So who are the top 5 QB's off all time.
MGLICKER
Posts: 7,995 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Seems that it was Marino, Unitas, Elway, Montana and Peyton Manning.
Is that correct of am I missing another 5 names?
Is that correct of am I missing another 5 names?
0
Comments
1) Montana
2) Brady
3) Elway
4) Marino
5) Young
Older folks may disagree
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
#1. You had to have played in one or more Superbowls (preferably as a starter); and
#2. You must never have lost a Superbowl.
Tim Tebow does not meet eligibility criteria #1. Thus he is not on the list.
Montana
Manning
Graham
Brady
Elway
Honorable mention (second 5):
Marino
Unitas
Favre
Young
Staubach
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
1- Brady
2- Montana
3- Manning
4- Young
5- Marino
Im sure Ive mixed and matched my top 5 list over the years here but its very subjective, personally Great Players should be ranked amongst their peers in the Decade they played at their best in my opinion anyways.
My top 10 is easier....
1-Brady
2-Manning
3-Montana
4-Young
5-Marino
6-Moon
7-Elway
8-Graham
9-Unitas
10-Favre
Unitas, Montana, Elawy, Manning, Brady
next five
Graham, Staubach, Marino, Young, Favre
11 though 15
Baugh, Starr, Tarkenton, Moon, Brees
16 through 20
Tittle, Bradshaw, Warner, Rogers ... I'm sure I'm missing an obvious one, so we'll leave the 20th spot open
Tim Couch
Ryan Leaf
Jamarcus Russell
and honorable mention for Garo Yapremium (sp?) for that one play in the Super Bowl.
<< <i>Akili Smith
Tim Couch
Ryan Leaf
Jamarcus Russell
and honorable mention for Garo Yapremium (sp?) for that one play in the Super Bowl. >>
Gotta throw Joey Harrington, David Carr in there!
<< <i>
<< <i>Akili Smith
Tim Couch
Ryan Leaf
Jamarcus Russell
and honorable mention for Garo Yapremium (sp?) for that one play in the Super Bowl. >>
Gotta throw Joey Harrington, David Carr in there! >>
And one of amy all-time faves growing up--Todd Marinovich!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Football is a team sport. The quarterback doesn't play defense, he doesn't play special teams, he doesn't play offense, running back or wide receiver. Put Joe Montana on the field by himself and he would have lost every game he played. Put Tom Brady on the 1976 Buccaneers and they would have still come in last place.
It's ignorant (and an example of cognitive bias) to say the quarterback is the only reason a team wins or loses a Super Bowl, and, conversely, that a quarterback can only be the greatest if he only plays and wins in the Super Bowl. Doug Williams was not a better quarterback than Dan Marino, and Trent Dilfer was not greater than Dan Fouts. >>
Shhhhh..... Don't say that out loud. The whole point of the Internet is to advocate for positions that are unfalsifiable. Without that, the whole thing breaks down; and you don't want Comcast's lawyers banging on your door and presenting you with a lawsuit for damages, do you? Didn't think so.
1. Montana
2. Unitas
3. Elway
4. Marino
5. Manning
6. Baugh
7. Brady
8. Favre
9. Staubach
10. Graham
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
<< <i>My list. Debate it if you'd like to.
1. Montana
2. Unitas
3. Elway
4. Marino
5. Manning
6. Baugh
7. Brady
8. Favre
9. Staubach
10. Graham >>
Good list, but why bother debating? All ten of these guys are great QB's, and in all likelihood the gap-- if there is one-- between one and ten is negligible.
Why do people have this obsession with 'rankings'? Seriously--- what specific urge does this satiate? I'm curious to know. For example, take the Manning v Brady debate. I'm perfectly fine saying that both are excellent QB's, if I was starting a team I'd be delighted to have either, but that I really don't know enough about football to say who is better. Why isn't my position reflective of the majority's position?
<< <i>
<< <i>My list. Debate it if you'd like to.
1. Montana
2. Unitas
3. Elway
4. Marino
5. Manning
6. Baugh
7. Brady
8. Favre
9. Staubach
10. Graham >>
Good list, but why bother debating? All ten of these guys are great QB's, and in all likelihood the gap-- if there is one-- between one and ten is negligible.
