Top 5 all-time QBs (SIAP)

#151
#151
1. Montana--and it ain't even close....

I remember watching Montana lead the Bill Walsh coached 49ers out of mediocrity--He was truly a genius with the FB...athletic, surprised people with his arm strength and was surgically accurate. Montana also didn't make mistakes that would get his team beat. Although the 49ers had a good defense, people forget just how good Joe was--unless you actually saw him play. Also--he's the best BIG GAME QB to ever play...

2. tie--Manning (smartest by far)...Brady

Denver's defense this year isn't as good as any of the defenses Elway had when he played for Denver.

Elway, Marino (he had smurfs for receivers--they weren't as good as the ones Brady had this year), Johnny U, Dan Fouts, Staubach, Bradshaw, Sammy Baugh, Otto Graham, Bart Starr...

It really doesn't matter after Montana, Manning, and Brady--IMO.

Dan Fouts was as good a QB as any of them on gameday...He just played on a team with one of the worst defenses I've ever seen play in the NFL. :peace2:

And although I loved the early 70s Dolphins--Griese doesn't get a consideration because Earl Morral led the 72 Dolphins to an undefeated season and through the playoffs to the Super Bowl....
 
Last edited:
#152
#152
PimpVol said:
Golf isn't easier today. It is more studied. More experts than ever. Better coaching. Better techniques being enployed. You probably would have been hitting the ball farther 40 years ago if your skills were what they are today.
Click to expand...
Everything that you say about coaching, strength, studying, etc. is true, and I would have hit the ball much longer years ago with this ball and these drivers.

However, hitting the ball straight and long is much easier today than 40 years ago. I am not convinced that the courses are any tougher, only longer. I went to several pro tournaments and majors in the 1960's . They have to lengthen the courses to keep the players from being 30 under par for 4 days.

Today, an average distance pro rarely hits more than a short iron to a green on a par 4. Back then, a 450 yard hole was a 260 yard driver and a 190 yard 2 iron. Today, it is a 310 yard driver and a 140 pitching wedge for these guys. 140 yards was the distance that Ben Hogan hit a 7 iron.

Yes, most of the pros are in much better shape today, but you still have people like John Daly, Tim Herron,
Angel Cabrera and others, who can win without benefit of the gym. To be a good golfer, you need flexibility more than pure strength.

Getting back to Nicklaus's MacGregor golf ball, there was a great article in Golfweek, Nov.25, 2009 entitled "Looking Back: MacGregor's Golf Balls." In it former USGA equipment tester and expert Frank Thomas recalled testing MacGregor golf balls, and said that the distance and direction inconsistencies, compared to Titleist balls of the same era, were so bad that he thought that the Iron Byron testing machine was broken. He said that Nicklaus would have won many more majors with about any other pro line ball of the era.

Google Nicklaus and the MacGregor golf ball.
 
#153
#153
Can't believe all the love for Johnny U , who threw for as many or more int's than td's in 10 of his 18 years . Johnny had 3-4 outstanding years , and never completed more than 58.5% of his passes.
 
#154
#154
MikeVol44 said:
1. Montana--and it ain't even close....

I remember watching Montana lead the Bill Walsh coached 49ers out of mediocrity--He was truly a genius with the FB...athletic, surprised people with his arm strength and was surgically accurate. Montana also didn't make mistakes that would get his team beat. Although the 49ers had a good defense, people forget just how good Joe was--unless you actually saw him play. Also--he's the best BIG GAME QB to ever play...

2. tie--Manning (smartest by far)...Brady

Denver's defense this year isn't as good as any of the defenses Elway had when he played for Denver.

Elway, Marino (he had smurfs for receivers--they weren't as good as the ones Brady had this year), Johnny U, Dan Fouts, Staubach, Bradshaw, Sammy Baugh, Otto Graham, Bart Starr...

It really doesn't matter after Montana, Manning, and Brady--IMO.

Dan Fouts was as good a QB as any of them on gameday...He just played on a team with one of the worst defenses I've ever seen play in the NFL. :peace2:

And although I loved the early 70s Dolphins--Griese doesn't get a consideration because Earl Morral led the 72 Dolphins to an undefeated season and through the playoffs to the Super Bowl....
Click to expand...

Manning is actually more accurate than Montana , for what its worth
 
#155
#155
MikeVol44 said:
Are rings the true measure of QB greatness? Bradshaw has 4...was he truly a better QB than Marino???? Silly...Even Peyton himself says that he has GREAT admiration and respect for Marino as one of the best QBs...
Click to expand...

They are not. Attributing championships to a single player in football is absurd even if that player is a quarterback.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#156
#156
characterizing a quarterback's skills by the number of rings he has is nothing short of ridiculous.
 
