hey /sp/ who is the best quarterback of all time? i feel like i've never heard any consensus on this shit before
Tom Brady
Favre
Tom Brady and Joe Montana.
1. Brady
2. Montana
3. Unitas
4. Marino
5. Elway
In my opinion the Top 5 goes
1. Montana
2. Brady
3. Favre
4. Marino
5. Brees
>>63788497
>>63788566
>>63788584
>>63788592
It's basically Brady or Montana. You can argue either way but if you pick anyone else you're clearly an SJW casual kuck
Marino, Montana, Brady, Manning and Elway all have legitimate claim.
>>63788622
And to add to that, the NFL in the last 25 years has seen so much talent in the QB position that it likely is impossible truly determine one GOAT.
>>63788622
>Manning
>Muh regular season stats
1. Dylan
2. Dylan
3. Eli
4. Dylan
5. Dylan
1. Staubach
2. Aikman
3. Romo
4. White
5. Meredith
Huuuuge gap
6. Morton
Huuuuge gap
7. Quincy Carter
8. Brady
9. Montana
10. Hogeboom
Objective fact, I'm a Rams fan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Moon
>hey /sp/ who is the best quarterback of all time?
greatest of all time right here
>>63788784
Porch monkey pls go
>>63788784
ahah you are right
>>63788485
>GOAT quarterback thread
>pic is not of Tom Brady
Fucking up hard OP
>>63788485
Impossible to tell.
Brady or Montana for 1st or 2nd, but which is which spot isn't so clear.
That much is clear.
Then I'd put Favre and Young and Marino after.
>>63788485
Bradshaw is the biggest defense babby of all time. He literally sucked.
1. Brady
2. Montana
3. Unitas
4. Manning
5. Elway
6. Marino
7. Favre
8. Young
9. Staubach
10. Starr
OP here. when you guys say manning i'm assuming you mean ELI manning?
>>63788485
my pops would say terry bradshaw.
I say it's brady now. packers fan reporting in
>>63788883
Brady has had more success in the regular and post-season, despite constantly having different personnel to work with throughout his career where as Montana got to benefit from keeping all-pro players around him his whole career due to lack of a salary cap. They both played (and won) against historically great teams in the post-season, and they both won multiple MVPs, and were both known for their great ability to be clutch. The only argument that can be made for Montana is that he went 4-0 in superbowls, and even that isn't really a very good argument because it also means he won 2 less conference championships than Brady. The more you look at it the harder it is to make an argument for Montana.
>>63788608
>you're clearly an SJW casual kuck
you are literally what's wrong with the internet. get a life you fat fucking faggot.
>>63789178
Keep in mind that Brady is playing in an era that is much more QB-friendly.
>>63789207
>>63789178
And has thrown more interceptions in the SB
>>63789207
I never said he played statistically better, I think if you factor in how QB friendly each era was, they play pretty evenly in terms of TDs/INTs/PR/whatever else.
>>63789221
That doesn't really seem like it matters that much. Did Brady ever throw a game ending INT in the superbowl? or an INT that directly affected the outcome of the game? I recall him throwing one in the SB 46, but I don't remember if that resulted in any points off the turnover. If that is the case then I guess you might have something, but that is really sort of a flimsy argument for why Montana is better than Brady all time.
>>63789394
Yeah I just mentioned it because it's why some people still rate Montana over Brady. And it's also why Rodgers won MVP apparently.
>>63789189
based
>>63789221
Just think is just do to him being in 6, the numbers say he will throw more.
>>63788485
#1 Brady
#2 Montana
I think Stuabach isthe clear #3 but that is debated by a bunch of people who should be #3 (the top 2 are generally accepted and in that order).
you can go back and talk about Starr, Unitas, Baugh, Graham but i usually don't. Honestly only Starr and Unitas are modern enough to be worth talking about.
My top 10 in order
Brady
Montana
Staubach
Young
Elway
Starr*
Unitas* * - means older but i'll include them
Rodgers
Marino
Manning
Farve
>>63789664
>the top 2 are generally accepted and in that order
lol in boston maybe
Tom Brady.
>>63789664
Manning and Marino too low. Young maybe too high, though he is underrated. Jumping the gun on Rodgers, it is still too early in his career to place him in the top 10 all time. Though I do think he will be right around #8 when he eventually retires.
