I'm with Cold Hard Football Facts: Bart Starr. http://bit.ly/A0kxu

Bart Starr.

No quarterback was more clutch in the playoffs.

Rodgers :D

Bart Starr

Aaron Rodgers has the Sweetest throw though. Sooo Smooth!

Aaron...you can't compare.

Guys today on defense are BIGGER, STRONGER, AND FASTER than they were in the 'old days'....

So, in fact, it's HARDER to play in the NFL today, and they only RECENTLY made those changes in the NFL. Favre had to play most of his career when the rules were a little tougher...

and "Rodgers, my ass"...That "boy" isn't even in the conversation, son...You need to come down to reality.

Man, do I ever tire of being RIGHT?

NO, I DO NOT!

(fish..kinda gay for Rodgers, eh? Gotta mancrush..not that there's anything wrong with it, accept your "objectivity"....)

Two questions people overlook. Was he great in the clutch and how many championships did he win? Favre is completely out of the discussion in both of these. I'm going with Montana. 10 years from now I'll go with Rodgers.

Defenses are bigger, faster and stronger now. But the QB is also more protected than ever.

Pack66 - Look who's calling someone Gay for a QB. I'm sure you're the one who BF'd BF!

Brett Who?

You don't consider this greatness?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km-xdj9g7Uc

I think Bart Starr does have a chance. Actually, Pack66 has said one thing that I agree with, and that it is indeed hard to compare quarterbacks from now and the past, as football was a very different game a few decades ago. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I'm just saying it's a challenge.

Go Pack Go!

Bert Ferve

One more point: I'm not necessarily saying that in context with the defense only. The league has gone through fluctuations of mostly passing or mostly running, as coaches and coordinators tried constantly to outwit the other teams.

Go Pack Go!

Cold Hard Football Facts has it right...Bart Starr...best evah!
-------------------------------
Johnny U was great, but Starr was clutch, especially in the playoffs.

It's harder to play QB NOW? That's hilarious. The league thinks that passing sells tickets and creates more viewers, so every rule change or officiating "point of emphasis" is to make life easier on the QB. Look at how many 4,000-yard passers and 30 TD QBs there have been every year...even do the math and account for fewer games to figure game averages if you like, but passing is still far more prolific today. And a QB is much less apt to get injured today due to the ridiculous roughing the passer penalties. I mean, seriously...you can't tackle a QB by his legs, even if you get blocked into him..come on.

I'm with the first commenter and CHFF. Bart Starr.

Moses Moreno. Conversation over.

Indeed. :D

Hey Ruppert,

You moron..do you think you could even take ONE of the HITS that Favre took in the New Orleans game..???

I doubt it.

You probably get hurt playing Madden....

You surprise me with this one Aaron. My choice is undoubtedly Starr:

Legends of Lambeau: http://tinyurl.com/yhdbuoe

Not fair Aaron! I said Otto Graham and then I specifically remember saying CASE CLOSED! That's supposed to be the end of it.

Comparing players from different eras is next to impossible. Therefore in my humble opinion you have to compare how dominant they were compared to others in their eras.

I'll give my argument again for Graham. 10 seasons as a professional. Led his team to 10 championship games winning 7. 9 time first team all pro (one time second team). 5 time league MVP. His career QB rating was 86.6 which is rediculous for the late 40s and early 50s. Heck it's still pretty good 60 years later with all the rules changes.

No quarterback IMO has come close to dominating his era like Graham did.He won 50 percent of the MVPs,70 percent of the championships, and was first team all pro 90 percent of time during his career. Otto Graham is the greatest ''quarterback ever''! Case closed?

Looking just at the modern era its (1) Montana, (2)(3) Brady & Manning, (4)(5)(6)(7) Favre,Elway, Marino, & Aikman

Aaron,
No pick from me, just wanted to point out that man you must be educated or you keep a dictionary next to you as you blog.

The words you just used in this post many would refer to as $10 words.

Just wanted to point that out.

Pack66, what does this have to do with ME taking any hits? Did I say I could play QB? You're really out there, dude.

Is Pack66 banned from commenting yet?

It should be obvious that anyone from Wisconsin would choose Starr as greatest QB.

To me it's Starr, Graham, and Montana. All separated by inches.

They have the most titles, the greatest playoff performances and have the stats.

The others don't have all that combined. Brady has the rings and the regular season performance, but he doesn't have a great postseason performance, though he has a SB MPV. I think he comes close to them.

Graham has the most titles. And has a lot of awards, and clutch performances. But doesn't have any modern titles.

Montana has everything, but doesn't have as much titles as the others.

Starr is quite frankly the best. Have a buttload of titles, including the first two SBs, while being selected SB MVP both times. Plus, he is the greatest postseason qb of all time. That pretty much says it all.

I do think, with two more titles, it goes to Payton Manning.

Two points:
1) Before, there wasn't so many rules protecting the qb.

2) But also before, the DB could ram and jam the receiver all he wanted.

I think I read somewhere that Unitas was the first to call audibles at the line of scrimmage.He changed the game way before Starr was drafted.You have to mention Otto Grahm in this conversation.

I don't think I am qualified enough to answer who is the greatest QB of all time, because I'm to young to know the old guard well at all.

But when it comes to modern Quarterbacks...I'm sorry...call me a Packer homer...call me dumb...I DON'T CARE...I will ALWAYS say Brett Favre. YES, Favre made TONS of dumb mistakes. YES, Favre is a diva...but good gosh, the man made GREAT plays most of the time. And he consistently made adequate players good (remember Samkon Gado, or Taco Wallace??) And he could and still does make any and all throws. When you think about it, the man is 40 years old, and is easily a top 5 QB in the league this year...HOW MANY 40 YEAR OLD QB's could say that??

Listen, I don't have all the facts, or stats...and I HATE Favre for playing in a MINNY jersey, but deep deep in my heart, if I had a gun to my head, and I needed a modern QB to win me a game, I'd choose Brett Favre.

Nagler, do your bidding and ban me if you were serious. I hope that you respect honesty over overheated ranting, and grant me immunity from your ban hammer.

Starr called all the plays, so, I'm sure he could change a play based on the defense he was facing each play.

PackersThad. Mr. Nagler hasn't banned Pack66 yet, so I have a feeling you're safe ;)

Anyway, I agree with Starr as the best QB.

Ken Stabler. Oh wait, that's who my favorite QB is of all time. Obviously I need to work on my issues with being attracted to bad boys who throw lots of INTs. ARodg seems to be getting me over that. :)

Bart Starr. But almost all of the guys named are great.

Bart Starr
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/09000d5d810a571b/Top-Ten-C...

Johnny Unitas
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/09000d5d8074ce7f/Top-Ten-R...

Otto Graham
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8074c956/Top-Ten-R...

PackersThad: I think I'm in the same boat as you are - too young to know the old guard well. But as a huge Packer fan, if I had to pick the best QB of the modern ERA I think it's Montana and Manning as 1a and 1b.

Another guy that gets completely overlooked and should get much more attention than Dan Marino or John Elway is Staubach.
-
I have a clear tendency to clutch QBs. But all in all, that's the mark of a great QB, to perform when it matters.
-
Of course, if the QB throws 5 picks and the winning TD, he didn't play well, and didn't win the game. But that's not how all those I mentioned are...

Yes, there were some great QB's in the past. At the risk of sounding bias (and agreeing with some of the earlier posts), Bart Starr has to be considered. As already mentioned, he was a CLUTCH QB. Starr may not be remembered as one of the premier passers of the game but he was a GENERAL on the field;
Remember, my fellow Pack fans, it was Starr who called the winning play against Dallas in the "Ice Bowl", and this is just of one example of many other moments in Starr's career. As a kid in the 60's I remember the many 3rd down conversions orchestrated by Starr (Hmm, who comes to mind in Packer lore this 2009 season?).
I agree, Johnny U. ranks among THE BEST in pure passing and toughness in an era when QBs called the shots, but Starr must be considered along with Unitas as one of the premier QBs in NFL history.
I also think Sammy Baugh deserves strong consideration... Gees, there are so many others.... you gotta love the game!

