Or pure logic based on the facts. He is near the top, but not at the top. Graham is sitting there all by his lonesome looking down at all the others.

 

So do you think if Otto Graham played today, he would play in 10 straight championship games?

It is nearly impossible to transplant guys from years back and expect them to perform in today's climate. It was a different time and by pure evolution and regiments, humans are physically faster and stronger. All of them. So by virtue of that alone Brady is better, but in 50 years are we going to say the thing about Brady, et al.?

 

In this era of capped football it is all about organizational efficiency and that starts with the owner and trickles down to the players. Brady has guided the player vessel as well as anyone during this time. I would not have knocked Brady a notch had Seattle scored on that last possession. I didn't think he looked all that great yesterday, just ok. It was a dink-and-dunk fest with a low degree of difficulty. In 4 of the 6 Superbowls he has played, I thought Brady was just ok to below the "all time great" standards bestowed upon him.

 

Paul Brown. He was so far ahead of everyone else I truly believe he could have won with other QB's than Graham at the helm.

 

Same could be said for the Hoodie, he is so much better than other coaches he could have won 4 Super Bowls with a lot of QBs...not just Brady.

 

Brady is in the conversation, may or may not be the GOAT but he's in the conversation and on the short list.

There is only one more post I will make showing how great Otto Graham actually was.

If people can go back and look at some of the best QB's they can think of from different era's etc. For instance, 60's Bart Starr, 70's Terry Bradshaw or Fran Tarkenton or Roger Staubach etc. and then the 80's Joe Montana, Dan Marino etc. Even throw in Ken Anderson who was one of the best and overlooked QB's of his era in my opinion. Then simply look at their QB Ratings.

 

Back in the days where those QB's played, having a rating of 80 was considered really good. It would be like having a qb rating of 90+ in todays NFL. Otto Graham had a career rating equal to Dan Marino's, higher than Montana, Bradhsaw, Tareknton, Dan Fouts etc. Graham actually had 5 of his 10 years with a rating over 94 and a couple with a rating over 100.

 

Brady is good, but it's an awful lot you need to prove when you try and label the greatest ever. The greatest in this era, sure I can buy that. The greatest in history then you have to show me a lot more than 4 SB wins and 2 Losses especially when 3 of the 4 SB wins were mostly by the defense.

It is nearly impossible to transplant guys from years back and expect them to perform in today's climate. It was a different time and by pure evolution and regiments, humans are physically faster and stronger. All of them. So by virtue of that alone Brady is better, but in 50 years are we going to say the thing about Brady, et al.?

 

In this era of capped football it is all about organizational efficiency and that starts with the owner and trickles down to the players. Brady has guided the player vessel as well as anyone during this time. I would not have knocked Brady a notch had Seattle scored on that last possession. I didn't think he looked all that great yesterday, just ok. It was a dink-and-dunk fest with a low degree of difficulty. In 4 of the 6 Superbowls he has played, I thought Brady was just ok to below the "all time great" standards bestowed upon him.

 

I agree with this post 100%

 

I have always believed the QB gets way too much credit for the teams success or failure.

Brady didn't even deserve the MVP last night as he was not very good when he couldn't dink and dunk. Anytime he threw downfield it was not very good. I thought Edleman should have won the MVP if a Patriot got the MVP.

I don't think anyone is ignoring anything about Graham. He was without question the best of his era. Problem is, a lot of people (myself included) don't think the players from that era would stack up against today's players.

 

Put another way, I think it's more likely that if you put Tom Brady on a team back then, that he'd duplicate Graham's success more so than if you put Graham on a team now days that he'd duplicate Brady's success.

 

I've admitted it's not fair to compare different era's but when we talk about the greatest in sports I really can't go back too far at the QB position. It is a different position than it was even 20 years ago and the sport has changed to favor QB's. No doubt about that. The QB's of today start at a very young age. Nutrition, conditioning, camps, personal coaching from a young age, specializing not only in a position but in a sport. Shoot, earlier QB's probably played 4 sports in high school and a couple in college and may have even been called on to play other positions. It all adds up to advantages not available to earlier players and I take all that into account along with their team's success when I thing about who I believe is the greatest of all time.