#157
#157
soda23 said:
Manning is actually more accurate than Montana , for what its worth
Click to expand...

Montana:

23 games: 16-7 460/734 = 62.7% 5772 yds 45 TDs, 21 Ints....QBR = 95.6 yds per attempt: 7.86

Montana is 4-0 in SB appearances--with a SB career of 86/122 (70%) with 11 TDs and 0 Ints...and a QBR of 127.8.

Manning:

22 games 11-11 538/840 = 64.05% 6309 yds 36 TDs 22 Ints....QBR = 90.1 yds per attempt: 7.51

Manning is 1-1 in SB appearances--with a SB career of 56/83 (67.4%) with 2 TDs 2 INTs and QBR of 83.5...

Clearly--Montana is the more accurate QB when it mattered most.

Only 1 QB has ever had a better single game performance in the SB than Montana's QBR of 147.6--Phil Simms at 150.9.

And, NO--in the overall big picture of the PLAYOFFS--Manning isn't more accurate than Montana--ALL things being considered instead of just completion percentage.

So--like I said earlier--Montana is the BEST--and it ain't even close. :peace2:
 
Last edited:
#158
#158
1 Manning
2 Brady
3 Montana
4 Terry Bradshaw
5 Steve Young
6 John Elway
7 Bret Favre
8 Dan Marino
9 Jim Kelly
10 Drew Brees
 
#159
#159
MikeVol44 said:
Montana:

23 games: 16-7 460/734 = 62.7% 5772 yds 45 TDs, 21 Ints....QBR = 95.6 yds per attempt: 7.86

Montana is 4-0 in SB appearances--with a SB career of 86/122 (70%) with 11 TDs and 0 Ints...and a QBR of 127.8.

Manning:

22 games 11-11 538/840 = 64.05% 6309 yds 36 TDs 22 Ints....QBR = 90.1 yds per attempt: 7.51

Manning is 1-1 in SB appearances--with a SB career of 56/83 (67.4%) with 2 TDs 2 INTs and QBR of 83.5...

Clearly--Montana is the more accurate QB when it mattered most.

Only 1 QB has ever had a better single game performance in the SB than Montana's QBR of 147.6--Phil Simms at 150.9.

And, NO--in the overall big picture of the PLAYOFFS--Manning isn't more accurate than Montana--ALL things being considered instead of just completion percentage.

So--like I said earlier--Montana is the BEST--and it ain't even close. :peace2:
Click to expand...

Cherry-picked stats? Check.

False premise? Check.

Totally subjective conclusion stated as fact? Check.

I watched Montana play. I've watched Peyton play. Montana is not a better QB than Peyton (for a lot of reasons). He did play for better coaches on better teams. In fact, he was fortunate to play for the most dominant team of his era. Even Griese, Bradshaw and Theismann looked like great QBs while playing for great coaches on great TEAMs.
 
#161
#161
Only 1 QB has ever had a better single game performance in the SB than Montana's QBR of 147.6--Phil Simms at 150.9.


So clearly Phil Simms is a better qb than Montana

You said "Montana was surgically accurate" and I just pointed out to you that Manning is more accurate than Montana ....and he is
 
#163
#163
soda23 said:
Only 1 QB has ever had a better single game performance in the SB than Montana's QBR of 147.6--Phil Simms at 150.9.


So clearly Phil Simms is a better qb than Montana

You said "Montana was surgically accurate" and I just pointed out to you that Manning is more accurate than Montana ....and he is
Click to expand...

I made several statements--and Montana's accuracy is just one of them. Sure, IF you ONLY compare postseason completion percentage--Manning wins by just 1.3% (that's fewer than 2 more completions per 100 attempts)--that hardly qualifies as being "statistically significant."

Additionally, how can you say that Manning is more accurate than Montana when his TD/INT ratio in the post-season is 1.64 and Montana's is 2.14?

Montana has 0 INTs in the SB--ZERO! Can you ever forget the pic-6 Manning threw against the Saints??

But check the QBR--which is a better measure for evaluating all measures of QB performance.

Manning does have a higher total career QBR than Montana--but Manning's QBR plummets (from 97 to 90 for postseason, even worse in 2 SB games as it drops to 83.5) in the postseason.

Montana's improves (from 92 to 95.6 for all postseason games--but skyrockets to an average of 127.8 in 4 SB games). Clearly--Montana SHINES in the postseason as Manning crashes.

One statement that I made was that Montana is THE BEST big-game QB to have ever played the game--and I have proven that to be true without question--no matter how you look at it.

I'm a VOL...I think PM is probably THE greatest ambassador for the NFL there has ever been--or ever will be! And I am not even remotely trying to say that he is a bad QB--not even true.

