WHO IS THE GREATEST QB OF ALL TIME?

[M Dogg™]

Johnny Unitas and it's not even close.

Johnny on the 80s Niners would have been in the Superbowl every year and won at least 5. Montana on the late 50s/early 60s Colts would have been injured for the season by the 3rd game of each year and have been cut, plus he simply would not have been very effective against legal illegal contact by DBs where he'd be forced to throw outside the hash marks.

Had Paul Brown simply allowed Walsh to get the HC job in Cinci then we may be talking about Ken Anderson like we are Montana, and we may not have ever really known Montana.

Someone please get their hands on some Unitas games and then watch some games by other QBs in that era, and see how far ahead of them he was. It was a much harder environment to play QB in and he looks like a modern QB in it.

You might be right except Joe Montana had a career 63% completion rating, and had a season with 70%. Montana was build for the short passes of the west coast offense. Plus the only season Montana had more INT's than TD's was the strike shorten year. As for Unitas, he NEVER completed more than 59% of his passes and had 8 out of 18 seasons with more INT's than TD's. To be far most those seasons he was passed his prime. But it is hard to compare different eras. What if Johnny U. played in a offense like Peyton Manning which could highlight his strong arm and he had receivers who were faster than he could imagine. I don't think Johnny U. would do well in a westcoast offense though. It would not allow him to use all his arm strength.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

As of today it's still Joe Montana.  Joe Montana is the Michael Jordan of football.  Everyone used to know that when I was a kid.  I think it's reverse-racism that got Jerry Rice the #1 spot on NFL networks top player countdown.  They thought they would be accused of being racist if they had the All-American white boy quarterback Joe Montana as the #1 of all time, so they gave it to Jerry Rice.

That's impossible.  A receiver may only touch the ball 5-10 times a game, sometimes less.  How can a reciever be the #1 player of all time?

So, as for now Joe is still the greatest.  But if Peyton can win the Superbowl this weekend, and then maybe another 1 or 2 before he retires then he can eclipse Joe cool.

...not to mention the last time the Chiefs won a playoff game was when Joe cool took the Chiefs all the way to the AFC Championship game.  Would of made it to the championship if our tight end didn't let a ball bounce off his hands in the endzone and into the arms of the Bills defense.  Then next play after the half Montana got knocked out by Bruce Smith.  That's the closest the Chiefs have ever been to the Superbowl in my lifetime 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Montana for now.  Everyone has stated why.

Peyton Manning is great, but he needs to win the Superbowl this weekend to be considered.  For me personally, if Brady had lead the Patriots ahead of the Giants when Eli Manning got his first ring, I might rank him ahead, since they'd have had an undefeated year... something not accomplished in decades.

[M Dogg™]

Montana for now.  Everyone has stated why.

Peyton Manning is great, but he needs to win the Superbowl this weekend to be considered.  For me personally, if Brady had lead the Patriots ahead of the Giants when Eli Manning got his first ring, I might rank him ahead, since they'd have had an undefeated year... something not accomplished in decades.

Had Brady done that, Tom Brady is the best QB hands down and that Patriot team would be the best ever. That's why that Super Bowl was the best Super Bowl I'd ever seen. Because the Patriots were going after history that would have established them and their players in history. It's funny, one game changed that, Montana never had a team that good, but we remember who wins at the end.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Montana for now.  Everyone has stated why.

Peyton Manning is great, but he needs to win the Superbowl this weekend to be considered.  For me personally, if Brady had lead the Patriots ahead of the Giants when Eli Manning got his first ring, I might rank him ahead, since they'd have had an undefeated year... something not accomplished in decades.

Had Brady done that, Tom Brady is the best QB hands down and that Patriot team would be the best ever. That's why that Super Bowl was the best Super Bowl I'd ever seen. Because the Patriots were going after history that would have established them and their players in history. It's funny, one game changed that, Montana never had a team that good, but we remember who wins at the end.

