2016 NFL Season

[C0ma]

So with no Brady, Gronk, Volmer, Solder, Cooper, Lewis, or Ninkovich they stroll into Arizona (the hardest BY FAR of their Brady-less games) and lead all but about 5 minutes of the game.

This should be a fun season in NE.

[AxlsMainMan]

Not sure if the Redskins are really bad or my Steelers are very good

[JAEBALL]

Not sure if the Redskins are really bad or my Steelers are very good

I think the Steelers have a real nice season. Skins... are middle of the pack...

But as evidenced by the Patriot game... the difference between teams in this league is so minimal. There is no such thing as an unwinnable game.

Pumped up for big blue stealing one on the road in the division. There appears to be a not so rough road to a division win for this team... let's see.


Btw Pats are now 12-5 without Brady...

Makes my Peyton over Tom argument a little bit stronger 

[C0ma]

Btw Pats are now 12-5 without Brady...

Makes my Peyton over Tom argument a little bit stronger 

Not at all... Denver did just fine without him last year... the only year he missed significant time in Indy they were very obviously in full on "Suck for Luck" mode and throwing the season.

[JAEBALL]

Btw Pats are now 12-5 without Brady...

Makes my Peyton over Tom argument a little bit stronger 

Not at all... Denver did just fine without him last year... the only year he missed significant time in Indy they were very obviously in full on "Suck for Luck" mode and throwing the season.

Last year Denver had en elite defense around him and he couldn't throw the ball anymore.

In his prime... he went down and the same Colts team won one game... very different situations.

[pilferk]

Last year Denver had en elite defense around him and he couldn't throw the ball anymore.

In his prime... he went down and the same Colts team won one game... very different situations.

Wait...there are actually arguments that Peyton is NOT greater than Brady?

Peyton was not only the QB, he was basically the freaking O.C.

Brady is great, but he'd have to be Brady and Belichick to compare.  Brady has also had the better teams, by a fair margin, surrounding him for his entire career.  And when he's gone down, they've done fine without him.  In addition, the years that the Pats have had to lean on Brady more are the years they've been 9-10 win teams.

I'm not saying Brady's not an elite quarterback.  He is.  But in terms of Brady vs Peyton....Brady's only advantage is in rings. Peyton, historically, is the better QB.

I can see a Brady/Brees heated discussion, though.

[pilferk]

The G-men have squeaked out 2 wins..but their red zone performance has been TERRIBLE. Part of that, IMHO, has been play calling, but execution has not been great, either.

Saints are the best looking 0-2 team in the league.

[JAEBALL]

Last year Denver had en elite defense around him and he couldn't throw the ball anymore.

In his prime... he went down and the same Colts team won one game... very different situations.

Wait...there are actually arguments that Peyton is NOT greater than Brady?

Peyton was not only the QB, he was basically the freaking O.C.

Brady is great, but he'd have to be Brady and Belichick to compare.  Brady has also had the better teams, by a fair margin, surrounding him for his entire career.  And when he's gone down, they've done fine without him.  In addition, the years that the Pats have had to lean on Brady more are the years they've been 9-10 win teams.

I'm not saying Brady's not an elite quarterback.  He is.  But in terms of Brady vs Peyton....Brady's only advantage is in rings. Peyton, historically, is the better QB.

I can see a Brady/Brees heated discussion, though.

Gun to my head I am taking Peyton... for a variety of reasons, some you laid out. I can't fault anybody for arguing the other way tho.

[JAEBALL]

The G-men have squeaked out 2 wins..but their red zone performance has been TERRIBLE. Part of that, IMHO, has been play calling, but execution has not been great, either.

Saints are the best looking 0-2 team in the league.

A win is a win and you move on !

We can really bury the Skins this week. Need to do it too... at Minnesota and GB coming up will be tough.

[pilferk]

Gun to my head I am taking Peyton... for a variety of reasons, some you laid out. I can't fault anybody for arguing the other way tho.

I guess.

To me, it's a no brainer. Peyton is so far ahead in every statistical category that matters.  He played 2 more seasons than Brady currently has and has about 13k more yards (Brady is not passing for 460 yds a game, which is what he would need to catch him in 2 seasons). His pass career completion % is better, and that's after a pretty bad season in Denver for that stat (mid 50's). He has more total QBR wins, and wins started (brady might catch him in 2 seasons..he'd need 14...certainly doable). He has more yards per attempt, yards per game, and about 110 more TDs (Brady is not throwing for 110 TDs over the next 2 years).   I mean...Brady has him with about 100 INTs less, but...that's about it (besides rings, which, to me, is a team stat).  Then you add all the OC work Peyton did for his teams on top of that.

