NFL The Best QB of All Time: Poll

[ausbacker]

Went back over this board to the beginning. There was a small piece about what kind of QB was needed.

From April 21 2002




1. Houston: QB David Carr, Fresno State

First impression: The expansion Texans now have the cornerstone around whom they can build the franchise around. Carr is a poised leader, and he is expected to take over the starting role by the fifth or sixth game.

Buchsbaum says: Potential franchise quarterback. When you have a chance to take an elite QB, you have to take him because you may never get the chance again. Everyone talks about the bust risk with QBs and how with a bad team they can get beaten up. By the same token, the bust risk at almost any position is there with the No. 1 pick in the draft, considering all of the pressure that is put on him. A lot of people like to make the point about how few QBs taken No. 1 have led their team to Super Bowl wins, like Terry Bradshaw and John Elway, and more often than not that is true. By the same token, you can take any other position and say the same thing. You can make a case for Bruce Smith, but how many players have there been other than Smith. O.J. Simpson never led the Bills to a Super Bowl. If you look at all the quarterbacks who have had great success in the NFL, there is only one common denominator. They all had a great ability to handle pressure. You had QBs like Bart Starr and Bob Griese with limited ability; you had QBs with weak arms like Jim McMahon. But the common denominator was they all could handle great pressure. In effect, the game slowed down for them and they could see the field, whereas most QBs, when the bullets start flying, it affects them. One reason Tom Brady had more success in New England than Drew Bledsoe is because Brady has so much more mental toughness. In terms of ability, there is no comparison. Why can a Billy Kilmer or a Joe Kapp lead a team to a Super Bowl? It’s simply intangibles and the ability to handle pressure that go hand in hand. The reason Jeff George is no longer in the league is he couldn’t handle the heat; he let the rush affect him. The reason Brett Favre is so successful is he has as much mental toughness and the ability to handle pressure as anyone in the game.

**
I think this is still valid. I have talked about game winning QBs and how much you need them, time slows down and they see things. Peyton was very good on-field play caller because he had this ability to see things, Rodgers knows when to go long, Ben Roethlisberger sets up time and time again.

Brady showed every ounce of his mental toughness yesterday

Carr's career is an intriguing one because one can only imagine what it may have become if Houston had given him a mediocre OL to play behind. The Texans really ****ed this one up badly.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Belichick would win easily.

Posted before SuperBowl 51, Id have voted Paul Brown
After orchestrating that comeback.... I might vote Belichick. Though, even though it's a hair splitting these two now imo, id probably just vote Paul Brown so he had some recognition in what would surely be a landside result here.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Brown hand picked the best college players and played against a handful of teams. Doesn't hold a candle to BB

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

The reason I'd probably take Montana over Brady

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Which reason is that?

 

[GreyCrow]

Which reason is that?

The one where they talked more about Elway than Montana

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Hehehe. Imagine getting a sore bottom over getting beaten in pool at home?

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Hehehe. Imagine getting a sore bottom over getting beaten in pool at home?

They're all the same. Why do you think they're so great?

 

[imadodgyumpire]

They have "presence".

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Interesting note about that clip.

Romanowski said with those earlier Patriots teams. Brady was part of a "conventional offense". They won 3 SB in Brady's first four seasons.

But since the offence became all about Brady, and just throwing the ball. They've won only 2 of the next twelve SB. Not one for 10 years.

Hmmm...

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Yes. Exactly

Brady didn't become Brady until like 06. Where he actually put the team on his back.

It's the same with every QB tho. Brady, Manning, etc. Takes about 7 or 8 years for them to reach their peak where they are the guy on that team

 

[imadodgyumpire]

I think my point may've been missed...

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

I think my point may've been missed...

Would you like to reiterate it?

 

[ausbacker]

Yes. Exactly

Brady didn't become Brady until like 06. Where he actually put the team on his back.

It's the same with every QB tho. Brady, Manning, etc. Takes about 7 or 8 years for them to reach their peak where they are the guy on that team

In fairness to Brady, with the dynasty defences the Patriots were trotting out, he didn't need to be more than what the team needed him to be (and clutch). That said, you're right.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

In fairness to Brady, with the dynasty defences the Patriots were trotting out, he didn't need to be more than what the team needed him to be (and clutch). That said, you're right.

Correct

 

[GreyCrow]

Would you like to reiterate it?

Brady won 3 SBs playing in a conventional side where everybody was a part of the overall piece.

Since the focus became about Brady they have won 2 in 10 years. ie Brady struggles when its Bradys team

That's how I read it

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Brady won 3 SBs playing in a conventional side where everybody was a part of the overall piece.