I think it's Peyton Manning. He basically runs the show in Indy and has to deal with better athletes and more complex defenses in today's NFL. Sure the current NFL rules favor the offense a bit, but again, defenders are bigger, stronger, and faster in the modern NFL and the defenses are very complex.

My opinion for what its worth...

top 5 "old school" quarterbacks(pre-1976...no particular order)

Otto Graham
Bart Starr
Johnny Unitas
Sammy Baugh
Sid Luckman

best "new school" quarterbacks (players whose careers where within my lifetime and about where the rules changed....in no particular order)
Joe Montana
Steve Young
Peyton Manning
Brett Favre
Tom Brady
Dan Marino
John Elway
Kurt Warner
Terry Bradshaw

I'll use a really simple formula to rank them....1 point for a superbowl win, 1 point for 1st team all pro, 2 points for a super bowl MVP, and 2 points for an MVP

1. Montana 17 points
2. Manning 16 points
3. Bradshaw 11 points
Elway
Young
6. Brady 10
Favre
8. Warner 9
9. Marino 5

Montana's at the top of my list, followed by Unitas.

@Keith - You are probably right. My understanding about Manning is that the off-cord. of Indy gives Manning quite a bit of leeway when calling plays at the line, that is, changing plays at the line. But how does that compare to Unitas and Starr when THEY CALLED the plays in the huddle resulting in clutch plays? No one knows better the flow of a game, and their opponent, than the player on the field; Unitas and Starr knew the game, their coaches' game plan and their opponent, but the final decision was left up to them.

speaking of quarterbacks i was cruising through some mock drafts yesterday and found one i thought was hillarious. I cant found it now or i would post a link. It had the bills picking a quarterback at 9 i think is was colt mcoy but they questioned if he was ready to be a first year starter, so they sugestered they could start brian brohm for a year while mcoy sat at no.2 and learnt the offense. I dont know about you guys but i found that pretty humorous.

Now THIS is funny - "Pack66 – Look who’s calling someone Gay for a QB. I’m sure you’re the one who BF’d BF!" Nice, Fish

Man I'm just GLUED to my monitor waiting to get BOB'S take on this topic!

I'm sure it will be really unbiased and short (dude writes a friggin' novel every post, I get about three words in "BRETT,SLURP,BROMANCE", realize it's Florence Bobbingale... and BOOGIE)! HAHA

GBP 4 LIFE

@ Aaron - Thanks. That is one info fact I did not consider. I believe the QBs in the "old days" were true QBs! They called the game, made the plays, took the hits... they were football players, not the "special" eleventh man on the team.

Fish ,I was at the game in Philly when Favre's cosecutive td pass in a game was stopped

RichII, best video of the year

Mr Nagler,

DB's in the old days were not that good. There were exceptions, of course. But go back and look at the film.

The tackling was horrible too.

There was a real lack of discipline on most teams, except the really good ones. The business was MUCH different then, and alot of these guys worked 2nd jobs when they weren't playing football to support their families, so they couldn't train 10-12 months out of the year...

This, and the fact that there was ALOT of disparity between teams back then. This skewed alot of the records, imo....

Seriously Pack66? Surely the argument is that tackling has declined in standard over the years due to the consideration for highlight reel hits amongst other things. As previously mentioned, DBs could do what the hell they liked so they didn't have to be as good at covering (not that I would agree with your assessment). I would love to see this film of yours...

Oh and for the record, modern era give me Montana and back in the good ol days of poor tackling & discipline etc. i'll take Johnny.

I know so many make comparisons to the game "back then" and the game of "today". Some on this thread have admitted they're not knowledgeable of the NFL of the past (50's & 60"s) in comparison to today's NFL.
But how can one seriously "know" the game of today if they do not know the game of "yesterday"? Yes, many changes have taken place but isn't it sad that the QB, somehow, is given special consideration in today's NFL when , after all, he is a FOOTBALL PLAYER, a part of the team?! Not taking away the prowess's of the likes of Brees, Manning, Brady, Warner (one of my faves), Rogers (who gets no respect btw) but, lets face it, special consideration is given to today's NFL QB when, in the day of Starr, Unitas, Tittle, Brodie, et. al., they were simply the eleventh man on a fielded team of an eleven man starting offensive line and if a defensive end or linebacker creamed the opposing QB it was because the QB was, afterall, a football player on the opposing team!
We may be prone, today, to give accolades to the likes of a Manning, Favre, Brees, Rivers... but honestly, how can they stand up against those QBs of "yesterday"? Think, do you believe Starr was a "diva", or rather, a FOOTBALL PLAYER who played his position and contributed to the rich history of not only the Packer's but the NFL? In today's NFL there are super stars - and then, there are men who played the game!

Is Pack66 making logical, clear-minded comments? Hey, that's cool! IMHO we can always accept someone back if they're trying to make a change.

Anyway, I'm the infamous "little kid" on Packernet, so I don't think I can really talk about this whole best quarterback ever thing. See everyone on the next post.

Go Pack Go!

Pack66 is a sore loser.

Montana - Young -
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/09000d5d8111402e/Top-Ten-Q...

Peyton Manning -
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/09000d5d80743692/Top-Ten-S...

Yes, QBs today have the luxury of year-round training. So it's easier for them to stay in top shape, and easier for QBs to be good today.
------------------------------
Modern medicine is miles ahead of where it was many years ago. In those days, ripped up knees or elbows were a ticket out of the league. Would Brees still be playing if 1965 medicine were applied to his shoulder? Again...easier for the modern QB to be considered good by prolonging his career.
-------------------------
Basically, teams pass a hell of a lot more today. In 2008, the top 5 QBs by attempts averaged 35 (for #5) to 39 (for #1) attempts per game. In 1965 the top 5 averaged 22 to 28 attempts. In '65, the league leader in yards averaged 222 per game. Brees averaged 316 in 2008, and a guy who throws for 4400 yards averages 275. How many times did they show the stats about "percent of snaps from the shotgun formation" this year?
-------------------------
Life is just flat-out easier for QBs today. Much easier.

Aaron, I think you're overstating the importance of that rule change for Manning. The rule was tightened in 2003 and Manning was still pretty effing awesome before the rule changes (he started playing in 1998.) Further, if the rule is so crucial to Manning's success, how come we don't see anyone else at his level? Sure, Brady and Brees have spent a season close to him, but they can't match his consistency. Plus, in 2004 Manning had 6 years in the league under his belt with the same coach, same system, and largely the same key personnel. I would argue that an elite player, in his prime, playing in a system he knew like the back of his hand, combined with a favorable rule change led to dominance. So yeah, the rule change helped him, but it didn't magically turn him into a legendary QB. He was well on his way anyhow.

-----
Sure, the QBs from the "good 'ol days" called their own game, but you can't tell me the defensive schemes were as elaborate as they are these days. I'll keep pounding the complex scheme and more athletic players argument into the ground because I think it's the truth. Heck, I would argue it was Belichick's complex schemes that did Manning in during those games. It's really hard to sustain that kind of dominance of a team - Manning would triumph eventually. Plus, it's not like the Pats totally dominated; the Colts suffered some bad luck in some of those defeats as well.

