Best Four Quarterbacks Of The Last 25 Years

[RSJ]

Simms played in 1 SB though

He went 11-1 before getting hurt in 1990. Then Hos took over. I see similar things happening to Brady's legacy if Cassell has success (which I fully expect). You see to me a great QB not only puts up great stats with average WR's, he also wins. Not one or the other. Brady had average stats with average personel. Elway, Marino, Montana, and Favre all had average personel and still put up great stats AND won. But idk maybe I'm asking too much.

[Blackout]

He went 11-1 before getting hurt in 1990. Then Hos took over. I see similar things happening to Brady's legacy if Cassell has success (which I fully expect). You see to me a great QB not only puts up great stats with average WR's, he also wins. Not one or the other. Brady had average stats with average personel. Elway, Marino, Montana, and Favre all had average personel and still put up great stats AND won. But idk maybe I'm asking too much.

montana had Walsh and Rice lol

[Blackout]

Really? Then why did defensive coaches have to use signals to get plays in, if they could just speak it into the defensive players headset?

The answer is because there were no radios for the defensive players. And there still aren't.

Here, maybe you can actually lose a little bit of ignorance by reading this and connecting the dots:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3323895

Just give up now and stop posting, you and the 5 year long NFL fan over there.

i coulda sworn that helmet rule was in 07....what college will do to the brain.

and gainzo started watching in 2001...thats like 7 years or so

[Gainzo]

And it showed by the stats he put up. Phil Simms won 2 Super Bowls the same way Brady won his 3 and he is not in the HOF. Because both are abobe average QB's and not at all great.

Did you miss Super Bowl XXXVIII when Brady set a record for completions and threw 3 TD passes?

Brady is an all time great. He has never thrown less than 20 TDs and more than 14 INTs in a season when starting all 16 games.

[RSJ]

[quote name='Blackout

[LiLMiCKMANTLE]

Seriously?

Farve - 16 years. 61,655 yards. 422 tds 288 ints. 61.4 completion percentage. 85.7 rating. 1 sb ring. 2 mvp.

Brady - 7 years, 26,370 yards. 197 tds. 86 ints. 63.0 completion percentage. rating 92.9 3 sb. 1 mvp. 2 sb mvp. 3 sb rings

to bad pretty boy wont last like Favre did or how Elway and Montana had long careers.. Tom Brady will retire in 3 more years if he lasts that long as a NFL qb..IMO:p

[serphnx]

[quote name='Blackout

[Gainzo]

Montana won two super bowls AND put up great stats for the time before Rice even got there.

I suggest you check out Montana's stats. Your argument is very weak.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MontJo01.htm

Those look just like Brady's stats, even though Brady stats are better.

So what is it RSJ? Montana great>Brady not great?

[RSJ]

Did you miss Super Bowl XXXVIII when Brady set a record for completions and threw 3 TD passes?

Brady is an all time great. He has never thrown less than 20 TDs and more than 14 INTs in a season when starting all 16 games.

The most TD's brady has ever thrown without moss was 28. BFD.

And his record in the Super Bowl is nice. Just like Simms record for highest completion percentage in a super bowl was nice. Still never put together an Elway type season without Moss to throw to. And 3 TD's and 1 Int for all of those completions is still weak.

[RSJ]

I suggest you check out Montana's stats. Your argument is very weak.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MontJo01.htm

Those look just like Brady's stats, even though Brady stats are better.

So what is it RSJ? Montana great>Brady not great?

28 TD's back in 1984 is different than 28 TD's today. There was no 5 yard chuck rule, let alone an emphasis on it. You can only compare his stats to those he played against and Montana was tops in the league back then.

[Gainzo]

28 TD's back in 1984 is different than 28 TD's today. There was no 5 yard chuck rule, let alone an emphasis on it. You can only compare his stats to those he played against and Montana was tops in the league back then.

