The most under rated quaterback in the NFL is.................

osdotk wrote:

Honestly......Tom Brady. He is a brilliant competitor and makes his receivers great. He has the best winning percentage in big games.

Now after the 14/15 season and superbowl, the debate is whether Joe Montana or Tom Brady is GOAT.

Yes he was greater than most thought.

Well called, dude. Wilson would be nothing without Lynch and their great defense.

Kneed to Know wrote:

Yes, Brady is the best at the moment. The most overrated is likely Seattle's guy, who is now being exposed as a decent game manager.

I think its premature to call Brady better than Montana. When its all said and done Brady will be the GOAT. If Brady wins another super bowl and/or plays at a high level into his early/mid 40s then he'll pass Montana to an un-debatable level due to the longevity. Lets wait a few years. For now I think they're more or less even.

And if championships matter so much, then what about Otto Graham? dude played 10 seasons, made the championship all 10 seasons and won it 7 of those times.

agc5k wrote:

I think its premature to call Brady better than Montana. When its all said and done Brady will be the GOAT. If Brady wins another super bowl and/or plays at a high level into his early/mid 40s then he'll pass Montana to an un-debatable level due to the longevity. Lets wait a few years. For now I think they're more or less even.

And if championships matter so much, then what about Otto Graham? dude played 10 seasons, made the championship all 10 seasons and won it 7 of those times.

No way Brady plays into his mid 40's. No reason to. I'll give him three more years tops. Now that he is tied in championships with Montana, I give Brady the nod. He would have 6 Super Bowls if it weren't for 2 fluke plays by inferior Giants teams. Not to mention his stats blow Montana away.

Graham is certainly a great, but don't get carried away with the titles, there weren't very many teams and the competition was much much weaker.

Uh, fewer teams means better competition.

Oh yeah. My bad.

Dial it up wrote:

No way Brady plays into his mid 40's. No reason to. I'll give him three more years tops.

Except for the fact that Brady has stated repeatedly that he wants to play well into his 40's. While you may think he has no reason to continue, Brady has been consistent in stating that he wants to continue into his 40's. Whether he gets there or not remains to be seen, but his desire is there.

No, it doesn't. It is much more difficult to win in today's NFL than it ever has. Don't tell me that in the 40's, when there was something like 8 teams, that it was more difficult to win a title than today.

Dolomite wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

No way Brady plays into his mid 40's. No reason to. I'll give him three more years tops.

Except for the fact that Brady has stated repeatedly that he wants to play well into his 40's. While you may think he has no reason to continue, Brady has been consistent in stating that he wants to continue into his 40's. Whether he gets there or not remains to be seen, but his desire is there.

The desire might be there, but a couple things:

1) Favre and others had the desire too, but you get old enough and your body breaks down. We started to see some of that with Manning this season. Brady takes care of himself, stays upright more than most, and the new rules help him, but father time is undefeated.

2) Eventually his performance will decline with age, and despite his desire to play the pats will make a business decision much like the 49ers made with Montana.

Favre actually did play into his 40's and Brady takes a lot less hits than Favre ever did. I agree with you that the odds are against him playing until 45, on the other hand if there is any qb out there who can do it - it is Brady.

Brady has made it clear he is going to play as long as he can and it's pretty obvious he will do it with or without the Pats.

Dolomite wrote:

Favre actually did play into his 40's and Brady takes a lot less hits than Favre ever did. I agree with you that the odds are against him playing until 45, on the other hand if there is any qb out there who can do it - it is Brady.

Brady has made it clear he is going to play as long as he can and it's pretty obvious he will do it with or without the Pats.

Fair enough. If I were to pick one in the league right now it would be him I agree. But I don't see Brady being a back up, and the oldest starter I see here is Favre at 41. Flutie was Brady's back up at 43, and Deberg was a backup at age 44. The odds are long.

with fewer gems, the talent level rises

everybody knows wrote:

with fewer gems, the talent level rises

I assume that was a typo and that you meant "games". I don't think anyone will disagree with you. A shrinking talent pool means the quality of the product rises. Certainly with fewer teams, you will face fiercer competition in each game. Then again, your team will also be more talented. So in that regard, competition is tougher.

What I think the other fellow might be referring to is that the road to a championship involves more games when there are more teams. That is, in itself, an increase in competition. But it does not, of course, mean an increase in the competitive level.

An increase in $$$ means a greater incentive. This creates the better athletes, and fiercer competition that we have today. Literally every expert will tell you it is harder to win now than in the 1940's

You've polled literally every expert?

Star wrote:

You've polled literally every expert?

Yes, including your kids.

Ah, the narrow mindedness of youth. Of course, everyone believes their generation is the best, so it is no wonder you believe today's football athletes are superior. Not surprisingly, older fans tend to tout the "superior" accomplishments of those from back-in-the-day. It's only natural that we are biased toward our own.

Leaving alone the discussion of from when and where the best athletes have come, we can use the laws of statistics and economics to eradicate the thought that more is better...at least in sport. Therefore it is undeniable by educated people that the competitiveness of games prior to the birth of the AFL was been keener than those that followed.

bandsamakeherdance wrote:

Tim Tebow.

ha ha ha ha ha

LMAO

Technically, he never really was a real NFL QB.

And, with over 27 teams originally passing on him, and all of them passing on him still, they can't all be wrong.

The Cowboys went 13-2 with Dak friggin' Prescott at the helm this season. Saying Romo is the most underrated quarterback is embarrassing. Plenty of solid quarterbacks could've had as much if not more success with the Cowboys when Romo was starting.