Just to switch subjects here for a minute. Who is the greatest QB of all time? I think it boils down to Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Peyton Manning had some ridiculous comebacks this year but Brady overall has more comeback wins in key situations i.e. super bowls. tom Brady has 3 rings (Should be 4 "David Tyree miracle") and Manning has 1. Brady has more super bowl appearances but Payton has more MVP's. We are extremely fortunate to view these two legends but when its all said and done i firmly believe Tom Brady will be greatest QB to ever play the game. So lets here who is the better QB? and who would you rather have in the last 2 minutes when your team is down? TB or PM?
*Notable mentions for best QB's
Favre
Elway
Montana
Unitas and Marino should be in the conversation. This guy had a cool system: http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:Top_50_Quarterbacks_of_All-Time
Manning has a better regular season record, but Brady is the best playoff QB since Montana. He won 3 super bowls despite having a mediocre offensive line and average wide receivers and a subpar running game. Remember that he won those rings BEFORE Randy Moss and Wes Welker came to the patriots. In contrast, Manning had Marvin Harrison and Edgerrin James.
With the exception of the 2006 AFC championship game, in which the colts overcame a 24-3 deficit, and the super bowl win against the bears, Manning has choked in the biggest games of his career. This pattern goes back to college, when he would consistently get his butt kicked by steve spurrier's florida.
Without a question, if i could have any QB in the last few minutes of the super bowl, it will be Tom Brady.
There is absolutely no way that you can even consider Marino to be one of the greatest QB's ever. Brady also put together a perfect regular season.
As a huge Brady fan, gotta say Montana is definitely ahead. I'd put Brady behind him. Like jjc said, he won 3 SBs in 4 years with an average offense. I think Peyton is better fundamentally, but is only 1 for 2 (and the year he won was pretty weak), with some pretty stacked teams.
I do think that having Moss has hurt Brady. He tends to force the ball to him rather that spread it around. Definitely hurt last year when the Pats had a ton of options that were rarely utilized (especially at TE).
The debate over greatest QB of ALL-TIME boils down to Manning vs. Brady?
Wow - that's a bit of a stretch....
Uhh...hello? Steve Young?
Don't be surprised to see Drew Brees throwing up some sick career stats too.
These discussions are always aimless without establishing at least some criteria.
Please, not this shitfest again. The last one was annoying enough and probably made everybody a little bit dumber.
On a side note, props to the poster above who said Marino and Unitas should be in the conversation...I'd rather suggest Marino and Unitas ARE the conversation. Favre certainly is not.
Neither Peyton nor Brady are the best QB ever, but if I had to choose between the two I'd easily say Peyton is better. Both had a good offense, but the Patriots had a vastly superior defense for quite some time. If they had switched teams for their career they'd probably switch rings too. The whole offense revolves around Peyton. I mean, both had no running game this year and look who turned out better.
Brady lost the biggest game of his career (to the G-Men). Brady is known for heroic comebacks and last minute drives, but let's be real: his heroic last minute drives generally start from the 40 yard line (i.e. against the Panthers in the SB) and only require him to get into FG range. He is definitely clutch and an excellent quaterback, but he's vastly overrated.
Im pretty sure the vast majority will agree here that Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are arguably the greatest QB's to ever play the game. They are both easily in the top 5, if not top 3. Marino has never won a ring so please do not put him in the discussion. His records have already been broken by the aforememtioned QB's.
I'm not following your reasoning here. By that logic we'd have to automatically exclude Peyton if he hadn't won a ring and that seems like a silly standard to me. I mean, Trent Dilfer has as many rings as Peyton and no one in their right mind would debate who's better there.
Worst logic ever for a sport like football. I can see this topic has already gone to hell in a handbasket.
And no the vast majority would not agree that Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are the greatest QB's of all time. The vast majority was born sometime before 1998.
Post '75, the conversation does belong to Manning, Brady, Montana, Steve Young, and perhaps (but probably only very honorable mentions) Marino and Theismann.
My money is on Steve Young, but Brady and Manning aren't even done yet.
I grew up in San Fran so I was a huge Joe Montana fan (and for that reason I always resented Steve Young because I thought Montana had a few more good years in him and I felt bad when they put him out to pasture in KC). You want nostalgia, bitches? I was at a fucking roller skating rink when Montana connected with Dwight Clark in the NFC Championship in '82 and watched the whole game on the 13" black and white TV over the snack bar.
Anyway, I just watched a special on Bill Walsh and the West Coast Offense and it basically put forward the view that Walsh could've taken Joe Shit the Ragman off the street and turned him into a Hall of Fame QB with that system. So now I wonder if those guys (arguably my heroes growing up) were actually that good or if it was all coaching.