Really? Marino threw 48 TD's in '84, 30 in '85 and 40 in '86.

You are arguing that Montana was a great QB (which I agree with) but at the same time discounting Brady. You aren't making much sense.

[RSJ]

Really? Marino threw 48 TD's in '84, 30 in '85 and 40 in '86.

You are arguing that Montana was a great QB (which I agree with) but at the same time discounting Brady. You aren't making much sense.

First of all Montana did it over 16 years while Brady has only done it for 7.

And Montana was 3rd in the league with 28 in 1984. Marino was a freak of nature. Which is why he is in this discussion without a super bowl. The same way Barry Sanders would be for RB's but Antowaine Smith wouldn't.

[Arsis]

Really? Marino threw 48 TD's in '84, 30 in '85 and 40 in '86.

You are arguing that Montana was a great QB (which I agree with) but at the same time discounting Brady. You aren't making much sense.

He is not discounting anything, he is saying that different QB's from different era's can not be compared because of differences in the rules and differences in the way the game is played. You can only speculate on how well Brady would have done if he was playing when montana played. I say that if Brady was playing back then and actually got the chance to play that he would have been successful but not nearly as he has been now with the benefit on rules geared toward more offensive production.

[GangGreen]

Brady is good, not great.

Stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. Tom Brady is by FAR the best QB the last 25 years, and probally ever.

[Blackout]

Stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. Tom Brady is by FAR the best QB the last 25 years, and probally ever.

LOLLL

so poster model with a great defense (and cameras) is better than:

joe montana = 4 rings

john elway = 2 rings, 5 SB appearances

brett favre = OWNER OF EVERY MAJOR QB RECORD EVER (and 3 MVPs)

AND peyton manning, a MUCH better QB who's defenses sucked until 2005?

[serphnx]

Stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. Tom Brady is by FAR the best QB the last 25 years, and probally ever.

No, this is the stupidest thing I've read on these boards in the last week. Judging by how easily and with such conviction you made your retarded statement, I'm sure you've managed to routinely make stupid statements on these boards that I've blocked out.

Stick to making game threads, you don't have the football knowledge to actually debate a football topic. Weren't you convinced Chad was better than Favre?

[Gainzo]

[quote name='Blackout

[00tonytone]

No troy Aikman with 3 superbowl wins

[Kidhuman]

Montana

Elway

Marino

Favre

Manning

[RSJ]

Tom Brady = 3 rings, 4 Super Bowl appearances and 5 AFC Championship game appearances.

Elway = Only won when he had a running game.

Favre = Compiling stats. Most INTs in NFL history.

Bradshaw had 4 super bowl wins. Is he ahead of Brady? Are we just going by super bowls? Where is Troy Aikman and his 3? Brady isn't even top 10 all time as Matt Cassell is about to prove.

[Blackout]

Tom Brady = 3 rings, 4 Super Bowl appearances and 5 AFC Championship game appearances.

how many FIRST TEAM all pro selections does brady have (compare that to Peyton)

elway had more AFC champ appearances, but really who cares about those??

the pats 2001 offense was pedestrian. wasn't impressive then still isn't now.

great point gainzo (....in the arguement of "putting me to sleep")

Elway = Only won when he had a running game.

whats the point? he won. didn't Jim Kelly have a running game??? how'd that do for him. oh and Andre Reed was better than any Elway reciever. elway ran into Parcells/Belichick/L.T. (the real LT) and Joe Gibbs, oh and Montana/Walsh. thats not embarassing to lose

Favre = Compiling stats. Most INTs in NFL history.

most TDs, yards, games started, games won, yaddah yaddah. for a guy who's F.o. didnt do **** offensively the last 5 years what'd ya expect this decade to look like for him??

pats fans, where "ignorance isn't bliss"

[Pyper]

Neither Favre nor Marino pass the clutch test for me. Both of them have come up empty more than not in big spots.

