Thread: The All Time Greatest Quarterbacks Thread

Originally Posted by Poet

The GOAT to me is the guy who played the best football over a period of time where he dominated the league, won individual awards, and his team won it all largely BECAUSE of him.

That's not unfair criteria.

It's as good a way of looking at things as anyway else. It's also in line with the logic of getting TD into the HOF for his short but beastly career.

Took a LOOOOONG time and he had more SB wins and a longer period of dominance (so far).

If he continues at his pace you can make this argument. Today, as we sit here, it's a foolish and trollish argument.

Is Bo Jackson in the HOF?

Originally Posted by Davii

Is Bo Jackson in the HOF?

I would put him in if for no other reason than he's a legend of the game.

But he wasn't doing what Mahomes did. Bo hadn't hit 1k rushing yards as a RB, at least in a single season. That's what I'm getting at, man. No one has played as well as Mahomes for has. Like it just is what it is.

Originally Posted by Davii

Took a LOOOOONG time and he had more SB wins and a longer period of dominance (so far).

If he continues at his pace you can make this argument. Today, as we sit here, it's a foolish and trollish argument.

It took a long time for people, including myself, to get over the longevity argument.

Regarding time, TD can say 'for this period of time I was the best' and point specifically to two years. Mahomes does the same thing.

Even if I'm wrong, I'm not trolling. Trolling is when you don't believe it/really want to get a reaction out of people. I'm telling you that I'm not trolling, and you're hurting my feelings. )=

How anyone can call themselves a Broncos fan and suck mahomes dick like this it can't be believed no way it's trolling

I dont think its trollish to mention Mahomes. He has drastically changed things for KC and its not even close. As much as he tried Alex Smith simply was not the answer there and KC won many games with Smith. I kind of look at Smith like i do Plummer, both were decent QB's but neither could elevate a team beyond that. Mahomes is the kind of guy that does and although i agree with Davii that its way early to write Mahomes in based on what he has done so far (even if he never went to another SB but remained one of the best in the league) he is a shoe in for the HOF. Its not like Mahomes is Trent Dilfer here riding the coattails of a great defense to win a SB, Mahomes played a major if not the most important part of why KC has broken the SB curse. Sucks because it happened but i dont think anyone is trolling by mentioning Mahomes right now. IMO

Originally Posted by Poet

It took a long time for people, including myself, to get over the longevity argument.

Regarding time, TD can say 'for this period of time I was the best' and point specifically to two years. Mahomes does the same thing.

Even if I'm wrong, I'm not trolling. Trolling is when you don't believe it/really want to get a reaction out of people. I'm telling you that I'm not trolling, and you're hurting my feelings. )=

I remember those TD debates with you, you used to drive me crazy with them. Lol

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

He has the same number of MVPs and more Super Bowl wins than Dan Marino.

Cool

Originally Posted by slim

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

He has the same number of MVPs and more Super Bowl wins than Dan Marino.

Cool

...and he wasn't near as good as Dan Marino and not a single Miami team led by Marino was ever as deep and talented as KC has been. Pretty stacked roster since like what, last five years.

Originally Posted by Poet

Well, I'm not trying to troll. I wish you guys would believe me. I'm not a fool, either.

There are flaws in the logic that two years of ultra-elite performance merit inclusion in an all-time list.

who do you think deserves to be called the all-time great QBs--whatever that means to you?

If two years is what all-time great means to you, then all two-year performances of similar caliber must be considered. I'd say Marino's first two years eclipsed what Mahomes did. You have to include anyone that started out on fire but then fell off a cliff--it could happen to Mahomes, at this moment in time you have to include any QB with a good two-year streak. Maybe you have.

Personally, I think there's a bit too much recency bias and that is the reason the Mahomes story can even be seriously mentioned.

Two years just isn't enough for me.

This is like the Joe Montana was better than Elway because he was 4-0 and Elway was 0-3. KC sent like 5 players to the Pro bowl. He has a TON of weapons and depth on that Roster. I'd love to see how he would have done in Jax or AZ or... Denver. This is turning insane.

