Greatest QB of all time

[gridiron]

Rather than a poll, just name your pick and explain why. Feel free to explain why say, Unitas is better than Montana or why someone else beats them both.

Unitas over Montana because Johnny U had to call his own plays and Unitas had a stronger arm.

[redbuck]

I'm planning to do some statistical research on this, but thinking about it now:

Here are some names that might be forgotten (except Montana of course)

Fran Tarkenton
Joe Montana
Boomer Esiason
Jim Kelly

Sleepers from today: Mark Brunell, Kerry Collins

I don't think I can go with anyone but Montana when I think about it.

I'd also note Carson Palmer if he heals, because if he keeps up his current pace he could be one great QB.

[Snake]

I have to go with Dan Marino. The man was a machine, big, strong, quickest release you ever saw. If Marino would have had a running game to back him up like Unitas and Montana had, the Dolphins would have won a few Super Bowls with him at the helm. Even with every man and his brother on the opposing team knowing that Marino was going to throw, he still set the record for career passing yardage. When everyone knows you are going to pass, and you are still successful at it, that's greatness.

[12th man seahawks fan]

Marino and Elway both give him a good run, but you got to go with Montana.

[starkeeper]

I know it isn't all his fault, as football is the ultimate team sport, but Marino has no Super Bowls. I'm surprised to see that Favre hasn't been mentioned yet. Notwithstanding his interceptions of the last couple of years, I would have to go with Brett as the all time greatest quarterback.

Kelly, Marino, Aiken, Montana, Elway... all great quarterbacks amongst others, but Brett Favre stands in a class all his own.

[gridiron]

Give reasons, people, please, not just opinions.
Marino is covered, but why Montana or Tark or Farve or the QBs who have not finished their careers? I'm betting a few years ago Warner would have made the list a la Palmer et al.

[redbuck]

I was looking for guys with the most yardage per games played, as well as high completion rates.

I cannot vote for Marino, a man who never won a title. I must vote for Montana, a man who won several in awesome often comeback fashion.

[tdk1984]

It would be a lot easier if there was something similar to the HOF Monitor in football (baseball and basketball both have them but baseball's is more widely known). I'm not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers here, but for all we know, a QB's greatness may have a lot to do with the system they played in. How would Montana have fared in an Air Coryell-type offense, et al? Which just so happens to remind me about Dan Fouts.

[12th man seahawks fan]

I was looking for guys with the most yardage per games played, as well as high completion rates.

I cannot vote for Marino, a man who never won a title. I must vote for Montana, a man who won several in awesome often comeback fashion.

It is not entirly Marion's fault. Favre proved last year that the QB cannot carry a team, no matter how talented he is.

[gridiron]

It would be a lot easier if there was something similar to the HOF Monitor in football (baseball and basketball both have them but baseball's is more widely known). I'm not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers here, but for all we know, a QB's greatness may have a lot to do with the system they played in. How would Montana have fared in an Air Coryell-type offense, et al? Which just so happens to remind me about Dan Fouts.

HOF monitor in FB is tough because the game has changed so much. For example, Unitas is often called the greatest of all time, and Otto Graham gets the nod from some people, but their stats look putrid compared to today's players. Bobby Layne has bad stats but was the definition of clutch. All three are deserved HOFers, but measuring them against average QBs whose yearly averages are better than some career highs makes it tough. ERA adjustment is crucial and with various systems like West Coast vs. let the runners do it and don't make mistakes, it's almost impossible.

[tdk1984]

I know, it would be difficult to do (and I don't ever see there being a HOF monitor for FB).

Another candidate I thought of was Bart Starr (he has one of the all-time highest wpct. for career).

[Willie]

HOF monitor in FB is tough because the game has changed so much. For example, Unitas is often called the greatest of all time, and Otto Graham gets the nod from some people, but their stats look putrid compared to today's players. Bobby Layne has bad stats but was the definition of clutch. All three are deserved HOFers, but measuring them against average QBs whose yearly averages are better than some career highs makes it tough. ERA adjustment is crucial and with various systems like West Coast vs. let the runners do it and don't make mistakes, it's almost impossible.

Unitas had a higher YPA than Montana. He also threw a touchdown pass in 47 consecutive games.
I don't see where Unitas' stats look putrid.
If you are just looking at yards and touchdowns and other counting stats, remember Unitas entered the league when it was a 12-game season. (When he retired the regular season consisted of 14 weeks.)

[redbuck]

The mistake is often made of only judging a quarterback by his passing. In baseball we often judge catchers only by their hitting.

Quarterbacks are on-field coaches and leaders who must have the mental capacity to lead their teams, change plays, make good decisions, run when necessary and know when to run and when to pass to have the best chance of winning.

Tracy McGrady scores a lot but isn't really a great basketball player. In football, a quarterback cannot only be measured by yards. A level beyond he must be measured by percentages, and beyond that total yards, beyond that wins / talent of his team

[Snake]

I was with you, up until that last part. Do you think that if Joe Montana would have had the misfortune of being drafted by the Saints or Buccaneers back then, that you would not consider him one of the all time greats? Yes a QB has to have the mental attributes, as well as the physical; but to allude that his greatness can only be judged by his team's play is wrong. You can be a great QB, and be saddled with a subpar team. I don't believe that that makes you any less great though.

