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.

Completion %'s aren't better because High School teams pass more today.

You really ignore the rules changes etc. which makes your argument futile.

 

The reason Completion Percentages are not only up compared to 30 years ago but have skyrocketed is simply because receivers can now run free. In the past they could be harassed from the snap of the ball until the end of the play. The QB's aren't better, they just have an easier path to completions than ever before. When you look at some of the best QB's in history and look at their completion percentages for instance and compare them to today's QB's there is no way you can convince anyone that Andy Dalton is a better QB than Dan Marino, yet Andy Dalton's career completion % is higher than Dan Marino's. Why do you think that is?

Marino career completion % is 59%

Dalton's career completion % is 62%

 

Marino averaged 3609 passing yards per year

Dalton averages 3689 passing yards per year

 

Marino avg'd 24 TD's a season

Dalton is averaging 24 TD's a season

 

Now do you actually think Dalton is a better QB than Dan Marino?

 

The rules have everything to do with why QB's today have better stats in just about every category than some of the best QB's ever to play the game.

 

Lastly, I read your reply to DragonFire and your belief that they throw the ball more today than they did in the past which could be true for some, but not all. Sticking with the 2 QB's I have used in comparison, Dan Marino averaged 34 passes a game while Dalton averages only 33. So that doesn't explain how Dalton has more yards on average per season than Dan Marino when Dan throws more per game.

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.

 

Fran Tarkenton and Jim Kelly thank you.

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.

 

You could be correct on that, but that only further proves my point. The quarterbacks are throwing so much more because the rules make it so much easier for them to do so.

Completion %'s aren't better because High School teams pass more today.

You really ignore the rules changes etc. which makes your argument futile.

 

The reason Completion Percentages are not only up compared to 30 years ago but have skyrocketed is simply because receivers can now run free. In the past they could be harassed from the snap of the ball until the end of the play. The QB's aren't better, they just have an easier path to completions than ever before. When you look at some of the best QB's in history and look at their completion percentages for instance and compare them to today's QB's there is no way you can convince anyone that Andy Dalton is a better QB than Dan Marino, yet Andy Dalton's career completion % is higher than Dan Marino's. Why do you think that is?

Marino career completion % is 59%

Dalton's career completion % is 62%

 

Marino averaged 3609 passing yards per year

Dalton averages 3689 passing yards per year

 

Marino avg'd 24 TD's a season

Dalton is averaging 24 TD's a season

 

Now do you actually think Dalton is a better QB than Dan Marino?

 

The rules have everything to do with why QB's today have better stats in just about every category than some of the best QB's ever to play the game.

 

Lastly, I read your reply to DragonFire and your belief that they throw the ball more today than they did in the past which could be true for some, but not all. Sticking with the 2 QB's I have used in comparison, Dan Marino averaged 34 passes a game while Dalton averages only 33. So that doesn't explain how Dalton has more yards on average per season than Dan Marino when Dan throws more per game.

 

You make a great point, but you make it out to be the only reason that the completion % has gone up. Another reason is that the spread offenses have become much more efficient. The screen game has grown by leaps and bounds in the NFL. Teams now have to consistently cover 4 wide receivers on every play. Also, and this is nitpicking, but you took into account all of Marino's seasons when you put those averages up. He only played 5 games in 1993. If you take that season out, his yearly averages go up a bit.

 

And we agree on the Marino question. When it comes to comparing stats such as passing TDs and yardage in comparing Marino and Dalton, you have to compare the eras. Marino's offenses were given less possessions than the average offense gets now. With tempo being pushed faster, and with the running game featuring less and less, the clock is stopped more while more plays are being run. Over the course of 16 games, that gives a QB more chances to chuck it.

Completion %'s aren't better because High School teams pass more today.

You really ignore the rules changes etc. which makes your argument futile.

 

The reason Completion Percentages are not only up compared to 30 years ago but have skyrocketed is simply because receivers can now run free. In the past they could be harassed from the snap of the ball until the end of the play. The QB's aren't better, they just have an easier path to completions than ever before. When you look at some of the best QB's in history and look at their completion percentages for instance and compare them to today's QB's there is no way you can convince anyone that Andy Dalton is a better QB than Dan Marino, yet Andy Dalton's career completion % is higher than Dan Marino's. Why do you think that is?

Marino career completion % is 59%

Dalton's career completion % is 62%

 

Marino averaged 3609 passing yards per year

Dalton averages 3689 passing yards per year

 

Marino avg'd 24 TD's a season

Dalton is averaging 24 TD's a season

 

Now do you actually think Dalton is a better QB than Dan Marino?

 

The rules have everything to do with why QB's today have better stats in just about every category than some of the best QB's ever to play the game.