>>63789724
Autism
I think the tie breaker between Montana and Brady is eras and the ways offensives have evolved. Also you can't play defense like you used too
>>63789754
gets the info out there for people too lazy to look it up for themselves.
Montana. He did it with multiple coaches and teams, and we'll never see Tom Brady without the Patriots and the greatest scheme coach of all time.
>>63789767
>muh numbers
>>63789788
You compare QBs without the use of statistics and accomplishments? Yikes.
>>63789769
Exactly. Tom Brady is basically a henchman to Bill's Final Boss villainy. Without his coaching Tom Brady is Joe Flacco or some shit.
>>63789788
Yeah who cares about those. While we're at it:
>muh talent
>Muh results
>muh ability to lead game winning drives
>muh lack of talent to work with
Yeah nothing really matters but your feelings about Moncheater.
>there are people that actually think that brady is better than montana
>>63789802
Stats are meaningless and empty. Moreso than ever in 2015.
>>63789833
Probably because he is. But it's cute how you try to pass it off like it is common knowledge that he isn't. Anyone who isn't a biased prick and can look at them both objectively will say Brady.
If you wanna look at just passing numbers so far, it's definitely Rodgers.
>highest TD/throw ratio in NFL history
>lowest INT/throw ratio in NFL history
>highest QB rating in NFL history
>plays in the harshest conditions
Career is only half over.
>>63790060
Doesn't have the playoff success. Same goes for Peyton Manning
If Joe Montana was playing in this league now, would he even experience the same amount of success?
>>63790186
I think that depends on what you value more.
Would he be able to succeed because he was a great passer even when the game didn't help him being a good passer compared to todays rules.
Would he be able to succeed now that there's a salary cap and he wouldn't have a team of superstars year after year?
>>63790186
Assuming Montana makes 20+ million a year
and Rice makes upwards of 15-18 as well (Calvin Johnson makes 16MM), it would be very hard to keep everybody like Ronnie Lott and Roger Craig under the salary cap. Theres no doubt Montana could have put up very similar numbers to a Brady or a Manning, but would he have won 4 rings? No one has come close to what the Patriots have accomplished in the salary cap era. The salary cap was literally invented to prevent what the Patriots have done from happening.
>>63790088
Except Aaron Rodgers has more YPA in the playoffs than Brady or Montana, a higher TD% per throw than Brady or Montana, a way lower Int% than Brady or Montana.
Tom Brady has thrown 53 touchdowns in 29 post season games or 1.8 per. Aaron Rodgers has thrown 23 in 9 or 2.5 per.
>>63789221
Montana's playoff int % is .5 higher than Brady's
>>63790313
those are great stats, but he's also in his age 32 season with a 7-5 playoff record and 1 championship. He would have to go on some kind of dynasty like run to have a playoff resume resembling Brady's 21-8 record with 4 rings. You have to have the stats, the wins, and the championships to be the GOAT. Everybody said Brady could never be compared to Montana until he won a 4th championship. If Peyton Manning had even 3 rings with the TD record and the yards record, he'd be the undisputed GOAT. Its how the debate has always gone on.
>>63788634
Stale, you're not qualified to talk here.
>>63790266
This. Cheatriots have broken the salary cap era.
>Inb4 salaries start getting adjusted on records.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTc3H-o0vGI
Reminder that in Dan Marino played in the 2010's, he'd BTFO Brees/Brady/Rodgers statistically.
>>63790489
>losing 62-7 to an expansion team
>no rings
ultimate fucking stat babby to be quite honest
>>63790060
His numbers are inflated amongst Papa John's and Brady because they had to play pre-2006 where going 2:1 was considered Top 5
>>63790609
>muh no rings
you know football is a team sport right? Even if your QB is great, if the rest of the team is shit, it probably won't get to a super bowl.
>>63790644
they should have built a better team around him
really no excuse for that not happening when he didn't even have to deal with a salary cap for half his career
daunte culpepper
>Relying on stats
>Not choosing Rax
>>63790682
>It's Marino's fault his owner didn't give a shit
>>63790609
>Stat baby
That's literally how you determine who is good in a sport.
>>63790644
Marino had a few chances in his career.
#1 offense, #7 defense in 1984 when Marino threw for 5,000 yards and 48 TDs
#4 offense, #12 defense in 1985
#4 defense in 1990 when Miami went 12-4
the 2014 Pats were the #4 offense, #8 defense.
>>63790682
And yet that's somehow Dan Marino's fault? How?
