Comparing different era quarterbacks

[rajncajn]

Here's an honest question. If Manning, Brady, Rodgers and/or Brees played in the Montana/Marino eras then how do you all think they would compare to those two players knowing that they(Montana & Marino) are widely considered as, not only two of the best players of their era, but two of the best all-time?

[rajncajn]

I'm only going to speak for Montana but I will say this.

1) Montana won a lot of games where the Niners didn't score a ton of points. They were throwing it a ton, but as a possession-style game

2) They were also ahead of the curve, so perhaps the guys who came just after him might have had it harder since Ds had been looking at the possession passing attack for some time by then.

 

I still think Montana is among the best of all time but that had as much to do with the fact that he was so effing clutch as anything else. His passing numbers are not what he's known for and never broke 4000 yards and only 30 TDs once. And not because of his era. He wasn't even the most prolific then. Marino was. And let's not forget Fouts. He also put up way bigger numbers than Montana.

Sorry det, posted a new thread on it.

 

You're not answering the question though.

[detlef]

Sorry det, posted a new thread on it.

 

You're not answering the question though.

Well, sort of. My point is that, most of the time we're saying, "Well Brees passed for this much but when Marino did it, it meant something else." My point is, if you're going to include Montana in the discussion, there's not really much point in looking at stats at all because his weren't even all that impressive for his era. In terms of yards and TDs, he was good but hardly setting the pace.

 

So, you can lead yourself into a trap by saying, "Well, Montana only threw for 30 TDs once and he's perhaps the best QB of all time. Therefore, it must have been much harder to put up good stats."

[rajncajn]

Well, sort of. My point is that, most of the time we're saying, "Well Brees passed for this much but when Marino did it, it meant something else." My point is, if you're going to include Montana in the discussion, there's not really much point in looking at stats at all because his weren't even all that impressive for his era. In terms of yards and TDs, he was good but hardly setting the pace.

 

So, you can lead yourself into a trap by saying, "Well, Montana only threw for 30 TDs once and he's perhaps the best QB of all time. Therefore, it must have been much harder to put up good stats."

Lets put stats and accomplishments aside and focus on just the players themselves, their physical & mental abilities, the way they prepare, their focus & determination. If any of the current QBs I listed played for the 49ers, the Dolphins, in Montana's & Marino's era do you think that any of them would be at least as good? Replace Montana with Brees or Rodgers, replace Marino with Manning, replace Fouts with Brady. Take any HoF QB you like & replace him with one of the 4 guys I mentioned and tell me if you think that the modern era QB could do as well or even better than the player that you replaced.

[Bronco Billy]

if you're going to include Montana in the discussion, there's not really much point in looking at stats at all because his weren't even all that impressive for his era. In terms of yards and TDs, he was good but hardly setting the pace.

 

 

Find me 5 others QBs in NFL history, much less in his era, with this amalgam of rankings in all these categories.

 

Joseph Clifford Montana Jr.

 

Position: QB

Height: 6-2 Weight: 200 lbs.

 

Stat (NFL rank)

 

Passes Completed

Career 3409 (11)

 

Pass Attempts

Career 5391 (11)

 

Passing Yds

Career 40551 (11)

 

Passing TD

Career 273 (10)

 

Passer Rating

Career 92.3 (10)

 

Net Yds/Pass Att

Career 6.74 (13)

 

Pass Completion %

Career 63.2% (11)

 

Pass Intercept. %

Career 2.6% (18)

 

Game-Winning Drives

Career 28 (12)

 

Comebacks

Career 26 (8)

 

Total Offense

Career 40132 (9)

 

Fumbles

Career 53 (105)

Edited January 11, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[detlef]

Lets put stats and accomplishments aside and focus on just the players themselves, their physical & mental abilities, the way they prepare, their focus & determination. If any of the current QBs I listed played for the 49ers, the Dolphins, in Montana's & Marino's era do you think that any of them would be at least as good? Replace Montana with Brees or Rodgers, replace Marino with Manning, replace Fouts with Brady. Take any HoF QB you like & replace him with one of the 4 guys I mentioned and tell me if you think that the modern era QB could do as well or even better than the player that you replaced.