-----

Anyway, I know you said Manning is in the conversation, but I feel your sentiment that he wouldn't be "nearly as effective" is a bit absurd, considering he was pretty damn effective prior to the change. Pointing to his struggles against ONE team (a team that happened to win 3 Super Bowls and has one of the most brilliant defensive minds in history as their head coach) as evidence to back up your point is pretty shaky, imo.

@mopak "lets face it, special consideration is given to today’s NFL QB when, in the day of Starr, Unitas, Tittle, Brodie, et. al., they were simply the eleventh man on a fielded team of an eleven man starting offensive line and if a defensive end or linebacker creamed the opposing QB it was because the QB was, afterall, a football player on the opposing team!"

-----
Not to be a jerk here, and in full disclosure I am 26 so I wasn't around, but from what I gather, these sentiments are a fairy tale. While modern QB's certainly receive preferential treatment (more on that in a bit,) I totally disagree with the notion that QBs used to be "just one of the guys." Who are the players that a regular joe can name from the annals of NFL history? Are they naming lineman? Safeties? Runningbacks, even? No, they're naming Unitas, Namath, Baugh, etc. We even have the American meme of the high school QB dating the head cheerleader, being the most popular guy in school, and being voted prom king. The QB has always been the center of attention, and although they were "football players" back then, that's also partially due to the way the game was played.

-----
As for the preferential treatment of modern QBs, why shouldn't they get that kind of treatment. I will present you with 2 reasons why, one you may consider and one you will surely detest. 1. They are essentially sitting ducks back there. We saw it with Aaron Rodgers this year. With the size, strength, and speed of the modern player, if protections aren't put in place we may have literally had a QB killed as a result of a blitzing player who came free. As it stands, we still see a ton of brutal hits and catastrophic injuries to QBs on bit hits. 2. Money. Remember, the NFL is a business and QBs make the most and are often the marquee player for a franchise. They also have much longer careers than the other skill position players. It's just smart business to keep the most popular and well paid players upright and on the field.

Keith, name me one catastrophic injury you have seen a QB have, in your lifetime, due to a hit received in the pocket while passing. (And with today's medicine, a blown out knee is season-ending, not catastrophic.) I'm 39, and only Joe Theismann comes to my mind...and that was a freak injury that no rule could avoid. IMO, there is one catastrophic injury, and that is a concussion. And I have zero problem whatsoever with flagging every hit to the head. But how can you flag a defensive player when he is blocked into a QB's legs? I'm sorry, but that is impossible to avoid.

Isn't it Anthony Dilweg?

God did Dickey take a beating!

Garo Yepremian. No debate.
---------

-------
-------------
-------------
-------------
Really, I'd say Montana. And if Peyton Manning wins in 2 weeks, he's on his way to steal the title. Problem is, I still think Manning is sorta like Favre, in that deep down, he's still a choker. Manning's Super Bowl victory had more to do with Grossman's incompetence than Manning's greatness. He needs to ACTUALLY play well this time and win to prove it wasn't just a fluke.

What I hate about the whole argument of "yeah but the guys are much bigger and faster today" is that yes, they are, but you know why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO SO!!!!! Take any of the throwback guys, put them into the same workout programs that the modern guys get for their entire careers, and they'd do just fine. If you are truly looking at it objectively, that is how you have to look at it. Period.

Johnny Unitas? You've got to be kidding me. When the playoffs started, he got WORSE. Career playoffs: 7 TDs, 10 INTs, 69 rating.

I've got to go with Brady...even though I can't stand the guy. He won 3 Super Bowls with average guys like Deion Branch, David Givins, Antwain Smith, and Kevin Faulk as his best offensive weapons. That's impressive.

For all you calling anyone a "clutch" QB, you better know that John Unitas was known as "Mr. Clutch". He invented the two minute drill. In fact, I was at a game once where the BALTIMORE Colts were down by two scores and there was 2:45 left in the game. Unitas pulled that game out. Colts won.

Also, someone previously stated that Starr hadn't even been drafted when Unitas played. Son, do your homework. Some of the greatest games I ever saw were between the BALTIMORE Colts led by Unitas and Bart Starr's Packers.

So, Mr. Nagler, as someone who has personally seen some of the "old timers" play, I would have to say the greatest QB of all time is John Unitas. Mr. Clutch. Johnny Hightops. Hands down. NOW it's case closed.

I guess really I'd have to go with Elway with his arm, legs, SB apperances and wins.

tavaris jackson lol...alex smith (thank you niners for giving us arod!)

Do you fools know that if Favre would have led the Vikings to the SB, he would have been the ONLY QB IN HISTORY to take TWO TEAMS to a SB?

Marino NEVER won a SB...Favre's been to 2, won one, and should've won the other if it wasn't for that jackass Holmgren not giving the Broncos a dose of Levens in the 2nd half, which was working all day.

And Favre should have been in this one this year if his teammates would have held onto at least ONE of those G-Damn fumbles and they kicked a FG...

AND..to top it off, Favre should have been in the '08 SB if his PACKER TEAM(tee tee's boys) didn't TOTALLY SUCK and could have made a g-damn play or ran the ball, or Ruvell Martin could catch...but I"m sure NOBODY here will go there...it couldn't have been the Packer TEAM'S faulth now could it? No, way....

Just like it wasn't the VIKING's TEAMS fault for the other day...

IT ALWAYS HAS TO BE ALL FAVRE'S FAULT ALL THE TIME, RIGHT HYPOCRITES..???

Man, leading two teams to the Super Bowl... that is quite an accomplishment that alternate reality Favre did.

Too bad real Kurt Warner already did do just that amazing thing that is so awesome IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN IN CAPS.

A lot of wouldas and shouldas in that post, Pack66.

In fact, in a whole four minutes of research using this thing called "the internet" I was able to find out that a dude named Craig Morton also accomplished the gigantic feat of awesomeness that is starting at quarterback on two different teams that made it to the Super Bowl. And look at how many times his name as been mentioned along with Unitas, Manning and Starr so far in this thread.

Both of you guys are wrong. Brett Favre was the first one to do it (even though he actually never did). But he would have been the first if his team didn't suck..or something.

Aaron - I apologize for not being clear. I didn't mean to infer that QBs didn't take a ton more punishment in previous eras. As you said, that would be "dead wrong" for me to make such a statement. My point was that QBs were never "just one of the guys." While not as protected as the current generation of QBs, they have always been the focal point and face of the team. I'm not sure what I was trying to prove, but I guess it was that even though post QBs were more "football player" than the QBs today, they were probably just as "diva-ish." In my experience people like to pretend like this is a recent phenomenon, and while it is certainly more widespread, guys like Namath and Hornung were definitely diva-ish, just to name a few.

Morton started for the Cowboys in Superbowl V and for the Broncos when they lost to his old team.Pack66 you don't know the game.

If he got in it, and WON it, I should have said....

The point is, not many guys have done it, and for you guys to call Favre a "choker" just makes you look like small penised, bitter jerkoffs...

That was my point!

But hey, if that's how you want to come off, more power to you...

It's a free country...

Aaron - I've put on the tape...most certainly have.

good point re: the workouts, technology, etc. it's not that the guys are simply inherently bigger and stronger nowadays -- the human species doesn't evolve that quickly biologically.

give it a few thousand years, and yes, the average player will have grown a couple inches perhaps and 10 or 15 pounds, along with the averages for every joe and sally walking around in the streets.

the difference is the environment and the training. totally different game from high school to pros now than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

also, pass interference is assumed on every deep ball with good coverage. it makes me sick. there's a reason why 'good' corners are hard to come by these days. same reason not many people are that good at juggling geese in a wind tunnel while being pelted with snowballs. the odds are against success given the rules of the universe (or the nfl).

and pack66, saying he's a choker doesn't indicate anything about our genitals. it indicates that we have eyesight and/or hearing (radio), and a functioning memory.

bitterness is not part of the equation for such an observation.

and the fact that you draw conclusions about our physiology and sexual preference based on our criticisms of a player screaming out to be criticized says quite a bit about you. and you're not going to like the findings.

