Brady named to NFL 100 All-Time team

[everlong]

No and I get your point.
Montana 0.713% win (tied w/ Eli at 117 wins)
Bradshaw 0.677% win (10 less wins)
Rodgers 0.650% wins (Rodgers will pass him next year)
Kelly 0.631% win
Manning 0.500% win

That's one point. Vs their respective eras they also crushed every stats vs Manning as well. Manning rode the coattails of two very good defenses and to his credit got hot at the right moment twice. Every one of those QBs crushes Eli in nearly every regular season and post season stat.

 

[Biffins]

Because of one thing. WINNING. That transcends generations.

That’s what you would think. But the context of my post was some people objecting to old farts like Otto Graham, Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman and Bart Starr being included in NFL 100 at the expense of modern stat champions like Brees and dismissing their multiple Championship wins as somehow less worthy.

I was merely pointing out just as we dismiss Otto Graham’s 7 Championship wins since they were 70 years ago, someone else could be dismissing Brady’s wins 70 years from now.

So the point stands that we should be picking dominant players from each era and not havd recency bias.

 

[primetime]

That's not the point people are making.

Bart Starr retired with the highest QB rating of all-time. He is dismissed by generation Social Media, or whoever the heck they are, because they don't consider the era when he played and the statistical norms. In the last 20 years, I've seen so many guys rise up to "the best" like Young, Favre, Manning, and now Brees, or just had to be top-5 all-time, according to those people because at the time they had either the best passer rating or the most volume TDs/yards.

Point is Brady has been a top 3 stat guy along with his winning, but in twenty years, people who didn't see him play may look at a QB rating under 100 and think they're really smart by arguing he wasn't a great QB. Same goes for all modern QBs. It's an unending cycle.

So, that's why in looking at this list of the top 10, it's important to consider the era and accomplishments (championships, all-pros, etc.) rather than try to do really dumb things like compare Brees and Rodgers to Staubach and Luckman from a pure statistical standpoint.

Sure, and Bart Starr also played in an era with half as many teams when the best athletes weren't playing football. Comparing quarterbacks across eras is an objectively silly exercise once you step back from it, and a lot of what's happening in this thread is just using arguing about quarterbacks as a proxy to cast aspersions at whatever social circle said posters don't like. (Those damn kids don't appreciate Bart Starr! Those boomers don't appreciate how much better athletes are now than in the age of 5-10 150 lb soft bodies!)

 

[patsfan13]

Seems like the Peyton Manning of the 50’s. Graham’s winning percentage dominates.

He also dominated the AAFC prior to the Browns joining the NFL.

 

[Biffins]

Sure, and Bart Starr also played in an era with half as many teams when the best athletes weren't playing football. Comparing quarterbacks across eras is an objectively silly exercise once you step back from it, and a lot of what's happening in this thread is just using arguing about quarterbacks as a proxy to cast aspersions at whatever social circle said posters don't like. (Those damn kids don't appreciate Bart Starr! Those boomers don't appreciate how much better athletes are now than in the age of 5-10 150 lb soft bodies!)

And how would you pick the best 10 QBs ever?

 

[libra957]

It's cringe worthy, the way QB wins/accomplishments are brought up thinking it'll help Brady. Not knowing those are far and away not the reasons 12 is the GOAT. Idk Idk

My fault for expecting more intelligent discussion regarding the position or game.

If TB12 didn't have the wins and the rings, he wouldn't be goat.

 

[Deus Irae]

If TB12 didn't have the wins and the rings, he wouldn't be goat.

You can determine the "rating" of a player via a simple equation:

Relevant skills + what you did with the skills = "rating"


The difficult part is finding a way to consistently, and fairly, come up with the appropriate determinations regarding both "skills" and "what you did with the skills". The equation is easy: a+b=c. Getting to "rating"a/k/a c would be easy if we could only find an accurate way of fairly determining both a and b for all players.

But the "if" is where all the problems lie.

