Peyton Manning and Willie Mays
 

Woody Paige of the Denver Post wrote an interesting article about whether or not winning the Superbowl will get Manning the 'best quarterback ever' title. He threw out names for 'kings' of various sports, and interestingly declared Willie Mays to be the 'king' of baseball, "because he is". I'm not even sure his choices of Gretzky and Jordan for their respective sports, is as understood by all as Paige believes.

http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_2...s-best-qb-ever

I generally like Woody Paige but that article made no sense. Personally, I think Manning is the greatest QB of his era. Is he the greatest of all-time? I don't know enough about the history of the game to say.

Comparing eras is a fun but futile exercise.

I think Paige's effort with quarterbacks was accurate - at least he mentioned Otto Graham and appropriately tagged Unitas as simply legendary for no particular reason. As a kid, the name 'Johnny Unitas' really was legendary to us, and Paige is my age. Same situation with Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle. I had baseball card stats memorized, so I never got why Hank Aaron wasn't right there with Mays and Mantle as far as popularity. Plus, I loved his stance where the barrel of the bat was pointed right at the pitcher - he must have had the strongest wrists in baseball.

I think Maining is the best QB ever with or with out this last win, but it would make the masses lean more toward him if he gets his 2ed ring. I also agree with gretzky and Jordan. But willie Mays, I would have to disagree.

Jordan, Ruth, Orr, with Montana a step above Johnny U as best all-time QB. Win or lose Sunday, Manning is more "Wilt Chamberlain " than Jordan IMO.

I lean toward Montana as well. If you ever had to watch your team play against him in a critical game, you knew he was the best. But Elway and Staubach were kind of that way also - ask Cleveland and San Francisco.

Right or wrong, I end up judging quarterbacks largely by what they can do in that last drive of a huge game, especially when it's for a TD rather than 3 points. And if they can't do it when their fingers get cold, that's kind of big. I'd like to see Manning down 6 with 1:45 and no time-outs, from his own 20, against Seattle's defense (and 20 degrees). That would be the end of the discussion, if he could do it.

Heresy, but I would take Magic over Jordan. Who else could play point guard, center, and every position in between?

I love stuff like this.

Cobb

Unitas

Russell

Howe

Pete Maravich was probably the best player I ever saw, outside of Magic and Jordan. Maravich would score 40 and you never knew it. He played offense the way Dimaggio played defense - he was always in the right spot, so never looked too flashy. RIP

I'm not sure who is the QB best ever, but I just can't give it to a guy with a losing playoff record.

Just to put things in proper perspective,

John Elway was the same quarterback when he won two Superbowls, as he was when he lost three, but now he's great, and before the first win, we were hearing the exact same stuff we are hearing now about Manning. Anyone remember the comeback Elway led against the Browns in the AFC Championship game? Possibly the most incredible ever. That was clutch, and his team still got slaughtered that year in the Superbowl, by the Giants. Does anyone think Elway was somehow able to get it together for the 'unimportant' AFC Championship and be as great a quarterback as he was, but then 'choked' in the Superbowl? You have to deal with the guys around you, and the match-up you are given - the Broncos have not matched up well in most of their Superbowls, but except for Craig Morton, it wasn't for lack of having a great quarterback.

It's silly to look at playoff record as the end all and be all of a "great" quarterback. Was Jim Kelly just mediocre for reaching the Super Bowl four times? Or how about Dan Marino who never won a Super Bowl? Even if Manning made the Super Bowl every year and lost, he would still have a winning playoff record yet people would complain about how he isn't the greatest because he never won "the big one" (this is of course speculative because as we all know Manning DID win the big one). I don't believe the playoff record hogwash as an indicator of an "elite" quarterback. Based on this logic is Trent Dilfer better than Manning because he went 5-1 in his career in the playoffs?

Using playoff record to decide if a player is elite or great is hogwash, but using it as one of the factors in determining if he is the best ever is not.

