Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Comparing different era quarterbacks


rajncajn
 Share

Recommended Posts

They way I see it a QB never has to throw any TD's to be a great passer.

If he puts it on target every time and the WR drops it why should he be penalized ?

 

I know it's because it's the easiest way of comparing greatness but not an accurate way of doing it.

 

So unless each QB has the same WR's same pass protection & playing against the same defenses it is all about what you see with your eyes and not stats.

 

That is why I have Warren Moon & Montana as the number # 1 & 1a QB every to play from 1970 forward

 

If you watched these guys play ( and not just look at stats ) they were both great QB;s

Of the last 10 years I would have to put Brady up there with them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

 

 

I notice you didn't include TD passes.

Looks like he added them for you. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 he did, but missed 1981, when Montana finished 13th despite leading his team to their first SB victory.

understandable considering the above statement you made

Link to comment
Share on other sites

understandable considering the above statement you made

My point was that Rodgers was not considered an "elite" QB right away. He was the dude getting booed by some Packer fans and having people say, "Dude, he's actually pretty damned good." Montana was already "Joe Cool" the young phenom leading the Niners to the promised land in 1981. Yet he had 3500 yds, 19 TDs and was very much "middle of the pack" in those regards. Yet he was, deservedly 2nd team all-pro behind only Ken Anderson. That was obviously not because of "eye-popping stats". Not just compared to what we're seeing now, but apparently compared to what we were seeing then. He was 8th in yardage and 13th in TDs.

 

So, there is a perfect example of Joe deservedly etching his place in history as one of, if not the greatest QBs of all time despite not racking up "eye-popping" yardage and TD totals even among his peers.

 

It also bears mention that 1982, the year he finished 2nd in yards and 1st in TDs, was anything but a season that added to his legacy. A strike-shortened season where they finished 3-6. A record that I believe at the time (and possibly still now) is the worst ever for a defending SB Champ in terms of winning %.

 

How about another one of Montana's SB seasons? You know, the one that culminated in the drive that is probably the 2nd most viewed one after the NFC Championship game? Where they beat Cinci in a shoot out 20-16? He was tied for 8th in TDs with 18 and 12th in yards behind such greats as Bobby Hebert and Steve Pelluer. But, hell, just look at the final score of the SB. 20-16. Does that look like a game where the QBs were racking up "eye-popping numbers"? Yet, Montana deservedly wrote another chapter in his historic career by leading them 92 yards for the winning score in the NFL's biggest game.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

My point was that Rodgers was not considered an "elite" QB right away. He was the dude getting booed by some Packer fans and having people say, "Dude, he's actually pretty damned good." Montana was already "Joe Cool" the young phenom leading the Niners to the promised land in 1981. Yet he had 3500 yds, 19 TDs and was very much "middle of the pack" in those regards. Yet he was, deservedly 2nd team all-pro behind only Ken Anderson. That was obviously not because of "eye-popping stats". Not just compared to what we're seeing now, but apparently compared to what we were seeing then. He was 8th in yardage and 13th in TDs.

 

So, there is a perfect example of Joe deservedly etching his place in history as one of, if not the greatest QBs of all time despite not racking up "eye-popping" yardage and TD totals even among his peers.

:wacko::lol::tup:

 

I think you are adjusting your point...because you said "excepting Rodgers", you were speaking to the fact that Montana wasn't at the head of the class for much of his career so to say...BB refuted that pretty well...now if you want to change your tune, that is your prerogative...but don't say that wasn't your point, because you wrote it, not me, and it is pretty easy to see what you meant/wrote.

 

Montana played in the NFL for 16 years, he didn't start consistently til his 3rd year, 1986 he missed half the season due to injury...1991 & 1992 an elbow injury limited him to 1 game...so that is 11 years, and in those 11 years he ranked 4th or better in TD passes 7 of those 11 years.

Edited by keggerz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

And I see Rodgers matching Montana with his mobility and accuracy. Brees moreso with his accuracy under duress, his ability to seemingly make something out of nothing & his ability to manipulate a defense. That's why Montana, I think, was the best and really the father of the modern quarterback. He pretty much set the standard for how to develop the modern day QB. I do think that some of the players of today have surpassed or rather perfected some of those standards and not based on the way the game is played today. I personally think that too much credit is given to the rules and not the players themselves and I really do believe that we are looking at a golden age of QBs. Helped some by the rules, yes. But again, Montana's situation was never held against him and it shouldn't be held against the QBs of today either IMO.

 

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

It's exaggerations like this IMO that feed this whole line of thought. I just buy into it. The rules have changed, yes. It's easier, I agree. But it's not that much easier. If it was then everyone would be doing it & that's really not the case.

 

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.

That's where it started, but it's not the reason why I wanted to start the thread. I think that it's a trend that we're seeing with the modern QBs and it started with Brees. I'm looking at it this way, since Brees is not as good as his stats suggest, if what he's accomplishing deserves an asterisk, then is/will the other QBs of this era be held to the same standards? Are we going to stop talking about Brady, Manning and now Rodgers as possibly some of the best to ever play the game now that we know it's due to the rule changes etc? I don't believe so and I don't think we should. But with this new class of QBs like Stafford and Dalton and Luck and on... are we going to continue to make excuses for why they are able to play so well and not give them proper credit for their accomplishments?

 

And yeah, it irritates me that I don't think Brees gets the credit he deserves. It irritates me that Manning & Brady are mentioned with the greats yet Brees is just a great QB. And yeah, it irritates me that Rodgers now gets mentioned with the greats after only a few years and it bothers me that his season is being considered one of if not the greatest season by a QB, yet all these other guys (not just Brees) are having great seasons because of the new rules. I think it's ridiculous.

