In your opinion, is Brett Favre a .....

Oh I see - and all of that silliness about how the blocking is better is more than trumped by the fact that quarterbacks of today have to read far more complex defenses than any of the guys of yesteryears, see exotic and different blitzes and combinations of players every week, are facing bigger and more athletic and quicker defenses and thus the position is far tougher to master now than it ever has been - and it is not even close.

I'll say it again, none of those guys played the position as well as Peyton Manning is right now.

 

If the league changed the rules tomorrow to make punters incredibly important, would we have to put the old punters on the same level as the new ones?

 

And you don't believe those guys could handle that? They were analyzing situations and calling their own plays -- no coach talking to them in their helmets -- before having to make the split-second decisions and reads once the play started. They didn't have the broken down game films or detailed scouting reports. Oh, yeah, and those sophisticated defenses are countered by equally sophisticated offenses, complete with hot reads and checkdowns and pass routes that hadn't been invented yet (OK, Ray Berry invented some of them). And while today's QBs are indeed facing bigger and faster athletes, they also have bigger and faster athletes on their side, protecting them (OL) and being protected (WR, TE) in ways that were illegal back when.

In addition, the era of Unitas, Graham and Layne -- the '50s -- was the most violent and dangerous in the history of the game. Far more players suffered catastophic injuries then than do now, for a variety of reasons. While the players were smaller and slower, padding was still rudimentary (face masks, for example, were rare until the late '50s), rules favoring the offense and protecting the QB were nonexistent and cheap shots were the norm. Guys like Ed Sprinkle, Bucko Kilroy and Hardy Brown would aim for the head and deliberately go after players after the whistle or away from the ball. Players would throw money into a hat and pay a bounty to the man who could knock one of the opponent's stars out of the game. For example, in 1956, Bobby Layne, one of the game's biggest stars (won three titles and retired as the career passing leader) was the victim of one of most infamous cheap shots in league history. He was knocked cold by a blindside hit from Ed Meadows delivered on a running play when the ball carrier was already 7 yards down the field and in the process of being tackled. The referee, following the play, never saw it, and no penalty was called. Such hits were routine then. And remember, an injury that today would keep a player out a few months or even a few weeks could back then have ended a season or a career. Really, there's an argument to be made that if a pretty boy like Manning or Brady was thrown into a game back then he wouldn't have lasted a half (I don't necessarily agree with that because I think tose guys are pretty tough, but there's a case to be made).

Conversely, if Otto Graham had been born in 1981 instead of 1921, because of nutrition, fitness, conditioning and medical advances, he very well could have weighed 230 instead of 196, with a stronger arm and better mobility, and not been injured as often. Put that guy in the Colts offense, and would he be Peyton Manning? Better? Obviously, there's no way to tell, but to dismiss Otto Graham, Bobby Layne, Johnny Unitas and Sammy Baugh from the discussion of greatest QBs of all time is ludicrous. Compare players to their era and the great ones rise to the top.

 

I agree with so much of this, but Unitas' stature of 6-1, 194 pounds might not be nearly as effective in the NFL today. Brees is 6-0 but 209 -- 18 pounds sturdier.

But you're probably right in that if Unitas is born 50 years later, maybe he is bigger and stronger thanks to weightlifting and nutrition. It's all pretty hard to guess. Then again, it was all hard to guess even back then. Remember that Unitas was drafted in the ninth round and waived by the Steelers before catching on with the Colts. Heck, Bart Starr was a 17th-round pick.

Let's just agree they were all great. Somebody's 10th-best-ever is somebody else's best-ever. Doesn't make either one necessarily wrong. But it is fun to debate.

EDIT: Looks like I could have saved myself some time and simply said "What joe king said."

 

To which the Vikings say, "Thank God."

 

I think Manning is fantastic. However, you can't even apply him to the pre-'78 era because there's no way the Tom Moore offense would function in that era with those rules.

 

Not at all, Tony. You done good.

I'm in total agreement that the debate is the fun part.

 

Comparing statistics from the '70s to current players is ridiculous. The changes to open up the passing game are far to profound. So is the way quarterbacks are developed. Take Favre and Bradshaw as a comparison.

Favre probably could have won just as many Super Bowls as Bradshaw with those Steelers' teams of the '70s, possibly with better numbers, but that is far from a guarantee. He had some damn good offensive coaches and spent his career in a wide-open passing offense.

Bradshaw came in with a coach who was allergic to the passing game. As much as I respect Chuck Noll, I don't think he and Bradshaw were a great fit. They were both just so damn good that eventually it worked anyway.

I can definitely see the argument to put Favre ahead of him, maybe ahead of all of the guys from the '70s, but that still doesn't put him in the top 5.

In no particular order, Montana, Elway, Marino, Manning and Brady all have an argument to be ahead of him. They aren't the only ones, but probably the best cases.

Marino is an interesting comparison. How much weight do you give one Super Bowl ring? For all the numbers Favre has, Marino was much better at avoiding bad plays, meaning turnovers and sacks. Marino had only 252 interceptions to Favre's 317 and 110 fumbles to Favre's 168. He was sacked 270 times, compared to 500 by Favre so far. It wasn't like the guy did this by being a conservative passer. Marino threw the ball deep as much as anybody of his era and was every bit as willing as Favre is to fire it into coverage. He was simply much better at taking care of the ball.

 

No way Marino is above Favre on any list. He didn't win shit, and, as mentioned before, Favre broke all the records he used to hang his hat on in these discussions. The term "Super Bowl Era" is kinda stupid anyway, given how much the game has changed in the last 40-plus years.

 

I'm just glad he didn't say Tommy Maddox.

Fuckabuncha Tommy Maddox.

 

Favre has played on MUCH better teams than Marino did, in more stat-friendly West Coast offenses and he still didn't come close in terms of protecting the football. I can see the argument either way, but if you're going to give one Super Bowl that much weight, a one-time winner like Favre needs to get in line behind Bradshaw (and no, I don't think he should be behind Bradshaw).