2nd Greatest QB this Century???

[PatsFan]

I actually think that stat is wrong; it would be tied at 9. But it's still an impressive stat, nonetheless.

Funny thing about championships, no one considers Bill Russell or Bart Star the GOAT.

I'd take Russell over Lebron!
I can only imagine what Russell would look like with today's training regimens.
Wait Lebron has Declared himself "THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME" what a toolbag!!!

 

[PatsFan]

Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman also wouldn't ever be seriously considered.

Brady is the GOAT and he'd be a success anywhere. But even Belichick said that they didn't see any magic in him as a prospect. They did see attributes that would potentially fit nicely into what they wanted to do.

They got that along with magic. Yet for all of his achievements and his barely disputable status as GOAT, many would still say there were better quarterbacks out there (in a universal sense as to talents/displayed ability) projected within any number of NFL caliber offenses.

If talent was the only criteria Cam Newton would be the Best QB. Young Mahomes may yet be one of the Greats but he's only in his first year starting.
If I remember correctly Jamarcus Russell could throw it 70 yards from his knees but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

 

[WMac19]

If talent was the only criteria Cam Newton would be the Best QB. Young Mahomes may yet be one of the Greats but he's only in his first year starting.
If I remember correctly Jamarcus Russell could throw it 70 yards from his knees but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

That's why nobody is mentioning them, along with so many other superior players who happen to be HoF'ers.

Of course it's not talent alone, I've highlighted talent along with their displayed ability and their own personal achievements and successes many times within this thread.

Russell, Vick, Leaf, George, all busts relative to talent and behavior. And to a lesser degree compared to the 4 previously listed, Newton wouldn't ever deserve mention. They haven't nor wouldn't ever be mentioned because talent alone is obviously a poor indicator.

I find their mention kind of a strawman argument because nobody has elevated talent absent of a real, concrete display of ability and success.

Alluding to the talents of Rodgers, Brees, Manning, Young, Marino, et al. has absolutely nothing to do with anyone other than those mentioned.

 

[JMB3]

If talent was the only criteria Cam Newton would be the Best QB. Young Mahomes may yet be one of the Greats but he's only in his first year starting.
If I remember correctly Jamarcus Russell could throw it 70 yards from his knees but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Even when someone concedes TB12 as the GOAT, you still aren't satisfied? Do all Pats fans walk around with Brady's chip on their shoulder?

 

[rollin]

GOAT is such an impossible choice imo. Firstly, (and this goes for any position not just QB) no one could ever truly know what kind of career anyone would have had if that career followed a path elsewhere from the one they did follow. The teams they played for, the coaches (not just head coaches), the opponents they faced, the era they played in , etc,..etc.. And because of all that,... stats alone are not the only thing that can determine how great or not a football player was. Great raw talent (or conversely, lack of great talent) doesn't always show up in the stats department exactly the way it should. Stats in general (like golf shot stats) are not always as telling as we think. And in a team sport they can be even less telling and more skewed. Im not saying they don't mean anything but just that hey don't always tell the whole story nor do they always tell just how great (especially in a team sport) the player was.

 

[Thrillbilly Jim]

Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman also wouldn't ever be seriously considered.

Brady is the GOAT and he'd be a success anywhere. But even Belichick said that they didn't see any magic in him as a prospect. They did see attributes that would potentially fit nicely into what they wanted to do.

They got that along with magic. Yet for all of his achievements and his barely disputable status as GOAT, many would still say there were better quarterbacks out there (in a universal sense as to talents/displayed ability) projected within any number of NFL caliber offenses.

I have to disagree that Belichick didn't see anything in Brady. The Patriots carried 4 QBs on their 53 man roster his rookie season to keep him from being picked up off of waivers.

