@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
LOL, it is amusing that you are comparing stats between a QB that played in Graham's era with Aikman.
I wasn't the one who brought Graham up to this conversation.
True, but you were the one using stats to compare the two to make the silly argument that they were "pretty close," 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.
Mario Lemieux scored 5 goal in 5 games no other player has ever achieved that. And he pulled a average Team to Stanley cup winners twice during his run.
Tom Brady is the best QB and that is not debatable, you want to argue who was better than Gretzky or Jordan that's fine but arguing a better QB than Brady is completely ridiculous. Yea I'm a homer but in today's standards vs yesteryears standards of straight up winning the guy has led his team to 7 Super Bowls winning 5 and 11 AFC Championship games winning 7.
@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
Tom Brady is the best QB and that is not debatable
Oh???
everything is debatable and every era has its own plusses and minuses. with the old NFL I always end up considering that there were less Teams and that they each played everyone during the season. the plus in that is a better view of a Team's relative strength. the downside was that there were only 12 games played during the regular season.
I think that bears consideration.
it isn't unusual for a Team to have injuries or just to play poorly for a short stretch during a season: that wasn't a luxury that a Team could afford in the 50's when only one Team from a Conference made it into the Championship.
looking at that, it's remarkable that the Cleveland Browns made it to the game seven times in the decade --- not only seven times, but their first six years in the NFL and 7-8 years from 1950-1957. I expect you to argue that they were 3-4 during that run, but it is still remarkable. further, consider that when they were granted a franchise for the 1950 season they replaced the Cleveland Rams who had left in 1945. the NFL rewarded the new Team by having them start there first season against the defending NFL Champion, a game they won handily. they went on to face the Rams in the championship, and won in their first year. has any other Team in any Sport in any other Professional League done that??
during all of that there was a QB named Otto Graham. maybe you should ask Tom Brady what he thinks of that HOF player. did I also mention that prior to entering the NFL Cleveland dominated the AAC?? Otto Graham led his Team to the Championship Game of his league every year from 1946-1955 and won it seven times.
@perkdog said:
In my opinion there is Tom Brady as the best QB ever, Wayne Gretzky the best hockey player ever, Michael Jordan the best Basketball player ever. The best baseball player is way too debatable, same with best Running back. Great debate though.
As tough as it may be to identify the best baseball player, it is far easier to do so in baseball than in any other sport, thanks to Bill James, Pete Palmer, etc. giving us stats for which there are no comparable stats in any other sport. Also, because the game of baseball has changed far less over the years than the other sports have. And finally, because baseball is, almost entirely, an individual sport, not a team sport.
That Tom Brady is the best QB ever is certainly a defensible opinion, but there really is no way to objectively compare him to Otto Graham or Johnny Unitas - Brady is not playing the same game that Unitas played, and Unitas was not playing the same game that Graham played; the rules changes across eras had a huge effect on the game, and most of all on QB stats.
And then in hockey, you switched from best at a position to best player. Was Gretzky better than Bobby Orr? Was he better than Jacques Plante? The question is very much the same as "was Babe Ruth better than Wayne Gretzky?" Likewise, was Michael Jordan better than Wilt Chamberlain or better than Bob Cousy? I don't believe that there is any objective standard at all for deciding.
In baseball, as in all sports, the point is winning and winning means outscoring your opponent. "Greatness", then, is some combination of contributions towards scoring, and contributions towards preventing the opponent from scoring. In baseball, it's not really that hard to isolate the contributions made by each player, although the scoring part is easier than than the preventing scoring part. But in hockey? Very often the play most responsible for creating a goal isn't the shot on goal itself, or even the primary assist (although it can be either of those, too), but a steal behind a player's own net followed by a perfect pass to an open teammate who then starts the drive down ice to score. Hockey stats simply don't measure individual responsibility for goals. And when a goal is scored against, was it the goalie's fault, the defensemen's fault, or a sloppy pass at the other end of the ice by a forward? Again, stats don't measure that. And this all all gets back to baseball being an individual sport, and the others being team sports. An at bat is an isolated, measurable event. It either advances the cause of scoring a run or it doesn't. And it can be measured immediately. Where baseball has the home run, in no other sport is any one player ever completely responsible for scoring.