If you look at Football Reference's AV (I know, I know), Peyton ranks about 50 points higher (which is actually about 25%, in comparision) higher than Brady.  Most other comparative, calculated-type value stats seem to weigh Peyton higher, too.

Brady is Apollo.  Peyton is Zeus.

[pilferk]

A win is a win and you move on !

We can really bury the Skins this week. Need to do it too... at Minnesota and GB coming up will be tough.

They gotta put up numbers vs Washington, and grab the division by it's throat, early.

Their defense was wearing out late game yesterday.  Too much time on the field, too many 4 and outs, or short time of posessions mid game.  And ABYSMAL red zone play...so deflating to a team (and so INFLATING for the opponent...no Brady pun intended).

[AxlsMainMan]

How 'bout 'dem Steelers?

[C0ma]

To me, it's a no brainer. Peyton is so far ahead in every statistical category that matters.  He played 2 more seasons than Brady currently has and has about 13k more yards (Brady is not passing for 460 yds a game, which is what he would need to catch him in 2 seasons). His pass career completion % is better, and that's after a pretty bad season in Denver for that stat (mid 50's). He has more total QBR wins, and wins started (brady might catch him in 2 seasons..he'd need 14...certainly doable). He has more yards per attempt, yards per game, and about 110 more TDs (Brady is not throwing for 110 TDs over the next 2 years).   I mean...Brady has him with about 100 INTs less, but...that's about it (besides rings, which, to me, is a team stat).  Then you add all the OC work Peyton did for his teams on top of that.

If you look at Football Reference's AV (I know, I know), Peyton ranks about 50 points higher (which is actually about 25%, in comparision) higher than Brady.  Most other comparative, calculated-type value stats seem to weigh Peyton higher, too.

Brady is Apollo.  Peyton is Zeus.

It's actually closer to 3 full seasons worth of starts (42 games) than it is 2. Brady's career winning percentage is .771 (Manning's is .702) Brady over those 42 games should win 30-32 which will far surpass the 14 needed.

Since 2009 Brady is averaging 4511 yards per year (281 per game) which after 42 games would put Brady somewhere in the ball park of 11.5K more yards.

Over the next 3 years he would need to average 42TD's per year which is slightly above his average over the last 6-7 years...

BUT each of these number show you that the 42 game gap between them is not that far off... Also considering that turn over differential is such a huge number when it comes to wins and losses I would put TB's TD to INT ratio up there with some of the more glitzy Dan Marino/Brett Favre stats...

Granted I'm from Boston, but I take Tom 10 out of 10 times.

[pilferk]

To me, it's a no brainer. Peyton is so far ahead in every statistical category that matters.  He played 2 more seasons than Brady currently has and has about 13k more yards (Brady is not passing for 460 yds a game, which is what he would need to catch him in 2 seasons). His pass career completion % is better, and that's after a pretty bad season in Denver for that stat (mid 50's). He has more total QBR wins, and wins started (brady might catch him in 2 seasons..he'd need 14...certainly doable). He has more yards per attempt, yards per game, and about 110 more TDs (Brady is not throwing for 110 TDs over the next 2 years).   I mean...Brady has him with about 100 INTs less, but...that's about it (besides rings, which, to me, is a team stat).  Then you add all the OC work Peyton did for his teams on top of that.

If you look at Football Reference's AV (I know, I know), Peyton ranks about 50 points higher (which is actually about 25%, in comparision) higher than Brady.  Most other comparative, calculated-type value stats seem to weigh Peyton higher, too.

Brady is Apollo.  Peyton is Zeus.

It's actually closer to 3 full seasons worth of starts (42 games) than it is 2. Brady's career winning percentage is .771 (Manning's is .702) Brady over those 42 games should win 30-32 which will far surpass the 14 needed.

Hey, its not Peytons fault brady couldnt manage to start more games in the seasons he played.

Win % is generally meaningless, since its so team oriented. I wont argue Brady played on better teams than Peyton did. Thats not because of Peyton (or Brady, entirely). No argument pats have better front office.

Qbr wins and total  career wins are a little more comppellng, but also team oriented.