Brady because he was never blown the fuck out 49-3 in a playoff game
>>63790763
Ok. Now look beyond 1985. 1990 aside, he wouldn't have another good defense until he was already aging, around 1997.
Unitas. He was doing things a modern QB would do in an era where his only job was to hand the ball off to his RB.
>>63790843
I agree with you he didn't have many opportunies, but he could've gotten one possibly. Marino's career is basically Peyton Manning light.
>>63789769
What are you talking about? Montana did it under 2 coaches, and they were both great.It's not like he ever won an Owl with the Chiefs. He also had no salary cap to work with. Who's Brady's best WR? Moss for one year?
>>63790874
nah Marino is in a league of his own. There isn't another QB like him that is argued a top 5 QB all time but doesn't have a ring. it would be accurate to say someone like Dan Fouts or Tony Romo is a Dan Marino light
>>63789394
>or an INT that directly affected the outcome of the game?
Pretty sure burning time off the clock since the other team has the ball which lead to the Patriots losing the Gnats can be seen as directly affecting the outcome of the game.
>>63789178
>They both played (and won) against historically great teams in the post-season
Who did the Patriots beat that were historically great?
>>63791376
the AFC dominated the early 2000s. The Pats, Steelers, Ravens, Colts were all great. Beat the greatest show on turf in 2001, beat one of the greatest defenses of all-time just last year.
>>63791101
Brady's oline completely fucked him over both times
He got hit like 20 times in the first Owl to the point where he was in imminent danger every time the ball was snapped
Second Owl was not as bad but he fucked his shoulder kinda early on which probably led to poor throws like the one to Welker
>>63791435
The Colts won a single championship, that's historically great? The Steelers won two, so I'll give them credit for that. The only other team with two SBs since Brady took over is the Giants, and NE lost to them both times. The Rams had a great short run, but the Pat's defense had a hell of a lot more to do with that win than the offense. So basically, they beat the Steelers a couple of times in the playoffs and that's it.
>>63789724
Peyton Manning would beat them both in all but a couple categories....
>>63791701
The Colts, Rams, and Steelers, and Seahawks all would more than likely have won at least 1 other ring each if it weren't for the Patriots beating them. Don't just look at rings to determine if teams were historically great, it is difficult to do that when there is a team like the Patriots that beats them. The 80s Bears are widely regaurded as one of the best teams of all time, but they only won 1 ring. Same with the 90s 49ers. You can Also throw in the 2006 Chargers as a historically great team that the Patriots have beaten.
>>63791811
Yeah like anything after the regular season ends
>>63791811
Most all time one and dones in the playoffs + only 1 ring (which he was carried to) and a ton of post season choke jobs is pretty much an auto DQ for manning in the GOAT discussion.
>>63792057
I don't see the Colts beating any NFC teams in the SB unless they run into Grossman again. The Rams, if they don't play the Pats in that bowl, probably get another ring, but again, I think that game was far more about the Pats defense than their offense. The Seahawks had a rash of injuries which allowed the Pats to come back, and they've been average at best this year. I'm not sure if two really good years is enough to be considered great. And the Steelers, who I give credit to being legit with two Bowls and another trip to a Bowl. The only one left is the Giants, and the Pats lost, twice. The post-2000 NFL has been short on great teams, parity reigns supreme. In a way it's a credit to the Patriots to continually have success in such a watered down league, but they haven't had to play many juggernauts.
>>63789221
Well he goes every couple years so
>>63791701
looking at 81 to 91, Montana's time in SF:
81 49ers
82 Redskins
83 Raiders (Over Redskins in SB)
84 49ers (Beat Bears in NFCCG)
85 Bears
86 Giants (Beat Redskins in NFCCG)
87 Redskins
88 49ers (Beat Bears in NFCCG)
89 Redskins
90 Giants (Beat 49ers in NFCCG)
91 Redskins
You have the same 4 teams showing up in the NFCCG: CHI(3), SF(5), WSH(5), and NYG(2).
Now lets look at 01-14, with Brady in NE:
01 Patriots (Beat Steelers in AFCCG)
02 Buccaneers
03 Patriots (Beat Colts in AFCCG)
04 Patriots (Beat Steelers in AFCCG)
05 Steelers
06 Colts (Beat Patriots in AFCCG)
07 Giants (Over Patriots in SB)
08 Steelers (Beat Ravens in AFCCG)
09 Saints (Over Colts in SB)
10 Packers (Over Steelers in SB)
11 Giants (Over Patriots in SB)
12 Ravens (Beat Patriots in AFCCG)
13 Seahawks
14 Patriots (Beat Colts in AFCCG)
Again, four teams constantly show up when looking at the AFCCG: NE(9), PIT(5), BAL(3), IND(4).
