Can a QB be the greatest of all time?

[NannyMcafee]

If his head coach is also considered the greatest of all time? Does it not take away from an individuals performance when your coach is a master mind and is considered the GOAT?

[BloodyChamp]

I don't consider Brady the greatest for a few reasons. It's very possible that Bill is the greatest coach but even that's still debateable. 

 

1 thing about Bill, he's had at least the greatest player at 1 position in that season in every position off the top of my head, if you count his days as a DC when the best players on those teams were...guess what...on defense. That doesn't necessarily take everything away from that player but that's either an enormous coincidence or just Bill being the dang greatest.

[crazycolt1]

There can be no GOAT announced because it's all based on opinions. There are way too many variables to make the call.

[Yoshinator]

The hypocritical thing about this topic (I know it's directed at the Peyton Vs Brady debate here) is that if Brady had all Manning's accomplishments, and Manning had all Brady's accomplishments, everyone here would be saying that Manning is the greatest QB of all time because he won 5 SBs. The only reason about half the people here are saying Manning is the GOAT at QB is because he's the greatest QB we'll ever have and we love him, and we are trying to find excuses still that he is better than Brady. It's obvious he isn't. If you could trade Manning's successes with Brady's and put them on the Colts, you would in an instant, and if you say otherwise, you are lying. Say what you want about Belichick coaching Brady, but you take the hand you are given.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, BloodyChamp said:

I don't consider Brady the greatest for a few reasons. It's very possible that Bill is the greatest coach but even that's still debateable. 

 

1 thing about Bill, he's had at least the greatest player at 1 position in that season in every position off the top of my head, if you count his days as a DC when the best players on those teams were...guess what...on defense. That doesn't necessarily take everything away from that player but that's either an enormous coincidence or just Bill being the dang greatest.

Well even thought Belichick may be considered the best he leaves doubt when him and his owner are the most fined team in NFL history. Breaking rules (some consider cheating) and we will never know all the truth about the Deflation Nation till we hear  the whole story from the two equipment men. IMO they must be being paid enough to stay out of sight.

[SilentHill]

A GOAT can only be determined once time ends, since time extends into the future, it's not likely to be decided.

 

I promise if I'm around when time is over, I'll poll whoever is left to see who the greatest QB of all time is.

[ReMeDy]

In that case, Peyton is the GOAT because he had the worst coach of all time (Caldwell). We got out-coached in the Superbowl both from the onside kick and letting Drew Brees throw on us for like 30/34 completion. Then there was the awful playoffs loss to the Jets when Caldwell called the timeout. You know it's bad when even Peyton is throwing his hands up in the air in disgust.

[NannyMcafee]

4 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The hypocritical thing about this topic (I know it's directed at the Peyton Vs Brady debate here) is that if Brady had all Manning's accomplishments, and Manning had all Brady's accomplishments, everyone here would be saying that Manning is the greatest QB of all time because he won 5 SBs. The only reason about half the people here are saying Manning is the GOAT at QB is because he's the greatest QB we'll ever have and we love him, and we are trying to find excuses still that he is better than Brady. It's obvious he isn't. If you could trade Manning's successes with Brady's and put them on the Colts, you would in an instant, and if you say otherwise, you are lying. Say what you want about Belichick coaching Brady, but you take the hand you are given.

 

The only thing about this is Peyton changed the way the position is played. I would love to see Peyton have the amount of success that Brady has had, regardless of that fact, it wouldn't make Peyton the greatest of all time. Obviously if the stats were switched with the SBs won, nothing would change when it comes to this argument. 

 

My main point in this question is how can you have someone who has been crowned the greatest coach of all time and have the greatest QB? One over shadows the other. One couldn't have won the SB without the other by this logic, making neither of them the greatest of all time. 

 

Peyton won games, nearly, by himself. Without Peyton the colts were 2-14. Without Brady, the patriots still made the playoffs. Those seasons alone, should tell you who the "greater" player was, and who had the better coach. Peyton is simply the better talent because of stats alone. Stats define a PLAYER, while SB wins define a team. Brady, along with Peyton's playoff stats, are less than stellar. Wins are team accomplishments. 

 

Brady has had a spectacular career, there is no doubt, but you can't define him by his teams success. My main gripe is the fact that NFL.com is crowning Brady GOAT. I agree that because time goes on, this is impossible, but the fact that the NFLs website is ignoring that fact and being biased towards a certain player is rather irritating. The NFL is about the entire league. Not one player. So that has me a little bit annoyed. But what can I really expect?

[Yoshinator]

3 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

The only thing about this is Peyton changed the way the position is played. I would love to see Peyton have the amount of success that Brady has had, regardless of that fact, it wouldn't make Peyton the greatest of all time. Obviously if the stats were switched with the SBs won, nothing would change when it comes to this argument. 

 

My main point in this question is how can you have someone who has been crowned the greatest coach of all time and have the greatest QB? One over shadows the other. One couldn't have won the SB without the other by this logic, making neither of them the greatest of all time. 

 

Peyton won games, nearly, by himself. Without Peyton the colts were 2-14. Without Brady, the patriots still made the playoffs. Those seasons alone, should tell you who the "greater" player was, and who had the better coach. Peyton is simply the better talent because of stats alone. Stats define a PLAYER, while SB wins define a team. 

IMO, you can't blame or punish a player for having a great coach. How many SB's would Brady have to win to be considered the GOAT to you, 6 or 7? His stats are close enough to Manning's already for me not to judge him on that. Even by just stats, he's probably going to break a lot of Manning's records anyway. Brady's regular season record is 183-52 while Manning's is 186-79. Brady is 25-9 in the playoffs, Manning is 14-13. Brady is 5-2 in the SB, Manning is 2-2. The only thing Manning has over Brady is some regular season stats that will probably be broken in a couple years. The only thing Manning will have over Brady when it's all set and done is some personal records for games and seasons. SB wins define a QB IMO, because the QB is the most important player on the team and the leader, and you need a great QB to get to the SB and to usually win it. The only exceptions are dynasty defenses like the 2000 Ravens, and the Seahawks and Broncos defenses lately.

[NannyMcafee]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

IMO, you can't blame or punish a player for having a great coach. How many SB's would Brady have to win to be considered the GOAT to you, 6 or 7? His stats are close enough to Manning's already for me not to judge him on that. Even by just stats, he's probably going to break a lot of Manning's records anyway. Brady's regular season record is 183-52 while Manning's is 186-79. Brady is 25-9 in the playoffs, Manning is 14-13. Brady is 5-2 in the SB, Manning is 2-2. The only thing Manning has over Brady is some regular season stats that will probably be broken in a couple years. The only thing Manning will have over Brady when it's all set and done is some personal records for games and seasons. SB wins define a QB IMO, because the QB is the most important player on the team and the leader, and you need a great QB to get to the SB and to usually win it. The only exceptions are dynasty defenses like the 2000 Ravens, and the Seahawks and Broncos defenses lately.