 

Here's a nice little fact for you. Did anyone know that since Brees Joined the Saints 6 seasons ago that he has a better statistical average than both Brady & Manning in nearly every major category by which a QB is judged? And that's even fudging the numbers for Manning & Brady for their injury seasons in their favor. Manning I used his average over the past 5 seasons since it was higher than his 2005 numbers whereas Brady I used the 2005 numbers since they were higher. Brees leads them both in attempts, completions, percentage & yards. tied with Brady for TDs and is 2nd in Avg gain, sacks and rating. The only thing he's last in is interceptions & he's only 2 behind Manning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They way I see it a QB never has to throw any TD's to be a great passer.

If he puts it on target every time and the WR drops it why should he be penalized ?

 

I know it's because it's the easiest way of comparing greatness but not an accurate way of doing it.

 

So unless each QB has the same WR's same pass protection & playing against the same defenses it is all about what you see with your eyes and not stats.

 

That is why I have Warren Moon & Montana as the number # 1 & 1a QB every to play from 1970 forward

 

If you watched these guys play ( and not just look at stats ) they were both great QB;s

Of the last 10 years I would have to put Brady up there with them

 

Musta been drunk when you typed that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a nice little fact for you. Did anyone know that since Brees Joined the Saints 6 seasons ago that he has a better statistical average than both Brady & Manning in nearly every major category by which a QB is judged? And that's even fudging the numbers for Manning & Brady for their injury seasons in their favor. Manning I used his average over the past 5 seasons since it was higher than his 2005 numbers whereas Brady I used the 2005 numbers since they were higher. Brees leads them both in attempts, completions, percentage & yards. tied with Brady for TDs and is 2nd in Avg gain, sacks and rating. The only thing he's last in is interceptions & he's only 2 behind Manning.

 

So much factors into these numbers that it's almost not even worth debating who is better amongst this group. It's a wash IMO. They are all great. Interchangable amongst their teams, probably, and would probably each be able to have similar success in the other's place.

 

It's really fun to watch...and tiring to debate who is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko::lol::tup:

 

I think you are adjusting your point...because you said "excepting Rodgers", you were speaking to the fact that Montana wasn't at the head of the class for much of his career so to say...BB refuted that pretty well...now if you want to change your tune, that is your prerogative...but don't say that wasn't your point, because you wrote it, not me, and it is pretty easy to see what you meant/wrote.

 

Montana played in the NFL for 16 years, he didn't start consistently til his 3rd year, 1986 he missed half the season due to injury...1991 & 1992 an elbow injury limited him to 1 game...so that is 11 years, and in those 11 years he ranked 4th or better in TD passes 7 of those 11 years.

When I qualified the Rodgers bit, I was mentioning that, unlike Montana, all the QBs who we now consider "elite" led the league in passing both yards and TDs a few times. I think it is fair to leave Rodgers out of it because, unlike Montana and Brees, Brady, and Manning, Rodgers has only has had 4 years to do so.

 

And when I look at the kinds of QBs who were putting up bigger yardage and TD numbers than Montana. Guys who are largely forgotten, that it's pretty abundantly clear that Montana is not known because of those kinds of stats.

 

Obviously Montana has nice TD and yardage numbers, but not so good that they're why he's often though of as the greatest QB of all time. That's really it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I qualified the Rodgers bit, I was mentioning that, unlike Montana, all the QBs who we now consider "elite" led the league in passing both yards and TDs a few times. I think it is fair to leave Rodgers out of it because, unlike Montana and Brees, Brady, and Manning, Rodgers has only has had 4 years to do so.

 

And when I look at the kinds of QBs who were putting up bigger yardage and TD numbers than Montana. Guys who are largely forgotten, that it's pretty abundantly clear that Montana is not known because of those kinds of stats.

 

Obviously Montana has nice TD and yardage numbers, but not so good that they're why he's often though of as the greatest QB of all time. That's really it.

You're right, don't know what I was thinking. My bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere behind Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Favre, Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers...and maybe some other people I have not yet thought of.

 

 

Wow ,, so not even in the top 10 ??

 

Where is BeeR to spit out his reply :wacko: Because it sure looks that way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are different eras with different rules, which makes comparing stats across eras complicated (like comparing babe ruth's homerun stats with barry bonds', or even hank aaron's). there are also different offenses and quarterbacking styles. marino and elway were same exact era. who is the better QB? elway with his 5 AFC championships and 2 SB rings, or marino and his gaudy passing stats?

 

manning and brady have made it into the pantheon of all time greats, the select group of 10 or so for whom you can make a solid case they are the best to have played the game. brees is climbing that ladder, and rodgers is certainly off to a great start.

 

ultimately, you have to examine each one on their own merits compared against the same era to see how good they were at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are different eras with different rules, which makes comparing stats across eras complicated (like comparing babe ruth's homerun stats with barry bonds', or even hank aaron's). there are also different offenses and quarterbacking styles. marino and elway were same exact era. who is the better QB? elway with his 5 AFC championships and 2 SB rings, or marino and his gaudy passing stats?

 

manning and brady have made it into the pantheon of all time greats, the select group of 10 or so for whom you can make a solid case they are the best to have played the game. brees is climbing that ladder, and rodgers is certainly off to a great start.

 

ultimately, you have to examine each one on their own merits compared against the same era to see how good they were at the time.

 

I totally agree if you are going to compare player's across eras, you need to do it with each individual compared to their contemporaries of the time (with whatever yardage stick you decide, i.e. td's thrown, yards, etc.).

 

In regards to Elway vs Marino, considering Marino has one less win than Elway who was on 5 AFC Championship teams (getting 2 Super Bowls), it is obvious Marino did more with less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information