Since 2009 Brady is averaging 4511 yards per year (281 per game) which after 42 games would put Brady somewhere in the ball park of 11.5K more yards.

In 4 seasons he had 2 above and 2 below (one well below) that mark. And even if he hits 11.5 k, he is short about 2k of Peytons total...or about 3%. Peyton has the advantage, still. And you are expecting an aging qb, already, to average more ypg than his career average, just to come up 3% short.

Over the next 3 years he would need to average 42TD's per year which is slightly above his average over the last 6-7 years...

Thats a lot more than slghtly. He has averaged sbout 30tds per season the past 4. He would have to average 12 more, or a 40% increase, just to catch Peyton. Again, aging qb, etc.

BUT each of these number show you that the 42 game gap between them is not that far off... Also considering that turn over differential is such a huge number when it comes to wins and losses I would put TB's TD to INT ratio up there with some of the more glitzy Dan Marino/Brett Favre stats...

In fact, there is quite a noteable spread. And Peyton is ahead in most of the stats that matter. Which you just helped point out.

On ints....i'd peg that stat low on the totem pole, especially given Peytons stats compare, hstorically, with guys like Brees, Elway, Favre, Marino, etc. This stat, for me, ranks pretty low in ranking qbs. Its above win % and well below completion % in weighing, especially if that number isnt out of whack with other historical greats. And Peytons numbers are not ridiculously high. Brady's are ridiculously low (his one historic "solo" number), though he'll pick up another 20 to 30, making the gap with Peyton about 70.  If you want to say Brady is the most conservative qb in history, i will likely agree. He is much more likely to throw the ball away than throw a 50/50 ball. This is evidenced by his similar (but lower) completion % and his similar (but lower) ypa. I'm not sure that makes him historically "great". Hes not more accurate. Hes just not as much of a risk taker (and you could argue...that hurts his td numbers, too..which isnt much of a strength).

So, after all that, Peyton still looks to hold the stats advantage. Which is enough, imho, to say hes better. Now add to that the fact Peyton was his own o.c. for most of his career, and he won a shit ton of games. Even if the stats were equal...and we just saw they are not...that would give Peyton the nod. As it is, its not even close, imho.

Granted I'm from Boston, but I take Tom 10 out of 10 times.

As long as you know its because you are from Boston.

I'm from CT. I'm a Giants guy. Neither of these guys is "my guy". I got "the lesser Mannng" on my team. But 100% objectively, looking at numbers and careers, this isnt even a question for me. Peyton is the better QB.

[C0ma]

As long as you know its because you are from Boston.

I'm from CT. I'm a Giants guy. Neither of these guys is "my guy". I got "the lesser Mannng" on my team. But 100% objectively, looking at numbers and careers, this isnt even a question for me. Peyton is the better QB.

Looking at numbers, I'll give you Manning will be up in most (read nearly all) but they will be in the same relative ball park. HOWEVER numbers do not make a career, Brady has won 12-14 games with receiving corps that wouldn't start on almost any other team. Look at the 2006 Pats, Brady won 12 games and went to the brink in the AFC championship with Jabar Gaffney, Reche Caldwell, and Doug Gabriel... I don't think Peyton ever played with a receiving corps that shitty. He always had Marvin Harrison and or Reggie Wayne in Indy... Until Gronk, Brady had 1 good year with Randy Moss, other than that he made every receiver he played with (barring Welker) better, and when they left they failed (look at Deion Branch and David Givens).

I get it is a team sport and teams win games, but the the QB is probably the most important position in any of the 4 major American sports and 1 QB leads in career winning percentage, will by early next season own the regular season wins record, already hold the post season wins record, and could potentially (to use an NFL phrase, more probable than not) win a 5th ring in the next year or two.

I'll take that all day over any another QB of his generation...

This is Joe Montana vs. Dan Marino all over again, except the 2000's/2010's version is closer in numbers (Montana is no where near Dan on the Stat sheet).

Career TD's: Manning #1 Brady #4 (Montana #14 Marino #5)
Career Yards: Manning #1 Brady #5 (Montana #17 Marino #4)
Career Yards/Game: Manning t#3 Brady #7 (Montana #35 Marino #9)
Career Passer Rating: Manning #5 Brady #6 (Montana #11 Marino #21)
Career Pass  Interception %: Manning #t29 Brady #2 (Montana #t20 Marino #t41)

Historically people who wanted to win took Joe, and people who wanted to win the NFL QB Challenge took Dan... I view TB and PM the same.

