I never said he wasn't in the conversation. The only difference is I don't have him listed as #1.

 

I also am not the only one to think that in this thread as you have made a claim to.

 

Again, I never once said he isn't in the conversation. That is my Un-Biased opinion. Just because I don't think he is #1 doesn't mean I think he isn't among the greatest. You don't have to like a team to appreciate their players. You think because I am not a PAtriots fan that is the reason I don't think he should be #1. I really hope you have seen the post where I talked about Joe Montana. The reason I say that is because there is only 1 team I truly can not stand and that is the 49ers. Mainly because they beat my Bengals in the only 2 SB's they made it to. I have a high disdain for that team in San Francisco and always have. That hatred for the team doesn't mean I do not have respect for some of the players.

 

I hate the Yankees, but I think Jeter was one of the best players of his time. Always respected him. Same for many other players. Don't let someone's fandom get in the way of individual players respect and I don't.

 

Actually you said "not even close to the greatest of all-time".

 

Which would seem to mean you don't think he's even in the conversation.

 

I've said in this thread that you can make a case for any of Brady, Elway, or Montana. So I have no issue with anyone saying he isn't #1.

Actually you said "not even close to the greatest of all-time".

 

Which would seem to mean you don't think he's even in the conversation.

 

I've said in this thread that you can make a case for any of Brady, Elway, or Montana. So I have no issue with anyone saying he isn't #1.

 

Apparently you do have an issue with someone saying he isn't #1 or you wouldn't have made the comment that I'm the only one who doesn't think so in this thread even though there were others. Also if you didn't have a problem then why do you care who I have as #1? As Brady, I'd put him in the top 5 but not close to #1. That is my opinion and as I have said, Greatest and best QB ever apparently are 2 different things. Using Championship games as the criteria for greatest then as I've pointed out clearly it would be Otto Graham. If you are simply talking about the best QB's ever then I would put several in front of Brady. Nothing wrong with that. I think Peyton is a better QB game to game as well as Dan Marino who I think is the best pure passing QB that ever played. The most Clutch QB ever I would say Montana. So Brady isn't #1 in best all time, who cares? He has 4 Rings and that afterall is all the matters isn't it?

 

Today's society for some reason feel it is always necessary to crown someone the greatest of all time, and that is done every single year. Why can't we just let them play the game and let the rest take care of itself? I just don't understand the fascination for instant titles and labels always having to be given to current players.

 

You can think he's #1 and as you say not even close. Thats your opinion and that is fine.

Yes. Best QB I have ever seen play the game.

 

 

 

Next question.

Apparently you do have an issue with someone saying he isn't #1 or you wouldn't have made the comment that I'm the only one who doesn't think so in this thread even though there were others. Also if you didn't have a problem then why do you care who I have as #1? As Brady, I'd put him in the top 5 but not close to #1. That is my opinion and as I have said, Greatest and best QB ever apparently are 2 different things. Using Championship games as the criteria for greatest then as I've pointed out clearly it would be Otto Graham. If you are simply talking about the best QB's ever then I would put several in front of Brady. Nothing wrong with that. I think Peyton is a better QB game to game as well as Dan Marino who I think is the best pure passing QB that ever played. The most Clutch QB ever I would say Montana. So Brady isn't #1 in best all time, who cares? He has 4 Rings and that afterall is all the matters isn't it?

 

Today's society for some reason feel it is always necessary to crown someone the greatest of all time, and that is done every single year. Why can't we just let them play the game and let the rest take care of itself? I just don't understand the fascination for instant titles and labels always having to be given to current players.

 

You can think he's #1 and as you say not even close. Thats your opinion and that is fine.

 

This is a discussion board, is it not? I'm interested in the conversation, no more, no less.

 

I don't care if people don't think he's tops, I don't care if someone thinks Andy Dalton is better than him. People can think whatever they want. I enjoy the banter. :idunno:

He played in the AFL correct? Wasn't the NFL the better of the two leagues back then? So he won championships playing in a league that was not even the best in America?

 

Also still interested in your take on if Brady didn't even make the two super bowls that he lost in, if that would change your opinion then. Since he would then be 4 and 0? Which still makes no sense to me how you can say someone would look better if they didn't make the Super Bowl instead of losing in it.

 

It wasn't the AFL. Didn't exist then. It was the AAFC and then the Browns joined the NFL in 1950. :thumb:

 

Old school quarterbacks often looked like this:

 

 

I have that picture autographed by Mr. Y.A. Tittle himself.

 

Better read that again. Graham was in 10 title games and won 7. He was in a title game EVERY year he played! Brady's achievements, though very impressive, do not stack up to Graham's.

 

How many teams played then?

How many teams played then?

 

10-13 depending on the year. What difference does it make. As was said earlier if it was so easy why didn't anyone else accomplish that?

This is a discussion board, is it not? I'm interested in the conversation, no more, no less.

 

I don't care if people don't think he's tops, I don't care if someone thinks Andy Dalton is better than him. People can think whatever they want. I enjoy the banter. :idunno:

 

Ok, we can agree on one thing, Andy Dalton isn't better than Brady haha.