[gridiron]

Unitas had a higher YPA than Montana. He also threw a touchdown pass in 47 consecutive games.
I don't see where Unitas' stats look putrid.
If you are just looking at yards and touchdowns and other counting stats, remember Unitas entered the league when it was a 12-game season. (When he retired the regular season consisted of 14 weeks.)

Look at Johnny's completion % and interception %, not exactly anything that would catch a current fan's attention.
And a lot of QBS in the 50s and 60s had higher YPA than Montana.

[Willie]

Look at Johnny's completion % and interception %, not exactly anything that would catch a current fan's attention.
And a lot of QBS in the 50s and 60s had higher YPA than Montana.

There were different rules in place when Unitas played. It was much harder to complete passes at that time.

[gridiron]

Willie, the different rules are the whole point. Which is why a HOF monitor is so tough for QBS.

[football junkie]

Joe Montana is my pick.

He is the archetype or perfect example of everything that a quarterback should be in the NFL: poised under extreme pressure; highly intelligent; a leader of men; capable of inspiring trust and belief in the team; a person who exemplifies the team first concept.

No, Montana didn't have the canon-arm of a Jeff George or Dan Marino but he did have a pin-point accurate arm and an instintive feel for the game. These are qualities and mental and physical traits that transcend quantification -- not that Montana's stats aren't also great.

[gridiron]

Unitas had all the qualities of Montana, a stronger arm and called his own plays, so how does Montana come out ahead?

[Steve_Atwater]

I'm always astounded to see just how many people out there consider Joe Montana as the best QB of all times. The guy isn't a top 5 all time in any major statistical category, he dosent own any significant regular season record, he never passed for 4000 yards in a season (feat accomplished by some legendary names like Don Majkowski, Scott Mitchell and Elvis Grbac just to name a few) he threw 30 TD's just once, lead the league twice (you know who Arnie Herbert is? Me neither, but he lead the league in TD's 3 times). He was never a dominant player in the NFL despite playing the brunt of his career with dominant teams. He also had very little durabillity (played just 4 complete seasons)... yet he's almost unanimously considered the best of all times. :confused:

Of course, there's the Super Bowl thing. No one can take that away from him. But can anyone tell me with a straight face that Marino and Elway couldn't have won with the 49 ers of the 80? Heck I wouldn't bet against Steve De Berg's chances of doing what Montana did as far as SB are concerned.

Montana was a very good QB. Best of all time, no way.

[football junkie]

This is another example of a personality trait of a leader that goes beyond quantification. No way would Elway or Marino have won like Montana did with the 49ers.

In his early years Elway always pressed and tried to do too much. This is precisely why he lost his first three Superbowls. He was surrounded by talent, just like Montana.

Marino was selfish and pass-happy. He cared more about padding his stats than about winning. He had Clayton and Duper to throw the ball too. If he had wanted a more balanced offense he certainly could have gone to Shula and requested that a top running back be drafted. But the Dolphins never even tried it.

Did both have better arms? Oh yeah. But so did Jeff George and Steve Walsh. And the fact that players like Grbac, Majowski(spl) and Everett passed for over 4,000 yards shows you how little that stat is worth. All it shows is a pass-happy, unbalanced offense.

Joe Montana had Jerry Rice, John Taylor and Roger Craig to throw to. If he had wanted to he certainly could have gone over 4,000 yards as many times as he chose. But that's not how you win in the NFL -- just look at the Colts. Peyton is over 4,000 every year but Brady is taking home all the Lombardi Trophies. That stat is simply empty.

Unitas v. Montana that is a debate that can go on for ages -- better not to even start it. Montana, however, I would say played against substantially better players (physically) than Unitas did.

[Steve_Atwater]

This is another example of a personality trait of a leader that goes beyond quantification. No way would Elway or Marino have won like Montana did with the 49ers.

In his early years Elway always pressed and tried to do too much. This is precisely why he lost his first three Superbowls. He was surrounded by talent, just like Montana.

Did both have better arms? Oh yeah. But so did Jeff George and Steve Walsh. And the fact that players like Grbac, Majowski(spl) and Everett passed for over 4,000 yards shows you how little that stat is worth. All it shows is a pass-happy, unbalanced offense.

Joe Montana had Jerry Rice, John Taylor and Roger Craig to throw to. If he had wanted to he certainly could have gone over 4,000 yards as many times as he chose. But that's not how you win in the NFL -- just look at the Colts. Peyton is over 4,000 every year but Brady is taking home all the Lombardi Trophies. That stat is simply empty.


I have to disagree with you strongly there. I don't know as much about Marino, but Elway tried to do too much early in his career for a very simple reason: he had extremely little to work with. The reason he lost the three Super Bowls is beacuse those teams had no business playing in the big game in the first place. Only a quaterback with an exceptionnal set of skills could have led them there. Had he not tried to do too much, those teams would have barely made the playoffs. And with Montana, they would probably have missed the playoffs. Cause Montana would have gone down to injury before Halloween with the kind of beating Elway took behind the mediocre O-lines that "protected" him for all those years.