In every sport, there is no way to scientifically say that one player is a 9.95 and another is a 9.94, therefore the first player is better. What you get instead are clouds of probability, and those clouds are smaller in baseball than in any other sport. If we say that Ruth was somewhere between a 9.7 and a 10.0, there may be half a dozen others (like Mantle) with top ranges higher than 9.7. But once you get to the truly team sports, you get, say Tom Brady with a range of 9.0 to 10.0, and not only a dozen or more QBs with overlapping ranges, but dozens of players at all the other positions who overlap as well. And this is so because there is simply no way to separate Brady (or any other QB) from his OL, and his RBs and WRs. We can see that he's great, but there's no way to know how much of the greatness we see is really his own and how much is his teammates'.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
LOL, it is amusing that you are comparing stats between a QB that played in Graham's era with Aikman.
I wasn't the one who brought Graham up to this conversation.
True, but you were the one using stats to compare the two to make the silly argument that they were "pretty close," LOL,,
Close.....BUT....Aikman was better.
Using your own criteria of championships:
7 > 3. Ergo, Graham > Aikman. Not even close.
I don't know where you get 7. He (Graham) won 3 NFL Championships. And I'll open another can of worms. I feel that winning a SB is harder than winning a Championship back then. My reasons are there are more games to a season and you have to play more playoff games. Plus the players are bigger, faster and stronger now.
@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
Did you really just compare Otto's stats from the 40's and 50's to Aikman's from the 90's. You have got to be kidding me. Aikman is not even the best Cowboy Quarterback of all time. That goes to Staubach.
But back to Otto for a minute. He lead the league in yards passed 5 of his 10 years in the league. TDs 3. Completion percentage four times. Now that is one you so called better stats from above. Graham was in the top three each and every season but 1 where he was #5. When he retired he was tied for 2nd all time with 55.8%. Mind you in 1955 only 20 quarterbacks had a career completion over 50%. Are you really trying to compare these two different era stats? So Aikman better on % is moot.
But if you are let's keep going. When Graham retired he had the most passing yards of all time. He past Sammy Baugh for that. He was 2nd all time in TD's, behind Baugh. He was the all time Passer Rating leader for a career until 1983 with 86.6. Heck it is still 24th all time. That is simply amazing. Highest career yd/att with 9.0. Actually it is the highest still today. Highest EVER. Anyone remember this number for Aikman? Oh yeah, lowest of any HOF QB.
If you want to compare lifetime totals to a guy who played in 12 games a season to a guy who played 16 games a season so be it. But you really should do per game averages. You are being rather silly trying to compare those. Otto played 126 games to Aikman's 165. That over three more seasons than Graham. Seems to me those yards would be much closer.
**Highest career yd/att with 9.0. Actually it is the highest still today. Highest EVER. **
that, in conjunction with the highest winning percentage all-time for a starting QB says volumes. for any passing record to stand for 60+ years, a record that was set when running was still 50% of the game, is phenomenal. consider, also, that shortly after at the end of Graham's career the League started its transformation to a pass dominated offense.
for a QB's stats to stand after such a long period of time and such radical changes in the game is an amazing testament to that players skill.
@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
Did you really just compare Otto's stats from the 40's and 50's to Aikman's from the 90's. You have got to be kidding me. Aikman is not even the best Cowboy Quarterback of all time. That goes to Staubach.
But back to Otto for a minute. He lead the league in yards passed 5 of his 10 years in the league. TDs 3. Completion percentage four times. Now that is one you so called better stats from above. Graham was in the top three each and every season but 1 where he was #5. When he retired he was tied for 2nd all time with 55.8%. Mind you in 1955 only 20 quarterbacks had a career completion over 50%. Are you really trying to compare these two different era stats? So Aikman better on % is moot.
But if you are let's keep going. When Graham retired he had the most passing yards of all time. He past Sammy Baugh for that. He was 2nd all time in TD's, behind Baugh. He was the all time Passer Rating leader for a career until 1983 with 86.6. Heck it is still 24th all time. That is simply amazing. Highest career yd/att with 9.0. Actually it is the highest still today. Highest EVER. Anyone remember this number for Aikman? Oh yeah, lowest of any HOF QB.
If you want to compare lifetime totals to a guy who played in 12 games a season to a guy who played 16 games a season so be it. But you really should do per game averages. You are being rather silly trying to compare those. Otto played 126 games to Aikman's 165. That over three more seasons than Graham. Seems to me those yards would be much closer.
Dimeman I thought you were smarter than this.
