Fadingpain Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 You would think this concept would be easier to understand than it has been on this thread. But yes Greggy T or whoever has in essence rewarded Montana for losing in the 1990 NFC Championship game. To him that is a greater accomplishment than had he won that game and then lost to the Bills the following week. It is such an easy concept to poke holes in. He is basically saying that going to a Super Bowl is NOT an accomplishment. If you go and win, then yes that is an accomplishment; but if you go and lose, that is a blemish on your record and you are better off having not gone at all. Defining QB greatness by team wins and losses in Superbowls is idiotic. Dan Marino is as good as any QB that has ever played in this league for pure gun slinging. He went to a single SB and didn't win it. So what; has nothing to do with his individual QB talent. Montana. Period. If you saw him play you know why. Clutch without fail, mobile, accurate beyond belief and did all of his work in an era when passing was a lot harder territory than it is today. Brady is an all time great, but he's proven mortal plenty of times while Montana's Super Bowl success was insane. BTW, much as I love Jim Kelly there is no way he should be in this poll above Marino. Joe Montana's clutch factor and ability to remain calm yet play at his highest level when it mattered most is what defines him in my mind. But it's not related to his outstanding team (loaded with talent all over the place) winning the Superbowl 4 times. He could have lost all four games by a few points...wouldn't have impacted who he was as an individual.
Adam Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 You would think this concept would be easier to understand than it has been on this thread. But yes Greggy T or whoever has in essence rewarded Montana for losing in the 1990 NFC Championship game. To him that is a greater accomplishment than had he won that game and then lost to the Bills the following week. This is a concept I would've fully understood in 3rd grade. He is basically saying that going to a Super Bowl is NOT an accomplishment. If you go and win, then yes that is an accomplishment; but if you go and lose, that is a blemish on your record and you are better off having not gone at all. It's a good thing Brady lost that AFC Championship game last year because the Pats were not beating that Seahawks team and in that case, he'd be 4-3 in Super Bowls and his legacy would really be tarnished for good. Didn't Montana get knocked out of that game? And if you're judging QB's on stats and wins/losses, you're factoring in what other players do, more than what the QB does
Dibs Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 The contemporary candidates in any pole will typically be viewed as better. It is difficult for people who have never really seen Montana to be able to compare him to Brady......just as it would be difficult for those who have never seen Otto Graham to compare him to Montana(or Brady). In regards to Brady, though I believe he fully deserves to be in the conversation, his on field demeanor of whinging/poor loser, combined with the cheating issues very much detracts from him being the "greatest". One can bandy factors such as coaching, team strength, SB records, playoff records etc as much as they like......but to me, somebody who acts like a spoiled brat on the field can never be considered the greatest of all time.
Fadingpain Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 The contemporary candidates in any pole will typically be viewed as better. It is difficult for people who have never really seen Montana to be able to compare him to Brady......just as it would be difficult for those who have never seen Otto Graham to compare him to Montana(or Brady). In regards to Brady, though I believe he fully deserves to be in the conversation, his on field demeanor of whinging/poor loser, combined with the cheating issues very much detracts from him being the "greatest". One can bandy factors such as coaching, team strength, SB records, playoff records etc as much as they like......but to me, somebody who acts like a spoiled brat on the field can never be considered the greatest of all time. This is very true. By the same token, most people tend to rate those they are most familiar (or those they are only familiar with) rather than objectively analyze an entire pool of talent, including those that played a sport 100 years ago. It is easy to suggest Babe Ruth would suck in today's game and that he was just a fat slow man from an era when general overall athleticism was nothing like what it is today. But then you look at the guy's stats and see what he did and it's kind of astonishing.
K-9 Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 The contemporary candidates in any pole will typically be viewed as better. It is difficult for people who have never really seen Montana to be able to compare him to Brady......just as it would be difficult for those who have never seen Otto Graham to compare him to Montana(or Brady). In regards to Brady, though I believe he fully deserves to be in the conversation, his on field demeanor of whinging/poor loser, combined with the cheating issues very much detracts from him being the "greatest". One can bandy factors such as coaching, team strength, SB records, playoff records etc as much as they like......but to me, somebody who acts like a spoiled brat on the field can never be considered the greatest of all time. This is why you can't measure the "greatest QB of all time." It is simply not quantifiable. I've seen so many different measuring sticks to support various arguments, but if titles is the be all end all, then it's Otto Graham, hands down. It is folly to compare players across eras. Like I said, all the greats belong in the discussion and have a seat at the table. Anything beyond that is simply picking nits. GO BILLS!!!
Fadingpain Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 This is why you can't measure the "greatest QB of all time." It is simply not quantifiable. I've seen so many different measuring sticks to support various arguments, but if titles is the be all end all, then it's Otto Graham, hands down. It is folly to compare players across eras. Like I said, all the greats belong in the discussion and have a seat at the table. Anything beyond that is simply picking nits. GO BILLS!!! I agree that the best you can do is try to figure out who is the best within a given era. The game has changed a lot even since the days of Marino, Elway, Montana, and Kelly. Let alone Unitas! I think you might be able to break it down by decade and then pick the top 3 or so that any team in the league would love to have on their team. Add up that batch of 3 from each decade. There's your greatest QBs of all time....narrowing it down further is hard if not impossible.
Momentoftrth Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 This wont be a popular opinion around these parts, but many people (myself included) think that his most recent championship pushed Brady out of his longstanding tie with Montana, and into sole ownership of the G.O.A.T. throne. Brady’s career in a nutshell: 13 eligible seasons, 9 AFC Championship appearances, 6 Super Bowl appearances, 4 Titles. (Cue asterisk/cheatriot/gate replies.) In that time, Brady has set numerous records (especially those measuring postseason success) with rosters that have varied enormously and included only a handful of other elite players. Scariest of all, especially as a Bills fan, is that it looks like he’s not even close to done yet. I wanted to create a poll assessing TBD’s opinion on the greatest-of-all-time debate because I was curious about Buffalo’s (perhaps biased) thoughts on Brady’s (still unfinished) legacy, and how he stacks up against legends like Montana. Next up to throw their hats in the ring: Rodgers and Luck. I voted for Kelly. It's all part of my effort to blend here behind enemy lines.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I think Peyton is the greatest mind at QB, but overall Elway is the total package.
Pneumonic Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I started watching in the late 70's so can't comment on the older QB's but, from this point on, it's Brady followed by Montana. Brady gets the nod for the following 2 reasons: Montana played with 12 offensive pro bowlers (including the GOAT WR) in his 4 SB wins; Brady played with just 2. Brady's 4 SB wins, 2 SB losses, 2 one and dones in the playoffs is superior to Montana's 4 SB wins, 3 one and dones in the playoffs. Unless you believe that getting eliminated in the 1st round of the playoffs is somehow better than winning your way to the SB, then penalizing Brady for getting to the finish line more times than Montana is ludicrous ..... especially when the reason Montana didn't get to the finish line more often is because of his poor play in those playoff games ..... check out the 1 and done seasons between 85-87 when Montana did his best Peyton Manning imitation and stunk up the joint.
Adam Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Warren Moon should at least be in the discussion
Rocky Landing Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I had to abstain from this poll. No one on this list could stay out until 3am, partying and getting laid, and then show up for an early Sunday game and shred an opponent like Broadway Joe Namath. He gets my vote.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I voted nobody. There can be no greatest. Greatest QBs can only be put in the conversation; to have a seat at the table. And it's a round table. GO BILLS!!! That's a fair argument. So many team elements to the sport. And no one qb is great at every aspect.
Rico Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I'm still taking Joe, but Brady was just spectacular in Sunday's comeback, he shot right back up to #2 on my list. If you put Manning on the Patriots, and Brady in Indianapolis, Manning would have 8-10 rings, and Brady wouldn't have made the Colts roster his rookie year. It's not that Brady is a "system" QB, or anything else. It's just serendipity--that's why sports are so awesome. The conflux of scenarios that had to happen for Brady to be the GOAT happened... and now we have to live with the results: he's the GOAT. You have to judge athletes based on results, not hypotheticals. If you want to talk about who you feel could be the best if everything else was created equal... might as well throw Jeff George and Ryan Leaf up there. If Norwood's kick is 3 feet to the left, does Kelly win 5?
Baba Booey Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 John Elway hands down. Took three teams to Super Bowls when they had no reason being there. I know he lost all three but did finally win two when surrounded by talent. Was ahead of his time for athleticism at that position.
Dragonborn10 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 So for the people that picked Kelly how do you pick him over Brady Montana Aikman or even Bradshaw? He is the Bills greatest but he is not even top 15. No Marino, Young, Aikman, or Manning???
Dibs Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 John Elway hands down. Took three teams to Super Bowls when they had no reason being there. I know he lost all three but did finally win two when surrounded by talent. Was ahead of his time for athleticism at that position. It seems that nowadays Elway is greatly underrated. Unquestionably he should be top 10......and I think legitimate consideration for best ever. So for the people that picked Kelly how do you pick him over Brady Montana Aikman or even Bradshaw? He is the Bills greatest but he is not even top 15. No Marino, Young, Aikman, or Manning??? Which Manning? Eli is only 3rd best in his imediate family. Aikman? Who apart from maybe Cowboys fans would consider him best of all time? Probably wasn't even top 5 in his own era.
hondo in seattle Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Warren Moon should at least be in the discussion I agree and, thanks to you, he is now.
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Tom Brady should NEVER be considered the greatest of all time, for one play: The "greatest of all time" doesn't do that.
EC-Bills Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 The most shocking thing about the responses so far are the 5 votes for Manning. Guy can't win when it counts, he shouldn't even be in consideration. This.
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Steve Young should be on the list. Yep
Recommended Posts