Let the Debate Begin
by CptChaosSidekick on Jul 8, 2008 11:54 AM EDT
23 comments
Ok so this whole Brett Farve thing got me thinking of the much debated "who's in your QB top-3 list?" I will list things that I think a quarterback needs to qualify himself into the discussion of best QB of all-time. In no paticular order:
- championships
- statistics
- surrounding talent (what does the QB have to work with)
- physical tools
- It Factor (ability to get the win in the biggest of stages)
- leadership
What do most people look at or judge how good a player was in any sport? Championships. Ok so lets take that figure and see who it applies to. With 4 SB rings Joe Montana (49ers), Terry Bradshaw (Steelers) Coming in 2nd with three SB Rings Troy Aikman (Cowboys), Tom Brady (Patriots). After that a host of other QB's come in with 2 SB wins.
Now observing this factoid are we to say that either Montana or Bradshaw are the top QB's? Many argue, as do I that Bradshaw was the benefactor of legendary surrounding talent and if you look at his statistics he was far less then stellar. In two of his SB's he displayed It Factor by leading his team to wins from behind twice by bombing it deep to two HOF wideouts Lynn Swann and John Stallworth. Bradshaw was a great game manager (see Trent Dilfer's year 2000 campaign) but he's not in the discussion of best QB ever.
Joe Montana is considered by many to be the best or near the best ever to lace 'em up but he compares to Terry Bradshaw in some aspects. They both have the SB wins, and surrounding talent . Montana worked with the best wideout of all time in Jerry Rice and had a genius for a coach in Bill Walsh who was the architect of the west coast offence. Montana also had a great defense that to this day is forgotten because of the fire power of those teams offense. Here's where Montana differs from Bradshaw and many other QB's : Montana made the players around him better whereas others were elevated or helped by their teams. It takes a special player to not only make those better around him, but elevate them to a level of sheer dominance. His career and postseason statistics are spectacular and in four SB appearances he threw 11 TD's to 0 INT's while also running for 2 TD's as well. A very strong candidate for best QB in the Super Bowl era.
A QB's job is to win and certainly Troy Aikman did him some good amount of wining..in my youth as a Redskin fan I saw a great amount of this and it still causes me to scream in the middle of the night. I'd put him above Bradshaw but I still consider him a game manager QB. Aikman had phenomenal surrounding talent. The all-time leading rusher, HOF Wr Michael Irvin, and an offensive line that is up there with the best ever. Where Aikman to me separates himself for Bradshaw is that he made others on his team better. The 90's Cowboys where teams filled with distractions and big personalities. Aikman was the glue that kept that team together especially in the '95 season. Great leadership however not in contention for best ever.
Sigh..Tom Brady. Whatever is the opposite of man-crush is what I have for Tom Brady however this is a Homer/ non-bias endeavor so I can't deny his greatness based on personal feelings. When I hear Tom Brady I think Peyton Manning and vice versa. Outside looking in, Tom Brady you would think should come out on top over Manning but this might be the toughest QB comparison ever, let alone best QB ever. Both their collective statistics are sick and we all remember Brady taking the record book and shoving it into a paper shredder. Surrounding talent: For awhile Manning for the longest time lacked a good supporting defense and Brady lacked a good supporting offense. It can be said of Brady's early SB wins, that he didn't exactly have a great supporting cast so does that combined with more SB wins give him an edge over Brady? I don't know. I do believe Manning should be the image that come up if you search "field general" in Google. Short of drawing up the playbook (and he might just do that) the man is the most "hands on" QB of the modern era. Side by side Manning vs. Brady per my list of what makes a great QB, Brady would come out on top due to SB's won. However in my heart of hearts I still say Manning is better because of his intangibles and I think he's just simply a better QB. The closest thing I can compares it to is that Dan Marino. Marino is better then a lot of QB's that went on to win SB's yet he can't be consider because he didn't win at least on of them.
No QB that's ever won the big show has carried a team more on his back then John Elway. Before everyone shouts they got there on the legs of Terrell Davis, remember that Elway guided the Broncos to 3 previous SB's before Davis' arrival when Elway was clearly the only thing carrying that team. This is shown best by Elway's classic comebacks when most other teams would have taken a loss. To me he's considered in the list of best QB's ever because he alone kept the Broncos afloat, and garnered a SB MVP.