Since the focus became about Brady they have won 2 in 10 years. ie Brady struggles when its Bradys team

That's how I read it

2 SB's in 10 years isn't struggling. But it proves he's not GOD

 

[Indie_]

Even if you just take into account what has happened post the 2004 season, I think Brady still comes out on top of all his contemporaries. You would say that since 2005, the greatest five QBs have been Brady, Manning, Brees, Roethlisberger and Rodgers.

- Brady was the driving force behind two superbowl wins. Manning and Roethlisberger both won two as well, but fair to say that in Manning's 2nd and Ben's 1st neither was the main reason that team won the superbowl. Brees and Rodgers only one superbowl win.

- He also has appeared in more Superbowl's than any other quarterback. He's been four times. Manning and Roethlisberger have been three. Brees and Rodgers only once.

- Manning has 3 MVPs, Brady has 2, Rodgers has 2. Manning was 1st team All-Pro four times. Brady and Rodgers both 1st team All-Pro twice. Brees has been 1st team All-Pro once.

- Brees has the most touchdowns post 2005. Brady 2nd, Manning 3rd. Rodgers is 6th, Roethlisberger 7th.

- Brees has the most yards post 2005. Brady 2nd. Roethlisberger 5th. Manning 6th. Rodgers 9th.

- In terms of peak seasons, and just outright dominance. Brady was historically dominant in 2007. Rodgers in 2011. Manning in 2013. Wouldn't say either Brees or Roethlisberger have a season that is comparable to any of those three.

So when you undertake a comparative analysis of the best since 2005, and don't consider any of Brady's achievements prior to that you can still make the argument that he comes out on top of his contemporaries. I would argue that Brady 2005-present would easily be considered one of the top quarterbacks of all time, without ever taking into account the three early superbowl wins.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

He played a significant part in the first three SB wins.....and are we talking Bill Romanowski...the kicker (as in kicks people in the head), spitter and more than likely racist who finished a teammates career at training by ripping off his helmet and breaking his eye socket. A guy many suspected of suffering from roid rage.....that guy??

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

You can't just take post 2004 for all QB's. It was a different point for all of them. They weren't all drafted the same year as Brady

 

[Exe Gesis]

You guys are still all looking at this wrong. Your main focus in discussing QBs is who won the most SBs, who appeared in the most SBs, who won their SBs being in a conventional offense or not, etc.

It's NOT about SBs, when judging THE best players in ANY position per se. In and of itself, the position in which a player plays in, how do we define their greatness at that position?

Put it this way....look at all the people in the HOF. Dozens of QBs, dozens of WRs, dozens of DEs, etc. They got there being the very best at their positions irrespective of SB wins or not.

 

[GreyCrow]

You guys are still all looking at this wrong. Your main focus in discussing QBs is who won the most SBs, who appeared in the most SBs, who won their SBs being in a conventional offense or not, etc.

It's NOT about SBs, when judging THE best players in ANY position per se. In and of itself, the position in which a player plays in, how do we define their greatness at that position?

Put it this way....look at all the people in the HOF. Dozens of QBs, dozens of WRs, dozens of DEs, etc. They got there being the very best at their positions irrespective of SB wins or not.

Is this to be followed up by ''Marino is the best''?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Is this to be followed up by ''Marino is the best''?

If Marino won 3 SBs, it still wouldn't be a reason why or why not.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Would you like to reiterate it?

Brady won 3 SBs playing in a conventional side where everybody was a part of the overall piece.

Since the focus became about Brady they have won 2 in 10 years. ie Brady struggles when its Bradys team

That's how I read it

You were close GC. But the bolded is the part that is a misinterpretation.

I'm just noting that when Brady played his part in an overall team/offence. They won 3 SB in his first four seasons. But when TB was singled out and the focus was put on him. They didn't win for ten years. It was all about Tom and what he did, as opposed to being a team oriented plan. Maybe the Patriots would be celebrating their 8th, 9th, 10th SB win, had the focus not become on Brady?

 

[imadodgyumpire]

In fairness to Brady, with the dynasty defences the Patriots were trotting out, he didn't need to be more than what the team needed him to be (and clutch). That said, you're right.

On the contrary. The defences of the early-00 Patriots were a cohesive bunch of modestly talented cheap shot bums, which is a reflection on Belichick's attitude. Along with their success in those days. It contributes to the sustained dislike a lot of fans who remember them still have. Despite the fact that only Brady and Belichick remain from those times, and neither were a player on defence.