Brady named to NFL 100 All-Time team

[Deus Irae]

There are a some QBs that really cause a lot strong opposing opinions, with some feeling they are extremely overrated and others feeling they are obvious choices. Those that have the most opinion volatility:

• Dan Marino
• Terry Bradshaw
• Aaron Rodgers
• Brett Favre
• Drew Brees
• John Elway

Most other QBs I think most people have in the same general range.

If you look at that list, it makes sense.

• Marino was really more of a chucker than an all around QB
• Bradshaw has the titles more than the great stats or impressive seeming play
  
• Rodgers is a stat seeker who hasn't won nearly as much as he should have
  
• Favre is a loose cannon who, like Rodgers, didn't win as much as he should have
• Brees is a split environment QB
• Elway wasn't particularly accurate, and he didn't win his titles until his role was minimized and Davis' role was maximized

None of that stuff makes them bad QBs, but it does raise questions, and it does make sense that such players would breed disparate opinions. And it's why Brady needed the second "half" of his career (shedding the game manager label, as well as winning more titles) to get people to stop trying to put Peyton above him.



I'd expect Peyton to have a pretty sizable split, too, since he spent most of his NFL career as a choking dog.

 

[Ring 6]

I watched practically every one of his games. He was must watch TV back then. I don't even need to go back to look at the numbers to know these things about him:

1. He has the fastest release ever.
2. He is the most accurate QB ever.
3. He had the best pocket presence of any QB I've ever seen.

I know Montana was Brady's favorite QB growing up, but it would not surprise me in the least if Brady acknowledged that he modeled his game after Marino's. Brady has the second quickest release I've seen after Marino; Brady's pocket presence (moving around and commanding the pocket) is second only to Marino's; Brady too is very accurate, but not in Marino's territory.

4. We know what Marino's problem was. He did not have the supporting cast for much of his career. & he was the quickest to meltdown and become furious. Marino is like Phillip Rivers but with 10x the talent. That certainly contributed, because when Marino was frustrated with teammates--the way Rivers and Manning always get frustrated--he would take on too much and start throwing INTs. He was too much of a hothead to have a career like Brady's But if Marino had Brady's mettle, and if Marino didn't have an addled head coach, he would have won multiple Super Bowls in that era.

In terms of comebacks though and bringing his team back into the game, no one could do it quicker.

EDIT: Just wanted to add this: Monday Night Upset: Dan Marino vs. '85 Chicago Bears

He drove a stake through the Bears in the first half.

When New England ground-&-pounded Miami in the AFCCG, the '85 Bears drank more champagne and partied 10x harder than the '74 Dolphins after the Bears/Phins.

You can’t be in the top of all time in my book when your excuse is you didn’t fave a supporting cast your entire career. It’s an excuse.
Yes they relied on him but when it mattered most he couldn’t get the job done.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Point noted on Layne. But he was a 3X champion and 7X all-pro (1st or 2nd team), and member of 50s all-decade team. Left game as leader in passing yards and TDs. His accomplishments are bordering top 10. You can be a tick below your contemporary rival and still make the team. Hence, Manning still makes it despite Brady being better.

Comparing before 78 is clearly necessary considering there are quite a few QB as finalists, though it isn’t easy. That’s why I think accomplishments (team success, individual awards) trump stats that are hard to contextualize.

I'm not sure where you're getting '78 as the cutoff season, but why would the likes of Staubach and Unitas somehow not match up with the modern players?

78 is kinda important. Well known OL'm couldn't use their hands/open their hands or extend their arms before 78. Forget abt extend they couldn't really move their arms away their body w/out getting called. Even in a T-Rex way that WRs will use to push off without getting a flag. It was almost 100% abt footwork & movement skills. Obviously speaks to what they could do in pass pro. DL'm had a huge advantage to say the least.

That's just one of the problems with this list. Also if it's truly the best ever you can't cut positions at 7 or 10. You vote the best in & let chips fall. A lot of the players are fine & would make any list but there have been glaring holes that can't be ignored. It's much more of a "let's not forget" list which is fine. Its obviously generating some buzz. Nothing wrong with Gil, Bill & others giving their opinion.