You're right this is silly to compare Qb's from different era's. I wasn't putting Graham down...I just don't like all the bad mouthing that Aikman get's because he was on a great team or he had the best line of all time. His QB numbers would surely have been higher if the Cowboys were a throwing team and not a run the ball down your throat team. But why not run a lot when you have the leading rusher of all time as your RB. I think that winning 3 out of 3 SB's and having a average 111 QB rating in the 3 SB's with a 140 and MVP in 1 SB and being 3rd behind Manning and Brady in total wins in a decade are more than enough to earn a spot in the HOF.
As far as comparing teams from the 50's and 60's to 90's that is not fair either. The Browns from the 50's were great and the Packers from the 60's were great. When I said that those teams could not play with the 90's Cowboys is because of the difference in the size and speed and strength of players then and now. And if the players 40 years from now evolve at the same rate.....then the same could be said about them and the Cowboys.
This is my closing argument. And Farveie....I'm surprised you haven't brought up Farve more. He is definitely in the same class as many of the QB's being talked about here.
If you just needed 1 yard, Barry is not the guy you would want to hand off to. He lost more yardage than any RB in NFL history. He lost over 1,000 yards in his career!!!!! Also, if the QB was throwing a pass, Barry would not be one of the better blocking RBs. So, if you want an all purpose running back who did everything great, nobody was better than Walter Payton.
Payton was great and I've have him right behind Sanders. The difference for me is that Sanders rarely turned the ball over. In fact there were two seasons ( 91 & 94 ) that he had zero. In his 10 year career Sanders lost the ball just 41 times. Payton lost the ball 86 times. That's a huge difference. Only Franco Harris and Tony Dorsett fumbled more then Payton in their careers.
On any given day I could argue that Brown, Payton and Sanders were the best running back of all-time. Never seeing Brown play I have to rely on stats and others who did. FYI Barry Sanders dad who is one tough hombre said Brown was better then his son when asked about the greatest ever. In true Barry humility he replied even to be mentioned by his dad in the same sentence as Brown was high enough praise from a dad who didn't dote on his son. Honestly Barry Sanders could care less about fame or records. He never signed any endorsement deals as he values privacy over money and still lives in a 180k house near Detroit. He's a different breed of cat.
Payton had 2.58 catches per game and Sanders had 2.3. I'm sure Payton was a better blocker by the eye test. The Lions never really asked Sanders to block much. When they did, he did.
Sanders was the first running back to rush for 1500 yards five times. Four of them in a row.
Compact and strong Sanders quick cuts and elusiveness turns a lot of big losses into huge gains. Of course some stayed losses. He was indeed a home run threat. Others were much better at getting one yard. None were better at getting big chunks.
Barry Sanders holds the NFL record for most runs over 50 yards (25 times) and most touchdown runs over 50 yards (15 times). Jim Brown is next at 12.
Sanders had the most losses for yards during his career but I think it's rather over blown in the grand scheme of things. He lost yards on the average..........a little over twice a game. The average loss per game was just 7 yards. 1100 yards lost over 153 games equals 7 yards per game. Sanders averaged 20 touches a game and lost yards of just over 2 of them per game.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
@DIMEMAN said:
You're right this is silly to compare Qb's from different era's. I wasn't putting Graham down...I just don't like all the bad mouthing that Aikman get's because he was on a great team or he had the best line of all time. His QB numbers would surely have been higher if the Cowboys were a throwing team and not a run the ball down your throat team. But why not run a lot when you have the leading rusher of all time as your RB. I think that winning 3 out of 3 SB's and having a average 111 QB rating in the 3 SB's with a 140 and MVP in 1 SB and being 3rd behind Manning and Brady in total wins in a decade are more than enough to earn a spot in the HOF.
I'm assuming that you're going by wins in a calendar decade instead of just some random 10-year period (though going by calendar decade is also pretty random). Based on that, Troy had 90 wins from 1990-99. Brett Favre had 99 from 2000-2009.
@perkdog said:
Tom Brady is the best QB and that is not debatable, you want to argue who was better than Gretzky or Jordan that's fine but arguing a better QB than Brady is completely ridiculous. Yea I'm a homer but in today's standards vs yesteryears standards of straight up winning the guy has led his team to 7 Super Bowls winning 5 and 11 AFC Championship games winning 7.
I have always maintained that Super Bowl victories should not determine who the best QB is because there are too many variables outside control of the QB to make that such a definitive criteria.