A Sports illustrated writer said it best, don't remember who it was tough: Had Elway played for the 49 ers, San Fran would have won all the Super Bowls they won with Montana, maybe more. Had Montana played for Denver, by the mid 80's, he would have been selling insurance somewhere in northern California.

You can consider the 4000 yards stat meaningless if you want. But if Montana is the greatest of all times, shouldn't he have achieved at least once, a milestone achieved by Don Majkowski? Essentially, what I'm trying to point out is that Montana never dominated the game, even in his prime, even while he was surrounded with perennial pro-bowlers and future hall of famers. He had all the possible tools. He was never dominant.

[football junkie]

Since you seem to think passing yardage is so important, Montana led the NFC in passing in 1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1989. But passing yards isn't the key metric by which quarterbacks are judged, passer rating is. Montana is ranked second all-time by that metric with a 92.3 career quarterback rating, (second only to his understudy Steve Young.) By way of comparison, Elway's career passer rating is 79.9.

And while Elways was fumbling and bumbling through his first three Superbowls, Montana was the MVP of Superbowls XVI, XIX, and XXIV. The last one of those was a straight up match up of Elway and Montana and it was a completely one-sided blowout. Montana's 49ers crushed Elway's Broncos.

Besides the passing titles and passer rating, saying a guy who played 15 seasons and 192 NFL games wasn't durable is pretty close to as incredulous
as an argument can get.

And you're really hung up on that 4,000 passing yard season stat. Elway only did this once, in 1993 and Denver finished that season 9-7.

Here are a couple other "great quarterbacks" in your estimation who have achieved 4,000 yards passing in one season: Rich Gannon, 4,689; Mark Brunell, 4,367; Steve Beuerlein, 4,436; Lynn Dickey, 4,458; Drew Bledsoe, 4,555; Kurt Warner, 4,830 & 4,353. Wow, you're right that is quite an impressive list of quarterbacks.

And as for Elway's teams lacking talent, then how did they get to three Superbowls in the 80s?

The 1986 Broncos had the 8th ranked offense in the NFL and Pro Bowlers: Keith Bishop (ol), John Elway (qb), Rulon Jones (dl), Karl Mecklenburg (lb), Dennis Smith (db), Sammy Winder (rb), and a Hall of Fame coach.

The 1987 Broncos scored the 4th most points in the NFL and gave up the 7th least points in the NFL. They had Pro Bowlers: Keith Bishop (ol), John Elway (qb), Karl Mecklenburg (lb), and a Hall of Fame coach.

The 1989 Broncos defense gave up the fewest points in the NFL. The team also had a 1,000 yard reciever and rusher, Pro Bowlers: John Elway (qb), Greg Kragen (dl), Karl Mecklenburg (lb), Dennis Smith (db), and a Hall of Fame coach.

So inspite of what you might "remember" about those Broncos teams of the 1980s, they were were loaded with talent.

[Steve_Atwater]

Since you seem to think passing yardage is so important, Montana led the NFC in passing in 1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1989. But passing yards isn't the key metric by which quarterbacks are judged, passer rating is. Montana is ranked second all-time by that metric with a 92.3 career quarterback rating, (second only to his understudy Steve Young.) By way of comparison, Elway's career passer rating is 79.9.

And while Elways was fumbling and bumbling through his first three Superbowls, Montana was the MVP of Superbowls XVI, XIX, and XXIV. The last one of those was a straight up match up of Elway and Montana and it was a completely one-sided blowout. Montana's 49ers crushed Elway's Broncos.

Besides the passing titles and passer rating, saying a guy who played 15 seasons and 192 NFL games wasn't durable is pretty close to as incredulous
as an argument can get.

And you're really hung up on that 4,000 passing yard season stat. Elway only did this once, in 1993 and Denver finished that season 9-7.

Here are a couple other "great quarterbacks" in your estimation who have achieved 4,000 yards passing in one season: Rich Gannon, 4,689; Mark Brunell, 4,367; Steve Beuerlein, 4,436; Lynn Dickey, 4,458; Drew Bledsoe, 4,555; Kurt Warner, 4,830 & 4,353. Wow, you're right that is quite an impressive list of quarterbacks.

And as for Elway's teams lacking talent, then how did they get to three Superbowls in the 80s?

The 1986 Broncos had the 8th ranked offense in the NFL and Pro Bowlers: Keith Bishop (ol), John Elway (qb), Rulon Jones (dl), Karl Mecklenburg (lb), Dennis Smith (db), Sammy Winder (rb), and a Hall of Fame coach.

The 1987 Broncos scored the 4th most points in the NFL and gave up the 7th least points in the NFL. They had Pro Bowlers: Keith Bishop (ol), John Elway (qb), Karl Mecklenburg (lb), and a Hall of Fame coach.

