The real goat qb is ...

[Jameis1of1]

Otto Graham ... and it's not even close ... even if the media is a "prisoner of the moment" and has forgotten the past ...

OTTO.JPG

[pwaldo]

Why did people go with GOAT over BOAT? I'd rather be the Best Of All Time and be a BOAT instead of a goat.

[Devlin]

Tough to compare, otto only 12 playoff games, 9-3 record, 14 td 17 int.
B Starr 10 playoff, 9-1, 15 td 3 int
Montana 23 playoff ganes
elway 22
manning 27

maybe otto would have kept up that winning percentage, but of course you play
numerous teams of quality. Your going to lose once in a while.

[jwlawrence06]

I think a large reason Graham is forgotten as well is, when he retired in 1955 there were only a total of 12 teams in the league, and the playoffs were a 1-game winner-takes-all, thus his championship numbers aren't as impressive as Brady's given that the Pats compete against 30 other teams and at a minimum 3 games in the playoffs to win a championship. To provide perspective, if you adjusted Brady's seasons down to a 1-game playoff (let's use his first playoff game of each season), he would actually have 14 championships seeing as he won his first playoff game in 14 seasons thus far...I would be curious to know how many titles Graham would actually have if it took him 2 or more rounds of playoffs before a championship game, odds are he may have lost one or two. Not to mention passer rating (and thus ERA-adjusted passer rating) is a fairly useless statistic in my opinion.

[jwlawrence06]

I will also chime in, however, that the GOAT label is currently still a discussion, I consider Brady the GOAT but I also entertain other points of view until Brady is the leader in all the major statistical categories.

[Devlin]

I think a large reason Graham is forgotten as well is, when he retired in 1955 there were only a total of 12 teams in the league, and the playoffs were a 1-game winner-takes-all, thus his championship numbers aren't as impressive as Brady's given that the Pats compete against 30 other teams and at a minimum 3 games in the playoffs to win a championship. To provide perspective, if you adjusted Brady's seasons down to a 1-game playoff (let's use his first playoff game of each season), he would actually have 14 championships seeing as he won his first playoff game in 14 seasons thus far...I would be curious to know how many titles Graham would actually have if it took him 2 or more rounds of playoffs before a championship game, odds are he may have lost one or two. Not to mention passer rating (and thus ERA-adjusted passer rating) is a fairly useless statistic in my opinion.

Yup

[Jameis1of1]

Why did people go with GOAT over BOAT? I'd rather be the Best Of All Time and be a BOAT instead of a goat.

I think it's just because everyone includes "team success" in the GOAT argument, whereas the BOAT argument is all about "individual success" only. That said, when you look at Otto's MVP's, 1st Team All-Pros and adjusted passer-rating, he's the BOAT as well, though I know many people would also put Aaron Rodgers and Dan Marino in a BOAT conversation ... not too many people would consider Tom Brady in a BOAT conversation though as he's obviously not as talented as many past QBs.

Tough to compare, otto only 12 playoff games, 9-3 record, 14 td 17 int.
B Starr 10 playoff, 9-1, 15 td 3 int
Montana 23 playoff ganes
elway 22
manning 27

maybe otto would have kept up that winning percentage, but of course you play
numerous teams of quality. Your going to lose once in a while.

I don't understand your argument. He played 10 years and made the title game every single season, winning 7 of them. Are you saying had he played far worse teams more often (which is what would have happened in a larger, more watered down league), he would have won less? If anything I think his stats and also his "win percentage" would have been even better.

I think a large reason Graham is forgotten as well is, when he retired in 1955 there were only a total of 12 teams in the league, and the playoffs were a 1-game winner-takes-all, thus his championship numbers aren't as impressive as Brady's given that the Pats compete against 30 other teams and at a minimum 3 games in the playoffs to win a championship. To provide perspective, if you adjusted Brady's seasons down to a 1-game playoff (let's use his first playoff game of each season), he would actually have 14 championships seeing as he won his first playoff game in 14 seasons thus far...I would be curious to know how many titles Graham would actually have if it took him 2 or more rounds of playoffs before a championship game, odds are he may have lost one or two. Not to mention passer rating (and thus ERA-adjusted passer rating) is a fairly useless statistic in my opinion.

Firstly to say era-adjusted passer rating is a "useless statistic" is patently absurd in my view ... absurd.

Secondly, a larger league means a more watered down league. Are you saying Tom Brady would have a higher win % if the only (11) other QBs in the entire league were all MVP-quality QBs, rather than getting to play against guys like Ryan Tannehill and Geno Smith and Tyrod Taylor many times each year? Come on man.

Thirdly, are you really making the case that Otto Graham would have had lesser stats and a lower win percentage had he got to play a ton of games against garbage QBs instead of just the (11) other best QBs on earth? Come on man.

Imagine if the NFL only had (12) teams right now ... the competition would be INSANE! Every team would have a top 12 QB, top 12 RB, top 12 CB, etc. The modern NFL is watered down and filled with garbage players that would need to play in Canada if there were only 12 teams. This is just common sense.