However, I have seen people on here time and time again say that Montana is the best ever because he won four Super Bowls. You see people saying how great Aikman was by virtue of three Super Bowls. So clearly those people who say things such as those clearly use Super Bowls as the main criteria for judging a player.
For anyone who uses Super Bowls as a criteria, then Ton Brady is clearly the best ever. Clearly. It is not even debatable in that regard.
People spout off how Montana won four Super Bowls. Tom Brady matched those four super bowl wins, then added another....which means those people who value Super Bowls to such a high degree must automatically put Brady above Montana and anyone else. Then to further the cause, Brady also got to two more SUper Bowls that those players were not good enough to get their teams too(I say they are not good enough based on the critieria these people have established to rate players via Super Bowl wins).
PS. I put Brady up there too, because Brady has done all his magic with completely different sets teammates, and most of his career he has had average receives and average running game. He also is a guy that has made chicken salad out of chicken chit. Plus he has done better and LONGER than any other QB. His career value is unmatched.
to be fair and have a reasonable way to compare the relative "greatness" of a player in a Professional sport, what do we do, eliminate everyone who had the misfortune of playing before the Super Bowl was held?? should we use the criteria upheld by certain members here pertaining to eras when players were in the League?? though the nayseyers will argue the point, I feel confident that Otto Graham could play today at the same level that he displayed in his day. I would say the same for many, many other old-time players.
the question that I feel is more relevant, especially with Tom Brady --- could he have played back in the 1950's at the same level he plays today??
consider Otto Graham who played for the Cleveland Browns in the All-America Football Conference (AAFC) and National Football League (NFL). Graham is regarded by critics as one of the most dominant players of his era, having taken the Browns to league championship games every year between 1946 and 1955, winning seven of them. With Graham at quarterback, the Browns posted a record of 114 wins, 20 losses, and four ties, including a 9–3 win–loss record in the playoffs. While most of Graham's statistical records have been surpassed in the modern era, he still holds the NFL record for career average yards gained per pass attempt, with 8.98. He also holds the record for the highest career winning percentage for an NFL starting quarterback, at 0.814. Long-time New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, a friend of Graham's, once called him "as great of a quarterback as there ever was."[1] He is also known for being one of only two people (the other being Gene Conley) to win championships in two of the four major North American sports—1946 NBL (became NBA) and AAFC championship, plus three more AAFC and three NFL championships.
make a comparison between the above statistics and those of Tom Brady through his first 10 years, you might be surprised.
If we're going to include career stats, didn't Jim Brown play 14 games a season? Makes a bit of difference, no? A ten year career WITH 20 fewer games built in but has not mentioned. And this at a time when nearly EVERY TEAM ran the ball around 70% of the time so you knew it was coming. Faulting a guy for being the most physically gifted in his era is a very poor argument - it's been made against Brown, Wilt, Shaq, LeBron, etc. - and too me it doesn't hold any water.
I think Emmitt, Jim, Barry and Walter could ALL be considered the best. Just like Joe, Tom, John, Dan, Peyton and John would be in the QB DISCUSSION.
Argue for your favorite but recognize a strong case can e made for any...
I'd argue for Brown but all these guys were awesome in their own way...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Comments
I wasn't the one who brought Graham up to this conversation.
Cowgirls seem to have better cheer squad then football team. Lets face it they needed something to attract fans
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
True, but you were the one using stats to compare the two to make the silly argument that they were "pretty close," 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.
Mario Lemieux scored 5 goal in 5 games no other player has ever achieved that. And he pulled a average Team to Stanley cup winners twice during his run.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Tom Brady is the best QB and that is not debatable, you want to argue who was better than Gretzky or Jordan that's fine but arguing a better QB than Brady is completely ridiculous. Yea I'm a homer but in today's standards vs yesteryears standards of straight up winning the guy has led his team to 7 Super Bowls winning 5 and 11 AFC Championship games winning 7.
The 1919 montreal maroons were the best quarterback in baseball
Close.....BUT....Aikman was better.
Using your own criteria of championships:
7 > 3. Ergo, Graham > Aikman. Not even close.
Tom Brady is the best QB and that is not debatable
Oh???
everything is debatable and every era has its own plusses and minuses. with the old NFL I always end up considering that there were less Teams and that they each played everyone during the season. the plus in that is a better view of a Team's relative strength. the downside was that there were only 12 games played during the regular season.