But, I refuse to evaluate him through the orange hue of Vol colored glasses when it comes to evaluating who the greatest of all time is.

Clearly, when evaluating regular season and post-season performances--MONTANA is far and away the better QB.

2nd place is a tie between Brady and Manning at this time. If Manning can have a great game against the Seahawks--IMO, he moves into 2nd place alone. If he doesn't--then he will drop behind Brady. :salute:
 
#164
#164
Hacksaw said:
Cherry-picked stats? Check.

False premise? Check.

Totally subjective conclusion stated as fact? Check.

I watched Montana play. I've watched Peyton play. Montana is not a better QB than Peyton (for a lot of reasons). He did play for better coaches on better teams. In fact, he was fortunate to play for the most dominant team of his era. Even Griese, Bradshaw and Theismann looked like great QBs while playing for great coaches on great TEAMs.
Click to expand...

QBR is NOT a cherry-picked stat, and what exactly is my false premise? I stated that Montana is the best, and that he is THE BEST big-game QB to ever play the game.

I based this on W-L, TD/INT ratios, and QBR--ALL of those figures are OBJECTIVE measures.

Now--subjectivity does come into play as a factor when I claim that my observance of both QBs play is a factor in my decision--that much is true. However, even then Montana gets the nod as he OBJECTIVELY got the job done when it mattered most (post-season QBR!!!)

When his team need a >80 yd drive to win the SB--He got it done. When Manning need to drive to bring the Colts back against the Saints--he threw a pic-6 to seal New Orlean's victory. Subjective observance, or objective fact? :salute:
 
#165
#165
All time best five:
Ryan Leaf
Rick Clausen
Jay Fielder
Rick Mirer
Bob Avellini :rolleyes: Those guys did things no other QB has ever done before.
 
#166
#166
MikeVol44 said:
QBR is NOT a cherry-picked stat, and what exactly is my false premise? I stated that Montana is the best, and that he is THE BEST big-game QB to ever play the game.

I based this on W-L, TD/INT ratios, and QBR--ALL of those figures are OBJECTIVE measures.

Now--subjectivity does come into play as a factor when I claim that my observance of both QBs play is a factor in my decision--that much is true. However, even then Montana gets the nod as he OBJECTIVELY got the job done when it mattered most (post-season QBR!!!)

When his team need a >80 yd drive to win the SB--He got it done. When Manning need to drive to bring the Colts back against the Saints--he threw a pic-6 to seal New Orlean's victory. Subjective observance, or objective fact? :salute:
Click to expand...

The false premise is that TEAM success is proof of individual greatness. And you're cherry-picking the stats that support your opinion and ignoring those that don't. When you put so much significance on one aspect of their careers, it ought to be a clear-cut indicator of INDIVIDUAL greatness -- especially if you are going to cite it to the exclusion of so much other evidence.

The stats you posted suggest that Montana and Manning are a lot closer in their playoff performances than most people would probably realize. Yes, Montana excelled at key times. But his circumstances and Manning's were not equal. Montana had the greatest receiver to ever play the game catching his passes, for instance. When I say that, the response is usually something like, "Well, Manning had good receivers, too." Yeah, okay.

The Colts rushing game averaged 70 yards per game in Peyton's playoff games with them, compared to 152 for Montana's SF SB champs. The Colts running game contributed 2 whole TDs! The 49'ers: 15. The Colts defense allowed opponents an average of 27 points per game. The 49'ers: 13.

It's harder to be cool under pressure when you know it's all on you. You take more risks. Bad things happen. Mistakes become magnified. The rest of Manning's career accomplishments shouldn't be overshadowed by a few games, especially when there were a lot of other things that factored into those outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#167
#167
The 49ers' record in 1992, when Montana was injured all year: 14-2

The Patriots without Brady in 2008: 11-5


The Colts without Manning in 2011: 2-14
 
#168
#168
Hacksaw said:
The 49ers' record in 1992, when Montana was injured all year: 14-2

The Patriots without Brady in 2008: 11-5


The Colts without Manning in 2011: 2-14
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is a terrible argument. Montana was replaced by a HOFer in Steve Young. Probably a top 10-15 QB of all time. Manning was replaced by Curtis Painter, Dan Orlovsky and for 3 games Kerry Collins.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#169
#169
Hacksaw said:
The false premise is that TEAM success is proof of individual greatness. And you're cherry-picking the stats that support your opinion and ignoring those that don't. When you put so much significance on one aspect of their careers, it ought to be a clear-cut indicator of INDIVIDUAL greatness -- especially if you are going to cite it to the exclusion of so much other evidence.