Its pretty comparable considering that the AFC was a dumpster fire in the 80s, and as I explained here >>63790266, its much harder to keep your roster year to year now a days than it was in the 80s.
>>63792320
Colts:
It is extremely possible that the 2003/2004 Colts can beat the 2003 Panthers or 2004 Eagles, at worst that is a pick'em on the spread. Saying it wouldn't happen is flat out foolish.
Rams:
Patriots were great defensively in the first half, but they eased up late in the game and Brady still had to make a game winning drive with less than 2 minutes left to win the game. There is no diminishing that.
Seahawks:
The seahawks played great in the superbowl, and if it weren't the Patriots they were playing it would have been the Colts. There is no chance in hell that the Colts win that game.
I also forgot about the eagles. The eagles of the early 2000s went to 4 straight NFC championship games. Another great team the Patriots and Brady have beaten.
The post 2000 NFL has had some excellent and historically great offensive and defensive teams, particularly in the AFC. To consider the post 2000s NFL, particularly the first half of the 2000s, a watered down league makes you look like a fool.
It's Bradshaw. Nobody was as dominant as him during the first half of his career, back when the league was tougher on QB's, and he has the rings and MVP's to show for it.
>>63792699
Bradshaw was total garbage in the first half of his career. If he were a rookie in today's game and played like he did in his first 4 years, he doesn't get through his rookie contract before he washes out of the league. Only a Steelers fan could ever think that Bradshaw is the GOAT.
>>63792755
>Bradshaw was total garbage in the first half of his career.
You're fucking retarded. Don't post anymore.
>>63792557
>Seahawks:
>The seahawks played great in the superbowl, and if it weren't the Patriots they were playing it would have been the Colts. There is no chance in hell that the Colts win that game.
>http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=331006011
The Colts beat the Seahawks in 2013 when the Hawks were better than and the Colts were worse than 2014. To say that the Colts couldn't win is a huge stretch.
Also found this while searching for the above link:
http://www.stampedeblue.com/2015/5/26/8662829/colts-vs-seahawks-is-the-most-likely-super-bowl-50-matchup-according-to-sportsbook
>>63793350
People also hyped the shit out of the colts going into this season too. The colts finally got a difficult schedule and were exposed. The 2014 Seahawks would have wiped the floor with the Colts. They would have had no answer for lynch and wilson running all over them, and their defense would have forced multiple picks on deep balls from Luck. I really doubt your football knowledge if you think the Colts would have stood anything more than a puncher's chance against the Seahawks last year if they didn't get completely BTFO'd by the patriots 2 weeks before.
>>63792807
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTe00.htm
You were saying? He was really bad in the first half of his career, even by the standards of the time. Bradshaw is the ultimate defense babby. Even when he got better in the second half of his career, he was hardly what would be considered an elite quarterback back then. He made plays when he had to to win games, but to be the GOAT you have to have the stats and the hardware, and his stats are fucking shit. Maybe you are the one who should stop posting.
>>63788656
Insane b8 m8.
>Staubach, Aikman, Romo.
Are you even trying to hide your Cowboner? Romo doesn't even remotely belong close to that list. I'd put that rapist Roethlisberger on it before fucking Romo. Aikman is a HoFer but not greatest of all time, same goes for Roger Staubach.
The correct and only correct answer is Brady. There is literally no other quarterback with the same success and records. Brady had the first undefeated 16 game season. He's on his way to a fifth ring. Any other name is a joke. Montana is mentioned because he holds the record first. When Brady shatters it, won't be a question.
>>63792699
>>63792755
Bradshaw was elevated by the team that was around him. Definitely not the greatest of all time. Root for Pittsburgh more, homer.
>>63794712
That "elevation" works hand in hand. As QB, he's still captain of the ship, with 2 SB MVP's and 1 league MVP. Other than maybe Joe Greene, you can't point to a single player who led the most dismal franchise in the NFL to (still) the most successful in the matter of a decade. That's greatness.
>>63788485
Jim Kelly
>>63796650
>>63790967
Ummmm......