 

[Tony2046]

After reading through this thread I'm beginning to think that Archie Manning not being on the list is a hose job.

 

[libra957]

You can determine the "rating" of a player via a simple equation:

Relevant skills + what you did with the skills = "rating"


The difficult part is finding a way to consistently, and fairly, come up with the appropriate determinations regarding both "skills" and "what you did with the skills". The equation is easy: a+b=c. Getting to "rating"a/k/a c would be easy if we could only find an accurate way of fairly determining both a and b for all players.

But the "if" is where all the problems lie.

Or we can just go by rings+wins=goat.

 

[Deus Irae]

Or we can just go by rings+wins=goat.

That gets rid of the whole "Jordan = Goat" argument, and Bill Russell will be pleased. I can live with that. Gretzky and Orr get screwed, though, so this won't work.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Montana vs Marino ... why does Montana win? because he won.

Dan was a great player. However, it'a a team game. Sure his defense came up short, he didn't have a great running game etc.

It's like in the NBA, there are several guys who can pour in 25 points for you every night. Doesn't make them, or the team, a winner.

 

[Ring 6]

That’s what you would think. But the context of my post was some people objecting to old farts like Otto Graham, Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman and Bart Starr being included in NFL 100 at the expense of modern stat champions like Brees and dismissing their multiple Championship wins as somehow less worthy.

I was merely pointing out just as we dismiss Otto Graham’s 7 Championship wins since they were 70 years ago, someone else could be dismissing Brady’s wins 70 years from now.

So the point stands that we should be picking dominant players from each era and not havd recency bias.

Well no real football fan dismisses graham but by the sane token 4 of those 7 weren’t even in the nfl and there were far fewer teams and playoff games, with only 1 playoff games most years.

 

[Ring 6]

You can determine the "rating" of a player via a simple equation:

Relevant skills + what you did with the skills = "rating"


The difficult part is finding a way to consistently, and fairly, come up with the appropriate determinations regarding both "skills" and "what you did with the skills". The equation is easy: a+b=c. Getting to "rating"a/k/a c would be easy if we could only find an accurate way of fairly determining both a and b for all players.

But the "if" is where all the problems lie.

Ultimately to me it comes down to that it’s a team sport and everything you do is based (or should be based) upon team success. So team success is a major criteria but how instrumental you were to that success is the real analysis.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You had Layne in your top ten without knowing he threw more INTs than TDs. I'm pretty sure I have a decent understanding for the peaks/lows, standards for each decade. Again considering I pointed that out to you.
Who some panel selects makes no difference imo. I'll make up my own mind. Of course I'll respect it. I don't need to get my opinions from anyone. Say what you want abt me but I don't copy/paste my opinion from Twitter or look to anyone to tell me what to think.

Who here is posting their opinion from Twitter? Have you seen those lists? Besides possibly a reddit, find a football forum where the NFL 100 QB discussion is as in-depth as in this thread. That's why it was shocking to me that your entrance into this thread essentially called everyone an imbecile/homer, in a BGC type of way, proclaiming that amateur hour is over.

It's cringe worthy, the way QB wins/accomplishments are brought up thinking it'll help Brady. Not knowing those are far and away not the reasons 12 is the GOAT. Idk Idk

My fault for expecting more intelligent discussion regarding the position or game.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

The qualities that make a QB elite are the qualities that produce wins.

I tried to see who if anyone I would consider starting over Doug Flutie in the NFL in 1990.

Montana had been a liability since his back surgery in '86. He and Simms weren't getting any younger.

Fellow USFL alums Young and Kelly were good. Moon was awesome. Aikman had potential.

Krieg, DeBerg and Gannon were steady but unspectacular.

I could never stand Elway. Marino had the stats and the arm but, like Elway, not the intangibles or leadership.


People nitpicked about Brady's supposed deficiencies in '01 & '02; then gradually less as time went on.

What's painfully obvious to anyone paying attention is that both Flutie and Brady possess those intangible qualities that make a champion quarterback, and they WON.

