- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 25,608
- Reaction score
- 35,910
Now that the super bowl is in the books talk radio is anointing Tom Brady as the best quarterback of all-time. He very well may be, but it begs the question. How much does winning the super bowl count for in grading a quarterback? I think it should count for something obviously, but not everything either.
I look at the careers of Steve Young and Jim Plunkett. Both were beat up playing for bad teams early in their careers, but ended up having great success with San Francisco and Oakland respectively. The difference? Both those teams were loaded with talent. Young went from being talked about as a draft bust to putting up some of the best numbers we had every seen at the position. When he retired, Young had the highest career passing rating in a system that didn't even account for his running ability and what that meant to the team. There are still 49ers fans who insist Young and not Joe Montana was the best quarterback ever.
Where would Tom Brady be if he was drafted by Cleveland instead of New England? What if Dan Marino had played for San Francisco instead of Miami, in a time when the Dolphins didn't have a lot of talent around him? Would Archie Manning have won four super bowls if he played for Pittsburgh rather than New Orleans in the 1970's? That's what makes the quarterback debate tough. It's the ultimate team game.
At the same time, you've got to give credit to quarterbacks like Brady and Terry Bradshaw who rose to the occasion in the biggest games. Bradshaw had to come up big in those battles with Dallas, or Pittsburgh might be 2-2 in those four contests.
If you look at attributes and grade a quarterback that way, it seems to make more sense to me. My top attributes for the quarterback position would be as follows (in no order):
Decision Making
Toughness/Durability
Accuracy/Ball Placement
Clutch
Deep Ball
Athletic Ability/Make Plays when things break down
There are more things you could grade, but I just wanted to keep it simple. If you look at those attributes Tom Brady is elite in almost every category. His ball placement is among the best I've every seen and his decision making is top drawer. He would not grade high with his deep ball or athletic ability.
I'd argue that Aaron Rogers and, going way back, Roger Staubach are two quarterbacks who were top-notch in all those categories. Does that mean they should rank higher than Brady? Maybe, but not necessarily.
Bret Favre would be lower for me based on decision making. Joe Montana would be dinged for durability as would Young. Dan Marino had one of the best deep throws/touch I've ever seen, but while he could move in the pocket he wasn't making a ton of plays when things broke down. His decision making wasn't at the top of the list either, although that was partly due to the nature of having to make big plays and taking chances. That's the nature of playing on some bad teams.
John Elway, later in his career, would rank high. His decision making early on wasn't great IMO. Dan Fouts would be pretty similar to Dan Marino. Troy Aikman might be pretty high. Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Peyton Manning?
Who do you think is the best quarterback of all-time?
I look at the careers of Steve Young and Jim Plunkett. Both were beat up playing for bad teams early in their careers, but ended up having great success with San Francisco and Oakland respectively. The difference? Both those teams were loaded with talent. Young went from being talked about as a draft bust to putting up some of the best numbers we had every seen at the position. When he retired, Young had the highest career passing rating in a system that didn't even account for his running ability and what that meant to the team. There are still 49ers fans who insist Young and not Joe Montana was the best quarterback ever.
Where would Tom Brady be if he was drafted by Cleveland instead of New England? What if Dan Marino had played for San Francisco instead of Miami, in a time when the Dolphins didn't have a lot of talent around him? Would Archie Manning have won four super bowls if he played for Pittsburgh rather than New Orleans in the 1970's? That's what makes the quarterback debate tough. It's the ultimate team game.
At the same time, you've got to give credit to quarterbacks like Brady and Terry Bradshaw who rose to the occasion in the biggest games. Bradshaw had to come up big in those battles with Dallas, or Pittsburgh might be 2-2 in those four contests.
If you look at attributes and grade a quarterback that way, it seems to make more sense to me. My top attributes for the quarterback position would be as follows (in no order):
Decision Making
Toughness/Durability
Accuracy/Ball Placement
Clutch
Deep Ball
Athletic Ability/Make Plays when things break down
There are more things you could grade, but I just wanted to keep it simple. If you look at those attributes Tom Brady is elite in almost every category. His ball placement is among the best I've every seen and his decision making is top drawer. He would not grade high with his deep ball or athletic ability.
I'd argue that Aaron Rogers and, going way back, Roger Staubach are two quarterbacks who were top-notch in all those categories. Does that mean they should rank higher than Brady? Maybe, but not necessarily.
Bret Favre would be lower for me based on decision making. Joe Montana would be dinged for durability as would Young. Dan Marino had one of the best deep throws/touch I've ever seen, but while he could move in the pocket he wasn't making a ton of plays when things broke down. His decision making wasn't at the top of the list either, although that was partly due to the nature of having to make big plays and taking chances. That's the nature of playing on some bad teams.
John Elway, later in his career, would rank high. His decision making early on wasn't great IMO. Dan Fouts would be pretty similar to Dan Marino. Troy Aikman might be pretty high. Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Peyton Manning?
Who do you think is the best quarterback of all-time?