Not long ago, I read the book Genius, which was Bill Walsh's story. The impression I got from that book was that the Niners were the first to approach the game the way virtually everyone does now. They were a digital team in an analog league. And that, as much as a lot, has to do with their (and Montana's) success. I imagine that, if you took Aaron Rodgers or Brees or Brady, as he was trained and prepared to play the QB position from the time he was a kid, and dropped him onto the Niners in the late 70s, he would have done amazingly well.

 

Of course, much of his preparation from his youth on was built on what Walsh started with the Niners. So there's that.

[Bronco Billy]

The effort isn't futile at all. But because of the differences in rules, the numbers of teams in the league, and the number of games in a season, in the different eras; one has to acknowledge that stats from decades ago are not going to be as flashy as the stats being put up now. There certainly aren't going to be definitive answers, but the discussion is certainly worthwhile and entertaining.

[detlef]

 

Find me 5 others QBs in NFL history, much less in his era, with this amalgam of rankings in all these categories.

You're looking at career totals.

 

I'm talking about the fact that Montana didn't put up flashy numbers in any given season. And I'm right, in general he didn't. In any given year, he was behind any number of guys who aren't even close to his stature in both yards and TD. He lead the league in both passing TDs and passing yds/game exactly one time each during his career.

 

Trust me, I'm not trying to take anything away from Montana, I'm just saying his deal was not putting up crazy stats.

 

Most of the "stats" you showed were exactly why he's considered great. GW drives and all that.

 

Compare that to the guys who are considered elite right now. Excepting Rodgers because he hasn't been at as long. Brees, Manning, Brady have all led the league in either TDs or yards or both more than once and are virtually always right around the top in years they don't (likely right behind the others).

 

That's what I'm talking about.

Edited January 11, 2012 by detlef

[BeeR]

Two main things stand out to me here:

 

1. Stats are for losers. There are so many things that make a player - esp a QB by far - great besides how many yards, TDs, rings they got. Things you only know if you saw them play. How they avoided a sack and pulled out a nice completion where most others would have gotten sacked. How they wisely threw it away vs trying to force a stupid throw and throwing an INT. How they read a D at a key moment and audibled to beat it. How they make other players around them better. Being a leader. On and on and on. Anyone going "this guy is better than that guy because of X stat" is making a fool of himself.

 

2. Greatness IMO is mostly defined by how much one stands above the rest OF THEIR TIME. That is IMO how players should be measured. This is again why I'm far less impressed with Brees' 5500 yds than I was with Marino's 5000. Nobody even seemed to notice that Brady also broke Marino's record, Stafford cracked 5000, and Eli freakin Manning nearly did too. Sure it's still impressive but not nearly like it used to be. I can remember when 3000 was considered one hell of a year. Now if you don't get at least that you suck.

Edited January 11, 2012 by BeeR

[Ice1]

Here's an honest question. If Manning, Brady, Rodgers and/or Brees played in the Montana/Marino eras then how do you all think they would compare to those two players knowing that they(Montana & Marino) are widely considered as, not only two of the best players of their era, but two of the best all-time?

 

All three stand up fine from a talent perspective. The real key would be if the coaches were smart enough to use their talent.

 

That said if they all played in that era then that era would be continuing today as the league would have evolved much faster to what we see today.

[rajncajn]

Not long ago, I read the book Genius, which was Bill Walsh's story. The impression I got from that book was that the Niners were the first to approach the game the way virtually everyone does now. They were a digital team in an analog league. And that, as much as a lot, has to do with their (and Montana's) success. I imagine that, if you took Aaron Rodgers or Brees or Brady, as he was trained and prepared to play the QB position from the time he was a kid, and dropped him onto the Niners in the late 70s, he would have done amazingly well.

 

Of course, much of his preparation from his youth on was built on what Walsh started with the Niners. So there's that.

And Marino's team or Fouts? Would you not also say that Manning would likely be just as good or better than Marino?

