I don't get the low degree of difficulty. In the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl, down by 10, he went 12-15 for 134 yards and 2 TDs, effectively gutting what many considered a historic defense. A couple of his throws, the TD to Amendola particularly, were incredible throws w/ a high level of difficulty. Additionally, isn't the mark of a great QB one who does what it takes to win the game? Seattle takes away the deep ball and the middle of the field. They leave open the flats w/ their 3 deep. Shouldn't you take advantage of that? Do QBs have to complete X amount of 20 yard plus passes to have had a great game?

 

To the bolded, YES!!! That is what I've said all along yet some take it as a few of us saying he was bad because he did that, just the opposite. He did exactly what he needed to do and should have done and was a great game plan.

Just pointing out how using things before the merger is weaker because the league in general is not as strong just like the leagues I just mentioned.

 

 

Also with no salary cap or free agency an owner that knew what he was doing and put together a good team could easily dominate. Today, when you get good you can't afford to keep all of your players under the salary cap.

 

Also, didn't Graham throw a TOTAL of 14 touchdown passes in the postseason during that run? The quarterbacks were much less responsible for their team's success and failures back then.

That's good. Still missing your point.

 

You are upset because someone thinks there are better SB QB's than Tom Brady?

I apologize, but I'm not following you or what the point is you are trying to make.

 

I'm wrong because I said Eli in the SB or Montana in the SB I would rather have? Montana who have never lost a SB game and has led comebacks in the last minute to win, or Eli who has done the same and has beaten Tom Brady both times? That is what your point is? I'm sorry if I disagree, but I think it's a sound reason myself.

 

No one is attacking Brady, this has gotten to the point that if anyone doesn't think Brady is the best who ever lived that they are just crazy. I will simply bow out of this silly argument because I respect your opinion just as I do others but I will not act as if anyone who has a different opinion is purely insane which is the vibe I am getting from you and some others.

 

Your argument is flawed since you keep discrediting the super bowl losses. Its like saying he would look better by not making the super bowls those years. That makes no sense.

To the bolded, YES!!! That is what I've said all along yet some take it as a few of us saying he was bad because he did that, just the opposite. He did exactly what he needed to do and should have done and was a great game plan.

 

 

Most of that comes from your thinly veiled accusation that he couldn't throw down field because the balls were fully inflated. You even mentioned him having trouble holding onto the ball--which was not true at all. When your first post is one like that we could all see where you were going with it.

Most of that comes from your thinly veiled accusation that he couldn't throw down field because the balls were fully inflated. You even mentioned him having trouble holding onto the ball--which was not true at all. When your first post is one like that we could all see where you were going with it.

 

Absolutely. It was pretty obvious what he was insinuating from the very beginning.

 

Which, btw, is fine. He's completely entitled to his opinion, just as everyone else is.

Just pointing out how using things before the merger is weaker because the league in general is not as strong just like the leagues I just mentioned.

 

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.

That's good. Still missing your point.

 

You are upset because someone thinks there are better SB QB's than Tom Brady?

I apologize, but I'm not following you or what the point is you are trying to make.

 

I'm wrong because I said Eli in the SB or Montana in the SB I would rather have? Montana who have never lost a SB game and has led comebacks in the last minute to win, or Eli who has done the same and has beaten Tom Brady both times? That is what your point is? I'm sorry if I disagree, but I think it's a sound reason myself.

 

No one is attacking Brady, this has gotten to the point that if anyone doesn't think Brady is the best who ever lived that they are just crazy. I will simply bow out of this silly argument because I respect your opinion just as I do others but I will not act as if anyone who has a different opinion is purely insane which is the vibe I am getting from you and some others.

Well, after reading all of your stuff, I still don't know your stance. My only point in this entire thread is that Brady is in the conversation for GOAT. To say otherwise is silly. Statistically speaking, or trophy speaking, he's in rare air. And with all due respect to Otto and Jim Thorpe and all the others who came before the first Superbowl, I see very little comparison.

 

Again, I'm not a fan of Brady and hope he never wins another game to be honest, but have the good sense to know what he's done and what he is historically despite his detractors.

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.

 

In a league that may have not even been the best league in America at that time.

33% of the teams in Graham's era made the postseason. That would equate to 11 teams in today's league. So an entire 1 extra team makes the playoffs now. Just saying...

Most of that comes from your thinly veiled accusation that he couldn't throw down field because the balls were fully inflated. You even mentioned him having trouble holding onto the ball--which was not true at all. When your first post is one like that we could all see where you were going with it.

 

He did have trouble holding on to the ball. Even the announcers made that clear when he tried to pull the ball back and couldn't hold on to it and it fell to the ground in an in completion.

 

I also didn't say he couldn't throw down field. I said he had trouble throwing down-field and was unsuccessful more times than not when he tried that.

 

I did say something about the footballs as was half in jest and half truth. afterall this may have been the first game since 2006 he actually played with fully inlfated footballs

He did have trouble holding on to the ball. Even the announcers made that clear when he tried to pull the ball back and couldn't hold on to it and it fell to the ground in an in completion.

 

I also didn't say he couldn't throw down field. I said he had trouble throwing down-field and was unsuccessful more times than not when he tried that.

I did say something about the footballs as was half in jest and half truth. afterall this may have been the first game since 2006 he actually played with fully inlfated footballs

 

I'm still waiting for any kind of facts to back up the bolded. He had at least 4 completions on passes of 10+ yards downfield. Pretty sure there were a couple others in the 1st half, but I'm not certain. I'd love to know what his % numbers were on passes over 10 yards. I think he completed more than not.

33% of the teams in Graham's era made the postseason. That would equate to 11 teams in today's league. So an entire 1 extra team makes the playoffs now. Just saying...

 

How do you come up with 1 extra team makes the playoffs now when 12 teams made the playoffs this year compared to 2 making it when Otto played and then 4 back then?

 

If it's around the same as back then as if what I'm reading from your post you are suggesting, then that adds more to the point of Otto being better because he has made it to 10 straight championship games in a row. Brady hasn't made it to half that in a row.

Otto Graham threw 94 picks to his 88 TD's in the NFL, by the way... And he didn't have to win 3-4 games to win a Super Bowl.

 

Montana is the only one who you can put in the convo, IMO.

I'm still waiting for any kind of facts to back up the bolded. He had at least 4 completions on passes of 10+ yards downfield. Pretty sure there were a couple others in the 1st half, but I'm not certain. I'd love to know what his % numbers were on passes over 10 yards. I think he completed more than not.

 

I'd love to know also. Not including yac either. Talking about actually completing throws 10 yards down-field.

Otto Graham threw 94 picks to his 88 TD's in the NFL, by the way... And he didn't have to win 3-4 games to win a Super Bowl.

 

Montana is the only one who you can put in the convo, IMO.

 

Your numbers are a little off.

Otto Graham NFL Football Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

174 TD's to 134 INT's

 

As already stated, the only way to get into the playoffs several of his years is to win your conference back then which only 1 team could do.

 

Everyone can have whoever they think is the best. I only brought up Otto Graham when using the criteria that many seemed to use in this thread as weighing in Super Bowl berths as the leading criteria to determine the greatest ever. That is why I brought up Otto because no other QB in the history of the game can ever match for a 10 year career reaching the championship game in every single year he played, and then winning 7 of them.

 

What is sort of interesting though is I personally wouldn't say Otto is the best QB to ever play. I never once said that. I only put him as the greatest going off the criteria those who made this topic were going off of.

 

Otto in my mind is not the best QB to ever play. What he is to me is the greatest championship QB to ever play. Hopefully some can now see the difference.