I get what you're trying to say but those two examples aren't really comparable in fairness. When you're discussing the best QB's (or players in any sport) at the highest level it's usually fine margins and you have to really delve into every area. I think rings can play at least a role in part of the argument but it doesn't have to be a big one. There's much bigger areas and as importantly how the rings were won, under what circumstances, the players surrounding the player, the coach, the system, did the player win those rings on different teams or under different coaches/systems etc. I don't think they should be completely disregarded.
NFL 2017/18
- Thread starter JustAFan
- Start date
- Status
I get what you're trying to say but those two examples aren't really comparable in fairness. When you're discussing the best QB's (or players in any sport) at the highest level it's usually fine margins and you have to really delve into every area. I think rings can play at least a role in part of the argument but it doesn't have to be a big one. There's much bigger areas and as importantly how the rings were won, under what circumstances, the players surrounding the player, the coach, the system, did the player win those rings on different teams or under different coaches/systems etc. I don't think they should be completely disregarded.
Yes they can play a part obviously but too often people use them alone as justification for calling whoever the best.
I mean ignoring them though is as ridiculous as making them the only factor.
And the Chadwick Giggs example is pretty ridiculous too...
Anyone who doesn't think Brady is at the very least in the discussion for GOAT is frankly biased.
Rodgers is the most naturally talented QB without a doubt at the moment. But then when we think "talent" we tend to think just raw physical attributes and ability.
But passion / determination / fight / ability to perform under pressure ... often ignored in the "talent" bucket but are talents imo too.
The rule changes from era to era also come into play, it's why even comparing stats from QB's in different era's is difficult.
I thought it wasn't a debate anymore. Brady has the numbers and the rings.
Rings, believe it or not, aren't the only consideration when considering the goat. You have to mix team success with individual success (stats etc).
Still, Brady is the goat. Montana is not far behind. The likes of Manning, Favre, Elway, etc.
Manning and Favre definitely belong in the convo as they've both won Superbowls (2 for Peyton), played in several more and are the all time leaders in TDs, yards, and completions.
Still, Brady is the goat. Montana is not far behind. The likes of Manning, Favre, Elway, etc.
Manning and Favre definitely belong in the convo as they've both won Superbowls (2 for Peyton), played in several more and are the all time leaders in TDs, yards, and completions.
Favre is arguably the most overrated QB ever. Great QB no doubt but I can name a good 10, 15 QBs I'd take over him. In fact, he's not the best in Packers history, which is Rodgers. Can be argued Starr was better than Favre as well.
Based on what ? He's number one or two in all the major individual stats and went to two superbowls (winning one). That's a million miles away from overrated.
Pete Rose is the all-time leader in hits, at-bats, plate appearances and games played, doesn't make him a top five/ten player of all-time.
My belief is that I could take the likes of Elway, Montana, P Manning, Brady, Staubach, Unitas, Rodgers, Brees, Young, and win more championships than Favre while accomplishing the same stat piling due to longevity.
*Brady has already won so much more with so much less.
*Staubach appeared in five SBs, started four, and won two while doing things in the 70s that would be akin to the likes of Montana and Rodgers today.
*Elway took three weak sides to SBs in the late 80s granted the AFC was a collection of garbage at that time. I can't even begin to think what Elway and Marino would achieve under Holmgren and those Packers sides (same can be said if Elway or Marino had been fortunate to play for Walsh/49ers - they'd have obliterated passing records and won multiple titles).
*Brees and Young may play in vacuums and can be reasonably argued slightly greater or slightly less great than Favre.
*No contest when comparing Favre to P Manning, Montana, and Unitas.
Favre's biggest call for greatness was that he never missed games and started for like 18 years. He's the Cal Ripken of NFL lore, a great player but ain't a sane person taking Ripken over Banks, ARod, Jeter, Honus, and could be argued Ozzie as well. As much as Cal benefited the Orioles there were plenty of time his slumps and defense cost his side but he wanted to play every game and achieve a streak. Favre is quite similar in that aspect.
That's why I said you have to combine team accomplishments with individual ones. None of the people you listed have the career stats that Manning and Favre do.
And as for Rose, he is widely regarded as the best base hit player in history, although in MLB culture, its the home run hitters that get more attention.
By the same token, the game itself is different - defenders could be much more physical in defending the pass, for example.
I still haven't seen a QB who can surpass Montana - not saying that I do not rate Rodgers and Brady - they are both exceptional. But Montana was peerless in my opinion.
It's not a cultural thing, Pete Rose just isn't that great. He's 65th all time in WAR.
So you're arguing for stat piling and longevity. Do you believe Emmitt Smith is the greatest running back ever?