 

The point I'm getting at here is that when Marino & Montana played we could look at them and say "that's one of the best QBs I've ever seen play the game" and everyone around you would nod their head in agreement. And for the past several years you could say "that Brady & Manning, one day they will be mentioned with Marino & Montana as the best to ever play the game" and everyone would nod their head in agreement. Then this year you have players like Brees, Rodgers & Stafford who have seemingly elevated themselves to Manning & Brady's status and all-of-a-sudden it's "well, they're only that good because the rules have changed, the game has changed." But in all honesty, it's not Rodgers. With Rodgers it's "looks like he's going to be one of the best of all time." This only really comes out when Brees comes within striking distance of breaking Marino's record for the second time in 3 years and Stafford is used as a gauging point. Tell me why that is? Tell me why, when people talk about Montana as the greatest to ever play the game they don't say that it's only because Walsh's system was so far advanced than the rest of the league? I'm not saying Brees or Rodgers is as good as Montana, I still think Montana is the greatest to ever pay the game. But as you pointed out there were a great number of contributing factors outside of his ability that places him there. Yet, none of that is held against him. So why now are people not affording the same respect to the QBs of today (Yes, namely Brees)?

[detlef]

2. Greatness IMO is mostly defined by how much one stands above the rest OF THEIR TIME. That is IMO how players should be measured. This is again why I'm far less impressed with Brees' 5500 yds than I was with Marino's 5000. Nobody even seemed to notice that Brady also broke Marino's record and Eli freakin Manning nearly tossed 5000. Sure it's still impressive but not nearly like it used to be. I can remember when 3000 was considered one hell of a year. Now if you don't get at least that you suck.

 

 

There was a stat I saw the night Brees broke the record that to me says that Brees' season IS better than Marino's.

 

The stat was basically this and I apologize that the numbers are not 100 percent exact:

 

The difference between the average QB passing yds per game then vs. now is only like 20yds per game - actually less I think, but the average difference between Brees' passing yards relative to today's QBs was 101 more yards per game than the average. Marino averaged 70 more yards per game than tthe league average. So Brees, relative to his contemporaries, was better. I think that's the only fair way to compare the two seasons.

 

So ya, I'm saying that Brees had the better season because he was better compared to his peers than Marino was compared to his.

[detlef]

And Marino's team or Fouts? Would you not also say that Manning would likely be just as good or better than Marino?

 

The point I'm getting at here is that when Marino & Montana played we could look at them and say "that's one of the best QBs I've ever seen play the game" and everyone around you would nod their head in agreement. And for the past several years you could say "that Brady & Manning, one day they will be mentioned with Marino & Montana as the best to ever play the game" and everyone would nod their head in agreement. Then this year you have players like Brees, Rodgers & Stafford who have seemingly elevated themselves to Manning & Brady's status and all-of-a-sudden it's "well, they're only that good because the rules have changed, the game has changed." But in all honesty, it's not Rodgers. With Rodgers it's "looks like he's going to be one of the best of all time." This only really comes out when Brees comes within striking distance of breaking Marino's record for the second time in 3 years and Stafford is used as a gauging point. Tell me why that is? Tell me why, when people talk about Montana as the greatest to ever play the game they don't say that it's only because Walsh's system was so far advanced than the rest of the league? I'm not saying Brees or Rodgers is as good as Montana, I still think Montana is the greatest to ever pay the game. But as you pointed out there were a great number of contributing factors outside of his ability that places him there. Yet, none of that is held against him. So why now are people not affording the same respect to the QBs of today (Yes, namely Brees)?

Montana and Marino were among the first guys to be considered potential all-time greats during the era when we began to have constant access to sports all day and night, 24 hours a day. ESPN started in, what 77? 78? Before that time, you either saw Johnny U play or you didn't. You weren't inundated with stats and videos and what not.

 

So, those guys got to be first in line to win the respect of the first generation who were exposed to this level of sports media. So, everyone after that has to live up to their bar more than they had to live up to the bar set by the greats that came before them.

 

Just a thought.

[BeeR]

Re detlef's post above: just saw that stuff you quoted and replied to it in the other thread.

