WHO IS THE GREATEST QB OF ALL TIME?

[Shallow]

But he played great in the system...and actually won. Like more than anyone else. That actually happened. Those events actually took place in the world we...or at least I...live in. He was more productive in the system than Marino was trying to put the team on his back...more successful....BETTER. What in God's green Earth don't you understand about that?

AND DONT YOU DARE RESPOND WITH IMAGINARY, FANTASY ROSTERS THAT DIDNT EXIST IN THIS SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM.

I do find it funny that you get way more personal than you used too. Manning finally having everything you've cried for years he lacked and STILL get his ass annihilated in the biggest game of his career has destroyed your equilibrium in life.

I'm not taking anything personal, but you've gotten so much stupider I have to make a point of it.

And don't you dare say Manning got what I have been crying for. I called Denver a mistake the second he agreed to visit with them. You can look up my posts if you want but I'm pretty sure I called Denver the worst of all the teams he visited. It's a slightly upgraded Colts. It's a safe team with no killers and no heart to fight.

I wanted him on a smashmouth team that goes for the kill and doesn't need big play by a QB to get it done.

The fact remains, no QB has ever won a fucking ring with out the team around him playing better than he played. That's not an if, or a hypothetical, or imaginary. That's a fact. Idiots like you like to buy into the bullshit the racist NFL sells that this lone white knight around all those stupid niggers is the reason the teams are lifted up and come to fight, but people like me know better. Pussies like Brady and Montana sit back and coast while the hard working mostly black men around them do all the heavy lifting and the white knights get all the credit. This isn't hollywood, or Braveheart, or Fucking Mel Gibson.

WATCH THE FUCKING GAMES. SEE THE FUCKING TIME IN THE POCKET. IF YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A FUCKING A GAP IS; SEE HOW MUCH SPACE IS IN IT!

It's not an if. It's not a would have happened. It's and actually happened. The fact remains Joe was never hurried in the pocket in the big games, his WRs weren't losing the battles, his defenses weren't letting up big drive after big drive, and his special teams weren't fucking up all over the field. When every other aspect of the game is dominated by your team, the QB better win. Because when the rest of his team did lose those battles, guess what fucking happened; Joe Cool fucking lost. Not would have lost. actually fucking lost. Between his 2nd and 3rd Superbowls were 3 Montana one and dones, and his numbers and performance were fucking shit in all three. Why? Did he all of a sudden become worse as a QB? Did not know how to handle the big moment? No. His fucking team got beat by the other team all over the field and his performance was a direct result of that.

The Broncos didn't beat the Pats this year in the playoffs because Peyton lifted them and beat Brady. The Broncos beat the Pats in every aspect of the game and thus won the game. Brady was hurried, hit, and sacked, and naturally his throws were affected by it. In the Chargers game I think Rivers actually played better than Manning, but the Chargers lost because they lost against the Broncos everywhere else.

TEAMS WIN GAMES!

[Remedy360]

Well, that escalated quickly.

[O.G A.Geesta'z]

Troy Aikman

[Chamillitary Click]

lmaoooo @ a top ten defense not being enough. Needed the #1 defense or bust.

I just don't understand your point. You're just sitting here pouring out your tears over gunslingers not getting enough credit because they can't win because that style of offense doesn't win. So clearly if that hasn't won in 48 years...to continue to try to do that is fucking autistic. So why in the holy fuck are you giving someone credit for losing & bashing championship QBs for being smart enough to play as a team??

YOU. JUST. CRIED. that teams win games...so "Shame on the QB who plays his role on the team"?? Because as far as I'm concerned if you're playing your role as QB on the team & winning 3 Super Bowls (and of course an amazing QB in general) that's MORE IMPRESSIVE than throwing 4,500 yards & losing.

But I know you're not talking about Brady this year...lmfao. Don't even start. Those Colt teams back in the day were more talented.

Your entire stance is just so flawed. Especially because you don't understand Manning has been winning at least 10 games for over a decade "dominating defenses", but then runs into a real defense in the playoffs (which makes sense because good teams make the playoffs) & he's proven time...and time...and time...and time...and time again, he can't win. Because maybe he's just not as great as the NFL has brainwashed you into thinking. Just playing down to his competition & you're blaming WR's for routes run & his defense giving up 21 points & his running game not being the greatest. When you should just realize Peyton just can't do what Peyton does against real defenses because they're not stupid enough to let this "white knight surrounded by a bunch of niggers" beat them.