True, but in virtually every other statistic Manning will finish first. He's light years ahead of Montana in almost every indicator. It's always hard to compare modern quarterbacks with the likes of Unitas or early quarterbacks so an argument can be made but to say that Joe Montana is better because he had more Super Bowl wins is hardly fair. As of today, Peyton Manning and Joe Montana would have the exact same career spans in terms of seasons. Compare the stats, the numbers speak for themselves. When Favre took over the touchdown record it was clear that he wasn't the greatest based on his total package, including QPR, fumbles, and time it took to complete the record. Manning will pass Favre next year for touchdowns a full three seasons earlier than Favre completed the record (19 versus 16 not including Favre's Falcon year or Peyton's injured year.)

Brandon, there are plenty of people who have seen both Montana and Manning play. Being one of them, my vote goes to Montana over anyone. I would also take Favre over Manning. I say that based on watching them play, not on Manning's 11-12 playoff record. Plus, it's just my opinion and I admittedly like the aesthetics of Montana's delivery - it looked like perfection to me.

That's a fair assessment Scott. However you look at it, Montana and Manning have changed the way the game is played. Nobody ran the 2 minute drill like Joe Cool.

Scott have you ever seen some of the Maravich highlight reels? He was as spectacularly flashy a player as ever played. Not that he wasn't also sound fundamentally and was certainly capable of the type of game you described, but he was also a human highlight film.

This is a very interesting list.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...243155121.html

That's interesting - no, I was never much of a basketball fan, but my Dad took me to see the New Orleans Jazz any time they were in Denver, just because he loved Maravich. What impressed me was that Maravich was never flashy, and always scored tons of points. He just glided around the court and always seemed to be open. I'll have to take a look at him again.

I concur, I'm taking Magic over Michael every time if I'm starting a team.

Top 4 of all time in each sport:

Baseball - Ruth
Football - Rice
Hockey - Gretzky
Basketball - Magic

Hard to argue with that list, although I will LOL
Baseball - Ruth
Football - Brown
Hockey - Orr
Basketball _ Magic

maravich
 

"A compilation of no-look passes, behind-the-back moves, and circus shots. A reminder of what made him so mind blowing in the first place." SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (March 2007) on this highlight mix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qUZILi8IM

Some great footage here too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHmgWeY7heM

That second video was incredible.

I'll definitely give you Orr, the man redefined the defense position. It's really a toss up between Gretzky and Orr. Brown though, not so sure about that one. Great runner for his time and certainly the best RB of his era, but he's not even the best at his position of all time, so it's hard for me to put him best player in the entire NFL all time.

*Edited to add* I have Brown #3 on the all time best behind Rice and Sanders.

It wasn't hard for the Sporting News:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=4786953

Very interesting list. Obviously the guy never saw Shannon Sharpe or Leroy Jordan play. And I doubt he saw Franco Harris or Joe Namath, except in playoff highlight films. I would also consider adding Lynn Swann to the list.

They lost credibility when they put Don Hutson at #6 and 55% completion Otto Graham in the top 10, while tossing Reggie White to the 30's!.....lol. Ridiculous. Otto Graham isn't even a top 5 QB, let alone a top 7 all time. Colin Cowherd's take on old timers putting Otto Graham as a top QB was funny to listen to. Statistically speaking, Graham was average at best. Different era, different styles, he wouldn't even have been relevant if he played from the 70's and onward. Top 10, Top 25, Top 100 Interweb lists change every year, and sometimes monthly, lol.

I know it's hard to do sometimes but you have to take into consideration the eras. If a guy like Don Hutson played in 80's, 90's and 2000's he's be a 3rd best option. I can't ignore speed, size and pace of today's players over the last 40 years. You can take many players today and put them back in the 40's and 50's and they'd be instant "legends". I do have a few guys from that era that really stood out, but I'm not filling my list of top 20 guys with the majority of them from the 50's. This is almost exclusive only in football because of the skill, speed, size and violence that's inherent to the sport today.

That might be true, but if you took yesterday's stars and gave them the high school and college development that we have now, plus the performance enhancements, I think they would fit right in. The thing is - it doesn't really matter. Incentives for making a career out of football were different back then, the ball was different, equipment, etc. If you compare the size of an offensive or defensive line in the '60s to today, you will be amazed.

