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

 

No one said you can't use post season success. You are reading way into something that hasn't been said.

 

Post Season Success has more to do with the ENTIRE team than it has to do with 1 player. That doesn't mean you can't use post season success as a part of the criteria, just not as big of a part as you want to.

 

If you were the owner of a brand new franchise today and you could pick any QB in the league today as your QB to start your franchise with, who would you pick? It is a rhetorical question to you because you are a Pats fan and would take Brady, but to anyone else the majority of the people would pick Aaron Rodgers over Brady and some others would pick Peyton or even Drew Brees or even Andrew Luck. Being the best does not only come down to how many titles.

 

That is the point you are missing.

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.

 

The fact that you ignore what I said is reason for this to be the only post of yours I reply to. I never once said he is a bad QB because he lost 2 SB's. Way to spin that one.

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?

 

Nope. But Bradys success in the regular season AND the post season set him apart from the Mannings and Marinos. Its funny everyone wants to bring up Dilfer as their poster child for lessening post season achievement. I have yet to hear one person state he is a better than anyone else due to that one achievement. But yet you want to bring him up in comparison with Tom Brady. When talking all time lets talk about the greats, and yes if one has had epic post season success, that counts.

No one said you can't use post season success. You are reading way into something that hasn't been said.

 

Post Season Success has more to do with the ENTIRE team than it has to do with 1 player. That doesn't mean you can't use post season success as a part of the criteria, just not as big of a part as you want to.

 

If you were the owner of a brand new franchise today and you could pick any QB in the league today as your QB to start your franchise with, who would you pick? It is a retoricall question to you because you are a Pats fan and would take Brady, but to anyone else the majority of the people would pick Aaron Rodgers over Brady and some others would pick Peyton or even Drew Brees. Being the best does not only come down to how many titles.

 

That is the point you are missing.

 

And...You'd be wrong. I wouldn't pick Brady.

 

You keep saying I think Brady is the best because of the # of titles he has. I've never once said anything close to that. I said his rings factor in to why I think he's the best, but I've never once said it's the only reason. You can disagree with me all you want, but at least be accurate as to what my opinion is.

Nope. But Bradys success in the regular season AND the post season set him apart from the Mannings and Marinos. Its funny everyone wants to bring up Dilfer as their poster child for lessening post season achievement. I have yet to hear one person state he is a better than anyone else due to that one achievement. But yet you want to bring him up in comparison with Tom Brady. When talking all time lets talk about the greats, and yes if one has had epic post season success, that counts.

 

You are correct about Dilfer, but that is the point that you can't mainly use post season success as the weighing factor.

 

Again I ask the question if you were building a franchise and we can even say 4 years ago instead of today so you can't use age as the factor. What QB would you choose? I would choose Aaron Rodgers even if it was 2011 over Brady. I would also choose Peyton Manning over Brady in 2011. You may choose Brady and that is fine, nothing wrong with it. I would choose who I think is the best QB in the game today or in 2011 and that would not be Tom Brady. He would be on my list I'd like to have as my #2 in case my #1 got hurt though.

And...You'd be wrong. I wouldn't pick Brady.

 

You keep saying I think Brady is the best because of the # of titles he has. I've never once said anything close to that. I said his rings factor in to why I think he's the best, but I've never once said it's the only reason. You can disagree with me all you want, but at least be accurate as to what my opinion is.

 

Then why wouldn't you pick the best? I surely would.

Then why wouldn't you pick the best? I surely would.

 

Because you said we're starting a franchise. He's 37 years old. Why would I pick a QB that may give me 2-3 more seasons? That would be ignorant. As would be picking Brees or Manning. And I've never once said Brady is the best QB right now. He's past that point. Still elite, but he isn't the current best in the league. Career-wise, that's a different story.

 

I'd take Luck, and laugh all the way to the bank while he's winning multiple championships over the next 10-12 years.

The fact that you ignore what I said is reason for this to be the only post of yours I reply to. I never once said he is a bad QB because he lost 2 SB's. Way to spin that one.

 

Did I ever say that you said that he was a bad QB? So good job trying to spin that. What I have said is what you have applied. You have clearly said a few times that you would take other QB's over him who haven't lost in the Super Bowl like he has. Which means you are using the fact that since he made more Super Bowls, that since he did end up losing two of them shows others who haven't lost are better. So with your theory if those two years he lost the Super Bowl, if they would have just lost in the AFC Championship instead, it would make him look better? Which makes no sense at all, because you are completely discrediting the fact that he made those Super Bowls and using that against him since he lost.