Brett Farve is my favorite QB but he's not the best. When making this list I have to take my thoughts as a fan out of the equation. He has about every record a QB can own and his Consecutive starts streak is a thing myths are made of. The NFL's only 3-time MVP. He has amazing stats but when you play in every game since September 27, 1992 you are going to accumulate numbers. When compared to Marino, you'll find out that Marino got to those milestones faster that Farve despite missing 11 games in the '93 season. Farve oozes it factor from his 2003 Oakland Raiders game were he was "white hot" despite playing through the passing of his father and rebounding from an addition to painkillers. All of these things make him incredibly human however I think they helped people forget how he did have a period of mediocrity and the propensity to throw many costly INT's. Any other QB I think would've caught a lot more flack but because he might be the most beloved QB ever, those things were partially ignored. Brett Farve my favorite QB, love the gamer, love the "add-lib passes" but not the best QB ever.
So there it is. Feel free to comment and I'm sure a lot of you will make great arguments. I'd like to say one more thing. I'm a football "purest" and I think it's a shame that the pre-super bowl era QB's not get enough recognition. Sammy Baugh, Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas, Y.A. Tittle, and Norm Van Brocklin should get a tip of the cap. I do realize though that the majority of people have no idea about them so they were not included in this post. If they were Sammy Baugh is the best QB and maybe athlete ever to play the game. "He was Peyton Manning, Ray Guy and Ronnie Lott all in one player".- NFL Films Steve Sabol
My Top-3 Super Bowl era Quarterbaks:
- Joe Montana
- John Elway
- Peyton manning
0 recs |
23 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Visiting from BTB
But I will go with a controversial choice and say Steve Young. I think stronger arguments can probably be made on the numbers for Brady and Montana, but Young was the QB I feared most on game days. He could do everything and had that deadly bootleg to the left. The guy was fortunate to play on some good 49ers teams, but was unlucky to be on the opposing side of the Cowboys dynasty – otherwise, he would have won 3 Super Bowls in a row. Also has the highest career QB rating in NFL history, and didn’t have the benefit of playing with today’s QB-friendly rules (but did have the fortune of throwing to Rice).
But, like I said, it’s hard to argue anyone on the merits over Montana or Brady right now.
by grapejoos on Jul 8, 2008 1:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
BTB
1. Tom Brady
2. Joe Montana
3. Brett Favre
4. Dan Marino
5. Troy Aikman
6. Peyton Manning
7. John Elway
8. Terry Bradshaw
Staggolee
by Staggolee87 on Jul 8, 2008 2:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Favre and Bradshaw
too high, IMO. Elway and Manning too low. Sammy Baugh should be on the list, I say!
by Skin Patrol on Jul 8, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I voted for Aikman and I'll tell you why
not because I’m a Cowboys homer but because he was an unselfish, take charge leader who did whatever was necessary to win games.
You can argue all you want that he had great talent around him, but all of these candidates had HOF talent around them as well. Where would Montana and Young be without Rice? Manning without Harrison?
Aikman just happened to play with the all time leading rusher in league history which skewed his stats. Believe me, Aikman could sling the rock with the best of them and with a slightly lesser team would be top 5 in all passing categories very easily.
Bottom line is that if I needed to win one game for a championship and I could pick any qb of all time to lead my team, it would be Troy Aikman without question and the reason is simple…because I’d want to win.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 8, 2008 4:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re:
Where would Montana be without Rice? Kansas City, and he was for the twilight of his career. If you’re really interested in comparing Aikman without Irvin to Montana without Rice, just look at the last two seasons of both of their careers and let me know what you find.
If Aikman were anywhere near Montana, statistically speaking, I’d be willing to buy arguments about Emmit Smith taking snaps or wins or some other nonsense. The problem is that Montana so eclipsed Aikman in production that explanations quickly turn into excuses. Troy Aikman was a very great quarterback; he wasn’t Joe Montana. There isn’t a lot of shame in that.
by Skin Patrol on Jul 8, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Montana had better stats because he played
in the west coast offense which emphasized passing so of course Montana has better stats. Football isn’t baseball, stats shouldn’t be the primary tool in evaluating a player because its the ultimate team sport and a players true greatness can be skewed by stats, like in Aikman’s case.
I’d take Aikman over Montana and think he’s better, but thats just me, they’re both great QBs.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 9, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
Montana has better per pass stats. A pass-happy scheme may account for why Montana’s numbers are larger in absolute terms (the other explanation is that Montana was better) but it wouldn’t explain why Montana was simply better… per pass.
Anyways, let’s examine your claim. Joe Montana had 5391 attempts in 192 games or ~28 attempts per game. Troy Aikman had 4715 attempts in 165 games or… ~28.5attempts per game. If you include just starts (which isn’t fair to Montana, since that counts his non-start attempts as started attempts) it’s still only ~32 attempts per game for Montana over his career vs. 28.5 attempts per start for Aikman. If you think 3.5 attempts per game is the reason Montana eclipses Aikman… be my guest.