The 1989 Broncos defense gave up the fewest points in the NFL. The team also had a 1,000 yard reciever and rusher, Pro Bowlers: John Elway (qb), Greg Kragen (dl), Karl Mecklenburg (lb), Dennis Smith (db), and a Hall of Fame coach.

So inspite of what you might "remember" about those Broncos teams of the 1980s, they were were loaded with talent.

In all of my years following football, I have never, ever seen, not even the most hard-core, die-hard, dyed in the wool Broncos fan, try to convince anyone that the Broncos teams of the 80's were great teams. That is really a first.

No, those teams were not great, far from it. And I know, people reading this must be going:" This guy has very high standards. He won't call the Broncos of the 80's great despite the fact that they had, as you mentionned, legends of the game like Sammy "Canton bound" Winder, and let's not forget Amercian Icon Gene Lang on the offensive side of the ball." (By the way, I read on another thread that you consider Jerry Rice as the best football player of all times. But I really think that a strong case could be made for Rulon Jones. He reinvented the position of Defensive lineman, I think we could all agree to that...)

Alllright, enough of that.

You seem to assume that I consider Elway as the greatest QB of all-times. That's not the case. He was probably the most gifted player ever to play the position, but not the best. And his remarkable (Sp?) set of skills allowed him to take those "powerhouses" of the 80's the three Super Bowls, where he was overwhelmed by teams that were clearly superior. Frankly, I don't care how many points the Denver defense gave in 1987. They gave 200 yards on the ground to Timmy Smith. They were not all that good.

The names you bring up of all the average QB who did what Montana never did (throw for 4000 yards), just further my point. If he was the best, if he had the best receiver(s), solid ground game, strong defenses and all that, why couldn't he achieve any kind of statistical milestone? To me it's like arguing that a guy who never scored 50 goals is the best hockey player of all times. Or that a guy who never drove in 100 runs is the best hitter of all times. If he was the best, what did he do that no one else could do? What is it that make him stand out? It's not the stats, we've established that Steve Grogan could have led the 49ers of the 80's to the big prize. So what is it? The Super Bowl MVP's? The QB always has the edge in the voting for that award. What sets him apart? What makes him so special? Besides a ridiculous statistic that 97% of football fans don't understand (and don't really feel they need to)?

[football junkie]

If he was the best, if he had the best receiver(s), solid ground game, strong defenses and all that, why couldn't he achieve any kind of statistical milestone?

Perhaps you missed all Montana's passing titles and the fact that he owns the second highest quarterback rating of All-Time! Quarterback rating and winning ARE the benchmarks or milestones that establish if a quarterback is great or not.

Montana and Elway are both great, Montana was just better.

We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this so there's not point continuing this discussion.

[ktss12]

Rating QBs is very difficult. The difference in QB styles in the 50s differs greatly from the style of the 60s, and on and on. It seems every advancing decade changes the QB position.

There are just too many variables to make this a cut and dry choice.

In my book:

Favorite QB- Ken Stabler
Best pure passer that I've seen play- Dan Marino
Blood and Guts- Brett Favre
Best all around athlete- Young, Cunningham, maybe Vick
Intangibles- Montana, Unitas, Elway
Just Win Baby- Otto Graham.....not possitive, but I think he won around 7 Pro titles,
That aint bad!!!

[football junkie]

I agree completely with your sentiment that Ken Stabler should be in the Hall of Fame. It's bias against left-handed quarterbacks! But maybe now that his coach is in, he'll finally get an invite.

[gridiron]

Saying 4,000 yards is the standard is like saying 200 hits is the standard for baseball hitters. Some guy named Ted williams never got to 200 in one year. Some guy named Joe Namath was the first to 4,000, and that was after his oneSB win. So where does that leave everyone before the 60s or old in the sixties like Graham, Layne and even U?

[football junkie]

Saying 4,000 yards is the standard is like saying 200 hits is the standard for baseball hitters. Some guy named Ted williams never got to 200 in one year. Some guy named Joe Namath was the first to 4,000, and that was after his oneSB win. So where does that leave everyone before the 60s or old in the sixties like Graham, Layne and even U?


Which brings up a few excellent questions, where, or more correctly, when do we draw the line of the "modern" era of the quarterback and how do we evaluate those QBs who played before that era? Is there a way to do cross-era comparison?

How can we compare an Earl Clark, Jimmy Conzelman, Arnie Herber or Sid Luckman to a Bart Starr, Otto Graham or Y.A. Tittle? Seemingly even more impossible is comparing one of those players to a Tom Brady or Daunte Culpepper.

[Steve_Atwater]

The way I see it, here's how we can recongnize greatness in an athlete. I have 4 major criteria:

- Is he (or she) a difference maker. i.e. can he turn a mediocre team into a good team. Can he turn a good team into a contender an so on, by his actions both on and off the field.

- Does he, in addition to making his team better, makes his teamates better. Do you see average players have career years beacuse they're playing with him. In the late 80's, early 90's, you could pretty much take a guy off the street, put him on a line with Mario Lemieux and the guy would score 50 goals. Take him off Lemieux's line, the guy disappeared, never to be heard of again ( it came to be called, pulling a Rob Brown in hockey circles).

