Greatest quarterback you have seen?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Besides being a HOF Quarterback (with many records), he was a defensive back, who would often play a dual role of throwing touchdown passes
while also pulling off interceptions in the same game. Plus he was a fine punter.

2nd best is Sonny Jurgensen.

My 3rd best is Johnny Unitas.


TED Z
.

Never saw Baugh, but I loved watching Jurgensen throw long - straight overhead. I guess I remember him better than Unitas because he was in the same division as Dallas. Seemed like every time we played Baltimore they were down to Earl Morrall again.

[Orioles1954]

Best all-around quarterback? Steve Young.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Best all-around quarterback? Steve Young.

Young was great but I'll have to include Elway on the same level.

Most dominant in his time has to be Otto Graham.

1960s: Starr, Unitas, Jurgenson, Trakenton

Modern only-
Including post-season: Montana, Bradshaw, Brady, Aikman, Young, Elway, Flacco

Excluding post-season: Manning, Marino, Rogers, Brees, Moon, Farve, Fouts

The bigger discussion is which one had the best team behind him and which one improved his team consistently by his own contribution.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Excluding post-season: Manning, Marino, Rogers, Brees, Moon, Farve, Fouts

Just curious why you would pick Rodgers in the regular season only. He may only be 6-5 as a starter, but in the 5 games he lost, his defense surrendered 184 points, or 37 points a game.

Rodgers numbers in the post season? 253-387 (65.37%), 2,983 yards, 23 TD, 7 INT. 101 QB rating. 35 carries, 192 yards, 3 TD.

The all-time post season QB ratings:

104.8 Bart Starr
102.8 Kurt Warner
101.0 Aaron Rodgers
100.7 Drew Brees

Those are the only four guys with 100 + QB ratings in post season history.

And in the last game against Seattle, the one he lost, where the defense blew a 12 point lead with 3:53 to play, when Seattle went ahead, and Green Bay got the ball at their own 22 with 1 time out and 1:19 left, Rodgers moved them 42 yards in 3 plays, and then set up Crosby with a 6 yard completion to Nelson for the game tying field goal.

Isn't that EXACTLY what Tom Brady did to win his first two Super Bowls? Take the ball, move his team into field goal range, and win it? Rodgers faced the same pressure, if not more. His team, which looked to be going to Arizona for the Super Bowl, had just watched his defense and special teams choke giving away a touchdown, and onside kick, another touchdown, and a 2 point conversion. What does he do then? 15 yard pass completion to Jordy Nelson. Next play, 15 yard pass completion to Randall Cobb. Next play, hurt, he runs for 12 yards. In 36 seconds, against the best defense in the NFL two years running, in Seattle, he moves the ball 42 yards with the crowd going nuts, and the defense playing on adrenaline.

If that's not clutch, and performing great with the game on the line, I don't know what is. The week before, against Dallas, Rodgers, playing hurt, completed all 10 of his passes in the 4th quarter.

The man threw for 423 yards and 4 TD passes, and ran another score in, in his first ever playoff start against Arizona. Is it his fault the defense gave up 51 points? Is it his fault the refs blew a roughing the passer call on the last play of the game when the Cardinal defender speared him under his freaking face mask, causing him to fumble to ball away?

When he won the Super Bowl in 2010, his team had been completely obliterated by injuries in the regular season. He lost Ryan Grant, his #1 running back who ran for 1,253 yards and 11 TD the season before, in week 1 for the season. He lost Jermichael Finley, his #1 tight end who had 676 yards and 5 TD the year before, in week 3 for the season. Mark Tauscher, his right tackle, missed the last 12 games of the season. Grant's backup, James Starks, missed all but three games in the regular season. And as bad as those losses were on offense, they were nothing compared to the MASH unit the Packers had on defense. It caused them to go 10-6 on the season. Buy they won on the road in Philadelphia, Atlanta and Chicago to get to the Super Bowl, then they beat the #1 defense in the NFL in Pittsburgh to win Super Bowl XLV.

Rodgers is a very, very good post season quarterback. He's only had two poor post season starts, the 2010 NFC Championship Game at Chicago where it was freezing cold (20 degrees, 20 mph wind gusts), and the game against Seattle where he was hurt. Both teams had incredible defenses. The Bears had the #4 scoring defense in the NFL, and Seattle was #1.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Never saw Baugh, but I loved watching Jurgensen throw long - straight overhead. I guess I remember him better than Unitas because he was in the same division as Dallas. Seemed like every time we played Baltimore they were down to Earl Morrall again.

I forgot about Sonny. Funny, as I just watched the Lombardi HBO documentary a few nights ago, and it talked about how happy he was to get Vince in Washington. They referred to him as Washington's own Bart Starr.

Hell, Sam Huff, who had retired, came out of retirement to coach the linebackers, and play it. He had 3 picks, including a TD. If Lombardi hadn't gotten sick, I wonder if the Steelers would have been the team of the 70s. Look what he did with the Redskins in one season. From 5-9 to 7-5-2, the same record (well, 7-5) he had in his first season in Green Bay.

The Steelers won it all in 1974 and 1975. Lombardi would have been, what, 60, or maybe 61 in 1974? With three more years to coach that team, with Jurgensen at 36 after the 1969 season, I wonder if Lombardi doesn't draft a young quarterback to succeed him. Remember, he was the Head Coach and GM. Might he have taken Terry Bradshaw in 1970?

[Runscott]

That's all interesting - the stats and all - but for me this was one of the simplest questions I've ever personally tried to answer, mainly because it didn't require looking at stats - just remembering what I saw with my own two eyes.

Looks like I need to start a separate thread asking who the greatest quarterback ever was. I think baseball card collectors have to answer everything based on stats - it goes with the territory.