Yup.  If only the guy defending that one receiver had done his job haha... that guy catching that long bomb against his helmet changed the whole momentum and got them the W.

[Chamillitary Click]

My argument to the Brady losing guy. Think about it...

Brady walked off the field of both those Super Bowls with the lead and his defense blew it. Not to mention Welker additionally super fucked them in the second one. I get what you're saying about the undefeated season and stuff, but dude did his job to technically win five rings and his team blew two of them for that. Gotta count for something.

Also made the AFC Championship game like 8 of 14 years.

Absurd shit.

[M Dogg™]

My argument to the Brady losing guy. Think about it...

Brady walked off the field of both those Super Bowls with the lead and his defense blew it. Not to mention Welker additionally super fucked them in the second one. I get what you're saying about the undefeated season and stuff, but dude did his job to technically win five rings and his team blew two of them for that. Gotta count for something.

Also made the AFC Championship game like 8 of 14 years.

Absurd shit.

Problem is that Matt fuckin' Cassel went 11-5 with that same Patriot team. The team was STACKED. But Brady was the right man to lead that team, and Brady was like Joe Montana in that he doesn't choke, he leads wins. So I can see it both ways. I haven't made my own opinion on who is better between Brady or Manning. I will say I like watching Manning play football, were as I'm so-so watching Brady. That's were my judgment comes from. BUT, you have to respect Brady and leading a team to go undefeated. That was almost history that would have no one even debating this.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

My argument to the Brady losing guy. Think about it...

Brady walked off the field of both those Super Bowls with the lead and his defense blew it. Not to mention Welker additionally super fucked them in the second one. I get what you're saying about the undefeated season and stuff, but dude did his job to technically win five rings and his team blew two of them for that. Gotta count for something.

Also made the AFC Championship game like 8 of 14 years.

Absurd shit.

It does count.  I'm just saying, that having gone that season completely undefeated and ending it with a ring would've been a huge statement that would've made it much less of a debate.  Yeah, it's the defense's fault for that last drive by the Giants (and I even commented on the defender who blew it), but when the end score was 17-14, it's not like the Patriots' offense was killing it either, with just two touchdowns the whole game.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

Yea the difference between basketball and football is that football is more team dependent. An individual is much less likely to carry an entire team to the promise land.

Ghost, u don't fux wit basketball?

I'm not that big of a basketball fan.  Baseball is my favorite.  Kobe is my favorite player though followed by Steph Curry:)

What's with all the Steph Curry love these days?  He seems to be everyone's favorite player now.

And I've been watching less and less basketball each year.  It used to be my favorite sport, but now nearly all of the 90's generation players have retired.  You only have a few still doing it big, guys like KG and Paul Pierce that I can remember watching back in the day.  Pierce even played at Kansas so I remember him from back then.

Harder for me to get into the new generation of players.  The way they change teams and change loyalties is a joke.  Like Jordan said, he never would of tried to get together with Magic and Bird on a team the way the Heat did it.   

Also, there is no NBA team in Kansas City, there hasn't been for a long time.  Growing up we had WGN and TBS here.  I got to see a lot of Bulls and Atlanta Hawks team.  Even though the Bulls were in Chicago they were everyone's team in Kansas City during the Jordan era.  So it was like we had a hometown team even though we didn't.

On the other hand, the NFL has grown in popularity to become America's new pastime.  And even though baseball fell off after the strike in 96', baseball has gotten way better with smart phones and social media.  It's great keeping up with the Royals daily through local sportstalk, blogs, twitter, advanced statistics, sabermetrics, pitchtracker, etc. 

[Sccit]

you should follow the kings, they used to be from kansas city and now rep Cali....win-win situation


naah, but basketball is easily the most entertaining sport to me..duno how u can follow baseball and not enjoy watching a basketball game, but i guess it does kinda make sense not havin a team in your hometown would make you less in tune wit the sport and all...i'm like that wit football.