 

Im not punishing Tom for having a great coach, I'm giving Bill the credit that he is due that is being given to Brady. As we have seen the last 5 years, your coach is really the one who makes or breaks your team. 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, NannyMcafee said:

 

Im not punishing Tom for having a great coach, I'm giving Bill the credit that he is due that is being given to Brady. As we have seen the last 5 years, your coach is really the one who makes or breaks your team. 

Fair enough. Unfortunately we can't play the what if game or hypotheticals though, if we could, I'd have Belichick on the Colts 100 times out of 100.

[BloodyChamp]

9 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The hypocritical thing about this topic (I know it's directed at the Peyton Vs Brady debate here) is that if Brady had all Manning's accomplishments, and Manning had all Brady's accomplishments, everyone here would be saying that Manning is the greatest QB of all time because he won 5 SBs. The only reason about half the people here are saying Manning is the GOAT at QB is because he's the greatest QB we'll ever have and we love him, and we are trying to find excuses still that he is better than Brady. It's obvious he isn't. If you could trade Manning's successes with Brady's and put them on the Colts, you would in an instant, and if you say otherwise, you are lying. Say what you want about Belichick coaching Brady, but you take the hand you are given.

 

We've touched on this before and it always got out of hand. While I agree, I say Peyton is better, and if you'll check the av you'll see I'm a whole other type of homer lol!

[Jules]

I got this funny feeling that Bill B may end up the GOAT of all GOATs someday if he wins it all with Jimmy G, which I think is possible. 

 

I think young handsome Jimmy is probably going to be pretty damn good. Pats never hesitate to move a player for picks or value in return but they seem to deem Jimmy G's value high enough to keep him.

[GoPats]

16 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

Without Brady, the patriots still made the playoffs.

 

 

Just a point of correction on this. They went 11-5 with Cassel but didn't make the playoffs in 2008. Only like the second team (I think, or something like that) to not get in with 11 wins. 

 

Brady/Belichick is football's answer to the chicken and the egg analogy. As a Pats fan, it's funny to have rival fans bring it up, because sometimes the intent is to discredit Belichick ("He's never won anything without Brady!") and sometimes Brady ("He's had the luxury of the greatest coach EVER for his entire career!"). I've heard it go both ways. 

 

Looking at Belichick's body-of-work without Brady, it's not very good. He was 37-45 in Cleveland. Between 2000, the beginning of 2001, 2008 (injury), and 2016 (suspension), without Brady as the starter, he's 19-19. (Though in fairness, he's 14-6 in the last 20 such games.) 

 

On the flip side, there is no "body-of -work" for Brady sans The Hoodie. He was 20-5 as a starter at Michigan but of course those were good teams too. 

 

The real answer, I think, is the ultimate in wishy-washyness... neither of them would be as successful without the other. Belichick would probably have the Patriots playing competitive football without Brady, but would they have won five Super Bowls and been to seven? And how much of a role does Brady play in getting the team to "buy in" to what Belichick does? He's not just critical on the field, he's critical in that culture. He's not beyond reproach and he works as hard as anyone in the locker room. When young guys come in and see Tom Brady putting the team first, when they see him leaving money on the table to be part of something great... I think that is invaluable to a coach's rep and legitimacy within the team's culture. 

 

To me, as a Pats fan of course, there's very little left to debate. Brady may not be the GOAT in some fans' eyes, but I don't know how anyone could say that he doesn't have the most accomplished career of any NFL player, ever. Between the team achievements, individual awards, and volume numbers, he's had the career that every QB dreams of, and there's not a one who wouldn't trade places with him in that regard. 

 

Does that make him the GOAT? To me it does.

 

 

[NannyMcafee]

29 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

Just a point of correction on this. They went 11-5 with Cassel but didn't make the playoffs in 2008. Only like the second team (I think, or something like that) to not get in with 11 wins. 

 

Brady/Belichick is football's answer to the chicken and the egg analogy. As a Pats fan, it's funny to have rival fans bring it up, because sometimes the intent is to discredit Belichick ("He's never won anything without Brady!") and sometimes Brady ("He's had the luxury of the greatest coach EVER for his entire career!"). I've heard it go both ways. 

 

Looking at Belichick's body-of-work without Brady, it's not very good. He was 37-45 in Cleveland. Between 2000, the beginning of 2001, 2008 (injury), and 2016 (suspension), without Brady as the starter, he's 19-19. (Though in fairness, he's 14-6 in the last 20 such games.) 

 

On the flip side, there is no "body-of -work" for Brady sans The Hoodie. He was 20-5 as a starter at Michigan but of course those were good teams too. 

 

The real answer, I think, is the ultimate in wishy-washyness... neither of them would be as successful without the other. Belichick would probably have the Patriots playing competitive football without Brady, but would they have won five Super Bowls and been to seven? And how much of a role does Brady play in getting the team to "buy in" to what Belichick does? He's not just critical on the field, he's critical in that culture. He's not beyond reproach and he works as hard as anyone in the locker room. When young guys come in and see Tom Brady putting the team first, when they see him leaving money on the table to be part of something great... I think that is invaluable to a coach's rep and legitimacy within the team's culture. 

 

To me, as a Pats fan of course, there's very little left to debate. Brady may not be the GOAT in some fans' eyes, but I don't know how anyone could say that he doesn't have the most accomplished career of any NFL player, ever. Between the team achievements, individual awards, and volume numbers, he's had the career that every QB dreams of, and there's not a one who wouldn't trade places with him in that regard. 

 

Does that make him the GOAT? To me it does.

 

 

 

All legitimate points my rival (whether the colts and pats are rivals anymore is debatable) friend. I suppose this off season has driven me mad and I'm always looking for a good conversation. I should have known there will never be a true answer to this type of question. Regardless, it has been an amazing era of football. 

[GoPats]

11 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

All legitimate points my rival (whether the colts and pats are rivals anymore is debatable) friend. I suppose this off season has driven me mad and I'm always looking for a good conversation. I should have known there will never be a true answer to this type of question. Regardless, it has been an amazing era of football. 

 

It's actually a great offseason question, one that a lot of media in Boston have written about over the years. So tough to answer though. Some think BB plans on sticking around after Brady's done to "prove" that he can win without him. He also deserves credit for taking a little-regarded 6th round QB and giving him a legitimate shot. Though a lot of Pats fans don't remember it this way, it was, at the time, not a universally praised move to trade Bledsoe away after the '01 season. Felt risky at the time. 

 

I agree, it's been a great era of football, and I think it's starting to come to a close. Brady will follow Manning into retirement within the next few years, and then you'll see other guys (River, Roethlisberger, Eli, etc) hanging 'em up too. 