EVEN MORE FLAWED BECAUSE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT AGAINST BRADY IS PUTTING BRADY ON ANOTHER TEAM AND SPECULATING ON HOW HE WOULD PLAY.

WHICH.

IS.

FUCKING.

RETARDED.

BECAUSE.

THAT.

ISN'T.

REALITY.

I can't stress how many times I've seen you write "If Peyton was on 'this team' he'd have six rings by now". Like nigga....how the fuck you going to give him credit for something that "could" of happened if the universe was completely different?

[Shallow]

lmaoooo @ a top ten defense not being enough. Needed the #1 defense or bust.

I just don't understand your point. You're just sitting here pouring out your tears over gunslingers not getting enough credit because they can't win because that style of offense doesn't win. So clearly if that hasn't won in 48 years...to continue to try to do that is fucking autistic. So why in the holy fuck are you giving someone credit for losing & bashing championship QBs for being smart enough to play as a team??

YOU. JUST. CRIED. that teams win games...so "Shame on the QB who plays his role on the team"?? Because as far as I'm concerned if you're playing your role as QB on the team & winning 3 Super Bowls (and of course an amazing QB in general) that's MORE IMPRESSIVE than throwing 4,500 yards & losing.

But I know you're not talking about Brady this year...lmfao. Don't even start. Those Colt teams back in the day were more talented.

Your entire stance is just so flawed. Especially because you don't understand Manning has been winning at least 10 games for over a decade "dominating defenses", but then runs into a real defense in the playoffs (which makes sense because good teams make the playoffs) & he's proven time...and time...and time...and time...and time again, he can't win. Because maybe he's just not as great as the NFL has brainwashed you into thinking. Just playing down to his competition & you're blaming WR's for routes run & his defense giving up 21 points & his running game not being the greatest. When you should just realize Peyton just can't do what Peyton does against real defenses because they're not stupid enough to let this "white knight surrounded by a bunch of niggers" beat them.

EVEN MORE FLAWED BECAUSE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT AGAINST BRADY IS PUTTING BRADY ON ANOTHER TEAM AND SPECULATING ON HOW HE WOULD PLAY.

WHICH.

IS.

FUCKING.

RETARDED.

BECAUSE.

THAT.

ISN'T.

REALITY.

I can't stress how many times I've seen you write "If Peyton was on 'this team' he'd have six rings by now". Like nigga....how the fuck you going to give him credit for something that "could" of happened if the universe was completely different?

I'll concede one thing right off the bat. You are right; there is no point in bringing up the IF arguments. I should just stick to the WHEN arguments, because they are what lead to my IF arguments. It's useless to argue hypothetical.

As for your other points; I don't get what you mean by a QB playing part of the system. It's not like Manning is choosing to ignore the rest of the team. My argument is when the team plays like the shit, more often than not, the QB plays like shit because of that. When the o-line doesn't allow time in the pocket or an open A-gap to step up to the QB rushes passes and makes worse throws. When the WRs don't gain separation from DBs the QB completes less passes. When the running back can't find holes and gain yards and the QB is forced into throwing situations the opposing defenses have an easier time defending with more DBs. It's a big part of the reason Brady had no TDs in the first 3 quarters of the AFC Championship game, and those factors changing in the 4th quarter is a big part of the reason he had two TDs in that quarter. It's also a big part of the reason Brady was held scoreless in the second half of last year's AFC Title Game against Baltimore. Watch the games and see for yourself. See the difference in Brady when there is time and space to throw compared to when there isn't. My argument isn't just for all QBs, but that when Brady goes through that he usualy looks a lot worse than Peyton does in those same situations.

You really need to watch the Niners playoff games against the Giants in 85 and 86 to see how Joe Montana looked when the physical pressure was on, guys weren't getting open, and the run game couldn't make it happen. And this was with the same great teams he had when he won the rings, but the teams didn't play great those nights and Joe was a victim of it. That 49-3 Loss was a disaster but it wasn't because Joe wasn't good enough to make it a game. It was because the Giants simply out played the 9ers everywhere that night.

As for Peyton in the playoffs vs the Season, I simply don't see how people get it so twisted. He usually loses games in the playoffs to the same teams or same styles that beat him in the regular season. In 03 he lost to the Pats D at home in the regular season and then on the road in the playoffs, in 04 he lost to the Pats D in the season and then again in the playoffs. In 05 he lost his perfect season bid in the 14th game against San Diego's defense, and then in the playoffs the Steelers played that exact same style to beat him in the playoffs. He did beat the Steelers in the season that year but his numbers and play wasn't anything special. They won that game based a lot on the run game and James gaining 150 yards, and lost in the playoffs in large part due to the run game and James not being able to get even 50 yards. In 07 and 08 it was the Chargers again that usually beat him in the season.