Edited January 11, 2012 by BeeR

[Bronco Billy]

You're looking at career totals.

 

I'm talking about the fact that Montana didn't put up flashy numbers in any given season. And I'm right, in general he didn't. In any given year, he was behind any number of guys who aren't even close to his stature in both yards and TD. He lead the league in both passing TDs and passing yds/game exactly one time each during his career.

 

Trust me, I'm not trying to take anything away from Montana, I'm just saying his deal was not putting up crazy stats.

 

Most of the "stats" you showed were exactly why he's considered great. GW drives and all that.

 

Compare that to the guys who are considered elite right now. Excepting Rodgers because he hasn't been at as long. Brees, Manning, Brady have all led the league in either TDs or yards or both more than once and are virtually always right around the top in years they don't (likely right behind the others).

 

That's what I'm talking about.

 

So your criteria for being a great QB is having a great season and not having great career consistency? Why am I not suprised? In any case:

 

Joseph Clifford Montana Jr.

 

Position: QB

Height: 6-2 Weight: 200 lbs.

 

Passes Completed

1981 NFL 311 (4)

1982 NFL 213 (2)

1983 NFL 332 (3)

1984 NFL 279 (7)

1985 NFL 303 (3)

1987 NFL 266 (2)

1988 NFL 238 (10)

1990 NFL 321 (2)

1994 NFL 299 (9)

Career 3409 (11)

 

Passing Yds

1981 NFL 3565 (8)

1982 NFL 2613 (2)

1983 NFL 3910 (4)

1984 NFL 3630 (6)

1985 NFL 3653 (5)

1987 NFL 3054 (5)

1989 NFL 3521 (8)

1990 NFL 3944 (3)

1994 NFL 3283 (10)

Career 40551 (11)

 

Passer Rating

1980 NFL 87.8 (5)

1981 NFL 88.4 (4)

1982 NFL 88.0 (5)

1983 NFL 94.6 (5)

1984 NFL 102.9 (2)

1985 NFL 91.3 (3)

1986 NFL 80.7 (10)

1987 NFL 102.1 (1)

1988 NFL 87.9 (6)

1989 NFL 112.4 (1)

1990 NFL 89.0 (7)

1993 NFL 87.4 (5)

1994 NFL 83.6 (8)

Career 92.3 (10)

 

Net Yds/Pass Att

1981 NFL 6.56 (9)

1982 NFL 6.69 (5)

1983 NFL 6.73 (5)

1984 NFL 7.69 (2)

1985 NFL 6.44 (5)

1986 NFL 6.71 (5)

1987 NFL 6.90 (4)

1988 NFL 6.40 (10)

1989 NFL 7.93 (1)

1990 NFL 6.91 (5)

1993 NFL 6.72 (5)

 

Pass Completion %

1980 NFL 64.5% (1)

1981 NFL 63.7% (1)

1982 NFL 61.6% (7)

1983 NFL 64.5% (2)

1984 NFL 64.6% (2)

1985 NFL 61.3% (1)

1986 NFL 62.2% (2)

1987 NFL 66.8% (1)

1988 NFL 59.9% (3)

1989 NFL 70.2% (1)

1990 NFL 61.7% (3)

1994 NFL 60.6% (10)

Career 63.2% (11)

 

Pass Intercept. %

1980 NFL 3.3% (5)

1981 NFL 2.5% (3)

1982 NFL 3.2% (5)

1983 NFL 2.3% (3)

1984 NFL 2.3% (2)

1985 NFL 2.6% (3)

1986 NFL 2.9% (6)

1988 NFL 2.5% (3)

1989 NFL 2.1% (2)

1993 NFL 2.3% (7)

1994 NFL 1.8% (1)

Career 2.6% (18)

 

Passing TD %

1980 NFL 5.5% (8)

1982 NFL 4.9% (9)

1984 NFL 6.5% (3)

1985 NFL 5.5% (4)

1987 NFL 7.8% (1)

1988 NFL 4.5% (7)

1989 NFL 6.7% (1)

1990 NFL 5.0% (9)

1993 NFL 4.4% (7)

Career 5.1% (40)