Same could be said for the Hoodie, he is so much better than other coaches he could have won 4 Super Bowls with a lot of QBs...not just Brady.

 

Brady is in the conversation, may or may not be the GOAT but he's in the conversation and on the short list.

 

However, coaches that are ahead of the game today get caught up with quicker than in the past. Past coaches who were way ahead of the game were much more critical to their team's success in the long term.

So do you think if Otto Graham played today, he would play in 10 straight championship games?

 

Do you think if Brady played back in the 50's he would have won 7 championships? I don't.

 

The physical makeup of players was so different 50 years ago and Brady would have been in that same type of player.

I agree with this post 100%

 

I have always believed the QB gets way too much credit for the teams success or failure.

Brady didn't even deserve the MVP last night as he was not very good when he couldn't dink and dunk. Anytime he threw downfield it was not very good. I thought Edleman should have won the MVP if a Patriot got the MVP.

I would have voted for Edelman as well. I thought he was the emotional leader of the Patriots to boot. They needed a receiver to take punishment and feed it back to the Seattle DBs and he took that job with pride.

I've admitted it's not fair to compare different era's but when we talk about the greatest in sports I really can't go back too far at the QB position. It is a different position than it was even 20 years ago and the sport has changed to favor QB's. No doubt about that. The QB's of today start at a very young age. Nutrition, conditioning, camps, personal coaching from a young age, specializing not only in a position but in a sport. Shoot, earlier QB's probably played 4 sports in high school and a couple in college and may have even been called on to play other positions. It all adds up to advantages not available to earlier players and I take all that into account along with their team's success when I thing about who I believe is the greatest of all time.

 

This I totally agree with when you talk about preparation etc.

You can even add in the fact that even a generation ago, players had to work in the offseason full time. They weren't instant millionaires where they could put 100% into their craft 12 months a year.

 

It is a totally different animal today than it was just a generation ago. That is why I say if you want to say Brady is the best of this era when it comes to SB's etc. then I could give him the nod. I just don't think it's close when comparing other era's because of the huge difference in not only the game but the training etc.

I would have voted for Edelman as well. I thought he was the emotional leader of the Patriots to boot. They needed a receiver to take punishment and feed it back to the Seattle DBs and he took that job with pride.

 

I do agree with this. I told everyone that either Edelman or Butler deserved the MVP award, but you knew it was going to Brady. I don't think he played great, but he did play a hell of a game. He had a 74% completion percentage, threw for over 300 yards and 4 TDs. He had 2 bad plays all night, and one of those was a ridiculously good play by Bobby Wagner.

I do agree with this. I told everyone that either Edelman or Butler deserved the MVP award, but you knew it was going to Brady. I don't think he played great, but he did play a hell of a game. He had a 74% completion percentage, threw for over 300 yards and 4 TDs. He had 2 bad plays all night, and one of those was a ridiculously good play by Bobby Wagner.

I thought the Wagner play was just good defense, not necessarily bad offense.

I thought the Wagner play was just good defense, not necessarily bad offense.

 

I agree. That's what I was trying to say on that one. Gronk was open, he threw a bullet in there, Wagner just made a fantastic play on it.

I do agree with this. I told everyone that either Edelman or Butler deserved the MVP award, but you knew it was going to Brady. I don't think he played great, but he did play a hell of a game. He had a 74% completion percentage, threw for over 300 yards and 4 TDs. He had 2 bad plays all night, and one of those was a ridiculously good play by Bobby Wagner.

 

Actually five bad throws I thought. I would add the miss of Edelman the first time and the two that went straight into the ground (one of which could have been grounding).

 

The Patriots earned the win and Brady made the plays he needed. That's what I took from last night. But what was Brady's longest completion last night? Not run after catch but completion?

 

Back to the thread. Is he the greatest ever? I'd put him in the conversation and possibly at the top of the list at the end of the day.

 

BTW, congrats UKMustang. :thumb:

^I'd imagine the longest was the 20-25 yard TD pass to Gronk.

 

Yeah, he had a couple poor throws, but every QB has a few of those every game. I was talking more throws that really hurt them.

 

And thanks! Don't think I've stopped smiling yet!