[pilferk]

Looking at numbers, I'll give you Manning will be up in most (read nearly all) but they will be in the same relative ball park.

Right, and Brady is sitting on the sidelines, as a backup, while Manning is on the field.

HOWEVER numbers do not make a career,

Um...here's where we part company.  Numbers are the only real reflection of a career.

Brady has won 12-14 games with receiving corps that wouldn't start on almost any other team. Look at the 2006 Pats, Brady won 12 games and went to the brink in the AFC championship with Jabar Gaffney, Reche Caldwell, and Doug Gabriel... I don't think Peyton ever played with a receiving corps that shitty. He always had Marvin Harrison and or Reggie Wayne in Indy... Until Gronk, Brady had 1 good year with Randy Moss, other than that he made every receiver he played with (barring Welker) better, and when they left they failed (look at Deion Branch and David Givens).

2006 is a GREAT example of my point (and...interesting you'd spotlight the year that Peyton beat them). Mangini's defense went a LONG way to winning many, many of those games (2nd best defense in the league). In addition, Brown was Brady's 3rd favorite target (and actually became the Pats all time receptions leader, at that point, that season)...a precursor to the Gronk days, since even though Gronk is a TE and Brown was a WR...Bown was used similarly in '06.  Again, a foreshadowing of Brady being conservative. Caldwell and Watson both had decent season, yes, but not stellar. And Brady also had a stellar o line that year, and a serious ground game...20 Rushing TDs and almost 2k yards rushing (which takes pressure off those receivers).

Brady had a decent year in 2006. Not stellar. 62% completion, 3500 yards, 24 TDs, 220 YpG, 6.6 YpA.  Those are GOOD numbers.

Edit: By the By...In 2006, Peyton had a 65% completion, about 4400 yards, 31 TDs, 275 Ypg, and 7.9 YpA. Those are unreal numbers...on his way to a SuperBowl MVP.
 
You want wins to mean more because Brady is "your guy".  But you're picking a team stat and giving him all the credit. I just demonstrated, using your own example, how Brady was only one part of 2006's success. 

Sorry, I can't buy in.

Edit: And to add...in 2008, with Brady hurt, the team went 10-6. The next year, in 2009, they went...10-6 with Brady starting all 16 games...and Brady having a career representative (if not slightly above average) year.  This, again, shows you that the Pats wins are not all on Brady's shoulders.

The Colts, in 2010, won 10 games. In 2011, with no Peyton, they won 2. Now, I know...the argument (and it's valid here) is they were gunning for Luck, and thus not really trying to win.  Fair enough.  But it makes the same point, actually. Wins are not always reflective of QB ability, alone. 
In 2012, again, granted, with a different team....Peyton comes back and puts up 13 wins, on a team that the previous year (with almost the same team, except the QB) won 8 games.

Not the end all/be all..but even if you adopt your more wins focused POV...gotta make you go"Hmmmm".

I get it is a team sport and teams win games, but the the QB is probably the most important position in any of the 4 major American sports

Yup, and in just about every category that measures THEIR on the field performance, Peyton wins the comparison. AND was his own offensive coordinator.

and 1 QB leads in career winning percentage, will by early next season own the regular season wins record, already hold the post season wins record, and could potentially (to use an NFL phrase, more probable than not) win a 5th ring in the next year or two.

And was largely on better, more talented teams (on both sides of the ball) than the "other guy".  And the "other guy" leads in just about every metric that measures INDIVIDUAL performance, anyway.

By your logic, Andy Pettite is a better pitcher than Felix Hernandez...and a sure fire 1st ballot HOFer.  His team won (even if he didn't get the wins) about 70% of the time he started a game, he has a crap ton of post season wins, a ton of strikeouts, and he's got 5 rings.

King Felix leads him in every individual category, though. 

I'll take that all day over any another QB of his generation...

Because, as you said, you're from Boston.

This is Joe Montana vs. Dan Marino all over again, except the 2000's/2010's version is closer in numbers (Montana is no where near Dan on the Stat sheet).

And I'd offer the people that would take Montanna were 49ers fans, largely. Or are blinded by the bling.  Because Marino was the superior QB, with the inferior team and front office.  Montanna had superior talent surrounding him, on his teams, most of his career with the 49ers (and a good stretch with Jerry Rice, which would help anyone's numbers). He also had a pretty good defense on the other side of the ball. Those 9er superbowl runs (and I WATCHED them) were not entirely the product of Montanas talent.  In fact, Montana really fell off the truck after being smacked in the mouth by the Giants....when his O'line started to fail...which was the beginning of his end.  They were both elite QB's. Marino was better.

