I’m not sure why the fact that Montana would have won less with less talent around him than he had, and Marino would have won more with more talent around him than he had - both things that are certainly true - translates to “Marino was better than Montana.” You seem to be using the talent around Montana as a reason to ding him as a player. He had one of the best assemblages of talent a quarterback has ever had, and with them he produced about the best results possible: a string of excellent seasons, four championships, and statistically persuasive performance in his own right. By your standards, it would seem impossible for a player to be the greatest of all time if he has good players around him - not, in my view, a good standard.
I’d take Montana. In a single game for my life I want a QB with no weaknesses, and Montana had none. His arm was strong enough. His accuracy was unparalleled. He didn’t get easily shaken by adverse conditions. He wasn’t Steve Young or Randall Cunningham, but neither was he (in his prime) a stone statue in the pocket. I think he could adapt to whatever personnel you gave him.
Second is Manning (the elder); third maybe Marino but more likely Brady. Assuming we are playing the modern game, I couldn’t take Unitas or any of the guys pre-1980 or so, simply because I have no frame of reference to evaluate how they’d translate to today’s version of football.
Ok, I admit I saw a lot of Montana’s play before I became jaded and stopped paying as much attention, so I have little direct experience watching Brady or either of the Mannings.
That said, does the 49 stat above about the 49er defense account for time of possession? A good quarterback can make his defense stronger by keeping the offense on the field. My general impression is that Montana was on the field a LOT.
Right, what I said doesn’t prove that Marino was better than Montana. I just wanted to show that, despite their respective résumés, he *could *be better, and I strongly suspect that he was. I think that if you replaced Joe Montana with a league-average QB who had similar strengths & weaknesses – an Alex Smith-type, say – he would have one of the best careers of his era and be a borderline Hall of Famer. So, yeah, it’s hard for me not to downgrade Montana’s achievements somewhat. Still a great player, just not the greatest, IMHO.
Since I haven’t watche Johnny Unitas (clips, but no games), I won’t comment much on him. I can’t see, however, any 70’s QB dropped right now, even in their prime, and being successful.
You have confused “will a win” with “will to win”. It’s not about the desire to win (will to win), but getting a win simply by trying (will a win), no matter how shitty everyone else is. It’s like the star high school QB on a cheesy movie.
Peyton, Young, Montana, Brady, Aikman, and we can continue saying great QB names, but I’ll stand with my pick: Favre.
It’s just a thread on a MB and my family isn’t at risk. I can’t take it too seriously.
True, the offense’s efficiency would make the defense look a little better – not so much by controlling the clock, but by avoiding turnovers (that give the ball to other team in good field position) and by seldom being forced to punt from deep in their own end (field position again).
Still, defensive points allowed is mostly about the quality of the defense, and we can see this by comparing it to DVOA, which measures teams on a play-by-play basis, accounting for opponent and game situation, thereby removing any influence the offense has on the defense and vice versa. So far they only have DVOA numbers going back to 1989, but the 49ers offense and defense both continued operating at a similarly high level (and they kept running the same kind of offense with Steve Young) for several years after that. I can go into more detail if you like, but the 49ers rank in points allowed tracks pretty closely with their defensive DVOA rank, seldom varying by more than 4 or 5 spots (and sometimes, but not usually, DVOA thinks the defense was *better *than their points allowed would indicate). So, I’m comfortable saying that San Fran’s defense in the '80s was really damn good.
I’m more convinced by stats like passer rating, td/int ratio, and even yards per attempt than by nebulous, unmeasurable, and somewhat bizarre concepts like “willing a win”. Hell, I’d even settle for a discussion of arm strength, accuracy, and ability to put the ball in a spot than something like “willing a win”.
Rodgers has the lowest int%, highest td% (SB era), highest passer rating, highest yds/attempt (SB era), and 3rd in career completion percentage. He has all the tools a qb needs and more. It’s hard to say if his stats would look better or worse if he didn’t have to sit out his first 3 seasons but from a purely statistical argument I’d have a hard time not voting for Rodgers.