Why do people have this obsession with 'rankings'? Seriously--- what specific urge does this satiate? I'm curious to know. For example, take the Manning v Brady debate. I'm perfectly fine saying that both are excellent QB's, if I was starting a team I'd be delighted to have either, but that I really don't know enough about football to say who is better. Why isn't my position reflective of the majority's position? >>
Why have a Super Bowl? We all agree that Denver and Seattle are both excellent teams.
That man would be Roger Staubach, The greatest All Around QB I ever saw play.
He could beat you in so many different ways. From inside or outside the pocket he was a deadly accurate passer.
Roger could beat you with his legs as well and was tough as nails. No cream puff calls here.
For those that always try to fall back on the "its a team sport" that may very well be true, but make no mistake
about it, No other position in organized sports controls as much of the game in determining the outcome.
He is the team leader and the one most likely to create team momentum that the rest of the team feeds off of.
His play directly effect the attitude and confidence of all others around him. In short he has the ability to make those around him better.
Cowboys Saftey Charlie Waters summed it up best. "Regardless of the score or situation, We always felt Roger would win the game"
That kind of belief and confidence by the rest of the team is why the QB position is so unique in all of sports.
While these "Greatest Ever" threads often result in a bunch of childish name calling... There is no correct answer. only one's preference.
There is one fact, Nobody did it any better than Roger Staubach, to dispute that would just be silly.
While MY preference is Roger Staubach, The same could also be written about any of the "Greatest" QBs
Sammy Baugh, The Greatest Qb Ever
Johnny Unitas, The Greatest QB Ever
Bart Starr The Greatest QB Ever
Otto Graham, The Greatest QB Ever
Terry Bradshaw The Greatest QB Ever
Joe Namath The Greatest QB Ever
Joe Montana The Greatest Ever
<< <i>To be consider for the QB GOAT list there are two eligibility requirements:
#1. You had to have played in one or more Superbowls (preferably as a starter); and
#2. You must never have lost a Superbowl.
>>
Sooo, Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Joe Flacco, and Trent Dilfer, can all be considered for greatest of All-Time, but Favre, Elway, Marino, Tarkenton, Staubach, Manning, and Brady can't? Some list!
With a 2-0 record, your criteria puts Jim Plunkett waaay up there.
Curious, why is only losing a Super Bowl such a bad thing? Isn't losing an NFC/AFC championship just as bad and doing the same thing to your team? Montana lost some of those too
<< <i>Curious, why is only losing a Super Bowl such a bad thing? >>
Was a Lions fan for many years. Still waiting for their first Super Bowl loss.
Not my criteria at all.
Some folks with a rather narrow way of looking at things focus only on Super Bowl records of the QBs who are in the discussion of GOAT. I personally do not think this way of evaluating GOAT status is appropriate. It is myopic, it excludes many QB's who are great and it includes many QBs who are not great.
I personally like Elway as a GOAT, but I admit I am hopelessly biased since he played for my favorite team and gave Denver the only two Super Bowl wins it has (Sunday's game just s*cked for all Denver fans).
<< <i>Skin2:
Not my criteria at all.
Some folks with a rather narrow way of looking at things focus only on Super Bowl records of the QBs who are in the discussion of GOAT. I personally do not think this way of evaluating GOAT status is appropriate. It is myopic, it excludes many QB's who are great and it includes many QBs who are not great.
I personally like Elway as a GOAT, but I admit I am hopelessly biased since he played for my favorite team and gave Denver the only two Super Bowl wins it has (Sunday's game just s*cked for all Denver fans). >>
Thanks for clarification.
This is always a fun exercise, but ultimately, like Boo said, #1 or #9 may very well be impossible to distinguish from each other....but it doesn't hurt trying to distinguish them!
John Elway
Peyton Manning
Joe Montana
Dan Marino
Tom Brady
This era's QBs are tasked with doing more than ever before. The old timey QBs were fantastic, no doubt, but I struggle to believe guys who were throwing between 300-400 times a year could survive in today's game where 600-700 pass attempts happens with regularity. It's by no means disrespect, but I simply cannot see it.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Started really following the NFL in the late 70's and would have put Bradshaw on the list back then. History has shown him to be solid, but alas, not a top 5 or top 10 thrower.
Please stop. Manning has been given HOF talent to play with on offense in every year of his career. Brady had 2 years of Randy Moss (at the tail end of his career), parts of 3 seasons with Rob Gronkowski, and 6 years with Wes Welker. Other than that Brady's had to make chicken salad out of chicken bleep for most of his career. What did David Givens and Deion Branch do when they went elsewhere?