I'm not saying he isn't talented and exciting and all that shit BUT to coronate this guy as GOAT is ****ing crazy talk and even more ****ing ABSURD from a Broncos fan who saw Elway in his era.

Originally Posted by Poet

It took a long time for people, including myself, to get over the longevity argument.

Regarding time, TD can say 'for this period of time I was the best' and point specifically to two years. Mahomes does the same thing.

Even if I'm wrong, I'm not trolling. Trolling is when you don't believe it/really want to get a reaction out of people. I'm telling you that I'm not trolling, and you're hurting my feelings. )=

I didn't say you're trolling. I said the argument itself is a foolish or trolling argument. I know a lot of smart people that occasionally make foolish arguments. Like arguing Flacco could be good last year, which I argued last year.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

There are flaws in the logic that two years of ultra-elite performance merit inclusion in an all-time list.



If two years is what all-time great means to you, then all two-year performances of similar caliber must be considered. I'd say Marino's first two years eclipsed what Mahomes did. You have to include anyone that started out on fire but then fell off a cliff--it could happen to Mahomes, at this moment in time you have to include any QB with a good two-year streak. Maybe you have.

Personally, I think there's a bit too much recency bias and that is the reason the Mahomes story can even be seriously mentioned.

Two years just isn't enough for me.

I know it's imperfect but that criticism can be levied at any method of analysis in this case. That's hardly fair to only aim it at me.

I don't think Marino eclipsed Mahomes in totality. Mahomes won a SB. Marino didn't for his entire career. Mahomes made plays from the pocket and outside of it, and scrambling sometimes, too. Marino didn't do that. Marino's all around QB play can't compete with what Mahomes did overall, and for the first time in NFL history we saw one player be the best pure passer in the league, the best playmaker in the league, atop the league in terms of production/statistically, and win a SB. He literally did everything you COULD do as a QB in two years at a level higher than anyone else.


I think it's unfair to target my argument to the extent of 'being seriously mentioned' because you think there *could* be recency bias. Well, there could always be another form of logical fallacy as well. What about nostalgia, for instance? Or what about the ad hominems levied against me?

Or, do only the sins of a Poet get tallied in the jurisdiction of my superior, beloved Hawgington?

Originally Posted by Poet

I know it's imperfect but that criticism can be levied at any method of analysis in this case. That's hardly fair to only aim it at me.

I don't think Marino eclipsed Mahomes in totality. Mahomes won a SB. Marino didn't for his entire career. Mahomes made plays from the pocket and outside of it, and scrambling sometimes, too. Marino didn't do that. Marino's all around QB play can't compete with what Mahomes did overall, and for the first time in NFL history we saw one player be the best pure passer in the league, the best playmaker in the league, atop the league in terms of production/statistically, and win a SB. He literally did everything you COULD do as a QB in two years at a level higher than anyone else.


I think it's unfair to target my argument to the extent of 'being seriously mentioned' because you think there *could* be recency bias. Well, there could always be another form of logical fallacy as well. What about nostalgia, for instance? Or what about the ad hominems levied against me?

Or, do only the sins of a Poet get tallied in the jurisdiction of my superior, beloved Hawgington?

Eh. Two years isn't enough. It's like the words of the prophets written on the subway walls.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Eh. Two years isn't enough. It's like the words of the prophets written on the subway walls.

As if the words themselves would mean less.

You have...Hawg...you self-styled.

I simply put forth that the best two year QB play belongs to Mahomes, and there's basis for that. And then upon that basis I posit that two year period to be a segment of time long enough to say "If you value just the height of the play, the pinnacle of the play to describe the greatest, or at least choose it as your preference," that it's enough.

Strange twist that now Bronco fans, if we apply logic, would be saying "wait, it is about longevity, but TD had ...just enough in those four years," which is a strange argument-constructed-juxtaposition.

You're going to eventually agree with this, to be honest.