Why is my logic flawed? i mean the whole purpose of the sport is to win a championship no? Shouldn't you take a holistic approach? Between stats, championships, and awards, Tom Brady and Payton Manning fit the bill for being the top two quarterbacks to ever play the game. I will throw in Montana/Favre/Elway as honorable mentions.
Marina has had one superbowl appearance and his records are being broke left and right.
I don't even want to get into this argument with you...I'll let the others rip your logic apart. It's so sophmoric and shows such a lack of depth in your football perspective...you can't possibly be more than 17 years ago.
I mean come on...you're the same one who thought Kobe vs. Jordan was a legitimate debate.
Montana an honorable mention? If this thread hadn't reached ridiculous, it just did.
Yeah, pretty remarkable stuff...
So many problems with the arguments in this thread. I wonder if half of you have ever watched a football game, let alone played in one.
Uh... Doug Flutie, duh
lol remember Flutie Flakes? He was fun to watch. He actually used to be one of the few quarterbacks that scared me everytime my team faced him.
Show me how my logic is flawed are you seriously going to mention that Dan Marino can be mentioned in the same sentence as Tom Brady? Please, spare me. That's ridiculous. I will take Tom Brady over any quarterback past and present. Brady won super bowls with branch, troy brown, david patten, jermain wiggins, ben watson, daniel graham and antoin smith. Yeah, sweet list of athletes.
Wow, he says "Marino can be mentioned in the same sentence as Brady." That's pretty fucking high praise for Brady (who I'm a fan of in the debate against Manning), because I'm pretty sure you don't really know what you're talking about with Marino, nor have you ever watched a minute of football prior to the year 2002. I've only heard professional analysts use that same sentence in reverse "Brady can/cannot be mentioned in the same sentence as Marino." It's never been the other way around, and it never will be and there's a reason for that...and instead of trying to inform of why that is, I suggest you go and get a football education first.
I'm sure Brady would be absolutely thrilled to mentioned in the same breath as Unitas, Marino and Montana, and perhaps he deserves to be, but you'd be best served to know which way that goes.
Montana>Brady>Manning.
Flutie Flakes was one of the funnest QBs to watch EVER, and he had to be the hardest working QB in the game. When he did his late career stuff in San Diego, he was fantastic. All around great guy.
He was impossible to prepare for. He played his heart out every game and he was dangerous on every play because of how slppery and quick he was. Playing against him was always a problem. No matter what happened he was going to give your team a run for its money.
He really set the precedent for guys like Michael Vick to come into the league.
Not exactly. A guy like Randall Cunningham set much more of a precedent for the scrambling QB than Doug Flutie.
Wow, I have to say budfox is a bit blinded by present day media attention. What's next? Debating Ovechkin and Gretzky? Pacquiao vs. Ali?
Pacquiao vs. Ali might be a legit discussion in a few years... have you seen his fights? He's a fucking beast. Mayweather is afraid of him and the last several people he fought didn't even come close.
As for Brady, yeah they went 18-1. But Manning's loss this year was just as big of a failure (they would have gone 18-1 if the coach hadn't pussed out and benched everyone for the last few games of the regular season.)
And they got a serious pummeling in the last quarter. 24-17 and they have a chance to score and tie it up and Manning throws an interception. Manning lost the fucking game. That can't be said about Brady in the same sense.
That play got buried by the media because of how in love in they are with Manning, kind of like their love for Favre. But if you think about it, that has to go down as the single worst pass in the history of the NFL. That was a legacy killing pass. The only plays even comparable were Neil O'Donnell's two interceptions against the Cowboys in SBXXX, but even those weren't going in for the tie in the final minutes.
Remember when Brady got injured and was out for a year and Matt Cassel, a guy who hadn't started at QB in a game since high school took over and won 11 games and put up seriously awesome stats?
Remember when that same guy, Matt Cassel, went to the KC Chiefs and sucked a big one? What happened there? Could it be that the SYSTEM in New England made him a solid QB?
Could it be that Brady is a SYSTEM quaterback? I think so. Yes, he's a really good one, but to say he's the best ever is completely insane.
The year Matt Cassel had for the Pats in Brady's place should honestly shed some light on Brady's career for all the fanboys out there.
Oh yeah, and Brady and the Pats were cheating AND lost the biggest game in (arguably) the history of pro football. 18-1 = owned.
This is fucking stupid. I won't acknowledge the whole "cheating" thing, but here goes...