Meanwhile, Marvin Harrison would have been a HOFer with any Top 10 QB throwing to him. Pierre Garcon seems to be doing just fine with RG3 and Reggie Wayne still lit it up with Andrew Luck after Peyton left. Eric Decker had 8 TDs with freaking Tim Tebow as his QB, so it's not as if Manning has made him who he is. Demaryius Thomas and Julius Thomas are athletic beasts that would dominate with any Top 10 QB throwing to them.
The worst surrounding cast Manning had around him was 2010. That group of WRs might rank 4th or 5th on Brady's list. I would love to see Manning play an entire season throwing to the receiving corps that Brady had the first 6 years of his career, or the group he had this year.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>My list. Debate it if you'd like to.
1. Montana
2. Unitas
3. Elway
4. Marino
5. Manning
6. Baugh
7. Brady
8. Favre
9. Staubach
10. Graham >>
Good list, but why bother debating? All ten of these guys are great QB's, and in all likelihood the gap-- if there is one-- between one and ten is negligible.
Why do people have this obsession with 'rankings'? Seriously--- what specific urge does this satiate? I'm curious to know. For example, take the Manning v Brady debate. I'm perfectly fine saying that both are excellent QB's, if I was starting a team I'd be delighted to have either, but that I really don't know enough about football to say who is better. Why isn't my position reflective of the majority's position? >>
Why have a Super Bowl? We all agree that Denver and Seattle are both excellent teams. >>
Not quite the same thing
I'm just asking why this notion of ranking players is so popular. There's no way to determine whose list is right, and there isn't even a criteria established from which to develop the ranking. It's a bit like ranking the top 10 potato chips, or something. I guess you can give it a go, but why?
<< <i>Thanks for responding >>
Professional sports are a pastime for all but the elite participants and a small few that earn an income betting on the outcomes.
Yes, determining who the best 5 QBs are an impossible task as they have played in different decades and were surrounded by various levels of talent.
In the same vein, how does one determine who is the best football/basketball team from one game? Denver was the SB favorite but got their butts kicked. Could they not win a rematch, particularly if played at home. Seattle I believe had 3 losses for the season, so they certainly are not invincible in a one game scenario.
Your logic is porous.
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks for responding >>
Professional sports are a pastime for all but the elite participants and a small few that earn an income betting on the outcomes.
Yes, determining who the best 5 QBs are an impossible task as they have played in different decades and were surrounded by various levels of talent.
In the same vein, how does one determine who is the best football/basketball team from one game? Denver was the SB favorite but got their butts kicked. Could they not win a rematch, particularly if played at home. Seattle I believe had 3 losses for the season, so they certainly are not invincible in a one game scenario.
Your logic is porous. >>
What, exactly, is porous logic? That sounds like a non-sequitur.
To your last point, it depends on how you define 'best'. If you define 'best' as the team that would be expected to win over 50% of the contests over an infinite number of trials, then no- obviously you don't determine it from one game.
<< <i>I'm just asking why this notion of ranking players is so popular. There's no way to determine whose list is right, and there isn't even a criteria established from which to develop the ranking. It's a bit like ranking the top 10 potato chips, or something. I guess you can give it a go, but why? >>
Because there is no right way and because it is difficult is what makes it a good question to answer. It isn't as much a matter of what answer you come up with so much as the way you arrive there. Would you prefer only answering the question "Who has the most yards?" or "Who has the most touchdowns?"
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm just asking why this notion of ranking players is so popular. There's no way to determine whose list is right, and there isn't even a criteria established from which to develop the ranking. It's a bit like ranking the top 10 potato chips, or something. I guess you can give it a go, but why? >>
Because there is no right way and because it is difficult is what makes it a good question to answer. It isn't as much a matter of what answer you come up with so much as the way you arrive there. Would you prefer only answering the question "Who has the most yards?" or "Who has the most touchdowns?" >>
It can't be all that difficult if twenty guys can rattle off a list. It can be difficult to do well,, but that's a separate issue.