Since we lost Super Bowl 32, Favre's playoff performances have been filled with INTs, especially at inopportune moments. His teams are winless on the road in the playoffs since that game. This is fact...not opinion...no IFs. Three of the (arguably) worst passes thrown in NFL playoff football came from his arm (Philly '03, NYG '07, and NO '09).
---------------------------------
Look, I think he is the most entertaining QB I have ever seen play, and second only to Barry Sanders for the most entertaining football player, period. But that playoff performance is significant in his overall rating in the "all-time greatness" argument. You can't accentuate the positives, and merely discount the negatives.

I completely agree with wgbeethree above- it's Otto Graham. Starr, Montana and Unitas enter the conversation, but looking at what Graham accomplished gives him the edge. I'll say this- I wouldn't mind having any of those guys in their prime as my starting QB.

I just think if you play worse come playoff time, there's no way you can be considered the greatest ever. The stats just illustrate this notion. Just my opinion.

Ruppert - I suppose my point depends on one's definition of catastrophic. Admittedly, I have never blown out my knee, but a close friend of mine has, and let me tell you - it's pretty damn catastrophic to rip apart all of the ligaments in your knee. My brother has also had shoulder surgery, so an injury like the one Chad Pennington has repeatedly had, also pretty catastrophic.

Aaron,

What about adding a new post named "The greatest losers ever?". Personnaly, it would be a pleasure to put my own opinion: The Viqueens!!!

I am so happy since last sunday night!

I think you are very justified in picking Unitas and yes there is a huge difference in Football today as opposed to back then. For me I have my favorite which is Dan Marino, just loved his intensity and fearlessness when throwing the football, but even so I wouldn't call him the greatest ever. I have only seen film on Unitas which back then wasn't very good film, but have seen Joe Montana many times live on TV and was fortunate enough to see him play against the Giants at Giants stadium a few times. If I could pick one player to lead my team on a drive when its crunch and the victory hangs in the balance Montana would be that guy, to me that makes him in my mind the greatest of all time, but Peyton Manning is a very close second....

pack66 Im close to just hacking into your computer and crashing it. its obvious you cant stop talking about your boyfreind brett when the rest of us have moved on, get a clue. your time is about up

Right...you've moved on..what a joke.

Idle threats from a child...i'm scared..Packerfan4life.

You are pathetic, and Favre is your "Daddy" and always will be....He's in your head and can't get out, pissing on your tree...and sleeping in your Mommy's bed.

and I laugh at you losers...

the PACKERS SUCK...you can't get away from that.

I win, bitch.

I don't like BF. I think he is a classless, me first, attention whore, douchebag and have for about 15 years now. This is what I find hilarious though. Myself, I (and most people) don't blame him solely for all our playoff struggles, he was a PART (a big part but just a part)of it, but the BF nuthuggers don't think he deserves ANY of the blame and it' rediculous. The fact that in every playoff loss in BFs career except for the second superbowl he had a qb rating below his career and playoff average doesn't have anything to do with it. It was always the rest of the teams fault. The 4th & 26 shouldn't have been converted, Bush should have fallen on the fumble, the vikings shouldn't have fumbled the ball six times. His teammates could have (and probably should have) put him in a situation where this is a moot point. I am one of his biggest detractors and I realize that. I think most others do as well. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED! What happened was that for numerous reasons, which weren't entirely his fault, BF had the ball in his hands late in a tied playoff game three times and made the worst decision and throw possible all three times. BF IS A CHOKER! Should he have been in those situations? No, probably not. He was though and he responded by choking each and every time. Blame whoever you want for putting him in those situations but BF is entirely responsible for how he handled them.

Someone posted they could not wait to see my ratings… (lol)… this question is a forest.
---
I do agree with the era logic due to things like - rule changes, number of games in season, number of teams, how many years played, etc., You can also rank by yardage, wins, comebacks, games played, individual team, overall contributions, etc., and so on (usually comes down to 'favorites' for your team!). I group them in approx. positions… Ask me the question with a specific angle in mind and I may rearrange or add to list. Top 7 or 10 (1960-2009)
----

1. Montana, Unitas
2. Starr, Favre
3. Elway
4. Young, Staubach
5. Marino
6. Manning, Brady
--
7. Jurgensen (don’t blame me… Lombardi stated he was better than Starr!)

----
* In 2009 Favre rank second only to John Elway in fourth quarter comebacks, broke Montana's post season records and led three separate teams to winning records in three consecutive seasons...something no one has done before him and likely never will.
----

Pack666... You are definitly a joke!

You know what. Down here in Europe, nobody cares about american football (except some geek like me) but everybody knows three teams:

- the 49ers
- the Cowboys
- and the Packers (of course)

When you talk about the vikings, they say "the what??? Is it the name of a team or a gay club?"

You see. Even in the old continent your team looks like a bunch of losers!

See u soon.

I'm sorry, but I have to rant.
HOW CAN ANYONE NOT SAY BART STARR?!?!
It's not that he played in the Lombardi's Packers.
It's not the ICE BOWL alone.
THE GUY HAS THE BEST PASSER RATING IN THE POSTSEASON OF ALL TIME!!!!!!
Not only that, he has 2 Super Bowl MVPs! He was the BEST PLAYER in the MOST IMPORTANT GAME! TWICE!
And he has 5 CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!!
-
So any talk that he only achieved that because he was playing under Lombardi is an INGORANT argument.
The guy won everything, while having the numbers, and being clutch.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/longtimefan/41d3e90314f6011c2b62e11...

wgbeethree
---
I thought you had a good listing above on your rankings... but the BF snarling just takes it away from it.
---

pack66 = deanna favre?

i really can't think of any other answer for the behavior, besides psychosis - in which case, we should lay off, because the old lady next door to pack66 doesn't deserve to die in the explosion. it's not her fight.

QB's of a comparable era, no doubt:

Manning>Brady>Elway>Warner>Favre

Manning is the best QB I've ever seen. Nobody is asked to do more (often with less) and win 12 - 14 games every year.

No, this isn't about 'hating' on Favre. The above QB's preceding Favre have won more and not given away games in big moments. This is where I actually agree with Nagler, history should NOT look kindly upon Favre's inability to finish on the biggest stage, during the biggest games, during the biggest moments of his career.

though I'd love to say Starr...

... I think championships/playoff success are ultimately kind of an unfair way to judge. It's a team sport.

It's Manning.

That wasn't me snarling bob. That was being pretty nice for me when it comes to BF...
I'll rephrase my post though in the nicest way possible as to take my admitted bias out of it...
Despite my personal dislike for BF I can acknowledge that he is not solely responsible for his teams' playoff struggles but I feel his supporters should be able to acknowledge he holds some of the responsibility. The stats say he has consistently performed well below his average in his teams' playoff losses and the last three times he was placed in a situation, through no fault of his own, where the game was on the line he threw interceptions. Therefore IMO it would be hard to unbiasedly argue he does not bare any of the fault for those losses.

P.S. - Don't reference the recorded Favre comebacks in the 4th quarter. That stat is deceptive. They looked at final 8 minutes, not final 5, and gave Favre credited comebacks that he wasn't even in the game for. Example, one of his 'comebacks' was the opposing team with first possession in OT, they fumbled, and Longwell kicked a field goal. Because of the liberal 'comeback' criteria they gave Favre the comeback 'win' without even touching the ball.

Look at his stats with 5 minutes or less down by 8 pts or less and the TEAM won 26 of 100 times. THEY failed 74 tims.

For your reading pleasure, titled "Brett Favre isn't as clutch as you think":

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=fleming/090930&sport...

