The Greatest of All Time

[FL4WL3SS]

 
Belichick may have the greatest NFL QB ever at his disposal, but he excels at finding and utilizing rosters loaded with role players, castoffs, overlooked guys, etc. and preparing them for the moment. 

TRUTH.
 
You only need to look as far back as Butler's interception last night. He coached up an UDFA to make the biggest play of the game. All the credit in the world to Belichick for his ability to get all 53 guys prepared to make that play.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Fouts had 254 TDs but 242 INTs and a terrible 4.3% interception %. If Favre was a reckless gunslinger at 3.3% Fouts was Johnny Ringo.

 

[TomRicardo]

 
You have to be a special kind of dumb to vote "not top 3".

 
Not really.
 
You could go by sheer raw production and say Marino, Manning, Favre.  You might not agree but honestly I would not call someone stupid for saying Marino, Manning, and Montana were the three greatest of all time.

 

[TomRicardo]

Belichick is the Greatest Coach of all time though.  He was able to be completely dominate in the salary cap era.

 

[In Vino Vinatieri]

 
And Randall Gay has more than Peyton.

 
Vladimir Putin has as many Super Bowl rings as Peyton Manning does.  Peyton still hasn't won a Super Bowl since Spygate.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

 

How much credit does Brady get for not having the greatest WR of all time to throw to? Can you imagine if Brady had Jerry Rice to throw to all these years? I think he might have 7 SB rings.
 

 
Well hang on, sure, he had Rice for the 2nd half of his career with the 49ers, but before that his best receiver was probably Dwight Clark or Russ Francis or Roger Craig - three good players but hardly game changers. 

 

[BoredViewer]

Not a thread about Malcolm Butler?
 
There can be no greater play than the one he made.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Kelly has a 3.7% interception rate which isn't great. Kelly has a 237-175 TD-INT stat which isn't terribly impressive either. His QB rating is very good for playing in the 80's and 90's. He's a very good HoF QB. I would rather have Manning, Brady, Elway, Marino, Young, Montana, and even Brees over Kelly. I think he might be in the top 10 but he is not in my top 5.
 
Young is a different story. 2.6% interception rate tied for 18th overall. 4th best QB rating and he RETIRED in 1999. That's RIDICULOUS. His 232-107 TD-INT is amazing. He also threw for over 30,000 yards despite starting for only 9 years. I dock him for longevity but not that much because he was that good. Definitely overlooked him.

 

[Stitch01]

This is the greatest run by a franchise in NFL history.  Period.  How people want to divide the credit up among the best coaches or best quarterbacks or whatever, have at it, but that;s the bottom line for me.  14 years of sustained excellence in the salary cap era with four fucking banners up there.  So fucking good for so fucking long that players, fans, and coaches on other teams can't rationally understand the level of success and resort to crying like five year olds about cheating.  14 years where almost every fucking weekend of every fucking season, our team was playing in a meaningful game and winning more of them than anyone.  So many likeable, talented, mentally tough players who came up big more often than not and never fucking whined, made excuses, or talked about how the better team didnt win on the few occasions they didn't.  GOAT fucking run, period, end of story.
 
Best part is, the ride aint over.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

 
 
 
 
Well hang on, sure, he had Rice for the 2nd half of his career with the 49ers, but before that his best receiver was probably Dwight Clark or Russ Francis or Roger Craig - three good players but hardly game changers. 
 

You mean the other half of his career where he won 2 Super Bowls?
 
Fine. Montana won 2 Super Bowls without Rice. Brady has won 4 without Rice.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

I think there are seven or eight QBs in the discussion and I realize most of them played recently but I think the QB position is more important to the game now than it was in the 70's.
 
This is in no particular order:
 
1. Tom Brady
2. Peyton Manning
3. Brett Favre (I thought he took too many risks)
4. Joe Montana 
5. Dan Marino (No ring and wasn't always sharp in the playoffs either but that doesn't mean he wasn't a historically great QB)
6. John Elway 
7. Fran Tarkenton (3 huge collapses in the Super Bowl)
8. Drew Brees (outside looking in - he plays for a dome team that is focused on passing so his raw numbers are somewhat inflated)
 
All of these guys have post season raw numbers too. Brady has a ridiculous QB rating for a guy who plays no dome teams in his division, plays often in harsh conditions, and is often playing a stacked schedule.