Fourthly, the way you "adjusted" Brady's seasons was very strange. You basically said the equivalent of Otto's Championship games would be Brady's 1st round playoffs ... NO ... NOT AT ALL. What you'd have to do with Brady would be to say the ONLY years he would have even played in a title game under the Graham format would have been the years the Patriots would have been the #1 seed, and they would have immediately played in a SuperBowl against the #1 seed in the NFC ... under that actually comparable scenario Brady's stats and win percentage would likely look FAR WORSE than they currently do.

I will also chime in, however, that the GOAT label is currently still a discussion, I consider Brady the GOAT but I also entertain other points of view until Brady is the leader in all the major statistical categories.

WHAT? How can you possibly consider Brady the GOAT when he has ONE LESS TITLE, TWO LESS MVP's, and a whopping FOUR LESS 1ST TEAM ALL-PROS than Otto Graham, despite playing 8 more years? I don't even think it's a close contest, Otto laps him!

I think almost everyone on earth can agree that Tom Brady is the GOTSBE (Greatest of the Super Bowl Era) ... but for those who don't forget the past, he's not even remotely close to qualifying as the GOAT ... and as for the BOAT debate that pwaldo mentioned, if eras are adjusted for Otto wins that hands down as well, but if eras are ignored and one just looks at who the best QB ever is, I think most people would probably have Rodgers, Manning and Marino as their top 3 in any order, with guys like Montana, Unitas, Elway, Young, Favre, Brady and Brees filling out the top 10 in any order.

[Devlin]

graham currently has rating of 86.6 for his NFL career, 29th, which includes many current qb's.

Higher if you include his years in the AAFC

in three of his wins 7-17, 3-8 1 int, 11-24 1 int, 1 td

loss in 53, 2-15 2 int

among his contemporaries , probably the best, luckman, lane, van brocklin

best ever, no, not in my opinion. More competion today, faster game, more african american athletes

playoff rating not very good. It seems they may have won in spite of him

[Jameis1of1]

graham currently has rating of 86.6 for his NFL career, 29th, which includes many current qb's.

Higher if you include his years in the AAFC

in three of his wins 7-17, 3-8 1 int, 11-24 1 int, 1 td

loss in 53, 2-15 2 int

among his contemporaries , probably the best, luckman, lane, van brocklin

best ever, no, not in my opinion. More competion today, faster game, more african american athletes

playoff rating not very good. It seems they may have won in spite of him

The above fails to adjust for era and is therefore basically useless. You simply looked at counting stats and non-era-adjusted passer rating and made a statement ... that's silly. If you do THAT, you can make a case that Sam Bradford should be rated higher on a GOAT list than a ton of Hall of Famers. You could make a case that Tyrod Taylor was better than many Hall of Famers. You could make a case that Andy Dalton was better than John Elways. It's all extremely silly. THAT is why one MUST "era-adjust" in order to logically and rationally compare QBs from different eras.

Now, as to your second statement about there being more competition in today's game, I would say the exact opposite is true. Again, in Otto's day every single team had a top 12 QB ... today we have guys like Nathan Peterman, Case Keenum, Tyrod Taylor and others that start games at QB.

Your final statement about his teams winning in spite of him at times is one that can be made about every QB throughout history. Did you know that out of all the regular season MVP awards that BOTH Tom Brady and Peyton Manning won, in NONE of those years did their teams win the Super Bowl ... not one time. Brady won two of his rings as a mere game-manager and Manning one his last ring when he was trash. Likewise, Big Ben won his first Super Bowl ring in a game where he played like garbage and the opposing team's QB (Matt Hasselbeck) TRIPLED his passer rating. Simply put, TEAMS, not QBs, win games in the "ultimate team sport" of football.

Finally, you bring up that the game is faster and has more black players ... yes, I have said many times the players in each succeeding era are "bigger, stronger, faster" and that is true, which is why in all reality a QB like Nathan Peterman really probably is "better" than many Hall of Famers were in the past ... no one really argues that. However, THAT is another reason why adjusting for era is so crucial ... the only way to really compare players is to complayer player A's dominance in his era against player B's dominance in his era, and then see who was more dominant in their own era ... and when THAT is done, Tom Brady doesn't come close to touching the dominance of Otto Graham.

[jwlawrence06]

I think it's just because everyone includes "team success" in the GOAT argument, whereas the BOAT argument is all about "individual success" only. That said, when you look at Otto's MVP's, 1st Team All-Pros and adjusted passer-rating, he's the BOAT as well, though I know many people would also put Aaron Rodgers and Dan Marino in a BOAT conversation ... not too many people would consider Tom Brady in a BOAT conversation though as he's obviously not as talented as many past QBs.




I don't understand your argument. He played 10 years and made the title game every single season, winning 7 of them. Are you saying had he played far worse teams more often (which is what would have happened in a larger, more watered down league), he would have won less? If anything I think his stats and also his "win percentage" would have been even better.