With Marino, it's not that he didn't win a Super Bowl, it's that in all those postseason games that he lost, he lost b/c he played poorly. It's not like he played great but his team blew the game. They always seemed to lose b/c he played poorly.

With the exception of '96, it's been the same with Favre. He came up empty in '97 against the Broncos. He had the ball, down 7, with enough time to put together a drive but flopped. He flopped in last season's NFC Championship game. Who can forget his 7 INT game vs the Rams a few years back. He's an entertaining player to be sure, but definitely not Top Five material.

The Top 4 are no-brainers in my eyes. There's a wide gap after that.

1) Tom Brady - Always plays his best in big spots. Much more mobile than people give him credit for. Scrambles for at least one or two key first downs every week and his ability to move within the pocket is unmatched.

2) Joe Montana - Very much like Brady but with a weaker arm and better mobility. Always played his best in the big spots.

3) John Elway - Never consistently great but always upped his game in the big spots.

4) Roger Staubach - I know he doesn't fit within the 25 year period but this guy is somehow always overlooked. He was the best QB of his era.

5) Steve Young - A notch below the others but Young was probably the best combination of athlete and QB I've seen. My knock on him is that he never seemed very clutch to me. Again, it's not just that his team didn't win more SB's under his watch, it's that when they lost, he (like Marino) usually had bad games.

These three are all stat compilers in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, all three are great players but something has always been missing from their games.

6a) Brett Favre - The sad thing is that he probably had the talent to be #1 but his work ethic just wasn't what it needed to be to make that a reality. If he had been a student of the game like a Brady or Manning, he'd own all the Super Bowl records as well as the regular season stats.

6b) Peyton Manning - A highly productive robot.

6c) Dan Marino - Truth be told, I really don't think he should be this high. Most overrated QB ever.

Otto Graham needs to be on this list if we go back to his generation. I'd probably put him 4th or 5th.

[villain_the_foe]

1.Manning

2.Favre

3.Marino

4. Elway

5. Jim Kelly

[Pyper]

The most TD's brady has ever thrown without moss was 28. BFD.

And his record in the Super Bowl is nice. Just like Simms record for highest completion percentage in a super bowl was nice. Still never put together an Elway type season without Moss to throw to. And 3 TD's and 1 Int for all of those completions is still weak.

You may want to go research Elway's stats. He never really put up impressive stats. He fame came from routinely pulling out late game heroics. The guy was clutch. He played his best in the big spots. That's what playing QB is all about.

Brady has the same clutch ability but he's much more consistent. His seasonal stats, even before last season, are far better than any that Elway put up.

[Pyper]

You see to me a great QB not only puts up great stats with average WR's, he also wins. Not one or the other. Brady had average stats with average personel. Elway, Marino, Montana, and Favre all had average personel and still put up great stats AND won. But idk maybe I'm asking too much.

1) Brady's #'s have always been far above "average"

2) Year by year, Brady's stats are earily similar to Montana's. Their careers have nearly been identical.

3) Elway never put up great stats. His numbers were surprisingly mediocre.

4) You guys have a HUGE anti-Patriots bias. I get it. We all get it. Objectivity is not your forte.

[Blackout]

hey pyper

why does Peyton have more "1st team all pro" appearances?? (3x as many as tom)

[FFan]

1) Brady's #'s have always been far above "average"

2) Year by year, Brady's stats are earily similar to Montana's. Their careers have nearly been identical.

3) Elway never put up great stats. His numbers were surprisingly mediocre.

4) You guys have a HUGE anti-Patriots bias. I get it. We all get it. Objectivity is not your forte.

- I'm not "Anti-Patriots" ... I just like Football ...

Neither Favre nor Marino pass the clutch test for me. Both of them have come up empty more than not in big spots.

With Marino, it's not that he didn't win a Super Bowl, it's that in all those postseason games that he lost, he lost b/c he played poorly. It's not like he played great but his team blew the game. They always seemed to lose b/c he played poorly.