I think that bears consideration.
it isn't unusual for a Team to have injuries or just to play poorly for a short stretch during a season: that wasn't a luxury that a Team could afford in the 50's when only one Team from a Conference made it into the Championship.
looking at that, it's remarkable that the Cleveland Browns made it to the game seven times in the decade --- not only seven times, but their first six years in the NFL and 7-8 years from 1950-1957. I expect you to argue that they were 3-4 during that run, but it is still remarkable. further, consider that when they were granted a franchise for the 1950 season they replaced the Cleveland Rams who had left in 1945. the NFL rewarded the new Team by having them start there first season against the defending NFL Champion, a game they won handily. they went on to face the Rams in the championship, and won in their first year. has any other Team in any Sport in any other Professional League done that??
during all of that there was a QB named Otto Graham. maybe you should ask Tom Brady what he thinks of that HOF player. did I also mention that prior to entering the NFL Cleveland dominated the AAC?? Otto Graham led his Team to the Championship Game of his league every year from 1946-1955 and won it seven times.
I think he would stand up to ANY debate.
As tough as it may be to identify the best baseball player, it is far easier to do so in baseball than in any other sport, thanks to Bill James, Pete Palmer, etc. giving us stats for which there are no comparable stats in any other sport. Also, because the game of baseball has changed far less over the years than the other sports have. And finally, because baseball is, almost entirely, an individual sport, not a team sport.
That Tom Brady is the best QB ever is certainly a defensible opinion, but there really is no way to objectively compare him to Otto Graham or Johnny Unitas - Brady is not playing the same game that Unitas played, and Unitas was not playing the same game that Graham played; the rules changes across eras had a huge effect on the game, and most of all on QB stats.
And then in hockey, you switched from best at a position to best player. Was Gretzky better than Bobby Orr? Was he better than Jacques Plante? The question is very much the same as "was Babe Ruth better than Wayne Gretzky?" Likewise, was Michael Jordan better than Wilt Chamberlain or better than Bob Cousy? I don't believe that there is any objective standard at all for deciding.
In baseball, as in all sports, the point is winning and winning means outscoring your opponent. "Greatness", then, is some combination of contributions towards scoring, and contributions towards preventing the opponent from scoring. In baseball, it's not really that hard to isolate the contributions made by each player, although the scoring part is easier than than the preventing scoring part. But in hockey? Very often the play most responsible for creating a goal isn't the shot on goal itself, or even the primary assist (although it can be either of those, too), but a steal behind a player's own net followed by a perfect pass to an open teammate who then starts the drive down ice to score. Hockey stats simply don't measure individual responsibility for goals. And when a goal is scored against, was it the goalie's fault, the defensemen's fault, or a sloppy pass at the other end of the ice by a forward? Again, stats don't measure that. And this all all gets back to baseball being an individual sport, and the others being team sports. An at bat is an isolated, measurable event. It either advances the cause of scoring a run or it doesn't. And it can be measured immediately. Where baseball has the home run, in no other sport is any one player ever completely responsible for scoring.
In every sport, there is no way to scientifically say that one player is a 9.95 and another is a 9.94, therefore the first player is better. What you get instead are clouds of probability, and those clouds are smaller in baseball than in any other sport. If we say that Ruth was somewhere between a 9.7 and a 10.0, there may be half a dozen others (like Mantle) with top ranges higher than 9.7. But once you get to the truly team sports, you get, say Tom Brady with a range of 9.0 to 10.0, and not only a dozen or more QBs with overlapping ranges, but dozens of players at all the other positions who overlap as well. And this is so because there is simply no way to separate Brady (or any other QB) from his OL, and his RBs and WRs. We can see that he's great, but there's no way to know how much of the greatness we see is really his own and how much is his teammates'.
I don't know where you get 7. He (Graham) won 3 NFL Championships. And I'll open another can of worms. I feel that winning a SB is harder than winning a Championship back then. My reasons are there are more games to a season and you have to play more playoff games. Plus the players are bigger, faster and stronger now.
Did you really just compare Otto's stats from the 40's and 50's to Aikman's from the 90's. You have got to be kidding me. Aikman is not even the best Cowboy Quarterback of all time. That goes to Staubach.
But back to Otto for a minute. He lead the league in yards passed 5 of his 10 years in the league. TDs 3. Completion percentage four times. Now that is one you so called better stats from above. Graham was in the top three each and every season but 1 where he was #5. When he retired he was tied for 2nd all time with 55.8%. Mind you in 1955 only 20 quarterbacks had a career completion over 50%. Are you really trying to compare these two different era stats? So Aikman better on % is moot.