 

Total Offense

1981 NFL 3467 (9)

1982 NFL 2565 (2)

1983 NFL 3970 (3)

1984 NFL 3610 (4)

1985 NFL 3560 (4)

1987 NFL 3037 (5)

1989 NFL 3550 (7)

1990 NFL 3953 (3)

Career 40132 (9)

 

Passing TD*

1982 NFL 17 (1)

1983 NFL 26 (4)

1984 NFL 28 (3)

1985 NFL 27 (2)

1987 NFL 31 (1)

1988 NFL 18 (8)

1989 NFL 26 (4)

1990 NFL 26 (3)

Career 273 (10)

 

 

* ETA for detlef so that he can somehow attempt to diminish Montana's numbers and support his statements with the stats.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[rajncajn]

Fitting that this is turning out to be a thread about Montana since I've already derailed a coupe of other threads talking about Brees.

 

Oh, and good Lord Billy.

Edited January 11, 2012 by rajncajn

[Bronco Billy]

Fitting that this is turning out to be a thread about Montana since I've already derailed a coupe of other threads talking about Brees.

 

We could just as well talk about Unitas and Starr, but Montana serves a little better I think because he fits in more people's memory. But look at who is considered to be having potentially the best season for a QB in NFL history - Rodgers - and how closely his style of play and calling card fits how Montana played the game. The hyperaccuracy and the calm under extreme duress.

 

 

Oh, and good Lord Billy.

 

 

Next he'll start breaking it down that a QB's greatness is based upon having the best game in a season in order to better discredit Montana. I may struggle with that one a little more.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[bpwallace49]

Here's an honest question. If Manning, Brady, Rodgers and/or Brees played in the Montana/Marino eras then how do you all think they would compare to those two players knowing that they(Montana & Marino) are widely considered as, not only two of the best players of their era, but two of the best all-time?

 

Any discussion that doesnt include Tebow is really non-productive and misleading.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Wow could you imagine the stats that would be put up in that era with passers like Dan Fouts , Warren Moon , Marino with today's rules limiting the defenders from coming anywhere near a WR

[detlef]

So your criteria for being a great QB is having a great season and not having great career consistency? Why am I not suprised? In any case:

 

 

 

Passing Yds

1981 NFL 3565 (8)

1982 NFL 2613 (2)

1983 NFL 3910 (4)

1984 NFL 3630 (6)

1985 NFL 3653 (5)

1987 NFL 3054 (5)

1989 NFL 3521 (8)

1990 NFL 3944 (3)

1994 NFL 3283 (10)

Career 40551 (11)

I notice you didn't include TD passes. At any rate, why do I have the impression you're pretending that I'm trying to tear down Montana here?

 

I know you're not stupid, but I'm just going to explain it to you again. When people start comparing eras, they tend to gravitate towards things like total yards and TDs. Obviously these are not the best barometers of measuring a QB, but these are pretty handy. But that's what people are using to marginalize Brees' achievements this year, because he was one of three QBs to break Marino's yardage record this year.

 

My point is simply this. You can pretend it is whatever the hell you want to, but this is it. If anyone wants to look at Montana's stats and assume that, since his arguably the best QB of all time, and yet only threw for 30 TDs once and never broke 4000 yards that, apparently basically nobody did. Because, again, if the best isn't even doing it, who is? Then you're missing the point. Because, while he absolutely deserves his status among the best (if not the best) of all time, it wasn't because he was putting up crazy stats. Because he wasn't. Guys like Neil Lomax and Dave Kreig, and Jim Everett, and others who are nowhere near his class of QB were throwing for more TDs. That in 1987, one of Montana's finest seasons in terms of passer rating, he ranked behind Bernie Kosar in yards per game, almost 50 yards behind the league leaders.

 

That's really it. Montana was the best, certainly of his era and yet he didn't set the bar in terms of the sorts of stats that we use to compare QBs of different eras.

 

Now, for the last time. If I offer you 10-1 odds on the roll of a normal 6-sided die, would you take that bet?