Cheers!

wgbeethree
---
Enjoyed the post! Of course, Favre has to bear some responsibility (has anyone said that? not me). But based on what has been handed him in the past he has a great comeback record... 'unfortunately' not as good in the playoffs as in regular season. My pt. is he didn't loose this game on the last INT, the game was loss in OT. Maybe he gets grieve for not allowing an attempt at a 52-57 yrd FG. But that's one big 'if' in the regulation scenario of things that happened after not being allowed to capitalize on great drives due to fumbles that he was not responsible for. that's all....
--
But hey, if you hate him, you have to find something to hang your hat on related to the game... for me (cup half full), I can't believe how he even got them into an OT game with the fumbles and questionable hits he took (but at least he was able to make it to another NFC game in just 2 years).
---
cheers
---

---

Seems as though some folks are leaving out the other three (3) INT's the Saints defense left on the field. I suppose those errant throws don't count, huh?

Can we keep this argument in the Brett Favre post, please? Holy smokes.

I don't think I ever actually followed the directions here and gave my choice: It's Joe Montana. I refuse to consider anybody prior to around 1980, because that's when I was old enough to see these guys play and have an opinion. Like I said earlier, Favre is the most entertaining QB I ever saw, but there's no way I'd take him over Montana when my season is on the line.
-------------------------------------
A lot of great posts here, though.

ROFLMAO Joshy (re: Pack66 true identity). I was going to post that, because it ran through my mind and refrained. But since you did, hahahaha.

A poster states that we cannot attribute comebacks to Favre that are won in OT 'without him even touching the ball…' I quote: " That stat is deceptive….one of his ‘comebacks’ was the opposing team with first possession in OT, they fumbled, and Longwell kicked a field goal. Because of the liberal ‘comeback’ criteria they gave Favre the comeback ‘win’ without even touching the ball." ... I AGREE!
----
So if Favre cannot be given the comeback win based on the standard above then certainly he cannot be burdened with the ‘comeback’ loss for Sunday’s game … that game was loss in OT too, and it was “without him even touching the ball” !!!
---
Yeah, but I bet that won’t fly with this poster.. just another double standard based on pure biased venom. Favre has one standard for comeback wins and another for comeback losses. OT is a 0 – 0 new game.

---

It really is amazing the length you will go to apologize for Favre....just unbelievable.

I really do feel so much pity for you. Such a twit. So little intelligence. Pig ignorant. I feel infected.....

I'm sorry, what is a "comeback loss"? If one loses, then how is it a "comeback"?

Manning lost quite a bit in the playoffs and big games before he got to a SB...

He is only in his 2nd, and hasn't won it yet (same as Favre), douches...

CSS..I don't know what your problem is (other than being a big prick)..

The rest of you can go straight to hell...

Packer fans = worst in the NFL.

Packer fans act like its a matter of time before they win a SB because they have the nfl’s great qb ever-Rodgers.

Rodgers is alright, but these fans are getting way too overconfident. See if Miami fans think having a good qb guarantees sb trips and wins.

Pack66 - Your comments are so inane and idiotic it's become comical. Run along and polish that empty trophy case your hero just made his key contribution towards.

Everybody laughs at you, none of this is remotely insulting.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

I see Pack66 is still in the "anger" stage of grief/loss.

That's because you are pathetic losers who are in a state of denial about your GM and your team's future, and like in the 70's, you're settling (and celebrating) just REACHING the playoffs with an early exit, like the low-class, toothless hillbillies you really are.

I am the one having the last laugh.

Favre pound your shit team into mulch twice this year and went to the NFC championship game...pretty good, if you ask me. Better than you losers did.

And he's coming back next year to do it again, and this time go to the SB with homefield advantage, and NFL REFS who won't cheat because they want to see the Saints in the Superbowl....dickwad.

Ha! Now it was the refs who cheated Favre...

No..the REFS cheated the Vikings, and the fans of competitive football/sports....with total horseshit call after call in that last drive...

ESPN estimated there would have been an additional 4 million (that's a lot of zeros and a big number, Pack66, it's ok to be confused about the math) if the Favre was to face Manning.

Yes, the NFL conspired to have a smaller audience for their biggest game.

Twit....

If Favre would have "run it" and Longwell missed the FG...what would you douchebags be saying then?

packk66 I live in indy if you ever wanna man up and come say that shit to my face I would bet that your too much of a shit talking pussy and wont show your face bitch boy. Your sad pathetic person if you think Iam a kid and thats not a threat I have worked in IT all my life and already have hacked into your PC you fucking cum dumpster all I have to do is delete your hard drive. Once again you talk about favre being my daddy or sleeping with my mommy? what are you 12? seems you are the one that cant quit talking about your man love for favre. thats all you bring up and that the packers suck. please explain how a team that went 11-5 and broke an made nfl records suck. Please use LOGIC if you know what that is in explaining besides the normal dumb shit you say in every comment, you never change its always about favre this and favre that TT this and MM that. Then you make excuses as to why the biqueens lost and the refs cheated when you slammed people in here for saying that, Why do you contradict yourself so much. Are you fucking stupid? EXCUSES EXCUSES EXCUSES

Yeah..well they should "investigate" the REFS then, Favre hater...

Yet, it's funny no one is talking about that...

PACK66 why all the excuses the queens LOST, you slam people in here after the cards game saying we made excuses now listen to yourself you pathetic fuck, way to give us all a good laugh. it must be sad to be you, do the world a favor and pull the trigger

What's the matter, Packfan4life, truth hurts?

Hacking someone's PC is a crime, care to give me your address so I can report you?

You must be associated with this site somehow if you got into my computer, maybe I should report Aaron too...

You wanna play games. Why don't you grow up, pal.

Favre is gone, why do you have to keep slamming him, unless you're insecure about your team?

Ok pack66...on the Favre vs. Manning comparison....you are right....they both have the same amount of superbowl rings (for right now)...so on that criteria it's a push...MVP's 4 to 3 Manning...Superbowl MVPs 1 to 0 Manning...First team all pro 5 to 3 Manning....better career QB rating, YPG, and touchdown to interception ratio all Manning... so how again is it even close between the two? oh yeah they have the same amount of superbowl wins (for now). So that offsets everything else and somehow means BF is better? Seems logical enough to me.

Allow me to quote Pack66 following the Packers-Cardinals game.

"Aaron Rodgers LOST THE GAME by throwing 2 PICKS..."

Hmmm....

Yes, I say that...BECAUSE of all the inequity of BLAME thrown Favre's way on these forums...

Ok. I'm done. Nothing's going to get settled here, anyway.

I'll just say, good luck to you fans of your team, and I'll just root for the Vikings, I guess...if Favre comes back.

If not, I'll be a man without a team next year, and the NFL won't be as fun for me, anymore.

And, you'll never believe this, but I would STILL be a Packer fan if this whole thing would have gone down differently, and YES, I know that Favre had a hand in it, but not the ONLY HAND...

hahahah go ahead and try to report Im smart enough to delete my trail. the truth must hurt you. you bring your boyfriends name up in every post you write. I told you once and I will say it come say it to my face so either man up or shut the fuck up. Im not slamming favre I simply said he CHOKED. PERIOD. Im not your pal, get it staright. I dont have friends who are incompetent deuchebags and take some of your own advice and grow up malaka. I have COMPLETE faith in my team. Rodgers has already proved many of his critics wrong an done something your loverboy has never done in his 1st 2 years as a STARTER not how many he has been in the league for dumbphy. Aaron my grandpa told me once that god created dumbasses for the amusement of the smart. Pack66 is one of those dumbasses

Joe Montana
16-7 post season record.

45 tds, 21 ints

But what is most impressive are his SB stats:
-1142 yards (1st all time)
-11 td passes (1st)
-NO interceptions
-4 SB wins

Money.

PackFan4life, you must be "Tromadz" or Dale Zawada...

Right? Yes, I am..

Yes, I say that…BECAUSE of all the inequity of BLAME thrown Favre’s way on these forums…(FAIR POINT)

Ok. I’m done. Nothing’s going to get settled here, anyway.(PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PROMISE YOU ARE DONE)

I’ll just say, good luck to you fans of your team, and I’ll just root for the Vikings, I guess…if Favre comes back. (THANKS)

If not, I’ll be a man without a team next year, and the NFL won’t be as fun for me, anymore.(AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. YOU THINK WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE IS FUN? YIKES.)

And, you’ll never believe this, but I would STILL be a Packer fan if this whole thing would have gone down differently, and YES, I know that Favre had a hand in it, but not the ONLY HAND…
(SO YOU ADMIT YOU GAVE UP ON THE TEAM WHEN THEY WERE ONLY PARTIALLY TO BLAME FOR FAVRE'S DEPARTURE? YEAH, THAT MAKES ALL KINDS OF SENSE. BE GONE...AND TELL YOUR CAREGIVER TO GIVE YOU TWO DAYS WORTH OF PILLS TOMORROW MORNING.)

Management was "mostly" to blame, yes..and the fun part was watching Favre play...

Hell, I used to watch the Packers when Lynn Dickey was QB and before...but not anymore.

Couldn't give two sh*ts about the Packers now, since that egomaniacal pr*ck TT came on the scene..

Come on Pack66 you can't possibly really believe it was ''mostly'' management. BF is exactly where HE wanted to be. I'm sure everyone is sick of you by now but I'd personally love to hear your take on how management was ''mostly'' at fault and I bet I can use BFs own account of the situation to refute whatever it is you THINK happened in that imaginary world you live in. I'd also love to see a single fact or quote from TT,anything at all, that even slighty supports your TT is an egomaniac view. I've called out dozens of BF supporters over the last two years and not one of them has provided a single one. I'm more than willing to listen to your take and I'd love to see a single FACT that supports either of your opinions.

I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

"So...she's a dog".

I wish I was Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. It would be more entertaining.

There seems to be (suddenly) plenty of these Best QB Ever discussions popping up all over. Is it a reflection of Tom Jackson espousing how Peyton Manning is (now) the Greatest Ever? I don't agree with TJ. Only two summers ago, all he could do was discuss the Gunslinger. They handle sports heroes like fads.
--------------------
For me - Bart Starr is the BEST. He has FIVE Championships in 7 seasons. That blows away almost all other QB's. HOWEVER, the case for Johnny Unitas is incredibly strong and the careers of the two do overlap. So, it isn't like they were from separate decades. Did Starr benefit from certain changes and events that surrounded Johnny U ? In some way, I think so. One could make the case in reverse, as well.
---------------
THEN - there's the case to make for Otto Graham. Otto came before the QB's of the 60's and many say set the standard, period. Otto racked up 7 Titles in 10 seasons. Do we go by simple math statistics? I don't think it should be so simplistic.
----------------------------
Obviously, there were other incredibly TOUGH quarterbacks, back in the day. Sid Luckman, Sammy Baugh - just to name two. You true NFL fans know the drill. One could go back to the Era between the 20's and 40's, check the Rules (or lack thereof) and make the case for other guys, like Cecil Isbell or Tony Canadeo, let alone Curly Lambeau.
----------------------------
Yet - I think it's a true contest between Otto, Johnny & Bart. You decide. OR.... name someone else and why. Remember this - once the WCO came along, most QB's suddenly became SYSTEM Quarterbacks - even Peyton's stats prove that out .... Whether it's the rule changes in the early 70's or even the DB rule change back around 2002... the old guys who played before all of that stand the test of time, hung in there and made it work. You tell me.

Recommended reading -
What A Game They Played
(An Inside Look At The Golden Era of Pro Football)
by: Richard Whittingham

PackerFan4Life,

I like it. Pack66/Jeremiduhs Jockstrap needs a little wake up call, you talk shit to GBP fans... there WILL be consequences! WOOT!

GBP 4 LIFE

1. Peyton Manning...I know that may be controversial right now but the guy is just unbelievable. I'm also basing this off my belief that he wins his 2nd SB in 2 weeks. 4 MVPs, 2 Super Bowls, a Super Bowl MVP(maybe another), his durability, his ability to make others around him so much better, and his ability to be not only extremely productive but extremely efficient(outside of his Rookie Year, his PR was below 88 only once, and above 94.7 8 times) make him the GOAT IMO.

2. Joe Monatana...the gold standard at QB, needs no explanation

3. Johnny Unitas...set the standard for QBs of today, the first great field general IMO.

4. Dan Marino...ring or not, I think he's the greatest pure passer the NFL has ever seen.

5. Otto Graham...just can't ignore 9 Pro Bowls(5 1st team All-Pros), 3 MVPs, a 105-17 record, the fact that an 86.6 Passer Rating in his era is phenomenal, and the fact that he played in the Championship all 10 seasons of his career, winning 7 times.

6. Steve Young...I have him higher than others but I think if not for Montana becoming the gold standard in SF, he's higher on others lists as well.

7. Bart Starr...5 Championships, highest Passer Rating and lowest INT % in Playoff history, 3X MVP(2 SB, 1 Regular Season), led the NFL in Passer Rating 5X, 8th all-time in YPA, 9-1 in the Playoffs(won 8 in a row at one point).

8. Brett Favre...WAY too many costly mistakes in crucial spots to be higher than this for me but his durability and production give him a spot in my Top 8.

9. John Elway...5 Super Bowl appearances, carried a Broncos team for the early part of his career. As tough as they came, super clutch and the ultimate competitor.

10. Sammy Baugh...Revolutionized the game and made the the forward pass an integral part of gameplans. 7X 1st Team All-Pro, 2X MVP, and probably the most versatile player in NFL history, led the league in Passing, Punting, and INTs(11) in 1945.

Hey, could somone send me an e-mail when tha idiot 66 is gone. I'd appreciate it. I'm starting to think this has morphed into the JSOnline Blog.

I resent the fact he is defacing the number of my all-time fvorite Packer. Go Away Fool!

Johnny U, Otto Graham, Bart Starr, and maybe Sammy Baugh from the old days.

Montana, Marino, Fouts, and Manning from the modern era.

I'm just throwing this out there. I believe we get a little crazy with how much weight we put on Super Bowls/Championships.

-----

Starr played in an era when there were less teams and no such thing as parity. If you were lucky enough to be on Lombardi's Packers, chances were you were going to have a nice run of success. Not saying Starr wasn't awesome, because he was. But this needs to be pointed out.

-----
I would also like someone to explain to be how "even Peyton’s stats prove that [he is a SYSTEM QB.] Still trying to figure that one out.

Peyton Manning... Hands down, BY FAR IMO...

I'm 29 so IMO I can't vouch for players I never witnessed with my own eyes during that time period... I think ones opinion lacks serious credibilty if they attempt to vouch for players they didn't witness play on a regular basis...
____________
I really liked watching Warren Moon when he was an Oiler back in the day & people forget that he played in Canada for 5 years(5 consectutive titles too) before coming to the NFL. He is statistically one of the best EVER, BUT NEVER mentioned. Had he played his whole career in the NFL I think he would get more love... He is ONLY 20,000 yards lower than that one guy, but if you add his CFL stats then he is almost even...I'm not saying he is the best ever, but YES, I am saying he is ONE of the best ever. Most underrated QB of all time if you ask me, or at least during my lifetime...
____________
Oh & don't be surprised if Rodgers one day is thrown in with the greats... The guy has IT ALL... He can run better than any of the current greats EVER did(P.Manning,Brady,Brees,Favre)... He is just as accurate as the current greats... He seems to be just as mentally strong as the current greats(minus Favre of course)...All he needs to learn how to do is be a little bit more decisive with getting rid of the ball, & he WILL be a finished product... Don't be surprised if we're sitting here 10 years from now saying that he was a better Packer than Brett Favre...I really think barring injury this guy should win the Packers MULTIPLE titles while climbing the all time QB statistical ladder... He really is the prototype QB if you ask me... A lot of things have to go right for him to be a great, but I think he is game & up for the challenge...