Rodgers’ career stats are awesome. No argument. He had one edge on most QBs, however, in that he didn’t have to step in as an unprepared rookies with a bad team, as many other QBs did. When he finally got to start, he was older and more mature and had a strong team around him.
Rodgers didn’t the few lousy years most highly drafted young QBs have, so his overall stats are better.
Peyton just set a bunch of Super Bowl records a few days ago. But, despite those Demonstrably Great Numbers, he wouldn’t even be the best Manning to choose to win the One Big Game. appleciders is right - Eli has a proven record of finding a way to win. Even though I despise the little prick as much as any Pats fan.
His stats would be worse if he’d played his first three years.
Adjusting for era, the guy with probably the best rate stats of all time is Steve Young. However, that’s not just because he was awesome (though he was). It’s also because most QBs have periods of weaker stats at the beginning of their careers (when they’re maturing and getting used to the pro game) and at the end of their careers (when their skills have begun to erode but they’re still playing). But Steve Young didn’t have those early rough years because he spent them on the bench in Tampa and San Fran, and he didn’t have the late decline phase because concussions ended his career before he started to meaningfully slip; his career was all peak. Aaron Rodgers so far is in pretty much the same position.
But the big asterisk next to Aaron Rodgers is that he’s put up his numbers in the context of the greatest passing offense era in NFL history. It’s much easier to have a passer rating of 100 now than in the '80s (and much much easier than it was in the '70s).
All that said, I agree that Aaron Rodger is great, and I don’t think he’s a horrible choice. Actually, Steve Young is a great comp for him in a lot of ways. I think Aaron Rodger basically is Steve Young.
Young also spent his first 2 years in the USFL, and even so, he was 23 when he got there. I think he had a Mormon mission in there too, as so many BYU players do, making them more physically mature than their competition.
Gotta wonder if the early struggling some QB’s have (those not named Wilson or Kaepernick, among others) is simply a matter of time, not of *playing *time.
These are good points, but remember the question says “any QB, in their prime.” So maybe we should pay more attention to those single season stats. Maybe I should say I’d take the 2011 Aaron Rodgers, or the 1994 Steve Young.
If this is ANY game, we don’t know the caliber of the opponent… it could be the 1985 Bears or one of the great “Steel Curtain” teams from Pittsburgh in 1970s. So you have to choose a QB that can deal with adversity and really knows how to manage a game, prepared to take what is given and not try to force the issue. For that reason, Brett Favre is not a good choice. And since the going might be tough, you don’t want a head-hanger like Peyton Manning.
I picked 3 QBs from 3 different eras in Unitas, Montana and Brady, but I do like the idea of a QB with mobility like Young. One more way to overcome a smothering defense. And Young, like the others, has the ability to put lots of points on the board, to counter an opponent that might be a high-scoring team, ala Air Coryell.
It boggles my mind that anyone would rather have a guy who just led the league with 27 interceptions (the highest season total in almost a decade and 5 more than the second worst QB) and led his team to a 7-9 record than a QB who set the NFL record for TD’s in a season, threw only 10 interceptions, and took his team to the Super Bowl. Take away a Giants defense that held the Pats to less than 17 points twice and a lucky throw that was caught on a helmet, and Eli is a never-was.
But he won twice. That’s the important part. His personal performance and that of the rest of his team apparently don’t matter. He willed his defense to play well.
I can’t really put a pre-modern QBs as my pick as the game is so different, so I’d probably go with Brady. Even in his prime, he’s about the only constant (except Belichick) when everything else around him changes from year to year, and he still puts up good stats all the time. Manning the Elder Brother is still in my top 5, though not the top guy.
Agree. While Eli is good, he was also very lucky. Although I’ll admit that play when he escaped the rush and connected with David Tyree was a great play.
Would someone argue that Trent Dilfer is as great as Peyton Manning because they both have won one Super Bowl championship each?