Can Someone Rank The 5 Best Quarterbacks Of All Time?

**gretzky99** · 01-15-2013, 03:15 PM

it's all speculation on who would do what on a different team. yes, the Cowboys did have a bit of a juggernaut, but Aikman was the QB when they won 3 SB's. i'm sorry, but Peyton was on some excellent teams and couldn't get it done. This year's Broncos team was pretty strong. He couldn't get them any further than Tebow got basically the same team last year. so i can't say for sure that Peyton would win SB's with that Dallas team. without question, Peyton is a better QB than Tebow, but is he better than Tebow in the playoffs? i don't know. he may have looked prettier playing the game and done more "traditional" QB things, but was he better? Tebow won his OT game against what was probably a better opponent than Peyton played. Peyton didn't play poorly, but they didn't win.

in 2005 Peyton had a dominant team. All-Pro RB (James), HOF WR (Harrison), All-Pro TE (Clark), a slightly younger but about to break out WR in Wayne, DPOY S in Sanders, All-Pro DE in Freeney and they didn't even win a playoff game. can you really argue that any of the Cowboys teams was significantly better than that Colts team?

i did an analysis last year and Peyton had a top 10 defense quite a few times. not to mention he throws the ball so much and runs a no huddle offense so his defense is on the field a lot. and they still ranked in the top 10 a bunch of times.

in my opinion, part of the reason Peyton can't win big games is because the way his offense is built. it is built around him and that offense is harder to run in the playoffs. it's cold, the games are closer, you need a running game. but Peyton doesn't run that offense. he runs a no huddle that runs through him. it's not his fault, per se, but it's part of it. the one year they did win they took the ball out of his hands some and they ran it. they played a severely outmatched opponent, of course, but he didn't play that well and frankly had no business winning the MVP for that game. it was a gift for finally winning a SB.

Originally Posted by manningcollector

I hate to open up this can...... but what if a Manning or Brady was the signal caller on those cowboy teams..... if that is the case I think they win 5-6 super bowls. I know there is no way determine that, but I feel it's true. If you look at the absolutely dominant talent that the cowboys had..... then I do think all it would have taken was an average QB to win those games. Was Aikman really the difference, Deion Sanders leaves after winning in Dallas, then SanFrancisco was suddenly good enough to get over the hump...... Aikman was not the driving force on the Dallas teams of the 90's...... they were laced with stars and HOF players. Manning has not been, maybe he just doesn't perform as well in the biggest games..... but he doesn't perform poorly. His playoff games minus the few in 0 degree new england weather have been well above average... just not necessarily up to his standard....... however, Brady has done soooo much with very little talent.... tons of teamwork and what I think is the greatest schematic coach to ever stand on the sideline. I know we joked about Plunkett before...... but what Aikman did doesn't really impress me much more than that just because of the way it was done.

**manningcollector** · 01-15-2013, 04:37 PM

So now the one that he won... he only won because the opponent was severly overmatched? Come on now, what is more subjective than that statement. Regardless of the Bears, he beat Brady and a Patriots team that was in the middle of their dynasty to get to that game. If you don't measure greatness by anything but rings..... then I would at least give the maximum credit for the one that he won.... super bowl MVP's are nothing like the regular season award... SB MVP is a joke and it should not even be awarded.

And, you keep saying he didn't play that well...... he played every bit as well in that game as the likes of Aikman or Bradshaw did over thier career. Just because he didn't play up to the label as the best QB of all time... which he likely is during the regular season..... doesn't mean he didn't play well in many of the playoff losses and wins. Aikman was average in the regular season and showed the same ability in the post season.... not sure he should really be rewarded for mediocre consistancy. As far as I see, Montana and Brady have significantly distanced themselves from everyone else.... mainly because they show regular season greatness along with the ability to rise when it matters the most..... more so Brady in that argument than Montana..... Brady will retire with the best TD:INT ratio of any QB with at least 300 TD passes, and it won't even be close until Rodgers eclipses that milestone (if he ever does). Brady has basically been over his career ...... Manning statistically in the regular season and Montana as far as leadership and and clutchness in the post-season. In my mind if he wins another one this argument is over for good...... I give him huge credit for the 18-1 team since he drove down the field when it mattered most and delivered..... craziness ensued after that but with the 19-0 pressure/ 4 SB milestone/ Dynasty talk...... he delivered the goods, just didn't take enough time I suppose.

