Rank QBs Brady, Brees, Ben, Rodgers, Manning, Marino by the Poll

[Tb12goesinya]

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

 

[nabwong]

Why’s Eli in this poll?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

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

In what way did he ever revolutionize the game?

Sure, the hype machine with their non-stop Manning propaganda really wanted everyone to believe he was thinking on such a high level, with all his theatrics and audibles, even leading you to believe he was the offensive coordinator.

This article is everything you need to know, the truth about his offenses.

One-Trick Pony

Out-executing opponents is easier with no. 18 and the veterans around him, but the offense Moore developed for Manning drew its strength from its simplicity. By using a small number of personnel groups — typically either three wide receivers and a tight end, or two wide receivers and two tight ends — it limited the number of possible responses from the defense and made it easier for Manning to diagnose its weak spots from both a speedy no-huddle (used whenever a defense tried to substitute) and a regular pace of play.

The small number of plays essentially put the full offense at Manning’s disposal at any time, and by combining few formations with few plays, both veterans and newcomers to the offense had their acclimation eased by the small number of tasks. There were just a handful of routes, typically from one side of the field or the other, run just the way Manning liked them. Despite media intimations to the contrary, the most sophisticated quarterback in the NFL ran what was arguably its simplest offense. It also just happened to be the best.

 

[fnordcircle]

Your poll stinks.

Brady
Montana
Staubach
Graham
Starr
Bradshaw

Staubach and Bradshaw don't belong on any list above Manning or Elway you biased PIECE OF SPDOIFUSPODFIUp

 

[RobertWeathers]

Staubach and Bradshaw don't belong on any list above Manning or Elway you biased PIECE OF SPDOIFUSPODFIUp

LMAO.

Elway- Yes.

Manning- Nah.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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

Manning didn't revolutionize anything except getting rules changed. Everything he did, Dan Marino did better before him.

 

[BobDigital]

Brady>Brees>Rodger(Rodgers has the chance to be better but it depends on how the rest of his career plays out>Marino>Manning>Ben. Here is why.

Brady - GOAT. No need to discuss.

Brees - He is better than the others on this list for a lot of reasons. One is his consistently great playoff performances. I don't means just overall stats but the number of quality starts. He has carried more bad teams to playoffs than he should have had to and rarely blows a game in a big moment. He has almost shown he can get it down late against quality opponents. Something the guy below him has not proven able to do much.

Rodgers - He is perhaps the most talented QB ever. The issue is that he has issues when he can't out talent people. I think his mental game is lacking in certain areas and he tends to wilt vs good teams. He can make incredible plays but too often seems unable to truly lead a team like he should. A great QB but it is about what you do against the best teams that matters the most and overall he has failed that test more than not through no fault of anyone but himself.

Marino - Marino isn't at all what history thinks he is. He is not a choker. He just wasn't clutch and his team never carried him like it did with some other guys. He did have a few stinkers but they all do. He just never came up big and didn't have the horses to help him against superior competition. A better QB could have done more.

Manning - The most overrated QB of all time. He truly was a choker even with 4 Superbowl appearances and 2 wins. Those number only go to show how good some of the teams he was on were. When asked to carry the load he could never do it. He never had 1 game where he put the team on his back vs a real contender and more often he wilted under the bright lights.

Ben - He won 2 of 3 SBs. One of the wins was perhaps one of the worse proformances ever in a superbowl by a QB. Yet his team carried him to the victory. The other was against the BADLY over matched AZ. He needed a pick 6 and still barely won. I give him props for the drive at the end but lets be real. It was against the 28th worst D in the NFL in PPG. That TD pass at the end would have been picked or deflected by a better team.

 

[fnordcircle]

LMAO.

Elway- Yes.

Manning- Nah.

Manning was so much better than Staubach I'm going to **** my pants right now.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Your poll stinks.

Brady
Montana
Staubach
Graham
Starr
Bradshaw

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.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Manning was so much better than Staubach I'm going to **** my pants right now.

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.

 

[RobertWeathers]

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.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There is a difference between a passer and a QB.

Bradshaw was a QB who has 4 rings.

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.

 

[fnordcircle]

There is a difference between a passer and a QB.

Bradshaw was a QB who has 4 rings.

Bradshaw is Trent Dilfer in a no-salary-cap era.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

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.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Bradshaw is Trent Dilfer in a no-salary-cap era.

Hey now, that's a little unfair. He was marginally better than Trent Dilfer. Somewhere between Trent Dilfer and Jake Delhomme, basically.

 

[RobertWeathers]

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.

QBs who have won championships in the 70s

Unitas (technically Earl Morrell won the game)
Griese
Bradshaw
Staubach
Stabler

QB play was different back then and its clear- based on that list those players were great QBs.

This is why passing stats (especially these days) need to be put in the context of winning and how much of an impact it has winning championships.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Bradshaw is Trent Dilfer in a no-salary-cap era.

You can't be serious...

 

[RobertWeathers]

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.

A lack of longevity should never be a impediment to determining greatness.

 

[fnordcircle]

You can't be serious...

100%. Better players and a great defense carried him and I will fight you if I ever come across you in RL

 

[RobertWeathers]

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.

A lack of longevity should never be a impediment to determining greatness.