For the third time, its a combination of team success and individual success. Going back to the Brady example, he has 5 rings (team) and is among the top 5 in all major career passing stats (attempts, completions, yards, and TDs) - individual. That's the winning formula.
And therefore Favre isn't amongst the top five/ten QBs ever. My contention is hearing armchair fans claim "oh yeah, Favre is up there in that group with Montana, Brady, and P Manning" and John Madden's constant love fest when he's a level below those elite QBs. You brought up the stats as an argument for Favre while I'm looking at the entire picture not just longevity and stats.
I've listed at least nine players that can be argued above him on a whole (stats, talent, winning) and that's before bringing up other all-time greats like Layne, Van Brocklin, Fouts, Bradshaw, Aikman, Ben R, Tarkenton, Warner, all of whom can be argued better than/similar level to Favre.
As great as Favre was I feel he should have won more championships. But he choked in numerous playoff games - NY Giants, New Orleans and Philly off the top of my head - where he threw crucial interceptions late in games that ultimately cost his team a win/shot at winning.
Favre is indeed in that pantheon by virtue of his career stats. He's either first or second in every key passing category. He's played in two superbowls and won one, while playing for a small market team. That's obviously not his claim to fame - its the 71k yards, TDs, and other relevant passing stats that make him one of the best ever.
None of the players you listed other than Aikman are in the Favre category. Fouts never even played in a SuperBowl, Tarkenton never won one.
I like Brees.
Small market team as a plus doesn't work in a league with collective revenue sharing. This ain't Leicester City or Kansas City Royals competing against an open field.
Warner won a title while appearing in three SBs overall (with two clubs might I add), losing twice on last second drives by the opposition yet won the same amount of titles as Favre. The only lesser thing on his CV is longevity. Warner was the more the accurate passer although he did play in a vacuum.
Ben R has already won two titles in three SB appearances and Bradshaw won four while only lacking the passing stats due to 1) the era and 2) the system under Knoll (much like Aikman's lack of elite passing stats). Many don't recall how fantastic Bradshaw played in the last two SB seasons and early 80s when the passing game opened up and Knoll entrusted his talent. He's massively underrated by many.
Tarkenton racked up 47000 passing yards when passing wasn't what it is today. The only thing holding him down from truly elite status was the lack of titles won.
Layne and Van Brocklin played in eras that are tough to gauge against modern standards. Favre is likely above these two although it's near inconceivable to compare.
Fouts was Favre before the latter existed and the only mark against him is lack of SB appearances, which as you have argued and I do agree is not wholly on him. Fouts probably belongs in a level with Kelly, Moon, Jurgensen, Vinny, Title, Romo, Dawson, Stabler, etc.
Its relevant to the extent that the Packers during the 90s weren't the machine the way the Packers of the 60s, Steelers of the 70s, 49ers of the 80s, and Pats of the 2000s were. They were a run of the mill mid market team with no dynastic coaching setup or hall of fame players like the aforementioned teams. They had one great offensive player (Favre) and one great Defensive player in Reggie White.
Warner doesn't have the career stats that Favre does. He's 35th on the TD list and 38th in yards. He shouldn't even be brought up.
Agreed, he was a great passer in his day, but no rings. Same with Marino.
Rest assured if Favre played in Fouts' Air Coryell offense, with weapons like Joyner, Chandler, Jefferson, and Winslow, he would've racked up even bigger numbers than he did. This is what makes his stats in Green Bay all the more impressive. It was a basic west coast offense.
Just to change the conversation slightly...
Watching hard knocks has made me really like Winston. I really do hope he has a great career.
Watching hard knocks has made me really like Winston. I really do hope he has a great career.
Just watch the first ep of Hard Knocks.
Highlights were McWeapon facetiming Snoop Dogg while the latter was clearly rolling a joint, and the guys discussing Game of Thrones right at the end.
Highlights were McWeapon facetiming Snoop Dogg while the latter was clearly rolling a joint, and the guys discussing Game of Thrones right at the end.
There's no other position in any other professional sport (other than a starting pitcher who pitches once every five days) that influences his team's chances of winning or losing more than a QB. I'd say the number of rings is a great barometer when it comes to judging the all-time best QBs. Rodgers isn't even the best among those currently playing, easily behind Brady.
As others have said, GOAT is Montana.
Last edited:
I hate you with every fiber of my being.Rodgers would make Montana look average if you put him in an offense that was ahead of its time and surrounded by HoF on both offense and defense.
Elway and Marino would've as well.
Best line from 2nd episode of Hard Knocks: "Hey Fitz, how was it playing against Bart Starr?" 
Best line from 2nd episode of Hard Knocks: "Hey Fitz, how was it playing against Bart Starr?"
Season ending injury on the starting Seahawks OL. As you can imagine, with our OL, this is a concern.
It's all right man you have the gun Wilson
not a concern - that's a devastating injury.
Was really rooting for Fant and was buying into the hype by Carroll and Cable. Shame for the player. Our rookies looked rough. Griffin and Pocic were struggling. Second year players like Odhiambo, Ifedi and Collins didn't do themselves any favours. Rawls and Prosise continue to pick up injuries. Aside from that quite good.
Lott and Rice were the only two HOFs. Their main advantage was Walsh's coaching.
He was great, but Brady has been better.
If you're referring to Brady unseating Montana for GOAT, an argument can certainly be made. I've got Brady as my #2 in the discussion for GOAT. One more Super Bowl, and I might have Brady ahead. Very tough to compare different eras. Two reasons why I've got Montana ahead of Brady, Brady lost the 2008 and 2012 Super Bowls and Belichick is undoubtedly the greatest head coach of all-time. Better than the Genius.
Brady is pretty much widely regarded as GOAT now. Even if you think there's a debate, Brady has more rings and an unparalleled 7 super bowl appearances. Statistically, Montana is far behind in all the key categories (TD, attempts, completions, yards etc).
That's what I don't get about people claiming Favre to be on of the top QBs of all-time, the proof is in the pudding, his style of play was so different from Brady and Rodgers and it was his biggest downfall. He was a gun-slinger, a do-it-all, a guy that gave up his body to get the final yard - the problem is that he turned the ball over way too much, and in the playoffs this was evident. For the 508 TDs he had, he threw 336 INTs. Brady on the other hand has 456 TDs and 152 INTs. I'm not a Packer fan but I can imagine they were on the edge of their seats every time he took a snap in the playoffs.
The show is really making him look good, but I can't get over the numerous crazy things he did at FSU. Sexual assault, shoplifting, disorderly conduct. If he's changed, then cool I wish him the best. This season is shaping up to be better than the Rams in 2016.
But we just met, maybe you'll come around to hating me in the future, but not now.
Fred Dean and Charles Haley on defense, too. That team had many advantages, that's why it was only them and the Cowboys from the mid-80s to mid-90s that consistently had playoff success.
For me it's impossible to separate Brady and Rodgers, I waver back and forth and I'll accept either one as GOAT. I don't care about stats as much as some people do, and rings aren't a perfect qualifier for greatness (as we've detailed in this thread). Doing the best with what they've got and their unflappability especially in the playoffs are keys for me. Rodgers never had a great team around him, Brady sometimes does, but he's got the greatest coach of all time as well. I'd also like to point out that Peyton Manning used to be part of these discussions until he fell off a gigantic cliff his past year or so in the NFL. Having Osweiler of all people take the reigns of that Broncos team, and the defense obliterating everything that moved during those playoffs really seemed to dimish Manning's greatness. Maybe we'll all reconsider in the future.
I don't get the hype about Rodgers. His only claim to fame in the stat department is his QB rating, which is the highest ever. If however you combine team success with individual stats, he is really no better off than his contemporaries during the same period he's played in. Big Ben and Eli Manning have won more Super Bowls and outpassed him in yardage and TDs, as has Matt Ryan during the same period. Currently Matt Ryan is the best QB in the league and Brady is the GOAT. Rodgers is definitely in the top 5 among current QBs
As much as it pains me to say it (as I grew up as a huge Marino fan), Marino's lack of rings precludes him from any talk of GOAT. Plain and simple, Montana is just a winner.
He was a great QB, certainly in the discussion. He was however also helped significantly by playing in the Walsh machine and having the greatest receiver ever at his disposal. That helped a lot.
All this talk of Rodgers as GOAT, is frankly laughable. And I say that with respect. Rodgers is a great QB who prolly does more for his team than any other current QB. Take him off that Packers team and they're going nowhere. If Brady suffered a season-ending injury, Pats are still gonna win some games. Having said all that and recognizing his value to the Packers, he's nowhere near the conversation for GOAT.
This current era of QBs has been helped greatly by prolific passing offenses which produces silly numbers. It's apples and oranges when trying to compare stats from different eras. Which makes it even more impressive what Marino did in the 80s/90s.
This current era of QBs has been helped greatly by prolific passing offenses which produces silly numbers. It's apples and oranges when trying to compare stats from different eras. Which makes it even more impressive what Marino did in the 80s/90s.
While Bill Walsh was the head coach of the Niners in '81, Montana didn't have Rice back then. But yes you're right, having the best WR of all-time to throw to for most of his career certainly helped.
- Status