[Hack Wilson - real]

blamng Welker for not catching that awful pass in 2011's superbowl is a joke.  that shit was a bad pass son.



tom brady hasn't won a superbowl since I was a high schooler...damn i feel old.

[Hack Wilson - real]

The Manning assassins here are ridiculous.  He's going to own every passing record in the book (games won, touchdowns, passing yards, completions, .  He never had the best defense in the league (in 2007 the Colts had the #3 ranked defense and in 2002 they were ranked 8th...that's the best he got) yet he always put his team in the playoffs.


The Colts were a top four offense in the league 8 years with Peyton and the Broncos have been twice in two years.  Anyone with a brain knows that Dan Marino was a better QB than Terry Bradshaw so using superbowls  as an end-all is meaningless.

[M Dogg™]

The Manning assassins here are ridiculous.  He's going to own every passing record in the book (games won, touchdowns, passing yards, completions, .  He never had the best defense in the league (in 2007 the Colts had the #3 ranked defense and in 2002 they were ranked 8th...that's the best he got) yet he always put his team in the playoffs.


The Colts were a top four offense in the league 8 years with Peyton and the Broncos have been twice in two years.  Anyone with a brain knows that Dan Marino was a better QB than Terry Bradshaw so using superbowls  as an end-all is meaningless.

I was actually a Manning fan. But I hate to judge a book before I read the last chapter.

[Chamillitary Click]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/pT6XziIQ5RI" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/pT6XziIQ5RI</a>

LOL. Only a biased ass Giants fan, who watched the two luckiest Super Bowl wins of all-time has the nuts to blame that on anyone else but Welker. Son reverted to the fetal position thinking he could hide from the billions watching him.

[Shallow]

Johnny Unitas and it's not even close.

Johnny on the 80s Niners would have been in the Superbowl every year and won at least 5. Montana on the late 50s/early 60s Colts would have been injured for the season by the 3rd game of each year and have been cut, plus he simply would not have been very effective against legal illegal contact by DBs where he'd be forced to throw outside the hash marks.

Had Paul Brown simply allowed Walsh to get the HC job in Cinci then we may be talking about Ken Anderson like we are Montana, and we may not have ever really known Montana.

Someone please get their hands on some Unitas games and then watch some games by other QBs in that era, and see how far ahead of them he was. It was a much harder environment to play QB in and he looks like a modern QB in it.

You might be right except Joe Montana had a career 63% completion rating, and had a season with 70%. Montana was build for the short passes of the west coast offense. Plus the only season Montana had more INT's than TD's was the strike shorten year. As for Unitas, he NEVER completed more than 59% of his passes and had 8 out of 18 seasons with more INT's than TD's. To be far most those seasons he was passed his prime. But it is hard to compare different eras. What if Johnny U. played in a offense like Peyton Manning which could highlight his strong arm and he had receivers who were faster than he could imagine. I don't think Johnny U. would do well in a westcoast offense though. It would not allow him to use all his arm strength.

The reason for the pass completion is very simple, the west coast system was famous for short passes to the RBs after fake hand-offs and in general short high percentage throws. A better comparison would be to see what Joe's, or any modern QB's, completion percentage was if you only count balls that pass the line of the scrimmage before being caught, and even better pass 5 yards after the line scrimmage. Johnny didn't play against the defensive studs of the 80s, but the guys in the 50s and 60s could get away with a lot more. You simply couldn't run a west coast system under those defensive rules because DBs were allowed too much contact on the WRs before the ball was thrown. 25% to 35% of Montana's passes should have just been run plays, and would have been run plays in the 50s and 60s. The fact that he only has 63% completion shows just how bad he was at down the field throws, because his short passes are the majority of his work and they really beef up the average.

To say that Johnny couldn't play west coast is like saying MJ couldn't hit a lay up. Just because the guy prefers to dunk it doesn't mean he can't easily bank it in.