" I’m starting to think this has morphed into the JSOnline Blog. "

Unfortunately while CheeseheadTV grows... the haters will too, & unfortunately I can see this place get worse as they get more recognized... I can only hope that the moderating gets stepped up as the rival fans try to disrupt this GREAT blog. If they come here to talk like civilized folk then IMO they should be welcome, but unfortunately most that come here don't...
_____________

PLEASE though Aaron & Corey... DON'T LET THIS PLACE TURN INTO JSO... That blog is by far the WORST Packer blog I've ever been too...It could be good, but they are more concerned with quantity of visitors posting then quality... That place makes Packers fans look like scum... Its really sad because there a some good posters over there, but for every good one there is 20+ bad ones...

Almost forgot...

GO PACK GO!!!

I've never bought into when people say things like "I think ones opinion lacks serious credibilty if they attempt to vouch for players they didn’t witness play on a regular basis". Would everyone on here agree that Babe Ruth is one of the 10 best baseball players of all-time? I'm sure, but how many people actually watched him play? How many people on here watched Johnny U play on a consistent basis? I believe if you educate yourself enough on the player and the era then there's nothing wrong with calling a Pre-Modern player an all-time great. Just my opinion though, not saying you're wrong, that's just how I feel.

Times change as does the game & players, Brett Cristino... You can read all the books you want to about the NFL, read all the stat books you want, watch all the old film of the old timers(limited film at that) you want... But in the end those are opinions of OTHERS that ACTUALLY witnessed those players play, not yours... & basically you nicely said I was wrong, but you implied that I was wrong. I'm not diminishing any of those old timers AT ALL, just saying that I'm not one to recycle others thoughts on players & use them as mine...Statistically they are great, but the game & players are a whole hell of lot different now to then... IMO it has nothing to do with educating yourself, & by the way... Were you trying to say that I need to educate myself on the pro game? I'm very familiar with the history of the NFL & its players, TY...

Someone's a little jumpy eh? So basically you're saying that in about 5 years, someone who was born in 1998 is wrong if they say John Elway, Joe Montana, Johnny Unitas, Bart Starr, Dan Marino, Steve Young, etc., are all-time great QBs? Because they never watched them play? Doesn't make sense to me...What are stat books anyway? An opinion can't be wrong, that's why it's an opinion. I don't recycle thoughts, I educate myself enough to formulate my own. My father has been close to the game for over 50 years now, tells me stories all the time about the old timers, to the point of nauseum. Why does it matter that the game is "different" now? The game changes from year to year, of course it was different. Statistically they weren't great, pretty bad compared to today's standards actually because like you said the game was different. You sure like to jump to conclusions, take a deep breath, it's just conversation.

" So basically you’re saying that in about 5 years, someone who was born in 1998 is wrong if they say John Elway, Joe Montana, Johnny Unitas, Bart Starr, Dan Marino, Steve Young, etc., are all-time great QBs? Because they never watched them play? Doesn’t make sense to me "
...show me where I said they were wrong...I never said that any of the players weren't great, but how can I say they were the greatest if I never witnessed them play? Thats what this thread is about, Brett, the greatest ever. I can't vouch for Unitas nor can you without thinking that we really don't know what we're talking about. Just because you can read stats or NFL publication archives doesn't mean you know the player.
_______________
" What are stat books anyway? "
...Are you really that petty?
_______________
" An opinion can’t be wrong, that’s why it’s an opinion. "
...But an opinion can be fueled with an abundance of ignorance. Lets say you're 30 years old. If you were to tell me that Unitas was the best ever I think that would show a ton of ignorance on your behalf considering you just don't know about the player like you talk.. which leads to the whole credibility thing...
_______________
" I don’t recycle thoughts "
...yes you do... " My father has been close to the game for over 50 years now, tells me stories all the time about the old timers, to the point of nauseum."...Why would post that if you didn't?
________
...My father watched Johnnie U play live in person & says he thinks other than Manning he is probably the best he has seen, but he witnessed JU play. I didn't, so how in my right mind can I say he is the best without thinking I would be ignorant to say he is? Is he one of the greats of all time, of course... but HOW can I say the greatest ever without just reciting stats or some old timer's word who did witness that player play?
_______________
I know you don't get it, but maybe you just might one day...I'll keep it real & concede to not being able to have a credible opinion on players I haven't seen play & you can keep " educating " yourself & pretending like you actually did watch that person play, so you can look like the NFL expert that you seem to aspiring to be. Remember though, nobody likes a wannabe know it all & nobody likes a fraud...

Thankfully, folks, it's still possible to get hold of video of Johnny Unitas. I personally have several DVDs of the Bart Starr Era and watch them regularly. It may not be the same as in person - but for most of us, what's the diff? We all use the TV every Sunday, NO? The Era(s) prior to the BartStarr/JohnnyUnitas days does not have film available. So, being able to see Otto Graham, or Sid Luckman, or Sammy Baugh... is basically not an option. That doesn't mean someone who DID get to watch them personally somehow DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKIN' ABOUT. That comment's a bit of a stretch. Saying that's proper logic is discounting previous generations of players (especially) and moreso the fans who came before us. Remember, there will be others after you go away. What then? You scream a technicality that basically has no credibility. If it wasn't for the NFL of the past we wouldn't have what we do today. Even moreso when it comes to the fans. Never forget that.
---------------------------
For those that try to discount SYSTEM quarterbacks. Do you know what that means? Have you looked it up? Manning is a system-QB. And, while Favre could also be called the same, his style of play constantly ARGUES against the System (WestCoastOffense) that helped make him great. Hence the reason they call him the Gunsinger. He's a Linebacker standing behind Center. Very few have that distinction. As for Manning - have you seen his STATS? They reflect exactly what a system-QB really is. The only real link Manning has to the QB's prior to the early 70's is that he essentially does get to call his own plays for the most part. Meaning the game is on his head and not the Coach's as much as it is on other Teams.
------------
Personally, I'm hoping they let Aaron Rodgers take on that freedom - to call his own plays. It might negate McCarthy's passion for Prevent Football.

GO PACK

B Christino...some of the old school qbs have stats that still match up pretty well. Otto Graham is still the career leader for yards per attempt, in the top 5 I believe for TD percentage, and his qb rating is higher than Elway and Marino to name a few. The totals just aren't anywhere near their present day counterparts because they threw less and played far fewer games.
.......
I'm gonna go way out on a limb and guess that Packer Fan in Enemy Territory isn't a history professor. Using an super over the top exaggerated version of your opinion/logic would you disagree with me when I say Mozart, Bach, and the beatles are better musicians than nickelback, 50 cent, and the black eyed peas?

Yeah, I'll just never buy into someone who says a 21 year old's opinion is invalid if they consider Unitas one of the all-time greats because they never got the chance to see them play. So does that mean McNabb should be on their list? Bledsoe? Like I said, I don't buy into that theory n likely never will so i'll just drop it.

