Originally posted by GTO Pete:
A few QBs in the last 15 years worth nothing:

Dan Marino
John Elway
Brett Favre
Steve Young
Jim Kelly
Troy Aikman
Kurt Warner
Peyton Manning
Donavan McNabb
Warren Moon

I would take any of those QBs in their prime over Brady. Easily.

(And Brady doesn't even make my top 25 QBs of all-time.)


IMO using Super Bowl rings as the measuring stick for being the "best" QB is ludicrous. You would exclude some of the greatest QBs in NFL history.



At what point do you start considering Brady top 25? There was a book published recently that had him in the top 20 based on interviews/conversations with former players, coaches, analysts, writers. When the author was asked why he was ranked that high, he said it was because he only had played 5 years and if he had 10 years under his belt he would be in the top 10 on nearly everyone's list that he talked to.

Anyway, I think rings are as important as stats, but not mroe important. Being a leader is vital to being a good QB. Jeff George could throw a ball as well, or likely better than every one of the people you mentioned but never translated that to effective QBing because he was a headcase with no leadership.

So, you would choose all of those guys over Brady which is ok, but justify it. Oh and you can't say "in their prime" if their prime was not in the last 15 years (like Marino). Would you reall have taken the 90s version of Marino over Brady?

If rings aren't that important, what is? If it's stats, which ones? If it's intangibles, do your best to describe them.

I can understand a couple of the names you have listed. But McNabb, Kelly, Moon, and Warner? Come on. Can we at least remove them from this discussion. If rings aren't that important Aikman can't be in the discussion either.



"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit" -Mitch Hedberg