How we define greatest QB ever (really any player of any sport.)

[Broncosballer32]

Let us keep it at QB for right now. Then again we can use the Bill Russell factor. So, is the one who collects the most rings the best ever? Is that how we will define the greatest ever? Ok, well Bill Russell is the greatest basketball player ever. There are no questions.

Wait, but there are of course.

For me, it is the QB that we think could play in any era in any system. That is the way I would define it.

Which QBs past or present do you think could operate in any era under any system. Do you really think Brady could have played in any era under any system?

I do not think he could. I think he greatly benefits from this era. Now, he is great and QBs cannot just simply automatically succeed the way Brady has.

These QBs I think could play in any system and I have to say based on that criteria that Roger Staubach (super bowl era) is the greatest ever. I think he could play in any era and virtually any system.

Roger Staubach
John Elway
Aaron Rodgers
Brett Favre
Steve Young
Warren Moon


Those are examples. No, I did not put Joe Montana or Manning or Brady or Marino in there. I happen to think Montana happened to be in the perfect place at the perfect time. He ran into the west coast system and Bill Walsh much like peanut butter ran into chocolate. I never really saw Montana run a spread out offense out of shotgun. I am also not really sure he could have. We will never know. Although he was mobile and he certainly was not a one dimensional QB.

That leads me to Manning and Marino. They could both be classified as the greatest pocket passers of all time. Well, being a pocket passer is a crucial part of being a QB but not the only part. When that one dimension was taken away from either of those two QBs they had nothing to else to lead a team.

Hence the reason both of them have losing play off records. Yes, in the play offs there is a distinct possibility you will find a solid defense.

Anyway, if we are going to define the greatest by who has the most championships, then Brady has it. 6 SB appearances, and 4 wins. Then if we are going to do that, then Bill Russell is the greatest NBA player of all time.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

First thing, comparing football to other sports is just silly... Unlike in football Basketball is an individual game where talent and career results are easier to measure, and talent is a better indicator for career results...

In football, there are just too many variables... The system, the offensive line, the WRs, did the team have a running game, etc... you can be the most talented player and thrown into a terrible system and just fizzle, is it because you were not that good?? maybe... David Carr, was a first round pick for the Houston Texans, but he went nowhere in his career... Many people blame the offensive line...

I do think originally Brady was a product of the system, but he gained so much confidence and gained wisdom to become someone that I think would find success in any era and in any system...

Football is the one sport that I think it is impossible to compare players even in the same era... So you have to define best by the most successful or the best statistical...

 

[TDs3nOut]

Let us keep it at QB for right now. Then again we can use the Bill Russell factor. So, is the one who collects the most rings the best ever? Is that how we will define the greatest ever? Ok, well Bill Russell is the greatest basketball player ever. There are no questions.

Wait, but there are of course.

For me, it is the QB that we think could play in any era in any system. That is the way I would define it.

Which QBs past or present do you think could operate in any era under any system. Do you really think Brady could have played in any era under any system?

I do not think he could. I think he greatly benefits from this era. Now, he is great and QBs cannot just simply automatically succeed the way Brady has.

These QBs I think could play in any system and I have to say based on that criteria that Roger Staubach (super bowl era) is the greatest ever. I think he could play in any era and virtually any system.

Roger Staubach
John Elway
Aaron Rodgers
Brett Favre
Steve Young
Warren Moon


Those are examples. No, I did not put Joe Montana or Manning or Brady or Marino in there. I happen to think Montana happened to be in the perfect place at the perfect time. He ran into the west coast system and Bill Walsh much like peanut butter ran into chocolate. I never really saw Montana run a spread out offense out of shotgun. I am also not really sure he could have. We will never know. Although he was mobile and he certainly was not a one dimensional QB.

That leads me to Manning and Marino. They could both be classified as the greatest pocket passers of all time. Well, being a pocket passer is a crucial part of being a QB but not the only part. When that one dimension was taken away from either of those two QBs they had nothing to else to lead a team.

