest QB I have ever watched. I never watched Otto Graham. I rate Montana over Brady.
Let's see what happens Sunday. For you ring counters, Wilson moves alongside Eli, Ben, Griese, Plunkett, Staubach, Elway and Starr with a win ... and one behind Brady.
He's 26 and plays with the best defense in the league.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Last year, this very week, the talk was that if Manning won he would be cemented as the Greatest of All Time.
Seattle crushed him.
So let's play the game first. If the Patriots win because of Brady and he is MVP then I revisit this.
Peyton Manning is the greatest QB I have ever watched. I never watched Otto Graham. I rate Montana over Brady.
Let's see what happens Sunday. For you ring counters, Wilson moves alongside Eli, Ben, Griese, Plunkett, Staubach, Elway and Starr with a win ... and one behind Brady.
He's 26 and plays with the best defense in the league.
Zombo
Can't count? Starr has 5 rings. Or don't you count those before the Super Bowl. What are you? A Steeler fan?
-
McNabb, Flacco, Wilson???.....but no Drew Brees?
Curious, what is the criteria for "dominant"....team victories or QB stats?
-
Zombo said:
Last year, this very week, the talk was that if Manning won he would be cemented as the Greatest of All Time.
Seattle crushed him.
So let's play the game first. If the Patriots win because of Brady and he is MVP then I revisit this.
Peyton Manning is the greatest QB I have ever watched. I never watched Otto Graham. I rate Montana over Brady.
Let's see what happens Sunday. For you ring counters, Wilson moves alongside Eli, Ben, Griese, Plunkett, Staubach, Elway and Starr with a win ... and one behind Brady.
He's 26 and plays with the best defense in the league.
Zombo
Can't count? Starr has 5 rings. Or don't you count those before the Super Bowl. What are you? A Steeler fan?
Can't count? Starr has 5 rings. Or don't you count those before the Super Bowl. What are you? A Steeler fan?
I meant super bowl ring counters, of which I don't prescribe to. It weighs into things, but it is a team game. If your running back fumbles or your safety falls down in coverage you are not automatically a worse QB than the other guy. I take everything into perspective, regular and post season.
Zombo
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login