People want to make it seem like the same defenses that he destroys in the season show up in the playoffs and his nerves get the better of him. That line you made about autistic; it's something I had wondered about the Colts for years. They saw what beat them every year and decided not to change anything all those years. Why did they never try and mimmick the teams that beat them in the season, then in the playoffs, and then went on to win the ring? Why did they never draft or trade for smashmouth guys? Or big time playmaking WRs? The only major acquisition the Colts ever made while Manning was there was a kicker.

And when he chose Denver I cringed. It was an improvement from what Peyton left but it wasn't that much better. It was the same style of coach that set up the same style of team. I don't know why Manning even visited, or why he was going out of his way to visit dumps like Miami and Arizona, but wouldn't even sit down with Seattle or KC. I had said then that KC had all the pieces of a juggernaut, but just needed the right offensive guidance to break through. We saw how fast they turned around with Andy Ried. I though that Romeo Crenel's defense with Peyton running the offense would have been a much deadlier team than the Broncos. They threw their name in the hat and Peyton declined before meeting anyone. Maybe he wants it to be harder on him. Maybe he wants to prove something to himself. I don't know. But I'd rather he had just gone to a team where he wouldn't have to do so much and games and rings could be won with or without great QB play. The opportunity was there for him in SF and SEA. He chose Denver.

I said Denver, just like the Colts, were not a tough team that could win a fist fight and what I worried about when he went there was what happened Sunday night. It was like Floyd Mayweather vs Mike Tyson; no matter how smart Floyd is and how well he can anticipate what's coming, he just doesn't stand a chance against the power of Tyson. That's primarily what the Broncos looked like on Sunday. Peyton wasn't outsmarted. There was nothing complicated about Seattle's D. They simply hit and hit and hit and rushed the passer, and destroyed the line. There were no plays to call to change that and nothing Peyton could do but go down with the ship, despite what Sherman said on TV afterwards.

It was a lot like Lombardi's teams of the 60s. He made it very clear that his prerogative was to run the simplest offenses and defenses in the league but attain and prepare the best talent available and make them beat you. Landry was the coach that tried to do the outsmarting; with complicated offenses and defenses. Lombardi simply drafted fighters and coached them to fight. That's the type of team I wanted Peyton on. Sadly, it'll never happen.

[Shallow]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/sRW2pS7M3jo" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/sRW2pS7M3jo</a>


Here's a nice sum up of Joe Cool under pressure when the team breaks down around him. This play took him out of the game. The score at the time was 21-3. This made it 28-3. His numbers up to this point 8 of 14 for 98 yards zero TDs and 1 INT. This was his 2nd INT and more or less sealed the game. The final score was 49-3. They were a big time team that simply got their asses handed to them and Joe Montana's performance was the bi-product of that beating, not the reason for it. Joe put up the same number of points in two consecutive playoff games against the Giants. 3 points in each game.

Just watch the 1:34 mark.

[M Dogg™]

A great point. Though one thing I will say is that Unitas also didn't win every year. Also, Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer of all time, and he didn't win every fight. But what defines greatness is how each player and team comes back from these defeats. Now it's worth noting that the Giants designed their defense to adjust to the changing NFL, the first defense to do this. Their D was up there with Seattle's, Baltimore and other D's of today, maybe better. A player like LT was never seen before. Now the first playoff game they meet, the Niners won and Montana made this very costly comment. “I expected more of Lawrence Taylor coming. I got enough of him, but I expected a lot more.” Well the next two years, Montana got a whole lot of LT and the Giants in the playoffs and regular season. But all great players face adversity. The Giants found out how to stop Montana and the westcoast offense. And if that was the final chapter, the Niners go down as a young team with a great new offense who eventually feel victim of adjusting defenses. But that's not the end....

