Is Tom Brady the best QB ever?

[ElwayFan2007]

Don't you find it hard to compare players in different eras? I mean the players back then (yes even in the 90s) were not nearly as strong, fast, etc as the players now days. It's hard to say how the legends of the past would perform in todays NFL league (and vice-versa)

But if I had to rank Brady Id throw him somewhere in the Top 15..... maybe top 10. But IMO a star/ legend should play a solid 7 years + before they are even considered in a Top 20. If he can consistantly continue to play like he has, then by all means the man deserves to be recognized and talked about when his career ends.

[Azazello1313]

STEVE YOUNG should be in the discussion as well. He did not have the benefit of playing all of his prime.

 

meh....chances are, if you're not the best QN on your team, during your prime, you're probably not the best QB ever.

[Grosse Pointe Gridder]

Try this site out:

 

http://www.armchairgm.com/index.php?title=..._the_Modern_Era

[Chavez]

Who would you rate higher? Brady or Aikman?

Aikman can't carry Tom Brady's jock. Or aat least 25 other QBs for that matter.

[Pitbull739]

Very close, but it is hard to put him above Roethlisberger.

[Chavez]

Try this site out:

 

http://www.armchairgm.com/index.php?title=..._the_Modern_Era

Nice to see some Kenny Anderson love. And a name drop of KSU/Green Bay Packer legend Lynn Dickey at #95.

[rellen13]

Did anyone even mention Dan Fouts?

 

[jackshi17]

No ........perhaps by the end of his career.

[Bier Meister]

Did anyone even mention Dan Fouts?

 

 

 

i am a big fan or fouts..... i think he is in the "5-10" category

[Chavez]

i am a big fan or fouts..... i think he is in the "5-10" category

Agreed. I don't think I could justify him as #1 all time, but there aren't more than a handful of QBs I'd rank ahead of him.

[Bill Swerski]

Nice to see some Kenny Anderson love. And a name drop of KSU/Green Bay Packer legend Lynn Dickey at #95.

 

Yep, and also nice to see some love for Fouts and Len Dawson, who were arguably the second or third best QBs of their generation.

 

I have no problem with Unitas at #1, but Montana at #2 is a stretch, IMO. He's probably a Top 5 guy and you can't take away from what the guy did in the playoffs, but he benefitted TREMENDOUSLY from Walsh's offensive system and Siefert's defenses. Put him on the '80s Broncos teams and he doesn't win crap.

 

And what's up with Brady at #54? That's even more retarded than Cunningham, Simms, and Boomer ahead of Aikman.

[WaterMan]

6 TDs

[Chavez]

6 TDs

Tommy Kramer threw 6 once. Joe Kapp threw 7.

[gilthorp]

does the pope wear a funny hat?

[Bier Meister]

I have no problem with Unitas at #1, but Montana at #2 is a stretch, IMO. He's probably a Top 5 guy and you can't take away from what the guy did in the playoffs, but he benefitted TREMENDOUSLY from Walsh's offensive system and Siefert's defenses. Put him on the '80s Broncos teams and he doesn't win crap.

 

montana knew how to win before he met walsh...also won 2 sb's before he got rice. most of the top rated qb's benefited from the systems and coaches they were with. elway was prob handcuffed the most by reeves...... early on, no way 9ers get the same results with deburg. i would have loved to have seen the early 90's 9ers with a healthy montana to see him run it at their pinnacle instead of going to KC (still guided them to an afcc game)

[gilwiggum]

I think it's a little too early to say Brady is the best QB ever. I think these kind of discussions have to be made after a player has retired. I agree, Brady is on fire right now, but Manning was on fire when he set his records. So I think until they retire, we just sit back and enjoy the ride and realize that we have the pleasure of watching 2 great QBs at the top of their games each week, especially in a time when a lot of teams are throwing out anyone at the position.