- Does the player demonstrates a statistical dominance, over his contemporaries and/or every player who ever played, wether for a couple of season or troughout his whole career. When Babe Ruth ended his playing career, he had 714 home runs. We he began his career, the record was 138. That's qualifies as statistical dominance.

- Can the player do things on the playing field that no one else can do. During the Super Bowl against the Giants, John Elway made a pass to the left sidelines, while going to his right, about 50 yards down the field. Sportscasters use the word "unbelievable" way to much and I try to refrain from using it as much as I can. But that was truely unbelivable.

A good combination of a couple of those elements will do fine to determine if an athlete can be considered among the very best at what he does in my book.

Now, since Montana is the name I hear the most, I look at him based on those criteria. We'll never know what he would have done with average/sucky teams, since he always played for contenders, at least when he was in his prime. But the other three, I don't believe he made Rice, Taylor, Craig and company better. I tend to believe it's actually the other way around. He didn't dominate statistically wise, neither short nor long term (besides finishing second- not even first, second- in passer rating; a stat that was recently named by an international jury as the most idiotic stat ever invented), and if he ever made throws no one else could do, I never saw any. So according to my analytic grid, he's 0 for 3. For my limited mathematics, that's not a very good, percentage wise.

But you're right, Football junkie. We have irreconcilable differences on that topic. Agree to disagree I guess.

[gridiron]

Maybe Montana didn't make his teammates better, but the consensus is Unitas did, and he raised the level of play for the whole team, and called his own plays. He made everyone on the team better.

As for Montana, his teammates always believed that he would lead them to victory no matter what the rest of the world thought. In other words, the players, not the media saw the greatness of Montana and the players didn't say Elway was better. So who ya gonna believe, the players or the media's Elway is unbeleivable??

[Snake]

I know this off topic, but the talk about Elway has brought to my memory, my favorite play that I ever saw him make. The sad part was that the play wasn't on a football field, but a baseball diamond. John Elway was drafted by the NY Yankees in 1981 and while he refused to play for the Colts, played in their farm system for a little while. In 1982, he was playing on the Oneonta Yankees, a NY Penn League team which is Class A. Elway played CF. Anyways, I once saw him sprint back to the CF wall (410 feet) make the catch, and throw to home plate in an attempt to pick off the man tagging from 3rd. Any normal person would have conceded the run as automatic, or if they did try to make a play, would look foolish. Elway gunned the ball on a line all the way to home plate from the wall and almost made the play. It was one of the most incredible throws I have ever seen on the baseball field.


Back to the topic- While I know that he is not the greatest ever, I also (obviously) love Kenny Stabler and feel that he belongs in the HOF. As far as comparing players from different eras; same as baseball, or any other sport, almost impossible to do. Different calibers of atheletes, different styles of play, different season lengths, different team philosophies, all make comparing pure stats useless.

[football junkie]

As far as comparing players from different eras; same as baseball, or any other sport, almost impossible to do. Different calibers of atheletes, different styles of play, different season lengths, different team philosophies, all make comparing pure stats useless.

Amen to that. I know these threads are fun but they can't really be taken too seriously. Maybe with today's conditioning programs and offensive schemes Otto Graham would have thrown 50 TD in a season. Or maybe he wouldn't even make an Arena League team -- we'll never know.

BTW...great story about Elway. I always wondered if he'd have made it as a baseball player. Or if Dave Winfield would have made it with the Hawks in the NBA or the Vikings in the NFL.

But back on topic, where do we draw the line at least on "modern era" quarterbacks? I suggest 1960 with Bart Starr, Sonny Jurgensen, John Brodie, Johnny Unitas and Joe Namath but not John Hadl or George Blanda as the first great "modern era" class of QBs -- Unitas probably being the best of that group.

[neil]

[I am the new guy on the block. I thought I had something new as I was reading what were some interesting opinions until I ran into the last listed posting which took away from my fresh opinions to a large degree.. How can we compare QB'S except in an era by era approach. Who was the coach? What was the system being run at the time of each era. Would anyone dare say that any HOF QB could have identified his passing skills, stats, etc. under the infamous Woody Hayes( 3 yds and a cloud of dust). I know I'm speaking college, not NFL, but the coaches that have been successful in the NFL have also thought along the same lines. Are we talking stats,athleticism, leadership.... This is where era's come into play. I would present Bart Starr as a QB that knew how to win, and did.(Vince Lombardi's choosen man.What a burden to carry.) We talk about John Elway and his "The Drive", but was their any better "Drive" than the one that Bart Starr took the Packers to in the final five minutes in the Ice Bowl of 1967 calling his own plays. This is something Starr did repeatedly during his career. So, is leadership over overall stats a consideration? If so I present Bart Starr to this forum.

May I sign off with a QB I never had the pleasure of watching, but what about someone who won Championships, had a great arm, speed, was the team punter with league high averages, and played 60 minutes as a starting defensive back. That is another kind of QB.

Thank you for letting a newcomer have a say.

[gridiron]

No need to thank us for "letting you have a say" thank the creator of the forum for giving all of us a forum.