Originally Posted by gretzky99

it's all speculation on who would do what on a different team. yes, the Cowboys did have a bit of a juggernaut, but Aikman was the QB when they won 3 SB's. i'm sorry, but Peyton was on some excellent teams and couldn't get it done. This year's Broncos team was pretty strong. He couldn't get them any further than Tebow got basically the same team last year. so i can't say for sure that Peyton would win SB's with that Dallas team. without question, Peyton is a better QB than Tebow, but is he better than Tebow in the playoffs? i don't know. he may have looked prettier playing the game and done more "traditional" QB things, but was he better? Tebow won his OT game against what was probably a better opponent than Peyton played. Peyton didn't play poorly, but they didn't win.

in 2005 Peyton had a dominant team. All-Pro RB (James), HOF WR (Harrison), All-Pro TE (Clark), a slightly younger but about to break out WR in Wayne, DPOY S in Sanders, All-Pro DE in Freeney and they didn't even win a playoff game. can you really argue that any of the Cowboys teams was significantly better than that Colts team?

i did an analysis last year and Peyton had a top 10 defense quite a few times. not to mention he throws the ball so much and runs a no huddle offense so his defense is on the field a lot. and they still ranked in the top 10 a bunch of times.

in my opinion, part of the reason Peyton can't win big games is because the way his offense is built. it is built around him and that offense is harder to run in the playoffs. it's cold, the games are closer, you need a running game. but Peyton doesn't run that offense. he runs a no huddle that runs through him. it's not his fault, per se, but it's part of it. the one year they did win they took the ball out of his hands some and they ran it. they played a severely outmatched opponent, of course, but he didn't play that well and frankly had no business winning the MVP for that game. it was a gift for finally winning a SB.

**manningcollector** · 01-15-2013, 04:41 PM

Also, this ravens team is a back to back AFC championship game team..... much better than the steelers team the broncos beat last year. I know the whole thing falls on Manning, but minus whatever moron blew the deep coverage when the only thing they had to do.... was to not let anyone deep.......... are we soooo harsh on Manning at this point; probably not. I guess that is the nature of the beast though

**gretzky99** · 01-15-2013, 05:14 PM

I'm not taking anything away from Peyton's SB victory. he played probably his best game ever by beating the Patriots that year (i think it was that year). my point was he won it by NOT playing like Peyton. they ran the ball more, played much more conservative, relied on their defense. my point was he might have won more than one if they decided to play like that in the playoffs.

the one year he won, he played the SB much more like Aikman played. that's my point. maybe the thing that makes Peyton so great in the regular season is what makes him struggle in the playoffs?

Originally Posted by manningcollector

So now the one that he won... he only won because the opponent was severly overmatched? Come on now, what is more subjective than that statement. Regardless of the Bears, he beat Brady and a Patriots team that was in the middle of their dynasty to get to that game. If you don't measure greatness by anything but rings..... then I would at least give the maximum credit for the one that he won.... super bowl MVP's are nothing like the regular season award... SB MVP is a joke and it should not even be awarded.