 

Just a few responses to many of the comments. Sure Vinatieri won the Superbowls with his foot, BUT someone had to get Vinatieri in position to do that. And I am not sure many people could have gotten their teams in position working with the likes of JR Redmond, Antowain Smith, Jermaine Wiggins etc etc

 

How does one determine the best QB? Stats? Superbowls? Winning? Sure Favre can put up huge TD numbers, but is that an indicator? Derek Anderson has put up a bunch of TDs this year and I doubt he is ever going to be apart of this conversation (for the record, I think Favre is a great QB, I am just using this as an example). As someone mentioned, Dilfer and Rypien won Superbowls and Marino didn't, yet I am sure everyone is on board with Marino being better. I think if you are going to pick the best QB, you have to look at what he did to help his team win the game. Someone like Aikman may not put up big TD numbers, because he could have thrown it all the way down the field only to hand off at the goal line. I think you want the QB who makes few mistakes, puts histeam in position to win, and makes the big plays when he has to.

[Bill Swerski]

montana knew how to win before he met walsh...also won 2 sb's before he got rice. most of the top rated qb's benefited from the systems and coaches they were with. elway was prob handcuffed the most by reeves...... early on, no way 9ers get the same results with deburg. i would have loved to have seen the early 90's 9ers with a healthy montana to see him run it at their pinnacle instead of going to KC (still guided them to an afcc game)

 

Well, I think it's fair to say that all of the HOF QBs "knew how to win." Not surprisingly, the ones that actually DID win the most were the ones on the best teams. Arguably nobody in the history of the NFL had better coaching, a better supporting cast, and a better overall chance to win than Montana. Walsh's teams drafted better than anybody else in the league, his offense was years ahead off the rest of the league, and SF's defenses ranked lower than 8th in points allowed only ONCE between '81 and '90. Of course the Niners don't get the same results with Deberg, but I'll bet that they do with Elway, Marino, or Fouts.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[MTSuper7]

Brady has a long way to go before he can be mentioned in the same sentence as Favre.

 

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read. I guess Brady will need to throw a couple hundred more INTs to get into Favre's league. Seriously, what has Favre done in his career that is so special that Brady isn't even close (other than play too long in order to pad his career stats)?

 

This is like saying that Jim Brown shouldn't even be in the same sentence as Emmitt Smith. Please...

[Bill Swerski]

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read. I guess Brady will need to throw a couple hundred more INTs to get into Favre's league. Seriously, what has Favre done in his career that is so special that Brady isn't even close (other than play too long in order to pad his career stats)?

 

Um, how about those 3 League MVPs, eight 30-TD seasons (in which he never had an elite WR), 59,000+ yds and 420+ TDs? Favre was hands-down the best QB in the NFL in the mid/late '90s. And he's still playing well at age 38. Brady is not even the clear-cut best QB of this decade.

 

Seriously, if you think that Brady is even close to Favre at this point in his career (because, you know, he won 3 Super Bowls ), you must not have watched much football before the turn of the century.

[Bier Meister]

Well, I think it's fair to say that all of the HOF QBs "knew how to win." Not surprisingly, the ones that actually DID win the most were the ones on the best teams. Arguably nobody in the history of the NFL had better coaching, a better supporting cast, and a better overall chance to win than Montana. Walsh's teams drafted better than anybody else in the league, his offense was years ahead off the rest of the league, and SF's defenses ranked lower than 8th in points allowed only ONCE between '81 and '90. Of course the Niners don't get the same results with Deberg, but I'll bet that they do with Elway, Marino, or Fouts.

 

i'm not so sure...

 

marino and fouts didn't have montana's mobility or accuracy. elway didn't have his discipline.

 

i am a strong proponant of walsh, but believe that each would have had success in the league (walsh and montana), but neither would have reached the level they did without the other. not only did the niners draft well.... they developed the players.... there are a lot that just don't pan out. the dynasty did not develop overnight... it took some time to put pieces together...... i still shake my head knowing that the 9ers should have had 2 more in the 80's (83 and 87).... and the frickin craig fumble going for 3 in a row.

[Bill Swerski]

i'm not so sure...

