Rank your 2017 starting QBs

[Nzd07]

1. Rodgers

2. Brady

3. Brees

4. Wilson

5. Ryan

6. Stafford

7. Carr

8. Ben

9. Luck

10. Rivers

11. Mariota

12. Dak

13. Cousins

 

And before people say "Wilson too high," Seattle as done a laughable job of putting talent around this dude. Eddie Lacy? Luke Joeckel? What a joke.

 

[Jraider91]

1. Rodgers

2. Brady

3. Ben 

4. Brees

5. Wilson

6. Ryan

7. Stafford

8. Rivers

9. Carr

10. Luck 

11. Newton 

12. Smith

Don't feel strongly enough about the others to rate them. Ben getting a bit too much disrespect from some in this thread. 

[Pugger]

16 hours ago, Nzd07 said:

1. Rodgers

2. Brady

3. Brees

4. Wilson

5. Ryan

6. Stafford

7. Carr

8. Ben

9. Luck

10. Rivers

11. Mariota

12. Dak

13. Cousins

 

And before people say "Wilson too high," Seattle as done a laughable job of putting talent around this dude. Eddie Lacy? Luke Joeckel? What a joke.

 

Seattle might finally be finding out how difficult it is to field a talent stocked team when you have to pay your QB big time money.  

[Jlowe22]

On 9/22/2017 at 12:22 AM, everlong said:

We don't win Super Bowls without Brady. It's as simple as that.

You don't win superbowls with a scrub in place of Brady,  but you almost certainly win superbowls with another elite QB in place of Brady.  Maybe not 5, because I still think Brady is the GOAT, but you certainly win more than one.

[Hunter2_1]

On 22/09/2017 at 6:22 AM, everlong said:

We don't win Super Bowls without Brady. It's as simple as that.

You know what I've discovered in these comparisons threads. When talking about Belichick, he couldn't have done it without Brady. When discussing Brady, it's Belichick that's won everything. If you're looking at it half full, it's one can't be successful without the other. If you're half empty, it's that people will look to discredit wherever possible. I'd never swap Brady for another QB in history, ever. Same with BB.

[UKTexans]

3 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

When talking about Belichick, he couldn't have done it without Brady. When discussing Brady, it's Belichick that's won everything.

So the 90s Cowboys arguments? 

[everlong]

On 9/24/2017 at 1:12 AM, Hunter2_1 said:

You know what I've discovered in these comparisons threads. When talking about Belichick, he couldn't have done it without Brady. When discussing Brady, it's Belichick that's won everything. If you're looking at it half full, it's one can't be successful without the other. If you're half empty, it's that people will look to discredit wherever possible. I'd never swap Brady for another QB in history, ever. Same with BB.

BB can only do so much. The only thing he can do is draw up a gameplan and hope for the best. Brady is ultimately the one with the ball.

When you combine a guy that consistently makes great gameplans and a QB that executes it perfectly most of the time, you win a lot of championships.

[Danger]

Can't believe the disrespect Stafford gets in this thread.

[Iamcanadian]

On 9/19/2017 at 3:44 AM, Darbsk said:

I enjoyed reading this informative post, very interesting to hear your thoughts on Marino - never heard that slant before honestly.

However, it actually kind of backs up what I'm saying, that despite having one of the best QBs of all time Miami when they had a truly great coach wanted to rely more on the whole team - the Oline and RBs in this case. There is no doubt that the QB is the keystone position in football, but usually IMO the best team wins the Superbowl rather than the best QB. New England last year went 3-1 with it's second and third string rookie QBs and had a 10 win season (or was it 11 even) with Matt Cassell  - yet looked what happened to the Colts or the Raiders when their signal caller went out. The Raiders could best be described as listless and the Colts are an abomination - their QB clearly means more to them than Brady does ultimately to the Patriots (that's not to demean Brady at all but just facts). 

No such things as miracles or miracle plays, it's just a play - same as the crazy decision to not run Lynch IMO. One last thing, just curious if you regard Montana as better than Brady then as he has clearly better stats and win percentage in the big game?
 