And, you keep saying he didn't play that well...... he played every bit as well in that game as the likes of Aikman or Bradshaw did over thier career. Just because he didn't play up to the label as the best QB of all time... which he likely is during the regular season..... doesn't mean he didn't play well in many of the playoff losses and wins. Aikman was average in the regular season and showed the same ability in the post season.... not sure he should really be rewarded for mediocre consistancy. As far as I see, Montana and Brady have significantly distanced themselves from everyone else.... mainly because they show regular season greatness along with the ability to rise when it matters the most..... more so Brady in that argument than Montana..... Brady will retire with the best TD:INT ratio of any QB with at least 300 TD passes, and it won't even be close until Rodgers eclipses that milestone (if he ever does). Brady has basically been over his career ...... Manning statistically in the regular season and Montana as far as leadership and and clutchness in the post-season. In my mind if he wins another one this argument is over for good...... I give him huge credit for the 18-1 team since he drove down the field when it mattered most and delivered..... craziness ensued after that but with the 19-0 pressure/ 4 SB milestone/ Dynasty talk...... he delivered the goods, just didn't take enough time I suppose.

**ensbergcollector** · 01-15-2013, 05:40 PM

manning turned the ball over three times this past week. can we stop saying he didn't play poorly? if flacco had turned the ball over three times and the ravens had lost, he would be getting ripped for costing them the game. Manning, however, has gotten an almost complete pass from the media.

**manningcollector** · 01-15-2013, 11:38 PM

complete pass from the media.... please.... that is 100% inaccurate. He may not be getting the direct blame because of the stupid play at the end of regulation but everyone I have heard in the media questions his big game ability and why his teams always lose when they have high seeds and are playing at home. I am not giving him a pass, the media isn't either. He played fairly well but not good enough...... the last interception was a killer and on his shoulders and nobody else's. I have zero defense for that throw. The defense and coaching staff should be ripped for both the defensive fiasco at the end of regualtion and the pansy decision to take a knee. Other teams just this week were able to put together a field goal opportunity with 30 seconds on the clock.... certainly the broncos were capable of the same. Even with this, he still had the ball in overtime multiple times and could not score.... that is on him, not the defense so he shoulders most of the blame in my opinion

Originally Posted by ensbergcollector

manning turned the ball over three times this past week. can we stop saying he didn't play poorly? if flacco had turned the ball over three times and the ravens had lost, he would be getting ripped for costing them the game. Manning, however, has gotten an almost complete pass from the media.

**manningcollector** · 01-15-2013, 11:52 PM

If what you are saying is true.... and it may well be...... that is totally de-valuing the position of quarterback in the NFL. If we are going to say an enhanced running game and better defenses are the recipe to winning...... then why does it even matter who the best quarterback of all time is; all we are doing at that point is arguing who the best game manager is and who has the best talent around them. If that is the argument you are making, then absolutely I agree bradshaw, aikman, starr, roethlisberger are among the best ever. They all relied heavily on defense and a great running attack. They did less and it ended up in winning. I can't refute that point whatsoever.

Also, if that is your premise... why wouldn't plunkett be on your top 10 or so list. He won games, superbowls.... and facilited great teams. That is what you seem to focus on so it stands to reason he would get huge amounts of credit for that.

Ultimately at that point for me the argument becomes pointless..... if throwing less and leaning on the running game; along with enhanced defense is the recipe for winning superbowls...... that just shows the QB has less of an impact on the game than people like to think. It puts more emphasis on the individuals around the signal caller. At that point puttin heavy stock into superbowls won makes no sense since it is primarily based on the surrounding talent.

I actually think you have talked me into thinking there is no way to actually reason through if Manning is better than Brady; Brady than Montana; or Marino to Brady; or Manning to Elway. They all had different supporting casts with different levels of ability. I guess I can live with the fact that there is no answer. Look at it this way, trent green or drew bledsoe dont get hurt.... that is 2 less HOF quarterbacks that we have. How many other guys could have succeeded that never got the chance to start.... might not be that many but it stands to reason there were a few. Everything is circumstancial, right place, right time; right supporting cast. Doesn't really make much sense to penalize someone for things out of their control. So, in the end for me I guess it comes down to the eye test now. If someone looks like a better player than they are a better player, no need to evaluate stats or look at other criteria than realized talent.

