Greatest quarterback you have seen?

[Runscott]

That's all interesting - the stats and all - but for me this was one of the simplest questions I've ever personally tried to answer, mainly because it didn't require looking at stats - just remembering what I saw with my own two eyes.

Looks like I need to start a separate thread asking who the greatest quarterback ever was. I think baseball card collectors have to answer everything based on stats - it goes with the territory.

What's your favorite color? Well, blue reflects x amount of light, while yellow...but green has historically been the most natural color, but purple has been the most successful this is tough. There are probably more brown things, but there is more blue space...I guess it's an impossible question.

[the 'stache]

It's not difficult because of the stats. It's difficult because the game that Joe Montana and Dan Marino played share only a passing resemblance to the game Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers play now. And the game that Drew Brees plays now is the same game Johnny Unitas played in name only.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

It's not difficult because of the stats. It's difficult because the game that Joe Montana and Dan Marino played share only a passing resemblance to the game Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers play now. And the game that Drew Brees plays now is the same game Johnny Unitas played in name only.

Bill, I completely disagree with you. I can watch a quarterback playing football and tell if he's 'great', and compare him across eras to other quarterbacks, regardless of how the game has changed, and other people can as well - I know, because I've discussed it with other people in "real life". Some people get so hung up on things like stats, that they miss other parts of the picture - I meet such people all the time, both on the internet and in "real life". Perhaps it's right brain vs left brain usage.

[Tabe]

I've seen lots of people slag the Dolphins' running game during Marino's tenure and they ignore Marino's part in its failures. Even in his youth, Marino was incredibly slow afoot. His technique in all facets of the running game was awful, amplified by his lack of quickness. He did nothing to hide the football in any way on running plays. His slowness limited where his running backs could go and what they could do. And not hiding the ball telegraphed plays.

Did Dan have HOFers back there to run the ball? No. But if you rotate every part of a car except one - in this case Marino - and it still fails, maybe the problem is really the one part you didn't change.

That said, nobody could fling the ball like Marino. He was amazing, that's for sure.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Did Dan have HOFers back there to run the ball? No. But if you rotate every part of a car except one - in this case Marino - and it still fails, maybe the problem is really the one part you didn't change.

So the offense during Marino's years was failing? I didn't realize that - I thought they scored a lot of points.

[Runscott]

I just checked the Dolphin's stats during the Marino years. The offense was the highest scoring in their division 8 times and 2nd 6 times. Yet they finished first in their division only 5 times and 2nd 4 times. The offense was ranked at least as high in their division in point scoring, as they finished, all but 3 years - in one of those they still won the division. The other 2 took place in 1997 and 1998 at the end of his career.

Sounds like a defensive problem, which is how most people viewed it at the time.

You can change all the cogs in the offense you want, but Marino was able to score with any of them. Unfortunately, the other teams continued to score against his defense. Perhaps Marino scored too fast, leaving his defense on the team too much?

[steve B]

Ok, Ok, I'll keep it simple and pick just one......

Julian Edelman.

Can't get much better than perfect right?

Steve B

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Runscott

So the offense during Marino's years was failing? I didn't realize that - I thought they scored a lot of points.

I was referring to the running game, not the offense in general. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

[billyb]

Best I ever saw play, it is two and hard to choose between them both. Bart Starr and Johnny Unitas.
These guys were field generals. And right behind them was Y. A. Tittle.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Bill, I completely disagree with you. I can watch a quarterback playing football and tell if he's 'great', and compare him across eras to other quarterbacks, regardless of how the game has changed, and other people can as well - I know, because I've discussed it with other people in "real life". Some people get so hung up on things like stats, that they miss other parts of the picture - I meet such people all the time, both on the internet and in "real life". Perhaps it's right brain vs left brain usage.

Scott, I understand that this should be a pretty easy answer, and I promise you I don't go out of my way to complicate things. But it's just not an easy question to me.

If you're removing statistical analysis from the picture, how, then, are you going to consider any quarterbacks that played the game before you were alive? You're asking an all-encompassing question here. "Who is the greatest quarterback ever." Not the greatest quarterback from the last twenty years, or your lifetime. Who, in the history of the NFL, is the best to ever play the position.

I'm sorry, but the answer just isn't something I can just blurt out based on personal experience. I am far more analytical than that. I realize that there were far too many greats that I never got to see play, so I have to utilize the tools available to include them in my consideration, and even that is an imperfect way of doing it. You don't have to think like that. But you also don't have to dis me the way that you did because you don't place as much thought into it as I do.

Joe Montana was a great, great quarterback. But it's not just enough for me to say he's the best to ever play the game, because I simply can't say that. Was he the best ever? Or, was he just a really, really good quarterback that was put into a perfect situation? The Niners don't get past the Cowboys without "The Catch", and as great a throw as Montana made on the roll out, it's just another incompletion unless Dwight Clark goes up and makes a sensational catch in the endzone. How many other outstanding quarterbacks will not make your consideration because they didn't have the supporting cast around them that Montana did? Brett Favre is one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game. I think most people will agree with that. But if he hadn't been rescued off the scrap heap in Atlanta, he may have never been a starter. If Don Majkowski doesn't get hurt, maybe he's in this discussion now instead of him. After all, in 1989, he was the NFL MVP runner up. Majkowski had one guy on his entire offense worth a darn in Sterling Sharpe. He lost out to Montana. But was Montana better than Majkowski? Or did he simply have a better line, and better receivers who could catch better, and gain better separation from the men covering them?

We have guys completing 70% of their passes now. 70%! But, is it that Drew Brees is better than Bart Starr was in Green Bay? Starr retired the all-time leader in NFL history for completion percentage, and he was under 58%. How can you look at two men playing the same position from different eras, and just say one was better than the other? Well, again, why? Was Montana just smarter? Was he more careful with the football? Was he on a more talented team? How would Montana have done playing back in the 60s, when the rules were even tougher?

You want my simple, don't over-think it answer then? Ok, fine. Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback I have ever seen. He doesn't have the rings Montana did, but he is a better passer. He combines the arm strength of Elway, and Marino, and Favre with the accuracy of Steve Young, with the cool under pressure of Joe Montana. He makes impossible throws look routine, and if he played twenty years ago, or fifty years ago, he'd still be the best. Regardless of what else he accomplishes, he is the best I have ever seen play the game.

There's your simple answer.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Scott, I understand that this should be a pretty easy answer, and I promise you I don't go out of my way to complicate things. But it's just not an easy question to me.

If you're removing statistical analysis from the picture, how, then, are you going to consider any quarterbacks that played the game before you were alive? You're asking an all-encompassing question here. "Who is the greatest quarterback ever." Not the greatest quarterback from the last twenty years, or your lifetime.

No, Bill - that is not what I asked. Go re-read the original question and don't miss the word "seen". I have even repeated myself in two other posts, emphasizing the word "seen". In fact, I expected you and others to comment that I was being a smart-ass by repeating myself so many times. Any discussion is fair game in my mind, regardless of the original question, but please don't tell me I asked a question that I did not.

There is a huge difference between 'greatest ever' and 'greatest you have seen'. My focus was on the latter.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No, Bill - that is not what I asked. Go re-read the original question and don't miss the word "seen". I have even repeated myself in two other posts, emphasizing the word "seen". In fact, I expected you and others to comment that I was being a smart-ass by repeating myself so many times. Any discussion is fair game in my mind, regardless of the original question, but please don't tell me I asked a question that I did not.

There is a huge difference between 'greatest ever' and 'greatest you have seen'. My focus was on the latter.

Okay then, now I'm on the same page. If your intent was to ask who's the best we've ever seen, and I missed it, then I'm dense, and apologize. That would, of course, change my whole approach to this conversation. If I'm not having to worry about the Ghosts of Quarterbacks Past, I am content to exclude Norm, Otto and the Gang.

I'd still enthusiastically give Rodgers as my ultimate answer, especially after he was awarded his second NFL MVP last evening. But if he were in a horse race with Joe Montana, I must say it would be a photo finish. And Dan Marino would only be a bridle's width behind them both.

Oh, how I am dying to call John Elway "ol' horse face" right now, but I am going to refrain.