 

[venecol]

The obsession with Super Bowl wins as a metric of measuring individual performance leads to weird conclusions. Without the benefit of multi-game series, individual games turn on weird and often random events over which individual players have little to no influence (often because they're on the sidelines!) - that's fun as a fan, but judging entire careers on 12 drives in a game (and probably fewer in the old days where the pace was slower) is a bit much and leads to conclusions like Eli Manning being a Hall of Fame quarterback.

Troy Aikman was no better than Drew Bledsoe, he just had the benefit of playing on teams with historically good players on both sides of the ball for a few years.

That's fine for a one-time winner like Dilfer, but you can't say the same for a guy that wins 4 Super Bowls like Bradshaw.

 

[Deus Irae]

78 is kinda important. Well known OL'm couldn't use their hands/open their hands or extend their arms before 78. Forget abt extend they couldn't really move their arms away their body w/out getting called. Even in a T-Rex way that WRs will use to push off without getting a flag. It was almost 100% abt footwork & movement skills. Obviously speaks to what they could do in pass pro. DL'm had a huge advantage to say the least.

Ok, but that's sort of my point. Even without that OL advantage, guys like Staubach and Unitas can match up to the other "modern" QBs. I get that it's tough to find a perfect split but, it seems to me that any QB who was still playing during the SB era should be capable of being analyzed with the modern QBs. It won't be perfect, but it's not even perfect with the post-2004 split that has changed the NFL, outside of line play, into more of a skills competition than a contact/collision sport.


Starr, Unitas, Bradshaw, etc... I just don't see why they couldn't be folded into it.

But, reasonable minds, and all...

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Ok, but that's sort of my point. Even without that OL advantage, guys like Staubach and Unitas can match up to the other "modern" QBs. I get that it's tough to find a perfect split but, it seems to me that any QB who was still playing during the SB era should be capable of being analyzed with the modern QBs. It won't be perfect, but it's not even perfect with the post-2004 split that has changed the NFL, outside of line play, into more of a skills competition than a contact/collision sport.


Starr, Unitas, Bradshaw, etc... I just don't see why they couldn't be folded into it.

But, reasonable minds, and all...

Agree with most of post & most of QBs.

I actually would be interested in a "best eras" list. Maybe top 40-50 from start/78 - 78/2004 - 2004 - present.

Or some type of all-time draft with different legends picking the players on their roster.

 

[RobertWeathers]

That's fine for a one-time winner like Dilfer, but you can't say the same for a guy that wins 4 Super Bowls like Bradshaw.

Bradshaw is an outlier.

He won league MVPs and SB MVPs. Led the league in TDs one year. He called the plays and the offenses never finished lower than 6th in points.

He was surrounded by incredible talent and great coaching but when he needed to carry his team, he did.

 

[Deus Irae]

Agree with most of post & most of QBs.

I actually would be interested in a "best eras" list. Maybe top 40-50 from start/78 - 78/2004 - 2004 - present.

Or some type of all-time draft with different legends picking the players on their roster.

I love that last idea. Unfortunately, we don't have enough of the more aged players to get a representative sample from "back in the day". But it would still be pretty cool to see it happen.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I love that last idea. Unfortunately, we don't have enough of the more aged players to get a representative sample from "back in the day". But it would still be pretty cool to see it happen.

I'd like nice mix of Bill, Jimmy Johnson types. A few nerds like Ernie. 2-3 players. Definitely interesting, esp hearing their reasoning for which players they picked & which positions they favored.

 

[Ring 6]

Did Dallas have better teams than the Patriots?

How did Aikman do in years in which they did not win the Super Bowl? (Hint- I know the answer and the #s are similar to Bledsoe's)

How did he do before he matured and after he was a walking concussion? Odd way to look at.
For a 6 year run Aikman was as good as any QB in the nfl. That’s an accomplishment. Not everyone is Brady.

 

[Ring 6]

Point noted on Layne. But he was a 3X champion and 7X all-pro (1st or 2nd team), and member of 50s all-decade team. Left game as leader in passing yards and TDs. His accomplishments are bordering top 10. You can be a tick below your contemporary rival and still make the team. Hence, Manning still makes it despite Brady being better.