Originally Posted by gretzky99

I'm not taking anything away from Peyton's SB victory. he played probably his best game ever by beating the Patriots that year (i think it was that year). my point was he won it by NOT playing like Peyton. they ran the ball more, played much more conservative, relied on their defense. my point was he might have won more than one if they decided to play like that in the playoffs.

the one year he won, he played the SB much more like Aikman played. that's my point. maybe the thing that makes Peyton so great in the regular season is what makes him struggle in the playoffs?

**gretzky99** · 01-16-2013, 12:47 AM

to some extent, i think what you are saying is right. when it comes to football in December and January, you have to rely on your defense and running game to a point. now, with domed stadiums (didn't have many of those in 70s and 80s) it might be a little different. but don't undervalue what a QB on a running team has to do. they have to convert a lot of 3rd downs, run for first downs. it's not flashy, but that's what keeps drives going. that's what keeps the other team's offense off the field and maybe more importantly keeps your defense off the field. football, at its essence, is a field position/time possession game. and even more so in tough weather conditions against good defenses. most of the time in the playoffs games are close and they are decided but just a few plays. a turnover here, a third down conversion there.

there is no formula to say what kind of QB wins Super Bowls. Brees and Rodgers both won Super Bowls throwing the ball a ton. Brady has as well. the last 10 years has seen a significant rise in throwing the ball so guys that don't throw it as much are getting less and less credit. the art of the QB position has been reduced to throwing on virtually every down.

Bradshaw called his own plays. he had a feel for the game. he used his running game. these aren't valued skills anymore even when guys like Roethlisberger won Super Bowls in the same way. if you watch Ben play, you see how good he is on third down. he keeps the other team's offense off the field. he doesn't throw for 5,000 yards but he controls the game.

so for me, it's about results. that's the only way i can say Montana was better than Manning. Montana won big games, Manning hasn't (at least consistently). even though the QB position is very different now, the one thing that has stayed the same is the goal is to lead your team to victory.

Plunkett was 72-72 in his career and threw 164 TDs to 198 INTs. He had three good years and just happened to win 2 Super Bowls. he gets credit for winning 2 Super Bowls but he was terribly inconsistent and was hurt much of his career. he is the exception for me. QB's generally don't back into SB wins, but Plunkett did in many ways. there are always exceptions to the rule and Plunkett is clearly that.

Originally Posted by manningcollector

If what you are saying is true.... and it may well be...... that is totally de-valuing the position of quarterback in the NFL. If we are going to say an enhanced running game and better defenses are the recipe to winning...... then why does it even matter who the best quarterback of all time is; all we are doing at that point is arguing who the best game manager is and who has the best talent around them. If that is the argument you are making, then absolutely I agree bradshaw, aikman, starr, roethlisberger are among the best ever. They all relied heavily on defense and a great running attack. They did less and it ended up in winning. I can't refute that point whatsoever.

Also, if that is your premise... why wouldn't plunkett be on your top 10 or so list. He won games, superbowls.... and facilited great teams. That is what you seem to focus on so it stands to reason he would get huge amounts of credit for that.

Ultimately at that point for me the argument becomes pointless..... if throwing less and leaning on the running game; along with enhanced defense is the recipe for winning superbowls...... that just shows the QB has less of an impact on the game than people like to think. It puts more emphasis on the individuals around the signal caller. At that point puttin heavy stock into superbowls won makes no sense since it is primarily based on the surrounding talent.

I actually think you have talked me into thinking there is no way to actually reason through if Manning is better than Brady; Brady than Montana; or Marino to Brady; or Manning to Elway. They all had different supporting casts with different levels of ability. I guess I can live with the fact that there is no answer. Look at it this way, trent green or drew bledsoe dont get hurt.... that is 2 less HOF quarterbacks that we have. How many other guys could have succeeded that never got the chance to start.... might not be that many but it stands to reason there were a few. Everything is circumstancial, right place, right time; right supporting cast. Doesn't really make much sense to penalize someone for things out of their control. So, in the end for me I guess it comes down to the eye test now. If someone looks like a better player than they are a better player, no need to evaluate stats or look at other criteria than realized talent.