Jump to content

When ranking greatest quarterbacks, do you use All-Time or Super Bowl Era?


LieutenantGains

Ranking greatest quarterbacks  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you prefer?

    • All-Time
      12
    • Super Bowl Era
      7


Recommended Posts

On 3/9/2021 at 8:11 AM, Shockwave said:

While I totally agree with you. The counter argument (I know since I've gone round and round arguing in favor of Otto Graham) is back in the day a good amount of players weren't "professionals" as some worked other jobs during the week, some played two ways on D and O and were no where near as highly trained and conditioned and fine tuned to their position as today's players. The numbers Graham put up in a deadball, heavy run era were insane. But put him in todays game with the modern day players on D and he'd probably be mediocre at best, backup in all likelihood. Even Jim Brown who was a man playing amongst boys. In todays game..he'd be great but not GOAT great. Put Brady with his modern training and understanding of the game in Grahams era... even with the rule differences, and lack of protections I think he absolutely destroys defenses. It's a round and round kind of debate with so many exponentials and no right answer.

I have huge respect for Tom Brady, but you would also have to factor in how he would react when his head is driven into the turf on a sack or when he is obliterated by a pass rusher after he threw the ball and the guy could still finish the play when it was close.  It's just really tough to compare eras. 

What I try to do is pretend in my mind that players from 50-100 years ago would be able to magically benefit physically in the time-space continuum when they are brought through time to be compared with today's players.  In other words, just add 3-4 inches in their height, 30 pounds in their weight, half a second better time on their 40, and 100 pounds more to their bench press.

Whatever you do, it's just so tough to compare eras because of how much bigger, stronger, and faster the human race has become, and also how much the rules of the game have changed.  This is why I try to respect the guys from the old days, but prefer to look mainly at players from the Super Bowl Era for the most part.

Edited by Uncle Buck
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2021 at 6:48 PM, TecmoSuperJoe said:

 

I don't know why people never use this rationale when comparing older players to today. Folks usually just the simple logic of just transporting that person from a previous era to this one with all of their previous experiences from that era to spotlight to today. But it shouldn't be thought of in that manner since you're essentially blaming the player on the time they were born. While I do think there would be a diminishing returns effect since we are able to just scout better players now, I still think that a lot of guys from decades ago would be good players if they were 22 years old now with all the contemporary advantages of everyone else playing today. Like Adrian Peterson wouldn't have had a superior six pack in 1950, and Tom Brady wouldn't have access to avocado ice cream. 

I was thinking about Tom Brady without all the ridiculous nutrition/diet stuff and I was thinking "he's probably Joe Kapp or Craig Morton" - players who don't need to apologise to anyone for their careers but not among the best of the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

I have huge respect for Tom Brady, but you would also have to factor in how he would react when his head is driven into the turf on a sack or when he is obliterated by a pass rusher after he threw the ball and the guy could still finish the play when it was close.  It's just really tough to compare eras. 

What I try to do is pretend in my mind that players from 50-100 years ago would be able to magically benefit physically in the time-space continuum when they are brought through time to be compared with today's players.  In other words, just add 3-4 inches in their height, 30 pounds in their weight, half a second better time on their 40, and 100 pounds more to their bench press.

Whatever you do, it's just so tough to compare eras because of how much bigger, stronger, and faster the human race has become, and also how much the rules of the game have changed.  This is why I try to respect the guys from the old days, but prefer to look mainly at players from the Super Bowl Era for the most part.

You mean the scouting for those players. Humans haven't gotten faster or bigger since the NFL started. Scouting and training has improved immensely though which makes all the difference. 

Edited by TecmoSuperJoe
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

You mean the scouting for those players. Humans haven't gotten faster or bigger since the NFL started. Scouting and training has improved immensely though which makes all the difference. 

Actually, I think they have gotten bigger.  I don't have the numbers at hand, but my guess is that the median height and weight of a American has increased over the last 100 years.  You could also add improvements in nutrition and medicine and that is an advantage that the guys from yesteryear didn't have the benefit of too. 

I agree with you on scouting and training.  The league's ever increasing revenue has made it much more doable for players to be full-time football players.  The money they bring in has increased their value to owners in such a way that they have put more money into their scouting, training, and coaching staffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2021 at 8:11 AM, Shockwave said:

While I totally agree with you. The counter argument (I know since I've gone round and round arguing in favor of Otto Graham) is back in the day a good amount of players weren't "professionals" as some worked other jobs during the week, some played two ways on D and O and were no where near as highly trained and conditioned and fine tuned to their position as today's players. The numbers Graham put up in a deadball, heavy run era were insane. But put him in todays game with the modern day players on D and he'd probably be mediocre at best, backup in all likelihood. Even Jim Brown who was a man playing amongst boys. In todays game..he'd be great but not GOAT great. Put Brady with his modern training and understanding of the game in Grahams era... even with the rule differences, and lack of protections I think he absolutely destroys defenses. It's a round and round kind of debate with so many exponentials and no right answer.

That could very well be true, Shockwave.  Kind of like that Martin Sheen movie from the 80's by the name of "The Final Countdown."  It was about a then modern aircraft carrier that got caught in a storm in the Bermuda Triangle and was somehow sent back to the South Pacific on December 6, 1941.  They had a chance to intercept the entire invasion force that the **** were sending to Pearl Harbor. 

It's amazing to think that one fully equipped aircraft carrier could have decimated a force like that, but I could see it happening.  Japanese Zeros wouldn't have much chance against an F-16 with mach 1+ speeds, air-air missiles, advanced aiming systems, etc.  Tomahawk cruise missiles could also do a lot of damage to Japanese carriers that were miles from the ship that launched them.  (I can't remember for sure if the Tomahawk was around that far back, but I think it may have been.  In any case, I'm sure they would have a much more advanced sea-to-sea missile system that would have been pretty difficult for the Japanese fleet to track with the radar they were working with). 

As is the case with that movie, Tom Brady would also have the huge advantage of advanced training, nutrition, etc.  It's definitely interesting to think about.  He would be pretty tough for early NFL coaches and players to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

It's amazing to think that one fully equipped aircraft carrier could have decimated a force like that, but I could see it happening.  

They easily could honestly.  I'd be more surprised if the aircraft carrier reported any casualties at all.

I don't know anything about that movie, but of course, that's assuming you still give the aircraft carrier the benefit of satellites, nuclear fuel, and other things that didn't exist then.  I guess you have to imagine and conjure and bunch of stuff just like comparing Qbs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jlowe22 said:

They easily could honestly.  I'd be more surprised if the aircraft carrier reported any casualties at all.

I don't know anything about that movie, but of course, that's assuming you still give the aircraft carrier the benefit of satellites, nuclear fuel, and other things that didn't exist then.  I guess you have to imagine and conjure and bunch of stuff just like comparing Qbs.

It was a pretty cool movie in it's day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...