With the exception of '96, it's been the same with Favre. He came up empty in '97 against the Broncos. He had the ball, down 7, with enough time to put together a drive but flopped. He flopped in last season's NFC Championship game. Who can forget his 7 INT game vs the Rams a few years back. He's an entertaining player to be sure, but definitely not Top Five material.

The Top 4 are no-brainers in my eyes. There's a wide gap after that.

1) Tom Brady - Always plays his best in big spots. Much more mobile than people give him credit for. Scrambles for at least one or two key first downs every week and his ability to move within the pocket is unmatched.

2) Joe Montana - Very much like Brady but with a weaker arm and better mobility. Always played his best in the big spots.

3) John Elway - Never consistently great but always upped his game in the big spots.

4) Roger Staubach - I know he doesn't fit within the 25 year period but this guy is somehow always overlooked. He was the best QB of his era.

5) Steve Young - A notch below the others but Young was probably the best combination of athlete and QB I've seen. My knock on him is that he never seemed very clutch to me. Again, it's not just that his team didn't win more SB's under his watch, it's that when they lost, he (like Marino) usually had bad games.

These three are all stat compilers in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, all three are great players but something has always been missing from their games.

6a) Brett Favre - The sad thing is that he probably had the talent to be #1 but his work ethic just wasn't what it needed to be to make that a reality. If he had been a student of the game like a Brady or Manning, he'd own all the Super Bowl records as well as the regular season stats.

6b) Peyton Manning - A highly productive robot.

6c) Dan Marino - Truth be told, I really don't think he should be this high. Most overrated QB ever.

Otto Graham needs to be on this list if we go back to his generation. I'd probably put him 4th or 5th.

- Whenever people want to argue "Their Point of View" ... they only take out the items in any context that suits their particular arguement ... like this one;

- If any team wins, its "The Team" (not a single a player)

- If any team loses, its "a Player" (not the team)

I for one would like to "Factor in" the "Supporting Cast", when it comes to "defining" a "True Great" ... - also revisions made to play-calling and game facets ...

Take Manning and Brady (just to name a few ...) both are very very skilled QB (no doubts about that, and also both I'm sure will end up in HoF), but if you take a look at their teams during their tenure and "prime" while playing, I don't think anyone watching football will disagree that both these players have had "strong support casts" while playing on the field ... and they produced !

On the other hand you have the Chicago Bears, which by most standards are a formidabel team, with very very weak QB's ... (aka Grossmann, who didn't manage to produce, even while having a good team all around him ...)

Then there (in my view) are a few other QB's who've had varying levels of teams, yet all of them have still been able to put up numbers (something which to me seems to be alot important to most people when determining(sp?) "greatness" ...

I would stake almost anything, had Favre, Elway, Marino had the "same supporting cast" that Manning and Brady have had, along with "same rules", I am almost certain we would see something very similar to what we have seen from those two ...

Despite "having to struggle" with "average teams" which QB in recent history has the best win-ratio of them all ? (I'm pretty sure its No.4) People who are "Hung up on Numbers" should factor this in aswell ... - So who cares if the QB-rating is below 100.00 ... in the end for all franchises its about "winning games" ... and none other has been able to do that as well as No. 4 ...

Through the seasons, I can't really recall neither Brady nor Manning "putting up numbers and produce" when their teams have "faltered" ... - I'm not saying the both of them still are not great, but it should give some room to think .... (just take a look at Bradys numbers "pre Moss" ... - that should give you a hint ...) As for Manning ... well we all saw how he did the first game ... yes yes, he had missed most of the pre-season and was recovering from surgery ... but ... one still can't help but wonder ... (atleast I can't) ....

- Call me "biased" or what ever, "ignorant" ... I don't care, I just like to watch "Football" ...

Just my thoughts ...

[CoachTsurfing]

You guys are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay of basis.