Comparing before 78 is clearly necessary considering there are quite a few QB as finalists, though it isn’t easy. That’s why I think accomplishments (team success, individual awards) trump stats that are hard to contextualize.

50% then = over 60% now. It was a different game with different rules.

 

[Ring 6]

Bradshaw is an outlier.

He won league MVPs and SB MVPs. Led the league in TDs one year. He called the plays and the offenses never finished lower than 6th in points.

He was surrounded by incredible talent and great coaching but when he needed to carry his team, he did.

Same as Aikman

 

[Biffins]

It would be pretty bonkers if Drew Brees didn't make it but I guess you have to include guys like Sammy Baugh who nobody living actually saw play.

It’s not bonkers at all. The list is basically 8-9 QBs at most. Once per decade kind of on average. So you have to think that kind of frequency. From 2000+ it’ll be either Brady only or Brady and Manning. Rodgers is only one else that may possibly sneak in but doubt it. Which decade was Brees best QB in NFL or even top 2? For 2000s top 2 are Brady and Manning and for 2010s top 2 are Brady and Rodgers. Brees can’t break in.

This is classic recency bias. What about 3rd best QB from 60s of 70s or 80s. Are you also worried for them?

 

[upstater1]

You can’t be in the top of all time in my book when your excuse is you didn’t fave a supporting cast your entire career. It’s an excuse.
Yes they relied on him but when it mattered most he couldn’t get the job done.

When it mattered most, the guy lead comeback after comeback and was incredibly hard to stop. Again, he had a coach who was addled.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

When it mattered most, the guy lead comeback after comeback and was incredibly hard to stop. Again, he had a coach who was addled.

Isn’t this coach the current leader in career wins? What do you mean by addled? Early dimentia? Shula’s Colts teams were good. Shula’s Dolphins teams pre-Marino were good. Really a tough argument that a guy widely regarded as one of the best coaches ever was an impediment to winning. Other thing is the AFC was the Junior Varsity conference for Marino’s career...not making it back to the SB after year 2 is pretty inexcusable. No one denies his physical talent.

 

[Deus Irae]

When it mattered most, the guy lead comeback after comeback and was incredibly hard to stop. Again, he had a coach who was addled.

???

Marino was routinely mediocre to bad in the playoffs.

 

[primetime]

It’s not bonkers at all. The list is basically 8-9 QBs at most. Once per decade kind of on average. So you have to think that kind of frequency. From 2000+ it’ll be either Brady only or Brady and Manning. Rodgers is only one else that may possibly sneak in but doubt it. Which decade was Brees best QB in NFL or even top 2? For 2000s top 2 are Brady and Manning and for 2010s top 2 are Brady and Rodgers. Brees can’t break in.

This is classic recency bias. What about 3rd best QB from 60s of 70s or 80s. Are you also worried for them?

Your choice to divide quarterback eras into decades is completely arbitrary. Brees is the third best QB of the post-2004 era, and yes, I would be concerned if the third best QB of the 78-04 and 60ish-78 eras weren't considered.

 

[Deus Irae]

Brees is the third best QB of the post-2004 era

Is he, though? I mean, Brady's obviously #1. But, after that, aren't we looking at a group of 5, with some degree of difficulty in slotting them?

• Rodgers
• Peyton
• Brees
• Wilson
• Roethlisberger

 

[upstater1]

Isn’t this coach the current leader in career wins? What do you mean by addled? Early dimentia? Shula’s Colts teams were good. Shula’s Dolphins teams pre-Marino were good. Really a tough argument that a guy widely regarded as one of the best coaches ever was an impediment to winning. Other thing is the AFC was the Junior Varsity conference for Marino’s career...not making it back to the SB after year 2 is pretty inexcusable. No one denies his physical talent.

You realize this guy was a head coach in the early 60s, right? By the late 1990s, he was well into his 4th decade as a head coach. He was 70 years old and had lost control of his team.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Same as Aikman

No. Check your facts . Aikman was never a league MVP or multiple SB MVP. Merry Xmas