If someone wants to actually define a methodology for an ordinal ranking system of QBs, and then discuss the merits of the methodology, then yes-- I can see how that could be satisfying. But I don't see where the pleasure comes from in just throwing names against a wall. In a sense, I compare this to the tired 'whose a HOFer' question: If you haven't established a criteria for determine what constitutes a HOF career-- and clearly we haven't-- then all you're doing is putting blindfolds on a room full of guys and handing them shotguns. If guys enjoy these kinds of talks (and it appears that many do), then great; I don't have any real issue with that. I just don't see where the entertainment value comes from.
To your last point, I guess I'm not sure what to say here. If you think there are only two kinds of sports discussions-- position rankings and trivia questions--then I guess we just have different notions about the range of sports-related topics that are available.
<< <i> If guys enjoy these kinds of talks (and it appears that many do), then great; I don't have any real issue with that. I just don't see where the entertainment value comes from >>
Why did Philip Seymour Hoffman enjoy icing his veins with heroin. Why does Justin Beiber enjoy being a dick. Why does Barack Obama get pleasure from being a compulsive liar....
Understanding why a bunch of guys want to debate about athletes must be at least a bit easier to understand.
<< <i>It can't be all that difficult if twenty guys can rattle off a list. It can be difficult to do well,, but that's a separate issue. >>
To me, that's the only issue. Do it with a good deal of thought and an open mind and it can offer some good insight into the spot and players. A lot more than simply deciding the question is so subjective that no attempt will ever be made
<< <i>There are two types of Quarterbacks... one who's receivers makes him good, and one who makes his receivers good. Manning is the type who makes receivers good, and Brady is the type who's receivers make him good. >>
Completely moronic statement.
So according to your twisted thoughts on this Deon Branch, Bethel Johnson, David Patten, David Givens and Troy Brown made Tom Brady good? Julian Edelman and Aaron Dobson brought Brady to the AFC Championship game this year? Are you freaking kidding me?
<< <i>
<< <i> If guys enjoy these kinds of talks (and it appears that many do), then great; I don't have any real issue with that. I just don't see where the entertainment value comes from >>
Why did Philip Seymour Hoffman enjoy icing his veins with heroin. Why does Justin Beiber enjoy being a dick. Why does Barack Obama get pleasure from being a compulsive liar....
Understanding why a bunch of guys want to debate about athletes must be at least a bit easier to understand. >>
I knew, sooner or later, MG Licker would work Obama into this thread...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> If guys enjoy these kinds of talks (and it appears that many do), then great; I don't have any real issue with that. I just don't see where the entertainment value comes from >>
Why did Philip Seymour Hoffman enjoy icing his veins with heroin. Why does Justin Beiber enjoy being a dick. Why does Barack Obama get pleasure from being a compulsive liar....
Understanding why a bunch of guys want to debate about athletes must be at least a bit easier to understand. >>
I knew, sooner or later, MG Licker would work Obama into this thread... >>
Hey, give me some credit, I had him third.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> If guys enjoy these kinds of talks (and it appears that many do), then great; I don't have any real issue with that. I just don't see where the entertainment value comes from >>
Why did Philip Seymour Hoffman enjoy icing his veins with heroin. Why does Justin Beiber enjoy being a dick. Why does Barack Obama get pleasure from being a compulsive liar....
Understanding why a bunch of guys want to debate about athletes must be at least a bit easier to understand. >>
I knew, sooner or later, MG Licker would work Obama into this thread... >>
Hey, give me some credit, I had him third.
True...you are making progress, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>There are two types of Quarterbacks... one who's receivers makes him good, and one who makes his receivers good. Manning is the type who makes receivers good, and Brady is the type who's receivers make him good. >>
Completely moronic statement.
So according to your twisted thoughts on this Deon Branch, Bethel Johnson, David Patten, David Givens and Troy Brown made Tom Brady good? Julian Edelman and Aaron Dobson brought Brady to the AFC Championship game this year? Are you freaking kidding me? >>
Totally moronic. Two cases in point -- Wes Welker was a journeyman receiver with Miami before Brady helped make him an All-Pro. Moss was a declining malcontent until Brady helped resurrect his career and probably get him in the HOF. Nobody has done more with less than Brady.