Easily

Trent Dilfer as number one. Guy took a weak Ravens team to the big show and won.

Scott Mitchell has to be second. I know he bounced around a bit, but come on he played in Detroit.

Next up the enigma Geoff George. He could throw the ball 70 yards on his knees.

And last but not least but our very own Browning Nagel. If we only gave him more of a chance you guys would hear his name whispered at Canton.

[RSJ]

1) Brady's #'s have always been far above "average"

2) Year by year, Brady's stats are earily similar to Montana's. Their careers have nearly been identical.

3) Elway never put up great stats. His numbers were surprisingly mediocre.

4) You guys have a HUGE anti-Patriots bias. I get it. We all get it. Objectivity is not your forte.

There is nothing to be biased about. You say Brady is so clutch yet he choked in the Super Bowl with what most believe was one of the best teams ever. You will then say it wasn't his fault yet give him credit for average stats in years his team won. You can't have it both ways. Brady doesn't sniff the top 4 QB's of all time. To me he isn't even in the top 10. Again, lets see how Cassell does with this team. I'm willing to bet they atleast make the playoffs with him.

[FFan]

There is nothing to be biased about. You say Brady is so clutch yet he choked in the Super Bowl with what most believe was one of the best teams ever. You will then say it wasn't his fault yet give him credit for average stats in years his team won. You can't have it both ways. Brady doesn't sniff the top 4 QB's of all time. To me he isn't even in the top 10. Again, lets see how Cassell does with this team. I'm willing to bet they atleast make the playoffs with him.

- With most you say RSJ (about Brady might not be in the Top 4 - yet though ...) I still consider Brady a HoF'er, but I do agree with what you posted in most terms ...

- Whether you like Brady or not, he is still a great QB imho.

[Pyper]

- I'm not "Anti-Patriots" ... I just like Football ...

Take Manning and Brady (just to name a few ...) both are very very skilled QB (no doubts about that, and also both I'm sure will end up in HoF), but if you take a look at their teams during their tenure and "prime" while playing, I don't think anyone watching football will disagree that both these players have had "strong support casts" while playing on the field ... and they produced !

From 2001 through 2006, Brady's support cast was nothing special. In those six seasons he played with only two offensive Pro Bowlers. Dillon in '04 and Brown in '01 (who only made the Pro Bowl as an alternate).

In 2001 Brady was essentially a rookie. He took over a team that had lost 19 of its previous 26 games and led them to 14 wins in 17 starts including the first Super Bowl Championship in Patriots history.

Now, sit back for a second and think about that. Think about all the "sure thing" prospects that come into this league and the amount of time it takes for them to develop into prime time players.

Winning in this league is no easy task and yet Brady's been doing it since day one. And again, it's not like he took over a team coming off a Super Bowl appearance like Dan Marino did in '83. Brady took over a team that had only won seven times in it's previous 26 games. And he did it with a team with little offensive firepower and a defense that ranked 24th in the league (only 31 teams back then).

Then there (in my view) are a few other QB's who've had varying levels of teams, yet all of them have still been able to put up numbers (something which to me seems to be alot important to most people when determining(sp?) "greatness" ...

That's your problem. Stats don't determine greatness. Look at the college game. Every year there is some guy from some run-n-shoot type of offense putting up the most incredible stats you've ever seen. Rarely, if ever, have those quarterbacks been ranked high on NFL draft boards.

NFL teams don't look at players stats to determine who they draft. They look at their skill sets. They try to evaluate their talent.

Compiling stats, more than anything, is a result of the "SYSTEM". That's the same for every quarterback. If you play in an offense that throws the ball 40 times every game you're going to have bigger stats than they guy who only throws it 20 times per game.

Brady wasn't a better quarterback last year than he was in 2006 or 2005. He put up bigger numbers b/c he was surrounded by better talent. I'd argue that 2006 or maybe 2003 were Brady's most impressive seasons. In 2003 the Patriots had one of the worst running games in the league. I can't remember a team ever winning the Super Bowl with a worse running game.