Starr always seemed to rise to the occasion in the playoffs. His playoff numbers are ther best ever while his regular season numbers leave a bit to be desired.

BTW since Bart didn't play 60 minutes a game, my "guess" is you are referring to none other than Slingin' Sammy with your other comments.

[mordeci]

May I sign off with a QB I never had the pleasure of watching, but what about someone who won Championships, had a great arm, speed, was the team punter with league high averages, and played 60 minutes as a starting defensive back. That is another kind of QB.

Reading this thread I kept looking for someone to mention Slingin' Sammy Baugh. Led the league in passing, punting and interceptions (catching them, not throwing them), all in the same year. Could Montana or Marino have done that? Probably not. Elway, Steve Young? Probably. But if I had to pick a modern QB to match the feat I would have to go with Randall Cunningham (just to be clear, I'm not saying Cunningham is in the top 25 QBs all time, just had the skill set to accomplish that particular feat).

As for the debate, I'll take Montana over Elway, by a slim margin. Great big game QB from day 1, which Elway didn't become until the end. Joe was partly a product of a great team, but not nearly as much as Bradshaw or (gasp) Griese.

As for active QBs: Brady=Montana, Manning (Peyton, obviously)=Marino. Palmer = too early to tell, and I'm a little biased, but he sure looks good so far.

[gridiron]

The original idea was who is the best as QB, not best all around including QB.
Since no one else could do everything Baugh did as well as Sammy, we either concede to him or focus strictly on being the QB.
Of course we could always throw Blanda into the mix. If his receiver dropped a TD ball, George could kick a field goal anyway, even after the age of 40.

[football junkie]

Just strolling through the NFL official stat site and I noticed something kind of interesting. A stat for quarterbacks, most times sacked during a career. Guess who leads the list all-time: John Elway!

He was sacked 516 times! Now he was known as a mobile quarterback and he certainly played behind great offensive lines that produced all those Broncos 1,000 & 2,000 yard rushers. Seems like they could just put anyone back there and they rush for 1,000 yards, didn't it?

So why was Elway sacked 516 times?

Now the sack stat has been compiled since 1963 so we're dealing with every modern era QB. Why is it that the "greatest QB of all-time" behind a perennially fantastic O-Line took so many sacks? How many drives did this kill for the Broncos? How many points did they lose because of it? How many games did they lose because of his propensity to take sacks?

And please don't come back with the argument that he took the sacks to avoid throwing interceptions, because he threw 226 of those in his career. He was no stranger to the INT.

Still think he's the greatest ever? Of course you do.

[brady_branch]

If a QB is tackled behind the LOS, is it a sack? What if he's tackled across the LOS?

[football junkie]

If he's tackled across the line of scrimmage it's called a rush resulting in a tackle, behind it it's called a sack.

[soberdennis]

Perhaps you missed all Montana's passing titles and the fact that he owns the second highest quarterback rating of All-Time! Quarterback rating and winning ARE the benchmarks or milestones that establish if a quarterback is great or not.

Montana and Elway are both great, Montana was just better.

We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this so there's not point continuing this discussion.
I believe the highest rating belongs to Steve Young.
People love a winner. How about Otto Graham. He played in the League championship game every year he played.
As for allaround athlete, go with Sammy Baugh. He completed 70% of his passes one year, punted an average of 50 yds a punt another year, and I believe he led the league in interceptions at least once.

All that said, If the game was on the line with 2 minutes to play and the ball on my own 20, I'd like one of these guys running my O.
1. Montana
2. Elway
3. Unitas
4. Staubach
5. Stabler

[steveironcity]

Since all the best quarterbacks in history come from a 100 mile radius of Pittsburgh, this is hard for me. But ill say Joe Montana

[gridiron]

So we need western PA QB Bowl, no others need apply?

[KHenry14]

Not to stir things up even more, but one thing that Montana did that Elway didn't was win with a mediocre team The 1981 Niners were IMO the least talented SB winning team ever. Montana was just in his second season as a starter, Lott was a rookie, and they had a bunch of nobodies on the team. His top running back was Ricky Patton with just over 500 yards. Does the name Ricky Patton scare anyone's defense? I don't think so. Patton makes the Bronco's RB's look like Walter Payton. And their O-line had a 225lb tackle in Dan Audick. Imagine him taking care of your backside.

Yet Joe found a way to win, whereas Elway couldn't until he got a running game.

IMO the ultimate question is between Joe and Unitas, and to me it's a tie.

[Seattle1]

Johnny Unitas. He put up gaudy numbers during the time when the rules did not favor the passing game like they have since 1978.

[Brooklyn]

Montana. Every time he touched the ball you felt like the Niners would win

[gridiron]

Same feeling when Unitas played. He'd find a way, and he called the plays, not the coachbing staff.