What's your favorite color? Well, blue reflects x amount of light, while yellow...but green has historically been the most natural color, but purple has been the most successful this is tough. There are probably more brown things, but there is more blue space...I guess it's an impossible question.

[the 'stache]

It's not difficult because of the stats. It's difficult because the game that Joe Montana and Dan Marino played share only a passing resemblance to the game Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers play now. And the game that Drew Brees plays now is the same game Johnny Unitas played in name only.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

It's not difficult because of the stats. It's difficult because the game that Joe Montana and Dan Marino played share only a passing resemblance to the game Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers play now. And the game that Drew Brees plays now is the same game Johnny Unitas played in name only.

Bill, I completely disagree with you. I can watch a quarterback playing football and tell if he's 'great', and compare him across eras to other quarterbacks, regardless of how the game has changed, and other people can as well - I know, because I've discussed it with other people in "real life". Some people get so hung up on things like stats, that they miss other parts of the picture - I meet such people all the time, both on the internet and in "real life". Perhaps it's right brain vs left brain usage.

[Tabe]

I've seen lots of people slag the Dolphins' running game during Marino's tenure and they ignore Marino's part in its failures. Even in his youth, Marino was incredibly slow afoot. His technique in all facets of the running game was awful, amplified by his lack of quickness. He did nothing to hide the football in any way on running plays. His slowness limited where his running backs could go and what they could do. And not hiding the ball telegraphed plays.

Did Dan have HOFers back there to run the ball? No. But if you rotate every part of a car except one - in this case Marino - and it still fails, maybe the problem is really the one part you didn't change.

That said, nobody could fling the ball like Marino. He was amazing, that's for sure.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Did Dan have HOFers back there to run the ball? No. But if you rotate every part of a car except one - in this case Marino - and it still fails, maybe the problem is really the one part you didn't change.

So the offense during Marino's years was failing? I didn't realize that - I thought they scored a lot of points.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Bill, I completely disagree with you. I can watch a quarterback playing football and tell if he's 'great', and compare him across eras to other quarterbacks, regardless of how the game has changed, and other people can as well - I know, because I've discussed it with other people in "real life". Some people get so hung up on things like stats, that they miss other parts of the picture - I meet such people all the time, both on the internet and in "real life". Perhaps it's right brain vs left brain usage.

Scott, I understand that this should be a pretty easy answer, and I promise you I don't go out of my way to complicate things. But it's just not an easy question to me.

If you're removing statistical analysis from the picture, how, then, are you going to consider any quarterbacks that played the game before you were alive? You're asking an all-encompassing question here. "Who is the greatest quarterback ever." Not the greatest quarterback from the last twenty years, or your lifetime. Who, in the history of the NFL, is the best to ever play the position.

I'm sorry, but the answer just isn't something I can just blurt out based on personal experience. I am far more analytical than that. I realize that there were far too many greats that I never got to see play, so I have to utilize the tools available to include them in my consideration, and even that is an imperfect way of doing it. You don't have to think like that. But you also don't have to dis me the way that you did because you don't place as much thought into it as I do.

Joe Montana was a great, great quarterback. But it's not just enough for me to say he's the best to ever play the game, because I simply can't say that. Was he the best ever? Or, was he just a really, really good quarterback that was put into a perfect situation? The Niners don't get past the Cowboys without "The Catch", and as great a throw as Montana made on the roll out, it's just another incompletion unless Dwight Clark goes up and makes a sensational catch in the endzone. How many other outstanding quarterbacks will not make your consideration because they didn't have the supporting cast around them that Montana did? Brett Favre is one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game. I think most people will agree with that. But if he hadn't been rescued off the scrap heap in Atlanta, he may have never been a starter. If Don Majkowski doesn't get hurt, maybe he's in this discussion now instead of him. After all, in 1989, he was the NFL MVP runner up. Majkowski had one guy on his entire offense worth a darn in Sterling Sharpe. He lost out to Montana. But was Montana better than Majkowski? Or did he simply have a better line, and better receivers who could catch better, and gain better separation from the men covering them?

We have guys completing 70% of their passes now. 70%! But, is it that Drew Brees is better than Bart Starr was in Green Bay? Starr retired the all-time leader in NFL history for completion percentage, and he was under 58%. How can you look at two men playing the same position from different eras, and just say one was better than the other? Well, again, why? Was Montana just smarter? Was he more careful with the football? Was he on a more talented team? How would Montana have done playing back in the 60s, when the rules were even tougher?

You want my simple, don't over-think it answer then? Ok, fine. Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback I have ever seen. He doesn't have the rings Montana did, but he is a better passer. He combines the arm strength of Elway, and Marino, and Favre with the accuracy of Steve Young, with the cool under pressure of Joe Montana. He makes impossible throws look routine, and if he played twenty years ago, or fifty years ago, he'd still be the best. Regardless of what else he accomplishes, he is the best I have ever seen play the game.

There's your simple answer.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Scott, I understand that this should be a pretty easy answer, and I promise you I don't go out of my way to complicate things. But it's just not an easy question to me.

If you're removing statistical analysis from the picture, how, then, are you going to consider any quarterbacks that played the game before you were alive? You're asking an all-encompassing question here. "Who is the greatest quarterback ever." Not the greatest quarterback from the last twenty years, or your lifetime.

No, Bill - that is not what I asked. Go re-read the original question and don't miss the word "seen". I have even repeated myself in two other posts, emphasizing the word "seen". In fact, I expected you and others to comment that I was being a smart-ass by repeating myself so many times. Any discussion is fair game in my mind, regardless of the original question, but please don't tell me I asked a question that I did not.

There is a huge difference between 'greatest ever' and 'greatest you have seen'. My focus was on the latter.