1. Montana
2. Unitas
3. Bradshaw
4. Staubach
5. Starr
Honorable Mention: Fouts/Marino
<< <i>Now consider that football isn't what it used to be? If we still had the same D rules as 1970's-80's, than you can drop Brady, Manning, and everyone else who benefits from the QB's who get to where skirts now. That's my criteria for a great QB, one who doesn't wear a skirt. I am not a Marino fan. If I wasn't allowed to watch any film of any of my favs, and could only watch Marino, I wouldn't complain. About the only thing he didn't have on his legs from hip to toe, was a complete cast. Montana, Fouts, Anderson, Stabler, Staubach, Kelly, Elway, A Manning, Dawson, Plunkett, Theisman, Bradshaw, and the list goes on, they all took a beating. All those crap calls this last season like Drew Brees whining his skirt got wrinkled after Smith wiped him out, wouldn't fly back in the day. Dislodging the ball USED to be a key component and goal of a D player. Not any more! You dislodge the ball.... 15 yards FIRST DOWN!! The NFL used to stand for National Football League, now it is No Football League. Ninny Football League? National Fluff League? Take your pick, in fact, make your own up.
1. Montana
2. Unitas
3. Bradshaw
4. Staubach
5. Starr
Honorable Mention: Fouts/Marino >>
This is also a ridiculous assessment--QBs today are playing within the confines and rules of the game but are no less athletically gifted or physically impressive than the QBs of yesteryear. It is foolish to assume that QBs from this era would not have been stars had they simply been born a few decades earlier. They would have simply adapted to the game as it was being played at that time. The game today, despite the rule changes, is also much faster and players are much larger and better conditioned than they were back then, too. There are strong safeties in the league today that are faster, quicker and who hit as hard or harder than linebackers of that era. To suggest that players today would not have been just as great or even better than guys from the 60s and 70 sand 80s simply due to league rule changes is making an assumption that has no credible basis. But of course, such logic is not nearly as romantic a notion as reminiscing about "the good old days" when pro football players walked uphill both ways on their to and from school and rubbed dirt on their injuries.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Now consider that football isn't what it used to be? If we still had the same D rules as 1970's-80's, than you can drop Brady, Manning, and everyone else who benefits from the QB's who get to where skirts now. That's my criteria for a great QB, one who doesn't wear a skirt. I am not a Marino fan. If I wasn't allowed to watch any film of any of my favs, and could only watch Marino, I wouldn't complain. About the only thing he didn't have on his legs from hip to toe, was a complete cast. Montana, Fouts, Anderson, Stabler, Staubach, Kelly, Elway, A Manning, Dawson, Plunkett, Theisman, Bradshaw, and the list goes on, they all took a beating. All those crap calls this last season like Drew Brees whining his skirt got wrinkled after Smith wiped him out, wouldn't fly back in the day. Dislodging the ball USED to be a key component and goal of a D player. Not any more! You dislodge the ball.... 15 yards FIRST DOWN!! The NFL used to stand for National Football League, now it is No Football League. Ninny Football League? National Fluff League? Take your pick, in fact, make your own up.
1. Montana
2. Unitas
3. Bradshaw
4. Staubach
5. Starr
Honorable Mention: Fouts/Marino >>
This is also a ridiculous assessment--QBs today are playing within the confines and rules of the game but are no less athletically gifted or physically impressive than the QBs of yesteryear. It is foolish to assume that QBs from this era would not have been stars had they simply been born a few decades earlier. They would have simply adapted to the game as it was being played at that time. The game today, despite the rule changes, is also much faster and players are much larger and better conditioned than they were back then, too. There are strong safeties in the league today that are faster, quicker and who hit as hard or harder than linebackers of that era. To suggest that players today would not have been just as great or even better than guys from the 60s and 70 sand 80s simply due to league rule changes is making an assumption that has no credible basis. But of course, such logic is not nearly as romantic a notion as reminiscing about "the good old days" when pro football players walked uphill both ways on their to and from school and rubbed dirt on their injuries. >>
Outstanding post Tim, and I couldnt agree more.
I laugh at these guys who hold the old school guys on a pedistal when comparing them to todays players. The above ridiculas post ( ALMOST as STUPID as Jeffcbays post ) fails to even give in to the notion that the old school players didnt have to deal with 265 llb LB's, 300+ llb lineman who can freaking run.
The baby boomers identify with the sports stars from the 60's 70's and 80's.
The WWII generation identify with the sports stars from the 40's, 50' and 60's.
The WWI generation (mostly gone if not all gone) identified with the sports stars from the 20's, 30's and 40's.
The post Baby Boomer crowd most likely identifies with the sports stars of the 90's forward.