 

Lastly, I read your reply to DragonFire and your belief that they throw the ball more today than they did in the past which could be true for some, but not all. Sticking with the 2 QB's I have used in comparison, Dan Marino averaged 34 passes a game while Dalton averages only 33. So that doesn't explain how Dalton has more yards on average per season than Dan Marino when Dan throws more per game.

 

I have admitted the rules does help the offense today, but you completely keep ignoring the other parts that are harder today. Not to mention if you don't think that high schools and colleges being more passing today than they were back then has an impact on how good some passers are, then this really is a waste. College QB's are more prepared today for the NFL than they ever were back then. Were starting to see how now even high school QB's are even more prepared for college now too than they ever been. That also has a huge impact in passing numbers being better now.

You make a great point, but you make it out to be the only reason that the completion % has gone up. Another reason is that the spread offenses have become much more efficient. The screen game has grown by leaps and bounds in the NFL. Teams now have to consistently cover 4 wide receivers on every play. Also, and this is nitpicking, but you took into account all of Marino's seasons when you put those averages up. He only played 5 games in 1993. If you take that season out, his yearly averages go up a bit.

 

And we agree on the Marino question. When it comes to comparing stats such as passing TDs and yardage in comparing Marino and Dalton, you have to compare the eras. Marino's offenses were given less possessions than the average offense gets now. With tempo being pushed faster, and with the running game featuring less and less, the clock is stopped more while more plays are being run. Over the course of 16 games, that gives a QB more chances to chuck it.

 

What about Kenny Stabler? The Snake had Oakland Raiders the most feared team of the mid 1970s, until the Steelers took over? lol! :isurrender:

You could be correct on that, but that only further proves my point. The quarterbacks are throwing so much more because the rules make it so much easier for them to do so.

 

Possibly and the QB's are much more prepared coming into the NFL now too, because they been doing it since High School.

13-15 for 2 TD's in the 4th quarter and 8-8 for a TD on that final drive. This against a defense they were ready to crown one of, if not the best ever had they pulled it out. You can spin it however you want, but if the game is on the line I want Tom Brady with the ball over any other QB to ever play.

 

I'll take Graham. All he ever did was win... in every season he played. He willed his teams to victory.

 

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?

 

If it was so easy today why aren't more QBs winning 4 championships, and making it there as frequently as Brady.

Yeah, anything that happened before the NFL is meaningless IMO.

 

The only way to win the argument is to take away Graham's accomplishments. The stats for the old AFL remained for all those players and counted for many of them making the Hall of Fame. So Graham played 4 seasons in the AAFC and 6 seasons in the NFL. During that whole time the Cleveland Browns were the best team playing American football. They proved it with head-to-head match-up. The NFL scheduled the defending NFL champion Eagles vs. the AAFC Champs for the first game of the 1950 season--the year the Browns entered the NFL. The Browns promptly and decisively beat the Eagles. They went through the season winning their division with a 10-2 record and beat the LA Rams for the NFL championship.

 

Sure, disallow Graham's stats and tie one of his arms behind his back and then your favorite qb may be better. But let his accomplishments stand on their own stacked against others accomplishments and you will see Graham stacks up quite favorably.

I give him credit for that. You stated you wanted to talk about facts and I am sharing them with you. What Graham did in his era was great no doubt. However if we are going to count those championships then I guess we should start counting championships won by guys in the CFL or the leagues in Europe or any other professional league. This league came the great league it is once the leagues combined right? So if we want to count things before that then we need to count every professional league besides the NFL.

 

I think they showed a stat that Brady had the most come back victories in the post season correct? Even in the two super bowl losses he led his teams down to scores that would have won them the game if not for the defense. Also since you want to talk about defenses. The steelers super bowls in the 70s were mostly cause of the defense correct? The Montana 49ers I believe had very good defenses but I can't remember. However the last few super bowls he won came with having the best wide receiver of all time. So all teams had other things that helped those guys win super bowls. Brady has the post season stats, numbers and wins. He has had the regular season wins and stats and records too when he had talent to throw to like others. So he has the super bowls but that's not all he has.

 

The only comparison that really works is to compare the AAFC coming into the NFL with the AFL coming into the NFL. They kept all the AFL stats and accomplishments. The AAFC stats and accomplishments should count to. Besides, when the AAFC desolved and some of the teams came into the NFL, Cleveland proved they were superior to the NFL teams. They continued their winning ways.

No player is as strong as the players of today either. What is being forgotten is whatever era you talk about the players of those era's played against equal competition just as players of today are playing against equal competition for the time.

 

You can never say if we transported Brady back to the 50's he wouldn't be succesful because the players today are more physically superior than players back then but that is because of the era itself.

