Thread: Who Is the SECOND Greatest Quarterback Since the Merger?

I realize it's a perennial question, but with all the recent discussion of both Brady and Mannings legacies, it's also topical. I also take it for granted whom most here consider the GoAT, and I happen to agree: We can debate whether others had bigger arms, faster feet, clearer vision, quicker releases, sharper minds or more "clutchness," but Elway combined them ALL at equally elite levels. For example, Montana never missed and Marino practically teleported passes, but both were statues in the pocket: Which—if either—was SECOND best?

For the record, choices are listed in order of personal ranking and, no, Favre's NOT there, because he was a pick machine in close games: That's why he only reached two SBs and only won the first. Also, Johnny U arguably SHOULD be there (and I'd fittingly rank him either just ahead of or behind Manning) but most of his best years were pre-merger; by the time he reached SBs, he played both hurt and past his prime, splitting time with Earl Morrall (maybe the best BACKUP QB of the SB era; by SB V Unitas was HIS backup.)

I don't see how Bradshaw keeps sneaking in to these lists, let alone excluding Staubach in the process. Let's not forget there was no David Robinson Rule then, so Staubach spent his first 4 pro years on active duty in the Navy, retired the year of his last passing title, still at the top of his game, and split time with Morton all year when Dallas lost SB V—yet STILL started 4 SBs despite all that, losing only to the Steelers dynasty whose QB Bradshaw was lucky enough to be. Plugging ANY decent QB into a team with Franco Harris, John Stallworth and the Steel Curtain would yield the same result.

Tarkenton scrambled just as much and well as "Roger the Dodger" and was just as accurate and long-armed, but lacked Dallas' offensive support. He was Elway BEFORE Elway, reaching SBs on the Purple People Eaters and his sheer athletic ability despite having NOTHING else on offense except Lynn Swann and Mick Tinglehoff (this years senior HoF finalist.) He retired with every passing record in existence, but NO SB Rings because he had the misfortune of sharing a conference with the Landry dynasty and facing the Steelers dynasty whenever he managed to get past Dallas.

Recalling the '70s competition makes Dallas and/or Pitt reaching 7 SBs in 10 years even more impressive, but Bradshaw was just along for the ride. Brady belongs in his company, but not in a GOOD way.

So Favre only reached 2 SB's and he was snubbed but Warren Moon made it and he never even got to one..... nice logic there Joel. lmao

Favre had much better and more balanced teams in GB, and Moon wasn't so convinced he could thread ANY needle that he made a habit of throwing away playoff games. As weak as GBs run game was in the '90s (and I gave my best friend the Pack fan plenty of crap about that,) give Warren Moon that much run support and an equally good D and I guarantee he wins far more than 1 SB. Favre didn't spend his first seasons winning Grey Cups either, or retire with about a mile more passing yards than any other player. He broke all Marinos career marks, but the Int record fell long before the rest.

Originally Posted by Joel

Favre had much better and more balanced teams in GB, and Moon wasn't so convinced he could thread ANY needle that he made a habit of throwing away playoff games. As weak as GBs run game was in the '90s (and I gave my best friend the Pack fan plenty of crap about that,) give Warren Moon that much run support and an equally good D and I guarantee he wins far more than 1 SB. Favre didn't spend his first seasons winning Grey Cups either, or retire with about a mile more passing yards than any other player. He broke all Marinos career marks, but the Int record fell long before the rest.

Sorry, just cant buy into your logic. IF there was ever a poster child for choker in the playoffs Warren Moon was it. The 1992 playoff game vs the Bills is the best example. You go up 35-3 early in the 3rd quarter and the best your QB can do from that point on is help the team get 3 pts? I mean really? Weak sauce. Moon was good but to exclude Favre (and im not even really a Favre fan) and to have Moon in place of him just because you feel he didnt have the support is just your own bias and not at all objective.

I think if your going to stress "Super Bowl" era you might actually want to include ALL the HOF QB's who actually made it too a SB.

Kurt Warner

Originally Posted by Northman

Sorry, just cant buy into your logic. IF there was ever a poster child for choker in the playoffs Warren Moon was it. The 1992 playoff game vs the Bills is the best example. You go up 35-3 early in the 3rd quarter and the best your QB can do from that point on is help the team get 3 pts? I mean really? Weak sauce. Moon was good but to exclude Favre (and im not even really a Favre fan) and to have Moon in place of him just because you feel he didnt have the support is just your own bias and not at all objective.

