The greatest QB in the history of the NFL

[ralaw]

Otto Graham

During an astounding career in which the Browns compiled a 105-17-4 record, at the time of his retirement Graham's 86.6 career pass rating (combined AAFC and NFL) served as one of the best of all time, tossing 188 touchdowns in ten seasons of play.

Graham played six seasons in the NFL and took the Cleveland Browns to the NFL Championship Game all six seasons, winning three NFL titles. Including four seasons in which his team captured four AAFC titles, Graham played ten total seasons of professional football and made the league championship game all ten seasons, winning seven league titles. In his single season as a professional basketball player, the Rochester Royals (today's Sacramento Kings) also captured the league title. Thus, in 11 seasons as a professional athlete, Otto Graham's teams made the championship all eleven years, winning eight titles.

 

[killgod]

These conversations are always so hard because of the criteria being different from poster to poster.

I mean, what's more important, regular season dominance or clutch late game/postseason play? Does leadership matter or just the raw ability to hit a pinpoint from 40 yards out?

Peyton Manning is a fucking god on Sunday's until it gets cold out. There's no denying he goes from elite QB to sometimes good sometimes average in the postseason.

How much does that matter? Is winning not everything? Or does his regular dominance during the year make up for it overall?

There's just too many factors to even waste my time debating why one and not the other, so I avoid these now. Just wanted to ramble on about why this is pointless IMO

 

[bucky]

Otto Graham

I mentioned O. Graham to my brother the other day when talking about GOAT. I did'nt pick OG, but I said you can't forget about him. My brother didn't even know who he was.

 

[ralaw]

I mentioned O. Graham to my brother the other day when talking about GOAT. I did'nt pick OG, but I said you can't forget about him. My brother didn't even know who he was.

Sadly, most don't. Its one of those things were the old guys are simply forgotten. I never saw Graham play and never have even seen a highlight of him, but since everyone loves to pick Monanta because of his 4 SBs, then why not pick Graham? As far as winning championshpis he dominated his era more than anyone we've seen. The only argument that can be made against Graham is that he played during segregation.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Montana actually got better in the playoffs against tougher competition. Manning gets significantly worse.

Tell that to his superbowl ring

 

[mgoblue2290]

Joe Montana.

 

[Aso]

youre kidding right?

You're right I'm kidding. In Kansas City he had an amazing arsenal of weapons. Willie Davis, JJ Birden, Jonathan Hayes, a declining Marcus Allen...

 

[Aso]

Tell that to his superbowl ring

Whether he has a superbowl ring or not doesn't make that any less true.

 

[Aso]

These conversations are always so hard because of the criteria being different from poster to poster.

I mean, what's more important, regular season dominance or clutch late game/postseason play? Does leadership matter or just the raw ability to hit a pinpoint from 40 yards out?

Peyton Manning is a fucking god on Sunday's until it gets cold out. There's no denying he goes from elite QB to sometimes good sometimes average in the postseason.

How much does that matter? Is winning not everything? Or does his regular dominance during the year make up for it overall?

There's just too many factors to even waste my time debating why one and not the other, so I avoid these now. Just wanted to ramble on about why this is pointless IMO

My criteria goes as: I'd say all equal so if it were in percentages it would all be 20% each.

Regular season consistency, If you can win without having a lot of talent around you, If you can win having different guys around you, how clutch a QB is, and then how many Superbowl wins you have.


I'm also gonna say I think it's too hard to judge players that played in the Early-Mid 60's and before then which is why I have to exclude Johnny Unitas, Otto Graham, Sammy Baugh, etc. from my decision making process. My judging goes from Superbowl era forward.

 

[Fox1994]

I'll go back, but I don't think I need to. You said you love Brett, but white text says Manning is number 1 (I believe). I'll go back and check.

Went back and re read it. That's what you said. What am I missing?