[Calif_Eagle]

I like Winning as my main criteria. No one is mentioning Archie Manning here & they wouldnt be mentioning Unitas or Montana either if they had played for the Saints during all their years of chronic losing. As has been previously stated, you cant compare across eras either. The game is far too fluid & has changed/does change too much. In the single wing era (30's & prior, extending across the 40's for some teams & in the case of the Steelers, I believe into the 50's) the "QB" was more often a blocking back & the tailback ran the offense. Starting in the 1940's, with the introduction of the "T"-Formation; I like Sid Luckman, Sammy Baugh and Otto Graham. 1950's I like Graham again (he straddles 2 decades almost evenly), Bobby Layne & Johnny Unitas. 1960's Bart Starr gets the call, with AFL QB's Len Dawson, George Blanda & Jack Kemp winning multiple Titles there. 1970's Terry Bradshaw, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach. (just an aside Bradshaw gets no credit at all for winning 4 SB's, whereas Montana gets tons of credit for the same accomplishment.) 1980's Joe Montana was the king, Jim Plunkett bagged a couple of SB's also. 1990's Troy Aikman, John Elway. 2000's Tom Brady. As Herman Edwards said in a memorable press conference, "You Play To Win The Game!" These are the guys who did that. (along with 2 honorable mentions: Norm Van Brocklin, NFL Titles with the 1951 Rams & the 1960 Eagles, Tobin Rote NFL Title with the 1957 Lions, & an AFL Title with the 1963 Chargers.) I cant say with any certainty as to who the exact Greatest QB of all time is, but I think he is probably one of the men on this list. If I were pressed, I like Otto Graham. 10 seasons played, his team reached the ultimate game in all 10, winning 7 times.

[erik5032]

I know what you are all thinking... but seriously he should be. Yes Brett Favre and Dan Marino held most yards passing, but so did Saint Fran. Here is the reasoning.

Passing Yards: Fran Tarkenton had the NFL record with most Passing yards when he retired.
Rushing Yards: Fran Tarkenton had the NFL record with most Rushing yards when he retired.
Touchdowns: Fran Tarkenton had the NFL record with most Touchdowns when he retired.
Accuracy: Fran Tarkenton ranked near the top with accuracy.

Fran Tarkenton was thee complete Quarterback, he didn't just pass and he didn't just scramble. Fran Tarkenton did everythin. He had better running ability then Young, He had a better accuracy rating then Favre and Marino and Montana when he retired. He is still the leader in Rushing yards by a Quarterback, and these yards don't include his East to West running. He was as elusive as Favre in the pocket. The man couldn't be sacked (yes he was sacked, but not very often) Lets also remember he didn't have an offensive line to protect him, he had an average running game, and he made the receivers. Fran Tarkenton made that team along with the defensive. That is why he couldn't win a Superbowl... he was the team and we all know how that works.

He also played longer then Favre with 18 years. He didn't have the consecutive starting record, but all that means is either your tough or stupid lol. Oh and the guy that said Favre is thee greatest QB of all time? Dan Marino threw for more yards per game then Favre did, Favre had longevity that is why he held the records, plus football was alot harder when Tarkenton played then it is when Favre played... There are so many factors, but Tarkenton should be the greatest. Tarkenton was way beyond his time... he was a visionary of what a QB in the NFL might have to become.

So my vote is for Fran Tarkenton QB for the Minnesota Vikings.

[CCN]

I know what you are all thinking... but seriously he should be. Yes Brett Favre and Dan Marino held most yards passing, but so did Saint Fran. Here is the reasoning.

Passing Yards: Fran Tarkenton had the NFL record with most Passing yards when he retired.
Rushing Yards: Fran Tarkenton had the NFL record with most Rushing yards when he retired.
Touchdowns: Fran Tarkenton had the NFL record with most Touchdowns when he retired.
Accuracy: Fran Tarkenton ranked near the top with accuracy.

Fran Tarkenton was thee complete Quarterback, he didn't just pass and he didn't just scramble. Fran Tarkenton did everythin. He had better running ability then Young, He had a better accuracy rating then Favre and Marino and Montana when he retired. He is still the leader in Rushing yards by a Quarterback, and these yards don't include his East to West running. He was as elusive as Favre in the pocket. The man couldn't be sacked (yes he was sacked, but not very often) Lets also remember he didn't have an offensive line to protect him, he had an average running game, and he made the receivers. Fran Tarkenton made that team along with the defensive. That is why he couldn't win a Superbowl... he was the team and we all know how that works.

He also played longer then Favre with 18 years. He didn't have the consecutive starting record, but all that means is either your tough or stupid lol. Oh and the guy that said Favre is thee greatest QB of all time? Dan Marino threw for more yards per game then Favre did, Favre had longevity that is why he held the records, plus football was alot harder when Tarkenton played then it is when Favre played... There are so many factors, but Tarkenton should be the greatest. Tarkenton was way beyond his time... he was a visionary of what a QB in the NFL might have to become.

So my vote is for Fran Tarkenton QB for the Minnesota Vikings.

Welcome, erik.

While I can understand a case for Tarkenton, I'm think you're overtating his case by denigrating what was around him, which was a lot better than you're crediting it. How was football harder when he played it, especially with more complex defensive schemes now than there were when Tarkenton played?