Tom got his chance, while Doug just got the rug pulled out from under him in the NFL both before and after he spent his prime north of the border.

 

[venecol]

Sure, and Bart Starr also played in an era with half as many teams when the best athletes weren't playing football. Comparing quarterbacks across eras is an objectively silly exercise once you step back from it, and a lot of what's happening in this thread is just using arguing about quarterbacks as a proxy to cast aspersions at whatever social circle said posters don't like. (Those damn kids don't appreciate Bart Starr! Those boomers don't appreciate how much better athletes are now than in the age of 5-10 150 lb soft bodies!)

Maybe I'm missing something because I wasn't aware they were picking the top 10 best of any player type but the "greatest" players in NFL history. To me this implies the best during each era/decade of the NFL. They are picking who the greatest players were in the 40s and 50s era, and then in the 60s and 70s, and so on. You can't do it any other way because it just isn't possible given some of the things you mentioned but also rules, equipment, modes of transportation, schedules, etc.

I really haven't been watching the shows so maybe I misunderstood the intent of the "greatest," but the mention of NFL history implies to me it is across the entire time spectrum and not a comparison across time.

 

[Zarozzor]

@Ice_Ice_Brady whats your updated top 10?

 

[Ring 6]

I tried to see who if anyone I would consider starting over Doug Flutie in the NFL in 1990.

Montana had been a liability since his back surgery in '86. He and Simms weren't getting any younger.

Fellow USFL alums Young and Kelly were good. Moon was awesome. Aikman had potential.

Krieg, DeBerg and Gannon were steady but unspectacular.

I could never stand Elway. Marino had the stats and the arm but, like Elway, not the intangibles or leadership.


People nitpicked about Brady's supposed deficiencies in '01 & '02; then gradually less as time went on.

What's painfully obvious to anyone paying attention is that both Flutie and Brady possess those intangible qualities that make a champion quarterback, and they WON.

Tom got his chance, while Doug just got the rug pulled out from under him in the NFL both before and after he spent his prime north of the border.

Flutie was not good enough to be a successful nfl qb

 

[Deus Irae]

Ultimately to me it comes down to that it’s a team sport and everything you do is based (or should be based) upon team success. So team success is a major criteria but how instrumental you were to that success is the real analysis.

"How instrumental" is never going to be measurable, though, because you're laying too many assumptions on top of one another. Was Peyton Manning more instrumental to the Colts winning than Brady to the Patriots, and was that a product of superior talent or some other reason which should not be counted but needs to be taken into account? The world will never know.

There's just no way to get an accurate measure. The best we can do is to try being consistent and objective with our individual logic.

 

[venecol]

The QB shortlist has 70% of the players coming from already selected All-Decade Team QBs. It seems obvious that the 10 greatest QBs in NFL history will also come from these lists. The only curious name on those lists is Dan Fouts until you realize that Montana received 24.5 votes and Dan only received 1 vote. Montana so dominated the 1980s that they just threw another name in there. There were 4 QBs with more than one SB appearance in the 80s. They could've picked dapper Dan who at least went to a SB, yet they picked Fouts as 2nd Team QB:
Joe Montana: 4-0 SBs
Jim Plunket: 2-0 SBs
Joe Theisman: 1-1 SBs
John Elway: 0-3 SBs

For the 2010s decade we have a similar situation where Brady has totally dominated the decade and will probably receive almost unanimous consideration. Who would be the second team QB for the 2010s based on what happened in the 1980s?
Tom Brady: 3-2 SBs
Russell Wilson: 1-1 SBs
Peyton Manning: 1-1 SBs

I would pick Wilson right now, but I guess we'll have to wait and see who wins the SB this year to find out. Rodgers could be a possibility if he wins it (2-0) or Brees (1-0) given his stats.

By the way, TFB would be the first and only QB to appear in TWO All-Decade Teams ever (other players have done it)!