The real reason is that, per pass over the lengths of their careers, Montana averaged half a yard more than Aikman. Even if Montana had thrown exactly as many passes as Troy Aikman at 4715, he’d still have around 2,500 more yards than Aikman did.
None of which takes into account that Montana had a better int% (did you know, for instance, that in spite of playing in a passing system, Montana had fewer total ints than Troy Aikman?), better td%, better QB Rating - which I think is meaningless - etc. Those are all PER PASS stats and have nothing to do with the total numbers, which also favor Joe Montana dramatically, since he had more staying power.
The real measure is how Montana stacked up vs. his peers vs. how Aikman did and, once more, Montana dominates. He had more pro bowls. He led the league in passer rating, twice, which is exactly twice more than Aikman ever did (Montana was in the top 10 in rating 13 times, Aikman just 6 times—Montana also has four of the top 100 passer rating seasons of all time, vs. 1 for Troy Aikman). In yards per attempt, Joe Montana led the league once in 1989 and was top 10 in the league 10 times. Aikman? Just 6 times, he never led the league, and is not on the top100 y/a of all time. Completion percentage is the most telling, as Aikman led the league just once. Montana led the league in Completion % FIVE times.
It’s not close. If it were, we could talk about “west coast offense” vs. Troy Aikman’s offense (but that ignores the per pass discrepency in stats).
by Skin Patrol on Jul 9, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I thought math had no use..Ms. Albert was right after all
What makes this discussion so hard is that it goes way beyond stats, that’s why I tried to create a list of intangables that would make a great QB.
Montana to me comes out on top on all of these. It took me upteen hours to write this because QB is the most influentioal, important, and most foused position in all of sports.
Sammy Baugh however is where it begins for me. As I stated a lot of people now-a-days don’t even recognize the pre-modern era of football. Baugh created passing as we know it plain and simple.
by CptChaosSidekick on Jul 9, 2008 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NFL films and Steve Sabol know what's up!
I give you greatness in hyperlink form!
by CptChaosSidekick on Jul 9, 2008 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
once again Skin Patrol
if you only want to use stats, I think its wrong, too many factors go into those stats, not just the ability of Aikman and Montana. This isn’t baseball where its pitcher v hitter, this is football where the remaining 10 players, not to mention the coaching philosophy have an enormous influence on a qbs stats.
Therefore saying Montana is hands down better because his stats are hands down better is nonsense. Anyone who knows football knows there isn’t much separating these 2 qbs and you could make a great argument for either one to be considered the best of all time, stats aside.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 10, 2008 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
Terry,
I do not want to use only stats. However, if you want to introduce some other means of judging quarterbacks and still expect me to give a shit about what it is we are measuring, it can’t just be “Terry’s opinion.” I use stats because they are available and they tell a story. If you want to use a 20 sided die to make the decision, or a coin-flipping contest, be my guest. If your contribution to the discussion is “Troy Aikman is the best quarterback… because I said so” then let’s just agree to disagree. The depth of your analysis so far is “Anyone who knows football knows there isn’t much separating these 2 qbs…” Why? Because Terry said so? I’m someone who watches and knows football, and I think there’s a lot separating these two qbs. I have a book in my house written by another person of the top 25 QBs of all time, and they happen to think much separates Joe Montana from Troy Aikman as well. In fact, besides you, I’ve never met anyone or spoken with anyone or written to anyone in my entire life who has ever felt that much didn’t separate these two quarterbacks.
But I don’t rely on all those opinions, or yours for that matter. I go to something objective like the statistics to base my claim. You don’t like that - or the conclusion, obviously - but so what? I would much rather rely on what Joe Montana and Troy Aikman did on the field than on your subjective opinion repeated but unsupported here.
I’m not saying Montana is hands down better (ok, I am comma but) but rather that his STATS are hands down better. You clearly don’t disagree.
I will add in closing that if your position is that Troy Aikman and Joe Montana are comparable, stats be damned, then why even join the discussion? I’m asking you to support your position, that Aikman is as good or better than Montana, and you are flat out refusing to do so. My favorite color is green. Maybe yours isn’t. We don’t need to argue about it, though.
by Skin Patrol on Jul 10, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't seen such a point-counter-point like this
since Clint Eastwood told Spike Lee off
by CptChaosSidekick on Jul 10, 2008 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Its been a good ralley.
I wasn’t sure how to reply to the “anyone who knows football knows there isn’t much separating these two qbs” statement. I thought people who know football would be pretty clear on the rather large gap between those two qbs. SP cleared that one up pretty good.
