The G.O.A.T.

[The Gipper]

Brady's Ball Sack said:

I can tell that you are either young, or haven't seem some of these players.

I venture that I am probably older than you.

Joe Namath was probably the best of them all, but suffered from injury at a time where there just wasn't the medical technology of today.

Joe Namath was outstanding.....for a very short while....but when we are assessing the GOAT....Joe's short run doesn't cut the mustard.

Nobody had that kind of arm strength in his day.

Bradshaw was pretty close.

Dan Fouts was a monster QB without a D, same for Marino.

But winning still has to count. Neither of them did that. And Marino is being passed in the stats race.

Staback was always clutch.

Probably has as good or better argument than anyone you mention. Started 4 Super Bowls, won 2....in a career that got started late due to military committment.

Lost 2 4 pt. games to Steelers in SBs. Had he won them.....HE would have been the standard that Joe Montana would have had to live up to.

It's hard to rate the best because their legacy is tied to a team sport.

Everybody has said that.

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

In that scenario, neither wins rings. Phipps woulda sucked wherever and Bradshaw would have been Dan Pastorini without Swann, Stallworth, Harris, Kolb, webster and the Steel Curtain D.

Maybe. It is sometimes a case of right place right time (or wrong place right time)

Not so fast, my friend, let me visit that.

I did that for you above. Peyton will probably have a bit more ...but not by much...in terms of "volume" stats. Total yds/comps/atts/TDs etc. But he does have 2 years on Brady.....3 if you consider that Brady did not play much his rookie year, where Peyton was a full time starter.

[Zombo]

Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:

Yards #5 Manning #2

Completions #5 Manning #2

Attempts #6 Manning #2

TDs #5 Manning #1

Rating #5 Manning #3

Yards per game #8 Manning #3

Completion % #12 Manning #4

Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18

TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14

[The Gipper]

Brady's Ball Sack said:

Modern stats?

I don't think the modern QB, protected in the bubble and comfort of todays league rules can be compared fairly.

When comparing the HITS that Montana, Aikman, and Elway et.al had endure, half of these guys playing today would have been out of the league years ago.

Yes....and even those guys were protected compared to the likes of the 70s/60s/50s etc. QBs.

That is why I said to look at dominance within an era, not cross era.

[Zombo]

Zombo said:

Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:

Yards #5 Manning #2

Completions #5 Manning #2

Attempts #6 Manning #2

TDs #5 Manning #1

Rating #5 Manning #3

Yards per game #8 Manning #3

Completion % #12 Manning #4

Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18

TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14

Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:

Yards #5 Manning #2

Completions #5 Manning #2

Attempts #6 Manning #2

TDs #5 Manning #1

Rating #5 Manning #3

Yards per game #8 Manning #3

Completion % #12 Manning #4

Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18

TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14

If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more.

Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year)

Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter)

Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69

Brady's: 4117.53

Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56

Brady's: 551.36

Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7

Brady's is 7.4

Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8

Brady's is 11.7

So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games.

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"

But they are still like both top 5 all time in those. (and I think ypg is a volume stat)

Championships and championship game appearance may be however.

[Zombo]

@the-gipper said:

If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more.

Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year)

Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter)

Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69

Brady's: 4117.53

Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56

Brady's: 551.36

Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7

Brady's is 7.4

Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8

Brady's is 11.7

So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games.

You can just use per/game stats.

Here's a couple more "volume" stats though

Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45

Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34

and one more key "prorated" stat:

Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"

Also....if we look at just those particular stats.....Aaron Rodgers leads both Manning and Brady in every single category.

So look out there.

Rating: Rodgers, Romo, Brees each ahead of both

YPG: Stafford and Brees ahead of both

Completion %: Brees, Rodgers, Warner, Pennington ahead of both

TD%: Luckman, Graham, Baugh, Rodgers ahead of both.

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

You can just use per/game stats.

Here's a couple more "volume" stats though

Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45

Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34

With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13)

and one more key "prorated" stat:

Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83

I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne.

Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss.

And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years.

[Mudfly]

Too many stats and ways to slice it.....how about using Approximate Value(AV) Ratings....they weigh EVERYTHING into account and give a total value score for the players entire career....stats...wins....years played....etc etc....and based upon AV rating....

Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are tied as the 2 most valuable players to EVER play(not just qbs)....after them, the next 8 are...

3) Fran Tarkenton

4) Dan Marino

5) John Elway

6) Tom Brady

7) Drew Brees

Steve Young

9) Warren Moon

10) Joe Montana

[Zombo]

@the-gipper said:

Zombo said:

You can just use per/game stats.

Here's a couple more "volume" stats though

Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45

Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34

With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13)

and one more key "prorated" stat:

Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83

I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne.

Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss.

And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years.

I propound that you want to give Brady credit for seasons he hasn't played yet, could get his arm ripped off in the Super Bowl.

I also propound that it is not Manning's fault that Brady didn't start as a rookie.

Manning started and got beat up, his worst statistical year by far ... but he still wins almost every per/game and per/start stat.

Using your Phipps/Bradshaw thing ... what if Manning played his entire career with Belichick ... I think he'd have at least three rings ... but we'll never know.

Zombo

[The Gipper]

@mudfly said:

Too many stats and ways to slice it.....how about using Approximate Value(AV) Ratings....they weigh EVERYTHING into account and give a total value score for the players entire career....stats...wins....years played....etc etc....and based upon AV rating....

Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are tied as the 2 most valuable players to EVER play(not just qbs)....after them, the next 8 are...

3) Fran Tarkenton

4) Dan Marino

5) John Elway

6) Tom Brady

7) Drew Brees

Steve Young

9) Warren Moon

10) Joe Montana

But the AV stat is also a volume stat. Believe me, I have used it enough times to know that. The longer and more productive a career is the higher that stat will go.

[The Gipper]

Zombo said:

I propound that you want to give Brady credit for seasons he hasn't played yet, could get his arm ripped off in the Super Bowl.

I am saying that if they play the same number of seasons...their stats/production would end up being close to the same. (I also "warned" that Rodgers could surpass them both). Yes, it is a projection.

I also propound that it is not Manning's fault that Brady didn't start as a rookie.

Who is assigning fault? Peyton was the #1 overall pick in the draft and was handed the keys to the mint. Brady was #199 overall and had to wrest the starting position away from another #1 overall pick (Bledsoe).

Manning started and got beat up, his worst statistical year by far ... but he still wins almost every per/game and per/start stat.

He doesn't win the winning pct. stat.

Using your Phipps/Bradshaw thing ... what if Manning played his entire career with Belichick ... I think he'd have at least three rings ... but we'll never know.

No, but you know my view......BBs winning is a factor of having Brady, not vise versa.

Zombo

[larryfine]

@the-gipper said:

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.

Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!

[The Cysko Kid]

Brady's Ball Sack said:

Modern stats?

I don't think the modern QB, protected in the bubble and comfort of todays league rules can be compared fairly.

When comparing the HITS that Montana, Aikman, and Elway et.al had endure, half of these guys playing today would have been out of the league years ago.

Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Rodgers, Rivers never dealt with the constant and legal hits after the ball was thrown. Manning would have been in a wheel chair..

Its impossible to say that these guys couldn't take the same hits. I venture that they could just like physically ungifted Bernie kosar did

[The Cysko Kid]

@larryfine said:

Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!

in the 70s 1/8th of the current league didn't exist. The 70s have the same significance as the 60's 50's 40's and before

[Browns149]

@the-cysko-kid said:

in the 70s 1/8th of the current league didn't exist. The 70s have the same significance as the 60's 50's 40's and before

unless you are a stoolers fan, and then it's when the NFL started

[The Gipper]

@larryfine said:

Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!

Well, you are wrong. You apparently were not alive when all that went down.

As I said, players in the 70s were much, much closer to the size, strength speed of the players in the 50s than they are to today's players. That is an uncontroverted fact. Players, especially linemen did not to get like 300 pounds until the mid 80s.

Also, the nature of the game changed far far in favor of the offense. There was no 5 yard rule, no can't hit the QB rule etc. etc.

Otto Graham and Joe Montana were about the same height/weight.

The Browns last champion qb, Frank Ryan was 6'3". Pretty average for today's QBs.

[The Gipper]

Brady's Ball Sack said:

The physically ungifted Kosar couldn't take the hits either. He fell of the face of the earth faster than any QB I can remember, it just looked worse on him. His arm lost whatever strength it had to begin with, and his mobility became even more of a joke. That kid got belted around something fierce, and if he were playing under today's rules, his career would have been extended.

If we were playing under old rules, the neck fused Manning wouldn't be playing the last two years.

Possibly true about Manning. Kosar got hammered after the Browns OL fell apart, first with the retirement of Cody Risien and then other OL losses. The Browns did nothing much really to get quality OL to replace the lost ones....and BK suffered for it.