Tb12goesinya
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 759
- Reaction score
- 932
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
Brady Rodgers Manning Brees Rivers Warner Luck
Manning revolutionized the game. No disrespect but everyone before him just does not come close to cracking the top 5. There is just so much on the plate of a QB now
Your poll stinks.
Brady
Montana
Staubach
Graham
Starr
Bradshaw
LMAO.Staubach and Bradshaw don't belong on any list above Manning or Elway you biased PIECE OF SPDOIFUSPODFIUp
Brady Rodgers Manning Brees Rivers Warner Luck
Manning revolutionized the game. No disrespect but everyone before him just does not come close to cracking the top 5. There is just so much on the plate of a QB now
LMAO.
Elway- Yes.
Manning- Nah.
Your poll stinks.
Brady
Montana
Staubach
Graham
Starr
Bradshaw
Easier era to throw.Manning was so much better than Staubach I'm going to **** my pants right now.
There is a difference between a passer and a QB.Terry Bradshaw has no business being in this conversation. Obviously his stats have to be adjusted due to the era he played in, but even compared to his peers he didn't stand head and shoulders above them.
Rate+ compares a player's passer rating to his contemporaries. A rate+ of 100 means you're a league-average QB. >100 means you're above average, <100 means you're worse. Brady's worst rate+ in his career is 2003, when he came in at 107. His second worst is 2006, at 109. His best seasons were 2007 (148), 2016 (133) and 2010 (130). Dan Marino's best year was 1984, when he hit 141. His next best season was 1993 (125). Peyton's best seasons were 2004 (151) and 2013 (137). Rodgers got a 149 in 2011 and 132 in 2014.
Of the guys I mentioned, Marino and Peyton both had a below average rate+ in their final season (and Peyton in his rookie season), but other than that they all rarely dropped below 110, and only below 100 occasionally in their first or last seasons. Bradshaw, OTOH, had a rate+ of under 100 in 4 of his 13 seasons. For a third of his career, he was a below-league-average quarterback. He also hit exactly 100 once, and had another season at 101. By rate+, he only had 2 seasons in his career (1975 and 1978) that would be considered notably good by the standards of the guys we're talking about.
And keep in mind, he was throwing to a pair of Hall of Fame receivers. It's not like he was dragging bad offenses to relevance, if anything he got a boost from the guys around him. And yet his rate+ puts him somewhere between Eli Manning and Matt Ryan on his career.
There is a difference between a passer and a QB.
Bradshaw was a QB who has 4 rings.
There is a difference between a passer and a QB.
Bradshaw was a QB who has 4 rings.
Easier era to throw.
Losing record in the playoffs is an embarrassment.
He is one of the greatest passers...not QBs. There is a difference.
Bradshaw is Trent Dilfer in a no-salary-cap era.
Sure, but in this context that's just a meaningless platitude because to be a great QB you need to also be an exceptional passer. There are too many guys who were both for this to not be a disqualifying factor in the all-time greats discussion. You can argue that guys are better than their stats suggest based on the QB vs. passer distinction, but you can't argue that a guy who was basically a league-average QB in his own era belongs in the GOAT conversation because of that distinction.
Bradshaw had 4 rings because he played in an era where QB play mattered far less than defense and ground game, and benefited from playing opposite arguably the greatest defense ever assembled. You could put any league-average QB from that era on the Steelers and they too would have four rings. Using that as Bradshaw's main (borderline sole) qualification for being on this list is makes even less sense than saying Richard Seymour and Michael Irvin belong in the GOAT conversations for their own positions because of their ring counts. Less sense because Seymour and Irvin were better relative to their peers than Bradshaw ever was.
Compared to everyone else in this discussion, Bradshaw had far lower highs and lower lows. The most generous halfway-reasonable comp you can give him is that he was his era's Troy Aikman, which is inaccurate since Aikman was clearly the better quarterback between the two of them. But even then we all realize that Aikman doesn't belong in this conversation either.
You can't be serious...Bradshaw is Trent Dilfer in a no-salary-cap era.
A lack of longevity should never be a impediment to determining greatness.Staubach is basically the exact opposite of Bradshaw in this discussion, in that the advanced metrics actually bear out that he was an incredible QB. He had a short career on account of military service, but in the 9 years he played his median rate+ was 125, which is insanely good. I can't say with certainty that it's the best ever, but it's better than Brady's, Manning's, Brees', Rodgers', Montana's, etc.
I don't think he belongs anywhere near the GOAT conversation because he just didn't play long enough, but unlike Bradshaw at least his body of work when he did play does put him in this class of QBs.
You can't be serious...
A lack of longevity should never be a impediment to determining greatness.Staubach is basically the exact opposite of Bradshaw in this discussion, in that the advanced metrics actually bear out that he was an incredible QB. He had a short career on account of military service, but in the 9 years he played his median rate+ was 125, which is insanely good. I can't say with certainty that it's the best ever, but it's better than Brady's, Manning's, Brees', Rodgers', Montana's, etc.
I don't think he belongs anywhere near the GOAT conversation because he just didn't play long enough, but unlike Bradshaw at least his body of work when he did play does put him in this class of QBs.