I’m also exhausted with the whole “he played in such and such an offense, so his astronomical stats don’t count” routine. Joe Montana got those stats and won football games and superbowls, which is what counts regardless of the offense he was running. If his stats were better than Aikman’s, it shows that Joe was of a better athlete and had coach who knew best how to use his talent. Under these conditions, the stats are deserved and are indicative of the better athlete and coaching staff. I have never heard anyone ever claim that Brett Farve’s stats are a product of the west coast offense, which should be a valid statement under a “he was in a WCO” philosophy (if jake is a boy, and all boys wear red hats, jake is wearing a red hat). To me this just sounds like someone making up reasons for why their player is better despite his lesser productivity.
Plus, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Colt wasn’t just a phenom due to poor competition and a run and shoot O. Frankly, if you can get that type of productivity out of your QB in any offense, failing to do so would be idiotic. Denigrating a qb’s stats because a coach rightly played to that qb’s ability is illogical, especially if that qb is putting up Ws.
by Ach on Jul 10, 2008 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I already stated my case above
but I’ll do it again. If you watched both QBs play for their entire career, you’ll know Aikman was as accurate if not more accurate than Montana in delivering the football to his recievers, the number one priority of a QBs responsibility by the way. If you watched games, you would see Aikman throw the ball downfield much more than Montana while Montana threw 5 – 10 yard dump offs in the west offense his entire career which skews his completion percentage over Montana. He also had the greatest WR of all time to throw to while Aikman handed off to the all time leading rusher. If you can’t see how those factors could skew numbers, then I guess you’ll never understand my argument.
Aikman was clearly the tougher QB who could stand in the pocket and takes a shot while delivering the football, Montana was much more fragile in the pocket, but did have better mobility. Both were extremely intelligent QBs who could read defenses equally. Both were winners and clutch QBs who played exceptionally well in the playoffs evidenced by their wins and SB titles.
I’m not saying Aikman is better because I say so, I’m saying he’s better in my opinion based on how he performed on the field without looking at numbers.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 11, 2008 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of your claims are backed up
by facts. If your evidence is “I watched Aikman therefore…” then let’s just stop arguing, because that isn’t a case. I could just say that I watched Trent Dilfer and he was the most accurate passer in history.
Now, Montana has a higher completion % than Troy Aikman. You say that’s because he threw dump offs…well, Montana has a higher Yards Per Attempt as well, which would certainly call into question your theory. Also, Joe Montana had more yards… PER COMPLETION than Troy Aikman did. Explain how that fits in with your theory that Aikman threw the ball downfield more than Montana.
I understand the point you’re TRYING to make (but there are no facts to support it). The problem is you have no evidence besides your own eyeballs, which means it’s just your subjective opinion. Who cares that Terry watched football and thinks Troy Aikman was more accurate than Joe Montana… besides Terry? Why on earth would you think that is compelling evidence to anyone besides you or your kids?
You state without evidence things like: “Aikman was clearly the tougher QB…” Ok. Troy Aikman was sacked 259 times and was forced to retire as a result. Joe Montana survived 313 sacks before he retired. Indeed, Joe Montana was sacked more per pass attempt than Aikman; 5.5% for Joe, 5.2% for Aikman. Yet the former outlived the latter, yea?
Anyways: When I say you are arguing that you think Aikman is better cuz you say so, and you reply “he’s better… based on how he performed on the field without looking at numbers” or any other evidence, my position is that you are making a distinction with no difference. What differentiates totally subjective baseless claims - green is the best color, for example - from compelling and cogent arguments is PRECISELY:
Evidence.
And if you haven’t any, you likewise haven’t a compelling position in this discussion.
Hence why I’m thinking we should just agree to disagree, because you’ve stated a few times now that you are totally unwilling to produce any reasons why your position is more tenable to anyone besides, MAYBE, your children.
by Skin Patrol on Jul 12, 2008 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i judge QBs based on
if i had to win one game, who would i take.
anyone with half a brain would take Montana – just look at his SB stats:
83-122, 1,142 yards, 11 TD, 0 INT, 127.8 (!!) passer rating. and if that isn’t enough, he also holds postseason records for TD passes and passing yards.
this judgement also means that I have Brady ahead of Peyton, even though Manning’s eventual numbers are going to dwarf Brady’s every QB in history. but, if i had to win one game, there’s no way I would take Peyton over Brady.
by SBakerTheTouchdownMaker on Jul 12, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My only issue with this is...
you have two sample sizes on which to choose the best quarterback (for a single game) and you choose the smaller sample size. I’d take Peyton, personally, but it’s close.
