I agree with that statement. Now the question is whether those who think he doesn't belong in the conversation are wise in their assessment. Read Peter King. Read the other book I mentioned. Watch film the history of the game. Cleveland Brown had a wide-open offense in comparison to the NFL in 1950. West Coast offense... Bill Walsh via Paul Brown.

 

Yes, I would say most are very wise in their assessment. When you have the great majority of people who follow pro football and make up the various lists not even including him in their top 7, the outlier would be those who would include him in the conversation for number one.

Sure you are, when you post this

 

"Manning - It's hard for me to seriously consider a player as the best QB of all-time, or his era, if they have a losing record in the postseason."

 

Sounds like you are looking at playoff success as a major weighing point of who you would consider the best.

 

If you aren't willing to actually read my entire posts, and are just going to cherry-pick various items taken out of context, it's pointless to continue this debate. You don't need to win a bunch of titles. Having a winning record in the postseason isn't all that much to ask of the best of a generation though IMO.

Right, which is kinda my point. QB play back then was almost an after-thought. The game was completely different, and that's why no QB from that era can be in the conversation as best ever IMO.

 

They don't belong because they played in an era when it was much more difficult to be a qb and throw a pass and make a completion? Graham was the best of his era by far. Cleveland had a pretty prolific attack in the air and the ground. Graham did this without the benefit of the way a qb is coddled on the field today. That one book I mentioned ealier looks at a bunch of different stats and ways to make comparisons and includes modern players. Graham is still at the top. The author is a Packers fan and so doesn't have a bias towards a Cleveland player.

Sure you are, when you post this

 

"Manning - It's hard for me to seriously consider a player as the best QB of all-time, or his era, if they have a losing record in the postseason."

 

Sounds like you are looking at playoff success as a major weighing point of who you would consider the best.

 

Playoff success and winning titles is the same thing? In what world? :ohbrother:

My comments are for two reason. It was stated he played against the best. That doesn't appear to be true.

 

To your point on having better athletes to throw to, Tom Brady doesn't have the best athletes to throw too, not even close.

 

To say he played with and against the available talent is like arguing a D3 QB is the best college because he wins 4 straight D3 titles.

 

except D3 isn't the top league in the US and doesn't play against the best available talent. Graham played against the best and bested them.

Think about this. One is every 20 throws Otto made was an INT. He averaged over 1 per game. One in every 50 throws Tom Brady makes is an INT. He has averaged less than .7 per game. Brady has 4542 more pass attempts then Graham, yet he only has 8 more INT's. Someone mentioned rating earlier in support of Graham, Brady's career rating is 10 pts higher. He completion percentage is almost 10pts higher.

 

Yes, Graham was a winner in his time. But when you look at his stats at QB he would be an average QB in today's game at best. In 1945 Tim Tebow would have been a stud.

 

In 1945 Tim Tebow would not yet be born. His Dad probably wasn't even born yet. You need to read the posts that talk about why you can't take a person from one era and project how they would have done or would do today. I could say if the rules the same in 1950 as they are today and the field conditions were as good as they are today and Graham had played in the RCA Dome he would have the same stats as today's greats. But this scenario, as the Tim Tebow scenario is a mere fantasy. It is talking about a world that does not exist.

 

I stick to reality. What actually happened is that Graham won more than any other qb. If I am starting a franchise and I want to be the best, I pick a winner, not the one who throws the prettiest spiral. Which qb has done in his era what Graham did in his? I guess in one way, this is an discussion about what criteria to use in deciding who is the best ever. Winning is the top criteria for me because that is what the game is about. And this is the truth... Cleveland would NOT have been the same team without Graham. They would not have won all those titles without him. He was the main reason on the field for why they won.

I think titles have something to do with it. You put Manning an Brady side by side, how do you ignore the postseason records?

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?

 

The question is backwards. It should be how many coaches would win with Brady. Hoodie had a LOSING record as a head coach before Brady came along...and over a pretty long sample period (5+ years). He only became great AFTER Brady came along. Now he is a genius.

Question to those who don't recognize post season success as a measuring stick in the debate. You want to throw out the games against the best competition with the most pressure? Ignore those who succed in that venue? Makes little to no sense...

Think about this. One is every 20 throws Otto made was an INT. He averaged over 1 per game. One in every 50 throws Tom Brady makes is an INT. He has averaged less than .7 per game. .

Again we go back to why do you think that is? A big part of it has everything to do with the rule changes.

 

Is it easier to complete a pass with a defender hanging all over the receiver or is it easier to complete a pass with a cushion between the defender and the receiver? It's always going to be easier to complete a pass when you can have your receiver running free with no defender impeding his movement.

Question to those who don't recognize post season success as a measuring stick in the debate. You want to throw out the games against the best competition with the most pressure? Ignore those who succed in that venue? Makes little to no sense...

 

I don't think anyone is saying you can't use post season success as a fctor, just not as big of a factor as some want to make it out to be because the biggest reason for post season success has everything to do with the team and not 1 player.

 

Do you think Dan Marino was a bad QB because he didn't have very good post season success? Trent Dilfer had better post season success, does that make him a greater QB?

So we can't use post-season success, and we can't use stats or #'s. What exactly are we allowed to use?

Question to those who don't recognize post season success as a measuring stick in the debate. You want to throw out the games against the best competition with the most pressure? Ignore those who succed in that venue? Makes little to no sense...

 

I don't think that anyone really argued that. They just said that championships are a big component of ranking a QB, but not the "End all be all"

The issue I have with that way of thinking, whether a team gets new players or stays practically the same is that you still give the QB too much credit for teams success. Brady wasn't the reason many times that the Pats were successful. They had great defenses in many of those years. Too many times people have said Brady didn't have any great WR's or RB's when "he" won. Well in those years it was usually the defense which was the best part of the Patriots team. The 2 SB's the Pats lost under Brady were probably the best offensive players he has ever had, yet he couldn't win with them.

 

Going back to the original question though, during the 10 year span I'm sure there were different players seeing how even today the avg lifespan for a NFL player staying in the league is just over 3 years. Back then they didn't have the rehab and Dr's like they have today so I would bet the avg career was around e same if not less.

 

Brady even with not much talent to work with on offense still has been able to put up numbers, and has been able in the biggest moments lead the team on offense even with not much around him to work with. Shoot as we have seen even with Deion Branch who was a Super Bowl MVP with the Pats and looked like one of the better receivers in football. Then when he left them, he showed he really wasn't that good but Brady made him look good.

 

As for the players back then yes I could but that the average lifespan for players may have been about the same. However that is not what I was talking about in my question. How big was free agency back then, was there even a salary cap back then? Were teams able to easily keep their best players? As I said I really don't know. However I would assume that most teams when they drafted a player or got a player was able to keep them for most of their career if they were talented. So if the Browns happened to put a very good team together, they probably were able to keep that talent together much easier than in todays age. Where you may have a few good years, but if you have a lot of talent after a few years you lose some because you can't afford them anymore. Always constant change in todays age, and I bet it wasn't like that back then.

So we can't use post-season success, and we can't use stats or #'s. What exactly are we allowed to use?

 

The fact that he has used Brady's two Super Bowl losses against him, and gives more credit to guys who haven't made as many but hasn't lost tells me everything I need to know. It makes no sense to discredit a guy for making two more super bowls than the others he mentioned who happened to be undefeated in Super Bowls.