The very next year, after that very bad lost, the Niners played the Giants again. Now that was sort of a throw away game, Montana was still injured and the Giants sucked that year. The Niners won. But in 1988, Giants played the Niners, Montana against that great Giant's D led a 4th quarter comeback. 1989, Niners played the Giants, Niners won and Montana almost got 300 yards passing. 1990, Niners played the Giants in a heavy hitting game, a game I still remember. Niners barely won. This led to the playoff game in which I still remember. 1991, Giants won, knocked Montana out the game and ended his 49er career. After two great wins on MNF the last two years, the Giants finally beat the Niners. But since that butt kicking you mention, Montana and the Niners adjust and they get the upper hand in that rivalry. Yes it was the Giants that finally ended the Montana/Niners era, but at the same time Montana did show that he wouldn't just feel the pressure and cower. Yeah, you can look at all QB's and if you put pressure on them then they'd shine in the moment. Brady, Manning, Marino, Unitas. But at the same time, it's about how the QB adjust, and Montana did adjust and showed he can compete with the pressure. That's like Ali coming back at Joe Fraizer and beating him in the rematch, or when he beat Ken Norton. Norton broke Ali's jaw, and Ali cameback and won. Montana did just that to the Giants. And the Giants teams that Montana played in 88-91 were god damn great teams with some of the best defenses ever seen in the NFL.

[Shallow]

A great point. Though one thing I will say is that Unitas also didn't win every year. Also, Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer of all time, and he didn't win every fight. But what defines greatness is how each player and team comes back from these defeats. Now it's worth noting that the Giants designed their defense to adjust to the changing NFL, the first defense to do this. Their D was up there with Seattle's, Baltimore and other D's of today, maybe better. A player like LT was never seen before. Now the first playoff game they meet, the Niners won and Montana made this very costly comment. “I expected more of Lawrence Taylor coming. I got enough of him, but I expected a lot more.” Well the next two years, Montana got a whole lot of LT and the Giants in the playoffs and regular season. But all great players face adversity. The Giants found out how to stop Montana and the westcoast offense. And if that was the final chapter, the Niners go down as a young team with a great new offense who eventually feel victim of adjusting defenses. But that's not the end....

The very next year, after that very bad lost, the Niners played the Giants again. Now that was sort of a throw away game, Montana was still injured and the Giants sucked that year. The Niners won. But in 1988, Giants played the Niners, Montana against that great Giant's D led a 4th quarter comeback. 1989, Niners played the Giants, Niners won and Montana almost got 300 yards passing. 1990, Niners played the Giants in a heavy hitting game, a game I still remember. Niners barely won. This led to the playoff game in which I still remember. 1991, Giants won, knocked Montana out the game and ended his 49er career. After two great wins on MNF the last two years, the Giants finally beat the Niners. But since that butt kicking you mention, Montana and the Niners adjust and they get the upper hand in that rivalry. Yes it was the Giants that finally ended the Montana/Niners era, but at the same time Montana did show that he wouldn't just feel the pressure and cower. Yeah, you can look at all QB's and if you put pressure on them then they'd shine in the moment. Brady, Manning, Marino, Unitas. But at the same time, it's about how the QB adjust, and Montana did adjust and showed he can compete with the pressure. That's like Ali coming back at Joe Fraizer and beating him in the rematch, or when he beat Ken Norton. Norton broke Ali's jaw, and Ali cameback and won. Montana did just that to the Giants. And the Giants teams that Montana played in 88-91 were god damn great teams with some of the best defenses ever seen in the NFL.

We simply have a difference of theology. You put more on the back of the QB figuring out ways to defeat the other team than I do. My argument is that when the rest of the Giants,offense and defense, outplayed the Niners, the Niners lost, and when they severely outplayed the Niners the Niners lost bad and the QB looked like shit.

It's not a chicken and the egg scenario for me. When the o-line and RBs, and WRs get dominated the QB by default looks like shit. As opposed to the QB is playing like shit therefore the o-line, RBs, and WRs can't block, run, or get open. The latter theory simply makes no sense to me and therefore I don't now or have ever adhered to it.

My argument for Manning was never all those phases play like shit and therefore he rises above it. My argument is that historically those phases were mediocre and he rises them to great, and obviously not in the last game, but when those phases get shut down he still makes a game of it. The closest I had seen to this beat down on a team Manning was on was the 05 Colts against the Steelers in the playoffs where under similar pressure and situation Manning stepped his game way up and kept it close. He didn't do that in the Superbowl, and I think if he had it would have made for a little excitement near the end but I can't see this game being anything less than a two core win by Seattle no matter how good he played.