I think Jim Kelly is one of the most underrated quarterbacks in history, and I think he has a career body of work that speaks for itself. He blew it in Superbowls. But the greatness of Jim Kelly isn’t, and shouldn’t be, defined by how he played in 4 of the 177 games he played. If I had to choose between Kelly and, say, Bradshaw, it’s not even close. Bradshaw was a madman in Superbowls, but merely a very good quarterback in the other 170+ games he played. If you put his career vs. Jim Kelly’s, I think Jimbo comes out way on top.
Just my opinion, though. My bigger issue is: If you have 10 games of performance vs. 1 game of performance, even if that 1 game is the SB, I’d rather look to the 10 games because the sample size is more telling.
Great example is Doug Williams. He had just about one of the greatest Super Bowl performances in history (18 of 29 for 4 TDs on 1 pick with 11.2 YPA) yet he wasn’t really that good of a quarterback. Lightning can strike in a 1, 2, or even 5 game streak. What defines greatness is being able to go out there and play at a high level for 100-200 games.
I never understand why this argument doesn’t carry into other positions, either. If it were the case that you’d take the best SB performing QBs over ones who didn’t do so well in the big game, yet had far more storied careers, does that mean Timmy Smith would be the person you’d pick for that one game at RB? He averaged 6.7 yards per carry in the postseason, more than Emmit Smith and Terrel Davis. In fact, his 9.3 in the ‘88 SB is twice as much as Terrell Davis had in ‘91, and 3 times as many YPC as Emmit Smith had in ‘96. Does that mean I’d take Smith over either Davis or Emmit? Nope, and I’ve never heard anyone else make that case, either.
I’d take Dan Marino over a lot of guys who won Super Bowls; Dilfer and Bradshaw, for example.
by Skin Patrol on Jul 12, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
skin patrol, if you watch football
which i assume you do, then you know that a 5 yard dump off to a guy like Rice pr Craig can turn into a 50 or 60 yard pass completion as a stat, which on paper looks like a 50 or 60 yard pass but wasn’t. So obviously my theory on Aikman throwing down field does hold a lot of water.
My eveidence to back up my argument is game film, not numbers because game film does lie, stats do.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 14, 2008 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any highlight-reel can make any player look great
and stats can be examined and re-examined. What’s really telling about Montana is that in his later years with Kansas City, (93-94) he led them to the playoffs which had far less talent then his 49er teams. His 1.8% for INT’s in ‘94 was one of the all time best and that was his last year in the NFL.. Again that’s stats.
This should end the debate.
Pro-football-reference did a best QB ever list and no-one does stats better then them.
Ok take stats out of the question. It’s the 2:00 min drill and you’re on the 20yd line. Who do you want to QB your team down the field? I’m gonna have to take Montana over Aikman. Not taking anything from Aikman but rarely was a game own his shoulders. Montana did this a lot and on the biggest of stages.
When people think dynasties, they hear 49ers all think Montana and for the Cowboys of the 90’s it’s usually Emmitt Smith that’s prtetty telling.
by CptChaosSidekick on Jul 14, 2008 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So where is the game film?
Do you have links?
Do you have any evidence that Troy Aikman benefitted from fewer YACs than Montana?
Terry, you’re fucking boring.
by Skin Patrol on Jul 14, 2008 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Terry Bradshaw is nowhere in this discussion.
He was a good quarterback, perhaps even a very good quarterback. He might make a list of top 25 qbs in NFL history. He would not make a top 10.
It goes:
1. Sammy Baugh
2. X
3. Joe Montana
X is either Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, as I view the two increasingly indistinguishably. I have serious issues with placing too much emphasis on playoff or super bowl performances. Those things are important, but represent a fraction of any given player’s career. Those games should get more emphasis than 1:1 against regular season games, but you can’t simply insert postseason success in the place of a lack of regular season consistency and claim greatness. Trent Dilfer is not better than Dan Marino or, to use an example more prescient here, Terry Bradshaw simply isn’t in the same conversation with many qbs he outgunned in the Super Bowl.
If we want to look at the numbers over the course of their careers, Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman really aren’t in the same league as a Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, or Tom Brady. There isn’t any relevant quarterback statistic that Aikman and Bradshaw compare favorably to with the other three, and there’s no way to explain this out of the equation given the talent both Aikman and Bradshaw played with. Any appeal to wins and wins only gives a QB credit for a team statistic.
Sammy Baugh wins because he created the modern quarterback. Everyone else who enjoys success at the position does so in virtue of him.
by Skin Patrol on Jul 8, 2008 6:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great input by all
I will respond with my 2 cents sometime tomorrow…
by CptChaosSidekick on Jul 8, 2008 8:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