In white text he wrote "Seriously though, Peyton Manning is untouchable"

You should get VSN black. Makes it easier to avoid that sort of trickery. lol

---

Personally, I don't really believe Marino's in the discussion. He's top-ten all time, top-five all time, I just don't think he's the greatest.

I think that's John Unitas or Joe Montana, with Favre and Peyton definitely up there, but not quite the greatest... At least in my mind.

 

[G-men]

You're right I'm kidding. In Kansas City he had an amazing arsenal of weapons. Willie Davis, JJ Birden, Jonathan Hayes, a declining Marcus Allen...

yeah because Roger Craig and Jerry Rice really suck

 

[Aso]

yeah because Roger Craig and Jerry Rice really suck

I wasn't referring to those teams... I was referring to the Chiefs team in '93 he was on. He won without a lot of talent around him.

 

[bucky]

yeah because Roger Craig and Jerry Rice really suck

He was talking about the KC years, not the SF years. Montana did very well with less talent during those few KC years.

 

[MrBill]

Montana is still the best IMO. My favorite is still Favre of course but I have him more in the 3rd or 4th best of all-time slot. I could see how anyone could make a case for Montana, Marino, Elway, Favre, Unitas or Manning to the GOAT.

 

[ram29jackson]

isnt this like the 5th thread of this type in 2 years....


Brett Favre owns all the stats. he is the present king of football history.

there never is and never will be a greatest of all time.

 

[G-men]

I wasn't referring to those teams... I was referring to the Chiefs team in '93 he was on. He won without a lot of talent around him.

He was talking about the KC years, not the SF years. Montana did very well with less talent during those few KC years.

yeah but Montana didnt make his career playing in KC so it doesnt matter. when you say, "he won without talent," i think of him winning in SF, not him playing in KC because

a. his prime wasn't spent in KC
b. he didnt "win" anything in KC

and since you didnt address that you were talking about his lesser years in KC in the original post, thats what i was responding to.

 

[Aso]

yeah but Montana didnt make his career playing in KC so it doesnt matter. when you say, "he won without talent," i think of him winning in SF, not him playing in KC because

a. his prime wasn't spent in KC
b. he didnt "win" anything in KC

and since you didnt address that you were talking about his lesser years in KC in the original post, thats what i was responding to.

He didn't make his career their but to me it's a very important part of his career. I know he didn't have incredible talent around him in '81 but I really don't know a whole lot about the '81 49ers to judge their. In '84, '88, and '89 he had a lot of talent around him. In my judgment of the greatest QB's of all time it's important that one wins without a lot of talent around him which is what he did in KC. They got to the championship game. I also thought it was obvious I was talking about his KC years. It's also incredibly dumb to dismiss the things he did in KC because it wasn't the prime of his career and that what he did in KC "doesn't matter".

 

[Aso]

yeah but Montana didnt make his career playing in KC so it doesnt matter. when you say, "he won without talent," i think of him winning in SF, not him playing in KC because

a. his prime wasn't spent in KC
b. he didnt "win" anything in KC

and since you didnt address that you were talking about his lesser years in KC in the original post, thats what i was responding to.

Thats like if someone argued Favre as the greatest of all time and mentioned something about his '09 season as a Viking you saying it doesn't matter because he didn't make his career their, he didn't "win" anything so it doesn't matter. Thats really dumb...

 

[G-men]

He didn't make his career their but to me it's a very important part of his career. I know he didn't have incredible talent around him in '81 but I really don't know a whole lot about the '81 49ers to judge their. In '84, '88, and '89 he had a lot of talent around him. In my judgment of the greatest QB's of all time it's important that one wins without a lot of talent around him which is what he did in KC. They got to the championship game. I also thought it was obvious I was talking about his KC years. It's also incredibly dumb to dismiss the things he did in KC because it wasn't the prime of his career and that what he did in KC "doesn't matter".

i never said his KC years didnt matter or werent important. all i said was that your original post was misleading because you said he won without talent and when i think about Montana and winning i think about him in SF, just as anyone else would.

 

[Colonel Angus]