I agree, for the most part with this, but I would put Montana at number 2 above Manning and Favre.  I'd argue that Marion (as much as I dislike him) should be above Favre as well, but it's close enough I could go either way.  Poor Bradshaw, 4 rings and doesn't make the top 8.

 

[Al Zarilla]

People, people, people, Johnny Unitas and Otto Graham, even Sammy Baugh. How quickly they forget. 

 

[Eric1984]

Bradshaw's 4 rings were more about the defense and the running game. In his first 2 SBs, Bradshaw barely threw the ball at all. He put up big numbers in SB XIII and XIV, but he was also throwing to Swann and Stallworth, who were no joke. He's a HoF QB but definitely not top 10. And he wouldn't be a HoF QB with only two rings -- he'd be Jim Plunkett.

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

I'm a Montana fan boy, having lived in SF in the 80s and attended 3 Super Bowl parades there.  That said, I have no problem with people putting Brady slightly ahead of Montana.
 
To me, they both delivered heroic, 4th quarter Super Bowl comebacks. Montana's 92 yard drive in SB XXIII that began with 3:20 left on the clock is the equal to the drama of yesterday's final moments.  

Original Daily News account of that game is here. 

 

[Captaincoop]

The thing about Brady and Belichick both being so good makes the argument for the other harder. I rate Joe Gibbs very highly because of his QBs being average. Same for Parcells and Hostetler(though that helps Belichick). It's subjective, Belichick is the best I've watched. But I think Gibbs and Walsh are right there too. Montana vs Brady is still a pick'em for me.

 
Same for Parcells and Hostetler?  What?  Phil Simms was Parcells' QB, and Phil Simms was very good.  Jeff Hostetler started three meaningful games for Parcells.

 

[SMU_Sox]

People, people, people, Johnny Unitas and Otto Graham, even Sammy Baugh. How quickly they forget. 

 
I hear you but they are from such a different era I don't think you can compare them.

 

[SMU_Sox]

I agree, for the most part with this, but I would put Montana at number 2 above Manning and Favre.  I'd argue that Marion (as much as I dislike him) should be above Favre as well, but it's close enough I could go either way.  Poor Bradshaw, 4 rings and doesn't make the top 8.

 
That list was in no particular order, Yaz. 

 

[Yaz4Ever]

The don't number it jackass!!!!!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
oh, nm, you typed "in no particular order" at the top.  Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[RememberTheGronkans]

Remember, Brady is not done yet. 

This team will be better next season, by all logic, as long as Revis resigns. 

Why won't the Patriots repeat? They have as good a chance as anyone else right at this moment.

Of course, at this moment, he is the greatest of all time. But for Brady, that is not good enough.  

 

[Import78]

Remember, Brady is not done yet. 

This team will be better next season, by all logic, as long as Revis resigns. 

Why won't the Patriots repeat? They have as good a chance as anyone else right at this moment.

Of course, at this moment, he is the greatest of all time. But for Brady, that is not good enough.  

 
They may not repeat for the same reason the Seahawks didn't.  It is really, really hard to get to the Super Bowl in back to back years, let alone win it.
 
I remember seeing a video a few years ago where Brady was interviewed about his favorite ring.  He told a story about someone at Michigan (equipment manager?) who had been around for several Championships.  When Brady asked that guy which one was his favorite he said "the next one".  Brady said that one was his favorite too.  The next one.  They look strong now and hopefully he gets the next one soon.  But damn if it isn't hard as hell to do.  Most of us know it, but these are the glory days.  Keep remembering this.

 

[RememberTheGronkans]

 
They may not repeat for the same reason the Seahawks didn't.  It is really, really hard to get to the Super Bowl in back to back years, let alone win it.
 
I remember seeing a video a few years ago where Brady was interviewed about his favorite ring.  He told a story about someone at Michigan (equipment manager?) who had been around for several Championships.  When Brady asked that guy which one was his favorite he said "the next one".  Brady said that one was his favorite too.  The next one.  They look strong now and hopefully he gets the next one soon.  But damn if it isn't hard as hell to do.  Most of us know it, but these are the glory days.  Keep remembering this.

There's certainly no guarantee that the Pats will repeat, but at the same time, they are the defending champs, are likely to retain most if not all of the roster, and will be getting Mayo back from injury. Hightower, Collins, and Mayo is a fucking scary thought. If Revis resigns, they should be the favorites to win the Superbowl. Will they? I sure hope so. 

But you can be sure Brady wants next year's more than anything else at this point. 

 

[doc]

I am probably jaded, but Favre doesn't crack my top 10. Imho, his risky style of play cost them more than helped em.

Farve in the Nolan Ryan of football.

 

[Leather]

Seahawks are currently the favorites.  
 
Don't know how that will change if Revis signs, or if the Ballghazi bullshit results in no lost draft pick.

 

[lexrageorge]

Remember, Brady is not done yet. 

This team will be better next season, by all logic, as long as Revis resigns. 

Why won't the Patriots repeat? They have as good a chance as anyone else right at this moment.

Of course, at this moment, he is the greatest of all time. But for Brady, that is not good enough.  

You should ask the 2005 Patriots team the same question.  Or the 2011 Packers that went 15-1 during the regular season.  Winning 3 (sometimes 4) games in a row against the league's iron is never a gimme.   
 
The Seahawks were inches away from repeating, but were unable to close the deal due to a play that hasn't happened all season (an INT on a pass from the 1 yard line).  Those same Seahawks never would have been in the game, had it not been for an unprecedented comeback against one of the league's best offensive teams in Green Bay. 
 
The Pats came back from 2 TD's twice in the same game, and needed an INT in the end zone to eek out a 3 point victory over the Ravens.  
 
If Edelman drops the ball after being clobbered by Chancellor on that 3rd-and-14, Wilson is the one taking a knee.  
 
All this makes Brady's feat all the more amazing, IMO. 

 

[richgedman'sghost]

The don't number it jackass!!!!!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
oh, nm, you typed "in no particular order" at the top.  Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
I hear you but they are from such a different era I don't think you can compare them.

Maybe, but, looking at another sport, baseball, I think we still compare guys like Mays and Aaron to the best players of today. Has the NFL changed more than MLB, say, 50s, 60s to now?

 

[ragnarok725]

Seahawks are currently the favorites.  
 
Don't know how that will change if Revis signs, or if the Ballghazi bullshit results in no lost draft pick.

 
Or if the Seahawks lose any key pieces (specifically, Lynch).

 

[Vinho Tinto]

 Has the NFL changed more than MLB, say, 50s, 60s to now?

 
Yes. The NFL has changed dramatically since the 1970s, forget the twenty years prior. 

 

[8slim]

I tend to find GOAT debates more tedious than fun, so I don't get all twisted up if someone wants to rank one guy over another in their mind.  I do find two things fascinating, though.  
 
The first is what Stitch said, the past 14 years are truly unprecedented, almost to an unfathomable degree.  As someone who's first memories of rooting for the Pats are from when I was 8, during the 2-14 1981 season, I still can't believe what these 14 years have entailed.
 
The second is the evolution of the perspective on Brady.  I remember that even with three Super Bowl wins he was still largely nationally regarded as a good QB, game manager type, maybe top 6-7 in the league.  Wasn't until 2007 that he started being regarded as a "best in the game" type of player  To go from the perception of him 10 years ago to today is amazing.  

 

[8slim]

Maybe, but, looking at another sport, baseball, I think we still compare guys like Mays and Aaron to the best players of today. Has the NFL changed more than MLB, say, 50s, 60s to now?

 
One can make a compelling argument that the NFL has changed more since the early 90s until today than MLB has changed since the 50s.  
 
I mean, didn't the NFL play one-platoon football in the 50s?

 

[DJnVa]

Where would you put Fouts, Kelly and Young? Fouts had huge weapons (Joiner, Winslow) and played in a great system but never had the benefit of a championship caliber defense.

 

Fouts had 254 TDs and 242 INTs in his career and a barely over .500 winning percentage. In 15 seasons, outside of his 3 really good in his prime years, had a career W/L record of 51-69 (and 33-15 those 3 years). That said, he played in a much different time for passers, but it's so hard to compare that I don't think there's any way to really do that comparison justice.

 

[loshjott]

When a team is consistently excellent for so long, they put themselves into position to win it all every year. Pats could conceivably be 7-0 in Super Bowls during this run (counting a victory over the Bears).  Or, if a few things went the other way, they could be something like 1-3. The tuck rule could have easily not been called. Lee Evans could have caught that pass (yes, I know they lost that SB anyway). Hell,  if Kasey doesn't kick off out of bounds after the Panthers tied it up, that game could have gone to OT.  And of course yesterday.
 
My point is the Pats put themselves in great position for a SB run every year, and over the whole era the breaks have pretty much evened out. Yes, 2007 was a once in a lifetime gut punch, but overall considering their consistent excellence the results have played out about what you'd expect.

 

[JMDurron]

There's certainly no guarantee that the Pats will repeat, but at the same time, they are the defending champs, are likely to retain most if not all of the roster, and will be getting Mayo back from injury. Hightower, Collins, and Mayo is a fucking scary thought. If Revis resigns, they should be the favorites to win the Superbowl. Will they? I sure hope so. 

But you can be sure Brady wants next year's more than anything else at this point. 

 
I believe that Mayo is a free agent.  That's not a small detail to consider.  

 

[coremiller]

Maybe, but, looking at another sport, baseball, I think we still compare guys like Mays and Aaron to the best players of today. Has the NFL changed more than MLB, say, 50s, 60s to now?

 
Yes, by a huge amount.
 
 

I tend to find GOAT debates more tedious than fun, so I don't get all twisted up if someone wants to rank one guy over another in their mind.  I do find two things fascinating, though.  
 
The first is what Stitch said, the past 14 years are truly unprecedented, almost to an unfathomable degree.  As someone who's first memories of rooting for the Pats are from when I was 8, during the 2-14 1981 season, I still can't believe what these 14 years have entailed.
 
The second is the evolution of the perspective on Brady.  I remember that even with three Super Bowl wins he was still largely nationally regarded as a good QB, game manager type, maybe top 6-7 in the league.  Wasn't until 2007 that he started being regarded as a "best in the game" type of player  To go from the perception of him 10 years ago to today is amazing.  

 
It's not actually unprecedented.  From 1981-98, the 49ers won 5 super bowls in 14 years, made the playoffs 16 out of 18 years, and had 16 consecutive 10-win seasons.  During that stretch they played in 10 conference championship games (81,83,84,88,89,90,92,93,94,97).
 
As for Brady vs. Montana, the only real argument for Brady is durability.  Montana's regular season passing rate stats are slightly better after adjusting for era. and his playoff numbers are MUCH better even before doing era adjustments.  Montana was also a better runner (an underrated part of his game).  But Montana got hurt a lot in the second half of his career, while apart from 2008 Brady hasn't missed a single game.

 

[bigsid05]

 
I believe that Mayo is a free agent.  That's not a small detail to consider.  

 
I think Mayo is under contract through 2017 with a cap number >$10M starting next season (2015).

 

[lexrageorge]

 
I believe that Mayo is a free agent.  That's not a small detail to consider.  

Not a free agent, but he does have a $10M+ cap number that can be shaved if he's cut. 

 

[8slim]

 
Yes, by a huge amount.
 
 
 
It's not actually unprecedented.  From 1981-98, the 49ers won 5 super bowls in 14 years, made the playoffs 16 out of 18 years, and had 16 consecutive 10-win seasons.  During that stretch they played in 10 conference championship games (81,83,84,88,89,90,92,93,94,97).
 
As for Brady vs. Montana, the only real argument for Brady is durability.  Montana's regular season passing rate stats are slightly better after adjusting for era. and his playoff numbers are MUCH better even before doing era adjustments.  Montana was also a better runner (an underrated part of his game).  But Montana got hurt a lot in the second half of his career, while apart from 2008 Brady hasn't missed a single game.

 
By unprecedented I meant given that this has occurred in the salary cap era.  The 49ers were over a decade into their run before a cap even came into effect.  And of course we know that they cheated it once it was implemented. 

 

[teddykgb]

 
Yes, by a huge amount.
 
 
 
It's not actually unprecedented.  From 1981-98, the 49ers won 5 super bowls in 14 years, made the playoffs 16 out of 18 years, and had 16 consecutive 10-win seasons.  During that stretch they played in 10 conference championship games (81,83,84,88,89,90,92,93,94,97).
 
As for Brady vs. Montana, the only real argument for Brady is durability.  Montana's regular season passing rate stats are slightly better after adjusting for era. and his playoff numbers are MUCH better even before doing era adjustments.  Montana was also a better runner (an underrated part of his game).  But Montana got hurt a lot in the second half of his career, while apart from 2008 Brady hasn't missed a single game.

 
I suspect this sentiment isn't going to be appreciated much today but you're right.  In reality, the field has been narrowed to 2.  You can make credible arguments in either direction and I think the Salary Cap matters a lot here, but it's premature to call it over.  I understand the sentiment today, though.  The facts just aren't quite there.  It's hard to properly contextualize the performance between the two time periods, but it's unfair to dismiss those SF teams-- that run was quite spectacular in its own right.  In a lot of ways, it's incredible that anyone else ever entered the conversation, let alone may have trumped it.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Fouts had 254 TDs but 242 INTs and a terrible 4.3% interception %. If Favre was a reckless gunslinger at 3.3% Fouts was Johnny Ringo.

Different era, back at ya. Joe Montana was probably the only QB of the 70s/80s with a "modern" TD/INT ratio. HOFer Joe Namath was 173/220 FCS.

 

[coremiller]

Different era, back at ya. Joe Montana was probably the only QB of the 70s/80s with a "modern" TD/INT ratio. HOFer Joe Namath was 173/220 FCS.

 
Yup, you can't look at these sorts of stats without era adjustments.  It's like evaluating hitters from 1930 vs 1968.  
 
Fouts finished his career with a 117 ANY/A+, which is T6th best (with Brady) all time among all QBs with min 3000 attempts (well, not quite all-time, but  since they started tracking sack data in 1969, which is needed to calculate ANY/A).  He was probably not quite good enough to be in the GOAT discussion, but he's comfortably in the next tier of all-time greats.
 
Here's the career ANY/A+ ranking list: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&year_min=1969&year_max=2014&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&league_id=&team_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_qb=Y&pos_is_rb=Y&pos_is_wr=Y&pos_is_te=Y&pos_is_rec=Y&pos_is_t=Y&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_ol=Y&pos_is_dt=Y&pos_is_de=Y&pos_is_dl=Y&pos_is_ilb=Y&pos_is_olb=Y&pos_is_lb=Y&pos_is_cb=Y&pos_is_s=Y&pos_is_db=Y&pos_is_k=Y&pos_is_p=Y&c1stat=pass_att&c1comp=gt&c1val=3000&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5comp=&c5gtlt=lt&c6mult=1.0&c6comp=&order_by=pass_adj_net_yds_per_att_index&draft=0&draft_year_min=1936&draft_year_max=2014&type=&draft_round_min=0&draft_round_max=99&draft_slot_min=1&draft_slot_max=500&draft_pick_in_round=0&draft_league_id=&draft_team_id=&college_id=all&conference=any&draft_pos_is_qb=Y&draft_pos_is_rb=Y&draft_pos_is_wr=Y&draft_pos_is_te=Y&draft_pos_is_rec=Y&draft_pos_is_t=Y&draft_pos_is_g=Y&draft_pos_is_c=Y&draft_pos_is_ol=Y&draft_pos_is_dt=Y&draft_pos_is_de=Y&draft_pos_is_dl=Y&draft_pos_is_ilb=Y&draft_pos_is_olb=Y&draft_pos_is_lb=Y&draft_pos_is_cb=Y&draft_pos_is_s=Y&draft_pos_is_db=Y&draft_pos_is_k=Y&draft_pos_is_p=Y#stats::none

 

[thehitcat]

 
Yup, you can't look at these sorts of stats without era adjustments.  It's like evaluating hitters from 1930 vs 1968.  
 
Fouts finished his career with a 117 ANY/A+, which is T6th best (with Brady) all time among all QBs with min 3000 attempts (well, not quite all-time, but  since they started tracking sack data in 1969, which is needed to calculate ANY/A).  He was probably not quite good enough to be in the GOAT discussion, but he's comfortably in the next tier of all-time greats.
 
 

Thank you for the link.  Do the stats they show there include Post Season as well or is it considered enough of a different animal that they break it out separately?
 
That's an interesting list and I realize not one stat tells all but having Trent Green in the top 15 and Matt Schaub in the top 20 all time doesn't exactly make me think that you can swear by ANY/A+.  
 
To me a discussion about the GOAT is the topic that sports radio was born for and sadly never gets off the ground.  I'd love to have a deep discussion of it here including era and rate adjusted stats as well as "scouting" impressions from the guys who have watched other greats on the list. 

 

[coremiller]

Thank you for the link.  Do the stats they show there include Post Season as well or is it considered enough of a different animal that they break it out separately?
 
That's an interesting list and I realize not one stat tells all but having Trent Green in the top 15 and Matt Schaub in the top 20 all time doesn't exactly make me think that you can swear by ANY/A+.  
 
To me a discussion about the GOAT is the topic that sports radio was born for and sadly never gets off the ground.  I'd love to have a deep discussion of it here including era and rate adjusted stats as well as "scouting" impressions from the guys who have watched other greats on the list. 

 
Well, Green at least was actually a very good, extremely underrated QB.  But I agree with you, ANY/A+ has issues.  I do like it though as a quick and dirty way to compare all of the main components of passing (y/a, tds, ints, and sacks) across eras.  It's better than passer rating since it a) includes sacks, and b) uses more accurate weights among the components.  These are regular season only.
 
One of the faults of the era adjustment is that it just compares to league average.  This is problematic for a couple of reasons; 1) the expansion effect: the league has more teams now than it used to, which drags the average down, which makes modern-era passers look better compared to league average; 2) league average doesn't tell you anything about variance.  I tend to think that variance in QB performance is much wider now than it used to be: it's easier for the best QBs to exceed the average by a bigger amount than it used to be, while the bad QBs stink just as much as the old ones did.  The rules don't favor passing generally so much as they favor good-QB passing.  But this is just my untested theory. 
 
Also, by just using a career average, you punish QBs who had terrible starts to their careers but high peaks.  Troy Aikman is a classic example of that phenomenon.  This is one reason Schaub looks good in this stat: since he spent his first few years as a backup not playing, by the time he became a starter he was already able to perform at league average or better.  Schaub also just barely snuck in over my totally arbitrary 3000 attempt threshold.  He only started 90 games, or less than 6 seasons' worth.  But he was actually pretty good from 2008-11, when he finished in the Top 8 in ANY/A every year.  Obviously though he's not the 20th best post-merger QB. 
 
Here's some more links:
 
Career postseason Adjusted Yards/Attempt (ANY/A is not available, nor are era adjustments): http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&year_min=1960&year_max=2014&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&game_type=P&league_id=&team_id=&opp_id=&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&stadium_id=&game_day_of_week=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&handedness=&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=pass_att&c1comp=gt&c1val=200&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5comp=&c5gtlt=lt&c6mult=1.0&c6comp=&order_by=pass_adj_yds_per_att
 
Chase Stuart has done some studies on ranking QBs that are interesting, since they control for some (but not all) era and schedule effects: http://www.footballperspective.com/the-greatest-qb-of-all-time-v-part-ii-career-rankings/  Manning and Brady rank 1-2, with Manning ahead mostly because Manning has more volume.
 
Stuart also did a postseason QB ranking using a leverage index: http://www.footballperspective.com/the-best-playoff-quarterbacks-in-the-super-bowl-era/  Montana's postseason numbers blow everyone else away by miles (it helps to have an 11-0 TD/INT ratio in 4 Super Bowls).  The whole Montana-was-great-in-the-clutch thing was not a myth.  Whether that's meaningful or just a statistical fluke is a different question, but it's a fact that [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]his postseason performances really were uniquely exceptional, even by the standards of elite QBs.  [/SIZE]

 

[luckiestman]

I think there are seven or eight QBs in the discussion and I realize most of them played recently but I think the QB position is more important to the game now than it was in the 70's.
 