Moon was the posterchild for the importance of the LT his owner refused to draft; watching him repeatedly and annually blindside strip-sacked got old fast.

The Comeback was symptomatic of everything wrong with how Adams made them run the Run 'n Shoot: All those extra WRs and deep passes are SUPPOSED to spread things out for the running game (it was a forerunner of the Spread Offense in many ways) but Houston turned some of its best Gs into OTs because the owner refused to draft any, and didn't even HAVE a TE most years. It created two problems:

1) They'd race to the red zone through the air only to settle for FGs because they couldn't punch it in, or throw Ints because they didn't have the whole field to work with anymore.
2) They'd jump out to huge leads but be unable to kill the clock because they had no run game; throwing tons of passes scores lots of points in little time, but not necessarily for the right TEAM.

I've been over this WAY too many times though, and it always boils down to the same thing: Moons offense put up 38 pts in The Comeback; it's not their fault their D GAVE up 41. Hence they fired the DC.

Once we get past Marino though we're mainly talking about guys included to round out the top ten, not legitimate claimants on the title of all-time BEST. Same reason I didn't include every HoF QB from the past 49 SB champs. When talking about the best QB of the past half-century, many of those guys (e.g. Griese, Starr, Bradshaw) just aren't relevant. I doubt even most Pack fans would say Favre is. Tarkenton, Marino, Moon and Kelly are included despite lacking Rings because it's "best QB of the SB era," not "best QB to win a SB," though I wouldn't call Favre that either.

Aaron Rodgers is the best QB I've ever seen play. He has the benefit of playing in a pass friendly league though.

I have a strong bias with Manning because i really think he changed the way this league is played and he's probably the reason that i'm here giving a sh*t abou football. Rodgers is probably the best for my generation but I can't think in him without the great transition that happened in the O and D after Peyton's Era in Indy

Too many factors go into creating a list like this (the era they played in, free agency, coaches and players around them, etc.) but from an objective factor I would have to say Brady. 6 Super Bowl trips and 4 wins? That's insane. Plus the ones he lost were almost flukey. He also did it with a constantly changing roster of support around him. The only question I have is did the system and Bellichick make him great, or did he make it great? I can't and won't argue with facts.

I know I have the New England and Green Bay games circled next year if Manning comes back. I hate to admit those teams are measuring sticks of where we want to be but they are. If we can't beat them at home or at least lose "kicking and screaming" it will be hard to get too excited. But of course I will because I am a Broncos homer.

I voted Rodgers because he is the type of QB I like. Give me a big strong guy, 6'4" with a live arm and mobility. Elway, Rodgers, Luck those guys are the prototype.

Guys like Aikman, Marino, Kelly, Manning, Brady while great, don't have that escapability factor that I love in a QB.

Contemporary players always benefit from highlight reels fresh in every mind (and most everyone who saw them play being alive to laud them) but it's hard to argue with Rodgers. Like Elway, he's in the conversation for the best at lots of things, and a guy who's arguably the best at many things is better than one who's probably the best at a few. He's smart, precise, reads defenses, has a strong arm and is a legitimate dual threat (i.e. a great pocket passer who can also run 30 yds for a TD, not just a great RB who can chunk a ball a long way for whoever runs under it—on either team.)

I still have to go back to Staubach and Tarkenton doing all that first, but again, whether they're better than Rodgers or vice versa's almost a judgement call when talking about guys that elite in so many ways.

As pure QB's go in the SB era I think I would put Drew Brees and Dan Fouts on that list ahead of Aikman and especially Warren Moon

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

As pure QB's go in the SB era I think I would put Drew Brees and Dan Fouts on that list ahead of Aikman and especially Warren Moon

Yeah where's Brees. Also I think Tony Romo should be on here somewhere. It's not his fault his teams usually suck.

Reluctantly, I have to move Brady ahead of Montana, largely because I don't think Brady's supporting cast is/was as talented as Montana had. Plus, he's been to more SBs. I'd love to argue Montana based on W-L record but then I'd have to elevate Aikman and Bradshaw above what they deserve.