Career TD's: Manning #1 Brady #4 (Montana #14 Marino #5)
Career Yards: Manning #1 Brady #5 (Montana #17 Marino #4)
Career Yards/Game: Manning t#3 Brady #7 (Montana #35 Marino #9)
Career Passer Rating: Manning #5 Brady #6 (Montana #11 Marino #21)
Career Pass  Interception %: Manning #t29 Brady #2 (Montana #t20 Marino #t41)

Historically people who wanted to win took Joe, and people who wanted to win the NFL QB Challenge took Dan... I view TB and PM the same.

People who didn't understand the advantages Joe's teams had over Dan's took Joe. Those 4 SB rings tend to blind people. They instantly want to put the wins at the feet of the QB. I get it, but it's not accurate or fair to do it.  Dan, by the numbers, was the better QB.  He wasn't the "winningest" QB.  Bill Walsh said it best "Joe Montana was the product of a system. Dan Marino WAS the system".  And, by the by, I don't think Walsh was necessarily saying Dan was better in that statement..but he was making the same point I am: Joe was put in place, in an existing system, because he fit it, and his tools were the perfect fit to succeed.  Dan was taken because he was the best player and they just stuck him in the middle and told him to run with it.  One had an exceptional front office driving to create a dynastic team.  The other had an old school FO (not surprising with Shula at the helm) still operating like the '70's NFL.

I will say this: In the 2 minute drill, I would take Montana over anyone else who has ever played. Followed by Favre. And then Peyton.  But that's a subjective assessment, and not the sum total of QB measurement, either.  I do know a LOT of folks put a LOT of weight on this assessment, though....which I will allow might also be why some folks give Montana the nod.

I do agree, though, there is a LOT of similarity between the two situations....

Let me phrase it this way:

If you took Peyton (Marino) and put them on the Patriots(49ers)....I DO think those teams are MORE successful than they were with Brady (Montana), assuming the same sorts of system builds around them are done.

Likewise, I think if you put Brady (Montana) on the Colts (Dolphins), I don't think they are NEARLY as successful as Peyton (Marino) were on those teams, assuming the FO runs them similarly to the way they did. And I don't think Brady (Montana) could hack being their own play caller (Peyton got 2 sideline calls, plus situational audible authority (OMAHA)...Marino had similar (slightly broader) options in the Shula system).  Both the Pats and (especially) the 49ers offense is/was pretty heavily scripted.

You want to hold those guys accountable for things they had no control over, and give them no credit for the things they did....and likewise you want to give credit to Brady/Montana for their teams front office and coaching successes, which they had no control over.

[GeorgeSteele]

I will say this: In the 2 minute drill, I would take Montana over anyone else who has ever played. Followed by Favre. And then Peyton.  But that's a subjective assessment, and not the sum total of QB measurement, either.  I do know a LOT of folks put a LOT of weight on this assessment, though....which I will allow might also be why some folks give Montana the nod.

Sorry to interrupt, love the QB discussions, but to just chime in on this 1 point, I'd go with Marino on that metric.  Montana has the more high-profile moments in that respect, but in terms of quantity, Marino's got him by a mile.  Marino has 51 game winning drives, much more than Montana's 33.  (Peyton is #1 with 56.)

Full list: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gwd_career.htm

[pilferk]

I will say this: In the 2 minute drill, I would take Montana over anyone else who has ever played. Followed by Favre. And then Peyton.  But that's a subjective assessment, and not the sum total of QB measurement, either.  I do know a LOT of folks put a LOT of weight on this assessment, though....which I will allow might also be why some folks give Montana the nod.

Sorry to interrupt, love the QB discussions, but to just chime in on this 1 point, I'd go with Marino on that metric.  Montana has the more high-profile moments in that respect, but in terms of quantity, Marino's got him by a mile.  Marino has 51 game winning drives, much more than Montana's 33.  (Peyton is #1 with 56.)