But if you are let's keep going. When Graham retired he had the most passing yards of all time. He past Sammy Baugh for that. He was 2nd all time in TD's, behind Baugh. He was the all time Passer Rating leader for a career until 1983 with 86.6. Heck it is still 24th all time. That is simply amazing. Highest career yd/att with 9.0. Actually it is the highest still today. Highest EVER. Anyone remember this number for Aikman? Oh yeah, lowest of any HOF QB.
If you want to compare lifetime totals to a guy who played in 12 games a season to a guy who played 16 games a season so be it. But you really should do per game averages. You are being rather silly trying to compare those. Otto played 126 games to Aikman's 165. That over three more seasons than Graham. Seems to me those yards would be much closer.
Dimeman I thought you were smarter than this.
+4 AAFC titles, which were validated by the fact that the Browns won the NFL title their first year in the league.
**Highest career yd/att with 9.0. Actually it is the highest still today. Highest EVER. **
that, in conjunction with the highest winning percentage all-time for a starting QB says volumes. for any passing record to stand for 60+ years, a record that was set when running was still 50% of the game, is phenomenal. consider, also, that shortly after at the end of Graham's career the League started its transformation to a pass dominated offense.
for a QB's stats to stand after such a long period of time and such radical changes in the game is an amazing testament to that players skill.
I maintain that Sebastian Coe was the better miler than nemesis Steve Ovett.
You're right this is silly to compare Qb's from different era's. I wasn't putting Graham down...I just don't like all the bad mouthing that Aikman get's because he was on a great team or he had the best line of all time. His QB numbers would surely have been higher if the Cowboys were a throwing team and not a run the ball down your throat team. But why not run a lot when you have the leading rusher of all time as your RB. I think that winning 3 out of 3 SB's and having a average 111 QB rating in the 3 SB's with a 140 and MVP in 1 SB and being 3rd behind Manning and Brady in total wins in a decade are more than enough to earn a spot in the HOF.
As far as comparing teams from the 50's and 60's to 90's that is not fair either. The Browns from the 50's were great and the Packers from the 60's were great. When I said that those teams could not play with the 90's Cowboys is because of the difference in the size and speed and strength of players then and now. And if the players 40 years from now evolve at the same rate.....then the same could be said about them and the Cowboys.
This is my closing argument. And Farveie....I'm surprised you haven't brought up Farve more. He is definitely in the same class as many of the QB's being talked about here.
The game was different during the days of Otto Graham, Bobby Lane and Sammy Baugh.
There simply is no greatest QB of all-time just as there is no greatest anything of all-time.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Troy Aikman is hotter than Angela Akins
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
If you just needed 1 yard, Barry is not the guy you would want to hand off to. He lost more yardage than any RB in NFL history. He lost over 1,000 yards in his career!!!!! Also, if the QB was throwing a pass, Barry would not be one of the better blocking RBs. So, if you want an all purpose running back who did everything great, nobody was better than Walter Payton.
Payton was great and I've have him right behind Sanders. The difference for me is that Sanders rarely turned the ball over. In fact there were two seasons ( 91 & 94 ) that he had zero. In his 10 year career Sanders lost the ball just 41 times. Payton lost the ball 86 times. That's a huge difference. Only Franco Harris and Tony Dorsett fumbled more then Payton in their careers.
On any given day I could argue that Brown, Payton and Sanders were the best running back of all-time. Never seeing Brown play I have to rely on stats and others who did. FYI Barry Sanders dad who is one tough hombre said Brown was better then his son when asked about the greatest ever. In true Barry humility he replied even to be mentioned by his dad in the same sentence as Brown was high enough praise from a dad who didn't dote on his son. Honestly Barry Sanders could care less about fame or records. He never signed any endorsement deals as he values privacy over money and still lives in a 180k house near Detroit. He's a different breed of cat.
Payton had 2.58 catches per game and Sanders had 2.3. I'm sure Payton was a better blocker by the eye test. The Lions never really asked Sanders to block much. When they did, he did.
Sanders was the first running back to rush for 1500 yards five times. Four of them in a row.
Compact and strong Sanders quick cuts and elusiveness turns a lot of big losses into huge gains. Of course some stayed losses. He was indeed a home run threat. Others were much better at getting one yard. None were better at getting big chunks.
