This is not baseball. The rules and game play are way different. I make nothing of the numbers.

 

A throw is a throw. That's why I'm looking at percentages instead of totals. While you can't compare yards per game or season or career you most certainly can look at some of the stats. It doesn't matter how different the game is.

I don't think they are meaningless, they just don't compare in football across decades. More than any other sport you have to judge numbers against an era in football. In baseball the game has changed so little, the numbers you can compare more accurately, even though that sport too has changed. Outside of the titles, Brady's numbers may look paltry in 40-50 years. Then you will be the old guy in the back of the room saying how great Brady was.

Again, you absolutely can compare some numbers. If both throw 100 passes and in those Brady averages less then 1 INT and Graham averages 5 how do they not compare? What changed from Graham's error to Brady's to make that stat not comparable?

A throw is a throw. That's why I'm looking at percentages instead of totals. While you can't compare yards per game or season or career you most certainly can look at some of the stats. It doesn't matter how different the game is.

 

I don't know. You could literally maul receivers back then. The rules and evolution just make it so difficult to judge.

 

Going by that, Graham may not be one of the top 200 QBs of all time. And FWIW, I am not advocating for Otto Graham as the greatest, just pointing out that I think it is an unfair discredit to his argument when you put he and Brady's stats side-by-side.

I don't know. You could literally maul receivers back then. The rules and evolution just make it so difficult to judge.

 

Going by that, Graham may not be one of the top 200 QBs of all time. And FWIW, I am not advocating for Otto Graham as the greatest, just pointing out that I think it is an unfair discredit to his argument when you put he and Brady's stats side-by-side.

Then there is no discussion to be had. You can't compare titles, stats, what then? Hottest wife?

I think that you can only compare QBs against contemporaries. Then you judge the gap b/n the best and 2nd best QB in ERA A vs. the best and 2nd best in ERA B, or Top 5 if you don't want to be that top heavy. (Side note: Sammy Baugh has gotten no mention in this thread and under this criteria he would most definitely have been.)

 

Another thing that is impossible to judge is the overall strength of teams across eras. Everyone knows who the champions were, but what about the amount of success that rested on each QBs shoulders? Prime example, the Colts did Manning no favors in how they constructed their defense. They only had a good defense for one playoff run and, even then it took a miracle comeback to take down the Pats. So in 30 years when Luck and a few others have surpassed his career marks and he is sitting on just one Super Bowl title, will history not remember him as a top 5 QB b/c his teams were poorly constructed and exposed in the postseason?

 

Finally, why are only QBs weighed on titles? Emmitt Smith has 3 Super Bowl titles and was the key man in the Cowboys offense. However, most people argue that he wasn't the best RB of his own era, let alone greatest of All Time. By the basis of Super Bowls or bust, shouldn't he be way above Sanders the way that we hold Montana over Marino?

I think that you can only compare QBs against contemporaries. Then you judge the gap b/n the best and 2nd best QB in ERA A vs. the best and 2nd best in ERA B, or Top 5 if you don't want to be that top heavy. (Side note: Sammy Baugh has gotten no mention in this thread and under this criteria he would most definitely have been.)

 

Another thing that is impossible to judge is the overall strength of teams across eras. Everyone knows who the champions were, but what about the amount of success that rested on each QBs shoulders? Prime example, the Colts did Manning no favors in how they constructed their defense. They only had a good defense for one playoff run and, even then it took a miracle comeback to take down the Pats. So in 30 years when Luck and a few others have surpassed his career marks and he is sitting on just one Super Bowl title, will history not remember him as a top 5 QB b/c his teams were poorly constructed and exposed in the postseason?

 

Finally, why are only QBs weighed on titles? Emmitt Smith has 3 Super Bowl titles and was the key man in the Cowboys offense. However, most people argue that he wasn't the best RB of his own era, let alone greatest of All Time. By the basis of Super Bowls or bust, shouldn't he be way above Sanders the way that we hold Montana over Marino?

To the bolded. I agree 110% that titles should not be the overall criteria to judge any player especially QB. Ken Anderson is kept out of the Hall of Fame because he didn't win any SB titles yet he was one of the best in his era.

