Poll: Who is the Greatest (QB) of all Time?

[Adam]

And this uniquely qualifies you to render authoritative opinions on whether or not quarterbacks should, or should not, be credited with win/loss records how, exactly?

I pretty much keep up on the rules. It's my job to know them. Win/loss record is not a player stat, nor should it be

Greatest coach-QB combo? I'm ready to concede that to Belichick - Brady, although Paul Brown - Otto Graham, Vince Lombardi - Bart Starr and Bill Walsh - Joe Montana have to come into the conversation, especially Brown and Graham. Greatest coach? Again, moral shortgivings aside, I'm ready to give that to Belichick over Brown, Lombardi, Shula, et al. What he has done as DC for the Giants, DC for the Jets and HC for the Patriots is really remarkable. One guy who doesn't get enough credit is Joe Gibbs. Winning three Super Bowls with three different (mostly pedestrian) QB's is an incredible feat.

 

Brady as GOAT? I'm not convinced. He's at the table for sure. Great decision maker, very accurate, very clutch, great pocket presence - but, every time he is pressured like every other single QB in the league is presssured, he doesn't look all that special. You can talk about lack of HOF skill players during his career but the one thing he has had during his entire career is phenominal OL play. He is never, ever hit. Sometimes it seems like he has literally all day to make a throw. I think that there are QB's who could have duplicated what he has done at NE. Peyton Manning for sure wins same number of rings or more if he started with Belichick in 2000. I don't know if Brady wins the SB if he is on the GB team that Rogers won a SB with a few years back. That team had a lousy OL and Rogers still won a SB with it.

 

Bottom line I think it's silly to just look at SB wins and say someone is GOAT. My test is flip QB's and ask yourself if outcome would have been different. Look at the Bills' four Super Bowls. If NFC teams had Kelly and we had Hoestedler, Rypien and AIkman would outcome have been any different? Nope, we would have been hammered four times in a row, probably by even bigger margins.

It is silly to look at Superbowl wins, agreed. I think the eye test is more accurate in this regard. However, I believe we win at least two with Aikman- he excelled at reading defenses, which was Kelly's flaw

[TakeYouToTasker]

I pretty much keep up on the rules. It's my job to know them. Win/loss record is not a player stat, nor should it be

I didn't ask you if you knew what the "rules" were, and even if I had, it absolutely is a player stat, even if it's not an official stat.

 

Your argument is nothing more than an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Neither sacks, nor tackles were tracked as official stats for most of the history of the game; and as such, individuals within your profession, who knew "the rules", didn't track them. Is your argument now that those numbers are not important?

 

What I asked you was how your profession uniquely qualifies you to offer an authoritative opinion on whether or not quarterbacks should be credited with win/loss records when evaluating their impact on the game.

 

Your profession offers you an authoritative opinion on whether of not they are tracked as an official statistic, not on whether or not they should be.

Edited February 5, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[st pete gogolak]

I pretty much keep up on the rules. It's my job to know them. Win/loss record is not a player stat, nor should it be

It is silly to look at Superbowl wins, agreed. I think the eye test is more accurate in this regard. However, I believe we win at least two with Aikman- he excelled at reading defenses, which was Kelly's flaw

Absolutely disagree. As much as I hated those Cowboy teams, they were simply superior to the Bills in those years. Better defensive talent, better offensive line, etc. If Kelly and Aikman were swapped out for those two games, I don't think it makes a bit of difference in the final score (by the way, Kelly was very, very good through about three quarters of Super Bowl XXVIII - still didn't make any difference.

[Adam]

Absolutely disagree. As much as I hated those Cowboy teams, they were simply superior to the Bills in those years. Better defensive talent, better offensive line, etc. If Kelly and Aikman were swapped out for those two games, I don't think it makes a bit of difference in the final score (by the way, Kelly was very, very good through about three quarters of Super Bowl XXVIII - still didn't make any difference.

I actually think our offensive line was better during the first time we played them

I didn't ask you if you knew what the "rules" were, and even if I had, it absolutely is a player stat, even if it's not an official stat.

 

Your argument is nothing more than an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Neither sacks, nor tackles were tracked as official stats for most of the history of the game; and as such, individuals within your profession, who knew "the rules", didn't track them. Is your argument now that those numbers are not important?

 

What I asked you was how your profession uniquely qualifies you to offer an authoritative opinion on whether or not quarterbacks should be credited with win/loss records when evaluating their impact on the game.

 

Your profession offers you an authoritative opinion on whether of not they are tracked as an official statistic, not on whether or not they should be.

LOL, if you say so. It's pretty much called a stat by talking heads of TV and radio. Mark Golic wouldn't have a clue about how things works

[BackInDaDay]

one fight? Marciano or Ali

one song? Elvis or Beatles

one football game? Unitas or Namath

 

men become legends when their accomplishments spill beyond the arenas in which they perform, and seep into the hearts of a society..

that's a fine list of quarterbacks in the poll, but there are no legends there.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I actually think our offensive line was better during the first time we played them

 

LOL, if you say so. It's pretty much called a stat by talking heads of TV and radio. Mark Golic wouldn't have a clue about how things works

I do say so.

 

All you're authoritatively qualified to comment on are official statistics; and given the history of official statistics, the "importance" of your opinion, as an authoritative source, dismissive of others, is weak, at best.

 

Perhaps you should spend more time devoting statistical evidence to your argument, given your self-proclaimed access, rather than making broken fiat declarations.

 

Chart your purely statistical argument, with your named expertise outlining your comprehensive analysis of what you're contenting.

Edited February 6, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[K8prisoner]

And lance is the greatest cyclist of all time ..

 

Brady ruined his legacy and does so Everytime he opens his mouth to tell another lie .. It's truly unfortunate. Drew Brees called him out on Conan implying he could tell a two lb difference which makes Brady a liar admitting to playing against the rules Hardly a stretch to say he was handed defensive plays and benefitted statistically and was made more confident with that knowledge. Everything is tainted until the truth is revealed . That was an amazing 73 home run season that only had people measuring which was out and which was really a hr.

 

. There is no way to tell .. He may be the greatest liar of all time compared to Barry Bonds and Clemens .. If any if the allegations are true then one thing is certain .. His is the best qb to run the system there , better than Matt cassel who didn't have the stats or the success outside of working for the turd . He took less money because they knew he wouldn't succeed anywhere else .

 

That would be a cool statistical analysis to shut this discussion or vindicate lil brady . Adjust Cassels stats outside of NE to adjust brady stats ..

 

I am pissed at him bonds Clemens and lance slong with Brady to ruin any talk like this . Blows . He seems like a good qb that is a bit of a whiner on every play . I'm glad he isn't here and I am glad we don't have Peyton or Ben scum burger . If Ben wasn't a moron, I like watching his game the best but I kinda hate the west coast pick offense cheating offense which is boring until the red zone .. Marino was the best technical passer . Tarkington was prob the mist exciting . Kelly was really fun to watch and would probably be easy to follow on the field .. Young and Montana wre amazing and it proves the value of sitting a cocky talent behind a great is invaluable to building a qb like Rogers . Bradshaw wasn't as talented as stabler or staubach but was probably the best leader of the bunch . Steve bartkowski and archi manning would be great if they weren't on terrible teams . If cam newton wasn't a jerk and had a few brain cells like Peyton , he has the physical gift that are beyond any that we hav talked about . Cheating or not Brady still has to execute . He is cold as ice and isn't rattled unless physically intimidated . Fouts and Elway were extremely gifted passers that both tried to win it alone . Doug Williams was avg but like riggins could really lead a team in a. Lurch moment . Aikman good but probably not as good an athlete as roger staubach .. Billy Kilmer was probably the best to hang out with and still amazingly play football at the highest level . Blah blah ..

[Talley56]

So easy to get swept up in Brady-mania after he had a great season and played great in the Super Bowl. Seems like a lot of people have been doing this. And I'm not taking anything away from him, he was great all year culminating in another championship. I still can't ignore what I believe to be the bigger factor in determining who's better between him and Peyton:

 

2008 - New England without Brady: 11-5

 

2011 - Indy without Peyton: 2-14 and I'll even go a step further and remind everyone that in 2009 (only 2 years earlier with virtually the same roster, coaches, etc.) Peyton took them to a near perfect season and a trip to the Super Bowl.

 

Peyton in his career is the all-time best IMO.

[RyanC883]

 

He can't even hold Kellys. In every big game they went head to head Kelly beat him like a drum.

 

 

To be fair, Marino had 1/2 the talent around him that Kelly had.

[yungmack]

Otto Graham. Ten years, ten straight championship games, five wins.

[truth on hold]

 

 

To be fair, Marino had 1/2 the talent around him that Kelly had.

IMO Marino had better talent to work with on offense than Kelly. They invested a lot in Miami line to protect him, which always gave them a run game. His WRs throughout the years were top notch too.

 

Kelly's WRs were vastly over rated -- other than Reed excelling in the slot, Lofton was at the end of his career, Beebe was another Marquis Goodwin, Bucky Brooks? please. The one thing he had was Thurman coming out of the backfield, but that didn't help him get the ball deep. Over the balance of his career Kelly was working with a less than stellar WR corp, and not on par with Clayton, Duper, McDuffie, etc etc

Edited February 6, 2015 by JTSP

[Adam]

I do say so.

 

All you're authoritatively qualified to comment on are official statistics; and given the history of official statistics, the "importance" of your opinion, as an authoritative source, dismissive of others, is weak, at best.

 

Perhaps you should spend more time devoting statistical evidence to your argument, given your self-proclaimed access, rather than making broken fiat declarations.

 

Chart your purely statistical argument, with your named expertise outlining your comprehensive analysis of what you're contenting.

I'll inform the committees on sit on of your opinion. By the way, how many tickets would you like to buy and do you want a foam finger?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'll inform the committees on sit on of your opinion. By the way, how many tickets would you like to buy and do you want a foam finger?

I'm unimpressed with your "committee membership".

 

Your opinions are unauthoritative, and no amount of blustering on your part will make them so.

 

If you're got an argument to make, make it; but your fiat declarations are not that argument.

Edited February 6, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Adam]

I'm unimpressed with your "committee membership".

 

Your opinions are unauthoritative, and no amount of blustering on your part will make them so.

 

If you're got an argument to make, make it; but your fiat declarations are not that argument.

The argument is that quarterbacks are not assigned win/loss record, because it makes no sense. Win's and losses are the result of planning on the part of the coaches, as execution on the part of the players. It is a team stat than can no more be attributed to a quarterback, than to the Denver Brocos's center, who set the route in motion at last year's superbowl.

 

I will concede that it is a talking point, but not an actual stat.

[Rico]

^^^^

It's already been proven many times that QB W-L record is an actual stat.

 

For example:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm

 

Look at the 8th column, QBRec, in the career Passing stats.

 

Then look at the Playoff stats text immediately below, & it will become crystal-clear that P. Manning is a Big Game Chump & not close to being in the GOAT conversation.

[Adam]

^^^^

It's already been proven many times that QB W-L record is an actual stat.

 

For example:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm

 

Look at the 8th column, QBRec, in the career Passing stats.

 

Then look at the Playoff stats text immediately below, & it will become crystal-clear that P. Manning is a Big Game Chump & not close to being in the GOAT conversation.

If you want to believe that, it doesn't hurt me in the least. This has gotten a bit dull.....partly my fault

Edited February 6, 2015 by Adam

[Alphadawg7]

So easy to get swept up in Brady-mania after he had a great season and played great in the Super Bowl. Seems like a lot of people have been doing this. And I'm not taking anything away from him, he was great all year culminating in another championship. I still can't ignore what I believe to be the bigger factor in determining who's better between him and Peyton:

 

2008 - New England without Brady: 11-5

 

2011 - Indy without Peyton: 2-14 and I'll even go a step further and remind everyone that in 2009 (only 2 years earlier with virtually the same roster, coaches, etc.) Peyton took them to a near perfect season and a trip to the Super Bowl.

 

Peyton in his career is the all-time best IMO.

 

No offense, but that is such a silly point and the most over stated thing ever. Matt Cassel played light years better than the chumps that QB'd the Colts. People forget that Cassel played pretty well and that 2008 roster for NE was a lot better than the Indy roster of 2011. Lets look at the how the QBs ranked in the NFL the year they led their teams minus Brady and Manning.

 

NE 2008

1. Matt Cassel had a QB Rating of 89.4 with almost a 2:1 TD-INT ratio with 21 TDs and 11 INTs. He was in the top 10 in Rating, Yards, and TD's that year. New England ranked 12th in the league in passing overall.

2. New England was 5th in the league in rushing.

3. New England was 10th in the league in defense.

 

Indy 2011

1. Indy in 2011 had 3 QBs...Painter, Orlovsky, and Collins. Indy ranked 30th in passing. They totaled only 14 passing TDs with 14 INTs. They had a team passer rating of 72.2 with painter at a whopping 66.6.

2. Indys was the 26th in the league in rushing (led by Donald Brown)

3. Indy was the 25th ranked defense

 

NE was coming off a record setting season, a Super Bowl, and an undefeated regular season. That roster was better than the 2011 Colts, not to mention the QB play was atrocious for Indy while Cassel played pretty well finishing in the top 10 in yards, QBR, and TD's.

 

Manning - 9 times he won double digit games and then went "1 and done" in the playoffs. He is 0-9 over those 9 years in the playoffs, many of which he was the #1 or #2 seed in the playoffs.

Brady - Has been to 9 AFC Championship games where he is 6-3 giving him 6 Super Bowl appearances and 4 Titles.

 

Manning played almost his whole career with elite weapons like Harrison, Wayne, Clark, James, D. Thomas, J. Thomas, Welker, etc. Brady won 3 SBs with guys like Deion Branch and Troy Brown. This year he had just one elite weapon in Gronk but not a whole lot else other than role player guys that he makes better.

 

So this comparison of the seasons where they were hurt as some kind of validation to say Manning is better is ridiculous. Manning is an all time great QB, and I would love to have him. But he doesn't belong in the conversation of greatest of all time. That starts and ends with 3 QBs...Brady, Montana, and Unitas. Rodgers will have a case when his career is done I suspect.

[dave mcbride]

^^^^

It's already been proven many times that QB W-L record is an actual stat.

 

For example:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm

 

Look at the 8th column, QBRec, in the career Passing stats.

 

Then look at the Playoff stats text immediately below, & it will become crystal-clear that P. Manning is a Big Game Chump & not close to being in the GOAT conversation.

I don't buy the qb win-loss stat because it really is a team game, but honestly I don't think you need it to make the case you're making. All you have to argue is that Payton has come up small repeatedly in postseason games. You'll have the performance stats to back you up. There have been a few games where it hasn't been his fault, but in many cases it has been. The one that's hard for me to judge is the Colts-Saints SB -- if Pierre Garcon makes a ridiculously easy catch near the end of the first half instead of dropping a perfectly thrown ball, the outcome is entirely different. Also, Freeney went down in the second half, and the Colts no longer had a pass rush. But Payton played poorly in the SB last year -- no doubt about that. There are a number of other unimpressive performances too. As I said, though, it's a team game.

[Adam]

I don't buy the qb win-loss stat because it really is a team game, but honestly I don't think you need it to make the case you're making. All you have to argue is that Payton has come up small repeatedly in postseason games. You'll have the performance stats to back you up. There have been a few games where it hasn't been his fault, but in many cases it has been. The one that's hard for me to judge is the Colts-Saints SB -- if Pierre Garcon makes a ridiculously easy catch near the end of the first half instead of dropping a perfectly thrown ball, the outcome is entirely different. Also, Freeney went down in the second half, and the Colts no longer had a pass rush. But Payton played poorly in the SB last year -- no doubt about that. There are a number of other unimpressive performances too. As I said, though, it's a team game.

Agreed- and because he somehow got named MVP after the superbowl win, people forget that defense carried the Colts through the playoffs that year