Wes Welker? Gronk(yes he's a TE you fucking autist prick i know)? Julian Edelman?
>>63794530
Brady's records are in a pussified NFL. PLayers like Staubach, Elway, and Aikemn played in an era where the defense could literally murder you or your receivers and still excelled. Staubach was literally the first scrambling qb in the NFL but unlike the meme qbs, he had a cannon arm and deadly accuracy. Brady is a great qb but he's not the GOAT.
>>63796815
>the early 2000's NFL was pussified
It didn't turn into the c'uck league you see now until after the 2006 season. It was then further c'ucked in 2011.
>muh stats
This is how you know no one here plays sports.
>>63794170
>He made plays when he had to to win games
This is the end all. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.
>>63790622
So fucking dumb. Compare all their stats since 2008, when Rodgers started, then. Guess what? He's still better.
I love these 12 year old faggots that come in here and put Unitas or Bart Starr or fucking Y.A. Tittle. Literally nobody here was alive when they even still showed replays of those faggots. That shit was 100 years ago. Nobody here knows shit about them.
It's like when sperglords argue that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball player of all time. They literally played against a bunch of Jews with parts in their hair.
>>63796964
>Napoleon would've gotten BTFO in modern Europe
>>63797033
If Napoleon grew up in modern times and had exposure to modern warfare he still would have been a brilliant general because he was a genius
>>63797149
>>63797033
that was the point dumbass
>>63796815
Your justification is literally retarded. Aikman ended his career in 2000. Elway in '98. Aikman threw for a career total of 165 touchdowns. Why? Ask Elway. They value the rush. The game evolves. It's 2015. You don't need a running back anymore. Tom Brady can take 60+ snaps and drop back to pass 53 times and game and complete 35+ attempts for a high quarterback rating and 4 touchdowns. It's not a "pussification", it's you're a fucking cowboy pole polisher who can't accept the fact in 16 years, Brady has become the greatest quarterback of all time. He will commonly be referred to as the greatest of all time.
You can consistently debate with anyone you choose to but you're a moron.
>>63796854
Not when it comes to being the GOAT. All GOAT candidates made plays when they needed to and they all won, so you have to go to the next priority to sort them out, which is stats/performance. And Brady/Montana/every other top 10 QB totally crush Bradshaw in that category
question: why do most old school qb's (70's and 80's) have a ridiculous amount of INT?
Brady has thrown over 400 TDs and not even close to 200 INT. Is he really that elite?
>>63797430
Every other QB doesn't have 4 Super Bowl rings, or weren't the first ones to do it.
>>63797712
couple of reasons:
1. Defenses were given much more freedom to molest receivers while they ran routes, this allowed them to be more aggressive playing the pass and snatch balls.
2. For the longest time the passing game was seen as a vertical threat that was to be used in play action. This is also the most dangerous type of pass. It wasn't until the advent of the west coast offense in the mid-80s that teams started to heavily focus on running routes with the idea of getting open underneath or through holes in the coverage
3. Ball posession in general was not considered as valuable. Because the game was so heavily focused on the run, a lot of drives would stall out and result in a punt. point per drive efficiency has gonna up heavily in the last few decades. This has led to possession being much more valuable than in the past.
4. Elite quarterbacks now adays have a more complex understanding of how to read defensive schemes pre-snap than in the past.
>>63797814
Alright then if thats how you want to play it (it isn't really a good way, a combination of championships/stats/MVPs is really a better way to do it but okay) Then you have Brady, Montana, and Bradshaw. They are both lightyears beyond Bradshaw, and thus Bradshaw isn't even close in the GOAT discussion.
>>63797899
this post gets 2 thumbz up
>>63797899
how long do you think it takes to become elite?
nice answer btw
what retards/grandpas think: montana/jordan/ruth/gretzky
what anyone with sense knows: young/kareem/bonds/gretzky
>>63798027
I think it takes about 7 years starting int he NFL for QB to really become elite/reach their full potential.
>>63798328
Truly Gretzky is the only true GOAT
Brady
Marino
Manning
Montana
The rest
>Brady/Bird/Ortiz/Esposito
ftfy
>>63798468
Give Kurt Warner credit, he led two different teams to a Superb Owl
>>63797899
Quality post pham
>>63789724
montana did all those yards at a time when passing wasn't a thing
>>63798970
>passing wasnt a thing
>played for a pass first coach running the west coast offense
this has to be bait
Tittle