[NannyMcafee]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

It's actually a great offseason question, one that a lot of media in Boston have written about over the years. So tough to answer though. Some think BB plans on sticking around after Brady's done to "prove" that he can win without him. He also deserves credit for taking a little-regarded 6th round QB and giving him a legitimate shot. Though a lot of Pats fans don't remember it this way, it was, at the time, not a universally praised move to trade Bledsoe away after the '01 season. Felt risky at the time. 

 

I agree, it's been a great era of football, and I think it's starting to come to a close. Brady will follow Manning into retirement within the next few years, and then you'll see other guys (River, Roethlisberger, Eli, etc) hanging 'em up too. 

 

I wonder if it's just me getting older, or if the excitement that the game once held is actually winding down...? Things just don't seem like they used to, even before Peyton left the game. 

Ill always watch the Colts, I can't stop myself, but I'd be lying if I said I was as excited every Sunday as I always used to be. 

[Yoshinator]

6 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

I wonder if it's just me getting older, or if the excitement that the game once held is actually winding down...? Things just don't seem like they used to, even before Peyton left the game. 

Ill always watch the Colts, I can't stop myself, but I'd be lying if I said I was as excited every Sunday as I always used to be. 

Yeah, it's not as fun as it was for the 15 years Peyton was here. TBH, I had more fun watching Peyton in the playoffs on the Broncos make 2 SB's and win 1 then watch us for most of Luck's time here. Peyton has a big personality and people gravitate towards him. I also felt like we had a chance every year, I just don't get that same sort of feeling with Luck. Maybe it's because I'm smarter now and realize how bad the defense is. I just hope we get a couple good defensive drafts, and give Luck the same chance Peyton got.

[Synthetic]

 

No. I don't think there is one in any sport. These arguments are always subjective and fan based from a personal opinion, therefore it's merely pointless. It's worthless in general, it's even worse when it comes to basketball "GOAT" topics. 

 

Football is a team sport, much like basketball. The little guys often don't get the credit they deserve. A game is played on three sides - offense, defense and special teams. The quarterback don't control the defense or special teams. 

 

The quarterback always gets the praise and blame, but a QB has absolutely no say so what goes on with defense and special teams. That's part of the game and you can be an excellent QB and lose due to how bad your defense is, or the special teams screwing things up.

 

I don't agree with judging quarterbacks strictly by rings and same for NBA players. Championships are won by teams, not individual players. Just look at some of these super defensive based teams who have won Super Bowls with quarterbacks playing god awful during the run.

 

There are also a lot of mediocre quarterbacks that have Super Bowl rings. Mark Rypien was the QB of the 1991 Redskins, one of the most dominant teams in NFL history, widely considered one of the greatest teams of all time, yet you'll never hear Mark Rypien's name in the same breath as the man that he beat in the SB (Jim Kelly). Joe Flacco is another one, who is an extremely mediocre quarterback but had a one hit wonder where he had a great run.  

 

There was a time about 40 or 50 years ago when quarterbacks were not considered the be all, end all position in the NFL. If you were to ask the GOAT question back in the 1970's, I think the most popular answer you would get would probably be Jim Brown. Running backs used to be the core of an offense and they were often considered in that conversation. This shifted around the 80's when quarterback play began to reach new heights and a man named Dan Marino was shattering the record books in his early years. 

 

Speaking of Marino, he's probably the best example of how pointless the ring argument is. If you are judging quarterbacks by TALENT alone, Marino instantly gets in the top 5 due to his talent alone, probably should be top 3 at least in my opinion. Pull up videos of Marino in his prime, and you will not find many other quarterbacks in history who had laser pinpoint accuracy and could launch beautiful spiral bombs at the speed of his bullets. Marino is probably the best pure passer the game ever seen. Many people call him a choke artist, but go back and look at those Miami Dolphins teams of the 80's. Marino in 1986 threw for 4,000 yards and 44 TD's. He almost broke his own 1984 season records that year. Pull the Dolphins' defense, in 1986, they had one of the worst defenses in NFL history. Between 1986 to 1989, the Dolphins drafted several bust players in the first rounds, never hitting on any defensive picks and then missing the playoffs every year. That's Marino's prime wasted right there by the Miami front office. People are so quick to blame the quarterback and label them a choke artist, but Marino was never the favorite in any of his major playoff losses after 1985. It's hard to "choke" when no one even picks you to win cause your team is so mediocre. 

 

I often find that the 1970's quarterbacks don't get the respect they deserve. People are quick to bash Terry Bradshaw cause the Steelers teams he played on were so loaded, but that argument also goes for Joe Montana. Pull up the 1984 49ers, they were 1 game away from being undefeated and that team didn't even have Jerry Rice yet. The 1989 49ers were probably the greatest team of the 80's in terms of depth and they went 14-2 and dominated the playoffs. Montana played on some ridiculously loaded 49ers teams that could've probably won the SB every year, much like the 70's Steelers. Yet, Montana gets the Michael Jordan argument "4 for 4 in the big game!" not counting his star studded supporting cast that featured various Hall of Famers, top ranked defenses and one of the smartest coaches of the 80's era. Montana also played in the era where the AFC teams used to get stomped in every SB, so it wasn't like his competition in the SB was all that impressive when you look at how big of favorites the NFC teams were in those SB's. If you're going to compare Montana and Bradshaw, well Bradshaw beat some pretty impressive teams in the SB, including the Dallas Cowboys twice at their peak and the 1979 Rams who had a historic defense. Brady has beaten some impressive NFC opponents in the SB that are better than most of the teams Montana faced in the big game. 

 

Often times stats get thrown around too without taking into consideration different rules and how the game used to be in various eras. For all the criticism about Terry Bradshaw's high interception count, go look at Kenny Stabler's stats. They're about the same with INT percentages being much higher. Interceptions were at an all time high in the 1970's. It was an era when defenses had a lot more control and an era where the run game was more important than anything. 

 

One of the biggest rules changes that helped quarterbacks was getting rid of the penalty where it used to be an automatic 15 yard penalty for intentional grounding if the quarterback threw the ball out of bounds. This rule change happened sometime in the late 80's. It explains why INT percentage numbers were much higher in the 70's and most of the 80's, since quarterbacks were forced to throw the ball into coverage, or risk taking the 15 yard intentional grounding penalty to back them up (or just risk taking a sack in an era where defenses could practically knock QB's out with no consequences). 

 

These arguments are silly enough though. It will never end cause everyone has their opinion and it's so subjective. If running backs were still the dominant force they were 40 years ago, we would be having this conversation around Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Marcus Allen and other great backs. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, Synthetic said:

 

No. I don't think there is one in any sport. These arguments are always subjective and fan based from a personal opinion, therefore it's merely pointless. It's worthless in general, it's even worse when it comes to basketball "GOAT" topics. 

 

Football is a team sport, much like basketball. The little guys often don't get the credit they deserve. A game is played on three sides - offense, defense and special teams. The quarterback don't control the defense or special teams. 