Quote

 

Tough call, Montana enjoyed the luxury of playing in an offense that Bill Walsh invented, the WCO and it took DC's a decade to figure out how to defend it, but then again, the rules his receivers played under were a lot tougher than receivers today play against.

Brady for me, is the winner, he really is the best I have seen in my 65 years of following pro football at a serious level. I'm 74. But you really cannot judge different eras, who knows what kind of passer, Brady would have been under the old rules of bump and run all over the field and not just 5 yards. For me, each generation has a winner and because of rule changes and coaching styles, that is about all you can say when comparing QB's or any position. However, Brady had a great WR for 1 season, Moss and went undefeated that year except for the SB and you have to wonder just what he could have accomplished if BB had provided him with great receivers his whole career like Peyton and Marino had. Likely, his stats would be out of this world.

I am 100% behind you in that the QB position is head and shoulders above every other position on a football team, anybody who thinks you can consistently win without a true franchise QB, simply does not understand pro football. The NFL is a QB/schedule league. Schedules are set up to make sure every team gets a serious shot to make the playoffs at least once a decade and makes it tough for teams to repeat as SB contenders unless they have a real franchise QB who can overcome the tough schedules winning teams face.

I can look at a team's schedule and easily see which playoff teams from last year will have a difficult time repeating, which Divisions will not produce 2 playoff teams and which Divisions will produce 2 playoff teams. It all comes down to which Divisions your Division has drawn for that season. Of course, having a true franchise QB can overcome a tough schedule, but he had better be special. I do not think Montana or any old timer for that matter, faced this kind of scheduling. The NFL wants to keep its golden ship going forward and came up with this idea to keep fans watching their games on TV, which provides teams and the league with immense revenue.

You could argue that the schedule decides who has the better shot at winning, it is kind of set in stone and unless you have a solid franchise QB, overcoming a tough schedule is not likely to happen. That is how the NFL knows for sure, that so many new teams will make the playoffs every year.

 

 

 

 

 

[Pats#1]

21 hours ago, Jlowe22 said:

You don't win superbowls with a scrub in place of Brady,  but you almost certainly win superbowls with another elite QB in place of Brady.  Maybe not 5, because I still think Brady is the GOAT, but you certainly win more than one.

You could say that for every team that won with an elite QB....theres only a few in the league.

 

It's still wrong IMO considering Brady has done things in some SB wins that no QB has done in the playoffs. 

[Jlowe22]

24 minutes ago, Pats#1 said:

You could say that for every team that won with an elite QB....theres only a few in the league.

 

It's still wrong IMO considering Brady has done things in some SB wins that no QB has done in the playoffs. 

Yea, that's why I said he's the GOAT.  But fact remains, few other QBs have had the same level of support for as long.

[Pats#1]

2 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

Yea, that's why I said he's the GOAT.  But fact remains, few other QBs have had the same level of support for as long.

He's had good defenses...but his offensive supporting casts have been less talented than his elite counterparts for the majority of his career.

It's not like Brady has bee  carried by his defenses in his SB wins...other than his first SB, he's been the main reason they've won. 

[Jlowe22]

4 minutes ago, Pats#1 said:

He's had good defenses...but his offensive supporting casts have been less talented than his elite counterparts for the majority of his career.

It's not like Brady has bee  carried by his defenses in his SB wins...other than his first SB, he's been the main reason they've won. 

No, of course he wasn't carried, never said he was.  The Patriots rarely put garbage out on the field, and when they do, they do it less often than most other teams.  Very few glaring weaknesses on the team, with a few exceptions. Combine with a GOAT level QB, and you have a dynasty. 

[Pats#1]

6 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

No, of course he wasn't carried, never said he was.  The Patriots rarely put garbage out on the field, and when they do, they do it less often than most other teams.  Very few glaring weaknesses on the team, with a few exceptions. Combine with a GOAT level QB, and you have a dynasty. 

I agree...the combination of BB and Brady is a once in a lifetime combo where both are lucky to have one another. 

[August4th]

I think ben is a borderline top 10 QB now... he has lost a step since midpoint of last yr