Are the rules more in favor for QB's now? Yes. One thing to think about though is that the football defenses and players in general are much more talented now and more complex then they have ever been. I think that Brady is definitely the best QB to ever play the game, taking all things into account, not just the 4 super bowls

You just answered your own question.

The rules changes have afforded QB's a much easier path to success. Simply look at the stats over the past 20 - 30 years. A simple one to look at right up front is the completion percentage for QB's in 1980 compared to 2015. For example in 1985 there were only 2 QB's in the entire league that completion % was 60% or higher. The highest in 1985 was a 61% completion percentage and that was Dan Marino. In 2015 you had 10 QB's that threw for over 60% completion percentage. 7 QB's with 20 or more attempts.

 

As far as coverages etc. Back 30 etc. years ago DB's could basically harass a WR all the way down the field so to think it was easier completing passes back then is not true at all.

 

Defenses may have gotten more sphiisticated but you are taking it for granted that QB's back then if they had the same resources the QB's have todya have that they wouldn't be able to read defenses. I will present to you a local QB who was among the best at disecting defenses when he played and that was Ken Anderson. He also was teh QB's coach for the Steelers with Big Ben when they won the SB and if I remember correctly Big Ben had a pretty good year that season and who was his coach? Ken Anderson, so to think Anderson along with others from that era couldn't read or disect defenses is also a myth.

 

In no way, as anyone who have watched the game back then, would ever say the QB's felt more comfortable back then than they do today. Defenders could do a lot more back then than they can today. There is a Hall of Famer defensive player that lived off of a move where he would basically knock his opponent in the head with what is basically a forearm punch, he would hit them right in the ear hole to basically ring their bell every play. You could do that back then, you could close line players, you could rip their helmets off etc. No way was it easier back then than it is today.

 

You completely seem to discount the fact that high schools and colleges are more passing than they were in the 80s so of coarse completion percentage is better now. Shoot back then some colleges were still running the wishbone things like that. So yeah that was more of the main reason for qbs not throwing as well because of them not doing it their whole life like now. You completely ignore all the mental aspects that have to go into it now and how even more complex reading the defense is compared to back then. And how teams are much better making it look like one coverage and then do another. I think that is one reason the bears 85 defense was so great. Qbs were not use to having that type of pressure on them. Today it had become more common place and qbs have to know how to throw under pressure.

Unless I missed it. I am still waiting to find out how making two more super bowls and losing is worse than not making two more super bowls at all and not losing.

I'm really not certain how to approach this post. There is very little, and I thought most would say almost nothing, that does not favor the modern QB. I mean, is it an accident that there was one 5,000 yard season by a QB before 2008 and now there have been seven since? Quarterbacks have thrown for more than 4,000 yards in a season 130 times now. It happened 11 times this season. It happened 16 times before 1990 in total, and only 38 times before 2000. We've had guys like Elvis Grbac, Kerry Collins, Trent Green, and Jon Kitna throw for over 4,000 yards since 2000. And the rules get more slanted in favor of the offense all the time, with the recent emphasis on offensive PI finally checking it a bit.

 

Talking about pressures on QBs? I mean, maybe. But there's also a lot of things the defensive guys can't do that they once could do, like the head slap to an offensive lineman and hitting the quarterback anywhere that isn't the torso. And even then if it looks too funny the QB will get a call.

 

It just feels like you're burying a lot when you say "besides the rules." Well that's a whole heck of a lot of stuff that explains why modern QBs go bonkers on stats and why it has evolved into a passing league.

 

Well to quickly answer this without having time to look it up. I would say the pass attempts in a year are much higher now than 2000 and much more than before 1990. So I would say if you take say some qbs from the 90s and take there average yards per attempt and take there attempts per season to the average there is now that a lot of them would start being over 4000 yards for a season too. So that probably explains that. I Dont have the time to look it up right now so I could be wrong. However I would think that would be a good reason for that increase in yards.

One other thing I will put in Brady's favor is that teams in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's could stay together. Brady has been the leader of a team that has over the last 13 years, changed an incredible number of players. It is very difficult to maintain greatness when the cast around you is constantly changing due to salary cap issues. The Steelers, Niners, and Cowboys in those eras (and the Browns in the 50's) had much more stable rosters than teams do today.

 

I will admit I have never seen Otto Graham play so I cannot opine on how good he is. Maybe I should have titled the thread, "greatest QB in NFL history"...

One other thing I will put in Brady's favor is that teams in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's could stay together. Brady has been the leader of a team that has over the last 13 years, changed an incredible number of players. It is very difficult to maintain greatness when the cast around you is constantly changing due to salary cap issues. The Steelers, Niners, and Cowboys in those eras (and the Browns in the 50's) had much more stable rosters than teams do today.

 

I will admit I have never seen Otto Graham play so I cannot opine on how good he is. Maybe I should have titled the thread, "greatest QB in NFL history"...

 

I think you raise a valid point there. However the same could be said for Montana in the early 80's.

 

If memory serves Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were his two best receivers and his runners were Ring and someone else.

 

By the time he won again he had added a few like Tyler and Craig out of the backfield.

 

By the next two Jerry Rice had come on board but Clark was gone and replaced and Tyler had aged out leaving Craig to be joined by Rathman I believe.

 

I can see a case in modern history for either Montana or Brady.