re: Bart Starr is a top 6 All-Time Quarterback

The way you present things you act like there should be NO debate....

He could've been if he threw for less interceptions and achieved a higher passer rating, he was very erratic as a QB and his passer rating is 10 points less than Starr's. Also, Bradshaw had the benefit of playing with the 1978 rules changes that ended the dead ball era yet still couldn't achieve a passer rating over 100 in a season. At no point in his career did Bradshaw exceed an 88 passer rating playing a whole season, Bart Starr exceeded 88 6x in the dead ball era. Not to mention Bradshaw achieved a 30-26 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs, Favre-ian stats, I prefer a QB who makes a little less mistakes than that to even consider them among the 10 greatest QBs ever. Starr's better.

The only players I feel are better than/as good as Starr are Montana, Brady, Manning, Brees, maybe Steve Young, when you're staring at a QB who was wildly efficient during the dead ball era and won 5 NFL championships, how do you not lump him in the top 5-6 QBs of all-time?

Well, with that logic, we shouldn't even be considering Montana or Young as great all-time QBs bc they played with the best players in their respective eras, Brady plays with the best coach of all-time, Manning the best receivers, hell even Staubach had the advantages of Tom Landry and all that offensive talent surrounding him. You can't penalize players for accomplishing what they accomplished with their supporting cast, also you're omitting the fact that Starr called his own plays as well. IIRC Johnny Unitas played with 2 HOF coaches and some of the best players at that time and only won 2 titles.

quote:

---

you could have put almost any QB from that era and they still would have won....

---

Again with the hypotheticals here, there's no way on the planet you can prove any of those QBs would've accomplished the same in that context. Bart Starr was built to play and excel in the dead ball era and excel bigly he did. Fact remains none of the other QBs from the era played for the Packers, only Starr did so that proposition is inapplicable.

He's also a top-5 power forward, and you can't really argue that he isn't.

quote:

---

Then explain to me why Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino, Russell Wilson, Brett Favre and Peyton Manning aren't considered for no. 1 QB of all-time

---

Considered by whom? It's hard to explain to someone like you who can not see beyond either or options. But generally I don't put too much stock in team accomplishments. My opinion of Tom Brady would be no different if the Seattle and Atlanta coaches had called running plays and won those games instead of NE.

Please state your age. My guess is under 25 or over 65

quote:

---

Fact is those accolades and rings do count to a player's legacy when a layman non-football player assesses how great a quarterback is and there's no way you can argue against that.

---

Just because the layman considers them doesn't mean that they are relevant.

quote:

---

The every day layman, NFL Network people, normal friends who assert Joe Montana or Tom Brady are the inarguable no.1 QB candidates and everyone else is inferior. NFL Network even did a list of Top 10 QBs of all-time.

---

Do they rank Bradshaw third? If not why not? The "rings" argument may be common but it's still a lazy argument. If you think Tom Brady is the GOAT now but would not if Seattle and Atlanta had beaten him then that's just silly. As is the notion that Rodgers has to win at least 1 more to be considered the best in GB history.