Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hate these threads/discussions especially people that cant do analysis other than ring counting, rings go to the best TEAM of a season not the best QB there are plenty of QBs that got rings because they were on a great team that had very little to do with their own contribution (85 bears Jim Mcmahon; 1991 Redskins Mark Rypien; 1974 Steelers Joe Gilliam and Terry Bradshaw, 1972 Dolphins Bob Griese and Earl Morall ). These QBs all won a ring despite their poor to average relative individual performance not because of it. How about Bens 22.6 Rating in the SB of the 05-06 season? Maybe thats why they got that guy that played qb in college to throw the winner to Hines ward instead of Ben, overall he had a great season yes, but that SB win was held up by the team despite Bens poor performance; not because of Bens great performance.
Marino gets my vote... but you will hear the wah wah he has 0 rings, big whoop-he was on a bunch of bad teams. Montana beat him when Montana had the better team(84-85 SB) Marino beat Montana when Marino had the better team(94-95 playoffs) he did more with less in the days you were allowed to hit the QB.
Rings certainly aren't the only, or maybe even the largest factor when evaluating the cream of the crop. However, they have to be considered at some degree...
As many have said, Rodgers is probably the most gifted QB to grace a field. But if he finishes his career with only one ring (unlikely, but possible), how is it fair to rank him above a)Brady, the most accomplished QB in history--oh by the way, he was pretty darn good and Rodgers will likely never have a season as explosive as '07 Brady; b)Manning, who while not blessed with Rodgers physical talents, is probably the smartest QB to play the game, the greatest regular season QB ever, and oh yeah, Rodgers may not ever have a season as explosive as '13 Manning. This guy was good...this is to say nothing of Montana, Ben, and other GOAT's with more rings...
So, not singling anybody out, but at some point rings DO come into play. That's just how it goes....
Also, in the case of Rodgers specifically, another reason he needs more hardware is because he's unlikely to outlast the longevity of people like Brady and Manning. Sure, it's possible. But Manning was a Day One starter, started for 17 seasons (missed one with injury). Brady was a Year 2 promotion, missed one year with injury, but is in his 15th season as a starter, with no apparent signs of quitting soon. We all know Rodgers got a late start (Year 4), so he's only in his 9th year as a starter, though technically he's in his 12th NFL season. For him to even be a 15-year starter, that would be the 2022 season, that would be his 38-going-on-39 season. A 17-year starter, 2024, that would be 40-going-on-41 season. The reality of it is, while Brady may be rewriting the book, there's a very short list of players who played at the level Brady and Manning did for so long. There's an even shorter list of quarterbacks who were still elite at 40...
The rings become the equalizer, being that Rodgers is exceptional across the board, to a degree higher than most guys. I happen to think just one more puts him in the convo; two more, there may be no competition for him. But until he wins another, he's really on the outside looking in. There are too many players with better credentials ahead of him. Talent alone will not make up that difference...
My Top 10:
1. Tom Brady
2. Joe Montana
3. John Elway
4. Peyton Manning
5. Dan Marino
6. Aaron Rodgers
7. Terry Bradshaw
8. Roger Staubach
9. Johnny Unitas
10. Brett Favre
Rodgers will surpass Marino and maybe Manning and Elway as well before his career is over, he just needs to sustain his level of play for awhile longer, that is really what truly defines greatness to me. Brady and Montana will be difficult for him to pass, not exactly because of "rings" but face facts, what a QB does when it's all on the line matters. Aaron has had great playoff moments like last week, and other not so great moments. Brady and Montana both have bad playoff losses to their names, but a ton more success to outweigh it. Montana is 4-0 in the big one, Brady won 4 and had his team ahead late in 2 others.
I love Joe Montana, and as I've said I reluctantly say that Brady is the GOAT, but... let's remember that Adam Vinatieri's foot was crucial to a couple of those SB rings.
My Top 10:
1. Tom Brady
2. Joe Montana
3. John Elway..
Fish, I like your list. And Brady is still going strong. I actually think he'll get some more separation from the pack of greats.
I think Otto Graham should get more love in these lists tho. He was the dominant QB of his era, and collected 7 (combined AAFC & NFL) championships. peace.
Guys like Graham and Sammy Baugh are so hard to measure against the guys of today. One argument that drives me nuts is when people argue that Montana should be above Brady by virtue of being 4-0 in Super Bowls. It is impressive, no doubt, but he should not be considered better for making it to two fewer Super Bowls then Brady. So losing earlier in the playoffs makes you better? Asinine.
Alright, as a 49er fan who loved Joe Montana and got to watch him play, and claimed he was the GOAT, it's time to admit that the Mighty Montana has been replaced. Even though I hate to say it, I have to admit that Tom Brady is now the Greatest Of All Time. Brady has done it longer and better than Montana did. This season, at his age and with this team, Brady has excelled.
Yes I know Montana never lost a Super Bowl, and he never threw a pick in the Super Bowl (hello, Lewis Billups). But
So, Tom Brady is #1, and Joe Montana is #2. Hate to say it, I love the 49ers and Joe, but it's true.
Thoughts? Of all the NFL QBs, of all time, who is the GOAT??
I agree that Tom Brady will be (if not already) the greatest when you factor in statistics and team accomplishments/decorations. However, I don't necessarily think he is the best QB of all time in terms of playing the position, maybe not even the best currently playing in that respect
I love Joe Montana, and as I've said I reluctantly say that Brady is the GOAT, but... let's remember that Adam Vinatieri's foot was crucial to a couple of those SB rings.
Just saying!
And I seem to recall that in those games, New England received a kickoff with 90 and 58 seconds left to play, respectively - and a certain quarterback drove them into field goal range each time.
Furthermore...
In Super Bowl XVI the 49ers won 26-21. Was not the foot of Ray Wersching, he of 4 field goals and 2 conversions for 14 points, rather crucial?
Or in Super Bowl XXIII, a 20-16 victory in which Mike Cofer accounted for 8 points (2 FGs, 2 XPs)?
Guys like Graham and Sammy Baugh are so hard to measure against the guys of today. One argument that drives me nuts is when people argue that Montana should be above Brady by virtue of being 4-0 in Super Bowls. It is impressive, no doubt, but he should not be considered better for making it to two fewer Super Bowls then Brady. So losing earlier in the playoffs makes you better? Asinine.
Okay, fair point, Unsettomati, but Wersching and Cofer didn't score the final critical points, while Vinatieri did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleh
super bowls AGAIN?? theres more to a qb..
No, not much...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
