Greatest QB of all time

[Mean Gene]

JM also didn't get rattled under pressure like some of the more athletic QB's mentioned in this thread. He certainly DIDN'T have the arm strength of Elway & Bradshaw but I think that the game has developed beyond that being enough to win on a consistant basis. Today's corners & safeties are as big as most of the WR's so, while I'm not discounting the ability to be able to "zip" the ball in between 2 defenders like Favre can, it's not essential. In fact, I'd say that today's successful QB's are more of a hybrid. Brady, both Mannings, Favre certainly won't qualify for the Olympic sprint team but they know when to escape the pocket & can usually manage to get a few yards. Still, they're most successful when they hang in the pocket & let the play develop. Montana was willing to do this even though he wasn't much bigger than the safeties who were blitzing him. Of course, if he was JaMarcus or TB's size he'd just put his head down & run OVER those guys!!

[Mean Gene]

Also did a little checking & Coach Walsh began developing his WCO during his mid 70's days under Paul Brown with Cincinnati. When he got the HC job in SF one of his first draft picks WAS Montana ( 1979 ) because he felt like JM was the perfect conductor for that offense. JM became the starter in 1980 & the 49'ers began their championship run shortly thereafter. So certainly he "tweaked" the WCO a little to fine tune it for Montana's ability BUT he wouldn't have even drafted him, IMHO, had he not seen the ability within JM to even grasp the concept required to run that offense.
FWIW - I really had a hard time choosing between Montana & Bradshaw in this poll. Couldn't go wrong with either one but I'm certain that MY OPINION ( & vote ) is pretty clear.
Much as Skilldawg said - I never saw the "older" QB's like Graham, Luckman, Tittle, Baugh, etc play other than on archived NFL films so it's hard for me to go with them.

[Bigdog13]

Well for all I know it could be Unitas. It is VERY hard to rate Qb's that old.

[dj95]

Yes. I think they would have been less successful with Elway. That offense called for quick, accurate passing and a quick reading of the defenses. It didn't call for a free wheeling, create on the run, rocket armed QB.

I think it is interesting that Denver could never win it all with Elway as the center of that offense. When Terrell Davis became dominant they won. He was superior to anyone Montana ever had behind him.

I think that Denver has shown over the last 10-15 years that they could plug anyone in and have a great ground game becuase of the O-line and their zone blocking scheme. No one ever won the Super Bowl by themselves. To say John Elway didn't win until he had a talented RB ignores the fact that Elway won 3 AFC championships without him. Elway didn't give up all those TD's in the 80's super bowls. The interceptions came has he was trying to force things in order to get back into those games. Denver missed going to the super bowl the first year Buffalo went because he got hurt and still Kubiak almost led Denver past Buffalo that year. Montana was a great QB, so was Elway. I think John was better because he did more with less. Montana did more with more.

Anyways its fun to debate!

[Mean Gene]

[quote=dj95;640015]I think that Denver has shown over the last 10-15 years that they could plug anyone in and have a great ground game becuase of the O-line and their zone blocking scheme. No one ever won the Super Bowl by themselves. To say John Elway didn't win until he had a talented RB ignores the fact that Elway won 3 AFC championships without him. Elway didn't give up all those TD's in the 80's super bowls. The interceptions came has he was trying to force things in order to get back into those games. Denver missed going to the super bowl the first year Buffalo went because he got hurt and still Kubiak almost led Denver past Buffalo that year. Montana was a great QB, so was Elway. I think John was better because he did more with less. Montana did more with more.

Anyways its fun to debate!

Ain't it though!!!!!
I gotta spend more time over here 'cause it's usually me vs Champion110 in the Lady Techster board!! :icon_wink:

[Bigdog13]

I think that Denver has shown over the last 10-15 years that they could plug anyone in and have a great ground game becuase of the O-line and their zone blocking scheme. No one ever won the Super Bowl by themselves. To say John Elway didn't win until he had a talented RB ignores the fact that Elway won 3 AFC championships without him. Elway didn't give up all those TD's in the 80's super bowls. The interceptions came has he was trying to force things in order to get back into those games. Denver missed going to the super bowl the first year Buffalo went because he got hurt and still Kubiak almost led Denver past Buffalo that year. Montana was a great QB, so was Elway. I think John was better because he did more with less. Montana did more with more.

Anyways its fun to debate!

First off if you look at TD's numbers it is obvious that he has distinguished himself from those other backs. They were productive, and each had a few good years. TD on the other hand was a beast who took over games. Those other guys aren't in the same league as him. Not even close.

Also people quickly forget how much the AFC completely SUCKED during Elways early years when he was going to those Superbowls and getting his tail kicked. It was like a JV compared to the NFC back then.

I agree with what you said but I think Montana did WAY more with more.

[skilldawg]

I had to go back and see how many "YEARS" ago this debate occurred. As always, BigDog had to have the last word. Sorry Big Dog, you can post now.

[DONW]

I agree that Montana was better than Brees, but they are the same type of quarterback and same type of athlete, thus the "weak" anaolgy. I personally don't think that Brees is a slouch and he is the closest in style and athleticism of Montana of the current crop of NFL quarterbacks.

Brady is a better athlete than Montana was with a stronger arm so I probably would take him over Farve in comparing their primes but it would be an awfully close call.

With regard to the football "smarts" comparison between Montana and Bradshaw it appears that you have fallen for the left coast media bias. Are you a Democrat?

In the interest of bi-partisanship, I can however agree that Bill Walsh was smarter than Bradshaw since he was the guy that was calling all of little Joe's plays. Dumb ole Terry "had" to call his own... for his entire career. Terry, like Bill Walsh, was smart enough to play to his own strength. Terry's strength just happened to be one of being able to throw it 80 yards down the field. For you history buffs, Bradshaw was the last quarterback to call his own plays with no input from the sidelines.

And for all of you anti-homerites, my true homer pick on the college thread would be Mickey Slaughter. Without coach, the world may never had known of Bradshaw. Slaughter had already proven that a quarterback from little old Louisiana Tech could play with the big boys and he cared enough about our school to come back and coach and develop Bradshaw into a player that was ready enough to be taken as the Number 1 pick.

Preach it, brother, I'm with you 100%.

[brtransplant]

Its Johnny Unitas, not Bobby.