I guess it depends on your criteria. For me, winning is the criteria. Otto Graham did better than any body else. I think there was a song written about him. It went something like, "Nobody does it better makes me feel sad for the rest

Nobody does it half as good as you..." Well, maybe that wasn't referring to football, but the hook works for Graham.

 

Read more: Carly Simon - Nobody Does It Better Lyrics | MetroLyrics

 

 

 

You almost got it right. I like the criteria you use, winning. But there is one better than Starr.

 

 

 

I can't believe I didn't have to be the one to bring up Graham. I do it every time one of these GOAT threads arises and I provide the criteria, such as @Hellbird did here.

 

 

 

No, Brady is not (see bolded above). This isn't just my opinion. It is backed up by the facts. Look into Otto Graham's record and you will see Brady doesn't come close to his accomplishments in the winning department. Someone has mentioned that Brady has played in the era of free agency and this is definitely an argument in his favor. But how can you argue with taking your team to the league championship game in EVERY season you played (10) and winning-it-all 7 times? There are those who discount Graham because he played so long ago, but that isn't really an argument. You can only compare people by looking at what they did in comparison to their contemporaries. Graham wins. That's why he is the GOAT.

 

If you won't take it from me or Hellbird, listen to Peter King of SI in his book Sport's Illustrated Greatest Quarterbacks. He ranks Graham as #1 for his 10 championship games in 10 seasons, 7 championships in those 10 years and 7 years leading the league in passing. Also has the highest winning percentage in regular season games by far. If you want to win, go with "Automatic Otto."

 

This is not to say that Brady isn't in the discussion. He is among the elites of all time and hard to put another ahead of him from the last 20 years.

 

I'm not going to rehash this debate as we've went 20 rounds over the past couple years it seems, but as to the bolded, yes Graham has the best winning percentage, but it isn't by far. He won 80% of his regular season games (btw, how does one play 10 seasons and only play 71 games?), and Brady has won 77% of his. That's not that big of a margin, and by the time it's all said and done, I have a feeling Brady will eclipse the 80% mark as well.

:thumb: Yes, no need for you and I to debate again. I'll give you your props. Your boy, Brady is certainly staking his claim. No argument from me on that.

:thumb: Yes, no need for you and I to debate again. I'll give you your props. Your boy, Brady is certainly staking his claim. No argument from me on that.

Kudos for you helping me

carry Otto's torch. I've preached about him for years in here gotten laughed out of every thread he is brought up. They say he didn't throw 4,000 yard seasons as why he isn't the greatest but like you mentioned you have to compare to his contemporaries. Some have claimed because of FA, Brady is better. I don't get it. FA means teams can get who they need to fill holes. Also what I have always thought was a huge disadvantage for Otto's era compared to today is today if a QB gets sneezed on it's a flag. Brady does t whine every time he is touched for nothing, it's because the rules made the league a qb friendly league. That's why numbers are through the roof now. Also remember back in Otto's days not only could the qb be decapitated with no flag, the receivers they had to throw to had defenders mugging them all the way down the field. Much harder to

pass then than now.

 

For Brady to reach Otto's stature he would have had to go to his 10'th SB and won his 7th SB by 2010.

Interesting fact as in an earlier post I mentioned how many think Bellichick and Brady are the best coach qb combo and I brought up Brown and Graham. Something interesting, both Paul Brown and Bill Bellichick were fired by Art Modell

Not trying to rip on Otto...he was obviously a stud. It is however just a fact that it is much more difficult to win a championship now than when he played. 32 teams now and 12 back then...

Not trying to rip on Otto...he was obviously a stud. It is however just a fact that it is much more difficult to win a championship now than when he played. 32 teams now and 12 back then...

But also a lot easier too due to the rule changes.

And with 32 teams, you have people on the field who would have been cut if there were fewer teams. Pretty easy for an elite QB with all the rules advantages to pick apart a defense with players who have sub par talent or work ethic.

 

I can't get started. I've been through all of the arguments and countered them with facts and stats from Graham in his era in the past. He was just as spectacular as Brady and even has a statistical advantage when compared against his peers. But for me the most impressive thing is that in 100% of the seasons Graham played he had his team in the championship game AND he won 70% of those championship games. Think about that for a moment. No other sports figure can say that. The QB spot is about winning. No one did it better than Otto Graham.

And with 32 teams, you have people on the field who would have been cut if there were fewer teams. Pretty easy for an elite QB with all the rules advantages to pick apart a defense with players who have sub par talent or work ethic.