No offensive line? That would be news to Ron Yary, HOF tackle, as well as their fine center, Mick Tinglehoff. Ed White also made a few pro bowls. And no running game? During their super bowl years Chuck Foreman was a firece rusher as well as one of the best out of the backfield. Not to mention pro bowl receivers like Ahmad Rashad and Gene Washington, who was better in San Francisco. I really think you're selling his offenisve teammates short.

That being said, he has been forgotten a little bit beyond having his name at the top of the record books. That placement is no accident. Yes, longevity helped him in that, just like Favre (you can't knock one then praise the other for the same thing.) but he was consistently excellent, he even made the Giants better when he played there. I'd say top 10 for sure.

[Tibbidoe]

For the time being, I'd have to go with Joe Montana. 4-0 in Super Bowl games, 3 Super Bowl MVPs, 2 League MVPs, HoF induction and stats comparable to most of the other 'elite' quarterbacks. Some people point to his supporting cast as THE reason he was successful, but that's ridiculous. Would you hold it against Elway and Marino if their teams had drafted better? Probably not.

But I do think that if Peyton Manning gets another ring or two, he will elevate himself into the title of the 'greatest ever'. The way he dissects a defense is incredible. He reasonably expects less than 10 INTs for a 16-game season with people knowing he's likely to throw +/- 30 passes a game, he's good for 4,000+ passing yards a year and around 30 TDs. Tom Brady is the only other player I can think of with those types of numbers consistently, but look at the monster they've had in New England the past 7-8 years. Great drafting and masterful use of free agency.

I don't think that's something that should be held against any player.

[CCN]

For the time being, I'd have to go with Joe Montana. 4-0 in Super Bowl games, 3 Super Bowl MVPs, 2 League MVPs, HoF induction and stats comparable to most of the other 'elite' quarterbacks. Some people point to his supporting cast as THE reason he was successful, but that's ridiculous. Would you hold it against Elway and Marino if their teams had drafted better? Probably not.

But I do think that if Peyton Manning gets another ring or two, he will elevate himself into the title of the 'greatest ever'. The way he dissects a defense is incredible. He reasonably expects less than 10 INTs for a 16-game season with people knowing he's likely to throw +/- 30 passes a game, he's good for 4,000+ passing yards a year and around 30 TDs. Tom Brady is the only other player I can think of with those types of numbers consistently, but look at the monster they've had in New England the past 7-8 years. Great drafting and masterful use of free agency.

I don't think that's something that should be held against any player.

Not so much held against, but taken into consideration. It does help to have great talent to work with. But it's how you work with that great talent that can be the difference between a merely good QB to a great and even legendary one.
And, also, not so much teammates, although having superstars to work with sure helps, but systems. Systems are a huge reason why so many great college QBs don't do much in the pros. A failure to adapt beyond what they are given to work with. The Run and Shoot produced huge numbers based on how it worked. But was that offense accurately showing how good the players were or how well the system could work in the right frame? I think more of the latter.

[Tibbidoe]

If the Marinos and Elways of the game wanted to, they could have forced changes to their systems or rosters. A demand to be traded (AGAIN, in the case of John Elway) would have brought forth whatever changes they desired. You want a premier runner? You got it. Better defensive players or schemes? Right away, Mr. Marino. It seems to me that they were at least somewhat happy with things the way they were. Otherwise things would have been done differently.

They played their best in the situation as it stood. I wouldn't blame the coaches or the front office people for what the players didn't accomplish, just like I wouldn't blame the players for poor drafting by the owners and GMs. It's give and take, and any player with a 'supporting cast' arguement chose to take.

That's their own fault.

[CCN]

If the Marinos and Elways of the game wanted to, they could have forced changes to their systems or rosters. A demand to be traded (AGAIN, in the case of John Elway) would have brought forth whatever changes they desired. You want a premier runner? You got it. Better defensive players or schemes? Right away, Mr. Marino. It seems to me that they were at least somewhat happy with things the way they were. Otherwise things would have been done differently.

They played their best in the situation as it stood. I wouldn't blame the coaches or the front office people for what the players didn't accomplish, just like I wouldn't blame the players for poor drafting by the owners and GMs. It's give and take, and any player with a 'supporting cast' arguement chose to take.

That's their own fault.

And that, good tibbidoe, is the difference between the Marinos and Elways of the NFL and the Kriegs and Lomaxes. I really am agreeing with you, the true greats will excel and the circumstances to their greatness will change with them, not their greatness will become apparent due to circumstances around them.

[Tibbidoe]

Apologies. I guess that sounded a bit more confrontational than was intended.

[CCN]

Apologies. I guess that sounded a bit more confrontational than was intended.

Not necessary. We all know the limitations of the internet in terms of discussion points. I don't think I was properly conveying myself there, so a clarification on my part was needed.

[Romosexual]

Was Brunell really mentioned in this thread?

Right now i'd have to say Montana, but there are two greats playing the game right now that could very well topple him when their careers are over in Brady and Manning. We'll see what the future brings..

[jslone]

Sammy Baugh,he pretty much perfected the modern passing game that is used today.Not because of the other positions he played great at,he wasand is one of the best quaterbacks of all time.