Fairburn would swap Allen for Mahomes. Would you?

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

When talking GOAT you definitely have to take into account that players level of play relative to their peers IMO. There is certainly a good chance that guys like Mahomes, Wilson, Rodgers and Allen will have far higher career passer ratings and yardage totals (especially with 17 games now) then the Brady's and Peyton's. But that won't automatically mean they are the new GOAT should they win 4-5 rings. Rodgers is the most efficient passer ever right? Or maybe Mahomes? But neither played as a rookie. And Rodgers started playing when the game had changed significantly in favor of passing numbers over the early 2000's and Mahomes and Allen started playing after the game had yet again changed in favor of passing numbers.

 

It feels like no question any young QB today will have to either blow Brady's total numbers out of the water (tough task with Brady still playing to God knows when?) or reach 8 rings. Any QB that can match or top those numbers will certainly be worthy of the GOAT status.

[Shaw66]

10 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Certainly they could based soley on the life experiences of all of them in playing football in the eras in which they played. However, IMO, there is no way anyone could say with any degree of certainty that a QB of a past era, if raised in the modern era, couldn't be as good as as a Brady or a Manning. 

Exactly.   Brady or Peyton with their skills, transplanted into 1953, outplay Graham.   Graham with his skills transplanted into 2010, who knows?

 

I just don't think you can be in the GOAT discussion unless you've done the things the best have done.   Otto Graham never had the opportunity to do those things, so I don't see how he can be in the discussion.   I mean, in my flag football league in college, I played with the greatest QB I've ever seen.  After college he went to medical school.   Is he in the GOAT discussion?  Of course not.  Unless you do what the best have done, it doesn't matter.    

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, NewEra said:

Cool.  Watch the game in all 22 and educate yourself on the matter like I did

 

I will happily take a look at all the plays you direct my attention to. It's pretty easy... just say time and quarter and I can easily find the play...

 

unless of course you're making stuff up and talking out your butt...

[billsfan1959]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Exactly.   Brady or Peyton with their skills, transplanted into 1953, outplay Graham.   Graham with his skills transplanted into 2010, who knows?

 

I just don't think you can be in the GOAT discussion unless you've done the things the best have done.   Otto Graham never had the opportunity to do those things, so I don't see how he can be in the discussion.   I mean, in my flag football league in college, I played with the greatest QB I've ever seen.  After college he went to medical school.   Is he in the GOAT discussion?  Of course not.  Unless you do what the best have done, it doesn't matter.    

 

Agree to a certain extent, my friend. I agree that Otto Graham cannot be in the Goat dicussion because he never did the things on the field that Brady or Manning did. However, was it because he couldn't? Or was it because the game, at that time, wasn't conducive to that type of play in design or philosphy? Graham grew up in an era when football revolved around the running game and he played in the NFL at a time when teams just started barely averaging more passing yards per game than rushing yards. I have no idea how Graham would fare growing up and playing in the modern era. But I can't say he wouldn't have been just as good.

 

My point was less about Otto Graham and the QBs of his era as much as it was about the QBs in the era transitioning into where the NFL is now. I'm talking about a QB like Montana. I think there was still enough of a difference in philosophy, design, and rules from the play in his era (along with several other QBs) to the last 10-15 years, that it makes it difficult to truly compare them to Manning and Brady. But, IMO, Montana definitely could be in the discussion. 

 

Going back to a previous comment you made about Brady and Manning  being like "coaches on the field," and how it set them apart - I absolutely agree 100%. I think the mental aspect of the QB position has become even more important given the ever increasing complexities of the game and I don't see anyone in the GOAT discussion that doesn't have that. It is one of the reasons I have been so high on Allen. I think he is an exceptionally bright young man with an intense competitive drive. I think he has the potential to be one of those coaches on the field. I have no idea if he will ever reach the point of being in the discussion of "greatest QBs;" however, he has the physical skills and mental makeup to at least foster hope for that kind of success.