Barry Sanders holds the NFL record for most runs over 50 yards (25 times) and most touchdown runs over 50 yards (15 times). Jim Brown is next at 12.
Sanders had the most losses for yards during his career but I think it's rather over blown in the grand scheme of things. He lost yards on the average..........a little over twice a game. The average loss per game was just 7 yards. 1100 yards lost over 153 games equals 7 yards per game. Sanders averaged 20 touches a game and lost yards of just over 2 of them per game.
mark
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......
I'm assuming that you're going by wins in a calendar decade instead of just some random 10-year period (though going by calendar decade is also pretty random). Based on that, Troy had 90 wins from 1990-99. Brett Favre had 99 from 2000-2009.
I have always maintained that Super Bowl victories should not determine who the best QB is because there are too many variables outside control of the QB to make that such a definitive criteria.
However, I have seen people on here time and time again say that Montana is the best ever because he won four Super Bowls. You see people saying how great Aikman was by virtue of three Super Bowls. So clearly those people who say things such as those clearly use Super Bowls as the main criteria for judging a player.
For anyone who uses Super Bowls as a criteria, then Ton Brady is clearly the best ever. Clearly. It is not even debatable in that regard.
People spout off how Montana won four Super Bowls. Tom Brady matched those four super bowl wins, then added another....which means those people who value Super Bowls to such a high degree must automatically put Brady above Montana and anyone else. Then to further the cause, Brady also got to two more SUper Bowls that those players were not good enough to get their teams too(I say they are not good enough based on the critieria these people have established to rate players via Super Bowl wins).
PS. I put Brady up there too, because Brady has done all his magic with completely different sets teammates, and most of his career he has had average receives and average running game. He also is a guy that has made chicken salad out of chicken chit. Plus he has done better and LONGER than any other QB. His career value is unmatched.
Walter Payton
Barry Sanders
Jim Brown
Franco Harris
Tony Dorsett
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
For anyone who uses Super Bowls as a criteria
to be fair and have a reasonable way to compare the relative "greatness" of a player in a Professional sport, what do we do, eliminate everyone who had the misfortune of playing before the Super Bowl was held?? should we use the criteria upheld by certain members here pertaining to eras when players were in the League?? though the nayseyers will argue the point, I feel confident that Otto Graham could play today at the same level that he displayed in his day. I would say the same for many, many other old-time players.
the question that I feel is more relevant, especially with Tom Brady --- could he have played back in the 1950's at the same level he plays today??
consider Otto Graham who played for the Cleveland Browns in the All-America Football Conference (AAFC) and National Football League (NFL). Graham is regarded by critics as one of the most dominant players of his era, having taken the Browns to league championship games every year between 1946 and 1955, winning seven of them. With Graham at quarterback, the Browns posted a record of 114 wins, 20 losses, and four ties, including a 9–3 win–loss record in the playoffs. While most of Graham's statistical records have been surpassed in the modern era, he still holds the NFL record for career average yards gained per pass attempt, with 8.98. He also holds the record for the highest career winning percentage for an NFL starting quarterback, at 0.814. Long-time New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, a friend of Graham's, once called him "as great of a quarterback as there ever was."[1] He is also known for being one of only two people (the other being Gene Conley) to win championships in two of the four major North American sports—1946 NBL (became NBA) and AAFC championship, plus three more AAFC and three NFL championships.
make a comparison between the above statistics and those of Tom Brady through his first 10 years, you might be surprised.
Watched a few minutes of KC/PIT yesterday. I was kinda nodding off, but I swear I heard Romo compare Bell and his moves to Sanders in his prime. j
I think Bo was.
If we're going to include career stats, didn't Jim Brown play 14 games a season? Makes a bit of difference, no? A ten year career WITH 20 fewer games built in but has not mentioned. And this at a time when nearly EVERY TEAM ran the ball around 70% of the time so you knew it was coming. Faulting a guy for being the most physically gifted in his era is a very poor argument - it's been made against Brown, Wilt, Shaq, LeBron, etc. - and too me it doesn't hold any water.
I think Emmitt, Jim, Barry and Walter could ALL be considered the best. Just like Joe, Tom, John, Dan, Peyton and John would be in the QB DISCUSSION.
Argue for your favorite but recognize a strong case can e made for any...
I'd argue for Brown but all these guys were awesome in their own way...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest