The Greatest of All Time

[Skeesix]

I think that Montana best argument is nostalgia. 
 
Brady is just on his own planet. For all of the ways Montana's four is incredible (and the numbers in those games are sort of eye popping) the other seasons have to matter.

Well I think the greatness of Montana is inseparable from the greatness of Jerry Rice. Could Joe have put up numbers like that without Rice? Probably not. Brady's done it with literally everyone from hometown guys like Jermaine Wiggins to superstars like Randy Moss.

 

[Eric1984]

And if Franco Harris is a little less immaculate then Bradshaw/Knolls have one less. If Everson Walls is just a bit earlier Montana doesn't even make the superbowl that year - there is no "the catch". It doesn't make sense to subtract one play or one moment in time from any QB/team/player and pretend that is equitable.
Often teams in the SB are closely matched. One play can turn on whether the team practised or anticipated a scenario. Garappolo said they ran that exact play/formation as a scout team and beat Butler in practise during SB prep. BB spoke to Butler and told him he needed to play it better. So dismissing it as Brady/Pats being one lucky or freak play away from a loss isn't giving credit where it is do. That is coaching and prepping a team to make a play another team may not make. That is the essense of sustained excellence (even in years they lose by that one play).

Immaculate Reception was in 1972 - Steelers lost to Miami in the AFCC the following week. But Bradshaw is a Jackie Smith drop from having only 3. Of course if Bleier and Harris weren't both out with injuries for the AFCC vs OAK in '76, Bradshaw might have 5.

 

[Dehere]

Manning does seem to disappear frequently for no real reason in playoff games. I can’t think of too many total Brady stink bombs in the playoffs.

I think a lot of that has come down to coaching. Brady has always had the huge advantage of the best coach of the SB era. Manning has had mediocre at best coaches and essentially served as his own OC for most of his career. Some of those high-powered Colts teams were badly outcoached in the playoffs, not just by BB but by good coaches like Cowher and Sean Payton to name two.

Brady has my vote as GOAT and had it even before this SB, but if you were making a case for Manning you'd credit him for the fact that every other serious GOAT candidate had a long tenure with a HOF-quality head coach.

 

[loshjott]

 
I think if you could take one quarter back for one game or one season you can’t go wrong with any of these:
 
-Montana
-Young
-Manning
-Brady
-Rodgers
 
For a multi-year run, I’d remove Young and Montana just because of their relative fragility compared to the others.
 
For career, it’s obviously between Brady and Manning, with Brady probably having the advantage when all is said and done. Manning does have a quantity advantage, which Brady may close entirely if he ages better than Manning. I think Manning’s slight quality advantage (higher ANYA+, for example)  is more due to Manning’s favorable offensive environment (Dome+better receivers). That said, even though I love Brady and hate Manning, I think people may overstate their clutch differences. Although now I’m arguing with myself: Manning does seem to disappear frequently for no real reason in playoff games. I can’t think of too many total Brady stink bombs in the playoffs.
 
Montana and Young may have better peaks, but just didn’t do it long enough. No one else matches Brady and Manning’s peak performance and longevity. And Manning can’t touch Brady’s playoff success.
 
Best QB career:
 
Brady
Manning
Montana
Young
Marino
 
Rogers is close to breaking the top 5 already and could very well finish #1 when he retires.
 

 
I think the guy who gets lost in these conversations sometimes is Elway.  He'd definitely be in my top five for one game. Neutral field with the same personnel I'd put Elway ahead of Rodgers, maybe Manning and Young also.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Immaculate Reception was in 1972 - Steelers lost to Miami in the AFCC the following week. But Bradshaw is a Jackie Smith drop from having only 3. Of course if Bleier and Harris weren't both out with injuries for the AFCC vs OAK in '76, Bradshaw might have 5.

Thanks for the clarification. One specific play is often the difference but I clearly got that fact wrong. Injuries often makes a difference as well. Legacies often swing in both directions on the smallest things.

 

[bluefenderstrat]

Love LaFell's description of the final drive here:   http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/02/02/brandon-lafell-winning-super-bowl-validates-decision-to-sign-with-patriots/
 
 

 
 
“It was just, it was serious,” he said. “You could tell he knew it was crunch time, that we had to make a play, man. I saw that look in his eyes against Green Bay. We were this close to making the plays to win that game. Tonight, man, it was just, ‘Hey man, do your job. When I throw you the ball make a play for me. I’m going to give you the ball in space. I’m not going to throw you to no blow-up shots. Get the ball, get up field, protect the ball, make every play so we can go ahead and win this game.'”

 

[coremiller]

Well I think the greatness of Montana is inseparable from the greatness of Jerry Rice. Could Joe have put up numbers like that without Rice? Probably not. Brady's done it with literally everyone from hometown guys like Jermaine Wiggins to superstars like Randy Moss.

 
We covered this already.  Montana won two Super Bowls and QB'd one of the great teams of all time (the 84 Niners) before the 49ers drafted Rice, when his main targets were Dwight Clark, Freddie Solomon, Russ Francis, and Earl Cooper.  Solid players all, but hardly great.
 

 
Just like he hit that Bengals DB in the numbers (who inexplicably dropped a gimme interception), right before throwing the game winner to Taylor? We can play that game too.

 
The missed interception happened earlier in the game, before a TD pass to Jerry Rice in the third quarter, and not on the final drive.
 

It's been 10 years, how many guys do you expect to still be on the team?

 

 
Similarly, the 1994 Niners had exactly zero players left from the 1981 team and one player left from the 1984 team (Jesse Sapolu, who played in only one game in 1984), plus a new coaching staff (a few of the assistants were lifers and had stuck around).  That's just the way things go in the NFL.  If anything, keeping the same coach/QB tandem for so long is a mark of unusual consistency.

 

[ivanvamp]

I think there are two separate (but related) issues here:
 
1.  Who is the *best* QB of all time?
2.  Who is the *greatest* QB of all time?
 
Here's how I see the difference, and let me use a basketball analogy.  I was born in 1969 so I missed the careers of Alcindor, Walton, etc., in college.  To me, the greatest college basketball player I ever saw was Christian Laettner.  Believe me, it is sooooo painful to say that.  But he had individual accolades, he won championships, he came up biggest in the biggest moments, he was so accomplished.  A legendary college player.  But he wasn't the *best* college player I ever saw.  I think that player is probably Michael Jordan or Len Bias.  
 
So when I think about the "best" QB of all time, I think of talent and production, not necessarily "accomplishments".  When I think of "greatest", I think of all those things, but accomplishments probably end up trumping the talent and production.
 
So…..
 
5 Best QB of all time
1. Elway
2. Brady
3. P. Manning
4. Montana
5. Marino
 
5 Greatest QB of all time
1. Brady
2. Montana
3. Elway
4. P. Manning
5. Unitas
 
Totally subjective lists (and I'm sure many of you would disagree with me on these), but I think Elway had the most ability (could throw every pass there was to throw, could run, was incredibly tough), obviously had tremendous success and was very accomplished.  But his accomplishments are not what Brady's or Montana's were.  So he falls behind on the "greatest" scale.  
 
BTW, Aaron Rodgers is knocking on the door of both of these lists, IMO.

 

[Leather]

I think Manning has a genuine Achilles Heal, and that is (as has been posited elsewhere) if things don't go "according to plan", he unravels.   
 
When things go great, he's unstoppable.  But in the playoffs, when he's facing good teams and good coaches, his game plan often gets disrupted and he tightens up.

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

 
Just like he hit that Bengals DB in the numbers (who inexplicably dropped a gimme interception), right before throwing the game winner to Taylor? We can play that game too.

 
Super Bowl Interceptions
 
Montana - 0
Brady - 4
 
So even if you're given that one, it's still 4 to 1. 

 

[bradmahn]

 
Super Bowl Interceptions
 
Montana - 0
Brady - 4
 
So even if you're given that one, it's still 4 to 1. 

Career postseason INT rates:
Brady - 2.4%
Montana - 2.9%

But by all means, let's give Montana credit for losing earlier.

 

[Auger34]

I think a lot of that has come down to coaching. Brady has always had the huge advantage of the best coach of the SB era. Manning has had mediocre at best coaches and essentially served as his own OC for most of his career. Some of those high-powered Colts teams were badly outcoached in the playoffs, not just by BB but by good coaches like Cowher and Sean Payton to name two.

Brady has my vote as GOAT and had it even before this SB, but if you were making a case for Manning you'd credit him for the fact that every other serious GOAT candidate had a long tenure with a HOF-quality head coach.

I have two serious problems with this logic and line of thinking.
1. Part of what makes everyone talk about Peyton as the best ever, something that he always gets a ton of credit for, is that he is basically his own offensive coordinator. Wants full freedom to audible at the line, call whatever plays he likes, read the defense and adjust.
Also, I know that he's not the most popular dude in these parts but Tony Dungy was a great head coach and will be a member of the Hall of Fame soon. He is also the perfect counterpart to Peyton as he is a defensive minded Head Coach and basically lets his offense and offensive staff do what they want.
2. On every single team he's ever been on there has been so much talent on the offensive side and so many resources used on the offensive side of the ball. It's pretty unprecedented in the salary cap era the amount of money and high draft picks that were spent to make Peyton happy and make sure he had multiple weapons at all times.
Of course, this led to most of his defenses being underfunded and really sucking but people only seem to use that as an excuse for Peyton and don't bring up the fact that this is pretty much a direct result of loading up his offenses

 

[Auger34]

I think Manning has a genuine Achilles Heal, and that is (as has been posited elsewhere) if things don't go "according to plan", he unravels.   
 
When things go great, he's unstoppable.  But in the playoffs, when he's facing good teams and good coaches, his game plan often gets disrupted and he tightens up.

Absolutely! This has been his achilles heel going back to college. When facing teams that have talent on the defensive side of the ball with good coaching to match, Peyton folds like a cheap suit. He also, for most of his football playing career, has a tendency to let mistakes snowball and get inside of his head.
None of us will ever know this for sure but I think if Peyton Manning was the QB in the Super Bowl, after those two interceptions he unravels and the game becomes a blowout.

 

[Captaincoop]

Elway was like Favre. Too many mistakes, too much of a gunslinger.

If we are talking about who was the best QB strictly from a skills/production standpoint and ignoring championships I would take Marino or Manning.

Let me pick one QB to win a Super Bowl and the only considerations are Brady and Montana.

 

[Auger34]

I think there are two separate (but related) issues here:
 
1.  Who is the *best* QB of all time?
2.  Who is the *greatest* QB of all time?
 
Here's how I see the difference, and let me use a basketball analogy.  I was born in 1969 so I missed the careers of Alcindor, Walton, etc., in college.  To me, the greatest college basketball player I ever saw was Christian Laettner.  Believe me, it is sooooo painful to say that.  But he had individual accolades, he won championships, he came up biggest in the biggest moments, he was so accomplished.  A legendary college player.  But he wasn't the *best* college player I ever saw.  I think that player is probably Michael Jordan or Len Bias.  
 
So when I think about the "best" QB of all time, I think of talent and production, not necessarily "accomplishments".  When I think of "greatest", I think of all those things, but accomplishments probably end up trumping the talent and production.
 
So..
 
5 Best QB of all time
1. Elway
2. Brady
3. P. Manning
4. Montana
5. Marino
 
5 Greatest QB of all time
1. Brady
2. Montana
3. Elway
4. P. Manning
5. Unitas
 
Totally subjective lists (and I'm sure many of you would disagree with me on these), but I think Elway had the most ability (could throw every pass there was to throw, could run, was incredibly tough), obviously had tremendous success and was very accomplished.  But his accomplishments are not what Brady's or Montana's were.  So he falls behind on the "greatest" scale.  
 
BTW, Aaron Rodgers is knocking on the door of both of these lists, IMO.

That's an interesting list but if I am following your qualifications for "best" correctly (basically saying they had the most talent, a "wow" factor when you watched them even if their accomplishments don't necessarily stack up) wouldn't you have to put Favre on the list? Dude had a cannon for an arm, an uncanny ability to improvise and make things happen when nothing was available. I don't know that's just who I immediately thought of when reading your qualifications for best. Would also think Marino would be higher on the list as well

 

[coremiller]

Career postseason INT rates:
Brady - 2.4%
Montana - 2.9%

But by all means, let's give Montana credit for losing earlier.

 
There really isn't a good argument that Brady's playoff performance is as good as Montana's.  You can cherry-pick certain statistics, but those are misleading; any more comprehensive analysis is going to come out only one way.
 
For example:
 
Playoff Adjusted Yards/Attempt (includes TDs and INTs, does not include sacks): Brady 6.68, Montana 7.80 (despite playing in a tougher passing era).
Playoff passer rating: Brady 88.5, Montana 95.6
 
We only have DVOA going back to 1989, so that doesn't include Montana's entire career, but:
 
Playoff DVOA: Brady 21.9%, Montana 62.3%; DYAR/Game: Brady 82.6, Montana 155.3.
 
The disparity is even bigger if you adjust for leverage, because Montana's best playoff performances came in the Super Bowl, while Brady's were in earlier rounds.
 

2. On every single team he's ever been on there has been so much talent on the offensive side and so many resources used on the offensive side of the ball. It's pretty unprecedented in the salary cap era the amount of money and high draft picks that were spent to make Peyton happy and make sure he had multiple weapons at all times.
Of course, this led to most of his defenses being underfunded and really sucking but people only seem to use that as an excuse for Peyton and don't bring up the fact that this is pretty much a direct result of loading up his offenses

 
This is not true.  Take a look at the roster of the 2009-10 Colts teams some time -- those teams were not very good.  They were far from the loaded powerhouses of the 03-07 era.  There's a reason they went 2-14 in 2011 when Manning got hurt: the rest of the team sucked.
 
Also, Colts draft picks by position, first three rounds, 1999-2010:
 
RB, LB, G, LB, LB, CB, WR, S, S, DE, DT, S, TE, S, CB, S, TE, LB, CB, CB, DE, RB, CB, LB, WR, OT, CB, DT, C, LB, RB, DT, CB, DE, LB, CB.  That's 24/40 on defense.  The first round picks alone skew 6-4 on offense, but they were using most of their 2nds and 3rds on defense.  

 

[ivanvamp]

That's an interesting list but if I am following your qualifications for "best" correctly (basically saying they had the most talent, a "wow" factor when you watched them even if their accomplishments don't necessarily stack up) wouldn't you have to put Favre on the list? Dude had a cannon for an arm, an uncanny ability to improvise and make things happen when nothing was available. I don't know that's just who I immediately thought of when reading your qualifications for best. Would also think Marino would be higher on the list as well

 
I thought of Favre, and you're right, he had incredible talent and won a ton, but he also was extremely mistake-prone.  Just threw a TON of interceptions. 

 

[coremiller]

Elway was like Favre. Too many mistakes, too much of a gunslinger.

If we are talking about who was the best QB strictly from a skills/production standpoint and ignoring championships I would take Marino or Manning.

Let me pick one QB to win a Super Bowl and the only considerations are Brady and Montana.

 
The best QB strictly from a skills standpoint is probably Steve Young.  He doesn't have the career numbers because 1) he wasted the start of his career in the USFL and on a dreadful Tampa team, 2) he then sat behind Montana for four prime-aged years, and 3) he got hurt a lot.  He also gets overlooked because Montana overshadowed him and he only won one championship.  But he was the best passer of his era (he was a full-time starter for the 49ers for 8 years and was first in passer rating in 6 of those years and first in ANY/A in four) and is by far the best runner of all the GOAT-candidate QBs.  He's the only one of the great passers where defenses had to specifically game-plan to stop his running.  The Niners always had QB draws and naked bootleg runs in the gameplan, in addition to his scrambling.
 
In some ways Steve Young was ahead of his time, because his combined passing/running skills would be totally unstoppable in today's read-option/running QB offenses.

 

[ivanvamp]

Gads, I forgot about Steve Young.  He really was incredible.  

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

 
There really isn't a good argument that Brady's playoff performance is as good as Montana's.  You can cherry-pick certain statistics, but those are misleading; any more comprehensive analysis is going to come out only one way.
 
For example:
 
Playoff Adjusted Yards/Attempt (includes TDs and INTs, does not include sacks): Brady 6.68, Montana 7.80 (despite playing in a tougher passing era).
Playoff passer rating: Brady 88.5, Montana 95.6
 
We only have DVOA going back to 1989, so that doesn't include Montana's entire career, but:
 
Playoff DVOA: Brady 21.9%, Montana 62.3%; DYAR/Game: Brady 82.6, Montana 155.3.
 
The disparity is even bigger if you adjust for leverage, because Montana's best playoff performances came in the Super Bowl, while Brady's were in earlier rounds.
 
 
This is not true.  Take a look at the roster of the 2009-10 Colts teams some time -- those teams were not very good.  They were far from the loaded powerhouses of the 03-07 era.  There's a reason they went 2-14 in 2011 when Manning got hurt: the rest of the team sucked.
 
Also, Colts draft picks by position, first three rounds, 1999-2010:
 
RB, LB, G, LB, LB, CB, WR, S, S, DE, DT, S, TE, S, CB, S, TE, LB, CB, CB, DE, RB, CB, LB, WR, OT, CB, DT, C, LB, RB, DT, CB, DE, LB, CB.  That's 24/40 on defense.  The first round picks alone skew 6-4 on offense, but they were using most of their 2nds and 3rds on defense.  

The 2009 team still had plenty of offensive talent. Peak Wayne, peak Clark, a healthy Collie, and Garçon. Addai was still very effective when healthy. The o-line was weak in terms of run-blocking, but number 1 in adjusted sack rate.

In 2010 the wheels fell off, largely due to injury and an aging offensive line that Polian had failed to bolster in the draft.

 

[coremiller]

Gads, I forgot about Steve Young.  He really was incredible.  

 
There's also a good control for the "but he got to throw to Jerry Rice" issue.  In 1997, Rice tore his ACL in the first game of the season (on an illegal hit by Warren Sapp) and missed the rest of the year.  Young still led the league in passer rating and ANY/A and was 1st among full-time starters in DVOA.  

 

[wiffleballhero]

This discussion -- and its corollary with Belichick -- is really a compelling part of the story going into next season.
 
You know that at some level, a repeat would be just the final, brutal, massive nail in the coffin for almost all of these debates.
 
Brady would go above Montana in a fashion that the biggest SF homers would have to accept and Belichick would cross both Shula (appearances) and Noll for wins with what would be the two back-to-backers.
 
On an even larger, historical level, that would then leapfrog the Pats over Dallas and Pittsburgh with nine total appearances. It would leave the Pats within one of Pitts total of six wins (it would put the Pats with Dallas and SF at five total wins).
 
Given their youth, given that it seems really unlikely that Belichick and his coaches are looking to rest on their laurels after these last couple weeks and given Brady's seemingly insane drive (and also given how so many of the strong AFC teams seem in a bit of trouble these days) I like our chances.

 

[coremiller]

The 2009 team still had plenty of offensive talent. Peak Wayne, peak Clark, a healthy Collie, and Garçon. Addai was still very effective when healthy. The o-line was weak in terms of run-blocking, but number 1 in adjusted sack rate.

In 2010 the wheels fell off, largely due to injury and an aging offensive line that Polian had failed to bolster in the draft.

 
The sack rate is all Manning.  His ability to avoid sacks without sacrificing other parts of his game is probably the most underrated part of his game and a big reason his ANY/A numbers (which include sacks) are so good.  
 
Manning's team's rank in adjusted sack rate (on different teams with totally different OL personnel):
 
2014: 1
2013: 1
2012: 2
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008: 1
2007: 5
2006: 1
2005: 1
2004: 2
2003: 2
2002: 2
 
Indy went from 1st in ASR under Manning in 2010 to 18th in 2011 without him.  Denver went from 29th without him in 2011 to 2nd in 2012 with him.

 

[Captaincoop]

 
The best QB strictly from a skills standpoint is probably Steve Young.  He doesn't have the career numbers because 1) he wasted the start of his career in the USFL and on a dreadful Tampa team, 2) he then sat behind Montana for four prime-aged years, and 3) he got hurt a lot.  He also gets overlooked because Montana overshadowed him and he only won one championship.  But he was the best passer of his era (he was a full-time starter for the 49ers for 8 years and was first in passer rating in 6 of those years and first in ANY/A in four) and is by far the best runner of all the GOAT-candidate QBs.  He's the only one of the great passers where defenses had to specifically game-plan to stop his running.  The Niners always had QB draws and naked bootleg runs in the gameplan, in addition to his scrambling.
 
In some ways Steve Young was ahead of his time, because his combined passing/running skills would be totally unstoppable in today's read-option/running QB offenses.

 
Steve Young was awesome.  As you say, he just didn't have the years.
 
I hated Marino because squish the fish and all, but he was truly terrifying to face and I think he gets overlooked far too much today, thanks to spending his prime with no running game and senile Don Shula.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

The sack rate is all Manning.  His ability to avoid sacks without sacrificing other parts of his game is probably the most underrated part of his game and a big reason his ANY/A numbers (which include sacks) are so good.  
 
Manning's team's rank in adjusted sack rate (on different teams with totally different OL personnel):
 
<snip>
 
Indy went from 1st in ASR under Manning in 2010 to 18th in 2011 without him.  Denver went from 29th without him in 2011 to 2nd in 2012 with him.

 
 
Yeah, but correlation doesn't imply causa -- oh wait, in this case it actually does, cause there's the whole before-and-after controls.

 

[johnmd20]

This discussion -- and its corollary with Belichick -- is really a compelling part of the story going into next season.
 
You know that at some level, a repeat would be just the final, brutal, massive nail in the coffin for almost all of these debates.
 
Brady would go above Montana in a fashion that the biggest SF homers would have to accept and Belichick would cross both Shula (appearances) and Noll for wins with what would be the two back-to-backers.
 
On an even larger, historical level, that would then leapfrog the Pats over Dallas and Pittsburgh with nine total appearances. It would leave the Pats within one of Pitts total of six wins (it would put the Pats with Dallas and SF at five total wins).
 
Given their youth, given that it seems really unlikely that Belichick and his coaches are looking to rest on their laurels after these last couple weeks and given Brady's seemingly insane drive (and also given how so many of the strong AFC teams seem in a bit of trouble these days) I like our chances.

 
This year was the brutal nail in the coffin, in my opinion.

 

[SMU_Sox]

The reason the o-line has such a good adjusted sack rating in New England and Denver is because their QBs release the ball so quickly. Manning and Brady are routinely in the top five or 1st and 2nd in release time. This year was no different with Manning first and Brady second. It's hard to get sacked when you release the ball after 2.0 seconds.
That both teams also have good linemen helps too of course but that quick release is beneficial.

 

[kolbitr]

 
There's also a good control for the "but he got to throw to Jerry Rice" issue.  In 1997, Rice tore his ACL in the first game of the season (on an illegal hit by Warren Sapp) and missed the rest of the year.  Young still led the league in passer rating and ANY/A and was 1st among full-time starters in DVOA.  

 
I remember that game...if I recall correctly Sapp grabbed his facemask on the play and spun him down, tearing the ACL. Young was also concussed in that game, allowing Jim Druckenmiller to start the next week against the Rams. The SI cover after that first game was (I think) Young getting sacked with the headline "Niner Nightmare", and the story featured classy quotations from Bucs players like Hardy Nickerson saying "It feels good to stuff a team like the Niners"...
 
Rice would make a miracle "comeback" that year, returning in December for Joe Montana night, when he caught a touchdown pass and promptly fractured his patella. I'm going strictly by memory here, so I might be wrong about the details...Young was pretty amazing that year without Rice, throwing to Owens...and who else? Stokes and Brent Jones I think...

 

[kolbitr]

 
We only have DVOA going back to 1989, so that doesn't include Montana's entire career, but:
 
Playoff DVOA: Brady 21.9%, Montana 62.3%; DYAR/Game: Brady 82.6, Montana 155.3.
 
The disparity is even bigger if you adjust for leverage, because Montana's best playoff performances came in the Super Bowl, while Brady's were in earlier rounds.
 
 
 

 
While I don't disagree with you on Montana's greatness, having to leave out the pre-1989 years, when Montana had some poor performances, does skew the numbers a bit.

 

[loshjott]

Career postseason INT rates:
Brady - 2.4%
Montana - 2.9%

But by all means, let's give Montana credit for losing earlier.

 
Montana played in an era of unusual imbalance between the conferences.  In the 14 Super Bowls that bracket the Niner wins (including Young's), the NFC was 13-1, then they won two more before the Broncos beat the Packers.  It's not unreasonable to state that Montana's toughest playoff games were the Divisional round or NFC title games in those years.
 
3 years in a row (85-87) he was one and done in the postseason with a combined 0 TDs and 4 INTs.
 
88 and 89 he was off the charts fantastic going 6-0 in the playoffs with an astounding 19-1 TD to INT rate.
 
In short, Montana's playoff highs were better than Brady's and his lows were worse than Brady's.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
The sack rate is all Manning.  His ability to avoid sacks without sacrificing other parts of his game is probably the most underrated part of his game and a big reason his ANY/A numbers (which include sacks) are so good.  
 
Manning's team's rank in adjusted sack rate (on different teams with totally different OL personnel):
 
Indy went from 1st in ASR under Manning in 2010 to 18th in 2011 without him.  Denver went from 29th without him in 2011 to 2nd in 2012 with him.

I'm a Brady-over-Manning guy, but this is a point that I think Brady defenders have to concede. In general I think the statistical differences between them are overstated (mostly in Manning's favor), but this is something Peyton is perhaps the best of all time at, while Brady is merely very good.

 

[coremiller]

 
While I don't disagree with you on Montana's greatness, having to leave out the pre-1989 years, when Montana had some poor performances, does skew the numbers a bit.

 
Oh, sure, although those numbers also include the KC years, which were far from Montana's best performances, especially the 1993 AFC Championship game in Buffalo (9-23 for 125 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT).
 

 
Montana played in an era of unusual imbalance between the conferences.  In the 14 Super Bowls that bracket the Niner wins (including Young's), the NFC was 13-1, then they won two more before the Broncos beat the Packers.  It's not unreasonable to state that Montana's toughest playoff games were the Divisional round or NFC title games in those years.
 
3 years in a row (85-87) he was one and done in the postseason with a combined 0 TDs and 4 INTs.
 
88 and 89 he was off the charts fantastic going 6-0 in the playoffs with an astounding 19-1 TD to INT rate.
 
In short, Montana's playoff highs were better than Brady's and his lows were worse than Brady's.

 
The conference imbalance was more of a late 80s/early 90s thing.  The conferences were pretty even in the early 1980s, I think.  SF actually drew tough teams in most of its Super Bowls - in 1981 (Ken Anderson), 1984 (Marino in his best year), and 1988 (Esiason) they played against the guy who had just won the MVP award (added motivation for Montana no doubt).  They were only 1 pt favorites in 1981 and 3 pt favorites in 1984.
 
I'm not sure Montana's lows were really much worse after adjusting for era and opponent.  The games in 85 and 86 were on the road in the Meadowlands against a great Giants defense.  Montana actually played ok in the 85 loss (26-47/296/0/1) -- not great, but not horrible.  He stank in the 86 and 87 games.
 
They both have three playoff games with an AY/A under 4, but Brady was lucky enough to win two of those (the 2006 and 2007 games against San Diego), so nobody remembers those poor performances.  Montana's performances look worse on paper, but the era adjustments matter there.  Brady's 2009 game against the Ravens was pretty awful.  
 

 
I remember that game...if I recall correctly Sapp grabbed his facemask on the play and spun him down, tearing the ACL. Young was also concussed in that game, allowing Jim Druckenmiller to start the next week against the Rams. The SI cover after that first game was (I think) Young getting sacked with the headline "Niner Nightmare", and the story featured classy quotations from Bucs players like Hardy Nickerson saying "It feels good to stuff a team like the Niners"...
 
Rice would make a miracle "comeback" that year, returning in December for Joe Montana night, when he caught a touchdown pass and promptly fractured his patella. I'm going strictly by memory here, so I might be wrong about the details...Young was pretty amazing that year without Rice, throwing to Owens...and who else? Stokes and Brent Jones I think...

 
Owens, Stokes, and Brent Jones were the top 3 receivers, although Owens was not yet the guy he would be later in his career and Jones was fading (he retired after that season).  They didn't really have a 3rd wideout.  
 
Video of both of the hits from that Bucs game is on youtube.  Young getting kneed in the head is pretty painful to watch.  
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQEcdIfUC0o

 

[kolbitr]

 
Oh, sure, although those numbers also include the KC years, which were far from Montana's best performances, especially the 1993 AFC Championship game in Buffalo (9-23 for 125 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT).
 
 
The conference imbalance was more of a late 80s/early 90s thing.  The conferences were pretty even in the early 1980s, I think.  SF actually drew tough teams in most of its Super Bowls - in 1981 (Ken Anderson), 1984 (Marino in his best year), and 1988 (Esiason) they played against the guy who had just won the MVP award (added motivation for Montana no doubt).  They were only 1 pt favorites in 1981 and 3 pt favorites in 1984.
 
I'm not sure Montana's lows were really much worse after adjusting for era and opponent.  The games in 85 and 86 were on the road in the Meadowlands against a great Giants defense.  Montana actually played ok in the 85 loss (26-47/296/0/1) -- not great, but not horrible.  He stank in the 86 and 87 games.
 
They both have three playoff games with an AY/A under 4, but Brady was lucky enough to win two of those (the 2006 and 2007 games against San Diego), so nobody remembers those poor performances.  Montana's performances look worse on paper, but the era adjustments matter there.  Brady's 2009 game against the Ravens was pretty awful.  
 
Was that AFC championship game against the Bills when Montana got concussed? Edit: Yes, it was...just checked...although I don't think he played after the concussion, so he had a bad day from the start...
 
 
Owens, Stokes, and Brent Jones were the top 3 receivers, although Owens was not yet the guy he would be later in his career and Jones was fading (he retired after that season).  They didn't really have a 3rd wideout.  
 
Video of both of the hits from that Bucs game is on youtube.  Young getting kneed in the head is pretty painful to watch.  
 
<video deleted>

 
Yeah, that whole thing is painful to watch. I had recently moved back to the east coast after spending four years in San Francisco, had really enjoyed watching those mid-90s teams, and hated seeing Rice go down like that on a cheap shot (and on a trick play to boot!)...

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

The conference imbalance was more of a late 80s/early 90s thing.  The conferences were pretty even in the early 1980s, I think.  SF actually drew tough teams in most of its Super Bowls - in 1981 (Ken Anderson), 1984 (Marino in his best year), and 1988 (Esiason) they played against the guy who had just won the MVP award (added motivation for Montana no doubt).  They were only 1 pt favorites in 1981 and 3 pt favorites in 1984.
 
I'm not sure Montana's lows were really much worse after adjusting for era and opponent.  The games in 85 and 86 were on the road in the Meadowlands against a great Giants defense.  Montana actually played ok in the 85 loss (26-47/296/0/1) -- not great, but not horrible.  He stank in the 86 and 87 games.
 
They both have three playoff games with an AY/A under 4, but Brady was lucky enough to win two of those (the 2006 and 2007 games against San Diego), so nobody remembers those poor performances.  Montana's performances look worse on paper, but the era adjustments matter there.  Brady's 2009 game against the Ravens was pretty awful.

The other difficult to adjust for factor is weather. While the Stick was pretty cold and miserable by Northern California standards, Montana played only six games by my count in sub 40 temperatures (2-4 in those games, which were all on the road) in his career and also rarely played in very windy conditions (>10 mph). Brady, in contrast, played a huge number of post-season games that were very cold, very windy, or both. I don't think its enough to make up for the performance gap between them but its not a meaningless consideration either.

At the end of the day, though, I think the Montana-Brady contrast is pretty clear: The former has somewhat better efficiency stats in both the regular season and post season, the latter has more aggregate production (will probably end his career with ~50% more starts). How you weigh those two considerations seems like a matter of taste to me, without a conclusive answer either way. The only thing that's pretty clear to me is that they are 1/2 in some order.

 

[TomTerrific]

Was just rewatching the CSNNE Post Game broadcast with Felger, Ty Law, and Troy Brown last night.
 
Felger asked them if Brady was the GOAT. Ty Law says without a doubt. Brown responds (paraphrasing here), "Well, if you listen to all the TV talking heads he must be, because he all he had to throw to was myself, David Patten, and Deion Branch and according to them we all sucked."
 
Pretty funny to listen to, actually.

 

[coremiller]

The other difficult to adjust for factor is weather. While the Stick was pretty cold and miserable by Northern California standards, Montana played only six games by my count in sub 40 temperatures (2-4 in those games, which were all on the road) in his career and also rarely played in very windy conditions (>10 mph). Brady, in contrast, played a huge number of post-season games that were very cold, very windy, or both. I don't think its enough to make up for the performance gap between them but its not a meaningless consideration either.

At the end of the day, though, I think the Montana-Brady contrast is pretty clear: The former has somewhat better efficiency stats in both the regular season and post season, the latter has more aggregate production (will probably end his career with ~50% more starts). How you weigh those two considerations seems like a matter of taste to me, without a conclusive answer either way. The only thing that's pretty clear to me is that they are 1/2 in some order.

 
If you use Ringz as a qualifier, sure, then it's just Montana and Brady.  Otherwise, I don't think there's much to separate Montana, Manning, Young, and Brady for post-1978 QBs.
 
I have a hunch though that if he can stay healthy, Aaron Rodgers is going to own this discussion in 10 years, and all of this will be moot.

 

[Leather]

There's no way Rodgers catches Manning in the key counting stats, so I'm curious why you think so, unless you think he's a sure bet to get 2+ more SB rings in the next 5 years.

 

[TomTerrific]

 
I have a hunch though that if he can stay healthy, Aaron Rodgers is going to own this discussion in 10 years, and all of this will be moot.

He better step on it then. Since he became starting QB in 2008 he's made the Conf championship twice, SB once, won it once. In short, 2/7, 1/2, 1/1 in CC appearances, SB appearances, and SB victories.

By the same criteria, Brady is 9/14, 6/9, 4/6. And that includes 2008, where he played just a few minutes of the first game before being lost for the season. If you don't include that, it's 9/13 for CC's reached.

If Rodgers reaches the next SEVEN CCs, wins FIVE of those, and then wins 3 OF THOSE 5 SBs, he will have tied Brady.

And you think all this will be moot? Really??
 
EDIT: Plus what drleather2001 said above w.r.t. to counting stats against Manning.

 

[patinorange]

 
If you use Ringz as a qualifier, sure, then it's just Montana and Brady.  Otherwise, I don't think there's much to separate Montana, Manning, Young, and Brady for post-1978 QBs.
 
I have a hunch though that if he can stay healthy, Aaron Rodgers is going to own this discussion in 10 years, and all of this will be moot.

With Mike McCarthy? He will be lucky to get back to the Super Bowl.

 

[Dehere]

 
You realize that Tony Dungy was just a finalist for the HoF, yes? 

 
I do and I wouldn't even be that surprised to see him get in someday but to me he's not on the level of the other guys who are in the conversation for all-time greatest QB/HC combo. That's a group that includes Belichick, Walsh, Noll, and Shula. I don't think Dungy is in nearly that class. He's the only coach to leave two teams that then advanced to the SB in their first year without him. I think his HOF candidacy is boosted by being roundly considered a nice guy and by the fact that he can claim a non-trivial piece of football history by being the first Afr-Amer coach to win a SB.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

If you use Ringz as a qualifier, sure, then it's just Montana and Brady.  Otherwise, I don't think there's much to separate Montana, Manning, Young, and Brady for post-1978 QBs.
 
I have a hunch though that if he can stay healthy, Aaron Rodgers is going to own this discussion in 10 years, and all of this will be moot.

I wouldn't say rings are a qualifier although they shouldn't be dismissed either. But my argument against the other guys is more about other factors (longevity for Young, performance in high lev situations for Manning).

I agree that Rodgers may be in the conversation eventually although I think there are some concerns that his body might not hold up well over time given the number of hits he takes.

 

[DJnVa]

 
If you use Ringz as a qualifier, sure, then it's just Montana and Brady.  Otherwise, I don't think there's much to separate Montana, Manning, Young, and Brady for post-1978 QBs.
 
 

 Depends on how deep you want to dig down.
 
Here's some back of the envelope stuff:
 
I took Brady's per game averages for outdoor games versus dome games, then applied those numbers to the number of games Manning has played indoors and outdoors.
 
Here's what we have:
 
actual Manning: 65.5% completion, 69691 yards, 530/234 TD/INT, 97.5 rating
new Brady: 65.4% completion, 64727 yards, 515/180 TD/INT, 101.6 rating
 
Worth nothing that most of Manning's dome games were home games, while Brady's were all on the road.
 
 
Now, doing the opposite, and making Manning play outside as much as Brady has:
 
actual Brady: 63.5% completion, 53258 yards, 392/143 TD/INT, 95.9 rating
new Manning: 65.1% completion, 56248, 422/196 TD/INT, 96.0 rating
 
 
So, imagine Brady playing all those years in a dome, having essentially the same numbers as Manning does now (which is where all the Manning arguments come from--his numbers), and 4 titles. Is this an argument?
 
Or bringing Manning into a northeastern stadium his entire career, putting up great numbers, but having an almost identical QB rating to Brady, and then the same postseason success he has now compared to Brady. Is there an argument for Manning in that case?
 
I don't think so. But I'm just bored at work.

 

[coremiller]

There's no way Rodgers catches Manning in the key counting stats, so I'm curious why you think so, unless you think he's a sure bet to get 2+ more SB rings in the next 5 years.

 
I think he's going to put all the efficiency stat records out of sight, and I think he's a very good bet to win at least one more SB.  I don't care at all about the counting stats.  Volume only matters if it's high-quality volume.  That's why Manning has a GOAT case and Favre doesn't, even though their counting stats are about the same.
 
I also don't think Rodgers needs four rings to be considered the best QB.  He just needs to maintain his excellent playoff performance record and create a huge edge in rate stats.  Playoff win % reflects luck and team quality as much as it does QB performance (for an extreme example, Rodgers once lost a playoff game 51-45 in which he played brilliantly).  Or, to put it a different way, two QBs with equivalent performance levels can have very different outcomes.
 
I should clarify that I mean, who has a GOAT case based on their objectively considered performance, not in terms of legacies and narratives and all that.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
I think he's going to put all the efficiency stat records out of sight, and I think he's a very good bet to win at least one more SB.  I don't care at all about the counting stats.  Volume only matters if it's high-quality volume.  That's why Manning has a GOAT case and Favre doesn't, even though their counting stats are about the same.
 
I also don't think Rodgers needs four rings to be considered the best QB.  He just needs to maintain his excellent playoff performance record and create a huge edge in rate stats.  Playoff win % reflects luck and team quality as much as it does QB performance (for an extreme example, Rodgers once lost a playoff game 51-45 in which he played brilliantly).  Or, to put it a different way, two QBs with equivalent performance levels can have very different outcomes.
 
I should clarify that I mean, who has a GOAT case based on their objectively considered performance, not in terms of legacies and narratives and all that.

I don't believe the current "efficiency stats" we have are of sufficient maturity to make them the major determiner as to who the greatest QB of all time is, frankly. Too many of them user "per play" as the denominator, which isn't a meaningful unit - completing one 40-yard pass isn't better than completing eight 5-yard passes; it's the same. Wilson's efficiency numbers were better than Brady's Sunday night (in some cases, like YPA, much better), and Seattle's running game was better, but the Patriots still scored four more points in one fewer real possession because the efficiency numbers don't capture everything.

 

[coremiller]

I don't believe the current "efficiency stats" we have are of sufficient maturity to make them the major determiner as to who the greatest QB of all time is, frankly. Too many of them user "per play" as the denominator, which isn't a meaningful unit - completing one 40-yard pass isn't better than completing eight 5-yard passes; it's the same. Wilson's efficiency numbers were better than Brady's Sunday night (in some cases, like YPA, much better), and Seattle's running game was better, but the Patriots still scored four more points in one fewer real possession because the efficiency numbers don't capture everything.

 
Why isn't per play a meaningful unit?  Of course a 40-yard pass is more valuable than 8 five-yard passes (absent metagame considerations like keeping your defense off the field).  It's only not if you assume that you then gain zero yards on the next seven plays, which is a faulty assumption.  It might be less predictive, but that's a different issue.  

 

[Stitch01]

Its a meaningful unit IMO, but sort by ANY/A become expert is a little bit too simplistic for me.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
Why isn't per play a meaningful unit?  Of course a 40-yard pass is more valuable than 8 five-yard passes (absent metagame considerations like keeping your defense off the field).  It's only not if you assume that you then gain zero yards on the next seven plays, which is a faulty assumption.  It might be less predictive, but that's a different issue.  

You don't get seven more plays just because you hit a 40-yarder - you just get a fresh set of downs. But if you complete eight 5-yarders in a row, you get a fresh set of downs, too. So at the end of it, you're in the same situation - 1st and 10, 40 yards from where you started.

 

[bowiac]

You don't get seven more plays just because you hit a 40-yarder - you just get a fresh set of downs. But if you complete eight 5-yarders in a row, you get a fresh set of downs, too. So at the end of it, you're in the same situation - 1st and 10, 40 yards from where you started.

I don't want to wade too neck deep into this (as I don't have strong thoughts on the matter), but dealing with situations of 100% success rates makes the point moot, sure. Would I rather complete a 40 yard pass or a 8 five yard passes? You're right, clock considerations apart, it doesn't matter. But that's a bit like asking if I'd rather have a lineup of hitter who got a single every time up, or a HR every time up. That wouldn't matter either.
 
The question becomes more interesting in "real world" scenarios however, with success rates well below 100%. 

 

[Super Nomario]

I don't want to wade too neck deep into this (as I don't have strong thoughts on the matter), but dealing with situations of 100% success rates makes the point moot, sure. Would I rather complete a 40 yard pass or a 8 five yard passes? You're right, clock considerations apart, it doesn't matter. But that's a bit like asking if I'd rather have a lineup of hitter who got a single every time up, or a HR every time up. That wouldn't matter either.
 
The question becomes more interesting in "real world" scenarios however, with success rates well below 100%. 

Of course you're right. I'm just illustrating that the "play" is not the unit of opportunity for an offense - the drive is (or perhaps series of downs, if we want something more atomic). Those are hard to measure, or at least hard to assign directly to the quarterback, so as far as I know all the statistics are per attempt. But that doesn't mean they're right.
 
In general I like Y/A, NY/A, ANY/A, etc as shorthand, but I think there are shapes of performances that these statistics overrate and underrate. The Patriots this year are probably an extreme case, but they finished 17th in NY/A (and 22nd in rushing YPC, so it's not like they were a dominant run offense) and 3rd in points per drive.

 

[Seels]

I really hate seeing Elway in these discussions. He doesn't belong anywhere near guys like Manning Brady and Montana. He played in the weakest division in the weakest conference in a pre-salary cap era and still has some middling statistics but the narrative of his supporters is always something like his ability or his lack of coaching / support. Whatever. Terrel Davis is the only thing that separates Jon Elway from Warren Moon, and no one argues Warren Moon is a top 10 quarterback.
 
I think the Manning argument is over. Their statistics are way too close to take over the post-season difference. The 4th ring wasn't needed, but it helps. Regardless of the 'team wins, not a player' argument, at the end of the day Brady is 21-8 in the postseason, where Manning is 11-13.  Think about that for a second. Brady probably doesn't have enough years left in his career to catch Manning in playoff losses. 
 
Montana is another story, but at this point Brady has just too much volume over Montana. If you think these guys are somewhat equal, why wouldn't you take the guy who has had the same success for an additional 3+ seasons? I'm not willing to admit they're equal anyway, but Brady already has 1700 more pass attempts, and this is if he retires now.
 
I guess, it's a lot easier making the argument Brady is the best ever than that he's not.