 

The quarterback always gets the praise and blame, but a QB has absolutely no say so what goes on with defense and special teams. That's part of the game and you can be an excellent QB and lose due to how bad your defense is, or the special teams screwing things up.

 

I don't agree with judging quarterbacks strictly by rings and same for NBA players. Championships are won by teams, not individual players. Just look at some of these super defensive based teams who have won Super Bowls with quarterbacks playing god awful during the run.

 

There are also a lot of mediocre quarterbacks that have Super Bowl rings. Mark Rypien was the QB of the 1991 Redskins, one of the most dominant teams in NFL history, widely considered one of the greatest teams of all time, yet you'll never hear Mark Rypien's name in the same breath as the man that he beat in the SB (Jim Kelly). Joe Flacco is another one, who is an extremely mediocre quarterback but had a one hit wonder where he had a great run.  

 

There was a time about 40 or 50 years ago when quarterbacks were not considered the be all, end all position in the NFL. If you were to ask the GOAT question back in the 1970's, I think the most popular answer you would get would probably be Jim Brown. Running backs used to be the core of an offense and they were often considered in that conversation. This shifted around the 80's when quarterback play began to reach new heights and a man named Dan Marino was shattering the record books in his early years. 

 

Speaking of Marino, he's probably the best example of how pointless the ring argument is. If you are judging quarterbacks by TALENT alone, Marino instantly gets in the top 5 due to his talent alone, probably should be top 3 at least in my opinion. Pull up videos of Marino in his prime, and you will not find many other quarterbacks in history who had laser pinpoint accuracy and could launch beautiful spiral bombs at the speed of his bullets. Marino is probably the best pure passer the game ever seen. Many people call him a choke artist, but go back and look at those Miami Dolphins teams of the 80's. Marino in 1986 threw for 4,000 yards and 44 TD's. He almost broke his own 1984 season records that year. Pull the Dolphins' defense, in 1986, they had one of the worst defenses in NFL history. Between 1986 to 1989, the Dolphins drafted several bust players in the first rounds, never hitting on any defensive picks and then missing the playoffs every year. That's Marino's prime wasted right there by the Miami front office. People are so quick to blame the quarterback and label them a choke artist, but Marino was never the favorite in any of his major playoff losses after 1985. It's hard to "choke" when no one even picks you to win cause your team is so mediocre. 

 

I often find that the 1970's quarterbacks don't get the respect they deserve. People are quick to bash Terry Bradshaw cause the Steelers teams he played on were so loaded, but that argument also goes for Joe Montana. Pull up the 1984 49ers, they were 1 game away from being undefeated and that team didn't even have Jerry Rice yet. The 1989 49ers were probably the greatest team of the 80's in terms of depth and they went 14-2 and dominated the playoffs. Montana played on some ridiculously loaded 49ers teams that could've probably won the SB every year, much like the 70's Steelers. Yet, Montana gets the Michael Jordan argument "4 for 4 in the big game!" not counting his star studded supporting cast that featured various Hall of Famers, top ranked defenses and one of the smartest coaches of the 80's era. Montana also played in the era where the AFC teams used to get stomped in every SB, so it wasn't like his competition in the SB was all that impressive when you look at how big of favorites the NFC teams were in those SB's. If you're going to compare Montana and Bradshaw, well Bradshaw beat some pretty impressive teams in the SB, including the Dallas Cowboys twice at their peak and the 1979 Rams who had a historic defense. Brady has beaten some impressive NFC opponents in the SB that are better than most of the teams Montana faced in the big game. 

 

Often times stats get thrown around too without taking into consideration different rules and how the game used to be in various eras. For all the criticism about Terry Bradshaw's high interception count, go look at Kenny Stabler's stats. They're about the same with INT percentages being much higher. Interceptions were at an all time high in the 1970's. It was an era when defenses had a lot more control and an era where the run game was more important than anything. 

 

One of the biggest rules changes that helped quarterbacks was getting rid of the penalty where it used to be an automatic 15 yard penalty for intentional grounding if the quarterback threw the ball out of bounds. This rule change happened sometime in the late 80's. It explains why INT percentage numbers were much higher in the 70's and most of the 80's, since quarterbacks were forced to throw the ball into coverage, or risk taking the 15 yard intentional grounding penalty to back them up (or just risk taking a sack in an era where defenses could practically knock QB's out with no consequences). 

 

These arguments are silly enough though. It will never end cause everyone has their opinion and it's so subjective. If running backs were still the dominant force they were 40 years ago, we would be having this conversation around Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Marcus Allen and other great backs. 

 

Great stuff. Great Post.

[2006Coltsbestever]

48 minutes ago, Synthetic said:

 

No. I don't think there is one in any sport. These arguments are always subjective and fan based from a personal opinion, therefore it's merely pointless. It's worthless in general, it's even worse when it comes to basketball "GOAT" topics. 

 

Football is a team sport, much like basketball. The little guys often don't get the credit they deserve. A game is played on three sides - offense, defense and special teams. The quarterback don't control the defense or special teams. 

 

The quarterback always gets the praise and blame, but a QB has absolutely no say so what goes on with defense and special teams. That's part of the game and you can be an excellent QB and lose due to how bad your defense is, or the special teams screwing things up.

 

I don't agree with judging quarterbacks strictly by rings and same for NBA players. Championships are won by teams, not individual players. Just look at some of these super defensive based teams who have won Super Bowls with quarterbacks playing god awful during the run.

 

There are also a lot of mediocre quarterbacks that have Super Bowl rings. Mark Rypien was the QB of the 1991 Redskins, one of the most dominant teams in NFL history, widely considered one of the greatest teams of all time, yet you'll never hear Mark Rypien's name in the same breath as the man that he beat in the SB (Jim Kelly). Joe Flacco is another one, who is an extremely mediocre quarterback but had a one hit wonder where he had a great run.  

 

There was a time about 40 or 50 years ago when quarterbacks were not considered the be all, end all position in the NFL. If you were to ask the GOAT question back in the 1970's, I think the most popular answer you would get would probably be Jim Brown. Running backs used to be the core of an offense and they were often considered in that conversation. This shifted around the 80's when quarterback play began to reach new heights and a man named Dan Marino was shattering the record books in his early years. 

 

Speaking of Marino, he's probably the best example of how pointless the ring argument is. If you are judging quarterbacks by TALENT alone, Marino instantly gets in the top 5 due to his talent alone, probably should be top 3 at least in my opinion. Pull up videos of Marino in his prime, and you will not find many other quarterbacks in history who had laser pinpoint accuracy and could launch beautiful spiral bombs at the speed of his bullets. Marino is probably the best pure passer the game ever seen. Many people call him a choke artist, but go back and look at those Miami Dolphins teams of the 80's. Marino in 1986 threw for 4,000 yards and 44 TD's. He almost broke his own 1984 season records that year. Pull the Dolphins' defense, in 1986, they had one of the worst defenses in NFL history. Between 1986 to 1989, the Dolphins drafted several bust players in the first rounds, never hitting on any defensive picks and then missing the playoffs every year. That's Marino's prime wasted right there by the Miami front office. People are so quick to blame the quarterback and label them a choke artist, but Marino was never the favorite in any of his major playoff losses after 1985. It's hard to "choke" when no one even picks you to win cause your team is so mediocre. 

 

I often find that the 1970's quarterbacks don't get the respect they deserve. People are quick to bash Terry Bradshaw cause the Steelers teams he played on were so loaded, but that argument also goes for Joe Montana. Pull up the 1984 49ers, they were 1 game away from being undefeated and that team didn't even have Jerry Rice yet. The 1989 49ers were probably the greatest team of the 80's in terms of depth and they went 14-2 and dominated the playoffs. Montana played on some ridiculously loaded 49ers teams that could've probably won the SB every year, much like the 70's Steelers. Yet, Montana gets the Michael Jordan argument "4 for 4 in the big game!" not counting his star studded supporting cast that featured various Hall of Famers, top ranked defenses and one of the smartest coaches of the 80's era. Montana also played in the era where the AFC teams used to get stomped in every SB, so it wasn't like his competition in the SB was all that impressive when you look at how big of favorites the NFC teams were in those SB's. If you're going to compare Montana and Bradshaw, well Bradshaw beat some pretty impressive teams in the SB, including the Dallas Cowboys twice at their peak and the 1979 Rams who had a historic defense. Brady has beaten some impressive NFC opponents in the SB that are better than most of the teams Montana faced in the big game. 

 

Often times stats get thrown around too without taking into consideration different rules and how the game used to be in various eras. For all the criticism about Terry Bradshaw's high interception count, go look at Kenny Stabler's stats. They're about the same with INT percentages being much higher. Interceptions were at an all time high in the 1970's. It was an era when defenses had a lot more control and an era where the run game was more important than anything. 

 

One of the biggest rules changes that helped quarterbacks was getting rid of the penalty where it used to be an automatic 15 yard penalty for intentional grounding if the quarterback threw the ball out of bounds. This rule change happened sometime in the late 80's. It explains why INT percentage numbers were much higher in the 70's and most of the 80's, since quarterbacks were forced to throw the ball into coverage, or risk taking the 15 yard intentional grounding penalty to back them up (or just risk taking a sack in an era where defenses could practically knock QB's out with no consequences). 

 

These arguments are silly enough though. It will never end cause everyone has their opinion and it's so subjective. If running backs were still the dominant force they were 40 years ago, we would be having this conversation around Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Marcus Allen and other great backs. 

 

Yeah I cant really add much to that. It is subjective in each sports. In Basketball some say Jordan, some say Magic, some say LeBron, a few say Kareem or Wilt so everyone has their reasons why and I am ok with it. In Football the same, Brady or Montana or Peyton, etc.. You hit on a super great point, QB's cant play Defense or SPTeams and that is something Peyton had no control over or I honestly think he would've had 4 or 5 Rings had he had better Defenses like Tommy and Montana. To me Jim Brown is still the Best RB ever and Emmitt is a close 2nd but if someone wanted to tell me Barry or Walter are the best it would be tough to debate.

[BloodyChamp]

The 10 most INT'd list includes Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Johnny U, and other HoFERs. Interceptions are bad mkaaaaay (in Mr Mackey voice) but before 2011 playing football without throwing interceptions was like playing baseball without ever swinging and missing (back in normal voice).

[King Colt]

"His" time instead of "all" time. As it has been run over more times than rod kill the different generations of players cannot be compared to each other as the games perpetually change.

[Myles]

On 6/28/2017 at 1:30 PM, Jared Cisneros said:

The hypocritical thing about this topic (I know it's directed at the Peyton Vs Brady debate here) is that if Brady had all Manning's accomplishments, and Manning had all Brady's accomplishments, everyone here would be saying that Manning is the greatest QB of all time because he won 5 SBs. The only reason about half the people here are saying Manning is the GOAT at QB is because he's the greatest QB we'll ever have and we love him, and we are trying to find excuses still that he is better than Brady. It's obvious he isn't. If you could trade Manning's successes with Brady's and put them on the Colts, you would in an instant, and if you say otherwise, you are lying. Say what you want about Belichick coaching Brady, but you take the hand you are given.

I think championships are way overused when talking about a players spot in history.   In a team sport with 22 players on the field it is just a part of it.    Barry Sanders was the best RB I have ever seen despite him not having a championship.   Manning was the best QB I've ever seen.   I'd follow that with Montana, Marino and Young (not Vince).  I take everything into account including my eye test.     

[Yoshinator]

37 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think championships are way overused when talking about a players spot in history.   In a team sport with 22 players on the field it is just a part of it.    Barry Sanders was the best RB I have ever seen despite him not having a championship.   Manning was the best QB I've ever seen.   I'd follow that with Montana, Marino and Young (not Vince).  I take everything into account including my eye test.     

I agree with your first sentence about every position BUT QB. A QB is responsible for leading the team and is the only person that can effectively carry a team to and win a SB by himself. Even teams with great defenses are doing it with a great defense, teams doing it with a great QB have to have an elite QB that is capable of beating anybody and everybody. You know good and well the QB is the most important INDIVIDUAL player on a team. Manning was the greatest regular season QB of all time, but he was a choker in the playoffs (mostly for us, he did very well in Denver). Our defense may of been bad with Manning, but the fact is Brady's playoff and SB record is so much better than Manning that there's no comparision anymore, and he's still playing. Brady also is great in the regular season as well and his stats are very comparable to Mannings. You can say what you want about the eye test, but their careers say otherwise, and again, Brady may add to it and pass Manning up in everything before it's all set and done.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I agree with your first sentence about every position BUT QB. A QB is responsible for leading the team and is the only person that can effectively carry a team to and win a SB by himself. Even teams with great defenses are doing it with a great defense, teams doing it with a great QB have to have an elite QB that is capable of beating anybody and everybody. You know good and well the QB is the most important INDIVIDUAL player on a team. Manning was the greatest regular season QB of all time, but he was a choker in the playoffs (mostly for us, he did very well in Denver). Our defense may of been bad with Manning, but the fact is Brady's playoff and SB record is so much better than Manning that there's no comparision anymore, and he's still playing. Brady also is great in the regular season as well and his stats are very comparable to Mannings. You can say what you want about the eye test, but their careers say otherwise, and again, Brady may add to it and pass Manning up in everything before it's all set and done.

I agree that the QB is by far the most important player in most cases, but a great QB still cannot do it without team support.  

I don't agree that Manning was a "choker" in the playoffs.  He played against better quality teams in the post season.   He could not as easily hide the Colts flaws like he had to in the regular season games.  

Colts went 2-14 the year Manning was injured.   Patriots went 11-5 when Brady went down.   Most people knew that if Manning went down, the Colts would be very bad, because the rest of the team was not good.   We also knew that if the Pats lost Brady, they would lose a step or 2, but it would be the end to their season.  

No question that Brady is one of the best and I don't fault folks for putting him in their top spot.   Just not what my eyes have seen.  

[coltsfeva]

On 6/29/2017 at 11:36 AM, GoPats said:

 

Just a point of correction on this. They went 11-5 with Cassel but didn't make the playoffs in 2008. Only like the second team (I think, or something like that) to not get in with 11 wins. 

 

Brady/Belichick is football's answer to the chicken and the egg analogy. As a Pats fan, it's funny to have rival fans bring it up, because sometimes the intent is to discredit Belichick ("He's never won anything without Brady!") and sometimes Brady ("He's had the luxury of the greatest coach EVER for his entire career!"). I've heard it go both ways. 

 

Looking at Belichick's body-of-work without Brady, it's not very good. He was 37-45 in Cleveland. Between 2000, the beginning of 2001, 2008 (injury), and 2016 (suspension), without Brady as the starter, he's 19-19. (Though in fairness, he's 14-6 in the last 20 such games.) 

 

On the flip side, there is no "body-of -work" for Brady sans The Hoodie. He was 20-5 as a starter at Michigan but of course those were good teams too. 

 

The real answer, I think, is the ultimate in wishy-washyness... neither of them would be as successful without the other. Belichick would probably have the Patriots playing competitive football without Brady, but would they have won five Super Bowls and been to seven? And how much of a role does Brady play in getting the team to "buy in" to what Belichick does? He's not just critical on the field, he's critical in that culture. He's not beyond reproach and he works as hard as anyone in the locker room. When young guys come in and see Tom Brady putting the team first, when they see him leaving money on the table to be part of something great... I think that is invaluable to a coach's rep and legitimacy within the team's culture. 

 

To me, as a Pats fan of course, there's very little left to debate. Brady may not be the GOAT in some fans' eyes, but I don't know how anyone could say that he doesn't have the most accomplished career of any NFL player, ever. Between the team achievements, individual awards, and volume numbers, he's had the career that every QB dreams of, and there's not a one who wouldn't trade places with him in that regard. 

 

Does that make him the GOAT? To me it does.

 

 

A couple of points, if I may: If we determine GOAT by championships alone, you would have to consider Otto Graham (7) and Bart Starr (5) in the conversation. 

The old saying "Defense wins championships" is true Brady never won a SB with defenses that ranked lower than 8th.

Joe Montana NEVER lost a SB nor did he throw an int in a SB.

Even though Tom did his part, two of those five rings were gifts by opposing coaches, when they should have run the ball and collected their hardware.

Brady has had the fortune of playing with an exceptional coach, his whole career.

 Peyton won 93 games in his career, when his defenses ranked below 16th, Brady only 20 or so.

Tom Brady will always be considered one of the greatest QBs of all time, on that we can agree. But this topic really is subjective, based on talent around him, Coaching, eras and competition, I don't think you can say OBJECTIVELY his is better than those who went before him. If all things were equatable ( coached by Belicheck, in this era, with those defenses and special teams), I don't think he is better than Starr, Graham, Montana, Marino, Elway, Unitas or Manning. He ranks amoung them but he has had advantages that many of them have not  had.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I agree with your first sentence about every position BUT QB. A QB is responsible for leading the team and is the only person that can effectively carry a team to and win a SB by himself. Even teams with great defenses are doing it with a great defense, teams doing it with a great QB have to have an elite QB that is capable of beating anybody and everybody. You know good and well the QB is the most important INDIVIDUAL player on a team. Manning was the greatest regular season QB of all time, but he was a choker in the playoffs (mostly for us, he did very well in Denver). Our defense may of been bad with Manning, but the fact is Brady's playoff and SB record is so much better than Manning that there's no comparision anymore, and he's still playing. Brady also is great in the regular season as well and his stats are very comparable to Mannings. You can say what you want about the eye test, but their careers say otherwise, and again, Brady may add to it and pass Manning up in everything before it's all set and done.

QB is definitely the most important position on the field and as you know I puke-ingly rank Brady 1, then I have Montana 2 and Peyton 3 on my greatest list. Unitas would be 4 for you Unitas lovers/older fella's. I disagree with the choke label though regarding Peyton, his INT vs the Saints doesn't look good but he still won a bunch of Playoff games here in Indy and perhaps arguably had the greatest 4th Qtr drive of all-time in the AFC Title Game vs Belichick in 2006 to beat them. It really does boil down to Championships, Stats, MVP's, etc. One thing I will say about Peyton is if I was starting a franchise I would take him #1 because I think he can carry a team better than Brady or Montana. He just isn't as Clutch as those 2 in Big games, still doesn't make him a choker though. Had he never won a SB than I can see the choke label fits but he won not 1 but 2.

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

A couple of points, if I may: If we determine GOAT by championships alone, you would have to consider Otto Graham (7) and Bart Starr (5) in the conversation. 

The old saying "Defense wins championships" is true Brady never won a SB with defenses that ranked lower than 8th.

Joe Montana NEVER lost a SB nor did he throw an int in a SB.

Even though Tom did his part, two of those five rings were gifts by opposing coaches, when they should have run the ball and collected their hardware.

Brady has had the fortune of playing with an exceptional coach, his whole career.

 Peyton won 93 games in his career, when his defenses ranked below 16th, Brady only 20 or so.

Tom Brady will always be considered one of the greatest QBs of all time, on that we can agree. But this topic really is subjective, based on talent around him, Coaching, eras and competition, I don't think you can say OBJECTIVELY his is better than those who went before him. If all things were equatable ( coached by Belicheck, in this era, with those defenses and special teams), I don't think he is better than Starr, Graham, Montana, Marino, Elway, Unitas or Manning. He ranks amoung them but he has had advantages that many of them have not  had.

The problem with Graham and Starr is they won those pre SB era so many people don't rank them in the Top 5. Starr did win 2 SB's though but so has Peyton. Unitas at least won 1 in the SB era and look at Unitas's stats compared to Graham and Starr's, it's not even close - Unitas was a lot better.

[footballhero1]

On 6/28/2017 at 9:48 AM, NannyMcafee said:

If his head coach is also considered the greatest of all time? Does it not take away from an individuals performance when your coach is a master mind and is considered the GOAT?

Since the obvious implication is Brady to Belichick.... It's worth pointing out that in the 50's a legitimate argument existed for Otto Graham who played with Paul Brown....

 

Then Johnny Unitas who played with some dude named Shula. 

 

Then Montana who played with Walsh who has the most ahead of his time offense of the era. Montana also might not have even been the best player on two of his Super Bowl teams once with 

 

Even Starr who was mentioned in this thread played with the guy the trophy is named after. 

 

Anyways it becomes a circular argument because QB's are judged off wins and titles... which is the same thing coaches are judged by. So unless a QB has less than stellar stats relative to their peers (Bradshaw) they win and both guys get credit.

[footballhero1]

21 hours ago, coltsfeva said:

A couple of points, if I may: If we determine GOAT by championships alone, you would have to consider Otto Graham (7) and Bart Starr (5) in the conversation. 

The old saying "Defense wins championships" is true Brady never won a SB with defenses that ranked lower than 8th.

Joe Montana NEVER lost a SB nor did he throw an int in a SB.

Even though Tom did his part, two of those five rings were gifts by opposing coaches, when they should have run the ball and collected their hardware.

Brady has had the fortune of playing with an exceptional coach, his whole career.

 Peyton won 93 games in his career, when his defenses ranked below 16th, Brady only 20 or so.

Tom Brady will always be considered one of the greatest QBs of all time, on that we can agree. But this topic really is subjective, based on talent around him, Coaching, eras and competition, I don't think you can say OBJECTIVELY his is better than those who went before him. If all things were equatable ( coached by Belicheck, in this era, with those defenses and special teams), I don't think he is better than Starr, Graham, Montana, Marino, Elway, Unitas or Manning. He ranks amoung them but he has had advantages that many of them have not  had.

There's several issues with that point. 

 

Graham and Starr should sort of be in the conversation. They suffer from the Bill Russell effect. Russell has more titles than Jordan but he played in a league well in it's infancy where a title back then didn't have the weight a title today does. 3 of Starr's titles occured when there was a viable alternative league to the NFL, which was smaller than today's NFL. As were all of Graham's even though he switched leagues, he had less success in one. 

 

Montana yes he never lost, yes he had a stellar record, the Super Bowl in the 80's was lopsided towards the NFC. It was like that 2006 year where everyone joked Patriots vs Colts was the real Super Bowl. Except it was like that every single year and it was probably on a steeper slope. Just to give an example, Marino's offense in 84 was largely considered the best season of all time until either 04 Manning or 07 Brady. Montana's defense embarrassed them. Montana was also fielding GSW super teams for his last two. It's a little different because know the parity of the league kinda ensures you are never going to get that lopsided 

 

You can't start picking and choosing who was "gifted" a Super Bowl. Did Eli Manning get gifted a Super Bowl because Welker dropped a pass or because the refs let go of some blatant holding and didn't blow the whistle when they could have? Is there a guarantee that Lynch in short yardage wins the game? The pass in the Falcons game wasn't the ultimate game killer, it was the hold that resulted after that? Any guarantee they don't get a hold on the next play still and miss a long field goal? There's too many ways to look at it. There's too many things you have to assume are automatic with no basis too. 

 

Of course this conversation is subjective. It will always be subjective. It's like voting. You can only build a strong consensus. Right now that lays with Brady. Before him Montana. People argued guys like Unitas, Marino, and now Manning. It's just not the commonly held opinion. 

 

Right now if you debate who the GOAT is, your generally going to start the argument talking about why some guy is better than Brady or why Brady isn't as good as someone else.

[footballhero1]

21 hours ago, Myles said:

I agree that the QB is by far the most important player in most cases, but a great QB still cannot do it without team support.  

I don't agree that Manning was a "choker" in the playoffs.  He played against better quality teams in the post season.   He could not as easily hide the Colts flaws like he had to in the regular season games.  

Colts went 2-14 the year Manning was injured.   Patriots went 11-5 when Brady went down.   Most people knew that if Manning went down, the Colts would be very bad, because the rest of the team was not good.   We also knew that if the Pats lost Brady, they would lose a step or 2, but it would be the end to their season.  

No question that Brady is one of the best and I don't fault folks for putting him in their top spot.   Just not what my eyes have seen.  

 

The problem with this is that it's not an apples to apples comparison. The 2010 Colts were not their strongest incarnation when Manning was gone in 2011. The Patriots were their strongest incarnation in 2007 when Brady went down in 2008. 

 

So you were starting from either the best or second best Patriots team of the 2000's (if you want to debate 2004) to a Colts team you'd probably put below the 2003-2009 Colts. 

 

Second, and far more significant, the Colts were unfortunate to get caught with their pants down and no viable alternative at QB.A big part of the problem that year was that the Colts put two guys who had no business in the league at that point on the field. Matt Cassel on the other hand was a viable back up QB who was teetering on the line between very strong back up and lower tier starter. That's what he was. Painter and an older Collins before he retired were not. Cassel went to the Chiefs and two years later led a much weaker Chiefs teams to a 10-6 record and he actually was statistically stronger than he was on the Patriots and ended up going to the Pro Bowl that year. 

 

That's not a good indicator. If the 2008 Patriots fielded Painter as a replacement they have no shot of anything better than 8-8. And that's on a much better Patriots team comparatively to the Colts team that lost Manning. 

 

It's just not a true 1 to 1 comparison. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, footballhero1 said:

 

The problem with this is that it's not an apples to apples comparison. The 2010 Colts were not their strongest incarnation when Manning was gone in 2011. The Patriots were their strongest incarnation in 2007 when Brady went down in 2008. 

 

So you were starting from either the best or second best Patriots team of the 2000's (if you want to debate 2004) to a Colts team you'd probably put below the 2003-2009 Colts. 

 

Second, and far more significant, the Colts were unfortunate to get caught with their pants down and no viable alternative at QB.A big part of the problem that year was that the Colts put two guys who had no business in the league at that point on the field. Matt Cassel on the other hand was a viable back up QB who was teetering on the line between very strong back up and lower tier starter. That's what he was. Painter and an older Collins before he retired were not. Cassel went to the Chiefs and two years later led a much weaker Chiefs teams to a 10-6 record and he actually was statistically stronger than he was on the Patriots and ended up going to the Pro Bowl that year. 

 

That's not a good indicator. If the 2008 Patriots fielded Painter as a replacement they have no shot of anything better than 8-8. And that's on a much better Patriots team comparatively to the Colts team that lost Manning. 

 

It's just not a true 1 to 1 comparison. 

Throughout the history of sports winning a Championship got more and more important for a players legacy it seemed as time went on. Magic/Bird Rivalry started a lot of that because that was huge talk on who would end up with more Championships. Then it took off with Jordan as many were saying Jordan needs to win 6 to beat Magic and be considered the better player, etc.. I shouldn't take away from Russell but by saying this I guess I would be - when he won his Championships, 8 of them were only by winning 2 series. Winning your Conference and then the Finals. Ever since the mid 80's, teams have had to win 4 series which makes a huge difference. That is a lot tougher to do, more Injuries can occur and things like getting tired are a lot more involved.

 

-This was meant to be quoted on your Graham/Starr/Russell Post.

[NannyMcafee]

http://www.interstateofgreen.com/single-post/2017/01/22/Opinion-Article-Peyton-Manning-is-the-Greatest-of-All-Time

 

writer has got some good points. 

[footballhero1]

45 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Throughout the history of sports winning a Championship got more and more important for a players legacy it seemed as time went on. Magic/Bird Rivalry started a lot of that because that was huge talk on who would end up with more Championships. Then it took off with Jordan as many were saying Jordan needs to win 6 to beat Magic and be considered the better player, etc.. I shouldn't take away from Russell but by saying this I guess I would be - when he won his Championships, 8 of them were only by winning 2 series. Winning your Conference and then the Finals. Ever since the mid 80's, teams have had to win 4 series which makes a huge difference. That is a lot tougher to do, more Injuries can occur and things like getting tired are a lot more involved.

 

-This was meant to be quoted on your Graham/Starr/Russell Post.

I don't think it was ever unimportant. I think ever since sports became more about star players their championship success became more important. The old NBA with Russell was interesting because Wilt sort of beat Russell in everything offensively (Russell was a better defensive player) that people were more willing to say the Lakers were a one man show and the Celtics were a bigger team effort. That changed when Bird and Magic were there and you had two stars on the floor who had teams that could do them justice. So it did become more about head to heads and titles (for the record, Magic had the better overall career but Bird was better in his prime). I don't think there was ever really a mention that Jordan needed 6 to beat Magic. He was already largely considered the best player ever well before that 6th ring (many put Brady above Montana the minute he tied him for 4). 

 

Football is a little different. At the QB position Unitas was sort of the Wilt and Starr was sort of the Russell. Unitas was clearly ahead of his time and statistically was overwhelmingly over Starr despite Starr having far superiors teams (the coaches were comparable). They also played very differently Starr was old school, Unitas looked more like the modern QB's we've seen since the 70's up to today. 

 

With Brady and Manning it was always a bit of a paradox. Manning had better offensive talent. Brady had better defensive talent. Brady could beat Manning in stats when his offensive talent was more than usual. Manning won Super Bowls when his defenses played at a high level in the playoffs. They sort of mirrored each other. Also the gap was never that far apart. Manning was better in bulk stats, but not far ahead of Brady, Brady was generally a more efficient QB and had far less interceptions. It was the Magic and Bird thing where both guys were close enough that winning and rings became more of a difference maker. 

[footballhero1]

18 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

http://www.interstateofgreen.com/single-post/2017/01/22/Opinion-Article-Peyton-Manning-is-the-Greatest-of-All-Time

 

writer has got some good points. 

He has some really bad ones too. 

 

Again the 2008 Patriots vs the 2011 Colts argument is just a really bad comparison. You're resting too much on taking two separate teams and back up QB's that were at different levels at the time and comparing them for the sake of trying to compare a difference. When ironically the difference was a 10 win team lost 8 more games and a 16 win team lost 5 more games. So despite one team having a far better team and an actual quality back up, the difference was only 3 games more in a decline. You think one of the best teams ever, one of the best coaches ever, and a far superior QB could make a difference of 3 games? Especially when he says one is not a steep drop even though it's literally a 3 game difference from the one he is using to prop Manning up. Feels self serving.

 

Also then using the fact that he won on two separate teams is kind of dubious when he really was just being carried along for that last one. I mean there was nobody on Brady's first or 2nd Super Bowl win team that was on his 4th or 5th (and only one player on his 3rd and 4th that was the same), yet because of Belichick and the logo we are going to ignore what is approximately the same thing thing (except one player actually was a primary reason their team won and one wasn't, but that's the feature we can ignore). Again feels self serving. 

 

Then the cast around him argument. These are the likely Hall of Famers each guy played with. 

 

Manning: Harrison (1998-2006, skip 2007, then he finished in 2008), Wayne (2003-2010), Von Miller (2012-2015), Vinatieri (2006-2010)* 

Brady: Moss (2007, Brady missed 2008, 2009-early 2010), Gronkowski (2010-present), Vinatieri (2001-2005)

 

If you go by personnel Belichick was the better coach but Dungy and Polian are both Hall of Famers as well. 

 

It just feels very paper thin too me and lacking context to make a surface level argument where he only goes deep enough to favor his opinion then stops. 

 

They are both great. If you want to argue Manning I'd argue more a long the lines of how productive his timing based offenses were and how he was one of the most intelligent QB's ever. 

[wizwor]

I remember when the Pats ran onto the field before their first SB win.  They came out as a team -- no names, no GOATs.  I have never heard any member of that team refer to any player or coach as a GOAT.  The fact is that this team -- the owner, that coach, that QB, and all the players who won those championships -- are pretty special.  I don't think TB12 would have accomplished all of this without Bill and I do not think Bill would have gotten it done with another QB -- not even Manning or Rogers.  At this time, with that coach TB12 is the GOAT.  I don't know how anyone can dispute that.

[NannyMcafee]

53 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

He has some really bad ones too. 

 

Again the 2008 Patriots vs the 2011 Colts argument is just a really bad comparison. You're resting too much on taking two separate teams and back up QB's that were at different levels at the time and comparing them for the sake of trying to compare a difference. When ironically the difference was a 10 win team lost 8 more games and a 16 win team lost 5 more games. So despite one team having a far better team and an actual quality back up, the difference was only 3 games more in a decline. You think one of the best teams ever, one of the best coaches ever, and a far superior QB could make a difference of 3 games? Especially when he says one is not a steep drop even though it's literally a 3 game difference from the one he is using to prop Manning up. Feels self serving.

 

Also then using the fact that he won on two separate teams is kind of dubious when he really was just being carried along for that last one. I mean there was nobody on Brady's first or 2nd Super Bowl win team that was on his 4th or 5th (and only one player on his 3rd and 4th that was the same), yet because of Belichick and the logo we are going to ignore what is approximately the same thing thing (except one player actually was a primary reason their team won and one wasn't, but that's the feature we can ignore). Again feels self serving. 

 

Then the cast around him argument. These are the likely Hall of Famers each guy played with. 

 

Manning: Harrison (1998-2006, skip 2007, then he finished in 2008), Wayne (2003-2010), Von Miller (2012-2015), Vinatieri (2006-2010)* 

Brady: Moss (2007, Brady missed 2008, 2009-early 2010), Gronkowski (2010-present), Vinatieri (2001-2005)

 

If you go by personnel Belichick was the better coach but Dungy and Polian are both Hall of Famers as well. 

 

It just feels very paper thin too me and lacking context to make a surface level argument where he only goes deep enough to favor his opinion then stops. 

 

They are both great. If you want to argue Manning I'd argue more a long the lines of how productive his timing based offenses were and how he was one of the most intelligent QB's ever. 

 

Fair enough, friend. 

[BloodyChamp]

Bill Belichik could win a SB with another quarterback...

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

Bill Belichik could win a SB with another quarterback...

We will never know the real answer but do you think Tom Brady could win a SB with Jim Caldwell or Gary Kubiak as Coach? Peyton did with Kubes and went to one with Caldwell and nearly went undefeated with Caldwell.