 

I can't get started. I've been through all of the arguments and countered them with facts and stats from Graham in his era in the past. He was just as spectacular as Brady and even has a statistical advantage when compared against his peers. But for me the most impressive thing is that in 100% of the seasons Graham played he had his team in the championship game AND he won 70% of those championship games. Think about that for a moment. No other sports figure can say that. The QB spot is about winning. No one did it better than Otto Graham.

 

I am not opining on whether Brady is better than Graham. I never saw Graham play and the game is totally different now. What I am saying is that it is simply MUCH easier for anyone or any team to play in 10 straight championship games when there are 12 teams instead of 32 teams...not really debatable...just a function of math.

But it isn't just a function of math. Do you really believe Cleveland had as much of a chance to win the Super Bowl at the beginning of the 2016 season as did New England? Math says they each had a 1 in 32 chance to win the Super Bowl. But we all know that New England was a favored team and Cleveland was given no chance. The odds makers also used math.

But it isn't just a function of math. Do you really believe Cleveland had as much of a chance to win the Super Bowl at the beginning of the 2016 season as did New England? Math says they each had a 1 in 32 chance to win the Super Bowl. But we all know that New England was a favored team and Cleveland was given no chance. The odds makers also used math.

 

Seriously? That is your argument? You think all 12 teams back in 1950 had the same chance to win? C'mon, your argument just makes no sense. It IS a function of math. It is easier to beat 11 other teams than 31 other teams...period...ESPECIALLY in the NFL where the league is set up for parity. Sure, some teams are better than other teams every year in the NFL. But the same could be said in 1950.

That was not my point.

I guess it depends on your criteria. For me, winning is the criteria. Otto Graham did better than any body else. I think there was a song written about him. It went something like, "Nobody does it better makes me feel sad for the rest

Nobody does it half as good as you..." Well, maybe that wasn't referring to football, but the hook works for Graham.

 

Read more: Carly Simon - Nobody Does It Better Lyrics | MetroLyrics

 

 

 

You almost got it right. I like the criteria you use, winning. But there is one better than Starr.

 

 

 

I can't believe I didn't have to be the one to bring up Graham. I do it every time one of these GOAT threads arises and I provide the criteria, such as @Hellbird did here.

 

 

 

No, Brady is not (see bolded above). This isn't just my opinion. It is backed up by the facts. Look into Otto Graham's record and you will see Brady doesn't come close to his accomplishments in the winning department. Someone has mentioned that Brady has played in the era of free agency and this is definitely an argument in his favor. But how can you argue with taking your team to the league championship game in EVERY season you played (10) and winning-it-all 7 times? There are those who discount Graham because he played so long ago, but that isn't really an argument. You can only compare people by looking at what they did in comparison to their contemporaries. Graham wins. That's why he is the GOAT.

 

If you won't take it from me or Hellbird, listen to Peter King of SI in his book Sport's Illustrated Greatest Quarterbacks. He ranks Graham as #1 for his 10 championship games in 10 seasons, 7 championships in those 10 years and 7 years leading the league in passing. Also has the highest winning percentage in regular season games by far. If you want to win, go with "Automatic Otto."

 

This is not to say that Brady isn't in the discussion. He is among the elites of all time and hard to put another ahead of him from the last 20 years.

 

How is the bolded above not an argument? For three of his seasons, there were 8 total teams in the league (including Cleveland), and for the remainder of his career, after the Browns joined the NFL, there were 12 total teams. For Brady's entire career, he's played and competed against almost three times as many teams. How many titles do you think Brady would have if he only played against 7-11 teams? Come on man, you need to be realistic here.

 

In terms of winning percentage, its not as big of a gap as you suggest either. Brady's career winning percentage is .779 and Graham's is .814. Once again, Brady's winning percentage is nearly as high as Graham's given he's competed against over 3X as many teams.

 

I understand you're a Graham fan and I'm a Brady fan, but you need to look at this argument objectively. Both are obviously great players but can you imagine what Brady's level of success would have been against so few teams? So it is extremely relevant to the debate that Graham played so long ago.

That was not my point.

 

Not a big deal as the point has been debated ad nauseam. It sure seemed to be your point though:lol2:

How many playoff games when Graham played?

Didn't 4 of Graham's championships come in an 8 team league that was not the NFL? I think he only had to win 1 playoff game in 3 of those 4 seasons as well. Also wasn't there only a single playoff game in his 6 NFL seasons as well? So he played in an era with either 8 or 12 teams in his league, no free agency, only had to play 13 games per season including playoffs and had to win 1 playoff game to win a championship. And he was what, 3 out of 6 in the actual NFL? No way that is the same as Brady's run.