The stats you posted suggest that Montana and Manning are a lot closer in their playoff performances than most people would probably realize. Yes, Montana excelled at key times. But his circumstances and Manning's were not equal. Montana had the greatest receiver to ever play the game catching his passes, for instance. When I say that, the response is usually something like, "Well, Manning had good receivers, too." Yeah, okay.

The Colts rushing game averaged 70 yards per game in Peyton's playoff games with them, compared to 152 for Montana's SF SB champs. The Colts running game contributed 2 whole TDs! The 49'ers: 15. The Colts defense allowed opponents an average of 27 points per game. The 49'ers: 13.

It's harder to be cool under pressure when you know it's all on you. You take more risks. Bad things happen. Mistakes become magnified. The rest of Manning's career accomplishments shouldn't be overshadowed by a few games, especially when there were a lot of other things that factored into those outcomes.
Click to expand...

Your usual argument here. When talking about every other great QB it is because of the team. However when it comes to Manning, it is only about him.

So when Denver beat the Chargers, was it just Peyton? Or was it a combination of great offense and the defense playing good? Same with the Patriots game. Was it all Peyton and none of his team that won?
 
#171
#171
Hacksaw said:
The false premise is that TEAM success is proof of individual greatness. And you're cherry-picking the stats that support your opinion and ignoring those that don't. When you put so much significance on one aspect of their careers, it ought to be a clear-cut indicator of INDIVIDUAL greatness -- especially if you are going to cite it to the exclusion of so much other evidence.

The stats you posted suggest that Montana and Manning are a lot closer in their playoff performances than most people would probably realize. Yes, Montana excelled at key times. But his circumstances and Manning's were not equal. Montana had the greatest receiver to ever play the game catching his passes, for instance. When I say that, the response is usually something like, "Well, Manning had good receivers, too." Yeah, okay.

The Colts rushing game averaged 70 yards per game in Peyton's playoff games with them, compared to 152 for Montana's SF SB champs. The Colts running game contributed 2 whole TDs! The 49'ers: 15. The Colts defense allowed opponents an average of 27 points per game. The 49'ers: 13.

It's harder to be cool under pressure when you know it's all on you. You take more risks. Bad things happen. Mistakes become magnified. The rest of Manning's career accomplishments shouldn't be overshadowed by a few games, especially when there were a lot of other things that factored into those outcomes.
Click to expand...

Montana didn't have Rice for his first 2 Super Bowls. He had Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon. Roger Craig was a second year player in 1984. Peyton Manning has also had wayyy better offensive lines than just about anybody. As a matter of fact, he is the third least sacked QB of all time, first among active QB's.

Also the rules are much stricter now on the defense. Back when Montana played the defense could actually hit the QB without fear. Now a days a defensive player has a very small strikezone in which to hit with. Its a lot easier to put up monster stats and be a great QB when you know you're protected and that the defense is restricted.
 
#174
#174
BadJerry20 said:
Sorry but that is a terrible argument. Montana was replaced by a HOFer in Steve Young. Probably a top 10-15 QB of all time. Manning was replaced by Curtis Painter, Dan Orlovsky and for 3 games Kerry Collins.
Click to expand...

It's not a good argument when he has been proven wrong on so many levels....and he just talked himself into a circle by using this stat--which contradicts his earlier reply to me that team success isn't a good indicator for evaluating a QB's ability....:crazy:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#175
#175
Hacksaw said:
The false premise is that TEAM success is proof of individual greatness. And you're cherry-picking the stats that support your opinion and ignoring those that don't. When you put so much significance on one aspect of their careers, it ought to be a clear-cut indicator of INDIVIDUAL greatness -- especially if you are going to cite it to the exclusion of so much other evidence.

The stats you posted suggest that Montana and Manning are a lot closer in their playoff performances than most people would probably realize. Yes, Montana excelled at key times. But his circumstances and Manning's were not equal. Montana had the greatest receiver to ever play the game catching his passes, for instance. When I say that, the response is usually something like, "Well, Manning had good receivers, too." Yeah, okay.

The Colts rushing game averaged 70 yards per game in Peyton's playoff games with them, compared to 152 for Montana's SF SB champs. The Colts running game contributed 2 whole TDs! The 49'ers: 15. The Colts defense allowed opponents an average of 27 points per game. The 49'ers: 13.

It's harder to be cool under pressure when you know it's all on you. You take more risks. Bad things happen. Mistakes become magnified. The rest of Manning's career accomplishments shouldn't be overshadowed by a few games, especially when there were a lot of other things that factored into those outcomes.
Click to expand...

Repeat after me--QBR, QBR, QBR!!

It is the stat that levels the playing field--as it DOESN'T take into account the outcome of the game...:salute:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top