True, but I’m generally not big on “intangibles.” With a big game oin the line, I want a guy that the numbers show is a great quarterback, NOT a guy my gut tells me has “swagger” or The Right Stuff.
Then what do the numbers tell you is a great quarterback? Peyton Manning is a great choice to start that One Game For The Future of Civilization, is he?
Hello contempt my old friend
According to wikipedia, among the 50 QB’s with the most wins, Tom Brady has the best win percentage as a starter at .775, followed by Roger Staubach at .746, Joe Montana at .713, and Peyton Manning at .696. If you look only at playoff records, you’ll choose Frank Reich at 2-0 as a starting QB in playoff games, or, if you get rid of the undefeated QB’s, you’ll want Bart Starr with a 9-1 record, a .900 winning percentage.
OK, but you have to ignore the fact that team winning percentage is an absurd way to judge a quarterback. I realize the guys at ESPN measure QBs by this method all the time, but that’s because it is a simple method and they’re good at simple.
I agree, using only team wins and losses is a poor way to judge a QB’s play. Which is why I was questioning the selection of Terry Bradshaw as the guy to win you one game. That was kinda my point.
Joe Montana.
Wait, is this a trick question? Like, there’s kryptonite on the field, or something?
Bret Favre.
I wouldn’t want him for my team, but ONE game, win or bust, you need a reckless motherfucker.
If I was forced to play with a bunch of scrubs against a clearly better opponent, I may take Favre. But if I have even a fighting chance, he’s way too interception/stupid mistake prone for me if I had to win.
I would pick that quarterback who was awesome when I was 13 or so.
(In my case, Joe Montana.)
I’ll take Tom Brady to game manage the first three quarters. If we happen to be losing, I sub in Dan Marino to close it out.
Hard to argue with any of vintage Manning, Brady, Steve Young, or Montana.
I’m partial to Young so that’s how I’d go.
What if you wanted to lose one game? Give me Blaine Gabbert.
Montana.
Yeah, but if it’s “win or we kill your family” I can think of no QB, that I watched, to will a win better than him.
“Will to win”? Do you imagine that Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Steve Young, Joe Montana, or Johnny Unitas didn’t want to win as badly as Brett Favre? They want to win as badly as him, otherwise they wouldn’t have been the best, and they would do so without throwing idiotic interceptions to cost his team a game (well, they might, but not as frequently).
If it were my family’s life and I’m not facing an incredible uphill battle with sub-par talent around him, there is no way in hell I’m letting him QB my team.
Eli Manning. Two Superbowls from behind. In total honesty, I’m a Colts fan, but two come-from-behind victories against the Patriots gets my allegiance.
People need to differentiate between those quarterbacks who were the best and those who had the best careers.
Joe Montana might have had the best career, and he was a great QB in his own right, but pointing to his championships as evidence that he was the best QB ever, or the one who gives you the best chance to win one big game, ignores several huge chunks of the puzzle.
Montana was the 49ers primary QB for 10 years, from 1981 to 1990. In that time, he got to play with a borderline Hall of Fame RB (Roger Craig), a legendary Head Coach who single-handedly revolutionized offensive strategies (Bill Walsh), the greatest football player of all time (Jerry Rice), and, perhaps most importantly, a consistently elite defense. Link. In 1982 the San Fran defenders had an off year and were the 21st ranked scoring defense. In the other nine years, the defense was 8th in 1988 and 4th or better every other year. That’s a preposterously excellent run, and Joe Montana had basically nothing to do with it. People generally understand that Terry Bradshaw’s success had more to do with those defenses than with his own performance, but it’s no exaggeration to to say that the '80s San Fran defenses were almost as good as the Steel Curtain units, and Joe Montana never gets downgraded for it.
If I had to pick a QB, at his peak, to win me one game … I would probably go with Dan Marino, 1984-86. Marino had possibly the worst supporting casts of any all-time-great quarterback. His WRs, Mark Duper and Mark Clayton, were OK but nothing special: solid pros whose production was aided immeasurably by playing Marino. And that was it. The only thing more pathetic than Marino’s defense was his running game. (Ok, that’s not entirely fair: the defense had a few good years and several more average years. But they finished in the bottom half of the league in points allowed 10 out of 17 years … and the running game really was pathetic.)
I can’t say with confidence that if Marino had played for the 49ers he would have won as many championships as Montana did, but I’m positive that Montana would have won fewer (probably zero) had he played for those Dolphins teams.
After Marino, I would strongly consider Peyton Manning, Steve Young, and Johnny Unitas. Not John Elway, that’s for sure.
This same question is often asked about baseball pitchers- “If it’s Game 7 of the World Series,” who do you want on the mound?"
I think the answer SHOULD be a guy that the numbers show was a phenomenal pitcher! Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux… any of those guys would make sense to me.
But somehow, there are a lot of people who’ll ignore the demonstrably great pitchers and go with their gut, saying, “Catfish Hunter- he was a MONEY pitcher” or “Jack Morris- he was at his best in big games.”
Well, different strokes for different folks. I say if you want to win ANY game, you go with the BEST player, not someone you THINK is a “clutch” player.
Joe Montana.
Joe Cool. Surely the winner if this was a poll.