Brett Favre would take Robert Griffin III first

[FireJimCaldwell]

I loved watching Peyton for years and he certainly is 1 of the greatest of all time but seeing as how he isnt tops in any statistical passing all time category and has 1 ring (although if we had a better defense all those years he would probably have at least 1 more ring) I cant say hes the greatest yet, and really throw the rings argument out if you want thats a team achievement, he will come close to all those records and if he breaks 1-2 then I will say he is the greatest of all time, once again I loved watching him for years, he carried us for years, but even that dont make him the greatest, other quarterbacks have carried there teams, Drew Brees for one and he certainly isn't the greatest

Just to put those #'s in perspective.

While, I personally loved to watch Brett Favre play the game of football and can say that I was a fan of his individually, it is safe to say that he owns these two records based on longevity as much if not more than talent.

Even if Manning does play out his contract 5 years and averages around 4k a year pushing him to close to 75k, and averages 25-27 td's a year, pushing into the 530's and 540's, those #'s will likely be eclipsed by a player that plays his full career under modern and future conditions. If they add the 18 game scheduled it will happen even quicker.

I gauge QB's in 2 categories

Playing and Retired.

Dan Marino is the best all time retired QB I've seen play the game.

Peyton Manning is the best all time active QB I've seen play the game.

When Manning retires, he will replace Marino, and there will be a new "Best all time Active QB"

Barry Bonds has the most Home Runs, and Hank Aaron did before him, but I wouldn't dare put either of them in Babe Ruth's category as a hitter.

At the rate that Ruth homered, if he had accumulated the # of at bats that Bonds did and if you drop his production 33%, he would have hit around 790+ home runs. If you give him Aarons at-bats at the same 33% decrease he's in 940 range.

[Jay Kirk]

Just to put those #'s in perspective.

While, I personally loved to watch Brett Favre play the game of football and can say that I was a fan of his individually, it is safe to say that he owns these two records based on longevity as much if not more than talent.

Even if Manning does play out his contract 5 years and averages around 4k a year pushing him to close to 75k, and averages 25-27 td's a year, pushing into the 530's and 540's, those #'s will likely be eclipsed by a player that plays his full career under modern and future conditions. If they add the 18 game scheduled it will happen even quicker.

I gauge QB's in 2 categories

Playing and Retired.

Dan Marino is the best all time retired QB I've seen play the game.

Peyton Manning is the best all time active QB I've seen play the game.

When Manning retires, he will replace Marino, and there will be a new "Best all time Active QB"

Barry Bonds has the most Home Runs, and Hank Aaron did before him, but I wouldn't dare put either of them in Babe Ruth's category as a hitter.

At the rate that Ruth homered, if he had accumulated the # of at bats that Bonds did and if you drop his production 33%, he would have hit around 790+ home runs. If you give him Aarons at-bats at the same 33% decrease he's in 940 range.

What if Big Mac hadnt retired do to back problems?

[FireJimCaldwell]

What if Big Mac hadnt retired do to back problems?

He would have exceeded all of them with equal at-bats.

[NewColtsFan]

http://www.cbssports...ain;contentBody

Nice find, Jules.... this story has not been on my radar.... thanks for bringing it to the attention of everyone here...

MF

[southwest1]

Just to put those #'s in perspective.

While, I personally loved to watch Brett Favre play the game of football and can say that I was a fan of his individually, it is safe to say that he owns these two records based on longevity as much if not more than talent.

Even if Manning does play out his contract 5 years and averages around 4k a year pushing him to close to 75k, and averages 25-27 td's a year, pushing into the 530's and 540's, those #'s will likely be eclipsed by a player that plays his full career under modern and future conditions. If they add the 18 game scheduled it will happen even quicker.

I gauge QB's in 2 categories

Playing and Retired.

Dan Marino is the best all time retired QB I've seen play the game.

Peyton Manning is the best all time active QB I've seen play the game.

When Manning retires, he will replace Marino, and there will be a new "Best all time Active QB"

Barry Bonds has the most Home Runs, and Hank Aaron did before him, but I wouldn't dare put either of them in Babe Ruth's category as a hitter.

At the rate that Ruth homered, if he had accumulated the # of at bats that Bonds did and if you drop his production 33%, he would have hit around 790+ home runs. If you give him Aarons at-bats at the same 33% decrease he's in 940 range.

Well said FJC. Well said.

[Narcosys]

You know whats funny. Favre may have some of the best stats in football, but he also has the most sacks and interceptions than anyone in football as well. And probably always will. So I'm not holding his opinion in very high regard.

[Kyle]

You know whats funny. Favre may have some of the best stats in football, but he also has the most sacks and interceptions than anyone in football as well. And probably always will. So I'm not holding his opinion in very high regard.

[Qwiz]

he also thought it was smart to send a woman a picture of his junk.

[Flash7]

In a casual conversation, Brett Favre might think that he would choose RGIII over Luck. I have a hard time believing that RGIII's escapability would trump the fundamentals and "pro-readiness" of Luck. I think that if Favre were paid as a GM to do his homework, and really study these two dynamic QB's, he would choose Luck. RGIII is more flashy and exciting, but Randall Cunningham doesn't win Super Bowls, Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Brady, they win superbowls. It's the gym rats that rely on their superior knowledge of the game, not superior athletes, who usually win.

[BOTT]

It is a matter of personal opinion by many...and you can argue several QBs to be the best.

I seem to go back to Joe Montana as time goes on more and more. Just so darn smooth...Say what you want about talent around him at times and yes I know it is a team sport...I know all of it and have heard all of it.

But, Montana was just a flat out winner, as cliche as it sounds to say.

He is pretty much the Michael Jordan of the NFL.

I think I am a sucker for these old videos with corny music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AR6kctf1E

shoud be banned for comparing joe montana to jordan......

[JoKeR]

he also thought it was smart to send a woman a picture of his junk.

Gotta use a lure to catch fish don't ya?

[JoKeR]

Does Farve not believe Luck can escape a pass rush? If he like RG3 better that's fine.

[Vance]

Gotta use a lure to catch fish don't ya?

[JoKeR]

of course Rob Lowe agrees, but he just pulls up and flashes money.

[Vance]

of course Rob Lowe agrees, but he just pulls up and flashes money.

I don't think that's Rob Lowe, I think that's Ian Somerhalder, or Chace Crawford, I can't tell them apart. But the punchline is the same I'm sure

[Kyle]

Who doesn't think that's smart?

lol

[bavanlan]

[Qwiz]

No need for an offensive line with a belly like that!

[RGIII]

In a casual conversation, Brett Favre might think that he would choose RGIII over Luck. I have a hard time believing that RGIII's escapability would trump the fundamentals and "pro-readiness" of Luck. I think that if Favre were paid as a GM to do his homework, and really study these two dynamic QB's, he would choose Luck. RGIII is more flashy and exciting, but Randall Cunningham doesn't win Super Bowls, Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Brady, they win superbowls. It's the gym rats that rely on their superior knowledge of the game, not superior athletes, who usually win.

[Dan]

You know whats funny. Favre may have some of the best stats in football, but he also has the most sacks and interceptions than anyone in football as well. And probably always will. So I'm not holding his opinion in very high regard.

[Flash7]

I understand why you disagree with Favre but this is not a particularly well-developed argument on several levels. You seem to assume that Griffin and Luck are static talents. This is not true, both have a ton of room to develop their game and both must grow if they're going to be successful at the next level. Griffin may be less pro-ready and he may have a lower floor but a very strong argument could be made that he has the higher ceiling of the two. You also seem to forget that RGIII happens to be a gym rat and (at least by college standards) strong student of the game on top of being a superior athlete. Luck is absolutely safer and more ready now but the safer bet isn't always the best bet in the long run and some people are more inclined to take chances than others.

Besides, did anyone think Tom Brady was pro-ready coming out of college? Heck no. Montana sure as heck wasn't as well regarded a college prospect as Luck is, either. It's easy to toss names out there and point to similarities but that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. For nearly every Randall Cunningham, Michael Vick, Kordell Stewart, Jim Zorn, Vince Young, and Daunte Culpepper you throw out there as potential Griffin analogues there is a genuinely successful player with a set of wheels on them that could just as easily pass muster given our extremely limited knowledge of these rooks in an NFL setting (would you really turn down John Elway, Steve Young, Warren Moon, Roger Staubach, Steve McNair, or Brett Favre himself if you were starting a franchise?).

If Favre thinks the kid will grow as a passer to roughly the same degree that Luck will then isn't it entirely reasonable to say that the elite speed is enough to put him over the top in a head-to-head comparison?

[RGIII]

RGIII, very well thought out arguement. For the sake of discussion, I would like to provide a rebuttal to some of the points that you've made.

[Kyle]

Thanks

Luck's status as a pro-ready QB is primarily a result of the fact that he played in a pro-style offense under a now pro head coach. It's not some sort of innate trait that he has over Griffin and his lead in pro-readiness is by no means insurmountable. Both of these guys are learning new schemes and Griffin has a head start of several months on Luck because he didn't have to stay back to finish his degree (and we had Kyle Shanahan working with him even before the draft). I'm not saying RGIII will overtake Luck any time soon (if ever) but it requires no stretch of the imagination to see that it's possible independent of how fast both guys can run a 40 yard dash.

Absolutely. I'll be the first to point out that if I see Griffin's development take a Vick-like trajectory I will be forced to consider him a massive disappointment regardless of how electrifying he may be out in the open. However, I think Griffin is worlds smarter than Vick ever has been and understands he has to be a passer first and foremost, so he should be alright.

Both of these rookies are fast and a fair bit faster than most of the scrambling QBs we've mentioned at that. Both also have the arm talent and appear to have the work ethic required to be special even without their ability to scramble.

If you want a guy who hasn't even remotely learned not to sacrifice his body and has been to and/or won more Super Bowls than everyone not named Brady, I'd point to Roethlisberger. I'd also like to point out that Eli's greatest plays haven't come from being a stoic pocket passer, they've come from running around like a headless chicken and making something happen.

I don't really like this game, though, because it makes FAR too many suppositions about what Luck and Griffin are and will become. It seems exceedingly unwise to be comparing either player to all-time greats at this stage in the game. Even generational talents are more likely to bust than live up to expectations in this league.

These guys will definitely be fun to watch.

Just my opinion.... remember, this is just my honest opinion.... RGIII will be a bust because he wears really stupid socks.

[RGIII]

Just my opinion.... remember, this is just my honest opinion.... RGIII will be a bust because he wears really stupid socks.

And I'm fairly sure Luck lost all his QBing superpowers when he shaved the neckbeard. ;)

[Qwiz]

And I'm fairly sure Luck lost all his QBing superpowers when he shaved the neckbeard. ;)

Nah, he'll get back the mojo when he opens the flip Phone of Power.

[gspdx]

I guess I don't see the big difference between the two in athleticism. Luck is no slouch and is capable of running and scrambling. I guess the key to me is can they turn that athletic ability into positive plays. Standing back in the pocket and hitting an open receiver is the easy part. QBs need to survey the field, understnd what is going on downfield, understand where pressure is coming from, step up, slide sideways, or scramble when appropriate. And with all that still make the right decision about throwing the ball and executing the throw. Can either of these guys, under big time pressure, make the right decisions and make the play? That is why I still like watching Joe Montana. The guy made the right decisions and executed the play. He might not have been the most athletic or the biggest or had the strongest arm. But he had a great sense of the field and what was going on around him. He moved when necessary, scrambled if needed, and took off and ran when required.

So for me it's less about the differences in athletic ability between these two guys. They are both great athletes. It's about the mental growth, making adjustments during plays, and performing under pressure. None of that has to do with vertical leap or a guy's speed in the 40.

Neither Peyton Manning or Tom Brady are the greatest athletes, but they are 2 of the most successful current QBs.