No one said you can't use post season success. You are reading way into something that hasn't been said.

 

Post Season Success has more to do with the ENTIRE team than it has to do with 1 player. That doesn't mean you can't use post season success as a part of the criteria, just not as big of a part as you want to.

 

If you were the owner of a brand new franchise today and you could pick any QB in the league today as your QB to start your franchise with, who would you pick? It is a rhetorical question to you because you are a Pats fan and would take Brady, but to anyone else the majority of the people would pick Aaron Rodgers over Brady and some others would pick Peyton or even Drew Brees or even Andrew Luck. Being the best does not only come down to how many titles.

 

That is the point you are missing.

 

Very bad argument here. I mean hardly anyone who is starting franchise today would pick Brady because he is at the end of his career. Mostly everyone would take Rodgers or Luck. Honestly the best question probably would be if you were starting a franchise today and could pick any QB ever who were in their prime, who would people take?

Very bad argument here. I mean hardly anyone who is starting franchise today would pick Brady because he is at the end of his career. Mostly everyone would take Rodgers or Luck. Honestly the best question probably would be if you were starting a franchise today and could pick any QB ever who were in their prime, who would people take?

 

If that were the question, I'd take Brady. Would also consider guys like Elway or Montana. JMO, but those 3 are significantly ahead of everyone else in my mind.

 

As you said, with how the question was asked, not sure how anyone doesn't take Luck or Rodgers.

If that were the question, I'd take Brady. Would also consider guys like Elway or Montana. JMO, but those 3 are significantly ahead of everyone else in my mind.

 

As you said, with how the question was asked, not sure how anyone doesn't take Luck or Rodgers.

 

Brady or Montana would be mine too. Which even though Greyfox keeps thinking people are picking Brady only for the post season that is not true. The postseason success weighs into the whole decision, because Brady has also been great in the regular season with not much talent on offense, and when he has he has put up records. Shoot he has even done it without really ever having stud running back to lean on. I would probably give Brady the edge, and Montana a close 2nd if I could choose any QB in their prime to start a franchise with. Honestly third for me would be Rodgers because I think at the end of the day he will be one of the best of all time.

The same question could be asked of Montana and Walsh, Graham :wave: and Brown, Staubach and Landry. Wherever you have that great combination.

 

LOL. Thanks for the consideration, mexitucky. LOL

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.

 

I don't think the qb play was an after-though comment is accurate. 2700 yds in 12 games isn't anything to sneeze at. Graham also had the highest yards per attempt ave. of all time. Brady is #37. Graham could chunk the ball. As per your observation, the game was completely different then but I don't understand how that disqualifies someone from being considered. It does require a more sophisticated analysis because you have to take that into consideration along with the impact of rule changes, field surfaces, and the different approach to the game. I don't pretend to comprehend all that but I do know you will overlook some great players if you don't consider them just because they played way back when.

I don't think the qb play was an after-though comment is accurate. 2700 yds in 12 games isn't anything to sneeze at. Graham also had the highest yards per attempt ave. of all time. Brady is #37. Graham could chunk the ball. As per your observation, the game was completely different then but I don't understand how that disqualifies someone from being considered. It does require a more sophisticated analysis because you have to take that into consideration along with the impact of rule changes, field surfaces, and the different approach to the game. I don't pretend to comprehend all that but I do know you will overlook some great players if you don't consider them just because they played way back when.

 

I get the rules have changed. IMO it's hard to even consider a player, regardless of era, when he threw more INTs than TDs once he got to the NFL. I know defenders were allowed a lot more back then. Still doesn't excuse the fact that he was turning it over pretty much at a 1:1 ratio with TDs. Also, it's very telling to me that his numbers dropped significantly when he went from the AAFC to the NFL. I never saw him play, and I'd venture neither did anyone else on here. Hard to go on anything else when you've got nothing else to look at.

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.

 

I would say Graham is not included because people's memory is not that long and there is a bias against anything not in our era and the people who make the lists (I assume you are talking about sports writers, football analysts, authors, etc. and not the people on this forum) are trying to be relevant to today's audiences which know next to nothing about Graham and Baugh. But lets get a group of people in the room who are very knowledgeable about league history, like those who vote for the Hall of Fame, and ask them. I am almost certain Graham gets more attention as one of, if not the best, from that group.