 

That is why when you compare era's and different players you can only compare what each did against their peers. If Otto Graham was born in 1980 and had all the advantages of todays athletes you would have to admit that he would be better even today than he was in 1950.

 

Never lose sight of that fact. So you can only compare what they did against their own peers and in Otto's time he was the best ever and his record of 10 straight Championship games in only the 10 years he played is phenomenal. It doesn't matter how many teams he played against. The fact that a lesser percentage of teams made the post season than todays teams also gives Otto a disadvantage yet he still made it to the Championship game every season he played.

 

This post is golden. This is the only way to compare one athlete of one era to another athlete of a different era. To speculate what would be if so-and-so were transported back to 1950 is pure fantasy. It is talking about something that does not exist, did not exist, and never will exist.

 

You can only compare what actually did happen and that is to look at each in his own era against his peers. By comparing reality, Graham wins because no one has won as much and as consistently as Graham. BTW, the only stat that really counts is wins and losses. Ask the many great coaches who get fired each year.

Im still curious that besides the rules that do help the offenses more, what in today's age favors QB more? The defenses were very basic back then from my understanding, so much easier to read and throw against. The types of pressures coming at them, made it probably a lot easier to feel comfortable in the pocket. The amount of mental preparation probably didn't even come close to how it is today. Teams back then probably focused more on stopping the run than the pass, etc. So yes the rules today favor the QB more, however there are a lot of other things today that make it harder on the QB than it was back then too. If anything if a QB could truly throw an accurate ball back then, they probably had it easier because there wouldn't be as much to prepare for or read. See the open guy, hit the open guy.

 

Besides the excellent points made by several already one should also consider the conditions of the field. Watch any old film and the players are standing in mud up to their ankles. Hard to plant your feet and throw and hard for guys to run down field to catch a pass. Plus a dome, for instance that has favored Manning and every qb today who gets several games a year in a dome if their home field doesn't have one.

 

Here's something to consider, the linemen today hang on to the defenders jerseys. When I played we were taught to hang on to our own jerseys because any grasp of a jersey would be an instant penalty or extending the arms, etc. Today the O-line is able to grab the jersey inside the defenders shoulders and hang on, or grab his pads. He can get his arms extended and grasp the D lineman and steer him. The DB then could hit the WR all over the field, not just in the first five yards. There was a DB for the KC Chiefs who played in the first SuperBowl who was called the hammer because he used to slug the receivers in the helmet with his forearm. This was legal. The offenses today have SOOOOO many advantages in the rules. It's more like pitch and catch than football. QBs are coddled by the league. You are barely allowed to breathe on them. Much easier to be a qb today.

I say yes. He has QB'd his team to 6 Super Bowls and his team has now won 4, both are records or tied for the record.

 

That is the first line of the threads original post.

 

I understand you would say it's a no-brainer, he is the QB for your team you root for. I being an outsider and not affiliated with the team in any way don't think it's a no brainer as you state.

 

I think QB's in this era have it a lot easier than any QB's of the past even just going back 20 years. They have a clear advantage if you simply look at stats. I would if just looking in my lifetime list several others as the greatest of this era. Joe Montana being at the top. I also think greatest and best in this debate are two different things. Peyton Manning for instance is a better QB as far as being a QB in a game and as far as preparation etc. That doesn't always translate to winning championships though. Dan Marino was probably the best pure passer I've ever seen, but he played on some bad teams and a QB can't do it all.

 

So I respect and understand your feelings for the team you root for QB but I don't think it's as clear an open and shut case as you want to make it out to be. what I'm trying to say is your home team bias is coming through a little and I think even you could say that maybe that has a little to do with your choice also.

 

You picked my first sentence and then neglected the rest of what I said. I think SB record is only part of the reason Brady should be considered at or very near the top. In the first post and in later ones I listed plenty of other reasons...doing it with relatively pedestrian offensive talent most of his career, his incredible overall regular season and playoff record, his leadership qualities, his very solid work ethic. his total unselfish attitude (taking less money when he did not have to), his taking his team to the playoffs almost every year in a salary cap/parity driven league, his great play in all weather conditions, etc., etc., etc.

 

I have no idea what you mean by the bolded sentence about Peyton Manning. Why is his game preparation better than Brady's? They both seem to be incredible in that department. What does "being a better QB as far as being a QB in a game and as far as preparation" even mean??

Thanks for the lively discussion, gents. I enjoyed this quite a lot. It made me think through why I hold my opinion. Each time a valid point is brought up by another it forces me to consider the additional info. Who would have thunk this thread would generate 179 posts as quickly as it did while many of you were supposed to be working :lol2: