Greatest quarterback you have seen?

[D.P.Johnson]

Montana hands-down...The way he would walk up to the line of scrimmage while analyzing the defense and then call an audible was absolute genius...

[D. Bergin]

No, he never won a Super Bowl, but the best pure QB I ever saw was Marino. Never had a ton to work with, never paired with an elite level RB or running game that I can recall and his best receivers were tiny men. Despite this, he put up some mind boggling numbers in an era when the defensive rules were much different then they are now.

All respect to anybody who says Montana, Brady, Manning, Unitas, Steve Young.........as I can see those arguments to.

[Runscott]

Marino in his prime was about as good as anyone.

My favorites to watch were Staubach and Tarkenton. Montana and Marino were almost too perfect to be enjoyable.

[HRBAKER]

No such beast, very dependent on era/rules.
Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana, Manning, Brady all in a big group with some others.

There's also a very big championship winner vs. stat accumulator component as well.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

No such beast, very dependent on era/rules.
Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana, Manning, Brady all in a big group with some others.

There's also a very big championship winner vs. stat accumulator component as well.

Agreed that it's impossible to determine who the greatest ever was, because of the reasons you and Steve have pointed out, but I didn't ask that - I asked:

Originally Posted by Runscott

Who do you think is the greatest quarterback out of the ones you've seen?

[HRBAKER]

Don't think I can answer that either. Certainly I think Montana is better than Manning and possibly Brady. I think that Staubach was probably the best of the 70's which is when I really began to watch football and I would give Montana the nod over him as well.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Don't think I can answer that either. Certainly I think Montana is better than Manning and possibly Brady. I think that Staubach was probably the best of the 70's which is when I really began to watch football and I would give Montana the nod over him as well.

When I see the size and speed of today's players, I do wonder if you can make comparisons. Linebackers would be impossible. Quarterback might be one where you actually can - it's one position (other than kickers) where physical size has changed the least, for drop-back qb's anyway. Today's qb's have faster, stronger, larger pass rushers to deal with, but they also have much bigger offensive lines in front of them. I think Montana and Staubach would compare favorably or better than today's great drop-back passers.

[freakhappy]

Good question...I'd probably have to go Montana, but Manning is a real close 2nd. I missed the first half of Montana's career, so it's impossible for me, with my own eyes, to understand how great he really was. On the other hand, I've been able to see every other qb since the 90's. A lot of tough and talented players, but these are the top two for me.

I also think it's hard to go off of stats because every team is different and some are pass happy and others like balance...what makes a great qb is precision, consistency and calmness imo.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

No, he never won a Super Bowl, but the best pure QB I ever saw was Marino. Never had a ton to work with, never paired with an elite level RB or running game that I can recall and his best receivers were tiny men. Despite this, he put up some mind boggling numbers in an era when the defensive rules were much different then they are now.

All respect to anybody who says Montana, Brady, Manning, Unitas, Steve Young.........as I can see those arguments to.

This too is a great point by Dave. As far as a pure passer, hard to go against Marino....

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

This too is a great point by Dave. As far as a pure passer, hard to go against Marino....

I can remember watching Marino and being positive that the other team didn't have a chance - when he was on, he was perfect. The Superbowl ring means nothing to me in terms of evaluating an individual's greatness - it certainly doesn't mean Marino was a choker, and it also doesn't mean that he couldn't have taken his team all the way if he had the kind of defense to go with his offense.

Remember, people were saying the same things about Elway, then he won two when he was near retirement, and he all of a sudden was one of the greatest ever. He arguably wasn't even in his prime when he won the Superbowls.

[Tabe]

For me, right now the best I've ever seen is Steve Young. Super-accurate, strong arm arm, and could run. Much more of a complete package than Montana or Marino.

After that, probably Brady/Montana (tie).

When it's all said and done, though, the best might be Aaron Rodgers. More of a complete package than Brady/Montana/Marino (since he can run) and already a long string of dazzling seasons.

[tedzan]

Besides being a HOF Quarterback (with many records), he was a defensive back, who would often play a dual role of throwing touchdown passes
while also pulling off interceptions in the same game. Plus he was a fine punter.

2nd best is Sonny Jurgensen.

My 3rd best is Johnny Unitas.


TED Z
.

[mrmantlecollector]

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Besides being a HOF Quarterback (with many records), he was a defensive back, who would often play a dual role of throwing touchdown passes
while also pulling off interceptions in the same game. Plus he was a fine punter.

2nd best is Sonny Jurgensen.

My 3rd best is Johnny Unitas.


TED Z
.

Never saw Baugh, but I loved watching Jurgensen throw long - straight overhead. I guess I remember him better than Unitas because he was in the same division as Dallas. Seemed like every time we played Baltimore they were down to Earl Morrall again.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by D.P.Johnson

Montana hands-down...The way he would walk up to the line of scrimmage while analyzing the defense and then call an audible was absolute genius...

Plus 1 big time. 4 for 4 in Super Bowls, I'll take this guy...

[HappyJack41]

Nobody and I mean NOBODY will ever touch Joe Cool. Some say "well yeah but Brady had to do it in the salary cap area!".....who gives a $hit!, Montana actually had to play against REAL defenses who were actually allowed to play defense and weren't neutered so that the offense always has the advantage as it has been in this league for 15 years now.

Brady has never and will never know what it's like to play against defenses allowed to head hunt on him or jam the living crap out of his receivers on every single play all the way up the field. If he did, he wouldn't have 3 Super Bowls with a 4th trophy gift wrapped last night. And he wouldn't have the stats that he's been able to put up while being pampered by this league for his entire career (ESPECIALLY for the last 8 years under Kraft's butt buddy GODell)

[EvilKing00]

top 6 in order IMO - taking into account stats, teams the played for, over all talent and EVERYTHING in general


Manning
Elway
marino
montana
Johnny u
brady

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by HappyJack41

Nobody and I mean NOBODY will ever touch Joe Cool. Some say "well yeah but Brady had to do it in the salary cap area!".....who gives a $hit!,

Well, you should, because it's a valid point. Keeping a great team together today is much more difficult than it was in Montana's day.

Think Bradshaw wins four Super Bowls in the salary cap era? No way. He doesn't have Swann, Stallworth, Franco Harris, that offensive line, and a defense with Mean Joe Green, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert, L.C. Greenwood, etc in the cap era. Other teams start offering money the Steelers can't compete with. The team falls apart.

The same thing would have happened to Montana. Rice was otherworldly. As I said before, the second best receiver to ever play the game, and the greatest in modern football. The Niners would have kept Montana and Rice. That means they lose the complimentary pieces like Tom Rathman, Roger Craig, John Taylor, etc. They don't keep that offense together. Montana is having to get used to new young guys much more often. I'm not saying that Montana isn't able to develop great chemistry with those new receivers, but it would take a while.

[HRBAKER]

Ask yourself how many of the offensive players that Brady has played with (for any extended period time) will make it to Canton. Not the in-and-outs like Randy Moss - I mean a sustained period of time - it ain't many I can think of. Sort of puts his skill in perspective for me.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Ask yourself how many of the offensive players that Brady has played with (for any extended period time) will make it to Canton. Not the in-and-outs like Randy Moss - I mean a sustained period of time - it ain't many I can think of. Sort of puts his skill in perspective for me.

I honestly can't think of a single skill player, aside from Moss that is a HOFer. On this team, Edelman is a very very good slot guy, but I think Gronk is the only pass catcher/skill man that even has a shot at the HOF. I think he'd still need 5-6 more years at peak production to have a shot.

He also hasn't had many All Pro or Pro Bowl caliber guys either. I'm not gonna dig through the past 15 years' worth of rosters right now, but just thinking back, the best skill guys I remember (Pro Bowl worthy or close) were Troy Brown, Corey Dillon, Wes Welker, BenJarvus Green Ellis, Edelman, Hernandez, Branch (barely), Blount (barely)

Others- Jermaine Wiggins, Ben Watson, Reche Caldwell, Stevan Ridley, David Patten, Givens, Antowaine Smith, Woodhead, Maroney, LaFell, etc were solid producers but not league stars.

Almost no one jumps out at you, yet he's amassed some amazing stats and 4 rings. One thing the Pats have done so effectively is to identify individuals' strengths and put them in, or even create, rolls that are ideal for them. I can't think of another team where each guy seems to fill his specific role so well, and these roles really accentuates their skills.. sorta like the NFL's Spurs. Brady as a QB has been able to take full advantage of these players' talents/roles and should be credited for doing this so effectively.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Ask yourself how many of the offensive players that Brady has played with (for any extended period time) will make it to Canton. Not the in-and-outs like Randy Moss - I mean a sustained period of time - it ain't many I can think of. Sort of puts his skill in perspective for me.

Welker, Gronk and Moss are as good any other qb has had. They are all potential hofers. Montana had Rice, that's it. Clark or Taylor weren't as good as those guys and Montana won 2 without Rice. Manning had Harrison who is struggling to make the hof. Wayne sucks, all he did is quit on his route costing Manning his 2nd Super Bowl. He does have Welker helping extend his career. Marino, Elway and Favre had little to help them.

Brady also had the greatest kicker of all time. How many does he win without him? He has had great defenses on the first 3 and he knew what defense the other team was in. I'm still waiting for Brady to win something without cheating. Just look at his playoff record between Spygate and Deflategate and that tells you what you need to know about him. He's the Barry Bonds of the NFL.

[HRBAKER]

Wrong. Barry Bonds never won anything.
His postseason BA = .245 including three postseasons where he batted under .200.

Moss was there for 3+ years - he will be a HOF. He was one bf he got there.
Welker has a shot - Wayne has just a good a shot to me and certainly Harrison does too.
Gronk looks like he is well on his way but he has shown a proclivity to get injured.

Id also say Edgerrin James will be a HOFer long bf any back Brady played an extended period of time with.
Same can be said for Roger Craig.

I don't remember the Wayne play but I would also say that playing less than ordinary against the Seattle D cost Manning his second Super Bowl as well.
Good thing Tom knew exactly what D they would be in every play this time around - especially the fourth quarter.

You've added a whole new spin to this though - Tom owes his success largely to his kicker.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

I don't remember the Wayne play but I would also say that playing less than ordinary against the Seattle D cost Manning his second Super Bowl as well.
Good thing Tom knew exactly what D they would be in every play this time around - especially the fourth quarter.

You've added a whole new spin to this though - Tom owes his success largely to his kicker.

You must not watch the Super Bowl when NE doesn't play. In the Colts-Saints SB, Manning was driving to tie the game in the 4th quarter. Manning audibled to a quick pass against a Saints blitz. For some reason Wayne half-assed his route and it resulted in a pick 6 that put the game away.

You really don't think Brady owes a big part of his success to Adam Vinateri? If he doesn't make two kicks in the snow vs. the Raiders, Brady doesn't come close to SB 36, won on his last second FG. SB 38 also won on his last second FG. Be glad Scott Norwood wasn't your kicker or Mike Vanderjagt who was one of the most accurate kickers of all time, but missed key playoff FGs against the Dolphins and Steelers, ending two Manning playoff runs.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by rats60

Brady also had the greatest kicker of all time. How many does he win without him? He has had great defenses on the first 3 and he knew what defense the other team was in. I'm still waiting for Brady to win something without cheating. Just look at his playoff record between Spygate and Deflategate and that tells you what you need to know about him. He's the Barry Bonds of the NFL.

While Vinateri is among the best, he's not even the best the pats have had. He was great in bad weather, which counts for a lot here, but was pretty average on longer kicks ~ 50+. Gostkowski is 3% better overall, and much better beyond 50 yards 13/17 compared to 23/41. Vinateri has been much better indoors at Indy. He gets a lot of props for kicking so many winners in big games. Only time will tell if Gostkowski keeps up the pace he's on.

I'm a Pats fan and a big fan of both Brady and Vinateri but wouldn't rank either as #1 all time at their position. Brady wins a lot, and with supposedly very little, but there's always at least one very good receiver and a bunch of guys who would be farther up the depth chart anywhere else. That's makes for odd statistical stuff because of a system that emphasizes individual matchups and depth. Not many players will put up huge numbers in NE, but more will get decent playing time. The exceptions are the guys like Moss, Welker, and Gronk. And even Gronk has games where he's not a primary part of the offense. Hard to keep him out of it, but there's games where you can tell he's doing more blocking and pulling defenders away from the play than being the primary receiver.

To keep on topic- I've been thinking over the original question and keep coming back to some interviews with players who mentioned Bradshaw as the smartest player they'd played with or against and that he called his own plays. If that's correct, I'd have to lean toward him as the best I've seen.

Steve B

[HRBAKER]

Steve as more of an interested observer - have any of NE's skill folks ever left and "blown up" somewhere else?

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by rats60

Welker, Gronk and Moss are as good any other qb has had. They are all potential hofers. Montana had Rice, that's it. Clark or Taylor weren't as good as those guys and Montana won 2 without Rice. Manning had Harrison who is struggling to make the hof. Wayne sucks, all he did is quit on his route costing Manning his 2nd Super Bowl. He does have Welker helping extend his career. Marino, Elway and Favre had little to help them.

... I'm still waiting for Brady to win something without cheating. Just look at his playoff record between Spygate and Deflategate and that tells you what you need to know about him. He's the Barry Bonds of the NFL.

You're all over the map. First, Taylor was a great receiver and an absolute physical specimen when he played. I'm guessing your opinion isn't going much further than his statistics here, but at 6' 1" he had the leaping ability (think 40"+) to play like a guy 6' 5". He was incredibly strong (routinely ran through safeties/corners), was an incredible blocker, had great hands and ability to adjust to the ball, and had equal to or better than run after catch skills than Rice (watch highlights). If he'd been a number 1, or if the Niners threw as much/ran as many play as current offenses, he could have been a 1200-1500 yard guy routinely. Clark and Soloman were very good receivers too.

Montana also had Craig, who won't make the HOF, but at the time was one of strongest runners in the league, and was no doubt the most versatile back (original Marshall Faulk, but stronger). Craig and Tyler (another 1,000+ guy) overlapped for a few years, with Craig playing as fullback. Except for 1981 the Niners were stacked offensively, also having a string of very productive WRs/TEs/FBs (TE/FB being very important to the old West Coast offense). Manning had Edge, and used the play action pass as well as anyone in his time. Play action success is wholly dependent on a good running game.. and it's a heck of a lot easier to throw when LBs, even safeties take 1-2 steps forward before back peddling. Dillon was probably the only true #1 (top 10) back Brady's had, and think he was only on one SB team. This year against the Seahawks, the Pats' short passing game (especially early) basically took the place of any running game. Brady and Co executed it to near perfection.

Welker won't sniff the hall of fame, but I'll give you he was a very very good receiver for Brady. On Welkers level though, you could then make arguments for the very good guys Marino had- Marks brothers (Duper and Clayton), the whole lot of guys Favre had- Sterling Sharpe (HOFer if not for neck injury), Anotinio Freeman/Robert Brooks/Donald Driver/Chmura/K Jackson/J Walker (all top performers at their peak), and the incredible trio Elway had when he finally won the SB- Ed McCaffrey, Rod Smith, Terrell Davis.

Brady's cast (save for maybe 2007) has never been as dynamic as these other QBs'.

[itjclarke]

BTW- to say Reggie Wayne sucks based on one play (which I doubt you really understand) is crazy. One, Porter's jump was incredible, two, how do you know how Wayne is supposed to run his route on any given look? Their inside guy is running a slant as well.. do you want him to run a hard slant up his back? Over his career he's been one of the most reliably consistent receivers in the league. He's not the most flashy or athletic, but gets open and catches the ball. I can assure QBs love his type of receiver because he's a dependable safety net and they know where he's going to be. He is also a likely HOFer (as is Harrison, and Edge). Add Stokely as the slot guy, Dallas Clark at TE and I think it's tough to argue Manning's Colts teams weren't totally stacked.

... and look what he's had in Denver?!?!? Demarious, Decker, Julius Thomas, and any of the string of productive RBs.

Manning does get great credit for play calling, spreading the ball around, giving his guys an opportunity to succeed.. but you cannot even compare the skill guys Brady has had to the ones he's had.

[FenwayFaithful]

.

[TUM301]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Ask yourself how many of the offensive players that Brady has played with (for any extended period time) will make it to Canton. Not the in-and-outs like Randy Moss - I mean a sustained period of time - it ain't many I can think of. Sort of puts his skill in perspective for me.

This makes the most sense to me. Hard to come up with a "greatest" of all time but it seems the so-called experts and many football fans in the Brady camp refer to the evolving players and the 14 season period of excellence. Every "greatest" QB or team for that matter has warts if we really want to start digging, every one. Unlike baseball, which I feel has stayed relatively the same for the last 2 generations, football has gone through dramatic changes. At best we can come up with the "greatest" for different eras. Baugh,Unitas, Roger S, Bradshaw, Montana, and Brady. One item I do agree with is that you have had to have played big, I E carry a S Bowl team, to be considered the greatest of your era. Pitchers and catchers less than 2 weeks !!!