Matt Cassell put up numbers that any reasonable backup QB in the NFL should have put up in that situation. In case you forgot, Cassell put up 11 wins and good numbers for the same team (almost identical) that went 18-1 -- you know, the season when Brady put up the single-best season any QB has ever seen. It would be one thing if Cassell achieved the same success with some of the teams Brady led to Super Bowls -- I could potentially see your argument if Cassell posted the same stats as Brady did, but that wasn't the case. Ryan Leaf could have won 11 games with the 2008 Patriots squad. The 2007 team around Brady was so much more talented than any other team Brady had led, and it's not like he just sat back and had an above-average season... He had the most jaw-dropping passing season any QB has ever seen. It may be a bit diluted by that one loss, but nothing short of a miracle cost the Pats the perfect season.
My point is... Brady is a great QB. Saying he's a "system QB" is fucking dumb -- it just doesn't work that way. "System QBs" last two or three years and are done; they don't lead their teams to a handful of Super Bowl appearances over the course of a decade and put up elite numbers all the while. Brady's been an elite QB for nearly a decade in the NFL -- while it's tough to put either he or Manning in the convo for "best ever" until we see their complete bodies of work, it sure is looking like they'll both be in the conversation.
My vote goes for Montana, with Marino and Young up there.
I certainly don't think I'm being stupid here. My point is that Brady is and has always seriously benefitted from the system he is in. Matt Cassel is evidence of this, big time. He hadn't played QB as a starter since HIGH SCHOOL and he comes in and wins 11 games in the NFL while putting up really solid numbers.
Also, the cheating simply CANNOT be brushed aside. And they lost the SB not only because of the helmet catch, but because Brady was knocked on his ass and sacked / hit again and again.
To be fair though, were the Chiefs even any good. I mean, if you put Brady or Manning on the Browns they're still gonna be a really really bad team.
You are partially making my point for me. The Patriots system made Cassel look like a superstar just as it does with Brady.
As for Manning, yes, he would make that team into something. Look what he did with essentially 1st year WRs and no running game last year. They almost had a perfect season!
Montana and Elway honorable mention? Marino not in the conversation? I don’t know what to say….
I’ll say this – you cannot compare the stats of guys in different eras. The game is far different than it was even 15 years ago. The game is far less physical. You can hardly touch the qb without drawing a penalty. The no-chuck rule is now enforced, which has made it FAR easier for wr’s to get open. Teams routinely run 4 & 5 wr sets and throw 65% of the time.
The passing stats of Marino and Montana were achieved running classic pro sets with fullbacks (does anyone here remember fullbacks?) and TE’s against DBs that could basically tackle WRs. The degree of difficulty was way higher.
You also forgot to mention how much better defenses were in that era, and how much better teams were. The Bears were a juggernaut, the hogs and the Redskins dynasty, the Steelers were always good, the Giants vicious defense and dynasty, the Broncos were always tough, the New York Sack Exchange, the L.A. Raiders...now the talent in the league is so diluted.
Buyside CFA makes some good points.
For real. If a defender even lays a finger on Tom "Errand Boy" Brady due to momentum a split second after Brady's thrown a pass, a flag gets thrown. It's disgusting.
I agree comparing eras makes things difficult. I mean the game was completely different as recent as the Steve Young era. He retired with 7 official concussions (probably more). That's ridiculous.
It's always enjoyable listening to Flutie talk about his playing days. He often couldn't see over the line without backing up far enough.
Can't have the concussion discussion without bringing up Stan Humphries. Defenses knocked that poor fucker retarded time after time, and he still led the Bolts to the Super Bowl. I used to cringe at some of the hits that guy would take.
Please, you can't even compare the guys of today to that era, they wouldn't last two seconds. Those guys were absolute warriors, and their receivers would be raped the whole way upfield to boot, they had such a tight window to fit the ball into.
And for the all the kiddies out there who just started watching football, it was during that era and even a little before (the same era where guys like Lawrence Taylor tried, at times successfully, to end a quarterback's career on every play), when guys like Montana (with his team) and Marino (practically alone) were ripping defenses apart, and in the case of the latter...putting up Babe Ruth-like numbers for their time.
You guys must've been watching something completely different because the media was totally rooting for the Saints as some sort of compensation for the hurricane. That was the story all along and that's what they focused on. On the other hand, the focus was always the perfect season/playoffs for Brady and when that failed they focused on that. No flip flopping there.
I really don't think that's entirely true. The media talked a lot about Manning and his legacy leading up to the game. Yes, the Katrina shit was there too (personally that's why I was rooting for the Colts, I didn't wan't to hear all the garbage about how great the win was for the people of New Orleans), but I think most people expected the Colts to do a number on them. The line on the game was like -6.5 or -7 for the Colts, after all.