Full list: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gwd_career.htm

I'd agree that Marino has him by sheer volume (partially, if I recall, because of the fact Marino played in more close games).  I'd take Joe (and Favre) mostly based on their...ahem...balls.  Not just how many times they did it, but WHEN and HOW they did it.  As I said, it's a subjective choice for me...which is why I weight it so low when assessing QBs, overall.  I think, as you point out, Joe gets a LOT of credit from folks because his were in such high profile circumstances....while many (most?) of Marino's were less "leveraged".  Montana was clutch when the pressure was high, in the biggest moments, on the biggest stages. I also think there's something of the "Nameth" factor here, too...the charisma and bravado wins him more points (even from me) than it should.

As an aside, I wish we had a denominator on this..as in: Joe converted 33 of xxx chances at game winning drives (so..how many late and close opportunities did he have vs Marino).  I just can't find one.

[GeorgeSteele]

I will say this: In the 2 minute drill, I would take Montana over anyone else who has ever played. Followed by Favre. And then Peyton.  But that's a subjective assessment, and not the sum total of QB measurement, either.  I do know a LOT of folks put a LOT of weight on this assessment, though....which I will allow might also be why some folks give Montana the nod.

Sorry to interrupt, love the QB discussions, but to just chime in on this 1 point, I'd go with Marino on that metric.  Montana has the more high-profile moments in that respect, but in terms of quantity, Marino's got him by a mile.  Marino has 51 game winning drives, much more than Montana's 33.  (Peyton is #1 with 56.)

Full list: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gwd_career.htm

I'd agree that Marino has him by sheer volume (partially, if I recall, because of the fact Marino played in more close games).  I'd take Joe (and Favre) mostly based on their...ahem...balls.  Not just how many times they did it, but WHEN and HOW they did it.  As I said, it's a subjective choice for me...which is why I weight it so low when assessing QBs, overall.  I think, as you point out, Joe gets a LOT of credit from folks because his were in such high profile circumstances....while many (most?) of Marino's were less "leveraged".  Montana was clutch when the pressure was high, in the biggest moments, on the biggest stages. I also think there's something of the "Nameth" factor here, too...the charisma and bravado wins him more points (even from me) than it should.

As an aside, I wish we had a denominator on this..as in: Joe converted 33 of xxx chances at game winning drives (so..how many late and close opportunities did he have vs Marino).  I just can't find one.

Yeah, I looked for that too.  Montana's Niners were an all-time great team, weren't many games they weren't comfortably ahead in the 4th quarter.  But Marino was my favorite player of that era, so I always made it a point to watch any Dolphin games that were televised.  Watching him take control at the end of a game was a thing of beauty, it suddenly seemed like he was playing against kids.  And it was pretty funny that the Jets were a regular victim of his. 

[pilferk]

Yeah, I looked for that too.  Montana's Niners were an all-time great team, weren't many games they weren't comfortably ahead in the 4th quarter.  But Marino was my favorite player of that era, so I always made it a point to watch any Dolphin games that were televised.  Watching him take control at the end of a game was a thing of beauty, it suddenly seemed like he was playing against kids.  And it was pretty funny that the Jets were a regular victim of his. 

I watched a lot of Marino, too.  More of Montana (simply because they played my Giants more), I think.  To my eyes, Marino was the better all around player, even then.  He just didn't have the flashy smile, flashy team, and gaudy post season record.  Again, the "Nameth" factor.  It's somewhat like Jeter (and yes, I'm a Yanks fan..so get ready to be shocked).  The guys stats are very good, if somewhat compiled.  He produced, consistently, over a long career. He won a crap ton of rings.  But he is going to ride into the HOF, as a near unanimous pick, on the first ballot, as much on his "aw shucks", face of the Yankees (when that meant something), nice guy persona as on his stats (which, to be FAIR, get him in..but not in the manner he will likely GET in).  Now, Montana had the gaudy stats, too....at least to put him in the conversation...but I think a LOT of the "greatest of all time" stuff is tiebroken (at best) by similar factors that Jeters first ballot HOF induction ride on. I know, sacrelidge coming from a Yanks fan.

Of course, this conversation harkens me back to the halcyon days when football was football...and you could actually HIT the QB.  I maintain that had Marino or Montana played with todays rules, they would likely have both played 5+ more seasons.  By today's rules, that Giants hit that pretty much knocked the Montana out of Montana would be illegal, today.

Don't get me wrong: I still like watching the game, today. But its a VERY different game than it was when I was watching in the 80's and 90's (and even early 2000's).  To some extent, I understand why.  But it doesn't mean I don't miss the LT/Carl Banks style pass rush defense.