 

Titles should mean very little because a title has more to do with the players and coaches around you than the QB himself.

 

I look at QB's in each era and if I was building a team in each era what QB would I want.

For instance, in the 1970's - 80's if Joe Montana was taken I would have no issue with Ken Anderson as my starting QB.

 

In the 80's - 90's I would have no problem with Dan Marino or Jim Kelly

 

In Brady's era he would probably be the 3rd QB I would take. I would take both Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers before I took Tom Brady. That is why Greatest should be more judged on best, not most titles.

Brady is Great, but how many QB's would win at that level playing for the Hoodie?

 

Brady has only been considered the Best QB in the League 2 times in his career (2007 and 2010) neither of which were Super Bowl Winning Seasons.

 

Can you be the GOAT and only be considered the Best at your position 2 times in 14 years?

Hottest wife?

 

Brady wins that one too...

Brady wins that one too...

 

Giselle does nothing for me. Don't think she is good looking at all. There are women I work with better looking in my opinion.

To the bolded. I agree 110% that titles should not be the overall criteria to judge any player especially QB. Ken Anderson is kept out of the Hall of Fame because he didn't win any SB titles yet he was one of the best in his era.

 

Titles should mean very little because a title has more to do with the players and coaches around you than the QB himself.

 

I look at QB's in each era and if I was building a team in each era what QB would I want.

For instance, in the 1970's - 80's if Joe Montana was taken I would have no issue with Ken Anderson as my starting QB.

 

In the 80's - 90's I would have no problem with Dan Marino or Jim Kelly

 

In Brady's era he would probably be the 3rd QB I would take. I would take both Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers before I took Tom Brady. That is why Greatest should be more judged on best, not most titles.

Take away the title argument and there is no argument for Graham.

Brady is Great, but how many QB's would win at that level playing for the Hoodie?

Brady has only been considered the Best QB in the League 2 times in his career (2007 and 2010) neither of which were Super Bowl Winning Seasons.

 

Can you be the GOAT and only be considered the Best at your position 2 times in 14 years?

 

I'm not sure many do. Bledsoe was great and the Pats won 5 games when he was at the helm.

Giselle does nothing for me. Don't think she is good looking at all. There are women I work with better looking in my opinion.

 

:lol2: :lol2:

Take away the title argument and there is no argument for Graham.

 

There is if you compare QBs by era. Same with Sammy Bough, maybe Dan Fouts, Fran Tarkenton. It really depends on what your connotation of greatest QB is.

:lol2: :lol2:

 

Someone send this man the video of her dancing during her photo shoot on the beach, and Grey, where do I send my resume?

I think they are actually both tough. Today or back then. Either way 10 straight is impressive. Some can say it was easier then because less teams, but if that was the case then why didn't anyone else come close? I look at it as fewer teams make it in the playoffs which makes it tougher to get in.

 

Back in the 50's etc. your team had to win something to get into the playoffs. You had to be either the best in your conference or the best in your division to get in. Today you don't have to win anything to get in the playoffs and when I say you don't need to win anything, I mean you don't have to even win your division to get in. Today you can have a losing record and still make the playoffs. With that said, not one team has come close to 10 straight Championship games. The closest I can think of is Buffalo Bills making 4 straight Super Bowls. Think about how great of a feat people think that was, now add 6 more years to that and 7 wins. Buffalo made it to 4 straight and never won a single Super bowl.

 

Question also about back then. However often did players change on those teams through the 10 years? Did they have quite as much change on roster each year like teams do today? Over those 10 years did he have to play with many different players, many different receivers to throw to, etc? With it being only 2 teams making it, all it would take is one team happening to put together a great roster and then you could see a dominate run like that. I have no clue how often people changed teams back then, but if I had to guess most players probably stayed on the same team. So you say why is it that no one else during that time did what he did. Well that answer may be because that team was put together the best out of everyone because they got to stay mostly together through out that time period.

 

Brady has won at a great clip and made and won Super Bowls throughout his career now and with a roster that is always changing.