Hence the reason both of them have losing play off records. Yes, in the play offs there is a distinct possibility you will find a solid defense.

Anyway, if we are going to define the greatest by who has the most championships, then Brady has it. 6 SB appearances, and 4 wins. Then if we are going to do that, then Bill Russell is the greatest NBA player of all time.

Interesting post and interesting list that certainly doesn't consist of the "usual suspects". My guess is that not many posters will buy into your list unless they also accept your definition of "greatest QB" as something that seems to me like "most effective versatile QB". A problem that I have with that is that Dan Marino was not particularly versatile, yet to me he is clearly among the all-time greatest QBs.

I know that there is a common interest among many fans of ranking players in terms of all-time greatness. I have always thought it rather futile, however, for numerous reasons. To me it's kind of like trying to rank music or women in terms of their beauty; it's too subjective. Seems to make better sense to simply enjoy than it does to rank.

 

[Rock Strongo]

too many variables.

 

[Broncosballer32]

First thing, comparing football to other sports is just silly... Unlike in football Basketball is an individual game where talent and career results are easier to measure, and talent is a better indicator for career results...

In football, there are just too many variables... The system, the offensive line, the WRs, did the team have a running game, etc... you can be the most talented player and thrown into a terrible system and just fizzle, is it because you were not that good?? maybe... David Carr, was a first round pick for the Houston Texans, but he went nowhere in his career... Many people blame the offensive line...

I do think originally Brady was a product of the system, but he gained so much confidence and gained wisdom to become someone that I think would find success in any era and in any system...

Football is the one sport that I think it is impossible to compare players even in the same era... So you have to define best by the most successful or the best statistical...

Well, it is inevitably going to be an opinion. Basketball, is not an individual sport, but there an individual does play a greater role in that team sport than most. Considering every player plays both offense and defense.

Anyway, the point is if we are going to just identify championships as the biggest factor, then perhaps we need to say Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Marino. Now, we all know that is not the case, and the ravens defense was the key factor.

My point is which QBs could operate any system in any era. Personally, I think the QBs I listed (especially STaubach) could operate any system in any era. As far stats go, I think that is a very misleading way to look at it. Stats are directly related to era and system. I mean is Andre Ware a better college QB than Tom Brady? Well, his stats were far better.

Like I said, I do not think Brady could operate just any system in any era as well as he operates the system he is in, in this era.

Again, all opinions.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Also, Brett favre is in your list, He was an interception king... I have him to be one of the most over-rated QBs in history...

You know what the problem with the comeback win statistic?? you have to have been losing beforehand...

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Playing well in any system is a valid barometer, but it's not the be all, cure all criteria. I think you have to win at a high level and perform well in the process. Brady benefits from that imo.

Where you rank exactly in the hierarchy of the sport all time greats is really not that interesting to me...as said, too many variables to sort thru. Compiling a list maybe a little more so...I think you've touched on a great all-time list. The players I would debate.

Moon over Marino...both outstanding passers and clearly put up big numbers in the era they played...probably can throw Fouts in here too...essentially the same kind of career...never really won enough in the post season.

Young over Montana...Young was a great athlete and he too evolved into a great player in the WC system...Joe will always be ahead of Young in my book because he was so clutch in the games that really mattered...I remember a few games when he wasn't on top form, but he rarely played a bad playoff game.

Young took over a well oiled machine...and quickly became instep with the best WR to ever play...a little easier transition.

 

[PatsFan2003]

I think Brady and Montana could easily do well in other generations. Both were smart, cool under pressure QBs. That's always important.

 

[Broncosballer32]

Also, Brett favre is in your list, He was an interception king... I have him to be one of the most over-rated QBs in history...

You know what the problem with the comeback win statistic?? you have to have been losing beforehand...

Well that is true. Then again, Favre maybe one of those QBs that best defines how QBs benefit from an era he is playing in.

Do you realize Favre's best statistical season as far as rating (TD/INT ratio etc) was the year before he retired? In 2009?

Think about that. Was he surrounded by the better talent than he had ever been surrounded by? Ok, Peterson was the RB, but come on.

There is only one plausible explanation that fits. He was playing in an era where it greatly benefits QBs. That cannot really be debated about this era. I mean really.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Has there ever been an all time great QB, who didn't find success statistically until past their 3rd season??

Point is that early success helped these guys become what they became...

 

[Rock Strongo]

someone like terry bradshaw (just based on QB play) would probably be cut in todays NFL, and he has 4 rings.

and someone like brady probably wouldnt survive the NFL of the 70's.

 

[Broncosballer32]

someone like terry bradshaw (just based on QB play) would probably be cut in todays NFL, and he has 4 rings.

and someone like brady probably wouldnt survive the NFL of the 70's.

Well, with the exception of his first 3 or 4 years, Bradshaw became a real effective QB. I know his career stats show only two more TDs than INTs. Well, that has a lot to do with his first few seasons, where threw a lot of ints.

He threw a deep post as well as anyone in the history of the game. That certainly kept safeties back and allowed a ground attack to flourish.

 

[TDs3nOut]

Has there ever been an all time great QB, who didn't find success statistically until past their 3rd season??

Point is that early success helped these guys become what they became...

Hmm. First guy I thought of was Steve Young. After checking, though, I see he only played two years in TB before joining SF. He did have some time before that in the USFL, however, but I still think that the switch from TB to SF was pretty instrumental in his "improvement".

 

[Rock Strongo]

Well, with the exception of his first 3 or 4 years, Bradshaw became a real effective QB. I know his career stats show only two more TDs than INTs. Well, that has a lot to do with his first few seasons, where threw a lot of ints.

He threw a deep post as well as anyone in the history of the game. That certainly kept safeties back and allowed a ground attack to flourish.

bradshaw = tim tebow today. nice deep ball, very athletic, like a LBer playing QB. 50% or below completion.

i'll probably get killed for that.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

And does early success mean good system??

 

[TDs3nOut]

bradshaw = tim tebow today. nice deep ball, very athletic, like a LBer playing QB. 50% or below completion.

i'll probably get killed for that.

LOL Pretty sure you never saw Bradshaw play!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

bradshaw = tim tebow today. nice deep ball, very athletic, like a LBer playing QB. 50% or below completion.

i'll probably get killed for that.

Looking at Bradshaws statistics, he only made the HOF because of his 4 championships... He was an average QB at best...

And no, I never saw him play, so I am only basing it on his statistics...

 

[Rock Strongo]

LOL Pretty sure you never saw Bradshaw play!

i'm 39, so no. you probably never saw YA tittle play. doesnt mean you cant comment.

5 times over 20 INT's in a run happy era (did it 3 straight years too)

5 times under 50% completion

166 yards per game (again, in a run happy era)

2257 yards rushing, over 5 yards a carry...32 rushing TD's


tim tebow

 

[Rock Strongo]

Looking at Bradshaws statistics, he only made the HOF because of his 4 championships... He was an average QB at best...

And no, I never saw him play, so I am only basing it on his statistics...

he was a tough SOB. like i said, a LBer playing QB. dude could take a hit and get up and laugh.

(and yes, i get most of this from the sabol family and whatever i can find online over the years)

but he was illiterate. i think thats being lost here.

he could survive the 70's NFL and hide that disability.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

someone like terry bradshaw (just based on QB play) would probably be cut in todays NFL, and he has 4 rings.

and someone like brady probably wouldnt survive the NFL of the 70's.

He might've been cut based on his early play...that's right...For the 1st two SB wins...dominant DEF...Bradshaw was basically Brad Johnson, hand it off and make a few 3rd down passes...but the 2nd two, the DEF was still good, but getting older...Bradshaw was a difference maker on those teams.