As for your Giants/Niners 80s fued. I'd argue that Parcells and Bellicheck (and Crennel) had the Niners offense figured out by 1984. The major difference in the 84 loss compared to the 85 and 87 beatdowns was NYGs run game and offense. They controlled a big part of the clock, but in 84 they moved around Joe a lot, and pick 6ed him. Had they run better in the game like they did in the other two, who knows what happens. Joe threw for a lot and had 3 TDs, but also had 3 INTs in that 84 game. And after that 84 win, Joe Montana and the Niners never defeated the Giants in the playoffs again, and that west coast offense looked like shit every time. Montana never bounced back against the Giants in the playoffs after that 17-3 beat down. And the '90 loss was a game of field goals and one sideline pass where the anxious NYG DB jumped the route to get a pick and John Taylor ran 40 of the 60 yards with no one behind him. It was a bad defensive play. Something Seattle didn't do any of in the Superbowl last week.

Of course I think the Giants were less about scheming and more about just building a defense that could physically impose their will. They didn't fool Montana and Walsh, they simply didn't give them anywhere to go with the ball. The same thing happened to Manning.

[M Dogg™]

And my argument is how a team adjust. Yeah, no team has won 10 years in the row like the Celtics did in basketball. Football is a game of adjustments and countering. Montana was pressured by the Giants, and you have to remember the Giants had the best pass rush in football in those days. LT changed the game, they were better suited to beat the 49ers and the westcoast offense. In fact, many teams that year seemed to adjust to the Westcoast offense that year. In the years following the first 2 Super Bowls the Niners saw a huge drop in offensive production and Montana saw a drop in production. This can be attributed to many things, and one of them is defenses adjusting to the Niners. But the key is can a player and team adjust after defeat. I do put some of this on the QB. A QB an react different ways after getting mauled, like Montana was by the Giants or Manning was by the Seahawks. They can either quiver the next time they see that team, or they can step up and sit in the pocket and start to fire rockets. Montana went back against the Giants, looked LT in the eyes and began to slice the Giants up the next THREE time he saw him. You take any QB, and I mean ANY QB and take away their weapons and pressure them, that QB will look bad. There is a reason no team in the NFL wins all 16 games in the Super Bowl, because eventually defenses figure them out. And there is a reason that defense wins Super Bowls, because with 2 weeks to prepare the defense has that much more time to figure out the offense. What Montana did better than anyone was he knew this. He knew this and he was one of the greatest decision makers in the history of the game. He can read a defense and even if he knew he was going to get crushed, he stood there and he delivered. Yeah the Giants had his number, but after that he had their number.

Maybe because I played football, but I do put a lot on the QB. A great QB has command of the huddle and they are able to talk to their players and get their heads on right. In the NFL, these players on the field are the best in the world. There are only 32 (28 in the 80's) starting #1 WR's, 32 starting #2 WR's, 32 starting RB's and 32 starting QB's in all the world. Those players are expected to perform. A great QB is part leader, they are not just some mindless person who takes orders from the coach. Montana will always be remembered for his John Candy comment in the huddle which some players said calmed them down. (though Jerry Rice himself said he didn't hear it... LOL.) I played with a QB who was heavily recruited to Notre Dame, Westpoint and Michigan back in the 90's. He eventually settled with that great football power, Pitzer College... hahaha... but when you played with him he had complete command of the huddle. When he died last year, many teammates who he hadn't talked to in 10 years showed up. He was our leader and we rallied around him. It's why the old saying goes, when you have 2 QB's, you really have none. It's why when Joe Montana went out, the Niners saw a 4 game drop even though Montana was replaced by Steve Young. It's why when Manning left Indy, the Colts went 2-14 and saw an 8 game drop. A QB is that important. And if the rest of the offense is under performing, it's the QB's job to pick them up. Leadership is huge. A defense can impose it's will, a QB has to look on how to adjust their decision making and prepare the next time they play that team.

And one last thing, I think you confuse greatest with the best. In this current era, I'd say Manning is the best QB in the game. Best numbers, best set of skill, best decision making. I might even call him the greatest of this era, since Brady hasn't won a Super Bowl since Spygate. But best does not equate greatness. In the 80's/90's, Marino was the best QB of his era. But even with Jimmy Johnson as coach the Dolphins just didn't win. The Niners on the other hand did win, and a large part of that came from having a QB who was great. 