This is in no particular order:
 
1. Tom Brady
2. Peyton Manning
3. Brett Favre (I thought he took too many risks)
4. Joe Montana 
5. Dan Marino (No ring and wasn't always sharp in the playoffs either but that doesn't mean he wasn't a historically great QB)
6. John Elway 
7. Fran Tarkenton (3 huge collapses in the Super Bowl)
8. Drew Brees (outside looking in - he plays for a dome team that is focused on passing so his raw numbers are somewhat inflated)
 
All of these guys have post season raw numbers too. Brady has a ridiculous QB rating for a guy who plays no dome teams in his division, plays often in harsh conditions, and is often playing a stacked schedule.

 
 
I don't like this list too much. It's subjective, but given equal talent on the rest of the roster I would take a lot of guys over Favre, Manning, Marino and Brees. Those guys are stat monsters that often find ways to come up small. I'd feel a lot better about having Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Phil Simms. This becomes more of a definition about what greatness is. 

 

[luckiestman]

 
Same for Parcells and Hostetler?  What?  Phil Simms was Parcells' QB, and Phil Simms was very good.  Jeff Hostetler started three meaningful games for Parcells.

 
 
Parcells won a SB with Hostetler. Granted, Belichick's D was a big part of this game, like I mentioned. But winning a superbowl and beating the niners on the road with Jeff Hostetler is really impressive. Winning the Superbowl with Joe Theismann, Doug Williams and then again with Mark Rypien is really impressive. I rank BB the best, but having the arguably GOAT QB doesn't help his case. Shit, Gibbs might actually be better, I don't know 3 SB with 3 different QBS, WOW.

 

[Stitch01]

Niners '81-'94 159-56-1, 5 titles, 5 SB appearances, 10 NFCCG appearances (3-6 strike shortened year skews the numbers as well as the missed game in '87), 12 playoff appearances
 
Pats '01-'14  170-54, 4 titles, 6 SB appearances, 9 AFCCG appearances, 12 playoff appearances.
 
Niners went 48-16 over their next four years, with 4 playoff appearances, but only 1 NFCCG appearance to show for it.
 
Niners teams were great of course, but think Pats run during the salary cap era is more impressive to me and there's a pretty good chance you dont even have to add the salary cap qualifier four years from now. 
 
If we're talking greatest run by a single coach/QB combo, Pats pretty much already locked that up.

 

[garlan5]

The salary cap era shouldn't sway and thoughts on best coach or player in this discussion. Salary cap era doesn't qualify the argument the patriots played on lesser teams than say the 9ers of the Montana era. If the patriots, because of salary cap, played with diluted talent then they played against diluted talent.

 

[garlan5]

The salary cap era shouldn't sway and thoughts on best coach or player in this discussion. Salary cap era doesn't qualify the argument the patriots played on lesser teams than say the 9ers of the Montana era. If the patriots, because of salary cap, played with diluted talent then they played against diluted talent.

it's like saying Montana played against stacked playoff teams because there was no salary cap. Mute point.

 

[Stitch01]

Best coach or player, probably not. Best team, Id disagree.
 
Coremiller is right that the Brady over Montana argument is likely based on durability, but given Brady's already got a full season of games on Montana and is still playing at a high level and the gulf between the two isnt that extreme, the durability argument is likely to end up being quite compelling when talking about career value.

 

[Leather]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/upshot/patriots-dynasty-has-a-claim-on-being-the-best.html?ref=football&abt=0002&abg=1

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Niners '81-'94 159-56-1, 5 titles, 5 SB appearances, 10 NFCCG appearances (3-6 strike shortened year skews the numbers as well as the missed game in '87), 12 playoff appearances
 
Pats '01-'14  170-54, 4 titles, 6 SB appearances, 9 AFCCG appearances, 12 playoff appearances.
 
Niners went 48-16 over their next four years, with 4 playoff appearances, but only 1 NFCCG appearance to show for it.
 
Niners teams were great of course, but think Pats run during the salary cap era is more impressive to me and there's a pretty good chance you dont even have to add the salary cap qualifier four years from now. 
 
If we're talking greatest run by a single coach/QB combo, Pats pretty much already locked that up.

 
If you guys want to debate the Niners-Pats dynasties, check out the thread I just created, that gives some more data and context.  This thread is convoluted enough just talking about QBs and Brady's place in history.