When it's all been said and done.

[JoeRedskin]

Also, something from a more historic perspective, and based on GTripp's comments about Brady as a system QB -

In some respects there seems to be a progression of the "Really Good/Great QB Meets Innovative System" behind the much of the Best Ever debate.

Luckman/T-Formation; Otto Graham/Paul Brown's Innovations; Montana/West Coast Offense; Brady/Spread Offense.

These QB's seem to follow naturally from the former and become innovator's in their own right. Their careers represent the game's evolution in microcosm. In each case, the Coach (Halas, Brown, Walsh, Belichick) was almost as famous as the QB.

On the other hand, there are some QB's who stood outside of any coach or recognziable "system": Baugh, Unitas, Marino, Manning.

Would Luckman, Graham, Montana or Brady be as successful outside their particular system? Would Baugh, Unitas, Marino or Manning be as successful if they were forced to tailor their playing to a particular system (Johnny "Field General" U playing for Paul "I call the plays" Brown? I don't think so).

[NYCskinfan82]

I'd say his team stole the other teams OF & DF signs and got caught that helps out alot, yes he has great talent but could he have won without stealing signs that's the question I need to have answered.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

I'd say his team stole the other teams OF & DF signs and got caught that helps out alot, yes he has great talent but could he have won without stealing signs that's the question I need to have answered.

I think the 18-1 season after it was exposed would have put to rest any questions about whether they can win without extra film.

[Ruhskins]

I guess I may have exaggerated a bit when saying that the Colts are in a decline (so no need to get your panties in a bunch). But, they are not as dominant as they were before...HOWEVER, I don't think any team is right now. It seems that teams are on and off from week to week, and no team is looking consistently dominant..

I do know that the Colts had offensive line issues in the offseason, and their defense is not playing well. Now, a poor defense has never affected the Colts, and Manning is elite enough to overcome any offensive line deficiencies. I do think the Texans will give the Colts a run for their money though.

It's hard to put Manning above Brady and vice versa though.

[MTK]

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.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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?)

[CultBrennan59]

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.

[skinsfaninok]

Schaub is good but brady is still better

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

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.

No way, Brady immediately behind Manning. Schaub is better than Rivers too.

[skinsguy]

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

[SouperMeister]

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.

[JoeRedskin]

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.

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Funny thing is, think what he could have done with Gibbs. I think he could have won more SB with the skins than the 49ers. Think of the Schroeder and early Rypien years.