[stevegrab]

And Marino's team or Fouts? Would you not also say that Manning would likely be just as good or better than Marino?

 

The point I'm getting at here is that when Marino & Montana played we could look at them and say "that's one of the best QBs I've ever seen play the game" and everyone around you would nod their head in agreement. And for the past several years you could say "that Brady & Manning, one day they will be mentioned with Marino & Montana as the best to ever play the game" and everyone would nod their head in agreement. Then this year you have players like Brees, Rodgers & Stafford who have seemingly elevated themselves to Manning & Brady's status and all-of-a-sudden it's "well, they're only that good because the rules have changed, the game has changed." But in all honesty, it's not Rodgers. With Rodgers it's "looks like he's going to be one of the best of all time." This only really comes out when Brees comes within striking distance of breaking Marino's record for the second time in 3 years and Stafford is used as a gauging point. Tell me why that is? Tell me why, when people talk about Montana as the greatest to ever play the game they don't say that it's only because Walsh's system was so far advanced than the rest of the league? I'm not saying Brees or Rodgers is as good as Montana, I still think Montana is the greatest to ever pay the game. But as you pointed out there were a great number of contributing factors outside of his ability that places him there. Yet, none of that is held against him. So why now are people not affording the same respect to the QBs of today (Yes, namely Brees)?

 

This discussion/debate seems to be based mostly on you wondering why Brees doesn't get the same respect that Manning, Brady or even Rodgers gets. It started with the MVP thread, and continues here.

 

Beer made a good point, a player is considered great relative to all the other guys around them. If 1-2 guys are doing something, they're the best of their era. If 4-5 guys are doing that (even with more teams in the league) then its hard to say "those 4-5 guys are the best of their era". Sure they are, particularly those that have done it year in and year out (Brady, Mannig & Brees).

 

To answer the question of the thread, no you cannot really compare them. Its hard to say whether the QBs of today would flourish in that era, on those teams, with the rules in place then, with the player development they would have gotten then (not how they were trained now).

 

My basic point is its hard to single out 1-2 guys when so many are playing that well. Its like the Packers quest for a perfect season this year. It was less of a story because the Pats had just done that recently. If nobody has a perfect regular season again for 20-30 years it may be more of a story. Brees breaking Marionos record in the same year that other QBs passed for over 5000 yards makes it somewhat less significant, whether you think that is fair oe not.

Edited January 11, 2012 by stevegrab

[matt770]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Sammy Baugh.

[Bronco Billy]

I notice you didn't include TD passes. At any rate, why do I have the impression you're pretending that I'm trying to tear down Montana here?

 

I know you're not stupid, but I'm just going to explain it to you again. When people start comparing eras, they tend to gravitate towards things like total yards and TDs. Obviously these are not the best barometers of measuring a QB, but these are pretty handy. But that's what people are using to marginalize Brees' achievements this year, because he was one of three QBs to break Marino's yardage record this year.

 

Please don't aver to other people's stupidity when you make statements like this:

 

if you're going to include Montana in the discussion, there's not really much point in looking at stats at all because his weren't even all that impressive for his era.

 

Montana's stats are absolutely impressive - if you know how to look at them. They are downright eyepopping.

[stevegrab]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Sammy Baugh.

Like many I didn't see him play in my era, same for Unitas, Starr, Len Dawson, etc. As somebody else pointed out, the more modern era with more sports exposure in the media has changed things. Those older guys will probably never be given the credit they deserve. And 20-30 years ago it will be Manning, Brady etc and nobody will remember Marino & Montana.

[detlef]

Please don't aver to other people's stupidity when you make statements like this:

 

 

 

Montana's stats are absolutely impressive - if you know how to look at them. They are downright eyepopping.

You can ignore essentially everything I've written in this post and focus on whatever statements that could be interpreted to mean something other than what I've been trying to say. That's your choice. But I honestly don't see the point of discussing this or really anything else with you.

 

Perhaps you've been fishing in this and basically every other thread that we've been arguing in of late. If so, then well played.