 

I think Mahommes is an amazing QB who has that potential as well. I'm not one of those who needs to diminish his abilities and accomplishments to feel better about Allen as my QB. I feel good about Allen simply based on who he is, the abilities he posseses, and the potential I see. Nothing would make me happier than to see their play over the next decade or so spark the next Brady - Manning type debate.

 

Cheers 

[Shaw66]

22 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Agree to a certain extent, my friend. I agree that Otto Graham cannot be in the Goat dicussion because he never did the things on the field that Brady or Manning did. However, was it because he couldn't? Or was it because the game, at that time, wasn't conducive to that type of play in design or philosphy? Graham grew up in an era when football revolved around the running game and he played in the NFL at a time when teams just started barely averaging more passing yards per game than rushing yards. I have no idea how Graham would fare growing up and playing in the modern era. But I can't say he wouldn't have been just as good.

 

My point was less about Otto Graham and the QBs of his era as much as it was about the QBs in the era transitioning into where the NFL is now. I'm talking about a QB like Montana. I think there was still enough of a difference in philosophy, design, and rules from the play in his era (along with several other QBs) to the last 10-15 years, that it makes it difficult to truly compare them to Manning and Brady. But, IMO, Montana definitely could be in the discussion. 

 

Going back to a previous comment you made about Brady and Manning  being like "coaches on the field," and how it set them apart - I absolutely agree 100%. I think the mental aspect of the QB position has become even more important given the ever increasing complexities of the game and I don't see anyone in the GOAT discussion that doesn't have that. It is one of the reasons I have been so high on Allen. I think he is an exceptionally bright young man with an intense competitive drive. I think he has the potential to be one of those coaches on the field. I have no idea if he will ever reach the point of being in the discussion of "greatest QBs;" however, he has the physical skills and mental makeup to at least foster hope for that kind of success.

 

I think Mahommes is an amazing QB who has that potential as well. I'm not one of those who needs to diminish his abilities and accomplishments to feel better about Allen as my QB. I feel good about Allen simply based on who he is, the abilities he posseses, and the potential I see. Nothing would make me happier than to see their play over the next decade or so spark the next Brady - Manning type debate.

 

Cheers 

Got it.  Makes sense.  

 

It's interesting to me how it's so different from baseball.  If you're old enough and you've been a fan, you actually can have a reasonable argument about Willie Mays vs. Mike Trout.  There still are differences between eras, but those differences don't make the discussion pointless.   There's very little to be said about Graham vs. Brady.  

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I will happily take a look at all the plays you direct my attention to. It's pretty easy... just say time and quarter and I can easily find the play...

 

unless of course you're making stuff up and talking out your butt...

Or unless I have no desire to spend my time  off watching a terrible football game that I’ve already watched 2 times just to prove a point to someone I don’t even know.  
 

josh bypassed several open check downs/short passes that the chiefs gave him in that game in order to make a bigger play.  You don’t believe it. TBH, I’d rather you just not know what you’re talking about rather than educating you.  

[transplantbillsfan]

39 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Or unless I have no desire to spend my time  off watching a terrible football game that I’ve already watched 2 times just to prove a point to someone I don’t even know.  
 

josh bypassed several open check downs/short passes that the chiefs gave him in that game in order to make a bigger play.  You don’t believe it. TBH, I’d rather you just not know what you’re talking about rather than educating you.  

[transplantbillsfan]

Discussed today on The Herd were Cossell's previous comments about Allen being the most talented NFL QB player in the last 2 or 3 decades:

 

[Blank Stare]

2 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Discussed today on The Herd were Cossell's previous comments about Allen being the most talented NFL QB player in the last 2 or 3 decades:

 

Mangini is a tool. 

[Doc]

30 minutes ago, TheProcess said:

Mangini is a tool. 

 

He's just looking to suck up to the Cheaters to get back into coaching again.  I heard the same stuff about Stidham 2 years ago and the narrative about Josh is just tired at this point.