[Shallow]

And my argument is how a team adjust. Yeah, no team has won 10 years in the row like the Celtics did in basketball. Football is a game of adjustments and countering. Montana was pressured by the Giants, and you have to remember the Giants had the best pass rush in football in those days. LT changed the game, they were better suited to beat the 49ers and the westcoast offense. In fact, many teams that year seemed to adjust to the Westcoast offense that year. In the years following the first 2 Super Bowls the Niners saw a huge drop in offensive production and Montana saw a drop in production. This can be attributed to many things, and one of them is defenses adjusting to the Niners. But the key is can a player and team adjust after defeat. I do put some of this on the QB. A QB an react different ways after getting mauled, like Montana was by the Giants or Manning was by the Seahawks. They can either quiver the next time they see that team, or they can step up and sit in the pocket and start to fire rockets. Montana went back against the Giants, looked LT in the eyes and began to slice the Giants up the next THREE time he saw him. You take any QB, and I mean ANY QB and take away their weapons and pressure them, that QB will look bad. There is a reason no team in the NFL wins all 16 games in the Super Bowl, because eventually defenses figure them out. And there is a reason that defense wins Super Bowls, because with 2 weeks to prepare the defense has that much more time to figure out the offense. What Montana did better than anyone was he knew this. He knew this and he was one of the greatest decision makers in the history of the game. He can read a defense and even if he knew he was going to get crushed, he stood there and he delivered. Yeah the Giants had his number, but after that he had their number.

But Manning's big problem to most people is that he can bounce back in the season and can't in the playoffs. Manning had Baltimore knock him out last year in OT and came back and tied the single game record for TD passes in the first game this season against them. My argument is not that Manning stepped up any different. The difference to e in the two games is that the first game this year the defense stepped up and in the playoff game they didn't. Manning didn't play any better in the second game.

Joe didn't exactly "slice up" the Giants all three of the next three games after the 49-3 game. He played half a game against them right after the loss the next year, but he did get the game winning drive to win 20-17. The 2nd game after was a definite slicing the year after.  But the third game the Niners won 7-3. No matter how you slice it, it's not an offensive slicing.

But more importantly, in the playoffs, they lost again. Which is funny in a way because with 2 minutes left and the lead Steve Young had SF in Giant territory, and Craig fumbled the ball. The Giants drove it down and won with an FG. A Niners/Bills SB would have been interesting with most likely Young playing for an injured Montana.

Maybe because I played football, but I do put a lot on the QB. A great QB has command of the huddle and they are able to talk to their players and get their heads on right. In the NFL, these players on the field are the best in the world. There are only 32 (28 in the 80's) starting #1 WR's, 32 starting #2 WR's, 32 starting RB's and 32 starting QB's in all the world. Those players are expected to perform. A great QB is part leader, they are not just some mindless person who takes orders from the coach. Montana will always be remembered for his John Candy comment in the huddle which some players said calmed them down. (though Jerry Rice himself said he didn't hear it... LOL.) I played with a QB who was heavily recruited to Notre Dame, Westpoint and Michigan back in the 90's. He eventually settled with that great football power, Pitzer College... hahaha... but when you played with him he had complete command of the huddle. When he died last year, many teammates who he hadn't talked to in 10 years showed up. He was our leader and we rallied around him. It's why the old saying goes, when you have 2 QB's, you really have none. It's why when Joe Montana went out, the Niners saw a 4 game drop even though Montana was replaced by Steve Young. It's why when Manning left Indy, the Colts went 2-14 and saw an 8 game drop. A QB is that important. And if the rest of the offense is under performing, it's the QB's job to pick them up. Leadership is huge. A defense can impose it's will, a QB has to look on how to adjust their decision making and prepare the next time they play that team.

I guess being an oldest brother with no one ever being my leader in life anywhere I went I can't comprehend the idea of needing someone else to raise me up. No matter what position I played on the field growing up, there was no way another play could get more out of me and I resented it when they tried. It's just something I can't understand. No coach could either. There was never anyone in my life I looked to for guidance or esteem.

And one last thing, I think you confuse greatest with the best. In this current era, I'd say Manning is the best QB in the game. Best numbers, best set of skill, best decision making. I might even call him the greatest of this era, since Brady hasn't won a Super Bowl since Spygate. But best does not equate greatness. In the 80's/90's, Marino was the best QB of his era. But even with Jimmy Johnson as coach the Dolphins just didn't win. The Niners on the other hand did win, and a large part of that came from having a QB who was great. 

Well Jimmy was never a fit for Miami and I can hardly call those Dolphins a great opportunity for Dan.

[Hack Wilson - real]

in light of the recent superbowl I change my mind


the best quarterback is Otto Graham





Best QB ever.

[M Dogg™]

in light of the recent superbowl I change my mind


the best quarterback is Otto Graham





Best QB ever.

My number 2.