For me, I grew up in the 60's and 70's. I was a young adult in my 20-30's in the late 70's to early 90's.
My favorite sport is basketball, having played in high school and at the small college level in the 1970's. I grew up, watched and every played a little bit with the ABA and NBA players from the late 1960's through the 1980's.
This included some of the great players who started in the late 50's or early 60's and who retired in the late 1970's (i.e. John Havelicheck (SP?) of the Celtics); and some of the players that turned pro in the 70's and early 80's (Moses Malone, Dr. J, Magic, Bird, Joran, etc.).
I will always think that the best players from the 1960's, 1970' and 1980's would play very well in the NBA of today. This may be a fantasy on my part, since as time passes the human body (through sports science, nutrition, PEDS, training, genetics, etc.) gets bigger, faster and stronger as time goes by.
One thing I am sure of is that even if sports stars of the past could play a game against the sports stars of today, the metal side of the game would not be different. The old guys (heck, even going back 100 years) would have the mental toughness to compete at a high level.
It would all come down to how the older guys would be able to keep up with guys like Le Bron James and Kevin Durant today. I suspect that John Havelicheck at 28 years of age would be competitive, but that even he would have a tough time playing against King James. I wonder how a 28 year old Bob Cousy would do playing against Russell Westbrook.
Same thing in football.
I suspect that a 26 year old James Brown would be a pretty good player in today's NFL.
You guys suck.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I grew up in New Orleans watching the Saints. Anyone that saw Archie Manning play thought he was one of the top quarterbacks in football. But, Archie NEVER had a single All-Pro lineman, only had one decent wide receiver in his entire career (Wes Chandler in the late 70's/early 80's), had several years in which his running backs were absolute nobodies (Bill Butler, Alvin Maxson, Jess Phillips, etc.) and he had a defense that generally sucked.
Terry Bradshaw had one of the greatest centers of all-time, several other pro bowl linemen, two HOF receivers, a HOF back for nearly his entire career (plus Rocky Bleier) and arguably the greatest long term outstanding defense that has ever existed. Bradshaw wins four Super Bowls. Archie wins nothing. Bradshaw is a HOFer. Archie would be forgotten if not for his kids.
Now, those of you that saw them play, does anyone think that Archie would have done any worse than Bradshaw? If Bradshaw was with the Saints, would he have done any better? Remember, the Steelers benched Bradshaw a number of times in the early 70's for other guys. And, also remember, that in 1976, when Bradshaw was out with injury, a rookie nobody came in and won nine games in a row at quarterback.
The difference between an elite quarterback and a failure is often the surrounding cast. I've never seen a quarterback win a Super Bowl with a lineup of garbage. The closest to doing it was Elway, who took Broncos teams that probably deserved to be 8-8 to three Super Bowls. But, even he only had so much magic.
<< <i>I am appalled that no one has mentioned Dan Orlovsky.
You guys suck. >>
Heh, Dan isn't even one of UConn's top 5 QB's.
<< <i>There are two types of Quarterbacks... one who's receivers makes him good, and one who makes his receivers good. Manning is the type who makes receivers good, and Brady is the type who's receivers make him good. >>
One of the most ridiculous statements Ever.
<< <i>Now consider that football isn't what it used to be? If we still had the same D rules as 1970's-80's, than you can drop Brady, Manning, and everyone else who benefits from the QB's who get to where skirts now. That's my criteria for a great QB, one who doesn't wear a skirt. I am not a Marino fan. If I wasn't allowed to watch any film of any of my favs, and could only watch Marino, I wouldn't complain. About the only thing he didn't have on his legs from hip to toe, was a complete cast. Montana, Fouts, Anderson, Stabler, Staubach, Kelly, Elway, A Manning, Dawson, Plunkett, Theisman, Bradshaw, and the list goes on, they all took a beating. All those crap calls this last season like Drew Brees whining his skirt got wrinkled after Smith wiped him out, wouldn't fly back in the day. Dislodging the ball USED to be a key component and goal of a D player. Not any more! You dislodge the ball.... 15 yards FIRST DOWN!! The NFL used to stand for National Football League, now it is No Football League. Ninny Football League? National Fluff League? Take your pick, in fact, make your own up.
1. Montana
2. Unitas
3. Bradshaw
4. Staubach
5. Starr
Honorable Mention: Fouts/Marino >>
+1 I couldn't have said it any better myself