There are only a few star players I can think of from the '60s that I feel would not be stars today. On the other hand, I would love to see Fran Tarkenton in this year's Seattle offense.

Couldn't agree with that comment more. Joe had a beautiful delivery, from the pocket or on the run.. He seemed to have a perfect efficiency in everything he did- smooth drop, great feet/pocket presence, underrated running ability and arm strength. Brady also has a beautiful, straight over the top delivery.. But nowhere near the overall physical fluidity of Joe. (conversely Manning and Marino motions always looked ugly yo me.. Clearly, this is no reflection on greatness, and with the uglier motions, they also both achieved lightning quickness.. IMO the ultimate combo of quick and pretty is Mike Vick's).

QB and football numbers are so tough to use as benchmarks... Especially yardage and TDs. So much is reliant on your team's philosophy, and so much of that philosophy is influenced by the era you played and what other teams did. The west coast offense in its early years had a great balance to it. For the era they threw a lot, but no one under Walsh or Seifert to follow through for 4000 yards.. Nor did they need to. They also huddled regularly and ran far fewer plays than these faster pace/call plays at the line type offenses today. In the context of a game though, either Montana or Young could pile up whatever numbers needed to win.. And they did with regularity.

Manning is an all time great, but I take Joe any time over him

As much as I hated when the Cowboys faced Montana, it was no better when Young took over. Young also had a great delivery, as does Kaepernick. I really think Kaepernick could evolve into a superb passer, but he has to get smarter and run less - if he did this regularly for a few years, I think you might eventually see comparisons to Staubach. I remember when Staubach first came up with Dallas - Landry was having a very hard time getting him to sacrifice a few yards by passing instead of running. I also remember the exact play when Staubach rolled to the right, could have run for a touchdown, and he passed instead. But Harbaugh is encouraging Kaepernick in a different direction.

I think you can only evaluate players in the context of their era. Your statement is like saying Roger Bannister wasn't a great miler because any high school kid today can run his times.

I can't turn a blind eye to science and physics, just can't do it. Not putting Bob Lilly ahead of Reggie White, and certainly not putting Don Hutson above Rice, Carter, Brown, Irvin, Largent, Moss, Alworth, Harrison, Lofton etc. When you're looking for the "best", you don't compromise.

Assuming you saw all those guys play, I won't argue with you, but I did see Lilly and he was damned good.

By that logic Jesse Owens is not one of the all time great track athletes because all his records have been broken many times over and his times and distances would probably be mediocre by today's standards. That makes no sense at all. If you plucked a fat and out of shape Babe Ruth straight out of his time and put him amidst players who train year round on equipment light years more sophisticated than existed in the 20's he might suck. But so what?

Nobody said we're "taking away accomplishments", the original question was "who is the best", and like I said, when you're looking for THE BEST, you don't compromise. I guess if we went with the logic of "well they set the record first and used to be #1" we would NEVER include any athlete past the 60's in discussions of "best ever", it goes both ways. Baseball is unlike football because most it has to do with eye and hand coordination and technique when batting. Speed is a factor in stealing bases but it's also about timing and studying the pitcher. There is a reason many records in baseball haven't been broken that were set decades ago. It's almost the complete opposite with baseball as the game has changed in the way it's played, not so much the player has changed (with the exception of the steroid era)

On the one hand it does seem like mostly hand eye and technique but on the other hand why do people start putting up massive HR totals when they go on steroids and or crank up their workouts?

I think Buddy has a point, given that football players are now huge compared even to the '70s, but I don't think it would affect quarterbacks or defensive backfield all that much - quarterbacks are still dependent on how well their O-line stacks up against the D-line, and linebackers and safeties were plenty fast back in the day.

But the game of baseball HAS changed a lot, so stats that are holding up today are mainly due to rule changes and today's emphasis on power ($$) - I think the old players would do just fine today, perhaps better in some cases. Baseball was more popular back then, with almost every town, no matter how small, having a semi-pro team, so there was a lot of competition for only 16 teams. And if they had let black players play...