And if you're saying that post-game the media focused on the compensatory aspect fo the win for New Orleans then you're really just proving rebelcross' point: the media buried the story of Manning fucking up a huge play. If we're talking football qua football, the Manning play is way more important than the feel-good NO story and that's what people should have been talking about.
Oh come on. You and I both know that a pure sport is not where the media has taken us and that has been going on for a long time. Have you ever been to espn.com? It's a a freakin' soap opera. Weekly updates on Favre, articles on whether or not Jay Z and Jeter are recruiting LeBron, and a whole bunch of crap that really doesn't have anything to do with the sport (omg Big Ben expresses regret for his actions...what a shock!). That stuff sells like hotcakes and they flat out went with the better story instead of spreading themselves too thin. They buried nothing. You can be damn sure that when playoffs roll around again you'll be able to find far too many articles about Peyton trying to shake off last year's disappointment and I'm sure he'll be bombarded with questions about how it's affecting him. He'll get his. It's a compelling story. Just let it age a bit.
My point was, the talent was so high around Cassell that if he put up worse numbers than he did, he absolutely did not belong in the NFL (as any sort of QB). Any backup in the NFL could have succeeded in that situation -- the talent level around him was absolutely off-the-charts. If he had done any worse, he shouldn't have been a backup anywhere. I don't care if he hadn't played since high school -- he was a #2 QB in the NFL. Not too hard to take over the reigns of an immensely-talented team and NOT fuck it up.
I think it's foolish to discount Brady's performance because of the perceived "system" he's in. If it benefits QBs so much, why doesn't every team switch to this "system" that supposedly makes their QB better than he is? It's illogical. Brady won three SBs in this "system" with a very, very weak offensive supporting cast, and put up an absolutely insane season in his one year with top-notch offensive players around him (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for 2009 given the comeback from his knee injury). I can buy QBs falling into a team where they aren't the central focus of the offense -- one where they are basically expected to pass in passing downs and not screw it up. Then when they leave and go to a team where they're expected to shoulder more of the load, they falter. That I buy. But Brady has been the central point of the Pats offense for eight seasons now. Put him on any team in the league and he'll be a great QB -- he'd obviously be better for teams with a strong line, strong running game, strong receiving core, but who wouldn't? He'd instantly improve any team in the NFL, with the exception of the Colts (and possibly the Packers -- love Aaron Rodgers). That right there puts the whole "system QB" argument to rest.
You may be right about Brady being put on his ass time-after-time in the SB, but if Tyree didn't make that circus catch the Pats still would have won.
Quod ut aut dolorem. Nihil quidem quia aut voluptatem quae laudantium.
Quidem eum similique porro minus sit. Excepturi eos ducimus nemo dicta soluta. Et error necessitatibus dignissimos sunt labore ut voluptatem. Rerum rerum est dolore debitis.
Quia et illum quia eius commodi qui. Dolorum quia iusto adipisci rerum. Aliquid fugit sint quidem quod error consequatur eos. Beatae quos molestiae est eius deserunt vel.
Illo enim id et neque molestiae molestiae eum. Assumenda cumque accusantium alias velit molestiae quae. Eius provident culpa quibusdam ipsum qui quia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Consequatur cupiditate aperiam quae minus quo. Hic nemo dignissimos libero quo. Sed quo quia magni adipisci voluptatem in.
Pariatur assumenda animi totam eveniet deserunt voluptatem cum. Omnis quis ut delectus fugit veniam consectetur. Rerum reiciendis aut modi rem. Inventore amet ut vel ut. Dolore harum hic laudantium magnam.
Et eligendi est at aut. Ratione quisquam aliquid mollitia ipsa expedita tenetur. Rem adipisci sunt quas totam nostrum magni dolor. Voluptatibus dicta in non commodi in sapiente. Repellat non sunt enim id laborum et.
Tempora qui sunt ipsa dolorum necessitatibus nemo omnis ducimus. Tempore architecto beatae repellat corporis quo omnis. In voluptatem non nihil alias tenetur ut accusamus. Aut praesentium ut animi non repellat omnis ut. Omnis quis voluptatem numquam atque suscipit.
Dolorem illo accusantium quia. Cupiditate laboriosam minus est nisi at nemo.
Et est nostrum vero quis doloremque. Aut quidem hic voluptatem autem sit aut. Quo tempore consequuntur nobis.
Veritatis soluta et quod qui. Voluptatem nam illum odio necessitatibus molestias aut eos. Necessitatibus placeat architecto sed atque.