[/COLOR]Firstly to say era-adjusted passer rating is a "useless statistic" is patently absurd in my view ... absurd.

Secondly, a larger league means a more watered down league. Are you saying Tom Brady would have a higher win % if the only (11) other QBs in the entire league were all MVP-quality QBs, rather than getting to play against guys like Ryan Tannehill and Geno Smith and Tyrod Taylor many times each year? Come on man.

Thirdly, are you really making the case that Otto Graham would have had lesser stats and a lower win percentage had he got to play a ton of games against garbage QBs instead of just the (11) other best QBs on earth? Come on man.

Imagine if the NFL only had (12) teams right now ... the competition would be INSANE! Every team would have a top 12 QB, top 12 RB, top 12 CB, etc. The modern NFL is watered down and filled with garbage players that would need to play in Canada if there were only 12 teams. This is just common sense.

Fourthly, the way you "adjusted" Brady's seasons was very strange. You basically said the equivalent of Otto's Championship games would be Brady's 1st round playoffs ... NO ... NOT AT ALL. What you'd have to do with Brady would be to say the ONLY years he would have even played in a title game under the Graham format would have been the years the Patriots would have been the #1 seed, and they would have immediately played in a SuperBowl against the #1 seed in the NFC ... under that actually comparable scenario Brady's stats and win percentage would likely look FAR WORSE than they currently do.



WHAT? How can you possibly consider Brady the GOAT when he has ONE LESS TITLE, TWO LESS MVP's, and a whopping FOUR LESS 1ST TEAM ALL-PROS than Otto Graham, despite playing 8 more years? I don't even think it's a close contest, Otto laps him!

I think almost everyone on earth can agree that Tom Brady is the GOTSBE (Greatest of the Super Bowl Era) ... but for those who don't forget the past, he's not even remotely close to qualifying as the GOAT ... and as for the BOAT debate that pwaldo mentioned, if eras are adjusted for Otto wins that hands down as well, but if eras are ignored and one just looks at who the best QB ever is, I think most people would probably have Rodgers, Manning and Marino as their top 3 in any order, with guys like Montana, Unitas, Elway, Young, Favre, Brady and Brees filling out the top 10 in any order.

To address your 'firstly', I think passer rating in general is useless, thus I would think any interpretation of passer rating is useless...an opinion that would most likely be shared by a lot of true NFL fans, we can agree to disagree. On top of that, trying to translate statistics from decades prior is very weak support for an argument. Again, I'm sure we will agree to disagree on this.

To address your secondly: This leaves a lot for interpretation. How would you know that all 11 other QBs in the entire league would be MVP-quality QBs? How do you know that, with the little popularity the league had back then (this can be assumed since there were only 12 teams) the players playing the game were competent and elite? I would say that the 'watered down league' today is actually breeding far more elite players than were playing back in Otto Graham's day simply by the fact that it is more popular. More popularity means more competition and less 'scrubs' coming into the professional leagues. You simply can't know whether or not Ryan Tannehill and Geno Smith would have in fact been elite back in the 1950s. Thus, my conclusion here is we can agree to disagree but your point is based on too many hypotheticals.

To address your thirdly: Of course I'm making the case, this is common sense! Based on the fact that I just dismissed your notion of 'garbage qbs' simply by the fact that we can't possibly know if these 'garbage qbs' would've in fact been 'garbage qbs' back in the day, I am pointing strictly to the fact that the more chances you have, the more likely you are to eventually fail.

Imagine if the NFL only had (12) teams right now...you can't, because there are too many unknown variables. However, let's examine your argument a bit. Your claim of 'imagine if the NFL had (12) teams is support for a stance of "if Brady was playing the best of the best all the time his winning wouldn't be as consistent". This is false because no matter how you slice it, Brady's winning is very consistent. Regular season percentage: 77.5%, postseason: 75%, Super Bowl: 66%. It's not like he has a ridiculous winning percentage in the regular season then sucks in the playoffs. The playoffs are essentially a 'season' of 12 teams, 3-4 games. Brady has just as high a winning percentage here as he does in the regular season. Thus, I would say this could support an argument to say that if Brady played in a league with 12 teams the results would be the same.

To address your Fourthly: I'll give you this, your perspective actually makes more sense than the way I presented it.

Finally, based on the numerous hypotheticals and assumptions, I'll go back to my stance that the 'GOAT' discussion is, and will always remain, a discussion. Two less MVPs? Graham won those with far fewer players in the league, thus he had a higher chance by nature of being the best. 1st team all-pros? Really? This is the way you want to support a 'GOAT' debate? Again, in a league with far fewer QBs, it would be a higher chance for someone to be named to the all-pro at their position. Once again, you can 'think' that it isn't a close contest, but there are a LOTTTTTTTTT of folks that would completely disagree. No one is 'lapping' anyone in this debate, it will remain a debate whether we want to believe it or not.