In 2006, Brady was surrounded by the worst talent he ever had. The running game was bad. The receivers didn't even belong in this league and yet Brady somehow pulled out a 12-4 season, a shocking upset of the 14-2 Chargers on the road in the playoffs, and then nearly beat the Colts in the AFC Championship game. If Caldwell didn't have butter fingers they would have won that game.

No quarterback has ever done more with less than Tom Brady did between 2001 and 2006. And of course, in 2007, surrounded by top tier talent for the first time in his career, no quarterback ever did more....PERIOD.

Think about that. We're talking about a guy who has done more with less than anyone else and then when he finally gets some talent to play with, he goes out and rewrites the record books while leading his team to the league's first 16-0 regular season.

This isn't even a debate. Brady is not just the best quarterback to ever play the game, he's the best by a wide margin.

I mean, seriously, he's had only seven seasons in this league and in those seven seasons, he's played in five (5) AFC Championship games, four (4) Super Bowls, and won three (3) championships.

If that level of achievement doesn't earn you props, then nothing ever could. He's done more as a quarterback in his seven seasons than any other player ever did in any seven year stretch of their careers. And he did it all before he even turned 31 years old.

Despite "having to struggle" with "average teams" which QB in recent history has the best win-ratio of them all ? (I'm pretty sure its No.4) People who are "Hung up on Numbers" should factor this in aswell ... - So who cares if the QB-rating is below 100.00 ... in the end for all franchises its about "winning games" ... and none other has been able to do that as well as No. 4 ...

Oh really????? Here are the facts.

Favre:

254 regular season starts, 161 wins - 93 losses, .633 winning pct.

22 playoff starts, 12 wins - 10 losses, .545 winning pct. (39 TD - 28 INT's)

276 total starts, 173 wins - 103 losses, .626 winning pct.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FavrBr00.htm

Brady:

111 regular season starts, 87 wins - 24 losses, .783 winning pct.

17 playoff starts, 14 wins - 3 losses, .823 winning pct. (26 TD - 12 INT's)

128 total starts, 101 wins - 27 losses, .789 winning pct.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm

[Pyper]

There is nothing to be biased about. You say Brady is so clutch yet he choked in the Super Bowl with what most believe was one of the best teams ever. You will then say it wasn't his fault yet give him credit for average stats in years his team won. You can't have it both ways. Brady doesn't sniff the top 4 QB's of all time. To me he isn't even in the top 10. Again, lets see how Cassell does with this team. I'm willing to bet they atleast make the playoffs with him.

I thought Brady played pretty heroic in the Super Bowl. The Giants literally beat the crap out of him. The G-men came with a great scheme and out executed the Pats. Props to them. They deserved to win.

Also, keep in mind, Brady led a late game drive down the field and scored what very easily could have been the winning TD if not for a miracle catch by Tyree and a couple of miracle drops by Patriots DB's.

I just don't know how you can put that loss on Brady. If he had gone out and thrown 3 INT's and played poorly the way Dan Marino often did in his postseason losses, then you would be justified in your criticism.

As it is though, you're simply off base. It's unfortunate that those Jets glasses blind you from appreciating the best quarterback this league has ever seen.

Your loss, not mine.

[Sivy]

Favre didn't have the cameras.

you're a ****ing idiot.

[Sivy]

IMO it is way to early to know if Brady is acually in this conversation

If somehow Cassel plays well, and leads the Pats to the playoffs, you know it;s the system, not the QB

and thats going to be you douche bag jets fans stupid excuse when you lose sunday...either you win, and you guys are awsome...or you lose, and it proves brady is a sysyem qb (which by the way makes no sense at all) I can already see the 35 threads about it around this sht whole.

[Irish Jet]

you're a ****ing idiot.

Is agreeing with this post a personal attack?