 

marino and fouts didn't have montana's mobility or accuracy. elway didn't have his discipline.

 

Agreed that Walsh would've had to tailor his WCO somewhat to account for Marino and Fouts' (relative) lack of mobility. But those guys played in vertical offenses, which have inherently lower completion percentages than WCOs. I don't think that either of those guys would've have a problem with accuracy in Walsh's system. Elway has the lowest career completion percentage of the three, despite playing in the WCO in his latter years.

 

i am a strong proponant of walsh, but believe that each would have had success in the league (walsh and montana), but neither would have reached the level they did without the other

 

I agree with that. Not unlike Shanahan/Elway, Holmgren/Favre, and Dungy/Moore/Manning.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Bier Meister]

early on, the 9ers didn't have the offensive weapons that mia and sd had..... the more i think about it, the more i believe that:

- marino and fouts would have a ring, just not as quickly as joe

- marino and fouts would have made playoffs more (or gone further)

- both would have lower stats

- but would not have had as many as montana

 

i would also like to see montana with duper/clayton or jefferson/joiner/chandler/winslow early in his career

Edited October 22, 2007 by Bier Meister

[MTSuper7]

Um, how about those 3 League MVPs, eight 30-TD seasons (in which he never had an elite WR), 59,000+ yds and 420+ TDs? Favre was hands-down the best QB in the NFL in the mid/late '90s. And he's still playing well at age 38. Brady is not even the clear-cut best QB of this decade.

 

Seriously, if you think that Brady is even close to Favre at this point in his career (because, you know, he won 3 Super Bowls ), you must not have watched much football before the turn of the century.

 

I've watched plenty of Favre, and I do remember how great of a player he was in the mid to late 90s. But Brady didn't exactly have Randy Moss when he won his Super Bowls, and I would argue that the WR talent for Brady throughout most of his career has been no better than Favre's in his prime. Also, a lot of this discussion hinges on how we define "best ever" QB. If you are looking just at statistics, you are correct: Brady has no 30 TD seasons, doesn't have 3 league MVPs, and hasn't played long enough to compile the career marks that Favre has. However, you can't just dismiss the Super Bowls. And you have to admit that the Packers with Levens and Ahman Green had a far better running game than the Pats, making it easier for Favre to throw the ball.

 

I actually don't think Brady is better than Favre. I just find it amazing that you think he doesn't even belong in the same sentence. In fact, it sounds to me like you think Randy Moss is so important to Brady that you won't even put Brady in the same sentence as Favre even if Brady happens to put up back to back 40+ TD seasons this year and next.

 

FWIW, I think Elway is better than both of these guys.

 

And one last thing - my Jim Brown analogy was ridiculous and you didn't even make mention of it... I'm disappointed...

[Bill Swerski]

early on, the 9ers didn't have the offensive weapons that mia and sd had..... the more i think about the more i believe that:

- marino and fouts would have a ring

- marino and fouts would have made playoffs more (or gone further)

- both would have lower stats

- but would not have had as many as montana

 

i would also like to see montana with duper/clayton or jefferson/joiner/chandler/winslow early in his career

 

Good point, but Marino didn't have Roger Craig or, for that matter, anything resembling a balanced offense for most of his career. Fouts didn't exactly have a stellar running game either, and neither of those guys had the consistently good defenses that Montana did (which is what REALLY determines championships).

 

I agree with much of what you've posted, but I still think that Montana won more than those other three mostly because his teams were consistently much better overall.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Bier Meister]

However, you can't just dismiss the Super Bowls. And you have to admit that the Packers with Levens and Ahman Green had a far better running game than the Pats, making it easier for Favre to throw the ball.

 

 

1100/12 from antowain and 1600/12 from dillon is not rushing anemia...... you have a back getting 80-100 pg and you get to set the tone..... brady made an impact in 1 of his 3 rings...2 he was along for the ride. that d/st won him games and got him field position that necesitated fg's instead of td's. over the past few seasons he is growing into the qb you guys thought he was in 01.....