 

[Thrillbilly Jim]

I think you have to take sports in 20-25 year increments. The games evolve so much, it's hard to compare a Tom Brady to a Johnny Unitas. 40-60 Johnny Unitas 60-80 Roger Staubach 80-00 Joe Montana 00-19 Tom Brady. To answer to original question, it's Peyton Manning, then Drew Brees, then Aaron Rodgers. I used to say Montana was the GOAT, but after the NE/ATL Super Bowl, I think Brady has cemented himself as the best ever. And, I hate Brady...I hate Belichick....I hate the Patriots...and I especially hate Adam Vinatieri for kicking the game winning field goal in Super Bowl XXXVIII!

 

[rollin]

Apologize for the long read but its a lot to get out when it comes to stats and how misleading they can be. And fwiw a great team and a great QB who are often both overlooked because of stats.

Adding to my last post its amazing how stats and records are sometimes unfairly utilized to determine a "listing order of greatness".

I mean just look at the Bills of the early 90's. Four SB appearances in a row. Although they lost them all, it is an accomplishment unapparelled in NFL history and probably in all of sports. Its a once in a lifetime type of achievement that should be honored as one the greatest achievements in the NFL history but because they didn't win those games and those win stat wins are not there its basically forgotten about. In fact younger folks don't even know who Marv levy and Jim Kelly are. Yet they achieved one of the greatest collective things that can be achieved in NFL history. Appeared in four straight super Bowles. You have to understand just how hard (virtually impossible) that is to do. Its kind of sad that goes virtually unnoticed. Had they even just won one of those four (only lost by one point to the giants) as a win in the record book of stats, the whole run would be very well known and appreciated even among the younger fans of today instead of basically forgotten. This is why stats are not always telling and often an even unfair and/or skewed judgement.

Joe Namath is another. Many younger folks think its ridiculous he is even in the HOF and most that is due to stats and so wrong that is. Firstly one stat that is ridiculous (even today) is when they compare Td passes to interceptions. One thing has absolutely nothing(zero) to do with the other. They are not related in any way. A QB today in a given game can throw for 340 yrds going 27 for 37 have no TD passes and 1 int and yet played great and won the game 24 to 14. The team ran for 3 Td's from inside the 5. So has no TD passes and yet an int therefore had more int's vs Td passes. How is that stat even used to say he played badly when he marched the team down the field all day, collecting yardage and won the game?

Namath played at a time when QB's were beaten to death. The rules (barely any of them) just didn't exist that exist today to protect QB's and also receivers. Besides the bad knees, he had a bunch of injuries and broken bones during his career. Wrist, fingers , hand bones, shoulder etc,,,Played on bad jets teams later on which greatly skewed stats results.

The man threw for 4000 yrds in only a 12 game season which was unheard of and even by todays standards of rules and with 16 games is considered a great season. Brees this year for example threw for 3900 yrds and in a 16 game season. And that's with todays "made for the passing game and QB protection" rules and receiver protection rules and with 16 games to do it. I mean just to put that in perspective. Namath had none of that at all and less games to do it in and constantly banged up. Many successful QB's in todays game wouldn't be able to deal with all that and still be successful. It was a different world.

Namath consistently sat among the top the league in yrds per attempt. Also fewest sacks allowed which inflated the amount of incompletions percentage because his ability to get rid of the ball before taking the sacks and picking up blitzes. Not to mention fewest sacks allowed in a league that was (unlike today) a predominantly a run the ball league where he had more pass attempts than others yet still recorded less sacks in spite of that. Also why many Td's were via a run once down near the goal line which again skews the ridiculous irrelevant "TD passes vs Int" stats.

Not to mention all was done at a time when some QB's (and he was one of them) actually did call their own plays often and on contrary to popular belief that Peyton did that. Audibles and play choices is quite different from making the calls.Yet nowadays all the stats junkies would ignorantly state that Namath does not only not belong in the hall but was actually not good. Its laughable as the man was an icon. But its all based on analytics and stats and they often just don't come close to telling the real story. But whenever listening to all time great players and coaches and NFL people of significance importance from back in the day they almost all would tell of just how greatly skilled Namath truly was regardless what the stats say.

This is why stats alone are never really at all the end all be all to come up with a set list order of bests. There is just so much else to consider especially in a team sport.

 

[DG_1234]

Im saying its not really possible to look at 3 or certainly 4 receivers. Its an ability to absorb (see) the field via what the Dee is doing before the snap and then as the play begins to unfold and knowing the routs. that is part of what makes a better QB than another. QB's contrary to myth are not looking off the 1st, then to the second, then to the 3rd then to the fourth. Thats what we did as kids in the school yard while someone counted Mississippi's .....lol the good old days how time flies its bittersweet .

The look off is once maybe often enough a second if that in itself isnt a check down or the rarer 3rd is often the checkdown. A 4th some have never done. By the time he would look for even a 3rd if hadnt checked it down yet he's usually in trouble by then. Except for a broken play, an extended play, etc...and on extended plays receivers are off their routs and just coming back trying to help.

What you wrote is true of most QB's, but not Joe Montana.
In addition to looking at multiple receivers Montana liked to look at a receiver to his right but throw to a receiver on his left. GOAT=Joe Montana.

 

[WMac19]

I have to disagree that Belichick didn't see anything in Brady. The Patriots carried 4 QBs on their 53 man roster his rookie season to keep him from being picked up off of waivers.

I never said that he didn't see anything. Quite the opposite, I said that he didn't see magic (in the context of his future greatness) but that he saw qualities that fit well within their system.

I'm stumped. How is that perceived as not seeing anything?

 

[aljaklaw]

I never said that he didn't see anything. Quite the opposite, I said that he didn't see magic (in the context of his future greatness) but that he saw qualities that fit well within their system.

I'm stumped. How is that perceived as not seeing anything?

Patriots saw so much in Brady that they passed on him 6 times in that draft

Adrian Klemm
J.R. Redmond
Greg Randall
Dave Stachelski
Jeff Marriott
Antwan Harris (52 career tackles, 3 rings)

 

[PatsFan]

Patriots saw so much in Brady that they passed on him 6 times in that draft

Adrian Klemm
J.R. Redmond
Greg Randall
Dave Stachelski
Jeff Marriott
Antwan Harris (52 career tackles, 3 rings)

Nevermind the 6 QBs that were drafted ahead of him.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[rollin]

What you wrote is true of most QB's, but not Joe Montana.
In addition to looking at multiple receivers Montana liked to look at a receiver to his right but throw to a receiver on his left. GOAT=Joe Montana.

many QB's(the better ones) are good at deceiving Dbacks with their eyes and motions. And many great Dbacks can also fool a QB into thinking he's safe to throw a certain place.

All this skills talk reminds me just how good in general pro athletes are in their respective sports and at their respective positions. Whos better, whos not, who does it better than the next guy, whatever the case its pretty cool to appreciate what they all (including golfers) can do while playing at the highest levels even if their skills vary a bit to different degrees.

 

[WMac19]

Nevermind the 6 QBs that were drafted ahead of him.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Which is what dramatically deepens an incredible story. Had he been drafted in the 1st round and the rest of the story plays out the same, he'd still be roundly regarded as the GOAT, results would demand it.

But pick #199??? Now that's a story.

Teams then stated frequently about measurables, he did not have a football body, not fast nor especially quick. And counter to what became a strong arm in the NFL, as a prospect his arm was rated as merely average with average accuracy.

But his play is what gave him a shot but even there was the biggest clouding of the waters for teams. His own team, Michigan, seemed to be doing all that they could to get him off the field and hand the spot to Drew Henson. Even Brady admits that Henson was the better athlete, stronger arm and threw prettier passes. Henson was also a home state hero so there was the PR angle that the university preferred.

Belichick admits that he didn't see anything in Brady to signal what the future would hold. He said with a chuckle that nobody did or he wouldn't have lasted to #199. But one of his coaches, I think the QB coach at the time kept pushing for Brady from the beginning saying he had the tools for their system. Belichick listened to the point of doing his own homework prior.

What he saw was a guy who started well and after being replaced, the team would often flounder. Then Brady would come back in the 4th qtr to give them a chance, time and time again.

He saw a winner, an unlikely physical specimen who when compared to other prospects, fell toward the bottom in projected potential. But on the field when given the opportunity, he saw the unlikely player become the likely choice. The rest is history.

And I'd still take Rodgers, LOL....

 

[Desmond]

Brady.

1. He played in the dufus division and

2. has a losing playoff record on the road.

Luckily, he doesn't need to worry about playing on the road in the playoffs much because of #1.

But he's a great player.

 

[DG_1234]

many QB's(the better ones) are good at deceiving Dbacks with their eyes and motions. And many great Dbacks can also fool a QB into thinking he's safe to throw a certain place.

All this skills talk reminds me just how good in general pro athletes are in their respective sports and at their respective positions. Whos better, whos not, who does it better than the next guy, whatever the case its pretty cool to appreciate what they all (including golfers) can do while playing at the highest levels even if their skills vary a bit to different degrees.

For the most part I think the QB position is overrated.
Take for example the Bill Walsh coached 49ers winning run throughout the 80's, early 90's. During that era the 49ers dominated not only with Montana or Young at, but at times also with Steve Bono and Matt Cavanaugh playing QB.
If the offensive line is really effective , and the team's system includes good sense passing routes with down field blocking, lots of guys can look great playing the QB position.
But when the offensive line is weak, no QB can be effective.

 

[WMac19]

For the most part I think the QB position is overrated.
Take for example the Bill Walsh coached 49ers winning run throughout the 80's, early 90's. During that era the 49ers dominated not only with Montana or Young at, but at times also with Steve Bono and Matt Cavanaugh playing QB.
If the offensive line is really effective , and the team's system includes good sense passing routes with down field blocking, lots of guys can look great playing the QB position.
But when the offensive line is weak, no QB can be effective.

It's a bit of a reach to say that they dominated with Bono and Cavanaugh. Bono was a very solid backup who performed very well in one season for them but was non-descript otherwise. Same for Cavanaugh in many less games.

But yeah, absolutely, the system fully accentuated the talents of Montana, Young and later Garcia who was still running very much the same system in SF.

It's an offense that's predicated upon the hot read, pre snap movement, play action, sliding pockets, gifted receivers at RB. Masterful design of deception it was as a whole.

Any QB with any potential at all should have been expected to perform reasonably well also considering the talent around them.

But had Bono or Cavanagh been the long term starter and defenses having the opportunity to game plan against them with more film to study, I see no way on God's green earth they they could've maintained or even approached their respective streaks of play. Neither possessed nearly the base talents of either Montana, Young or even Garcia for that matter.

 

[rollin]

For the most part I think the QB position is overrated.
Take for example the Bill Walsh coached 49ers winning run throughout the 80's, early 90's. During that era the 49ers dominated not only with Montana or Young at, but at times also with Steve Bono and Matt Cavanaugh playing QB.
If the offensive line is really effective , and the team's system includes good sense passing routes with down field blocking, lots of guys can look great playing the QB position.
But when the offensive line is weak, no QB can be effective.

I couldn't agree with you more......sort of. Because overrated is a bit of a stretch. Something I thought I may have touched on earlier. QB's get far too much credit for winning and far too much blame for losing. The game for all that has changed through the years still has one thing that has remained the same. Its still ultimately won and lost at the line of scrimmage. offensive lineman and Defensive fronts are really the hero's for winning seasons. If the guys up front don't do there job you can never really get to take advantage of the things a better QB has to offer. Same can be said for receivers, running backs too. That's why I always felt building a team from the lines , then outwards is the way to go.

Like now with my Jets and Darnold. If they think he's capable of growing into the franchise player we are all hoping for, They better get him the best O-line they can and it should be their biggest and first priority even before receivers or backs, and even before they address a desperately needed pass rush.

O-lines can make or break a QB and its also why average QB's can win and why sometimes great ones don't.

That all said, having a better QB vs a worse one is certainly a huge advantage and shouldn't be underestimated. Given the same conditions a better one can make a difference and if given the goods, they deliver at a higher level. So yea in a sense they get too much credit and too much blame but still we cant underestimate their importance because it does count a whole heck of a lot. But its a team sport and ultimately they need a team and that needs to start with the guys up front.

 

[WMac19]

I'm always amazed when teams ignore the o-line or more appropriately assign less importance to it as per the draft and free agency. I know it's nearly as hard lately to hit on a franchise LT as it is a QB but you'll still find some teams not even addressing a subpar O-line until the 4th round.

My experience is microspically comparable but the basics are still true. I played QB in a very competitive flag football league for years. Lots of former D1 players and in the late 80s into the 90s, lots of guys who were scab players during the NFL strike. Even some retired NFL players who had good careers. Played against the former Giants RB Joe Morris a fe times, for example. He played a damn good CB too, btw.

I was always a better athlete than QB but small at 5' 9". Picture Doug Flutie but built like a stocky RB. I had average arm strenth at best and the obvious challenges of being short vs 6'3"+ offensive and defensive lineman.

But I drew up an extensive playbook that I knew by heart, it was pretty in depth. I was also very accurate and made very quick reads.

When I was continually pressured, it could be awful. When I was overwhelmed, pack it in, game over. I could run, and did, but overwhelmed is overwhelmed mostly. But when I received even marginal time, I excelled. My talents, albeit compromised, shined through and we'd score lots and lots of points. Helped that I had NFL talent at one WR spot (he made the Steelers before breaking ankle and never passing another physical).

All of what I wrote can be met with, "yeah, no kidding." And that's exactly right, it's a no-brainer to build up that O-line.

But the salary cap and the opportunity for success while a QB is still on his rookie deal inspires teams to add everywhere when they can rather than concentrate on any one area. Pay the QB big bank coming off the rookie deal, along with whatever ever was invested in the O-line or what maybe coming due, and there could then be some cash-strapping wrt filling defensive or skill position voids.

Such a difficult game of chess NFL teams play from the top down, I couldn't even begin to imagine the technical difficulties it would take to master it.

 

[AcushnetGolf]

Flag? We talking flag? Joking. I've seen some GREAT flag games. All my buddies play and travel all over the country. Its life for them. Sponsorships, free housing, free travel. Like you said, you guys that have the love are always looking to play and Joe Morris was a beast so if you were playing with him you have to have some game my friend.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[WMac19]

Flag? We talking flag? Joking. I've seen some GREAT flag games. All my buddies play and travel all over the country. Its life for them. Sponsorships, free housing, free travel. Like you said, you guys that have the love are always looking to play and Joe Morris was a beast so if you were playing with him you have to have some game my friend.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Nah, thanks, was just an overachiever but I was fast, running mid 4.4's to 4.5 at my peak.

One of the coolest things was after a game vs Joe Morris, he calls me over, "yo, 2-2..."

We exchange a handshake and the typical "good game" offering when he says, "see that blue barrel down there? I set it there, it's at the goal line, we're standing on the 40 so lets go."

Sure! We race, blows me out off the line, I gain but he beats me by half a step in the end. I didn't get a bad start, pretty good start for me. Just his power out of the blocks and top speed reached so quickly were elite.

He nods his head in satisfaction, "alright, just checking if I still got it." LOL, all I could think to say was, "cool, pleasure to lose to you Mr. Morris!" He just chuckled and headed off.

He was still FAST and very, very quick to top speed but he lost his lateral quickness. I forget which leg it was but he just couldn't any longer plant and cut off that leg. But he still had major wheels.

 

[Thrillbilly Jim]

 

[DG_1234]

I'm always amazed when teams ignore the o-line or more appropriately assign less importance to it as per the draft and free agency. I know it's nearly as hard lately to hit on a franchise LT as it is a QB but you'll still find some teams not even addressing a subpar O-line until the 4th round.

My experience is microspically comparable but the basics are still true. I played QB in a very competitive flag football league for years. Lots of former D1 players and in the late 80s into the 90s, lots of guys who were scab players during the NFL strike. Even some retired NFL players who had good careers. Played against the former Giants RB Joe Morris a fe times, for example. He played a damn good CB too, btw.

I was always a better athlete than QB but small at 5' 9". Picture Doug Flutie but built like a stocky RB. I had average arm strenth at best and the obvious challenges of being short vs 6'3"+ offensive and defensive lineman.

But I drew up an extensive playbook that I knew by heart, it was pretty in depth. I was also very accurate and made very quick reads.

When I was continually pressured, it could be awful. When I was overwhelmed, pack it in, game over. I could run, and did, but overwhelmed is overwhelmed mostly. But when I received even marginal time, I excelled. My talents, albeit compromised, shined through and we'd score lots and lots of points. Helped that I had NFL talent at one WR spot (he made the Steelers before breaking ankle and never passing another physical).

All of what I wrote can be met with, "yeah, no kidding." And that's exactly right, it's a no-brainer to build up that O-line.

But the salary cap and the opportunity for success while a QB is still on his rookie deal inspires teams to add everywhere when they can rather than concentrate on any one area. Pay the QB big bank coming off the rookie deal, along with whatever ever was invested in the O-line or what maybe coming due, and there could then be some cash-strapping wrt filling defensive or skill position voids.

Such a difficult game of chess NFL teams play from the top down, I couldn't even begin to imagine the technical difficulties it would take to master it.

A unique aspect of the offensive line is that one or two guys don't seem to make a difference. Somehow the entire 5 or 6 guys need to work effectively together as a unit.
All position coaches matter, but I think an OL coach has an especially challenging job to do.

 

[JMB3]

A unique aspect of the offensive line is that one or two guys don't seem to make a difference. Somehow the entire 5 or 6 guys need to work effectively together as a unit.
All position coaches matter, but I think an OL coach has an especially challenging job to do.

Exactly right. Just one of many reasons why football is the ultimate team sport.

Special QBs can reduce the negative impact of a poor offensive line--for example, Brady sliding in the pocket, Rodgers escaping the pocket, Manning getting the ball out quick--but an offense cannot perform consistently well without a strong unit upfront. Heck, just ask Andrew Luck and the Colts. And in 2011, when GB went 15-1 and Rodgers won MVP, that line worked incredibly well together. It's amazing what an offense can do when the line gives the QB and playmakers an opportunity to actually make plays.

 

[rollin]

A unique aspect of the offensive line is that one or two guys don't seem to make a difference. Somehow the entire 5 or 6 guys need to work effectively together as a unit.
All position coaches matter, but I think an OL coach has an especially challenging job to do.

Any unit (or chain) is only as good as its weakest link. BUt dint underestimate what one or especially two players can make. Just look at Quentin Nelson (rookie) of the colts and how he basically transformed that entire line almost single handedly making the whole unit better and giving luck what he needed. I actually happen to know the young fellow (not very closely ,but he played ball with my son) but its amazing how they are saying he may be one the best O-lineman to play the game in just only his first year. Perhaps a bit overwhelmed in that last playoff game for his first year in the league but in that very same first year he turned that O-line into possibly the meanest nastiest O-line in football. And after a 1-5 start they never looked back and Luck was able to operate like never before. They don't just block, they beat and pound people into cookie crumbs. That O-line os going to be a force to be reckoned with for several years to come. If the rest of the team jells well they have a good chance of a SB or two for the near future.