When it's all been said and done.

I really think Super Bowls are so overrated when it comes to evaluating QBs. We never hold other positions to that same standard. There are so many factors that go into winning Super Bowls, and QBs get far too much credit for winning them.

Marino was definitely one of the top QBs ever, and as far as pure passers go he might be tops.

Agreed. Barry Sanders is considered one of the top RBs in league history and no one gets on his case about his team never winning a SB, or even getting there at all.

I really think Super Bowls are so overrated when it comes to evaluating QBs. We never hold other positions to that same standard. There are so many factors that go into winning Super Bowls, and QBs get far too much credit for winning them.

Marino was definitely one of the top QBs ever, and as far as pure passers go he might be tops.It's odd because it's the same coaches and writers who perpetuate the "rings" myth are the ones turning around to tell you that Marino was the best they've every played against/covered.

Which is just a fine observation to make, but why say something meaningless that you're going to contradict at the first alternative example? I just have never understood it.

I hate the term "best ever". None of us ever saw Sammy Baugh play, some saw Johnny Unitas, Bart Starr, YA Tittle, etc. unfortunately everything revolves around stats. Game has evolved and changed.

Maybe best of his generation i would say.


I agree......Everytime the subject of GOAT is broached referencing any particular player, it's a challenge.

By me being much older than most of the guys that post here, I have several generations to reflect upon. Maybe opinions would vary a little more had the younger people had the opportunity to see Baugh, Starr, Unitas, YA Tittle, John Brodie, along with so many others.

I'm proud of the fact I got to see the last two years of Sammy Baugh, during his reign, people were saying the same thing about him they're saying now about guys like Brady and Manning.

The game has changed so much and stats are deceiving simply because the rules have been changed so much in an attempt to promote offense. I would love to have seen some of these receivers today, and how they would react to being fair game until the ball was in the air, or how these QB's would react when the defense could actually hit them.

It's virtually impossible to lump them all together and come up with a greatest, there would have to be a greatest for each generation, taking into consideration how the game has evolved. There may not be much argument that Brady is one of the best of this generation. All-time, impossible to determine.

Is Brady good? Yes. Is he the best ever? No.
Would I put Brady in the top 5 QB's today? No.
1) Manning
2) Brees
3) Rodgers
4) Rivers
5) Schaub

Sure, if I add up all these QB's SB rings, Brady still has 1 more than all them put together, but you have to realize, NE's Defense was a major reason why they won super bowls, and Oh yeah, if Vinitari isn't there Tom Brady has 1 super bowl ring. I personally thought that he's overrated, I started to appreciate him more, but he wins because of his defense, and his coaching, playing with a bunch of veterans. Look at them now, without all the vets on defense, there just ok.

It's odd because it's the same coaches and writers who perpetuate the "rings" myth are the ones turning around to tell you that Marino was the best they've every played against/covered.

Which is just a fine observation to make, but why say something meaningless that you're going to contradict at the first alternative example? I just have never understood it.

The role of "Winning It All" in defining a QB is really hard. Unlike RB, QB's have a much more direct role in how well a team performs. The only team that I can think of that won a championshiop with an average or below average QB is the Ravens and Dilfer and that was b/c their D that year was an all time/once in a lifetime kinda scary good. Teams have won with career average QB's who had good years (Brad Johnson, Gannon, McMahon), but usually, a QB who is playing well that particular year - (for whatever reason) - is important.

A QB who consistently takes average to good teams to the top and comes through in the biggest game of the year should be recognized for having certain intangibles (like I believe Brady does). But, as others have said, the mere fact that a QB doesn't have a ring should not be some knock against them - unless they show a consistent inability to get over the hump (One name that hasn't come up in this discussion is Jim Kelly - how would he be viewed today if the Bills had won those four super bowls? How about if they won only one?)

Schaub is good but brady is still better

I think every generation has a couple QB's who are "Best Ever" material but that, as someone else said, you can never really have a true "Best Ever" given the inability to compare between generations. The game evolves and changes so much that comparisons are just really hard to make.

Very true. And this spreads to other sports too... Jordan vs. James/Bryant? Crosby/Ovechkin vs. Gretzsky?

Eh...when it's all said and done, I think I'd take Joe Montana at his best any day.

Joe Montana is the greatest of all time, hands down. Winner of 4 Super Bowls and three-time Super Bowl MVP. His post-season play in '88 and '89 is the greatest that I've ever seen from a QB. But not for a vicious blind side hit by Giants Leonard Marshall in the '90 NFC Championship, Montana might well have become the only QB to complete a Super Bowl 3-peat.

Okay. But what if Joe had never played for Bill Walsh? What if, instead of lasting to the 3rd Round and being drafted after the likes of Jack Thompson or Steve Fuller, he went to Kansas City or Cincinnati? Would he have still won those SB's?

Great QB's are a mix of skill and opportunity. Quite frankly, w/out Bill Walsh, I think Montana is a great QB who probably would not have been as good as he was with Walsh.