IPBprez..." That doesn’t mean someone who DID get to watch them personally somehow DOESN’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKIN’ ABOUT."
...I'm assuming this was directed at me so I will respond to it. I think you're actually making my case for me with this statement, thank you. Those are the people who I would consider to have a credible opinion on that player.. If they said that he was the 'GREATEST EVER'. You guys keep putting words in my mouth though... with your... OMG he said you aren't credible if you said this guy was one of the greats, but you weren't alive when he played. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE GREATEST EVER. If you weren't alive when a player played, & then you try to vouch for that player as ' THE GREATEST EVER ' I'll laugh in your face & call you a fraud... THE TRUTH
_________________________________________
" Using an super over the top exaggerated version of your opinion/logic would you disagree with me when I say Mozart, Bach, and the beatles are better musicians than nickelback, 50 cent, and the black eyed peas? "
...You didn't read my posts did you? Its called reading comprehension. Seriously some of you grasp at straws to fit your agenda, quite pathetic if you ask me. Show me where I said the old timers couldn't be considered great, please.. I would love for you to show me where I said that.
_________________________________________
" I’ll just never buy into someone who says a 21 year old’s opinion is invalid if they consider Unitas one of the all-time greats because they never got the chance to see them play "
...Did you actually read my posts? Another reading comprehension fail.

1. Starr
2. Unitas
3. Montana
4. P. Manning
....
....
11. Farve

Farve drops out of top ten because 19 year vets shouldn't continually be making 'rookie' mistakes.

Arnie Herber who, along with Don Hutson and Blood McNally, originated modern passing football, except they did it when the rules weren't as kind to QB's as Montana, Unitas, Manning, et. al. now enjoy. Herber / Hutson are football's version of Lennon / McCartney

I completely understand what you are saying PFIET...you're saying that if you didn't see a player play then you are basing your opinion more on second hand accounts of what others are saying than your own first hand knowledge...You never said that the old school quarterbacks couldn't be considered great you said that anyone who didn't see them play is a fraud if they try to argue that though which I feel is assinine...I'd even agree with you that everthing else being equal someone who was alive during the 50s would be better able to judge a player from the 50s than I would...but to say that my opinion is invalid and an attempt to be a knowitall because I didn't live in that era is wrong
P.S. I love how it's everyone else's reading comprehension that is the problem. If everyone who reads what you wrote is having ''comprehension'' issues its more likely to be the the poor writing and faulty logic of the writer than EVERYBODY else's reading....the topper for that is the ''I love how everyone is putting words in my mouth and saying....'' and then in the next sentence saying EXACTLY what was ''being put in your mouth''

Cold Hard Football facts had Bart Starr at the top of their list last year. I'll accept their analysis.

I think PiedmontPackerFan sums it up beautifully

Growing up as a Cowboys fan, I have some loyalty to Roger Staubach. Although he probably isn't the greatest of all time, he is pretty damn close. Danny White was also a great QB and is often underrated. He was also the punter, so 4th downs were always fun because you never knew if he was going to kick, run or throw.
There have been so many great quarterbacks that played on crappy teams that don't get the respect they deserve as well. Dan Fouts may have been great if he had played on a better team.
I'm going to say my best QB of all time is Don Meredith. He was BF before BF was BF. He wasn't always perfect but he loved the game, got beat to hell and went into every huddle singing. Plus, who doesn't love iced tea?

I am skipping over the 166 comments that I am predicting devolved into Favre discussion and offer my best quarterback of all time: Joe Montana.

There are indeed cases for Unitas and for Starr. Also, certainly for Brady and Manning and others.

Montana was ice-water in the veins. While Starr was an error-free piece of the Lombardi puzzle, Montana clearly elevated the level of play of whatever talent he had around him. Sure, he had Jerry Rice....but not for his first Super Bowl.

I've had this debate so many times over the years, I've lost count. But in the end, it comes down to what you prioritize as your criteria for "the best". For some, it is statistics. For others, it is number of rings. For still others, it is wins, intangibles, etc.

Mine is pure leadership in the clutch. I'll take Montana over any other.

OK, I concede that calling one a fraud is a bit much, but it does hold VALID points to my argument. You CAN NOT say someone is the best EVER if you have never witnessed them play other than a few SELECTIVE old videos. If you do then you come off as a bit of a fraud to me, pretending to know about something you really don't...
_________________________________________
I think you have some reading comprehension issues if you couldn't figure out what I meant from my first post in this thread. Its really that simple, but YOU & OTHERS CAN keep on spinning it to fit your agenda if you like. Keep trying though... It seems that you may have a bit of a guilty conscience... Have you been vouching for the likes of Otto Graham & so on knowing deep down inside that you don't know what you're talking about?...
_________________________________________

I remember cranking up the Model-A and havin the Miss's pack a lunch and dinner for the drive down to Decatur, Ill to watch the Staleys and o'l Jimmy Conzelman throwing passes around with George Trafton under center in 1920. He was great until he blew out his knee in 1928 and we had to shoot him. Ah, them was the good o'l days.

Brett Favre.

You guys are all a bunch of lame'o's!

If #4 was still your quarterback, you would've ALL answered with his name and you KNOW IT!

Pathetic.

I said it BEFORE he came to Minnesota, and I'll say it again.. BRETT FAVRE IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK OF ALL TIME!

He's the most entertaining to watch, by far, over any other team.

I've told ya'll before, when he was your quarterback, I was rooting for your team EVERYTIME you guys played someone besides the Vikes. And even when you DID play us, I still admired Favre's cdapabilities and respected his talent....which is something that all of you seem to have a lack of...Respect.

Admire the man 4 what he did. And no matter how painful the Vikings loss was for me to watch, and however many times I screamed, "Why did you throw that ball?!!" at the TV set....I STILL admired him for taking that illegal hit that he took, getting his ankle tapped up, and getting right back out there and giving it his best effort...especially at his age.

Again I say, "It's all about RESPECT"

Ya'll wanna see good sportsmanship, like Favre has shown CONTINUALLY?? Watch this:

-------------------------
GO SAINTS!!!!!!

Cuphound,

I think you're talking about yourself and "Ted Thompson"...He's the one who share your "proclivities"....

Other than that, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. The guy who gets his "balls washed" the most on this site is Ted Thompson, followed by Aaron Rodgers, a close second....

i hope a lot of people read this.. but you do know.. when favre was a packer he took the team to the super bowl twice... im not saying he is the greatest to ever play the game.. but you guys are wayy to hard on him he got the packers a ring.. almost two in two years.. winning a super bowl isnt something a lot of quarterbacks do. going to two super bowls two seasons in a row isnt something a lot of quarterbacks get to do either... you say history shouldnt be kind to favre.. but how many other quarterbacks win super bowl rings? most of them dont.. he might have thrown some picks in big games... nd choked a few times but you forget the past to quickly he did a lot for our team... and its unbelieveable you would so quickly throw that away simply because of some poor decisions he made as a old man...

andrew..." when favre was a packer he took the team to the super bowl twice "
____________
He was a huge part of those teams, no doubt. Don't discredit those defenses & special teams the Packers had for those 2 years. They were VERY GOOD & one could argue that those Ds & STs were just as much the reason for the Packers going to those 2 SBs as Favre & the rest of the offensive players were. Some people try VERY hard to make Favre out to be the sole reason for GBs Super Bowl teams, but that just isn't true. Not saying you're one of them. Just trying to make a point. After all football is the ultimate team sport.

Pack Fan in Enemy Territory...

A few years ago, (2007), Favre took a MEDIOCRE team to the NFC Championship game where his TEAM took a big ole SH*T around him and SUCKED the whole game...

Yet, who do you LOSERS blame that game on ?

Andrew is right..YOu are a bunch of friggin' ingrates who I hope do not return to the SB for another 30 years...

It's what you a-holes deserve....and ALOT of people feel that way about Packer "fans"....