I'm not buying Bradshaw either.
Why?
He was Elway before Elway, without the losing....
I'm not buying Bradshaw either.
Manning is Top 5 to me. If he can find another ring then that should cement him up there.
Ok for serious, the manning that plays in denver is not a top-5 QB ever - hell neither is his clutch more super-bowl winning brother.
Aikmen deserves to be on that list way ahead of Manning....
Why?
He was Elway before Elway, without the losing....
i agree with jens, but for some different reasons.
now that the league has been around for as long as it has now, i find it quite impossible to pick a straight 10 through one, let alone a 5 through 1.
there are just too many qualifying factors. era, type of scheme, supporting cast, coaches and just the rules of the game. all factor into what certain QB's were able to accomplish or not accomplish during their time playing the game.
when the conversation comes up, i will always say johnny elway. every time. first, because i know i will get a groan out of most any audience i have. second, i feel that i can make a reasonable case for him. and this is how it generally goes...
2 Super Bowl rings.
-yeah but, he only got those because he had a good team around him.
You mean like Montana had?
-yeah, but montana had many more rings than elway. elway got blown out in all those other Super Bowls.
Without Elway, Denver would have never been in any of those Super Bowls.
-but they lost.
I can grant you that, but i will tell you that you put Montana on those denver teams, they never make it to the Super Bowl and you put elway on those SF teams and SF wins just as many if not more Super Bowls than montana ever did.
-how is that? you are out of your mind.
Montana would have never survived a season behind the o-line that JE had to play behind most of his career. he never had all pro WR's. never had all pro RB's. Montana had all of that. So did Marino, who went to one and lost. Montana, Taylor and Rice. Marino, Clayton and Duper. SF also had some damn good d's as well. until elways last few years, he never had any of that. yet, you want to give montana a pass on that and not say elway did more with less?
-its all about Super Bowl rings.
that is where i give up and offer up what i said above with a laugh. the only argument i can make against a guy like montana is to put him in denver. but, you cant. so, he has just a legit argument as any as to why he should be #1. but, what about brady?
there is just no answer to this question.
the real question at this point is, who are the top 15 to QB's who should be tied for the best QB of all time?
that is pretty much the way i see it these days.
Something that hurt Marino and Elway is that both played in their primes before free agency was prevalent. Because they were so good, they constantly had their teams performing much better than their talent levels. Because of that, they were always drafting low and not getting the talent infusion they needed. Especially with Marino, you saw the team around him constantly getting worse. That was happening with Elway, but then he was fortunate enough at the end that the Broncos became one of the first teams to effectively use the new free agency rules and put a great team around him.
He did have #80, #87 and TD for a time...
Ummm...Clayton and Duper were nothing without Dan Marino.
You aren't the only one that thinks that. He was good, but not the greatest. He had amazing offensive talent around him and a HC that innovated an offense. Take those away and he doesn't come close to accomplishing what he did.I will go to my grave arguing Montana is overrated!
You aren't the only one that thinks that. He was good, but not the greatest. He had amazing offensive talent around him and a HC that innovated an offense. Take those away and he doesn't come close to accomplishing what he did.
#1. Johnny Unitas...
#2. Pick whoever you want.
I agree with the era thing. Unitas played in the days when the receivers got mugged. The 47 straight games with a touchdown pass is something when you consider the era he played. Tough as nails, called all of his own plays. Loved watching him play.
Quit disputing my dislike of Montana with possibly relevant information from his time with the Chiefs!Don't forget his two seasons with the Chiefs. In his late 30s with mediocre offensive talent around him and after suffering injuries that made him a shadow of what he was, Joe got them into the AFC Championship game his first year and got a playoff win in his 2nd year (before retiring). You can talk all you want about Joe and the talent he had with the 49ers. But the first championship he won there was when he didn't have much talent on the offense. And those final years with the Chiefs, he was marching teams to playoff wins despite little help and a bursa sac the size of a grapefruit on his throwing arm. Couldn't throw the ball more than about 25 yards down field and still moved the offense.
He did have #80, #87 and TD for a time...
Quit disputing my dislike of Montana with possibly relevant information from his time with the Chiefs!
In all seriousness, he was good but I just don't think he's top 3 or whatever I've seen some "experts" call him (not necessarily talking about this thread). Put some other of the top QBs in the 49er system during those years, and I think you see at least similar results if not better.
Sorry but I really don't put much stock into anything John Madden says. And I still stick with the fact that Montana had an offensive innovator as his HC in Bill Walsh and serious offensive talent that surrounded him. Look at what Steve Young did in the same offense with some of the same players as Montana had. A huge number of the highly thought of QBs would have thrived in the environment that Montana got to play in.ESPN the other day had a show highlighting the top ten Montana games. Throughout the show people like Madden and such constantly referred to Montana as the best they ever saw, by far. I don't think it is reasonable to argue he was not at least among the top three of all time given all the information. Unitas is in the conversation because he dominated in an earlier era. The latter day Elway is in the conversation but not the early Elway (I think Bradshaw's career is similar in many ways). But you cannot validly claim Montana is among the best ever.
Sorry but I really don't put much stock into anything John Madden says. And I still stick with the fact that Montana had an offensive innovator as his HC in Bill Walsh and serious offensive talent that surrounded him. Look at what Steve Young did in the same offense with some of the same players as Montana had. A huge number of the highly thought of QBs would have thrived in the environment that Montana got to play in.
Because I'm a Dallas Cowboy fan! Plus, his career completion % was about 52% and his career QB rating was about 70. He had a great team with a great, great defense.Why?
He was Elway before Elway, without the losing....
It does not appear you have much of an objective view on this subject.
TOP five you idot!!